A Critical Essay on Characteristic-Writings.

by Henry Gally.

INTRODUCTION

Henry Gally's _A Critical Essay on Characteristic-Writings_, here reprinted, is the introductory essay to his translation of _The Moral Characters of Theophrastus_ (1725). Of Gally's life (1696-1769) little is known. Apparently his was a moderately successful ecclesiastical career: he was appointed in 1735 chaplain-in-ordinary to George II. His other published works consist of sermons, religious tracts, and an undistinguished treatise on the p.r.o.nunciation of Greek.

His essay on the character, however, deserves attention because it is the first detailed and serious discussion by an Englishman of a literary kind immensely popular in its day. English writers before Gally had, of course, commented on the character. Overbury, for example, in "What A Character Is" (_Sir Thomas Overbury His Wife..._ 1616) had defined the character as "wit's descant on any plain-song," and Brathwaite in his Dedication to _Whimzies_(1631) had written that character-writers must shun affectation and prefer the "pith before the rind." Wye Saltonstall in the same year in his Dedicatory Epistle to _Picturae Loquentes_ had required of a character "lively and exact Lineaments" and "fast and loose knots which the ingenious Reader may easily untie." These remarks, however, as also Flecknoe's "Of the Author's Idea of a Character"

(_Enigmaticall Characters_, 1658) and Ralph Johnson's "rules" for character-writing in _A Scholar's Guide from the Accidence to the University_ (1665), are fragmentary and oblique. Nor do either of the two English translations of Theophrastus before Gally--the one a rendering of La Bruyere's French version,[1] and the other, Eustace Budgell's _The Moral Characters of Theophrastus_ (1714)--touch more than in pa.s.sing on the nature of the character. Gally's essay, in which he claims to deduce his critical principles from the practice of Theophrastus, is both historically and intrinsically the most important work of its kind.

Section I of Gally's essay, thoroughly conventional in nature, is omitted here. In it Gally, following Casaubon,[2] theorizes that the character evolved out of Greek Old Comedy. The Augustans saw a close connection between drama and character-writing. Congreve (Dedication to _The Way of the World_, 1700) thought that the comic dramatist Menander formed his characters on "the observations of Theophrastus, of whom he was a disciple," and Budgell, who termed Theophrastus the father of modern comedy, believed that if some of Theophrastus's characters "were well worked up, and brought upon the British theatre, they could not fail of Success."[3] Gally similarly held that a dramatic character and Theophrastan character differ only in

the different Manner of representing the same Image. The _Drama_ presents to the Eyes of a Spectator an Actor, who speaks and acts as the Person, whom he represents, is suppos'd to speak and act in real Life. The _Characteristic_ Writer introduces, in a descriptive manner, before a Reader, the same Person, as speaking and acting in the same manner.

Section III of Gally's essay, like Section I thoroughly conventional, is also omitted here. Gally attributes to Theophrastus the spurious "Proem," in which Theophrastus, emphasizing his ethical purpose, announces his intention of following up his characters of vice with characters of virtue. At one point Gally a.s.serts that Theophrastus taught the same doctrine as Aristotle and Plato, but

accommodated Morality to the Taste of the _Beau Monde_, with all the Embellishments that can please the nice Ears of an intelligent Reader, and with that inoffensive Satir, which corrects the Vices of Men, without making them conceive any Aversion for the Satirist.

It is Gally's concept of the character as an art-form, however, which is most interesting to the modern scholar. Gally breaks sharply with earlier character-writers like Overbury who, he thinks, have departed from the Theophrastan method. Their work for the most part reflects corrupted taste:

A continued Affectation of far-fetched and quaint Simile's, which runs thro' almost all these Characters, makes 'em appear like so many Pieces of mere Grotesque; and the Reader must not expect to find Persons describ'd as they really are, but rather according to what they are thought to be like.

And Gally attacks one of the favorite devices of the seventeenth-century character:

An Author, in this Kind, must not dwell too long upon one Idea; As soon as the masterly Stroke is given, he must immediately pa.s.s on to another Idea.... For if, after the masterly Stroke is given, the Author shou'd, in a paraphrastical Manner, still insist upon the same Idea, the Work will immediately flag, the Character grow languid, and the Person characteris'd will insensibly vanish from the Eyes of the Reader.

One has only to read a character like Butler's "A Flatterer" to appreciate Gally's point. The Theophrastan method had been to describe a character operatively--that is, through the use of concrete dramatic incident ill.u.s.trating the particular vice. The seventeenth-century character is too often merely a showcase for the writer's wit. One frequently finds a succession of ingenious metaphors, each redefining from a slightly different angle a type's master-pa.s.sion, but blurring rather than sharpening the likeness.

Gally insists that the style of the character be plain and easy, "without any of those Points and Turns, which convey to the Mind nothing but a low and false Wit." The piece should not be tediously rambling, but compact. It must have perfect unity of structure: each sentence should add a significant detail to the portrait. The manner ought to be lively, the language pure and unaffected.

As for the character-writer's materials, they are "Human Nature, in its various Forms and Affections." Each character should focus on a single vice or virtue, yet since "the Heart of Man is frequently actuated by more Pa.s.sions than one," subsidiary traits ought to be included to round out the portrait (e.g., the covetous man may also be impudent, the impudent man generous). Budgell had expressed a similar conception. A character, he wrote, "may be compared to a Looking-gla.s.s that is placed to catch a particular Object; but cannot represent that Object in its full Light, without giving us a little Landskip of every thing else that lies about it."[4] By Gally's time writers like Pascal, La Rochefoucauld, and La Bruyere had done much to show the complex and paradoxical nature of human behaviour. Gally, who praises La Rochefoucauld as the one modern as well equipped as Theophrastus to compose characters, reacts with his age against the stale types which both comedy and the character had been retailing _ad nauseam_. Human nature, says Gally, is full of subtle shadings and agreeable variations which the character ought to exploit. He quotes Temple to the effect that England is richer than any other nation in "original Humours" and wonders that no one has yet attempted a comprehensive portrait-gallery of English personality. Those writers who have come closest to Gally's idea of how "humour" ought to be handled are the "great Authors" of the _Tatlers_ and _Spectators_, with their "interspers'd Characters of Men and Manners compleatly drawn to the Life."

In admiring the Roger de Coverley sketches, Gally typifies the increasingly tolerant att.i.tude of the Augustans toward eccentric behavior.[5] Like Sterne and Fielding he is delighted by people whose idiosyncracies are harmless and appealing. As for the harsh satiric animus of a character-writer like Butler, it is totally alien to Gally, who would chide good-naturedly, so as "not to seem to make any Attacks upon the Province of Self-Love" in the reader. "Each Man," he writes, "contains a little World within himself, and every Heart is a new World." The writer should understand and appreciate, not ridicule, an individual's uniqueness.

Of course, the character as Theophrastus wrote it described the type, not the particular person. Gally, who sets up Theophrastus as his model, apparently fails to realize that a "humourist" like Sir Roger verges on individuality. Indeed, while discussing the need for writers to study their own and other men's pa.s.sions, he emphasizes that "without a Knowledge of these Things, 'twill be impossible ever to draw a Character so to the Life, as that it shall hit one Person, and him only." Here Gally might well be talking of the Clarendon kind of portrait. If a character is "one Person, and him only," he is no longer a type, but somebody peculiarly himself.

Gally, then, is not as Theophrastan as he professes to be. True, he harks back to Theophrastus in matters of style and technique. And he does not criticize him, as does La Bruyere,[6] for paying too much attention to a man's external actions, and not enough to his "Thoughts, Sentiments, and Inclinations." Nevertheless his mind is receptive to the kind of individuated characterization soon to distinguish the mid-eighteenth century novel. The type is still his measuring-stick, but he calibrates it far less rigidly than a Rymer a.n.a.lyzing Iago or Evadne.

A man can be A Flatterer or A Blunt Man and still retain a private ident.i.ty: this private ident.i.ty Gally recognizes as important. Gally's essay thus reflects fundamental changes in the English att.i.tude toward human nature and its literary representation.

Alexander H. Chorney Fellow, Clark Library Los Angeles, California

Notes to the Introduction

1. _The Characters, Or The Manners of the Age. By Monsieur De La Bruyere of the French Academy. Made English by several hands. With the Characters of Theophrastus..._ 1699. 2 vols.

2. Isaac Casaubon's Latin edition of Theophrastus appeared in 1592 and was reprinted frequently during the seventeenth century.

3. Eustace Budgell, _The Moral Characters of Theophrastus_ (1714), Preface, sig. a5.

4. _Ibid._, sig. a6 verso.

5. For a full account of the shift in att.i.tude see Edward Miles Hooker, "Humour in the Age of Pope," _Huntington Library Quarterly_, XL (1948), 361-385.

6. "A Prefatory Discourse concerning Theophrastus," in _The Characters, Or The Manners of the Age_, II, xxii.

PREFACE.

The following Papers, which I now commit to the Public, have lain by me unregarded these many Years. They were first undertaken at the Request of a Person, who at present shall be nameless. Since that Time I have been wholly diverted from Studies of this Nature, and my Thoughts have been employed about Subjects of a much greater Consequence, and more agreeable to my Profession: Insomuch, that I had nothing in my Mind less than the Publication of these Papers; but some Friends, who had perus'd them, were of Opinion, that they deserv'd to be publish'd, and that they might afford an agreeable Entertainment not without some Profit to the Reader. _These_ Motives prevailed upon me to give _them_ a second Care, and to bestow upon them so much Pains, as was necessary to put them in that State, in which they now appear.

The first Piece that the Reader will meet with is, _A Critical ESSAY on Characteristic-Writings_: It treats of the Origin of those Writings: It points out the general Laws to be observ'd in such Compositions, and it contains some Reflexions on _Theophrastus's_ and Mr. _de la Bruyere's_ Performances in this Way. The Design of this at least is, I think, new. Mr. _Fabricius_ mentions a [A]Book, which, by its t.i.tle, shou'd bear some Relation to this Essay, but tho' I have enquir'd after it pretty strictly, yet I never cou'd get a Sight of it, nor have I conversed with any Person that had perus'd it.

[A: Georgii Paschii Professoris Kiloniensis Diatriba de philosophia Characteristica & Paraenetica. 4to. _Kilonie._ 1705.

Vid. Fabric. Bib. Graec. L. 3. p. 241.]

The next Piece is a Translation of the _Moral Characters of Theophrastus_ from the _Greek_. This is not the first Time that _Theophrastus_ has appeared in a modern Dress. Mr. _de la Bruyere_ translated him into _French_: And this was the Foundation of those Characters, which he himself compos'd, and which gave Rise to those many Performances, that were afterwards attempted in the same Way.

[B]Mr. _Menage_ has highly extoll'd this Translation. _Elle est_, says he, _bien belle, & bien francoise, & montre que son Auteur entend parfaitement le Grec. Je puis dire que j'y ay vu des Choses, que, peut etre, Faute d'Attention, je n'avois pas vues dans le Grec._ This is great; and it must be own'd that Mr. _Menage_ was a Man of very extensive Learning, and a great Master of the _Greek_ Tongue; but that his Judgment was always equal to his Knowledg of Words, will not be so readily allow'd. Besides, the Credit of the Books ending in _ana_ runs very low, and in particular the _Menagiana_ have been disown'd by Mr.

_Menage's_ own [C]Relations, as being injurious to the Merit and Memory of that great Man. And therefore it must still be left to the inquisitive and judicious Reader to determine, whether those Faults, which I have observ'd in Mr. _de la Bruyere'_s Translation are justly censur'd or not.

[B: Menagiana. Ed. _Paris._ 1715. T. 4. p. 219.]

[C: Mr. _du Tremblay_. Traite des Langues. ad fin.]

The _Characters_ of _Theophrastus_ have been twice translated into _English_. The former Translation is _anonymous_, and the latter was done by the ingenious Mr. _Eustace Budgell_. It will be expected that I shou'd say something of these two Translations. And I shall be the more ready to do this, because I shall hereby insensibly lead the Reader to the Reasons which induc'd me to undertake a third.

The anonymous _English_ Translation is said to have been done upon the _Greek_. But this is only a Pretence, and a low Artifice of the ignorant Translator: For in reality 'tis no more than a mean and insipid Translation of the _French_ of Mr. _de la Bruyere_, revis'd upon the _Latin_ of _Casaubon_, which answers almost verbally to the Original _Greek_. If this were a Matter of Importance, I wou'd here fully demonstrate it: For the Fact is so glaring, that tho' the Translator is wholly unknown to me, yet I can aver what I have a.s.serted to be Truth, almost as certainly, as if I had been an Eye Witness to the doing of it_.

Mr. _Budgell_'s Translation must be own'd to be polite: But politeness is not the only Qualification that is required in such a Translation.

The learn'd Reader, who understands the Original, will consider it in a different View. And to judg of it according to those Rules which Translators ought to observe, it must be condemned. In general, it is not exact and accurate enough; but what is far worse, Mr. _Budgell_ gives, in too many Instances, his own Thoughts instead of representing the true Sense of _Theophrastus_. This is perverting the _Humour_ of the Original, and, in Effect, making a new Work, instead of giving only a Translation. Mr. _Budgell_ ingenuously confesses, that he has taken a great deal of Liberty; but when a Translator confesses thus much, it does but give the Reader good Reason to suspect that instead of taking a great deal, he has in reality taken too much.

Antient Authors (when they are translated) suffer in nothing more, than in having the Manners and Customs, to which they allude, transformed into the Manners and Customs of the present Age. By this Liberty, or rather Licenciousness of Translators, Authors not only appear in a different Dress, but they become unlike themselves, by losing that peculiar and distinctive Character in which they excel.

This is most palpable in those Authors, whose Character consists in _Humour_. Let any one read _Terence_, as he is translated by Mr.

_Echard_, and he will take him to have been a Buffoon: Whereas _Terence_ never dealt in such a Kind of low Mirth. His true Character is, to have afforded to his Spectators and Readers the gravest, and, at the same Time, the most agreeable, most polite Entertainment of any antient Author now extant. This is, in some Measure, the Case of _Theophrastus:_ He has been transformed; and he has suffer'd in the Transformation. What I have endeavoured is, to do him that Justice which, I think, he has not hitherto met with, by preserving the native Simplicity of his Characters, by retaining those antient Manners and Customs which he alludes to, and keeping up the peculiar _Humour_ of the Original as nearly, as the Difference of Language wou'd allow.

This is the Attempt; how far I have succeeded, must be let to the judicious and curious Reader to determine. Thus much I thought necessary to say concerning former Translations, in order to justify my own Undertaking, which will not acquire an intrinsic Merit from the Censures, that I have pa.s.s'd upon others. No: The Faults of others cannot extenuate our own; and that Stamp, which every Work carries along with it, can only determine of what Kind it really is.

The Reader will expect that I shou'd here say a Word or two concerning the _Notes_ which follow the _Characters_. Some Authors or Commentators (call them which you will) out of a vain Ostentation of Literature, lay hold of the slightest of Opportunities to expose all their Learning to the World, without ever knowing when they have said enough: Insomuch, that in most Commentaries upon antient Authors, one may sooner meet with a System of Antiquities, than with Solutions of the real Difficulties of the Text. Consider'd barely as a Translator, I lay under no immediate Necessity of writing _Notes_, but then as I was highly concern'd, even in that Capacity, to lay before the _English_ Reader, what I took to be the true Sense of the _Greek_, and as I farther propos'd to preserve that particular _Humour_ of the Original, which depends on those Manners and Customs which are alluded to, I found, my self necessitated to add some _Notes_; but yet I have endeavoured to shun that Fault, which I have already censur'd, by saying no more, but what was immediately necessary, to ill.u.s.trate the Text, to vindicate a received Sense, or to propose a new one.

I am not conscious of having made any great Excursions beyond the Bounds which these Rules prescrib'd to me, unless it is in the Chapter concerning _Superst.i.tion_. And even here, unless the Commentary had been somewhat copious, the Text it self wou'd have appear'd like a motly Piece of mysterious Nonsense. Thus much I thought my self oblig'd to do in Justice to _Theophrastus_; and as for the Enlargements which I have made, over and above what wou'd have satisfy'd this Demand, they will not, 'tis hop'd, be unacceptable to the curious Reader. They are Digressions I own; but I shall not here offer to make one Digression to execute another, or, according to the Custom and Practice of modern Authors, beg a thousand Pardons of the Reader, before I am certain of having committed one Offence. Such a Procedure seems preposterous. For when an Author happens to digress, and take a Trip ?p?? t? ?s?a??a, beyond the Bounds prescrib'd; the best, the only consistent thing he can do, is to take his Chance for the Event. If what he has said does not immediately relate to the Matter in Hand, it may nevertheless be _a propos_, and good in its Kind; and then instead of Censure, he will probably meet with Thanks; but if it be not good, no prefatory Excuses will make it so: And besides, it will ever be insisted on, that 'tis an easier Matter to strike out bad Digressions, than it is to write good Apologies.

One Word more, and then I have done. Since Mr. _Budgell_ has thought fit to censure Mr. _de la Bruyere_, for troubling his Reader with _Notes_, I think my self oblig'd, in order to justify both Mr. _de la Bruyere_ and my self, to shew that this Censure is very unreasonable, and very unjust.[D] Mr. _Budgell's_ Words are as follow.

_Theophrastus_, at the Time he writ, referr'd to nothing but what was well known to the meanest Person in _Athens_; but as Mr. _Bruyere_ has manag'd it, by hinting at too many _Grecian_ Customs, a modern Reader is oblig'd to peruse one or two _Notes_, which are frequently longer than the Sentence it self he wou'd know the meaning of. But if those Manners and Customs, which _Theophrastus_ alludes to, were, in his Time, well known to the meanest _Athenian_, it does not follow that they are now so well known to a modern Reader.