vidual is reflected upon the fociety, and a certain tender folicitude about each other gives a more delicate fenfe of pleasure than any enjoyment merely felfifh can produce; could I paint them in their little circles of bufinefs or of amufement, of fentiment or of gaiety,- I am perfuaded the fcene would be too rable for the moft irreverent to deride, and its happiness too apparent for the moft diffipated to deny. Yet to be the child or mother of fuch a family, is often foregone for the miferable vanity of aping fome woman, weak as fhe is worthlefs, defpifed in the midst of flattery, and wretched in the very centre of diffipation.

I have limited this remonftrance to motives merely temporal, becaufe I am informed, fome of our high-bred females deny the reality of any other. This refinement of infidelity is

one of thofe new acquirements which, till of late, were altogether unknown to the ladies of this country, and which I hope very, very few of them are yet poffeffed of. I mean not to difpute the folidity of their fyftem, as I am perfuaded they have ftudied the fubject deeply, and under very able and learned mafters. I would only take the liberty of hinting the pur

pofe

pofe for which, I have been told, by fome fashionable men, fuch doctrines have frequently been taught. It feems, it is understood by the younger clafs of our philofophers, that a woman never thinks herfelf quite alone, till fhe has put God out of the way, as well as her husband.

V

N° 31.

TUESDAY, May 11, 1779.

Fortemque Gyan, fortemque Cleanthum. VIRG.

HERE is hardly any fpecies of writing

THE

more difficult than that of drawing characters; and hence it is that fo few authors have excelled in it. Among those writers who have confined themselves merely to this fort of compofition, Theophrastus holds the first place among the ancients, and La Bruyere among the moderns. But, befide those who have profeffedly confined themselves to the delineation of character, every historian. who relates events, and who defcribes the difpofition and qualities of the perfons engaged in them, is to be confidered as a writer of characters.

There are two methods by which a character may be delineated, and different authors have, more or less, adopted the one or the other. A character may either be given by defcribing the internal feelings of the mind, and by relating the qualities with which the perfon is endowed; or, without mentioning in general the internal qualities which he pof

feffes,

feffes, an account may be given of his external conduct, of his behaviour on this or that occafion, and how he was affected by this or that event.

An author who draws characters in the first manner, employs thofe words that denote the general qualities of the mind; and by means of these he gives a defcription and view of the character. He paffes over the particular circumstances of behaviour and conduct which lead to the general conclufion with regard to the character, and gives the conclufion itself.

But an author who draws characters in the other manner above alluded to, instead of giving the general conclufion deduced from the obfervation of particular circumstances of conduct, gives a view of the particulars themfelves, and of the external conduct of the person whose character he wishes to reprefent, leaving his readers to form their own conclufion from that view which he has given. Of the two authors I have mentioned, each excels in one of thofe oppofite manners. In every inftance I can recollect, excepting the extravagant picture of the abfent man, La Bruyere lays before his readers the internal feelings

M 5

feelings of the character he wishes to represent; while Theophrastus gives the action which the internal feelings produce.

Of these different modes of delineating characters, each has its peculiar advantages. The beft method of giving a full and comprehenfive view of the different parts of a character, may be by a general enumeration of the qualities of mind with which the perfon is endowed. At the fame time, however, it is, perhaps, impoffible, to mark the nice and delicate shades of character, without bringing the image more fully before the eye, and placing the perfon in that fituation which calls him forth into action.

In these two different manners, there are faults into which authors, following the one or the other, are apt to fall, and which they fhould ftudiously endeavour to avoid. An author who gives the internal qualities of the character, should guard against being too general; he who gives views of the conduct, and represents the actions themselves, should avoid being too particular. When the internal qualities of the mind are defcribed, they may be expreffed in fuch vague and general terms, as to lay before the reader no marked distinguishing

6