complex, as may be seen in his Andria, which contains two amours.  It was imputed, as a fault to Terence, that, to bring more action upon the stage, he made one Latin comedy out of two Greek:  but then Terence unravels his plot more naturally than Plautus, which Plautus did more naturally than Aristophanes; and though Caesar calls Terence but one half of Menander, because, though he had softness and delicacy, there was in him some want of sprightliness and strength; yet he has written in a manner so natural and so judicious, that, though he was then only a copy, he is now an original.  No author has ever had a more exact sense of pure nature.  Of Cecilius, since we have only a few fragments, I shall say nothing.  All that we know of him is told us by Varrus, that he was happy in the choice of subjects.”

Rapin omits many others for the same reason, that we have not enough of their works to qualify us for judges.  While we are upon this subject, it will, perhaps, not displease the reader to see what that critick’s opinion is of Lopes de Vega and Moliere.  It will appear, that with respect to Lopes de Vega, he is rather too profuse of praise:  that, in speaking of Moliere, he is too parsimonious.

This piece will, however, be of use to our design, when we shall examine to the bottom what it is that ought to make the character of comedy.

“No man has ever had a greater genius for comedy than Lopes de Vega, the Spaniard.  He had a fertility of wit, joined with great beauty of conception, and a wonderful readiness of composition; for he has written more than three hundred comedies.  His name, alone, gave reputation to his pieces; for his reputation was so well established, that a work, which came from his hands, was sure to claim the approbation of the publick.  He had a mind too extensive to be subjected to rules, or restrained by limits.  For that reason he gave himself up to his own genius, on which he could always depend with confidence.  When he wrote, he consulted no other laws than the taste of his auditors, and regulated his manner more by the success of his work than by the rules of reason.  Thus he discarded all scruples of unity, and all the superstitions of probability.” (This is certainly not said with a design to praise him, and must be connected with that which immediately follows.) “But as, for the most part, he endeavours at too much jocularity, and carries ridicule to too much refinement; his conceptions are often rather happy than just, and rather wild than natural; for, by subtilizing merriment too far, it becomes too nice to be true, and his beauties lose their power of striking by being too delicate and acute.