edy called the Drowned Man, having imprudently pulled to pieces
particular persons, more powerful than himself, was laid hold of, and
drowned more effectually than those he had drowned upon the open stage.

The condemnation of the poignancy of Aristophanes, as having too much
acrimony, is better founded. Such was the turn of a species of comedy,
in which all licentiousness was allowed; in a nation which made every
thing a subject of laughter, in its jealousy of immoderate liberty, and
its enmity, to all appearance, of rule and superiority; for the genius
of independency, naturally produces a kind of satire, more keen than
delicate, as may be easily observed in most of the inhabitants of
islands. If we do not say, with Longinus, that a popular government
kindles eloquence, and that a lawful monarchy stifles it; at least it is
easy to discover, by the event, that eloquence in different governments
takes a different appearance. In republicks it is more sprightly and
violent, and in monarchies more insinuating and soft. The same thing may
be said of ridicule; it follows the cast of genius, as genius follows
that of government. Thus the republican raillery, particularly of the
age which we are now considering, must have been rougher than that of
the age which followed it, for the same reason that Horace is more
delicate, and Lucilius more pointed. A dish of satire was always a
delicious treat to human malignity; but that dish was differently
seasoned, as the manners were polished more or less. By polished manners
I mean that good-breeding, that art of reserve and self-restraint, which
is the consequence of dependance. If one was to determine the preference
due to one of those kinds of pleasantry, of which both have their value,
there would not need a moment's hesitation: every voice would join in
favour of the softer, yet without contempt of that which is rough.
Menander will, therefore, be preferred, but Aristophanes will not be
despised, especially since he was the first who quitted that wild
practice of satirizing at liberty right or wrong, and by a comedy of
another cast, made way for the manner of Menander, more agreeable yet,
and less dangerous. There is, yet, another distinction to be made
between the acrimony of the one, and the softness of the other; the
works of the one are acrimonious, and of the other soft, because, the
one exhibited personal, and the other, general characters; which leaves
us still at liberty to