to one author and to the other. This objection is of no weight; for the
same question still recurs, which is, whether of these two kinds of
genius is more valuable, or more rare? If we proceed by example, and not
by reasoning, we shall decide, I think, in favour of comedy.

It may be said, that, if merely art be considered, it will require
deeper thoughts to form a plan just and simple; to produce happy
surprises, without apparent contrivance; to carry a passion skilfully
through its gradations to its height; to arrive happily to the end by
always moving from it, as Ithaca seemed to fly Ulysses; to unite the
acts and scenes; and to raise, by insensible degrees, a striking
edifice, of which the least merit shall be exactness of proportion. It
may be added, that in comedy this art is infinitely less, for there the
characters come upon the stage with very little artifice or plot; the
whole scheme is so connected that we see it at once, and the plan and
disposition of the parts make a small part of its excellence, in
comparison of a gloss of pleasantry diffused over each scene, which is
more the happy effect of a lucky moment, than of long consideration.

These objections, and many others, which so fruitful a subject might
easily suggest, it is not difficult to refute; and, if we were to judge
by the impression made on the mind by tragedies and comedies of equal
excellence, perhaps, when we examine those impressions, it will be found
that a sally of pleasantry, which diverts all the world, required more
thought than a passage which gave the highest pleasure in tragedy; and,
to this determination we shall be more inclined, when a closer
examination shall show us, that a happy vein of tragedy is opened and
effused at less expense, than a well-placed witticism in comedy has
required, merely to assign its place.

It would be too much to dwell long upon such a digression; and, as I
have no business to decide the question, I leave both that and my
arguments to the taste of each particular reader, who will find what is
to be said for or against it. My purpose was only to say of comedy,
considered as a work of genius, all that a man of letters can be
supposed to deliver without departing from his character, and, without
palliating, in any degree, the corrupt use which has been almost always
made of an exhibition, which, in its nature, might be innocent; but has
been vicious from the time that it has been infected with the wickedn