se was good-natured, not
abounding over-much with gall, tho' he has been blamed for it by the
critics: It has been objected to him, that he was too hasty in his
productions; but by such only who are admirers of stiff and elaborate
performances, since with a person of a sprightly fancy, those things are
often best, that are struck off in a heat[5]. It is thought that in all
his heroes, he generally sketched out his own character, of a young,
gay, rakish spark, blessed with parts and abilities. His works are
loose, tho' not so grossly libertine, as some other wits of his time,
and leave not so pernicious impressions on the imagination as other
figures of the like kind more strongly stampt by indelicate and heavier
hands.'

He seems to have been a man of a genius rather sprightly than great,
rather flow'ry than solid; his comedies are diverting, because his
characters are natural, and such as we frequently meet with; but he has
used no art in drawing them, nor does there appear any force of thinking
in his performances, or any deep penetration into nature; but rather a
superficial view, pleasant enough to the eye, though capable of leaving
no great impression on the mind. He drew his observations chiefly
from those he conversed with, and has seldom given any additional
heightening, or indelible marks to his characters; which was the
peculiar excellence of Shakespear, Johnson, and Congreve.

Had he lived to have gained a more general knowledge of life, or had his
circumstances not been straitened, and so prevented his mingling with
persons of rank, we might have seen his plays embellished with more
finished characters, and with a more polished dialogue.

He had certainly a lively imagination, but then it was capable of no
great compass; he had wit, but it was of no peculiar a sort, as not
to gain ground upon consideration; and it is certainly true, that his
comedies in general owe their success full as much to the player, as to
any thing intrinsically excellent in themselves.

If he was not a man of the highest genius, he seems to have had
excellent moral qualities, of which his behaviour to his wife and
tenderness to his children are proofs, and deserved a better fate than
to die oppressed with want, and under the calamitous apprehensions of
leaving his family destitute: While Farquhar will ever be remembered
with pleasure by people of taste, the name of the courtier who thus
inhumanly ruined him, will be for ever dedi