The [Q]Characters of Giton and Phebon are humorous enough.  And they are allow’d to be kept within the just Bounds of Probability.  But Mr. de la Bruyere has heap’d up so many Particulars and unnecessary Circumstances, which do not convey any new Ideas, that the Characters grow languid and tedious.—­Giton is respected; every thing that he says or does is approved of. Phebon is despis’d; no Notice is taken of what he says or does.  The Reason of this Difference is not so mysterious, but that it may be told in less than two or three Pages. Giton is rich, and Phebon is poor.

  [Q:  C. id. ibid. fere.]

Sometimes there is such a Confusion in Mr. de la Bruyere’s Designs, that one cannot easily discover whether he intended to draw the Character of a particular Person, or to make a Picture of some prevailing Vice, or only a moral Reflexion.—­Such is the [R]Article of Zenobia.  Was it design’d for the Character of Zenobia?  But ’tis rather a Description of the Magnificence, and beautiful Situation of the Palace, which she was then building.  Or was it design’d to censure and lash the Publicans of the Age, for the Extortions which they practis’d, and the immense Riches which they amass’d by Fraud and Oppression?  But this Satir comes in only by the by, and in a very jejune Manner.  Or lastly, was it intended only for a moral Reflexion on the sudden Revolutions and Vicissitudes of Fortune?  But the Length of this Article is inconsistent with the nature of a Reflexion; and if any thing like this was intended, it must come in as the +epimuthion+, the Moral of the Fable; which will make the Contents of this Article, still more different from the nature of a Character, than any thing that has yet been mentioned.

  [R:  C. des Biers de Fortune. sub fin.]

’Tis not enough that a Character be drawn conformable to that Existence which it really has, or probably may have in Nature:  It must further be cloath’d in proper Sentiments, and express’d in a simple and natural Style.  But Mr. de la Bruyere, consider’d as a Writer of Characters, is too affected in his way of Thinking, and too artificial in the Turn of his Expressions.

The previous Apology which he made for himself in this Point, is so far from the Purpose, that nothing is more so.

Recollecting, [S]says he, that amongst the Writings ascrib’d to Theophrastus by Diogenes Laertius, there is one which bears the Title of Proverbs, i.e. of loose unconnected Observations, and that the most considerable Book of Morality, that ever was made, bears that Name in the sacred Writings; we have been excited by such great Examples to imitate, according to our Capacity, a like Way of Writing concerning Manners.

—­’Tis true, that in the Catalogue of Theophrastus his Works, preserv’d by [T]_Diogenes Laertius_, there is one Book under