's Opinion of mere Burlesque agrees with
mine, when he asserts, »There is no such Thing to be found in the Writings of
the Antients.« But perhaps, I have less Abhorrence than he professes for it: and
that not because I have had some little Success on the Stage this way; but
rather, as it contributes more to exquisite Mirth and Laughter than any other;
and these are probably more wholesome Physic for the Mind, and conduce better to
purge away Spleen, Melancholy and ill Affections, than is generally imagined.
Nay, I will appeal to common Observation, whether the same Companies are not
found more full of Good-Humour and Benevolence, after they have been sweeten'd
for two or three Hours with Entertainments of this kind, than when soured by a
Tragedy or a grave Lecture.
    But to illustrate all this by another Science, in which, perhaps, we shall
see the Distinction more clearly and plainly: Let us examine the Works of a
Comic History-Painter, with those Performances which the Italians call
Caricatura; where we shall find the true Excellence of the former, to consist in
the exactest copying of Nature; insomuch, that a judicious Eye instantly rejects
any thing outré; any Liberty which the Painter hath taken with the Features of
that Alma Mater. - Whereas in the Caricatura we allow all Licence. Its Aim is to
exhibit Monsters, not Men; and all Distortions and Exaggerations whatever are
within its proper Province.
    Now what Caricatura is in Painting, Burlesque is in Writing; and in the same
manner the Comic Writer and Painter correlate to each other. And here I shall
observe, that as in the former, the Painter seems to have the Advantage; so it
is in the latter infinitely on the side of the Writer: for the Monstrous is much
easier to paint than describe, and the Ridiculous to describe than paint.
    And tho' perhaps this latter Species doth not in either Science so strongly
affect and agitate the Muscles as the other; yet it will be owned, I believe,
that a more rational and useful Pleasure arises to us from it. He who should
call the Ingenious Hogarth a Burlesque Painter, would, in my Opinion, do him
very little Honour: for sure it is much easier, much less the Subject of
Admiration, to paint a Man with a Nose, or any other Feature of a preposterous
Size, or to expose him in some absurd or monstrous Attitude, than to express the
Affections of Men on Canvas. It hath been thought a vast Commendation of a
Painter, to say his Figures seem to