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. feré.] 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 ἐπιμύθιον, 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.