The soliloquy of Charinus, (of which the lines I have cited in the commencement of this Note form a part,) is one of the best written in the plays of our author: it is exactly of the kind recommended by the _Duke of Buckingham_. “Soliloquies had need be very few, Extremely short, and spoke in passion too. Our lovers, talking to themselves, for want Of others, make the pit their confidant: Nor is the matter mended yet, if thus They trust a friend only to tell it us.” A soliloquy is introduced with most success, when the speaker of it is supposed to be deliberating with himself on doubtful subjects: but, when narration is to be introduced, it is brought forward with more advantage in the shape of a dialogue between the speaker and his confidant. But a skilful dramatist can often employ a preferable method to either of those I have just named, for the disposition of narration. Papias lays it down as an absolute rule for the composition of soliloquies, that they must be deliberations only. NOTE 162. _Well, take her._ Sir R. Steele, in his play, called _the Conscious Lovers_, does not represent Myrtle as comporting himself in his disappointment with the moderation observed by Charinus. He challenges Bevil: though the duel is afterwards prevented by the patience and forbearance of the latter, who communicates to his angry friend a letter which he had received from Lucinda, expressive of her favourable thoughts of Myrtle. The ingenious author of the Conscious Lovers imagined, no doubt, that to an English audience, Charinus’s easy resignation of his mistress to Pamphilus would appear tame and unnatural. In nothing do the manners of the ancients and the moderns differ more widely than in their respective behaviour in cases of private injury, real or imagined. Among the ancient Greeks and Romans, _duelling_ was totally unknown. Alexander and Pyrrhus, Themistocles, Leonidas, and Epaminondas, the Scipios and Hannibal, Cæsar and Pompey, all men whose fame will never be surpassed, and a countless number of the heroes of antiquity, would have scorned to draw their swords in a private quarrel. It was reserved for Christians, to introduce and countenance this barbarous practice; which ought to be the shame of civilized humanity. Barbarous, however, it can scarcely with justice be called: for those nations whose unpolished manners caused them to be termed barbarians, were never known to have adopted it; nor has a single instance occurred, where men, in a state of uncultivated nature, have been known to sacrifice a brother’s life in the mortal arbitration of a private quarrel. Duelling was originally practised among northern nations. Those who wish to entertain just ideas on this subject cannot do better than to consult _A Discourse on Duelling, by the Rev. Thomas Jones, A.M., Trinity College, Cambridge_. NOTE 163.