CHAPTER III
TYPES
For that form of satire which deals with actual individuals,
photographed or caricatured, the designation personal
is sufficiently descriptive. But for that which deals
with fictitious individuals, wherein the models that sat
for the portraits have passed through the imaginative process
that makes their portraiture a work of art, there is no
satisfactory name. Typical, in distinction from individual
and institutional, is tolerably expressive, but a term to be
apologized for. The school of art known as realistic, which
was theoretically adopted by the nineteenth century, repudiates
creations that are "mere types," and claims for
itself the achievement of true individuals. The sign of
individuality is a discordant complexity. Every man may
have his humour but he is not always in it. He may be
ruled by a master passion, but the rule is not a monopolistic
autocracy. Its supremacy is constantly disputed and
threatened by mob rebellion. Civil war is the usual rêgime,
and the attainment of a stabilized government is
rare.
Tamburlaine, Volpone, Othello, Tartuffe, Blifil, are not untrue, but they are only partial truths. We see much, undoubtedly the most significant and dominating traits, but we cannot see all when the searchlight is concentrated on a single spot. Agamemnon, Hamlet, Tom Jones, Jaffeir, swayed, perplexed, inconsistent, at once infinite and abject, are more nearly full length and complete drawings.
