FARQUHAR, George, a celebrated comic writer, was the son of a clergyman, and born in 1678 at Londonderry, in Ireland, where he received the rudiments of his education, and gave early indications of that genius for which he afterwards distinguished himself. As he was one of a numerous family, his parents, having no fortune to leave to their children, resolved to give him the compensatory benefit of a liberal education; and, with this view, young Farquhar, as soon as he was qualified for the university, was sent to Trinity College, Dublin. This took place in 1694. At first our youth Farquhar made great progress in his studies, and even acquired considerable reputation; but at length the retirement and restraint of a college life proving distasteful to him, he quitted Trinity, where he found himself incapable of seeking advancement by the slow and regular progression of university degrees; and betaking himself to the stage, he obtained admission into the company of the Dublin theatre. Though his voice was somewhat weak, he had the advantage of a good person, which, with his evident talents, ensured him a favourable reception as an actor; and he resolved to continue on the boards until something better should present itself for his acceptance. But an accident of rather a serious kind put an end to this resolution, and suddenly altered the whole complexion of his life. Being to play the part of Guyomar in Dryden’s Indian Emperor, and having forgotten to blunt his sword, or exchange it for a theatrical rapier, Farquhar, in the scene where Guyomar is supposed to kill the Spanish general Vasquez, run through the body his brother tragedian who represented that part. The poor general of the scene believed himself killed in good earnest, but happily the wound, though dangerous, did not prove mortal. Farquhar, however, was so shocked at the occurrence, that he quitted the stage, determined never again to expose himself to the risk of such accidents. But this histrionic essay had [7:9:490]been sufficient to form his taste and develope his talents tor dramatic literature.

Having now no inducement to remain at Dublin, Farquhar proceeded to London, where, in 1696, Wilks the actor, knowing his lmmour and abilities, prevailed on him to write a play, at the same time assuring him that he was generally considered as better qualified to furnish compositions for the stage than to act a part in those of other writers. His first comedy, called Love in a Bottle, was brought out in 1698, and well received, on account of its sprightly dialogue and busy scenes. About this time the Earl of Orrery, to whom Farquhar was already known by his literary talents, and esteemed for his character, gave him a commission as lieutenant in his own regiment, then in Ireland, in which capacity he served several years, and gave proofs both of courage and conduct. In 1700 he produced his Constant Couple, or Trip to the Jubilee, so called because itwasthen the jubilee year at Rome, whither persons of all countries flocked for indulgences and amusements. In Sir Harry Wildair he delineated a gay and airy character, so impregnated with wit and vivacity, and withal so well adapted to the peculiar talents of Wilks, that the player acquired almost as much reputation as the dramatist. Towards the close of this year Farquhar visited Holland, probably in his military capacity, and, in several letters which he wrote, gave a very humorous description of the people, and the adventures he met with, particularly of an entertainment given by the Earl of Westmoreland, whilst uot only that nobleman himself, but King William and others, were detained by a violent storm. In 1701 he was a spectator, if not a mourner, at the funeral of Dryden. Encouraged by the success of his Constant Couple, he this year wrote a continuation of the play, called Sir Harry Wildair, or the Sequel of the Trip to the Jubilee, in which Mrs Oldfield, whom the author had introduced to the stage, was as greatly admired, and obtained as much reputation, in her part, as Wilks had previously done in his.

In 1702 he published his Miscellanies, consisting of poems, letters, and essays, all filled with humorous and pleasant sallies. Some of these letters were, it is said, published from copies returned at his request by Mrs Oldfield, to whom they had been addressed. At the end there is a Discourse upon Comedy, in reference to the English stage; and one of the letters contains The Picture, a descriptive character of the writer, in which he is represented as an ingenious, good-natured, and thoughtless person. In 1703 lie brought out another comedy, entitled The Inconstant, or the Way to win him ; but as the public taste, influenced by fashion, was now turning in favour of French and Italian operas, which have long been the bane of our native genius, this production, though not inferior in merit, was more coldly received than any of its predecessors. This year Farquhar married (as he was led to believe) a person of fortune. The lady, it seems, had fallen violently in love with him, and resolved to have him at any rate; but, knowing his habits, and aware that he was too dissipated to think of matrimony unless advantages were annexed to it, she caused a report to be circulated that she had a great fortune, and followed this up by an intimation of her love for the dramatist. Farquhar fell into the snare, and married her. But although he found himself grossly deceived, his circumstances embarrassed, and his family increasing, he, with rare magnanimity, never once upbraided his wife with the imposition she had practised on him, but behaved to her with all the delicacy and tenderness of a kind and indulgent husband.

Early in 1704, Farquhar, in conjunction with another person, produced a farce called The Stage-coach, which was well received. His comedy entitled The Twin Rivals was played in 1705, and The Recruiting Officer made its appearance in 1706. His last production, The Beaux Stratagem was only performed a few days before his death, which happened in April 1707, but not until he had been made aware of the complete success of the comedy. ’ The Beaux Stratagem is generally regarded as Farquhar’s masterpiece, and certainly, of all his plays it is that which has kept the firmest hold of the stage. The characters are said to have been drawn from living originals whom the author met with in Lichfield and its vicinity; but whether this was the case or not, he has sufficiently generalized his delineations to divest them of partial or localized distinctions, and has thus imparted to them an interest which neither time nor change of manners has in any material degree impaired. Towards the close of his life Farquhar was unhappily oppressed with debt, which obliged him to sell his commission; a circumstance which, with some collateral disappointments, preyed upon his spirits, and hurried him to a premature grave before he had attained the age of thirty. Soon after his death, the following letter, addressed to Mr Wilks the actor, was found amongst his papers: “Dear Bob, I have not any thing to leave thee to perpetuate my memory but two helpless girls; look upon them sometimes, and think of him that was to the last moment of his Efe, thine, George Farquhar.” This affecting recommendation, resembling the testament of Eudamidas, was not lost on the generous player, who watched over the orphans of his gifted friend, and, when they came of age to be put out in the world, procured each of them a benefit to supply the means necessary for the purpose.Of Farquhar’s merits as a dramatic writer various opinions have been entertained, and different judgments consequently pronounced. It can scarcely be disputed, however, that he was commonly fortunate in the choice of his subjects, which he embellished with a great variety of characters and incidents; that his style is in general simple, unaffected, and natural; that his dialogue is full of gaiety and wit, and flows in a natural, easy current, less sparkling and brilliant than that of Congreve, but at the same time also less elaborate; and that his plots, though almost all founded on improbable or romantic suppositions, are naturally conducted, and full of anmsing vivacity. He has been justly reproached with licentiousness, which, in his discourse upon comedy, he even attempts to defend; but this was the vice of the age rather than of the writer, who felt himself obliged to consult its taste, and adapt his compositions to its prevailing manners; and is certainly not less imputable to Congreve than to Farquhar. The tone of their characters, indeed, appears to have been that of the society of the time, of which these are, as it were, reflections; and hence in the comedies of both there is a relative truth, which must not be lost sight of in estimating the moral qualities of their works. The manners represented are no doubt detestable, and vice appears rampant and unblushing, without the mask of hypocrisy, which, in less degenerate times, she is compelled to assume as a reluctant homage to virtue; but these manners are real, not imaginary; and it is from such delineations alone that we can acquire accurate conceptions of the true spirit and character of the age when they were relished and applauded. Pope, it seems, used pettishly to stigmatize Farquhar as a mere farce-writer. But posterity has been more just to his merits than the Wasp of Twickenham; and his productions, with all their faults, still keep their place on the stage, and are likely to do so, as long as the redeeming attributes of wit and genius possess any attraction in scenic representation.