usual the genius of the writer veils the fact of the drama being
a drama with a purpose.

The unique individuality and the extraordinary merit of the various
pieces which make up Moliere's theatre have made it necessary to give a
tolerably minute account of them, and that account will to a certain
extent dispense us from dealing with his general characteristics at
great length, especially as a few remarks on French comedy of the
Molieresque kind as a whole will have to be given at the end of this
chapter. Independently of the characters which Moliere shares with all
the great names of literature, his fertility and justness of thought,
the felicity of the expression in which he clothes it, and his accurate
observation of human life, there are two points in his drama which
belong, in the highest degree, to him alone. One is the extraordinary
manner in which he manages to imbue farce and burlesque with the true
spirit of refined comedy. This manner has been spoken of by unfriendly
critics as 'exaggerated,' but the reproach argues a deficiency of
perception. Even the most roaring farces of Moliere, even such pieces as
_M. de Pourceaugnac_ and the _Bourgeois Gentilhomme_, demand rank as
legitimate comedy, owing to his unmatched faculty of intimating a
general purpose under the cloak of the merely ludicrous incidents which
are made to surround the fortunes of a particular person. This general
purpose (and here we come to the second point) is invariably a moral
one. Of all dramatists, ancient and modern, Moliere is perhaps that one
who has borne most constantly in mind the theory that the stage is a
lay-pulpit and that its end is not merely amusement, but the reformation
of manners by means of amusing spectacles. Occasionally, no doubt, he
has pushed this purpose too far and has missed his mark. He has never
given us, and perhaps could not have given us, such examples of dramatic
poetry of the non-tragic sort as Shakespeare and Calderon have given.
Indeed, it seems to be a mistake to call Moliere a poet at all, despite
his extraordinary creative faculty. He was too positive, too much given
to literal transcription of society, too little able to convey the vague
suggestion of beauty which, as cannot be too often repeated, is of the
essence of poetry. But, if we are content to regard drama as a middle
term between poetry and prose, he, with the two poets just named, must
be appointed to the first place in it among modern authors.