either for the invention of some comic character, or for
their true imitation of nature in performing some favourite one. One,
already immortalised by having lost his real name in that of _Captain
Matamoros_, by whose inimitable humours he became the most popular man
in Italy, invented the Neapolitan Pullicinello; while another, by deeper
study, added new graces to another burlesque rival.[44] One Constantini
invented the character of Mezetin, as the Narcissus of pantomime. He
acted without a mask, to charm by the beautiful play of his countenance,
and display the graces of his figure; the floating drapery of his
fanciful dress could be arranged by the changeable humour of the wearer.
Crowds followed him in the streets, and a King of Poland ennobled him.
The Wit and Harlequin Dominic sometimes dined at the table of Louis
XIV.--Tiberio Fiorillo, who invented the character of Scaramouch, had
been the amusing companion of the boyhood of Louis XIV.; and from him
Moliere learnt much, as appears by the verses under his portrait:--

Cet illustre comedien
De son art traca la carriere:
Il fut le maitre de Moliere,
Et la Nature fut le sien.

The last lines of an epitaph on one of these pantomimic actors may be
applied to many of them during their flourishing period:--

Toute sa vie il a fait rire;
Il a fait pleurer a sa mort.

Several of these admirable actors were literary men, who have written on
their art, and shown that it was one. The Harlequin Cecchini composed
the most ancient treatise on this subject, and was ennobled by the
Emperor Matthias; and Nicholas Barbieri, for his excellent acting called
the _Beltrame_, a Milanese simpleton, in his treatise on comedy, tell us
that he was honoured by the conversation of Louis XIII. and rewarded
with fortune.

What was the nature of that perfection to which the Italian pantomime
reached; and that prodigality of genius which excited such enthusiasm,
not only among the populace, but the studious, and the noble, and the
men of genius?

The Italian Pantomime had two peculiar features; a species of buffoonery
technically termed _Lazzi_, and one of a more extraordinary nature, the
_extempore dialogue_ of its comedy.

These _Lazzi_ were certain pleasantries of gesticulation, quite
national, yet so closely allied to our notions of buffoonery, that a
northern critic would not readily detect the separating shade; yet
Riccoboni asserts that they formed a cri