fervation would be found true in every instance, were but editions extant, from which we might learn the exact time when every piece was compofed, and whether writ for the town or the

court.

Another caufe (and no lefs ftrong than the former) may be deduced from our Author's being a player, and forming himself first upon the judgments of that body of men whereof he was a member. They have ever had a standard to themselves, upon other principles than those of Ariftotle. As they live by the majority, they know no rule but that of pleafing the prefent humour, and complying with the wit in fashion; a confideration which brings all their judgment to a fhort point. Players are just fuch judges of what is right, as taylors are of what is graceful. And in this view it will be but fair to allow, that moft of our Author's faults are lefs to be ascribed to his wrong judgment as a Poet, than to his right judgment as a Player.

By thefe men it was thought a praise to ShakeSpear, that he fcarce ever blotted a line. This they induftriously propagated, as appears from what we are told by Ben Johnfon in his Difcoveries, and from the preface of Heminges and Condell to the firft folio edition. But in reality (however it has prevailed) there never was a more groundless report, or to the contrary of which there are more undeniable evidences. As the Comedy of the Merry Wives of Windfor, which he entirely new writ; the Hiftory of

Henry VI. which was first published under the Title of The Contention of York and Lancaster: and that of Henry V. extremely improved; that of Hamlet enlarged to almoft as much again as at first, and many others. I believe the common opinion of his want of learning proceeded from no better ground. This too might be thought praise by fome, and to this his errors have as injudiciously been afcribed by others. For it is certain, were it true, it could concern but a small part of them; the most are such as are not properly defects; but fuperfœtations; and arise not from want of learning or reading, but from want of thinking or judging: or rather (to be more just to our Author) from a compliance to those wants in others. As to a wrong As to a wrong choice of the fubject, a wrong conduct of the incidents, falfe thoughts, forced expreffions, etc. if these are not to be ascribed to the forefaid accidental reafons, they must be charged upon the Poet himfelf, and there is no help for it. But I think the two disadvantages which I have mentioned (to be obliged to please the lowest of people, and to keep the worft of company) if the confideration be extended as far as it reafonably may, will appear fufficient to mislead and deprefs the greatest Genius upon earth. Nay, the more modesty with which fuch a one is endued, the more he is in danger of fubmitting and conforming to others against his own better judgment.

But as to his want of learning, it may be neceffary to fay fomething more: There is cer

tainly a vast difference between learning and languages. How far he was ignorant of the latter, I cannot determine; but it is plain he had much reading at least, if they will not call it learning. Nor is it any great matter, if a man has knowledge, whether he has it from one language or from another. Nothing is more evident than that he had a tafte of natural philofophy, mechanicks, ancient and modern history, poetical learning and mythology: We find him very knowing in the customs, rites, and manners of antiquity. In Coriolanus and Julius Cæfar, not only the fpirit, but manners, of the Romans are exactly drawn; and still a nicer distinction is fhown, between the manners of the Romans in the time of the former, and of the latter. His reading in the ancient hiftorians is no lefs confpicuous, in many references to particular paffages and the fpeeches copied from Plutarch in Coriolanus may, I think, as well be made an inftance of his learning, as thofe copied from Cicero in Catiline, of Ben Johnson's. The manners of other nations in general, the Egyptians, Venetians, French, etc. are drawn with equal propriety. Whatever object of nature, or branch of fcience, he either fpeaks of or describes; it is always with competent, if not extenfive knowledge: his descriptions are still exact; all his metaphors appropriated, and remarkably drawn from the true nature and inherent qualities of each subject. When he treats of ethic or politic, we may conftantly obferve a wonderful

juftness of distinction, as well as extent of comprehenfion. No one is more a master of the poetical story, or has more frequent allufions to the various parts of it: Mr. Waller (who has been celebrated for this last particular) has not shewn more learning this way than Shakespear, We have translations from Ovid published in his name, among thofe poems which pass for his, and for fome of which we have undoubted authority, (being published by himself, and dedicated to his noble patron the Earl of Southampton:) He appears alfo to have been converfant in Plautus, from whom he has taken the plot of one of his plays: he follows the Greek authors, and particularly Dares Phrygius, in another: (although I will not pretend to fay in what language he read them.) The modern Italian writers of novels he was manifeftly acquainted with; and we may conclude him to be no lefs converfant with the ancients of his own country, from the use he has made of Chaucer in Troilus and Creffida, and in the Two noble Kinsmen, if that Play be his, as there goes a tradition it was (and indeed it has little resemblance of Fletcher, and more of our Author than fome of thofe which have been received as genuine.)

I am inclined to think, this opinion proceeded originally from the zeal of the Partizans of our Author and Ben Johnfon; as they endeavoured to exalt the one at the expence of the other. It is ever the nature of Parties to be in extremes; and nothing is so probable, as that because Ben

Johnfon had much the more learning, it was faid on the one hand, that Shakespear had none at all; and because Shakespear had much the most wit and fancy, it was retorted on the other, that Johnfon wanted both. Because Shakespear borrowed nothing, it was faid that Ben Johnson borrowed every thing. Because Johnson did not write extempore, he was reproached with being a year about every piece; and because Shakespear wrote with ease and rapidity, they cried, he never once made a blot. Nay, the spirit of oppotion ran fo high, that whatever thofe of the one fide objected to the other, was taken at the rebound, and turned into praises; as injudiciously as their antagonists before had made them objections.

Poets are always afraid of envy; but fure they have as much reason to be afraid of admiration. They are the Scylla and Charybdis of Authors; thofe who escape one, often fall by the other. Peffimum genus inimicorum laudantes, fays Tacitus: and Virgil defires to wear a charm against those who praise a poet without rule or reason.

Si ultra placitum laudârit, baccare frontem Cingito, ne vati noceat.

But however this contention might be carried on by the Partizans on either fide, I cannot help thinking these two great Poets were good friends, and lived on amicable terms, and in offices of fociety with each other. It is an acknowledged fact, that Ben Johnson was introduced upon the