ON THE FABLE AND COMPOSITION OF

KING LEAR.

THE ftory of this tragedy had found its way into many ballads and other metrical pieces; yet Shakespeare feems to have been more indebted to the True Chronicle Hiftory of King Leir and his Three Daughters, Gonorill, Ragan, and Cordella, 1605 (which I have already publifhed at the end of a collection of the quarto copies,) than to all the other performances together. It appears from the books at Stationers' Hall, that fome play on this fubject was entered by Edward White, May 14, 1594. "A Booke entituled, The mofte famous Chronicle Hyftorie of Leire, King of England, and bis three Daughters." A piece, with the fame title, is enter'd again, May 8, 1605; and again Nov. 26, 1607. See the extracts from thefe Entries at the end of the Prefaces, &c. From The Mirror of Magiftrates, 1586, Shakespeare has, however, taken, the hint for the behaviour of the Steward, and the reply of Cordelia to her father concerning her future, marriage. The epifode of Glofter and his fons must have been borrowed from Sydney's Arcadia, as I have not found the leaft trace of it in any other work.

The reader will alfo find the ftory of K. Lear, in the fecond book and roth canto of Spenfer's Faery Queen, and in the 15th chapter of the third book of Warner's Albion's England, 1602.

The whole of this play, however, could not have been written till after 1603. Harfnet's pamphlet, to which it contains fo many references, was not publisıred 'till that year. STEEVENS.

Camden, in his Remains (p. 306. ed. 1674.), tells a fimilar story to this of Leir or Lear, of Ina king of the

Weft

Weft-Saxons; which if the thing ever happened, probably was the real origin of the Fable. See under the head of Wife Speeches. PERCY.

The tragedy of Lear is defervedly celebrated among the dramas of Shakespeare. There is, perhaps, no play which keeps the attention fo ftrongly fixed; which fo much agitates our paffions, and interefts our curiofity. The artful involutions of diftinct interefts, the ftriking oppofition of contrary characters, the fudden changes of fortune, and the quick fucceffion of events, fill the mind with a perpetual tumult of indignation, pity and hope. There is no scene which does not contribute to the aggravation of the diftrefs or conduct of the action, and scarce a line which does not conduce to the progress of the scene. So powerful is the current of the poet's imagination, that the mind, which once ventures within it, is hurried irresistibly along.

On the feeming improbability of Lear's conduct, it may be observed, that he is represented according to hiftories at that time vulgarly received as true. And, perhaps, if we turn our thoughts upon the barbarity and ignorance of the age to which this story is referred, it will appear not fo unlikely as while we estimate Lear's manners by our own, Such preference of one daughter to another, or refignation of dominion on fuch conditions, would be yet credible, if told of a petty prince of Guinea or Madagascar. Shakespeare, indeed, by the mention of his earls and dukes, has given us the idea of times more civilized and of life regulated by softer manners; and the truth is, that though he fo nicely difcriminates, and fo minutely defcribes the characters of men, he commonly neglects and confounds the characters of ages, by mingling cuftoms ancient and modern, English and foreign.

My learned friend Mr Warton, who has in the Adventurer very minutely criticised this play, remarks, that the inftances of cruelty are too favage and fhocking, and that the intervention of Edmund destroys the fimplicity of the ftory. These objections may, I think, be answered, by repeating, that the cruelty of the

daugh

daughters is an hiftorical fact, to which the poet has added little, having only drawn it into a feries by dialogue and action. But I am not able to apologize with equal plaufibility for the extrusion of Glofter's eyes, which feems an act too horrid to be endured in dramatic exhibition, and fuch as must always compel the mind to relieve its distress by incredulity. Yet let it be remembered that our author well knew what would please the audience for which he wrote.

The injury done by Edmund, to the fimplicity of the action, is abundantly recompenfed by the addition of variety, by the art with which he is made to co-ope rate with the chief defign, and the opportunity which he gives the poet of combining perfidy with perfidy, and connecting the wicked fon with the wicked daughters, to imprefs this important moral, that villany is never at a ftop, that crimes lead to crimes, and at laft terminate in ruin.

But tho' this moral be incidentally enforced, Shakefpeare has fuffered the virtue of Cordelia to perifh in a juft caufe, contrary to the natural ideas of juftice, to the hope of the reader, and, what is yet more ftrange, to the faith of chronicles. Yet this conduct is juftified by The Spectator, who blames Tate for giving Čordelia fuccefs and happiness in his alteration, and declares, that, in his opinion, the tragedy has loft half its beauty. Dennis has remarked, whether juftly or not, that, to fecure the favourable reception of Cato, the town was poifoned with much false and abominable criticism, and that endeavours had been used to difcredit and decry poetical juftice. A play in which the wicked profper, and the virtuous mifcarry, may doubtlefs be good, because it is a juft reprefentation of the common events of human life: but fince all teasonable beings naturally love juftice, I cannot casily be perfuaded, that the obfervation of juftice makes a play worfe; or, that if other excellencies are equal, the audience will not always rife better pleased from the final triumph of perfecuted virtue.

In the prefent cafe the public has decided. Corde

lia, from the time of Tate, has always retired with victory and felicity. And, if my sensations could add any thing to the general fuffrage, I might relate, I was many years ago fo fhocked by Cordelia's death, that I know not whether I ever endured to read again the last scenes of the play 'till I undertook to revise them as an editor. There is another controversy among the critics concerning this play. It is difputed whether the predominant image in Lear's disordered mind be the loss of his kingdom or the cruelty of his daughters. Mr Murphy, a very judicious critic, has evinced, by induction of particular paffages, that the cruelty of his daughters is the primary fource of his diftrefs, and that the lofs of royalty affects him only as a fecondary and fubordinate evil. He obferves with great juftness, that Lear would move our compaffion but little, did we not rather confider the injured rather than the degraded king.

The ftory of this play, except the episode of Edmund, which is derived, I think, from Sidney, is taken originally from Geoffry of Monmouth, whom Holingfhed generally copied; but perhaps immediately from an old hiftorical ballad. My reafon for believing that the play was pofterior to the ballad, rather than the ballad to the play, is, that the ballad has nothing of Shakespeare's nocturnal tempeft, which is too ftriking to have been omitted, and that it follows the chronicle; it has the rudiments of the play, but none of its amplifications: it firft hinted Lear's madnefs, but did not array it in circumftances. The writer of the ballad added fomething to the hiftory, which is a proof that he would have added more, if more had occurred to his mind; and more must have occurred if he had feen Shakespeare. JOHNSON