people. In Tragedy, nothing was fo fure to furprize and cause admiration, as the moft ftrange, unexpected, and confequently most unnatural events and incidents; the most exaggerated thoughts; the moft verbofe and bombaft expreffion; the most pompous rhymes, and thundering verfification. In Comedy, nothing was fo fure to pleafe, as mean buffoonery, vile ribaldry, and unmannerly jefts of fools and clowns. Yet even in thefe, our author's wit buoys up, and is borne above his subject: his genius in thofe low parts is like fome prince of a romance in the difguife of a fhepherd or peasant; a certain greatnefs and spirit now and then break out, which manifeft his higher extraction and qualities.

It may be added, that not only the common audience had no notion of the rules of writing, but few even of the better fort piqued themfelves upon any great degree. of knowledge or nicety that way; till Ben Johnson, getting poffeffion of the ftage, brought critical learning into vogue: And that this was not done without difficulty, may appear from thofe frequent leffons (and indeed almoft declamations) which he was forced to prefix to his firft plays, and put into the mouths of his actors, the Grex, Chorus, etc. to remove the prejudices, and inform the judgement of his hearers. 'Till then, our authors had no thoughts of writing on the model of the ancients: their tragedies were only hiftories in dialogue; and their comedies followed the thread of any novel as they found it, no lefs implicitly than if it had been true history.

To judge therefore of Shakespear by Ariftotle's rules, is like trying a man by the laws of one country, who acted under those of another. He writ to the people; and writ at firft without patronage from the better fort, and therefore without aims of pleafing them without affiftance or advice from the learned, as without the advantage of education or acquaintance among them: without that knowledge of the beft models, the ancients, to infpire him with an emulation of them: in a word, without any views of reputation, and of what poets are VOL. III. N n

pleafed

pleafed to call immortality: Some or all of which have encouraged the vanity, or animated the ambition, of other writers.

Yet it must be obferved, that when his performances had merited the protection of his prince, and when the encouragement of the court had fucceeded to that of the town; the works of his riper years are manifeftly raised above thofe of his former. The dates of his plays fufficiently evidence that his productions improved, in proportion to the respect he had for his auditors. And 1 make no doubt this observation would be found true in every inftance, 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 less 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 themfelves, upon other principles than thofe of Ariftotle. As they live by the majority, they know no rule but that of pleafing the present humour, and complying with the wit in fashion; a confideration which brings all their judgment to a short 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 most 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 Discoveries, and from the preface of Heminges and Condell to the first folio edition. But in reality (however it has prevailed) there never was a more groundless report, 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 Hiftery of Henry VI. which was first published under the title

of

of the Contention of York and Lancaster: and that of Henry V. extremely improved; that of Hamlet enlarged to almost as much again as at firft, and many others. I believe the common opinion of his want of learning proceeded from no better ground. This too might be thought a praise by fome, and to this his errors have as injudicioufly been afcribed by others. For 'tis certain, were it true, it could concern but a small part of them; the most are fuch as are not properly defects, but fuperfœtations; and arise not from want of learning or reading, but for want of thinking or judging; or rather (to be more just to our Author) from a compliance to thofe wants in others. As to wrong choice of the fubject, a wrong conduct of the incidents, falfe thoughts, forced expreffions, etc. if these are not to be afcribed to the aforefaid accidental reasons, they must be charged upon the poet himfelf, and there is no help for it. But I think the two dif advantages 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 miflead and deprefs the greatest genius upon earth. Nay the more modefty 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 certainly a vaft 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 philosophy, mechanics, ancient and modern history, poetical learning, and mythology: We find him very knowing in the cuftoms, rites, and manners of antiquity. In Coriolanus and Julius Cæsar, not only the spirit, but manners of the Romans are exactly

drawn; and ftill a nicer diftinction is shown, between the manners of the Romans in the time of the former, and of the latter. His reading in the antient 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 Cataline, of Ben Johnfon'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 speaks of or defcribes; 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 fubject. When he treats of ethic or politic, we may conftantly obferve a wonderful juftnefs of diftinction, as well as extent of comprehenfion. No one is. more a mafter 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 tranflations from Ovid publifhed in his name, among those poems which pafs 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 Greck authors, and particularly Dares Phrygius, in another: (altho' 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 antients of his own country, from the use he has made of Chaucer in Troilus and Creffida, and in the Two noble Kinfinen, if that Play be his, as there goes a tradition it was (and indeed it has little refemblance of Fletcher, and more of our Author than fome of those which haye peen 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 fo probable, as that because Ben Johnson had much the more learning, it was faid on the one hand that Shakespear had none at all; and becaufe Shakespear had much the moft wit and fancy, it was retorted on the other, that Johnson wanted both. Because Shakespear borrowed nothing, it was said 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 eafe and rapidity, they cried he never once made a blot. Nay the spirit of oppofition ran fo high, that whatever those 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; those 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 reafon. Si ultra placitum laudárit, baccare frontem

Cingite, 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 ftage, and his firft works encouraged by Shakespear. And after his death, that Author writes To, the Memory of his beloved Mr. William Shakespear, which fhews as if the friendship had continued through life. I cannot for my own part find any thing invidious or fparing in those

verses,