Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare Part 3

Warburton then gave his services to Sir Thomas Hanmer. They had become acquainted by 1736, and they corresponded frequently till Warburton's visit to Mildenhall in May, 1737. It is needless to enter into their quarrel, for the interest of it is purely personal. Hanmer told his version of it to Joseph Smith, the Provost of Queen's College, Oxford, in his letter of 28th October, 1742, and Warburton gave his very different account nineteen years later, on 29th January, 1761, when he discovered that Hanmer's letter was about to be published in the _Biographia Britannica_. In the absence of further evidence it is impossible to decide with whom the truth rests. The dignity of Hanmer's letter wins favour by contrast with the violence of Warburton's. Yet there must be some truth in Warburton's circ.u.mstantial details, though his feelings may have prevented his seeing them in proper perspective. He says that Hanmer used his notes without his knowledge. The statement is probably accurate. But when Hanmer says that Warburton's notes were "sometimes just but mostly wild and out of the way," we are satisfied, from what we know of Warburton's other work, that the criticism was merited. Hanmer apparently found that Warburton did not give him much help, and Warburton may have been annoyed at failing to find Hanmer as docile as Theobald. They had quarrelled by September, 1739, when Warburton records that he has got all his letters and papers out of Sir Thomas Hanmer's hands (Nichols, _Ill.u.s.trations_, ii.

110. See also Nichols, _Literary Anecdotes_, v. 588-590; _Biographia Britannica_, vol vi. (1763), pp. 3743-4, and appendix, p. 223; Philip Nichols, _The Castrated Letter of Sir Thomas Hanmer_, 1763; and Bunbury, _Correspondence of Hanmer_, pp. 85-90).

During his friends.h.i.+p with Hanmer, Warburton had not lost sight of his own edition. The quarrel was precipitated by Hanmer's discovery of Warburton's intention; but there is no evidence that Warburton had tried to conceal it. Everything goes to show that each editor was so immersed in his own scheme that he regarded the other as his collaborator. Hanmer did not know at first that Warburton was planning an edition as a means of making some money; and Warburton had not suspected that Hanmer would publish an edition at all. This is the only reasonable inference to be drawn from a letter written by him to the Rev. Thomas Birch in October, 1737. "You are pleased to enquire about Shakespeare," he writes. "I believe (to tell it as a secret) I shall, after I have got the whole of this work out of my hands which I am now engaged in, give an Edition of it to the world. Sir Thomas Hanmer has a true critical genius, and has done great things in this Author; so you may expect to see a very extraordinary edition of its kind. I intend to draw up and prefix to it a just and complete critique on Shakespeare and his Works." This letter reads curiously in the light of after events; but it proves, if it proves anything, that Warburton did not suspect Hanmer's scheme, and believed that Hanmer was helping him in his edition. It is equally plain that Hanmer believed he was being helped by Warburton.

Announcements of Warburton's forthcoming edition were made in Birch's article on Shakespeare in the _General Dictionary, Historical and Critical_, vol. ix., January, 1739-40, and in the _History of the Works of the Learned_ for 1740 (Nichols, _Ill.u.s.trations_, ii., pp. 72-4, and _Lit.

Anecdotes_, v., p. 559). But there were no signs of its appearance, and Hanmer had good reason to say in October, 1742, in his letter to Joseph Smith, "I am satisfied there is no edition coming or likely to come from Warburton; but it is a report raised to support some little purpose or other, of which I see there are many on foot." Up to this time Warburton had merely suggested emendations and puzzled out explanations: he had not set to work seriously on the complete text. Since 1740, when he published the _Vindication of the Essay on Man_, his critical and polemical talents had been devoted to the service of Pope. To judge from what he says in his Preface, his project of an edition of Shakespeare might have been abandoned had not Pope persuaded him to proceed with it by the offer of making it appear their joint work. Pope had nothing to do with it, for it was not begun till after his death. But it was a cruel fate that what professed to be a new edition of his "Shakespeare" should really be founded on Theobald's. The knowledge of Theobald's use of the Quartos and Folios led Warburton to commit a detestable quibble on his t.i.tle-page.

There is said to be no evidence that Warburton himself had consulted them.

Yet the statement that his text is "collated with all the former editions"

is not absolutely without the bounds of truth: Theobald had consulted them, and Warburton does not say that he had consulted them himself. What Warburton did was to give full play to his talent for emendation, and to indulge what Johnson called his rage for saying something when there is nothing to be said. Yet we are too p.r.o.ne to depreciate Warburton. He has prejudiced his reputation by his arrogance and his contemptuous malignity; but we do him an injustice if we endeavour to gauge his merit only by comparing his edition with those of his immediate predecessors. No early editor of Shakespeare has gained more than Theobald and suffered more than Warburton by the custom of attributing the whole merit of an edition to him whose name is on the t.i.tle page. When we read their correspondence and see their editions in the making, it is not difficult to realise what Johnson meant when he said that Warburton as a critic would make "two and fifty Theobalds, cut into slices."

Samuel Johnson.

Johnson's Preface is here reprinted from the edition of 1777, the last to appear in his lifetime. The more important of the few alterations made on the original Preface of 1765 are pointed out in the notes.

In 1745 Johnson had published his _Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy of Macbeth: with Remarks on Sir Thomas Hanmer's Edition of Shakespeare. To which is affixed Proposals for a new Edition of Shakespeare, with a Specimen._ As Warburton's edition was expected, this anonymous scheme met with no encouragement, and Johnson laid it aside till 1756, when he issued new Proposals. In the interval he had written of Shakespeare in the admirable Prologue which inaugurated Garrick's rule at Drury Lane, and had shadowed in the _Rambler_ and in the Dedication to Mrs. Lennox's _Shakespear Ill.u.s.trated_ (1753) much of what was to appear in perfect form in the Preface of 1765. It was one of the conditions in the Proposals that the edition was to be published on or before Christmas, 1757. As in the case of the _Dictionary_ Johnson underestimated the labour which such a work involved. In December, 1757, we find him saying that he will publish about March, and in March he says it will be published before summer. He must have made considerable progress at this time, as, according to his own statement, "many of the plays" were then printed. But its preparation was interrupted by the _Idler_ (April, 1758, to April, 1760). Thereafter Johnson would appear to have done little to it till he was awakened to activity by the attack on him in Churchill's _Ghost_ (1763). The edition at length appeared in October, 1765. "In 1764 and 1765," says Boswell, "it should seem that Dr. Johnson was so busily employed with his edition of _Shakespeare_ as to have had little leisure for any other literary exertion, or indeed even for private correspondence." The Preface was also published by itself in 1765 with the t.i.tle-_Mr. Johnson's Preface to his Edition of Shakespear's Plays_.

The work immediately attracted great attention. Kenrick lost no time in issuing _A Review of Doctor Johnson's New Edition of Shakespeare: in which the Ignorance or Inattention of that Editor is exposed, and the Poet defended from the Persecution of his Commentators_, 1765. Johnson was "above answering for himself," but James Barclay, an Oxford student, replied for him, to his annoyance, in _An Examination of Mr. Kenrick's Review_, 1766, and Kenrick himself rejoined in _A Defence of Mr. Kenrick's Review ... By a Friend_, 1766. The most important criticism of the edition was Tyrwhitt's _Observations and Conjectures upon some Pa.s.sages of Shakespeare_, issued anonymously by the Clarendon Press in 1766. Though we read that "the author has not entered into the merits of Mr. Johnson's performance, but has set down some observations and conjectures," the book is in effect an examination of Johnson's edition. Notices appeared also in the _Monthly_ and _Critical Reviews_, the _London Magazine_, the _Gentleman's Magazine_, and the _Annual Register_. The _Monthly Review_ devotes its two articles (October and November, 1765) chiefly to the Preface. It examines at considerable length Johnson's arguments against the "unities," and concludes that "there is hardly one of them which does not seem false or foreign to the subject." The _Critical Review_, on the other hand, p.r.o.nounces them "worthy of Mr. Johnson's pen"; and the _London Magazine_ admits their force, though it wishes that Johnson had "rather retained the character of a reasoner than a.s.sumed that of a pleader."

Richard Farmer.

Farmer's _Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare_ was published at Cambridge early in January, 1767. In the Preface to the second and enlarged edition, which appeared in the same year, Farmer says that "the few who have been pleased to controvert any part of his doctrine have favoured him with better manners than arguments." This remark, like most of the Preface, appears to be directed chiefly at the prejudiced notice which appeared in the _Critical Review_ for January, 1767. The writer of it was well versed in the controversy, for he had expressed his opinion unhesitatingly in an earlier number, and he lost no time in advancing new evidence in opposition to Farmer's doctrine; but he only provided Farmer with new proofs, which were at once incorporated in the text of the Essay. The third edition, which was called for in 1789, differs from the second only by the inclusion of a short "advertis.e.m.e.nt" and a final note explaining that Farmer had abandoned his intention of publis.h.i.+ng the _Antiquities of Leicester_. In the "Advertis.e.m.e.nt" he admits that "a few corrections might probably be made, and many additional proofs of the argument have necessarily occurred in more than twenty years"; but he did not think it necessary to make any changes. He was content to leave the book in the hands of the printers, and accordingly he is still described on the t.i.tle-page as "Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge," though he had succeeded to the masters.h.i.+p of his college in 1775.

Farmer had, however, already supplemented his Essay by a letter to Steevens, who printed it as an appendix to his edition of Johnson's Shakespeare in 1773. "The track of reading," says Farmer, "which I sometime ago endeavoured to prove more immediately necessary to a commentator on Shakespeare, you have very successfully followed, and have consequently superseded some remarks which I might otherwise have troubled you with. Those I now send you are such as I marked on the margin of the copy you were so kind to communicate to me, and bear a very small proportion to the miscellaneous collections of this sort which I may probably put together some time or other." Farmer did not carry out this intention, and the _Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare_ remains his only independent publication.

Maurice Morgann.

Morgann has himself told us in his Preface all that we know about the composition of his _Essay on the Dramatic Character of Sir John Falstaff_.

The result of a challenge arising out of a friendly conversation, it was written "in a very short time" in 1774, and then laid aside and almost forgotten. But for the advice of friends it would probably have remained in ma.n.u.script, and been destroyed, like his other critical works, at his death. On their suggestion he revised and enlarged it, as hastily as he had written it; and it appeared anonymously in the spring of 1777. The original purpose of the Essay is indicated by the motto on the t.i.tle-page: "I am not John of Gaunt your grandfather, but yet no Coward, Hal"; but as Morgann wrote he pa.s.sed from Falstaff to the greater theme of Falstaff's creator. He was persuaded to publish his Essay because, though it dealt nominally with one character, its main subject was the art of Shakespeare.

For the same reason it finds a place in this volume.

In 1744 Corbyn Morris had briefly a.n.a.lysed the character of Falstaff in his _Essay towards fixing the true standards of Wit, Humour, Raillery, Satire, and Ridicule_; Mrs. Montagu had expressed the common opinion of his cowardice in her _Essay on the Writings and Genius of Shakespeare_; the _Biographia Britannica_ had declared him to be Shakespeare's masterpiece; while his popularity had led Kenrick to produce in 1766 _Falstaff's Wedding_ as a sequel to the second part of _Henry IV._; but Morgann's Essay is the first detailed examination of his character. He was afterwards the subject of papers by c.u.mberland in the _Observer_ (1785, No. 73), and by Henry Mackenzie in the _Lounger_ (1786, Nos. 68, 69), and in 1789 he was described by Richardson in an essay which reproduced Morgann's t.i.tle. None of these later works have the interest attaching to James White's _Falstaff's Letters_ (1796).

The _Essay on Falstaff_ was republished, with a short biographical preface, in 1820, and a third and last edition came out in 1825. What is apparently the first detailed criticism of it occurs in the _London Review_ for February, 1820.

NICHOLAS ROWE: SOME ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE &C. OF MR. WILLIAM SHAKESPEAR.

1709.

It seems to be a kind of respect due to the memory of excellent men, especially of those whom their wit and learning have made famous, to deliver some account of themselves, as well as their works, to Posterity.

For this reason, how fond do we see some people of discovering any little personal story of the great men of Antiquity, their families, the common accidents of their lives, and even their shape, make, and features have been the subject of critical enquiries. How trifling soever this Curiosity may seem to be, it is certainly very natural; and we are hardly satisfy'd with an account of any remarkable person, 'till we have heard him describ'd even to the very cloaths he wears. As for what relates to men of letters, the knowledge of an Author may sometimes conduce to the better understanding his book: And tho' the Works of Mr. _Shakespear_ may seem to many not to want a comment, yet I fancy some little account of the man himself may not be thought improper to go along with them.

He was the son of Mr. _John Shakespear_, and was born at _Stratford_ upon _Avon_, in _Warwicks.h.i.+re_, in _April_ 1564. His family, as appears by the Register and publick Writings relating to that Town, were of good figure and fas.h.i.+on there, and are mention'd as gentlemen. His father, who was a considerable dealer in wool, had so large a family, ten children in all, that tho' he was his eldest son, he could give him no better education than his own employment. He had bred him, 'tis true, for some time at a Free-school, where 'tis probable he acquir'd that little _Latin_ he was master of: But the narrowness of his circ.u.mstances, and the want of his a.s.sistance at home, forc'd his father to withdraw him from thence, and unhappily prevented his further proficiency in that language. It is without controversie, that he had no knowledge of the writings of the antient poets, not only from this reason, but from his works themselves, where we find no traces of any thing that looks like an imitation of 'em; the delicacy of his taste, and the natural bent of his own great _Genius_, equal, if not superior to some of the best of theirs, would certainly have led him to read and study 'em with so much pleasure, that some of their fine images would naturally have insinuated themselves into, and been mix'd with his own writings; so that his not copying at least something from them, may be an argument of his never having read 'em. Whether his ignorance of the Antients were a disadvantage to him or no, may admit of a dispute: For tho' the knowledge of 'em might have made him more correct, yet it is not improbable but that the regularity and deference for them, which would have attended that correctness, might have restrain'd some of that fire, impetuosity, and even beautiful extravagance which we admire in _Shakespear_: And I believe we are better pleas'd with those thoughts, altogether new and uncommon, which his own imagination supply'd him so abundantly with, than if he had given us the most beautiful pa.s.sages out of the _Greek_ and _Latin_ poets, and that in the most agreeable manner that it was possible for a master of the _English_ language to deliver 'em. Some _Latin_ without question he did know, and one may see up and down in his Plays how far his reading that way went: In _Love's Labour lost_, the Pedant comes out with a verse of _Mantuan_; and in _t.i.tus Andronicus_, one of the _Gothick_ princes, upon reading

Integer vitae scelerisque purus Non eget Mauri jaculis nec arcu-

says, "_Tis a verse in_ Horace, _but he remembers it out of his_ Grammar": which, I suppose, was the Author's case. Whatever _Latin_ he had, 'tis certain he understood _French_, as may be observ'd from many words and sentences scatter'd up and down his Plays in that language; and especially from one scene in _Henry_ the Fifth written wholly in it. Upon his leaving school, he seems to have given intirely into that way of living which his father propos'd to him; and in order to settle in the world after a family manner, he thought fit to marry while he was yet very young. His wife was the daughter of one _Hathaway_, said to have been a substantial yeoman in the neighbourhood of _Stratford_. In this kind of settlement he continu'd for some time, 'till an extravagance that he was guilty of forc'd him both out of his country and that way of living which he had taken up; and tho'

it seem'd at first to be a blemish upon his good manners, and a misfortune to him, yet it afterwards happily prov'd the occasion of exerting one of the greatest _Genius_'s that ever was known in dramatick Poetry. He had, by a misfortune common enough to young fellows, fallen into ill company; and amongst them, some that made a frequent practice of Deer-stealing, engag'd him with them more than once in robbing a Park that belong'd to Sir _Thomas Lucy_ of _Cherlecot_ near _Stratford_. For this he was prosecuted by that gentleman, as he thought, somewhat too severely; and in order to revenge that ill usage, he made a ballad upon him. And tho' this, probably the first essay of his Poetry, be lost, yet it is said to have been so very bitter, that it redoubled the prosecution against him to that degree, that he was oblig'd to leave his business and family in _Warwicks.h.i.+re_, for some time, and shelter himself in _London_.

It is at this time, and upon this accident, that he is said to have made his first acquaintance in the Play-house. He was receiv'd into the Company then in being, at first in a very mean rank; but his admirable wit, and the natural turn of it to the stage, soon distinguish'd him, if not as an extraordinary Actor, yet as an excellent Writer. His name is printed, as the custom was in those times, amongst those of the other Players, before some old Plays, but without any particular account of what sort of parts he us'd to play; and tho' I have inquir'd, I could never meet with any further account of him this way, than that the top of his Performance was the Ghost in his own _Hamlet_. I should have been much more pleas'd to have learn'd from some certain authority, which was the first Play he wrote; it would be without doubt a pleasure to any man, curious in things of this kind, to see and know what was the first essay of a fancy like _Shakespear_'s. Perhaps we are not to look for his beginnings, like those of other authors, among their least perfect writings; art had so little, and nature so large a share in what he did, that, for ought I know, the performances of his youth, as they were the most vigorous, and had the most fire and strength of imagination in 'em, were the best. I would not be thought by this to mean, that his fancy was so loose and extravagant, as to be independent on the rule and government of judgment; but that what he thought, was commonly so great, so justly and rightly conceiv'd in it self, that it wanted little or no correction, and was immediately approv'd by an impartial judgment at the first sight. Mr. _Dryden_ seems to think that _Pericles_ is one of his first Plays; but there is no judgment to be form'd on that, since there is good reason to believe that the greatest part of that Play was not written by him; tho' it is own'd, some part of it certainly was, particularly the last Act. But tho' the order of time in which the several pieces were written be generally uncertain, yet there are pa.s.sages in some few of them which seem to fix their dates. So the _Chorus_ in the beginning of the fifth Act of _Henry_ V. by a compliment very handsomly turn'd to the Earl of _Ess.e.x_, shews the Play to have been written when that Lord was General for the Queen in _Ireland_: And his Elogy upon Q. _Elizabeth_, and her successor K. _James_, in the latter end of his _Henry_ VIII. is a proof of that Play's being written after the accession of the latter of those two Princes to the crown of _England_.

Whatever the particular times of his writing were, the people of his age, who began to grow wonderfully fond of diversions of this kind, could not but be highly pleas'd to see a _Genius_ arise amongst 'em of so pleasurable, so rich a vein, and so plentifully capable of furnis.h.i.+ng their favourite entertainments. Besides the advantages of his wit, he was in himself a good-natur'd man, of great sweetness in his manners, and a most agreeable companion; so that it is no wonder if with so many good qualities he made himself acquainted with the best conversations of those times. Queen _Elizabeth_ had several of his Plays acted before her, and without doubt gave him many gracious marks of her favour: It is that maiden Princess plainly, whom he intends by

--A fair Vestal, Throned by the West.

_Midsummer Night's Dream._

And that whole pa.s.sage is a compliment very properly brought in, and very handsomely apply'd to her. She was so well pleas'd with that admirable character of _Falstaff_, in the two parts of _Henry_ the Fourth, that she commanded him to continue it for one Play more, and to shew him in love.

This is said to be the occasion of his writing _The Merry Wives of_ Windsor. How well she was obey'd, the play it self is an admirable proof.

Upon this occasion it may not be improper to observe, that this part of _Falstaff_ is said to have been written originally under the name of _Oldcastle_; some of that family being then remaining, the Queen was pleas'd to command him to alter it; upon which he made use of _Falstaff_.

The present offence was indeed avoided; but I don't know whether the Author may not have been somewhat to blame in his second choice, since it is certain that Sir _John Falstaff_, who was a Knight of the Garter, and a Lieutenant-general, was a name of distinguish'd merit in the wars in _France_ in _Henry_ the Fifth's and _Henry_ the Sixth's times. What grace soever the Queen conferr'd upon him, it was not to her only he ow'd the fortune which the reputation of his wit made. He had the honour to meet with many great and uncommon marks of favour and friends.h.i.+p from the Earl of _Southampton_, famous in the histories of that time for his friends.h.i.+p to the unfortunate Earl of _Ess.e.x_. It was to that n.o.ble Lord that he dedicated his Poem of _Venus_ and _Adonis_, the only piece of his Poetry which he ever publish'd himself, tho' many of his Plays were surrepticiously and lamely printed in his life-time. There is one instance so singular in the magnificence of this Patron of _Shakespear_'s, that if I had not been a.s.sur'd that the story was handed down by Sir _William D'Avenant_, who was probably very well acquainted with his affairs, I should not have ventur'd to have inserted, that my Lord _Southampton_ at one time gave him a thousand pounds, to enable him to go through with a purchase which he heard he had a mind to: A bounty very great, and very rare at any time, and almost equal to that profuse generosity the present age has shewn to _French_ Dancers and _Italian_ Eunuchs.

What particular habitude or friends.h.i.+ps he contracted with private men, I have not been able to learn, more than that every one who had a true taste of merit, and could distinguish men, had generally a just value and esteem for him. His exceeding candor and good nature must certainly have inclin'd all the gentler part of the world to love him, as the power of his wit oblig'd the men of the most delicate knowledge and polite learning to admire him. Amongst these was the incomparable Mr. _Edmond Spencer_, who speaks of him in his _Tears of the Muses_, not only with the praises due to a good Poet, but even lamenting his absence with the tenderness of a friend. The pa.s.sage is in _Thalia's_ Complaint for the Decay of Dramatick Poetry, and the Contempt the Stage then lay under, amongst his Miscellaneous Works, _p._ 147.

And he the Man whom Nature's self had made To mock her self, and Truth to imitate With friendly Counter under mimick Shade, Our pleasant _w.i.l.l.y_, ah! is dead of late: With whom all Joy and jolly Merriment Is also deaded, and in Dolour drent.

Instead thereof, scoffing Scurrility And scorning Folly with Contempt is crept, Rolling in Rhimes of shameless Ribaudry, Without Regard or due _Decorum_ kept; Each idle Wit at will presumes to make, And doth the Learned's Task upon him take.

But that same gentle Spirit, from whose Pen Large Streams of Honey and sweet _Nectar_ flow, Scorning the Boldness of such base-born Men, Which dare their Follies forth so rashly throw; Doth rather choose to sit in idle Cell, Than so himself to Mockery to sell.

I know some people have been of opinion, that _Shakespear_ is not meant by _w.i.l.l.y_ in the first _stanza_ of these verses, because _Spencer_'s death happen'd twenty years before _Shakespear_'s. But, besides that the character is not applicable to any man of that time but himself, it is plain by the last _stanza_ that Mr. _Spencer_ does not mean that he was then really dead, but only that he had withdrawn himself from the publick, or at least with-held his hand from writing, out of a disgust he had taken at the then ill taste of the Town, and the mean condition of the Stage.

Mr. _Dryden_ was always of opinion these verses were meant of _Shakespear_; and 'tis highly probable they were so, since he was three and thirty years old at _Spencer_'s death; and his reputation in Poetry must have been great enough before that time to have deserv'd what is here said of him. His acquaintance with _Ben Johnson_ began with a remarkable piece of humanity and good nature; Mr. _Johnson_, who was at that time altogether unknown to the world, had offer'd one of his Plays to the Players, in order to have it acted; and the persons into whose hands it was put, after having turn'd it carelessly and superciliously over, were just upon returning it to him with an ill-natur'd answer, that it would be of no service to their Company, when _Shakespear_ luckily cast his eye upon it, and found something so well in it as to engage him first to read it through, and afterwards to recommend Mr. _Johnson_ and his writings to the publick. After this they were profess'd friends; tho' I don't know whether the other ever made him an equal return of gentleness and sincerity. _Ben_ was naturally proud and insolent, and in the days of his reputation did so far take upon him the supremacy in wit, that he could not but look with an evil eye upon any one that seem'd to stand in compet.i.tion with him. And if at times he has affected to commend him, it has always been with some reserve, insinuating his uncorrectness, a careless manner of writing, and want of judgment; the praise of seldom altering or blotting out what he writ, which was given him by the Players who were the first Publishers of his Works after his death, was what _Johnson_ could not bear; he thought it impossible, perhaps, for another man to strike out the greatest thoughts in the finest expression, and to reach those excellencies of Poetry with the ease of a first imagination, which himself with infinite labour and study could but hardly attain to.

_Johnson_ was certainly a very good scholar, and in that had the advantage of _Shakespear_; tho' at the same time I believe it must be allow'd, that what Nature gave the latter, was more than a ballance for what Books had given the former; and the judgment of a great man upon this occasion was, I think, very just and proper. In a conversation between Sir _John Suckling_, Sir _William D'Avenant_, _Endymion Porter_, Mr. _Hales_ of _Eaton_, and _Ben Johnson_; Sir _John Suckling_, who was a profess'd admirer of _Shakespear_, had undertaken his defence against _Ben Johnson_ with some warmth; Mr. _Hales_, who had sat still for some time, hearing _Ben_ frequently reproaching him with the want of learning, and ignorance of the Antients, told him at last, _That if Mr._ Shakespear _had not read the Antients, he had likewise not stollen any thing from 'em_ (a fault the other made no conscience of); _and that if he would produce any one Topick finely treated by any one of them, he would undertake to shew something upon the same subject at least as well written by_ Shakespear. _Johnson_ did indeed take a large liberty, even to the transcribing and translating of whole scenes together; and sometimes, with all deference to so great a name as his, not altogether for the advantage of the authors of whom he borrow'd. And if _Augustus_ and _Virgil_ were really what he has made 'em in a scene of his _Poetaster_, they are as odd an Emperor and a Poet as ever met. _Shakespear_, on the other hand, was beholding to no body farther than the foundation of the tale, the incidents were often his own, and the writing intirely so. There is one Play of his, indeed, _The Comedy of Errors_, in a great measure taken from the _Menaechmi_ of _Plautus_. How that happen'd, I cannot easily divine, since, as I hinted before, I do not take him to have been master of _Latin_ enough to read it in the original, and I know of no translation of _Plautus_ so old as his time.

As I have not propos'd to my self to enter into a large and compleat criticism upon _Shakespear_'s Works, so I suppose it will neither be expected that I should take notice of the severe remarks that have been formerly made upon him by Mr. _Rhymer_. I must confess, I can't very well see what could be the reason of his animadverting with so much sharpness, upon the faults of a man excellent on most occasions, and whom all the world ever was and will be inclin'd to have an esteem and veneration for.

If it was to shew his own knowledge in the Art of Poetry, besides that there is a vanity in making that only his design, I question if there be not many imperfections as well in those schemes and precepts he has given for the direction of others, as well as in that sample of Tragedy which he has written to shew the excellency of his own _Genius_. If he had a pique against the man, and wrote on purpose to ruin a reputation so well establish'd, he has had the mortification to fail altogether in his attempt, and to see the world at least as fond of _Shakespear_ as of his Critique. But I won't believe a gentleman, and a good-natur'd man, capable of the last intention. Whatever may have been his meaning, finding fault is certainly the easiest task of knowledge, and commonly those men of good judgment, who are likewise of good and gentle dispositions, abandon this ungrateful province to the tyranny of pedants. If one would enter into the beauties of _Shakespear_, there is a much larger, as well as a more delightful field; but as I won't prescribe to the tastes of other people, so I will only take the liberty, with all due submission to the judgments of others, to observe some of those things I have been pleas'd with in looking him over.

His Plays are properly to be distinguish'd only into Comedies and Tragedies. Those which are called Histories, and even some of his Comedies, are really Tragedies, with a run or mixture of Comedy amongst 'em. That way of Trage-comedy was the common mistake of that age, and is indeed become so agreeable to the _English_ taste, that tho' the severer Critiques among us cannot bear it, yet the generality of our audiences seem to be better pleas'd with it than with an exact Tragedy. _The Merry Wives of_ Windsor, _The Comedy of Errors_, and _The Taming of the Shrew_, are all pure Comedy; the rest, however they are call'd, have something of both kinds. 'Tis not very easy to determine which way of writing he was most excellent in. There is certainly a great deal of entertainment in his comical humours; and tho' they did not then strike at all ranks of people, as the Satyr of the present age has taken the liberty to do, yet there is a pleasing and a well-distinguish'd variety in those characters which he thought fit to meddle with. _Falstaff_ is allow'd by every body to be a master-piece; the Character is always well-sustain'd, tho' drawn out into the length of three Plays; and even the account of his death, given by his old landlady Mrs. _Quickly_, in the first act of _Henry_ V., tho' it be extremely natural, is yet as diverting as any part of his life. If there be any fault in the draught he has made of this lewd old fellow, it is, that tho' he has made him a thief, lying, cowardly, vain-glorious, and in short every way vicious, yet he has given him so much wit as to make him almost too agreeable; and I don't know whether some people have not, in remembrance of the diversion he had formerly afforded 'em, been sorry to see his friend _Hal_ use him so scurvily, when he comes to the crown in the end of the second part of _Henry_ the Fourth. Amongst other extravagances, in _The Merry Wives of_ Windsor, he has made him a Deer-stealer, that he might at the same time remember his _Warwicks.h.i.+re_ prosecutor, under the name of Justice _Shallow_; he has given him very near the same coat of arms which _Dugdale_, in his Antiquities of that county, describes for a family there, and makes the _Welsh_ parson descant very pleasantly upon 'em. That whole play is admirable; the humours are various and well oppos'd; the main design, which is to cure _Ford_ of his unreasonable jealousie, is extremely well conducted. _Falstaff's Billet-Doux_, and Master _Slender_'s

Ah! Sweet _Ann Page_!