of his actors, the grex, chorus, &c. to remove the prejudices, and inform the judgment 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 hiftory. To judge therefore of Shakespeare by Ariftotle's rules, is like trying a man by the laws of one country, who acted under thofe of another. He writ to the people; and writ at first without patronage from the better fort, and therefore without aims of pleafing them: without affistance 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 pleased to call immortality: fome or all of which have encouraged the vanity, or animated the ambition, of other writers.

Yet it must be observed, 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 those 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 I make no doubt this obfervation 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 lefs strong than the former) may be deduced from our author's being a player, and forming himself firft 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 thofe 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 short point. Players are juft 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 afcribed to his wrong judgment as a poet, than to his right judgment as a player.

By thefe men it was thought a praife to Shakespeare, that he fcarce ever blotted a line. This they induftrioufly propaVOL. I.

[H]

gated,

gated, as appears from what we are told by Ben Jonfon in his Difcoveries, 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 groundiefs 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 the Sixth, which was first publifhed under the title of The Contention of York and Lancafter; and that of Henry the Fifth, extremely improved; that of Hamlet enlarged to almost 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 a praife 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 fmall part of them; the most are fuch as are not properly defects, but fuperfotations: and arife 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 thofe wants in others. As to a wrong choice of the fubject, a wrong conduct of the incidents, falfe thoughts, forced expreflions, &c. if these are not to be ascribed to the forefaid accidental reafons, they must be charged upon the poet himself, and there is no help for it. But I think the two difadvantages which I have mentioned (to be obliged to please the loweft of the people, and to keep the worst of company) if the confideration be extended as far as it reafonably may, will appear fufficient to mislead and deprefs the greateft 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 say fomething more: there is certainly 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 taste of natural philofophy, mechanicks, ancient and modern hiftory, poetical learning, and mythology: we find him very knowing in the customs, rites, and manners of antiquity. In Coriolanus and Julius Cafar, not only the fpirit, but manners, of the Romans are exactly drawn; and ftill a nicer diftinction is fhewn between

the

་

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 Jonfon's. The manners of other nations in general, the Egyptians, Venetians, French, &c. are drawn with equal propriety. Whatever object of nature, or branch of fcience, he either fpeaks of or defcribes; it is always with competent, if not extenfive knowledge: his defcriptions are ftill exact; all his metaphors appropriated, and remarkably drawn from the true nature and inherent qualities of each fubject. When he treats of ethick or politick, 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 laft particular) has not fhewn more learning this way than Shakespeare. We have tranflations from Ovid published in his name, among those poems which pafs for his, and for fome of which we have undoubted authority (being publifhed by himfelf, 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 ufe he has made of Chaucer in Troilus and Creffida, and in The Two Noble Kinfmen, 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 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 Jonfon; 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 Jonfon had much the more learning, it was faid on the one hand that Shakespeare had none at all; and because Shakefpeare had much the most wit and fancy, it was retorted on the other, that Jonfon wanted both. Becaufe Shakespeare

[H2]

borrowed

borrowed nothing, it was faid that Ben Jonfon borrowed every thing. Because Jonfon did not write extempore, he was reproached with being a year about every piece; and becaufe Shakespeare wrote with ease and rapidity, they cried, he never once made a blot. Nay, the fpirit of oppofition ran fo high, that whatever thofe of the one fide objected to the other, was taken at the rebound, and turned into praifes; as injudiciously, as their antagonists before had made them objections.

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

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

But however this contention might be carried on by the the partizans on either fide, I cannot help thinking these two great poets were good friends, and lived on amicable terms and in oflices of fociety with each other. It is an acknowledged fact, that Ben Jonfon was introduced upon the ftage, and his first works encouraged, by Shakespeare. And after his death, that author writes, To the memory of his beloved Mr. William Shakespeare, which fhews as if the friendfhip had continued through life. I cannot for my own part find any thing invidious or fparing in thofe verfes, but wonder Mr. Dryden was of that opinion. He exalts him not only above all his contemporaries, but above Chaucer and Spenfer, whom he will not allow to be great enough to be ranked with him; and challenges the names of Sophocles, Euripides, and Æfchyius, nay, all Greece and Rome at once, to equal him; and (which is very particular) exprefsly vindicates him from the imputation of wanting art, not enduring that all his excellencies fhould be attributed to nature. It is remarkable too, that the praife he gives him in his Discoveries feems to proceed from a perfonal kindness; he tells us, that he loved the man, as well as honoured his memory; celebrates the honeity, opennefs, and franknefs of his temper; and only diftinguifhes, as he reafonably ought, between the real merit of the author, and the filly and derogatory applaufes of the players. Ben Jonfon might indeed be sparing

in his commendations (though certainly he is not fo in this inftance) partly from his own nature, and partly from judgFor men of judgment think they do any man more fervice in praising him justly, than lavishly. I fay, I would fain believe they were friends, though the violence and illbreeding of their followers and flatterers were enough to give rife to the contrary report. I hope that it may be with parties, both in wit and state, as with those monsters described by the poets; and that their heads at least may have fomething human, though their bodies and tails are wild beafts and ferpents.

As I believe that what I have mentioned gave rife to the opinion of Shakespeare's want of learning; fo what has continued it down to us may have been the many blunders and illiteracies of the first publishers of his works. In thefe editions their ignorance fhines in almoft every page; nothing is more common than Aus tertia. Exit omnes. Enter three Witches folus. Their French is as bad as their Latin, both in construction and spelling: their very Welsh is falfe. Nothing is more likely than that thofe palpable blunders of Hector's quoting Ariftotle, with others of that grofs kind, fprung from the fame root: it not being at all credible that these could be the errors of any man who had the leaft tincture of a school, or the leaft conversation with fuch as had. Ben Jonfon (whom they will not think partial to him) allows him at least to have had fome Latin; which is utterly inconfiftent with mistakes like thefe. Nay, the conftant blunders in proper names of perfons and places, are fuch as muft have proceeded from a man, who had not fo much as read any history in any language: fo could not be Shakespeare's.

I fhall now lay before the reader fome of thofe almost innumerable errors, which have rifen from one fource, the ignorance of the players, both as his actors, and as his editors. When the nature and kinds of these are enumerated and confidered, I dare to say that not Shakespeare only, but Ariftotle or Cicero, had their works undergone the fame fate, might have appeared to want fenfe as well as learning.

*Enter three witches folus.] This blunder appears to be of Mr. Pope's own invention. It is not to be found in any one of the four folio copies of Macbeth, and there is no quarto edition of it extant, STEEVENS.