find him very knowing in the customs, rites, and manners of antiquity. In "Coriolanus," and "Julius Cæsar," not only the spirit, but manners of the Romans are exactly drawn and still a nicer distinction is shown between the manner of the Romans in the time of the former, and of the latter. His reading in the ancient historians is no less conspicuous, in many references to particular passages: and the speeches copied from Plutarch in "Coriolanus " 1 may, I think, as well be made an instance of his learning, as those copied from Cicero in "Cataline," of Ben Jonson'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 science, he either speaks of or describes, it is always with competent, if not extensive knowledge: his descriptions are still exact: all his metaphors appropriate, and remarkably drawn from the true nature and inherent qualities of each subject.

When he treats of ethick or politick, we may constantly observe a wonderful justness of distinction, as well as extent of comprehension. No one is more a master of the political story, or has more frequent allusions to the various parts of it: Mr. Waller (who has been celebrated for this last particular) has not shown more learning this way than Shakespeare. We have translations from Ovid published in his name, among those poems which pass for his, and for some of which we have

1

Shakespeare used the translation of Sir Thomas North published in 1579, which was itself a translation not from the original but from a French version by Jacques Amyot, Bishop of Auxene.

undoubted authority (being published by himself, and dedicated to his noble patron the Earl of Southampton): he appears also to have been conversant in Plautus, from which he has taken the plot of one of his plays he follows the Greek authors, and particularly Dares Phrygius,3 in another (although I will not pretend to say in what language he read them). The modern Italian writers of novels he was manifestly acquainted with; and we may conclude him to be no less conversant with the ancients of his own country, for the use he has made of Chaucer in "Troilus and Cressida," 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 some of those 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 Jonson: as they endeavoured to exalt the one at the expense of the other. It is ever the nature of parties to be in extremes; and nothing is so probable, as that, because Ben Jonson had much the more learning, it was said, on the one hand that Shakespeare had none at all; and because Shakespeare had much the most wit and fancy, it was retorted on the other, that Jonson wanted both. Because Shakespeare borrowed nothing, it was said that Ben Jonson borrowed everything. Because Jonson did not write extempore, he was reproached with being a year about every piece; and because Shakespeare wrote with ease and rapidity,

"The Comedy of Errors," for which the "Menæchmi" and the
Amphitruo" of Plautus are considered as foundation plays.
"Troilus and Cressida."

they cried, he never once made a blot. Nay, the spirit of opposition ran so high, that whatsoever those of the one side 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 sure 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. Pessimum genus inimicorum laudantes, says Tacitus: and Virgil desires to wear a charm against those who praise a poet without rule or reason:

Si ultra placitum laudarit baccare frontem.
Cingite, ne vati noceat.

But however this contention might be carried on by the partizans on either side, I cannot help thinking these two great poets were good friends, and lived on amicable terms, and in offices of society with each other. It is an acknowledged fact that Ben Jonson was introduced upon the stage, and his first work encouraged, by Shakespeare; and after his death, that author writes, To the memory of his beloved William Shakespeare which shews as if the relationship had continued through life. I cannot, for my own part, find anything invidious or sparing in those verses, but wonder Mr. Dryden was of that opinion. He exalts him not only above all his contemporaries, but above Chaucer and Spenser, whom he will not allow to be great enough to be ranked with him, and challenges the names of Sophocles, Euripides, and Æschylus, nay all Greece and Rome at once, to equal him; and (which is very particular) expressly vindicates him from the imputation

of wanting art, not enduring that all his excellences should be attributed to nature. It is remarkable, too, that the praise he gives him in his "Discoveries " seems to proceed from a personal kindness; he tells us, that he loved the man, as well as honoured his memory; celebrates the honesty, openness, and frankness of his temper; and only distinguishes, as he reasonably ought, between the real merit of the author, and the silly and derogatory applauses of the players. Ben Jonson might indeed be sparing in his commendations (though certainly he is not so in this instance), partly from his own nature, and partly from judgment. For men of judgment think they do any man more service in praising him justly, than lavishly. I say, I would fain believe they were friends though the violence and ill-breeding of their followers and flatterers, were enough to give rise 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 something human, though their bodies and tails are wild beasts and serpents.

As I believe that what I have mentioned gave rise to the opinion of Shakespeare's want of learning; so what has continued it down to us may have been the many blunders and illiteracies of the first publishers of his works. In these editions their ignorance shines almost in every page; nothing is more common than actus tertia. Exit omnes. Enter three Witches solus.* Their French is as bad as their Latin, both in con

•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.-Note by Geo. Steevens.

struction and spelling: their very Welsh is false. Nothing is more likely than that those palpable blunders of Hector's quoting Aristotle, with others of that gross kind, sprung from the same root: it not being at all credible that these could be the errors of any man who had the least tincture of a school, or the least conversation with such as had. Ben Jonson (whom they will not think partial to him) allows him at least to have had some Latin; which is utterly inconsistent with mistakes like these. Nay, the constant blunders in proper names of persons and places are such as must have proceeded from a man, who had not so much as read any history in any language: so could not be Shakespeare's.

I shall now lay before the reader some of those almost innumerable errors, which have arisen from one source, the ignorance of the players, both as his actors, and as his editors.

When the nature and kinds of these are enumerated and considered, I dare to say that not Shakespeare only, but Aristotle or Cicero, had their works undergone the same fate, might have appeared to want sense as well a learning.

It is not certain that any one of his plays was published by himself. During the time of his employment in the theatres, several of his pieces were printed separately in Quarto. What makes me think that most of these were not published by him, is the excessive carelessness of the press: every page is so scandalously false spelled, and almost all the learned or unusual words so intolerably mangled, that it is plain there either was no corrector to the press at all, or one totally illiterate. If any were supervised by himself, I should