friends, who, if you need, can bee your guides: if you neede them not, you can leade yourselves, and others. And fuch readers we with him.

JOHN HEMINGE,

HENRY CONDELL.

MR. POPE'S

PREFACE.

IT is not my defign to enter into a criticism

this author; though to do it effectually, and not fuperficially, would be the beft occafion that any juft writer could take, to form the judgment and taste of our nation. For of all English poets Shakspeare must be confeffed to be the fairest and fulleft fubject for criticism, and to afford the most numerous, as well as most confpicuous inftances, both of beauties and faults of all forts. But this far exceeds the bounds of a preface, the business of which is only to give an account of the fate of his works, and the difadvantages under which they have been tranfmitted to us. We fhall hereby extenuate many faults which are his, and clear him from the imputation of many which are not: a defign, which, though it can be no guide to future criticks to do him juftice in one way, will at least be fufficient to prevent their doing him an injustice in the other.

I cannot however but mention fome of his principal and characteristick excellencies, for which

(notwithstanding his defects) he is juftly and univerfally elevated above all other dramatick writers. Not that this is the proper place of praising him, but because I would not omit any occafion of doing it.

If ever any author deferved the name of an original, it was Shakspeare. Homer himself drew not his art fo immediately from the fountains of nature, it proceeded through Egyptian ftrainers and channels, and came to him not without fome tincture of the learning, or fome caft of the models, of those before him. The poetry of Shakspeare was infpiration indeed: he is not fo much an imitator, as an inftrument, of nature; and it is not fo juft to fay that he speaks from her, as that the fpeaks through him.

His characters are fo much nature herself, that it is a fort of injury to call them by fo diftant a name as copies of her. Thofe of other poets have a conftant resemblance, which fhews that they received them from one another, and were but multipliers of the fame image: each picture, like a mockrainbow, is but the reflection of a reflection. But every fingle character in Shakspeare is as much an individual, as thofe in life itfelf; it is as impoffible to find any two alike; and fuch as from their relation or affinity in any refpect appear moft to be twins, will, upon comparifon, be found remarkably diftinct. To this life and variety of character, we must add the wonderful preservation of it; which is fuch throughout his plays, that had all the fpeeches been printed without the very names of the perfons, I believe one might have applied them with certainty to every speaker.

The power over our paffions was never poffeffed in a more eminent degree, or displayed in fo different inftances. Yet all along, there is feen no

labour, no pains to raise them; no preparation to guide our guess to the effect, or be perceived to lead toward it: but the heart fwells, and the tears burst out, just at the proper places: we are furprifed the moment we weep; and yet upon reflection find the paffion so juft, that we should be furprised if we had not wept, and wept at that very

moment.

How astonishing is it again, that the paffions directly oppofite to thefe, laughter and spleen, are no lefs at his command! that he is not more a mafter of the great than of the ridiculous in human nature; of our nobleft tenderneffes, than of our vaineft foibles; of our ftrongest emotions, than of our idleft fenfations!

Nor does he only excel in the paffions: in the coolness of reflection and reafoning he is full as admirable. His fentiments are not only in general the most pertinent and judicious upon every fubject; but by a talent very peculiar, fomething between penetration and felicity, he hits upon that particular point on which the bent of each argument turns, or the force of each motive depends. This is perfectly amazing, from a man of no edution or experience in those great and publick scenes of life which are ufually the fubject of his thoughts: fo that he seems to have known the world by intuition, to have looked through human nature at one glance, and to be the only author that gives ground for a very new opinion, that the philofopher, and even the man of the world, may be born, as well as the poet.

It must be owned, that with all these great excellencies, he has almost as great defects; and that as he has certainly written better, fo he has perhaps written worse, than any other. But I think I can

feveral causes and accidents; without which it is hard to imagine that fo large and fo enlightened a mind could ever have been fufceptible of them. That all these contingencies fhould unite to his difadvantage feems to me almoft as fingularly unlucky, as that fo many various (nay contrary) talents should meet in one man, was happy and extraordi

nary.

It must be allowed that ftage-poetry, of all other, is more particularly levelled to please the populace, and its fuccefs more immediately depending upon the common fuffrage. One cannot therefore wonder, if Shakspeare, having at his first appearance no other aim in his writings than to procure a fubfiftence, directed his endeavours folely to hit the taste and humour that then prevailed. The audience was generally compofed of the meaner fort of people; and therefore the images of life were to be drawn from those of their own rank: accordingly we find, that not our author's only, but almoft all the old comedies have their fcene among tradefmen and mechanicks: and even their hiftorical plays ftrictly follow the common old ftories or vulgar traditions of that kind of people. In tragedy, nothing was fo fure to furprize and caufe admiration, as the most strange, unexpected, and confequently most unnatural, events and incidents; the most exaggerated thoughts; the moft verbose and bombaft expreffion; the most pompous rhymes, and thundering verfification. In comedy, nothing was fo fure to please, as mean buffoonery, vile ribaldry, and unmannerly jefts of fools and clowns. Yet even in these our author's wit buoys up, and is borne above his fubject: his genius in thofe low parts is like fome prince of a romance in the difguife of a fhepherd or peasant; a certain greatness and fpirit

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 themselves upon any great degree of knowledge or nicety that way; till Ben Jonfon getting poffeffion of the ftage, brought critical learning into vogue: and that this was not done without difficulty, may appear from those frequent leffons (and indeed almost declamations) which he was forced to prefix to his first plays, and put into the mouth 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 history.

To judge therefore of Shakspeare by Ariftotle's rules, is like trying a man by the laws of one coun-try, 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 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 pleased to call immortality: fome 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