though Theobald declares it inconteftible, I fee no reafon for believing.

The teftimony produced at the beginning of this play, by which it is afcribed to Shakespeare, is by no means equal to the argument against its authenticity, arifing from the total difference of conduct, language, and fentiments, by which it stands apart from all the reft. Meres had probably no other evidence than that of a title-page, which, though in our time it be fufficient, was then of no great authority; for all the plays which were rejected by the first collectors of Shakespeare's works, and admitted in later editions, and again rejected by the critical editors, had Shakespeare's name on the title, as we must suppose, by the fraudulence of the printers, who, while there were yet no gazettes, nor advertisements, nor any means of circulating literary intelligence, could ufurp at pleafure any celebrated name. Nor had Shakespeare any interest in detecting the imposture, as none of his fame or profit was produced by the prefs.

The chronology of this play does not prove it not to be Shakespeare's. If it had been written twentyfive years in 1614, it might have been written when Shakespeare was twenty-five years old. When he left Warwickshire I know not; but at the age of twenty-five it was rather too late to fly for deerftealing.

Ravenscroft, who in the reign of Charles II. revised this play, and restored it to the stage, tells us, in his preface, from a theatrical tradition, I suppose, which in his time might be of fufficient authority, that this play was touched in different parts by Shakespeare,

Y 4

Shakespeare, but written by fome other poet. I co not find Shakespeare's touches very difcernible.

TROILUS AND CRESSIDA.

This play is more correctly written than most of Shakespeare's compofitions, but it is not one of thofe in which either the extent of his views or elevation of his fancy is fully difplayed. As the ftory abounded with materials, he has exerted little invention; but he has diverfified his characters with great variety, and preferved them with great exactness. His vicious characters fometimes difguft, but cannot corrupt, for both Creffida and Pandarus are detefted and contemned. The comick characters feem to have been the favourites of the writer; they are of the fuperficial kind, and exhibit more of manners than nature; but they are copioufly filled, and powerfully impreffed.

Shakespeare has in his story followed for the greater part the old book of Caxton, which was then very popular; but the character of Therfites, of which it makes no mention, is a proof that this play was written after Chapman had published his version of Homer.

CYMBELINE,

This play has many juft fentiments, fome natural dialogues, and fome pleafing fcenes, but they are obtained at the expence of much incongruity. To ren ark the folly of the fiction, the abfurdity of the conduct, the confufion of the names, and manners of different times, and the impoffibility of the events in any system of life, were to waite criticism upon

unrefiiting

unrefifting imbecility, upon faults too evident for detection, and too grofs for aggravation.

KING LEAR.

The tragedy of Lear is defervedly celebrated among the dramas of Shakespeare. There is perhaps no play which keeps the attention fo ftrongly fixed; which fo much agitates our paffions, and interefts our curiofity. The artful involutions of diftinct interefts, the striking oppofition of contrary characters, the fudden changes of fortune, and the quick fucceffion of events, fill the mind with a perpetual tumult of indignation, pity, and hope. There is no fcene which does not contribute to the aggravation of the diftrefs or conduct of the action, and fcarce a line which does not conduce to the progrefs of the scene. So powerful is the current of the poet's imagination, that the mind, which once ventures within it, is hurried irresistibly along.

On the feeming improbability of Lear's conduct, it may be observed, that he is reprefented according to histories at that timẹ vulgarly received as true. And, perhaps, if we turn our thoughts upon the barbarity and ignorance of the age to which this story is referred, it will appear not fo unlikely as while we eftimate Lear's manners by our own. Such preference of one daughter to another, or refignation of dominion on fuch conditions, would be yet credible, if told of a petty prince of Guinea or Madagafcar. Shakespeare, indeed, by the mention of his earls and dukes, has given us the idea of times. more civilized, and of life regulated by fofter man

ners;

ners; and the truth is, that though he fo nicely difcriminates, and fo minutely defcribes the characters of men, he commonly neglects and confounds the characters of ages, by mingling cuftoms ancient and modern, English and foreign.

My learned friend Mr. Warton, who has in the Adventurer very minutely criticifed this play, remarks, that the inftances of cruelty are too favage and fhocking, and that the intervention of Edmund deftroys the fimplicity of the story. Thefe objections may, I think, be answered, by repeating, that the cruelty of the daughters is an hiftorical fact, to which the poet has added little, having only drawn it into a feries by dialogue and action. But I an not able to apologize with equal plaufibility for the extrusion of Glofter's eyes, which feems an act too horrid to be endured in dramatic exhibition, and fuch as must always compel the mind to relieve its diftrefs by incredulity. Yet let it be remembered that our author well knew what would pleafe the audience for which he wrote.

The injury done by Edmund to the fimplicity of the action is abundantly recompenfed by the addition of variety, by the art with which he is made to co-operate with the chief defign, and the opportunity which he gives the poet of combining perfidy with perfidy, and connecting the wicked fon with the wicked daughters, to imprefs this important moral, that villany is never at a flop, that crimes lead to crimes, and at laft terminate in ruin.

But though this moral be incidentally enforced, Seake pare has fuffered the virtue of Cordelia to Perth in a just caufe, contrary to the natural ideas

of

of justice, to the hope of the reader, and, what is yet more strange, to the faith of chronicles. Yet this conduct is juftified by The Spectator, who blames Tate for giving Cordelia fuccefs and happiness in his alteration, and declares, that, in his opinion, the tragedy has loft half its beauty. Dennis has remarked, whether juftly or not, that, to fecure the favourable reception of Cato, the town was poisoned with much falfe and abominable criticifm, and that endeavours had been used to difcredit and decry poetical juftice. A play in which the wicked profper, and the virtuous mifcarry, may doubtlefs be good, because it is a just representation of the common events of human life: but fince all reasonable beings naturally love justice, I cannot eafily be perfuaded, that the obfervation of juftice makes a play worse; or, that if other excellencies are equal, the audience will not always rife better pleafed from the final triumph of perfecuted virtue.

In the prefent cafe the publick has decided. Cordelia, from the time of Tate, has always retired with victory and felicity. And, if my fenfations could add any thing to the general fuffrage, I might relate, I was many years ago fo fhocked by Cordelia's death, that I know not whether I ever endured to read again the last scenes of the play till I undertook to revife them as an editor.

There is another controverfy among the criticks concerning this play. It is difputed whether the predominant image in Lear's difordered mind be the lofs of his kingdom or the cruelty of his daughters. Mr. Murphy, a very judicious critick, has evinced by induction of particular paffages, that the cruelty of