Another Caufe (and no less strong than the former) may be deduced from our Author's being a Player, and forming himself first 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 those of Aristotle. As they live by the Majority, they know no rule but that of pleafing the present humour, and complying with the wit in fashion; a confideration which brings all their judgment to a short point. Players are just 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 these Men it was thought a praise to Shakespear, that he scacre ever blotted a line. This they induftrioufly propagated, as appears from what we are told by Ben Johnson in his Discoveries, 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 groundlefs 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 History of Henry the 6th, which was first published under the title of the Contention of York and Lancaster; and that of Henry the 5th, 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 Praise by fome, and to this his Errors have as injudiciously been afcribed by others. 'tis certain, were it true, it could concern but a small part of them; the most are fuch as are not properly Defects, but Superfotations: and arife not from want of learning or reading, but from want of thinking or

For

judging:

judging: or rather (to be more juft to our Author) from a compliance to thofe wants in others. As to a wrong choice of the subject, a wrong conduct of the incidents, falfe thoughts, forc'd expreffions, &c. if these are not to be afcrib'd to the forefaid accidental reasons, they must be charg'd upon the Poet himself, and there is no help for it. But I think the two Difadvantages which I have mention'd (to be obliged to please the lowest of people, and to keep the worst of company) if the confideration be extended as far as it reasonably may, will appear fufficient to mislead and depress the greatest 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 something more: There is certainly a vast difference between Learning and Languages. How far he was ignorant of the latter, I cannot determine; but 'tis plain he had much Reading at leaft, 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 tafte 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 Cæfar, not only the Spirit, but Manners, of the Romans are exactly drawn, and still a nicer diftinction is fhown, between 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 speeches copy'd from Plutarch in Coriolanus may, I think, as well be made an inftance of his learning, as thofe copy'd from Cicero in Catiline, of Ben Jobnfou's. The manners of other nations in general,

b 2

neral, 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 defcriptions are still exact; all his metaphors appropriated, and remarkably drawn from the true nature and inherent qualities of each fubject. When he treats of Ethic or Politic, we may conftantly observe 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 Shakespear. We have Translations 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: (altho' 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 Johnson; 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 pro

bable,

bable, as that because Ben Johnson had much the more learning, it was faid on the one hand that ShakeSpear had none at all; and because Shakespear had much the most wit and fancy, it was retorted on the other, that Johnson wanted both. Because Shakespear bor-v rowed nothing, it was faid that Ben Johnson borrowed every thing. Because Johnson did not write extempore, he was reproached with being a year about every piece; and because Shakespear wrote with ease and rapidity, they cry'd, 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 Praises; as injudicioully, 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; those who escape one, often fall by the other. Peffimum genus inimicorum Laudantes, says Tacitus: and Virgil defires to wear a charm against those who praise a Poet with out rule or reason.

—Si ultra placitum laudârit, baccare frontem Cingito, ne Vati noceat

But however this contention might be carried on by the Partizans on either fide, I cannot help thinking these two great Poets were good friends, and lived on amicable terms and in offices of fociety with each other. It is an acknowledged fact, that Ben Johnson was introduced upon the Stage, and his firft works encouraged, by Shakespear. And after his death, that Author writes To the memory of his beloved Mr. William Shakespear, which fhows as if the friendship had continued thro' life. I cannot for my own part find any thing Invidious or Sparing in those verses, but wonder Mr. Dryden was of that opinion. He exalts

b 3

him

him not only above all his Contemporaries, but above Chaucer and Spenfer, whom he will not allow to be great enough to be rank'd with him; and challenges the names of Sophocles, Euripides, and Æfchylus, nay all Greece and Rome at once, to equal him; and (which is very particular) exprefly vindicates him from the imputation of wanting Art, not enduring that all his excellencies fhou'd be attributed to Nature. It is remarkable too, that the praise he gives him in his Difcoveries feems to proceed from a perfonal kindness; he tells us that he loy'd the man, as well as honoured his memory; celebrates the honefty, openness, and franknefs of his temper; and only diftinguishes, as he reafonably ought, between the real merit of the Author, and the filly and derogatory applauses of the Players. Ben Johnson might indeed be fparing in his Commendations (tho' certainly he is not fo in this inftance) partly from his own nature, and partly from judgment. For men of judgment think they do any man more fervice in praifing him juftly, than lavishly. I fay, I would fain believe they were Friends, tho' the violence and ill-breeding of their Followers and Flatterers were enough to give rife to the contrary report. I would hope that it may be with Parties, both in Wit and State, as with thofe Monsters defcribed by the Poets; and that their Heads at least may have fomething human, tho' their Bodies and Tails are wild beafts and ferpents.

As I believe that what I have mentioned gave rife to the opinion of Shakespear'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 almost every page; nothing is more common than Actus tertia. Exit omnes. Enter three Witches folus. Their French is as bad as their Latin, both in conftruction and fpelling: Their very Web is falfe.

Nothing