that Shakspeare had none at all; and because Shakspeare had much the most wit and fancy, it was retorted on the other that Jonson wanted both. Ben Jonson is only known at the present day by his Fox and his Alchymist.*

Pope displayed more impartiality in his criticisms. "Of all English poets," says he, "Shakspeare must be confessed to be the fairest and fullest subject for criticism, and to afford the most numerous, as well as most conspicuous instances, both of beauties and faults of all sorts."

If Pope had abided by this judgment, he would have deserved praise for his moderation; but soon afterwards he is hurried away by the prejudices of his country, and extols Shakspeare above every genius ancient and modern. He

*Surely at present better known by Every Man in his Humour than any of the pieces mentioned by the author. The Fox is never performed, and the Alchymist, which Garrick reduced to a farce, under the title of the Tobacconist, for the purpose of displaying his own inimitable powers in the character of Abel Drugger, has been also laid on the shelf, none of our modern performers having attempted that part except Mr. Emery. The great actor of the present day, however, Mr. Kean is about to appear in the character.-EDITOR.

he, 66

goes so far as even to excuse the lowness of some characters in the English poet by this ingenious comparison. "In these cases," says Shakspeare's genius is like some prince of a romance in the disguise of a shepherd or peasant; a certain greatness of spirit now and then breaks out, which manifest his higher extraction and qualities."*

* M. de Chateaubriand has here been guilty of a great oversight, for I will not suppose that he has wilfully perverted Pope's meaning to support his own philippic against our immortal bard. He seems to think that the above quotation was made upon tragedy, whereas it was made upon comedy, and every one must be aware that strictures upon the one are very unlikely to be just as to the other. That the reader may judge for himself I will quote the whole passage from Pope. "In tragedy," says he, "nothing was so sure to surprise and cause admiration, as the most strange, unexpected, and consequently most unnatural events and incidents; the most exaggerated thoughts; the most verbose and bombast expressions; the most pompous rhimes, and thundering versifications. In comedy, nothing was so sure to please as mean buffoonery, vile ribaldry, and unmannerly jests of fools and clowns. Yet even in these our author's wit buoys up, and is borne above his subject; his genius in those low parts is like some prince of a romance in the dis

Theobald and Sir Thomas Hanmer follow in their turn. Their admiration is without bounds. They attack Pope for having made some trifling corrections in the works, of the great poet. The celebrated Dr. Warburton, who undertook the defence of his friend, informs us that Mr. Theobald was a poor man, and Sir Thomas Hanmer a poor critic; that he gave money to the former, and notes to the latter. Even the good sense and discrimination of Dr. Johnson seems to forsake him when he speaks of Shakspeare. He reproaches Rymer and Voltaire for having said that the English tragic poet does not sufficiently preserve a verisimilitude of manners-that Shakspeare's Romans are not sufficiently Roman, and his kings not completely royal. "These," says he, "are the petty cavils guise of a shepherd or peasant; a certain greatness and spirit now and then break out, which manifest his higher extraction and qualities." Surely Pope distinctly alludes, in these last lines, to comedy. As an excuse for the introduction of low parts among those of a graver cast, he merely says that Shakspeare "writ to the people," that" the audience was generally composed of the meaner sort," and that he was obliged to hit the taste and humour of the times, in order to gain a subsis tence.-EDITOR.

of petty minds. A poet overlooks the casual distinctions of country and condition, as a painter, satisfied with the figure, neglects the drapery." It is useless to descant upon the bad taste and falsity of this criticism. The verisimilitude of manners, far from being the drapery, is the leading feature of the picture itself. All those critics, who incessantly dwell on nature, regarding the "casual distinction of country and condition" as prejudices of the art, are like those politicians who plunge states into barbarity, by wishing to annihilate social distinctions.

I will not enter into the opinions of Rowe, Steevens, Gildon, Dennis, Peck, Garrick, &c. Mrs. Montague has surpassed them all in point of enthusiasm. Hume and Blair are the only persons, who keep within tolerable bounds. Sherlock has dared to say (and it required courage even for an Englishman to go so far) that there is nothing in Shakspeare, which can be called mediocrity; that all he has written is either excellent or detestable; that he never followed nor even conceived a plan, excepting, perhaps, that of the Merry Wives of Windsor; but that

he often writes a scene very well. This critique very nearly approaches the truth.

Mr. Mason, in his Elfrida and Caractacus, has tried, but without success, to transplant the tragedy of Greece into England. The Cato of Addison is now hardly ever played. At the Theatres of Great Britain the audience is only diverted by the monstrosities of Shakspeare, or the horrors of Otway.

Were we contented to speak vaguely of Shakspeare, without deliberately weighing the question, and without reducing criticism to some particular points, we should never arrive at any proper explanation; for by thus confounding the age in which he wrote with the genius of the individual, and the dramatic art itself, every one might praise or censure the father of the English Theatre according to his inclinations. It appears to us that Shakspeare should be considered with reference to all the three points, which I have just stated.

First, then as to the age in which he lived, Shakspeare cannot be very much admired. He was perhaps superior to his cotemporary Lope