"named by you and first in fame as well as "time: It would be madness in me to "think of bringing any poet now living into "competition with Shakespear; but I hope "it will not be thought madness, or any "thing resembling to it, to obferve to you, that it is not in the nature of

things poffible for any poet to appear "in an age fo polifhed as this of our's, "who can be brought into any critical comparison with that extraordinary and "eccentric genius.

“For let us confider the two great striking "features of his drama, fublimity and cha"racter. Now fublimity involves fentiment "and expreffion; the firft of these is in the "foul of the poet; it is that portion of in

spiration, which we perfonify when we call "it the Mufe; fo far I am free to acknow"ledge there is no immediate reason to be given, why her vifits should be confined to

any age, nation or perfon; fhe may fire the "heart of the poet on the fhores of Ionia "three thousand years ago, or on the banks

of the Cam or Ifis at the prefent mo"ment; but fo far as language is concerned, "I may venture to say that modern diction

" will never strike modern ears with that aw“ful kind of magic, which antiquity gives "to words and phrafes no longer in familiar “ use: In this respect our great dramatic poet “ hath an advantage over his distant defcen"dants, which he owes to time, and which "of course is one more than he is indebted "for to his own pre-eminent genius. As for "character, which I fuggefted as one of the "two most striking features of Shakespear's "drama, (or in other words the true and

66

perfect delineation of nature), in this our 66 poet is indeed a master unrivalled; yet who "will not allow the happy coincidence of "time for this perfection in a writer of the "drama? The different orders of men,' "which Shakespear faw and copied, are in 66 many inftances extinct, and fuch muft "have the charms of novelty at least in our 66 eyes: And has the modern dramatist the "fame rich and various field of character? "The level manners of a polished age fur"nifh little choice to an author, who now "enters on the task, in which fuch numbers "have gone before him, and fo exhausted "the materials, that it is juftly to be won"dered at, when any thing like variety can

"be ftruck out.

66

Dramatic characters are

pourtraits drawn from nature, and if all "the fitters have a family likeness, the artist "muft either depart from the truth, or pre"ferve the refemblance; in like manner

the poet muft either invent characters, of "which there is no counterpart in existence, "or expose himself to the danger of an 'infipid and tiresome repetition: To add to "his difficulties it fo happens, that the pre"fent age, whilft it furnishes less variety to "his choice, requires more than ever for it's

own amusement; the dignity of the stage "muft of course be proftituted to the un"natural resources of a wild imagination, "and it's propriety disturbed; mufic will "supply those resources for a time, and ac66 cordingly we find the French and English "theatres in the dearth of character feeding "upon the airy diet of found; but this, "with all the fupport that spectacle can give, is but a flimfy fubftitute, whilft the

public whofe tafte in the mean time becomes vitiated

-media inter carmina pofcunt

Aut Urfum aut Pugiles-

"the latter of which monftrous prostitu"tions we have lately seen our national stage "most shamefully exposed to.

66

By comparing the different ages of poetry in our own country with those of "Greece, we fhall find the effects agree in "each; for as the refinement of manners "took place, the language of poetry be

came alfo more refined, and with greater "correctness had lefs energy and force; the "ftile of the poet, like the characters of the

people, takes a brighter polish, which, "whilst it smooths away it's former afperi"ties and protuberances, weakens the ftaple of it's fabric, and what it gives to the

elegance and delicacy of it's complexion, "takes away from the ftrength and sturdi"nefs of it's conftitution. Whoever will compare Æfchylus with Euripides, and Ariftophanes with Menander, will need no other illuftration of this reinark.

"Confider only the inequalities of Shakefpear's dramas; examine not only one "with another, but compare even scene "with scene in the fame play: Did ever the imagination of man run riot into fuch "wild and oppofite extremes? Could this be

done, or, being done, would it be suffered "in the prefent age? How many of these plays, if acted as they were originally writ

ten, would now be permitted to pass? "Can we have a stronger proof of the bar"barous taste of thofe times, in which Ti"tus Andronicus first appeared, than the favour which that horrid fpectacle was "received with? yet of this we are affured by Ben Jonfon. If this play was Shakefpear's, it was his firft production, and fome "of his beft commentators are of opinion "it was actually written by him, whilst he "refided at Stratford upon Avon. Had this production been followed by the three

66

parts of Henry the Sixth, by Love's La"bour Loft, the two Gentlemen of Verona, "the Comedy of Errors, or fome few others, "which our stage does not attempt to re"form, that critic must have had a very

fingular degree of intuition, who had dif "covered in thofe dramas a genius capable "of producing the Macbeth. How would "a young author be received in the present "time, who was to make his first essay be"fore the public with such a piece as Titus "Andronicus? Now if we are warranted

2

❝ in

1