and perhaps wanted fome vifible and difcriminated events, as comments on the dialogue. He knew how he fhould moft pleafe; and whether his practice is more agreeable to nature, or whether his example has prejudiced the nation, we ftill find that on our stage fomething must be done as well as faid, and inactive declamation is very coldly heard, however mufical or elegant, paffionate or fublime.

Voltaire expreffes his wonder, that our authour's extravagancies are endured by a nation, which has feen the tragedy of Cato. Let him be answered, that Addison speaks the language of poets, and Shakefpeare, of men. We find in Cato innumerable beauties which enamour us of its authour, but we fee nothing that acquaints us with human fentiments or human actions; we place it with the fairest and the nobleft progeny which judgment propagates by conjunction with learning, but Othello is the vigorous and vivacious offspring of obfervation impregnated by genius. Cato affords a fplendid exhibition of artificial and fictitious manners, and delivers just and noble fentiments, in diction eafy, elevated and harmonious, but its hopes and fears communicate no vibration to the heart; the compofition refers us only to the writer; we pronounce the name of Cato, but we think on Addifon.

The work of a correct and regular writer is a garden accurately formed and diligently planted, varied with fhades, and fcented with flowers; the compofition of Shakespeare is a foreft, in which oaks extend

their branches, and pines tower in the air, interfperfed fometimes with weeds and brambles, and fometimes giving fhelter to myrtles and to rofes; filling the eye with awful pomp, and gratifying the mind with endless diverfity. Other poets difplay cabinets of precious rarities, minutely finished, wrought into fhape, and polifhed unto brightnefs. Shakespeare opens a mine which contains gold and diamonds in unexhaustible plenty, though clouded by incruftations, debased by impurities, and mingled with a mafs of meaner minerals.

It has been much difputed, whether Shakespeare owed his excellence to his own native force, or whether he had the common helps of fcholaftick education, the precepts of critical fcience, and the examples of ancient authours.

There has always prevailed a tradition, that ShakeSpeare wanted learning, that he had no regular education, nor much skill in the dead languages. Johnfon, his friend, affirms, that he had fmall Latin, and no Greek; who, befides that he had no imaginable temptation to falfehood, wrote at a time when the character and acquifitions of Shakespeare were known to multitudes. His evidence ought therefore to decide the controverfy, unless fome teftimony of equal force could be opposed.

Some have imagined, that they have discovered deep learning in many imitations of old writers; but the examples which I have known urged, were drawn from books tranflated in his time; or were

fuch

fuch eafy coincidencies of thought, as will happen to all who confider the fame fubjects; or fuch remarks on life or axioms of morality as float in converfation, and are tranfmitted through the world in proverbial fentences.

I have found it remarked, that, in this important fentence, Go before, I'll follow, we read a tranflation of, I prae, fequar. I have been told, that when Caliban, after a pleafing dream, fays, I cry'd to fleep again, the authour imitates Anacreon, who had, like every other man, the fame wifh on the fame occafion.

There are a few paffages which may pafs for imitations, but fo few, that the exception only confirms the rule; he obtained them from accidental quotations, or by oral communication, and as he ufed what he had, would have used more if he had obtained it.

The Comedy of Errors is confeffedly taken from the Menæchmi of Plautus; from the only play of Plautus which was then in English. What can be more probable, than that he who copied that, would have copied more; but that those which were not translated were inacceffible?

Whether he knew the modern languages is uncertain. That his plays have fome French fcenes proves but little; he might eafily procure them to be written, and probably, even though he had known the language in the cominon degree, he could not have written it without affistance. In the story of Romeo and Juliet he is obferved to have followed the English tranflation, where it deviates from the Ita

lian; but this on the other part proves nothing against his knowledge of the original. He was to copy, not what he knew himfelf, but what was known to his audience.

It is most likely that he had learned Latin fufficiently to make him acquainted with conftruction, but that he never advanced to an eafy perufal of the Roman authours. Concerning his fkill in modern languages, I can find no fufficient ground of determination; but as no imitations of French or Italian authours have been difcovered, though the Italian poetry was then high in efteem, I am inclined to believe, that he read little more than English, and chofe for his fables only fuch tales as he found tranflated.

That much knowledge is fcattered over his works is very juftly obferved by Pope, but it is often fuch knowledge as books did not fupply. He that will understand Shakespeare, muft not be content to study him in the clofet, he must look for his meaning fometimes among the fports of the field, and fometimes among the manufactures of the fhop.

There is however proof enough that he was a very diligent reader, nor was our language then fo indigent of books, but that he might very liberally indulge his curiofity without excurfion into foreign literature. Many of the Roman authours were tranflated, and fome of the Greek; the reformation had filled the kingdom with theological learning; most of the topicks of human difquifition had found Englifh writers; and poetry had been cultivated, not

only

only with diligence, but fuccefs. This was a ftock of knowledge fufficient for a mind fo capable of appropriating and improving it.

pro

But the greater part of his excellence was the duct of his own genius. He found the English ftage in a state of the utmost rudeness; no effays either in tragedy or comedy had appeared, from which it could be difcovered to what degree of delight either one or other might be carried. Neither character nor dialogue were yet understood. Shakespeare may be truly faid to have introduced them both amongst us, and in fome of his happier fcenes to have carried them both to the utmost height.

By what gradations of improvement he proceeded, is not easily known; for the chronology of his works is yet unfettled. Rowe is of opinion, that perhaps we are not to look for his beginning, like those of other writers, in his leaft perfect works; art bad fo little, and mature fo large a fhare in what he did, that for ought I know, fays he, the performances of his youth, as they were the most vigorous, were the best. But the power of nature is only the power of ufing to any certain purpose the materials which diligence procures, or opportunity fupplies. Nature gives no man knowledge, and when images are collected by ftudy and experience, can only affift in combining or applying them. Shakespeare, however favoured by nature, could impart only what he had learned; and as he muft increase his ideas, like other mortals, by gradual acquifition, he, like them, grew wifer as he