As the conduct of Prince Henry in the firft inftance, the fecret and mental reflections in the cafe of Profpero, and the inftant detour of Lear from the violence of rage to a temper of reasoning, do so much honour to that surprising knowledge of human nature, which is certainly our author's masterpiece, I thought, they could not be fet in too good a light. Indeed, to point out, and exclaim upon, all the beauties of Shakefpeare, as they come fingly in review, would be as infipid, as endlefs; as tedious, as unneceffary: But the explanation of those beauties, that are lefs obvious to common readers, and whofe illuftration depends on the rules of just criticism, and an exact knowledge of human life, fhould defervedly have a fhare in a general critic upon the author. I fhall difmifs the examination into thefe his latent beauties, when I have made a fhort comment upon a remarkable paffage from Julius Cafar, which is inexpreffibly fine in itself, and greatly difcovers our Author's knowledge and researches into nature. Between the acting of a dreadful thing, It has been allowed on all hands, how far our author was indebted to nature: it is not fo well agreed, how much he owed to languages and acquired learning. The decifions on this fubject were certainly fet on foot by the hint from Ben Johnson, that he had small Latin and less Greek : And from this tradition, as it were, Mr. Rowe has thought fit peremptorily to declare, that, "It is "without controverfy, he had no knowledge of "the writings of the ancient poets, for that in his "works we find no traces of any thing which looks like an imitation of the ancients. For the "delicacy of his tafte (continues he,) and the "natural bent of his own great genius (equal, "if not superior, to fome of the best of theirs ;) "would certainly have led him to read and study. "them with so much pleasure, that fome of their "fine images would naturally have infinuated "themselves into, and been mixed with, his own "writings fo that his not copying, at least, "fomething from them, may be an argument of "his never having read them." I fhall leave it to the determination of my learned readers, from the numerous paffages, which I have occafionally quoted in my notes, in which our Poet seems closely to have imitated the claffics, whether Mr. Rowe's affertion be so absolutely to be depended on. The refult of the controversy must certainly, either way, terminate to our Author's honour; how happily he could imitate them, if that point be allowed; or how gloriously he could think like them, without owing any thing to imi tation. Tho' 1 fhould be very unwilling to allow Shakespeare so poor a fcholar, as many have laboured to represent him, yet I fhall be very cautious of declaring too pofitively on the other fide of the question: that is, with regard to my opinion of his knowledge in the dead languages. And therefore the paffages, that I occafionally quote from the claffics, fhall not be urged as proofs that he knowingly imitated those originals; but brought to fhew how happily he has expreffed himself upon the fame topicks. A very learned critick of our own nation has declared, that a fameness of thought and famenefs of expreffion too, in two Writers of a different age, can hardly happen, without a violent suspicion of the latter copying from his predeceffor. I shall not therefore run any great rifque of a cenfure, tho' I fhall venture to hint, that the refemblance, in thought and expreffion, of our author and an ancient (which we should allow to be imitation in one, whose learning was not queftioned) may fometimes take its rife from strength of memory, and those impreffions which he owed to the school. And if we may allow a poffibility of this, confidering that, when he quitted the school, he gave into his father's profeffion and way of living, and had, 'tis likely, but a flender library of claffical learning and confidering what a number of translations, romances, and legends, started about his time, and a little before; (most of which, 'tis very evident, he read ;) I think, it may easily be reconciled, why he rather fchemed his plots and characters from thefe more latter informations, than went back to those fountains, for which he might entertain a fincere veneration, but to which he could not have fo ready a recoùrfe. In touching on another part of his learning as it related to the knowledge of history and books, I shall advance fomething, that, at first fight, will very much wear the appearance of a paradox. For I fhall find it no hard matter to prove,. that from the groffeft blunders in hiftory, we are not to infer his real ignorance of it: Nor from a greater use of Latin words, than ever any other English author used, must we infer his knowledge of that language. A reader of taste may eafily obferve, that tho? Shakespeare, almost in every scene of his historical plays, commits the groffeft offences against chronology, history, and ancient politicks; yet this was not thro' ignorance, as is generally supposed, but thro' the too powerful blaze of his imagination; which, when once raised, made all acquired knowledge vanish and difappear before it. For instance, in his Timon, he turns Athens, which was a perfect Democracy, into an Ariftocracy; while he ridiculously gives a fenator the power of banishing Alcibiades. On the contrary, in Goriolanus, he makes Rome, which at that time was a perfect, Ariftocracy, a Democracy full as ridiculously, by making the people choose Coriolanus conful: Whereas, in fact, it was not till the time of Manlius Torquatus, that the people had a right of choofing one conful. But this licence in him, as I have said, muft not be imputed to ignorance: fince as often we may find him, when occafion ferves, reasoning up to the truth of hiftory; and throwing out fentiments as juftly adapted to the circumstances of his fubject, as to the dignity of his characters, or dictates of nature in general. Then, to come to his knowledge of the Latin tongue, 'tis certain, there is a furprising effufion of Latin words made English, far more than in any one English Author I have feen; but we muft be cautious to imagine, this was of his own doing. For the English tongue, in his age, began extremely to fuffer by an inundation of Latin; and to be overlaid, as it were, by its nurfe, when it had just began to speak by her before-prudent. care and affiftance. And this, to be fure, was occafioned by the pedantry of those two monarchs, Elizabeth and James, both great Latinifts. For it is not to be wondered at, if both the court and schools, equal flatterers of power, should adapt themselves to the royal tafte. This, then, was the condition of the English tongue when ShakeSpeare took it up: like a beggar in a rich wardrobe, He found the pure native English too cold and poor to fecond the heat and abundance of his imagination: and therefore was forced to dress it up in the robes, he faw provided for it: rich in them |