PREFACE

TO THE

Works of SHAKESPEAR.

I

T is not my design to enter into a criticism up

on this author; tho' to do it effectually and not fuperficially, would be the best occafion that any just writer could take, to form the judgment and taste of our nation. For of all English poets Shakespear must be confeffed to be the faireft and fullest fubject for criticism, and to afford the most numerous, as well as moft confpicuous inftances, both of beauties and faults of all forts. But this far exceeds the bounds of a Preface, the bufinefs of which is only to give an account of the fate of his works, and the difadvantages under which they have been transmitted to us. We fhall hereby extenuate many faults which are his, and clear him from the imputation of many which are not: A defign, which though it can be no guide to future criticks to do him juftice in one way, will at leaft be fufficient to prevent their doing him an injuftice in the other.

I cannot however but mention fome of his principal and characteristic excellencies, for which

(not

(notwithstanding his defects) he is juftly and univerfally elevated above all other dramatick Writers. Not that this is the proper place of praifing him, but because I would not omit any occafion of doing it.

If ever any author deserved the name of an Original, it was Shakespear. Homer himself drew not his art fo immediately from the fountains of Nature; it proceeded thro' Ægyptian ftrainers and channels, and came to him not without fome tincture of the learning, or fome caft of the models, of those before him. The poetry of Shakespear was infpiration indeed: he is not fo much an Imitator, as an Inftrument, of Nature; and 'tis not fo juft to fay that he speaks from her, as that she fpeaks thro' him.

His Chara&leas are fo much Nature herself, that 'tis a fort of injury to call them by fo diftant a name as copies of her. Those of other Poets have a conftant refemblance, which fhews that they received them from one another, and were but multipliers of the fame image: each picture like a mock-rainbow is but the reflexion of a reflexion. But every single character in Shakespear is as much an individual, as thofe in life itfelf; it is as impoffible to find any two alike; and fuch as from their relation or affinity in any respect appear moft to be twins, will upon comparifon be found remarkably diftinct. To this life and variety of character, we must add the wonderful prefervation of it; which is fuch throughout his Plays, that, had all the speeches been printed without the very names of the perfons, I believe one might have applied them with certainty to every fpeaker.

The Power over our Paffions was never poffefs'd in a more eminent degree, or difplayed in fo dif

ferent

ferent inftances. Yet all along, there is seen nộ Jabour, no pains to raise them; no preparation to guide our guefs to the effect, or be perceiv'd to lead toward it: But the heart fwells, and the tears burst out, just at the proper places: We are furprized the moment we weep; and yet upon reflection find the paffion fo juft, that we fhould be furprized if we had not wept, and wept at that very moment.

How aftonifhing is it again, that the Paffions directly oppofite to thefe, Laughter and Spleen, are no lefs at his command! that he is not more a mafter of the great than of the ridiculus in human nature; of our nobleft tendernefles, than of our vaineft foibles; of our strongest emotions, than of our idleft fenfations!

Nor does he only excel in the Paffions: in the coolness of Reflection and Reasoning he is full as admirable. His Sentiments are not only in general the moft pertinent and judicious upon every fubject; but by a talent very peculiar, fomething between penetration and felicity, he hits upon that particular point on which the bent of each argument turns. or the force of each motive depends. This is perfectly amazing, from a man of no education or experience in thofe great and publick fcenes of life which are ufually the fubject of his thoughts: So that he feems to have known the world by intuition, to have looked thro' human nature at one glance, and to be the only author that gives ground for a very new opinion, That the philofopher and even the man of the world, may be born, as well as the poet.

It must be owned that with all these great excellencies, he has almoft as great defects; and that he has certainly written better, fo he has perhaps written worfe, than any other. But I think

as

I

I can in fome measure account for thefe defects, from several caufes and accidents; without which it is hard to imagine that fo large and fo enlightened a mind could ever have been fufceptible of them. That all these contingencies fhould unite to his difadvantage feems to me almoft as fingularly unlucky, as that so many various (nay contrary) talents fhould meet in one man, was happy and extraordinary.

It must be allowed that Stage-poetry of all other, is more particularly levelled to please the populace, and its fuccefs more immediately depending upon the common fuffrage. One cannot therefore wonder, if Shakespear, having at his first appearance no other aim in his writings than to procure a fubfiftence, directed his endeavours folely to hit the taste and humour that then prevailed. The audience was generally compofed of the meaner fort of people; and therefore the images of life were to be drawn from those of their own rank accordingly we find, that not our author's only, but almost all the old comedies have their fcene among Tradefmen and Mechanicks: And even their hiftorical plays ftrictly follow the common old fories or vulgar traditions of that kind of people. In Tragedy, nothing was fo fure to furprize and caufe admiration, as the moft ftrange, unexpected, and confequently most unnatural, events and incidents; the moft exaggerated thoughts; the moft verbofe and bombaft expreffion; the most pompous rhymes, and thundering verfification. In Comedy, nothing was fo fure to please, as mean buffoonry, vile ribaldry, and unmannerly jefts of fools and clowns. Yet even in thefe, our author's wit buoys up, and is born above his fubject: his genius in thofe low parts is like fome prince of a romance in the difguife of a fhepherd or peasant;

a certain greatness and fpirit now and then break out, which manifeft his higher extraction and qualities.

It may be added, that not only the common audience had no notion of the rules of writing, but few even of the better fort piqued themselves upon any great degree of knowledge or nicety that way; 'till Ben Johnson, getting poffeffion of the ftage, brought critical learning into vogue: And that this was not done without difficulty, may appear from those frequent leffons (and indeed almost declamations) which he was forced to prefix to his firft plays, and put into the mouth of his actors, the Grex, Chorus, etc. to remove the prejudices, and inform the judgment of his hearers. 'Till then, our authors had no thoughts of writing on the model of the ancients: their Tragedies were only hiftories in dialogue; and their comedies followed the thread of any novel as they found it, no lefs implicitly than if it had been true hiftory.

To judge therefore of Shakespear by Ariftotle's rules, is like trying a man by the laws of one country, who acted under thofe of another. He writ to the people; and writ at firft without patronage from the better fort, and therefore without aims of pleafing them: without affiftance or advice from the learned, as without the advantage of education or acquaintance among them: without that knowledge of the beft models, the ancients, to infpire him with an emulation of them: in a word, without any views of reputation, and of what poets are pleased to call immortality: Some or all' of which have encouraged the vanity, or animated the ambition, of other writers.

Yet it must be obferved, that when his perfor mances had merited the protection of his prince,

4

and