[ 35 ] 



feems to have overlooked this principal view in queft of fubtlc 

 imprefTions ; and while we are enjoying the feail of wit and 

 humour, he is refining. Had Shakefpear fometimes violated 

 decorum a little to attain his end, we might excufe him for the 

 entertainment he affords: bnt I am far from admitting this; and 

 have attempted to maintain, through my remarks, that the new 

 theory is more deferving of the charge. My next refledion 

 goes upon a difficulty ftarted by the writer upon the ufual judg- 

 ment of Falftaff''s charader. " There is fomething flrangely 

 " incongruous," fays he, " in our difcourfe and afFedions con- 

 " cerning him. We all like old Jack ; yet by fome ftrange 

 " perverfe fate, we all abufe him and deny him the pofl"efiIon 

 " of any one good or refpedable quality. There is fomething 

 " extraordinary in this. It muft be a ftrange art in Shakefpear 

 " which can draw our liking toward fo ofFenfive an objed. He 

 " has wit, it will be faid, chearfulnefs and humour of the mofl 

 " charaderiftic fort. And is this enough.? Is the humour and 

 " gaiety of vice fo very captivating.? Or does not the apparancy 

 " of fuch humour, and the flafhes of fuch wit, by more flrongly 

 " difclofing the deformity of charader, but the more effedually 

 " excite our hatred and contempt of the man f" 



This reafoning, carried to its full extent, would prove one of 

 thefe two things, either that Falflaff was not a man of vicious 

 morals, or that his wit and humour were not entertaining : but 

 both are fo palpably abfurd, that the critic qualifies the general 

 afTertion in this manner. " I am willing, however, to admit 

 " that if a dramatic writer will but preferve to any charader 

 " the qualities of a ftrong mind, particularly courage and ability, 



( E 2 ) "it 



