[ 40 ] 



feems to afford the nobleft field in which the critic can try his 

 ftrength ; and of all dramatic poets Shakefpear is entitled to 

 peculiar attention. For the drama, as it is a reprefentation of 

 adions and charaders adapted to intereft the pafTions, depends 

 wholly for fiiccefs on its conformity with nature. And the 

 excellence of Shakefpear is the refult not of art or ftudy (which 

 in their clofeft imitations of nature may be ftill perceived to 

 imitate) but of intuitive perception. In him, indeed, nature 

 fpeaks. Nature, like a vital principle, animates his fcene ; it is 

 nature alone that gives to his carelefs efFufions, amidft all their 

 blemifhes, that fecret charm which feizes the heart, while more 

 correal produdlions are regarded with indifference. The eye is 

 quickly fatiated with the fmooth lawn or regular parterre ; but 

 will dwell with delight on the woods, the rocks and torrents of 

 the uncultivated wafte. 



Hence it is, that to reli/h Shakefpear's beauties may be 

 regarded as the criterion of an vmdepraved tajie ; to analize them, 

 of critical abilities. And with critics of all fizes Shakefpear has 

 abounded, from the voluminous editor to the weekly effayifl. 

 Whether he has been as fortunate in the kind as in the number 

 of his critics, I acknowledge myfelf incompetent to decide. 

 Among the various editions of his dramatic works I can boaft 

 an acquaintance with but one: the joint edition of a poet and 

 a fcholar. All the modern commentators are known to me only 

 by their names, and reputation for literary talents. Had I 

 enjoyed the advantage of their writings, doubtlefs I flaould now 

 have no occafion to complain that in the poet and the fcholar 

 I have too often fought in vain for the critic ; while the one is 



content 



I 



