100 



hands, but which was assigned to him, to that which 

 could not be so bestowed. It has seemed to me that 

 the dramatic poet was in the condition, in reference 

 to the Elizabethan age, that a sculptor was to the 

 Georgian era. He appealed directly and chiefly to a select 

 few, whose judgments not infallible, were easily satisfied. 

 Like an orator, an improvisatore, a sculptor, or a painter ; 

 and not like a modern literary man who knows that every 

 word will be duly published and read, criticised, punished, 

 or rewarded. In the exercise of his profession he wrote 

 certain plays in haste for immediate exigencies without, I 

 will not say a due, regard to the perfection of the result 

 that he held in reference to other of his labours. That 

 in fine, he wrote for a livelihood, as well as for fame. As 

 Mr. Chantrey produced one or two of the noblest portrait- 

 statues of modern times, and several master-pieces, 

 marked by a careful and conscientiously achieved ex- 

 cellence, greater artist, Shakspere himself, laboured on 

 some of his works to give them the perfection he 

 desired, and to acccomodate their theme to the desires of 

 his mind. 



That he subsequently altered and amended many plays 

 produced in haste, in youth, or for specific occasions and 

 representation, is now proved. In this he might have 

 presumed, being placed in similar circumstances to a 

 painter or a sculptor, that his fame would be vindicated 

 by his great works, and that the lesser ones Avould drop 

 quietly into oblivion. To suppose this, is to presume no 

 indifference in him to the nobler plays. The association 

 of an artist with his labours was much less perfect once 

 than it is now, and when great painters took pupils, and 

 established schools, was not as fully understood. If it 

 were customary for poets or novelists in this age to 

 follow such a usage, we should hold, as a rule, much less 

 Bcrupulous identity between an author and his works. 



