SHAKSPEARE. 



'intimate knowledge of the human heart ; fach extenfive 

 acquaintance with nature in its various forms, an imagina- 

 tion fo powerful and poetical, and fuch a copioufnefs of 

 moral fentiment exprefled in the moft forcible language." 

 Dryden fays, " he was a man, who, of all modern and, 

 perhaps, ancient poets, had the largelt and moft comprehen- 

 five foul. All the images of nature were flill prefent to 

 him, and he drew them not laborioufly, but luckily. When 

 he defcribes any thing, you more than fee it, you feel it 

 too. He needed not the fpeftacles of books to read nature ; 

 he looked inwards, and found her there. I cannot fay he 

 is every where alike; were he fo, I fhould do him injury 

 to compare him with the greateft of mankind. He is 

 many times flat and infipid : his comic wit degenerating 

 into clenches, his ferious fwelling into bombaft. But h^ 

 is always great, when fome great nccafion is prefented to 

 him. No man can ever fay, he ever had a fit fubjeft for 

 his wit, and did not then raife himfelf as high above the 

 reft of the poets, 



" Quantum lenta folent inter viburna cuprefii." 



Shakfpeare, like moft men of pre-eminent talents, is faid 

 to have been much afiailed by the attacks of envious rivals, 

 notwithftanding, that gentlenefs and good nature were the 

 peculiar charafteriftics of his perfonal deportment. Among 

 thofe who are faid to have treated him with hoftility was the 

 celebrated Ben Jonfon ; but Dr. Farmer departs from the 

 received opinions on this fubjeft, and thinks that, though 

 Jonfon was arrogant of his fcholarfhip, and publicly pro- 

 felfed a rivalfhip of Shakfpeare, he was in private his friend 

 and aifociate. 



Pope, in his preface, fays, that Jonfon " loved" Shak- 

 fpeare " 35 well as honoured his memory ; celebrates the 

 honefty, opennefs, and franknefs of his temper ; and only 

 diftinguifties, as he reafonably ought, between the real merit 

 of the author, and the filly and derogatory applaufes of the 

 players." Mr. Gilchriit, whofe dramatic criticifms are ge- 

 nerally profound and acute, has publifhed a pamphlet, to prove 

 that Jonfon was never a harlh or an envious rival of Shak- 

 fpeare ; and that the popular opinion on this fubjeft is 

 founded in error. The following Itory refpefting thefe two 

 great dramatifts is related by Rowe, and has been generally 

 credited by fubfequent biographers. " Mr. Jonfon, who 

 was at that time altogether unknown to the world, had 

 offered one of his plays to the players, in order to have it 

 afted ; and the perfons into whofe hands it was put, after 

 having turned it carclelsly and fupercilioudy aver, were j nil 

 upon returning it to him with an ill-natured anfwer, that it 

 would be of no fcrvice to their company, when Shakipcare 

 luckily caft his eye upon it, and found fomething fo well in 

 it, as to engage him firft to read it through, and after- 

 wards to recommend Mr. Jonfon and his writings to the 

 public." 



The oppofition or rivalfhip of Shakfpeare and Jonfon 

 produced, as might naturally be expefted, much contention, 

 concerning their relative merits, between their refpeftive 

 friends and admirers ; and it is not a little remarkable, that 

 Jonfon feems to have maintained a higlier place in the elli- 

 mation of the public in general than our poet, for more tlian 

 a century after the death of the latter. Within that period 

 Jonfon's works are faid to have palled through fevoral edi- 

 tions, and to have been read with avidity, while Shakfpeare's 

 were comparatively neglcAed till the time of Rowe. This 

 circumftance is in a great mealure to be accounted for on 

 the principle that clafiical literature and collegiate learning 

 were regarded in thofe days as the chief criteria of merit. 

 Accordingly Jonfon's charge agaiiitl Shakfpeare was the 



want of that fpecies of knowledge ; and upon his owii pro- 

 ficiency in it, he arrogated to himfelf a fuperiority over him. 

 That all claffical fcholars, however, did not fanftion Jon- 

 fon's pretcnfions, is certain ; for among the greateft ad- 

 mirers of Shakfpeare, was one of the moft learned men oi 

 his age, the ever-memorable Hales. On one occafion, the 

 latter, after liftening in filence to a warm debate between fir 

 John Sucklinorand Jonlon, is reported to have interpofed by 

 obferving, " That if Shakfpeare had not read the ancients, 

 he had likewife not ftolen any thing from them ; and that if 

 he (Jonfon) would produce any one topic finely treated by 

 any one ot them, lie would undertake to (hew fomething 

 on the fame fubjedl, at leaft as well written, by Shakfpeare." 

 A trial, it is added, being in confcquence agreed to, judges 

 were appointed to decide the dilpute, who unanimoufly 

 voted in favour of tiie Englilh poet, after a candid examina- 

 tion and comparifon of the paffages produced by the con- 

 tending parties. 



In September, 1769, was celebrated the Shakfpeare ju- 

 bilee, at Stratford, under tlie direction of Garrick. 



In pointing out the authorities for the preceding article, 

 and noticing a few of the moll interefting works that have 

 been publiihed in illuftration of the writings of the " bard of 

 Avon," we mull conclude this eflay, which may be deemed 

 too prolix by fome, and too brief by other?. " Some Ac- 

 count of Shakfpeare," by N. Rowe. Malone's, S.eevena's, 

 and Reed's " Prolegomena." " Remarks on the Life and 

 Writings of W. Shakfpeare," by John Britton, F.S.A. pre- 

 fixed to Whittingham's edition of his plays, with wood-cuts, 

 1814. "A Guide to Stratford-upon Avon," by R. B. 

 Wheler, i2mo. 18 14. " Critical, hillorical, and explanatory 

 Notes on Shakfpeare ; with Emendations of the Text and 

 Metre," by Zachary Grey, LL.D. two vols. Svo. 1755. 

 " Obfervations and ConjeClures on fome Paffages of Shak- 

 fpeare," by Thomas Tyrwhitt, el'q. Svo. 1764. "AnEfTay 

 on the Learning of Shakfpeare," by the Rev. Dr. Rich. 

 Farmer, Svo. Three editions of this were publifhed by the 

 author, and it has, fince 1789, been reprinted in different edi- 

 tions of Shakfpeare's plays. " An Eflay on the Writings and 

 Genius of Shakfpeare, compared with the Greek and French 

 dramatic Poets ; with fome Remarks upon the Mifrepre- 

 fentations of Monf. de Voltaire," by Mrs. Montagu, 8vo. 

 A fixth edition of this eloqAcnt and interelliiig volume was 

 printed in 1810. " Eliays on Shakfpeare's Dramatic Cha- 

 rafters," by W. Richardfon, MD. Svo. iSll, are replete 

 with judicious criticifm and appofitc comment. " Remarks, 

 critical and ilhiftrativc, on the Text and Notes of the laft 

 Edition of Shakfpeare," ( 1778,) by Mr. Ritfon, Svo. 1783. 

 " An Inquiry into the Authenticity of certain mifcellaneous 

 Papers, publifhed Dec. 24, 1795," &c. by Edmond Ma- 

 lone, Elq. Svo. 1796. Tins inquiry called forth two 

 vols, called " An Apology for the Believers in the Shak- 

 fpeare Papers," by G. Chalmers, Svo. 1797 : and a " Sup- 

 plemental Apology for the Believers, &c." by the fame au- 

 thor, Svo. 1799. " lUullrations of Shakfpeare, and of 

 ancient Manners, Sic." by Francis Douce, 2 vols. Svo. 

 1807, is a work of very confiderablc merit. 



Shakfpeare was fond of inufic, and not wholly ignorant 

 of the art. He not only frequently introduces mafqius for 

 niuftc in liis plays, but finging in almoll all his fourteen 

 comedies ; and even in moll of his tragedies, where this 

 wonderful and cxquifite dramatilt has manifelted the fame 

 predileftlon for mufie as poetry. 



In the " Tempcft," the ufe that he has made of it is ad- 

 mirable, as well as the defcription of its effcds. Aft i. 

 (c. 5. Ariel, invifible, playing and ftnging to Ferdinand, 

 fays, 



3 C 2 " Where 



