POE 
and in none of them do we find aught of that mere word- 
inefs which difgraces all fucceeding playwrights. Their 
dialogue is triumphant. It has fo much truth and force, 
that they can do any thing with it. They can develop 
the moll trifling humours into important motives of ac¬ 
tion by its means; and they employ it with fuccefs to 
bring about the moft impoflible adventures, and the moft 
difficult and indeed difgufting fituations. Character they 
pourtrayed in a perfectly original manner; and in moil 
of their works feem to draw rather from observation than 
imagination. Not with (landing all this, every unprejudiced 
reader mull allow that an utter want of judgment per¬ 
vades the choice of their plots and of their characters; 
and that they abfurdly feleCl mere whims and logical er¬ 
rors as the grounds of their characters, inflead of enter¬ 
taining with the plain and Itriking effeCts of the greater 
and common paffions. To this ftriCture we mult add, 
that among thefe authors many difguft us by their wild 
irregular habit of completely exhauftinga fcene or a fub¬ 
jeCt; others by the excefs to which they carry poetical 
diCtion, thereby running into a multitude of tropes and 
metaphors, even in improper places, to the utter negleCt 
of the matter in hand. In various degrees their faults 
of redundancy and want of tafte, mixed with the molt 
melting tendernefs and the moft fublime expreffions, per¬ 
vade all the dramatifts living before, during, or fome years 
after, the time of Shakefpeare. Still, whatever claims we 
may have to the title of a dramatic nation, reft on the pe¬ 
riod during which Marlow, Chapman, &c. flouriffied. 
There certainly does not exift more than one tragedy 
worth aCting, that has been produced in the more refined 
Itage of our literature; and that one is “Venice Pre- 
ierved.” Therefore, viewed even without its chief liar, 
the Elizabethean age is the moft fplendid period for our 
ftage-. ^ But, when we throw into the weight of the fcale 
the mighty Shakefpeare, the period in queftion is indeed 
an aera in literature. 
In this author was united all that could be defired, far 
more than any preceding examples would have allowed 
us to expeCt. Arifing as he did at the fortunate time 
when every feeling of the human heart was, or had juft 
been, in full excitation, and with a heart capable of re¬ 
ceiving in itfelf all thefe feelings; pofl’efled of a foul that, 
gifted far beyond any author fince or before him, with the 
power of grafpingthe immortal fublimities of our nature, 
under whole holier raptures the world finks from around 
us, and who yet could feel not only the paffion but the 
very follies and prettinefles of a fcnool-girl’s love ; what 
has not the poet of England accomplilhed ? Every thing. 
He has equalled, if not outlhone, Milton in fublimity. 
No other author can in any point be compared to him. 
Where, in all ancient or modern writing, in the moft po- 
lifhed times, and in the fweeteft languages, is fuch tender¬ 
nefs to be found as he throws with a few words into his 
fketches of the female fex ? Where in Milton, in Dante, 
or even in the German extravagancies, have we fuch a 
bold perfonification of the evil one as he has drawn in 
his Richard ? Where do we find fuch kings, fuch models 
of grace of majelly, yet without one human frailty forgot¬ 
ten or concealed ? What oratory in his fenators ! What 
Ciceronian artifice in their fpeeches, and how beautifully 
contrafted with the plain fober reafoning ftyle of the 
Englifh prelates, who occafionally fpeak in the hifto- 
rical plays. 
But we mult not allow ourfelves to run into a detail of 
his particular beauties, where every line might employ 
pages of defcant and admiration. Suffice it to fay, that 
every body, at home and abroad, has at length admitted 
the tranfcendent greatnefs of Shakefpeare. We might 
from our own critics draw abundant teftimonies in his 
favour; but this would expofe us to the charge of na¬ 
tional prejudice. Let thofe who make this charge turn 
to the pages of the German Schlegel, where alone, among 
continental writers, will they find a true and unprejudiced 
critique of our poet’s works. This author has truly felt 
Vol. XX. No. 14.10. 
TRY. 793 
the fublime of natural writing. He has bellowed fepa- 
rate reviews on moft of our dramatilt’s characters; and 
the refplendent light he places them in ferves not lefs to 
fhow his own talents than thofe he confiders. 
But, out of liberality to the French fchool of carping 
critics, we mud mention what were Shakefpeare’s faults. 
We cannot allow want of judgment ; for, to us, Mac¬ 
beth and Othello furniffi perfect models of conftruCtion 
as to plot; and confinement to the unities would have 
fpoilt his other tragedies. But he never introduces a 
word or thought merely becaufe he pofl'efles it. He has 
the judgment to reprefs all extravagancies. Neither can 
we allow it as a fault that he mixed tragic and comic 
fcenes together, becaufe fuch mixture is natural, and of¬ 
ten, by its contrail, highly exprefiive. But we mult ad¬ 
mit that in his tragedy he fometimes indulged in the rae- 
taphyfical conceits of contemporary poets, and introduced 
too many and far-fetched images. Such faults are very 
rare. He is alfo redundant in one l'enfe ; we mean as regards 
his fcenes, not his expreffions; but it is clear that for drama¬ 
tic efteCt it is neceflary however to ornit fome fcenes. In 
comedy he is great, but certainly has competitors, which 
can by no means be laid oi his tragic efforts. His comic 
characters are indeed unrivalled ; but in the choice of his 
plots he is extremely bad ; and he mixed often fo much 
local ridicule with fome of his lower characters, clowns, 
and fuch like, that they are rather difgufting than ridicu¬ 
lous. Neverthelefs his Faiftaff is, like his Hamlet, a cha¬ 
racter fo fine, that no one has dared to imitate it. It Hands 
alone, as lovely in its vice as its contrail is in virtue. 
The age of Charles II. equally remarkable for its wit 
and indecency, gave birth to Colton's “Virgil Tra- 
veltie” a very popular but beaftly production. This au¬ 
thor produced, however, many elegant and fpirited pieces 
lefs known. 
The (training after new images and conceits furpaffing 
all preceding authors in extent, which had fo diftinguiflied 
Donne and moft of the other poets mentioned with him, 
was adopted by Cowley. Their errors have been well 
pointed out by Johnfon, who truly fays, that “their 
courtlhip was void of fondnefs, and their lamentation of 
forrow. Their wilh was only to fay what had never been 
faid before.” He names them the metaphyfical poets. 
This fchool died with Sprat. 
Denham was an author who introduced a highly correCt 
and excellent fpecies of verfe. Its great praife was ftrength; 
that is, comprifing much clear thought in few words, and 
making thefe thoughts particularly ftrike the attention, 
by fkiltully varying and otherwife managing the verfe. 
As to the merits of Milton, criticifms are unnecefi'ary. 
They have been fufficiently difcufi'ed. Every body allows 
that he takes a rank in regard to fublimity far above 
Homer, and that he has paflages of fweetnefs and majelly 
not excelled by Virgil. When he comes to be compared 
wdth Shakefpeare, the only author with whom he can 
fairly be compared, he falls to the ground. Shake¬ 
fpeare has made men far more dignified than the gods and 
angels of Milton. Does not this Blow that Milton has 
failed in his talk ? The verfe of Milton is certainly, how¬ 
ever, much grander than any that preceded or followed 
him. But his fubjeCt is beyond his or any other man’s 
powers. Still it may be allowed to alk, whether Shake¬ 
fpeare would not have made a better epic of the fame fub¬ 
jeCt. We think that he would have given greater clearnefs 
to the fubjeCt, and, by defcending lower in the fcale of aerial 
forms, avoided the unrighteous defcription of the arms and 
habits of the blefled, and of the Almighty.- He certainly 
could not have equalled Milton in his defcriptions of na¬ 
ture; but he might probably have given more intereft to 
the human characters. Milton certainly fails in invention. 
Sublimity is acquirable, perhaps, to a degree, as well as 
beauty. Certain it is, that Milton owes his conceptions 
of demoniac forms to the Italian poets; and, though he 
elevates thefe conceptions, this is not invention. If in his 
portraits of the good he is original, it is not much praife, 
9 Q fince 
