TITUS ANDRONICUS.

All the editors and criticks agree with Mr. Theos bald in fuppofing this play fpurious. I fee no reafon for differing from them; for the colour of the ftyle is wholly different from that of the other plays, and there is an attempt at regular verfification, and artificial closes, not always inelegant, yet feldom pleafing. The barbarity of the fpectacles, and the general maffacre, which are here exhibited, can scarcely be conceived tolerable to any audience; yet we are told by Jonson, that they were not only borne, but praised. That Shakespeare wrote any part, though Theobald declares it incontestable, I see no reafon for believing.

The teftimony produced at the beginning of this play, by which it is afcribed to Shakespeare, is by no means equal to the argument against its authenticity, arifing from the total difference of conduct, language, and fentiments, by which it ftands apart from all the reft. Meres had probably no other evidence, than that of a title-page, which, though in our time it be fufficient, was then of no great authority; for all the plays which were rejected by the first collectors of Shakespeare's works, and admitted in later editions, and again rejected by the critical editors, had Shakespeare's name on the title, as we must suppose, by the fraudulence of the printers, who, while there were yet no gazettes, nor advertisements, nor any means of circulating literary intelligence, could ufurp at pleasure any celebrated Nor had Shakespeare any intereft in detecting

name.

the

the imposture, as none of his fame or profit was pro duced by the prefs.

The chronology of this play does not prove it not to be Shakespeare's. If it had been written twentyfive years in 1614, it might have been written when Shakespeare was twenty-five years old. When he left Warwickshire I know not; but at the age of twentyfive it was rather too late to fly for deer-ftealing.

Ravenfcroft, who in the reign of Charles II. revifed this play, and restored it to the stage, tells us, in his preface, from a theatrical tradition, I fuppofe, which in his time might be of fufficient authority, that this play was touched in different parts by Shakespeare, but written by fome other poet. I do not find ShakeSpeare's touches very difcernible.

TROILUS AND CRESSIDA.

This play is more correctly written than most of Shakespeare's compofitions, but it is not one of those in which either the extent of his views or elevation of his fancy is fully difplayed. As the story abounded with materals, he has exerted little invention; but he has diverfified his characters with great variety, and preferved them with great exactnefs. His vicious characters fometimes difguft, but cannot corrupt, for both Crefida and Pandarus are detefted and contemned. The comick characters feem to have been the favourites of the writer; they are of the fuperficial kind, and exhibit more of manners than nature; but they are copiously filled, and powerfully impreffed.

Shakespeare has in his story followed for the greater. part the old book of Caxton, which was then very VOL. II. popular;

M

popular; but the character of Therfites, of which it makes no mention, is a proof that this play was written after Chapman had publifhed his verfion of Homer.

CYMBELINE.

This play has many juft fentiments, fome natural dialogues, and fome pleafing fcenes, but they are obtained at the expenfe of much incongruity. To remark the folly of the fiction, the abfurdity of the conduct, the confufion of the names, and manners of different times, and the impoffibility of the events inany fyftem of life, were to wafte criticism upon unrefifting imbecility, upon faults too evident for detection, and too grofs for aggravation.

KING LEAR.

The tragedy of Lear is defervedly celebrated among the dramas of Shakespeare. There is perhaps no play which keeps the attention fo ftrongly fixed; which fo much agitates our paffions, and interests our curiofity. The artful involutions of diftinct interefts, the striking oppofition of contrary characters, the fudden changes of fortune, and the quick fucceffion of events, fill the mind with a perpetual tumult of indignation, pity, and hope. There is no fcene which does not contribute to the aggravation of the diftrefs or conduct of the action, and scarce a line which does not conduce to the progrefs of the fcene. So powerful is the current of the poet's imagination, that the mind, which once ventures within it, is hurried irrefiftibly along.

it

On the feeming improbability of Lear's conduct,. may be obferved, that he is reprefented according to hiftories at that time vulgarly received as true. And, perhaps, if we turn our thoughts upon the barbarity and ignorance of the age to which this story is referred, it will appear not fo unlikely as while we estimate Lear's manners by our own. Such preference of one daughter to another, or refignation of dominion on fuch conditions, would be yet credible, if told of a petty prince of Guinea or Madagascar. Shakespeare, indeed, by the mention of his earls and dukes, has given us the idea of times more civilized and of life regulated by fofter manners; and the truth is, that though he fo nicely discriminates, and fo minutely defcribes the characters of men, he commonly neglects and confounds the characters of ages, by mingling cuftoms ancient and modern, English and foreign.

My learned friend Mr. Warton, who has in the Adventurer very minutely criticifed this play, remarks, that the inftances of cruelty are too favage and fhocking, and that the intervention of Edmund deftroys the fimplicity of the ftory. Thefe objections may, I think, be anfwered, by repeating, that the cruelty of the daughters is an hiftorical fact, to which the poet has added little, having only drawn it into a feries by dialogue and action. But I am not able to apologize with equal plaufibility for the extrufion of Glofter's eyes, which feems an act too horrid to be endured in dramatick exhibition, and fuch as muft always compel the mind to relieve its distress by incredulity. Yet let it be remembered that our au

thor well knew what would please the audience for which he wrote.

The injury done by Edmund to the fimplicity of the action is abundantly recompenfed by the addition of variety by the art with which he is made to cooperate with the chief defign, and the opportunity which he gives the poet of combining perfidy with 'perfidy, and connecting the wicked fon with the wicked daughters to imprefs this important moral, that villainy is never at a ftop, that crimes lead to crimes, and at last terminate in ruin.

But though this moral be incidently enforced, Shakespeare has fuffered the virtue of Cordelia to perish in a juft caufe, contrary to the natural ideas of juftice, to the hope of the reader, and, what is yet more frange, to the faith of chronicles. Yet this conduct is juftified by The Spectator, who blames Tate for giving Cordelia fuccess and happiness in his alteration, and declares, that in his opinion the tragedy has loft half its beauty. Dennis has remarked, whether juftly or not, that, to fecure the favourable reception of Cato, the town was poifoned with much falfe and abominable criticifm, and that endeavours had been used to difcredit and decry poctical juftice. A play in which the wicked profper, and the virtuous mifcarry, may doubtlefs be good, because it is a juft reprefentation of the common events of human life: but fince all reafonable beings naturally love juftice, I cannot eafily be perfuaded, that the obfervation of juftice makes a play worfe; or, that if other excellencies are equal, the audience will not always rife better pleafed from the final triumph of perfecuted virtue.