more modefty with which fuch a one is endued, the more he is in danger of fubmitting and conforming to others, againft his own better judgment. But as to his Want of Learning, it may be neceffary to fay fomething more: There is certainly a vaft difference between Learning and Languages. How far he was ignorant of the latter, I cannot determine; but 'tis plain he had much Reading at least, if they will not call it Learning. Nor is it any great matter, if a man has Knowledge, whether he has it from one language or from another. Nothing is more evident than that he had a tafte of natural Philofophy, Mechanicks, ancient and modern History, Poetical learning and Mythology: We find him very knowing in the customs, rites, and manners of Antiquity. In Coriolanus and Julius Cæfar, not only the Spirit, but Manners, of the Romans are exactly drawn; and ftill a nicer diftinction is fhown, between the manners of the Romans in the time of the former, and of the latter. His reading in the ancient Hiftorians is no lefs confpicuous, in many references to particular paffages: and the fpeeches copy'd from Plutarch in Coriolanus may, I think, as well be made an inftance of his learning, as thofe copy'd from Cicero in Catiline, of Ben Johnson's. The manners of other nations in general, the Egyptians, Venetians, French, &c. are drawn with equal propriety. Whatever object of nature, or branch of fcience, he either speaks of or describes; it is always with competent, if not extensive knowledge: his descriptions are ftill exact; all his metaphors appropriated, and remarkably drawn from the true nature and inherent qualities of each fubject. When he treats of Ethic or Politic, we may conftantly obferve a wonderful juftness of diftinction, as well as extent of comprehenfion. No one is more a master of the Poetical ftory, or has more frequent allufions to the various parts of it: Mr. Waller (who has been celebrated for this laft particular) has not shewn more learn learning this way than Shakespear. We have Tranflations from Ovid publifhed in his name, among those Poems which pafs for his, and for fome of which we have undoubted authority, (being published by himfelf, and dedicated to his noble Patron the Earl of Southampton :) He appears alfo to have been converfant in Plautus, from whom he has taken the plot of one of his plays: he follows the Greek Authors, and particularly Dares Phrygius, in another: (altho' I will not pretend to fay in what language he read them.) The modern Italian writers of Novels he was manifeftly acquainted with; and we may conclude him to be no lefs converfant with the Ancients of his own country, from the ufe he has made of Chaucer in Troilus and Creffida, and in the Two Noble Kinsmen, if that Play be his, as there goes a Tradition it was, (and indeed it has little refemblance of Fletcher, and more of our Author than fome of those which have been received as genuine.) I am inclined to think, this opinion proceeded originally from the zeal of the Partizans of our Author and Ben Johnson; as they endeavoured to exalt the one at the expence of the other. It is ever the nature of Parties to be in extremes; and nothing is fo probable, as that because Ben Johnson had much the more learning, it was faid on the one hand that Shakespear had none at all; and becaufe Shakespear had much the moft wit and fancy, it was retorted on the other, that Johnson wanted both. Becaufe Shakespear bor. rowed nothing, it was faid that Ben Johnson borrowed every thing. Because Johnson did not write extempore, he was reproached with being a year about every piece; and because Shakespear wrote with eafe and rapidity, they cry'd, he never once made a blot. Nay the fpirit of oppofition ran fo high, that whatever thofe of the one fide objected to the other, was taken at the rebound, and turned into Praifes; as injudiciously, cioufly, as their antagonists before had made them Objections. Poets are always afraid of Envy; but fure they have as much reafon to be afraid of Admiration. They are the Scylla and Charybdis of Authors; thofe who efcape one, often fall by the other. Peffimum genus inimicorum Laudantes, fays Tacitus: and Virgil defires to wear a charm against thofe who praife a Poet without rule or reafon. -Si ultra placitum laudârit, baccare frontem But however this contention might be carried on by the Partizans on either fide, I cannot help thinking these two great Poets were good friends, and lived on amicable terms and in offices of fociety with each other. It is an acknowledged fact, that Ben Johnson was introduced upon the Stage, and his firft works encouraged, by Shakespear. And after his death, that Author writes To the memory of his beloved Mr. William Shakespear, which fhows as if the friendship had continued thro' life. I cannot for my own part find any thing Invidious or Sparing in thofe verfes, but wonder Mr. Dryden was of that opinion. He exalts him not only above all his Cotemporaries, but above Chaucer and Spenser, whom he will not allow to be great enough to be rank'd with him; and challenges the names of Sophocles, Euripides, and Efchylus, nay all Greece and Rome at once, to equal him; and (which is very particular) exprefly vindicates him from the imputation of wanting Art, not enduring that all his excellencies fhould be attributed to Nature. It is remarkable too, that the praife he gives him in his Difcoveries feems to proceed from a perfonal kindness; he tells us, that he lov'd the man, as well as honoured his memory; celebrates the honefty, openness, and franknefs of his temper; and only diftinguifhes, as he reasonably ought, between the real merit of the Au thor, thor, and the filly and derogatory applaufes of the Players. Ben Johnson might indeed be fparing in his Commendations (tho' certainly he is not fo in this inftance) partly from his own nature, and partly from judgment. For men of judgment think they do any man more fervice in praifing him juftly, than lavishly. I fay, I would fain believe they were Friends, tho' the violence and ill-breeding of their Followers and Flatterers were enough to give rife to the contrary report. I would hope that it may be with Parties, both in Wit and State, as with thofe Monsters defcribed by the Poets; and that their Heads at least may have fomething human, tho' their Bodies and Tails are wild beafts and ferpents. As I believe that what I have mentioned gave rife to the opinion of Shakespear's want of learning; fo what has continued it down to us may have been the many blunders and illiteracies of the firft Publishers of his works. In these Editions their ignorance fhines in almost every page; nothing is more common than Actus tertia. Exit omnes. Enter three Witches folus. Their French is as bad as their Latin, both in conftruction and spelling: Their very Welsh is falfe. Nothing is more likely than that thofe palpable blunders of Hector's quoting Ariftotle, with others of that grofs kind, fprung from the fame root: it not being at all credible that these could be the errors of any man who had the leaft tincture of a School, or the leaft converfation with fuch as had. Ben Johnson (whom they will not think partial to him) allows him at least to have had fome Latin; which is utterly inconfiftent with mistakes like thefe. Nay the constant blunders in proper names of perfons and places, are fuch as must have proceeded from a man, who had not so much as read any history, in any language: fo could not be Shakespear's. I fhall now lay before the reader fome of those almost innumerable Errors, which have rifen from one fource, fource, the ignorance of the Players, both as his actors, and as his Editors. When the nature and kinds of these are enumerated and confidered, I dare to fay that not Shakespeare only, but Ariftotle or Cicero, had their works undergone the fame fate, might have appear'd to want fenfe as well as learning. It is not certain that any one of his Plays was publifhed by himself. During the time of his employment in the Theatre, feveral of his pieces were printed feparately in Quarto. What makes me think that most of these were not publish'd by him, is the exceffive careleffness of the prefs: every page is fo fcandalously false spelled, and almost all the learned or unufual words fo intolerably mangled, that it's plain there either was no Corrector to the prefs at all, or one totally illiterate. If any were fupervised by himself, I should fancy the two parts of Henry the 4th, and Midfummer-Night's Dream might have been fo: because I find no other printed with any exactnefs; and (contrary to the reft) there is very little variation in all the fubfequent editions of them. There are extant two Prefaces, to the first quarto edition of Troilus and Creffida in 1609, and to that of Othello; by which it appears, that the firft was published without his knowledge or confent, and even before it was acted, fo late as feven or eight years before he died: and that the latter was not printed 'till after his death. The whole number of genuine plays which we have been able to find printed in his life-time, amounts but to eleven. And of fome of these, we meet with two or more editions by different printers, each of which has whole heaps of trash different from the other: which I fhould fancy was occafion'd by their being taken from different copies, belonging to different Play-houses. The folio edition (in which all the plays we now receive as his, were firft collected) was publifhed by two Players, Heminges and Condell, in 1623, feven years after his decease. They declare, that all the other I editions |