1 KING LEAR. : A TRAGEDY. Altered from Shakespeare, by Tate and Colman. T : HE person who enters upon dramatic alteration, without being a slave to his original, should nearly as possible, confine himself to pruning luxuriances, correcting irregularity, rationalizing bombast, and elucidating obfcurity; cautious of adding, unless where unavoidable gaps are made, and con(nection confequently wanting; it is most allowable that SHAKESPEARE'S KING LEAR very much wanted such afsistance as we have mentioned. TATE'S Opening of the play we apprehend preferable to that adopted by COLMAN; for the Bastard makes us much better, that is much more decently acquainted with his illegitimacy in the soliloquy spoken by him, than Glofter's account; the antipathy he bears to Edgar as standing before him, is also well intimated, and Lear's character is properly opened in the short following scene between Glofter and Kent, wherein also the former expresses strong refentment against his fon Edgar, and warm attachment to Edmund, by whose cunning his passion is raised. Where Lear divides his kingdom upon the childi principle of afking which daughter loves him beft, COL King Lear. COLMAN has preserved that unjustifiable, cynical roughness, which SHAKESPEARE has stamped upon Cordelia, in the barren, churlish answer she gives her father; this TATE has confiderably foftened, by making her attachment to Edgar, the cause of fuch reply: we think, however, that the whole affair I might have been thrown into a much better light, by making the old monarch divide his kingdom on the marriage of his daughters, with those persons he approved; Cordelia's refusing the person of his choice from a secret inclination elfewhere, would have rescued him from the extreme folly now chargeable against him, and the successful daughters might have made professions equally flattering from a seeming gratitude, as they now do from affected duty; Lear's feeing into, and declaring a knowledge of Cordelia's attachment, would have furnished strong additional reason for Edgar's flight; the rough, honest interposition of Kent, is a circumstance extremely pleasing; in this, as well as many other scenes of the play, TATE has enervated the versification, by endeavouring to give it a smoother flow; where. fore COLMAN has shewn greater judgment and more modesty, by only retrenching, not altering the original. We can by no means agree with the last mentioned gentleman, that the love episode of Edgar and Cordelia is superfluous or unaffecting, we must rather contend in opposition to the frigidity of criticism, that natural and very pleasing sensations are raised by it, without any invasion upon the main díVOL. I. Zz strefs King Lear: stress of the piece; to enter into a minute defence of this opinion, is not confiftent with our plan, we only advance it for the reader's confideration and arbitration, appealing to audiences, as Mr. COLMAN in his preface has done, from whose feelings we imagine abundant proofs will rife in favour of what we thus take upon us to approve. 1 What Goneril and Regan say after Lear's departure, is judicioufly omitted by TATE, as their characters are thereby unneceffarily, and too foon laid open; his introducing the Bastard, in colour of friendship to Edgar, is also judicious, and lets us well into the scope of his design; the following scene between Gloster and Edmund, however, he has mutilated abominably, by improper omiffion and pitiful verfification; the Bastard's excellent foliloquy he has strangely mangled; nevertheless, we think, without lofing any part of the spirit, Mr. COLMAN might have rendered the last sentence of it more delicate. We can by no means conceive why Kent's first speech, when disguised, should have been curtailed; as to the short preceding scene between Goneril and her steward, we deem it triffing and unessential, as what it relates to needs no such preparative, therefore, we commend TATE for leaving it out; but we must immediately after censure his curtailing what the original author so happily penned for Kent and the King; the introductory passages to Goneril's ill treatment of her royal father, are much bet ter King Lear. As a comparative view renders it impracticable to trace the story in the manner we have done in other pieces, it will, we hope, be deemed allowable to remind our readers, that after improvidently parting with his all, abandoning his only dutiful child, and banishing his firmest friend, old Lear now presents himself before his eldest daughter, who, on mere pretence of injury, behaves with ungrateful infolence; here the king's natural impatience is justifiably wrought up, even to a bitter and pathetic execration of his undutiful child: though TATE had confiderable merit in his transposition of the last scene of the first act, yet we think Mr. COLMAN has shewn more critical knowledge of nature and the stage, by restoring some passages which were omitted, and by concluding the act with Lear's curse, as nothing could be faid after to any effect. At the beginning of the second act, we find the Baftard, with most villainous hypocrify, carrying on his design against Edgar's life, which Glofter credulously comes into; this scene is much better in COLMAN than TATE, as is the following interview, where Kent so characteristically catechises Goneril's infignificant Gentleman Usher. The Duke of Cornwall and his wife Regan appear next, upon a visit to Gloster, whose misfortune in the supposed, unnatural behaviour of his eldest son, they condole, and offer their authority to punish the offender; Regan's laying a stress upon his being an affociate Zz2 1 King Lear, affsociate with her father's riotous knights, as she calls them, is a good opening of her intended behaviour to the good old king. Mr. COLMAN objects to making the daughters entertain a criminal passion for Edmund, but if we can once suppose them capable of filial ingratitude, all other vices, as Dr. YOUNG emphatically has it, may seem virtues in them; for this reason, we approve the intimation TATE has furnished Regan with, of her prejudice in favour of Edmund. When Kent and the Gentleman Usher appear, COLMAN has again judiciously preserved several pafsages which the laureat strangely nipped over, or wretchedly metamorphofed : we know not any scene written with more spirit and originality than this; Kent's honest, scarcastical bluntness, is finely contrafted to the courtly water-fly's fupple nothingness; however, decorum is certainly intruded up"on, for such language to be used in prefence of a joint ruler of the state, is unpardonable; and we heartily agree that Kent deserves fome punishment, but much regret so farcical an incident as a pair of moveable stocks, so conveniently placed in a nobleman's caftle, as to be forth coming on the instant. Kent's going to fleep in such a fituation is ludicrous alfo; we are amazed when alteration was on foot, this incident was not changed for one more probable, and equally conducive to the plot; especially when fuch a change might be made with the greatest ease imaginable. We have seen the Gentleman Usher make a very pantomimical stroke, by pushing at Kent when his legs are fast, such a manevre | cannot |