throw his language out of the familiar, he employs rhyme. But may it not in fome measure excuse Shakespear, I fhall not say his works, that he had no pattern, in his own or in any living language, of dialogue fitted for the theatre? At the fame time, it ought not to escape obfervation, that the ftream clears in its progrefs, and that in his later plays he has attained the purity and perfection of dialogue; an observation that, with greater certainty than tradition, will direct us to arrange his plays in the order of time. This ought to be confidered by those who magnify every blemish that is discovered in the finest genius for the drama ever the world enjoy'd. They ought alfo for their own fake to confider, that it is easier to discover his blemishes, which lie generally at the furface, than his beauties, of which none can have a thorough relish but those who dive deep into human nature. One thing must be evident to the meanest сараcity, that where-ever paffion is to be dif play'd, Nature fhows itself strong in him, and 1 and is confpicuous by the most delicate propriety of fentiment and expreffion *. I return to my subject from a digreffion I cannot repent of. That perfect harmony which ought to fubfift among all the conftituent parts of a dialogue, is a beauty, not less rare than confpicuous. As to expreffion in particular, were I to give instances, where, in one or other of the respects above mentioned, it correfponds not precisely to the characters, paffions, and fentiments, I might from different authors collect volumes. Following therefore the method laid down in the chapter of fentiments, I shall confine my citations to the groffer errors, which every writer ought to avoid. *The critics feem not perfectly to comprehend the genius of Shakespear. His plays are defective in the mechanical part, which is lefs the work of genius than of experience; and is not otherwise brought to perfection than by diligently obferving the errors of former compofitions. Shakespear excels all the ancients and moderns, in knowledge of human nature, and in unfolding even the most obfcure and refined emotions. This is a rare faculty, and of the greatest importance in a dramatic author; and it is this faculty which makes him furpafs all other writers in the comic as well as tragic vein. And, And, first, of paffion expreffed in words flowing in an equal course without interruption. In the chapter above cited, Corneille is cenfured for the impropriety of his sentiments; and here, for the fake of truth, I am obliged to attack him a fecond time. Were I to give instances from that author of the fault under confideration, I might coру whole tragedies; for he is not lefs faulty in this particular, than in paffing upon us his own thoughts as a fpectator, instead of the genuine fentiments of paffion. Nor would a comparison betwixt him and Shakespear upon the prefent point, redound more to his honour, than the former upon the fentiments. Racine here is lefs incorrect than Corneille, though many degrees inferior to the English author. From Racine I fhall gather a few inftances. The first shall be the description of the fea-monster in his Phadra, given by Theramene the companion of Hippolytus, and an eye-witnefs to the difafter. Theramene is represented in terrible agitation, which appears from the following paffage, fo fo boldly figurative as not to be excufed but by violent perturbation of mind. Le ciel avec horreur voit ce monstre sauvage, Yet Theramene gives a long pompous connected description of this event, dwelling upon every minute circumstance, as if he had been only a cool spectator. A peine nous fortions des portes de Trézene, &c. Act 5. Sc. 6. The laft fpeech of Atalide, in the tragedy of Bajazet, of the fame author, is a continued difcourfe, and but a faint reprefentation of the violent paffion which forc'd her to put an end to her own life. Enfin, c'en eft donc fait, &c. At 5. fc. laft. Though works, not authors, are the profeffed fubject of this critical undertaking, I am tempted by the present speculation, to tranfgrefs once again the limits prescribed, VOL.II. E e prescribed, and to venture a curfory reflection upon this juftly-celebrated author, That he is always fenfible, generally correct, never falls low, maintains a moderate degree of dignity without reaching the fublime, paints delicately the tender paffions, but is a stranger to the true language of enthusiastic or fervid paffion. If in general the language of violent paffion ought to be broken and interrupted, soliloquies ought to be fo in a peculiar manner. Language is intended by nature for fociety; and a man when alone, though he always clothes his thoughts in words, feldom gives his words utterance unless when prompted by fome strong emotion; and even then by starts and intervals only*. Shakespear's foliloquies may be justly established as a model; for it is not eafy to conceive any model more perfect. Of his many incomparable foliloquies, I confine myself to the two following, being different in their manner. *Soliloquies accounted for chap. 15. Hamlet. |