that in his later plays he has attained the purity and perfection of dialogue; an obfervation that, with greater certainty than tradition, will direct us to arrange his plays in the order of time. This ought to be confidered by thofe 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 capacity, that where-ever paffion is to be difplay'd, Nature shows itself strong in him, and is confpicuous by the most delicate propriety of fentiment and expreffion*.

I return to my fubject 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 lefs 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

fhall

* 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. Shakefpear 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 furpass all other writers in the comic as well as tragic vein.

fhall confine my citations to the groffer errors, which every writer ought to avoid.

And, firft, of paffion expreffed in words flowing in an equal courfe without interruption.

In the chapter above cited, Corneille is cenfured for the impropriety of his fentiments; and here, for the fake of truth, I am obliged to attack him a fecond time. Were I to give inftances from that author of the fault under confideration, I might copy, whole tragedies; for he is not lefs faulty in this particular, than in paffing upon us his own thoughts as a spectator, instead of the genuine fentiments of paffion. Nor would a comparison betwixt him and Shakespear upon the present point, redound more to his honour, than the former upon the sentiments. Racine here is lefs incorrect than Corneille, though many degrees inferior to the Englifh author. From Racine I fhall gather a few instances. The first fhall be the defcription of the fea-monster in his Phadra, given by Theramene the companion of Hippolytus, and an Eye-witness to the difafter. Theramene is reprefented in terrible agitation, which appears from the following paffage, fo boldly figurative as not to be excufed but by violent perturbation of mind.

Le ciel avec horreur voit ce monftre fauvage,
La terre s'en émeut, l'air en eft infecté,
Le flot, qui l'apporta, recule epouvanté.

Yet Theramene gives a long pompous connected description of this event, dwelling upon every minute circumstance, at if he had been only a cool fpectator.

A peine nous fortions des portes de Trézene, &c. Act 5. fc. 6. The laft fpeech of Atalide, in the tragedy of Bajazet, of the fame author, is a continued difcourfe,

and

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.

Act 5. fc. laft

Though works, not authors, are the profeffed fubject of this critical undertaking, I am tempted by the prefent fpeculation, to tranfgrefs once against the limits prefcribed, 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 ftranger to the true language of enthufiaftic or fervid paffion.

If in general the language of violent paffion ought to be broken and interrupted, foliloquies 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 ftrong emotion; and even then by ftarts and intervals only*. Shakespear's foliloquies may be justly established as a model; for it is not eafy to conceive any model more perfe&t. Of his many incomparable foliloquies, I confine myself to the two following, being different in their manner.

Hamlet. Oh, that this too too folid flesh would melt,

Thaw, and refolve itfelf into a dew!

Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd

His canon 'gainst self-flaughter? O God! O God!
How weary, ftale, flat, and unprofitable
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on't! O fie! 'tis an unweeded garden,
That grows to feed things rank and gross in nature

* Soliloquies accounted for, chap. 15.

Poffefs

Poffefs it merely. That it should come to this!
But two months dead, nay not fo much; not two-
So excellent a king, that was, to this,
Hyperion to a fatyr: fo loving to my mother,
That he permitted not the winds of heav'n
Vifit her face too roughly. Heav'n and earth!
Must I remember,-why, fhe would hang on him,
As if increase of appetite had grown

By what it fed on; yet, within a month-
Let me not think- --Frailty, thy name is Woman!
A little month, or ere those shoes were old,
With which the follow'd my poor father's body,
Like Niobe, all tears-why the, ev'n fhe-

(O Heav'n! a beast that wants difcourfe of reafon Would have mourn'd longer) married with mine uncle,

My father's brother; but no more like my father
Than I to Hercules -Within a month-
Ere yet the falt of most unrighteous tears
Had left the flushing in her gauled eyes,
She married Oh, moft wicked fpeed, to poft
With fuch dexterity to incestuous sheets!
It is not, nor it cannot come to good.

But break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue.

Hamlet, Act 1. fc. 3.

Ford. Hum! ha! is this a vifion? is this a dream? do I fleep? Mr. Ford, awake; awake, Mr. Ford; there's a hole made in your best coat, Mr. Ford! this 'tis to be married! this 'tis to have linen and buck baskets! Well, I will proclaim myself what I am; I will now take the leacher; he is at my house, he cannot 'fcape me; 'tis impoffible he fhould; he cannot creep into a halfpenny-purfe, nor into a Pepper-box. But left the devil that guides him should aid him, I will fearch impoffible places; though

though what I am I cannot avoid, yet to be what I would not, fhall not make me tame.

Merry Wives of Windsor, at 3. fc. laft.

Thefe foliloquies are accurate copies of nature. In a paffionate foliloquy one begins with thinking aloud; and the strongest teelings, only, are expreffed. As the fpeaker warms, he begins to imagine one listening, and, gradually flides into a connected discourse.

How far diftant are foliloquies generally from these models? They are indeed for the most part fo unhappily executed, as to give disgust instead of pleafure. The first scene of Iphigenia in Tauris discovers that princefs, in a foliloquy, gravely reporting to herfelf her own history. There is the fame impropriety in the first scene of Alceftes, and in the other introductions of Euripides, almoft without exception. Nothing can be more ridiculous. It puts one in mind of that ingenious device in Gothic paintings, of making every figure explain itself by a written label iffuing from its mouth. The defcription a parasite, in the Eunuch of Terence *, gives of himself in the form of a foliloquy, is lively; but against all the rules of propriety? for no man, in his ordinary state of mind, and upon a familiar fubject, ever thinks of talking aloud to himself. The fame objection lies against a foliloquy in the Adelphi of the fame author t. The foliloquy which makes the third. fcene, act third, of his Hecyra, is infufferable; for there Pamphilus foberly and circumftantially, relates to himself an adventure which had happened to him a moment before..

Corneille is not more happy in his foliloquies than in his dialogue. Take for a fpecimen the first scene of Cinna.

Racine alfo is extremely faulty in the fame refpect. His foliloquies, almoft without exception,

are

* Act. 2. fc.

2.

† Aa 1. fc. 1.