he had done well, when he faithfully copied nature, or reprefented cuftoms, it will appear to politer times, the error of an untutored mind, which the example of judicious artists, and the admonitions of delicate connoiffeurs had not taught, that only graceful nature and decent customs give proper fubjects for imitation. It may be faid in mitigation of his fault, that the vulgar here had not, as at Athens, been ufed to behold, Gorgeous tragedy In fcepter'd pall come sweeping by, Homer's works alone were fufficient to teach the Greek poets how to write, and their audience how to judge. The fongs fung by our bards at feasts and merrymakings were of a very coarse kind: as the people were totally illiterate, and the better fort alone could read even their mother tongue, their tafte was formed on these com pofitions. pofitions. As yet our stage had exhibited only those palpable allegories, by which rude unlettered moralifts instruct and please the grofs and ignorant multitude. No. thing can more plainly evince the opinion, the poets of those times had of the ignorance of the people, than the condefcenfion fhewn to it by the learned Earl of Dorset, in his tragedy of Gorboduc; in which the moral of each act is reprefented on the stage in dumb fhew. It is therefore strange that Mr. de Voltaire, who affects an impartial and philofophic fpirit, fhould not rather fpeak with admiration, than contempt, of an author, who by the force of genius rofe fo much above the age and circumstances in which he was born, and who, even when he deviates moft from rules, can rise to faults true critics dare not mend. In delineating characters he must be allowed very far to furpass all dramatic writers, and even Homer himself; he gives an air of reality to every thing, and, in fpite of many and great faults, effects, better than any one has ever done, the chief purposes of theatrical reprefentation. It avails little to prove, that the means by which he effects them are not those prescribed in any Art of Poetry. While we feel the power and energy of his predominant genius, shall we not be apt to treat the cold formal precepts of the Critic, with the fame peevish contempt, that the good lady in the Guardian, smarting in the anguish of a burn, does her fon's pedantic intrufion of Mr. Locke's doctrine, to prove that there is no heat in fire? Nature and sentiment will pronounce our Shakespear a mighty Genius; judgment and taste will confess, that as a Writer he is far from being faultless. ON |