myfelf that he was the original fabricator of the plot, or the author of every dialogue, chorus, &c. and this opinion is founded on a concurrence of circumftances which I fhall attempt to enumerate, that the reader may have the benefit of all the lights I am able to throw on so obfcure a subject. Be it firft obferved, that most of the choruses in Pericles are written in a measure which Shakspeare has not employed on the fame occafion, either in The Winter's Tale, Romeo and Juliet, or King Henry the Fifth. If it be urged, that throughout these recitations Gower was his model, I can fafely affirm that their language, and fometimes their verfification, by no means refembles that of Chaucer's contemporary. One of these monologues is compofed in hexameters, and another in alternate rhymes; neither of which are ever found in his printed works, or thofe which yet remain in manufcript; nor does he, like the author of Pericles, introduce four and five-feet metre in the fame feries of lines. If Shakspeare therefore be allowed to have copied not only the general outline, but even the peculiarities of nature with cafe and accuracy, we may furely fuppofe that, at the expence of fome unprofitable labour, he would not have failed fo egregioufly in his imitation of antiquated style or numbers.-That he could affume with nicety the terms of affectation and pedantry, he has shown in the characters of Ofrick and Armado, Holofernes and Nathaniel. That he could fuccefsfully counterfeit provincial dialects, we may learn from Edgar and Sir Hugh Evans; and that he was no ftranger to the peculiarities of foreign pronunciation, is likewife evident from several scenes of English tinctured with French, in The Merry Wives of Windfor and King Henry the Fifth.* * Notwithstanding what I have advanced in favour of Shakspeare's uncommon powers of imitation, I am by no means fure he would have proved fuccefsful in a cold attempt to copy the peculiarities of language more ancient than his own. His exalted genius would have taught him to despise so servile an undertaking; and his good fense would have restrained him from engaging in a task which he had neither leifure nor patience to perform. His talents are displayed in copies from originals of a higher rank. Neither am I convinced that inferior writers have been over-lucky in poetical mimickries of their early predeceffors. It is lefs difficult to deform language, than to bestow on it the true caft of antiquity; and though the licentioufnefs of Chaucer, and the obfolete words employed by Gower, are within the reach of moderate abilities, the humour of the one, and the general idiom of the other, are not quite fo eafy of attainment. The best of our modern poets have fucceeded but tolerably in fhort compofitions of this kind, and have therefore shown their prudence in attempting none of equal length with the affembled chorufes in Pericles, which confift at least of three hundred lines.-Mr. Pope profeffes to give us a story in the manner of Chaucer; but uses a metre on the occafion in which not a fingle tale of that author is written. But it is here urged by Mr. Malone, that an exact imitation of Gower would have proved unintelligible to any audience during the reign of Elizabeth. If it were (which I am flow to admit) our author's judgment would fearce have permitted him to choose an agent fo inadequate to the purpose of an interpreter; one whofe years and phraseology must be fet at variance before he could be understood, one who was to affume the form, office, and habit of an ancient, and was yet to speak the language of a modern. I am ready to allow my opponent that the authors who introduced Machiavel, Guicciardine, and the Monk of Chester, on the ftage, have never yet been blamed because they avoided to make the two former speak in their native tongue, and the latter in the English dialect of his age. The proper language of the Italian statesman and historian, could not have been understood by qur common audiences; and as to Rainulph, he is known to have compofed his Chronicle in Latin. Befides, thefe three perfonages were writers in profe. They are alike called up to fuperintend the relations which were originally found in their respective books; and the magick that converted them into poets, might claim an equal power over their modes of declamation. The cafe is otherwife, when ancient bards, whofe compofitions were in English, are fummoned from the grave to instruct their countrymen; for these apparitions may be expected to speak in the ftyle and language that diftinguishes their real age, and their known productions, when there is no fufficient reason why they fhould depart from them. If the inequalities of measure which I have pointed out, be alfo visible in the lyrick parts of Macbeth, &c. I muft obferve that throughout these plays our author has not professed to imitate the style or manner of any acknowledged character or age; and therefore was tied down to the obfervation of no particular rules. Most of the irregular lines, however, in A MidsummerNight's Dream, &c. I fufpect of having been prolonged by cafual monofyllables, which ftole into them through the inattention of the copyift, or the impertinence of the speaker.-If indeed the chorufes in Pericles contain many fuch marked expreffions as are discoverable in Shakspeare's other dramas, I muft confefs that they have hitherto escaped my notice; unless they may be faid to occur in particulars which of neceffity mufi be common to all foliloquies of a fimilar kind. Such interlocutions cannot fail occafionally to contain the fame modes of addrefs, and the fame perfuafive arguments to folicit indulgence and fe cure applaufe. As for the ardentia verba celebrated by Mr. Malone, (to borrow Milton's phrase,) in my apprehenfion they burn but cold and frore. 3 To thefe obfervations I may add, that though Shakspeare feems to have been well verfed in the writings of Chaucer, his plays contain no marks of his acquaintance with the works of Gawer, from whofe fund of ftories not one of his plots is adopted. When I quoted the Confeffio Amantis to illuftrate "Florentius love" in The Taming of a Shrew, it was only becaufe I had then met with no other book in which that tale was related.—I ought not to quit the subject of these chorufes without remarking that Gower interpofes no less than fix times in the courfe of our play, exclufive of his introduction and peroration. Indeed he enters as often as any chaẩm in the ftory requires to be fupplied. I do. not recollect the fame practice in other tragedies, to which the. chorus ufually ferves as a prologue, and then appears only be tween the Acts. Shakspeare's legitimate pieces in which these mediators are found, might still be reprefented without their aid ; but the omiffion of Gower in Pericles would render it fo perfectly confused, that the audience might justly exclaim with Othello : Chaos is come again." Very little that can tend with certainty to establish or oppose our author's exclufive right in this dramatick performance, is to be collected from the dumb hows; for he has no fuch in his other plays, as will ferve to direct our judgment. These in Pericles are not introduced (in compliance with two ancient cuftoms) at ftated periods, or for the fake of adventitious fplendor. They do not appear before every Act, like thofe in Ferrex and Porrex; they are not, like thofe in Jocafta, merely oftentatious, Such deviations from common practice incline me to believe that originally there were no mute exhibitions at all throughout the piece; but that when Shakspeare undertook to reform it, finding fome parts peculiarly long and uninterefting, he now and then ftruck out the dialogue, and only left the action in its room; advifing the author to add a few lines to his choruses, as auxiliaries on the occafion. Those whofe fate it is to be engaged in the repairs of an old manfion-house, muft fubmit to many aukward expedients, which they would have escaped in a fabrick conftructed on their own plan: or it might be obferved, that though Shakspeare has expreffed his contempt of fuch dumb fhows as were inexplicable, there is no reason to believe he would have pointed the fame ridicule at others which were more easily underftood. I do not readily perceive that the aid of a dumb fhow is much more reprehenfible than that of a chorus: "Segnius irritant animos demiffa per aurem "Quam quæ funt oculis fubjecta fidelibus." If it be obferved that the latter will admit of fentiment and poetical imagery, it may be alfo urged that the former will ferve to furnish out fuch fpectacles of magnificence as fhould by no means appear defpicable in a kingdom which has ever encouraged the pomp of lord mayors' feafts, inftallments, and coronations. I fhould extend these remarks to an unwarrantable length, or might be tempted to prove that many of Shakspeare's plays exhibit traces of these folemn pantomimes;* though they are too adroitly managed by him to have need of verbal interpretation. Next it may be remarked, that the valuable parts of Pericles are more diftinguished by their poetical turn, than by variety of character, or command over the paffions. Partial graces are indeed almost the only improvements that the mender of a play already written can easily introduce; for an error in the firft concoction can be redeemed by no future procefs of chemistry. A few flowery lines may here and there be ftrewn on the furface of a dramatick piece; but these have little power to impregnate its general mafs. Character, on the contrary, must be defigned at the author's outfet, and proceed with gradual congeniality through the whole. In genuine Shakspeare, it infinuates itfelf every where, with an addrefs like that of Virgil's snakefit tortile collo "Aurum ingens coluber; fit longæ tænia vittæ, But the drama before us contains no difcrimination of manners,† (except in the comick dialogues,) very few traces of original thought, and is evidently deftitute of that intelligence and ufeful knowledge that pervade even the meaneft of Shakspeare's undifputed performances. To fpeak more plainly, it is neither enriched by the gems that sparkle through the rubbish of Love's Labour's Loft, nor the good fenfe which so often fertilizes the barren fable of The Two Gentlemen of Verona.-Pericles, in fhort, is little more than a string of adventures fo numerous, fo in * The reader who is willing to pursue this hint, may confult what are now called the stage directions, throughout the folio 1623, in the following pages. I refer to this copy, because it cannot be fufpected of modern interpolation. Tempest, p. 13, 15, 16. All's well &c. 234, 238. King Henry VI. P. I. 100, 102, 105. Ditto, P. II. 125, 127, 129. Ditto, P. III. 164. King Henry VIII. 206, 207, 211, 215, 224, 226, 231. Coriolanus, 6, 7. Titus Andronicus, 31. Timon, 82. Macbeth, 135, 144, Hamlet, 267. Antony and Cleopatra, 351, 355. Cymbeline, 392, 393.. + Thofe opticks that can detect the fmalleft veftige of Shakspeare in the character of the Pentapolitan monarch, cannot fail with equal felicity to dif cover Helen's beauty in a brow of Egypt, and to find all that fhould adorn the Graces, in the perfons and conduct of the weird sisters. Compared with this Simonides, the King of Navarre, in Love's Labour's Lost, Theseus, in A Midsummer-Night's Dream, and the Rex fistulatissimus in All's well that ends well, are the rareft compounds of Machiavel and Hercules. artificially crouded together, and fo far removed from probability, that, in my private judgment, I muft acquit even the irregular and lawless Shakspeare of having conftructed the fabrick of the drama," though he has certainly bestowed fome decoration on its parts. Yet even this decoration, like embroidery on a blanket, only serves by contraft to expose the meannefs of the original materials. That the plays of Shakspeare have their inequalities likewife, is fufficiently understood; but they are ftill the inequalities of Shakspeare. He may occafionally be abfurd, but is feldom foolifh; he may be cenfured, but can rarely be defpifed. I do not recollect a fingle plot of Shakspeare's formation (or even adoption from preceding plays or novels) in which the majority of the characters are not fo well connected, and so neceffary in respect of each other, that they proceed in combination to the end of the ftory; unless that ftory (as in the cafes of Antigonus and Mercutio) requires the interpofition of death. In Pericles this continuity is wanting: "disjectas moles, avulfaque faxis and even with the aid of Gower the fcenes are rather loosely * It is remarkable, that not a name appropriated by Shakspeare to any character throughout his other plays, is to be found in this. At the fame time the reader will obferve that, except in fuch pieces as are built on hiftorical fubjects, or English fables, he employs the fame proper names repeatedly in his different dramas. |