for, which he entirely new writ; the HiStory of Henry the 6th, which was first published under the Title of the Contention of York and Lancaster; and that of Henry the sth, extreamly improved; that of Hamlet enlarged to almost as much again as at first, and many others. I believe the common opinion of his want of Learning proceeded from no better ground. This too might be thought a Praise by fome; and to this his Errors have as injudicioufly been ascribed by others. For 'tis certain, were it true, it could concern but a small part of them; the most are such as are not properly Defects, but Superfætations: and arife not from want of learning or reading, but from want of thinking or judging: or rather (to be more just to our Author) from a compliance to those wants in others. As to a wrong choice of the fubject, a wrong conduct of the incidents, false thoughts, forc'd expreffions, &c. if these are not to be afcrib'd to the foresaid acci dental reasons, they must be charg'd upon the Poet himself, and there is no help for it. But I think the two Disadvantages which I have mentioned (to be obliged to please the lowest of people, and to keep the worst of company) if the confideration be extended as far as it reasonably may, will appear fufficient to mif-lead and depress the greatest Genius upon earth. Nay

the

the more modefty with which such an one is endued, the more he is in danger of fubmitting and conforming to others, againft his own better judgment.

But as to his Want of Learning, it may be neceffary to fay fomething more: There is certainly a vast difference between Learning, and Languages. How far he was ignorant of the latter, I cannot determine; but 'tis plain he had much Reading ar leaft, if they will not call it Learning. Nor is it any great matter, if a man has Knowledge, whether he has it from one language or from another. Nothing is more evident than that he had a taste of natural Philofophy, Mechanicks, ancient and modern History, Poetical learning and Mythology: We find him very knowing in the customs, rites, and manners of Antiquity. In Coriolanus and Julius Cæfar, not only the Spirit, but Manners, of the Romans are exactly drawn; and still a nicer distinction is shown, between the manners of the Romans in the time of the former, and of the latter. His reading in the ancient Historians is no less confpicuous, in many references to particular paflages: and the speeches copy'd from Plutarch in Coriolanus may, I think, as well be made an instance of his learning, as those copy'd from Cicero in Catiline, of Ben Johnson's. The

manners of other nations in general, the

Egyptians,

Egyptians, Venetians, French, &c. are drawn b with equal propriety. Whatever object of af nature, or branch of science, he either

speaks of or describes; it is always with a competent, if not extensive knowledge: his descriptions are still exact; all his metaphors appropriated, and remarkably drawn from the true nature and inherent qualities of each fubject. When he treats of Ethic or Politic, we may constantly observe a wonderful justness of diftinction, as well as extent of comprehenfion. No one is more a master of the Poetical story, or has more frequent allufions to the various 1 parts of it: Mr. Waller (who has been celebrated for this last particular) has not - shown more learning this way than ShakeSpear. We have Translations from Ovid published in his name, among those Poems which pass for his, and for fome of which we have undoubted authority, (being pub

e

- lished by himself, and dedicated to his noble Patron the Earl of Southampton:) He appears also to have been converfant in Plautus, from whom he has taken the plot of one of his plays: he follows the Greek Authors, and particularly Dares Phrygius, in another: (altho' I will not pretend to say in what language he read them.) The modern Italian writers of Novels he was manifeftly acquainted with; and we may conclude him to be no less converfant with the

the Ancients of his own country, from the ufe he has made of Chaucer in Troilus and Creffida, and in the Two Noble Kinsmen, if that Play be his, as there goes a Tradition it was, (and indeed it has little resemblance of Fletcher, and more of our Author's worse fort than some of those which have been received as genuine.)

I am inclined to think, this opinion proceeded originally from the Zeal of the Partizans of our Author and Ben Johnson; as they endeavoured to exalt the one at the expence of the other. It is ever the nature of Parties to be in extremes; and nothing is so probable, as that because Bem Johnson had much the most learning, it was said on the one hand that Shakespear had none at all; and because Shakespear had much the most wit and fancy, it was retorted on the other, that Johnson wanted both. Because Shakespear borrowed nothing, it was faid that Ben Johnson borrowed every thing. Because Johnson did not write extempore, he was reproached with being a year about every piece; and because Shakespear wrote with ease and rapidity, they cryed, he never once made a blor. Nay the spirit of opposition ran so high, that whatever those of the one fide objected to the other, was taken at the re

bound, and turned into Praises; as injudi

cioufly, ciously, as their Antagonists before had made them Objections.

Poets are always afraid of Envy; but fure they have as much reason to be afraid of Admiration : They are the Scylla and Charybdis of Authors; those who escape one, often fall by the other. Peffimum genus inimicorum Laudantes, says Tacitus: and Virgil defires to wear a charm againft those who praise a Poet without rule or reafon.

- Si ultra placitum laudaret, baccare frontem Cingite, ne Vati noceat

But however this contention might be carried on by the Partizans on either fide, I cannot help thinking these two great Poets were good friends, and lived on amicable terms and in offices of society with each other. It is an acknowledged fact, that Ben Johnson was introduced upon the Stage, and his first works encouraged, by Shakespear. And after his death, that Author writes To the memory of his beloved Mr. William Shakespear, which shows as if the friendship had continued thro' life. I cannot for my own part find any thing Invi dious or Sparing in those verses, but wonder Mr. Dryden was of that opinion. He exalts him not only above all his Contemporaries, but above Chaucer and Spenser, whom he