our earliest dramatick writers (who could fairly boast of no other requisites for poetry) are we to expect less polished versification from Shakspeare?" An accidental use of hemistichs is a phrase not very easy to be understood. But not to detain ourselves with verbal criticism, it would have been well if Mr. Steevens had given us more particular information where those early dramatick writers, so distinguished by the smoothness of their versification, were to be found. So far from this being the fact, it may be safely asserted, that there is not in all Shakspeare, from beginning to end, a single line, as exhibited in the old copies, which, in point of harshness, cannot be justified by the example of other writers of his time. After every deduction has been made from his general excellence, even in point of metre; after every passage has been produced which can give offence to the most delicate ear; yet still he will retain an ample claim to the eulogium pronounced upon him by Johnson, and perhaps more: "To him we must ascribe the praise, unless Spenser may divide it with him, of having first discovered to how much smoothness and harmony the English language could be softened. He has speeches, perhaps sometimes scenes, which have all the delicacy of Rowe, without his effeminacy. He endeavours, indeed, commonly to strike by the force and vigour of his dialogue; but he never executes his purpose better, than when he tries to sooth by softness." To establish the truth of both these positions, to show that Shakspeare's irregularities were not peculiar to himself, and that our versification received important improvements from his hand, will form the topicks which are discussed in the following remarks.

ON SHAKSPEARE'S VERSIFICATION.

The lines which were objected to by his early editors, which Mr. Steevens, during the greater part

of his life considered as proceeding from the poet's pen, but which he latterly endeavoured to represent as corruptions introduced by ignorant players or transcribers, may, for the most part, be classed under three divisions: those which are supposed to be redundant; those which are said to be defective; and those which are charged with being rough, and halting, from a faulty accentuation. The intermixture of rhyme with blank verse, and the irregularities which have sometimes attended its adoption, will be separately discussed. To speak, then, in the first place, of those verses which have been accused of redundancy. There is not a play of Shakspeare's in which Alexandrines do not frequently occur. These Mr. Steevens sometimes passes over without any remark; but in a multitude of instances, " by the advice of Mr. Ritson," cuts off two syllables, in order, as he says, to restore the metre. Had he been consistent, he should have objected to them all; but this is frequently impossible, without a total demolition of what the author had written, and substituting something else in its place. Here, therefore, Mr. Steevens preserves a complete silence. On those occasions where he has applied his critical knife for the purpose of amputation, it is worthy of remark, that the term Alexandrine is scarcely ever employed; but a general remark is made as to the imperfection of the metre. Had this sort of line been designated by its usual name, a question would have suggested itself to the most careless reader. We have Alexandrines in Dryden and in Pope, the most scrupulously correct of all our poets; why then should they be regarded as inadmissible in Shakspeare? If we could suppose Mr. Steevens to have been influenced by the authority of another's opinion on a question of English literature, which no one had more assiduously studied than himself, we might be led to conclude that he had been misled by Dr. John

son. In the Life of Dryden, we meet with the following observations:

"Of Triplets and Alexandrines, though he did not introduce the use, he established it. The triplet has long subsisted among us. Dryden seems not to have traced it higher than to Chapman's Homer; but it is to be found in Phaer's Virgil, written in the reign of Mary; and in Hall's Satires, published five years before the death of Elizabeth.

"The Alexandrine was, I believe, first used by Spenser, for the sake of closing his stanza with a fuller sound. We had a longer measure of fourteen syllables, into which the Eneid was translated by Phaer, and other works of the ancients by other writers; of which Chapman's Iliad was, I believe, the last.

"The two first lines of Phaer's third Eneid will exemplify this measure:

• When Asia's state was overthrown, and Priam's kingdom stout, All guiltless, by the power of gods above was rooted out.'

"As these lines had their break, or casura, always at the eighth syllable, it was thought, in time, commodious to divide them: and quatrains of lines, alternately, consisting of eight and six syllables, make the most soft and pleasing of our lyrick measures; as, Relentless Time, destroying power, 'Which stone and brass obey, 'Who giv'st to ev'ry flying hour To work some new decay.'

"In the Alexandrine, when its power was once felt, some poems, as Drayton's Polyolbion, were wholly written; and sometimes the measures of twelve and fourteen syllables were interchanged with one another. Cowley was the first that inserted the Alexandrine at pleasure among the heroick lines of ten syllables, and from him Dryden professes to have adopted it."

That

No part of this statement is accurate. Spenser was the first who used the Alexandrine at the close of a stanza, is not strictly true; and that Cowley was the first that inserted it at pleasure, among the heroick lines of ten syllables, is altogether unfounded, as I think I shall most satisfactorily prove; by showing that it is found thus intermingled, not only in the poetry of Elizabeth's reign, but at a much earlier period. The antiquity of the triplet also has not been carried sufficiently high; but as that is not immediately connected with a discussion on Shakspeare's metre, I shall content myself with the production of one instance from a writer long prior to Phaer. In one of Hearne's long disquisitions, introduced in his glossary to Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle, under the word Sire, he has quoted the epilogue of Alexander Barclay, to his translation of Mancyn, on the Four Cardinal Virtues. It is printed as prose, but was evidently designed for verse, such as it is. As it is not long, I shall quote it entirely.

"Rede this lyttell treatice, o juvent of Englande:

"As myrrour of good manners ye chefely of London stande; "And whan ye it redyng shall perfyte understande ; "Gyve ye lande and thankes, to Gyles Alyngton

Knight, at whose precept this treatyse was begon: "If this do you profyte, that shal my mynde excyte, " Of mo frutefull matters after this to wryte."

But the introduction of the Alexandrine into our language, will demand a fuller inquiry; and with this view I shall venture to detain the reader with a short history of the state of our versification, from the period when the heroick line of ten syllables was first substituted by Chaucer, in the room of our more ancient measures. This investigation will not only serve to show that the use of the Alexandrine was much more ancient than has generally been supposed; but by exhibiting to us the condition of our metre,

when Shakspeare and Spenser arose, will supply us with the materials of judging how far we are indebted to those two great poets for the harmony of our language. But before we enter upon this inquiry, a preliminary objection must be overcome. A theory has been lately advanced, and has gained, as I am told, some distinguished proselytes, which would, if well founded, put an end to such a question altogether. It would be absurd to examine what was the metrical system of our earliest poets, if, as my friend, Dr. Nott, has laboured to persuade us, before the time of Lord Surrey, they had no knowledge of metre at all. While I am happy to bear testimony to the ingenuity and research which have been displayed in support of this position, I have no hesitation in saying, that they have not, in any degree, contributed to satisfy me of its truth. If Dr. Nott's opinion should be considered as correct, the principles laid down by Mr. Tyrwhitt, in his Essay on Chaucer's Versification, must fall to the ground; and, accordingly, Dr. Nott has expressly undertaken to convince us that those principles are wholly erroneous. Yet, while he controverts Mr. Tyrwhitt's notions, he has never lost sight of the respect that is due to so distinguished an antagonist; but has carried on the discussion with the urbanity of a gentleman and a scholar. I cannot congratulate my friend on having gained a victory; but he has fought with gallantry and vigour. To have been engaged in such a contest with one of the most judicious, as well as learned, criticks that our country can boast of, is no small honour, even under defeat: certasse feretur.

The opinions of Dr. Nott and Mr. Tyrwhitt come in conflict with each other, on the very threshold of the inquiry. Mr. Tyrwhitt sets out with stating, that a large proportion of Chaucer's lines are conformable to the ordinary rules of metre. He has, perhaps, rendered his argument deficient in clearness,