Nothing is more evident than that he had a taste of natural philofophy, mechanicks, ancient and modern hiftory, 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 fpirit, but manners, of the Romans are exactly drawn; and ftill a nicer diftinction is shown, between the manners of the Romans in the time of the former, and of the latter. His reading in the ancient hiftorians is no lefs confpicuous, in many references to particular paffages and the fpeeches copied from Plutarch in Coriolanus may, I think, as well be made an inftance of his learning, as thofe copied from Cicero in Catiline, of Ben Johnson's. The manners of other nations in general, the Egyptians, Venetians, French, etc. are drawn with equal propriety. Whatever object of nature, or branch of fcience, he either speaks of or describes; it is always with competent, if not extenfive knowledge: his defcriptions are ftill 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 conftantly obferve a wonderful justness of diftinction, as well as extent of comprehenfion. No one is more a mafter of the poetical ftory, or has more frequent allufions to the various parts of it: Mr. Waller (who has been celebrated for this last particular) has not fhewn more learning this way than Shakefpear. We have tranflations from Ovid published in his name, among those poems which pafs for his, and for fome of which we have undoubted authority (being publifhed by himfelf, and dedicated to his noble patron the Earl of Southampton :) He appears alfo to have been converfant in Plautus, from whom he has taken the plot of one of his plays :

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 lefs converfant with the ancients of his own country, from the ufe he has made of Chaucer in Troilus and Creffida, and in the Two noble Kinfmen, if that Play be his, as there goes a tradition it was (and indeed it has little refemblance of Fletcher, and more of our Author than some of thofe 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 Johnfon; 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 fo probable, as that because Ben Johnson. had much the more learning, it was faid on the one hand that Shakespear had none at all; and because Shakespear had much the moft wit and fancy, it was retorted on the other, that Johnson wanted both. Because Shakespear borrowed nothing, it was faid that Ben Johnfon 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 cried, he never once made a blot. Nay the spirit of oppofition ran fo high, that whatever thofe of the one fide objected to the other, was taken at the rebound, and turned into praifes; as injudiciously, as their antagonists before had made them objections.

Poets are always afraid of envy; but fure they have as much reafon to be afraid of admiration. They are the Scylla and Charybdis of Authors; thofe who escape one, often fall by the other. Peffimum

genus inimicorum laudantes, fays Tacitus and Virgil defires to wear a charm against thofe who praise a poet without rule or reafon.

Si ultra placitum laudârit, baccare frontem Cingito, ne vati noceat.

But however this contention might be carried on by the Partizans on either fide, I cannot help thinking thefe two great poets were good friends, and lived on amicable terms, and in offices of fociety with each other. It is an acknowledged fact, that Ben Johnson was introduced upon the ftage, and his firft works encouraged, by Shakespear. And after his death, that Author writes To the memory of his beloved Mr. William Shakespear, which Thews as if the friendfhip had continued thro' life. I cannot for my own part find any thing invidious or sparing in thofe verfes, but wonder Mr. Dryden was of that opinion. He exalts him not only above all his contemporaries, but above Chaucer and Spenfer, whom he will not allow to be great enough to be ranked with him; and challenges the names of Sophocles, Euripides, and fchylus, nay all Greece and Rome at once, to equal him; and (which is very particular) exprefly vindicates him from the imputation of wanting art, not enduring that all his excellencies fhould be attributed to nature. It is remarkable too, that the praise he gives him in his Discoveries feems to proceed from a perfonal kindness; he tells us that he lov'd the man, as well as honoured his memory; celebrates the honesty, opennefs, and franknefs of his temper; and only diftinguishes, as he reafonably ought, between the real merit of the Author, and the filly and derogatory applaufes of the Players. Ben Johnson might indeed be fparing in his commendations, (tho' certainly he is not fo in this in

ftance)

ftance) partly from his own nature, and partly from judgment. For men of judgment think they do any man more fervice in praising him juftly, than lavishly. I fay, I would fain believe they were friends, tho' the violence and ill-breeding of their followers and flatterers were enough to give rife to the contrary report. I would hope that it may be with parties, both in wit and state, as with those monfters defcribed by the poets; and that their heads at least may have fomething human, tho' their bodies and tails are wild beafts and ferpents.

As I believe that what I have mentioned gave rife to the opinion of Shakespear's want of learning; fo what has continued it down to us may have been the many blunders and illiteracies of the first publishers of his works. In these editions their ignorance fhines in almost every page; nothing is more common than Actus tertia. Exit omnes. Enter three witches folus. Their French is as bad as their Latin, both in construction and fpelling Their very Welth is falfe. Nothing is more likely than that those palpable blunders of Hector's quoting Ariftotle, with others of that grofs kind, fprung from the fame root: it not being at all credible that these could be the errors of any man who had the leaft tincture of a school, or the least converfation with fuch as had. Ben Johnfon (whom they will not think partial to him) allows him at leaft to have had fome Latin; which is utterly inconsistent with mistakes like thefe. Nay the conftant blunders in proper names of perfons and places, are fuch as muft have proceeded from a man, who had not fo much as read any history, in any language: fo could not be Shakefpear's.

I fhall now lay before the reader fome of those almost innumerable errors, which have risen from one fource, the ignorance of the players, both as his actors, and as his editors. When the nature and kinds of these are enumerated and confidered, I dare to fay that not Skakefpear only, but Ariftotle or Cicero, had their works undergone the fame fate, might have appeared to want fenfe as well as learning.

It is not certain that any one of his plays was published by himself. During the time of his employment in the Theatre, feveral of his pieces were printed feparately in quarto. What makes me think that most of these were not published by him, is the exceffive careleffnefs of the prefs: every page is fo fcandaloufly falfe fpelled, and almoft all the learned or unufual words fo intolerably mangled, that it's plain there either was no corrector to the prefs at all, or one totally illiterate. If any were supervised by himself, I fhould fancy the two parts of Henry IV. and Midsummer Night's Dream might have been so: because I find no other printed with any exactness; and (contrary to the rest) there is very little variation in all the subsequent editions of them. There are extant two prefaces, to the first quarto edition of Troilus and Creffida in 1609, and to that of Othello; by which it appears, that the firft was published without his knowledge or confent, and even before it was acted, fo late as seven or eight years before he died; and that the latter was not printed till after his death. The whole number of genuine plays. which we have been able to find printed in his lifetime, amounts but to eleven. And of fome of

these, we meet with two or more editions by dif ferent printers, each of which has whole heaps of trafa different from the other: which I should

fancy