certain parts of the two greateft nations

now exifting.

Voltaire fucceeded Racine; Boileau, Moliere the firft, the most perfect writer that perhaps ever lived; the fe cond, a moft enlightened and fevere critic; Moliere, a man of uncommon depth and penetration, who joined an extenfive knowledge of human nature to a moft minute acquaintance with the rules of his art; and who, though he entertains his reader better than any other comic writer, gives him ftill more information than amusement. Thefe three authors fixed the taste of the French nation. This was the first great advantage Voltaire had over Shakspeare. The taste of his nation was one; confe

quently

quently he had but one palate to please. That palate, it is true, was exquifitely refined.

The next advantage he had was that of having the poetic language of his country afcertained. Men of genius, from the impulfe of nature, had created materials (1) men of tafte, under the patronage of Cardinal Richelieu, had purified thofe materials; Racine and Boileau had put them in ufe... What had Voltaire to do? The quarry was found; the ftones were cut, nay, and polished too; he had nothing to do but to lay them. It was all he did do; it was indeed almost all that was poffible for him

(1) Language I mean.

to

to do. He could not create a new word, because that was forbidden. All that he could create was new combinations of words; to do that, required a little, but very little genius; however, that little he wanted.

Every poet

in

France will tell you he has added nothing to the language; and all he could have added to it was combinations (2). What now was Shakspeare's compa

rative fituation?

He came into a chaos

(2) I mean bringing together two words, which never had been brought together before; as,

The bawdy wind which kiffes all it meets. Thofe two words were in the language, but Shakspeare was the first who combined them. I quote this as a new combination, not a good one. You fay it is bold. It is more than bold; it is audacious.

of

of taftes, and into a chaos of language. There is no national tafte in England at the hour I write. What must it have been in Queen Elizabeth's time? When I fay the English nation has no taste, I do not fay that there are not individuals in England who have great tafte. I al ways fupported the contrary; and never more ftrongly than when I was in France. I faid the French nation had more taste than the English nation; but that there was a number of individuals in England, men and women, who had greater and finer tafte than was to be met in any other part of Europe. Pick a number of perfons in England, and pick the fame number in France. The picked Englishmen fhall be fuperior to the

picked Frenchmen. But fill two thea tres: the theatre in France fhall be infinitely fuperior to the theatre in England. I fhall explain the reason of this presently in another letter.

Shakspeare then was forced to please this chaos; and to pleafe it, he was forced to write a chaos. But what verfatility of talents must that man have had, to be able to command the admiration of the greatest Geniuses and moft fhining Wits of his country, and to captivate the lowest of the people, and all the intermediate claffes between those extremes !

Recollect now the fituation in which he found the English language, the difficulties he had to ftruggle with there,

and