Mr POPE's Preface.

T is not my defign to enter into a criticifm upon this author; though to do it effectually, and not fuperficially, would be the best occafion that any just writer could take, to form the judgment and taste of our nation. For of all English poets Shakespear must be confeffed to be the fairest and fulleft subject for criticism, and to afford the most numerous, as well as most confpicuous inftances, both of beauties and faults of all forts. But this far exceeds the bounds of a preface; the businefs of which is only to give an account of the fate of his works, and the difadvantages under which they have been tranfmitted to us. We shall hereby extenuate many faults which are his, and clear him from the imputation of many which are not: A defign which, though it can be no guide to future critics to do him juftice in one way, will at leaft be fufficient to prevent their doing him an injuftice in the other.

I cannot however but mention fome of his principal and characteristic excellencies, for which (notwithftanding his defects) he is juftly and univerfally elevated above all other dramatic writers. Not that this is the proper place of praifing him, but becaufe I would not omit any occafion of doing it.

If ever any author deferved the name of an original, it was Shakespear. Homer himself drew not his art fo immediately from the fountains of nature; it proceeded through Egyptian ftrainers and channels, and came to him not without fome tincture of the learning, or fome caft of the models, of thofe before him. The poetry of Shakespear was infpiration indeed: he is not fo much an imitator, as an inftrument, of Nature; and it is not fo juft to fay, that he speaks from her, as that the fpeaks through him.

His characters are fo much Nature herfelf, that it is a fort of injury to call them by fo diftant a name as copies of her. Thofe of other poets have a conftant refemblance, which fhews that they received them from one

b

another, and were but multipliers of the fame image: each picture, like a mock-rainbow, is but the reflection of a reflection. But every fingle character in Shakefpear is as much an individual as thofe in life itfelf; it is as impoffible to find any two alike; and fuch as from their relation or affinity in any refpect appear moft to be twins, will upon comparifon be found remarkably diftinct. To this life and variety of character, we must add the wonderful prefervation of it; which is fuch throughout his plays, that, had all the fpeeches been printed without the very names of the perfons, I believe one might have applied them with certainty to every fpeaker.

The power over our paffions was never poffeffed in a more eminent degree, or difplayed in fo different inRancés. Yet all along there is feen no labour, no pains to raise them; no preparation to guide our guefs to the effect, or be perceived to lead toward it: but the heart fwells, and the tears burst out, juft at the proper places. We are furprised the moment we weep; and yet upon reflection find the passion so just, that we fhould be furprifed if we had not wept, and wept at that very mo

ment.

How aftonishing is it again, that the paffions directly oppofite to thefe, laughter and fpleen, are no lefs at his command! that he is not more a mafter of the great than of the ridiculous in human nature; of our nobleft tenderneffes, than of our vaineft foibles; of our strongeft emotions, than of our idleft fenfations!

Nor does he only excel in the paffions in the coolnefs of reflection and reafoning he is full as admirable. His fentiments are not only in general the moft pertinent. and judicious upon every fubject; but by a talent very peculiar, fomething between penetration and felicity, he hits upon that particular point on which the bent of each argument turns, or the force of each motive depends. This is perfectly amazing, from a man of no education or experience in thofe great and public fcenes of life which are ufually the fubject of his thoughts: fo that he feems to have known the world by intuition, to have looked through human nature at one glance, and to be the only author that gives ground for a very

new opinion, That the philofopher, and even the man of the world, may be born, as well as the poet.

It must be owned, that with all these great excellencies, he has almost as great defects; and that as he has certainly written better, so he has perhaps written worfe than any other. But I think I can in fome measure account for thefe defects, from feveral caufes and accidents; without which it is hard to imagine, that fo large and fo enlightened a mind could ever have been fufceptible of them. That all these contingencies fhould unite to his difadvantage, feems to me almoft as fingularly unlucky, as that so many various (nay contrary) talents fhould meet in one man, was happy and extraordinary..

Ac

It must be allowed, that ftage-poetry, of all other, is more particularly levelled to please the populace, and its fuccefs more immediately depending upon the common fuffrage. One cannot therefore wonder, if Shakespear, having at his first appearance no other aim in his writings than to procure a fubfiftence, directed his endeavours folely to hit the taste and humour that then prevailed. The audience was generally compofed of the meaner fort of people; and therefore the images of life were to be drawn from thofe of their own rank. cordingly we find, that not our author's only, but almost all the old comedies, have their fcene among tradesmen and mechanics: and even their hiftorical plays ftrictly follow the common old ftories or vulgar traditions of that kind of people. In tragedy, nothing was fo fure to furprife, and caufe admiration, as the most strange, unexpected, and confequently moft unnatural events and incidents; the moft exaggerated thoughts; the most verbose and bombaft expreffion; the moft pompous rhymes, and thundering verfification. In comedy, nothing was fo fure to please, as mean buffoonry, vile ribaldry, and unmannerly jefts of fools and clowns. Yet even in these our author's wit buoys up, and is borne above his fubject: his genius in thofe low parts, is like fome prince of a romance in the difguife of a fhepherd or peafant; a certain greatness and fpirit now and then break out, which manifeft his higher extraction and qualities.

It may be added, that not only the common audience

had no notion of the rules of writing, but few even of the better fort piqued themfelves upon any great degree of knowledge or nicety that way; till Ben Johnfon getting poffeffion of the ftage, brought critical learning into vogue and that this was not done without difficulty, may appear from thofe frequent leffons (and indeed almoft declamations) which he was forced to prefix to his first plays, and put into the mouth of his actors, the Grex, Chorus, &c. to remove the prejudices and inform the judgment of his hearers. Till then our authors had no thoughts of writing on the model of the ancients their tragedies were only hiftories in dialogue; and their comedies followed the thread of any novel as they found it, no lefs implicitly than if it had been true hiftory.

To judge therefore of Shakespear by Ariftotle's rules, is like trying a man by the laws of one country, who acted under thofe of another. He writ to the people; and writ at first without patronage from the better fort, and therefore without aims of pleafing them; without assistance or advice from the learned, as without the advantage of education or acquaintance among them; without that knowledge of the best models, the ancients, to infpire him with an emulation of them; in a word, without any views of reputation, and of what poets are pleafed to call immortality: fome or all of which have encouraged the vanity, or animated the ambition of other writers.

Yet it must be obferved, that when his performances had merited the protection of his prince, and when the encouragement of the court had fucceeded to that of the town; the works of his riper years are manifeftly raised above those of his former. The dates of his plays fufficiently evidence, that his productions improved, in proportion to the respect he had for his auditors. And I make no doubt this obfervation would be found true in every inftance, were but editions extant from which we might learn the exact time when every piece was compofed, and whether writ for the town or the court.

Another caufe (and no lefs ftrong than the former) may be deduced from our author's being a player, and forming himself first upon the judgments of that body

of men whereof he was a member. They have ever had a standard to themfelves, upon other principles than thofe of Ariftotle. As they live by the majority, they know no rule but that of pleafing the prefent humour, and complying with the wit in fafhion; a confideration which brings all their judgment to a fhort point. Flayers are just fuch judges of what is right, as tailors are of what is graceful. And in this view it will be but fair to allow, that most of our author's faults are less to be ascribed to his wrong judgment as a poet, than to his right judgment as a player.

By thefe men it was thought a praise to Shakespear, that he scarce ever blotted a line. This they industrioufly propagated; as appears from what we are told by Ben Johnfon in his Difcoveries, and from the preface of Heminges and Condell to the firft folio edition. But in reality (however it has prevailed) there never was a more groundless report, or to the contrary of which there are more undeniable evidences: As the comedy of The Merry wives of Windfor, which he entirely new writ; The Hiftory of Henry VI. which was first published under the title of The contention of York and Lancaster; and that of Henry V. extremely 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 praife by fome, and to this his errors have as injudiciously been afcribed by others. For it is certain, were it true, it could concern but a fmall part of them: the most are fuch as are not properly defects, but fuperfœtations; 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 thofe wants in others. As to a wrong choice of the fubject, a wrong conduct of the incidents,....... falfe thoughts, forced expreffions, &c. if thefe are not to be afcribed to the forefaid accidental reasons, they must be charged upon the poet himself, and there is no help for it. But I think the two difadvantages which I have mentioned, (to be obliged to pleafe the lowest of people, and to keep the worst of company), if the confideration be extended as far as it reafonably may, will