piece, because you have not money enough to buy a new one.

IT is as certainly true in governments and nations, as in old cloaths and new wine; that the first is fpoiled by patching, and the latter loft by being too foon fhut up: The first speaks the system of leaving things unattended to fo long, that they can fcarce be repaired by a new piece of expedient, and the preci pitation of corking up schemes before they have fufficiently fermented, is fignified by the latter; by which it comes to pass, that the poor old coat of England is become more rent by thefe new pieces; and the money, fuddenly raised, as fuddenly diffipated by ineffectual explosions in the application.

PRAY Madam, forgive this manner of finishing my letter in politics, which differs from its first fetting out as much as the differtation written by a Bishop of Ireland on tar-water, which beginning with tar, ends, I think with predestination, or something as far from the origi ginal; yet he calls it a chain of reasoning. I am, Madam,

Your most obedient fervant.

LETTER LIV.

To the Countess of

at Rome.

Madam,

A

MONGST the many works of litera

ture, in which this nation and the French are rivals; that of theatrical entertainments has been as much controverted as any whatever: each in its turn has afferted the fuperiority of its writers above the other.

SHAKESPEARE by the English, and Corneille by the French, are cited as proofs of the fuperiority of English and French genius, and each advocate equally hardy in sustaining the glory of his nation.

YET, Madam, after as candid and impartial a difquifition of that which conftitutes genius, as I am capable of making, I frankly confefs, to me it appears, that Shakespeare was the more exalted being, in all that constitutes true fuperi

ority of foul. Regularity of plan, in dramatic performances, is the work of art; conception of character, and their support thro' a whole theatric piece, the child of genius. Many men, nay all the French writers in tragedy, have reduced their productions for the stage, to the rules of the drama; yet, how few of them, or of any nation, have exalted and finifhed the ideas of perfonage in their pieces, to any degree of fublimity, and perfection.

FROM this difference we muft neceffarily conclude, that the power of conceiving and preferving juft characters in writing, is more rarely found, than that of planning a play; rules can teach one, which can effectuate nothing in the other; and many men may design, what not one in a million can execute.

FROM this, muft it not be concluded, that if Shakespeare exceeded the French writers in conceiving, and juftly fuftaining characters in tragedy, that he was of a fuperior genius to the greateft of the French nation?

THIS, you, madam, who understand both languages, fhall decide; but permit me to point

out

out fuch characters as have never been conceived by any French tragic writer, conducted and fuftained in a manner which no other nation has ever feen, ancient or modern.

4

IN the tragedy of Othello, the Moor all arte lefs, open, and brave, is feduced by the wiles and fubtilty of the hypocritic Jago.

THE feeming fimplicity of an honest heart is fo exquifitely fupported, and practised by him on the unfufpecting difpofition of a virtuous, valiant, and ingenuous mind, that no instance is to be produced of any thing parallel in any theatrical production.

IN each of these characters there is not one mistaken deviation; every spectator excuses the Moor in his being deceived, and pities with fincereft forrow the fate of open honefty, feduced by artifice and wiles.

THE difficulty is not eafily imagined, which attends the preservation of thefe two characters, The Moor must be fupported as brave, fenfible, and honeft; the fkill lay in preferving all

thefe

these from the imputation of weakness in Othello, thro' the conducting the impofition which was to be play'd upon him..

THE fimple, plain, and feemingly artless cunning of Jago, was attended with no lefs difficulty, to preserve the separate characteristics of this perfonage, without deviating into one inftance, which might betray his defign to a man of fenfe, is of all things the most difficult.

YET, thro' the whole conduct of both characters, there appears no one violation of the intended and original defign of the poet.

In this confiftency of character, the fuperiority of the English poet appears above all others, unless the critics devoted to the Greek, and antiquity, fhould contest it in favour of Homer; you, madam, will allow, that the great Corneille affords no inftance of this nature, comparable to the English author.

HIS management of Caffio, and Roderigo, is in the fame fimple, natural, and apparent honest ftrain; we fee that the deceit must be invisible to fuch men. The scene in the third act, between

Othello