and was complimented by Vanburgh on the strictness of the imitation.

Dr. Johnson with his usual judgment observes"this is one of the most celebrated of Shakspeare's "performances; yet I know not whether it has not happened to him as to others, to be praised most, "when praise is not most deserved that this play "has scenes noble in themselves and very well con"trived to strike in exhibition cannot be denied"but some parts are trifling, others shocking, and some improbable."

Generally speaking, the only mode of altering Shakspeare's plays with propriety is, to omit the weak parts to transpose, where transposition may be made to advantage-and to add some few lines when necessary in this play something more was requisite and if Cibber had contented himself with modestly altering those scenes, which are least worthy of the author and yet essential to the plot, he would have made him "a dish fit for the Gods, and not "have hewed him as a carcase fit for hounds."

Whoever attempts to adapt an old play to the stage, more especially one of Shakspeare's, should lay it down as a rule, to make no alteration, but what is necessary or at least expedient-whereas Cibber changes out of mere wantonness-the alterations which he makes, without rhyme or reason, are more than any body would believe, who had not compared the two plays --to enumerate them would be tiresome.

One has no wish to disturb Cibber's own Tragedies in their tranquil graves, but while our indignation continues to be excited by the frequent representation of Richard the 3d in so disgraceful a state,

there can be no peace between the friends of unsophisticated Shakspeare and Cibber.

The Editor of Bell's Shakspeare observes, that this Tragedy is admirably altered by that excellent judge and ornament of the stage, Colley Cibber

Ως αιει τον ομοιον αγει θεος ως τον ομοιον.
Homer.

In the tent scene this able Commentator says that Cibber has brought the Ghosts on the stage but once, tho' Shakspeare had introduced them twice -it would have been as well if he had taken the trouble just to have looked into the original play, and seen if the fact were as he stated it, or not.

It would not be difficult to make a much better alteration of this play than Cibber has made-what he has done well, or even decently, might be left as it is the passages from the 3 parts of Henry the 6th might be retained, if that should be judged expedient-but the speeches from Henry 4th and Henry 5th should be sent back to their proper placesexcept perhaps the dying speech, which Cibber has adopted with infinitely more judgment than any thing else that he has borrowed-Richard the 3d itself has plenty of materials for 5 acts.

The Public has been so long used to Cibber's play, that such an alteration would probably be as coolly received as Colman's Lear-however it would be worth while to try the experiment.*

To the advocates for Cibber's Richard I only wish

* The experiment was made at C. G. March 12. 1821.

to make one request-that they would never say a syllable in favour of Shakspeare.

Malone observes that proportionate to our respect and veneration for Shakspeare ought to be our care of his fame and of those valuable writings he has left us; and our solicitude to preserve them pure and unpolluted by any modern sophistication, or foreign admixture whatsoever.

Davies exposes himself to the last degree of contempt from the real friends of Shakspeare, when (in page 3d of the 1st Vol. of his Dramatic Miscellanies) he says, Cibber in his Richard the 3d has very dexterously made up a very pleasing pasticcio from a diligent perusal of all Shakspeare's historical plays, scarcely making use of a line or thought which was his own.

Even Murphy (in his life of Garrick p. 21) says, that the new matter introduced by Cibber was, with great judgment, selected from Shakspeare himself.

Fielding, who with so much wit and judgment exposed Cibber's presumption with regard to King John, seems to have said nothing against his Richard the 3d.

Dr. Valpy, in the advertisement prefixed to his alteration of King John, says-" Cibber succeeded "in his alteration of Richard the 3d, because he "collected a Cento of Shakspeare's expressions and "speeches."

Garrick concludes the Prologue to the Desart Island with a line which he had often spoken as Richard

"A little flattery sometimes does well."

It is strongly to be suspected that he thought he was quoting Shakspeare.*

*

As Porson says on a different occasion, if the persons who have only read Cibber's Richard the 3d were divided into companies of ten, and if every one who had read the original play were to wait upon a company, many decads would go without a cupbearer.

The author of the Laureat says "the play of "Richard the 3d was altered from Shakspeare; that "is, it was vamped up by a modern poetical botcher,

who, besides mangling and leaving out many beau"tiful and just images in the original, had pillaged "his other plays to enrich this one-when it came to "be acted, this mender of Shakspeare chose the "part of Richard for himself, and screamed through "4 acts without dignity or decency: the audience,

ill-pleased with the Farce, accompanied him with "a smile of contempt; but in the 5th act, he dege"nerated all at once into Sir Novelty; and when in "the heat of the battle at Bosworth Field, the King "is dismounted, our Comic-Tragedian came on the "stage, really breathless, and in a seeming panick,

66

screaming out this line thus-A Harse, a Harse, "my kingdom for a Harse-this highly delighted "some and disgusted others of his auditors; and "when he was killed by Richmond, one might plainly perceive that the good people were not better pleased that so execrable a tyrant was destroyed,

66

1819

cer

* A similar mistake occurs in a "Cure for Romance "Does not our Shakspeare say, Fathers have flinty hearts "tainly not; this half line was added to Romeo and Juliet by Garrick.

"than that so execrable an actor was silent-as to "Vanburgh's flattering our Apologist in the character "of Richard, he might please him for ought I know; "and he might have a very bad taste; for certainly "the general taste was against him."

In an advertisement at the end of the Generous Choice 1700 it is said "this day is published the "last new Tragedy called Richard the 3d, written by Mr. Cibber."

L. I. F. 1700.

At the latter end of the last year, or the beginning of this, Betterton, who had before revived Henry 8th, revived Henry 4th-the Wits of all qualities (says a Contemporary) have lately entertained themselves with a revived humour of Sir John Falstaff in Henry 4th, which has drawn all the town more than any new play that has been produced of late, which shows that Shakspeare's wit will always last: and the Critics allow that Betterton has hit the humour of Falstaff better than any that have aimed at it before. (Malone.)

Henry 4th part 1st was printed in 1700—in the titlepage it is said to have been revived with alterations-Falstaff-Betterton: Hotspur Verbruggen: KingBerry: Prince of Wales Scudamore: Prince

=