[v]

PREFACE.

HE Works of our ancient dramatic wri

THE
Ters have fuffered a very long, and, fome
few excepted, a very general neglect. Though
poffeffed of innumerable beauties, they have
been known in fo imperfect a manner, that
their very names have almost escaped the readers
of the present times. The merits of writers
are not always to be eftimated from the re-
putation which they bear with the publick.
Accident and caprice contribute to advance
fome authors above their due rank; and the
fame caufes as frequently deprefs below their
proper ftations, others who are intitled to a
fuperior degree of regard. The truth of these
obfervations might be illuftrated by instances
without number. Many productions have
been at first coldly received, which after-
wards have met with the highest applause.
Some have been praised and neglected; while
others, from a concurrence of circumftances
VOL. I.

b

in

in which excellence hath had no concern, have for a time acquired a fhare of favour which they have been unable to retain. Such hath been the revolution of tafte, that not a few works have been both applauded and condemned by the fame perfons; and this will be esteemed the less extraordinary, when it is confidered how many, who pronounce on the beauties or defects of authors, decide without any previous knowledge of what they approve or cenfure, how many rely on the opinion of others, and how few are capable of exercifing any judgement of their own.

To whatever cause it is to be afcribed, there can be no question but that the works of thofe who flourished in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and her fucceffor were not until lately much ftudied; and the dramatic poets were not lefs neglected than their contemporary brethren. Even thofe who are now held in the greatest reverence were not exempt the fame contemptuous treatment, and in confequence of it were almoft fuffered to fink into oblivion and obfcurity. Many parts of Shakspeare, the God of our prefent idolatry, and fome whole Plays, remained involved in all the darkness which a change of manners and cuftoms in the lapfe

from

of

of near two centuries had occafioned; and the reputation which our favourite Author poffeffed depended in fome degree on the frequent reprefentation of a very few of his plays at the theatres. How little he was read may be feen by the example of Sir Richard Steele, who does not appear to have been acquainted with so popular a play as The Taming of a Shrew'.

To account for fo general a difregard towards the early writers for the stage may not be an eafy task, though it would not be difficult to prove the injuftice of it. Many causes are to be affigned. The fanaticism, which prevailed about the middle of the laft century, had a fatal influence over the theatre for fome time. The intemperance of religious zeal carried deftruction along with it wherever the works of tafte were to be met with; and its dominion continued so long, that few of the dramatic poets, who flourished when the civil wars broke out, remained at the Reftoration. The convulfions of the times, which had interrupted all kind of diverfions, produced also a change in the manners of the people; and those who adhered to monarchy, on their return from exile, brought home with them a fondness for the French

* See laft Edition of Shakspeare, vol. III. p. 536.

school, which foon fuperfeded and funk into difrepute the rude, but nervous, productions of their predeceffors. Those who obtained the direction of dramatic entertainments at this period, had also been banished from their coun try, and had acquired the fame tafte. Regularity therefore took place of the wild native efforts of genius, which were foon driven from the ftage; the contemporaries and immediate fucceffors of Shakspeare became obfolete, the humour which they poffeffed was loft, and all the allufions, which depended on temporary circumftances, being forgotten, grew tasteless and infipid. The refinements of French manners alfo created a difguft at the coarfenefs which was common in the converfation of our forefathers; and, though there was no improvement in the morals of the people, it must be acknowledged, that an affectation of delicacy reigned, totally inconfiftent with thofe grofs and vulgar modes of expreffion fo frequently to be found in ancient writers.

The first attempts in any art are always rude -and imperfect, more calculated to exercife the fagacity of an antiquary, than to gratify a tafte rendered delicate by being accustomed to the improvements which luxury and riches introduce. The polish of modern fashions ill agrees