tertainments of the
Stage; two of theirs being acted through the year, for one of
SHAKESPEARE's or JOHNSON's. The reason is because there is a certain
Gaiety in their Comedies, and Pathos in their more serious Plays, which
suit generally with all men's humours, SHAKESPEARE's Language is likewise
a little obsolete; and BEN. JOHNSON's Wit comes short of theirs.

"As for JOHNSON, to whose character I am now arrived; if we look upon
him, while he was himself (for his last Plays were but his dotages) I
think him the most learned and judicious Writer which any _Theatre_ ever
had. He was a most severe judge of himself, as well as others. One cannot
say he wanted Wit; but rather, that he was frugal of it [p. 572]. In his
works, you find little to retrench or alter.

"Wit and Language, and Humour also in some measure, we had before him;
but something of Art was wanting to the Drama, till he came. He managed
his strength to more advantage than any who preceded him. You seldom find
him making love in any of his Scenes, or endeavouring to move the
passions: his genius was too sullen and saturnine to do it gracefully;
especially when he knew, he came after those who had performed both to
such a height. Humour was his proper sphere; and in that, he delighted
most to represent mechanic [_uncultivated_] people.

"He was deeply conversant in the Ancients, both Greek and Latin; and he
borrowed boldly from them. There is scarce a Poet or Historian, among the
Roman authors of those times, whom he has not translated in _SEJANUS_ and
_CATILINE_: but he has done his robberies so openly, that one may see he
fears not to be taxed by any law. He invades authors, like a Monarch; and
what would be Theft in other Poets, is only Victory in him. With the
spoils of these Writers, he so represents old Rome to us, in its rites,
ceremonies, and customs; that if one of their own poets had written
either of his Tragedies, we had seen less of it than in him.

"If there was any fault in his Language, 'twas that he weaved it too
closely and laboriously in his serious Plays. Perhaps, too, he did a
little too much Romanize our tongue; leaving the words which he
translated, almost as much Latin as he found them: wherein, though he
learnedly followed the idiom of their language, he did not enough comply
with ours.

"If I would compare him with SHAKESPEARE, I must acknowledge him, the
more correct Poet; but SHAKESPEARE, the greater Wit. SHAKESPEARE was the
HO