With a translation of what is said by our author upon the foundation of the French academy, we shall conclude the present article.

6

Cardinal Richélieu, whose energy served the vanity, while it seemed only to animate the glory of France, and who had raised himself so high, as to consider France as his patrimonial property, gave a new direction to its literature. While he protected it, he reduced it to the most servile dependence upon the court. He created in France a new literature, as he had created in it a new government. Believing himself to be a poet, he loved poetry as he loved France, because he found his own advantage in its aggrandisement. He mixed together those sentiments in his soul; and he rewarded the poets who loved their country, because they favoured both his objects. He crowned his efforts in favour of the language and literature of his country, by founding the French academy; and, whatever were the motives of this extraordinary man, one does not go too far in calling him the creator of the age of Louis XIV. 'At least Napoleon,' once said too courteous a poet, preserves the republic of letters.' Richélieu thought differently; in founding the French academy, he introduced despotism into the Belles Lettres. It is, however, true, that the court did not impose on the forty members of the academy the obligation of praising or blaming what it favoured or discouraged; but, one way or other, it was always contrived, that the persons admitted into this protected body, should have the same taste and opinions as the persons in power. court paid them, and they obtained their admission into the academy in consequence of the influence of the court.-Still, the academy did much for the improvement of the French language. In a short time, it acquired that precision which rendered it equally proper for works on the exact sciences; for political treatises, and for the most refined reflections; so much was this the case, that, in a short time, it became the universal language of Europe'

The

ART. IV. The Dramatic Works of John Ford, with Notes, Critical and Explanatory. By William Gifford, Esq. 2 vols. 8yo. 36s. London: Murray. 1827.

THE destruction of the monarchy eclipsed for a season the glories of the truly national drama of our ancestors; and it was not till many years after the restoration, that any thing like a general feeling for its beauties was revived. The stern, unbending spirit of puritanic zeal, long survived the temporal authority of its advocates; and the foreign habits, manners and predilections of the court of Charles, and his successors, were almost equally unpropitious to the revival of a pure love of English dramatic literature. Towards the commencement of the ensuing century, however, the genuine feelings of nature regained their influence:-Shakspeare was restored to his supremacy on the stage, and his works thrown into general circulation. Such food naturally increased the appetite it gratified; and the growth of a healthy dramatic taste, is henceforth to be

traced with accuracy. Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher, and Massinger, were studied with diligence, entertainment and profit, and from the riches they displayed, in absolute profusion, the useful inference was deduced, that (however inferior in general qualifications), it was not possible, but that their contemporaries and immediate successors must have caught some portion of the spirit, which inspired the great luminaries of our stage.

Volumes of specimens of the old dramatists were published, where it was not thought expedient to print the plays entire; if a portion only of an author's works was deemed worthy of attention, a selection of his best was made; sometimes separately printed, sometimes embodied in miscellaneous collections of old plays; sometimes the works of a dramatist were given to the world entire. The rage was carried, and (for it is not yet over), is still carrying, too far. Sufficient distinction was not made, between the old and the intrinsically valuable; between the merely curious, and works calculated for instruction and delight. The consequence may be anticipated: many plays have heen dragged from an obscurity, in which they might well have been suffered to repose, and mingle their mouldering pages with the ashes of authors, to whose memories they are ill-calculated to impart any honourable fame. More solicitude, also, was displayed to make these several publications attractive to the eye, than to procure them an advantage of editorship, which would have insured integrity of text, and propriety of illustration.

The introduction of Ford on the modern stage, is connected with some curious circumstances. With the absurd view of striking a blow at the hopes of the Pretender, his " Perkin Warbeck was reprinted in 1714: and, with similar enlightened expectations, the same play was acted at Goodman's Fields in 1745!—Three years subsequently Macklin selected "The Lover's Melancholy," for the benefit of his wife; and, finding the town ignorant alike of the merits of the play and of the author, with more craft than honesty, he inserted a letter in the "General Advertiser," dilating on the surpassing excellences of the "Lover's Melancholy," and ascribing them to the "close intimacy that subsisted between the author and Shakspeare, as appears from several of Ford's sonnets and verses." Still the town was indifferent, and Macklin apprehensive of empty benches. He postponed the performance for a week, to await the effect of a new and more potent stimulant-a daring fabrication which he called an extract from a pamphlet written in the reign of Charles 1st, with the quaint title of " Old Ben's Light Heart made heavy, by Young John's Melancholy Lover." The object of this forgery was, to exalt Ford in public estimation, by representing Jonson as jealous of his fame, talents, and superior dramatic success. However well Macklin's purpose might have been served at the time, by this scandalous transaction, its effects on Ford were merely transitory; one entire play, and a few selections only, were

printed between this period and 1811, when his works first appeared in a collected form.

'The person selected by the booksellers as the editor,' says Mr. Gifford, 'was Mr. Henry Weber. It would be curious to learn the motives of this felicitous choice. Mr. Weber had never read an old play in his life; he was but imperfectly acquainted with the language; and of the manners, customs, habits-of what was, and what was not familiar to us as a nation -he possessed no knowledge whatever: but secure in ignorance, he entertained a comfortable opinion of himself, and never doubted that he was qualified to instruct and enliven the public. With Ford's quarto, therefore, and a wallet containing Cotgrave's French Dictionary, the variorum edition of Shakspeare, and Dodsley's collection of Old Plays, he settled himself to his appointed task, and, in due time, produced two volumes now before the public.'-Introduction, pp. 51, 52.

Till

This precious work now lies open on our table; and the reader cannot fail to agree in the justice of this sweeping condemnation of its editor, if he will only attend to one or two specimens of that gentleman's improvements. As for example, in the "Lover's Melancholy," Pelias asserts that his "nurse was a woman-surgeon," and, according to Mr. Weber, Rhetias makes this comment on the fact:-"a she-surgeon, which is in fact, a mere matter of colours." vol. i., pp. 131, 2. Now mark the author's words. "A she-surgeon, which is, in effect, a mere matcher of colours ;"—that is, as the context shews, a dealer in paints and cosmetics. "Go, learn to paint and daub compliments." This is bad enough! But take another instance. "At Athens she lived in the habit of a young man. within these three months, or less, her sweet hearty father dying some year before, or more, she had notice of it, and with much joy returned home, and, as report voiced it, at Athens enjoyed her happiness; she was long an exile. For now, noble sir, if you did love, &c." vol. i., p. 147. We have here a sweet hearty father dead, much joy at the occurrence, and the lady still resident at Athens, notwithstanding her return home thence! Simple folly seems unequal to the production of such nonsense. Ford wrote, "At Athens, she lived in the habit of a young man ; till within these three months or less (her sweetheart's father dying some year before or more), she had notice of it, and with much joy returned home; and as report voiced it at Athens, enjoyed the happiness she was long an exile for. Now, noble sir," &c.

It has been said, that Mr. Weber is but an alias for Mr. W. Scott, now Sir Walter; and that much of the bitterness which falls from Gifford's pen on this occasion, was produced by personal feelings of hostility. Be this as it may, it is certain that Weber, whoever he was, was a most bungling editor. Mr. Gifford exhibits a very copious list of his strange readings, a few of which are amusing.

Weber.

Stay thy paws,

Courageous beast! also, lo! the gorgeous skull,
That shall transform thee to that stone," &c.

Upon this Gifford drily observes,- Admiral Beauty is very good. As the name, however, does not appear in the Navy List of Pavy, we may venture to dismiss him at once, and read

66

66

Such harmony of admirable beauty."'

Weber.

Roaring oblations of a wounded heart
To thee, offended spirit.

Gifford.

"Pouring oblations of a wounded heart
To thee," &c.

But of these precious examples of Mr. Weber's editorial skill, we have given enough. We now turn to Mr. Gifford; and though we are willing to give him every praise for the care which he appears to have bestowed on his author, we could wish for the character of the critic and of our literature, that he had not indulged in the splenetic vein of remark which disfigures his Introduction, and some of his notes. It is impossible to defend Mr. Weber from the innumerable charges of negligence and of ignorance, which are here brought against him; but it seems to us, that they might have been stated and proved in terms less objectionable, than those which Mr. Gifford uniformly delights in using. Incidentally, other names are mentioned by him, and treated with a degree of acrimony for which we are at a loss to account, unless it might have sprung from that unpleasant state of the mind, which being often brought on by infirmity, is converted into a habit before we are aware of its influence.

In other respects, Mr. Gifford has proved himself fully equal to the task which he had undertaken. We do not mean to affirm, that he has not left some phrases of his author, and some of his obscurities, unexplained; but it is not too much to say, that his edition of Ford is the only one that can be read with satisfaction. It is in every respect equally valuable as his editions of Massinger and Ben Jonson: it is marked with the same care in establishing the accuracy of the text; and by the same apposite, concise, and conclusive illustrations, that characterise his previous labours. He is every where the master of his subject, and every where treats it with facility and clearness.

Ford was only partially contemporary with Shakspeare. Born in 1586, he did not appear as a dramatic writer till he was somewhat advanced in life, for his time was principally occupied by the profession of the law. As was the custom of the day, he executed several pieces in conjunction with other writers; but his first independent drama, "The Lover's Melancholy," did not appear till 1629, and could not have been written long before: he subsequently composed six others without assistance; and the whole of his surviving works, whether written entirely by himself, or in conjunction with others, consist of eight dramas*, a mask†, an elegiac poem, entitled "Fame's Memorial," and some verses to the memory of Ben Jonson: all of which are comprised in the present edition of Ford's Works.

Below Shakspeare, Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher, and Massinger, Ford stands next to the latter in the scale of dramatic excellence; and he might possibly have risen to an equality with Massinger, had he bestowed more pains in the cultivation of his judgment; for a large, a very large, portion of the defects which his works exhibit, are clearly attributable to a want of the controlling exercise of that necessary quality of mind.

What lamentable deficiency of judgment has he displayed in the selection of many of the subjects which he dramatised. The plot of ""Tis Pity," &c., is so absolutely repulsive, that, in spite of all the beauties of the composition, the play is scarcely to be tolerated even in the closet. So fertile is "The Broken Heart" in the most disgusting butchery, that but for the extraordinary powers exerted by the author, it must have proved intolerable. In "Love's Sacrifice," Fiormonda's shameless declaration of her pas sion for Fernando excites aversion; and did we not know that it actually had been tolerated, we should not have hesitated to pronounce, that no audience whatever would have endured the gross

* "Lover's Melancholy."

"'Tis Pity She's a Whore."
"The Broken Heart."

"Love's Sacrifice."

+"The

"Perkin Warbeck."

"The Fancies, Chaste and Noble." "The Lady's Trial."

"The Witch of Edmonton." Sun's Darling."