KING LEA R. A TRAGEDY. Altered from Shakespeare, by Tate and Colman. THE perfon who enters upon dramatic altera tion, without being a flave to his original, fhould nearly as poffible, confine himself to pruning luxuriances, correcting irregularity, rationalizing bombaft, and elucidating obfcurity; cautious of adding, unlefs where unavoidable gaps are made, and connection confequently wanting; it is most allowable that SHAKESPEARE'S KING LEAR very much wanted fuch affiftance as we have mentioned. TATE'S Opening of the play we apprehend preferable to that adopted by COLMAN; for the Baftard makes us much better, that is much more decently acquainted with his illegitimacy in the foliloquy spoken by him, than Glofter's account; the antipathy he bears to Edgar as ftanding before him, is also well intimated, and Lear's character is properly opened in the short following fcene between Glofter and Kent, wherein alfo the former expreffes ftrong refentment against his fon Edgar, and warm attachment to Edmund, by whofe cunning his paffion is raised. Where Lear divides his kingdom upon the childif principle of afking which daughter loves him beft, COL King Lear. COLMAN has preserved that unjustifiable, cynical roughness, which SHAKESPEARE has stamped upon Cordelia, in the barren, churlifh answer she gives her father; this TATE has confiderably foftened, by making her attachment to Edgar, the caufe of fuch reply we think, however, that the whole affair might have been thrown into a much better light, by making the old monarch divide his kingdom on the marriage of his daughters, with those persons he approved; Cordelia's refufing the person of his choice from a fecret inclination elfewhere, would have rescued him from the extreme folly now chargeable against him, and the successful daughters might have made profeffions equally flattering from a seeming gratitude, as they now do from affected duty; Lear's feeing into, and declaring a knowledge of Cordelia's attachment, would have furnished ftrong additional reason for Edgar's flight; the rough, honeft interpofition of Kent, is a circumstance extremely pleasing; in this, as well as many other scenes of the play, TATE has enervated the verfification, by endeavouring to give it a fmoother flow; where, fore COLMAN has fhewn greater judgment and more modefty, by only retrenching, not altering the original. We can by no means agree with the last mentioned gentleman, that the love epifode of Edgar and Cordelia is fuperfluous or unaffecting, we must rather contend in oppofition to the frigidity of criticism, that natural and very pleafing fenfations are raised by it, without any invafion upon the main díVOL. I. Z z ftrefs King Lear: ftress of the piece; to enter into a minute defence of this opinion, is not confiftent with our plan, we only advance it for the reader's confideration and arbitration, appealing to audiences, as Mr. COLMAN in his preface has done, from whofe feelings we imagine abundant proofs will rife in favour of what we thus take upon us to approve. What Goneril and Regan fay after Lear's departure, is judicioufly omitted by TATE, as their characters are thereby unneceffarily, and too foon laid open; his introducing the Baftard, in colour of friendship to Edgar, is alfo judicious, and lets us well into the scope of his defign; the following fcene between Glofter and Edmund, however, he has mutilated abominably, by improper omiffion and pitiful verfification; the Baftard's excellent foliloquy he has strangely mangled; nevertheless, we think, without lofing any part of the fpirit, Mr. COLMAN might have rendered the laft fentence of it more delicate. We can by no means conceive why Kent's firft fpeech, when disguised, should have been curtailed; as to the short preceding fcene between Goneril and her steward, we deem it trifling and uneffential, as what it relates to needs no fuch preparative, therefore, we commend TATE for leaving it out; but we muft immediately after cenfure his curtailing what the original author fo happily penned for Kent and the King; the introductory paffages to Goneril's ill treatment of her royal father, are much bet ter King Lear, ter in SHAKESPEARE, than in either of the alterations. As a comparative view renders it impracticable to trace the ftory in the manner we have done in other pieces, it will, we hope, be deemed allowable to remind our readers, that after improvidently parting with his all, abandoning his only dutiful child, and banishing his firmest friend, old Lear now prefents himself before his eldest daughter, who, on mere pretence of injury, behaves with ungrateful infolence; here the king's natural impatience is justifiably wrought up, even to a bitter and pathetic execration of his undutiful child: though TATE had confiderable merit in his tranfpofition of the last scene of the firft act, yet we think Mr. COLMAN has fhewn more critical knowledge of nature and the stage, by restoring fome paffages which were omitted, and by concluding the act with Lear's curfe, as nothing could be faid after to any effect. At the beginning of the fecond act, we find the Baftard, with moft villainous, hypocrify, carrying on his defign againft Edgar's life, which Glofter credulously comes into; this fcene is much better in COLMAN than TATE, as is the following interview, where Kent fo characteristically catechifes Goneril's infignificant Gentleman Usher. The Duke of Cornwall and his wife Regan appear next, upon a vifit to Glofter, whofe misfortune in the fuppofed, unnatural behaviour of his eldest fon, they condole, and offer their authority to punish the offender Regan's laying a ftrefs upon his being an Zz2 affociate King Lear affociate with her father's riotous knights, as fhe calls them, is a good opening of her intended behaviour to the good old king. Mr. COLMAN objects to making the daughters entertain a criminal passion for Edmund, but if we can once fuppose them capable of filial ingratitude, all other vices, as Dr. YoUNG emphatically has it, may feem virtues in them; for this reason, we approve the intimation TATE has furnifhed Regan with, of her prejudice in favour of Edmund. When Kent and the Gentleman Usher appear, COLMAN has again judiciously preferved several paffages which the laureat ftrangely flipped over, or wretchedly metamorphofed: we know not any fcene written with more fpirit and originality than this; Kent's honest, scarçastical bluntness, is finely contrafted to the courtly water-fly's fupple nothingness; however, decorum is certainly intruded upon, for fuch language to be used in prefence of a joint ruler of the state, is unpardonable; and we heartily agree that Kent deserves fome punishment, but much regret so farcical an incident as a pair of moveable stocks, fo conveniently placed in a nobleman's caftle, as to be forth coming on the instant. Kent's going to fleep in fuch a fituation is ludicrous alfo; we are amazed when alteration was on foot, this incident was not changed for one more probable, and equally conducive to the plot; efpecially when fuch a change might be made with the greatest cafe imaginable. We have feen the Gentleman Usher make a very pantomimical stroke, by pushing at Kent when his legs are faft; fuch a manovre | cannot |