12. Fair Penitent. = Murphy: Sciolto Mrs. Cibber. lista = Lothario Garrick: Horatio Berry: Altamont Ross: Ca 13. Tancred, with Oracle by children-Master and Miss Simpson and Miss Pope. 15. (and 19.) Tancred, with Miss in her Teens by children. = = = 21. A Comedy, altered from Shakspeare, called the Winter's Tale, or Florizel and Perdita-Prologue by Garrick-Leontes Garrick Florizel= Holland Polixenes Havard: Camillo = Davies: Clown Woodward: Autolicus Yates: Hermione Mrs. Pritchard: Perdita = Mrs. Cibber: Paulina Mrs. Bennett: -with a Farce called Catharine and Petruchio (altered from the Taming of a Shrew). Petruchio Woodward: Grumio Yates: Catharine Mrs. Clive :-these two pieces were acted together 12 times—nothing can be more absurd than the making Perdita a child in the 3d act and a woman in the 4th-to avoid this Garrick has omitted nearly the first 3 acts, by which means he has spoilt the play, for we must be content to take Shakspeare as he is, "with all his imperfections on his head," or not take him at all-ægrescit medendo-scenes may be omitted or shortened, but there is generally something so comprehensive and peculiar in his original design, that a material alteration of it is sure to be for the worse-Garrick ought not to have concluded his Prologue with ""Tis my chief wish, my joy, my only plan, for he has certainly lost a tun of him here-nor could he with propriety say "The five long acts from which our three are "taken, "Stretch'd out to sixteen years, lay by forsaken as it was doubtless the original play, which was acted at G. F. Jan. 15 1741, and C. G. Jan. 21 1742 Antigonus is in both the bills-nor is there the slightest intimation that the play was revived with alterations. Act. 1st. Camillo opens the altered play with relating the jealousy of Leontes, the death of Hermione, and the exposing of Perdita; he concludes with saying that Leontes is expected, not in Bohemia, but in Bithynia*-Polixenes and Paulina enter-Polixenes expresses to Camillo his anxiety about his son, as in the original-then follows the scene between the old Shepherd and the Clown about the storm; Leontes enters as shipwrecked-this scene of course is chiefly Garrick's-the act concludes with the original scene between Autolycus and the Clown. Act 2d consists of the sheep-shearing scene not materially altered till Polixenes goes out-then Leontes, who had overheard what had passed, offers his assistance to Florizel towards reconciling him to his father, which Florizel accepts-if Garrick was deter * Sir Thomas Hanmar gave himself much needless concern that Shakspeare should consider Bohemia as a maratime country: he would have us read Bythinia-but our author implicitly copied the novel of Dorastus and Fawnia, from which he borrowed his plot there is a similar mistake in the Two Gentlemen of Verona relative to that city and Milan. (Farmer.) mined to make use of this expedient for detaining Florizel at home, he ought to have made Leontes declare who he really was, as it is very unnatural for Florizel to place any reliance on the mediation of a stranger, notwithstanding the mysterious hints of his being of more consequence than he seemed to be. Act 3d begins with the Soliloquy of Autolycus, and the original scene between him, the old Shepherd and Clown-the description of the interview between the two Kings is sadly managed both as to additions and omissions-then follows the other scene between Autolycus, the Shepherd and Clown, with the addition of Autolycus' bribing of the Clown with his own money this is improper, as the Clown is a simpleton, not a knave-the play concludes with the scene at Paulina's house-Garrick's additions are flat and dull, particularly in the last scene; 66 ' they "resemble the mimickry of Falstaff's Page, and "are about as near the standard of the original"-Hermione says 66 My Lord, my King-there's distance in those 66 names, "My husband." Florizel says to Perdita My wishes be thy subjects "And harmless as thy sheep." In the edition of Shakspeare published by Bell, the notes of the commentator are frequently contemptible to the last degree; for instance, he speaks very slightingly of the first 2 acts of the Winter's Tale, because that great critic Garrick had rejected them-the Winter's Tale is said to have been well acted-Mrs. Cibber's neat simplicity in singing a song made Perdita appear of the greatest consequence-Mrs. Pritchard, Woodward, and above all Yates were excellent-Garrick's performance in the Statue scene was masterly-he had however contrived to reduce Leontes from a good acting part to a very moderate one-it is hardly possible to conceive that Garrick could have made much of the character in the first 2 acts of the altered play, whereas in the first 2 acts of the original, his great powers would have had full scope-Garrick has very properly inserted as much of the scenes which he has omitted, as the nature of his plan would admit of-As Morgan's Florizel and Perdita is said to have been printed in 1754, Garrick must be supposed to have borrowed Perdita's song from it. Boswell in his Life of Dr. Johnson (Vol. 1. p. 536) says—“ Mrs. Thrale praised Garrick's talent for light "gay poetry; and, as a specimen, repeated his song "in Florizel and Perdita, and dwelt with peculiar pleasure on this line 66 "I'd smile with the simple, and feed with the poor." 66 Johnson said, "Nay, my dear Lady, this will never "do. Poor David! smile with the simple? What folly is that. And who would feed with the poor "that can help it? No, no, let me smile with the "wise and feed with the rich." I repeated this sally "to Garrick, and wondered to find his sensibility as "a writer not a little irritated by it"-Boswell has not quoted the line accurately-neither he nor Mrs. Thrale, nor Dr. Johnson, suspected that Garrick had borrowed the song--and Garrick would not own that he had not written the line. Morgan and Garrick have both absurdly changed Autolycus to Autolicus-the difference seems immaterial in English, but it is material in Greek-Autolycus was the son of Mercury and proverbial for theft Non fuit Autolyci tam piceata manus. (Martial.) In altering Catherine and Petruchio Garrick was much more happy, as he has done little more than omit the weak parts of the Taming of the Shrew, and has thereby made the best after-piece on the stage-but why change the title? this Kemble very properly restored at C. G. in 1810-Wilkinson says, that Woodward threw Mrs. Clive down on the exit of the 2d act, which had nearly convinced the audience that Petruchio was not so lordly as he assumed to be; for Mrs. Clive was so enraged at her fall, that her talons, tongue and passion were very expressive to the eyes of all beholders; and it was with the utmost difficulty she suppressed her indignation— Davies' account differs considerably-he says that Woodward was perhaps more wild, extravagant and fantastical than the author designed, he carried his acting to an almost ridiculous excess-Mrs. Clive, tho' perfect mistress of Catherine's humour, seemed to be overborne by Woodward's manner, and to be really as much over-awed by his violence as Catherine is supposed to be in the play-for besides throwing her down, it is said he once stuck a fork into her finger-as it was well known they did not greatly respect one another, it was believed that something |