with a carbine, but failed to kill him; after which, he pushed on the King to that dreadful revenge which immediately succeeded. It is true the provocations were high; there had been reiterated rebellions, but a peace was now concluded; it was solemnly sworn to by both parties, and as great an assurance of safety given to the Protestants as the word of a King and publick instruments could make it. Therefore the punishment was execrable; and it pleased GOD, (if we may dare to judge of his secret providence,) to cut off that King in the very flower of his youth, to blast his successor in his undertakings, to raise against him the Duke of Guise, the complotter and executioner of that inhuman action, (who by the Divine Justice fell afterwards into the same snare which he had laid for others,) and finally, to die a violent death himself, murdered by a priest, an enthusiast of his own religion. From these premises let it be concluded, if reasonably it can, that we could draw a parallel, where the lines were so diametrically opposite. We were indeed obliged by the laws of poetry to cast into shadows the vices of this prince; for an excellent critick has lately told us, that when a King is named, a Hero is supposed: it is a reverence due to majesty to make the virtues as conspicuous, and the vices as obscure as we can possibly; and this we own we have either performed, or at least endeavoured. But if we were

5 Rymer, in his Essay" on the Tragedies of the last Age", p. 61.

more favourable to that character than the exact-ness of history would allow, we have been far from diminishing a greater, by drawing it into comparison. You may see through the whole play a King naturally severe, and a resolution carried on to revenge himself to the uttermost on the rebellious conspirators. That this was sometimes shaken by reasons of policy and pity, is confessed; but it always returned with greater force, and ended at last in the ruin of his enemies. In the mean time we cannot but observe the wonderful loyalty on the other side; that the play was to be stopped, because the King was represented. May we have many such proofs of their duty and respect! but there was no occasion for them here. It is to be supposed that his Majesty himself was made acquainted with this objection; if he were so, he was the supreme and only judge of it, and then the event justifies us: if it were inspected only by those whom he commanded, it is hard if his own officers and servants should not see as much ill in it as other men, and be as willing to prevent it, especially when there was no solicitation used to have it acted. It is known that noble person to whom it was referred is a severe critick on good sense, decency, and morality; and I can assure the world, that the rules of Horace are more familiar to him than they are He remembers too well that the vetus comedia was banished from the Athenian theatre for its too much licence in representing persons,

and would never have pardoned it in this or any play.

What opinion Henry the Third had of his successor, is evident from the words he spoke upon his death-bed: "He exhorted the nobility (says Davila) to acknowledge the King of Navarre, to whom the kingdom of right belonged, and that they should not stick at the difference of religion; for both the King of Navarre, a man of a sincere noble nature, would in the end return into the bosom of the church, and the Pope being better informed, would receive him into his favour, to prevent the ruin of the whole kingdom." I hope I shall not need in this quotation to defend myself, as if it were my opinion that the Pope has any right to dispose of kingdoms; my meaning is evident, that the King's judgment of his brotherin-law was the same which I have copied; and I must farther add from Davila, that the arguments I have used in defence of that succession were chiefly drawn from the King's answer to the Deputies, as they may be seen more at large in page 730 and 731 of the first edition of that history in English. There the three Estates, to the wonder of all men, jointly concurred in cutting off the succession; the Clergy, who were managed by the Archbishop of Lyons and Cardinal of Guise, were the first who promoted it; and the Commons and Nobility afterwards consented, as referring themselves (says our author) to the Clergy; so that there was only the King to stand

in the gap; and he by artifice diverted that storm which was breaking upon posterity.

The crown was then reduced to the lowest ebb of its authority, and the King, in a manner, stood single, and yet preserved his negative entire ; but if the Clergy and Nobility had been on his part of the balance, it might reasonably be supposed that the meeting of those Estates at Blois had healed the breaches of the nation, and not forced him to the ratio ultima regum; which is never to be praised, nor is it here, but only excused as the last result of his necessity. At for the parallel betwixt the King of Navarre, and any other prince now living," what likeness the GoD of Nature and the descent of virtues in the same channel have produced, is evident; I have only to say, that the nation certainly is happy where the royal virtues of the progenitors are derived on their descendants.

In that scene, it is true, there is but one of the three Estates mentioned, but the other two are virtually included; for the Archbishop and Cardinal are at the head of the deputies; and that the rest are mute persons every critick understands the reason, ne quarta loqui persona laboret. I am never willing to cumber the stage with many speakers, when I can reasonably avoid it, as here I might. And what if I had a mind to pass over the Clergy and Nobility of France in silence, and

Charles II. grandson of Henry IV. of France.

to excuse them from joining in so illegal and so ungodly a decree? Am I tied in poetry to the strict rules of history? I have followed it in this play more closely than suited with the laws of the drama; and a great victory they will have who shall discover to the world this wonderful secret, that I have not observed the unities of place and time; but are they better kept in the farce of THE LIBERTINE DESTROY'D ? It was our common business here to draw the parallel of the times, and not to make an exact tragedy. For this once we were resolved to err with honest Shakspeare; neither can CATILINE or SEJANUS, (written by the great master of our art,) stand excused any more than we from this exception; but if we must be criticised, some plays of our adversaries may be exposed, and let them reckon their gains when the dispute is ended.

I am accused of ignorance, for speaking of the third Estate as not sitting in the same house with the other two. Let not those gentlemen mistake themselves; there are many things in plays to be accommodated to the country in which we live; I spoke to the understanding of an English, audience. Our three Estates now sit, and have long done so, in two houses; but our records bear witness that they, according to the French custom, have sat in one; that is, the lords spiritual and temporal within the bar, and the commons without

"Shadwell's tragedy entitled THE LIBERTINE, printed in 1676.