turned to the Earl of Essex, shews the play to have been written when that Lord was general to the queen in Ireland; and his eulogium upon Queen Elizabeth, and her successor King James in the latter end of his Henry VIII is a proof of that play’s being written after the accession of the latter of these two princes to the throne of England.  Whatever the particular times of his writing were, the people of the age he lived in, who began to grow wonderfully fond of diversions of this kind, could not but be highly pleased to see a genius arise amongst them, of so pleasurable, so rich a vein, and and so plentifully capable of furnishing their favourite entertainments.  Besides the advantage which Shakespear had over all men in the article of wit, he was of a sweet, gentle, amiable disposition, and was a most agreeable companion; so that he became dear to all that knew him, both as a friend and as a poet, and by that means was introduced to the best company, and held conversation with the finest characters of his time.  Queen Elizabeth had several of his plays acted before her, and that princess was too quick a discerner, and rewarder of merit, to suffer that of Shakespear to be neglected.  It is that maiden princess plainly whom he intends by

  ——­A fair vestal, throned by the West.

Midsummer night dream.

And in the same play he gives us a poetical and lively representation of the Queen of Scots, and the fate she met with,

——­Thou rememb’rest Since once I sat upon a promontory, And heard a sea-maid on a dolphin’s back, Uttering such dulcet and harmonious breath, That the rude sea grew civil at her song, And certain stars shot madly from their spheres, To hear the sea-maid’s music.

Queen Elizabeth was so well pleased with the admirable character of Falstaff in the two parts of Henry iv. that she commanded him to continue it in one play more, and to make him in love.  This is said to have been the occasion of his writing the Merry Wives of Windsor.  How well she was obeyed, the play itself is a proof; and here I cannot help observing, that a poet seldom succeeds in any subject assigned him, so well as that which is his own choice, and where he has the liberty of selecting:  Nothing is more certain than that Shakespear has failed in the Merry Wives of Windsor.  And tho’ that comedy is not without merit, yet it falls short of his other plays in which Falstaff is introduced, and that Knight is not half so witty in the Merry Wives of Windsor as in Henry iv.  The humour is scarcely natural, and does not excite to laughter so much as the other.  It appears by the epilogue to Henry iv. that the part of Falstaff was written originally under the name of Oldcastle.  Some of that family being then remaining, the Queen was pleased to command him to alter it, upon which he made use of the name of Falstaff.  The first offence was indeed avoided, but I am not sure whether the author might not be somewhat to blame in his second choice, since it is certain, that Sir John Falstaff who was a knight of the garter, and a lieutenant-general, was a name of distinguished merit in the wars with France, in Henry V. and Henry VIth’s time.