Fletcher, on the other side, gives neither to Arbaces, nor to his king, in “The Maid’s Tragedy,” the qualities which are suitable to a monarch; though he may be excused a little in the latter, for the king there is not uppermost in the character; it is the lover of Evadne, who is king only in a second consideration; and though he be unjust, and has other faults which shall be nameless, yet he is not the hero of the play.  It is true, we find him a lawful prince, (though I never heard of any king that was in Rhodes) and therefore Mr Rymer’s criticism stands good,—­that he should not be shown in so vicious a character.  Sophocles has been more judicious in his “Antigona;” for, though he represents in Creon a bloody prince, yet he makes him not a lawful king, but an usurper, and Antigona herself is the heroine of the tragedy:  but when Philaster wounds Arethusa and the boy; and Perigot his mistress, in the “Faithful Shepherdess,” both these are contrary to the character of manhood.  Nor is Valentinian managed much better; for, though Fletcher has taken his picture truly, and shown him as he was, an effeminate, voluptuous man, yet he has forgotten that he was an emperor, and has given him none of those royal marks, which ought to appear in a lawful successor of the throne.  If it be enquired, what Fletcher should have done on this occasion; ought he not to have represented Valentinian as he was;—­Bossu shall answer this question for me, by an instance of the like nature:  Mauritius, the Greek emperor, was a prince far surpassing Valentinian, for he was endued with many kingly virtues; he was religious, merciful, and valiant, but withal he was noted of extreme covetousness, a vice which is contrary to the character of a hero, or a prince:  therefore, says the critic, that emperor was no fit person to be represented in a tragedy, unless his good qualities were only to be shown, and his covetousness (which sullied them all) were slurred over by the artifice of the poet.  To return once more to Shakespeare; no man ever drew so many characters, or generally distinguished them better from one another, excepting only Jonson.  I will instance but in one, to show the copiousness of his invention; it is that of Caliban, or the monster, in “The Tempest.”  He seems there to have created a person which was not in nature, a boldness which, at first sight, would appear intolerable; for he makes him a species of himself, begotten by an incubus on a witch; but this, as I have elsewhere proved, is not wholly beyond the bounds of credibility, at least the vulgar still believe it.  We have the separated notions of a spirit, and of a witch; (and spirits, according to Plato, are vested with a subtle body; according to some of his followers, have different sexes;) therefore, as from the distinct apprehensions of a horse, and of a man, imagination has formed a centaur; so, from those of an incubus and a sorceress, Shakespeare has produced his monster.  Whether or no his generation can