CHAP. IX.

GARRICK in the Character of Sir JOHN BRUTE-CIBBER'S Tragedy of PAPAL TYRANNY in the Reign of KING JOHN, acted at Covent-Garden-GARRICK revives SHAKESPEARE'S KING JOHN in Opposition to Old CIBBER-THOMSON'S Fragedy of TANCRED and SIGISMUNDA-GARRICK in TANCRED, and Mrs. CIBBER in SIGISMUNDA-GARRICK in the Character of OTHELLO.

September

GARRICK was now in posses

1744, to >sion of the four greatest characJune 1745. ters in the compass of the drama; for such are Lear, Richard, Hamlet, and Macbeth. For the sake of amusing himself as well as the public, with occasional variety, he intermixed a number of modern tragedies.

He was, in like manner, eager to enlarge his stock of comedies; and, with that view, he

1

gratified the audience with the sullen humour of Sir John Brute. He was, in fact, an

other Proteus, in the celerity with which he transformed himself into different shapes. The moment he entered, Sir John was seen in his face, his gait, and his whole deportment. His voice, which was naturally clear and agreeable to the ear, was changed to a rough and sullen tone. As he continued to play the part late in life, numbers are still alive, who bear in memory the great comic powers which he displayed in every situation thoughout the play. A minute description of him were superfluous. It will be sufficient to say, that Colley Cibber, and he only, expressed the strongest disapprobation.

CIBBER, however, soon after this, gave Garrick a fair opportunity to revenge himself. It was known that Cibber was preparing to bring forward his tragedy, called Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John. This is the play, of which Pope said in the Dunciad, "King John in silence modestly expires." But Pope was no more; and Cibber was emboldened to produce his play at Covent-Garden theatre. Garrick, ever jealous for the ho nour of Shakespeare, and glad of the opportunity to counteract his enemy, contrived to have King John put into rehearsal at DruryLane. The fable of that play is conducted in Shakespeare's wildest manner; the scene lies sometimes in England, sometimes in France, without due preparation to make it clear to which country the poet has conveyed us. And yet in all this confusion, Shakespeare's genius

triumphed over all inconsistencies, and Garrick's ambition was amply gratified. Cibber acted Pandulph, the Pope's legate, but he was at that time a superanuated performer. His voice, which never qualified him for tragedy, was much impaired, and his articulation was too feeble; but his deportment was said to be remarkably graceful. Curiosity was excited, and numbers flocked to the house to see a veteran performer. His tragedy did not add the smallest sprig of laurel to his brow. If he had left the play as a posthumous piece to his executors, he would have shewn his judge

ment.

Poets lose half the praise they would have got,
Were it but known what they discreetly blot.

AFTER the run of King John, Thomson, the admired author of the Seasons, brought

for

forward, in the month of February 1745, his tragedy of Tancred and Sigismunda. It is the best of that poet's dramatic works, in my opinion, superior to Agamemnon, notwithstanding the encomiums bestowed on it by the late Dr. Joseph Wharton. In the closet, Tancred and Sigismunda is a most delightful composition; but it must be acknowledged, that stage-effect was not Thomson's talent. There are no incidents that seem to retard, and yet hurry on the main action. The rules for gardening, which Pope has given in his Epistle to Lord Burlington, may be transferred to dramatic poetry:

He gains all points, who pleasingly confounds,
Surprizes, varies, and conceals the bounds.

And again,

No pleasing intricacies intervene,

No artful wildness to perplex the scene;

H 4

Grove