are in general lively, but partake, and some of them largely, of the licentious nature of the age. The Careless Husband, which is considered an elegant Comedy, and his best piece, is not fit for representation. The intention of the author, in his final moral, seems to have been good; but the conduct of the piece, and the chief of the dialogue, are very exceptionable. The same moral, the reclaiming of a faithless husband, is brought about in a much better way by Hugh Kelly, in his Comedy of The School for Wives, and also by Murphy in that of The Way to keep Him; but the latter play contains much that ought to be omitted.

Before the year 1711 Cibber had produced 13 of the 25 plays, which he wrote during his life. In that year he became united as joint patentee with Collier, Wilks and Doggett, in the management of Drury-lane theatre. And afterwards in a like partnership with Booth, Wilks and Sir Richard Steele. During this latter period, which did not entirely end till 1731, the English stage was in a very flourishing state: But on the deaths of Booth, Mrs. Oldfield, Mrs. Porter, and Wilks, who were its principal supports, Cibber sold out his share of the patent, and retired from the public business of the stage, to which, however, he, at a few particular periods, occasionally returned, performing at no less a salary than fifty guineas a night; and, in the year 1745, though upwards of seventyfour years of age, he appeared in the Character of Pandulph in his own tragedy of Papal Tyranny, altered from Shakspeare's King John, which he performed with great vigour and spirit.

Of another of Cibber's Comedies, The Non-Juror, produced in 1718, it may not be improper to say a few words, especially as it has been altered by Bickerstaff, and now maintains a place on the stage under the name of The Hypocrite, first acted in 1768. The original of this play is The Tartuffe (The Hypocrite,) or The French Puritan, of Moliere, which Cibber accommodated to the politics of his day, and brought out under the title of The Non-Juror. Possibly Collier's attack upon the stage might, amongst other causes, if not principally, have

induced him to make this attack upon that party of which Collier was a conspicuous member. A passage in the play would possibly determine this, but I know not where to turn for certain information. Cibber makes Dr. Wolf to be promoted "to the vacant See of Thetford," as one of the suffragan bishops; and the Doctor talks of the doctrines laid down by his " learned Predecessor, in his Case of Schism;" this can be no other than Dr. George Hickes, the celebrated Non-Juror, who, in 1694, was consecrated suffragan bishop of Thetford, in which situation he continued till his death in 1715. Collier had been consecrated a Bishop by Dr. Hicks, but whether he succeeded him in the See of Thetford his biographer does not mention. This Comedy has certainly considerable merit, and is much more pure in its dialogue than Cibber's pieces in general; but nothing, I think, can justify the author for his attack, unless he had authority for every act and sentiment which he has here attributed to the Non-Jurors, and that not merely as applying to one or two individuals, but pretty generally to the party. The play met with great success, and the author received a liberal present from the King, who had attended the representation, and to whom it was dedicated. In the play of The Hypocrite the Character of Dr. Wolf, the NonJuror, is altered into Dr. Cantwell, a Methodist. censure here is equally general, and appears to me to be The given without sufficient foundation. Nothing, I think, could justify the author but giving authorities in Notes for each act and sentiment; and, even supposing that to be done, still there is a coarseness, nay frequently an indecency in the satire which is very revolting. What Dr. Hey has said of Foote and The Minor may with equal propriety be said of Bickerstaff and in some degree of Cibber: "he was too ignorant of Religion to ridicule 66 even its abuses with propriety.". "He seems not only "to want theological knowledge, but knowledge of the "human mind; or attention in entering into the feelings "of rational Christians. Still, I would not fly from his "ridicule, I would examine it gravely, in order to form " a useful judgment from it; as a medical person would

"examine some things disgusting in their nature.-I can "conceive the very abuses, which he ridicules, to be ri"diculed, by Addison, or others, in such a manner as "not to hurt my feelings." (Lectures in Divinity, Vol. 1. p. 452.) Both plays, however, contain some valuable sentiments.

On the death of Mr. Eusden, in the year 1730, he was made Poet-laureat. With the salary annexed to this office, together with what he had saved from the emoluments of the theatre, and the sale of his share in the patent, he retired from public life; and, in the year 1739, published An Apology for his Life in an 8vo. volume. As it is many years since I read this work, I feel incompetent to give any opinion of its merits.

Cibber had the misfortune to incur the displeasure of Pope, probably from an accumulation of causes of which the chief was party spirit. Besides several satirical strokes interspersed in his works, in the latter editions of the Dunciad, Pope dispossessed Theobald as his hero,. and placed Cibber in his stead. Cibber expostulated with Pope in two letters "in which," his Biographer says, "he sometimes appears to have the advantage both in "serious remonstrance and jocular raillery; and from "the tempers of the two, it cannot be doubted that, at "the time, the contest was more painful to Pope than to "Cibber. But Pope's satire is immortal, whereas Cib-Cibber may there"ber's sarcasms are no longer read. "fore be represented to future times with less credit for "abilities than he really deserves; for he was certainly (6 no dunce, though not, in the higher sense of the word, << a man of genius. His effrontery and vanity could not be "really over-charged even by a foe. Indeed they are "striking features in the portrait drawn by himself.". Aikin's Gen. Biog. Vol. 11. p. 698.

In 1747 he published in a 4to. volume The Character and Conduct of Cicero considered, from the History of his Life by the Rev. Dr. Middleton.

He died Dec. 12, 1757, just as he had completed his 86th year. His biographer speaks of him as having been possessed of "great humanity, benevolence, and "universal philanthropy," and was distinguished for

" continued actions of charity, compassion, and bene"ficence". Biog. Dram. Vol. 1. p. 81.

The Comedy of THE PROVOK'D HUSBAND stands high in the estimation of all admirers of the drama, and has the first place assigned to it by several. For myself I have no hesitation in saying, that, when I consider the general tendency of the moral, the propriety of many of the sentiments, the elegance and point of some parts of the dialogue and the humour of others, the interest excited throughout, and the pathos of the last scene, I know of no comedy of superior, or even of equal merit. Dr. BLAIR, in his Lectures, (Lect. XLVII. 4th. edit. Vol III. p. 377) says The Provok'd Husband" is, perhaps, on the whole, the best Comedy in the English 66 Language. It is liable, indeed, to one critical objec"tion of having a double Plot; as the incidents of the "Wronghead family, and those of Lord Townly's, are "separate and independent of each other. But this "irregularity is compensated by the natural characters, "the fine painting, and the happy strokes of humour "with which it abounds. We are, indeed, surprised to "find so unexceptionable a Comedy proceeding from two "such loose Authors; for, in its general strain, it is "calculated to expose licentiousness and folly; and "would do honour to any Stage."

Mr. ENSOR says of this Comedy, that it

would be 46 a capital performance, if the two plots were con"nected: its spirit and moral are not surpassed." Independent Man. Vol. II. p. 89.

With respect to the objection against what is called the double plot of this play, though it is not altogether without foundation, yet I think it has less force than is commonly attributed to it. In the performance, indeed, as it is now acted, we do not see Lord and Lady Townly and Lady Grace, and Sir Francis and Lady Wronghead and their family upon the stage at the same time: but yet there is abundance of incident to connect the two families into one whole. In the first act it appears that Lord Townly and Sir Francis are neighbours in the

country and visit there. Manly, the cousin of Sir Francis, is introduced with both families, and is on the eve of marriage with Lady Grace, Lord Townly's sister, which Lady Wronghead endeavours to prevent by an artifice. John Moody, the servant of Sir Francis, is introduced into the presence of Lord T. and Lady G. It appears from the scene between Sir Francis and Manly in the fifth act, which is at Lord Townly's house, that Lady Townly had called upon Lady Wronghead the evening before and took her to an assembly; and in the play, as it is printed, though not as it is acted, both families are introduced in the masquerade at Lord Townly's house in the last scene. The play is considerably curtailed in the representation on account of its length, but I must own I had rather see the whole of it, with a very short after-piece, or even with none at all, than give up any part of it to make way for probably far inferior matter in an after-piece.

I will take this opportunity of observing, that, as some of the characters and the manners of this play are now become out of date, (probably from the very circumstance of this play having, by exposing them, shamed them out of countenance,) the attempting to adapt it to the present time, by dressing the characters in the costume of the day, makes it an heterogeneous mixture, 'and that it should be performed only as a representation of the personages and manners of a former period, and the characters should be dressed in the costume of the time in which the play was written.

THE DRAMATIC CENSOR has a very able critique upon this play. It is too long to be inserted here, but is well worth the perusal of the reader who may have an opportunity of consulting it. One sentence, however, I shall adduce in support of what I have just said respecting the plot.

"This comedy, though not strictly conformable to "the nicest rules of time and place, is nevertheless suf❝ficiently regular; the scenes are well arranged, the "serious and ludicrous happily mingled; the plot well "digested, and the catastrophe much to be admired;