likewise animated and enrich’d it with the _Latin_, but from his own
Stock: and so, rather by bringing in the Phrases, than the Words:
And This was natural; and will, I believe, always be the Case in the
same Circumstances. His Language, especially his Prose, is full of
_Latin_ Words indeed, but much fuller of _Latin_ Phrases: and his
Mastery in the Tongue made this unavoidable. On the contrary,
_Shakespeare_, who, perhaps, was not so intimately vers’d in the
_Language_, abounds in the Words of it, but has few or none of its
Phrases: Nor, indeed, if what I affirm be true, could He. This I
take to be the truest _Criterion_ to determine this long agitated
Question.

It may be mention’d, tho’ no certain Conclusion can be drawn from
it, as a probable Argument of his having read the Antients; that He
perpetually expresses the Genius of _Homer_, and other great Poets
of the Old World, in animating all the Parts of his Descriptions;
and, by bold and breathing Metaphors and Images, giving the
Properties of Life and Action to inanimate Things. He is a Copy
too of those _Greek_ Masters in the infinite use of _compound_ and
_de-compound Epithets_. I will not, indeed, aver, but that One with
_Shakespeare_’s exquisite Genius and Observation might have traced
these glaring Characteristics of Antiquity by reading _Homer_ in
_Chapman_’s Version.

[Sidenote: _B. Jonson_ and _Shakespeare_ compar’d.]

An additional Word or two naturally falls in here upon the Genius of
our Author, as compared with that of _Jonson_ his Contemporary. They
are confessedly the greatest Writers our Nation could ever boast
of in the _Drama_. The first, we say, owed all to his prodigious