Ecce spectaculum dignum, ad quod respiciat, intentus operi suo, deus! Ecce par deo dignum, vir fortis cum malâ fortunâ compositus! Non video, inquam, quid habeat in terris Jupiter pulchrius, si convertere animum velit, quam ut spectet Catonem, jam partibus non semel fractis, nihilominus inter ruinas publicas erectum. SEN. de Divin. Prov.

CATO.

THIS tragedy was first brought on the stage in 1713. The literary fame of its author had already been raised to a very high degree by his papers in the Spectator and his other writings, and was carried by this as high as it well could go. When and where Addison first formed the plan of this drama, how much he composed of it in early life, and what alterations he afterwards made in it, seem to be involved in a knot of conflicting statements, which it would now be difficult entirely to disentangle. We are told by Tickell, the first editor of his works, "that he took up the design of writing a play upon this subject when he was very young at the university, and even attempted something in it there, though not a line as it now stands." Tonson states, that he wrote the first four acts abroad, and that he saw them at Rotterdam; which is confirmed by Pope, who says, that "the last act was not written till six or seven years after, when he came home." But Dr. Young speaks positively, and says, "he wrote them all five at Oxford, and sent them from thence to Dryden to my knowledge." Johnson informs us, that Addison, who for several years had the first four acts finished, was so unaccountably unwilling to resume his work, that he requested Mr. Hughes to add a fifth. Hughes, undertaking the supplement, brought in a few days some scenes for his examination; but he in the mean time had gone to work himself, and produced half an act, which he afterwards finished.

Besides these various statements, there is another by Pope still more puzzling. He tells us, that "the love-scenes were not in the original plan, but were thrown in afterwards in compliance with the popular practice of the stage." "Such an authority," says Dr. Johnson," it is hard to reject; yet the love is so intimately mingled with the whole action, that it cannot

easily be thought extrinsic and adventitious; for if it were taken away, what would be left? or how were the four acts filled in the first draught?"

Mr. Ogle, the editor of a new edition of the Spectator, has apparently been at considerable pains to reconcile these conflicting opinions; and as his conjecture is ingenious, and offers an easy and reasonable solution of the difficulties, without attaching crime to any party, it is here laid before the reader. He takes it for granted, as indeed it is evident, that a juvenile essay of Addison on this subject, was sent by him from Oxford to Dryden and that Dr. Young, who mentions this circumstance, fell into a mistake respecting the number of acts, as Tonson, Pope, Johnson, and Hughes only speak of four; besides which, we may notice the strong internal evidence respecting their account of it, from the fifth act itself, which is particu larly short in comparison to the others, “like a task performed with reluctance, and hurried to its conclusion."

He then proposes the following solution. "Addison wrote four acts of a tragedy when at Oxford, and sent them to Dryden. After his judgment had become riper, and his taste more formed, he became displeased with his performance, yet remained satisfied with the subject. He erased all that his better judgment pointed out to him as unfit to stand, and retained all those thoughts he approved. With these materials he, while abroad, may be said to have rewritten the first four acts, and to have added the fifth in England when Hughes was composing the supplementary act. This solution at least removes the dilemma in which the various accounts had placed the authors of them, and shows that there was not more variation in their accounts than is seen every day in the details of occurrences in which all the witnesses intend to tell the truth."

But when, where, and however this tragedy may have been composed, the fact is certain, that it met with the greatest success when brought upon the stage. It is stated, that when Cato

was shown to Pope he advised the author to print it, and not to risk its being acted, believing that it was better calculated to please in the closet than on the stage. But although the author's opinion coincided with that of Pope, and which indeed time has proved to be true, the importunity of his friends compelled him to the important hazard, and the violence of party-spirit made it successful beyond expectation. Unnecessary precaution was taken, as it turned out, to insure it a favourable auditory on the first night of its representation; for, as we are told by Pope," the whole nation was at that time on fire with faction. The whigs applauded every line in which liberty was mentioned, as a satire on the tories; and the tories echoed every clap to show that the satire was unfelt. Bolingbroke called Booth, who played the part of Cato, to his box, and presented him with fifty guineas for defending the cause of liberty so well against a perpetual dictator."

Thus supported by the emulation of parties, the play was acted night after night for a longer time than the public had probably ever before allowed to any drama. Other honours were lavished upon its author. Wits were proud to write verses in its praise. It was censured as a party-play by a scholar of Oxford, and defended in a favourable examination by Dr. Sewel. It was translated into various modern languages, and into Latin by the jesuits of St. Omer's and played by their pupils. The author was informed, that the queen would be pleased if, on its publication, it were dedicated to her; but as he had already designed that honour for Mr. Tickell, he sent it into the world without any dedication; the delicacy of friendship preventing him from inscribing it to the queen, and his duty to her from paying that compliment to any one else.

With regard to the merits of Cato, nearly all the praises have already been lavished upon it which friendship and party-spirit could bestow, and all the censure which acute malignity could suggest. The intemperate, yet perhaps sometimes just criti

cisms of Dennis, are, however, almost forgotten, while time has confirmed the first opinion of the public in its favour. Few works have been more read, fewer read with more pleasure; and, as some one has justly observed, there is scarcely a scene in the play which the reader does not wish to impress upon his memory.

That it has its faults must, perhaps, be admitted; but how trifling are they compared with its beauties! The malignant envy of Dennis prompted him to attack both the merits of the tragedy and the opinion of the world respecting it, with all the virulence of angry criticism. Nothing has escaped his acuteness; and in giving the substance of his invectives we lay before the reader all that can be said against it.

After giving his reason for paying no regard to the opinion of the audience, he directs his censure against the author for his neglect of poetical justice; that is, for not imitating the divine dispensation, in inculcating a particular providence by punishing crime and rewarding virtue. "He not only runs counter to this," he says, "in the fate of his principal character, but everywhere makes virtue suffer and vice triumph: for not only is Cato vanquished by Cæsar, but the treachery and perfidiousness of Syphax prevail over the honest simplicity and the credulity of Juba; and the sly subtlety and dissimulation of Portius over the generous frankness and openheartedness of Marcus. Dr. Johnson has answered this by saying, "that since wickedness prospers in real life, the poet is certainly at liberty to give it prosperity on the stage." But we think that our author may be vindicated on this point upon other and higher grounds than this. Addison's play was written and brought on the stage to favour the cause of patriotism and liberty; accordingly, he represents his godlike hero, after doing all that could be done to save his country, as preferring death to slavery. The play could scarcely have been made to end otherwise. Cato and Cæsar are not set before us as individuals whose vices or vir