[]

THE QUIP MODEST; A FEW WORDS BY WAY OF SUPPLEMENT TO REMARKS, CRITICAL AND ILLUSTRATIVE, ON THE TEXT and NOTES of the LAST EDITION OF SHAKSPEARE; OCCASIONED BY A REPUBLICATION OF THAT EDITION, REVISED AND AUGMENTED BY THE EDITOR OF DODSLEYS OLD PLAYS.

WE'LL SIFT THIS MATTER FURTHER.
ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL.

LONDON: PRINTED FOR J. JOHNSON IN ST. PAULS CHURCH YARD.

M DCC LXXXVIII.

PREFACE.

[]

IN the beginning of 1783 I publiſhed a book or pamphlet, intitled, "Remarks, critical and illuſtrative, on the Text and Notes of the laſt Edition of Shakſpeare," which, I underſtand, has been repreſented as the moſt incorrect publication that ever appeared; and, indeed, from the liſt of errata in the book itſelf, and the additional one given at the end of this Preface, the charge does not ſeem to be without foundation. There is, however, one work which, I believe, may vye with mine in point of inaccuracy, and that is the reviſed edition of Johnſon and Steevenses Shakſpeare, which has ſince made its immaculate appearance, without the notification of a ſingle error *. I am, nevertheleſs, far from [iv]meaning to reproach the learned gentleman who appears to have had the care of that edition, with the negligence of his printers; nor do I think myſelf at all more culpable on account of the blunders of mine. Every perſon who has the entire reviſion of his own preſs-work will be ſoon convinced, that nothing is ſo truly incorrigible as a virgin proof ſheet in its primitive ſtate of unamendment. There is, however, ſome little difference in printers; elſe mercy on the poor author!

Another charge which has been brought againſt me, is no leſs than downright felony. It ſeems that ſome of my happieſt emendations had already appeared in the margin of the very edition I had preſumed to criticiſe; and the candour of the Critical Reviewers led them to conclude that I muſt have ſtole them ready made. Thoſe venerable perſonages, who have the diſintereſtedneſs to devote ſix days [v]in ſeven * to the ſervice of the public, in paſſing ſentence upon books which they never read, and on the character of writers whom they do not know, could not for their ſouls comprehend that two perſons might happen to hit upon the ſame idea, or that one, having poſſeſſed himſelf of the idea of another, might, from a defective memory, or any other cauſe, come in time to imagine it his own. All that I can ſay upon this head, though I ſhall not expect credit for my aſſertion from the good-natured gentlemen I have juſt mentioned, is, that at the time of the publication of the book, I was not aware of being anticipated in more than a ſingle inſtance, and even that one I thought my own.

Incorrect, however, and felonious as theſe ſame Remarks might be, I found that the reviſed Edition I have mentioned had got near 200 of them in its margin, all of which were received without oppoſition; not to ſpeak of the alterations or corrections which I had a right to preſume myſelf the occaſion of. There are a few indeed which have not paſſed muſter, but, on the contrary, are treated with ſuch an air of peeviſhneſs, that I eſteem myſelf a very unnatural father of ſo hopeful an offſpring, in not having come forward in their vindication ſooner. It will be thought, perhaps, by ſome, altogether unreaſonable, that, after the editor of the reviſed edition has adopted ſo conſiderable a majority of my remarks, I ſhould be diſpoſed to find ſault with him for his cavalier treatment of a few. I can only ſay, that is was not to me of the ſmalleſt conſequence whether he condeſcended to honour my publication with his notice or not; but I think it my duty to defend every part of it from injury and miſrepreſentation. I know of no difference between the integrity or character of a writer and that of any other individual; nor ought an unjuſt charge againſt the former to remain unrefuted, any more than one againſt the latter. [vi]"This defence, I allow, is rather of the lateſt in making its appearance, and my liberal and candid friends above mentioned will ſcarcely neglect the opportunity of paying my prudence a compliment, in having attended ſo well to Horaces rule. The fact is, that my notes were taken in turning over the reviſed edition immediately after its publication, but have till very lately been laid aſide, and, in ſhort, almoſt forgotten; and perhaps I only anticipate a pleaſant obſervation of my ſmall friends, ſo oft alluded to, in adding, that it would have proved no great loſs if they had been altogether ſo.

I muſt not pretend to be ignorant that I have been accuſed of treating the moſt eminent Editors, Commentators, and Critics, with too little ceremory; and, indeed,

I fear I've wrong'd the honorable men
Whoſe gooſe-quills have ſtabb'd Shakſpeare.

"If it be ſo," it is unqueſtionably "a grievous fault." But I can with great truth and juſtice urge in my defence, that

I have no perſonal cauſe to ſpurn at them.
But for the general.

And that

How far I have proceeded in this matter,
Or how far further ſhall, is warranted
By the example of preceeding critics,
Yea, the whole critic tribe.

Before I conclude, I beg leave to aſſure the reſpectable gentleman who had the care of the reviſed edition, that ſo far from meaning to treat him with the ſlighteſt degree of levity or freedom, I do not conſider him as reſponſible for any one of the notes which are the principal objects of the preſent pamphlet: I conclude them to have been furniſhed by ſome obliging friend, who has deſired to be effectually [vii]concealed under the ſanction of the Editors ſignature * If I could poſſibly think this were not the caſe, I am under too many obligations to that gentleman, in the courſe of my different literary purſuits, not to have kiſſed the rod in ſilence. However, I doubt not there are many things in the following pages which I might have been allowed to ſay, without running any poſſible riſk of giving offence to him; alive as an editor is on ſuch occaſions ſaid to feel himſelf.

At the end of the Remarks, &c. I inſerted an advertiſement of "an edition of the plays of Shakſpeare," as then "preparing for the preſs;" and ſome enquiries have been made when it would appear. In truth, the attention requiſite to the publication of ſo voluminous a work, and the little likelihood there is of its being productive to the undertaker of any thing but trouble and expence, together with other cauſes of leſs conſequence, have hitherto deterred me from putting it to the preſs. But I have neither laid aſide all thoughts of bringing it forward, nor can I pledge myſelf to produce it in any given time. I have little reaſon to ſuppoſe that the Public intereſts itſelf at all in the matter, and therefor think myſelf at full liberty to ſuit my own inclination and convenience.

J. R.

ERRATA in the REMARKS, &c. Diſcovered after Publication.

[]

[...]. e. ſays Mr. Steevens, a worthy fellow. In this ſenſe peer, fere, and phe [...]re, he [...] often uſed by the writers o [...] [...] earlieſt romances.

SUPPLEMENT to REMARKS, &c.

[]

TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA.

Vol. I. p. 155 *.

IN anſwer to what I have been pleaſed to aſſert in defence of Shakſpeare, REMARKS. p. 7. againſt the charge of taking a liberty with his words, by ſtretching them out to ſuit the purpoſe of his metre, Mr. Tyrwhitt has obſerved as follows: "As to this ſuppoſed canon of the Engliſh language, it would be eaſy to ſhew that it is quite fanciful and unfounded; and what he calls the right method of printing the above words, is ſuch as, I believe, was never adopted before by any mortal in writing them, nor can be followed in the pronunciation of them, without the help of an entirely new ſyſtem of ſpelling. But any further diſcuſſion of the matter is unneceſſary; becauſe the hypotheſis, though allowed in its utmoſt extent, will not prove either of the points to which it is applied. It will neither prove that Shakſpeare has not taken a liberty in extending certain words, nor, that he has not taken that liberty chiefly with certain words in which l or r is ſubjoined to another conſonant. The following are all inſtances of nouns, ſubſtantive or adjective, which can receive no ſupport from the ſuppoſed canon. That Shakſpeare has taken a liberty in extending theſe words, is evident, from the conſideration [2]that the ſame words are more frequently uſed by his contemporaries, and by himſelf, without the additional ſyllable. Why he has taken this liberty with words in which l or r is ſubjoined, muſt be obvious to every one who can pronounce the language.

Country, triſyllable.

Twelfth Night, Act I. ſc. 2. The like of him. Know'ſt thou this country? *

Remembrance, quadriſyllable.

Twelfth Night, Act I. ſc. 1. And laſting in her ſad remembrance.

Angry, triſyllable.

Timon of Athens, Act III. ſc. 5. But who is man that is not angry?

Henry, triſyllable.

Rich. III. Act II. ſc. 3. So ſtood the ſtate when Henry the Sixth.’

Monſtrous, triſyllable.

Macbeth, Act IV. ſc. 6. Who cannot want the thought how monſtrous.

Aſſembly, quadriſyllable.

Much ado about Nothing, Act V. ſc. laſt. Good morrow to this fair aſſembly.

Douglas, triſyllable.

1 Henry IV. Act V. ſc. 2. Lord Douglas, go you and tell him ſo.’

England, triſyllable.

Rich. II. Act IV. ſc. 1. Then Bolingbroke return to England.

[3] Humbler, triſyllable.

1 Hen. VI. Act IV. ſc. 1. Methinks his lordſhip ſhould be humbler.

Nobler, triſyllable.

Coriolanus, Act III. ſc. 2. You do the nobler. Cor. I muſe my mother.’

The learned and reſpectable writer of theſe obſervations is now unfortunately no more; but his opinions will not on that account have the leſs influence with the readers of the reviſed edition of Shakſpeare. I am therefor ſtill at liberty to enforce the juſtice and propriety of my own ſentiments, which I truſt I ſhall be found to do with all poſſible delicacy toward the memory and character of the ingenious gentleman from whom I have the misfortune to differ.

I humbly conceive, that upon more mature conſideration Mr. Tyrwhitt would have admitted, that if the method of printing the words in queſtion were once proved to be right, it would be of little conſequence whether the diſcovery had ever been adopted before, or could be followed in pronunciation, without the help of an entire new ſyſtem of ſpelling: which in fact is the very object I mean to contend for; or rather for a ſyſtem of ſpelling, as I am perfectly confident we have none at preſent, or at leaſt I have never been able to find it. I ſhall have reaſon to think myſelf peculiarly unfortunate if, after my hypotheſis is allowed in its utmoſt extent, it will not prove what it was principally formed to do, viz. that Shakſpeare has not taken a liberty in extending certain words to ſuit the purpoſe of his metre. But ſurely, if I prove that he has only written the words in queſtion as they ought to be written, I prove the whole of my poſition, which of courſe ſhould ceaſe to be termed or conſidered an hypotheſis. I may ſafely admit, that the words in queſtion "are more frequently uſed by his contemporaries, and by himſelf, without the additional ſyllable;" but this will only ſhew, that his contemporaries and himſelf have more frequently [4]taken the liberty of ſhortening thoſe words than in writing them at length. Such a word as alarm'd, for inſtance, is generally, perhaps conſtantly, uſed by poets as a diſſyllable; and yet, if we found it with its full power, alarmed, we ſhould ſcarcely ſay that the writer had taken a liberty in lengthening it a ſyllable. Thus too the word diamond is generally ſpoken as if two ſyllables; but it is certainly three, and is ſo properly given by Shakſpeare: ‘Sir, I muſt have that diamond from you.’ The words obſervation and affection are uſually pronounced, the one as conſiſting of three, the other of four ſyllables; but each, notwithſtanding, is really a ſyllable longer:

With obſervation, the which he vents.
Yet have I fierce affections and think.

But examples of this nature would be endleſs.

Of the words quoted by Mr. Tyrwhitt, as inſtances of the liberty taken by Shakſpeare, thoſe which I admit to be properly a ſyllable ſhorter, certainly obtained the ſame pronunciation in the age of that author as he has annexed to them. Thus country, monſtrous, remembrance, aſſembly, were not only pronounced in Shakſpeares time, the two former as three, the other as four ſyllables, but are ſo ſtill; and the reaſon, to borrow Mr. Tyrwhitts own words, "muſt be obvious to every one who can pronounce the language."

"Henry was not only uſually pronounced (as indeed it is ſtill) but frequently written as a triſyllable, even in proſe. Thus in Dr. Huttons Diſcourſe on the Antiquities of Oxford, at the end of Hearnes Textus Roffenſis, ‘King Henery the eights colledge*.’

That Mr. Tyrwhitt ſhould have treated the words angry, humbler, nobler, uſed as triſyllables, among thoſe which could "receive no ſupport from the ſuppoſed canon," muſt have been owing to the obſcure or imperfect manner in which I attempted to explain it, as theſe are the [5]very inſtances which the canon, if a canon it muſt be, is purpoſely made to ſupport, or rather by which it is to be ſupported. This canon, in ſhort, is nothing but a very ſhort and ſimple rule of Engliſh grammar, which has been repeated over and over: Every word, compounded upon the principles of the Engliſh language, always preſerves the radical word unchanged. Thus humbler and nobler, for inſtance, are compoſed of the adjectives humble and noble, and er, the ſign of the comparative degree; angry, of the noun anger, and y, the Saxon ig. In the uſe of all theſe as triſyllables Shakſpeare is moſt correct; and that he is no leſs ſo in England, which uſed to be pronounced as three ſyllables, and is ſo ſtill indeed with thoſe who do not acquire the pronunciation of their mother-tongue from the book, and ſpeech certainly preceded writing, will be evident from the etymology, which ſhould be more and attended to. Let us examine the word.—How is it to be divided? Eng-land, or En-gland? It will be evident that there is a defect ſomewhere: but write it as it ſhould be written, En-gle-land, and you have the meaning and etymology of the word and the origin of the nation at firſt ſight, from the Saxon Englalanda, the land or country of the Angles; as in Scotland, Ireland, Finland, Lapland, the country of the Scot, the Ine, the Fin, the Lap: and yet, in deſpite of all ſenſe and reaſon, about half the words in the language are in the ſame awkward predicament.

I flatter myſelf I have completely juſtified this divine author from the charge of racking his words, as the tyrant did his captives. I hope too I have made it appear, that there is ſomething defective and improper in the common methods of ſpelling, or rather mis-ſpelling. A learned and ingenious gentleman, who has undertaken a New Dictionary of the language upon an excellent plan, will have it very much in his power to introduce a ſyſtematical reform, which, once eſtabliſhed, would remain unvaried and invariable as long as the language endured. This Johnſon might have had the honour of; but it is evident that he was very little acquainted with the principles and formation [6]of the words he undertook to explain. Every dictionary, to be perfect, ſhould diſplay a ſyſtem of orthography, by dividing the words upon etymological principles. At firſt ſight, one would think there was very little difficulty in this; and yet I know not that any grammarian or lexicographer has attempted it. Something of this kind has been effected in Italy, France, and Spain, by the different academies there. And however violent the propoſed reform may appear, it is certain, that if two or three of the firſt printers in London were to adopt it, it would ceaſe to be remarkable in half a year: but till this is done, it does not ſeem worth the while of an individual to render his ſelf ſingular, when he cannot ſee the leaſt probability of being able to convince the public of the propriety of his conduct; and there ſeems no neceſſity for making ſuch a matter as this a point of conſcience.

P. 194.

Hoſt.
REMARKS, p. 11.
By my hallidom I was faſt aſleep.

That I ſhould fall into an error myſelf, is perfectly natural; but that I ſhould have led the infallible editors of Shakſpeare into one, is ſtrange indeed. I had haſtily ſuppoſed hallidom to be a corruption of holy dame, i. e. the Bleſſed Virgin, as ſhe is generally called. But it is not, being immediately from the Saxon haligdom, which, as I take it, means, my ſentence at the general reſurrection, or, as I hope to be ſaved *.

MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR.

Vol. I. p. 252.

Slen.
REMARKS, p. 12.
Two Edward ſhovel-boards, that coſt me two ſhillings and two-pence apiece.

[7]My remark on this paſſage is conſidered by my anonymous friend in the following terms. "Dr. Farmers note, and the authority he quotes, might, I think, paſs uncenſured, unleſs better proofs could be produced in oppoſition to them. They have, however, been objected to, and we are poſitively told, that Maſter Slenders "Edward ſhovel-boards have undoubtedly been broad ſhillings of Edward the Third. I believe the broad ſhillings of that monarch were never before heard of, as he undoubtedly did not coin any ſhilling whatever."

Without attempting to palliate the groſs blunder I was undoubtedly guilty of in the remark alluded to, I may be permitted to obſerve, that neither "Dr. Farmers note," nor "the authority he quotes," was cenſured in that remark, unleſs difference in opinion neceſſarily imply cenſure. No one can have either leſs reaſon or leſs inclination to cenſure this reſpectable ſcholar and critic than myſelf: and I am confident that he would never have thought it neceſſary to defend either his notes or his authorities in ſuch a ſtile as the above. By whom the Engliſh ſhilling was firſt coined, is a piece of knowledge from which the poſſeſſor can derive ſo little merit, that I ſhould think my pleaſant and gentlemanlike friend in the dark will ſcarcely diſpute my having had opportunities of acquiring it: how I happened to make ſo ill a uſe of them is another matter; which I can neither apologiſe nor account for. And though I do not think the inaccuracy or inattention of one writer is any excuſe for that of another, I may be permitted to notice a few ſimilar ſlips, to prove my offence is not without its parallels.

In vol. iii. p. 474, Boccaccio is ſaid to be the inventor of the ſtory of Patient Griſſel, though Petrarch, to whom he had ſent it, expreſsly tells him, that he had read the ſtory in his infancy.

In vol, v. p. 153, the reader is referred to Matthew Paris, for the proof of a fact in the time of Richard the Second, above a century after the hiſtorians death.

[8]In vol. v. p. 266. King Henry IV. is aſſerted to be himſelf the laſt perſon that ever bore the title of Duke of Lancaſter, though his ſon (afterwards Henry V.) is well known to have born it during the whole of his fathers reign.

In vol. v. p. 396. the Court of Wards, which was firſt erected by Henry VIII. is ſuppoſed to exiſt in the reign of King Henry IV.

In vol. vi. p. 15. King Henry V. is made to addreſs John Holland, Duke of Exeter, who was beheaded in the firſt year of King Henry IV.

In p. 510 of the ſame volume, ſome lines from Robert of Glouceſter are quoted as Geoffrey of Monmouths; "and then, as Geoffrey of Monmouth ſays."

I ſay, I only notice theſe inſtances, to prove that the margin of Shakſpeare is no more infallible than the text of the Remarks; and conſequently, that there was no great need of exultation on the detection of a ſingle miſtake.

P. 279.

Piſt.
REMARKS, p. 14.
Hope is a curtail'd dog in ſome affairs.

I believe I was not miſtaken in aſſerting that excauditation was not, nor could be, in any caſe, ordained by the foreſt laws. But an expreſſion of Sir Toby Belch—"call me cut"—having induced a ſuſpicion, that curtailing or cutting the tail of either horſe or dog, implied ſome degree of infamy of ſhame, I was glad to meet with a paſſage in Bracton, which may ſerve to give us a pretty clear idea of the matter. Of the puniſhment of a raviſher, ſays this ancient writer, according to the laws of the Romans, Franks, and ENGLISH, if he were a knight, his HORSE, to his diſgrace, ſhall have the ſkin cut off the upper lip, and the TAIL OUGHT TO BE CUT OFF CLOSE TO THE BUTTOCK. So a DOG, if he have one with him, GREYHOUND, or other, ſhall be diſgraced in the ſame manner *." The injuſtice and abſurdity [9]of this law will be ſufficiently apparent. It however leads one to ſuppoſe, that in the feudal times the diſtinction between the horſe or dog of a knight and that of a villain, appeared by the tail; and hence the term cut might be as reproachful as the word villain; the former implying the horſe or dog of a clown, the latter the clown himſelf. A ſuppoſition chance may one day confirm.

MEASURE FOR MEASURE.

Vol. II. p. 68.

Mr. Tyrwhitt, on reviewing his former note, did not,REMARKS, p. 20. he ſays, think ſo well of the conjecture in the latter part of it as he had done ſome years before, and therefore wiſhed to withdraw it; but he was not inclined to adopt the idea of the author of the REMARKS, as he ſaw "no ground for ſuppoſing that Iſabella had any maſk in her hand;" his notion being, "that the phraſe, theſe black maſks, ſignifies nothing more than black maſks; according to an old idiom of our language, by which the demonſtrative pronoun is put for the prepoſitive article," and refers to his Gloſſary to Chaucer, This, Theſe. "Shakſpeare," he adds, "ſeems to have uſed the ſame idiom, not only in the paſſage quoted by Mr. Steevens from Romeo and Juliet; but alſo in Firſt Henry IV. Act I. ſcene 3.

— And but for theſe vile guns
He would himſelf have been a ſoldier.

As to the quotation from Romeo and Juliet, I had already explained that, by the very conſtruction Mr. Tyrwhitt has approved *. But I am not ſo well ſatisfied of the juſtneſs of its application to the paſſage cited from Firſt Henry IV. as, I conceive, Percy is repeating the words of one who ſpoke with thoſe vile guns before his eye.

[10]Though this learned and ingenious commentator might ſee no ground for ſuppoſing that Iſabella held a maſk in her hand, it does not follow that the notion is entirely groundleſs. It was certainly the faſhion in Shakſpeares time, and perhaps long after, for ladies to wear maſks; and as Iſabella is about to take the veil, it may be probable that ſhe could not conſiſtently walk through the ſtreets without a maſk, which, on coming into Angelos preſence, ſhe would of courſe hold in her hand.

I am the rather confirmed that this is the true ſenſe of the paſſage, from the frequency of Shakſpeares alluſions to the cuſtom of wearing maſks.

Thus, in the Two Gentlemen of Verona: ‘And threw her fun-expelling maſk away.’

Again, in Troilus and Creſſida, the latter enumerating her ſeveral wards or defences, ſays, ſhe relies upon her maſk to defend her beauty.

Again, in Cymbeline:

— lads —
With faces fit for maſks, or rather fairer
Than thoſe for preſervation cas'd or ſhame.

Again, in Othello: ‘To fetch her fan, her gloves, her maſk, nor nothing?’

In Loves Labour Loſt, the princeſs and ladies wear taffata maſks; and Autolycus, in the Winters Tale, "maſks for faces and for noſes."

I ſhall ſay nothing more as to the word enſhield, than that I ſtill think it to be a contraction for enſhielded; but I ſhall be very willing to abate my confidence, when any authority is produced for the uſage contended for, of en-ſhelld or in-ſhelld. No word, I conceive, ought to be diſplaced from the text by one equally objectionable; and every word in the old editions is to be deemed CERTAINLY Shakſpeares, till the contrary appears.

MIDSUMMER NIGHTS DREAM.

[11]

Vol. III. p. 36.

Ob.
The human mortals want their winter here.
REMARKS, p. 43.

In reply to the remark on this paſſage, the gentleman who has aſſumed the ſignature of "The Editor," after lamenting the misfortune of the commentators and readers of Shakſpeare, in having ſo much of their time employed in explaining and contradicting unfounded conjectures and aſſertions, produces and extract from Mr. Wartons Obſervations on Spenſers Fairy Queen, to prove, that in Shakſpeares time the notion of Fairies dying was generally known; and adds, that Tickells poem, called Kenſington Gardens, will ſhew that the opinion prevailed in the preſent century. A future editor of our author, he ſays, may, without any detriment to his work, omit this note, which he ſhould have been better pleaſed to have had no occaſion to incumber the page with.

Every perſon of feeling muſt ſurely ſympathiſe with an editor of Shakſpeare, who, contrary to the eſtabliſhed practice of gentlemen in his ſituation, inſtead of the more agreeable employment of making unfounded conjectures and aſſertions, is reduced to the hard neceſſity of contradicting them; more eſpecially when, after all his toil and trouble, and writing about it and about it, the point is left pretty much the ſame as it was found. The real and oftenſible editor of the reviſed edition is a perſon of too extenſive reading, as well as of too much good ſenſe, to quote the fanciful genealogies of Spenſer, at ſecond hand, to illuſtrate a popular ſuperſtition, with which, as he well knows, the Faerie Queene has not the remoteſt connection. No one who has read even a ſingle canto of Spenſers poem, can be ignorant of the diſſimilarity between his Fairies and the Fairies of Shakſpeare; or that a ſyſtem, imagined to ſerve the purpoſes of allegory and alluſion to real characters, has nothing in common with the vulgar opinion, to which in fact he has not been indebted for a [12]ſingle idea. Mr. Tickells poem I neither know where to find, nor think it worth my while to enquire after. I have ſuch authority, however, for what the above candid and good-tempered pſeudo-editor is pleaſed to call an unfounded conjecture and aſſertion, that, far from being diſpoſed to retract and iota of what I have already advanced on the ſubject, I will venture to maintain the propriety of my opinion in its fulleſt extent, viz. that the Fairies of Shakſpeare and the common people are immortal, and were never eſteemed otherwiſe. And, firſt, to ſhew how little Spenſer is to be regarded as an authority in the matter, it will be only neceſſary to have recourſe to the doctrine of that poets maſter, the inimitable Arioſto, who expreſsly tells us that a Fairy can not die:

Morir non puote alcuna Fata mai,
Fin che'l Sol gira, ò il ciel non muta ſtilo.
. . . . . .
Ma le Fate morir ſempre non ponno *

The character of a Fairy in the old Romances , like that of the acient Wood-nymphs, unites the ideas of power and beauty, and ſuch are the Fairies of Arioſto and Spenſer; as Shakſpeare himſelf evidently knew, when he made Mark Antony ſay, ‘To this great Fairy I'll commend thy acts.’ It is to this ſpecies of Fairies that Milton alludes, where he ſpeaks of

—Fairy damſels met in foreſt wide,
By knights of Logres and of Liones,
Lancelot, or Pelleas, or Pellenore.

The Fairies, on the contrary, of the Midſummer Nights Dream, according to a beautiful paſſage of the ſame author, are,

—Faerie elves,
Whoſe midnight revels, by a foreſt ſide,
[13]Or fountain, ſome belated peaſant ſees,
Or dreams he ſees, while over head the moon
Sits arbitreſs, and neerer to the earth
Wheels her pale courſe; they, on thir mirth and dance
Intent, with jocond muſic charm his ear;
At once with joy and fear his heart rebounds.

Beaumont and Fletcher, I ſhould conceive as good a voucher for the popular opinion of Shakſpeares time as either Spenſer or Tickell. And ſee what they ſay in the Faithful Shepherdeſs:

A virtuous well, about whoſe flow'ry banks
The nimble-footed Fairies dance their rounds
By the pale moon-ſhine, dipping oftentimes
Their ſtolen children, ſo to make 'em free
From dying fleſh, and dull mortality.

Pretty concluſive evidence this, one ſhould think! There is, indeed, a fooliſh Romance, intitled Huon de Bourdeaux, which had been turned into Engliſh long before Shakſpeares time, where Oberon, king of the Fairies, is made to dye and bequeath his dominions to Huon. And Mr. Steevens (vol. iii. 135.) mentions his having been informed, that the originals of Oberon and Titania are to be ſought in this romance. They may be there ſought, indeed, but I know, by woeful experience, they are not there to be found.

Shakſpeare, I am convinced, was upon this occaſion indebted to no book whatever; unleſs it were the great book of ſociety, which he peruſed and ſtudied with ſo much care. And that he himſelf has expreſsly repreſented his Fairies immortal, will appear from the following quotations, which could only have eſcaped the notice of a ſuppoſititious editor, leſs attentive to his authors text than tenacious of the miſtakes of his predeceſſors of himſelf.

1 Fairy.
[to Bottom.]
Hail, mortal, hail!

. . . . . . . .

Puck.
Believe me, king of ſhadows, I miſtook.
Ob.
[14]
But we are ſpirits of another ſort.

. . . . . . . .

Puck.
If we ſhadows have offended.

I have only to add, that the editor might, without any detriment to his work, have omitted the above note; but I cannot think that the page has any particular reaſon to complain of the incumbrance, as it would be no difficult matter to point out ſeveral hundreds groaning under an equal burthen.

MERCHANT OF VENICE.

Vol. III. p. 160.

The editor,REMARKS, p. 50. or ſome one under his ſignature, attempts to ſupport Mr. Steevens by a quotation from an old book, which ſeems little or nothing to the purpoſe. The words uſe, uſance, and uſury, in the time of Shakſpeare, appear to have had one and the ſame meaning, and to have ſignified preciſely what intereſt does at preſent. Mr. Steevens, by employing the word uſury in its preſent ſenſe, makes the Jew condemn himſelf. And it may be obſerved, that Antonio in this play does not cenſure the practice of taking exceſſive intereſt, but that of taking intereſt at all; which has been frequently condemned by others as Jewiſh and Anti-chriſtian.

ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL.

Vol. IV. p. 136.

Lafeu.
(to Parolles.)
Prithee, allow the wind.

"Allow the wind.] i. e. ſtand to the windward of me STEEVENS."

That to be ſure would be allowing the wind with a vengeance! Lafeu means, however, the exact reverſe; i. e. that Parolles ſhould allow the wind a free paſſage; or (to [15]keep to the ſea term) ſtand to the leeward of him; as Mr. Steevens, if he had not been misled by his friend Johnſons Dictionary, ſufficiently fruitful in ſuch like miſtakes, might probably have explained it.

TWELFTH NIGHT.

Vol. IV. p. 163.

How will ſhe love—when liver, brain, and heart,
Theſe ſovereign thrones, are all ſupply'd and fill'd,
(Her ſweet perfections) with one ſelf-ſame king.

"The original and authentic copy," ſays Mr. Malone (as he is become fond of calling the firſt folio, ſince the ſecond has been the means of detecting ſo many of his miſtakes) "reads—with one ſelf king. Same," he ſays, "was added unneceſſarily by the editor of the ſecond folio, who in many inſtances appears to have been equally ignorant of our authors language and metre." Though this charge were as true as it is otherwiſe; and though the editor of the ſecond folio had underſtood our authors language and metre as imperfectly as the learned gentleman himſelf appears to do, the preſent alteration would be no inſtance of it. But ſee how this ingenious critic explains the paſſage! "Self king," ſays he, "is king o'er HERſelf; one who reigns abſolute in her boſom." King o'er herſelf may, for any thing I know, be very good Iriſh; but on would think it ought to be Queen o'er herſelf, to make it good Engliſh. But, this by the way, I ſhould I ſhould be glad to know if it be poſſible for any perſon who has read but two lines of Shakſpeare; and has but two grains of common ſenſe, to betray ſtronger ſymptoms of a very imperfect acquaintance with his ſenſe, language, metre, or any thing elſe. As to the metre, the additional ſyllable, though not abſolutely neceſſary, perhaps, is certainly an improvement; the word perfections muſt otherwiſe have been pronounced as four ſyllables, [16]which, though not unuſual with Shakſpeare, is far from being harmonious. As to the ſenſe, that is left pretty much as it was: the compound ſelf-ſame had come into uſe in Shakſpeares time, inſtead of the ancient adjective ſelf: he uſes both frequently; as Mr. Malone, if he will take the trouble to read him over for the purpoſe, may for certainty know. And the meaning of the paſſage, if indeed it be at all neceſſary to explain what no one perhaps but Mr. Malone can poſſibly miſconceive, is merely and ſimply this: when theſe ſovereign thrones, are all ſupplied and fill'd with one and the ſame king, i. e. LOVE.

MACBETH.

Vol. IV. p. 473.

Macb.
REMARKS, p. 71.
The prince of Cumberland.

Mr. Steevens having obſerved that the crown of Scotland was originally not hereditary; and that when a ſucceſſor was declared in the lifetime of the king, the title of prince of Cumberland was immediately beſtowed on him as the mark of his deſignation, I took the liberty to queſtion the propriety of this obſervation; and to aſſert, that the crown of Scotland had been hereditary for ages before Duncan—nay, from the very foundation of the Scotiſh monarchy; that the apparent or preſumptive heir was always the known and declared ſucceſſor; and that the kings eldeſt ſon, or grandſon (i. e. the heir apparent for the time being) alone was prince of Cumberland. Mr. Steevens had originally quoted Hollinſhed; and Mr. Malone, in the reviſed edition, ſupports him, by a quotation from Bellendens tranſlation of Boetius, which Hollinſhed copied. I have ſaid that it ſhould ſeem, from the play, that Malcolm was the firſt who had the title of prince of Cumberland; and ſo it does; though this was certainly not the caſe, as Malcolm, ſon of Donald VI. afterwards Malcolm I. is by the Scotiſh hiſtorians expreſsly aſſerted to have born it in the reign of Conſtantine III. [17](anno 903.) who appointed that thenceforward the heir apparent to the crown of Scotland for the time being ſhould poſſeſs that country, as his appanage. Shakeſpeares miſtake may be eaſily accounted for.

Mr. Steevens, I ſee, has added, that "Cumberland was at that time held by Scotland of the crown or England as a fief;" but I fancy he will find that fiefs were at that time, and long after unknown in either country *.

KING JOHN.

Vol. V. p. 72.

I think it proper to acknowlege that Mr. Malone has produced a ſufficient number of inſtances to juſtify his aſſertion,REMARKS; p. 238. that one and on are perpetually confounded in the old copies, (ſo far at leaſt, that on is frequently miſprinted for one) which I confeſs, as I was not hunting after ſuch trifles, had eſcaped my obſervation: but what end it has anſwered, ſave as an inſtance of this ingenious gentlemans induſtry, I am at a total loſs to conceive; as I have ſufficiently proved that one, both in and long before Shakſpeares time, had obtained the ſame pronunciation it does at preſent.

RICHARD THE SECOND.

P. 191.

Buck.
My lord of Hereford, my meſſage is to you.
Bolin.
My lord, my anſwer is — to Lancaſter.

[18]This ſignificant daſh appears to have been adopted on the credit of the critical acumen of Mr. Malone. As the line was before printed, he obſerves, the ſenſe was obſcure; which, as he, doubtleſs, means to himſelf, we may very readily believe. How this ſame daſh was to illumine the paſſage, we might however have ſtill been at a loſs to diſcover, if the ingenious commentator had not been pleaſed to explain it for the benefit of more opaque intellects; which he does as follows: "Your meſſage, you ſay, is to my lord of Hereford. My anſwer is—It is not to him; it is to the duke of Lancaſter." Now it is conceived that there was ſcarcely a ſingle reader of Shakſpeare, ſince he firſt begun to be read, excepting this ingenious gentleman, who could have heſitated a moment at the line as it originally ſtood. The ſenſe of it at preſent, indeed, even though we be edified by the margin, ſeems confined to the profeſſed critic.

My lord of Hereford, ſays Berkeley, I have a meſſage for you. My lord, ſays Bolingbroke, I anſwer to no name but Lancaſter;

And I muſt find that title in your tongue
Before I make reply to aught you ſay.

And yet Mr. Malone fancies himſelf ſuch a proficient in our author, that he has advertiſed, and, as I underſtand, is even about to publiſh his own edition of him; in which we may expect to meet with a few hundred ſuch proofs of the editors peculiar ſagacity.

P. 198,

Boling.
Diſpark'd my parks and fell'd my foreſt woods.

"To diſpark," Mr. Steevens obſerves, "is to throw down the hedges of an encloſure—diſſ [...]pio;" which ſeems a ſtrange ſort of an explanation of a very common word. Every field is an encloſure; but no one ever heard of the diſparking of a field. To diſpark is merely to unpark; to [19]make that which was a park a no more; and this is done by throwing down the pales and laying it open. Mr. Steevens ſays he met with word in Barrets Dictionary, 1580. It would be difficult, perhaps, to mention a dictionary in which he could not meet with it.

P. 200.

And when they from they boſom pluck a flower,
Guard it, I pray thee, with a lurking adder.

"Guard it, ſignifies here, as in many other places, line it." MALONE.

Mr. Malone is very induſtrious in accumulating inſtances of the uſe of any particular word; will he be ſo good as point out to us, in his edition, one or two of the ſenſes he here imputes to the word guard? One does not much regard his opinions or his aſſertions, but one is always glad to ſee his proofs. In the mean time, I ſhall be perſuaded that, by guarding it with a lurking adder, Shakſpeare meant placing an adder in the flower by way of guard; putting a ſoldier in it.

P. 227.REMARKS, p. 86.

Fitz.
— my rapiers point.

In anſwer to the REMARK on this paſſage, the Editor of the reviſed edition, or rather his ſkulking friend, obſerves, that "it is probable that Dr. Johnſon did not ſee the neceſſity of citing any authority for a fact ſo well known, or ſuſpect that any perſon would demand one. If an authority however only is wanted," he ſays, "perhaps the following may be deemed ſufficient to juſtify the Doctors obſervation,—"at that time two other Engliſhmen, ſir W. Stanley and Rowland York, got an ignominious name of traytors, This Yorke, borne in London, was a man moſt negligent [20]and lazy, but deſperately hardy; he was in his time the moſt famous of thoſe who reſpected fencing, having been the firſt that brought into England that wicked and pernicious faſhion to fight in the fields in duels with a rapier called a tucke onely for the thurſt. The Engliſh having till that very time uſed to fight with backe ſwords, ſlaſhing and cutting one the other armed with targets or bucklers with very broad weapons, accounting it not to be a manly action to fight by thruſting and ſtabbing, and chiefly under the waſte." Darcies Annals of Queen Elizabeth, 4to, 1623, p. 223. ſub anno 1587.

"Again, in Bulleines Dialogue between Soarneſſe and Chirurgi, fol. 1579, p. 20. "There is a new kynd of inſtruments to let bloud withall, whych brynge the bloud letter ſome tyme to the gallowes, becauſe hee ſtryketh to deepe. Theſe inſtruments are called the ruffins tucke and long foining rapier: weapons more malicious than manly."

That Dr. Johnſon did not ſee the neceſſity of citing any authority to convict Shakſpeare of this anachroniſm, or ſuſpect that any perſon would demand one, is a little to the purpoſe as it is true that the fact is well known. If Dr. Johnſon had been poſſeſſed of any authority, there can be no doubt that he would have produced it; but, however confident he may be in his aſſertions, no one was ever more ignorant of the manners either of Shakſpeares age or of the ages preceding it. But ignorant as he was, it would not have been difficult for him to have found authorities, which make as little in his favour as thoſe brought forward in the reviſed edition. Dr. Johnſon has taken upon himſelf to aſſert that the Rapier was a weapon not ſeen in England till 1599, that is, two centuries after the time of which Shakſpeare was writing, and two years after the publication of this identical play; an aſſertion which the author of the above note, out of his zeal for the credit of Dr. Johnſon, has pronounced a notorious fact, and produced what he calls a ſufficient authority to [21]juſtify it. This authority, however, proves at moſt no more than that a rapier, called a tucke "onely for the thurſt," had been introduced by a perſon who was hanged in 1587, and that "the long foining rapier" was a new kind of inſtrument in 1579. The rapier NOT called a tucke, and for ſomething more than the thurſt or the long foin, might, for any thing that yet appears to the contrary, have been an ordinary weapon long before either Yorke *, Bulleine, or Shakſpeare was born. But ſuppoſing it was not, what then? Shakſpeare could have made uſe of the word rapier as a general name for a ſword, the ſpecies for the genus; and Dr. Johnſon might with equal propriety have objected to Julius Caeſars ſpeaking Engliſh.

Shakſpeare has ſo many anachroniſms to anſwer for, that ſome people ſeem to think it is no matter how many, real or pretended, they add to the number; which, as his ſincere admirer, I am anxious ſhould not be wantonly increaſed. I will not, indeed, aſſert, that the rapier was actually known in this country under that very name in the time of king Richard the Second; but I ſhall certainly think it ſufficient to prove, that it was familiar to us long before the time at which Shakſpeare wrote; and let Dr. Johnſons advocate ſhew why both the poet and his readers have not a right to preſume it was ſo in the times of which he was writing.

The fact I take to be this: the ancient rapier was a long two-edged ſharp-pointed weapon, eſſentially different from that mentioned by Darcy and Bulleine, which was for the thruſt only, whereas the other was for both blow and thruſt. In a note to Much ado about Nothing (vol. ii. p. [22]263.) Mr. Steevens produces an extract from an old manuſcript in the Sloane Library, "which ſeems," he ſays, "to be the fragment of a regiſter formerly belonging to ſome of our ſchools, where the "noble Science of Defence was taught," from the year 1568 to 1583;" in which we find the following entry: "Item a challenge playde before the KINGS MAJESTIR (EDWARD VI.) at Weſtminſter.. at ſeven kynde of weapons. That is to ſay,... the RAPIER and TARGET, the rapier and cloke, &c." And in another place Mr. Steevens, giving an account of this manuſcript, expreſsly tells us that RAPIER and TARGET, rapier and cloke, rapier and dagger, were among the weapons uſed in the fencing ſchool. This I ſhould conceive a ſufficient and ſatisfactory proof, even to the gentleman who has ſo zealouſly undertaken to ſupport the random and groundleſs aſſertion of Dr. Johnſon, that the rapier alluded to by Shakſpeare was not a long foining tucke onely for the thurſte; and that he has not given "to the Engliſh nobles a weapon which was not ſeen in England till two centuries afterwards."

Independent of this adventitious aſſiſtance, Shakſpeare himſelf has given ſuch a deſcription of the rapier he meant, as could ſcarcely be overlooked but by an annotator leſs deſirous to illuſtrate his author than to ſupport the abſurdities of an editor. Thus in Twelfth Night (vol. iv. p. 254.) ‘He is knight dubb'd with unhack'd rapier: i. e. a rapier or ſword that has never ſtruck a blow in the field; with a ſmooth edge: an expreſſion perfectly inapplicable to a ſmall ſword, or long foining rapier, onely for the thurſt. So in Antony and Cleopatra: ‘To part with unhack'd edges.

FIRST PART OF HENRY THE FOURTH.

[23]

Vol. V. p. 313.

1 Car
. . . . Charles' Wain is over the new chimney
REMARKS, p. 90.
.

Having profeſſed my obligation to a learned friend for a very ingenious etymology of Charles's Wain, I think it proper to mention that the ſame etymology had been already given by Dr. Hickes, and is to be ſound in Thoreſbys Ducatus Leodienſis; ſo that I have poſſibly aſcribed to my learned friend the merit of a diſcovery which he was not intitled to, and never meant to claim, and for which of courſe he would be very little obliged to me.

P. 342.

"That the ſweet wine, at preſent called ſack, REMARKS, p. 92. is defferent from Falſtaffs favourite liquor," the editor is "by no means convinced." It would indeed be wonderful enough if he were; as there is nothing more difficult, or rather leſs poſſible, than to convince an Editor—when he is in the wrong. He is therefor inclined to believe that the Engliſh of our authors time drank Canary, the ſweeteſt of wines, with ſugar. I ſuppoſe they eat their honey with it too. That the ſack. however, mentioned and meant by Shakſpeare is NOT the ſack of this day, will be evident to all but the Editor, by a paſſage in one of the notes to his own edition (vol. iv. p. 174.) where it is ſaid that Moll Cutpurſe, ("a notorious baggage that uſed to go in mans apparel") when brought up to do penance at Pauls Croſs, where ſhe "wept bitterly and ſeemed very penitent," was, it was afterwards doubted, maudlin drunk, having been "diſcovered to have tippel'd of THREE QUARTS OF SACK, before ſhe came to her penance." Let the Editor try if he can drink ONE QUART. Falſtaff himſelf puts the matter out of doubt, where, in his enumeration of the excellencies [24]of his favourite beverage, he expreſsly calls it Sherris. (See 2. Hen. IV. Act iv. ſcene 3.) Indeed, if it were poſſible for the Editor to be right in his perſuaſion, and certain jolly fellow could never have ſung:

My friend and I we drank whole piſs-pots
Full of SACK up to the brim;
I drank to my friend, and he drank his pot,
So we put about the whim:
Nine bottles and a quart we ſwallow'd down our throat,
But hang ſuch puny ſips as theſe,
We laid us all along, with our mouths unto the bung,
And we tipp'd whole hogſheads off with eaſe.

P. 375.

This is the ſecond place in which Mr. Steevens introduces what I conceive a very erroneous explanation of the word mould-warp; and I flatter myſelf he will not be offended with an attempt to ſet him right. "The mould-warp," he ſays, "is the mole, ſo called becauſe it renders the ſurface of the earth unlevel by the hillocks which it raiſes." It certainly is not ſo called from that circumſtance. The name ariſes from, and is expreſſive of the circumſtance of the animal warping, or turning, the mould over the ſurface of the ground, which is actually the caſe.

KING HENRY THE FIFTH.

Vol. VI. p. 18.

Cant.
— alſo king Lewis the ninth.
REMARKS, p. 103.

Shakſpeare wrote tenth (as the text is now corrected) and I have contended that he was right, and the alteration wrong. I ſince find that the latter is in ſome reſpect right [...] and that our old hiſtorians (i. e. Fabian, Hollinſhed, [25]&c.) are a unit above the French account. I really do not know for what reaſon this is ſo, but it runs ſtrongly in my mind that Fabian has ſomewhere explained it, though I was unable to find the paſſage a ſecond time.

P. 31.

Living hence.] The REMARK upon this paſſage being clear and intelligible, and indeed the only conſtruction it is capable of, Mr. Malone, with his uſual diffidence, obſerves that "if hence means here, any one word, as Dr. Johnſon has ſomewhere obſerved, may ſtand for another. It undoubtedly," he adds, "does not ſignify here in the preſent paſſage; and, if it did, it would render what follows, nonſenſe." And this, it is ſuppoſed, the learned gentleman offers as a convincing argument—and ſo indeed it may be, that he underſtands the paſſage neither as it is nor as it ſhould be. Why has not HE attempted to explain it? But, alas, we know by experience that ſuch attempts, however they may increaſe difficulties, are ill calculated to remove them.

Not to regard the miſconceptions of this moſt erring commentator by too formal notices, it may ſuffice to entertain the reader with the following ſpecimens of his ſingular ſagacity and acuteneſs:

AS YOU LIKE IT. Vol. iii. p. 331. As friend remembered not.
Remember'd for remembering. MALONE.
MIDSUMMER NIGHTS DREAM. Vol. iii. p. 116. Make periods in the midſt of ſentences.
It ſhould be obſerved, periods in the text is uſed in the ſenſe of full ſtops. MALONE.

[26] Nothing can be more worthy of obſervation than ſuch a comment.

JULIUS CAESAR. Vol. viii. p. 105.
— they—come down
With fearful bravery, thinking, by this face,
To faſten in our thoughts that the have courage.
With fearful bravery—] That is, with a gallant ſhew of courage, carring with it terror and diſmay. Fearful is uſed here, as in many other places, in a active ſenſe— producing fear—intimidating. MALONE.

How the word fearful may be uſed in other places I do not know: but if it have any meaning at all in this place, it is ſimply full of fear; and fearful bravery is a ſhew of courage, hiding a cowardly heart. Anthonys language is certainly the eſſence of terror and diſmay.

In p. 139 of the ſame volume, he ſays that the word charge is "abbreviated in old Engliſh MSS. chāge." I think I know enough both of abbreviations and old Engliſh MSS. to enable me to pronounce, that ſuch an abbreviation of charge is not, nor ever was to be met with in any.

TROILUS AND CRESSIDA. Vol. ix. p. 38.
— like a ſtrutting player, whoſe conceit
Lies in his hamſtring, and doth think it rich
To hear the wooden dialogue and ſound
'Twixt his ſtretch'd footing and the ſcaffoldage.
The galleries of the theatre, in the time of our author, were ſometimes termed the ſcaffolds. MALONE.

Shakſpeare alludes to the clamping of the players buſkins upon the ſtage. The wooden meaning of the note, I fear muſt be left to its authors own comprehenſion.

HENRY THE FIFTH.

[27]

Vol. VI. p. 76.

Flu.
'Splood!— up to the preaches you raſcals!
REMARKS, p. 108.
will you not up to the preaches?
Fiſt.
Be merciful, GREAT DUKE, to men of mould.

The abſurdity of this reading is ſo evident, and has been ſo fully expoſed in the REMARKS, that one, editor or commentator, has had the confidence to ſay a ſingle word in defence of it, except Mr. Malone, whoſe candour and ingenuity are equally conſpicuous.

He quotes a few words from a long note, where it was ſaid that "it is the Duke of Exeter who enters," and triumphantly adds, that "in the only folio of authority this certainly is not the caſe;" becauſe forſooth the blundering editors have ſuffered the name of Fluellen to ſtand before a ſpeech evidently belonging to Exeter: ‘Up to the breach, you dogs! avaunt, you cullions.’ Is this the language of Fluellen? Does Fluellen ever ſpeak in heroics? Or is it poſſible that this line, and the pitiful ſtuff which the editors have ſo judiciously preferred:— "'Splood!—up to the preaches, you raſcals! will you not up to the preaches?" can belong to one and the ſame perſon? Certainly not. But then, he argues, "when the king retired, the duke of Exeter undoubtedly accompanied him:" And ſuppoſe he did, what then? Is he never to come upon the ſtage again?

As to his aſſertion, that "Duke means no more here than commander;" nothing bad enough can be ſaid of it. Will he have the goodneſs to produce on ſingle inſtance from "the language of our author," in which the title has any ſuch meaning? "Duke Theſeus," every one who has looked into the Midſummer Nights Dream, not excepting himſelf, very well knows, is "Theſeus Duke of Athens." And though Skelton or any other ancient writer may have called [28] Hannibal a Duke, will he venture to ſay that any writer ever gave ſuch an appellation to an Engliſh officer? Theſe are queſtions indeed, which though I aſk, I do not expect Mr. Malone to anſwer: but I ſhall be free enough to add, that while ſuch critics as he is have the liberty to write ſuch notes as this in the margin of Shakſpeare, it will be in vain to expect either honour or juſtice done to the author.

SECOND PART OF HENRY THE SIXTH.

Vol. VI. p. 371.

REMARKS, p. 120.
K. Henry.
I thank thee: Well theſe words content me much.

In anſwer to the Remark on this paſſage (a Remark which I have ſince learned is not peculiar to myſelf) Mr. Steevens ſays it has been obſerved by two or three commentators, that it is no way extraordinary the king ſhould forget his wifes name, as it appears in no leſs than three places ſhe forgets it herſelf, calling herſelf Eleanor. It has been alſo ſaid, it ſhould be Meg. And though he allows all this to be very true, yet as an alterations muſt be made, Theobalds, he ſays, is juſt as good and as probable as any other. He has, therefor, retained it, and wiſhes it could have been done with propriety without a note.

I leave it to every reader to form his own concluſions on this extraordinary note, which I only wonder to find avowed by Mr. Steevens. No unprejudiced perſon tan heſitate for a moment in admitting this concluſion, that as Shakſpeare has already inadvertently uſed Eleanor for Margaret no leſs than three times, ſo he here uſes Nell for Meg. With what reaſon therefor can it be ſaid, that Well is juſt as good and as probable an alteration as any other: an alteration which Theobald, had he noticed the repeated miſtake of Eleanor for Margaret, would never have propoſed? diſcovery himſelf!

THIRD PART OF K. HENRY THE SIXTH.

[29]

P. 445

Gab.
The queen, with all the northern earls and lords,
REMARKS, p. 125.
Intend here to beſiege you in your caſtle.

In the courſe of my Remark on this paſſage, I obſerved, that Richard was "ſcarcely more than (if, indeed, ſo much as) nine years old;" I find he was but juſt turned of eight.

P. 489.

A chaſe in the North of England.] REMARKS, p. 128. This ſcenical direction is given inſtead of that I objected to in the former edition, a wood in Lancaſhire. And yet I have ſince met with convincing evidence that the king was actually taken in Lancaſhire; but whether Shakſpeare knew it, is more than I can tell. The importance of the fact deſerves a minute inveſtigation.

P. 504.

The ridiculous ſtory of Warwicks embaſſy and the lady Bona,REMARKS, p. 129. ought to be baniſhed out of hiſtory; and yet Mr. Hume gives it as circumſtantially as if he had found it in a record: whereas there is not even a poſſibility of its having any foundation whatever, as Warwick actually ſtood ſponſor to the princeſs Elizabeth, king Edwards firſt child *. This period of Engliſh hiſtory equally intereſting [30]and obſcure: but though I have ſaid that the rupture between the king and his political creator is owing to cauſes which have not reached poſterity, I have ſince found that [31]Warwick took occaſional umbrage at ſeveral of the kings proceedings: As, 1. his marrying the queens ſiſter to the duke of Buckingham; 2. his conferring the office of treaſurer (which he had taken from the lord Montjoy) upon lord Rivers; 3. his making a match between the ſon and heir of the lord Herbert and Mary the queens ſiſter, and another between the young lord Liſle and the daughter of lord Herbert, and creating young Herbert a knight and lord of Dunſtar; 4. his making a match between ſir Thomas Gray, the queens ſon, and Lady Anne, daughter and heir to the duke of Exeter, and niece to the king, who had been talked of as a wife for the earl of Northumberland, Warwicks brother. But here the annals of William Wyrceſter, to whom we are indebted for this valuable information, are moſt unfortunately defective. However, it appears from Rymer, that in the beginning of November 1469, no open variance had taken place between the king and Warwick; though the latter had certainly been accuſed of favouring king Henry, and had ſecretly diſpleaſed the king by the propoſed match between his daughter and the duke of Clarence. On the 23d March 1470 he and the duke were in arms and proclaimed rebels.

To the liſt of battles, in p. 130, and 131. may be added, 10. The, battle of . . . . (in North Wales) between Jaſper earl of Pembroke (for Lancaſter) and . . . . brother to William lord Herbert (afterward earl of Pembroke) (for king Edward) in which the former was defeated . . . . 1467.

The day on which the battle of Stamford was fought (for which I have left a blank) was the 12th March.

JULIUS CAESAR.

Vol. VIII. p. 46.

Cal.
And graves have yawn'd, and yielded up their dead.
REMARKS p. 143.

The Remark on this paſſage having the ſignature COLLINS, thoſe ſagacious animals the Reviewers diſcovered [32]it to be a quotation from the writings of a learned gentleman of that name, with which they ſeem ſo very familiar, that it cannot give them much trouble to point out the particular book and page from whence it was taken; and this they will have a favorable opportunity of doing, in the courſe of the humane treatment my poor literary bantling here has a right to expect from the mercy of incenſed butchers. Theſe pious Chriſtians (poſſibly from their ſituation in this world being as nigh heaven or hell as a garret or a cellar can make it) ſeem to conſider themſelves as the public guardians of Religion, and are extremely apt to take the alarm at every thing in which they are quick-ſighted enough to perceive a reflection upon their ſacred charge. Poor fellows! one need not wonder at their anxiety, as they have moſt probably nothing elſe to loſe. In the mean time, every one who had looked over the notes to the laſt edition of Shakſpeare, would immediately ſee with what view the names of AMNER and COLLINS were adopted in the REMARKS.

KING LEAR.

Vol. IX. p. 479.

Edg.
REMARKS, p. 169.
Come o'er the bourn, Beſſy, to me.

I have printed what I at the time haſtily took to be the original ſong; but I believe that no more than the four firſt lines are authentic, and that the remainder is a puritanical parody; and as ſuch I freely dedicate it To the Critical Reviewers, for the uſe of any conventicle, Muggletonian or other, which they are accuſtomed to frequent.

FINIS.
Notes
*

A complete table of errata would be too arduous a taſk, perhaps, for an individual; the bookſellers may therefor think themſelves obliged to any perſon that will contribute to it. I accordingly offer my mite, in the following brief but decent ſpecimen of the accuracy of this famous edition.

  • V. I. p. 21. boltſprit for bowſprit.
  • V. I. p. 48. Ale-wrights for ale-knights.
  • V. I. p. 70. Trinculo for Stephano.
  • V. I. p. 72. never (to ſpoil the metre) for ne'er.
  • V. I. p. 347 & paſſim. Manhood for Manwood. In another place Sir Hugh Spelman.
  • Vol. II. p. 39. diſtant for inſtant.
  • Vol. II. Ignomy for Ignominy.
  • Vol. II. p. 68. conſtruction for contraction.
  • Vol. II. p. 71. ſome for ſame.
  • Vol III. p. 295. You ſhall not have mocked me before, for you ſhould not, &c.
  • Vol. III. p. 378. Hear for Here.
  • Vol. III. p. 466. Pletony the ſon of Lagus.
  • Vol. III. p. 496. a cuchſtold's horn.
  • Vol. IV. p. 94. promiſe-maker for promiſe-breaker.
  • Vol. IV. p. 118. Intergatories for Interrogatories.
  • Vol. IV. p. 164. man for name.
  • Vol. IV. p. 211. Fie away for fly away.
  • Vol. IV. p. 264. danger for dagger.
  • Vol. IV. p. 331. curſe him for nurſe him.
  • Vol. IV. p. 347. Verſtigans Inſtitution for Verſtègans Reſtitution.
  • Vol. IV. p. 430. That rareſt for The rareſt.
  • Vol. V. p. 113. How for now.
  • Vol. V. p. 161. Baniſh'ſt for Baniſh'd.
  • Vol. VI. p. 23. A line omitted: Elſe would I have a fling at Wincheſter.
  • Vol. VII. p. 371. If do for If I do.
  • Vol. VIII. p. 190. to draw, for do draw.
  • Vol. IX. p. 26. like for lye.
  • Vol. IX. p. 80. ſtore for ſore.
  • Vol. IX. p. 109. The lees and dregs of a flat piece. Tamed omitted.
  • Vol. X. p. 331. Heywood for Hayward. &c. &c. &c. &c.
*
I conclude, that on Sunday the worthy critics "reſt from their labours," and go to Meeting. They are very good Chriſtians.
*
This worthy gentleman is probably the infamous ſcoundrel who publiſhed "An Addreſs to the curious in ancient poetry," as, however little relation it may have to Shakſpeare, the author has had intereſt enough to procure it a place in the "Liſt of Detached Pieces of Criticiſm, &c." prefixed to the reviſed edition. A congeniality of diſpoſition in the Critical Reviewers procured this fellow a different reception from thoſe literary hangmen, from that which he may one day experience from a well known practical profeſſor of the ſame myſtery.
*
The paging in this pamphlet is generally from the reviſed edition.
*
As a ſingle inſtance is ſufficient for my purpoſe, every additional one has been omitted.
*
See, upon this ſubject, Walliſii Grammatica, p. 57.
*
I ſee too they have adopted my explanation of valanc'd (Remarks, p. 198.) which, either through ignorance or inattention, I had made to ſignify overhung with a canopy or teſter like a bed; whereas it means furbelowed with a fringed curtain, like that which generally ſurrounds the ſaid canopy or teſter, and alſo the bed itſelf, and is to this day called the valance.
*
L. 3. t. 2. c. 28.
*
Remarks, p. 175.
*
Orlando Furioſo, c. 10. f. 56.
See particularly Hiſtoire de Méluſine; of which there is a very ancient Engliſh tranſlation in the Muſeum.
*
It might be a cuſtom in Denmark, when the blood royal was extinct, to elect a ſucceſſor; and to this Hamlet may allude when he bequeaths his dying voice to Fortinbras. So in Amadis de [...]le, 1618: "Laucine (king of Swetia) dying without heires, Gaſquilan, beeing knowne in many places to bee one of the moſt gentle knights that the world yeelded, was called by them of Swetia, and elected to bee their king." B. iv. c. 17. It may be added, that Gaſquilan was ſon of Laucines ſiſter; but then it muſt be preſumed that females or their iſſue were incapable of inheriting the crown of Swetia,
*
It ſhould appear from Ca [...]letons Thankful Remembrance of Gods Mercy, 1625, as quoted by Mr. Malone in the notes to the Merry Wives of Windſor (vol. i. p. 296) that York "was ..famous.. for bringing in a new kind of fight—to run the point of a rapier into a mans body. This manner of ſight he brought firſt into England, &c." That is, as I underſtand it, he did not bring the rapier itſelf into England, but only this new meanner of fighting with it.
*
Mr. Hume indiſputably merits great praiſe as an elegant and nervous writer; but he has in numerous inſtances ſhewn an evident diſregard to facts, varying and even inventing circumſtances, for the mere purpoſe, it ſhould ſeem, of telling his ſtory to greater advantage, or giving a ſort of roundneſs or point to his periods. For this reaſon his Hiſtory is in many parts no more to be regarded than a Romance, as he neither does nor was able to quote any authority for what he relates. Among the many inſtances which might be adduced in ſupport of theſe aſſertions, I ſhall only mention a remarkable anecdote of Colonel Kirk, who is ſuppoſed to have debauched a young woman, the ſiſter (but according to other, the wife) or one of the Weſtern [...]worde [...], under a ſolemn promiſe to grant her the life of her brother, as the price of her compliance. In the morning, to gratify her impatience, he inſultingly ſhews her this beloved brother hanging upon a gibbet, which he had ſecretly ordered to be [...]r [...]ct [...]d before the window (or as ſome ſay upon the ſign poſt) of his inn. The conſequence is, that the young woman goes diſtracted, and the colonel to breakfaſt. This ſtory Mr. Hume has worked up with all his powers of eloquence and pathos; and being ſo very intereſting, no doubt is ever entertained of its truth. Although in fact, ſo far as it regards Kirk or the reign of James the Second or the Engliſh hiſtory, it is an impudent and barefaced lye. Mr. Hume indeed was not the fabricator of the falſehood; but his conduct is not the more excuſable on that account, ſince he had nothing to warrant it that could deſerve the name of an authority, and a ſtory that does outrage to human nature, ought not to be adopted by a hiſtorian without a voucher equal to its incredibility. The origin of the fable was probably owing to the pious fraud of the Whig party, to whom Kirk had rendered himſelf ſo odious, that they endeavour of to blacken his character with every action ſuperlatively abominable which they could find recorded. Many leſs important and more probable calumnies remain unnoticed in the libels of the day; but this ſtory, and ſome other circumſtances mentioned by Mr. Hume, ſuch, as his hanging 19 without the leaſt enquiry into the merits of their cause, ordering a certain number to be executed, while he and his compan [...] ſhould drink to the king's health; crying, when he obſerved their [...]e [...], to ſhake in the agonies of death, that he would give them muſic to th [...] dancing, &c. which exceed every thing one can conceive of the extent of human wickedneſs, were greedily ſwallowed and the become [...] part of the Hiſtory of England. I do not indeed queſtion but that there are many wives and many ſiſters who would ſhew the very ſame degree of affection for their huſbands or their brothers; but the other part [...] the ſtory is out of nature, and can only be credible of an incubus; [...] the utmoſt ſtretch of infernal malice which religion can teach and bigots credit, could not exceed that which is thus reported of Kirk. The reader will find the original ſtory, related more circumſtantially, though not more affectingly, nor perhaps more truly, in Wanleys Wondders of the little World of Man, 1678, chap. 29. § 18, beginning "Charles duke of Burgundy, &c."
Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License