TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA.

Vol. I. p. 155 ^*.

IN anſwer to what I have been pleaſed to aſſert in de⯑fence of Shakſpeare, REMARKS. p. 7. againſt the charge of taking a li⯑berty with his words, by ſtretching them out to ſuit the purpoſe of his metre, Mr. Tyrwhitt has obſerved as fol⯑lows: "As to this ſuppoſed canon of the Engliſh language, it would be eaſy to ſhew that it is quite fanciful and un⯑founded; and what he calls the right method of printing the above words, is ſuch as, I believe, was never adopted be⯑fore by any mortal in writing them, nor can be followed in the pronunciation of them, without the help of an en⯑tirely 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 cer⯑tain 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, ſub⯑ſtantive 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 con⯑temporaries, 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 pro⯑nounce the language.

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 re⯑viſed 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 deli⯑cacy toward the memory and character of the ingenious gentleman from whom I have the misfortune to differ.

I humbly conceive, that upon more mature conſidera⯑tion Mr. Tyrwhitt would have admitted, that if the me⯑thod 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 follow⯑ed 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 hypothe⯑ſis 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 diſſyl⯑lable; 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:

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 pro⯑nunciation 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 Ox⯑ford, 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 ca⯑non," 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 ſup⯑ported. 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 prin⯑ciples 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 tri⯑ſyllables 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 ac⯑quire the pronunciation of their mother-tongue from the book, and ſpeech certainly preceded writing, will be evi⯑dent 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 Dic⯑tionary of the language upon an excellent plan, will have it very much in his power to introduce a ſyſtematical re⯑form, which, once eſtabliſhed, would remain unvaried and invariable as long as the language endured. This John⯑ſon might have had the honour of; but it is evident that he was very little acquainted with the principles and for⯑mation [6]of the words he undertook to explain. Every dic⯑tionary, to be perfect, ſhould diſplay a ſyſtem of orthogra⯑phy, by dividing the words upon etymological principles. At firſt ſight, one would think there was very little diffi⯑culty 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 diffe⯑rent 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.

That I ſhould fall into an error myſelf, is perfectly na⯑tural; but that I ſhould have led the infallible editors of Shakſpeare into one, is ſtrange indeed. I had haſtily ſup⯑poſed 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.

[7]My remark on this paſſage is conſidered by my anony⯑mous 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 op⯑poſition to them. They have, however, been objected to, and we are poſitively told, that Maſter Slenders "Edward ſhovel-boards have undoubtedly been broad ſhil⯑lings of Edward the Third. I believe the broad ſhillings of that monarch were never before heard of, as he un⯑doubtedly 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 re⯑mark, unleſs difference in opinion neceſſarily imply cen⯑ſure. No one can have either leſs reaſon or leſs inclina⯑tion to cenſure this reſpectable ſcholar and critic than my⯑ſelf: 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 with⯑out 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 Pa⯑ris, for the proof of a fact in the time of Richard the Se⯑cond, 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 mar⯑gin 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.

I believe I was not miſtaken in aſſerting that excaudita⯑tion 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 an⯑cient writer, according to the laws of the Romans, Franks, and ENGLISH, if he were a knight, his HORSE, to his diſ⯑grace, 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 ab⯑ſurdity [9]of this law will be ſufficiently apparent. It how⯑ever leads one to ſuppoſe, that in the feudal times the diſ⯑tinction 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 imply⯑ing 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 wiſh⯑ed 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.

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 juſt⯑neſs 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:

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 autho⯑rity 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.

Vol. III. p. 36.

In reply to the remark on this paſſage, the gentleman who has aſſumed the ſignature of "The Editor," after la⯑menting 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 gene⯑rally known; and adds, that Tickells poem, called Ken⯑ſington 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 contra⯑dicting 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 un⯑founded conjecture and aſſertion, that, far from being diſ⯑poſed 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 Shak⯑ſpeare 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:

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 Spen⯑ſer; 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

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

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 Faith⯑ful Shepherdeſs:

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 Shak⯑ſpeares 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 inform⯑ed, that the originals of Oberon and Titania are to be ſought in this romance. They may be there ſought, in⯑deed, but I know, by woeful experience, they are not there to be found.

Shakſpeare, I am convinced, was upon this occaſion in⯑debted 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 im⯑mortal, 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 miſ⯑takes of his predeceſſors of himſelf.

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 An⯑tonio 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.

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

That to be ſure would be allowing the wind with a ven⯑geance! 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.

"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 ſe⯑cond 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, per⯑haps, 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. Ma⯑lone 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.

Mr. Steevens having obſerved that the crown of Scot⯑land was originally not hereditary; and that when a ſuc⯑ceſſor 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 Dun⯑can—nay, from the very foundation of the Scotiſh monar⯑chy; 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 expreſs⯑ly 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 miſ⯑take 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 aſ⯑ſertion,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 ſuffici⯑ently proved that one, both in and long before Shakſpeares time, had obtained the ſame pronunciation it does at pre⯑ſent.

RICHARD THE SECOND.

P. 191.

[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 diſco⯑ver, 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 origi⯑nally 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 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,

"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 dic⯑tionary in which he could not meet with it.

P. 200.

"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.

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 how⯑ever 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 perni⯑cious 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." Dar⯑cies 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 in⯑ſtruments 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, how⯑ever 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 autho⯑rities, 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 ma⯑nuſcript 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 RA⯑PIER and TARGET, the rapier and cloke, &c." And in another place Mr. Steevens, giving an account of this ma⯑nuſcript, expreſsly tells us that RAPIER and TARGET, rapier and cloke, rapier and dagger, were among the wea⯑pons 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 de⯑ſirous 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 inappli⯑cable 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.

Vol. V. p. 313.

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 Eng⯑liſh 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 Shak⯑ſpeare 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 Cut⯑purſe, ("a notorious baggage that uſed to go in mans ap⯑parel") 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:

P. 375.

This is the ſecond place in which Mr. Steevens in⯑troduces 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 circum⯑ſtance. 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.

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, ob⯑ſerves 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 gentle⯑man 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 enter⯑tain the reader with the following ſpecimens of his ſingular ſagacity and acuteneſs:

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

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 Eng⯑liſh MSS. to enable me to pronounce, that ſuch an abbre⯑viation of charge is not, nor ever was to be met with in any.

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.

Vol. VI. p. 76.

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 tri⯑umphantly 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 au⯑thor.

SECOND PART OF HENRY THE SIXTH.

Vol. VI. p. 371.

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 avow⯑ed by Mr. Steevens. No unprejudiced perſon tan heſitate for a moment in admitting this concluſion, that as Shak⯑ſpeare 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 al⯑teration which Theobald, had he noticed the repeated miſ⯑take of Eleanor for Margaret, would never have propoſed? diſcovery himſelf!

THIRD PART OF K. HENRY THE SIXTH.

P. 445

In the courſe of my Remark on this paſſage, I obſerv⯑ed, 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 direc⯑tion 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 intereſt⯑ing [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 trea⯑ſurer (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 Tho⯑mas 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 Wyr⯑ceſter, to whom we are indebted for this valuable in⯑formation, 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 accuſ⯑ed 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) be⯑tween Jaſper earl of Pembroke (for Lancaſter) and . . . . brother to William lord Herbert (after⯑ward 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.

The Remark on this paſſage having the ſignature COLLINS, thoſe ſagacious animals the Reviewers diſcover⯑ed [32]it to be a quotation from the writings of a learned gen⯑tleman of that name, with which they ſeem ſo very fami⯑liar, 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 bant⯑ling here has a right to expect from the mercy of incenſed butchers. Theſe pious Chriſtians (poſſibly from their ſitua⯑tion 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.

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.