P. 101.

If the editor had followed the practice he imputes to the editor of the ſecond folio, "of altering what⯑ever he did not underſtand," we ſhould ſcarcely have had a ſingle word of Shakſpeares left. It is there⯑for [39]rather fortunate that he has ſo frequently af⯑fected to underſtand, not only what he was perfectly ignorant of, but what in fact is utterly unintelligible and abſolute nonſenſe.

Yond, in the above paſſage, being an evident miſ⯑print for the under, which had been written in the copy Y^e vnd', and is requiſite both to the ſenſe and to the metre, our notable Hibernian explains it to mean "the without door generation." The metre of the line will therefor be very properly in uniſon with the ſenſe.

P. 140.

And live if not then thou art doom'd to die:—"if not,] Old copy—no. Corrected in the ſecond folio."

The ſecond folio, now under my eye, does not dif⯑fer from the firſt. Is this a ſpecimen of the editors accuracy or of his veracity?

P. 269.

Theſe lines have been differently regulated; but [40]let that paſs; "Dear," our editor ſays, "like door, fire, hour, and many ſimilar words, is here uſed as a diſſyllable. "We muſt therefor read: ‘De-àr, my lord, if you, in your own proof:’ which, it muſt be confeſſed, is one of the beſt diſ⯑ſyllable lines throughout this harmonious edition.

P. 414.

"The modern editors," it ſeems, "read affecta⯑tion;" but "there is no need of change. The word was uſed by our author and his contempora⯑ries, as a quadriſyllable."

In the Devils name (God forgive me for ſwear⯑ing!) what has the number of ſyllables to do here? It is the rime we are at a loſs for, not the metre. Surely, ſurely, if ever man was peculiarly diſquali⯑fyed by nature for an editor of Shakſpeare, or, in ſhort, for a reader of poetry, it was this identical Mr. Malone! Could it have been imagined that a writer in the eighteenth century would be ſo profoundly igno⯑rant of the commoneſt rules of verſification, ſo totally [41]deſtitute of every idea of harmony and arithmetic, as to propoſe ſuch a ſtanza as the following?

Perhaps, however, he will contend that hyperboles is a triſyllable, as nothing can be improbable, in re⯑ference to ſuch a genius, on the ſcore of abſurdity. Let it be ſo, it will make no ſort of difference: ‘Three-pil'd hy-per-boles, ſpruce af-fec-ti-òn.’ Only, in the one caſe, we ſee that on will be the rime to ātion; in the other, īon.

P. 459.

"Perhaps," obſerves our ſagacious editor, "the conſtruction is—and ſometimes make the breathleſs houſewife labour in the quern, and bootleſs churn. This," he adds, "would obviate the objection made [42]by Dr. Johnſon, viz. that "the mention of the mill ſeems out of place, for ſhe is not now telling the good but the evil that he does." Such a conſtruc⯑tion may be perfectly natural to the maker, whoſe ideas ſeem to ſport in a moſt lovely confuſion, but how is it poſſible for any other perſon to approve it? Nothing can be more eaſy and intelligible than the paſſage as it now ſtands; and the objection taken by Dr. Johnſon does not ſeem well founded: as the fairy may have enumerated miſchievous acts only. Pucks labour in the quern might be either to diſturb the family with the noiſe, or, if he actually ground the corn, when it was not wanted, or to throw the flour about the houſe.

P. 464.

The poſition too haſtily advanced by Mr. Steevens of the mortality of fairies has been ſo fully and com⯑pletely refuted, that I do not at all wonder to find our preſent candid and liberal editor continuing that gentlemans note, tho' I own I am not a little ſur⯑priſed to ſee the ſwaggering comment in the edition of 1785 reduced to half a dozen words—

"See the Faery Queen B. II. c. 10; and War⯑tons OBSERVATIONS on Spenſer, vol. i. p. 55. REED."

And why not likewiſe to "Tickell's poem, called Kenſington Gardens," which was to ſhew "that the [43]opinion prevailed in the preſent century?"^* But the reduction and omiſſion are ſufficient to prove that our modeſt editor was himſelf convinced of the fallacy of Mr. Steevens's aſſertion, and Mr. Reeds authorities, though he has not had the candour to acknowledge it. See the Quip Modeſt. pp. 11. 33.

The paſſage three quoted from Arioſto is thus tranſlated by Sir J. Harington:

The following inſtances, from this very play, were accidentally omited:

If ever any poſition was or can be demonſtrated by literary evidence it is that the fairies of Shakſpeare were not ſubject to mortality. There is no evi⯑dence whatever on the other ſide.

P. 499.

"According to the rules of heraldry," it is the editors note, "the firſt houſe only, (e. g. a father who has a ſon living, or an elder brother as diſtin⯑guiſhed from a younger,) has a right to bear the fa⯑mily coat. The ſon's coat is diſtinguiſhed from the father's by a label; the younger brother's from the elder's by a mullet. The ſame creſt is common to both. Helena therefore means to ſay, that ſhe and her friends were as cloſely united, as much as one perſon, as if they were both of the firſt houſe; as if they both had the privilege due but to one perſon, (viz. to him of the firſt houſe,) the right of bearing the family coat without any diſtinguiſhing mark."

Every reader of this incomparable edition will have frequent occaſion to obſerve that the editor "draweth out the thread of his verboſity finer than the ſtaple of his argument." The preſent inſtance, indeed, is nothing in compariſon to pages of inanity with which the work abounds, and which, on ac⯑count of their "true no-meaning," are actually in⯑capable of refutation or diſcuſſion. What, in the name of Shakſpeare, of ſenſe or reaſon, has either the father or his eldeſt ſon to do with the paſſage in queſ⯑tion? [45]The two ſeeming bodies united by one heart are reſembled to coats in heraldry, crowned with one creſt. And this happens either where the heir keeps his paternal and maternal coats, or the huſband his own and his wifes, in ſeparate ſhields, as is done on the continent; or, as at preſent with us, in the quar⯑terings of the ſame ſhield; in both caſes there are two coats, due but to one, and crowned with one creſt: which is clearly the authors alluſion. But I am ſorry to add that he muſt have entirely miſunder⯑ſtood, ſince he has ſo ſtrangely miſapplyed, the expreſ⯑ſion, Two of the firſt; which, in heraldical jargon, always means two objects of the firſt colour men⯑tioned; that is the field. For inſtance: in blazoning a coat they will ſay, Argent, upon a feſſe gules, two mullets of the firſt, that is, argent, the colour of the field. Theſe words are therefor a melan⯑choly proof that our great author ſometimes re⯑tained the phraſe after he had loſt the idea, or up the former without ſufficient precaution as to the latter. It is not indeed the only one; but "quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus." With re⯑ſpect to the note, as it is the offspring of ignorance, it becomes naturally the parent of contempt.

P. 473.

"Where," Mr. Malone informs us, "is here [46]uſed as a diſſyllable. The modern editors," he ſays, unneceſſarily read—whereon."

We muſt therefor, it ſeems, neceſſarily read: ‘"I know a bank whe-àr the wild thyme blows.’

This, to be ſure, is no deſpicable line; Mr. Ma⯑lone is a very pretty harmoniſt, in his way. But, if we muſt have a diſſyllable, why not bank? ‘"I know a bà-ank where the wild thyme blows."’ Or thyme, ſtill better, as old Geoffrey might have had it?

"I know a bank where the wild thymé blows."

P. 25.

Away for the heavens, that is, as our editor ex⯑plains it, "Begone to the heavens." Now was it poſſible to imagine that a man who has been labour⯑ing for eight years, "with unceaſing ſolicitude, to give a faithful and correct edition of Shakſpeare" ſhould be ſo profoundly and completely ignorant of [47]his meaning in this very ſimple paſſage? Can any thing be ſo unnatural and abſurd as for the Devil to adviſe the perſon he is tempting to go to heaven? But why to the heavens? or how get thither? Mr. Malone, it is believed, will find the journey ſome⯑what more difficult than he ſeems to apprehend it would have been to honeſt Launcelot. In the mean time, every one, but this floundering commen⯑tator, knows that for the heavens is nothing more than an adjuration, or, as we now ſay, for the hea⯑vens ſake.

P. 33.

"If a Chriſtian (ſays Launcelot, on receiving a love-letter for Lorenzo,) do not play the knave, and carry thee away from thy fathers houſe, I am much deceived." Such is the ingenious editors explana⯑tion, which he "would not have attempted of ſo eaſy a paſſage, if the ignorant editor of the ſecond folio, thinking probably that the word get muſt neceſſarily mean beget, had not altered the text, and ſubſtituted did in the place of do, in which he has been copied by every ſubſequent editor." Every ſubſequent edi⯑tor muſt therefor be, at leaſt, equally ignorant; and I dare ſay, if Mr. Malone is to be the judge, there never was editor, commentator or critic of Shak⯑ſpeare who had a grain of ſenſe beſide himſelf. A [48]refutation cannot be expected of ſuch peculiar abſur⯑dity. "Launcelot," he ſays, "is not talking about Jeſſica's father, but about her future huſband." But how does he know this? who told him ſo? can he be better acquainted with the ſubject of Launcelots converſation than the man himſelf? He is aware, at the ſame time, that, in a ſubſequent ſcene, he ſays to Jeſſica, "Marry, you may partly hope your father got you not;" but he is now, it ſeems, on another ſub⯑ject. That, however, is but the idle opinion of Mr. Malone; the editor of the ſecond folio, and all his ſucceſſors, and, I will venture to add, Shakſpeare himſelf, and all his readers, think very differently.

P. 38.

Former editors had ſupplyed a ſyllable, which is equally neceſſary to the ſenſe and to the metre. But the delicate ear and critical acumen of their Hiber⯑nian ſucceſſor have enabled him to diſcover that "doors is here uſed as a diſſyllable." A previous acquaintance with the Iriſh howl muſt be of infinite ſervice in the peruſal of this harmonious edition.

Ibi.

This elegant and judicious emendation of the old copies, which read younger, was made by Mr. Rowe. Our more ingenious editor, however, with becoming [49]diffidence and profound knowlege, doubts "whether younker was a word of our authors time." It, how⯑ever, happens, a little unluckily, not only to be a word of our authors time, but to be elſewhere uſed by our author himſelf. "What!" ſays Falſtaff, in the Second part of King Henry IV. "will you make a younker of me?" Again in the Third part of K. Henry VI.

If he has elſewhere doubted of his doubt, it only proves how little he is any where to be depended on.

P. 59

"The latter word is here employed as a diſſylla⯑ble."

Of this there can be no doubt, as the line itſelf will prove:

P. 92.

[50]"Swear is here, as in many other places, a diſ⯑ſyllable."

This as uſual is confirmed by the metre:

Who can ſay that our harmonious editor has not employed his eight years labour to advantage when he produces ſuch lines as theſe?

P. 141.

Go in we, an accidental tranſpoſition of the firſt folio, being thus properly corrected in the ſecond, our editor, who will not allow that edition the merit or liberty of correcting the moſt glaring typographi⯑cal blunder, is "not ſure that the tranſpoſition is neceſſary;" for, as he ſagaciously obſerves, "our author might have uſed content as an adjective:" Whence, I preſume, we muſt neceſſarily infer that the correction has rendered it a ſubſtantive, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, conjunction, prepoſition or in⯑terjection. He ſeems a very pretty grammarian.

P. 145.

Every one who has either ear or eye, will inſtant⯑ly [51]perceive here the want of a ſyllable, which was ſupplyed by the editor of the ſecond folio, who reads ‘The body of the country, city, court;’ a reading which is eſſential to the ſenſe and meaſure of the verſe, and which one may therefor reckon in⯑diſputably Shakſpeares. The preſent editor, how⯑ever, who is in fact, what he would have the other thought to be, "utterly ignorant of our authors phra⯑ſeology and metre," omits the article, under pre⯑tence that "Country is here uſed as a triſyllable." To reaſon with a man who has no more ear for poetry than Dr. Johnſon had for muſic, and he ſcarcely "knew a drum from a trumpet, or a bag⯑pipe from a guitar," would be abſurd: every other perſon will ſee it was utterly impoſſible for Shak⯑ſpeare to write ſuch a line as this, or indeed for any one but Mr. Malone to conceive it: ‘"The body of coun-tè-ry, city, court.’ What a pity it is that the public cannot have the pleaſure of hearing Mr. Malone read his own text! I ſay pleaſure, becauſe undoubtedly it would be a moſt laughable performance.

P. 195.

The old copies reading—no beauty, the editor [52]will have it to be a miſprint for mo, or more, as he has every where elſe thought proper to write it. This, he ſays, "appears clearly from the paſſage in Lodge's Roſalynde, which Shakſpeare has here imi⯑tated:—"Becauſe thou art beautiful, be not ſo coy, &c." A paſſage which, as it contains neither no nor mo, can not certainly prove what it is brought to do. The conſtruction adopted by this pene⯑trating critic is that though a woman has more beauty than her lover ſhe is not on that account to inſult him: an idea which one can eaſily ſuppoſe never entered into any head but his own; one would not, therefor, wiſh to deprive the preſent edition of an emendation ſo worthy of it. But, however, Mr. Malone may read, his author certainly wrote ‘Over the wretched? what though you have beauty.’ He could not perceive that no or mo was as injurious to the metre, as his quotation from Lodge might have led him to ſuſpect it was to the ſenſe: though I believe he underſtands both equally well. But, I well know that "my learned friend is above taking notice of ſuch ſlender criticiſm."

P. 205.

[53]Our perſpicacious editor had ſome years ago con⯑jectured that theſe words had an alluſion to ſome well-known conduit; he has ſince found his conjec⯑ture confirmed, and elſewhere obſerved "that our author without doubt alluded to the ancient Croſs in Cheapſide," in which was an alabaſter image of Diana, and water prilling from her naked breaſts." So that, unfortunately, the very inſtance which he has adduced in confirmation of the above ſagacious conjecture totally deſtroys it; unleſs the tears of his Cheapſide Diana flowed from her breaſts, inſtead of her eyes. This would have done well enough in Dublin.

P. 214

"The old copy reads—Ah, Sirra, &c. Cor⯑rected by the editor of the ſecond folio."

It ought, indeed, to have been ſo corrected by that editor: but the fact is that the ſecond folio reads—Ah, Sirra.

P. 258.

"Vincentio's" according to Mr. Malone, "is [54]here uſed as a quadriſyllable. Mr. Pope," he adds, "not perceiving this, unneceſſarily reads—Vincen⯑tio his ſon, which has been too haſtily adopted by the ſubſequent editors."

Mr. Malone, no doubt, is able to perceive a great many thing which neither Mr. Pope nor any body elſe would dream of; though, if Mr. Pope did not perceive that a word of four ſyllables was a word of four ſyllables, he muſt have been a more extraordi⯑nary perſon than he is generally reputed. No, no, Mr. Malone, it was not becauſe he did not perceive Vincentio's to be uſed as a quadriſyllable, that he read Vincentio his, but becauſe, not having had the advantage of an Iriſh education, he perceived that ſuch a line as the following could not have been written by Shakſpeare: ‘Vin-cēn-ti-ō's ſon, brōught up īn Florēnce.’

Whatever people may chooſe to ſay of Mr. Ma⯑lones edition, no one will deny him the excluſive merit of deforming his authors verſe in the moſt ri⯑diculous and aſinine manner poſſible.

P. 295.

"Probably," the editor admits," our author wrote—this lady is, which," he ſays, "completes the metre, wrangling being uſed as a triſyllable.' [55]Now, in my humble opinion, it rather completes the evidence that the editor does not know what metre is. He ſhould have accented his lines. What delectable harmony is here! ‘But, wrāng-gle-īng pedānt, this lady is.’

There is a poem, intitled Teiſa, which was pub⯑liſhed a few years ago, entirely written in this way, and on that account a ſort of curioſity. If it had not born the name of the author (Anna Fiſher) and been upon a different ſubject, I ſhould have been poſitive that is was the production of our muſical editor. The ſaid poem, however, and his own Shakſpeare are, ſo far as I know, the only ſpecimens of this kind of metre extant either in the Engliſh or any other language.

P. 315.

"Door is here, and in other places, uſed as a diſ⯑ſyllable." Right; you have told us ſo once before: let us therefor read the line, as it ſhould be, in the Iriſh way:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Where1 be2 theſe3 knaves4? What5 no6 man7 at8 do9-oo10r.

A dealer in diſſyllables, poſſeſſed of the ſlighteſt notion of harmony, would rather have made one of knaves; but an editor of common ſenſe would read—the door.

P. 556.

"The Fool and Death," Mr. Malone obſerves, "were principal perſonages in the old Moralities." Mr. Malone is hereby called upon to mention one ſingle Morality in which there is any ſuch character as either the Fool or Death. If he can not, what are we to think of the morality of Mr. Malone?

P. 25

"Tears," the editor ſays, "is here uſed as a diſ⯑ſyllable;" and diſſyllable are the moſt convenient things in the world for patching up a broken verſe. Now, what, for inſtance, can run more ſmoothly than the following? ‘With ā-do-rā-ti-ōns fer-tīle te-ārs.’ Ah, to be ſure Mr. Malone is not a very good judge of harmony; to be ſure he isn't!

P. 42.

Mr. Tyrwhitt believing that this conceit, which, though bad enough, ſhews, he thought, too quick an apprehenſion for ſir Andrew, ſhould be given to ſir Toby; "An anonymous writer" aſks, if the ingenious critic imagined it "probable that Maria would call ſir Toby," whom, according to his own account, ſhe adored, and aſs; upon which our truly affable and diffident Hibernian, after premiſing that his "learned friend is above taking notice of ſuch ſlender criti⯑ciſm," roundly aſſerts that "Maria is not ſpeaking of ſir Andrew, or ſir Toby, but of Malvolio!" I ſhould inſult the reader by deſcending to refute an aſſertion ſo wantonly confident, and extravagantly abſurd.

P. 37.

Theobald inſerted the ſecond thanks, and added likewiſe the word and to perfect the metre. Mr. Malone, who is a much better judge of metre, ſuf⯑fers the former word to remain, but rejects the lat⯑ter; [58]having no doubt that turns was uſed as a diſ⯑ſyllable. We muſt therefor take care to read: ‘And thanks, and ever thanks: oft good tu-ùrns.’ But why, Mr. Malone, ſhould not good be a diſſylla⯑ble, ſince a diſſyllable there muſt be, as well as turns, and then, you ſee, we ſhall have no need of inter⯑polating the true original reading of the only ancient authentic copy?

P. 138.

Mr. Malone reads

which being, as Fabian ſays, "exceeding good ſenſe-leſs," is judiciously prefered to the correction of former editors: ‘—that does not think it.’ This is not, however, as he aſſerts, the reading of the ſecond folio. But certainly it ought to have been ſo, which, in Iriſh, may be the ſame thing.

P. 164.

[59] Dimples, according to our metrical Procruſtes, as well as of his, is here employed as a monoſyllable; which is muſt be confeſſed will make one of the prettyeſt namby pamby lines that we can any where meet with.

‘The pretty dimp's of's chin, and cheek, his ſmiles.’ Shakſpeare had no conception of theſe little Malo⯑nian beauties: he only wrote the line thus: ‘The pretty dimples of his cheek, his ſmiles;’ leaving it for ſuch ſuperior geniuſes as Mr. Malone to improve and finiſh off.

P. 200.

The editor of the ſecond folio, who, ignorant as he was, ſeems to have had the uſe his ears, eyes, and fingers, reads— ‘O but dear ſir.’ This addition, however, our infallible metre-maſter pronounces unneceſſary, "burn in the preceding hemiſtic being," he ſays, "uſed as a diſſyllable." A diſſyllable! nay then, all will be right enough, as we have only to read this moſt beautiful and harmonious line: [60] ‘"Bu-ùrn hot-tèr than my faith. O but ſir.’ Ah, well! and who finds fault with it? For

P. 242

"Unleſs both here and where were employed as diſſyllables, the metre is defective." O by all means let them be employed as diſſyllables: they are moſt uſeful and excellent things, and make the ſweeteſt verſification imaginable. For inſtance: ‘He-àr, whe-àr we arè. The bleſſed Gods.’ Or thus, more ſoftly: ‘He-rèe whe-rèe we are. The bleſſed Gods.’

Here is again "employed as a diſſyllable in Mac⯑beth, p. 270,

P. 454.

"More is here uſed as a diſſyllable."

[61]To be ſure it is: and this Mr. Tyrwhitt might have thought an additional proof that our poet "had not forgotten his Chaucer:" ‘Kneel thou down, Philip, but riſe moré great.’ What an admirable thing is it to have a delicate ear! A plain hobbling fellow unbleſſed with that advan⯑tage would have only thought the little word up wanting, and ſpoiled, of courſe, a moſt excellent mono-diſſyllable.

P. 468.

"i. e. upon the hoofs of an aſs."

This comment is at leaſt in uniſon with the text. The idea of Hercules's ſhoes (N. B. Hercules wore no ſhoes) lying upon the hoofs of an aſs is every way worthy of ingenious Hibernian, from whom alone it could proceed.

P. 46.

The editors note on this paſſage has been already [62]refuted; but if ignorance would ſuffer him to per⯑ceive his error, obſtinacy would not permit him to confeſs it.

P. 72.

"An anonymous writer ſuggeſts that the queen perhaps meant to wiſh him childleſs. The gar⯑deners anſwer ſhews that this was not the authors meaning."

The gardeners anſwer ſhews no ſuch thing: he merely purſues the alluſion.

P. 114.

"The word earl," our editor tells us, " is here uſed as a diſſyllable;" but "Mr. Pope, not per⯑ceiving this," reads—the earl. ‘"Mordake e-àrl of Fife, and eldeſt ſon.’ Mr. Pope could no more have conceived Shakſpeare capable of writing ſuch a line, than he could have [63]written it himſelf: theſe diſcoveries were reſerved for a ſecond-ſighted Hibernian.

P. 142.

Dr. Johnſon, having obſerved that the improba⯑bility of this ſcene is ſcarcely balanced by the hu⯑mour, our Iriſh editor perceives no improbability: aſſerting roundly that Falſtaff does NOT miſtake the prince for a baſtard of the kings, but means to in⯑form him at once that he knows him a Poins, not⯑withſtanding their diſguiſe.

The text, which is too plain to be miſunderſtood by a reader of common ſenſe, will ſpeak for itſelf, and clearly prove that neither Falſtaff nor the hoſteſs knows the prince till he ſays he is "come to draw him out by the ears." Falſtaff himſelf allows that he did not know the prince was within hearing: but this perſpicacious critic, who can ſee into the midſt of a millſtone, would be thought to know what paſſes better than either Falſtaff, or Falſtaffs creator.

P. 162.

"Shakſpeare," ſays the editor, "has hung up a ſign that he ſaw daily; for the Boars head tavern [64]was very near Blackfriars playhouſe. See Stows Survey, 4to. 1618. p. 686.

No doubt there might be many ſigns of the Boars head, in and about London, beſides that in Eaſt-cheap; but why need Shakſpeare be at the trouble of carrying a ſign from Blackfriars and hanging it up in Eaſtcheap, where, he muſt know, it exiſted already? If the Boars head were not the ſign of the Boars head Tavern, in Eaſtcheap, let the editor tell us what it was. If it were not, Shakſpeare might have looked long enough about Blackfriars playhouſe before he had found either the Boars head or the Boars head Tavern. The ſign which Stow mentions was a Beares head, and he ſpeaks of it—not as hanging at the time he wrote, but—as having formerly been one of the ſigns of the ſtew-houſes, which had been long ſuppreſſed, and which, every one knows, were not near Blackfriars playhouſe. See his Survay, 1598, p. 332.

P. 188.

"An anonymous writer," we are informed, "ſup⯑poſes, that Falſtaff here intends a quibble. Major, which ſheriff brought to his mind, ſignifies as well one of the parts of a logical propoſition, as the prin⯑cipal officer of a corporation."—"To render this [65]ſuppoſition probable," ſays the editor, "it ſhould be proved, that the mayor of a corporation was called in Shakſpeares time ma-jor."

The ſuppoſition would appear ſufficiently proba⯑ble although the pronunciation contended for could not be eſtabliſhed by a quotation. Every one knows that Mayor is Major in Latin, which would be enough for the preſent purpoſe. The proof re⯑quired can only be neceſſary for one who has every where betrayed the profoundeſt ignorance of his au⯑thors language, and who pretends to have collated editions, which, if we may judge from the blunders of his own, he has never looked into. The identi⯑cal pronunciation in queſtion happens, fortunately enough, to be preſerved in one of our authors own plays, the Firſt part of K. Henry VI. as printed in the "only ancient authentic edition," the folio of 1623.

Major farewell: thou doo'ſt but what thou may'ſt.

P. 508

Nothing need or can be added to what has been already urged againſt this corrupted text and preva⯑ricating comment. See the Quip Modeſt, &c. p. 27.

How unfortunate is it, how injurious to the me⯑mory [66]of this great and admirable writer, that his beſt ſcenes ſhould be thus mangled and deformed by a reſtoration, equally impudent and fooliſh, of what he himſelf has thought fit to alter or reject! Such con⯑duct deſerves a pillory rather than a pamphlet.

P. 584.

"If Toward," the editor obſerves, "be not ab⯑breviated, our author with his accuſtomed licence uſes one of theſe words as a diſſyllable, while to the other he aſſigns only its due length."

Arrah! my dear, this will be after mending the matter by making bad worſe. The line already wants one ſyllable, if toward be abbreviated it will want two—and then there will be ten. So that take two from ten, and there remains ten. Our edi⯑tor is a notable arithmetician in his way: he can multiply one ſyllable into two or three, reduce two or three to one, and play a thouſand ſuch tricks, which neither Cocker nor Breſlaw ever once dreamt of. I am apt to ſuſpect, however, after all, that the above obſervation labours under a capital error of the preſs; and that, inſtead of the words "our au⯑thor with his accuſtomed licence," we ſhould read "our editor with his accuſtomed ignorance."

P. 22.

"The latter word" being "here uſed as a diſſyl⯑lable," we are to read the line thus: ‘Gloſ-ter, we'll meet to thy coſt be ſu-ùre,’ than which nothing can be more Malonious—har⯑monious I would ſay.

P. 30

Mr. Steevens having propoſed to read—of Mem⯑phis, as Shakſpeare unqueſtionably wrote, this ſaga⯑cious Hibernian obſerves "Rhodope was of Thrace, not of Memphis." Well! and whoever ſuppoſed ſhe was of Memphis? But her pyramis was there; which is ſufficient authority for the correction.

P. 44.

Mr. Steevens, from the MS. notes of Mr. Ed⯑wards, [68]having obſerved "that Shakſpeare has varied from the truth of hiſtory, to introduce this ſcene be⯑tween Mortimer and Richard Plantagenet," "a half-informed Remarker on this note" (they are the words of the gentle Edmond) "ſeems to think that he has totally over-turned it, by quoting the following paſ⯑ſage from Hall's Chronicle: "During which par⯑liament [held in the third year of Henry VI. 1425.] came to London Peter Duke of Quimber,—which of the Duke of Exeter, &c. was highly feſted.—Du⯑ring which ſeaſon Edmond Mortymer, the laſt Erle of Marche of that name, (whiche long tyme had bene reſtrayned from hys liberty and finally waxed lame) diſceaſed without yſſue, whoſe inheritance deſcended to Lord Richard Plantagenet," &c. as if a circumſtance which Hall has mentioned to mark the time of Mortimer's death, neceſſarily aſcertained the place where it happened alſo. The fact is, that this Edmund Mortimer did not die in London, but at Trim in Ireland." So far, ſo good.

This teſty critic ſeems to ſmart ſo much from ſome corrections of that ſame "half-informed Re⯑marker," that he may be readily allowed to avail him⯑ſelf of every opportunity of abuſing him, particularly where he happens to anticipate a quotation which an all-informed editor would have been glad to produce. The paſſage in Hall (and it is copyed by Hollinſhed) would be ſufficient, it was ſaid, to juſtify Shakſpeare "even if the fact were otherwiſe;" and [69]ſo it undoubtedly is, notwithſtanding either the great learning or little ſcurrility of Edmond Malone. The hiſtorian does not, to be ſure, expreſsly ſay that the Earl of March dyed in the Tower; but no perſon of common ſenſe can think that he meant to relate an event which happened to a ſound, free man in Ireland, as happening to a lame priſoner during the time a particular perſon was feaſting in London. In fact, he does ſay that this nobleman dyed in priſon, and that by ſuch priſon he meant either the Tower, or ſome place of confinement at no great diſtance, is almoſt certain, not only from the circumſtance already mentioned, but from a paſſage in the pre⯑ceding part of his book, where he expreſsly tells us that "the Erle of Marche was euer kepte in the courte vnder ſuch a keper that he could nether doo or attempte any thyng agaynſte the king without his knowledge, and dyed without iſſue." If he did not mean the Tower, let Mr. Malone ſay what priſon he did mean. To what purpoſe is it that the actual truth was otherwiſe? Our author had neither Ry⯑mer, nor Dugdale, nor Sandford, to conſult, and it cannot ſurely be expected that he ſhould have gone to examine the record office: He naturally took for fact what he found in Hiſtory, and if the hiſtorian were but half-informed, how could he help it? He was writing a play, not a chronicle. I know, much better, I am perſuaded, than Mr. Malone, how little either Hall or Hollinſhed is to be depended on in [70]matter of fact. Is the death of Edmond Mortimer of greater conſequence than the intended marriage of lady Bona, or the capture, impriſonment and eſcape of K. Edward IV. both which are abſolutely fabulous and without the ſlighteſt poſſible founda⯑tion. And why is not Shakſpeare, who has adopted theſe two lying ſtories, charged with having in theſe inſtances "varyed from the truth of hiſtory?" The remark was natural enough to Mr. Edwards, who did not know what ſort of hiſtories our author con⯑ſulted; neither indeed is the editors defence of it otherwiſe, being a pedantic parade of hiſtorical knowledge picked up for the occaſion, to faſten Shakſpeare with a charge which every one muſt think frivolous, and which he knew to be unjuſt.

P. 134.

"Tickled," it ſeems, "is here uſed as a triſyllable. The editor of the ſecond folio, not perceiving this, reads—"her fume can need no ſpurs;" in which he has been followed by all the ſubſequent editors."

The editor of the ſecond folio, then, has had the uſe of his ears, which is more than can be ſaid of his Hibernian ſucceſſor. It requires a certain degree of folly, peculiar to this all-accompliſhed critic, not to [71]perceive—that whether tickled be a diſſyllable, or a triſyllable or a quadriſyllable, cannot make the ſlight⯑eſt difference; the defect of the line being in ano⯑ther quarter.—According to the hypotheſis of our Boeotian editor, we ought to read the line as follows: ‘She's tic-kle-èd now, hèr fume needs no ſpurs.’ What a pity it is that Mr. Malone does not appear upon the ſtage!

P. 267.

"Henry," being "frequently uſed by Shakſpeare and his contemporaries as a word of three ſyllables," muſt be thus pronounced: ‘Prove it, He-nè-ry, and thou ſhalt be king.’

P. 272.

"Folio—to the field. The true reading is found in the old play."

The true reading is found in the ſecond folio; which affords one out of many proofs that this edi⯑tion is not what the editors malice or ignorance has choſen to repreſent it.

P. 276.

"An anonymous Remarker," we are told, "very confidently aſſerts that "this ſcene, ſo far as reſpects Yorks oath and his reſolution to break it, proceeds entirely from the authors imagination. His oath," however, "is in record, and what his reſolution was when he marched from London at the head of a large body of men, and ſent the meſſage aboveſtated to his ſon, it is not very difficult to conjecture."

A little ſuperficial reading, and a conſummate ſtock of aſſurance authoriſe this hypercritical com⯑mentator to abuſe what he does not underſtand. The "anonymous Remarker," confidently if it muſt be, aſſerts that the ſcene in queſtion, in which Ed⯑ward and Richard perſuade their father to break his oath, had no foundation in hiſtory; and gives this reaſon for it, that, "neither the Earl of March nor Richard was then at Sandal; the latter being like⯑wiſe a mere child, ſcarcely more than (if indeed ſo much as) nine years old:" in fact he was but juſt turned of eight. How, therefor, does the Iriſh edi⯑tor, with all his pitiful caviling and malignity, pick out from theſe words that York had never taken an oath? And, though he and Warwick did leave Lon⯑don [73]with 5 or 6,000 men, and might ſend a meſſage to his ſon to follow them, it was with the kings own authority, to ſuppreſs an inſurrection againſt the eſtabliſhed government: nor could either his attack⯑ing, or his defending himſelf againſt, the queen or prince be any breach of his oath. So that the Re⯑markers aſſertion, however confident, is ſtrictly true; which is more than this ingenuous Hibernian can always ſay of his own, which are at the ſame time very ſeldom diſtinguiſhable by diffidence.

It is not true that the queen and prince were at York, nor do we find from any good authority that they were ſent to by the King. Though, if they had been ſent to, and, inſtead of obeying the requiſition, had employed themſelves in raiſing a rebellion, it would have been perfectly conſonant with the dukes oath and duty to have prevented or quelled it. But in fact, whatever concern the queen might have in the Yorkſhire inſurrection, ſhe did not return from Scotland till after the battle of Wakefield.

What ſort of hiſtories the Iriſh editor conſults I am at a loſs to imagine; and as he does not chooſe to cite them, I ſhall for once follow his example.^*

[74]The abſurd note at p. 278. being founded in groſs miſapprehenſion, or profound ignorance, is unworthy of more particular notice.

P. 289.

"Mr. Rowe," we are told, "changed years to months; which was followed by the ſubſequent edi⯑tors; and in the next line inſerted the word weeks, not obſerving that hours is uſed as a diſſyllable. Years," it ſeems, "is in that line likewiſe uſed as a word of two ſyllables."

The reaſon of Mr. Rowes changing years to months, and inſerting weeks was not, as this equally ſuperficial and blundering commentator imagines, purely on account of the meaſure, but becauſe the king has already mentioned weeks and years, and af⯑terward enumerates months. Theſe two curious diſ⯑ſyllables it muſt be confeſſed, help the metre prodi⯑giously: but, in fact, the editor ſhould be expected to rehearſe his text to the purchaſer, as no one will ever be able to read it without his inſtructions. The line in queſtion would ſeem to be accented thus: ‘So mi-nutes, hou-ers, days, months, and ye-àrs.’

P. 360.

[75]One of the former commentators having, very judiciously, propoſed to omit the word lord, our in⯑genious editor obſerves that brother, like many ſimi⯑lar words, is here uſed by Shakſpeare as a mono⯑ſyllable, and the metre was to his ear perfect. He ſhould rather have ſaid, that it is ſo to his own: which indeed, I can as eaſily believe as pardon; ſince the gentleman unfortunately labours under a natural defect, to which whoever interpolated the word muſt have been alſo ſubject, though not in an equal degree. The ears of Shakſpeare were formed very differently from Mr. Malones. Obſerve how ſmoothly the verſe will run! ‘Now brò'r Ri-chàrd, lord Haſtings, and the reſt.’

The editor is unable to perceive the conſequences of his own ſyſtem. The luminous arrangement of his ideas is altogether wonderful!

P. 569.

"The editor of the ſecond folio," ſays our acute critic, "changed When to Why, which has been [76]adopted by all the ſubſequent editors; though Mar⯑garets anſwer evidently refers to the word found in the original copy."

The editor of the ſecond folio ſeems to have un⯑derſtood his authors meaning, which is by no means the caſe with his "flimſy" antagoniſt. Why is "evidently" right. How happens it, exclaims the queen, that Heav'n ſlept when ſuch a deed was done! Margaret, catching at the words ſuch a deed, adds when holy Henry and my ſon were murdered.

If When were right the queen would be guilty of a manifeſt abſurdity, as the queſtion would anſwer itſelf. But an Iriſh editor muſt have an Iriſh text.

P. 588.

"Richard," ſays the editor, "aſks this queſtion in the plenitude of power, and no one dares to an⯑ſwer him. But they whom he addreſſes, had they not been intimidated, might have told him, that there was a male heir of the houſe of York alive, who had a better claim to the throne than he; Edward earl of Warwick the only ſon of the uſurpers elder bro⯑ther George duke of Clarence; and Elizabeth, the eldeſt daughter of Edward IV. and all her ſiſters, had a better title than either of them."

[77]Either this frivolous commentator is "profoundly ignorant" of the hiſtory of the monarch whom he chooſes to call uſurper, or wilfully miſrepreſents it. King Richard, it is well known, had as good a title to the crown as the late king William or queen Anne, or the reigning houſe of Hanover. The iſſue of King Edward had been baſtardized, the duke of Clarence attainted, and himſelf declared the undoubted heir of Richard duke of York, BY ACT OF PARLIA⯑MENT: and what better title has the preſent king? It might as well be ſaid that, when he, by his cham⯑pion, challenged all the world to diſpute his right, he did it "in the plentitude of power;" and that they whom he addreſſed, "had they not been intimidated, might have told him that there was a male heir of the houſe of 'STUART' alive, who had a better claim to the throne than he!" An act of parliament is of no more force in the 17th or 18th century than it was in the 15th.

P. 193.

"The etymology which Dr. Johnſon has given in his dictionary—"MALKIN, from Mal or Mary, and kin, the diminutive termination,"—is, I appre⯑hend, erroneous." MALONE.

[78]Mr. Malones apprehenſion ariſes from his igno⯑rance of the Engliſh language. The diminutives Wilkin, Tomkin, Jenkin, Perkin, Simkin, &. &c. ſufficiently corroborate Dr. Johnſons etymology; and they who know to what the diminutive of Mar⯑garet has given a name can be at no loſs to account for the reaſon of Malkin being degraded to ſignify a mop of clouts, or a ſcarecrow: neither of which ſig⯑nifications, by the way, has anything to do with the text. But ſuch is the abſurd conſequence of an Iriſh editor attempting the illuſtration of an Engliſh author.

P. 159.

Corioli.] As the editor makes an uncommon fuſs with his pretenſions of adhering to the old copy, let him give reaſon why he has choſen to read Corioli, not only in oppoſition to his original, but to Shak⯑ſpeares authority,—Norths Plutarch. This, how⯑ever, is not mentioned as the only inſtance he has given us of his want of truth, fidelity, candour, and conſiſtency.

P. 220.

"This ſpeech is given in the old copy to Cominius. It was rightly attributed to Sicinius by Mr. Theo⯑bald."

Having neither Theobalds edition nor the firſt [79]folio at preſent before me, I ſhall leave the above aſſertion to its credit. But this I can ſay, that the ſecond folio, which, if it is not to be called an "old copy," is clearly not a very modern one, gives the ſpeech to Sicinius; and I, for one, do not believe that the firſt gives it to any body elſe. If it does, the ſecond folio is good for ſomething; which is more than any one will be found to ſay of Mr. Ma⯑lones edition, at the end of a century and a half, ſhould it ſo long have the unmerited good fortune to eſcape the figs and pepper to which it is deſtined.

P. 237.

The editor being as devoid of harmony as one of the long ear'd fraternity, naturally thinks, if he be capable of thinking,—for, as he elſewhere makes his author obſerve,

that all his readers muſt be as defectively organized as himſelf. How elſe could he have printed ſuch [80]execrable hobbling lines as coming from Shakſpeare? He will not have ſenſe to perceive the ſuperiority of the following arrangement;—it is not intended for him. To offer him harmonious verſes would be literally throwing pearls to ſwine.

Prompts you to is the reading of the ſecond folio. The words Though and and ſyllables have been in⯑terpolated by ſuch another editor as himſelf; as they only ſerve to make nonſenſe of the paſſage. But, indeed, ſenſe or nonſenſe, harmony or diſcord, verſe or proſe are all the ſame to him.

P. 283.

A lot, here, Dr Johnſon ſays, is a prize. It cer⯑tainly is ſo; though our ſagacious Hibernian believes him miſtaken. Menenius, he imagines, only means to ſay that it is mo [...] [...] an equal chance that his [81]name had touch'd their ears: which is preciſely the effect of Dr. Johnſons explanation. But, adds he, if lot ſignifyed prize, there being in every lottery many more blanks than prizes, Menenius muſt be ſuppoſed to ſay, that the chance of his name having reached their ears was very ſmall: a criticiſm ex⯑actly calculated for the meridian of Tipperary. Me⯑nenius ſays it is prizes to blanks, ſomething to no⯑thing, 20,000l. to a piece of waſte paper, &c. A lot is what one gains in the lottery; and our learned editor, no doubt, if he got a blank, would ſay he had gain'd a loſs. Neither Shakſpeare, however, nor Menenius was an Iriſhman.

P. 334.

Such, it ſeems, is the reading of the elder copy. "The editor of the ſecond folio omitted the article, probably from a miſtaken notion concerning the metre; and all the ſubſequent editors have adopted his alteration. Many words of two ſyllables," how⯑ever, "are uſed by Shakſpeare as taking up the time of only one; as whether, either, brother, lover, gen⯑tle, ſpirit; &c. and I ſuppoſe," concludes this pro⯑found critic, "council is ſo uſed here."

There can be no occaſion, I ſhould think, to make [82]any remark upon a note of which the premiſſes are ſo falſe, and the concluſion ſo fooliſh. Neither our author nor any other author in the world ever uſed ſuch words as either, brother, lover, gentle, ſpirit as monoſyllables; and though whether is ſometimes ſo contracted, the old copies on that occaſion uſually print where. It is, in ſhort, morally impoſſible that two ſyllables ſhould be no more than one.

P. 356.

The editor believes that Shakſpeare wrote ‘Caſſius on Caeſar never ſhall turn back,’ And ſays, the next line ſtrongly ſupports this con⯑jecture. He muſt mean, it is preſumed, in the Iriſh way; as a mere Engliſh reader would conclude that the next line totally deſtroys it. If, adds he, the conſpiracy was diſcovered, and the aſſaſſination of Caeſar rendered impracticable by "prevention," Caſ⯑ſius could have no hope of being able to prevent Caeſar from "turning back; and in all events this conſpirators "ſlaying himſelf" could not produce that effect.

It is much to be lamented that the legiſlature has not prevented this miſconceiving, blundering fo⯑reigner [83]from diſhonouring and debaſing the margin of Shakſpeare by ſuch palpable abſurdities. Caſſius ſays, if the plot be diſcovered, at all events either he or Caeſar ſhall never return alive, for, if the latter cannot be killed, he is determined to ſlay himſelf. The ſenſe is as plain, as the alternative is juſt and neceſſary, or the propoſed reading ignorant and ab⯑ſurd.

P. 376.

If even, ſays the editor, be conſidered as a mono⯑ſyllable, the metre, of which to be ſure he is an ad⯑mirable judge, will be defective. But though it is not our authors practice to make this adverb a diſ⯑ſyllable, yet clearly if we treat it as one, the defect is removed, and the metre exactly ſuited to "the deli⯑cate ears" of this Iriſh Midas; whoſe admirers are to read the line thus: ‘E-vēn ăt thēe băſe ōf Pŏmpēyes ſtă-tūe,’

P. 377.

The firſt folio, by an evident blunder, having writ, is followed by our congenial editor, who does not like to ſee a blunder corrected. Wit, the read⯑ing of the ſecond folio, will receive the approbation of every one who has ſenſe.

P. 383.

We are indebted for the three laſt words to the conceit of the preſent editor, who has had the mo⯑deſty to advance them to the honour of a place in the text. The ſecond folio, from ſome good autho⯑rity, no doubt, reads: ‘Our beſt friends made, and our beſt means ſtretch'd out.’ Which, whether he underſtand it or not, has an evident and eaſy ſenſe, and is perfectly in our authors manner. ‘—ſtretch'd tò the utmoſt’ is much too Maloniſh for ſo correct and elegant a writer.

P. 466.

Sir W. Blackſtone having remarked that the me⯑tre of this line is deficient, the editor, with his uſual modeſty obſerves that "Your, like hour, is uſed as a diſſyllable; the metre therefore is not defective." [85]Defective? no, certainly; nothing can be more harmonious: ‘Go tō then; yōu-er cōn-ſi-dē-rate ſtōne.’ However, as Enobarbus, to whom it belongs, gene⯑rally ſpeaks in plain proſe, there is no occaſion for any further attempt to harmonize it.

P. 474.

"Theſe laſt words, which in the only authentick copy of this play are given to Antony, the modern editors," according to Mr. Malone, "have aſſigned to Octavia. I," however, he adds, "ſee no need of change." He addreſſes himſelf to Caeſar, who im⯑mediately replies, Good night." The firſt of theſe "modern editors" happens to be his old friend the editor of the ſecond folio (which he pretends to have collated with ſo much care), who appears, from this and numberleſs other inſtances, to have had a copy of the firſt folio corrected by the players who pub⯑liſhed it, or ſome other well-informed perſon. That Mr. Malone ſees "no need of change" is the ſtrongeſt poſſible reaſon for believing that a change is abſolutely neceſſary. And ſo it certainly is: An⯑tony has already ſaid "Good night, ſir," to Caeſar, in the three firſt words of his ſpeech: the repetition would be abſurd.

P. 479.

Though the firſt word is evidently a miſprint for Rain, as it has been given by Sir T. Hanmer and others, the editor ſuſpects no corruption. "The term employed in the text," he ſays, "is much in the ſtyle of the ſpeaker;" (what he means by that is difficult to ſay;) "and is ſupported inconteſtably by a paſſage in Julius Caeſar," which inconteſtably does not ſupport it at all, the idea being perfectly diſtinct. The term employed, however, as well as the note upon it, is much in the ſtyle of the editor; and it would be a pity to loſe any opportunity of laughing at his bulls and blunders; which, it muſt be never⯑theleſs admitted, are as impertinent in the margin of Shakſpeare as a buffoon would be in a church.

Ram is likewiſe a vulgar word, never uſed in our authors plays, but once by Falſtaff, where he de⯑ſcribes his ſituation in the buck-baſket. Though if, in the Tempeſt, the negligence of a preſs-man had left. ‘—Heavens ram grace,’ this judicious critic would have ſupported that au⯑thentic reading in the ſame way. For, as he has elſewhere juſtly obſerved, "If ſuch capricious innova⯑tions were to be admitted, every line in theſe plays [87]might be changed." Some people are too ignorant to innovate.

P. 499.

"How, I believe, was here printed by miſtake for ho!" MALONE.

It was not; and ho, which this ingenuous anno⯑tator found in the ſecond folio, is nothing more than an accidental tranſpoſition of oh. ‘Oh Antony! oh thou Arabian bird!’ The editor can pilfer, though he cannot praiſe.

P. 508

Dr. Johnſons emendation certainly deſerved a place in the text; and a very ſlight alteration would prevent its deſtroying the metre, which any but our aſinego of an editor will inſtantly perceive. ‘—grind the one the other—’ will never do. The meaſure is perfect in the old reading, which requires only one ſyllable for another. Shakſpeare wrote: ‘They'll grind each other. Where is Antony?’

P. 575.

The two laſt words of the firſt line are added by the preſent Iriſh editor, who obſerves that "the de⯑fect of the metre," of which he knows as much as a ſuperannuated jack-aſs, "ſhews that ſomething was omitted." Former editors ſupplyed the mea⯑ſure by reading ‘Being ſo fruſtrated, tell him he mocks;’ which, it muſt be confeſſed, does not afford an eaſy ſenſe. Shakſpeare, however, would never have writ⯑ten the above hobbling line, which has no ſort of pretenſions to metre. We may read: ‘Being ſo fruſtrated, he mocks us by.’

P. 27.

"The ear," it ſeems, "was intended to be con⯑tracted into one ſyllable; and table alſo was proba⯑bly [89]uſed as taking up only the time of a monoſylla⯑ble." This nonſenſe is to juſtify the retention of all, which better judges had found it neceſſary to omit, or rather to change for ſmell. Mr. Malone reads the line thus, that is, if he can read at all: ‘Th'ear, taſte, touch, ſmell, all pleas'd from thy tāil riſe.’

P. 40.

The old editions read: ‘—of debt, broken bonds.’ Hanmer and others omit the ſyllable, which the pre⯑ſent editor has thus judiciously reſtored; being un⯑able to perceive that he was injuring the metre, without improving the ſenſe.

P. 52.

The modern editors have concurred in reading— ‘Unto this hour—’ as unqueſtionably Shakſpeare wrote. But the cor⯑ruption, being manifeſt nonſenſe, is properly replaced in the preſent text, where it will find nothing to put it out of countenance.

P. 61.

The meaning, as elucidated by this perſpicacious critic is as follows: The devil did not know what he was about when he made man crafty and intereſted; he thwarted himſelf by it; and I cannot but think that at laſt the enormities of mankind will riſe to, ſuch a height as to make even Satan himſelf, in compariſon appear (what he would leaſt of all wiſh to be) ſpotleſs and innocent; which ſeems much more obſcure than the text itſelf. The editor has omitted three very weak notes of Warburton, Johnſon and Tollett, to make way for his own nonſenſe; but why the paſſage ſhould have required a note, except to inform us that the commentator did not underſtand it, is not eaſy to conceive. The devils folly in making man politic is to appear in this, that he will at the long run be too many for his old maſter, and get free of his bonds. The villanies of man are to ſet himſelf clear, not the devil, to whom he is, by ignorant en⯑thuſiaſts, ſuppoſed to be in thralldom.

P. 63.

[91]Our modeſt Hibernian, after giving an inter⯑pretation, which he profeſſes to think wrong, be⯑cauſe "a ſhallow Remarker" has endeavoured to repreſent it as unintelligible, allows it may be ſo to him, as the wit of ſome men (meaning, of courſe, his own) like Falſtaffs deſert "is too thick to ſhine, and too heavy to mount." "This Remarker, however," he proceeds to relate, "after a feeble attempt at jocu⯑larity, and ſaying that he ſhall take no further notice of this editors ſee-ſaw conjectures, with great gra⯑vity propoſes a comment evidently formed on the latter of them, as an original interpretation of his own, on which the reader may ſafely rely."

Friend Butler ſomewhere tells us, there is no ar⯑gument like matter of fact: we ſhall preſently ſee who is the thief.

In the edition of 1778, the latter of this ingenious gentlemans "ſee-ſaw conjectures" is as follows: "The paſſage however may be explained thus:—His may refer to mine; as if he had ſaid: Your maſter's confidence was above my maſters; elſe ſurely his, i. e. the ſum demanded from my maſter (for that is the laſt antecedent) had been equal to the ſum demanded from yours."

The Remark is: "Your maſter, it ſeems, had more confidence in lord Timon than mine, other⯑wiſe, his (i. e. my maſters) debt (i. e. the ſum due to him from Timon) would, certainly, have been as great as your maſter (i. e. as the money which Timon owes [92]to your maſter); that is, my maſter, being as rich as yours, could and would have advanced Timon as large a ſum as your maſter has advanced him, if he (i. e. my maſter) had thought it prudent to do ſo."

Very well: now comes "the true explication," which the editor ſays he "alſo formerly propoſed;" an aſſertion, if he mean in the edition of 1778, which is evidently untrue. The reader may com⯑pare them.

"His may refer to mine. "It ſhould ſeem that the confidential friendſhip ſubſiſting between your maſter and Timon was greater than that ſubſiſting between Timon and my maſter; elſe ſurely his ſum, i. e. the ſum borrowed from my maſter, [the laſt antecedent] had been as large as the ſum borrowed from yours."

It muſt be perfectly clear, that the Remarker could not be indebted to a note which, ſo far as it is intelligible, ſeems diametrically oppoſite to his idea. It is equally ſo, that the editor has availed himſelf of the above "ſhallow" Remark, to vary the expreſ⯑ſion of his "ſee-ſaw conjecture," and give it a ſenſe it would otherwiſe never have had. Q. E. D.

P. 145.

Dr. Johnſon ſays that "Mr. Dryden, in his alte⯑ration [93]of this play, has changed ſkill-leſs to artleſs, not for the better, becauſe ſkill-leſs refers to ſkill and ſkilful. "A very fond and ſkill-leſs Remarker, on this note," adds the editor, "aſks and does not artleſs refer to art and artful."

Without intereſting myſelf at all in what I do not profeſs to underſtand, I ſhall only beg leave to ſay that if Mr. Malone meant, by this piece of inſolent vulgarity, to aſſert that there was any ſuch queſtion in the "Remarks on the laſt edition, &c. 1785, the aſſertion is a groſs falſehood. He ſeems to commit forgery for the ſake of abuſe.

P. 583.

Here our learned editor, incapable of diſtinguiſh⯑ing hiſtory from romance, quotes Geoffrey of Monmouth for "an hiſtorical fact." In a ſubſe⯑quent page (601) he aſſures us that "Nero is intro⯑duced in the preſent play above 800 years before he was born." He ſhould therefor ſeem to have ſome ſecret method for aſcertaining the aera of perſons that never exiſted, and of events that never hap⯑pened. It cannot, however, be by means of the black art, as he is certainly no conjurer.

P. 587.

Father, brother, rather, he has already obſerved, he ſays, were ſometimes uſed by Shakſpeare as mo⯑noſyllables: ‘Your old kind fa'r, whoſe frank heart gave you all.’

The folios read: ‘Your old kind father, whoſe frank heart gave all.’

The poetical reader will judge which line is moſt likely to have fallen from Shakſpeare.

P. 66.

"Thus," ſays Mr. Malone, "the original copy of 1597. In the two ſubſequent copies and the folio we have—My niece. What word was intended by it is difficult," for him, "to ſay. The editor of the [95]ſecond folio," he adds, "ſubſtituted—My ſweet:" which, being an emendation equally juſt and beau⯑tiful, and, by his own admiſſion, more "tender" than what he calls "the original word," he rejects as an arbitrary ſubſtitution, "all the alterations in that copy" being "made at random;" not excluding thoſe which this candid commentator has elſewhere thought fit to adopt.

Madam, which is given to Romeo, in the firſt copy, by a mere miſtake of the compoſitor, evi⯑dently belongs to the nurſe, who is ſuppoſed to call Juliet from within. Shakſpeare, however, thought proper to alter the word to ſweet, and give it to Romeo; or indeed one of the ſpeeches may have dropped out at the preſs. Neece is a palpable miſ⯑print.

P. 100.

"To hood a hawk, that is to cover its head with a hood," we are here told, "was an uſual practice, before the bird was ſuffered to fly at its quarry."

If ſuch a practice ever prevailed, I conclude it muſt have been in our luminous editors native country. It will appear a very ſtrange doctrine to the amateurs of this ſavage amuſement, that the hawk ſhould be flown at game which it was not ſuffered to ſee. The fact is that they, on this occa⯑ſion, took the hood off.

P. 113.

"Thus," he ſays, "the firſt quarto. In the ſub⯑ſequent quartos, and the folio too is omitted."

Now, reader, be pleaſed to mark the candour, the integrity of this ingenuous critic. The editor of the ſecond folio, who, he pretends, has been the moſt arbitrary, ignorant and capricious of the whole ſet, reads exactly with the firſt quarto. What ſay you to this, M. Malone? Is this too an alteration made at random and ſuggeſted by ignorance and caprice?

P. 123.

The reading of ſome editions is—the earth doth drizzle dew—which our editor ſays is philoſophically true, and ought to be preferred.

No one I believe ever before heard of the earths drizzleing dew. The editor ſeems to have got his philoſophy our of Dr. Hills Inſpector, which, to be ſure, is a very proper ſchool for ſuch a novice. That Shakſpeare, however, thought it was the air and not the earth that drizzled dew is evident from other paſſages.

So in K. John: ‘Before the dew of evening fall.’

[97]Again in K. Henry VIII.

Again, in the ſame play: ‘The dews of heaven fall thick in bleſſings on her.’

Again, in Hamlet: ‘Dews of blood fell.’

I ſuppoſe we are in theſe places to read earth for heaven and riſe or roſe inſtead of fall or fell.

P. 217.

Some epithet, he ſays, has been omitted in con⯑ſequence of which the metre is defective. There is not the ſmalleſt ground for ſuch a ſuppoſition: Blazes is a quadriſyllable. We may therefor read: ‘Lends the tongue vows: theſe bla-a-à-zes, daughter.’

P. 426.

"A feeble Remarker," as this Herculean com⯑mentator elegantly obſerves, "aſks "was the rela⯑tionſhip [98]between the uſurper and the deceaſed king a ſecret confined to Horatio?" "No," he anſwers, "but the murder of Hamlet by Claudius was a ſecret which the young prince had imparted to Ho⯑ratio alone; and to this it is he principally, though covertly alludes."

And, pray, what is all this to the ſignification of the word carnal? But it is natural enough for a feeble Remark to produce a pitiful cavil from a half-informed hypercritic.

P. 445.

"The lee-ſide of a ſhip," we are told, "is that on which the wind blows. To lee, or to be lee'd may," therefor "mean, to fall to leeward, or to loſe the advantage of the wind."

Alexander the great, after liſtening to the laboured oration of a pedantic philoſopher on the art of war, obſerved that he had never heard a fool talk ſo learn⯑edly. This compliment cannot poſſibly be applyed to our editor, who always talks like himſelf; pretending to know every thing and knowing nothing. One would have thought that every fool knew that the lee ſide of a ſhip is that—not on which, but from which the wind blows. The editor has read in the [99]newſpapers of a lee-ſhore, which would be there rightly interpreted, a ſhore on which the wind blows; but it is ſo termed in reference to the ſhip, as being a ſhore on its lee ſide. Belee'd is a word formed like becalm'd, &c. and means, as other perſons have rightly explained it, that Caſſio intercepted the wind of favour or preferment.

P. 537.

"The leet," our learned editor obſerves, "ac⯑cording to Lambard, was a court or juriſdiction above the wapentake or hundred, comprehending three or four hundreds. The juriſdiction of this court is now in moſt places merged in that of the county court."

There is, I am perſuaded, ſome miſrepreſentation as well as ſome ignorance in this note. As to the firſt charge, he may acquit himſelf of it by producing a paſſage in which Lambard has any ſuch aſſertion. Upon the ſecond count, Ignorance, he muſt be clearly convicted. The Leet being a criminal court as well as a court of record never had, nor poſſibly could have, the ſlighteſt connection with the county court, which is neither the one nor the other, and conſequently cannot have merged in it. You ſee, therefor, M. Malone, that your friend Minſhew is not always to be depended upon.

P. 388.

"The words, there, elſe, and of, are not found in the old copies. This conjectural emendation was made by the editor of the ſecond folio."

Since our critic has elſewhere ſhewn (as he ſays) "that all the alterations in this edition were made at random," and that the editor was entirely ignorant of our authors phraſeology and metre, how comes i [...]; that his arbitrary innovation of no leſs than three words ſhould have been honoured with a place in our authors text? Becauſe, for once, he has omitted to perceive that Shakſpeare uſed the words none Rome, and other words of that kind, as diſſyllables and conſequently the metre "was to his ear perfect."

Was noné in Romè to make a ſtale.

P. 451.

"The [firſt] folio," ſays Mr. Steevens, "reads Epton's; the quarto Epion's: to which Mr. Malone, [101]without bluſhing, adds, "the correction was made in the ſecond folio;" moſt inconſiſtently deſerting the only true ancient authentic copies for the arbitrary emendation of an ignorant editor in an edition of no value whatever?

P. 467.

It is obſervable that our equally modeſt and con⯑ſiſtent critic thinks it "highly probable" that the ſecond ſcene of the third act of this play "was added by our author:" an opinion for which he has here attempted to ridicule a much more reſpectable cha⯑racter than himſelf; and one whoſe judgment ſeems, from this inſtance, at leaſt, to have been altogether upon a par with his own. See the Preface, p. lix.