A
A
3
6
6
3
7
PR
3070
R51q
• RITSON
QUIP MODEST
I O
THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
THE
QUIP MODEST;
A
FEWWORDS
BY WAY OF
SUPPLEMENT
T O
REMARKS,
CRITICAL AND ILLUSTRATIVE,
N r H E
Text and Notes of the Last: Edition
F
SHAKSPEAREi
OCCASIONED BV A
REPUBI^CATION OF THAT EDITION,
REVISED AND AUGMENTED BY THE
EDITOR OF DODSLEYS OLD PLAYS.
we'll sift this MATTER FURTHER.
all's well that enos well.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR, J, JOHNSON in ST. PAULS CHURCH YARD*
M DCC LXXXYIII.
A '
/5
P RE FACE.
^ TN the beginning of 1783 1 publifhed a book or pamphlet,
•* intitled, " Remarks, critical and illuftrative, on the Text
and Notes ofthelaft Edition of Shakrpeare,"which, I under-
ftand, has been reprefented as the mofl: incorrect publication
u- that ever appeared ; and, indeed, from the lift of errata in
the book itfelf, and the additional one given at the end of this
Preface, the charge does not feem to be without founda-
tion. There is, hov/ever, one work which, I believe, may
vye with mine in point of inaccuracy, and that is the revif-
ed edition of Johnfon and Steevenses Shakfpeare, which has
J3 iince made its immaculate appearance, without the notifi-
^ cation of a fmgle error *. I am, neverthelefs, far from
^ meaning
* A complete table of errata would be too arduous a tafk, perhaps,
for an individual; the bookfellers may therefor think themlelves obli-
ged to any perfon that will contribute to it. I accordingly offer my
mite, in the following brief but decent fpecimen of the accuracy of
this famous edition.
V. I. p. 21. boltfprit for bovjfprit.
48. Al^-njorights for zit-knights.
I 70. Trinculo for Stephana.
72. ne'uer (to fpoil the metre) for ne'er.
34.7 & pajfim. Manhood for Manivood. In another
place Sir Hugh Spelman.
Vol. II. p. 39. dlJJa?it for infant,
Ignotny for Ignominy.
68. conftruiiion for contra^kxt
J I. fame for fame,
o -2 ^fi.'^sn:
meaning to reproach the learned gentleman who appears to
have had the care of that edition, with the negligence of his
printers ; nor do I think myfelf at all more culpable on ac-
count of the blunders of mine. Every perfon who has the
entire revifion of his own prefs-work will be foon con-
vinced, that nothing is To truly incorrigible as a virgin proof
JlKct in its primitive Ji ate of unamendment. There is, how-
ever, fome little diiTerence in printers j elfe mercy on the
poor author !
Another charge which has been brought againft me, is
no lefs than downright yi?/cw_y. It feems that fome of my
happieft emendations had already appeared in the margin
of the very edition I had prefumed to criticife ; and the
candour of the Critical Reviewers led them to conclude
that 1 muft have ftole them ready made. Thofe venerable
perfonages, who have the difmtereftednefs to devote fix days
Vol. III. p. S95. Yowjhall not have mocked me before, for yott
fiould not, &c.
378. Hear for Here,
466. Platony the fon of Lagus.
496. a cuchfold^s liorn.
Vol. IV. p. 94. \)VonM{t-maker ic,v \>Tom\{t- breaker.
118. liitergatories for Interrogatories,
J 64. ?7ian {ex name .
211. Fie a--way iorflj nuuay.
^64. danger for dagger.
331 . curfe him for tiiirfe him.
3^7. Vcrft/^ans hijlltutlon for Verftfgans Rejlilution,
4^0. TZ^fl/ ra reft for 77;^ rareft.
Vol. V. p, 113. Huiv for nc~v.
161. BamJ})'fi for Bamfh^d.
Vol. VI. p. 23. A line omitted ;
EKe would I have a fling at Winchefiefi
Vol. VIL p. 371. Ifrf'o for If /fl'o.
VIII. p. 190. /o draw, for (/a draw.
IX. p. 26. like for lye.
8c. J} ore iovfore.
109. The lees and dregs of a flat piece. Turned
omitted.
X. p. 331. Hejivood for Hajivard,
Sic. &c. &c. Sic, in
infeven* to theferviceofthe public, in pafllngfentenceuport
books which they never read, and on the charader of writ-
ers whom they do not know, could not for their fouls com-
prehend that two perfons might happen to hit upon the lame
idea, or that one, having poflefled himfelf of the idea of an-
other, might, from a defective memory, or any other caufe,
come in time to imagine it his own. All that I can fay upon
this head, though 1 (hall not expe£l credit for my aflertion
from the good-natured gentlemen I have juft mentioned,
is, that at the time of the publication of the book, I was not
aware of being anticipated in more than a fmgle inflance,
and even that one I thought my own.
Incorreft, however, and felonious as thefe fame Re-
marks might be, I found that the revifed Edition I have
mentioned had got near 200 of them in its margin, all
of which were received without oppofition ; not to fpeak
of the alterations or corredions which I had a rieht to
prefume myfelf the occafion of. There are a few in-
deed which have not paffed mufter, but, on the con-
trary, are treated with fuch an air of peevifhnefs, that I
efleem myfelf a very unnatural father of fo hopeful an ofF-
fpring, in not having come forward in their vindication
fooner. It will be thought, perhaps, by fome, altogether
unreafonable, that, after the editor of the revifed edition
has adopted fo confiderable a majority of my remarks, I
fiiould bs difpofed to find fault with him for his cavalier
treatment of a few. I can only fay, that it was not to me
of the fmalleft confequence whether he condefcended to
honour my publication with his notice or not 5 but I think
it my duty to defend every part of it from injury and mif-
reprefentation. I know of no difference between the inte-
grity or charadler of a writer and that of any other indi-
vidual j nor ought an unjuft charge againft the former to
remain unrefuted, any more than one againft the latter.
* I conclude, that on Sunday the worthy critics *' reft from their
labourj," and go to Meeting, They are very good Chriftians.
This
[ vi ]
This defence, T allow, is rather of the lateft in making its
appearance, and my liberal and candid friends above men-
tioned will fcarcely neglecl the opportunity of paying my
prudence a compliment, in having attended fo well to Ho-
races rule. The fail: is, that my notes were taken in
turning- over the revifed edition immediately after its pub»
jication, but have till very lately been laid afidej and, in
fhort, almoft forgotten ; and perhaps I only anticipate a
pleafant obfervation of my fmall friends, fo oft alluded to,
in adding, that it would have proved no great lofs if they
had been altogether fo.
I mufl not pretend to be ignorant that I have been ac-
cufed of treating the moft eminent Editors, Commenta-
tors, and Critics, with too little ceremony ; and, indeed,
I fear I've wrong'd the honorable men
Whofe goofe-quills have ftabb'd Shakfpeare.
** If it be fo," it is unqueftionably " a grievous fault.'*
But I can with great truth and julHce urge in my defence,
I have no perfonal caufe to fpurn at them.
Bur for the general.
And that
How fc\r I have proceeded in this matter.
Or how far further fball, is warranted
By the example of preceding critics.
Yea, the v^-hole critic tribe.
Before I conclude, I beg leave to afTure the refpectable
gentleman who had the care of the revifed edition, that fo
far from meaning to treat him with the flighted degree of
levity or freedom, i do not confider him as refponfible for
any one of the notes vv'hich are the principal objects of the
prefent pamphlet : I conclude them to have been furnifh-
ed by fome obliging friend, who has defired to be efFediual-
[ vii ]
ly concealed under the faniSlion of the Editors fignature *.
If I could polHbly think this were not the cafe, I am under
too many obligations to that gentleman, in the courfe of my
different literary purfuits, not to have kifled the rod in 11-
lence. However, I doubt not there are many things in the
following pages which I might have been allowed to fay,
■without running any poflible rifk of giving offence to him ;
alive as an editor is on fuch occafions faid to feel himfelf.
At the end of the Remarh, &c. I inferted an advertife-
ment of " an edition of the plays of Shakfpeare," as theii
" preparing for the prefs ;" and fome enquiries have been
made v/hen it would appear. In truth, the attention requi-i
fite to the publication of fo voluminous a work, and the
little likelihood there is of its being produdive to the an*
dertaker of any thing but trouble and expence, together
with other caufes of lefs confequence, have hitherto de«
terred me from putting it to the prefs. But I have neither
laid afide all thoughts of bringing it forward, nor can I
pledge myfelf to produce it in any given time. I have little
reafon to fuppofe that the Public interefts itfelf at all in the
matter, and therefor think myfelf at full liberty Jo fuit my
own inclination and convenience.
G.I. ift February 178S.
* Imprcfled as I have been with this idea, I ought ia common juflice
to acknowleffe.that I fufpefl no one in particular to whom I am ihus
indebted. Above all I vvifti to declare, that the candour, liberality,
and politenefs which diftinguifli Mr. SxEEVENS, utterly exclude him
from every imputation of this nature.
A 4
ERRA'tJ in the Remarks,'&c.
Difcovered after Publication.
P. 12. after 1. 5. add^, azS.
P. 20. 1. %.for p. 6. r. p. 64..
P. 25. after 1. 8. add Comedy of Errors.
1. 2 1. /or referred r. reftored.
P. 26. 1. 6. ^^/^ this line.
P. 28. 1. 9. dele It.
P. 29. after 1. 23. r. Much ado about Nothisgj
and dele thofe words in the next page.
P. 33. 1. 17. for Mr. Steevenses r. Dr. Warburtons.
P. 86. 1. 14. /or chidllefs r. childlefs.
P. 94. 1. ult. (n.) for ftrange r. kind of.
P. 98. 1. 14. /or abfurdity r. necefiity.
P. ii3. 1. 9. for certainly fo r. certainly done fo.
P. 124. 1. penult. /or conftittiiion r. constitution.
P. J57. 1. 1 1. /or is cynical r. is as cynical.
P. 195. I. 1,/or quielcent r. crefcent.
P, 196. 1. 9. for Each of th&fe propofals is, r. The fecond
and third of thefe propofals aie,~
P. 222. 1. 25. for play r. pay.
P. 230. before 1. i. hifert,
* P. 502.
Ja. King Stephen was a worthy peer.
i. e. fays Mr. Steevens, a worthy fellow. In (his fenfe peer^
fere, and pheere, he adds, are oft:n ufed by the writers of
our earlieft romances.
ERRATUM m this Pamphlet.
P. 8, 1, 12, /or the fame volume, r. vol. iy.
SUPPLEMENT to REMARKS.^c,
TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA.
Vol. I. p. 155 *.
IN anfwer to what I have been pleafed to aflert in de-
fence of Shakfpeare, againft the charge of taking a li-
berty with his words, by ftretching them out to fuit th«
purpofe of his metre, Mr. Tyrwhitt has obferved as fol-
lows : " As to xhii fuppofed canon of the Englifh language,
it wonld be eafy to fhew that it is quite fanciful and un-
founded ; and what he calls the right method of printing the
above words y is fuch 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 fyftem of fpelling. But any further djfcuflion
of the matter is unnecellary ; becaufe the hypothefis,
though allowed in its utmoft extent, will not prove either
of the points to which it is applied. It will neither prove
that Shakfpeare has not taken a liberty in extending cer-
tain words, nor, that he has not taken that liberty chiefly
with certain words in which / or r is fubjoined to another
confonant. The follou^ing are all inftances of nouns, fub-
ftantive or adjedlive, which can receive no fupport from
the fuppofed canon. That Shakfpeare has taken a liberty
in extending thefe words, is evident, from the confideration
* The paging in thjs pamphlet is generally from the tevifed cdi-
tioM.
B that
r ^ ]
that the fame words are more frequently ufed by his con-
temporaries, and by himfelf, without the additional fyllable^
Why he has taken this liberty with words in which / or r
is fubjoined, muft be obvious to every one who can pro-
nounce the language.
" Country^ trifyllable.
« Ttvelfth Nighty ASt I. fc. 2. The like of him.
Know'ft thou this country P *
" Remembrance^ quadrifyllable.
« Twelfth Night, Aa I. fc. i. " And lafting in her
fad remembrance.
** Angry, trifyllable.
« Timon of Athens, A<5t III. fc. 5. But who is man
that is not angry?
" Henry, trifyllable.
" Rich. III. Aa II. fc. 3. So flood the ftate when
Henry the Sixth.
" Monfirom, trifyllable.
** Macbeth, A(fl IV. fc. 6. Who cannot want the
thought how monjirotts.
" Affembly, quadrifyllable.
" Much ado about Nothing, A61 V. fc. laft. Good mor-
'fow to this fair afjembly.
" Douglas, trifyllable.
" I Henry IV. A^V. fc, 2. Lord Douglas, go you
and tell him fo.
" England, trifyllable.
«' Rich. II. Aa IV. fc. ;. Then B«lingbr©ke return
to England.
• As a fingle Inftatice^ fufficient for my pyrpofe, every additional
(OHC has been ftmittcd,
« Humhltr^
r 3 }
« Humbler^ trifyllable.
*« I Hen. VI. Aa IV. fc. i. Methinks his lordfhip
fhould be humbler.
" Nobler^ trifyllable.
« Coriolanus, Ad III. fc. 2. You do the nobler*
Cor. I mufe my mother."
The learned and refpedable writer of thefe obfervations is
now unfortunately no more ; but his opinions will not on that
account have the lefs influence with the readers of the re-
vifed edition of Shakfpeare. I am therefor ftill at liberty
to enforce the juftice and propriety of my own fentiments,
which I truft I fhall be found to do with all poflible deli-
cacy toward the memory and charaiSler of the ingenious
gentleman from whom 1 have the misfortune to differ.
I humbly conceive, that upon more mature confidera-
tton Mr. Tyrwhitt would have admitted, that if the me-
thod of printing the words in queftion were once proved
to be right, it would be of little confequence whether the
difcovery had ever been adopted before, or could be follow-
ed in pronunciation, without the help of an entire new
fyftem of fpeiiing : which in fadl is the very objedtl mean
to contend for ; or rather for a fyjlem of fpelUng^ as I am
perfectly confident we have none at prefent, or at leaft I
have never been able to find it. I fliall have reafon to
think myfelf peculiarly unfortunate if, after my hypothe-
fis is allowed in its utmoft extent, it will not prove what
it was principally formed to do, viz. that Shakfpeare has
not taken a liberty in extending certain words to fuit the
purpofe of his metre. But furely, if I prove that he has
only written the words in queftion as they ought to be
written, I prove the whole of my pofition, which of courfe
fhould ceafe to be termed or confidered an hypothefis. I
may fafely admit, that the words in quefLion *' are more
frequently ufed by his contemporaries, and by himfelf,
without the additional fyllable ;" but this will only fhew,
that his contemporaries and himfelf have more frequently
B 2 taken
C 4 ]
taken the liberty of fiiortening thofe words than In writing
them at length. Such a word as alarm'' d, for inftance^is
generally, perhaps conftantly, ufed by poets as a diflyl-
lable ; and yet, if we found it with its full power, alarmedy
we fhould fcarcely fay that the writer had taken a liberty
in lengthening it a fyllable. Thus too the word diamond
is generally fpoken as if two fyllables ; but it is certainly
three, and is fo properly given by Shakfpeare :
Sir, I muft have that diamond from you.
The words obfervation and affeSiion areufually pronounced,
the one as confiliing of three, the other of four fyllables ;
but each, notwithftanding, is really a fyllable longer :
With obfervation, the which he vents.
Yet have I fierce affe£ilons and think.
But examples of this nature would be endlefs.
Of the words quoted by Mr. Tyrwhitt, as inflances of
the liberty taken by Shakfpeare, thofe which I admit to be
properly a fyllable fhorter, certainly obtained the fame pro-
nunciation in the age ®f that author as he has annexed to
them. Thus country, monjirous, remembrance, ajjcmbly, were
not only pronounced in Shakfpeares time, the two former as
three, the other zs four fyllables, but are fo Jiill ; and the
reafon, to borrow Mr. Tyrwhitts own words, " muft be
obvious to every one who can pronounce the language."
^^ Henry was not only ufually pronounced (as indeed it is
ftill) but frequently written as a trifyllable, even in profe.
Thus in Dr. Buttons Difcourfe on the Antiquities of Ox-
ford, at the end of Hearnes Textus Koffenfis,
" King Henery the eights coUedge *.'*
That Mr. Tyrwhitt fhould have treated the words
angry, hu?nbler, nobler, ufed as trifyllables, among thofe
which could " receive no fupport from the fuppofed ca-
non," muft have been owing to the obfcure or imperfedl
manner in which I attempted to explain it, as thefe are the
• See, upon this fubjecl, Wallifu Grammatica, p. 57.
very
C 5 ]
very Inftances which the canon, if a canon it muft be, is
purpofcl y made to fupport, or rather by which it is to be Tup-
ported. This canon, in ihort, is nothing but a very fhort and
fimple rule of Englifh grammar, which has been repeated
over and over : Every word, compounded upon the prin-
ciples of the Englifh language, always preferves the radical
word unchanged. Thus hurnhler and nobler^ for inftance,
are compofed of the adje6tives humble and noble^ and er,
the fign of the comparative degree ; angry^ of the noun
anger^ and y^ the Saxon 15. In the ufe of all thefe as tri-
fyllables Shakfpeare is moft correct ; and that he is no
lefs fo in England^ which ufed to be pronounced as three
fyllables, and is fo itill indeed with thofe who do not ac-»
quire the pronunciation of their mother-tongue froni the
book, and fpeech certainly preceded writing, will be evi-
dent from the etymology, which (hould be more 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
defeft fomcwhere : but write it as it fhould be written,
En-gle-land^ and you have the meaning and etymology of
the word and the origin of the nation at firfl fight, from
the Saxon Gnjialanba, the land or country of the Anghs ;
as in Scotland^ Ireland, Finland^ Lapland^ the country of
the Scot^ the Ipe, the Fln^ the Lap : and yet, in defpite of
all fenfe and reafon, about half the words in the language
are in the fame awkward predicament.
I flatter mylelf I have completely juftified 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 fomething deiective and improper in the common
methods of fpelling, or rather mis-fpelling. 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 fyflematical re-
form, which, once eltablifhed, would remain unvaried and
invariable as long as the language endured. This John-
fon might have had the honour of j but it is evident that
he was very little acquainted with the principles and for-
mation
^ARKS,
. 12.
C 6 3
matlon of the words he undertook to explain. Every die*
tionary, to be perfedt, ihould difplay a fyftem of orthogra-
phy, by dividing the words upon etymological principles.
At firft fight, 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 efFeded in Italy, France, and Spain, by the diffe-
rent academies there. And however violent the propofed
reform may appear, it is certain, that if two or three of the
firft printers in London were to adopt it, it would ceafe to
be remarkable in half a year : but till this is done, it does
not feem worth the while of an individual to render his f elf
fmgular, when he cannot fee the leaft probability of being
able to convince the public of the propriety of his condudl ;
and there feems no neceffity for making fuch a matter as
thh a point of confcience.
P. 194.
Hojl. By my haU'idom I was faft afleep.
That I Ihould fall into an error myfelf, is perfectly na-
tural J but that I fhould have led the infallible editors of
Shakfpeare into one, is ftrange indeed. I had haftily fup-
pofed hallidom to be a corruption of holy dame^ i. e. the
Blefled Virgin, as file is generally called. But it is not,
being immediately from the Saxon hahjbom, which, as I
take it, means, my fentence at the general refurredlion, or,
as I hope to be faved *.
MERRY WIVES OF VV^INDSOR.
Vol. I. p. 252.
Shn. Tv/o Edward Jhovel-boardst that coft me two
fhillings and two-pence apiece.
* I fee too they have adopted my explanation of'vala»c'd (Re-
m.iik«, p. 19S.) which, either through ignorance or inattention, Ihad
made to fignify overhung ^jjlth a canopy or tffier like a Led; whereas it
means furheloived <with a fringed curtain, like that which generally
ftirrounds the faid canopy or telter, and alfo the bed itfeif, and is to
this day called the 'valance,
■ My
r 7 ]
My remark on this paflage is confidered by my anony-
mous friend in the following terms. " Dr. Farmers
note, and the authority he quotes, might, I think, pafs
Unccnfured, unlefs better proofs could be produced in op-
pofition to them. They have, however, been objected
to, and we are pofitively told, that Mafter Slenders
" Edward fliovel-boards have undoubtedly been broad Jlnl-
lings of Edward the Third. I believe the broad fhillings
of that monarch were never before heard of, as he un-
doubtedly did not coin any (hilling whatever."
Without attempting to palliate the grofs blunder I was
undoubtedly guilty of in the remark alluded to, I may be
permitted to obferve, that neither " Dr. Farmers note,"
nor " the authority he quotes," was cenfured in that re-
mark, unlefs difference in opinion neceflarily imply cen-
fure. No one can have either lefs reafon or lefs inclina-
tion to cenfure this refpciSlable fcholar and critic than my-
felf : and I am confident that he would never have thought
it necefTary to defend either his notes or his authorities in
fuch a ftile as the above. By whom the Englifh (hilling
was firft coined, is a piece of knowlege from which the
pofTeflbr can derive fo little merit, that I fliould think my
pleafant and gentlemanlike friend in the dark will fcarccly
difpute my having had opportunities of acquiring it : how
1 happened to make fo ill a ufe of them is another matter ;
which I can neither apologife nor account for. And though
I do not think the inaccuracy or inattention of one writer
is any excufe for that of another, I may be permitted to
notice a few fimilar flips, to prove my offence is not with-
out its parallels.
In vol. iii. p. 474, Boccaccio is faid to be the inventor
of the ftory of Patient Griflel, though Petrarch, to whom
he had fcnt it, exprefsly tells him, that he had read the
ftory In his infancy.
In vol. V. p. 153, the reader is referred to Alattheiv Pa'
riSf for the proof of a fatSt in the time of Richard the Se^
condi above a century ^ter the hi/t'orians death.
In
f 8 3
In vol. V. p. 266. King Henry IV. is afierted to be
himfelf the laft perfon that ever bore the title of Duke of
Lancafter, though his fon (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 IVards^ which was firft
ereded by Henry VIII. is fuppofed to exift in the reign of
King Henry IV.
In vol. vi. p. 15. King Henry V. is made to addrefs Joha
Holland, Duke of Exeter, who was beheaded in the firft
year of King Henry IV.
In p. 510 of the fame volume, feme lines from Robert of
Gkiicefter are quoted as Geojfrey of Mon?nouihs -y '* and then,
7i.s Geojfrey of Monmouth i2Ly%."
I fay, I only notice thefe inftance?, to prove that the mar-
gin of Shakfpeare is no more infallible than the text of the
Remarks ; and confequently, that there was no great need
of exultation on thedeteftion of a fingle miftake.
P. 279.
(k*ARKs, Pift' Hope is a curtaiPd dog in fome afFairs.
I believe I was not miftaken in afferting that excaudlta'
tlon was not, nor could be, in any cafe, ordained by the
foreji lazvy. But an expreffion of Sir Toby Belch — " call
me cut'" — having induced a fufpicion, that curtailing or
cutting the tail of cither horfe or dog, implied fome degree
of infamy or fname, I was glad to meet with a paflage in
Jsrafton., which may ferve to give us a pretty clear idea of
the matter. Of the punijhment of a ravijher^ fays this an-
cient writer, according to the laws of the Romans ^ Franks^
and English, If he were a knight, his horse, ta his dif-
grace^Jhall have the fin cut off" the upper lip, and the TAlU
OUQHT TO BE CUT OFF CLOSE TO THE BUTTOCK. So a
pOG, if be have one zuith him, GREr HOUND, or other, Jhall
he difgraced in the fain^ manneK*." The injuftice and ab-
* L. 1. t, ». c. z%.
Surdity
14.
[ 9 ]
furdity of this law will be fufficiently apparent. It how-
ever leads one to fuppofe, that in the feudal times the dif-
tindion between the horfe 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 horfe or dog of a clown, the latter the clown himfelf*
A fuppofition chance may one day confirm.
MEASURE FOR MEASURE.
Vol. II. p. 68.
Mr. Tyrwhitt, on reviewing his former note, did not,
he fays, think fo well of the conjecture in the latter part
of it as he had done fome years before, and therefore wifh-
cd to withdraw it ; but he was not inclined to adopt the
idea of the author of the Remarks, as he faw " no ground
for fuppofing that Ifabella had any majk in her hand -,''* his
notion being, « that the phrafe, thefe black majks, fignifies
nothing more than black majks ; according to an old idiom
of our language, by which the demonftrative pronoun is
put for the prepofitive article," and refers to his Glojfary to
Chaucer^ This, Thefe. " Shakfpeare," he adds, " feems to
have ufed the fame idiom, not only in the paflage quoted
by Mr. Steevens from Romeo andfuliet-y but alfp in Firji
Henry IV. A61 1, fcene 3.
And but for thefe vile guns
He would himfelf have been a foldier."
As to the quotation from Rotneo and Juliet, I had already
explained that, by the very conftru6lioa Mr. Tyrwhitt
has approved *. But I am not fo well fatisfied of thejuft-
nefs of its application to the paflage cited from Firjl Henry
IV. as, I conceive, Percy is repeating the words of ^ne who
fpoke with thofe vile guns before his eye.
* Remarks, p. 175,
C Though
[ 12. ]
Though this learned and ingenioils commentator might
fee no ground for fuppofing that Kabella held a made in
htr hand, it does not follow that the notion is entirely
groundlefs. It was certainly the fafhion in Shalcfpeares
time, and perhaps long after, for ladies to wear maflcs ; and
as Ifabella is about to take the veil, it may be probable
that {he could not confiftently walk through the ftreets
without a malk, which, on coming into Angelos prefence,
flie would of courfe hold in her hand.
I am the rather confirmed that this is the true fenfe of
the pafFage, from th€ frequency of Shakfpeares allufions to
the cuftom of wearing mafks.
Thus, in the Two Gentlemen of Verona:
" And threw her fun-expelling majk away."
Again, in Troilus and Crejfida^ the latter enumerating
her feveral wards or defences, fays, Ihe relies upon her maJk
to defend her beauty.
Again, in Cymbeline :
« lads
With faces fit for majks, or rather fairer
Than thofe for prefervation cas'd or fliarae.'*
Again, in Othello :
" To fetch'^her fan, her gloves, her maJk, nor nothing ?"
In Loves Labour Lojl, the princefs and ladies wear taffata
majks 'y and Autolycus, in the Winters Tale^ has " majki
(or faces and for nofesJ*
I fhall fay nothing more as to the word enjhteld, than that
I ftill think it to be a contradion for enjhtelded \ but I fhall
be very willing to abate my confidence, when any autho-
rity is produced for the ufage contended for, of en-fl)elld or
in-Jhelld, No word, I conceive, ought to be difplaced
from the text by one equally objedionable i and every
■word in the old editions is to be deemed certainly
Shakfpeares, till the contrary appears.
MID-
[ 11 ]
MIDSUMMER NIGHTS DREAM.
Vol. III. p. 36.
Ob. The human mortals want their winter here.
In reply to the remark on this paflage, the gentleman
who has afTumed the fignature of *' The Editor," after la-
menting the misfortune of the commentators and readers
of Shakfpeare, in having fo much of their time employed
in explaining and contradicting unfounded conjedlures
and afTertions, produces an extratfl from Mr. Wartons
Obfervations on Spenfers Fairy ^leen, to prove, that in
Shakfpeares time the notion of Fairies dying was gene-
rally known ; and adds, that Tickells poem, called Ken-
fmgton Gardens^ will fhew that the opinion prevailed in the
prefent century. A future editor of our author, he fays,
may, without any detriment to his work, omit this note,
which he fhould have been better pleafed to have had no
occafion to incumber the page with.
Every perfon of feeling muft furely fympathife with an
editor of Shakfpeare, who, contrary to the cftablifhed prac-
tice of gentlemen in his fituation, inftead of the more
agreeable employment of making unfounded conjectures
and alTertions, is reduced to the hard neceiKty of contra-
dialing them \ more efpecially when, after all his toil and
trouble, and writing about it and about it, the point is left
pretty much the fame as it was found. The real and
oftenfible editor of the revifed edition is a perfon of too
extenfive reading, as well as of too much good fenfe, to
quote the fanciful genealogies of Spenfer, at fecond hand,
to illuftrate a popular fuperftition, with which, as he well
knows, the Faerie ^eene has not the remoteft connexion.
No one who has read even a fmgle canto of Spenfers
poem, can be ignorant of the diflimilarity between his
Fairies and the Fairies of Shakfpeare ; or that a fyltem,
imagined to ferve the purpofes of allegory and allufion to
real charadlers, has nothing in common with the vulgar
opinion, to which in fadl he has not been indebted for a
C 2 fmgle
C 12 3
fingle idea. Mr. Tickells poem I neither know where
to find, nor think it worth my while to enquire after. I
have fuch authority, however, for what the above candid
and good-tempered pfeudo-editor is pleafed to call an un-
founded conjecture and afTertion, that, far from being dif-
pofed to retract an iota of what I have already advanced on
the fubjeft, I will venture to maintain the propriety of my
opinion in its fuUeft extent, viz. that the Fairies of Shak-
fpeare and the common people are immortal, and were
never efteemed otherwife. And, firft, to fhew how little
. Spenfer is to be regarded as an authority in the matter, it
will be only neceflary to have recourfe to the dodrine of
that poets mafter, the inimitable Ariofto, who exprefsly
tells us that a Fairy can not die :
MorW non puote alcuna Fata mat,
Fin che'l Sol gira, o 11 del non mutajlilo,
• • • • • »
Ma le Fate morir fempre non ponno *,
The charadler of a Fairy in the old Romances f , like that
of the ancient Wood-nymphs, unites the ideas of power
and beauty, and fuch are the Fairies of Ariolto and Spen-
fer ; as Shakfpeare himfelf evidently knew, when he made
Mark Antony fay.
To this great Fairy I'll commend thy acts.
It is to this fpecies of Fairies that Milton alludes, where
he fpeaks of
Fairy damfels met in foreft wide.
By knights of Logres and of Liones,
Lancelot, or Pelleas, or Pellenore.
The Fairies, on the contrary, of the Midfummer Nights
Dream, according to a beautiful paflage of the fame au-
thor, are,
Faerie elves,
Whofe midnight revels, by a foreft fid?,
* Orlando Furiofo, c. to. f. 56.
t See particularly Hijloire de Melufinc, of which there Is a very
ancient finglifli tranflation in the Muteum.
Or
C 13 3
Or fountain, fome belated peafant fees,
Or dreams he fees, while over head the moon
Sits arbitrefs, and neerer to the earth
Wheels her pale courfe ; they, on thir mirth and danca
Intent, with jocond mufic charm his ear;
At once with joy and fear his heart rebounds.
Beaumont and Fletcher, I fhould conceive as good a
voucher for the popular opinion of Shakfpearcs time as either
Spenfer or Tickell. And fee what they fay in the Faith-
ful Shepherdefs :
A virtuous well, about whofe flow'ry banks
The nimble-footed Fairies dance their rounds
By the pale moon-fhine, dipping oftentimes
Their ftolen children, yo to make "" em free
From dying flej})^ and dull mortality.
Pretty conclufive evidence this, one (hould think ! There
is, indeed, a foolifh P.omance, intltled Muoyi de Bourdeaux^
which had been turned into Engiifh long before Shak-
ipeares 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
fought in this romance. They may be there fought, in-
deed, but I know, by woeful experience, they are not there
to be found.
Shakfpeare, I am convinced, was upon this occafion in-
debted to no book whatever ; unlefs it were the great book
of fociety, which he perufed and ftudied with fo much care.
And that he himfelf has exprefsly reprefented his Fairies im-
mortal, will appear from the following quotations, v/hich
could only haveefcaped the notice of a fuppofititious editor,
lefs attentive 10 his authors text than tenacious of the mif-
takes of his predeceflbrs or himfelf.
J Fairy, [to Bottom.] Hail, mortal^ hail !
Puck. Believe nie, king o^ Jhadows^ I jniftook.
Ob.
C u }
Oh, But we arc /pints of another fort.
Pud. If we>^^<?zci have ofFended.
I have only to add, that the editor might, without any
detriment to his work, have omitted the above note ; but I
cannot think that the page has any particular reafon to
complain of the incumbrance, as it would be no difficult
matter to point out feverai hundreds groaning under an
equal burthen.
MERCHAMT OF VENICE.
Vol. III. p. 160.
The editor, or fome one under his fignature, attempts
to fupport Mr. Steevens by a quotation from an old book,
which feems little or nothing to the purpofe. The words
u/e, ufanccy and ufury, in the time of Shakfpeare, appear to
have had one and the fame meaning, and to have fignified
precifely what intereji does at prefent. Mr. Steevens, by
employing the word ufury in its prefent fenfe, makes the
Jew condemn himfelf. And it may be obferved, that An-
tonio in this play does not cenfure the pradlice of taking
excejfive interejl^ but that of taking intereft at all ; which
has been frequently condemned by others as Jewilh and
Anti-chriftian.
ALL'S V/ELL THAT ENDS WELL.
Vol. IV. p. 136.
Lafeu. {%o Parolles.) Prithee, allow the wind.
" Jllovj the ivind.} i. e. ftand to the windward of me.
Steevens."
That to be fure would be allowing the wind with a ven-
geance ! Lafeu means, however, the exaft reverfe j /. e.
that Parolles fhould allow the wind a free pafiage ; or (to
keep
t 'S 1
keep to the fea term) (land to the leeward of him ; as Mr.
Steevens, if he had not been misled by his friend Johnfons
Didionary, fufficiently fruitful in fuch like miftakes, might
probably have explained it.
TWELFTH NIGHT.
Vol. IV. p. 163.
How will fhe love — when liver, brain, and heart,
Thefe fovereign thrones, are all fupply'd and fiU'd,
(Her fweet perfections) with one felf -fame king.
** The original and authentic copy," fays Mr. Malone (as
he is become fond of calling Xhtfirji folio, fince the fecond
has been the means of deteding fo many of his miftakes)
** reads — with one y^//" king. Same" he fays, " was added
unneceflarily by the editor of the fecond folio, who in
many inftances appears to have been equally ignorant of
our authors language and metre." Though this charge were
as true as it is otherwife ; and though the editor of the fe-
cond folio had underftoed our authors language and metre
as imperfedly as the learned gentleman himfelf appears to
do, the prefent alteration would be no inftance of it. But fee
how this ingenious critic explains the pafTage ! " Selfkingy*
fays he, " is king o'er HERfelfi one who reigns abfolute
in her bofom." King o'er herfelf may, for any thing I
know, be very good Irijh ; but one would think it ought
to be ^een o'er herfelf, to make it good Englijh. But,
this by the way, I fhould be glad to know if it be poflible
for any perfon who has read but two lines of Shakfpeare,
and has but two grains of common fenfe, to betray flronger
fymptoms of a very imperfect acquaintance with his fenfe,
language, metre, or any thing elfe. As to the metre, the
additional fyllable, though not abfolutely necefTary, per-
haps, is certainly an improvement j the word perfeSiions
muft otherwife have been pronouisced a^ four Xyllables,
vi'hich.
r 16 }
which, though not unufual with Shakfpeare, is far from
being harmonious. As to the fenfe, that is left pretty much
as it was : the compound felf-farne had come into ufe in
Shakfpeares time, inftead of the ancient adjedlivey^^; he
ufes both frequently ; as Mr. Malone, if he will take the
trouble to read him over for the purpofe, may for certainty
knov/. And the meaning of the paflage, if indeed it be at
all neceflary to ex:plain what no one perhaps but Mr. Ma-
lone can poffibly mifconceive, is merely and finaply this :
when thefe fovereign thrones, are all fupplied and fiU'd with
one and the fame king^ i. e. Love.
MACBETH.
Vol. IV. p. 473.
Mach. The prince of Cumberland.
Mr. Steevens having obferved that the crown of Scot-
land was originally not hereditary ; and that when a fuc-
ceflbr was declared in the lifetime of the king, the title of
■prince of Cumberland was immediately beftowed on him as
the mark of his defignation, I took the liberty to queftion
the propriety of this obfervation ; and to aflert, that the
crown of Scotland had been hereditary for ages before Dun-
can — nay, from the very foundation of the Scotifh monar-
chy J that the apparent or prefumptlve heir was always the
known and declared fucceiTor j and that the kings eldejlfon^
or grandfon (/. e. the heir apparent for the time being) alone
was prince of Cumberland, Mr. Steevens had originally
quoted Hollinfned -^ and Mr. Malone, in the revifed edition,
fupports himy by a quotation from Bellendens tranflation of
BoetiuSy which Hollinfhed copied. I have faid that it fhould
leem, from the play, that Malcolm was thefrfl who had the
title o( prince of Cumberla'nd ; and fo it does ; though this
was certainly not the cafe, as Malcolm, fon of Donald VI.
afterwards Malcolm I. is by the Scotifh hiftorians exprefe-
ly affertcd to have born it in the reign of Conftantine III.
6 (an:-:o
I 17 3
(anno 903) who appointed that thenceforward the heir
apparent to the crown of Scotland for the time being fhould
poflefs that country, as his appanage. Shakefpeares mif-
take may be eafily accounted for.
Mr. Steevcns, 1 fee, has added, that *' Cvjnherland was
at that time held by Scotland of the crown or England as a
fi(f;" but I fancy he will find that fiefs were at that t'lme^
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 fufficient number of inftances to juftify his af-
fertion, that one and on are perpetually confounded in the
eld copies, (fo far at leaft, that on is frequently mifprinted
for one) which I confefs, as I was not hunting after fuch
trifles, had efcaped my obfervation : but what end it has
anfwered, fave as an inftance of this ingenious gentlemans
induftry, I am at a total lofs to conceive; as I have fuffici-
ently proved that one, both in and long before Shakfpeares
time, had obtained the fame pronunciation it does at pr«-
fent,
RICHARD THE SECOND,
P. 191,.
Buck, My lord of Hereford, my meflage is to you.
Bolin. My lord, my anfwer is — * to Lancafter.
* It might be a cuftom in Denmark, when the blood royal was
extinft, to eled a fucceffor ; arid to this Hamlet may allude when he
beqtieaths his dying voice to Fortinbras. So in Amadis de Gaule,
i6i8 : " Laucine (king of Svjetia) dying --witkout heires^ Gafqviilin,
beeing knowne in many places to bee one of the moft gentle knights
that the world yeeldcd, was called bj- them of Swetia, and eleiSled to
bee their king." B. iv. c, 17. It may be added, that Gafqiii.lan was
Ion of Laucines filler ; but then it muft be prel'umed that females or
their iffiie were incapable of inheriting the crown of St'Jetia,
D This
f I^ ]
This fignificant dafh appears to have been adopted oif
the credit of the critical acumen of Mr. Malone. As tlie
line was before printed, he obferves, the fenfe was obfcure 5
which, as he, doubtlefs, means to himfelf, we may very
readily believe. Kow this fame dafh was to illumine the
pafTage, we might however have ftill been at a lofs to difco-
ver, if the ingenious commentator had not been pleafed to
explain it for the bene6t of more opaque intellects j which
he does as follows : '* Your meflage, you fay, is to my lord
of Hereford. My anfwer is It is not to him ; it is
to the duke c^ Lancajier,'" Now it is conceived that there
was fcarceiy a Tingle reader of Shakfpeare, fince he firft
begun to be read, excepting this ingenious gentleman,
who could have hefitated a moment at the line as it origi-
nally flood. The fenfe of it at prcfent, indeed, even
though we be edified by the margin.^ feems confined to the
prcfejfed critic.
My lord of Hereford^ fays Berkeley, I have a mefTage
for you. My lord, fays Bolingbroke, I anfwer to no name
but Lancajier ;
And I mirft find that title in your tongue
Before I make reply to aught you fay.
And yet Mr. Malone fancies himfelf fuch a proficient in-
cur author, that he has advertifed, and, as I underfland, is
even about to publifivhis own edition of him; in which we
may expedl to meet with a few hundred fuch proofs of the
editors peculiar lagacity,
P. 198.
Soling. DifparFd my parks and fell'd my forefl woods.
" To difpark;' Mr. Steevens obferves, " is to throw
down the hedges of an enclofare — dijjepia-" which feems
a {grange fort of an explanation of a very common word.
Every £eld is an enclofure ; but no one ever heard of the
uifparking of afield. To difpark is merely to tmpark ; to
make
f 19 ]
make that which was a park a park no more ; and this Is
done by throwing down the pales and laying It open. Mr,
Steevens fays he met with the word in Barrets Di^ionary,
1580. It would be difficult, perhaps, to mention a dic-
tionary in which he could not meet with it.
P. 200.
And when they from thy bofom pluck a flower,
Guard it, I pray thee, with a lurking adder.
'« Guard It^ fignifies here, as in many other places, line
it." Malone.
Mr. Malone is very induftrious hi accumulating inftances
of the ufe of any particular word ; will he be fo good as point
out to us, in his edition, one or two of the fenfes he here
imputes to the word guard? One does not much regard
his opinions or his aflertions, but one Is always glad to fee
his proofs. In the mean time, I fhall be perfuaded that»
by guarding it with a lurking adder, Shakfpeare meant
placing an addej: in the flower by way of guard 3 putting
9, fuldier in it.
P. 227.
Fitz. my rapiers point.
In anfwer to the Remark on this paflage, the Editor of
the revifed edition, or rather his fkulking friend, obferves, that
'* it is probable that Dr. Johnfon did not fee the neceflity
of citing any authority for a fa<Sl fo well known, or fufpedl
that any perfon would demand one. If an authority how-
ever only Is wanted," he fays, "perhaps the following may
be deemed fufficIenC to juftify the Dodlors obfervation, —
*' at that time two other Englifhmen, fir W. Stanley and
Rowland York, got an ignominious name of traytors.
This Yorke, borne in London, v/as a man moil negligent
D 2 and
C 20 ]
and lazy, but defperately hardy; he was in his time the
moft famous of thofe who refpeded fencing, having been
the firf that brought into England that wicked and perni-
cious fdjhion to fight in the fields in duels with a rapier
called a tucke onely for the thurjl. The Englijh having till
that very titne ufed to fight with backe /words, Jlajhing and
cutting one the other armed with targets or bucklers with very
broad weapons, accounting it not to be a manly a£lion to fight
hythrujiing andjiabbing, and chiefiy under the tvajle.^* Dar-
cies Annals of ^een Elizabeth, 410, 1623, p. 223. fub
anno 1587.
" Again, in Bulleines Dialogue between Soarnejfe and
Chirurgi, fol. 1579, p. 20* " There is a new kynd of in-
ftruments to let bloud withall, whych brynge the bloud
letter fome tyme to the gallowes, becaufe hee flryketh to
deepe. Thefeinftruments are called the ruffins tucke and
longfoining rapier ; weapons more malicious than manly.'*
That Dr, Johnfon did not fee the necefllty of citing any
authority to convi£t Shakfpeare of this anachronifm, or
fufpecSl that any perfon v/ould demand one, is as little to
the purpofe as it is true that the fa£l: is well known. If
Dr. Johnfon had been poflelTed of any authority, there can
be no doubt that he would have produced it ; but, howr
ever confident he may be in his aflertions, no one was ever
more ignorant of the manners either of Shakfpeares age
or of the ages preceding it. But ignorant as he v/as, it
would not have been difficult for him to have found autho-
rities, which make as little in his favour as thofe brought
forward in the revifed edition, Dr. Johnfon has taken
upon himfelf to afTert that the Rapier was a weapon not
feen in England till 1599, that is, two centuries after the
time of which Shakfpeare was writing, and two years
after the publication of this identical play ; an aflertion
which the author of the above note, out of his zeal for
the credit of Dr. Johnfon, has pronounced a notorious
fe£Ii and produced what he calls a fufficient authority to
juftify
[ 21 3
juftify it. This authority, however, proves at mofi: no
more than that a rapier, called a tucke " onely for the
thurft," had been introduced by a perfon who was hanged
in 1587, and that " the long foin'ing rapier'''' was a new
kind of inftrument in 1579. ^^^ rapier not called a
iucke, and for fomething more than the thurji or the long
foln, might, for any thing that yet appears to the contrary,
have been an ordinary weapon long before either Yorke *,
Bulleine, or Shakfpeare was born. But fuppofmg it was
not, what then ? Shakfpeare could have made ufe of the
word rapier as a general name for 2if%uord, the fpecies for
the o-enus ; and Dr. Johnfon might with equal propriety
have objefted to Julius Caefars fpeaking Englifli.
Shakfpeare has fo many anachronifms to anfwer for, that
fome people feem to think it is no matter how many, real
or pretended, they add to the number ; which, as his fincere
admirer, I am anxious fhould not be wantonly increafed.
I will not, indeed, afTert, that the rapier was acftually
known in this country under that very name in the time of
king Richard the Second ; but I fhall Certainly think it
fufficient to prove, that it was familiar to us long before the
time at which Shakfpeare wrote ; and let Dr. Johnfons
advocate fiiew why both the poet and his readers have not
a right to prefume it was fo in the times of which he was
writing.
The faft I take to be this : the anc/ent rapier was ^
long two-edged fharp-pointed weapon, effentially different
from that mentioned by Darcy and Bulleine, which was
for the thruji only^ whereas the other was for both blow and
thruji. \n z liotQ io Much ado about Nothing (vol. ii. p.
* It (hould appear from Carletons "Thanliful Remembrance of GoJs
Mercy t 1625, as quoted by Mr. Malone in the notes to the Merry
Wi'ves of Windfor (vol. i. p. 296) that York " was . . famous . . for
bringing in a new kind of fight — to run the point of a rafter into a
mans body. This manner of fight he hroug\\tfrJl into England, &c."
That is, as I underftand it, he did not bring the rapi?r ilfsif IntoEng-
Japd, Ijut only this new manner of fighting with it.
263.)
r a2 ]
263.) Mr. Steevens produces an extra£l from an old ma-
nufcript in the SIcane Library, " which feems," he fays,
'* to be the fragment of a regifter formerly belonging to
ibme of our fchools, where the *' noble Science of Defence
was taught," from the year 1568 to 1583 j" in which we
find the following entry : " Item a challenge playde before
the KiKGS Majestie (Edward VI.) at Weftminfter . .
at feven kynde gf weapons. That is to faye, ... the ra-
pier and TARGET, the rapier and cloh, &c." And in
another place Mr, Steevens, giving an account of this ma-
nufcript, exprefsly tells us that rapier and target,
rapier and doke-i rapier and dagger^ were among the wea-
pons ufed in the fencing fchool. This I fhould conceive
3 fufKcient and fatisfadlory proof, even to the gentleman
who has fo zealoufly undertaken to fupport the random
and groundlefs aiTertion of Dr. Johnfon, that the rapier
alluded to by Shakfpeare was not a long foining tucke onely
for the thurjie ; and that he has not given " to the Englifh
nobles a weapon which was not feen in England till two
centuries afterwards.'*
Independent of this adventitious afliftance, Shakfpeare
Jiimfelf has given fuch a defcription of the rapier he meant,
as could fcarcely be overlooked but by an annotator lefs de-
iirous to illuftrate his author than to fupport the abfurdities
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 fword that has never ftruck a blow in the
field J with a fmooth edge : an exprefllon perfe6lly inappli-
cable to a fmall fword, or Jong foining rapier, onely for ths
thurjl. So in Antony and Cleopatra :
^' To part with unhack'd edges.''*
FIRST
£ ^3 3
PIRST PART OF HENRY THE FOURTH.
Vol. V. p. 313.
1 Car. , • . Charles* Wain is over the new chimney.
Having profefled my obligation to a learned friend for a
Very ingenious etymology oi Charles's //^^zw) I think it proper
to mention that the fame etymology bad been already given
by Dr. Hickes, and is to be found in Thorefbys Ducatus
Leodlenfis ; fo that I have poflibly afcribed to my learned
friend the merit of a difcovery vi^hich he was not intitled to,
and never meant to claim, and for which of courfe he
would be very little obliged to me.
P. 342.
** That the fwcet v/ine, at prcfent called y^rcl, is different Remark
from Falftaffs favourite liquor," the editor is " by no means
convinced." It would indeed be wonderful enough if he
were j as there is nothing more difficult, or rather lefs
pofiiblc, than to convince an Editor — when he is in the
wrong. He is therefor inclined to believe that the Eng-
lifh of our authors time drank Canary^ the fweeteli of wines,
with fugar. I fuppofe they eat their honey with it too.
That the fack^ however, mentioned and meant by Shak-
fpeare is not i\\Qfack of this day, Vvill be evident to all but
the Editor, by a paffage in one of the notes to his own
edition (vol. iv. p. 174.) where it is faid that 3IoU Cuf-
purfey (** a notorious baggage that ufed to go in mans ap-
parel") when brought up to do penance at Pauls Crofs,-
where (lie *' wept bitterly and feemed very penitent," was,
it was afterwards doubted, maudlin drunk, having been
*' difcovered to have tippel'd of three quarts of sack,
before Ihe came to her penance." Let the Editor try if he
can drink one <ja;ART. Falftaff himfclf puts the matter
out of doubt, where, in his enumeration of the excellencies
of
f 24 3
o^his favourite beverage, he exprefsly calls itSherris. (Set
2 Hen. IV. A61 iv. fcene 3.) Indeed, if it yere poifible
for the Editor to be right in his perfuafion, a certain jolly
fellow could never nave fung :
My friend and I we drank tvhole pifs-pots
Full of Sack up to the brim ;
I drank to my friend, and he drank his pot^
So we put about the whim :
Nine bottles and a quart we fwallow'd down our throaty
But hang fuch puny ftps as thefe,
We laid us all along, with our mouths unto the bunj.
And we tipp'd whole hog/heads oiF with eafe*
P^ 375.
^hls is the fecond place in which Mr. Steevens In-
troduces what I conceive a very erroneous explanation
of the word mDuld-warp ; and I flatter myfelf he will not
be offended with an attempt to fet him right. *' The
?nouhl-warp^^ he fays, ''^ is the mole^ fo called becaufe it
renders the furface of the earth tinlevel by the hillocks which
it raifes." It certainly is net fo called from that circum-
flance. The name arifes from, and is exprefiive of the
circumftance of the animals warping^ or turning, the
tnoidd over the furface of the ground, which, is actually the
cafe.
KING HENRY THE FIFTH.
Vol. VI. p. 18.
Cant. — — ~ alfo kin? Lewis the ninth.
Shakfpeare wrote tmth (as the text is novv corrected)
rnd I have contended that he was right, and the alteration
wrong. I fmce find that the latter is in fome refpe6l right
too J and that our old hiftorians (r. e. Fabian, Hollinfiied,
&c.
[ 25 ]
Sic.) are a unit above the French account. I really do
rot know for vh'dt reafon this is fo, but it runs ftrongly in
my nnind that Fabian has fomewhere explained it, though
1 was unable to find the paflage a fecond time.
P. 31.
Living hence.] The Remark upon this paflage being
clear and intelligible, and indeed the only conftrudion it
is capable of, Mr. Malone, with his ufual diffidence, ob-
ferves that " if hence means here, any one word, as Dr.
Johnfon has fomewhere obferved, may (land for another.
It undoubtedly^" he adds, " does not fignify here in the
prefent palTage; and, if it did, it would render what follows,
nonfenfe." And this, it is fuppofed, the learned gentle-
man offers as a convincing argument — and fo indeed it
may be, that he underflands the paflage neither as it is nor
as it fhould be. Why has not he attempted to explain
it ? But, alas, v/e know by experience that fuch attempts,
however they may increafe difficulties, are ill calculated to
remove them.
Not to regard the mifconceptions of this mofl erring
commentator by too formal notice, it may fufBce to enter-
tain the reader with the follov/ing fpecimens of his fingular
fagacity and acutenefs :
As You LIKE IT.
Vol. ili. p. 331. As friend remembered not,
" Reme?nber'd for remeniberi??g. Malone.'*
Midsummer Nights Dream.
Vol.-iii. p. 116. '
*' Make periods in the midft offentences."
" It fhould be obferved, periods in the text is ufed in
the knk oi full fops. Malo:<e.'\
E Nothing
[ 26 ]
Nothing can be more worthy of obfervatlon than fuch
a comment.
Julius C^sar.
Vol. viii. p. 105' they come down
"With fearful bravery^ thinking, by this face,
To faften in our thoughts that they have courage,
" With fearful bravery — ] That is, with a gallant Jbno
of courage f carrying with it terror and difrnay. Fearful is
ufed here, as in many other places, in an ailive fenfe—
producing fear — intimidating. M alone."
How the word fearful may be ufed in otljer places I do
not know : but if it have any meaning at au in this place,
it is fimply full of fear ; and fearful bravery is a fhcw of
courage, hiding a cowardly heart. Anthonys language is
certainly the elTence of terror and difrnay.
In p. 139 of the fame volume, he fays that the word
charge is *' abbreviated in old Englifli MSS. chage" I
think I know enough both of abbreviations and old Eng-
lifli MSS. to enable me to pronounce, that fuch an abbre-
viation of charge is not, nor ever was to be met with in
any.
Troilus and Cressida.
Vol. ix. p. 38. like a ftrutting player, whofe conceit
Lies in his hamftring, and doth think it rich
To hear the xvoodcn dialogue 2.n6. found
'Twixt his fir etched footing and the fcajfoldage,
** The galleries of the theatre, in the time of our author,
were fometimes termed the fcaffclds. Malone."
Shakfpeare alludes to the clamping of the players bufkins
upon they?^^^. The wooden meaning of the note, I fea|^
muft be left to its authors ov/n comprehenfion.
HENRY
[ 27 ]
HENRY THE FIFTH.
Vol. VI. p. 76.
Flu. 'Splood !-— up to the preaches you rafcals ! will you
not up to the preaches I
Piji. Be merciful, great euke, to men of mould.
The abfurdity of this reading is fo evident, and hns been
fo fully expofed in the REiMARKS, that no one, edi'jor or
commentator, has had the confidence to fay a fingle word
in defence of it, except Mr. AJalone, whofe candour and
ingenuity are equally confpicuous.
He quotes a few words from a long note, where it was
faid 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 cafe;" becaufe forfooth the blundering
editors have fuftered the name ol FluelUn to Hand before a
/peech evidently belonging to Exeter :
" Up to the breach, you dogs ! avaunt, you cullions."
Is this the language of Fluellen ? Does Fluellen ever fpeaJc
in heroics ? Or is it poflible that this line, and the pitiful
fl^ufF which the editors have fo judiciously preferred : —
'* 'Splood ! — up to the preaches, you rafcals ! will you
not up to the preaches ?" can belong to one and the fame
perfon ? Certainly not. But then> he argues, " when the
king retired, the duke of Exeter undoubtedly accompanied
him :" And fuppofe he did, what then ? Is he never to
come upon the flage again ?
As to his affertion, that " Z)//X(f means no more here than
commander -f" nothing bad enough can be faid of it. Will
he have the goodnefs to produce one fingJe inftance from
" the language of our author," in wi}ich the title has
any fuch meaning ? *' Duke Thefeia^* every one who has
looked into the Midfumrner Nights Dream, not excepting
himfelf, very well knows, is " Thefeus Duke of Athens ." And
though Skclton or any other ancient writer may have calhd
E 2 Hannibal
[ 28 ]
Hannibal a Duke^ will he venture to fay that any writer
ever gave fuch an appellation to an EngUjh officer ? Thefe
are queftions indeed, which, though X afk, I do not expe£l
Mr. Malone to anfwer : but I fhall be free enough to add,
thnt while fuch critics as he is have the liberty to write
fuch notes as this in the margin of Shale fpeare, it will be
in vain to expedl either honour or juftice done to the au-
thor.
SECOND PART OF HENRY THE SIXTH.
Vol. VI. p. 371.
K. Henry. I thank thee : If 'ell thefe words content mc
much.
In anfwer to the Remark on this pafTage (a Remark vrhich
I have fmce learned is not peculiar to myfelf) the Lditor
fays it has been obferved by two or three commentators,
that it is no way extraordinary the king fhould forget his
wifes name, as it appears in no lefs than three places fhe
forgets it herfelf, calling herfelf Eleanor. It has been alfo
faid, he adds, that if any contraction of the real name is
ufed, it fhould be Meg. And though he allows all this ta
be very true, yet as an alteration 77mjl be made, Theobalds,
he fays, is jujl as good and as probable as any other. He
has, therefor, retained it, and wifhes it could have been
done with propriety without a note.
This to be fure is peren.ptory enough, but I do not fee
how the impropriety of the meafure is lefFened by the in-
fertion of a note. No unprejudiced perfon can hefitatc
for a moment in admitting this conclufion, that as Shak-
fpeare has already inadvertently ufed Eleanor for Margaret
no lefs than three times, fo he here ufes Nell for Meg.
With v/hat reafon therefor can it be faid, that /^//is juft
as <Jood and as probable an alteration as any other : an al-
teration which Theobald, had he noticed the repeated mif-
^ take of Elea-nor for Margaret^ would never have propofed ?
THIRP
\
[ 29 ]
THIRD PART OF K. HENRY THE SIXTH,
P- 4+5-
Gab. The queen, with all the northern earls and lords, Remari
Intend here to bcfiege you in your caftle. P* '^5
In the courfe of my Remark en this paflage, I obferv-
ed, that Richard was " fcarcely more than (if, indeed, fo
much as) nine years old j" I find he was but juft turned
of eight.
P. 489.
A chafe in the North of England.] This fcenlcal direc- Remar
tion is given inftead of that 1 objeded to in the former P* ^28
edition, a wood in Lancafhire. And yet I have fmce met
with convincing evidence that the king was adlually taken
in Lancajhire ; but whether Shakfpeare knew it, is more
than I can tell. The importance of the fadl defer ves a
minute inveftigation,
P. 504-
The ridiculous ftory of Warwicks embafi'y and the Remark
lady Bona, ouglit to be baniihed out of hifl:ory ; and yet P- J-?-
Mr. Hume gives it as circumftantially as if he had found
it in a record : whereas there is ijot even a poilibility of
its having any foundation whatever, as Warwick actually
flood fponfor to the princefs Elizabeth, king Edwards firft
child *. This period of Englifh hiftory is equally interefl-
* Mr. Hume indifputably merits great praife as an elegant and
nervous wnter ; but he has in muneroxis inllances (hewn an evident
difregard to fa6ts, varying and even inventing ciicumftances, for the
mere purpofe, it fiiould feem, of telli: g his ftoi y to greater advantage,
or giving a fort of ronndnefs or point to his periods. For this reafon
his Hiftory is in many parts no more to be regarded than a Romance,
as he neither do'es nor was able to quote any authority for what he
reiates. Among the many inllances which might be adduced in fup-
port
[ 30 3
ing and obfcure : but though I have faid that the rupture
" between the king and his political creator is owing to caufes
which have not reached pofterity, I have fince found that
port of thefe aflertions, I fliall only mention a remarkable anecdoteof
Colonel Kirk, who is Tiippofed to have debauched a young woman, the
fifter (but according to others the wife) of one of the Wcilern rebels,
under a folemn promife to grant her the life of her brother, as the price
of her compliance. In the morning, to gratify her impatience, he in-
fultingly fliews her this beloved brother hangi)ig ppon a gibbet, which
he had lecretly ordered to be erefted before the window (or as fome
fay upon the fgn poft) of his inn. The confequtnce is, that the young
woman goes diilraded, and the colonel to breakfaft. This ftory Mr.
Hume has worked up with all .his powers of eloquence and pathos j
and being fo very interefting, no doubt is ever entertained of its truth.
Although in fa(.% fo far as it regards Kirk or the reign of James the
Second or the Englifii hiftory, it is an impudent and barefaced lye.
Mr. Hume indeed v^as not the fabricator of the falfehood ; but his
condu^ is aot the more excufable on that account, fmce he had no-
thing to warrant it that could deferve the name of an authority, and
a ftory that does outrage to human nature, ought not to be adopted
by a hiftorian without a voucher equal to its incredibility. The origin
of the fable was probably owing to the pious fraud of the Whig party,
to whom Kirk had rendered himfelf fo odious, that they endeavoured
to blacken his character with every action fuperlatively abominable
v/hich they could find recorded. Many lefs important and more pro-
bable calumnies remain unnoticed in the libels of the day ; but this
ftory, and fome other circumftances mentioned by P4r. Hume, fuch as
his hanging 1 9 without the lead enquiry into the merits of their caufe ;
ordering a certain number to be executed, while he and his company
fjiould drink to the king's health ; crying, when he obferved their feet
toihake in the agonies of death, that he would give them mujc to their
dancing. See. which exceed every thing one can conceive of the ex-
tent of human wickednefs, were greedily fwallowed and are become a
part of the Hiftory of England, i do not indeed queftion but that there
are many wives and many fifters who would fliew the very fame degree
of a{Fe6\ion for their hufoands or their brothers j but the other part of
the ftory is out of nature, and can only be credible of an incubus ; as
the utmoft ftretch of infernal malice which religion can teach and bi-
gots credit, could not exceed that which is thus reported of Kirk.
The reader will find the original ftory, related more circumftantiailyy
though not more affeaingly, nor perhaps more truly, in V/anleysWon-
tiers of Ihe little V/orld of Man, 1678, chap, ag. § ig. beginning
*' Charles duke of Burgundy, &c."
Warwick
[ 31 J
Warwick took occafional umbrage at fevcral of the kings
proceedings : As, i. his marrying the queens fifter to the
duke of Buckingham ; 2. his conferring the office of trca-
furer (which he had taken from the lord Montjoy) upon
lord Rivers ; 3. his making a match between the fon and
heir of the lord Herbert and Mary the queens fifter, and
another between the young lord Lif.e and the daughter
of lord Herbert, and creating young Herbert a knight and
lord of Dunftar ; 4. his making a match between fir Tho-
mas Gray, the queens fon, 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-
ccfter, to whom we are indebted for this valuable in-
formation, are moft unfortunately defcilive. 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 accuf-
ed of favouring king Henry, and had fecretly difpleafed the
king by the propofed 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 lift of battles, in p. 130, and 131. may be added,
10. The battle of . . . . (in North Wales) be-
tween Jafper earl of Pembroke (for Lancafter) and
. . . . brother to Wilham 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 CESAR.
Vol. VIII. p. 46.
Cal. And graves have yawn'd, and yielded up their dead.
The Remark on this pafTage having the fjgnature
Collins, thole ftgacious animals the Reviewers difctover-
ed
C 32 ]
cd It to be a quotation from the writings of a learned gen-
tleman of that name, with which they feem fo 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 courfe of the humane treatment my poor literary bant-
ling here has a right to expedit from the mercy of incenfed
butchers. Thefe pious Chriftians (poffibly from their fitua-
tion in this world being as nigh heaven or hell as a garret
or a cellar can make it) feem to confider themfelves as
the public guardians of Religion, and are extremely apt to
take the alarm at every thing in which they are quick-
lighted enough to perceive a reflexion upon their facred
charsie. Poor fellows ! one need not wonder at their
O
anxiety, as they have moft probably nothing elfe to lofe.
In the mean time, every one who had looked over the
notes to the laft edition of Shakfpeare, would immediately
fee with what view the names of Amner and Collins
were adopted in the Remarks.
KING LEAR.
Vol. IX. p. 479.
Edg. Come o'er the bourn, Bejfy, to me.
I have printed what I at the time haftily took to be the
original fong ; but I believe that no more than the four firtt
lines are authentic, and that the remainder is a puritanical
parody ; and as fuch I freely dedicate it To the Critical
Reviewers, for the ufe of any conventicle, Muggletonian
or other, which they are accuftomed to frequent.
FINIS.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES
THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below
JUNl 1S49
WIAR 3 195C
■r, »ioxf 11982
12 m4^y^^p^^^m
MAY 1 4 1954
131964
V.;.
HWGt-UW.
MAY 3 1 1979
Form L-0
10m -3, '39(7752)
-'^cisis
tmiVEiiirirx
liijjLfrA/-
AT
xTrtTfT sm
I
»
5 1158
00455
6451
UC SOUTHFRN RtGIONAI LIBRARY f ACUITY
AA 000 366 370 5
iM
-M \ •'-J-.- ■ /■'