In taking our leave of this work, we cannot fupprefs the feelings of admiration and pleafure which the revifal of it has excited for, though we cannot follow the Abbé in all the latitude of his opinions, we think him entitled to the warmest applaufe, for the bold and intrepid fpirit with which he stands forth as the advocate of mankind, to fupport their rights againft the invafions of tyranny and inhumanity. Concerning the tranflation, our duty to the Public obliges us to remark, that the purchafers of the former edition feem to have an equitable claim upon the publisher, for an Appendix, containing every material correction, or addition, in this; the task would be eafily executed, in the form of Notes referring to the volumes and pages of the laft edition; and fuch an Appendix would, furely, repay the expence of publication. ART. II. Remarks Critical and Illuftrative, on the Text and Notes of the laft Edition of Shakspeare. Svo, 5s. 3d. Boards. Johnfon. 1783. TH his-felf" long un HE author of these remarks cannot keep known, as his fpelling and phrafeology will always betray "theirfelves." Thefe pages are evidently the production of the ingenious writer, who employed his pen fome time ago, in detecting fome errors in Warton's Hiftory of Poetry. See Review Feb. 1783. . 186. P. But why does fuch a spirit of petulance predominate in this author's compofitions? Why is every objection made with a fneer, and every conjecture ftated with an ill-natured wish to detract from the merit due to former Commentators? We are always happy when we find occafion to praise liberality and politeness in difputants, and cannot but lament, that the writer of thefe remarks has not a claim to our commendations, on this account. Our Author, undoubtedly, poffeffes abilities and knowlege; but then, in his prefent work, almost every Annotator on the writings of our great dramatic luminary is charged with negligence, or ignorance. They are condemned, without mercy or difcrimination. An apology, indeed, is attempted, in the preface, but furely the fcurrility of former Editors fhould rather have been cenfured and avoided, than imitated. Speaking of Dr. Johnfon, in his preface, he fays, that Theobald, the best of Shakespeare's editors, experiences as much fcurrility and injuflice at his hands, as Hanmer and Warburton, the worst of them, do deference and respect. For this, however, the learned critic might have his private reafons, which as they could fcarcely have juftified his conduct, he did right to conceal.' This is furely a very extraordinary affertion, for we cannot easily conceive, how Dr. Johnfon fhould be actuated, by private reafons, in his remarks on Theobald; much less can we grant, that these reafons, if fuch exift, would not have juftified his conduct. The field of conjecture is wide; but Writers should remember, that it is not without boundaries. The The respect which this author fhews for Theobald's memory may, perhaps, be attributed to the fimilarity of track, which these commentators feem to purfue. We muft in juftice, however, cry Hyperion to a Satyr.' The efforts of piddling Theobald,' cannot bear any comparison with the acuteness of his commender. The concluding paragraph of the Preface is more gentle. To controvert the opinions, or difprove the affertions of mr. Steevens, dr. Farmer and mr. Tyrwhitt, men no less remarkable for their learning and genius than for their obliging difpofitions and amiable manners, has been a painful and odious task. But wherever the writer has been under the neceffity of differing from any of these gentlemen either in point of opinion or in point of fact, he will not be found to have expreffed hisfelf in a manner inconfiftent with a due fenfe of obligations and the profound eft refpect. Such, at least, was his intention, fuch has been his endeavour, and fuch is his hope.' But even this Writer's civilities wear an awkward appearance. In one of his notes, he fays of Mr. Steevens: the learned critics heterodoxical obduracy increases in proportion to the blaze of gofpel evidence, on the other fide, which muft enforce conviction upon every mind not predetermined to think otherwife.' Who can poffibly read this paffage, and not inftantly allow, that the profoundest refpect,' is clearly to be traced, and that no partiality to pride of place' can be discovered. But furely the Writer, who inferts a note from Collins, about the New Teftament, fhould not talk of Gospel evidence. We could enumerate feveral inftances of the fame fevere language being used, by this Remarker, in fpeaking of thofe commentators, for whom he acknowledges, that he has fome refpect. But as our author frequently displays great critical abilities, we fhall tranfcribe fome of his notes, and refer our readers to others. FIRST PART OF HENRY THE SIXTH. P. 255. 68 York. And I am lowted by a traitor villain." A lout is a country fellow, a clown. He means that Somerset treats him like a bind. Dr. Johnson had better let fuch words alone, as he does not understand. Lowted, in his dictionary, is overpowered CORIOLANUS. "Menenius. A letter for me? It gives me an eftate of seven years health; .. the most fovereign prescription in Galen is but empiric, and, to this preservative, of no better effect than a horse drench.' ... The old copy, mr. Steevens tells us, reads-is but empirick qutique-af which, he fays, the reader must make what he can. This, to be fure, is one way for an editor to get rid of difficulties by transferring them to his readers. The prefent inftance, however, fortunately happens to be none. The moft fovereign prescription in Galen, fays Menenius, is, to this news, but empiricutic :-an adjective evidently formed by the author from empiric (empirique, F.) a quack.' ROMEO AND JULIET. P. 68. Mercutio. A pox of fuch antick, lifping, affecting fantasticoes." Z4 Thus Thus the old copies, fays mr. Steevens, and rightly. The modern editors, adds he, read phantafies. The folio, however, which is generally looked upon as an old copy, does NOT read fantasticoes; and Heminge and Condell, who are not ufually ranked among modern editors, read phantacies.' p. 78. "Nurse. Doth not rofemary and Romeo begin with a letter? Rom. Ay, nurfe; what of that? both with an R. Nurse. Ah, mocker! that's the dog's name. R is for the dog. No; I know it begins with fome other letter." The old reading appears to be-R is for the no, I know it, begins with fome other letter. The alteration adopted was propofed by mr. Tyrwhitt, and is certainly fuperior to either dr. Warburtons (Thee? no) or dr. Johnfons (the nonce) not but the old reading is as good, if not better, when properly regulated, e.g. Ah, mocker! that's the dog's name. R is for the-no; I know it begins with fome other letter. In any cafe the long notes preceding mr. Tyrwhitts might be well fpared, being now wholly impertinent to the text.' The remarks on Hamlet, in page 215, and on "mr. Steevens's Note," on Horatio's fpeech, after the death of the prince, deferve an attentive perufal. Being, however, too long to transcribe, we must refer to the book. But when we find fo much knowledge of the English language, and fuch critical acumen, in feveral of these notes, we cannot help exclaiming, why is the fterling ore debased with so much alloy? Why are we compelled to contraft ingenuity with want of candour? To felect the notes, in which an unjustifiable afperity, and licentiousness of language predominate, would fill too much of our review, without affording fufficient amufement to our Readers.-We cannot, however, help obferving, that the Author does not always display equal care in his remarks. Of the two following notes, one might have been omitted. HENRY THE SIXTH, FIRST PART, Am fure, Ifcar'd the dauphin, and his trull.” 'Mr. Steevens believes that trull did not anciently bear so harsh an interpretation as it does at prefent. An opinion for which the learned commentator does not feem to have fufficient authority. In Shakfpeares time, and long before, it fignified a firumpet, a harlot, as it evidently does in the text. Neither will the fingle inftance brought by mr. Steevens prove the contrary. In the ancient morality of The iiij elements, a fellow fays: For to fatisfy your wanton luft I shall apoynt you a trull of trust, Again, in the old maygame of Robin Hode: She is a trul of truft, to serve a fryer at his luft.' The reft of this note contains fome juft reflections on the characters of the Maid of Orleans and the Dauphin; but as they are not to our prefent purpofe, we omit them. ANTONY ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. P. 216. "Mec. And gives his potent regiment to a trull" Trull. dr. Johnson fays, was not, in our author's time, a term of mere infamy, but a word of flight contempt, as wench is now. It may be difficult to know what the learned commentator conceives to be a term of mere infamy. But thus much is certain, that trull, in the age of Shakspeare, fignifyed a ftrumpet, and so he ufes it." It should not however, be forgotten, that in one place he has an opportunity of degrading Steevens, and in the other, of ridiculing Johnson. In p. 64, he might have told us, that foup is the common Scotch word for a mug, or beer measure, and not for a bowl, as Mr. Steevens imagines. In Scotland, they fay, a pint foup, as we do, a quart pot. In p. 66, he affents to Mr. Steevens, who explains the word bent, by rated, fcolded, and abused; although in page 13, he had told us, that it fignifies, murdered, ruined, undone. Our author has likewife kindly published his political tenets *, as part of his remarks on the last edition of Shakspeare. "Rom. O here P. 155. Will I fet up my everlasting reft." This, again, is a quibble between the implement formerly ufed by foot foldiers, and the certain quiet of a future ftate. The writer of thefe notes will here take occafion to obferve, as one of the many great excellencies of this immortal bard, that no author, ancient or modern, ever facrificed lefs to the reigning superstition of the time than his felf. Whatever may be the temporary religion, Popish or Protestant, Paganism or Christianity, if its profeffors have the flightest regard for genius or virtue, Shakspeare, the poet of nature, addicted to no fystem of bigotry, will always be a favourite. There never was but one fet of men who profefsed open enmity to his name and writings, and they were, at the fame time, the declared and most virulent enemies of literature and morality, in every fhape: It is fcarcely neceffary to add the mention of the barbarous enthufiafts of the last century; one, and perhaps the best founded of whose charges against that great and good monarch whom they fo favagely murdered, was-his intimacy with the writings of WILLIAM SHAKSPEARE!!!. -The circumftance would, at this time, at leaft, pass unnoticed in fuch a miscreant as Cooke, to whom a hatred of letters was as natural as it was to his more illustrious predeceffor Jack Cade: but when we fee Milton-the fublime Milton-infifting upon the enormity of this amiable trait in the character of his murdered and libeled fovereign-our contempt for and detestation of the act is equaled by our furprize to find him the affaffin.' * From the admiflion of Collins's note into thefe remarks, the author's religious tenets may be gueffed. Many Many of the notes are very frivolous; fome are the offspring of falfe tafte; and not a few seem to have been written merely to contradict former commentators. They do not convince. With an equal inclination to condemn, but not with equal abilities, did Kenrick, many years ago, attempt to crush the reputation of Johnson's Shakspeare. He examined the notes on the Comedies, and on King John, and, perhaps, would have completed his defign, if he had not difcovered, that it is in vain to write, when none will read. It is, however, worthy of remark, that there are not above three or four of the Doctor's notes which are cenfured by both these literary Drawcanfirs. May we not conclude then, that Kenrick allowed, what this writer has condemned, and that this writer did not blame, what Kenrick has fo feverely doomed to oblivion ? What was the fate of Kenrick's notes? They foon went What will be the fate of this new Annotator's remarks ?- -Oh! he tells us "hisfelf," he will tranfplant them into a new Edition of Shakspeare, in which Readers may expect all that can render his plays more intelligible, and more an object of universal admiration! In this fpecimen the Author exhibits more knowlege than taste, and lefs candour than either. So that, on the whole, we are apprehensive, that this new Edition, if it ever appears, will only add one more to thofe formerly published, and that the text will neither be determinately fettled, nor fully underflood. Let the critic then remember, how many Editions are condemned to the Hedge-Bookfellers fall, or to the dusty fhelves, in the libraries of the curious. Caveat Editor! ART. III. Adelaide and Theodore: or, Letters on Education; containing all the Principles relative to three different Plans of Education ; to that of Princes, and thofe of Young Perfons of both Sexes. Tranflated from the French of Madame la Comteffe de Genlis. Izmo, 3 Vols. 9s. fewed. Cadell. 1783. LANS education which appear the most brilliant in P'defeription, are not always the most eligible in practice. Rouffeau's Emilius was an ingenious and amufing tale; but it propofed a mode of education, which it is impoffible, in common fituations, to execute. Objections of the fame kind seem to offer themselves upon the first perufal of the plan laid down by Madame Genlis, (See Rev. June 1782, Foreign Art.) for it fuppofes the parents to devote themselves entirely to their children, and to submit to a kind of feclufion from the world which is feldom either eligible or practicable; and, at the fame time, requires, that they be poffeffed of intellectual and moral endowments, in a degree which falls to the lot of few individuals. But, though it may not be practicable to follow the track marked out in thefe letters, a great variety of hints may be drawn |