P. 101.

If the editor had followed the practice he imputes to the editor of the second folio, "of altering what­ever he did not understand," we should scarcely have had a single word of Shakspeares left. It is there­for [Page 39]rather fortunate that he has so frequently af­fected 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 mis­print 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 dif­fer from the first. Is this a specimen of the editors accuracy or of his veracity?

P. 269.

These lines have been differently regulated; but [Page 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 dis­syllable lines throughout this harmonious edition.

P. 414.

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

In the Devils name (God forgive me for swear­ing!) 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 disquali­fyed 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 igno­rant of the commonest rules of versification, so totally [Page 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 re­ference 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 [Page 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 construc­tion 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 com­pletely 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 sur­prised 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 War­tons 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 [Page 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 evi­dence 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 distin­guished from a younger,) has a right to bear the fa­mily 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 ac­count of their "true no-meaning," are actually in­capable 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 ques­tion? [Page 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 quar­terings 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 misunder­stood, since he has so strangely misapplyed, the expres­sion, Two of the first; which, in heraldical jargon, always means two objects of the first colour men­tioned; 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 melan­choly proof that our great author sometimes re­tained 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 re­spect 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 [Page 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. Ma­lone 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 ex­plains it, "Begone to the heavens." Now was it possible to imagine that a man who has been labour­ing for eight years, "with unceasing solicitude, to give a faithful and correct edition of Shakspeare" should be so profoundly and completely ignorant of [Page 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 some­what more difficult than he seems to apprehend it would have been to honest Launcelot. In the mean time, every one, but this floundering commen­tator, knows that for the heavens is nothing more than an adjuration, or, as we now say, for the hea­vens 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 explana­tion, 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 edi­tor 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 Shak­speare who had a grain of sense beside himself. A [Page 48]refutation cannot be expected of such peculiar absur­dity. "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 sub­ject. 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 Hiber­nian 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 [Page 49]diffidence and profound knowlege, doubts "whether younker was a word of our authors time." It, how­ever, 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 dissylla­ble."

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

P. 92.

[Page 50]" Swear is here, as in many other places, a dis­syllable."

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 typographi­cal 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 in­terjection. He seems a very pretty grammarian.

P. 145.

Every one who has either ear or eye, will instant­ly [Page 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 in­disputably Shakspeares. The present editor, how­ever, who is in fact, what he would have the other thought to be, "utterly ignorant of our authors phra­seology and metre," omits the article, under pre­tence 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 bag­pipe from a guitar," would be absurd: every other person will see it was utterly impossible for Shak­speare 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 [Page 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 imi­tated:—"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 pene­trating 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.

[Page 53]Our perspicacious editor had some years ago con­jectured that these words had an allusion to some well-known conduit; he has since found his conjec­ture 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. Cor­rected 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 [Page 54]here used as a quadrisyllable. Mr. Pope," he adds, "not perceiving this, unnecessarily reads—Vincen­tio 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 extraordi­nary 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. Ma­lones edition, no one will deny him the exclusive merit of deforming his authors verse in the most ri­diculous 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.' [Page 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 pub­lished 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 dis­syllable." 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

Where 1 be 2 these 3 knaves 4? What 5 no 6 man 7 at 8 do 9-oo 10r.

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 dis­syllable;" 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 criti­cism," 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, suf­fers the former word to remain, but rejects the lat­ter; [Page 58]having no doubt that turns was used as a dis­syllable. 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 dissylla­ble, since a dissyllable there must be, as well as turns, and then, you see, we shall have no need of inter­polating 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.

[Page 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 Malo­nian 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: [Page 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 Mac­beth, p. 270,

P. 454.

" More is here used as a dissyllable."

[Page 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 advan­tage 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 [Page 62]refuted; but if ignorance would suffer him to per­ceive 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 gar­deners 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 per­ceiving 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 [Page 63]written it himself: these discoveries were reserved for a second-sighted Hibernian.

P. 142.

Dr. Johnson, having observed that the improba­bility of this scene is scarcely balanced by the hu­mour, our Irish editor perceives no improbability: asserting roundly that Falstaff does NOT mistake the prince for a bastard of the kings, but means to in­form him at once that he knows him a Poins, not­withstanding 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 [Page 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, "sup­poses, 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 prin­cipal officer of a corporation."—"To render this [Page 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 proba­ble 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 re­quired can only be necessary for one who has every where betrayed the profoundest ignorance of his au­thors 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 identi­cal 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 preva­ricating comment. See the Quip Modest, &c. p. 27.

How unfortunate is it, how injurious to the me­mory [Page 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 con­duct deserves a pillory rather than a pamphlet.

P. 584.

"If Toward," the editor observes, "be not ab­breviated, 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 edi­tor 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 au­thor with his accustomed licence," we should read "our editor with his accustomed ignorance."

P. 22.

"The latter word" being "here used as a dissyl­lable," 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—har­monious I would say.

P. 30

Mr. Steevens having proposed to read—of Mem­phis, as Shakspeare unquestionably wrote, this saga­cious 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. Ed­wards, [Page 68]having observed "that Shakspeare has varied from the truth of history, to introduce this scene be­tween 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 pas­sage from Hall's Chronicle: "During which par­liament [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.—Du­ring 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 Re­marker," that he may be readily allowed to avail him­self 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 [Page 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 pre­ceding 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 Ry­mer, 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 [Page 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 founda­tion. 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 con­sulted; 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 [Page 71]perceive—that whether tickled be a dissyllable, or a trisyllable or a quadrisyllable, cannot make the slight­est difference; the defect of the line being in ano­ther 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 edi­tion 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 com­mentator to abuse what he does not understand. The "anonymous Remarker," confidently if it must be, asserts that the scene in question, in which Ed­ward 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 like­wise 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 edi­tor, 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 Lon­don [Page 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 attack­ing, or his defending himself against, the queen or prince be any breach of his oath. So that the Re­markers 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. ^*

[Page 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 edi­tors; 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 af­terward enumerates months. These two curious dis­syllables it must be confessed, help the metre prodi­giously: 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.

[Page 75]One of the former commentators having, very judiciously, proposed to omit the word lord, our in­genious editor observes that brother, like many simi­lar words, is here used by Shakspeare as a mono­syllable, 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 [Page 76]adopted by all the subsequent editors; though Mar­garets answer evidently refers to the word found in the original copy."

The editor of the second folio seems to have un­derstood 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 an­swer 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 bro­ther George duke of Clarence; and Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of Edward IV. and all her sisters, had a better title than either of them."

[Page 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 PARLIA­MENT: and what better title has the present king? It might as well be said that, when he, by his cham­pion, 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 appre­hend, erroneous." MALONE.

[Page 78]Mr. Malones apprehension arises from his igno­rance 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 Mar­garet 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 sig­nifications, 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 Shak­speares authority,—Norths Plutarch. This, how­ever, 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. Theo­bald."

Having neither Theobalds edition nor the first [Page 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. Ma­lones 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 [Page 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 in­terpolated 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 cer­tainly 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 [Page 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 ex­actly calculated for the meridian of Tipperary. Me­nenius says it is prizes to blanks, something to no­thing, 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," how­ever, "are used by Shakspeare as taking up the time of only one; as whether, either, brother, lover, gen­tle, spirit; &c. and I suppose," concludes this pro­found critic, " council is so used here."

There can be no occasion, I should think, to make [Page 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 con­jecture. 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," Cas­sius 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 fo­reigner [Page 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 ab­surd.

P. 376.

If even, says the editor, be considered as a mono­syllable, the metre, of which to be sure he is an ad­mirable judge, will be defective. But though it is not our authors practice to make this adverb a dis­syllable, yet clearly if we treat it as one, the defect is removed, and the metre exactly suited to "the deli­cate 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 read­ing 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 mo­desty to advance them to the honour of a place in the text. The second folio, from some good autho­rity, 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 me­tre 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." [Page 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, gene­rally 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 im­mediately 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 pub­lished 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: An­tony 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 never­theless 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 de­scribes 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 au­thentic reading in the same way. For, as he has elsewhere justly observed, "If such capricious innova­tions were to be admitted, every line in these plays [Page 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 anno­tator 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 de­fect of the metre," of which he knows as much as a superannuated jack-ass, "shews that something was omitted." Former editors supplyed the mea­sure 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 writ­ten 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 con­tracted into one syllable; and table also was proba­bly [Page 89]used as taking up only the time of a monosylla­ble." 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 pre­sent editor has thus judiciously restored; being un­able 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 cor­ruption, 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 en­thusiasts, supposed to be in thralldom.

P. 63.

[Page 91]Our modest Hibernian, after giving an inter­pretation, which he professes to think wrong, be­cause "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 jocu­larity, and saying that he shall take no further notice of this editors see-saw conjectures, with great gra­vity 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 ar­gument 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, other­wise, 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 [Page 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 com­pare 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 expres­sion 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 alte­ration [Page 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 distinguish­ing history from romance, quotes Geoffrey of Monmouth for "an historical fact." In a subse­quent page (601) he assures us that " Nero is intro­duced 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 hap­pened. 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 mo­nosyllables: ‘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 [Page 95]second folio," he adds, "substituted—My sweet:" which, being an emendation equally just and beau­tiful, 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, evi­dently 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 mis­print.

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 occa­sion, took the hood off.

P. 113.

"Thus," he says, "the first quarto. In the sub­sequent 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.’

[Page 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 con­sequence 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 com­mentator elegantly observes, "asks "was the rela­tionship [Page 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 Ho­ratio 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 learn­edly. 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 [Page 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, "ac­cording 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, [Page 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 con­sistent 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 cha­racter 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.