Page images
PDF
EPUB

ternal and external use of oil; and two cafes are related, in which this method was tried; in one of which the patient recovered.

Although the utility of these feveral methods have not yet been fufficiently established, there is reafon to hope, from the fpirit for investigating the fubject which now prevails, fome folid advantage will at length be derived; we, therefore, think the editor of this work, as well as the other gentlemen who have fo laudably stood forward with their fuggeftions, deferving of the thanks of the public.

ART. III. The Plays of William Shakspeare, in 15 Volumes. With Notes by Samuel Johnfon and George Steevens. The 4th Edition.

WE

[Concluded from No. I. page 61.]

E cheerfully resume our attention to Mr. Steevens, with many acknowledgments for the pleasure and advantage we have received from his labours. The two firft volumes of this publication have afforded many fubjects of remark; thofe that remain, as they contain much lefs of new matter, will not long detain us, except in fuch a curfory notice as we are able to give to the notes of fo extensive a work. We shall proceed as we have begun, feduced by no authority of names, nor at the fame time, as we truft, wanting in respect to any.

In a work containing throughout abundant and very various information, every part of which may be wanted by the readers, in many paffages befides those to which it happens to be subjoined, nothing can be more useful than such an index as we find at the end of the 3d. volume of this edition, under the title of gloffarial index. It gives, moreover, an opportunity of comparing the author with himself, which is frequently the only method of becoming fully fatisfied about his meaning. Such an index, though without that name, was fubjoined to Mr. Reed's edition of Dodfley's Collection of Old Plays; and has been of the greatest use to those who wifhed to become acquainted with the language of thofe times, and to illustrate that of Shakspeare by the ufage of his contemporaries. At the end of Mr. Malone's late edition of Shakspeare, is alfo a gloffarial index'; from which that now before us feems to differ only in being more copious, in the proportion of at least two to one. We have no doubt that, by means of these affiftances, the language and phrafeology of Shakspeare will be much more generally understood; and we trust the time may come, when an

edition

edition from the original text, with the original orthography, and containing nothing by way of illuftration but the various readings, may not be abfolutely unfaleable. Such an edition. would tend greatly to advance the ftate of Shakspearian criticifm: as it alfo requires, perhaps, fome advance before it can be cordially received.

Befides this Index, we perceive no large addition in the fubfequent volumes, except the differtation of Mr. Malone on Henry VI. in vol. x. and the play of Pericles in vol. xiii. Some illuftrations of particular plays appear, indeed, for the first time in their proper places here; fuch as the old poem of Romeus and Juliet, fubjoined to Romeo and Juliet; but, as thefe have frequently been published before, to expatiate upon them is unneceffary.

As Mr. Malone's late edition, from which the differtation on Henry VI. is reprinted, appeared long before our critical exiftence commenced, we cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of noticing it particularly, at its prefent re-appearance: in doing which, as we again find the two mafter critics at variance, we fhall without hesitation take the fide to which conviction calls us; led, as in former inftances, not ftudio partium, but studio veritatis.

On the first appearance of Mr. Malone's differtation, his hypothefis ftruck us as one of thofe completely fortunate difcoveries which fubfequent enquiry muft for ever tend to elucidate and confirm. That in the three plays entitled the Three Parts of Henry VI. there is much well worthy of Shakspeare, and much more totally unworthy of him, is what every reader, not wholly deftitute of tafte, muft furely feel; but to difcriminate throughout the parts that belonged originally to him, from thofe that were the work of other hands, required a most minute and patient examination of the whole, conducted with fuch fagacity as it is the lot of but a few to poffefs. Mr. Malone's opinion is (as fome readers will require to be informed) that the firft part of Henry the Sixth is altogether the performance of some other writer; and that the fecond and third were altered, corrected, and much enlarged by Shakspeare. Thefe pofitions every confideration that has occurred to us,, from that time to this, appears to corroborate; but Mr. Steevens thinks otherwife; and Mr. Steevens, we confefs, is great authority. Yet the manner in which this opinion comes out, and the circumftances that tend to fupport it, are fuch, undoubtedly, as give it confiderable weight. Of the first part no 4to original exifts; though it was certainly most natural, if they were the work of one author, and produced fucceffively by him, that they should have partaken the fame fate, Of the fecond

and

and third parts, or fomething like them, there are old quartos, prior to the first folio, but under very different titles: the for mer of these two being denominated a First Part. This certainly tends to feparate thern ftill further from the prefent first part. Theobald could fee that all these plays had much in them that could not be attributed to Shakspeare, and Theobald could conjecture that he might have finished and beautified them, but Theobald made no difcovery. Warburton pronounced a general fentence of abjudication againgst them. The truth was referved for Mr. Malone to find. The 4to. editions of the 2d. and 3d. part differ extremely from the folio: this was to be accounted for. The only probable conjecture yet formed upon the subject was that of Dr. Johnson, that they had been taken down haftily by fome auditor, and thus made up imperfectly by filling up omiffions now and then and it has been fatisfactorily proved, that fuch methods were practifed. But Mr. Malone has, we think, abfolutely demonftrated that this was not the cafe. For nothing can be more certain, than that fuch a play-stealer would not infert a multitude of lines and thoughts that he never heard at all; yet these supposed memorandums differ almoft as often in that way, as by deficiency. It remains to fuppofe that they were Shakspeare's own rough draught: but this notion even Dr. Johnson gave up as improbable, before he formed the other furmife. But what has Mr. Malone done? he has compared the quartos throughout with the folio, and he has difcovered that the lines added in the latter are all fuch as are more worthy of Shakfpeare than any other part of these dramas, and more in his own ftyle; that those of the 4to. which are wanting there are fuch as judgment and genius would naturally reject; and that many others are evidently altered and improved: all these circumftances he has taken the pains to difcriminate, and to read the plays, in his mode of printing them, is, in our opinion, to be convinced. To the ftrong arguments adduced by Mr. Malone on thefe heads, we do not find that Mr. Steevens has oppofed any reasoning; he has only expreffed his diffent.

With refpect to the first part, which Mr. Malone confiders as bearing no refemblance to the ftyle of our author, Mr. Steevens refers us to his notes on that play, for proofs that there are refemblances. We have carefully examined his notes with this view, and we find that thefe fimilarities, a very few excepted, are reducible to proverbial expreffions; to words, Shakspearian indeed, but common to all the writers of his times; or to fuch coincidences of expreffion, as are almost unavoidable in authors near the fame period treating

fimilar

fimilar topics and to these more might, perhaps, be added; as this,

"God knows thou art a collop of my flesh." P.658.

faid by a man of his daughter. So Leontes, in the Winter's Tale, fays of his fon,

"Sweet villain!

"Most dear'ft! my collop."

A&t i. Sc. ii.

Yet the Notes fhow that this was one of thofe expreffions, which, though harfh in our ears, was current in that day, and common property. Thefe examples, therefore, though much multiplied, would not amount to proof; and even those that feem to fhow more decifive marks of the fame hand, of which we will confefs there are a very few (as in p. 593. 622. 627. 635.), may more easily be accounted for by other means, than admitted as evidences that Shakspeare wrote the whole.* The great question is, whether the general ftyle, verfification, and conception, be not unlike the work of Shakspeare? the anfwer is moft clearly, that in none of these he can there be traced. Monotony of verfe, with profaic dulnefs of ftyle and conception, prevail throughout. It is not Shakspeare as yet unexperienced, but what never could have risen to be Shakspeare, pedantic incapacity never deviating into beauty. Was the imagination of our poet moft torpid, when thofe of other men are brightest, in youth? it cannot be imagined. The firft part is throughout a dreary wafte: in the others, the retouchings of Shakspeare, on the imperfect materials he had to work upon, are often the moft delightful in the world. Mr. Malone has given a most brilliant inftance, in his Differtation, p. 432. It is not neceffary to look far for others. The whole of Glofter's famous foliloquy on himself is very remarkable: it is extended from 30 lines to 72, by the infertion of many beautiful verses, and admirable thoughts; and yet fome in the fhorter foliloquy are omitted in the longer. We will give a fhort fpecimen from the beginning of it, and leave the reader to compare the rest; which he may do by means of Mr. Steevens's edition of the 20 quarto plays, without poffeffing the quartos themselves. Old quarto:

"I, Edward will ufe women honorably.
"Would he were wafted marrow, bones and all,

* Mr. Steevens himself has owned that "there is scarce one Eng"lish tragedy but bears fome flight internal resemblance to another.' Differtation on Pericles, p. 620. «For

"That from his loynes no iffue might fucceed,
"To hinder me from the golden time I looke for,
"For I am not yet lookt on in the world.

"First there is Edward, Clarence, and Henry,
"And his fonne, and all they looke for iffue
"Of their loynes, ere I can plant myself."

Now hear Shakspeare :

"Ay, Edward will ufe women honourably.

"Would he were wafted marrow, bones, and all,
"That from his loins no hopeful branch may spring,
"To cross me in the golden time I look for!
"And yet between my foul's defire and me,
"(The luftful Edward's title buried)

"Is Clarence, Henry, and his fon young Edward,
"And all th'unlookt for iffue of their bodies,
"To take their room, ere I can place myself.”

P. 313.

We will confefs, that the original lines of the fecond and third part are often much fuperior to those of the firft, and fuch as Shakspeare might adopt, yet they are often also, as we fee above, execrably bad, and fuch as Shakspeare, in his boyish days, probably would not have written.

We have dwelt on this question without fear of fatiguing the reader, feeling it one of the most interesting of all that have been started concerning our great poet. We will now at length difmifs it, and proceed to fuch other matters as we think it right to notice. Among these we cannot omit the play of

PERICLES PRINCE OF TYRE:

On which, however, our obfervations fhall be brief, as the controverfy upon it has been at length (what is very uncommon in controverfies) decided by confent of parties. The evidences external, that it was attributed to Shakspeare, and internal, that his hand is difcoverable in it, are allowed to be ftrong. Mr. Malone long held, that it was entirely the work of our Bard: Mr. Steevens contends for an opinion fimilar to that of his an-. tagonist on the two latter parts of Henry VI. " that the purpurei panni are Shakspeare's, and the reft the production of "fome inglorious and forgotten play-wright." P. 630. To this latter opinion, after difcuffing it to the utmost, Mr. Malone has at length, with a liberality which does him immortal honour, a liberality almost unheard of in the annals of criticism, (but which we hope to fee hereafter imitated by his rival on the preceding topic), unequivocally fubfcribed. His own differtations on the oppofite fide he therefore fuppreffed in his edition; which however Mr. Steevens has now brought forward again,

as

« PreviousContinue »