"the men, but muft fit in a corner and cry heigh-ho for a "hufband."

Vol. III. Page 234.

BENE. How now! Interjections? Why then, fome be of laughing, as ha! ha! he!

This paffage, fays our editor, is a quotation from the "Accidence ;' doubtlefs to remind us that Shakespeare's learning did not reach higher than Lilly's Grammar, of which he had before taken notice; or perhaps to fink the fame of his erudition, if poffible, ftill lower, and to level it with that of Taylor, the water-poet, who

Having read from poffum to poffet,

There made a ftop, and could not farther get.

Vol. III. Page 237.

CLAUDIO. O hero! what a Hero hadft thou been,
If half thy outward graces had been placed

About the thoughts and counfels of thy heart.

I am afraid, fays our editor, here is intended a poor con* ceit upon the word Hero.'

Didft thou really exprefs thy fears or thy hopes, Dr. Johnfon, on this occafion? Did you not mean to express by this fuggeftion rather what you would have the reader believe, than what you yourself actually believed to be true?-You will ask me, in your turn, probably, what right I have to catechife you? It is very true, I am too young a catechifer to question, in general, fuch a veteran of a catechumen. But I have undertaken the cause of Shakespeare, and muft tell you it carries with it a very invidious appearance, and is by no means candid, to infinuate any charge against him, couched in whatever terms you please, that you cannot prove to be true. For my part, I fhall think Shakespeare always innocent, till I can prove him guilty; and it had better become you, as his editor, to have done so too; and not to have cloathed thus

your

your injurious fufpicions in the fpecious garb of tenderness and friendship. -Out with fuch half-faced fellowship!

ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL.

PAR.

Vol III. Page 319.

Here comes the King.

LAF. Luftick, as the Dutchman fays.

It is whimfical enough that our editor, who thinks it neceffary, even in this very volume, to inform his readers, that Oftentation means fhew, appearance, &c. that port fignifies look, demeanour, carriage, &c. that to broke with, is to deal like brokers; with many other curious and learned pieces of information, of equal difficulty and importance, should be as totally filent as the reft of the commentators about the meaning of the word luftick. Suppofing he had not underftood the meaning of it himself, could he have turned to none of the old Nederduitfchen Woorden-boeken that furnished him with etymologies for his dictionary? Some of them, I warrant him, would have told him that luftig fignifies hearty, chearful, &c. and is aptly spoken by Lafeu, at feeing the King fo well restored to his health, and able, as he expresses it, to lead his female doctress a corranto.

:

Our commentators here put me in mind of the Scotch pedler, who, turning pedagogue, was now and then puzzled at his pupil's boggling at a hard word on which occafion he would always peevishly cry out, the deel tak thir laytin and grik; skip it, bearn, skip it.

Vol. III. Page 323.

KING. Where great addition swells, and virtue none,
It is a dropfied honour; good alone

Is good, without a name vileness is so:
The property by what it is fhould go,
Not by the title.

Dr.

Dr. Warburton condemns the text here, and fays it is corrupted into nonfenfe; he then gives us, as ufual, fome worfe nonsense of his own; and Dr. Johnfon, as ufual, inferts his annotation, confeffing that he hath himself nothing, or very little better than nothing, to offer.-The former fcholiaft proceeds thus,

"Is good without a name. Vilenefs is fo. The text is here "corrupted into nonfenfe. We should read,

"Is good; and, with a name, vileness is fo.

«i. e. good is good, though there be no addition of title; and "vileness is vileness, though there be. The Oxford editor, "understanding nothing of this, ftrikes out vileness, and puts " in its place in'tself."

Dr. Johnson says, 'The prefent reading is certainly wrong; and, to confefs the truth, I do not think Dr. Warburton's emendation right; yet I have nothing that I can propose ⚫ with much confidence. Of all the conjectures that I can make, that which least displeases me is this:

virtue alone,

• Is good without a name; Helen is so;

the reft follows eafily by this change.'

The author of the Revifal feems to understand the passage better than either of the doctorial critics just mentioned. He tells us the common reading is,

Is good without a name; vileness is so:

"the meaning of which, fays he, one would imagine should "be pretty plain. Good fingly by itself, without the addi"tion of title, is good ftill; it is the fame thing with vile⚫ nefs. It takes its nature from itself, and not from exter"nal circumftances, as title and the like. And this inter

pretation

દ

pretation is given by the poet himfelf, in the lines imme diately following,

The property by what it is fhould go, "Not by the title.

"Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Warburton mistook the "meaning, and then murdered the text."

As to Dr. Johnfon's conjectural emendation, it ferves to no other purpose than to betray how barren he is at conjectures. I conceive, nevertheless, that our editor hath reftored the true pointing, though it differs from that of his rival scholiaft. But whether this be due to cunning or good luck, I cannot pretend to fay, unless I knew to whom to attribute the honour of correcting the prefs, the editor or the printer. The meaning I think is obvious, and the paffage may be paraphrased thus: good by itself is good, and even so, if unadorned by titles, vilenefs were vileness.

I do not propose this improvement of the Revifer's expla nation with any great confidence, nor merely for the fake of differing from that very fenfible writer; but because I think there is fome little tautology in faying good by itself is good, and then to add without a name; for certainly if it was by itfelf, alone, it was without any thing else.

To the dark houfe, and the detefted wife.

To the dark houfe,-] The dark houfe is a house made gloomy by discontent. Milton fays of Death and the King ⚫ of hell preparing to combat,

So frown'd the mighty combatants, that hell

• Grew darker at their frown.' JOHNSON.

I know not how this quotation from Milton illuftrates the text, unless we are to fuppofe that Bertram, or Shakespeare, had read Milton: or unless our editor meant to justify the poetry

"

poetry of Shakespeare, by the authority of Milton. But not to infift on Shakespeare's ftanding in no need of fuch fuffrage, the allufion of darkness to the gloom of difcontent would be unexceptionable, even in the meaneft of our minor poets. The whole line, however, hath, in my opinion, only a general allufion to the common faying of a fmoky house and a fcolding wife; which, with a little alteration, and ftill preserving an alliteration, Bertram converted to ufe on the prefent occafion.

HELENA. Look on this letter, Madam; here's my paff

port.

When thou canst get the ring upon my finger, which never ·Shall come off; and fhew me a child begotten of thy bady that I am father to, then call me husband: but in fuch a Then I write a Never.

The commentators feem to be fadly puzzled to explain this letter; the meaning of which could not poffibly be miftaken by any one who should read the play quite through. Dr. Warburton's note runs thus:

"When thou canst get the ring upon my finger.] i. e. When "thou canft get the ring, which is on my finger, into thy "poffeffion. The Oxford editor, who took it the other way, "to fignify, when thou canft get it on upon my finger, very fagaciously alters it to, When thou canst get the ring from "my finger."

Dr. Warburton's explanation is undoubtedly as well founded as the Oxford editor's is ftrange and inconfiftent. Dr. John.. fon, indeed, fays, that he thinks Dr. Warburton's explana⚫tion fufficient; but, continues he, I once read it thus, • When thou canst get the ring upon THY finger, which never fball come off MINE."

Will the reader believe me, when I tell him, after this, that the meaning of the paffage in difpute is not only ascer

Q 2

tained