proportion of good sense) lead to a most unjust and partial estimate of the value of such knowlege or attainment. Thus, the passion for collecting rare specimens of antient literature, though at first dictated by no persuasion of the intrinsic worth of each article, will seldom exist for any long time without perverting the taste of the collector; who, independently of the force of habit, is not very forward to acknowlege that his time and his purse have been consumed in the pursuit of a phantom, and in the acquisition of such trash as any man in sound health of mind would be ashamed of receiving into his library.

The mischief, however, does not end here; or it would be comparatively very trifling indeed. The passion for rarityhunting, as long as the effects of it are confined to those who are actually engaged in the pursuit, is deserving not only of toleration, but, to a certain extent, of encouragement. Among the heaps of stuff which it is the cause of perpetuating or dragging into a second life, it is hard indeed if sometimes a literary treasure be not rescued by it from unmerited oblivion. The rarity of a book, it must be acknowleged, is only prima facie evidence of its want of merit; and it is possible that, out of many hundreds which are scarce only because they are worthless, some two or three may have fallen into neglect through the influence of circumstances unconnected with their intrinsic value while a much larger proportion, though on their own account as little deserving of perpetuity as the most despicable of the whole number, may nevertheless reflect some useful lights on antiquity, or contain some important comment on works superior to themselves. As long as jewels are now and then to be found on a dung-hill, those who will take the pains of raking it ought not to be discouraged from their task; even though, in the ardour of the search, they lose all power of discrimination, and pick up dead Whiting's eyes as carefully as diamonds. The only abuse to be deprecated is that the preposterous value, set by collectors on the fruits of their industry, gradually influences the tone of public opinion, and tends to the confusion and subversion of all sound and acknowleged principles of criticism.

Of this corrupt taste, we are inclined to adduce, as striking instances, all the overstrained panegyrics which it is the fashion to lavish on the works of our older dramatists. It is not the voice of prejudice, but the voice of nature herself, that has elevated Shakspeare to a height which it would be the excess of vain and presumptuous folly to claim for any dramatic writer before or after him, or any of his contemporaries. In speaking of the latter, it is not too much to aver that not one of them, in the very happiest effort of his genius, can really sustain a moREV. MARCH, 1812.

R

ment's

ment's comparison with that great and surprizing poet. It is not because in some one expression, or speech, or scene, Fletcher may be equally harmonious, or Massinger equally majestic, or Jonson equally characteristic, or Ford equally pathetic, that therefore Fletcher, or Massinger, or Jonson, or Ford, is worthy of being ranked with Shakspeare in all or any of those several qualities:- but even were it otherwise, and could it be admitted for a moment by any man of just feeling that Shakspeare has an equal or even a rival in each of them, still the union of all in one sets him at an incalculable distance above the heads of those dramatists, and renders all thought of general comparison as absurd as the vain swelling of the Frog in Esop. Moreover, in one much higher quality than all those united, Shakspeare must be admitted to stand not only unequalled, but alone, and unapproachable by any of his contemporaries. It is that exquisite perception of moral and natural fitness, which accompanies him in all situations, even (if the expression may be used) in his very absurdities; since, even as to these,-how muchsoever we may regret their introduction with a view to our critical rules of unity and congruity, we can never say that they are out of nature, that they tend to embarass the fable, or, still less, to weaken our interest in the characters. Some persons (we cannot allow ourselves to be of the number) might wish to banish Hamlet's GraveDiggers, Macbeth's Porter, or Lear's Fool:- but none cau pretend that the melancholy Prince, the ambitious usurper, or the distracted father, are in any respect contaminated by their association with these, possibly, impertinent characters. If we call Shakspeare's absurdities by their worst name, and say that they are marks of a slavish compliance with the depraved taste of his age, that art must at the same time be considered as wonderful, which has enabled him to keep them from ever interfering with the main object of his pursuit; from ever violating probability, or mixing the slightest stain of imperfection in the colours which he borrows bright and unadulterated from the hand of nature.

Such, however, are the partialities of editorship, which in this case go hand in hand with the delusions of fashion, that scarcely one of Shakspeare's contemporaries has not, at some time or another, been indiscreetly and presumptuously brought forwards, if not as his professed rival, yet in such terms of high-flown panegyric as to imply even a preference over Shakspeare himself. A more flagrant instance of this fact has never (to our knowlege) occurred, than in Mr. Gifford's valuable edition of the works of Massinger; - the more flagrant, because that able critic is one whom we should the least have

suspected

-

suspected of an undue bias in such respects. He has not indeed actually asserted, much less do we say that he really be-lieves in, the superiority of Massinger over Shakspeare: — but he has used such extravagant terms of commendation, and even awarded the prize on so many points of comparison to his favourite and protégé, that, if he were to be construed literally by his readers, the conclusion to which he would inevitably lead them is that which, if asserted in positive language, he would be among the first loudly and earnestly to deny.

In the publication before us, to which it is now high time to call the attention of our readers, Mr. Weber is not quite so inju dicious as Mr. Gifford; although we must say that he frequently carries his admiration of the writer, whose works he has undertaken to introduce to the patronage of the nineteenth century, to a very faulty excess in the same way of comparison. For instance, in speaking of Ford's versification, after having observed (in our opinion very justly) that it is remarkably harmonious, and, at the same time, more regular than that of many of his contemporaries,' he proceeds in the following strain of hyperbole: The peculiar modulation and variety of Shakspeare's metre, (the principle of construction in which has never been explained, though it must be felt by every admirer of that prince of poets), the sweet harmony of Fletcher's, and the vigour and force of Massinger's versification, cannot be disputed: but who ever has perused the plays of Ford will not, it is presumed, be inclined to dispute an equality of praise with him on this point:'—that is, we imagine, Ford's versification comprizes all the peculiar excellencies of that of Shaspeare, Fletcher, and Massinger, and is (consequently) superior, on the whole, to that of any of them. The truth is that a pure and harmonious versification was by no means a quality of rare attainment among our old dramatic writers; and we believe that Ford, besides being by no means inferior to his contemporaries in metrical beauty, deserves the additional praise of superior regularity and precision:-but the terms sweetness, dignity, vigour, force, &c. certainly imply, if they have any meaning, something more than mere metrical arrangement; and we can by no means admit that any one of the poets here brought into the comparison has pretensions to that absolute empire over language and expression, which was exercised by the "mighty master" of the drama.

Nevertheless, and in spite of his grossness, the merits of Ford as a dramatic writer are of a very high stamp; and Mr.Weber, in collecting his works together, and giving them to the public in a form adapted to modern taste and convenience, has conferred on that public a very acceptable service, for which we have no doubt that he will find his reward. We wish it were in our power to add that R 2

he

he has performed his office of editor in a way at all answerable to the expectations, which may justly be conceived of one who undertakes the task in the present age of acute and learned criticism. We opened the book as strangers to the author whose works are contained in it, except as to one of those plays which* (notwithstanding its unfortunate subject and title) we have read and admired in Dodsley's collection. The anticipations, which our knowlege of that tragedy had induced us to form, were fully realized in a few, and even surpassed in one or two, of the pieces which were new to us: but any information or pleasure which we had hoped to derive from the labours of the editor, they have failed to convey. His notes, with little exception, contain either tame explanations of passages that require none, or erroneous or insufficient expla nations of such as need exposition; conjectural amendments devoid of taste or probability, and sometimes even worse than the faulty text which they are designed to cobble; together with illustrations of obvious allusions and phrases from common-place authorities: while the most difficult and the most faulty passages are often suffered to pass without either explanation or attempt at improvement. These are heavy charges; such as we are very sorry to make; and such as we should be perfectly ashamed of making without sufficient foundation. Our first duty will therefore be to justify ourselves by examples of the faults which we have censured in the editor; reserving for the conclusion of our article the more agreeable task of pointing out and enlarging on the beauties of the author.

We can see no possible use in squandering notes on such information as that "fond" means "foolish," (Vol. I. p. 9. and again Vol. II. p. 154.) and that "innocent" sometimes bears the same meaning. (Vol.i. p.19.)-We do not require the quotation of a long passage from "Lyly's Epistle dedicatory to Euphues and his England," to prove to us that the antient acceptation of the word "Cunning" was only " Art” in a good sense; (ib. p.33.)-nor to be told that a Blockhead was wont to be styled metaphorically " A Gull;" (ib. p.128.)-nor to be referred to the "Comedy of Errors" as an authority for calling a lazy idle Fellow, "a Drone," (p. 163.) That "Tatterdemallion" is a vulgar term of reproach, we knew long before Mr. Weber obligingly (but somewhat inaccurately) informed us that it means a Vagabond, (p.163.) Surely Mr. W. had no occasion for telling us that " To limn" signifies " To paint," (p.182.)- for explaining the word "wriggle" by the inform ation that Cotgrave translates the French "Serpeger" by "to

*""Tis pity she's a Whore."

wave, waggle, wriggle, writhe, or go waving," (p. 188.) — nor for expounding "Splay-footed" by the following note: Goibier is explained by Cotgrave, Baker-legged, also splay-footed, shaling, ill-favouredly treading,' (p. 321.) Of the same class with the foregoing are the notable and comfortable assurances that the word "Sometimes" (which should be "Sometime") is used in the sense of "Formerly;" (Vol. II. p. 26.)-that' "To list" is an old word for "To choose:" (ib.) that

"Flam" is a vulgar word signifying "Deceit ;" (p. 442.) — that "bruited" means "reported, or noised;" (p. 465.)—and that Skinner explains the verb "To bandy" by totis viribus se opponere, (p. 257.)

Let the above suffice for instances of merely unnecessary explanation. Proceed we, in the next place, to a few of those which we conceive to be erroneous also.

We have already noticed Mr. Weber's odd fancy of explaining very common and obvious English phrases by their corresponding cant-terms in the French language, out of Cotgrave. Another strange whim is the calling in Old Minshew, not as a corroborating or additional authority on points of doubt or perplexity, but as the sole authority to confound and perplex a point which, without his assistance, is as clear as the sun. Thus Minshew derives the word "Peevish" from the Italian "Pazzo," and tells those who consult him that it means "Foolish, Doating," &c.; on the authority of which, Mr. Weber deems it necessary in upwards of half a dozen passages, in which the word "Peevish" occurs, to inform us in a note that it means nothing but "foolish." Now, if Mr. Weber had only condescended to refer to so modern and commɔn a book as Johnson's Dictionary, he would have found this word "Peevish" explained by no others whatever than "Petulant, waspish, easily offended, irritable, irascible, soon angry, perverse, morose, querulous, full of expressions of discontent, hard to please;" and, 2dly, "Expressing discontent or fretfulness;" and the Etymology of Junius adopted as, at least, a probable one," by corruption, from perverse." In our opinion, it is a matter of some utility to expose the impertinence of RarityHunters, who shut their eyes against the light of the noon-day sun, and expect all their followers to grope about like themselves by the miserable glimmer of a farthing candle; and we shall therefore for once undertake the trouble, which mayappear to many to be unnecessary, of collecting those passages in which Mr. Weber has explained Peevish by Foolish: in all of which (except one) it most evidently means not Foolish but Peevish, and Peevish only, according to the common understanding of the word, and its interpretation by Johnson.

R 3

« 'Tis

.