A REVIEW O F DOCTOR JOHNSON'S NEW EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE. THE first specimen of critical fagacity, which merits at tention, in this new edition of Shakespeare, occurs in the play of THE TEMPEST, Vol. I. Page 8. PROS. to MIR. I have with fuch provifion in mine art So fafely order'd that there is no SOUL: Betid to any creature in the veffel, &c. This paffage hath raised much contention among the commentators; though it is authorized, it feems, by the old editions. Dr. Johnson, however, fays it is apparently defective. Mr. Rowe (continues he) and Dr. Warburton, read 'that there is no foul loft, without any notice of the variation. • Mr. Theobald fubftitutes no foil; and Mr. Pope follows him. To come fo near the right, and yet to mifs it, is unlucky; 'the author probably wrote no foil, no ftain, no spot: for ❝fo Ariel tells, Not a hair perish'd; 'On their sustaining garments not a blemish, But fresher than before. And Gonzalo-The rarity of it is, that our garments being • drenched in the fea, keep notwithstanding their freshness and < gloffes. Of this emendation I find that the author of Notes on the Tempest had a glimpse, but could not keep it.' Mr. Theobald is treated with no little feverity in the preface of the prefent editor, for pluming himself on his critical penetration in making fome discoveries that have escaped others. Dr. Johnfon, however, gives himself an air of fuperiority in the above note, as exceptionable at leaft as any of Theobald's; as will appear on the flighteft attention to the construction. of the fentence; this pretended emendation, however plaufibly fupported, being in fact entirely groundlefs.-What can we understand by NO SOIL BETID to any creature in the veffel? Or if we can with difficulty ftrain out a meaning, is the ftile at all like that of Shakespeare; whose attention to colloquial idiom is so close, that our language is more indebted, in this refpect, to him than to any other writer; I had almost faid, all other writers put together?—If the paffage is to be altered, let us at least make English of it: Shakespeare very probably wrote ILL; a word eafily corrupted by the transcriber into foul. there is no ILL, No, not so much perdition as an hair, Betid to any creature, &c. To betide is to befal, to happen to, to come to pafs, to become of; and would here be very improperly used with foil; for even fuppofing there were no impropriety in saying a foil might betide a fuit of cloaths: no idiom will bear a foil betiding to a creature, when its cloathing only was meant. But what shall we fay to the fpeeches of Ariel and Gonzalo, that seem to favour the emendation propofed ?-What, indeed, but that they are little or nothing to the purpose ! The poet was evidently judicious enough to apprehend the fpectator must be offended with the palpable impropriety of bringing on a parcel of people, that had been juft heartily foufed foufed in the fea, without any apparent * foil or spot on their cloaths. To prevent him, therefore, from being thus offended on their appearance on the ftage, Ariel is previously made to mention this circumftance to Profpero; and in order to reconcile the audience to it when the perfons actually appear, Gonzalo is artfully made to remind them of what had been effected by the miniftry of Ariel.-There is not the leaft neceffity for telling this to the auditors three times over, or for Profpero to mention this circumftance at all to Miranda.Profpero had before told her there was no harm done which fhe thinks very strange; and he proceeds accordingly to explain from what cause there is no ill betid thofe, of whofe danger she was so very apprehensive, and for whofe fafety fhe was fo very folicitous. Hath not every friend to the reputation of Shakespeare, a right to exclaim here,-ILL BETIDE fuch commentator's! PROS. to MIR. Vol. I. Page 9. and thy father Was duke of Milan, and his only heir Perhaps, fays our editor, it fhould be and thou his only heir. 1 fay, perhaps not: for, if thou be admitted, without rejecting the preceding and, the measure is deftroyed; and the fenfe is perfect without making any fuch innovation, if we *For that it was only the external appearance of their gar ments that was preserved, is evident, from the speeches of Antonio and Sebaftian immediately fucceeding that of Gonzalo. Our garments, fays the latter, are rather new dy'd than ftained with falt water. On which Antonio fays to Sebaftian, " If but one of his "pockets could speak, would it not fay, he lies?" To which remark Sebaftian anfwers, "Ay, or very falfely pocket up his report." Thus it does not appear that the creatures, the people themselves, fuftained no foil, ftain, or spot. On the contrary, it seems by their difcourfe that they were all in a very pretty pickle, notwithstanding their fair outfide, which the decency of theatrical representation rendered neceffary for the poet to bestow on them. dele the fuperfluous and, which may well be fpared, in the third line, and read, with Theobald, a princess. and thy father Was duke of Milan, and his heir A princefs, no worse iffued. Perhaps the reader will be of my opinion, that the paffage lofes neither sense, spirit, nor propriety by this restoration. As Dr. Johnson tells us in his preface, that he has generally adopted Theobald's notes, unlefs confuted by subsequent annotators, it is to be wifhed he had always given his reafons for deviating from him in the text, Vol. I. Page 17. The note contained in this page is fo far a good one, as it is neceffary and proper to give the reader an idea of the fyftem of enchantment, on which the plot and machinery of the play is conducted. I should therefore have passed it over as unexceptionable, had it come from any other pen than that of Dr. Johnfon. But as the world hath been pleased very publickly to impute fentiments to him, which feem incongruous with those he here profeffes, I cannot pass it over without fome little animadverfion. The incongruity I mean lies here the Doctor, I have been frequently informed, very religiously believes in the existence of ghofts and apparitions; although he here ftrongly infinuates that there never was any fuch thing practifed as witchcraft. But if he believes the story of the witch of Endor, and that the ghoft of Sa→ muel appeared to Saul, as doubtlefs he does, he must believe in the exercise of witchcraft, and alfo in its power over departed fpirits. For, though fome divines maintain that it was the devil who appeared in the form of Samuel, and not the ghost of Samuel himfelf; yet, as Dr. Johnfon, in the note before us, adopts the diftinction made by king James in his demonology, viz. that an enchanter is one who commands the devil, whereas the witch only ferves him, he cannot be al lowed lowed to fhelter himself under the opinion of thofe learned theologues. Either Dr. Johnson therefore must give up his faith in apparitions, or retract this part of his note.—But after all, perhaps, I may have been mifinformed by the wicked wits of the times; for though it be true they do avouch fome corroborating circumftances, and advance fome plaufible pretexts, I think I can discover fome fallacy at the bottom. Our editor's favourite, Hooker, it is true, talks of spirits difperfed up and down in caves and dens under the earth; and occafion may hence be taken to give out, that the vifit Dr. Johnson once made to a certain cemetery was to confer with fome of these spirits. But in this these fuperficial witlings must certainly be mistaken; the spirits mentioned by Hooker were fuppofed, as is here obferved, to be fallen angels. Hence, though I should be brought to believe, that our editor did go from Cock-lane to Clerkenwell, to fulfil an appointment with the ghost of Fanny, I cannot poffibly fufpect him of ever going there purpofely to meet the devil. ARIEL. Not a foul Vol. I. page 15. But felt a fever of the mad*, and plaid Some tricks of desperation: In all the later editions this is changed to a fever of the mind, without reafon or authority, nor is any notice given of an alteration.' I wish our editor had given his reason for refloring the former reading, against the authority of all the later editions. He will fay perhaps they are of no authority, as Theobald did of the editions of Rowe and Pope. But reafon and authority feem in this cafe to be fo much at variance, that I am apprehenfive our editor will go near to be thought authority-mad, at least by many, for making this restoration without affigning the motive for it. Madness hath been, with propriety, called a fever of the mind, by writers of all ages and countries; and it |