niceties in which cafe he might not only join the fingular pronoun with the plural noun (as the English fay my Lords, as well as my Lord) but also give the plural noun their common ending in English; fo that if Theobald had substituted mynbeers, it might have pafled. But if it be infifted on, that our hoft of the Garter fhall fpeak properly and elegantly, the paffage muft ftand thus. "Will you go on, heeren, or herren." The reader may take which he likes best, both meaning fimply, Will you go on, gentlemen?

I cannot help referring, on this occafion, to a paffage in our editor's preface; where, among other excufes for doing fo little, after having promised fo much, he hath the following curious paffage :

If my readings are of little value, they have not been oftentatiously displayed, or importunately obtruded, I could have written longer notes; for the art of writing notes is not of difficult attainment. The work is performed, first by railing at the ftupidity, negligence, ignorance, and afinine tasteleffnefs of the former editors, and fhewing, from all that goes before, and all that follows, the inelegance • and abfurdity of the old reading; then by propofing someC thing, which, to fuperficial readers, would feem fpecious, but which the editor rejects with indignation; then by producing the true reading, with a long paraphrafe, and concluding with loud acclamations on the discovery, and a fober wifh for the advancement and profperity of genuine ' criticism.'

*

We fee here that Dr. Johnson knew very well what was to be done, if he had but had abilities, induftry, or good

* Dr. Johnson is here exprefly defcribing the method of writing annotations. Pray, Doctor, is your pen any thing like a Speaking trumpet, a ftentarophontick inftrument, as your dictionary more explicitly calls it? If it be not, I cannot, for the foul of me conceive how you do to write LOUD. As to my goofe-quill, it runs over the paper as ftill as a moufe; but then, it is true, I cannot boast that my writings have made fo much noife in the world as those of Dr. Johnfon.

3

will

will enough to do it. Indeed, he hath fometimes fucceeded pretty well in doing all that he hath here defcribed, except in one little particular, and that is producing the true reading; this he hath done fo very feldom, that we could very readily have excused him, if he had displayed even more oftentation, had he given us but a proportionate quantity more of truth.

Vol. II. Page 482.

FORD. Tho' Page be a fecure fool, and ftand fo firmly on his wife's fealty, yet I cannot put off my opinion fo eafily. All the copies, fays Dr. Warburton, read ftand so firmly on his wife's FRAILTY: but to this reading, Mr. Theobald objected. "No, furely; Page ftood tightly to the opinion of "her honefty, and would not entertain a thought of her be"ing frail. I have therefore ventured to fubftitute a word "correfpondent to the fenfe required, and one which our

66

poet frequently uses to fignify conjugal fidelity."-In reply to this note, Dr. Warburton fays, "Mr. Theobald has no "conception how any man could ftand firmly on his wife's "frailty. And why? Because he had no conception how he "could ftand upon it, without knowing what it was. But if "I tell a ftranger that the bridge he is about to cross is rotten,

and he believes it not, but will go on, may I not fay, when "I fee him upon it, that he ftands firmly on a rotten plank? "yet he has changed frailty for fealty, and the Oxford editor "has followed him. But they took the phrase, to stand firmly

on, to fignify to infift upon; whereas it fignifies to rest upon ; "which the character of a fecure fool, given to him, fhews. "So that the common reading has an elegance that would be "loft in the alteration."

Notwithstanding this fine reafoning, however, of Dr. Warburton, the prefent editor hath judiciously ftuck by Theobald's emendation in the text, though he is perfectly filent about it in his notes. It happens, nevertheless, very unluckily for Dr. Johnfon, that he hath quoted this very paffage in his

dictionary,

dictionary, under the word frailty, as an authority for the use and meaning of that word. But of this I fhall take proper notice in my Table of Errata * to that admired and truly wonderful Lexicon; the blunders of which I hope, God willing, to get through fome time or other; although it is fuch an Augean stable as requires, to cleanfe it properly, the application and abilities of an Hercules.

FAL.

Vol. II. Page 540.

they would melt me out of my fat, drop by

drop, and liquor fishermen's boats with me.

For boats we fhould read boots. This may probably be an error in the printer; but editors, as I have obferved before, whose task profeffedly lies in regulating points and adjusting true readings, are answerable for every flip of this kind, whereby the meaning of their author is obfcured or mifrepresented.

Vol. II. Page 493.

FORD. Heav'n be praised for my jealoufy!-Eleven o'clock the hour-I will prevent this, detect my wife, be revenged on Falstaff, and laugh at Page. I will about it-Better three hours too foon, than a minute too late.

In a note on this paffage, our editor hath difplayed his critical acumen moft egregioufly; as indeed moft of Shakespeare's editors do, when they venture an inch beyond the fervile bounds of verbal criticism. Our poet is univerfally allowed to be one of the greatest mafters in defcribing the effects, as well as the greatest judge of the operation, of the paffions, that ever existed. And yet is he here arraigned for an error, which affects him as an accurate obferver of human nature, and a

* A work in great forwardness for the prefs, defigned for the ufe of the purchasers of that celebrated performance, and intended hortly to be published, under the title of A RAMBLE through the IDLER'S Dictionary.

juft

juft delineator of the actions of mankind, his moft diftinguishing characteristics. The note here follows:

Eleven o'clock.] Ford fhould rather have faid ten o'clock; the time was between ten and eleven; and his impatient fufpicion was not likely to stay beyond the time.' No; Dr. Johnson.-Ford fhould neither be made to fay ten nor eleven o'clock: he is not fpeaking of the time, at which Falstaff is to meet his wife; but of the time then prefent, which is feven o'clock, juft three hours, as he exprefly obferves, from the earliest time of the appointment. So that, so far is his impatient fufpicion from staying beyond the time of their intended meeting, that it feems to urge him inftantly to go about to defeat the fuppofed purposes of it.I will about itbetter THREE HOURS too foon than a minute too late. - Why should he particularly mention three hours rather than any indefinite time, unless for the reafon given? I know not how far the copies may authorize this reading; but the mistake might eafily be made by the first tranfcribers, and be fucceffively transmitted through the prefs uncorrected, as the sense was not very palpably affected by it. By reading feven for eleven, however, we deliver Shakespeare from the perfecution of his annotator, and give a beauty and propriety to the paffage, which at prefent is doubtlefs exceptionable. I would advise the actor alfo, who may perform this part for the future, to look at his watch, when he repeats this fentence; for that was evidently the author's intention, as appears by the intimation of his having ftill three hours good, in which to take proper measures to furprife the parties. He did not mean, as is plain by the fequel, to prevent or hinder their meeting, but to be before-hand * with them in the means of

The word prevent being here ufed, perhaps nearly, though not altogether in the fame fenfe as in our liturgy; when we fay, O Lord prevent us in all our doings. It may indeed be conceived to carry a double meaning; viz. Ford's fimply getting the start of the parties, in order to detect and expofe them; or, as is above hinted, to prevent or hinder his being made a cuckold. But I think he feems

detection. Add to all this, that although, in his rage, he says, just before, the hour is fixt, yet no one particular hour was precifely named for the intended rendezvous; it was not at ten, nor at eleven, but between ten and eleven; so that the reason Dr. Johnfon gives, why he should not fay eleven, is in itself fufficient to prove he should say neither.

THE TAMING OF THE SHREW.

Vol. III. Page 20.

TRANIO. If love hath touch'd you, nought remains but sọ, Redime te captum quàm queas minimo.

"Dr. Warburton tells us, that the line, here quoted from "Terence, fhews that we should read, in the preceding, "If love hath TOYL'D you,—

"i. e. taken you in his toils, his nets. Alluding to the captus "eft, babet, of the fame author."

Dr. Johnson, however, without even deigning to adopt t any thing that might do the least honour to Shakespeare's learning, takes upon him boldly to affure us, that our author had this line from Lilly, which I mention,' fays he, ' that it may not be brought as an argument of his learning.' But pray, Dr. Johnfon, how can you take upon you to say that Shakespeare had this line from Lilly, and not from Terence? Is it because the line is to be found in Lilly? And is this your whole authority?-You can have no other. It

feems to fo be well affured of his having been cuckolded by fomebody or other, that a fingle prevention of this kind could be of little confideration with him. It were indeed to little purpose, if his opinion of his wife were justly founded, and his farcafm on the fex in general were true; i. e. that " what they think in their hearts they may effect, they will break their hearts but they will effect.”

+ Not that Dr. Warburton's emendation is defenfible, but is fufficiently refuted by Mr. Edwards. See Canons of Criticifm, page 124.