fuppofe) it could hardly be fufpended at the girdle; for in that case such glaffes would hang down to the knee, and could not, with any propriety, be faid to be worn on the belly. I imagine, therefore, these mirrors were fufpended from the neck, or fomehow faftened to the drapery covering the ftomach and breaft; in which case, Mr. Bayle might fay, without the leaft inelegance, they were worn fur le ventre. For I will venture to say it is, from his ufing the word ventre on this occafion, that Dr. Johnson charges him with coarseness ; but ventre doth not always fignify the belly. The French diftinguish between the ftomach and belly, by calling the former the petit-ventre, or VENTRE SUPERIEUR; and the latter the bas-ventre. The general term is alfo frequently used instead of POITRINE, and as often means the ftomach and breast, as it doth the belly.-Vaugelas will tell him also, that the word ventre is ufed with great elegance in metaphorical writing. Thus, passer fur le ventre à son ennemi, is an approved phrafe for giving an enemy a total defeat. The French, in like manner, ufe the word entrailles, in fuch phrafes as, literally translated, would be very coarse and difgufting to an English ear. To inftance only one or two. Seigneur, votre loi eft gravée dans le fond de mes entrailles. — Les entrailles de la mifericorde de Dieu. One of the most elegant French writers, now living, alfo calls the natural affection of a parent for his child, l'amour des entrailles. But what fhould we think of an English critic, who fhould tranflate fuch paffages thus: Thy law, O Lord, is engraven in our guts -The entrails of the mercy of God-The affection of the bowels and thence take occafion to cenfure the writer for coarsenefs and inelegance? We are informed, by fome letters lately published *, that when Dr. Johnson came to town, about the year 1736, he had a defign of engaging in fome tranflation from the French. * In the St. James's Chronicle, and other news-papers; as also the monthly magazines. M Whether Whether he ever did or no, I cannot fay; but, from this and fome other specimens of his acquaintance with that language, I cannot help thinking the author would have been extremely unlucky that had fallen into his hands. Vol. II. Page 165. KING. So fweet a kifs the golden fun gives not That is very ftrange! Dr. Johnfon.-Why, thou must have no more invention in thee than there is in a leaden plummet thy pegafus must be confined and hoodwinked like a horse in a mill; or furely fomething would have fuggefted itself to a writer who declares, that not a fingle paffage, in this whole work, has appeared to him corrupt, which he has not attempted to reftore!' I would be far from feeking to depreciate the fuccefs of our editor's modeft industry*: but I am afraid the purchasers of his book will be apt to think, from many fuch flovenly notes as this, that both his industry and modefty are pretty well matched. It is evident, from the context, that the king, being over head and ears in love, employs himfelf, as people usually do in that fituation, Wafting the live-long hours away, In tears by night, and fighs by day." What objection then could our editor have to fubftituting nightly dew, inftead of night of dew. If we are not abfolutely certain the poet wrote fo, there is a moral presumption, a * See Dr. Johnson's Preface. great great probability, of it: but whether he did or not, the alteration is certainly an amendment, and a very harmless one. It would also have served a little to fave the credit of the editor; who, whatever might be his intentions before he begun his work, fufficiently fhews, by the work itself, that he regarded not what he had promifed when he did it; and, by his Preface, that he knew as little what he had done when it was finished. Vol. II. Page 170. BIRON. O me, with what ftrict patience have I fat To fee a king transformed to a knot ! Here, indeed! we see our editor attempting to restore a pasfage, which appears to him corrupt.-Mark the fuccefs!- To fee a king transformed to a knot!] Knot has no sense that can fuit this place. We may read fot. The rhymes in this play are such as that fat and fot may be well enough • admitted.' What have you loft your hearing and judgment too, Mr. Editor, as well as your memory and invention ?-Do you not know that even fot and fot cannot be admitted into any verse as English rhymes; and do you think the matter mended with fot and fat? Befides, do you fee no impropriety in Biron's calling the King, to his face, a blockhood or fool, becaufe truly he was in love; especially when he is confcious he is himself in the fame fituation? Add to this, that fo grofs an expreffion is totally inconfiftent with the fine ftrain of raillery that runs through the whole of his fpeech. This attempt, therefore, of our editor at restoration, is evidently a very unlucky one, and is excufable only as the unfucefsful endeavour of modeft industry. But why doth Dr. Johnson conclude this paffage to be corrupted? If he thinks the rhymes fot and fat admiffible, furely he can have no objection to our pronouncing fat after the broad orthoëpy of the vulgar; in which cafe it would be a much less exceptionable rhyme to knot than what he is willing to admit. But he fays, knot hath no sense that can suit : this place.' He might have found, however, by turning to almost any dictionary, excepting his own, that a knot is a fmall bird, well known in many parts of England, and is called avis Canuti by the naturalifts; as it is faid, because king Canutus was very fond of fuch birds. It is, indeed, a delicious kind of water-fowl. Now, as Biron hath faid but just before, fpeaking of the King, Shot, by heav'n! proceed, fweet Cupid; thou haft thumpt him with thy bird-bolt under the left pap; I cannot, for my part, fee any objection to his comparing him in this paffage to a wounded knot. If my readers do, I have done. They will do me the juftice, however, to own, that, if I am not poffeffed of Dr. Johnson's ingenuity and modesty, I shew at least as much industry in defending the text of Shakefpeare, as he does in pulling it to pieces. Vol. II. Page 222. SONG. When daizies pied and violets blue, Do paint the meadows with delight. Dr. Warburton fays, we should read much-bedight, which is very proper and elegant.-The prefent editor quotes Dr. Warburton's note; to which he adds the following fhort animadverfion. • Much less elegant than the prefent reading.' Undoubtedly it is: and I have here only to afk Dr. Johnfon, why he excludes the notes of Theobald, when they have been fufficiently exploded by other writers; and yet pesters his readers with thofe of Dr. Warburton, which stand exactly in the fame predicament? The ingenious author of the Canons of Criticism objected, long ago, to this propofed emendation of Dr. Warburton's; judiciously judiciously obferving, that if bedight means bedecked or adorned, the meadows being bedight already, they little need painting. -But Dr. Johnson seems to be fo much influenced by the refpect due to high place, that he feems determined to avoid the name of Edwards, as much as poffible, for fear of offending the bishop. THE WINTER'S TAL E. Vol. II. Page 242. LEONTES. You will!-why, happy man be's dole ! — That is, fays our editor, may his dole or share in life be to: be a happy man.' It is doubtless true, that dole means a fhare or part; but if this be all the difficulty, how is the fenfe, elicited by Dr. Johnson, reconcileable to the literal conftruction of the fentence? -The editor fhould have told his readers, that happy man be his dole was a common proverbial phrase, for wifhing good luck either to one's felf or others. Thus Falstaff, in the first part of Henry the Fourth. "Now, my masters, “happy man be his dole, fay I; every man to his business.”. Vol. II. Page 295. AUT. Oh, that ever I was born! I believe me should be blotted out.' Here we have another article of Dr. Johnson's critical creed. It is certain that, whether me be in or out, is, in this place, of very little confequence; but I fo much revere the text of Shakespeare, that, without I fee an abfolute neceffity for it, I will never defile it with a blot. It seems as if the very name of Johnson was fated to caft invidious reflections on that of Shakespeare; as if it was malignantly formed to absorb the rays diffused by superior luftre, and enviously to fully, with a reflected gloom, the fountain of its own light. This scheme of blotting-out was originally suggested by a Johnson ; who, when |