times he was both: in his verses in Jonsonus Virbius, he was the one, in his parody on "Come leave the loathed stage," he had been the other. I know not why Mr. Malone's interpretation of these lines should be attributed to judicial blindness. That Jonson was in the habit of saying much in his own praise, will not, I think, be denied, and if the adverb boldly is more applicable to the words taken in this sense, there will be neither malice nor ignorance in supposing that Feltham meant to say that his merits were such that only his own pen was fit to describe them. But not to fatigue the reader with entering into a discussion of all the passages in which Mr. Gifford has endeavoured to turn Mr. Malone into ridicule, I shall confine myself to one or two more, in which heavy imputations are laid upon my late friend. A letter from Mr. Malone to Mr. Whalley has been produced in answer to one from that gentleman, soliciting his assistance in his projected edition of Jonson; and wherever Mr. Malone's sentiments, at a subsequent period, are found to vary from those which that letter contains, this change of opinion is converted into a charge against him, and Mr. Gifford exclaims, "What! not honest either?" because he expresses some doubts as to what he had said eleven years before in the hurry of a private correspondence. Mr. Rowe has recorded an anecdote of the venerable John Hales of Eton; and Mr. Malone having found other versions of the same story, has laid them before the reader, as was his usual practice. By this mode we are enabled to compare statements, elicit what appears most agreeable to truth, and, perhaps, may be furnished with materials to shake the credit of the narrative altogether, and this Mr. Gifford thinks he has effected on the present occasion. He ridicules, and with justice, the story, as it was told by Gildon in one of his letters, but none of his arguments tend to impeach it as related by Rowe; yet as a charge is implied against Mr. Malone for having retained in a note what Mr. Rowe had struck out in his first edition, I must refer the reader to

p. 445 of this volume, where he will find the reason assigned. I may add that as the story was altered by Rowe, it exhibited Jonson's hostility in a stronger light. If Hales defended Shakspeare against Jonson, who was present, we might infer from these expressions, that he had called his merits generally in question; but, as it is originally told, he confined his charge to a want of classical knowledge, which was true, and which naturally introduces Hales's answer. But let us see on what grounds Mr. Gifford supposes the story to be utterly incredible.

"A tissue of mere dotage scarcely deserves unravelling; but it may be just observed that when Jonson was seized with his last illness, (after which he certainly never went 'to Mr. Hales's chamber, at Eton' or elsewhere,) the two grave judges, Suckling and Falkland, who sat on the merits of all the Greek and Roman poets, and decided with such convincing effect, were, the first in the 12th, and the second in the 15th year of their ages!"

How does this appear? Rowe has given neither date nor place to his anecdote; Jonson, not many years before his death, was still fond of society. Suckling, at the time of that event, was twenty-four, and Lord Falkland was well acquainted with Jonson, and had enjoyed his conversation at the Dog*. Mr. Gifford expresses a doubt whether there is any authority for the assertion, that Suckling was a professed admirer of Shakspeare, except Sir John's Session of the Poets. "To censure Jonson with good-humoured wit for an unlucky play, is sufficient, in the eyes of the criticks, to set him down as an admirer of Shakspeare." Yet Dryden expressly tells us, that he maintained Shakspeare's superiority; and in one of his letters he speaks of " my friend, Shakspeare," which, as he certainly could not have personally known him, was a colloquial mode of speaking of a favourite author. If the criticks had no other ground for their opinion

Gifford's Jonson, vol. ix. p. 4.

than what Mr. Gifford has supposed, their foundation was rotten indeed for in Suckling's Session of the Poets, there is not one syllable about an unlucky play. I now come to a most direct accusation against Mr. Malone, conveyed in the most unmeasured terms-"Ben Jonson probably meant to sneer at the Tempest in the prologue to Every Man in his Humour our tempestuous drum ; ' and he has endeavoured to depreciate this beautiful comedy by calling it a foolery. For some remarks on this audacious falsehood, see vol. iv. p. 371." Mr. Gifford has said, upon another occasion, "To this atrocious charge, there is but one answer which occurs to me; and though that be usually wrapt up in the courtesy of a learned language, I shall not make use of it." I shall not pretend to guess at the phrase which, even in its most courteous garb, Mr. Gifford's delicacy prevented him from using; yet I cannot but question, if the whole armamentarium of Gaspar Scioppius himself could have furnished him with stronger terms than here and elsewhere he has applied to Mr. Malone, in plain home-spun English. But let us turn to vol. iv. p. 371, and see these threatened remarks. They are on a passage in the Induction to Bartholomew Fair. "If there be never a servant-monster in the fair, who can help it," he says, "nor a nest of antiques? he is loth to make nature afraid in his plays, like those that beget tales, tempests, and such like drolleries " Upon this Mr. Gifford observes,

"As this passage has furnished such abundant matter for obloquy, it may not be amiss to examine it at large. Steevens, who is inclined to be complimentary, says that the Tempest was not secure from the criticism of our poet, (he had just charged him with having unsparingly censured it) whose malice appears to be more than equal to his wit. He says, if there be never a servant-monster in the fair, who can help it.' And Malone affirms that Jonson endeavours to depreciate this beautiful comedy by calling it a foolery. The depreciation remains to be proved— but (I regret to say it) I have a heavier charge against Mr.

Malone than a too precipitate conclusion-a charge of misrepresentation. Foolery, cannot indeed be applied to any work without an intent to depreciate it: but this was not Jonson's word, nor was it even in his contemplation. The term used by him is drollery, which had a precise and specific bearing upon the whole subject of his Induction. A droll, or drollery, was the appropriate term for a puppetshow, and is so applied by all the writers of his time. Thus Claudia, in the Tragedy of Valentian, declares that She had rather make a drollery till thirty,' i. e. spend her youth in making puppet-shows, which she considers as the lowest scene of degradation: and so, indeed, in many other places. The term continued in use down to the last century, for Dennis says, in one of his letters, that he went to see the Siege of Namur, a droll, at Bartholomew Fair.' Subsequently to Jonson's time, the word was applied to a farcical dialogue in a single scene: but there is, I confidently believe, no instance of a drollery being used for a legitimate comedy. The reader now sees all the advantage derived by Mr. Malone from his sophistication: had he adhered to Jonson's own language, this part of the charge against him could not have been sustained for a moment. I now return to Steevens. Servantmonster' is undoubtedly to be found in the Tempest; but I am yet to learn that the expression was the invention of Shakspeare, or even peculiar to him; though he has applied it with inimitable humour. The reader is not to learn that the town in those days abounded with exhibitions of what were familiarly called monsters, i. e. creatures of various kinds which were taught a thousand antic tricks; the constant concomitants of puppet-shows. 'I would not have you,' says Machin, step into the suburbs, and acquaint yourself either with monsters, or motions.' (Dumb Night.) And Jonson himself, in a subsequent part of this play, makes Bristle tax Haggise with loitering behind to see the man with the monsters.' Elephants, camels, bears, horses, &c. were all accompanied

6

by apes, who amused the spectator by assuming a command over them. Nor is the custom, nor the language, yet obsolete. I have frequently seen, at a country fair, a dog or bear called out to show his obedience to his master,' an ape, or monkey, that mounted, and drove him about at will. This was the servant-monster of Jonson's age; but there was yet another, the clown who conducted the mummery of such characters as the machinery of the show required, beasts and fishes of the most uncouth and monstrous forms. The frequency and popularity of these exhibitions are excellently noted by Mr. Gilchrist, and it is impossible to look at the part of Trinculo, without seeing that it bears an immediate reference to this custom; aud we may form some idea of the roar of the old theatre, at hearing him and his associate unwittingly characterise themselves as monsters, by adopting the well-known expression."

Opere in longo fas est obrepere somnum. Mr. Malone's work was a long one; and his researches, which have thrown a light upon English literature, by which almost every succeeding writer has profited, and to which Mr. Gifford will confess his obligations, were various, and extensive in no common degree. If in the midst of these labours, by the casual failure of a memory not remarkably retentive, he has, in the haste of writing, substituted one word for another, are we at once to set this down as an instance of wilful misrepresentation? If a lapse of this kind is to be so heavily visited, "who shall escape whipping?" Not even Mr. Gifford. In the fifth volume of his edition of Ben Jonson, p. 254, Mr. Gifford has the following remark:-" It appears from the elegant rules drawn up by Jonson, for the regulation of his club, that women of character were not excluded from attending the meetings.

Probæ fœminæ non repudiantor'".

I am far from wishing to insinuate that these fair ladies.