Magi, or perhaps much more experimental philofophers, on fire to be much greater in raifing their element to be a deity, than that of thofe who applied themselves to air and water.'

Our Author, after having remarked, that Philofophers of all defcriptions, who are not engaged in pursuits which will terminate in the moral benefit of the world, are only Monks and Friars, whofe fupport is a charge on the industry of the public, obferves, very properly, that the fciences when they have diverged from a certain line, and their votaries are become diftinct claffes of beings, they gradually refine, till each terminates in fome fpecies of fophiftry, quackery, and mischievous impofture. Thus mathematics degenerate into ænigmas: chymiftry becomes alchymy; aftronomy, aftrology; and theology, myftery; and thus all fcientific means of improvement, convenience, and happiness, are the inftruments of mean impofture to corrupt and injure the people. It was to this kind of impofture that Socrates oppofed himself; and by the artifices of it he fell.'

Mr. Williams confiders the death of Chrift in the fame light with that of Socrates: He views it as a mere natural event, produced by fimilar caufes, and producing a moral effect by the operation of fimilar circumstances. In both these very remarkable cafes,' (fays he) the benefit to the public was derived from the death of the fufferer. If Socrates had been allowed to live the few years he had to remain, the effect of his converfation and inftructions would have been inconfiderable; and we .fhould hardly have had his name tranfmitted to us. But being

called up with injuftice and cruelty to fuffer and to die; and fubmitting to his fate with the spirit and temper of a man; employing the folemn interval between his fentence and his death, in recapitulating the great principles of his favourite fcience, and the reafons of his ferenity, peace, and hope, every word he uttered was engraven upon the hearts of his friends: every one of whom became another Socrates; and by a fervid zeal, and enthufiaftic eloquence, fpread his philofophy through the world. So in the cafe of Chrift, the fuccefs of his doctrine, the enthusiasm of his difciples, and the prevalence of Chriftianity, was owing to his death; and fo fenfible were the early Chriftians of this, that by a ftrong figure, they faid, the world was washed in his blood, and faved by his crots.'

We cannot avoid remarking, that this pofition is exceedingly injurious to Chriftianity. It degrades it to a level with the inftitutions of human wifdom: and cannot be reconciled with the exprefs defign of the death of Chrift, in those books which record it, notwithstanding our Author hath peremptorily afferted, in his ufual, unqualified ftyle, that no man who reads the Evangelifts as he would the writings of Plato and Xenophon,

will

will ever imagine that the defign of Chrift was any other than to oppofe morality to the cabaliftic learning and fuperftition of the Jews.'-But'if we read the Evangelifts according to the prefcription of Mr. Williams, we cannot but imagine, that Chrift had a farther defign than barely to inculcate the precepts of morality. Morality to its utmoft extent, and in its higheft perfection, was doubtlefs one neceflary part of our Saviour's plan. But it was only a part of a fyftem that terminated in the great doctrine of immortality, which was brought to light by the Gofpel." This doctrine appears to be the ultimate object of the death of Chrift. For he died to rife again; and by his refurrection, he afforded, what could not have been gained by the deepest refearches of human fagacity; and that was,—an undeniable conviction of our having been made for a future ftate, and that he who raised up Chrift from the dead will alfo quicken our mortal bodies." This is the uniform language of the New Teftament: and this doctrine appears to be the ruling principle of Chriftianity. Mr. Williams may conteft the truth of the doctrine: but then he must not talk of reading the books of the Evangelifts as we do thofe of Plato and Xenophon.' They, at least, are directly, and literally, at variance with his affertion and were we inclined to adopt his pofitive and dog. matical mode of fpeech, we might with more juftnefs affirm, that no man, who reads the facred writings as he would thote of profane Authors, can ferioufly adopt a pofition fo contrary to the obvious fenfe and letter of the Gospel.' B...k.

66

[To be concluded in our next]

6

ART. II. The Plays of William Shakspeare*, in Ten Volumes, with the Corrections and Illuftrations of various Commentators: to which are added Notes by Samuel Johnfon and Geo, Steevens. The Second Edition revifed and augmented. Svo. 10 Vols. 31. 10s. Bound. Bathurst, &c.

WE

XE are here prefented with an improved and truly valuable edition of the Works of a poet who hath long been claffed among the moft aftonishing phænomena of human genius. Panegyric hath been exhaufted in his praife; and the invention of a Shakspeare only, could furnish fresh topics of encomium.

The first characters for ingenuity and erudition have not dif dained, what Mr. Pope in one of his proud and fplenetic moments, called the dull Duty of Editors, in order to illuftrate the productions of this immortal Bard. But dull as that duty might

This mode of spelling the name of Shakspeare is adopted out of refpect to an autograph of the poet affixed to his will preferved in the court of Canterbury. A fac fimile of his hand-writing is given in this edition.

appear

appear to a man of genius, Mr. Pope himfelf fubmitted to the talk. Nothing but the fuperior dignity of the name, and the unrivalled excellence of the Works of Shakspeare, could have tempted fo illuftrious a poet to become an editor;-a poet, whole own admired writings had been diftinguifhed by the notes and conjectures of various critics, and were at laft to receive the highest mark of honour from the Annotations and Commentaries of a WARBURTON,

Among the names that have refcued the editorial office from. contempt, we may, with ftrict impartiality, place Dr. Johnfon's in the firft rank. In spite of the envy of fome malignant critics, and their ignorant abettors, who were content to echo their detractions-in fpite even of all that a Churchill himself could write to depreciate Dr. Johnfon's claim to fame, yet he still commands the admiration of his country, and bears his blushing honours thick about him,' even in the very winter of his days. Nor will pofterity cenfure the prefent age for having been too prodigal in its applause of this great man. His moral and critical writings will remain a perpetual monument of genius, industry, and learning.

Mr. Steevens's name feems to be the only one that deserved to be united with Dr. Johnfon's in an edition of Shakspeare. To that acuteness of understanding, and elegance of taste, so neceffary to form a true critic, he hath added that perfeverance of investigation and accuracy of refearch, which were effential to a clear and minute illuftration of a variety of paffages in Shakfpeare; which owe all their force and beauty to fome local and temporary circumstances. Of these circumftances former commentators were ignorant, in a very great degree, through a want of those resources of which Mr. Steevens hath availed himself equally to the gratification of the Reader, and the credit of his own fagacity and diligence.

Of the former edition of this very curious and elaborate work we gave some account in our Review for December, 1773. As that article may poffibly be deemed too brief and general for a work of fuch extent, our account of the prefent edition will be more extended, and more particular.

The feveral prefaces, which had been prefixed to Shakspeare by his various editors, are here reprinted, as in the former edition, together with Mr. Steevens's original advertisement to the Reader, enlarged by a curious extract from a fatirical pamphlet, written by Decker, in the year 1609; and entitled The Gul's Horn-Book.' The extract is given with a view to afford the Reader a more complete idea of the customs peculiar to our ancient theatres than is generally entertained. The chapter from whence this extract is taken, is entitled How a Gallant thould behave himself in a Play-Houfe.' A vein of great humour and irony

2

irony runs through it. Decker's Gallant was a kind of gentle man-bully, whofe ambition it was to be fignalized by fome notable exploits-commonly called by our Oxford heroes of the prefent day-kicking up a d-d duft. Such gallants, as the old fatirift calls them, make up by noife what they want in wit: and he therefore humorously affures them, that it will crowne them with rich commendation to laugh aloud in the midst of the most serious and faddeft scene of the terribleft tragedy: and to let that clapper, their tongue, be toffed fo high, that all the houfe may ring of it.'

Decker's Gallant bears a ftrong refemblance of our modern choice fpirits, who find it an easier task to raise a riot at a playhoufe, than to decide with judgment on the refpective merits of authors or actors. Their abfurdities, however, were manifefted in different modes. Among other fooleries, Decker rallies them for, card-playing, to amufe the time before the play began.

To the prefent edition is added a curious extract from Mr. Grainger's Biographical Hiftory of England, relating to the portraits of Shakspeare. They are diftinctly enumerated, and their respective merits are judiciously difcuffed. This edition is embellished alfo with two prints of Shakspeare. The first is copied from an engraving of Martin Droefhost, and was origi nally impreffed on the title-page of the folio edition of Shakfpeare, by Heminge and Condell. The fecond is a copy of the portrait prefixed to his poems, publifhed in 12mo, in 1640. These two prints are indeed much unlike one another in point of expreffion. The firft is moft efteemed, as it carries ftronger marks of dignity and elevation of mind than the latter, and feems beft to fuit the genius of the man:-but chiefly is it va lued for the teftimony which Ben Jonfon bore to it on account of its refemblance to his friend Shakspeare; and

• Wherein (fays he) the graver had a flrife

6 With nature to outdo the life.'

This was the teftimony of a man who had known Shakspeare too well to have been deceived: and for the fake of complimenting the engraver's art, would fcarcely have ventured on an affertion that, if not true, could have been fo eafily, and by fuch numbers falfified. Mr. Grainger informs us, as a corroborating proof of the exactness of Droefhoft's engraving, that the author of a letter from Stratford upon Avon, printed in the Gentleman's Magazine, about twenty years fince, informs us, that this head is as much like his monumental effigy, as a print can be.'

Mr. Steevens,, in the edition of 1773, had (as he frankly acknowledges) given inadvertently a wrong account of the folio edition of 1632. He had given it a fimilar character with the 3d and 4th impreffions which were all printed in the courfe of the last century, from 1623 to 1685. The two laft editions he

fill confiders as little better than waste paper; for they differ only from the preceding ones by a larger accumulation of errors." But on maturer examination he retracts his former charge against the second edition of 1632, and informs us that it is not without its value; for though it be in fome cafes more incorrectly printed than the preceding one, it has likewife the advantage of various readings, which are not merely fuch as a reiteration of copies will naturally produce. The curious examiner of Shakfpeare's text, who poffeffes the firft of thefe, ought not to be unfurnished with the fecond.' We thought it not amifs to tranfcribe this note as a proof of Mr. S.eevens's candour, and that the poffeffors of the old edition of 1632 may know what value to fet on it.

The other additions to the prefent work confift of a lift of plays, altered from Shakspeare, by Sir William Davenant, Lord Landfdowne, Tate, Betterton, Dennis, Sheffield D. of Bucks, Dryden, Otway, Garrick, Cibber, Sheridan, Colman, and others; with a lift of detached pieces of criticifm on Shakipcare and his editors,'-beginning with Rymer's Short View of Tragedy,' printed in 1693, and ending with Voltaire's Letter to the French Academy,' in 1777. Next follow fuch extracts of entries on the books of the Stationers Company,' as bear any reference to Shakspeare's plays, or the plays of other authors, that were publifhed with the fame titles that he himself had adopted.

It is worth remark, fays Mr. Steevens, that on these books of the Stationers Company, Titus Andronicus, Venus and Adonis, two parts of King Henry VI., Locrine, Widow of Watling-Street, King Richard II., King Richard the IId., King Henry II., &c. are the first performances attributed to Shakspeare. Thus might the progrefs of his dramatic art be afcertained, were we abfolutely fure that his productions were fet down in chronological arrangement on these records of ancient publication. It may be added, that although the interefts of playhoufes had power to fufpend privately the printing of his theatrical pieces, they could not have retarded the appearance of his poems; and we may therefore justly date the commencement of his authorship from the time when the first of them came out, viz. his Venus ana Adonis, when he was in the 29th year of his age. In the dedication of this poem to the earl of Southampton, Shakspeare calls it," The firft Heir of his Invention."

Of all his undifputed plays, the only one omitted in the books of the Stationers Company, is King John. The fame attention to secure a lafting property in the works of Ben Jonfon, and Beaumont and Fletcher, doth not appear to have been exerted; as of the former I have met with no more than seven or eight entries, and of the latter a ftill lefs confiderable number. Beaumont

I