feem to have piqued themfelves on the fuperiority of their exhibitions to thofe of the established theatres. Wishing, probably, to manifeft this fuperiority to the Royal Pedant, it is not likely, that they would chufe for a collegiate interlude, a fubject which had already appeared on the public ftage, with all the embellishments that the magic hand of Shakspeare could bestow. This tragedy contains an allufion to the union of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, under one fovereign, and alfo, to the cure of the King's-Evil by the Royal touch [Act IV. Scene I, II.]; but in what year that pretended power was affumed by King James I. is uncertain. Macbeth was not entered on the Stationers books, nor printed, till 1623. At the time when Macbeth was fuppofed to have been written, the fubject, it is probable, was confidered as a topic the moft likely to conciliate the favour of the court. In the additions to Warner's Albion's England, which were firft printed in 1606, the story of the Three Fairies or Weird Elves, as he calls them, is fhortly told; and King James's defcent from Banquo carefully deduced. Ben Jonfon, a few years afterwards, paid his court to his Majefty, by his Masque of Queens, prefented at Whitehall, Feb. 12, 1609, in which he hath given a minute detail of all the magic rites that are recorded by King James, in his book of Demonologie, or by any other author ancient or modern. Mr. Steevens hath lately discovered a MS. play, entitled the WITCH, written by Thomas Middleton, which renders it queftionable, whether Shakspeare was not indebted to that author for the first hint of the magic introduced in this tragedy. -The fongs beginning Come away, &c. and Black fpirits, &c. being found at full length in Middleton's play, while only the two firft words of them are printed in Macbeth, favour the fuppofition, that Middleton's piece preceded that of Shakspeare, the latter, it should feem, thinking it unneceffary to fet down. verfes which were probably well known, and perhaps then in the poffeffion of the managers of the Globe Theatre. The high reputation of Shakspeare's performances likewife ftrengthens this conjecture; for it is very improbable, that Middleton, or any other poet of that time, fhould have ventured into thofe regions of fiction, in which our Author had already expatiated.' Mr. Steevens hath produced fome curious extracts from this old play, which, we are informed, will be published entire, for the fatisfaction of the intelligent readers of Shakspeare." By the very numerous quotations from old plays, ballads, hiftories, and romances, which Mr. Steevens hath produced, to illuftrate fome obfcure paffages in Shakspeare, a hafty and fuperficial critic might be tempted to queftion his peculiar, and almoft unrivalled claim to originality: or if he were not fo prefumptuous C 4 fumptuous as to question what the united fuffrages of the beft judges have allowed him, yet, at least, to qualify it by a colder praife than hath been hitherto bestowed on him. It muft, indeed, be acknowledged by the most enthufiaftic admirer of this immortal poet, that many of his plays, which owe their chief beauties to a boldnefs of invention, and a wildness of fancy, appear to have been in fome degree indebted, either for plot, management, or machinery, to other writers. This remark receives confirmation from the difcovery of Middleton's MS. play, above mentioned; in which, fomewhat of that imagery that hath equally aftonished, charmed, and terrified us, in the clofet and the theatre, in the tragedy of Macbeth, may be traced out by a curious and difcerning eye. How far Shakspeare was indebted to old English tranflations of the Greek and Latin claffics-to Stow, Hall, Holinghed, and the translator of Hector Boethius's Hiftory of Scotland, hath been fufficiently noticed by preceding critics. It was, indeed, left to the indefatigable Mr. Steevens, to turn over a thousand dull and infignificant entries at Stationers Hall, in order to discover all the minutia of dates and titles which bore any reference to Shakspeare; and after a moft laborious refearch, with an eye (as Dr. Johnfon fays of the fagacious Mr. B's) that looked keenly on vacancy, he made a discovery of feveral plays, on fimilar fubjects with many of Shakspeare's, which were prior to his, and even before his first entrance on the ftage. All this may be true: nay, we have not a doubt of the fact. But nothing that hath yet been produced of Shakspeare's plagiarifm, can deprive him of one tittle of his almoft prefcriptive right to all the honours of a great and unequalled original. The most captious critic, in the fulhefs of a defire to find fault, muft allow, that Shakspeare's borrowed ornaments fit on him with a more natural grace and elegance than on their original proprietors. They are fo exquifitely difpofed of-fo nicely blended with what is unquestionably his own property, that we, know not where the borrowed parts end, nor where the original ones begin. The whole appears to be the production of the fame mafter: fimplex duntaxat et unum. We may, perhaps, affert, that in the general and more difgraceful feafe of the word, this great poet never appears to have borrowed at all. He had read indeed; and his capacious mind was ftored with a vaft treasure of knowledge and obfervation. He had reflected on the great acquifitions he had made; had arranged them in his mind with much care and exactnefs. By thele means, they became incorporated with his own natural, and in the trueft fenfe of the term, unborrowed reflections. Hence it is obvious to fuppofe, that when he addreffed himself to compofition, he drew indifcriminately from the immenfe torehouse of his mind, whatever was fit for his purpose, whether of of native or acquired knowledge-indifferent, and perhaps unconscious, whofe property any part of it might be. This is not an uncommon circumftance. The utmolt circumspection cannot always prevent its occurrence: for it is difficult to diftinguish the power of invention from that of reflection. Fancy may claim for its own what had been firft only adopted by memory. Shakspeare hath the admirable art not only of applying his borrowed parts with propriety, but of embellishing and improving them. He adds to them a grace and dignity, which, at least, are his own. In the tragedy of Macbeth, his fpirits, though fimilar in name to thofe of Middleton [particularly the prefiding Deity hath in each the Grecian name of Hecate] yet they differ from Middleton's in almost every effential attribute of conduct and character. Middleton's fairies are light, frisky beings, who wreak their malice on fmall culprits, and revenge little mischiefs. Shakspeare's are brought on the stage for purposes of higher account. They are to be the inftruments of dire events-revolutions that were worthy the council of the Gods. This great object was of fufficient importance to excuse the interpofition of fupernatural beings. Hence, what Middleton invented to amufe, Shakspeare's more daring genius improved into an inftrument of terror. This he hath accomplished with wonderful propriety and we admire that fkill and power which, on fo flight a bafis, could erect fuch a Stupendous fabric. Shakspeare's witches feem to be fully aware of the high importance of the fubject of their incantations, by the number of the ingredients which they throw into the cauldron. Hecate is anxious for its fuccefs; and enquires into the particulars of the infernal mixture. They folemnly caft in their respective share of the compofition: but inftead of the griftle of a man hang'd after fun-fet [i. e. a murderer, according to Middleton's play] they throw in the greafe that's fweaten from a murderer's gibbet: and inftead of Middleton's fat of an unbaptifed child, they mix with the other ingredients of the cauldron, the finger of birth-ftrangled babe. Perhaps it may be impoffible to defcribe the precife difference in the energy of thefe expreffions. It must be felt from their feveral effects on the imagination. Confidered in that view, the difference is very great: at least, it is felt to be fuch by us; and from a variety of circumftances of this kind, we are perfuaded, that Shakspeare never fat down to write from another's copy. His language was the natural expreffion of a mind fraught with the boldeft conceptions, and the most lively ideas: and when the whole of Middleton's play is published, perhaps our convictions will be still farther corroborated, of Shakspeare's having never confidered it as a model for his fcene of the witches witches in Macbeth, however he might have fallen on fome particular modes of expreffion, that were fcarce avoidable on the fame fubject. The fcene of the witches with Macbeth, after their incantations at the cauldron, is inexpreffibly folemn: and the expedient of fhewing a future race of Kings, wonderfully ftriking and fublime., Distance and obfcurity affift and increafe that terror which is one capital fource of fublimity. But as if that were not fufficient, others are fhewn in a glafs, as the defcendents of Banquo, whofe ruin he was contriving. To fee them exalted to the height of power and authority, was an object to strike ambition to madnefs.-We have made thefe remarks, in order to evince how effentially different the gay witches of Middleton are from the awful fifters of Macbeth. In a future Review, we will present our readers with fome curious illuftrations of difficult paffages in the plays, which cannot fail of being acceptable to all the lovers of Shakspeare. 16-1 ART. III. Two Differtations, I. On the Preface to St. John's Gospel. 11. On praying to Jefus Chrift. By Theophilus Lindfey, A. M. With a fhort Poftfcript by Dr. Jebb. 8vo. 2 s. 6d. Johnfon, 1779. N the preface to this work, Mr. Lindfey gives his reafons for this addition to his former publications on the fubject, in the following terms: I had refolved to have left my argu ments to take their fate, as I had first put them down in the Apology and Sequel +. But the friend (Mr. Temple) who had confuted Mr. Burgh and Mr. Randolph, had alfo, with the fame difinterested regards to truth, published his diffatisfaci tion with the interpretation I had given of the prologue of St. John's Gofpel, the right understanding whereof feems of great importance towards fettling the true character of Jefus Chrift; and objections from fuch a pen demand respect. And a few months paft, an anonymous perfon, in a Letter to Dr. Jebb, with relation to his declared Sentiments about the Unlawfulness of all religious Addreffes to Jefus Chrift," has laboured much to fhew, that I had not fufficiently proved that point. I have then judged it proper, and hope it may be of fome ufe, to review, and add farther fupport to what I had ad vanced on both thefe fubjects, with an eye, as I went along, to fuch objections as I had met with, but without entering into a direct controverfy with any one, to which I am much averfe. * Vide Review, vol. L. p. 56. 100. Vol. lvi. p. 14.. Ibid. vol. ix. p. 77. The The Differtation on the Preface to St. John's Gospel is di vided into four fections, the first of which more directly confiders the paffage John i. 1-14. and is intended to fupport the affertion, or conclufion, that That the Logos, the Word, in this preface, is not Chrift, but the word, wisdom, power of God, communicated to him, and manifefted by him.' The fecond section mentions the filence, as he apprehends, of the three other Evangelifts on the fubject of Chrift's preexistence, and produces paffages, from St. Luke's Gofpel, and the Acts of the Apoftles, which he concludes express a very different idea. A brief account of certain forms of expreffion in St. John's Gofpel, which have been thought to favour the fuppofition of Chrift being the Word, Logos, mentioned John i. 1. conftitutes the third fection, and finishes what this writer has to offer on the immediate fubject of the firft differtation. For the fourth fection treats Of Socinianism and Socinus.' This fection,' our Author informs us, has been added, to give fome little information concerning F. Socinus, who was nearly coeval with those great men, Luther and Calvin, and was one of the lights which Divine Providence raised up at that period, to recover the loft truths of the Gospel. And that fection, it is added, together with the whole of this work, may, perhaps, contribute to foften, if not to remove, the prejudices of fome perfons against thofe to whom they give the name of Socinians, which name, as far as the author comprehends it, might be given to the Apostles of Jefus, as equally belonging to them.' The fecond differtation, On praying to Jefus Christ, confifts of feveral sections, which, under different heads, repeat and farther illuftrate those arguments that have been frequently employed against the practice. However different Mr. Lindfey's fentiments on the above fubjects may be from thofe of many of his fellow-chriftians, it fhould be obferved, and it is greatly to be wished that it might be attended to, that he has a high veneration for the Scriptures, that he diligently and modeftly inveftigates fcripture truth, and appears fincerely defirous to embrace it; no perfon, who may confider himself as moft orthodox, or may be what is far better, really humble and pious, can be more truly and properly zealous for what he apprehends to be the truths of the Gospel, than this worthy divine; a confideration which fhould awaken and increase mutual candour and benevolence, The Poftfcript, written by Dr. Jebb, is addreffed to the author of A Letter to him, with relation to his declared Sentiments, &c.' as mentioned above. The writer of that letter, after having mentioned the Doctor's denial of the lawfulness of religious |