After this cursory account of the chief editors of Shakspeare, I have now to turn to that branch of

ragement has not been afforded Mr. Caldecott for the prosecution of his design. The volume is entitled "Hamlet and As You Like It. A Specimen of a new Edition of Shakspeare." London: John Murray.--The principle on which the work is constructed is thus explained by the editor: "The first folio is made the groundwork of the proposed edition and present specimen, in which also will be admitted such additional matter as has occurred in the twenty quartos published by Mr. Steevens. Wherever the reading of the folio is departed from, the folio text is given in its place on the margin; but unless any thing turns upon the old spelling, in which case it is retained in the text, the modern spelling is throughout adopted; and the punctuation is altogether taken into the editor's hands. Whereever also such alterations as appear material are found in the folio 1632, they are noticed in the margin.-Not to interpose any thing of length between the author and his reader, we have thought it proper to throw the notes that are grammatical, philological, critical, historical, or explanatory of usages, to the end of each play; and at the bottom of the pages of the text, to give such only as were immediately necessary to explain our author's meaning.-We have made no comments but where we have felt doubt ourselves, or seen that others have; and wè have suffered nothing like difficulty to pass without offering our conjecture at least, or acknowledging our inability to remove it."-Advertisement to the Reader, pp. vii-x.

The only alteration which I should wish to see made in this plan, would be to have the whole of the notes immediately connected with the text instead of the larger portion of them thrown, as is now the case, to the end of each play. I am persuaded, indeed, that the trouble occasioned by the necessity of almost perpetually turning from one part of a book to another, 'would with many persons prove an insuperable bar to the consultation of any commentary. May not a feeling by the public of the inconveniency of this arrangement, have in some degree operated to arrest the completion of the editor's labours?

my subject which includes the DETACHED PUBLICATIONS EXCLUSIVELY APPROPRIATED to the poet, and which, as opening a field of great extent and no little intricacy, I shall, for the sake of perspicuity, arrange under the three heads of controversial, annotative, and dissertative criticism, passing, however, as lightly and rapidly over the ground occupied by my first division as possible, presenting as it does, with occasional illustrations of some value, so much of what is vindictive, trivial, or repulsive.

The arena opens most inauspiciously with the controversy of Rymer, Gildon, and Dennis, on the merits and demerits of the bard, three men as little calculated by their temper, taste, and talents, to do justice to the subject as could well be enumerated. This was followed by the attack of Theobald on Pope under the title of "Shakspeare Restored,' and by the war-hoop which was not unjustly raised against the dogmatism and supercilious arrogance of Warburton, by Grey, Edwards, Holt, Nichols, and Heath; a pentarchy displaying no small portion of wit, humour, and sarcastic keenness. The irony of Edwards, indeed, was conducted in his "Canons of Criticism" with uncommon skill and point, forming, in its tone and manner, a striking contrast to the bitter and vehement spirit of Heath; whilst the pamphlet of Mr. Holt points out in its very title-page what may be considered, notwithstanding the subsequent host of commentators and critics, as yet to be successfully achieved

for the fame of Shakspeare; namely, "to rescue that aunciente English Poet and Play-wrighte Maister William Shakspeare from the many Errours faulsely charged on him by certaine new, fangled Wittes; and to let him speak for himselfe, as right well he wotteth, when freede from the many careless Mistakings of the heedless first Imprinters of his Workes."

Nor were the three great editors of Shakspeare, Johnson, Steevens, and Malone, more fortunate than their predecessors Pope and Warburton had been, in escaping the ebullitions of spleen and malignity. From the coarse and bitter invective of Kenrick however, unaccompanied as it was by any supe+ rior talent, Johnson had nothing to apprehend, and he disdained to reply; but his coadjutor Steevens, and the indefatigable Malone, had to meet and to parry the keen and envenomed arrows of Ritson, a man certainly of considerable sagacity and very minute accuracy, but whose unhappy and uncontrolled temper led him, as I have before remarked, into the most indecorous and merciless abuse.

Nor was this the only opponent whose talents were of a formidable kind, that Mr. Malone had to contend with. One of the most singular and daring attempts at imposition in the literary world per haps on record, brought him into contact with Mr. George Chalmers, a critic and antiquary of much acuteness and penetration, and as industrious as himself. I allude to the pretended Shakspeare

Manuscripts published by the Irelands in 1795, a forgery by the younger of these gentlemen, which engaged much of the public attention for three or four years, and furnishes not less than nineteen articles in the last and most complete list of Detached Publications relative to the poet. Gross and despicable, however, as was the fraud, it had the incidental merit of eliciting much curious information on the history, costume, and manners of the Elizabethan era; nor can the "Inquiry" of Mr. Malone, the chief detector of the imposition, or the "Apologies for the Believers" by Mr. Chalmers, be read without feeling respect for the skill, ingenuity, and unwearied patience with which these laborious critics carried on their researches.

Retreating, however, from the thorny paths of controversy, I pass on to take a brief notice of those who, either as annotators or glossographers, have endeavoured, by occasional separate works, to illustrate and explain our bard. Grey and Heath, who have already been mentioned as the oppugnors of Warburton, possess great acumen in this department; the former especially, as contesting perhaps with Capell the merit of first pursuing the plan of illustrating Shakspeare through the medium of contemporary usage and literature. Previously, though with inferior tact, had appeared the Notes, Observations, and Remarks of Peck, Upton, and Whalley, commentators with whom, if we set aside the classical erudition of Upton, may be arranged, as of approximating worth, the names of Davies,

Chedworth, Seymour, and Jackson; the latter, how ever, being entitled to peculiar notice, as having. thrown fresh light on the state of the early impressions of Shakspeare from a skilful application of his professional knowledge as a typographer, tracing to their source, and correcting several errors which had originated solely from the incorrectness of the printer.m

There are not wanting, moreover, in this branch of Detached Publications on Shakspeare, some names of first-rate celebrity as annotators; for instance, those of Tyrwhitt, Monk Mason, Whiter," and Douce, the last gentleman in particular

The work of Mr. Jackson is entitled, "Shakspeare's' Genius Justified; being Restorations and Illustrations of Seven' Hundred Passages in Shakspeare's Plays," 8vo. 1819. If it must be granted that Mr. Jackson has occasionally allowed, himself to imagine more blunders than ever really sprang from the source he contends for, he has yet most assuredly detected, in frequent instances, errors evidently arising from the ignorance or carelessness of the printer, and consequently many of his emendations must be pronounced at once striking and correct.

" Mr. Whiter's production, which is entitled "A Specimen of a Commentary on Shakspeare," consists of two parts. 1. "Notes on As You Like It. 2. An Attempt to explain and illustrate various passages on a New Principle of Criticism, derived from Mr. Locke's Doctrine of the Association of Ideas."

This second part, which, as the author tells us, is " an endeavour to unfold the secret and subtile operations of genius, from the most indubitable doctrine in the theory of metaphysics," exhibits a most ingenious, and, not seldom, a very convincing train of reasoning and illustration, though the basis on which it is built cannot but occasionally throw open the most cautious commentator to the delusions of imagination.