Dr. Johnfon is not content with reprefenting the foldier as peevish; he makes him a perfect fool. For thus, according to the fagacious commentators expofition, will his foliloquy ftand:-1 cannot read these letters; I must get some beast to read them for me; for, read they must be; and read, in this place, they cannot be, by man! But, firft, where was the fo urgent neceffity of the infcription being read at all? and, fecondly, why could no man read it where it was?

TITUS ANDRONICUS.

P. 477.

Mar, The Greeks upon advice did bury Ajax That flew himself, &c.

This paffage convinces mr. Steevens, that this play was the work of one converfant with the Greek tragedies in their original language; and, therefor, not of Shakspeare. "We have here," fays he, "a plein allufion to the Ajax of Sophocles, of which no translation was extant in the time of Shakspeare." If the fact were true, of which, however, neither mr. Steevens, nor any man now living can be certain (18), numbers of printed tracts, and even large volumes, having perished fince that period, as accidents and

(18) Theobald has fuppofed a paffage in this play to have been gleaned from the Hecuba of Euripides. But, fays mr. Steevens, upon that occafion, mr. Theobald fhould first have proved to us that our author understood Greek, or else that this play of Euripides had been translated. In the mean time because neither of thefe particulars are verified, we may as well fuppofe he took it from the old story book of the Trojan war, or the old translation of Ovid." Why should mr. Steevens require a proof from Theobald of a circumftance which he his felf here affumes as a matter of fact?

the researches of antiquarians dayly prove, ftill Shakspeare might have been indebted for the circumftance to fome manufcript verfion, or the information of a more learned friend. Or (as is very probable) the fame allufion may be contained in other old books. There are many expreffions in the course of the play which do not prove the author to have been very familiar with the ancients. Among other inftances which might be adduced, Marcus praifes Lavinia for her excellent performance on the lute. And it will not be very easy to decide whether the characters, or, at least, the times are Christian or Heathen.

p. 483.

Chi, Not I; till I have sheath'd &c.

The editors have here adopted a transpofition made by dr. Warburton, for which there is not the leaft reafon. Onely the matter is not of fufficient confequence to dwell

upon.

P. 484.

Dem. She is a woman, therefore may be woo'd; She is a woman, therefore may be won.

Suffolk, in the First part of king Henry VI. makes use of almoft the fame words:

She's beautiful; and therefore to be woo'd:
She is a woman, therefore to be won.

if

How much or how little foever this may ferve to prove, facts and evidence be to determine our judgement, there cannot remain a doubt that this play of Titus Andronicus is as much Shakspeares as any other in this collection. It is not onely given to him by Meres, but is printed as his by the

editors

editors of the firft folio, his fellow comedians and intimate friends, who neither could have been deceived theirselves, nor could or would have deceived the public.

VOLUME THE NINT HI..

Cre.

TROILUS AND CRESSIDA.

P. 26.

Women are angels, wooing;

Things won are done, joy's foul lies in the doing.

So, fays dr. Johnson, read both the old editions, for which, adds he, the later editors have poorly given: the foul's joy lies in doing.

Whatever may be the poverty of the expreffion, it did not originate with the later editors. It is the reading of the fecond folio.

P. 51.

Patr. No more words, Therfites; peace.

Ther. I will hold my peace when Achilles' brach bids me, fhall I?

The folio and quarto editions, it feems, read brooch, which leads dr. Johnson to think the meaning equivalent to one of Achilles' hangers-on. Mr. Malone, who, it must be confessed, generally comes foreward to a very good or useful purpose, obferves that Brooch had fome meaning at prefent unknown. For, fays he, in the following paffage

im

in Lodges Rofalynde, 1592, it feems to fignify fomething very different from a pin or a bodkin: "His bonnet was green, whereon ftood a copper brooch with the picture of St. Dennis." A brooch is an ornament; likewise a buckle

of uncommon workmanship, for the hat or breaft. Such a one as had an image or figure of St. Dennis upon it, would probably conceal the pin or prong, which kept it faft to the hat or girdle. K. Lewis the eleventh of France generally wore a leaden figure of St. Andrew in his hat, which, perhaps, answered the purpose of a brooch or buckle.

Thus, in Loves Labour Loft (ii. 509):

Biron. St. George's half cheek in a brooch.
Dum. Ay, and in a brooch of lead.

Biron. Ay, and worn in the cap of a tooth-drawer.

Brach is certainly the true reading.

We do not throw in unrefpective fieve.

Sieve, it seems, is in the quarto. The folio, according to dr. Johnfon, reads

unrefpective fame [fame];

for which, he fays, the modern editors have filently printed,

-unrefpective place.

The learned commentator is so perfectly acquainted with the old copies that it is wonderful to find an ancient reading escape him! Place, however, cannot well be the filent interpolation of a modern editor, as it is to be found in the fecond folio.

Parr.

P. 62.

Patr. Why am I a fool?

Ther. Make that demand of the prover.

So, fays dr. Johnson, the quarto. The folio, adds mr. Steevens, profanely reads, of thy [to the] Creator. This would be intelligible, however, which the adopted reading is not. And as to any profaneness there may be in the words rejected, which every person may not fo readyly dis cover, the author is anfwerable for it, not the editor.

P. 73.

Pan. What exploit's in hand? where fups he to night ?
Helen. Nay, but my lord,

Pan. What fays my fweet queen? My coufin will fall out

with you.

Helen. You must not know where he fups.

Par. I'll lay my life, with my dispofer Creffida.

Pan. No, no, no fuch matter, you are wide; come, your dispofer is fick.

Dispofer dr. Warburton thinks should in both places be dispoufer; fhe that would feparate Helen from Paris. Dr. Johnfon does not understand the word, nor know what to fubftitute in its place. He fays, there is no variation in the copies. Mr. Steevens fufpects that you must not know when he fups, fhould be added to the fpeech of Pandarus; and that the following one of Paris fhould be given to Helen. He thinks that dispofer should be changed into depofer; and supposes that the addrefses herself to Pandarus, and, by depofer, means-fhe who thinks her beauty (or, whose beauty you suppose) to be superior to mine.

7

Mr. Steevenses conjecture is very ingenious and happy, but the propriety of his explanation is very doubtful. The dialogue should, perhaps, be regulated thus: Y

Par.