1783; John Monck Mason, who published comments on Steevens' edition in 1785; E. H. Seymour, whose two volumes of "Remarks, critical, conjectural, and explanatory [including also the notes of Lord Chedworth], upon the plays of Shakspeare," appeared in 1805; Francis Douce, who issued his "Illustrations of Shakspeare and of Ancient Manners, &c." in 1809; Andrew Becket, who published two volumes, entitled "Shakspeare's himself again, or the language of the poet asserted; and Zachary Jackson, whose "Shakspeare's Genius Justified; being restorations and illustrations of seven hundred passages in Shakspeare," was given to the world in 1819.* Eminent among these for various learning, just discrimination, and a becoming deference to the author whose works he came to illustrate, is Mr. Douce. He is among the commentators what Malone is among the editors; save that his volumes exhibit a wider range of knowledge, and a more delicate and sympathetic apprehension of the peculiar beauties of Shakespeare than Malone possessed. The critical student of Shakespeare can place upon his shelves no book of comments more valuable than the two volumes of Francis Douce. He is, in fact, the only one of those who may be called the old commentators, whose works will bear reprinting. The original edition of his "Illustrations" having become very scarce, a reprint was issued in one volume, in 1839. Heath, Tyrwhitt, Ritson, and Mason, all produced an appreciable and beneficial effect upon the text,-an effect which is permanent and undeniable. As was the case This must not be considered as an intended catalogue of the commentators of past generations. Those only have been singled from the throng whose merits or demerits make them fit illustrations for the present historical sketch. Some of the ablest Shakesperian scholars of the present day will also be hereafter passed over with but an incidental mention, for similar reasons with the labors of the large majority of the commentators and editors, the mass of their suggestions have been rejected by the good sense of their successors; but they all treated their subject like scholars and men of sense, and each made a few conjectural emendations, which will always remain in the text. It is not because of an undervaluation of their abilities that we turn from them to Seymour, Becket, and Jackson. Seymour was a pedagogue, not a critic. His book contains more systematic, narrow-minded carping at and quibbling with Shakespeare, and less sympathetic comprehension of his thought than can be found in all his other commentators, Becket and Jackson, perhaps, excepted The knowledge that a verb should agree with its nominative case, and that ten syllables make a heroic line, forms the staple of the qualifications which he brought to his task. Speaking of the labors of his predecessors,-not very scrupulous or conservative, as the reader has already seen, he says, complainingly : They have all been satisfied with delivering the text of each drama as they found it, with preference occasionally to the readings of different impressions; and if the choice they made be deemed judicious, so much of their undertaking has been performed but with regard to those anomalies in which the measure, construction, and sense have been vitiated, they appear to have been strangely negligent; and sometimes strangely mistaken; the want of meaning can never be excused; the disregard of syntax is no less reprehensible, and every poetic ear must be offended by metrical dissonance.”—Vol. I., p. 2. He practised what he preached. Thus, in the following lines from Hamlet 66 'Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet, To give these mourning duties to your father; But you must know, your father lost a father; That father lost, lost his, and the survivor bound," &c. he rejected, as interpolations, those words which are printed in Italic letters, and gave the passage thus: ""Tis sweet and commendable in you, Hamlet, He removes the 'from' in all cases in which it is used with 'whence,' or 'thence,' because it is tautological; thus endeavoring to conform the language of Shakespeare's day to that of his own; and he seeks, by mutilation, addition, and transposition, to make an unbroken series of perfect lines of ten syllables, from the beginning to the end of every play; and in all these points his labors are rivalled by, and in some cases are identical with, the labors of Mr. Collier's folio corrector. It is difficult to speak with patience or decorum of Mr. Becket. His work is stupidity run mad; and a just idea of it can only be obtained from extracts. Opening the first volume at random, we find the following "Hamlet.-Govern these ventages with your fingers and thumb, give it breath with your mouth, and it will discourse most excellent music.' "Ventages and thumb,' I would read thus: 'Govern these ventages and the umbo with your fingers,' &c. Umbo, (Lat.,) a knob; a button. The piece of brass at the end of a flute might very well be called a button."—Vol. I., pp. 54, 55. Again, from the same play,-Hamlet, in the grave with Laertes, is taunting him :— "Woo't weep? woo't fight? woo't fast? woo't tear thyself? Woo't drink up Esil? eat a crocodile?' &c. "This proposition of Hamlet is too extravagant, too ridicu lous to remain in the text. By such a reading the Danish Prince appears to be a very Dragon of Wantley for voraciousness." [Becket is serious.] "I regulate the passage thus: 'Woo't weep, woo't drink, woo't eat? woo't fast? woo't fight? "Up' is misprinted for 'Ape,' 'Esel,' in old language, is 'Ass.'"-Vol. I., p. 67. If that were all the commentator needed, why did he not read, "Ape! Becket! Crocodile?" The metre, and the signification, would have been quite as well preserved, and the new arrangement would not have been a whit more impertinent. I will add only the following from Macbeth, by turning a few leaves. Lady Macbeth says: "Come thick night And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell! "I correct the whole as follows: "Come thick night And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell! That Heaven see not the wound my keen knife makes Deep through thy dark, nor blench at it to cry, 'Hold, hold!'"-Vol. I. p. 90. It was necessary that we should look at Mr. Becket's work; but have we not had enough of it? Zachary Jackson was a printer; and as the greater portion of the corruptions of Shakespeare's works have crept into the text by the carelessness of compositors and proofreaders, he justly thought that a practical knowledge of his art would be of service in the conjectural correction of His knowledge of the com the sadly misprinted folio. posing case, and of the various accidents to which 'matter' as standing type is called-is subjected, from the time it is set up until it goes to press, did enable him to make a few happy guesses, or rather deductions, as to the errors which had been committed and neglected by the first printers of Shakespeare. He had corrected a great deal of proof, and was thus able to conjecture, with occasional good fortune, what accident had produced the error in the book before him. But even in this he was by no means infallible; and when, forgetting the "ne sutor," he ventured into the field of general comment and criticism, he made such absurd and atrocious changes in the text, that it is difficult to believe them the work of a mind above that of an idiot; and yet he utters them with an owlish sapience that makes him the very Bunsby of commentators. Ecce signum. First, in Much Ado About Nothing, Act III. Sc. 1: For shape, for bearing, argument, and valour "Thus the text makes Benedick support a greater weight than any porter in all Italy. For argument, I shall only say, it is the very worst recommendation to a lady's love, as it is not only productive of serious quarrels abroad, but also the strongest poison to domestic happiness. "Our author wrote: 'Signior Benedick, For shape, forbearing argument, and valour, "Thus the recommendation is strong; for though Benedick is the most valorous man throughout Italy, yet, he ever forbears argument, in order to avoid dissension: such endowments, I |