was not untainted with a spirit of innovation, and too often exhibited a capricious love of change.

Yet, inadequate as these editors proved themselves to the task which they undertook, they were in all the duties of their office greatly superior to their immediate successors, Sir Thomas Hanmer and Bishop Warburton; who both implicitly adopting, for their sole authority, the edition of Pope, added, to the imperfections of an already faulty copy, a multitude of fresh errors, the result of unbridled conjecture and arrogant

conceit.

Had Dr. Johnson, into whose hands the poet was next destined to pass, possessed as much industry as talent, the labours of every subsequent editor, as far as the integrity of the text is concerned, might have been spared. No man, in fact, was better acquainted with the requisites for the task which he undertook than this celebrated moralist and philologer, as the scheme of a new edition of the poet which he published in 1756, nine years anterior to the appearance of his editorial labours, fully evinces. But alas! when this long-promised edition came forth, it was but too evident that he wanted the perseverance and research to carry his own well-conceived plan into execution. We can, however, with grateful pleasure record that, imperfect as his labours were, he not only greatly surpassed his predecessors, but first pointed out the path which

led succeeding commentators to more successful results.

It must not be forgotten that a plan for illustrating Shakspeare similar to that which Dr. Johnson had sketched and partially pursued, had been long carrying on by one of his contemporaries, though not announced to the public until three years after the Doctor's edition. As early, indeed, as the year 1745, Johnson, shocked at the lawless licence of Hanmer's plan, affixed to some strictures on the baronet's edition, brief proposals for a new impression of the bard; and a like feeling of indignation operating simultaneously on the mind of Capell, this gentleman employed not less than six and thirty years in the endeavour to do justice to his favourite poet. Unfortunately for his reputation, the text and the commentary were published separately and at widely-distant periods; the first appearing in 1768, and the latter in 1783, two years after his decease. It might have been expected from the singular industry of Capell, which was almost exhaustless, and the years which he had devoted to collation and transcription, that he would have presented us with a text of great comparative

d

"Mr. Capell, we are told, spent a whole life on Shakspeare; and if it be true, which we are also told, that he transcribed the works of that illustrious poet ten times with his own hand, it is no breach of charity to add, that much of a life that might have been employed to more valuable purposes, was miserably wasted."--Chalmer's Biographical Dictionary, vol. viii. p. 201.

purity; but he too, notwithstanding the plodding patience of his nature, could not escape the rage for emendation; and the innovations and arbitrary alterations which he introduced into the pages of his author, "amount," says Mr. Malone, who took the pains, by a rigorous examination, to ascertain the fact, "to no less a number than nine hundred and seventy-two."

If however, as an editor, he failed in one important part of his duty, he had the merit of first carrying another into execution, that of explaining and illustrating Shakspeare through the medium of his contemporaries; for, in the "Introduction" to his edition of the poet, he not only announced his being engaged in drawing up a large body of notes critical and explanatory but that he had prepared and had gotten in great forwardness another work, on which he had been employed for more than twenty years, to be entitled "The School of Shakspeare," consisting wholly of extracts from books familiar to the poet, and unfolding the sources whence he had drawn a large portion of his various knowledge, classical, historical, and romantic. This announcement, which was made fifteen years before the work appeared, had a result which could scarcely have been contemplated by the laborious compiler; for he had been so full and explicit in detailing what he had

• Johnson and Steevens's Shakspeare, apud Reed, 1803. Vol. 16, p. 384.

done, and what he was about to do, that, as a lively memorialist remarks, "while he was diving into the classics of Caxton, and working his way underground, like the river Mole, in order to emerge with all his glories; while he was looking forward to his triumphs; certain other active spirits went to work upon his plan, and digging out the promised treasures, laid them prematurely before the public, defeating the effect of our critic's discoveries by anticipation. Farmer, Steevens, Malone, and a whole host of literary ferrets, burrowed into every hole and corner of the warren of modern antiquity, and overran all the country, whose map had been delineated by Edward Capell."

f

As Capell, however, was the first efficient explorer of the mine, and led the way to others in a mode of illustration which, when judiciously pursued, has certainly contributed more than any other species of commentary to render the poet better understood, it may not be uninteresting in this place, and before I touch upon the efforts of those who followed in the same track, to give a slight glance at what criticism had been previously doing in the field of annotation. Rowe's edition being without notes, Pope stands foremost in the list of those who accompanied the text with a commentary of any kind: this, however, is nearly limited to conjectural criticism, which he appears to

Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary, vol. viii, p. 200.

have employed without fear or controul, expunging whatever he disliked, and altering whatever he did not understand; and as he was miserably deficient in a knowledge of the language and literature, the manners and customs of the age of Shakspeare, he had, of course, abundant opportunities for the exercise of a fanciful and unrestrained ingenuity. His preface, however, is beautifully written, and in many parts with a just feeling and conception of the character and genius of his great author; but by no means entitled to the lavish encomium of Dr. Johnson, who terms it, as a piece of general criticism, "so extensive that little can be added, and so exact that little can be disputed," praise which the warmest admirer of Pope must now condemn as hyperbolical.

With Theobald, whose sole merit as a commentator turns upon minute verbal criticism and a few occasional illustrations from writers contemporary with the poet, commenced that system of ostentation, petty triumph and scurrility, which has so much disgraced the annotators on Shakspeare, and on which, I am sorry to say, it will be necessary very shortly to make some farther stric

tures.

It is scarcely worth while to mention the notes of Hanmer otherwise than to remark, that they too often betray an equal degree of confidence and want of judgment; his efforts, indeed, appear to have been chiefly directed towards giving the venerable bard a more modern aspect by the most