that was a man when king Pepin of France was a little boy, as touching the hit it? Boyet. So I may answer thee with one as old, that was a woman when 'queen Guinever of Britain was a little wench, as touching the hit it. Rof. Thou can't not hit it, bit it, bit it. Thou can't not hit it, my good man. Boyet. An' I cannot, cannot, cannot; An' I cannot, another can. [Singing. [Exit Rof. Coft. By my troth, most pleasant! how both did fit it. Mar. A mark marvellous well fhot; for they both did hit it. Boyet. A mark? O, mark but that mark; a mark, fays my lady; Let the mark have a prick in't; to mete at, if it may be. Mar. Wide o' the bow-hand! i'faith, your hand is out. Coft. Indeed, a' muft fhoot nearer, or he'll ne'er hit the clout. Boyet. An' if my hand be out, then, belike, your hand is in. Coft. Then will fhe get the upfhot by cleaving the pin. Mar. Come, come, you talk greafily, your lips grow foul. Coft. She's too hard for you at pricks, Sir; challenge her to bowl. Boyet. I fear too much rubbing; good night my queen Guinever] This was king Arthur's queen, not over famous for fidelity to her husband. See the fong of the Boy and the Mantle in Mr. Percy's Collection. In Beaumont and Fletcher's Scornful Lady, the elder Loveless addresses Abigail, the old incontinent waiting-woman, by this name. STEVENS. Coft. By my foul, a fwain! a moft fimple clown! Lord, Lord! how the ladies and I have put him down! O'my troth, most sweet jefts, most incony vulgar wit! When it comes fo fmoothly off, fo obfcenely, as it were, so fit. Armado o' the one fide, O, a moft dainty man! And his page o' t'other fide, that handful of wit! Sola, fola! [Exit Coftard. [Shouting within. 2 SCENE II. Enter Dull, Holofernes, and Sir Nathaniel. Nath. Very reverend sport, truly; and done in the teftimony of a good confcience. Hol. Enter-Holofernes,] There is very little perfonal reflexion in Shakespeare. Either the virtue of thofe times, or the candour of our author, has fo effected, that his fatire is, for the most part, general, and, as himfelf fays, his taxing like a wild goofe flies, Unclaim'd of any man. The place before us feems to be an exception. For by Holofernes is defigned a particular character, a pedant and schoolmaster of our author's time, one John Florio, a teacher of the Italian tongue in London, who has given us a fmall dictionary of that language under the title of A World of Words, which in his epiftle dedicatory he tells us, is of little less value than Stephens's Trea Jure of the Greek Tongue, the most complete work that was ever yet compiled of its kind. In his preface, he calls thofe who had criticized his works fea-dogs or land-critics; monflers of men, if not beafts rather than men ; whofe teeth are canibals, their toongs addars forks, their lips afpes poison, their eyes bafilifkes, their breath the breath of a grave, their words like wordes of Turks, that frive which ball dive deeveß into a Christian lying bound before them. Well 2 Hol. The deer was (as you know) fanguis, in blood; ripe as a pomewater, who now hangeth like a jewel in the Well therefore might the mild Nathaniel defire Holofernes to abrogate fcurrility. His profeffion too is the reason that Holofernes deals fo much in Italian fentences. There is an edition of Love's Labour's Loft, printed 1598, and faid to be prefented before her bigbnefs this laft Chrifimas, 1597. The next year 1598, comes out our John Florio, with his World of Words, recentibus odiis; and in the preface, quoted above, falls upon the comic poet for bringing him on the stage. There is another fort of leering curs, that rather fnarle than bite, whereof I could inftance in one, abo lighting on a good fonnet of a gentleman's, a friend of mine, that Lved better to be a poet than to be counted fo, called the author a rymer.- -Let Ariftophanes and his comedians make plaies, and scorre their mouths on Socrates; thofe very mouths they make to vilifie shall be the means to amplifie his virtue, &c. Here Shakespeare is fo plainly marked out as not to be mistaken. As to the fonnet of the gentleman his friend, we may be affured it was no other than his And without doubt was parodied in the very fonnet beginning with The praif:ful princess, &c. in which our author makes Holofernes fay, He will fomething affect the letter; for it argues facility. And how much John Florio thought this effectation argued facility, or quickness of wit, we fee in this preface where he falls upon his enemy, H. S. His name is H. S. Do not take it for the Roman H. S. unless it be as H. S. is twice as much and an half, as half an AS. With a great deal more to the fame purpofe; concluding his preface in thefe words, The refolute John Florio. From the ferocity of this man's temper it was, that Shakespeare chofe for him the name which Rabelais gives to his pedant of Thubal Holoferne. WARBURTON. I am not of the learned commentator's opinion, that the fatire of Shakespeare is fo feldom perfonal. It is of the nature of perfonal invectives to be foon unintelligible; and the authour that gratifies private malice, animam in vulnere ponit, deftroys the future efficacy of his own writings, and facrifices the efteem of fucceeding times to the laughter of a day. It is no wonder, therefore, that the farcafms, which, perhaps, in the authour's time, fet the playhouse in a roar, are now loft among general reflections. Yet whether the character of Holofernes was pointed at any particular man, I am, notwithflanding the plaufibility of Dr. Warburton's conjecture, inclined to doubt. Every man adheres as long as ho can to his own pre-conceptions. Before I read this note I confidered the character of Holofernes as borrowed from the Rhombus of fir Philip Sidney, who, in a kind of paftoral entertainment, ex hibited the ear of Cælo, the fky, the welkin, the heaven; and anon falleth like a crab, on the face of Terra, the foil, the land, the earth. Nath. Truly, mafter Holofernes, the epithets are fweetly varied, like a scholar at the leaft: But, Sir, I affure ye, it was a buck of the first head. Hol. Sir Nathaniel, baud credo. Dull. 'Twas not a baud credo, 'twas a pricket. Hol. Moft barbarous intimation! yet a kind of infinuation, as it were in via, in way, of explication; facere, as it were, replication; or rather, oftentare, to fhow, as it were, his inclination; after his undreffed, unpolished, uneducated, unpruned, untrained, or rather unlettered, or, rathereft unconfirmed fashion, to infert again my baud credo for a deer. Dull. I faid, the deer was not a baud credo; 'twas a pricket. 3 hibited to queen Elizabeth, has introduced a school-mafter fo called, fpeaking a leash of languages at once, and puzzling himself and his auditors with a jargon like that of Holofernes in the prefent play. Sidney himself might bring the character from Italy; for, as Peacham obferves, the fchool-mafter has long been one of the ridiculous perfonages in the farces of that country. JOHNSON. 3 'tavas a pricket.] In a play called The Return from Parnaffus, 1606, I find the following account of the different appellations of deer, at their different ages. "Amoretto. I caufed the keeper to fever the rafcal deer from "the bucks of the first head. Now, fir, a buck is the first year, a "fawn; the fecond year, a pricket; the bird year, a foreli; the fourth year, a foare; the fifth, a buck of the firfi head; the fixth year, a compleat buck. Likewife your bars the first year, a calfe; the fecond year, a brocket; the third year, a pade; the "fourth year, a fag; the fixth year, a bart. A roe-buk is the firft year, a kid; the fecond year, a girl; the third year, a bemuje; "and thefe are your special beats for chase." "I am but a So in A Chriftian turn'd Turk, 1612.- STEEVENS. Hol. Hol. Twice fod fimplicity, bis cotus! O thou monfter ignorance, how deformed doft thou look? Nath. Sir, he hath never fed on the dainties that are bred in a book. He hath not eat paper, as it were; he hath not drunk ink. His intellect is not replenished. He is only an animal, only fenfible in the duller parts; And fuch barren plants are fet before us, that we thankful fhould be, Which we taste and feeling are for those fructify in us, more than he. parts that do For 4 and fuch barren plants are fet before us, that we thankful should be; which we tafte, and feeling are for thofe parts that do fructify in us more than be.] The words have been ridiculously, and ftupidly, tranfpofed and corrupted. I read, we thankful fhould be for thofe parts (which we tafe and feel ingradare) that do fructify, &c. The emendation I have offered, I hope, reftores the author: at least, it gives him fenfe and grammar: and anfwers extremely well to his metaphors taken from planting. Ingradare, with the Italians, fignifies, to rife higher and higher; andare di grado in grado, to make a progreffion; and fo at length come to fructify, as the poet exprefies it, WARBURTON. Sir T. Hanmer reads thus, And fuch barren plants are set before us, that we thankful fhould be, For thoje parts which we tafte and feel do fructify in us more than be. And Mr. Edwards, in his animadverfions on Dr. Warburton's notes, applauds the emendation. I think both the editors miftaken, except that fir T. Hanmer found the metre, though he miffed the fenfe. I read, with a flight change, And fuch barren plants are fet before us, that we thankful fhould be, When we tafte and feeling are for those parts that do fructify in us more than be. That is, fuch barren plants are exhibited in the creation, to make us thankful when we have more tafe and feeling than be, of thofe parts or qualities which produce fruit in us, and preferve us from being likewife barren plants. Such is the fenfe, juft in itself and pious, but a little clouded by the diction of fir Nathaniel. The length |