effect of a dissyllable; and yet no hearer, possessing a competent knowledge of the language, would misunderstand either the words or their meaning. Our longer words too are perfectly intelligible, even although, by receiving two distinct emphases, they may seem, in a deliberate recitation, to be broken into two distinct words. It is chiefly by a sort of staccato utterance, by making an unnecessary long pause after each foot, and by erroneously Jaying our syllabic emphasis on its last syllable, that in reading ancient hexa. meter, as it is termed, by quantity, we seem to scan, rather than to read, destroying the integrity of the words, and, as far at least as emphasis is concerned, to convert dactyls into anapæsts, and spondees into iambuses. Let the dactyl be pronounced, in regard to time and force, somewhat like our English word curious or warily, and the spoudee like timepiece or warlike; and, I apprehend, neither will quantity be much falsified, nor will emphasis be essentially injured. In this way, two out of the three accidents of speech will be tolerably preserved. But then it may be asked, what becomes of real accent or tone? The complete practice, I an. swer, if not, also, even the theory, of the Greek and Roman accentuation, is irretrievably lost. But, if a line be read in the way which we have ventured to recommend, not with the monotonous drawl of a child learning to read, but with our natural and unaffected pronunciation, and a due regard to sense and pause, it will be found to possess, at least, all the melody or accentual music of Euglish speech, (which cannot be different in kind from that of Greece or Rome,) arising from variety of pitch and in flexion, every syllable, whether long or short, emphatic or unemphatic, having been uttered in some accent, or combipation of accent, commensurate with the time of the syllable, the acute or rising inflexion coinciding most frequently with the long and emphatic quantity. By a regular adjustment of the syllabic emphasis, the lupulula will be regarded; in the natural accompaniment of tones, the Xu will not be altogether lost; and, by a due observance of the relative time of each note or syllable, the perfection of both will be most essentially promoted. But Dr. Horsley's object was certainly a rational one, viz. not to supersede quantity, nor to annihilate accent or emphasis, but to preserve both; to prescribe rules for accent (syllabic emphasis), so as to render it "not destructive of quantity, 1 but subservient to it." And yet, doubtless, even ten general rules could not be necessary to ascertain the proper position of the syllabic emphasis in hexameter verse, or in any other species of verse, ancient or modern; and ten times the number would be insufficient to fix the accentuation of any language. Although, however, his rules in regard to the changes which he "conceives the tones of connected words to have undergone," may not be deemed unobjectionable, né one will deny that many of this eniment. ly learned prelate's remarks are well entitled to the notice of every classical scholar.-The subject will be continued. Crouch End. J. GRANT. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine, "THE HE continuation of a Morning's Walk to Kew," which you have given in your last number, contains art interesting discussion on road making, which, however, might have been additionally advantageous to some of your readers if your ingenious correspondent had extended his discussion a little farther, and shewn the inseparable connexion which exists betwixt good roads and broad cylindrical wheels. The form of a road is without doubt a very material point, so is the breadth of it, as well as the line which it takes through the country; and, as such, the control of a national road police might probably be of utility in effecting the desired improvement in these particulars; but, after all the amendments which can possibly be introduced, our roads will remain imperfect, unless the carriages which travel upon them are constructed with broad cylindrical wheels with straight axles. This position was clearly laid down by the principal part of the evidences in the committee of the House of Cornmons, when the bill for the "Preservation of the Turnpike-roads and Highways of the Kingdom" was before parliament, about six years since; and it is much to be regretted that so little benefit has resulted from this laborious investigation. As six years have very nearly elapsed since this investigation took place, there has certainly been a sufficient time allowed for the old carriages to be worn out, and for new ones, properly constructed, to be introduced in their stead. But, where are we to find them? Have any carriages been constructed with broad cylindrical wheels and straight axles within the last six years? It is to feared 1815.] Shakspeare's Henry VI. 305 dramatic works of his age, they will be found, in point of dignity of language and force of conception, many degrees inferior to the first part of Henry VI. feared there has been but few, and I should have been ready to query if there was a single vehicle to be found upon this construction, had I not observed a paragraph in your last number, under the head Cumberland and Westmoreland, which states that "a new waggon has been exhibited at Kendal, constructed with broad cylindrical wheels, &c." This affords some encouragement to hope that the adoption of broad cylindrical wheels is not entirely lost sight of; but, from the way in which this information is given, it appears evident that this waggon is the only one of the kind in that part of the kingdom, or probably in any other part of it; at least, I have never had the good fortune to see, or even to hear of any such. That they are not by any means general is most incontrovertibly proved, by the infamous state of many of the principal, and most of the bye roads, which are nothing less than a disgrace to the good sense of the nation; more especially when we consider that all the roads in the kingdom might be kept as smooth as a bowling-green, if they were once put into good repair, and afterwards rolled (for this would be the effect) only by car-Johnson and Steevens imagined that the riages with broad cylindrical wheels and straight axles. PHILANTHROpos. Birmingham; March 17, 1815. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR, INCE the late Mr. Malone published his parts of King Henry VI. it appears to be the general opinion that the first part ought to be rejected from the works of Shakspeare, but, in my opinion, with the greatest rashness. One line of the first of poets would be a loss to literature; but, on a slender surmise, to cast away a whole piece, might well be thought infatuation. If we judge of what we may expect from the exertions of the human nind, by the experience of past ages, such a loss would never be repaired. Some of Dryden's undoubted dramas possess a more remarkable inferiority to his finished pieces than that play does to Shakspeare's genuine productions. All Malone's arguments will not outweigh the acquiescence of Shakspeare's contemporaries, who certainly were the fittest judges. If Shakspeare did not write this play, it may be asked, who wrote it? None has ever claimed it for themselves or their friends. To push the argument farther, it may also be asked, who of all Shakspeare's contemporaries could write it? If we review the most celebrated MONTHLY MAG. No, 268. Scepticism on this subject began with Theobald, for which he could give no other reason, except his own critical judgment, a quality in which, of all the commentators, he was the most deficient. Warburton followed, but produced no argument, general or particular. Farmer espoused the same side. The two first critics discard the whole three parts; but Malone and Farmer the first part wholly, with the principal part of the two last. Malone comes forward with a formida ble array of arguments, and boldly as serts that he has decided this long agitated question. His opinion is that the second and third parts were originally written by another, but greatly improved and enlarged by Shakspeare. They first appeared in quarto, under the titles of, "The Contention of the two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster," &c. and "The true Tragedy of Richard Duke of York, &c." both materially different from what they are at present. defects in the quartos originated from their being incorrectly taken down when acted, and surreptitiously printed. Mar lone successfully combats this notion, be cause there are many lines in the quartos recording distinct and important facts, which are not to be found in the folio under the name of the and third parts of Henry VI. Now.though carelessness, as it is well argued,* might omit, it could not add lines equally well written as the rest. Malone's hypothesis, that the quartos were written by a different author, is equally inadmissible; for the sentiments contained in them cannot be distinguished, in the language, the genius, and spirit, from the undoubt ed additions by Shakspeare, and I have no doubt that the whole was written by him. It appears most probable that the deficiencies and variations in the quartos arose partly from their being incorrectly and surreptitiously printed, but princi. pally from their being a first essay or rude draught by Shakspeare himself, and which he afterwards took the trouble to raise to the more perfect state in which we now find them. I cannot at present notice the whole of Malone's arguments, but, as a specimen, mention one upon which he lays no small stress. For this purpose, though it is well known, I must beg leave to quote the following passage from a contemporary writer; because it has been strangely perverted by this writer to suit his own theory, and because it contains a more distinct and clearer proof that Shakspeare wrote the quartos as well as the folios than I have yet seen pointed out. It is found in a pamphlet called "A Groat's Worth of Wit," &c. written by R. Greene, author of many plays, most of them prior to Shakspeare. He was now obscured by the superior lustre of Shakspeare, of whose success he cannot conceal his envy. Addressing some other neglected poets, be thus complains bitterly of the players, who, though they were indebted to him for their prosperity, now leave him in the utmost misery. “Base minded men all three of you, if by my misery you be not warned: for, unto none of you, like me, sought these burs (the players) to cleave; those pup. pets, I meane, that speak from our mouths; those anticks garnisht in our colours. Is it not strange that I, to whom they have all bin beholding, is it not like that you to whom they all have bin beholding, shall, (were you in that case that I am now) be both of them at once forsaken. Yet trust them not, for there is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers, that, with his tigre's heart wrapt in a player's hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombaste out a blanke verse as the best of you; and, being an absolute Johannes Factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shakescene in a countrey." Malone invites our particular attention to the words, "for there is a crow beautified," &c. because, he says, they contain the "principal and decisive hinge of his argument*.' He here finds a certain proof, not only that Shakspeare did not write the second and third parts of Henry VI. but also a clear intimation of their real author. It is agreed upon by all, as it is indeed sufficiently evident, that by the crow Shakspeare is here un * See (printed at the close of these plays,) a work entitled, "A Dissertation on the three Parts of Henry VI. tending to shew that these plays were not written originally by Shakspeare." derstood, a writer who had at his command the brighest colours of imagination, yet, accordingly to Malone, was reduced at this time to be indebted for his poetical garniture to the wretched genius of Greene and his miserable associates. "He (says Greene) has beautified himself with our feathers, which means he has basely purloined the two plays called The Contention, &c. and The True Tragedy, &c. which was made by us, and has converted them to his own use in his second and third parts of Henry VI. and thus has the black crow stuck himself all around with our beautiful fea. thers, furtivis coloribus." If all this had been true, Greene surely would not have hesitated to tell, at least, the whole truth, and in plain terms. It may be farther observed, that such an accusation would have sounded better had Shakspeare borrowed some of Greene's fine expressions, with which to bespangle his works; but it possesses no kind of propriety, on the supposition that he took the principal matter from Greene, which he adorned with his own genius. But, in this view of the subject, argument might be wholly dispensed with, for Shakspeare is not here upbraided with having beautified himself with Greene's feathers as a writer, but in his professi onal character of player, which is so ob vious that it is surprising it could have escaped Malone's observation. It is plainly asserted that the whole company of players with which Shakspeare was connected, by the profits which arose from the performance of Greene's and his companion's works, had all beautified themselves; but Shakspeare is particularly distinguished, being the most obnoxious, on account of his success as a writer. Can language be more evident? "These puppets (the players) that speak from our mouths; these anticks garnished in our colours, are all of them beholding to you." It is not the hated crow borrowed colours, furnished by the la alone, all the anticks are garnished with bours of poor neglected authors; alluding, quired by acting, or perhaps to their mino doubt, to the riches they had acmic magnificence on the stage. ing a grand and decisive argument This passage, instead of contain. against the authenticity of the second and third parts of Henry VI. will be found, on farther inspection, to afford the clearest proof that he was the author of them, even in their most doubtful form, as they originally appeared under other names in quarto. Greene, baying, in the bes 1815.] First Part of Shakspeare's Henry VI. best way he could, vented his rage on the 307 sing his Groat's-Worth of Wit, he was sensible of his approaching death, which soon after took place, in September 1592, and his book was published the following December by one Henry Chettle*, as we are informed by him in the preface to his pamphlet, called, "Kind Hart's Dreame." This author also acquaints us with the reception which Greene's book met with from the public, and particularly notices that Marlowt and Shakspeare were offended at his allu. sions to their works. Here, in addition to the testimony of Greene in favour of the authenticity of these historical dramas, we have also the clear circumstan tial evidence of Henry Chettle, of the public at large, and the implied acknowledgment of Shakspeare himself, who surely would not have been offended at strictures on plays written by another. In fine, of all Shakspeare's productions, there are none of which we possess such ample and satisfactory external proofs of their being genuine. I confess that I am at a loss to conceive why so much prejudice has been entertained against the three parts of Henry VI. Long before I had heard of any doubts or disputes on the subject, I read them with the same kind of pleasure which I received from his other plays. In some respects they appear to me more correct, more instructive, and more equally supported, than most of them. If we take into account the nature of the actions recorded, they possess a very great variety both of incident and of character. If they be not enlivened with the eccentricities of a Richard or a Hotspur, of a Glendower or a Falstaff, they contain what is equally valuable-a more just display of character, such as is really found in the world, and masterly and striking narrative of some of the most memorable events in English history. Bedford Row. W. N. To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR, THE HE subscript, concerning which your correspondent, p. 117, enquires, at This direct testimony of the authenticity, not only of the second and third parts of Henry VI. but also of the disputed quartos, was first produced by Tyrwhitt; which, though in itself incontrovertible, may be illustrated by farther evidence. When Greege was compo * See Malone's attempt to ascertain the order of Shakspeare's plays. As the whole of the data upon which my argument is founded are taken from this writer, and repeatedly quoted by him in the course of the controversy, I cannot conceive how he himself did not discern what appears so obvious. A dramatic writer of that age next in reputation to Shakspeare, and who also partook of Greene's scurrility. 2 R 2 tho or, Jehi Tehillah le'EL. Unto GOD be praise. The first is nearly the same abbreviation, which gave to Judas and his brethren, the inscription on their banners, and has transmitted them to all times under the name of Maccabai, Macbai”. Who is like unto thee, O GOD? Mi camocha Be-Elohim? Who is like unto thee among the Gods-Exodus, ch. xv. ver. 11. A most suitable banner against the ido. latrous, intolerant, cruel Antiochus, ignominiously Epiphanes, or conspicuous. The other part of the inscription is the Devotional Formula of the East in general, including Arabia, Persia, and India, introducing and closing solemn instruments. Praise be to God! N the sixteenth volume of the Monthly tory, and is acquiring literary impor tance. An indirect attack, however, has appeared on the argument which you must allow me to notice. The Ecclesiasticus, it seems, which is known to have been also written by one Jesus of Jerusalem, is, on the authority of its prologue, and by the common consent of antiquity, ascribed to the same author as the Wisdom. Now the Ecclesiasticus, it is pretended, (see Eichhorn's Kritische Schriften, iv. p. 28,) can be proved anterior by a century or more to the Christian era. The Wisdom, it is inferred, must consequently be prior also, by as long a period. This is, in fact, an attempt to re-assert the date assigned by Gibbon, (c. xxi,) to the productions of the son of Sirach. But neither Gibbon nor even Calmet, on whose authority Gibbon in this instance appears to have relied, had observed, that Saint Augustin considers Sirach as the Jewish name of Philo; and that no pupil of Sirach, or, in the college-slang of the rabbies, no son of Philo, can have preceded by a century the time of the crucifixion. Let us then examine more particularly into the evidence afforded by the Eccle siasticus itself, of its own mode of origin and date; and, on the plan adopted in the foremore investigation, let us seek to ascertain, Who compiled the Ecclesias ticus ? Λεγεται μη μονον ἰατρος άλλα και Mavric ayaðıç kıvas.—Philo. Jud. Of the books called Apocryphal, the Ecclesiasticus alone is accompanied with notices concerning the author: he names himself Jesus of Jerusalem, in the twentyseventh verse of the fiftieth chapter; but, as the date of the work is liable to question, it has sometimes been ascribed to an earlier, sometimes to a later, personage of that name. The Ecclesiasticus consists of a basis, or text, translated from the Hebrew, and of an interjected commentary, or paraphrase, composed originally in Greek. Thus, in the twenty-second verse of the sixth chapter, wisdom is said to be named from concealment; and, in the eighth verse of the forty-third chapter, the month is said to be called after the moon; which two propositions are true in Hebrew, but not in Greek. While, in the sixteenth verse of the fortyfourth chapter, "Enoch was translated," I Magazine, occurs n paper entitled, farron, pa plainly derived from the "Who wrote the Wisdom ?" That bold and singular dissertation contains a surprising discovery in ecclesiastic, his Vide Buxtorfii Thesaurum ; cum Abpreviaturis ad Calcem. Lond. 1646. Greek version of Genesis; and, in the first verse of the forty-sixth chapter, Joshua is called the son of Nave, instead of Nun, which again could only happen to a person using the Alexandrian version of the Scriptures. ་། Occasional |