Bwrd—Eight Unedited Letters of Joseph Ritson 7 
was characterized by vindictiveness, virtuperation, and per¬ 
sonal abuse; but the volume contained much sound criticism 
and many valuable observations. Many of these notes were 
incorporated in Keed’s Shakspeare (sometimes known as the 
third edition of the Johnson and Steevens Shakspeare), some 
were ignored, and a few were held up to sarcastic ridicule. 
Being extremely sensitive about his own writing, guarding it, 
as he said, as jealously as a father does his offspring, Eitson 
immediately prepared notes on this edition, and especially on 
the comments which had been made concerning his observa¬ 
tions in the Remarks. These notes v/ere not then intended 
for the public, but he was later inspired to publish them as 
The Quip Modest; a few words hy way of Supplement'to 
Remarks, Critical and Illustrative, on the Text and Notes of 
the Last Edition of Shakspeare; occasioned by a Republication 
of that Edition, revised and augmented by the Editor of 
Dodsleys Old Plays, London, 1788. 
Even though generally displeased with the reception given 
the Remarks by the editor of the 1785 Shakspeare, Eitson was 
particularly offended at three notes in which, to use his own 
words, “I found or imagined I was treated with contempt.” 9) 
These were: (a) In the Remarks, p. 12, Eitson had expressed 
the belief that ‘King Edward shovel boards,’ M. W. W., I. i. 
154, referred to ‘broad shillings of Edward III’ and not of 
Edward VI, as Farmer had stated. An italicized note in the 
Eeed Shakspeare castigated him for ‘censuring’ Farmer, denied 
his assertion, and dismissed the note as ‘not worth considera- 
tion\ 10) (b) After devoting a page and a half to Eitson’s 
note on the mortality of fairies, M. N. D., II. i. 101, the editor 
concluded thus: “It is a misfortune as well to the com¬ 
mentators, as to the readers of Shakspeare, that so much of 
their time is obliged to be employed in explaining and con¬ 
tradicting unfounded conjectures and assertions. . . A 
future editor of our author may without any detriment to his 
work omit this note, which I should have been better pleased 
to have had no occasion to incumber the page with.” 11) (c) 
Upon Eitson’s demanding that Dr. Johnson present some 
other proof than his own assertion that Shakespeare was guilty 
^Letters, Vol. I, p. 105. 
Vol. I, p. 253. 
Vol. Ill, p, 37. 
