113 
Critical Bemarks on Shakespeare, 
181 LJ 
Virtuous for forcible, faithfully for fer¬ 
vently,’' says Dr. Warburton. But how 
is it possible to understand any author 
who uses one word for another with 
^ch unwarrantable license? The mean¬ 
ing doubtless is, if the purpose to which 
the money is to be applied were not lau¬ 
dable 1 should not urge iny suit with such 
punctual fidelity. 
not to swell spirit 
He shall be executed presently. 
Jl/id, Scene 
** Wliat this nonsense was intended to 
mean,” says Dr. Warburton, “I do not 
know, but it is plain Shakespeare wrote, 
And now to swell your spirit.” This 
nonsense, which is at least as intelligible 
as Dr, Warburton’s sense, I. think means 
not to debase our mind with passion. 
The same senator had before said, “ Do 
you dare our anger?'' 
ni example you with thievery. 
The sun's a thief, and with his great attrac¬ 
tion 
Robs the vast sea. The moon’s an arrant 
thief, 
And her pale fire she snatches from the sun. 
The sea’s a thief, whose liquid surge resolves 
The moon into salt tears .”—Scene S. 
Dr. Warburton changes, in the last line 
of this passage, moon into mounds, thus 
making what was only obscure absolutely 
jnconfprehensible. ^‘Tlie moon,” says 
Dr. Johnson, “ is supposed to be humid, 
and perhaps a source of humidity, but 
cannot be resolved by the surges of the 
sea.” Yet moon he justly admits to be 
t))e true reading, as it is evident that a 
circulation of thievery is iiere described. 
The sun, moon, and sea, all rob and are 
robbed. That the moon was supposed 
by the poet to be both humid and a 
source of humidity is plain from a variety 
of passages, as in the Midsummer’s Night 
Dream, 
Ko night is now with hymn or carol blest. 
Therefore the moon, the governess of floods, 
pale in her anger washes all the air. 
And in the Winter’s Tale: 
Nine changes of the watery star hath been 
The shepherd’s not|| since first, Sec. 
And in the tragedy of Richard II. 
That I, being governed by the watery moon, 
May send forth plenteous tears. 
The liquid surge of the sea is merely a 
petiphiasis for the sea itself, and the 
general idea contained in the passage in 
question, evidently is tiiat the sea steals 
or derives those liquid treasures from the 
iptoon, of which it is ia its turu robbed by 
the sun. The sea's melting the moon 
into tears is, as Dr. Warburton has ob¬ 
served, a wonderful secret in philosopiiy, 
but it is a very easy operation in poetry. 
Mr. Steevens proposes, with a degree of 
misplaced confidence very unusual with 
him, to change salt into soft tears. And 
Mr. Toilet, a respectable critic, suggests 
the no less unfortunate alteration of 
n}oon into tnainf that is, main-land. 
And he exerts all his sagacity and learn¬ 
ing to support this favourite conjecture,, 
in a note proving only his total rniscont 
ception of the passage, though he is un¬ 
doubtedly right in liis interpretation of 
the word main, as it occurs in Shakei* 
speare. 
Comedy ©f Errors, 
When Shakespeare condescended to 
the task of mere translation, it is not won¬ 
derful that the work produced should ex¬ 
hibit no indications of his transcendent 
genius. The fable is extravagant, the 
characters insipid, the language mean. 
If we are compelled, as indeed we are 
compelled by the external evidence, to 
allow this drama to be genuine, we ought 
not upon that account to feel less reluc¬ 
tance to consign it to the oblivion which 
it deserves, and from whici) the unri¬ 
valled fame of the author only could 
rescue it. 
Titus Andronicus, 
On this play it is superfluous to bestow 
many words. It contains not a single 
passage which deserves the labour of cri¬ 
ticism. Mr. Tyrwhitt alone, of all the 
commentatois upon Shakespeare, whose 
judgment deserves any regard, seems dis¬ 
posed to admit its authenticity, and that 
wholly upon the sligitt, though he styles it 
the strong, authority of Francis Meres,” 
who, in a book called Palladis Taniia, or 
the second part of Wit’s Commonw'ealth, 
printed in London A.D. 1598, ascribes 
this among various other plays to Shake¬ 
speare. The same author attributes, also 
in the same publication, the corr^edy of 
“ Love’s Labour Won” to the great bard, 
a piece w'hich has long since sunk into the 
gulph of oblivion, as 'Titus Andronicus 
would doubtless have likewise done had 
it not been absurdly included iir the etli- 
tion of riemings and Condell, which has 
secured to it an existence marked only by 
critical contempt and reprobation. It is 
certainly possible that Shakespeare might 
have been employed in embellishing this 
execrable drama with a few touches of his 
pen, as Raveiiscroft, who restored this 
play to the stage in the reign of Charles if. 
T ^ iius 
