Synopses & Reviews
BY FRANCIS DOUCE -- THE practice, and also the necessity of explaining the writings of Shakspeare, have alreacly been so ably defended by former commentators, that no other apology on the part of those who may elect to persevere in this kind of labour seems to be necessary than with regard to the qualifications of the writer but as no one in this case perhaps ever thought, or at least should think, himself incompetent to the task assumed of instructing or anlusillg others, it may be as well, on the present occasion, to waive altogether such a common-place intrusion on the readers time. It is enough to state that accident had given birth to a considerable portion of the following pages, and that design supplied the rest. The late Mr. Steevens hacl already in a manner too careless for his own reputation, and abundantly too favourable to his friend, presented to public view such of the authors remarks as were solely put together for the private use and consideration of that able critic. The former wish of their compiler has, with the present opportunity, been accomplished that is, some of them withdrawn, and others, it is hoped, rendered less exceptionable. The readers of Shakspeare may be properly divided into three classes. The first, as they travel through the text, appeal to each explanation of a word or passage as it occurs. The second read a large portion of the text, or perhaps the whole, uninterruptedly, and then consult the notes and the third reject the illustrations altogether. Of these the second appear to be the most rational. The last, with all their affectation, are probably the least learned, but will undoubtedly remain so and it may be justly remarked on this occasion, inthe language of the writer who has best illustrated the principles of taste, that the pride of science is always meek and humble compared with the pride of ignorance. He, who at this day can entirely comprehend the writings of Shakspeare without the aid of a comment, and frequently of laborious illustration, may be said to possess a degree of inspiration almost conlillensurate with that of the great bard himself. Mr. Stecve ls has indeed sumrned up every necessary argunlent in his assertio l. that if Shakspeare is worth reading, he is worth explaining and the researches used for so valuable and elegant a purpose, merit the tl anliso f genius and cantlour, not the satire of prejudice and ignorance. The indefatigable exertions of Messrs. Steevens, BIalone, Tyrwhitt, ancl Alason, -ill ever be duly all-1 reciated by the true ancl zealous aclnlirers of Shalispeares pages. If the name of a celebrated critic and moralist be not i lcludedo n this occasion, it is because 11e was certairlly unsltilled in the linowledge of obsolete customs and exl ressions. His explanatory notes therefore are, generally speaking, the most controvertible of any but no future editor will dischal-ge his duty to the public who shall onlit a single sentence of this writers nasterly preface, or of his sound and tasteful characters of the plays of Shakspeare. Of all the commentators Dr. Warburton was surely the worst. His sentinlents indeed have been seldonl exhibited in modern editions but for the purpose of confuting them. The wide dispersion of those materials which are essential to the illustration of inquiries like the present, will necessarily frustrate every endeavour at perfection a circumstance that alone shouldteach every one discussing these difficult and obscure subjects, to speak of them with becoming diffidence...