I know not how many, or if all, the editions authorize this reading of fink-a-pace. Our editor adopts it, and paffes it over in filence, like the rest of the commentators. I have ever looked upon it, however, as fo vile a blot in this admirable piece of raillery of Sir Toby's, that I cannot help imputing it to the interpolation of fome tranfcriber, who imagined there was an excellent joke in making water into a SINKA-PACE. The conceit, however, is fo low and vile, that I cannot give into the notion that Shakespeare, fond as he feems of punning and playing upon words, was the author of it. I am confirmed in this opinion alfo by reflecting, that the attention of the reader is diverted from the real humour of the paffage, by this horrid conundrum. Sir Toby, in carrying his ridicule of poor Ague-cheek's dancing-accomplishments to the highest pitch, proceeds fo far as to tell him, he would not stand still on the most neceffary occafion, even to make water; but that he might not betray himself, even to this fool, by talking of absolute impoffibilities, he fixes on a grave, flow, and even hobbling kind of dance, the cinquepace, for this fufpicious occafion *. I could wish, therefore, the authority of the copies would bear me out in difcarding this miserable pun, and restoring the words to its genuine and original spelling. Vol. II. Page 368. Enter Sir Toby. OLIVIA. By mine honour, half drunk. What is he at the gate, uncle? SIR TOBY. A gentleman. The gravity and interruptions of this dance are, indeed, particularly pointed out by Shakespeare on another occafion. "Woo"ing, wedding, and repenting, is a Scotch jigg, a measure, and a "cinque-pace. The first fait is hot and hafty like a Scotch jigg, "and full as fantaftical; the wedding mannerly and modest, as a "measure full of ftate and gravity; and then comes repentance, "and, with his bad legs, falls into the cinque-pace." OLIVIA. OLIVIA. A gentleman! What gentleman ? pickle herring! &c. A plague o'thefe Dr. Warburton hath a note on this paffage, which our editor hath inferted without any animadverfion, notwithstanding it hath been fufficiently expofed and confuted by Mr. Ed-' wards, as Dr. Johnson appears to think by the pointing he' hath adopted in the text, which is different both from that of Warburton and Theobald. Theobald points and reads thus, SIR TOBY. 'Tis a gentleman. Here - [belches] A plague o'these pickle herring! Dr. Warburton's note runs thus. "'Tis a gentleman. HERE -] He had before faid it "was a gentleman. He was afked what gentleman? and he "makes this reply; which, it is plain, is corrupt, and should "be read thus, 'Tis a gentleman-HEIR ; «i. e. fome lady's eldeft fon juft come out of the nursery; "for this was the appearance Viola made in men's cloaths." On this note Mr. Edwards obferves, that gentleman-heir is a new and unneceffary phrafe for a lady's eldest fon: concluding that "Shakespeare hath no need of it; as any body "will own, who confiders that Sir Toby was drunk, and in"terrupted in his speech by his pickled herrings." That is, by the pickled herrings he had been eating; and which, rifing in his ftomach, occafioned him to belch, as Theobald has it. Is it poffible, after all this, to guess what induced our editor to trouble his readers with Dr. Warburton's frivolous note, and to adopt Mr. Edwards's pointing, against that of Theobald, without mentioning a word of either of the two latter? 6 6 THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR. Vol. II. Page 467. NYM. For the revolt of mien is dangerous. The revolt of mien, fays Dr. Johnson, I suppose we may read the revolt of men. Sir T. Hanmer reads this revolt of mine. Either may ferve, for the prefent text I can find no meaning.' Why then did you adopt it? The author of the Revifal affirms, that THIS revolt of MINE is the common reading, as appears from Mr. Pope's edition, and is plainly alluded to in Piftol's reply. Thou art the Mars of male-contents. The Revifer charges both Dr. Warburton and Mr. Theobald also with having taken here an unwarrantable liberty with the text, without giving the leaft hint to the reader of what they had done. Yet, notwithstanding all this, our editor hath admitted a futile note on this paffage, by Mr. Steevens, into his appendix; in which that gentleman unfuccefsfully endeavours, as Dr. Johnson fays on another occafion, to elicit sense by strong agitation out of the text as it now ftands. Vol. II. Page 476. MRS. PAGE. I warrant he hath a thousand of these letters, writ with blank-fpace for different names; nay, more, and these are of the second edition: he will print them out of doubt, for he cares not what he puts into the prefs, when he would put us two. Having charged Dr. Johnson, among the other editors of Shakelpeare, with paffing over difficult paffages, and displaying their fagacity on thofe which are obvious, I cannot pass over an inftance of the latter kind, on the paffage before me. Our editor makes the following note, referred to from the word prefs. < Prefs Prefs is ufed ambiguoufly for a prefs to print, and a press to fqueeze.' The reader would certainly ftand in to come from the dead to tell him this. need of a ghost to And yet Dr. John fon, when it was neceffary to apologize for having done less than he ought, could plead that the reader is feldom pleased Ito find his opinion anticipated; and that it is natural to delight more in what we find or make, than in what we • receive.' NYM. neceffity. Vol. II. Page 478. I have a sword, and it fhall bite upon my Dr. Warburton hath a mighty whimsical note on this pasfage, which our editor hath printed, though he condemns it, and hath filently adopted the reading of Mr. Edwards, who had fufficiently exposed the abfurdity of the Warburtonian emendation. See Canons of Criticism, page 115. HOST. Vol. II. Page 482. Will you go an- heirs? Dr. Warburton's note on this paffage, printed without any animadverfion of our editor, runs thus; "Will you go AN HEIRS?] This nonfenfe is spoken to Shal"low. We should read, Will you go ON, HERIS? i. e. Will 66 'you go on, Mafter? Heris, an old Scotch word for ma❝fter." What the prefent editor understands by this word, or whether he understands any thing by it, is not eafily determined, as he hath thought proper to leave it in this fituation, doubtless for the reafon given above; viz. its being natural for the reader to delight more in what he may find out of himself, than what the fcholiaft may tell him. For my part, however, I apprehend the mere English reader would be glad of fome little affiftance here, efpecially as Dr. Johnson does not feem to be fatisfied with Dr. Warburton's note.- -The author of the Revifal appears alfo to be of the fame opinion, O 2 and and therefore hath given his readers the following remarks on this controverted paffage. "Will you go on, Heris? The "nonfenfe of the former editions was, • Will you go an heirs? "Mr. Warburton affures us, heris is an old Scotch word for 6 mafter.' It may be fo for ought I know. But as my ex"perience hath taught me fome diftruft of this gentleman's "pofitive affertions in matters of this nature, I must beg leave "to doubt of it. Befides, this word, according to this in"terpetation of it, is of the fingular number, and yet is ad"dreffed, not to Ford, but to Page and Shallow, as is evi"dent from what immediately follows. I fee no reason neither "why either Shakespeare, or mine host of the Garter, should "chuse to talk old Scotch, and therefore I fhould rather fup"pose our poet might have written, Will you go on, hearts ?' "An expreffion fuited to the jovial character of mine hoft, and not very different in appearance from the common "reading, especially when fpelled as it anciently was, herts. "Mr. Theobald's conjectures, Will you go on here? or Will you go, mynheirs?' carry with them, in my opinion, 66 very little probability." It is very juftly observed by the Revifer, that there is no obvious reafon for mine hoft of the Garter to fpeak old Scotch; but if we confider that he is a German, I do not see why the scholiaft should fuppofe Theobald's last emendation improbable. Nothing is more likely, I think, than for him now and then to drop a word of high or low Dutch. It is true that the word mynheirs is properly neither one nor the other : for neither the Dutch nor the German make the plural of heer or herr end in s. Add to this, that they feldom use the personal pronoun fingular with the noun plural. When they accoft a fingle person with the title of my Lord or Sir, it is Mynheer or Mein herr; but when they addrefs more than one with the title of Lords or Gentlemen, the pronoun is generally dropped, and they fay Heeren or Herren. But I fee no manner of impropriety in fuppofing our host to be either above or below fuch idiomatical and grammatical niceties: |