Providence has hitherto made unnecessary) it would be to support my steps. Such "knock-me-down doings" are fitter for the Edinburgh Reviewers. But this is from the purpose-let us see the proofs of what they call my errors à la mode of Coxeter and M. Mason.

"In the Duke of Milan we find this note: Scarabs means beetles. M. Mason. Very true: and beetles means scarabs."- "In the same play we find, Dian, a contraction for Diana. M. Mason. And so it is!"

p. 104. I had casually observed in the Introd. p. cv. that "the readers of our old plays were treated by modern editors as if they were ignorant of common things;" but I gave no instances of it, at the time. When the occasion presented itself, I remarked, and certainly, naso adunco, that a beetle was really a scarab-I beg pardon, that a scarab was really a beetle; and that Dian was, as Mr. M. Mason had cautiously observed, a contraction of Diana. If, as the Reviewers say, there are persons to whom either of these pieces of information can be useful, they have no just ground of complaint against me, for I laid it fairly before them.*

"A third instance of error" (the reader has just seen the first and second instances) is to be found in the Virgin Martyr. The author's expression is-the Roman angel's wings shall melt. This, says Mr. M. Mason, should certainly be the Roman augel's wings, I defend the text, and quote several passages from our old poets, where angel is used, as here, for bird. Yet, because I object to the

66

* The hint, however, has not been lost:-and I sincerely felicitate the critics on the satisfaction with which they must have recently contemplated the "useful information" conveyed in the explanations of "sudden,” “ ever,” “but," &c. &c. dispersed through that matchless publication which baffled all their efforts to discover a fault, and afforded them another opportunity to sneer at the "errors" of the late edition of Massinger.

editor's certainly, in a case where he is positively wrong; and, in noticing a remark of Mr. Hole, that Mandeville supposed" the angels (messengers) of God to feed on dead carcases, add, surely, by angels he meant fowls of the air, I am in an "error," and my "harsh assurance," is insultingly opposed to M. Mason's" quiet certainly," p. 104.

“Mr. Gifford's animosity against M. Mason has induced him to reject scornfully his suggestions, though not devoid of ingenuity. For example, in the Duke of Milan,

"To see those chuffs, that every day may spend,
A soldier's entertainment for a year,

Yet make a third meal of a bunch of raisins."

So all the copies-but M. Mason, whose sagacity nothing escapes, detected the blunder, and, for third, suggested, nay actually printed, thin. "This passage (quoth he) appears to be erroneous: the making a third meal on a bunch of raisins, if they had made TWO GOOD MEALS before, would be no proof of penuriousness." Was ever alteration so capricious? was ever reasoning so absurd? where is it said that these chuffs had made two good meals before? is not the whole drift of the speech to shew that they starved themselves in the midst of abundance? vol. i. 281.

"It is so," exclaim the critics," and on that very account, did M. Mason object to third, because, though not perhaps two good meals, it did imply that they had made two before, and that would not be much like starvation!" p. 104.

When the critics shall be pleased to make the experiment, it will be time enough to take their word. Meanwhile, they must permit me to express my utter astonishment at their "portentous" folly. When the note on this plain passage was written, I did most confidently believe Mr. M. Mason to be the only person that ever could

1

or would mistake its meaning,-and lo! we have here a bevy of critics from the North running headlong into the same error, and like Dindinaut's sheep, blindly following their baaing leader, to their own confusion.

To observe that these chuffs made three meals on the same bunch of raisins, and that the poet's words can possibly have no other sense, seems a deplorable waste of time. Even the Reviewers, it will be thought, might have seen this, from the quotation subjoined to my remarks;— I have known him surfeit Upon a bunch of raisins."

The man who surfeited upon a bunch of raisins, might surely have made more than one meal on it. But to what wretched minutia may not "the malice of a carper" (especially of a stupid one) reduce a writer who is willing to suppose his readers endowed with a little common sense!

After all, I am only defending the genuine reading :this, however, the critics honestly assure the public, is not done by me from any regard for the purity of Massinger's text, but from mere animosity to Mr. M. Mason! p. 104. As some atonement to that gentleman, I will give their favourable judgment of his exertions. "M. Mason's alteration of third to thin is ingenious, and makes the sentence clearer"! p. 105.

But the reader is not yet acquainted with all my demerits in this unfortunate passage. In the first line of the quotation M. Mason altered "chuffs" to choughs, i. e. as he informed us, to "magpies." Magpies seem rather oddly placed here; but the critics pass rapidly over this, to pour their whole indignation on me for saying that a chuff was always used in a bad sense, and meant a coarse, unmannered clown, at once sordid and wealthy." On this they first give me the "lie direct," and then prove, by a quotation of great wisdom, that "chuff is spoken of a citizen!" And of what else have I been talk

ing all this while? My words are" these reproaches are such as have been cast by soldiers of fortune in all ages, on the sober and frugal citizen," Vol. I. 281. What can I say to such eternal blunderers! When I interpreted chuff a clown, I never expected to be understood as literally describing one whose sole occupation was following the plough; neither did I, as the critics imagine, mistake the city of Milan for a grange. I meant by clown, as every one else does in common speech, a man of rude and vulgar manners: they send me, upon another occasion, to Johnson; if they will not be offended at receiving the advice which they so politely give, I would intreat them to turn to the same author,-they will find " Clown, a coarse, ill bred man.” « Clownish, rough, uncivil." To be reduced to this child's play, is a misery, which I flattered myself I had long since escaped.

After affirming that my interpretation is wrong, and doubting whether chuff ever means a clown, they have the monstrous folly to add, " that the word has much more affinity with citizen," p. 105. Again, let me beseech them to "turn to Johnson,"-they will find (one meaning for all)" Chuff, a blunt clown." I have had the curiosity to examine, at least, a dozen dictionaries; the Reviewers may, if they please, examine as many more, and, if one of them be found to explain the word otherwise than I explained it, or give citizen as a synonym, I will consent to change places with the critics, and pass for the most bungling of the fraternity.

"We find a proper interpretation of Mason's rejected with scorn as unintelligible:

He's a man

Of strange and reserved parts.

Strange here signifies distant. M. Mason. I do not pretend to know the meaning of distant parts: Massinger, however, is clear enough," Vol. II. 8.

"If Mr. Gifford had found leisure to open Johnson's Dictionary, (though so common a phrase ought perhaps to be familiar to him,) he would have seen, under the word strangeness, that explanation which he could not pretend to furnish," p. 105.

It is not my fault if the critics either will not read, or cannot understand what is before them. I say, simply, that I do not pretend to know the meaning of a man of distant parts; and they, with their usual suavity of language, send me to consult Johnson for the meaning of strangeness! I tell them that Massinger's expression is sufficiently clear, and means strangely reserved; and they affirm that I pretend not to be able to give the sense of it! My objection was to the explanation of a simple term by one that was, at best, obscure. A man of distant parts, is more commonly spoken of one of a remote country, than one of a shy or reserved character. Yet of distant, Mr. M. Mason's word, they say not one syllable; while all their folly and all their fury are let loose upon an expression which no where occurs but in their Own criticism.

By this time the critics are ready to exclaim with one. of Massinger's worthies, "Would we were hanged, rather than thus be told of our faults!"-But they must hear

more.

"Mr. Gifford's irritation against the editors, displays itself curiously in a note to the Renegado," &c. p. 105.

By corrupting the text, Coxeter and M. Mason had turned a line of tolerably good metre into vile dactylics, (by the way, I never loved dactylics,) this I expressed by the significant word tum-ti-ti, vol. ii. 195. The critics do not, I believe, understand much of dactylics, and I am quite sure that my allusion has escaped them altogether. This, however, is of no moment-but they burst into a tone of triumph on the occasion. "As Ennius has used taratantara for the sound of a trumpet, so Mr.