print in his time or some short time after; the chroniclers his cotemporaries, or that a little preceded him; many original ۳۶ poets quaintance with any of their writers; what he has given us of it is merely colloquial, flows with great eafe, from him, and is reasonably pure: fhould it be faid he had travelled for it, we know not who can confute ust in his days indeed, and with people of his station, the custom of doing fo was rather rarer than in ours; yet we have met with an example, and in his own band of players, in the perfon of the very famous Mr Kempe; of whofe travels there is mention in a filly old play, called "The Return from Parnaffus," printed in 1606, but written much earlier in the time of queen Elifabeth: add to this-the exceeding great liveliness and juftness that is feen in many defcriptions of the fea and of promontories, which, if examined, fhew another fort of knowledge of them than is to be gotten in books or relations; and if these be laid together, this conjecture of his travelling may not be thought void of probability. • One opinion, we are fure, which is advanced fomewhere or other, is utterly fo;that this Latin, and this Italian, and the language that was last mentioned, are infertions and the work of fome other hand: there has been started now and then in philological matters a propofition fo ftrange as to carry its own condemnation in it, and this is of the number; it has been honoured already with more notice than it is any ways entitled to, where the poet's Latin is poke of a little while before; to which answer it must be left, and we fhall pafs on-to profess our entire belief of the genuineness of every feveral part of this work, and that he only was the author of it: he might write beneath himself at particular times, and certainly does in fome places; but is not always without excufe; and it frequently happens that a weak scene serves to very good purpose, as will be made appear at one time or other. It may be thought that there is one argument still unanswered, which has been brought against his acquaintance with the Latin and other languages; and that is, that, had he been fo acquainted, it could not have happened but that fome imitations would have crept into his writings, of which certainly there are none: but this argument has been answered in effect; when it was faid that his knowledge in thefe languages was but gender, and his conver-y fation with the writers in them flender too of course; but, had it been otherwife, and he as, deeply read, in them as fome people have thought him, his works (it is probable) had been as little deformed with imitations as we now fee them: Shakefpeare 7'6 poets of that age, and many tranflators; with effayifts, novelifts, and ftory-mongers in great abundance: every book, in fhort, has been confulted that it was poffible to procure, with which it could be thought he was acquainted, or that feemed likely to contribute any thing towards his illuftration." We cannot help thinking, that the preceding note partakes fomewhat of the nature of the practice Mr. Capell feems to cenfure; tho' it is, on the whole, a very valuable critique upon Shakespeare, and entitles the editor to our thanks, particularly as we have always heartily efpoufed the fame opinion. After the large quotations we have given from this Introduction, we shall not attempt to follow Mr. Capell through the remaining part of it. We agree with him in general as to his criticisms upon the authenticity and excellency of the plays. We differ from him, however, as to the character he gives of Lilly, the author of Euphues, which is founded on the malevolence of his contemporaries, and to abuse him became a fashionable amufement. Did Mr. Capell ever read his plays, or compare his stile with that of the most approved modern English authors ? Towards the clofe of the Introduction, we are entertained with an account of the origin of Shakespeare's fables. As we think that the study of the rubbish which was contemporary with the first publications of our immortal author's plays, ought to be a matter of mere curiofity to all except profest antiquaries and editors, we have nothing to object to Mr. Capell's discoveries on that head. We are, however, a little furprised that, having admitted Shakespeare to have understood Latin, he supposes the fubject of Hamlet to have been taken either from the French author Belforeft, or from a quarto pamphlet in black letter, entitled, " The Hyftory of Hamblet." After what we have already * obferved on that fubject, why may he not as well fuppofe Shakespeare to have taken it from Saxo Grammaticus, or fome other Danish hiftory, where, without doubt, it originally grew? Why has he affigned Hollinfhed, and other English chroniclers, as the fources from which he drew his Macbeth, when Buchanan, whofe hiftory was certainly not tranflated in Shakespeare's time, gave us the two chief characters, that of Macbeth and his wife, which our great poet has adopted, and which the reading of no English chronicle could have communicated ? fpeare was far above fuch a practice; he had the ftores in himfelf, and wanted not the affiftance of a foreign hand to dress him up in things of their lending.' See vol. xxiii. p. 47. et paffim. + Ibid p: 50. Upon -[ ટો 1 Upon the whole, we must allow that Mr. Capell appears to be a faithful and an accurate editor; and that he poffeffes no inconfiderable degree of critical knowledge, as will, we doubt not, fully appear in the fubfequent publications relative to his great poet, which he has promised to the world. 25 II. Remarks on feveral very important Prophecies. TH By Granville HIS work is divided into five parts. The first contains remarks on the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and fixteenth verfes of the seventh chapter of Isaiah, in answer to a differtation on the fame by Dr. W- -ms. As this paffage has been the subject of many critical enquiries, and the differtator had adopted an opinion not commonly received, we thought it neceffary to give his arguments their full weight, by citing them at large in our Review *. On this account Mr. Sharp is pleafed to obferve, that we are even more concerned than the author in publishing his notions to the world. But this animadverfion gives us no pain; it was our intention to exhibit a full and perfect view of the doctor's hypothesis, and leave it to the difcuffion of the learned reader. The firft thing which Mr. Sharp attempts, is, to afcertain the true fenfe of y; which, by the way, does not affect the great point in debate: for, admitting that the word always ટ fignifies a virgin, it might without any impropriety be applied to a young woman, who was a virgin at the time the prophecy was delivered. confider the meaning of the writer feems to al In this inquiry he has occafion to Prov. xxx. 19. in which text, he says, lude to the fecret artifices and allurements used by a man in order to feduce a virgin; fuch artifices as are hinted at in Exod. xxii. 16.-If a man entice a maid,bina, &c. Therefore a word fignifying merely a young woman, or one, that was not efteemed a virgin, would not have been fo fuitable to the context of either of thefe paffages,' This interpretation is certainly very diftant from the author's meaning, and hardly makes any tolerable fenfe of the paffage. Caftalio tranflates it honeftly and literally, viri veftigium in puella; and Grotius fays, fignificat, incerta effe virginis aut corrupta indicia t. They who think there is any indelicacy in this explication, let them turn to Deut. xxii. 17. and they will fee, buted 8 पुक † See Dionis's Anat p, 225. that that the elders of Ifrael were ufed to employ their penetration in these matters. This interpretation coincides with the idea of a ferpent leaving no veftige, or impreffion on a rock, which is mentioned before; and the English word track seems to be immediately derived from the Hebrew drik. The chapter which contains this controverted text, our author erroneously afcribes to Solomon. Having examined every place in the Old Testament in which My occurs; and having affigned his reafons for thinking, that it always denotes a virgin, he proceeds to prove, that Ifaiah, in the verses above mentioned, refers to Jesus Christ. Dr. W. -ms has objected, that the 16th verfe-for before the child fhall know to refufe the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abborreft shall be forfaken of both her kings-cannot, in any sense, be applied to the Meffiah: this writer, on the contrary, is of opinion that it may. He agrees with the doctor and Mr. Mann, that may fignify vexeft, instead of abborreft; he obferves, that Ahaz had vexed Ifrael as well as Judah by his apoftacy; and he fuppofes, that the land of Immanuel (chap. viii.) may fignify the land of both the houfes of Ifrael; and that the two kings of the land may mean the feparate regal pervers of these two houfes of Ifrael, which he says were both to cease before the child Immanuel should know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. But why may not the land which Ahaz is faid to have ab borred, fignify the land of Ifrael? Then both her kings will mean her own king Pekah, and her confederate king Rezin. It is obfervable, that both these kings were flain in about two years after this prediction: for which reafon it is most natural to imagine, that the prophet alluded to them. Dr. W -ms has obferved, that the child Immanuel could not be Chrift, because he is never called the king of Judah; our author therefore endeavours to fhew, that the The dominion of the land of Immanuel may be attributed with more propriety to the Meffiah, than to any fon of Isaiah; and that our Saviour was really king of Ifrael; for which he cites Luke i. 32. Zech. 9. &c. ix. Now, fays he, I may afk with Origen-"Who was born in the time of Ahaz, of whofe birth this is faid, that is, God with us?" We read indeed, in the eighth chapter, of a fon, which the prophetess conceived and bare unto Ifaiah.. but the faid child was not called Immanuel, but Maher-shalal * This perhaps, after all, is the best reading of YP. The prefent claufe is evidently addreffed to Ahaz note cow hash-baz, hafh-baz, properly fignifying and prefiguring the near approach of the Spoiling of Damafcus and Samaria. Now, we do not read of any other child, born at that time, as a fign; and therefore Dr. Wms's opinion, concerning Immanuel, is not only a mere fuppofition, but a very improbable one; fince it is not at all likely, that two children were then born, one Maher shalalhash-baz, and the other Immanuel, and both of them intended as mere temporary figns of the fame thing.' The one It may be observed, that the prophet had several fons, how 'many we know not, which, he tells us, were for figns, and for wonders in Ifrael. There is, however, no occafion for fuppofing, that two children were signs of the fame thing. was a fign of the divine favour towards the house of Judah, and the other a fign of the spoiling of Damafcus and Samaria, chap. viii 4. Grotius thinks, that the fame infant was called by two different names, viz. Immanuel and Maher-shalal-hashbaz. But this fuppofition is not neceffary: the filence of hiftory is no proof that there was not one born at that time who was called Immanuel, Dr. Wms fays, "I think that the prophet had no reference to the Meffiah, and that the evangelift only alludes to this paffage in Isaiah, because it was remarkably suitable to the 9. matter which he was relating." Mr. Sharp replies, "If it were true that by doth not fignify a virgin, in what fenfe could the text be efteemed remarkably fuitable to the miraculous conception of a virgin by the Holy Ghoft? And in what manner could the accommodation of it to that fingular event affift the facred historian " by way of il'luftration ?" He adds: Would it not be very unnatural to suppose, that the prophets have been entirely filent concerning this most remarkable fign of the Meffiah, viz. his being born of a virgin; infomuch that an evangelift should be obliged to accommodate to this fingular circumftance, a paffage which originally had no reference to the Meffiah and that he fhould attempt to pafs fuch a mere accommodation upon the world for the genuine fenfe of the prophet, by fignifying in the strongest terms, that this Win the circumftances which he there relates? text was @ Why thould any one attempt now-a-days, to explain away the genuine meaning of a prophecy fo literally fulfilled by the miraculous birth of Chrift, when even the Jewish interpreters, near 300, i. e. according to the Chronicon of Eufebius, 270 ad before that wonderful event, had conftrued the fame prophecy in fuch a manner, that it could not poffibly be applied to any perfon whatsoever, except the promised Meffiah, who alone was born of a virgin, eloon Aegis supaining, The |