tory of that place, I send you a few particulars of what I observed during my stay there. Your readers will be pleased to learn that the lath and plaster partition, which lately occupied the whole space of the arch dividing the nave from the chancel, has been entirely removed. This uncomely obstruction was erected here, as in other places, from which it is now rapidly vanishing, at the time of the Reformation, for the purpose of receiving the royal arms, painted by the yard on a large scale in token of the regal supremacy, just then substituted for the papal. This preposterous heraldry is now less conspicuously placed above the crown of the arch against the blank wall, a measure which I adopted in my own parish church about fifteen years since. The beautifully carved screen, which supported the ancient rood-loft, still remains entire. It is a very good specimen; and, though it has been painted white, only requires to be restored to its original oak colour. Upon the platform above the cornice, under the centre of the arch, stands a fine bust of the Saviour, an Ecce Homo, executed in Italy. This church exhibits some interesting examples of various periods of English architecture. The bold undercutting, the scroll-work, and other enrichments of the capitals of the columns, which divide the nave from the side ailes, are peculiarly striking. The font, which is of corresponding character, has been engraved among Mr. Britton's specimens of Norman fonts in his Architectural Dictionary. There are several varieties of oak carving in the panel-work of the seats; which exhibit their original standards, though blended with modern additions. From the sculptured ornaments of the vaulted roof of the south porch, among which we see the white hart or hind, of the house of York, and the double rose of the union, we may conclude this part, and perhaps the tower, to have been rebuilt in the time of Henry the Seventh. In the chancel are several very interesting monuments and memorials. Near Dr. Tounson's grave stone, who died in 1687, are the vestiges of an ancient inscription on a mutilated slab of black forest marble, part of which has been unfortunately removed to make room for some modern pavement of freestone. The letters are in the large and bold Gothico-Roman form of the twelfth century, and in the centre is a purfled crosier. From the situation of this monumental slab, and from its general character, which corresponds with some of the earliest por 273 REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. Farther Particulars regarding Shakespeare and his Works. By J. P. Collier. 1839. WHEN we open a book of Mr. Collier's, we are always certain of being rewarded with some curious and interesting information. We shall very briefly mention the chief points touched on in this his third little volume on the subject of Shakespeare. First, on "The Merchant of Venice." Mr. Collier shows that this play was not acted from 1620 to 1701; and seems to have been entirely neglected. In fact, in its original form, it was not acted from 1620, when Burbage died, to 1741, when Macklin revived it. Mr. Collier has brought additional evidence to bear, to show that it was forgotten. Secondly. Mr. Collier has given some interesting passages from a very scarce Italian Comedy, called " "GI Inganni," 1547, printed in 1582, which was said in the Barrister's Diary to resemble the Twelfth Night, and which assertion proves to be correct. Mr. Collier does not decide as to whether Shakespeare was indebted to a translation or the original, but thinks it not improbable that he understood enough Italian for his purpose. He justly says, "our great poet has elevated the whole subject in character, language, and sentiment, and has converted what may be termed a low comedy into a high drama." He also observes, "it is obvious that the obligations of Shakespeare for the plot of his comedy were not very great; and that he owed little or nothing to the dialogue." Thirdly. He illustrates the source whence Shakespeare derived the plot of his Cymbeline, which Mr. Malone referred to a tract, called "Westward for Smelts." In the Théâtre Français au Moyen Age, Paris, 1829, published by Messrs. Monmerqué and Michel, is a piece called" Un Miracle de Nostre GENT. MAG. VOL. XIII. Dame," and certainly there is considerable resemblance in the stories. Shakespeare may have gained a knowledge of it, either in an old miracle play, or in some novel formed upon it. Fourthly. Mr. Collier says, *"few will now dispute Shakespeare's claim to Pericles." He then shows that it was marked by no author before 1609, and was published in that year, probably from a surreptitious copy; he says, "I shall show upon good evidence, not only that there must have been great omissions, but in what way some of these omissions are to be supplied." He then advances two positions; first, That Pericles was performed with great success. Secondly, That this performance took place early in 1608, when the publication of the play was contemplated. He then produces a prose novel founded upon Shakespeare's Pericles, in consequence probably of its popularity; and says, "This is the only instance that has yet been discovered of a novel professedly taken from an old play. It is called, "The Painfull Adventures of Pericles, Prince of Tyre. Being the true history of the Play of Pericles, as it was lately presented by the worthy and ancient poet John Gower. 1608." The immediate source to which Shakespeare resorted was, probably, Laurence Twine's version of the novel of Apollonius King of Tyre, 1576. There is only one copy of this curious production known, which is certainly borrowed from the play, and a comparison vations, and to several valuable restorations of the text, for which, however, we must refer our readers to the book itself. of the two leads to some curious obser Lastly, Mr. Collier gives us a very beautiful ballad on the subject of the Tempest, of which the author is not known; but which is certainly, for the style, much posterior to Shake. speare's play. Mr. Collier thinks it 2 N 274 REVIEW.-Collier's Farther Particulars regarding Shakespeare. [March, was written about the time of the Protectorate. It appears from a passage in Mr. Collier's book (p. 63) that a MS. diary of a Chaplain to the Consulate of the Barbary States in the reign of Charles the Second, led to the belief that the Enchanted Island of the Tempest was Lampedusa. Having thus given a brief and, we are afraid, unworthy summary of the contents of this little volume, we proceed to make an observation or two on a few passages in the old drama, that have passed under our notice within the last few days in the course of our reading. P. 47. Mr. Collier has this passage, "In act iii. sc. 2, occurs a passage put in the mouth of Cerimon, which always struck me as corrupt; it runs thus, I have heard 66 Of an Egyptian, had nine hours lien dead, But, in truth, there is no such great difference in the passages as to lead to an inference of incorrectness in the play. If Egyptians raised a body after death, whose body so likely as an Egyptian's; the miracles of the Egyptian magicians being from the earliest times to the present day (ex. gr. at Cairo) exhibited in their own country. This answers Mr. Collier's quære "Why an Egyptian?" i. e. because the Egyptian, and he alone, died in a country where such magical arts were supposed to be exercised; also the image in the play is more poetical than that in the novel, and on that accouút ought not to be altered. We also doubt whether "imperished" should be substituted for " impoverished." (p. 48.) Mr. Collier gives several proverbial sayings from the Paroemiologia Anglolatina, 1639, and phrases similar to some in Shakespeare; but there is one, where Hamlet is named, which is not very intelligible. It is this, "A trout, Hamlet, with four legs." p. 68. With regard to the introduction of the see a We take this opportunity, being at once on the subject of Shakespeare and of passages relating to his works, or in them, wanting emendation, of referring to the second volume of Mr. Coleridge's "Literary Remains," where the notes of that very eminent person are to be found on many of the plays, on which we venture a few observations. P. 122. Merry Wives of Windsor.-Act 1. Sc. 3 : "Falst.-Now the report goes: she has all the will of her husband's purse; she hath a legion of angels. "Pist.-As many devils entertain; and to her, boy, say I." "Perhaps it is," says Mr. Coleridge— "As many devils enter (or enter'd) swine, and to her, boy, say I." That this conjecture is not very happy all will allow, and it appears to us unnecessary. We would read "Falst.-She hath a legion of angels. "Pist. As many devils.-Entertain, and to her, boy, say I." P. 127. -Hath nature given thee eyes Mr. Coleridge would read "cope" for 1840.] REVIEW.-Collier's Farther Particulars regarding Shakespeare. 275 Mr. Coleridge says "I think Tyrwhitt's reading of 'Life' for 'Wife,' A fellow almost damn'd in a fair wife, the true one, as fitting for Iago's contempt for whatever did not display power," &c. We think this alteration would produce a degree of flatness and want of spirit in the passage, and would hardly compensate for it, by any additional clearness it would give. We would interpret "Wife " "Woman," a sense it is often used in; and we think no further interpretation is wanted. P. 299. The Elder Brother. -"For what concerns tillage? Who better can deliver it than Virgil In his Georgics, or to cure your herds (His Bucolics are a Masterpiece.)" as This is Mr. Coleridge's correction of the text as it stood in the edition of Sympeon and Coleman, thus : -"For what concerns tillage; Who better can deliver it than Virgil In his Georgicks? and to cure your herds, His Bucolicks is a master-piece." Mr. Coleridge says, "Fletcher was too good a scholar to fall into so gross a blunder;" then giving his emendation he adds, "jealous of Virgil's honour, he is afraid lest by referring to the Georgics alone, he might be understood as underrating the preceding work; not that I do not admire the Bucolics too in their way.' Now we must differ from Mr. Coleridge, both as to his emendation and explanation : his emendation (in which by the bye, the substitution of or for and seems unnecessary) leaves the construction of the passage very awkwardly arranged; and his explanation is, perhaps, too refined :-What do we propose to do? To leave the passage exactly as it is in the old text, and to understand by the word "herds," not cattle, but herdsmen, or rather "shepherds," as this word was used in this sense. Herd for sheep-herd, and herdesse for shepherdesse. "Yet as a herdesse on a summer's day," &c. To cure your shepherds of their love plaints, and their amorous desires, your Bucolics is a master piece. " P. 301. In "Wit without Money. "With one man satisfied, with one rein guided, With one faith, one content, one bed; Aged, she makes the wife, preserves the fame and issue, A widow is, &c.————" Mr. Coleridge says, is "afraid" contented-too old for Beaumont and Fletcher; if not, we might read thus"Content with one faith, with one bed afraid, She makes the wife, preserves the fame and issue." or it may be -"with one breed afraid." that is, satisfied with one set of chilchristmas box." We do not consider dren in opposition to "a widow is a that this conjecture will find many approvers in fact, it is totally unnecessary, as the insertion of a single letter will set the sense and metre right. "With one man satisfied, with one rein guided, With one faith, one content, one bed agreed, She makes the wife," &c. We now leave this interesting subject, thanking Mr. Collier for the great pleasure and instruction which his curious researches have afforded us. Monumenta Antiqua; or, the Stone Monuments of Antiquity yet remain ing in the British Isles, particularly as illustrated by Scripture; also a dissertation on Stonehenge, together with a compendious account of the Druids; to which are added, conjectures on the origin and design of the Pyramids of Egypt and of the Round Towers of Ireland. By R. Weaver, Author of Scripture Fulfilled, The Pagan Altar," and " Jehovah's Temple." Duod. pp. 198. WE perfectly agree in opinion with the author of the pleasing Essay before us, that the stone pillars and altars which were set up by the inhabitants of various countries of the earth in the primitive ages, had their origin in those memorials which are recorded in Holy Writ to have been erected either in honour of the true God, or to record some remarkable dispensation to his chosen people. On this head we have made some observations in describing a cromlech in the notices of Laugharne, in Caermarthenshire. (See Gent. Mag. for December 1839, p. 598.) Mr. Weaver remarks that "When the covenant between God and Israel was about to be ratified at the foot of Mount Sinai, Moses not only built an altar, but he erected twelve pillars of stone, according to the number of the twelve tribes of Israel, and that there the solemnities of the ratification were performed. This is the first record we have in any history of a number of stones being thus used for sacred purposes. We are not, indeed, told that they were placed in a circular form, but most probably they were. This was about three hundred years after Jacob's pillar had been erected to mark the place of assembly for worship, and about fifteen hundred years before Christ. Shortly after this, about forty years, we find twelve stones pitched in Gilgal, which, though they were immediately designed as a memorial of Israel's passing through Jordan, yet the spot seems at least to have been a place of general assembly; and since here the people offered sacrifices at the appointment of Saul to be King, and it afterwards was the place where Saul offered his burnt of fering and peace offering, we may fairly infer that it was a place of worship.. .... As to Gilgal, we may remark, moreover, that the word a Galgal, or Gilgal, signifies a circle; it is, therefore, not improbable that it derived its name from the stones placed there in a circular form. Let the scriptures, therefore, have their due honour, as the most ancient and interesting record of antiquity, for whether the traveller meet with the common altar, or the cromlech, or the carn altar, or the pillar, or the circle of pillars, he may account for them, or at least have great light thrown upon them, by a reference to that sacred record." (p. 40.) The author passes on to the notice of pillars and stones erected as boundaries, as monuments for the dead, and for the memory of remarkable achievements and transactions. He cites the well-known practice, in this respect, of the Jews, the Greeks, and the Celtic nations. A stone was raised over the grave of Achilles and Patroclus, which Alexander the Great anointed with oil. The stela of the Egyptians seem to be a refinement on the practice, for they approximate to the tablet-like memorials which are erectCairns or heaps of stones, and bared in our churchyards for the dead. rows or tumuli are next pointed out as erected for way marks, for boundaries for marking the dead with infamy, or commemorating them with honour. "Toland speaks of the custom of the Irish to erect rude and small pyramids of stones along the road,' which heaps are called, he says, Leachda, and are made of the first stones that offer. He indeed considers them as monuments of the dead, but being made along the roads, it seems more probable that they were intended as way marks. If so, Scripture again concurs, and comes in with its claim for notice as to the antiquity of its records, because 700 years before Christ you have an allusion to the custom of heaps for directories to the traveller. Set thee up high heaps, says the Lord to Israel, by Jeremiah, for the purposes mentioned before, when treating of the pillars, even that thou mightest find the way back to thy cities.' And 450 years before this, we have mention of the stone Ezel,' which word itself signifies a way mark." 6 Admitting that mounds of stones and earth were frequently in the early ages land marks and points for directing the traveller, our author seems for a moment to forget the practice of the Greeks and Romans to bury the dead by the way side. The earliest mode of interment was indeed probably like that of the Jews and Egyptians, in sepulchres hewn out in rocks; but the sepulchral |