Bibliotheca Sacra, but was not born when Le Jaygot printed the magnificent Polyglott in 1628, (et seq.) by which he was ruined, in consequence of the high price and slow sale. It would have been well, I likewise would remark, to have noted, in regard to the traveller Pietro della Valle, (vol. iv. p. 80) that the system of mutual instruction, whether denominated Bell's or Lancaster's, was first made known in Europe by him. (Viaggi, tom. ii. Roma, 1650, 1663.)

I have not made any particular allusion to Mr. Hallam's first volume, which had so long preceded the others; because, as I have remarked, it had received his own and other corrections; but the passage, (page 578,) where he quotes Mr. Panizzi's words descriptive of the ingenuity with which the poet Berni finds a resemblance between distant objects, and the solemn manner in which he either alludes to ludicrous events, or utters absurdities, while the loftiness of the verse contrasts with the frivolity of the argument, reminds me of the lines, by many, and for a long time, supposed to be Ariosto's.

"Il pover huomo, che non s'en era accorto, Andava combattendo, ed era morto."

Indeed, the thought and expression

so much resemble Ariosto's that the misapplication was natural; and they were taken for his until their real source was discovered by M. La Monnoie, in Berni's Orlando Inamorato, (poema di Boiardo, rifatto dal Bernia,) lib. ii. canto 24, where, however, the first line is,

"Cosi colui del colpo non accorto," which is more correct; for, as precedingly given, there is a redundant syllable. (Menagiana, tome iii.)

Both these poets habitually, perhaps unconsciously, lapse into the extravagant in their efforts at effect, as my own countrymen are charged with doing in oratory, or, like the hero of Lucretius,

." confringere ut arcta Naturæ.... portarum claustra cupirent."

1. 72.

But the flights of Berni generally transcend even those of the brilliant

fancy, which, in luxuriant indulgence, could disport with, and so delightfully blend, such heterogeneous rudiments of song as

"Le donne, i cavalier, l'arme, gli amori, Le cortesie, l'audaci imprese," &c.

he should endeavour to excel in; and No doubt, whatever one attempts, so far, Ugo Foscolo may be justified in preferring, as Mr. Hallam heard him assert, Berni to Ariosto, when the bounds of reason are no longer those of taste, and the hyperbolical is viewed leaps the demarcations of nature, when as sublime. Tasso, too, rather over

he says, "Mà ben può nulla, chi mori non puote," which he was so happy to borrow, unacknowledged, as has been remarked by his commentators, from Petrarch's "Che ben può nulla, chi non può morire.” To all which we may justly apply the words of their own countrymen,

Questo è bizarramente pensato." Still, as science has gained by the delirious fancies of Alchemysts, so, "Evenitnonnunquam ut aliquid grande inveniat qui semper quærit quod nimium est." (Quintilian, lib. ii. cap. 12); and truly great are the Italian poets, when they can discard their besetting sin-the far-fetched concetti.

*

The historian Livy, in the outset of his noble enterprise, entertains some doubt, whether in fruit and execution, it would compensate the expended toil, and accomplish its destined beneficial purpose-a doubt long since resolved by the consentient admiration of ages. But Mr. Hallam, at the termination of his extended labours, and, already cheered, in their course, by the approving suffrage of the public, may well and authorizedly assume, as he does, in graceful modesty of language and conscious claim of right, "that he has contributed something to the general literature of his country, something to the honourable estimate of his own name, and to the inherit ance of those, to whom he will have to bequeath it," a trust and legitimate anticipation, which the gratitude of deeply indebted generations cannot fail to affirm and realize.

Yours, &c. J. R.

GENT. MAG. VOL. XIII.

2 L

MR. URBAN, Feb. 10. YOUR correspondent J. R. in p. 143 has mentioned my "Introduction to the Literary History of the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries" in terms of such eulogy, as call for my warmest expressions of acknowledgment, though I fear that the praise will appear excessive to most of your readers. The criticisms of so favourable a censor carry with them a presumption of being well founded, especially when supported by so copious a display of authorities as we find in those of your correspondent. I am nevertheless under the necessity of defending myself against one which he has made on a passage in my work relating to the Council of Trent.

After quoting this passage (vol. ii. p. 99), which I shall not here insert afresh, he observes that

"Our author obviously confounds the civil and spiritual jurisdictions; for the exceptions to the recognition of the Council adverted to by him, exclusively referred to points of discipline which were supposed to encroach on the royal prerogative or local immunities, and never, as I shall have little difficulty in evincing, to rules of faith over which the civil power could exercise no control. In France and Hungary it is true that no royal edict, as in Spain, and most other Catholic territories, enjoined the reception of the Council; but the ecclesiastical body universally and explicitly, there as elsewhere, on every competent occasion, recorded their universal submission to the decision of the Council in matters of faith."

If I had really confounded the civil and spiritual jurisdictions, or, what seems more strictly your correspondent's meaning, theological doctrine with ecclesiastical discipline, it would have been a proof of much carelessness or confusion of ideas. But I must observe, that in his quotation from my work, he has overlooked some important words, which may perhaps reclaim me, in the eyes of your readers, from part of this charge. The most material sentence is the following:

"Even in France the Tridentine decrees, in matters of faith, have not been formally received, though the Gallican church has never called any of them in question; those relating to matters of discipline are distinctly held not obligatory,"

The words in italics are all omitted in your correspondent's quotation. The above sentence contains three assertions of fact. To the first and third I do not perceive that any objection can be taken. In the Appendix to Courayer's translation of Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent, we have an elaborate "Discours Historique sur la Reception de ce Concile, particulièrement en France." It appears by this, that, though the French clergy made strenuous efforts for half a century to obtain the formal reception of the Council by royal authority, these proved unavailing. It is certainly true that the resistance was solely on account of "points of discipline which were supposed to encroach on the royal prerogative or local immunities." Still, as no part of the decrees of the Council was formally received, my proposition remains correct, though not of much importance. That those decrees which relate to discipline were not held obligatory in France, is, as I presume, an established and notorious fact.

It is, I admit, possible that my second proposition in the above sentence, namely, that the Gallican church has never called any of them (the decrees of the Council in matters of faith) in question, may convey something less than the truth to the mind of a reader unacquainted with the subject. The expression might seem to refer only to the Gallican church in its collective capacity. But I never designed to throw any doubt upon what your correspondent has been anxious to set in a true light, that upon all occasions that church, through its particular members, has recognized the Tridentine determinations in articles of faith as those of a legitimate general Council. Perhaps the first part of the following passage from Courayer will come up to J. R.'s opinion.

"Ce que je viens de rapporter des oppositions que la publication du Concile, a eües à essuyer en France, ne regarde que les decrets de discipline. Car en matière de doctrine il n'en a pas été tout à fait ainsi. Quoiqu'à cet égard même le Concile n'a jamais été reçu par les Français dans les formes, il est certain néanmoins qu'il y est accepté tacitement, soit parceque dans toutes les disputes qui s'y sont

élevées, l'on y a toujours pris ses décisions pour règle; soit parceque la profession de foi de Pie IV. y a été adoptée par tous les évêques; soit enfin parceque les prélats de ce royaume, soit dans leurs Conciles provinciaux ou diocesains, soit dans les assemblées du clergé, ont toujours fait profession de se soumettre à sa doctrine, et que dans les oppositions même que les états ou les parlemens du royaume ont formées à l'acceptation de ce Concile ils ont toujours déclaré qu'ils embrassoient la foi contenue dans ses décrets, comme on le voit dans la réponse que fit le Président Miron au nom du Tiers Etat dans les états de 1615. Cette acceptation, que j'appelle tacite, parcequ'elle n'est point faite selon les formes ordinaires, c'est-à-dire, par l'autorité du prince et l'enregistrement des cours souveraines, n'a pas empêché le clergé de faire regarder la doctrine du Concile comme une des loix du royaume, quoique peut-être à cet égard même il eût autant besoin de modifications qu'à l'égard des décrets de discipline. En effet s'il est vrai, comme l'observe M, Simon, que cette doctrine est reçue en France non à cause de l'autorite du Concile, mais parcequ'elle étoit reçue dans tout le royaume avant que les évêques s'assemblassent à Trente, il resulte par une conséquence nécessaire, que ce qui n'étoit point reçu alors n'a pas plus de force qu'il en avoit, puisque l'autorité du Concile ne lui en donne aucune. Or ce ne seroit pas une chose difficile prouver, ou qu'avant le Concile on pensoit en France d'une manière différente sur quelques articles, ou du moins qu'on y disputoit librement, et qu'on n'y regardoit point comme articles de foi les opinions qui ont étés données pour des dogmes dans le Concile, et qu'ainsi on doit toujours avoir sur cela la même liberté de penser. C'est ce que plusieurs theologiens regarderont peut-être comme une hérésie digne d'anathême; mais qui est pourtant une conséquence du fait auparavant demontré, que le Concile de Trente n'a jamais été reçu selon les formes ordinaires ni quant à la discipline ni quant à la doctrine."-Hist. du Conc. de Trente, vol. ii. p. 696, Londres, 1736.

I do not expect J. R. to concur in the latter part of this paragraph from Courayer, nor do I pretend that one so far removed from the standard of orthodoxy in the Gallican church can be quoted as an authority for the sentiments of any but himself. Yet Dupin, in his famous correspondence with Archbishop Wake, seems not to consider the points of difference to be

irrevocably settled, and, in his remarks on the articles of our church, never refers to any decision of the Tridentine Council. Dupin, however, is but one man; and in general there can be no doubt, as I have already acknowledged, that the church of France has fully submitted to the decrees of the Council in matters of faith.

Your correspondent's communication on this subject not being closed in your last number, I do not know what notice he designs to take of the remaining part of the passage which he has done me the honour to quote, wherein I advert to the conduct of the

Emperor Ferdinand in referring the whole controversy between the church of Rome and the members of the Augsburg Confession to the judgment of Cassander; and upon which, as may be perceived by the words,

even in France," I laid more stress than on any thing that occurred in the latter country. As I am desirous not again to trespass on your patience, I will with your permission quote a passage from Thranus, lib. xxxvi. in justification of my suggestion that the Emperor

seems to have hesitated about acknowledging the decisions of a Council which had at least failed in the object for which it was professedly summoned, the conciliation of all parties to the church." I quote it as prefixed to the Consultatio Cassandri, in the folio edition of his Works, Paris, 1616.

"Cum videret (Ferdinandus), concilio Tridentino jam ad exitum perducto, quantum ad Germaniam et suæ ditionis populos parum perfectum, seroque animadverteret, sibi a Cardinali Morono verba data, quo à postulatis suis et communibus cum rege Galliæ initis consiliis discederet, quod ab alienâ ope tantis malis subsidium frustra expectaverat, a propriis sibi sumendam existimavit, et Maximiliani filii optimi juxtà ac prudentissimi principis consilio usus de controversis confessionis

Augustana articulis amicè conciliandis serio cogitare cæpit; qua in re Georgii Cassandri viri optimi ac doctissimi qui Duisburgi tunc erat, opera uti voluit. Is ad exactissimam rerum sacrarum scientiam summum animi candorem ac moderationem addiderat, et in cognoscendis hujus ævi controversiis, rationibusque, quibus hæc tempestas utcunque sedari, et ne major distractio et dilaceratio in

ecclesiâ fiat, occurri possit, conquirendis omne vitæ spatium contriverat," &c.

I do not give the rest of the passage; but it will be found to repeat and confirm what has been already extracted. It is true that the Emperor's aim was to reconcile the Lutherans of Germany who would not acknowledge the Council of Trent. But if Cassander

was only to repeat, even in other words, the decrees of that body, what reasonable hope was there of making these Lutherans more tractable? And accordingly we find both by his letter to the Emperor, prefixed to the Consultatio, and by the whole tenor of that work, that he considered the points in controversy as still open questions, which a Catholic might investigate according to Scripture, and the primitive church. The Council is tacitly set aside throughout; and I am not sure that he does not sometimes maintain tenets incompatible with some of its determinations. The Consultation of Cassander was delivered, after the death of Ferdinand in 1564, to his son and successor Maximilian II.

Your correspondent observes, P. 147, that a departure or dissent from the decrees of the Council would necessarily involve a lapse into schism, and a severance of Catholic unity." I admit that, on Roman Catholic principles, this is true at the present day. But I would ask, with deference to J. R.'s greater familiarity with these subjects, whether the recognition of a Council by the whole Church be not, on the same principles, the test of its ecumenicity. And for this recogni

tion some short time at least must be required. No Council, as he must be aware, has ever been either a full or a proportional representation of the universal church; and at Trent in particular, the number of prelates by whom many important decrees were made, appears to have been inconsiderable. This has often been urged by Protestants; and the reply, as I presume, would be that, the Church having acknowledged their authority by its submission, they must be deemed to be of as much validity as if every prelate had been personally present. The only doubt which I started was as to the period antecedent to that general acquiescence of the

Church of Rome; and so far at least as the Emperor Ferdinand is concerned, I venture to hope that my lanthe strict letter of truth. guage will be thought not to go beyond

Yours, &c. HENRY HALLAM.

2, Great Newport St. MR. URBAN, Feb. 4. of the "Pictorial Shakspere," I feel IN justice to Mr. Knight, the editor myself called upon to notice a mistake of Mr. Hunter in the letter which he has recently addressed to you.

duction to the Play of Henry V. has Mr. Knight in a note on his Introbeen pleased to acknowledge a trifling worked out with great industry and suggestion of mine (which he has result), regarding the publication of the discrimination to a very satisfactory Mr. Hunter, from mistaking the puroriginal editions of Shakespeare's plays. port of that note, appears to consider joint labour of Mr. Knight and mythePictorial Shakspere" to be a self. I now most explicitly declare that I have not, nor ever had, any connection with Mr. Knight in that publication, nor have I supplied to him any help whatever beyond the question he has there entered into, a suggestion for the discussion of the paper which I had sketched out on proposed verbal emendations; and the scenery of the Tempest, and a few these not as the contribution of a joint-editor, but merely as hints for

his consideration.

I allude to in Mr. Hunter's letter, his With respect to the particular point observation that Mr. Knight and myself have changed our opinion about the date of the composition of the Tempest, I beg to say that I have Knight on the subject, beyond exnever had any conversation with Mr. pressing my belief that it is one of the author's later works, and although I disquisition has somewhat shaken that cannot but own that Mr. Hunter by his conviction, I am not yet altogether prepared to give it up. At the risk of being thought tedious, I will re-state the subject of my suggestion to Mr. troduction to Henry V.,-particularly Knight, acknowledged by him in his In

as it strikes me that some curious de

ductions may be drawn from it. My questions to Mr. Knight were,-Did

Shakespeare publish any of his own works? Is there any proof of his so doing, and which were they? These questions were accompanied by some trifling hints on the subject, with a desire that he would examine it fully.

It appears by the extracts from the books of the Stationers' Company, given by Herbert in his edition of Ames's Typographical Antiquities, that that body exercised towards its several members, which included all the publishers and booksellers of the period, the same function which is now considered to be lodged exclusively in the Court of Chancery, and that it visited by fine and "stay," that is, by disallowing of a particular book to be published, any infringement of copyright; and that, trifling as was the sum paid at that time for copyright, and few as were the numbers of a book then vended compared with the sale of modern times, the proprietors were as jealous of their copies, and guarded them as tenaciously, as the publishers of the present day, when the value of literary property is increased, on an average, perhaps, five hundred fold.

Now, on looking over the list of the early editions of Shakespeare's plays as they originally came out in 4to., it will be seen that several of them were put forth by the same publishers, and that these parties retained their right in them down to the publication of the first collected edition in folio, 1623, in some cases a period of twenty-five years. It is evident, therefore, that these publishers derived their right either immediately from the author, or from some person to whom he had delegated it. My belief is, that he himself saw some of them through the press; and, as confirmatory of this opinion, I can state that several of those so published are remarkably correct in the typographical execution, so much so that I have collated more than one without discovering an error. Mr. Knight, who has carefully examined this subject, has come to the conclusion that nine of the early editions in 4to. previous to the folio of 1623, were published by the author, or with his consent; and to these nine may be added the two poems, Venus and Adonis, and Lucrece, the first editions of which are most correctly printed, each of them having

a dedication prefixed to it, another confirmatory proof that they were published by the author.

On the publication of the first collected edition of the author's works, in 1623, the plays not previously entered on the Stationers' books as the property of any individual, or partners, are entered as the property of the publishers of that edition, "as many of the said copies as are not formerly entered to other men ; " and the titles of the newly published plays are particularized. Here then is a distinct acknowledgment of a legal proprietorship. The important fact I deduce from this examination is, that the plays have come down to us without those interpolations which some critics would fain make us believe have been foisted in by the players, his fellows; in vindication of whose integrity we have those prior editions, besides their own express declaration "that we have scarce received from him a blot in his papers; " for the veracity of which declaration we have the remarkable words of Jonson, that "he wished he had blotted a thousand," in which I for one do not join, notwithstanding my respect for "rare Ben." We have also the great internal proof of the master-mind pervading the whole composition of a play, and speaking in all its characters. I refer more particularly to the inferior characters, from whose mouths the interpolations are said to proceed. Who, for instance, can abstract the character of the fool from Lear with out despoiling the play of one of its most important characters, and materially injuring its catastrophe, to which every speech from his mouth contributes? Again: the misconceptions of Dogberry and Verges, leading to the apprehension of Conrad and Borrachio, involve the catastrophe of Much Ado about Nothing. The waggeries of Launcelot Gobbo may be by such critics considered interpolations, yet one line from the mouth of Jessica not only assures us that we are reading the words of the poet, but gives us the clearest insight into the character of Shylock; and when she says to Launcelot, "thou art a merry devil in this hell," she lets us at once into all the economy of the Jew's household,