play upon the devil;) and this buffoon went by the name of a vice. This Buffoon was at first accoutred with a long Jerkin, a cap with a pair of afs's ears, and a wooden dagger, with which (like another Arlequin) he was to make sport in belabouring the devil. This was the conftant entertainment in the times of popery, whilft fpirits, and witchcraft, and exorcifing held their own. When the reformation took place, the stage shook off fome groffities, and encreased in refinements. The mafter-devil then was foon difmiffed from the fcene; and this buffoon was changed into a subordinate fiend, whose business was to range on earth, and feduce poor mortals into that perfonated vicious quality, which he occafionally fupported; as, iniquity, in general, bypocrify, ufury, vanity, prodigality, gluttony, &c. Now as the fiend, (or wice) who perfonated iniquity (or hypocrify, for instance) could never hope to play his game to the purpose but by hiding his cloven foot, and affuming a femblance quite different from his real character; he muft certainly put on a formal demeanour, moralize and preváricate in his words, and pretend a meaning directly oppofite to his genuine and primitive intention. If this does not explain the paffage in queftion, 'tis all that I can at prefent fuggeft upon it. THEOB. Ibid. Thus like the formal vice, iniquity,

I moralize two meanings in one word] That the buffoon, or jefter of the old English farces, was called the vice, is certain and that, in their moral representations, it was common to bring in the deadly fins, is as true. Of these we have yet several remains. But that the vice used to affume the perfonage of these fins, is a fancy of Mr. Theobald's, who knew nothing of the matter. The truth is the vice was always a fool or jefter: And, (as the woman, in the Merchant of Venice, calls the clown, alluding to this character) a merry devil. Whereas thefe mortal fins were fo many fad, ferious ones. But what mifled our editor was the name iniquity, given to this vice: But it was only on account of his unhappy tricks and rogueries. That it was given to him, and for the reason I mention, appears from the following paffage of Johnson's Staple of News, fecond inter

meane.

M. How like you the vice i' the play?

T. Here is never a fiend to carry him away. Befides he

has never a wooden dagger.

M. That was the old way, Goffip, when iniquity came in like hocas pocas, in a jugler's jerkin, with false skirts like the knave of clubs.

And, in The Devil's an Afs, we fee this old vice, iniquity, described more at large.

From all this, it may be gather'd, that the text, where Richard compares himself to the formal vice iniquity, muft be corrupt: And the interpolation of fome foolish player. The vice or iniquity being not a formal, but a merry, buffoon character. Befides, Shakespeare could never make an exact speaker refer to this character, because the subject he is upon is tradition and antiquity, which have no relation to it; and because it appears from the turn of the paffage, that he is apologizing for his equivocation by a reputable practice. To keep the reader no longer in fufpence my conjecture is, that Shakespeare wrote and pointed the lines in this manner, Thus like the formal wife antiquity

I moralize: Two meanings in one word. Alluding to the mythologic learning of the antients, of whom they are all here speaking. So that Richard's ironical apology is to this effect, You men of morals who fo much extol your allwife antiquity, in what am I inferior to it? which was but an equivocator as I am. And it is remarkable, that the Greeks themselves called their remote antiquity, Aixouve or the equivocator. So far as to the general fenfe; as to that which arifes particularly out of the corrected expreffion, I fhall only obferve, that formal-wife is a compound epithet, an extreme fine one, and admirably fitted to the character of the fpeaker, who thought all wifdom but formality. It must therefore be read for the future with a hyphen. My other obfervation is with regard to the pointing; the common reading,

I moralize two meanings

is nonfenfe: but reformed in this manner, very fenfible. Thus like the formal-wife antiquity

I moralize: Two meanings in one word.

i. e. I moralize as the antients did.

And how was that? the

having two meanings to one word. A ridicule on the morality of the antients, which he infinuates was no better than equivocating.

WARD.

Ibid. Thus, like the formal-wife antiquity

I moralize: Two meanings in one word.] As Mr. Warburton in his note on this paffage hath been extremely formal-wife, and hath wafted a good deal of what looks like literature and reafoning abfolutely to no purpose, I am obliged to be the more particular in my examination of it. I fhall therefore begin with laying before the reader the ancient text,

Thus like the formal vice, iniquity,

I moralize two meanings in one word.

That the vice was a standing character in our ancient drama; that the vice properly fo called, as distinguished from particular vices, was named iniquity; that the character of this vice was that of a buffoon or jefter, hath been fully proved by Mr. Upton, Critic. Obfervat. and is not only acknowledged, but even confirmed by Mr. Warburton himfelf. That it is part of the character of a buffoon or jefter to deal largely in double meanings, and by the help of them to aim at cracking a jeft, and raising a laugh, needs no other proof than the reader's own knowledge and experience. Thefe points being granted, one would imagine nothing more was wanting to eftablish the truth, and explain the meaning of this reading. But from these very premises Mr. Warburton draws the direct oppofite conclufion, that it is corrupt, and the interpolation of fome foolish player.' And he gives three reasons to fupport his inference: First, That the vice, iniquity, was not a formal, but a merry, buffcon character:' Secondly, That the fubject Shakespeare is upon is tradition and antiquity, which have no relation to this character: Thirdly, That from the turn of the paffage it appears, that Richard is apologizing for his equivocation, as a reputable practice.' It is fcarce poffible to find even in Mr. Warburton's works, any thing more weak than these three reafons. The firft is founded in a grofs ignorance of Shakespeare's phrafeology; who by the formal vice doth not mean, the ftiff folemn vice, but the vice which performs all the functions which properly and peculiarly conftitute and diftinguish that character. Thus, a formal man, according to the poet, is one who performs all the functions proper and peculiar to a man; so in the Comedy of Errors, vol. ii. p. 531.

Till I have us'd th' approved means I have,

With wholesome firups, drugs, and holy prayers,
To make of him a formal man again.

As to the fecond; he is quite mistaken in the fubject the poet was upon, as he terms it, or rather, in the drift and f ope of Richard in these lines, which was not either tradition, or antiquity, but the deceit he had just practised on his nephew the king, by his fuddenly giving a very different turn to fome dangerous words which had escaped him, and which the latter in part had over-heard. And as to the third, that the turn of the paffage fhews him to be apologizing for his equivocation, as being a reputable practice; to whom then doth he apologize? to any perfon prefent? No; for thefe words are spoken afide, and as fuch Mr. Warburton himself hath given them. To himself? No, furely. The reader is by this time too well acquainted with his character, to admit fuch a fuppofition, after having feen him so often, deliberately, and without the leaft fcruple or remorse, recognizing, and with fatisfaction contemplating the villany of his own heart. The fenfe of the paffage then is this; Thus my moralities, or the fententious expreffion I have juft uttered, resemble those of the vice, iniquity, in the play; the indecencies which lie at the bottom are sheltered from exception, and the indignation they would excite if nakedly delivered, under the ambiguity of a double meaning.' After this, it is needless to enter into a particular examination of that salemn sophistry, with which Mr. Warburton endeavours to recommend his own conjecture. It is fufficient to add, that in fact, as the reader must evidently fee, Richard doth not in this paffage seriously moralize at all, or even dream of fo doing, and confequently could not fay, that he moralized like the formal-wife antiquity,' which, in virtue of its allegorical mythology, might indeed very properly be faid to do fo. The term, moralize, is only introduced in allufion to the title of our old dramatick pieces, which were commonly called moralities, in which the vice was always one of the fhining characters. And now, may I not be excufed in teftifying my aftonishment, to find fo acute and fenfible a writer as Mr. Seward, in his preface to Beaumont and Fletcher, p. 27. licking up VOL. IV. PART II.

B

this fpittle, and applauding this emendation as a most exceeding ingenious conjecture? REVIS.*

Ibid.] Mr. Upton very juftly cenfures Dr. Warburton's alteration, who, in my opinion, has done nothing but correct the punctuation, if indeed any alteration be really neceffary.

To this long collection of notes may be added a question, to what equivocation Richard refers? The pofition immediately preceding, that fame lives long without characters, that is, without the help of letters, feems to have no ambiguity. He must allude to the former line,

So young, fo wife, they fay, did ne'er live long,

in which he conceals, under a proverb, his design of haftening the prince's death.

I fhall here fubjoin two differtations, one by Dr. Warburton, and one by Mr. Upton, upon the vice. JOHNS.

Ibid. Thus like the formal vice, iniquity, &c.] As this corrupt reading in the common books hath occafioned our faying fomething of the barbarities of theatrical reprefentations amongst us before the time of Shakespeare, it may not be improper, for a better apprehenfion of this whole matter, to give the reader fome general account of the rife and progrefs of the modern stage.

The first form, in which the drama appeared in the west of Europe, after the deftruction of learned Greece and Rome, and that a calm of dulnefs had finished upon letters what the rage of barbarifm had begun, was that of the mysteries. These were the fashionable and favourite diverfions of all ranks of people both in France, Spain, and England. In which laft place, as we learn by Stow, they were in ufe about the time of Richard the fecond and Henry the fourth. As to Italy, by what I can find, the first rudiments of their ftage, with regard to the matter, were prophane fubjects, and, with regard to the form, a corruption of the ancient Mimes and Attellanes: By which means they got fooner into the right road than their neighbours; having had regular plays amongst them wrote as early as the fifteenth century.

As to thefe mysteries, they were, as their name fpeaks them, a reprefentation of fome fcripture-ftory, to the life: