differtation on the origin and nature of thofe romances is here intro duced, I cannot fee; and I should humbly advise the next editor of Shakspeare to omit it. That he may have the lefs fcruple upon that head, I fhall take this opportunity of throwing out a few remarks, which, I think, will be fufficient to fhow, that the learned writer's hypothefis was formed upon a very hafty and imperfect view of the fubject.

At fetting out, in order to give a greater value to the information which is to follow, he tells us, that no other writer has given any tolerable account of this matter; and particularly,—that "Monfieur Huet, the bishop of Avranches, who wrote a formal treatife of the Origin of Romances, has faid little or nothing of these [books of chivalry] in that fuperficial work."-The fact is true, that Monfieur Huet has faid very little of Romances of chivalry; but the imputation, with which Dr. W. proceeds to load him, of-" putting the change upon his reader," and "dropping his proper fubje&” for another," that had no relation to it more than in the name," is unfounded.

It appears plainly from Huet's introductory address to De Segrais, that his object was to give fome account of thofe romances which were then popular in France, fuch as the Aftrée of D'Urfe, the Grand Cyrus of De Scuderi, &c. He defines the Romances of which he means to treat, to be " fictions des avantures amoureuses ;” and he excludes epic poems from the number, because—“ Enfin les poëmes ont pour fujet une action militaire ou politique, et ne traitent d'amour que par occafion; les Romans au contraire ont l'amour pour fujet principal, et ne traitent la politique et la guerre que par incident. Je parle des Romans réguliers; car la plupart des vieux Romans François, Italiens, et Espagnols font bien moins amoureux que militaires." After this declaration, furely no one has a right to complain of the author for not treating more at large of the old romances of chivalry, or to ftigmatife his work as fuperficial, upon account of that omiffion. I fhall have occafion to remark below, that Dr. W. who, in turning over this fuperficial work, (as he is pleafed to call it,) feems to have shut his eyes against every ray of good fenfe and juft obfervation, has condefcended to borrow from it a very grofs mistake.

Dr. W's own pofitions, to the fupport of which his fubfequent facts and arguments might be expected to apply, are two; 1. That Romances of chivalry being of Spanish original, the heroes and the feene were generally of that country; 2. That the fubject of these romances were the crufades of the European Chriftians against the Saracens of Afia and Africa. The firft pofition, being complicated, fhould be divided into the two following; 1. That romances of chivalry were of Spanish original; 2. That the heroes and the scene of them were generally of that country.

Here are therefore three pofitions, to which I fhall fay a few words in their order; but I think it proper to premise a fort of definition of a Romance of Chivalry. If Dr. W. had done the fame, he must have feen the hazard of fyftematizing in a fubject of fuch extent, upon a curfory perufal of a few modern books, which indeed ought not to have been quoted in the difcuffion of a queftion of antiquity.

A romance of chivalry therefore, according to my notion, is any fabulous narration, in verfe or profe, in which the principal characters are knights, conducting themselves in their feveral fituations and adventures, agreeably to the inftitutions and customs of Chivalry. Whatever names the characters may bear, whether hiftorical or fictitious, and in whatever country, or age, the fcene of the action may be laid, if the actors are reprefented as knights, I should call fuch a fable a Romance of Chivalry.

I am not aware that this definition is more comprehenfive than it ought to be: but, let it be narrowed ever fo much; let any other be fubftituted in its room; Dr. W's firft pofition, that romances of chivalry were of Spanish original, cannot be maintained, Monfieur Huet would have taught him better. He says very truly, that " les plus vieux," of the Spanish romances, "font pofterieurs à nos Triftans et à nos Lancelots, de quelques centaines d'années." In deed the fact is indifputable. Cervantes, in a paffage quoted by Dr. W. fpeaks of Amadis de Gaula (the first four books) as the first book of chivalry printed in Spain. Though he fays only printed, it is plain that he means zuritten. And indeed there is no good reafon to believe that Amadis was written long before it was printed. It is unneceffary to enlarge upon a fyftem, which places the original of romances of chivalry in a nation, which has none to produce older than the art of printing.

Dr. W.'s fecond pofition, that the heroes and the fcene of these romances were generally of the country of Spain, is as unfortunate as the former. Whoever will take the fecond volume of Du Frefnoy's Bibliotheque des Romans, and look over his lifts of Romans de Chevalerie, will fee that not one of the celebrated heroes of the old romances was a Spaniard. With refpect to the general fcene of fuch irregular and capricious fictions, the writers of which were used, literally, to "give to airy nothing, a local habitation and a name," I am fenfible of the impropriety of afferting any thing pofitively, without an accurate examination of many more of them than have fallen in my way. I think, however, I might venture to affert, in direct contradiction to Dr. W. that the fcene of them was not generally in Spain. My own notion is, that it was very rarely there; except in thofe few romances which treat exprefsly of the affair at Roncesvalles.

His laft pofition, that the fubject of thefe romances were the cruJades of the European Chriftians, against the Saracens of Afia and VOL. V.

Africa, might be admitted with a small amendment. If it flood thus; the fubject of fome, or a few, of these romances were the cruz fades, &c. the pofition would have been incontrovertible; but then it would not have been either new, or fit to fupport a system.

After this ftate of Dr. W.'s hypothefis, one must be curious to fee what he himself has offered in proof of it. Upon the two firft pofitions he fays not one word: I fuppofe he intended that they fhould be received as axioms. He begins his illustration of his third pofition, by repeating it (with a little change of terms, for a reason which will appear.) "Indeed the wars of the Chriftians against the Pagans were the general subject of the romances of chivalry. They all feem to have had their ground-work in two fabulous monkish hiftorians, the one, who, under the name of Turpin, archbishop of Rheims, wrote the Hiftory and Atchievements of Charlemagne and his twelve Peers;—the other, our Geoffry of Monmouth." Here we fee the reafon for changing the terms of crufades and Saracens into wars and Pagans; for, though the expedition of Charles into Spain, as related by the Pfeudo-Turpin, might be called a crufade against the Saracens, yet, unluckily, our Geoffry has nothing like a crufade, nor a fingle Saracen in his whole hiftory; which indeed ends before Mahomet was born. I muft obferve too, that the speaking of Turpin's hiftory under the title of " the Hiftory of the Atchievements of Charlemagne and his twelve Peers," is inaccurate and unscholarlike, as the fiction of a limited number of twelve peers is of a much later date than that history.

However, the ground-work of the romances of chivalry being thus marked out and determined, one might naturally expect fome account of the firft builders and their edifices; but inftead of that we have a digreffion upon Oliver and Roland, in which an attempt is made to fay fomething of those two famous characters, not from the old romances, but from Shakspeare, and Don Quixote, and fome modern Spanish romances. My learned friend, the dean of Carlisle, has taken notice of the ftrange mistake of Dr. W. in fuppofing that the feats of Oliver were recorded under the name of Palmerin de Oliva; a mistake, into which no one could have fallen, who had read the first page of the book. And I very much fufpe&t that there is a mistake, though of lefs magnitude, in the affertion, that, "in the Spanish romance of Bernardo del Carpio, and in that of Roncesvalles, the feats of Roland are recorded under the name of Roldan el Encantador." Dr. W.'s authority for this affertion was, I apprehend, the following paffage of Cervantes, in the first chapter of Don Quixote. Mejor eftava con Bernardo del Carpio porque en Roncesvalles avia muerto à Roldan el Encantado, valiendoje de la induftria de Hercules, quando ahogò à Anteon el hijo de la Tierra entre los braços." Where it is obfervable, that Cervantes does not appear to speak of more than one romance; he calls Roldan el encantado, and not el encantador; and moreover the word encantado is not to

66

be understood as an addition to Roldan's name, but merely as a participle, expreffing that he was enchanted, or made invulnerable by enchantment.

But this is a fmall matter. And perhaps encantador may be an error of the prefs for encantado. From this digreffion Dr. W. returns to the fubject of the old romances in the following manner. "This driving the Saracens out of France and Spain, was, as we fay, the Jubject of the elder romances. And the firft that was printed in Spain was the famous Amadis de Gaula." According to all common rules of construction, I think the latter fentence muft be understood to imply, that Amadis de Gaula was one of the elder romances, and that the fubject of it was the driving of the Saracens out of France and Spain; whereas, for the reafons already given, Amadis, in comparison with many other romances, muft be confidered as a very modern one; and the subject of it has not the leaft connection with any driving of the Saracens whatsoever.-But what follows is ftill more extraordinary. "When this fubje&t was well exhaufted, the affairs of Europe afforded them another of the fame nature. For after that the western parts had pretty well cleared themfelves of these inhofpitable guests; by the excitements of the popes, they carried their arms against them into Greece and Afia, to fupport the Byzantine empire, and recover the holy fepulchre. This gave birth to a new tribe of romances, which we may call of the fecond race or class. And as Amadis de Gaula was at the head of the first, fo, correfpondently to the fubject, Amadis de Græcia was at the head of the latter."-It is impoffible I apprehend, to refer this subject to any antecedent but that in the paragraph laft quoted, viz. the driving of the Saracens out of France and Spain. So that, according to one part of the hypothefis here laid down, the fubject of the driving the Saracens out of France and Spain, was well exhaufted by the old romances (with Amadis de Gaula at the head of them) before the Crusades; the first of which is generally placed in the year 1095: and, according to the latter part, the crufades happened in the interval between Amadis de Gaula, and Amadis de Græcia; a space of twenty, thirty, or at most fifty years, to be reckoned backwards from the year 1532, in which year an edition of Amadis de Græcia is mentioned by Du Frefnoy. What induced Dr. W. to place Amadis de Græcia at the head of his fecond race or class of romances, I cannot guefs. The fact is, that Amadis de Græcia is no more concerned in fupporting the Byzantine empire, and recovering the holy Sepulchre, than Amadis de Gaula in driving the Saracens out of France and Spain. And a still more pleasant circumftance is, that Amadis de Græcia, through more than nine tenths of his hiftory, is himself a declared Pagan.

And here ends Dr. W.'s account of the old romances of chivalry, which he fuppofes to have had their ground-work in Turpin's hiftory. Before he proceeds to the others, which had their groundwork in our Geoffry, he interpofes a curious folution of a puzzling

queftion concerning the origin of lying in romances." Nor were the monstrous embellishments of enchantments, &c. the invention of the romancers, but formed upon eaftern tales, brought thence by travellers from their crufades and pilgrimages; which indeed have a caft peculiar to the wild imaginations of the eastern people. We have a proof of this in the Travels of Sir J. Maundevile."-He then gives us a ftory of an enchanted dragon in the ifle of Cos, from Sir J. Maundevile, who wrote his Travels in 1356; by way of proof, that the tales of enchantments, &c. which had been current here in romances of chivalry for above two hundred years before, were brought by travellers from the Eaft! The proof is certainly not conclufive. On the other hand, I believe it would be easy to show, that, at the time when romances of chivalry began, our Europe had a very fufficient ftock of lies of her own growth, to furnish materials for every variety of monftrous embellishment. At moft times, I conceive, and in most countries, imported lies are rather for luxury than neceffity.

Dr. W. comes now to that other ground-work of the old romances, our Geoffry of Monmouth. And him he difpatches very shortly, becaufe, as has been obferved before, it is impoffible to find any thing in him to the purpofe of crufades, or Saracens. Indeed, in treating of Spanish romances, it must be quite unneceffary to fay much of Geoffry, as, whatever they have of" the British Arthur and his conjurer Merlin," is of fo late a fabrick, that, in all probability, they took it from the more modern Italian romances, and not from Geoffry's own book. As to the doubt, "Whether it was by blunder or defign that they changed the Saxons to Saracens," I should wish to poftpone the confideration of it, till we have fome Spanish romance before us, in which king Arthur is introduced carrying on a war against Saracens.

And thus, I think, I have gone through the feveral facts and arguments, which Dr. W. has advanced in fupport of his third pofition. In fupport of his two firft pofitions, as I have obferved already, he has faid nothing; and indeed nothing can be faid. The remainder of his note contains another hypothefis concerning the ftrange jumble of nonfenfe and religion in the old romances, which I fhall not examine. The reader, I prefume, by this time is well aware, that Dr. W.'s information upon this fubject is to be received with caution. I fhall only take a little notice of one or two facts, with which he fets out." In thefe old romances there was much TEligious fuperftition mixed with their other extravagancies; as appears even from their very names and titles. The first romance of Lancelot of the Lake and King Arthur and his Knights, is called the Hiftory of Saint Graal. So another is called Kyrie eleifon of Montauban. For in those days Deuteronomy and Paralipomenon were supposed to be the names of holy mex.-I believe no one, who has ever looked into the common romance of king Arthur, will be of opinion, that the part