In the Mosaic law the Israelites were commanded _not to cut themselves for the dead_. The original Hebrew has, however a more extensive meaning than cutting, and includes all assaults on their own persons, arising from immoderate grief, such as beating the breasts, tearing the hair, &c. which were commonly practised by the heathen, who had no hope of a resurrection, particularly by the Egyptians, which might afford a particular reason for the Mosaic prohibition. We may also observe, that among the Romans, it was ordained by one of the laws of the twelve tables, “Let not women tear their faces, or make lamentations at funerals,” which proves that this was the custom with the Romans, previously to making this law. No doubt the law itself was immediately borrowed from the Athenian code, of which it is a literal translation. The Priests of Baal, (1 Kings, ch. 18, v. 28.) assaulted themselves with knives and lances, which was indeed equivalent to cutting themselves. Nor was this frantic custom confined to the Priests of Baal; the _Galli_, and other devotees of the Syrian goddess, cut their arms, and scourged each others backs, according to Lucian. “Baal’s Priests”, says Dr. Leland, “were wont to cut and slash themselves with knives and lances. The same thing was practised in the worship of Isis, according to Herodotus, and of Bellona, as Lucan mentions. Many authors take notice of the solemnities of Cybele, the mother of the gods, whose priests in their sacred processions, made hideous noises and howlings, cutting themselves till the blood gushed out, as they went along.” GARRICK. The genius of Garrick seems to have been particularly calculated to introduce Shakespeare on the stage. He knew how to alter him so as to fit him for the audience of the present day, without divesting him of any of his excellencies, and the few additions he has ventured are in the spirit of the original. These Plays, so altered, are likely to keep possession of the theatre, while every other attempt at change or improvement are forgotten, except Cibber’s Richard the Third, and Tate’s Lear, which, with some correction of Garrick’s, are still acted, though the alteration of the last is directly in opposition to the precepts of Aristotle and Mr. Addison. Cibber, though versed in the province of the drama, which is perhaps essential to make a good dramatic writer, since the knowledge of stage effect is of great consequence, possessed a genius not above mediocrity; and Tate was a very indifferent poet. Yet there is a line in Cibber’s Richard, written by himself, so characteristic of the manner of his archetype, that it has often been cited as one of Shakespeare’s beauties. I mean the exclamation of Richard, on Buckingham’s being taken, “Off with his head! so much for Buckingham.”