It is not certain that any one of his plays was published by himself. During the time of his employment in the theatre, feveral of his pieces were printed feparately in quarto. What makes me think that most of these were not publifhed by him, is the exceflive carelefinefs of the prefs: every page is fo fcandaloufly falfe fpelled, and almost all the learned or unufual words fo intolerably mangled, that it is plain there either was no corrector to the prefs at all, or one totally illiterate. If any were fupervifed by himself, I fhould fancy The Two Parts of Henry the Fourth, and Midfummer-Night's Dream might have been fo: because I find no other printed with any exactnefs; and (contrary to the reft) there is very little variation in all the fubfequent editions of them. There are extant two prefaces to the first quarto edition of Troilus and Creffida in 1609, and to that of Othello; by which it appears, that the firft was published without his knowledge or confent, or even before it was acted, fo late as feven or eight years before he died; and that the latter was not printed till after his death. The whole number of genuine plays, which we have been able to find printed in his life-time, amounts but to eleven. And of fome of thefe, we meet with two or more editions by different printers, each of which has whole heaps of trash different from the other: which I fhould fancy was occafioned by their being taken from different copies belonging to different play-houses.

The folio edition (in which all the plays' we now receive as his were firft collected) was published by two players, Heminges and Condeil, in 1623, feven years after his deceafe. They declare, that all the other editions were stolen and furreptitious, and affirm theirs to be purged from the errors of the former. This is true as to the literal errors, and no other; for in all refpects elfe it is far worse than the quartos.

First, because the additions of trifling and bombast pas fages are in this edition far more numerous. For whatever had been added, fince thofe quartos, by the actors, or had ftolen from their mouths into the written parts, were from thence conveyed into the printed text, and all ftand charg ed upon the author, He himself complained of this ufage in Hamlet, where he wifhes that those who play the clowns would speak no more than is fet down for them. (Act. iii, Sc. 4.) But a proof that he could not efcape it, in the old edi med Romeo and Juliet there is no hint of a great number the mean conceits and ribaldries now to be found there,

In others, the low fcenes of mobs, plebeians, and clowns, are vaftly fhorter than at prefent: and I have feen one in particular (which feems to have belonged to the play-house, by having the parts divided with lines, and the actors names in the margin) where feveral of thofe very paffages were added in a written hand, which are fince to be found in the folio.

In the next place, a number of beautiful paffages, which are extant in the first fingle editions, are omitted in this: as it seems, without any other reason, than their willingness to fhorten some scenes: these men (as it was faid of Procruftes) either lopping, or stretching an author, to make him just fit for their stage.

This edition is faid to be printed from the original copies; I believe they meant those which had lain ever fince the author's days in the play-houfe, and had from time to time been cut, or added to, arbitrarily. It appears that this edition, as well as the quartos, was printed (at least partly) from no better copies than the prompter's book, or piece-meal parts written out for the use of the actors: for in fome places their very names are through careleffnefs fet down inftead of the Perfona Dramatis; and in others the notes of direction to the property-men for their moveables, and to the players for their entries, are inferted into the text through the ignorance of the tranfcribers.

The plays not having been before so much as distinguished by Acts and Scenes, they are in this edition divided according as they played them; often when there is no pause in the action, or where they thought fit to make a breach in it, for the fake of mufick, mafques, or monsters.

Sometimes the fcenes are tranfpofed and fhuffled backward and forward; a thing which could no otherwife happen, but by their being taken from separate and piece-meal written parts.

Many verfes are omitted entirely, and others transposed; from whence invincible obfcurities have arisen, paft the guess of any commentator to clear up, but juft where the accidental glimpse of an old edition enlightens us.

Much Ado about Nothing, A&t ii. Enter Prince Leonato, Claudio, and Jack Wilfon, instead of Balthafar. And in Act iv. Cowley and Kemp conftantly through a whole scene. Edit. fol, of 1623, and 1632.

Some characters were confounded and mixed, or two put into one, for want of a competent number of actors. Thus, in the quarto edition of Midfummer-Night's Dream, Act v. Shakespeare introduces a kind of mafter of the revels called Philoftrate; all whofe part is given to another character (that of Egeus) in the fubfequent editions: fo alfo in Hamlet and King Lear. This too makes it probable that the prompter's books were what they called the original copies.

From liberties of this kind, many fpeeches also were put into the mouths of wrong perfons, where the author now feems chargeable with making them fpeak out of character: or fometimes perhaps for no better reason, than that a governing player, to have the mouthing of fome favourite fpeech himself, would fnatch it from the unworthy lips of an underling..

Profe from verse they did not know, and they accordingly printed one for the other throughout the volume. 1

Having been forced to fay fo much of the players, I think I ought in justice to remark, that the judgment, as well as condition of that clafs of people was then far inferior to what it is in our days. As then the best play-houfes were inns and taverns (the Globe, the Hope, the Red Bull, the Fortune, &c.) fo the top of the profeflion were then mere players, not genticmen of the ftage: they were led into the buttery by the fteward, not placed at the lord's table, or Jady's toilette: and confequently were entirely deprived of those advantages they now enjoy in the familiar converfation of our nobility, and an intimacy (not to fay dearness) with people of the first condition.

From what has been faid, there can be no queftion but had Shakespeare publifhed his works himself (efpecially in his latter time, and after his retreat from the ftage) we should not only be certain which are genuine, but fhould find in thofe that are, the errors leffened by fome thoufands. If I may judge from all the diftinguishing marks of his file, and his manner of thinking and writing, I make no doubt to declare that those wretched plays Pericles, Locrine, Sir John Oldcastle, Yorkshire Tragedy, Lord Cromwell, The Puritan, and London Prodigal, cannot be admitted as his. And I fhould conjecture of fome of the others (particularly Love's Labour's Loft, The Winter's Tale, and Titus Andronicus) that only fome characters, fingle fecnes, or perhaps a few particular padages, were of his hand. It is very probable what occafioned fome

plays

plays to be fuppofed Shakespeare's was only this; that they were pieces produced by unknown authors, or fitted up for the theatre while it was under his administration; and no owner claiming them, they were adjudged to him, as they give strays to the lord of the manor: a mistake which (one may also obferve) it was not for the intereft of the house to remove. Yet the players themselves, Heminges and Condell, afterwards did Shakespeare the juftice to reject those eight plays in their edition; though they were then printed in his name, in every body's hands, and acted with fome applaufe (as we learn from what Ben Jonfon fays of Pericles in his ode on the New Inn). That Titus Andronicus is one of this clafs I am the rather induced to believe, by finding the fame author openly exprefs his contempt of it in the induction to Bartholomew-Fair, in the year 1614, when Shakfpeare was yet living. And there is no better authority for thefe latter fort, than for the former, which were equally publifhed in his life-time.

If we give into this opinion, how many low and vicious parts and paffages might no longer reflect upon this great genius, but appear unworthily charged upon him? And even in those which are really his, how many faults may have been unjustly laid to his account from arbitrary additions, expunctions, tranfpofitions of fcenes and lines, confufion of characters and perfons, wrong application of fpeeches, corruptions of innumerable paffages by the ignorance, and wrong corrections of them again by the impertinence, of his first editors? From one or other of these confiderations, I am verily perfuaded, that the greatest and the groffeft part of what are thought his errors would vanifh, and leave his character in a light very different from that disadvantageous one, in which it now appears to us.

This is the ftate in which Shakespeare's writings lie at prefent; for fince the above-mentioned folio edition, all the reft have implicitly followed it, without having recourse to any of the former, or ever making the comparison between them. It is impoffible to repair the injuries already done him; too much time has elapfed, and the materials are too few. In what I have done I have rather given a proof of my willingness and defire, than of my ability, to do him juftice. I have difcharged the dull duty of an editor, to my best judgment, with more labour than I expect thanks, with a religious abhorrence of all innovation, and without

any

1

any indulgence to my private fenfe or conjecture. The method taken in this edition will fhew itfelf. The various readings are fairly put in the margin, fo that every one may compare them; and thofe I have preferred into the text are conftantly ex fide codicum, upon authority. The alterations or additions, which Shakespeare himself made, are taken notice of as they occur. Some fufpected paffages, which are exceffively bad (and which feem interpolations by being fo inferted, that one can entirely omit them without any chafm, or deficience in the context) are degraded to the bottom of the page; with an afterisk referring to the places of their infertion. The scenes are marked fo diftinctly, that every removal of place is fpecified; which is more neceffary in this author than any other, fince he fhifts them more frequently; and fometimes, without attending to this particular, the reader would have met with obfcurities. The more obfolete or unufual words are explained. Some of the most fhining paffages are diftinguished by commas in the margin; and where the beauty lay not in particulars, but in the whole, a ftar is prefixed to the scene. This feems to me a fhorter and lefs oftentatious method of performing the better half of criticifm (namely, the pointing out an author's excellencies) than to fill a whole paper with citations of fine paffages, with general applaules, or empty exclamations at the tail of them. There is alfo fubjoined a catalogue of thofe first editions, by which the greater part of the various readings and of the corrected paffages are authorized (most of which are fuch as carry their own evidence along with them). Thefe editions now hold the place of originals, and are the only materials left to repair the deficiencies or reftore the corrupted fense of the author: I can only wish that a greater number of them (if a greater were ever published) may yet be found, by a fearch more fuccefsful than mine, for the better accomplishment of this end.

I will conclude by faying of Shakespeare, that with all his faults, and with all the irregularity of his drama, one may look upon his works, in comparifon of those that are more finished and regular, as upon an ancient majeftick piece of Gothick architecture, compared with a neat modern building: the latter is more elegant and glaring, but the former is more ftrong and more folemn. It must be allowed that in one of these there are materials enough

to