XVIII. 1. Romeo and Juliet, 1597, John Danter. 2. D. 1599, Tho. Creede, for Cuthbert Burby. 3. D. 1609, for John Smethwicke. 4. D°. William Shakspeare, no date, John Smethwicke. 5. Do. William Shakspeare, 1637, R. Young, for D°. 1. Hamlet, William Shakspeare, J. R. for N. L. 1604. 2. D. William Shakspeare, 1605, I. R. for N. L. 3. D°. William Shakspeare, 1611, for XIX. * John Smethwicke. XX. 4. D. William Shakspeare, no date, 5. D. William Shakspeare, 1637, 1. Othello, William Shakspeare, no date, 3. 1. D°. William Shakspeare, 1622, Of all the remaining plays the most authentick edition is the folio 1623; yet that of 1632 is not without value; for though it be in fome places more incorrectly printed than the preceding one, it has likewife the advantage of various readings, which are not merely fuch as reiteration of c will naturally produce. The curious examiner of Shakspeare's text, who poffeffes the first of these, ought not to be unfurnished with the fecond. As to the third and fourth impreffions (which include the feven rejected plays) they are little better than waste paper, for they differ only from the preceding ones by a larger accumulation of errors. I had inadvertently given a fimilar character of the folio 1632; but take this opportunity of confeffing a mistake into which I was led by too implicit a reliance on the affertions of others. I. Mr. William Shakspeare's Comedies, Hiftories, and Tragedies. Published according to the true original Copies, 1623. Fol. Printed at the Charges of W. Jaggard, Ed. Blount, J. Smethweeke, and W. Afpley. It seems, from fuch a partnership, that no fingle publisher was at that time willing to rifque his money on a complete collection of our author's plays." Every poffible adulteration has of late years been practifed in fitting up copies of this book for sale. When leaves have been wanting, they have been reprinted with battered types, and foisted into vacancies, without notice of fuch defects and the remedies applied to them. When the title has been loft, a fpurious one has been fabricated, with a blank space left for the head of Shakspeare, afterwards added from the fecond, third, or fourth impreffion. To conceal these frauds, thick vermillion lines have been ufually drawn over the edges of the engravings, which would otherwife have betrayed themselves when let into a fupplemental page, however craftily it was lined at the back, and difcoloured with tobacco-water till it had affumed the true jaune antique. Sometimes leaves have been inferted from the second folio, and, in a known inftance, the entire play of Cymbeline; the genuine date XVIII. * XIX. * XX. 1. Romeo and Juliet, 1597, John Danter. 2. D. 1599, Tho. Creede, for Cuthbert Burby. 3. D. 1609, for John Smethwicke. 4. Do. William Shakspeare, no date, John Smethwicke. 5. D. William Shakspeare, 1637, R. Young, for D°. 1. Hamlet, William Shakspeare, J. R. for N. L. 1604. 2. D. William Shakspeare, 1605, I. R. for N. L. 3. D. William Shakspeare, 1611, for John Smethwicke. 4. Do. William Shakspeare, no date, 5. D. William Shakspeare, 1637, 6. D. R. Bentley, 1695. 1. Othello, William Shakspeare, no date, 2. D. William Shakspeare, 1622, Of all the remaining plays the most authentick edition is the folio 1623; yet that of 1632 is not without value; for though it be in fome places more incorrectly printed than the preceding one, it has likewise the advantage of various readings, which are not merely fuch as reiteration of copies As will naturally produce. The curious examiner of Shakspeare's text, who poffeffes the first of these, ought not to be unfurnished with the fecond. to the third and fourth impreffions (which include the seven rejected plays) they are little better than wafte paper, for they differ only from the preceding ones by a larger accumulation of errors. had inadvertently given a fimilar character of the folio 1632; but take this opportunity of confeffing a mistake into which I was led by too implicit a reliance on the affertions of others. FOLIO EDITIONS. I I. Mr. William Shakspeare's Comedies, Hiftories, and Tragedies. Published according to the true original Copies, 1623. Fol. Printed at the Charges of W. Jaggard, Ed. Blount, J. Smethweeke, and W. Afpley. It seems, from fuch a partnership, that no fingle publisher was at that time willing to rifque his money on a complete collection of our author's plays." Every poffible adulteration has of late years been practifed in fitting up copies of this book for fale. When leaves have been wanting, they have been reprinted with battered types, and foifted into vacancies, without notice of fuch defects and the remedies applied to them. When the title has been loft, a fpurious one has been fabricated, with a blank space left for the head of Shakspeare, afterwards added from the fecond, third, or fourth impreffion. To conceal thefe frauds, thick vermillion lines have been usually drawn over the edges of the engravings, which would otherwife have betrayed themselves when let into a fupplemental page, however craftily it was lined at the back, and difcoloured with tobacco-water till it had affumed the true jaune antique. Sometimes leaves have been inferted from the fecond folio, and, in a known inftance, the entire play of Cymbeline; the genuine date II. Do. 1632. Fol. Tho. Cotes, for Rob. Allot. III. Do. 1664. Fol. for P. C. Since it was thought advantageous to adopt fuch contrivances while the book was only valued at fix or feven guineas, now it has reached its prefent enormous price, may not artifice be still more on the ftretch to vamp up copies for the benefit of future catalogues and auctions?-Shak fpeare might fay of those who profit by him, what Antony has obferved of Enobarbus my fortunes have Corrupted honeft men." Mr. Garrick, about forty years ago, paid only 11. 16s. to Mr. Payne at the Meufe Gate for a fine copy of this folio.-After the death of our Rofcius, it fhould have accompanied his collection of old plays to the British Museum; but had been taken out of his library, and has not been heard of fince. Here I might particularize above twenty other copies; but as their defcription would not always meet the wishes or interests of their owners, it may be as well omitted. Perhaps the original impreffion of the book did not amount to more than 250; and we may fuppofe that different fires in London had their fhare of them. Before the year 1649 they were fo fearce, that (as Mr. Malone has obferved) King Charles I. was obliged to content himself with a folio 1632, at prefent in my poffeffion. Of all volumes, thofe of popular entertainment are foonest injured. It would be difficult to name four folios that are oftener found in dirty and mutilated condition, than this first assemblage of Shakspeare's plays-God's Revenge against Murder-The Gentleman's Recreation-and Johnfon's Lives of the Highwaymen. 66 Though Shakspeare was not, like Fox the Martyrologist, depofited in churches, to be thumbed by the congregation, he generally took poft on our hall tables; and that a multitude of his pages have their effect of gravy," may be imputed to the various eatables fet out every morning on the fame boards. It should feem that most of his readers were fo chary of their time, that (like Piftol, who gnaws his leek and fwears all the while,) they fed and ftudied at the fame inftant. I have repeatedly met with thin flakes of piecruft between the leaves of our author. These unctuous fragments, remaining long in clofe confinement, communicated their greafe to feveral pages deep on each fide of them.—It is easy enough to conceive how fuch accidents might happen ;-how aunt Bridget's maftication might be difordered at the fudden entry of the Gholt into the Queen's clofet, and how the half-chewed morfel dropped out of the gaping 'Squire's mouth, when the vifionary Banquo feated himself in the chair of Macbeth. Still, it is no |