borrowed nothing, it was faid that Ben Jonfon borrowed every thing. Becaufe Jonfon did not write extempore, he was reproached with being a year about every piece; and because Shakespeare wrote with cafe and rapidity, they cried, he never once made a blot. Nay, the fpirit of oppofition ran fo high, that whatever thofe of the one fide objected to the other, was taken at the rebound, and turned into praises; as injudicioufly, as their antagonists before had made them objections. Poets are always afraid of envy; but fure they have as much reafon to be afraid of admiration. They are the Scylla and Charybdis of authors; thofe who efcape one, often fall by the other. Peffimum genus inimicorum laudantes, fays Tacitus: and Virgil defires to wear a charm against those who praise a poet without rule or reafon. Si ultra placitum laudárit baccare frontem But however this contention might be carried on by the the partizans on either fide, I cannot help thinking these two great poets were good friends, and lived on amicable terms and in offices of focicty with each other. It is an acknowledged fact, that Ben Jonfon was introduced upon the ftage, and his firft works encouraged, by Shakespeare. And after his death, that author writes, To the memory of his beloved Mr. William Shakespeare, which thews as if the friendfhip had continued through life. I cannot for my own part find any thing invidious or fparing in thofe verfes, but wonder Mr. Dryden was of that opinion. He exalts him not only above all his contemporaries, but above Chaucer and Spenfer, whom he will not allow to be great enough to be ranked with him; and challenges the names of Sophocles, Euripides, and Æfchylus, nay, all Greece and Rome at once, to equal him; and (which is very particular) exprefsly vindicates him from the imputation of wanting art, not enduring that all his excellencies fhould be attributed to nature. It is remarkable too, that the praife he gives him in his Discoveries feems to proceed from a perfonal kindness; he tells us, that he loved the man, as well as honoured his memory; celebrates the honesty, opennefs, and franknefs of his temper; and only diftinguishes, as he reasonably ought, between the real merit of the author, and the filly and derogatory applaufes of the players. Ben Jonfon might indeed be sparing in his commendations (though certainly he is not fo in this inftance) partly from his own nature, and partly from judgment. For men of judgment think they do any man more fervice in praifing him juftly, than lavishly. I fay, I would fain believe they were friends, though the violence and illbreeding of their followers and flatterers were enough to give rife to the contrary report. I hope that it may be with parties, both in wit and ftate, as with thofe monsters defcribed by the poets; and that their heads at least may have fomething human, though their bodies and tails are wild beasts and ferpents. As I believe that what I have mentioned gave rife to the opinion of Shakespeare's want of learning; fo what has continued it down to us may have been the many blunders and illiteracies of the first publishers of his works. In thefe editions their ignorance thines in almost every page; nothing is more common than Altus tertia. Exit omnes. Enter three Witches folus. Their French is as bad as their Latin, both in conftruction and fpelling: their very Welsh is false. Nothing is more likely than that thofe palpable blunders of Hector's quoting Ariftotle, with others of that grofs kind, fprung from the fame root: it not being at all credible that thefe could be the errors of any man who had the leaft tincture of a school, or the leaft converfation with fuch as had. Ben Jonfon (whom they will not think partial to him) allows him at leaft to have had fome Latin; which is utterly inconfiftent with mistakes like thefe. Nay, the conftant blunders in proper names of perfons and places, are fuch as muft have proceeded from a man, who had not fo much as read any history in any language: fo could not be Shakespeare's. I fhall now lay before the reader fome of thofe almost innumerable errors, which have rifen from one fource, the ignorance of the players, both as his actors, and as his editors. When the nature and kinds of these are enumerated and confidered, I dare to fay that not Shakespeare only, but Ariftotle or Cicero, had their works undergone the fame fate, might have appeared to want fenfe as well as learning. *Enter three switches folus.] This blunder appears to be of Mr. Pope's own invention. It is not to be found in any one of the four folio copies of Macbeth, and there is no quarto edition of it STEEVENS. extant. 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 quar to. What makes me think that most of these were not published by him, is the exceflive carelefinefs of the prefs: every page is fo fcandaloufly falfe fpelled, and almost all the learned or unusual 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 should 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 seven 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 cleven. And of fome of these, we meet with two or more editions by different printers, each of which has whole heaps of trafh 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 Condell, 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 bombaft paffages 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 charged upon the author. He himself complained of this ufage in Hamlet, where he wishes that those who play the clowns would fpeak no more than is fet down for them. (A&t. iii. Sc. 4.) But as a proof that he could not escape it, in the old editions of Romeo and Juliet there is no hint of a great number of the mean conceits and ribaldries now to be found there, In others, the low fcenes of mobs, plebeians, and clowns, are vastly shorter 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 shorten fome fcenes: thefe men (as it was faid of Procruftes) either lopping, or ftretching an author, to make him juft fit for their ftage. 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 ufe of the actors: for in fome places their * very names are through careleffness fet down instead 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 transcribers. The plays not having been before fo much as diftinguished by Alts and Scenes, they are in this edition divided according as they played them; often when there is no paufe in the action, or where they thought fit to make a breach in it, for the fake of mufick, mafques, or monsters. Sometimes the scenes are tranfpofed and fhuffled backward and forward; a thing which could no otherwise happen, but by their being taken from feparate and piece-meal written parts. Many verses are omitted entirely, and others transposed; from whence invincible obfcurities have arifen, 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 Wilson, 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, A&t 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 alfo 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 reafon, than that a governing player, to have the mouthing of fome favourite fpeech himfelf, would fnatch it from the unworthy lips of an underling. Profe from verfe they did not know, and they accordingly printed one for the other throughout the volume. Having been forced to fay fo much of the players, I think I ought in juftice 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-houses were inns and taverns (the Globe, the Hope, the Red Bull, the Fortune, &c.) fo the top of the profeffion were then mere players, not gentlemen of the ftage: they were led into the buttery by the fteward, not placed at the lord's table, or lady's toilette: and confequently were entirely deprived of thofe advantages they now enjoy in the familiar converfation of our nobility, and an intimacy (not to fay dearneis) with people of the firft condition. From what has been faid, there can be no question but had Shakespeare publifhed his works himself (especially in his latter time, and after his retreat from the ftage) we fhould 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 ftile, and his manner of thinking and writing, I make no doubt to declare that thofe wretched plays Pericles, Locrine, Sir John Oldcafile, 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 fcenes, or perhaps a few particular paffages, were of his hand. It is very probable what occafioned fome plays |