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 adminiftration; and no owner claiming them, they were adjudged to him, as they give ftrays to the lord of the manor: a miftake which (one may also observe) it was not for the intereft of the houfe 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 class 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 thofe 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 grofleft part of what are thought his errors would vanish, and leave his character in a light very different from that diíadvantageous one, in which it now appears to us.

This is the ftate in which Shakefpcare'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 comparifon 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 beft judgment, with more labour than I expect thanks, with a religious abhorrence of all innovation, and without

any

any indulgence to my private fenfe or conjecture. The method taken in this edition will fhew itself. The various readings are fairly put in the margin, fo that every one may compare them; and those 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 chaẩm, or deficience in the context) are degraded to the bottom of the page; with an afterifk referring to the places of their infertion. The fcenes are marked so diftinctly, that every removal of place is fpecified; which is more neceflary in this author than any other, fince he shifts 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 moft fhining paffages are diftinguifhed 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 oitentatious 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 paflages, with general applauses, 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 fenfe 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 thofe 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 muit be allowed that in one of these there are materials enough

to

to make many of the other. It has much the greater variety, and much the nobler apartments; though we are often conducted to them by dark, odd, and uncouth paffages. Nor does the whole fail to ftrike us with greater reverence, though many of the parts are childish, ill-placed, and unequal to its grandeur.

Mr. THEO.

Mr.

THE OBAL D's

PREFACE.

Ting a large, a spacious, and a fplendid dome

HE attempt to write upon SHAKESPEARE is like go

through the conveyance of a narrow and obfcure entry. A glare of light fuddenly breaks upon you beyond what the avenue at first promised: and a thoufand beauties of genius and character, like fo many gaudy apartments pouring at once upon the eye, diffuse and throw themselves out to the mind. The profpect is too wide to come within the compafs of a fingle view: it is a gay confufion of pleafing objects, too various to be enjoyed but in a general admiration: and they must be feparated, and eyed diftinctly, in order to give the proper entertainment.

And as in great piles of building, fome parts are often finifhed up to hit the taste of the connoiffeur; others more negligently put together, to ftrike the fancy of a common and unlearned beholder: fome parts are made ftupendously magnificent and grand, to furprife with the vaft defign and execution of the architect; others are contracted, to amufe you with his neatness and elegance in little. So, in Shakespeare, we may find traits that will ftand the teft of the fevereft judg ment; and ftrokes as carelefly hit off, to the level of the more ordinary capacities: fome defcriptions raifed to that pitch of grandeur, as to aftonifh you with the compafs and elevation of his thought: and others copying nature within fo narrow, fo confined a circle, as if the author's talent lay only at drawing in miniature.

In how many points of light muft we be obliged to gaze at this great poet! In how many branches of excellence to

* This is Mr. Theobald's preface to his fecond edition in 1740, and had been much curtailed by himfelf after its appearance before the impreffion in 1733.

STEEVENS.

confider

confider and admire him! Whether we view him on the fide of art or nature, he ought equally to engage our attention: whether we respect the force and greatness of his genius, the extent of his knowledge and reading, the power and addrefs with which he throws out and applies either nature or learning, there is ample scope both for our wonder and pleafure. If his diction, and the cloathing of his thoughts attract us, how much more muft we be charmed with the richness and variety of his images and ideas! If his images and ideas fteal into our fouls, and ftrike upon our fancy, how much are they improved in price, when we come to reflect with what propriety and juftnefs they are applied to character! If we look into his characters, and how they are furnished and proportioned to the employment he cuts out for them, how are we taken up with the maftery of his portraits! What draughts of nature! What variety of originals, and how differing each from the other! How are they dreffed from the ftores of his own luxurious imagination; without being the apes of mode, or borrowing from any foreign wardrobe! Each of them are the ftandards of fashion for themselves: like gentlemen that are above the direction of their taylors, and can adorn themselves without the aid of imitation. If other poets draw more than one fool or coxcomb, there is the fame refemblance in them, as in that painter's draughts, who was happy only at forming a rofe: you find them all younger brothers of the fame family, and all of them have a pretence to give the fame creft: but Shakespeare's clowns and fops come all of a different houfe: they are no farther allied to one another than as man to man, members of the fame fpecies; but as different in features and lineaments of character, as we are from one another in face or complexion. But I am unawares lanching into his character as a writer, before I have faid what I intended of him as a private member of the republick.

Mr. Rowe has very juftly obferred, that people are fond of difcovering any little perfonal ftory of the great men of antiquity; and that the common accidents of their lives naturally become the fubject of our critical enquiries: that however trifling fuch a curiofity at the firft view may appear, yct, as for what relates to men of letters, the knowledge of an author may, perhaps, fometimes conduce to the better understanding his works; and, indeed, this author's works, from the bad treatment he has met with from copyifts and editors, have fo long wanted a comment, that

one