being taken from different copies, belonging to different Playhouses.

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 decease. They declare, that all the other editions were ftolen 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 quarto's.

First, because the additions of trifling and bombaft paffages are in this edition far more numerous. For whatever had been added, fince thofe quarto's by the actors, or had ftolen from their mouths into the written parts, were from thence conveyed into the printed text, and all stand charged upon the Author. He himself complained of this usage in Hamket, where he wishes that those who play the Clowns would speak no more than is fet down for them. (Act iii. Sc. iv.) 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 vaftly. fhorter than at prefent: And I have feen one in particular (which feems to have belonged to the play

houfe, 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 single editions, are omitted in this as it seems without any other reason, than their willingness to shorten some scenes: These men (as it was faid of Procruftes) either lopping, or ftretching 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 thofe which had lain ever fince the author's days in the play-house, and had from time to time been cut, or added to, arbitrarily. It appears that this edition, as well as the quarto's, 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 carelessnefs fet: down instead of the perfonæ dramatis: And in others the notes of direction to the property-men for their moveables, and to the players for their entries, are in

a

2 Much ado about Nothing, A&t ii. Enter Prince Leonato,. Claudio, and Jack Wiljon, inftead of Balthafar. And in Activ Cooley, and Kemp, conftantly thro' a whole fcene.

ferted into the text, thro' the ignorance of the tranfcribers.

The Plays not having been before fo much as diftinguished by acts and scenes, they are in this edition divided according as they played them: often where 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 moníters.

Sometimes the scenes are transposed and shuffled backward and forward; a thing which could no otherwife happen, but by their being taken from feparate and piece-meal written parts.

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

Some characters were confounded and mix'd, or two put into one, for want of a competent number of actors. Thus in the quarto edition of Midsummer Night's Dream, A&t v. Shakespear introduces a kind of Mafter of the revels called Philoftrate; all whofe part is given to another character (that of Egeus) in the subsequent editions: So also in Hamlet and King Lear. This too makes it probable, that the prompter's books were what they called the original copies..

3

From liberties of this kind, many speeches 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 reason, than that a governing player, to have the mouthing of some favourite speech himself, 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 say so much of the players, I think I ought in juftice to remark, that the judg ment, as well as condition, of that class of people was then far inferior to what it is in our days. As then the best playhouses were inns and taverns (the Globe, the Hope, the Red Bull, the Fortune, etc.) fo the top of the profeffion were then meer players, not gentlemen of the ftage: They were led into the buttery by the steward, 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 say dearnefs) with people of the first condi

tion.

From what has been faid, there can be no question but had Shakespear published his works himself (ef pecially in his latter time, and after his retreat from

'the ftage) we should not only be certain which are genuine; but should find in thofe that are, the errors leffened by fome thoufands. If I may judge from all the diftinguishing marks of his ftyle, and his manner of thinking and writing, I make no doubt to declare that thofe 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 scenes, or perhaps a few particular paffages, were of his hand. It is very probable what occafioned fome plays to be fuppofed Shakespear'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 ftrays 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 Shakespear the juftice to reject thofe 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 Johnson fays of Pericles in his Ode on the New-Inn.) That Titus Andronicus is one