"I remember the players have often mentioned "it as an honour to Shakspeare, that in writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted out a line.' My answer hath been, Would he had blotted a thoufand! which they thought a malevolent fpeech. I had not told pofterity this, but for

66

3

--that in writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted out a line. ] This is not true. They only fay in their preface to his plays, that "his mind and hand went together, and what he thought, he uttered with that cafinefs, that we have fcarce received from him a blot in his papers.' On this Mr. Pope obferves, that "there never was a more groundlefs report, or to the contrary, of which there are more undeniable evidences. As, the comedy of The Merry Wives of Windfor, which he entirely new writ; The Hiftory of Henry the Sixth, which was firft published under the title of The Contention of York and Lancaster; and that of Henry V. extremely improved; that of Hamlet enlarged to almost as much again as at first, and many others.

Surely this is a very ftrange kind of argument. In the firft place this was not a report, (unless by that word we are to understand relation,) but a pofitive affertion, grounded on the best evidence that the nature of the fubject admitted; namely, ocular proof. The players fay, in fubftance, that Shak fpeare had fuch a happinefs of expreffion, that, as they collect from his papers, he had feldom occafion to alter the first words he fet down; in confequence of which they found fcarce a blot in his writings. And how is this refuted by Mr. Pope? By telling us, that a great many of his plays were enlarged by their author. Allowing this to be true, which is by no means certain, if he had written twenty plays, cach confifting of one thoufand lines, and afterwards added to each of them a thousand more, would it therefore follow, that he had not written the firft thoufand with facility and correctnefs, or that those must have been neceffarily expunged, becaufe new matter was added to them,? Certainly not.. But the truth is, it is by no means clear that our author did enlarge all the plays mentioned by Mr. Pope, if even that would prove the point intended to be eftablished. Mr. Pope was evidently deceived by the quarto

-

"their ignorance, who chose that circumftance to "commend their friend by, wherein he most fault

66

ed: and to juftify my own candour, for I loved "the man, and do honour his memory, on this fide idolatry, as much as any. He was, indeed, honeft, and of an open and free nature, had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expreffions; wherein he flowed with that facility, that fometimes it was neceffary he should be stopped: fufflaminandus erat, as Auguftus faid of Haterius. His wit was in his own power;. would the rule "of it had been fo too. Many times he fell into "those things which could not efcape laughter; as "when he faid in the perfon of Cæfar one fpeak"ing to him,

“Cæfar did never wrong, but with just cause.

copies. From, the play of Henry V. being more perfect in the folio edition than in the quarto, nothing follows but that the quarto impreffion of that piece was printed from a mutilated and imperfect copy, ftolen from the theatre or taken down by ear during the reprefentation. What have been called the quarto copies of the Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI. were in fact two old plays written before the time of Shakfpeare, and entitled The First Part of the Contention of the two houfes of York and Lancaster, &c. and The true tragedy of Richard Duke of York, &c. on which he conftructed two new plays; juft as on the old plays of King. John, and The Taming of a Shrew, he formed two other plays with nearly the fame titles. See The Differtation in Vol XV. P. 205.

The tragedy of Hamlet in the first edition, (now extant....) that of 1604, is faid to be " enlarged to almoft as much again as it was, according to the true and perfect copy." What is E

VOL. I.

" and fuch like, which were ridiculous. But he "redeemed his vices with his virtues: there was "ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned."

66

As for the paffage which he mentions out of Shakspeare, there is fomewhat like it in Julius Cafar, but without the abfurdity; nor did I ever meet with it in any edition that I have seen, as quoted by Mr. Jonfon.*

Befides his plays in this edition, there are two or three afcribed to him by Mr. Langbaine,' which

to be collected from this, but that there was a former imperfe&t edition (I believe in the year 1602) that the one we are now fpeaking of was enlarged to as much again as it was in the former mutilated impreffion, and that this is the genuine and perfect copy, the other imperfect and fpurious?

The Merry Wives of Windfor, indeed, and Romeo and Juliet, and perhaps Love's Labour's Loft, our author appears to have altered and amplified; and to King Richard II. what is called the parliament-fcene, feems to have been added; (though this laft is by no means certain :) but neither will these augmentations and new-modellings difprove what has been afferted by Shakspeare's fellow-comedians concerning the facility of his writings and the exquifite felicity of his firft expreffions.

Tke hafty fketch of The Merry Wives of Windfor, which he is faid to have compofed in a fortnight, he might have written without a blot; and three or four years afterwards, when he chofe to dilate his plan, he might have compofed the additional fcenes without a blot likewife. In a word, fuppoling even that Nature had not endowed him with that rich vein which he unqueftionably poffeffed, he who in little more than twenty years produces thirty-four or thirty-five pieces for the ftage, has certainly not much time for expunging.

MALONE.

nor did I ever meet with it in any edition that I have feen, as quoted by Mr. Jonfen.] See Mr. Tyrwhitt's note, Vol. XVIII. p. 78. n. 4. MALONE.

Bifides his plays in this edition, there are two or three afcribed to him by Mr. Langbaine, ] The Birth of Merlin, 1662, written

I have never seen, and know nothing of. He writ likewife Venus and Adonis, and Tarquin and Lucrece, in ftanzas, which have been printed in a late collection of poems. As to the character given of by W. Rowley; the old play of King John in two parts, 1591, on which Shakspeare formed his King John; and The Arraign ment of Paris, 1584, written by George Peele.

ар

The editor of the folio 1664, fubjoined to the 36 dra mas published in 1623, feven plays, four of which had peared in Shakfpeare's life-time with his name in the title-page, viz. Pericles, Prince of Tyre, 1609, Sir John Oldcaftle, 1600, The London Prodigal, 1605, and The Yorkshire Tragedy, 1608; the three others which they inferted, Lo trine, 1595, Lord Cromwell, 1602, and The Puritan, 1607, having been printed with the initials W. S. in the title-page, the editor chofe to interpret thofe letters to mean William Shakspeare, and afcribed them alfo to our poet. I published an edition of thefe feven pieces fome years ago, freed in fome meafure from the grofs errors with which they had been exhibited in ancient copies, that the public might fee what they contained; and do not hesitate to declare my firm perfuafion that of Locrine, Lord Cromwell, Sir John Oldcastle, the London Prodigal, and The Puritan, Shakspeare did not write a fingle line.

How little the bookfellers of former times fcrupled to affix the names of celebrated writers to the productions of others, even in the life-time of fuch celebrated authors, may be colle&ed from Heywood's Tranflations of Ovid, which in 1612, while Shakipeare was yet living, were afcribed to him. See Vol. X. p. 321, n. 1. * With the dead they would certainly make fill more free. "This book" (fays Anthony Wood, fpeaking of a work to which the name of Sir Philip Sydney was prefixed) coming out fo late, it is to be inquired whether Sir Philip Sydney's name is not fet to it for fale-fake, being a ufual thing in these days to fet a great name to a book or books, by sharking bookfellers, or faivelling writers, to get bread." Athen. Oxon. Vol. I. 208. MALONE.

P.

68

6 in a late collection of poems.] In the forth volume of State Poems, printed in 1707. Mr. Rowe did not go beMr. Malone's edit. of our author's works, 1790.

him by Ben Jonson, there is a good deal true in it: but I believe it may be as well expreffed by what Horace fays of the firft Romans, who wrote tragedy upon the Greek models, (or indeed tranflated them,) in his epiftle to Auguftus:

- naturâ fublimis & acer:

"Nam fpirat tragicum fatis, & feliciter audet,

"Sed turpem putat in chartis metuitque lituram."

As I have not propofed to myself to enter into a large and complete criticism upon Shakspeare's works, fo I will only take the liberty, with all due fubmiffion to the judgment of others, to obferve fome of those things I have been pleased with in looking him over.

His plays are properly to be diftinguished only into comedies and tragedies. Thofe which are called hiftories, and even fome of his comedies, are really tragedies, with a run or mixture of comedy amongst them.' That way of tragi-comedy was

yond A late Collection of Poems, and does not feem to have known that Shakspeare alfo wrote 154 Sonnets, and a poem entitled A Lover's Complaint. MALONE.

7 ➖➖ are really tragedies, with a run or mixture of comedy amongst them.] Heywood, our author's contemporary, has ftated the best defence that can be made for his intermixing lighter with the more ferious fcenes of the dramas.

"It may likewife be objected, why amongft fad and grave hiftories I have here and there inferted fabulous jefts and tales favouring of lightnefs. I anfwer I have therein imitated our hiftorical and comical poets, that write to the ftage, who, left the auditory fhould be dulled with ferious courfes, which are merely weighty and material, in every act prefent fome Zany, with his mimick action to breed in the lefs capable mirth and laughter; for they that write to all, muft ftrive to please all. And as fuch, fashion themselves to a multitude diverfely addicted, fo I to an univerfality of readers diverfely difpofed." Pref. to Hiftory of Women, 1624.

MALONE.