This hath been the univerfal cry, from Mr. Pope himfelf to the criticks of yesterday. Poffibly, however, the gentlemen will hesitate a moment, if we tell them, that Shakspeare was not the author of thefe tranflations. Let them turn to a forgotten book, by Thomas Heywood, called, Britaines Troy, printed by W. Jaggard in 1609, fol. and they will find these identical Epiftles, "which being fo pertinent to our hiftorie," fays Heywood, "I thought neceffarie to tranflate."-How then came they afcribed to Shakspeare? We will tell them that likewise. The fame voluminous writer published an Apology for Actors, 4to. 1612, and in an Appendix, directed to his new printer, Nic. Okes, he accuses his old one, Jaggard, of "taking the two Epiftles of Paris to Helen and Helen to Paris, and printing them in a less volume, and under the name of another :-but he was much offended with Master Jaggard, that altogether unknowne to him, he had presumed to make fo bold with his name." In the same work of Heywood are all the other translations, which have been printed in the modern editions of the poems of Shakspeare.

You now hope for land: We have seen through little matters, but what must be done with a whole book?In 1751, was reprinted, "A compendious or briefe Examination of certayne ordinary Complaints of diuers of our Countrymen in these our Days: which although they are in fome Parte unjuft and friuolous, yet are they all by way of Dialogue throughly debated and difcuffed by William Shakspeare, Gentleman.” 8vo.

This extraordinary piece was originally published in 4to. 1581, and dedicated by the author, "To the most vertuous and learned lady, his moft deare and foveraigne princeffe, Elizabeth; being inforced by her Majefties late and fingular clemency in pardoning certayne

his unduetifull mifdemeanour." And by the modern editors, to the late King; as "a treatise composed by the most extensive and fertile genius, that ever any age or nation produced."

Here we join iffue with the writers of that excellent though very unequal work, the Biographia Britannica: "If," say they, "this piece could be written by our poet, it would be abfolutely decifive in the dispute about his learning; for many quotations appear in it from the Greek and Latin clafficks."

The concurring circumftances of the name, and the mifdemeanor, which is fuppofed to be the old story of deer-ftealing, feem fairly to challenge our poet for the author: but they hefitate.-His claim may appear to be confuted by the date 1581, when Shakspeare was only feventeen, and the long experience, which the writer talks of.—But I will not keep you in suspense: the book was not written by Shakspeare.

Strype, in his Annals, calls the author SOME learned man, and this gave me the firft fufpicion. I knew very well, that honest John (to use the language of Sir Thomas Bodley) did not wafte his time with fuch baggage books as plays and poems; yet I must fuppofe, that he had heard of the name of Shakspeare. After a while I met with the original edition. Here in the title-page, and at the end of the aedication, appear only the initials, W.S. Gent. and presently I was informed by Anthony Wood, that the book in queftion was written, not by William Shakspeare, but by William Stafford, Gentleman: which at once accounted for the misdemeanour in the dedication. For Stafford had been concerned at that time, and was indeed afterward, as Camden and the other annalists inform us, with fome of the conspirators against Elizabeth; which he properly calls his unduetifull behaviour.

4

I hope

I hope by this time, that any one open to conviction may be nearly fatisfied; and I will promife to give you on this head very little more trouble.

The juftly celebrated Mr. Warton hath favoured us, in his Life of Dr. Bathurst, with fome bearfay particulars concerning Shakspeare from the papers of Aubrey, which had been in the hands of Wood; and I ought not to fupprefs them, as the last seems to make against my doctrine. They came originally, I find, on confulting the MS. from one Mr. Beeston: and I am fure Mr. Warton, whom I have the honour to call my friend, and an associate in the question, will be in no pain about their credit.

"William Shakspeare's father was a butcher,—while he was a boy he exercised his father's trade, but when he killed a calf, he would do it in a high style, and make a fpeech. This William being inclined naturally to poetry and acting, came to London, I guess, about eighteen, and was an actor in one of the playhouses, and did act exceedingly well. He began early to make effays in drama. tique poetry. The humour of the Constable in the Midfummer Night's Dream he happened to take at Crendon in Bucks. I think, I have been told, that he left near three hundred pounds to a fifter.-He underflood Latin pretty well, FOR he had been in his younger yeares a schoolmaster in the country."

I will be fhort in my animadverfions; and take them in their order.

The account of the trade of the family is not only contrary to all other tradition, but, as it may seem, to the inftrument from the Herald's Office, fo frequently reprinted.Shakspeare most certainly went to London, and commenced actor through neceffity, not natural inclination.-Nor have we any reason to suppose, that he

did act exceeding well. Rowe tells us, from the information of Betterton, who was inquifitive into this point, and had very early opportunities of inquiry from Sir W. D'Avenant, that he was no extraordinary actor; and that the top of his performance was the Ghost in his own Hamlet. Yet this chef d'oeuvre did not please: I will give you an original ftroke at it. Dr. Lodge, who was for ever pestering the town with pamphlets, published in the year 1596, Wits Miferie, and the Worlds Madnesse, discovering the Devils incarnat of this Age, 4to. One of these devils is Hate-virtue, or Sorrow for another man's good successe, who, fays the Doctor, is "a foule lubber, and looks as pale as the vifard of the Ghoft, which cried fo miferably at the theatre, like an oifter-wife, Hamlet revenge." Thus you fee Mr. Holt's supposed proof, in the Appendix to the late edition, that Hamlet was written after 1597, or perhaps 1602, will by no means hold good; whatever might be the cafe of the particular paffage on which it is founded.

Nor does it appear, that Shakspeare did begin early to make effays in dramatick poetry: The Arraignment of Paris, 1584, which hath fo often been afcribed to him on the credit of Kirkman and Winstanley, was written by George Peele; and Shakspeare is not met with, even as an assistant, till at least seven years afterward.-Nash, in his Epistle to the Gentlemen Students of both Univerfities, prefixed to Green's Arcadia, 4to. black letter, recommends his friend, Peele," as the chiefe fupporter of pleafance now living, the Atlas of poetrie, and primus verborum artifex: whose first increase, The Arraignment of Paris, might plead to their opinions his pregnant dexteritie of wit, and manifold varietie of inuention."

In the next place, unfortunately, there is neither fuch a character as a Conftable in the Midsummer Night's Dream:

nor

nor was the three hundred pounds legacy to a fifter, but a daughter.

And to close the whole, it is not possible, according to Aubrey himself, that Shakspeare could have been some years a fchoolmaster in the country: on which circumstance only the supposition of his learning is profeffedly founded. He was not surely very young, when he was employed to kill calves, and commenced player about eighteen!— The truth is, that he left his father, for a wife, a year sooner; and had at least two children born at Stratford before he retired from thence to London. It is therefore fufficiently clear, that poor Anthony had too much reafon for his character of Aubrey. You will find it in his own account of his life, published by Hearne, which I would earnestly recommend to any hypochondriack :

"A pretender to antiquities, roving, magotie-headed, and sometimes little better than crafed; and being exceedingly credulous, would stuff his many letters sent to A. W. with folliries and mifinformations." P. 577.

Thus much for the learning of Shakspeare with respect to the ancient languages: indulge me with an obfervation or two on the fuppofed knowledge of the modern ones, and I will promise to release you.

"It is evident," we have been told, "that he was not unacquainted with the Italian but let us inquire into the evidence.

Certainly fome Italian words and phrases appear in the works of Shakspeare; yet if we had nothing else to obferve, their orthography might lead us to fufpect them to be not of the writer's importation. But we can go further, and prove this.

When Pistol "cheers up himself with ends of verse," he is only a copy of Hauniball Gonfaga, who ranted on yielding himself a prifoner to an English captain in the