* names are thro' carelessness set down instead of the Persone 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, 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 play'd them; often where there is no pause in the action, or where they thought fit to make a breach in it, for the fake of Mufick, Masques, or Monsters.

Sometimes the scenes are transposed and shuffled backward and forward; a thing which could no otherwise happen, but by their being taken from separate and piecemeal-written parts.

Many verses are omitted intirely, and others transposed; from whence invincible obscurities have arisen, past the guess of any Commentator to clear up, but just where. the accidental glympse of an old edition enlightens us.

Some

* Much ado about nothing. Act 2. Enter Prince Leonato, Claudio, and Jack Wilson, instead of Balthafar. And in Act 4. Cowley and Kemp, constantly throwa whole Scene. Edit. Fol. of 1623, and 1632.

† Such as,

My Queen is murder'd! Ring the little BellHis nose grew as sharp as a pen, and a Table of Greenfields, &c. which last words are not in the first quarto edition.

nate

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, Act. 5. Shakespear introduces a kind of Master of the Revels called Philoftratus; all whose part is given to another character (that of Ægeus) in the subsequent editions. So also in Hamlet and King Lear. This too makes it probable that the Prompter's Books were what they call'd the Original Copies.

From liberties of this kind, many speeches also were put into the mouths of wrong persons, where the Author now seems chargeable with making them speak out of character: Or sometimes perhaps for no better reason, than that a governing Player, to have the mouthing of some favourite speech himself, would snatch it from the unworthy lips of an Underling.

fork) Profe from verse they did not know, and they accordingly printed one for the other hamp throughout the volume.

sition

Having been forced to say so much of the Players, I think I ought in justice to remark, that the Judgment as well as Condition of that class 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.) so the top of the profeffion

I

were then meer players, not Gentlemen of the stage: They were led into the Buttery by the Steward, not plac'd at the Lord's table, or Lady's toilette: and consequently were intirely depriv'd of those advantages they now enjoy, in the familiar conversation of our Nobility, and an intimacy (not to say dearness) with people of the first condition.

From what has been said, there can be no question but had Shakespear published his works himself (especially in his latter time, and after his retreat from the stage) we should not only be certain which are genuine; but should find in those that are, the errors lessened by some thousands. If I may judge from all the distinguishing marks of his style, and his manner of thinking and writing, I make no doubt to declare that those wretched plays, Pericles, Locrine, Sir John Oldcastle, Yorkshire Tragedy, Lord Cromwell, The Puritan, London Prodigal, and a thing call'd the Double FalShood, cannot be admitted as his. And I should conjecture of fome of the others, (particularly Love's Labour's Loft, The Winter's Tale, Comedy of Errors, and Titus Andronicus) that only fome characters, single scenes, or perhaps a few particular paflages, were of his hand. It is very probable what occafion'd fome Plays to be supposed Shakespear's was only this; that they were pieces produced by unknown authors, or fitted up VOL. I.

B

for

for the Theatre while it was under his Administration; and no owner claiming them, they were adjudged to him, as they give Strays to the Lord of the Manor. A mistake, which (one may also observe) it was not for the interest of the House to remove. Yet the Players themselves, Hemings and Condell, afterwards did Shakespear the justice to reject those plays in their edition; tho' they were then printed in his name, in every body's hands, and acted with some applaufe; (as we learn from what Ben Johnson 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 express his contempt of it in the Induction to Bartholomew-Fair, in the year 1614, when Shakespear was yet living. And there is no better authority for these latter fort, than for the former, which were equally published in his life-time.

If we give into this opinion, how many low and vicious parts and passages might no longer reflect upon this great Genius, but appear unworthily charged upon him? And even in those which are really his, how many faults may have been unjustly laid to his account from arbitrary Additions, Expunctions, Transpositions of scenes and lines, confufion of Characters and Perfons, wrong application of Speeches, corrupti

ons e

S

P

e

ز

,

e

1

ons of innumerable Passages by the Ignorance, and wrong Corrections of 'em again by the Impertinence, of his first Editors? From one or other of these confiderations, I am verily perswaded, that the greatest and grossest part of what are thought his errors would vanish, and leave his charaEter in a light very different from that difadvantageous one, in which it now appears

to us.

This is the state in which Shakespear's writings lye at present; for since the abovementioned Folio Edition, all the rest have implicitly followed it, without having recourse to any of the former, or ever making the comparison between them. It is impoffible to repair the Injuries already done him; too much time has elaps'd, 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 justice. I have discharg'd the dull duty of an Editor, to my best judgment, with more labour than I expect thanks, with a religious abhorrence of all innovation, and without any indulgence to my private sense or conjecture. The method taken in this 2 Edition will show it self. The various Readings are fairly put in the margin, fo that every one may compare 'em; and those I have prefer'd into the Text are conftantly ex fide Codicum, upon authority. The Alterations

B2