the firft, whofe learning I reverence, and at the perufing of Greene's booke, ftrooke out what then in confcience I thought he in fome difpleasure writ; or had it been true, yet to publish it was intollerable; him I would wifh to use me no worse than I deferve. I had onely in the copy this fhare: it was il written, as fometime Greene's hand was none of the best; licensed it must bee, ere it could be printed, which could never bee if it could not be read. To be brief, I writ it over, and as near as I could followed the copy; onely in that letter I put fomething out, but in the whole book not a word in ; for 1 proteft it was all Greenes, not mine, nor Mafter Nafhes, as fome unjustly have affirmed. Neither was he the writer of an Epiftle to The Second Part of Gerileon; though by the workman's error T. N. were fet to the end: that I confefs to be mine, and repent it not.

"Thus, Gentlemen, having noted the private caufes that made me nominate myself in print, being as well to purge Mafter Nashe of what he did not, as to juftifie what I did, and withall to confirm what M. Greene did, I beseech you to accept the publick cause, which is both the defire of your delight and common benefit; for though the toye bee fhadowed under the title of Kind Harts Dreame, it difcovers the false hearts of divers that wake to commit mischief," &c.

That I am right in fuppofing the two who took offence at Greene's pamphlet were Marlowe and Shakspeare, whofe names I have inferted in a preceding paragraph in crotchets, appears from the paffage itself already quoted; for there was nothing in Greene's exhortation to Lodge and Peele, the other two perfons addreffed, by which either of them could poffibly be offended. Dr. Farmer is of opinion that the second perfon addreffed by Greene is not Lodge, but Nabe, who is often called Juvenal by the writers of that time; but that he was not meant, is decifively proved by the extract from Chettle's pamphlet; for he never would have laboured to vindicate Nashe from being the writer of the Groats

[S2]

worth

worth of Wit, if any part of it had been profeffedly addreffed to him 4. Befides, Lodge had written a play in conjunction with Greene, called A Looking Glafs for London and England, and was authour of fome fatirical pieces; but we do not know that Nashe and Greene had ever written in conjunction.

Henry Chettle was himself a dramatick writer, and appears to have become acquainted with Shakspeare, or at least feen him, between Sept. 1592, and the following December. Shakspeare was at this time twenty-eight years old; and then we find from the teftimony of this writer, his demeanour was no less civil than he excellent in the qualitie be profeffed. From the fubfequent paragraph"Divers of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues his honeftie, and his facetious grace in writing, that approves his art," it may be reasonably prefumed, that he had exhibited more than one comedy on the ftage before the end of the year 1592; perhaps Love's Labour's Loft in a lefs perfect ftate than it now appears in, and A Midfummer's Night's

Dream.

In what time foever he became acquainted with the theatre, we may prefume that he had not compofed his first piece long before it was acted; for being early incumbered with a young family, and not in very affluent circumftances, it is improbable that he fhould have fuffered it to lie in his closet, without endeavouring to derive fome profit from it; and in the miserable state of the drama in those days the meaneft of his genuine plays must have been a valuable acquifition, and would hardly have been refufed by any of our ancient theatres.

In a Differtation on The Three Parts of King Henry VI. which I have fubjoined to those plays, I have mentioned that I do not believe the First Part of King Henry VI.

• Nafhe himself alfo takes fome pains in an Epiftle prefixed to Pierce Pennileffe, &c. to vindicate himfelf from being the authour of Greene's Greatfworth of Wit.

to

to have been the compofition of Shakspeare; or that at moft he wrote but one or two fcenes in it. It is unneceffary here to repeat the circumftances on which that opinion is founded. Not being Shakspeare's play, (as I conceive,) at whatever time it might have been firft exhibited, it does not interfere with the fuppofition already ftated, that he had not produced any dramatick piece before 1590.

The First Part of K. Henry VI. which, I imagine, was formerly known only by the name of The historical play of King Henry VI. had, I fufpect, been a very popular piece for fome years before 1592, and perhaps was first exhibited in 1588 or in 1589. Nafhe in a Tract entitled Pierce Pennilee his Supplication to the Devill, which was first published in 15925, exprefsly mentions one of the characters in it, John Talbot Earl of Shrewsbury, who dies in the fourth act of the piece, and who is not, I believe, introduced in any other play of that time. "How" (fays he) would it have joyed brave Talbot, the terror of the French, to think that after he had lain two hundred years in his tomb, he should triumph again on the ftage, and have his bones new embalmed with the tears of ten thousand spectators at leaft, (at feveral times,) who, in the tragedian that reprefents his perfon, imagine they behold him fresh bleeding?"

In the Differtation above referred to, I have endea voured to prove that this play was written neither by Shakfpeare, nor by the authour or authours of the two other plays formed on a subsequent period of the reign of Henry

5 Pierce Pennilesse bis Supplication, &c. was first published in that year, being entered for the first time on the Stationers' Books by Richard Jones, Aug. 8, 1592. There was a fecond edition in the fame year, printed by Abell Jeffes for John Bufbie.

6 Thus Talbot is defcribed in The First Part of K. Henry VI. A& I. fc. iii.

"Here, faid they, is the terror of the French." Again, in Act V. sc. i.

Is Talbot flain, the Frenchman's only fcourge, "Your kingdom's terror ?"

[s 3]

the

the Sixth. By whom it was written, it is now, I fear, impoffible to ascertain. It was not entered on the Stationers' books nor printed till the year 1623, when it was registered with Shakspeare's undifputed plays by the editors of the firft folio, and improperly entitled The Third Part of King Henry VI. In one fenfe it might be called fo, for two plays on the fubject of that reign had been printed before. But confidering the history of that king, and the period of time which the piece comprehends, it ought to have been called, what in fact it is, The Firft Part of King Henry VI.

At this diftance of time it is impoffible to afcertain on what principle it was that our authour's friends, Heminge and Condell, admitted The First Part of King Henry VI. into their volume: but I fufpect they gave it a place as a neceffary introduction to the two other parts, and because Shakspeare had made fome flight alterations, and written a few new lines in it.

Titus Andronicus, as well as The First Part of King Henry VI. may be referred to the year 1589, or to an earlier period; but not being in the prefent edition admitted into the regular feries of our authour's dramas, I have not given it a place in the preceding table of his plays. In a note prefixed to that play, which may be found in Vol. X. p. 375, I have declared my opinion that Andronicus was not written by Shakspeare, or that at most a very few lines in it were written by him; and have ftated the reafons on which that opinion is founded. From Ben Jonfon's Induction to Bartholomew Fair, 1614, we learn that this piece had been exhibited on the stage twenty-five or thirty years before, that is, at the lowest computation, in 1589; or, taking a middle period, (which is perhaps more juft,) in 1587. "A booke entitled a Noble Roman Hiftorie of Titus Andronicus," (without any authour's name,) was entered at Stationers' Hall by John Danter, Feb. 6, 1593-4. This was undoubtedly the play, as it was printed in that year, according to Langbaine, who alone appears to have feen the first edition, and acted by the fervants of the earls of Pembroke,

Derby,

Derby, and Suffex. Of this play there was a fecond edition in quarto in 1611, in the title-page of which neither the name of Shakspeare, (though he was in the zenith of his reputation,) nor of any authour, is found, and therefore we may presume that the title-page of the first edition alfo (like the entry on the Stationers' books) was anonymous. Marlowe's King Edward II. and fome other old plays were performed by the fervants of the earl of Pembroke, by whom not one of Shakspeare's undifputed dramas was exhibited.

2.1 SECOND AND THIRD PARTS OF K. HENRY VI 3.5 1591.

In a Differtation annexed to these plays, I have endeavoured to prove that they were not written originally by Shakspeare, but formed by him on two preceding dramas, one of which is entitled The first part of the Contention of the two famous houfes of Yorke and Lancafter, &c. and the other The true tragedie of Richard duke of Yorke, &c, My principal object in that differtation was, to fhew from various circumftances that thofe two old plays, which were printed in 1600, were written by fome writer or writers who preceded Shakspeare, and moulded by him, with many alterations and additions, into the fhape in which they at prefent appear in his works under the titles of The Second and Third Part of K. Henry VI.; and if I have proved that point, I have obtained my end. I ventured, however, to go fome. what further, and to hazard a conjecture concerning the perfons by whom they were compofed: but this was not at all material to my principal argument, which, whether my conjectures on that head were well or ill founded, will remain the fame.

The paffage which has been already quoted from Greene's pamphlet, led me to suspect that these old plays were the production of either him, or Peele, or both of them. I too haftily supposed that the words which have been printed in a former page,-" Yes, truft them not;

[S4]

for