Nothing is more likely than that thofe palpable blunders of Hector's quoting Aristotle, with others of that grofs kind, fprung from the fame root: it not being at all credible that thefe could be the errors of any man who had the least tincture of a School, or the leaft converfation with fuch as had. Ben Johnson (whom they will not think partial to him) allows him at least to have had fome Latin; which is utterly inconfiftent with mistakes like thefe. Nay the conftant blunders in proper names of perfons and places, are fuch as must have proceeded from a man, who had not fo much as read any hiftory, in any language: fo could not be Shakespear's.

I fhall now lay before the reader fome of those almost innumerable Errors, which have rifen from one fource, the ignorance of the Players, both as his actors, and as his Editors. When the nature and kinds of these are enumerated and confidered, I dare to say that not Shakespear only, but Ariftotle or Cicero, had their works undergone the fame fate, might have appear'd to want fenfe as well as learning.

It is not certain that any one of his Plays was published by himself. During the time of his employment in the Theatre, feveral of his pieces were printed separately in Quarto. What makes me think that most of these were not publish'd by him, is the exceffive carelessness of the prefs: every page is fo fcandalously false spelled, and almost all the learned or unufual words fo intolerably mangled, that it's plain there either was no Corrector to the prefs at all, or one totally illiterate. If any were fupervised by himself, I should fancy the two parts of Henry the 4th, and MidsummerNight's Dream might have been fo: because I find no other printed with any exactness; and (contrary to the reft) there is very little variation in all the fubfequent editions of them. There are extant two Prefaces, to the first quarto edition of Troilus and Creffida in 1609, b 4 and

and to that of Othello; by which it appears, that the first was published without his knowledge or confent, and even before it was acted, fo late as feven or eight years before he died and that the latter was not printed 'till after his death. The whole number of genuine plays which we have been able to find printed in his life-time, amounts but to eleven. And of fome of thefe, we meet with two or more editions by dif ferent printers, each of which has whole heaps of trash different from the other: which I fhould fancy was occafion'd by their being taken from different copies, belonging to different Play-houses.

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 stolen 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 else 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 ftand charged upon the Author. He himself complained of this ufage in Hamlet, where he wishes that those who play the Clowns wou'd fpeak no more than is fet down for them. (A&. 3. Sc. 4.) But as a proof that he could not efcape 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 scenes 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)

margin) where several 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 fingle editions, are omitted in this as it feems without any other reason, than their willingness to shorten fome scenes: These men (as it was faid of Procruftes) either lopping, or ftretching an Author, to make him juft 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 Piecemeal Parts written out for the ufe of the actors: For in fome places their very (a) names are thro' carelessnefs fet down instead of the Perfona 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 distinguish'd by Alts and Scenes, they are in this edition divided according as they play'd 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 Monsters.

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

(a) Much ado about nothing. A 2. Enter Prince Leonato, Claudio, and Jack Wilson, inflead of Balthafar. And in Act. 4. Cowley, and Kemp, conflantly thro' a whole Scene. Edit. Fol. of 1623, and 1632.

Many

Many verses are omitted entirely, and others tranfpofed; from whence invincible obfcurities have arifen, paft the guess of any Commentator to clear up, but juft where the accidental gl impfe 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 MidfummerNight's Dream, A&t 5. Shakespear introduces a kind of Master of the Revels called Philoftrate: all whofe part is given to another character (that of Egeus) in the fubfequent editions: So alfo 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 alfo were put into the mouths of wrong perfons, where the Author now seems chargeable with making them speak out of character: Or fometimes perhaps for no better reason, than that a governing Player, to have the mouthing of fome favourite fpeech himself, would fnatch it from the unworthy lips of an Underling.

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

Having been forced to fay fo much of the Players, I think I ought in justice to remark, that the Judgment, as well as Condition, of that clafs 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, &c.) fo the top of the profeffion 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 confequently were intirely depriv'd of thofe advantages they now enjoy, in the familiar converfation of our Nobility, and an intimacy (not to fay dearness) with people of the first condition.

From

From what has been faid, there can be no question but had Shakespear published his works himself (efpecially in his latter time, and after his retreat from the ftage) we should not only be certain which are genuine; but fhould find in thofe that are, the errors leffened by fome thousands. 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 those wretched plays Pericles, Locrine, Sir John Oldcastle, Yorkshire Tragedy, Lord Cromwell, The Puritan, and London Prodigal, cannot be admitted as his. And I should conjecture of fome of the others, (particularly Love's Labour's Loft, The Winter's Tale, and Titus Andronicus) that only fome characters, fingle fcenes, or perhaps a few particular paffages, were of his hand. It is very probable what occafion'd 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 adminiftration 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 obferve) it was not for the intereft of the House to remove. Yet the Players themfelves, Heminges and Condell, afterwards did Shakespear the justice to reject thofe eight plays in their edition; tho' they were then printed in his Name, in every body's hands, and acted with fome applause; (as we learn from what Ben Johnson says 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 exprefs 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,