circumstances as fall below the notice of hiftory, can only be fought in the jest-book, the satire, or the play; and the novel, whose fashion did not outlive a week, is sometimes necessary to throw light on those annals which take in the compass of an age. Those, therefore, who would wish to have the peculiarities of Nym familiarized to their ideas, must excuse the infertion of such an epigram as best fuits the purpose, however tedious in itself; and such as would be acquainted with the propriety of Falstaff's allusion to stewed prunes, should not be disgusted at a multitude of instances, which, when the point is once known to be established, may be diminished by any future editor. An author who catches (as Pope expresses it) at the Cynthia of a minute, and does not furnish notes to his own works, is sure to lose half the praise which he might have claimed, had he dealt in allufions less temporary, or cleared up for himself those difficulties which lapse of time must inevitably create.

The author of the additional notes has rather been defirous to support old readings, than to claim the merit of introducing new ones. He defires to be regarded as one, who found the task he undertook more arduous than it seemed, while he was yet feeding his vanity with the hopes of introducing himself to the world as an editor in form. He, who has discovered in himself the power to rectify a few mistakes with ease, is naturally led to imagine, that all difficulties must yield to the efforts of future labour; and perhaps feels a reluctance to be undeceived at last.

Mr. Steevens defires it may be observed, that he has ftrictly complied with the terms exhibited in his proposals, having appropriated all such affiftances, as he received, to the use of the prefent editor, whose judgment has, in every instance, determined on their respective merits. While he enumerates his obligations to his correspondents, it is necessary that one comprehensive remark should be made on such communications as are omitted in this edition, though they might have proved of great advantage to a more daring commentator. The majority of these were founded

on the supposition, that Shakspeare was originally an author correct in the utmost degree, but maimed and interpolated by the neglect or presumption of the players. In consequence of this belief, alterations have been proposed wherever a verse could be harmonized, an epithet exchanged for one more appofite, or a fentiment rendered less perplexed. Had the general current of advice been followed, the notes would have been filled with attempts at emendation apparently unneceffary, though sometimes elegant, and as frequently with explanations of what none would have thought difficult. A conftant peruser of Shakspeare will suppose whatever is easy to his own apprehenfion, will prove fo to that of others, and confequently may pass over some real perplexities in filence. On the contrary, if in confideration of the different abilities of every class of readers, he should offer a comment on all harth inversions of phrafe, or peculiarities of expreffion, he will at once excite the disgust and displeasure of fuch as think their own knowledge or sagacity undervalued. It is difficult to fix a medium between doing too little and too much in the task of mere explanation. There are yet many passages unexplained and unintelligible, which may be reformed, at hazard of whatever licence, for exhibitions on the stage, in which the pleasure of the audience is chiefly to be confidered; but must remain untouched by the critical editor, whose conjectures are limited by narrow bounds, and who gives only what he at least supposes his author to have written.

If it is not to be expected that each vitiated paffage in Shakspeare can be restored, till a greater latitude of experiment shall be allowed; so neither can it be supposed that the force of all his allufions

will be pointed out, till such books are thoroughly examined, as cannot easily at present be collected, if at all. Several of the most correct lifts of our dramatick pieces exhibit the titles of plays, which are not to be met with in the completest collections. It is almost unnecessary to mention any other than Mr. Garrick's, which, curious and extensive as it is, derives it greatest value from its acceffibility.

There is reason to think that about the time of the Reformation, great numbers of plays were printed, though few of that age are now to be found; for part of Queen Elizabeth's INJUNCTIONS in 1559, are particularly directed to the fuppreffing of "Many pamphlets, PLAYES, and ballads: that no manner of person shall enterprize to print any such, &c. but under certain restrictions." Vid. Sect. V. This observation is taken from Dr. Percy's additions to his Essay on the Origin of the English Stage. It appears likewise from a page at the conclusion of the fecond volume of the entries belonging to the Stationers' Company, that in the 41st year of Queen Elizabeth, many new restraints on booksellers were laid. Among these are the following: "That no playes be printed excepte they bee allowed by such as have auctoritye.' The records of the Stationers, however, contain the entries of fome which have never yet been met with by the most successful collectors; nor are their titles to be found in any registers of the stage, whether ancient or modern. It should seem from the fame volumes that it was customary for the Stationers to feize the whole impreffion of any work that had given offence, and burn it publickly at their hall, in obedience to the edicts of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, who sometimes enjoyed these literary executions at their respective palaces. Among other works condemned to the flames by these difcerning prelates, were the complete Satires of Bishop Hall.*

Mr. Theobald, at the conclusion of the preface to his first edition of Shakspeare, afferts, that exclusive of the dramas of Ben Jonfon, and Beaumont and Fletcher, he had read " above 800 of old English plays." He omitted this affertion, however, on

* Law, Physick, and Divinity, bl. 1. may be found on every stall. Plays, poetry, and novels, were destroyed publickly by the Bishops, and privately by the Puritans. Hence the infinite number of them entirely loft, for which licenses were procured &c. FARMER.

1

To the other evils of our civil war must be added the interruption of polite learning, and the suppreffion of many dramatick and poetical names, which were plunged in obscurity by tumults and revolutions, and have never fince attracted curiofity. The utter neglect of ancient English literature continued so long, that many books may be supposed to be loft; and that curiosity, which has been now for some years increasing among us, wants materials for its operations. Books and pamphlets, printed originally in small numbers,