present volume, that of these modes a selection from the last almost entirely occupies its pages; but before we proceed any farther in relation to its construction, it may not be useless or uninteresting to make a few observations on what has been effected for the poet in the two prior branches by his editors and more formal critics.

Nothing can place in a more striking point of view the incurious disposition of our ancestors with regard to literary and biographical information, than the circumstance that four folio editions of the works of Shakspeare, who had been highly popular in his day, and in the most popular department of his art, were suffered to appear and occupy the space of nearly one hundred years without a single explanatory note, or the annexation of a

It is well known that there were two impressions of the third folio edition of Shakspeare's Plays, one in 1663, and the other in 1664; the first with Droeshout's head of Shakspeare in the title-page, and the second without any engraving; but both these copies have been hitherto referred to as containing the spurious Plays; whereas the impression of 1663 does not include them, but ends with the play of Cymbeline, both in the catalogue prefixed, and in the book itself. In the title-page also of the copy of 1663, the work is said to be "Printed for Philip Chetwinde," whilst the impression of 1664 has only the initials of the bookseller, P. C. in the title-page. Both these copies, owing to the great fire of London occurring so soon after their publication, are even more scarce than the first folio; and I should add that, in three copies which I have seen of this folio of 1663, one of which is in my own possession, the head of Shakspeare exhibits a clear and good impression.

particle of biographical anecdote. Indeed, an apathy nearly approaching this appears to have existed until a late period in the eighteenth century; for, with the exception of Betterton, who took a journey into Warwickshire for the purpose of collecting information relative to the poet, scarcely an effort was made to throw any additional light upon his history until the era of Capell and Steevens, when, as might have been expected from such a lapse of time so unfortunately neglected, the keenest research retired from the pursuit baffled and disappointed.

The few facts which Betterton collected with such laudable and affectionate zeal at the close of the seventeenth century, were presented to the world by Rowe, who, in his edition of the bard in' 1709, first gave to the admirers of dramatic genius a Life of Shakspeare. The fate of this document must be pronounced somewhat singular, and certainly undeserved; it had remained, until within these last seven years, nearly the sole source and

• What, previous to Rowe, had been incidentally mentioned as connected with the name of Shakspeare by Dugdale, Fuller, Phillips, Winstanley, Langbaine, Blount, Gildon, and Anthony Wood, amounted to a mere trifle; and what has since transpired through the traditionary medium of Mr. Jones of Tarbick, and Mr. Taylor of Warwick, who died in 1790, and from the MS of Aubrey and Oldys, has added but little that can be depended upon. The researches, however, which have been lately made into the proceedings of the Bailiff's Court, the Register, and other public writings of the poet's native town, have happily contributed two or three facts to the scanty store.

undisputed basis of what little has been preserved to us of one so justly the pride and delight of his country, when Mr. Malone, the most indefatigable, and, in general, the most correct of the Shakspeare commentators, and who for half a century had been sedulously endeavouring to substantiate the few facts, and extend the meagre narrative of Rowe, suddenly turned round upon the hapless biographer, boasting, with a singular dereliction of all his former opinions, that he would prove eight out of the ten facts which Rowe had brought forward, to be false.

That he has in a great measure failed in this attempt, and left the credibility of Rowe's statements little shaken by the scepticism of his latter enquiries, must be a subject of congratulation to all who have dwelt with interest on the scanty memorials which time has spared us of the personal history of the poet. As it is scarcely indeed within the sphere of probability to suppose that at this distant period, when more than two centuries have passed since the death of its object, biography can supply us with many additional facts, it must assuredly be an ungrateful and thankless task to endeavour to strip us of what small portion had been treasured up, and to leave us on a subject, which, from its imperfect state, had excited deep regret, a perfect and remediless blank.

In every other part of his duty as an editor, Mr. Malone has exhibited remarkable efficiency and success, and his text may be justly consi

dered as the purest and most correct extant.

1

It

is, indeed, not a little extraordinary that, previous to his labours, and we may add, with some qualification, those of Steevens, every editor of Shakspeare has grossly and knowingly deviated from the only authentic standards, the quartos and first folio. They have all, in fact, from Rowe to the era alluded to, acknowledged the necessity of, and professed an adherence to, these first impressions; and all, from indolence, presumption, or caprice, have, in a greater or less degree, deviated from, or neglected to consult them. Rowe took the fourth folio, which, like the second and third, is full of the most arbitrary alterations, as the basis of his text. Pope, though declaring his conviction of the paramount obligation of faithfully following the earliest text, based his own edition on that of Rowe; whilst Theobald, anxious to expose the errors of his immediate predecessor, committed a somewhat similar mistake, by giving us a corrected text from Pope instead of a copy of the first folio collated with the quartos. The numerous references, however, to these the primal editions, which were necessary to effect his purpose, enabled him to remove many corruptions; and, had he more uniformly submitted to their authority, he might have produced a copy of his author, to which, in point of accuracy of text, little could have been objected. But, though superior in industry and fidelity to Pope, he also

was not untainted with a spirit of innovation, and too often exhibited a capricious love of change.

Yet, inadequate as these editors proved themselves to the task which they undertook, they were in all the duties of their office greatly superior to their immediate successors, Sir Thomas Hanmer and Bishop Warburton; who both implicitly adopting, for their sole authority, the edition of Pope, added, to the imperfections of an already faulty copy, a multitude of fresh errors, the result of unbridled conjecture and arrogant conceit.

Had Dr. Johnson, into whose hands the poet was next destined to pass, possessed as much industry as talent, the labours of every subsequent editor, as far as the integrity of the text is concerned, might have been spared. No man, in fact, was better acquainted with the requisites for the task which he undertook than this celebrated moralist and philologer, as the scheme of a new edition of the poet which he published in 1756, nine years anterior to the appearance of his editorial labours, fully evinces. But alas! when this long-promised edition came forth, it was but too evident that he wanted the perseverance and research to carry his own well-conceived plan into execution. We can, however, with grateful pleasure record that, imperfect as his labours were, he not only greatly surpassed his predecessors, but first pointed out the path which