of Fletcher, and more of our Author than fome of those which have been received as genuine.)

I am inclined to think, this opinion proceeded originally from the zeal of the Partizans of our Author and Ben Johnfon; as they endeavoured to exalt the one at the expence of the other. It is ever the nature of Parties to be in extremes; and nothing is fo probable, as that because Ben Johnson had much the more learning, it was faid on the one hand that Shakespear had none at all; and because Shakespear had much the most wit and fancy, it was retorted on the other, that Johnson wanted both. Because Shakespear borrowed nothing, it was faid that Ben Johnson borrowed every thing. Becaufe Johnfon did not write extempore, he was reproached with being a year about every piece; and becaufe Shakespear wrote with ease and rapidity, they cried, he never once made a blot. Nay the fpirit of oppofition ran fo high, that whatever thofe of the one fide objected to the other, was taken at the rebound, and turned into praises; as injudicioutly, as their antagonists before had made them objections.

Poets are always afraid of envy; but fure they have as much reason to be afraid of admiration. They are the Scylla and Charybdis of Authors; thofe who efcape one, often fall by the other. Peffimum genus inimicorum laudantes, fays Tacitus: and Virgil defires to wear a charm against those who praife a poet without rule or reason.

Si ultra placitum laudirit, baccare frontem Cingito, ne vati noceat.

But however this contention might be carried on by the Partizans on either fide, I cannot help thinking these two great poets were good friends, and lived on amicable terms, and in offices of fociety with each other. It is an acknowledged fact, that Ben Johnson was introduced upon the stage, and his first works encouraged, by Shakespear. And after his death, that Author writes To the memory of his beloved Mr. William Shakespear, which shews as if the friendship had continued thro' life. I cannot for my own part find any thing invidious or fparing in those verses, but wonder Mr. Dryden was of that opinion. He exalts him not only above all his contemporaries, but above Chaucer and Spenfer, whom he will not allow to be great enough to be ranked with him; and challenges the names of Sophocles, Euripides, and Æschylus, nay all Greece and Rome at once, to equal him; and (which is very particular) exprefly vindicates him from the imputation of wanting art, not enduring that all his excellencies fhould be attributed to nature. It is remarkable too, that the praise he gives him in his Difcoveries feems to proceed from a perfonal kindness; he tells us that he lov'd the man, as well as honoured his memory; celebrates the honesty, openness, and frankness of his temper; and only diftinguishes, as he reasonably

ought, between the real merit of the Author, and the filly and derogatory applaufes of the Players. Ben Johnson might indeed be sparing in his commendations, (tho' certainly he is not fo in this inftance) partly from his own nature, and partly from judgment. For men of judgment think they do any man more service in praising him justly, than lavishly. I say, I would fain believe they were friends, tho' the violence and ill-breeding of their followers and flatterers were enough to give rife to the contrary report. I would hope that it may be with parties, both in wit and state, as with thofe monfters defcribed by the poets; and that their heads at least may have fomething human, tho' their bodies and tails are wild beafts and ferpents.

As I believe that what I have mentioned gave rife to the opinion of Shakespear's want of learning; fo what has continued it down to us may have been the many blunders and illiteracies of the first publishers of his works. In these editions their ignorance fhines in almost every page; nothing is more common than Actus tertia. Exit omnes. Enter three witches folus. Their French is as bad as their Latin, both in conftruction and fpelling: Their very Welsh is falfe. Nothing is more likely than that thofe palpable blunders of Hector's quoting Ariftotle, with others of that grofs kind, fprung from the fame root: it not be

at all credible that thefe could be the errors of

any man who had the least tincture of a fchool, or the least 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 these. 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 history, in any language: fo could not be Shakefpear's.

I shall 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 appeared 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 feparately in quarto. What makes me think that most of these were not published by him, is the exceffive careleffnefs of the prefs: every page is fo fcandaloufly falfe fpelled, 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 supervised by himself, Ifhould fancy the two

parts of Henry IV. and Midfummer-Night's Dream might have been fo: because I find no other printed with any exactnefs; 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, 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, so 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 lifetirne, amounts but to eleven, And of fome of thefe, we meet with two or more editions by different printers, each of which has whole heaps of trash different from the other: which I should fancy was occafioned 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 publifhed by two Players, Heminges and Condell, in 1623, feven years after his decease. They declare, that all the other editions were ftolen 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 respects elfe it is far worfe than the quarto's.

First, because the additions of trifling and bombaft paflages are in this edition far more numerous.