This is what I could learn of any note, either able alliance he had made. Shakspeare's grand-daughter would not, at this day, go to her grave without a memorial. By her laft will, which I fubjoin, fhe directs her truftee to fell her eftate of NewPlace, &c. to the best bidder, and to offer it first to her coufin Mr. Edward Nafh. How the then came to have any property in NewPlace, which her first husband had devised to this very Edward Nafh, does not appear; but I fuppofe that after the death of Mr. Thomas Nafh fhe exchanged the patrimonial lands which he bequeathed to her, with Edward Nafh and his fon, and took NewPlace, &c. inftead of them. Sir John Barnard died at Abington, and was buried there on March 5th, 1673-4. On his tomb-ftone, in the chancel of the church is the following infcription: Hic jacent exuviæ generofissimi viri Johannis Bernard, militis; patre, avo, abavo, tritarvo, aliifque progenitoribus per ducentos et amplius annos hujus oppidi de Abingdon dominis, infignis: qui fato ceffit undefeptuagefimo ætatis fuæ anno, quinto nonas Martii, annoque a partu B. Virginis, MDCLXXIII. Sir John Barnard having made no will, administration of his effects was granted on the 7th of November 1674, to Henry Gilbert of Locko in the county of Derby, who had married his daughter Elizabeth by his first wife, and to his two other furviving daughters; Mary Higgs, widow of Thomas Higgs of Colefborne, Efq. and Eleanor Cotton, the wife of Samuel Cotton, Efq. All Sir John Barnard's other children except the three above-mentioned died without iffue. I know not whether any defcendant of these be now living: but if that fhould be the cafe, among their papers may poffibly be found fome fragment or other relative to Shakspeare; for by his grand-daughter's order, the adminiftrators of her husband were entitled to keep poffeffion of her houfe, &c. in Stratford, for fix months after his death. The following is a copy of the will of this laft defcendant of our poet, extracted from the Registry of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury: In the Name of God, Amen. I Dame Elizabeth Barnard, wife of Sir John Barnard of Abington in the county of Northampton, knight, being in perfect memory, (bleffed be God!) and mindful of mortality, do make this my laft will and teftament in manner and form following. Whereas by my certain deed or writing under my hand and seal, dated on or about the eighteenth day of April 1653, according to a power therein mentioned, I the faid Elizabeth have limited "I remember the players have often mentioned "it as an honour to Shakspeare, that in writing "(whatfoever he penned) he never blotted out a "line. My answer hath been, Would he had blotted belonging, for and during the fpace of fix months next after the deceafe of him the faid Sir John Barnard. Item, I give and devife unto my kinfman Thomas Hart, the fon of Thomas Hart, late of Stratford-upon-Avon aforefaid, all that my other meffuage or inn fituate in Stratford-upon-Avon aforefaid, commonly called the Maidenhead, with the appurtenances, and the next houfe thereunto adjoining, with the barn belonging to the fame, now or late in the occupation of Michael Johnfon or his affigns, with all and fingular the appurtenances; to hold to him the faid Thomas Hart the fon, and the heirs of his body; and for default of fuch iffue, I give and devife the fame to George Hart, brother of the faid Thomas Hart, and to the heirs of his body; and for default of fuch iffue to the right heirs of me the faid Elizabeth Barnard for ever. Item, I do make, ordain and appoint my faid loving kinfman Edward Bagley fole executor of this my laft will and teftament, hereby revoking all former wills; defiring him to fee a juft per formance hereof, according to my true intent and meaning. In witnefs whereof I the faid Elizabeth Barnard have hereunto let my hand and feal, the nine-and-twentieth day of January, Anno Domini, one thousand fix hundred and fixty-nine. ELIZABETH BARNARD. Signed, Sealed, published, and declared, to be the last will and ftament of the faid Elizabeth Barnard, in the prefence of 3 John Howes, Rector de Abington, Probatum fuit teftamentum fuprofcriptum apud ædes Exonienfes 66 that in writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted out a line.] This is not true. They only fay in their preface to his plays, that his mind and hand went together, and what he thought, he uttered with that eafinefs, that we have jcarce received from him a blot in his papers." On this Mr. Pope obferves, that "there never was a more groundless report, or to the contrary of which "a thousand! which they thought a malevolent fpeech. I had not told pofterity this, but for there are more undeniable evidences. As, the comedy of The Merry Wives of Windfor, which he entirely new writ; The Hiftory of Henry the Sixth, which was firft publifhed under the title of The Contention of York and Lancaster; and that of Henry V. extremely improved; that of Hamlet enlarged to almoft as much again as at first, and many others." Surely this is a very ftrange kind of argument. In the first place this was not a report, (unless by that word we are to understand relation,) but a pofitive affertion, grounded on the beft evidence that the nature of the fubject admitted; namely, ocular proof. The players fay, in fubftance, that Shakspeare had fuch a happiness of expreffion, that, as they collect from his papers, he had feldom occafion to alter the first words he had fet down; in confequence of which they found fearce a blot in his writings. And how is this refuted by Mr. Pope? By telling us, that a great many of his plays were enlarged by their authour. Allowing this to be true, which is by no means certain, if he had written twenty plays, each confifting of one thousand lines, and afterwards added to each of them a thousand more, would it therefore fellow, that he had not written the first thousand with facility and correctness, or that those must have been neceffarily expunged, becaufe new matter was added to them? Certainly not.-But the truth is, it is by no means clear that our author did enlarge all the plays mentioned by Mr. Pope, if even that would prove the point intended to be established. Mr. Pope was evidently deceived by the quarto copies. From the play of Henry V. being more perfect in the folio edition than in the quarto, nothing follows but that the quarto impreffion of that piece was printed from a mutilated and imperfect copy, ftolen from the theatre, or taken down by ear during the reprefentation. What have been called the quarto copies of the Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI. were in fact two old plays written before the time of Shakspeare, and entitled The First Part of the Contention of the two boufes of Yorke and Lancafter, &c. and The true tragedy of Richard Duke of Yorke, &c. on which he conftructed two new plays; juft as on the old plays of King John, and The Taming of a Shrew, he formed two other plays with nearly the fame titles. See The Differtation in Vol. X. p. 411. The tragedy of Hamlet in the first edition, (now extant,) that of 1604, is faid to be enlarged to almoft as much again as it was, according to the true and perfect copy." What is to be collected from this, but that there was a former imperfect edition (I believe, in the year 1602)? that the one we are now fpeaking of was enlarged "their ignorance, who chose that circumstance to "commend their friend by, wherein he most fault"ed: and to justify mine own candour, for I loved "the man, and do honour his memory, on this fide "idolatry, as much as any. He was, indeed, ho"neft, and of an open and free nature, had an "excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expref"fions; wherein he flowed with that facility, that " sometimes it was neceffary he should be stopped: "Sufflaminandus erat, as Auguftus faid of Haterius. "His wit was in his own power; would the rule " of it had been fo too. Many times he fell into "those things which could not escape laughter; as "when he faid in the perfon of Cæfar, one speaking to him, "Cæfar thou doft me wrong. "He replied: "Cæfar did never wrong, but with just cause. to as much again as it was in the former mutilated impression, and that this is the genuine and perfect copy, the other imperfect and fpurious? The Merry Wives of Windfor, indeed, and Romeo and Juliet, and perhaps Love's Labour's Loft, our author appears to have altered and amplified; and to King Richard II. what is called the parliamentscene, feems to have been added; (though this laft is by no means certain ;) but neither will these augmentations and new-modellings difprove what has been afferted by Shakspeare's fellow-comedians concerning the facility of his writing, and the exquifite felicity of his firft expreffions. The hafty sketch of The Merry Wives of Windfor, which he is faid to have compofed in a fortnight, he might have written without a blot; and three or four years afterwards, when he chose to dilate his plan, he might have compofed the additional scenes without a blot likewife. In a word, fuppofing even that Nature had not endowed him with that rich vein which he unquestionably poffeffed, he who in little more than twenty years produces thirty-four or thirty-five pieces for the stage, has certainly not much time for expunging. MALONE. " and fuch like, which were ridiculous. But he "redeemed his vices with his virtues: there was "ever more in him to be praised than to be par"doned." As for the paffage which he mentions out of Shakspeare, there is fomewhat like it in Julius Cæfar, but without the absurdity; nor did I ever meet with it in any edition that I have feen, as quoted by Mr. Jonfon.* Befides his plays in this edition, there are two or three afcribed to him by Mr. Langbaine,' which nor did I ever meet with it in any edition that I have seen, as quoted by Mr. Jonfon.] See Mr. Tyrwhitt's note, Vol. XII. p. 314, B. 4. MALONE. 5 Befides his plays in this edition, there are two or three afcribed to bim by Mr. Langbaine,] The Birth of Merlin, 1662, written by W. Rowley; the old play of King John in two parts, 1591, on which Shakspeare formed his King John; and The Arraignment of Paris, 1584, written by George Peele. The editor of the folio 1664, fubjoined to the 36 dramas published in 1623, feven plays, four of which had appeared in Shakspeare's life-time with his name in the title-page, viz. Pericles, Prince of Tyre, 1609, Sir John Oldcastle, 1600, The London Prodigal, 1605, and The Yorkshire Tragedy, 1608; the three others which they inferted, Locrine, 1595, Lord Cromwell, 1602, and The Puritan, 1607, having been printed with the initials W. S. in the title-page, the editor chofe to interpret thofe letters to mean William Shakfpeare, and afcribed them alfo to our poet. I publifhed an edition of these feven pieces fome years ago, freed in fome measure from the grofs errors with which they had been exhibited in ancient copies, that the publick might fee what they contained; and do not hesitate to declare my firm perfuafion that of Locrine, Lord Cromwell, Sir John Oldcastle, the London Prodigal, and The Puritan, Shakspeare did not write a fingle line. How little the bookfellers of former times fcrupled to affix the names of celebrated writers to the productions of others, even in the life-time of fuch celebrated authors, may be collected from Heywood's Tranflations from Ovid, which in 1612, while Shakfpeare was yet living, were afcribed to him. See Vol. X. p. 321, n. 1.* |