he survived, to have published such a collection.* But, be that as it may, his supposed carelessness concerning the fate of his pieces after they had been represented, is not so very singular; many of the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher also having been inaccurately printed from stolen copies during the lives of the authors, and the remainder collected some years after their deaths, like the works of Shakespeare, by the players. Ben Jonson appears to have been the only dramatic poet of that age, who paid any attention to the publication of his works.

The old quarto copies of Beaumont and Fletcher have come down to us exactly in the same state with the old quartos of Shakespeare. The printers of those times not only copied, but multiplied the errors of the transcriber. An editor, nay even a corrector of the press, seems to have been a character of which they had not the smallest conception. Even the title-pages appear to exhibit the very names of the authors at random, sometimes announcing the play as the work of one poet, sometimes of another, and sometimes as the joint production of both. A bookseller is somewhere introduced as reprehending the saving ways of an ode-writer, who, he supposed, merely to lengthen his work, would often put no more than three or four words into a line. The old printers seem to have conceived the same idea of the parsimony of poets, and therefore often without scruple run verse into prose, not adverting to measure or harmony, but solely governed by the dimensions of the page, whether divided into columns, or carried all across from one scanty margin to another. Their orthography +

"We hope, that they outliving him, and he not having the fate common with some, to be exequutor to his own writings," &c. Dedication of Shakespeare's Works by Heminge and Condell. "It had been a thing, we confesse, worthy to have been wished, that the author himself had lived to have set forth, and overscene his own writings; but since it has been ordained otherwise, and he by death departed from that right, we pray you doe not envy his friends, the office of their care and paine, to have collected and published them,"

Preface of Heminge and Condell.

✦ Their orthography, &c.] To this article our ancestors seem to have afforded very little attention: ingenious for ingenuous, alter for altar, cozen for cousin, desert for desart, talents for talons, then for than, &c. &c. continually occur in the old books. Nor does there seem to have been any greater regard paid to proper names; one of our poets, for instance, we find called Fleatcher, Flecher, and Fletcher; and the other, Beamont, Beamount, and Beaumont. The name of Shakespeare is spelt at least a dozen ways. We are told, in the first note on the Dunciad of "an autograph of Shakspeare himself, whereby it appeared that he spelt his own name without the first e." Yet even this autograph is not decisive. In the register-book at Stratford upon Avon, the name of the family is regularly entered Shakspere. In the poet's own will, which now lies in the Prerogative-Office, Doctor's Commons, his name is spelt THREE different ways. In the body of the will it is always written Shackspeare: this, however, may be ascribed to the lawyer. The will consists of three sheets, the first of which is legibly subscribed Shackspere; the two others Shakspeare. It must be acknowledged that the hand-writing, as well as situation of the first signature, is different from that of the two following: but it appears extraordinary that a stranger should attempt to falsify a signature, which is usually subscribed to each sheet for the sake of giving authenticity to so solemn an instrument, and is, therefore, always taken to be the hand-writing of the testator. Mr. Garrick, however, has now in his possession the lease of a house formerly situated in BlackFriars, and but lately taken down on account of the new bridge, which belonged to that poet. As a party to that lease he signs his name Shakspeare; and the first syllable of his name is now pronounced in his native county, Warwickshire, with the short a, Shak- and not Shake speare. On the other hand, it must be confessed, that the dialect of that county is more provincial than classical, and we believe that all the families, who are now known by the poet's name, both spell and pronounce it Shakespeare; which indeed seems most reconcilable to etimology, if etimology be at all concerned in so capricious a circumstance. Every thing, however trivial, interests an English reader, from the relation it bears to that great poet; which is the only excuse we have to offer for so long a note on a point of so little importance.

is

is so generally vicious and unsettled, and their punctuation so totally defective, that the regulation of either rarely merits the triumphs that have so often been derived from it. On the whole, however, these old copies of our poets may by an intelligent reader be perused with satisfaction. The typographical errors are indeed gross and numerous; but their very number and grossness keeps the reader awake to the genuine text, and commonly renders such palpable inaccuracies not prejudicial. The genuine work of the author is there extant, though the lines are often, like a confused multitude, huddled on one another, and not marshalled and arrayed by the discipline of a modern editor.

The first folio, containing thirty-four of our authors' pieces, never till then collected or printed, was published by the players, obviously transcribed from the prompter's books, commonly the most inaccurate and barbarous of all manuscripts, or made out piecemeal from the detached parts copied for the use of the performers. Hence it happens, that the stage-direction has sometimes crept into the text, and the name of the actor is now and then substituted for that of the character. The transcribers, knowing perhaps no language perfectly, corrupted all languages; and vitiated the dialogue with false Latin, false French, false Italian, and false Spanish; nay, as Pope says of the old copies of Shakespeare, “ their very Welch is false."

The players, however, notwithstanding the censure of Pope, yet from Cibber sore," seem to have been, at least with regard to our poets, as faithful and able editors as others of that period. It is most natural to suppose that the playhouse manuscript contained the real work of the author, though perhaps ignorantly copied, and accommodated to the use of the theatre. A writer in his closet often silently acquiesces in the excellence of a continued declamation; but if at any time the audience, like Polonius, cry out, "This is too long," such passages are afterwards naturally curtailed or omitted in the representation; but the curious reader, "being less fastidious than the proud spectator" (for in such terms Horace speaks of the spectator) is pleased with the restoration of those passages in print. "Players," says Pope," are just such judges of what is right, as tailors are of what is graceful." The comparison is more ludicrous and sarcastic than it is just. The poet himself, who makes the clothes, may rather be called the tailor; actors are at most but the empty beaux that wear them, and the spectators censure or admire them. A tailor, however, if players must be the tailors, though not equal in science to a statuary or an anatomist, must yet be conceived to have a more intimate knowledge of the human form than a blacksmith or a carpenter; and if many of the actors know but little of the drama, they would probably have known still less of it, had they not been retainers to the stage. Some improvements, as well as corruptions of the drama, may undoubtedly be derived from the theatre. Cibber, idle Cibber, wrote for the stage with more success than Pope. Eschylus, Sophocles, Plautus, and Terence, were soldiers and freedmen; Shakespeare and Moliere were actors.

The second folio contained the first complete collection of the works of Beaumont and Fletcher. Concerning that edition we have nothing to add to what has been said by other editors, whose prefaces we have annexed

to our own.

The octavo editors of 1711 secmed to aim at little more than reprinting our authors' plays, and giving a collection of them more portable and con

venient

!

venient than the folios. Their text, however, is more corrupt than that of either the quartos or folios, the errors of which they religiously preserved, adding many vicious readings of their own, some of which have been combated in very long notes by their successors.

In the year 1742, Theobald, on the success and reputation of his Shakespeare, projected an edition of the works of Ben Jonson. What he had executed of it, fell into the hands of Mr. Whalley, and is inserted in that learned and ingenious gentleman's edition. At the same time he exhibited proposals for a publication of the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher; in which he was afterwards assisted by Mr. Seward and Mr. Sympson: but Theobald dying before he had committed more than the first and about half the second volume to the press, the undertaking was continued by the two last-mentioned gentlemen; and the edition thus jointly, or rather severally, executed by Theobald, Mr. Seward, and Mr. Sympson, at length appeared in the year 1750. These gentlemen were the first editors of our poets who professed to collate the old copies, to reform the punctuation, and to amend the corruptions of the text. Some attempts also were made to elucidate the obscurities, and enforce the excellencies of their authors. How far we disagree or coincide with them will appear on inspection of the particular passages to which their several observations refer. At present it will be sufficient to declare, that we should have been inclined to entertain a more respectful opinion of their labours, if they had not very early betrayed that confidence which every reader is tempted to repose in an editor, not only by their carelessness, but by the more unpardonable faults of faithlessness and misrepresentation. Their reports of the state of the old copies can never safely be taken on trust, and on examination many of those copies will appear to be both negligently collated, and untruly quoted. Their punctuation also, notwithstanding their occasional self-approbation, is almost as inaccurate as that of the most ancient and rude editions; and their critical remarks have, in our opinion, oftener been well intended, than conceived. Their work, however, has in the main conduced to the illustration of our authors, and we have seized every fair occasion to applaud the display of their diligence, as well as the efforts of their critical acuteness and sagacity. Such of their notes as appeared incontestible, or even plausible, we have adopted without remark; to those more dubious we have subjoined additional annotations; those of less consequence we have abridged; and those of no importance

we have omitted.

In the present edition, it has been our chief aim to give the old text as it lies in the old books, with no other variations, but such as the writers themselves, had they superintended an impression of their works, or eve a corrector of the press, would have made. Yet even these variations, if at all important, have not been made in silence. Notes, however, have been subjoined to the text as briefly and as sparingly as possible; but the lapse of time, and fluctuation of language, have rendered some notes necessary for the purpose of explaining obsolete words, unusual phrases, old customs, and obscure or distant allusions. Critical remarks, and conjectural emendations, have been seldom hazarded, nor has any ridicule been wantonly thrown on former editors, who have only sometimes been reprehended for pompous affectation, and more frequently for want of care and fidelity. Every material comment on these plays has been retained in this edition, though often without the long and ostentatious notes that

first

religiously attributed every observation, critical or philolog author, not wishing to claim any praise as editors, but t endeavouring, as an act of duty, to collect from all quart that might contribute to illustrate the works of Beaumont

To conclude, we have beheld with pity and indignation rade of many modern editors, and we have endeavoured duties without imbibing their arrogance. We are perhap indulge so poor a vanity; at least, we are too much occu readings we think of small importance, and too honest to cla not our own, or to propose readings as corrections that are restorations. The stationer has not disgraced our authors paper; the press, we trust, has done its duty; and the roll very considerable expence, has added its assistance. The c not deceived, are for the most part happily designed, and and will probably be deemed an agreeable addition to the we may with truth assert, that no authors in the English 1 lished at the same price, have so many and so valuable engi

The province of a painter and an editor are directly opp first instance the canvas receives its chief value from the art second the artist derives almost all his consequence from The editor, if he lives, is carried down the stream of time and if the author be excellent, and his commentary judiciou Still shall his little bark attendant sail, Pursue the triumph, and partake the gale.

For our parts, we have been incited to this undertaking from ration of these poets, grounded, as we apprehend, on their s lencies, and a thorough persuasion that the works of B Fletcher may proudly claim a second place in the English to the first than the third, to those of Shakespeare; some being so much in his manner, that they can scarcely be di be the work of another hand.

THE following passage, extracted from Mr. Capell's Notes on Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, is particularly worthy the attention of the readers of all the dramatic performances produced in that age.

Without

adverting to the form of the stage, and the nature of its decorations at that period, several passages in old plays are rather obscure, and sometimes scarcely intelligible.-It were to be wished, indeed, that the ingenious and elaborate commentator had quoted some authorities; but, from his known fidelity and diligence, there is no doubt but that the information here given may be depended on, as genuine and authentic.

"But this [the custom of Shakespeare's stage, of having womens' parts arted by boys] was not the only defect of the stage that these plays were brought out upon; another, and more considerable, was its fittings out: scenes were unknown to it; all its decorations were-certain arras or tapestries in front, and some on the sides, with slips between: the platform was double, the hinder or back part of it rising some little matter above that in the front; and this served them for chambers or galleries, for Juliet to hold discourse from with Romeo, and for Cleopatra in this play to draw up Antony dying*; and this upper stage too, it is probable, was the place of performance for those little engrafted pieces that Shakespeare has given us, as-the Play in Hamlet, Masque in the Tempest, &c.-the persons to whom they were presented, sitting upon the lower. That this was their stage's construction, and continued to be so, (perhaps, as low down as the general reform of it at the restoration, the æra of scenes and of actresses) is evinced beyond doubting, from entries that are found in some plays of rather a later date than the poet's; in which are seen the terms-upper, and lower; and dialogues pass between persons, standing some on the one and some on the other stage: and this form it received from the earliest pieces produced on it,—the Mysteries: for the exhi bition of which, the platform had yet another division; a part beyond the two we are speaking of, and rising higher than them; upon which appeared their Pater Calestis, attended by angels; patriarchs and glorified persons upon that in the middle, and mere men on the lowermost: and hell (a most necessary member of these curious productions, for without there. had been no entertainment for some of their auditors) was represented by a great gaping hole on the side of that platform, that vomited something like flames; out of which their greatest jokers, the devils, ascended at times, and mixed with the men; and into which, they were commonly driven in heaps at the drama's conclusion; but this hell, and the higher division, vaniched with the mysteries; and the stage's form, after that, was as above. The poverty of this apparatus had one very considerable effect upon the persons that wrote for it; the setting of which in its due

This upper stage must have been also made use of in several of the plays of our poets; articularly in Bonduca, Maid's Tragedy, Custom of the Country, Loyal Subject, Chances, Prophetess, Double Marriage, Knight of Malta, Love's Cure, Woman's Prize, Island Priness, Night-Walker, Noble Kinsmen, Masque, Four Plays; and probably in some others.

light