TO THE

READ E R.

T

DE

(Prefixed to the fecond Edition.)

HE want of adherence to the old copies, which has been complained of, in the text of every modern republication of Shakspeare, is fairly deducible from Mr. Rowe's inattention to one of the firft duties of an editor. Mr. Rowe did not print from the earliest and most correct, but from the moft remote and inaccurate of the four folios. Between the years 1623 and 1685 (the dates of the first and laft) the errors of every play, at leaft, were trebled. Several pages in each of these ancient editions have been examined, that the affertion might come more fully fupported. It may be added, that as every fresh editor continued to make the text

"I must not (fays Mr. Rowe in his dedication to the duke of Someriet) pretend to have reflor'd this work to the exactness of the author's original manufcripts; thofe are loft, or, at least, are gone beyond any inquiry I could make; fo that there was nothing left, but to compare the feveral editions. and give the true reading as well as I could from thence. This I have endeavour'd to do pretty carefully, and rendered very many places intelligible, that were not fo before. In fome of the editions, efpecially the laft, there were many lines (and in Hamlet one whole fcene) left out together; thefe are now all fupply'd. I fear your grace will find fome faults, but I hope they are moftly literal, and the errors of the prefs." Would not any one, from this declaration, fuppofe that Mr. Rowe (who does not appear to have confulted a fingle quarto) had at least compared the folios with each other?

of

of his predeceffor the ground-work of his own (never collating but where difficulties occurred) fome deviations from the originals had been handed down, the number of which are leffened in the impreffion before us, as it has been conftantly compared with the moft authentic copies, whether collation was abfolutely neceffary for the recovery of sense, or not. The person who undertook this task may have failed by inadvertency, as well as those who preceded him ; but the reader may be affured, that he, who thought it his duty to free an author from fuch modern and unneceffary innovations as had been cenfured in others, has not ventured to introduce any of his own.

It is not pretended that a complete body of various readings is here collected; or that all the diverfities which the copies exhibit, are pointed out; as near two thirds of them are typographical mistakes, or fuch a change of infignificant particles, as would crowd the bottom of the page with an oftentation of materials, from which at last nothing useful could be felected.

The dialogue might indeed fometimes be lengthened by other infertions than have hitherto been made, but without advantage either to its spirit or beauty; as in the following inftance:

Lear. No.

Kent. Yes.

Lear. No, I fay.

Kent. I fay, yea.

[E3]

Here

Here the quartos add :

Lear. No, no, they would not.

Kent. Yes, they have.

By the admiffion of this negation and affirmation has any new idea been gained?

The labours of preceding editors have not left room for a boast, that many valuable readings have been retrieved; though it may be fairly afferted, that the text of Shakspeare is reftored to the condition in which the author, or rather his first publishers, appear to have left it, such emendations as were absolutely neceffary, alone admitted for where a parti cle, indifpenfably neceffary to the fenfe, was wanting, fuch a fupply has been filently adopted from other editions; but where a fyllable, or more, had been added for the fake of the metre only, which at first might have been irregular, fuch interpolations arc here conftantly retrenched, fometimes with, and fometimes without notice. Thofe fpeeches, which in the elder editions are printed as profe, and from their own conftruction are incapable of being compreffed into verfe, without the aid of fupplemental fyllables, are reftored to profe again; and the meafure is divided' afresh in others, where the mafs of words had been inharmoniously feparated into lines.

The fcenery, throughout all the plays, is regulated in conformity to a rule, which the poet, by his general practice, feems to have propofed to himself. Several of his pieces are come down to us, divided into fcenes as well as acts. Thefe divifions were

probably

probably his own, as they are made on fettled principles, which would hardly have been the cafe, had the task been executed by the players. A change of fcene, with Shakspeare, most commonly implies a change of place, but always an entire evacuation of the stage. The cuftom of diftinguishing every entrance or exit by a fresh scene, was adopted, perhaps very idly, from the French theatre.

For the length of many notes, and the accumulation of examples in others, fome apology may bẹ likewife expected. An attempt at brevity is often found to be the fource of an imperfect explanation. Where a paffage has been conftantly misunderstood, or where the jeft or pleasantry has been fuffered to remain long in obfcurity, more inftances have been brought to clear the one, or elucidate the other, than appear at first fight to have been neceffary. For thefe, it can only be faid, that when they prove that phrafeology or fource of merriment to have been once general, which at present seems particular, they are not quite impertinently intruded; as they may ferve to free the author from a fufpicion of having employed an affected fingularity of expreffion, or indulged himself in allufions to tranfient customs, which were not of fufficient notoriety to deserve ridicule or reprehenfion. When examples in favour of contradictory opinions are affembled, though no attempt is made to decide on either part, fuch neutral collections fhould always be regarded as materials for future critics, who may hereafter apply them with fuccess. Authorities, whether in refpect of words, or things, are not always producible from the most celebrated

writers*, yet fuch circumftances as fall below the notice of history, can only be fought in the jeft-book, the fatire, or the play; and the novel, whofe fashion did not outlive a week, is fometimes neceffary to throw light on those annals which take in the compafs of an age. Thofe, therefore, who would with to have the peculiarities of Nym familiarized to their ideas, muft excufe the infertion of fuch an epigram as best suits the purpose, however tedious in itself;

Mr. T, Warton, in his excellent Remarks on the Fairy Queen of Spenfer, offers a fimilar apology for having introduced illuftrations from obfolete literature. "I fear (fays he) I fhall be cenfured for quoting too many pieces of this fort. But experience has fatally proved, that the commentator on Spenfer, Jonfon, and the reft of our elder poets, will in vain give fpecimens of his claffical erudition, unless, at the fame time, he brings to his work a mind intimately acquainted with thofe books, which, though now forgotten, were yet in common ufe and high repute about the time in which his authors refpectively wrote, and which they confequently must have read. While thefe are unknown, many allu fions and many imitations will either remain obfcure, or lose half their beauty or propriety: "as the figures vanifh when the canvas is decayed."

"Pope laughs at Theobald for giving us, in his edition of SHAKSPEARE, a fample of

all fuch READING as was never read.

But these ftrange and ridiculous books which Theobald quoted, were unluckily the very books which SHAKSPEARE himself had ftudied; the knowledge of which enabled that useful editor to explain to many difficult allufions and obfolete customs in his poet, which otherwife could never have been understood, For want of this fort of literature, Pope tells us that the dreadful Sagittary in Troilus and Creflida, fignifies Teucer, fo celebrated for his skill in archery. Had he deigned to confult an old hiftory, called the Defiruction of Troy, a book which was the delight of SHAKSPEARE and of his age, he wou d have found that this formidable archer, was no other than an imaginary beast, which the Grecian army brought against Troy. If SHAKSPEARE is worth reading, he is worth explaining; and the researches used for so valuable and elegant a purpose, merit the thanks of genius and candour, not the fatire of prejudice and ignorance. That labour, which fo effentially contributes to the fervice of true taste, deferves a more honourable repofitory than The Temple of Dullness."