of ancient readings, the text of this author feems now finally fettled (5)!" To what betjadi ter caufe can we afcribe fuch unfounded affertions than to indolence and temerity? fince, had the ingenious writer compared the old and T stu of prefent editions through a fingle play, he muft neceffaryly have perceived, that all the old copies had NOT been diligently collated, that ancient readings had Nor been judiciously reftored, and that the text is no more, finally fettled at present than it was in the time of Theobald, Hanmer, and and herton: nay, that it is, at large, in the fame state of inaccuracy and corruption in which it was left by mr. Rowe Jou blži Thefe, it may be objected, are merely nega tive and unproved affertions. It is very true. And they who do not think them confirmed in the courfe of the following pages, and will hot give theirfelves the trouble to investigate their truth, are at liberty to disbelieve them. d To publifh the Various readings of the old editions would be a bufynefs of fome labour, and little utility, poi iai (5) Malones pref ce to his Supplement. As As to the notes and conjectures here offered to the public, very little need be faid. Shakfpeare is the God of the writers idolatry, and fhould any one of thefe remarks be thought pertinent or ufeful in the opinion of a single individual who, like him, admires the effufions of this darling child of nature and fancy, whom, age cannot wither, and whofe infinite variety custom cannot ftale, it will be a fufficient gratification to him for the pains beftowed in drawing them up. And if there fhould be a future edition of this favourite, this inimitable author, the writer is not without vanity to hope that the following sheets may ftimulate the editors care and attention to give his text with integrity, judgement, and correctness, •mn bar că confummation Devoutly to be wifh'd; ་ and, which muft of confequence follow, to re+ duce the number of exuberant and impertinent notes (6) & Det snebo 512 The freedom with which every editor has treated his predeceffors precludes the "neceffity From a republication of the laft edition nothing is to be expected. The work will continue, like the cditions of Warburton and Hanmer, to dishonour critic'fn and to infult Shak speare. of of an apology for the liberties taken in the enfuing pages, with the fentiments of fome of our most eminent literary characters. The fuperiority of a commentators rank, however, does not intitle his blunders to refpect. It were to be wifhed that dr. Johnfon had thewn fomewhat lefs partiality to pride of place; for, though he profefses to have treated his predeceffors with candour, Theobald, the best of Shakspeares editors, experiences as much fourrility and injustice at his hands, as Hanmer and Warburton, the worst of them, do deference and respect. For this, however, the 210 learned critic might have his private reafons, which, as they could fcarcely have justifyed his conduct, he did right to conceal. " To controvert the opinions, or disprove the affertions of mr. Steevens, dr. Farmer and mr. Tyrwhitt, men no lefs remarkable" for their learning and genius than for their obliging dispofitions and amiable manners, has been a painful and odious task. But whereever the writer has been under the neceffity of differing from any of these gentlemen either in point of opinion or in point of fact, he will not be found to have exprefsed hisfelf in a manner inconfistent with a due fenfe of obligations and the profoundest respect. Such, at least, was his intention, fuch has been his endeavour, and fuch is his hope. ERRA TA. P. 17. 1. 13. for might read might have. P. 39. I. 15. for wyffyves read wyffves. P. 62. 1. 11. for is, not as-read is not, as-→→ P. 145. I. 14. for the read due. 15. for due read the. P. 221, 1. 26. dele and apologise for. REMARKS REMARK S ON THE LAST EDITION OF SHAKSPEARE. VOLUME THE FIRST. (PROLEGOMENA.) P. 199. (SHAKSPEARES WILL.) The flightest alteration in the name of this great writer is a circumftance of fo much importance to the public, that, although the editors may not have been too hafty in preferring SHAKSPEARE to SHAKESPEARE, it might be wished that a more decifive and lefs equivocal authority than his WILL had been produced to justify and enforce the change. This will, it fhould feem, the poet made in his laft fickness, when he appears to have been fo incapable of paying that attention to the writing of his name which a man in health utually does, that he has actually fubfcribed it two different ways: SHAKSPERE, and SHAKSPEARE. So that we are ftill uncertain which mode to adopt. How negligent, therefor, have the editors been, and how much are they to be blamed, for not procuring batter and more pofitive evidence, if it were to be come at, as B |