^c%.

i,Wf^0^

m»ef.

■^%

mc^nrnk^

!-¥l :^ji;^-

Ex Libris C. K. OGDEN 1

W^*

V-0 ''2.

THE LIBRARY

OF

THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES

-^

v*^

\.

LETTER

TO THE

Rev. RICHARD FARMER, D.D.

MASTER OF EMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE j RELATIVE TO THE EDITION OF

SHAKSPEARE,

PUBLISHED IN M DCC XC. AND SOME LATE CRITICISMS ON THAT WORK.

Bv EDMOND MALONE, Efq.

Alter rixator di lunafape caprina Propugnat, nugis armatus ; /cilicet, ut hoh Sit mthi prima fides, et vere quod placet, ut noH Acriter elatrem, pretium at as altera Jordet, Ho R .

QUEM OPINIO PROPRIiEFERSPICACIiE, <y;A SIBI

VIDETUR ERRORE8 QUOSDAM A NI M A D VERTI SSE, DE STATU MENTIS DETURBAVIT. B. Jonfon.

L O N D O N:

PKTNTEn FOR G. G. J. AND J. Robinson, Paternoster-Rowj T. Payne, at the Meuse-gatk j and R, Faucder, in J^oNn Street.

MDCC xcir.

m

bOVO

A

LETTER

T O

The Rev- Dr. FARMER, &c.

MY DEAR SIR,

TiHOUGH you Iiave long left the prhnrofe path of poetry and criticifm, for more grave and important ftudies, you will, I am confident, very cheerfully fpend an hour with me in tra^ verfing the old Shakfpearian field, where we have fo often expatiated on " the ever-fruitful fubjed'* of our great dramatick poet and his Commentators.

When I firft undertook to give an edition of his Works, it did not appear to me fo arduous a tafk as I found it. After devoting feveral years to their revifal and elucidation, I had the honour to prefent my edition to the publick in November, 1 7 90, and immediately afterwards fee B out

in^f^447

( 2 )

out oiT' a vifit to feme very dear friends in Ire- land, whonn I had not ieen for a long tinne. During my flay there, I was not a little pleafed to learn from every quarter that my work had not been difapproved of by the publick ; and on my return to England laft fummer was ftill more highly gratified by your warm, and I fear too partial, approbation of my la- bours j by that of Mr. Burke, whofe raind is of fuch a grafp as to embrace at once the grcateft and the minuteft objedts, and who, in the midft of his numerous and important avocations, has always found time for the calmer purfuits of philofbphy and polite literature; by that of the moft amiable and judicious friend whom we and the publick have lately had the irrepa- rable misfortune to lofe. Sir Jofhua Reynolds ; of that excellent critick and profound fcholar. Dr. Jofeph Warton j and of many others, whofe eikomiums would ftamp a value on any lite- rary performance. When I mention thefe re- ipedted names, let me fhelter myfelf under the example of the great poet who preceded, me in this undertaking :

« Well-natured Garth inflam*d with early

praife, ** And Congreve lov*d, and Swift endur'd

my lays.'*

With

( 3 )

With this detail, I am fenfiblc, the publick has very little concern j nor is it obtruded on them from any idle vanity, but merely as a neceffary introduftion to the following pages.

The fubjed on which I am now to trouble you, has one very unpleafing circumftance at- tending it ; that I cannot difcufs it without in- troducing myfelf as a principal figure on the canvas. It is, I truft, unneceflary to aflure you, who have known me fo long, that it is the laft fubjea which I fhould have chojen i it has, as you will fee, been forced upon me. However, though from the nature of the difquifition it is impofTible for me to keep wher^ I wifh to remain, in the back ground, I will promife not to detain you long from much more important and intercfting topicks.

Almoft all the copies of my edition having been fold, an anonymous writer, at the end of fifteen months, finding it a fubjed of fufEcient notoriety to procure fome attention to an in- vedive againft it in the form of a pamphlet, has lately thought fit to ifllie one from the prefs, fraught with the ufual materials of hyper- criticifm j that is, duly furnifhed with unblush- ing cavil, falfe argument, and falfe quotation j B 2, with

( 4 )

with

'c -J-- — captious art,

*' And fnip-fnap Ihort, and interruption fnnartj

« And dernonftration thin, and thefes thick,

" And major, minor, and conclufion quick."

, Our late excellent friend. Dr. Johnfon, ufed

to fay, that an author might be fatisfied with

the publick approbation, when his name was

able to cany double. In this refped therefore

this writer lliould feem to have intended me a

compliment, and as fuch I accept it; though

I have not vanity enough to fuppofe that I can

fufkain fuch a heap of rubbifli as has been raked

up, to furniiii the number of pages neceffary

for the occafion-

' I will not ftain my paper by tranfcribing any part of the vulgar ribaldry with which this produdion abounds. Let it reft with the low focieties among whom it has been picked up, and in the bookfeller's warehoufe, where, -with other neglefted trafh, it will long re- -main in undifturbed repofe. But as two or three fa5is have been mentioned, which, how- ever diftorted or difcoloured, have fomething like the femblance, though nothing of the reality, of truth, I fhail detain you for a fhort time, folely with a view of obviating the effedt which is fometimes produced by filent con- tempt and unrefuted mifreprefentation. Our

inimitable

( 5 )

inimitable poet, who on mofl: occafions is our t)eft inflrudior, you remeiDber, advifes us, not to *^ give advantage

" To ftubborn criticks, apt, wtbouf a theme, " For depravation."

The firft fad that I Ihall take notice of, is ' contained in the following paragraph :

" Mr. Malone, in theyear 1780, when pub- lilhing a Supplement to Shakfpeare of plays which he never wrote*, modeftly remarked, that

• This Supplement contained feveral additional pom- ments on the author ; a correft edition of all his poems, then for the firft time faithfully printed from the original co- pies, and illuftrated with notes j and feven plays which had been imputed to him. Thefe I was fo far from publilhing as Shakfpeare 's, that I exprefsly declared in the preface tha° of five of them I did not believe a fingle line to have been written by him ; and my decifion has been fully confirmed by the manufcripts which I have fince difcovered in Dul- >vich College, in which the names of the four authors of Sir John Oldcajile (a play printed in 1600, with Shakfpeare 's

name at full length in the title-page,) are luckily preferved.

See the late edition of Shakfpeare, Vol. [. P. II. Emendations and Additions, p. 317.— The v^mtth meaning, however, as

honeft Sir Hugh E'vans fays, ijuasgood ; for from the words

" A Supplement to Shakfpeare ^//-sj/j nvhich he never nMrote," the reader would naturally conclude, i . that this Supplement contained plays only ; and 2. that the editor was weak enough to believe them to be the produdions of our autjior, -*ind to afcribe to him ivhat he never 'vjrote.

B 3 < by

( 6 )

' by a diligent collation of all the old copies thitherto* difcoveredjand the j jdicious reftoration of ancient readings, the text of this author feemed then finally fettled.' Since that period, however, he has been labouring * with unceafing folicitude,' for the fpace of* eight years,' to con- vince the publick that he had, if not diredly aflerted the thing which was not, at lead gone ^ little further than was confiftent with the exa6t ftate of the cafe. For, if the text had been already diligently collated with all the old copies, why fhould he make fuch a parade of having collated it himfelf ? If it had not been fo collated, why fhould he fay it had ? Thisfadt is therefore manifell, upon Mr. Malone's own evi- dence, that the text of Shakfpeare had never been collated, whether diligently or not, with all or any of the old copies, by any perfon before Mr* Malone."

Twenty fix years have now elapfed fince Mr. Steevens iiTued out propofals for publilh- ing the plays of Shakfpeare, of which in that period he has given the publick three editions, each of them elaborated with his utmoft care and diligence. The year 1766, in which his propofals firft came forth, fliould be doubly dear

* To this quaintnefs a line of Martial may bewell applied: ** — male cum recitas, incipit effe luus."

6 to

( 7 )

to every intelligent reader of this poctj not only as the era when that gentleman firft un- dertook the arduous tafk of illuftrating his dra- mas by the contemporary writers, a tafk which he executed with great ability, but becaufe the moft conclufive Effay * that ever appeared on a fubjeft of criticifm, was then written, and the long-agitated queftion concerning the learn- ing of Shakfpeare was for ever decided. In the year 1780, fourteen years after Mr. Stee- vens's work was firft undertaken, and two years after the fecond edition of it had appeared, I pub- lifhed a Supplement to that edition in two vo- lumes, in the preface to which is the para- graph above quoted. Having a very high opinion X)f the diligence, acutenefs, and learning of Mr. Steevens, to whom all the admirers of Shak- fpeare have great obligations, I in common with the reft of the publick confidered myfelf as much indebted to his labours ; and therefore did not then hefitate to fay that the text of the author on which he had been above twelve years employed, feemed to be finally fettled. If I had ufed a ftill ftronger phrafe, fome allowance might be inade for the partiality of friendftiip, and for that rcfpeft which is due from every fcholar to ac-

* An Ejfay on the Learnittg of Shakfpeare, by the Re\'. Richard Farmer; publifiied in January, 1767 ; reprinted, with great additions, in the fame year.

B 4 knowledged

( 8 )

knowlcdged abilities and learning. But I claim no fuch allowance i for I faid only what I flridtly and fincerely thought. Not choofing however to fpeak confidently and pofitively of a matter concerning which I could not be certain, I ufed the words — ''feems now finally fettled." I had not then undertaken to publifli an edition of Shak- fpearc, nor regularly collated a fingle play of that author with the authentick copies. Whea my admiration of his innumerable beauties led me to undertake an edition of his works, I then thought it my duty to exert every faculty to make it as perfeft as I could j and in order to enfure a genuine text, to collate word by word every line of his plays and poems with the original and authentick copies j a tafk equal- ly new and arduous. By this laborious procefs I obtained one thousand six hundred and

FIFTY FOUR EMENDATIONS of the textj that

is, I found that the text of this author, not- withftanding all the well-employed diligence and care of the late editors in correfting the errors of former copies, and rcjedling the adul- terations introduced in the fecond folio and the fubfequent impreffions, ftill remained corrupted in fixteen hundred and fifty four places, and I corrected it accordingly ; not as that word is fometimes underftood, by capricious innova- pon, or fanciful conjefture, but by thereftora-

tion

( 9 )

tion of the poet's words, as they are found in the only copies of authority.

We are now, however, told, that from this collation but little advantage has been derived ; and, as a -proof of this aflertion, it is ftated, that

in collating ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND LINES (fof

fuch nearly is the number of lines in thefe plays) I have not always been equally attentive ; that in this tedious labour (wonderful to tell!) I have been guilty of ei^t errors ! ! fo that it appears, that I have only correfted the plays of this author in one thoufand fin hundred and fifty-four plafes, and might have corredted them in one thoufand fix hundred andfixty-two. Of thele eight addi- tional reftorations I fhall very gladly avail my- felf in the quarto edition of this poet's works, which I am now about to put to the prefs * ;

and

• While foreign countries can boaft of magnifipent impref- fions of the works of their celebrated authors, a fplendid edition of the Plays and Poems of our great dramatick poet, with the illuftrations which the various editors and commen- tators have furnifhed,is yet ^.dejiderattim'm Englifli literature. I had ten years ago fketched out a plan for fuch an editiop, and intend immediately to carry a fimilar fcheme into ex- ecution, it is almoft unneceffary to add, that the fame gra- tuitous zeal whiph induced me to undertake the former edi- tion, will accompany this rev ifal of it ; and that no dili- gence

( JO )

and if from any quarter, however unrefpe<5table, others fhall be added to that number, they fhall be accepted in like manner; but I do not expedt that will be the cafcj as it is probable, if any fur- ther difcoveries of the fame kind could have been made, they would have been pointed out. Bum fiknty clamant, — Dr. Johnfon has juftly obferved, that a difcurfivc mind cannot be al- ways kept fteadily fixed on evanefcent truth. I never flattered myfelf fo far as tofuppofe, that in this long work " the indifpofed and fickly fit" fhould not fometimes render me unequal to the tafk ; that what happens to all mankind, occa- fional languor and temporary inability, (hould not affe6t me like other mortals : I refolved, however, to make the beft exertions in my power ; and fometimes flattered myfelf that by this procefs, which had never before been at- tempted, and a long acquaintance with the writers of Shakfpeare's age, I ftiould be able to improve on all the former editions of this author ; but in the moment of the mofl: fan- guine hope I could not fuppofe that in this col-

gcnce or care of mine {hall be wanting to render this new- edition of my work, which is to be ornamented with engrav, ings, and to be printed in fifteen volumes, royal quarto, wor- thy of our greateft Englifh poet. — The firft two volumes arc intended to be publilhed next year.

lation

( " )

lation my vigilance Ihould have been over- watched only in eight inftances ; nor, without fo decifivc a proof as the nulignant induftry of a petty adverfary has flirnifhed, could I have believed it. I fay eight inftances ; for though thirteen over-fights have been enumerated, ^ve of them have no foundation in truth.

I. The firft of thefe is in the Two Gentlemen of Verona, Vol. I. p. 154- Speed. Item, flie cdni few. Launce, That's as much as to fay, can flie fo?

« Both the folios," fays this redoubted cri- tick, " rC2id--^ow, which is manifeftly re- quifite. Probably, however, the editor may fuppofe/^ and/o to have the fame pronunci- ation."

With the fecond folio, here cited, or any other corrupted copy of our author, I have no concern. The firft and only authentick copy of this play printed in folio, in 1623, (for there is no quarto,) reads, if letters are to be enumerated, not fow, but /owe. When a quibble is intended, the word in the old copy is often intentionally mifpelt, in order

to

( 12 )

to mark It more plainly to the reader. In the prefentinftance, however, this may not have been the cafe, for the word/ew was varioufly fpelt in Shakfpeare's time, and Milton writes it, though improperly,/ow. Throughout my edi- tion, as is mentioned in my preface, I have not adhered to ancient fpclling, but adopted that which is now generally ufed, and which I con- fidered as juft. I have done fo in this inftance. With refpe6t to the fimilarity of found between few and/o, there can be no doubt, from the paf- fage before us, but that the two words were pronounced alike in Shakfpeare's days, as they are at prefent by all who do not deviate from re- ceived modes from affeftation or ignorance.

2. Vol. II. p. 71. Meajurefor Meajure,

" Let me hear you fpeak further ^ " Both editions — farther ^ a word entirely different from further^ though too frequently confounded with it by ignorant perfons."

Here is a queftion merely of propriety in fpelling, and whenever 1 have any doubts on that fubjeft I fhall take counfel from fome other preceptor than this critick. In the authentipk copy of 1623, the word is very frequently

fpelt

( '3 )

{'ptltfariher, for which, on the ground already mentioned, I have given furiberj bccaufe that appears to me to be the true mode of fpelling this word; and Dr. Johnfon, whofe authority is fomewhat higher than this anonymous wri- ter's, was of this opinion *. The two words were undoubtedly ufed indifcriminately by Shakfpeare, who certainly did not give himfelf much concern about grammatical difquifi- tions.

3. The third fuppofed error, for which I am not anfwerable as an overfight in collating the old copies, is in Vol. II. p. 151. The Comedy of Errors.

" If it be, fir, pray eat none of it."

It is a mere error of the prefs. The pro- noun 7(1 pray, eat none of it,) I find, on looking into my papers, was inadvertently omitted by the compofitor at the prefs, as the metre of the line fhews.

4. Vol. 11. p. 190. Ibidem.

" And much different from the man he was."

"The folios (we are told) read — And much, much different."

* See his Z)/V7. in v. further.

The

( 14 )

The fingle remark here necefTary to be made is, that thefaSf is not Jo, The only authentick copy of this play, the folio of 1623, which is now before me, exhibits the line as I have printed it.

5. Vol. II. p. 477. A Mtdjummer-Nighfs Dream.

" Through the foreft have I gone, •* But Athenian /^««^ I none."

« M the old editions (we are again in- flruaed) read— /»^."

Here we have another inftance of dogmatical and prefumpuious ignorance ; and the fame fhort anfwer will ferve. 'The fa^ is not Jo. The copy of A Midfummer-NigWs Dreamy printed by Fifher, which is in fome places preferable to that printed by Roberts, which laft appears to have been followed in the folio, reads— "found I none," as I have printed the line.

The eight reftorations which I am now en- abled to add to thofe I have already made in the text, are thefe : In Vol. 1. p. 80, 1 have in- advertently followed former editors in printing "lUhou be pleas'd," for—" if^'oz^ be pleas'd i" in p. 140 of the fame volume, " more precious," for — ''moft precious i" in p. 1 5 5, " I cannot help,"

for

( '5 )

{or-^"camoi /help j" in p. 174, 'Uhis paper," " for /^/Vpaperj" in Vol. II. p. 70, jhouldy for Jhall\ in p. 143, dtfpos'd, for beftow'd -^ m p. 157, " Ay, let none enter," for—" Ay, and let none enter i" and in p. 190, therefore^ for thereof.

It is not an incurious fpeculation to confider how many errors the writer to whom I am in- debted for the above lift, would have been guilty of in collating and printing one hundred thoufand lines. He tells us himfelf that fome remarks which he publifhed a few years ago, " have been reprefented as the moft incorred publication that ever appe ared, and that, from the lift of errata in the book itfelf, and the ad- ditional one given in another pamphlet, the charge does not fcem to be without foundation." We have feen that in collating thirteen paflages he has committed, if not three^ certainly two errors ; if therefore he had undertaken to collate one hundred thoufand lines, his inaccuracies according ^ to the moft moderate calculation would only have amounted to about fifteen

THOUSAND.

The next high crime and mifdemeanor with which the late editor of Shakfpeare is charged,

is.

( i6 )

is, that in his preface he has proved the editor of the fecond folio, printed in 1632, to have been entirely ignorant of Shakfpeare's phrafe- ology and metre, and the book itfelf of no au- thority whatfoever j yet moft ftrangely and in- confiftently he has adopted fome emendations of the text from that corrupted copy. To the firft part of this charge I plead guilty, but am at a lofs to know under what penal ftatute it fliould be clafled. To this minute critic indeed, who alfo publifhed in 1783 fome remarks on Mr. Steevens's edition of Shakfpcare, (in which that gentleman. Dr. Johnfon, and others, were treated with juft as much decency and relpcft, as our late ingenious and learned friend Mr. Warton had been in another forgotten pam- phlet,) to him it was a very ferious grievance i for he appears to have fet up for a hypercritick on Mr. Steevens, without a fingle quarto copy of our author's plays, and, I fufped, without being pofiefled of the only authentick folio edition. If that was the cafe, to depreciate the vitiated folio on which he was generally obliged to depend, was to rob him of the only tool with which lie could carry on his trade, and to place him in the Hate in which poor Parfon Adams would have found himfelf, if his hoft had convinced him that his foiitary half-guinea was a counterfeit.

With

( '7 )

With relped to the other part of the charge, it is certainly true that while almoft every page of the fecond folio is disfigured by printer's blunders, and arbitrary and capricious devia- tions from the original copy, th; editor of that book has in a few places correfted fuch mani- feft errors of the prefs in the elder copy, as could not efcape a perfon of the moft ordinary capacity, who had been but one month conver- fant with a printing- houfe. Of thefe corredlions, fuch as they are, (to the knowledge of which the objeftor was led by my own notes,) a pom- pous lift has been made from the late edition^ for the purpofe of (hewing an inconfiftency in the editor : but in the courfe which 1 have fol- lowed, when the matter is truly ftated and exa- mined, the fmalkft inconfiftency will not be found.

To afcertain whether the fecond complete edition of our author's plays was authentick, which had never been attempted before, was, in forming the text of thofe plays, of the higheft confequence. Hence it was that I employed a good deal of labour on that point, as may be feen by turning to my preface, where the examination of that queftion takes up no lefs than twenty-three pages *i and I may ven-

* Pref, pp. xix — xlli,

C ture

( «8 )

turc to fay, without any fear of being refuted, that I have proved^ not by dogmatical aflertion, but by a minute enumeration of particular paf- fages, that book to be of no authority whatfo- ever. How fo wild a notion as that it was of any authority, (hould ever have been entertained by any one but the writer whofe mifreprefen- tations 1 am now expofing, is perfeftly un- accountable. The fecond edition of a printed book can only derive authority from its being printed with the author's laft corredions, or from fomemore correct manufcript of his work than that from which the firft edition was print- ed. From whence Ihould the authority of the lecond folio be derived ? We know that Shakfpeare did not corrcdl his manufcripts for the prefs, even for the firft edition v/hich was publiflied in 1623 -.—where then were the corrections which were made in the fecond> found? Can it be believed, that the printer or editor, wiio did not, as I have proved incon- trovertibly, examine one of the quarto printed plays*, which were then common in every hand, Ihould have hunted after the manufcripts from which the firft folio was in fome cafes

* Pref. ta the late edition of Shakfpeare, p. xxvii» note 4.

printed,

( «9 )

printed, and which it is highly pfobable w6re deftroyed at the prefs ; or tliat any diligence Ihoiild at the end of nine years have recovered their foiled and mutilated fragments ? Such i fuppofition is as wild and chimerical, as many of that editor's arbitrary interpolations. Thii fancy Ihould feem to have originated frorh iti having been thrown out in fome modern pub- lication, the tide of which I have fbrgotteii, that Heminge and Condell, the editors of the firft folio, were probably likewife editors of the fe- cOnd, which appeared in 163a; an aflertion tvhich, before the two books had been minutely Examined and compared, and before the time of their refpe£tiVe deaths had been afcertained, rtiight pafs current enough j but unluckily for this theory, after a long fearch in the Preroga- tive Office, I difcovered the wills of both thefc aftors, and have fhewn that Gondell died in 1627, and Heminge in the year 1630*.^^ On this fubjeft, however, we are not obliged to have recourfe to inferences from dates, or tc> conjedure, in order to prove that all the cor- reftions, emendations, or interpolations of that copy (by whatever nam.e they may be called) were arbitrary and capricious. The nume-

*HiJiorical Account of the Englijh Jlage^ pp. 1 90. 199,

C 2 rous

( 20 )

rous proofs which IcoUeded for this purpole, were given ex ahundanti. Ifinflead of fliewing that the editor, not knowing that the double comparative was the common phrafeology of Shakfpeare's time, had fubftituted for it a more grammatical form, giving us morejafe, more wor- thy and 7mre rich, for more Jafer, more worthier and more richer \ that he did not know that the double negative was the common and authori- zed language of that age * j that when the be - ginning' of a line in the elder copy was acci- dentally omitted at the prefs , inftead of at- tempting to cure the defed in the right place, he added fome words at the end of the line, and by his addition made the paflage nonfenfe f; j that he was utterly ignorant of his author's elliptical language, as well as of his metre j — ^if inftead of all thefe proofs and many others to the fame point, I had produced only one of them, it would have been fufficient for my purpofe, and the old adage— -^;; uno difce omnes would hav^ fupplied the reft.

* As In The Comedy ofErrorSy A61 III. fc. ii. ** Nor to her bed no homage do I owe ;"^ inftead of which we have in the fecond folio,

" Nor to her bed a homage do I owe.**

+ Pref. to the late edit. p. xxxi,

Notwith-

( ^' )

Notwithftanding, however, all that I have now ftated, you know there are fome men in the world, who will not relinquifh their old mumpfimus i who when once they have taken up a particular notion, adhere to it with unconquerable pertinacity, and cannot be ar- gued out of it: With fuch men, neither the de- cifive circumftance I havejuft now mentioned, (the death of our poet's friends, Heminge and Condcll, before the end of 1 630,) nor the unanfwerable proofs which I have accumu- lated of the ignorance and temerity of the editor of the fecond folio, will have the fmallefl: weight, or at all depreciate its credit: and if they ihould ever be allowed to fcribble in the mar- gin of Shakfpeare, notwithftanding thefe ac- cumulated proofs we Ihould without doubt be reminded, whenever occafion offered, that " Such is the reading of that moft excellent and invaluable book the fecond folio edition of our author's plays; a reading which Mr. M. has not been afhamed fo own that he has adopted, though he has exprefsjy denied the au^ thenticjty of the book".

And now let me add a word or two cr^ the

fubjcft of inconfiftency. Though I proved

this book of no authority whatfoever, does it

therefore follow that I was precluded from

C 3 adopting

( 11 )

adopting the few emendatiops of manifeft errors of the prefs, which, amidft fome thoufand in- novations and corruptions, were made by the editor; 9jt)fX which, if they had not been made by him, would unqueftionably have been made by fome other perfon? The plan which I adopted for my edition, as far as relates to the text, was very fimple. I began by afcertaining what were the authentick copies. I then formed my te:^t upon thofe copies; from which (with the exception mentioned in my prefece) I never knowingly deviated without apprizing the rea- der by a note. All emendations therefore which were admitted, from whatever quarter taken, are regularly afcribed to him by whom they were made -, a piece of juftice which had not been done in former editions : and neither the caprice of an editor or commentator, or his general inability for his tafk, prevented me from adopting corredions fuggefted by him, if they were manifeftly right. Thus, fome emenda- tions have been taken even from Pope and Hanmer, as well as from the editor of the fe^ cond folio ; though all thefe editors have with almoft equal licentioufnefs corrupted the au- thor's text ; but they are adopted, not becaufe their books are of any authorityy but becaufe the emendations themfelves are evidently juflj

for

( 23 )

for the editor of the fecond folio, as foon as his book is proved not to be authentick, can rank only by the fide of any other conjeaurer, com- mentator, or verbal critick. And on the fame ground, if the moft obfcure and contemptible pamphleteer (hould fuggeft ahappy correftion of any defperate paffage, manifeftly corrupt, to the propriety and reftitude of whkh every in- telligent reader muft at once affent, it would have a claim to attention, however httle refpeft fhould be due to the quarter from whence it came With how much caution however 1 have proceeded in this refped, my book will ftiew.

If the fecond folio had been of any authority, then all the capricious innovations of that copy (in which defcription 1 do not include the in- numerable errors of the prefs) muft have been adopted ; but being once proved not to be au- thentick, then in the cafe of a paflfage undoubt- edly corrupt in the original and authentick co- pie, we are at liberty to admit an emendation Lifted by any later editor or commentator, iffneater and more plaufible corredion than that furnilhed by the fecond folio j and this I have done more than once.

C 4

On

( 24 )

On comparing two of the quarto editions of King Richard III, I found that there were in the latter no lefs than twenty-fix errors of omif- fion ; and indeed errors of omiflion are, I believe, more frequent than almoft any other in the ancient copies of this author. I have proved in various inftances, that when a word was omitted or corrupted in the firft folio, the editor of the fecond either left the paflage as he found it, or cured the defect at random, and according to his fancy, in thofe plays of which we have quarto copies, where the true word, which in fadt was omitted or corrupted, may be found.* There cannot therefore be the fmalleft doubt that all the emendations made by this editor in the other plays alfo, of which there are no quarto copies, were merely con- jeftural. Being fuch, they ftand precifely on the fame ground with the emendations fug- gefted by any later editor or commentator ; and as they are often very injudicious in confe- quence of the editor's extreme ignorance of Shakfpeare's phrafeology and metre, they ftand frequently on a worfe ground, and have a lefs title to be adopted.

♦ Pref. to the late edition, pp. xiv. xv. xxvii. n. 4 ; x-xx. xxxi.

The

( ^5 )

The few correftlons which have been taken from that copy, on the principle juft now mentioned,* have been pompoufly difplayed i

alift

• Such as, in The Tempejf,

" fuch ijlandertf*

In The Two Gentlemen of Verona,

*♦ and I a (Keep.'*

^^^ *' and J^eep,"

Ibidtm. " you have tejiern'd mc.'*

for " you have cejiern'd mc.'*

In Meafurefor Mea/ure,

*' The princeJy Angdo." for *' The prenzi'e Angela."

nu, *' ache, penury, and imprlfonmeat."

lor " ^^he, perjury, and imprifonment."

Jbid, " was affianced to her by oath,

™^ " was affianced to her oath.

In The Comedy of Errors,

" Gave helpful welcome .'»

for * • G ave healthful welcome -*. » '

Ibid .c And as a bed V\\ take thee, and there lie '» jullead of - And as a bud. Sec"

Ibid.

( a6 )

a lift of them having been coUeded from my own volumes, without the aid of which it docs

not

Uid, '* Mafter, iOoado— ." infteadof" Mafter, ////« — '*

In As you like it, «c - that which had too muth" jjjy *t that which had too «»«/?.**

Ibtd, ** Let me ^f better acquainted mth thee, for " Let me better acquainted with thee.

In The Taming of the Shrew » ** Were fhe as rough — ." for ♦« Werefhe/iasrough— ."

Jbid, " As much news as thou tarlt.''* for ** As much news as luUt thouJ"

Ibid. " Whither away, and nvhere is thy abode. ' ' ^ for *' Whither away, and nuhither is thy abode."

In MVi laell that ends 'well,

t( captious and inienible fieve —

fQj. •€ . captious and intemible fieve."

In Tijuelfth Night, " Let thy tongue /««^ with arguments of flate. for ** Let thy tongue langer, &c.

In Machethy

tt before thy here-approach."

fo, *. beforez/^O'^"^ ^PP''"^^*^' j„

( 27 )

not appear that it could have been made, at leaft it never was made before the late edition was

publiihed.

In King Johitt

" — — to hurt his mafler, no man elfe.** inftead of *' — — . to hurt his mafter, no mans elfe.**

Ih Kmi Henry Fill. ** Good man, thofe joyful tears ftiew thy true heart," inftead of ** Good man, thofe joyful tears Ihew thy true bearti.^*

A few more emendations of nearly the fame kind might be added, which together with the above are regularly noticed in the late edition. The interpolations, omifGons, and corruptions of every kind in the fecond folio, (of which the fiftieth part has not been noticed) amount, on the other hand, to federal thoufands,

I may add, that of the very few emendations fome- what lefs obvious than the above, which I have admitted, and which do not, I think, amount to fix, I find every day fome reafon to doubt. Juft as njy edition was ifTuing from the prefs, I found that with the other modern edi- tors I had improperly adopted a word which had beea unneceflarily fupplied by this editor, from his not attend- ing to Shakfpeare's elliptical language. The paffage i? in A Mi d/ummer ^Night's Dream, Ad 1. fc. i.

" Ere I will yield my virgin patent up " Unto his lordfhip, whofe unwifhed yoke *' My fouj confents not to give fove reign ty.'»

1. e.

( 28 )

publilhed. By turning over the pages of my work, as I have conllantly noticed from whence every emendation was taken, this lift was eafily formed j but it has been exhibited with that inac- curacy which might have been expeftedi for in The Merchant of Venice^ Ad II. fc. iii. I am re- prefented as having adopted a corrupt reading found in the fecond folio, (" If a chriftian did not play the knave, and get thee," &c.) though I have exprefsly written a note to fhew that this reading was the offspring of ignorance in the

i. e. to give fovereignty /<?. See Append, to the late edition, p. 577. Here the fecond folio reads— /o whofe univijh*<i yoke, drc. and we are told it is a moft valuable corredlion. — So I have incautioufly, with the other modern editors, accepted, from the fame book, "heady murder," in K. Henry V. inftead of" headly murder," the corrupt reading of the old copy J but the true reading is un- doubtedly— deadly murder. So, in Macbeth :

" With twenty morial murders on their crowns."

And in Titus Andronicus a word which has been fup- plied by the fame editor, and too haftily accepted, has this moment caught my eye :

•• Was there none elfe in Rome to make a ftale of—.'*

Of, which is not found in the old copy, was intro- dnced from the fame inadvertence which led to the cor- ruption of the pafiage above quoted from A MidJ'ummer' Night'' s Dream. See late cuit. Vol. VII. p. 128, n, 8 ; Vol. VIII. p. ^77, n. 3 ; arid Vol. IX, p. 469, n. 3.

tciitor

( 29 )

editor of that book i in K. John, Ad II. fc. ii. I

am reprefented as having adopted a corrupt

reading introduced by the fame editor, — « run

on," inftead of the authentick reading — roam on ;

in a paflage in Kitig Henry V, Ad III. fc. i. I

am untruly reprefented as reading with the

fame copy,—" You nobleji Englifh ;" and ftill

further, (fave reverence, as our author fays, of

tht word,) to fliew the amazing acutenefs and

unerring accuracy of this hypercritick, the paf-

fage is ftated as being in the Firll Part of King

Henry IV. as another paflage which is quoted

from Meajurefor Meajure, is to be found in The

Comedy of Errors.

As a few trifling emendations made by the ignorant editor of the fecond folio, have been adopted, fo on the principle already ftated the very few obfervations of this Remarker that were entitled to any notice, have been admitted into the late edition. Thefe adopted remarks are to be found, fays their author, « in Vol. II. II, 256, 491, 507 i HI. 27, 77, 316, 394 . IV.' 497> 504; VI. 146, 273 i V. 459; \whkh IS correaiy placed after Vol. VI.^ VIII. 634." And here we have another fpecimen of this Re- marker's extraordinary accuracy ; for lo ' nei- ther in p. 256 of Vol. II. nor in p. 316 of

Vol.

( 3° )

Vol. III. is there any thing of his j and ih p. 27 of Vol. III. I am fo far from adopting his comment, that I have maintained a pofition di- rectly fubverfive of it.

I (hall now, my deaf Sir, trouble yOil with a very few more words.- — In The Two Gentle- men of Verona y p. 120, I have iftferted two notes of my late moft refpedlable friend Mr. Tyrrwhitt, in which he proves that Shaklpeaffc fometimes takes a liberty in extending certain words to complete the meafure.* Thus, in The Comedy of Errors,

" Thefe are the parents to thefe children.'*

" where, (fays he,) fome editors, being unne* cefTarily alarmed for the metre, have endea- voured to help it by a word of their own,— <

*• Thefe plainly are the parents to thefe children."

" So, (he adds,) country is made a trify liable.

T. N. Aa. 1. fc. ii. " The like of him. Know'ft thou this country f* Rememhrance, quadrifyllable.

T. N. Aa. I. fc. i. <' And lading in her fad remembrance,''

* Mr. Upton had made the fame remark. See his Cri- tical Obfewations o« Shakfpeare, ad edit. p. 372.

Angry,

( 31 )

yingrfy trifyllable. Timon, A6t III. k, v. ** But who is man, that is not angry." Henryy trifyllable. Rich. III. Ad. II. fc. iil.

" So flood the ftate when Henry the Sixth "

2 Henry VI. Ad. II. k. ii. " Crown*d by the nanne o{ Henry the Fourth.*' And fo in many other paflages, Monjirous, trifyllable. Macb. Ad. IV. fc. vi. " Who cannot want the thought ho w»!w»/?/-^i/j—."

Othello, Ad. II. fc. iii. ** *Tis monfirous. lago, who began it ?'* England, trifyllable. Rich. II. Ad.IV. fc. i. " Than Bolingbroke return to England" Noblery trifyllable. Coriol. Ad. III. fc. ii. " You do the nol>ler. Cor. I mule my mother— ."

It would be quite unneceflary to add that Shakf- peare intended that the words children, country, monjlrous, fhould in thefe places be pronounced. childeren,comtery,monJierQus, if the oppugnerof this dodrine had not had the folly to reprefent fuch a notion as chimerical and abfurdi imagininc- him- felf (as it fhould feem) fupremely comical, when 6 he

( 32 )

he exhibits words of this kind at full length,— Engle-andy noble-evy wrangle-ingi/wor-en, a-ruffJS, how-ersy &c. Had he been at all acquainted with our elder poets, he would have known that this pronunciation was fo common, that, words formerly having been frequendy fpelt by the ear, we often find thefe words written as Shaklpeare ufed them i/owery bower ffer, Sec.

The inftances given above are but a few of thofe which Mr. Tyrwhitt has coUefted, to prove a pofition which is incontrovertible. He might have produced many more. Thus, in ^he Two Gentlemen of Verona^ A6t. II. fc. iv.

" And that hath dazzled my reafon's light ; — '*

where the ignorant editor of the fecond folio, not perceiving that dazzled was ufed as a trifyl- lable, (dazzle-ed) has departed from the original copy, and reads—

" And that hath dazzlcd/o my reafon's light."

Again, in Coriolanusy A61. I. fc. ix.

" As you have been j that's for my country.**

And had he not chofen to confine himfelf to words in which /, or r, is fubjoined to another confonant, the following inftances of words ex- tended for the fake of the metre, might have been added:

In

( 33 )

I/i The Comedy ofErrorSy Aft. v. ic. i. *' This week he hath been heavy, y^^/^r, fad."

(where in the original copy we find the word

four written as Shakfpearc intended it to be

pronounced,— ^ze;^r ; ) and in the fanne play,

"I'll meet you at that place fome hour, hence.'*

for which in the fecond folio we have

" ril meet you at that place fome hour, Jir, hence."

Again, in K, John, Ad. I. fc. i.

" Kneel thou down, Philip, but rife more great."

Again, in All's mil that Ends Well, A6b. II. fc. iii.

" And is not like ihtftre. Honours thrive — ".

In all thefe cafes, this hypercritick thinks he has completely overturned the dodlrine con- tended for, by writing the words at full length, — dazzle-ed, comte-ry,Jou-er,fi-er, &c. a Se- cies of confutation entirely new. Chauceriz- ing more, and exhibiting it thus, — mo-re^ he feems to think extremely humorous. The old Englifh name, Gore, and the furname of a no- ble family, Gower, might have taught him D better.

( 34 )

better. Mere and pour as eafily become mo-ef" and pow-erj as /our and hour become fow-er and how-er-, and arm, by a vulgar provincial pro- nunciation not yet wholly difufed becomes a-runtf as eafily as alarm is converted into ala- rum 5 two words that undoubtedly had the fame etymology. — But of thefe verbal dif- quifitions enough.

Let us now examine the complaint to which thefe notes of Mr. Tyrwhitt's have given birth. ** The editor" [i. e. Mr. M.] we are told, « has inferted both Mr. Tyrwhitt's notes, without taking notice of the conclufive reply already made to the latter." This reply, I mud in- form you, appears to have been made by this fagacious remarker himfelf. Hinc ilia lacryma. —But how ftands the fa6t ? The comedy of ^he Two Gentlemen of Verona was printed in the year 1786. It fhould feem therefore not to have been a crime of very great magnitude not to have fubjoined to Mr. Tyrwhitt's note a reply to it which was made two years after- wards, viz. in 1788. It might however, we ihall perhaps be told, have been inferted in the Appendix. But unluckily to this there was an unfurmountablc objeftion j which was, that the editor had originally refolvcd not to encum- 6 ber

( 35 )

ber his page with any ufelefs comment, and the conclujive reply in queftion appeared to him unworthy of notice.

Mr. Tyrwhitt's remark, which I have in part recited, makes it unneceflary for me to take any further notice of the unfounded obfervations that have been made relative to the licence which Shakfpeare has occafionally taken in his metre. For that licence, which it Ihould be remembered he has taken in common with his contemporaries, he alone is anfwcrable. If an editor in exhibiting his works has religioufly adhered to the original and authentick copies, admitting with the greateft caution occafional corredtions of manifeft errors, he has done his duty, as far as concerns the text; and need give himfclf litde concern about the illiberal cen- fures of thole who, like the prefent hypercritick, from ignorance of the poet's metre arraign his editor, for not having in various inftances *' en- deavoured to help it by a word of his own" or by that which would have been equally impro- per, an interpolation of Pope or Hanmer, or the editor of the fecond folio.

The anonymous writer, who has occafioned

my prefent addrefs to you, feems to think that

D 3 he

( 36 )

he has an cxclufive privilege to all the nonfenfe to which the commentaries produced by the late editors of Shakfpeare have given rife. On this ground, a remark in anfwer to one of Dr. Johnfon's in the firft aft of Troilus and Cref- Jiddy having been flightly noticed in the late edition, this monopolizer will have it that he muft have been meant; and no fuch remark being in faft found in his book, with his wonted decorum he charges the editor with forgery. But ftrange as it may appear, moft true it is, that there are others now living capable of yrriting remarks on Shakfpeare and his editors, befide himfelf, though not with fuch a total difiregard of decency j and that the obfervation in queftion appeared among fome Remarks on Mr. Steevens's edition, which were pub^ lifhed in a mifcellaneous volume, in 1785.

One other paflage only of this elegant and modejl performance remains to be noticed. In the firft volume of the late edition of Shak- fpeare I have mentioned that a pamphlet, which is now avowed by this writer as his produftion, was fupprefled after its original pub- lication, from mcdejiy as it fhould feem; and that afterwards it was once more given to the world by its author. Nothingj fays the fond

parent

( %7 )

parent, can he more incorreSf than this Jiatement, The truth is, that after a few copes had got abroad, the further /ale was delayed, for fpcial furpo/esy for a week, at the end of which the publication was continued. — Such, I think, is tlie fubftance of this ^if, for fo this writer choofes to denominate fome of his fhrewd and faga- cious remarks, though he does not deal much either in cranks or wanton wiles. The differ- ence between htm^ fupprejfed for a certain time, and the fale being delayed, after the original publica- tion, for a week, is not very eafily difcovered. The modejiy, however, afcribed to the author, it muft be owned, he utterly difavows.— .The grievance ftated on this occafion muft imme- diately remind you of that complained of by the well-known Edmund Curl, who faid Mr. Pope had treated him very unfairly in telling the publick that he had been tofs'd in a blarir- ket, when all the world knew that he had only been tofs'd in a rug.

Though from a very careful perufal of many contemporary writers, I was enabled to make very large additions to the 'former comments on our author, and took at leaft as much pains in illuftradng his obfcurities as in ^fcertaining his text, you will obferve that

I have

( 38 )

I have not taken notice of any remarks that have been made on the commentaries which I had the honour of fubmiting to the publick in my late edition. While I was em- ployed in preparing them for the prefs, I gave the various fubjedbs treated of, the ftridleft at- tention. They are before the publick, and by its judgment they mull ftand or fall. I Ihall not enter into any difcuflion or controverfy with " occafional criticks" or " criticks by pro- fefllon," in order to fupport them.— It is curious that what Dr. Warburton faid near fifty years ago, Ihould be ftill true of the greater part of the criticifms to which the la- bours of his fucceflbrs have given rife : "—as to all thofe things which have been publifhed under the titles of Ejfays, Remarks j ObfervationSy &c. on Shakfpearey' — they " are abfolutely be- low a ferious notice.*"

I have many apologies to. make for having taken up fo much of your time, and will now releafe you. I cannot, however, conclude, without noticing one other charge brought againft the late editor of Shakfpeare, which is

* Mr. Tyrwhitt's Obfer'vations publifhed in 1766, and Mr. Mafon's Ccmrnents in 1785, are an exception.

perfedly

#

( 29 )

perfeftly novel « The reciprocal good opinion" (we are told) "which the publick and Mr. Malone appear to entertain of each other, does both parties infinite honour." It IS, I believe, the firft time that the good opinion of the publick has ever been ffated as a matter of reproach to him who has had the good fortune to obtain it. If by my hum- ble labours I had any tide to fuppofe the pub- lick had been pleafedand benefited, I Ihould confider myfelf as having obtained the beft reward which it has to bellow, or the fons of literature ought to afpire to.— To have me- rited publick approbation, mufttoan ingenuous mind ever afix)rd a pleafure which the cavils of cnticifm cannot diminifh; and which no- thing can fo much augment as the difappro-

bation of the Ignorant, the envious, the petulant, and the vain.

I am, my dear Sir,

Your very affedlionate friend. And humble fervant,

EDMOND MALONE.

Q£EEN-Annx.Strkst, East,

^^^^ ri'j:/xbh:.7 ^> (hid on ^w) ^'iioicu^o •

hD-jJil f-^d ncv) £r:l ;bi:cjiq sr!! lo/nocm^o Ind s^ii ca^^ rma .cj- tbi^Gl^pf'^v.^^^^fn/^^- Vp-l^-.r. :j!] -■;c:v::^2:l:.-nT:cn:^t-r:Aoncnf:d.

.oa li'-jj \^ t^f'- 1

.H^ioJAM cn:oi,:a:i

r

m m.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

Los Angeles

This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.

SEP 7 1974

7<

Form L9-Series 4939

THE tIBRAKT tTNlVERSITPY OF CAUFOBHOA

M

1

^m

L

.^.

VA.

://

m:MM^

.,^m^jfeK>i!>^'-

> /

m-:M

,^i m-