In the quarto copy of the same play, published in 1599, we find

O happy dagger, 6. This is thy sheath ; there rust, and let me dic." In the next quarto, 1609, the last line is thus represented:

6. 'Tis is thy sheath, " &c. The editor of the folio, seeing that this was manifestly wrong, absurdly corrected the error thus:

66 'Tis in thy flicath ; there rust, and let me die.” Again, in the fame play, quarto, 1599, mishav d being corruptly printed for misbehav'd. —

66 But like a mishav'd and fullen wench the editor of the first folio, to obtain something like sense, reads

66 But like a missiap'd and fullen wench-." and instead of this, the editor of the second folio, for the sake of metre, gives us –

66 But like a misshati'd and a fullen wench—," Again, in the first scene of King Richard III. quarto, 1597, we find this line :

in That tempers him to this extremity.” In the next quarto , and all subsequent, tempts is corruptly printed instead of tempers. The line then wanting'a syllable, the editor of the folio printed it thus:

6. That tempts him to this harsh extremity.” Not to weary my reader, I shall add but two more instances, from Romeo and Juliet:

* Away to heaven, respective lenity,

[6 And fire-ey'd fury be my conduc now! says Romeo, when provoked by the appearance of his rival. Instead of this, which is the reading of the quarto 1597, the line, in the quarto, 1599, is thus corruptly exhibited:

66 And fire end fury be my conduct now !” In the subsequent quarto copy and was substituted for end; and accordingly in the solio the poet's fine imagery is entirely loft, and Romeo exclaims,

16

. And fire and fury be my condud now!” , The other instance in the same play is not less remarkable. In the quarto , 1599, the Friar, addressing Romeo, is made to say,

66 Thou puts up thy fortune , and thy love.' The editor of the folio perceiving here å gross corruption, substituted these words :

66. Thou pulleft up thy fortune, and thy love;" not perceiving that up was a misprint for upon, and puts for pouts, (which according to the ancient, mode was written instead of powtst,) as he would have found by looking into another copy without a date, and as he might have conjectured from the corresponding line in the original play printed in. 1597 , had he ever examined it:

66 Thou frown's upon thy fate, that smiles on thee.” So little known indeed was the value of the early impressions of books, (not revised or corrected by their authors, ) that King Charles the First, though a great admirer of our poet, was contented with

the second folió edition of his plays, unconscious of the numerous misrepresentations and interpolations by which every page of that copy is disfigured; and in a volume of the quarto plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, which formerly belonged to that king, and is now in my collection, I did not find a single first impression. In like manner Sir William D'Avenant, when he made his alteration of *the play of Macbeth , appears to have used the third folio printed in 1664.

The various readings found in the different impressions of the quarto copies are frequently mentioned by the late editors : it is obvious from what has been already stated, that the first edition of each play is alone of any authority, and accordingly to no other have I paid any attention. All the variations in the subsequent quartos were made by accident or caprice. Where, however, there are two editions printed in the same year, or an undated copy, it is necessary to examine each of them, because which of them was first, can not be ascertained; and being each printed from a manuscript, they carry with them a degree of authority to which a re-impression cannot be entitled. Of the tragedy of King Lear there are no less than three copies, varying from each other, printed for the same bookfeller, and in the same year. • - In that copy anoint being corruptly printed instead of aroint,

1

Of all the plays of which there are no quarto copies extant, the first folio, printed in 1623, is the only authentick cdition.

An opinion has been entertained by some that the second impression of that book, published in 1632, has a similar claim to authenticity. 66 Whoever has any of the folios , (says Dr. Johnson,) has all, excepting those diversities which mere reiteration of editions will produce. I collated them all at the beginning, but afterwards used only the first, from which (he afterwards adds,) the subsequent folios never differ but by accident or negligence." Mr. Steevens, however, does not subscribe to this opinion. 6. The edition of 1632, (says that gentleman,) is not without value; for though it be in some places more incorrectly printed than the preceding one, it has likewise the advantage of various readings, which are not merely such as re-iteration of copies will naturally produce.

What Dr. Johnson has stated, is not quite accurate. The second folio does indeed very frequently differ from the first by negligence or chance; but much more frequently by the editor's profound ignorance of our poet's phraseology and metre , in consequence of which there is scarce a page of the book which is not disfigured by the capricious alte rations introduced by the person to whom the care of that impression was entrusted. This person in fact, whoever he was, and Mr. Pope, .were the two great corrupters of our poet's text; and I have no doubt that if the arbitrary alterations introduced by these two editors were numbered, in the plays of which no quarto copies are extant, they would

, greatly exceed all the corruptions and errors of the

press in the original and only authentick copy of those plays. Though my judgment on this subject has been formed after a very careful examination, I cannot expect that it should be received on my mere assertion: and therefore it is necessary to fubftantiate it by proof. This cannot be effected but by a long, minute, and what I am afraid will appear to many, an uninteresting disquisition : but let it still be remembered that to ascertain the genuine text of these plays is an object of great importance.

On a revision of.the second folio printed in 1732, it will be found, that the editor of that book was entirely ignorant of our poet's phraseology and metre, and that various alterations were made by him, in consequence of that ignorance, which render his edition of no value whatsoever.

I. His ignorance of Shakspeare's phraseology is proved by the following among many other instances.

He did not know that the double negative was the customary and authorized language of the age of Qaeen Elizabeth, and therefore, instead of 66 Nor to her bed no homage do I owe.

Comedy of Errors, Act III. sc, ii. he printed

66 Nor to her bed a homage do I owe." So, in As you like it, Act II. sc. iv. instead of 66 I can not go no further,” he printed-I can go no further."

In Much Ado about Nothing, ACE III. sc. i. Hero, speaking of Beatrice, says,