John Browne.] A booke called the Lyfe by W. S. Nov. 29, 1614. John Beale.] A booke called the Hyftorie Nich. Okes.] A play called the Merchaunt of Venice.. 189 214 b. 256 b. 279 288 293 b. 303 9 Query, if this was Shakspeare's King John, or fome old romance like that of Richard Coeur de Lion. STEEVENS. It was undoubtedly The famous Hiftorie of George Lord Fauconbridge, a profe romance. I have an edition of it now before me printed for I. B. dated 1616. MALONE. Bound up in a volume of plays attributed to Shakspeare, and once belonging to King Charles the Second, See Mr. Garrick's Collection. STEEVENS. Oct. 6, 1621. Tho. Walkely.] The tragedie of Othello the Moore of Venice. Nov. 8, 1623. Mr. Blount and Isaak Jaggard.] Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedyes and Tragedies, foe many of the faid Copies as are not formerly entered to other men. Comedyes. Hiftories. Tragedies. Viz. (The Tempeft. Two Gentlemen of Verona. Measure for Measure. The Comedy of Errors. As You Like it. Alls Well that Ends Well. Twelfe Night. The Winter's Tale. Vol. D. The Third Part of Henry the Sixt. Coriolanus. Timon of Athens. Julius Cæfar. Macbeth. Anthonie and Cleopatra. (Cymbeline. Dec. 14, 1624. Mr. Pavyer.] Titus Andronicus. Widow of Watling Street. Feb. 23, 1625. 21 69 93 Mr. Stanfby.] Edward the Third, the play. 115 Yorkshire Tragedy. 120 127 193 208 The fixteen plays in p. 69, were affigned by Tho. Blount to Edward Allott, June 26, 1632. Edward Allott was one of the publishers of the fecond folio, 1632. 109 It has hitherto been ufual to represent the ancient quartos of our author as by far more incorrect than thofe of his contemporaries; but, I fear, that this representation has been continued by many of us, with a defign to magnify our own fervices, rather than to exhibit a true ftate of the queftion. The reafon why we have difcovered a greater proportion of errors in the former than in the latter, is because we have fought after them with a greater degree of diligence; for let it be remembered, that it was no more the practice of other writers than of Shakspeare, to correct the prefs for themselves. Ben Jonfon only (who, being verfed in the learned languages, had been taught the value of accuracy,) appears to have fuperintended the publication of his own dramatick pieces; but were thofe of Lyly, Chapman, Marlow, or the Heywoods, to be revised with equal industry, an editor would meet with as frequent opportunity for the exertion of his critical abilities, as in thefe quartos which have been fo repeatedly cenfured by those who never took the pains to collate them, or juftify the many valuable readings they contain; for when the character of them which we have handed down, was originally given, among typographical blunders, &c. were enumerated all terms and expreffions which were not ftrictly grammatical, or not eafily understood. yet we had employed in our attempts at explanation only fuch materials as cafual reading had fupplied; but how much more is requifite for the complete explanation of an early writer, the last. edition of the Canterbury Tales of Chaucer may prove a fufficient witnefs; a work which in refpect of accuracy and learning is without a rival, at least in any commentary on an English poet. The reader will forgive me if I defert my fubject for a moment, while I exprefs an ardent wifh that the fame editor may find leifure and inclination to As afford us the means of reading the other works of the father of our poetry, with advantages which we cannot derive from the efforts of thofe who have lefs deeply and fuccefsfully penetrated into the receffes of ancient Italian, French, and English literature. An author has received the highest mark of diftinction, when he has engaged the fervices of fuch a commentator. The reader may perhaps be defirous to know by whom thefe quartos of Shakspeare are fuppofed to have been fent into the world. To fuch a curiofity no very adequate gratification can be afforded; but yet it may be obferved, that as thefe elder copies poffefs many advantages over thofe in the fubfequent folio, we should decide perverfely were we to pronounce them fpurious. They were in all probability iffued out by fome performer, who, deriving no benefit from the theatre except his falary, was uninterested in that retention of copies, which was the chief concern of our ancient managers. We may fuppofe too that there was nothing criminal in his proceeding; as fome of the perfons whose names appear before these publications, are known to have filled the highest offices in the company of Stationers with reputation, bequeathing legacies of confiderable value to it at their deccafe. Neither do I difcover why the firft manufcripts delivered by fo careless a writer to the actors, fhould prove lefs correct than those which he happened to leave behind him, unprepared for the press, in the poffeffion of the fame fraternity. On the contrary, after his plays had passed for twenty years through the hands of a fucceffion of ignorant tranfcribers, they were more likely to become maimed and |