been recommended in preference to the variations of the second folio, which in several instances have been justly reprobated by the last editor of Shakspeare. What errors then might not have been expected, when compofitors were wholly unlettered and careless, and a corrector of the press an officer unknown? To him who is inclined to dispute our grounds for this last assertion, we would recommend a perusal of the errata at the ends of multitudes of our ancient publications, where the reader's indulgence is entreated for "faults escaped on account of the author's distance from the press;" faults, indeed, which could not have occurred, had every printing-office, as at present, been furnished with a regular and literary superintendant of its productions. — How then can it be expected that printers who were often found unequal to the task of fetting forth even a plain prose narrative, confifting of a few sheets, without blunders innumerable, should have done justice to a folio volume of dramatick dialogues in metre, which required a fo much greater degree of accuracy?

But the worth of our contested volume also seems to be questioned, because the authority on which even such changes in it as are allowed to be judicious, is unknown. But if weight were granted to this argument, what support could be found for ancient Greek and Roman MSS. of various defcriptions? The names of their transcribers are alike undiscovered; and yet their authority, when the readings they present are valuable, will feldom fail to be admitted.

Nay, further: - it is on all hands allowed that what we style a younger and inferior MS. will occafionally correct the mistakes and supply the deficiencies of one of better note, and higher antiquity. Why, therefore, should not a book printed in 1632 be allowed the merit of equal services to a predeceffor in 1623?

Such also, let us add, were the sentiments of a gentleman whose name we cannot repeat without a sigh, which those who were acquainted with his value, will not suspect of infincerity': we mean our late excellent friend, Mr. Tyrwhitt. In his library was this second folio of our author's plays. He always stood forward as a determined advocate for its authority, on which, we believe, more than one of his emendations were formed. At least, we are certain that he never attempted any, before he had confulted it.

He was once, indeed, offered a large fragment of the first folio; but in a few days he returned it, with an affurance that he did not perceive any decided fuperiority it could boast over its immediate fucceffor, as the metre, imperfect in the elder, was often restored to regularity in the junior impreffion.

Mr. Malone, however, in his Letter to Dr. Farmer, has styled these necessary corrections such as could not escape a person of the most ordinary capacity, who had been one month converfant with a printing-house;" a description mortifying enough to the present editors, who, after an acquaintance of many years with typographical mysteries, would be loath to weigh their own amendments against those which this second folio, with all its blunders, has displayed.

The fame gentleman also (fee his Preface, p. 443) speaks with fome confidence of having proved his assertions relative to the worthlessness of this book. But how are these affertions proved? By exposing its errors (fome of which nevertheless are of a very questionable shape) and by observing a careful filence about its deferts. * The latter surely should have been stated as well as the former. Otherwife. this proof will resemble the " ill-roasted egg" in As you like it, which was done only on one fide."If, in the mean time, some critical arithmetician can be found, who will impartially and intelligently afcertain by way of Dr and Cr the faults and merits of this book, and thereby prove the former to have been many, and the latter scarce any at all, we will most openly acknowledge our misapprehenfion, and

1

subscribe (a circumstance of which we need not be ashamed) to the superior sagacity and judgement

of Mr. Malone.

To conclude, though we are far from afserting that this republication, generally confidered, is preferable to its original, we must still regard it as a valuable supplement to that work; and no stronger plea in its favour can be advanced, than the frequent use made of it by Mr. Malone. The numerous corrections from it admitted by that gentleman into his text,* and

* Amounting to (as we are informed by a very accurate compositor who undertook to count them) 186.

Instances wherein Mr. Malone has admitted the Corrections of the Second Folio.

pointed out in his notes, will, in our judgement, contribute to its eulogium; at least cannot fail to refcue it from his prefatory imputations of " being of no value whatever," and afterwards of - "not being worth three shillings. *" See this Vol. p. 398. and Vol. II. p. 3o. n. 5.

Our readers, it is hoped, will fo far honour us as to observe, that the foregoing opinions were not suggested and defended through an ambitious spirit of condradiction. Mr. Malone's Preface, indeed, p. 396, will absolve us from that censure; for he allows them to be of a date previous to his own edition.