"......y thouzte zou have wryte hit is nouzt worth to

be knowe

".. that wole the sothe ywyte go thider and me wol the schewe."

On the fubject of Pericles, Lillo formed a play of three Acts, which was first represented in the year 1738.

To a former edition of this play were fubjoined two Dissertations; one written by Mr. Steevens, the other by me. In the latter I urged such arguments as then appeared to me to have weight, to prove that it was the entire work of Shakspeare, and one of his earliest compofitions. Mr. Steevens on the other hand maintained, that it was originally the production of fome elder playwright, and afterwards improved by our poet, whofe hand was acknowledged to be visible in many fscenes throughout the play. On a review of the various arguments which each of, us produced in favour of his own hypothefis, I am now convinced that the theory of Mr. Steevens was right, and have no difficulty. in acknowledging my own to be erroneous.

This play was entered on the Stationers' books, together with Antony and Cleopatra, in the year 1608, by Edward Blount, a bookfeller of eminence, and one of the publishers of the first. folio edition of Shakspeare's works. It was printed with his. name in the title-page, in his life-time; but this circumftance proves nothing; because by the knavery of booksellers other pieces were also ascribed to him in his life-time, of which he indubitably wrote not a line. Nor is it necessary to urge in fupport of its genuineness, that at a subsequent period it was afcribed to him by several dramatick writers. I wish not to rely on any circumstance of that kind; because in all questions of this nature, internal evidence is the best that can be produced, and to every person intimately acquainted with our poet's writings, must in the present cafe be decisive. The congenial sentiments, the numerous expreffions bearing a striking fimilitude to passages in his undisputed plays, some of the incidents, the fituation of many of the perfons, and in various places the colour of the style, all these combine to fet the feal of Shakspeare on the play before us, and furnish us with internal and irresistible proofs, that a confiderable portion of this piece, as it now appears, was written by him. The greater part of the three last Acts may, I think, on this ground be fafely afcribed to him; and his hand may be traced occafionally in the other two divisions.

To alter, new-model, and improve the unfuccefsful dramas of preceding writers, was, I believe, much more common in the fime of Shakspeare than is generally supposed. This piece having been thus new-modelled by our poet, and enriched with many happy ftrokes from his pen, is unquestionably entitled to that place among his works which it has now obtained. MALONE.)

After Mr. Malone's retraction, (which is no less honourable to himself than the present editor of Pericles,) it may be asked why the differtations mentioned in the foregoing note appear a second time in print. To such a question I am not unwilling to reply. My fole motive for republishing them is to manifest that the skill displayed by my late opponent in defence of what he conceived to have been right, can only be exceeded by the liberality of his conceffion since he has supposed himself in the wrong.

STEEVENS,

In a former disquifition concerning this play, I mentioned, that the dumb shows, which are found in it, induced me to doubt whether it came from the pen of Shakspeare. The sentiments that I then expressed, were suggested by a very hasty and tranfient Survey of the piece. I am still, however of opinion, that this confideration (our author having expressly ridiculed such exhibi tions) might in a very doubtful question have some weight. But weaker proofs must yield to stronger. It is idle to lay any great stress upon such a flight circumftance, when the piece itself fur nishes internal and irresistible evidence of its authenticity. The congenial sentiments, the numerous expressions bearing a striking fimilitude to passages in his undisputed plays, the incidents, the fituations of the perfons, the colour of the style, at least through the greater part of the play, all, in my apprehenfion, conspire to fet the feal of Shakspeare on this performance. What then shall we say to these dumb shows? Either, that the poet's practice was not always conformable to his opinions, (of which there are abundant proofs) or, (what I rather believe to be the cafe) that this was one of his earliest dramas, written at a time when these exhibitions were much admired, and before he had seen the abfurdity of such ridiculous pageants; probably, in the year 1590, or 1591.*

Mr. Rowe, in his first edition of Shakspeare, says, " It is owned that some part of Pericles certainly was written by him, particularly the last Act." Dr. Farmer, whose opinion in every thing that relates to our author has deservedly the greatest weight, thinks the hand of Shakspeare may be sometimes seen in the latter part of the play, and there only. The scene, in the last Act, in which Pericles discovers his daughter, is indeed emi

* If this play was written in the year 1590 or 1591, with what colour of truth could it be styled (as it is in the title-page to the first edition of it, 4to. 1609,) " the late and much admired" &c.? STEEVENS.

nently beautiful; but the whole piece appears to me to furnish abundant proofs of the hand of Shakspeare. The inequalities in different parts of it are not greater than may be found in fome of his other dramas. It should be remembered also, that Dryden, who lived near enough the time to be well informed, has pronounced this play to be our author's first performance:

"Shakspeare's own Muse his Pericles first bore;

"The Prince of Tyre was elder than the Moor."

Let me add, that the contemptuous manner in which Ben Jonfon has mentioned it, is, in my apprehenfion, another proof of its authenticity. In his memorable Ode, written foon after his New Inn had been damned, when he was comparing his own unfuccefsful pieces with the applauded dramas of his contemporaries, he naturally chose to point at what he esteemed a weak performance of a rival, whom he appears to have envied and hated merely because the fplendor of his genius had eclipsed his own, and had rendered the reception of those tame and disgufting imitations of antiquity, which he boastingly called the only legitimate English dramas, as cold as the performances themselves.

As the subject is of fome curiofity, I shall make no apology for laying before the reader a more minute investigation of it. It is proper, however, to inform him, that one of the following differtations on the genuineness of this play precedes the other only for a reason affigned by Dogberry, that where two men ride on a horse, one must ride behind. That we might catch hints from the strictures of each other, and collect what we could mutually advance into a point, Mr. Steevens and I set forward with an agreement to maintain the propriety of our respective suppositions relative to this piece, as far as we were able; to submit our remarks, as they gradually increased, alternately to each other, and to dispute the oppofite hypothefis, till one of us should acquiesce in the opinion of his opponent, or each remain confirmed in his own. The reader is therefore requested to bear in mind, that if the last series of arguments be confidered as an answer to the first, the first was equally written in reply to the last:

"unus sese armat utroque,

"Unaque mens animat non dissociabilis ambos."

MALONE.

THAT this tragedy has some merit, it were vain to deny; but that it is the entire composition of Shakspeare, is more than can be hastily granted. I shall not venture, with Dr. Farmer, to determine that the hand of our great poet is only visible in the Jaft Act, for I think it appears in several passages dispersed over each of these divifions. If I find it difficult, however, to perfuade myself that he was the original fabricator of the plot, or the author of every dialogue, chorus, &c. and this opinion is founded on a concurrence of circumstances which I shall attempt to enumerate, that the reader may have the benefit of all the lights I am able to throw on so obscure a subject.

Be it first observed, that most of the choruses in Pericles are written in a measure which Shakspeare has not employed on the same occafion, either in The Winter's Tale, Romeo and Juliet, or King Henry the Fifth. If it be urged, that throughout these recitations Gower was his model, I can safely affirm that their language, and sometimes their versification, by no means refembles that of Chaucer's contemporary. One of these monologues is composed in hexameters, and another in alternate rhymes; neither of which are ever found in his printed works, or those which yet remain in manuscript; nor does he, like the author of Pericles, introduce four and five-feet metre in the same series of lines. If Shakspeare therefore be allowed to have copied not only the general outline, but even the peculiarities of nature with ease and accuracy, we may surely suppose that, at the expence of fome unprofitable labour, he would not have failed so egregioufly in his imitation of antiquated style or numbers. That he could affume with nicety the terms of affectation and pedantry, he has shown in the characters of Ofrick and Armado, Holofernes and Nathaniel. That he could fuccessfully counterfeit provincial dialects, we may learn from Edgar and Sir Hugh Evans; and that he was no stranger to the peculiarities of foreign pronunciation, is likewise evident from several seenes of English tinctured with French, in The Merry Wives of Windsor and King Henry the Fifth.*

* Notwithstanding what I have advanced in favour of Shakspeare's uncommon powers of imitation, I am by no means fure he would have proved fuccessful in a cold attempt to copy the peculiarities of language more ancient than his own. His exalted genius would have taught him to despise so servile an undertaking; and his good sense would have restrained him from engaging in a task which he had neither leifure nor patience to perform. His talents are displayed in copies from originals of a higher rank. Neither am I convinced that inferior writers have been over-lucky in poetical mimickries of their early predeceffors. It is less difficult to deform language, than to bestow on it the true cast of antiquity; and though the licentiousness of Chaucer, and the obfolete words employed by Gower, are within the reach of moderate abilities, the humour of the one, and the general idiom of the other, are not quite so easy of attainment. The best of our modern poets have fucceeded but tolerably in short compofitions of this kind, and have therefore shown their prudence in attempting none of equal length with the affembled choruses in Pericles, which confift at least of three hundred lines. Mr. Pope professes to give us a story in the manner of Chaucer; but uses a metre on the occafion in which not a fingle tale of that author is written.

م

But it is here urged by Mr. Malone, that an exact imitation of Gower would have proved unintelligible to any audience during the reign of Elizabeth. If it were (which I am flow to admit) our author's judgment would searce have permitted him to choose an agent so inadequate to the purpose of an interpreter; one whose years and phraseology must be fet at variance before he could be understood, one who was to affume the form, office; and habit of an ancient, and was yet to speak the language of a modern.

I am ready to allow my opponent that the authors who introduced Machiavel, Guicciardine, and the Monk of Chester, on the ftage, have never yet been blamed because they avoided to make the two former speak in their native tongue, and the latter in the English dialect of his age. The proper language of the Italian statesman and historian, could not have been understood by our common audiences; and as to Rainulph, he is known to have compofed his Chronicle in Latin. Besides, these three perfonages were writers in profe. They are alike called up to fuperintend the relations which were originally found in their respective books; and the magick that converted them into poets, might claim an equal power over their modes of declamation. The cafe is otherwise, when ancient bards, whose compofitions were in English, are summoned from the grave to inftract their countrymen; for these apparitions may be expected to speak in the style and language that diftinguishes their real age, and their known productions, when there is no fufficient reason why they should depart from them.

! If the inequalities of measure which I have pointed out, be also visible in the lyrick parts of Macbeth, &c. I must observe that throughout these plays our author has not professed to imi tate the style or manner of any acknowledged character or age; and therefore was tied down to the observation of no particular rules. Most of the irregular lines, however, in A MidsummerNight's Dream, &c. I suspect of having been prolonged by cafual monofyllables, which stole into them through the inattention of the copyist, or the impertinence of the speaker.-If indeed the choruses in Pericles contain many fuch marked expreffions as are discoverable in Shakspeare's other dramas, I must confess that they have hitherto escaped my notice; unless they may be faid to occur in particulars which of neceflity mufi be common to all foliloquies of a fimilar kind. Such interlocutions cannot fail occafionally to contain the same modes of address, and the fame perfuafive arguments to folicit indulgence and secure applaufe. As for the ardentia verba celebrated by Mr. Malone, (to borrow Milton's phrase,) in my apprehenfion they burn but cold and frore.