restoration of Perdita to her mother, would only tend to prolong the remorse of her father. Throughout the notes which I have contributed to Pericles, I have not been backward to point out many of the particulars on which the opinion of Mr. Malone is built; for as truth, not victory, is the object of us both, I am fure we cannot wish to keep any part of the evidence that may feem to affect our reciprocal opinions, out of fight.

Mr. Malone is likewise solicitous to prove, from the wildness and irregularity of the fable, &c. that this was either our author's first, or one of his earliest dramas. It might have been so; and yet I am forry to observe that the same qualities predominate in his more mature performances; but there these defects are instrumental in producing beauties. If we travel in Antony and Cleopatra from Alexandria to Rome-to Messina-into Syriato Athens-to Actium, we are still relieved in the course of our peregrinations by variety of objects, and importance of events. But are we rewarded in the same manner for our journeys from Antioch to Tyre, from Tyre to Pentapolis, from Pentapolis to Tharfus, from Tharfus to Tyre, from Tyre to Mitylene, and from Mitylene to Ephesus?-In one light, indeed, I am ready to allow Pericles was our poet's first attempt. Before he was satisfied with his own strength, and trusted himself to the publick, he might have tried his hand with a partner, and entered the theatre in disguise. Before he ventured to face an audience on the stage, it was natural that he should peep at them through the curtain.

What Mr. Malone has called the inequalities of the poetry, I should rather term the patchwork of the style, in which the general flow of Shakspeare is not often visible. An unwearied blaze of words, like that which burns throughout Phædra and Hippolitus, and Mariamne, is never attempted by our author; for fuch uniformity could be maintained but by keeping nature at a distance. Inequality and wildness, therefore, cannot be received as criterions by which we are to diftinguish the early pieces of Shakspeare from those which were written at a later period. But one peculiarity relative to the complete genuineness of this play, has hitherto been disregarded, though in my opinion it is absolutely decisive. I shall not hesitate to affirm, that through different parts of Pericles, there are more frequent and more aukward ellipfes than occur in all the other dramas attributed to the fame author; and that these figures of speech appear only in such worthless portions of the dialogue as cannot with justice be imputed to him. Were the play the work of any fingle hand, or had it been corrupted only by a printer, it is natural to suppose that this clipped jargon would have been scattered over it with equality. Had it been the composition of our great poet, he

would be found to have availed himself of the fame licence in his other tragedies; nor perhaps, would an individual writer have called the same characters and places alternately Pericles and Pericles, Thaisa and Thaisa, Pentapolis and Pentapolis. Shakspeare never varies the quantity of his proper names in the compass of one play. In Cymbeline we always meet with Posthūmus, not Posthumus, Arvirāgus, and not Arvirăgus.

It may appear fingular that I have hitherto laid no stress on such parallels between the acknowledged plays of Shakspeare and Pericles, as are produced in the course of our preceding illuftrations. But perhaps any argument that could be derived from so few of these, ought not to be decisive; for the fame reasoning might tend to prove that every little piece of coincidence of thought and expression, is in reality one of the petty larcenies of literature; and thus we might in the end impeach the original merit of those whom we ought not to fufpect of having need to borrow from their predeceffors.* I can only add on this subject, (like Dr. Farmer) that the world is already poffefsed of the Marks of Imitation; and that there is scarce one English tragedy but bears some flight internal resemblance to another. I therefore attempt no deduction from premises occafionally fallacious, nor pretend to discover in the piece before us the draughts of scenes which were afterwards more happily wrought, or the fslender and crude principles of ideas which on other occafions were dilated into consequence, or polished into luftre.† Not

* Dr. Johnfon once assured me, that when he wrote his Irene he had never read Othello; but meeting with it foon afterwards, was furprized to find he had given one of his characters a speech very ftrongly resembling that in which Caffio describes the effects produced by Desdemona's beauty on fuch inanimate objects as the gutter'd rocks and congregated sands. The Doctor added, that on making the discovery, for fear of imputed plagiarism, he struck out this accidental coincidence from his own tragedy.

+ Though I admit that a small portion of general and occafional relations may pass unsuspected from the works of one author into those of another, yet when multitudes of minute coincidences occur, they must have owed their introduction to contrivance and design. The sisrest and least equivocal marks of imitation (says Dr. Hurd) are to be found in peculiarities of phrafe and diction; an identity in both, is the most certain note of plagiarifm.

This observation inclines me to offer a few words in regard to Shakspeare's imputed share in The Two Noble Kinsmen.

On Mr. Pope's opinion relative to this subject, no great reliance can be placed; for he who reprobated The Winter's Tale as a performance alien to Shakspeare, could boast of little acquaintance with the fpirit or manner of the author whom he undertook to correct and explain.

Dr. Warburton (Vol. I. after the table of editions) expresses a belief that our great poet wrote "the first Act, but in his worft manner." The Doctor indeed only feems to have been ambitious of adding somewhat (though at random) to the decifion of his predeceffor.

that fuch a kind of evidence, however strong, or however skil

Mr. Seward's enquiry into the authenticity of this piece, has been fully examined by Mr. Colman, who adduces several arguments to prove that our author had no concern in it. (See Beaumont and Fletcher, last edit. Vol. I. P. 118.1 Mr. Colman might have added more to the same purpose; but, luckily for the publick, his pen is always better engaged than in critical and antiquarian disquifitions.

As Dr. Farmer has advanced but little on the present occafion, I confess my inability to determine the point on which his conclufion is founded.

This play, however, was not printed till eighteen years after the death of Shakspeare; and its title-page carries all the air of a canting bookseller's impofition. Would any one else have thought it neceffary to tell the world, that Fletcher and his pretended coadjutor, were " memorable worthies?" The piece too was printed for one John Waterson, a man who had no copy right in any of our author's other dramas. It was equally unknown to the editors in 1623, and 1632; and was rejected by those in 1664, and 1685.In 1661, Kirkman, another knight of the rubrick post, issued out The Birth of Merlin, by Rowley and Shakspeare. Are we to receive a part of this alfo as a genuine work of the latter? for the authority of Kirkman is as respectable as that of Waterson.-I may add, as a fimilar inftance of the craft or ignorance of these ancient Curls, that in 1640, the Coronation, claimed by Shirley, was printed in Fletcher's name, and (I know not why) is still permitted to hold a place among his other dramas.

That Shakspeare had the flighteft connection with B. and Fletcher, has not been proved by evidence of any kind. There are no verses written by either in his commendation; but they both stand convicted of having aimed their ridicule at passages in several of his plays. His imputed intimacy with one of them, is therefore unaccountable. Neither are the names of our great confederates enrolled with those of other wits who frequented the literary symposia held at the Devil Tavern in Fleet Street. As they were gentlemen of family and fortune, it is probable that they aspired to company of a higher rank than that of needy poets, or mercenary players. Their dialogue bears abundant teftimony to this supposition; while Shakspeare's attempts to exhibit fuch fprightly conversations as pass between young men of elegance and fashion, are very rare, and almost confined (as Dr. Johnfon remarks) to the characters of Mercutio and his affociates. Our author could not easily copy what he had few opportunities of observing. So much for the unlikeliness of Fletcher's having united with Shakspeare in the fame compofition.

But here it may be asked-why was the name of our poet joined with that of Beaumont's coadjutor in The Two Noble Kinsmen, rather than in any other play of the fame author that so long remained in manufcript? I answer,-that this event might have taken its rise from the playhouse tradition mentioned by Pope, and founded, as I conceive, on a fingular occurrence, which it is my present office to point out and illustrate to my readers.

The language and images of this piece coincide perpetually with those in the dramas of Shakspeare. The same frequency of coincidence occurs in no other individual of Fletcher's works; and how is fo material a distinction to be accounted for? Did Shakspeare afsist the survivor of Beaumont in his tragedy? Surely no; for if he had, he would not (to borrow a conceit from Moth in Love's Labour's Lost) have written as if he had been at a great feast of tragedies, and stolen the scraps. It was natural that he should more studiously have abstained from the use of marked expreffions in this than in any other of his pieces written without assistance. He cannot be suspected of fo pitiful an ambition as that of setting his seal on the portions he wrote, to dif

fully applied, would diveft my former arguments of their weight; for I admit without reserve that Shakspeare,

whose hopeful colours

" Advance a half-fac'd fun striving to shine."

tinguish them from those of his colleague. It was his business to coalefce with Fletcher, and not to withdraw from him. But, were our author convicted of this jealous artifice, let me ask where we are to look for any fingle dialogue in which thefe lines of separation are not drawn. If they are to be regarded as landmarks to afcertain our author's property, they stand so conftantly in our way, that we muft adjudge the whole literary eftate to him. I hope no one will be found who fsupposes our duumvirate fat down to correct what each other wrote. To such an indignity Fletcher could not well have fubmitted; and such a drudgery Shakspeare would as hardly have endured. In Pericles it is no difficult task to difcriminate the scenes in which the hand of the latter is evident. I say again, let the critick try if the fame undertaking is as eafy in The Two Noble Kinsmen. The style of Fletcher on other occafions is fufficiently diftinct from Shakspeare's, though it may mix more intimately with that of Beaumont :

Ὃς τ ̓ ἀποκιδνάμενος ποταμε κελαδοντος Αράξεω
Φάσιδι συμφέρεται ἱερὸν ρόον. Αpol. Rhod.

From loud Araxes Lycus' ftreams divide,
But roll with Phasis in a blended tide.

But, that my affertions relative to coincidence may not appear without fome fupport, I proceed to infert a few of many instances that might be brought in aid of an opinion which I am ready to fubjoin. The first passage hereafter quoted is always from The Two Noble Kinsmen, edit. 1750.

{

Dear glass of ladies.

2-he was indeed the glass

p. 9, Vol. X.

Wherein the noble youths did dress themselves. King Henry IV. P. II.

is visible in many scenes throughout the play. But it follows not from thence that he is answerable for its worst part, though the

1 Like lazy clouds.

2 the lazy-pacing clouds.---.

1- the angry fwine

Flies like a Parthian.

2 Or, like the Parthian, I shall flying fight.

Mr. Seward observes that this comparison occurs no where in Shakspeare.

1 Theseus.] To-morrow, by the fun, to do observance

2 Theseus.] they rose up early to observe

The rite of May.

To flowery May.

p. 47.

Midsummer-Night's Dream.

p. 48.

King Henry IV. P. I.

p. 50.

Hamlet.

p. 51.

{

2-Gentle Harry Percy, and kind cousin,--

The devil take fuch cozeners.

1-this question, fick between us,

By bleeding must be cur'd

2 Let's purge this choler without letting blood.

1-fwim with your body,

And carry it sweetly---.

2 Bear your body more seemly, Audrey.

1 And dainty duke whose doughty dismal fame.

2 Whereat with blade, with bloody blameful blade.

1-And then the fung

Nothing but willow, willow,..

2-fing willow, willow,

1 O who can find the bent of woman's fancy!

2 O undiftinguish'd space of woman's will!

King Henry IV. P. I.

:

p. 54.

King Richard II.

p. 61.

As you like it.

p. 64.

Midsummer-Night's Dream.

p. 79.

Othello.

p. 84.

King Lear.