best it contains may be, not difhonourably, imputed to him. Both weeds and flowers appear in the fame parterre, yet we do โ { fwim with your body, And carry it fweetly—— not p. 61. 2. Bear your body more seemly, Audrey. As You Like It. Vol. III. P. 380. 1. And dainty duke whofe doughty difmal fame. p. 64. 2. Whereat with blade, with bloody blameful blade. M. N. Dr. Nothing but willow, willow 2.4- fing willow, willow Vol. III. p. 111. 1. Oh who can find the bent of woman's fancy! p. 84. 2. Oh undistinguish'd space of woman's will! K. Lear, Vol. IX. P. 533. like the great-ey'd Juno's, but far sweeter. p. 84. better, o' my conscience, Was never foldier's friend. A better never did itself sustain 1.- his tongue Sounds like a trumpet. P. 86. Othello, Vol. X. p. 618. 2. Would plead like angels trumpet-tongued. 2. { this would fhew bravely, Fighting about the titles of two kingdoms, p. 87. Macbeth, Vol. IV. Becomes the field, but here fhews much amifs. P. 486, p. 89. Hamlet, Vol. X. J. Look where she comes! you shall perceive her behaviour, p. 89. 2. Lo you where he comes! This is her very guife. Macbeth, Vol. IV. p. 587. I. the burden on't was down-a down-a. p. 90. 2. You must fing down-a down-a: oh how the wheel becomes it! Hamlet, Vol. X. p. 355. How her brain coins!- p. 90. 2. This is the very coinage of your brain. Hamlet, Vol. X. p. 327. 1. Doctor.] not an engrafted madness, but a most thick and profound melancholy Doctor.] not fo fick, my lord, 2. p. 91. As the is troubled with thick-coming fancies- Macbeth, 1. Doctor. I think he has a perturbed mind which I cannot mi not infer from their being found together, that they were planted by the fame hand. 2. Sigh'd truer breath. arms in affurance My body to this business. P. 94. Macbeth, Vol. IV. P. 595 P. 98. Coriolanus, Vol. VII. p. 453. P. 99. Each corporal agent to this terrible feat. Macbeth. Vol. IV. p. 491 bends up with that thy rare green eye 1.- p. 99, 2. Hath not so quick, so green, so fair an eye. R. and Juliet. Vol. X. His eyes were green as leeks. p. 119. M. N. Dr. Vol. III. p. 120. 1. His coftlinefs of fpirit look'd through him.. 12. Your fpirits fbine through you. SI. —— to dif-feat his lord, 12. - or dif-feat me now. P. 110. P. 529. p. 114. Macbeth, Vol. IV. p. 544. N. B. I have met with no other inftances of the ufe of this word. 1. Difroot his rider whence he grew. 12. This gallant grew unto his feat. 1. And bear us like the time. to beguile the time, It will happen, on familiar occafions, that diverfity of expreffion is neither worth feeking, or easy to be found; as in the following Dion. How chance my daughter is not with you?— Pericles. K. Hen. How chance thou art not with the prince thy brother? K. Hen. IV. P. II. Were I difpofed, with controverfial wantonnefs, to reafon against conviction, I might add, that as Shakspeare is known to have Dion. How now, Marina? why do you keep alone? bor Pericles. Lady Macb. How now, my lord? avhy do you keep alone ?—Macbeth. f Coun. have with you, boys! Bel. Have with you, boys! Daugh. Yours to command, i' th' way of honefly. Thal. if I can get him within my piftol's length. Two Noble Kinsmen. Two N. Kinsmen. Pericles. K. Henry IV. P. II, All fuch examples I have abftained from producing; but the peculiar coincidence of many among thofe already given, fuffers much by their not being viewed in their natural fituations. Let the criticks who can fix on any particular fcenes which they conceive to have been written by Shakspeare, or let those who fuppofe him to have been so poor in language as well as ideas, that he was constrained to borrow in the compass of half the Noble Kinsmen from above a dozen entire plays of his own compofition, advance fome hypothefis more plaufible than the following; and yet I flatter myfelf that readers may be found who will concur with me in believing this tragedy to have been written by Fletcher in filent imitation of our author's manner. No other circumftance could well have occafioned fuch a frequent occurrence of correfponding phrases, &c; nor, in my opinion, could any particular, but this, have induced the players to propagate the report, that our author was Fletcher's coadjutor in the piece. There is nothing unufual in thefe attempts at imitation. Dryden, in his preface to All for Love, profeffes to copy the ftyle of Shakspeare. Rowe, in his Jane Shore, arrogates to himself the merit of having purfued the fame plan. How far thefe poets have fucceeded, it is not my present business to examine; but Fletcher's imitation, like that of many others, is chiefly verbal; and yet (when joined with other circumftances) was perfect enough to have mifled the judgment of the players. Thofe people, who in the courfe of their profeffion must have had much of Shakspeare's language recent in their memories, could eafily difcover traces of it in this performance. They could likewife obferve that the drama opens with the fame characters as first enter in the Midfummer Night's Dream; that Clowns exert themselves for the entertainment of Thefeus in both; that a pedagogue likewife directs the sports in Love's Labour's Loft; that a cha racter of female frenzy, copied from Ophelia, is notorious in the Jailor's Daughter; and that this girl, like Lady Macbeth, is attended by a phyfician who defcribes the difficulties of her cafe, and comments on it, in almoft fimilar terms. They might therefore conclude that the play before us was in part a production of the fame writer. Over this line, the criticks behind the fcenes were unable to proceed. Their fagacity was infufficient to obferve that the general current of the ftyle was even throughout the whole, and bore no marks of a divided hand. Hence perhaps the fol geminus and duplices Theba of thefe very incompetent judges, who, like itaunch match-makers, were defirous that rowed whole speeches from the authors of Darius, King John, the Taming of a Shrew, &c. as well as from novellifts and hiftorians without number, fo he might be fufpected of having taken. that the widow'd mufe of Fletcher should not long remain without a bed-fellow. Left it should be urged that one of my arguments against Shakfpeare's co-operation in the Two Noble Kinsmen, would equally militate against his fhare in Pericles, it becomes neceffary for me to ward off any objection to that purpose, by remarking that the circumftances attendant on these two dramas are by no means exactly parallel. Shakspeare probably furnished his fhare in the latter at an early period of his authorship, and afterwards (having never owned it, or fuppofing it to be forgotten) was willing to profit by the most valuable lines and ideas it contained. But he would fcarce have been confidered himself as an object of imitation, before he had reached his meridian fame; and in my opinion, the Noble Kinsmen could not have been compofed till after 1611, nor perhaps antecedent to the deaths of Beaumont and our author, when afliftance and competition ceased, and the poet who refembled the latter moft, had the faireft profpect of fuccefs. During the life of Beaumont, which concluded in 1615, it cannot well be fuppofed that Fletcher would have deferted him, to write in concert with any other dramatist. Shakspeare furvived Beaumont only by one year, and, during that time, is known to have lived in Warwickshire, beyond the reach of Fletcher, who continued to refide in London till he fell a facrifice to the plague in 1625; fo that there was no opportunity for them to have joined in perfonal conference relative to the Two Noble Kinsmen ; and without frequent interviews between confederate writers, a confiftent tragedy can hardly be produced. But, at whatever time of Shakspeare's life Pericles was brought forth, it will not be found on examination to comprize a fifth part of the coincidences which may be detected in its fucceffor; neither will a tenth divifion of the fame relations be discovered in any one of his thirty-five dramas which have hitherto been published together. To conclude, it is peculiarly apparent that this tragedy of the Two Noble Kinjmen was printed from a prompter's copy, as it exhibits fuch ftage directions as I do not remember to have seen in any other drama of the fame period. We may likewife take notice that there are fewer hemiftichs in it than in any of Shakspeare's acknowledged productions. If one fpeech concludes with an imperfect verfe, the next in general completes it. This is fome indication of a writer more studious of neatness in composition than the pretended affociate of Fletcher. In the course of my investigation I am pleased to find I differ but on one occafion from Mr. Colman; and that is, in my difbelief that Beaumont had any fhare in this tragedy. The utmost beauties it contains, were within the reach of Fletcher, who has a right to wear "Without corrival all his dignities: "But out upon this half-fac'd fellowship!" because there is no juft reason for fuppofing any poet but Chaucer has a right to difpute with him the reputation which the tale of Palamon and Arcite has fo long and fo indisputably maintained. lines, and hints for future fituations, from the play of Pericles, fuppofing it were the work of a writer fomewhat more early than himfelf. Such fplendid paffages occur in the fcenes of his contemporaries, as have not difgraced his own: and be it remembered, that many things which we at prefent are content to reckon only among the adoptions of our great poet, had been long regarded as his own proper effufions, and were as conftantly enumerated among his diftinguished beauties. No verses have been more frequently quoted, or more loudly applauded, than those beginning with The cloud-capt towers in the Tempest; but if our pofitions relative to the date of that play are well founded, Shakspeare's share in this celebrated account of nature's diffolu tion, is very inconfiderable. To conclude, the play of Pericles was in all probability the compofition of fome friend whofe intereft the "gentle Shakspeare" was induftrious to promote. He therefore improved his dialogue in many places; and knowing by experience that the strength of a dramatick piece fhould be augmented towards its catastrophe, was most liberal of his aid in the last act. We cannot be surprised to find that what he has fupplied is of a different colour from the rest: Scinditur in partes, geminoque cacumine furgit, for like Beaumont he was not writing in conjunction with a Fletcher. Mr. Malone has asked how it happens that no memorial of an earlier drama on the fubject of Pericles remains. I fhall only anfwer by another question-Why is it the fate of ftill-born infants to be foon forgotten? In the rummage of fome mafs of ancient pamphlets and papers, the first of thefe two productions may hereafter make its appearance. The chance that preferved The Witch of Middleton, may at fome diftant period establish my general opinion concerning the authenticity of Pericles, which is already ftrengthened by thofe of Rowe and Dr. Farmer, and countenanced in fome degree by the omiflion of Heminge and Condell. I was once difpofed to entertain very different sentiments concerning the authority of title-pages; but on my mended judgment (if I offend not to fay it is mended) I have found fufficient reafon to change my creed, and confefs the folly of advancing much on a question which I had not more than curforily confidered. To this I muit fubjoin, that perhaps our author produced the Winter's Tale at the distance of feveral years from the time at which he corrected Pericles; and, for reafons hinted at in a preceding page, or through a forgetfulness common to all writers, repeated a few of the identical phrafes and ideas which he had already ufed in that and other dramas. I have formerly obferved in a note on King Lear, laft edit. vol. ix. p. 561, that Shakspeare has appropriated the fame fentiment, in nearly the |