down for future annotators in 1756; but, though I agree with Mr. Malone, that" when our poet's entire library shall have been discovered, and the fables of all his plays traced to their original source, when every temporary allusion shall have been pointed out, and every obscurity elucidated, then, and not till then, let the accumulation of notes be complained of;"* still I must contend, that the vast bulk of the late editions has been unnecessarily increased by controversial notes, which serve rather to shew the acuteness and erudition of the commentator, than the simple meaning of the text. Another source too of the gigantic size which the works of the poet now display, has arisen from the admission of plays, which, notwithstanding all their apparatus of annotation, no rational lover of Shakspeare would wish to see included in the list of his compositions. Why, in the name of common sense, should such plays as Titus Andronicus and the First Part of Henry the Sixth, which are now clearly ascertained not to have a sentence of Shakspeare in their composition, any longer be suffered to encumber and to enhance the price of his genuine productions?

I would again inquire if any favour be conferred on the public by the insertion of plays

* Reed's edition, vol. 1, p. 479.

among the works of this immortal bard which were originally written by others, and which are in themselves truly contemptible; but have been attributed to Shakspeare merely because, in deference to the wretched taste of the times, he contributed to their ill-acquired popularity, by the contribution of a score or two of lines or phrases? In this predicament stand Love's Labour Lost, the Comedy of Errors, and Pericles Prince of Tyre; productions which are a disgrace to the name of Shakspeare, and which, could he again start into existence, he would immediately expunge from his works. The originals of these miserable plays were, probably, according to the custom of the theatre at that period, placed by the manager in the hands of Shakspeare for the purpose of slight amendment; I call it slight, for, if from the first of these dramas about fifty lines and the song at the close were withdrawn, nothing indicative of the genius of Shakspeare would remain. The Comedy of Errors, which has been partly taken, by some wretched playwright, from. the Menæchmi of Plautus, is still more intolerably stupid that it may occasionally display the touch of Shakspeare cannot be denied; but these purpurei panni are lamentably infrequent; and, to adopt the language of Mr. Steevens, "that the entire play was no work of his, is an opinion

which (as Benedick says)' fire cannot melt out of me; I will die in it at the stake.'"*

Of the play of Pericles Mr. Steevens has given. an opinion in which most of the readers of Shakspeare will coincide. "This drama," he observes, ❝contains no discrimination of manners, (except in the comic dialogues,) very few traces of original thought, and is evidently destitute of that intelligence and useful knowledge that pervade even the meanest of Shakspeare's undisputed performances. Pericles, in short, is nothing more than a string of adventures, so numerous, so inartificially crouded together, and so far removed from probability, that, in my private judgment, I must acquit even the irregular and lawless Shakspeare of having constructed the fabrick of the drama, though he has certainly bestowed some decoration on its parts. Yet even this decoration, like embroidery on a blanket, only serves by contrast. to expose the meanness of the original materials. That the plays of Shakspeare have their inequalities, likewise, is sufficiently understood; but they are still the inequalities of Shakspeare. He may occasionally be absurd, but is seldom foolish; he may be censured, but can rarely be despised."+

*Note on Comedy of Errors, Reed's edition, vol. 20, p. 461.

+ Reed's Shakspeare, vol. 21, p. 396, 397.

>

It would be adviseable, therefore, in every future edition of Shakspeare intended for general use, to omit altogether the plays of Titus Andronicus and Henry the Sixth, part 1st, and to collect in a small Appendix, after giving an outline of each fable, those few passages in Love's Labour Lost, the Comedy of Errors, and Pericles, which seem to have issued from the pen of Shakspeare. On this plan we shall have no drama in the works of our poet but what is either entirely of his composition, or so greatly improved by his genius as justly to be considered as his property. Another circumstance, likewise of great importance, arising from this arrangement, will be, that we shall then meet with no play in this collection but what may be read with instruction and delight. It would be impossible, I think, to induce any one but a commentator to peruse the plays we propose to omit, a second time; and why, under the circumstances which have been noticed, they should be suffered, with all their paraphernalia of notes, to occupy nearly two octavo volumes of the last edition, the public, I think, has a right to inquire.

Returning, however, to the consideration of Johnson as an editor and a commentator, it may be remarked, that his excellencies in this departmeat have long since atoned for his defects; and

with the exception of one attack, conducted very illiberally and very virulently, by Dr. William Kenrick, he had not much reason to complain of the fate which attended his labours on Shakspeare.

Shortly after this period our author removed to a respectable looking house in Johnson's Court, Fleet-street, where he again enjoyed the society of Miss Williams, who had a room on the ground floor, and was as usual attended upon by Mr. Levett and his servant Francis.

The year 1767 was rendered memorable to Johnson by the opportunity which it afforded him of a private conversation with his Majesty at Buckingham House. The interview took place by desire of the King, and unknown to our author, who, being in the habit of occasionally visiting the noble library at the Queen's Palace, was one day surprized by the sovereign, whilst sitting by the fire, intent on the perusal of a book. The dialogue which ensued is equally honourable to both parties; and the King complimented Johnson on his writings in a style so handsome, that he declared to Mr. Boswell that “it was fit for a king to pay; it was decisive." His Majesty having inquired whether the Doctor meant to present the public with any more productions, and being answered by Johnson that he thought he had written