ancient catalogues; but it was reserved for modern impostors to avail themselves, to an almost unparalleled extent, of the obscurity in which his history is involved, and of the unequalled popularity of his name.

In the year 1751, a book was published, entitled "A compendious or brief examination of certayne ordinary complaints of divers of our countrymen in those our days; which, although they are in some parts unjust and frivolous, yet are they all, by way of dialogue, thoroughly debated and discussed by William Shakspeare, gentleman." This book was originally published in 1581; but Dr. Farmer has clearly proved, that the initials, W. S., the only authority for attributing it to Shakspeare in the reprinted edition, meant William Stafford.

Theobald, one of the early editors of our immortal bard, and who, according to Dr. Johnson, "by the good luck of having Pope for his enemy, has escaped, and escaped alone, with reputation, from this undertaking," was desirous of palming upon the world a play, called “The Double Falsehood," as a posthumous production of Shakspeare. The arguments which he made use of with this view, are thus humorously

stated in the Scribblerian notes to the Dunciad; "First, that the MS. was above sixty years old; secondly, that, once, Mr. Betterton had it, or he hath heard so; thirdly, that somebody told him, the author gave it to a bastard daughter of his; but fourthly, and above all, "that he has a great mind every thing that is good in our tongue should be Shakspeare's." The celebrated author of the notes then goes on in a strain of ridicule, to assign new readings to various passages of the play, in a style very similar to that of Theo. bald himself, in his attempts on the genuine text of Shakspeare. This palpable imposition was, however, speedily detected; or, rather, no general impression of its authenticity was ever created.

In 1770, there was reprinted, at Feversham, an old play called" The tragedy of Arden of Feversham, and Black Will," (on which is founded Lillo's play of " Arden of Feversham,") with a preface, in which, without the smallest foundation, it was attributed to Shakspeare, who certainly had nothing to do with its composition.

But these were trifles, compared to the attempt made in 1795-6, when, besides a vast mass of prose and verse, letters, &c., pretendedly in

the hand-writing of Shakspeare, and his correspondents, an entire play, entitled, "Vortigern and Rowena," was not only brought forward, to the astonishment of the admirers of Shakspeare, accredited by the opinions of some of the most eminent literary men of the day, but actually performed on the Drury-Lane stage, whence the good sense of the audience speedily compelled it to take flight. It would be unnecessary to expatiate on the merits of this play, which Mr. Steevens has characterized as "the performance of a madman without a lucid interval," or to enter more at large into the nature of this fraud, of which we have already given a sufficiently copious account.

It produced, between Mr. Malone and Mr. George Chalmers, a very interesting controversy, which, although mixed with much personal asperity, was extended into inquiries into the history and antiquities of the stage, from which future critics and historians have derived considerable information.

DRAMATIS PERSONE.

THE stages and Theatres of the Greeks and

Romans were so immense that the actors, to be heard, were obliged to have recourse to metallic masks, contrived with tremendous mouths, in order to augment the natural sound of the voice. This mask was called, by the Latins, Persona, from Personare (to sound through); and delineations of such masks as were used in each piece, generally prefixed to it, (as we now prefix the name of the characters of our modern plays,) as appears from the Vatican Terence; hence, Dramatis Persona, (masks of the Drama,) which words, after masks ceased to be used, were understood to mean Persons of the Drama.

CONGREVE'S DEFENCE AGAINST COLLier. BEFORE Congreve wrote his last comedy, "The Way of the World," he published a formal vindication of the four plays he had then written; first, the animadversions of Collier, which were principally directed against Dryden and himself. Dryden, who certainly knew what was right, although no man had been more frequently betrayed into acting wrong, candidly confessed the justice of the charge, with respect to his own dramatic productions; but not so Congreve, whose pride was hurt by Collier's attack on

plays which all the world had admired and commended. The most hypocritical bigot that ever existed could not have exhibited a greater degree of rancour and resentment, when unmasked, than did this author, so celebrated for sweetness of temper and elegance of manners.

It must be confessed that Collier, in his View of the Stage, had gone too far; he had forgotten the old axiom of Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia, and would listen to nothing less than the entire abolition of stage amusements, characterized, as they then undoubtedly were, by the grossest licentiousness of morals, and the most disgusting profanity. He denied the possibility of reforming the Stage, and therefore maintained the policy and necessity of entirely suppressing a scene that had been perverted to such base and mischievous purposes.

The following passage, from Congreve's Defence, is, however, worthy of perusal, as highly illustrative of the value and importance of those amusements, against which Collier had argued with so much good sense, learning, and temper.

"To what end has he made such a bug-bear of the Theatre? Why should he possess the minds of weak and melancholy people with such frightful ideas of a poor play, unless