At what time foever he became acquainted with the theatre, we may prefume that he had not compofed his first play long before it was acted; for being early encumbered with a young family, and not in very affluent circumftances, it is improbable that he should have fuffered it to lie in his clofet, without endeavouring to derive from it fome profit; and in the miferable ftate of the drama in those days, the meaneft of his genuine plays must have been a valuable acquifition, and would hardly have been refused by any of the managers of our ancient theatres. • Titus Andronicus appears to have been acted before any other play attributed to Shakspeare: and, therefore, as it hath been admitted into all the editions of his works, whoever might have been the writer of it, it is entitled to the first place in this general lift of his dramas. From Ben Jonfon's induction to Bartholomew Fair 1614, we learn that Andronicus had been exhibited twenty-five or thirty years before; that is, at the lowest computation, in 1589: or, taking a middle period (which is perhaps more juft), in 1587. In our Author's dedication of Venus and Adonis to lord Southampton, in 1593, he tells us, as Mr. Steevens hath obferved, that that poem was "the firft Heir of his Invention," and if we were fure that it was published immediately, or foon after it was written, it would at once prove Titus Andronicus not to be the production of Shakspeare, and nearly ascertain the time when he commenced a dramatic wriBut we do not know what interval might have elapfed between the compofition and the publication of that poem. There is indeed a paffage in the dedication already mentioned; which, if there were not fuch decifive evidence on the other fide, might induce us to think that he had not written in 1593 any piece of more dignity than a love-poem; or at least any on which he himself fet a value. "If (fays he to his noble patron) your honour feem but pleafed, I account myself highly praised; and vow to take advantage of all idle hours till I have honoured you with fome graver labour." ter. A book entitled "A Noble Roman Hiftory of Titus Andronicus" (without any Author's name) was entered at Stationers Hall, Feb. 6, 1593-4. This I fuppofe to have been the play as it was printed in that year, and acted (according to Langbaine, who alone appears to have feen the first edition) by the fervants of the earls of Pembroke, Derby, and Effex. 'Mr. Pope thought that Titus Andronicus was not written by Shakspeare; becaufe Ben Jonfon spoke flightingly of it while Shakspeare was yet living. This argument perhaps will not bear a very strict examination. If it were allowed to have any validity, many of our Author's genuine productions must be excluded from his works; for Ben has ridiculed feveral of his dramas in the fame piece in which he hath mentioned Andronicus with contempt. It has been faid, that Francis Meres, who, in 1598, enumerated this among our Author's plays, might have been misled by a title-page but we may prefume, that he was informed, or deceived, by fome other means; for Shakspeare's name is not in the title-page of that in 1611; and therefore we may conclude, it was not in the title-page of the edition of 1394, of which the other was probably a re-impreffion. However (notwithstanding the authority of Meres), the high antiquity of the picce, its entry on the Stationers books, without the name of the writer, the regularity of the verfification, the diffimilitude of the ftyle from that of those plays which were undoubtedly compofed by our Author, and the tradition mentioned by Ravenscroft, at a period when some of his contemporaries had not been long dead [viz. that he had been told by fome, anciently converfant with the ftage, that Andronicus was not originally Shakspeare's, but brought by a private author to be acted, and that he only gave fome maltertouches to one or two of the principal parts or characters."]— thefe circumstances render it highly improbable, that this play fhould have been the compofition of Shakspeare.' These remarks are acute and judicious, and conclude much against the authenticity of this play and yet, in fpite of evidence internal and external, a certain painful collator of particles and commas hath, through an old pair of fpectacles, which Tem Hearne had thrown afide as good for nothing, difcovered beauties and excellencies in Titus Andronicus, which had hitherto been invisible to mortal fight. On this wonderful difcovery, Mr. Malone indulges himself in a little pleasantry: for which we refer to the book. Concerning the date of Macbeth, Mr. Malone offers the following ingenious conjectures. From a book entitled Rex Platonicus, cited by Dr. Farmer, we learn, that King James, when he vifited Oxford in 1605, was addreffed by three ftudents of St. John's College, who perfonated the three Weird Sifters; and recited a fhort dramatic poem, founded on the prediction of thofe Sybils (as the Author calls them), relative to Banquo and Macbeth. Dr. Farmer is of opinion, that this little piece preceded Shakspeare's play; a fuppofition which is ftrengthened by the filence of the Author of Rex Platonicus, who, if Macbeth had then appeared on the flage, would probably have mentioned fomething of it. It fhould likewife be remembered, that there fubfifted, at that time, a fpirit of oppofition between the regular players and the academics of the two Univerfities; the latter of whom frequently acted plays both in Latin and English, and feem feem to have piqued themfelves on the fuperiority of their exhibitions to thofe of the established theatres. Wishing, probably, to manifeft this fuperiority to the Royal Pedant, it is not likely, that they would chufe for a collegiate interlude, a fubject which had already appeared on the public ftage, with all the embellishments that the magic hand of Shakspeare could bestow. This tragedy contains an allufion to the union of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, under one fovereign, and alfo, to the cure of the King's-Evil by the Royal touch [Act IV. Scene I, II.]; but in what year that pretended power was affumed by King James I. is uncertain. Macbeth was not entered on the Stationers books, nor printed, till 1623. At the time when Macbeth was fuppofed to have been written, the fubject, it is probable, was confidered as a topic the most likely to conciliate the favour of the court. In the additions to Warner's Albion's England, which were firft printed in 1606, the ftory of the Three Fairies or IVeird Elves, as he calls them, is fhortly told; and King James's defcent from Banquo carefully deduced, Ben Jonfon, a few years afterwards, paid his court to his Majefty, by his Masque of Queens, prefented at Whitehall, Feb. 12, 1609, in which he hath given a minute detail of all the magic rites that are recorded by King James, in his book of Dæmonologie, or by any other author ancient or modern. 'Mr. Steevens hath lately difcovered a MS. play, entitled the WITCH, written by Thomas Middleton, which renders it queftionable, whether Shakspeare was not indebted to that author for the first hint of the magic introduced in this tragedy. -The fongs beginning Come away, &c. and Black fpirits, &c. being found at full length in Middleton's play, white only the two first words of them are printed in Macbeth, favour the fuppofition, that Middleton's piece preceded that of Shakspeare, the latter, it should feem, thinking it unneceffary to fet down verses which were probably well known, and perhaps then in the poffeffion of the managers of the Globe Theatre. The high reputation of Shakspeare's performances likewife firengthens this conjecture; for it is very improbable, that Middleton, or any other poet of that time, fhould have ventured into thofe regions of fiction, in which our Author had already expatiated.' Mr. Steevens hath produced fome curious extracts from this old play, which, we are informed, will be published entire, for the fatisfaction of the intelligent readers of Shakspeare.' By the very numerous quotations from old plays, ballads, hiftories, and romances, which Mr. Steevens hath produced, to illuftrate fome obfcure paffages in Shakspeare, a hafty and fuperficial critic might be tempted to question his peculiar, and almost unrivalled claim to originality or if he were not so prefumptuous C 4 fumptuous as to question what the united fuffrages of the best judges have allowed him, yet, at leaft, to qualify it by a colder praife than hath been hitherto beftowed on him. It muft, indeed, be acknowledged by the moft enthufiaftic admirer of this immortal poet, that many of his plays, which owe their chief beauties to a boldnefs of invention, and a wildnefs of fancy, appear to have been in fome degree indebted, either for plot, management, or machinery, to other writers. This remark receives confirmation from the discovery of Middleton's MS. play, above mentioned; in which, fomewhat of that imagery that hath equally aftonished, charmed, and terrified us, in the closet and the theatre, in the tragedy of Macbeth, may be traced out by a curious and difcerning eye. How far Shakspeare was indebted to old English tranflations of the Greek and Latin claffics-to Stow, Hall, Holingfhed, and the tranflator of Hector Boethius's History of Scotland, hath been fufficiently noticed. by preceding critics. It was, indeed, left to the indefatigable Mr. Steevens, to turn over a thousand dull and infignificant entries at Stationers Hall, in order to difcover all the minutia of dates and titles which bore any reference to Shakspeare; and after a most laborious research, with an eye (as Dr. Johnfon fays of the fagacious Mr. B's) that looked keenly on vacancy, he made a difcovery of feveral plays, on fimilar fubjects with many of Shakspeare's, which were prior to his, and even before his first entrance on the stage. All this may be true: nay, we have not a doubt of the fact. But nothing that hath yet been produced of Shakspeare's plagiarism, can deprive him of one tittle of his almoft prefcriptive right to all the honours of a great and unequalled original. The moft captious critic, in the fulnefs of a defire to find fault, must allow, that Shakspeare's borrowed ornaments fit on him with a more natural grace and elegance than on their original proprietors. They are fo exquifitely difpofed of-fo nicely blended with what is unqueftionably his own property, that we know not where the borrowed parts end, nor where the original ones begin. The whole appears to be the production of the fame mafter: fimplex duntaxat et unum. We may, perhaps, affert, that in the general and more difgraceful fenfe of the word, this great poet never appears to have borrowed at all. He had read indeed; and his capacious mind was stored with a vast treasure of knowledge and obfervation. He had reflected on the great acquifitions he had made; had arranged them in his mind with much care and exactnefs. By thefe means, they became incorporated with his own natural, and in the trueft fenfe of the term, unborrowed reflections. Hence it is obvious to fuppofe, that when he addreffed himself to compofition, he drew indifcriminately from the immenfe ftorehouse of his mind, whatever was hit for his purpose, whether of of native or acquired knowledge-indifferent, and perhaps unconfcious, whofe property any part of it might be. This is not an uncommon circumftance. The utmost circumspection cannot always prevent its occurrence: for it is difficult to diftinguish the power of invention from that of reflection. Fancy may claim for its own what had been first only adopted by memory. Shakspeare hath the admirable art not only of applying his borrowed parts with propriety, but of embellishing and improving them. He adds to them a grace and dignity, which, at leaft, are his own. In the tragedy of Macbeth, his fpirits, though fimilar in name to those of Middleton [particularly the prefiding Deity hath in each the Grecian name of Hecate], yet they differ from Middleton's in almost every essential attribute of conduct and character. Middleton's fairies are light, frisky beings, who wreak their malice on fmall culprits, and revenge little mifchiefs. Shakspeare's are brought on the ftage for purposes of higher account. They are to be the inftruments of dire events-revolutions that were worthy the council of the Gods. This great object was of fufficient importance to excufe the interpofition of fupernatural beings. Hence, what Middleton invented to amufe, Shakspeare's more daring genius improved into an inftrument of terror. This he hath accomplished with wonderful propriety and we admire that skill and power which, on fo flight a bafis, could erect such a ftupendous fabric. Shakspeare's witches feem to be fully aware of the high importance of the fubject of their incantations, by the number of the ingredients which they throw into the cauldron. Hecate is anxious for its fuccefs; and enquires into the particulars of the infernal mixture. They folemnly caft in their respective share of the compofition: but instead of the griftle of a man hang'd after fun-fet [i. e. a murderer, according to Middleton's play] they throw in the grease that's fweaten from a murderer's gibbet: and inftead of Middleton's fat of an unbaptifed child, they mix with the other ingredients of the cauldron, the finger of birth-frangled babe. Perhaps it may be impoffible to defcribe the precife difference in the energy of thefe expreffions. It must be felt from their feveral effects on the imagination. Confidered in that view, the difference is very great: at least, it is felt to be such by us; and from a variety of circumftances of this kind, we are perfuaded, that Shakspeare never fat down to write from another's copy. His language was the natural expreffion of a mind fraught with the boldeft conceptions, and the moft lively ideas: and when the whole of Middleton's play is published, perhaps our convictions will be ftill farther corroborated, of Shakspeare's having never confidered it as a model for his fcene of the witches |