22 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



C2'>d S. X Jolt 14. '60. 



the title-leaf of 1637, reprinted it with the list of 

 characters as then given — now ascribed to Howe! 

 — and an advertisement of some of his own publi- 

 cations, among which are six plays. 



It might be unsafe to adopt this conclusion from 

 one instance, but other copies tell the same tale. 

 It required more than twice seven years to sell off 

 an impression of the Merchant of Venice. 



I proceed to treat of Macbeth. A List of plays 

 altered from Shakspeare, formed by Steevens with 

 the assistance of Reed, was printed in the anno- 

 tated editions of 1790, 1793, 1803, etc. 



In that list I find but one edition of Macbeth 

 before the year 1675. It is thus desci-ibed — 



Macbeth, a traged}', with all the alterations, amend- 

 ments, additions, and new songs ; as it is now acted at 

 the Duke's Theatre. By Sir William D'Avenant. 1674. 

 4to. , 



Now, I affirm that there is no edition of Mac- 

 beth so entitled, and that three altered editions of 

 the play were printed at that period — which, to 

 speak hihliographically, are omitted. I transcribe 

 the titles from copies in my own possession — 



(1.) Macbeth : a tragedy. Acted 'at the Dukes-Thea- 

 tre. London, printed for IFilliam Cademan at the Popes- 

 Head in the New Exchange, in the Strand. 1673. 4°. 

 pp. 4 + 68 = 72. 



(2.) Macbeth, a tragaedy. With all the alterations, amend- 

 ments, additions, and new songs. As it's now acted at the 

 Dukes Theatre. London, printed for F. Chetwin, and are 

 to be sold b3' most booksellers, 1674. 4°. pp. 4 + 66 = 70. 



(3.) Macbeth, a tragedy: with all the alterations, 

 amendments, additions, and new songs. As it is now 

 acted at the Dukes Theatre. London: printed for A. 

 Clark, and are to be sold by most booksellers, 1674. 4°. 

 pp. 4+60 = 64. 



The edition reported by Steevens is anonymous. 

 The name of Sir "William Davenant, to whom 

 Downes ascribes the alterations, should therefore 

 have been printed within brackets. It is one of 

 the indispensable rules of bibliography. 



The three editions of which I have transcribed 

 the titles attest the popularity of this splendid 

 drama. Among the actors were Mr. Nath. Bee 

 and Mr. Betterton. The editions of 1674 contain 

 an argument of forty lines — which I have traced 

 to the mikp0'K02M02 of Feter Pleylyn. It is, of 

 course, the story of Macbeth — " than which," says 

 the ingenious author, " for variety, of action, or 

 strangeness of event, I never met with any more 

 pleasing." — Neither of the three editions contains 

 the name of Shakspere, nor of Sir William Dave- 

 nant, and it is due to the public to give some ac- 

 count of the contents of each edition. 



The Macbeth of 1673 contains the received 

 text of Shakspere, with three lyrical additions. 

 At the end of Act II. Scene 2. we have " Speak, 

 sister, is the deed done ?"■=■ 15 lines ; at the end 

 of Act II. Scene 3., " Let's have a dance upon the 

 heath,'' = 16 lines; and at the end of Act III. 

 Scene 5,, " Come away Hecate, Hecate, Oh ! come 

 away," =34: lines. 



The other editions contain the above songs, 

 with variations ; also, " Black spirits, and white," 

 &c. To read all the alterations and amendments 

 is a task beyond the reach of mortal patience ! 



Malone was not aware that any of the above 

 specimens oi witch- lore had appeared before 1674 

 — nor was Steevens. Others assert that the list 

 of characters to Macbeth was first supplied by 

 Rowe. Now it is given in each of the above 

 editions. 



Boswell is pleased to observe that the quarto 

 plays subsequent to the folio of 1623 are " ad- 

 mitted on all hands to be utterly worthless." I 

 hope it will henceforth be admitted that they are 

 worth examination. Bolton Corney. 



CHARLES MARSHALL NOT THE INVENTOR OF 

 THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH. 



In an article on " Electricity and the Electric 

 Telegraph," which appears in the Cornhill Maga- 

 zine for the current month, the writer assumes, as 

 a res adjudicata, that the name of the inventor of 

 the electric telegraph was Charles Marshall, and 

 indulges in a somewhat glowing eulogy on Charles 

 Marshall's merits. I am not in a position abso- 

 lutely to affirm that the writer is wrong, but 

 having given perhaps more attention to this sub- 

 ject than any other person, I am certainly in a 

 position to prove that the name of the inventor 

 of the electric telegraph is still involved in mj's- 

 tery ; and that we have no more reason to believe 

 it was Ciiarles Marshall, than that it was Charles 

 Mackenzie, or any other name beginning with the 

 letters C. M. 



That the writer of the letter, dated " Renfrew, 

 Feb. 1, 1753," which appeared in the Scots' Ma- 

 gazine of the succeeding month, is really entitled 

 to the honour of this important invention, there 

 can be no doubt ; and from the fact that he as- 

 sumes the above letters as his signature, there 

 seems to be a strong probability that they were 

 the initials of his name ; but although that letter 

 was first republished in the leading columns of the 

 Glasgow Reformers' Gazette, in Nov. 1853, accom- 

 panied with some remarks of my own strongly 

 urging investigation, and although in the interval 

 my pursuits have been much directed to these 

 subjects, I have not been able from that time to 

 the present to discover any farther clue to the 

 name of the writer. 



It is true that the letter, having been redis- 

 covered by Sir David Brewster (probably in con- 

 sequence of its appearance in the Reformers' 

 Gazette), and republished at his request in the 

 Glasgow Commonwealth of the 21st January, 1854, 

 elicited, nearly five years afterwards, a communi- 

 cation from Mr. Dick, giving Avhat he considered 

 to be good reasons for believing that C. M. was 

 none other than a Charles Marshall, who resided, 



