1808.) 
translations, and that Heywood had 
falsely claimed them; he knowing that 
Heywood was the author, and that 
Shakespeare had pretended to be so: and 
that Jaggard had justified that Shake- 
speare was the author. Here Hey- 
woea could have been evidence in sup- 
port of the prosecution: but without 
some other proof than his assertion, he 
would scarcely have been believed. 
Let it then be supposed that an issue 
is directed to try, whether William 
Shakespeare, or Thomas Heywood, be the 
author of these poems; and as such 
entitled to the copy-right. 
The chief difficulty would be, how Tho- 
mas Heywood, or any one claiming under 
him, could escape a nonsuit. For what 
would be the evidence to be left toa jury? 
Suppose Jaggard called, and no ob- 
jection to be taken on one side that he 
is interested ; on the other, that he is not 
bound to criminate himself. His tes- 
timony proves this: that he has published 
as Heywood’s, what he had previously in 
the very same year published as Shake- 
speare’s. 
_ Heywood, in his claim, states no cir- 
cumstance whatever to support it; re- 
fers to no one to whom he had read _ the 
translations, or who ‘had seen the mauu- 
scripts; does not even assert in general 
terms, that he has proof to bring forward 
in maintenance of his claim; and yet 
was not something of this kind fit and 
natural, when he denies the claim of an- 
other; and that other, Shakespeare? 
—adored, beloved, and esteemed, even 
in his own days; and who appears to have 
“borne his faculties so meekly,” that 
envy and detraction were overwhelmed 
by atfectionate respect. 
_ As I said before, it appears to me it 
would have been a Case for a mere non- 
suit against Heywood. 
It may be objected, but Heywood 
might have proof, which he might very 
properly nat communicate: still if not as 
to particulars ; why not at least so far as 
a general intimation? Shakespeare was 
in his fuli vigour of life, and of re- 
utation. He was then about forty-five. 
And the plays on which his immortal 
fame rests, had nearly all established 
themselves on the theatre. 
But it may be said, is it not strange 
that Shakespeare should have left behind 
him no contradiction ef Heywood’s 
‘claim; if it were unfounded? Not very 
6trange in a poet, who, as myuncle in bis 
edition has observed, left the noblest of 
his works as the ostrich leaves her eggs in 
the sand. Not strange too, bad he been 
more solicitous, that this should have 
Author of the Episiles translated from Ovid. 
313 
escaped him. It was not then the age of 
newspapers, of reviews, of universal com- 
munication. Seven years before, Shakes 
‘speare had purchased the house which he 
made his favourite, and pevhaps almost 
constant residence to his death; which 
he repaired and improved, and named, 
“ New Place.” It may bejustly duubied 
whether, in his tranquil and happy re- 
tirement, he ever heard of Heywood's 
publication of them in 1609; or of his 
claim of themas his and his censure of 
Jaggard in 1612. Shakespeare’s vast trea- 
sures needed no such addition ; nor was 
he, who was so little anxious foi the most 
vatuable of them, a man to have plumed 
himself out in feathers comparatively of 
so little value. Had he been so unjust, 
and so weak and base, Johnson would 
not have said, “I loved the man 
and honour his memory, on this side 
idolatry, as much as any.” That he was 
capable of these translations—I mean that 
he had sufficient knowledge of Latin, we 
have no reason to doubt. His contem- 
poraries doubted nut. This we may well 
believe, as otherwise we should have 
heard it. Dr. Farmer, it is true, having 
a system which he had taken up, that 
Shakespeare had no Jearning, has taken 
for granted, on the bare assertion of Jag- 
gard, that Shakespeare was not the:aus 
thor of these translations. But I think 
this paper conveys sufficient reason for 
believing that Shakespeare was: without 
resorting to some portion of internal evi- 
dence, (though in a translation much less © 
was to be expected than would have been 
in an original,) from the diction and the 
monotony. If I were convinced that 
Shakespeare must have known that these 
translations were published in 1609, 
with his other poems, as his, I should 
have disdained to offer arguments in 
proof that they were not another’s. 
Troston, Carpet Lorrr. 
Sept. 20, 1808. 
EE 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, ‘ 
4 Bees present being an age characte- 
rized, not only by the various discos 
veries, and improvements, which have 
been made in every department of sci- 
ence, (extending the bounds of human 
knowledge to distances hitherto un 
known,) but also by the means which 
have been used by learned men of every 
description to facilitate the progress of 
the young student to the temple of know- 
ledge, we need not wonder at the number 
and variety of elementary works which 
have been published for these few years 
past, 
- 
