1795-] 
the orthography, the phrafeology, the dates 
given, or by inference deducible, and the 
aiffimilitude of the band writing, * that 
not a fingle paper or deed, in this extra- 
ordinary volume, was written, or exe- 
cuted. by the perfon to whom it is 
afcribed.”—In purfuance of this plan, 
he regularly examines every one of the 
aineteen documents produced by Mr. 
Treland ; and viétorioufly demonitrates 
them to be fpurious from internal evi- 
dence. 
The firft of thofe documents is a letter 
from Queen Elizabeth to Shak{peare ; 
which we here give verbatim.—* Wee 
didde receive youre prettye verfes goode 
maiterre William through the hands of 
- oure Chambelayne ande wee doe comple- 
mente thee onne theyre greate excellence 
Wee fhall departe fromme Londonne 
toe. Hamptowne forre the holydayes 
where wee fhalle éxpecte thee withe 
thye befte a€torres thatte thou maytte 
playe before ourefelfe toeamufe uffe Bee 
notte flowe butte comme toe uffe bye 
Tuefdaye nexte afs the lord Leicefterre 
wille bee withe uffe.”’ 
[ fuperferibed\ 
« For mafter William Shakfpeare 
atte the Globe bye Thames. 
{02 a fmall paper fuck on] 
« Thys letterre I dydde receyve 
-fromme mye mofte gracyoufe lady Eli- 
zabethe ande I doe requefte itte maye bee 
Kepte withe alle care poflyble 
“Wm. Shakfpeare”’ 
_ This pretended letter of our virgin 
queen, Mr. Malone diffeéts with much 
dexicricy. “ Firft,”’ fays he, “ the f{pelling 
4s not only not the orthography of Eliza- 
beth, or of her time, but is, for the mott 
part, the orthography of no age whatfo- 
ever. From the time of Henry the 
fourth, I have perufed fome thoufand 
deeds and other MSS. and I never once 
found the copulative avd fpelt, as it is 
here, with a finale. The fame obferva- 
tion may be-made on the word /forre, a 
mode of orthography I believe unprece- 
dented. The clumty fabricator had feen 
far written inold books farre, and took 
at for granted that a word fo nearly fimilar 
as for had anciently the fame terminating 
_letters.”’—‘* The abfurd manner (adds 
Mr. Malone) in which almoft every 
word is over-laden with both confonants 
and vowels, will at once {trike every 
_ ¥eader, who has any knowledge of the 
ftate of our language at the period refer- 
Fed to.” To prove this, he gives fpeci- 
mens of Englith orthography from 
Lhe Shak/peare Coutriverfy: 
(Qhi 
Chaucer, Sir John Fortefcue, Lord Sur- 
rey, Sir Philip Sidney, Puttenham, 
Spencer, 8c. &c. and concludes, that 
thofe fpecimens, ‘‘ without the aid of 
ther fpecimens of Queen Elizabeth’s 
own orthography (to be. given after- 
wards) prove decifively”’ that the paper 
before us, ‘‘in which fuch laboured and 
capricious deformity of {pelling is intro- 
duced, could not be written by Elizabeth ; 
but is a mere forgery.’’—But this is ftill 
clearer froma table which Mr. Malone 
gives us of twenty-four common’ words 
in the fpelling of the fpurious letter com- 
pared with the certain orthography of 
Elizabeth: namely, youre for your, goode 
for good, off for of, ande for and, wee for 
we, doe tor do, oune for on, fballe for fail, 
Fromme for from, toe for to, befte for bef, 
before for befor, thatie for that, oure fox our, 
bee for be, butte for but, uffe for us, comme 
for come, affe for as, withe for with, atie 
Rona ah. 
2d, The language and phrafeology 
differs from that of thofe times.— Preity 
verfes, complement ufed as a verb, excellence 
applied to written compofitions, owr/elf 
Written as one word, amuze in the modern 
meaning of amufe. 
3d, ‘1 he fuperfcription isabfurd.“* Her 
majefty, inftead of fending this letter by 
one of her ordinary meffengers, fuper- 
{cribes it herfelf ; not indeed precifely in 
the fathion of a letterfent by the modern 
penny-poft, but with the formality of 
thofe epiftles, which, in her time, were 
conveyed by common carriers, or ftate 
meflengers, from one part of the king- 
dom to the other: For maffer William 
Shakfpeare, atte tbe Globe bye Thames. 
Had the added deliver this with fpeed, it 
would have been complete.—But where 
is this letter to find the poet? Af the 
Globe by Thames. Unluckily the Glode 
Theatre was not built at the time to which 
this letter muft be referred; and when 
it was built, it was not fituated by 
Thames, but in Maiden-lane, a ftreet in 
Southwark, at fome diftance from the 
river, as is proved by an authentic docu- 
ment in my poffeffion.’”’—T hat the Globe 
Theatre did not exift at the time to 
which this letter muft be referred, is 
clear from this, that although the writer 
cautioufly avoided putting a date to it, 
he has furnifhed us with a negative one, 
by mentioning Lord Leycefter as then liy- 
ing. But that nobleman died in the early 
part of 1588; when it is in the higheft 
degree improbable that Shakfpeare had 
compofed any drama at all, or was con- 
{picuous as an actor, 
E 2 On 
