212 
On Shakfpeare’s fuppofed minute, an- 
nexed to the Letter, Mr. M. obferves, 
that we *‘have here the modeft and care- 
lefs Shakpeare, who flung his writings 
co the worid, unconicicus of their excel- 
lence, and negligent of their fate, fedu- 
loufly docketing his papers with the 
pun@iilious exattnefs:of a merchant or 
attorney.”* We confefs, we fee more wit 
than juft reafening in this obfervation. 
‘The Bard of Avon might, in general, be 
carelefs of his own prcduétions, and yet 
feduloufly docket a letter from a Quecz. 
Mr. Malone elfewhere is at great pains 
to fhow.that William Shakfpeare had, 
from his infancy, been taught to have a 
great refpect for feeptres and d adems. If 
he thought that “ Divinity doch hedge a 
king,” he could not but put a very high 
value on a miffive from a royal hand. 
He would naturally keep it as a precious 
treafure, and confign it, as an heir-loem, 
to poftericy Not that I chink either the 
deiter cr the munute genuine : I am con- 
vinced of their fpurioufnefs : but fill Mr. 
Malone’s remark is here nugatory and 
uieleR 8 ut 
Tam, indeed, far from being of opi- 
nion, that all his other arguments are con- 
clufive. The difference of orthography, 
or even the difference of chicography, is 
not always an infallible proof of forgery. 
In the days of Shakipeare, and long 
after, there was no grammatical «ng i 
Tfrael: every one followed that mode of 
{pelling which was guod 17) dis own eyes. 
We have feen various MSS. unqueftion- 
ably written by the fame hand, in which 
a confiderable variety of fpelling was to 
be found, as well as a different form of 
characters. We know a living writer, 
whofe hand, at different periods of his 
life, has affumed a very different appear- 
ance ; more different even than what ap- 
pears between the pretended and real 
fat-fimiles of Elizabeth—But let us hear 
Mr. Malone. — 
~ © My laft topic is, I will not fay the 
difimiltude, but the total entire 
difimiltude of every part or the hand- 
writing of this Letter (except the figna- 
ture) from Elizabeih’s genuine hand- 
writing. Even in the fignature itfelf, 
there ‘are no lefs than fix grofs errors. 
The frft is, that it is too fmall for the 
period to which it muf be referred. 
The fecond, that the pretended auto- 
graph inclines fideways, whereas hcr 
genuine autographs are 4olt-uprigot, 
The third is a deviation. from ‘the 
Queen's mode of forming the firft letter 
of her name. ‘The fourth, is in the for. 
and 
Mathematical Correfpendence, 
[ April. 
mation of the letter a. he fifth, is in 
forming the 4 open at bottom. . The fixth 
in not coénnefting the R* with the other 
letters by a line paliing through the 4.” 
- Phere is undoubtedly enough of dif- 
fimilitude here to beget firong fufpicion ; 
but not enough, in my apprehenficn, to 
amount to a proof: and were it not from 
other more ftubborn circumftances, would 
not rafhly conclude from the mere diffe- 
énce in the fac-fimiles, that either of them 
might not be written by Elizabeth. Atthe 
fame time, I repeat it, | have no doubt of 
the forgery. And, indeed, I wifh the fore- 
going cbfervations to be confined to the 
hand-writing of Elizabeth ; for with re- 
gard to the other pretended fac-/muiles of 
Lord Southampton, &c. the hand of for- 
gery js too vifible in them tobe mifiaken. 
I thall not purfue Mr. Malone through 
the reft of his volume; in which he dii- 
covers his ufual acumen and induftry. 
The fame arguments that prove the {puri- 
oulnefs of the queen’s Jetter are ftill more 
cogent and conclufive when applied to 
the other pieces. On the whole, I am 
fuily perfuaded, that the papers in quef- 
tion are impudent forgeries ; although I 
do not, in every particular, find Mr. Ma- 
lone’s reafoning perfeétly juit. I thall 
only add, that he has increafed the fize 
of luis volume sith adeal of extraneous 
matter, and indulged refleCtions that were 
not conneéted with it. I would alfo wifh, 
that he had: evoided a certain farcaftic 
afperity, which gives no ftrength to his 
arguments, and which feems too often 
difplayed with feif-complacency and af- 
fectation. It will be faid, that forgerers 
deferye no quarter, Be it fo; but let 
them be difpatched as eafily as poffible ; 
and the gwc/otime preferred to the wheel, 
Your's, 
Arid 13, 1796s INVESTIGATOR. 
—————— 
MATHEMATICALCORRESPONDENCE, 
To rbe Editor of the Monihly Magazine. 
SIR, . 
HE remarks of your correfpondent 
2 Mr: A. Search, at page 29 and 30, No.l, 
though in many reipééts ingenious, are 
o couchedas, Inmy opinion, toleave room 
for animadverfion ; andas that gentleman, 
with a laudable degree of candour, feems _ 
to avoid faying more on the fubject until 
he hears what reception his firft ideas meet 
with, I expected that fome perfon of {cien- 
tific abilitics would have animadverted on 
his paper. However, as nothing has ap- 
peared on the fubjeét, except. what is ad- 

* For Regina. 
fl 7 
vanced 
