Some Account of the Life of Mr. William Shakespear (1709) | Page 5

McKerrow, TLS 8 March,
1934, p. 168. See also Ford, _op. cit._, pp. 11, 12.]
[Footnote 5: The best discussion of the Curll and Lintot Poems is that
of Hyder Rollins in _A new variorum edition of Shakespeare: the
poems_, Philadelphia and London (1938) pp. 380-382, to which I am
obviously indebted. See also Raymond M. Alden, "The 1710 and 1714
texts of Shakespeare's poems," MLN XXXI (1916), 268-274; and Ford,

_op. cit._, pp. 37-40.]
[Footnote 6: For example, he dropped out Rowe's opinion that
Shakespeare had little learning; the reference to Dryden's view as to the
date of Pericles; the statement that Venus and Adonis is the only work
that Shakespeare himself published; the identification of Spenser's
"pleasant Willy" with Shakespeare; the account of Jonson's grudging
attitude toward Shakespeare; the attack on Rymer and the defence of
_Othello_; and the discussion of the Davenant-Dryden Tempest,
together with the quotation from Dryden's prologue to that play.]
[Footnote 7: Edmond Malone, The plays and poems of William
Shakespeare, London (1790), I, 154. Difficult as it is to believe that so
careful a scholar as Malone could have made this error, it is none the
less true that he observed the omission of the passage on "pleasant
Willy" and stated that Rowe had obviously altered his opinion by
1714.]
[Footnote 8: Beverley Warner, _Famous introductions to Shakespeare's
plays_, New York (1906), p. 6.]
[Footnote 9: Gerald E. Bentley, Shakespeare and Jonson, Chicago
(1945). Vol. I.]
[Footnote 10: D. Nichol Smith, Eighteenth century essays on
Shakespeare, Glasgow (1903), pp. xiv-xv.]
The writer wishes to express his appreciation of a Research Grant from
the University of Minnesota for the summer of 1948, during which this
introduction was written.
--Samuel Holt Monk University of Minnesota

[Illustration: Picture of Shakespeare surrounded by angels]

THE
WORKS
OF
Mr. _William Shakespear_;
IN
SIX VOLUMES.
ADORN'D with CUTS.
Revis'd and Corrected, with an Account of the Life and Writings of the
Author.
By _N. ROWE_, Esq;
_L O N D O N_:
Printed for Jacob Tonson, within _Grays-Inn_ Gate, next _Grays-Inn_
Lane. MDCCIX.

[Illustration: Decorative motif]
SOME
ACCOUNT
OF THE
LIFE, _&c._
OF
Mr. William Shakespear.

It seems to be a kind of Respect due to the Memory of Excellent Men,
especially of those whom their Wit and Learning have made Famous,
to deliver some Account of themselves, as well as their Works, to
Posterity. For this Reason, how fond do we see some People of
discovering any little Personal Story of the great Men of Antiquity,
their Families, the common Accidents of their Lives, and even their
Shape, Make and Features have been the Subject of critical Enquiries.
How trifling soever this Curiosity may seem to be, it is certainly very
Natural; and we are hardly satisfy'd with an Account of any remarkable
Person, 'till we have heard him describ'd even to the very Cloaths he
wears. As for what relates to Men of Letters, the knowledge of an
Author may sometimes conduce to the better understanding his Book:
And tho' the Works of Mr. Shakespear may seem to many not to want a
Comment, yet I fancy some little Account of the Man himself may not
be thought improper to go along with them.
He was the Son of Mr. John Shakespear, and was Born at Stratford
upon Avon, in Warwickshire, in April 1564. His Family, as appears by
the Register and Publick Writings relating to that Town, were of good
Figure and Fashion there, and are mention'd as Gentlemen. His Father,
who was a considerable Dealer in Wool, had so large a Family, ten
Children in all, that tho' he was his eldest Son, he could give him no
better Education than his own Employment. He had bred him, 'tis true,
for some time at a Free-School, where 'tis probable he acquir'd that
little Latin he was Master of: But the narrowness of his Circumstances,
and the want of his assistance at Home, forc'd his Father to withdraw
him from thence, and unhappily prevented his further Proficiency in
that Language. It is without Controversie, that he had no knowledge of
the Writings of the Antient Poets, not only from this Reason, but from
his Works themselves, where we find no traces of any thing that looks
like an Imitation of 'em; the Delicacy of his Taste, and the natural Bent
of his own Great Genius, equal, if not superior to some of the best of
theirs, would certainly have led him to Read and Study 'em with so
much Pleasure, that some of their fine Images would naturally have
insinuated themselves into, and been mix'd with his own Writings; so
that his not copying at least something from them, may be an Argument
of his never having read 'em. Whether his Ignorance of the Antients

were a disadvantage