* TROILUS AND CRESSIDA.] The story was originally written by Lollius, an old Lombard author, and fince by Chaucer. POFE.

Mr. Pope (after Dryden) informs us, that the ftory of Troilus and Creffida was originally the work of one Lollius, a Lombard; (of whom Gafcoigne fpeaks in Dan Bartholmewe his firft Triumph: "Since Lollius and Chaucer both, make doubt upon that glofe,") but Dryden goes yet further. He declares it to have been written in Latin verfe, and that Chaucer tranflated it. Lollius was a hiftoriographer of Urbino in Italy. Shakspeare received the greatest part of his materials for the ftructure of this play from the Troye Boke of Lydgate. Lydgate was not much more than a tranflator of Guido of Columpna, who was of Meffina in Sicily, and wrote his Hiftory of Troy in Latin, after Dictys Cretenfis, and Dares Phrygius, in 1287. On these, as Mr. Warton obferves, he engrafted many new romantick inventions, which the taste of his age dictated, and which the connection between Grecian and Gothick fiction easily admitted; at the fame time comprehending in his plan the Theban and Argonautic ftories from Ovid, Statius, and Valerius Flaccus. Guido's work was published at Cologne in 1477, again 1480: at Strafburgh, 1486, and ibidem, 1489. It appears to have been tranflated by Raoul le Feure, at Cologne, into French, from whom Caxton rendered it into English in 1471, under the title of his Recuyel, &c. fo that there must have been yet fome earlier edition of Guido's performance than I have hitherto seen or heard of, unless his first translator had recourse to a manuscript.

Guido of Columpna is referred to as an authority by our own chronicler Grafton. Chaucer had made the loves of Troilus and Creffida famous, which very probably might have been Shakfpeare's inducement to try their fortune on the stage.-Lydgate's Troye Boke was printed by Pynfon, 1513. In the books of the Stationers' Company, anno 1581, is entered "A proper ballad, dialogue-wife, between Troilus and Creffida." Again, Feb. 7, 1602: "The booke of Troilus and Creffida, as it is acted by my Lo. Chamberlain's men.' The firft of thefe entries is in the name of Edward White, the fecond in that of M. Roberts. Again, Jan. 28, 1608, entered by Rich. Bonian and Hen. Whalley, "A booke called the history of Troilus and Creffida." STEEVENS.

The entry in 1608-9 was made by the bookfellers for whom this play was published in 1609. It was written, I conceive, in 1602. See An Attempt to ascertain the Order of Shakspeare's Plays, Vol. II. MALONE.

Before this play of Troilus and Creffida, printed in 1609, is

bookfeller's preface, fhowing that first impreffion to have been before the play had been acted, and that it was published without Shakspeare's knowledge, from a copy that had fallen into the bookfeller's hands. Mr. Dryden thinks this one of the firft of our author's plays: but, on the contrary, it may be judged, from the fore-mentioned preface, that it was one of his laft; and the great number of obfervations, both moral and politick, with which this piece is crouded more than any other of his, feems to confirm my opinion. POPE.

We may learn, from this preface, that the original proprietors of Shakspeare's plays thought it their intereft to keep them unprinted. The author of it adds, at the conclufion, these words:

Thank fortune for the 'fcape it hath made among you, fince, by the grand poffeffors wills, I believe you fhould rather have prayed for them, than have been prayed," &c. By the grand poffeffors, I fuppofe, were meant Heming and Condell. It appears that the rival play-houses at that time made frequent depredations on one another's copies. In the Induction to The Malcontent, written by Webfler, and augmented by Marston, 1606, is the following paffage :

"I wonder you would play it, another company having intereft in it."

Why not Malevole in folio with us, as Jeronimo in decimo fexto with them? They taught us a name for our play; we call it One for another."

Again, T. Heywood, in his Preface to The English Traveller, 1633" Others of them are ftill retained in the hands of fome actors, who think it against their peculiar profit to have them come in print." STEEVENS.

It appears, however, that frauds were practifed by writers as well as actors. It ftands on record against Robert Greene, the author of Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, and Orlando Furiofo, 1594 and 1599, that he fold the laft of these pieces to two different theatres: "Mafter R.G. would it not make you blush, &c. if you fold not Orlando Furiofo to the Queen's players for twenty nobles, and when they were in the country, fold the fame play to the Lord Admiral's men for as much more? Was not this plain Coneycatching, M.G.?" Defence of Coneycatching, 1592.

This note was not merely inferted to expofe the craft of authorship, but to fhow the price which was anciently paid for the copy of a play, and to ascertain the name of the writer of Orlando Furiofo, which was not hitherto known. Greene appears to have been the firft poet in England who fold the fame piece to different people. Voltaire is much belied, if he has not followed his example. COLLINS.

Notwithstanding what has been faid by a late editor, [Mr. Capell,] I have a copy of the first folio, including Troilus and Creffida. Indeed, as I have just now observed, it was at first either unknown or forgotten. It does not however appear in the lift of the plays, and is thruft in between the hiftories and the tragedies without any enumeration of the pages; except, I think, on one leaf only. It differs entirely from the copy in the Second folio. FARMER.

I have confulted at least twenty copies of the firft folio, and Troilus and Creffida is not wanting in any of them.

STEEVENS.

VOL. XV.

PREFACE

TO THE QUARTO EDITION OF THIS PLAY, 1609.

A never Writer to an ever Reader. Newes.

Eternall reader, you have heere a new play, never stal'd with the stage, never clapper-claw'd with the palmes of the vulger, and yet paffing full of the palme comicall; for it is a birth of your [r. that] braine, that never under-tooke any thing commicall, vainely and were but the vaine names of commedies changde for the titles of commodities, or of playes for pleas; you should fee all thofe grand cenfors, that now ftile them fuch vanities, flock to them for the maine grace of their gravities: especially this authors commedies, that are fo fram'd to the life, that they serve for the most common commentaries of all the actions of our lives, fhewing fuch a dexteritie and power of witte, that the most displeased with playes, are pleasd with his commedies. And all fuch dull and heavy-witted worldlings, as were never capable of the witte of a commedie, comming by report of them to his representations, have found that witte there, that they never found in them-felves, and have parted better-wittied then they came: feeling an edge of witte fet upon them, more then ever they dreamd they had braine to grind it on. So much and fuch favored falt of witte is in his commedies, that they feeme (for their height of pleasure) to be borne in that fea that brought forth Venus. Amongst all there is none more witty than this and had I time I would comment upon it, though I know it needs not, (for so much as will make you thinke your testerne well beftowd) but for so much worth, as even poore I know to be stuft in it. It deserves such a labour, as well as the best commedy in Terence or Plautus. And beleeve this, that when hee is gone, and his commedies out of fale, you will fcramble for them, and fet up a new English inquifition. Take this for a warning, and at the perill of your pleasures loffe, and judgements, refufe not, nor like this the leffe, for not being fullied with the fmoaky breath of the multitude; but thanke fortune for the scape it hath made amongst you: fince by the grand poffeffors wills I believe you should have prayd for them [r. it] rather then beene prayd. And so I leave all fuch to bee prayd for (for the ftates of their wits healths) that will not praise it. Vale.