I regret that no further notice has been taken of the very curious
matter suggested by "Mr. Jebb" (No 14. p. 213.), one of the many
forgeries of which Shakspeare has been the object, which ought to be
cleared up, but which I have neither leisure nor materials to attempt;
but I can afford a hint or two for other inquirers.
1. This strange intermixture of some _John_ Shakspeare's confession
of the Romish faith with _William_ Shakspeare's will, is, as Mr. Jebb
states to be found in the _Dublin_ edition of Malone's _Shakspeare_,
1794, v. i. p. 154. It is generally supposed that this Dublin edition
is a copy (I believe a piracy) of the London one of 1790; but by what
means the _three_ introductory paragraphs of John Shakspeare's popish
confession were foisted into the real will of William is a complete
mystery.
2. Malone, in a subsequent part of his prolegomena to both of those
editions (Lond. v. i. part II. 162., and Dublin, v. ii. p. 139.),
printed a pretended will or confession of the faith of _John_
Shakspeare, found in a strange, incredible way, and evidently a
forgery. This consisted of fourteen articles, of which the first
_three_ were missing. Now the _three_ paragraphs foisted into
_William's_ will would be the kind of paragraphs that would complete
_John's_ confession; but they are not in confession. Who, then, forged
_them_? and foisted _them_--_which Malone had never seen_--into so
prominent a place in the Dublin reprint of Malone's work?
3. Malone, in his inquiry into the _Ireland_ forgeries, alludes to
this confession of faith, admits that he was mistaken about it, and
intimates that he had been imposed on, which he evidently was; but
he does not seem to know any thing of the second forgery of the three
introductory paragraphs, or of their bold introduction into William
Shakspeare's will in the Dublin edition of his own work.
It is therefore clear that Mr. Jebb is mistaken in thinking that it
was "a blunder of _Malone's_." It seems, as far as we can see, to have
been, not a blunder, but an audacious fabrication; and how it came
into the Irish edition, seems to me incomprehensible. The printer of
the Dublin edition, Exshaw, was a respectable man, an alderman and a
Protestant, and _he_ could have no design to make William Shakspeare
pass for a papist; nor indeed does the author of the fraud, whoever
he was, attempt _that_; for the three paragraphs profess to be the
confession of _John_. So that, on the whole, the matter is to me quite
inexplicable; it is certain that it must have been a premeditated
forgery and fraud, but by whom or for what possible purpose, I cannot
conceive.