^{page 114 note a} “The Essayes, or Morall, Politike, and Millitarie Discourses of Lo. Michaell de Montaigne, knight. First written by him in French, and now done into English by him that hath inuiolably vowed his labors to the Æternitie of their Honors, whose names he hath seuerally inscribed on these his consecrated Altares. The first Booke to the Right Honorable Lucie Co. of Bedford, and Ladie Anne Harrington, her Ho. Mother. The second Booke to the Right Honorable Elizabeth Co. of Rutland, and Lady Penelope Riche. The third Booke to the Right Honorable Ladie Elizabeth Grey and Ladie Marie Nevile. John Florio.

“Printed at London by Val, Sims, for Edward Blount, dwelling in Paules Churchyard, 1603.” folio. From his address “to the courteous reader,” we learn that this translation was undertaken at the suggestion of Sir Edward Wptton. It was reprinted in 1613, (Lowndes) and a third time in 1632. These later editions are dedicated to Queen Anna of Denmark, and prefixed are some commendatory verses by Sam. Daniel, to his “deare brother and friend Mr. John Florio, one of the Gentlemen of her Majesties most royal Privie Chamber.” The original work was first published in 1588.

^{page 115 note b} The Chatterton forgeries are now preserved in the British Museum, MSS. Add. 5766, A. B. C. and exhibit the most decisive proofs of the impudence of the imposture, and the obstinate ignorance of those who were to the last its champions. These defenders of Rowley argue that Chatterton was incapable of reading any work of research; but if so, how is it we find among his fictions the list of Romances printed in Madox's Formulare Anglicanum, and a copy of the kneeling figure of one of the Howard family, in Weever's Funeral Monuments, p. 847, which the impostor has partly altered, and then had the assurance to write around an inscription to the memory of Sir Gualeroyn de Chatterton? To those who may still have the least lingering wish to advocate the cause of Rowley, I recommend the task of decyphering eighteen lines in the Purple Roll, which for some reason or other have never yet been printed. It is worthy of remark, that one of these contemptible fragments is actually fastened to a portion of a genuine deed of the date of 10 Hen. IV. which in all probability is one of the very parchments that did come out of the celebrated Chest, and which is just what we might expect it to be, a quitclaim from one citizen of Bristol to another, of his right in four shops in the suburbs. See MSS. Add. 5766. A. fol. 28.

^{page 115 note c} Inquiry, p. 354.

^{page 116 note c} Fac-similies of these having already appeared in his “Confession,” it was thought unnecessary to repeat them here.

^{page 117 note d} The edition of 1632 reads partitions, and it is rather singular that Malone, in quoting this passage in his notes, should have referred to this, and not to the first edition. The coincidence of the passages had been previously pointed out by Capell; but he quotes the French text, which he very absurdly supposes was made use of by Shakspere.

^{page 117 note e} See “Histoire des Choses Memorables advenues en la terre du Bresil, partie de 1'Amerique Australe, sous le gouvernement de N. de Villeg. depuis l'an 1555, jusques à l'an 1558.” 80. 1561.

^{page 119 note f} “Apology,” p. 426. Drake's “Shakspeare and his Times,” vol. i. p. 17, 4to. 1817, who servilely copies Chalmers, and never took the trouble to see the original.

^{page 119 note g} Mr. J. G. Nichols is therefore in error, when he supposes these signatures were first traced from the Will for Malone's “Inquiry,” published in 1796. See his “Autographs of Remarkable Personages,” fol. Lond. 1829. No. 11. B.

^{page 119 note h} From a close examination of the original, it appears that this first signature has been considerably damaged since Steevens's time, and two of the letters are no longer legible, as may also be seen in Nichols. It may be remarked, in addition, that Steevens has evidently confounded this signature with the name of Shackspeare written at the top of the same margin by the scrivener, and by doing so, has misled Dr. Drake, although he might have been taught better by Chalmers, “Apology,” p. 426, note. As to Chalmers's notion (copied of course by Drake) that there is a c inserted before the k, it is not correct, and he has been misled by a straggling open a.

^{page 120 note i} “An Inquiry into the Authenticity of various portraits of Shakspeare,” 4to. Lond. 1824, p. 62. I do not, however, agree with the author, that this circumstance is of itself an argument against the authenticity of the portrait of Shakspere in the possession of Mr. William Nicol, of Pall Mall. Since Boaden's publication the letters read R. N. on the portrait have turned out to be R. B. which, if they designate Richard Burbage, would prove Steevens to be in the right after all.

^{page 121 note k} Ireland states, “Confessions,” p. 88, that this document was bequeathed by Garrick to the British Museum, which is not true. How it was lost remains, I believe, a mystery; but its production, I am firmly convinced, would corroborate the reading of Shakspere.

^{page 121 note l} See Malone, Pl. ii. No. x. Query, what has become of this document?

^{page 121 note m} To those deeply interested in the subject it may be as well to add, that the name of our poet both at his baptism and burial in the Stratford register is spelt Shakspere, and so are the names of other members of his family, between the years 1558 to 1593, and in the marriage licence recently discovered in the Consistorial Court of Worcester, it is spelt Shagspere, which, in effect, is the same thing.

^{page 122 note n} See the evidence summed up, but not without many inaccuracies, in “Another Essence of Malone,” 8vo. 1801, pp. 73–96Google Scholar, which was published anonymously by Geo. Hardinge.

^{page 122 note o} “New Facts regarding the Life of Shakespeare,” &c. 12mo. 1835, and “New Particulars regarding the Works of Shakespeare,” &c. 12mo. 1836.

^{page 122 note p} “Inquiry,” p. 120.

^{page 122 note q} See Wheler's Guide to Stratford-upon-Avon, 12mo. 1834, p. 143, where mention is made of a forgery of Shakspere's name, executed by John Jordan, author of a local poem called “Welcombe Hills,” which has recently been ascertained to be the one referred to in the text.