jury. I congratulate with the Manes of our Poet, that this Gentleman has been sparing in indulging his private Senfe, as he phrafes it; for He, who tampers with an Author, whom he does not understand, must do it at the Expence of his Subject. I have made it evident throughout my Remarks, that he has frequently inflicted a Wound where he intended a Cure. He has acted with regard to our Author, as an Editor, whom LIPSIUS mentions, did with regard to MARTIAL; Inventus eft nefcio quis Popa, qui non vitia ejus, fed ipfum excidit. He has attack'd him like an unhandy Slaughterman; and not lopp'd off the Errors, but the Poet.

When this is found to be the Fact, how abfurd muft appear the Praises of fuch an Editor? It feems a moot Point, whether Mr. Pope has done moft Injury to Shakespear as his Editor and Encomiaft; or Mr. Rymer done him Service as his Rival and Cenfurer. They have Both fhewn themselves in an equal Impuissance of fufpecting, or amending, the corrupted Paffages: and tho' it be neither Prudence to cenfure, or commend, what one does not understand; yet if a man must do one when he plays the Critick, the latter is the more ridiculous Office: And by That Shakespear fuffers moft. For the natural Veneration, which we have for him, makes us apt to fwallow whatever is given us as his, and fet off with Encomiums; and hence we quit all Sufpicions of Depravity: On the contrary, the Cenfure of fo divine an Author fets us upon his Defence; and this produces an exact Scrutiny and Examination, which ends in finding out and difcriminating the true from the fpurious.

It is not with any fecret Pleasure, that I fo frequently animadvert on Mr. Pope as a Critick; but there are Provocations, which a Man can never quite forget. His Libels have been thrown out with fo much Inveteracy, that, not to difpute whether they should come from a Chriftian, they leave it a Question whether they

could

&uld come from a Man. I fhould be loth to doubt, as Quintus Serenus did in a like Cafe,

Sive bomo, feu fimilis turpiffima beftia nobis,
Vulnera dente ded t.

The Indignation, perhaps, for being reprefented a Blockbead, may be as ftrong in us as it is in the Ladies for a Reflexion on their Beauties. It is certain, I am indebted to Him for fome flagrant Civilities; and I fhall willingly devote a Part of my Life to the honeft Endeavour of quitting Scores: with this Exception however, that I will not return thofe Civilities in his peculiar Strain, but confine myself, at least, to the Limits of common Decency. I fhall ever think it better to want Wit, than to want Humanity: and impartial Pofterity may, perhaps, be of my Opinion.

But, to return to my Subject; which now calls upon me to inquire into those Caufes, to which the Depra vations of my Author originally may be affign'd. We are to confider him as a Writer, of whom no authentic Manufcript was left extant; as a Writer, whose Pieces were difperfedly perform'd on the feveral Stages then in Being. And it was the Cuftom of thofe Days for the Poets to take a Price of the Players for the Pieces They from time to time furnifh'd; and thereupon it was fuppos'd, they had no farther Right to print them without the Confent of the Players. As it was the Interest of the Companies to keep their Plays unpublish'd, when any one fucceeded, there was a Contest betwixt the Curiofity of the Town, who demanded to fee it in Print, and the Policy of the Stagers, who wifh'd to fecrete it within their own Walls. Hence, many Pieces were taken down in Short-hand, and imperfectly copied by Ear, from a Representation: Others were printed from piece-meal Parts furreptitiously obtain'd from the Theatres, uncorrect, and without the Poet's Knowledge. To fome of these Causes we owe the Train of Blemishes, that deform thofe Pieces which

C 4

which ftole fingly into the World in our Author's Life-time.

There are ftill other Reasons, which may be fuppos'd to have affected the whole Set. When the Players took upon them to publifh his Works intire, every Theatre was ranfack'd to fupply the Copy; and Parts collected, which had gone thro' as many Changes as Performers, either from Mutilations or Additions made to them. Hence we derive, many Chafms and Incoherences in the Senfe and Matter. Scenes were frequently tranfpofed, and fhuffled out of their true Place, to humour the Caprice, or fuppos'd Convenience, of fome particular Actor. Hence much Confufion and Impropriety has attended, and embarras'd the Business and Fable. To thefe obvious Caufes of Corruption it must be added, that our Author has lain under the Difadvantage of having his Errors propagated and multiplied by Time: becaufe, for near a Century, his Works were publish'd from the faulty Copies, without the Affiftance of any intelligent Editor: which has been the Cafe likewife of many a Claffic Writer.

The Nature of any Distemper once found has generally been the immediate Step to a Cure. Shakefpear's Cafe has in a great Meafure refembled That of a corrupt Claffic; and, confequently, the Method of Cure was likewife to bear a Refemblance. By what Means, and with what Succefs, this Cure has been effected on ancient Writers, is too well known, and needs no formal Illuftration. The Reputation, confequent on Tasks of that Nature, invited me to attempt the Method here; with this view, the Hopes of restoring to the Publick their greatest Poet in his original Purity after having fo long lain in a Condition that was a Disgrace to common Senfe. To this end I have ventur'd on a Labour, that is the first Asfay of the kind on any modern Author whatfoever. For the late Edition of Milton by the Learned Dr. Bentley is, in the main, a Performance of another

Species.

Species. It is plain, it was the Intention of that Great Man rather to correct and pare off the Excrefcencies of the Paradife Loft, in the Manner that Tucca and Varius were employ'd to criticize the Eneis of Virgil, than to restore corrupted Paffages. Hence, therefore, may be feen either the Iniquity or Ignorance of his Cenfurers, who, from fome Expreffions, would make us believe, the Doctor every where gives us his Corrections as the original Text of the Author; whereas the chief Turn of his Criticifm is plainly to fhew the World, that if Milton did not write as He would have him, he ought to have wrote fo.

I thought proper to premife this Cbfervation to the Readers, as it will fhew that the Critic on Shakespear is of a quite different Kind. His genuine Text is for the most part religiously adher'd to, and the numerous Faults and Blemishes, purely his own, are left as they were found. Nothing is alter'd, but what by the cleareft Reasoning can be proved a Corruption of the true Text; and the Alteration, a real Reftoration of the genuine Reading. Nay, fo ftrictly have I ftrove to give the true Reading, tho' fometimes not to the Advantage of my Author, that I have been ridiculously ridicul'd for it by Thofe, who either were iniquitously for turning every thing to my Disadvantage; or elfe were totally ignorant of the true Duty of an Editor.

The Science of Criticism, as far as it affects an Editor, fems to be reduced to thefe three Claffes; the Emendation of corrupt Paffages; the Explanation of obfcure and difficult ones; and an Inquiry into the Beauties and Defects of Compofition. This Work is principally confin'd to the two former Parts: tho' there are fome Specimens interfpers'd of the latter Kind, as feveral of the Emendations were beft fupported, and feveral of the Difficulties beft explain'd, by taking notice of the Beauties and Defect of the Compofition peculiar to this Immortal Poet. But This was but occafional, and for the fake only of

per

perfecting the two other Parts, which were the proper Objects of the Editor's Labour. The third lies open for every willing Undertaker: and I fhall be pleas'd to fee it the Employment of a masterly Pen.

It must neceffarily happen, as I have formerly obferv'd, that where the Affiftance of Manufcripts is wanting to fet an Author's Meaning right, and rescue him from thofe Errors which have been transmitted down thro' a Series of incorrect Editions, and a long Intervention of Time, many Paffages must be defperate, and past a Cure; and their true Senfe irretriev able either to Care or the Sagacity of Conjecture. But is there any Reafon therefore to fay, That because All cannot be retriev'd, All ought to be left defperate? We fhould fhew very little Honefty, or Wifdom, to play the Tyrants with an Author's Text; to raze, alter, innovate, and overturn, at all Adventures, and to the utter Detriment of his Senfe and Meaning: But to be fo very referved and cautious, as to interpofe no Relief or Conjecture, where it manifeftly labours and cries out for Affiftance, feems, on the other hand, an indolent Abfurdity.

As there are very few pages in Shakespear, upon which fome Sufpicions of Depravity do not reafonably arife; I have thought it my Duty, in the first place, by a diligent and laborious Collation to take in the Affiftances of all the older Copies.

In his Hiftorical Plays, whenever our English Chronicles, and in his Tragedies when Greek or Roman Story, could give any Light; no Pains have been omitted to fet Paffages right by comparing my Author with his Originals: for, as I have frequently obferved, he was a close and accurate Copier where-ever his Fable was founded on Hiftory.

Where ever the Author's Senfe is clear and difcoverable, (tho', perchance, low and trivial;) I have not by any Innovation tamper'd with his Text; out of an

Often