It is always to be lamented that Pope ever undertook this edition of Shakespear; a task which the course of his readings and studies did not qualify him to execute with the ability and skill which it deserved, and with which it has since been executed. This preface, however, is written with taste, judgment, purity, and elegance; as that of Dr. Johnson is with uncommon spirit and splendor. What the latter urges against observing the unities of time and place, in dramatic poetry, is unanswerable. But I cannot possibly assent to his opinion, that Shakespear's predominant excellence lay in comedy, not tragedy. An Essay has been written on this subject, which may possibly, one day, see the light. It is almost impossible to say much on this greatest of our poets, after the many curious researches, unwearied industry, and accurate remarks, every where visible in the excellent editions of Malone and Steevens. This edition of Pope had, however, the accidental merit of making Shakespear more read and acted. Dryden's character of our unrivalled Poet, in his Essay on Dramatic Poetry, is exquisitely written, and contains most of the topics in his praise, that later critics have only expanded and repeated. Dr. Warburton informs us that he undertook his edition of Shakespear, at the earnest persuasion of Pope; "who was desirous," he says, "that his edition should be melted down into mine." But I do not recollect any edition of any author whatever, that was ever more totally exposed and demolished, on account of its numerous perverse interpretations, and improbable conjectures, than this edition in question, by Mr. Thomas Edwards, in his twenty-five Canons of Criticism, which were drawn and illustrated, with equal humour and judgment, from Warburton's own notes and remarks. In vain was the author thrust into a niche of the Dunciad; these canons will continue to be read with equal pleasure and conviction; as well as the Ode which Akenside wrote to him on the subject, in which he says: Then Shakespear debonnair and mild Brought that strange comment forth to view! Warton. PREFACE TO THE WORKS OF SHAKESPEAR. It is not my design to enter into a criticism upon this author; though to do it effectually and not superficially, would be the best occasion that any just writer could take to form the judgment and taste of our nation. For of all English poets, Shakespear must be confessed to be the fairest and fullest subject for criticism, and to afford the most numerous, as well as most conspicuous instances, both of beauties and faults of all sorts. But this far exceeds the bounds of a preface, the business of which is only to give an account of the fate of his works, and the disadvantages under which they have been transmitted to us. We shall hereby extenuate many faults which are his, and clear him from the imputation of many which are not a design which, though it can be no guide to future critics to do him justice in one way, will at least be sufficient to prevent their doing him an injustice in the other. I cannot, however, but mention some of his principal and characteristic excellences, for which (notwithstanding his defects) he is justly and univer sally elevated above all other dramatic writers. Not that this is the proper place of praising him, but because I would not omit any occasion of doing it. If ever any author deserved the name of an original, it was Shakespear. Homer himself drew not his art so immediately from the fountains of Nature; it proceeded through Egyptian strainers and channels, and came to him not without some tincture of the learning, or some cast of the models, of those before him. The poetry of Shakespear was inspiration indeed: he is not so much an imitator, as an instrument, of Nature; and it is not so just to say that he speaks from her, as that she speaks through him. His characters are so much Nature* herself, that it is a sort of injury to call them by so distant a name as copies of her. Those of other poets have a constant resemblance, which shews that they received them from one another, and were but multipliers of the same image; each picture, like a mock-rainbow, is but the reflection of a reflection. But every single character in Shakespear is as much an individual, as those in life itself: it is as impossible to find any two alike; and such as from their relation or affinity in any respect appear most to be twins, will, upon comparison, be found remarkably distinct. To this life and variety of character, we must add the wonderful preservation of it; which is such throughout his plays, that had * See Mrs. Montagu's ingenious Essay on Shakespear, and her confutations of some of Voltaire's criticisms. Warton. |