themselves, but ill-shaped; cut out to an air of magnificence, but difproportioned and cumberfome. To the coftlinefs of ornament, he added all the graces and decorum of it. It may be faid, this did not require, or difcover a knowledge of the Latin. To the first, I think, it did not; to the second, it is fo far from difcovering it, that, I think it discovers the contrary. To make this more obvious by a modern inftance: The great MILTON likewife laboured under the like inconvenience; when he first fet upon adorning his own tongue, he likewife animated and enriched it with the Latin, but from his own ftock: and fo, rather by bringing in the phrafes, than the words: And this was natural; and will, I believe, always be the cafe in the fame circumftances. His language, especially his profe, is full of Latin words indeed, but much fuller of Latin phrases and his maftery in the tongue made this unavoidable. On the contrary, Shakefpeare, who, perhaps, was not fo intimately verfed in the language, abounds in the words of it, but has few or none of its phrafes: Nor, indeed, if what I affirm be true, could he. This I take to be the trueft criterion to determine this long agitated question. It may be mentioned, tho' no certain conclufion can be drawn from it, as a probable argument of his having read the ancients; that he perpetually expreffes the genius of Homer, and other great poets of the old world, in animating all the parts parts of his descriptions; and, by bold and breathing metaphors and images, giving the properties of life and action to inanimate things. He is a copy too of thofe Greek mafters in the infinite use of compound and de-compound epithets. I will not, indeed, aver, but that one with Shakespeare's exquifite genius and observation might have traced these glaring characteristics of antiquity by reading Homer in Chapman's verfion. An additional word or two naturally falls in here upon the genius of our author, as compared with that of Johnson his contemporary. They are confeffedly the greatest writers our nation could ever boast of in the Drama. The first, we say, owed all to his prodigious natural genius; and the other a great deal to his art and learning. This, if attended to, will explain a very remarkable appearance in their writings. Befides thofe wonderful masterpieces of art and genius, which each has given us; they are the authors of other works very unworthy of them: But with this difference; that in Johnson's bad pieces, we don't discover one fingle trace of the author of the Fox and Alchemist: but in the wild extravagant notes of Shakespeare, you every now and then encounter ftrains that recognize the divine compofer. This difference may be thus accounted for. Johnfon, as we faid before, owing all his excellence to his art, by which he fometimes ftrained himself to an uncommon pitch, when at other times he unbent and played with his fubject, having nothing nothing then to support him, it is no wonder he wrote fo far beneath himself. But Shakespeare, indebted more largely to nature, than the other to acquired talents, in his most negligent hours could never fo totally diveft himself of his genius, but that it would frequently break out with aftonifhing force and fplendor. As I have never propofed to dilate farther on the character of my Author, than was neceffary to explain the nature and use of this edition, I fhall proceed to confider him as a genius in poffeffion of an everlasting name. And how great that merit must be, which could gain it against all the disadvantages of the horrid condition in which he has hitherto appeared! Had Homer, or any other admired author, first started into publick fo maimed and deformed, we cannot determine whether they had not funk for ever under the ignominy of fuch an ill appearance. The mangled condition of Shakespeare has been acknowledged by Mr. Rowe, who published him indeed, but neither corrected his text, nor collated the old copies. This Gentleman had abilities, and a fufficient knowledge of his author, had but his industry. been equal to his talents. The fame mangled -condition has been acknowledged too by Mr.. Pope, who published him likewise, pretended to have collated the old copies, and yet feldom has: corrected the text but to its injury. I congratulate with the Manes of our Poet, that this Gentleman has been sparing in indulging his private fense; fense; for he, who tampers with an author whom he does not understand, muft do it at the expence of his fubject. 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 attacked him like an unhandy flaughterman; and not lopped 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 seems a moot point whether Mr. Pope has done most injury to Shakespeare as his Editor and Encomiaft; or Mr. Rymer done him fervice as his Rival and Cenfurer. Were it every where the true text, which that Editor in his late pompous edition gave us, the Poet deserved not the large encomiums bestowed by him: nor, in that cafe, is Rymer's cenfure of the barbarity of his thoughts, and the impropriety of his expreffions, groundlefs. They have both fhown themselves in an equal impuiffance 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 Shakespeare 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 fufpicions 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 discriminating the true from the fpurious. It is not with any fecret pleasure, that I so 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 so much inveteracy, that not to difpute whether they should come from a Christian, they leave it a question whether they could come from a man. I fhould be loth to doubt, as Quintus Serenus did in a like case, Sive homo, feu fimilis turpiffima beftia nobis, The indignation, perhaps, for being represented a blockhead, may be as strong in us as it is in the ladies for a reflection on their beauties. It is certain, I am indebted to him for some 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 those civilities in his peculiar ftrain, 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 |