صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

common genius, without any particular study or profeffion of this art, discharged the great parts of it fo well as to make his edition the best foundation for all further improvements. He feparated the genuine from the fpurious plays: And, with equal judgment, tho' not always with the same success, attempted to clear the genuine plays from the interpolated fcenes: He then confulted the old editions; and, by a careful collation of them, rectified the faulty, and supplied the imperfect reading, in a great number of places: And lastly, in an admirable preface, hath drawn a general, but very lively, sketch of Shakespeare's poetic character; and, in the corrected text, marked out thofe peculiar ftrokes of genius which were most proper to fupport and illuftrate that character. Thus far Mr. POPE. And altho' much more was to be done before Shakespeare could be restored to himfelf, (such as amending the corrupted text where the printed books afford no affiftance; explaining his licentious phraseology and obfcure allufions; and illustrating the beauties of his poetry ;) yet, with great modesty and prudence, our illustrious editor left this to the critic by profeffion.

But nothing will give the common reader a better idea of the value of Mr. Pope's edition, than the two attempts which have been fince made, by Mr. Theobald and Sir Thomas Hanmer, in oppofition to it. Who, altho' they concerned themselves only in the first of these three parts of criticism, the reftoring the text, (without any conception of the fecond, or venturing even to touch upon the third) yet fucceeded so very ill in it, that they left their author in ten times a worfe condition than they found him. But, as it was my ill fortune to have fome accidental connexions with these two gentlemen, it will be incumbent on me to be a little more particular concerning them.

The one was recommended to me as a poor man; the other as a poor critic and to each of them, at different times, I communicated a great number of observations, which they managed, as they faw fit, to the relief of their several diftreffes. As to Mr. Theobald, who wanted money, I allowed him to print what I gave him for his own advantage and he allowed himself in the liberty of taking one part for his own, and fequeftering another for the benefit, as I fuppofed, of fome future edition. But, as to the Oxford Editor, who wanted nothing, but what he might very well be without, the reputation of a critic, I could not so easily forgive him for trafficking with my papers without my knowledge; and, when that project failed, for employing a number of my conjectures in his edition, against my express defire not to have that honour done unto me.

Mr. Theobald was naturally turned to industry and labour. What he read he could transcribe: but, as what he thought, if ever he did think, he could but ill express, so he read on; and, by that means got a character of learning, without rifquing, to every observer, the imputation of wanting a better talent. By a punctilious collation of the old books, he corrected what was manifeftly wrong in the latter editions, by what was manifestly right in the earlier. And this is his real merit; and the whole of it. For where the phrase was very obfolete or licentious in the common books, or only flightly corrupted in the other, he wanted fufficient knowledge of the progress and various stages of the English tongue, as well as acquaintance with the peculiarity of Shakespeare's language to understand what was right; nor had he either common judgment to fee, or critical fagacity to amend, what was manifeftly faulty. Hence he generally exerts his conjectural talent in the wrong place: He tampers with what is found in the common books; and, in the old ones, omits

all notice of variations, the sense of which he did not understand.

How the Oxford editor came to think himself qualified for this office, from which his whole courfe of life had been fo remote, is ftill more difficult to conceive. For whatever parts he might have either of genius or erudition, he was abfolutely ignorant of the art of criticifm, as well as of the poetry of that time, and the language of his author. And fo far from a thought of examining the first editions, that he even neglected to compare Mr. Pope's, from which he printed his own, with Mr. Theobald's; whereby he loft the advantage of many fine lines which the other had recovered from the old quartos. Where he trufts to his own fagacity, in what affects the fenfe, his conjectures are generally abfurd and extravagant, and violating every rule of criticifm. Tho', in this rage of correcting, he was not abfolutely deftitute of all art. For, having a number of my conjectures before him, he took as many of them as he faw fit, to work upon; and by changing them to fomething, he thought, fynonymous or fimilar, he made them his own; and fo became a critic at a cheap expence. But how well he hath fucceeded in this, as likewife in his conjectures which are properly his own, will be feen in the course of my remarks: Tho', as he hath declined to give the reasons for his interpolations, he hath not afforded me fo fair a hold of him as Mr. Theobald hath done, who was lefs cautious. But his principal object was to reform his author's numbers; and this, which he hath done, on every occafion, by the infertion or omiffion of a fet of harmlefs unconcerning expletives, makes up the grofs body of his innocent corrections. And fo, in fpite of that extreme negligence in numbers, which diftinguishes the firft dramatic writers, he hath tricked up

the old bard, from head to foot, in all the finical exactness of a modern measurer of syllables.

For the reft, all the corrections which thefe two editors have made on any reasonable foundation, are here admitted into the text; and carefully affigned to their respective authors. A piece of justice which the Oxford Editor never did; and which the other was not always fcrupulous in obferving towards me. To conclude with them in a word, They separately poffeffed those two qualities which, more than any other, have contributed to bring the art of criticism into difrepute, dulnefs of apprehenfion, and extravagance of conjecture.

I am now to give fome account of the prefent undertaking. For as to all thofe things, whi h have been published under the titles of Effays, Remarks, Obfervations, &c. on Shakespeare, (if you except fome critical notes on Macbeth, given as a specimen of a projected edition, and written, as appears, by a man of parts and genius) the reft are absolutely below a ferious notice.

The whole a critic can do for an author who deferves his fervice, is to correct the faulty text; to remark the peculiarities of language; to illuftrate the obfcure allufions; and to explain the beauties and defects of sentiment or compofition. And furely, if ever author had a claim to this fervice, it was our Shakespeare: Who, widely excelling in the knowledge of human nature, hath given to his infinitely varied pictures of it, fuch truth of defign, fuch force of drawing, fuch beauty of colouring, as was hardly ever equalled by any writer, whether his aim was the ufe, or only the entertainment of mankind. The notes in this edition, therefore, take in the whole compafs of criticism.

I. The firft fort is employed in reftoring the poet's genuine text; but in those placcs only where it labours with inextricable nonfenfe. In which, how much I may have given

fcope to critical conjecture, where the old copies failed me, I have indulged nothing to fancy or imagination; but have religiously obferved the fevere Canons of literal criticism; as may be seen from the reasons accompanying every alteration of the common text. Nor would a different conduct have become a critic, whose greatest attention, in this part, was to vindicate the established reading from interpolations occafioned by the fanciful extravagancies of others. I once intended to have given the reader a body of Canons, for literal criticism, drawn out in form; as well fuch as concern the art in general, as those that arise from the nature and circumftances of our author's works in particular. And this for two reasons. First, To give the unlearned reader a just idea, and confequently a better opinion of the art of criticism, now funk very low in the popular efteem, by the attempts of fome who would needs exercise it without either natural or acquired talents; and by the ill fuccefs of others, who feemed to have loft both; when they came to try them upon English authors. Secondly, To deter the unlearned writer from wantonly trifling with an art he is a stranger to, at the expence of his own reputation, and the integrity of the text of established authors. But these uses may be well supplied by what is occafionally said upon the subject, in the course of the following remarks.

II. The second fort of notes confists in the explanation of the author's meaning, when, by one or more of these causes, it becomes obfcure; either from a licentious use of terms; or a hard or ungrammatical construction; or laftly, from far-fetch'd or quaint allufions.

1. This licentious ufe of words is almost peculiar to the languag of Shakespeare. To common terms he hath affixed meanings of his own, unauthorised by use, and not to be juftified by analogy. And this liberty he hath taken with

« السابقةمتابعة »