ed by study and experience, can only affift in combining or applying them. Shakespeare, however favoured by nature, could part only what he had learned; and as he mufl increase his ucas, like other mortals, by gradual acquifition, he, like m, grew wifer as he grew older, could difplay life better, as knew it more, and inftruct with more efficacy, as he was afelf more amply inftructed.

There is a vigilance of observation and accuracy of diftincon which books and precepts cannot confer; from this almost "original and native excellence proceeds. Shakespeare muft have looked upon, mankind with perfpicacity, in the highest dePrze curious and attentive. Other writers borrow their charactets from preceding writers, and diverfify them only by the ac dental appendages of prefent manners; the drefs is a little vared, but the body is the fame. Our authour had both matter and form to provide; for except the characters of Chaucer, to om I think he is not much indebted, there were no writers English, and perhaps not many other modern languages, hich thewed life in its native colours.'

On the other hand, Dr. Johnson obferves, It must be at aft confeffed, that as we owe every thing to him, he owes mething to us; that, if much of his praife is paid by percepon and judgment, much is likewife given by cuftom and veneition. We fix our eyes upon his graces, and turn them from his deformities, and endure in him what we should in another oath or defpife. If we endured without praifing, respect for he father of our drama might excufe us; but I have seen in the ook of fome modern critick, a collection of anomalies, which new that he has corrupted language by every mode of depration, but which his admirer has accumulated as a monument honour.

He has scenes of undoubted and perpetual excellence, but haps not one play, which, if it were now exhibited as the of a contemporary writer, would be heard to the concluI am indeed far from thinking, that his works were ght to his own ideas of perfection; when they were fuch uld fatis the audience, they fatisfied the writer. It is

though more ftudious of fame than Shakeve the ftandard of their own age; to add will always be fufficient for prefent praise, mfelves exalted into fame, are willing to s, and to fpare the labour of contending

t encor
which
ode

.or

however, that can be paid to
entators seem to agree,
1 him to think fo light,
in this refpect,

inimitable writer to the modern tribe of authors, who plume themfelves fo highly, and fet fuch an enormous value on the literary Nothings they occafionally produce!

It does not appear, fays our Editor, that Shakespeare thought his works worthy of pofterity, that he levied any ideal tribute upon future times, or had any further profpect, than of present popularity and prefent profit. When his plays had been acted, his hope was at an end; he follicited no addition of honour from the reader. He therefore made no fcruple to repeat the fame jefts in many dialogues, or to entangle different plots by the fame knot of perplexity, which may be at leaft forgiven him, by those who recollect, that of Congreve's four comedies, two are concluded by a marriage in a mask, by a deception, which perhaps never happened, and which, whether likely or not, he did not invent.

So careless was this great poet of future fame, that, though he retired to eafe and plenty, while he was yet little declined into the vale of years, before he could be difgufted with fatigue, cr difabled by infirmity, he made no collection of his works, nor defired to rescue thofe that had been already published from the depravations that obfcured them, or fecure to the rest a better destiny, by giving them to the world in their genuine state.

Of the plays which bear the name of Shakespeare in the Jae editions, the greater part were not published till about feven years after his death, and the few which appeared in his life are apparently thrust into the world without the care of the authour, and therefore probably without his knowledge.'

Having treated of the character and abilities of the poet, Dr. Johnfon proceeds to confider thofe of his editors:

Of all the publishers, fays he, clandeftine or profeffed, their negligence and unfkilfulness has by the late revifers been fuffici ently fhown. The faults of all are indeed numerous and grofs, and have not only corrupted many paffages perhaps beyond recovery, but have brought others into fufpicion, which are only obscured by obfolete phrafcology, or by the writer's unfkilfulness and affectation. To alter is more eafy than to explain, and temerity is a more common quality than diligence. Those who faw that they must employ conjecture to a certain degree, were willing to indulge it a little further. Had the authour publifed his own works, we fhould have fat quietly down to difentangle his intricacies, and clear his obfcurities; but now we tear what we cannot loofe, and eject what we happen not to understand.

The faults are more than could have happened without the concurrence of many caufes. The ftile of Shakespeare was in itself ungrammatical, perplexed and obfcure; his works were tranfcribed for the players by thofe who may be fuppofed to have

feldom

feldom understood them; they were tranfmitted by copiers equally unfkilful, who ftill multiplied errours; they were perhaps fometimes mutilated by the actors, for the fake of fhortening the speeches; and were at laft printed without correction of the prefs.

In this ftate they remained, not, as Dr. Warburton fupposes, because they were unregarded, but because the editor's art was not yet applied to modern languages, and our ancestors were accustomed to fo much negligence of English printers, that they could very patiently endure it. At laft an edition was undertaken by Rowe; not becaufe a poet was to be published by a poet, for Rowe seems to have thought very little on correction or explanation, but that our authour's works might appear like thofe of his fraternity, with the appendages of a life and recommendatory preface. Rowe has been clamorously blamed for not performing what he did not undertake, and it is time that juf tice be done him, by confeffing, that though he seems to have had no thought of corruption beyond the printer's errours, yet he has made many emendations, if they were not made before, which his fucceffors have received without acknowledgment, and which, if they had produced them, would have filled pages and pages with cenfures of the ftupidity by which the faults were committed, with difplays of the abfurdities which they involved, with oftentatious expolitions of the new reading, and self-congratulations on the happiness of difcovering it.'

The nation, continues the Prefacer, had been for many years content enough with Mr. Rowe's performance, when Mr. Pope made them acquainted with the true ftate of Shakespeare's text, fhewed that it was extremely corrupt, and gave reason to hope that there were means of reforming it. Mr. Pope's edition, however, he obferves, fell below his own expectations, and he was fo much offended, when he was found to have left any thing for others to do, that he paffed the latter part of his life in a ftate of hoftility with verbal criticifm.Dr. Johnson pro"cceds

Pope was fucceeded by Theobald, a man of narrow comprehenfion and small acquifitions, with no native and intrinfic fplendour of genius, with little of the artificial light of learning, but zealous for minute accuracy, and not negligent in purfuing. He collated the ancient copies, and rectified many er

A man fo anxioufly fcrupulous might have been expected to do more, but what little he did was commonly right.' Is our Editor here altogether confiftent? Is Theobald's doing little, compatible with his having been zealously and diligently attached to minute accuracy; with his having collated the ancient copies and rectified many errours?

Dr. Johnfon indeed proceeds to treat poor Theobald with

great

great feverity, fumming up his character, as an Editor, with the following reflections. Theobald, thus weak and ignorant, thus mean and faithlefs, thus petulant and oftentatious, by the good luck of having Pope for his enemy, has escaped, and efcaped alone, with reputation from this undertaking. So willingly does the world fupport those who follicit favour, against those who command reverence; and fo eafily is he praised, whom no man can envy.'

It is very true, as Dr. Johnfon obferves, that Theobald hath efcaped alone with reputation from the task of commenting on Shakespeare; we cannot impute it, however, to the motives affigned by the prefent Editor. On the contrary, we are well convinced, that the object of praife is generally the object of envy, and vice verfa; although it is certain, that in notorious cafes, the public prepoffeflion fometimes gives way to public juftice. At the fame time, the writer muft content himself with a very flender pittance of fame, indeed, who derives it only from the public compaffion. Fame, like other ftrumpets, may be fometimes bullied into compliance, but the fondest of her lovers may pine himself into a confumption, ere he obtains any fubftantial favour from her pity.

Of Sir Thomas Hanmer, Shakespeare's next editor, the Prefacer fpeaks with great moderation and candour; giving him the due praise to which we think he is juftly entitled.

We fhall give what he fays of the next editor in his own words.

Of the last editor it is more difficult to fpeak. Refpect is due to high place, tenderness to living reputation, and veneration to genius and learning; but he cannot be juffly offended at that liberty of which he has himself fo frequently given an example, nor very felicitous what is thought of notes, which he ought never to have confidered as part of his ferious employments, and which, I fuppofe, fince the ardour of compofition is remitted, he no longer numbers among his happy effufions.

The original and predominant errour of his commentary, is acquiefcence in his first thoughts; that precipitation which is produced by confcioufnefs of quick difcernment; and that confidence which prefumes to do, by furveying the furface, what labour only can perform, by penetrating [to] the bottom. His notes exhibit fometimes perverte interpretations,, and fometimes improbable conjectures; he at one time gives the authour more profundity of meaning, than the fentence admits, and at another difcovers abfurdities, where the fenfe is plain to every other reader. But his emendations are likewife often happy and juft; and his interpretation of obfcure paffages learned and fagacious.

Of his notes, I have commonly rejected thofe, against

Dr. Warburton.