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

There is a vigilance of obfervation and accuracy of diftinction which books and precepts cannot confer; from this almoft all original and native excellence proceeds. Shakespeare must have looked upon mankind with perfpicacity, in the highest degree curious and attentive. Other writers borrow their characters from preceding writers, and diverfify them only by the accidental appendages of prefent manners; the drefs is a little varied, but the body is the fame. Our authour had both matter and form to provide; for except the characters of Chaucer, to whom I think he is not much indebted, there were no writers in English, and perhaps not many other modern languages, which fhewed life in its native colours.'

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

He has fcenes of undoubted and perpetual excellence, but perhaps not one play, which, if it were now exhibited as the work of a contemporary writer, would be heard to the conclufion. I am indeed far from thinking, that his works were wrought to his own ideas of perfection; when they were fuch as would fatisfy the audience, they fatisfied the writer. It is feldom that authours, though more ftudious of fame than Shakespeare, rife much above the standard of their own age; to add a little to what is beft will always be fufficient for prefent praise, and those who find themselves exalted into fame, are willing to credit their encomiafts, and to spare the labour of contending with themselves.'

One of the greateft encomiums, however, that can be paid to Shakespear, and in which all his commentators feem to agree, is that remarkable modefty, which caufed him to think fo lightly of his own productions. How different, in this refpect, was this

CC 4

in

inimitable writer to the modern tribe of authors, who plume themselves 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, or 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 reft a better deftiny, by giving them to the world in their genuine state.

Of the plays which bear the name of Shakespeare in the la e editions, the greater part were not published till about seven years after his death, and the few which appeared in his life are apparently thruft 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 fufficiently 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 obfcured by obfolete phrafeology, 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. Thofe who faw that they must employ conjecture to a certain degree, were willing to indulge it a little further. Had the authour publifhed his own works, we should have fat quietly down to dif entangle his intricacies, and clear his obfcurities; but now we tear what we cannot loose, 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 tranícribed 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 fuppofes, 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 those of his fraternity, with the appendages of a life and recommendatory preface. Rowe has been clamoroufly blamed for not performing what he did not undertake, and it is time that juftice 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 expofitions of the new reading, and self-congratulations on the happiness of discovering 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 observes, fell below his own expectations, and he was so 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 state of hoftility with verbal criticifm.Dr. Johnson proceeds

Pope was fucceeded by Theobald, a man of narrow comprehenfion and small acquifitions, with no native and intrinfic Splendour of genius, with little of the artificial light of learning, but zealous for minute accuracy, and not negligent in pur fuing. He collated the ancient copies, and rectified many errours. A man fo anxiously 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 thofe who follicit favour, againft 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 escaped 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 verfà; 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 fondeft of her lov ers 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 shall 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 justly offended at that liberty of which he has himself fo frequently given an example, nor very folicitous 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 effusions.

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 surface, 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, againft

Dr. Warburton.

which the general voice of the publick has exclaimed, or which their own incongruity immediately condemns, and which, I fuppofe the authour himfelf would defire to be forgotten. Of the reit, to part I have given the highest approbation, by inferting the offered reading in the text; part I have left to the judgment of the reader, as doubtful, though fpecious; and part I have cenfured without referve, but I am fure without bitterness of malice, and, I hope, without wantonnefs of infult.'

The prefacer does feveral other annotators on Shakespeare the honour of mentioning them, particularly the authors of the Canons of Criticism, Mr. Upton and Dr. Grey, but with different degrees of approbation and cenfure. He difmiffes them, neverthelefs, with the following general and apparently-ingenuous re'flections:

I can fay with great fincerity of all my predeceffors, what I hope will hereafter be faid of me, that not one has left Shakefpeare without improvement, nor is there one to whom I have not been indebted for affiftance aud information. Whatever I have taken from them it was my intention to refer to its original authour, and it is certain, that what I have not given to another, I believed when I wrote it to be my own. In fome perhaps I have been anticipated; but if I am ever found to encroach upon the remarks of any other commentator, I am willing that the honour, be it more or lefs, fhould be transferred to the first claimant, for his right, and his alone, ftands above difpute; the fecond can prove his pretenfions only to himself, nor can himself always diftinguifh invention, with fufficient certainty, from recollection."

Our Editor proceeds next to give an account of what he hath done, or attempted to do himfelf, and to apologize for what he hath not done, or confeffedly found himfelf unable to do. We cannot help being fomewhat apprehenfive, however, that the readers of this part of Dr. Johnfon's preface, will be apt to think he hath, in more places than one, betrayed a confcioufnefs of the want of application in his pretended endeavours, as well as of the ill fuccefs attending them. There runs, indeed, through the whole of this preface, fuch a mixed and inconfiftent vein of praife and cenfure refpecting others; and of boafting and excufe regarding himself, that we think we discover it to be the production of a wavering pen, directed by a hand equally wearied and difgufted with a task, injudiciously undertaken, and as indolently purfued. We fhall take our leave of it therefore with one more quotation, which may ferve farther to confirm what is here advanced :

Perhaps I may not be more cenfured for doing wrong, than for doing little; for raifing in the publick expectations, which at laft I have not answered. The expectation of ignorance is indefinite,