he ow'd to the School. And if we may allow a Poffibility of This, confidering that, when he quitted the School, he gave into his Father's Profeffion and way of Living, and had, 'tis likely, but a flender Library of Claffical Learning; and confidering what a Number of Tranflations, Romances, and Legends, ftarted about his Time, and a little before; (moft of which, 'tis very evident, he read ;) I think, it may eafily be reconcil'd why he rather fchemed his Plots and Characters from these more latter Informations, than went back to those Fountains, for which he might entertain a fincere Veneration, but to which he could not have fo ready a Recourfe. In touching on another Part of his Learning, as it related to the Knowledge of Hiftory, and Books, I shall advance fomething, that, at first fight, will very much wear the Appearance of a Paradox. For I fhall find it no hard Matter to prove, that, from the groffeft Blunders in Hiftory, we are not to infer his real Ignorance of it: Nor from a greater Ufe of Latin Words, than ever any other English Author used, must we infer his intimate Acquaintance with that Language. A Reader of Taste may easily observe, that tho Shakespeare, almoft in every Scene of his historical Plays, commits the groffeft Offences against Chronology, Hiftory, and Ancient Politicks; yet This was not thro' Ignorance, as is generally supposed, but thro' the too powerful Blaze of his Imagination; which, a 2 which, when once raised, made all acquired Knowledge vanish and difappear before it. But this Licence in him, as I have faid, must not be imputed to Ignorance: fince as often we may find him, when Occafion ferves, reasoning up to the Truth of History; and throwing out Sentiments as juftly adapted to the Circumstances of his Subject, as to the Dignity of his Characters, or Dictates of Nature in general. Then, to come to his Knowledge of the Latin Tongue, 'tis certain, there is a furprising Effufion of Latin Words made English, far more than in any one English Author I have feen; but we must be cautious to imagine, this was of his own doing. For the English Tongue, in his Age, began extremely to fuffer by an Inundation of Latin: And this, to be fure, was occafion'd by the Pedantry of those two Monarchs, Elizabeth and James, Both great Latinifts. For it is not to be wonder'd at, if both the Court and Schools, equal Flatterers of Power, fhould adapt themselves to the Royal Taste. But now I am touching on the Question, (which has been fo frequently agitated, yet so entirely undecided) of his Learning and Acquaintance with the Languages; an additional Word or two naturally falls in here upon the Genius of our Author, as compared with that of Jonfon his Contemporary. They are confeffedly the greatest Writers our Nation could ever boaft of in the Drama. The firft, we fay, owed all to his prodigious natural Genius; and 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 those 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 Jonfon's bad Pieces we don't difcover one fingle Trace of the Author of the Fox and Alchemift: but in the wild extravagant Notes of Shakespeare, you every now and then encounter Strains that recognize the divine Compofer. This Difference may be thus accounted for. Jonfon, as we faid before, owing all his Excellence to his Art, by which he sometimes ftrain'd himself to an uncommon Pitch, when at other times he unbent and play'd with his Subject, having nothing then to fupport 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 moft negligent Hours could never so totally divest himself of his Genius, but that it would frequently break out with aftonishing Force and Splendor. As I have never propos'd to dilate farther on the Character of my Author, than was necessary to explain the Nature and Use of this Edition, I shall 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 appear'd! Had Homer, or any other admir'd a 3 mir'd Author, firft started into Publick fo maim'd and deform'd, 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 acknowledg'd by Mr. Rowe, who publifh'd 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 acknowledg'd too by Mr. Pope, who publish'd 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 fparing in indulging his private Senfe, as he phrafes it; for He, who tampers with an Author whom he does not understand, must do it at the Expence of his Subject. 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 attack'd him like an unhandy Slaughterman; and not lopp'd off the Errors, but the Poet. When this is found to be the Fact, how abfurd muft appear the Praises of such an Editor? It seems a moot Point, whether Mr. Pope has done moft Injury to Shakespeare as his Editor and Encomiaft ; or or Mr. Rymer done him Service as his Rival and Cenfurer. They have Both fhewn 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 underftand; yet if a man muft 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 swallow whatever is given us as his, and fet off with Encomiums; and hence we quit all Sufpicions 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 difcriminating the true from the spurious. It is not with any fecret Pleasure, that I fo 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 dispute whether they should come from a Chriftian, 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 Cafe, Sive homo, feu fimilis turpiffima beftia nobis, The Indignation, perhaps, for being represented a |