Speret idem, fudet multùm, fruftráque laboret, Indeed, to point out, and exclaim upon, all the beauties of Shakespeare, as they come fingly in review, would be as infipid, as endless; as tedious, as unnecessary: But the explanation of those beauties, that are lefs obvious to common readers, and whose illustration depends on the rules of just criticism, and an exact knowledge of human life, fhould defervedly have a share in a general critic upon the author. But, to pafs over at once to another fubject: It has been allow'd on all hands, how far our author was indebted to nature; it is not fo well agreed, how much he ow'd to languages and acquir'd learning. The decifions on this subject were certainly set on foot by the hint from Ben. Johnson, that he had small Latin and less Greek: And from this tradition, as it were, Mr. Rowe has thought fit peremptorily to declare, that, " It is without controversy, he “had no knowledge of the writings of the ancient poets, " for that in his works we find no traces of any thing which “ looks like an imitation of the ancients. For the delicacy "of his tafte (continues be,) and the natural bent of his ત own great genius, (equal, if not fuperior, to fome of the "best of theirs ;) would certainly have led him to read and ftudy them with fo much pleasure, that fome of their fine images would naturally have infinuated themselves into, ." and been mix'd with his own writings: And fo his not "copying, at least, something from them, may be an argu"ment of his never having read them." I fhall leave it to the determination of my learned readers, from the numerous paffages, which I have occafionally quoted in my notes, in which our poet seems closely to have imitated the claffics, whether Mr. Rowe's affertion be so absolutely to be depend ed on. The refult of the controversy muft certainly, either way, terminate to our authour's honour: How happily he could imitate them, if that point be allowed; or how gloriously he could think like them, without owing any thing to imitation. Tho' I should be very unwilling to allow Shakespeare so poor a scholar, as many have laboured to reprefent him, yet I fhall be very cautious of declaring too pofitively on the other fide of the queftion: That is, with regard to my opi⚫nion of his knowledge in the dead languages. And therefore the paffages, that I occafionally quote from the Claffics, fhall not be urged as proofs that he knowingly imitated those originals; but brought to shew how happily he has express'd himself upon the fame topicks. A very learned critick of our own nation has declar'd, that a fameness of thought and fameness of expreffion too, in two writers of a different age, can hardly happen, without a violent fufpicion of the latter copying from his predeceffor. I fhall not therefore run any great rifque of a cenfure, tho' I should venture to hint, that the resemblances in thought and expreffion, of our author and an ancient (which we should allow to be imitation in the one, whose learning was not queftion'd) may fometimes take its rife from ftrength of memory, and those impreffions which he owed 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 translations, romances, and legends, ftarted about his time, and a little before; (most of which, 'tis very evident, he read ;) I think, it may eafily be reconciled why he rather schemed his plots and characters from thefe 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 re courfe. In touching on another part of his learning, as it relates to the knowledge of history and books, 1 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 history, 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 acquaintance with that language. A reader of tafte may easily conceive, that though Shakespeare, almost in every scene of his hiftorical plays, commits the groffeft offences against chronology, hiftory, and ancient politicks; yet this was not through ignorance, as is generally fuppofed, but through the too powerful blaze of his imagination, which, when once raised, made all acquired knowledge vanish and disappear before it. But this licence in him, as I have said, must not be imputed to ignorance: fince as often we may find him, when occafion serves, reasoning up to the truth of history, and throwing out sentiments as justly adapted to the circumstances of his fubject, 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 surprising effufion of Latin words made English, far more than in any one English author I have seen; 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 occafioned by the pedantry of those two monarchs, Elizabeth and James, both great Latinifts. For it is not to be wondered at, if both the court and schools, equal flatterers of power, should adapt themselves to the royal taste. But now I am touching the question (which has been fo frequently agitated, yet fo 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 Johnson his contemporary. They are confeffedly the greatest writers our nation could boaft 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 difcover one trace of the author of the Fox and Alchymist: 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: Johnson, 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 support him, it is no wonder he wrote so 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 aftonishing force and fplendor. As I have never proposed to dilate farther on the character of my author, than was necessary to explain the na ture 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 hi therto 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 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 like... wife, pretended to have collated the old copies, and yet fel dom has corrected the text but to its injury. I congratulate with the manes of our poet, that this gentleman has been spar ing in indulging bis private fenfe, as he phrafes its for he who tampers with an author whom he does not understand, must 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 Lipfius mentions, did with regard to Martial, Inventus eft nefcio quis Pópa, qui non vitia ejus, fed ipfum excidit. He has attacked him like an unhandy flaughterman; and not lopped off the errors, poet. but the When this is found to be the fact, how abfurd must 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 Mr. Rymer done him fervice as his rival and cenfurer. They have both fhewn themfelves |