kgences and Omiffions in point of Art; but I have done it always in fuch a Manner, as will testify my Deference and Veneration for the Immortal Author. Some Cenfurers of Shakespeare, and parti cularly Mr. Rymer, have taught me to distinguish betwixt the Railer and Critick. The Outrage of his Quotations is fo remarkably violent, fo pufh'd beyond all Bounds of Decency and fober Reafoning, that it quite carries over the Mark at which it was levell'd. Extravagant Abufe throws off the Edge of the intended Difparagement, and turns the Madman's Weapon into his own Bofom. In fhort, as to Rymer, This is my Opinion of him from his Criticisms on the Tragedies of the Laft Age. He writes with great Vivacity, and appears to have been a Scholar: but, as for his Knowledge of the Art of Poetry, I can't perceive it was any deeper than his Acquaintance with Boffu and Dacier, from whom he has transcrib'd many of his best Reflexions. The late Mr. Gildon was one attached to Rymer by a fimilar Way of Thinking and Studies. They were Both of that Species of Criticks, who are defirous of displaying their Powers rather in finding Faults, than in confulting the Improvement of the World: the hypercritical Part of the Science of Criticism.

I had not mentioned the modeft Liberty I have here and there taken of animadverting on my Author, but that I was willing to obviate in time the fplenetick Exaggerations of my Adversaries on this

Head.

Head. From past Experiments I have reason to be conscious, in what Light this Attempt may be placed: and that what I call a modeft Liberty, will, by a little of their Dexterity, be inverted into downright Impudence. From a hundred mean and dishonest Artifices employ'd to difcredit this Edition, and to cry down its Editor, I have all the Grounds in Nature to beware of Attacks. But tho' the Malice of Wit, join'd to the Smoothness of Verfification, may furnish fome Ridicule; Fact, I hope, will be able to stand its Ground against Banter and Gaiety.

It has been my Fate, it feems, as I thought it my Duty, to discover fome Anachronisms in our Author; which might have slept in Obfcurity but for this Reftorer, as Mr. Pope is pleas'd affectionately to ftile me; as, for Inftance, where Ariftotle is mentioned by Hector in Troilus and Creffida: and Galen, Cato, and Alexander the Great, in Coriolanus. Thefe, in Mr. Pope's Opinion, are Blunders, which, the Illiteracy of the firft Publishers of his Works has father'd upon the Poet's Memory: it not being at all credible, that These could be the Errors of any Man who had the leaft Tincture of a School, or the leaft Conversation with Such as bad. But I have fufficiently proved, in the course of my Notes, that fuch Anachronisms were the Effect of Poetic Licence, rather than of Ignorance in our Poet. And if I may be permitted to ask a modeft Question by the way, Why may not

I reftore an Anachronism really made by our Author, as well as Mr. Pope take the Privilege to fix others upon him, which he never had it in his Head to make; as I may venture to affirm He had not, in the Inftance of Sir Francis Drake, to which I have spoke in the proper Place?

But who fhall dare make any Words about this Freedom of Mr. Pope's towards Shakespeare, if it can be prov'd, that, in his Fits of Criticism, he makes no more Ceremony with good Homer himfelf? To try, then, a Criticism of his own advancing; In the 8th Book of the Odyssey, where Demodocus fings the Episode of the Loves of Mars and Venus; and that, upon their being taken in the Net by Vulcan,

"The God of Arms

"Muft pay the Penalty for lawless Charms; Mr. Pope is fo kind gravely to inform us, "That "Homer in This, as in many other Places, feems "to allude to the Laws of Athens, where Death "was the Punishment of Adultery." But how is this fignificant Observation made out? Why, who can poffibly object any Thing to the contrary? Does not Paufanias relate, that Draco the Lawgiver to the Athenians granted Impunity to any Perfon that took Revenge upon an Adulterer? And was it not alfo the Inftitution of Solon, that if Any One took an Adulterer in the Fact, he might use him as he pleas'd? These Things are very true: and to see

What

What a good Memory, and found Judgment in Conjunction can atchieve! Tho' Homer's Date is not determin'd down to a fingle Year, yet 'tis pretty generally agreed that he liv'd above 300 Years before Draco and Solon: And That, it feems, has made him feem to allude to the very Laws, which thefe Two Legiflators propounded above 300 Years after. If this Inference be not fometimes like an Anachronism or Prolepfis, I'll look once more into my Lexicons for the true Meaning of the Words. It appears to me, that somebody befides Mars and Venus has been caught in a Net by this Episode: and I could call in other Inftances to confirm what treacherous Tackle this Net-work is, if not cautioufly handled.

How juft, notwithstanding, I have been in detecting the Anachronisms of my Author, and in defending him for the Ufe of them, Our late Editor feems to think, They should rather have slept in Obfcurity and the having difcovered them is fneer'd at, as a fort of wrong-headed Sagacity.

The numerous Corrections, which I made of the Poet's Text in my SHAKESPEARE Reftor'd, and which the Publick have been so kind to think well of, are, in the Appendix of Mr. Pope's laft Edition, flightingly call'd Various Readings, Gueffes, &c. He confeffes to have inserted as many of them as he judg'd of any the least Advantage to the Poet; but fays, that the Whole amounted to about 25 Words: and pretends to have annexed a compleat Lift of the

Reft,

Reft, which were not worth his embracing. Whoever has read my Book will at one Glance fee, how in both these Points Veracity is ftrain'd, fo an Injury might but be done. Malus, etfi obeffe non pote, tamen cogitat.

Another Expedient, to make my Work appear of a trifling Nature, has been an Attempt to depreciate Literal Criticism. To this end, and to pay a fervile Compliment to Mr. Pope, an Anonymous Writer has, like a Scotch Pedlar in Wit, unbraced his Pack on the Subject. But, that his Virulence might not seem to be levelled fingly at Me, he has done Me the Honour to join Dr. Bentley in the Libel. I was in hopes, We fhould have been Both abused with Smartness of Satire, at leaft; tho' not with Solidity of Argument: that it might have been worth fome Reply in Defence of the Science attacked. But I may fairly fay of this Author, as Falftaffe does of Poins ; — Hang him, Baboon! his Wit is as thick as Tewksbury Mustard; there is no more Conceit in him, than is in a MALLET. If it be not Prophanation to fet the Opinion of the divine Longinus against such a Scribler, he tells us exprefly, "That to make a Judgment upon Words ❝ (and Writings) is the most confummate Fruit of "much Experience." aózwv neiors wonλῆς ὅτι πείρας τελευταῖον ἐπιχύνημα. Whenever Words are depraved, the Senfe of course must be corrupted; and thence the Readers betray'd into a false Meaning.