tleman in good manners, fhould have been more fparing in his abufe; efpecially after the high compliment paid him by Mr. (a) Theobald, in his Preface to Shakespeare.

Sir Thomas Hanmer has certainly done more towards the emendation of the text, than any one, and as a fine gentleman, good fcholar and (what was beft of all) a good Chriftian; who has treated every editor with decency; I think his memory fhould have been exempt from ill (b) treatment of every kind, after his death. But

(a) Mr. Theobald, fpeaking of Mr. Warburton's affiftance, Preface, p. 66. says, "That he, from the motive of his frank, and communicative difpofition, voluntarily took a confiderable part of the trouble off his hands, not only read over the whole author for him with the exactest care, but entred into a long, and laborious epiftolary correfpondence, to which he ac"knowledges he owes no small part of his beft criticism "upon the author."

(b) Mr. Warburton in his Preface says, he was recommended to him as a poor critic. In vol. I. P. 285. "F

led the Oxford editor into a filly- conjecture, which he "has done me the honour of putting into his text, which is

indeed a proper place for it. Vol. 2. p. 197. A quibble <reftor'd by the Oxford editor.. Vol. 5th. p. 267. Too late "she died.] i. e. too lately. The lofs is too fresh in our me"mory. But the Oxford, editor, not understanding this

Phraseology, to clear the Prince of all imputation of "impiety, makes him fay, to foon he died. p. 448. "Which were the hope of the Strand.] i. e. Such, as by another metaphor, he might have call'd the Flower : but the Oxford editor, in an ill humour, degrades them

I

66 to

But to give the finishing hand to Shakespeare, Mr. Warburton, a profeffed critic, undertook him; and from the reputation he had acquired from fome other writings, and his known induftry, many perfons expected, that the genuine text of our author would have been reftored to a tittle; every obfcure paffage cleared up; every real, or seeming difficulty rendered ealy, even to his readers of the loweft clafs; and (to ufe an expreffion of his own) cloathed properly, "when fuch a critic had the dreffing of him.

"to the forlorn hope; and this is call'd emending, Vol.

6. p. 63. The Oxford editor alters charitable title, "into character, and title: he did not know that charita"ble fignifies dear, endearing. p. 481.] The Oxford editor, "who does all he can to make the poet unpoetical, alters "wirtues, to advices. 485. The Oxford editor alters

ignorant, to impotent; not knowing, that ignorant at "that time fignified impotent. 523. The Oxford editor, "not knowing, that memory at that time was used for "memorial, alters it to memorial. Vol. 7. p. 219. The "Oxford editor is here again at his old work of altering what he did not understand. 253. He's ftrange and "peevish.] The Oxford editor with great acumen, alters "it to, be's ftrange and sheepish. Vol. 8. p. 191. The "Oxford editor defpifed an emendation so easy, and reads "it thus, Nay let the devil wear black, I'll have a fuit of "ermin. And you could expect no lefs, when fuch a "critic had the dressing of him. 396. But the Oxford "editor, not understanding his author's phrafeology any better "when he ended, than when he had begun with him, "altered: &c." With many more civil and polite remarks, much to the fame purpose.

How he has fucceeded must be left to the reader to judge, from the (a) Remarks of two learned, and very ingenious gentlemen, Thomas Edwards Efq; Barrister of Lincoln's Inn; and the reverend Mr. Upton, Prebendary of Rochester., And I fhall despair of seeing the genuine text of Shakespeare reftored, till the publication of his works is undertaken by one, or both these gentlemen, who, from what they have publifh'd upon the fubject, have fhewn, that they are duly qualified to perform the task with great credit to themselves, and advantage to their readers.

I have never heard any other objections made to the writings of this excellent poet, but that he has here and there an obfcene expreffion; or, for his unfkilfulness in the dead languages, remarkable anachronisms, or blunders in chronology, and the jingles, puns, and quibbles, which frequently occur in his plays.

As to the firft, he is certainly indefenfible, and cannot by any means be justified; though Ovid, Horace, and others of the antient poets, and Ben Johnson, and other cotemporary writers, have taken as great (if not greater) liberties in that refpect. As to his ignorance in the Greek and Latin tongues, though that point has been

(a) The first, intitled, Canons of Criticism, and a Gloffary. Being a fupplement to Mr. Warburton's edition of Shakespeare. The fifth edition was publish'd in 1753.

The fecond, intit'led, Critical Obfervations on Shakespeare, See Preface to the second edition.

more than once difcuffed, and much faid on both fides of the queftion; I cannot but think from his exact imitation of many of the antient. poets and biftorians, (of which there were no tolerable tranflations in his time,) that his knowledge in that respect cannot reasonably be call'd in question. Nay, from the fingle play of Hamlet, which feems in many places to be. an exact translation of Saxo Grammaticus, (which I believe was never tranflated into any other language) it cannot be doubted, but that he had a competent skill in the Latin tongue.

His mistakes in chronology are fo notorious, and numerous, that I fhall not pretend to vindicate them.

And as to the laft particular, his jingles, puns, and quibbles, they were certainly owing to the falfe tafte of the times in which he lived.

King James the First was by fome perfons thought to be a Prince of great learning; but he affected to fhew it fo much in his speeches, that by others, he has been charged with pedantry; which I fuppofe occafioned Gondomar's faucy freedom, in telling his Majefty, that be spoke Latin like a pedant, but he himself like a gentleman.

Nay, this Prince discover'd in his writings fo much of this low (but then fashionable) kind of wit, that it is not to be wondered at, if he was follow'd by the generality of writers of those times.

Bishop Andrews, the most learned Prelate of that age, in all his fermons before the Kings abounds but too much in jingles, &c. I fhall exhibit to the reader a few paffages, out of ma ny, in proof.

In his fermon before the King at White-Hall, on Christmas Day, 1607. on 1 Timothy, vi. 1. He begins with the following words.

P..17. "The mystery (here mentioned) is: "the mystery of this feast, and this feast the feaft of this mystery: for, as at this feaft God was manifefted in the flesh, in that it is a great "mystery, it maketh the feaft great; in that "it is a mystery of godliness, it should likewife "make it a feast of godliness great. we grant, "and godly too we truft: would God, as godly "as great, and no more controverfie of one, "than of the other."

In another fermon before the King, on Chriftmas Day 1623. on Ephefians. i. 10.5

speak of Chrift,

I

P. 148. Seeing the text is of seasons, it "would not be out of season itself and tho' "it be never out of feason to yet Chrift hath his feasons. Your time is always (faith he, John vii.) fo is not myne; "have my seasons, one of which seasons is this, the feafon of his birth, by which all were recapitulate in beaven and earth; which is the fea"fon of the text, and fo this a text of the feafon.". And in a fermon preach'd before the King, the fifth of August 1615. (on the confpiracy of the Gowries) on Pfalm xxi. 1, 2, 3, 4.

P. 830.