« AnteriorContinuar »
verence for its age and author; and thus it continued till another great poet broke the charm, by shewing us, that the higher we went, the less of it was still to be found.
For the proprietors, not discouraged by their first unsuccessful effort, in due time, made a fecond; and, though they still stuck to their poets, with infinitely more success in their choice of Mr. Pope, who, by the mere force of an uncommon genius, without any particular study or profession of this art, discharged the great parts of it fo well, as to make his edition the best foundation for all further improvements.
He separated the gem nuine from the spurious plays; and, with equal judgment, though not always with the fame fuccess, attempted to clear the genuine plays from the interpolated scenes: he then consulted the old editions; and, by a careful collation of them. re&tified the faulty, and supplied the imperfect reading, in a great number of places: and lastly, in an admirable preface, hath drawn a general, but very lively sketch of Shakspeare's poetick character; and, in the corrected text, marked out those peculiar strokes of genius which were most proper to support and illustrate that character, Thus far Mr. Pope. And although much more was to be done before Shakspeare could be restored to himself (such as amending the corrupted text where the printed books afford no assistance; explaining his licentious phraseology and obfcure allufions; and illustrating tlie beauties of his poetry); yet, with great modefty and prudence, our illustrious editòr left this to the critick by profession.
But nothing will give the common reader a better idea of the value of Mr. Pope's edition, than the two attempts which have been since made by Mr. Theobald and Sir Thomas Hanmer in opposition to it; who, although they concerned themselves only in the first of these three parts of criticism, the restoring the text, (without any conception of the second, or venturing even to touch upon the third,) yet succeeded so very ill in it, that they left their author in ten times a worse condition than thy found him. But, as it was my ill fortune to have some accidental connections with these two gentlemen, it will be incumbent on me to be a little more particular concerning them.
The one was recommended to me as a poor man; the other as a poor critick: and to each of them, at different times, I communicated a great number of observations, which they managed, as they saw fit, to the relief of their several distresses. Mr. Theobald, who wanted money, I allowed him to print what I gave him for his own advantage ; and he allowed himself in the liberty of taking one part for his own and fequestering another for the benefit, as I' supposed of some future edition. But, as to the Oxford editor, who wanted nothing but what he might very well be without, the reputation of a critick, I could not so easily forgive him for a traffick with my papers without my knowledge; and, when that project failed, for cmploying a number of my conjecures in his edition against my express desire not to have that honour done unto nie.
Mị. Theobald was naturally turned to industry and labour. What he read he could transcribe:
but, as what he thought, if ever he did think, he could but ill express, so he read on; and by that means got a character of learning without risquing, to every observer, the imputation of wanting a better talent.
By a puncilious collation of the old books, he corrected what was manifestly wrong in the latter editions, by what was manifestly right in the earlier. And this is his real merit; and the whole of it. For where the phrase was very obsolete or licentious in the common books, or only slightly corrupted in the other, he wanted sufficient knowledge of the progrefs and various flages of the English, tongue, as well as acquaintance with the peculiarity of Shakspeare's language, to understand what was right; nor had he either common judgment to see, or critical fagacity to amend, what was manifestly faulty. Hence he generally exerts his conjectural talent in the wrong place; he tampers with what is found in the common books; and, in the old ones, omits all notice of variations, the fense of which he did not understand,
How the Oxford editor came to think himself qualified for this office, from which his whole course of life had been so reinote, is still more difficult to conceive. For whatever parts he might have either of genius or erudition, he was absolutely ignorant of the art of criticism, as well as of the poetry of that time, and the language of his author. And so far from a thought of examining the first editions, that he even neglected to compare Mr. Pope's, from which he printed his own, with Mr. Theobald's; whereby he lost the advantage of many fine lines, which the other had recovered from the old quartos, Where he trusts to his own sagacity, in what affe&s the sense, his conjectures are generally apsurd and extravagant, and violating every rule of criticism. Though, in this rage of correéting, he was not absolutely deltitute of all art. For, having a number of my conjectures before him, he took as many of them as he saw fit, to work upon; and by changing them to something, he thought, synonymous or similar, he made them his own; and fo became a critick at a cheap expence.
But how well he hath fucceeded in this, as likewise in his conjectures, which are properly his own, will be seen in the course of my remarks: though, as he hath declined to give the reasons for his interpolations, he hath not afforded me fo fair a hold of him as Mr. Theobald hath done, who was lefs cautious. But his principal object was to reform his author's numbers; and this, which he hath done, on every occasion, by the insertion or omission of a set of harmless unconcerning expletives, makes up the gross body of his innocent corrections. And so, in spite of that extreme negligence in numbers, which distinguishes the first dramatick writers, he hath tricked up the old bard, from head to foot, in all the finical ex. aaness of a modern measurer of fyllables.
For the rest, all the corrections, which these two editors have made on any reasonable foundation, are here admitted into the text; and carefully alfigned to their respective authors; a piece of justice which the Oxford editor never did; and which the other was not always fcrupulous in observing towards To conclude with them in a word, they separately possessed those two qualities which,
more than any other, have contributed to bring the art of criticism into disrepute, dulness of apprehenfon, and extravagance of conje&lure.
I am now to give some account of the present undertaking. For as to all those things which have been published under the titles of Elays, Remarks, Observations, Úc. on Shakspeare, (if you except
, some critical notes on Macbeth, given as a speciInen of a projected edition, and written, as appears, by a nian of parts and genius,) the rest are absqlutely below a serious notice.
The whole a critick can do for an author, who deserves his service, is to correct the faultý text: to remark the pecularities of language; to illustrate the obscure allusions; and to explain the beauties and defects of sentiment or composition. And surely, if ever author had a claim to this fervice, it was our Shakspeare; who, widely excelling in the knowledge of human nature, hath given to his infinitely varied pictures of it, such truth of. design, such force of drawing, such beauty of colouring, as was hardly ever equalled by any writer, whether his aim was the use, or only the entertainment of mankind. The notes in this edition, therefore, take in the whole compass of criticism.
I. The first sort is employed in restoring the poet's genuine text; but in those places only where it labours with inextricable nonsense. In which how much soever I may have given scope to critical conjecture, where the old copies failed me, I have indulged nothing to fancy or imagination;
6 Published in 1745, by Dr. Johnson. Reed.