ligences 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 particularly Mr. Rymer, have taught me to distinguish betwixt the Railer and Critick. The Outrage of his Quotations is fo remarkably violent, fo pufhed beyond all Bounds of Decency and fober Reafoning, that it quite carries over the Mark at which it was levelled. Extravagant Abuse 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 last 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 Bossu and Dacier, from whom he has tranfcribed 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 difplaying their Powers rather in finding Faults, than in confulting the Improvement of the World: the hypercritical Part of the Science of Criticifm.

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 paft Experiments I have reason to be confcious, in what Light this Attempt may be placed and that what I call a modest Liberty, will, by a little of their Dexterity, be inverted into downright Impudence. From a hundred mean and dishoneft Artifices employed to difcredit this Edition, and to cry down its Editor, I have all the Grounds in Nature to beware of Attacks. But though the Malice of Wit, joined to the Smoothness of Verfification, may furnish some Ridicule; Fact, I hope, will be able to ftand its Ground against Banter and Gaiety.

It has been my Eate, it feems, as I thought it. my Duty, to discover fome Anachronisms in our Author; which might have flept in Obscurity but for this Reftorer, as Mr. Pope is pleafed 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 first Publifhers of his Works has fathered upon the Poet's Memory: it not bring at all credible, that Thefe 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 courfe 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 modest Question by the way, Why may not

I restore 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 proved, that, in his Fits of Criticifm, he makes no more Ceremony with good Homer himfelf? To try, then, a Criticism of his own advancing; In the eighth 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

"Must 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 σε was the Punishment of Adultery." But how is this fignificant Obfervation 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 also the Inflitution of Solon, that if any one tock an Adulterer in the Fact, he might use him as he pleafed? Thefe things are very true: and to fee

*

what

what a good Memory, and found Judgment in Conjunction can atchieve! Tho' Homer's Date is not determined down to a fingle Year, yet 'tis pretty generally agreed that he lived above 300 Years before Draco and Solon: And that, it feems, has made him feem to allude to the very Laws, which these 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 cautiously 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 fneered at, as a fort of wrong-headed Sagacity.

The numerous Corrections, which I made of the Poet's Text in my SHAKESPEAR E Reftored, and which the Publick have been fo kind to think well of, are, in the Appendix of Mr. Pope's laft Edition, flightingly called Various Readings, Guesses, &c. He confeffes to have inferted as many of them as he judged 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, which were not worth his embracing. Whoever has read my Book will at one Glance fee, how in both thefe Points Veracity is ftrained, fo an Injury might but be done. Malus, etfi obesse non poteft, tamen cogitat.

Another Expedient, to make my Work appear of a trifling Nature, has been an Attempt to depreciate Literal Criticifm. 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 should have been both abufed 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 Falfaffe does of Poins; Hang him, Baboon! his Wit is as thick as Tewksbury Muftard; there is no more Conceit in him, than is in a MALLET. it be not Prophanation to fet the Opinion of the divine Longinus against such a Scribbler, he tells us exprefly, That to make a Judgment upon "Words (and Writings) is the most consummate « Fruit of much Experience.” ἡ γὰρ τῶν λόγων κρίσις πολλῆς ἔτι πείρας τελευταῖον ἐπιγέννημα. Whenever Words are depraved, the Senfe of course must be corrupted; and thence the Reader's betrayed into a falfe Meaning.

If