Chapter II: Part 2

Then, to come to his Knowledge of the _Latin_ Tongue, ’tis certain, there is a surprising Effusion 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 suffer by an Inundation of _Latin_; and to be overlaid, as it were, by its Nurse, when it had just began to speak by her before-prudent Care and Assistance. And this, to be sure, was occasion’d by the Pedantry of those two Monarchs, _Elizabeth_ and _James_, Both great _Latinists_. For it is not to be wonder’d at, if both the Court and Schools, equal Flatterers of Power, should adapt themselves to the Royal Taste. This, then, was the Condition of the _English_ Tongue when _Shakespeare_ took it up: like a Beggar in a rich Wardrobe. He found the pure native _English_ too cold and poor to second the Heat and Abundance of his Imagination: and therefore was forc’d to dress it up in the Robes, he saw provided for it: rich in themselves, but ill-shaped; cut out to an air of Magnificence, but disproportion’d and cumbersome. To the Costliness of Ornament, he added all the Graces and Decorum of it. It may be said, this did not require, or discover a Knowledge of the _Latin_. To the first, I think, it did not; to the second, it is so far from discovering it, that, I think, it discovers the contrary. To make This more obvious by a modern Instance: The great MILTON likewise labour’d under the like Inconvenience; when he first set upon adorning his own Tongue, he likewise animated and enrich’d it with the _Latin_, but from his own Stock: and so, rather by bringing in the Phrases, than the Words: And This was natural; and will, I believe, always be the Case in the same Circumstances. His Language, especially his Prose, is full of _Latin_ Words indeed, but much fuller of _Latin_ Phrases: and his Mastery in the Tongue made this unavoidable. On the contrary, _Shakespeare_, who, perhaps, was not so intimately vers’d in the _Language_, abounds in the Words of it, but has few or none of its Phrases: Nor, indeed, if what I affirm be true, could He. This I take to be the truest _Criterion_ to determine this long agitated Question.

It may be mention’d, tho’ no certain Conclusion can be drawn from it, as a probable Argument of his having read the Antients; that He perpetually expresses the Genius of _Homer_, and other great Poets of the Old World, in animating all the Parts of his Descriptions; and, by bold and breathing Metaphors and Images, giving the Properties of Life and Action to inanimate Things. He is a Copy too of those _Greek_ Masters in the infinite use of _compound_ and _de-compound Epithets_. I will not, indeed, aver, but that One with _Shakespeare_’s exquisite Genius and Observation might have traced these glaring Characteristics of Antiquity by reading _Homer_ in _Chapman_’s Version.

[Sidenote: _B. Jonson_ and _Shakespeare_ compar’d.]

An additional Word or two naturally falls in here upon the Genius of our Author, as compared with that of _Jonson_ his Contemporary. They are confessedly the greatest Writers our Nation could ever boast 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. Besides those 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 _Jonson_’s bad Pieces we don’t discover one single Trace of the Author of the _Fox_ and _Alchemist_: but in the wild extravagant Notes of _Shakespeare_, you every now and then encounter Strains that recognize the divine Composer. This Difference may be thus accounted for. _Jonson_, as we said before, owing all his Excellence to his Art, by which he sometimes strain’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 _Sbakespeare_, indebted more largely to Nature, than the Other to acquired Talents, in his most negligent Hours could never so totally divest himself of his Genius, but that it would frequently break out with astonishing Force and Splendor.

[Sidenote: His Reputation under Disadvantages.]

As I have never propos’d to dilate farther on the Character of my Author, than was necessary to explain the Nature and Use of this Edition, I shall proceed to consider him as a Genius in Possession 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 hitherto appear’d! Had _Homer_, or any other admir’d Author, first started into Publick so, maim’d and deform’d, we cannot determine whether they had not sunk for ever under the Ignominy of such an ill Appearance. The mangled Condition of _Shakespeare_ has been acknowledg’d by Mr. _Rowe_, who publish’d him indeed, but neither corrected his Text, nor collated the old Copies. This Gentleman had Abilities, and a sufficient Knowledge of his Author, had but his Industry been equal to his Talents. The same mangled Condition has been acknowledg’d too by Mr. _Pope_, who publish’d him likewise, pretended to have collated the old Copies, and yet seldom has corrected the Text but to its Injury. I congratulate with the _Manes_ of our Poet, that this Gentleman has been sparing in _indulging his private Sense_; for He, who tampers with an Author whom he does not understand, must do it at the Expence of his Subject. 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 LIPSIUS mentions, did with regard to MARTIAL; _Inventus est nescio quis _Popa_, qui non _vitia_ ejus, sed _ipsum_, excîdit._ He has attack’d him like an unhandy _Slaughterman_; and not lopp’d off the _Errors_, but the _Poet_.

[Sidenote: Praise sometimes an Injury.]

When this is found to be the Fact, how absurd must appear the Praises of such an Editor? It seems a moot Point, whether Mr. _Pope_ has done most Injury to _Shakespeare_ as his Editor and Encomiast; or Mr. _Rymer_ done him Service as his Rival and Censurer. Were it every where the true Text, which That Editor in his late pompous Edition gave us, the Poet deserv’d not the large Encomiums bestow’d by him: nor, in that Case, is _Rymer_’s Censure of the Barbarity of his Thoughts, and the Impropriety of his Expressions, groundless. They have Both shewn themselves in an equal _Impuissance_ of suspecting or amending the corrupted Passages: and tho’ it be neither Prudence to censure, or commend, what one does not understand; yet if a Man must do one when he plays the Critick, the latter is the more ridiculous Office. And by That _Shakespeare_ suffers most. For the natural Veneration, which we have for him, makes us apt to swallow whatever is given us as _his_, and let off with Encomiums; and hence we quit all Suspicions of Depravity: On the contrary, the Censure of so divine an Author sets us upon his Defence; and this produces an exact Scrutiny and Examination, which ends in finding out and discriminating the true from the spurious.

It is not with any secret Pleasure, that I so frequently animadvert on Mr. _Pope_ as a Critick; but there are Provocations, which a Man can never quite forget. His Libels have been thrown out with so much Inveteracy, that, not to dispute whether they _should_ come from a _Christian_, they leave it a Question whether they _could_ come from a _Man_. I should be loth to doubt, as _Quintus Serenus_ did in a like Case,

Sive homo, seu similis turpissima bestia nobis,
Vulnera dente dedit.

The Indignation, perhaps, for being represented a _Blockhead_, may be as strong in Us as it is in the Ladies for a Reflexion on their _Beauties_. It is certain, I am indebted to Him for some _flagrant Civilities_; and I shall willingly devote a part of my Life to the honest Endeavour of quitting Scores: with this Exception however, that I will not return those Civilities in his _peculiar_ Strain, but confine myself, at lead, to the Limits of _common Decency_. I shall ever think it better to want _Wit_, than to want _Humanity_: and impartial Posterity may, perhaps, be of my Opinion.

[Sidenote: The old Editions faulty, whence.]

But, to return to my Subject; which now calls upon me to inquire into those Causes, to which the Depravations of my Author originally may be assign’d. We are to consider him as a Writer, of whom no authentic Manuscript was extant; as a Writer, whose Pieces were dispersedly perform’d on the several _Stages_ then in Being. And it was the Custom of those Days for the Poets to take a Price of the _Players_ for the Pieces They from time to time furnish’d; and thereupon it was suppos’d, they had no farther Right to print them without the Consent of the _Players_. As it was the Interest of the _Companies_ to keep their Plays unpublish’d, when any one succeeded, there was a Contest betwixt the Curiosity of the Town, who demanded to see it in Print, and the Policy of the _Stagers_, who wish’d to secrete it within their own Walls. Hence, many Pieces were taken down in Short-hand, and imperfectly copied by Ear, from a _Representation_: Others were printed from piece-meal Parts, surreptitiously obtain’d from the Theatres, uncorrect, and without the Poet’s Knowledge. To some of these Causes we owe the train of Blemishes, that deform those Pieces which stole singly into the World in our Author’s Life-time.

There are still other Reasons, which may be suppos’d to have affected the whole Set. When the _Players_ took upon them to publish his Works intire, every Theatre was ransack’d to supply the Copy; and _Parts_ collected which had gone thro’ as many Changes as Performers, either from Mutilations or Additions made to them. Hence we derive many Chasms and Incoherences in the Sense and Matter. Scenes were frequently transposed, and shuffled out of their true Place, to humour the Caprice or suppos’d Convenience of some particular Actor. Hence much Confusion and Impropriety has attended, and embarras’d, the Business and Fable. For there ever have been, and ever will be in Playhouses, a Set of assuming Directors, who know better than the Poet himself the Connexion and Dependance of his Scenes; where Matter is defective, or Superfluities to be retrench’d; Persons, that have the Fountain of _Inspiration_ as peremptorily in them, as Kings have That of _Honour_. To these obvious Causes of Corruption it must be added, that our Author has lain under the Disadvantage of having his Errors propagated and multiplied by Time: because, for near a Century; his Works were republish’d from the faulty Copies without the assistance of any intelligent Editor: which has been the Case likewise of many a _Classic_ Writer.

[Sidenote: The Editor’s Drift and Method.]

[Sidenote*: Difference betwixt this Edition and Dr. _Bentley_’s
_Milton_.]

The Nature of any Distemper once found has generally been the immediate Step to a Cure. _Shakespeare_’s Case has in a great Measure resembled That of a corrupt _Classic_; and, consequently, the Method of Cure was likewise to bear a Resemblance. By what Means, and with what Success, this Cure has been effected on ancient Writers, is too well known, and needs no formal Illustration. The Reputation consequent on Tasks of that Nature invited me to attempt the Method here; with this View, the Hopes of restoring to the Publick their greatest Poet in his Original Purity: after having so long lain in a Condition that was a Disgrace to common Sense. To this End I have ventur’d on a Labour, that is the first Assay of the kind on any modern Author whatsoever. For the late Edition of _Milton_ by the Learned *Dr. _Bentley_ is, in the main, a Performance of another Species. It is plain, it was the Intention of that Great Man rather to Correct and pare off the Excrescencies of the _Paradise Lost_, in the manner that _Tucca_ and _Varius_ were employ’d to criticize the _Æneis_ of _Virgil_, than to restore corrupted Passages. Hence, therefore, may be seen either the Iniquity or Ignorance of his Censurers, who, from some Expressions, would make us believe, the _Doctor_ every where gives us his Corrections as the Original Text of the Author; whereas the chief Turn of his Criticism is plainly to shew the World, that if _Milton_ did not write as He would have him, he ought to have wrote so.

I thought proper to premise this Observation to the Readers, as it will shew that the Critic on _Shakespeare_ is of a quite different Kind. His genuine Text is religiously adher’d to, and the numerous Faults and Blemishes, purely his own, are left as they were found. Nothing is alter’d, but what by the clearest Reasoning can be proved a Corruption of the true Text; and the Alteration, a real Restoration of the genuine Reading. Nay, so strictly have I strove to give the true Reading, tho’ sometimes not to the Advantage of my Author, that I have been ridiculously ridicul’d for it by Those, who either were iniquitously for turning every thing to my Disadvantage; or else were totally ignorant of the true Duty of an Editor.

The Science of Criticism, as far as it affects an Editor, seems to be reduced to these three Classes; the Emendation of corrupt Passages; the Explanation of obscure and difficult ones; and an Inquiry into the Beauties and Defects of Composition. This Work is principally confin’d to the two former Parts: tho’ there are some Specimens interspers’d of the latter Kind, as several of the Emendations were best supported, and several of the Difficulties best explain’d, by taking notice of the Beauties and Defects of the Composition peculiar to this Immortal Poet. But This was but occasional, and for the sake only of perfecting the two other Parts, which were the proper Objects of the Editor’s Labour. The third lies open for every willing Undertaker: and I shall be pleas’d to see it the Employment of a masterly Pen.

It must necessarily happen, as I have formerly observ’d, that where the Assistance of Manuscripts is wanting to set an Author’s Meaning right, and rescue him from those Errors which have been transmitted down thro’ a Series of incorrect Editions, and a long Intervention of Time, many Passages must be desperate, and past a Cure; and their true Sense irretrievable either to Care or the Sagacity of Conjecture. But is there any Reason therefore to say, That because All cannot be retriev’d, All ought to be left desperate? We should shew very little Honesty, or Wisdom, to play the Tyrants with an Author’s Text; to raze, alter, innovate, and overturn, at all Adventures, and to the utter Detriment of his Sense and Meaning: But to be so very reserved and cautious, as to interpose no Relief or Conjecture, where it manifestly labours and cries out for Assistance, seems, on the other hand, an indolent Absurdity.

But because the Art of Criticism, both by Those who cannot form a true Judgment of its Effects, nor can penetrate into its Causes, (which takes in a great Number besides the Ladies;) is esteem’d only an arbitrary capricious Tyranny exercis’d on Books; I think proper to subjoin a Word or two about those Rules on which I have proceeded, and by which I have regulated myself in this Edition. By This, I flatter myself, it will appear, my Emendations are so far from being arbitrary or capricious, that They are establish’d with a very high Degree of moral Certainty.

As there are very few Pages in _Shakespeare_, upon which some Suspicions of Depravity do not reasonably arise; I have thought it my Duty, in the first place, by a diligent and laborious Collation to take in the Assistances of all the older Copies.

In his _Historical Plays_, whenever our _English_ Chronicles, and in his Tragedies when _Greek_ or _Roman_ Story, could give any Light; no Pains have been omitted to set Passages right by comparing my Author with his Originals: for, as I have frequently observed, he was a close and accurate Copier where-ever his _Fable_ was founded on _History_.

Where-ever the Author’s Sense is clear and discoverable, (tho’, perchance, low and trivial;) I have not by any Innovation tamper’d with his Text; out of an Ostentation of endeavouring to make him speak better than the Old Copies have done.

Where, thro’ all the former Editions, a Passage has labour’d under flat Nonsense and invincible Darkness, if, by the Addition or Alteration of a Letter or two, I have restored to Him both Sense and Sentiment, such Corrections, I am persuaded, will need no Indulgence.

And whenever I have taken a greater Latitude and Liberty in amending, I have constantly endeavoured to support my Corrections and Conjectures by parallel Passages and Authorities from himself, the surest Means of expounding any Author whatsoever. _Cette voïe d’interpreter un Autheur par lui-même est plus sure que tous les Commentaires_, says a very learned _French_ Critick.

As to my _Notes_, (from which the common and learned Readers of our Author, I hope, will derive some Pleasure;) I have endeavour’d to give them a Variety in some Proportion to their Number. Where-ever I have ventur’d at an Emendation, a _Note_ is constantly subjoin’d to justify and assert the Reason of it. Where I only offer a Conjecture, and do not disturb the Text, I fairly set forth my Grounds for such Conjecture, and submit it to Judgment. Some Remarks are spent in explaining Passages, Where the Wit or Satire depends on an obscure Point of History: Others, where Allusions are to Divinity, Philosophy, or other Branches of Science. Some are added to shew, where there is a Suspicion of our Author having borrowed from the Antients: Others, to shew where he is rallying his Contemporaries; or where He himself is rallied by them. And some are necessarily thrown in, to explain an obscure and obsolete _Term_, _Phrase_, or _Idea_. I once intended to have added a complete and copious _Glossary_; but as I have been importun’d, and am prepar’d, to give a correct Edition of our Author’s POEMS, (in which many Terms occur that are not to be met with in his _Plays_,) I thought a _Glossary_ to all _Shakespeare_’s Works more proper to attend that Volume.

In reforming an infinite Number of Passages in the _Pointing_, where the Sense was before quite lost, I have frequently subjoin’d Notes to shew the _deprav’d_, and to prove the _reform’d_, Pointing: a Part of Labour in this Work which I could very willingly have spared myself. May it not be objected, why then have you burthen’d us with these Notes? The Answer is obvious, and, if I mistake not, very material. Without such Notes, these Passages in subsequent Editions would be liable, thro’ the Ignorance of Printers and Correctors, to fall into the old Confusion: Whereas, a Note on every one hinders all possible Return to Depravity; and for ever secures them in a State of Purity and Integrity not to be lost or forfeited.

[Sidenote*: Causes of Obscurities in _Shakespeare_.]

Again, as some Notes have been necessary to point out the Detection of the corrupted Text, and establish the Reiteration of the genuine Readings; some others have been as necessary for the Explanation of Passages obscure and difficult. *To understand the Necessity and Use of this Part of my Task, some Particulars of my Author’s Character are previously to be explain’d. There are _Obscurities_ in him, which are common to him with all Poets of the same Species; there are Others, the Issue of the Times he liv’d in; and there are Others, again, peculiar to himself. The Nature of Comic Poetry being entirely satyrical, it busies itself more in exposing what we call Caprice and Humour, than Vices cognizable to the Laws. The _English_, from the Happiness of a free Constitution, and a Turn of Mind peculiarly speculative and inquisitive, are observ’d to produce more _Humourists_ and a greater Variety of Original _Characters_, than any other People whatsoever: And These owing their immediate Birth to the peculiar Genius of each Age, an infinite Number of Things alluded to, glanced at, and expos’d, must needs become obscure, as the _Characters_ themselves are antiquated, and disused. An Editor therefore should be well vers’d in the History and Manners of his Author’s Age, if he aims at doing him a Service in this Respect.

Besides, _Wit_ lying mostly in the Assemblage of _Ideas_, and in the putting Those together with Quickness and Variety, wherein can be found any Resemblance, or Congruity, to make up pleasant Pictures, and agreeable Visions in the Fancy; the Writer, who aims at Wit, must of course range far and wide for Materials. Now, the Age, in which _Shakespeare_ liv’d, having, above all others, a wonderful Affection to appear Learned, They declined vulgar Images, such as are immediately fetch’d from Nature, and rang’d thro’ the Circle of the Sciences to fetch their Ideas from thence. But as the Resemblances of such Ideas to the Subject must necessarily lie very much out of the common Way, and every piece of Wit appear a Riddle to the Vulgar; This, that should have taught them the forced, quaint, unnatural Tract they were in, (and induce them to follow a more natural One,) was the very Thing that kept them attach’d to it. The ostentatious Affectation of abstruse Learning, peculiar to that Time, the Love that Men naturally have to every Thing that looks like Mystery, fixed them down to this Habit of Obscurity. Thus became the Poetry of DONNE (tho’ the wittiest Man of that Age,) nothing but a continued Heap of Riddles. And our _Shakespeare_, with all his easy Nature about him, for want of the Knowledge of the true Rules of Art, falls frequently into this vicious Manner.

The third Species of _Obscurities_, which deform our Author, as the Effects of his own Genius and Character, are Those that proceed from his peculiar Manner of _Thinking_, and as peculiar a Manner of _cloathing_ those _Thoughts_. With regard to his _Thinking_, it is certain, that he had a general Knowledge of all the Sciences: But his Acquaintance was rather That of a Traveller, than a Native. Nothing in Philosophy was unknown to him; but every Thing in it had the Grace and Force of Novelty. And as Novelty is one main Source of Admiration, we are not to wonder that He has perpetual Allusions to the most recondite Parts of the Sciences: and This was done not so much out of Affectation, as the Effect of Admiration begot by Novelty. Then, as to his _Style_ and _Diction_, we may much more justly apply to SHAKESPEARE, what a celebrated Writer has said of MILTON; _Our Language sunk under him, and was unequal to that Greatness of Soul which furnish’d him with such glorious Conceptions_. He therefore frequently uses old Words, to give his Diction an Air of Solemnity; as he coins others, to express the Novelty and Variety of his Ideas.

Upon every distinct Species of these _Obscurities_ I have thought it my Province to employ a Note, for the Service of my Author, and the Entertainment of my Readers. A few transient Remarks too I have not scrupled to intermix, upon the Poet’s _Negligences_ and _Omissions_ in point of Art; but I have done it always in such a Manner, as will testify my Deference and Veneration for the Immortal Author. Some Censurers of _Shakespeare_, and particularly Mr. _Rymer_, have taught me to distinguish betwixt the _Railer_ and _Critick_. The Outrage of his Quotations is so remarkably violent, so push’d beyond all Bounds of Decency and sober Reasoning, that it quite carries over the Mark at which it was levell’d. Extravagant Abuse throws off the Edge of the intended Disparagement, and turns the Madman’s Weapon into his own Bosom. In short, 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 transcribed many of his best Reflexions. The late Mr. _Gildon_ was One attached to _Rymer_ by a similar Way of Thinking and Studies. They were Both of that Species of Criticks, who are desirous of displaying their Powers rather in finding Faults, than in consulting the Improvement of the World: the _hypercritical_ Part of the Science of _Criticism_.

I had not mentioned the modest Liberty I have here and there taken of animadverting on my Author, but that I was willing to obviate in time the splenetick Exaggerations of my Adversaries on this Head. From past Experiments I have Reason to be conscious, 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 dishonest Artifices employ’d to discredit this Edition, and to cry down its Editor, I have all the Grounds in Nature to be aware of Attacks. But tho’ the Malice of Wit join’d to the Smoothness of Versification may furnish some Ridicule; Fact, I hope, will be able to stand its Ground against Banter and Gaiety.

[Sidenote: _Shakespeare_’s Anachronisms defended.]

[Sidenote*: Mr. _Pope_’s Anachronisms examin’d.]

It has been my Fate, it seems, as I thought it my Duty, to discover some _Anachronisms_ in our Author; which might have slept in Obscurity but for _this Restorer_, as Mr. _Pope_ is pleas’d affectionately to style me; as, for Instance, where _Aristotle_ is mentioned by _Hector_ in _Troilus_ and _Cressida_: and _Galen_, _Cato_, and _Alexander_ the Great, in _Coriolanus_. These, in Mr. _Pope_’s Opinion, are Blunders, which the Illiteracy of the first 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 least Tincture of a School, or the least Conversation with_ _such as had._ But I have sufficiently proved, in the Course of my _Notes_, that such 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 Instance of Sir _Francis Drake_, to which I have spoke in the proper Place?

But who shall 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_ himself? To try, then, a Criticism of his own advancing; In the 8th Book of the _Odyssey_, where _Demodocus_ sings 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 so kind gravely to inform us, “That _Homer_ in This, as in many other Places, seems to allude to the Laws of _Athens_, where Death was the Punishment of Adultery.” But how is this significant Observation made out? Why, who can possibly object any Thing to the Contrary?----_Does not_ Pausanias_ relate, that _Draco_ the Lawgiver to the _Athenians_ granted Impunity to any Person that took Revenge upon an Adulterer? And was it not also the Institution 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 a good Memory, and sound Judgment in Conjunction can atchieve! Tho’ _Homer_’s Date is not determin’d down to a single Year, yet ’tis pretty generally agreed that he liv’d above 300 Years before _Draco_ and _Solon_: And That, it seems, has made him _seem_ to allude to the very Laws, which these Two Legislators propounded above 300 Years after. If this Inference be not something like an _Anachronism_ or _Prolepsis_, I’ll look once more into my Lexicons for the true Meaning of the Words. It appears to me, that somebody besides _Mars_ and _Venus_ has been caught in a Net by this Episode: and I could call in other Instances to confirm what treacherous Tackle this Network is, if not cautiously handled.

How just, notwithstanding, I have been in detecting the Anachronisms of my Author, and in defending him for the Use of them, Our late Editor seems to think, They should rather have slept in Obscurity: and the having discovered them is sneer’d at, as a sort of wrong-headed Sagacity.

The numerous Corrections, which I made of the Poet’s Text in my SHAKESPEARE _Restor’d_, and which the Publick have been so kind to think well of, are, in the Appendix of Mr. _Pope_’s last Edition, slightingly call’d _Various Readings_, _Guesses_, &c. He confesses to have inserted as many of them as he judg’d of any the least Advantage to the Poet; but says, that the Whole amounted to about 25 Words: and pretends to have annexed a compleat List of the Rest, which were not worth his embracing. Whoever has read my Book will at one glance see, how in both these Points Veracity is strain’d, so an Injury might but be done. _Malus etsi obesse non pote, tamen cogitat_.

[Sidenote: _Literal Criticism_ defended.]

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 servile 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 singly at Me, he has done Me the Honour to join Dr. _Bentley_ in the Libel. I was in hopes, We should have been Both abused with Smartness of Satire, at least; tho’ not with Solidity of Argument: that it might have been worth some Reply in Defence of the Science attacked. But I may fairly say of this Author, as _Falstaffe_ 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 set the Opinion of the divine _Longinus_ against such a Scribler, he tells us expresly, “That to make a Judgment upon _Words_ (and _Writings_) is the most consummate Fruit of much Experience.” ἡ γὰρ τῶν λόγων κρίσις πολλῆς ἐστὶ πείρας τελευταῖον ἐπιγέννημα. Whenever Words are depraved, the Sense of course must be corrupted; and thence the Readers betray’d into a false Meaning. Tho’ I should be convicted of Pedantry by some, I’ll venture to subjoin a few flagrant Instances, in which I have observed most Learned Men have suffer’d themselves to be deceived, and consequently led their Readers into Error: and This for want of the Help of _Literal Criticism_: in some, thro’ Indolence and Inadvertence: in others, perhaps, thro’ an absolute Contempt of It. If the _Subject_ may seem to invite this Digression, I hope, the _Use_ and _Application_ will serve to excuse it.

[Sidenote: _Platonius_ corrected.]

I. In that golden Fragment, which we have left of _Platonius_, upon the three Kinds of _Greek_ Comedy, after he has told us, that when the State of _Athens_ was alter’d from a Democracy to an Oligarchy, and that the Poets grew cautious whom they libell’d in their Comedies; when the People had no longer any Desire to choose the accustom’d Officers for furnishing _Choric_ Singers, and defraying the Expence of them, _Aristophanes_ brought on a Play in which there was no _Chorus_. For, subjoins He, τῶν γὰρ ΧΟΡΕΥΤΩΝ μὴ χειροτονουμένων, καὶ τῶν ΧΟΡΗΓΩΝ οὐκ ἐχόντων τὰς τροφὰς, ὑπεξῃρέθη τῆς Κωμῳδίας τὰ χορικὰ μέλη, καὶ τῶν ὑποθέσεων ὁ τρόπος μετεβλήθη. _“The _Chorus-Singers_ being no longer chosen by Suffrage, and the _Furnishers_ of the_ Chorus _no longer having their Maintenance, the _Choric_ Songs were taken out of Comedies, and the Nature of the Argument and Fable chang’d._” But there happen to be two signal Mistakes in this short Sentence. For the _Chorus-Singers_ were never elected by Suffrage at all, but hir’d by the proper Officer who was at the Expence of the _Chorus_: and the _Furnishers_ of the _Chorus_ had never either Table, or Stipend, allowed them, towards their Charge. To what Purpose then is this Sentence, which should be a Deduction from the Premises, and yet is none, brought in? Or how comes the Reasoning to be founded upon what was not the Fact? The Mistake manifestly arises from a careless Transposition made in the Text: Let the two _Greek_ Words, which I have distinguished by _Capitals_, only change Places, and we recover what _Platonius_ meant to infer: “That the [A]_Furnishers_ of _Chorus_’s being no longer elected by Suffrage, and the [B]_Chorus-Singers_ having no Provision made for them, _Chorus_’s were abolished, and the Subjects of Comedies alter’d.”

[Footnote A: Χορηγῶν.]
[Footnote B: Χορευτῶν.]

II. There is another more egregious Error still subsisting in this instructive Fragment, which has likewise escaped the Notice of the Learned. The Author is saying, that, in the _old Comedy_, the _Masks_ were made so nearly to resemble the Persons to be satirized, that before the Actor spoke a Word, it was known whom he was to personate. But, in the _New Comedy_, when _Athens_ was conquered by the _Macedonians_, and the Poets were fearful lest their Masks should be construed to resemble any of their New Governors, they formed them so preposterously as only to move Laughter; ὁρῶμεν γοῦν (says He) τὰς ὀφρῦς ἐν τοῖς προσώποις τῆς Μενάνδρου κωμῳδίας ὁποίας ἔχει, καὶ ὅπως ἐξεστραμμένον τὸ ΣΩΜΑ. καὶ οὐδε κατὰ ἀνθρώπων φύσιν. “We see therefore what strange Eyebrows there are to the Masks used in_ Menander_’s Comedies; and how the _Body_ is distorted, and unlike any human Creature alive.” But the Author, ’tis evident, is speaking abstractedly of _Masks_; and what Reference has the _Distortion_ of the _Body_ to the Look of a _Visor_? I am satisfied, _Platonius_ wrote; καὶ ὅπως ἐξεστραμμένον τὸ ὌΜΜΑ, _i.e._ “and how the _Eyes_ were _goggled_ and _distorted_.” This is to the Purpose of his Subject: and _Jul. Pollux_, in describing the Comic Masques, speaks of some that had ΣΤΡΕΒΛΟΝ τὸ ὌΜΜΑ: Others, that were ΔΙΑΣΤΡΟΦΟΙ τὴν ὌΨΙΝ. PERVERSIS _oculis_, as _Cicero_ calls them, speaking of _Roscius_.

[Sidenote: _Camerarius_ and _Keuster_, mistaken.]

III. _Suidas_, in the short Account that he has given us of _Sophocles_, tells us, that, besides Dramatic Pieces, he wrote Hymns and Elegies; καὶ λόγον καταλογάδην περὶ τοῦ Χοροῦ πρὸς Θέσπιν καὶ Χοίριλον ἀγωνιζόμενος. This the Learned _Camerarius_ has thus translated: _Scripsit Oratione solutâ de _Choro_ contra _Thespin_ & _Chœrilum_ quempiam._ And _Keuster_ likewise understood, and render’d, the Passage to the same Effect. He owns, the Place is obscure, and suspected by him. “For how could _Sophocles_ contend with _Thespis_ and _Chœrilus_, who liv’d long before his Time?” The Scholiast upon [C]_Aristophanes_, however, expresly says, as _Keuster_ might have remember’d, that _Sophocles_ actually did contend with _Chœrilus_. But that is a Point nothing to the Passage in Question; which means, as I have shewn in another Place, That _Sophocles_ declaimed in Prose, contending to obtain a _Chorus_ for reviving some Pieces of _Thespis_ and _Chœrilus_. Is This contending against Them, as rival Poets?

[Footnote C: In Ranis, v. 73.]

[Sidenote: _Meursius_, and _Camerarius_ mistaken.]

IV. Some other Learned Men have likewise been mistaken in Particulars with regard to _Sophocles_. In the Synopsis of his Life, we find these Words; Τελευτᾶ δὲ μετὰ Ἐυριπίδην ἐτῶν ϛ’. _Meursius_, as well as _Camerarius_, have expounded This, as if _Sophocles_ surviv’d _Euripides_ six Years. But the best Accounts agree that they died both in the same Year, a little before the _Frogs_ of _Aristophanes_ was play’d; _scil._ Olymp. 93, 3. The Meaning, therefore, of the Passage is, as some of the Commentators have rightly observ’d; _That _Sophocles_ died after _Euripides_, at 90 Years of Age._ The Mistake arose from hence, that, in Numerals, ϛʹ signifies as well 6 as 90.

[Sidenote: Father _Brumoy_ mistaken.]

V. The Learned Father _Brumoy_ too, who has lately given us three Volumes upon the _Theatre_ of the _Greeks_, has slipt into an Error about _Sophocles_; for, speaking of his _Antigone_, he tells us, it was in such Request as to be perform’d Two and Thirty times; _Elle fût representée trente deux fois._ The Account, on which This is grounded, we have from the Argument prefix’d to _Antigone_ by _Aristophanes_ the Grammarian: and the _Latin_ Translator of this Argument, probably, led Father _Brumoy_ into his Mistake, and he should have referr’d to the Original. The _Greek_ Words are; λέλεκται δὲ τὸ δρᾶμα τοῦτο τριακοστὸν δεύτερον. i. e. “_This _Play_ is said to have been the _Thirty Second_, in Order of Time, produced by_ Sophocles.”

The Mistakes, that I have mentioned, (tho’ they necessarily lead into Error, from the Authority with which they come into the World;) yet are such, ’tis obvious, as have been the Effects of Inadvertence; and therefore I do not quote them to the Dishonour of their Learned Authors. I shall point out Two or Three, which seem to have sprung from another Source: either a due Want of Sagacity, or an absolute Neglect of _literal Criticism_.

[Sidenote: Sir _George Wheler_ corrected.]

VI. Sir _George Wheler_, who, in his JOURNEY into GREECE, has traded much with _Greek_ Antiquities and Inscriptions, and who certainly was no mean Scholar, has shewn himself very careless in this Respect. When he was at _Sardis_, he met with a Medal of the Emperor _Commodus_ seated in the Midst of the Zodiack with Celestial Signs engraven on it; and, on the other Side, a Figure with a Crown-Mure with these Letters about it, Σάρδις Ἀσίας, ΑΥΔΙΑΣ, Ἕλλαδος, ᾱ μητρόπολις: __Sardis_, the first Metropolis of _Asia_, _Greece_, and _Audia_._--But where and what _Audia_ was, (_says He_) I find not. Now is it not very strange, that this Gentleman should not remember, that _Sardis_ was the Capital City of _Lydia_; and, consequently, that for ΑΥΔΙΑΣ we should read ΛΥΔΊΑΣ? Tho’ my Correction is too obvious to want any Justification, yet, I find, it has One from the Learned Father [D]_Harduin_; who produces another Coin of _Sardis_ (in the _French_ King’s Cabinet) which bears the very same Inscription, only exhibited as it ought to be.

[Footnote D: In his _Nummi Antiqui illustrati_.]

Nor was This a single Inaccuracy in Sir _George_. I’ll instance in Two pretty Inscriptions, the One an _Epitaph_, the other a _Votive Table_, which He has given Us, but in a very corrupt Condition. Tho’ I have never been in _Greece_, nor seen the Inscriptions any where but in _his_ Book, I think, I can restore them to their true Sense and Numbers: And, as they are particularly elegant, some Readers will not be displeas’d to see them in a State of Purity.

[Sidenote: An _Epitaph_ corrected and explained.]

VII. _Of the Antiquities of _Philadelphia_ (says he) I had but a slender Account; only I have the Copy of one Inscription, being the Monument of a _Virgin_, in these three Couplets of Verses_. But she was so far from being a _Virgin_, that the Epitaph shews her to have been a _Wife_; that it was put up in Memory of Her by her _Husband_; and that she dy’d in the Flower of her Youth at the Age of twenty three.

Ξαντίππην Ἀκύλα μνήμην [1]βίου παρέδωκην
Βωμῷ [2]τειμήσας σεμνω ταυτην ἄλοχον‧
Παρθένον ἧς ἀπέλυσε μίτρην ΗΣΔΡΙΟΝ ἄνθοσ.
Ἔσκεν ἐν ἡμιτελεῖ παυσαμενον θαλάμῳ.
Τρεῖς γαρ ἐπ᾽ εἰκοσίους τελεῶσε [3]βιον ἐνιαυτοὺς,
Καὶ μετὰ τούσδε θάνεν [4]τουτου λιπουσαφαος.

[Notes:
1 βιότου παρέδωκεν.
2 τιμήσας σεμνοτάτην.
3 βιοῦσ᾽.
4 τοῦτο λιποῦσα φάος. ]

I have, for Brevity’s sake, mark’d the general Corrections, which I have made, at the Side. The third Verse is neither true in Quantity, nor Language: ΗΣΔΡΙΟΝ is a Monster of a Word, which never could be the Reading of any Marble. As I correct it, we recover a most beautiful Couplet.

Παρθένον, ἧς ἀπέλυσε μίτρην‧ ἯΣ ἨΡΙΝΌΝ ἄνθος.
Ἔσκεν ἐν ἡμιτελεῖ παυσάμενον θαλάμῳ.

Puellam, cujus Zonam solvit; cujus _VERNUS_ Flos
Præproperô tabuit in Thalamô.

[Sidenote: A _Votive Table_ corrected.]

VIII. I come now to the _Votive Table_, which is rich in poetick Graces, however overwhelm’d with Depravation: and Sir _George_ seems as much to have mistaken the Purport, as the Words, of the Inscription. _At _Chalcedon_, _says he_, I found an Inscription in the Wall of a private House near the Church; which signifieth, that _Evante_, the Son of _Antipater_, having made a prosperous Voyage, and desiring to return by the _Ægean_ Sea, offered Cakes at a Statue, which he had erected to _Jupiter_, which had sent him such good Weather, as a Token of his good Voyage._

[1]ΟΥΡΙΟΝ ἐπὶ [2]ΠΡΙΜΝΗΣ τις ὁδηγητῆρα καλείτω, Ζῆνα κατὰ [3]πρωτΟΝ ΩΝιστιον ἐκπετάσας [4]ΕΠΙ ΚΥΑΝΕΑΣ ΔΙΝΑΣ ΔΡΟΜΟΥΣ ἔνθα Ποσειδῶν Καμπύλον εἰλίσσει κῦμα παρὰ ψαμαθοῖς. Εἶτα κατ᾽ Αἰγαῖαν πόντου πλάκα [5]ΝΑΣ ἐρεύνων, Νείσθω‧ τῷ δὲ [6]ΒΑΛΛΩΝ ψαιστὰ παρὰ [7]ΤΩ ΖΩΑΝΩ. [8]ΟΔΕ τὸν [9]ΕΥΑΝΤΗ τὸν ἀεὶ θεὸν Ἀντιπάτρου παῖς Στησε [10]φιλων ἀγαθῆς σύμβολον εὐπλοΐης.

[Notes:
1 Ὂυρον.
2 πρύμνης.
3 πρώτων, ἱστίον.
4 Κυανεαῖς δίνησιν ἐπίδρομον.
5 Νόστον.
6 βαλών.
7 ξοάνῳ
8 Ἐσδέ.
9 εὐανθῆ.
10 Φίλων. ]

I have mark’d, as before, my Corrections at the Side; and I may venture to say, I have supported the faltring Verses both with _Numbers_ and _Sense_. But who ever heard of _Evante_, as the Name of a Man, in _Greece_? Neither is this Inscription a Piece of Ethnic Devotion, as Sir _George_ has suppos’d it, to a Statue erected to _Jupiter_: On the contrary, it despises those fruitless Superstitions. _Philo_ (a _Christian_, as it seems to me;) sets it up, in Thanks for a safe Voyage, to the _true God_. That all my Readers may equally share in this little Poem, I have attempted to put it into an _English_ Dress.

Invoke who Will the prosp’rous Gale _behind_,
_Jove_ at the _Prow_, while to the guiding Wind
O’er the blue Billows he the Sail expands,
Where _Neptune_ with each Wave heaps Hills of Sands:
Then let him, when the Surge he backward plows,
Pour to his Statue-God unaiding Vows:
But to the God of Gods, for Deaths o’erpast,
For Safety lent him on the watry Waste,
To native Shores return’d, thus _Philo_ pays
His Monument of Thanks, of grateful Praise.

I shall have no Occasion, I believe, to ask the Pardon of _some_ Readers for these _Nine_ last Pages; and Others may be so kind to pass them over at their Pleasure. (Those Discoveries, which give Light and Satisfaction to the truly Learned, I must confess, are Darkness and Mystery to the less capable: Φέγγος μὲν ξυνετοῖς, ἀξυνετοῖς δ᾽ Ἐρεβος.) Nor will they be absolutely foreign, I hope, to a Preface in some Measure critical; especially, as it could not be amiss to shew, that I have read other Books with the same Accuracy, with which I profess to have read _Shakespeare_. Besides, I design’d this Inference from the Defence of Literal Criticism. If the _Latin_ and _Greek_ Languages have receiv’d the greatest Advantages imaginable from the Labours of the Editors and Criticks of the two last Ages; by whose Aid and Assistance the Grammarians have been enabled to write infinitely better in that Art than even the preceding Grammarians, who wrote when those Tongues flourish’d as living Languages: I should account it a peculiar Happiness, that, by the faint Assay I have made in this Work, a Path might be chalk’d out, for abler Hands, by which to derive the same Advantages to our own Tongue: a Tongue, which, tho’ it wants none of the fundamental Qualities of an universal Language, yet as a _noble Writer_ says, lisps and stammers as in its Cradle; and has produced little more towards its polishing than Complaints of its Barbarity.

[Sidenote: The Delay of this Edition excused.]

Having now run thro’ all those Points, which I intended should make any Part of this Dissertation, it only remains, that I should account to the Publick, but more particularly to my Subscribers, why they have waited so long for this Work; that I should make my Acknowledgments to those Friends, who have been generous Assistants to me in the conducting it: and, lastly, that I should acquaint my Readers what Pains I have myself taken to make the Work as complete, as faithful Industry, and my best Abilities, could render it.

In the middle of the Year 1728, I first put out my _Proposals_ for publishing only _Emendations_ and _Remarks_ on our Poet: and I had not gone on many Months in this Scheme, before I found it to be the unanimous Wish of those who did me the Honour of their Subscriptions, that I would give them the Poet’s Text corrected; and that I would subjoin those Explanatory Remarks, which I had purpos’d to publish upon the Foot of my first Proposals. Earnest Sollicitations were made to me, that I would think of such an Edition; which I had as strong Desires to listen to: and some _noble_ Persons then, whom I have no Privilege to name, were pleased to interest themselves so far in the Affair, as to propose to Mr. _Tonson_ his undertaking an Impression of _Shakespeare_ with my Corrections. The throwing my whole Work into a different Form, to comply with this Proposal, was not the slightest Labour: and so no little Time was unavoidably lost. While the Publication of my Remarks was thus respited, my Enemies took an unfair Occasion to suggest, that I was extorting Money from my Subscribers, without ever designing to give them any Thing for it: an Insinuation levell’d at once to wound me Reputation and Interest. Conscious, however, of my own just Intentions, and labouring all the while to bring my wish’d Purpose to bear, I thought these anonymous Slanderers worthy of no Notice. A Justification of myself would have been giving them Argument for fresh Abuse; and I was willing to believe that any unkind Opinions, entertain’d to my Prejudice, would naturally drop and lose their Force, when the Publick should once be convinc’d that I was in Earnest, and ready to do them Justice. I left no Means untry’d to put it in my Power to do this: and I hope, without Breach of Modesty, I may venture to appeal to all candid Judges, whether I have not employ’d all my Power to be just to them in the Execution of my Task. I must needs have been in the most Pain, who saw myself daily so barbarously outraged. I might have taken advantage of the favourable Impressions entertain’d of my Work, and hurried it crudely into the World: But I have suffer’d, for my Author’s sake, those Impressions to cool, and perhaps, be lost; and can now appeal only to the _Judgment_ of the Publick. If I succeed in this Point, the Reputation gain’d will be the more solid and lasting.

[Sidenote: Acknowledgment of Assistance.]

I come now to speak of those kind Assistances which I have met with from particular Friends, towards forwarding and compleating this Work. Soon after my Design was known, I had the Honour of an Invitation to _Cambridge_; and a generous Promise from the Learned and ingenious Dr. _Thirlby_ of _Jesus_-College, there, who had taken great Pains with my Author, that I should have the Liberty of collating his Copy of _Shakespeare_, mark’d thro’ in the Margin with his own Manuscript References and accurate Observations. He not only made good this Promise, but favour’d me with a Set of Emendations, interspers’d and distinguish’d in his Name thro’ the Edition, and which can need no Recommendation here to the judicious Reader.

The next Assistance I receiv’d was from my ingenious Friend _Hawley Bishop_ Esq; whose great Powers and extensive Learning are as well known, as his uncommon Modesty, to all who have the Happiness of his Acquaintance. This Gentleman was so generous, at the Expence both of his Pocket and Time, to run thro’ all _Shakespeare_ with me. We join’d Business and Entertainment together; and at every of our Meetings, which were constantly once a Week, we read over a _Play_, and came mutually prepar’d to communicate our Conjectures upon it to each other. The Pleasure of these Appointments, I think, I may say, richly compensated for the Labour in our own Thoughts: and I may venture to affirm, in the Behalf of my Assistant, that our Author has deriv’d no little Improvement from them.

To these, I must add the indefatigable Zeal and Industry of my most ingenious and ever-respected Friend, the Reverend Mr. _William Warburton_ of _Newark_ upon _Trent_. This Gentleman, from the Motives of his frank and communicative Disposition, voluntarily took a considerable Part of my Trouble off my Hands; not only read over the whole Author for me, with the exactest Care; but enter’d into a long and laborious Epistolary Correspondence; to which I owe no small Part of my best Criticisms upon my Author.

The Number of Passages amended, and admirably Explained, which I have taken care to distinguish with his Name, will shew a Fineness of Spirit and Extent of Reading, beyond all the Commendations I can give them: Nor, indeed, would I any farther be thought to commend a Friend, than, in so doing, to give a Testimony of my own Gratitude. How great a share soever of Praise I must lose from my self, in confessing these Assistances; and however my own poor Conjectures may be weaken’d by the Comparison with theirs; I am very well content to sacrifice my Vanity to the Pride of being so assisted, and the Pleasure of being just to their Merits. I beg leave to observe to my Readers, in one Word, here, that from the Confession of these successive Aids, and the Manner in which I deriv’d them, it appears, I have pretty well fill’d up the _Interval_, betwixt my first _Proposals_ and my _Publication_, with having my Author always in View, and at Heart.

Some Hints I have the Honour to owe to the Informations of Dr. _Mead_, and the late Dr. _Friend_: Others to the Kindness of the ingenious _Martin Folkes_, Esq; who likewise furnish’d me with the first _folio_ Edition of _Shakespeare_, at a Time when I could not meet with it among the Booksellers; as my obliging Friend _Thomas Coxeter_, Esq; did with several of the old 4to single Plays, which I then had not in my own Collection. Some few Observations I likewise owe to _F. Plumptree_, Esq; Others to the Favour of anonymous Persons: for all which I most gladly render my Acknowledgments.

[Sidenote: The Editor’s particular Pains taken.]

As to what regards my self singly, if the Edition do not speak for the Pains I have taken about it, it will be very vain to plead my own Labour and Diligence. Besides a faithful Collation of all the printed Copies, which I have exhibited in my _Catalogue_ of _Editions_ at the End of this Work; let it suffice to say, that, to clear up several Errors in the Historical Plays, I purposely read over _Hall_ and _Holingshead_’s Chronicles in the Reigns concern’d; all the Novels in _Italian_, from which our Author had borrow’d any of his Plots; such Parts of _Plutarch_, from which he had deriv’d any Parts of his _Greek_ or _Roman_ Story: _Chaucer_ and _Spenser_’s Works; all the Plays of _B. Jonson_, _Beaumont_ and _Fletcher_, and above 800 old _English_ Plays, to ascertain the obsolete and uncommon Phrases in him: Not to mention some Labour and Pains unpleasantly spent in the dry Task of consulting Etymological _Glossaries_.

But as no Labour of Mine can be equivalent to the dear and ardent Love I bear for _Shakespeare_, so, if the Publick shall be pleas’d to allow that He owes any Thing to my Willingness and Endeavours of restoring Him; I shall reckon the Part of my Life so engag’d, to have been very happily employ’d: and put Myself, with great Submission, to be try’d by my Country in the Affair.

* * * * *
* * * *
* * * * *

The Editors of THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

are pleased to announce that

THE WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
of The University of California, Los Angeles

will become the publisher of the Augustan Reprints in May, 1949. The editorial policy of the Society will continue unchanged. As in the past, the editors will strive to furnish members inexpensive reprints of rare seventeenth and eighteenth century works.

Publications for the fourth year (1949-1950)

[Transcriber’s Note: Many of the listed titles are or will be available from Project Gutenberg. Where possible, the e-text number is given in brackets.]

(_At least six items will be printed in the main from the following list_)

SERIES IV: MEN, MANNERS, AND CRITICS

John Dryden, _His Majesties Declaration Defended_ (1681) [#15074] Daniel Defoe (?), _Vindication of the Press_ (1718) [#14084] _Critical Remarks on Sir Charles Grandison, Clarissa, and Pamela_ (1754)