THE

SCOTS EDITORS

PREFACE

TO THE EDITION PRINTED ANNO 1753.

T

HE diftinguished character of SHAKESPEAR as a dramatic writer, the great demand for his works among the learned and polite, and a laudable zeal for promoting home manufactures, were the principal motives for undertaking an edition of his works in Scotland.

Before we give an account of the method used in conducting this edition, it may not be improper to take fome notice of our author's modern editors. Nor will it perhaps be a difagreeable entertainment to the reader, to fee their fentiments of one another, in their own words.

** Mr. Rowe (the first of these editors) was indeed a wit (fays Mr. Warburton); but fo utterly unacquainted with the whole bufinefs of criticifm, that he did "not even collate or confult the first editions of the "work he undertook to publish."-" This gentleman is (fays Mr. Theobald) had abilities, and a fufficient "knowledge of his author, had but his industry "equal to his talents."

r

ર

" and, with equal judgment, though not always with "the fame fuccefs, attempted to clear the genuine plays from the interpolated scenes. He then confult❝ed the old editions; and, by a careful collation of "them, rectified 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 SHAKESPEAR'S poetic character; and, in the corrected text, marked out thofe peculiar ftrokes of genius which were most proper to fupport and illustrate that character.”—But though Mr. Pope had a juft title to the public thanks; yet Mr. Theobald attacked him with great acrimony of expreffion, evidently flowing from perfonal prejudice. He interlards his notes with many fevere reflections against Mr. Pope, reprefents his collation of old copies as a mere pretence, and ranks his edition among thofe of no authority. In fhort, he goes fo far as to alledge, that "Mr. Pope has feldom corrected SHAKESPEAR'S "text but to its injury; that he has frequently inflic"ted a wound where he intended a cure; that he has "attacked his author like an unhandy flaughterman, "and not lopped off the errors, but the poet." But Mr. Warburton, the great friend of Mr. Pope, returned him meafure for meafure, as we will fee anon.

This Mr. Theobald was the next editor after Mr. Pope. "He (fays Mr. Warburton) was naturally turned to induftry and labour. What he read, he could transcribe; but as what he thought, if ever he did think, "he could but ill exprefs; fo he read on; and by that

186

means got a character of learning, without risking, "to every observer, the imputation of wanting a bet"ter talent. By a punctilious collation of the old. "books, he corrected what was manifeftly wrong in "the latter editions, by what was manifeftly right in "the earlier. And this is his real merit, and the whole "of it. For where the phrafe was very obsolete or licentious in the common books, or only flightly cor"rupted in the other, he wanted fufficient knowledge"of the progrefs and various ftages of the English "tongue, as well as acquaintance with the peculiari

"ty

"ty of SHAKESPEAR's language, to understand what "was right; nor had he either common judgment to "fee, or critical fagacity to amend, what was mani"feftly faulty. Hence he generally exerts his conjec"tural 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."

:

As to the Oxford editor, Sir Thomas Hanmer, the next editor: "How he (fays Mr. Warburton) came to think "himfelf qualified for this office [criticism], from "which his whole courfe of life had been fo remote, is " still more difficult to conceive. For whatever parts "he might have either of genius or erudition, he was

abfolutely ignorant of the art of criticifm, as well as "of the poetry of that time, and the language of his "author. And fo 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 loft the advantage of "many fine lines which the other had recovered from

the old quarto's. Where he trufts to his own fagacity, * in what affects the fenfe, his conjectures are general"ly abfurd and extravagant, and violating every rule "of criticifm. His principal object was, to reform “his author's numbers: and this, which he hath done, on every occafion, by the infertion or omiffion of a "fet of harmless unconcerning expletives, makes up "the grois body of his innocent corrections. And fo, in fpite of that extreme negligence in numbers, "which diftinguishes the firft dramatic writers, he hath "tricked up the old bard, from head to foot, in all the finical exactnefs of a modern measurer of fyllables."

Mr. Warburton was the next, and the last editor. * He tells us, that the world had never been troubled with his edition, but for the conduct of the two laft editors (Theobald and Hanmer), and the perfuafions of

Since this time (anno 1753) Dr. Sam. Johnston has given an edition of Shakespear, but his alterations are fo few and trifling, that there is no occafion to take further notice of him.

a 2

dear

dear Mr. Pope, who defired him to give a new edition of SHAKESPEAR, as he thought it might contribute to put a stop to the folly which prevailed of altering" the text of celebrated authors without talents or judgment; and that his main care has been, to restore the genuine text; but in thofe places only where it labours with inextricable nonfenfe. "In which (adds he) how "much foever I may have given scope to critical conjecture, where the old copies failed me, I have indulg"ed nothing to fancy or imagination, but have religiously observed the fevere canons of literal criticifm."

Since the publication of the laft of the aforementioned editions, a work has come abroad, in two volumes, intitled, The beauties of Shakespear, regularly felected from each play. By William Dodd, B. A. As this gentleman has taken fome notice of SHAKESPEAR'S editors, we fhall conclude our account of them, with a few of his remarks.

"Mr. Theobald (fays Mr. Dodd) has approved him"felf the best editor of SHAKESPEAR that has appeared, by a close attention to, and deligent survey of "the old editions, and by a careful amendment of those

flight faults, which evidently proceeded from the "prefs, and corrupted the text." And, after observing that Mr. Theobald had left many paffages untouched and unregarded, which were truly difficult, and called for the editor's affiftance, he adds, "It is plain,

then, much work remained for fubfequent commen"tators; and shall we add? ftill remains: for though "fucceeded by two eminent rivals [Hanmer and War

66

burton], we must with no fmall concern behold this

imperfect editor ftill maintaining his ground; and "with no little forrow obferve the best judges of "SHAKESPEAR preferring Theobald's to any modern "edition." He gives the reafons of this preference as follows.

"Sir Thomas Hamner (fays he) proceeds in the most "unjustifiable method, foifting into his text a thou"fand idle alterations, without ever advertising his

readers,

readers, which are and which are not SHAKESPEAR'S genuine words: fo that a multitude of idle phrafes "and ridiculous expreffions, infinitely beneath the 66 fublimity of this prince of poets, are thrown to his "accounts; and his imperfections, fo far from being ❝ diminished, numbered ten fold upon his head."

"Mr. Warburton (continues Mr. Dodd) hath been "fomewhat more generous to us: for though he has "for the most part preferred his own criticisms to the "author's words, yet he hath always too given us the "author's words, and his own reafons for thofe criti

cifms. Yet his conduct can never be juftified for inferting every fancy of his own in the text, when I "dare venture to say, his better and cooler judgment "muft condemn the greatest part of them. What the

ingenious Mr. Edwards fays of him, feems exactly ❝juft and true." That there are good notes in his "edition of SHAKESPEAR, I never did deny: but as "he has had the plundering of two dead men [Theo"bald and Hanmer], it will be difficult to know which

are his own. Some of them I fuppofe may be: and hard indeed would be his luck, if among fo many "bold throws he fhould have never a winning caft. "But I do infift, that there are great numbers of fuch "shameful blunders as difparage the reft, if they do "c not difcredit his title to then, and make them look "rather like lucky hits, than the refult of judgment."

Mr. Dodd adds the following remarks, to which every reader will chearfully give his aflent. "For my "own part, (fays he), I cannot but read with regret "the constant jarring and triumphant infults, one over another, found amidit the commentators on "SHAKESPEAR. This is one of the reasons that has

impeded our arrival at a thorough knowledge in "his works: for fome of the editors have not fo much "laboured to elucidate their author, as to expofe the "follies of their brethren. How much better would "it have been for SHAKESPEAR, for us, and for liter

ature in general; how much-more honour would it