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 readér, to see 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 unacquaint"ed with the whole bufinefs of criticifm, that he did "not even collate or confult the first editions of the "work he undertook to publifh."-" This gentleman et (fays Mr. Theobald) had abilities, and a fufficient knowledge of his author, had but his induftry been "equal to his talents."

The next editor was the univerfally-admired Mr. Pope; "who, (fays Mr. Warburton), by the mere force "of an uncommon genius, without any particular stu"dy or profeffion of this art [criticifm], discharged "the great parts of it fo well, as to make his edition "the beft foundation for all further improvements. He feparated the genuine from the fpurious plays; VOL. I. "and

a

"and, with equal judgment, though not always with

c

66

the fame fuccefs, attempted to clear the genuine "plays from the interpolated fcenes. He then confult"ed the old editions; and, by a careful collation of them, rectified the faulty, and fupplied the imperfect reading, in a great number of places: and, laftly, "in an admirable preface, hath drawn a general, but very lively sketch of SHAKESPEAR'S poetic character; and, in the corrected text, marked out those 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 hin measure for meafure, as we will see 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 tran "fcribe; but as what he thought, if ever he did think, he could but ill exprefs; fo he read on; and by that means got a character of learning, without risking, "to every observer, the imputation of wanting a better 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 obfolete or "licentious in the common books, or only flightly corrupted 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 fenfe 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 [criticifin], from "which his whole courfe of life had been fo remote, is "ftill 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 harmlefs unconcerning expletives, makes up "the gro's 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 laft editor. He tells us, that the world had never been troubled with his edition, but for the conduct of the two last 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.

2.2

dear

dear Mr. Pepe, 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 judg ment; 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 fcope to critical con"jecture, where the old copies failed me, I have indulg"ed nothing to fancy or imagination, but have religioufly obferved the fevere canons of literal criticism."

As

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. this gentleman has taken fome notice of SHAKESPEAR'S editors, we shall conclude our account of them, with a few of his remarks.

"Mr. Theobald (fays Mr. Dodd) has approved him. felf the beft editor of SHAKESPEAR that has appeared, by a close attention to, and deligent furvey of "the old editions, and by a careful amendment of thofe flight faults, which evidently proceeded from the prefs, and corrupted the text. And, after observ ing that Mr. Theobald had left many paffages untouch ed and unregarded, which were truly difficult, and called for the editor's affiftance, he adds, " It is plain,

2

then, much work remained for subsequent commen"tators; and fhall we add? still remains: for though fucceeded by two eminent rivals [ Hanmer and Warburton], we must with no fmall concern behold this imperfect editor ftill maintaining his ground; and "with no little forrow obferve the beft 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, foilting 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 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.”

66

66

"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 reasons for those criti"cifms. Yet his conduct can never be justified for inferting every fancy of his own in the text, when I "dare venture to fay, his better and cooler judgment "must 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 [Theobald 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 fhameful blunders as difparage the reft, if they do not difcredit his title to them, and make them look rather like lucky hits, than the refult of judgment."

66

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

a 3

have