« הקודםהמשך »
that the reading is right, which requires many words to prove it wrong; and the emendation wrong, that cannot without so much labour appear to be right.
The justness of a happy restoration strikes at once, and the moral precept may be well applied to criticism, quod dubitas ne feceris.
To dread the shore which the fees spread with · wrecks, is natural to the sailor. I had before my eye
fo many critical adventures ended in miscarriage, that caution was forced upon me. I encountered in every page wit struggling with its own fophiftry, and learning confused by the multiplicity of its views. I was forced to censure those whom I admired, and could not but reflect, while I was dispofleffing their emen. dations, how soon the same fate might happen to my own, and how many of the readings which I have corrected may be by some other editor defended and established.
Criticks I saw, that others' names efface,
That a conjectural critick should often be mistaken, cannot be wonderful, either to others or himself, if it be considered, that in his art there is no system, no principal and axiomatical truth that regulates subordi. nate positions. His chance of error is renewed at every attempt ; an oblique view of the passage, a Night misapprehension of a phrase, a casual inattention to the parts connected, is sufficient to make him not only fail, but fail ridiculously; and when he succeeds best, he produces perhaps but one reading of many proba
ble, and he that suggests another will always be able to difpute his claims.
It is an unhappy state, in which danger is hid under pleasure. The allurements of emendation are scarcely resistible. Conjecture has all the joy and all the pride of invention, and he that has once started a happy change, is too much delighted to consider what objections may rise against it.
Yet conjectural criticism has been of great use in the learned world; nor is it my intention to depreciate a study, that has exercised so many mighty minds, from the revival of learning to our own age, from the bishop of Aleria to English Bentley. The criticks on ancient authors have, in the exercise of their fagacity, many affıstances, which the editor of Shakespeare is condemned to want. They are employed upon grammatical and fettled languages, whose construction contributes so much to perspicuity, that Homer has fewer pallages unintelligible than Chaucer. The words have not only a known regimen, but invariable quantities, which direct and confine the choice. There are commonly more manuscripts than one; and they do not often conspire in the same mistakes. Yet Scaliger could confess to Salmafius how little satisfaction his eniendations gave him. Illudunt nobis conjecture noftræ, quarum nos pudet, posteaquam in meliores codices incidimus, And Lipsius could complain, that criticko were inak. ing faults by trying to remove them, Ut olim vitiis, ita nunc remediis laboratur. And, indeed, where mere conjecture is to be uíed, the emendations of Scaliger and Lipsius, notwithstanding their wonderful fagacity and erudition, are often yague and disputable, like mine or Theobald's.
· Perhaps I may not be more censured for doing wrong, than for doing little ; for raising in the publick, expectations which at last I have not answered. The expectation of ignorance is indefinite, and that of knowledge is often tyrannical. It is hard to satisfy those who know not what to demand, or those who demand by design what they think impossible to be done. I have indeed disappointed no opinion more than my own; yet I have endeavoured to perform my task with no slight folicitude. Not a single pasfage in the whole work has appeared to me corrupt, which I have not attempted to restore; or obscure, which I have not endeavoured to illustrate. In many I have failed, like others; and from many, after all my efforts, I have retreated, and confeffed the repulse. I have not passed over with affected fuperiority, what is equally difficult to the reader and to myself, but, where I could not instruct him, have owned my ignorance. I might easily have accumulated a mass of seeming learning upon easy scenes; but it ought not to be imputed to negligence, that, where nothing was necessary, nothing has been done, or that, where others have said enough, I have said no more.
Notes are often necessary, but they are neceffary evils. Let him, that is yet unacquainted with the powers of Shakespeare, and who desires to feel the highest pleasure that the drama can give, read every play, from the first scene to the last, with utter negligence of all his commentators. When his fancy is once on the wing, let it not stoop at correction or explanation. When his attention is frongly engaged,
let it disdain alike to turn aside to the name of Theobald and of Pope. Let him read on through brightness and obscurity, through integrity and corruption; let him preferve his comprehension of the dialogue and his interest in the fable. And when the pleasures of novelty have ceased, let him attempt exaness, and
read the commentators. · Particular passages are cleared by notes, but the
general effect of the work is weakened. The mind is refrigerated by interruption; the thoughts are diverted from the principal subject; the reader is weary, he suspects not why; and at last throws away the book
which he has too diligently studied. : Parts are not to be examined till the whole has
been surveyed; there is a kind of intellectual remoteness necessary for the comprehension of any great work in its full design and in its true proportions; a close approach shews the smaller niceties, but the beauty of the whole is discerned no longer.
It is not very grateful to consider how little the succession of editors has added to this author's power of pleasing. He was read, adınired, studied, and imitated, while he was yet deformed with all the improprieties which ignorance and neglect could accumulate upon him; while the reading was yet not rectified, nor his allusions understood; yet then did Dryden pronounce, that Shakespeare was the “ man, “ who, of all modern and perhaps ancient poets, had “ the largest and most comprehensive soul. All the s images of nature were still present to him, and he “ drew them not laboriously, but luckily: when he
describes any thing, you more than see it, you feel
& it too. Those, who accuse him to have wanted “ learning, give him the greater commendation : he
was naturally learned: he needed not the spectacles of books to read nature; he looked inwards,
and found her there. I cannot say he is every « where alike; were he so I should do him injury to “ compare him with the greatest of mankind. He “ is many times flat and insipid; his comick wit de
generating into clenches, his serious swelling into ** bombast. But he is always great when some great « occasion is presented to him: no man can say, he “ ever had a fit subject for his wit, and did not then “.raise himself as high above the rest of poets,
“ Quantum lenta folent inter viburna cupresī."
It is to be lamented, that such a writer should want a commentary; that his language should become obsolete, or his sentiments obscure. But it is vain to carry wishes beyond the condition of human things; that which must happen to all, has happened to Shakespeare, by accident and time; and more than has been suffered by any other writer since the use of types, has been suffered by him through his own negligence of fame, or perhaps by that superiority of mind, which despised, its own performances, when it compared them with its powers, and judged those works unworthy to be preserved, which the criticks of following ages were to contend for the fame of restoring and explaining.
Among these candidates of inferior fame, I am now to stand the judgment of the Publick; and wish that