Chapter 4

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._