his name, in every body's hands, and acted with fome applaufe; (as we learn from what Ben Johnfon fays of Pericles in his ode on the New-Inn.) That Titus Andronicus is one of this class, I am the rather induced to believe, by finding the fame author openly exprefs his contempt of it in the Induction to Bartholomew-fair, in the year 1614, when Shakespear was yet living. And there is no better authority for thefe latter fort, than for the former, which were equally published in his lifetime. If we give into this opinion, how many low and vicious parts and paffages might no longer reflect upon this great genius, but appear unworthily . charged upon him? And even in those which are really his, how many faults may have been unjustly laid to his account from arbitrary additions, expunctions, tranfpofitions of fcenes and lines, con fufion of characters and perfons, wrong application of fpeeches, corruptions of innumerable paffages by the ignorance, and wrong corrections of them again by the impertinence of his first editors? From one or other of thefe confiderations, I am verily perfuaded, that the greatest and the groffeft part of what are thought his errors would vanish, and leave his character in a light very different from that difadvantageous one in which it now appears to us. This is the ftate in which Shakespear's writings lie at prefent; for fince the above-mentioned folio edition, all the reft have implicitly followed it, without having recourfe to any of the former, or ever making the comparison between them. It is impoffible to repair the injuries already done P 6 him; him; too much time has elapfed, and the materials are too few. In what I have done I have rather given a proof of my willingness and defire, than of my ability to do him juftice. I have difcharged the dull duty of an editor, to my best judgment, with more labour than I expect thanks, with a religious abhorrence of all innovation, and without any indulgence to my private fenfe or conjecture. The method taken in this edition will Thew itfelf. The various readings are fairly put in the margin, fo that every one may compare them; and those I have preferred into the text are conftantly ex fide codicum, upon authority. The alterations or additions which Shakespear himself made, are taken notice of as they occur. Some fufpected paffages which are exceffively bad (and which feem interpolations, by being fo inferted that one can entirely omit them without any chafm or deficience in the context) are degraded to the bottom of the page, with an afterisk referring to the places of their infertion. The scenes are marked fo diftinctly that every removal of place is fpe-. cified; which is more neceffary in this author than any other, fince he shifts them more frequently; and fometimes without attending to this particular, the reader would have met with obfcurities. The more obfolete or unusual words are explained. Some of the most fhining paffages are distinguished by commas in the margin; and where the beauty lay not in particulars but in the whole, a ftar is prefixed to the fcene. This seems to me a shorter and lefs oftentatious method of performing the better half of criticism, (namely, the pointing out an author's excellencies), than to fill a whole paper with with citations of fine paffages, with general applaufes, or empty exclamations, at the tail of them. There is alfo fubjoined a catalogue of those first editions, by which the greater part of the various readings and of the corrected paffages are authorifed, (most of which are fuch as carry their own evidence along with them). Thefe editions now hold the place of originals, and are the only materials left to repair the deficiencies, or restore the corrupted sense of the author: I can only wish that a greater number of them (if a greater were ever published) may yet be found, by a fearch more fuccefsful than mine, for the better accomplishment of this end. I will conclude by saying of Shakespear, that with all his faults, and with all the irregularity of his drama, one may look upon his works, in comparison of those that are more finished and regular, as upon an ancient majestic piece of Gothic architecture, compared with a neat modern building: The latter is more elegant and glaring, but the former is more ftrong and more folemn. It must be allowed, that in one of these there are materials enough to make many of the other. It has much the greater variety, and much the nobler apartments; though we are often conducted to them by dark, odd, and uncouth paffages. Nor does the whole fail to ftrike us with greater reverence, though many of the parts are childish, ill-placed, and unequal to its grandeur. PRE PREFACE OF THE PUBLISHER of the Surreptitious Edition, MDCCXXXV, WE profume we want no apology to the reader V for this publication, but fome may be thought needful to Mr Pope: However, he cannot think our offence fo great as theirs, who firft separately publifbed what we have here but collected in a better form and order. As for the letters we have procured to be added, they ferve but to complete, explain, and fometimes fet in a true light those others, which it was not in the writer's, or our power to recall. This collection hath been owing to feveral cabinets: fome drawn from thence by accidents, and others (even of thofe to ladies voluntarily given., It is to one of that fex we are beholden for the whole correfpondence with H. C. Efq; which letters being lent her by that gentleman, he took the liberty to print, as appears by the following, which we fhall give at length, both as it is fomething curious, and as it may ferve for an apology for ourselves. To HENRY CROMWELL, Efq; June 27, 1727. AFTER fo long a filence as the many and great oppreflions I have fighed under have. ccafioned, one is at a loss how to begin a letter to to fo kind a friend as yourself. But as it was al- make |