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[22] to English Bentley.  The criticks on ancient authors have, in the exercise of their sagacity, many assistances, which the editor of Shakespeare is condemned to want.  They are employed upon grammatical and settled languages, whose construction contributes so much to perspicuity, that Homer has fewer passages 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 Salmasius how little satisfaction his emendations gave him:  “Illudunt nobis conjecturae nostrae, quarum nos pudet, posteaquam in meliores codices incidimus.”  And Lipsius could complain that criticks were making faults, by trying to remove them:  “Ut olim vitiis, ita nunc remediis laboratur.”  And, indeed, where mere conjecture is to be used, the emendations of Scaliger and Lipsius, notwithstanding their wonderful sagacity and erudition, are often vague 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 solicitude.  Not a single passage 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 confessed the repulse.  I have not passed over, with affected superiority, 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 necessary 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 strongly 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 preserve his comprehension of the dialogue and his interest in the fable.  And when the pleasures of novelty have ceased, let him attempt exactness, and read the commentators.