[Sidenote:  His Reputation under Disadvantages.]

As I have never propos’d to dilate farther on the Character of my Author, than was necessary to explain the Nature and Use of this Edition, I shall proceed to consider him as a Genius in Possession of an Everlasting Name.  And how great that Merit must be, which could gain it against all the Disadvantages of the horrid Condition in which he has hitherto appear’d!  Had Homer, or any other admir’d Author, first started into Publick so, maim’d and deform’d, we cannot determine whether they had not sunk for ever under the Ignominy of such an ill Appearance.  The mangled Condition of Shakespeare has been acknowledg’d by Mr. Rowe, who publish’d him indeed, but neither corrected his Text, nor collated the old Copies.  This Gentleman had Abilities, and a sufficient Knowledge of his Author, had but his Industry been equal to his Talents.  The same mangled Condition has been acknowledg’d too by Mr. Pope, who publish’d him likewise, pretended to have collated the old Copies, and yet seldom has corrected the Text but to its Injury.  I congratulate with the Manes of our Poet, that this Gentleman has been sparing in indulging his private Sense; for He, who tampers with an Author whom he does not understand, must do it at the Expence of his Subject.  I have made it evident throughout my Remarks, that he has frequently inflicted a Wound where he intended a Cure.  He has acted with regard to our Author, as an Editor, whom LIPSIUS mentions, did with regard to MARTIAL; Inventus est nescio quis Popa_, qui non vitia ejus, sed ipsum, excidit._ He has attack’d him like an unhandy Slaughterman; and not lopp’d off the Errors, but the Poet.

    [Sidenote:  Praise sometimes an Injury.]

When this is found to be the Fact, how absurd must appear the Praises of such an Editor?  It seems a moot Point, whether Mr. Pope has done most Injury to Shakespeare as his Editor and Encomiast; or Mr. Rymer done him Service as his Rival and Censurer.  Were it every where the true Text, which That Editor in his late pompous Edition gave us, the Poet deserv’d not the large Encomiums bestow’d by him:  nor, in that Case, is Rymer’s Censure of the Barbarity of his Thoughts, and the Impropriety of his Expressions, groundless.  They have Both shewn themselves in an equal Impuissance of suspecting or amending the corrupted Passages:  and tho’ it be neither Prudence to censure, or commend, what one does not understand; yet if a Man must do one when he plays the Critick, the latter is the more ridiculous Office.  And by That Shakespeare suffers most.  For the natural Veneration, which we have for him, makes us apt to swallow whatever is given us as his, and let off with Encomiums; and hence we quit all Suspicions of Depravity:  On the contrary, the Censure of so divine an Author sets us upon his Defence; and this produces an exact Scrutiny and Examination, which ends in finding out and discriminating the true from the spurious.