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