PRE FAC E.

EVERY act, fays goodman Delver, hath three

branches: It is to act, to do, and to perform * Contemptible as this piece of cafuiftry may be deemed; certain it is, that our honeft grave-digger was not mistaken in the number of thofe diftinctions, which are neceffary to the investigation of moral merit. He was not so happy, indeed, in his fpecification of the parts to be distinguished. His logic, however, may pafs, if we conceive the first part of his divifion to comprehend the design or intent of the act; the second the manner of putting it in execution; and the third, the effects or confequences produced by it.

Thus, in apologizing for the present Review, there are three things to be confidered. .1. The defign or intent of writing it. 2. The manner in which it is

written; and lastly, the probable effects or confequences that will enfue.

C

In respect to the former; the Reviewer begs leave to exprefs his motives for writing in the words of an ingenious author, who stood exactly in the fame predicament. I thought it a piece of juftice due to the memory of Shakespeare, to the reputation of letters in general, and of our English language in particular, to take fome public notice of a performance, which, I am forry to say, hath violated all these respects. Had this been done by a common hand, I had held my peace; and left the work to that oblivion, which it deferves: but when it came out under the fanction of a great name, that of a ' gentleman, who had by other writings, how juftly I fhall not [now] examine, obtained a great reputation for learning; it became an affair of fome confequence; as chimerical conjectures and grofs mistakes might by these means be propagated for truth among the ignorant and unwary; and that be established for the genuine text, nay, the genuine text amended too, which is neither Shakefpeare's nor English *.'

6

Such being the motives of action, the intent and defign of the act is plainly what is fet forth in the title, viz. to defend the text of Shakespeare from the perfecution of his commentators.

* See Appendix to the Canons of Criticism.

The

The Reviewer is well aware that Dr. Johnfon's felffufficiency may fuggeft a more finifter view. For, he doubts not, that gentleman thinks of himself, what he has faid of Dr. Warburton, that he has ' a name fufficient to confer celebrity on thofe who can exalt themfelves into antagonists;' and hence he may poffibly impute the prefent work to the motive which he infinuates to have actuated the opponents of that writer. The allufion, alfo, of the eagle and owl, which he quotes from Macbeth, may, with a very little latitude of construction, be applied as well to himself and the Reviewer, as to Dr. Warburton and his antagonist.

'An Eagle, tow'ring in his pride of place, "Was, by a moufing owl, hawk'd at and kill'd +. For tho', Dr. Johnfon having neither preferment in the church, nor poft in the ftate, the word place may feem to want that ftrict propriety the critics require; yet, if we reflect how nearly places and penfions are allied, there is not one of Shakespeare's commentators who would make any fcruple of fubftituting one word for the other, reciprocally, and alternately, as he thought the cafe might require. There is no doubt alfo that, on this occafion, the word pension would be preferred; as a pension must be univerfally allowed, cæteris paribus, to be better than a place, to a man fo fond of doing but little; as it is apprehended the reader will think is the cafe with Dr. Johnfon.

† See Dr. Johnfon's preface to his edition of Shakespeare.

To

To invalidate, however, the force of fuch a fuggeftion, the Reviewer is reduced to the neceffity of apparently boafting, that, in this refpect, he does not lie under the disadvantage of being exactly in the fame fituation with the author of the Canons of Criticifm; who frankly confeffes, that it was the first, as it was the only book he wrote in his life. Dr. Johnfon indeed may, in all probability, have never before heard the name of the present writer. He hath nevertheless fome little literary reputation to lofe; which he would not unadvifedly or wantonly put to the hazard.

This long expected edition of Shakespeare is not the first work, by many, that he hath reviewed, nor is this Review the only book he hath written: For, tho' the name of Dr. Johnson is much better known than the merit of his writings, his Reviewer, on the contrary, hath hitherto chofen rather to have the merit of his writings known than his name. The publication of the one is of confequence to the world, that of the other of none but to the writer with whose personal importance or infignificance the public have nothing to do *.

* In confirmation of what is here afferted, it may poffibly be thought neceffary to name fome of thofe publications, on which the public have conferred the honour of a favourable reception.— It is prefumed needlefs, however, to particularize performances that would certainly have been lefs faulty, had they been lefs numerous. The author contents himself, therefore, with mentioning only his Epiftles to Lorenzo; and the Tranflations of Rouffeau's Eloifa, and Emilius.

With

I