Such as had. But I have fufficiently proved, in the Course of my Notes, that such Anachronisms were the Effect of poetic Licence, rather than of Ignorance in our Poet. And

if I may be permitted to ask a modest QuefMr.Pope's tion by the way, Why may not I restore an Anachro- Anachronism really made by our Author, as nisms exemind. well as Mr. Pope take the Privilege to fix o

thers upon him, which he never had it in his Head to make; as I may venture to affirm He had not, in the Instance of Sir Francis Drake, to which I have spoke in the proper Place?

But who shall dare make any Words about this Freedom of Mr. Pope's towards Shakespeare, if it can be prov'd, that, in his Fits of Criticism, he makes no more Ceremony with good Homer himself? To try, then, a Criticism of his own advancing; In the 8th Book of the Odyssey, where Demodocus fings the Episode of the Loves of Mars and Venus; and that, upon their being taken in the Net by Vulcan,

"the God of Arms

Must pay the Penalty for lawless Charms; Mr. Pope is so kind gravely to inform us, That Homer in This, as in many other Places, feems 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 poffibly object any Thing to the Contrary?

Does not
Paufa-

Paufanias 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 fee What a good Memory, and found 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 fomething 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 befides 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 cautioufly handled.

How just, notwithstanding, I have been in detecting the Anachronisms of my Author, and in defending him for the Ufe of them, Our late Editor seems to think, They should rather have slept in Obscurity: and the having difcovered them is sneer'd at, as a fort of wrong-headed Sagacity.

The numerous Corrections, which I made

of the Poet's Text in my SHAKESPEARE

Literal

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, Gueffes, &c. He confefses to have inserted as many of them as he judg'd of any the leaft Advantage to the Poet; but says, that the Whole amounted to about 25 Words: and pretends to have annexed a compleat Lift of the Reft, which were not worth his embracing. Whoever has read my Book will at one glance fee, how in both these Points Veracity is strain'd, so an Injury might but be done. Malus etfi obesse non pote, tamen cogitat.

Another Expedient, to make my Work apCriticiim pear 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 have been worth fome Reply in Defence of the Science attacked. But I may fairly say of this Author, as Falstaffe does of Poins; - Hang him, Baboon! his Wit is as thick as Tewksbury Mustard; there is no more Conceit in him, than is in a MAL

LET.

LET. If it be not Prophanation to set the Opinion of the divine Longinus against such a Scribler, he tells us exprefly, "That to " make a Judgment upon Words (and Writ

ings) is the most confummate Fruit of " much Experience." ή 8 της λόγων κρίσις πολλῆς ότι πείρας τελευταῖον ἐπιλύνημα. Whenever Words are depraved, the Sense of course must be corrupted; and thence the Readers betray'd into a false Meaning. Tho' I should be convicted of Pedantry by some, I'll venture to fubjoin a few flagrant Instances, in which I have observed most Learned Men have fuffer'd themselves to be deceived, and confequently led their Readers into Error: and This for want of the Help of Literal Criticism: in some, thro' Indolence and Inadvertence: in others, perhaps, thro' an absolute Contempt of It. If the Subject may seem to invite this Digreffion, I hope, the Ufe and Application will serve to excuse it.

I. In that golden Fragment, which we have Platonius left of Platonius, upon the three Kinds of corrected. Greek Comedy, after he has told us, that when the State of Athens was alter'd from a Democrafy to an Oligarchy, and that the Poets grew cautious whom they libell'd in their Comedies; when the People had no longer any Defire to choose the accustom'd Officers for furnishing Choric Singers, and defraying the Expence of them, Aristophanes brought on a Play in which there was no Chorus. For, fubjoins

subjoins He, r * ΧΟΡΕΥΤΩΝ μὴ χειρο τονεμλύων, καὶ τῆς ΧΟΡΗΓΩΝ ἐκ ἐχύνων τὰς τροφάς, ὑπεξηρέθη τῆς Κωμωδίας τὰ χορικὰ μέλη, καὶ τῆς ὑποθέσεων ὁ τρόπο. μετεβλήθη. "The Chorus-Singers being no longer chofen by

Suffrage, and the Furnishers of the Chorus " no longer having their Maintenance, the Cho"ric Songs were taken out of Comedies, and the " Nature of the Argument and Fable chang'd." But there happen to be two fignal Mistakes in this short Sentence. For the Chorus-Singers were never elected by Suffrage at all, but hir'd by the proper Officer who was at the Expence of the Chorus: and the Furnishers of the Chorus had never either Table, or Stipend, allowed them, towards their Charge. To what Purpose then is this Sentence, which should be a Deduction from the Premises, and yet is none, brought in? Or how comes the Reafoning to be founded upon what was not the Fact? The Mistake manifestly arises from a careless Transposition made in the Text: Let the two Greek Words, which I have diftinguished by Capitals, only change Places, and

66

we recover what Platonius meant to infer : * Χορηγῶν. " That the * Furnishers of Chorus's being no + Xopdlonger elected by Suffrage, and the † Chorus-Singers having no Provision made for them, Chorus's were abolished, and the Sub"jects of Comedies alter'd.

τῶν.

II. There is another more egregious Error still subsisting in this instructive Fragment,