Mr. Pope thus explains it, "Call me Philip? You may as well call me fparrow; Philip "being a common name for a tame fparrow." 'Tis not to be wonder'd that Mr. Theobald hould turn a deaf ear to whatever Mr. Pope offers by way of criticifm: he therefore alters the place thus, Philip! Spare me James. Without changing a word, why should we not read, taking the whole in Mr. Pope's fenfe? "Gurn. Good leave, good Philip. "Phil. Philip? Sparrow! James, "There's toys abroad; anon I'll tell thee more?” 8 So Prior in his poem intitled, The Sparrow and Dove: S. I. woo'd my coufin PHILLY Sparrow. And in the workes of G. Gascoigne, Efq; p. 285. Lond. ann. 1587. B The praife of Philip Sparrow. Of all the byrds that I doo know, SECT. VI. UT are there no errors at all crept into the copies of Shakespeare? Perhaps more than into any one book, published fince the invention of printing. But these errors may often be accounted counted for, and the cause once known, the cure will follow of course. Not only the words in all languages are ever fleeting, but likewife the manner of spelling those words is so very vague and indeterminate, that almost every one varies it according to his own whim and fancy. This is not only true of the more barbarous countries, but was likewise the cafe of the more polite languages of the Greeks and Romans. The fpelling of Virgil differ'd from that of Ennius; and later Romans ventured to vary from even the Augustan age: Nor were the alterations lefs in the Grecian language; and every country followed their own pronunciation, and spelt in a great measure accordingly. 2 I 1 Augustus himself had little regard to strict orthography, as appears in Suetonius's life of Aug. fect. 88. 2 Some letters were added by Epicharmus and Simonides.' A fpecimen of the manner in which Homer's earliest copies were written, is as follows: ΜΕΝΙΝ ΑΙΔΕ ΤΗΕΑ ΠΕΛΕΙΑΔΙΟ ΑΚΗΙΛΕΟΣ ΑΤΡΕΔΕΣ ΤΕ FANAKΣ ΑΝΔΡΟΝ ΚΙ ΔΙΟΣ ΑΚΗΙΛΛΕΥΣ. Book II. It may be proper, in order to ascertain fome readings in our author, just to observe, that in the reign of queen Elizabeth the scholars wrote auncient, taulk, chaunce, &c. keeping to the broader manner of pronunciation; and added a letter often to the end of words, as funne, reftleffe, &c. fometimes to give them a stronger tone as, doo, 3 wee, mee, &c. the y they expreffed by ie, as, anie, bodie, &c. Tho' many other instances may be given, yet the generality of those writers 3 As trifling as thefe obfervations may appear, yet they are not to be too flightly pass'd over by our critic: There is a corrupted paffage in Shakespeare, which may hence be more truly than hitherto, corrected. In Julius Cæfar. Act II. the old writing was thus. 66 Danger knows full well "That Cæfar is more dangerous than He. There was some stroke of the pen at the end of the letter e, which made the printer mistake it for an b: fo he gave it us, "WE HEARE two lions litter'd in one day." Mr. Th. reads very ingeniously "WE WERE two lions, &c. But my reading is nearer the traces of the original, and the ftopping gives a greater propriety to the fentence. Befides accuracy is of the very effence of criticifm. paid very little regard either to etymology or pronunciation, or the peculiar genius of our language, all which ought to be confidered. As to Shakespeare, he did not feem to take much care about the printing of those plays, which were published in his life, but left it to the printers and players; and thofe plays, which were published after his death, were liable to even more blunders. So that his fpelling being often faulty, he should thence be explained by fome happy gueffing or divining faculty. This seems one of the easiest parts of criticism; and what English reader thinks himself not master of fo trifling a science? When he receives a letter from his friend, errors of this kind are no impediment to his reading: and the reason is, because he generally knows his friend's drift and defign, and accompanies him in his thoughts and expreffions. And could we thus accompany the diviner poets and philofophers, we should commence criticks of courfe. However I will mention an inftance or two of wrong spelling in our poet, and leave it to the reader to judge, whether fuch trifling blunders have been fufficiently restored. In Hamlet, A&t III. in Mr. Theobald's edi tion, p. 301. the place is thus printed: "Hamlet. For thou doft know, oh Damon ❝ dear, "This realm dismantled was "Of Jove himself, and now reigns here "A very, very Paddock. "Hor. You might have rhim'd." The old copies read, Paicock, Paiocke and Pajocke. Mr. Theobald fubftitutes Paddock, as nearest the traces of the corrupt spelling: Mr. Pope, Peacock; (much nearer furely to Paicock, than Mr. Theobald's Paddock) thinking a fable is alluded to, of the birds chufing a king, inftead of the eagle, the peacock. And this reading of Mr. Pope's feems to me exceeding right. Hamlet, very elegantly alluding to the friendThip between Pythias and his fchool-fellow Daman, calls Horatio, his school-fellow, Damon dear; and fays, this realm was dismantled of Jove himself, (he does not fay of Jove's bird, but heightening the compliment to his father, of Jove himself,) and now reigns here, a very Peacock; meer fhew, but no worth and substance. Horatio anfwers, "You might have rhim'd: i. e. you might have very juftly faid, "A very, very Afs." |