Now this glofs is not true, for Theognis was of Megara in Attica, not Sicily; as is too well known to need any proof. And therefore without further ceremony, this glofs might be removed. In Cicero, de nat. D. I, 34. Zeno quidem non eos folùm, qui tum erant → fed Socratem ipfum, parentem philofophiae, [Latino verbo utens] SCURRAM Atticum fuiffe dicebat. As the falsehood discover'd the gloss in Plato, fo the ridiculoufnefs fhews it here. There are other kind of gloffes, being verbal interpretations of the more obfolete and difficult words, which have been taken into the text, to the utter extirpation of the old poffeffors. The Ionic dialect in Herodotus, the Attic in Plato, the Doric in Theocritus, are changed oftentimes into the more ordinary ways of writing and fpeaking. The true readings therefore of ancient books can never be retrieved without the affiftance of manufcripts. If our modern Homers had Οργὴν δὲ Θεά, inftead of Μήνιν άειδε Θεά. And, ψυχάς ᾅδῃ προέπεμψεν, inftead of ψυχὰς ἄίδι προΐαψεν. I don't fee without the citations of the ancients, or without the aid of old old copies, how we fhould ever be able to retrieve the original words; but must have been contented with the interpretation of a scholiaft. Nay perhaps half the readers of Homer would have liked the one as well as the other. But what fhall we fay if Shakespeare's words have been thus altered? If the original has been removed to make room for the glofs? How fhall our author be restored to his pristine state, but by having recourfe to the oldest books, and esteeming these alone of weight and authority? A fhort fpecimen of thefe gloffes, which might be greatly enlarged, is as follows, Hamlet Act I. the fwaggering upfpring reels: Glofs, upstart. A& II. The youth you breath of: Glofs, fpeak of: Othello, A&t I. Ftake this, that you call love to be a fect or fyen: Glofs, a flip or feyon. A&t III. A Sybill that bad number'd in the world The fun to courfe two hundred compaffes: Glofs, of the fun's course. Macbeth, A&t 1. which fate and metaphyfical aid: Glofs, Metaphyfic. Act II. For fear thy very stones prate of my where-about : Glofs, of that we're about. Julius Caefar, A&II. Caius Ligarius doth bear Caefar hard: Glofs, bear Caefar batred. Antony and Cleopatra, A& IV. The band of death has raught him: Glofs, caught bim. This may be fufficient to fhew how, in a mơdern Book, the fcholiaft has routed the author of his ancient poffeffion. These errors are of the worst kind; they have a resemblance of truth without being the thing itself, and muft neceffarily impofe on all, but the true critic, who will be at the trouble of going to the firft exemplars. Be SECT. XVI. UT there are greater alterations, than any yet mention'd, ftill to be made. For the whole play intitled Titus Andronicus fhould be flung out the list of Shakespeare's works. What tho' a purple patch might here and there appear, is that fufficient reason to make our poet's name father this, or other anonymous productions of the stage? But Mr. Theobald has put the matter out of all queftion; for he informs us, "that Ben Johnfon in the induction to his "Bartlemew-Fair (which made its first appear66 ance in the year 1614) couples' Ieronimo and "Andronicus 1 Hieronymo, or the Spanish Tragedy. This play was the conftant object of ridicule in Shakespeare's time. See Mr. Theobald's note, vol. 2. p. 271, 272. B. Jonf. Every Man in his Humour, A& I. fc. 5. What new book ba' you there? What! Go by Hieronymo! Cynthia's Revels, "Andronicus together in reputation, and fpeaks "of them as plays then of 25 or 30 years stand ing. Confequently Andronicus must have "been on the ftage, before Shakespeare left "Warwickshire to come and refide in London." So that we have all the evidence, both internal and external, to vindicate our poet from this bastard iffue; nor should his editors have printed it among his genuine works. There are not fuch strong external reasons for rejecting two other plays, called Love's Labour's loft, and the Two Gentlemen of Verona: but if any proof can be formed from manner and style, then should these be sent packing, and seek for their parent elsewhere. How otherwise does the painter diftinguish copies from originals? And have not authors their peculiar style and manner, from which a true critic can form as unerring a judgment as a painter? External proofs leave no room for doubt. I dare fay there is not any one scholar, that now believes Phalaris' epiftles to be genuine. But what if there had been no external proofs, if the fophift had been a more in the induction. Another prunes his mustaccio, lifps and fwears-That the old Hieronimo (as it was firft acted) was the only beft and judiciously pen'd play of Europe. Alchymift, A&t V. Subt. Here's your Hieronymo's cloake and hat. able chronologer, would the work have been more genuine? Hardly, I believe; tho' the scholar of taft had been equally satisfied. The beft of critics might be imposed on as to half a dozen verses, or fo, as Scaliger himself was, 2 2 Scaliger's cafe was this; Muretus, having tranflated fome verfes from Philemon, fent them in a jocular vein to Scaliger, telling him at the fame time they were a choice fragment of Trabeas, an acient comic poet and Scaliger in his commentary on Varro (p. 212.) cites them as Trabeas' own, and as found in fome old manuscript. verfes are ingenious and worth mentioning, Here, fi querelis, ejulatu, fletibus, Medicina fieret miferiis mortalium, Nunc haec ad minuenda mala non magis valent, The Philemon's verses want fome little correction, and thus, as Εἰ τὰ δάκρυ ̓ ἡμῖν τῶν κακῶν ἦν φάρμακον, but |