Let me however do them juſtice. One is a wit, and one a ſcholar[1]. They have both ſhown acuteneſs ſufficient in the diſcovery of faults, and have both advanced ſome probable interpretations of obſcure paſſages; but when they aſpire to conjecture and emendation, it appears how falſely we all eſtimate our own abilities, and the little which they have been able to perform might have taught them more candour to the endeavours of others.
Before Dr. Warburtbon’s edition, Critical obſervations on Shakeſpeare had been publiſhed by Mr. Upton[2], a man ſkilled in languages, and acquainted with books, but who ſeems to have had no great vigour of genius or nicety of taſte. Many of his explanations are curious and uſeſul but he likewiſe, though he profeſſed to oppoſe the licentious confidence of editors, and adhere to the old copies, is unable to reſtrain the rage of emendation, though his ardour is ill ſeconded by his ſkill. Every cold empirick, when his heart is expanded by a ſucceſsful experiment, ſwells into a theoriſt, and the laborious collator at ſome unlucky moment frolicks in conjecture.
Critical, hiſtorical, and explanatory notes have been likewiſe publiſhed upon Shakeſpeare by Dr. Grey,
- ↑ It is extraordinary that this gentleman ſhould attempt ſo voluminous a work, as the Reviſal of Shakeſpeare’s text, when he tells us in his preface, “he was not ſo fortunate as to be furniſhed with either of the folio editions, much leſs any of the ancient quartos: and even Sir Thomas Hanmer’s performance was known to him only by Dr. Warburton’s repreſentation.” Farmer
- ↑ Republiſhed by him in 1748, after Dr. Warburton’s edition, with alterations, &c. Steevens.
