tice of hiſtory, can only be ſought in the jeſt-book, the ſatire, or the play; and the novel, whoſe ſaſhion did not outlive a week, is ſometimes neceſſary to throw light on thoſe annals which take in the compaſs of an age. Thoſe, therefore, who would wiſh to have the peculiarities of Nym familiarized to their ideas, muſt cxcuſe the inſertion of ſuch an epigram as beſt ſuits the purpoſe, however tedious in itſelf; and ſuch as would be acquainted with the propriety of Falſtaff’s alluſion to ſtewed prunes, ſhould not be diſguſted at a multitude of inſtances, which, when
tally proved, that the commentator on Spenſer, Jonſon, and the reſt of our elder poets, will in vain give ſpecimens of his claſſical erudition, unleſs, at the ſame time, he brings to his work a mind intimately acquainted with thoſe books, which, though now forgotten, were yet in common uſe and high repute about the time in which his authors reſpectively wrote, and which they conſequently muſt have read. While theſe are unknown, many alluſions and many imitations will either remain obſcure, or loſe half their beauty and propriety: “as the figures vaniſh when the canvas is decayed.”
“Pope laughs at Theobald for giving us, in his edition of Shakespeare, a ſample of
all ſuch reading as was never read.
But theſe ſtrange and ridiculous books which Theobald quoted, were unluckily the very books which Shakespeare himſelf had ſtudied; the knowledge of which enabled that uſeful editor to explain ſo many difficult alluſions and obſolete cuſtoms in his poet, which otherwiſe could never have been underſtood. For want of this ſort of literature, Pope tells us that the dreadful Sagittary in Troilus and Creſſida, ſignifies Teucer, ſo celebrated for his ſkill in archery. Had he deigned to conſult an old hiſtory, called the Deſtruction of Troy, a book which was the delight of Shakepeare and of his age, he would have found that this formidable archer, was no other than an imaginary beaſt, which the Grecian army brought againſt Troy. If Shakespeare is worth reading, he is worth explaining; and the reſearches uſed for ſo valuable and elegant a purpoſe, merit the thanks of genius and candour, not the ſatire of prejudice and ignorance. That labour, which ſo eſſentially contributes to the ſervice of true taſte, deſerves a more honourable repoſitory than The Temple of Dullneſs.”
the
