Anachro

nisms examin'd.

And

Such as bad. But I have fufficiently proved, in the Courfe of my Notes, that fuch Anachronisms were the Effect of poetic Licence, rather than of Ignorance our Poet. if I may be permitted to ask a modest QuefMr.Pope's tion by the way, not I reftore an Why may Anachronism really made by our our Author, as well as Mr. Pope take the Privilege to fix 0thers upon him, which he fever had it in his Head to make, as I may venture to affirm He had not, in the Inftance of Sir Francis Drake, to which I have in But who fhall dare make. this Freedom of Mr. Pope's towards ShakeSpeare, if it can be prov'd, that, in his Fits of Criticism, he makes no mor no more Ceremony To try, then, a with good Homer himfelf? To try, t Criticism of his own advancing; In the 8th Book of the Odyffey, where Demodocus fings the Epifode of the Loves of Mars and Venus ed and that, upon their being taken in the Net bysulcan,

proper Plake,

Words about

URG SU

Joa ti ai dow, and T 19691) "the God of Arms ystuonuso Must pay the Penalty for lawless Charms; Mro Pope is fo kind gravely to inform us b “That Homer in This, as in many other Pla“Edes,d[feems to allude to the Laws of Athens Athens, "where Death was the Punishment of Adulteny." But how is this fignificant Obferva tion made out? Why, who can poffibly objecbany Thing to the Contrary? Does not IXA 1923дAH? You at fool 21909 5¢osA

1 vit sved I •boat in dove Paufanias relate, that Draco the Lawgiven to the Athenians granted Impunity to any Perfon that took Revenge upon an Adulterer? And was it not also the Inftitution of Solon, that if Any One took an Adulterer in the Fact, he might su use bim as pe pleas'd? These Things are very true and to fee What a good Memory and found Judgment in Conjunction can achieve! Tho' Homer's Date is not determin'd down tol a fingle Year, yettis pretty generally agreed! that he liv'd above 300 Years before Dracos and Solon: And That, it feems, has made him feem to བསས-ཕྱ༦༠ the very Laws, which thefe Two Legiflators propounded above 300) Years after. If this Inference be not fome thing like an Anachronism or Prolepfis, I'll look once more into my Lexicons for the true) Meaning of the Words. It appears to mod that fomebody befides Mars and Venus has been caught in a Net by this Episode and Is could call in other Inftances to confirm whatd treacherous Tackle this Network is, if not cautiously handled.

How juft, notwithstanding, I have been in M detecting the Anachronisms of my Author, and in defending him for the Use of them, Our late Editor feems to think, They fhould rather have slept in Obfcurity: and the having difcovered them is fneer'd at, as afort of wrong-headed Sagacity. To shem nðið The numerous Corrections, which I made of the Poet's Text in my SHAKESPEARE

Reftor'd,

-22

Reftor do and which the Publick havd been fo kind for think swelle of rare,b in the Appendix of Mr. Pope's last Editions lightingly call'd Various Readings, Gueffes,&cebe confeffes tto have inferred as many of them as he judg'd of any the leaft Advantage to the Pdet mbot fays, that the Whole amounted to, about 25 Words toand pretends to have annexed com pleat Lift of the Reft, which were not worth His embracing. Whoevers has read my Book will at one glance feebshow in both thes Points Veracity is ftrain'd, fo an Injury might buribe done.Malus et fi obeffe non pote, tamen cogitathas horisoob sd or asvistmed bisul Literal bn Another Expedient, to make my Work apCriticism pear of a trifling Nature, has been an Artempt to depreciate Literal Criticism. To this Endd and todpayqad fervile Compliment to Mru Pope,man Anonymous Writer has, like a Scotch Pedlar in Wit, unbraced his Packy on the Subject But, that his Virulence might apinoted I nod feem to be levelled fingly at Me, he has bafadonen Me the Honour to join Dr. Bentley in

defended.

the Libel.blol was in hopes, We should have sbeen Both abufed with Smartnefs of Satirej vat leaftsdthonot, with Solidity of Argument: nthat it might have been worth fome Reply in Defence of the Science attacked. But, I may bfairly fay of this Author, as Falstaffe does bofa Poins g Hang him, Baboon ! is Wit is as thick as Tewksbury Muffardd there is no more Conceit in him, than is in a Maăzaiojd

९

LE T.

The PREFA CE.

Løpsd If id be hot Prophanation rabfet the Opinion of the divine Longinus against fuch a Scribler he tells us exprefly," That to Himake a Judgment upon Words (and Writ ingsdiss the most confummate Fruit of much Experience. Boywv. metas πολλής και πείρας τελευταῖον ἐπιχύνημα. When ever Words are dopraved, the Seife sofabourfe muft be corrupted and thence the Readers betray'd into a falfe Meaning. Tho' I fhould be convicted of Pedantry by fome, I'll venturento fubjoin a few flagrant Inftäheesjoth which I have obferved moft Learned Men have fuffer'd themselves to be deceived, and confoquentlyMed their Readers into Errora and This for want of the Help of Literal Griti-milɔisi tifm Tin fome, thro' Indolence and Inadvertence in others, perhaps, thro' amabfolute Contempt of It. If the Subject may feem to Invites this Digreffion, hope, the Ufe and Application will ferve to excufe it t asdi In that golden Fragment, which we have Platonius left of Platonius upon the three Kinds of corrected. Greek Comedy, after he has told us, I that when the State of Athens was alter'd from Ja •Democraty to an Oligarchy, and that the Poets grew cautiouss whom they dibell'ddin their Comedies, when the Peopleshading longer any Defire to choofe the accuftomid Officers for farnishing Choric Singers, and defraying the Expence of them, Aristophanes brought on a Play in which there was no Chorus For, fubjoins

T

5

fubjoins He, 28 ΧΟΡΕΥΤΩΝ με χει XHRO τονεμβρύων, και την ΧΟΡΗΓΩΝ ἐκ ἐχόντων της τροφας, υπεξηρέθη της Κωμῳδίας τὰ χορεία με λη, και η υποθέσεων ὁ το Θ. μετεβλήθη, TVS G. The Chorus-Singers being no longer chosen 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 changd. But there happen to be two fignal Miftakes in this thort 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 fhould be a Deduction from the Premifes, and y yet is none, brought in? Or how comes the Reafoning to be founded upon what was not the Fact The Miftake manifeftly arifes from a careless Tranfpofition made in the Text: Let the two Greek Words, which I have diftinguished by Capitals, only change Places, and we recover what Platonius meant to infer: *Xopnyv." That the Furnishers of Chorus's being no longer elected by Suffrage, and the ↑ Chorus-Singers having no Provifion made for them, Chorus's were abolished, and the Subjects of Comedies alter'den we

+ Xopo

τῶν.

*

a

II. There is another more egregious Error ftill fubfifting in this inftractive Fragment,