indeed, but neither corrected his Text, nor collated the old Copies.
This Gentleman had Abilities, and a sufficient Knowledge of his
Author, had but his Industry been equal to his Talents. The same
mangled Condition has been acknowledg’d too by Mr. _Pope_, who
publish’d him likewise, pretended to have collated the old Copies,
and yet seldom has corrected the Text but to its Injury. I
congratulate with the _Manes_ of our Poet, that this Gentleman has
been sparing in _indulging his private Sense_; for He, who tampers
with an Author whom he does not understand, must do it at the
Expence of his Subject. I have made it evident throughout my
Remarks, that he has frequently inflicted a Wound where he intended
a Cure. He has acted with regard to our Author, as an Editor, whom
LIPSIUS mentions, did with regard to MARTIAL; _Inventus est nescio
quis _Popa_, qui non _vitia_ ejus, sed _ipsum_, excîdit._ He has
attack’d him like an unhandy _Slaughterman_; and not lopp’d off the
_Errors_, but the _Poet_.

[Sidenote: Praise sometimes an Injury.]

When this is found to be the Fact, how absurd must appear the
Praises of such an Editor? It seems a moot Point, whether Mr. _Pope_
has done most Injury to _Shakespeare_ as his Editor and Encomiast;
or Mr. _Rymer_ done him Service as his Rival and Censurer. Were it
every where the true Text, which That Editor in his late pompous
Edition gave us, the Poet deserv’d not the large Encomiums bestow’d
by him: nor, in that Case, is _Rymer_’s Censure of the Barbarity of
his Thoughts, and the Impropriety of his Expressions, groundless.
They have Both shewn themselves in an equal _Impuissance_ of
suspecting or amending the corrupted Passages: and tho’ it be
neither Prudence to censure, or commend, what one does not