OCRed data provided
for searching only. "LITTLE LATIN" TRADITION 67
ther; and may venture to call my Pamphlet, in the words of a pleasant De-claimer against Sermons on the thirtieth of January, "an Answer to every thing that shall hereafter be written on the Subject."
But "this method of reasoning will prove any one ignorant of the Languages, who hath written when Translations were extant."-Shade of Burgersdicius!-does it follow, because Shakespeare's early life was incompatible with a course of Education-whose Contemporaries, Friends and Foes, nay, and himself likewise, agree in his want of what is usually called Literature-whose mistakes from equivocal Translations, and even typo-graphical Errors, cannot possibly be accounted for otherwise,-that Locke, to whom not one of these circumstances is applicable, understood no Greek? ----I suspect, Rollin's Opinion of our Philosopher was not founded on this argument.
Shakespeare wanted not the Stilts of Languages to raise him above all other men. The quotation from Lilly in the Taming of the Shrew, if indeed it be his, strongly proves the extent of his reading: had he known Terence, he would not have quoted erroneously from his Grammar. Every one hath met with men in common life, who, according to the language of the Water-poet, "got only from Possum to Posset," and yet will throw out a line occasionally from their Accidence or their Cato de Moribus with tolerable propriety.-If, however, the old Editions be trusted in this passage, our Author's memory somewhat failed him in point of Concord.
The rage of Parallelisms is almost over, and in truth nothing can be more absurd. "THIS was stolen from one Classick,-THAT from another;"-and had I not stept in to his rescue, poor Shakespeare had been stript as naked of ornament, as when he first held Horses at the door of the Play-house.. .
Upon the whole, I may consider myself, as the Pioneer of the Commentators: I have removed a deal of learned Rubbish, and pointed out to them Shakespeare's track in the ever-pleasing Paths of Nature. This was necessarily a previous Inquiry; and I hope I may assume with some confidence, what one of the first Criticks of the Age was pleased to declare on reading the former Edition, that "The Question is now for ever decided."
Collins27 says, without reference, that this critic was Walton; but Malone in 1790,28 identifies the author of this opinion as Dr. John-son; and as Smith points out, Northcote also attributes a similar opinion to Dr. Johnson.
"Dr. Farmer," said Johnson, "you have done that which never was done before; that is, you have completely finished a controversy beyond all further doubt." "I thank you," answered Dr. Farmer, "for your flattering opinion of my work, but still think there are some critics who will adhere to their old opinions; certain persons that I could name."
87 Collins, Studies, p. g.
S' M done, Edmond, The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare (179o), Vol. I, Part a, p.
171.
[ Volume
One ] 
