THE AUTHOR of the following ESSAY was solicitous only for the honour of Shakespeare: he hath however, in _his own_ capacity, little reason to complain of _occasional_ Criticks, or Criticks _by profession_. The very _Few_, who have been pleased to controvert any part of his Doctrine, have favoured him with better manners than arguments; and claim his thanks for a further opportunity of demonstrating the futility of _Theoretick_ reasoning against _Matter of Fact_. It is indeed strange that any _real_ Friends of our immortal POET should be still willing to force him into a situation which is not tenable: treat him as a _learned_ Man, and what shall excuse the most gross violations of History, Chronology, and Geography? Οὐ πείσεις οὐδ᾽ ἤν πείσῃς is the Motto of every _Polemick_: like his Brethren at the _Amphitheatre_, he holds it a merit to _die hard_; and will not say, _Enough_, though the Battle be decided. “Were it shewn,” says some one, “that the old Bard borrowed _all_ his allusions from _English_ books then published, our _Essayist_ might have possibly established his System.”—In good time!—This had scarcely been attempted by Peter Burman himself, with the Library of Shakespeare before him.—“Truly,” as Mr. Dogberry says, “for _mine own_ part, if I were as tedious as a King, I could find in my heart to bestow it all on this Subject”: but where should I meet with a Reader?—When the main Pillars are taken away, the whole Building falls in course: Nothing hath been, or can be, pointed out, which is not easily removed; or rather, which was not _virtually_ removed before: a very little _Analogy_ will do the business. I shall therefore have no occasion to trouble myself any further; and may venture to call my Pamphlet, in the words of a pleasant Declaimer 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 typographical 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.