It was expressly confessed in the preface to the first edition, that this poem was not published by the author himself. It was printed originally in a foreign country. And what foreign country? Why, one notorious for blunders; where finding blanks only instead of proper names, these blunderers filled them up at their pleasure. The very hero of the poem hath been mistaken to this hour; so that we are obliged to open our notes with a discovery who he really was. We learn from the former editor, that this piece was presented by the hands of Sir Robert Walpole to King George II. Now the author directly tells us, his hero is the man 'who brings The Smithfield muses to the ear of kings.' And it is notorious who was the person on whom this prince conferred the honour of the laurel. It appears as plainly from the apostrophe to the great in the third verse, that Tibbald could not be the person, who was never an author in fashion, or caressed by the great; whereas this single characteristic is sufficient to point out the true hero, who, above all other poets of his time, was the peculiar delight and chosen companion of the nobility of England, and wrote, as he himself tells us, certain of his works at the earnest desire of persons of quality. Lastly, the sixth verse affords full proof; this poet being the only one who was universally known to have had a son so exactly like him, in his poetical, theatrical, political, and moral capacities, that it could justly be said of him, 'Still Dunce the second reign'd like Dunce the first.'--_Bentl_. [235] 'Her son who brings,' &c. Wonderful is the stupidity of all the former critics and commentators on this work! It breaks forth at the very first line. The author of the critique prefixed to Sawney, a poem, p. 5, hath been so dull as to explain 'the man who brings,' &c., not of the hero of the piece, but of our poet himself, as if he vaunted that kings were to be his readers--an honour which though this poem hath had, yet knoweth he how to receive it with more modesty. We remit this ignorant to the first lines of the Aeneid, assuring him that Virgil there speaketh not of himself but of Aeneas: 'Arma virumque cano, Trojae qui primus ab oris Italiam, fato profugus, Lavinaque venit Littora: multum ille et terris jactatus et alto,' &c. I cite the whole three verses, that I may by the way offer a conjectural emendation, purely my own, upon each: First, _oris_ should be read _aris_, it being, as we see, Aen. ii. 513, from the altar of Jupiter Hercaeus that Aeneas fled as soon as he saw Priam slain. In the second line I would _flatu_ for _fato_, since it is most clear it was by winds that he arrived at the shore of Italy. _Jactatus_, in the third, is surely as improperly applied to _terris_, as proper to _alto_. To say a man is tossed on land, is much at one with saying, he walks at sea. _Risum teneatis, amici_? Correct it, as I doubt not it ought to be, _vexatus_.--_Scriblerus_.