" one of those successful facetious
criticisms which enliven our literary history. Johnson, awed by the
learning of Warburton, and warmed by a personal feeling for a great
genius who had condescended to encourage his first critical labour,
grudgingly bestows a moderated praise on this exquisite satire, which
he characterises for "its airy petulance, suitable enough to the
levity of the controversy." He compared this attack "to a fly, which
may sting and tease a horse, but yet the horse is the nobler
animal."[176] Among the prejudices of criticism, is one which hinders
us from relishing a masterly performance, when it ridicules a
favourite author; but to us, mere historians, truth will always
prevail over literary favouritism. The work of Edwards effected its
purpose, that of "laughing down Warburton to his proper rank and
character."[177]

Warburton designates himself as "a critic by profession;" and tells
us, he gave this edition "to deter the _unlearned writer_ from
wantonly trifling with an art he is a stranger to, at the expense of
the integrity of the text of established authors." Edwards has placed
a N.B. on this declaration:--"A writer may properly be called
_unlearned_, who, notwithstanding all his other knowledge, does not
understand the subject which he writes upon." But the most dogmatical
absurdity was Warburton's declaration, that it was once his design to
have given "a body of canons for criticism, drawn out in form, with a
glossary;" and further he informs the reader, that though this has not
been done by him, if the reader will take the trouble, he may supply
himself, as these canons of criticism lie scattered in the course of
the notes. This idea was seized on with infinite humour by Edwards,
who, from these very notes, has framed a set of "Canons of Criticism,"
as ridiculous as possible, but every one illustrated by authentic
examples, drawn from the labours of our new Stagirite.[178]

At length, when the public had decided on the fact of Warburton's
edition, it was confessed that the editor's design had never been to
explain Shakspeare! and that he was even conscious he had frequently
imputed to the poet meanings which he never thought! Our critic's
great object was to display his own learning! Warburton wrote for
Warburton, and not for Shakspeare! and the literary imposture almost
rivals the confessions of Lander or Psalmanazar!

The same SECRET PRINCIPLE was pursued in his absurd edition of Pope.