dwindled into a word-catcher. Literally speaking, indeed, I agree with
Mr. Pope, that nothing can be the parallel to itself; but allowing a
little for the liberty of expression, does it not plainly imply, that it
is a treachery which stands single for the nature of its baseness, and
has not its parallel on record; and that nothing but a treachery equal
to it in baseness can parallel it? If this were such nonsense as Pope
would willingly have it, it would be a very bad plea for me to alledge,
as the truth is, that the line is in Shakespear's old copy; for I might
have suppressed it. But I hope it is defensible; at least if examples
can keep it in countenance. There is a piece of nonsense of the same
kind in the Amphytrio of Plautus: Sofia having survey'd Mercury from top
to toe, finds him such an exact resemblance of himself, in dress, shape,
and features, that he cries out,

Tam consimil' est, atq; ego.

That is, he is as like me, as I am to myself. Now I humbly conceive, in
strictness of expression a man can no more be like himself, than a thing
its own parallel. But to confine myself to Shakespear. I doubt not but I
can produce some similar passages from him, which literally examined,
are stark nonsense; and yet taken with a candid latitude have never
appeared ridiculous. Mr. Pope would scarce allow one man to say to
another. 'Compare and weigh your mistress with your mistress; and I
grant she is a very fair woman; but compare her with some other woman
that I could name, and the case will be very much altered.' Yet the very
substance of this, is said by Shakespear, in Romeo and Juliet; and Mr.
Pope has not degraded it as any absurdity, or unworthy of the author.

Pho! pho! you saw her fair, none else being by;
HERSELF poiz'd with HERSELF in either eye.