THE GIFT OF Cornell University Library PR 3729.T5Z6 Lewis Theobald, his contribution to Engl 3 1924 013 202 241 The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013202241 LEWIS THEOBALD HIS CONTRIBUTION TO ENGLISH SCHOLARSHIP WITH SOME UNPUBLISHED £eTTERS BY RICHARD FOSTER JONES, Ph.D. ^1" COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 1919 AU rights reserved COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE LEWIS THEOBALD COLUMBU UNIVERSITY PRESS SALES AGENTS New York LEMCKE & BUECHNER 30-32 West 27th Street London HUMPHREY MILFORD Amen Corner, E.C. Shanghai EDWARD EVANS & SONS, Ltd. 30 North Szechuen Road LEWIS THEOBALD HIS CONTRIBUTION TO ENGLISH SCHOLARSHIP WITH SOME UNPUBLISHED LETTERS BY RICHARD FOSTER JONES Submitted in Pabtial Fulfilment of the Requirements FOR THE Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty of Philosophy, Columbia University 0tto @DrI( COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 1919 A 4^^^ ?'1 Copyright, 1919 Bt Columbia Univbrsitt Pebss Printed from type, March, 1919 TO THE MEMOEY OF MY FATHER AND MOTHER THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED Tkis Monograph has been approved by the Department of English and Comparative Literature in Columbia University as a contribution to knowledge worthy of publication. A. H. THORNDIKE, Executive Officer PREFACE The purpose of this dissertation is two-fold: to give a biography of Theobald, and to establish a thesis. With the exception of one or two written before 1728, none of the eighteenth century accounts of the scholar is in any way reUable, especially in matters touching The Dunciad. They all present the same picture of Theobald as is found in the variorimi edition of Pope's satire, from which, indeed, the bulk of their information was derived. Early in the nine- teenth century John Nichols, in the second volume of Illustrations of Literature, produced a much longer and more accurate sketch of Theobald than had yet appeared, together with the major part of his voluminous correspond- ence with Warburton. Though Nichols showed signs of appreciating the critic's learning and scholarship, he con- tinued to accept as true many of the baseless charges advanced by Pope. The last century witnessed an amaz- ing contrast in the estimates placed upon Theobald; Shakespearean scholars, almost unanimously, asserted that he was one of Shakespeare's greatest editors, while the biographers and critics of Pope, still continuing to echo the latter's slanders, proclaimed the unfortunate man a dunce. Finally, John Churton Collins, first in an essay called The Parson of Shakespearean Criticism — which might better have been called The Bentley of Shakespearean Criticism — and later in the Dictionary of National Biography clearly established his greatness as a scholar. Yet even Mr. ColHns did not attempt to refute many of Pope's accusations. This worthy task was accomplished by the late Professor Lounsbury in The Text of Shakespeare, an admirable work X PREFACE to which I am heavily indebted. By minutely investigating The Duneiad and its surromidings, Professor Lounsbury has given us a true and comprehensive account of its hero, lay- ing to rest, once and for all, the evil spirits loosed by Pope. To his biography I could have added Uttle, had I not dis- covered a number of unpubUshed letters, written to Warbur- ton, which throw some light on the period following the great satire, and make clearer the later relations of the two men. The thesis that I attempt to uphold asserts that the basic principles of critical editing in English were derived directly from the method employed by Bentley in the classics. In his work on Shakespeare Theobald adapted this method to a new field, and in turn was followed by scholars who did not confine their labors to the great dramatist. I have not carried my discussion beyond that remarkable period of critical activity, the sixth decade of the eighteenth century, because by 1760 the method had become so prevalent that its connection with Theobald is no longer apparent. This fact explains why I have not mentioned some of the best known scholars of the latter half of the century such as Tyrwhitt and Ritson, both of whom admired Theobald and followed his lead. I think that it is necessary only to show that the method which Theobald derived from Bentley and handed on to succeeding scholars is the same in essential details as that employed now. This dissertation owes its being to Professor W. P. Trent. He first suggested the possibility of Bentley's influence on Theobald, and his abiding confidence in the thesis later sustained me through many discouragements. He also read both manuscript and proof, and made many criticisms compUance with which has added materially to the value of the book. I am also indebted to Professors A. H. Thorndike and E. H. Wright for reading the manuscript and making a number of helpful suggestions. Professor 0. F. Emerson and Doctor D. H. Miles kindly read part of the manuscript PREFACE XI with results beneficial to the work, while my colleague, Mr. R. F. Dibble, went through the whole of the page proof. To the officials of the Ubraries of Columbia, Harvard, Yale, and Western Reserve imiversities, and also to the officials of the British Museum, I wish to acknowledge the obhgation of many courtesies. I wish pubUcly to express to my wife my heartfelt gratitude for her dear assistance. Besides performing the tedious and mechanical tasks necessary to pubUcation, she was ever ready with affectionate sympathy and intelhgent criticism, allowing neither my efforts to lag nor my perseverance to faQ. To my brother. Doctor, E. H. Jones, I am happy to return thanks for most substantial aid in pubhshing this book. Finally, Mr. John J. Lynch of the Columbia Uni- versity Press has been of no small assistance to me in matters with which I was not familiar. R. F. J. Columbia Universitt, January 25, 1919. CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. Theobald's Early Life 1 II. The Rage foe Emending 31 III. Shakespeare Restored 61 rV. The Period of the Dtjnciad 10(> V. The Edition of Shakespeare 166 VI. Theobald's Later Life 193 VII. The Progress of the Method 217 APPENDIX A. BiBLIOTHECA 254 B. Translation of Bentlet's Horace 256 C. Some Unpublished Letters of Theobald 258 D. A Chronological List of Theobald's Works .... 347 Index 357 LEWIS THEOBALD CHAPTER I Theobald's eakly life In writing the life of a man like Theobald the biographer would Uke to take up the story at the point where his hero first raised himself above mediocrity, and proved worthy of a written biography. What precedes appears but a col- lection of few and scattered details, too trivial to arrest attention, too dry to arouse interest. To weave these un- inspiring facts into a narrative that will escape boring the reader to extinction is a task that sorely tries one's patience and ability. Yet the demands of modern research must justly be satisfied to the extent of leaving nothing half done. Nor is this the only reason for adopting such a course. A single great achievement, if kept in mind, induces interest and significance in events that otherwise would be sur- rendered to oblivion. On the other hand, it is not necessary to delve deep into the genealogical past, unearthing maternal and paternal ancestors, to show how this or that trait can be explained. It is sufiicient for us to know that in the early part of 1688 Lewis Theobald was born in Sittingbourne in Kent, where, according to a contemporary biography, his father was an eminent attorney.* He was named after a friend of the family, Lewis Watson, Earl of Rockingham, who made ' "'About 1692,' says Nichols and the biographers, but he was baptized on the 2d of April, 1688, as the parish register testifies." — J. C. Collins, Essays and Studies, p. 312. Nichols' mistake is due to a wrong date, given in Giles Jacob's i LEWIS THEOBALD his namesake companiQn to his son, Viscount Sondres, at a school conducted by the Rev. Mr. Elhs at Isleworth in Middlesex. The instruction — and it must have been thorough — received here was improved by a sojourn passed under the roof of his kinsman, John Glanville of Broad- hurston, Wiltshire, at a time, when he had "but the In- digested Learning of a School-boy, and wanted Judgment to make Use of Those Talents I either owed to Nature, or the Benefits of my education." ^ It was in appreciation of this kindness that Theobald dedicated his first attempt at poetry, a Cowleyan Pindaric in praise of the union of Scotland and England — a sample of which is given us by the late Pro- fessor Lounsbury ' — as well as his translation of Aris- tophanes' Clouds. At some date not later than 1708 Theobald removed to London, where he followed his father's profession. His practice, however, which was more profitable in the latter part of his hfe, was neither so interesting nor extensive as to prevent his engaging in various Uterary activities, the most noteworthy of which were translations. His knowl- edge of the classics was sufficient to recommend him to Bernard Lintot, "a no inconsiderable patron of literature and an enterprising bookseller," who in 1713 paid Theo- bald five guineas for a translation of Plato's Phaedo^ Earlier in the year the translator had taken advantage of the great popularity of Cato to publish a life of the Roman hero,' Poetical Register, of the acting of The Persian Princess, in the preface to which Theobald said it was written and acted before he was nine- teen years old. The date given by Jacob is 1710. See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 707-708. ' Dedication to his translation of the Clouds, 1715. > Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 125. * Plato's Dialogue of the Immortality of the Soul. Translated from the Greek by Mr. Theobald, 1713. • The Life and Character of Marcus Portius Cato Uticensis: MDCCXIII. THEOBALD S EARLY LIFE 6 and to push his advantage farther translated this dialogue of Plato, "it being the very treatise, which Cato read no less than twice before he killed himself." The same year Theobald entered into a contract with Lintot to translate all of the tragedies of Aeschylus for the modest sum of ten guineas, a contract that developed into his most ambitious attempt in this kind of work. Be- ginning with the purpose of merely translating the Greek, by 1736 he was entertaining the idea of publishing the text, with notes and emendations, on the opposite page to the translation. Though none of the plays was published, evi- dence seems to show that the work was completed a year or two after the contract was made, for in a note to verse six of his translation of Electra (1714) he says, "I shall refer the reader for it [the story of lo] to my Prometheus of Aeschylus, which will shortly be pubUshed," while in the notes to his rendition of Oedipus (1714) he speaks of his translation of the Seven Captains against Thebes.^ Some eight or ten years later Theobald issued proposals to publish the tragedies by subscription, setting the date of pubhca- tion for April, 1724. At the end of Shakespeare Restored he found it necessary to apologize to his subscribers for the delay, offering as compensation the fact that he had been at additional expense in procuring copper plates for each volume, and that in his dissertation to be prefixed to the translation he designed a complete history of the ancient stage in all its branches. ' Two selections from it were indeed published. The first, con- sisting of two passages, appeared in Theobald's periodical, the Censor. The second, entitled "The Siege From a Chorus of Aeschylus," appeared in The Grove, a miscellany compiled by Theobald in 1721. This seems to be all that was ever published, although later Dennis, in Remarks on the Dunciad, speaks of having seen a specimen. Giles Jacob is authority for the statement that Theobald completed the transla- tion of all seven tragedies. Poetical Register, vol. 1, p. 259. 4 LEWIS THEOBALD With the success of Shakespeare Restored and the conse- quent incentive to continue work on Shakespeare, Theobald must have found little opportunity for the farther prosecu- tion of the undertaking at this time. But no longer was this lapse allowed to pass imnoticed. When The Dunciad was published, this line appeared. And, last, his own cold .^schylus took fire. and a note on the line in the editions of 1729 read : "He had been (to use an expression of our poet) about Aeschylus for ten years, and had received subscriptions for the same, but then went about other books." ' For such criticism Pope had only the specimen in The Censor upon which to base his belief. In a note to another line in The Dunciad he sought to disparage Theobald's translation,' and continued his attacks in The Grub-street Journal. In one number Theobald is accused of bad faith in the collection of subscriptions,' and in another he is warned of failure by being reminded of the poor success of his translation of Aristophanes.^" But he still persisted in his purpose, growing more ambi- tious as time went by. In his edition of Shakespeare " he speaks of his forthcoming translation of Aeschylus, and in a letter to Warburton, March 5, 1734, he comments on errors in Stanley's edition, with the assurance that he sees a method of correcting the text on the basis of the corre- spondence of antistrophe and strophe. A few months later, ' Bk. I, 1. 210. The note continues: "The character of this Tragic Poet is fire and boldness in a high degree, but our author supposes it cooled by the translation; Bpon sight of a specimen of which was made this Epigram, Alas I poor Aeschylus! unlucky dog\ Whom once a Lobster kill'd, and now a Log." » Bk. Ill, 1. 311 of the editions of 1729. • Grub-street Journal, No. 59, October 6, 1730. >» Idem, No. 37, September 17, 1730. " Vol. 7, p. 44. THEOBALD S EARLY LIFE 5 in a letter to Sir Hans Sloane, soliciting a subscription to his Aeschylus, he says that he has been advised to put on the opposite page to the translation the Greek text, which he thinks can be corrected with great certainty, especially since he is fortunate in having a collation of the Laurentian manuscript made for him by Dr. Conyers Middleton. This enlargement of plan, to be sure, increased the burden of the undertaking, and we find Theobald showing signs of weary- ing. On February 12, 1734, he writes, "By God's leave I mean to print that work off this ensuing summer." And again, October 18, 1735, he hopes "in God" Aeschylus shall appear in the spring. But the only results of this enter- prise that are left us are the few selections mentioned above, some emendations contributed to a magazine of the day, and those of his notes written in his Stanley, which Bloom- field used in his edition of the Greek dramatist. Of Theobald's other translations we have more remains. In the spring of 1714 he entered into another contract with Lintot to translate the whole of the Odyssey, and the Oedipus Tyrannus, Oedipus Coloneus, Trachiniae, and Philodetes of Sophocles, together with explanatory notes, into English blank verse. He also contracted to translate the satires and epistles of Horace into English rhyme. For the trans- lations of Homer and Sophocles he was to receive fifty shil- hngs for every four hundred and fifty lines, while for Horace the price was one guinea for every one hundred and twenty lines.'^ While Theobald may have translated the four tragedies mentioned above, only one, the Oedipus Tyrannus, ^ "AH these articles were to be performed according to the time specified, tmder the penalty of £50 on the default of either party." Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 708. In a footnote on this passage Nichols says, "These particulars appear from Lintot's Accompt-Book: but the entry respecting the Odyssey has a line drawn through it, as if the agreement had been afterwards canceled." D LEWIS THEOBALD was published.'' The next year, however, Lintot pub- hshed a translation by Theobald of a play of Sophocles, the Electra, not mentioned in the contract." This was dedicated to Addison, whose friendship the translator en- joyed. By the same pubhsher there was issued a translation of Ajax '* which later biographers of Theobald have attributed to him. The only evidence for such an attribution seems to be a line in The Dunciad, which reads And last, a little Ajax tips the spire. and a note on this line, "In duodecimo, translated from Sophocles by Tibbald." '* Jacob, in his Poetical Register, although mentioning the Oedi'pus and Electra, as well as the two plays from Aristophanes, makes no mention of a trans- lation of Ajax. Neither does Nichols in his accoimt of Theobald. The Biographia Dramatica (1782) not only fails to attribute any such work to Theobald, but definitely states that the translation was made by Mr. Rowe, and on another page, that the Ajax is said, in the second volimie, p. 190, of Hughes' letters, to have been translated by a Mr. Jackson." Hughes was in a position to know, inasmuch as he was associated with Rowe in a translation of the Pharsalia. In a list of books printed for Lintot, found at the back of the translation of Electra, there is advertised a translation of Antigone and the notes to Ajax, both by Mr. Rowe. There is no record that Theobald was ever assisted, " Oedipus, King of Thebem A Tragedy. Translated from Sophocles, with Notes By Mr. Theobald. London, 1715. " Electra: A Tragedie. Translated from Sophocles, with Notes. London, 1715. ^^ Ajax of Sophocles. Translated from the Greek, with Notes. London, 1714. " Editions of 1729, Bk. 1, 1. 42. " Biographia Dramatica, vol. 1, p. 5, and vol. 2, p. 253. Theobald's early life 7 or needed to be, in any of his translations." Since Pope in search of material for the Dunciad investigated its hero's past with some thoroughness, he must have learned of his adversary's translations for Lintot. Hence he would naturally suppose that an anonymous translation of one of Sophocles' plays, published at this time and by Theobald's publisher, came from the pen of his enemy. It is possible that Theobald translated all the plays con- tracted for. There is no evidence of the contract having been canceled. One of the translations was published, and a selection from another, the PMlodetes, appeared in The Grove under the title, "Description of the Plague at Thebes, and Invocation of the Gods to their Assistance, from a Chorus of Sophocles." In the "Publisher to the Reader," prefixed to the translation of Ajax, Lintot says^ I have by me the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Eu- ripides, translated into English blank verse; they are all, as I have been assured by several gentlemen of allow' d judgment in these matters, very exactly done from the Greek. Then he continues to speak of the literalness of the transla- tions, and the critical and philological notes, adding, I have given the public the Ajax of Sophocles as a specimen of my undertaking. If they think fit to encourage it, I intend to give 'em one every month, till I have gone through aU the Greek Tragedies. It is almost certain that Theobald translated Aeschylus. The four tragedies of Sophocles he contracted to translate, plus his Eledra, plus the Antigone, advertised as being by Mr. Rowe, and plus the Ajax, by Jackson and Rowe, give us '* The single copy of this translation in the British Museum is entered in the catalogue under Sophocles, N. Rowe, and Jackson, as being translated by J., assisted by Mr. Rowe. But it is also. entered under Theobald's name. 8 LEWIS THEOBALD all the tragedies of Sophocles. Furthermore, we have Theobald's own statement that he had little time for any- thing but translation in and about 1714.'' The success of the translations published must not have been such as to warrant Lintot in carrying out his ambitious undertaking. Perhaps Pope's translation of Homer, the proposals for which appeared in October, 1713, interfered with it also. The next April Theobald contracted with Lintot to translate the Odyssey, the publisher doubtless hoping to profit by the interest in Homer aroused by Pope's proposals. But in November, 1714, Lintot received, at a very high price, the contract for publishing the Iliad, the fulfillment of which must have left him little time or in- cUnation for any other of the classics. For his translations from Aristophanes, 1715, we find Theobald turning to another publisher. Later, with Tickell threatening a version of The Odyssey, it seems probable that Lintot put forth one book of Theobald's translation as a feeler.^" Pro- fessor Lounsbury demolished the theory advanced by some that Theobald's rendition of the Odyssey accounts for his place in The Dunciad, but I can hardly agree with him in thinking the work was stopped because of lack of sub- scriptions.^' It was begun by contract, and the appear- ance of one book was due, perhaps, to Lintot's desire to see if the publication of the whole would be worth while. Unfortunately there does not seem to be extant a copy of this production. It was, probably, in connection with " "I am so deeply engaged in the Translation of Works of more Moment, that I had no Time to throw away in Amendments." Pref- ace to The Persian Princess, 1715. '" Nichols (Literary Anecdotes, vol. 1, p. 80) gives November, 1716, as the date of pubUcation, while Pope says 1717 (Dunciad, 1729, note on Bk. I, 1. 106). Gibber agrees with Nichols. (Lives of the Poets, vol. 5, p. 287.) '' Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 133, 134. Theobald's early life 9 his translation of the Odyssey that Theobald in 1714 trans- lated a French treatise on the Iliad, an offshoot of the con- troversy in France between the ancients and moderns.^^ After breaking with Lintot, Theobald did not give up his idea of translating certain of the classics. He turned from tragedy to comedy, and in 1715 appeared his English versions of Aristophanes' Clouds and Plutus, the first dedi- cated to his kinsman, John Glanville, and the second to the Duke of Argyle.^' In a prefatory discourse Theobald says, "If these find an Acceptation sufiicient to Encourage my Attempt, I have a Design on some of the rest, that have equal Charms of Humour and Sprightliness." No other comedy appeared, however. A contributor to the Grub-street Journal, in speaking of the folly of translating classic poets into EngUsh prose, remarks, And yet I am told that Mr. Theobald has a translation of even Aeschylus himself, whether in prose or verse I don't know, ready for the press; not deterr'd from the iU success his translation of Aristophanes had.'" In later years when, owing largely to the influence of The Dunciad, it had become the custom to sneer at Theobald, his translations were subject to further attacks. In 1742 Henry Fielding and WilHam Young issued a translation of Plutus, in the preface to which it is insinuated that Theobald ^ A Critical Discourse upon the Iliad of Homer: written in French by Monsieur de la Motte, a Member of the French Academy; and translated into English by Mr. Theobald. 1714. Professor Lounsbury (p. 132) comments on the scarcity of this work. A copy was advertised in a recent catalogue of P. J. & A. E. Dobell of London. ^ The Clouds. A Comedy. Translated from the Greek of Aristophanes. By Mr. Theobald. London, MDCCXV. Plutus: or the World's Idol. A Comedie. Translated from the Greek of Aristophanes. By Mr. Theobald. London, 1715. »* Grub-street Journal, No. 37, September 17, 1730. 10 LEWIS THEOBALD did not understand Aristophanes, and that his version was taken almost entirely from a French translation by Madame Dacier, issued in 1692.^' I own we have more to answer to the lady than to Mr. Theobald who, being a critic of great nicety himself, and great diUgence in correcting mistakes in others, cannot be offended at the same treatment. Indeed there are some parts of his work, which I should be more surprized at, had he not informed us in his dedica- tion, that he was assisted in it by M. Dacier. We are not there- fore much to wonder, if Mr. Theobald errs a httle, when we find his guide going before out of the way. While it may appear significant that the only plays trans- lated by Theobald were those rendered into French by Madame Dacier, yet he showed a readiness to go on with the rest, had these first two plays succeeded. His later emenda- tions of Aristophanes prove conclusively that he was master of the Greek. In places he does follow the French rather closely, but in the dedication he admits as much, excusing himself on the ground that since he is trying to make his readers understand Aristophanes, he is entitled to all the help possible. All through their notes Fielding and Young sneer at Theobald as "pious," "M. Dacier's good friend," and the like. When he refuses to be absolutely literal, as in the phrase " sharpen-eyed as an eagle," instead of "as a lynx," they ridicule him for not translating correctly ; where his and Madame Dacier's translations agree, they accuse him of translating the French and not the Greek. What they translate "sweetmeats" and Madame Dacier "con- fitures," Theobald translates "sugar-plums" and is ac- cused of following the French. The whole attack is unjust and unsupported by a comparison of the French and English translations. Many of the words Theobald is accused of '' Cf. Professor Lounsbury's Remarks on Disraeli's doubt of Theo- bald's knowledge of Greek. Text of Shakespeare, p. 133. Theobald's early life 11 taking over from the French may just as well have come from the Greek. Of the satires and epistles of Horace no translation ap- peared, and Theobald's only work in the Latin poets was a version of the first book of Ovid's Metamorphoses, a poet who was almost as popular as Horace. There is no copy of such a translation now, but Jacob mentions it, and John Dennis, while smarting under the appellation of "Furius" which Theobald had imposed upon him in The Censor, speaks of the latter having "lately burlesqued the Meta- morphoses of Ovid by a vile Translation." ^^ Inasmuch as circumstances largely controlled Theobald's literary activi- ties, this translation may have been a product of the interest in Ovid excited by Dry den and promoted by Garth. While Theobald's next work in the classics is not a trans- lation, it is well to consider it under that head. This is an historical romance garnered from Galen, Appian, Lucian, Julian, and Valerius Maximus." The author says he first thought of making a play of this subject, but after reading Corneille's Antiochus decided it would make a better narra- tive than drama. He treats the story rather freely, changing the parts he thinks necessary to make Christian readers better understand it. The last translation of Theobald, the Hero and Leander of the mythical Musaeus, appeared in The Grove, 1721. In this same miscellany appeared the selections from Aeschylus and Sophocles spoken of above, and also an imitation of the twenty-first idyl of Theocritus, entitled "The Fisherman; A Tale." These contributions do not merit critical comment. A modern critic calls Theobald's translations meritorious, and speaks of the "free and spirited blanck verse" of the ^ Remarks of Pope's Homer, p. 9; quoted in Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 719. ^ The History of the Loves of Antiochus and Stratonice: London, 1719. 12 LEWIS THEOBALD version of Sophocles and the "vigorous and racy colloquial prose" of the rendition of the two plays of Aristophanes.^' But not many years after his death there was an attempt to depreciate the worth of his work. The effect of The Dunciad grew with the years, and Pope's slanders were perpetuated by Warburton and Johnson. In 1753 Thomas Franklin, Fellow of Trinity College and Greek Professor in the University of Cambridge, issued proposals for trans- lating Sophocles into English blank verse. These proposals were printed at the end of a rather long poem called Trans- lation,^^ a satire upon translations and translators in general, praise being bestowed only upon Pope's Homer and Rowe's Pharsalia. But Theobald is especially marked for abuse, it being the custom then to consider him legitimate prey. Franklin places the blame for the low esteem in which translation was held on such translators as Theobald : The great translator bids each dunce translate. And ranks us all with Tibbald and with Tate. And he brings the aged accusation of pedantry against him : Or some dull pedant whose encumber'd brain O'er the dull page hath toil'd for years in vain, Who writes at last ambitiously to show How much a fool may read, how little know. Tis not enough that, fraught with learning's store. By the dim lamp the tasteless critic pore. But a champion rushes to the aid of the abused originals : Genius of Greece, (Jo thou my breast inspire With some warm portion of the poet's fire. From hands profane defend his much-lov'd name; From Cruel Tibbald wrest his mangled frame. 2' J. C. Collins, Essays and Studies, p. 276; and the article on Theo- bald in the Dictionary of National Biography. " Translation: a Poem. By Thomas Franklin. London, 1753. Theobald's eakly life 13 And in a note on this last passage : "Tibbald (or Theobald) translated two or three plays of Sophocles, and threatened the public with more." ^^ Much pleasure seemed to be derived from misspelling Theobald's name, but Franklin was scholar enough not to find fault, as Fielding did, with his knowledge of Greek. Although Franklin's work is much better known, I do not think that there is much to choose between their transla- tions. The earUer translator diiJers from the later in that he is evidently trying to popularize the Greek drama, going to some pains to make the meaning of obscure passages clear to those not versed in the classics. In the two plays of Aristophanes he translates the idioms and phrases into the idioms and expressions of his own time to such an extent that he was accused, as we have seen, of incorrect transla- tion. While the translations represent the bulk of Theobald's work for this period, he also engaged in original composi- tion. In 1707 his first attempt at poetry appeared, a Pindaric ode on the union of Scotland and England.'^ Six years later he pubUshed The Mausoleum, a poem written in heroic coup- lets and dedicated to Charles, Earl of Orrery.'^ This lugubri- ous effort, stilted and affected, was composed in imitation of several of the classical poets, chiefly Ovid, with the im- itated passages subjoined, and is full of praise for Pope and Addison. In 1715 Theobald translated Le Clerc's observations on Addison's travels, prompted by his ad- '" In marked contrast to Franklin's estimate of Theobald's work stands that of the first of classical scholars in Uterary taste, Richard Person, by whom Theobald's translations "were highly esteemed." See Reliquiae Hearnianae, ed. P. BUss, 1869, vol. 3, p. 137, note. "■ Gibber gives 1707 as the date of this poem. Lives of the Poets, vol. 5, p. 287. '^ The Mausoleum. A Poem. Sacred to the Memory of Her Late Majesty Written by Mr. Theobald. London, 1714. 14 LEWIS THEOBALD miration for the subject of the treatise.'' An entirely dif- ferent motive is discernible in a poem he gave to the world about this time, which was written on the recovery of the Duke of Ormonde from a dangerous illness.'^ This same year Theobald's most significant poem was published, The Cave of Poverty, ^^ in imitation of Shakespeare. A contemporary critic declared it to be excellent.'' It seems to have found its way across the charmel, and was the cause of an exchange of letters between Theobald and the Zurich professor of History and Pohtics, Johann Jacob Bodmer, who characterized it as a splendid poem, possessing not only the style of Shakespeare but his spirit itself.'^ This extravagant praise is worthy of notice when we remember that Bodmer, one of the forerunners of German Romanticism, "prepared the way for a new poetry of emotion and senti- ment." '* He translated Paradise Lost, and his Critical Disquisition on the Wonderful in Poetry, written in defense of Milton, brought about the feud with Gottschedd (who upheld French classicism), which resulted in the complete discomfiture of the latter. The unsohcited praise of such a man is not to be underestimated. Professor Loimsbury has shown how plain an imitation of Shakespeare the poem is : " Monsieur Le Clerc's Observations upon Mr. Addison's Travels Through Italy, etc. Also Some Account of the United Provinces of the Netherlands; chiefly with regard to their Trade and Riches, and a Par- ticular Account of the Bank of Amsterdam. Done from the French by Mr. Theobald. London, 1715. '* I have found no trace of ^his poem, but Theobald mentions it in his dedication of the Persian Princess to the Duchess of Ormond. " The Cave of Poverty, A Poem. Written in Imitation of Shakespeare. By Mr. Theobald. London. » Giles Jacob, Poetical Register, quoted in Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 711. " Appendix, p. 339. " Calvin Thomas, History of German Literature, p. 211. Theobald's early life 15 The truth is that the production throughout adopts and reflects Shakespeare's phraseology. There is frequently in it a faint echo of his style, and of the peculiar melody of his versification. Such characteristics could have been manifested only by one who had become thoroughly steeped in his diction, and especially in that of his two principal poems. These were so far from being well known at that time that they were hardly known at all.'' He continues to show how Theobald uses the six-line stanza of Veniis and Adonis, and points out the number of com- pound adjectives which he took directly out of Shakespeare's plays and poems. The use of compounds, however, he may have derived from the classics as well as from Shakespeare. In the essay prefixed to his translation of Hero and Leander he explains the use of compound epithets in the poem : Whether the Greek poem be as old as it is pretended, it was cer- tainly designed to be thought as old; and Compound Epithets were the darUng Laboiu" of those Times, as is plain to observe from ten thousand Instances in Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and in Aeschylus particularly, among the Tragicks. The poem strives somewhat after the crepuscular. It consists of one hundred and twenty-one stanzas of six iambic pentameters, and is divided into two parts. The first gives us a description of a terrible cave, with horrible pictures on all sides, where the Queen of Poverty harasses mankind. The place resembles Hades, and among its inhabitants Theobald is careful to include dissipated noble- men who failed to help needy men of letters. The second part describes two brass horns that collect all the sounds arising from the woe of poverty, and send them resounding to the ear of the queen. The complaints, reflecting in a pale way the soliloquy in the third act of Hamlet, lament the shifts to which one is put, the neglect of merit, and exaltation of vice. '' Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 184. 16 LEWIS THEOBALD Curse on the envious Fate, that tyes me down To Servile Ills my gen'rous Soul disdains! Curse on the Shifts my needy Age has known; The hated shifts which mighty Need constrains! Comfort-Killing State! Heart-Wounding Grief! Sorrows that admit no kind ReUef. duU Ingratitude! dost thou not shame To let Desert be brow-beat, and despis'd. To let Oppression with Contempt and Blame Brand its fair Cheek, and keep true Worth Dispriz'd? Or let it bear the Whips and Scorns of Time, Be spurned by Insolence, and deem'd a Crime. Shakespeare is not the only writer imitated in the poem, for the description of Poverty and her cave resembles closely the second and eighth books of the Metamorphoses. Theo- bald may have been influenced by Spenser, yet the descrip- tions in the Faerie Queene are not so similar as those in Ovid's poem, and at that time Theobald was much more intimately acquainted with the Roman than with the Elizabethan poet. This part of The Cave of Poverty furnished Pope with a handle to his attack on Theobald's indigence in the open- ing of The Dunciad, where the Cave of Poverty and Poetry is mentioned. It could also have suggested to Churchill some of the descriptions in the Prophecy of Famine. The same year, 1715, there was published a key, which has been ascribed to Theobald, to the What D'ye Call It.*" Professor Lounsbury calls attention to the fact that the only evidence we have for such an attribution is a note by Pope to an edition of his letters, 1735, where it is given to Grifirn, a player, assisted by Theobald. ''' The evidence is indeed slight. But if Pope wished to father it upon his opponent, " A C "These two lines are an excellent copy of the Author's Wit and Manners, Popery and Knitting are so admirably well put together, as things of equal Importance, that any man, who has but read the Celebrated Rape of the Lock, cannot be at a loss for the Author of these Lines." — P. 22. 18 LEWIS THEOBALD the numbers, however, are devoted to the drama, it having been the author's plan to give one issue a week to a discussion of the stage, and they frequently have something to say about Shakespeare. This periodical also gives us an idea of Theo- bald's interest in the classics and classical scholarship, for discussions of the Greek drama are second only to those of Shakespeare. One would think that Theobald had fared badly enough at the hands of Pope and succeeding generations without being represented as the object of any more satires than those of which he is actually the butt. Yet an attempt has been made to find an attack on him in Parnell's Life and Remarks of Zoilus appended to a translation of the Batracho- muomachia, 1717. Goldsmith appears to be the original authority for the idea that the satire was written at the re- quest of Parnell's friends and directed against Theobald and Dennis. Mr. Aitken repeats the statement without giving any reasons for the onslaught." Mr. Seccombe follows him, though implying that the cause of the attack was the fact that the two writers were objects of Pope's aversion." A recent biographer of Dennis, Mr. Paul, says the satire was probably due to Theobald's attacking Three Hours after Marriage and to the fact that he was a good representative of needy authors.** I do not know of any attack that Theo- bald ever made upon Three Hours, and besides, this play was not produced until 1717, while Zoilus was completed in the spring of 1715.*' The basis of Mr. Paul's conjecture may be a letter from Pope to farnell, 1717, where, after speaking of the criticism Three Hours had aroused, the writer adds, "The Best revenge upon such fellows is now in my hands, " The Poetical Works of Thomas Parnell, 1894, p. xlvi. " The Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. IX, p. 188. «• H. G. Paul, John Dennis, 1911, p. 93. " Elwin and Courthope, vol. 7, p. 457. Theobald's early life 19 I mean your Zoilus." The fact of the matter is that the original purpose of Zoilus was to anticipate criticism of Pope's translation of Homer. It was intended for the first volume of the Iliad, but since the author arrived in London too late, it was printed in the translation of the Odyssey.*'' Zoilus, I should conjecture, sprang out of Parnell's essay- on Homer, in which the irascible ancient is held up to abuse. Pope, fearing criticism of his translation, perhaps because of his shght loiowledge of Greek, probably prompted Parnell to the undertaking in order to forestall hostile attacks. In a joint letter from Pope and Gay to Parnell, March 18, 1715, Gay speaks of the indignation the What D'ye Call It had aroused, and asks, "Then where will rage end when Homer is to be translated? Let Zoilus hasten to your friend's assistance, and envious criticism shall be no more." ^^ Elwin and Courthope do not think it an attack on modern critics. If Pope had any particular critic in mind when he urged Parnell to write the treatise, I would hazard the guess that it was Bentley. Throughout this critic's long controversial career, Zoilus was the name most frequently appUed to him. As early as 1699 he had been so called. Furthermore, Parnell's description of Zoilus talhes so closely with that of Bentley given by the Christ Church Wits that it is difficult not to think the great critic was in Parnell's mind.*' There " Idem, vol. 7, p. 457. •" Elwin and Courthope, vol. 7, p. 464. <» "But what Assurance can such as Zoilus have, that the world will ever be convinc'd against an established Reputation, by such people whose faults in writing are so very notorious? Who judge against Rules, afifirm without Reasons, and censure without Manners? who quote themselves for a support of their Opinions, found their Pride upon a Learning in Trifles, and their Superiority upon Claims they magisterially make? Who write of beauties in a harsh Style, judge of Excellency with a Lowness of Spirit?" and so on. "But what appears extremely pleasant is, that at the same time 20 LEWIS THEOBALD is nothing in the production satirically appropriate to Theobald at that time, and probably Pope had never heard of him. Theobald lost no opportunity of turning to his own account any passing interest of the day. In 1719 George Sewell, Theobald's friend and the future editor of a supple- mentary volume to Pope's edition of Shakespeare, produced his tragedy Sir Walter Raleigh, which enjoyed considerable success, reaching a fifth edition within three years. The same year Theobald wrote a hfe of Raleigh, a shght and incomplete tract of no intrinsic value, but significant in be- iDg his first work dealing with the Elizabethan period.'" Two years later Theobald collected and pubUshed a volimie of miscellanies,*^ which contained his translations from Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Musaeus, and a few of his poems ; two prologues, one spoken by Mr. Keene, the other occasioned by his death; and a poem, To Cloe, upon her Retreat at Fulham. The largest contributor was a certain Dr. Kennick, a glowing account of whom is given in the preface. The collection is more remarkable in that it con- he condemns the passage, he should make use of it as an Opportunity to fall into an Ample Digression on the various Kinds of Mouse-Traps, and display that minute Learning which every critic of this sort is found to show himself Master of. This they imagine is tracing knowl- edge thro' its hidden Veins, and bringing Discoveries to daylight which time had cover'd over. Indefatigable and useless Mortals! who value themselves for knowledge of no consequences, and think of gaining Applause themselves by what the Reader is careful to pass over unread." '» Memoirs of Sir Walter Raleigh: London, 1719. Defoe, deeming Theobald's work unsatisfactory, himself undertook a slight sketch of Raleigh's career under the title An Historical Account of the Voyages and Adventures of Sir Walter Raleigh .... Humbly proposed to the South-Sea. [1720 but dated 1719.] " The Grove; or a Collection of Original Poems, Translaiions, etc. London, 1721. Theobald's early life 21 tains Dr. Bentley's only attempt at verse, a poem entitled A Reply and dealing with the hardships incurred by scholars.'^ From the very beginning of his career the future editor was interested in the drama. As early as 1708 his Persian Princess was acted at Drury Lane, when he was only twenty years of age.^ The play was not a success, and in his pref- ace the dramatist speaks sUghtingly of it, but the fact that it was accepted by the only theater in London argues some- thing in its favor." The author, however, thought it neces- sary to explain that since he was too deeply engaged in translating to try to amend it in any way, only the repeated importunities of friends forced him to pubUsh it. The plot does not seem to be derived from any incident in Persian history, so that the play is one of Theobald's few original pieces. The same year that saw the publication of this drama wit- nessed Theobald's second attempt on the stage, which had no better success than the first, but which reflects in an un- favorable way on his reputation. This was a tragedy called The Perfidious Brother. ^^ In the preface to the published play the author states that the report that the whole per- formance belonged to Meystayer, a watch maker, was prev- alent among mechanics, that he did nothing but supervise, correcting an odd word here and there. He admits that the '^ Gibber attributes to Theobald a work entitled The Gentlemen's Library, containing Rules for Conduct in all Parts of Life in 12 mo. 1722. '' The Persian Princess, or The Royal Villain. 12 mo. 1715. 4to, 1717. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 708, following Giles Jacob, makes a mistake in saying it was not published until 1717. The precocity shown in this production gained Theobald some notoriety. See Reliquiae Hearnianae, ed. P. Bliss, 1869, vol. 3, p. 137. " Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 125. "■' The Perfidious Brother, A Tragedy; As it is Acted at the New Theatre in Little Lincolns-Inn-Fields. By Mr. Theobald. London, 1715. 22 LEWIS THEOBALD play was put in his hand by Meystayer, but claims it was in such a condition that it required several months' work to make it presentable, so that he considered himself entitled to it. The following year the watch maker published his version of the play, with a dedication to Theobald, in which he speaks of his adversary in no uncertain tones. The latter made no reply. Both versions are wretched enough and the similarity is obvious, but since Meystayer's version was published after Theobald's, its evidential value is destroyed. What Theobald admits, however, is enough to condemn him for taking all the credit, or discredit, for the production. On December 10, 1719, Theobald's adaptation of Shake- speare's Richard II was performed at Lincoln's Inn Fields, and met with some success, being acted seven times.** In his alterations he omitted Acts I and II, with the exception of some speeches which he transposed, and introduced a love story. Genest points out one absurdity into which Theobald fell, and thinks his "additions are flat and his alteration on the whole is a very bad one ; but considerably more than half the play is Shakespeare's." " Some of Theobald's lines seem to be very good ; in fact, they consti- tute the best poetry he wrote, and show clearly how closely he had studied Shakespeare. In the preface to this alteration Theobald states that bis purpose was twofold : "to interweave the many scatter'd Beauties into a regular Fable"; and to do Shakespeare "'some Justice upon the Points of his Learning and Acquaint- ance with the Ancients." All his life he held to the belief that the dramatist had more classical learning than was " The Tragedy of King Richard the II ; As it is aded at the Theatre in Lincoln' s^nn- fields. Alter'd from Shakespeare, By Mr. Theobald. London, 1720. " History of English Stage, vol. 3, p. 34. Theobald's early life 23 generally accredited him, though his later discovery of Ehzabethan translations was very disconcerting to this view. Here, however, Theobald argues that in Troilus and Cressida Shakespeare depended more upon Homer than upon Lollius or Chaucer, and that Timon shows the poet to have been familiar with Plutarch in the original.'* His ignorance of North's Plutarch and The Three Destructions of Troy, both of which he later discovered, shows that he had not dipped very deep into the literature accessible to Shakespeare. Yet he had broken ground in his life of Raleigh, and this attempt at proving Shakespeare's learning shows him ap- proaching the poet rather from a scholar's point of view than from that of a literary critic. Theobald's most persistent appearance on the stage was not in the legitimate drama.'' There arose during his life- time a new species of entertainment known as the pantomime. The first to claim credit for introducing these performances into England was John Weaver, a dancing master, who in 1702 put forth a production. The Cheats of Scapin; or The Tavern Bilkers, of which he said that it was the first perform- ance on the English stage to carry on the story by dancing and motion only. Fourteen years later he produced The Loves of Mars and Venus,^" in imitation of the ancient pan- tomime and, according to his claim, the first to appear since the Roman Empire. This was rapidly followed by several others of similar names and nature — Perseus and Androm- eda, Orpheus and Eurydice, and Cupid and Bacchus. In 1728 Weaver published a list of all the pantomimes, which '* Theobald accepted "Lollius" in good faith. ^' Giles Jacob, in his Poetical Register, vol. 1, p. 259, speaks of Theo- bald having a tragedy, The Death of Hannibal, ready for the stage before 1720. It was never acted or pubhshed. '" This is probably the performance to which Gibber refers when he speaks of a succession of monstrous medleys following a story of Mars and Venus. 24 LEWIS THEOBALD he divided into two classes, those "in imitation of the Ancient Pantomime," and those "after the manner of the modem ItaUans." His own seem to have been chiefly of the first class, which consisted in relating some classical fable by- motion and dancing, without any Harlequin entertainment. In 1716 John Rich opened his Lincoln's Inn Fields theater, where, in his competition with Drury Lane, he was forced to produce a new species of performance. At first this con- sisted of entertainments in the Itahan style introducing the conventional characters, Harlequin, Pantaloon, Columbine, and the like. As early as April, 1716, he appeared as Harle- quin in an unnamed production. Such entertainments he continued to give with some success until 1723, when he pro- duced The Necromancer or Dr. Faustus to outdo a pantomime of a somewhat similar title at Drury Lane." His success was great, and from that time on pantomime continued to draw crowded houses, much to the disgust of the literati. Rich himself does not seem to have taken much pride in this sort of genius, and frankly admits that necessity com- pelled him to take such a course. In the dedication to The Rape of Proserpine, 1726, the actor says : As for the other Parts, it might, perhaps, seem an Affectation in me to detain you with the History of the Antient Pantomime Entertainments, or to make a long Apology for the Revival of them at present. This much, however, may be said in their favor, that this Theatre has of late ow'd its support in great Measure to them. I own myself extremely indebted to the Favour with which the town is pleased to receive my attempts to entertain them in this kind; and do engage for my own part, that whenever the public taste shall be disposed to return to the works of the drama, no one shall rejoice more sincerely than myself. " "Rich had produced some little Harlequinades in the taste of the Italian Night-scenes, but his genius does not seem to have blazed forth till about 1723." Genest, vol. 3, p. 155. Theobald's early life 25 The typical Rich pantomime was a combination of the Harlequinade and Weaver's classical pantomime. Rich, however, reversed the order of things. Whereas in the continental performances of Harlequin the actors spoke, in the English pantomime it was all dumb show ; and while Weaver told his ancient fable by motion only, verse and song were used in Rich's entertainment. The backbone of this performance was a versified love story from Ovid or some other classical author, written in a most serious vein and interspersed with dances and songs, — in fine, an opera, — while between the divisions of the story comic interludes were supplied by the capers of Harlequin in an entirely separate plot which generally hinged on the courting of Columbine. The stage setting for both parts was most elaborate and surprising, the serious part being represented with most spectacular scenery, while the comic was carried out by means of ingenious devices for transforming scenes and objects. So prevalent became this type of pantomime that Rich has been called the father of English pantomime. Perhaps the opportunity for spectacular scenes led him to combine the two incongruous elements contained in the show, though Fielding says it was for the sake of contrast : This entertainment consisted of two parts, which the inventor distinguished by the names of serious and comic. The serious exhibits a certain number of heathen gods and goddesses who are certainly the worst and dullest company into which an audience was ever introduced; and (which was a secret known to a few) were actually intended so to be in order to contrast the comic part of the entertainment and to display the tricks of Harlequin to the better advantage. This was perhaps not very civil of such personages, but the contrivance was nevertheless ingenious enough and had its effect. And this wiU now plainly appear if instead of serious and comic, we supply the words duller and dullest; for 26 LEWIS THEOBALD the comic was certainly duller than anything before shown on the stage and could be set off only by that superlative degree of dull- ness which composed the serious.''' In the constructing of these pantomimes Theobald was very closely associated with his friend, John Rich. He furnished the serious or vocal parts described above, from which, as a rule, pantomime, took their names. In all he contributed the verse to nearly a third of Rich's repertoire. Previously, however, he had composed several trivial pieces, all presented at Lincoln's Inn Fields. One was a one-act opera. Pan and Syrinx, produced in 1717. In 1718 he fur- nished the songs and a little of the poetry to Elkanah Settle's The Lady's Triumph, as well as the masque of Dedus and Paulina, which occurs in the last act of Settle's produc- tion.*' Two of the songs were also inserted in the opera Circe. Theobald began his pantomimes with Harlequin Sorcerer, with the Loves of Pluto and Proserpine, 1725, which drew crowded houses even after its revival at Covent Garden in 1753. The same year, 1725, saw the production of The Rape of Proserpine, which was extremely popular and con- sequently called forth the wrath of the critics of this species of literature." The following year appeared Apollo and Daphne, or The Burgo-Master Trick' d, and after intervals of four years each appeared, respectively, Perseus and Androm- eda and Merlin; or the Devil of Stone-Henge. This last «2 Tom Jones, Pt. 5, Ch^. 1. Fielding satirized pantomime in TumhUdown Dick, or Phaeton in the Suds, 1744. *' James Miller, in his Harlequin-Horace, 1731, p. 9, has reference to this when he says, "Why should to modern Tibbald be denied What antient Settle would have own'd with Pride ?" " Pope, Dunciad, Bk. 3, 1. 310 and note. Grub-street Journal, No. 98, November 18, 1731. James Miller, Harlequin-Horace, p. 27. Theobald's early life 27 was the only one to appear at Drury Lane, and is the most wretched of these dull productions.^^ Theobald's last pantomune, Orpheus and Eurydice; an Opera, was produced at Covent Garden February 12, 1740, but had been pubUshed the preceding year. Genest says this entertainment "was very successful the descrip- tion of it occupied the bills for a considerable time, and the plays were advertised without the characters." ^ It was revived in 1747, and again in 1755, when it ran for thirty-one nights. It was again presented in 1768, and in 1787 was performed by royal command." As an example of Theo- bald's work in this field it may be well to quote a synopsis given by Mr. Broadbent in his history of the pantomime.*' The following was the argument and the curious arrangement of the scenes: — Interlude I. Rhodope, Queen of Thrace, practising art magic, makes love to Orpheus. He rejects her love. She is enraged. A serpent appears who receives Rhodope's commands, and these ended, glides off the stage. Here the comic part begins. In the Opera (as practically it was) a scene takes place between Orpheus and Eurydice. Eurydice's heel is pierced by the ser- pent, behind the scenes. She dies on the stage — • after which the comic part is continued. Interlude II. Scene: HeU. Pluto and Orpheus enter. Orpheus prevails on Pluto to restore Eury- dice to him. Ascalox tells Orpheus that Eurydice shall follow him, but that if he should look back at her before they shall have passed the bounds of Hell, she will die again. Orpheus turns back to look for Eurydice, Fiends carry her away. After this the comic part is resumed. Interlude III. Orpheus again rejects Rhodope's solicitations. Departs. The scene draws, and dis- '^ Some of the pantomimes were unusually long-lived. The Rape of Proserpine, for instance, has been performed once or twice in this century. «= Genest, vol. 3, p. 618. " See A History of Pantomime, by R. J. Broadbent, p. 160. " Idem, p. 158. Broadbent's account was taken from Genest, vol. 3, pp. 618-620. 28 LEWIS THEOBALD covers Orpheus slain. Several Baccants enter in a triumphant manner. They bring in the lyre and chaplet of Orpheus. Rho- dope stabs herself. The piece concludes with the remainder of the comic part. The above pantomime was the cause of an attack on both Rich and Theobald. The number of well-known love stories of the ancients, which formed the basis for the serious parts of these entertaiimients, was rather limited ; and so, with the increasing demand for pantomime, repetition was inevitable." In December, 1738, John Hill, an apothecary, published an opera, Orpheus, in the preface to which he accuses Rich of being about to produce an opera stolen from a rejected copy of his.'"' The next year Rich published his pantomime, in the advertisement to which he speaks of Hill's "chimerical suggestions." He followed this up with a detailed defense of his conduct in Mr. Rich's Answer to the many Falsities and Calumnies Advanced by Mr. John Hill, Apothecary, and Contained in the Preface to Orpheus, an English Opera, as he calls it, Published on Wednesday the 26th of December last. Hill waited some time and came back in 1741 with his An Answer to the many Plain and Notorious Lyes Advanc'd by Mr. John Rich, Harlequin; and contain'd in a Pamphlet, which he vainly and foolishly calls. An Answer to Mr. Hill's Preface to Orpheus. If judgment is based upon these two productions, Rich seems to be in the right. He goes very "There were some five operas and pantomimes under the title of Orpheus and Eurydice. '" This was the notorious Sir John HUl, half quack and half scientist, whose life was a series of controversies: with the Royal Society because they would not admit him to membership; with Fielding, who replied in the Covent Garden Journal; with Christopher Smart, who honored him with The Hilliad ; and with several actors including Garrick — in all of which he invariably got the worst of it. "Hill was a man of unscrupulous character, with considerable abilities, great perserver- ance, and unlimited impudence." — D. N. B. Theobald's early life 29 minutely into detail, produces many testimonies, points out many dissimilarities between the two works, and in- dulges in little abuse. Hill pursues the opposite course, and while producing no proofs makes up the deficiency with constant revilings. These are especially severe against Theobald, whom he accuses of stupidity and impertinence and styles Rich's poet, friend, and privy counselor. He calls Pope to witness against Theobald, and refers his readers to the Bathos and The Dunciad. Rich says that he was in- formed by Hill that the latter had one thousand pounds put up by a gentleman, to back him. By the praise of Pope and abuse of Theobald, one is led to wonder whether the former was still persisting in his efforts to injure the hero of The Dunciad?'^ The tremendous popularity of these performances was due to spectacular scenery, unusual costtunes, and the tricks and "stimts" done on the stage. They were a combina- tion of the New York Hippodrome and Ringhng Brothers' Circus. And just as a circus is considered vulgar, and every one goes, so pantomimes were considered very low, and drew crowded houses. The sanctimonious upholders of the legitimate drama Ufted their hands in holy horror at such a desecration of the stage, and bewailed the passing of the drama. Pantomimes could find no defenders but the box office. Even those responsible for their production — composer, producer, and actor — spurned their own handi- " Another production of similar nature, though not a pantomime, and the last to come from Theobald's hand, appeared in 1741, entitled The Happy Captive, an English Opera, In Two Comick Scenes, Betwixt Signor Capaccio, a Director from the Canary Islands; and Signora Dorima, a Virtuosa. The story, which, like Double Falshood, is founded on the first part of Don Quixote, is contained in three short acts, be- tween which are two comic interludes written to ridicule the ItaUan opera. These last, Genest says, possess much greater merit than the serious part. The opera was never performed. 30 LEWIS THEOBALD work. Gibber detested them, Rich apologized for them, and Theobald had nothing to say in their favor J'' The last named had least right to be proud of this popularity, for his part in the entertainments was universally considered wretched. His persistent appearance in this low species of dull verse emphasizes one fact that stands out prominently in his life previous to Shakespeare Restored. With a pronounced pref- erence for hterary over legal affairs, law being his nonunal profession, he did not discover his true interest or powers, and was forced to resort to all kinds of shifts in earning a livelihood, The hated Shifts which mighty Need constrains! Besides his various poems of eulogy and dedications ad- dressed to popular noblemen, such works as the lives of Cato and Raleigh show that he was ever on the alert to turn to his own account any success of the day. Although again and again he shows his close study of Shakespeare, it is doubtful whether he would ever have discovered the work for which he was fitted had he not seen a possible oppor- tunity to ride to success on the interest created by Pope's edition. Furthermore, he lacked originality. Most of his dramatic ventures were adaptations or reworkings. His best poem is an avowed imitation. It is in his translations that the Theobald of this period is seen at his best. In these he seemed to take more pride than in other produc- tions, and his interest m the Greek drama was genuine and inteUigent. " See the dedication of Shakespeare Restored to John Rich, a remarkable performance, where Theobald apologises for dedicating his work on Shakespeare to the man who had done so much to drive him from the stage, on the ground that he had received some financial assistance from Rich. CHAPTER II THE KAGE FOR EMENIDNG Theobald marks the beginning of a new era in Shake- spearean textual criticism. Adequate recognition of his services has been slow in coming, but now his reputation is fairly well established. In the study of his work on Shakespeare, it has been the custom to approach the subject from the tradition of the text.' This is the more logical and profitable process as far as the mere results of scholar- ship are concerned, but if attention is turned to the method by which these results were obtained, it becomes necessary to depart from the beaten path and seek a source elsewhere. The direction from which I have seen fit to approach this first great editor is from the classical scholarship of his day. Classical scholarship prior to the nineteenth century has been divided into three periods : the Italian, the French or Polyhistorical, and the Enghsh and Dutch.^ The chief concern of the Italians was with the form of the classics. Politian, Poggio, Erasmus, and others studied Latin and Greek writers with the end in view of reproducing these models in their own productions. They were not so much interested in the accuracy or content of texts as they were with literary form. The members of the French school, on the other hand, turned their attention to the subject ' The Text of Shakespeare, its history from the publication of the quartos and folios down to and including the publication of the editions of Pope and Theobald. By Thomas R. Lounsbury, LH.D., L.L.D., New York, 1906. ^ See Sandys, History of Classical Scholarship, vol. 2, p. 1; R. C. Jebb, Richard Bentley, pp. 202, 203; and Jebb's article on Bentley in the D. N. B. 32 LEWIS THEOBALD matter of the classics. Viewing antiquity as a whole, they sought to discover and preserve the history, thought, and manners of the Greeks and Romans. The most important productions of this period were J. Scaliger's investigations in the chronology of the ancients and Casaubon's work on their Ufe and manners.' The EngUsh and Dutch school began a few years previous to the eighteenth century, and had for its concern historical, literary, and verbal criticism, especially the latter.* The father of this school was Richard Bentley.^ Never have the pursuits of scholars been so dominated by a single in- fluence as those of the eighteenth century were dominated by Bentley. A study of the scholarship of this period resolves itself chiefly into a consideration of this one man. He turned the attention of scholars in a new direction, ' Textual criticism was not ignored in these two periods. In the preparation of manuscripts the early scholars and monks exercised their emending ingenuity whenever they saw fit, tacitly introducing their conjectures into the text. (See W. M. Lindsay, An Introduction to Latin Textual Emendation, 1896, p. 1.) Two of these early scholars, NiccoU (1363-1437) and Laurentius VaUa (1407-1457), achieved some valuable results. In 1567 Robortelli laid the foimdation of textual criticism in his De Arte sive Raiione Corrigendi Antiquos Idbros Dis- putatio, nunc primum a me excogitaia, while in the same period J. Scaliger pointed the way to a sounder method of emendation founded on the genuine tradition of the manuscript. See Sandys, op. cU., vol. 1, pp. 43, 69; vol. 2, pp. 142, 201. James Harris {Philological Inquiries, 1781, Pt. 1, p. 32) says that at first the business of this early textual criticism "was painfully to col- late aU the various Copies of authority, and then, from amidst the variety of Readings thus collmted, to establish by good reasons either the true, or the most probable." In 1582 Victorinus published thirty- eight books of Variae Lectiones, while from 1559 to 1585 Mur^tus pub- lished nineteen books. Yet during these two periods emphasis was not placed on verbal criticism, and no method was established. * Sandys, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 1. ' R. C. Jebb, Richard Bentley, p. 216; J. H. Monk, lAfe of Richard Bentley, vol. 1, p. 15; and article on Bentley in Enc. Brit., ninth ed. THE RAGE FOE EMENDING 33 causing them to pattern their pursuits after his.^ He es- tablished a new attitude toward the classics by placing a pronounced stress upon one phase of their study, and he inaugurated a method that was to have a great influence with succeeding scholars. Owing to his success in this new and individual field, a shifting of values took place ; so great was this shift and so permanent was Bentley's influence, there was Uttle diminution in the value attributed to textual criticism throughout the whole of the eighteenth century. That this century to-day stands for a period of textual criticism, not only in the classics but also in English, is due almost entirely to the tremendous impetus given this par- ticular study by Bentley and his critical method. Although Bentley's first great work in the classics was concerned with literary and historical criticism,' he soon departed on a path more essentially his own — verbal criticism.' His interest in this phase of scholarship was apparent from the very beginning. The pages of his Epistle to Mill and his "Inunortal Dissertation" are strewn with emendations.' No matter what argument he is engaged ' I have reference chiefly to English scholars, although his influence was ahnost as pronounced on some of the continental scholars, es- pecially the Dutch. ' His Dissertation on the Epistles of Phxdaris is considered the first piece of scientific research. ' R. C. Jebb, Richard Bentley, p. 215. ' "He seemed gifted with an intuitive sagacity not merely to detect error, but to trace the source of it — words which seem thrown together at random, receive sense and meaning at one touch of his wand. . . . On the whole it might be fairly asserted of the Epistle to Mill, that no work of classical criticism had yet appeared since the revival of letters, which in the same number of pages contained such variety of informa- tion, so many happy emendations, or which so clearly showed that a new school of criticism was about to commence, which would own Bentley as its legitimate parent." — De Quincey's review of Monk's Life of Bentley, Quarterly Review, vol. XLVI, p. 125. 34 LEWIS THEOBALD upon, he never hesitates to stop and correct a faulty passage he may have occasion to quote. The fragments he contrib- uted to Graevius' edition of CalHmachus are brilHantly corrected in many places, while the three critical epistles attached to Kuster's Aristophanes are composed entirely of emendations on that poet.'" Bentley may well be considered the first modern scholar, for the elements underlying his scholarship are still operative. First there was a massive erudition gained from most ac- curate and extensive reading of books and manuscripts. He is reported to have said that he would be ready to die at eighty, since by then he would have read everything worth reading. A glance through any of his notes and a notice of the many authors therein cited will convince any one of the extensiveness of his erudition. But this erudition could not have been of much use had it not been in working shape. Scholars hke Joshua Barnes had learning, but they did not know how to handle it. Bentley systematized his knowledge. He constructed a Hexapla, in the first colxmm of which he inserted every word of the Hebrew Bible, and in other colimms the corresponding words in Chaldee, Syriac, the Vulgate, Latin, and the Septuagint.'^ The collection of the fragments of Callimachus which he sent to Graevius, collected from innmnerable sources, shows at once that he must have had some sort of index of writers " After speaking of Erasmus, Scaliger, and Casaubon, Jebb says Bentley "feels the greatness of his predecessors as it could be felt only by their peer, but see^that the very foundations on which they built — the classical books themselves — must be rendered sound, if the edifice is to be upheld or completed. He does not disparage "higher" criticism in which his own powers were so signally proved; rather his object is to estabUsh it firmly on the only basis which can securely support it, the basis of ascertained texts." — R. C. Jebb, Richard Bentley, p. 216. " Monk, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 14. THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 35 quoted by subsequent commentators, which, indeed, Monk says he had.'^ Not only did he systematize his knowledge in actual ways, as the above, but his mind must have con- tained it in some such state. Whenever he wishes to prove a point, he has a way of bringing forth all the stores of ancient Hterature that pertain to it. I think it hardly fair to Bentley or his critical method to attribute to chance, as De Quincey does, the out-of-the-way evidence he calls in to support his thesis." The spirit of modern scholarship is the desire to gain with minute accuracy all the information and evi- dence on the subject of the investigation, arranged and ordered in its proper relations. Imbued with this spirit, Bentley, instead of losing himself in a maze of unorganized knowledge, learned to systematize his material in such a way that he could focus upon a point, however minute, almost all that could throw any light upon it. Another support of Bentley's method was logic. In this, together with judgment, he seemed to take most pride. In the Phalaris dissertation he frequently twits Boyle (and with him his collaborators) for his lack of logic." While depreciating a discovery of his own Bentley says, "Such a discovery is but a business of chance, or at the best of bare industry, neither is there any sagacity or judgment required to it." '* Again, "If I do not make false judgments of things, and if I reason truly from premises, for a bare error of the memory I shall not be solicitous." ^^ He had perfect command over the materials of his learning, and built up his proofs with all the sureness and accuracy of a master builder. There had been scholars of as great if not greater " Idem, vol. 1, p. 16. " The Collected Writings of Thomas De Quincey, by Davi3 Masson. London, 1897, vol. IV, pp. 198, 215. " A. Dyce, Works of Richard Bentley, vol. 2, p. 16. 1' A. Dyce, Works of Richard Bentley, vol. 1, p. 428. " Idem, vol. 2, p. 27. 36 LEWIS THEOBALD erudition, but none whose reasoning was so close and clear. Whether he is eradicating a textual error, controverting atheists, or establishing the spuriousness of the Phalaris letters, the same powerful analytical spirit is active. In addition Bentley's work has the touch of the modern spirit in its insistence on minute accuracy. He spends a score of pages of his Epistola ad Millium proving that "Male- las" should be written with an "s." This insistence upon "trifles" was the ground of the bitterest attacks on him as a pedant. His enemies believed that only the large things, such as sentiment and philosophy, wpre of importance. In the preface to his examination of Bentley's dissertation Boyle characterizes the Phalaris controversy as trivial and frivolous." "I am not very fond of Controversies even where the Points debated are of some importance; but in trivial matters, and such as Mankind is not at all concern'd in, methinks they are unpardonable." Another feature of this minute study that attracted the scorn of the wits was the estabUshment of chronology, to which Bentley had paid considerable attention in his dissertation. They ask the question what use it is to know that a writer was born in such and such a consulship or Olympiad ; better spend the time comprehending and studying the works of the ancients. Bentley used his extensive learning, not to express a general view of antiquity, but to estabUsh some particular point. He was master of his knowledge, and wielded it with ruthless logic toward the correction of error and the establishment of truth. In comparing Bentley with Scaliger Jebb says. While Scaliger had constantly before him the conception of antiq- uity as a whole to be mentally grasped, Bentley's criticism rested " Dr. Bentley's Dissertalion on the Epistles of Phalaris, and the Fables of Aesop examin'd By the Honourable Charles Boyle, Esq. London, 1698. THE RAGE FOK EMENDING 37 on a knowledge more complete in detail; it was also conducted with a closer and more powerful logic.'* As stated previously, Bentley's work falls into the two divisions of "higher" and textual criticism. He himself laid the emphasis upon the latter, and it was this that exerted such an influence over English scholarship in the eighteenth century. The critical method employed in both these fields was practically the same, although directed toward different ends. Compare, for instance, his works on Phalaris and Horace. There is in both the abandonment of tradi- tion for the deductions of reason from knowledge, in the one the tradition of authorship, in the other the tradition of old readings ; the same systematic use of all the stores of his knowledge toward the establishment, in one, of a histori- cal or chronological fact, in the other, of a new reading; and the same copious and pertinent citing of authorities. Nor is his logic more conspicuous in one than the other, al- though in textual criticism it led him into more mistakes, because logic and poetry do not always agree so well as logic and fact. Since we are concerned chiefly with the textual side of Bentley's criticism, it will be well to analyze his notes, the concrete expression of his critical method. Practically all of them conform to the same model. The passage with the common or accepted reading is first introduced, and together with the various manuscript readings and previous emendations is critically examined." One by one '« R. C. Jebb, Richard Bentley, p. 213. " Cf. Latin Manuscripts, by Harold W. Johnston, Chicago, 1897. The method here given by Professor Johnston for modern textual criticism taUies almost exactly with that employed by Bentley, the only difference being that, owing to the improved study of paleography and manuscripts, more attention is now paid to diplomatic criticism. Practically all the technical terms we use are derived from this book. Grammatical criticism has to do with violations of the laws of the 38 LEWIS THEOBALD the different readings are subjected to a searching exam- ination. Where grammatical, historical, or aesthetic tests prove a corruption in the manuscript and failure on the part of previous scholars to remove it, Bentley flashes upon us his emendation. Immediately he begins to apply the tests again in support of his conjecture. He brings forth his knowledge of grammar, metrics, history, and the customs of the ancients, and shows the consistency of his correction with the rest of the passage. As one of his main supports he quotes from various authors passages in which the word he puts forward is used in a similar way, or passages which prove a historical or grammatical fact which he as- serts in support of his emendation.^" Even where his corrections are absolutely unconvincing, these commentaries are often of value, so that Bentley teaches even when he is wrong. So well defined is this method that the quaUties that came to be attributed to critics can with some definiteness be locaUzed. Judgment (judicium) operated in ascertaining that there was an error in the text, sagacity (sagacitas or ingenium) invented the emendation, and learning (eruditio) language, and with passages where there is unintelligibility or con- tradiction in thought. Historical criticism is operative when the passage contradicts knowledge gained from other sources. Aesthetic criticism levies upon what offends the taste, as unpoetical, unoratorical, undignified, etc. Professor Johnston's method falls into three divi- sions: the critical doubt, and the failure of diplomatic criticism to eradicate it; the emendation; and the conjectural criticism, which brings to bear all the test^to support the emendation, pp. 86-112. "> For example see his note on Horace, Bk. Ill, Carm. VI, v. 20, where, to "sustain the audacity of this conjecture by weight of num- bers and thick phalanxes," he quotes four separate passages from Virgil, one from Ovid, four from Martial, three from Statius, one from Ausonius, one from Prudentius, one from LuciUus, one from Cicero, and one from Claudian. THE EAGE FOR EMENDING 39 tested and supported the emendation.^^ Of course learning was brought to play on all parts of the method (as was, to a less degree, judgment), but it was shown more conspicuously in supporting a reading. The success of Bentley's method was noticeable from the start. His Epistle to Mill, published 1691, contains a large number of emendations, the quality of which led one scholar to say, after reading the proof sheets of the work, that Bentley was the only living person competent to restore the remains of the Greek poets from the depredations of time. A few years later his notes sent to continental scholars drew from their lips the highest encomiums, and expressions such as "the new light of learning" became quite the order of the day.^^ In England scholars were somewhat slower in ap- preciating Bentley. Since he had been on the unpopular side in the Phalaris controversy, and was engaged in a long drawn-out dispute in Trinity College, personal feelings and prejudices operated against recognition of his genius. But with the publication of Horace, 1711, there was no dodging the issue; English scholars began to show an awakened interest and appreciation. John Davies, who had spoken highly of Bentley in the preface to his edition of Cicero's Tusculans, 1709, a few years later calls him "literae Bri- tanniae decus." ^' Clark, in the preface to his edition of Caesar, 1712, speaks of Bentley as a "vir in hujus modi rebus peritia incredibili, et criticus unus omnes longe longeque judicio et sagacitate antecellans." Francis Hare judged '^ See the close of Styvan Thirlby's dedication of his edition of Justin Martyr, where he says Grabius is no critic, lacking genius, judgment, and learning: Casaubon very learned, but in want of judg- ment and genius. Here genius (ingenium) means sagacity, or that quality in a critic that must be rather innate than acquired. '' See the Letter to the Bishop of Ely, where Bentley enumerates the scholars who held him in high esteem, a passage ridiculed by Swift in A Vindication of Isaac Bickerstajf. 2s "Lectori" to edition of Cicero's De Natura Deorum, 1717. 40 LEWIS THEOBALD him to be easily the first in critical matters," and Jeremiah Markland in various places praised him in exaggerated terms.^^ Scholars of the old school, such as Joshua Barnes, and beUevers in the pohte type of learning, such as the Christ Church group and their attendants, set themselves in op- position to Bentley and all he stood for. But the rising generation of scholars — Hare, Markland, Pearce, and the like — soon fell in behind him. More and more attention began to be paid to the obscurity of texts. The impulse toward textual criticism came from him, and his method was adopted; even the manner of correcting and the form of textual notes resembled his more or less closely.''^ Bentley began an epoch; he established a new school of criticism, to which the greatest scholars of later times have belonged.^ The greatest fault with Bentley's criticism was his predi- lection for conjecture beyond reasonable limits. While his work was by no means confined to this single phase — his collation was thorough and his elucidations very in- structive — he soon made it apparent that he considered conjectural criticism his forte. It was in this that he ex- " Hare's edition of Terence. London, 1724. Praefatio, p. xxvi. ^' For further appreciation of Bentley, see Bibliographia Literaria (1723), No. 6, Article 3, and the two poems addressed to Bentley at the end of the article, the first in Greek trochaics, "Clarissimo Viro R. Bentleio post Lambinium et Torrentium suas in Horatium Ani- madversiones evulganti"; the other in Latin elegiacs, "In Horatium nitori pristino restitutum VI Idus Deoembris, die quo natus ipse est, a Summo Viro R. B." This article was written by Wasse, who in the prefaces to his edition of Salust, 1710, called Bentley a "vir in omni literarum genere maximus." " For example, see J. Markland's edition of Statins, London, 1728, p. 117. For less conspicuous examples, see the notes in Zackary Pearce's edition of the De Sublimitate of Longinus, 1724. " See Monk, op. cU., vol. 1, p. 15; vol. 2, p. 418; and the article on Bentley in Enc. Brit., ninth ed. THE HAGE FOR EMENDING 41 perienced most joy and won most praise. The older he grew, the more inchned he became to trust his own judg- ment as to what an author wrote, until his rashness came near dimming the luster of his earlier brilUant work. This emphasis upon emendatory criticism was made known to the pubUc in a most emphatic way in his edition of Horace, 1711. In the preface to that work the great critic first declared, in so many words, that he considered conjecture more certain than manuscript reading, and reason and the sense of the passage itself stronger than a hundred manu- scripts. In his previous emendations he had often departed from the manuscripts, but his conjectures were made nearly entirely on Greek authors where the manu- scripts were very corrupt and their meaning unintelligible. On the other hand, the manuscripts and editions of Horace were numerous and fairly good ; much care, also, had been expended upon the text in the way of collation and emenda- tion. Thus Bentley did not find as broad a field for con- jecture as formerly. Before, he had restricted himself to passages where the meaning was almost or entirely obscured ; but in this edition unintelligibiUty ceased to be the main reason for conjecture. He tried to introduce into Horace a verbal accuracy and logical consistency, and trusted his judgment of what was elegant or smooth to such an extent as to make it a determining factor in his conjectures. The effect of this performance was twofold. Jebb says, "But whUe the Horace shows Bentley 's critical method on a large scale and in a most striking form, it illustrates his defects as conspicuously as his strength." ^* The defect was a readiness, doubtless engendered by previous success in corrupt Greek texts, to correct, by strict logic and the normal usage of words, passages which made very good meaning as they stood — a readiness that proved disastrous to " R. C. Jebb. op. cit., p. 125. 42 LEWIS THEOBALD Bentley because he possessed a judiciutri logicum rather than judicium poeticum. The liberty of emending was naturally resented by a few scholars. Bishop Hare represents this feeling in saying,^' The foremost men in criticism have bound themselves with such reverence to trust in the parchments in the recension of the writ- ings of the ancients, that they alwaj-s considered it wrong to with- draw the least particle from these, unless in a case that is completely understood, or to insert conjectures into the text of an author which are not clear, transparent, certain, and plainly necessari.-. This was the plan of the critics in handling the writings of the ancients, this their religion, until Bentley, " that new Ught of our Britain," arose, who as if he had obtained, sole and alone, the highest place in Criticism, denied that laws apphed to him, and does not suffer himself to be restrained by any rules; he recognizes no limit to the power of his criticism; by ^^^tue of his arbitrary au- thority he riots with impunity in the writings of the ancients; and allows whatever pleases. But the more powerful effect of the Horace was to strengthen a growing attitude toward texts. Scholars began to ^"iew them with suspicious eyes. In his edition of Statius, Markland says there are things in the Aeneid which he, although the worst poet in the world, would not admit into a poem of his — many passages contradictory, languid, trifling, defective in the spirit and majesty of heroic poetrj*. He exclaims what a divine poet "S'irgil would have been had he always written as he did in the second, fourth, and sixth books. Then he adds. "Et tu quidem sic omnia Scriptsisses, si tibi permissent Tempus et male feristi Homines : sed ntmc pars minima es ipse Tui." '" Texts were judged, a priori, to be corrupt, blame being laid upon time and the gram- marians. It was of no moment that a reading was perfectly " Epistola Critiai, p. 4 (translated from the Latin). " Statius, 172S. Praefatio, p. -i-iii. THE KAGE FOR EMENDING 43 intelligible and no corruption evident ; one might lurk deep beneath the surface. To correct an obvious obscurity was glory enough, but to correct an unsuspected reading was more glorious still. In a letter to Warburton, Theobald says with much pride, "I have been so impudent as to sus- pect that Eustathius sometimes wants restoring, where he has never before, that I know, been suspected of being faulty." '^ Men sought for faults, and because they read texts with this idea in mind, discovered many obscurities that were merely their own hallucinations. They were obsessed with this idea of faulty texts. Bentley's Horace had opened their eyes to many interpretations of which they had never dreamed. Atterbury might well express his alarm over finding so many places in Horace that he had not understood before. This distrust of accepted readings became something like a psychological prepossession, wherein conjecture assumed an added glory. What else can explain Bentley's Milton? In this skeptical attitude towards books and manuscripts and in the search for possible inconsistencies, the wish became father of the thought, and self-deception tended to destroy all sense of values. Perhaps the worst example of the mania is to be found in Jeremiah Markland, who, after Bentley, was one of the foremost English scholars of his day. In his edition of Euripides he declares that after all the pains he and others have taken to explain Horace, there is not a single ode, epode, or satire which he can truly and honestly say he perfectly understands. Of this Hurd Was there ever a better instance of a poor man's puzzling and confounding himself by his own obscure diligence, or a better ex- emplification of the old remark nae intelligendo faciunt id nihil inteUigant? — After all, I believe the Author is a very good man, '' Nichols, Illustrations of hiteraiure, vol. 2, p. 552. 44 LEWIS THEOBALD and a learned; but a miserable instance of a man of slender parts and sense, besotted by a fondness for his own peculiar study, and stupefied by an intense application to the minutiae of it.'^ One of Markland's emendations shows very clearly this searching for faults and this unnecessary correcting, together with the joy of it all. Although the note is long, it gives such a true picture of the correcting craze, that it may not be amiss to quote the larger part of it. It is on the twenty- ninth verse of the first Sermo. Horace is here speaking of how every man is dissatisfied with his own vocation and envies that of another. For example he takes four men — farmer, merchant, lawyer, and soldier. These he first calls miles, mercator, agricola, and legmn peritus. When he mentions them again, they are miles, mercator, consultus, and rusticus. In their next appearance they are lUe gravem duro terram qui vertit aratro Perfidus hie caupo, miles, nautaeque per omne. Markland objects to caupo, which means huckster or peddler, being introduced and the lawyer left out. He proceeds about his emendation in this manner : Perfidus hie caupo, miles, nautaeque per omne — which is the same as if he had narrated in this fashion, "these four men, for- sooth agricola, miles, mercator, and," what was the other? Juris consultus, I think you will say: rightly but where will you find it? It has gone, and in its place there has been substituted this caupo, in truth perfidus, inasmuch as it has by the greatest fraud ■ ** Nichols, Literary Anecedotes, vol. 4, p. 290. Markland expresses a similar sentiment in the preface to his Statius (p. v), where he says there are hardly ten consecutive lines of the eclogues that hitherto he had understood: "Statim enim deprehendi, non cum Punctis et Apicibus et Minutiis hisce Criticis rem mihi futuram; sed debellanda esse monstra horrenda, informia, ingerUia, (ut ille ait) quibus omne lumen ademtum." THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 45 ejected an innocent man from his legitimate possession. For you who best understand the genius of Horace and his skill in Uterary art, will never, I believe, bring yourself to think that the divine Mnemosyne played such tricks with our Venusinus that, although a little before he twice made mention of Juris peritus, now sud- denly and in the same series of representations he pokes caupo at us. This is the same as to make a woman beautiful in the upper part of her body, but like a fish beneath: it is impossible ever to find this levity in Horace, with whom this is the rule, that a poem is sustained to the end as it commenced. If Tully, when he speaks of beauty, shows this, "Since there are two kinds of beauty, in one of which there is grace, in the other dignity, we ought to consider grace a womanly quality, and ill-will (malitia) a manly quality;" does not this seem wonderful? What did this same critic [[Bentley] do? Did he not against the authority of all the MSS substitute dignitatem for malitiam? certainly, for Cicero could not have written otherwise: nor would he believe Cicero, if Cicero himself affirmed he wrote otherwise: for this would be, as Quintilian facetiously remarks, to begin in a storm and end in flames and ruin. This place of Flaccus is altogether in an equal circumstance. Besides I ask what does hie caupo wish for itself? as if something about caupo had preceded. Which must have happened in order that "hie" should hold its place rightly. You have the reasons, and indeed very strong ones, why I number this passage among the corrupt: would that with the same labor it were permitted to replace it among the restored, for that is sound as it is now borne about, persuasion herself, could never persuade me — Indeed, I have often suspected that the word consultus or causidicus lurked in this place, as the sense entirely demands unless you wish to argue Horace guilty of in- consistency and absurdities. And, for very truth, unless my eyes deceive me, that which I wish, I dream, I see approaching in the manner of the Sabines, that very Trebonianus himself, under the mask of this perfidus caupo; but so changed that Deiphobus, whom Virgil mentions, scarcely wore a worse habit. Therefore, let us look more attentively in this manner, 46 LEWIS THEOBALD Ferfidus hie caupo Behold when these letters, fidus hie cau, are reversed a little, there comes out the word causidicus of the same number of syl- lables, as the word which we are seeking: for s and f (as Bentley notes elsewhere) are the same in the MSS; and vowels or the aspirate h are very often eUded in the middle of words, as in Jul. Firmicus. Astrologia. VIII. 21. instead of nobilis faciet nothos, write notos. Now why, good man, do you look askance? Do you consider it of no significance that all these letters that make up the desired word, although interchanged, yet have assembled in this place where it is most necessary for them to be? For beware how you object that Epicurean objection, the fortuitous concourse of letters; since I have a response ready for you from Cicero, indeed from the lUad of Homer, and the Annals of Ennius. But I grant, you will say, that this causidicus has been restored to its old place, what will be done about the rest of the verse? Indeed, it is not clear to me; and I am forced to ask the aid of the tribuni; and the labor is between you and Bentley; for you two, or no one, are those who can restore Horace to Horace. But since he who has once transgressed the bounds of modesty ought to be entirely impudent, I proceed to make sacrifices to the god of laughter. An adjective for the word causidicus seems to be desired, which must be forged out of the two syllables Po and Per: Let us try whether Mercury can be fashioned out of this rude stick, in this manner, Causidicus vafer, which agrees so well with this passage, that if Flaccus has not given it thus, nevertheless he could have given it thus in a cor- rect and happy manner. For elsewhere, Sermo. I. 3. de juris consulto. Ut AlsMius Vafer, omni And II. 2. V. 131 Ilium aut nequitias, aut vafri inscitia juris. Therefore the whole passage I restore thus Causidicus vafer hie, miles, nautaeque. For you have the four genuine dramatis personae; and at the same time you will notice how aptly balanced hie and ille are, and THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 47 how beautifully through the whole narration the phases are varied; so that him whom before he called Agricola, and rure extractus, and rusticus, now he calls him who turns the earth with his plow; whom before a merchant now a sailor who hurries over every sea; whom before a juris legumque peritus, and consultus, now a causidicus; most likely to avoid tedium which is wont to arise in the minds of the readers from the excessive repetition of the same word.'' Then he goes on to give examples where letters have been disordered and reversed, but our patience is exhausted, and we can sympathize with Pope : For thee, explain a thing till all men doubt it. And write about it, Goddess, and about it. To such length was this mania carried. The above note occurs in Markland's Epistola Critica, 1723, a book of some two hundred pages consisting entirely of emendations from nearly fifty different authors. It was quite the fashion to issue notes on one or more authors independent of any text. In such manner Bentley published his emendations of Philemon and Menander. And to works of this kind Shake- speare Restored exactly corresponds. Since a correction stood on its own footing, there was nothing to prevent an emendation of Homer standing side by side with one of Lucian. There were several factors at work fostering this rage for emending. The success and convincing nature of Bentley's method inspired scholars with a sincere faith in the efficacy of conjectural criticism.'^ From this belief there developed '^ Translated from the Latin. ^ In his preface to Statius, Markland stoutly upholds the need and power of conjecture, saying that what we now read is not Statius, but some unknown person; that to pass by obsoiu'e places is a dis- regard of duty, which leads to "Incertitudo in Studiis," "Despicatio," and "contemtus." Of five hundred such places in his edition he feels 48 LEWIS THEOBALD a joy in seeing literature rescued from the ravages of time. A somewhat romantic feeling accompanied the restoration of ancient writings to their pristine purity, a certain feeling of partnership with the author, so that critics felt as though they were actually assisting him. In speaking of the preface to Bentley's Phaedrus, Hare says Bentley promised great and glorious things, "Phaedrus sick and ulcerous up to now, would at last be restored to his pristine integrity by his powers, as though he were another Aesculapius." '^ Ac- cording to Markland conjecture may well be deemed the preserver of all antiquity : For you best know that access to an exact knowledge of antiq- uity and to perfect erudition is altogether denied without this art; and he has accomplished little in reading the antients, who- ever has not seized upon many errors of this kind in their writings.'' In the dedication to his Justin Martyr, Thirlby goes still farther : Whatever pleasure or utility there is in universal knowledge, criticism demands in its own right all of this to be placed to its credit, since on it depends the whole knowledge of antiquity, and to it we owe whatever of ancient books is extant in no less degree than to the authors themselves, whom, were it not for the critics, we would not have read, but in their place we would have read the comments and errors of stupid librarians, and thus no one would ever understand authors, nor could he understand them, unless he knew criticism. \mcertain about only fifty, while some of his conjectures he regards as possessed of almost mathematical certainty. Of one of his emen- dations (p. xii) he asks, "Q*is tam inepte fautor Veterum Lectionum, ut non hoc concedat? nemo certe: nisi si quis tam durus reperiri queat, ut fateatur se Vetera et Falsa quam Recentia et Vera mails; cujus Sinisteritatem pro Judicio suspicare, nae asset iudicium mentis infirmae, & Veritatis Numine parum contactae." '^ Hare's Epistola Critica, p. 5. ^ Markland's Epistola Critica, p. 2. Both quotations are trans- lated from the Latin. THE KAGE FOR EMENDING 49 And a little farther down he says he would not place criticism "lower than any art either in dignity of matter or utihty of gift." '' He even goes so far as to say that the very worst critics, bereft of judgment and reasons, stupid and dull, sometimes make corrections that cannot be called into doubt. Another has paid his tribute to criticism, but rather as one who appreciates than as one who has indulged in it. Owing to his prominence in this work his words have an added significance. Writing in The Censor, April 20, 1715, Theobald expresses his regard for antiquity and criticism : I am so professed an Admirer of Antiquity, that I am never better pleased with the Labours of my Contemporaries, than when they busy themselves in retrieving the sacred Monuments of their Forefathers from Obscurity and Oblivion. . . . We Lovers of Antiquity have our Foibles of this Nature, which we keep up with a very innocent Superstition. For my own part, the Shelves of my Study are filled with curious Volumes in all sorts of Litera- ture, that preserve the Fragments of great and venerable Authors. These I consider as so many precious Collections from a Shipwreck of inestimable Value; comforting myself for the loss of the general Cargo, by the greater Price and Esteem that ought to be set upon the injured Remains. In opposite Columns to these stand the Restorers of ancient Learning who are continually snatching deli- cious Morsels from the Mouth of Time, and forcing that general Robber to a Restitution of his ill-gotten Goods. . . . When upon stumbUng over the first Shelves I have discovered an uncommon Beauty and Strength of Wit in an imperfect Paragraph, I grieve as much that I cannot recover the Whole, as a brave man would for the Amputation of a Limb, from a strong and vigorous Body that had done his country great Services, and seemed to promise it yet greater. If upon these Occasions any of the learned happen to have supplied that Defect, by restoring a maimed Sentence to " It is well to keep in mind that throughout this period criticism means textual criticism, and that, for the most part, conjectural. 50 LEWIS THEOBALD its original Life and Spirit, I pay him the same Regard as the ancient Romans did to one who has preserved the life of a feUow- citizen. In the disposition of Homer's Battles, we find that excel- lent Poet has placed the Physician at a convenient Nearness to the fighting Hero to be in readiness to cure his Wounds, and my generous Critics observe the same Order, and stand prepared to come into the Assistance of an injured Author. Another element underlying this prepossession was the fascination of emending. There are all the attractions of a puzzle in seeing what can be substituted and still satisfy the requirements of the passage. Men engaged in it as a tour de force. One eighteenth-century scholar has expressed this idea well : Authors have been taken in hand like anatomical subjects, only to display the skill and abilities of the Artist; so that the end of many an Edition seems often to have been no more than to ex- hibit the great sagacity and erudition of an Editor. The Joy of the Task was the Honour of mending, while Corruptions were sought with a more than common attention, as each of them afforded a testimony to the Editor and his Art." This fascination grew so strong as to be almost irresistible, as is well testified to by Bentley's Milton, speaking of which Harris says, "But the rage of Conjecture seems to have seized him, as that of Jealousy did Medea; a rage, which she confest herself unable to resist, altho' she knew the mischiefs, it would prompt her to perpetrate." ^' This same fascination Theobald has expressed in other terms, where in his letters to Warburton he speaks of looking forward to the letters containing Warburton's emendations like a boy for a letter from his sweetheart, and how he reads '' Philological Inquiries, by James Harris, 1781. Ft. I, p. 35- See also the story of the Empiric on the same page. " Idem, p. 37. Whalley calls conjecture "the darling passion of our modem critics.'' An Enquiry into the Learning of Shakespeare, 1745, p. 15. THE KAGE FOB EMENDING 51 the letter slowly, like a boy with a sweet morsel, afraid to eat it up ; while in another place he calls himself an avaricious husbandman of emendations.*" In the preface to his edi- tion of Shakespeare Johnson speaks of Upton as being unable to restrain the rage of emendation, the his ardour is ill sec- onded by his skill. Every cold empirick, when his heart is ex- panded by a successful experiment, swells into a theorist, and the laborious collator at some unlucky moment frolicks in conjecture. . . . It is an unhappy state, in which danger is hid under pleasure. The allurements of emendation are scarcely resistible. Conjecture has all the joy and all the pride of invention, and he that has once started a happy change, is too much deUghted to consider what objections may arise against it. A third incentive to this enticing pursuit was the reputa- tion that waited upon a plausible conjecture. In his Dissertation on Phalaris Bentley speaks of the glory and honor attendant upon emendations.*^ His first essay drew from continental scholars, as we have seen, the highest words of praise. From that time on more and more honor began to accrue to a convincing or ingenious emendation. Hurd says that it was the high regard in which emendatory criticism was held that natiu-ally tempted Warburton to make some effort for distinction in a department of scholar- ship for which he was little fitted.*^ Hare, perhaps mali- ciously, attributed Bentley's excessive emendations to his inordinate desire for glory.*' In defense of his first work on Shakespeare Theobald says, "The Alteration of a Letter, when it restores Sense to a corrupted Passage, in a learned Language, is an Atchievment that Brings Honour to the Critic who advances it." ** In his burlesque notes on *» Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 257, 557, 283. ■" Dyce, op. eit., vol. 1, pp. 155, 276. ^ J. S. Watson, Life of Warburton, p. 67. ** Epistola Critica, p. 148. ** Shakespeare Restored, p. 193. 52 LEWIS THEOBALD Bentley's Horace, which we shall notice soon, Dr. William King touches frequently on this glory and praise. Apropos of one of Bentley's notes, he says, "From such atchievments as these men attain the titles of Accurate, Illustrious, Learned, Acute, the star of Criticism, the North Pole of Erudition." King depreciates the method and laments the honor it receives: What a noble art is Criticism, when an excursion into a Vocabu- lary, or a tolerable progress made in an Index, shall be deemed an Atchievment, an Adventure, and accordingly entitle a man to everlasting honour and glory. There was, however, a reaction against the popularity of conjectural criticism. For a long time there had been in England a feeling against pedantry, though the ideas of what constituted a pedant were subject to change. A pedant might be a Holofernes who paraded his learning in his con- versations; or else a writer larding his works with quotations from all the ancients. With the estabUshment of the Royal Society and the controversy between the ancients and moderns that followed soon after, the virtuoso became a pedant. At the time of and during the Phalaris controversy a pedant seems to have been considered one who spent much time and showed great learning in the searching out of trifles. Many were the charges of pedantry brought against Bentley on this score, his opponents even going so far as to say that the whole Phalaris controversy was over a trifle. Swift, Pope, and their cohorts for nearly half a cen- tury carried on this fight against the "abuses of learning." The trouble lay in the placing of emphasis. The polite scholars and literati insisted that minute knowledge of fact was useless, or at least infinitely below knowledge and ap- preciation of the thought and sentiment of the ancients. St. Evremond, an apostle of taste, says of critics that "The whole Mystery of their Learning lies in what we might as THE KAGE FOR EMENDING 53 well be ignorant of, and they are absolutely strangers to what's really worth knowing." *^ Another upholder of taste, the philosopher Shaftesbury, says, A good poet and a honest historian may afford learning enough for a Gentleman. And such a one, whilst he reads these authors as his diversion, will have a truer relish of their sense, and under- stand 'em better, than a pedant, with all his labours, and the assistance of his volumes of commentators. ^ And he asks what good will become of the Phalaris contro- versy though "the world out of curiosity may delight to see a pedant expos'd by a man of better wit, and a con- troversy thus unequally carry'd on between two such op- posite partys." " It was the same cry with them all. Wit was a knight errant who, with his squire Good Sense, was bound on the consecrated adventure of rescuing fair Taste from the foul clutches of Pedantry. It is somewhat hard to realize just how bitter these attacks were. Wotton, Bentley, Jortin, and others all bear witness to the hardships undergone by scholars. The constant attacks must have so influenced popular judgments that it was possible for Atterbury and his tribe seemingly to discomfit Bentley, and for Pope to attempt to brand Theobald with the mark of his satire. The general public was far more appreciative of the flashes of wit than of the researches of scholars; good taste was a fairer object to defend than a restored reading or established fact in science. Even after full allowance is made for satire based on spite, and the unusual suitabihty of research to the satire of a predominantly satiric age, it is rather hard ^' The Works of Monsieur De Si. Evremond, Made English from the French Original. By Mr. Des Maizeaux. In three volumes, 1714, vol. Ill, p. viii. * Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, In three volumes. 1711, vol. I, p. 122. " Idem, vol. 3, Misoell. 1, Chap. 1. 54 LEWIS THEOBALD not to believe that the satirists were sometimes sincere in their championship of taste, that they looked upon the prevailing type of research as injuriously wrong. With the pubUcation of Bentley's Horace the pedant becomes the verbal critic. Years before this there had been a feeling against verbal criticism. N. Heinsius, in the pref- ace to his edition of Claudian, 1665, spoke of "importuna quorundam superstitio, qui aut nihil omnino in antiquis scriptoribus mutari sinuunt." And a year before the appearance of the Horace this feeling is echoed by Wasse, who says, "mentes tantam superstitionem occupasse, ut multo patientius librariorum quam editoris judicia ferant." ^ In the same year Gronovius, in answer to Bentley's emenda- tions on Menander, made a very rabid attack on Bentley's conjectural criticism, wherein, among other things, he called the critic a frenzied Numidian, and thought it a matter of pubUc concern how Menander had been treated. He con- stantly spoke of the praise, fame, and glory that ought not to come from such trivial or wicked accompHshments.*' As long as Bentley confined his labors to such writers as Malelas, Phalaris, and the fragments of the Greek poets, he was beyond the ken of many of the wits, .but when he laid hands upon Horace, he was desecrating the Uterary idol of the day.^ It was because of this popularity that " J. Wasse, Preface to his edition of Sallust, 1710. " Infamia Emendaiionis in Menandri Reliquias . . . Lundini Bata- vorum, 1710. "• Some idea of the popularity of Horace may be gained from this contemporary account: "The singular esteem which some critics have always expressed for the works of Horace became at last so fash- ionable, that scarce a man who affected the character of a polite scholar ever travelled ten mUes from home without an Horace in his pocket. The last E. of S. was such an Admirer of Horace that his whole conversation consisted of quotations out of that poet: in which he often discovered his want of skill in the Latin tongue, and always his want of taste. But the man whom I looked on (if I may be allowed THE RAGE FOB EMENDING 55 Bentley edited him, because he "was familiar to men's hands and hearts." Immediately a small host of publica- tions came into existence, directed against Bentley in partic- ular and emendatory criticism in general." A fair sample of the pointless abuse heaped upon the scholar is furnished by a quotation from Dr. King's "Some accoimt of Horace's Behaviour": But I never heard that Horace whilst in college, "Kept Chapel" himself; but that he has hindered other persons from minding Divinity, which should have been their proper study, rather than to find out ques, and atque's, and vel's, and nec's, and neque's at the expense of a thousand pounds a year and upwards, de- signed for much better usages than to correct an old Latin Song- book, not to say worse of it, notwithstanding all the graces and beauties of its language. The cleverest satire on the edition, however, is to be found in a poem called Bibliotheca, published in 1712.*^ After granting Boyle the victory in the Phalaris controversy, the satirist turns on Bentley's Horace. Bentley immortal honour gets. By changing Que's to nobler Et's : From Cam to Isis see him roam, To fetch stray' d Interjections home; the expression) as Horace-mad, was one Dr. Douglas." — Political and Literary Anecdotes of His Ovm Times. By Dr. William King, Principal of St. Mary Hall, Oxon. London, 1819, p. 70. In his essay On Translating the Odes of Horace Professor Trent calls attention to a Dr. Biram Eaton, who had read Horace many hundred times. The Oxford Book of American Essays, ed. B. Matthews, 1914, p. 497. °' Among attacks published in 1712 were Horatius Reformatus, The Life and Conversation of Richard Bentley, and Five Extraordinary Letters, all pubUshed anonymously and all full of abuse, both personal and general. '^ See Appendix A. 56 LEWIS THEOBALD While the glad shores with joy rebound, For Periods and lost Commas found: Poor Adverbs, that had long deplor'd Their injur'd rights, by him restor'd Smil'd to survey a rival's doom, While they possessed the envied room; And hissing from their rescued throne Th' Usurper's fate, applaud their own. The Roman nymphs, for want of notes More tender, strain'd their little throats, Till Bentley to reUeve their woes Gave them a sett of Ah's and Oh's: More musically to complain. And warble forth their gentle pain. The suffering fair no more repine. For vowels now to soh and whine ; In softest air their passion try. And, without spoiling metre, die: With Interjections of his own. He helps them now to weep and groan; That reading him, no lover fears Soft vehicles for sighs and tears.'' Another attempt to ridicule Bentley's Horace and his method was made in a complete translation of the edition, notes and all, from the Latin into English." Monk says the translation "adopts such a vulgar phraseology as would give a ludicrous character to any book." Not only this, but the translator foists in whole phrases, adds words, and mistranslates so as to exaggerate Bentley's propensities, as when he translates the epithets applied to the grammarians as "Ruffy, Spark, Blade." Of the notes upon notes, some seriously try to refute Bentley's notes, some try to prove him inconsistent, some make fun of his method and charac- '' John Nichols, A Select Collection of Poems, vol. 3, p. 60. " See Appendix B. THE HAGE FOR EMENDING 57 teristics, while others turn his notes into pure farce. Some are tiresome, but many have humorous turns and comical applications. The author has analyzed Bentley's method and has ridiculed it with some success; the critical doubt, the emendation, and the conjectural criticism all come in for their share of scorn. The satirist especially finds fault with Bentley's dogmatism and his way of speaking both of those he likes and those he dislikes. Nor does he fail to attack the triviality of verbal criticism in general. Bentley's work did not escape condenmation even on the . continent. Le Clerc, at this time Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Amsterdam, who had reasons for disUking Bentley, issued a restrained pamphlet against him, which was straight- way translated into English and published in London. ^^ It is something of a prototype of Edwards' Canons of Criti- cism directed against Warburton's edition of Shakespeare, only it is serious and everywhere treats Bentley with respect, although condemning him at times. Le Clerc draws up a list of seven "Critical Rules and Remarks," which may be summed up as saying we do not have sufficient knowledge and judgment to correct the ancients with surety, and there- fore should not speak too confidently of our emendations. Another work written about this time, though not pub- lished until many years later, is Virigilius Restauratus, written by Arbuthnot, although perhaps assisted by other members of the Scriblerus Club. It seeks to disparage Bentley's method by useless emendations of the Aeneid, given in notes burlesquing Bentley's method, some of which are very clever and logically plausible. ^^ " Mr. Le Clerc' s Judgment and Censure 0/ Dr. Berkley's Horace; And of the Amsterdam Edition compar'd with that of Cambridge. Trans- lated from the French. 1713. " Later the Dunciad indulges in the same kind of sport. Pope found the ground fallow for his attack on Theobald, and his comparatively poor success speaks volumes for his adversary's merits. 58 LEWIS THEOBALD Bentley's Horace awakened the slumbering resentment against conjectural criticism; while attacks at first were generally leveled against him for his boldness, this feeling gradually extended against all performers in the field." It became more and more necessary for critics to speak out against such opposition. Furthermore, if we may judge by the defense of verbal criticism made by classical scholars, this feeling seems to have been more widely spread than is apparent from its expression in print. Of the hostility to verbal criticism Markland says, I know there will not be wanting those who will slander this phase of learning as being trivial, and contributing nothing either to use- fulness or pleasure in life: for none are more free to judge than those who either do not read or do not understand.'* The first serious attempt at an answer to these attacks of the "indocti" and "literati," as they were called, is found in the dedication to Lord Craven of Thirlby's Justin Martyr, a rather tedious array of long involved Latin sentences written in a barbarous style. While Thirlby attacks cer- tain phases of classical studies, especially chronology, textual criticism is most stubbornly defended. He claims that people who do not know criticism comfort themselves with the thought that it is futile and trivial. To those who attack criticism on the ground of triviaUty he answers that all arts sometime deviate into triviality : physicians, lawyers, physicists, metaphysicians, theologians, all deal in trifles. He is especially severe (Jo mathematicians and those who indulge in the study of chronology. He replies to those who " One irate objector proposed a plan whereby the infallibility of critics could be tested. He suggested that passages be transcribed from some poet and lacunae purposely left. Then emenders could set to work to fill up deficiencies. See Des Maizeaux's preface to The Works of St. Ewemortd, 1714. " Epistola Critica, p. 2. THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 59 say that criticism is not conducive to convenience in life or the pubhc good, by asserting that on this basis all arts would be overthrown. And as for delight, whatever pleasure there is in knowledge, criticism can claim for itself, for without it we should be reading grammarians instead of original authors: We should wonder that this art, whose prerogative and duty it is to correct the writings of the Ancients, incredibly depraved by the various injuries of a long time, and to restore them to their pristine splendour, should seem a futile, absurd, and entirely use- less undertaking to learned men, and especially to those who pro- fess themselves the greatest admirers of these writers.'' Thus there was developing among the hterati an opposi- tion to textual criticism almost as strong as the prepossession in favor of the same among scholars. The arguments in- troduced against the pursuit were repeated again and again. The study of words was a trivial matter, and not worthy of the attention of intelligent men. The study was useless, for it conferred no real benefit upon mankind. These were the two main contentions, which also had furnished the basis of the attacks on the new science and on pedantry. In the third place criticism was inefficient, for it could not restore the original reading, but merely gave the guesses of the con- jecturers. Furthermore, the insertion of readings, unsup- ported by manuscripts, was wrong and an injustice done to the author. Lastly, criticism was injurious to a man's disposition, making him proud, arrogant, and altogether an undeserving person, given to quarrels and vituperation. These arguments the enemies of verbal criticism marshaled against it throughout the first half of the eighteenth century. But these attacks did not lessen indulgence in the pursuit. By his marvelous success Bentley had drawn the attention of scholars to his own favorite study. The success of his " Translated from the Latin. 60 LEWIS THEOBALD method inspired others with confidence in the undertaking; in emulation of the great critic scholars turned their attention more and more to the study of texts. So great became their enthusiasm that the correcting of texts, especially by emenda- tion, amounted to an obsession with which the classics were read by critical and suspicious eyes. Even the term "criti- cism," when immodified, meant verbal criticism.*" Al- though the opposition to this peculiar study was energetic enough and indulged in by the foremost wits of the time, ultimately their attacks failed, Bentley's labors reaching their flower in Porson, and Theobald's in the later capable critics of Shakespeare.'* '" See preface to William Broome's Poems on Several Occasions, 1727. " See Museum Criticum, vol. 1, p. 489. Here Porson says literary criticism is nothing compared with verbal criticism, and though at one time the latter was thought lowest of all literary expression, "in this age of taste and learning it would not be considered trifling." CHAPTER III SHAKESPEARE KESTOBED In an age so obsessed with the idea of correcting and so prodigal of praise, as well as blame, for the corrector, it was only natural that sooner or later the critical spirit should break through classical bounds and seek unconquered worlds beyond. Shakespeare was the first to attract attention. In spite of the attacks of the Aristotelians and the predilec- tion of the age for classical regularity, he was the most highly admired of English poets. Furthermore, the progress of the originally poor text through four folios had left the plays in a worse condition than many manuscripts of the classics. Here, then, was a rich field for the textual critic, and the reward promised to be proportional to the popularity of the poet. By the time Pope undertook to edit Shake- speare the resemblance of the text to a classical one was rather generally recognized, as well as the need of similar treatment. After speaking of the critical care expended upon classical authors. Dr. George Sewell says. What then has been done by the really Learned to the dead lan- guages, by treading backward into the Paths of Antiquity and reviving and correcting good old Authors, we in Justice owe to our great Writers, both in Prose and Poetry. They are in some degree our Classics; on their foundations we must build, as the Formers and refiners of our Language.^ But if the similarity between the classics and Shakespeare's text was noticed, it was not until two editions had been ' Preface, dated November 24, 1724, to Seventh Volume of Pope's Edition of Shakespeare, 1725. 62 LEWIS THEOBALD printed that the classical method was applied. Rowe sug- gested comparing the text with earlier editions, but seems to have based his chiefly on the fourth foUo.- While some of his emendations have proved satisfying, and while he rendered real service in giving the lists of dratnatis personae to the plays lacking them, as well as dividing some of the plays into acts and scenes, his edition was not a critical one. Nearly all his corrections were introduced on his own au- thority and without any support beyond that of suitabihty. If he recogni^d the necessity of collating early editions, he seems not to have profited much b}' the discovery. The method of carefully collating manuscripts and editions and of bringing to bear aU possible knowledge upon the res- toration of a passage, a method such as was used in the classics, Rowe certainly did not follow. He noticed the need of correcting the text, suggested a way, and then con- tented himself with following the hne of least resistance in his correcting. Pope's edition, 1725, represents a more critical treatment of the text. One portion of an editor's duty, the most im- portant, he recognized and clearly stated, that of collating the text with the old copies. But this, for the most part, he failed to do, although possessing, according to his own word, the means. When it came to the remo\4ng of ob- scurity either by explanation or conjecture, he failed signally. For this task there is necessary the most critical spirit and the broadest knowledge of EUzabethan and pre-EUzabethan hterature. Pope lacked*both. Emendations he did make, but the majority were adopted to reduce Shakespeare's meter to eighteenth-centurj- regularity. For the rest of his conjectures he was whoUy dependent upon his judgment, and anything that did not appeal to his taste ran the risk » Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. V, pp. 298-299; and Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 73-76. SHAKESPEARE BESTOEED 63 of being relegated to the bottom of the page. Unwilhng as he was to collate carefully, he must have been all the more unwilling to investigate, analyze, and study corrupt passages, or undertake to become familiar with the literature current in Shakespeare's time. Nor does he seem to have made any study of the pecuUarities of Shakespeare's grammar or diction. The only supports of his critical method are collation, carelessly followed, metrical skill, and taste. A few of his emendations based upon taste have found their way into most modern editions, as well as a larger number of his metrical emendations; yet these are upheld by no evi- dence and draw on no authorities. Elsewhere we find even his judgment unsafe, and we perceive no inclination to scrutinize carefully every doubt and draw out stores of knowledge to remove it.' It seems rather strange that Pope should ever have imder- taken the "dull duty of an editor." Tonson appealed to him for an edition because he knew the poet's reputation would enhance the popularity of any undertaking, but why did Pope yield ? His inveterate animosity to textual critics finds expression as early as the Essay on Criticism, when he says Some on the leaves of ancient authors prey, Nor time nor moths e'er spoiled as much as they. In the preface to his Homer, and elsewhere, he speaks in a most derogatory manner of commentators. He was a member of the Scriblerus Club, and his associates were men of polite learning, antagonists to the new scholarship from the time of the Phalaris controversy. It hardly seems pos- sible that money was the motive, as Johnson asserts, when we remember that his Homer had removed all danger of financial ' For a full description and criticism of Rowe's and Pope's edi- tions, see Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, Chaps. IV, V, VI. 64 LEWIS THEOBALD needs; nor does Pope appear to have been very avaricious. The only explanation I can find for his undertaking such an uncongenial task is the desire for glory, always a ruling pas- sion with Pope. Realizing the honor that was attendant upon the restorer of classical texts, and knowing himself incapable of accompUshments in that field, he imdertook to achieve glory in restoring Shakespeare.* This change of face necessitated some explanations to his friends, and "dull duty of an editor" was the compromise. On the publication of Shakespeare, Broome was ready with a pane- gyric, Shakespere rejoice! his hand thy Page refines, Now every Scene with native Brightness shines.' But Pope's edition brought forth the first truly critical work on Shakespeare. This appeared in March, 1726, under the title, Shakespeare Restored: or a Specimen of the Many Errors, as well committed, as Unamended, by Mr. Pope In his Late Edition of this Poet Designed Not only to correct the said Edition, but to restore the True Reading of Shakespeare in all the Editions ever yet publish' d. It is a large quarto volume, dedicated to John Rich and containing one hundred and niaety-four pages. The first one hundred and thirty-two pages are in large print and are devoted primarily to Hamlet. The rest, imder the title of Appendix, is in smaller print and contains remarks on nearly all the plays. The Merchant of Venice and Troilus and Cressida lead the list with five remarks each, while Macbeth and Coriolanus * In the preface (p. xxxi:^ to his edition of Shakespeare Theobald frankly states that the reputation consequent upon textual work in the classics "invited me to attempt the method here." And in the introduction (p. v) to Shakespeare Restored he says he "shall venture to aim at some little Share of Reputation" in his emendations. On p. 193 of this work he refers again to reputation as the inspiration of the work. » To Mr. Pope, On his Works, 1726. SHAKESPEARE KBSTORED 65 follow next with four each. A number of the plays are commented on only once. The first half of the "Appendix" is devoted to showing Pope's mistakes under these heads: emendation where there is no need of it ; maiming the author by unadvised degradations; bad choice in various readings and degradation of the better word; and mistakes in giving the meaning of words. Besides these the critic shows Pope's mistakes in pointing and "transpositions," and the inaccura- cies due to inattention to Shakespeare and his history. The rest of the "Appendix," from page one hundred and sixty- five to the end, is devoted entirely to emendations. The nature of each remark is designated in the margin, so that the reader may be apprised of the content, by such terms as "false printing," "false pointing," "various reading," "passage omitted," "conjectural emendation," "emenda- tion," and the like. There are nearly a hundred corrections on Hamlet and a few over a hundred on the other plays. The only plays not mentioned by Theobald are The Two Gentlemen of Verona, As You Like it, and Twelfth Night. In his preface Theobald states that he had often declared in a number of companies the corrupt state Shakespeare's text was in, and had always expressed the wish that some one would retrieve its original purity, but being disappointed in Pope's effort, he had attempted it himself. While this statement may be essentially true, it hardly seems possible that the number of emendations and the numerous and per- tinent passages quoted in support of them could have been assembled within the compass of a single year; especially when we consider that all these were but a specimen drawn from "an ample Stock of Matter." ^ For steeped as Theo- bald was in classical criticism, to recognize the corrupt state of Shakespeare was to contrive, in a more or less defi- nite way, corrections. A statement of Theobald seems to • Shakespeare Restored, p. 133. 66 LEWIS THEOBALD prove this. In speaking of Pope's emendation of "siege" for "sea" in Hamlet's famous soliloquy, he says, "The Editor is not the first who has had the same Suspicion: And I may say, because I am able to prove it by Witnesses, it was a Gicess of mine, before he had enter'd upon publishing Shake- speare." ' The interest created by Pope's edition made possible the com- pletion and publication of his efforts. Theobald was unusually well equipped for the office of a textual critic on Shakespeare. He was a poet, a poor one indeed, but still with talent enough to make him escape the pitfalls that proved disastrous on more than one occasion to the purely logical mind of Bentley. Furthermore, the very fact that his poetic genius was slight served him in good stead, for besides admitting of tireless industry, it prevented him from seeking to merge his own ideas with those of the work under consideration, and restrained him from relying too much upon his own judgment of the poetic value of a passage. Besides this he was thoroughly conversant with the stage. The author himself of several dramas and various operas and pantomimes, he had been thrown into intimate relations with John Rich, lessee of Lincoln's Inn Fields theater. Both by experience and observation he was familiar with stage- craft and the theater, and thus in a position better to under- stand the causes of many of the corruptions in Shakespeare, especially stage directions that had crept into the text and lines assigned to the wr^ng characters. But more important than either of the above qualifications was his intimate knowledge of Shakespeare's thought and diction. We have already seen that the phraseology of ' Idem, p. 82. Also see his letter to the Daily Journal, November 26, 1728, where he speaks of having spent twelve years studying the text of Shakespeare. SHAKESPEARE RESTOHED 67 The Cave of Poverty showed an unusual knowledge of Shake- speare's style. The passages quoted in A Complete Key to the What D'ye Call It (if by Theobald) further prove his famili- arity with the plays. The ninety odd numbers of The Censor are strewn with references to or discussions of them, in which Hamlet and Othello seem to be his favorites.' In some of his comments he shows a distinct departure from current ideas. Speaking of Julius Caesar, he says, As to particular Irregularities, it is not to be expected that a Genius like Shakespear's should be judg'd by the Laws of Aristotle, and the other Prescribers to the Stage; it will be sufficient to fix a Character of Excellence to his Performances, if there are in them a Number of beautiful Incidents, true and exquisite Turns of Nature and Passion, fine and deUcate Sentiments, uncommon Images, and great Boldnesses of Expression.' The final testimony to his study of Shakespeare is his adapta- tion of Richard II, where he seeks to imitate the great dramatist's style. And last of all, Theobald brought to his work a wide knowledge of the classics and the methods of classical scholar- ship. He says, As my principal Diversion in reading is a strict Conversation with the best old classics, Virgil was the Choice of my last Night's Study. In Authors of this Sort where I am sure to be entertained in every Page, my Custom is to take my Chance for the Subject, and begin my Amusement where the Book first opens .^° Elsewhere he styles himself "an admirer of, antiquity" and "a lover of antiquity." " Especially worthy of note is his interest in the Greek drama, clearly disclosed in his translations from the same, in an age that, devoted to the " References to Hamlet in Nos. 18, 54, 83, 90, 93; and to Othello in Nos. 16, 95, 36. ' Censor, No. 70. " Censor, No. 18. " Idem, No. 5. 68 LEWIS THEOBALD study and imitation of the later classics, knew the Attic drama chiefly through Aristotle. I could wish heartily, the Poets of our Times would follow the Model of Sophocles, and rather lay their Distresses on Incidents produced by some such uncontrollable Impulse than to let the Dagger and poison Cup be at the Discretion of a Villain. Apropos of this he praises Othello. But Aeschylus more than any interested him. The translation of his plays was the only translation upon which Theobald attempted to embark on his own account. In The Censor, No. 60, he discusses Greek tragedy, but soon confines himself to Aeschylus, translating a long passage from Prometheus; he refuses to subscribe to the "critics of every age," who rank him below Sophocles and Euripides. He anticipates Victor Hugo in seeing a similarity between Aeschylus and Shakespeare in the majesty and sublimity of their verse. There were some phases of classical scholarship with which Theobald was not in entire sympathy, influenced, as he undoubtedly was, by the attitude of the literati and polite schools of scholarship. Throughout The Censor we find slurs at antiquaries and the Royal Society. This last had been the center of the ancients and moderns controversy, and Theobald was a stanch upholder of the ancients, although not admitting any particular degeneration in the moderns. Any attempt to reduce the antiquity of a production to a more recent date he resented with the accusation that the moderns did not wish to allow any more than necessary to the ancients. When higher criticism made use of historical philology and chronology in disputing the antiquity of an author, Theobald was prone to disagree and to doubt the value of those two studies. Nor was he loath to stigmatize efforts in such minute studies as pedantic." " For attacks on virtuosi, chronologers, and other minute scholars, see Censor, Nos. 68 and 91. SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 69 This naturally led him to disagree with Bentley in regard to Phalaris, although he always mentions the great critic with respect : " I remember the learned Dr. Bentley has made it one of his Ex- ceptions to Phalaris's Epistles being Genuine, that the Tyrant has made use of some proverbial Sentences which are recorded as the Inventions of Authors of a much later Date, and therefore Phalaris could not write those Epistles, because he has used some Sayings that were not in Being in his Age. I confess, I am not totally satisfied with this Argument, I look upon it as a Hardship next to an Impossibility to determine strictly the Periods, and Origins of such Sentences; and were it not a work that would savour too much of Pedantry and Affectation of Book-Learning, I could produce several of their sententious Fragments, which have been severally attributed to five or six distinct Authors, and that on the Testimonies of great Hands." He maintains the same opinion of the poetry of Musaeus, for whom he had a special liking.'^ In his essay on the Hero and Leander prefixed to his translation of the same in The Grove, he does attempt "a Piece of Chronological Criticism." Although expressing his inability to come to a decision con- " It is possible Theobald may have been influenced by regard for his patron, Charles Boyle, Earl of Orrery, to whom he dedicated his Richard II. " Censor, No. 26. " Censor, No. 39, May 23, 1715: "I have always read this small Remain of Musaeus, with Pleasure enough to consider it the Product of that Antique Greek, however his Title to it has been of late dis- puted. There has reigned a Spirit of Detraction for some Years in the World, which has labour'd to strip the Ancients of their Honours, on purpose to adorn some more Modern Brow. I cannot conceive that this springs from a fair and generous Emulation; but that finding themselves unable to come up to the Strokes of Antiquity, as Chronol- ogers often do to gain a Point, they draw down Authors to their own Dates, to prove that all Merit in Writing was not confin'd to the Aeras of Paganism." 70 LEWIS THEOBALD ceming the antiquity of the poem, and declining the "Ped- antry of amassing all the Authorities and Opinions," he mentions Stobaeus, Athenaeus, Pausanias, and opposes ScaUger and Heinsius to Vossius, Isaac Casaubon, and Paraeus. He shows little sympathy with historical philol- ogy, as is evident from the following passage, where he seems to be ,'ooking at Bentley: There are Critics in the World, I know, who look upon Greek to have such a certain Mark in its Mouth, that they can precisely determine upon the Age of any Composition in that Language. For my own Part, I confess myself a Novice in these niceties; and therefore design to let the Matter rest barely upon the fact of Probability. Yet he pays a tribute to the robust critic, when he says, The Objection which is of the greatest Weight with me against the Antiquity of this Poem, is what a Great Man in Critical Learn- ing made against the Epistles of Phalaris, the Silence and Pre- termission of Authors during a long Series of Ages. This attempt at higher criticism is of no worth and Uttle significance, although in the mention of authors and au- thorities Theobald shows his wide and careful reading of the classics and classical critics. But on one phase of classical scholarship, the most prevalent during this time, Theobald placed great value. We have already quoted the passage from The Censor which expresses in most exaggerated lan- guage his regard for textual criticism.'* Even if he was not in sympathy with much of the minute scholarship and learn- ing of his time, he was a complete convert to the new pursuit of scholars. In this respect he resembles Thirlby, who, as we have seen before, scoffed at chronology and other phases of scholarship, but was praise itself in regard to verbal criti- cism. Such was the impression Bentley's critical accomplish- " Ante, Chap. II, p. 49. SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 71 ments made on men of his day, that literal criticism was allowed honor where investigations of a different nature were denied it. Furthermore, Theobald was intimately acquainted with the work of the great textual critic. We have already noticed his interest in the dissertation on Phalaris, and references to the controversy occur elsewhere." He quotes from Bentley's Epistle to Mill a passage which encourages him in his work on Shakespeare.'* He expresses the highest praise for Bentley's emendations of Menander and Philemon." He even models his edition of Shakespeare upon Bentley's Amsterdam Horace.^" Everywhere he mentions Bentley with respect, and often praise, styling him the "learned Dr. Bentley" ^' and "a Great Man in Critical Learning." ^^ In upholding the value of literal criticism he appeals to Bentley's success, "But I no more pretend to do justice to that Great Man's Character, than I would be thought to set my own poor Merit, or the Nature of this Work, in Competi- tion with his." ^' Thoroughly conversant as Theobald was with classical criticism, it was only natural that he should have been struck with the similarity between the state of the text of Shake- speare and that of the texts of Greek and Latin authors. Nor was this similarity superficial,^^ a fact clearly stated in the preface to Shakespeare Restored: " Censor, Nos. 8 and 9. Preface to A Complete Key to the What D'ye Call it (if Theobald wrote it). '* Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 313. " Shakespeare Restored, p. 193. ^o Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. II, p. 621. » Censor, No. 26. ^ Essay prefixed to his translation of Hero and Leander, published in The Grove, 1721. '' Shakespeare Restored, p. 193. ^ "Such is the process by which the text of Shakespeare has been 72 LEWIS THEOBALD "As Shakespeare stands, or at least ought to stand, in the Nature of a Classic, and indeed he is corrupt enough to pass for one of the oldest Stamp, every one who has a Talent and Ability this Way, is at Liberty to make his Comments and Emendations upon him." Having recognized the similarity, he had only to apply the classical method. This method Theobald got directly from Bentley. As noted above, he was familiar with the most important works of the editor of Horace, and in this very work of Shakespeare Restored refers to him twice, once in a most complimentary way. A comparison of a few of Theobald's notes with some of Bentley's shows conclusively that the former was consciously imitating the method of the latter. A line in Horace, Bk. I, ode 3, 1. 19, reads in the main, ''Qui vidit mare turgidum." Bentley comments thus: " The Venetian edition, 1478, which I think was the first of ail, has "turgidum," but the German edition of Loscherus, 1498, "turbidum." However, that first reading has occupied almost all the editions since. Furthermore, the manuscripts, even the best, are divided, some showing this reading some that, and surely either can be tolerated with sufficient propriety. Prudentius — Quae turgidum quondam mare Avienus — Fluctibus instabile et glauci vada turgida ponti. Thus Virgil — Timidum mare; and the Greek a\iov oTS/m. I have scarcely any doubt that "turbidum" came from Horace's hand, because it is the braver epithet, and excites the greater terror. Lucretius v. 999 — nee turbida ponti Aequora Ovid. Tristia I, 10. Pectora sunt ipso turbidiora mari evolved — a process precisely similar to that undergone by any classical text. The quartos and folios represent the work of copyists — that of editing follows." — Cambridge History of English Lit., vol. V, p. 297. " This and other notes of Bentley are translated from the Latin. SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 73 The same, Hero and Leander — Ipsa vides caelum pice nigrius, et freta ventis Turbida. And the same — Cumque mea fiunt turbida mente freta concussi fretum Seneca — Here. Oet. 456 — Cessante vento; turbidum explicui mare. Avienus in Arateis, — Non tum freta turbida pinu Quia petat. And again — Quantum suspense linquit vada turbida caelo. And — Turbida certantes converrunt aequora Cauri And — Si fugiunt volucres raptim freta turbida Nerei So that it is ahnost to be feared that in the passages from Prudentius and Avienus, cited above, "turbidum" ought to be substituted. Let lis now tum to a note of Theobald's on a Une in Ham- let, Act I, Sc. 7. Hamlet is speaking to the ghost. So Horridly to shake our Disposition. I suspect in the Word Horridly, a Uteral Deviation to have been made from the Poet by his Copyists ... I think it ought to be re- stored thus So Horribly to shake our Disposition The change of Horridly into Horribly is very trivial as to the Literal Part; and therefore, I hope, the Reason for the Change wiU be something more considerable. 'Tis true, horrid and horrible must be confess'd to bear in themselves the same Force and Sig- nification as horridum and horribile were wont to do among the Latines. But horrid, in the most common acceptation and Use, seems to signify rather hideous, uncouth, ugly, enormous, than terrible or frightful ; and it is generally so appUed by our Author. I remember a passage in his King Lear, where it particularly stands for ugly. 74 LEWIS THEOBALD Lear, p. 77. . . . See thy self, Devil; Proper Deformity seems not in the Fiend So horrid as in Woman. I cannot, however, deny, but that our Poet sometimes employs the Word horrid in the sense of frightful, terrible. But every observing Reader of his Works must be aware that he does it spar- ingly, and, ten times for every once, seems fond to use horrible and terrible. It is obvious that he prefers both these Terms, as more sonorous and emphatical than horrid; and the Proof that he does so, is, (which laid the Foundation of Conjecture here,) that he almost constantly chuses them, even when the Numbers of his Verse naturally require horrid. I shall subjoin a few In- stances of both for Confirmation; to which I could have amass'd twenty times as many, but these are enough, at least, to excuse me, tho' I should be deceived in Judgment, from the Censure of being too hypercritical in my Observation. Tempest pag. 73 Where but ev'n now with strange and several Noises Of roaring, shrieking, howling, jingling chains, And more Diversity of Sounds, all horrible. We were awak'd. Lear pag. 41. And with this horrible Object, from low farms. Poor pelting Villages, etc. And again pag. 55 I tax not you, you Elements, with Unkindness; I never gave you KjjKgdom, call'd you Children, You owe me no Subscription. Then let fall Yoiu' horrible Pleasure; — And again, pag. 83 Glouc. Methinks the Ground is even. Edgar. . . . Horrible steep. Hark do you hear the Sea? SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 75 Antony and Cleopatra, pag. 342 Hence horribk Villian! or I'll spurn thine Eyes Like Balls before mel Macbeth, pag. 561 . . . Hence, horrible Shadow! Unreal Mock'ry, hence! . . . *' I have chosen these two emendations because the changes advocated are so similar. Bentley prefers "txirbidum" to "turgidum," Theobald "horribly" to "horridly," and both on the groimd of taste and preponderance of usage, yet at the same time allowing the possibility of the regular reading. There is ia both the same critical attitude toward the text, the same kind of emendation, and precisely the same method of supporting the emendation." Again, consider Bentley's note on Horace, Bk. Ill, Carm. VI, V. 20. Hoc fonte derivata clades In Patriam populumque fluxit. " Shakespeare Restored, p. 41. '^ Dr. King has a burlesque note on this emendation of Bentley's, which is equally applicable to Theobald's if we change "G" to "D." "There is a great controversie in this place; the two candidates are 'turgidum' and 'turbidum,'; the doctor takes the poU, summons the authors to vote, then casts up the books, and declares in favor of 'turbidum';" which, says he, "is more forcible and more terrible than 'turgidum.' Now all the difference Ues between two letters B and G: and the Dr. is for the first. As for G, I own there is much to be said in its behalf; there are several sorts of oaths of great force and terror, in which it is of singular use and virtue: 'Gog, Gorgon, Gun-powder'; and many other frightful things begin with this very letter. As for B, I do not find, though it stands high in the Alphabet, that it is altogether so terrible; there is indeed a conjurer or two, and some few devils whose names set out with a B; but I had forgot that our high and mighty Scholiast gives his 'Mark': and therefore let all readers keep their distance, and for the future approach this dreadful letter with fear and reverence." The Odes Epodes, and Carmen Secit- lare of Horace. In Latin and English : 1713. 76 LEWIS THEOBALD Thus indeed all the MSS read without exception, but never will they prevail upon me to cast my ballot for this reading. For why should I? He says that disasters arising from adulteries as from a fountain, flow into the people and the fatherland. What difference is there between fatherland and people? unless, per- chance, those most vicious morals flowed into patriam terram only. Our poet was not so jejune or lacking in judgment as to foist in that superfluous synonym, as if it were something different. I have little doubt but Horace wrote thus Hoc fonte deriva clades Inque Patres populumque fluxit : into the patres and the populus, that is into all of Roman citizens both patricians and senators, as well as Plebs. This solemn for- mula is in every kind of writing which we will collect in full measure in order that we may sustain the boldness of this conjecture by weight of numbers and thick phalairxes. Virgil Aen. IV, 682. Extinxti me teque, soror, populumque patresque Sidonios, urbemque tuam. IX. 192 Aeneam acciri omnes populusque patresque Exposcunt. Ovidius Metam. XV. Extinctum Latiaeque nurus, populusque patresque Deflevere Numan. MartiaUs VIII, 50 Vescitur omnis eques tecum populusque patresque. And he continues to give many more passages where the phrase is used. , With the foregoing compare this note of Theobald : Macbeth, Page 554. We have Scorch'd the Snake, not kill'd it . . . She'll close, and be herself; . . . This is a Passage which has all along pass'd current thro' the Editions, and Ukewise upon the Stage; and yet, I dare affirm, SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 77 is not our Author's Reading. What has a Snake, closing again, to do with its being scorch'df Scorching would never either separate, or dilate, its Parts; but rather make them instantly con- tract and shrivel. Shakespeare, I am very well persuaded, has this Notion in his Head, (which how true in Fact, I wiU not pre- tend to determine) that if you cut a Serpent or Worm asunder, in several Pieces; there is such an unctious quality in their Blood, that the dismember'd Parts, being only plac'd near enough to touch one another, will cement and become as whole as before the Injury was receiv'd. The AppUcation of this Thought is to Dimcan, the murther'd King, and his surviving Sons; Macbeth considers them so much as Members of the Father, that tho' he has cut off the old Man, he would say he has not entirely kiil'd him; but he'U cement and close again in the Lives of his Sons to the Danger of Macbeth. If I am not deceived therefore, our Poet certainly wrote thus; We have Scotch'd the Snake, not kUl'd it . . . She'U close, and be herself; . . . To Scotch, however the Generalities of our Dictionaries happen to omit the Word, signifies to notch, slash, cut with Twigs, Sword, etc., and so Shakespeare more than once has used it in his works. So Coriolanus, Page 182. He was too hard for him directly, to say the Troth on't; Before CorioU, he Scotch'd him and notch'd him. And so again, Anthony and Cleopatra, Page 393. We'll beat them into Bench-Holes, I have yet Room for six Scotches more. To show how little we ought to trust implicitly to Dictionaries for Etymologies, we need no better Proof than from Bailey in his Ex- pUcation of the Term Scotch-CoUops; he tells us that it means shces of Veal fix'd after the Scotch Manner: But, besides that that Na- tion are not famous for the elegance of their Cookery, it is more natural, and I dare say more true, to allow that it ought to be 78 LEWIS THEOBALD wrote Scotcht-Collops, i.e. CoUops, or slices slash'd cross and cross, before they are put on the coals." The same method is apparent in both notes. First we have the critical doubt. Bentley is unwilling to let the usual reading stand because it produces tautology, Theobald be- cause it is repugnant to the context. Both are willing to depart from all manuscripts or previous authorities. Both adopt an interrogatory attitude, and express their doubts in rhetorical questions. Here, as elsewhere in his notes, Theobald follows Bentley in introducing first the customary reading, viewing it from all sides, examining and rejecting explanations, and thus reducing the reader to a state of perplexity and expectancy until the psychological moment for the emendation. Bentley very seldom introduces his emendation first, a characteristic that is one of the ear-marks of his method. By necessity Theobald's preliminary re- marks are shorter than Bentley's, for the classical critic has far more readings to consider, more explanations to overturn, owing to the previous work done on the classics.^' There '' Shakespeare Restored, p. 185. *' The irrepressible Dr. King has taken off these preambles in humorous fashion: "One of the greatest pleasures in Poetry is ex- pectation, and next to this is surprise; the first is more lasting, the other more moving — Now that which is so much admired in poetry, the Dr. is resolved to try in criticism; when he found his readers divided in this place about two different lections, Daunias and Daunia, with what pomp and ostentation he sets out in discussing this affair? How he leads us thro many great and noble adventures, the confutation of Nic. Heinsius, the power of 1 Greek declension, the story of the Ap- pian Fountain, Direction how to pick up a whore in Rome, the mag- nificance of Agrippa, the Travels of Daunus the lUyrian, the stupidity of the librarians, and so on; till having filled us brimful with expec- tation of the issue, he at last bursts out at once upon us with this final decision. 'That we may read it which way we please.'" The Odes, Epodes and Carmen Seculare of Horace. In Latin and English. MDCCXIII. Note on Bentley's note on Bk. I, Ode 22, 1. 14. SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 79 is cleverness in this method, for when the reader is convinced that the accepted reading is wrong, and is completely per- plexed as to what the real reading is, the plausibihty of an emendation is magnified several fold. After the emendation has been proposed the next step in the process is the conjectural criticism or the supporting of the change. Before applause at their sagacity has died away, Theobald and Bentley are hard at it reinforcing their emendations. It becomes Bentley's task to show that the expression "patres populusque" is a usual and preferred one, which he does by quoting from Virgil, Ovid, Martial, and others where the phrase is found. In a similar manner Theobald takes it upon himself to show that Shakespeare uses "scotch'd" in a sense agreeable to his correction; this he does by quoting passages from Coriolanus and Antony and Cleopatra, where the word is used. While this is by no means the only method employed by both critics in support of a correction, it is the one most generally used and reUed upon. A glance through the Horace and Shakespeare Restored will show how consistently this means of substantiat- ing readings or conjectures is adopted. But Theobald's remarks are by no means devoted entirely to emendations. In overthrowing a definition of Pope's he follows Bentley's method. In Hamlet, Act I, Sc. 5, Pope defines "unanel'd" as meaning "no knell rung." I don't pretend to know what Glossaries Mr. Pope may have con- sulted, and trusts to; but whose soever they are, I am sure their Comment is very singular upon the Word I am about to mention. I cannot find any Authority to countenance unaneaVd in signifying no knell rung. This is, if I mistake not, what the Greeks were used to call an avai Xtyoficvov an Interpretation that never was used but once. Nor, indeed, can I see how this participial Adjec- tive should be formed from the Substantive Knell. It could not possibly throw out the K, or receive in the A. We have an Instance 80 LEWIS THEOBALD in our Poet himself, where the participial Adjective of the Verb simple from this Substantive retains the K; and so Mr. Pope writes it there. Macbeth, pag. 598. Had I as many Sons as I have Hairs, I would not wish them to a fairer Death; And so his Knell is Knoll'd. The Compound Adjective, therefore, from that Derivation must have been written, unknell'd; (or, unknolVd;) a word which will by no Means fill up the Poet's Verse, were there no stronger Rea- sons to except against it ; as it unluckily happens, there are. Let us see then what Sense the Word unanel'd then bears. Skinner in his Lexicon of Old and Obsolete English Terms, tells us, that Anealed is unctus; a Praep. Teut: an and die Oleum: so that unanealed must consequently signify, "Not being anointed, or not having the extream Unction." Theobald then substitutes a variant reading, "disappointed," for "anointed," which follows "unaneal'd," and ends his note thus : So that, this Reading and this Sense being admitted, the Tautol- ogy is taken away; and the Poet very finely makes his Ghost complain of these four dreadful Hardships, viz: That he had been dispatch'd out of Life without receiving the (Hoste, or) Sacra- ment; without being reconciled to Heaven and absolved; without the Benefit of extream Unction; or, without so much as a Confes- sion made of his Sins. The having no Knell rung, I think, is not a Point of equal Consequence to any of these; especially, if we consider that the Roman Church admits the Efficacy of Praying for the Dead.^o In a note on line 450 of*the Clouds of Aristophanes, con- tributed to Kuster's edition of that poet, Bentley takes up the word /»aTioA.oix<>s- This word the scholiast, Photius, Suidas, Eustathius and others allow. Hesychius has /iUTaioXoixos. Some of them derive '" Shakespeare Restored, pp. 53-55. SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 81 the word from fuiraios, others from fidriov (which they wish to mean iXaxurroi) or from imltiov, a kind of measure. All these explanations flow from this one place in Aristophanes, and a faulty one, too, if I am not mistaken. For by the law of anapaests /nartoXoixos should have the first syllable long; there- fore it is not from iidnov which has the first syllable short. In- deed with whom as sponsor should we admit this /xartov, whether a 'very small something' or a 'measure'? Who has said it else- where, who by hearsay has heard it? But granted that we con- ceed the grammarians this, then what sense arises here? iMrauo- Xoixos, 'a licker of vanities,' a 'vain licker': and iiarioXoixo^, 'a licker of infinitesimals,' or a 'licker of measures.' Surely here are the deUriums of grammarians. With the shghtest change I correct thus ^tTpotjiK, apyaXeo^ fMTTvoXoixoi. Moreover you well know what MarTuj; is; without doubt, desserts, rich viands; as turdi; and other things of that nature. You know thair line of Martial — ' Inter quadrupedes mattya prima lepus — ' You also know from Athanaeus that Aristophanes has used the word fuiTTvr] elsewhere. MaTTvoAoixos, therefore, as kvio-oXoixos, licker of sweetmeats; which not only can signify gluttony but also im- pudence, so that it agrees with the other epithets here, 6fjturus, ToXixrjpoi etc. Although arranged in somewhat different order, the ele- ments of both notes are the same. Bentley claims that the explanations of fmnoXoixos are based on a single occurrence of the word, and likewise Theobald holds that Pope's definition of "unanel'd" is an awai Xeyo/xevoi/ "an Inter- pretation that never was used but once." Bentley insinu- ates that the current explanations of the Greek word makes no sense in the passage; Theobald says that Pope's defini- tion "is not a point of equal Consequence" to the other hardships. Bentley shows that /xaTioXotxo's cannot be derived from ndriov on metrical grounds; Theobald makes it plain that "unanel'd" cannot be derived from "unknell'd," for the "k" could not have dropped out or the "a" been inserted, and that "unknelled" cannot stand for metrical 82 LEWIS THEOBALD reasons. Bentley bases his reading upon imrrvri; 'iTheobald bases his upon "anealed." For authority Bentley refers to Martial and Athenaeus, Theobald to Skinner's Lexicon. Bentley concludes by stating that his correction agrees with the other epithets; in his conclusion Theobald asserts that his reading is on a plane of equality with the other hardships suffered by Hamlet's father. Theobald has been criticized for his .elaborate corrections of punctuation, but in this he was "also following Bentley. One of the latter's notes on Horace reads : '^ Proeliis Audax neque te silebo Liber. From the times of the scholiast Acron, there has been no one who has not punctuated the verse in this mamier, just as if Liber proeUis Audax was said by Horace. We ought justly to be indignant at that which has been so 'carelessly done. For although it must be confessed that the victorious Bacchus with the dance of his satyrs, and Maenads had penetrated to farthest India; whence on this account he is called brave by Valerius Flaccus. V. 494. quotque ante secuti Inde nee audacem Bacchum nee Persea reges. And in the Gigantomachia he lacerated Rhoecus in the form of a Uon: but not from one or two acts, but from the continued nature and character of Bacchus, must this epithet have been given. And yet Bacchus is nearly always ridiculed by the poets, as if he were the most meticulous and effeminate of all the gods. Only look at the Batrachi of Aristophanes; where the most facetious of poets makes wonderful jokes of his cowardice and timidity. Why say more? This epithet must be referred to PaUas, not to Liber; and the faulty pointing corrected in this manner: Proximos ilU tamen occupavit Pallas honores Proeliis audax. Neque te silebo. Liber. "■ Bk. 1, Carm. 12, v. 21. 8HAKESPEABE RESTORED 83 Which suits Pallas as aptly as can be, and he evidently must be blind that does not see it. The poets adorn her here and there with these titles: Bellica, bellatrix, beUipotens, beUigera; etc. and also the Greeks. Virgilius Aen. XI. Armipotens beUi praeses Tritonia Virgo. Statius SUv. rV. 5. Regina bellorum Virago. Theobald corrects the punctuation in a passage from TroHus and Cressida, Act. IV, Sc. I.'^ Troilus and Cressida, Page 74. Aene. And thou shalt hunt a Lion thai will flie With his Face back in human gentleness: Welcome to Troy . . Now, by Anchises's Life, Welcome indeed . . . Thus this passage has all along been read, and never understood, as I suppose, by any of the Editors. The second and fourth Folio Editions make a small Variation of the Pointing, but do not at all mend the Matter. I don't know what Conception the Edi- tors have had to themselves of a Lion's flying in humane Gentleness : To Me, I confess, it seems strange Stuff. If a Lion fly with his Face tum'd backward, it is fighting all the Way in his Retreat; And in this Manner it is Aeneas professes that He shall fly, when he's hunted. But where then are the Symptoms of humane Gentle- ness? Mr. Dryden, in his Alteration of this Play from Shake- speare, has acted with great caution upon this Passage: For not giving himself the Trouble to trace the Author's Meaning, or to rectify the Mistakes of his Editors, he closes the Sentence at . . . with his face backward ; and entirely leaves out, in humane Gentle- ness. In short, the Place is flat Nonsense as it stands, only for Want of true Pointing. I think, there is no Question to be made, but that Shakespeare intended it thus: " Shakespeare Restored, pp. 147, 148. 84 LEWIS THEOBALD And Thou shall hunt a Lion, that will flie With his Face back. . . . In humane Gentleness, Welcome to Troy; . . . Now, by Anchises' Life, Welcome, indeed: . . . Aeneas, as soon as ever he has return'd Diomjede's Brave, stops short and corrects himself for expressing so much Fury in a Time of Truce; from the fierce Soldier becomes the Courtier at once; and, remembering his enemy as Guest and an Ambassador, welcomes him as such to the Trojan Camp. This Correction, which I have here made, slight as it is, not only restores good Sense, but admirably keeps up the Character which Aeneas had before given Agamemnon of his Trojan Nation, Page 27. Courtiers as free, as debonair, unarm'd. As bending Angels; that's their Fame in peace: But when they would seem Soldiers, they have Galls, Good Arms, strong Joints, true Swords, and Jove's Accord, Nothing so full of Heart. Each critic calls attention to the fact that the passage has long labored under the wrong pointing. Bentley shows that the phrase "proeliis audax" is not applicable to Bacchus, by quotations from various sources, while Theobald shows that the phrase "in humane gentleness" is not applicable to the lion described, by appeal to common sense and ref- erence to Dryden's alteration of the play. Bentley asserts that his pointing gives an epithet to Pallas which suits her "as aptly as can be," and for proof quotes passages from Virgil and Statins, where such a character is given her. Theobald's pointing gives the disputed phrase to the Trojans, which, he says, "admiraoly keeps up the Character" of those people, and for proof he quotes from the play under discussion, where such a character is given them. The notes quoted above are by no means exceptional, and it would not be a hard matter to find parallels in Bentley's Horace for the majority of the notes in Shakespeare Restored. SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 85 In general, the selections have been made because of small resemblances; the more general and fundamental similari- ties are apparent in nearly all the notes. In proposing an emendation, correcting punctuation, and defending a variant or explaining a current reading Theobald follows closely in the footsteps of Bentley. No example has been given of the defense or explanation of a reading, but it is easy to make a comparison of the notes on Horace, Bk. I, Ode XVIII, V. 14; Bk. Ill, Ode XXVII, v. 48; and Bk. I, Sermo VI, V. 79, with the notes found on pages 61, 109, and 128 of Shakespeare Restored. Yet there is little use in particulariz- ing, as almost any two notes having a similar purpose will serve. Theobald's notes easily fall into the divisions made for classical textual criticism — the critical doubt, emendation, and conjectural criticism. '^ In the critical doubt he brings grammatical, historical, and aesthetic tests to play upon the various readings. By a close study of the passage and the context he may show where there is bad grammar or a violation of metrical laws. Sometimes he points out that the current reading is contrary to the context, or that the passage possesses little or no meaning. Sometimes he proves that there stands in the text a word which does not exist, or which cannot have the meaning necessary to the intelligibility of the passage. All this he does by scrutinizing the text with critical care and producing his proofs with learning and logic. In these last Theobald may be far inferior to Bentley, yet their presence is apparent on every page. There is no jumping to conclusions, neither is there any blind acceptation of unintelligible passages, but in their stead a careful weighing of evidence, a logical handling of facts toward the ascertaining of a corruption. In a critical light he examines everything. " See ante, Chap. II, note 29. 86 LEWIS THEOBALD Bentley's grammatical criticism contains the same ele- ments. Especially does he study the context, even sum- marizing it in many of his notes. In such cases he shows that the suspected word is either directly contrary to the context, or else renders the whole passage absurd and un- intelligible. Again he may prove, by etymology or other- wise, that a certain word is impossible, or that it cannot bear the meaning necessary to the sense of the passage. He is quick to note a mistake in grammar and is thorough in his investigations of a grammatical law. In some of his notes he shows faults in meter, a far more certain element in the classics than in Enghsh, though Pope depended largely upon it in his corrections, and Theobald not infrequently emended for metrical reasons. Intelligibility, granunar, and meter are the fundamentals of grammatic criticism with both Theobald and Bentley. Also the style and manner of showing violations in these are the same. Especially prominent is the use of rhetorical questions, and they are asked with the same gusto by both critics. ' Historical criticism proves a corruption by showing that knowledge derived from other sources contradicts the passage under observation. Bentley's extensive and organized knowl- «dge enabled him to use this with wonderful success, evi- dence of which is seen throughout all his works. One of the notes quoted above furnishes an example of this kind of criticism. According to the current punctuation Bacchus was characterized as warlike, but knowledge gained from other writers shows that h^was of quite an opposite nature. Theobald likewise uses historical criticism a great deal. Pages 159-165 are entirely devoted to showing the mistakes of Pope due to inadvertence to history. From his knowledge of the story of Theseus, Theobald shows that in A Mid- summer Night's Dream "Pergenia" should be "Pergune";** *• Shakespeare Restored, p. 159. SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 87 from his knowledge of English history he shows that in King John "Anjou" should be substituted for "Anglers"; ^ and from his knowledge of Latin literature he believes that "love" should be changed to "Jove" in Much Ado About Nothing. ^^ Both Theobald and Bentley make bold to engage in aes- thetic criticism, the most dangerous of the three. Here it would not be rash to grant the Shakespearean critic precedence over the classical scholar. The logical nature of Bentley's mind, which was of so much assistance in establishing fact and restoring meaning to unintelligible passages, was more of a hindrance than a help in judging literature by artistic standards. He could not overcome the tendency to inject logical consistency into a poetical passage. Though his Horace furnishes many instances of this fault, the shining example is his edition of Milton, where his notes are logical enough, but with a logic that makes poetry prose. In his classical notes he depended upon his literary judgment with every sign of assurance, expressing his criticisms with such words as "jejune," "otiose," "rough," and the Hke. Aes- thetic criticism requires more than knowledge, more than logic. It requires a certain innate perception, nourished by a close and sympathetic study of the best in literature. An aesthetic critic must be a potential artist. Here Theobald shows his superiority. He was a poet, poor indeed but with judgment superior to his accomplish- ments. His criticisms are worth reading when he speaks of a passage as possessing energy or elegance, as being bald and mean, marred by tautology or indifferent English. He condemns one Hne as being "a dragging Parapleromatick," and makes a truly wonderful emendation." A passage in " Shakespeare Restored, p. 161. » Idem, p. 175. " Shakespeare Restored, p. 190. 88 LEWIS THEOBALD Romeo and Juliet read As is the bud bit with an envious Worm E're he can spread his sweet leaves to the air Or dedicate his beauty to the same. Logic or knowledge could find no fault with this passage. It is perfectly clear and consistent. Bentley could have found little to cavil at. But the poetic sense of Theobald made him hesitate at the last line as being prose rather than poetry, and the same artistic feeling suggested "sun" for "same." It is hard to conceive of the great classical critic making an emendation that would show such a delicate poetic feeling. Perhaps we shall never know whether Shakespeare wrote "sun," but the emendation will always remain a contribution to things beautiful. We even find Theobald escaping where Pope erred. His appreciation of poetic license made him reject Pope's conjecture of "siege" for "sea" in Hamlet's famous soliloquy, even though there seemed to be a violation of reason. ^^ As has been noticed on a previous page, after the critical doubt Bentley and Theobald use similar expressions in introducing their emendations. The tone in these introduc- tory phrases — and often the wording itself — is the same, ranging all the way from the greatest surety to a doubting diffidence, with the former more frequent. Statements such as "It must certainly be read thus," "It must be '* Shakespeare Restored, p. 82. We can well imagine how Bentley would have attacked this passage: "Or to take arms against u. sea of Trouble. Thus all the edition3»I have ever seen, but never will they prevail upon me to agree with them. For who would do such a thing as arm against the sea? How could one fight with water? Surely this is wretched nonsense. It is true that Xerxes ordered the sea whipt, but who would behave that the poet was thinking of him? Correct, as the poet most certainly wrote, ' a siege of trouble.' This figure is often employed by the poets." And then would come a long list of quotations in which "siege" was used. SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 89 corrected in spite of all copies," "Without doubt it must be corrected," as well as more modest assertions, such as "I suspect that," "I scarcely doubt that," "I dare affirm our author wrote thus," are found on nearly every page of the Horace and Shakespeare Restored. Although this is a trifling correspondence, it is so prevalent as to give a certain tone or atmosphere to the English and Latin notes. In the actual emendation the two critics both show al- most uncanny sagacity. Though Bentley shows in his notes more learning and sheer mental power, Theobald's emendations give just as clear proof that he was possessed of that pecuUar indefinable gift necessary to any great corrector. Furthermore, Theobald evinces more respect for manuscript authority than Bentley (the earlier editions of Shakespeare corresponding to the manuscripts of classical authors). While the latter calls attention to "the slightest change" or "the change of a single letter" required for an emendation, he is not loath to restore with an air of certainty where there is little or no trace of the true reading in the manuscripts. Theobald also calls attention to the slight change in the current text necessary for his emendations, but where all traces are lost he puts his emendation on the basis of pure conjecture. '' It is really remarkable that, living in an age when so much license was granted the restorer, and being among the very first to correct English texts, Theobald should have kept so close to the various readings. It is on this ground that he defends himself against unjust censure: " "We have not, indeed, so much as the Foot-steps, or Traces, of a corrupt Reading here to lead us to an Emendation: nor any Means left of restoring what is lost but Conjecture. I shall therefore offer only what from the Sense of the Context seems to be required. I am far from affirming that I shall give the Poet's very Words, but 'tis probable that they were, at least, very near what follows in Substance." Shake- speare Restored, p. 108. 90 LEWIS THEOBALD But it is high Time now that I turn my Pen to one promised Part of my Task, which is yet in Arrears, viz. an Endeavour to restore Sense to Passages, in which, thro' the Corruption of suc- cessive Editions, no Sense has hitherto been found: Or to restore, to the best of my Power, the Poet's true Text, where I suspect it to be mistaken thro' the Error of the Press or the Manuscript. The utmost Liberty that I shall take in this attempt, shall generally confine itself to the minute Alteration of a single Letter or two : An Indulgence which, I hope, I cannot fear being granted me, if it retrives Sense to such Places as have either escaped Observation or never been disputed or understood by their Editors.'"' As regards manuscript assistance, Bentley was far more fortunate than Theobald in his apparatus criticus. Many are the manuscripts and editions of Horace that figure in his notes. Theobald, however, for his remarks on Hamlet, had to rely on the second folio, ^^ the 1637 quarto, a 1703 quarto, and Hughes' quarto. For part of his work he had an opportunity of examining the fourth folio. For the rest of the plays he had to content himself with the folios just mentioned, the 1600 quarto of Much Ado About Nothing, the 1611 quarto of Titus Andronicus, and a 1655 quarto of Lear. He also, perhaps, derived some slight assistance from later alterations of the plays. In the conjectural criticism, where an emendation is tested and supported, the process is pretty much the same as in the critical doubt. Grammatical, historical, and aesthetic tests are applied. Both critics show how the sense is restored or unproved, or grammar rectified. In case the correction has to do with hijitory, the restored word is shown to agree with knowledge derived from other sources. Often the emended passage is shown to be more poetical or effective than the old reading. But the main support of an emen- *" Shakespeare Restored, p. 165. " This, Theobald says, was "in the Generality esteemed the best Impression of Shakespeare." Shakespeare Restored, p. 70. SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 91 dation, one emphasized by Bentley both in words and in practice,*^ is a long Hst of passages from various works quoted to show a similar or usual use of the word re- stored, or to support a stated fact of history, grammar, metrics, and the like. Theobald also emphasizes this method, and a glance through his remarks on Hamlet will reveal the large number of passages quoted. If there are not quite so many quotations in the appendix to Shake- speare Restored, it is more because of lack of space than of inclination. On more than one occasion he calls attention to this method : As every Author is best expounded and explained in One Place, by his own Usage and Manner of Expression in Others ; wherever our Poet receives an Alteration in his Text from any of my Correc- tions or Conjectures, I have throughout endeavour'd to support what I offer by •parallel Passages, and Authorities from himself: which, as it will be my best Justification, where my Attempts are seconded with the Concurrence of my Readers; so it will be my best Excuse for those Innovations in which I am not so happy to have them think with me.*' The majority of Bentley's notes on Horace are concerned with various readings, and there are almost as many "cor- rections from various readings" in Theobald's remarks on Hamlet as there are conjectures, though we have, in the previous discussion, been chiefly considering the latter. Yet there is little difference in the process requisite for the establishment of both. An accepted variant reading is a conjecture with manuscript authority, while the rejected reading is the corruption. The suspected reading is sub- jected to the scrutiny of the critical doubt, and the preferred " See ante, Chap. II, note 30. *' Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. viii. See also p. 128, where Theobald says that to expound an author by himself "is the surest Means of coming at the Truth of his Text." 92 LEWIS THEOBALD one is subjected to all the tests and supported by all possible authority. The process involved is practically the same, and appears so in both Latin and English notes. Omitted passages stand in the light of various readings, while the correcting of "false printing" and "false pointing" is merely a detail of conjectural emendation. Theobald's method extends to the formulation of certain metrical and grammatical rules followed by Shakespeare, together with certain characteristics of his poetic style. He notices that the poet often introduces an extra syllable into his verses, and he refuses to reduce them to classic regu- larity.'** His corrections for meter are generally based on the absence of a syllable. He proves certain grammatical peculiarities, such as the use of nouns and adjectives as verbs,*^ the use of adjectives as nouns,*^ the frequent change of number,^' and the use of the nominative case in pronouns instead of the accusative. He notices Shakespeare's custom of repeating a word to give force, and the redoubling of pronouns. He reached these conclusions by a most thorough and systematic study of the plays, and for proof of them he quotes extensively from Shakespeare, where the rule is seen in operation. Though this may seem an obvious method, it does not appear to have been employed before in the study of English texts. Bentley, to be sure, is most consistent in the use of such a method when he is proving a metrical or grammatical law, and if there was any source for Theobald's method, it must be here.^' There are a few other slight similarities between the two critics. Theobald follows* Bentley's method of correcting " Shakespeare Restored, pp. 2, 20, 24. « Idem, pp. 8, 11. « Idem, p. 37. " Idem, p. 35. *' For example, see notes on Horace, Bk. Ill, Ode XVI, v. 31, and Bk. Ill, Ode XII, v. 1. SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 93 a passage "on the run," so to speak; that is, quoting a passage in support of an emendation and then correcting it, or correcting the passage before presenting it for proof." He also is Uke Bentley in claiming credit for an independent emendation later verified by another reading.*" The reason Theobald gives for selecting Hamlet as the subject of most of his remarks, not because it was the most faulty, but be- cause it was the most popular of the plays, is the same as Bentley gave for editing Horace. Besides these echoes of Bentley, there are a few references to other scholars. The motto, taken from Virgil and appearing on the title page, . . . Laniatum Corpore toto Deiphobum vidi et lacerum crudeliter Ora, Ora, manusque ambo, . . . evidently looks back to a note of Markland's Epistola Critica}^ In comparing the corrupt text of Shakespeare to a sick person,'^ Theobald was employing a figure used in classical scholarship,*' and his characterization of Pope's "abhorrence of all innovation" as "downright Supersti- tion" " had been given to others.** This critical treatise contained several discoveries — since become commonplace — the most remarkable of which was that he who undertakes to edit an author has a duty to perform. Theobald claimed that the failure of Pope's edition was explained by the fact that the poet declined the duty of an editor, a duty that every editor owed Shake- " Shakespeare Restored, pp. Ill, 148. '° Cf. Shakespeare Restored, pp. 82, 102, with note on Horace, Bk. Ill, Ode XVII, V. 5. " See ante. Chap. II, p. 45. " Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. vi. " See ante. Chap. II, p. 48. " Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. iv. " See ante, Chap. II, p. 54. 94 LEWIS THEOBALD speare — that of being a critic on him.^^ This duty he further defined as the exertion of every power and faculty of the mind to supply the defects of corrupt passages, and to give light and restore sense to them. Thus he was un- willing to pass by, as he accused Pope of doing, passages he did not understand, but earnestly set about clearing up the obscurity with what materials he had at hand. His conception of what an editor was obUgated to do was pro- phetic of the modern idea. There are three ways of removing textual obscurities: one is by explaining the passage on the basis of the current text; another is by the adoption of a variant reading, when there is one ; and the last lies in emen- dation. Now the first two are emphasized; Theobald was inclined to emphasize the last two. Yet the substance of his idea of an editor's duty remains the same to-day — the expenditure of the greatest critical care and dihgence toward making a text as inteUigible as possible. Besides, as we have seen, he worked according to a defi- nite method, one of which he was perfectly conscious. In one of his remarks on Hamlet, he says the other plays of Shakespeare can be restored "with the same method."" The secret of this method he states in another place, where he claims emendations are more substantial than mere guesses when supported by reason or authority. ^^ Here is the spirit of scholarship that refuses to accept anything that cannot be buttressed with proofs and reasons — ■ knowl- edge ordered by logic, the basis of all sciences. The term "authority" covers a multitude of things, but Theobald relied, to a great extent, on parallel passages quoted to up- ^ Stated on p. v of the Introduction and repeated on p. 133 of Shakespeare Restored. " Shakespeare Restored, p. 60. " Idem, p. 133. SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 95 hold a reading or sustain a statement.^' References to classical writers of every description show his wide acquain- tance with Greek and Latin literature, while his quotations from Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Spenser display his familiar- ity with them. But the lack of any reference to Elizabethan literature in general, with the exception of Spenser, and the drama in particular is rather surprising.^ The only Eliza- bethan drama referred to is The Humorous Lieutenant of Beaumont and Fletcher. This lack of knowledge of the Uterature of Shakespeare's age was a defect, and a serious one, in Theobald's method. As we shall see later, it was in overcoming this deficiency that Theobald's edition makes a pronounced advance over his first critical effort. The work is also unique for its time in that it is permeated by a sincere desire for truth rather than victory, a desire that makes the critic confess and correct a mistake made on an earlier page.^' There is a ring of sincerity in the statement, "Whenever I am mistaken, it will be a Pleasure to me to be corrected, since the Public will at the same Time be imdeceived." ^^ Though Theobald speaks of the "Ap- plause of the Readers " and implies that he acted on a " View of Reputation," ^' he did not let his desire for glory over- come his love for truth. Even if his attempt should fail, he hopes that others will be led to read Shakespeare more dihgently, so "that better Critics will make their own Ob- '' Cf. Shakespeare Restored, p. 159. Here Theobald, to give "author- ity" to a statement of his, quotes Plutarch, Athenaeus, Diodorus, Siculus, Apollodorus, and Pausanias. He focuses evidence from wide sources upon a point under discussion in the same manner as Bentley. «" Professor Lounsbury says these extracts are taken from other dramatists of Shakespeare's time, but I suspect he was thinking of Theobald's edition. See Text of Shakespeare, p. 160. " Shakespeare Restored, p. 191. «2 Idem, p. 194. <" Idem, pp. 133, 193. 96 LEWIS THEOBALD servations, with more Strength than I can pretend to." " Nor was Theobald disappointed in the hope that others might be influenced to spend more time over the text of Shakespeare, as well as over the texts of other EngHsh poets. He was perfectly aware of the novelty of his work which he justly declared to be "the first Essay of literal Criticism upon any Author in the English Tongue." *^ Yet the very novelty of the undertaking made him regard the outcome with some trepidation. Knowing of the attacks that had been made upon the mighty Bentley and the Royal Society, it is no wonder he felt that he ran a risk.*^ Furthermore, the consciousness of his own attitude in the past perhaps had something to do with his explanation that "No Vein of Pedantry, or Ostentation of useless Criticism invited me to this Work." *' He was somewhat doubtful of the way Pope would receive his book, but was fatuous enough to rely upon the generosity of a man whose regard for Shake- speare and truth was considerably less than his vanity. I must expect some Attacks of Wits, being engag'd in an Under- taking of so much Novelty: The Assaults that are merely idle, or merely splenatick, I shall have the Resolution to despise: And I hope, I need be under no great Concern for Those, which can proceed from a generous Antagonist. . . . And whenever I have the Luck to be right in any Observation, I flatter myself, Mr. Pope himself will be pleas'd, that Shakespeare receives some Benefit.'' " Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. vi. " Idem, p. 193. " Idem, p. 193. • " Idem, p. vi. " Idem, p. 194. Compare also the passage on p. 134, where he says that he nms a great risk in correcting Pope's emendations, but where he is wrong he is willing to be Pope's foil. This brings to mind the famous couplet of Garth on the Phalaris controversy; and, in- deed, the controversies between Boyle and Bentley and between Pope and Theobald were more than superficially similar. SHAKESPEARE KESTORED 97 But while Theobald had some misgivings over his innova- tion, there was one man who clearly saw the importance of the volume. His friend, Mathew Concanen, communicated to The London Journal for September 3, 1726, a letter of Theobald containiag some emendations, to which the former prefixed a significant introduction worthy of being quoted in full. It is a debt which the World owes to those who have deserved well of it, to preserve their reputations as long as the materials of which they are formed can be made to last. To this kind of reward I think no sort of men better entitled than the Poets; whether we consider them as seldom receiving any other, or as they really are Benefactors in a very high degree to mankind. This is in a great measure confessed by the practice of other Coun- tries towards the memory of such as have excelled among them, and by the consent of all Nations in their admiration and ap- plause of the Antients. We are the only people in Europe who have had good Poets among them, and yet suffer their reputation to moulder, and their memory as it were to rust, for want of a httle of that Critical care, which is as truly due to their merit as to that of the antient Greek and Roman Writers — You perceive what I aim at. It is to observe to you, that some tolerable Com- ments upon the Works of our celebrated Poets are not only ex- pedient, but necessary. Every Writer is obliged to make himself understood of the age in which he lives; but as he cannot answer for the changes of manners and language which may happen after his death, those who receive pleasure and instruction from him are obUged, as well in gratitude to him as in duty to posterity, to endeavour to perpetuate his memory, by preserving his mean- ing. This is what the French have done by their Marots, Rabelais' s, and Ronsards ; nay even Boileau, who died within our memory, is thus armed against the assaults of Time. The Italians, who are not thereto provoked by a changing Language like ours, have not a tolerable Writer in their tongue whose Works are not illus- trated by some useful Notes; while we, whose manners are so vari- able, and whose Language so visibly alters every century, have 98 LEWIS THEOBALD not one Poet (though there are several whom we adnure) who has met with the good fortune of a kind hand endeavouring to seciu« him against mortality. Strange humour! Much pains have been taken to preserve to us the Picture of Chaucer, while nobody has thought it proper to render that better picture of him, his writings, inteUigible to future ages. Butler has had a Monument erected to his memory in Westminster- Abbey; how much more emphatically might it be said to be erected to his memory, if it were a Comment upon his excellent Hudibras: which, for want of such illustration, grows every day less pleasing to his Readers; who lose half his wit and pleasantry, while they are ignorant of the facts he alludes to. I own, it grows daily more difficult to per- form this duty to old Authors; and therefore the Italians say, that a Comment ought to be made when the Work does not need it, for that it will be impossible to make one when it does. I have been thrown into these thoughts by a Letter from a Gentle- man, who has first in our language given proofs of an abiUty to do justice to an excellent Writer. Sorry I am that he is not al- lowed to indulge the inclination, which is accompanied by so much knowledge and genius to execute it. The Letter (which I send you with this) was occasioned by some discourse I had with him upon a passage in Shakespeare which, through the error of the text, neither he nor I could then discover the meaning of; but such is his zeal for the Author, and such is his penetration in matters of Learning, that in a day or two he perfectly cleared it up. I cannot conclude without observing, that such a Critick as this might bring the name of a Commentator into the repute which it has lost by the dull and useless pedantry of some Pre- tenders to it. Such a Gentleman, and none but such, ought to repubUsh an old Writer, since it is in his power to make reprisals upon his Author, and to raeeive as much glory from him as he gives to him.*' The significance of Theobald's production is twofold. First, he brought to the study of English letters the spirit and the method of sound scholarship. He conducted his " Reprinted in Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 18&-191. SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 99 investigations with critical care, and supported his con- clusions with the most thoroughgoing evidence of which the materials of his knowledge were capable. Second, he showed by the favor with which his work was received that Enghsh writers were worthy of the same study given the classics. He dignified scholarship in English literature, raising it to a level with the traditional objects of research. It does not seem to have entered the minds of others that the texts of English writers deserved the same minute care as the classics, and Theobald himself was not sure of the value of his labors ; even his success did not completely assure him. Later we find him turning his attention away from English to Greek and Latin writers, and seeking to bolster up his reputation by corrections on them. Nor is this strange. From days immemorial the classics had been the source and object of investigation, yet during the first quarter of the eighteenth century the researches of Bentley had been subjected to the bitterest taunts of the wits. If such were the attitude toward Bentley, what would it be toward one who brought Bentley's method to bear on an English poet? Yet Theobald's effort met with wider and more complete favor than Bentley's Dissertation on Phalaris. Only the persistent virulence of Pope and the misrepresentation of his later admirers succeeded in be- Kttling the critic's work. At the time, Shakespeare Restored met with great success, and this, together with the convinc- ing nature of Theobald's remarks, influenced others to turn their attention to Enghsh writers. CHAPTER IV THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD" Shakespeare Restored met with a substantial success, as is attested by the notices and commendations in the periodi- cals of that day ; its popularity is also seen in the fact that Theobald came to be known as "the author of Shakespeare Restored." ^ At the end of that work Theobald declared that its success governed his "prosecuting a Design, that savours more of public Spirit than private Interest"; so the appearance a few months later of an emendation of his shows that he was sufficiently pleased with the im- mediate reception his first effort secured to continue in this critical field. Henceforth work on Shakespeare became his chief interest and delight. Recognition of his capacity as a textual critic, based upon his first pubUshed emenda- tions, is well attested by the number of men who were glad to render him assistance. Among these latter was Mathew Concanen, a lawyer by profession and literary man by choice, who, soon after Theobald's appearance as a Shakespearean scholar, praised his abihty, and regretted that he had not revised the whole text.^ When this favorable criticism was written Concanen did not know the scholar, but he must have made his acquaint- ance soon after, for a correspondence was begun between them. He contributed one of Theobald's letters to The London Journal, September 3, 1726, together with his ex- pressed recognition of the significance of Theobald's work, ' Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 177, 179. « Mist's Journal, May 7, 1726. THE PERIOD OP " THE DUNCIAD" 101 quoted in the previous chapter.' He also introduced the critic to his circle of literary friends, who later went under th^ title of the "Concanen Club." Among these were Dennis, James Moore-Smythe, and Thomas Cooke. It was at a meeting of this group that Theobald first met Warburton, who was introduced by Concanen on New Year's Day, 1727." On meeting Warburton Theobald must have immediately engaged him on the subject of Shakespeare, ever upper- most in the critic's mind, for in a letter written the following day to Concanen, Warburton speaks of papers he promised to his new acquaintance and of offering to "Mr. Theobald an objection against Shakespeare's acquaintance with the Ancients." ^ Nothing came of their meeting until March, 1729, when a correspondence began between them, which, devoted largely to criticism of Shakespeare, continued until the summer of 1736. This friendship with Warburton, although the divine proved to be absolutely faithless, was of considerable assistance to Theobald in rendering him sympathy, encouragement, and inspiration to pull through the dark years following The Dunciad. In December of 1727 Theobald brought forth a drama purporting to come from the pen of Shakespeare.' In his ' This letter contained the emendation of "Osprey" for "Asprey" in a passage in Coriolanus, which is thoroughly proved and supported in the true Bentleian manner, notice being called to Pope's evident ignorance of the meaning of the passage. * Nichols, Illustraiions of Literature, vol. 2, p. 195. ' This letter contains criticism of Dryden, Milton, and Addison, as well as the famous statement that Pope borrowed for want of genius. Akenside called attention to it, as well as Warburton's correspondence with the dunces in general, in a note on his An Ode to The Late Thomas Edwards, written in 1761, though not printed until 1765. ' Double Falshood; or, The Distrest Lovers. A Play, As it is Acted at the Theatre-Royal in Drury Lane. Written Originally by W. Shake- speare; And now Revised and Adapted to the Stage by Mr. Theo- 102 LEWIS THEOBALD dedication to George Dodington, he calls Double Falshood an orphan play and claims the credit of rescuing this remnant of Shakespeare's pen from obscurity. Against those who would attribute the work to his own pen, he objects that they pay him a greater compliment than he deserves. In his preface he says that the success the acted play met with, together with the reception it found from those great judges to whom he communicated the manuscripts, makes a preface Tinnecessary; so his intention is rather to wipe out a flying objection than to prove the play Shakespeare's. Of the three manuscripts he possessed, one was sixty years old, in the hand-writing of Mr. Downes, the famous old prompter, and had been early in the possession of Betterton, who designed to pubUsh it. Another he purchased at a good price, and the third he received from a noble person who told him the tradition that Shakespeare wrote it while in retire- ment from the stage, and gave it to a natural daughter. To show that chronology was not against the ascription he states that Don Quixote, from which the play was taken, was published in 1611, while Shakespeare died in 1616. He says those do not deserve an answer who think that in coloring, diction, and characters, the play is nearer Fletcher; so he leaves it with better judges, "tho' my Partiality for Shakespeare makes me wish that Every Thing which is good, or pleasing, in our Tongue, had been owing to his Pen." The preface to the second edition differs in a few points from the first. Here he gives the date of the first part of Don Quixote, upon which only the play is based, as 1605. He also says that he hacfonce planned to show the play was Shakespeare's by the peculiarity of the language, but had finally decided no proof was necessary. Instead of bald the Author of Shakespeare Restored. London: Printed by J. Watts, at the Printing-Office in Wild-Court near Lincolns-Inn-FieMs, MDCCXXVIII. THE PERIOD OF "THE DUNCIAD" 103 the phrase, "in our Tongue," in the passage quoted above, the second edition has "in that other great poet" (Fletcher), a substitution that leads me to believe Theobald saw signs of Fletcher in the play. Theobald's growing reputation as a Shakespearean scholar carried sufficient weight to cause a certain amount of con- currence in the ascription of the play to Shakespeare, though some thought it belonged to Fletcher, while others gave Theobald the honor. Some ten years later Pope said that he never supposed it to be Theobald's, but took it to be of the age of Shakespeare.' This statement is certainly contradictory to a note of his in The Dunciad, where he ridicules Theobald's weak reasons for ascribing the play to Shakespeare, registers his behef in the critic's author- ship, and makes a number of satirical emendations. Fur- thermore, there were two references to the play in The Grubstreet Journal, with which Pope may have had some connection. The first was a passage in a poem entitled "The Modern Poets": See Tibbald leaves the lawyer's gainful train To wrack with poetry his tortured brain; Fir'd, or not fir'd, to write resolves with rage. And constant pores o'er Shakespeare's sacred page. Then starting cries — I something will be thought: I'U write — then — boldly swear 'twas Shakespeare wrote. Strange! he in Poetry no forgery fears. That knows so well in Law he'd lose his ears.* The other was a bill against the importation or sale of any book pretended to be written by a dead author : Provided, nothing herein contained, shall be construed to preju- dice L. T d. Esq; or the heir of his body, lawfully begotten, ' Letter to Aaron Hill, June 9, 1738. Elwin and Courthope, vol. 10, p. 53. * Grub-street Journal, No. 98, November 18, 1731. 104 LEWIS THEOBALD in any right or title, which he or they, may have, or pretend to have^of affixing the name of WilUam Shakespeare, alias Shakespear, to any book, pamphlet, play, or poem, hereafter to be by him, or them, or any other person for him, or them, written, made, or devised.' Since its appearance the play has been attributed to several authors: Farmer gave it to Shirley, Malone to Massinger, and Reed was of the opinion that Theobald wrote it. Gifford, however, objects to this last ascription on the ground that the scholar had not sufficient ability to write it, and defends the genuineness of the text because of the use of one word, comparison for caparison}" In recent years there have been several attebipts to establish its authorship. One critic has attempted to identify it with a play called Cardenna or Cardenno, acted in 1613 by the King's men, which is per- haps the same as The History of Cardenio, By Mr. Fletcher and Shakespeare, entered in the Stationer's Register, 1653, for Humphrey Mosley." This theory has been opposed by Mr. Schevill, who thinks the play was taken from an eight- €enth-century version of Cervantes' story, with Theobald the most likely author.'^ Besides the dates being directly » Idem, No. 97, November 11, 1731. "> Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 151. It is interesting to observe that one of Pope's emendations, mentioned above, was the change of comparisons to caparisons. " Gamaliel Bradford, The History of Cardenio, By Mr. Fletcher and Shakespeare, Nation, vol. 88, No. 2283, April 1, 1909; and M. L. N, XXV, 61. Mr. Bradford sees signs of Fletcher in the fact that the story was taken from Cervantes, in the development of the plot, and in the characterization of Violate. He also calls attention to stylistic quaUties in the latter part of the play (from III, 3, to the end), which resemble those of Fletcher — double endings, aUiteration, and repeti- tion, especially of such Fletcherian words as "extremely" and "now." In the first part he claims to detect the presence of a strong mascu- line hand, but does not go so far as to ascribe it to Shakespeare. " Rudolph Schevill, Theobald's Double FaUhood, Modem Philology, vol. IX, p. 269. THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAd" 105 opposed to Mr. Schevill's theory, which makes necessary some unwarrantable hypotheses, the same evidence that proves the play based on the novel can prove the novel drawn from the play.'' Professor Lounsbury is of the firm opinion that Theobald was not the author, since his claims concerning the manu- scripts could have been easily disproved, and would have been, had they been false. But whatever Theobald's part in the work, I am rather confident that he did not himself really believe Shakespeare was the author. It is entirely probable that he obtained manuscripts bearing Shakespeare's name, and attended by a tradition, but a man of Theobald's thoroughgoing scholarly nature, who insisted that all con- clusions should be supported by proof and authority, would not have rested content with the feeble reasons, justly satirized by Pope, which were given in the preface. He would have continued in the design, he said he once had, of proving Shakespeare's authorship by the pecuHarity of the language, a task he was entirely competent for, and one which he would have thoroughly done. Had he beheved the work Shakespeare's, he certainly would have made some mention of it in his edition, and he would probably have drawn on it for illustrative or evidential material in his notes. Nowhere does he allude to the play, and even in his " In a recent contribution to Modem Philology (XIV, 269) Mr. Walter Graham has conclusively proved that the play is based upon Skelton's translation of Don Quixote. Besides reinforcing Mr. Brad- ford's contention of a duaUty of authorship and bringing forth more evidence tending to show that the latter part of the drama belongs to Fletcher, Mr. Graham has pointed out the dissimilarity in style between Double Falshood and some of Theobald's acknowledged plays. He omits, however, what should not be omitted in any discussion of Theobald's connection with the drama, namely, the critic's adapta- tions of Richard II, 1721, and of The Duchess of Malfi {The Fatal Secret), 1735. 106 LEWIS THEOBALD correspondence with Warburton, where many of his per- sonal affairs find a place, he is without exception silent on the matter. As has been stated, he probably felt that Fletcher was concerned in the authorship of the play, though we have no evidence that he had ever heard of The History of Cardenio. The whole affair is the most faint- hearted undertaking with which Theobald has favored us. On December 5, 1727, Theobald was given a royal li- cense, granting him the sole right of printing and publishing the play. Its first appearance on the stage was in Decem- ber, when it enjoyed a considerable success, running for ten nights. In July, 1728, Theobald sold the copyright for one hundred guineas ; " the play does not seem to have entered his mind again save once. In the second edition of Double Falshood, which appeared early in 1728, Theobald first gave notice of his design of correcting all the plays of Shakespeare : I am honored with so many powerful Sollicitations, pressing me to the prosecution of an attempt, which I have begun with some little success, of restoring Shakespeare from the numerous Corruptions of his Text; that I can neither in Gratitude, nor good Manners, longer resist them. I therefore think it not amiss here to promise that, tho private Property should so far stand in the way, as to prevent me from putting out an Edition of Shake- speare, yet, some way or other, if I live, the pubUc shall receive from my hand his whole Works corrected, with my best Care and AbiUty. This notice was followed by a letter, communicated by a friend to Mist's Journal, #iough evidently written for pub- hcation." In introducing the letter the friend said it was but a continuation of the criticisms which Theobald had be- gun to give to the public. Only one other criticism had ap- " Lounsbury, The Text of Shakespeare, p. 147. " March 16, 1728. Nichols {Illustrations of lAterature, vol. 2, p. 199) says Conoanen was the friend. THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD" 107 peared,'^ and it is possible that Theobald was intending to print his corrections of all Shakespeare's plays in periodicals. This letter contained three of Theobald's emendations and one explanation. In Coriolanus, Act. I, Sc. 4, he changes Calvus to Cato's; in Timon, Act. II, Sc. 1, "And have the dates in. Come" to "And have the dates in compt"; and in the Tempest, Act IV, Sc. 1, "a third of my own Hfe" to "a thread of my own life." In these emendations he uses the same method employed in Shakespeare Restored. But his explanation of the "Sagitarry" in Troilus and Cressida is more significant. He shows that the character was taken from The Three Destructions of Troy printed by Wynken de Worde in 1503. Previously he had thought that in the play Shakespeare had depended chiefly upon Homer." It is merely one evidence of the extent to which Theobald was reading the literature to which Shakespeare had access. The period between Shakespeare Restored and his edition of all the plays is marked by a tremendous expansion in his reading of literature which could assist in correcting or illustrating the text. As regards this particular passage, in one of his letters to Warburton he proves con- clusively, by citing a number of details, that Shakespeare depended upon this product of Wynken de Worde's press. ^* The ability and learning shown in these criticisms were sufl[icient to make the editor of the journal to which they were contributed say that if they were a sample of the critic's work, the world would be pleased with Theobald's promise of the whole works corrected by his hand. But it was not permitted for things to continue so smoothly for Theobald. Pope, feeling very keenly the exposure of the defects of his edition, had been nursing his wrath and " See ante, p. 101. " See preface to his alteration of Richard II. " Nichols, Illustralions of Literature, vol. 2, p. 611. 108 LEWIS THEOBALD preparing his counter stroke in silence. The time had now come for his revenge. The first blow fell with the publica- tion of the third or so-called "last" volume of Pope and Swift's Miscellanies, March, 1728. Two volumes of prose miscellanies had appeared early in the preceding summer, in the preface to which Pope said the verses were set apart in a volume by themselves, and perhaps a third volume of prose would appear. This arrangement was broken into by the insertion, in the volume devoted to verse, of a prose treatise, "Martinus Scriblerus IIEPI BAeOTS ; or of the Art of Sinking in Poetry. Written in the year MDCCXVII." It is generally thought now that the treatise was written with the set purpose of calhng forth attacks upon Pope, so that he would seem justified in retahating with The Dunciad; the delay in the publication of the "last" volume of the miscellanies is attributed to the desire to have The Dunciad ready for pubhcation . That such was the purpose of the Bathos I have no doubt, but I am inclined to attribute the delay in the pubhcation of the "last" volume to the fact that the treatise itself was not ready. In a letter written to Swift sometime in January, 1728, Pope says that he has entirely methodized the Bathos and written it all. Furthermore, it contains strictures on Double Falshood which was not pubhshed until 1728. The Bathos, which was commonly known as the Profund, describes the true genius of the profund, and lays down rules whereby a person may sink in poetry. Under its various chapters there appear as examples of the profund three passages from DouJMe Falshood}^ The majority of " In Chapter 7, "Of the profund, when it consists in the thought,'' is placed a passage from Act III, So. 1 : "Is there a Treachery, like This in Baseness Recorded anjrwhere? It is the deepest: None but Itself can be its Parallel." THE PERIOD OF "THE DUNCIAd" 109 the selections are drawn from the poems of Sir Richard Blackmore and Ambrose Philips, though Rowe, Waller, Addison, and others are represented. Some selections are even taken from Pope's own works. All this might be considered genuine literary criticism, but no such defense can be brought forward for Chapter 6, "Of the several kinds of Genius's in the profund, and the marks and characters of each." Here Pope lists the different kinds of writers under various animals, adding the initials of Hving authors. Theobald appears under the eels and the swallows.^" The only other authors to receive the honor of a double entry were Charles Gildon, William Pulteney, Leonard Welsted, and William Broome, but the initials of nearly twenty men were given once. This example of hterary mud- slinging could have had but one purpose — to provoke the infuriated victims to retaliation. But this was not the only attack on Theobald made in the volume. There appeared in the verse a poem entitled Under the caption "Hyperbole or the Impossible" in Chapter 2, the selection is made from Act I, Sc. 3 : "The Obscureness of her Birth Cannot eclipse the Luster of her Eyes, Which make her all One Light." In Chapter 12 a line from the same act and scene is chosen as an ex- ample of "The Financial Style, which consists of the most curious affected, mincing metaphors, and partakes of the alamode": "Wax, render up thy Trust: Be the Contents Prosp'rous, or fatal, they are all my Due." 20 "The Swallows are authors that are eternally skimming and flut- tering up and down, but all their agility is employed to catch flies. L. T., W. P., Lord H." This same figure is used in Dryden's "An Essay of Dramatic Poesy." "The Eels are obscure authors, that wrapt themselves up in their own mud, but are mighty nimble and pert. L. W., L. T., P. M., General C." 110 LEWIS THEOBALD "A Fragment of a Satire," part of which had been pubhshed as early as 1723 in a miscellany of Curll's called Cythereia, and is the first appearance of Pope's attack on Addison. To this satire, however, the author had now added satires on other men. After thrusts at Gildon and Dennis, Pope turns to Theobald : Should some more sober critics come abroad, If wrong I smile; if right, I kiss the rod. Pains, Reading, Study, are their just pretence And aU they want is Spirit, Taste, and Sense. Commas and Points they set exactly right; And 'twere a sin to rob them of their Mite. In future Ages how their Fame wiU spread. For routing Triplets and restoring ed. Yet ne'er one Sprig of Laurel graced these Ribbalds, From sanguine Sew down to piddling T s. Who thinks he reads but only scans and spells, A Word-catcher that lives on syllables. Yet even this Creature may some Notice claim, Wrapt round and sanctified with Shakespeare's name; Pretty in Amber to observe the forms Of Hairs, or Straws, or Dirt, or Grubs, or Worms; The Thing, we know, is neither rich nor rare. But wonder how the Devil it got there.^ The attack on Theobald follows the lines of the attack on the sciences and learning: the triviahty and inconse- " As SeweU had been dead some two years, the only apparent reason for this attack on his memory is the fact that he was associated with Theobald in the preparation o^Shakespeare Restored, and was spoken highly of in one or two passages in the work. Later, when the poem was incorporated in An Epistle to Doctor Arbvihnot, hnes seven and eight were omitted, "slashing Bentley" was substituted for "sanguine Sew ," and in the last line but one "Thing" was changed to "Things'' and the necessary grammatical changes made. In fine, the changes are introduced to make the passage throughout applicable to Bentley as well as Theobald. THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAd" 111 quence of the work and the lack of the finer possessions of taste and good sense. "Pains, Readings, Study," which Pope grants Theobald, can hardly be held against any one now, but at that time scholarly methods were not held in high repute among the wits. This is the first appearance of Pope's spelhng of Theobald's name, which later became so general as to render it probable that some knew of no other. Even to-day some curious mistakes arise. The sneer embodied in "A Word-catcher, that Hves on Syllables" Theobald seems to have resented more than any other leveled at him. This "last" volume of miscellanies succeeded in drawing forth some attacks contained in verses, letters, and the like in the current newspapers. There were a score of these, four of which Professor Lounsbury attributes to Pope.^ After the publication of The Dunciad they were collected and published with a preface ascribed by Pope to Concanen.^ According to Pope, the contributors were Concanen, Roome, Theobald, Dennis, Oldmixon, James Moore-Smythe, and Cooke. The first two were not mentioned in the Bathos. Five notices Pope attributed to James Moore-Smythe. From the large majority of the authors satirized in the Profund there was no response. The only reply that can be definitely ascribed to Theobald was contained in Mist's Journal, April 27. In this letter Theobald refrained from all abuse, claiming that he had 22 Text of Shakespeare, p. 207. ^ A Corn-pleat Collection of All the Verses, Essays, Letters, and Ad- vertisements, which have been occasioned by the Publication of Three Volumes of Miscellanies, by Pope and Company. To Which is added an exact List of the Lords, Ladies, Gentlemen and others, who have been aimsed in those Volumes. With a large Dedication to the Author of the Dunciad, containing some Animadversions upon that Extraordi- nary Performance. London; Printed for A. Moore, near St. Paul's MDCCXXVIII. 112 LEWIS THEOBALD always treated Pope with deference and respect, yet because he had set Shakespeare right, he was subjected to personal attacks, which he did not intend to answer. He then pro- ceeded to justify, in a most thorough and convincing manner, the three passages from Double Falshood by quoting re- markably analogous passages from Seneca, Plautus, Terence, and Ovid. Nor did he confine himself to the classics, but made Romeo and Juliet. A Winter's Tale, and Hamlet furnish precedents for his hnes. One verse which struck Pope as being extremely ridiculous, and which, slightly changed, found a place in The Dunciad,-* None but thyself can be thy Parallel. he showed to be absolutelj' paralleled by a line from the Hercules Furens of Seneca : . . . quaeris Alcidem parem? Nemo est nisi ipse. Theobald did not content himself, however, with defending the passEige attacked. Knowing full well that his strong forte was Shakespearean criticism, he brought forward as proof of his abihty, somewhat irrelevantly perhaps, another emendation which has stood the test of time.^' He also gave " Bk. Ill, V. 272. In a note on this Une Pope answers Theobald's proof by saying that whether DovbU Falshood is Theobald's or not, he has shown that Shakespeare has written as bad, and that no one doubts that in such passages the critic can imitate the dramatist. All references to the Dunciad are to Lawton GiUiver's Second Edi- tion, 1729. " Merchant of Venice, Act ftl, Sc. 2. "You lov'd: I lov'd for intermission. No more pertains to me, my lord, than you." Theobald changed the lines to, "You lov'd; I lov'd: (for intermission, No more pertains to me, my lord, than you)." THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAd" 113 notice that he intended to publish his remarks on Shakespeare, adding that whatever merit his work on the dramatist might have, it would awaken Pope to a greater accuracy in his forthcoming second edition of Shakespeare. And as my remarks upon the whole works of Shakespeare shall closely attend upon the publication of his edition, I'll venture to promise without arrogance that I'll give about five hundred more fair emendations that shall escape him and all his assistants. One production that Pope chose to ascribe to Theobald appeared in Mist's Journal, March 30, 1728,''« the title being An Essay on the Art of a Poet's Sinking in Repidation; being a Supplement to the Art of Sinking in Poetry. This essay in laying down rules whereby a poet may sink in reputation makes use of many phrases used by Pope, but so twisted as to reflect on him. It sums up in brief and caustic manner some of the current accusations against the poet. To sink in reputation let him undertake the trans- lation of the Odyssey in his own name and get a great part done by assistants. As regards Shakespeare, let him publish such authors as he has least studied, and then lend his name to promote an exorbitant subscription. The Miscellanies are but second-hand stuff, and in the Bathos he wrests con- structions for the sake of a sneer. Pope was evidently sincere in giving the authorship to his rival. Later he speaks of having been much injured by one lie contained in this article." Indeed, he had plausible reasons for think- ing the work Theobald's. The author corrected a mis- translation in the first book of the Odyssey, a book translated by Theobald. His opinion of Pope's edition of Shakespeare ** In the "Testimonies of Authors," prefixed to The Dundad, p. 25, Pope accepts it as Theobald's, but on the next page he speaks of the author as "one whom I take to be Mr. Theobald." In the Appendix, p. 187, he speaks of the essay as supposed to be by Mr. Theobald. " Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 223. 114 LEWIS THEOBALD tallies closely with that expressed by the critic, the preface especially being ridiculed. He strongly resents the passage in "A Fragment of a Satire" referring to Theobald; two phrases, "how the devil it got there" and "wrapt round and sanctified with" are turned against Pope. In giving the names Pope bestowed on authors he mentions Word-catchers Routers of Triplets, Restorers of ed, Things, Creatures, Wretches, Ribalds, and Scoundrel.^^ All these were apphed to Theobald in the " Fragment." Either the latter wrote the essay, or else some one was taking up cudgels for him with a vengeance.^' Pope was evidently satisfied with the rather poor results of the provocative treatise on the Bathos, for on May 18, 1728, appeared The Dundad.^'^ Uncertain about the success of the work. Pope so worded the title-page as to make it appear that the poem was the product of Ireland. Nor was he unsuccessful in this purpose, though his caution was unnecessary.'' In "The PubUsher to the Reader," really 2» These appellations, especially Word-catcher, rankled in Theo- bald's breast. In a letter to Warburton, March 10, 1730 (Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 551), he gives a specimen of a pro- jected essay on Pope's judgment, wherein he corrects some of Pope's mistakes in the first book of the Odyssey, and constantly throws up to the poet the epithet "Word-catcher." " "The Reason Mr. Pope struck so home at Mr. Tibbald was because there was more than a Supposition of his writing an Essay on the Art of Sinking in Reputation ; -s in his preface, I confess myself heartily tir'd in following them so far already, and am in such a degree affected with my Subject, that I can scarce forbear sinking like them, into the lowest Recesses of Dulness; but Shakespeare Restor'd verj- luckily relieves me, and, in grati- tude, I think myself oblig'd, at once to thank Mr. The d for that excellent Critique, and condole with him for its being the innocent Occasion of such an execrable Lampoon as the Ditndad. The poem itself is full of praise for Theobald's critical work. Edward Ward in Durgen is more serious. He attacks personal satire, implores Pope to cease prostituting his muse to such vile lampoons, and though attacking Pope bitterly, praises him at times. In his preface he calls Theo- bald a man of learning, probity, and distinguishing merits, while in the poem he styles Shakespeare Restored a meritorious work that must meet with the approbation of all good judges. There were other defenses of Theobald this same year. One who signed himself W. A. contributed a letter to Mist's Journal of June S. in which he severely censures Pope for his reflection on Theobald's poverty and for making him the hero of The Dunciad because his revision of Shakespeare was so much better than Pope's ; in fact, no flaw could be found in it.'* Thomas Cooke, ^ translator whom Theobald as- " In a note on The Dunciad, Bk. I, v. 106, Pope definitely ascribed this letter to Theobald, but in the .\ppendix, p. 190, he saj-s it was written "by some or other of the Club of Th , D s, M — —re, C n, C ke, who for some time, held constantly Weekly meetings for these kind of performances." Relying impUcitly on Pope's word later scholars have often attributed this letter to Theobald and made it the cause of The lhtnciad! THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD" 119 sisted this same year, after speaking of the latter as Shake- speare's friend, says the critic's part is not to abuse but to convince.'' A few years later, Giles Jacob in his The Mir- rour: or, Letters Satyrical, Panegyrical Serious, and Humor- ous, 1733, addressed one of the letters, on the encourage- ment given to learned and ingenious men, to Theobald. The general attitude of that part of the literary world who had escaped the satire and were competent to judge Theobald's wort was that while Pope was supreme in poetry, the other was just as surely the better critic. William Dimcombe, known, if at all, for his adaptation of Voltaire's tragedy Junius Brutus, and entirely removed from the quarrel, expresses this feeling in an epigram entitled The Judgment of Apollo, on the Controversy between Mr. Pope and Mr. Theobald, 1729 : "In Pope's melodious Verse the Graces smile; In Theobald is display 'd sagacious Toil; The Critick's Ivy crowns his subtle brow. While in Pope's Numbers, Wit and Music flow. These Bards, to Fortune will'd, were mortal Foes, And all Parnassus in their Quarrel rose: This the dire Cause of their contending Rage, Who best could blanch dark Shakespear's blotted Page. Apollo heard — and judg'd each Party's Plea, And thus pronounced th' irrevocable Decree; Theobald, 'tis thine to share what Shakespeare writ, But Pope shall reign supreme in Poesy and Wit."" It is well to note that an unconcerned observer attributed the quarrel to Shakespeare Restored. * The Battle of the Poets, revised edition, 1728, p. 32. " This was printed in A New Miscellany, London, printed for A. Moore, 1730. It is now to be found in John Nichols, A Select Collection of Poems, vol. 6, p. 7. See also Reliquiae Hearnianae, ed. P. Bliss, 1869, vol. 3, p. 167. 120 LEWIS THEOBALD Theobald did not reply to the attack on him, but in a letter to Mist's Journal, June 22, took occasion to com- ment on The Dunciad. In a poetical war of this kind he held that attacks should only be made on the faults in poetry, and that none should be satirized except those who failed as poets. When a writer drew private character into the quarrel and satirized men whose activities lay outside the field of literature, he became a common enemy to man- kind and should consider himself lucky if he was not hunted down as a beast of prey. Here Theobald is defending the other "dunces" rather than himself, but he does defend himseK against one unjust attack. In one passage of the satire Pope, knowing that Theobald had contributed a few letters to Mist's Journal, a Tory newspaper, represents him as leaving Hterary pursuits and taking up party writing on the side of the Tories.^* This representation Theobald characterized, indirectly, as a malevolent Ue of an angry wit, which if imputed to inspiration made him content with a httle sober sense, although bright genius deemed it dullness. He claimed, and justly, that his com- munications to this journal were not concerned with poUtics '» Bk. I, U., 189-196 (lines 179-186 in editions of 1728), "But when can I my Flaccus cast aside, Take up th' Attorney's (once my better) Guide? Or rob the Roman geese of all their glories, And save the state by cackling to the Tories? Yes, to my country I my pen consign, Yes, from this moment, mighty Mist! am thine." In a note on this passage, jp the editions of 1729, Pope farther strengthens his accusations by stating that Theobald had a part in Mist's famous Tory paper. Professor Lounsbury, in The Text of Shakespeare, p. 312, thinks the reference to Flaccus may be an allusion to Theobald's intended translation of the poet. I think Horace is used merely as a symbol of interest in Uterature, he being the model and inspiration of this period. THE PERIOD OF "THE DUNCIAd" 121 but only with learning or entertainment; that he had no inclination to meddle in poHtics, sLace his pursuits were of an entirely different nature ; and that such an accusation would hinder his obtaining subscriptions among the nobility, since he could boast but a slender reputation in hterature. He turned the charge of cackling to the Tories against Pope, who, he said, was shrewdly abused or else made a practice of cackling to more than one party. With the above letter Theobold sent his proposals for pubUshing critical and explanatory remarks upon Shake- speare in three octavo volumes at the price of one guinea.'' He claimed that all the corruptions of former editions would be removed, over a thousand emendations introduced, the pointing of some passages rectified so as to make the meaning intelligible, and all obsolete words and difficult places ex- plained. Furthermore, the work was then ready for the press and would be issued to subscribers on the first day of December. He declared that he would not reply to Pope's scurriUties, but would treat him with deference. Theobald must have met with some success with his subscriptions, for in a letter to Sir Hans Sloane at the beginning of the follow- ing August he says that in Sloane's profession he has been favored by Dr. Friend, Dr. Mead, and Dr. Pellet.*" His plans for the pubhcation of the remarks were broken into by the appearance of Pope's second edition of Shake- speare in November of this year. Theobald's emendations had met with such a wide acceptation that Pope felt com- pelled to introduce some of them into the text. This he did with poor grace, faiUng to acknowledge some and caviling at others.*^ At the end of the eighth volume he made a *" I am dependent upon Professor Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 311, for the content of these proposals. " See Appendix, p. 259. " One investigator, ignorant of Shakespeare Restored, comes to the conclusion that Theobald based his edition on Pope's second edition. 122 LEWIS THEOBALD general acknowledgment of the aid he had received from Theobald, estimating it at twenty-five words introduced into the text, and added several pages of his opponent's corrections, on the ground that if thought trivial or wrong, they could at worst spoil only half a sheet that happened to be vacant. He also brought the charge against Theobald that although he publicly advertised for the assistance of all lovers of Shakespeare, while his edition was preparing for the press, yet this critic would not communicate his notes. He ended with a slur at Theobald's abihty to correct errors of the press. The latter was not slow to reply to this misrepresentation. In a letter to the Daily Journal, November 26, 1728, he called to mind the assurance he gave in Mist's Journal that he would be able to give over five hundred emenda- tions that Pope and all his assistants would miss.^^ At the time his friends thought this promise rash, yet Pope had been so generous, he could more than fulfill it. He claimed that instead of Pope's accepting twenty-five of his readings, he had really adopted about one hundred.*' After stating that he had declared over and over again that no provocation would lead him to lose his temper and force him to reply with scurrility, he proceeded to name, negatively, five quaHties of an editor of Shakespeare : industry in collating, knowledge of history, knowledge of modern tongues, judg- ment in digesting text, and judgment in restoring it. Pope's deficiency in all these made him absolutely unequal to the task of editing. Theobald was not content with stating The evidence cited are those readings that did not appear in Pope's first edition, but which appeared in his second and also in Theobald's. Unfortunately these are those taken by Pope from Shakespeare Restored. See Mod. Phil. IV, 501. " I am dependent upon Professor Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 316-321, for the contents of this letter. *' Professor Lounsbury shows the true number to be fifty-one. THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD" 123 this deficiency ; he proved it by citing examples where Pope had failed in each of the stated qualities. As regards Pope's complaint of his not communicating his notes, he said he considered it rash to bestow the labor of twelve years' study upon a bookseller to whom he owed no obUgations, or an editor who was likely to prove thankless. He then added a bold assertion : rU venture to tell Mr. Pope that I have made about two thousand emendations on Beaumont and Fletcher; and if he should take it in his head to promise us a correct edition of these poets, and re- quire all assistances by his royal proclamation, I verily believe I shall be such a rebel as to take no notice of his mandate. In this letter he pointed out the Historica Danica of Saxo Grammaticus as the source of Hamlet, and stated that he had just lately had access to the first foUo. By it he had collated the shortest play of Shakespeare, and found over forty material variant readings which Pope had not noticed. As regards his own remarks on Shakespeare, he claimed that the necessity of reading the eight volumes of this edition made him postpone publication until the following January. To assure his subscribers he offered his manuscript for in- spection at his house by any one desiring to see it. The emendations contributed at various times to periodi- cals, as well as his repeated assertions regarding the progress of his Remarks, show that Theobald had spent the two years since Shakespeare Restored in close study of the dramatist. Yet in 1728 he found time for two other undertakings. One was an edition of Wycherly's posthumous works ; ** the other was in the form of notes contributed to Cooke's trans- ^ Posthumous Works in Prose and Verse, By William Wycherly, 1728. The reputation as an editor Theobald gained from Shakespeare Re- stored was responsible for Captain Shrimpton placing Wycherly's papers in his hands. For Pope's false and malicious characterization of this performance see Elwin and Courthope, vol. 5, p. 182. 124 LEWIS THEOBALD lation of Hesiod. This last represents Theobald's first attempt at textual criticism in the classics. It also shows the regard his friends had for his scholarship not only in EngUsh but also in Latin and Greek. Even his enemies admitted his scholarship.*' Pope objected to him because he was a scholar. Scholarship and scientific investigation, from the time of the controversy between the ancients and moderns until after Pope's death, were looked upon almost as crimes by the Wits. The Phalaris controversy, the Scriblerus conspiracy, the Shakespearean quarrel, and the fourth book of The Dundad are only notable battles in a continual war. In a postscript to the translation Cooke says, I cannot take my leave of this work without expressing my grati- tude to Mr. Theobald for his kind assistance in it. Much may with Justice be said to the advantage of that gentleman, but his own writings wUl be testimonys of his abilitys, when perhaps, this profession of my friendship for him, and of my zeal for his merit, shall be forgot. To this he added that as a matter of justice he had been careful to distinguish all remarks of his friends from his own. Theobald's contribution comprised two complete notes and four parts of notes. These last consist of collections of passages illustrative of some remark of Cooke, and are in- troduced by "The rest of the note by Mr. Theobald." « They are insignificant except as showing Theobald's wide acquaintance with the classics. Of his two whole notgg, one corrects the pointing of a passage in the original, and gives what Theobald considered *' See "Fragment of a Satire. " *' In a note on The Dundad (Bk. 1, 1. 168) Pope speaks of these notes as having been carefully owned by Theobald. The latter had nothing to do with the owning: Cooke, like Theobald and unlike Pope, was scrupulous in giving credit for all assistance. THE PERIOD OP "tHB DUNCIAD" 125 a new explanation of it. The pointing in modern editions is practically the same as his, and while there is still dispute regarding the meaning of the passage, some of the editors of Hesiod hold Theobald's view.'*' Theobald discusses and defends his pointing in true Bentleian manner, supporting whatever he says with numerous quotations. The other note suggests an emendation, the first the Shakespearean critic made in the classics and put forward as "a private suspicion." *^ There is undoubtedly much obscurity in the passage, and Theobald defends his beliefs convincingly. Modern editions escape the difficulty by judging the lines spurious because of the presence of some non-epic forms. These notes, while by no means wonderful, are entirely creditable to Theobald ; any classical critic could own them without a blush. Early in the next year Theobald began his correspondence with War burton. The exchange of letters was very frequent up to the end of 1731, and continued with diminishing fre- quency until the spring of 1736, when it was broken off under circumstances hardly creditable to Warburton. In these letters Theobald and his friend exchanged their remarks and conjectures on Shakespeare and gave their opinions of them. In a letter dated March 18, 1729, Theobald speaks of having received the second paper of criticisms from the divine, and mentions having promised to write him troublesome inquiries.*' From this it could be in- ferred that Warburton had as great a part as Theobald in " See Works and Days (Paley's edition of Hesiod, 1883), 1. 145. In a note discussing the passage, Paley says it is diiHcult to determine the meaning, and gives an explanation of the German editor, Goetthng, which is the same as Theobald's. " Worksand Days (P3Xey'aedition.),\.2Ql:Sijtws araffaMas. Theobald would change SijiJ.os to rrjiios. See Paley's note on this and the fol- lowing lines. <» Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 204. 126 LEWIS THEOBALD establishing the correspondence, an inference that has some bearing on later developments. Hardly had this correspondence been begim when The Dunciad again loomed up on the horizon. In the letter mentioned above Theobald writes, You will hear, I doubt not, by our friend Concanen, that the Par- nassian war is like to break out fiercely again. The Dunciad is pompously re-printed in quarto, and the publication of it every day expected. The next month The Dunciad Variorum made its appear- ance.*" Some knowledge of its contents may be gained from the description given in the advertisement below. Never had an English work been issued into the world with all the elaborate paraphernaha common to the much satirized editions of the classics. Indeed, Pope seems to be intending a satiric thrust at them; the fact that he first planned the notes to be in Latin gives evidence of some such intent.*' '» "This day is published, in a beautiful Letter in 4to, a complete and correct Edition of the Dvmciad: with the Prologomena, Disserta- tions and Arguments of Martinus Scriblerus, Testimonia Scriptorum, Notes Variorum, Index Autorum, Appendix of some curious Pieces, Virgil Restored, or a Specimen for a new Edition of that Poet, a Parallel of Mr. Dryden and Mr. Pope, etc.; wherein the Errors of all the former Editions are corrected, the Omissions suppUed, the Names rectified, and the Reasons for their insertions given; the History of Authors related, and the Anonymous detected; the obscure Passages illustrated, and the Imitations and AUusions to ancient and modern Poets collected; with a Letter to the Publisher, by W. C, Esq. Printed for Lawton GUhver, against §t. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-Street." — London Evening Post, April 12, 1729. Quoted in Nichols, Illus- trations of LUerature, vol. 2, p. 220. " See note on Bk. II, 1. 134. As stated before all references Eire to the second edition, octavo, of Lawton GiUiver. As regards Theobald the changes introduced, from the first appearance of the variorum edition to this edition, are inconsequential. This edition was regarded by Pope as the standard. (Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 255.) THE PEBIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAd" 127 But the real purpose of all this heterogeneous matter was to justify The Dundad and continue the satire on its victims. Since the first publication of the poem, those attacked had been spurred to unusual activity in their replies, which were anything but complimentary to the poet. These opinions of him he listed in such a way in the "Testimonies of Authors" that to the casual reader, without thought of chronology, they would appear as sufficient cause for the satire. For the same purpose, doubtless, he hsted in the appendix those attacks on him that appeared after as well as before the satire. Even in the notes to the poem, he quotes, as tacit reasons for the inclusion of some authors in the satire, works they had written after its first appear- ance. In drawing the parallel between the treatment accorded himself and Dryden, he quotes many of these subsequent criticisms, and in the "Testimonies" he con- trasts the opinions of himself given before and after The Dundad in such a manner as to make their authors ap- pear ridiculous. In short, he made capital of everything his victims wrote in reply to the first edition of the poem. The notes consist largely of the material he gathered con- cerning his opponents while composing the poem, as well as material drawn from works published after its appearance, but it is often given in a distorted and false form. It is well to notice a few of these misrepresentations of Theobald. In the single note giving his life there are no less than five.*^ He speaks of Theobald praising his own productions in anony- mous letters to Mist's Journal, for which statement there is no foundation. He makes Theobald the author of a communication to the same journal, June 8, 1728, which For discussions of the various editions of 1728 and 1729 see Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, Chaps. 12 and 13, and Notes and Queries, 1854, Vol. 2, pp. 69, 108, 129, 148, 238, 277. '^ Bk. I, 1. 106. 128 LEWIS THEOBALD claimed there was no flaw in Shakespeare Restored; but the satirist has nothing upon which to base his assertion. He re- peats the accusation made at the end of his second edition of Shakespeare that Theobald concealed his design on the dramatist until after Pope's edition. He adds, however, that satisfaction had been promised to those who would assist him. To make matters worse, according to his account, Theobald at that time was soUciting favors from him. Lastly, he insinuates that Theobald had a part in the cry- that Pope had joined with the bookseller to raise an ex- travagant subscription. We have seen how Theobald answered the charge about concealing his design, yet Pope quotes this same letter as admitting the indictment.*' We shall see later how completely the critic demohshed the accusation of ingratitude. As for the last charge, the only basis Pope had was the Essay on the Art of Sinking in Rejm- tation, concerning the authorship of which he himself was not certain.*^ There are other misstatements scattered through the work. In one place the author says that Theobald pubhshed once a week or fortnight some poor conjecture in Mist's Journal, when Theobald's contribu- tions of that nature before The Dundad number only two.*' And there are the two hes we have noticed above — his carefully owning his notes to Cooke's Hesiod and his cackling to the Tories. Yet with all this elaborate commentary the very book that was in a large way responsible for the poem was men- tioned but once.** It was not even included in the list of " There is a passage in Shakespeare Restored (see supra, p. 132) that might be interpreted as suggesting that Pope joined with the bookseller in raising a subscription. « See ante, p. 113. " Note on Bk. I, 1. 164. " "What is still in memory is a piece now almost two years old; t had the title of Shakespeare Restored." Note on 1. 106, Bk. I. THE PERIOD OF "THE DUNCIAD" 129 productions written against Pope, which was inserted in the "Appendix." Professor Lounsbury notes that the word "Book" which began the poem in the first edition of 1728 was speedily changed to the plural." In the poem proper references to the work are conspicuous by their absence. The following passage contains the only allusion. "There, thy good Scholiasts with unweary'd pains Make Horace flat, and humble Marc's strains; Here studious I unlucky moderns save, Nor sleeps one error in its father's grave, Old puns restore, lost blunders nicely seek, And crucify poor Shakespeare once a week. For thee I dim these eyes, and stuff this head, With all such reading as was never read; For thee supplying, in the worst of days. Notes to dull books, and prologues to dull plays; For thee explain a thing tiU aU men doubt it. And write about it. Goddess, and about it; So spins the Silk-worm small its slender store. And labours, 'tiU it clouds itself all o'er."^ In the notes the allusions are more numerous but still in- frequent. They are generally to some phrase or sentiment expressed in Shakespeare Restored, but no hint is given in the note as to the source of the allusion.^' Most of the satire in the poem hinges on Theobald's other " Text of Shakespeare, p. 290. " Bk. I, 11. 159-172. The allusion in the second line is to Bentley's Horace. Judging from the way Pope continued to couple these two critics, I would conjecture that he was aware of the similarity of their methods. '' Bk. Ill, 1. 272. Anadyplosis (Shakespeare Restored, p. 13); Bk. II, 1. 175, marginal corrections (p. 11); Bk. I, 1. 162, Shakespeare guilty of anachronisms (p. 134); Bk. I, 1. 1, spelUng of Shakespeare's name (p. 193); Bk. Ill, U. 28 and 272 ridicule Theobald's method by mock emendations. 130 LEWIS THEOBALD works. The satirist is especially severe on pantomimes in general and Theobald's in particular, mentioning by- name three or four of his most popular. Of his translations, the Phaedo, Ajax, and Aeschylus are honored, though the second Theobald probably did not write, and the last he never published. His dramas are represented by The Persian Princess, The Perfidious Brother, and a Hne from Double FaUhood. The Cave of Poverty is the only one of his poems to find a place in the satire. Then there is the general accusation of dullness and stupid- ity, besides slanders in the notes about his party writings and ingratitude. His poverty was more than hinted at, and it was on that ground that the opponents of Pope took the satirist most to task.^" In the "Letter to the Publisher," signed by William Cleland though written by Pope, the poet tries to excuse himself on the ground that the poverty of the dunces was the result of their being outside of their proper field of acti\'ity, and that he was performing a service by forcing them to leave off their attempts. On this basis, Theobald, when he attempted Shakespeare, was not follow- ing his natural bent. Theobald's method and verbal criticism in general are subjected to the lash of the poet's scorn. Mock emendations of Virgil are scattered through the notes and gathered to- gether in the appendix under the title of Virgil Restored. These, written mainly by Arbuthnot, were taken from a production of the Scriblerus Club, which was originally "• "She ey'd the Bard, whsre supperless he sate." Bk. I, 1. 109. In raking over Theobald's past, Pope has perused his Censor, as is shown by a quotation from it about Dennis. (Note on Bk. I, 1. 104.) Is it possible that the above hne was suggested by a passage in No. 38, January 17, 1717? "I am so far of Opinion that oxir Common Dreams proceed from Repletion and Indigestion, that, to prevent this fantastic Disturbance of my slumbers, I have for some Years accus- tom'd myself to go supperless to Bed." THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD" 131 directed against Bentley." Pope also gives burlesque corrections of Double Falshood to mock Theobald's emenda- tions on Sliakespeare,^^ and ridicules the out-of-the-way reading with which the critic proved his assertions. Caxton's "Sagittary" seems to have irritated him very much; the specimen of the pubUsher in the appendix is quoted merely to give people a sample of the kind of reading in which Theobald indulged. As regards the purpose of The Dunciad even that ardent admirer of Pope, Johnson, was skeptical : That the design was moral, whatever the author might tell his readers or himself, I am not convinced. The first motive was the desire of revenging the contempt with which Theobald had treated his Shakespeare, and regaining the honour which he had lost by crushing his opponent. Revenge was the poet's motive, no matter what he might say about being moved by public spirit in killing off bad writers. Of this motive the variorum edition itself convicts him. Why such care in seeking out and publishing the titles of all productions written against him, except to justify him in hitting back? In "A Letter to the Publisher" it is frankly stated that the satire is a reply to attacks, and the author himself says that he promised to remove from The Dunciad any who could give him assurance "of having never writ scurrillously against him." ^' In Pope's mind a bad writer must have been one who wrote against him. The moral idea was an afterthought, for which his rising reputa- tion for virtue secured wide credence.** Pope never openly admitted that Theobald was made hero of The Dunciad in revenge for Shakespeare Restored. "■ See ante, Chap. II, p. 57. «2 Note on Bk. Ill, 1. 272. <"> Note on Bk. Ill, 1. 146. " See Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 283 £f. 132 LEWIS THEOBALD Indeed, he tried to hide the real reason under a number of fictitious ones. In the preface to the first edition he face- tiously remarked that he gave his hero the name Theobald, which just happened to be that of a real person. In the edition of 1729 he gave a variety of reasons. First, he had to have for his hero a man who was a party-writer, dull poet, and wild critic; he found Theobald to be such.^' Later the unfortunate man is the hero because there was no better to be had.*^ But that which Pope characterized as the real reason is the charges contained in the note giving Theobald's Ufe, charges that are practically baseless." Pope had some grounds for feeling incensed at his adver- sary. A book whose title-page proclaimed it to be "A Specimen of the many Errors, as well committed, as un- amended by Mr. Pope" could hardly find favor in his eyes. And in the body of the work there are passages such as the following that would have disturbed a far less sensitive man than he : There are many Passages of such intolerable Carelessness inter- spersed thro' all the six Volumes, that were not a few of Mr. Pope's Notes scatter'd here and there too, I should be induced to believe that the Words of the First Volume, . . . COLLATED ond CORRECTED &2/ the former EDITIONS, By Mr. POPE, . . . were plac'd there by the Bookseller to en- hance the Credit of his Edition ; but that he had play'd false with his Editor, and never sent the Sheets to revise. And, surely, this must have been the case sometimes: For no Body shall per- suade me that Mr. Pope could be awake, and with his Eyes open, and revising a Book which was to be pubUsh'd under his Name, yet let an Error, like the following, escape his Observation and Correction.*' " "Martinus Scriblerus of the Poem," p. 42. •« Note on Bk. I, 1. 102. •' See ante, p. 127. " Shakespeare Restored, p. 75. See also p. 97. THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD" 133 Theobald proved his charges, but justice could not take away the sting. He felt no animosity toward the poet, for in his introduction he praises him and his works extravagantly, as he had done in The Censor. Having hved in obscure mediocrity all his life he suddenly found himself able to prove pubUcly his superiority to the most popular poet of his time, and overwhelmed with his success, he thought to magnify the virtues of his own work by emphasizing the failures of Pope. It is this varionmi edition of The Dunciad that was largely responsible for the character of Theobald that has come down to recent times. Had the poem remained as it first appeared, it would have been rehshed with much gusto, but the pictvu-e of Theobald would have been accepted as a creation of the imagination, a license granted to satiric genius, a brilliant caricature. Pope's readers would have been wilhng to agree with him when he satirically says in his preface that he had to have a name for his hero, and select- ing Theobald found it to be the name of a real person. But when he sought to impress upon people the reality of the picture, and, turning biographer, gave by means of lies and half-Ues a biography that would suit the hero of his poem, the real Theobald was lost in the dunce and the one Pope created took his place. Well might the author when he changed heroes, bid the phantom Theobald to vanish and wholly disappear, for phantom he was of Pope's own maldng, having no existence in flesh and blood. Furthermore, this edition served as a source of much of the material used by later biographers of Pope and the men he satirized.^' Rather than go back to original sources, they accepted the mass of incorrect quotations and statements found in the same volume with the satire. In this way «» For example see the account of Theobald given in Theophilus Gibber's Lives of the Poets, 1753. 134 LEWIS THEOBALD they spread broadcast Pope's unjust characterization of the critic, giving as historic fact what was half the invention of the poet's mahce. In short, they accepted as truth Pope's own account of The Dunciad and the dunces. The effect produced by this procedure, together with the slanders propagated by Warburton and supported by Johnson, was to give such a permanent character to Pope's charges as to make them pass current even to-day. Theobald did not long remain silent. In a letter to The Daily Journal,'"' written by him for publication though communicated by another, he says he will be silent under the slander of Pope's wit, but not of his maUce. As for the charge of ingratitude that he was soUciting favors at the same time he was refusing to help the poet with his edition, he declares that he asked Pope to assist him with a few tickets for a benefit, and a month later received a reply stating that Pope had been out of town until it was too late. This encouraged him sometime later to ask the poet to recommend his design of translating Aeschylus, to which request Pope answered he would do what he could ; yet from that time to the publication of Shakespeare Restored there had come no line from him, nor intimation of one sub- scriber by his interest. He excused himself for troubling the pubUc with his defense, but as his sUght merit was easily shocked, this was the only way he had of appeahng to those of the nobihty whom he had not the honor of approaching for their favor. Theobald did not stopjiere. He proceeded to carry the war into his opponent's territory. Knowing wherein his strength lay, he again calmly pointed out errors in Pope's edition of Shakespeare, duly numbered and arranged in order. Against Pope's wrong explanations of "reechy," '» April 17, 1729. Printed in Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 220. THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD" 135 "germins," and "element," "he gives the correct definition. Then he gives several emendations, concerning the majority of which there is now little doubt 7^ This manner of answer- ing his opponent's attack was exceeding distasteful to the latter, for the public were ever reminded of the deficiencies of his edition. Here lay the cause of his grossly inaccurate accusation of Theobald's having pubUshed conjectures weekly or fortnightly, a charge that has operated against the scholar up to the present time. Pope at first did not find many to take up his side of the quarrel.'' But in 1729 Savage came imder his dominion and worked most assiduously as his tool and informer.''* The first result of his labors was "An Author to Let," which is in the form of a proposal from Iscariot Hackney (Roome) to the members of the "Society of the Bathos." In its heaps of scandal and slander the author can find no grounds to attack Theobald but that of word-catching. Savage speaks of having found the "dunces" at Ship Tavern, Charing Cross, bellowing against the indecencies of The Dunciad. Among these he includes Mrs. Haywood, James Moore-Smythe, Theobald, Welsted, Cooke, Bezaleel Morris, Concanen, and Roome, a group of writers who later were " Much Ado, Act. Ill, Sc. 5, King Lear, Act. I, Sc. 2; Henry VIII, Act. I, Sc. 1. " King Lear, Act. I, Sc. 6, "Courtesy" for "curiosity" (Pope, "nicety"). Measure for Measure, Act. Ill, Sc. 4. "eat, array" for "eat away." Love's Labor's Lost, Act. Ill, Sc. 3, "Senior-Junior" for "Signior Junio." Idem, Act. IV, Sc. 3, "imitari" for "inaitary." Titus Andronieus, Act. Ill, Sc. 3, "Cask" for "Castle." Twelfth Night, Act. I, Sc. 3, "Curl by nature" for "Cool my nature." '2 Thomas Hearne says Pope was much blamed for his barbarous treatment of Theobald. Reliquiae Hearnianae, 1869, vol. 3, p. 137. " We find Savage's name, as well as that of Mallet, in the hst of subscribers prefixed to Cooke's Hesiod. 136 LEWIS THEOBALD called the Concanen Club. In the appendix to The Dunciad, Pope speaks of a club composed of Theobald, Dennis, Moore, Concanen, Cooke, who held weekly meetings to write against him. There is little truth in the statement. There was undoubtedly a literary group, to whom Concanen had in- troduced Theobald and Warburton in the latter half of the year 1726. Later Theobald contributed assistance to the literary endeavors of some of the members.''^ This group was largely represented in The Dunciad; thus there is little doubt that the satire and its author made up much of its conversation, and caused them to be joined together more closely for a common cause. Later Theobald speaks of a poem of Welsted as "our ware." '* They did not hold these meetings, however, to abuse Pope, for they had held them before, yet the poet must have been the center of interest with them after The Dunciad. The title-page of Savage's pamphlet reads "Number 1. To be continued." For some reason, however, the project was dropped. It may be that the death of Roome, who is represented as the author, near the close of the year caused a change in plan. The next year The Grub-street Journal took up the work along the same lines. This was a weekly periodical which ran from the beginning of 1730 to the end of 1737. It was first under the editorship of John Martyn, a botanist, and Russel, a nonjuring clergyman, but Pope was the moving spirit and furnished many of its contri- butions." His enemies are attacked ; he and his friends are handsomely praised. Tbe former are known as "Theo- baldians," "Grubeans," "Knights of the Bathos," while " A Prologue to James Moore-Smythe's comedy Rival Modes, acted January 27, 1727, and the notes to Cooke's Hesiod, February, 1728. Mrs. Haywood was a friend of Theobald. See Notes and Qiteries Tor 1854, Vol. II, p. 110. " See Appendix, p. 295. " Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, Chap. XIX. THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAd" 137 the latter are termed "Popeans" and "Parnassians." The periodical gives the weekly proceedings of a fictitious Grubean society. Its verses, epigrams, and essays ridicule learning, antiquarianism, sciences, and particularly medicine, in fact, everything that would now be listed under scholarship or science." While Theobald receives frequent notices, Smythe at first is the main butt of its satire, but after Gibber became laureate, he takes Smythe's place. The attacks on Theo- bald follow the lines laid down by The Dunciad: his pan- tomimes, translations, and critical method are ridiculed. In this last he divides honors with Bentley, whose pro- pensities are frequently noticed." In 1730 Edward Young came to the poet's assistance with Two Epistles to Mr. Pope, Concerning the Authors of the Age, but spends most of his ammunition against Welsted and Smythe. The following year the Reverend James Miller sought the poet's favor with Harlequin-Horace or the Art of Modern Poetry. This is a general attack on Pantomimes, and Theobald, being the foremost creator of the serious parts, comes in for his share of abuse. One naturally looks for some word from Swift. At the beginning of the cen- tury he had plenty to say about Bentley, and according to Pope he saved The Dunciad. In Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, written in 1731, he sarcastically mentions Theobald in the r61e of a reviser. In the introduction to his A Complete Collection of Genteel and Ingenious Conversation he touches on the critic twice.*" The most persistent method of attacking Theobald and lessening the regard of the public for his labors lay through repeated depreciation of verbal criticism. As I tried to '" See the satirical article on botany in No. 23, June 11, 1730. " Cf . Nos. 2, 28, 37, and 98. "• If Dean Jonathan's Parody on the ^th Chap, of Genesis, 1729, be his, he seems to take Theobald's part as regards Shakespeare. 138 LEWIS THEOBALD show in the second chapter of this work, the stimulus given textual criticism by Bentley had called forth so much criti- cism as to put scholars upon the defensive. The enemies of Theobald found the ground fully prepared for them; all they had to do was to continue the attack along the same lines laid down by the enemies of Bentley and his school, but to include EngUsh as well as classical scholars. This amplification was all the easier inasmuch as the methods employed by Bentley and Theobald were identical. Here- after it is not unusual to find the two scholars joined in the attacks leveled at hteral criticism. The accusations remain the same — the triviahty, uselessness, and uncer- tainty of the pursuit. Shakespeare Restored caused a revival in the war against this form of criticism. William Broome fired the first shot. In 1726 he had praised Pope's Shakespeare, telling the great dramatist to rejoice, since revised by Pope's hand every line shone in native brightness, a sentiment that is certainly a tribute to textual criticism as well as to the poet. But by March of the next year he has experienced a change of heart, for he has much to say against the study of texts.'' Since Theobald's first criticisms of Shakespeare had appeared in the interim, it doubtless had much to do with this sudden reversal of opinion. Broome holds that while criticism - — he means verbal criticism by this general term — was useful in earlier ages, it has outlived its usefulness : It is ridiculous to make it the supreme business of life to repair the ruins of a decay'd word, tg trouble the world with vain nicities about a letter, or a syllable or the transposition of a phrase, when the present reading is sufficiently intelligible. These learned triflers are mere weeders of an author, they collect the weeds for their own use, and permit others to gather the herbs and flowers. It would be of more advantage to mankind when once an author " Preface to Poems on Several Occasions, 1727. THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD" 139 is faithfully published, to turn our thoughts from the words to the sentiments, and make them more easy and intelligible. A skill in verbal criticism is in reality but a skill in guessing, and con- sequently he is the best critic who guesses best: A mighty at- tainment! And yet with what pomp is a trivial alteration usher'd into the world? *^ It is strange that Broome could not see that Theobald, unlike Pope, sought to separate conjecture from guess work, and to establish it upon reason and authority. The following year Pope joined in the fray. In "A Frag- ment of a Satire " he stigmatizes Theobald's work as the trivial pursuit of wrong-headed industry. Then in The Dundad iirere are frequent slurs at his scholarship and several general attacks on verbal criticism. In the third book are found these Unes, "There, dim in clouds, the poreing Scholiasts mark, Wits, who like Owls see only in the dark, A Lumberhouse of Books in ev'ry head, For ever reading, never to be read." to which the following note is appended : These few lines exactly describe the right verbal Critic: He is to his author as a Quack to his patients, the more they suffer and complain, the better he is pleas'd; like the famous Doctor of that sort, who put up in his bills. He delighted in matters of diffi- culty. Some one well said of these men, that their heads were Libraries out of Order. ^ In another place he brings forward a more serious accusation : Two things there are, upon the supposition of which the very basis of all Verbal Criticism is founded and supported: The first, '" His reference to weeds undoubtedly looks at a passage in the introduction to Shakespeare Restored, where Theobald compares the text of Shakespeare to an unweeded garden gone to seed. The last of the quotation reads like one of King's burlesque notes on Bentley's Horace. " U. 187-190, and note. 140 LEWIS THEOBALD that an Author could never fail to use the best word, on every occasion: The second, that a Critic cannot chuse but know, which that is? This being granted whenever any word doth not fully content us, we take upon us to conclude, first that the author could never have us'd it, and secondly, that he must have used that very one which we conjecture in its stead. *^ The poet and his associates carried on the attack in The Grub-street Journal. But here Bentley more frequently than Theobald became the object of their satire, for Pope was coming to recognize in the classical critic the creator of the critical method and the great bulwark of textual criticism. Moreover, Bentley's personal characteristics, if not his reputation, made attacks on him more popular, though he never felt them. His vigorous condemnation of those who disagreed with him Pope satirized in A, Sermon against ** A note at the beginning of the second book. I will also take the space to quote a note on a line in the third book, which is a clever burlesque of the notes contributed to Cooke's Hesiod. "V. 28, And length of Ears.] This is a sophisticated reading. I think I may venture to aflfirm all the Copyists are mistaken here: I believe I may say the same of the Critics; Dennis, Oldmixon, Wekted, have pass'd it in silence: I have always stumbled at it, and wonder'd how an error so manifest could escape such accurate persons. I dare assert it proceeded originally from the inadvertency of some Trans- criber whose head run on the PiUory mention'd two lines before: It is therefore amazing that Mr. Curl himself should overlook it! Yet that Scholiast takes not the least notice hereof. That the learned Mist also reads it thus, is plain, from his ranging this passage among those in which our Author was blamed for personal Satire on a Man's Face (whereof doubtless he might take the Ear to be a part); So like- wise Concanen, Ralph, the Elying-Poet, and all the Herd of Com- mentators — Tota armenta sequuntur. "A very httle sagacity (which all these gentlemen therefore wanted) will restore to us the true sense of the Poet, thus By his broad shoulders known, and length of years. See how easy a change! Of one single letter! That Mr. Settle was old is most certain, but he was (happily) a stranger to the Pillory. This Note is partly Mr. Theobald, partly Scriblerus." THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD" 141 Adultery, the authorship of which he was forced by Bentley's son to deny. It was also during this period that Pope added a chapter to The Memoirs of Scriblerus and changed the Don Quixote of learning into the verbal critic. ^^ He introduced Bentley into his Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot; and had the second book of his Essay on Man made its appear- ance, the classical scholar doubtless would have figured, among scientists and virtuosos, as the greatest example of the misapplication of learning to a useless science.'' Such a position he holds in the fourth book of The Dunciad. By 1731 the feeling against criticism of this sort reached such a height as to cause one scholar to contemplate writing a pamphlet in its defense.'' This was Jortin, a man of high character and true scholarly instincts. Though he gave up the idea of his pamphlet, he has something to say about the matter.'' After remarking that critical learning has met with both humorous and serious adversaries, he defends it in somewhat the same manner as Thirlby : They who say that critical learning is trifling and useless, talk at random. Every unprejudiced person must allow that there are as many triflers in all other parts of learning as in this, and that criticism deserves to be reckoned among those studies which please and instruct. It does not indeed tend to make a man better and more virtuous, and therefore falls infinitely short of Ethics. It is not very beneficial to the commonwealth, and there- fore by my consent, may be placed beneath those studies, which tend to encrease the wealth and strength of a nation. It does not make bread cheaper, as Malherbe, though a poet, used to say of 85 Chap. IX. 8« Ruffhead, lAfe of Alexander Pope, 1769, pp. 267, 269. " John Jortin, Miscellaneoits Observations upon Authors Ancient and Modem, 1731. Preface to vol. 2. 88 Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors Ancient and Modern, Preface to vol. 1. 142 LEWIS THEOBALD poetry. It is like poetry upon another account also; it brings home usually but little profit to those who spend their time in it. The greatest injury to the science, however, came from within the ranks of the critics themselves, from the greatest of them. Early in 1732 Bentley's remarkable edition of Milton appeared. News that Bentley had undertaken the work had spread abroad sometime before its appearance. Near the last of the previous October Theobald writes to Warburton, "As to Milton, Dear Sir, Dr. Bentley is so far from having laid aside the Thoughts of it, that the whole Paradise Lost is work'd off, and the Book will be pubhsh'd before Christmas." *' Satiric emendations of Milton, reading astonishingly like those of Bentley that were to appear, were pubhshed in numbers of The Grub-street Journal as early as March, 1730.^" To justify the many violent changes which he advocated, Bentley devised a theory. This theory was that Milton dictated his poem to a friend who saw it through the press. The friend was ignorant, maUcious, careless, and everything else imaginable ; he introduced words, lines, and passages into the text. The corruptions were then increased by the carelessness of the printers. Yet Bentley had hopes of restoring the original text by his sagacity. Fortunately he left the text as it was, putting his emendations and discus- sions in the margin or at the bottom of the page. It is hard to understand why the classical scholar ever produced such a work. There is a tradition that he under- took it at the desire of tj|e queen, who wished to see the great critic employ his faculties on an English poet. More probably the critic had become obsessed with the idea of correcting, especially as his own efforts had done so much to weaken confidence in texts, and consequently respect for «» See Appendix, p. 278. •" Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 425. THE PERIOD OP "tHE DUNCIAD " 143 them. Furthermore, the popularity of Shakespeare Re- stored may have inspired him to seek laurels in other fields. Yet he did not follow his own method, the method that the Shakespearean critic had employed with such good results. The only evidences of the classical scholar to be found in the work are seen in the vigorous logic of some of the notes. Of poetic appreciation there is no sign anywhere. As was the case with the edition of Horace, this work increased the intensity of the attacks on verbal criticism. Immediately there sprang into existence a host of small productions written against Bentley and his form of criti- cism. Yet in such high regard was emendation held that some of the condemnations take Bentley very seriously'^ Such a one was A Review of the Text of Milton's Paradise Lost, 1732, written by Zachary Pearce, a scholar of some reputation. In his preface he says. Dr. Bentley is deservedly distinguish'd for his superior Talents in Critical knowledge; they are owned by the unanimous Consent of the Learned World, and have gain'd him a Reputation which is real and substantial: but this will be understood with the Excep- tion to what he has done on Milton's Poem: In which tho' he has given us some useful and judicious Remarks, yet at the same time he has made many Emendations, which may justly be called in question. Though the unlearned might make free with Bentley's name, scholars were coming to feel more reverence and fear toward the great critic. Yet the desire to emend Milton seized even the critics of Bentley's edition. Pearce opposes Bentley's emendations and then gives some cor- rections of his own. '• Francis Peck held that "as there are a great number of fine notes in the edition, there is no man who reads what the Doctor says, but, I fancy, will often agree with him." New Memoirs of . . . Milton, 1740, p. 211. 144 LEWIS THEOBALD Theobald did exactly the same things. He very emphati- cally resented Bentley's new departure. Before its ap- pearance he had deprecated the great scholar undertaking a work wherein the ladies and children were prepared to laugh at him. After he had examined the notes, he gave Warburton his estimate of the production : You want my opinion you say on Dr. Bentlejr's performance: and I'll give it you freely, but under the Seal of Friendship; I had a very great veneration for him as a classical Critic; and was very much afraid of his descending to the Levell of Women and Children; that is, of his putting himself in the Power of Coquets and Toupets to discant on. He has not infrequently, you know, run riot on the dead Languages; but here, to use the Cibberian phrase, he has outdone his usual Outdoings. He had never cer- tainly attain'd the serious Reputation of a Critick, si sic omnia Dixisset. I hope he does not write maUciously to turn the Art into Ridicule; but as Rose says of Sir Martin Mar-all Indeed, he has a rare way of acting a Fool, and does it so naturally, it can be scarce distinguish'd. So ridiculous appeared the notes to the English scholar that he entertained fears lest they were written to ridicule the art. Well might he fear such, for if the great classical scholar made such an appearance in an English author, what would be the value placed upon his own work. Furthermore this edition strengthened the growing tendency to associate Theobald with Bentley. Though there was some pleasure in being joined with so great a man, the Milton could not but cast a bad hght on the coming edition of Shakespeare. That the possible injury to Theobald was seen by others is evinced by the fact that one pamphlet attacking Bentley was fathered on Theobald.'^ While condemning so heartily Bentley's notes, he did not disdain in the privacy of the same letter to give an emenda- « See Appendix, p. 299. THE PERIOD OF "tHE DXJNCIAd" 145 tion. He also successfully defended the text against one of Bentley's emendations. The latter critic could not under- stand Milton's peculiar use of the word "pernicious" and advocated a change. Theobald showed that the word was not derived from "pernicies" but from " pernicitas," thereby defeating the classical scholar in his own field. A httle less than a year before the publication of Theo- bald's edition of Shakespeare, there appeared a poem entitled Of Verbal Criticism, issued anonymously but written by David MaUet. In the advertisement to the poem the author said the design was to rally the abuse of verbal criticism, and in the process he could not overlook the editor of Milton or the restorer of Shakespeare. The poem, he claimed, was written several months before its pubUcation, but he had waited imtil the subscription for the new edition of Shake- speare had been closed. The satire was addressed to Pope, though the author asserted that it had been written without his knowledge. ^^ While the title would suggest a general satire on the science, the attacks are made almost entirely against the two critics mentioned in the advertisement. Later versions of the satire tend to give Bentley a more prominent place. The poem is a miserable production, most of the charges being taken from "A Fragment of Satire " and The Dunciad. The triviaUty of the scholiast's pursuits, his reading of obscure and dull authors, his clearing up of minor obscurities, are all stressed. In Bentley, Mallet sees the creator of the school of verbal critics, though he imphes that in his edition of Milton the critic was imitating Theobald : "Yet he, prime pattern of the captious art, Out-tibbalding poor Tibbald, tops his part." There was nothing new in the attack. The same things had been said about Bentley's Horace years before, which "' See Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 434r436. 146 LEWIS THEOBALD were then but a variation of the charges brought against the Royal Society. In that age scientific investigation and scholarly methods had to fight for existence. It was in the midst of feelings engendered by attacks of this kind that Theobald's edition appeared. It was success- ful in spite of them. Yet the feehng against textual criticism continued to exist. Fielding made a belated attack on Bentley's methods.'* Pope enlarged his charges in the fourth book of The Dunciad. George TurnbuU, a dissenting .minister with an interest in art, upheld the larger compre- hension of the thoughts and philosophy of the ancients against the useless study of words. '^ One of the last blasts was heard in Richard Kurd's letter to Jortin On the Delicacy of Friendship, 1755, where Pope's charges are revived and passages from his works quoted. This attack on Jortin was as unjust as it was uncalled for, yet Warburton, though Jortin's friend, hailed it with glee, and transferred his affec- tions to the author. Later he had cause to rue the change, for he made a sorry figure in his quarrel with Kurd. After the death of Pope the opposition began to weaken. Johnson upheld the minute study of texts, though uncertain about conjecture; he wanted to hear no more about "the dull duty of an editor." The able editors of Shakespeare of the last quarter of the century placed scholarship in a more favorable light. So far had the victory been won, the victory of Bentley and Theobald against the poets and wits, that at the end of the century Porson could claim for verbal criticism a high pj^ce in the activities of man.'^ " See the notes to his translation of Plutus, and Amelia, Book X, Chap. 1. " See Preface to his Three Dissertations, 1740, and Observations upon Liberal Education, 1742. This last work is remarkable in that it upholds the study of EngUsh grammar and composition against Latin and Greek. " Museum Criticum, vol. 1, p. 489. THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD " 147 But in spite of the slanders of Pope and the attacks of his flatterers, Theobald's reputation did not wane. Pro- fessor Lounsbury has shown that by no means all the "Dunces" were dunces, and that instead of being annihilated by the satire, they were spurred to greater activity." This was essentially true of Theobald. The man who continued to enjoy the ardent assistance of Lady Delawar, the favor of Sir Robert Walpole, and the liberal patronage of Lord Orrery could hardly have been acclaimed a dunce. Theo- bald's persistence with his edition of Shakespeare, the encouragement he received, and the success of the work can point only to one conclusion. But striking evidence of the ineffectuahty of his adversary's abuse is seen in his candidacy for the laureateship in December, 1730, certainly not the action of a man crushed in spirit and reputation. He was introduced by Lord Gage to Sir Robert Walpole, who recommended him warmly to the Duke of Grafton, the Lord Chamberlain, and this recommendation was seconded by the Prince of Wales. He was defeated, how- ever, by his successor in The Dunciad, to the surprise of many.'* Theobald's purpose in seeking the position was to get a competence that would permit him to pursue his work on Shakespeare unhampered by financial cares. After his disappointment he asked Warburton whether he should spend any more time levee hunting.'^ But though he failed in his object, his efforts were not altogether fruitless. The »' Text of Shakespeare, pp. 259 S. '* "But the vogue of our few honest folks here is, that Duck is absolutely to succeed Eusden in the laurel, the Contention being between Concanen or Theobald, or some other hero of the The Dunciad." Swift's letter to Gay, November 19, 1730. F. E. BaU, The Corres- pondenee of Jonathan Swift, vol. 4, p. 180. " Letter dated December, 1730. Nichols, Illustrations of lAtera- ture, vol. 2, p. 616. 148 LEWIS THEOBALD favor of Walpole had a good effect on the nobility, who were more likely to side with wit than scholarship, but whose money was very necessary for a subscription. In the dedica- tion to his Orestes, Theobald, after thanking Walpole for his kindness in recommending him, says his action ought to have a good Effect upon our Nobility, by curing that false and ungenerous Notion, upon which they proceed when they call a Man dull, because he is poor; and poor because he is dull: A piece of Sophistry which they have copied from some bad Wits among us, who judge in their own Case what they would allow in no other; and consider Success as the only Argument and Test of Merit. Walpole remained Theobald's friend for some time after the appearance of his Shakespeare, but never granted him what he so much wished, — a pension. Soon after the appearance of The Dundad Theobald de- cided on a course of action from which he never swerved. This course was not to answer Pope's scurrihties with the like, but to rely upon his edition of Shakespeare to wipe out all scores."" That he felt the sting of Pope's satire is evident enough from the various references to Pope in his private correspondence with Warburton. But he was wise enough to know that in one field only could he get the better of the poet. Once indeed he was almost tempted to reply. In a letter to Warburton he outUnes his plan : As it is necessary I should now inform the pubUck, that I mean to attempt to give them an Edition of that Poet's text, together with my corrections, I have concluded to give this notice, not only by advertisements, but by an occasional pamphlet, which in order to retaliate some of our Editor's kindnesses to me, I mean to call. An Essay upon Mr. Pope's Judgment, extracted from his own "I" See Mist's Journal, June 22, 1728; Daily Journal, November, 26, 1728; and Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 248, 618, and 621. THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAd" 149 Works; and humbly addressed to him. In this, I have determined not to confine myself to his Shakespeare, but to some Criticisms that he has made, and some that he might have made upon Homer.^"' He then proposed an emendation on Eustathius. War- biirton approved of his design, and in his next letter Theo- bald sent attacks on two of the notes to the translation. It was only unwillingness to hurt Broome, who had assisted Pope, that kept him from carrying out his purpose, though he thought he saw in Broome's verses on Pope's Shakespeare a tacit insiilt to Shakespeare Restored. The real object in this undertaking, besides the exposure of Pope's ignorance, was to display the author's own ability as a classical scholar. Textual criticism in EngHsh had not established itself, and, as later in the preface of his edition of Shakespeare, Theo- bald thought to improve his reputation in a more orthodox field. In this same letter he says, "I have been so fond as to exercise this ofiice in some other language besides English." One attack on Pope has been attributed to Theobald, but without any apparent reason. In December, 1731, the poem Of False Taste appeared. The immediate suspicion was that the Duke of Chandos was satirized under Timon. The duke evidently thought so, too, for a short time afterwards he took out his revenge by subscribing for four sets of Theo- bald's edition of Shakespeare.'"^ The following month appeared A Miscellany on Taste, written to satirize Pope's taste in various fields, and containing among other things Theobald's letter to The Daily Journal of April 17, 1729, introduced to show Pope's taste in Shakespeare.'"' It is "1 See Letters dated March 10, March 17, March 26, 1730. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, pp. 551, 565, 581. ii" See Appendix, p. 298. The animosities aroused by Pope assisted Theobald in his subscriptions. See Reliquiae Hearnianae, vol. 3, p. 142. 103 jf Nichols is right in thinking that this letter was addressed to Concanen, the latter probably was the author of the Miscellany, for in it the letter is headed "To the Author.'' 150 LEM IS THEOBALD probable that the work has been afcribed to Theobald on the strength of this letter, since all other e\-idenee seems to point against the ascription. Only a few days before its appearance Theobald had occasion to write to Warburton about Pope's epistle ; he mentions and quotes one attack on it, but has nothing to say of the Miscellany. ^'^ It hardly seems possible that had he been concerned in a production that was so soon to make its apf)earance, he would have said nothing of it to Warbiuton, to whom he readily enough communicated his design in regard to the contemplated essay on Pope's judgment. At another time when asked by Warburton concerning the authorship of an anonymous pamphlet he rephed that had he written it, he would have made his friend his confidant.*"* Hence it is reasonable to suppose he would have followed the same course in this case. That he had no intention of attacking Pope's poem is evident from the following passage of the letter written about the Epistle : 'Tis thought by some here, that this piece has not contributed much more to the Credit of his Poesie, than of his Morals; but this is a Criticism I do not take upon me to meddle with. I men- tion it only, as it has occasion'd another satirical Poem by a Gentle- man of om- Faction, Mr. Welsted, of DuUness and Scandal. This reliance on his edition to answer in full Pope's charges of stupidity wrought good results in that it intensified his study of Shakespeare's plays. But he was subject to manj' interruptions in his work, most of which were due to the necessity of earning a Ifl-elihood ; it was to ob-s-iate such hindrances that he tried to secure the lavireateship. His legal profession, while never very exacting, required a cer- tain amount of time.'"** About the middle of 1730 he was ">• Letter to Warburton, January S, 1732. Appendix C. "" Letter to Warburton, March 21, 1732. Appendix C. "• See Nichols, lUustraiions of Literature, vol. 2, p. 597. THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAd" 151 incapacitated for a month because of a broken arm, an accident all the more unfortunate in that it caused him to miss seeing Lady Delawar, who at that time was arranging terms with Tonson. While preparing his edition of Shakespeare Theobald was also writing for the stage. In November, 1729, and January, 1730, he speaks of theatrical affairs interfering with his critical labors. ^"^ He was then hard at work upon his Orestes,^"^ for in a letter of February 10, 1730, he notifies Warburton "that Orestes is now upon a Rehearsal; and that my whole present time from morning to night, is em- ploy'd in a Copy by his Royal Highness's Command." ^"^ Though styled an opera, the production is really a drama, with the introduction of a few songs and dances. Theobald confessed to Warburton that in the play he imitated Shake- speare, especially Macbeth and Lear; it might also be noted that some passages show the influence of Aeschylus. While not extraordinarily successful, the play was by no means a failure. During the summer of the following year Theobald con- structed another tragedy, some selections from which he sent to Warburton. It must be confessed that his purpose was mercenary as well as artistic : In order to make Domestic affairs run as smoothly as may be, till I can bring this greater Affair to a Crisis, I have apply'd my uneasie Summer Months upon the Attempt of a Tragedy. Sit Verbo venia! I have a Design upon the Ladies' Eyes, as the Pas- sage to their Pockets."" "" Idem, vol. 2, pp. 288, 401. "* Orestes : A Dramatic Opera As it is Acted at the Theatre-Royal in Lincoln' s-Inn Fields. Written by Mr. Theobald. London: Printed for John Watts at the Printing Office in Wild-Court, near Lincoln's-Inn Fields. MDCCXXXI. 1™ Appendix C. "» Letter dated December 18, 1731. Appendix C. 152 LEWIS THEOBALD The play was an adaptation of The Duchess of Malfi under the title The Fatal Secret,^'-^ but with the names of Webster's characters retained. It was booked to appear early in 1732, but since Rich had fallen into difficulties, Theobald did not press the matter. In a letter dated March 10, 1733, he says, "I have for some Time past had the additional Fatigue of bringing my Tragedy on which is to make its Appearance immediately after Easter Hohdays." "^ Some of Theobald's activities lay in fields that could offer no financial reward. He had always been a close student of the classics, and success in textual criticism in English authors inspired him, as we have seen, to include the classics in his field. Near the end of 1730 he writes Warburton that he has gone through the whole of Aristophanes and his scholiast.*" The following year he contributed a number of emendations on Athenaeus, Suidas, Eustathius, and Aeschy- lus to Jortin's periodical Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors. Most of these had previously been communicated to Warburton, and will be considered in another chapter. In this same periodical appeared his emendations on Shake- speare's poems."* Theobald prefaced this article with an account of its origin : "' The Fatal Secret, a tragedy. London, 1735. '" Appendix C. "' Appendix, p. 276. '" Some of the poems are not Shakespeare's. The following emen- dations are generally accepted now. Venus and Adonis : Stmza 153, "Scowling" for "Scolding."' Stanza 169, "Stories" shown to be a verb. Theobald's change of "tombs" to "domes" is not accepted. Stanza 198, "here in my breast" for "here is my breast." Rape of Lucrece : Stanza 5, "ears" for "cares" (ascribed to Gildon). THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD " 153 Upon our casually talking together of Shakespeare's poems, you ask'd me if they were in the same corrupt state as his Plays are found to be; and whether I had taken notice of any errors in them. I told you I had; and I now send you the correction of a few passages, from a cursory view, in which they have suffered injury from the Printer, and not found redress from the Editor. In spite of all his efforts, there is no doubt that at times Theobald keenly felt the pinch of poverty. Especially unfortunate it was that at the time when his mind should have been unembarrassed with financial care, he was worried and harassed with making ends meet. As we have seen, he speaks of "the uneasie months" of the summer of 1731, and toward the end of the year he communicates his hard- ships to Warburton : Whelm'd as I have been with Distresses (enough to sink One of my obstinate Phlegm) yet at your Instigation I have rous'd and exerted [myself] against the strongest Attacks of Calamity."' A month later he is in even worse circumstances. I have received the pleasure of yours, which comes fraught with kindness even beyond my own Prepossessions. And it is no small comfort to me to find, that if Extremity be the Test of Friendship, as it has ever been reckon' d, I have one sincere and cordial Friend left me in my Extremity. I think the present Period of my Life may timely fall under that Denomination; for however the Affair, which I am now bringing to bear may in time retrieve me from Necessities; yet at present, when I should set down with a Mind and Head at ease and disembarass'd, the Sever- Stanza 90, "Hast thou command" for "Ha'st thou commanded." Stanza 152, "graft" for "grass." In the Passionate Pilgrim he changes "girdle" to "kirtle," and sup- ports the change by quotations from Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, and Jonson. He also notices that from this poem Milton got the thought and concluding turn for II Penseroso and L' Allegro. 1" Letter to Warburton, October 30, 1731. Appendix C. 154 LEWIS THEOBALD ity of a rich Creditor (and therefore the more unmercifull) has strip'd me so bare, that I never was acquainted with such Wants, since I knew the use of Money. But when I am labouring at so much Philosophy in practice, as to persuade myself, not to feel Adversity; I am angry with myself for giving my Friend a part of that Pain which I am professing to get rid of in my Bosom. It convinces me (tho' I wanted not the Proof) that I am in no degree the Philosopher."* Such was the condition of the man whom Pope, ably assisted by the "rich creditor," was pursuing with a cold and relentless malice. A mighty achievement and worthy of the man! As for the "one sincere and cordial friend" in his extremity, who was at the time enjoying a comfortable living at Newark in Nottinghamshire, we are tempted to forget ourselves in our indignation. This same divine a few years later begrudged his friend the profits of his edition, and still later joined in the chorus of detraction and false- hood from which Theobald's reputation has so long suffered. This period marks the low ebb of Theobald's affairs. Soon prospects began to look brighter, owing in some degree to the patronage of John Boyle, Earl of Orrery. The earl's father, who had nominally been Bentley's chief opponent in the famous controversy, had been Theobald's patron in the past, and to him the scholar had dedicated several of his early productions. In later years, however, he seems to have forgotten the future critic. Soon after the earl's death, his son came forward with aid. In a letter to War- burton, written near the close of 1731, Theobald speaks of assistance from "my gooS friend Lord Orrery," a phrase he uses a number of times."' In March the earl placed his father's letters in Theobald's "° Letter to Warburton, November, 1731. Appendix C. "' Letter to Warburton, December 18, 1731. Appendix C. THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD" 155 hands to be regulated."* The late earl had been ambassador at Brussels during the latter part of Queen Anne's reign, so that the correspondence represented letters from many of the greatest men of that time. Especially was Theobald delighted with the correspondence of Bolingbroke, who did not confine himself to state affairs. The time required for the task detracted from Theobald's study but aided his finances. A month or two later he addressed An Epistle to Orrery devoted mainly to praise of the earl's father,"' which verses Theobald said his patron made golden to him.^'"' The dedication of all seven volumes of the edition of Shake- speare to the lord was the final form Theobald's gratitude took, and for this he was handsomely rewarded. "' Letter to Warburton, March 21, 1732. Appendix C. "» See Appendix, p. 302. ^ Letter to Warburton, June 20, 1732. Appendix C. CHAPTER V THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE Theobald's edition of Shakespeare was slow in making its appearance. In the spring of 1728 he had first made known his purpose of pubUshing remarks on all the plays. When Pope's second edition made necessary the post- ponement of pubhcation, the work was promised for Janu- ary of the following year. For some reason the date was again postponed, but in April of the same year Theobald writes War burton that his remarks "will now shortly appear in the World.'" Yet no volumes were forthcoming. It is possible that as he reaHzed how he had underrated the task he had set himself, he saw that more time was impera- tive. It is also probable that his subscriptions were meeting with such success as to inspire him with the more ambitious purpose of editing the plays, though at first he was imder the impression that Tonson had the right of property in Shakespeare's text. Professor Lounsbury thinks that the subscriptions to the Remarks were not sufficient to justify Theobald in prosecuting his design ; ^ yet in November, 1729, he speaks of Lady Delawar's assistance among the nobiUty, and of having the honor of the king's name.' It is more probable that the success of his subscriptions encouraged him to the larger undertaking, for in the same letter he says, 1 Letter of April 15, 1729. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 222. ^ Text of Shakespeare, p. 422. ' Letter of November 6, 1729. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 254. THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEAKE 157 " I may venture to join the Text to my Remarks." By March of the following year he had definitely decided to edit Shake- speared At this time Theobald, having read through the eight volumes of Pope's second edition, was beginning to collect all his notes, and toward this end he asked War burton to return him his letters, promising to send them back if they were desired.^ He had made such progress with his labors that he was arranging for the pubhcation of the edition. By the way that gentleman [[Tonson^ and I are coming to a Treaty together. He has been with my Friend, the Lady De la Warre, and submitts to make her the Arbitratress of Termes betwixt us for my publishing an edition of Shakespeare. He says, a brace of hundreds shan't break Agreements. This is talking boldly; and I wish heartily his name was John. I shall know the Issue in about a fortnight; and so soon as known, with great pleasure communicate it.^ But the summer wore on, and no agreement was made. It is possible that the contract would have been closed had Theobald not missed seeing Lady Delawar who had inter- viewed Tonson before she left for the country.' In the last week of October the contract with Tonson was finally signed. Out of the depths of distress and dis- coiu-agement Theobald tells Warburton that The Call of Reputation so justly urged by my Dearest Friend, startled me from my Lethargy, and you'll begin to think I have * Letter of March 10, 1730. Idem, vol. 2, p. 551. ' See Appendix, p. 265. " Letter of April 25, 1730, Appendix C. ' This lady was of no Kttle assistance to the scholar. She carried her labors in his behalf into those circles to which he had no access; the large number of nobihty, some of them Pope's friends, who sub- scribed to the edition, was in great part due to her efforts. That she was watchful for Theobald's interest is seen in the excellent terms she finally secured from Tonson. loS LEWIS THEOBALD been awake, when I have done myself the Pleasure to let you know, I have at last fix'd the Proteus. Xo longer ago than Thurs- day. Tonson and I exchaiis:'d Articles for the Pubhcations of Shake- speare. Till I could bring this agreeable Point to bear, I w:is determined to be silent ; and do me the justice in your kind thoughts to believe, that neither awkward Disgust. Disregard, nor Indolence have kept me dumb: hut only the strong Desire of opening my Correspondence with this important Piece of good News, upon which I know, I shall have your heartiest Congratulations." Before Lady Delawar had approached Tonson, Theobald had begun negotiations with some other booksellers, whose terms, however, wexe so much more unsatisfactorj- than those of Pope's publisher, that they were not to be con- sidered. After the contract with Tonson had been closed, these publishers complained to Warburton of the treatment they had received. In response to Warburton's query about the matter Theobald wrote in the same letter. As to the Booksellers, Dear Sir. who once made some Overtures to me, you hinted that they complain'd I had not dealt so hon- ourably with them. I fancy, you will be satisfied I can turn the Tables upon them, when I tell you. Tonson has acceded to double the Termes they offered me. I was by their Contract to have had the labouring Oar upon me, to have been entitled only to a first Pa^-ment, and they to have received the Second: I have now closed my Agreement to have the Work pubUshd in 6 \'ols. in Svo. to have 400 Copies, compleat in Sheets. deUver'd me on a Genoa paper, free from all Expence whatever; and 100 Copies more on Fine Royal Paper, I only pajing for the Paper: So that if I can have my compliment of Subscriptions, the small paper will bring me in SOO guineas: and the Books in Royal 300 more: besides which I have reserv'd the Liberty of prefixing a Dedica- tion to each ^"olmne. From this accoimt it is clear that the booksellers had no case at all ; they were simply outbid. They may have joined » Letter of October 30, 1730. See AppendLx C. THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 159 with Tonson in the pubhcation, but it is evident that Theo- bald's contract was with Tonson alone. These liberal terms compare most favorably with the £215 Pope received for his edition.' The list of subscribers shows that Theobald fell short of his complement by only two sets, which probably were subscribed for with the under- standing that the subscriber's name should not appear in print. While many of Pope's friends had no aversion to seeing their names in the edition, there must have been a few who feared to incur the poet's wrath. It was with great difficulty that Theobald wrung from the Earl of Tyrconnel a reluctant consent to publish his name. For this reason it is safe to infer that the editor profited to the extent of 1100 guineas. When to this sum there are added the 100 guineas he received from Lord Orrery for the dedication and the twenty pounds from the Prince of Wales for his set, no one can complain that Theobald did not receive adequate compensation. At least he obtained more for his work than any other editor of Shakespeare, with the barely possible exception of Johnson. The next month Pope, reading of Tonson's contract with Theobald in The Grub-street Journal, wrote in great pertur- bation to the publisher regarding the truth of the notice. Tonson replied that it was true, excusing himself on the ground that other publishers were negotiating with Theo- bald, and that the edition would be brought out regardless of his part, so that it was for Pope's interest as well as his own that he should be one of the pubhshers." The poet pre- ' It is worth noting how eager the publishers were to undertake the "Dunce's" edition. That a scholar's edition should appear more profitable than a poet's is a significant fact in the history of Enghsh scholarship. 'o This was not the motive that inspired Tonson to underrate the edition. He deliberately outbid the others, and with him alone were the articles drawn up. It was to conceal the real motive that he had Theobald change a passage in the preface, which in the first draft 160 LEWIS THEOBALD tended to be satisfied with this explanation, since, he as- serted, it was possible for the publisher to protect his repu- tation. He soon set to work, however, to devise a scheme whereby he might injure his adversary. In a letter ad- dressed to the younger Tonson he enclosed an unsealed letter to the publisher's father, in which he spoke of having a plan whereby not only Shakespeare but all the other best English poets could be pubUshed with much profit. If Tonson read the letter, he expressed no interest in the project, but re- turned the commjinication to Pope, with the suggestion that it could better be sent direct to its destination. No further mention of the plan was made." As the year 1731 drew to a close, Theobald, considering his critical labors over, was at work on the preface.'^ He expected the edition to appear early in the following year,^' and Tonson had told him that already there were great expectations of it." By the last of December everything was ready for the printer, upon whom the editor placed the responsibihty for the early publication of the work: "To guess yet at the Ukely time of publication is impossible, read, "I must do tiim [Tonson] the Justice to declare, that he with great Readiness came into a Treaty with me for this Work; But having just then glutted the Trade with a large edition by Mr. Pope in Twelves, he frankly told me, he could not with any Face or Conscience, pre- tend to throw out another Impression, before those Books were a Uttle vended: And so Time was unavoidably lost." (See Appendix, p. 284.) In the printed passage the reason for delay is given as follows: "The throwing my whole Work into a different Form to comply with this proposal was not the sUghtett Labour: And so no little Time was unavoidably lost." " See Lounsbury, Text oj Shakespeare, pp. 241-245. •2 See Appendix, pp. 283, 284, and Nichols, Illustraiions of Litera- ture, vol. 2, p. 626. " Nichols, Illustraiions of Literature, vol. 2, p. 621. Warburton said it would appear by March. Nichols, vol. 2, p. 13. " See appendix, p. 290. THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 161 till our printers give us experience wha^ dispatch they can make on their part." ^^ Nothing was heard of the edition for nearly a year when Theobald informed Warburton that Shakespeare was groaning under two presses.'^ In January of the next year he speaks of "the constant Attachment to which I am pinned down in the correction of Shakespeare," and later adds, "My Author goes on apace; and I hope in six weeks the Presses will get through the seven Volumes." " The number of volumes had been increased from six to seven, owing doubtless to the expansion of his notes. Two months later he shows signs of impatience at the delay: "As to Shakespeare, I thank God, I am now venturing to advertise that it will be ready to be deliver'd to the Subscribers by the latter end of next Month." ^* He then adds that he has had the luck to enrich his "list with her Royal Highness, the Princess Royal, and many Names of the highest Dis- tinction." May came and went, and still no edition. In June Theo- bald gave Warburton a full explanation of the cause of the delay. After explaining his lapse in the correspondence on the ground that he was waiting until his edition was printed, he adds, But such has been the State of Printing with us the last Season that with aU the Industry and Sollicitation imaginable on my " Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 626. The date of the letter is missing, but it lies between December 18, 1731, and the end of the year. " Letter of September 19, 1732. Appendix C. " Letter of January 10, 1733. Appendix C. The fourth day of the following month Warburton wrote Stukely, "If you have an op- portunity, pray ask Watts, by-the-by, when Theobald's Shakes- peare is like to come out." Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 19. " Letter to Warburton, March 10, 1733. Appendix C. 162 LEWIS THEOBALD part, I have not yet been able to bring it to the wish'd Period. However, the Comfort is, Hamlet and Othello are All that want to be completed. The Source of this slow Proceeding, Dear Sir, has been this. The great number of our weekly Subscriptions, set on Foot by Journeymen Printers has caus'd such a general Desertion of them from the estabUshed Presses, and render'd them so very peremptory and insolent, that it has been half the Work of the Printers to hawk out for Men; so that tho' I received 8 Sheets per Week from each Press at my setting out, that Num- ber has been too often reduc'd to two. This is a Fact so well known with us in Town, that as I advertis'd that compleat Volumes might be seen at my House, to the Intent the Diffident might have the Opportunity of convincing themselves, I hope my Subscribers will do me the Justice to make this Distinction that I am the Editor, and not the Printer; so, at least they will allow for a Delay which cannot be thrown at my Door; and so, not be too busie with my Reputation." When War burton, beginning to get uneasy over the postponement of the edition, took occasion to write Theo- bald about the matter, the latter rephed, "I thank God, the 7 Volumes are quite printed off, and nothing remaining to do but the Dedication, Preface and List." ^° Later in October it was promised that Shakespeare would be pubUshed sometime in November.^' Yet the year came to a close without witnessing the appearance of the work. At last, in January of 1734, it reached the pubhc, copies being de- livered to subscribers at Theobald's home in Great Russel Street. In the printed preface Theobald attributed the delay to his change in plan and to his disinchnation to hurry anything crude into the world. Yet from the above account it seems clear that the slow process through which the edition went " Letter of June 30, 1733. Appendix C. 2" Letter of October 17, 1733. Appendix C. 21 Letter of October 25, 1733. Appendix C. THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 163 was due rather to the publishers than to the editor's own desires or necessities. Tonson's unwiUingness to issue the volumes before he had disposed of Pope's second edition and the difficulty experienced in the printing explain the apparent procrastination. There is no doubt that the edi- tion profited by the delay, for Theobald continued at his labors up to the last minute, but it was not of his own choosing. In discussing the edition it first becomes necessary to trace the development of the preface, for that part of the work has been made the basis of an unjust accusation of theft. When Warburton heard that an agreement had been reached with Tonson, he expressed anxiety as to the preface the editor might prefix to the production. There seems no reason to doubt that as early as this the egotistical clergyman had designs on that part of the work. If so, Theobald easily fell into the trap. I am extremely obliged, for the tender concern you have for my reputation in what I am to prefix to my Edition: and this part, as it will come last in play, I shall certainly be so kind to myself to communicate in due time to your perusal. The whole affair of Prologomena I have determined to soften into a Preface. . . . But, Dear Sir, will you at your leisure hours, think over for me upon the contents, topics, orders, etc., of this branch of my labour? You have a comprehensive memory and a happiness of digesting the matter joined to it, which my head is often too much embarrassed to perform; let that be the excuse for my inability. But how unreasonable is it to expect this labour, when it is the only part in which I shall not be able to be just to my friends: for, to confess assistance in a Preface will, I am afraid, make me appear too naked.^ ^ Letter of November 18, 1731. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 621. This letter was among those returned to Theobald, but Warburton was careful to make a transcript of it, which he placed with the letters he had retained. See Appendix, p. 344. 164 LEWIS THEOBALD This last sentence ran counter to Warburton's desire, but had he been unwiUing to proceed on these terms, he should have stated his objections. The ambitious divine, however, acquiesced so completely in Theobald's proposal that the latter hastened to com- municate what he had done on the preface : I received by your Last (no. Ill) of the 22 of Nov. your kind Assurances with Regard to my Preface; the contents of which I am endeavouring to modell in my Head, in order to communicate them to you, for your Directions & Refinement. I have already rough-hewn the Exordium and Conclusion: the Latter of which I now send you a Transcript of, to shew you how methodical I am; and by my next, I shall submit the Opening to your Perusal. I beg earnestly. Dear Sir, you will not be tender of altering, every- where (except in my Acknowledgments to my Friends); I would have the Whole both amuse and strike. What I shall send you from Time to Time, I look upon only as Materials: which I hope may grow into a fine Building under your judicious Management. In short, Dirue, aedifica, muta quadrata rotundis, etc. ^ Since I have not been able to find Theobald's next letter, it is impossible to say how much of the preface he com- municated to his assistant. Upon reading the parts communicated to him, Warburton made several criticisms in which Theobald immediately acquiesced. When the squeamish divine expressed a fear that certain prejudices might be aroused by a clergyman engaging in criticisms of this kind, his friend removed a phrase about his becomijig "a Labourer in the Vineyard," and promised to submit to his approval everything that should be said upon that head, as well as the other contents of the preface.^ Fault was also found with the disconnected " Letter of December 4, 1731. Appendix C. " Cf. Preface to Warburton's edition of Shakespeare, 1747. THE EDITION OP SHAKESPEAHE 165 nature of the specimens presented, to which Theobald re- pUed : I make no Question of my being wrong in the disjointed Parts of my Preface, but my Intention was, (after I had given you the Con- clusion, and the Manner in which I meant to start) to give you a List of all the other general Heads designed to be handled, then to transmit to you, at proper Leisure, my rough Working off of each respective Head, that you might have the Trouble only of refining and embelUshing with additional Inrichments; of the general Arrangement, which you should think best for the whole; and of making the proper Transitions from Subject to Subject, which I account no inconsiderable Beauty. If you think right to indulge me in this Scheme my next shall be employ'd in Prose- cution of it.^' This proposal evidently met with Warburton's approval, for in his next letter Theobald says: "I intend very soon to trouble you with a prosecution of the Preface." ^ Since there has been discovered no letter giving the topics to be discussed, it is impossible to say just how large was War- burton's contribution to the preface. In the same letter the editor first mentioned his purpose of inserting classical emendations in the preface and notes to his edition of the dramatist, a procedure that has gained him the charge of pedantry from his time to ours. Yet even in regard to this matter he was careful to ask his friend's advice, at the same time cautioning him against too ready an approval, for he felt that every opportunity of decrying him as a pedant would be seized. The occasional Insertion of a few Emendations from some Greek Authors, I certainly think may be of signal Service to my Repu- tation: if you think they may safely be interspers'd without sus- picion of Pedantry. I would not voluntarily draw that Ridicule " Letter of December 18, 1731. Appendix C. ^ Nichols, Ilhistrations of Ldterature, vol. 2, p. 621. The date of the letter lies between December 18, 1731, and the end of the year. 166 LEWIS THEOBALD upon me from the Sneerers. You are anxious, Dear Sir, for every Part of my Character : but do not let me, like a Fondling, be dress' d up in too glaring colours. To be a little diffident, will secure one from much Envy and Detraction. In spite of the caution his friend thought they could be in- serted without seeming pedantic. Not only did War- burton approve, he actually encouraged the unfortunate editor in following this wholly unnecessary course." For over a year the preface does not figure in the cor- respondence, but early in 1733 Theobald writes that he will shortly "sit down upon that fine Synopsis, which you so modestly call the Skeleton of a Preface." ^' It is hard to tell exactly what is meant here by Synopsis or Skeleton, but it is plain that by no stretching of the terms can they be forced to signify anything finished. Yet that Theobald took over passages from Warburton cannot be denied. The latter, although fully aware of the terms upon which he was assisting his correspondent, had not hesitated to mention to some of his friends his participation in the work. Thus when he saw the printed preface, he at once informed the editor that it contained passages which his friends knew to be his. It is not improbable that he was trying to force Theobald to make a public acknowledgment of his assistance, as indeed the editor might have done. If this was his intent, he was unsuccessful, for Theobald replied, with unnecessary modesty for himself and un- warrantable admiration for his friend, "Let those preac- quainted Friends frankly know, I embraced them in a just preference to what I could myself produce on the Subject." Then he adds, as if divining Warburton's motive, "Nor would I have chose tacitly to usurp the Reputation of them, but as I formerly hinted, and you joined with me in senti- " See Letter of September 17, 1732. Appendix C. 2* Letter of January 10, 1733. Appendix C. THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 167 ment, it would have looked too poor to have confess'd Assistance towards so slight a Fabrick as my Preface." ^' Yet Warburton was not content to let his part in the performance go unrecorded. In his copy of Theobald's Shakespeare he marked all the passages which he considered his own. Upon this basis Mr. Smith accuses the scholar of dullness and theft, the first because he called upon his friend for assistance, the second because he did not publicly ac- knowledge that assistance.'" It was only an habitual lack of self-confidence and a greatly exaggerated idea of his friend's ability that made Theobald quick to take advantage of the insinuated offer of help. As for "theft," if the accept- ing what is freely given, with the mutual understanding that no open acknowledgment can be made, comes under that head, he is guilty. From our point of view the editor should not have taken credit for what was not his, but some term other than the one given above must be used to express the fault. Mr. Smith has taken some pains to show that Warburton was truthful in the passages he marked, pointing out that four of the thirteen can be proved his, and expressing the belief that we have no reason to doubt the others. He thinks Theobald confirmed the authenticity of Warburton's claims by omitting in his second edition several passages either claimed by Warburton or known to be his. Since the editor omitted some passages that were not claimed by his assistant and retained some that were, little reliance can be placed upon evidence of this kind. Yet from what I have learned of Theobald's nature, I think it probable that, after his break with his friend, he omitted all the pass- ages not his own. =» Letter of March 5, 1734. Appendix C. '" D. Nichol Smith, Eighteenth-century Essays on Shakespeare, 1903, Introduction and Preface. 168 LEWIS THEOBALD If this is true, Warburton claimed more than his share. In one instance, at least, some proof is available. War- burton marked the passage explaining the difference be- tween Theobald's edition and Bentley's Milton. After the pubUcation of Shakespeare, Theobald, being somewhat fearful of the way Bentley might receive the distinction, wrote as follows : As to Dr. Bentley (whatever the penetration of some readers may divine on this head) in shaking off the Similitude betwixt our Tasks, I hope that neither he, nor his Friends will see cause to sus- pect any Sneer. The Stating the Difference was absolutely neces- sary on my own side, and I think I have avoided saying anything derogatory on his.'' This last sentence forces the beUef that Theobald was the author of the passage ; had he received assistance from his friend, some mention of it would have been made. While a few of Warburton's observations may be acute, Theobald's reputation would not have suffered much, had he been denied his friend's assistance. In fact, he has suf- fered more in receiving it, for Warburton was not high- minded enough to keep silent about a gift he freely made. A little over a year after he broke with Theobald, he wrote the Reverend Thomas Birch, You will see in Theobald's heap of disjointed stuff, which he calls a Preface to Shakespeare, an observation upon those poems which I made to him, and which he did not understand, and so has made it a good deal obscure by contracting my note; for you must understand that almost alll;hat Preface (except what relates to Shakespeare's Life, and the foohsh Greek conjectures at the end) was made up of notes I sent him on particular passages which he has there stitched together without head or tail.'^ " See Appendix, p. 324. '2 Letter dated November 24, 1737. Nichols, Illustraiions of Lit- erature, vol. 2, p. 8L THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 169 This was a gross exaggeration of Warburton's part in the treatise, as well as too harsh a criticism of Theobald's. The poems referred to are L' Allegro and IlPenseroso, and Johnson later, in his hfe of Milton, showed the observation to be in- correct. Furthermore, having encouraged Theobald to throw in "the foolish Greek notes," he had approved of them when they appeared.^' Whether he approved or dis- approved of the notes is of no moment, for his Greek was not sufficient to make him a competent judge, but the complete change in opinion is only another instance of that gentleman's character, interesting in this case in that it shows his opposition to Theobald even before he became associated with Pope. These Greek notes — and they have been condemned by all the students of the edition — are ostensibly inserted to uphold the value of hteral criticism. The real reason, however, for their insertion was, as Theobald confessed,'^ to help his reputation. To us who five at a time when scholarship in English letters is based on a sound foundation of respect, these critical attempts in an ahen field seem entirely out of place, but when Theobald wrote, he was really the first to examine critically an Enghsh text. The classics had long been the subject of investigation by scholars, and Bentley had given a great impetus to textual criticism. Yet even the dignity of classical studies had not been sufficient to prevent the attacks of satirists. What, then, was Theobald to expect, who, by undertaking a task devoid of the sanction of tradition, had laid himself all the more open to satire ? Thus it is only natural that he should have attempted to defend himself by showing his abihty in a subject which the pubhc regarded with some favor. " "I am very glad the Greek Criticisms strike you." Theobald's letter to Warburton dated March 5, 1734. Appendix C. " See ante, p. 165. 170 LEWIS THEOBALD The preface, though not bad, is by no means extraordinary. The life of Shakespeare, with which it begins, is mainly from Rowe's account. This is followed by a discussion of Shake- speare's character as a writer, including his love of music and knowledge of nature. To throw hght on the latter, the dramatist is compared with Milton, Addison, and Jonson. Shakespeare's learning is subjected to a short and indecisive discussion, in which attention is called to his use of Latin derivatives. Then follow in rapid succession the disadvantages under which the poet's reputation rested, reasons for corruptions in the text, and the method of curing them. There is also a rather extended defense of verbal criticism, the editor replying most energetically to Mallet's poem Of Verbal Criticism. The preface closes with the Greek notes and an acknowledgment of assistance, in which he is especially eulogistic of Warburton. It is not upon the preface that Theobald's reputation rests, but upon the edition proper. This was a success because he brought to his task the true idea of an editor's duty, and enunciated and employed a method that was sure to gain results. Early in his correspondence he made clear to Warbiu-ton his conviction concerning fidelity to the text. "I ever labour," he writes, "to make the smallest devia- tions that I can possibly from the text ; never to alter at all, where I can by any means explain a passage into sense; nor even by any emendations to make the author better where it is probable the text came from his hands." '* A note in the edition read* to the same effect: "where the Authority of all Books makes the Poet commit a Blunder, (whose general Character it is, not to be very exact;) tis the Duty of an Editor to shew him as he is and to detect all fraudulent tampering to make him better." ^* It was ** Letter of April 8, 1729. Nichols, Illitsirations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 210. » Vol. 4, p. 112. THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 171 this conscientious scruple that made him restore to their proper places the passages Pope had degraded. Since few men are as good as their creed, it is not surprising to find Theobald departing at times from this high standard, yet the spirit of such a conviction is seen throughout the whole work. He also realized that it was incumbent upon an editor to be thorough in whatever he undertook. In his intended essay on Pope's judgment, he rebuked the poet's own hap- hazard methods with the assurance that "we word-catchers, Sir, are a strange species of animals that love to go thorough- stitch with everything we take in hand." ^' Against Pope's strictures about his restoring lost puns, he dauntlessly repUed, "Tho' my Correction restores but a poor Conundrum, yet if it restores the Poet's Meaning, it is the Duty of an Editor to trace him in his lowest Conceits." '* This scholarly feeling for thoroughness constantly appears in his private correspondence. When he falls short of his ideal, it is owing chiefly to the lack of materials rather than to indolence. Not only was Theobald the first to insist that the editor of an English classic had any duties at all; he was the first to analyze the work to be done. In his preface he divides an editor's province into three divisions : the emendations of corrupt passages; the explanation of obscure or difficult ones ; and an inquiry into the beauties and defects of com- position. This last, more strictly termed " literary criticism," he hinted, did not necessarily belong to an editor, and since it required no special qualifications of learning, was open to all who were willing. What Theobald was concerned with — what every editor is primarily pledged to — was to give the best text possible illuminated with all necessary explanations. By emendation he meant not only correcting " Nichols, IlliLStrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 654. " Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 2, p. 149. 172 LEWIS THEOBALD by conjecture, but also the restoring, by collation, of a better variant reading. After this analysis Theobald points out the method by which he gained the ends mentioned above. To estabhsh a correct text he first resorted to "a diligent and laborious Collation" of the old copies. Then he collated the plays with their respective sources, chronicle, classic story, or Italian novella. If an obscurity still remained, and its sense could be restored by a slight alteration of the text, he thought the change could be made without the necessity of proof beyond common sense. But when it was necessary to take a greater Uberty with the original, he was careful to support his emendation with parallel passages and au- thorities from Shakespeare, which he says, repeating the conviction expressed in Shakespeare Restored, was "the surest Means of expounding any Author whatsoever." As regards the method employed in the explanatory notes, he held that since the obscurities in Shakespeare are due to the times in which he hved, the kind of writing he followed, and his own peculiar nature, to be able to explain the ob- scurities of the first class an editor must "be well vers'd in the History and Manners of his Author's Age" ; to explain the second class he must have a wide acquaintance with the dramatic poets; while to explain the last he should be intimately acquainted with Shakespeare's style and phrase- ology, as well as possessing a deep insight into his genius. Never before had even the need of research in editing an English text been emphasized, to say nothing of any plan of procedure. Thus the preface may justly be con- sidered the first expression of the modern method employed in critical editions. Yet Theobald claimed the credit not of originating but only of adapting this method to a new field. Amplifying the opinions he had expressed in his first critical effort, he traces his plan to its true source : THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 173 Shakespeare's Case has in great Measure resembled that of a cor- rupt Classic; and, consequently, the Method of Cure was likewise to bear a Resemblance. By what means, and with what Success, this Cure has been effected on ancient Writers, is too well known, and needs no formal Illustration. The Reputation consequent on Tasks of that Nature invited me to attempt the Method here; with this View, the Hopes of restoring to the PubUc their greatest Poet in his Original Purity; After having so long lain in a Condition that was a Disgrace to common Sense.'' In the next sentence, however, Theobald lays claim to a just credit of originality: "To this End I have ventur'd on a Labour, that is the first Assay of the kind on any modern Author whatsoever." And it was, for Pope's edition, whatever its intentions, must be considered a failure both in method and results, while Bentley's Milton cannot be taken seriously, though Theobald thought it necessary to point out that "that Great Man" was more concerned in showing how Milton should have written than how he did write, the most plausible excuse possible, but still absurd. Since the method was drawn from the classics, a model had to be derived from the same source. As would be expected, the editor turns to the man from whom he had learned so much. "I mean to follow the form of Bentley's Amsterdam Horace in subjoining the notes to the place controverted." ^" This plan became the standard for eighteenth-century editions. But it was not in form only that Theobald followed the Horace. In a previous chapter it has already been shown how in the critical doubt, the emendation, and the conjectural criticism he adopts the same attitude and employs the same method as the more illustrious critic. It has also been shown how in conjecture and explanation he marshals his evidence " Preface, p. xxxix. *» Letter to Warburton, November 18, 1731. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 621. 174 LEWIS THEOBALD with the same logic and thoroughness. Yet one difference was pointed out. Bentley had command over the whole range of classical literature ; whether defending an emenda- tion, settling an historical fact, establishing a granmiatical usage, or elucidating a metrical law, he draws his evidence from every conceivable source and focuses it upon the ques- tion in such a manner as to leave little doubt in the minds of his readers. Theobald, however, in his first work was chiefly dependent upon his knowledge of Shakespeare, upon, as he says, expounding an author by himself. It is true he occasionally resorted to Chaucer and Spenser, sometimes consulted the chronicles for historical facts, and made diligent use of the reference books at hand, yet he was not well versed in the literature essential to a study of Shakespeare. This deficiency was one of material rather than method, but it had to be overcome before the best results could be obtained. During the preparation of his edition, the lack was remedied by an enormous expansion in his reading of earUer English hterature, the results of which are easily seen in his notes. One example is sufficient to show how he was searching the literature of the past, and to what good use he was putting his finds. Near the be- ginning of his correspondence with Warburton, he was puzzled over the phrase Basilisco like in King John; he could make nothing of it all. Some months later the diffi- culty was removed by his reading Soliman and Perseda.*^ Had he not adopted the policy of reading the literature of Shakespeare's age, he mu^ either have left the passage in obscurity or resorted to an unnecessary emendation. His wide reading is especially seen in his reference to early dramas and in quotations from them. In the preface he claims to have read over eight hundred old English plays. " See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 205, 256. Also compare pp. 358 and 518, 517 and 527. THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 175 Though this statement is a palpable exaggeration — a fault to which Theobald was inclined — yet there was some basis for it.^^ His notes prove him familiar with the works of Marlowe, Kyd, Jonson, Chapman, Heywood, Dekker, Marston, Webster, Ford, Beaumont and Fletcher, and Massinger, to say nothing of the number of anonymous plays he has occasion to mention. Particularly numerous are his references to the many plays of Jonson and Beau- mont and Fletcher. Moreover, he was a dihgent reader of a different species of Uterature. The antiquaries Stowe, Camden, and Dugdale he used to good advantage. Besides the chronicles of Hall and Hohnshed, he was familiar with such semi-historical works as Hakluyt's voyages. Lydgate and Caxton were known to him, though he seems to have been ignorant of Gower. With Chaucer and Spenser he was intimately acquainted, and, in a much less degree, with the sixteenth- century lyricists such as Wyatt, Surrey, Daniel, and Lodge. Then there was a mass of ephemeral and inconsequential literature from which Theobald gleaned something, as for example The Discovery of a London Monster, 1612. One result of this investigation of the literature surround- ing Shakespeare was the weakening of Theobald's confidence in the poet's learning. Several years before the appearance of Shakespeare Restored he had most determinedly argued the dramatist's direct knowledge of the classics, on the ground that in Troilus and Cressida the author had depended more on Homer than on Chaucer, and that in the plays based on " See account of Theobald's library in Lounsbury, Text of Shake- speare, pp. 551-553. Professor Lounsbury thinks Theobald's library contained "several" hundred plays. Also see The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, ed. Theobald, Seward, and Sympson, 1750, where in "An Account of the Present Edition" Seward speaks of Theobald's valuable collection of quartos. 176 LEWIS THEOBALD classic story he must have read Plutarch in the original.*' Later he discovered his mistakes in reading Wynken de Worde's Troy story and North's Plutarch. He even took the field against Gildon and Pope, who produced the Comedy of Errors as proof of Shakespeare's Latin, and called atten- tion to the fact that a translation of the Menaechmi was extant in the poet's time.** These discoveries, and in a small degree Warburton's influence, forced him to the conclusion that Shakespeare went to translations rather than to the classics themselves/* Still he was not sufficiently shaken from his old behef to come out openly on the opposite side. In the notes to the various volumes of his edition he quotes some sixty-two passages from Latin and Greek writers, which, he holds, bear a resemblance to Shakespeare's sentiments. In his preface he claimed that these passages were produced, not to prove that Shakespeare consciously imitated the classics, but to show how happily he expressed the same sentiments; yet some are introduced with the statement that Shakespeare must have had them in mind. It was easy for Theobald, whose memory was stored with classical lore, to see similarities in thought, and for this reason he did not take, as Farmer did later, a firm stand against Shakespeare's first-hand knowledge of ancient literature. With this increased range of observation Theobald's notes approached Bentley's even more closely. He called to his assistance not only what classical hterature held, but also what English history and hterature lent. With the same pertinency and the same logical handUng of evidence that were so characteristic of his exemplar, he proved and eluci- dated as no one had ever done before in EngUsh studies. " See preface to his alteration of Richard II, 1721. " Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 3, p. 4. " Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 565. THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEAEE 177 Just as Bentley's notes, even when upholding an unwarrant- able correction, were notable for the instruction they con- tained, so one critic says that Theobald's notes ''are a mine of miscellaneous information, clearing up fully and once for all what might have remained imdetected for generations." ** In iacreasing his knowledge along the necessary lines, Theo- bald had removed the only fundamental dissimilarity be- tween the two scholars. A comparison of notes would easily show that the methods employed were one and the same, but since such a comparison has been made in the chapter on Shakespeare Restored, it becomes necessary only to point out this single improvement in Theobald's notes .^ The secret of this method was the insistence upon proof for any conclusion. It differed from previous methods in that there was less of random guessing, haphazard arrivals at conclusions from isolated points or insufficient evidence. A note on the first act of Macbeth furnishes an excellent example of the maimer in which Theobald worked. In the old reading of this passage the witches called themselves "weyward sisters." The adjective struck the critic as in- appropriate. UnwiUing to rely on his first impression, he investigated Shakespeare's ase of the word, and proved by quotations from three other plays that the dramatist never used the adjectives in a sense suitable to the passage imder discussion. Then his reading of Chaucer stood him in good stead by bringiag to his min d a passage in Troilus and Cresiida, where fortune is called "executrice of wierds." In dictionaries and glossaries he sought the correct meaning « J. C. C Idem, Preface, p. x. '» Idem, vol. 1, p. 235. Also see Appendix C, p. 282. 186 LEWIS THEOBALD honour'd it with a Number of Master-Touches, so peculiar to himself, that a knowing Reader may with Ease and Certainty distinguish the Traces of his Pencil." '^ In another place he says, "some Part of it is certainly of his [Shake- speare's] writing." " Theobald was too timid to defy the precedent set by Pope in rejecting the tragedy, yet it seems probable that at one time he was considering its inclusion in his edition." Theobald also declared his belief in Shake- speare's part-authorship of another play in which many scholars to-day see evidences of the great dramatist, The Two Noble Kinsmen, which he called Fletcher's, though he was of the opinion that in the writing of the play "Shake- speare assisted; and indeed his workmanship is very dis- coverable in a number of places." '^ Of some of the plays included in Pope's and his own edi- tions he denied Shakespeare complete authorship. His opinion of Titiis Andronicus was, indeed, very low.'^ He inclined to the theory that there was an old play by that name, which Shakespeare retouched. For proof he cited a passage in the introduction of Bartholomew Fair, 1614, where Jonson speaks of an Andronicus of about thirty years of age.'° Pointing out a number of Shakespeare's historical mistakes in the three parts of Henry VI, he maintained that the dramas were brought to Shakespeare and merely re- touched by him." Nor was Theobald guided by external evidence alone ; he did not hesitate to apply aesthetic tests. " Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 2, p. 490. " Idem, vol. 4, p. 20. " Theobald sent Warburton a copy of Pericles, with the injunction to look over it with a strict eye. See his letter of May 20, 1730. Ap- pendix C. " Idem, vol. 2, p. 623. " Idem, vol. 2, p. 512. " Idem, vol. 5, p. 307. " Idem, vol. 4, p. 109. THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 187 He says the diction of Andronicus is beneath that of the three parts of Henry VI, which he says is "more obsolete, and the Numbers more mean and prosaical, than in the Generahty of his genuine Compositions." Little fault can be found with these opinions. Had Theobald's life been less fraught with adversities, and had he received more encouragement in this field of investigation, perhaps he would have established his opinions on firmer grounds. Double Falshood was the only play the author- ship of which he ever intended to settle. From this task he was deterred, so he says, by the town's accepting the play as Shakespeare's. The more probable reason, however, was that, with his keen sensitiveness to Shakespeare's style, he could discover no traces of the dramatist. However, Theobald's main contribution, after his work on the text, to the wide field of Shakespearean research lies in his discovery of sources. In the preface he speaks of having read over the chronicles of Hall and Holinshed, as well as the Italian stories and those Hves of Plutarch upon which some of the plays were founded. He was the first to discover how closely Shakespeare followed Holin- shed.''* He also was the first to point out Whetstone's Promus and Cassandra as the source of Measure for Measure, at the same time asserting that he could prove his point, but, as was too often the case, he left his task unfinished.^' He discovered a copy of the old Leir,*" and designated the Historia Danica of Saxo Grammaticus as the original source of the Hamlet story. Early in the preparation of his edition " See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 398. " Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 1, p. 398. See also Appendix, p. 281. The age had placed such a great value upon textual criticism that research in other fields was considered much less important than it deserved. Only in the latter half of the century were such questions investigated. »" Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 5, p. 217. 188 LEWIS THEOBALD he perceived the indebtedness of Troiliis and Cressida to Wynkin de Worde, which in a letter to Warbnrton, he proved by showing agreement in a number of details. *' Finally, in various places he pointed out small debts to sources such as for the grave-digger's song in Hamlet. Yet seldom has a man been so deprived of the credit for discoveries; in some cases the theft has come down un- detected to the present. One scholar, to whom I have had occasion to refer before, praises Johnson in this fashion : It is especially remarkable that Johnson, who is not considered to have been very strong in research, should be the first to state that Shakespeare used North's translation of Plutarch. He is the first also to point out that there was an English translation of the play on which the Comedy 0/ Errors was founded, and the first to show that it was not necessary to go back to the Tale of Gamelyn for the story ot As You Like It. There is no evidence how he came by this knowledge. The casual and allusive manner in which he advances his information would seem to show that it was not of his own getting.*^ Mr. Smith thinks the informant might have been Farmer. About the only correct detail in the above quotation is the suspicion that Johnson's knowledge was second-hand, as will be shown. There is plenty of evidence how Boswell's hero came by his information: "the casual and allusive manner" shows, as Kenrick said, that "though Dr. Johnson hath made very few discoveries of his own, he hath discovered the method of making more of The^ald's at second hand, than ever the author could do when they were spick and span new." ^ In a note on Timon's epitaph Theobald says, " Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 611. ^ D. N. Smith, op. cit., p. xxv. ^ A Review of Doctor Johnson's New Edition of Shakespeare by W, Kenrick, 1765. THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEAKE 189 I once imagin'd that Shakespeare might possibly have cor- rected this translator's Blunder from his own acquaintance with the Greek Original: but, I find, he has transcribed the four Lines from an old English Version of Plutarch, ejrtant in his time.*" In the very first note on the very first page of volume three, Theobald remarks that "the Menaechmi of Plautus was translated in English, (which om- Criticks might have known from Langbaine,) and printed in Quarto in the year 1515, haK a century before our Author was bom." '^ In the pref- ace to his edition, while speaking of the verses in As You Like It, Theobald says. Dr. Thomas Lodge, a Physician who flourished early in Queen Elizabeth's Reign, and was a great Writer of the Pastoral Songs and Madrigals, which were so much the Strain of those Times, composed a whole Volume of Poems in Praise of his Mistress, whom he calls Rosahnde. I never yet could meet with this col- lection; but whenever I do, I am persuaded I shall find many of our Author's Canzonets on this Subject to be scraps of the Doctor's amorous Muse.** Fortunately for Johnson, Theobald did not succeed in his search for Lodge's Rosalinde, while the later critic, following the path so clearly pointed out by the man he slandered, met with success. Notwithstanding the value of Theobald's contribution to the correcting and illustrating of Shakespeare's text, his edition has its faults. These defects Professor Louns- bury has clearly stated.*' Some were due to personal " Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 5, p. 303. See also Nichols, Illus- tralions of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 500, 505, 508. " The italics in both quotations are Theobald's. Theobald made a mistake in the date; it should be 1595. *" Preface, p. xvii. Theobald was mistaken in the nature of the work, but not in the matter of indebtedness. For this fact, as well as for much other information, Theobald was indebted to Langbaine. " Text of Shakespeare, Chap. XXIV. 190 LEWIS THEOBALD whim, such as the failiire to niimber scenes. Others were occasioned by the eccentricities of the times in which he lived. These are chiefly the tendency to emend too much and the proneness to show erudition. Bentley, guilty of both, had set the fashion for his age. When compared with many of the scholars of his time, Theobald appears con- servative in his conjectures and modest in his citations. His willingness to emend, however, caused him in some cases to miss the obvious meanings of passages, and in others to make good his lack of knowledge by conjecture. What might be called another blemish in his work was his treat- ment of Pope. Again and again he drags in the unfortunate editor to sneer at his incompetency and expose his careless- ness. This practice was deprecated by his admirers, and denounced by his critics, though not tUl sometime after Pope's death. The hving generation knew how great the provocation had been, and that this was the only way the abused man had of quitting scores. Later generations were prone to forget the sequence of events, even to such an extent as to consider the edition some justification for The Dunciad! When the causes of the two men are compared, there ap- pears more justification for the notes than for the satire. Furthermore, Theobald's accusations were almost as imi- versally true as Pope's were false. The most reprehensible defect in the edition was the tacit adoption of many of Pope's metrical emendations.'* The poet had sought to improve Shakespeare's versification by reducing the lines to eighteenth-century regularity. In the majority of cases Theobald followed him, although knowing, and indeed stating, some of the peculiarities of Shakespeare's verse and prommciation, as well as reproving Pope for his ignorance of these pecuUarities and his attempt to make the verse smooth. The adoption of the changes was a dis- ss Lounsbury, Text oj Shakespeare, pp. 527 £f. THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 191 tinct injury to the text and the neglect in acknowledg- ing them no credit to his character. The only defense that can be pleaded in his behalf is that Pope's second edition was the basis of his own.^' Thus the later editor, not meaning to be dishonest, may have thought it neces- sary to specify only where he had departed from the text that was in the possession of the public. The ethical obli- gation of giving every man his due was not generally recognized then, but Theobald has suffered more on this account than Pope or any other editor. The faults of Theobald's edition seem trivial when com- pared with the difficulties he encountered. His study was hampered by the misfortunes and hardships with which his hfe was beset. The aids to research were few and scattered. As there were no large libraries where material could be found, he had to rely upon his friends and the booksellers for the accumulation of an apparatus criticus. Dictionaries and books of reference were both few and unreliable, while there was little previous research from which to obtain aid. Though he had the advantage of being the first to enter an almost unexplored field, yet he had not the advantage of approaching the text with that wealth of sym- pathetic intelligence that centuries of study have given to modem scholars. The great difficulty, however, lay in finding a method. As scholarly methods had not been employed on England's literature, he was forced to adapt to an English text the method employed by Bentley in the '" Mr. Sidney Lee (Life of William Shakespeare, 1904, p. 316) is wrong in thinking Theobald based his edition on the first folio. Theo- bald introduced into the current text so many readings from this folio as to give some reason for the belief. Writing to Warburton in Novem- ber, 1731, the editor says, "Tonson has sent me in a Shakespeare inter- leav'd; and I am now extracting such Notes and Emendations, as upon maturest DeUberation, I am certain will stand the test." See Appendix, p. 280. 192 LEWIS THEOBALD classics.'" This duty he performed so effectively that he blazed the trail succeeding editors have always followed. '" Old English scholarship flowed in a channel entirely separate from that of the scholarship devoted to editing later English classics. In the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries it was con- cerned with the collating and printing of manuscripts, the compilation of dictionaries, grammars, and catalogues, with the material where- with an editor works. While Jimius stands out as a great figure, his practices were not adopted. Manuscripts were stUl largely a matter of antiquarian interest, and in the eighteenth century men like Hearne were still more eager to publish editions than to pubUsh accurate editions. They were more interested in showing their curious relics than in correcting or illustrating them. While antiquarians in general were of great service to the editors of the eighteenth century, Anglo- Saxon scholarship had developed no method of editing that exerted the sUghtest influence upon the editions of later writers. Interest in Old English rapidly declined during the eighteenth century, not, as Miss Adams affirms, because the period tended to social expression rather than minute scholarship — witness the many editions and critical treatises — but because the period was too much absorbed with more modern writers. See E. N. Adams, Old English Scholarship in England from 1666-1800, Yale Studies in English LV, 1917, pp. 70, 74, 83, 94, 97, 103, 108. CHAPTER VI Theobald's later life In his edition of Shakespeare Theobald had vindicated himseK against Pope. It was not, however, with a feeUng of complacency that he faced the future. Confident though he was of the worth of his labors, he could not but feel uneasy about the attacks that might follow. The eight years intervening between his first and last works on Shake- speare had seen Pope tireless in his underhanded attempts to injure the scholar, with the result that the latter justly expected his edition, with its repeated sneers at the satirist, to bring further trouble to his door. With such fears in mind the editor wrote Warburton that when the cynics began to bark, it would be necessary for the two critics to look to their shelters and to marshal their forces for the spring campaign which he felt sure would be directed against him. But these attacks never materialized. For once Pope realized that silence would do him more good than satire. With the memory of how little his efforts had injured Theobald's interest * and with the consciousness of the ' The futility of Pope's satire in this respect is readily seen in the long list of subscribers prefixed to Theobald's edition. It contained the names of the most illustrious of England's nobility. The literary world was represented by CoUey Gibber, Theophilus Gibber, Henry Fielding, Lady Mary Wortley Montague, Samuel Richardson, James Thomson, and Edward Young. Among the scientists and antiquaries were Martin Folkes, John Friend, Richard Mead, Thomas Baker, and Sir Hans Sloane. Classical scholarship made a brave showing with the names of Richard Bentley, Thomas Bentley, John Davies, Nicholas Hardinge, Styvan Thirlby, John Taylor, and John Upton. 194 LEWIS THEOBALD severe strains he had been put to in misquoting and mis- representing his opponent, he could not but feel that he had made a verj- poor showing in the controversj-, and that for the future he could hardl}'' hope to prevail upon the public against their own judgment.- The Grub-street Journal did contain one or two attacks early in the year, but even that filthy periodical was soon forced to restrain its abuse.' So effectively had Theobald closed the mouths of his enemies that nearly four months after his edition had been made pubUc, he could say that he had seen nothing written against it, save one "idle invective." Instead of attacks, his edition met with approval on all sides. Warburton was one of the first to congratulate him : "I rejoice heartily in your good fortune, and am glad to find the town in a disposition to do you justice." * Later he sent his friend thirteen notes, wliich, he said, indicated all he could find to ca^-il at.° Lord Orrery, in appreciation of the honor shown him in the dedication, presented the editor with a himdred guineas, while the Prince of Wales paid twenty guineas for his set. In May a benefit play was given him as editor of Shakespeare, for the entertain- ment of the Grand Master and Society of Free-Masons. ' Pope was angri,- enough; he was "extremely nettled with Mr. Theobald for publishing Shakespeare, and animadverting upon the said Pope, and Mr. Pope, as I find, in defense of himself, uses nothing but scurrility and the most indecent unbecoming language agreeable to his pride." Reliquiae Heamianae, 1869, vol. 3, p. l-t2. ' Xo. 219, March 7, 1734, and Xo. 220, March 14, 1734. See Lounsbviry, Text of Shakespe^e, pp. 446-447. The first article was written in answer to Theobsdd's fling at Mallet, and was signed by that gentleman. The other was anonymous, and must have been the invective to which Theobald refers. There is no evidence that Pope had a hand in either. * Letter of May 17, 1734. Xichols, lUustralions of Literature, vol. 2, p. 634. ' Letter of June 20, 1734, Idem, vol. 2, p. 645. Theobald's later life 195 The public was fully aware of the excellence of the work, and did not hesitate to voice its approval. Nothing but praise reached Theobald's ears, and his reputation was firmly estabUshed for many years to come.* As soon as Shakespeare's plays were off his hands, the editor turned to other labors both classical and English. When Bentley's edition of Milton appeared, it had in- spired him to send some textual remarks on the poet to Warburton. His investigations were now carried farther. One passage in Lycidas — a favorite poem with Theobald — ■ contained an allusion of which the scholar could make nothing. The lines read, " Sleep'st by the fable of Bellerus old Where the great vision of the guarded mount Looks towards Namancos and Bayona's hold.'' Not being content to pass over the passage in ignorance, he wrote Warburton for information regarding the proper names. The latter repUed most dogmatically that the ex- planation would be found in Sir James Ware's Antiquities and History of Ireland. Theobald immediately consulted this authority and, as was his wont, several others, but to no avail. When Warburton was notified that his reference was wrong, he replied that judging by the circumstances he had thought the allusion was to an old Irish fable, and "that is all I know." ' It would be hard to find a clearer example of the contrasting spirits that animated the scholarship of the two men. One is willing to jump at a conclusion, and state that conclusion as a fact; the other exhausts every means at hand to clear up an obscurity, and refuses to be satisfied until he can find authority for an explanation. This inquiry is typical of the widening of his scholarly « Letter of May 9, 1734. Appendix C. ' See Appendix, p. 328, and Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 634, 645. 196 LEWIS THEOBALD interest in English literature. As will be seen later, he was carrying on his investigation in other native poets. Yet he was not entirely through with Shakespeare. In the sum- mer of 1734 he told Warburton that he was "prepared to put out an Edition of Shakespeare's Poems with a copious Glossary to all his Works." ' The poems never appeared, though in October of the following year, Theobald wrote Warburton that As to Shakespeare's Poems, my Design is by no means dropt, only deferr'd to Spring, when that and Aeschylus, I hope in God, shall Both appear; and an Act be obtain'd to preserve the property of Them together with That of more valuable Productions.' The failure to obtain this act may account for the suppression of the undertaking. Though prompted by personal considerations, Theobald's effort to secure a copyright law was most praiseworthy. The statute of Queen Anne, probably written by Swift, gave the sole right to authors or assigns to publish books already printed for twenty-one years from April 10, 1710, when the statute went into effect. For books that had never been printed the time was hmited to fourteen years with the possibihty of a renewal for an equal length of time. When the first twenty-one years expired, numerous lawsuits arose over the question whether the statute took away ' See letter of August 27, 1734. Appendix C. One emendation, on the thirteenth stanza of Venus and Adonis, he sent to his friend. Theobald's copy read, "Being Red, she loves him best; and being white Her Breast is better'd with a more delight." After arguing very convincingly against this reading, he recommended "fetter'd" for "better'd" and supported the change with an impos- ing array of quotations from the classics. He was right in suspecting a corruption, but hit upon the wrong word. Warburton, disagreeing with this correction, advocated "o'er deUght" for "more delight." • Letter of October 18, 1735. Appendix C. Theobald's later life 197 common law rights. After much debate the question was not settled until the latter part of the century. In 1734 the copyright was extended to prints and engravings. Perhaps the interest created by these lawsuits inspired Theobald to seek an extension of the copyright. In April of 1735 he wrote to Warburton : I don't know whether you have heard what pains I am taking to carry thro' a BiU for the Encouragement of Learning and securing of Property in Authors. I hope, I shall get it thro', unless my Apphcation is cut short by an abrupt Rising of the Houses.^" Two months later he was forced to acknowledge his failure to get the bill through the House of Lords, but showed de- termination to persist in the effort." Later he expressed the hope that the act would be obtained in the spring of the following year, but nothing came of the undert.aking.^^ Though there is no direct evidence of the nature of the bill, Theobald's phrase "for the advancement of learning" and his desire to protect his translation of Aeschylus and " Letter of April 26, 1735. Appendix C. " Letter of June 24, 1735. Appendix C. " It was probably Theobald's interest in this field that first turned Warburton's mind in the same direction. "It would be xmjust to quit Warburton without drawing attention to one or two instances in which his vigor was not employed in the maintenance of a paradox. At a time when copyright was generally regarded as a legal monopoly, he argued the natiu:al right of an author in the produce of his mind." Mark Pattison, Essays, vol. 2, p. 174. Warburton's pamphlets on the subject niunber three: A Letter from an Author to a Member of Parlia- ment concerning Literary Property, 1747; An Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Literary Property, 1762; and A Vindication of the Exclu- sive Right of Authors to their own Works, 1762. The first and last works argue an author's natural right in his productions, but the second takes the opposite view, and was evidently written to afford the bishop an opportunity of answering it. The last effort calls the authors of the previous pamphlets shrewd, ingenious, learned, a fact which bespeaks the authorship of all three, even though they appeared anonymously. 198 LEWIS THEOBALD edition of Shakespeare's poems seem to indicate that he wished copyright extended to the productions of scholar- ship. While the critic must have relied chiefly upon the influence of his patron, Lord Orrery, his hopefulness of carrying through such legislation is plainly indicative of his prestige. His letters written at this time also show that his edition had entirely removed any stigma that might have been incurred from The Dunciad, and that he occupied a favorable position in the eyes of the public. He was closely associated with Lord Orrery, being constantly engaged in legal work for his lordship. Again, his frequent mention of Sir Robert Walpole shows him to have been on terms of some intimacy with the prime minister, who unfortunately never succeeded in giving him any substantial aid. All in all, the years immediately following his edition were the brightest of his career. This period also marks a renewal of his interest in the classics. Indeed, he seems always to have looked to them for a substantial reputation. He was never quite sure of the honor to be derived from scholarship in English letters. Although it was his success in Shakespearean criticism that encouraged him to try his hand at the classics, he was not fully confident of the dignity of the innovation. His first work in classical criticism was the notes he sup- plied to Cooke's Hesiod. The majority of his classical observations, however, were contained in three papers contributed to Jortin's Miscellaneous Observations, 173 L In writing for this perioaical Theobald joined the ranks of such scholars as Pearce, Masson, Taylor, Wasse, Robinson, Upton, Thirlby, names that occupy a substantial place in the history of classical scholarship. Jortin, a scholar of no mean ability, complimented Theobald's first article, expressing the hope that "the Gentleman, to whom I am Theobald's later life 199 indebted for this, will give me oppiortxinities of obliging the Pubhc with more of his observations." " In his articles the Shakespearean scholar covered a very broad field, commenting on such writers as Eustathius, Athenaeus, Suidas, Statiiis, Aristophanes, scholiast on Aristophanes, Hesychius, Aeschylas, scholiast on Aeschylvis, Paterculus, Strabo, Anacreon, and Platonius. In regard to this last writer, it was Theobald's intention at one time to contribute to Jortin's magazine a translation of the fragment on the difference between the old and middle comedy of the Greeks, but he did not carry out his purpose. The principal fault with most of Theobald's emendations is that they are un- necessary, a criticism that applies to the corrections of all the scholars of the day. Yet never are they absurd. He studies the passage closely, gives fuUy his reasons for behev- ing a correction necessary, and supports his reading with evidence gathered from wide som-ces.^* Mention has already been made of the emendations in- troduced in the notes and inserted in the preface of Theo- bald's edition of Shakespeare. The latter comprise, besides several corrections on Platonius and attempted rectifications of the opinions of earlier scholars, emendations on three Greek inscriptions published by Sir George Wheler in 1728. In one of these our scholar made his most ambitious correc- tion. The inscription styled the "Votive Table" by Theo- bald had been considered the prayer of a heathen to Zeus Urius in gratitude for a prosperous voyage. With the help of his conjectures the unfortunate critic made it the prayer of a Christian to the Almighty. Less than two months " Migcellrineous Observations, vol. 1, p. 144. " In some cases it is almost impossible not to agree with his emen- dation (see Nichols, Illvjsiralions o/ Ldteralure, vol. 2, p. 582), while in at least one instance his correction has been accepted: 4o-0aXes for d Watson, Life of Warburton, p. 30. " Letter of September i, 1736. Appendix C. 212 LEWIS THEOBALD clearly evidenced by the fact that in 1737 Thomas Birch, a friend of Warburton, who was at work on some lives of the poets, sent to him a number of queries regarding Ben Jonson.** These Theobald answered in scholarly fashion, producing his proofs and arriving at his conclusions with sound reason- ing. In 1740 appeared the second edition of his Shakespeare in eight volumes, from which those notes and parts of the preface which he owed to his former assistant were excluded. He also omitted the conclusion of the preface, in which he had acknowledged the assistance he had received, and had mentioned the works read in the preparation of the edition. The profit realized on the first issue of his work was suffi- cient to remove all want from his door for several years, but by the time the second edition was published he was again in straitened circumstances. In the spring of 1741 he wrote the Duke of Newcastle that " a loss and disappoint- ment" made it necessary for him to appeal to that noble- man.''* About this time also he published in The London Daily Post his last address to the pubUc, "delivered in a most humble strain of supplication," in which he requested assistance at the performance of a benefit.''* It was prob- ably the pressure of finances that incited him to attempt his last critical work. In 1742 he entered into an agree- ment with the Tonsons to edit the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, upon which he had been working for fifteen years. Being unwiUing to venture on the undertaking alone, he publicly advertised for assistance, and was re- warded with offers from two gentlemen, Thomas Seward and a man by the namet)f Sympson.'" Neither of them, " See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 654. ^' See Appendix, p. 346. « May 13, 1741. See Nichols, vol. 2, p. 745. " Seward was canon of Lichfield and Salisbury, a friend of Johnson, and father of the "Swan of Lichfield." I have not been able to find any- thing about the other gentleman. Theobald's later life 213 however, was able to render very valuable assistance. They possessed only the later editions, were not well read in earlier Enghsh literature, and Seward, at least, was afflicted with a vanity almost equal to Warburton's. It is not remarkable, then, that as soon as the first volume had been printed, trouble arose. Theobald, following the practice he had adopted with his first helper, refused to admit notes that did not meet with his approval. Immediately the two assistants were up in arms, nor would they be pacified imtil the reluctant editor had promised to pubhsh the re- jected notes in a postscript at the end of each volume. Furthermore, Seward found fault with what he thought was Theobald's dogmatic manner of speaking, a vice he later piously claimed to have cured by pointing out that it was neither right nor politic. Death cut short the first editor's part in the work. The responsibility of the edition then fell upon Seward, although Sympson saw several volumes through the press. Not- withstanding the fact that they claimed to have received the deceased editor's valuable quartos, with his notes written on the margin, the two men were not prepared to produce a good edition. Yet, incompetent and rash as they were, they tried to follow the method set before them. They were not careful in their collating, yet they recognized the value of collation ; they were to a great degree ignorant of Eliza- bethan history and literature, but they realized that a knowledge of such was essential to an editor.^* Owing to their ignorance of Elizabethan language, the supports to their bold emendations are weak, but they evidence the feel- ing that changes in the text should not be arbitrary, but should be supported by some authority. *^ Seward says it is necessary for a critic to know "every single work, History, Ciistom, Trade, etc. that Shakespeare himself knew." Introduction, p. Ixxiii. The itaUcs are his. 214 LEWIS THEOBALD The edition did not appear until 1750.^^ Although now recognized as the first serious attempt toward a critical re- construction of an eclectic text, formed by collation and emen- dation, it is not held in very high regard. Yet subsequent editors have made the mistake of not considering Theobald's part separately from the rest.'" Even a superficial examina- tion of the volumes reveals in his portion a more careful collation, more variant readings, and a more manifest hesitancy to depart from the text than can be found in the plays edited by the other two men. Seward himself testified to the fact that Theobald collated with accuracy, '' while there is an abundance of evidence that the latter reahzed the value of the old quartos, and recognized that a careful collation of them was necessary to the estabUshment of a good text.*^ His emendations have been so overshadowed by his Shakespearean criticism that they have not received due attention, but one editor, at least, has praised them.^' *' The Works of Mr. Francis Beaumont, and Mr. John Fletcher. In ten Volumes. Collated ivith all the former Editions, and corrected. With Notes Critical and Explanatory. By the late Mr. Theobald, Mr. Seward of Eyaur in Derbyshire, and Mr. Sympson of Gainsborough. London: Printed for J. and R. Tonson and S. Draper in the Strand 1750. *" Under Theobald's care were printed all of volume one, including The Maid's Tragedy, Philaster, A King and No King, The Scornful Lady ; volume two to page 233, comprising The Custom of the Country, The Elder Brother, and nearly four acts of The Spanish Curate; and volume three to page 69, consisting of the first four and a half acts of The Humorous Lieutenant. " Vol. 2, p. 276. '^ Theobald is constantly»correcting from the old quartos, which, he says, are the most to be depended on, and "are worth their Weight in Gold." Vol. 2, p. 102; vol. 1, 148. "I am sorry, I have Occasion so often to trouble the Readers with these Minutiae Ldtterarum: I am very far from pleading any Merit in it; but it is the duU Duty of an Editor to shew, at least, his industry in a faithful Collation of the old Copies." Vol. 1, p. 109. His last slap at Pope! '' See the introduction to Weber's edition of Beaumont and Fletcher. Theobald's later life 215 They employ the same method and evince the same acumen and broad scholarship so characteristic of his earlier work.^^ Finally, in his illustrative notes are found a wealth of parallel passages drawn from the literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Of Theobald's last days nothing is known except that they were embittered by a severe disease. After suffering from a jaundice for several months, he met a peaceful death on September 18, 1744. Two days later he was buried in St. Pancras cemetery, attended by one friend. "He was of a generous spirit, too generous for his circum- stances ; and none knew how to do a handsome thing or confer a benefit, when in his power, with a better grace than himself." *' Thus wrote one who had known him for thirty years. And in looking back over his career there appears little to blame and much to praise. Continually battling against adversity, the disheartening demands of poverty, and the cruel attacks of Pope, he bravely struggled through the task he had set himself. Sensitive, modest, lacking in self-confidence, his nature was all the more open to the thrusts of satire and the falsehoods of maUce. Though for the most part suffering in silence and passing over with manly dignity the libels of his adversary, at times he showed a seeming vindictiveness, which, after all, was but the natural reaction of an oversensitive and underconfident nature to almost unendurable taunts. Even then he took no mean advantage, he indulged in no falsehood; he atta.cked only " See vol. 1, pp. 30, 45, 142. Theobald wrote emendations and variant readings on the margin of his copies. It was his custom to put his initials where he intended a, note or thought he had made an unusually good emendation. Seward tells us that in one place Theo- bald's initials, following a correction, are written in "old ink," while "First Quarto" is written in new, showing that his emendation inde- pendently made had been verified by collation. Vol. 2, p. 315. '' See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 745. 216 LEWIS THEOBALD what was manifestly reprehensible. He made by far the best figure in the Dunciad war. In the midst of all the dirt and filth thrown up by both sides, he alone was free from stooping. Sympathetic, Uberal, true to his friends, it is not strange that they so anxiously defended him. Only one proved recreant. Possibly it would be hard to find in history a man who has suffered more injustice at the hands of posterity. CHAPTER VII THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD The early years of the eighteenth century witnessed numerous editions of the English classics, produced with Httle or no care.' The close of the century saw the modern method of critical editing fairly well outlined and established. In a way the change was gradual. Earlier editions were studied more carefully and their respective merits determined. The feeling for accuracy in collation gradually grew, fostered by the successful restorations made by each succeeding scholar. Investigation of earUer literature and history pro- duced accumulative results that became the heritage of each subsequent critic and suggested further fields of research. Yet, as in most gradual changes, there was one point where development was turned in the right direction, where the path was so plainly pointed out that thereafter none needed to go astray. In the first quarter of the century two methods had been followed in bringing the poets of the past before the pubUc. One was employed by publishers who, thinking that some profit might be derived from reviving an old poet, issued an edition of him generally taken verbatim, with some extra errors, from the last printed copy. Such a production was 1 The years intervening between Rowe's and Pope's editions of Shakespeare produced editions of Beaumont and Fletcher, Ben Jonson, Chaucer, Spenser, and Milton. In nearly all editions of earUer poets Tonson had a hand. Sufficient credit has not been given this publish- ing house for its part in these and later productions. 218 LEWIS THEOBALD The Works of Ben Jonson, 1715-1716, which is purely a reprint of the folio of 1692 — itself a reprint of the 1640 folio — and contains neither introduction nor notes. Another was the edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, issued by Tonson in 1711, which is only a reprint of the folio of 1679, and with the exception of a preface contains nothing but the bare text.^ The method, however, that grew in favor with the pubUshers was the engaging of some living poet to edit an older one. In this way they hoped to increase their profits since the fame of the editor would give luster to his edition. The procedure followed by these poetical editors was very simple. They depended chiefly upon the last edition of the poet, though sometimes pretending to collate older copies, prefixed a preface giving some details of the life of the poet and some remarks on his works, and sometimes added a glossary. Rowe's edition of Shakespeare made popular the prefatory biography, and Gildon added a glossary to Rowe's second edition.' In his edition of the Faerie Queene, 1715, Hughes followed Rowe, while Fenton wrote a life for Tonson's edition of Milton, 1725.* The climax in this kind of editing was reached in Pope's edition of Shakespeare, which, though the best and most ambitious of its kind, rang down the curtain on all such performances. The poetical editors were 2 The preface, entitled "Some Account of the Authors and their Writings," mentions the quartos and the foUos of 1645 and 1679 but says nothing of collation. It gives, however, something of the Uves of the dramatists and the sources of many of their plays, all of which material was drawn from Langbaine. ' Rowe revised the works af Massinger, and at one time intended to publish them. See advertisement prefixed to an edition of The Bondman, 1710. * William Broome carried to completion Urry's edition of Chaucer, 1721. Fenton's edition of Waller, 1729, shows the influence of Shake- speare Restored in its emphasis upon collation and in the explanation of words and historical allusions, wherein he quotes passages from various authors and "expounds the author by himself." THE PROGBESS OF THE METHOD 219 not averse to revising their poets, but their corrections were purely arbitrary though occasionally happy.' Such was the state of editing when Theobald appeared on the scene. Familiar with the care employed by classical scholars on Greek and Roman writers, stimulated by the unusual interest in the new textual criticism, and thoroughly conversant with Bentley's method, he saw that to get results, it was necessary to treat Shakespeare's text as that of a classic. This realization led him to adapt Bentley's method to his own purposes in Shakespeare Restored and his edition of the dramatist. These mark the beginning of an epoch in Enghsh scholarship just as plainly as the Epistle to Mill and Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris mark a new era in classical research. The importance of Theobald's work lies in the fact that it inspired scholars with an interest in their native literature, created a demand for critical editions of English poets, and made popular a method which, with amphfications and modifications, has come down to the present day. Too much emphasis cannot be placed upon the service Theobald did for research in English hterature when he turned the attention of scholars to a new field of investiga- tion, a field that had either been unnoticed or scorned before. As long as editing remained in the hands of poets who were not scholars, there was no hope for any critical work. It was Pope's fame and not the worth of his edition that in- creased the interest already felt in Shakespeare. The merits of the work attracted no scholar, created no interest in the text. Its defects aroused Theobald, but Pope can be ' Theobald constantly speaks of "poetical editors," and Zachary Grey divides Shakespeare's editors into critical and poetical. See preface to Critical, Historical and Explanatory Notes on Shakespeare, 1745. See also An Attempt to Rescue that Aunciente English Poet, and Play-Wright, Maister Williaume Shakespeare, 1749, p. 20. 220 LEWIS THEOBALD given no more praise for that result than can be granted Boyle for Bentley's Dissertation. Had not the scholar re- viewed the poet's edition, textual criticism in the great dramatist could hardly have been awakened. On the other hand, the success of Theobald's method opened the eyes of scholars as well as of general readers of Shakespeare : No sooner therefore were Criticisms wrote on our English poets, but each deep read scholar whose severer studies had made him frown with contempt on Poems and Plays, was taken in to read, to study, to be enamoiu-'d; He rejoiced to try his strength with the editor, and to become a critic himself. * Theobald's first work on Shakespeare had created an unusual interest in the text, and when it became known that he was seriously intending an edition, many assistants were glad to render aid.' Among these were several scholars, foremost of whom was Styvan Thirlby, editor of Justin Martyr, 1721. At first he had intended to edit Shakespeare, but upon learning that the task had fallen into able hands, he gave up the design and sent to Theobald his copy of the dramatist with marginal corrections together with a long list of emendations. He also promised, if his health per- mitted, to gather enough material to make an appendix to the edition.* Another student of the classics who assisted Theobald with observations was Dr. Thomas Bentley, ' Seward's introduction to edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750, p. Iviii. ' When Theobald first closed his contract with Tonson, the latter assured him that he would haift the assistance of all admirers of Shakes- peare. Among those who contributed were Thomas Coxeter, Hawley Bishop, Martin Folkes, and an anonymous correspondent, L. H., who prefaced his corrections with the remark, "As I am very well satisfied with Mr. Theobald's capacity for the province he has undertaken, perhaps there may be none of these observations new to him." Nichols, Ilhistralions of Literature, vol. 2, p. 631. ' Nichols, Illustration of Literature, vol. 2, p. 222 . THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 221 nephew of the great Bentley and editor of the "Little Horace." ' Still another was Nicholas Hardinge, who was a graduate of Cambridge and enjoyed some reputation in his day.^" The attention of scholars was turned not only to the Shakespearean text but also to the texts of other English poets. It is very probable that Shakespeare Restored inspired Bentley to his fatal edition of Milton." For a number of years after the appearance of that monstrosity there persisted a feehng that it was the first critical edition of an English poet. Theobald, in claiming that honor for his Shakespeare, felt called upon to point out that his rival intended to show not how Milton wrote but how he ought to have written. Yet many years later Seward called Bentley, "the first re- markable introducer of Critical Editions of our English Poets," and said that the strange Absurdities in his Notes on Milton has this good effect, that they engag'd a Pierce to answer, and perhaps were the first Motives to induce the greatest Poet, the most universal Genius, one of the most industrious Scholars in the Eangdom, each to become Editor of Shakespeare.'^ Of course, the Milton is not a critical edition; it merely shows one phase of textual criticism gone mad. Yet while the editor estabhshed no method, he did call the attention of scholars to the text of the great epic. Another classical critic to do pioneer work in the textual study of English classics was the Reverend John Jortin, a ' Theobald's edition of Shakespeare, vol. 7, p. 427. 1° Idem, vol. 3, p. 367. Dr. Bentley praised one of his emendations on Horace. See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 1, p. 728. 1' Jebb says Bentley first wrote criticisms on Milton in 1726, the year Theobald's treatise appeared. '^ Introduction to Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750, p. Iviii. Seward is obviously wrong in implying that Pope, Theobald, and Han- mer drew their inspiration from Bentley's Milton. 222 LEWIS THEOBALD friend of Theobald and "a scholar in every sense of the word." Owing to the influence of Shakespeare Restored his first in- terest was in the subject of that treatise. He and Theobald had discussed the need of a revision of Shakespeare's poems, and had Thirlby published his edition of the dramatist, Jortin would have assisted in pointing out the passages wherein the classics seem to be imitated. Turning away from Shake- speare, however, in 1734 he published his Remarks on Spenser's Poems and on Milton's Paradise Lost, practically all of which are concerned with verbal criticism, though the author is somewhat fearful of emending.^' He points out Spenser's peculiarities in spelhng, pronunciation, meter, and diction. He carefully studies the context of the passages he emends, and some of his remarks show Theobald's fondness for parallel passages." In the next quarter of a century nearly all the men who attempted critical editions of Enghsh poets were recognized classical scholars — Morell, Upton, Church, and Whalley — and those who were not, with one or two exceptions, had no claim to the title of poet. Shakespeare's first real editor showed that critical care could be expended on English classics with just as much profit and reputation as upon Latin and Greek authors. He took the task of editing out of the hands of poets and hacks, and gave it to those whose interest and abilities lay in research. " Theobald thought Jortin's work suffered from being too conserva- tive, the author having been frightened by Markland's excessive emendations in the classics. S«e Appendix, p. 329. " See Tracts, Philological, Critical, and Miscellaneous, 1790, vol. 1, p. 192. While Jortin's notes are not very valuable, he at least realized their insufficiency, and acknowledged that he was unable to spend the time and appUcation necessary for a critical edition of Spen- ser. He expressed the desire, however, to see the exact text restored by collation and by comparing the author with himself, a procedure Theobald had repeatedly emphasized. THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 223 Although scholars were the first to awake to the significance of the innovation that had been introduced into the study of English texts, the public became more and more interested. Theobald's edition of Shakespeare showed that careful textual and explanatory notes enabled the less learned to read older literature with a greater degree of pleasure and understanding. Thence gradually arose a demand for critical editions, and the incentive of praise, so powerful before in producing editions of the classics, prompted scholars to undertake Enghsh poets. The favorable reception which the labours of those applauded men have met with from the public, who have given new and correct editions of our English poets, illustrated with notes, was a principal inducement for pubUshing the works of Jonson in the same manner." With both critics and general readers, English scholarship, was rising to an equal dignity with classical, and its value was firmly asserted : To pubUsh new and correct editions of the works of approved authors has ever been esteemed a service to learning. It is not material whether an author is ancient or modern. Good criticism is the same in all languages. Nay I know not whether there is not greater merit in cultivating our own language than any other. And certainly next to a good writer, a good critic holds the second rank in the republic of letters.'^ " Preface to Whalley's edition of Ben Jonson, 1756. Eleven years before, WhaUey had said that although Shakespeare had been considered below his contemporaries, now he was extolled above all, owing to the labors of his editors. An Enguiry into the Learning of Shakespeare, 1745, p. 11. Seward says that "Almost every one buys and reads the works of our late critical editors, nay almost every man of learning aims at imitating them and making emendations himself." Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750, Introduction, p. Ux. '' Preface to Thomas Newton's edition of Paradise Lost, 1749. Another classical scholar of this period speaks to the same effect: 224 LEWIS THEOBALD One of the elements underlying the romantic revival was an awakened interest in old poets." To Theobald belongs no small part of the credit for this movement. His critical method inspired scholars to resurrect poets who had lain in partial obscurity, and who, for the most part, had been looked upon only as objects of interest to antiquarians ; '* while his numerous quotations from early writers tended to excite curiosity concerning them. Undoubtedly the grow- ing appreciation of the literary heritage of the past was first stimulated by the efforts of critics and editors.'* Every reader of Taste must congratulate the present age, on the spirit which has prevailed of reviving our Old Poets. Within "For the honour of criticism not only the divines already mentioned but others also, of rank still superior, have bestowed their labours upon our capital poets, suspending for a while their severer studies, to relax in these regions of genius and imagination." James Harris, Philological Inquiries, Chap. IV, p. 25. " See W. L. Phelps, The Beginning of the English Romantic Revival. " "I cannot dismiss this section [Spenser's imitations of Chaucer] without a wish, that this neglected author whom Spenser proposed in some measure, as the pattern of his language, and to whom he is not a Uttle indebted for many noble strokes of poetry should be more universally and attentively studied. Chaucer seems to be regarded rather as an old poet, than as a good one, and that he wrote EngUsh verses four hundred years ago seems more frequently to be lurged in his favor, than that he wrote four hundred years ago with taste and judgment. We look upon his poems rather as venerable relics, than as finished patterns; as pieces calculated rather to gratify the anti- quarian than the critic. When I sat down to read Chaucer with that curiosity of knowing how the first Enghsh poet wrote, I left him with the satisfaction of having found %hat later and more refin'd ages could hardly equal in true humour, pathos, or sublimity." Thomas Warton, Observations on the Fairy Queen, 1754, p. 141. " Seward speaks of "the merit of Criticism in establishing the taste of the age, in raising respect in the contemptuous and attention in the careless readers of our old poets." Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, Introduction, p. lix. THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 225 these few years, Shakespeare, Beaumont and Fletcher, Jonson, and Milton have been published with elegance and accuracy.'"' The opening of a new field for scholarship, however, and the promoting of a general interest in the literature of the past were but the result of the method Theobald established. The object of this method was twofold : the establishment of the most correct text possible, and the elucidation of that text. The first step taken was a careful collation of the earliest editions. Both Rowe and Pope claimed to have collated, but had done little in that direction. Again and again Theobald lashed their carelessness and insisted upon the need and value of a careful comparison of the various editions. While he left much to be desired in recording variant readings, he did note a large number, and where necessary, gave reasons for the selection or rejection of read- ings. If collation failed to remove obscurities, recourse was had to emendations, not the arbitrary changes characteristic of preceding editors, but changes supported by some evidence and made only where the need was shown. In the elucidation of the text, the plan most frequently followed was the quoting of parallel passages that illustrated the meaning of unfamiliar expressions. Obscure allusions were explained by quotations from the literature and references to the history of Shakespeare's time. Diligent use was made of ^^ An Impartial Estimate 0} the Reverend Mr. Upton's Notes on the Fairy Qiieen, 1759, p. 1. This sentence is immediately followed by another giving the reason for the popularity of critical editions: "They [the poets mentioned above] have been explained from a diligent ex- amination of the writings of their contemporary authors; and in proportion as they have received this rational method of illustration, they have been studied with new pleasure and improvement. Among the rest Spenser, as he best deserves, has engaged the attention of ingenious critics." When we consider that "this rational method" was wholly unknown before Theobald made it popular, we see what he contributed to romanticism. 226 LEWIS THEOBALD histories, dictionaries, glossaries, antiquarian productions, and such other works of reference as were then available. Finally, both textual and explanatory notes show a close study of the author and knowledge of his peculiarities in thought and style. While the impulse to edit Shakespeare came from Theo- bald, directly or indirectly, the editors immediately following him did not show much familiarity with his method.''^ Han- mer followed Pope, but used some of Theobald's material. Warburton contented himself with his former friend's colla- tion, and stole from him to add to his own frequently absurd notes. And Johnson, intent on his common sense remarks, did not advance collation or investigation very far. With the later editors of Shakespeare, however, the case is different: "So far as any later editor achieved success," says Professor Lounsbury, "it was by following and improv- ing upon the methods which Theobald had adopted." ^ In speaking of Theobald's death Warburton's biographer says, Such was the end of >iim who first showed how Shakespeare's text was to be amended and illustrated, and whom succeeding com- mentators have followed, if not exactly, to borrow the illustration of Holofernes, as a hound his master, yet assuredly, at least the best of them, with close imitation.^ One scholar, by no means friendly to Theobald, is of the opinion that by a careful collation of quartos and fohos he pointed the way to the modern editor.^'' When the same ^' Johnson's interest in the Jext was probably inspired by Haniner's edition, which, in turn, grew out of the interest aroused by Theobald's work. Warburton's study of the plays is directly traceable to his association with Theobald. See D. N. Smith, Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare, Introduction, p. U. '^ Text of Shakespeare, p. 544. 2» Watson, Life of William Warburton, p. 43. " D. N. Smith, Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare, p. xxix. THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 227 investigator later remarks that the best comnieiitary on Shakespeare is the hterature of his own age, he could very- well have given Theobald the credit for the discovery of this fact also.^^ As Professor Lounsbury says, Theobald was the first to attempt a real collation of the sources of the text, and the first to illustrate its meaning by a study of contemporary Elizabethan literature. ^^ Johnson gave Pope the credit for pointing the way toward collation ; but though the poet spoke of collating the old editions, his failure to follow his own advice gave no weight to the suggestion. It certainly did not teach Hanmer, Warburton, and Johnson to be more accurate. To Steevens has been given the credit for first following Johnson's plan of illustrating Shakespeare by the writers of his time, but the method had been exemplified some forty years before. The influence of Theobald's treatment of the text is im- mediately seen in those critical treatises, modeled upon Shakespeare Restored, which appeared about the middle of the eighteenth century. In 1740 Francis Peck published his New Memoirs of the Life and Poetical Works of Mr. John Milton, which contained a section entitled "Explanatory and Critical Notes on divers Passages of Milton and Shake- speare." Peck claims that his remarks on the dramatist were written in 1736, two years after Theobald's edition had been given to the pubUc. Though he is not very fortunate in his emendations, which he advances in Theobald's manner, his explanatory notes are often valuable, for he followed his predecessor in bringing his extensive antiquarian knowledge to bear upon allusions to the customs and history of former times. In his explication of words and phrases he is fond of "expounding the author by himself," so that notes of this kind are exact copies of Theobald's. Another praiseworthy ^' D. N. Smith, Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare, p. xxxii. » Text of Shakespeare, p. 644. 228 LEWIS THEOBALD feature of the essay is the bibliography of Shakespeare's works, placed at the end of the chapter, and arranged in chronological order, which, besides being much more com- plete than any previous one, contains remarks on the various editions quoted from Theobald and Langbaine. Another work which adopted the new method was Peter Whalley's An Inquiry into the Learning of Shakespeare with Remarks on several Passages of his Plays published in 1745. Only a minor part of the production is devoted to the question of Shakespeare's knowledge of the classics, the author adopt- ing the moderate view that the dramatist had more learning than was generally accorded him. To support this opinion he lays much emphasis on the fact that the Hamlet story is contained in Saxo Grammaticus, and quotes a number of passages from Latin and Greek authors whom, he thinks, Shakespeare imitated. Throughout his discussion of the plays he adopts the historical point of view, explaining pass- ages and allusions in Shakespeare by reference to the thought, customs, and hterature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There could hardly be a more emphatic testi- mony to the remarkable change that Theobald had introduced into the study of Shakespeare than this small pubUcation which, besides drawing much unacknowledged information from Theobald's edition, follows his method in explaining Shakespeare by the times in which he lived, even touching on the dramatic history of that period. Besides being the editor of one splendid edition, John Upton, prebendary of Rochester, was the author of three critical treatises on English poets. The first of these was Critical Observations on Shakespeare, 1746. This volume is divided into three books. The first is concerned chiefly with a discussion of the plots and characters of the plays together with an account of the rise and development of the classical drama. The second is confined strictly to verbal THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 229 criticism, the first part defending the text against previous emendations, the second containing the author's own cor- rections. The third book contains, besides a treatise on the meter of Enghsh verse, a series of rules governing Shake- speare's stylistic and grammatical pecuUarities. The two great handicaps under which Upton labored were his failure to collate and his firm belief in Shakespeare's first-hand knowledge of the classics.^' Being a good classical scholar, he was prone to explain everything as an allusion to the classics and to find classical parallels for almost every Une.2' Yet in the defense of the text against the emendations of others and in the support he gives his own corrections he shows that he has been to school to Theobald. He upholds the texts in a line in the fourth act of Macbeth, "Then, my queen, in silence sad," by quotations from Shakespeare, Milton, and Spenser, which show the meaning of "sad" to be "sober." He likewise supports emendations of his own by quoting parallel passages from Shakespeare and the classics.** In one place he adds many more examples to Theobald's account of the old Vice, and in the same manner. In supporting his change of "Adam Cupid" for "Abraham " A different attitude to Shakespeare's learning is taken by the author of An Atlempte to Rescue that Aunciente English Poet, and Play- Wrighte, Maister Williaume Shakespeare, 1749, who, following Theo- bald's lead, holds that the dramatist got most of his learning from translations. The writer is very much opposed to emending the text, on the groxmd that Shakespeare is too modern a writer to require ans^thing more than correction of printer's errors and the restoration of passages found in the quartos. Yet he approves of a number of Theobald's emendations, praises his collation and bitterly attacks Warburton for his failure to acknowledge emendations derived from the earher edition. ^' Such, for instance, is his explanation of "We have scorched the snake" in the third act of Macbeth, which, he says, is an elegant and learned allusion to the Hydra. " See pp. 192, 198. 230 LEWIS THEOBALD Cupid" in the second act of Romeo and Juliet, he makes use of information furnished by Theobald's edition, and refers his readers to Much Ado About Nothing, "where Mr. Theo- bald's note is worth reading." ^^ The method employed in drawing up the rules in the third book of the volume is exactly the same that had been used in Shakespeare Restored}^ In 1754 Zachary Grey pubUshed his Critical, Historical, and Explanatory Notes on Shakespeare, with emendations of the Text and Metre, in the preface to which he says that in spite of the many editions of Shakespeare references to a great many laws and many allusions to historical incidents have been overlooked. As would be expected from this statement, most of his notes are explanatory; what emendations he does make are confined to meter. His investigation followed the lines laid down by Theobald, being devoted to Eliza- '" This manner of introducing Theobald's discoveries as if his own, only mentioning him toward the last, is seen again on page 255 where he gives the story of the Egyptian robber recounted in Heliodorus, refers to the passage in the fifth act of Twelfth Night where Theobald has given the story, and incidentally mentions the latter's note. It is strange that Theobald after having made the discoveries should have missed these two corruptions. '^ Upton is continually mentioning Bentley, whom he both admires and condemns, and often joins Theobald with him: "As Mr. Theobald and Dr. Bentley often tell us, that they had the happiness to make many corrections, which they find afterwards supported by the au- thority of better copies," etc., p. 236. Three years later appeared Remarks on Three Plays of Benjamin Jonson, which has been attributed to James Upton, John's father, but which certainly belongs to the son. In addition to comments on Volpone, Epicoene, and the Alchemist, it contains a number of remarks on Shakespeare. The majority of the notes are devoted to showing classical parallels, and the remainder are chiefly explanatory. Upton draws on Theobald's edition for much of his information, while he em- ploys the latter's method in illustrating Jonson by means of the Utera- ture and customs of his age. THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 231 bethan history and literature, as well as Chaucer and Skelton.32 Besides being the occasion of many pamphlets, War- burton's edition of Shakespeare inspired Benjamin Heath's treatise on the dramatist, but the latter was not published until Johnson's edition made its appearance.^' The author says he carefully collated Pope, Theobald, Shakespeare Re- stared, and Johnson's Remarks on Macbeth. Not possessing the quartos or the two early folios, he relied mainly on Pope's and Theobald's collation. He claims that the explication of the true meaning of the old readings removed many obscuri- ties ; and, indeed, in attacking or supporting an emendation he relies chiefly on explaining the passage. Little evi- dence or illustrative material is introduced. For this reason he resembles Theobald only in the close study of the text. Most of his time is spent in agreeing with the latter's cor- rections, and attacking those of Warburton, whose " licentious criticism" he lashes most mercilessly. The application of Theobald's method was not confined to Shakespeare. Although the great Elizabethan offered the most inviting field, the need for critical work on other writers impressed itself upon scholars, who soon saw that the treatment accorded the Shakspearean text could be applied with equal success to any poet of the preceding centuries.'^ '^ Grey was handicapped in having only the foUo of 1632 to collate. Many of his corrections are introduced from this edition and, therefore, are hkely to be wrong. His notes bear a close resemblance to Theo- bald's. See pp. 2, 13. '' A Bevisal of Shakespeare's Text, wherein the Alterations introduced into it by the more modern Editors and Critics are particularly considered. 1765. ^ "Beaumont and Fletcher are another field of criticism next in beauty to Shakespeare, and like him over-run with weeds, many of which are, we hope, now rooted out." Introduction to Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750, p. Ixxiii. 232 LEWIS THEOBALD Thus within a quarter of a century after the appearance of Theobald's epoch-making work critical editions of the most important EngUsh poets were attempted. The first poet to benefit by the new criticism was Chaucer. In the sixteenth century two editions of him had appeared, Thynne's, 1632, and Speght's 1598, both of which made use of collation. The second work was inunediately reviewed by Thynne's son, Francis, and had his Animadversions been printed, Theobald could not have claimed for Shakespeare Restored the honor of being the first attempt of its kind on an Egnlish poet.^' Over two himdred years later John Urry undertook to edit Chaucer, but dying before the completion of his design, left the task to be finished by WilUam Broome. Although agreeing with Tyrwhitt in thinking this edition the worst that had appeared, Professor Lounsbury is of the opinion that by a comparison of the manuscripts it made plain the path that must be taken.'^ Urry's work, however, was such a failure that the editor can hardly be said to have pointed the way to a good edition any more than the two earher editors who had also em- ployed collation. But the next attempt to edit the poet shows distinctly the influence of Theobald's method. In 1737 Dr. Thomas Morell, a classical scholar, issued a speci- men of a new edition under the title The Canterbury Tales of Chaucer in the original, from the most authentic manuscripts, and as they are turned into Modern languages by several Eminent Hands, with references to authors ancient and modern, various '' Animadversions upon the Annotations and Corrections of some im- perfections of impressions of Chaucer's Workes was printed for the first time by H. J. Todd in Illustrations of the Ldves and Writings of Gower and Chaucer, 1810. Thynne refutes Speght's remarks and emendations by explaining allusions to history and Uterature, and upholds his own conjectures by quoting authorities. In short, Chaucer is treated like a classic text. '^ Studies in Chaucer, vol. 1, p. 294. THE PBOGRESS OP THE METHOD 233 readings and explanatory notes. The plan adopted was the same as that given to the world three years before : the collation of the best manuscripts, the recording of the most important variant readings, the explanation of allusions to history, mythology, and contemporary social hfe, and the defining of obsolete words by parallel passages. Professor Lounsbm-y holds that while the edition was by no means perfect, it contained much of value and was very good for its day : The notes at the bottom of the page, with parallel passages ex- planatory of the use of words, frequently contained information of value, which has more than once been rediscovered in modern times and announced with a good deal of ostentation." Another work that showed Theobald's influence was Zachary Grey's edition of B.utler's Hudibras, 1744.'* The editor was vicar of St. Giles and St. Peters, and a man of wide reading. Being a strong churchman, he got into many quarrels with dissenters, in the course of which he wrote numerous controversial books and pamphlets, and acquired an extensive knowledge of the puritan hterature of the seventeenth century, so essential in illustrating Butler. The new field of scholarly activity opened by Theobald inspired him to put a critical hand to the HudihrasP " Studies in Chaucer, vol. 1, p. 297. " Hiidibras, in three parts, Written in the Time of the Late Wars; Corrected and Amended. With large Annotations, and a Preface. By Zachary Grey LL.D. 1744. " In his praise of Shakespeare Restored Concanen called especial attention to the opportunities Hudibras offered to the critic. While there is no evidence to the effect, Grey may possibly have read Con- canen's statement. The large amount of illustrative material in the notes compels the beUef that the editor was a number of years collecting it, which fact, together with Grey's high opinion of Theobald and the numerous references to his Shakespeare, makes it probable that the work was undertaken not long after Theobald's edition appeared. 234 LEWIS THEOBALD Since the text of Hvdibras offered no particular difficulties, most of the notes, as is mentioned in the preface, are ex- planatory, though there are a few places where new readings are introduced.*" The pages are filled with references to every kind of writing:*^ "Grey's knowledge of puritan Uterature enabled him to illustrate his author by profuse quotations from contemporary authors, a method com- paratively new." ^ Not only does Grey make use of puritan literature, but he also levies upon antiquaries, chronicles, medieval romances, Spenser, Chaucer and the Elizabethan dramatists. He is continually profiting by information given in Theobald's edition of Shakespeare,^ and his notes explaining customs, words, or historical allusions are but copies of the Shakespearean scholar's.** So thorough was Grey's investigation that his notes are still valuable *' and to him has been ascribed the method first exemplified in Theobald's work. The poet whose influence was most widely felt throughout the declining years of classicism was Milton. The close of the previous century had seen his reputation slowly rising, and had witnessed at least one ambitious edition.** Interest " See vol. 1, p. 10. " In his preface to his Voyage to Lisbon, Fielding speaks of the edition as the "single book extant in which above five hundred authors are quoted, not one of which coxild be found in the collection of the late Dr. Mead." « D.N.B., vol. XXIII, p. 219. " See vol. 1, pp. 6, 33, 42, 45, 50. " See vol. 2, p. 33, where he makes use of information furnished by Theobald, and adds, "I do not advance this without some Authority, and a Quotation from Ben Jonson will do." See also vol. 1, p. 19, where he explains the meaning of "hight." *' See Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. VIII, p. 463. " Tonson's edition with Patrick Hume's annotations, 1695, "the first Attempt to illustrate an English Classic by copious and continued notes." See J. W. Good, Studies in the Milton Tradition, p. 148. THE PHOGEESS OF THE METHOD 235 in the poet, however, received a tremendous impetus from Addison's criticisms in the Spectator." The fruits of this interest are seen in Tonson's two editions, 1719 and 1725, in the first of which the publisher made use of Addison's remarks, and in the second prefixed a Ufe written by Fenton. Though these editions and criticisms did much toward making the pubUc more familiar with the epic, they did not stimulate interest in the text. This result was accompHshed by Bentley's performance, which, though worthless itseK, aroused other scholars to efforts in the same direction.^' Furthermore, the extremity of Bentley's views made later critics more cautious. In his review of the edition Pearce is sane and sober, never hesitating to demolish the editor's beUigerent corrections, though always treating him with respect. Jortin's notes, while in general uninteresting, throw some hght on the text. John Hawkey, in his edition of Paradise Lost, published at Dublin in 1747, sought to establish the true text by a coUation of the original editions. In every case the methods employed were Theobald's, not Bentley's. But the one eighteenth-century edition of Paradise Lost that has claim to the title "critical" was prepared by Thomas Xewton in 1749.*' At one time a feUow of Trinity College "' Principally his Critique on Paradise Lost, which appeared during the first three months of 1712. ■" For the various critical and biographical treatises on Milton, as well as editions of his poetry, see J. W. Good, Studies in the MiUon Tradition, chap. VI. *' Paradise Lost. With Notes of Various Authors. London, 1749. Two Volumes. "By the middle of the century there was fuU prep- aration already made for an extensive work on the part of a judicious critical editor. . . . The great work was the first various edition of Paradise Lost (May 20, 1749) which was indeed the first variorum edition of an English classic. . . . The work was generally applauded; and in various modifications became the standard edition of Paradise Lost for the remainder of the eighteenth centvu^f.'' — J. W. Good, op. cit., p. 182. 236 LEWIS THEOBALD through Bentley's favor, the editor later became chaplain to Pulteney, Earl of Bath, by whose aid he secured the rectory of St. Mary-le-Bow. In his preface Newton speaks of the esteem in which correct editions were then held, and argues in behalf of their value. Like Theobald he went to the classics for a model : My design in the present edition is to publish the Paradise Lost as the work of a classic author cum notis variorum. And in order to this end, the first care has been to print the text correctly ac- cording to Milton's owa editions.^" These he took as the basis of his text, and reaUzing that there was less room for emendation in Milton than Shake- speare, claims never to have emended without noting the old reading and without giving some reason for the change. He followed Theobald in describing the purpose of his notes, which, he says, are critical and explanatory — to correct errors of former editions, discuss various readings, establish the true text of Milton, illustrate sense, clear syntax, explain uncommon words, and show imitations. Many of the notes in this edition, especially the remarks of Hiune and Addison, are concerned with aesthetic criticism; but Newton's annotations are devoted mainly to explana- "> Newton used notes of the following critics: Hume, Bentley, Pearce, Upton, Heylin, Jortin, Addison, Thyer, Fenton, Richardson, Birch, and Warburton. Though styling the remarks of the great scholar as the "dotages of Bentley," he considered some very useful. In this judgment he was doubtless influenced by Pope's copy of the marvelous edition, wherein the poet had commended many of the critic's corrections. Newton praises Pearce, and confesses that he was led by the latter's remarks to edit Milton. Upton's comments were taken from Critical Observations on Shakespeare, while Thyer and Heylin sent manuscript notes. Some of Warburton's notes were taken from his contributions to the History of the Works of the Learned, 1738, while others were sent in manuscript by the author. Among the latter may have been Theobald's explanation of "pernicious," for Newton gives the same definition of the word. See vol. 1, p. 427. THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 237 tion and textual criticism, though his emendations are negligible. He defends the text against the corrections of earUer critics by quoting passages from Milton; in other words, by expounding Milton by himself. In giving ex- planations of words he draws on the literature known to the poet — Spenser, Shakespeare, Harrington, Bacon, and others. In short, he walked in the path that was fast becoming popular, and while Milton was almost too recent a writer to receive the treatment accorded Spenser and Shakespeare, Newton's notes are recognizably similar to Theobald's.*' With the exception of Shakespeare, Spenser was the sub- ject of closer study than any other poet. The age of Pope, fettered with its critical prepossessions, had httle knowledge of the poet and less appreciation of his poetry. Yet a series of satiric and burlesque imitations, as well as the serious admiration of a few men like Prior, had at least kept him in the public eye. Furthermore, the frequent references to the Faerie Queene in such critical works as had appeared attracted the attention of scholars burning with inquisitive zeal. As early as 1734 Jortin had made the poem the sub- ject of a textual treatise ; but it was not until the sixth dec- ade of the century that critical interest in the poet reached unusual proportions. Within this period there appeared no less than four editions and three critical treatises. The uncritical method employed in the first two of these editions ^^ prompted Upton to write his A Letter Concerning " See vol. 1, pp. 119, 400, 423, 428, and notes on Bk. II, U. 108, 494, and Bk. Ill, U. 335, 562. '^ A second edition of Hughes' edition, 1750, and Birch's reprint of the folio of 1609, 1751. Upton was among the first to realize that the proper editing of an EngUsh classic required learning and industry. He praised Jortin's refusal to edit Spenser because he lacked the re- quisite time, and lamented the fact that hasty editors with little learn- ing or application were wont to hire themselves to booksellers. Their conduct, he says, could only be excused on the ground of poverty, an 238 LEWIS THEOBALD a New Edition of Spenser's Faerie Queene. To Gilbert West, Esq. 1751. A large part of the letter is devoted to telling the story of the poem, explaining the reUgious symboUsm, describing historical personages, who, the author thought, were disguised in the characters, and to pointing out classical imitations and imitations of Chaucer. The rest of the book is concerned with emending and explaining the text, in which task he follows the new method closely. ^^ Further- more, in giving the requirements of an editor, he merely restates what Theobald had established, that "an editor of Spenser should be master of Spenser's learning : for other- wise how could he know his allusions and various beauties." The fault with Upton's work, first evident in his Remarks on Shakespeare, is his constant introduction of the classics where they have no business, and his addiction to absurd etymologies, which, if credited, would force the inference that English was derived directly from Greek. The most important contribution made at this time to Spenserian criticism was Thomas Warton's Observations on the Faerie Queene of Spenser, 1754. To the author of this treatise has been given the honor of laying the foundations of historical criticism because he sought an explanation of the poem in the literature of and before the sixteenth century and in the customs and manners of the Elizabethan age." excuse which did not apply to Rowe and Pope, between whom there was Uttle to choose. Upton was the first to emphasize the duty of recording variant readings: "Methinks every reader would require that the last editor should faithfully and fairly exhibit all the various readings of even the least authority." '' See his correction of bilive for alive in Bk. 1, Canto II, St. 19. As a subscriber to Theobald's Shakespeare, Upton was in a position to learn the previous editor's method. " Clarissa Rinaker, Thomas Warton A Biographical and Critical Study. Univ. of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, vol. II, No. I, p. 47. The reviewer of Upton's edition of the Faerie Queene THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 239 But he can hardly claim this credit. The preface to Theo- bald's Shakespeare distinctly stated that an editor "should be well vers'd in the History and Manners of his Author's age," while the notes to the various volumes gave ample evidence of the editor's practice of acquainting himself with the hterature accessible to Elizabethans. Possibly the consciousness that he was stealing another man's thunder induced Warton to omit Shakespeare when, in propounding Theobald's gospel, he says, in criticism upon Milton, Johnson, Spenser, and some other of our older poets, not only a competent knowledge of all ancient classical learning is requisite, but also an acquaintance with those books, which though now forgotten and lost, were yet in repute at the time in which each author respectively wrote, and which it is most likely he read." Warton approaches Theobald more closely than any other critic, a fact especially evident in his use of out-of-the-way reading to estabUsh Spenser's sources. Compare, for in- stance, the passage in which he shows that Spenser was in- debted to the Morte D' Arthur rather than to Geoffrey of Monmouth with Theobald's note showing that Shakespeare went to Wynken de Worde rather than Chaucer.*^ Further- says of Warton: "Not content with the petty diligence of recovering lost syllables nor acquiescing in the easy talk of praising without reason, he has attentively surveyed the learning and the fashions which prevailed in the age of his poet. He had happily discovered the books which Spenser himself had read, and from whose obscure and obsolete sources he derived most of his principal fictions. By means of these materials, judiciously selected and conducted, he has been enabled to give the world a more new and original piece of criticism, than any before extant." An Impartial Estimate of the Reverend Mr. Upton's Notes on the Fairy Queen, 1759, p. 2. '' Observations, p. 243. *" Idem, pp. 15 ff., and ed. of Shakespeare, vol. 7, p. 14. Theobald's discovery first appeared in Mist's Journal, March 16, 1728. Warton makes the same use of the "Blatant Beast" that Theobald made of 240 LEWIS THEOBALD more, the Spenserian critic makes the same use of parallel passages as the Shakespearean. When he says that to pro- duce an author's imitations of himself is particularly useful in explaining difl&cult passages and words, he is merely stating iu different language Theobald's dictum, "To ex- pound an Author by himself is the surest Means of coming at the Truth of his Text." " In showing Spenser's pe- culiarities in spelUng, versification, and language, and in defending a reading against Upton or explaining the meaning of a word, the critic produces, in Theobald's manner, a number of quotations from Spenser or contemporary Utera- ture.'* Warton's textual criticism tallies in almost every detail with that of the previous scholar who must have been his model.'' the "Sagittary." Because of his explanation the latter was impaled on Pope's satire for reading "All such reading as was never read." No wonder Warton took Pope to task for the line! " Observations, p. 181, and Shakespeare Restored, p. 128. I"' Compare Observations, pp. 84, 123, 201, 206, with Shakespeare Restored, pp. 8, 40, 110, 151. Below is a typical note from Warton: "Because I could not give her many a Jane. So Chaucer. Of Bruges were his hosin broun. His Robe was of Chekelatoun That cost many a Jane. Many a jane, that is, much money. Skinner informs us, that Jane is a coin of Geneva; and Speght Gl. to Chaucer, interprets Jane, half- pence of Janua, or galy half-pence: As ... Dere ynough, a Jane And in other places." " In the introduction to*his edition of Ben Jonson, Gifford gave Warton the credit for originating the "cheap and miserable display of learning" shown in quoting many parallel passages. Yet the more modem editor adopted the practice — Theobald's not Warton's — in his own notes, and confessed that "Unconunon and obsolete words are briefly explained, and where the phraseology was doubtful or obscure, it is illustrated and confirmed by quotations from contemporary authors." THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 241 The year 1758 saw two critical editions of the Faerie Queene. The preface to the first, edited by Ralph Church, a master of arts of Oxford and a scholar of some note, gives a careful account and full description of the old editions.^" Since the various editions are denoted by letters and numerals, the first instance of such a procedure, and since many variant readings are recorded at the bottom of the page, the volumes present a very modern appearance.^^ For the first three books of the poem Church adopted as the standard text the quarto of 1590 ; for the second three books the quartos of 1596 ; and for the two cantos of the incomplete book the foUo of 1609. He held that the later editions were of no authority, but in his footnotes he gave readings from them. Church's collation was careful and thorough ; his faithfulness in recording variant readings surpassed that of any previous editor. Church was incited to his work by the realization that Spenser needed a critical editor, a realization that was be- coming more and more prevalent not only as regards Spenser but as regards all old poets. The method he employed was that originated by the man who first pointed out the need and value of critical research. When the Spenserian editor refused, without giving due notice, to introduce into his text any word differing from the editions he had accepted as standard, he was only following that radical departure from the ways of poetical editors which Theobald had estabhshed.*^ °° The Faerie Queene, By Edmund Spenser. A New Edition, with Notes critical and explanatory, by Ralph Church, M.A. Late Student of Christ Church, Oxon. In four volumes. London 1758. '1 He refers to the quarto of 1590 as P. 1., the quarto of 1596 as P. 2., the folio of 1609 as L., the foUo of 1611 as L. 2., Hughes' editions as HI, H2, and the edition of 1751 as B. '^ "Whenever I have ventur'd at an emendation, a Note is con- stantly subjoined to justify and assert the Reason of it." Edition of Shakespeare, preface, p. xliii. 242 LEWIS THEOBALD From the latter also was derived the procedure employed in the explanatory notes. Church studies Spenser's metrical peculiarities and quotes numerous passages from the Faerie Queene to substantiate his conclusion. He has recourse to dictionaries, antiquaries, chronicles, and histories. In elu- cidating Spenser's expressions and allusions he makes ex- tensive use of parallel passages quoted from the literature of the poet's time, such as Jonson, Sidney, Raleigh, Shake- speare, Fairfax, as well as Chaucer and Geoffry of Monmouth. In short, he has given to Spenser the same treatment accorded Shakespeare.*' The other edition was by John Upton, a man whom we have had occasion to mention frequently, and who occupies a respectable place in early EngUsh scholarship." He gives '' In his preface Chvirch says that his edition "is intended for the use of the English Reader, but is submitted likewise to the judgment of the learned." Scholars were beginning to write for scholars and were willing to have their work judged by scholarly standards. Theo- bald had expressed the same sentiment: "As to my Notes (from which the common and learned Readers of our Author, I hope, will derive some Pleasure;)" etc.. Edition of Shakespeare, preface, p. xliii. Church seldom introduces his conjectures into the text. In the notes he produces them in Theobald's manner. See his emendation on the Faerie Queene, Bk. Ill, c. 11, st. 50: "... and boldly bad him bace. So all the editions. But I incline to think that Spenser gave . . . and boldly bad the bace . . . i.e. they boldly challenged each other to run after OUyphant, And each did strive the other to outgoe. So Warner in his Albion's England, printed at London, 1598. The Romaines hid the bace . . . (page 71) i.e. gave the challange. And again, page 73. _ Even we do dare to bid the bace." See also vol. 1, pp. 98, 179. " Spensei's Fairie Queene. A New Edition with a Glossary, and Notes explanatory and critical. By John Upton, Prebendary of Rochester and Rector of Great Rissington in Glocestershire. In Two Volumes, London: MDCCLVIII. Upton intended to add a third volume consisting of Spenser's other works. THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 243 an account of the old quartos and folios and takes as standard the same editions as Church. Although he consulted and mentions in his notes the later editions, he holds them of little authority ; he cannot conceal his contempt for Hughes' production and the edition published under Dr. Birch's care, though really Mr. Kent's. While Upton is not as thorough in recording variant readings as Church, he gives a large number of those he thinks worth while. Refusing to introduce any of his conjectures into the text, he consist- ently relegates them to the notes. In this respect he was far ahead of the times. Upton's notes contain a wealth of information. His illustrative material is drawn from authors contemporary with Spenser ^ Shakespeare, Sidney, Raleigh, Fairfax, Drayton. He also makes extensive use of the literature that may have played a part in the making of the Faerie Queene, many passages being quoted from Chaucer, Ariosto, Boiardo, Lydgate, and Geoffrey of Monmouth. Besides these he consulted chroniclers, historians, and antiquarians. Most numerous are his quotations from the classics and references to the Bible. He practices Theobald's theory of " expound- ing an author by himself" by quoting many hnes from Spenser, especially when showing the peculiarities of Spenser's spelhng or meter. Generally speaking, his notes are valuable in that he brings to the study of the epic an extensive knowl- edge of the literature accessible to Spenser. Upton's edition is one of the best of the eighteenth-century editions of any poet.^^ This fact is apparent even in the '* "To Upton, a man of rare learning and sagacity, the student is more indebted than to any other writer for elucidation of the authors whom Spenser had read or had imitated. Much is due to Warton and Jortin." F. G. Child, preface to edition of Spenser, 1855. In the preface to his edition of Spenser, 1805, the Reverend H. J. Todd says, "Of the Faerie Queene two separate editions by Mr. Upton and Mr. 244 LEWIS THEOBALD glossary, which is a marked improvement on any previous one. Hughes' glossary was almost entirely copied from that of the folio of 1679, which was itself in large part taken from the glossary of E.K., the annotator of the Shepherd's Calendar. In two respects Upton departed from the model set by Theo- bald. Probably influenced by Johnson's dictionary, he in- troduced into his glossary rather than his notes many parallel passages illustrating the meaning of words. He also rele- gated the notes to the end of the second volume, leaving the pages free for the text. More than any other, Spenserian investigation profited by the method first applied to Shakespeare. With this investigation Theobald was not directly associated. He was certainly a friend of Jortin and probably of Upton, but at no time showed any critical interest in the Elizabethan poet, though he gave evidence of his familiarity with the Faerie Queene by numerous quotations from it. Yet the fact that Jortin, Warton, Upton, and Church used a method which did not exist before Theobald, and which is almost identically the same as was used by the latter, forces the conclusion that they learned their handicraft from the sub- ject of Pope's satire. Not only as regards Spenser but also as regards other writers was the middle of the eighteenth century a period of unusual critical activity, during which the dramatists contemporary with Shakespeare came in for their share of Church appeared in 1758, in which the diligence and utility of colla- tion, more especially by the latter of these gentlemen, are as obvious as they are important." After speaking of the "excellent illustrations of Upton" and "important remarks of Church," Todd places before us his own method, the same as we have been tracing: "My own notes on the several poems, which I have presumed to lay before the public, consist not only of regulations of the text; but also of explanations arising from some attention to the literature of the age in which Spenser lived." THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 245 attention. As early as 1744 the appearance of Dodsley's Select Collection of Old Plays gave notice that a part of the public was conoing to some appreciation of Elizabethan drama. Since that footman-poet-pubUsher was in no way equipped for the office of editor, it is not strange that the dramas received httle care, but the very fact that a publisher should think it to his profit to publish such a work is indica- tive of the changing taste of the times. In the following decade critical editions of Beaumont and Fletcher, Ben Jonson, and Massinger were attempted. With each of these three editions Theobald was in some way associated. His part in the edition of Beaumont and Fletcher has already been discussed, but it may be well to repeat some of the points made. While the work is "the first serious effort toward a reconstruction of the text," '' it is not satisfactory. Those plays that came imder our editor's supervision show a much more careful collation than the others. While he introduced into the text a number of his conjectiu-es — the value of some has never received suf- ficient recognition — he drew most of his corrections from the old copies, the worth of which he fully appreciated. Although at his death, Seward and Sympson received "his valuable collection of old quartos," the remaining plays did not receive careful collation, and the hcense of emendation was indulged in to a much greater extent. The younger editors' ignorance of Ehzabethan history, language, and literature caused them to emend where they should have explained, while they fell into the habit of collating only where there was some difficulty.*' Yet the method they strove to foUow was Theobald's, and their ill success was due to their own insufficiency. " The Knight of the Burning Pestle, edited by H. S. Murch, 1908, Yale Studies in English, xxxiii. Introduction, p. iv. «' MuTch, op. cit., p. iv. 246 LEWIS THEOBALD The first critical edition of Ben Jonson appeared in 1756.^' The editor, Peter Whalley, was a graduate of Oxford and vicar of Horley in Surrey; early in his career he had been a schoolmaster in Christ's Hospital. Although Whalley claimed that his edition was based on the folio of 1611 and the old quartos, he made the same mistake Theobald made with Shakespeare; he based his text upon the last printed edition, introducing into it the various readings drawn from the old copies, a procedure which miHtated against accurate collation. Furthermore, he recorded few variant readings, and did not always give a note when he deviated from the text.8' Whalley's remarks on how to handle the text, remarks that have been styled "very just,"'" read so much like those given by Theobald that it is difficult not to suppose that his preface was largely modeled upon the preface to Shake- speare.^' He himself bears witness to the fact that his methods were Theobald's. He had obtained the latter's copy of Jonson with marginal notes: But altho the advantages of this copy were not so many as I had at first expected, it was a satisfaction to me to find that had Mr. *' The Works of Ben Jonson. In Seven Volumes. Collated with all the Former Editions and Corrected ; with Notes Critical and Explanatory. By Peter Whalley, Late Fellow of St. John's College in Oxford. London. 1756. See Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. VI, p. 470. «9 See The Alchemist, edited by C. M. Hathaway, 1903, p. 10. '» Idem, p. 10. '• Whalley says his plan is to exhibit the correct text and explain all obscurities due to Jonson's pecuUar habit of thought and to ob- scure allusions to the times. He claims the right of correcting flat nonsense especially where the emendation follows traces of the text, though he beheves no emendation should be made to improve the author himself. He states that many allusions need no correcting, but can be explained by expounding the author by himself. He gives warning that some of his notes are introduced merely to show imitations. THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 247 Theobald published an edition of Jonson's works, he would have proposed the same plan, and executed in the manner that I have done." The notes bear out this statement. Many allusions are explained by references to the literature and customs of Jonson's time, while the meanings of many words are illus- trated by quotations from Jonson and his contemporaries. Unlike Theobald, Whalley seldom supports his emendations, which are sometimes introduced without notice, but they are few and unimportant. Yet his own words, together with the fact that he frequently makes use of material furnished by Theobald's Shakespeare,''^ show whom he was imitating. In 1759 appeared the first modern edition of Massinger, ostensibly edited by Thomas Coxeter.''* The latter was a student at Trinity College, Oxford, but removed to London in 1710. Here he became acquainted with the booksellers and collected materials for some biographies of the old poets. Having gathered together many old plays, he once enter- tained the idea of publishing a selection from them, a plan afterwards executed by Dodsley. Though he did not follow up his design, he put his old quartos to good use. When Theobald began work on the edition of Shakespeare, Coxeter made his acquaintance and assisted him with various black letter plays, an obligation the former adequately acknowl- " Whalley, op. cit., vol. 1, preface, p. xxix. Besides receiving help from Zachary Grey, Whalley was assisted by Theobald's collaborators, Seward and Sympson. " Idem, vol. 1, pp. 39, 46, 77 and vol. 4, p. 8. '* The Dramatic Works of Philip Massinger, Compleat in Four Vol- umes. Revised, Corrected, and all the various Editions Collated. By Thomas Coxeter, Esq., with Notes Critical and Explanatory, of various Authors. To which are prefixed Critical Reflections on the Old English Dramatic Writers. Addressed to David Garrick, Esq. ; London : Printed for T. Davies. 1761. The first edition was issued by Dell in 1759, and did not contain the "Critical Reflections" (written by Colman). 248 LEWIS THEOBALD edged in his preface. At the time of his death in 1747 Coxeter was engaged upon this edition of Massinger. Some years later a bookseller named Dell took over the incomplete work and gave it to the public. The preface bears the statement that Coxeter spared no diligence in making the text as correct as possible by conjecture and collation and had prepared "several observations and notes for his intended edition," which were inserted. The reader is then assured that had the editor hved, he would have completed his design which would have met with a favorable reception from aU persons of taste and genius. Thus it seems that about all for which Coxeter was responsible was the coUation which wrung from unwilling Gifford an acknowl- edgment of the "ignorant fideUty of Coxeter." " In other respects Gifford was not so complimentary. He said that the editor did not have sufficient learning to correct corrupt passages; that his "conjectures are void alike of ingenuity and probabihty, and his historical references at once puerile and incorrect." Had Coxeter's labors not been cut short, he doubtless would have supported his corrections with some evidence, and the absence of such evidence must have been responsible for Dell's confession that the correc- tions had been tacitly inserted in the text for fear notes would only interrupt the reader.'* In a few places there are emenda- tions in Theobald's manner, while some of the explanations of words and allusions are fashioned in the standard mold." Had the work been completed by the original editor, no doubt it would have been a creditable performance. Coxeter had the materials necessary for a good edition and the ex- ample of his friend as to how to use them. As the edition " The Plays of Philip Massinger, edited by Gifford, 1805. Intro- duction, p. Ixvi. ™ See vol. 4, p. 254. " See vol. 2, p. 372, and vol. 4, pp. 44, 312. THE PBOGBE88 OF THE METHOD 249 stands, it is impossible to tell to whom belongs the credit or discredit of the work. There are practically no critical notes on the text, and all others are rather scant. A large part are concerned with interpretative criticism, while others content themselves with parallel passages showing imitations. Yet a nimiber explain old customs and historical allusions, thas throwing some light on Massinger.'* Throughout this period every attempt at critical work on English texts was sure to show Theobald's influence. Some critics fell short of his standard, others improved on his practice, but in every instance the outline of his method is discernible. Yet there has survived to the present day the belief that the eighteenth century constantly associated his name with dullness. It must be admitted that if reliance is placed upon the comments made by the editors of Shake- speare who followed Theobald, his reputation declined rapidly after his death. These men imfortunately chose from varioas causes to depreciate and slander their prede- cessor. Warburton for obvious reasons ha,d no good word to say in behalf of his erstwhile friend. Johnson was imder obligation to Warburton for a timely word of praise and naturally took his side. Capell, Steevens, and others followed in the path thus marked out for them, sustained by the increasing credence Pope's fame lent to his Hbels. Yet, for a considerable time after his death, Theobald's reputation was high, especially with scholars. Johnson " The preface affords an interesting ejcample of the way Theobald's idea of an editor's duty was taken over by others: "'Tis true, the Business of an Editor is to amend such Passages that he finds corrupt, to explain what is obscure and difficult, and to mark the Beauties and Defects of Composition." Theobald had said, "The Science of Criti- cism, as far as it affects an Editor, seems to be reduced to these three Classes: the Emendation of corrupt Passages; the Explanation of obsciu'e and difficult ones; and an Inquiry into the Beauties and Defects of Composition." Preface to edition of Shakespeare, p. xl. 250 LEWIS THEOBALD himself, in his Observations on Macbeth, 1745, had nothing but praise for the man he later attacked. The following year John Upton spoke highly of him." In 1754 Zachary Grey singled him out to say that he had thrown a great deal of light on Shakespeare's obscurities.*" Grey was of the opinion that the editor, "a person seemingly in other respects very modest," treated Pope too harshly notwith- standing The Dunciad ; but he could not understand War- burton's treatment of Theobald. As late as 1765 Benjamin Heath, while speaking disparagingly of Shakespearean editors in general, made an exception of Pope's rival, saying that the public was under real and considerable obligation to him.*i The same year William Kenrick, in his review of Johnson's edition, treated Theobald with respect, while in his defense of the review he said that the critic was the only commentator on Shakespeare that had acquitted him- self with reputation.*^ It was not until the last half of the century was well under way that the satire of Pope and the slanders of other editors obscured his fame. Even then the very things for which he had been satirized won a complete triumph over The Dun- ciad. The fact is apparent not only in the method employed by later critics, but in the definite stands some of them took. Johnson did not hesitate to attack Pope's "dull duty of an editor " : " The duty of a collator is indeed dull, yet like other " Critical Observations on Shakespeare, passim. '" Critical, Historical, and Explanatory Notes on Shakespeare, preface. " A Revisal of Shakespear^ Text, preface. '^ Defence of Mr. Kenrick's Review of Dr. Johnson's Shakespeare, 1766, p. 9. Seward spoke of Theobald as one "who is most obUged to Shakespeare, and to whom Shakespeare is most obliged of any man living," and affirms that he was unblasted by the Ughtning of Pope. Edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750, preface. See also the preface to Whalley's edition of Ben Jonson, 1756, where Theobald is indirectly complimented. THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 251 tedious tasks, is very necessary ; but an emendatory critick would ill discharge his duty, without qualities very different from dulness." Especially did Pope's line "All such reading as was never read" arouse the ire of later scholars. Of this line Warton said. If Shakespeare is worth reading, he is worth explaining; and the researches used for so valuable and elegant a purpose, merit the thanks of genius and candour, not the satire of prejudice and ignorance.*' Farmer, though perpetually sneering at Theobald, was forced to the confession that, "In the course of this disquisi- tion, you have often smiled at 'all such reading as was never read ' ; and possibly I may have indulged it too far : but it is the reading necessary for a comment on Shakespeare." ^ Strange as it may seem. Pope's characterization of Theobald was complacently accepted, yet the specific charges advanced by the satirist were denied. The editor was considered dull for the very offenses his calumniators were glad to commit. One reason why in the end Theobald's reputation was unable to overcome the misrepresentations of Pope lay in the fact that as his method became more general, its source was obscured. The generation who knew Theobald and his works realized his importance and patterned their own procedure after his. Their work in turn became new centers of influence, so that by the last quarter of the century the later tribe of critics considered the method anybody's. Not only was he deprived of the honor of formulating and practicing a method by which results could be obtained, but his own results were continually pillaged by critics, to whom have been attributed discoveries made many years before. *' Observations on tb£ Fairie Queene, 1807, II, p. 319. *• D. N. Smith, Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare, 1903, p. 214. 252 LEWIS THEOBALD Theobald the editor disappeared; Theobald the dunce survived. Because Theobald's work ceased to be the actual model for later critics, it is unnecessary to trace the method any farther. Yet it has come down to the present day and con- stitutes the basic principles of modern editing. In the construction of an accurate text — the first duty of an editor — collation and the recording of variant readings are the most important considerations. Theobald first em- phasized and estabUshed the importance of collation, and was the first to take any steps toward noticing variant read- ings. Emending has fallen from the high place it once held, but the imperative need of it is sometimes recognized, and in such cases the only method entitled to respect is Theo- bald's. He placed the science on the firmest foundation of which it is susceptible. In the explanation of a text the critical editor of to-day only enlarges on the earlier pro- cedure. He must acquaint himself with the history, customs, and manners of the age in which his author hved ; above all, he must study the hterature and language of that age. This Theobald was the first to do. As for the parallel passages, which the first editor used on all occasions, and which flourished so luxuriantly throughout the rest of the century, their need is now largely supphed by dictionaries, *' without which, however, it would be necessary to return to the old plan. The scholar of to-day has every aid to investi- gation, so that his research is naturally more thorough and his feeling for accuracy n^re pronounced ; still, take away what Theobald contributed to the science of editing, and little is left. «' Johnson is generally given the credit for inaugurating the method of illustrating the meaning of a word by quotations. He probably took it over from the notes of critics and editors who followed the example set by Shakespeare Restored. THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 253 To Bentley, however, really belongs the credit for stimu- lating textual work in English, and in some part for formu- lating the method.'^ Theobald's treatment of collation and variant readings was derived from his study of the great scholar, while his emendatory notes were closely modeled upon the other critic's. In explanatory notes the parallehsm is not so close, owing to the dissimilarity of their tasks, but the same spirit that informs Bentley's work is apparent in the Shakespearean annotations. In both there is the same unwillingness to deal in random guesses and unfounded hearsay, the same reliance on reasoning based upon fact, upon evidence gathered from wide investigation and focused upon obscurity; a spirit first seen in the members of the young Royal Society, with whom Bentley was closely as- sociated, and who, in spite of many freakish experiments and outlandish notions, broke away from tradition and superstition, and sought the reassuring conclusions drawn from observed fact and logical thought. ** The late Professor Flugel was certainly wrong in saying "Shakes- perean scholarship, from Rowe to Malone, does not even find a standard of textual criticism to be applied to Shakespeare's works: Bentley's influence is not felt on this field." This is the very field in which Bentley's influence was most potent, as we would expect from the emphasis he himself placed on textual criticism. See Flugel Memorial Volume, Univ. of Col. Publications, 1916, pp. 18, 20, 30. APPENDIX A " BiBLioTHECA : A Poem, Occasioned by the sight of a Modem Library. With some very useful episodes and digressions," is to be found in the third volume, page 19, of A Select Collection of Poems. 8 vols. London. 1780, printed for and by J. Nichols. In a footnote Nichols says, "This is ascribed to Dr. King upon conjecture only. It was published in 1712, the winter before he died, by his book- seller, inscribed to his patron, and is very much in his manner. His name is accordingly affixed to the author's notes." It is now given to Thomas Newcomb, though on what grounds I do not know. It seems to be written very much in King's manner, esp)ecially when we compare this quotation with that from Some Account of Horace's Behariour, given in Chapter II. The idea of the poem was evidently derived from The Battle of the Books. The poet goes into a modem library, and, the books impersonating their authors, the poet dis- cusses them one by one ; Defoe especially comes in for some hard knocks. Nichols (p. 65) points to the similarity between the Obhvion of this poem and the Goddess of The Dunciad, and adds that there are many more points of similarity. He then compares the first two lines of the passage quoted with these two in The Dunciad. Bk. IV, Hne 219, " 'Tis tme, On words is still our whole debate Disputes of Me or Te, of aut or at." Compare the following selections also : APPENDIX A 255 Bibliotheca : Beneath a dark and gloomy cell A lazy Goddess chose to dwell Oblivion was her dreaded name ; On verse and laudanum she feeds, Each weeping wall bedew'd appears With Cloe's sighs, and Strephon's tears ; Sad dirges, breathing Lover's pain. And soft complaints of Virgins slain : While Female Sonnets, Poet's Themes, Beaux Stratagems, Projectors' Dreams, Around the lonely structure fly, Slumber awhile, and gently die. Dunciad : Here stood her opium, here she nursed her owl. Hence hymning Tyburn's elegiac lay. Hence the soft sing-song on Cecilia's day. Sepulchral lyes our holy walls to grace And New-year-Odes and all the Grubstreet race." Other parallels between the two satires could be shown. APPENDIX B The Odes, Epodes, and Carmen Seculare of Horace. In Latin and English; with a Translation of Dr. Bentley's Notes. To which are added Notes upon Notes. In S4 Parts complete. By several Hands. London; Printed for Bernard Lintott at the Cross-Keys, between the two Temple-Gates in Fleetstreet, MDCCXIII. This work is a collection of twenty-six pamphlets, the first two being a translation of Bentley's dedication and "The Life of Horace with Bentley's Preface, Latin and English." The other twenty-four are devoted to a translation of Horace and Bentley's notes, to which are added the notes on notes. These last are rather abundant at first, but toward the end become short and scarce, many odes being passed over entirely. Of the twenty-four parts, seventeen appeared in 1712 and seven the following year. Monk thinks they were issued fortnightly. As regards authorship. Monk says (Life of Bentley, vol. 1, p. 319): "There appears once to have been a notion that the author was no other than Bentley's old enemy, Dr. King. A copy of the book, in an old binding, shown to me by Mr. Evans, the eminent bo9k seller of Pali-Mall, is lettered King's Horace. But Dr. King was dead some time before the completion of the work. The writer might have been another person of the same name." Now it is generally attributed to William Oldisworth (Notes and Queries, 1865, vol. 2, p. 229; and article on Oldisworth in Dictionary of National Biography). A translation of the poems alone, APPENDIX B 257 issued in 1719 as the second edition, bears Oldisworth's name as translator. On this evidence, however, I hardly think it safe to attribute the whole work to him. The title page of the 1713 edition says specifically "By several Hands." It seems natural that Oldisworth should have been selected to translate the poetry, for Lintot says (Carruther's Life of Pope, p. 141) "he translated an ode of Horace the quickest of any man in England." Nor do I think it improbable that King translated the notes and wrote the notes upon notes. He did not die until late in December, and, according to Monk's calculation of two weeks for each part, the work must have been completed some three months later. It seems possible that King might have completed his task before Oldisworth had done his, since it would certainly take longer to translate the odes than Bentley's notes and since the notes on notes are very scarce toward the end. The notes are in King's manner and contain allusions to his works. Bentley is called Bentivogho (Pt. I. p. 13), a name used in the Dialogues of the Dead, and a similar descrip- tion of him is given. There are two references (Pt. 4, p. 6, Pt. 15, p. 31) to the Trinity College Buttery which figured in King's Some Account of Horace's Behaviour, and a picture of Bentley which must have been made from the same plate used in the Some Account. One note (Pt. I. p. 23) reads much hke Useful Transactions, and the doggerel poems scattered through the notes are the same in pur- pose, spirit, and nature as those in the Transactions. APPENDIX C SOME UNPUBLISHED LETTERS OF THEOBALD The originals of the following letters, with a few excep- tions, are to be found in the British Museum, Egerton MSS. 1956, contained in a small volume labeled "Letters of L. Theobald and Dr. Warburton." They supplement those given by Nichols in Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 189-656, beginning with December, 1729, and extend- ing to the fall of 1736. Nichols said he obtained the originals of the letters he pubUshed from a gentleman who had received them from Theobald's son. In this case the letters herein printed must have remained in Warburton's hands, a conclusion further supported by the fact that there is contained among them a statement in Warburton's hand- writing to the effect that he had returned many of Theo- bald's letters. In April, 1730, the latter wrote for his letters, and the following month acknowledged their receipt, prom- ising at the same time to return them, which promise must not have been fulfilled. There are four more of Theobald's letters, all containing notes on Shakespeare, given in the Illustrations, which Warburton must have returned at some later date, as well as five of Warburton's which Theobald missed when he sent back his friend's correspondence in 1736. • Warburton made it a point to return all his friend's manuscripts which contained notes on Shakespeare. For that reason there is little Shakespearean criticism to be found in the following letters, a fact much to be deplored. Yet they have some value in the light they shed on Theo- bald's feelings and activities in the years following the APPENDIX C 259 Dundad, and especially in making clear the cause of the break between the two friends. I have tried to print the letters as Theobald wrote them, making no effort to correct punctuation, capitalization and the like. In the Greek quotations I have not sought to emend in accent and form. I have made few omis- sions, and those only in cases where the passages are already in print. To each omission attention is called in a foot- note, and the place specified where it can be found. With a few exceptions, which are noted, all the letters are ad- dressed to Warbiuton. [To Sir Hans Sloane} 1 Sir, I presume on the priviledge of a Neighbour to inclose herewith One of my Proposals, & beg the Honour of yo'' Name to grace one part of my List. In your own Pro- fession Sir, I have been indulg'd w"*. the Encouragem*. of D'' Mead, poor D'- Friend, D. Pellet &c having a par- donable Ambition, as I hope, of desiring such Names as may do my Subscription most Credit. Forgive Sir my not personally attending you, & please to impute it to a Fear of being too intruding; as I never had the Happiness of Access to you. If you please to think me worthy of your Commands, I shall with great Pride embrace the Favour, & esteem myself S'. your most obliged, as well as obedient humble Wyan's Court Serv'- Great Russell Street Lew. Theobald Mond. 5 Aug*. 1728. 1 British Museum, Sloane Mas. 4049, f. 214. 260 APPENDIX C (4). p. 7U The fairest grant is the Necessity :] I don't clearly com- prehend, at least satisfy myself in the connection of This. (5). p. 73. I wonder that Thou (being as thou say'st thou art, &c) As being born under Saturn may carry two different In- fluences, I am a little doubtful! concerning the Exposition or the Truth, of the Text here. Does he mean, I wonder y' thou, being born under such a malevolent planet, should'st give such good & moral coimsel? — Or are we to read — I wonder not that thou &c & then we may expound, I don't wonder, y' Thou being born under such a heavy, plegmatic Aspect, should'st be so moral in thy Advice, but I cannot hide what I am &c. (6). p. 74. Being entertain'd for a Perfiuner, as I was smoaking in a musty Room.] This is ag* the Authority of the 3 oldest Editions, w"*" all read more rightly to y* Poet's Intention — as I was smoaking a musty Room. i.e. fumigating, perfuming, taking off the ill scent. (7). p. 77. Bene. Well, I would you did like me.] This and the two subsequent little Speeches, y* are given to Benedict, I think ought to be placed to Balthazar. Pedro, you will observe talks to Hero * Balth : to Margaret : Ursula to Antonio; & then Beatrice & Benedict advance their Dia- logue. ' The beginning and end of this letter are missing, but its date lies between November 29 and December 4, 1729. Its proper place in Nichols is after p. 299, vol. 2. The play commented on is Much Ado about Nothing. APPENDIX C 261 (8). p. 81. Huddling jeast upon jeast, with such IMPOSSIBLE conveyance upon me, that I stood hke a Man at a Mark, with a whole Army shooting at me ;] This impossible con- veyance communicates no sensible Idea to me, & I have of old suspected it should be — with such IMPASSABLE conveyance, i.e. not to be put by, parried, avoided. We have a sentence very near to This in Sense in Twelfth Night. p. 232. And he give me th ' STUCK in with such a MORTAL MOTION that it is INEVITABLE. (9). p. 83. Claud. And so she doth. Cousin. 1 Should not this be Beatr. Good Lord, for Alhance J rather. Good Lord, our Alliance! i.e. how presently are we related, now you are going to marry my Kinswoman. (10). p. 84. She is never sad but when she sleeps, I have suspected and not ever sad then ; for I have heard this should be, — my Daughter say. She hath often dreamt She hath often of Unhappiness. &c. J dream'd of an happiness, &c i.e. She hath often had merry Dreams, ergo as is premis'd. She is not ever sad when She sleeps. (11). p. 88. We'll fit the kid-fox with a pennyworth.] With a penny worth of what ? I don't well take his Allusion. ' MS. is torn. 262 APPENDIX C (12). iUd. Note this before my Notes. There's not a Note of mine that's worth the noting. Pedr. Why these are very Crotchets that he 1 Sure from speaks J Balthazar's Note Notes foresooth, & nothing own Words it must be — and noting. (13). p. 91. O She tore the Letter into a thousand halfpence] This is a very whimsical Expression, yet I think I understand it. Does he not mean into a thousand Pieces of the same Bigness. There is a passage in AS YOU LIKE IT p. 350, that favours this explanation — There were none principal : they were aU Hke ONE ANOTHER as HALF-PENCE are. And both these Passages seem to allude to the Old Piece of money that was struck with a cross in such a Manner, that it might be split into Halves or Quarters, to pass for Half-pence or Farthings. Now as my Queries on the second Act are finish'd here, give me leave. Dear S^ to fill up the Remaining Paper w**" Matter occasionally necessary. I confessed the Rec'. of Two of yours by mine of y® 27*'' Instant ; & yesterday yo^. 3*^. arriv'd on TIMON all glorious Dissertation and Emenda- tion! If this be deviating, 'tis to me dehghtfuU Excursion; & gives even Business the Air of Entertainment. Yet while I wish for the Repetition of such Discourses, I cannot but look on them w*'' Emulation ; I might almost be pardon'd, if I said w"' Envy. I find myself so obscur'd by Inequahty ; You shew such a Fluency of Thought & Expression, such a clearness of Ideas, & such a Compass of general Reading, y'- I can much easier admire than express my admiration. Make no rash Vows, that you will start out no more ; permit me both to be pleas'd w"'. Order, & ravish'd with Escapades, APPENDIX C 263 as Dryden expresses it. Nor grudge me, Dear S'., the benefit of y'' Explanations, by paying a compliment to my narrow Sagacity — But how shall I sufficiently thank you for that overkind Opinion you are pleas'd to entertain of my Task in Hand? Believe, S^, I will faithfully consult my Reputation as well as private Honour, in this Respect ; that if I Uve to any Uttle portion of Posterity, I shall be so just to confess you One of my Supporters in y'. Rank. & take a Pride to acknowledge both what Emendations I am in- debted to you for, & where I have the pleasure of your concurrence to Mine. But as our Author's Hamlet says — Something too much of This. — ' The small compass of paper I have left shall be employ'd to inform you how I had cur'd three passages in Timon of w"*" you have given me your Emendations. p. 117. Serving of Becks &c] You ingeniously correct serring of becks. I wish the phrase be not a little too quaint. I have read, w**". very trivial Deviation from the Letter, Scruing of Backs, & jutting out of Bums. For Apemantus, I think, is observing on the unreasonable Distortions practis'd in their Congees. p. 130. Of the same piece is ev'ry Flatterer's SPORT.] You say COAT. & This is countenanc'd by piece. I had read, (as, the World's Soul, are the Words in the preceding Verse) Of the same piece is ev'ry Flat'rer's SPIRIT : i.e. all Flatt" are of a piece one with another. p. 168. — let him take his TASTE]. You read tatch. This word is in Skinner, but I'm afraid a little too obselete for 264 APPENDIX C Sh. I had read — let him take his HASTE, i.e. let him make use of his best Speed. As in Haml : p. 314. Take thy fair hour Laertes : i.e. make Use of the Hour y* favours y' Embarking. And Plutarch telling this very Story of Timon in the Life of M. Anthony (& our Author you know is very faithfuU where he borrows :) seems to give a Sort of Authority for this Reading, where part of Timon's Words are ; To the End that if any more among you have a Mind to make the same Use of my Tree they may do it SPEEDILY before it is destroy'd. I have yet a scrip left & therefore I'll trouble you w**". 2 Passages that I think are notoriously corrupted in the Pointing, a little deeper in this play, & w* I wonder have escap'd you. My dear Friend, Pardon me for once, that I am obUg'd to give you the Ex- pence of a Letter, without our deUghtfuU Affair going on. I thought it however my Duty to give you a Line, y*. I might not seem remiss where you are so kindly diUgent. But I flatter myself y*. you will not be displeas'd to know, y*. Orestes is now upon a Rehearsal ; & y* my whole present Time from Morning to Night, is employ'd in a Copy by his Royal Highness's Command. By Thursday's post notwithstanding I hope to fetch up Arrears. Excuse for the present, strong as my Heart is, the tir'd Hand of Dearest s^ Y'. most affectionate & ever obUg'd Friend & hum'''*. Serv*. Lew : Theobald. Wyan's Court 10 Febry. 1729. [1730] APPENDIX C 265 14 Feb. 1729. [1730] My Dear Sir, I have now finish'd this part of my Task, & have given you all the Remarks, Conjectures & Emendations I have made upon y* Author whom I have read for your Service. Your Merit & Goodness make me wish them of more Worth I have now nothing to do but to follow you, & w* Emendations, or Conjectures, or Explanations I shall hit upon will arise from the Hints your Queries will afford. I am. Dearest Sir, y'' most sincere & affectionate Friend. Dear Sir I am now to acknowledge the Rec* of yours (No 32) of the 13 Instant, & to thank you for yo'' kind promise of reading over M' P's preface for Me. The question of Shakespeare's Learning, I believe you'll find so very doubt- fully decided by him, that the argument will put you in Mind of — Jean a danci mieux que Pierre, et Pierre a dancS mieux que Jean; etc — And now. Dear S'', that we have on each side run through all the 8 vols. I must beg the favour that you will set what mark you think fit on my poor Sett of letters, & transpait 'em to me ; & I will promise faithfully, they shall be returned again to you, if you think fit, et si res tanti est. As I could keep no copies, it will be impossible, in so long an intercourse to recollect all my reasons for the Conjectures I have submitted to you; and to have them in hand to compare with your answers, will be absolutely necessary to my task in hand. I beg you will favour me with a letter of advice, how, & when, you are pleased to send them. You once asked me about Tonson's Greek Edition of Plutarch ; He has now advertis'd the pub- 266 APPENDIX C lication of it — By the way, that gentleman & I are coming to a Treaty together. He has been w*'' my friend, the Lady De la Warre, & submitts to make her the Arbitra- tress of Termes betwix us for my publishing an edition of Shakespeare. He says, a brace of hundreds shan't break agreement. This is talking boldly; & I wish heartily his name was John. I shall know the Issue of this Proposition in about a fortnight ; & so soon as known, w"" great pleasure communicate it. These things premis'd, you will indulge me in a few conjectures, (to fill up,) which I am always pleased to submit to you. You have not Locriae, you say, by you ; but the passage, I am going to amend, will ask no Reference, I think for the certainty of my conjecture. Act 3. Sec 5. The Arm-strong offspring of the DOUBTED KNIGHT, Stout Hercules, Alcmena's mighty Son, That tamed the Monsters of the threefold World; etc. The good editors that passed this stuff unsuspected, have had so little of the Herculean Spirit in them, subduing monsters, 'tis plain is none of their office. The Doubted Knight, I make no question, they look on content for Am- phitryon; either as his fatherly Pretensions to Hercules were to be disputed, by Reason of the Pains Jupiter took in begetting him : or as the epithet doubted hero, by an apocope warrantable enough among the old EngUsh poets, might stand for jredoubted; the valiant renown'd Amphitryon. — But, in my opinion, Hercules is sufl&ciently distinguished by being called Alcmena's mighty son; & therefore we may spare the Mention of his Father. But can we throw out the Father, without making the Blank Verse halt for itf I'll venture by the alteration of one Mistaken Letter, & the Rejection of another, which is but an Inter- APPENDIX C 267 loper, to restore a Reading truly Poetical & consonant to the Tradition concerning the Begetting of Hercules. As thus. The valiant offspring of the Doubled Night.^ Stout Hercules, Alcmena's mighty son, etc. As M'' Rowe was so well acquainted with poetical story, tis much, methinks, he did not remember this noted cir- cumstance of the Fable, that Juppiter for the fuller enjoy- ment of his pleasure with Alcmena, ordered two nights to be clapt together, & that the sun should not rise at the expected hour. Seneca, or whoever else has left us the Latin Tragedy of Agamemnon, is express to this point — Roscidae Noctis gemnavit horas, jussitque ; Phoebum tardius celeres agitare currus, — Propert. 1 .2. El. 22. Jupiter Alcmenae geminas requieverat Arctos Et Coelum noctu bis sine rege fuit. Martian : Capella speaks of these two nights clap'd together, & of Hercules in his cradle strangling the Serpants, as Testimonies of his Divine Origin. In ortu Herculis geminatae Noctis obsequium, serpentesque ; idem parvus, obHdens, vim numinis approbavit — And S* Jerom against Vigilantius says, that Jupiter coupled two nights caressing Alcmena, that Hercules might derive the more strength & vigour. In Alcmenae adulterio duas nodes Jupiter Copulavit, ut magnae fortitudinis Hercules nascere- tur. I might multiply quotations, but these seem sufficient to justify my Conjectures. Glancing over the 2"* p' of Henry IV p. 303. I started a suspicion upon the following passage : — When your own Percy, when my heart-dear Harry Threw many a Northward Look, to see his father Bring up his powers, but he did L N G in vain ! — ' The emendation is adopted and ascribed to Steevens in Tucker Brooke's edition of the Shakespeare apocrypha. 268 APPENDIX C I think the turn & elegance of the Sentiment, to say nothing of the common usage of our poet, determine that we should read; — but he did LOOK in vain! When I made this emendation, a passage of Aristophanes immediately re- curred to my memory, upon which I have ventured to make a conjecture. Thesmoph. v. 853. lAAOS yeytvrjuai irpoaboKlav 6 d'ovSeiru. Mnesilochus, who is under guard and under terrible apprehensions of being severely mauled by the women for intruding into their mysteries very earnestly expects Euripedes to come to his rescue; & complains that he has almost turned his eyes a-Squint, with thus expecting him. Keuster, you see, determines the passage to be corrupt; because expecta- tion never made any man Squint. He would therefore sub- stitute ATOS ytyevrifiat — the use of which phrase in his sense, I confess, he very satisfactorily supports. I would only observe that this learned man, when he but few years before pubhshed his Suidas, & met with this word under the article &v€avaZos 6 AiroWuv, says Hesichius. And Macrobius in his Saturnal. line 1 . c 17 ; Pleriq ; autem a specie et nitore Phoebum: i.e. KoBapov Xanrpdv dictum putant; item Phaneta appellant, awd rod (jjaiveLv; et (pavaiov, eiretSi) ^atwrai vtoi. Again the same Deity who in some places was called Phanes was also called Priapus, Orpheus, or Onomacritus, in his hynms. 270 APPENDIX C Kara Koa/iov Xanirpov S.yaos ayviv, axj) ov (re $A'NHTA H Se nPI'HnON SLVOKTa. A.nd by the Egyptians, Orus. Suidas, in irpiairos — to ayaXfia Tov irpLairov, tov Qpov trap' Alyvirriois KeKXriiitvov TavTou Kai, TwSt HAIO So^a^ovai. But let us see how the Lexicographer describes to us the Statue of this Priapus, or Egyptian Orus : kv rg Se^i? aKrJTrrpov Karkxov uiaavei. Trap' avTOv ivTiTaiikvov, dunt to. KeKpvfiiieva iv rg 75 airkpiiara avepa KaBiavris — elarivexov o tj>avris, alSoLOV ix^" Tapa tiju TTvyfifiv. Scil. In Pugno (sive in manu constricta) virilia tenens. And again where he says in the third article of the Word IXPIAIIOS — etxe 5e to AIAOION iiravu eis ttiv 5ru7i7y; (which Keuster renders habebat autem Penem erectum, & AEmiUus Portus, habebat autem Pudendam Superne APPENDIX C 271 JUXTA NATES) surely we must read nxrMHN, tenebat autem virilia Sursum in Manu. For I confess I am at a loss to understand the other Expression in the Greek. Plutarch I remember, in his Discourse concerning Isis & Osiris, speaking of this Statue of Orus which was set up at Cpptos in Egypt, describes the figure as not handling its own Nudities, but as holding in its hand exsecta Typhonis viriUa. — But Suidas ever copied the author before him. I am. Dearest S' Yo'' most affectionate & obUged Friend, & humble Servant Wyans Court Lew : Theobald 25 Apr. 1730. Dear S^ _ I thank you most heartily for the Letter I reced by Yes- terday's Post. The Emendations in it are as certain, as they are accurate & ingenious — Herewith attends you the volume of Shakespeare's Poems; & my poor Attempt in Manuscript. I am afraid the ObUterations in the 5* Act will give you some little Trouble in the Reading ; but I hope, you will be able to make them out. Pray, D"^. S"'., be not tender or partial in y'- Censure. I cannot judge properly for myself ; but should be very sorry to hear when tis too late to correct, that Something is Extravagant, This passage puerile & That ridiculous; &c. Tis in y" power of y'' Friendship to secure me from these Fears ; & the free Exercise of that Power will much encrease the obligations of Dearest S"'- Y'' most affectionate Friend Wyan's Court. & humble servant Tuesd. 12 May 1730 Lew : Theobald. 272 APPENDIX C Dear S'. Inclosed I return yo'' Tryal of Col. Charteris/ & the Play of Pericles, w* you were so kind to say, tho' bad you would take the Trouble of reading over w**" a strict Eye; & I am ¥"■. most affectionate & obUg'd Friend & humble serv*. Wensday morn^ Lew. Theobald. 20 May 1730. Dear S'. I am vastly concern'd y*. I have been so unfortimate to miss the pleasure of y''. Company no less than three times lately, when you did me the Favour of a Calling. For fear of the Uke Unhappiness on my Side, pray be so kind to appoint when it best sorts w**"- yo"^. Leisure to give me an Hour, & I will take care to reserve Myself from all trifling Avocations : being most sincerely. Dear S'. ¥"■. most affectionate & obUged Friend & humble Wyan's Court. Serv.* 25 May 1730. Lew. Theobald. I am indebted for yo'' accurate Animadversions on Orestes ; but I'm afraid you have been sparing to its Faults, And touch'd them w*''. the P^cil of a Friend. ' Francis Charteris (1675-1732), a noted rake and guilty of every sin in the decalogue, started his career as a soldier, but after being expelled from the army again and again, turned to gambling, by which he made an immense fortime. He was considered a sjmabol of vice and as such figures in Pope's poems and Hogarth's Progress of a Rake. His trial for rape in 1730, to which the above title refers, attracted much attention. He and Shakespeare are incongruous company. APPENDIX C 273 « DearS^ Fancying the repeated Showers Yesterday would indulge our Town w**" one day more of yo'' Company, I call'd at Squire's, & found my Suspicions confirm'd : and meant to have taken a second Leave, had I been happy enough to have found you at home. Meeting with the Volume, w"'' attends this, ready bound, I take the Freedom to send it, & beg you'll take an absolute Freedom of censuring its Weaknesses, in our ensueing Correspondence. All good Wishes most sincerely wait you, from Dearest S'. Y'- most affectionate & obhged Friend & humble Serv*. Lew : Theobald. Wyan's Court Thursd. 11 June, 1730. « Dear S'. I received the pleasure of yours on Monday last which I designed to have answerd my self this night but that my blindness has led me into the worst Mischance that ever befell me for walking apace on tuesday night I did not see a set of railes sow tumbhng over them with force broke my Wright arme and am now confined to my bed where I am afraid I must do Penance for at least a week longer. I thank God I have as yet scaped any symptoms of a fever and live low in order to prevent one. I can only now beg the favour that you will continue to throw your Eye over Shakespeare Restored, and mark freely all that appeares any thing amiss to you. You will be so good to let me • This letter is in another's handwriting. 274 APPENDIX C conclude now because I am forced to trouble a female hand to subscribe myself, Dear S^ Your most affectionate friend and obliged Humble Servant. Wyans Court July y" 2.1730 L. Theobald. ' Dear S'. I received the favour of yours of the 7*'' Instant, and should not have troubled you with another Epistle by proxy, but that I have your Commands to let you know the progress of my Recovery. I thank you for your kind cautions against lying a-bed and low Living ; but I confined myself to the first but three days, & have since that time been allow'd a temperate Refreshment of wine. The most unlucky Circumstance that has attended this Accident, is, that the next day I was sent for by Lady Delawarr, who had that morning seen M'. Tonson. What was the Substance of their Conference I yet know not, for the next day my Lady took flight into the Country for the Summer : but I have directions where to write to her, and in a short time shall be able to inform you what Measures I am to take. My Confinement at home gives me no Opportunity of entertaining you with any news either from the great world, or the World of Letters. I have only to tell you that the Grubstreet continues to make a devil of our frind Moore. ^ They have placed him in too Ridiculous a light by ' This letter is in another's handwriting. « James Moore-Smythe (1702-34), a member of the "Concanen Club," is best known by his Rival Modes, to which Theobald furnished APPENDIX C 275 inditing a whole Letter to him from Worm-powder More, who calls him-self his Uncle, & requires him as a mad-man to put himself under his care ; & cautions him against fall- ing under the hands of a Graduate Physitian, who wants the Management of him. They besides renew the charge of Cowardice so strongly against him, that, I confess, I should chuse to have two broken arms rather than be so stigmatized in print ; but no more of him in present : if I have not tired you, I am sure I have my scribe, so will at once dismiss her by subscribing myself Dearest S''- Your most affectionate Wyans Court Friend & Obhged Humble 14 July 1730. Servant L. Theobald. P.S. You will perceive, dear S"^ the above letter was writ a full week ago ; but by negligence, or forgetfulness, of my family was omitted to be put in the post House. I hope my arme continues to mend gradually. Dear S''- I received the pleasure of yours of y° 19*'' of last Month ; w"'' was a great Satisfation, because from your Silence, Both M''. Concanen & I fear'd you might be ill. I deferr'd ac- knowledging the Receipt of this Favour till now; because I was resolv'd to attempt my Answer propria manu. But you'll easily observe, Dear S'., from my characters, that I a prologue. Pope has satirized him in the Bathos, The Dunciad, The Grvh-street Journal, and the later version of the Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot. John Moore was a weU known apothecary in his day, who because of some notoriety gained by a particular kind of worm powder, elic- ited Pope's poem "To Mr. John Moore, Author of the Celebrated Worm-powder." 276 APPENDIX C have yet neither a command of my Strokes, nor the Pen of a ready Writer. I am very glad to find, y' Shakespeare Restored is in your Judgment neither full of gross faults, nor yet of many venial slips. And I the rather flatter myself, that you have not been partial in this Opinion, because if either had been the case, It scarce would have escaped the Attacks of my Sneer- ing Antagonist. I beg to be resolv'd by your next, whether one of yours has not miscarried ! The Reason of my doubt is this ; your Last beginning abruptly w**". the Word Appendix w^'out any preceding Address as usual; & the Last before That w"*" I received from you upon the Subject of my Book bears Date above ten weeks ago. As Reading has been a great Part of the Amusement in my Power during my Confine- ment at home I have run thro' all Aristophanes & his Scho- hast ; upon which I shall take the Liberty to trouble you w**". some Remarks in proper Time. Our Town is so very- empty, that I am quite destitute of my small circle of Friends; so cannot pretend to entertain You w**". any News; only that the World of Pleasure, I am afraid, are likely to lose M". Oldfield : for she hes extreamly ill of an inveterate Ulcer in Matrice: Upon w"'' a pohte Clergyman with us observ'd in a circle of Ladies, that she was punish'd in that Part, w*** w"*" she had so greatly offended God & Mankind. But my Hand now calls upon me to favour its Weakness : as my IncUnation does to subscribe myseK Dearest S''. Yo'. most Affectionate & obliged Humble serv*. Wyan's Court Lew. Theobald. 3^ Sept^ 1730. APPENDIX C 277 Dear S^ I hope I shall yet have so much Credit with you that you will beleive, tho' I had not yesterday reced the Pleasure of yours, I was fully determin'd this Evening to salute you by letter : & I am convinced presently you will believe me. You may, perhaps, imagine from my late Silence, that I really took y"^. last kind Letter, as you there hinted, for the rudest I ever received ; but I assure you by my Honesty (if I have any) I prize it as a most cordial Testimony of a Friendship, that shall ever be dear to me ; & tho' for reasons yet imknown to You, I have seerned to slvimber over Grat- itude, & postpon'd my Acknowledments till now; yet I dare assure You, yo"'- Counsel has not lost its Effects. Whelm'd as I have been with Distresses (enough to sink One of my obstinate Phlegm) yet at y"' Instigation I have rous'd & exerted [myself] against the strongest Attacks of Calamity. The Call of Reputation so justly urged by my Dearest Friend, started me from my Lethargy, & you'll begin to think I have been awake, when I have done Myself the Pleasure to let you know, I have at last fix'd the Pro- teus. No longer ago than Thursday, Tonson & I exchang'd Articles for the Publication of Shakespeare. Till I could bring this agreeable Point to bear, I was determin'd to be silent ; & do me the Justice in yo'' kind Thoughts to believe, that neither awkward Disgust, Disregard, nor Indolence, have kept me dumb : but only the strong Desire of opening my Correspondance w***. this important Piece of good news : upon w* I know, I shall have your heartiest Con- gratulations. As to the Booksellers, Dear S"'., who once made some Overtures to me, you hinted that they com- plain'd I had not dealt so honourably w"*. them: I fancy, you will be satisfied I can turn the Tables upon them, when I tell you, Tonson has acceded to double the Terms they offer'd me : I was by their Contract to have had the la- 278 APPENDIX C bouring Oar upon Me, to have been entitled only to a first Payment, & they to have reced the Second : I have now closed my Agreement to have the Work publish'd in 6 Vol", in 8^°., to have 400 copies, compleat in Sheets, deliver'd me on a Fine Genoa paper, free from all Expence whatever ; & 100 copies more on Fine Royal Paper, I only paying for the paper : so that if I can have my Compliment of Sub- scriptions, the small paper will bring me in 800 guineas; & the Books in Royal 300 more : besides w*. I have reserv'd the Liberty of prefixing a Dedication to each Volimie. — And so much for that Affair. As to Milton, Dear S"'., D'- Bently is so far from having laid aside the Thoughts of it, that the whole Paradise Lost is work'd off, & the Book will be pubhsh'd before Christmas. I own, I venerate him so far as a Classical Critic, that I am sorry he has now dabbled in a Province, where even the Ladies are prepar'd to laugh at, & confute him. I am much obhg'd to your Friend M"^. Taylor,' for his kind Intentions of having subscrib'd to my Remarks. I don't know, whether the alteration in my scheme, may not occasion an Alteration in his Intentions : therefore I wait y^ Commands on that Head. I thank you, Dearest S'- for yo'' Conjectures last communicated, but indeed I have not yet had time to weigh them sufficiently. In Return, I'll send you an Emen- dation I made but the other Night, upon a Passage w"''. I am sure, you will be surpriz'd w**" me, how it could scape us Both. But to see h^w blind Pleasure & prepossession may sometimes make one in Shakespeare! Merry Wives and I was like to be apprehended for of Wind', p. 282. the Witch of Brainford, but that my ' Robert Taylor (1710-62), physician and member of the Royal Society, was educated under Warburton at Newark. His Harveian lecture, 1755, was highly valued abroad. APPENDIX C 279 • admirable Dexterity of Wit, my counterfeiting the Action of AN OLD Woman deliver'd me, the Knave Constable had set me i' th' Stocks &c. Sure this Reading is no great Complement to the Sagacity of our ... 1" etic Editors. What! was it any Dexterity of Wit in S''. J". Falst to counterfeit the action of an old Woman, in Order to escape being apprehended for a Witch? Surely, one would imagine, this was the readiest means to bring him into such a Scrape : for None but old Women have ever been suspected of being Witches. If I am not strangely deceiv'd, Shakespeare wrote and meant — my counterfeiting the action of A WOOD Woman &c., i.e. a crazy, frantick, deUrious Woman; one too wild & silly, & unmeaning to have either the MaHce, or Mischievous Subtlety of a Witch in her. Perhaps the Pronunciation & Writing of Shakespeare's Times, or his County, might call & speU this Word, a WOLD or WOULD woman ; & that might facihtate the corruption to OLD. And now my Dearest Friend, permit me to live in hopes of hearing a fresh from you, as well as to confess myself inviolably Y"^. most obUged & affectionate humble Serv'- Wyan's Court Lew Theobald. 30 Octo^ 1731. Dear S'. I have reced the pleasure of yours, w"''. comes fraught w*"^. Kindness even beyond my own Prepossessions; And it is no small comfort to me to find, that if Extremity be the Text of Friendship, as it has ever been reckon'd, I have " MS. is torn. 280 APPENDIX C one sincere & cordial Friend left me in my Extremity. I think the present Period of my Life may truely fall under that Denomination ; for however the Affair, w"*^. I am now bringing to bear, may in time retrieve me from Necessities ; yet at present, when I should set down with a Mind & Head at ease & disembarrass'd, the Severity of a rich Creditor (& therefore the more unmercifuU) has strip'd me so bare, that I never was acquainted with such Wants, since I knew the Use of Money. But when I am labouring at so much Philosophy in practice, as to persuade myself not to feel Adversity ; I am angry with myself for giving my Friend a part of that Pain w"'' I am professing to get rid off in my Bosom. It convinces me (tho' I wanted not the Proof), that I am in no degree the Philosopher. — Sed ad alia quae- dam dulciora. I have great Satisfaction in the News you tell me, that you have a freSh Fund of Entertainment for Me upon 6 of our Author's Tragedies : & I shall hve in a sweet Expec- tation of their Arrival. Tonson has sent me in a Shakes- peare interleav'd; & I am now extracting such notes & Emendations, as upon the Maturest Deliberation, I am certain will stand the Test. For the Censures, that may succeed, make me reflect in Time, that I had much better smother uncertain Suspicions than appear too boldly peremp- tory. There are some Passages in w"**. I shall be obUged to retract my own Emendations ; & even where they have met with your Concurrence. For instance ; — Love's Lab'', lost. p. 301 , A wife, a heard, fair health & honesty ; With threefold Love I wish you all these Three It seem'd to me, you may remember, that She wish'd him here jour things, & therefore I was for changing Health into Youth, & putting it into parenthesis, as if She call'd her APPENDIX C 281 Lover so. — This Change you were pleas'd to approve : & I own, it struck me with a present conviction of its being certain. But Upon a more accurate Collation w"*" 1 have since made of our Author w**" the first foho Edition, 1 am persuaded Nothing must be alter'd but the Pointing, & That upon the Authority of the old Book, thus — A Wife! a Beard, fair health & honesty ; i.e. as we say : — A Wife ! — Marry come up, such a Stripling as you shall come a wooing indeed ! No, no ; I'll first wish you a Beard &c. — But I am to thank my Friend Pope's singular Inaccuracy, for many an Increase of our Labour of this sort. I'U now submit to yo"' Judgement a slight sus- picion upon a Passage of Meas. for Meas. p. 335. Claud. Now, Sister what's the Comfort ? Isab. Why as all Comforts are: most good INDEED! This Reply at present conveys no satisfactory Idea to me; nor is so significant an Answer as I should expect from Isabella to a Brother under his Circimistances. She is grave & in earnest ; & as she knows his Doom is arbitrarily fix'd, she woiild at once wean him from all flattering Ex- pectations, & would have him look upon the Completion of his Fate as a soUd Comfort. I suspect, the Poet meant ; Why, as all Comforts are ; most good IN DEED ; I don't bring you any airy Comfort, built only on fallacious Hope ; but a Comfort solidly such, as all Comforts must be deem'd, when they are put in Execution ; when we receive the actual Benefit of them. I think, I conceive a little more from this Reading; but I shall wait y"^. Thoughts upon it, before I make it standard. A propos, a Word, by the by, on Measure for Measure. Tis certain the Foimdation of this Story is from Cynthio Geraldi's Hecatomuthi; but I find the Stage had likewise borrow'd the Fable before our Author's Time, under different Characters ; & I have by me the old Play in 282 APPKNDIX C two Parts, printed in the black Letter, in 1578, call'd. The right Excellent & famous History of Promos & Cassandra, divided into two Comical Discourses; in the first part whereof is shewn the unsufferable Abuse of a lewd Magistrate & the virtuous Behaviours of a chast Lady : And in the second part is discovered. The perfect Magnanimity of a noble King, in checking Vice & favouring Virtue : wherin is shewn the Ruine & Overthrow of dishonest Practices; with the Advancement of upright Dealing. So much for the Title : for the play itself, execrably bad as it is, I am confident that our Author had consulted it; & it adds if possible, to my Admiration of the Man, to have such a Testimony, how finely he could improve upon a Predecessor, without the modern Advantages of Stealing. I cannot remember whether I ever have communicated to you a Discovery that I have made with regard to the Merry Wives of Windsor. M'. Pope speaks of an Old 4° Edition of this play printed in 1619 ; & of a tradition of it's being written by Queen Ehzabeth's Command. But a play printed 17 years after her Death gives this Tradition but a very poor Authority. I can now support it a great Deal better; for I have by me another Edition, printed in 1602, in the Title of which we are told it had been diverse times acted by the right honourable the L^. Chamberlain's Servants, Both before her Majesty & elsewhere. Whether it was wrote by the Queen's Command, or no, is not very material; however, we derive some Light as to the Time of the Poet's Writing it; for as Harry the Fourth, I can prove, was not earher in its Date y°. 1599 ^^ (from w** the Publick had their first acquaintance w**" S'. John Fal- " Later Theobald must have found reason to doubt his proofs, for in his edition, vol. 3, p. 349, he says the drama "had been play'd, and was well known" before 1599. Furthermore he does not mention Henry IV in dating the Merry Wives. APPENDIX C 283 staffe) this reduces the Intervall betwixt That & the first Sketch of the Merry Wives to about two Seasons. As to the Loci desperati, I'll take Notice of them as I go along, & reduce them into a List for your Enquiry. I should be very glad, Dear S''., if you can give me any Account of Platonius the Grammarian, whose fragment upon the 3 Sorts of Greek Comedy is prefix'd to Aristo- phanes. I expected to have had some Information from Fabricius in his Bibhothaeca Graeca, but am disappointed ; & Photius I have not. I cannot conclude the present Trouble I give You, without desiring my Respects & Thanks to your ingenious Pupill M'- Taylor ; for whom I have underwritten a subscription- Receipt for Shakespeare; & beUeve me. Dearest S'., with the most inviolable Attachment Yo'' ever obUged & affectionate humble Serv*- Wyan's Court Lew Theobald. 12 — ovM731 My Dear Friend, I reced by your Last (N° III) of y= 22'^. of Nov' ; your kind Assurances w**". Regard to my Preface; the Contents of w"**. I am Endeavouring to modell in my Head, in Order to communicate them to you, for your Directions & Refine- ment. I have already rough-hewn the Exordium & Con- clusion ; the Latter of w*. I now send you a Transcript of, to shew you how methodical I am ; & by my Next, I shaU submit the Opening to yo"' Perusal. I beg earnestly. Dear S''., you will not be tender of altering, everywhere; (except in my Acknowledgm*^ to my Friends) I would have " MS. is torn. 284 APPENDIX C the Whole both amuse & strike. What I shall send you from Time to Time, I look upon only as Materials : w"'' I hope may grow into a fine Building, under your judicious Management. In short, Dirue, aedifica, muta quadrata rotundis, &c. [Having now run thro' all these Points, w"^ I intended should make any Part of this Dissertation, it only remaines that I should account to the Publick, but more particularly to my Subscribers, why they have waited so long for this Work; that I should make my Acknowledgments to those Friends who have been generous Assistants to me in the Conducting it : & lastly, that I should acquaint my Readers what Pains I have MyseK taken to make the Work as compleat, as faithfuU Industry & my best Abihties could render it. In the Middle of the Year 1728, I first put out my proposals for publishing only Emendations & Remarks on our Poet : And I had not gone on many Months in this Scheme before I found it to be the unanimous Wish of Those who, did me the Honour of their Subscriptions, that I would likewise give them the Poet's Text corrected ; & that I would sub- join those Explanatory Remarks, w* I had purpos'd to pubUsh upon the Foot of my first Proposals. Earnest Sol- Ucitations were made to Me, that I would think of such an Edition, w""*. I had as strong Desires to hsten to : and some Noble Persons then, whom I had no Priviledge to name, were pleas'd to interest themselves so far in the Affair, as to propose to M"'. Tonson J;iis undertaking an Impression of Shakespeare with my Corrections. I must do him the Justice to declare, that He with great Readiness came into a Treaty with me for this Work; But having just then glutted the Trade with a large Edition by M"'. Pope in Twelves, he frankly told me, he could not with any Face or Conscience, pretend to throw out another Impression, APPENDIX C 285 before those Books were a little dispers'd & vended : And so Time was unavoidably lost: While the PubUcation of my Remarks was thus respited, my Enemies took an un- fair Occasion to suggest, that I was extorting Money from my Subscribers without ever designing to give Them any- thing for it : An Insinuation levell'd at once to wound me in Reputation & Interest. Conscious, however, of my own just Intentions, & labouring all the while to bring my wish'd purpose to bear, I thought these anonymous Slanderers worthy of no Notice. A Justification of Myself would have been giving them Argument for fresh Abuse : & I was wiUing to beheve, that any unkind Opinions, enter- tain'd to my Prejudice, would naturally drop & lose their Force, when the Pubhck should once be convinc'd that I was in Earnest, & ready to do them Justice. I left no Means untry'd to put it in my Power to do This ; &, I hope without Breach of Modesty, I may venture to appeal to all candid Judges, whether I have not employ'd all my Power to be just to them in the Execution of my Task. I come now to speak of those kind Assistances, w"*". I have met with from particular Friends, towards forwarding & compleating this Work. Soon after my Design was known, I had the honour of an Invitation to Cambridge; & a generous Promise from the Learned & ingenious D"". Thirlby of Jesus-CoUedge there, who had taken great pains w*'' my Author, that I should have the Liberty of collating his copy of Shakespeare, mark'd thro' in the Margin with his own Mss. References, & accurate Observations. He not only made good this promise, but favour'd me with a Sett of Emendations, interspers'd & distinguish'd in his Name, thro' the Edition : & which can need no Recommen- dation here to the judicious Reader. The next Assistance I received was from my ingenious Friend Hawley Bishop Esq''- whose great Powers & Exten- 286 APPENDIX C sive Learning are as well known as his uncommon Modesty, to all who have the Hapiness of his Acquaintance. This gentleman was so generous, at the Expence both of his Pocket & Time, to run thro' all Shakespeare with me. We join'd Business & Entertainment together; & at every of our Meetings, w"*" were constantly once a Week," we read over a Play, & came mutually prepared to communicate our Conjectures upon it to each other. The Pleasure of these Appointments, I think I may say, richly compensated for the Labour in our own Thoughts ; & I may venture to aflBrm, in the behalf of my Assistant, that our Author has deriv'd no little Improvement from Them. To these I must add the indefatigable Zeal & Industry of my most ingenuous & ever-respected Friend, the Rev'*- M"'- Warburton of Newarke-upon-Trent. This Gentleman from the Motives of his frank & communicative Disposi- tion, voluntarily became a Labourer in the Vineyard : not only read over the whole Author for Me with the exactest care ; but enter'd into a long & laborious Epistolary Corres- pondance, to which I owe no small part of my best Criticisms upon my Author. The Number of Passages amended, & admirably explain'd, w""". I have taken care to distinguish with his Name, will shew a Fineness of Spirit, & Extent of Reading, beyond all the Commendations I can give them. Nor, indeed, would I any further be thought to commend a Friend, than, in so doing, to give a Testimony of my own Gratitude. How great a Share soever of my praise, I must lose from myself, in con^ssing these Assistances; & how- ever my own poor Conjectures may be weaken'd by the Comparison w*'' theirs ; I am very well content to sacrifice my Vanity to the Pride of being so assisted, & the Pleasure of being just to their Merits. I beg Leave to observe to my Readers in one Word here, " These meetings were held by the so-called Concanen Club. APPENDIX C 287 that from the Confession of these successive Aids, & the Manner in w"*" I deriv'd them, it appears, I have pretty- well fiU'd up the Interval, betwixt my first Proposals & my Pubhcation, w**" having my Author always in View & at Heart. Some Hints I have the Honour to owe to the Information of D"'. Mead, & the late D"'. Friend : Others the Kindness of the ingenious Martin Folkes Esq'', who hkewise furnish'd me with the first folio Edition of Shakespeare, at a Time when I could not meet with it among the Booksellers : as my Friend Thomas Coxeter Esq'', did w*"^. several of the old Quarto single Plays, w* I then had not in my own Collec- tion. Some few Observations I likewise Owe to the Favour of Anonymous Persons : for all Which I most gladly render my Acknowledgments. As to what regards myself singly, if the Edition do not speak for the Pains I have taken about it, it ■will be very vain to plead my own Labour & Diligence. Besides a faith- full Collation of all the printed Copies, w"*". I have exhibited in my Catalogue of Editions, let it suffice to say, that to clear up several Errors in the Historical '* . . . Plays, I pur- posely read over Hall & Holingshead's Chronicles in the Reigns o . . . n'd; all the No veils in Italian from which our Author had borrowed any ... his Plots : such parts of Plutarch, from w* he had derived any parts of his G . . . Story; & above 800 old English Plays, to ascertain the obsolete & uncommon . . . him : not to mention some Labour & Pains unpleasantly spent in the dry task of . . . Etymo- logical Glossaries. But as no labour of mine can be equivalent to the dear & ardent Love I bear for Shakespeare, so if the Pubhck shall be pleased to allow that he owes Anything to my Willing- nessj& Endeavours of restoring him, I shall reckon the Part " MS. is torn. 288 APPENDIX C of my Life, so engaged, to have been very happily em- ploy'd : & put Myself with great submission, to be try'd by my Country in the Affair. Finis. Forgive me, my dearest Friend, that I have inserted what relates to y'self, & believe that I had certainly declin'd it, only that I am determin'd to submit the Whole to you. Because no paper shall be lost, I'll trouble you. Dear S"'., with a second Thought upon this Passage of Hamlet, of w° you have given me an Emendation. p. 292. Nature is Fine in Love & where 'tis Fine &c. You conjecture Falne. But I have ruminated the Sentiment over pretty much in Head, & let us see whether the Text may not be explain'd, as it stood. I conceive that this might be the Poet's Meaning. — In the Passion of Love Nature becomes more exquisite of Sensation, is more sub- limed & refined; & where 'tis so refined &c. If I mistake not our Poet has play'd with this Thought twice or thrice in some other of his Plays. The Clown in As You hke It. Act. 2. See. 4. seems to glance at this Refinment, but interprets it a sort of Frantickness. "We that are true Lovers run into strange Capers, but as all is Mortal in Nature, so is all Nature in Love mortal in Folly." But lago in OtheUo Ac. 2. Sc. 7. deUvers himself much more directly to the Purpose of the Sentiment here before us. — "as they say, base Men, being in Love have then a Nobility in their Natures more than is native to them. And Cressida in Troilus Ac. 4. Sc. 6. I think, expresses herself concerning Grief exactly as Laertes does here^pf Natiu-e "The Grief is Fine, full, perfect that I taste; "And in its Sense is no less strong, than That "Which causeth it. APPENDIX C 289 If upon Weighing these Passages, you shall determine w*** Me that the Text may stand, I believe it will not be im- proper to refute M^ Pope's silly Conjecture, & explain the Poet by these Quotations. I am, with the truest Respect, Dearest S^., Y^. most affectionate Friend, & obUged humble Servant Wyan's Court 4 Dec^ 1731. Lew. Theobald. My dear Friend, Since my last to you, I have had the pleasure of 3 of yours, (No IV, V, & VI) to parts of w"**. when I have en- deavoured to reply in This, I will account to you for some portion of my present Engagements. I am sorry the Impertinence of the Understrappers of the Post-oflBce should prompt them to make my Franks ineffectual; but so soon as my good Friend Lord Orrery comes from Bath, I'll try if they dare dispute his Signature ; & if they should, I'll not fail the Opportunity of having a Touch at them in Requital. As to what you mention of taking off the Prejudices on Account of the Avocations, w"**. your Friendship has lent me from your Profession, I join w**" you in the Reasonableness of it : and will take due care to justify you ag' the possible Inconveniency. What I intend on this Head shall be sub- mitted to yo'' View, as well as the other Contents of the Pref- ace. For the same Reason, that such a palliating Caution is to be observ'd, the phrase w""*. I had inadvertently used of your becoming a Labourer in the Vineyard, must as indis- pensibly be chang'd. I make no Question of my being wrong in the disjointed Parts of my Preface, but my Intention was, (after I had given 290 APPENDIX C you the Conclusion, & the Manner in w*. I meant to start) to give you a List of all the other general Heads design'd to be handled, then to transmit to you, at proper Leisure, my rough Working off of each respective Head, that you might have the Trouble only of refining & embelhshing w"* : ad- ditional Inrichments : of the general Arrangement, w*. you should think best for the whole; & of making the proper Transitions from Subject to Subject, w"*". I account no in- considerable Beauty. If you think right to indulge me in this Scheme, my next shall be employ'd in Prosecution of it. I will not fail to press all the physicfel Quaery's w"*" : you have directed me, with an Encrease, upon D"'. Mead; & some Answer, upon the Strength of his written Promise, I will extort. He may easily parcell them out to his Disciples, (to save his own Pains or Credit), & so give me their Solu- tions in his own Name. They will embrace the Task as a Complement from him ; & either Way answers my Purpose. The Occasional Insertion of a few Emendations from some Greek Authors, I certainly think may be of signal service to my Reputation ; if you think they may safely be interspers'd without Suspicion of Pedantry. I would not voluntarily draw that Ridicule upon me from the Sneerers. You are anxious. Dear S'., for every Part of my Character; but do not let me, like a Fondling, be dress'd up in too glaring Colours. To be a little diffident, will secure me from much Envy & Detraction. To the Critical parts of your Epistles, I reply no farther in present, than in my Thanks. It will not displease you, I know, to hear that M''. Tonson, since our Agreement, behaves with great Candour, & professions of sincere Service. He tells me, Expectations are greatly reviv'd from the pub- Uck's being inform'd I am now in Earnest ; that the Eyes of the Whole Town are upon my Work ; & that he does not doubt but I shall find a good Account in my Subscription, APPENDIX C 291 as well as considerable Assistance of Conjectures, &c from many Lovers of our Author. Now a little to my late premised Engagements. In order to make Domestic affairs run as smoothly as may be, till I can bring this greater Affair to a Crisis, I have apply'd my uneasie Summer Months upon the Attempt of a Tragedy. Sit verbo venia! I have a Design upon the Ladies Eyes, as the Passage to their Pockets : if the Town be not too de- prav'd, for any Remaines of Sensation ; & as I shall not in This enter upon Any Part of the Preface, I'll indulge myself, in submitting a Pair of Soliloquies to you, as a Taste of my poor Workmanship. I lay my Scene in Italy. My Heroine is a young Widow Dutchess, who has two haughty Spanish Brothers, y* enjoin her not to marry again. She, however, clandestinely marries the Master of her Household on the Morning I open my Scene ; & in the S"*. Act, I shew her expecting her Bridegroom's private approach to her. So much, by way of Argument. Scene changes to the Dutchess's Bed-chamber. A Bed seen & a Table w"*. Papers. The Dutchess sitting undrest. Dutch : How tedious is Suspence, that makes one Hour Move slow & heavy as a Winter's Night, When Nights are longest ! — I have strove, in vain. By Reading to beguile the Lazy Time : But my unsteady Eye, & roving Mind, Like two impatient restive Travellers, Tho' bent the same Way get the Start by Turns ; And will not keep each Other Company — I know not what I read — What hideous Noise? It may be, 'twas the melancholy Bird, (The Friend of Silence & of Solitude,) The Owl, that schream'd : or, was it Fancy's Coinage? — 292 APPENDIX C When once the Soul's disturb'd, each little Thing Starts & alarms. — The Court's not yet at Rest, Or He would come — My Breast is like a House With many Servants throng'd, unruly All, And All employ'd on Tasks of diff'ring Natiu-es. Doubts, Perturbations, Thoughts of Self-Conviction Uncertain Wishes, & unquiet Longings, Debate the Strife within. — I've heard it said. Love, mix't with Fear is sweetest. I'm perhaps Too much a Coward, & That spoils my Rehsh. The Next, Dear S' :, is in the 4**" Act. Her Match is dis- cover'd ; Her Husband obUg'd to fly. One of her tyrannous Brothers, a Duke, employs an Agent to strangle her; and after the Order given, I produce him in the conflict betwixt Conscience & Remorse. Enter Duke Ferdinand Ferd: O sacred Innocence ! that sweetly sleeps On Turtles Feathers, whilst guilty Conscience Makes all our Slumbers worse than feavrish Dreams, When only Monstrous Forms disturb the Brain. Tis a black Register, wherein is writ All our good Deeds & bad : a Perspective That shews us Hell, more horrid than Divines, Or Poets, know to paint it. — Hark, what Noise? The Screams of Women, ever & anon, Ring thro' my Ears, shrill as the Sabine cries. When Rome's bold Sons rush'd on their frighted Virgins. A thousand fancied Horrors shake my Soul, E'er since I dictated this Deed of Slaughter. — There is no written Evidence to proclaim My order, & must coward Apprehension APPENDIX C 293 Give it a Tongue? — The Element of Water Drops from the Clouds, & sinks into the Earth : But Blood flies upward, & bedews the Heav'ns. — The Wolf shall find her Grave, & scrape it up, Not to devour the Coarse, but to discover The horrid Murther. — Shall I let her hve? What says Revenge to That ? ^ — Or what says Nature ? Resentment preaches Treason still to Virtue ; And to repent us of a blamefull Purpose, Is manly pious Sorrow. — She shall Uve. You see, my Dear Friend, I have feasted my own Vanity at large : I wish, I may have consulted your Entertainment in any Proportion. I must now desire my Respects & Thanks tender'd to yoiu* Friend, young D"". Taylor. I have sent, please to tell him, a Rec*- over to M''. Botham at Cambridge for his small Paper; & inclos'd I send the other, as directed, for the Royal. M''. Taylor not knowing the Tenour of my pro- posals, has sent up but a Guinea & | for the first payment : but the Rule is 2 Guineas down, & so I have worded the Re- ceipt, to prevent confusions at the Delivery of the Books. I'll tell you how I fancy the ^ Guinea may be remitted w*''- Safety & Secrecy, & w"*. no trouble to you. In the Sealing your Letter, place it under a wet Wafer, & then put your Wax-Impression over it, & it will be imperceptible. I have often had this experimented here in Town. I have only now, S^., to tender you the good Wishes attending the approaching Season; & to confess myself. My dearest Friend y. ever affectionate & oblig'd humble Serv*. Wyan's Court Lew : Theobald 18 Dec. 1731. 294 APPENDIX C My dear Friend, I hope this will find you entirely recover'd from y* trouble- some Indisposition complain'd of in the postscript of yo''. last (No. viii) that I reced by Inclosure from y" Commiss^'' of y" Post Office, together w*'' yours to your Sister & M^ Twells's to M''. Carteret. These Remonstrances, seconded by my Representation of y^ fact before them & y° Accident of y" Doit being likewise intercepted, have had such an Effect, y* I have not only had my ^ Guinea restor'd, but y* Letter-Carrier is dismiss'd from his Business. It may seem a little strange, perhaps, w° I tell you, that I have placed myself so far on y° side of Mercy, as to solUciting his Read- mission. But my Reasons are, that Appearances only are against him, & no proof that he is tardy in y" Affair, however y® Resentment has settled there. Besides, he has bin a servant to the Office 18 years without Intermission, & this y® very first complaint levell'd at him ; he is a man in the Decline of Life, has a sick Wife & 3 Children, & this small Branch of Profit was their Whole Bread. — If good Nature is misemploy'd in this Task, I hope, these are seeming Motives to excuse the Frailty. And I may add to these, what I am very well con vine' d of, that the Pleduntur Achivi of Horace is a Lemma not yet out of Fashion in our publick Offices. There are in all of them a Sett of extravagant young Clerks, who Uve above their Salary, & are liable to casual Temptations : And these, I fear, whenever a Blot is hit, have Pohcy enough to shift the Blame off to Inferiors. I'll not venture to make th^p Judgment in y" particular Case before Us ; but what has been, May be ; ut vulgo dicitur. I shall wholly suspend the Affair of Shakespeare in This, because other Matter offers, w""* may not be displeasing. I make no doubt, but M''. Pope's Epistle of Taste, address'd to L''. Burlington, has long since reach'd you, & pass'd the Censure. Tis thought by some here, that this piece has APPENDIX C 295 not contributed much more to y". Credit of his Poesie, than of his Morals ; but this is a Criticism I do not take upon me to meddle with. I mention it only, as it has occasion'd another Satirical Poem by a Gentleman of our Faction, M'. Welsted, Of Dullness & Scandal. Now as I am willing to allow, that our Ware may not have the same Alacrity in Travelling, and so it may not have reach'd your Parts; I design you an Extract from it, from w"*". you will be able to determine whether M''- Welsted has not wip'd out his Score w*^. Pope on the Topick of Slander. The Author at least seems to think so by his Motto's. Turno Tempus adest, magno cum optaverit emptum Intactum Pallanta: Pallas te hoc Vulnere donat. Virg. The two particular Topicks w""^. incense M"'. Welsted to animadvert on P are first, his having reduced a very pretty Lady, Sr. Peter Vanderput's Widow, of Richmond, to a moping Frenzy w*"*. obliging her to read over a second time his version of Homer, to make her a Mistress of its Beauties ; & then his being suppos'd to abuse y" Duke of Chandos under y^ Character of Timon, in his late Epistle on Taste. Thence he passes to a tolerably-spreading Invective on P himself, w""". take in the Poet's own Words. Nor Innocence alone it's Inj'ry rues. Nor Beauty feels alone th' Assassin's Muse : His Felon-Arts the Patriot's Seats alarm. And spite assails what Dullness cannot harm. Inglorious Rhimer ! low licentious Slave ! Who blasts the Beauteous, & beUes the Brave ; 296 APPENDIX C In scurril Verse who robs, & dull Essays, Nymphs of their Charms, & Heroes of their Praise All Laws for Pique, or Caprice will forego; The Friend of CataUne, & TuUy's foe ! Oh ! born to blacken ev'ry virtuous Name ; To pass like BUghtings, o'er the Blooms of Fame : The Venom of thy baleful Quill to shed. Alike on Uving Merit, & the Dead ! Sure, that fam'd Machiavil, what Time he drew The Soul's dark Workings in the crooked Few, The rancour'd Spirit, & maUgnant Will, By Instinct base, by Nature shap'd to 111, An unborn Deemon was inspired to see. And in his Rapture prophesied of Thee. Ordain'd a hated Name by Guilt to raise. To bless with Libel, & to curse with Praise ! A sof tling Head that spleeny Whims devour ; With Will to Satire, but deny'd the Pow'r ! A Soul corrupt ! that hireling Praise suborns ! That hates for Genius, & for Virtue scorns ! A Coxcomb's Talents, with a Pedant's Art ! A Bigot's Fury in an Atheist's Heart ! Lewd without Lust, & without Wit prophane ! Outragious, & afraid ! contemn'd, and vain ! Immur'd, whilst young, in Convents hadst Thou been, *Victoria, still with Rapture we had seen ; But now our Wishes by^he Fates are crost, W've gained a Thersite, & an Helen lost : The envious Planet has deceiv'd our Hope, W've lost a S* Leger, & gain'd a Pope. A httle Monk thou wert by Nature made, Wert fashion'd for the Jesuits Gossip-Trade ! * Lady Van 1 (Theobald's note). APPENDIX C 297 A lean Church-Pandar, to procure, or lie ! A Pimp at Altars, or in Courts a spy ! The Verse that Blockheads dawb, shall swift decay And Jervas's Fame in Fustian fade away : Forgot the self -applauding Strain shall be Tho' own'd by Walsh, or palm'd on Wycherley : While Time, nor Fate, this faithfuU Sketch erase. Which shews thy Mind, as Reisbank's Bust thy Face, *Yet Thou proceed; impeach with steadfast Hate Whate'er is godhke, & whate'er is Great : Debase in low Burlesque, the Song Divine, And level David's deathless Muse to thine. Be Bawdry, still, thy ribald Canto's Theme ; Traduce for Satire, & for Wit blaspheme. Each chast Idea of thy Mind review : Make **Cupid's squirt, & gaping Tritons spew ; *** All Sternhold's Spirit in thy Verse restore, And be what Bass & Heywood were before. Upon the Whole, sure, Horace was in the right when he said — facit Indignatio Versum. And if P be as sensible on these Rebukes as 'tis said he is, I wish (& don't let the Word undergo the Torture of an irony) his intermitting Headach do not turn to a setted Agony. I am. My dearest Friend, v. most affectionate & obliged humble Serv'. Lew. Theobald. Wyan's Court SJan'y. 1731. [1732] * Pope's Epist. p. 14 (Theobald's note). *♦ lUd. p. 10 and 12 (Theobald's note). •** IMd. p. 14 (Theobald's note). 298 APPENDIX C DearS'. I reced y® pleasure of yours of y® IS*** Instant, & had an- swer'd it at last Post, but for the alarm of a suddain Fire, where I had some Acquaintance in the Neighbourhood. Yovu-s of y^ 14*'' of Jan'^y, in answer to mine of y* S*** of that Month, arriv'd safe : since w*. I have intermitted writing, because I would not trouble you w*''. impertinent Postage. My Interval has, indeed, been fill'd up, but not with the Affair of my new Tragedy. Matters have turn'd up so ill with M''. Rich's Theatre this Season, that I have chosen rather to weather the point without bringing it on, than to make a Sacrifice of it to his ill Fortune. I'll tell you how much more pleasingly I have been engag'd. During those Hours w"'' I could borrow from y® Transcript of our Notes on Shakespeare, my good Friend my Lord Orrery has done me the Honour to put all his Father's papers under my Regulation. The late Earl, you know, was Ambassador at Brussells during the 4 last years of Q°. Anne's Reign : in w*. space he reced a Nmnber of Letters from Bolingbroke, Ormonde, Marlborough, Strafford, Argyll, Shrewsbury and Bp. of London, all w"*" I am transcribing in Books for my Lord. I have great pleasure in L"^. Boliijgbroke's particu- larly, because, (besides their being extreamly well wrote) he never sends One from his Office as Secry of State, but he seconds it with a private One of Friendship. So y*. Poli- ticks are finely reliev'd w***. the Sentiments of a Sprightly Genius upon more desirable Topicks. I have met D'. Stukeley more than once : & will beg the Favour of him to transmit a few of my Proposals to you. Pope, as you'll find, has lent me an accidental lift by his Poem on Taste : for the Duke of Chandos, whom I never knew or approach'd, has subscrib'd for 4 Setts of my Shakespeare on Royal Paper. I am oblig'd to the PartiaUty of yo"". Cambridge APPENDIX C 299 Friend, who would father a Pamphlet on me y* is spoken well of. I suppose he means the friendly letter from Oxford, w° . has given me much Entertainment ; " but I do assure you faithfully I have not dipt a Pen either to praise, or dis- pute, the Criticisms on our new Milton. There are, as you judiciously hint, many Reasons why I should not at this Crisis intermeddle in such a Controversy ; & indeed I should have made you my confidant in it. You want my opinion you say on D"'. Bentley's perform- ance ; & I'll give it you freely, but under the Seal of Friend- ship : I had a very great veneration for him as a Classical Critick; & was very much afraid of his descending to the Levell of Women & Children ; that is, of his putting himself in the Power of Coquets & Toupets to discant on. He has not infrequently, you know, run riot on the dead Languages ; but here, to use the Cibberian phrase, he has outdone his usual Outdoings. He had never certainly attain'd the serious Reputation of a Critick, si sic Omnia dixisset. I hope he does not write maliciously to turn the Art into Ridi- cule ; but as Rose says of Sir Martin Mar-all Indeed, he has a rare way of acting a Fool, & does it so naturally, it can be scarce distinguish' d. Sed exexw. You say, dear Sir, it is a Book you are not likely to see in haste. I don't know whether you speak this as to your want of Desire, or Want of Opportunity. If you have a Curiosity of dipping into his temerarious Notes & can appoint me the Method of Conveyance, you may be sure you shall command the Perusal of my Copy, together w"*. D'. Pearse's Criticism on Bentley's 4 first Books, & the Friendly Letter from Oxford above mention'd. At present our Friend Concanen has them, but he's a Man of Dispatch. " A Friendly Letter to Dr. Bentley. Occasion'd by his New Edition of Paradise Lost. By a Gentleman of Christ-Church College Oxon. London, 1732. [Seid to be by Z. Pearce.] 300 APPENDIX C As many violent Wrestings of the Text as the D'. has ventur'd at, he has omitted one easy hteral Emendation, in the 1°* Book, w"**. I cannot but think he ought to have made. V's: 756. At Pandaemonium, the high CAPITAL Of Satan & his Peers. — Thus indeed all the Editions : but it seems to me y' it ought to be read, — the high CAPITOL &c. The argument to this Book calls it expressly the Palace of Satan, & v's. 710, 713, 722, 762, 792, all confine it to a single Pile. There is beside a singular propriety, methinks, in y" Term here as the Infernals were to meet on the great debate of Peace or War : w"**., you know, was always the Motive of the Romans convening at y" capitol. Again, celsa capitolia, you must remember is the frequent phrase of the Classics. And Hogaeus I am apt to think, who has given us a Latin Para- phrase of this Poem, understood our Author as I do : for I find he has translated the passage — Inferni Capitolia. I must however take notice y* Book X. v. 424. Pandaemonium is called city & proud Seat of Lucifer. But there, I think, our Poet does not speak so precisely, but with a Latitude of Expression : as in the jocular Song the Cobler's Stall is said to be his Kitchen & Parlour & all. But forgive the low Al- lusion. I'll venture to submit 2 Passages more to you, because I know I shall be safe from Ridicule, tho' I should not have your Concurr '^ ... in Opinion. B. 1. 282. — fall'n such a pernicious Height . . . & B. vi. 520. — Part incentive Reed. Provide, pernicious wi . . . Touch to fire. — The Docf. will have this Epithet in both places to be stark Nonsense ; & therefore substitutes different Readings of his own. I say, the Word is one of Milton's PecuUarities ; an Adoption of i» MS. is torn. APPENDIX C 301 his own Coinage ; that, it has not its derivation from Pernides but Pernicitas ; & that He employs it in those very Accepta- tions, the best Roman Writers have used their Pernix. If I am mistaken, I shall be glad of your better Information. You'll excuse my entering on a Subject, from w""". I could furnish many Dissertations, would they in Value compensate for the Trouble they must give you. I am. Dearest S''. Your most affectionate & obliged Wyan's Court. Friend & humble Servant 21 Mar. 1731. [1732] L: Theobald. Dear Sir, You may reasonably think me very slack in acknowledging the Receipt of your two last of y= 27*'' of Mar. & 5 May : but indeed I have been so Uttle at my own Command & so closely attach'd to the Service of my good Friend my Lord Orrery, that it has greatly broke in upon my private Correspondances. Your former put me in a pleasant Ex- pectation, that a convenient Opportunity should ftu-nish me w***- a Specimen of y® Emendations on Paterculus : & my hopes of them are not cool'd by this silent Intervention. When you have presented the PubUck w*** That & Arnobius, We shall be taught not to value Editions on the Number of their MSS. You are so obliging to demand some blank Rec*°. & more of my Proposals; w°^. I want to know how shall be transmitted to you : & now I come towards the Con- clusion of my Task, I find I want my Letters on y® latter Plays to compleat my Notes, & compare w**" your answers ; w"*". you'll very much oblige me in sending up per Carrier, & then I may by the same conveyance send you down the Rec**. & Proposals. Now my Lord Orrery has taken his 302 APPENDIX C ReceSiS, I dare promise to become a better Correspondant ; & for the present I'll send you in MSS. a little Poem, y' I dare say, has not in print travell'd so far as your Parts. I am, my dear Friend, Yo"'. most affectionate & obHg'd Wyan's Court humble serv*. 20 June, 1732. Lew. Theobald An Epistle, humbly address'd to the R*. Honble John, Earl of Orrery. Agnosco Procerem. Juvenal. If Grief, or dear Respect, have made me slow To wound your Bosom with Returns of Woe, While I presume a Patron lost to moiu-n. And pay due Tribute o'er your Father's Urn ; If, conscious of my weak & falt'ring Pow'r, I wish'd & waited, that the rolling Hour Some Genius, fitter to the Task, might raise At once to weep his Death, & sing his Praise ; Forgive the Motives, Sir, that swayed my Breast, And choak'd a Passion, labouring tho' represt. Forgive me too, if, when I backward trace And view with Mem'ry's Eye his ev'ry Grace, I dare confess those Transports they inspir'd ; I lov'd with equal Pace a^I admir'd : Lov'd yet revered — As Men on Beauty gaze, But find Desire chastis'd by Virtue's Blaze ; Such Awe dwelt round him, it awak'd a Fear ; Familiar Boldness durst not press too near ; Love & Respect their stated Limits knew. Respect decreas'd not as Affection grew. APPENDIX C 303 In Port majestick, & in Aspect clear Candid, tho' grave ; reserv'd, but not severe. For Condescention softening decent State, Proclaim'd the Friendly, & preserv'd the Great. With what a charm did He his Thoughts dispense How temper the resistless Force of Sense ! Hold Wonder chain'd with fresh Delight to hear. And to attention tune the ravish'd Ear. Strong Eloquence, convey'd with winning Art, Surpriz'd, yet took Possession of the Heart. We doubted which we felt in most Excess, His Strength of Reasoning, or his mild Address. That Pleasure is no more : Penurious Fate Lends few great Blessings, & contracts their Date. Heav'n's choisest Gifts to swift Discomfort turn, We scarce can tast' em, e'er we're doom'd to mourn. Your Loss, my Lord, the common Lot transcends : All bury Fathers, but all lose not Friends. Such S5Tnpathy of Soul with Him you shar'd. Your Thoughts were kindred, as your Actions pair'd Congenial Virtues in two Bosoms shewn, Which Neither copied, each might call his Own. Thence Comfort dawns : that tho' of Him depriv'd I see the Patron in the Son reviv'd. Permit me, Sir, to turn my Eyes on You And hope new Pleasures rising to my View, Be, what your Father was ; & sweetly blend A double Grace, the Patron and the Friend ! But that's a private Wish : you must be more. And shine in all the Parts of Fame he bore : The Abstract of your Race ! in Whom we find The Statesman, Soldier, & the Scholar join'd ; Nor thought they so adorn'd our humble Bays, Wreath'd with their Laurells, stain'd the Warrior's Praise. 304 APPENDIX C for a Homer's Fire, or Virgil's Art, To breathe the Wishes of my ardent Heart ! An Heart that glows with such unfeign'd Desires, As Zeal oft prompts, but Flatt'ry ne'er inspires ! When that ignoble motive taints her Strain Punish the Muse, my Lord, with just Disdain. Fir'd with your noble Ancestor's Renown Born to outshine their Annals with your Own : Rich in their Honours, & enlarg'd of Soul, Come forth & emulate the mighty Roll. Come forth the pubhck Hope & publick Care ; And answ'ring ev'ry Wish, & ev'ry Prayer. Firm to the Rules w*. Conscious Virtue lends ; Firm to your Country's Rights, & Honour's Friends : Scorning to bow you to a Court's Controul, With venal Voice against the Bent of Soul. Thus had I wish'd with Fondness void of Art, And deck'd you up a Boyle in ev'ry Part ; As if perhaps ambitiously, I meant To share those Glories I in Fancy lent ; But wishes come too late, & lost their Aim, For you prevent them & usurp your Fame. While tir'd Imagination laggs behind, Lab'ring to trace the Beauties of y'' Mind. Virtue unenvied, but divine Estate ! The rare, the best companion of the Great ! The Treasure of the Wise, that still expands And swells beneath the glorious Spendthrift's hands ! That when unwast'd still becomes the less. When blessing Others, does its Owner bless. This Wealth, my Lord, you hold in ample Store ; An ever-spreading undiminish'd Ore ! A shining Mass so properly your Own, Inherited, it seems deriv'd from None. APPENDIX C 305 If on your private Stock you e'er refin'd ; Twas when to Boyle an Hamilton you join'd But if in That some Avarice you shew'd You grew a Miser for the publick Good. Long may She live, & still, as now, impart Joy to yoiir Eyes, & Comfort to your Heart ! In such rare Union bounteous Heav'n is proud To mark its Fav'rites from th' unworthy Crowd. StUl may that bounteous Heaven propitious shed Its choicest Influence on your Nuptial Bed ! And as the circling Years their Course maintain, May each be fruitfuU, till a blended Train Of beauteous Offspring your just Smiles divide ; The Mother's Rapture, & the Father's Pride ! Nor Thou, Boyle, disdain (when Time shall spare And yield you vacant from the Patriots Care :) In soft Paternal Pleasures to unbend : The tender Father & instructive Friend : While, pleas'd the blooming Heroes round you shine, Patricians all in Virtue, as in Line. Dear F[riend3 I reced the pleasure of yours of y" 25*'^ of last instant & likewise the small packet of my remaining Letters by the Waggon, & will take care by That, w"''. sets out on Thursday next from Wood Street, to send you D"'. Bentley's Milton, some of my Proposals, 6 blank Rec*^. & one fill'd up for the Earl of Tyrconnel. I beg you will make my Duty & Thanks acceptable to His Lords'". If He is pleas'd to in- sist that I may not have y*' Honour of his Name in my printed List, I must, though with Reluctance, give way to his Com- mand: but, pray, recommend to his Lordship, that Shake- 306 APPENDIX C speare I apprehend to be of no Party : & that I shall have the Names of many Persons of Quality very intimately attach'd to M^ Pope, & Advocates for all his Merit. I was inform'd by one of D^ Bentley's Friends, that he was hard & fast upon Homer. I am in great Expectations of something copious & elaborate upon the ^olick Digamma, because the D"^- held forth upon it pretty warmly, when I waited upon him at Cambridge." I beg leave to assure you that I have vehement Longings after Paterculus & Arnobius in his turn. I thank you for your observation of the Greek Usage of the word khvSs, 'tis certain they do employ it in the sense of absurdus; but does it ever w**"- them signify nugax, for in that Acceptation, you know, our Shakespeare puts Modern upon Us, in some passages. I am greatly indebted for your kind sentiments of my Uttle Poem. My Lord, indeed, as my Patron, made the Whole set of them Golden Verses to me ; but he in his Generosity, & you in your partial Tenderness, I am sensible are both over indulgent to Dear S^ yo"^ most affectionate Friend Wyan's Court. & obliged humble servant 4 July 1732. Lew. Theobald Dear Friend I had designed you a Jetter by this post upon another Subject, but having just received yours of the 26 Inst. I will postpone the intended Theme, & hasten to execute your " Bentley was the first to show that the digamma existed at the time when the Homeric poems were composed. It is unfortunate that Theobald has not given us a more detailed account of his visit to the man from whom he learned his art. APPENDIX C 307 Commands in the desired Transcript from Stobaeus. En passant, I doubt not but you well know the following Pre- faces & Laws are likewise preserved in Diod : Siculus. U. XII cap 3 & that there are 2 elaborate Chapters by Bentley (in his Controversy with Boyle) to prove both Zaleucus & Charondas spurious. ... I have, you'll observe. Dear Sir, not knowing what use you were to make of it, been rather redundant in my Transcript, than you should want any part of it. You'll please to let me know, if the Version of Gesner be of any Service to you, or any Transcript from Diodorus Siculus, or anything else, & without the least Scruple command the Pen of. Dearest Sir y' most affectionate & obhged Friend & Servant Lew: Theobald Wyans Court 29 July 1732. I presume anon I shall enjoy the airoadiaaixaTa of your Paterculus. Pray don't let L'^ Tyrconnel slip through our Fingers as he has once given his Promise. My Dear Friend My very trifling Concerns in Kent have obhged me to be for some time a Wanderer, or I had much sooner confess' d the Favour of your last. The Iambics of Critias you shall command when Occasion, translated in j" best Manner that I can give them you. My Sextus Empiricus is of Sylburgius, but I'll take Care to have the particular Verses collated with Fabricius ' Edition. I came home with Pleasure designing to have tun'd a congratulatory Muse, against E. of Orrery's Return from Ireland; but to my great Concern that Theme is disappointed, for poor dear Lady 308 APPENDIX C Orrery is dead. If I groan inwardly for this Loss ; you will be pleased, I am sure, to hear, that Shakespeare is now groaning under two Presses. As you encouraged me now & then to throw in an occasional Philological Note in this Work: I'll submit one to you in which I have attempted Hesychius. I beg, you know, freely your Censure & would by no Means be thought, in a pedantic Ostentation desirous to trouble any Readers with Criticism that may turn to my own Disreputation. I therefore the more earnestly entreat y' impartial Decision. I'll give you the Whole Note & valeat quantum valere potest. Merr. Wives. Ac. I. Sc. 3. I combat challenge of this Latin Bilboe.] Our Modern Editors have distinguished this Word {Latin) in Italic Characters, as if it was address'd to S'' Hugh & meant to call him pedantic Blade, on account of his being a Schoolmaster & teaching Latine. But I'll be bold to say, in this they do not take the Poet's Conceit. Pistol barely calls S'' Hugh mountain-Foreigner on accoimt of his interposing in the Dispute : but then immediately demands the Combat of Slender for having charg'd him with picking his Pocket. The old 4'°^ write it Latten as it should be in the common Characters : & as a Proof that the Author designed this should be addressed to Slender, S'' Hugh does not there interpose one Word in the Quarrel. But what then signifies Latten Bilboe? Why, Pistol seeing Slender such a slim puny Wight would intimate that he is as thin as a Plate of that compound Metal w"*" is called Latten ; & which was as we are told the old Orichalc. Mons Dacier upon the verse of Horace De Arte Poetica — Tibia non ut nunc Orichalco vincta etc — says, est une espdce de cuivre de Montagne, come son nom meme le temoigne; c'est ce que nous appellons aujourd'huy du Leton. It is a sort of mountain copper as its very name imports & w"** we at this day call latten. Scaliger upon Festus had said the same APPENDIX C 309 thing. The MetalUsts tell us it is Copper mingled with Lapis Calammaris. ..." I am dearest Sir Wyan's Court Y' most affectionate & 19 Sept 1732. humble Servant Lew. Theobald. My dear Friend, You are very good in making those allowances you mention for my long Silence; & indeed, (besides that I have been unwilling to trouble you with meer Postage;) true Friend- ship, like yours, could not but make me those allowances, could you know the Succession of all those Fatigues. I confess freely to you, & without affectation, what with my own private affairs & negociations for others, what with the necessary Attendances I am obliged to give at Levees & y* constant Attachment to w*. I am pinned down in the Cor- rection of Shakespeare, my poor weak Head, as the Captain says in Macbeth, is like a Cannon overcharged. However I had broke the chain of Business sooner to confess the Favour of yoiu-s w***. the little Bill at Top (w°^. was properly honour'd) but y' I have been so excessively ill as not to be able to hold my Head down to Paper. Our great Town has of late been almost universally oppress'd with an ugly complicated Cold, w*. has attacked me w**". all its trouble- som Severities : but I thank God, I have pretty well master'd the Difficulty. My Author goes on apace ; & I hope in six Weeks the Presses will get through the sev'n Volumes. You say, you are desirous to have a sett of the small Paper: 1' The rest of the letter is occupied with an emendation of Hesychius, which can be found in Theobald's edition of Shakespeare, vol. 1, p. 228. 310 APPENDIX C but don't imagine, My dear Friend, you shall not be as well intitled to it, as the Sett of Royal. To urge the Paying for it, would be as bad as to insist on paying for your Wine at a Friend's Table. If you have Luck with any one Receipt I beg you will be so good to repay Yourself thereout ; or I will find some Opportunity to ballance y" Acco**. I should be glad to know. Dear Sir, if Lord Tyrconnel has conceded to stand in the List : or whether I must be content with his Money tacito nomine. I promise myseK now shortly to sit down upon y° fine Synopsis, w"''. you so modestly call the Skeleton of Preface ; after w*. I shall be at Leisure to give you a cool Dissertation on the great pleasure I feel in y"'. Commendatory on VeUerius Paterculus. I drank your Health heartily w*''. our Friend M"". Attorney-General i' before he went for Jamaica, & am in great Impatience to hear of his safe Arrival. I hope I shall succeed him in gr -^m Yonge's good Offices, when Time serves ; S"^. Robert Walpole has been so good to turn me over to him as a Re- membrancer & Intercessor for me to his Favour. But these Prospects yet dtuv ev yovaai. Kurai. But to pass from these Affairs to a httle better Entertainment : a passage, "w"''. was canvass'd betwixt Us, & w"''. I think I found out the Joak of but the other day while the Press waited. That I may have Room to give it you, I will at once confess Myself Dearest Sir Your most affectionate Wyan's Court obliged Friend & Serv'. 10 Jan'y. 1732. [1733] , Lew : Theobald. Love's Lab' : lost. p. 294. You will be scrap'd out of the painted cloth for this : your Lion that holds the Poll-ax sitting on a Close Stool will be given to Ajax : he will be then the Ninth Worthy. '" Concanen. APPENDIX C 311 I had discover'd, you may remember, y* Alexander's Arms as one of the Worthies were here alluded to : but upon Alex- ander's being foil'd how the Jeast turn'd upon giving his Arms to Ajax, I was perfectly at a Loss to guess : & it was your Opinion that no Joak was intended any further than the plain obvious Sense. But observe the word Closestool, & then let us turn our Eyes on the Speaker. Costard, the Clown, seems to have a Conceit very much of a Piece with his Character. If so the Name of Ajax is equivocally used by him, & he must mean : The Insignia of such a Conqueror, as the Curate's stupid Representation exhibited, ought to be given to A-j ax: i.e. A Jakes : Sit Verbo Reverentia ! The same sort of Conundrum is used by B. Jonson, I know, at the Close of his Poem, call'd The Famous Voyage : And I could wish for their Eterniz'd Sakes My Muse had plow'd with his that sung A-jax. I [was] to venture the Conjecture, before my Health would permit me to communicate it; but I hope,^" . . . not over-strain'd. My dear Friend, I should have a thousand Apologies to make, might I not persuade myself, you do not stand on Punctihos w"". me for not answering so precisely in time, for the Reasons pleaded on my Side in my Last : And to those I have for some Time past had the additional Fatigue of bringing my Tragedy on, w"*". is to make its Appearance immediately after Easter Hohdays. I am to make my Acknowledg- ments, Dear S''., for the little Bill by w""". I am honour'd w*"" your 3 Subscribers. For One of them you'll please to 2» MS. is torn. 312 APPENDIX C join, to your own Thanks, mine to good M"'. Taylor. I drank your Health lately w"*. D'. Stukely, who puts me in Hopes of your coming to London with him about August next. No News yet of our dear Friend Concanen; whose safe Arrival at Jamaica I am impatient to hear of. As to Shakespeare, I thank God, I am now venturing to adver- tise, that it will be ready to be dehver'd to the Subscribers by the latter end of next Month. You will find, I have had the good Luck to enrich my List w**" her Royal Highness, the Princess Royal, & many Names of the high- est Distinction. I had a Design as I beheve I told you, of prefixing a Dedication to every Volume; but my Lord Orrery has been beforehand w*''. me, & bespoke a part of its Patronage ; & I think I can do no less than compUment him w*''. the Whole, turn my Address into an Epistle Dedi- catory, (more Drydenians) & therein couch all I have to say of my Author & the Edition. I must tell you, while 'tis in my Memory, of a Mistake or two we had hke to have run into, w""*. Time & Casual Conversation have prevented. 3 Henry vi But while he thought to steal the single Ten, p. 27L The King was sUly finger'd from the Deck. You thought there wanted a Consonance of the Metaphors here, & advis'd. Pack. But Deck, it seems is a county Dialect : & thus in Lancashire, & generally in the Northern Parts, it is confirm 'd to me that they call the Pack & Stock of Cards. So no alteration is requisite. • Again Othello. The Food, that to him now is as luscious as p. 345. Locusts, shall shortly be as bitter as Coloquintida. You advis'd Lohock, as a proper contrast to Coloquintida. But being, dear Sir, in company w***. D'. Beauford, he casually gave me the Fruit of the Locust-tree to taste of, w*. is most egregiously luscious & the very Tree APPENDIX C 313 we have growing at Russell-house in our own Street. So that as Coloquintida is the Fruit of a wild Gourd of bitter Taste, the Fruit of the Locust w"*". is sweet comes more pecu- liarly in contrast. Will you forgive me if I should intimate an ignorant suspicion? Perhaps, the Locusts w"*". (with Wild Honey) were S*- John's Diet in the Wilderness, might be the Fruit of this Tree. For tho, I know, in Arabia & many other Oriental Parts they eat the Animal caU'd the Locust, yet they eat it as a compounded Substance : They dried it thoroughly, pounded it into a Bran, & then work'd it up in their Bread : w°^. could not be our holy Hermit's Case. Sed eirex'J- The next Observation, Dear Sir, gives me Occasion of applauding your great Sagacity in a minute point, tho' it happens there is no Occasion for making Use of it. Macbeth 2 Murth. He needs not to mistrust. p. 226. You very ingeniously prescribe — We need not to mistrust. But Pope's Ignorance had sophisticated the Text. The old Copies have it — He needs not Our Mistrust, i.e. the Mistrust of Us. w"^. answers the purpose of your Correction. — Nam- ing that little Gentleman gives me an Opportunity of telUng you he is most handsomely depicted in a severe Poem by Lady Mary W. Mountague,^^ occasion'd by his late Imitation of Horace in a Dialogue betwixt him and his Learned Counsel. But now, to release you. I am Dearest S'. Yo' ever affectionate, as obliged humble Serv'- Lew : Theobald. Wyan's Court. 10 Mar. 1732. [1733] '' Verses addressed to an Imitator of Horace, 1733. 314 APPENDIX C Dear Sir I have the pleasure of yours of y* 23'' Instant & am to account for my late long Silence from two Causes : a Desire not to be superfluous, in troubling you with an idle Letter ; & a stronger Desire w"**. I had of waiting till I could inform you of the Close of Shakespeare. But such has been the State of printing with Us this last Season, y' with all the Industry & Sollicitation imaginable on my part, I have not yet been able to bring it to the wish'd Period. However the Comfort is, Hamlet & Othello are All y'- want to be compleated. The Source of this slow Proceeding, Dear Sir, has been this. The great Number of our weekly Sub- scriptions, set on Foot by Journeymen Printers has caus'd such a general Desertion of them from the establish'd Presses, & render'd them so very peremptory & insolent, that it has been half the Work of the Printers to hawk out for Men; so y' tho' I reced 8 Sheets per Week from each Press at my setting out, that Number has been too often reduc'd to Two. This is a Fact so well known with Us in Town, y * as I advertis'd y* compleat Volumes might be seen at my House, to the Intent the Diffident might have y* Opportunity of convincing themselves, I hope my Subscribers wiU do me the Justice to make this Distinction that I am the Editor, & not the Printer : so, at least they will allow for a Delay w"**. cannot be thrown at my Door; & so, not be too busie with my Reputation. I cannot omitt the present Opportimity of acquainting you with the Motto I have purpos'd. My Friends seem to reckon it a lucky One ; but I shall suspend my own Opinion, till it has your Concurrence. It is This Line from our Master Virgil. I, Decus, i, nostrum; melioribus utere Fatis. It will be no bad Compliment, I presume, to call Shakespeare the Glory of our English Poets ; nor no extravant Self-praise, APPENDIX C 315 I hope, to suppose, I am giving the best Edition of him the Publick has yet had. The Respects of my little Family wait you ; & believe me to be most sincerely Dearest Sir, Your tniely obUged Friend & faithfuU humble Servant Lew : Theobald. Wyans Court 30 June 1733 My dear Friend, I have reced the Pleasure of yo" of y^ 21^' Instant, & am proud to hear my good Lord Orrery has so fair & just a Report from his Fellow-CoUegiate ; & no less pleas'd, y* you are so well satisfied with my Motto. As to the Essays on Man, I don't know what to tell you with certainty. Many of his Intimates have taken Pains to deny Pope's Title to them ; tho' I heard but yesterday, that y^ 3 parts are reprint- ing & together w*^ one more additional part, & some new Poems, are to be swell'd to 2 Volumes & make their Appear- ance in his Name next Season. This Opportunity just offers (before y® Revise comes to me) to consult you upon a Passage in Hamlet, w"**. never was canvass'd betwixt us. p. 310. Being thus benetted round with Villains, E're I could make a Prologue to my Brains, They had begun the Play. I had made a Query in my Margin, but solv'd this odd Ex- pression to Myself thus, "ere I could in my Brain, or Thoughts, frame a Prologue &c." Blat then what was this 316 APPENDIX C Prologue to be fram'd to? M'. Chisselden the Surgeon,'* (whom, however, I have no Liberty to name), tells me it should be, E're I could make a Prologue to my Banes, i.e. my Misfortunes, the Dilemma's I was under — they had an actual Commission for his Death, before he had devis'd any Expedient how to avoid the Danger. — I shall be impatient of your Opinion upon it. I have taken y* Liberty to dissent from a Correction of Yours in Antony ; but I hope, w**". such Reason as you'll be willing to accede to. p. 35. I'll raise the preparation of a War, ShaU STAIN your Brother. You very justly observe, that it was a very odd way of satis- fying his Wife, to tell her he should raise a Preparation for War, y*. should stain, i.e. cast an Odium, on her Brother. You therefore advise. Shall STAYE your Brother, i.e. keep him back from invading Me. I read Shall STRAIN your brother, i.e. put him to all his Shifts, lay him under such Constraints, that he shall not be able to injure me. For Plutarch, expressly says, Octavius was so stagger'd at Antony's preparations, y*. he was afraid of being reduced to fight him y* Season ; & the Taxes & Exactions demanded were so severe & grievous, — (Every Man being sess'd in a Fourth of his Goods & Revenues; & the very Libertines oblig'd forthwith to raise an Eighth of their Substance) y'. all Italy murmur'd, & grudg'd their ^ William Cheselden (1688-1752), one of the greatest of British surgeons, because of some remarkable operations became known to many eminent persons. He was intimately acquainted with Pope and is mentioned in "Imitations of Horace." This accounts for the fact that he did not allow his name to be mentioned, and later refused to assist Theobald in any way. APPENDIX C 317 Contributions : & Octavius himself was full of many Wants, & at a loss how to supply them. I am my dear Friend Your most affectionate Wyan's Court & faithful! humble Serv*- 28 July. 1733. Lew. Theobald Have I leave for printing L** Tyrconnel's Name ? — And Do you & D''. Stukely hold y*' Intentions of visiting London this next August? My Dear Friend I have received the Pleasure of yours of the 9*'' Instant (as well as the two preceding Ones occasionally mentioned) & will take the best & speediest Care in obeying your Com- mands with regard to the two Books you write about. Your demanding back yoiu' Papers on Paterculus has refreshed my Pleasure in giving them a parting View: & I am sure you will readily permit me to object to a single Correction, or to have the Favour of being better inform'd by you. Li II Chap, cm — turn repulsit certa spes Uberorum parentibus, viris MATRIMONIORUM, dominis patrimonii etc. You would substitute MATRONARUM. I confess, as yet I think the Text genuine, & have always understood it thus, that Parents might now hope to enjoy their Children, in Safety, Husbands to keep their Wives to themselves, & Men to possess their own Estates. Matrimonium, pro uxore, I think is very frequently us'd by the Classics. Luc. Flor. 1. I. C.I. itaque Matrimonia a finitimis petita ; quia non impetrabantur, manu capta sunt. Justin. L. 3. C. 3 Virgines sine dote nubere jussit ; ut uxores legerentur, non pecuniae : Severiusque matrimonia, sua 318 APPENDIX C viri coercerent, cum nullis dotis froenis tenerentur. Idem li. 3. c. 5. Qui tribus proeliis fusos eo usque desperationis Spartanos adduxit, ut ad supplementum exercitus servos suos manumitterent, bisque interfectorum matrimonia pol- Ucerentur, Idem li 18. c. 5. Harvun igitur ex nimiero eo admodum Virgines raptas Navibus imponi Elissa jubet ut et juventus matrimonia, et urbs sobolem habere posset. And we find both conjugium & connubium used in the self same acceptation. Justin U 43. c. 3. Tunc et vicinis con- nubia pastorum dedignantibus, virgines Sabinae rapiuntur. Ausonius, in Epicedio. Conjugium per lustra novem, sine crimine, concors unum habui : gnatos quatuor edidimus. Virgil AE. II. 519 Conjugiumque, domumque, patres, natosque videbit. Idem. AEn. III. 295. Priamidem Helenum Graias regnare per urbes, conjugio Alacidae Pyrrhi sceptrisque potitum. In like manner, you know, Servitia is used for servi, Scelus for Scelestus, Ergastula for servi, (sic) Mihtia for MiUtes, senatus for Senatores, juventus for juvenes, conjuratio for conjurati, cUentela for clientes etc etc etc. And now as to Shakes- peare, Dear Sir, w** you so kindly enquire after. I thank God, the 7 Volumes are quite printed off, & nothing re- maining to do but the dedication. Preface & list. As I am obliged to defend Uteral criticism a httle, a casual turning over of Sir George Wheler's journey through Greece, Con- stantinople etc. gives me a fair occasion of animadverting upon that Gentleman's Negligence or want of Talent in this point.'" . . . But I «aust have fully tired you by this time, & ought at once to release you by confessing myself, Dear Sir your truely affectionate & humble Servant Lew. Theobald Wyan's Court, 17 Octo^ 1733 '' I have omitted the emendations on the inscriptions copied by Wheler, which may be foimd in the preface to Theobald's edition of Shakespeare. APPENDIX C 319 My Dear Friend I have just now reced the pleasure of yours & am tempted to reply to it at a heat. It gives me great Satisfaction, y* you approve my Attempts upon the Greek Inscriptions. Your Conjectures upon the votive Table give me fresh room for Criticisms, as your objections, perhaps have in- spired me to the true Reading. You offer in the 2°** Verse, ZHNA XEIPA2 Trpdj TON ibviov eKireratras. But, I am afraid this makes two false quantities in our Pentameter. The 1^* may easily be cured by reading Zrjva x^pas ; but tov com- ing before a word beginning with a Vowel, & without an Aspirate, will be for ever short in Scansion. As I have struck out a quite different Conceit, I'll once more trouble you with the corrupted Reading Z^i'a koto ttpcdtON Qvlctiov eKTreracraj eTl Kvavias divas Spofwvs. The ON & ON seem a Reduplication of one & the same Syllable from the Care- lessness of the stone cutter, or S' George's transcript ; but then, how by the same inaccuracy should Siviov be depraved into uviffTiovl I beUeve I was too hcentious in the use of eKTeTa.(ras & therefore we'll now tie him down to his native Construction. I'll correct if you approve it. Zr/va Kara TrpcdrfiN; l(XTU>v fKireracras Kvaveais Si.vgcriv eirtSpo/iON. The alteration now is very minute & the sense will be thus : Invocet ahquis ventum secundum a puppi, Jovem vero a prima parte Navis (vel, in primis, praecipue) dum ex- pandat Velum accursorium super coeruleos Vortices etc. The Epidromos, you know, is the particular name of a sail at y° Prow of a vessel. Your other conjecture, kirl Kvaveovs Avvas bpbiwvs, I think can never stand at y" beginning of an Hexameter. Sir George Wheeler, in his explanation of this inscription, led me into j" notion of the Cyanean Islands. You very dexterously guess that ''EvkvQri might 320 APPENDIX C be y° name of a Female ; but then the nominative placed betwixt EcrSe t6v and top i.tl 6t6v, & then the accusatives i\ovvT' S.yaBiiv divided from their substantive by 'kvTi.ira.Tpov IT at J aTTJcre renders the position very harsh & the sense too obscured & inelegant for the other parts of this Uttle poem : nor tho' tvavBij may not be the epithet generally appro- priated to y° True God by the Greek Christians because appHed to Idols, am I satisfied, that a poetical devotee (& perhaps a new convert") might not indulge himself in using it. For the sake of my more ilUterate Readers, I have attempted to put the whole in an English Dress. A Servile version, I presume, will not be judged requisite. Invoke who will the Prosprous Gale behind, Jove at the prow, while to the guiding wind O'er the Blue BUlows He the sail expands. Where Neptune with each wave heaps hills of Sands: Then let him, when his backward course he plows, Pay to his Statued God unaiding vows. But to the God of Gods, for Death's o'erpast. For Safety rendered on the watry Waste, To native Shores returned, does Philo raise : This Monument of Thanks & grateful Praise. Some time next month. Dear Sir, Shakespeare will make his appearance : & then I shall need a Vulcanian Armour to defend against repeated attacks. But if I have not great cause to blush, I'll endeavour to make my mind easie, & keep my temper unruffled. Chisselden has lent me no manner of Assistance ; nor in this have I been disappointed, for I expected nothing from him. I am extremely pleased that I happen to be right in my remark on Matrimoniorum: if you insist upon it, I will with great pleasure resurvey all the other emendations & conjectures. But I am afraid, APPENDIX C 321 or should be that I pester you too much with these minute Semi-Criticales. But y"^ Fatigue is repaid to me in the satisfaction of hearing from you, than which nothing can afford greater pleasure to Dearest Sir y'' ever obUged as faithfuU Wyan's Court humble Ser* 25*'' October 1733. Lew. Theobald {To Mr. Tonsori] Sir. 24 As I have very few days left before I must close my Ust, I beg for these next six Days, Shakespeare may every day be advertis'd in Daily post, Daily Journal, & Daily Ad- vertiser, & in the Evening Posts. (These infrequent & scattering Advertisements Do me no manner of service). 1 have sent a Number of my printed advertisements here- with for this purpose. The Compliments of the Season attend you from Sir Your very humble Wyan's Court Servant 2 Jan'y. 1733. [1734] Lew : Theobald My Dear Friend, I defer'd replying to the Favour of yours of y^ 30 Jan'y till I could inform you y*. I had sent down yo' Books, w"''. set out w**". Newbal's Waggon on Monday last. You will re- ceive 2 Parcells ; in One, a Royal Paper Sett bound, for « British Museum, add. MSS. 28275, f. 310. 322 APPENDIX C Yourself, & 3 Setts on Demy ; & in the other, a Royal Set in sheets for D^ Taylor, & 3 more Setts on Demy. At the Top of this 2^ Parcell you will find the Papers you fa- vour'd me w*''. on Paterculus, because you say you want them. I had purpos'd now Shakespeare is off my Hands, to obey you in considering them very strictly ; & if it can be worth & y* you will take the Trouble to remitt a Copy of them by one, or two, in a letter, as Leisure & Paper will extend, I will w*''. the utmost Freedom, to my Power, give you my impartial Thoughts of each. A propos, to one in particular y' occurs to me Lib. IL cap. cxiii. lUe ad patrem patriae expectato revolavit maturius. You seem much better reconcil'd to this Phrase than many of the Editors. I confess it always stuck with me as a flat Read- ing, & too stale a piece of Flattery. I have suspected the Complement was intended another Way : & that y® Author would insinuate, Tiberius was as much a Darling adopted Son of Augustus. I would read therefore lUe ad Patrem, Patriamque, &c. His Country was as much transported in his unexpected Return, as his Father. Velleius has chose this Manner of Expression upon some other Occasions. L.2 c. 100. Juha relegata in Insulam, PATRIAEQUE et PARENTUM subducta OcuUs. — & again c. 120. Ar- minio territo, quern arguisse PATER et PATRIA contenti erant, &c. I don't know whether I am right : but I was willing to offer it to your better Consideration. The Rec* w°^ you return me for Aeschylus I will keep safely for you: since (by* God's Leave) I mean to print y' Work off this ensueing Summer. I thank you heartily for yo'' kind Promise of collecting in your Friends' 2'' Paym*. It will be of singular Service to me. You are very good in accounting for, or rather excusing, my Silence. I assure you faithfully, neither Indolence nor Neglect has been the APPENDIX C 323 Parent of it; but a Strict and Painful Attention to the closing of Shakespeare. I have been silent, indeed, too upon another Motive y* gave me some little Uneasiness. I intrusted M''. Prevost w**^ your letter of Directions ab*. getting the two French Books for You. He is turn'd out a Bankrupt, & had lost y^ Letter; but I have agen recover'd it & commission'd Paul Vaillant who I daresay will soon procure the Books for you. I am at present a sort of Shop- keeper, in deUver^ out all my Subscription Books at home ; but in a little Time I hope to have ample Leisure & Oppor- tunity for conversing with you, & confessing Myself, Dear Sir Your most affectionate & Wyan's Court faithfuU humble servant 12 Febry. 1733. [1734] Lew. Theobald. P.S. If the having back the Letters you wrote to me on Shakespeare is of any Particular Use to You, you'll give me Leave first to order a Transcript of them, for They are so much a Tally to mine, y' Mine are render'd useless with- out Them: & besides there is a rich vein of Oar yet \ra- drain'd. My dear Friend I have the pleasure of yours, & receiv'd by it infinite satisfaction to find, that Shakespeare in the Gross makes a tolerable figure in your Eye. What Character it will bear in general, is a point on which I will not venture to determine. The Cynicks have not yet open'd : when they begin to bark, we'll begin to look to the Strength of our Shelters. But if our Adversaries have a mind to draw out Faults in Parade, I am of Opinion with you that we 324 APPENDIX C need not decline to take the field. I wonder, you should think you have any obligations to acknowledge for the gratefull Confessions I have endeavoured to make. They are duties that do me as much soUd honour as they afford me sincere pleasure. I will not pretend, it was a debt poUtickly paid ; but I find, it has entail'd this rich Conse- quence, J/* it has given me a Right (through your generous Grant) to demand all your Capacities for my Service: An aid y* I preferr to all the Cabal of Pope's Friends, however nvunerous they may be, junctosque umbone phalanges. What you mention as to my having adopted passages in my preface, w"** you had shewn long ago to have been of your composure, gives me no cause of blushing. Let those preacquainted Friends frankly know, I embraced them in a just preference to what I could myself produce on the Subject. They came a free Gift to me; & as Menander finely observes, ra twv i\iav kolv' oh ixbvov to, xpiyMo^a, Kai vov Si Kal (ppovficeois KoivcovLa. Nor would I have chose tacitly to usurp the Reputation of them : but as I formerly hinted, & you join'd with me in sentiment, it would have looked too poor to have confess'd Assistances towards so shght a Fabrick as my Preface. As to D'' Bentley (what- ever the penetration of some readers may devine on this head) in Shaking off the Similitude betwixt our tasks, I hope that neither he, nor his Friends will see cause to sus- pect any Sneer. The Stating the Difference was absolutely necessary on my own side, & I think I have avoided saying anything derogatory on his. As to the Omissions I have so frequently made, in Both our Notes, to confess freely, I easily foresaw there would arise Occasion for Improve- ments on Shakespeare : & if I have given enough to awake the Expectation of the publick, 'tis neither a fraud, nor bad policy, to keep a good Fund in Reserve. You are very kind to attribute them to your loose unmethodical APPENDIX C 325 papers, as you are pleas'd to call them. To say a word to your intention of composing a full & compleat Critic on Shakespeare, I own, it would be a treasure to me to see it : but to speak for the World, & throw off those pre- possessions w"** I have for our Author, I am afraid, the generahty will regard him as too irrgular a Writer to deserve such a critic. I am very glad the Greek Criticisms strike you. The Major part of them, I believe, will stand their ground. But in one of them I have been most miserably mistaken. I mean miserably, as not knowing a Fact : as a SchoUar & Conjecturer at large, I think the Mistake will not affect me in Credit. It is the Votive Table, as I called it, w"'' led me into the Error; & for your Enter- tainment, I'll give you a separate Letter, in w"'' the Whole shall be set right & explain'd. I with great pleasure em- brace the Review of your efforts on Paterculus : & they cannot visit me too soon. I thank you for the Repetition of your Advice w*'' regard to the text of Aeschylus : &, I will consult the opinions of what Connoisseurs we have here, to determine the question for Me. By the way, Stanley's Text, tho' the best, is not so accurate as you imagine, & I have done much on the Chorus's by adjusting the Metre of the Strophes & Antistrophes to each other, in which that very learned Man was negUgent or thought it was too trivial a Reformation. I own, the Rythmus seems to me the most certain Basis of Correction. I had like to have forgot answering your question, as to Shakespeare's poems, whether they are so good as to engage your thorough Attention in Reading. I dare not promise & vow for them all in the Bulk. I could wish them more equal : but still, to invite you, there are pecuUar Douceurs in them ; there is Scope for Conjec- ture & Explanation : & Adonis & Tarquin to my taste are the sweetest Poems y' I have ever seen. And now. My Dear Friend, with all your fund of Alacrity about you, I 326 APPENDIX C embrace your Challenge. Write as often as you dare, & I will not be silent. The Spring invites to open the Cam- paign ; & let's be as true generals as if we were paid for it ; draw out our forces, tho' against Stone-Walls. Some of our Artillery may possibly fly : but some other will batter & make a breach. I am Dearest Sir Yo"" most affectionate & oblig'd Friend & humble Wyan's Court Serv' 5 March 1733 [1734]. Lew. Theobald P.S. I am in no pain for spare me, James — in spite of Philip Sparrow. My dear Friend I hope according to the old Style & Fashion, This will find you as well as I am present. The Reason y' I did not trouble you w*** acknowledging yo'' Hints on the Grubb, wrote on the Road, was, y* we had previously determin'd not to make any Reply; that I therefore imagined them struck out for Amusement & flatter'd myself I should have been saluted at yo' coming home, on the Contents of mine w"*". waited you there : tho', indeed, if I remember, it de- manded no answer. Sinae I had the Pleasure of your Company, I have been doubly engag'd : Partly, w**". Trans- scripts for my Lord Orrery; & partly w"*. making my In- terest for a Benefit-Play given me as Editor of Shakespeare, for the Entertainment of the Grand Master & Society of Free-Masons. By the Way as you are so good to rejoyce in all my good APPENDIX C 327 Fortunes, I must let you know that the Prince of Wales generously order'd me 20 Guineas for his Sett of Shakes- peare ; & y* my Lord Orrery made me y® Complim' of 100 Guineas for the Dedication. I hope, the Work is rising in Reputation : I have much said to me on that Side of y^ Question; & nothing in Detraction, since the idle Invec- tive you saw. I should not have made this Report, but to a Party concern'd ; & to obey a particular Injunction. And so much for y* Author at Present. I'll trouble you. Dear Sir, to look into a Passage for Me, out of Milton's Lycidas. I own I am entirely in the Dark as to the Circumstances hinted at, et Davus sum, non Oedipus. Ay me ! Whilst Thee the Shores & sounding Seas Wash far away, where-e're thy Bones are hurl'd. Whether beyond the stormy Hebrides, Where Thou perhaps under the whelming Tide Visit'st the Bottom of the monstrous World ; Or whether Thou, to our moist Vows deny'd, Sleep' st by the Fable of Bellerus old, Where the great Vision of the guarded Mount Looks Namancos | & Bayona's § hold : &c To sleep by a Fable — A Vision that looks — a guarded Mount — Namancos — (Die quibus in terris). These may be all right, but they are all Mysteries to me : nor do I know one Tittle of Bellerus Old. I know that Milton in all his allusions is ever full of what we may call Learning, or, at least, Reading : for, indeed, he as often trades in Romance as in Classical Materials ; and if I am not greatly mistaken the Fable of Bellerus & the Vision of the guarded Mount seem of the stamp of Amadis du Gaule, or some of y* Tribe of Rhapsodists. But I shall be happy in a better Informa- t Naymancos (Theob.) § Boyona's (Theob.) 328 APPENDIX C tion from you, because I much admire this sweet little Poem : & therefore will not take off yo'. AppHcation from a Com- ment on it by the intermingling any other Matter whatever, than that I am Dear Sir Y' truely affec. as oblig'd Wyan's Court. Friend & hmnble servant 9 May 1734. Lew : Theobald. My dear Friend, In yours of y* l?*** Instant you told me of some Visits you were going to pay, & therefore I forebore replying till I might imagine you return' d. I have had a dreadful! Interval of Anxiety; for my little Boy was seiz'd w**" the Small Pox, of the confluent Kind; & for 12 days we had scarce the least Hopes of his Life ; but by the Care of D'. Mead & the Kindness of Nature, I thank God, we now think he is out of aU Danger. I am oblig'd to you for your Informations concerning Bel- lerus, Naymancos, &c : tho' I have not been able yet to proffit from them. Boyona's Hold, I presume to mean some Fortress on the Boyne ; but as to Bellerus, Naymancos, & the guarded Mount, I have deriv'd no Light; tho' I have turn'd over page by Page, D"^. Keating's general History of Ireland in fol : iyi"^. is full throughout of fabulous Trash, but has no Mention of the Fable requir'd) ; S''. James Ware's De Hibernia et AntiquJRatibus ejus, Disquisitiones 8^° Lond : 1654 ; as also his Rerum Hibernicorum Annales, fol. Dublin. 1664. There is, I know, in Hartley's Cata- logus Universalis, mention'd a 2^ Edition of Ware's Antiq- uities in 1668, said to be a 4*''-part enlarg'd from the first. Whether the Fable of Bellerus &c be contain'd amongst those Additions, I don't know : nor can meet w"' y® Book. APPENDIX C 329 By the Notices you have given me, I suppose, it is either in yo"^: Custody or in yo''. Neighboiirhood. Whichever of the two is the case, I shall be extreamly glad of a Trans . . }^ of what Ls said concerning this obscure Fable. The omitted 50 Remarks & Explanations, y' you have transcrib'd, you may please to send me at yo''. best Leisure. For as, on the one Side, I would not press you in time ; so, on the other, I would have Time fully to weigh them. As to M"^. Jortin's Performance,^ or rather his Scheme, I love the Gentleman, & think it savour'd rather of a Desire, than Power of Critic; or if it had the latter Quality, it was conducted in too dry & jejune a Method to heighten Expectation, or, indeed, subsist. The Serpit humi tutus was too prevalent a Rule with him. He had been alarm' d at some of Markland's bold Emendations ; so y* to decline splitting on the same Rock, he grows over fearfull of launch- ing out ; & by being too dubious of Every thing he advances, teaches his Readers to pass over his Conjectures as of no Weight. No man cares to beUeve w*"". Distrust in common Points : however we may strain Opinion in a Matter of more Faith & Sanctity. Sed haec obiter et inter nos. I am Dearest Sir, ¥"■. most oblig'd & affection*'. Wyan's Court Friend & humble Serv*. 30 May. 1734. Lew: Theobald M MS. is torn. " Remarks an Spenser's Poems and on Milton's Paradise Lost, 1734. 330 APPENDIX C My Dear Friend Since the Favour of your last I have been making a short Tour into my own County, Kent ; & am now to acknowledge the Rec* of your Criticism on 13 disputable passages in Shakespeare & y'' list of omitted Emendations : for both w° I desire to return my thanks. In the postscript of yours of Jime y' 2°'* you say, you shall order a person to bring the Four guineas to my House & leave them there. I mention this only to let you know, no such person has been near us, so that perhaps, your orders are either mis- taken or neglected. Litterary News are at present quite dead. You say, you are desirous of seeing my reply to the Grubstreet. Our Controversy stands thus. He has at- tacked me twice; about the ofi/jia e^torpaiiiikvov & the Votive Table as I call'd it. I have entered my Defence to Both, in separate Letters. I will either procure you the 4 journals, if you so desire : or if that is not to be done, transcribe & send them to you. For the present I'll beg to trouble you with two Conjectural Emendations. One on Shakespeare, the other on Aeschylus in w"*" your opinion will decide. Dearest Sir y'' most obliged & affectionate Wyan's Court hmnble Servant 11 July 1734. L : Theobald In the 13*'' Stanza of the Venus & Adonis, the poet says, — The Goddess is equally enamour'd, whether the youth looks sullen or pleas'd ; wliether he blushes, or looks pale ; & then subjoins, "Being Red, she loves him best : & being white, "Her Breast is better' d with a more deUght." But how is her Breast better'd ? Sure, this is an odd phrase, if it means she is made still happier. Have the Editors APPENDIX C 331 blunder'd this out, from best occurring in the preceding line ? Or is it a poor jingle design'd, betwixt best & better'd? To me, the Sense seems to be "If she sees him blush, she loves him to the height ; & when she sees his fair cheek, her heart is still more captivated with his beauty." I suppose our Author, wrote : "Her Breast is fettered with a more delight." An "f " curtailed below the hne in the M.S.S., might easily be mistaken for a "b" : & there is no metaphor more classical you know, than the Chains or Fetters of Love. Turn Pater aeterno fatur devinctus amore. Virg. AEn. 8 in gremium qui seape tuum se Rejicit aeterno devinctus vohiere Amoris Luc. Lib. I.. hunc vincula Amicitiae Rumpere et in simmaa pietatem evertere fundo. Id. Lib. III. Ipse ego praeda recens factum modo volnus habebo Et nova captiva vincula mente feram (Ovid Amor :) anima, quales neque candidiores. Terra tulit, neque quels me sit devinctior alter Horat Sermo I. FoeUces ter & amplius Quos inrupta tenet copula; Id. Od li. I ; 13. Telephum, quern tu petis, occupavit Non tuae sortis, juvenem puella. Dives & lasciva, tenetque gratia Compede vinctum Id Od IV. 11. etc etc etc Instances from English poetry would be number- less. AEschyl. in Prometheo. 332 APPENBIX C v". 134. KTUTToO 8' 'Axel) xi^f/Sos Sirj^ev avrpcov «k 5' €tXtj?4 fwv rav etnipUTTLV alSCi, livBriv S' 'AEEAIAOS 8xai xrepwri? The sea-nymphs here come to Promethus. They tell him, "The Echo of an iron sound pierc'd to their grotto's, call'd the colour from their cheeks, & they have rushed BARE- FOOT in their winged chariot." The elder scholiast hints y' cLirkSiXos here is, as in Hesiod Tdroves a^oiaToi, ieklov. People come to the relief of a neighbour, without standing on being compleatly dressed. And the second schohast explains it, that they were too zealous to be able to sUp on their shoes. As I am venturing to give this passage a Turn, neither countenanc'd by the Text, nor the Conamen- tators, I ought previously to give my Reasons. The learned Stanley intimates very justly, that some think the water nymphs always are without Shoes or Sandals; & that therefore Thetis has the epithet of silver-footed given her by Homer. So Philostratus, in his 21^' Epistle, says y* Venus emerged from the sea barefoot. If the sea-nymphs then were always barefooted, to say, they came (nreSiKoi would be idle & trivial. And besides, if we consider Cir- cxmistances. Haste had no occasion to make these nymphs leave their Shoes behind them. Tho' their passage is quick, yet their setting out was not so precipitate. They stayed to ask [leave?] of their Father Ocean, & had much ado to obtaine his Consent Trarpuas . . . ^ irapuTovaa (ppevas. The Context, therefore, would seem to me natural thus. "The sound of the hammering pierc'd so fearfully to our Grotto's, that it called alj^the colour from my cheeks, & I hasten'd trembhng etc. And a very slight literal alter- ation of the Text will reconcile it to this Sense : if, instead of axaSiXos, we may only read Su0»jv 8' TrOAEIAOS etc. I don't find, indeed, y* the Lexicons acknowledge the word, but Hesychius has one Synonomous & similarly compounded " MS. is torn. APPENDIX C 333 {)iro8e/ii evSeris, KaraSeiis, extc^o^os — In the Hecuba of Eurip- edes, when Polyxena comes out to her, upon hearing her violent transports of grief, she says something resembhng this sentiment of Aeschylus; o'lkuv ft,' Sktt' opviv 0AMBEI tcJj S' eJeTrra^aj. My dear Friend, I have been so perpetually hurried, for this Month past in L"*. Orrery's Affairs, y* I cannot say I have had a Leisure hour to myself or I should much sooner have reply' d to the Favour of y^ Last. I hope, you have quite got rid of y^ uneasie cold with all its Concomitants ; tho' we have had a Season too unfavourable easily to throw off the Attacks of any Disorder. Your Friends from Cambridge have remitted y® 4 Guins. pursuant to your Order, for w*. please to receive my Thanks. The 2 Grubstreets w"**. you wanted are not to be come at with the PubHshers. I shall therefore with great pleasure transcribe them, as I am obhg'd to keep a copy of them by me. You here receive my first letter, & the next Post or the Post after that shall bring you the Sequel.^* . . . The next Post my dear Friend, shall bring you M''. Bavius's Cavil to this Letter : & after That, you shall be visited with my Refutation of the Anonymous Attack on my Emendation of Platonius & what M^ Bavius thought fit to .retort to y*. I am Dear S"'. Y'. most affectionate & obUg'd humble serv*. Wyan's Court, Lew : Theobald. 27 Aug. 1734. '' I have omitted the copy of this letter communicated to the Grub- street Journal, No. 232, June 6, 1734. 334 APPENDIX C My Dear Friend I now transmit to you M' Bavius's Replication or Cavil " (quocunque nomine) subjoined to my letter w° I last troubled you with : & shall only at present confess myself, Dear Sir your most oblig'd & affectionate humble Servant Wyans Court . Lew. Theobald. 3"^ Sept' 1734 [To Sir Hans Sloane] "> Sir The encouragement you were so good to shew me in the Case of Shakespeare makes me humbly hope I shall have y* Honour of y"^ Name to the Work I have now under the Press, a Translation of AEschylus's Tragedies, with Notes Critical and Philological : & an History of the Greek Stage in all its Branches, in a Dissertation to be prefix'd. The Work will be 2 thick Volumes in 4*° on the best Royal Paper, & fine Copper Plates to each Play, the Subscription 2 Guineas. I am advis'd by some Friends to give the Greek Text on the Opposite Page ; because it may in many Cases be cor- rected with Certainty: as well as that the Metre of the Chorus's greatly wants adjusting, a Task w* even the Learned Stanley took no considerable Pains about. I mention this at pres*. Sir, only to let you know that by the kindness of D"" Conyers Middleton I have a Collation of a Mss. of this Poet from the Laurentian Library at Florence ; w*. Mss. was made for the use of Franciscus Philadelphus, ^' I have omitted this, since it can be found in same issue of the Grub-street Journal mentioned on the preceding page. '» British Museum, Sloane MSS. 4053, £f. 275-276. APPENDIX C 335 a little before the Time of Printing; & in the Margin the Learned Salvini has added here and there his Conjectures. I am transcribing the various Readings into my Stanley; & could I know '^ . . . pt of this Collation would be ac- ceptable to S'. Hans . . . w*** great pleasure make it at y® same time for y"^ Service. I had an ambition of men- tioning this on Thursday was Sennight to you at S''. Robert Walpole's; but as I never had the Honour of approaching you, I was fearfull of being too importunate. The Honour of yo' Commands will very much obUge Him, who is with true Respect & Veneration Sk Your most obedient Wyan's Court in humble serv*. Great Russell Steet Lew. Theobald. 21 Sept'. 1734. My dear Friend The Favour of yours is arriv'd, & in Acknowledgment I give you now the only Line y* I have attempted to write above these two Months. Man has certainly neither Reason, nor Priveledge, to complain ag*. Nature, & my Constitu- tion in particular has been so kindly, that I have not a Shadow for Quarrel. "Whether Woodward's biUose Salts are become predominant, & playing their Tricks in Me, I can't say ; but I have been so attack'd, as to think strong Texture, good Stamina &c very brittle Defences : & it shall never be an Axiom w**" Me, that a Middle-aged Man has liv'd but half his Days. I was seiz'd at once w*^ Some- thing like a Cold so severe y* I was glad for my own Sake " MS. is torn. 336 APPENDIX C as well as the Family's to creep out of y® Way. A few days settled it in the fore part of my Head so intensely, that I was almost afraid for my Eyes. This Ferment has been succeeded by what I think They call a Feaver on the Spirits, w* has led me a strange Dance ; for tho' I have too much Flegm to give Way to Whimsey, & have had no rub in Fortune to induce me to succumb (as some people you know would chuse to say;) to Oppression, yet I assure you it has been out of my Power not to feel myself a damn'd, insipid Animal. But too much of This, as Hamlet says, — My Head is yet but weak, & my Hand not much firmer. Excuse me a few Posts, & I hope to convince you that my Intentions are no more alter'd, than that Zeal with w° . I shall ever be proud to approve Myself Dear Sir Your most affect* & Wyan's Court. oblig'd humble Serv'. 7. Nov. 1734 Lew: Theobald. Dear Sir I have receiv'd the pleasure of yours, but find I am to lose That expected one of seeing You this Spring; the hope of w"*". has for a long while suspended my troubling you with any Letters. I had sooner reply'd to yo' Last, but was then mak*. a short Tour into Kent when it arriv'd. D^ Stukely I have met l^ice at M^ Watts,'^ & once at S^ Robert Walpole's. I will wait on Mr. Whiston,'' who, I " One of Theobald's printers. " William Whiston (1667-1752), an unorthodox divine and math- ematician, was the author of A New Theory of the Earth, 1696, which enjoyed a better reputation than its merits justified. His best work is a translation of Josephus, 1737, referred to here. APPENDIX C 337 hear has call'd at my House, will subscribe Myself to his Josephus, & do him w' Service I can in recomending it. The State of htterary Matters is very dull at present, & under manifest Discouragement. I don't know whether you have heard what pains I am taking to carry thro' a Bill for the Encouragem*. of Learning, & securing of Property in Authors. I hope, I shall get it thro' unless my Appli- cation is cut short by an abrupt Rising of y® Houses. But in a few Posts I shall be able to ascertain my Success in it to You. Would you beUeve that I have been saluted in the Epistolary Way by a Professor at Zurich? But I over- shoot modesty even in the mention of it. Therefore to pass to another Subject, Millar,'* as you say, imitates Moliere full as badly as he translates him. I will look out your Letter, mentioning the 2 or 3 books to be procured by Vaillant, & will then call upon him about them. I am Dear Sir Wyan's Court Y^ most affectionately 26 Apr. 1735. Lew. Theobald. '^ I am to acknowledge the Favour of Two of yours, but y*. [I] should have done much earUer, but y* ever since the Rising of ParUament my L**. Orrery has engross'd me night & day. His Lordship's Affairs have now carried him into Ireland, so I hope for a httle Time to be a Man more at my own Dispose. I need not tell you that it was impossible " James Miller (1706-1744) left the church to write for the stage. Some of his plays had considerable success, the plots generally being taken from the French, especially Mohdre. The play alluded to above was The Man of Tas(e, produced March, 1735. '' The manuscript of this letter is in a very bad condition as the frequent lacunae show. 338 APPENDIX C to get our Act (for the Propriety of Copies) thro' the Lords this Season ; but I am so hardned a Wrestler, as not to give over for a single Fall; & therefore design to try t'other Bout w*"^. them next Session. The Roberts (an Actor) whom you mention to have wrote some Remarks on Shakes- peare, never wrote any Thing that I know of, but some Remarks on M''. Pope's Preface,'' as a pretended Defence of his Fellow-Players. Nor can I yet find out any Epistle addressed to M"'. Pope, in w"**. You have been drawn into a share of abuse. If I can trace any such I will not fail to give you full Notice. You desire some Account of my Zurich Correspondent. You must know, he had met w*. a trifling Poem of mine abroad, call'd the Cave of Poverty, attempted by me near 20 Years ago in Imitation of Shakes- peare. Something in it, it seems, happen'd to strike his Fancy strongly; & about 2 Years ago he express'd his Compliments in a Letter, brought to me by two itinerant Abbfes, w"** put me to the unaccustom'd Task of a Latine Conversation. I thought Myself obUg'd to set Pen to Paper, in reply to his great Civility; & that Compliance I suppose has drawn on the following Letter w* I'll give you totidem verbis. Viro CI . . . simo, Cel . . . rimoque, Ludovico Theobaldo Anglo Jo. Jacobus Bodmer Tigurino — Helvetius.S.D. Utor Libertate quam Epistola Humanitatis & egregiae in me Voluntatis plena concessisti. Quid enim jucundius, quid optabiUus in Vita cuiquam accidere potest hominum Erudi . . . similiimi, Consuetudine? Sed, eheu ! iniquum " John Roberts, Ariswer to Pope's Preface to Shakespeare, by a Strolling Player [1730]. APPENDIX C 339 quo pre . . . Quam enim Tu mihi, ut ut nullis Tibi Mentis cognito, am . . . Consuetudinemque benevolo largiris, e&dem ut plene perfrua . . . Montium terrarumque Tractus interjecti, Oceanus denique interfu . . . negare videntur. literarum equidem benefici6 id consequimur,' quantum vis longissimo terrae tractu dissiti conversari & colloquia miscere possimus; sed dum viatores, quibus Epistolas parvasque sarcinas ultra citroque ferendas committimus, rarius obveniunt ac diutius per Viam morantur, Studium exspectando immuni, et consuetudinis voluptati multum derogari accidit. Interim consuetudine hae Epistolari fruamur, qua licet et Res et Locus fieri patiuntur. Gratulor Tibi egregiam istam juvandi liberales Disciplinas voluntatem, quS, in- flanamatus novam Shakespear I Editionem procurare adgressus es. Non equidem me fugit Alexandrum Popium, quem tibi Editione Shakespearii praeivisse ... bis, virum ingenio felicissimo, faman nominis longe lateque . . . neque poemata ejus miscellanea, quae ad Apinam banc plagam usque deven^runt, adulationis hune rumorem ad- cusare videntur. Doctrind tamen, ingenio, atque ceteris dotibus animi abund^ Te instructum et ornatum ad Shake- spear I Fabulas inlustrandas accedere prob6 sentio, ex tu6 de Divae PAUPERTATIS spelunc4 eximio Poemati6, quod non stylum vocemque solum Shakespearii exprimit, sed ipsummet enthei Poetae Spiritum feUciter audacem undequaque SpLrat. ContuH enim ad imam alteramve Shakespearii fabulam, quae jam olim ab ipso Editae, nescio qu6 vento secundo in meas delatae sunt Manus. Haee ipsa mirum mihi desideriima totum Shakespearium, sed a Te recognitum, habendi implantarunt in Animum. Quis enim profundos Shakespearii Sensus certius nobis exponere queat, quam qui simile sensu A rebus adficiatur? Optime porro factum, quod AEschylum Anglic^ reddere allaborasti, 340 APPENDIX C Poetam, si quid intelligo, res concipiendi veibisque ex- primendi, pingendique more Shakespearis perquam similem ; ita ut ingenii quddam Agnatione inductum Te ad veterem Tragoedum vertendum animum adpulisse mihi persuadcam. Quod plerique, qui huic labori manus hactenus admoverunt, operam luserint, potissimum factum credo, quia a singulari illo sensu, quo poetam Graecum res adfecerunt, nimium fuerunt remoti alieni. Sed et linguam tibi vernaculam prae ceteris, quod sciam, ad reddendum AEschyli ser- monem . . . am esse, certis me criteriis cognovisse puto. Quod si igitur summum mihi oblec . . . mentum, . . . dissimum ex eorum genere, quibus vitae taedia solari soleo, non . . . Th de optime, quam ocyssim6 exemplar Shakes- spearii tu . . . curabis. Vicissim plura ad Te mittam exempla Del Parang . . . quem nunc integnma accipies : nee non mittam, si non displice . . . intellexero, Apolo- giam Oedipodis Sophoclei, simulque Tractat . . . quo- rundam doctorum Italortun, varii ad Graecanicae Scena . . . toriam facientis Argumenti, Tibi fort6 alicui usui futures. . . . cimique autem librorum vel literarum aliquid ad Me perferri . . . Amstelodanum, id mek sub inscriptione ad Viduam Van Kem . . . Et Bartholomeum van den Sand- heuvel transfretari cura, q . . . porro mittendum lubenter suscipient. Ego caeterum nihil o . . . quae ad nominis tui celebritatem, ciim in Germanic, tum et in . . . mul- toque rerum virorumque usu mihi cognitd Italid, augen- dam formandamque pertinere videbantur. Eo enim erga Te animo sum, quo erg^ virum honestissimum eruditissi- mumque esse . . . est. Vale. Tiguri Helvetiorum add. 14 ApriUs St. N. MDCCXXXIV. Ne erres in Literarum Inscriptione, en Tibi eam gallic^ A Jean Jacques Bodmer, Professeur en Histoire et Politique, a Zuric dans la Suisse ; recommand^ k Messieurs La Veuve van Kemena et Barthelmy van den Sandheuvel k Amsterdam. APPENDIX C 341 Now you have it, Dear Sir, & now let me have your Advice. The Gentleman's Character, I am a Stranger to : but I have no Reason to suspect any Thing but his Judgment, in expressing Himself w*^ such unmerited Zeal & Com- plaisance. Shall I send over a Sett of Shakespeare, & trust to the Returns ? I mean, of Literature ; not of Com- pliments. I shall be determin'd by your Opinion, as I shall be proud to be in all Cases, as long as I can subscribe myself y'. most affect^. & obUg'd hiunble Serv'. Wyan's Court Lew: Theobald. 24"' June 17 . . . [1735] Dear Sir, I have delay'd some few Posts, since my Return from Kent, (an Expedition y* I generally take ab* y^. Time of the Year) to reply to the Favour of Your Last of y' 17**" Sepf., because I was desirous, if possible, to get you the pirated 2'^ Volume of M^ Pope's Poems in 12°^°. But the Trade, I find, will not own y* it is to be procured by Them, or y' They dare to meddle w**" it if it was. I have been several Times at M'. Vaillant's ab* y^ odd Vol. of Mons' le Clerc ; & he has promis'd y' the Warehouse Keeper shall look into the Wast ; & if there be a Volume without break- ing a Sett y* the Mistake shall be rectified. I will call on him again next Week, to keep up his Memory in this affair. — You desire some little Account of Literary News ; but, I am afraid, I am too much a Recluse to be able to furnish much. Milton's Paradise Lost, no Doubt you have heard, we are going to have in Greek hexameters ; if the first Specimen meets w**^ sufficient Encouragement. The Be- 342 APPENDIX C ginning of next Month will be publish'd an English version of Anacreon & Sappho, with the Greek Text on the opposite Page, by one M''. Addison. To say the Truth, I beUeve him to be a natural Son of his great Namesake ; & I think verily, I have formerly seen him at y* Gentleman's Apart- ments. Another Embryo, y' I can inform you of, & w** will make its Appearance in Febry nexrt, is a new version of the 2"*. AEneis of Virgil, w*'' Notes Philological & Critical : by a Relation & Namesake of Mine, a Doctor of Physick, at a ^ Guinea Subscription. He prints it on fine Royal Paper, in 4*°; gives us a Bust of Virgil from Augustini's Genmis, & as he divides the Book into 4 Canto's, we shall have 4 more Copper Plates alluding to the Subject of each Division. — Perhaps, You may not have heard, y* we have been complimented on Shakespeare by a Journal from Barbadoes. If you have not seen it, I will transmit one to M'. Gyles, together w**'. a Trifle of mine w"^"*. I have lately printed. The Fatal Secret, a Tragedy; & w"*" I have dedicated to S"^. Robert Walpole, who shews me all Kindnesses, but the most important One; I mean the Setting me in some comfortable Certainty. As to Shakespeare's Poems, my Design is by no means dropt, only deferr'd to Spring, when y* & AEschylus, I hope in God, shall Both appear; & an Act be obtain'd to preserve the Property of Them, together with That of more valuable Productions. — And, as, I think, I mention'd to You, that I was prepar'd to amend & account for above 20 Thousand passages in ilesychius, I am labouring hard to draw out those Stores, that they may not be quite lost in case I Myself should be snatch'd away. It is very odd, what a great Number of Places I shall be able to set right, y' are corrupt, Both by Explanations being divided from their Themes ; & by Themes, as mistakenly sunk, & stand- ing as Explanations of what they have, indeed, no Reference APPENDIX C 343 to. I could give you an ample Specimen; but, perhaps, you trade very little with y* Author. I am, My dear Friend y"^ most affectionate Wyan's Court. obliged humble serv*. 18 Octo'. 1735. Lew : Theobald. Wyan's Court. 18 May 1736. Dear Sir, I reced yours of the 4*'^ Instant, & should have reply'd to it the next Post, but that I was willing to get over the surprize its Contents gave me. It is now retorted upon Me, that You gave Me your Notes with a Generosity I could not complain of. I thought on the other hand, I had not only confess'd the obligation in private but to the World. But why am I told that I had all the Profit of my Edition? I am sure, I never dreamt to this day, but that the Assistance of my Friends were design'd gratuitous ; & if I misunderstood this Point, I should have been set right by some Hints before the Publication. I used, you say, what Notes, I thought fit; & the remaining Ones are your Property. I own as Editor, I believ'd I had a discretionary Power of picking & chusing my Materials ; & I am certain during the Affair, you conceded this Liberty to Me : the remaining Notes (in an Epistolary Correspondence) being your Property, or no, is a piece of Casuistry w"'' I shall not dispute upon. Tho' I foresee, They are now to be turn'd upon Me, & I am to be in the State of a Country conquer'd by its Auxiliaries, yet tho' my Bread & Reputation de- pended upon my Compliance, I would sacrifice both Re- 344 APPENDIX C gards to What you expect from Me, & endeavour at any Price to approve Myself Dear Sir, y'. obliged Friend & very humble Serv'. Lew : Theobald. Dear Sir, I have sent to M. Gyles's all the Letters y*. I could col- lect of yours in my Possession ; & digested them near as I could, according to their Dates. As you revoke any per- mission I may imagine that I have, to use, or publish, any more of them ; so I utterly renounce all suppos'd Priviledge ; & as I am preparing to throw out 3 supplemental Volumes to Shakespeare, on the old Footing; these, I presume, I may claim an equal Title of Revoking. The sending these Papers has neither been delay'd thro' neglect, nor Reluctance : but indeed, for Self & Friends I have been more employ 'd than I could have wish'd. I am. Sir y. very humble servant Wyan's Court. Lew : Theobald 4*'' Sept'. 1736 " Tibbald's Word in a letter to me, of 18 Nov'. 1731, which I sent him at his desire with Many others — "But Dear Sir will you at your leasure hours think over for me upon y° contents, Topicks Order &c of this branch of my labour. You have a comprehensive Memory, & a happiness " This passage is written on a scrap of paper in Warburton's hand- vmting. APPENDIX C 345 of digesting the Matter joined to it, which my head is often much embarrass'd to perform : let that be the Excuse for my inabiUty, but How unreasonable is it to expect this when it is the only Part in which I shall not be able to be just to my friend; for to confess . . . assistance will I am afraid . . . make me appear too naked. [To the Duke of Newcastle^ '* May it please Your Grace, You were so good some few Months ago, to do me the great Honour of subscribing to my Edition of Shakespeare's Works. The Books, my Lord, are now pubhsh'd; and your Grace's Set waits Your Commands by the Bearer. I presume to enclose my Receipt for your Grace's Second Subscription Payment. Permit me with the most profound Respect & Gratitude, to profess myself. My Lord, Your Grace's most Obedient ll*** March. & most humble Servant 1740. Lew: Theobald. 11*''. March, 1740 Reced then of his Grace the Duke of Newcastle three Guineas, being his Grace's second Subscription pajTnent in full for one set of Shakespeare's Works in Eight Volumes with Cuts, pubhsh'd by me Lew : Theobald. " British Museum, Add. MSS. 32, 696, ff. 217, 219. 346 APPENDIX C [To the Duke of Newcastle'} ** May it please your Grace, I have had such repeated Indulgence from your Goodness upon every Application, that I am once more encouraged to address your Grace on an Emergency. The Situation of my Affairs upon a Loss & Disappointment, obliging me to embrace a Benefit at this late & disadvantageous Season, it lays me under a Necessity of throwing Myself on the Favour of the Publick, & the kind Assistance of my Friends & Well-wishers. If your Grace can be so good to honour me with your Presence, & to engage a few of your noble Friends in my Favour, it will be of the most important Service to me, & fix an Obligation that shall always be ac- knowledg'd with the greatest Hiunility and Gratitude, by My Lord, You Grace's most dutifuU & Wyan's Court in obedient humble Servant Great Russell street Lew : Theobald. 12*'' May 1741 " British Museum, Add. MSS. 32696, f, 513. APPENDIX D A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THEOBALD'S WORKS A Pindaric Ode on the Union of Scotland and England, 1707. I. have not seen this poem. See Loiinsbury, p. 124. The Life and Character of Marcus Fortius Cato Uticensis : Col- lected from the Best Ancient Greek and Latin Authors ; and De- signed for the Readers of Cato, a Tragedy. The Second Edition with large Additions. London : Printed for Bernard Lintot, Between the Two Temple-Gates in Fleetstreet. MDCCXIII. Plato's Dialogue of the Immortality of the Soul, Translated from the Greek by Mr. Theobald, Author of the life of Cato Uticensis. London : Printed for Bernard Lintot at the Cross-Keys between the Two Temple-Gates in Fleet-street. MDCCXIII. The Mausoleum. A Poem. Sacred to the Memory of Her Late Majesty Qtteen Anne. Written by Mr. Theobald. London : Printed for Jonas Brown, at the Black Swan without Temple-bar. 1714. Ajax of Sophocles. Translated from the Greek, with Notes. Lorir don. Printed for Bernard Lintott at the Cross-Keys between the Two Temple-Gates in Fleet^street. 1714. Probably not by Theobald. A Critical Discourse upon the Iliad of Homer ; written in French by Monsieur de la Motte, a Member of the French Academy; and translated into English by Mr. Theobald, 1714. Professor Lounsbury (p. 132) comments on the scarcity of this work. A copy was advertised in a recent catalogue of P. J. and A. E. Dobell of London. 348 APPENDIX D Electra: A Tragedie. Translated from Sophocles, with Notes. London ; Printed for Bernard Ldntott, at the Cross-Keys between the two Temple Gates in Fleet-street, 1714. Oedipus King of Thebes. A Tragedy. Translated from Sophocles, with Notes. By Mr. Theobald. London: Printed for Bernard Lintott, at the Cross-Keys between the two Temple Gates in Fleet- street, 1715. The Clovds. A Comedie. Translated from the Greek of Aris- tophanes. By Mr. Theobald : Printed for Jonas Brown at the Black Swan without Temple-Bar. MDCCXV. Plvius : or the World's Idol. A Comedie. Translated from the Greek of Aristophanes. By Mr. Theobald. London: Printed for Jonas Brown, at the Black Swan without Temple-Bar. 1715. Monsieur Le Clerc's Observations upon Mr. Addison's Travels Through Italy etc. Also Some Account of the United Provinces of the Netherlands ; chiefly with regard to their Trade and Riches, and a Particular Account of the Bank of Amsterdam. Done from the French by Mr. Theobald. London : Printed for E. Curll, at the Dial and Bible, against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street, 1715. A poem written on the recovery of the Duke of Ormond from a dan- gerous illness (1715?) . I have found no trace of this poem but Theobald mentions it in his dedication of the Persian Princess, 1715, to the Duchess of Ormond. The Cave of Poverty. A P<^m. Written in Imitation of Shake- speare. By Mr. Theobald. London: Printed for Jonas Brown at the Black Swan without Temple-bar, and sold by J. Roberts at the Oxford Arms in Warwick-lane. 1715. A Complete Key to the last New Farce The What D'ye Call It. To Which is prefixed a Hypercritical Preface on the Nature of Bur- APPENDIX D 349 lesque, and the Poet's Design. London : Printed for James Roberts at the Onyford Arms in Warwick-lane 1715. Ascribed with some justification to Theobald by Pope. The Persian Princess, or The Royal Villain, 12mo, 1715, 4to 1717. The Perfidious Brother, A Tragedy ; As it is Acted at the New Theatre in Little Lincoln' s-Inn-Fields. By Mr. Theobald. London: Printed and Sold by Jonas Brown, at the Black Swan, without Temple- bar. 1715. A Translation of the First Book of the Odyssey, with Notes by Mr. Theobald, 1716. No copy seems to be extant. Pope says it was printed in 1717, but Nichols says it appeared in November, 1716. See Lounsbury, pp. 132-133. The Censor. The Second Edition. London: Printed for Jonas Brown, at the Black-Swan without Temple-Bar. 1717. Three volumes bound in one. The periodical was a tri-weekly and ran from April 11 to June 17, 1715, suspended publication a while, and continued from January 1 to May 30, 1717. See Brit. Mus. 239. g. 11-13. Translations from Ovid's Metamorphoses. [1717?] I have discovered no trace of them. See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 708. Decius and Paulina, a Masque. London: 1718. The Entertainments . . . for the comic-dramatic opera, called The Lady's Triumph. London 1718. These two trifles were contributed to E. Settle's opera, The Lady's Triumph, 1718. 350 APPENDIX D Decius and Patdina, a masque. To which are added the other musical entertainments . . . in the opera of Circe. London 1719. The entertainments were introduced into Charles D'Avenant's Circe, a tragedy, 1677, revived in 1719. The Death of Hannibal. Never acted or published. See G. Jacob, Poetical Register, vol. 1, p. 259. The History of the Loves of Antiochus and Stratonice; in which are interspersed some Accounts relating to Greece and Syria. London. 1719. Memoirs of Sir Walter Raleigh ; His Life, his Military and Naval Exploits, his Preferments and Death; In which are Inserted the Private Intrigues between the Count of Gondamore, the Spanish Ambassador, and the Lord Salisbury, then Secretary of State. Writ- ten by Mr. Theobald. London : Printed for W. Mears, at the Lamb mthout Temple-bar. 1719. The Tragedy of King Richard the II ; As it is acted at the Theatre in Lincoln' s-innr-fields. Alter'd from Shakespear, By Mr. Theobald. London. 1720. The Grove ; or a Collection of Original Poems, Translations, etc. By W. Walsh, Esq., Dr. J. Donne. Mr. Dryden. Mr. Hall of Hereford, The Lady E M , Mr. Butler, Author of Hudi- bras. Mr. Stepney, Sir John Suckling, Dr. Kennick, And other Eminent Hands. London : Printed for W. Mears, at the Lamb with- out Temple-Bar. 1721. Theobald's name as colldBtor appears on the second edition, 1732. The miscellany contains his translation of Hero and Leander and a few short poems. The Gentleman's Library, containing Rules for Conduct in all Parts of Life. 12mo. 1722. I have found no trace or mention of this trifle except in The- APPENDIX D 351 ophilus Gibber's Lives of the Poets, vol. 5, p. 287, where it is attrib- uted to Theobald. Harlequin Sorcerer with the Loves of Pluto and Proserpina, 1725. The Rape of Proserpine, 1725. Apollo and Daphne, or the Burgo-Master Trick' d, 1726. SHAKESPEARE restored: or, A SPECIMEN of the Many ERROES as well committed, as Unamended, by Mr. POPE In his Late EDITION of this POET. Designed Not only to correct the said EDITION, but to restore the True READING of SHAKE- SPEARE in aU the Editions ever yet publish' d. By Mr. THEOBALD. . . . Laniatum Corpore toto Deiphobum vldi et lacenun crudeUter Ora, Ora, manusque ambas, . . . Virg. LONDON: Printed for R. FRANCKLIN under Tom's, J. WOOD- MAN and D. LYON under WiU's, CovenirGarden, and C. DAVIS in HaUoDr^arden. MDCCXXVI. Second Edition, 1740. London Journal. A letter of Theobald communicated to the issue of September 3, 1726. Mist's Journal. Letters communicated to the issues of March 16, April 27, June 22, 1728. Daily Journal. Letters communicated to the issues of November 26, 1728, April 17, 1729. 352 APPENDIX D The Rival Modes: a Comedy. London: 1727 [James Moore Smythe]. Theobald wrote the prologue. Double Falshood; or, The Dislrest Lovers. A Play. As it is Acted at the Theatre-Royal in Drury-Lane. Written Originally by W. Shakespeare ; And now Revised and Adapted to the Stage By Mr. Theobald, the Author of Shakespeare Restor'd. London: Printed by J. Watts, at the Printing-Office in Wild-Court near Lin- coln's Inn Fields, MDCCXXVIII. Authorship uncertain. Second Edition, 1728. Third Edition, 1767. An Essay on the Art of a Poet's Sinking in Reputation; being a Supplement to the Art of Sinking in Poetry. Contributed anonymously to Mist's Journal, March 30, 1728, and attributed by Pope to Theobald. There is some reason for considering the ascription correct. The Works of Hesiod Translated from the Greek. By Mr. Cooke. London: MDCCXXVIII. Theobald contributed a few notes. The Posthumous Works of William Wycherly in Prose and Verse. Published from his Original Manuscripts by Mr. Theobald. To Which are Prefixed some Memoirs of Mr. Wycherly' s Life by Major Peck. 2 pt. London 1728. Perseus and Andromeda, 1730. Orestes : A Dramatic Opera. As it is Acted at the Theatre-Royal in Lincoln' s-Inn Fields. Written by Mr. Theobald. London: Printed for John Watts at the Printing-Office in Wild-Court, near Lincoln's Inn Fields. MDCCXXXI. APPENDIX D 353 Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors Ancient and Modern. London: MDCCXXXI. 2 vols. ed. J. Jortin. Theobald contributed three papers to the first volume of this periodical. An Epistle humbly addressed to the Right Honorable John, Earl of Orrery. 1732. A Miscellany on Taste. By Mr. Pope, etc. London: .1732. Ascribed without reason to Theobald. Possibly it was com- piled by Concanen. The Works of Shakespeare : in seven volumes. Collated with the Oldest Copies, and Corrected; with Notes explanatory and Critical: By Mr. Theobald. I, Decus, i, nostrum: melioribus utere Fatis. Virg. London: Printed for A. Bettesworth and C. Hitch, J. Tonson, F. Clay, W. Feales, and R. Wellington. MDCCXXXIII. The edition did not appear until January, 1734. The Works of Shakespeare : in eight volumes. With notes, ex- planatory, and critical, by Mr. Theobald. The Second Edition. H. Lintott, C. Hitch, J. and R. Tonson etc. London 1740. 12°. The Works of Shakespeare . . . With Notes by Mr. Theobald. The Third edition. 8 vol. J. & P. Knapton: London, 1752. 12°. Another edition, 1757. 8 vols. 8°. Another edition, 1762. 8 vols. 8°. Another edition. Printed verbatim from the octavo edition 1767. 8 vols. 12°. Another edition, 1772. 12 vols. 12°. Another edition, Printed verbatim from the octavo edition. 1773. 8 vols. 12°. 354 APPENDIX D Another edition [c. 1777]. 12 vols. 8°. Macbeth . . . Edited by L. Theobald. Dublin. 1739. Merry Wives of Windsor. . . . With notes explanatory and critical by Mr. Theobald. Dublin. 1739. As you like it. A Comedy ; as it is acted at the Theatre-Royal in Aungier-Street, Dublin. . . . CoUated with the oldest copies and corrected, by Mr. Theobald. Dublin. 1741. The Tempest. . . . with notes by L.Theobald. London. 1755. Measure for Measure . . . Edited by L. Theobald ["Edinburgh & London] 1778. Much ado about nothing . . . edited by L. Theobald [Edinburgh] 1778. Mu/:h ado about nothing . . . As it is acted at the Theatres Royal in Drury-Lane and Covent-Garden . . . London. 1778. Gfrvb-street Journal. Theobald made contributions to issues of June 6, June 20, 1734. The Vocal Parts of an Entertainment, call'd Merlin ; or The Devil of Stone Henge . . . With a Preface containing a succinct Account of Stone-Henge and Merlin. Written by Mr. Theobald. . . .London: 1734. The Fatal Secret. A Tragedy. As it is Acted at the Theatre- Royal, in CoventrGarden. By Mr. Theobald. London: Printed for J. Waits; And Sold by W. Feales at Rowe's Head, the Corner of EssenyStreet in the Strand. MDCCXXXV. An adaptation of Webster's The Duchess of Malfi. APPENDIX D 355 Orpheus and Eurydice, An Opera As it is Performed at the Theatre Royal In Covent Garden. Set to Mitsick by Mr. John Frederick Lampe. London 1739. The Happy Captive, an English Opera, In Two Comick Scenes, Betwixt Signor Capaccio, a Director from the Canary Islands ; and Signora Dorinna, a Virtuosa. London 1741. The Works of Mr. Francis Beaumont, and Mr. John Fletcher In ten Volumes. Collated with all the former Editions, and Cor- rected. With Notes Critical and Explanatory. By the late Mr. Theobald, Mr. Seward, and Mr. Sympson of Gainsborough. London : Printed for J. and R. Tonson and S. Draper, in the Strand. 1750. Theobald edited the entire first volume, the second to page 233, and the third to page 69. The Works of Ben Jonson. In Seven Volumes. Collated with All former Editions and Corrected; with Notes Critical and Ex- planatory. By Peter Whalley, Late Fellow of St. John's College in Oxford. London. MDCCLVI. Whalley used Theobald's copies with marginal corrections, and adopted some. AurxyXxru Upo/iridevs Aecrfiorrii, Aeschyli Prometheus Vinctus ad fidem manuscriporum emendavit. Notas et Glossarium adjecit. Carolus Jacobus Bloomfield. Edition Tertia. 1819. Bloomfield made use of some of Theobald's notes written on th^ margin of the latter's copy of Stanley's edition. INDEX Addison, Joseph, 6, 13, 17, 109, 110, 170, 235, 236, 342 Aeneid, 40, 57, 342 Aeschylus, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 15, 20, 67, 117, 130, 134, 151, 152, 196, 197, 199, 201, 202, 203, 325, 330, 331, 332, 334, 339, 340, 342 Ajax, 6, 7, 130 Anacreon, 199, 342 An Author to Let, 135 Andronicus, 186 Answer to the many Plain and Notorious Lyes, 28 Antigone, 6, 7 Antiochus, 11 Antiquities and History of Ireland, 195 Apollo and Daphne, 26 Arbuthnot, John, 57, 130 Argyle, Duke of, 9 Ariosto, 243 Aristophanes, 4, 8, 10, 12, 34, ^151, 199,276 Aristotle, 68, 268 Amobius, 301, 306 As You Like It, 65, 188, 189, 262 Athenaeus, 82, 152, 199 Atterbury, Francis, 53 Bartholomew Fair, 186 Bathos, 29, 108, 111, 113, 114, 275 Battle of the Books, 254 Beaumont and Fletcher, 95, 175, 203, 212, 217, 218, 225, 245 Bentley, Richard, 17, 19, 20 32- 43, 47, 51-53, 55, 57-60, 66, 69-71, 78, 80-82, 84-93, 98, 99, 138, 141-146, 154, 168, 169, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 180, 182, 183, 190, 191, 193, 195, 209, 219, 221, 235, 236, 253, 256, 257, 269, 278, 299, 305, 306, 307, 324 Bentley, Thomas, 193, 220 Betterton, Thomas, 102 Bibliotheca, 55, 254, 255 Biographica Dramatica, 6 Birch, Thomas, 168, 212, 236, 237, 243 Bishop, Harley, 220, 285 Blackmore, Richard, 109 Bodmer, Johann Jacob, 14, 338, 340 Boiardo, 243 BoUngbroke, Viscount, 155 Broome, Wilham, 64, 109, 138, 149 Brown, Jonas, 115 Bacon, Francis, 237 Baker, Thomas, 193 Barnes, Joshua, 34, 46 Caesar, 39, 67 CaUimachus, 34 Camden, WiUiam, 175 bo!s rNT)EX Ciounu tf CrMdam, 57 Cardenno. 104 Casautxm, 32, 34 C. i:3o. 136 Coriolanus. 64, 107 Cosmo-'':p''^.-j. ITS. 236 , Coxeter, Thomas. 220. 247. 24S. Critical, Historitxtl. and E-piij'.e.- tary .WWc^. 230 Critical Obsertations on Shak«- speart, '22S Cupid and Bacchus, 23 Cythertia, 110 Daci^i Anne L., 10 Daay Jo:.",.]!, 122 134, 149. DanieL Sarav.el. 175 Davies, John, 193 Death of Hanitibal, lo Dekker, Thotnas. 175 Delawar. Lady. 147. 1^1, 156- 1.5S. 266, 274 DelL — . 24S Dennis, John, 11, 17, 101, 110, 111. 116, 117. 136 De Quincy, Tnoi^^as. 35 Ditdogues of the D^r.c. 257 Diseoteryofa London Monsia; 175 Dissertation upon the E^nstles of Phalaris. 33, 35. 37. 51, 69, 70, 99, 17S, ISO. 219 Dodington, George, 102 Dodsley. Richard, 2^, 247 Don QuUote, 102. 141 DoubU Falshood, ■>:>. 102. 106, lOS. 112. 130, 131, ISO. 1S7 Downes, John, 102 Drayton, Michael, 243 Dr>-den, John, 11, S4. 127. 263 Duchess of MalH. 152 Dugdale. Sir William, 175 Dunciad. 4. 6-9, 12, 16. », 101, 103, lOS. 111. 112. 114-llS. 120. 124. 12'>-12S. 131-136, 141. 145-14S. 179, ISO. 190, 19S, 201. 203, 250. 254. 255, 259. 275 Duncombe. William, 119 Durgen, 117, IIS Electra, 3, 6. 7 Ellis. Rev.. 2 I^^DEX 359 Epistle, 155 Epistle to Dr. Arlmlhnot, 141 Epistle to Mill, 33, 36, 39, 71, 219, 269 Epistola Critica (Markland's) 47, 93 Erasmus, 31, 34 Essay on Man, 141 Essay on the Art of a Poet's Sinking in Reputation, 113, 128 Essay upon Mr. Pope's Jitdgment, 148 Euripides, 7, 43, 68, 333 Eustathius, 43, 149, 152, 199 Every Man in his Humour, 185 Faerie Queene, 218, 237, 241, 242 Fairfax, Edward, 242, 243 Famous Voyage, 311 Farmer, Richard, 104, 176, 251 Fatal Secret, 152 Fenton, Elijah, 218, 235, 236 Fielding, Henry, 9, 10, 26, 146, 193 Fletcher, John, 102, 103, 106 Folkes, Martin, 220, 285 Ford, John, 175 Fragment of a Satire, 110, 114, 139, 145 Franklin, Thomas, 12 Friend, John, 121, 193, 259 Gay, John, 17, 19, 118 Garth, Samuel, 11 Geoffrey of Monmouth, 239, 242, 243 Gifford, William, 104, 240, 248 Gildon, Charles, 109, 110, 176, 218 Glanville, John, 2, 9 Goldsmith, Oliver, 18 Gottschedd, Johann, 14 Grafton, Duke of, 147 Grey, Zachary, 230, 233, 234, 250 Grove, 3, 7, 11, 69 Grub-street Journal, 4, 9, 103, 136, 140, 142, 159, 194, 200, 275, 330, 333 Hakluyt, Richard, 175 Hamlet, 64, 65, 67, 73, 79, 90, 91, 93, 94, 112, 123, 188, 288, 313, 315 Hamner, Thomas, 227 Happy Captive, 29 Hardinge, Nicholas, 193, 221 Hare, Francis, 40, 42, 48 Harlequin^Horace, 137 Harlequin Sorcerer, 26 Haywood, Eliza, 115, 135 Heath, Benjamin, 231, 250 Hecatomuthi, 281 Henry IV, 282 Henry V, 185 Henry VI, 186, 187 Henry VIII, 185 Hercules Furens, 112 Hero and Leander, 15, 69 Hesiod, 15, 124, 125, 198, 332 Hesychius, 199, 202, 203, 308, 309, 332, 342 Heywood, Thomas, 175 Hill, John, 28, 29 Historica Danica, 123 History of Cardenio, 104, 106 History of the Works of the Learned, 236 Holinshed, Raphael, 175, 189 Homer, 5, 8, 15, 19, 149, 175, 332 Horace, 5, 11, 37, 39, 41-44, 52, 54-56, 58, 72, 75, 82, 84, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 143, 145, 173, 221, 256, 257, 308 360 INDEX Hudibras, 233, 234 Hughes, John, 6, 218, 237, 243, 244 Hume, Patrick, 234, 236 Humorous Lieutenant, 95 Hugo, Victor, 68 Hurd, Richard, 146 Iliad, 9, 19 II PensLToso, 169 Inquiry into the Learning oj Shakespeare, 228 Jack Drum's Entertainment, 184 Jackson, , 6, 7 Jacob, Giles, 3, 6, 11, 115, 119 Johnson, Samuel, 12, 51, 134, 146, 159, 169, 182, 188, 189, 226, 227, 244, 249, 250, 252 Jonson, Ben, 169, 175, 186, 212, 225, 239, 242, 245-247, 310 Jortin, John, 53, 141, 146, 198, 199, 221, 235, 236, 237, 243, 244, 329 Judgment of Apollo, 119 Junius Brutus, 119 Justin Martyr, 39, 48, 58, 220 Kennick, Dr., 11, 20 Kenrick, William, 188, 250 King John, 87, 174 King, WilUam, 52, 256, 257 Kyd, Thomas, 175 • Lady's Triumph, 26 L' Allegro, 169 Langbaine, Gerard, 189 Lear, 90, 151 Le Clerc, Jean, 13, 57 Letter Concerning a New Edition, 237 Life and Character of Cato, 2, 30 Life and Remarks of Zoilus, 18, 19 Lintot, Bernard, 2, 5, 6-8, 201, 257 LolMus, 23 Locrine, 266 Lodge, Thomas, 175, 189 London Daily Post, 212, 321 London Journal, 97, 100 Love's Labor's Lost, 280, 310 Loves of Mars and Venus, 23 Lyddas, 195, 327 Lydgate, John, 175, 243 Macbeth, 64, 76, 151, 177, 185, 229, 309 Mallet, David, 145, 170 Malone, Edmond, 104 Man of Taste, 337 Markland, Jeremiah, 40, 43, 58, 329 Marlowe, Christopher, 175 Marston, John, 175 Martial, 79, 82 Martyn, John, 136 Massinger, Philip, 104, 175, 245, 247, 248, 249 Mausoleum, 13, 17 Mead, Richard, 121, 193, 200, 259, 286, 290, 328 Mears, WiUiam, 115 Measure for Measure, 187 Memoirs of Scriblerv^, 141 Memoirs of Sir Walter Raleigh, 20, 23,30 Menaechmi, 176, 189 Menander, 47, 71, 324 Merchant of Venice, 64 Merlin, 26 Merry Wives of Windsor, 185, 278, 282, 283, 308 INDEX 361 Metamorphoses, 11, 16 Middleton, Conyers, 6, 202, 334 Midsummer's Night's Dream, 86, 207 Miller, James, 137, 337 Milton, John, 14, 60, 87, 142-145, 168-170, 173, 195, 217, 221, 225, 229, 234, 236, 237, 278, 299, 300, 327 Mirrour, 119 Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors, 152, 198, 202 Miscellanies (Pope and Swift's) 108, 113 Miscellany on Taste, 149, 150 Mist's Journal, 106, 111, 113, 118, 120, 122, 127, 128 MoliSre, 337 Montague, Lady M. W., 193, 313 Moore, John, 275 Moore-Smythe, James, 101, 111, 135, 136, 274 Morell, Thomas, 22 Morris, Bezaleel, 135 MoHe D' Arthur, 239 Mosley, Humphrey, 104 Mr. Rich's Answer, 28 Much Ado About Nothing, 87, 90, 230, 260 Muretus, 32 Musaeus, 20 Necromancer, 24 Newcastle, Duke of, 212, 345, 346 New Memoirs of Milton, 227 Newton, Thomas, 235-237 NiccoU, 32 North's Plutarch, 23, 167, 188 Oldfield, Mrs. A., 276 Observations on Macbeth, 250 Observations on the Faerie Queene, 238 Odyssey, 5, 8, 9, 19, 113 Oedipv,s Coloneus, 5 Oedipus Tyrannus, 3, 5, 6 Of False Taste, 149, 294 Of Verbal Criticism, 145, 170 Oldisworth, WiUiam, 256, 257 Oldmixon, John, 111 On the Delicacy of Friendship, 146 Orestes, 148, 151, 272 Orpheus, 28 Orpheus and Eurydice, 23, 27 Orrery, Earl of (Charles Boyle) 13, 36, 79, 178, 220, 298, 307 Orrery, Earl of (John Boyle), 147, 155, 159, 194, 198, 289, 298, 301, 307, 312, 326, 327, 333 Othello, 67, 68, 185, 288, 313 Ovid, 13, 79 Pan and Syrinx, 26 Paradise Lost, 235, 341 PameU, Thomas, 18, 19 Paterculus, 199, 210, 301, 306, 307, 310, 317, 322, 325 Pearce, Zachary, 143, 198, 235, 299 Peck, Francis, 227 Pellet, Thomas, 259 Perfidious Brother, 21, 130 Pericles, 185, 272 Perseus and Andromeda, 23, 26 Persian Princess, 2, 21, 130 Phaedo, 2, 130 Phaedrus, 48 Pharsalia, 6, 12 Philips, Ambrose, 109 Philoctetes, 5, 7 Philemon, 47, 71 Pindar, 15 362 INDEX Platonius, 199, 283 Plutiis, 9 Poggio, 31 Politian, 31 Pope, 7, 8, 12, 16-18, 20, 29, 63, 61, 63, 65, 66, 81, 86, 88, 93, 94, 98, 103, 107-118, 120-122, 124, 126, 128, 130-132, 134, 136, 138, 146, 148-150, 154, 157-160, 169, 171, 179, 180, 182, 185, 186, 190, 191, 193, 204, 205, 211, 215, 217-219, 225-227, 237, 244, 250, 251, 265, 276, 282, 284, 289, 295, 306, 313, 324, 338, 339, 341 Person, Richard, 60, 146, 203 Prevost, ■, 323 Prior, Mathew, 237 Promus and Cassandra, 187, 282 Pulteney, William, 109 Raleigh, Sir Walter, 185, 242, 243 Ralph, James, 117, 118 Rape of Lucrece, 325 Rape of Proserpine, 24, 26 Reed, Isaac, 104 Remarks on Macbeth, 231 Remarks on Mr. Pope's Rape of the Lock, 116 Remarks on the Dundad, 3, 116, 238 Remarks on Spenser's Poems, 222 Review of the Text of Milton's Paradise Lost, 143 , Rich, John, 24-30, 66, 152, 298 Richard II, 22, 67 Richardson, Samuel, 193, 236 Rival Modes, 274 Robortelh, 32 Rockingham, Earl of, 1 Romeo and Juliet, 112, 230 Roome, Edward, HI, 135, 136 Rowe, Nicholas, 6, 7, 62, 109, 170, 217, 218, 225, 267 Russel, , 136 Saint Evremond, 52 Savage, Richard, 135, 136 Sawney, 117 Saxo Granmiaticus, 123, 187 Scaliger, Julius Caesar, 32, 34, 36, 308 Select Collection of Old Plays, 245 Sermon against Adultery, 140 Seven Captains against Thebes, 3 Seward, Thomas, 212-214, 221, 223, 245 Sewell, George, 20, 161 Shaftesbury, Earl of (Anthony Cooper), 53 Shakespeare Restored, 3, 4, 30, 47, 64, 71, 72, 84, 86, 89, 91, 99, 100, 107, 116, 118, 119, 123, 128, 129, 132, 134, 138, 139, 143, 149, 172, 175, 177, 178, 183, 209, 219, 221, 222, 227, 230, 231, 240, 252, 273, 276 Shepherd's Calendar, 244 Shirley, James, 104 Sidney, PhiUp, 242-243 Skelton, John, 231 Sloane, Sir Hans, 5, 121, 193, 201, 335 Soliman and Perseda, 174 Some account of Horace's Be- haviour, 55, 254, 257 Sondres, Viscount, 2 Sophocles, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 20, 68 Spenser, Edmund, 16, 95, 174, 175, 218, 229, 234, 237-244 INDEX 363 Stanley, Thomas, 5, 201, 325, 332, 334 Statius, 42, 84, 199 Stowe, John, 175 Suidas, 152, 199, 268 Surrey, Earl of, 175 Swift, Jonathan, 115, 118, 137, 196 Sympson, , 212, 213, 246 Taylor, John, 193, 198 Taylor, Robert, 278, 283, 293, 312, 322 Tempest, 107, 185, 207 Theocritus, 11 Thirlby, Styvan, 48, 70, 141, 193, 198, 220, 285 Three Destructions of Troy, 23, 107 Tickell, Thomas, 8 Timon of Athens, 23, 107, 184, 262 Titits Andronicus, 90, 186, 187 Tonson, Jacob, 151, 156-160, 163, 212, 217, 218, 220, 235, 265, 274, 277, 284, 290 Trachiniae, 5 Troilus and Cressida, 23, 64, 83, 107, 176, 177, 188, 288 TumbuU, George, 146 Tusculans, 39 Twelfth Night, 65 Two Epistles to Mr. Pope, 137 Two Gentlemen of Verona, 65 Two Noble Kinsman, 186 Tyreonnel, Ea,rl of, 159, 305, 307, 310 Upton, John, 193, 198, 222, 228, 235, 237, 238, 240, 242, 244, 250 Useful Transactions, 257 Vaillant, Paul, 323, 337. 341 Valla, Laurentius, 32 Vanderput, P., 296 Venus and Adonis, 15, 325, 330 Victorinus, 32 Virgil, 79, 84, 93, 130, 313 Virgilius Restauratus, 57 Voltaire, 119 Walpole, Robert, 147, 148, 198, 310, 335, 336, 342 Warburton, Wilham, 12, 43, 60, 57, 101, 106, 107, 126, 134, 136, 142, 144, 146-148, 150-154, 156-158, 161-168, 170, 174, 176, 182-184, 188, 193-197, 200-204, 206-209, 211, 226, 236, 249, 258, 259 Warton, Thomas, 238-240, 248, 244, 251 Wasse, Joseph, 40, 198 Weaver, John, 23, 25 Webster, John, 176 Welsted, Leonard, 109, 135, 136, 150, 295 Whalley, Peter, 222, 223, 228, 246, 247 What D'ye Call It, 16, 19 Wheler, Sir George, 199, 200, 318, 319 Whiston, WiUiam, 336 Winter' !> Tale, 112 Works of Ben Jonaon, 218 Wotton, WiUiam, 53 Wyat, Sir Thomas, 175 Wycherly, Wilham, 123 Wynken de Worde, 107, 176, 188, 239 Yonge, William, 319 Young, Edward 137, 193 Yoimg, William, 9, 10 VITA The writer was bom July 7, 1886, in Salado, Texas. He was very fortunate in receiving his first schooling from his mother and further instruction at the Thomas Arnold High School, a private institution of which his father was super- intendent. He received the degree of Bachelor of Arts from the University of Texas in 1907 and the degree of Master of Arts from Colimabia University in 1910. The summer of 1910 and the summer and fall of 1913 were spent traveling abroad and studying in the British Museum. In 1914 the author received the appointment of instructor in EngUsh at Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, where he remained until August, 1917. At this date he entered the Reserve Officers Training Camp at Fort Benjamin Harrison, and was enrolled in the Eighth Training Company of the Coast Artillery. Later he was transferred to Fort Monroe where he remained until December. In September, 1918, he received an appointment of instructor in English in the S. A. T. C. at Columbia University.