Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare Part 2

Lewis Theobald.

Theobald's edition of Shakespeare (7 vols. 8vo) appeared in 1733. The Preface was condensed in the second edition in 1740. It is here given in its later form.

Theobald had long been interested in Shakespeare. In 1715 he had written the _Cave of Poverty_, a poem "in imitation of Shakespeare," and in 1720 he had brought out an adaptation of _Richard II_. But it was not till 1726-though the Dedication bears the date of March 18, 1725-that he produced his first direct contribution to Shakespearian scholars.h.i.+p,-_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._

We learn from a letter by Theobald dated 15th April, 1729, that he had been in correspondence with Pope fully two years before the publication of this volume. (See Nichols, _Ill.u.s.trations of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century_, ii., p. 221). Pope, however, had not encouraged his advances. In the same letter Theobald states that he had no design of commenting on Shakespeare till he saw "how incorrect an edition Mr. Pope had given the publick." This remark was prompted by a note in the _Dunciad_ of 1729, where it was stated that "during the s.p.a.ce of two years, while Mr. Pope was preparing his Edition of Shakespear, and published advertis.e.m.e.nts, requesting all lovers of the author to contribute to a more perfect one, this Restorer (who had then some correspondence with him, and was solliciting favours by letters) did wholly conceal his design, 'till after its publication." But if Theobald had not thought of issuing comments on Shakespeare's plays till Pope's edition appeared, he must have known them well already, for _Shakespeare Restored_ is not a hasty piece of work.

Despite the aggressiveness of the t.i.tle, Theobald protests his regard for Pope in such pa.s.sages as these:

"It was no small Satisfaction therefore to me, when I first heard Mr. _Pope_ had taken upon him the Publication of _Shakespeare_. I very reasonably expected, from his known Talents and Abilities, from his uncommon Sagacity and Discernment, and from his unwearied Diligence and Care of informing himself by an happy and extensive Conversation, we should have had our Author come out as perfect, as the want of _Ma.n.u.scripts_ and _original Copies_ could give us a Possibility of hoping. I may dare to say, a great Number of _Shakespeare_'s Admirers, and of Mr. _Pope_'s too, (both which I sincerely declare myself,) concurred in this Expectation: For there is a certain _curiosa felicitas_, as was said of an eminent _Roman_ Poet, in that Gentleman's Way of working, which, we presum'd, would have laid itself out largely in such a Province; and that he would not have sate down contented with performing, as he calls it himself, the _dull Duty_ of an _Editor_ only."

"I have so great an Esteem for Mr. _Pope_, and so high an Opinion of his Genius and Excellencies, that I beg to be excused from the least Intention of derogating from his Merits, in this Attempt to restore the true Reading of _Shakespeare_. Tho' I confess a Veneration, almost rising to Idolatry, for the writings of this inimitable Poet, I would be very loth even to do _him_ Justice at the Expence of _that other_ Gentleman's Character."

Whether or not these declarations were sincere, they would hardly have stayed the resentment of a less sensitive man than Pope when pa.s.sage after pa.s.sage was pointed out where errors were "as well committed as unamended." Theobald even hazarded the roguish suggestion that the bookseller had played his editor false by not sending him all the sheets to revise; and he certainly showed that the readings of Rowe's edition had occasionally been adopted without the professed collation of the older copies. The volume could raise no doubt of Theobald's own diligence. The chief part of it is devoted to an examination of the text of _Hamlet_, but there is a long appendix dealing with readings in other plays, and in it occurs the famous emendation of the line in _Henry V._ describing Falstaff's death,-"for his nose was as sharp as a pen, and _a' babled of green fields_." It should be noted that the credit of this reading is not entirely Theobald's. He admits that in an edition "with some marginal conjectures of a Gentleman sometime deceased" he found the emendation "and _a' talked_ of green fields." Theobald's share thus amounts to the doubtful improvement of subst.i.tuting _babbled_ for _talked_.

Though this volume has undoubted merits, it is not difficult to understand why the name of Theobald came to convey to the eighteenth century the idea of painful pedantry, and why one so eminently just as Johnson should have dubbed him "a man of heavy diligence, with very slender powers." While his knowledge is indisputable, he has little or no delicacy of taste; his style is dull and lumbering; and the mere fact that he dedicated his _Shakespeare Restored_ to John Rich, the Covent Garden manager who specialised in pantomime and played the part of harlequin, may at least cast some doubt on his discretion. But he successfully attacked Pope where he was weakest and where as an editor he should have been strongest. "From this time," in the words of Johnson, "Pope became an enemy to editors, collators, commentators, and verbal critics; and hoped to persuade the world that he had miscarried in this undertaking only by having a mind too great for such minute employment."

Not content with the errors pointed out in _Shakespeare Restored_-a quarto volume of two hundred pages-Theobald continued his criticisms of Pope's edition in _Mist's Journal_ and the _Daily Journal_, until he was ripe for the _Dunciad_. Pope enthroned him as the hero of the poem, and so he remained till he was replaced by Colley Cibber in 1741, when the alteration necessitated several omissions. In the earlier editions Theobald soliloquised thus:

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 Shakespear once a week.

For thee I dim these eyes, and stuff this head, With all such reading as was never read; For the supplying, in the worst of days, Notes to dull books, and prologues to dull plays; For thee explain a thing 'till all men doubt it, And write about it, G.o.ddess, and about it.

Theobald is introduced also in the _Art of Sinking in Poetry_ among the cla.s.ses of authors described as swallows and eels: the former "are eternally skimming and fluttering up and down, but all their agility is employed to catch flies," the latter "wrap themselves up in their own mud, but are mighty nimble and pert." About the same time, however, Pope brought out the second edition (1728) of his Shakespeare, and in it he incorporated some of Theobald's conjectures, though his recognition of their merit was grudging and even dishonestly inadequate. (See the preface to the various readings at the end of the eighth volume, 1728.) Yet one's sympathies with Theobald are prejudiced by his ascription to Shakespeare of the _Double Falshood, or the Distrest Lovers_, a play which was acted in 1727 and printed in the following year. Theobald professed to have revised it and adapted it to the stage. The question of authors.h.i.+p has not been settled, but if Theobald is relieved from the imputation of forgery, he must at least stand convicted of ignorance of the Shakespearian manner.

Pope at once recognised that the play was not Shakespeare's, and added a contemptuous reference to it in the second edition of his Preface. It was the opinion of Farmer that the groundwork of the play was by s.h.i.+rley (see the _Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare_, p. 181).

Theobald now sought to revenge himself on Pope, and, in his own words, he "purposed to reply only in Shakespeare" (Nichols, _id._ ii., p. 248). His first plan was to publish a volume of _Remarks on Shakespeare_. On 15th April, 1729, he says the volume "will now shortly appear in the world"

(id., p. 222), but on 6th November he writes to Warburton, "I know you will not be displeased, if I should tell you in your ear, perhaps I may venture to join the _Text_ to my _Remarks_" (_id._, p. 254). By the following March he had definitely determined upon giving an edition of Shakespeare, as appears from another letter to Warburton: "As it is necessary I should now inform the publick that I mean to attempt to give them an edition of that Poet's [_i.e._ Shakespeare's] text, together with my corrections, I have concluded to give this notice, not only by advertis.e.m.e.nts, 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 Works; and humbly addressed to him_" (_id._ ii., p. 551). Of this he forwards Warburton an extract. The pamphlet does not appear to have been published. The _Miscellany on Taste_ which he brought out anonymously in 1732 contains a section ent.i.tled "Of Mr. Pope's Taste of Shakespeare," but this is merely a reprint of the letter of 15th (or 16th) April, which had already been printed in the _Daily Journal_. A considerable time elapsed before arrangements for publication were completed, the interval being marked by a temporary estrangement from Warburton and an unsuccessful candidature for the laureates.h.i.+p. Articles with Tonson were signed in November, 1731 (_id._ ii., pp. 13, 618), and at the same time the correspondence with Warburton was renewed. The edition did not appear till 1733. The Preface had been begun about the end of 1731.

From March, 1729, with the short break in 1730, Theobald had been in steady correspondence with Warburton, and most of his letters, with a few of those of Warburton, have been preserved by Nichols (see _id._ ii., pp.

189, 607). But it would have been more fortunate for Theobald's reputation had they perished. The cruel contempt and bitterness of Warburton's references to him after their final estrangement may be offensive, but the correspondence shows that they were not without some justification.

Theobald submits his conjectures anxiously to the judgment of Warburton, and again and again Warburton saves him from himself. In one of the letters Theobald rightly condemns Pope's proposed insertion of "Francis Drake" in the incomplete line at the end of the first scene of _Henry VI., Part 1._; but not content with this flawless piece of destructive criticism he argues for inserting the words "and Ca.s.siopeia." The probability is that if Warburton had not condemned the proposal it would have appeared in Theobald's edition. "With a just deference to your most convincing reasons," says Theobald, "I shall with great cheerfulness banish it as a bad and unsupported conjecture" (_id._ ii., p. 477); and this remark is typical of the whole correspondence. A considerable share of the merit of Theobald's edition-though the share is mostly negative-belongs to Warburton, for Theobald had not taste enough to keep him right when he stepped beyond collation of the older editions or explanation by parallel pa.s.sages. Indeed, the letters to Warburton, besides helping to explain his reputation in the eighteenth century, would in themselves be sufficient to justify his place in the _Dunciad_.

Warburton had undoubtedly given Theobald ungrudging a.s.sistance and was plainly interested in the success of the edition. But as he had gauged Theobald's ability, he had some fears for the Preface. So at least we gather from a letter which Theobald wrote to him on 18th November, 1731:

"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 _Prolegomena_ I have determined to soften into _Preface_. I am so very cool as to my sentiments of my Adversary's usage, that I think the publick should not be too largely troubled with them. _Blockheadry_ is the chief hinge of his satire upon me; and if my Edition do not wipe out that, I ought to be content to let the charge be fixed; if it do, the reputation gained will be a greater triumph than resentment. 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 embarra.s.sed 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 a.s.sistance in a _Preface_ will, I am afraid, make me appear too naked. Rymer's extravagant rancour against our Author, under the umbrage of criticism, may, I presume, find a place here"

(_id._ ii., pp. 621, 622).

This confession of weakness is valuable in the light of Warburton's Preface to his own edition of 1747. His statement of the a.s.sistance he rendered Theobald is rude and cruel, but it is easier to impugn his taste than his truthfulness. Theobald did not merely ask for a.s.sistance in the Preface; he received it too. Warburton expressed himself on this matter, with his customary force and with a pleasing attention to detail, in a letter to the Rev. Thomas Birch on 24th November, 1737. "You will see in Theobald's heap of disjointed stuff," he says, "which he calls a Preface to Shakespeare, an observation upon those poems [_i.e._ _L'Allegro_ and _Il Penseroso_] 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 all that Preface (except what relates to Shakespeare's Life, and the foolish Greek conjectures at the end) was made up of notes I sent him on particular pa.s.sages, and which he has there st.i.tched together without head or tail" (Nichols, ii., p. 81). The Preface is indeed a poor piece of patch-work. Examination of the footnotes throughout the edition corroborates Warburton's concluding statement. Some of the annotations which have his name attached to them are repeated almost verbatim (_e.g._ the note in _Love's Labour's Lost_ on the use of music), while the comparison of Addison and Shakespeare is taken from a letter written by Warburton to Concanen in 1726-7 (_id._ ii., pp. 195, etc.). The inequality of the essay-the fitful succession of limp and acute observations-can be explained only by ill-matched collaboration.

Warburton has himself indicated the extent of Theobald's debt to him. In his own copy of Theobald's Shakespeare he marked the pa.s.sages which he had contributed to the Preface, as well as the notes "which Theobald deprived him of and made his own," and the volume is now in the Capell collection in Trinity College, Cambridge. Mr. Churton Collins, in his attempt to prove Theobald the greatest of Shakespearean editors, has said that "if in this copy, which we have not had the opportunity of inspecting, Warburton has laid claim to more than Theobald has a.s.signed to him, we believe him to be guilty of dishonesty even more detestable than that of which the proofs are, as we have shown, indisputable."(33) An inspection of the Cambridge volume is not necessary to show that a pa.s.sage in the Preface has been conveyed from one of Warburton's letters published by Nichols and by Malone. Any defence of Theobald by an absolute refusal to believe Warburton's word can be of no value unless some proof be adduced that Warburton was here untruthful, and it is peculiarly inept when Theobald's own page proclaims the theft. We know that Theobald asked Warburton for a.s.sistance in the Preface, and gave warning that such a.s.sistance would not be acknowledged. Warburton could have had no evil motive in marking those pa.s.sages in his _private_ copy; and there is surely a strong presumption in favour of a man who deliberately goes over seven volumes, carefully indicating the material which he considered his own. It happens that one of the pa.s.sages contains an unfriendly allusion to Pope. If Warburton meant to be "dishonest"-and there could be no purpose in being dishonest before he was Theobald's enemy-why did he not disclaim this allusion some years later? The simple explanation is that he marked the pa.s.sages for his own amus.e.m.e.nt while he was still on friendly terms with Theobald. They are thirteen in number, and they vary in length from a few lines to two pages.

Four of them are undoubtedly his, and there is nothing to disprove that the other nine are his also.(34)

Theobald quotes also from his own correspondence. On 17th March, 1729-30, he had written to Warburton a long letter dealing with Shakespeare's knowledge of languages and including a specimen of his proposed pamphlet against Pope. "Your most necessary caution against inconsistency, with regard to my opinion of Shakespeare's knowledge in languages," he there says characteristically, "shall not fail to have all its weight with me.

And therefore the pa.s.sages that I occasionally quote from the Cla.s.sics shall not be brought as proofs that he imitated those originals, but to shew how happily he has expressed themselves upon the same topics"

(Nichols, ii., pp. 564, etc.). This part of the letter is included verbatim three years afterwards in the Preface. So also is the other pa.s.sage in the same letter replying to Pope on the subject of Shakespeare's anachronisms. Theobald borrows even from his own published writings. Certain pa.s.sages are reproduced from the Introduction to _Shakespeare Restored_.

If Theobald could hardly acknowledge, as he said, the a.s.sistance he received in writing the Preface, he at least admitted his editorial debt to Warburton and others punctiliously and handsomely. After referring to Dr. Thirlby of Jesus College, Cambridge, and Hawley Bishop, he thus writes of his chief helper:

"To these, I must add the indefatigable Zeal and Industry of my most ingenious and ever-respected Friend, the Reverend Mr.

_William Warburton_ of _Newark_ upon _Trent_. This Gentleman, from the Motives of his frank and communicative Disposition, voluntarily took a considerable Part of my Trouble off my Hands; not only read over the whole Author for me, with the exactest Care; but enter'd into a long and laborious Epistolary Correspondence; to which I owe no small Part of my best Criticisms upon my Author.

"The Number of Pa.s.sages amended, and admirably Explained, which I have taken care to distinguish with his Name, will shew a Fineness of Spirit and Extent of Reading, beyond all the Commendations I can give them: Nor, indeed, would I any farther be thought to commend a Friend, than, in so doing, to give a Testimony of my own Grat.i.tude."

So the preface read in 1733. But by the end of 1734 Warburton had quarrelled with Theobald, and by 1740, after a pa.s.sing friends.h.i.+p with Sir Thomas Hanmer, had become definitely attached to the party of Pope. This is probably the reason why, in the Preface to the second edition, Theobald does not repeat the detailed statement of the a.s.sistance he had received.

He wisely omits also the long and irrelevant pa.s.sage of Greek conjectures, given with no other apparent reason than to parade his learning. And several pa.s.sages either claimed by Warburton (_e.g._ that referring to Milton's poems) or known to be his (_e.g._ the comparison of Addison and Shakespeare) are also cancelled.

The merits of the text of Theobald's edition are undeniable; but the text is not to be taken as the sole measure of his ability. By his diligence in collation he restored many of the original readings. His knowledge of Elizabethan literature was turned to good account in the explanation and ill.u.s.tration of the text. He claims to have read above eight hundred old English plays "to ascertain the obsolete and uncommon phrases." But when we have spoken of his diligence, we have spoken of all for which, as an editor, he was remarkable. Pope had good reason to say of him, though he gave the criticism a wider application, that

Pains, reading, study are their just pretence, And all they want is spirit, taste, and sense.

The inner history of his Preface would prove of itself that Theobald well deserved the notoriety which he enjoyed in the eighteenth century.

Sir Thomas Hanmer.

Sir Thomas Hanmer's edition of Shakespeare, in six handsome quarto volumes, was printed at the Clarendon Press in 1743-44. As it appeared anonymously it was commonly called the "Oxford edition." It was well known, however, that Hanmer was the editor. Vols. ii., iii., and iv. bear the date 1743; the others, 1744.

Hanmer had been Speaker of the House of Commons from 1713 to 1715, and had played an important part in securing the Protestant succession on the death of Queen Anne. He retired from public life on the accession of George II., and thereafter lived in "lettered ease" at his seat of Mildenhall near Newmarket till his death in 1746. It is not known when he undertook his edition of Shakespeare, but the idea of it was probably suggested to him by the publication of Theobald's edition in 1733. His relative and biographer, Sir Henry Bunbury, writing in 1838, refers to a copy of this edition with corrections and notes on the text of every play in Hanmer's handwriting. There can be no doubt, however, of the accuracy of Warburton's statement that his edition was printed from Pope's, though the hastiest examination will prove the falsity of Warburton's other remark that Hanmer neglected to compare Pope's edition with Theobald's. He relied on Pope's judgment as to the authenticity of pa.s.sages and on Theobald's accuracy in collation. Thus while he omits lines which Pope had omitted, or degrades them to the foot of the page, he often adopts Theobald's reading of a word or phrase.

He had certainly made considerable progress with the edition by May, 1738, when he was visited by Warburton (see Nichols, _Ill.u.s.trations_, ii. 44, 69). It was still incomplete in March, 1742, but it was sent to the printer at the end of that year, as we learn from a letter of 30th December to Zachary Grey, the editor of _Hudibras_: "I must now acquaint you that the books are gone out of my hands, and lodged with the University of Oxford, which hath been willing to accept of them as a present from me. They intend to print them forthwith, in a fair impression adorned with sculptures; but it will be so ordered that it will be the cheapest book that ever was exposed to sale.... None are to go into the hands of booksellers" (Nichols, _Literary Anecdotes_, v., p. 589). Earlier in the year, in the important letter concerning his quarrel with Warburton, which will be referred to later, he had spoken of his edition in the following terms: "As to my own particular, I have no aim to pursue in this affair; I propose neither honour, reward, or thanks, and should be very well pleased to have the books continue upon their shelf, in my own private closet. If it is thought they may be of use or pleasure to the publick, I am willing to part with them out of my hands, and to add, for the honour of Shakespear, some decorations and embellishments at my own expense" (_id._ v., p. 589). The printing of the edition was not supervised by Hanmer himself, but by Joseph Smith, Provost of Queen's College, and Robert s.h.i.+ppen, Princ.i.p.al of Brasenose. We find them receiving instructions that there must be care in the correction of the press, that the type must be as large as in Pope's edition, but that the paper must be better.

These facts are of interest in connection with Hanmer's inclusion in the fourth book of the _Dunciad_. In a note by Pope and Warburton he is referred to as "an eminent person, who was about to publish a very pompous edition of a great author, _at his own expense_"; and in the poem the satire is maladroitly aimed at the handsomeness of the volumes. Warburton afterwards implied that he was responsible for the inclusion of this pa.s.sage (_id._, p. 590), and though the claim is disputed by Hanmer's biographer, the ineffectiveness of the attack would prove that it was not spontaneous. Pope, however, would yield to Warburton's desire the more readily if, as Sir Henry Bunbury had reason to believe, the anonymous _Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet_, published in 1736, was the work of Hanmer,(35) for there Pope's edition was compared unfavourably, though courteously, with that of Theobald. (See the _Correspondence of Sir Thomas Hanmer_, 1838, pp. 80, etc.)

William Warburton.

"The Works of Shakespear in Eight Volumes. The Genuine Text (collated with all the former Editions, and then corrected and emended) is here settled: Being restored from the _Blunders_ of the first Editors, and the _Interpolations_ of the two Last; with a Comment and Notes, Critical and Explanatory. By Mr. Pope and Mr. Warburton. 1747."

So runs the t.i.tle of what is generally known as Warburton's edition. It is professedly a revised issue of Pope's. In point of fact it is founded, not on Pope's text, but on the text of Theobald. Warburton does not follow even Pope's arrangement of the plays. With one insignificant transposition, he gives them in the identical order in which they appear in Theobald's edition. And though he has his gibe at Hanmer in the t.i.tle page, he incorporates Hanmer's glossary word for word, and almost letter for letter. But his animosity betrays him in his Preface. He complains of the trouble which he has been put to by the last two editors, for he has had "not only their interpolations to throw out, but the genuine text to replace and establish in its stead." He would not have had this trouble had he used Pope's edition. He may have believed that what he took from Hanmer and Theobald was very much less than what they had received from him. According to his own statements he supplied each with a large number of important emendations which had been used without acknowledgment. Yet this does not excuse the suggestion that his edition was founded on Pope's.

The explanation is Warburton's just pride in Pope's friends.h.i.+p,-a pride which he took every opportunity of gratifying and parading. But in his earlier days he had been, all unknown to Pope, an enemy. He escaped the _Dunciad_ by reason of his obscurity. He was the friend of Concanen and Theobald, and in a letter to the former, containing his earliest extant attempt at Shakespearian criticism, he observes that "Dryden borrows for want of leisure, and Pope for want of genius." The letter is dated 2nd January, 1726-27, but luckily for Warburton it was not publicly known till, in 1766, Akenside used it as a means of paying off old scores (see Nichols, _Ill.u.s.trations_, ii., pp. 195-198, and Malone's Shakespeare, 1821, vol. xii., pp. 157, etc.). It is of interest also from the fact that Theobald transcribed from it almost verbatim the comparison of Shakespeare and Addison in the Preface of 1733.

Theobald's deference and even humility must have confirmed Warburton's confidence in his own critical powers, but it was not till Theobald's Shakespeare was published that Warburton first hinted at an edition by himself. From 1729 to 1733 he had given Theobald loyally of his best. On the appearance of the edition he betrayed some annoyance that all his suggestions had not been accepted. "I have transcribed about fifty emendations and remarks," he writes on 17th May, 1734, "which I have at several times sent you, omitted in the Edition of Shakespeare, which, I am sure, are better than any of mine published there. These I shall convey to you soon, and desire you to publish them (as omitted by being mislaid) in your Edition of the 'Poems,' which I hope you will soon make ready for the press" (Nichols, _Ill.u.s.trations_, ii., p. 634). These he duly forwarded, along with a flattering criticism of the edition. He gives no hint that he may himself turn them to account, till the October of the same year, when he writes, "I have a great number of notes, etc., on Shakespeare, _for some future Edition_" (_id._, p. 654). Here the correspondence ceases. Up to this time Warburton had aided Theobald's schemes of retaliating on Pope. We have his own authority for attributing to him the remark in Theobald's Preface that "it seems a moot point whether Mr. Pope has done most injury to Shakespeare as his Editor and Encomiast, or Mr. Rymer done him service as his Rival and Censurer." It is probable even that he had a hand in Theobald's and Concanen's _Art of a Poet's sinking in Reputation, or a Supplement to the Art of sinking in Poetry_.