\
Presented to the
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRARY
by the
ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE
LIBRARY
1980
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN ENGLISH
AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE
LEWIS THEOBALD
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
SALES AGENTS
NEW YORK
LEMCKE & BUECHNER
30-32 WEST 27ra STREET
LONDON
HUMPHREY MILFORD
AMEN CORNER, E.C.
SHANGHAI
EDWARD EVANS & SONS, LTD.
30 NORTH SZECHUEN ROAD
**•«*
LEWIS THEOBABiLJ^!l
HIS CONTRIBUTION TO ENGLISH SCHOLARSHIP
WITH SOME UNPUBLISHED LETTERS
BY
RICHARD FOSTER JONES, PH.D.
gorfe
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
1919
All rights reserved
Copyright, 1919
BY COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
Printed from type, March, 1919
f'R.
TO
THE MEMORY OF
MY FATHER AND MOTHER
THIS BOOK
IS
DEDICATED
This 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
reliable, especially in matters touching The Dunciad. They
all present the same picture of Theobald as is found in the
variorum 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
For son 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. Collins
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 Dunciad and its surroundings, 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 little, had I not dis
covered a number of unpublished 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
compliance 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 O. 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 libraries of Columbia, Harvard, Yale,
and Western Reserve universities, and also to the officials of
the British Museum, I wish to acknowledge the obligation
of many courtesies.
I wish publicly to express to my wife my heartfelt gratitude
for her dear assistance. Besides performing the tedious and
mechanical tasks necessary to publication, she was ever
ready with affectionate sympathy and intelligent criticism,
allowing neither my efforts to lag nor my perseverance to
fail. To my brother, Doctor E. H. Jones, I am happy to
return thanks for most substantial aid in publishing 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 UNIVERSITY,
January 25, 1919.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THEOBALD'S EARLY LIFE 1
II. THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 31
III. SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 61
IV. THE PERIOD OF THE DUNCIAD 100
V. THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 156
VI. THEOBALD'S LATER LIFE 193
VII. THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 217
APPENDIX
A. BlBLIOTHECA 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
IN writing the life of a man like Theobald the biographer
would like 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 sufficient 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.1 He was named after a friend of the
family, Lewis Watson, Earl of Rockingham, who made
1 "'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
2 LEWIS THEOBALD
his namesake companion to his son, Viscount Sondres, at
a school conducted by the Rev. Mr. Ellis 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." 2 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 3 — 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 life, was neither so interesting nor extensive as
to prevent his engaging in various literary 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.4 Earlier
in the year the translator had taken advantage of the great
popularity of Cato to publish a life of the Roman hero,5
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.
2 Dedication to his translation of the Clouds, 1715.
1 Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 125.
4 Plato's Dialogue of the Immortality of the Soul. Translated from
the Greek by Mr. Theobald, 1713.
6 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 Electro, (1714) he says, "I shall refer
the reader for it [the story of lo] to my Prometheus of
Aeschylus, which will shortly be published," while in the
notes to his rendition of Oedipus (1714) he speaks of his
translation of the Seven Captains against Thebes.6 Some
eight or ten years later Theobald issued proposals to publish
the tragedies by subscription, setting the date of publica
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.
6 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 unnoticed. When The Dunciad
was published, this line appeared,
And, last, his own cold ^Eschylus 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." 7 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,8 and continued his
attacks in The Grub-street Journal. In one number Theobald
is accused of bad faith in the collection of subscriptions,9
and in another he is warned of failure by being reminded of
the poor success of his translation of Aristophanes.10
But he still persisted in his purpose, growing more ambi
tious as time went by. In his edition of Shakespeare u
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,
7 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; upon sight of a specimen of which was
made this Epigram,
Alas! poor Aeschylus! unlucky dog!
Whom once a Lobster kill'd, and now a Log."
* Bk. Ill, 1. 311 of the editions of 1729.
9 Grub-street Journal, No. 59, October 6, 1730.
10 Idem, No. 37, September 17, 1730.
11 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 Philoctetes 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
lings for every four hundred and fifty lines, while for Horace
the price was one guinea for every one hundred and twenty
lines.12 While Theobald may have translated the four
tragedies mentioned above, only one, the Oedipus Tyrannus,
12 "All these articles were to be performed according to the time
specified, under 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."
6 LEWIS THEOBALD
was published.13 The next year, however, Lintot pub
lished a translation by Theobald of a play of Sophocles,
the Electro,, not mentioned in the contract.14 This was
dedicated to Addison, whose friendship the translator en
joyed.
By the same publisher there was issued a translation of
Ajax 15 which later biographers of Theobald have attributed
to hmi. 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." 16 Jacob, in his Poetical Register,
although mentioning the Oedipus and Electra, as well as the
two plays from Aristophanes, makes no mention of a trans
lation of Ajax. Neither does Nichols in his account 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 volume,
p. 190, of Hughes' letters, to have been translated by a Mr.
Jackson.17 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,
18 Oedipus, King of Thebes: A Tragedy. Translated from Sophocles,
with Notes By Mr. Theobald. London, 1715.
14 Electra: A Tragedie. Translated from Sophocles, with Notes.
London, 1715.
15 Ajax of Sophocles. Translated from the Greek, with Notes. London,
1714.
» Editions of 1729, Bk. 1, 1. 42.
17 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.18 Since Pope
in search of material for the Duntiad 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 Philoctetes, 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 all the Greek
Tragedies.
It is almost certain that Theobald translated Aeschylus. The
four tragedies of Sophocles he contracted to translate, plus
his Electro, , plus the Antigone, advertised as being by Mr.
Howe, and plus the Ajax, by Jackson and Rowe, give us
18 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 1714.19
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 tune or in
clination 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.20 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.21 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.
20 Nichols (Literary Anecdotes, vol. 1, p. 80) gives November, 1716,
as the date of publication, while Pope says 1717 (Dunciad, 1729, note
on Bk. I, 1. 106). Gibber agrees with Nichols. (Lives of the Poets,
vol. 5, p. 287.)
21 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.22
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.23 In a prefatory discourse Theobald
says, "If these find an Acceptation sufficient 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 English 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 ill success his translation of
Aristophanes had.24
In later years when, owing largely to the influence of The
Dundad, it had become the custom to sneer at Theobald,
his translations were subject to further attacks. In 1742
Henry Fielding and William Young issued a translation of
Plutus, in the preface to which it is insinuated that Theobald
22 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.
23 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.
24 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 1692.25
I own we have more to answer to the lady than to Mr. Theobald
who, being a critic of great nicety himself, and great diligence 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 little, 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
25 Cf. Professor Lounsbury's Remarks on Disraeli's doubt of Theo
bald's knowledge of Greek. Text of Shakespeare, p. 133.
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." 26 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.27 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
26 Remarks of Pope's Homer, p. 9; quoted in Nichols, Illustrations
of Literature, vol. 2, p. 719.
27 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.28
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,29 a satire upon translations and translators in general,
praise being bestowed only upon Pope's Homer and Howe'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, do 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.
28 J. C. Collins, Essays and Studies, p. 276; and the article on Theo
bald in the Dictionary of National Biography.
29 Translation: a Poem. By Thomas Franklin. London, 1753.
THEOBALD'S EARLY 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." 30 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 earlier translator differs 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.31 Six years later
he published The Mausoleum, a poem written in heroic coup
lets and dedicated to Charles, Earl of Orrery.32 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-
30 In marked contrast to Franklin's estimate of Theobald's work
stands that of the first of classical scholars in literary taste, Richard
Person, by whom Theobald's translations "were highly esteemed."
See Reliquiae Hearnianae, ed. P. Bliss, 1869, vol. 3, p. 137, note.
31 Gibber gives 1707 as the date of this poem. Lives of the Poets,
vol. 5, p. 287.
32 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.33 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.34
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.36 It
seems to have found its way across the channel, and was the
cause of an exchange of letters between Theobald and the
Zurich professor of History and Politics, Johann Jacob
Bodmer, who characterized it as a splendid poem, possessing
not only the style of Shakespeare but his spirit itself.37 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." 38 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 unsolicited praise of such
a man is not to be underestimated.
Professor Lounsbury has shown how plain an imitation
of Shakespeare the poem is :
88 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.
34 I have found no trace of this poem, but Theobald mentions it in
his dedication of the Persian Princess to the Duchess of Ormond.
35 The Cave of Poverty, A Poem. Written in Imitation of Shakespeare.
By Mr. Theobald. London.
38 Giles Jacob, Poetical Register, quoted in Nichols, Illustrations of
Literature, vol. 2, p. 711.
37 Appendix, p. 339.
88 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.39
He continues to show how Theobald uses the six-line stanza
of Venus 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 darling Labour 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.
39 Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 184.
16 LEWIS THEOBALD
Curse on the envious Fate, that tyes me down
To Servile Ills iny gen'rous Soul disdains!
Curse on the Shifts my needy Age has known;
The hated shifts which mighty Need constrains!
O Comfort-Killing State! Heart-Wounding Grief f
0 Sorrows that admit no kind Relief.
0 dull 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 Griffin,
a player, assisted by Theobald.41 The evidence is indeed
slight. But if Pope wished to father it upon his opponent,
40 A Complete Key to the last New Farce The What D'ye Call It. 1715.
41 Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 417.
THEOBALD'S EARLY LIFE 17
why should he bring in the actor? The work has no signifi
cance except in so far as the writer has been thought to
attack Pope. Gay said the author called him a blockhead
and Pope a knave, which statement, however, is a great
exaggeration. While the author resents the satire on the
plays of Shakespeare and Addison, he praises Pope's genius,
and in no place abuses him.42 In the preface the derivation
of the word " burlesque" and the reference to Dr. Bentley
are in Theobald's manner. In the wide and various cita
tions from the plays of Shakespeare the author shows a
knowledge of the dramatist wholly consistent with Theo
bald's later accomplishments. His comment on Othello's
putting out the light is somewhat similar to the note on the
same passage in Theobald's edition of Shakespeare. The
high praise of Addison and the reference to the jealousy of
Dennis are in keeping with the pronounced opinions in
The Mausoleum and The Censor. Nor is the evinced knowl
edge of the chorus of Greek tragedy beside the point.
Early in 1715 Theobald began the publication of a tri
weekly periodical, The Censor, fashioned after the Spectator.
This ran for thirty numbers, from April 11 to June 17. It
then suspended publication until January 1, 1717, when it
again appeared and continued to June 1, ending with the
ninety-sixth number. Theobald attributed the failure of
the undertaking to its following "too close upon the Heels
of the inimitable Spectator." Many of its numbers deal
with trivial subjects in a satiric fashion, but the humor is
heavy and the satire weak. It follows the Spectator in its
attacks on antiquaries, virtuosi, and pedants. Some of
42 "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
i
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.43 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.44
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.45 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 1715.46 The basis of Mr. Paul's conjecture may be
a letter from Pope to Parnell, 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,
43 The Poetical Works of Thomas Parnell, 1894, p. xlvi.
44 The Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. IX, p. 188.
46 H. G. Paul, John Dennis, 1911, p. 93.
48 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.47
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 slight knowledge 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." 48 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 applied to
him. As early as 1699 he had been so called. Furthermore,
Parnell's description of Zoilus tallies 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.49 There
47 Idem, vol. 7, p. 457.
48 Elwin and Courthope, vol. 7, p. 464.
49 "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, affirm 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 life of Raleigh, a slight and
incomplete tract of no intrinsic value, but significant in be
ing his first work dealing with the Elizabethan period.60
Two years later Theobald collected and published a
volume of miscellanies,51 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."
60 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.]
61 The Grove; or a Collection of Original Poems, Translations, 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.62
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.53 The play was not a success, and in his pref
ace the dramatist speaks slightingly of it, but the fact that
it was accepted by the only theater in London argues some
thing in its favor.64 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 publish 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. 56 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
62 Gibber attributes to Theobald a work entitled The Gentlemen's
Library, containing Rules for Conduct in all Parts of Life in 12 mo. 1722.
63 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.
64 Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 125.
66 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.56 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." 57 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
his 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
56 The Tragedy of King Richard the II ; As it is acted at the Theatre
in Lincoln' s-inn-fields. Alter'd from Shakespeare, By Mr. Theobald.
London, 1720.
67 History of English Stage, vol. 3, p. 34.
23
generally accredited him, though his later discovery of
Elizabethan 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.58 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.59 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,&0 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
58 Theobald accepted "Lollius" in good faith.
59 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 published.
60 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 modern
Italians." 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 Italian 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.61 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.
61 "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 will 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.62
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 Decius and
Paulina, which occurs in the last act of Settle's produc
tion.63 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.64 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
62 Tom Jones, Pt. 5, Chap. 1. Fielding satirized pantomime in
Tumbledown Dick, or Phaeton in the Suds, 1744.
63 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 Y"
64 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.65
Theobald's last pantomime, Orpheus and Eurydice; an
Opera, was produced at Covent Garden February 12, 1740,
but had been published 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." 66 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.67 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.68
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: Hell. 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-
66 Some of the pantomimes were unusually long-lived. The Rape of
Proserpine, for instance, has been performed once or twice in this century.
66 Genest, vol. 3, p. 618.
67 See A History of Pantomime, by R. J. Broadbent, p. 160.
68 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 entertainments, was rather limited ; and so, with the
increasing demand for pantomime, repetition was inevitable.69
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.70 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 Advanced 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
69 There were some five operas and pantomimes under the title of
Orpheus and Eurydice.
70 This was the notorious Sir John Hill, 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. AT. 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.71
The tremendous popularity of these performances was
due to spectacular scenery, unusual costumes, and the tricks
and " stunts" done on the stage. They were a combina
tion of the New York Hippodrome and Ringling 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 lifted 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-
71 Another production of similar nature, though not a pantomime,
and the last to come from Theobald's hand, appeared hi 1741, entitled
The Happy Captive, an English Opera, In Two Comick Scenes, Betwixt
Signor Capacdo, 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 Italian
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.72 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 literary over legal affairs, law being his nominal
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 in the Greek drama was genuine
and intelligent.
72 See the dedication of Shakespeare Restored to John Rich, a
remarkable performance, where Theobald apologizes 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 RAGE FOR EMENl^NG f
• •
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.1 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 English and Dutch.2 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
1 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.
2 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 life and manners.3
The English 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.4 The
father of this school was Richard Bentley.5 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,
8 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,
Niccoli (1363-1437) and Laurentius Valla (1407-1457), achieved some
valuable results. In 1567 Robortelli laid the foundation of textual
criticism in his De Arte sive Ratione Corrigendi Antiquos Libros Dis-
putatio, nunc primum a me excogitata, 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. ctt.t
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 all the various Copies of authority, and then, from amidst the
variety of Readings thus collected, 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 Muretus pub
lished nineteen books. Yet during these two periods emphasis was
not placed on verbal criticism, and no method was established.
4 Sandys, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 1.
6 R. C. Jebb, Richard Bentley, p. 216; J. H. Monk, Life of Richard
Bentley, vol. 1, p. 15; and article on Bentley in Enc. Brit., ninth ed.
THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 33
causing them to pattern their pursuits after his.6 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 little 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,7 he soon
departed on a path more essentially his own — verbal
criticism.8 His interest in this phase of scholarship was
apparent from the very beginning. The pages of his Epistle
to Mill and his "Immortal Dissertation " are strewn with
emendations.9 No matter what argument he is engaged
6 I have reference chiefly to English scholars, although his influence
was almost as pronounced on some of the continental scholars, es
pecially the Dutch.
7 His Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris is considered the first
piece of scientific research.
8 R. C. Jebb, Richard Bentley, p. 215.
9 "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 Callimachus are brilliantly
corrected in many places, while the three critical epistles
attached to Kuster's Aristophanes are composed entirely
of emendations on that poet.10
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 like Joshua Barnes had learning, but they
did not know how to handle it. Bentley systematized his
knowledge. He constructed a Hexapla, in the first column
of which he inserted every word of the Hebrew Bible, and
in other columns the corresponding words in Chaldee,
Syriac, the Vulgate, Latin, and the Septuagint.11 The
collection of the fragments of Callimachus which he sent to
Graevius, collected from innumerable sources, shows at
once that he must have had some sort of index of writers
10 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 sees 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 establish it firmly on the only basis which can securely
support it, the basis of ascertained texts." — R. C. Jebb, Richard
Bentley, p. 216.
11 Monk, op. tit., vol. 1, p. 14.
THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 35
quoted by subsequent commentators, which, indeed, Monk
says he had.12 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
literature 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.13 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.14 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." 15 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." 16 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
12 Idem, vol. 1, p. 16.
13 The Collected Writings of Thomas De Quincey, by David Masson.
London, 1897, vol. IV, pp. 198, 215.
14 A. Dyce, Works of Richard Bentky, vol. 2, p. 16.
16 A. Dyce, Works of Richard Bentley, vol. 1, p. 428.
18 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, were of importance.
In the preface to his examination of Bentley's dissertation
Boyle characterizes the Phalaris controversy as trivial and
frivolous.17 "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 establishment 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 establish 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
17 Dr. Bentky's Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris, and the Fables
of Aesop examined By the Honourable Charles Boyle, Esq. London,
1698.
THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 37
on a knowledge more complete in detail; it was also conducted
with a closer and more powerful logic.18
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.19 One by one
18 R. C. Jebb, Richard Bentley, p. 213.
19 Cf. Latin Manuscripts, by Harold W. Johnston, Chicago, 1897.
The method here given by Professor Johnston for modern textual
criticism tallies 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.20 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 qualities that
came to be attributed to critics can with some definiteness
be localized. 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 tests to support the emendation, pp. 86-112.
20 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 Lucilius, one from Cicero,
and one from Claudian.
THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 39
tested and supported the emendation.21 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.22 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 Da vies, 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." 23 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
21 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.
22 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 Bickerstaff.
23 "Lectori" to edition of Cicero's De Natura Deorum, 1717.
40
LEWIS THEOBALD
him to be easily the first in critical matters,24 and Jeremiah
Markland in various places praised him in exaggerated
terms.25
Scholars of the old school, such as Joshua Barnes, and
believers in the polite 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.26 Bentley
began an epoch; he established a new school of criticism,
to which the greatest scholars of later times have belonged.27
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-
24 Hare's edition of Terence. London, 1724. Praefatio, p. xxvi.
26 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 Decembris, 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."
26 For example, see J. Markland's edition of Statius, London, 1728,
p. 117. For less conspicuous examples, see the notes in Zackary
Pearce's edition of the De Sublimitate of Longinus, 1724.
27 See Monk, op. tit., vol. 1, p. 15; vol. 2, p. 418; and the article
on Bentley in Enc. Brit., ninth ed.
THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 41
perienced most joy and won most praise. The older he
grew, the more inclined 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 brilliant work.
This emphasis upon emendatory criticism was made known
to the public 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 unintelligibility 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 while 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." 28 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
28 R. C. Jebb. op. tit., p. 125.
42 LEWIS THEOBALD
Bentley because he possessed a judicium logicum rather than
judidum poeticum. The liberty of emending was naturally
resented by a few scholars. Bishop Hare represents this
feeling in saying,29
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 always 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 necessary.
This was the plan of the critics in handling the writings of the
ancients, this their religion, until Bentley, "that new light of our
Britain," arose, who as if he had obtained, sole and alone, the
highest place in Criticism, denied that laws applied to him, and does
not suffer himself to be restrained by any rules; he recognizes no
limit to the power of his criticism; by virtue 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 view 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 poetry.
He exclaims what a divine poet Virgil 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 Scripsisses,
si tibi permissent Tempus et male feristi Homines : sed nunc
pars minima es ipse Tui." 30 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
29 Epistola Critica, p. 4 (translated from the Latin).
30 Statius, 1728. Praefatio, p. viii.
THE RAGE 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." 31 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 Kurd
asks,
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 ut nihil
intelligant? — After all, I believe the Author is a very good man,
31 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 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.32
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 legum peritus. When
he mentions them again, they are miles, mercator, consultus,
and rusticus. In their next appearance they are
Ille gravem duro terrain 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
32 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, ingentia, (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 literary
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
Perfidus 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 elided 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 Iliad 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 Alsenus 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.33
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.34 From this belief there developed
33 Translated from the Latin.
34 In his preface to Statins, 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 obscure places is a dis
regard of duty, which leads to "Incertitude 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." 35 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.36
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.
uncertain 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, " Quis tarn inepte fautor Veterum Lectionum,
ut non hoc concedat? nemo certe: nisi si quis tarn durus reperiri
queat, ut fateatur se Vetera et Falsa quam Recentia et Vera malle;
cujus Sinisteritatem pro Judicio suspicare, nae esset indicium mentis
infinnae, & Veritatis Numine parum contactae."
36 Hare's Epistola Critica, p. 5.
36 Markland's Epistola Critica, p. 2. Both quotations are trans
lated from the Latin.
THE RAGE 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 utility
of gift." 37 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
stumbling 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
37 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 fellow-
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.38
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." 39 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
38 Philological Inquiries, by James Harris, 1781. Pt. I, p. 35-
See also the story of the .Empiric on the same page.
39 Idem, p. 37. Whalley calls conjecture "the darling passion of
our modern critics." An Enquiry into the Learning of Shakespeare,
1745, p. 15.
THE RAGE FOR 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.40 In the preface to his edi
tion of Shakespeare Johnson speaks of Upton as being
unable to restrain the rage of emendation, tho 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 delighted 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.41 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 naturally tempted Warburton to
make some effort for distinction in a department of scholar
ship for which he was little fitted.42 Hare, perhaps mali
ciously, attributed Bentley's excessive emendations to his
inordinate desire for glory.43 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."44 In his burlesque notes on
40 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 257, 557, 283.
41 Dyce, op. tit., vol. 1, pp. 155, 276.
42 J. S. Watson, Life of Warburton, p. 67.
43 Epistola Critica, p. 148.
44 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 establishment 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 RAGE FOR EMENDING 53
well be ignorant of, and they are absolutely strangers to
what's really worth knowing." 46 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. 46
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." 47
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 suitability of research to
the satire of a predominantly satiric age, it is rather hard
46 The Works of Monsieur De St. Evremond, Made English from the
French Original. By Mr. Des Maizeaux. In three volumes, 1714,
vol. Ill, p. viii.
46 Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, In three volumes^
1711, vol. I, p. 122.
47 Idem, vol. 3, Miscell. 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 publication 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
public 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 accomplishments.49
As long as Bentley confined his labors to such writers as
Malelas, Phalaris, and the fragments of the Greek poets,
lie was beyond the ken of many of the wits, but when he
laid hands upon Horace, he was desecrating the literary
idol of the day.50 It was because of this popularity that
48 J. Wasse, Preface to his edition of Sallust, 1710.
49 Infamia Emendationis in Menandri Reliquias . . . Lundini Bata-
vorum, 1710.
60 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 miles 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 FOR 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.61 A fair sample
of the pointless abuse heaped upon the scholar is furnished
by a quotation from Dr. King's "Some account 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. 52 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 Own 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.
51 Among attacks published in 1712 were Horatius Reformatus,
The Life and Conversation of Richard Bentley, and Five Extraordinary
Letters, all published anonymously and all full of abuse, both personal
and general.
52 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 restored
Smil'd to survey a rival's doom,
While they possessed the envied room;
And hissing from their rescued throne
TV Usurper's fate, applaud their own.
The Roman nymphs, for want of notes
More tender, strain'd their little throats,
Till Bentley to relieve 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 sob 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.63
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.54 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-
63 John Nichols, A Select Collection of Poems, vol. 3, p. 60.
54 See Appendix B.
THE RAGE FOB 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 condemnation even on the
continent. Le Clerc, at this time Professor of Ecclesiastical
History at Amsterdam, who had reasons for disliking Bentley,
issued a restrained pamphlet against him, which was straight
way translated into English and published in London.55
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 hi notes
burlesquing Bentley's method, some of which are very
clever and logically plausible.56
56 Mr. Le Clerc' s Judgment and Censure of Dr. Bentley's Horace;
And of the Amsterdam Edition compar'd with that of Cambridge. Trans
lated from the French. 1713.
66 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.
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.57
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.68
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 triviality he answers that
all arts sometime deviate into triviality : physicians, lawyers,
physicists, metaphysicians, theologians, all deal in trifles.
He is especially severe on mathematicians and those who
indulge in the study of chronology. He replies to those who
67 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. Evremond, 1714.
68 Epistola Critica, p. 2.
THE RAGE FOB EMENDING 59
say that criticism is not conducive to convenience in life
or the public 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.59
Thus there was developing among the literati 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
59 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 unmodified, meant verbal criticism.60 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.61
60 See preface to William Broome's Poems on Several Occasions, 1727.
61 See Museum Criticum, vol. 1, p. 489. Here Porson says literary
criticism is nothing compared with verbal criticism, and though at
one tune 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 RESTORED
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.1
But if the similarity between the classics and Shakespeare's
text was noticed, it was not until two editions had been
1 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 folio.2 While some
of his emendations have proved satisfying, and while he
rendered real service in giving the lists of dramatis 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 suitability.
If he recognized the necessity of collating early editions, he
seems not to have profited much by the discovery. The
method of carefully collating manuscripts and editions
and of bringing to bear all 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 line 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 removing 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 Elizabethan and pre-Elizabethan
literature. Pope lacked both. Emendations he did make,
but the majority were adopted to reduce Shakespeare's
meter to eighteenth-century regularity. For the rest of his
conjectures he was wholly dependent upon his judgment,
and anything that did not appeal to his taste ran the risk
2 Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. V, pp. 298-299; and
Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 73-76.
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 63
of being relegated to the bottom of the page. Unwilling
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 peculiarities 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.3
It seems rather strange that Pope should ever have under
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
3 For a full description and criticism of Howe'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 accomplishments in that field, he undertook to
achieve glory in restoring Shakespeare.4 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.8
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 published. It is a large
quarto volume, dedicated to John Rich and containing one
hundred and ninety-four pages. The first one hundred and
thirty-two pages are in large print and are devoted primarily
to Hamlet The rest, under 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
4 In the preface (p. xxxix) 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.
6 To Mr. Pope, On his Works, 1726.
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 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." 6 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
6 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 Guess of mine, before he had enter'd upon publishing Shake
speare." 7
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 wrong 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
7 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 RESTORED 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.8 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 delicate 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.10
Elsewhere he styles himself "an admirer of antiquity" and
"a lover of antiquity." ll 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
8 References to Hamlet in Nos. 18, 54, 83, 90, 93; and to Othello
in Nos. 16, 95, 36. 9 Censor, No. 70.
10 Censor, No. 18. n 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.12
12 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 : 13
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.14
He maintains the same opinion of the poetry of Musaeus,
for whom he had a special liking.15 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-
18 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.
14 Censor, No. 26.
16 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 laboured 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
cerning the antiquity of the poem, and declining the " Ped
antry of amassing all the Authorities and Opinions," he
mentions Stobaeus, Athenaeus, Pausanias, and opposes
Scaliger 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 little
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.16 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-
16 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.17 He quotes from
Bentley's Epistle to Mill a passage which encourages him
in his work on Shakespeare.18 He expresses the highest
praise for Bentley's emendations of Menander and Philemon.19
He even models his edition of Shakespeare upon Bentley's
Amsterdam Horace.20 Everywhere he mentions Bentley
with respect, and often praise, styling him the " learned Dr.
Bentley" 21 and "a Great Man in Critical Learning." 22
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." 23
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,24 a fact clearly stated
in the preface to Shakespeare Restored:
17 Censor, Nos. 8 and 9. Preface to A Complete Key to the What
D'ye Call it (if Theobald wrote it).
18 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 313.
19 Shakespeare Restored, p. 193.
20 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. II, p. 621.
21 Censor, No. 26.
22 Essay prefixed to his translation of Hero and Leander, published
in The Grove, 1721.
23 Shakespeare Restored, p. 193.
24 "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,
""(Jin vidit mare turgidum." Bentley comments thus: 25
The Venetian edition, 1478, which I think was the first of all,
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 aXtov o*S/xa. 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 man
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. Get. 456— Cessante vento; turbidum
explicui mare.
Avienus in Arateis, — Non turn freta turbida pinu Quis
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 almost to be feared that in the passages from
Prudentius and Avienus, cited above, "turbidum" ought to be
substituted.
Let us now turn to a note of Theobald's on a line 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 literal 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 will be
something more considerable. 'Tis true, horrid and horrible
must be confessed 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 applied by our Author.
I remember a passage in his King Lear, where it particularly stands
for ugly.
74
Lear, p. 77.
LEWIS THEOBALD
... 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, terribk. 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 terribk. 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 tunes 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 Kingdom, calFd you Children,
You owe me no Subscription. Then let fall
Your horribk 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 horrible Villian! or I'll spurn thine Eyes
Like Balls before me!
Macbeth, pag. 561
. . . Hence, horrible Shadow!
Unreal Mock'ry, hence! . . . 26
I have chosen these two emendations because the changes
advocated are so similar. Bentley prefers "turbidum"
to "turgidum," Theobald "horribly" to "horridly," and
both on the ground of taste and preponderance of usage,
yet at the same time allowing the possibility of the regular
reading. There is in both the same critical attitude toward
the text, the same kind of emendation, and precisely the
same method of supporting the emendation.27
Again, consider Bentley's note on Horace, Bk. Ill, Carm.
VI, v. 20.
Hoc fonte derivata clades
In Patriam populumque fluxit.
26 Shakespeare Restored, p. 41.
27 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 poll, 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 lies 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 Seen-
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 terrain
only. Our poet was not so jejune or lacking in judgment as to
foist in that superfluous synonym, as it 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 phalanxes.
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.
Martialis 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 likewise 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 will 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 Application of this Thought is to
Duncan, 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 kilFd
him; but he'll 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 kill'd it ...
She'll 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 Corioli, 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
plication of the Term Scotch-Collops; he tells us that it means slices
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. Collops, or slices slash'd cross and
cross, before they are put on the coals.28
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.29 There
28 Shakespeare Restored, p. 185.
29 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 a 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 Illyrian, 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.
MDCCXIIL 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 plausibility 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
relied 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 unaneal'd in signifying
no knell rung. This is, if I mistake not, what the Greeks were
used to call an a7ro£ Aeyd/xevov 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, unknelPd; (or, uriknoWd;) 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 t
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.30
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 /xaTtoXoixos.
This word the scholiast, Photius, Suidas, Eustathius and others
allow. Hesychius has fumuoAoixos. Some of them derive
30 Shakespeare Restored, pp. 53-55.
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 81
the word from /xareuos, others from /uariov (which they wish
to mean eXa^to-ros) or from /u^mov, 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 /wmoAoixos should have the first syllable long; there
fore it is not from fumov which has the first syllable short. In
deed with whom as sponsor should we admit this fianov, 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?
Aoixos, 'a licker of vanities,' a 'vain licker': and
'a licker of infinitesimals,' or a 'licker of measures/ Surely here
are the deliriums of grammarians. With the slightest change I
correct thus Srpo^is, apyaAe'os /wiTTvoAoixos. Moreover you well
know what Marrvrj is; without doubt, desserts, rich viands; as
turdi; and other things of that nature. You know that line of
Martial — ' Inter quadrupedes mattya prima lepus — ' You also
know from Athanaeus that Aristophanes has used the word
fjMTTvr) elsewhere. Mai-TvoAoixos, therefore, as Kvio-oXoi^os, licker
of sweetmeats; which not only can signify gluttony but also im
pudence, so that it agrees with the other epithets here, Opacrvs,
etc.
Although arranged in somewhat different order, the ele
ments of both notes are the same. Bentley claims that the
explanations of jwrnoAoixos are based on a single occurrence
of the word, and likewise Theobald holds that Pope's
definition of "unanel'd" is an aira£ Xf.yop.evov "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 /nanoAoixo's cannot be
derived from pdrvov 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 \M.rr\»]\ Theobald
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 : 31
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 manner, just as if Liber proeliis 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 lion: 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 Pallas, not to
Liber; and the faulty pointing corrected in this manner:
Proximos illi tamen occupavit
Pallas honores
Proeliis audax. Neque te silebo,
Liber.
31 Bk. 1, Carm. 12, v. 21.
SHAKESPEARE 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, bellipotens, belligera; etc.
and also the Greeks.
Virgilius Aen. XI.
Armipotens belli praeses Tritonia Virgo.
Statius Silv. IV. 5.
Regina bellorum Virago.
Theobald corrects the punctuation in a passage from
Troilus and Cressida, Act. IV, Sc. I.32
Troilus and Cressida, Page 74.
Aene. And thou shall hunt a Lion that 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
turn'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 returned Diomede'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 "proem's 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 Statius, where such a character is given her.
Theobald's pointing gives the disputed phrase to the Trojans,
which, he says, "admirably 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 VIr
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.33 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.
33 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 English, though Pope depended largely
upon it in his corrections, and Theobald not infrequently
emended for metrical reasons. Intelligibility, grammar,
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
edge 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 he 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";34
34 Shakespeare Restored, p. 159.
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 87
from his knowledge of English history he shows that in '
King John "Anjou" should be substituted for "Angiers"; M
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 hi 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 like. 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 line as being "a dragging Parapleromatick,"
and makes a truly wonderful emendation.37 A passage in
35 Shakespeare Restored, p. 161.
36 Idem, p. 175.
37 Shakespeare Restored, p. 190.
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.38
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
38 Shakespeare Restored, p. 82. We can well imagine how Bentley
would have attacked this passage: "Or to take arms against a sea of
Trouble. Thus all the editions 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 believe 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 peculiar 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 necessaiy for his emendations,
but where all traces are lost he puts his emendation
on the basis of pure conjecture.39 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:
39 "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.40
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,41 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 improved, or grammar rectified. In case the
correction has to do with history, 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-
40 Shakespeare Restored, p. 165.
41 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,42 is a long list 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 endeavoured 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.43
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
42 See ante, Chap. II, note 30.
43 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.44 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,45 the use of adjectives as nouns,46 the frequent change
of number,47 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.48
There are a few other slight similarities between the two
critics. Theobald follows Bentley's method of correcting
44 Shakespeare Restored, pp. 2, 20, 24.
46 Idem, pp. 8, 11.
46 Idem, p. 37.
47 Idem, p. 35.
48 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.49
He also is like Bentley in claiming credit for an independent
emendation later verified by another reading.60 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
Critical1 In comparing the corrupt text of Shakespeare
to a sick person,62 Theobald was employing a figure used in
classical scholarship,53 and his characterization of Pope's
"abhorrence of all innovation" as "downright Supersti
tion" M had been given to others.55
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-
49 Shakespeare Restored, pp. Ill, 148.
80 Cf. Shakespeare Restored, pp. 82, 102, with note on Horace, Bk.
Ill, Ode XVII, v. 5.
61 See ante, Chap. II, p. 45.
82 Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. vi.
88 See ante, Chap. II, p. 48.
84 Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. iv.
88 See ante, Chap. II, p. 54.
94 LEWIS THEOBALD
speare — that of being a critic on him.55 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 obligated 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 diligence toward
making a text as intelligible 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."57
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.68 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-
66 Stated on p. v of the Introduction and repeated on p. 133 of
Shakespeare Restored.
67 Shakespeare Restored, p. 60.
68 Idem, p. 133.
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 95
hold a reading or sustain a statement.59 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.60 The only Eliza
bethan drama referred to is The Humorous Lieutenant of
Beaumont and Fletcher. This lack of knowledge of the
literature 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.61 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 undeceived." 62 Though Theobald speaks of the "Ap
plause of the Readers" and implies that he acted on a " View
of Reputation," 63 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
diligently, so "that better Critics will make their own Ob-
59 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.
60 Professor Lounsbury says these extracts are taken from other
dramatists of Shakespeare's tune, but I suspect he was thinking of
Theobald's edition. See Text of Shakespeare, p. 160.
61 Shakespeare Restored, p. 191.
62 Idem, p. 194.
63 Idem, pp. 133, 193.
96 LEWIS THEOBALD
servations, with more Strength than I can pretend to." 64
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 English 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." 65 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.66 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." 67 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.68
64 Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. vi.
66 Idem, p. 193.
66 Idem, p. 193.
67 Idem, p. vi.
68 Idem, p. 194. Compare also the passage on p. 134, where he
says that he runs 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 RESTORED 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 containing 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 little
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 obliged, 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 admire) who has
met with the good fortune of a kind hand endeavouring to secure
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, intelligible 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 ability 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
republish an old Writer, since it is in his power to make reprisals
upon his Author, and to receive as much glory from him as he
gives to him.69
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
69 Reprinted in Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 189-191.
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
English 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
littling 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 English writers.
CHAPTER IV
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." l 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 published 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 ability, and regretted that he had not
revised the whole text.2
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,
1 Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 177, 179.
8 Mist's Journal, May 7, 1726.
101
quoted in the previous chapter.3 He also introduced the
critic to his circle of literary friends, who later went under
the 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, 1727.4
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." 6 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.6 In his
3 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.
4 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 195.
6 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.
6 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 FalsJu
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
unnecessary; 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 publish 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 had once 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-Fields,
MDCCXXVIII.
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.7 This statement is certainly
contradictory to a note of his in The Duntiad, where he
ridicules Theobald's weak reasons for ascribing the play
to Shakespeare, registers his belief 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'll 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.8
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,
7 Letter to Aaron Hill, June 9, 1738. Elwin and Courthope, vol.
10, p. 53.
8 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 William 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.9
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.10 In recent years there have been
several attempts 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.11 This theory has been opposed by
Mr. Schevill, who thinks the play was taken from an eight
eenth-century version of Cervantes' story, with Theobald
the most likely author.12 Besides the dates being directly
9 Idem, No. 97, November 11, 1731.
10 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.
11 Gamaliel Bradford, The History of Cardenio, By Mr. Fletcher
and Shakespeare, Nation, vol. 88, No. 2283, April 1, 1909; and M. L. N,
xxv, 51. 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 Violante. He also calls attention to stylistic
qualities in the latter part of the play (from III, 3, to the end), which
resemble those of Fletcher — double endings, alliteration, 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.
12 Rudolph Schevill, Theobald's Double Falshood, Modern Philology,
vol. IX, p. 269.
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.13
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 peculiarity of the
language, a task he was entirely competent for, and one
which he would have thoroughly done. Had he believed
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
13 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 duality 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 Folshood 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 ; 14 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 Solicitations, 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 public shall receive
from my hand his whole Works corrected, with my best Care and
Ability.
This notice was followed by a letter, communicated by a
friend to Mist's Journal, though evidently written for pub
lication.15 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-
14 Lounsbury, The Text of Shakespeare, p. 147.
15 March 16, 1728. Nichols (Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2,
p. 199) says Concanen was the friend.
THE PERIOD OF "THE DUNCIAD" 107
peared,16 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 life"
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.17 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.18
The ability and learning shown in these criticisms were
sufficient 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
16 See ante, p. 101.
17 See preface to his alteration of Richard II.
18 Nichols, Illustrations 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 BA90TS; 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 calling forth attacks upon Pope, so
that he would seem justified in retaliating 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 publication . That such was the purpose of the Bathos
I have no doubt, but I am inclined to attribute the delay
in the publication 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
published 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 Double Falshood.19 The majority of
19 In Chapter 7, "Of the profund, when it consists in the thought,"
is placed a passage from Act III, Sc. 1 :
"Is there a Treachery, like This in Baseness
Recorded anywhere? It is the deepest:
None but Itself can be its Parallel."
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 living authors.
Theobald appears under the eels and the swallows.20 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 literary 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 published
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 all 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 will 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.21
The attack on Theobald follows the lines of the attack
on the sciences and learning : the triviality and inconse-
81 As Sewell 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 of 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
Arbuthnot, lines 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 spelling 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 lives 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.22
After the publication of The Dunciad they were collected and
published with a preface ascribed by Pope to Concanen.23
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.
23 A Compleat 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 abused 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.
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 lines. One verse which struck Pope as
being extremely ridiculous, and which, slightly changed,
found a place in The Dunciad,2*
None but thyself can be thy Parallel.
he showed to be absolutely 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 passage attacked. Knowing full well that his strong
forte was Shakespearean criticism, he brought forward as
proof of his ability, somewhat irrelevantly perhaps, another
emendation which has stood the test of time.25 He also gave
24 Bk. Ill, v. 272. In a note on this line Pope answers Theobald's
proof by saying that whether Double 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 Duntiad are to Lawton Gilliver's Second Edi
tion, 1729.
25 Merchant of Venice, Act III, 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)."
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, 1728,26 the title
being An Essay on the Art of a Poet's Sinking in Reputation;
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.27 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
26 In the "Testimonies of Authors," prefixed to The Dunciad, 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.
27 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.28 All these were applied
to Theobald in the " Fragment." Either the latter wrote
the essay, or else some one was taking up cudgels for him
with a vengeance.29
Pope was evidently satisfied with the rather poor results
of the provocative treatise on the Bathos, for on May 18,
1728, appeared The Duntiad.™ 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.31 In "The Publisher to the Reader," really
28 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."
29 "The Reason Mr. Pope struck so home at Mr. Tibbald was
because there was more than a Supposition <3f his writing an Essay
on the Art of Sinking in Reputation ; or a Supplement to the Art of Sink
ing in Poetry" Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Alexander Pope,
Esq.; By William Ayre, Esq.; London, MDCCXLV. This last is
ascribed to Curl in Remarks on Esquire Ayer's Memoirs of the Life and
Writings of Mr. Pope in a Letter to Mr. Edmund Curl. London, 1745.
30 The Duntiad An Heroic Poem in Three Books. Dublin Printed;
London Reprinted for A. Dodd. 1728.
31 See Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 230. Also see Sawney
(by Ralph), 1728, where Swift is joined with Pope as author of the
Dundad; and the preface to Edward Ward's Durgen, where Ward
conjectures the author is of Hibernian extraction.
THE PERIOD OF "THE DUNCIAD" 115
written by Pope, we are told that when a man of the highest
distinction is injured, there is no one to rise up in his de
fense, but the case is reversed when a known scoundrel is
touched upon. For the last two months the town has been
full of pamphlets, advertisements, letters, weekly essays,
and the like against the wit, writing, character, and person
of Mr. Pope. Yet none of his one hundred thousand ad
mirers has come to his defense, except the author of this
poem. He says it is of no concern how he became possessed
of the manuscript, and that he shall have gained his end if
it provoke the author, whom he does not know, to give a
more perfect edition of the poem. The authors satirized,
he claims, were made for the poem, and much unjust scandal
is saved by calling the hero Theobald, which by good luck
happens to be the name of a real person.
The poem as it appeared in this edition was nearly one
hundred lines shorter than in the last edition of 1729. The
dedication to Swift was entirely left out. There were very
few notes, mostly of an explanatory character. Theobald's
name was consistently spelled "Tibbald," but only the
initial, and sometimes the last letter, was given of the names
of the other men assailed. Jacob and Eliza appeared in
full, as did also Brown and Hears, whose only fault was
publishing Theobald's works.32 This version was incom
plete and was put forth only as a feeler ; Pope saved much
of his material for the next year, when The Dunciad appeared
with all its appendages.
From the various replies called forth by the poem two
deductions are obvious : first, that Theobald was made
32 Pope's note on this line, Bk. Ill, v. 20, in the editions of 1729,
reads, "Booksellers, Printers for Tibbald, Mrs. Hay wood, or any body.
. . . The Allegory of the souls of the Dull coming forth in the form
of Books, and being let abroad in vast numbers by Booksellers, is
sufficiently intelligible."
116
LEWIS THEOBALD
the hero of the satire because of his work on Shakespeare ;
and second, that his was the clearest case against Pope in
that his criticisms were universally recognized as far
superior to his adversary's edition. It is remarkable how
the outraged dunces rushed to their king's assistance.
Anxious for a weapon to use against Pope, the most for
midable one they could find was Theobald's reputation as
a Shakespearean critic. A few were Theobald's friends and
these were anxious to protect him; others admired his
ability as a scholar; but there were still others who only
saw in him and his work the surest answer to Pope.
Theobald had abused Dennis most persistently in The
Censor, but since then had probably made friends with him,
for he praises the ponderous critic in Shakespeare Restored.™
In the preface to Remarks on Mr. Pope's Rape of the Lock,
1728, a work Dennis said he prepared in the latter days of
Queen Anne's reign, but had held back to terrify Pope, the
author speaks of " several ingenuous men" abused in The
Dunciad,
among whom I am obliged, in Justice, to name Mr. Theobald,
who by delivering Shakespeare from the Injuries of Time, and
of lazy, or ignorant and stupid Editors, has obliged all who are
concern'd for the Reputation of so great a Genius, or for the Honour
of Great Britain.
He claims that Pope libeled Theobald for no other reason
than that he had been surpassed by him, and denounces
the attack on Theobald's poverty and that of others "who
have deserv'd a thousand times better both of the country
and the Commonwealth of Learning." The following year
Dennis again stands up for the "hero" in his Remarks upon
Several Passages in the Preliminaries to the Dunciad, which
83 Shakespeare Restored, p. 20. Here Theobald says that in his
opinion "no Man in England better understands Shakespeare" than
Dennis.
117
is addressed to Theobald, deposed from his throne because
he "is incapacitated to hold an empire of that unbounded
Extent, by some unfortunate Qualities, as Learning, Judg
ment, Sagacity, and that Modesty which always attends
Merit." Dennis also speaks of seeing a specimen of his
translation of Aeschylus which "would make Pope blush
for his Homer."
It is not strange to find Concanen upholding Theobald
against Pope. He was the first to recognize the critic's
ability and the importance of his work. After becoming
acquainted with him, he introduced him to his circle of
acquaintances and remained to the last his truest friend.
It was as a friend that he took the scholar's part in the
dedication to the author of The Dunciad of a miscellany
that appeared soon after the satire,34 where he said that when
Theobald began the dispute he laid down a method Pope
would have done well to follow : not the least indecent re
flection was cast upon the poet in the whole work. The only
crime Theobald committed was in presuming Pope was not
infallible like his namesake of Rome, and could be mistaken.
He warned the poet that his satire would cause his thousands
of admirers to inquire as to what provocations Theobald
had been guilty of to deserve such usage, in answer to which
the Truth may and has come out, that Mr. Theobald has taken
more Pains to understand Shakespeare than Mr. Pope cared to
do: But sure Mr. Pope must have more Wit in his Anger, than
to do anything which might revive a Controversy he made so bad
a figure in.
Two poetic attacks on Pope that appeared the same year
as The Dunciad were Sawney, An Heroic Poem. Occasioned
by the Dunciad and Durgen, or a Plain Satyr upon a Pompous
Satyrist. James Ralph, the author of the first, was not
84 See ante, note 22.
118
LEWIS THEOBALD
mentioned in The Dunciad of 1728, but was introduced into
the editions of 1729 because of this poem. Ralph holds
that on the publication of Shakespeare Restored Pope, Swift,
and Gay, with the aid of Envy, wrote The Dunciad. Speak
ing of these three, he says 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 Restored very 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 Dunciad.
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 8, 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.35 Thomas Cooke, a translator whom Theobald as-
35 In a note on The Dunciad, Bk. I, v. 106, Pope definitely ascribed
this letter to Theobald, but in the Appendix, p. 190, he says 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 implicitly on Pope's word
later scholars have often attributed this letter to Theobald and made
it the cause of The Dunciad!
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.36 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 work was that while Pope was supreme in poetry,
the other was just as surely the better critic. William
Buncombe, 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."37
It is well to note that an unconcerned observer attributed
the quarrel to Shakespeare Restored.
36 The Battle of the Poets, revised edition, 1728, p. 32.
37 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 Dundad. 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
himself 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 literary pursuits and taking up party
writing on the side of the Tories.38 This representation
Theobald characterized, indirectly, as a malevolent lie of
an angry wit, which if imputed to inspiration made him
content with a little sober sense, although bright genius
deemed it dullness. He claimed, and justly, that his com
munications to this journal were not concerned with politics
«« Bk. I, 11., 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, in 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 literature, he being the model and inspiration of this
period.
121
but only with learning or entertainment; that he had no
inclination to meddle in politics, since 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 literature.
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
publishing critical and explanatory remarks upon Shake
speare in three octavo volumes at the price of one guinea.39
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
scurrilities, 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.40
His plans for the publication 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, failing to acknowledge some and caviling
at others.41 At the end of the eighth volume he made a
39 I am dependent upon Professor Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare,
p. 311, for the content of these proposals.
40 See Appendix, p. 259.
41 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 ability 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.42 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.43 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
qualities 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.
42 I am dependent upon Professor Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare,
pp. 316-321, for the contents of this letter.
43 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 obligations, or an
editor who was likely to prove thankless. He then added
a bold assertion :
I'll 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 folio. 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 tune 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-
44 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
English but also in Latin and Greek. Even his enemies
admitted his scholarship.45 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 Dunciad 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 will 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."46
They are insignificant except as showing Theobald's wide
acquaintance with the classics.
Of his two whole notes, one corrects the pointing of a
passage in the original, and gives what Theobald considered
45 See " Fragment of a Satire. "
46 In a note on The Dunciad (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 OF "THE 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.47 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." 48 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 Warburton. 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.49 From this it could be in
ferred that Warburton had as great a part as Theobald in
47 See Works and Days (Paley's edition of Hesiod, 1883), 1. 145.
In a note discussing the passage, Paley says it is difficult to determine
the meaning, and gives an explanation of the German editor, Goettling,
which is the same as Theobald's.
48 Works and Days (Paley's edition), 1. 261 : 8fj^s arapaMas. Theobald
would change dfjuos to TWOS. See Paley's note on this and the fol
lowing lines.
49 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 begun when The
Dundad 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 Dundad is
pompously re-printed in quarto, and the publication of it every
day expected.
The next month The Dundad Variorum made its appear
ance.50 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 paraphernalia 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.51
60 "This day is published, in a beautiful Letter in 4to, a complete
and correct Edition of the Dunciad: 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 supplied, 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 Allusions to ancient and modern
Poets collected; with a Letter to the Publisher, by W. C., Esq. Printed
for Lawton Gilliver, against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-Street."
— London Evening Post, April 12, 1729. Quoted in Nichols, Illus
trations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 220.
61 See note on Bk. II, 1. 134. As stated before all references are
to the second edition, octavo, of Lawton Gilliver. 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.)
127
But the real purpose of all this heterogeneous matter was
to justify The Dunciad 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 listed 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
Dunciad 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
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.62
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.
62 Bk. 1, 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 soliciting 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.53 We
shall see later how completely the critic demolished the
accusation of ingratitude. As for the last charge, the only
basis Pope had was the Essay on the Art of Sinking in Repu
tation, concerning the authorship of which he himself was
not certain.54 There are other misstatements scattered
through the work. In one place the author says that
Theobald published 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.55
And there are the two lies 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.56 It was not even included in the list of
63 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.
64 See ante, p. 113.
65 Note on Bk. 1, 1. 164.
66 "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.
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.87 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 Maro'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 till all men doubt it,
And write about it, Goddess, and about it;
So spins the Silk-worm small its slender store,
And labours, 'till it clouds itself all o'er." w
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.59
Most of the satire in the poem hinges on Theobald's other
17 Text of Shakespeare, p. 290.
18 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.
M 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, spelling of Shakespeare's
name (p. 193); Bk. Ill, 11. 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 line from
Double. Falshood. 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.60 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 activity, 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
60 "She ey'd the Bard, where 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 line was suggested by a passage in No.
38, January 17, 1717? "I am so far of Opinion that our 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."
131
directed against Bentley.61 Pope also gives burlesque
corrections of Double Falshood to mock Theobald's emenda
tions on Shakespeare,62 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 publisher 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." 63 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.64
Pope never openly admitted that Theobald was made
hero of The Dunciad in revenge for Shakespeare Restored.
61 See ante, Chap. II, p. 57.
62 Note on Bk. Ill, 1. 272.
63 Note on Bk. Ill, 1. 146.
84 See Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 283 ff.
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.65 Later
the unfortunate man is the hero because there was no better
to be had.66 But that which Pope characterized as the real
reason is the charges contained in the note giving Theobald's
life, charges that are practically baseless.67
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 scattered here and there too, I should be induced to believe
that the Words of the First Volume, . . . COLLATED
and CORRECTED by 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 published under his Name,
yet let an Error, like the following, escape his Observation and
Correction.68
" "Martinus Scriblerus of the Poem," p. 42.
66 Note on Bk. 1, 1. 102.
67 See ante, p. 127.
68 Shakespeare Restored, p. 75. See also p. 97.
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 lived in obscure
mediocrity all his life he suddenly found himself able to
prove publicly 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 variorum 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 relished with much gusto,
but the picture 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 willing 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-lies 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
making, 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.69 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
69 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 malice. 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 malice. As for the
charge of ingratitude that he was soliciting 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 public with his defense, but as his slight merit was easily
shocked, this was the only way he had of appealing to those
of the nobility whom he had not the honor of approaching
for their favor.
Theobald did not stop here. 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,"
70 April 17, 1729. Printed in Nichols, Illustrations of Literature,
vol. 2, p. 220.
135
"germins," and " element, " 71 he gives the correct definition.
Then he gives several emendations, concerning tne majority
of which there is now little doubt.72 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 published 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.73 But in 1729 Savage came under his dominion
and worked most assiduously as his tool and informer.74
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
71 Much Ado, Act. Ill, Sc. 5, King Lear, Act. I, Sc. 2; Henry VIII,
Act. I, Sc. 1.
72 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 "imitary."
Titus Andronicus, Act. Ill, Sc. 3, "Cask" for "Castle."
Twelfth Night, Act. I, Sc. 3, "Curl by nature" for "Cool my nature."
73 Thomas Hearne says Pope was much blamed for his barbarous
treatment of Theobald. Reliquiae Hearnianae, 1869, vol. 3, p. 137.
74 We find Savage's name, as well as that of Mallet, in the list of
subscribers prefixed to Cooke's Hesiod.
136
LEWIS THEOBALD
called the Concanen Club. In the appendix to The Dw
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.75 This group
was largely represented in The Dundad; 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." 76 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.77 His enemies are attacked ; he and his friends are
handsomely praised. The former are known as "Theo-
baldians," "Grubeans," " Knights of the Bathos," while
76 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 Queries
for 1854, Vol. II, p. 110.
78 See Appendix, p. 295.
77 Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, Chap. XIX.
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.78 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.79
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 role of a reviser. In the introduction
to his A Complete Collection of Genteel and Ingenious
Conversation he touches on the critic twice.80
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
78 See the satirical article on botany in No. 23, June 11, 1730.
79 Of. Nos. 2, 28, 37, and 98.
80 If Dean Jonathan's Parody on the 4th 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 English 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 literal criticism. The accusations
remain the same — the triviality, 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.81
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, to 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
81 Preface to Poems on Several Occasions, 1727.
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?82
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
Dunciad there are frequent slurs at his scholarship and
several general attacks on verbal criticism. In the third
book are found these lines,
"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,
82 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.
83 11. 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.84
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
84 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 affirm all the Copyists are mistaken here:
I believe I may say the same of the Critics; Dennis, Oldmixon, Welsted,
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 Pillory 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 Flying-Poet, and all the Herd of Com
mentators — Tota armenta sequuntur.
"A very little 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.85 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.86
Such a position he holds in the fourth book of The
Duntiad.
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.87 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.88 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
« Chap. IX.
86 Ruffhead, Life of Alexander Pope, 1769, pp. 267, 269.
87 John Jortin, Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors Ancient
and Modern, 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 published
before Christmas." 89 Satiric emendations of Milton, reading
astonishingly like those of Bentley that were to appear,
were published in numbers of The Grub-street Journal as
early as March, 1730.90
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, malicious, 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 the 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
89 See Appendix, p. 278.
90 Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 425.
THE PERIOD OF "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.91
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.
91 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. Bentley'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 maliciously 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
ibe the value placed upon his own work. Furthermore this
I edition strengthened the growing tendency to associate
I Theobald with Bentley. Though there was some pleasure
» in being joined with so great a man, the Milton could not
but cast a bad light 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.92
While condemning so heartily Bentley's notes, he did not
disdain in the privacy of the same letter to give an emenda-
92 See Appendix, p. 299.
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 little 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 Mallet. 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 publication, but he had
waited until 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.93
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 Dundad. The
triviality 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 implies 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
M See Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 434-436.
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 feeling against textual criticism
continued to exist. Fielding made a belated attack on
Bentley's methods.94 Pope enlarged his charges in the
fourth book of The Dunciad. George Turnbull, 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.95 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 Hurd.
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 place in the activities of man.96
94 See the notes to his translation of Plutus, and Amelia, Book X,
Chap. 1.
96 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 English grammar and composition against
Latin and Greek.
96 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.97 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 ineffectuality 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.98
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.99 But though he failed
in his object, his efforts were not altogether fruitless. The
97 Text of Shakespeare, pp. 259 ff .
98 "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. Ball, The Corres
pondence of Jonathan Swift, vol. 4, p. 180.
99 Letter dated December, 1730. Nichols, Illustrations of Litera
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 Dunciad Theobald de
cided on a course of action from which he never swerved.
This course was not to answer Pope's scurrilities with the
like, but to rely upon his edition of Shakespeare to wipe
out all scores.100 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 outlines his plan :
As it is necessary I should now inform the publick, 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
100 See MisCs 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.101
He then proposed an emendation on Eustathius. War-
burton 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 insult 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 English 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 office 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.102 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.103 It is
101 See Letters dated March 10, March 17, March 26, 1730. Nichols,
Illustrations of Literature, pp. 551, 565, 581.
102 See Appendix, p. 298. The animosities aroused by Pope assisted
Theobald in his subscriptions. See Reliquiae Hearnianae, vol. 3, p. 142.
103 if 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 LEWIS THEOBALD
probable that the work has been ascribed to Theobald on
the strength of this letter, since all other evidence 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. IM It hardly
seems possible that had he been concerned in a production
that was so soon to make its appearance, he would have said
nothing of it to Warburton, 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 replied that had he written it, he would have
made his friend his confidant.105 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 our Faction, Mr. Welsted, of Dullness 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 many
interruptions in his work, most of which were due to the
necessity of earning a livelihood ; it was to obviate such
hindrances that he tried to secure the laureateship. His
legal profession, while never very exacting, required a cer
tain amount of time.106 About the middle of 1730 he was
104 Letter to Warburton, January 8, 1732. Appendix C.
105 Letter to Warburton, March 21, 1732. Appendix C.
106 See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 597.
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.107 He was then hard at work upon
his Orestes,108 for in a letter of February 10, 1730, he notifies
War burton "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." 109
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 venial I have a Design upon the Ladies' Eyes, as the Pas
sage to their Pockets.110
107 Idem, vol. 2, pp. 288, 401.
108 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.
109 Appendix C.
110 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,111 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 Holidays." 112
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.113 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.114 Theobald prefaced this article with an
account of its origin :
111 The Fatal Secret, a tragedy. London, 1735.
112 Appendix C.
113 Appendix, p. 276.
114 Some of the poems are not Shakespeare's. The following emen
dations are generally accepted now.
Venus and Adonis : Stanza 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.116
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 V Allegro.
116 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.116
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 good friend Lord Orrery," a phrase
he uses a number of times.117
In March the earl placed his father's letters in Theobald's
116 Letter to Warburton, November, 1731. Appendix C.
117 Letter to Warburton, December 18, 1731. Appendix C.
155
hands to be regulated.118 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 tune 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,119
which verses Theobald said his patron made golden to him.120
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.
118 Letter to Warburton, March 21, 1732. Appendix C.
119 See Appendix, p. 302.
m 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 publishing remarks on all the plays.
When Pope's second edition made necessary the post
ponement of publication, 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 Warburton that his remarks "will now shortly appear
in the World."1 Yet no volumes were forthcoming. It
is possible that as he realized 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 under
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 ; 2 yet in November, 1729,
he speaks of Lady Delawar's assistance among the nobility,
and of having the honor of the king's name.3 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.
2 Text of Shakespeare, p. 422.
3 Letter of November 6, 1729. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature,
vol. 2, p. 254.
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 157
" I may venture to join the Text to my Remarks." By March
of the following year he had definitely decided to edit Shake
speare.4
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 Warburton to
return him his letters, promising to send them back if they
were desired.5 He had made such progress with his labors
that he was arranging for the publication 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.6
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.7
In the last week of October the contract with Tonson
was finally signed. Out of the depths of distress and dis
couragement 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
4 Letter of March 10, 1730. Idem, vol. 2, p. 551.
6 See Appendix, p. 265.
6 Letter of April 25, 1730, Appendix C.
7 This lady was of no little assistance to the scholar. She carried
her labors in his behalf into those circles to which he had no access;
the large number of nobility, 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.
158 LEWIS THEOBALD
been awake, when I have done myself the Pleasure to let you
know, I have at last fix'd the Proteus. No longer ago than Thurs
day, Tonson and I exchang'd Articles for the Publications of Shake
speare. Till I could bring this agreeable Point to bear, I was
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: but 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.8
Before Lady Delawar had approached Tonson, Theobald
had begun negotiations with some other booksellers, whose
terms, however, were so much more unsatisfactory 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 Payment, and they to have received the Second: I have now
closed my Agreement to have the Work publish'd in 6 Vols. in
8vo, to have 400 Copies, compleat in Sheets, delivered me on a
Genoa paper, free from all Expence whatever; and 100 Copies
more on Fine Royal Paper, I only paying for the Paper: So that
if I can have my compliment of Subscriptions, the small paper
will bring me in 800 guineas; and the Books in Royal 300 more:
besides which I have reserved the Liberty of prefixing a Dedica
tion to each Volume.
From this account it is clear that the booksellers had no
case at all ; they were simply outbid. They may have joined
8 Letter of October 30, 1730. See Appendix C.
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 159
with Tonson in the publication, 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.9 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 publishers.10 The poet pre-
9 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 English
scholarship.
10 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 published with much profit. If Tonson read
the letter, he expressed no interest in the project, but re
turned the communication to Pope, with the suggestion that
it could better be sent direct to its destination. No further
mention of the plan was made.11
As the year 1731 drew to a close, Theobald, considering
his critical labors over, was at work on the preface.12 He
expected the edition to appear early in the following year,13
and Tonson had told him that already there were great
expectations of it.14 By the last of December everything
was ready for the printer, upon whom the editor placed
the responsibility for the early publication of the work:
"To guess yet at the likely time of publication is impossible,
read, "I must do him [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 little
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 slightest Labour: And so no little Tune was
unavoidably lost."
11 See Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 241-245.
12 See Appendix, pp. 283, 284, and Nichols, Illustrations of Litera
ture, vol. 2, p. 62Q.
18 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 621. Warburton said
it would appear by March. Nichols, vol. 2, p. 13.
14 See appendix, p. 290.
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 161
till our printers give us experience what dispatch they can
make on their part." 16
Nothing was heard of the edition for nearly a year when
Theobald informed Warburton that Shakespeare was
groaning under two presses.16 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." 17 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." 18 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 all the Industry and Sollicitation imaginable on my
16 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.
16 Letter of September 19, 1732. Appendix C.
17 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.
18 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 established Presses, and rendered
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 advertised 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.19
When Warburton, beginning to get uneasy over the
postponement of the edition, took occasion to write Theo
bald about the matter, the latter replied, "I thank God,
the 7 Volumes are quite printed off, and nothing remaining
to do but the Dedication, Preface and List." 20 Later in
October it was promised that Shakespeare would be published
sometime in November.21 Yet the year came to a close
without witnessing the appearance of the work. At last,
in January of 1734, it reached the public, 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 disinclination to hurry anything
crude into the world. Yet from the above account it seems
clear that the slow process through which the edition went
19 Letter of June 30, 1733. Appendix C.
20 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 unwillingness 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 Prolegomena 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.22
22 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 unwilling 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.23
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 becoming "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.24 Fault was also found with the disconnected
23 Letter of December 4, 1731. Appendix C.
24 Cf. Preface to Warburton's edition of Shakespeare, 1747.
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 165
nature of the specimens presented, to which Theobald re
plied :
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 embellishing 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.25
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." 26 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
28 Letter of December 18, 1731. Appendix C.
26 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 621. The date of
the letter lies between December 18, 1731, and the end of the year.
166
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.27
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. " 28 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-
27 See Letter of September 17, 1732. Appendix C.
28 Letter of January 10, 1733. Appendix C.
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE* 167
ment, it would have looked too poor to have confessed
Assistance towards so slight a Fabrick as my Preface." 29
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.30 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.
29 Letter of March 5, 1734. Appendix C.
30 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 publication 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.31
This last sentence forces the belief 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 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 passages which he
has there stitched together without head or tail.32
31 See Appendix, p. 324.
32 Letter dated November 24, 1737.
erature, vol. 2, p. 81.
Nichols, Illustrations of Lit-
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 life 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.33 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 literal criticism. The real reason,
however, for their insertion was, as Theobald confessed,34
to help his reputation. To us who live at a time when
scholarship in English letters is based on a sound foundation
of respect, these critical attempts in an alien field seem
entirely out of place, but when Theobald wrote, he was
really the first to examine critically an English 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 ability
in a subject which the public regarded with some favor.
33 "I am very glad the Greek Criticisms strike you." Theobald's
letter to Warburton dated March 5, 1734. Appendix C.
34 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
Howe'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 light 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 Warburton 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." 36 A
note in the edition reads 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." 36 It was
36 Letter of April 8, 1729. Nichols, Illustrations 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." 87 Against Pope's
strictures about his restoring lost puns, he dauntlessly replied,
"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." 38 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
37 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 554.
18 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 establish 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 liberty 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 lived, 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 Public their greatest
Poet in his Original Purity: After having so long lain in a Condition
that was a Disgrace to common Sense.39
In the next sentence, however, Theobald lays claim to a just
credit of originality: "To this End I have ventured 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." 40 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
39 Preface, p. xxxix.
40 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 grammatical
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 earlier English literature, 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*1
Had he not adopted the policy of reading the literature of
Shakespeare's age, he must 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.
41 See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 205, 256.
compare pp. 358 and 518, 517 and 527.
Also
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.42 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 diligent reader of a different species
of literature. The antiquaries Stowe, Camden, and Dugdale
he used to good advantage. Besides the chronicles of Hall
and Holinshed, 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
42 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.43
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.44 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.45 Still he was not sufficiently
shaken from his old belief 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 literature held, but also
what English history and literature lent. With the same
pertinency and the same logical handling of evidence that
were so characteristic of his exemplar, he proved and eluci
dated as no one had ever done before in English studies.
43 See preface to his alteration of Richard II, 1721.
44 Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 3, p. 4.
46 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 565.
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 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 undetected for generations." **
In increasing 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.47
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 manner 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. Unwilling to rely on his first impression, he
investigated Shakespeare's use 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 under
discussion. Then his reading of Chaucer stood him in good
stead by bringing to his mind a passage in Troilus and
Cressida, where fortune is called "executrice of wierds."
In dictionaries and glossaries he sought the correct meaning
46 J. C. Collins, Studies and Essays, p. 279.
47 "Mr. Theobald, who was a much better critic on Shakespeare
than Dr. Bentley had been on Milton, yet followed the Doctor's Stile
and Manner." Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750. Preface,
p. Ixii.
178 LEWIS THEOBALD
of weird, and found it appropriate to the passage. Yet
on this evidence alone he did not wish to insert the word.
In the course of his wide reading he came across the story
of Macbeth and the witches in Heylin's Cosmography,
where the adjective is used in reference to the hags. Still
this was not confirmation sufficient.
I presently recollected, that this Story must be recorded at more
Length by Holinshed; with whom I thought it was very probable
that our Author had traded for the Materials of his Tragedy:
and therefore Confirmaton was to be fetch'd from this Fountain.
His investigation revealed several passages in which the
witches are called " weird sisters."
This is the method of the true scholar, one who loves
"to go thorough-stitch" with whatever he takes in hand.
A new procedure it was in English letters. Yet it is very
discoverable in those passages of Bentley's Dissertation on
Phalaris, where Boyle's statements are laid bare, and the
author's are supported with inevitable proofs.
It has already been hinted that the similarity between
the Boyle-Bentley and Pope-Theobald controversies was
not merely superficial. Pope's edition of Shakespeare and
Boyle's edition of Phalaris were both examples of careless
scholarship and insufficient and inexact research. On the
other hand, just as Shakespeare Restored was a review of
Pope's work, intended to show its defects, Bentley's first
dissertation was secondarily a review of Boyle's edition with
the same purpose in view. It is true that the primary object
of the treatise was to prove Phalaris's letters spurious, but
after Boyle's slur at his humanity Bentley kept a close
watch for errors in the edition.48 The last pages of the dis-
48 Bentley said that had Boyle acknowledged that he had been
mistaken concerning Bentley's conduct, "all the errors of his Edition
had slept quiet in their obscurity." A. Dyce, Works of Richard
Bentley, vol. 2, p. vii.
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 179
sertation are given over entirely to showing the faults of
Boyle's work, which faults are styled only a specimen.49
The famous critic is especially severe with his adversary
because of slack collating, a charge Theobald never wearied
of bringing against Pope.
Furthermore, Boyle's Examination bears a close resem
blance to The Dunciad, for though he attempts a serious
defense, differing therein from Pope, it is plain to see that
Boyle's main reliance is upon banter and satire,50 the last
resort of careless study exposed to the relentless attacks of
careful scholarship. Even the accusations remind one of
Pope's satire — pedantry, insistence on trifles, out-of-the-way
reading.61 Nor did satire suffice, for Boyle's malice went
so far as to deal in misquotation and false statements,
though hardly to the degree reached by Pope.52
Theobald's edition and Bentley's second dissertation are,
of course, works of different natures, but the spirit animating
them and, in a general way, some of the methods employed
are similar. They both represent the efforts of true scholars,
by reliance upon fact, proof, and authority, to silence forever
the arguments of inaccurate investigation and malicious
satire. The authors are vitally concerned, not so much in
gaining the victory, as in ascertaining the truth.53 This
fact is seen in their readiness to admit an error in a statement
or in a conjecture when shown to be wrong.54 This dislike
49 Dyce, vol. 2, pp. 173-181.
60 I refer to all the authors of the Examination under the name of
Boyle.
51 Dyce, vol. 1, pp. liii-lviii, Ixix, 84, 325.
62 Idem, vol. 1, pp. 163, 168, 218, 266, 270, 364, 367.
53 See Dyce, vol. 1, p. Ixix, and preface to Shakespeare, p. xlix.
M "I design nothing but a search after truth; and will never be
guilty of that mean disingenuity, to maintain a fault that I am con
vinced of." Dyce, vol. 1, p. Ixxiii. See also p. 97. Compare edi
tion of Shakespeare, vol. 5, p. 193. See also Appendix, p. 325, and
180 LEWIS THEOBALD
of error caused them both to be minutely accurate in the
spelling of proper names,55 and made them insistent on the
production of authority and proof for any conclusion or
conjecture.56
Since the purposes of the two critics were different, it is
not the part of reason to seek any close resemblance in
method, yet we find isolated examples of similar treatment
scattered throughout both works. The emendations dis
persed through the Dissertation are merely incidental to a
greater object ; for this reason nothing need be said of them.
But the chronological method, used to such good advantage
in proving the Epistles of Phalaris spurious, appears fre
quently in the edition.57 Furthermore, the manner of pro
ducing evidence and the amount and widely diverse sources
of proof are seen in the handling of detached questions. One
example will suffice. Boyle and Pope had been so unfortu
nate as to fall foul of certain expressions their opponents had
used: Boyle objected to Bentley's " first inventor," and
Pope to that line of the Double Falshood satirized in The
Dunciad. Never did the ridicule of two wits receive such
a severe jar from the cold array of evidence presented against
them. The classical scholar proceeded to give passages
Shakespeare Restored, p. 191, where the author says, "I should reckon
it very disingenuous, as well as ridiculous, in a Work which I have
prof ess' d to have undertaken for the restoration of Shakespeare, if I
should be asham'd to own myself mistaken, and retract the error."
66 See Dyce, vol. 1, pp. Ivii, Iviii. With these references compare
edition of Shakespeare, vol. 6, p. 398, and see Pope's note at the first
of the Dunciad, where he satirizes Theobald for his accurate spelling of
Shakespeare's name.
66 See Dyce, vol. 1, pp. 54, 117, and preface to Shakespeare, pp. xl,
xliii.
57 Preface to Shakespeare, pp. Ix, x, and vol. 1, p. 235. See also
Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 613, where Theobald
demolishes one of Warburton's emendations, and p. 654, where he dis
cusses some points of Jonson's Life.
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 181
from Terence, Lucretius, Pindar, Herodotus, Plato, and a
Greek inscription, while Theobald was not far behind with
quotations from Plautus, Ovid, Seneca, Terence, Shake
speare, and Beaumont and Fletcher.68
So far this treatise has concerned itself mainly with
Theobald's method and its origin. Something might be
well said, however, regarding the results obtained. It
would be supererogatory to speak in general terms concern
ing the merits of the edition ; every editor of Shakespeare
now concedes as unquestioned the importance of Theobald's
contribution to Shakespearean textual criticism. Yet a
few statistics will, perhaps, make more evident the quantity
and quality of his criticisms.59
Since Theobald easily stands at the head of all emenders of
the text, his conjectures first come up for consideration. In
the following count there have been considered only those
corrections that necessitated the substitution of a word
entirely different from the current reading, the omission of
a word or words, or the introduction of a word or words.
When the emendation consists only of a change in the form
of the word or. an expansion of an abbreviation, it has not
been included in the calculation. After corrections of this
nature are eliminated, there still remain some four hundred
and twenty-nine emendations for which Theobald had to
rely upon his genius and learning alone. Of these, one
hundred and fifty have been accepted, so that a little less
than thirty-seven per cent of his corrections have stood the
test of time and the scrutiny of scholars.
When consideration is paid to the large number of correc-
58 Dyce, vol. 1, p. Ixi, and Shakespeare, vol. 4, p. 188. Compare
also the discussion of anachronisms in Dyce, vol. 1, p. 183, and the
edition of Shakespeare, vol. 6, p. 42, where Theobald makes use of
Bentley's list and adds more examples of his own.
69 The basis of these calculations is the Globe edition of Shakes
peare, edited by Clark and Wright.
182 LEWIS THEOBALD
tions attempted and the almost total obscurity of many of the
corrupt passages, this percentage is amazing. Certainly no
other corrector, either in English or the classics, can boast
such a high ratio of accepted readings. Bentley falls far
short of the mark. Warburton, who, according to Johnson,
supplied Theobald with the best part of his emendations,
was successful in only thirteen per cent of those substitutions
which Theobald saw fit to introduce into his edition. Un
doubtedly the percentage would be much lower, had not
the bishop's notes passed through his friend's sifting hands,
so that only the more probable corrections were given to
the public. These numbered one hundred and thirty-five,
thirty-six of which the editor refused to insert in the text.
Theobald's judgment in rejecting, if not in selecting, his
assistant's notes is vindicated by the fact that only one of
the thirty-six has been accepted. Still there are some critics
who look upon Warburton as Theobald's guardian angel,
saving him from himself.60
Besides his emendations, Theobald introduced other
changes into the current text as represented by Pope's
edition. In some two hundred places he restored and de
fended variant readings where Pope had either emended the
text or chosen the inferior reading. In a score of places he
rescued whole lines and even passages from the old editions.
To these he called attention in his notes, but in one place
he says that he has made many such restorations without
notice.61 In a large number of places he restored stage
directions, gave lines to their proper speakers, and in four
60 See D. N. Smith op cit., p. xliv. In the correspondence between
the two critics, for every correction of Theobald that Warburton finds
fault with, Theobald corrects a half dozen of his friend's.
61 "Thus is the Verse left imperfect by Mr. Rowe and Mr. Pope;
tho' the old Copies all fill it up, as I have done. I have restor'd an
infinite Number of such Passages tacitly from the first Impressions:
but I thought proper to take notice, once for all, here that as Mr.
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 183
plays introduced new act divisions, half of which have been
accepted.62 His changes in punctuation are innumerable,
ranging from the most trifling alteration to corrections that
restore meaning to unintelligible lines. For introducing
notes to argue his changes correct he has been subjected to
criticism. In a previous chapter attention has been called
to his following Bentley in this respect, and if another excuse
is needed, he can furnish it himself. In Shakespeare Re
stored he had stigmatized as mere drudgery corrections in
which there was no pleasure nor any merit except that of
diligence.63 In his edition he is somewhat of the same
mind, for he says he would willingly spare himself the trouble
of making notes on mere changes in punctuation, did he not
fear that printers, not having their attention fixed on the
passage by a note, would revert back to the old corrupt
pointing.64
Theobald believed that while the establishing of the
genuine text was the first duty of an editor, it also devolved
upon him to clear up obscure and difficult passages by ex
planatory notes. Especially was explanation necessary
in an age when the tendency was to alter what could not be
understood. The number of such notes in his edition
amounts to well over two hundred, nearly forty of which
Warburton supplied. They vary in nature. Some explain
the meaning of words by parallel passages; some clear up
a difficulty by showing the peculiarities of Shakespeare's
usage. Many allusions are traced to their sources in con-
Pope follows Mr. Rowe's Edition in his Errors and Omissions, it gives
great Suspicion, notwithstanding the pretended Collation of Copies,
that Mr. Pope, for the Generality, took Mr. Rowe's Edition as his
guide." Vol. 1, p. 384.
62 Love's Labor's Lost, The Taming of the Shrew, King John, and
King Henry V.
63 Introduction, p. vi.
64 Preface, p. xlvi.
184 LEWIS THEOBALD
temporary literature and history, while many obscure passages
are explained by going to the source from which Shake
speare got his material. These explanatory notes reveal,
perhaps even more than his emendations, Theobald's wide
reading and diligent research in the literature of his author's
age.
In his analysis of the science of criticism the editor grants
a minor place to "an Inquiry into the Beauties and Defects
of Composition." He admits that his work has little to do
with this branch of criticism, though in a number of emenda
tions he had to consider it. There are a few notes given
entirely to blame or praise, but the amount of aesthetic
criticism is, as we should expect of a man of Theobald's
nature, small and inconsequential. Most of these notes
are by Warburton; for he prided himself on his critical
faculties in such matters, and his friend was only too quick to
foster his delusion.
Not only in those particulars that most closely concern
an editor was Theobald interested ; unlike previous editors,
he showed a curiosity in that threefold field of research
that has since engaged the activities of so many scholars —
the chronology, authorship, and sources of the plays ascribed
to Shakespeare. While never directly undertaking any of
these problems, he was careful to note any point in his
research that might throw light upon them. Some of his
deductions are made from insufficient evidence, while for
many of his opinions he gives no reason ; yet one cannot
but be struck by his approximation to the present results
of long and careful research.
He did not date definitely any of the plays. Relying
upon external evidence, he placed Timon of Athens before
Elizabeth's death, because, not knowing of a previous play
by a similar name, he thought Shakespeare's tragedy was
hinted at in a production issued in 1601, Jack Drum's Enter-
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 185
tainment.65 He dated Henry V before 1598 on the ground
that in Every Man in his Humour, produced in this year,
Jonson ridiculed a passage in the chorus following the first
act.66 Relying on internal evidence, he thought Othello
could not have been written before 1597 because the tragedy
takes some matter from Sir Walter Raleigh's Travels.61
The tragedy Macbeth was placed after Queen Elizabeth's
death by reason of its containing compliments to James I,
while Henry VIII™ was attributed to Elizabeth's reign
because the queen is complimented in it. As regards this
last play, the editor thought the compliment to James I
was inserted after the monarch's accession to the throne.
Relying upon both external and internal evidence, he placed
the date of The Tempest between 1610 and 1613 ; the first
date because the drama contains references to the Bermudas,
visited in 1609 by Sir John Sommers; the second date
because Shakespeare had by that time retired from the
stage.69 The Merry Wives was dated after 1598 by virtue
of a reference to the Guiana of Raleigh's Travels, and
not later than 1602, for Theobald possessed a quarto of that
date.70 Of course, in some of these conclusions he was beside
the mark, yet in a number he comes reasonably close.
As regards the authorship of some of the doubtful plays,
Theobald stated opinions that curiously enough coincide with
many of the conclusions of modern scholarship. He followed
Pope in omitting Pericles and the six other plays introduced
into the third folio, yet he was far from the opinion that
the first was not indebted to Shakespeare's pen. He held
it "was not entirely of our Author's penning, but he has
65 Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 5, p. 303.
66 Idem. vol. 4, p. 19.
67 Idem, vol. 7, p. 393.
68 Idem, vol. 5, pp. 39 and 443.
69 Idem, Preface, p. x.
70 Idem, vol. 1, p. 235. Also see Appendix C, p. 282.
186
LEWIS THEOBALD
honoured 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." 71 In another
place he says, "some Part of it is certainly of his [Shake
speare's] writing." 72 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.73 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." 74
Of some of the plays included in Pope's and his own edi
tions he denied Shakespeare complete authorship. His
opinion of Titus Andronicus was, indeed, very low.75 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.76 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.77 Nor was Theobald guided by external
evidence alone ; he did not hesitate to apply aesthetic tests.
71 Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 2, p. 490.
72 Idem, vol. 4, p. 20.
73 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.
74 Idem, vol. 2, p. 623.
76 Idem, vol. 2, p. 512.
76 Idem, vol. 5, p. 307.
77 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 Generality
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 lives of Plutarch
upon which some of the plays were founded. He was the
first to discover how closely Shakespeare followed Holin
shed.78 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.79
He discovered a copy of the old Leir,8Q and designated the
Historia Danica of Saxo Grammaticus as the original source
of the Hamlet story. Early in the preparation of his edition
78 See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 398.
79 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.
80 Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 5, p. 217.
188 LEWIS THEOBALD
he perceived the indebtedness of Troilus and Cressida to
Wynkin de Worde, which in a letter to Warburton, he proved
by showing agreement in a number of details.81 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 of Errors was founded, and the
first to show that it was not necessary to go back to the Tale of
Gamelyn for the story of 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.82
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 BoswelPs 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 Theobald's at second hand, than ever
the author could do when they were spick and span new." M
In a note on Timon's epitaph Theobald says,
81 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 611.
82 D. N. Smith, op. tit., p. xxv.
83 A Review of Doctor Johnson's New Edition of Shakespeare by W.
Kenrick, 1765.
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 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, extant in his time.84
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 our Criticks might have known
from Langbaine,) and printed in Quarto in the year 1515,
half a century before our Author was born." 85 In the pref
ace to his edition, while speaking of the verses m 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 Rosalinde. 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.86
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.87 Some were due to personal
84 Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 5, p. 303. See also Nichols, Illus
trations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 500, 505, 508.
85 The italics in both quotations are Theobald's. Theobald made
a mistake in the date; it should be 1595.
86 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.
87 Text of Shakespeare, Chap. XXIV.
190 LEWIS THEOBALD
whim, such as the failure to number 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 till sometime after
Pope's death. The living 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 uni
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.88 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 pronunciation, as well as reproving Pope for his
ignorance of these peculiarities and his attempt to make
the verse smooth. The adoption of the changes was a dis-
88 Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 527 ff.
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.89 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 life 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
modern 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
89 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 Deliberation, I am certain will stand the test." See
Appendix, p. 280.
192
LEWIS THEOBALD
classics.90 This duty he performed so effectively that he
blazed the trail succeeding editors have always followed.
90 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 Junius stands out as a great figure, his
practices were not adopted. Manuscripts were still largely a matter
of antiquarian interest, and in the eighteenth century men like Hearne
were still more eager to publish editions than to publish 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 slightest 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 1566-1800, Yale Studies in English LV, 1917, pp. 70, 74, 83, 94,
97, 103, 108.
CHAPTER VI
IN his edition of Shakespeare Theobald had vindicated
himself against Pope. It was not, however, with a feeling
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 l and with the consciousness of the
1 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 Colley 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 very poor showing in the controversy, and that
for the future he could hardly hope to prevail upon the
public against their own judgment.2 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.3
So effectively had Theobald closed the mouths of his enemies
that nearly four months after his edition had been made
public, 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." 4 Later
he sent his friend thirteen notes, which, he said, indicated
all he could find to cavil at.5 Lord Orrery, in appreciation
of the honor shown him in the dedication, presented the
editor with a hundred 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.
2 Pope was angry 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 Hearnianae, 1869, vol. 3, p. 142.
3 No. 219, March 7, 1734, and No. 220, March 14, 1734. See
Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 446-447. The first article was
written in answer to Theobald'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.
4 Letter of May 17, 1734. Nichols, Illustrations of Literaturet
vol. 2, p. 634.
6 Letter of June 20, 1734, Idem, vol. 2, p. 645.
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 established for many years to come.6
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
War burton. His investigations were now carried farther.
One passage in Lyddas — 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 replied 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." 7 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
6 Letter of May 9, 1734. Appendix C.
7 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." 8 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.9
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 limited to fourteen years
with the possibility 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
8 See letter of August 27, 1734. Appendix C. One emendation,
on the thirteenth stanza of Venits 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 delight" for "more delight."
9 Letter of October 18, 1735. Appendix C.
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 Bill for the Encouragement of Learning and securing
of Property in Authors. I hope, I shall get it thro', unless my
Application is cut short by an abrupt Rising of the Houses.10
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.11 Later he expressed
the hope that the act would be obtained in the spring of the
following year, but nothing came of the undertaking.12
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
10 Letter of April 26, 1735. Appendix C.
11 Letter of June 24, 1735. Appendix C.
12 It was probably Theobald's interest in this field that first turned
Warburton's mind in the same direction. "It would be unjust 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 natural right of an author in the produce of his mind."
Mark Pattison, Essays, vol. 2, p. 174. Warburton's pamphlets on the
subject number 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, 1731.
In writing for this periodical 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 opportunities of obliging the
Public with more of his observations." 13 In his articles
the Shakespearean scholar covered a very broad field,
commenting on such writers as Eustathius, Athenaeus,
Suidas, Statius, Aristophanes, scholiast on Aristophanes,
Hesychius, Aeschylus, scholiast on Aeschylus, 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 fully his reasons for believ
ing a correction necessary, and supports his reading with
evidence gathered from wide sources.14
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
13 Miscellaneous Observations, vol. 1, p. 144.
14 In some cases it is almost impossible not to agree with his emen
dation (see Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 582), while
in at least one instance his correction has been accepted: daXcs for
dTI JJLCLL irpoadoK&v 6 d'ovdeirw. 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 AIDS 7C7€j^juat — 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 published his Suidas, & met with this word
under the article avefape — Td nev avros rjv VTTO opov —
Scil. Partim vero a Timore exsiccatus, is for Changing it
into avews ; mutus prae Timore, Vulgata enim Lectio inepta
mihi videtur. I agree with him that litterally, expectation
never made any Man Squint : but, in expecting we may
turn our Eyes so long one Way, thro' Eagerness of looking
out for the expected Object that we may strain the Nerves
so as to squint, till we unbend & recover them to their
right Tone. Again, IXXos possesses not only all the Copies
of Aristophanes but of Suidas too, who quotes a part of
this very Verse. IXXos yeytvrujLcu, 6 5' ouSeTrco. My Suspicion
then dear Sir is that if there be any Corruption, it may be
on the Word irpoffdoK&v, which is not quoted by Suidas.
Might not Aristophanes possibly have wrote? IXXos
7€7«'T7juai IIPOSAPAK12N 6 5' ou5e7ra>. Conversis ad eum
intente oculis, Strabus factus Sum : Ille vero nusquam adhuc
APPENDIX C 269
apparet. 7rpoANH2 kv TOLS opfaxots elfftjvexOrj 6 (fravrjs, aldolov ?xw raping
IHTHN — What a drole Figure have we here represented
to us in the Statue of a Deity, Penem habentis JUXTA
NATES! Methinks considering how near Neighbours these
Parts are in their Situation, there is nothing particular
enough in such an Image, y* it should deserve to stand
recorded on that Account. I do not much admire, that
this Passage escaped the Suspicion of the learned Keuster
in so long a Task as republishing this whole Lexicon :
opere in longo fas est obrepere somnum : but I am surprized
that Dr Bentley should let it slip without Notice ; who, in
his Epistle to Dr Mill, has been so copious in speaking of
Phanes, Metis & Ericepaios. But before I proceed to my
Emendation, let us examine by the way who this Deity
called Phanes was ; & we shall find him to be Apollo or the
Sun. avcuos 6 AiroXKw, says Hesichius. And Macrobius
in his Saturnal. line 1. c 17; Pleriq; autem a specie et
nitore Phoebum : i.e. Kadapov \wxpbv dictum putant ; item
Phaneta appellant, CLTTO TOV Qaivew; et avaiov, eireidr) aiv€Tai
veos. Again the same Deity who in some places was called
Phanes was also called Priapus, Orpheus, or Onomacritus,
in his hymns.
270
APPENDIX C
$aos ayvov,
Kara
ov at $A'NHTA
H 6e nPI'HHON
And by the Egyptians, Orus. Suidas, in rpiaTros — TO aya\fj.a
TOV TTplCLTTOV, TOV QpOV Trap' AtyvTTTlOlS K€K\f] {JL€VOV ......
TCLVTOV KCLI Tqoe HAI12 fo^afoiw. But let us see how the
Lexicographer describes to us the Statue of this Priapus,
or Egyptian Orus: kv T$ det-iq. aKfJTrrpov Karkxov axravei nap'
avrov evT€TaiJL€vov, 5iOTL TO, K€Kpvfj,fJi€va ev Ty yfl (TTTcp/^aTa avepa.
KaJdiffTTjcrL. Which the Latin Translator of Chartarius,
De Imaginibus Deorum, has thus rendered. Dextra
Sceptrum continebat, perinde ac Dominus omnium
esset, quae hie oriuntur : SINISTRA autem P U-
D E N D A tenebat nam gemmalis Virtus ab eo proficisci
credebatur — Ger. Vossius has commented thus upon
this passage. De Idolotria I.2.C.7. Ex quo loco eadem
cognoscimus, cur Priapus, hoc est H O R U S sive sos,
manu una Sceptrum, A S T E R A rubentem ilium ac peda-
lem teneat FASCINUM: Nempe Priori significatur
Solis Imperium ac Potestas in Orbem universam. Alter o
autem notatur vis Solis generativa, quae quia fit longe
maxima; eo commodissime visa est denotari membri
magnitudine. Now, here is not the least Notice of this
Orus, Penem JUXTA NATES habente, sed ilium
MANU tenente. From these authorities therefore, I
think, I shall be sufficiently warranted to correct Suidas
thus in ff>avrjs — eiayvexOil o (f>avr}s, aiboiov ex^v irapa rt\v
Scil.
In Pugno (sive in manu constricta) virilia
tenens. And again where he says in the third article of the
Word nPIAII02 — et%e 5e TO AIAOION eTrd^co ets rt]v irvyriv;
(which Keuster renders habebat autem Penem erectum,
& AEmilius Portus, habebat autem Pudendam Superne
APPENDIX C 271
JUXTA NATES) surely we must read IHTMHN,
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 Coptos in Egypt, describes the figure as not handling
its own Nudities, but as holding in its hand exsecta Typhonis
virilia. — But Suidas ever copied the author before him.
I am, Dearest Sr
Yor most affectionate & obliged
Friend, & humble Servant
Wyans Court Lew : Theobald
25 Apr. 1730.
Dear Sr.
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 Obliterations in the 5th
Act will give you some little Trouble in the Reading; but
I hope, you will be able to make them out. Pray, Dr. Sr.,
be not tender or partial in yr. 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 ye
power of yr Friendship to secure me from these Fears ; &
the free Exercise of that Power will much encrease the
obligations of
Dearest Sr.
Yr most affectionate Friend
Wyan's Court. & humble servant
Tuesd. 12 May 1730 Lew : Theobald.
272
Dear Sr.
Inclosed I return yor Tryal of Col. Charteris,5 & the
Play of Pericles, weh you were so kind to say, tho' bad you
would take the Trouble of reading over wth. a strict Eye;
& I am
Sr.
Yr. most affectionate & oblig'd
Friend & humble serv*.
Wensday morn8 Lew. Theobald.
20 May 1730.
Dear Sr.
I am vastly concerned y*. I have been so unfortunate to
miss the pleasure of yr. Company no less than three times
lately, when you did me the Favour of a Calling. For fear
of the like Unhappiness on my Side, pray be so kind to
appoint when it best sorts wth. yor. Leisure to give me
an Hour, & I will take care to reserve Myself from all trifling
Avocations : being most sincerely,
Dear Sr.
Yr. most affectionate &
obliged Friend & humble
Wyan's Court. Serv.*
25 May 1730. Lew. Theobald.
I am indebted for yor accurate Animadversions on Orestes ;
but I'm afraid you have been sparing to its Faults, And
touched them wth. the Pencil of a Friend.
6 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 fortune. He was considered a symbol 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
6 Dear Sr.
Fancying the repeated Showers Yesterday would indulge
our Town wth one day more of yor Company, I call'd at
Squire's, & found my Suspicions confirmed : and meant to
have taken a second Leave, had I been happy enough to
have found you at home. Meeting with the Volume,
wch 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 Sr.
Yr. most affectionate & obliged
Friend & humble Serv*.
Lew: Theobald.
Wyan's Court
Thursd. 11 June, 1730.
6 Dear Sr.
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 tumbling 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
6 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 Sr.
Your most affectionate
friend and obliged Humble
Servant.
Wyans Court
July ye 2.1730 L. Theobald.
7 Dear Sr.
I received the favour of yours of the 7th 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 Mr. 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.8 They have placed him in too Ridiculous a light by
7 This letter is in another's handwriting.
8 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 Sr.
Your most affectionate
Wyans Court Friend & Obliged Humble
14 July 1730. Servant
L. Theobald.
P.S. You will perceive, dear Sr. 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 Sr.
I received the pleasure of yours of ye 19th of last Month ;
wch was a great Satisfation, because from your Silence, Both
Mr. Concanen & I fear'd you might be ill. I deferred 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 Sr., from my characters, that I
a prologue. Pope has satirized him in the Bathos, The Dundad, The
Grub-street Journal, and the later version of the Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot.
John Moore was a well 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
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 wth. the Word Appendix wthout
any preceding Address as usual; & the Last before That
wch 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
liast ; upon which I shall take the Liberty to trouble you
wth. 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 wth. any
News; only that the World of Pleasure, I am afraid, are
likely to lose Mre. Oldfield : for she lies extreamly ill of an
inveterate Ulcer in Matrice: Upon wch a polite Clergyman
with us observ'd in a circle of Ladies, that she was punish'd
in that Part, wth wch she had so greatly offended God &
Mankind. But my Hand now calls upon me to favour its
Weakness : as my Inclination does to subscribe myself
Dearest Sr.
Yor. most Affectionate &
obliged Humble serv*.
Wyan's Court Lew. Theobald.
3d Septr. 1730.
APPENDIX C 277
DearSr. .
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 yr. 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 unknown to You, I have seemed to slumber over Grat
itude, & postpon'd my Acknowledments till now; yet I
dare assure You, yor. Counsel has not lost its Effects.
Whelm'd as I have been with Distresses (enough to sink
One of my obstinate Phlegm) yet at yr 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 yor kind Thoughts to believe,
that neither awkward Disgust, Disregard, nor Indolence,
have kept me dumb : but only the strong Desire of opening
my Correspondance wth. this important Piece of good
news : upon wch I know, I shall have your heartiest Con
gratulations. As to the Booksellers, Dear Sr., who once
made some Overtures to me, you hinted that they com-
plain'd I had not dealt so honourably wth. 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 published in 6 Vol8.
in 8V0., 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 wch. I have reserved
the Liberty of prefixing a Dedication to each Volume. —
And so much for that Affair.
As to Milton, Dear Sr., Dr. 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 published 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 oblig'd to your Friend Mr. Taylor,9 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
yr. Commands on that Head.
I thank you, Dearest Sr. for yor Conjectures last
communicated, but indeed I have not yet had tune to
weigh them sufficiently. In Return, I'll send you an Emen
dation I made but the other Night, upon a Passage wch. I
am sure, you will be surpriz'd wth me, how it could scape
us Both. But to see how blind Pleasure & prepossession
may sometimes make one in Shakespeare !
Merry Wives and I was like to be apprehended for
of Windr. p. 282. the Witch of Brainford, but that my
9 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 . . . 10 etic Editors. What! was it any Dexterity
of Wit in Sr. Jn. 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, delirious Woman; one too wild &
silly, & unmeaning to have either the Malice, or Mischievous
Subtlety of a Witch in her. Perhaps the Pronunciation &
Writing of Shakespeare's Times, or his County, might call
& spell this Word, a WOLD or WOULD woman; & that
might facilitate 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
Yr. most obliged & affectionate humble
Serv*.
Wyan's Court Lew Theobald.
30 Octor. 1731.
Dear Sr.
I have reced the pleasure of yours, wch. comes fraught
wth. 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
10 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, wch. 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 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 wch 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 live in a sweet Expec
tation of their Arrival. Tonson has sent me in a Shakes
peare interleaved; & 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 wch. I shall be obliged to
retract my own Emendations; & even where they have
met with your Concurrence. For instance ; —
Love's Labr. lost. p. 301
A wife, a beard, 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 four 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 wch I have
since made of our Author wth the first folio Edition, I 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'll now submit to yor 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 Circumstances. She is
grave & in earnest ; & as she knows his Doom is arbitrarily
fix'd, she would at once wean him from all flattering Ex
pectations, & would have him look upon the Completion
of his Fate as a solid 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 yr. Thoughts upon it, before I
make it standard. A propos, a Word, by the by, on Measure
for Measure. Tis certain the Foundation 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
APPENDIX C
two Parts, printed in the black Letter, in 1578, calPd, The
right Excellent & famous History of Promos & Cassandra,
divided into two Comical Discourses; in the first part
whereof is shewn the unsuff erable 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. Mr. Pope speaks of an Old 4°
Edition of this play printed in 1619 ; & of a tradition of it's
being written by Queen Elizabeth'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 Ld. 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 earlier in its Date yn. 1599 n (from wch
the Publick had their first acquaintance wth Sr. John Fal-
II 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 Sr., if you can give me any
Account of Platonius the Grammarian, whose fragment
upon the 3 Sorts of Greek Comedy is prefixed to Aristo
phanes. I expected to have had some Information from
Fabricius in his Bibliothaeca 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
Mr. Taylor ; for whom I have underwritten a subscription-
Receipt for Shakespeare; & believe me, Dearest Sr., with
the most inviolable Attachment
Yor ever obliged & affectionate
humble Serv*.
Wyan's Court Lew Theobald.
12 — ovM731
My Dear Friend,
I reced by your Last (N° III) of ye 22d. of Novr ; your
kind Assurances wth. Regard to my Preface; the Contents
of wch. 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 wch. I now send you a Transcript of,
to shew you how methodical I am ; & by my Next, I shall
submit the Opening to yor. Perusal. I beg earnestly,
Dear Sr., you will not be tender of altering, everywhere;
(except in my Acknowledgmts to my Friends) I would have
12 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 : wch 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, wch 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 Myself taken to make the Work as
compleat, as faithfull Industry & my best Abilities 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, wch I had purposed to
publish upon the Foot of my first Proposals. Earnest Sol
icitations were made to Me, that I would think of such an
Edition, wch. I had as strong Desires to listen 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 Mr. Tonson his 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 Mr. 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 dispersed & vended : And
so Time was unavoidably lost: While the Publication 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 willing to believe, that any unkind Opinions, enter-
tain'd to my Prejudice, would naturally drop & lose their
Force, when the Publick 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 employed all my Power to be
just to them in the Execution of my Task.
I come now to speak of those kind Assistances, wch. 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 Dr.
Thirlby of Jesus-Colledge there, who had taken great pains
wth 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 favoured me with a
Sett of Emendations, interspersed & 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 Esqr. 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, wch were constantly once a Week,13 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
affirm, in the behalf of my Assistant, that our Author has
derived no little Improvement from Them.
To these I must add the indefatigable Zeal & Industry of
my most ingenuous & ever-respected Friend, the Revd.
Mr. 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 entered 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 explained, wch. 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 confessing these Assistances ; & how
ever my own poor Conjectures may be weakened by the
Comparison wth 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,
18 These meetings were held by the so-called Concanen Club.
APPENDIX C 287
that from the Confession of these successive Aids, & the
Manner in wch I deriv'd them, it appears, I have pretty
well filPd up the Interval, betwixt my first Proposals & my
Publication, wth having my Author always in View & at
Heart.
Some Hints I have the Honour to owe to the Information
of Dr. Mead, & the late Dr. Friend : Others the Kindness
of the ingenious Martin Folkes Esqr, who likewise 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 Esqr. did wth. several of the old
Quarto single Plays, wch 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, wch. I have exhibited
in my Catalogue of Editions, let it suffice to say, that to
clear up several Errors in the Historical 14 . . . Plays, I pur
posely read over Hall & Holingshead's Chronicles in the
Reigns o . . . n'd; all the Novells in Italian from which
our Author had borrowed any ... his Plots : such parts of
Plutarch, from wch 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 Publick shall
be pleased to allow that he owes Anything to my Willing
ness^ Endeavours of restoring him, I shall reckon the Part
" MS. is torn.
288 APPEND]
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 whal
relates to yrself, & believe that I had certainly declined
it, only that I am determin'd to submit the Whole to you.
Because no paper shall be lost, I'll trouble you, Dear Sr.,
with a second Thought upon this Passage of Hamlet, of
wch 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 like 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 Othello Ac. 2. Sc. 7. delivers 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 of
Nature
"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 wth
Me that the Text may stand, I believe it will not be im
proper to refute Mr. Pope's silly Conjecture, & explain the
Poet by these Quotations.
I am, with the truest Respect, Dearest Sr.,
Yr. most affectionate Friend, & obliged
humble Servant
Wyan's Court
4 Decr. 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 wch. 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-office 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, wch. your Friendship has lent
me from your Profession, I join wth 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 yor 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 wch. 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
you the Conclusion, & the Manner in wch. 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 & embellishing wth : ad
ditional Inrichments : of the general Arrangement, wch. you
should think best for the whole; & of making the proper
Transitions from Subject to Subject, wch. 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 physical Quaery's wch : you
have directed me, with an Encrease, upon Dr. 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
interspersed without Suspicion of Pedantry. I would not
voluntarily draw that Ridicule upon me from the Sneerers.
You are anxious, Dear Sr., 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 Mr. Tonson, since our Agreement,
behaves with great Candour, & professions of sincere Service.
He tells me, Expectations are greatly reviv'd from the pub-
lick's being informed 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 Dut chess, 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 3d. 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 wth. 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 disturbed, 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 employed on Tasks of diff'ring Natures.
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 Relish.
The Next, Dear Sr :, is in the 4th Act. Her Match is dis-
cover'd ; Her Husband oblig'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 live?
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 live.
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 tendered to your
Friend, young Dr. Taylor. I have sent, please to tell him,
a Rec*. over to Mr. Botham at Cambridge for his small
Paper; & inclos'd I send the other, as directed, for the
Royal. Mr. Taylor not knowing the Tenour of my pro
posals, has sent up but a Guinea & J 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 wth.
Safety & Secrecy, & wth. 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, Sr., to tender you the good Wishes
attending the approaching Season; & to confess myself,
My dearest Friend
Yr. 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 recovered from y1 trouble
some Indisposition complain'd of in the postscript of yor.
last (No. viii) that I reced by Inclosure from ye Commisser
of ye Post Office, together wth yours to your Sister & Mr.
Twells's to Mr. Carteret. These Remonstrances, seconded
by my Representation of ye fact before them & ye Accident
of ye Doit being likewise intercepted, have had such an
Effect, y* I have not only had my J Guinea restored, but ye
Letter-Carrier is dismiss' d from his Business. It may seem
a little strange, perhaps, wn I tell you, that I have placed
myself so far on ye side of Mercy, as to solliciting his Read-
mission. But my Reasons are, that Appearances only are
against him, & no proof that he is tardy in ye Affair, however
ye Resentment has settled there. Besides, he has bin a
servant to the Office 18 years without Intermission, & this
ye very first complaint levelled 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 misemployed in this Task, I hope, these are seeming
Motives to excuse the Frailty. And I may add to these,
what I am very well convinced of, that the Plectuntur 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 live above their Salary, & are liable to
casual Temptations : And these, I fear, whenever a Blot
is hit, have Policy enough to shift the Blame off to Inferiors.
I'll not venture to make this Judgment in ye 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, wch may not be displeasing.
I make no doubt, but Mr. Pope's Epistle of Taste, address'd
to Ld. 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 ye. 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, Mr.
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 wch. you will be able to
determine whether Mr. Welsted has not wip'd out his Score
wth. 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 wch. incense Mr. 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 wth. 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 ye Duke of Chandos
under ye Character of Timon, in his late Epistle on Taste.
Thence he passes to a tolerably-spreading Invective on
P himself, wch. 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, & belies 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 Cataline, & Tully's foe !
Oh ! born to blacken ev'ry virtuous Name ;
To pass like Blightings, o'er the Blooms of Fame :
The Venom of thy baleful Quill to shed,
Alike on living 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, & malignant 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 softling 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 the 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 little 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 faithfull Sketch erase,
Which shews thy Mind, as Reisbank's Bust thy Face,
*Yet Thou proceed; impeach with steadfast Hate
Whatever is godlike, & 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,
Yr. most affectionate &
obliged humble Serv*.
Lew. Theobald.
Wyan's Court
8Janry. 1731. [1732]
* Pope's Epist. p. 14 (Theobald's note).
** Ibid. p. 10 and 12 (Theobald's note).
*** Ibid. p. 14 (Theobald's note).
298
APPENDIX C
DearSr.
I reced ye pleasure of yours of ye 15th 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.
Yours of ye 14th of Janry, in answer to mine of ye 8th of that
Month, arriv'd safe : since wch. I have intermitted writing,
.because I would not trouble you wth. impertinent Postage.
My Interval has, indeed, been filPd up, but not with the
Affair of my new Tragedy. Matters have turn'd up so ill
with Mr. 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 wch I could borrow from ye 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 Qn. Anne's Reign : in
wch. space he reced a Number of Letters from Bolingbroke,
Ormonde, Marlborough, Strafford, Argyll, Shrewsbury and
Bp. of London, all wch I am transcribing in Books for my
Lord. I have great pleasure in Ld. Bolingbroke'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 wth. the Sentiments of a Sprightly
Genius upon more desirable Topicks. I have met Dr.
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 Partiality of yor. 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,
wch. has given me much Entertainment ; 15 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 Dr. 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 eirexco.
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 wth. Dr. 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.
16 A Friendly Letter to Dr. Bentley. Occasioned by his New Edition
of Paradise Lost. By a Gentleman of Christ-Church College Oxon.
London, 1732. [Said to be by Z. Pearce.]
300
APPENDIX C
As many violent Wrestings of the Text as the Dr. has
ventur'd at, he has omitted one easy literal Emendation, in
the 1st Book, wch. 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 ye Term here as
the Infernals were to meet on the great debate of Peace or
War : wch., you know, was always the Motive of the Romans
convening at ye 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 16 ... in Opinion. B. 1. 282. — fall'n such a
pernicious Height . . . & B. vi. 520. — Part incentive Reed.
Provide, pernicious wi . . . Touch to fire. — The Doctr.
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 Peculiarities; an Adoption of
16 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 wch. I
could furnish many Dissertations, would they in Value
compensate for the Trouble they must give you.
I am, Dearest Sr.
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 ye 27th of Mar. & 5 May : but
indeed I have been so little at my own Command & so
closely attached 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 furnish
me wth. a Specimen of ye Emendations on Paterculus : &
my hopes of them are not cool'd by this silent Intervention.
When you have presented the Publick wth That & Arnobius,
We shall be taught not to value Editions on the Number of
their MSS. You are so obliging to demand some blank
Rects. & more of my Proposals; wch. 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 ye latter
Plays to compleat my Notes, & compare wth your answers ;
wch. you'll very much oblige me in sending up per Carrier, &
then I may by the same conveyance send you down the
Recte. & Proposals. Now my Lord Orrery has taken his
302 APPENDIX C
Recess, I dare promise to become a better Correspondant ;
& for the present I'll send you in MSS. a little Poem, y1 1 dare
say, has not in print travelled so far as your Parts. I am, my
dear Friend,
Yor. most affectionate & oblig'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 mourn,
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 inspired ;
I lov'd with equal Pace as 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, & preserved 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, conveyed 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 sympathy 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
O 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 publick Hope & publick Care ;
And answ'ring ev'ry Wish, & ev'ry Prayer.
Firm to the Rules wch. 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 yr 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 your Eyes, & Comfort to your Heart !
In such rare Union bounteous Heav'n is proud
To mark its Fav'rites from th' unworthy Crowd.
Still may that bounteous Heaven propitious shed
Its choicest Influence on your Nuptial Bed !
And as the circling Years their Course maintain,
May each be fruitfull, till a blended Train
Of beauteous Offspring your just Smiles divide ;
The Mother's Rapture, & the Father's Pride !
Nor Thou, O 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[riend]
I reced the pleasure of yours of ye 25th of last instant &
likewise the small packet of my remaining Letters by the
Waggon, & will take care by That, wch. sets out on Thursday
next from Wood Street, to send you Dr. Bentley's Milton,
some of my Proposals, 6 blank Recte. & one fill'd up for
the Earl of Tyrconnel. I beg you will make my Duty &
Thanks acceptable to His Lordsp. If He is pleas'd to in
sist that I may not have ye 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 Mr. Pope, & Advocates for all his Merit. I was
inform'd by one of Dr. Bentley's Friends, that he was hard
& fast upon Homer. I am in great Expectations of something
copious & elaborate upon the ^Eolick Digamma, because
the Dr. held forth upon it pretty warmly, when I waited
upon him at Cambridge.17 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 KWOS, 'tis certain they do employ it in
the sense of absurdus; but does it ever wth. 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 little
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 Sr.
yor most affectionate Friend
Wyan's Court. & obliged humble servant
4 July 1732. Lew. Theobald
Dear Friend
I had designed you a letter 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
17 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. li.
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
yr most affectionate & obliged Friend & Servant
Lew: Theobald
Wyans Court 29 July 1732.
I presume anon I shall enjoy the aTroo-wdcr/zaTa of your
Paterculus. Pray don't let Ld Tyrconnel slip through our
Fingers as he has once given his Promise.
My Dear Friend
My very trifling Concerns in Kent have obliged 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 ye 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
yr 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
Sr 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 Sr Hugh mountain-Foreigner on account
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 4tos write it Latten as it should
be in the common Characters : & as a Proof that the Author
designed this should be addressed to Slender, Sr 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 wch 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 espece 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 & wc we at this
day call latten. Scaliger upon Festus had said the same
APPENDIX C 309
thing. The Metallists tell us it is Copper mingled with
Lapis Calammaris. . . . u
I am
dearest Sir
Wyan's Court Yr 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 wch. 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 yours wth. the little Bill at Top (wch. 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, wch. has attacked me wth. all its trouble-
som Severities : but I thank God, I have pretty well mastered
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 :
18 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 ye Accots. 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 myself now shortly to
sit down upon ye fine Synopsis, wch. you so modestly call
the Skeleton of Preface; after wch. I shall be at Leisure to
give you a cool Dissertation on the great pleasure I feel in
yr. Commendatory on Vellerius Pater culus. I drank
your Health heartily wth. our Friend Mr. Attorney-General 19
before he went for Jamaica, & am in great Impatience to
hear of his safe Arrival. I hope I shall succeed him in
Sr. Wm. Yonge's good Offices, when Time serves ; Sr. 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 Qtuv ev yovaai Keirai. But to pass from
these Affairs to a little better Entertainment : a passage,
"wch. was canvass'd betwixt Us, & wch. 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 Janry. 1732. [1733] Lew : Theobald.
Love's Labr : 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.
19 Concanen.
APPENDIX C 311
I had discovered, 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 a x : 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,20 . . . 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 Punctilios wth.
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, wch. is to make its Appearance immediately
after Easter Holidays. I am to make my Acknowledg
ments, Dear Sr., for the little Bill by wch. I am honour'd
wth. your 3 Subscribers. For One of them you'll please to
20 MS. is torn.
312
APPENDIX C
join, to your own Thanks, mine to good Mr. Taylor,
drank your Health lately wth. Dr. 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 deliver'd to the Subscribers
by the latter end of next Month. You will find, I
have had the good Luck to enrich my List wth her Royal
Highness, the Princess Royal, & many Names of the high
est Distinction. I had a Design as I believe I told you,
of prefixing a Dedication to every Volume; but my Lord
Orrery has been beforehand wth. me, & bespoke a part of
its Patronage ; & I think I can do no less than compliment
him wth. 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 like to have run
into, wch. Time & Casual Conversation have prevented.
3 Henry vi But while he thought to steal the single Ten,
p. 271. The King was slily 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 confirmed 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 wth. Dr.
Beauford, he casually gave me the Fruit of the Locust-tree
to taste of, wch. 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 wch. is sweet comes more pecu
liarly in contrast. Will you forgive me if I should intimate
an ignorant suspicion ? Perhaps, the Locusts wch. (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 calPd 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: wch. could not be our holy Hermit's Case.
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. wch. answers the purpose of your Correction. — Nam
ing that little Gentleman gives me an Opportunity of telling
you he is most handsomely depicted in a severe Poem by
Lady Mary W. Mountague,21 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 Sr.
Yor ever affectionate,
as obliged humble Serv*.
Lew: Theobald.
Wyan's Court.
10 Mar. 1732. [1733]
21 Verses addressed to an Imitator of Horace, 1733.
314 APPENDIX C
Dear Sir
I have the pleasure of yours of ye 23d 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 wch. 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,
& rendered 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 reduced to Two.
This is a Fact so well known with Us in Town, y * as I advertised
y* compleat Volumes might be seen at my House, to the
Intent the Diffident might have ye Opportunity of convincing
themselves, I hope my Subscribers will 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 wch. cannot
be thrown at my Door; & so, not be too busie with my
Reputation. I cannot omitt the present Opportunity of
acquainting you with the Motto I have purposed. 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 extra vant 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 truely obliged Friend &
faithfull humble Servant
Lew: Theobald.
Wyans Court
30 June 1733
My dear Friend,
I have reced the Pleasure of yors of ye 21st Instant,
& am proud to hear my good Lord Orrery has so fair & just
a Report from his Fellow-Collegiate; & 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 ye 3 parts are reprint
ing & together wth 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 ye Revise comes to me) to consult you upon a Passage
in Hamlet, wch. 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." But then what was this
316
APPENDIX C
Prologue to be fram'd to? Mr. Chisselden the Surgeon,22
(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 ye
Liberty to dissent from a Correction of Yours in Antony ;
but I hope, wth. such Reason as you'll be willing to accede
to. p. 35.
I'll raise the preparation of a War,
Shall 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
22 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 & faithfull humble Serv*.
28 July. 1733. Lew. Theobald
Have I leave for printing Ld.
TyrconnePs Name ? — And
Do you & Dr. Stukely hold ye Intentions
of visiting London this next August ?
My Dear Friend
I have received the Pleasure of yours of the 9th 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 your 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 informed by you. Li II
Chap. CIII — turn repulsit certa spes liberorum 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 supplement um exercitus servos
suos manumitterent, hisque interfectorum matrimonia pol-
licerentur, Idem li 18. c. 5. Harum igitur ex numero 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 li 43. c. 3. Tune 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) Militia for Milites, senatus for
Senatores, juventus for juvenes, conjuratio for conjurati,
clientela for clientes etc etc etc. And now as to Shakes
peare, Dear Sir, wch 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 literal criticism a little, 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.23 . . . But I must 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 Octor. 1733
23 I have omitted the emendations on the inscriptions copied by
Wheler, which may be found 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 2nd Verse,
ZHNA XEIPAS Trpos TON &VLOV eo-erao-as. But, I am afraid
this makes two false quantities in our Pentameter. The
1st may easily be cured by reading Zijv a \kpas ; but rov 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^a Kara TrpcorON Slvia-Tiov
cKTrcrao-as kirl Kvaveas divas dpopovs. The flN & ON seem a
Reduplication of one & the same Syllable from the Care
lessness of the stone cutter, or Sr George's transcript ; but
then, how by the same inaccuracy should &vu>v be depraved
into cono-Tioj'? I believe I was too licentious in the use of
kTrerdcras & therefore we'll now tie him down to his native
Construction. I'll correct if you . approve it. Zr/j/a Kara
TrpcorflN; lanov eKTrcracras Kvaveals dLvyaiv eiridpOfiON.
The alteration now is very minute & the sense will be thus :
Invocet aliquis 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 ye Prow of a vessel. Your other conjecture, eiri waveovs
Awas dpofjiovs, I think can never stand at ye beginning of
an Hexameter. Sir George Wheeler, in his explanation of
this inscription, led me into ye notion of the Cyanean
Islands. You very dexterously guess that 'EvavOri might
320 APPENDIX C
be ye name of a Female ; but then the nominative placed
betwixt Eo-5e rbv and rov ad 8eov, & then the accusatives
$iXoDi>T' ayadfiv divided from their substantive by 'ArriTrdrpou
TTCUS (TTijffe renders the position very harsh & the sense too
obscured & inelegant for the other parts of this little poem :
nor tho' evavdij may not be the epithet generally appro
priated to ye True God by the Greek Christians because
applied 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 illiterate 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 Billows 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 yr Fatigue is repaid to me in the
satisfaction of hearing from you, than which nothing can
afford greater pleasure to
Dearest Sir
yr ever obliged as faithfull
Wyan's Court humble Ser*
25th October 1733. Lew. Theobald
[To Mr. Tonsori]
Sir. 24
As I have very few days left before I must close my list,
I beg for these next six Days, Shakespeare may every day
be advertised 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 Janry. 1733. [1734] Lew : Theobald
My Dear Friend,
I defer'd replying to the Favour of yours of ye 30 Janry
till I could inform you y*. I had sent down yor Books, wch.
set out wth. NewbaPs Waggon on Monday last. You will re
ceive 2 Parcells ; in One, a Royal Paper Sett bound, for
24 British Museum, add. MSS. 28275, f. 310.
322 APPENDIX C
Yourself, & 3 Setts on Demy ; & in the other, a Royal Set
in sheets for Dr. Taylor, & 3 more Setts on Demy. At
the Top of this 2d Parcell you will find the Papers you fa-
vour'd me wth. on Paterculus, because you say you want
them.
I had purposed 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 wth. the utmost Freedom, to my Power,
give you my impartial Thoughts of each. A propos, to
one in particular y* occurs to me Lib. 11. cap. cxiii. Ille
ad pair em patriae expect ato 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 ye Author
would insinuate, Tiberius was as much a Darling adopted
Son of Augustus. I would read therefore Ille 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. Julia relegata in Insulam, PATRIAEQUE et
PARENTUM subducta Oculis. — & again c. 120. Ar-
minio territo, quern arguisse PATER et P ATRIA contenti
erant, &c. I don't know whether I am right : but I was
willing to offer it to your better Consideration.
The Rec* wch 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
yor kind Promise of collecting in your Friends' 2d 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 Mr. Prevost wth your letter of Directions ab*.
getting the two French Books for You. He is turn'd out a
Bankrupt, & had lost ye 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 deliver8 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 faithfull 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 un-
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 solid honour as they afford
me sincere pleasure. I will not pretend, it was a debt
politickly paid ; but I find, it has entail'd this rich Conse
quence, yi 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
numerous they may be, junctosque umbone phalanges.
What you mention as to my having adopted passages in
my preface, wch 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 T&V i\wv KOW' ov t*bvov ra xP^M^ra, /cat
vov d£ K.a.1 poj>rj Trrepcorw
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* &7rc6iXos here is, as in Hesiod Fctroi/cs a^cooroi IK.LOV.
People come to the relief of a neighbour, without standing
on being compleatly dressed. And the second scholiast
explains it, that they were too zealous to be able to slip
on their shoes. As I am venturing to give this passage a
Turn, neither countenanced by the Text, nor the Commen
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 21st Epistle, says
y* Venus emerged from the sea barefoot. If the sea-nymphs
then were always barefooted, to say, they came aTrcStXot
would be idle & trivial. And besides, if we consider Cir
cumstances, 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 xarpcoas . . . 27 irapeiirovaa pevas.
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 all the colour from my cheeks, & I
hastened trembling etc. And a very slight literal alter
ation of the Text will reconcile it to this Sense : if, instead
of fcireSiXos, we may only read Zvdrjv 6' TFOAEIAOS 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
erferjs, Karats, tirt,(f>o0os — In the Hecuba of Eurip-
edes, when Polyxena comes out to her, upon hearing her
violent transports of grief, she says something resembling
this sentiment of Aeschylus;
6AMBEI r
.
My dear Friend,
I have been so perpetually hurried, for this Month past
in Ld. 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 yr. Last. I hope, you have quite got rid of
ye 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 ye 4 Guins. pursuant to your Order, for wch. please
to receive my Thanks. The 2 Grubstreets wch. you wanted
are not to be come at with the Publishers. I shall therefore
with great pleasure transcribe them, as I am oblig'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.28 . . . The next Post my dear Friend, shall bring
you Mr. 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 Mr.
Bavius thought fit to retort to y*.
I am Dear Sr. Yr. most affectionate & oblig'd
humble serv*.
Wyan's Court, Lew : Theobald.
27 Aug. 1734.
28 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 Mr Bavius's Replication or Cavil 2*
(quocunque nomine) subjoined to my letter wch I last
troubled you with : & shall only at present confess myself,
Dear Sir your most oblig'd & affectionate
humble Servant
Wyans Court Lew. Theobald.
3d Septr 1734
[To Sir Hans Sloane]
30 Sir
The encouragement you were so good to shew me in the
Case of Shakespeare makes me humbly hope I shall have
ye Honour of yr 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 prefixed. The
Work will be 2 thick Volumes in 4to 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 wch 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 Dr Conyers Middleton I have a Collation of a
Mss. of this Poet from the Laurentian Library at Florence ;
wch. Mss. was made for the use of Franciscus Philadelphus,
M 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, ff. 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 know31 . . . pt of this Collation would be ac
ceptable to Sr. Hans . . . wth great pleasure make it at
ye same time for yr Service. I had an ambition of men
tioning this on Thursday was Sennight to you at Sr. Robert
Walpole's; but as I never had the Honour of approaching
you, I was fearfull of being too importunate. The Honour
of yor Commands will very much oblige Him, who is with
true Respect & Veneration
Sir
Your most obedient
Wyan's Court in humble serv*.
Great Russell Steet Lew. Theobald.
21 Septr. 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 biliose 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 wth Me, that a Middle-aged Man
has liv'd but half his Days. I was seiz'd at once wth Some
thing like a Cold so severe y* I was glad for my own Sake
31 MS. is torn.
336 APPENDIX C
as well as the Family's to creep out of ye 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,
wch 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 wch.
I shall ever be proud to approve Myself
Dear Sir
Your most affect6 &
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 wc . has for a long while suspended my troubling
you with any Letters. I had sooner reply'd to yor Last,
but was then makg. a short Tour into Kent when it arriv'd.
Dr. Stukely I have met twice at Mr. Watts,32 & once at Sr.
Robert Walpole's. I will wait on Mr. Whiston,33 who, I
32 One of Theobald's printers.
88 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 litterary 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 ye Houses. But
in a few Posts I shall be able to ascertain my Success in it to
You. Would you believe 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,34 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.
35 1 am to acknowledge the Favour of Two of yours, but
y*. [I] should have done much earlier, but y* ever since the
Rising of Parliament my Ld. Orrery has engross' d me night
& day. His Lordship's Affairs have now carried him into
Ireland, so I hope for a little Time to be a Man more at
my own Dispose. I need not tell you that it was impossible
34 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 Moliere. The play alluded to
above was The Man of Taste, produced March, 1735.
38 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 wth. 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 Mr. Pope's Preface,38 as a pretended Defence
of his Fellow-Players. Nor can I yet Snd out any Epistle
addressed to Mr. Pope, in wch. 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 expressed his
Compliments in a Letter, brought to me by two itinerant
Abbe*es, wch put me to the unaccustom'd Task of a Latine
Conversation. I thought Myself oblig'd to set Pen to
Paper, in reply to his great Civility; & that Compliance
I suppose has drawn on the following Letter wch I'll give
you totidem verbis.
Viro Cl . . . 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 optabilius in Vita cuiquam accidere potest hominum
Erudi . . . similium, Consuetudine ? Sed, eheu ! iniquum
38 John Roberts, Answer to Pope's Preface to Shakespeare, by a
Strolling Player [1730].
APPENDIX C 339
quo pre . . . Quam enim Tu mihi, ut ut nullis Tibi Meritis
cognito, am . . . Consuetudinemque benevole largiris,
eadem ut plene perfrua . . . Montium terrarumque Tractus
interject!, Oceanus denique interfu . . . negare videntur.
Literarum equidem beneficio id consequimur, quantumvis
longissimo terrae tractu dissiti conversari & colloquia
miscere possimus; sed dum viatores, quibus Epistolas
parvasque sarcinas ultro citroque ferendas committimus,
rarius obveniunt ac diutius per Viam morantur, Studium
exspectando immuni, et consuetudinis voluptati multum
derogari accidit.
Interim consuetudine h£c Epistolari fruamur, qua licet
et Res et Locus fieri patiuntur. Gratulor Tibi egregiam
istam juvandi liberales Disciplinas voluntatem, qud in-
flammatus novam Shakespear I Editionem procurare
adgressus es. Non equidem me fugit Alexandrum Popium,
quern tibi Editione Shakespearii praeivisse . . . bis, virum
ingenio felicissimo, faman nomjnis longe lateque . . .
neque poemata ejus miscellanea, quae ad Apinam hanc
plagam usque deven6runt, adulationis hunc rumorem ad-
cusare videntur. Doctrina tamen, ingenio, atque ceteris
dotibus animi abundS Te instructum et ornatiim ad Shake-
spear I Fabulas inlustrandas accedere probe* sentio, ex tu6
de Divae PAUPERTATIS spelunca eximio Poematio,
quod non stylum vocemque solum Shakespearii exprimit,
sed ipsummet enthei Poetae Spiritum feliciter audacem
undequaque Spirat. Contuli enim ad unam alteramve
Shakespearii fabulam, quae jam olim ab ipso Editae, nescio
qu6 vento secundo in meas delatae sunt Manus. Haec
ipsa mirum mihi desiderium 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 verbisque ex-
primendi, pingendique more Shakespearis perquam similem ;
ita ut ingenii quddam Agnatione inductum Te ad veterem
Tragoedum vertendum animum adpulisse mihi persuadeam.
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 ocyssime* exemplar Shakes-
spearii tu . . . curabis. Vicissim plura ad Te mittam
exempla Del Parang . . . quern nunc integrum accipies :
nee non mittam, si non displice . . . intellexero, Apolo-
giam Oedipodis Sophoclei, simulque Tractat . . . quo-
rundam doctorum Italorum, varii ad Graecanicae Scena
. . . toriam facientis Argumenti, Tibi forte" alicui usui futuros.
. . . cumque autem librorum vel literarum aliquid ad Me
perferri . . . Amstelodanum, id mea 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, cum in Germania, turn et in . . . mul-
toque rerum virorumque usu mihi cognita Italia^ augen-
dam formandamque pertinere videbantur. Eo enim erga
Te animo sum, quo erga virum honestissimum eruditissi-
mumque esse . . . est. Vale. Tiguri Helvetiorum add.
14 Aprilis St. N. MDCCXXXIV.
Ne erres in Literarum Inscriptione, en Tibi earn gallice*
A Jean Jacques Bodmer, Professeur en Histoire et Politique,
a Zuric dans la Suisse ; recommande* a Messieurs La Veuve
van Kemena et Barthelmy van den Sandheuvel a 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 wth 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
yr. most affect6. & oblig'd humble Serv*.
Wyan's Court Lew: Theobald.
24th June 17 ... [1735]
Dear Sir,
I have delayed some few Posts, since my Return from
Kent, (an Expedition y* I generally take ab* y8. Time of
the Year) to reply to the Favour of Your Last of ye 17th
Septr., because I was desirous, if possible, to get you the
pirated 2d Volume of Mr. Pope's Poems in 12mo. But the
Trade, I find, will not own y* it is to be procured by Them,
or y* They dare to meddle wth it if it was. I have been
several Times at Mr. Vaillant's ab* ye odd Vol. of Monsr
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 wth sufficient Encouragement. The Be-
342 APPENDIX C
ginning of next Month will be published an English version
of Anacreon & Sappho, with the Greek Text on the opposite
Page, by one Mr. Addison. To say the Truth, I believe
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 next, is a new version of
the 2d. AEneis of Virgil, wth Notes Philological & Critical :
by a Relation & Namesake of Mine, a Doctor of Physick,
at a i Guinea Subscription. He prints it on fine Royal
Paper, in 4to; gives us a Bust of Virgil from Augustini's
Gemms, & 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 Mr. Gyles, together wth. a Trifle of mine wch. I have
lately printed, The Fatal Secret, a Tragedy; & wch I
have dedicated to Sr. 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 y1 & 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 Hesychius, 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 yt Author.
I am,
My dear Friend
yr most affectionate
Wyan's Court. obliged humble serv1.
18 Octor. 1735. Lew : Theobald.
Wyan's Court. 18 May 1736.
Dear Sir,
I reced yours of the 4th 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 confessed 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 wch 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 conquered
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, yr. 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 employed
than I could have wish'd.
I am, Sir
Yr. very humble servant
Wyan's Court. Lew : Theobald
4th Septr. 1736
37 Tibbald's Word in a letter to me, of 18 Novr. 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 ye contents, Topicks Order &c of this branch of my
labour. You have a comprehensive Memory, & a happiness
37 This passage is written on a scrap of paper in Warburton's hand
writing.
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 inability, 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"]
38 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 published; 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
11th March. & most humble Servant
1740. Lew: Theobald.
11th. March, 1740
Reced then of his Grace the Duke of Newcastle three
Guineas, being his Grace's second Subscription payment in
full for one set of Shakespeare's Works in Eight Volumes
with Cuts, publish' d by me
Lew : Theobald.
18 British Museum, Add. MSS. 32, 696, ff. 217, 219.
346
APPENDIX C
[To the Duke of Newcastle"]
89 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 Humility and Gratitude, by
My Lord,
You Grace's most dutifull &
Wyan's Court in obedient humble Servant
Great Russell street Lew : Theobald.
12th 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 Lounsbury, p. 124.
The Life and Character of Marcus Portius Goto 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 Queen 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. Lon
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
Electro, : A Tragedie. Translated from Sophocles, with Notes.
London : Printed for Bernard Lintott, 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 Clouds. A Comedie. Translated from the Greek of Aris
tophanes. By Mr. Theobald : Printed for Jonas Brown at the Black
Swan without Temple-Bar. MDCCXV.
Plutus : 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 Poem. 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 Oxford 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, catted
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 Paulina, a masque. To which are added the
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. Hears, at the Lamb
without Temple-bar. 1719.
The Tragedy of King Richard the II ; As it is acted at the Theatre
in Lincoln' s-inn-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. Hears, at the Lamb with
out Temple-Bar. 1721.
Theobald's name as collector 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.
frhe Rape of Proserpine, 1725.
Apollo and Daphne, or the Burgo-M aster Trick' d, 1726.
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 SHAKE
SPEARE in all the Editions ever yet publish' d. By Mr. THEOBALD.
. . . Laniatum Corpore toto
Deiphobum vidi et lacerum crudeliter Ora,
Ora, manusque ambas, . . .
Virg.
LONDON: Printed for R. FRANCKLIN under Tom's, J. WOOD
MAN and D. LYON under Will's, C event-Garden, and C. DAVIS
in Hatton-Garden. 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 Distrest 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, MDCCXXVIIL
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: MDCCXXVIIL
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.
I/ 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°.