Iff N I 
 
 LIBRARY OF CX)NGRESS 
 
 OOOIOOO'^ODS 
 
 4^ 
 
 'A 
 
 , 1 
 
 ^•■^L 
 
 ^ 
 
 • Ci' 
 
 f f*' 
 
 fi 
 
 i-V 
 
 < V) 
 
 
 A'l 
 
 
 .••^ 
 
 iv 
 
 t"'^ 
 
 ■^v 
 
 > 
 
 'it- 
 
 
 ^ '' 
 
 
 *rr 
 
 1 
 
 &/ 
 
 ;?••*, 
 
Class _TTl^v2a 
 Book._~^ 
 
 o /■:' 
 
 G)pyiiglit}{^_ 
 
 CQEmiGHT DEPOSm 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 SALES AGENTS 
 
 New York 
 
 LEMCKE & BUECHNER 
 
 30-32 West 27th Street 
 
 London 
 HUMPHREY MILFORD 
 
 Amen Corner, E.G. 
 
 Shanghai 
 
 EDWARD EVANS & SONS, Ltd. 
 
 30 North Szechuen Road 
 
LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 HIS CONTRIBUTION TO ENGLISH SCHOLARSHIP 
 WITH SOME UNPUBLISHED LETTERS 
 
 BY 
 
 RICHARD FOSTER JONES, Ph.D. 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 1919 
 
 All rights reserved 
 

 Cop>Tight, 1919 
 By Columbia Untversitt Press 
 
 Printed from type^ March, 1919 
 
 APR 23 1919 
 
 ©aA525224 
 
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 estabUsh 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 
 rehable, 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 ColUns, 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 
 estabhshed 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 
 Loimsbury 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 unpubUshed letters, written to Warbur- 
 ton, which throw some light on the period following the great 
 satire, and make clearer the later relations of the two men. 
 
 The thesis that I attempt to uphold asserts that the basic 
 principles of critical editing in English were derived directly 
 from the method employed by Bentley in the classics. In 
 his work on Shakespeare Theobald adapted this method to 
 a new field, and in turn was followed by scholars who did 
 not confine their labors to the great dramatist. I have not 
 carried my discussion beyond that remarkable period of 
 critical activity, the sixth decade of the eighteenth century, 
 because by 1760 the method had become so prevalent that 
 its connection with Theobald is no longer apparent. This 
 fact explains why I have not mentioned some of the best 
 known scholars of the latter half of the century such as 
 Tyrwhitt and Ritson, both of whom admired Theobald and 
 followed his lead. I think that it is necessary only to show 
 that the method which Theobald derived from Bentley and 
 handed on to succeeding scholars is the same in essential 
 details as that employed now. 
 
 This dissertation owes its being to Professor W. P. Trent. 
 He first suggested the possibility of Bentley's influence on 
 Theobald, and his abiding confidence in the thesis later 
 sustained me through many discouragements. He also 
 read both manuscript and proof, and made many criticisms 
 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 nxmiber 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 obhgation 
 of many courtesies. 
 
 I wish pubHcly to express to my wife my heartfelt gratitude 
 for her dear assistance. Besides performing the tedious and 
 mechanical tasks necessary to pubUcation, she was ever 
 ready with affectionate sympathy and 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 pubUshing 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 famihar. 
 
 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 op the Method 217 
 
 appendix 
 
 A. Bibliotheca 254 
 
 B. Translation op Bentlet's Horace 256 
 
 C. Some Unpublished Letters op Theobald 258 
 
 D. A Chronological List op Theobald's Works .... 347 
 
 Index 
 
 357 
 
LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 Theobald's early life 
 
 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.^ 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 companio^n to his son, Viscount Sondres, at 
 a school conducted by the Rev. Mr. EUis at Isleworth in 
 Middlesex. The instruction — and it must have been 
 thorough — received here was improved by a sojourn passed 
 under the roof of his kinsman, John Glanville of Broad- 
 hurston, Wiltshire, at a time when he had ''but the In- 
 digested Learning of a School-boy, and wanted Judgment to 
 make Use of Those Talents I either owed to Nature, or the 
 Benefits of my education." ^ It was in appreciation of this 
 kindness that Theobald dedicated his first attempt at poetry, 
 a Cowleyan Pindaric in praise of the union of Scotland and 
 England — a sample of which is given us by the late Pro- 
 fessor Lounsbury ^ — as well as his translation of Aris- 
 tophanes' Clouds. 
 
 At some date not later than 1708 Theobald removed to 
 London, where he followed his father's profession. His 
 practice, however, which was more profitable in the latter 
 part of his 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.^ Earlier 
 in the j^ear the translator had taken advantage of the great 
 popularity of Cato to publish a fife of the Roman hero,^ 
 
 Poetical Register, of the acting of The Persian Princess, in the preface 
 to which Theobald said it was written and acted before he was nine- 
 teen years old. The date given by Jacob is 1710. See Nichols, 
 Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 707-708. 
 
 2 Dedication to his translation of the Clouds, 1715. 
 
 * Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 125. 
 
 * Plato's Dialogue of the Immortality of the Soul. Translated from 
 the Greek by Mr. Theobald, 1713. 
 
 « The Life and Character of Marcus Portiu^ Cato Uticensis: 
 MDCCXIII, 
 
THEOBALD S EARLY LIFE 6 
 
 and to push his advantage farther translated this dialogue 
 of Plato, '4t 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 Eledra (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.^ Some 
 eight or ten years later Theobald issued proposals to publish 
 the tragedies by subscription, setting the date of pubHca- 
 tion for April, 1724. At the end of Shakespeare Restored 
 he found it necessary to apologize to his subscribers for the 
 delay, offering as compensation the fact that he had been at 
 additional expense in procuring copper plates for each volume, 
 and that in his dissertation to be prefixed to the translation 
 he designed a complete history of the ancient stage in all 
 its branches. 
 
 ' Two selections from it were indeed published. The first, con- 
 sisting of two passages, appeared in Theobald's periodical, the Censor. 
 The second, entitled "The Siege From a Chorus of Aeschylus," appeared 
 in The Grove, a miscellany compiled by Theobald in 1721. This seems 
 to be all that was ever published, although later Dennis, in Remarks 
 on the Dunciad, speaks of having seen a specimen. Giles Jacob is 
 authority for the statement that Theobald completed the transla- 
 tion of all seven tragedies. Poetical Register, vol. 1, p. 259. 
 
4 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 With the success of Shakes^peare 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, ^lien The Dunciad 
 was published, this line appeared, 
 
 And, last, his own cold JEschylus took fire. 
 
 and a note on the line in the editions of 1729 read : "He had 
 been (to use an expression of our poet) about Aeschylus for 
 ten years, and had received subscriptions for the same, but 
 then went about other books." ' For such criticism Pope 
 had only the specimen in The Censor upon which to base his 
 behef. In a note to another line in The Dunciad he sought 
 to disparage Theobald's translation,^ and continued his 
 attacks in The Grub-street Journal. In one number Theobald 
 is accused of bad faith ui the collection of subscriptions,' 
 and in another he is warned of failure by being reminded of 
 the poor success of his translation of Aristophanes.^"^ 
 
 But he still persisted in his purpose, growing more ambi- 
 tious as time went by. In his edition of Shakespeare ^^ 
 he speaks of his forthcoming translation of Aeschylus, and 
 in a letter to Warburton, March 5, 1734, he comments on 
 errors in Stanley's edition, with the assurance that he sees 
 a method of correcting the text on the basis of the corre- 
 spondence of antistrophe and strophe. A few months later, 
 
 ' Bk, I, 1. 210. The note continues: "The character of this Tragic 
 Poet is fire and boldness in a high degree, but our author supposes it 
 cooled by the translation; upon sight of a specimen of which was 
 made this Epigram, 
 
 Alas! poor Aeschylus! unlucky dogl 
 Whom once a Lobster kill'd, and now a Log." 
 
 • Bk- ni, 1. 311 of the editions of 1729. 
 
 » Gr>jb-streei Jcr^jmal, No. 59, October 6, 1730. 
 
 " Idem, No. 37, September 17, 1730. 
 
 " VoL 7, p. 44 
 
THEOB.VLD S EARLY LIFE O 
 
 in a letter to Sir Hans Sloane, soliciting a subscription to 
 his Aeschylus, he says that he has been ad^'ised 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 ha^-ing a collation of the Laurentian 
 manuscript made for him by Dr. Conyers ^liddleton. This 
 enlargement of plan, to be sure, increased the burden of the 
 undertaking, and we find Theobald showing signs of weaiy- 
 ing. On February 12, 1734. he writes, ''By God's leave I 
 mean to print that work off this ensuing summer." And 
 again. October 18. 1735. he hopes ''in God" Aeschylus shall 
 appear in the spring. But the only results of this enter- 
 prise that are left us are the few selections mentioned above, 
 some emendations contributed to a magazine of the day, 
 and those of his notes written in his Stanley, which Bloom- 
 field used in his edition of the Greek dramatist. 
 
 Of Theobald's other translations we have more remains. 
 In the spring of 1714 he entered into another contract with 
 Lintot to translate the whole of the Odyssey, and the Oedipus 
 Tyrannus, Oedipus Coloneus, Trachiniae, and Philodetes of 
 Sophocles, together with explanatory- notes, into English 
 blank verse. He also contracted to translate the satires 
 and epistles of Horace into Enghsh rhjTne. For the trans- 
 lations of Homer and Sophocles he was to receive fifty shil- 
 lings for ever}' four hundred and fifty fines, whUe for Horace 
 the price was one guinea for ever>' one hundred and twenty 
 lines. ^ While Theobald may have translated the four 
 tragedies mentioned above, only one, the Oedipus TyrannuSy 
 
 ^ "All these articles were to be p)erformed according to the time 
 specified, under the penalty of £50 on the default of either party." 
 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 70S. 
 
 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.^' The next year, however, Lintot pub- 
 Ushed a translation by Theobald of a play of Sophocles, 
 the Electra, not mentioned in the contract. ^'^ This was 
 dedicated to Addison, whose friendship the translator en- 
 joyed. 
 
 By the same publisher there was issued a translation of 
 Ajax ^^ which later biographers of Theobald have attributed 
 to him. The only evidence for such an attribution seems 
 to be a line in The Dundad, which reads 
 
 And last, a little Ajax tips the spire. 
 
 and a note on this line, ^'In duodecimo, translated from 
 Sophocles by Tibbald." ^^ Jacob, in his Poetical Register, 
 although mentioning the 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. ^^ Hughes was in a position to know, inasmuch 
 as he was associated with Rowe in a translation of the 
 Pharsalia. In a hst of books printed for Lintot, found at 
 the back of the translation of Electra, there is advertised 
 a translation of Antigone and the notes to Ajax, both by Mr. 
 Rowe. There is no record that Theobald was ever assisted, 
 
 " Oedipus, King of Thebes: A Tragedy. Translated from Sophocles, 
 with Notes By Mr. Theobald. London, 1715. 
 
 ^* Electra: A Tragedie. Translated from Sophocles, with Notes. 
 London, 1715. 
 
 " Ajax of Sophocles. Translated from the Greeks with Notes. London, 
 1714. 
 
 " Editions of 1729, Bk. I, 1. 42. 
 
 " Biographia Dramatica, vol. 1, p. 5, and vol. 2, p. 253. 
 
or needed to be, in any of his translations.^* Since Pope^ 
 in search of material for the Dunciad investigated its hero's 
 past with some thoroughness, he must have learned of his 
 adversary's translations for Lintot. Hence he would 
 naturally suppose that an anon^nnous 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 aUow'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 Electra, plus the Antigone, advertised as being by Mr. 
 Rowe, and plus the Ajax, by Jackson and Rowe, give us 
 
 " The single copy of this translation in the British Museum is 
 entered in the catalogue under Sophocles, N. Rowe, and Jackson, as 
 
 being translated by J., assisted by Mr. Rowe. But it is also 
 
 entered under Theobald's name. 
 
8 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 all the tragedies of Sophocles. Furthermore, we have 
 Theobald's own statement that he had little time for any- 
 thing but translation in and about 1714.^^ 
 
 The success of the translations published must not have 
 been such as to warrant Lintot in carrying out his ambitious 
 undertaking. Perhaps Pope's translation of Homer, the 
 proposals for which appeared in October, 1713, interfered 
 with it also. The next April Theobald contracted with 
 Lintot to translate the Odyssey, the publisher doubtless 
 hoping to profit by the interest in Homer aroused by Pope's 
 proposals. But in November, 1714, Lintot received, at a 
 very high price, the contract for publishing the Iliad, the 
 fulfillment of which must have left him little time or in- 
 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.^^ 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- 
 «criptions.^^ 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 
 
 13 "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.^^ 
 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 EngHsh 
 versions of Aristophanes' Clouds and Plutus, the first dedi- 
 cated to his kinsman, John Glanville, and the second to 
 the Duke of Argyle.^^ In a prefatory discourse Theobald 
 says, ''If these find an Acceptation 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 EngHsh 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.^^ 
 
 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 Wilham 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. 
 
 ^^ The Clouds. A Comedy. Translated from the Greek of Aristophanes. 
 By Mr. Theobald. London, MDCCXV. 
 
 ' Plutus: or the World's Idol. A Comedie. Translated from the 
 Greek of Aristophanes. By Mr. Theobald. London, 1715. 
 
 ^ Grub-street Journal, No. 37, September 17, 1730. 
 
10 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 did not understand Aristophanes, and that his version was 
 taken almost entirely from a French translation by Madame 
 Dacier, issued in 1692.2^ 
 
 I own we have more to answer to the lady than to Mr. Theobald 
 who, being a critic of great nicety himself, and great dihgence in 
 correcting mistakes in others, cannot be offended at the same 
 treatment. Indeed there are some parts of his work, which I 
 should be more surprized at, had he not informed us in his dedica- 
 tion, that he was assisted in it by M. Dacier. We are not there- 
 fore much to wonder, if Mr. Theobald errs a httle, when we find 
 his guide going before out of the way. 
 
 While it may appear significant that the only plays trans- 
 lated by Theobald were those rendered into French by 
 Madame Dacier, yet he showed a readiness to go on with the 
 rest, had these first two plays succeeded. His later emenda- 
 tions of Aristophanes prove conclusively that he was master 
 of the Greek. In places he does follow the French rather 
 closely, but in the dedication he admits as much, excusing 
 himself on the ground that since he is trying to make his 
 readers understand Aristophanes, he is entitled to all the 
 help possible. All through their notes Fielding and Young 
 sneer at Theobald as ''pious," ''M. Dacier's good friend," 
 and the hke. 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 
 
 26 Cf. Professor Lounsbury's Remarks on Disraeli's doubt of Theo- 
 bald's knowledge of Greek. Text of Shakespeare, p. 133. 
 
Theobald's early life 11 
 
 taking over from the French may just as well have come from 
 the Greek. 
 
 Of the satires and epistles of Horace no translation ap- 
 peared, and Theobald's only work in the Latin poets was 
 a version of the first book of Ovid's Metamorphoses, a poet 
 who was almost as popular as Horace. There is no copy 
 of such a translation now, but Jacob mentions it, and John 
 Dennis, while smarting under the appellation of ''Furius" 
 which Theobald had imposed upon him in The Censor, 
 speaks of the latter having "lately burlesqued the Meta- 
 morphoses of Ovid by a vile Translation." ^e 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, 
 JuHan, and Valerius Maximus.^^ The author says he first 
 thought of making a play of this subject, but after reading 
 Corneille's Antiochus decided it would make a better narra- 
 tive than drama. He treats the story rather freely, changing 
 the parts he thinks necessary to make Christian readers 
 better understand it. The last translation of Theobald, 
 the Hero and Leander of the mythical Musaeus, appeared 
 in The Grove, 1721. In this same miscellany appeared the 
 selections from Aeschylus and Sophocles spoken of above, 
 and also an imitation of the twenty-first idyl of Theocritus, 
 entitled ''The Fisherman; A Tale." These contributions 
 do not merit critical comment. 
 
 A modern critic calls Theobald's translations meritorious, 
 and speaks of the "free and spirited blanck verse" of the 
 
 26 Remarks of Pope's Homer, p. 9; quoted in Nichols, Illustrations 
 of Literature, vol, 2, p. 719. 
 
 ^ The History of the Loves of Antiochus and Stratonice: London, 1719. 
 
12 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 version of Sophocles and the '' vigorous and racy colloquial 
 prose" of the rendition of the two plays of Aristophanes.^^ 
 But not many years after his death there was an attempt 
 to depreciate the worth of his work. The effect of The 
 Dunciad grew with the years, and Pope's slanders were 
 perpetuated by Warburton and Johnson. In 1753 Thomas 
 Franklin, Fellow of Trinity College and Greek Professor 
 in the University of Cambridge, issued proposals for trans- 
 lating Sophocles into English blank verse. These proposals 
 were printed at the end of a rather long poem called Trans- 
 lation,'^^ a satire upon translations and translators in general, 
 praise being bestowed only upon Pope's Homer and Rowe's 
 Pharsalia. But Theobald is especially marked for abuse, 
 it being the custom then to consider him legitimate prey. 
 Franklin places the blame for the low esteem in which 
 translation was held on such translators as Theobald : 
 
 The great translator bids each dunce translate. 
 And ranks us all with Tibbald and with Tate. 
 
 And he brings the aged accusation of pedantry against him : 
 
 Or some dull pedant whose encumber'd brain 
 O'er the dull page hath toil'd for years in vain. 
 Who writes at last ambitiously to show 
 How much a fool may read, how little know. 
 
 Tis not enough that, fraught with learning's store, 
 By the dim lamp the tasteless critic pore. 
 
 But a champion rushes to the aid of the abused originals : 
 
 Genius of Greece, 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. 
 
13 
 
 And in a note on this last passage : ''Tibbald (or Theobald) 
 translated two or three plays of Sophocles, and threatened 
 the public with more." ^^ Much pleasure seemed to be 
 derived from misspelling Theobald's name, but Franklin 
 was scholar enough not to find fault, as Fielding did, with 
 his knowledge of Greek. 
 
 Although Franklin's work is much better known, I do not 
 think that there is much to choose between their transla- 
 tions. The 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. ^^ Six years later 
 he published The Mausoleum, a poem written in heroic coup- 
 lets and dedicated to Charles, Earl of Orrery.^^ T^ig 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- 
 
 3° In marked contrast to Franklin's estimate of Theobald's work 
 stands that of the first of classical scholars in Uterary taste, Richard 
 Person, by whom Theobald's translations "were highly esteemed." 
 See Reliquiae Hearnianae, ed. P. BHss, 1869, vol. 3, p. 137, note. 
 
 31 Gibber gives 1707 as the date of this poem. Lives of the Poets, 
 vol. 5, p. 287. 
 
 ^ The Mausoleum. A Poem, Sacred to the Memory of Her Late 
 Majesty Written by Mr. Theobald. London, 1714. 
 
14 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 miration for the subject of the treatise. ^^ An entirely dif- 
 ferent motive is discernible in a poem he gave to the world 
 about this time, which was written on the recovery of the 
 Duke of Ormonde from a dangerous illness. ^^ 
 
 This same year Theobald's most significant poem was 
 published, The Cave of Poverty, ^^ in imitation of Shakespeare. 
 A contemporary critic declared it to be excellent.^^ It 
 seems to have found its way across the 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 .^^ This 
 extravagant praise is worthy of notice when we remember 
 that Bodmer, one of the forerunners of German Romanticism, 
 ''prepared the way for a new poetry of emotion and senti- 
 ment." ^^ He translated Paradise Lost, and his Critical 
 Disquisition on the Wonderful in Poetry, written in defense 
 of Milton, brought about the feud with Gottschedd (who 
 upheld French classicism), which resulted in the complete 
 discomfiture of the latter. The unsoUcited praise of such 
 a man is not to be underestimated. 
 
 Professor Lounsbury has shown how plain an imitation 
 of Shakespeare the poem is : 
 
 33 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. 
 
 3* I have found no trace of this poem, but Theobald mentions it in 
 his dedication of the Persian Princess to the Duchess of Ormond. 
 
 36 The Cave of Poverty, A Poem. Written in Imitation of Shakespeare, 
 By Mr. Theobald. London. 
 
 36 Giles Jacob, Poetical Register, quoted in Nichols, Illustrations of 
 Literature, vol. 2, p. 711. 
 
 37 Appendix, p. 339. 
 
 38 Calvin Thomas, History of German Literature, p. 211. 
 
Theobald's early life 15 
 
 The truth is that the production throughout adopts and reflects 
 Shakespeare's phraseology. There is frequently in it a faint 
 echo of his style, and of the peculiar melody of his versification. 
 Such characteristics could have been manifested only by one who 
 had become thoroughly steeped in his diction, and especially in 
 that of his two principal poems. These were so far from being 
 well known at that time that they were hardly known at all.'^ 
 
 He continues to show how Theobald uses the six-line stanza 
 of 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 darUng 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 
 arismg 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 my 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 
 
 O Sorrows that admit no kind Relief. 
 
 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 .^^ The evidence is indeed 
 slight. But if Pope wished to father it upon his opponent, 
 
 " A Complete Key to the last New Farce The What D'ye Call It. 1715. 
 *^ Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 417. 
 
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.'*^ 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 hght 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 
 
 ^ "These two lines are an excellent copy of the Author's Wit and 
 Manners, Popery and Knitting are so admirably well put together, 
 as things of equal Importance, that any man, who has but read the 
 Celebrated Rape of the Lock, cannot be at a loss for the Author of 
 these Lines." — P. 22. 
 
18 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 the numbers, however, are devoted to the drama, it having 
 been the author's plan to give one issue a week to a discussion 
 of the stage, and they frequently have something to say about 
 Shakespeare. This periodical also gives us an idea of Theo- 
 bald's interest in the classics and classical scholarship, for 
 discussions of the Greek drama are second only to those of 
 Shakespeare. 
 
 One would think that Theobald had fared badly enough 
 at the hands of Pope and succeeding generations without 
 being represented as the object of any more satires than 
 those of which he is actually the butt. Yet an attempt has 
 been made to find an attack on him in Parnell's Life and 
 Remarks of Zoilus appended to a translation of the Batracho- 
 muomachia, 1717. Goldsmith appears to be the original 
 authority for the idea that the satire was written at the re- 
 quest of Parnell's friends and directed against Theobald and 
 Dennis. Mr. Aitken repeats the statement without giving 
 any reasons for the onslaught. ^^ Mr. Seccombe follows 
 him, though implying that the cause of the attack was the 
 fact that the two writers were objects of Pope's aversion.^ 
 A recent biographer of Dennis, Mr. Paul, says the satire 
 was probably due to Theobald's attacking Three Hours after 
 Marriage and to the fact that he was a good representative 
 of needy authors. ^^ I do not know of any attack that Theo- 
 bald ever made upon Three Hours, and besides, this play was 
 not produced until 1717, while Zoilus was completed in the 
 spring of 1715.^^ The basis of Mr. Paul's conjecture may be 
 a letter from Pope to 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, 
 
 " The Poetical Works of Thomas Parnell, 1894, p. xlvi. 
 
 " The Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. IX, p. 188. 
 
 « H. G. Paul, John Dennis, 1911, p. 93. 
 
 *« Elwin and Courthope, vol. 7, p. 457. 
 
Theobald's early life 19 
 
 I mean your Zoilus." The fact of the matter is that the 
 original purpose of Zoilus was to anticipate criticism of 
 Pope's translation of Homer. It was intended for the first 
 volume of the Iliad, but since the author arrived in London 
 too late, it was printed in the translation of the Odyssey. ^"^ 
 Zoilus, I should conjecture, sprang out of Parnell's essay 
 on Homer, in which the irascible ancient is held up to abuse. 
 Pope, fearing criticism of his translation, perhaps because of 
 his sUght 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." ^^ El win 
 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 apphed 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."^^ There 
 
 ^7 Idem, vol. 7, p. 457. 
 
 *8 Elwin and Courthope, vol. 7, p. 464. 
 
 *^ "But what Assurance can such as Zoilus have, that the world will 
 ever be convinc'd agamst an estabhshed 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. ^^ 
 
 Two years later Theobald collected and pubhshed a 
 volume of miscellanies,^^ which contained his translations 
 from Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Musaeus, and a few of his 
 poems ; two prologues, one spoken by Mr. Keene, the other 
 occasioned by his death; and a poem. To Cloe, upon her 
 Retreat at Fulham. The largest contributor was a certain 
 Dr. Kennick, a glowing account of whom is given in the 
 preface. The collection is more remarkable in that it con- 
 he condemns the passage, he should make use of it as an Opportunity 
 to fall into an Ample Digression on the various Kinds of Mouse-Traps, 
 and display that minute Learning which every critic of this sort is 
 found to show himseK 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." 
 
 5" Memoirs of Sir Walter Raleigh: London, 1719. Defoe, deeming 
 Theobald's work unsatisfactory, himself undertook a slight sketch of 
 Raleigh's career under the title An Historical Account of the Voyages 
 and Adventures of Sir Walter Raleigh .... Humbly proposed to the 
 South-Sea. [1720 but dated 1719.] 
 
 ^^ The Grove; or a Collection of Original Poems, Translations, etc. 
 London, 1721. 
 
21 
 
 tains Dr. Bentley's only attempt at verse, a poem entitled 
 A Reply and dealing with the hardships incurred by scholars. ^^ 
 
 From the very beginning of his career the future editor 
 was interested in the drama. As early as 1708 his Persian 
 Princess was acted at Drury Lane, when he was only twenty 
 years of age.^^ The play was not a success, and in his pref- 
 ace the dramatist speaks slightingly of it, but the fact that 
 it was accepted by the only theater in London argues some- 
 thing in its favor."* The author, however, thought it neces- 
 sary to explain that since he was too deeply engaged in 
 translating to try to amend it in any way, only the repeated 
 importunities of friends forced him to 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 Br other. ^^ 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 
 
 ^2 Gibber attributes to Theobald a work entitled The Gentlemen's 
 Library, containing Rules for Conduct in all Parts of Life in 12 mo. 1722. 
 
 ^3 The Persian Princess, or The Royal Villain. 12 mo. 1715. 4to, 
 
 *1717. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 708, following 
 
 Giles Jacob, makes a mistake in saying it was not published until 1717, 
 
 The precocity shown in this production gained Theobald some 
 notoriety. See Reliquiae Hearnianae, ed. P. Bliss, 1869, vol. 3, p. 137. 
 
 *■* Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 125. 
 ,' ^^ The Perfidious Brother, A Tragedy; As it is Acted at the New 
 Theatre in Little Lincolns-Inn-Fields. By Mr. Theobald. London, 
 1715. 
 
22 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 play was put in his hand by Mey stayer, but claims it was in 
 such a condition that it required several months' work to 
 make it presentable, so that he considered himself entitled 
 to it. The following year the watch maker published his 
 version of the play, with a dedication to Theobald, in which 
 he speaks of his adversary in no uncertain tones. The 
 latter made no reply. Both versions are wretched enough 
 and the similarity is obvious, but since Meystayer's version 
 was published after Theobald's, its evidential value is 
 destroyed. What Theobald admits, however, is enough to 
 condemn him for taking all the credit, or discredit, for the 
 production. 
 
 On December 10, 1719, Theobald's adaptation of Shake- 
 speare's Richard II was performed at Lincoln's Inn Fields, 
 and met with some success, being acted seven times. ^^ In 
 his alterations he omitted Acts I and II, with the exception 
 of some speeches which he transposed, and introduced a 
 love story. Genest points out one absurdity into which 
 Theobald fell, and thinks his ''additions are flat and his 
 alteration on the whole is a very bad one ; but considerably 
 more than half the play is Shakespeare's." ^^ Some of 
 Theobald's lines seem to be very good ; in fact, they consti- 
 tute the best poetry he wrote, and show clearly how closely 
 he had studied Shakespeare. 
 
 In the preface to this alteration Theobald states that 
 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 
 
 ^ The Tragedy of King Richard the II ; As it is acted at the Theatre 
 in Lincoln^ s-inn- fields. Altered from Shakespeare, By Mr. Theobald. 
 London, 1720. 
 
 " History of English Stage, vol. 3, p. 34. 
 
Theobald's early life 23 
 
 generally accredited him, though his later discovery of 
 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. ^^ His ignorance of 
 North's Plutarch and The Three Destructions of Troy, both of 
 which he later discovered, shows that he had not dipped 
 very deep into the literature accessible to Shakespeare. 
 Yet he had broken ground in his life of Raleigh, and this 
 attempt at proving Shakespeare's learning shows him ap- 
 proaching the poet rather from a scholar's point of view 
 than from that of a literary critic. 
 
 Theobald's most persistent appearance on the stage was 
 not in the legitimate drama. ^^ There arose during his life- 
 time a new species of entertainment known as the pantomime. 
 The first to claim credit for introducing these performances 
 into England was John Weaver, a dancing master, who in 
 1702 put forth a production. The Cheats of Scapin; or The 
 Tavern Bilkers, of which he said that it was the first perform- 
 ance on the English stage to carry on the story by dancing 
 and motion only. Fourteen years later he produced The 
 Loves of Mars and Venus, ^^ in imitation of the ancient pan- 
 tomime and, according to his claim, the first to appear since 
 the Roman Empire, This was rapidly followed by several 
 others of similar names and nature — Perseus and Androm- 
 eda, Orpheus and Eurydice, and Cupid and Bacchus. In 
 1728 Weaver published a list of all the pantomimes, which 
 
 ^8 Theobald accepted "Lollius" in good faith. 
 
 ^^ Giles Jacob, in his Poetical Register, vol. 1, p. 259, speaks of Theo- 
 bald having a tragedy, The Death of Hannibal, ready for the stage 
 before 1720. It was never acted or published. 
 
 *° 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 '4n imitation of the Ancient 
 Pantomime/' and those "after the manner of the modern 
 Itahans." His own seem to have been chiefly of the first 
 class, which consisted in relating some classical fable by 
 motion and dancing, without any Harlequin entertainment. 
 In 1716 John Rich opened his Lincoln's Inn Fields theater, 
 where, in his competition with Drury Lane, he was forced 
 to produce a new species of performance. At first this con- 
 sisted of entertainments in the Itahan style introducing the 
 conventional characters, Harlequin, Pantaloon, Columbine, 
 and the like. As early as April, 1716, he appeared as Harle- 
 quin in an unnamed production. Such entertainments he 
 continued to give with some success until 1723, when he pro- 
 duced The Necromancer or Dr. Faustus to outdo a pantomime 
 of a somewhat similar title at Drury Lane.^^ His success 
 was great, and from that time on pantomime continued to 
 draw crowded houses, much to the disgust of the literati. 
 Rich himself does not seem to have taken much pride in 
 this sort of genius, and frankly admits that necessit}^ com- 
 pelled him to take such a course. In the dedication to 
 The Rape of Proserpine, 1726, the actor says : 
 
 As for the other Parts, it might, perhaps, seem an Affectation in 
 me to detain you with the History of the Antient Pantomime 
 Entertainments, or to make a long Apology for the Revival of them 
 at present. This much, however, may be said in their favor, that 
 this Theatre has of late ow'd its support in great Measure to them. 
 I own myself extremely indebted to the Favour with which the 
 town is pleased to receive my attempts to entertain them in this 
 kind; and do engage for my own part, that whenever the public 
 taste shall be disposed to return to the works of the drama, no 
 one shall rejoice more sincerely than myself. 
 
 ^^ "Rich had produced some little Harlequinades in the taste of 
 the Itahan 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. ^^ 
 
 In the constructing of these pantomimes Theobald was 
 very closely associated with his friend, John Rich. He 
 furnished the serious or vocal parts described above, from 
 which, as a rule, pantomime, took their names. In all he 
 contributed the verse to nearly a third of Rich's repertoire. 
 Previously, however, he had composed several trivial pieces, 
 all presented at Lincoln's Inn Fields. One was a one-act 
 opera, Pan and Syrinx, produced in 1717. In 1718 he fur- 
 nished the songs and a little of the poetry to Elkanah Settle's 
 The Lady's Triumph, as well as the masque of Dedus and 
 Paulina, which occurs in the last act of Settle's produc- 
 tion.^^ Two of the songs were also inserted in the opera 
 Circe. 
 
 Theobald began his pantomimes with Harlequin Sorcerer, 
 with the Loves of Pluto and Proserpine, 1725, which drew 
 crowded houses even after its revival at Covent Garden 
 in 1753. The same year, 1725, saw the production of The 
 Rape of Proserpine, which was extremely popular and con- 
 sequently called forth the wrath of the critics of this species 
 of literature.^^ The following year appeared Apollo and 
 Daphne, or The Burgo-Master Tricked, and after intervals of 
 four years each appeared, respectively, Perseus and Androm- 
 eda and Merlin; or the Devil of Stone-Henge. This last 
 
 ®2 Tom Jones, Pt. 5, Chap. 1. Fielding satirized pantomime in 
 Tumbledown Dick, or Phaeton in the Suds, 1744. 
 
 ^3 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 V" 
 " Pope, Dunciad, Bk. 3, 1. 310 and note. Grub-street Journal, No. 
 98, November 18, 1731. James Miller, Harlequin-Horace, p. 27. 
 
Theobald's early life 27 
 
 was the only one to appear at Drury Lane, and is the most 
 wretched of these dull productions.^^ 
 
 Theobald's last 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." ^^ It was 
 revived in 1747, and again in 1755, when it ran for thirty-one 
 nights. It was again presented in 1768, and in 1787 was 
 performed by royal command. ^^ As an example of Theo- 
 bald's work in this field it may be well to quote a synopsis 
 given by Mr. Broadbent in his history of the pantomime.^^ 
 
 The following was the argument and the curious arrangement of 
 the scenes: — Interlude I. Rhodope, Queen of Thrace, practising 
 art magic, makes love to Orpheus. He rejects her love. She is 
 enraged. A serpent appears who receives Rhodope's commands, 
 and these ended, ghdes 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- 
 
 *^ 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. 
 
 6^ 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.®^ 
 In December, 1738, John Hill, an apothecary, published an 
 opera, Orpheus, in the preface to which he accuses Rich of 
 being about to produce an opera stolen from a rejected copy 
 of his.'^^ The next year Rich published his pantomime, in 
 the advertisement to which he speaks of Hill's '' chimerical 
 suggestions." He followed this up with a detailed defense 
 of his conduct in Mr. Rich's Answer to the many Falsities 
 and Calumnies Advanced by Mr. John Hill, Apothecary, and 
 Contained in the Preface to Orpheus, an English Opera, as he 
 calls it. Published on Wednesday the 26th of December last. 
 Hill waited some time and came back in 1741 with his An 
 Answer to the many Plain and Notorious Lyes Advanced by 
 Mr. John Rich, Harlequin; and contained in a Pamphlet, 
 which he vainly and foolishly calls, An Answer to Mr. HilVs 
 Preface to Orpheus. If judgment is based upon these two 
 productions. Rich seems to be in the right. He goes very 
 
 ^^ There were some five operas and pantomimes under the title of 
 Orpheus and Eurydice. 
 
 ''^ This was the notorious Sir John 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. N. B. 
 
Theobald's early life 29 
 
 minutely into detail, produces many testimonies, points 
 out many dissimilarities between the two works, and in- 
 dulges in little abuse. Hill pursues the opposite course, 
 and while producing no proofs makes up the deficiency with 
 constant revilings. These are especially severe against 
 Theobald, whom he accuses of stupidity and impertinence 
 and styles Rich's poet, friend, and privy counselor. He calls 
 Pope to witness against Theobald, and refers his readers 
 to the Bathos and The Dunciad. Rich says that he was in- 
 formed by Hill that the latter had one thousand pounds 
 put up by a gentleman, to back him. By the praise of Pope 
 and abuse of Theobald, one is led to wonder whether the 
 former was still persisting in his efforts to injure the hero of 
 The DunciadJ^ 
 
 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- 
 
 '^ Another production of similar nature, though not a pantomime, 
 and the last to come from Theobald's hand, appeared in 1741, entitled 
 The Happy Captive, an English Opera, In Two Comick Scenes, Betwixt 
 Signor 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 ItaUan 
 opera. These last, Genest says, possess much greater merit than the 
 serious part. The opera was never performed. 
 
30 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 work. Gibber detested them, Rich apologized for them, 
 and Theobald had nothing to say in their favor.^^ The last 
 named had least right to be proud of this popularity, for 
 his part in the entertainments was universally considered 
 wretched. 
 
 His persistent appearance in this low species of dull verse 
 emphasizes one fact that stands out prominently in his life 
 previous to Shakespeare Restored. With a pronounced pref- 
 erence for Hterary over legal affairs, law being his nommal 
 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 rewor kings. 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. 
 
 '2 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 EMENIDNG 
 
 Theobald marks the beginning of a new era in Shake- 
 spearean textual criticism. Adequate recognition of his 
 services has been slow in coming, but now his reputation 
 is fairly well estabUshed. In the study of his work on 
 Shakespeare, it has been the custom to approach the subject 
 from the tradition of the text.^ This is the more logical 
 and profitable process as far as the mere results of scholar- 
 ship are concerned, but if attention is turned to the method 
 by which these results were obtained, it becomes necessary 
 to depart from the beaten path and seek a source elsewhere. 
 The direction from which I have seen fit to approach this 
 first great editor is from the classical scholarship of his day. 
 
 Classical scholarship prior to the nineteenth century 
 has been divided into three periods : the ItaHan, the 
 French or Polyhistorical, and the English and Dutch.^ The 
 chief concern of the Italians was with the form of the classics. 
 Politian, Poggio, Erasmus, and others studied Latin and 
 Greek writers with the end in view of reproducing these 
 models in their own productions. They were not so much 
 interested in the accuracy or content of texts as they were 
 with literary form. The members of the French school, 
 on the other hand, turned their attention to the subject 
 
 ^ The Text of Shakespeare, its history from the publication of the 
 quartos and folios down to and including the publication of the editions 
 of Pope and Theobald. By Thomas R. Lounsbury, LH.D., L.L.D., 
 New York, 1906. 
 
 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.^ 
 
 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.^ The 
 father of this school was Richard Bentley.^ Never have 
 the pursuits of scholars been so dominated by a single in- 
 fluence as those of the eighteenth century were dominated 
 by Bentley. A study of the scholarship of this period 
 resolves itself chiefly into a consideration of this one man. 
 He turned the attention of scholars in a new direction, 
 
 3 Textual criticism was not ignored in these two periods. In the 
 preparation of manuscripts the early scholars and monks exercised 
 their emending ingenuity whenever they saw fit, tacitly introducing 
 their conjectures into the text. (See W. M. Lindsay, An Introduction 
 to Latin Textual Emendation, 1896, p. 1.) Two of these early scholars, 
 NiccoU (1363-1437) and Laurentius 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. 
 Scahger pointed the way to a sounder method of emendation founded 
 on the genuine tradition of the manuscript. See Sandys, op. cit., 
 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 estabHsh 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 estabUshed. 
 
 * Sandys, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 1. 
 
 * 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.^ He es- 
 tabUshed 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,^ he soon 
 departed on a path more essentially his own — verbal 
 criticism.^ His interest in this phase of scholarship was 
 apparent from the very beginning. The pages of his Epistle 
 to Mill and his "Immortal Dissertation" are strewn with 
 emendations.^ No matter what argument he is engaged 
 
 ^ I have reference chiefly to English scholars, although his influence 
 was almost as pronounced on some of the continental scholars, es- 
 pecially the Dutch. 
 
 ^ His Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris is considered the first 
 piece of scientific research. 
 
 8 R. C. Jebb, Richard Bentley, p. 215. 
 
 ^ "He seemed gifted with an intuitive sagacity not merely to detect 
 error, but to trace the source of it — words which seem thrown together 
 at random, receive sense and meaning at one touch of his wand. . . . On 
 the whole it might be fairly asserted of the Epistle to Mill, that no work 
 of classical criticism had yet appeared since the revival of letters, 
 which in the same number of pages contained such variety of informa- 
 tion, so many happy emendations, or which so clearly showed that a 
 new school of criticism was about to commence, which would own 
 Bentley as its legitimate parent." — De Quincey's review of Monk's 
 Life of Bentley, Quarterly Review, vol. XL VI, 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 brilUantly 
 corrected in many places, while the three critical epistles 
 attached to Kuster's Aristophanes are composed entirely 
 of emendations on that poet.^° 
 
 Bentley may well be considered the first modern scholar, 
 for the elements underlying his scholarship are still operative. 
 First there was a massive erudition gained from most ac- 
 curate and extensive reading of books and manuscripts. He 
 is reported to have said that he would be ready to die at 
 eighty, since by then he would have read everything worth 
 reading. A glance through any of his notes and a notice 
 of the many authors therein cited will convince any one 
 of the extensiveness of his erudition. But this erudition 
 could not have been of much use had it not been in working 
 shape. Scholars 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.^^ 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 
 
 ^^ 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 estabUsh it firmly on the only basis which can securely 
 support it, the basis of ascertained texts." — R. C. Jebb, Richard 
 Bentley, p. 216. 
 
 " Monk, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 14. 
 
THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 35 
 
 quoted by subsequent commentators, which, indeed, Monk 
 says he had.^^ Not only did he systematize his knowledge 
 in actual ways, as the above, but his mind must have con- 
 tained it in some such state. Whenever he wishes to prove 
 a point, he has a way of bringing forth all the stores of ancient 
 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. ^^ The spirit of modern scholarship is the desire 
 to gain with minute accuracy all the information and evi- 
 dence on the subject of the investigation, arranged and 
 ordered in its proper relations. Imbued with this spirit, 
 Bentley, instead of losing himself in a maze of unorganized 
 knowledge, learned to systematize his material in such 
 a way that he could focus upon a point, however minute, 
 almost all that could throw any light upon it. 
 
 Another support of Bentley's method was logic. In this, 
 together with judgment, he seemed to take most pride. In 
 the Phalaris dissertation he frequently twits Boyle (and 
 with him his collaborators) for his lack of logic. ^^ While 
 depreciating a discovery of his own Bentley says, ''Such a 
 discovery is but a business of chance, or at the best of bare 
 industry, neither is there any sagacity or judgment required 
 to it." ^^ Again, ''If I do not make false judgments of 
 things, and if I reason truly from premises, for a bare error 
 of the memory I shall not be solicitous." ^^ He had perfect 
 command over the materials of his learning, and built up 
 his proofs with all the sureness and accuracy of a master 
 builder. There had been scholars of as great if not greater 
 
 12 Idem, vol. 1, p. 16. 
 
 1^ The Collected Writings of Thomas De Quincey, by David Masson. 
 London, 1897, vol. IV, pp. 198, 215. 
 
 " A. Dyce, Works of Richard Bentley, vol. 2, p. 16. 
 
 1* A. Dyce, Works of Richard Bentley, vol. 1, p. 428. 
 
 " Idem, vol. 2, p. 27. 
 
36 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 erudition, but none whose reasoning was so close and clear. 
 Whether he is eradicating a textual error, controverting 
 atheists, or establishing the spuriousness of the Phalaris 
 letters, the same powerful analytical spirit is active. 
 
 In addition Bentley's work has the touch of the modern 
 spirit in its insistence on minute accuracy. He spends a 
 score of pages of his Epistola ad Millium proving that "Male- 
 las" should be written with an ''s. " This insistence upon 
 "trifles" was the ground of the bitterest attacks on him as 
 a pedant. His enemies believed that only the large things, 
 such as sentiment and philosophy, were of importance. 
 In the preface to his examination of Bentley's dissertation 
 Boyle characterizes the Phalaris controversy as trivial and 
 frivolous. ^^ "I am not very fond of Controversies even 
 where the Points debated are of some importance; but in 
 trivial matters, and such as Mankind is not at all concern 'd 
 in, methinks they are unpardonable." Another feature 
 of this minute study that attracted the scorn of the wits 
 was the 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 Scahger 
 Jebb says. 
 
 While Scaliger had constantly before him the conception of antiq- 
 uity as a whole to be mentally grasped, Bentley's criticism rested 
 
 ^^ Dr. Bentley's 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. ^^ 
 
 As stated previously, Bentley's work falls into the two 
 divisions of ''higher" and textual criticism. He himself 
 laid the emphasis upon the latter, and it was this that exerted 
 such an influence over English scholarship in the eighteenth 
 century. The critical method employed in both these 
 fields was practically the same, although directed toward 
 different ends. Compare, for instance, his works on Phalaris 
 and Horace. There is in both the abandonment of tradi- 
 tion for the deductions of reason from knowledge, in the 
 one the tradition of authorship, in the other the tradition 
 of old readings ; the same systematic use of all the stores of 
 his knowledge toward the establishment, in one, of a histori- 
 cal or chronological fact, in the other, of a new reading; 
 and the same copious and pertinent citing of authorities. 
 Nor is his logic more conspicuous in one than the other, al- 
 though in textual criticism it led him into more mistakes, 
 because logic and poetry do not always agree so well as logic 
 and fact. 
 
 Since we are concerned chiefly with the textual side of 
 Bentley's criticism, it will be well to analyze his notes, the 
 concrete expression of his critical method. Practically all 
 of them conform to the same model. The passage 
 with the common or accepted reading is first introduced, 
 and together with the various manuscript readings and 
 previous emendations is critically examined. ^^ One by one 
 
 18 R. C. Jebb, Richard Bentley, p. 213. 
 
 1® Cf. Latin Maniiscripts, 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.^'' 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 uninteUigibiUty 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. 
 2° 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 .^^ 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 
 *Hhe 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 Davies, who had spoken 
 highly of Bentley in the preface to his edition of Cicero's 
 Tusculans, 1709, a few years later calls him ''Hterae Bri- 
 tanniae decus." ^3 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 
 
 2^ 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, ^^ and Jeremiah 
 Markland in various places praised him in exaggerated 
 terms.^^ 
 
 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 .^^ Bentley 
 began an epoch; he established a new school of criticism, 
 to which the greatest scholars of later times have belonged.^^ 
 
 The greatest fault with Bentley's criticism was his predi- 
 lection for conjecture beyond reasonable limits. While 
 his work was by no means confined to this single phase — 
 his collation was thorough and his elucidations very in- 
 structive — he soon made it apparent that he considered 
 conjectural criticism his forte. It was in this that he ex- 
 
 2* Hare's editioti of Terence. London, 1724. Praefatio, p. xxvi. 
 
 25 For further appreciation of Bentley, see Bihliographia 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, 'Tn 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 Statins, 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. cit., vol. 1, p. 15; vol. 2, p. 418; and the article 
 on Bentley in Enc. Brit., ninth ed. 
 
THE KAGE FOR EMENDING 41 
 
 perienced most joy and won most praise. The older he 
 grew, the more incUned 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 brilhant 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." ^s 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. cit., p. 125. 
 
42 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 Bentley because he possessed a judicium logicum rather than 
 judicium poeticiun. The hberty of emending was naturally 
 resented by a few scholars. Bishop Hare represents this 
 feeling in saying,-^ 
 
 The foremost men in criticism have bound themselves with such 
 reverence to trust in the parclmients in the recension of the \\Tit- 
 ings of the ancients, that they always considered it ^\Tong 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 handhng the wTitings of the 
 ancients, this their rehgion, until Bentley, "that new hght 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 
 hmit 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 Statins, 
 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." ^^ 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 
 
 2^ 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." ^^ Men sought for faults, and because they read 
 texts with this idea in mind, discovered many obscurities 
 that were merely their own hallucinations. They were 
 obsessed with this idea of faulty texts. Bentley's Horace 
 had opened their eyes to many interpretations of which 
 they had never dreamed. Atterbury might well express 
 his alarm over finding so many places in Horace that he 
 had not understood before. 
 
 This distrust of accepted readings became something like 
 a psychological prepossession, wherein conjecture assumed 
 an added glory. What else can explain Bentley's Milton? 
 In this skeptical attitude towards books and manuscripts 
 and in the search for possible inconsistencies, the wish 
 became father of the thought, and self-deception tended 
 to destroy all sense of values. Perhaps the worst example 
 of the mania is to be found in Jeremiah Markland, who, 
 after Bentley, was one of the foremost English scholars of 
 his day. In his edition of Euripides he declares that after 
 all the pains he and others have taken to explain Horace, 
 there is not a single ode, epode, or satire which he can truly 
 and honestly say he perfectly understands. Of this Hurd 
 
 Was there ever a better instance of a poor man's puzzling and 
 confounding himself by his own obscure diligence, or a better ex- 
 emplification of the old remark nae intelligendo faciunt ut nihil 
 intelligant? — After all, I believe the Author is a very good man, 
 
 '^ 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.^^ 
 
 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 
 
 lUe gravem duro terram qui vertit aratro 
 Perfidus hie caupo, miles, nautaeque per omne. 
 
 Markland objects to caupo, which means huckster or peddler, 
 being introduced and the lawyer left out. He proceeds 
 about his emendation in this manner : 
 
 Perfidus hie caupo, miles, nautaeque per omne — which is the 
 same as if he had narrated in this fashion, "these four men, for- 
 sooth agricola, miles, mercator, and," what was the other? Juris 
 consultus, I think you will say: rightly but where will you find 
 it? It has gone, and in its place there has been substituted this 
 caupo, in truth perfidus, inasmuch as it has by the greatest fraud 
 
 ^ Nichols, Literary Anecedotes, vol. 4, p. 290. Markland expresses 
 a similar sentiment in the preface to his Statins (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 hterary 
 art, will never, I beheve, 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 quahty, and ill-will (malitia) 
 a manly quahty;" 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 mahtiam? certainly, for 
 Cicero could not have written otherwise: nor would he beUeve 
 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 itseK? 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 
 
 ^erfidus 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 nobiUs 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 Ihad 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,^' 
 
 Then he goes on to give examples where letters have been 
 disordered and reversed, but our patience is exhausted, and 
 we can sympathize with Pope : 
 
 For thee, explain a thing till all men doubt it, 
 And write about it, Goddess, and about it. 
 
 To such length was this mania carried. The above note 
 occurs in Markland's Epistola Critica, 1723, a book of some 
 two hundred pages consisting entirely of emendations from 
 nearly fifty different authors. It was quite the fashion to 
 issue notes on one or more authors independent of any text. 
 In such manner Bentley published his emendations of 
 Philemon and Menander. And to works of this kind Shake- 
 speare Restored exactly corresponds. Since a correction 
 stood on its own footing, there was nothing to prevent an 
 emendation of Homer standing side by side with one of 
 Lucian. 
 
 There were several factors at work fostering this rage for 
 emending. The success and convincing nature of Bentley 's 
 method inspired scholars with a sincere faith in the efficacy 
 of conjectural criticism.^'' From this belief there developed 
 
 33 Translated from the Latin. 
 
 ^ 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 feehng accompanied the restoration 
 of ancient writings to their pristine purity, a certain feeUng 
 of partnership with the author, so that critics felt as though 
 they were actually assisting him. In speaking of the preface 
 to Bentley's Phaedrus, Hare says Bentley promised great 
 and glorious things, '^ Phaedrus sick and ulcerous up to now, 
 would at last be restored to his pristine integrity by his 
 powers, as though he were another Aesculapius." ^^ Ac- 
 cording to Markland conjecture may well be deemed the 
 preserver of all antiquity : 
 
 For you best know that access to an exact knowledge of antiq- 
 uity and to perfect erudition is altogether denied without this 
 art; and he has accomplished Httle in reading the antients, who- 
 ever has not seized upon many errors of this kind in their writings.^^ 
 
 In the dedication to his Justin Martyr, Thirlby goes still 
 farther : 
 
 Whatever pleasure or utility there is in universal knowledge, 
 criticism demands in its own right all of this to be placed to its 
 credit, since on it depends the whole knowledge of antiquity, 
 and to it we owe whatever of ancient books is extant in no less 
 degree than to the authors themselves, whom, were it not for 
 the critics, we would not have read, but in their place we would 
 have read the comments and errors of stupid Hbrarians, 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 tam durus reperiri 
 queat, ut fateatur se Vetera et Falsa quam Recentia et Vera malle; 
 cujus Sinisteritatem pro Judicio suspicare, nae esset indicium mentis 
 infirmae, & Veritatis Numine parum contactae." 
 
 35 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." *^ 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 
 
 2^ 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 Ufe 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 hke anatomical subjects, only 
 to display the skill and abilities of the Artist; so that the end of 
 many an Edition seems often to have been no more than to ex- 
 hibit the great sagacity and erudition of an Editor. The Joy 
 of the Task was the Honour of mending, while Corruptions were 
 sought with a more than common attention, as each of them 
 afforded a testimony to the Editor and his Art.^^ 
 
 This fascination grew so strong as to be almost irresistible, 
 as is well testified to by Bentley's Milton, speaking of which 
 Harris says, '^But the rage of Conjecture seems to have 
 seized him, as that of Jealousy did Medea; a rage, which 
 she confest herself unable to resist, altho' she knew the 
 mischiefs, it would prompt her to perpetrate." ^^ This 
 same fascination Theobald has expressed in other terms, 
 where in his letters to Warburton he speaks of looking 
 forward to the letters containing Warburton's emendations 
 like a boy for a letter from his sweetheart, and how he reads 
 
 '8 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.'*^ In the preface to his edi- 
 tion of Shakespeare Johnson speaks of Upton as being 
 
 unable to restrain the rage of emendation, the his ardour is ill sec- 
 onded by his skill. Every cold empirick, when his heart is ex- 
 panded by a successful experiment, swells into a theorist, and the 
 laborious collator at some unlucky moment frolicks in conjecture. 
 . . . It is an unhappy state, in which danger is hid under pleasure. 
 The allurements of emendation are scarcely resistible. Conjecture 
 has all the joy and all the pride of invention, and he that has once 
 started a happy change, is too much 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.''^ 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. '^^ Hare, perhaps mali- 
 ciously, attributed Bentley's excessive emendations to his 
 inordinate desire for glory .'^^ In defense of his first work on 
 Shakespeare Theobald says, ''The Alteration of a Letter, 
 when it restores Sense to a corrupted Passage, in a learned 
 Language, is an Atchievment that Brings Honour to the 
 Critic who advances it.'' ^^ In his burlesque notes on 
 
 4° Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 257, 557, 283. 
 
 "1 Dyce, op. ait., vol. 1, pp. 155, 276. 
 
 42 J. S. Watson, Life of Warburton, p. 67. 
 
 *' Epistola Critica, p. 148. 
 
 ** Shakespeare Restored, p. 193. 
 
52 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 Bentley's Horace, which we shall notice soon, Dr. William 
 King touches frequently on this glory and praise. Apropos 
 of one of Bentley's notes, he says, ''From such atchievments 
 as these men attain the titles of Accurate, Illustrious, Learned, 
 Acute, the star of Criticism, the North Pole of Erudition." 
 King depreciates the method and laments the honor it 
 receives : 
 
 What a noble art is Criticism, when an excursion into a Vocabu- 
 lary, or a tolerable progress made in an Index, shall be deemed 
 an Atchievment, an Adventure, and accordingly entitle a man 
 to everlasting honour and glory. 
 
 There was, however, a reaction against the popularity of 
 conjectural criticism. For a long time there had been in 
 England a feeling against pedantry, though the ideas of what 
 constituted a pedant were subject to change. A pedant 
 might be a Holofernes who paraded his learning in his con- 
 versations; or else a writer larding his works with quotations 
 from all the ancients. With the 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." *^ Another upholder of 
 taste, the philosopher Shaftesbury, says, 
 
 A good poet and a honest historian may afford learning enough 
 for a Gentleman. And such a one, whilst he reads these authors 
 as his diversion, will have a truer relish of their sense, and under- 
 stand 'em better, than a pedant, with all his labours, and the 
 assistance of his volumes of commentators. ^^ 
 
 And he asks what good will become of the Phalaris contro- 
 versy though ''the world out of curiosity may delight to 
 see a pedant expos'd by a man of better wit, and a con- 
 troversy thus unequally carry'd on between two such op- 
 posite party s." ^^ 
 
 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 reaUze 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 
 
 *^ 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. 
 
 ^ 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 edit oris 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.^^ 
 
 As long as Bentley confined his labors to such writers as 
 Malelas, Phalaris, and the fragments of the Greek poets, 
 he was beyond the ken of many of the wits, but when he 
 laid hands upon Horace, he was desecrating the literary 
 idol of the day.^^ It was because of this popularity that 
 
 ^^ J. Wasse, Preface to his edition of Sallust, 1710. 
 
 ^^ Infamia Emendationis in Menandri Reliquias . . . Lundini Bata- 
 vorum, 1710. 
 
 ^° Some idea of the popularity of Horace may be gained from this 
 contemporary account: "The singular esteem which some critics 
 have always expressed for the works of Horace became at last so fash- 
 ionable, that scarce a man who affected the character of a poUte 
 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 famihar to men's 
 hands and hearts." Immediately a small host of publica- 
 tions came into existence, directed against Bentley in partic- 
 ular and emendatory criticism in general. ^^ A fair sample 
 of the pointless abuse heaped upon the scholar is furnished 
 by a quotation from Dr. King's ''Some 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, pubhshed in 1712. ^^ After 
 granting Boyle the victory in the Phalaris controversy, the 
 satirist turns on Bentley's Horace. 
 
 Bentley immortal honour gets, 
 By changing Que's to nobler Et's: 
 From Cam to I sis 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. 
 
 ^^ Among attacks pubhshed 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. 
 
 ^2 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 
 Th' 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 spoihng metre, die: 
 With Interjections of his own, 
 He helps them now to weep and groan; 
 That reading him, no lover fears 
 Soft vehicles for sighs and tears. ^^ 
 
 Another attempt to ridicule Bentley's Horace and his 
 method was made in a complete translation of the edition, 
 notes and all, from the Latin into English.^ Monk says the 
 translation ''adopts such a vulgar phraseology as would 
 give a ludicrous character to any book." Not only this, 
 but the translator foists in whole phrases, adds words, and 
 mistranslates so as to exaggerate Bentley's propensities, as 
 when he translates the epithets applied to the grammarians 
 as ''Ruffy, Spark, Blade." Of the notes upon notes, some 
 seriously try to refute Bentley's notes, some try to prove 
 him inconsistent, some make fun of his method and charac- 
 
 53 John Nichols, A Select Collection of Poems, vol. 3, p. 60. 
 ^ See Appendix B. 
 
THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 57 
 
 teristics, while others turn his notes into pure farce. Some 
 are tiresome, but many have humorous turns and comical 
 applications. The author has analyzed Bentley's method 
 and has ridiculed it with some success; the critical doubt, 
 the emendation, and the conjectural criticism all come in 
 for their share of scorn. The satirist especially finds fault 
 with Bentley's dogmatism and his way of speaking both of 
 those he Hkes 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 pubHshed in London. ^^ 
 It is something of a prototype of Edwards' Canons of Criti- 
 cism directed against Warburton's edition of Shakespeare, 
 only it is serious and everywhere treats Bentley with respect, 
 although condemning him at times. Le Clerc draws up a 
 list of seven ''Critical Rules and Remarks," which may be 
 summed up as saying we do not have sufficient knowledge 
 and judgment to correct the ancients with surety, and there- 
 fore should not speak too confidently of our emendations. 
 
 Another work written about this time, though not pub- 
 lished until many years later, is Virigilius Restauratus, written 
 by Arbuthnot, although perhaps assisted by other members 
 of the Scriblerus Club. It seeks to disparage Bentley's 
 method by useless emendations of the Aeneid, given in notes 
 burlesquing Bentley's method, some of which are very 
 clever and logically plausible. ^^ 
 
 ^5 Mr. Le Clerc' s Judgment and Censure of Dr. Bentley's Horace; 
 And of the Amsterdam Edition compared with that of Cambridge. Trans- 
 lated from the French. 1713. 
 
 " Later the Dundad indulges in the same kind of sport. Pope found 
 the ground fallow for his attack on Theobald, and his comparatively 
 poor success speaks volumes for his adversary's merits. 
 
58 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 Bentley's Horace awakened the slumbering resentment 
 against conjectural criticism; while attacks at first were 
 generally leveled against him for his boldness, this feeling 
 gradually extended against all performers in the field. ^^ 
 It became more and more necessary for critics to speak out 
 against such opposition. Furthermore, if we may judge 
 by the defense of verbal criticism made by classical scholars, 
 this feeling seems to have been more widely spread than is 
 apparent from its expression in print. Of the hostility 
 to verbal criticism Markland says, 
 
 I know there will not be wanting those who will slander this phase 
 of learning as being trivial, and contributing nothing either to use- 
 fulness or pleasure in life: for none are more free to judge than 
 those who either do not read or do not understand.^* 
 
 The first serious attempt at an answer to these attacks of 
 the "indocti" and ''literati,'' as they were called, is found 
 in the dedication to Lord Craven of Thirlby's Justin Martyr y 
 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 
 
 ^^ One irate objector proposed a plan whereby the infalhbihty 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. Ewemond, 1714. 
 
 ^8 Epistola Critica, p. 2. 
 
THE RAGE FOR EMENDING 59 
 
 say that criticism is not conducive to convenience in life 
 or the pubHc good, by asserting that on this basis all arts 
 would be overthrown. And as for delight, whatever pleasure 
 there is in knowledge, criticism can claim for itself, for 
 without it we should be reading grammarians instead of 
 original authors: 
 
 We should wonder that this art, whose prerogative and duty it 
 is to correct the writings of the Ancients, incredibly depraved by 
 the various injuries of a long time, and to restore them to their 
 pristine splendour, should seem a futile, absurd, and entirely use- 
 less undertaking to learned men, and especially to those who pro- 
 fess themselves the greatest admirers of these writers.^* 
 
 Thus there was developing among the 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 
 ^9 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.^ Al- 
 though the opposition to this peculiar study was energetic 
 enough and indulged in by the foremost wits of the time, 
 ultimately their attacks failed, Bentley's labors reaching 
 their flower in Porson, and Theobald's in the later capable 
 critics of Shakespeare.®^ 
 
 ^^ See preface to William Broome's Poems on Several Occasions, 1727. 
 
 " See Mmeum Criticum, vol. 1, p. 489. Here Porson says literary- 
 criticism is nothing compared with verbal criticism, and though at 
 one time the latter was thought lowest of all Uterary 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.^ 
 
 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.^ 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 hne of least resistance 
 in his correcting. 
 
 Pope's edition, 1725, represents a more critical treatment 
 of the text. One portion of an editor's duty, the most im- 
 portant, he recognized and clearly stated, that of collating 
 the text with the old copies. But this, for the most part, 
 he failed to do, although possessing, according to his own 
 word, the means. When it came to the 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. UnwilUng 
 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.^ 
 
 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 Rowe's and Pope's edi- 
 tions, see Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, Chaps. IV, V, VI. 
 
64 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 needs; nor does Pope appear to have been very avaricious. 
 The only explanation I can find for his undertaking such an 
 uncongenial task is the desire for glory, always a ruling pas- 
 sion with Pope. Realizing the honor that was attendant 
 upon the restorer of classical texts, and knowing himself 
 incapable of accomplishments in that field, he undertook to 
 achieve glory in restoring Shakespeare.* This change of 
 face necessitated some explanations to his friends, and 
 ''dull duty of an editor" was the compromise. On the 
 publication of Shakespeare, Broome was ready with a pane- 
 gyric, 
 
 Shakespere rejoice! his hand thy Page refines. 
 Now every Scene with native Brightness shines.'' 
 
 But Pope's edition brought forth the first truly critical 
 work on Shakespeare. This appeared in March, 1726, 
 under the title, Shakespeare Restored: or a Specimen of the 
 Many Errors, as well committed, as Unamended, hy Mr. 
 Pope In his Late Edition of this Poet Designed Not only to 
 correct the said Edition, hut 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 
 
 * 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 Httle Share of Reputation" in his emendations. On 
 p. 193 of this work he refers again to reputation as the inspiration of 
 the work. 
 
 » To Mr. Pope, On his Works, 1726. 
 
SHAKESPEARE 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." ® For steeped as Theo- 
 bald was in classical criticism, to recognize the corrupt 
 state of Shakespeare was to contrive, in a more or less defi- 
 nite way, corrections. A statement of Theobald seems to 
 " Shakespeare Restored, p. 133. 
 
66 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 prove this. In speaking of Pope's emendation of ''siege''* 
 for ''sea" in Hamlet's famous soliloquy, he says, 
 
 "The Editor is not the first who has had the same Suspicion: 
 And I may say, because I am able to prove it by Witnesses, it was 
 a Guess of mine, before he had enter'd upon publishing Shake- 
 speare." ^ 
 
 The interest created by Pope's edition made possible the com- 
 pletion and publication of his efforts. 
 
 Theobald was unusually well equipped for the office of a 
 textual critic on Shakespeare, He was a poet, a poor one 
 indeed, but still with talent enough to make him escape the 
 pitfalls that proved disastrous on more than one occasion 
 to the purely logical mind of Bentley. Furthermore, the 
 very fact that his poetic genius was slight served him in 
 good stead, for besides admitting of tireless industry, it 
 prevented him from seeking to merge his own ideas with 
 those of the work under consideration, and restrained him 
 from relying too much upon his own judgment of the poetic 
 value of a passage. 
 
 Besides this he was thoroughly conversant with the stage. 
 The author himself of several dramas and various operas and 
 pantomimes, he had been thrown into intimate relations 
 with John Rich, lessee of Lincoln's Inn Fields theater. Both 
 by experience and observation he was familiar with stage- 
 craft and the theater, and thus in a position better to under- 
 stand the causes of many of the corruptions in Shakespeare, 
 especially stage directions that had crept into the text and 
 lines assigned to the 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 
 
 ^ 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.^ 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.^** 
 
 Elsewhere he styles himself ''an admirer of antiquity" and 
 "a lover of antiquity." ^^ Especially worthy of note is 
 his interest in the Greek drama, clearly disclosed in his 
 translations from the same, in an age that, devoted to the 
 
 ' References to Hamlet in Nos. 18, 54, 83, 90, 93; and to Othello 
 in Nos. 16, 95, 36. » Censor, No. 70. 
 
 1° Censor, No. 18. " Idem, No. 5. 
 
68 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 study and imitation of the later classics, knew the Attic 
 drama chiefly through Aristotle. 
 
 I could wish heartily, the Poets of our Times would follow the 
 Model of Sophocles, and rather lay their Distresses on Incidents 
 produced by some such uncontrollable Impulse than to let the 
 Dagger and poison Cup be at the Discretion of a Villain. 
 
 Apropos of this he praises Othello. But Aeschylus more than 
 any interested him. The translation of his plays was the 
 only translation upon which Theobald attempted to embark 
 on his own account. In The Censor, No. 60, he discusses 
 Greek tragedy, but soon confines himself to Aeschylus, 
 translating a long passage from Prometheus; he refuses to 
 subscribe to the ''critics of every age," who rank him below 
 Sophocles and Euripides. He anticipates Victor Hugo in 
 seeing a similarity between Aeschylus and Shakespeare in 
 the majesty and sublimity of their verse. 
 
 There were some phases of classical scholarship with which 
 Theobald was not in entire sympathy, influenced, as he 
 undoubtedly was, by the attitude of the literati and polite 
 schools of scholarship. Throughout The Censor we find 
 slurs at antiquaries and the Royal Society. This last had 
 been the center of the ancients and moderns controversy, 
 and Theobald was a stanch upholder of the ancients, although 
 not admitting any particular degeneration in the moderns. 
 Any attempt to reduce the antiquity of a production to a 
 more recent date he resented with the accusation that the 
 moderns did not wish to allow any more than necessary to 
 the ancients. When higher criticism made use of historical 
 philology and chronology in disputing the antiquity of an 
 author, Theobald was prone to disagree and to doubt the 
 value of those two studies. Nor was he loath to stigmatize 
 efforts in such minute studies as pedantic. ^^ 
 
 ^2 For attacks on virtuosi, chronologers, and other minute scholars, 
 see Censor, Nos. 68 and 91. 
 
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 69 
 
 This naturally led him to disagree with Bentley in regard 
 to Phalaris, although he always mentions the great critic 
 with respect: ^^ 
 
 I remember the learned Dr. Bentley has made it one of his Ex- 
 ceptions to Phalaris's Epistles being Genuine, that the Tyrant 
 has made use of some proverbial Sentences which are recorded as 
 the Inventions of Authors of a much later Date, and therefore 
 Phalaris could not write those Epistles, because he has used some 
 Sayings that were not in Being in his Age. I confess, I am not 
 totally satisfied with this Argument, I look upon it as a Hardship 
 next to an Impossibihty to determine strictly the Periods, and 
 Origins of such Sentences; and were it not a work that would 
 savour too much of Pedantry and Affectation of Book-Learning, 
 I could produce several of their sententious Fragments, which 
 have been severally attributed to five or six distinct Authors, and 
 that on the Testimonies of great Hands. ^'* 
 
 He maintains the same opinion of the poetry of Musaeus, 
 for whom he had a special liking. ^^ In his essay on the Hero 
 and Leander prefixed to his translation of the same in The 
 Grove, he does attempt ''a Piece of Chronological Criticism." 
 Although expressing his inability to come to a decision con- 
 
 " It is possible Theobald may have been influenced by regard for 
 his patron, Charles Boyle, Earl of Orrery, to whom he dedicated his 
 Richard II. 
 
 ^* Censor, No. 26. 
 
 " Censor, No. 39, May 23, 1715: "I have always read this small 
 Remain of Musaeus, with Pleasure enough to consider it the Product 
 of that Antique Greek, however his Title to it has been of late dis- 
 puted. There has reigned a Spirit of Detraction for some Years in 
 the World, which has labour'd to strip the Ancients of their Honours, 
 on purpose to adorn some more Modern Brow. I cannot conceive 
 that this springs from a fair and generous Emulation; but that finding 
 themselves unable to come up to the Strokes of Antiquity, as Chronol- 
 ogers often do to gain a Point, they draw down Authors to their own 
 Dates, to prove that all Merit in Writing was not confin'd to the Aeras 
 of Paganism." 
 
70 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 cerning the antiquity of the poem, and dechning 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. ^^ 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- 
 es Ante, Chap. II, p. 49. 
 
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 71 
 
 ments made on men of his day, that Uteral criticism was 
 allowed honor where investigations of a different nature 
 were denied it. 
 
 Furthermore, Theobald was intimately acquainted with 
 the work of the great textual critic. We have already noticed 
 his interest in the dissertation on Phalaris, and references 
 to the controversy occur elsewhere. ^^ He quotes from 
 Bentley's Epistle to Mill a passage which encourages him 
 in his work on Shakespeare.^^ He expresses the highest 
 praise for Bentley's emendations of Menander and Philemon. ^^ 
 He even models his edition of Shakespeare upon Bentley's 
 Amsterdam Horace. ^° Everywhere he mentions Bentley 
 with respect, and often praise, styling him the ''learned Dr. 
 Bentley" ^^ and "a Great Man in Critical Learning." ^2 
 In upholding the value of literal criticism he appeals to 
 Bentley's success, ''But I no more pretend to do justice to 
 that Great Man's Character, than I would be thought to set 
 my own poor Merit, or the Nature of this Work, in Competi- 
 tion with his." ^^ 
 
 Thoroughly conversant as Theobald was with classical 
 criticism, it was only natural that he should have been struck 
 with the similarity between the state of the text of Shake- 
 speare and that of the texts of Greek and Latin authors. 
 Nor was this similarity superficial, ^^ a fact clearly stated 
 in the preface to Shakespeare Restored: 
 
 " Censor, Nos. 8 and 9. Preface to A Complete Key to the What 
 D'ye Call it (if Theobald wrote it). 
 
 ^8 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 313. 
 
 ^® Shakespeare Restored, p. 193. 
 
 2° 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, 
 ''Qui vidit mare turgidum." Bentley comments thus: ^^ 
 
 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 aXiov oTSfia. 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. Oet. 456 — Cessante vento; turbidum 
 
 explicui mare. 
 Avienus in Arateis, — Non tum 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 appUed by our Author. 
 I remember a passage in his King Lear, where it particularly stands 
 for ugly. 
 
74 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 Lear, p. 77. 
 
 . . . See thy self, Devil; 
 
 Proper Deformity seems not in the Fiend 
 
 So horrid as in Woman. 
 
 I cannot, however, deny, but that our Poet sometimes employs 
 the Word horrid in the sense of frightful, terrible. But every 
 observing Reader of his Works must be aware that he does it spar- 
 ingly, and, ten times for every once, seems fond to use horrible 
 and terrible. It is obvious that he prefers both these Terms, as 
 more sonorous and emphatical than horrid; and the Proof that 
 he does so, is, (which laid the Foundation of Conjecture here,) 
 that he almost constantly chuses them, even when the Numbers 
 of his Verse naturally require horrid. I shall subjoin a few In- 
 stances of both for Confirmation; to which I could have amass' d 
 twenty times as many, but these are enough, at least, to excuse 
 me, tho' I should be deceived in Judgment, from the Censure 
 of being too hypercritical in my Observation. 
 
 Tempest pag. 73 
 
 Where but ev'n now with strange and several Noises 
 Of roaring, shrieking, howling, jingling chains. 
 And more Diversity of Sounds, all horrible, 
 We were awak'd. 
 
 Lear pag. 41. 
 
 And with this horrible Object, from low farms, 
 Poor pelting Villages, etc. 
 
 And again yog. 55 
 
 I tax not you, you Elements, with Unkindness; 
 I never gave you Kingdom, call'd you Children, 
 You owe me no Subscription. Then let fall 
 Your horrible Pleasure; — 
 
 And again, pag. 83 
 
 Glouc. Methinks the Ground is even. 
 Edgar. . . . Horrible steep. 
 Hark do you hear the Sea? 
 
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 75 
 
 Antony and Cleopatra, pag. 342 
 
 Hence horrible Villian! or I'll spurn thine Eyes 
 Like Balls before me! 
 
 Macbeth, pag. 561 
 
 . . . Hence, horrible Shadow! 
 Unreal Mock'ry, hence! . . . ^^ 
 
 I have chosen these two emendations because the changes 
 advocated are so similar. Bentley prefers "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. ^^ 
 
 Again, consider Bentley's note on Horace, Bk. Ill, Carm. 
 VI, V. 20. 
 
 Hoc fonte derivata clades 
 
 In Patriam populumque fluxit. 
 
 ^ Shakespeare Restored, p. 41. 
 
 ^ Dr. King has a burlesque note on this emendation of Bentley's, 
 which is equally applicable to Theobald's if we change "G" to "D." 
 "There is a great controversie in this place; the two candidates are 
 'turgidum' and Hurbidum,'; 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 1 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 E pedes, and Carmen Seen- 
 tare of Horace. In Latin and English : 1713. 
 
76 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 Thus indeed all the MSS read without exception, but never will 
 they prevail upon me to cast my ballot for this reading. For 
 why should I? He says that disasters arising from adulteries as 
 from a fountain, flow into the people and the fatherland. What 
 difference is there between fatherland and people? unless, per- 
 chance, those most vicious morals flowed into patriam terram 
 only. Our poet was not so jejune or lacking in judgment as to 
 foist in that superfluous synonym, as if it were something different. 
 I have little doubt but Horace wrote thus 
 
 Hoc fonte deriva clades 
 
 Inque Patres populumque fluxit: 
 
 into the patres and the populus, that is into all of Roman citizens 
 both patricians and senators, as well as Plebs. This solemn for- 
 mula is in every kind of writing which we will collect in full measure 
 in order that we may sustain the boldness of this conjecture by 
 weight of nmnbers 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. 
 MartiaUs VIII, 50 
 
 Vescitur omnis eques tecum populusque patresque. 
 
 And he continues to give many more passages where the 
 phrase is used. 
 
 With the foregoing compare this note of Theobald : 
 
 Macbeth, Page 554. 
 
 We have Scorched the Snake, not kill'd it . . . 
 She'll dose, and be herself; . . . 
 
 This is a Passage which has all along pass'd current thro' the 
 Editions, and hkewise 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 scorched? 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 kill'd 
 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 Scotched the Snake, not kill'd it . . . 
 She'll close, and be herself; ... 
 
 To Scotch, however the GeneraUties 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 Scotched 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- 
 phcation of the Term Scotch-CoUops ; 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-CoUops, i.e. Collops, or slices slash'd cross and 
 cross, before they are put on the coals.^^ 
 
 The same method is apparent in both notes. First we 
 have the critical doubt. Bentley is unwilling to let the usual 
 reading stand because it produces tautology, Theobald be- 
 cause it is repugnant to the context. Both are willing to 
 depart from all manuscripts or previous authorities. Both 
 adopt an interrogatory attitude, and express their doubts 
 in rhetorical questions. Here, as elsewhere in his notes, 
 Theobald follows Bentley in introducing first the customary 
 reading, viewing it from all sides, examining and rejecting 
 explanations, and thus reducing the reader to a state of 
 perplexity and expectancy until the psychological moment 
 for the emendation. Bentley very seldom introduces his 
 emendation first, a characteristic that is one of the ear-marks 
 of his method. By necessity Theobald's preliminary re- 
 marks are shorter than Bentley's, for the classical critic has 
 far more readings to consider, more explanations to overturn, 
 owing to the previous work done on the classics. ^^ There 
 
 ^' Shakespeare Restored, p. 185. 
 
 2^ The irrepressible Dr. King has taken off these preambles in 
 hmnorous 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 Ubrarians, and so on; till having filled us brimful with expec- 
 tation of the issue, he at last bursts out at once upon us with this 
 final decision. 'That we may read it which way we please.'" The 
 Odes, Epodes and Carmen Seculare of Horace. In Latin and English. 
 MDCCXIII. Note on Bentley's note on Bk. I, Ode 22, 1. 14. 
 
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 79 
 
 is cleverness in this method, for when the reader is convinced 
 that the accepted reading is wrong, and is completely per- 
 plexed as to what the real reading is, the plausibiHty of an 
 emendation is magnified several fold. 
 
 After the emendation has been proposed the next step in 
 the process is the conjectural criticism or the supporting of 
 the change. Before applause at their sagacity has died 
 away, Theobald and Bentley are hard at it reinforcing their 
 emendations. It becomes Bentley's task to show that the 
 expression ^'patres populusque" is a usual and preferred one, 
 which he does by quoting from Virgil, Ovid, Martial, and 
 others where the phrase is found. In a similar manner 
 Theobald takes it upon himself to show that Shakespeare 
 uses ''scotch'd" in a sense agreeable to his correction; this 
 he does by quoting passages from Coriolanus and Antony 
 and Cleopatra, where the word is used. While this is by 
 no means the only method employed by both critics in 
 support of a correction, it is the one most generally used and 
 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 unaneaVd in signifying 
 no knell rung. This is, if I mistake not, what the Greeks were 
 used to call an airai Aeyo/Acvov 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 KnoU'd. 
 The Compound Adjective, therefore, from that Derivation must 
 have been written, unknell'd; (or, unknolVd;) a word which will 
 by no Means fill up the Poet's Verse, were there no stronger Rea- 
 sons to except against it ; as it unluckily happens, there are. Let 
 us see then what Sense the Word unaneVd then bears. Skinner 
 in his Lexicon of Old and Obsolete English Terms, tells us, that 
 Anealed is unctus; a Praep. Tent: an and die Oleum: so 
 that unanealed must consequently signify, ^^Not being anointed^ 
 or not having the extream Unction." 
 
 Theobald then substitutes a variant reading, ''disappointed," 
 for ''anointed," which follows "unaneal'd," and ends his 
 note thus : 
 
 So that, this Reading and this Sense being admitted, the Tautol- 
 ogy is taken away; and the Poet very finely makes his Ghost 
 complain of these four dreadful Hardships, viz: That he had been 
 dispatch'd out of Life without receiving the (Hoste, or) Sacra^ 
 ment; without being reconciled to Heaven and absolved; without 
 the Benefit of extream Unction; or, without so much as a Confes- 
 sion made of his Sins. The having no Knell rung, I think, is not 
 a Point of equal Consequence to any of these; especially, if we 
 consider that the Roman Church admits the Efficacy of Praying 
 for the Dead.^^ 
 
 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 /uuitioXoixos- 
 
 This word the schohast, Photius, Suidas, Eustathius and others 
 allow. Hesychius has /LtaraioXoixos. Some of them derive 
 3° Shakespeare Restored, pp. 53-55. 
 
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 81 
 
 the word from fidraLo^, others from fidnov (which they wish 
 to mean €Xa;(i(rTos) or from /utartov, 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 fiaTtoA.otxos should have the first syllable long; there- 
 fore it is not from fAanov which has the first syllable short. In- 
 deed with whom as sponsor should we admit this fxarLov, 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? fxaraio- 
 Aoixos, 'a licker of vanities,' a 'vain licker': and /lanoXotxos, 
 'a licker of infinitesimals,' or a 'hcker of measures.' Surely here 
 are the dehriums of grammarians. With the slightest change I 
 correct thus Srpo^ts, a/oyoAeos /AarTvoAotxos. Moreover you well 
 know what Marrvr} is; without doubt, desserts, rich viands; as 
 turdi; and other things of that nature. You know that fine of 
 Martial — ' Inter quadrupedes mattya prima lepus — ' You also 
 know from Athanaeus that Aristophanes has used the word 
 fiaTTvrj elsewhere. MaTTvoA.otxos, therefore, as kvlo-oXoixos, licker 
 of sweetmeats; which not only can signify gluttony but also im- 
 pudence, so that it agrees with the other epithets here, dpa<rv^, 
 ToXfirjpos etc. 
 
 Although arranged in somewhat different order, the ele- 
 ments of both notes are the same. Bentley claims that the 
 explanations of /MartoAoixos are based on a single occurrence 
 of the word, and likewise Theobald holds that Pope's 
 definition of "unanel'd" is an aira^ keyofievov "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 fxanoXoLxos cannot be 
 derived from fidriov on metrical grounds; Theobald makes 
 it plain that "unanel'd" cannot be derived from "unknelPd," 
 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 fmrrvrj; 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 : ^^ 
 
 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. 2L 
 
SHAKESPEAKE 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: BeUica, bellatrix, beUipotens, beUigera; etc. 
 and also the Greeks. 
 
 VirgiHus Aen. XI. 
 
 Armipotens beUi praeses Tritonia Virgo. 
 Statins Silv. IV. 5. 
 
 Regina bellorum Virago. 
 
 Theobald corrects the punctuation in a passage from 
 Troilus and Cressidaj Act. IV, Sc. I.^^ 
 
 Troilus and Cressida, Page 74. 
 
 Aene. And thou shall hunt a Lion that willflie 
 
 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 Sjnnptoms of humane Gentle- 
 ness? Mr. Dry den, in his Alteration of this Play from Shake- 
 speare, has acted with great caution upon this Passage: For not 
 giving himself the Trouble to trace the Author's Meaning, or to 
 rectify the Mistakes of his Editors, he closes the Sentence at . . . 
 with his face backward ; and entirely leaves out, in humane Gentle- 
 ness. In short, the Place is flat Nonsense as it stands, only for 
 Want of true Pointing. I think, there is no Question to be made, 
 but that Shakespeare intended it thus : 
 
 ** Shakespeare Restored, pp. 147, 148. 
 
84 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 And Thou shall hunt a Lion, that will flie 
 With his Face back. . . . In humane Gentleness, 
 Welcome to Troy; . . . Now, by Anchises' Life, 
 Welcome, indeed: . . . 
 
 Aeneas, as soon as ever he has return'd 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 '' proeliis audax" is not applicable to Bacchus, 
 by quotations from various sources, while Theobald shows 
 that the phrase ''in humane gentleness" is not applicable 
 to the lion described, by appeal to common sense and ref- 
 erence to Dryden's alteration of the play. Bentley asserts 
 that his pointing gives an epithet to Pallas which suits her 
 "as aptly as can be," and for proof quotes passages from 
 Virgil and 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 VI, 
 V. 79, with the notes found on pages 61, 109, and 128 of 
 Shakespeare Restored. Yet there is little use in particulariz- 
 ing, as almost any two notes having a similar purpose will 
 serve. 
 
 Theobald's notes easily fall into the divisions made for 
 classical textual criticism — the critical doubt, emendation,, 
 and conjectural criticism. ^^ In the critical doubt he brings 
 grammatical, historical, and aesthetic tests to play upon 
 the various readings. By a close study of the passage and 
 the context he may show where there is bad grammar or a 
 violation of metrical laws. Sometimes he points out that 
 the current reading is contrary to the context, or that the 
 passage possesses little or no meaning. Sometimes he 
 proves that there stands in the text a word which does not 
 exist, or which cannot have the meaning necessary to the 
 intelligibility of the passage. All this he does by scrutinizing 
 the text with critical care and producing his proofs with 
 learning and logic. In these last Theobald may be far 
 inferior to Bentley, yet their presence is apparent on every 
 page. There is no jumping to conclusions, neither is there 
 any blind acceptation of unintelligible passages, but in their 
 stead a careful weighing of evidence, a logical handling 
 of facts toward the ascertaining of a corruption. In a, 
 critical light he examines everything. 
 
 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";^ 
 
 ^ Shakespeare Restored, p. 159. 
 
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 87 
 
 from his knowledge of English history he shows that in 
 King John ''Anjou" should be substituted for '* Anglers"; ^^ 
 and from his knowledge of Latin literature he believes that 
 *'love" should be changed to ''Jove" in Much Ado About 
 Nothing. ^^ 
 
 Both Theobald and Bentley make bold to engage in aes- 
 thetic criticism, the most dangerous of the three. Here it 
 would not be rash to grant the Shakespearean critic precedence 
 over the classical scholar. The logical nature of Bentley's 
 mind, which was of so much assistance in establishing 
 fact and restoring meaning to unintelligible passages, was 
 more of a hindrance than a help in judging literature by 
 artistic standards. He could not overcome the tendency 
 to inject logical consistency into a poetical passage. Though 
 his Horace furnishes many instances of this fault, the shining 
 example is his edition of Milton, where his notes are logical 
 enough, but with a logic that makes poetry prose. In his 
 classical notes he depended upon his literary judgment with 
 every sign of assurance, expressing his criticisms with such 
 words as "jejune," "otiose," "rough," and the 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 
 conderons one line as being "a dragging Parapleromatick,'' 
 and makes a truly wonderful emendation. ^^ A passage in 
 
 3* Shakespeare Restored, p. 161. 
 
 36 Idem, p. 175. 
 
 ^ Shakespeare Restored, p. 190. 
 
88 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 Romeo and Juliet read 
 
 As is the bud bit with an envious Worm 
 E're he can spread his sweet leaves to the air 
 Or dedicate his beauty to the same. 
 
 Logic or knowledge could find no fault with this passage. 
 It is perfectly clear and consistent. Bentley could have 
 found little to cavil at. But the poetic sense of Theobald 
 made him hesitate at the last line as being prose rather than 
 poetry, and the same artistic feeling suggested *'sun'' for 
 "same." It is hard to conceive of the great classical critic 
 making an emendation that would show such a delicate 
 poetic feeling. Perhaps we shall never know whether 
 Shakespeare wrote "sun," but the emendation will always 
 remain a contribution to things beautiful. We even find 
 Theobald escaping where Pope erred. His appreciation 
 of poetic license made him reject Pope's conjecture of "siege" 
 for "sea" in Hamlet's famous soliloquy, even though there 
 seemed to be a violation of reason. ^^ 
 
 As has been noticed on a previous page, after the critical 
 doubt Bentley and Theobald use similar expressions in 
 introducing their emendations. The tone in these introduc- 
 tory phrases — and often the wording itself — is the same, 
 ranging all the way from the greatest surety to a doubting 
 diffidence, with the former more frequent. Statements 
 such as "It must certainly be read thus," "It must be 
 
 ^^ Shakespeare Restored, p. 82. We can well imagine how Bentley 
 would have attacked this passage: "Or to take arms against 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 necessary for his emendations, 
 but where all traces are lost he puts his emendation 
 on the basis of pure conjecture. ^^ It is really remarkable 
 that, living in an age when so much license was granted 
 the restorer, and being among the very first to correct English 
 texts, Theobald should have kept so close to the various 
 readings. It is on this ground that he defends himself 
 against unjust censure: 
 
 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.''^ 
 
 As regards manuscript assistance, Bentley was far more 
 fortunate than Theobald in his apparatus criticus. Many 
 are the manuscripts and editions of Horace that figure in 
 his notes. Theobald, however, for his remarks on Hamlet ^ 
 had to rely on the second folio,^^ the 1637 quarto, a 1703 
 quarto, and Hughes' quarto. For part of his work he had 
 an opportunity of examining the fourth folio. For the 
 rest of the plays he had to content himself with the folios 
 just mentioned, the 1600 quarto of Much Ado About Nothing, 
 the 1611 quarto of Titus Andronicus, and a 1655 quarto of 
 Lear. He also, perhaps, derived some slight assistance from 
 later alterations of the plays. 
 
 In the conjectural criticism, where an emendation 
 is tested and supported, the process is pretty much the same 
 as in the critical doubt. Grammatical, historical, and 
 aesthetic tests are applied. Both critics show how the sense 
 is restored or 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- 
 
 *° Shakespeare Restored, p. 165. 
 
 *^ This, Theobald says, was "in the GeneraUty esteemed the best 
 Impression of Shakespeare." Shakespeare Restored, p. 70. 
 
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 91 
 
 dation, one emphasized by Bentley both in words and in 
 practice, ^^ is a long Ust of passages from various works 
 quoted to show a similar or usual use of the word re- 
 stored, or to support a stated fact of history, grammar, 
 metrics, and the like. Theobald also emphasizes this 
 method, and a glance through his remarks on Hamlet will 
 reveal the large number of passages quoted. If there are 
 not quite so many quotations in the appendix to Shake- 
 speare Restored, it is more because of lack of space than of 
 inclination. On more than one occasion he calls attention 
 to this method : 
 
 As every Author is best expounded and explained in One Place, 
 by his own Usage and Manner of Expression in Others ; wherever 
 our Poet receives an Alteration in his Text from any of my Correc- 
 tions or Conjectures, I have throughout endeavour'd to support 
 what I offer by 'parallel Passages, and Authorities from himself: 
 which, as it will be my best Justification, where my Attempts 
 are seconded with the Concurrence of my Readers; so it will 
 be my best Excuse for those Innovations in which I am not so 
 happy to have them think with me.*^ 
 
 The majority of Bentley's notes on Horace are concerned 
 with various readings, and there are almost as many ''cor- 
 rections from various readings" in Theobald's remarks on 
 Hamlet as there are conjectures, though we have, in the 
 previous discussion, been chiefly considering the latter. 
 Yet there is little difference in the process requisite for the 
 estabhshment 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. 
 
 *^ Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. viii. See also p. 128, 
 where Theobald says that to expound an author by himself "is the 
 surest Means of coming at the Truth of his Text." 
 
92 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 one is subjected to all the tests and supported by all possible 
 authority. The process involved is practically the same, and 
 appears so in both Latin and English notes. Omitted 
 passages stand in the light of various readings, while the 
 correcting of ''false printing" and "false pointing" is merely 
 a detail of conjectural emendation. 
 
 Theobald's method extends to the formulation of certain 
 metrical and grammatical rules followed by Shakespeare, 
 together with certain characteristics of his poetic style. 
 He notices that the poet often introduces an extra syllable 
 into his verses, and he refuses to reduce them to classic regu- 
 larity."** His corrections for meter are generally based on 
 the absence of a syllable. He proves certain grammatical 
 peculiarities, such as the use of nouns and adjectives as 
 verbs ,*^ the use of adjectives as nouns ,*^ the frequent change 
 of number,*^ and the use of the nominative case in pronouns 
 instead of the accusative. He notices Shakespeare's custom 
 of repeating a word to give force, and the redoubling of 
 pronouns. He reached these conclusions by a most thorough 
 and systematic study of the plays, and for proof of them he 
 quotes extensively from Shakespeare, where the rule is 
 seen in operation. Though this may seem an obvious 
 method, it does not appear to have been employed before 
 in the study of English texts. Bentley, to be sure, is most 
 consistent in the use of such a method when he is proving 
 a metrical or grammatical law, and if there was any source 
 for Theobald's method, it must be here."*^ 
 
 There are a few other slight similarities between the two 
 critics. Theobald follows Bentley's method of correcting 
 
 ** Shakespeare Restored, pp. 2, 20, 24. 
 « Idem, pp. 8, 11. 
 « Idem, p. 37. 
 *' Idem, p. 35. 
 
 *' For example, see notes on Horace, Bk. Ill, Ode XVI, v. 31, and 
 Bk. Ill, Ode XII, v. 1. 
 
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 93 
 
 a passage *'on the run," so to speak; that is, quoting a 
 passage in support of an emendation and then correcting 
 it, or correcting the passage before presenting it for proof.*' 
 He also is hke Bentley in claiming credit for an independent 
 emendation later verified by another reading.^ The reason 
 Theobald gives for selecting Hamlet as the subject of most 
 of his remarks, not because it was the most faulty, but be- 
 cause it was the most popular of the plays, is the same as 
 Bentley gave for editing Horace. Besides these echoes of 
 Bentley, there are a few references to other scholars. The 
 motto, taken from Virgil and appearing on the title page, 
 
 . . . Laniatum Corpora toto 
 Deiphobum vidi et lacerum crudeliter Ora, 
 Ora, manusque ambo, . . . 
 
 evidently looks back to a note of Markland's Epistola 
 Critica}^ In comparing the corrupt text of Shakespeare 
 to a sick person, ^2 Theobald was employing a figure used in 
 classical scholarship,^' and his characterization of Pope's 
 ''abhorrence of all innovation" as "downright Supersti- 
 tion" ^* had been given to others. ^^ 
 
 This critical treatise contained several discoveries — 
 since become commonplace — the most remarkable of which 
 was that he who undertakes to edit an author has a duty 
 to perform. Theobald claimed that the failure of Pope's 
 edition was explained by the fact that the poet declined the 
 duty of an editor, a duty that every editor owed Shake- 
 
 *' Shakespeare Restored, pp. Ill, 148. 
 
 '° Cf. Shakespeare Restored, pp. 82, 102, with note on Horace, Bk. 
 Ill, Ode XVII, V. 5. 
 
 " See ante, Chap. II, p. 45. 
 
 " Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. vi. 
 
 " See ante, Chap. II, p. 48. 
 
 " Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. iv. 
 
 '* See ante. Chap. II, p. 54. 
 
94 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 speare — that of being a critic on him.^^ This duty he 
 further defined as the exertion of every power and faculty 
 of the mind to supply the defects of corrupt passages, and 
 to give light and restore sense to them. Thus he was un- 
 willing to pass by, as he accused Pope of doing, passages 
 he did not understand, but earnestly set about clearing up 
 the obscurity with what materials he had at hand. His 
 conception of what an editor was 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."" 
 The secret of this method he states in another place, where 
 he claims emendations are more substantial than mere 
 guesses when supported by reason or authority.^^ Here 
 is the spirit of scholarship that refuses to accept anything 
 that cannot be buttressed with proofs and reasons — knowl- 
 edge ordered by logic, the basis of all sciences. The term 
 ''authority" covers a multitude of things, but Theobald 
 relied, to a great extent, on parallel passages quoted to up- 
 
 " Stated on p. v of the Introduction and repeated on p. 133 of 
 Shakespeare Restored. 
 
 " Shakespeare Restored, p. 60. 
 58 Idem, p. 133. 
 
SHAKESPEARE RESTORED 95 
 
 hold a reading or sustain a statement. ^^ References to 
 classical writers of every description show his wide acquain- 
 tance with Greek and Latin literature, while his quotations 
 from Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Spenser display his familiar- 
 ity with them. But the lack of any reference to Elizabethan 
 literature in general, with the exception of Spenser, and the 
 drama in particular is rather surprising.^ The only Eliza- 
 bethan drama referred to is The Humorous Lieutenant of 
 Beaumont and Fletcher. This lack of knowledge of the 
 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.^^ 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." ^^ Though Theobald speaks of the ''Ap- 
 plause of the Readers" and implies that he acted on a "View 
 of Reputation," ^^ he did not let his desire for glory over- 
 come his love for truth. Even if his attempt should fail, 
 he hopes that others will be led to read Shakespeare more 
 dihgently, so ''that better Critics will make their own Ob- 
 
 ^^ Cf. Shakespeare Restored, p. 159. Here Theobald, to give "author- 
 ity" to a statement of his, quotes Plutarch, Athenaeus, Diodorus, 
 Siculus, ApoUodorus, and Pausanias. He focuses evidence from wide 
 sources upon a point under discussion in the same manner as Bentley. 
 
 ^° Professor Lounsbury says these extracts are taken from other 
 dramatists of Shakespeare's time, but I suspect he was thinking of 
 Theobald's edition. See Text of Shakespeare, p. 160. 
 
 " Shakespeare Restored, p. 191. 
 
 82 Idem, p. 194. 
 
 63 Idem, pp. 133, 193. 
 
96 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 servations, with more Strength than I can pretend to." ** 
 Nor was Theobald disappointed in the hope that others 
 might be influenced to spend more time over the text of 
 Shakespeare, as well as over the texts of other 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." ^^ Yet the very 
 novelty of the undertaking made him regard the outcome 
 with some trepidation. Knowing of the attacks that had 
 been made upon the mighty Bentley and the Royal Society, 
 it is no wonder he felt that he ran a risk.^^ Furthermore, 
 the consciousness of his own attitude in the past perhaps 
 had something to do with his explanation that ''No Vein 
 of Pedantry, or Ostentation of useless Criticism invited me 
 to this Work." " He was somewhat doubtful of the way 
 Pope would receive his book, but was fatuous enough to 
 rely upon the generosity of a man whose regard for Shake- 
 speare and truth was considerably less than his vanity. 
 
 I must expect some Attacks of Wits, being engag'd in an Under- 
 taking of so much Novelty: The Assaults that are merely idle, 
 or merely splenatick, I shall have the Resolution to despise: And 
 I hope, I need be under no great Concern for Those, which can 
 proceed from a generous Antagonist. . . . And whenever I have 
 the Luck to be right in any Observation, I flatter myself, Mr. 
 Pope himself will be pleas' d, that Shakespeare receives some 
 Benefit.68 
 
 ^* Shakespeare Restored, Introduction, p. vi. 
 
 " Idem, p. 193. 
 
 «« Idem, p. 193. 
 
 ^^ Idem, p. vi. 
 
 ^8 Idem, p. 194. Gompare 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 Uttle 
 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 mortahty. 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, intelhgible 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 Itahans say, 
 that a Comment ought to be made when the Work does not need 
 it, for that it will be impossible to make one when it does. I 
 have been thrown into these thoughts by a Letter from a Gentle- 
 man, who has first in our language given proofs of an abiUty to 
 do justice to an excellent Writer. Sorry I am that he is not al- 
 lowed to indulge the inclination, which is accompanied by so 
 much knowledge and genius to execute it. The Letter (which I 
 send you with this) was occasioned by some discourse I had with 
 him upon a passage in Shakespeare which, through the error of 
 the text, neither he nor I could then discover the meaning of; 
 but such is his zeal for the Author, and such is his penetration in 
 matters of Learning, that in a day or two he perfectly cleared it 
 up. I cannot conclude without observing, that such a Critick 
 as this might bring the name of a Commentator into the repute 
 which it has lost by the dull and useless pedantry of some Pre- 
 tenders to it. Such a Gentleman, and none but such, ought to 
 repubhsh 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.^^ 
 
 The significance of Theobald's production is twofold. 
 First, he brought to the study of English letters the spirit 
 and the method of sound scholarship. He conducted his 
 
 ^^ Reprinted in Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 18d-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 conviac- 
 ing nature of Theobald's remarks, influenced others to turn 
 their attention to English writers. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE PERIOD OF *'tHE DUNCIAD'^ 
 
 Shakespeare Restored met with a substantial success, as 
 is attested by the notices and commendations in the periodi- 
 cals of that day ; its popularity is also seen in the fact that 
 Theobald came to be known as 'Hhe author of Shakespeare 
 Restored.'' ^ At the end of that work Theobald declared 
 that its success governed his ''prosecuting a Design, that 
 savours more of public Spirit than private Interest"; so 
 the appearance a few months later of an emendation of 
 his shows that he was sufficiently pleased with the im- 
 mediate reception his first effort secured to continue in 
 this critical field. Henceforth work on Shakespeare became 
 his chief interest and delight. Recognition of his capacity 
 as a textual critic, based upon his first 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.^ 
 
 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. 
 
 2 Mist's Journal, May 7, 1726. 
 
THE PERIOD OF " THE DUNCIAD" 101 
 
 quoted in the previous chapter.^ 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.^ 
 
 On meeting Warburton Theobald must have immediately 
 engaged him on the subject of Shakespeare, ever upper- 
 most in the critic's mind, for in a letter written the following 
 day to Concanen, Warburton speaks of papers he promised 
 to his new acquaintance and of offering to *'Mr. Theobald 
 an objection against Shakespeare's acquaintance with the 
 Ancients." ^ Nothing came of their meeting until March, 
 1729, when a correspondence began between them, which, 
 devoted largely to criticism of Shakespeare, continued until 
 the summer of 1736. This friendship with Warburton, 
 although the divine proved to be absolutely faithless, was 
 of considerable assistance to Theobald in rendering him 
 sympathy, encouragement, and inspiration to pull through 
 the dark years following The Dunciad. 
 
 In December of 1727 Theobald brought forth a drama 
 purporting to come from the pen of Shakespeare.^ In his 
 
 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. 
 
 * Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 195. 
 
 ^ This letter contains criticism of Dryden, Milton, and Addison, 
 as well as the famous statement that Pope borrowed for want of genius. 
 Akenside called attention to it, as well as Warburton's correspondence 
 with the dunces in general, in a note on his An Ode to The Late Thomas 
 Edwards, written in 1761, though not printed until 1765. 
 
 ® Double Falshood; or, The Distrest Lovers. A Play, As it is Acted 
 at the Theatre-Royal in Druiy Lane. Written Originally by W. Shake- 
 speare; And now Revised and Adapted to the Stage by Mr. Theo- 
 
102 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 dedication to George Dodington, he calls Double Falshood 
 an orphan play and claims the credit of rescuing this remnant 
 of Shakespeare's pen from obscurity. Against those who 
 would attribute the work to his own pen, he objects that 
 they pay him a greater compliment than he deserves. In 
 his preface he says that the success the acted play met with, 
 together with the reception it found from those great judges 
 to whom he communicated the manuscripts, makes a preface 
 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, 'Hho' 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. 
 WattSf at the Printing-Office in Wild-Court near Lincolns-Inn-Fields, 
 MDCCXXVIII. 
 
THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAD'* 103 
 
 the phrase, '^in our Tongue," in the passage quoted above, 
 the second edition has ''in that other great poet" (Fletcher), 
 a substitution that leads me to believe Theobald saw signs 
 of Fletcher in the play. 
 
 Theobald's growing reputation as a Shakespearean scholar 
 carried sufficient weight to cause a certain amount of con- 
 currence in the ascription of the play to Shakespeare, though 
 some thought it belonged to Fletcher, while others gave 
 Theobald the honor. Some ten years later Pope said that 
 he never supposed it to be Theobald's, but took it to be 
 of the age of Shakespeare.^ This statement is certainly 
 contradictory to a note of his in The Dundad, 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.^ 
 
 The other was a bill against the importation or sale of any 
 book pretended to be written by a dead author : 
 
 Provided, nothing herein contained, shall be construed to preju- 
 dice L. T d. Esq; or the heir of his body, lawfully begotten, 
 
 ^ Letter to Aaron Hill, June 9, 1738. Elwin and Courthope, vol. 
 10, p. 53. 
 
 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 WiUiam Shakespeare, ahas Shakespear, 
 to any book, pamphlet, play, or poem, hereafter to be by him, 
 or them, or any other person for him, or them, written, made, or 
 devised.^ 
 
 Since its appearance the play has been attributed to several 
 authors : Farmer gave it to Shirley, Malone to Massinger, 
 and Reed was of the opinion that Theobald wrote it. Gifford, 
 however, objects to this last ascription on the ground that 
 the scholar had not sufficient ability to write it, and defends 
 the genuineness of the text because of the use of one word, 
 comparison for caparison}^ In recent years there have been 
 several 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.^^ 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. ^^ Besides the dates being directly 
 
 » Idem, No. 97, November 11, 1731. 
 
 1° 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. 
 
 1^ 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 
 quahties 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. 
 
 ^2 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.^^ 
 
 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 beheved 
 the work Shakespeare's, he certainly would have made some 
 mention of it in his edition, and he would probably have 
 drawn on it for illustrative or evidential material in his 
 notes. Nowhere does he allude to the play, and even in his 
 
 " In a recent contribution to Modem Philology (XIV, 269) Mr. 
 Walter Graham has conclusively proved that the play is based upon 
 Skelton's translation of Don Quixote. Besides reinforcing Mr. Brad- 
 ford's contention of a duaUty of authorship and bringing forth more 
 evidence tending to show that the latter part of the drama belongs 
 to Fletcher, Mr. Graham has pointed out the dissimilarity in style 
 between Double Falshood and some of Theobald's acknowledged plays. 
 He omits, however, what should not be omitted in any discussion of 
 Theobald's connection with the drama, namely, the critic's adapta- 
 tions of Richard II, 1721, and of The Duchess of Malfi {The Fatal Secret), 
 1735. 
 
106 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 correspondence with Warburton, where many of his per- 
 sonal affairs find a place, he is without exception silent on 
 the matter. As has been stated, he probably felt that 
 Fletcher was concerned in the authorship of the play, 
 though we have no evidence that he had ever heard of The 
 History of Cardenio. The whole affair is the most faint- 
 hearted undertaking with which Theobald has favored us. 
 
 On December 5, 1727, Theobald was given a royal li- 
 cense, granting him the sole right of printing and publishing 
 the play. Its first appearance on the stage was in Decem- 
 ber, when it enjoyed a considerable success, running for 
 ten nights. In July, 1728, Theobald sold the copyright for 
 one hundred guineas ; ^^ the play does not seem to have 
 entered his mind again save once. 
 
 In the second edition of Double Falshood, which appeared 
 early in 1728, Theobald first gave notice of his design of 
 correcting all the plays of Shakespeare : 
 
 I am honored with so many powerful Sollicitations, pressing 
 me to the prosecution of an attempt, which I have begun with 
 some little success, of restoring Shakespeare from the numerous 
 Corruptions of his Text; that I can neither in Gratitude, nor 
 good Manners, longer resist them. I therefore think it not amiss 
 here to promise that, tho private Property should so far stand in 
 the way, as to prevent me from putting out an Edition of Shake- 
 speare, yet, some way or other, if I live, the 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 MisVs Journal, though evidently written for pub- 
 lication.^^ In introducing the letter the friend said it was 
 but a continuation of the criticisms which Theobald had be- 
 gun to give to the public. Only one other criticism had ap- 
 
 ^^ Lounsbury, The Text of Shakespeare, p. 147. 
 
 ^^ March 16, 1728. Nichols {Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, 
 p. 199) says Concanen was the friend. 
 
THE PERIOD OF ''tHE DUNCIAD " 107 
 
 peared/^ and it is possible that Theobald was intending to 
 print his corrections of all Shakespeare's plays in periodicals. 
 
 This letter contained three of Theobald's emendations 
 and one explanation. In Coriolanus, Act. I, Sc. 4, he changes 
 Calvus to Cato^s; in Timon, Act. II, Sc. 1, "And have the 
 dates in. Come" to "And have the dates in compt"; 
 and in the Tempest, Act IV, Sc. 1, "a third of my own 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. ^^ It is merely one evidence of the extent to which 
 Theobald was reading the literature to which Shakespeare 
 had access. The period between Shakespeare Restored 
 and his edition of all the plays is marked by a tremendous 
 expansion in his reading of literature which could assist in 
 correcting or illustrating the text. As regards this particular 
 passage, in one of his letters to Warburton he proves con- 
 clusively, by citing a number of details, that Shakespeare 
 depended upon this product of Wynken de Worde's press.^* 
 The ability and learning shown in these criticisms were 
 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 
 
 ^® See ante, p. 101. 
 
 ^^ See preface to his alteration of Richard II. 
 
 ^' 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 HEPI BA0OTS ; 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 retaUating with The Dunciad; 
 the delay in the publication of the "last" volume of the 
 miscellanies is attributed to the desire to have The Dunciad 
 ready for pubhcation . That such was the purpose of the Bathos 
 I have no doubt, but I am incHned 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}^ The majority of 
 
 " 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." 
 
THE PERIOD OF *'tHE DUNCIAD " 109 
 
 the selections are drawn from the poems of Sir Richard 
 Blackmore and Ambrose Phihps, 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.^^ The 
 only other authors to receive the honor of a double entry 
 were Charles Gildon, William Pulteney, Leonard Welsted, 
 and WilHam Broome, but the initials of nearly twenty 
 men were given once. This example of literary mud- 
 sHnging could have had but one purpose — to provoke the 
 infuriated victims to retaHation. 
 
 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 echpse the Luster of her Eyes, 
 Which make her all One Light." 
 
 In Chapter 12 a Une from the same act and scene is chosen as an ex- 
 ample of "The Financial Style, which consists of the most curious 
 affected, mincing metaphors, and partakes of the alamode": 
 
 "Wax, render up thy Trust: Be the Contents 
 Prosp'rous, or fatal, they are all my Due." 
 
 20 "The Swallows are authors that are eternally skimming and flut- 
 tering up and down, but all their agility is employed to catch flies. 
 L. T., W. P., Lord H." This same figure is used in Dryden's "An 
 Essay of Dramatic Poesy." 
 
 "The Eels are obscure authors, that wrapt themselves up in their 
 own mud, but are mighty nimble and pert. L. W., L. T., P. M., 
 General C." 
 
110 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 ''A Fragment of a Satire," part of which had been pubHshed 
 as early as 1723 in a miscellany of Curll's called Cythereia, 
 and is the first appearance of Pope's attack on Addison. 
 To this satire, however, the author had now added satires 
 on other men. After thrusts at Gildon and Dennis, Pope 
 turns to Theobald : 
 
 Should some more sober critics come abroad, 
 
 If wrong I smile; if right, I kiss the rod. 
 
 Pains, Reading, Study, are their just pretence 
 
 And 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.^^ 
 
 The attack on Theobald follows the lines of the attack 
 on the sciences and learning : the triviality and inconse- 
 
 21 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. 
 
Ill 
 
 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.^^ 
 After the publication of The Dunciad they were collected and 
 published with a preface ascribed by Pope to Concanen.^^ 
 According to Pope, the contributors were Concanen, Roome, 
 Theobald, Dennis, Oldmixon, James Moore-Smythe, and 
 Cooke. The first two were not mentioned in the Bathos. 
 Five notices Pope attributed to James Moore-Smythe. 
 From the large majority of the authors satirized in the 
 Profund there was no response. 
 
 The only reply that can be definitely ascribed to Theobald 
 was contained in Mist's Journal, April 27. In this letter 
 Theobald refrained from all abuse, claiming that he had 
 
 22 Text of Shakespeare, p. 207. 
 
 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. PauVs 
 MDCCXXVIII. 
 
112 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 always treated Pope with deference and respect, yet because 
 he had set Shakespeare right, he was subjected to personal 
 attacks, which he did not intend to answer. He then pro- 
 ceeded to justify, in a most thorough and convincing manner, 
 the three passages from Double Falshood by quoting re- 
 markably analogous passages from Seneca, Plautus, Terence, 
 and Ovid. Nor did he confine himself to the classics, but 
 made Romeo and Juliet, A Winter^s Tale, and Hamlet furnish 
 precedents for his lines. One verse which struck Pope as 
 being extremely ridiculous, and which, slightly changed, 
 found a place in The Dunciad,^ 
 
 None but thyself can be thy Parallel. 
 
 he showed to be 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.^^ He also gave 
 
 2^ 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 Dunciad are to Lawton GilUver'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)." 
 
THE PERIOD OF ''tHE DUNCIAD " 113 
 
 notice that he intended to pubHsh 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 Misfs Journal, March 30, 1728,^^ 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 he contained 
 in this article. 2^ Indeed, he had plausible reasons for think- 
 ing the work Theobald's. The author corrected a mis- 
 translation in the first book of the Odyssey, a book translated 
 by Theobald. His opinion of Pope's edition of Shakespeare 
 
 ^ In the "Testimonies of Authors," prefixed to The 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. 
 
 " Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, p. 223. 
 
114 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 tallies closely with that expressed by the critic, the preface 
 especially being ridiculed. He strongly resents the passage 
 in ''A Fragment of a Satire" referring to Theobald; two 
 phrases, ''how the devil it got there" and "wrapt round and 
 sanctified with" are turned against Pope. In giving the 
 names Pope bestowed on authors he mentions Word-catchers 
 Routers of Triplets, Restorers of ed, Things, Creatures, 
 Wretches, Ribalds, and Scoundrel.^^ All these were 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.2^ 
 
 Pope was evidently satisfied with the rather poor results 
 of the provocative treatise on the Bathos, for on May 18, 
 1728, appeared The Dunciad.^^ Uncertain about the success 
 of the work. Pope so worded the title-page as to make it 
 appear that the poem was the product of Ireland. Nor 
 was he unsuccessful in this purpose, though his caution was 
 unnecessary.^^ In "The 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 of 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. 
 
 2° The Dundad 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. 
 
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 Mears, whose only fault was 
 publishing Theobald's works.^^ 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 rephes 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. Haywood, 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 
 
 suflSciently 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 Prelimmaries to the Dundad, which 
 
 33 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 Dundad of a miscellany 
 that appeared soon after the satire,^^ 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 Dundad were Sawney, An Heroic Poem. Occasioned 
 by the Dundad and Durgen, or a Plain Satyr upon a Pompous 
 Satyrist. James Ralph, the author of the first, was not 
 
 ** 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 pubhcation 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 Restor'd very luckily relieves me, and, in grati- 
 tude, I think myseff obUg'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 MisVs 
 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.^^ 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! 
 
119 
 
 sisted this same year, after speaking of the latter as Shake- 
 speare's friend, says the critic's part is not to abuse but to 
 convince.^^ A few years later, Giles Jacob in his The Mir- 
 rour: or, Letters Satyrical, Panegyrical Serious, and Humor- 
 ous, 1733, addressed one of the letters, on the encourage- 
 ment given to learned and ingenious men, to Theobald. 
 
 The general attitude of that part of the literary world 
 who had escaped the satire and were competent to judge 
 Theobald's 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 Cri tick's Ivy crowns his subtle brow. 
 While in Pope's Numbers, Wit and Music flow. 
 
 These Bards, to Fortune will'd, were mortal Foes, 
 And all Parnassus in their Quarrel rose: 
 This the dire Cause of their contending Rage, 
 Who best could blanch dark Shakespear's blotted Page. 
 Apollo heard — and judg'd each Party's Plea, 
 And thus pronounced th' irrevocable Decree; 
 Theobald, 'tis thine to share what Shakespeare writ, 
 But Pope shall reign supreme in Poesy and Wit."^^ 
 
 It is well to note that an unconcerned observer attributed 
 the quarrel to Shakespeare Restored. 
 
 36 The Battle of the Poets, revised edition, 1728, p. 32. 
 
 ^ This was printed in A New Miscellany, London, printed for A. 
 Moore, 1730. It is now to be found in John Nichols, A Select Collection 
 of Poems, vol, 6, p. 7. See also Reliquiae Hearnianae, ed. P. BUss, 
 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 Misfs Journal, a Tory newspaper, represents 
 him as leaving literary pursuits and taking up party 
 writing on the side of the Tories. ^^ 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 
 
 38 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. 
 
THE PERIOD OF '^THE DUNCIAD " 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 cackHng 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. ^^ 
 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.*^ 
 
 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. ^^ At the end of the eighth volume he made a 
 
 ^ I am dependent upon Professor Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, 
 p. 311, for the content of these proposals. 
 
 *° See Appendix, p. 259. 
 
 ^1 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.'^^ At the 
 time his friends thought this promise rash, yet Pope had been 
 so generous, he could more than fulfill it. He claimed that 
 instead of Pope's accepting twenty-five of his readings, he 
 had really adopted about one hundred. '^^ After stating that 
 he had declared over and over again that no provocation 
 would lead him to lose his temper and force him to reply 
 with scurrility, he proceeded to name, negatively, five 
 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. 
 
 ^ I am dependent upon Professor Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, 
 pp. 316-321, for the contents of this letter. 
 
 *3 Professor Lounsbury shows the true number to be fifty-one. 
 
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 pubUcation until the following January. 
 To assure his subscribers he offered his manuscript for in- 
 spection at his house by any one desiring to see it. 
 
 The emendations contributed at various times to periodi- 
 cals, as well as his repeated assertions regarding the progress 
 of his Remarks, show that Theobald had spent the two years 
 since Shakespeare Restored in close study of the dramatist. 
 Yet in 1728 he found time for two other undertakings. One 
 was an edition of Wycherly's posthumous works ; *^ the 
 other was in the form of notes contributed to Cooke's trans- 
 
 ^* Posthumous Works in Prose and Verse, By William Wycherly, 1728. 
 The reputation as an editor Theobald gained from Shakespeare Re- 
 stored was responsible for Captain Shrimpton placing Wycherly's 
 papers in his hands. For Pope's false and malicious characterization 
 of this performance see Elwin and Courthope, vol. 5, p. 182. 
 
124 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 lation of Hesiod. This last represents Theobald's first 
 attempt at textual criticism in the classics. It also shows 
 the regard his friends had for his scholarship not only in 
 English but also in Latin and Greek. Even his enemies 
 admitted his scholarship."^^ Pope objected to him because 
 he was a scholar. Scholarship and scientific investigation, 
 from the time of the controversy between the ancients and 
 moderns until after Pope's death, were looked upon almost 
 as crimes by the Wits. The Phalaris controversy, the 
 Scriblerus conspiracy, the Shakespearean quarrel, and the 
 fourth book of The 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." ''^ 
 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 
 
 ^^ See " Fragment of a Satire. " 
 
 *^ 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 unhke Pope, was 
 scrupulous in giving credit for all assistance. 
 
125 
 
 a new explanation of it. The pointing in modern editions 
 is practically the same as his, and while there is still dispute 
 regarding the meaning of the passage, some of the editors 
 of Hesiod hold Theobald's view^"^ Theobald discusses and 
 defends his pointing in true Bentleian manner, supporting 
 whatever he says with numerous quotations. The other 
 note suggests an emendation, the first the Shakespearean 
 critic made in the classics and put forward as "a private 
 suspicion." ^^ There is undoubtedly much obscurity in 
 the passage, and Theobald defends his beliefs convincingly. 
 Modern editions escape the difficulty by judging the lines 
 spurious because of the presence of some non-epic forms. 
 These notes, while by no means wonderful, are entirely 
 creditable to Theobald ; any classical critic could own them 
 without a blush. 
 
 Early in the next year Theobald began his correspondence 
 with 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.^^ From this it could be in- 
 ferred that Warburton had as great a part as Theobald in 
 
 *^ See Works and Days (Paley's edition of Hesiod, 1883), 1. 145. 
 In a note discussing the passage, Paley says it is difficult to determine 
 the meaning, and gives an explanation of the German editor, Goettling, 
 which is the same as Theobald's. 
 
 48 ^Torks and Days (Paley's edition), 1. 261 : Sfjfxos aTa0a\Las. Theobald 
 would change drj/xos to ttjijlos. See Paley's note on this and the fol- 
 lowing lines. 
 
 ^3 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 
 Dunciad again loomed up on the horizon. In the letter 
 mentioned above Theobald writes, 
 
 You will hear, I doubt not, by our friend Concanen, that the Par- 
 nassian war is like to break out fiercely again. The Dunciad is 
 pompously re-printed in quarto, and the publication of it every 
 day expected. 
 
 The next month The Dunciad Variorum made its appear- 
 ance.^^ Some knowledge of its contents may be gained 
 from the description given in the advertisement below. 
 Never had an English work been issued into the world with 
 all the elaborate 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. ^^ 
 
 60 "This day is published, in a beautiful Letter in 4to, a complete 
 and correct Edition of the Dunciad: with the Prolegomena, 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 GilUver, 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. 
 
 " See note on Bk. II, 1. 134. As stated before all references are 
 to the second edition, octavo, of Lawton GUHver. 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 con- 
 cerning his opponents while composing the poem, as well 
 as material drawn from works published after its appearance, 
 but it is often given in a distorted and false form. It is 
 well to notice a few of these misrepresentations of Theobald. 
 In the single note giving his life there are no less than five.^^ 
 He speaks of Theobald praising his own productions in anony- 
 mous letters to Mist's Journal, for which statement there 
 is no foundation. He makes Theobald the author of a 
 communication to the same journal, June 8, 1728, which 
 
 For discussions of the various editions of 1728 and 1729 see Lounsl)ury, 
 Text of Shakespeare, Chaps. 12 and 13, and Notes and Queries, 1854, 
 Vol. 2, pp. 69, 108, 129, 148, 238, 277. 
 62 Bk. I, 1. 106. 
 
128 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 claimed there was no flaw in Shakespeare Restored; but the 
 satirist has nothing upon which to base his assertion. He re- 
 peats the accusation made at the end of his second edition 
 of Shakespeare that Theobald concealed his design on the 
 dramatist until after Pope's edition. He adds, however, that 
 satisfaction had been promised to those who would assist 
 him. To make matters worse, according to his account, 
 Theobald at that time was 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. ^^ 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. ^^ 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 Dunciad number only two.^^ 
 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.^® It was not even included in the list of 
 
 ^^ There is a passage in Shakespeare Restored (see supra, p. 132) 
 that might be interpreted as suggesting that Pope joined with the 
 bookseller in raising a subscription. 
 
 " See ante, p. 113. 
 
 " Note on Bk. I, 1. 164. 
 
 ^ "What is still in memory is a piece now almost two years old; 
 t had the title of Shakespeare Restored^ Note on 1. 106, Bk. I. 
 
THE PERIOD OF '^THE DUNCIAD " 129 
 
 productions written against Pope, which was inserted in the 
 ''Appendix." Professor Lounsbury notes that the word 
 "Book" which began the poem in the first edition of 1728 
 was speedily changed to the plural." In the poem proper 
 references to the work are conspicuous by their absence. 
 The following passage contains the only allusion. 
 
 *' There, thy good Scholiasts with unweary'd pains 
 Make Horace flat, and humble 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 itseK all o'er."^ 
 
 In the notes the allusions are more numerous but still in- 
 frequent. They are generally to some phrase or sentiment 
 expressed in Shakespeare Restored, but no hint is given in 
 the note as to the source of the allusion. ^^ 
 
 Most of the satire in the poem hinges on Theobald's other 
 
 " Text of Shakespeare, p. 290. 
 
 68 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. 
 
 6^ Bk. Ill, 1. 272. Anadyplosis {Shakespeare Restored, p. 13); 
 Bk. n, 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.^^ 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 
 
 ^° "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." 
 
THE PERIOD OF '^THE DUNCIAD " 131 
 
 directed against Bentley.^^ Pope also gives burlesque 
 corrections of Double Falshood to mock Theobald's emenda- 
 tions on Shakespeare,^^ 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." ^^ In Pope's mind a bad 
 writer must have been one who wrote against him. The 
 moral idea was an afterthought, for which his rising reputa- 
 tion for virtue secured wide credence.^^ 
 
 Pope never openly admitted that Theobald was made 
 hero of The Dunciad in revenge for Shakespeare Restored. 
 
 " See ante, Chap. II, p. 57. 
 
 «2 Note on Bk. Ill, 1. 272. 
 
 «3 Note on Bk. Ill, 1. 146. 
 
 ^ See Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 283 ff. 
 
132 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 Indeed, he tried to hide the real reason under a number of 
 j&ctitious ones. In the preface to the first edition he face- 
 tiously remarked that he gave his hero the name Theobald, 
 which just happened to be that of a real person. In the 
 edition of 1729 he gave a variety of reasons. First, he had 
 to have for his hero a man who was a party-writer, dull poet, 
 and wild critic; he found Theobald to be such.^^ Later 
 the unfortunate man is the hero because there was no better 
 to be had.^^ But that which Pope characterized as the real 
 reason is the charges contained in the note giving Theobald's 
 life, charges that are practically baseless.^^ 
 
 Pope had some grounds for feeling incensed at his adver- 
 sary. A book whose title-page proclaimed it to be *'A 
 Specimen of the many Errors, as well committed, as un- 
 amended by Mr. Pope" could hardly find favor in his eyes. 
 And in the body of the work there are passages such as the 
 following that would have disturbed a far less sensitive 
 man than he: 
 
 There are many Passages of such intolerable Carelessness inter- 
 spersed thro' all the six Volumes, that were not a few of Mr. Pope's 
 Notes scatter'd here and there too, I should be induced to believe 
 that the Words of the First Volume, . . . COLLATED 
 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 publish'd under his Name, 
 yet let an Error, like the following, escape his Observation and 
 Correction.68 
 
 ^^ "Martinus Scriblerus of the Poem," p. 42. 
 
 6« Note on Bk. I, 1. 102. 
 
 «7 See ante, p. 127. 
 
 «8 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 Ufe 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 reUshed 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 Hes 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.^^ 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 
 
 ®5 For example see the account of Theobald given in Theophilus 
 Gibber's Lives of the Poets, 1753. 
 
134 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 they spread broadcast Pope's unjust characterization of the 
 critic, giving as historic fact what was half the invention of 
 the poet's mahce. In short, they accepted as truth Pope's 
 own account of The Dunciad and the dunces. The effect 
 produced by this procedure, together with the slanders 
 propagated by Warburton and supported by Johnson, was 
 to give such a permanent character to Pope's charges as to 
 make them pass current even to-day. 
 
 Theobald did not long remain silent. In a letter to The 
 Daily Journal,''^ written by him for publication though 
 communicated by another, he says he will be silent under 
 the slander of Pope's wit, but not of his 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 troubhng 
 the public with his defense, but as his sUght 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," 
 
 ^" April 17, 1729. Printed in Nichols, Illustrations of Literature^ 
 vol. 2, p. 220. 
 
THE PERIOD OF '*THE DUNCIAD " 135 
 
 *'germins/' and *' element," '^he gives the correct definition. 
 Then he gives several emendations, concerning the majority 
 of which there is now little doubt.^^ 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. '^^ But in 1729 Savage came under his dominion 
 and worked most assiduously as his tool and informer.'^* 
 The first result of his labors was ''An Author to Let," which 
 is in the form of a proposal from Iscariot Hackney (Roome) 
 to the members of the "Society of the Bathos." In its 
 heaps of scandal and slander the author can find no grounds 
 to attack Theobald but that of word-catching. Savage 
 speaks of having found the ''dunces" at Ship Tavern, 
 Charing Cross, bellowing against the indecencies of The 
 Dunciad. Among these he includes Mrs. Haywood, James 
 Moore-Smythe, Theobald, Welsted, Cooke, Bezaleel Morris, 
 Concanen, and Roome, a group of writers who later were 
 
 71 Much Ado, Act. Ill, Sc. 5, King Lear, Act. I, Sc. 2; Henry VIII, 
 
 Act. I, Sc. 1. 
 
 '2 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." 
 
 '3 Thomas Hearne says Pope was much blamed for his barbarous 
 
 treatment of Theobald. Reliquiae Hearnianae, 1869, vol. 3, p. 137. 
 '•* We find Savage's name, as well as that of Mallet, in the list of 
 
 subscribers prefixed to Cooke's Hesiod. 
 
136 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 called the Concanen Club. In the appendix to The Dundad, 
 Pope speaks of a club composed of Theobald, Dennis, Moore, 
 Concanen, Cooke, who held weekly meetings to write against 
 him. There is little truth in the statement. There was 
 undoubtedly a literary group, to whom Concanen had in- 
 troduced Theobald and Warburton in the latter half of the 
 year 1726. Later Theobald contributed assistance to the 
 literary endeavors of some of the members.^^ This group 
 was largely represented in The Dunciad; thus there is little 
 doubt that the satire and its author made up much of its 
 conversation, and caused them to be joined together more 
 closely for a common cause. Later Theobald speaks of a 
 poem of Welsted as '^our ware." ^^ They did not hold these 
 meetings, however, to abuse Pope, for they had held them 
 before, yet the poet must have been the center of interest 
 with them after The Dunciad. 
 
 The title-page of Savage's pamphlet reads "Number 1. 
 To be continued." For some reason, however, the project 
 was dropped. It may be that the death of Roome, who is 
 represented as the author, near the close of the year caused 
 a change in plan. The next year The Grub-street Journal 
 took up the work along the same lines. This was a weekly 
 periodical which ran from the beginning of 1730 to the end 
 of 1737. It was first under the editorship of John Martyn, 
 a botanist, and Russel, a nonjuring clergyman, but Pope 
 was the moving spirit and furnished many of its contri- 
 butions.'^^ His enemies are attacked ; he and his friends are 
 handsomely praised. The former are known as '^Theo- 
 baldians," ''Grubeans," "Knights of the Batho3," while 
 
 ■^5 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. 
 
 '' See Appendix, p. 295. 
 
 '^ Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, Chap. XIX. 
 
THE PERIOD OF *'tHE DUNCIAD" 137 
 
 the latter are termed **Popeans" and ''Parnassians." The 
 periodical gives the weekly proceedings of a fictitious Grubean 
 society. Its verses, epigrams, and essays ridicule learning, 
 antiquarianism, sciences, and particularly medicine, in fact, 
 everything that would now be listed under scholarship or 
 science.'^^ While Theobald receives frequent notices, Smythe 
 at first is the main butt of its satire, but after Gibber became 
 laureate, he takes Smythe's place. The attacks on Theo- 
 bald follow the lines laid down by The Dunciad: his pan- 
 tomimes, translations, and critical method are ridiculed. 
 In this last he divides honors with Bentley, whose pro- 
 pensities are frequently noticed. '^^ 
 
 In 1730 Edward Young came to the poet's assistance with 
 Two Epistles to Mr. Pope, Concerning the Authors of the Age, 
 but spends most of his ammunition against Welsted and 
 Smythe. The following year the Reverend James Miller 
 sought the poet's favor with Harlequin-Horace or the Art 
 of Modern Poetry. This is a general attack on Pantomimes, 
 and Theobald, being the foremost creator of the serious 
 parts, comes in for his share of abuse. One naturally looks 
 for some word from Swift. At the beginning of the cen- 
 tury he had plenty to say about Bentley, and according 
 to Pope he saved The Dunciad. In Verses on the Death 
 of Dr. Swift, written in 1731, he sarcastically mentions 
 Theobald in the role of a reviser. In the introduction 
 to his A Complete Collection of Genteel and Ingenious 
 Conversation he touches on the critic twice. ^^ 
 
 The most persistent method of attacking Theobald and 
 lessening the regard of the public for his labors lay through 
 repeated depreciation of verbal criticism. As I tried to 
 
 '8 See the satirical article on botany in No. 23, June 11, 1730. 
 " Cf . Nos. 2, 28, 37, and 98. 
 
 *" If Dean Jonathan's Parody on the 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 
 Une shone in native brightness, a sentiment that is certainly 
 a tribute to textual criticism as well as to the poet. But 
 by March of the next year he has experienced a change 
 of heart, for he has much to say against the study of texts. ^^ 
 Since Theobald's first criticisms of Shakespeare had appeared 
 in the interim, it doubtless had much to do with this sudden 
 reversal of opinion. Broome holds that while criticism — he 
 means verbal criticism by this general term — was useful 
 in earlier ages, it has outlived its usefulness : 
 
 It is ridiculous to make it the supreme business of life to repair 
 the ruins of a decay'd word, 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 
 
 *^ Preface to Poems on Several Occasions, 1727. 
 
THE PERIOD OF '^THE DUNCIAD " 139 
 
 is faithfully published, to turn our thoughts from the words to the 
 sentiments, and make them more easy and intelUgible. A skill 
 in verbal criticism is in reality but a skill in guessing, and con- 
 sequently he is the best critic who guesses best: A mighty at- 
 tainment ! And yet with what pomp is a trivial alteration usher' d 
 into the world? ^"^ 
 
 It is strange that Broome could not see that Theobald, 
 unlike Pope, sought to separate conjecture from guess work, 
 and to establish it upon reason and authority. 
 
 The following year Pope joined in the fray. In ''A Frag- 
 ment of a Satire " he stigmatizes Theobald's work as the 
 trivial pursuit of wrong-headed industry. Then in The 
 Dunciad there are frequent slurs at his scholarship and 
 several general attacks on verbal criticism. In the third 
 book are found these Knes, 
 
 "There, dim in clouds, the poreing Schohasts 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 hues 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. 
 
 «3 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. ^^ 
 
 The poet and his associates carried on the attack in The 
 Gruh-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 
 
 8* 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 aJOarm 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 Unes 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 Uke- 
 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. ^^ He 
 introduced Bentley into his Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot; and 
 had the second book of his Essay on Man made its appear- 
 ance, the classical scholar doubtless would have figured, 
 among scientists and virtuosos, as the greatest example 
 of the misapplication of learning to a useless science.^ 
 Such a position he holds in the fourth book of The 
 Dunciad. 
 
 By 1731 the feeling against criticism of this sort reached 
 such a height as to cause one scholar to contemplate writing 
 a pamphlet in its defense. ^^ This was Jortin, a man of 
 high character and true scholarly instincts. Though he 
 gave up the idea of his pamphlet, he has something to say 
 about the matter. ^^ After remarking that critical learning 
 has met with both humorous and serious adversaries, he 
 defends it in somewhat the same manner as Thirlby : 
 
 They who say that critical learning is trifling and useless, talk 
 at random. Every unprejudiced person must allow that there 
 are as many triflers in all other parts of learning as in this, and 
 that criticism deserves to be reckoned among those studies which 
 please and instruct. It does not indeed tend to make a man 
 better and more virtuous, and therefore falls infinitely short of 
 Ethics. It is not very beneficial to the commonwealth, and there- 
 fore by my consent, may be placed beneath those studies, which 
 tend to encrease the wealth and strength of a nation. It does not 
 make bread cheaper, as Malherbe, though a poet, used to say of 
 
 86 Chap. IX. 
 
 8« Ruffhead, Life of Alexander Pope, 1769, pp. 267, 269. 
 
 8' 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 httle 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." ^^ 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.^^ 
 
 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. ^^ 
 Such a one was A Review of the Text of Milton's Paradise 
 Lost, 1732, written by Zachary Pearce, a scholar of some 
 reputation. In his preface he says. 
 
 Dr. Bentley is deservedly distinguish'd for his superior Talents 
 in Critical knowledge; they are owned by the unanimous Consent 
 of the Learned World, and have gain'd him a Reputation which is 
 real and substantial: but this will be understood with the Excep- 
 tion to what he has done on Milton's Poem : In which tho' he has 
 given us some useful and judicious Remarks, yet at the same time 
 he has made many Emendations, which may justly be called in 
 question. 
 
 Though the unlearned might make free with Bentley's 
 name, scholars were coming to feel more reverence and 
 fear toward the great critic. Yet the desire to emend 
 Milton seized even the critics of Bentley's edition. Pearce 
 opposes Bentley's emendations and then gives some cor- 
 rections of his own. 
 
 ^^ Francis Peck held that "as there are a great number of fine notes 
 in the edition, there is no man who reads what the Doctor says, but, 
 I fancy, will often agree with him." New Memoirs of . . . Milton, 
 1740, p. 211. 
 
144 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 Theobald did exactly the same things. He very emphati- 
 cally resented Bentley's new departure. Before its ap- 
 pearance he had deprecated the great scholar undertaking 
 a work wherein the ladies and children were prepared to 
 laugh at him. After he had examined the notes, he gave 
 Warburton his estimate of the production : 
 
 You want my opinion you say on Dr. 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 mahciously 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 distinguished. 
 
 So ridiculous appeared the notes to the EngUsh scholar that 
 he entertained fears lest they were written to ridicule the 
 art. Well might he fear such, for if the great classical scholar 
 made such an appearance in an English author, what would 
 be the value placed upon his own work. Furthermore this 
 edition strengthened the growing tendency to associate 
 Theobald with Bentley. Though there was some pleasure 
 in being joined with so great a man, the Milton could not 
 but cast a bad 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. ^^ 
 
 While condemning so heartily Bentley's notes, he did not 
 disdain in the privacy of the same letter to give an emenda- 
 
 ^ See Appendix, p. 299. 
 
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 imtil the subscription for the new edition of Shake- 
 speare had been closed. The satire was addressed to Pope, 
 though the author asserted that it had been written without 
 his knowledge.^^ 
 
 While the title would suggest a general satire on the science, 
 the attacks are made almost entirely against the two critics 
 mentioned in the advertisement. Later versions of the 
 satire tend to give Bentley a more prominent place. The 
 poem is a miserable production, most of the charges being 
 taken from *' A Fragment of Satire " and The Dunciad. The 
 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 
 ^' See Lonnsbury, 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. ^^ 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.^^ 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.^^ 
 
 3* See the notes to his translation of Plutus, and Amelia, Book X, 
 Chap. 1. 
 
 ^^ See Preface to his Three Dissertations, 1740, and Observations 
 upon Liberal Education, 1742. This last work is remarkable in that 
 it upholds the study of English grammar and composition against 
 Latin and Greek. 
 
 3® Museum Criticum, vol. 1, p. 489. 
 
147 
 
 But in spite of the slanders of Pope and the attacks of 
 his flatterers, Theobald's reputation did not wane. Pro- 
 fessor Lounsbury has shown that by no means all the 
 ''Dunces" were dunces, and that instead of being annihilated 
 by the satire, they were spurred to greater activity. ^^ This 
 was essentially true of Theobald. The man who continued 
 to enjoy the ardent assistance of Lady Delawar, the favor 
 of Sir Robert Walpole, and the liberal patronage of Lord 
 Orrery could hardly have been acclaimed a dunce. Theo- 
 bald's persistence with his edition of Shakespeare, the 
 encouragement he received, and the success of the work 
 can point only to one conclusion. But striking evidence of 
 the 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.^^ 
 
 Theobald's purpose in seeking the position was to get a 
 competence that would permit him to pursue his work on 
 Shakespeare unhampered by financial cares. After his 
 disappointment he asked Warburton whether he should 
 spend any more time levee hunting. ^^ But though he failed 
 in his object, his efforts were not altogether fruitless. The 
 
 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 nobiUty, 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.^^^ 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 
 
 ^"o See Mist's Journal, June 22, 1728; Daily Journal, November, 
 26, 1728; and Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 248, 618, 
 and 621. 
 
THE PERIOD OF ''tHE DUNCIAD" 149 
 
 Works; and humbly addressed to him. In this, I have determined 
 not to confine myseK to his Shakespeare, but to some Criticisms 
 that he has made, and some that he might have made upon Homer.^°^ 
 
 He then proposed an emendation on Eustathius. War- 
 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 unwilUngness 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. ^*^2 The following month 
 appeared A Miscellany on Taste, written to satirize Pope's 
 taste in various fields, and containing among other things 
 Theobald's letter to The Daily Journal of April 17, 1729, 
 introduced to show Pope's taste in Shakespeare. ^^^ It is 
 
 ^"1 See Letters dated March 10, March 17, March 26, 1730. Nichols, 
 Illustrations of Literature, pp. 551, 565, 581. 
 
 ^^ 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 .^^"^ 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.^"^ 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.^°® About the middle of 1730 he was 
 
 ^^ Letter to Warburton, January 8, 1732. Appendix C. 
 105 Letter to Warburton, March 21, 1732. Appendix C. 
 ^^ See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 597. 
 
THE PERIOD OF ''tHE DUNCIAD " 151 
 
 incapacitated for a month because of a broken arm, an 
 accident all the more unfortunate in that it caused him to 
 miss seeing Lady Delawar, who at that time was arranging 
 terms with Tonson. 
 
 While preparing his edition of Shakespeare Theobald 
 was also writing for the stage. In November, 1729, and 
 January, 1730, he speaks of theatrical affairs interfering 
 with his critical labors.^^^ He was then hard at work upon 
 his Orestes,^^^ for in a letter of February 10, 1730, he notifies 
 Warburton ''that Orestes is now upon a Rehearsal; and 
 that my whole present time from morning to night, is em- 
 ploy'd in a Copy by his Royal Highness's Command." ^°^ 
 Though styled an opera, the production is really a drama, 
 with the introduction of a few songs and dances. Theobald 
 confessed to Warburton that in the play he imitated Shake- 
 speare, especially Macbeth and Lear; it might also be noted 
 that some passages show the influence of Aeschylus. While 
 not extraordinarily successful, the play was by no means a 
 failure. 
 
 During the summer of the following year Theobald con- 
 structed another tragedy, some selections from which he 
 sent to Warburton. It must be confessed that his purpose 
 was mercenary as well as artistic : 
 
 In order to make Domestic affairs run as smoothly as may be, 
 till I can bring this greater Affair to a Crisis, I have apply'd my 
 uneasie Summer Months upon the Attempt of a Tragedy. Sit 
 Verbo venia! I have a Design upon the Ladies' Eyes, as the Pas- 
 sage to their Pockets."^ 
 
 ^07 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. 
 
 "0 Letter dated December 18, 1731. Appendix C. 
 
152 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 The play was an adaptation of The Duchess of Malfi under 
 the title The Fatal Secret,^^^ but with the names of Webster's 
 characters retained. It was booked to appear early in 1732, 
 but since Rich had fallen into difficulties, Theobald did not 
 press the matter. In a letter dated March 10, 1733, he says, 
 "I have for some Time past had the additional Fatigue of 
 bringing my Tragedy on which is to make its Appearance 
 inamediately after Easter Holidays." ^^^ 
 
 Some of Theobald's activities lay in fields that could offer 
 no financial reward. He had always been a close student 
 of the classics, and success in textual criticism in English 
 authors inspired him, as we have seen, to include the classics 
 in his field. Near the end of 1730 he writes Warburton 
 that he has gone through the whole of Aristophanes and his 
 scholiast. ^^^ The following year he contributed a number of 
 emendations on Athenaeus, Suidas, Eustathius, and Aeschy- 
 lus to Jortin's periodical Miscellaneous Observations upon 
 Authors. Most of these had previously been communicated 
 to Warburton, and will be considered in another chapter. 
 In this same periodical appeared his emendations on Shake- 
 speare's poems.^^'^ Theobald prefaced this article with an 
 account of its origin : 
 
 * "^ The Fatal Secret, a tragedy. London, 1735. 
 "2 Appendix C. 
 "' Appendix, p. 276. 
 
 ^^* 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.^" 
 
 A month later he is in even worse circumstances. 
 
 I have received the pleasure of yours, which comes fraught 
 with kindness even beyond my own Prepossessions. And it is 
 no small comfort to me to find, that if Extremity be the Test of 
 Friendship, as it has ever been reckon'd, I have one sincere and 
 cordial Friend left me in my Extremity. I think the present 
 Period of my Life may timely fall under that Denomination; for 
 however the Affair, which I am now bringing to bear may in time 
 retrieve me from Necessities; yet at present, when I should set 
 down with a Mind and Head at ease and disembarass'd, the Sever- 
 
 Stanza 90, "Hast thou command" for 
 
 "Ha'st thou commanded." 
 Stanza 152, "graft" for "grass." 
 In the Passionate Pilgrim he changes "girdle" to "kirtle," and sup- 
 ports the change by quotations from Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, 
 and Jonson. He also notices that from this poem Milton got the 
 thought and concluding turn for II Penseroso and L' Allegro. 
 115 Letter to Warburton, October 30, 1731. Appendix C. 
 
154 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 ity of a rich Creditor (and therefore the more unmercifull) has 
 strip'd me so bare, that I never was acquainted with such Wants, 
 since I knew the use of Money. But when I am labouring at so 
 much Philosophy in practice, as to persuade myself, not to feel 
 Adversity; I am angry with myself for giving my Friend a part 
 of that Pain which I am professing to get rid of in my Bosom. 
 It convinces me (tho' I wanted not the Proof) that I am in no 
 degree the Philosopher."^ 
 
 Such was the condition of the man whom Pope, ably 
 assisted by the ''rich creditor," was pursuing with a cold 
 and relentless malice. A mighty achievement and worthy 
 of the man! As for the "one sincere and cordial friend" 
 in his extremity, who was at the time enjoying a comfortable 
 living at Newark in Nottinghamshire, we are tempted to 
 forget ourselves in our indignation. This same divine a few 
 years later begrudged his friend the profits of his edition, 
 and still later joined in the chorus of detraction and false- 
 hood from which Theobald's reputation has so long suffered. 
 
 This period marks the low ebb of Theobald's affairs. Soon 
 prospects began to look brighter, owing in some degree to 
 the patronage of John Boyle, Earl of Orrery. The earl's 
 father, who had nominally been Bentley's chief opponent 
 in the famous controversy, had been Theobald's patron in 
 the past, and to him the scholar had dedicated several of 
 his early productions. In later years, however, he seems 
 to have forgotten the future critic. Soon after the earl's 
 death, his son came forward with aid. In a letter to War- 
 burton, written near the close of 1731, Theobald speaks of 
 assistance from "my good friend Lord Orrery," a phrase 
 he uses a number of times. "^ 
 
 In March the earl placed his father's letters in Theobald's 
 
 "'^ Letter to Warburton, November, 1731. Appendix C. 
 "' Letter to Warburton, December 18, 1731. Appendix C. 
 
THE PERIOD OF "tHE DUNCIAd" 155 
 
 hands to be regulated. ^^^ The late earl had been ambassador 
 at Brussels during the latter part of Queen Anne's reign, so 
 that the correspondence represented letters from many of 
 the greatest men of that time. Especially was Theobald 
 delighted with the correspondence of Bolingbroke, who did 
 not confine himself to state affairs. The time required for 
 the task detracted from Theobald's study but aided his 
 finances. A month or two later he addressed An Epistle 
 to Orrery devoted mainly to praise of the earl's father,"^ 
 which verses Theobald said his patron made golden to him.^^^ 
 The dedication of all seven volumes of the edition of Shake- 
 speare to the lord was the final form Theobald's gratitude 
 took, and for this he was handsomely rewarded. 
 
 "8 Letter to Warburton, March 21, 1732. Appendix C. 
 
 "3 See Appendix, p. 302. 
 
 "« Letter to Warburton, June 20, 1732. Appendix C. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 
 
 Theobald's edition of Shakespeare was slow in making 
 its appearance. In the spring of 1728 he had first made 
 known his purpose of pubhshing 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." ^ 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 ; ^ yet in November, 1729, 
 he speaks of Lady Delawar's assistance among the nobility, 
 and of having the honor of the king's name.^ It is more 
 probable that the success of his subscriptions encouraged 
 him to the larger undertaking, for in the same letter he says, 
 
 ^ Letter of April 15, 1729. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 
 vol. 2, p. 222. 
 
 2 Text of Shakespeare, p. 422. 
 
 ' 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.^ 
 
 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.^ 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 Arbitra tress of Termes betwixt us 
 for my publishing an edition of Shakespeare. He says, a brace 
 of hundreds shan't break Agreements. This is talking boldly; 
 and I wish heartily his name was John. I shall know the Issue 
 in about a fortnight; and so soon as known, with great pleasure 
 communicate it.® 
 
 But the summer wore on, and no agreement was made. It 
 is possible that the contract would have been closed had 
 Theobald not missed seeing Lady Delawar who had inter- 
 viewed Tonson before she left for the country.^ 
 
 In the last week of October the contract with Tonson 
 was finally signed. Out of the depths of distress and dis- 
 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. 
 
 ^ See Appendix, p. 265. 
 
 « Letter of April 25, 1730, Appendix C. 
 
 ^ 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 PubUcations 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.* 
 
 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 offer' d 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 published in 6 Vols, in 
 8vo, to have 400 Copies, compleat in Sheets, deUver'd me on a 
 Genoa paper, free from all Expence whatever; and 100 Copies 
 more on Fine Royal Paper, I only 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 reserv'd 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 
 
 « Letter of October 30, 1730. See Appendix C. 
 
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 159 
 
 with Tonson in the pubUcation, but it is evident that Theo- 
 bald's contract was with Tonson alone. 
 
 These liberal terms compare most favorably with the 
 £215 Pope received for his edition.^ The list of subscribers 
 shows that Theobald fell short of his complement by only 
 two sets, which probably were subscribed for with the under- 
 standing that the subscriber's name should not appear in print. 
 While many of Pope's friends had no aversion to seeing their 
 names in the edition, there must have been a few who feared 
 to incur the poet's wrath. It was with great difficulty that 
 Theobald wrung from the Earl of Tyrconnel a reluctant 
 consent to publish his name. For this reason it is safe to 
 infer that the editor profited to the extent of 1100 guineas. 
 When to this sum there are added the 100 guineas he received 
 from Lord Orrery for the dedication and the twenty pounds 
 from the Prince of Wales for his set, no one can complain 
 that Theobald did not receive adequate compensation. At 
 least he obtained more for his work than any other editor 
 of Shakespeare, with the barely possible exception of Johnson. 
 
 The next month Pope, reading of Tonson's contract with 
 Theobald in The Grub-street Journal, wrote in great pertur- 
 bation to the publisher regarding the truth of the notice. 
 Tonson replied that it was true, excusing himself on the 
 ground that other publishers were negotiating with Theo- 
 bald, and that the edition would be brought out regardless 
 of his part, so that it was for Pope's interest as well as his 
 own that he should be one of the publishers.^^ The poet pre- 
 
 ^ It is worth noting how eager the publishers were to undertake the 
 "Dunce's" edition. That a scholar's edition should appear more 
 profitable than a poet's is a significant fact in the history of English 
 scholarship. 
 
 ^0 This was not the motive that inspired Tonson to underrate the 
 edition. He dehberately 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.^^ 
 
 As the year 1731 drew to a close, Theobald, considering 
 his critical labors over, was at work on the preface. ^^ He 
 expected the edition to appear early in the following year,^^ 
 and Tonson had told him that already there were great 
 expectations of it.^^ By the last of December everything 
 was ready for the printer, upon whom the editor placed 
 the 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 Time was 
 unavoidably lost." 
 
 " See Lounsbury, Text of Shakespeare, pp. 241-245, 
 
 ^2 See Appendix, pp. 283, 284, and Nichols, Illustrations of Litera- 
 ture, vol. 2, p. 626. 
 
 ^3 Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 621. Warburton said 
 it would appear by March. Nichols, vol. 2, p. 13. 
 
 " See appendix, p. 290. 
 
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 161 
 
 till our printers give us experience what dispatch they can 
 make on their part." ^^ 
 
 Nothing was heard of the edition for nearly a year when 
 Theobald informed Warburton that Shakespeare was 
 groaning under two presses. ^^ In January of the next year 
 he speaks of ^'the constant Attachment to which I am 
 pinned down in the correction of Shakespeare," and later 
 adds, ''My Author goes on apace; and I hope in six weeks 
 the Presses will get through the seven Volumes." ^^ The 
 number of volumes had been increased from six to seven, 
 owing doubtless to the expansion of his notes. Two months 
 later he shows signs of impatience at the delay: ''As to 
 Shakespeare, I thank God, I am now venturing to advertise 
 that it will be ready to be deliver' d to the Subscribers by 
 the latter end of next Month." ^^ He then adds that he has 
 had the luck to enrich his "list with her Royal Highness, 
 the Princess Royal, and many Names of the highest Dis- 
 tinction." 
 
 May came and went, and still no edition. In June Theo- 
 bald gave Warburton a full explanation of the cause of the 
 delay. After explaining his lapse in the correspondence 
 on the ground that he was waiting until his edition was 
 printed, he adds. 
 
 But such has been the State of Printing with us the last Season 
 that with all the Industry and SoUicitation imaginable on my 
 
 " Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 626. The date of 
 the letter is missing, but it lies between December 18, 1731, and the 
 end of the year. 
 
 ^« Letter of September 19, 1732. Appendix C. 
 
 " Letter of January 10, 1733. Appendix C. The fourth day of 
 the following month Warburton wrote Stukely, "If you have an op- 
 portunity, pray ask Watts, by-the-by, when Theobald's Shakes- 
 peare is like to come out." Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, 
 p. 19. 
 
 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 estabhshed Presses, and render'd 
 them so very peremptory and insolent, that it has been half the 
 Work of the Printers to hawk out for Men; so that tho' I received 
 8 Sheets per Week from each Press at my setting out, that Num- 
 ber has been too often reduc'd to two. This is a Fact so well 
 known with us in Town, that as I 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.^^ 
 
 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." ^^ Later in 
 October it was promised that Shakespeare would be published 
 sometime in November.^^ Yet the year came to a close 
 without witnessing the appearance of the work. At last, 
 in January of 1734, it reached the 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 
 
 " Letter of June 30, 1733. Appendix C. 
 
 20 Letter of October 17, 1733. Appendix 0. 
 
 21 Letter of October 25, 1733. Appendix C. 
 
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 163 
 
 was due rather to the pubUshers than to the editor's own 
 desires or necessities. Tonson's unwilHngness 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 
 myseK to communicate in due time to your perusal. The whole 
 affair of Prologomena I have determined to soften into a Preface. 
 . . . But, Dear Sir, will you at your leisure hours, think over for 
 me upon the contents, topics, orders, etc., of this branch of my 
 labour? You have a comprehensive memory and a happiness of 
 digesting the matter joined to it, which my head is often too much 
 embarrassed to perform; let that be the excuse for my inabihty. 
 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 Letter of November 18, 1731. Nichols, Illustrations of Ldterature, 
 vol. 2, p. 621. This letter was among those returned to Theobald, 
 but Warburton was careful to make a transcript of it, which he placed 
 with the letters he had retained. See Appendix, p. 344. 
 
164 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 This last sentence ran counter to Warburton's desire, but 
 had he been unwiUing to proceed on these terms, he should 
 have stated his objections. 
 
 The ambitious divine, however, acquiesced so completely 
 in Theobald's proposal that the latter hastened to com- 
 municate what he had done on the preface : 
 
 I received by your Last (no. Ill) of the 22 of Nov. your kind 
 Assurances with Regard to my Preface; the contents of which 
 I am endeavouring to modell in my Head, in order to communicate 
 them to you, for your Directions & Refinement. I have already 
 rough-hewn the Exordium and Conclusion: the Latter of which 
 I now send you a Transcript of, to shew you how methodical I 
 am; and by my next, I shall submit the Opening to your Perusal. 
 I beg earnestly, Dear Sir, you will not be tender of altering, every- 
 where (except in my Acknowledgments to my Friends); I would 
 have the Whole both amuse and strike. What I shall send you 
 from Time to Time, I look upon only as Materials: which I hope 
 may grow into a fine Building under your judicious Management. 
 In short, Dirue, aedifica, muta quadrata rotundis, etc. ^^ 
 
 Since I have not been able to find Theobald's next letter, 
 it is impossible to say how much of the preface he com- 
 municated to his assistant. 
 
 Upon reading the parts communicated to him, Warburton 
 made several criticisms in which Theobald immediately 
 acquiesced. When the squeamish divine expressed a fear 
 that certain prejudices might be aroused by a clergyman 
 engaging in criticisms of this kind, his friend removed a 
 phrase about his 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.^ Fault was also found with the disconnected 
 
 23 Letter of December 4, 1731. Appendix C. 
 
 2* Cf. Preface to Warburton's edition of Shakespeare, 1747. 
 
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 165 
 
 nature of the specimens presented, to which Theobald re- 
 pHed : 
 
 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.2^ 
 
 This proposal evidently met with Warburton's approval, 
 for in his next letter Theobald says: "I intend very soon 
 to trouble you with a prosecution of the Preface." ^^ Since 
 there has been discovered no letter giving the topics to be 
 discussed, it is impossible to say just how large was War- 
 burton's contribution to the preface. 
 
 In the same letter the editor first mentioned his purpose 
 of inserting classical emendations in the preface and notes 
 to his edition of the dramatist, a procedure that has gained 
 him the charge of pedantry from his time to ours. Yet 
 even in regard to this matter he was careful to ask his friend's 
 advice, at the same time cautioning him against too ready 
 an approval, for he felt that every opportunity of decrying 
 him as a pedant would be seized. 
 
 The occasional Insertion of a few Emendations from some Greek 
 Authors, I certainly think may be of signal Service to my Repu- 
 tation: if you think they may safely be interspers'd without sus- 
 picion of Pedantry. I would not voluntarily draw that Ridicule 
 
 '* Letter of December 18, 173L Appendix C. 
 
 ^ 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 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 upon me from the Sneerers. You are anxious, Dear Sir, for every 
 Part of my Character: but do not let me, like a Fondling, be dress'd 
 up in too glaring colours. To be a little diffident, will secure 
 one from much Envy and Detraction. 
 
 In spite of the caution his friend thought they could be in- 
 serted without seeming pedantic. Not only did War- 
 burton approve, he actually encouraged the unfortunate 
 editor in following this wholly unnecessary course. ^^ 
 
 For over a year the preface does not figure in the cor- 
 respondence, but early in 1733 Theobald writes that he will 
 shortly *'sit down upon that fine Synopsis, which you so 
 modestly call the Skeleton of a Preface." ^s n [^ h^j.^ ^q 
 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 confess'd 
 Assistance towards so slight a Fabrick as my Preface." ^9 
 
 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 publicty ac- 
 knowledge that assistance. ^^ It was only an habitual lack 
 of self-confidence and a greatly exaggerated idea of his 
 friend's ability that made Theobald quick to take advantage 
 of the insinuated offer of help. As for "theft," if the accept- 
 ing what is freely given, with the mutual understanding 
 that no open acknowledgment can be made, comes under 
 that head, he is guilty. From our point of view the editor 
 should not have taken credit for what was not his, but some 
 term other than the one given above must be used to express 
 the fault. 
 
 Mr. Smith has taken some pains to show that Warburton 
 was truthful in the passages he marked, pointing out that 
 four of the thirteen can be proved his, and expressing the 
 belief that we have no reason to doubt the others. He 
 thinks Theobald confirmed the authenticity of Warburton's 
 claims by omitting in his second edition several passages 
 either claimed by Warburton or known to be his. Since 
 the editor omitted some passages that were not claimed by 
 his assistant and retained some that were, little reliance 
 can be placed upon evidence of this kind. Yet from what 
 I have learned of Theobald's nature, I think it probable 
 that, after his break with his friend, he omitted all the pass- 
 ages not his own. 
 
 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.^^ 
 
 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.^^ 
 
 31 See Appendix, p. 324. 
 
 32 Letter dated November 24, 1737. Nichols, Illustrations of Lit- 
 erature, vol. 2, p. 81. 
 
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 U 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.^^ 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,^ 
 to help his reputation. To us who five at a time when 
 scholarship in Enghsh 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. 
 ^ See ante, p. 165. 
 
170 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 The preface, though not bad, is by no means extraordinary. 
 The hfe of Shakespeare, with which it begins, is mainly from 
 Rowe's account. This is followed by a discussion of Shake- 
 speare's character as a writer, including his love of music 
 and knowledge of nature. To throw Ught 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." ^^ A 
 note in the edition reads to the same effect: 'Svhere the 
 Authority of all Books makes the Poet commit a Blunder, 
 (whose general Character it is, not to be very exact;) tis 
 the Duty of an Editor to shew him as he is and to detect 
 all fraudulent tampering to make him better." ^^ It was 
 
 ^ Letter of April 8, 1729. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 
 vol. 2, p. 210. 3fi Vol. 4, p. 112. 
 
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 171 
 
 this conscientious scruple that made him restore to their 
 proper places the passages Pope had degraded. Since few 
 men are as good as their creed, it is not surprising to find 
 Theobald departing at times from this high standard, yet 
 the spirit of such a conviction is seen throughout the whole 
 work. 
 
 He also realized that it was incumbent upon an editor 
 to be thorough in whatever he undertook. In his intended 
 essay on Pope's judgment, he rebuked the poet's own hap- 
 hazard methods with the assurance that *'we word-catchers. 
 Sir, are a strange species of animals that love to go thorough- 
 stitch with everything we take in hand." ^^ Against Pope's 
 strictures about his restoring lost puns, he dauntlessly 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." ^^ 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 difl&cult 
 ones ; and an inquiry into the beauties and defects of com- 
 position. This last, more strictly termed ''literary criticism," 
 he hinted, did not necessarily belong to an editor, and since 
 it required no special qualifications of learning, was open 
 to all who were willing. What Theobald was concerned 
 with — what every editor is primarily pledged to — was to 
 give the best text possible illuminated with all necessary 
 explanations. By emendation he meant not only correcting 
 
 ''' Nichols, Illustrations of Literaiure, vol. 2, p. 554. 
 " 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.^^ 
 
 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 'Hhat Great Man" was more concerned in 
 showing how Milton should have written than how he did 
 write, the most plausible excuse possible, but still absurd. 
 
 Since the method was drawn from the classics, a model 
 had to be derived from the same source. As would be 
 expected, the editor turns to the man from whom he had 
 learned so much. ''I mean to follow the form of Bentley's 
 Amsterdam Horace in subjoining the notes to the place 
 controverted." ^^ This plan became the standard for 
 eighteenth-century editions. 
 
 But it was not in form only that Theobald followed the 
 Horace. In a previous chapter it has already been shown 
 how in the critical doubt, the emendation, and the conjectural 
 criticism he adopts the same attitude and employs the same 
 method as the more illustrious critic. It has also been shown 
 how in conjecture and explanation he marshals his evidence 
 
 '^ Preface, p. xxxix. 
 
 *° Letter to Warburton, November 18, 1731. Nichols, Illustrations 
 of Literature, vol. 2, p. 621. 
 
174 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 with the same logic and thoroughness. Yet one difference 
 was pointed out. Bentley had command over the whole 
 range of classical literature ; whether defending an emenda- 
 tion, settling an historical fact, establishing a 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^^ 
 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. 
 
 *^ See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 205, 256. Also 
 compare pp. 358 and 518, 517 and 527. 
 
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 175 
 
 Though this statement is a palpable exaggeration — a 
 fault to which Theobald was inclined — yet there was some 
 basis for it.^^ His notes prove him familiar with the works 
 of Marlowe, Kyd, Jonson, Chapman, Heywood, Dekker, 
 Marston, Webster, Ford, Beaumont and Fletcher, and 
 Massinger, to say nothing of the number of anonymous 
 plays he has occasion to mention. Particularly numerous 
 are his references to the many plays of Jonson and Beau- 
 mont and Fletcher. 
 
 Moreover, he was a diligent reader of a different species 
 of Hterature. 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 
 
 *2 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 Sjonpson, 1750, where 
 in "An Account of the Present Edition" Seward speaks of Theobald's 
 valuable collection of quartos. 
 
176 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 classic story he must have read Plutarch in the original.*^ 
 Later he discovered his mistakes in reading Wynken de 
 Worde's Troy story and North's Plutarch. He even took the 
 field against Gildon and Pope, who produced the Comedy 
 of Errors as proof of Shakespeare's Latin, and called atten- 
 tion to the fact that a translation of the Menaechmi was 
 extant in the poet's time."^ These discoveries, and in a 
 small degree Warburton's influence, forced him to the 
 conclusion that Shakespeare went to translations rather than 
 to the classics themselves.'*^ Still he was not sufficiently 
 shaken from his old 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. 
 
 ^3 See preface to his alteration of Richard II, 1721. 
 
 ** Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 3, p. 4. 
 
 *^ Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 565. 
 
THE EDITION OF 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. ^^ 
 
 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 
 
 *^ J. C. Collins, Studies and Essays, p. 279. 
 
 *' "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 Heyhn's Cosmography, 
 where the adjective is used in reference to the hags. Still 
 this was not conj&rmation 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 
 'Ho 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.^^ The last pages of the dis- 
 
 *8 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.*^ 
 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, ^^ 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. ^^ Nor did satire suffice, for Boyle's maHce went 
 so far as to deal in misquotation and false statements, 
 though hardly to the degree reached by Pope.^^ 
 
 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. ^^ This 
 fact is seen in their readiness to admit an error in a statement 
 or in a conjecture when shown to be wrong. ^ This dislike 
 
 49 Dyce, vol. 2, pp. 173-181. 
 
 ^° I refer to all the authors of the Examination under the name of 
 Boyle. 
 
 ^1 Dyce, vol. 1, pp. hii-lviii, Ixix, 84, 325. 
 
 62 Idem, vol. 1, pp. 163, 168, 218, 266, 270, 364, 367. 
 
 63 See Dyce, vol. 1, p. Ixix, and preface to Shakespeare, p. xlix. 
 
 " "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, ^^ and made them insistent on the 
 production of authority and proof for any conclusion or 
 conjecture. ^^ 
 
 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. ^^ 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 
 Dundad. 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 
 profess' d to have undertaken for the restoration of Shakespeare, if I 
 should be asham'd to own myself mistaken, and retract the error." 
 
 ^^ 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. 
 
 ^ See Dyce, vol. 1, pp. 54, 117, and preface to Shakespeare, pp. xl, 
 xliii. 
 
 ^7 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 Warbiu-ton'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. ^^ 
 
 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. ^^ 
 
 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- 
 
 ^8 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. 
 
 5^ 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.^^ 
 
 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. ^^ In a large number of places he restored stage 
 directions, gave lines to their proper speakers, and in four 
 
 8° 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 restored 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.^2 His changes in punctuation are innumerable, 
 ranging from the most trifling alteration to corrections that 
 restore meaning to unintelhgible 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.^^ 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.^^ 
 
 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. 
 
 ^2 Love's Labor's Lost, The Taming of the Shrew, King John, and 
 King Henry V. 
 
 *' Introduction, p. vi. 
 
 ^ 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 diUgent 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.^^ 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.^^ 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.^'' 
 The tragedy Macbeth was placed after Queen Ehzabeth'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.^^ 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.^^ 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 
 
 ^^ Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 5, p. 303. 
 
 ^® Idem. vol. 4, p. 19. 
 
 " Idem, vol. 7, p. 393. 
 
 68 Idem, vol. 5, pp. 39 and 443. 
 
 6^ Idem, Preface, p. x. 
 
 '0 Idem, vol. 1, p. 235. Also see Appendix C, p. 282. 
 
186 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 honour' d it with a Number of Master-Touches, so peculiar 
 to himself, that a knowing Reader may with Ease and 
 Certainty distinguish the Traces of his Pencil." ^^ In another 
 place he says, ''some Part of it is certainly of his [Shake- 
 speare's] writing." '^ Theobald was too timid to defy the 
 precedent set by Pope in rejecting the tragedy, yet it seems 
 probable that at one time he was considering its inclusion 
 in his edition.^3 Theobald also declared his behef in Shake- 
 speare's part-authorship of another play in which many 
 scholars to-day see evidences of the great dramatist, The 
 Two Noble Kinsmen, which he called Fletcher's, though he 
 was of the opinion that in the writing of the play "Shake- 
 speare assisted ; and indeed his workmanship is very dis- 
 coverable in a number of places." "^^ 
 
 Of some of the plays included in Pope's and his own edi- 
 tions he denied Shakespeare complete authorship. His 
 opinion of Titus Andronicus was, indeed, very low.^^ He 
 inclined to the theory that there was an old play by that 
 name, which Shakespeare retouched. For proof he cited 
 a passage in the introduction of Bartholomew Fair, 1614, 
 where Jonson speaks of an Andronicus of about thirty years 
 of age."^^ Pointing out a number of Shakespeare's historical 
 mistakes in the three parts of Henry VI, he maintained that 
 the dramas were brought to Shakespeare and merely re- 
 touched by him." Nor was Theobald guided by external 
 evidence alone ; he did not hesitate to apply aesthetic tests. 
 
 ^1 Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 2, p. 490. 
 
 72 Idem, vol. 4, p. 20. 
 
 '3 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. 
 
 7* Idem, vol. 2, p. 623. 
 
 " Idem, vol. 2, p. 512. 
 
 " Idem, vol. 5, p. 307. 
 
 " Idem, vol. 4, p. 109. 
 
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 187 
 
 He says the diction of Andronicus is beneath that of the 
 three parts of Henry VI, which he says is "more obsolete, and 
 the Numbers more mean and prosaical, than in the Generahty 
 of his genuine Compositions." 
 
 Little fault can be found with these opinions. Had 
 Theobald's life been less fraught with adversities, and had 
 he received more encouragement in this field of investigation, 
 perhaps he would have established his opinions on firmer 
 grounds. Double Falshood was the only play the author- 
 ship of which he ever intended to settle. From this task 
 he was deterred, so he says, by the town's accepting the 
 play as Shakespeare's. The more probable reason, however, 
 was that, with his keen sensitiveness to Shakespeare's style, 
 he could discover no traces of the dramatist. 
 
 However, Theobald's main contribution, after his work 
 on the text, to the wide field of Shakespearean research 
 lies in his discovery of sources. In the preface he speaks 
 of having read over the chronicles of Hall and Holinshed, 
 as well as the Italian stories and those hves of Plutarch 
 upon which some of the plays were founded. He was the 
 first to discover how closely Shakespeare followed Holin- 
 shed.'^^ He also was the first to point out Whetstone's 
 Promus and Cassandra as the source of Measure for Measure, 
 at the same time asserting that he could prove his point, 
 but, as was too often the case, he left his task unfinished.'^ 
 He discovered a copy of the old Leir,^^ and designated the 
 Historia Danica of Saxo Grammaticus as the original source 
 of the Hamlet story. Early in the preparation of his edition 
 
 ^8 See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 398. 
 
 ^^ Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 1, p. 398. See also Appendix, 
 p. 281. The age had placed such a great value upon textual criticism 
 that research in other fields was considered much less important than 
 it deserved. Only in the latter half of the century were such questions 
 investigated. 
 
 8° 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. ^^ 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 
 Gamely n for the story of ^s You Like It. There is no evidence 
 how he came by this knowledge. The casual and allusive manner 
 in which he advances his information would seem to show that 
 it was not of his own getting. ^^ 
 
 Mr. Smith thinks the informant might have been Farmer. 
 About the only correct detail in the above quotation is the 
 suspicion that Johnson's knowledge was second-hand, as 
 will be shown. 
 
 There is plenty of evidence how Boswell's hero came by 
 his information: 'Hhe 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." ^ 
 In a note on Timon's epitaph Theobald says, 
 
 " Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol, 2, p. 611. 
 *2 D. N. Smith, op. cit., p. xxv. 
 
 83 A Review of Doctor Johnson's New Edition of Shakespeare by W, 
 Kenrick, 1765. 
 
THE EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE 189 
 
 I once imagined 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.^"* 
 
 In the very first note on the very first page of volume three, 
 Theobald remarks that 'Hhe Menaechmi of Plautus was 
 translated in English, (which our Cri ticks might have known 
 from Langbaine,) and printed in Quarto in the year 1515, 
 half a century before our Author was born." ^^ In the pref- 
 ace to his edition, while speaking of the verses in ^s You 
 Like It, Theobald says, 
 
 Dr. Thomas Lodge, a Physician who flourished early in Queen 
 EUzabeth'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.^^ 
 
 Fortunately for Johnson, Theobald did not succeed in his 
 search for Lodge's Rosalinde, while the later critic, following 
 the path so clearly pointed out by the man he slandered, 
 met with success. 
 
 Notwithstanding the value of Theobald's contribution 
 to the correcting and illustrating of Shakespeare's text, 
 his edition has its faults. These defects Professor Louns- 
 bury has clearly stated. ^^ Some were due to personal 
 
 ^ Edition of Shakespeare, vol. 5, p. 303. See also Nichols, Illus- 
 trations of Literature, vol. 2, pp. 500, 505, 508. 
 
 85 The itahcs in both quotations are Theobald's. Theobald made 
 a mistake in the date; it should be 1595. 
 
 8^ 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. 
 
 »7 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 
 Uved. 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.^^ 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- 
 *8 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.^^ 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 
 
 ^^ 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. ^^ This duty he performed so effectively that he 
 blazed the trail succeeding editors have always followed. 
 
 8° 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 hke Hearne 
 were still more eager to pubhsh editions than to publish accurate 
 editions. They were more interested in showing their curious reUcs 
 than in correcting or illustrating them. While antiquarians in general 
 were of great service to the editors of the eighteenth century, Anglo- 
 Saxon scholarship had developed no method of editing that exerted 
 the sUghtest influence upon the editions of later writers. Interest 
 in Old English rapidly declined during the eighteenth century, not, as 
 Miss Adams affirms, because the period tended to social expression 
 rather than minute scholarship — witness the many editions and critical 
 treatises — but because the period was too much absorbed with more 
 modern writers. See E. N. Adams, Old English Scholarship in England 
 from 1566-1800, Yale Studies in English LV, 1917, pp. 70, 74, 83, 94, 
 97, 103, 108. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 Theobald's later life 
 
 In his edition of Shakespeare Theobald had vindicated 
 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 ^ and with the consciousness of the 
 
 ^ The futility of Pope's satire in this respect is readily seen in the 
 long list of subscribers prefixed to Theobald's edition. It contained 
 the names of the most illustrious of England's nobility. The Uterary 
 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. Glassical 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.^ The Grub-street Journal 
 did contain one or two attacks early in the year, but even 
 that filthy periodical was soon forced to restrain its abuse. ^ 
 So effectively had Theobald closed the mouths of his enemies 
 that nearly four months after his edition had been made 
 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." ^ Later 
 he sent his friend thirteen notes, which, he said, indicated 
 all he could find to cavil at.^ 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. 
 
 ^ Letter of May 17, 1734. Nichols, Illustrations of Literaturey 
 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.^ 
 
 As soon as Shakespeare's plays were off his hands, the 
 editor turned to other labors both classical and English. 
 When Bentley's edition of Milton appeared, it had in- 
 spired him to send some textual remarks on the poet to 
 Warburton. His investigations were now carried farther. 
 One passage in Lycidas — a favorite poem with Theobald — 
 contained an allusion of which the scholar could make 
 nothing. The Unes 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." ^ It would be hard to find a clearer example 
 of the contrasting spirits that animated the scholarship of 
 the two men. One is willing to jump at a conclusion, and 
 state that conclusion as a fact ; the other exhausts every 
 means at hand to clear up an obscurity, and refuses to be 
 satisfied until he can find authority for an explanation. 
 This inquiry is typical of the widening of his scholarly 
 
 « Letter of May 9, 1734. Appendix C. 
 
 ' See Appendix, p. 328, and Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 
 2, pp. 634, 645. 
 
196 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 interest in English literature. As will be seen later, he was 
 carrying on his investigation in other native poets. Yet 
 he was not entirely through with Shakespeare. In the sum- 
 mer of 1734 he told Warburton that he was '^ prepared to 
 put out an Edition of Shakespeare's Poems with a copious 
 Glossary to all his Works." ^ The poems never appeared, 
 though in October of the following year, Theobald wrote 
 Warburton that 
 
 As to Shakespeare's Poems, my Design is by no means dropt, only 
 deferr'd to Spring, when that and Aeschylus, I hope in God, shall 
 Both appear; and an Act be obtain'd to preserve the property 
 of Them together with That of more valuable Productions.^ 
 
 The failure to obtain this act may account for the suppression 
 of the undertaking. 
 
 Though prompted by personal considerations, Theobald's 
 effort to secure a copyright law was most praiseworthy. 
 The statute of Queen Anne, probably written by Swift, 
 gave the sole right to authors or assigns to publish books 
 already printed for twenty-one years from April 10, 1710, 
 when the statute went into effect. For books that had 
 never been printed the time was 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 Venus and Adonis, he sent to his friend. 
 Theobald's copy read, 
 
 ''Being Red, she loves him best; and being white 
 Her Breast is better'd with a more delight." 
 After arguing very convincingly against this reading, he recommended 
 "fetter'd" for "better'd" and supported the change with an impos- 
 ing array of quotations from the classics. He was right in suspecting 
 a corruption, but hit upon the wrong word. Warburton, disagreeing 
 with this correction, advocated "o'er deUght" for "more delight." 
 
 9 Letter of October 18, 1735. Appendix C. 
 
Theobald's later life 197 
 
 common law rights. After much debate the question was 
 not settled until the latter part of the century. In 1734 
 the copyright was extended to prints and engravings. 
 
 Perhaps the interest created by these lawsuits inspired 
 Theobald to seek an extension of the copyright. In April 
 of 1735 he wrote to Warburton: 
 
 I don't know whether you have heard what pains I am taking to 
 carry thro' a 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.^ ° 
 Two months later he was forced to acknowledge his failure 
 to get the bill through the House of Lords, but showed de- 
 termination to persist in the effort. ^^ Later he expressed 
 the hope that the act would be obtained in the spring of the 
 following year, but nothing came of the undertaking.^^ 
 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 carrjdng 
 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 pubhc. 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, 173L 
 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 'Hhe 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." ^^ In his articles 
 the Shakespearean scholar covered a very broad field, 
 commenting on such writers as Eustathius, Athenaeus, 
 Suidas, Statius, Aristophanes, schoUast 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. ^^ 
 
 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 
 
 ^3 Miscellaneous Observations, vol. 1, p. 144. 
 
 ^^ 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: a.a4>a\ks for 
 d(r</>aXcos, 1. 85 of Aeschylus' Suppliants. 
 
200 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 after the new interpretation had been made pubHc, its author 
 wrote Warburton, 
 
 I am very glad the Greek Criticisms strike you. The major part 
 of them, I beUeve, will stand their ground. But in one of them I 
 have been most miserably mistaken: I mean miserably, as not 
 knowing a Fact; as a SchoUar and Conjecturer at large, I think 
 the mistake will not affect me in Credit. It is the Votive Table, 
 as I called it, which led me into the Error.^^ 
 
 Two months later an anonymous contribution to The Grub- 
 street Journal, after calling Theobald undoubtedly the first 
 English critic, attacked the propriety of introducing classical 
 criticism in an edition of Shakespeare, and took pains to 
 show that this particular emendation was wrong.^^ The 
 critic pointed out that Theobald's mistake was due to his ig- 
 norance of a more correct copy of the inscription by Mon- 
 sieur Spon, a fellow-traveler of Sir George. 
 
 Theobald was naturally surprised that an article so fair 
 to himself should have been printed in a periodical so ve- 
 hemently hostile. Although a little wary of the apparent 
 compliment, he made a reply in a later issue of the same 
 paper, in which he readily admitted his error in correcting 
 the manuscript, the corruption of which was due to Wheler's 
 inaccurate copy, and gave reasons why he had happened to 
 overlook the previous publication of the fragment. ^'^ Then 
 he added the perfectly true statement that he had discovered 
 his own error several months before his critic had attacked 
 it. But he turned the tables on the latter by giving him a 
 full history of the inscription, of which his opponent was 
 ignorant, and by informing him that the inscription itself 
 
 15 Letter of March 5, 1734. Appendix C. 
 g 16 No. 229, May 16, 1734. 
 
 " No. 3, June 6, 1734. In the same issue one of the editors, 
 signing himself Baevius, when forced to acknowledge the truth of 
 Theobald's case, contented himself with dragging in a trivial point 
 utterly foreign to the discussion. 
 
Theobald's later life 201 
 
 was in Dr. Mead's museum, where the writer had made a 
 collation which proved both of them wrong. Few could 
 get ahead of Theobald in a matter of research. 
 
 The classical writer in whom the Shakespearean scholar 
 was most interested was, as we have already seen, Aeschylus. 
 As early as 1714 he had contracted with Lintot to translate 
 all seven tragedies. Although it is probable that he per- 
 formed his task, nothing came of the contract. Later he 
 issued proposals for subscriptions to his translation, but 
 still it did not appear, and in the notes to The Dunciad Pope 
 sarcastically remarked on his failure to fulfill his obligation. 
 Yet Theobald never dropped his design. In February 
 following the appearance of his Shakespeare he was receiving 
 subscriptions for the undertaking and promising to print it 
 off the following summer.^^ Furthermore he began to cherish 
 designs for an edition as well as a translation of Aeschy- 
 lus. When Warburton raised some question regarding the 
 text of the dramatist, and gave his usual advice, Theobald 
 replied that Stanley's text, although the best, was by no 
 means perfect, and that there remained much to be done in 
 adjusting the meter of strophe and antistrophe by a principle 
 that he considered a most certain basis for correction.^^ 
 He continued his work on the text throughout the summer 
 and communicated some of his emendations to War burton. ^^ 
 In the autumn of the same year he wrote Sir Hans Sloane 
 for a subscription to the work which he said he then had 
 under the press, and which he described as ''a Translation of 
 Aeschylus's Tragedies, with Notes Critical and Philological ; 
 and an History of the Greek Stage in all its Branches, in a 
 Dissertation to be prefixed." 21 He added further that he 
 
 18 Letter of February 12, 1734. Appendix C. 
 
 19 Letter of March 5, 1734. Appendix C. 
 
 20 Letter of July 11, 1734. Appendix C. 
 
 21 Letter of September 21, 1734. Appendix C. 
 
202 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 had been advised by some friends to publish the Greek 
 text on the opposite page, and repeated the statement made 
 to Warburton about the certainty of corrections made on 
 the basis of meter. He claimed to have by the kindness of 
 Dr. Conyers Middleton a collation of the famous Laurentian 
 manuscript, which he offered to send to Sir Hans if it was 
 desired. 
 
 Neither text nor translation appeared, but his emendations 
 have not been entirely lost. Those remarks that had been 
 published in Miscellaneous Observations, and some others 
 that were written on the margin of Theobald's copy of the 
 Greek dramatist, were used by Bloomfield in his edition 
 of Aeschylus, 1810, a fact that is evidence enough of the 
 respectable quality of the earlier critic's work in the classics.^^ 
 Furthermore, Middleton 's enlisting in his service testifies 
 to the high regard in which his scholarship was held by 
 contemporaries. 
 
 But there is still more remarkable evidence of the study 
 Theobald put upon Greek. In October of 1735 he tells 
 Warburton that, 
 
 as, I think I mention'd to you, that I was prepared to amend and 
 account for above 20 thousand Passages in Hesychius, I am la- 
 bouring 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, that are 
 corrupt, Both by Explanations being divided from their Themes; 
 and by Themes, as mistakenly sunk, and standing as Explana- 
 tions of what they have, indeed, no Reference to. I could give 
 you an ample Specimen; but, perhaps, you trade very little with 
 that Author.23 
 
 22 In the "Index Codicum Manuscriptorum quorum lectiones ad- 
 hibui" appears this item : "L. L. Ludovici Theobaldi notae, ad margi- 
 nem libri Windhamiani scriptae. Harum ipse nonnullos vulgavit in 
 Miscell. Obs. II. p. 164." 
 
 23 Letter of October 18, 1735. Appendix C. 
 
203 
 
 Although these ''20 thousand passages" probably take their 
 place by the side of the two thousand emendations of Beau- 
 mont and Fletcher and the eight hundred old English plays, 
 yet when all due allowance is made for Theobald's proneness 
 to exaggerate, the unusual extent of his investigation is 
 still striking. Furthermore, he had hit upon a work that 
 offered a wide field for conjecture. Bentley is said to have 
 undertaken 'Hhe stupendous task" of publishing a complete 
 edition of Hesychius, ''an author in whom he professes 
 to have made upwards of five thousand corrections" ; ^'^ and 
 at the beginning of the next century Porson expressed sur- 
 prise that after so many first rate critics had worked on 
 the lexicographer, so much room for emendation was still 
 left. 2^ Had his work on Aeschylus and Hesychius been put 
 before the public, the editor of Shakespeare would have 
 occupied a creditable position among the classical scholars 
 of the eighteenth century. 
 
 The history of the two years following the edition of Shake- 
 speare clearly discounts the influence of The Dunciad in either 
 discouraging its hero from undertaking any enterprise, or 
 in lessening the estimation in which the discerning part of 
 the public held him. These years mark the most active and 
 ambitious portion of his life. His designs in both English 
 and the classics reached an extent little dreamed of in his 
 younger days. Nor would he have entered upon such plans, 
 had not the favor of the public seemed probable to him. 
 
 In the midst of his ambitious projects there came what 
 must have been a grievous disappointment and a real injury. 
 Revealing at last his true nature, Warburton broke off the 
 friendship under circumstances by no means creditable to 
 
 2* Hartley Coleridge, The Worthies of Yorkshire and Lancashire, 
 1836, p. 71. 
 
 26 Museum Criticum; or Cambridge Classical Researches, 1814, 
 vol. 1, p. 122. 
 
204 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 the divine. While Theobald did not stand in any need of 
 Warburton's critical aid, he was a man of little self-reliance, 
 and that little had been rudely shaken by Pope. No one 
 reading the correspondence between the two men can fail 
 to be struck by the way the elder leaned upon the younger 
 for encouragement and approval. The shock of having 
 this prop removed must have done much toward weakening 
 his perseverance and increasing a despondency evident at 
 times in previous years. In the disruption of the friendship 
 may lie the cause why all save one of his various designs 
 were never carried out. 
 
 Evidence that Warburton was not entirely pleased with 
 his fellow critic appears early in the correspondence. In 
 the fall of 1730 the former remarked on the latter' s dis- 
 approval of many of his notes, and proposed to restrain his 
 criticism. To the implied complaint Theobald answered, 
 
 I would by no means wish you to restrain your genius, or the 
 scope of your suspicions, so long as you are pleased to indulge 
 me in such a labour; for, though every conjecture should not upon 
 trial prove standard, give me leave to say, without flattery, there 
 is something so extremely ingenious in all you start, that I would 
 with great regret be defrauded of such a fund either of entertain- 
 ment or erudition. 2^ 
 
 It is hard to see how any critic could find fault with dis- 
 agreement when couched in such flattering terms. And 
 the above quotation is typical of the judgment Theobald 
 frequently passed on the other's learning. Because of such 
 undue praise he was able to preserve the partnership for 
 a number of years. 
 
 When the edition of Shakespeare appeared, Warburton 
 at once noticed that some of his remarks had been omitted. 
 To this omission he called the editor's attention, lajdng the 
 
 26 Letter of September 15, 1730. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 
 vol. 2, p. 607. 
 
Theobald's later life 205 
 
 blame upon his own loose unmethodical papers, and then 
 added, seemingly as a threat, that he intended to compose 
 a complete critique on Shakespeare. Theobald explained 
 the omission on the ground that he foresaw that opportunities 
 to improve on Shakespeare would arise ; therefore it would 
 be neither fraud nor bad pohcy to keep a good fund of notes 
 in reserve. But he was clearly concerned over the other's 
 threat. This concern prompted him to express the unwar- 
 rantable inference that his acknowledgment of his assistant's 
 aid in the edition ''has given me a Right (through your 
 generous Grant) to demand all your Capacities for my Ser- 
 vice." Furthermore, he sought to discourage his friend's 
 undertaking by insincere depreciation of Shakespeare and 
 fulsome flattery of the threatening critic : 
 
 To say a word to your intention of composing a full and compleat 
 Critic on Shakespeare, I own, it would be a treasure to me to 
 see it; but to speak for the World, and throw off those Prepos- 
 sessions which I have for our Author, I am afraid, the generality 
 will regard him as too irregular a Writer to deserve such a Critic.^ 
 
 Of course, the poor quality of the notes was the first reason 
 why he suppressed so many ; yet he may have reserved some, 
 as he said he did, to answer the attacks which he expected 
 to be made upon his edition. In the early days of the con- 
 troversy with Pope, his most potent weapon of offense and 
 defense had been the publication of some emendation or ex- 
 planation of Shakespeare. It is possible, therefore, that he 
 wished to carry on the warfare in the same way, for which 
 purpose it was necessary to have a supply of ammunition on 
 hand.^s 
 
 Theobald's explanation of the omission probably suggested 
 
 27 Letter of March 5, 1734. Appendix C. 
 
 28 In a previous letter of February 12, 1734, Theobald had asked 
 Warburton's leave to copy his letters before returning, on the ground 
 that they contained a "rich vein of ore still undrained." Appendix C. 
 
206 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 to Warburton the accusation made in the preface to his 
 edition of Shakespeare, 1747 ; namely, that the previous 
 editor has sequestered a part of the divine's notes, for the 
 benefit, as he supposed, of some future edition. This state- 
 ment Warburton made not as an excuse for breaking with 
 his correspondent, but in justification of his treatment of the 
 unhappy man in his own edition. Since Theobald, many 
 years before, had returned his letters and renounced all 
 interest in them, and since neither in his second edition of 
 Shakespeare nor elsewhere had he made any use of War- 
 burton's notes, his faithless friend knew the charge to be 
 absolutely false. 
 
 Warburton, not satisfied with Theobald's excuse, notified 
 the latter that he had selected fifty of the rejected notes, 
 which were better than any of those printed. These, he said, 
 he would send to be published in the edition of Shakespeare's 
 poems, 29 and Theobald could explain that they had been mis- 
 laid when the edition of the plays was prepared. But since 
 the careful scholar did not intend to run any risk in admitting 
 notes to any work of his on Warburton 's recommendation 
 alone, he requested that the remarks be sent as soon as 
 possible, 'Tor as, on the one Side, I would not press you in 
 time; so, on the other, T would have time fully to weigh 
 them. " ^^ Though provoked by the thought that his criti- 
 cisms required scrutiny ,^^ Warburton sent the fifty together 
 with comments on thirteen of Theobald's remarks.^^ 
 
 29 Letter of March 17, 1734. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 
 vol. 2, p. 634. 
 
 30 Letter of May 30, 1734. Appendix C. 
 
 3^ See Letter of June 2, 1734. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 
 vol. 2, p. 635. Warburton begins this letter "Dear Sir," whereas his 
 usual form of address was "Dearest Friend." 
 
 32 Letter of July 11, 1734. Appendix C. Warburton used strong 
 terms in complimenting Theobald's edition: "I know it will be a 
 pleasure to receive it [the letter containing the thirteen criticisms] 
 
Theobald's later life 207 
 
 Still chafing under the treatment his notes had received 
 and were receiving at the hands of his friend, the 'theological 
 bully" in his next letter made a second threat about doing 
 some independent work on Shakespeare : 
 
 I have a great number of notes, etc. on Shakespeare for some future 
 edition. I have given you a specimen in two or three from the 
 Tempest, and Mid-summer Night's Dream, in the fifty, and in this 
 edition. How forward are you got towards the Edition of the 
 Poems? 33 
 
 Possibly Warburton was designing to edit Shakespeare, but 
 it is more probable that his threat of a future edition was 
 intended to spur Theobald on to pubUsh the poems, in 
 which his own invaluable notes were to appear. His solici- 
 tude about the appearance of the edition points to this 
 inference. Moreover, after nearly a year had elapsed, he 
 asked his correspondent if he had dropped his design en- 
 tirely, to which query the latter rephed in the negative, 
 promising that the work would appear in the spring of 
 1736. 
 
 Finally when the poems showed no promise of appearing 
 at the stated time, Warburton's patience broke down. On 
 the fourth of May he wrote a letter, no longer extant, it 
 would seem, but the contents of which can readily be 
 gathered from Theobald's straightforward reply, which 
 effectually disposed of the weak and contemptible charges 
 made against him. 
 
 and it is no small compliment to your Edition; for I have been so exact 
 in my inquisitorial search after faults, that I dare undertake to defend 
 every note throughout the whole bulky work, save these thirteen I 
 have objected to." Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 645. 
 Compare the above with what he has to say of the same work in the 
 preface to his edition of Shakespeare. 
 
 33 Letter of October 14, 1734. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, 
 vol. 2, p. 561. The itahcs are Warburton's. 
 
208 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 Wyan's Court. 18 May 1736 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I reced yours of the 4*^ Instant, and should have reply'd to it the 
 next Post, but that I was willing to get over the Surprize its con- 
 tents gave me. It is now retorted upon Me, that you gave Me 
 your Notes with a Generosity I could not complain of. I thought 
 on the other hand, I had not only confess'd the obUgation in pri- 
 vate 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; 
 and 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. I own as Editor, I behev'd I had a discre- 
 tionary Power of picking and chusing my Materials: and I am 
 certain during the Affair, you conceded this Liberty to me: the 
 remaining Notes (in an Epistolary Correspondence) being yours, 
 or no, is a piece of Casuistry which I shall not dispute upon. Tho' 
 I foresee, they are now to be turn'd upon me, and I am to be in the 
 State of a country conquer' d by its Auxiliaries, yet tho my Bread 
 and Reputation depended upon my Compliance, I would sacrifice 
 both Regards at any Price to approve Myself Dear Sir, your 
 obliged Friend and very humble Servant. 
 
 Lew. Theobald. 
 
 Since Theobald's failure to publish all of his assistant's 
 notes was the chief irritant to Warburton's pride, it is natural 
 to infer that the demanding of them back was due to the 
 desire to make them public. The inferior scholar had been 
 rising in the world, and had been praised for the notes he 
 contributed to Theobald's edition.^* With his unjustifiable 
 confidence in the excellent quality of his notes strengthened 
 by this fact, he became all the more eager to give his criticisms 
 to the world. At all events, Theobald, thinking that his 
 
 3* After making Warburton's acquaintance. Bishop Hare praised his 
 Shakespearean notes. Watson, Life of Warhurton, 1863, p. 58. This 
 same year Warburton published his Alliance between Church and State. 
 
209 
 
 assistant was intending to publish an edition, realized that 
 his wisdom in rejecting the notes would be publicly put upon 
 trial. This must be what he means by being ''in the State 
 of a country conquered by its Auxiliaries." ^ 
 
 In rejecting the notes of which he could not approve 
 Theobald was acting not only within his right, but in accord- 
 ance with his duty. Yet even more amazing than this charge 
 of omission is Warburton's complaint of not having any part 
 in the profit of the edition. It was the custom at that 
 time for one scholar to render what gratuitous assistance 
 he could to another. Bentley had given of the stores of 
 his knowledge even to scholars on the continent, such as 
 Graevius, Kuster, and Hemsterhuys. For this reason 
 Theobald was certainly right in supposing that his friend's 
 assistance was freely given, and in reminding him that any 
 thought to the contrary should have been made known 
 early in the correspondence. Furthermore, Warburton 
 ''appears rather to have been recommended to him than he 
 to Warburton. Warburton seems to have been quite as 
 eager to offer notes on Shakespeare as he was to receive 
 them." 3^ After Shakespeare Restored Theobald's reputation 
 was high enough to warrant Tonson's saying that the critic 
 would have the assistance of all lovers of Shakespeare, so 
 that Warburton might well have been proud to have a part 
 in the projected edition. Finally, for the avaricious critic, 
 
 3^ In October of the following year Warburton wrote the Reverend 
 Thomas Birch that he beUeved he would give an edition of Shakespeare 
 to the world; and in September of 1738 he repeated his intention 
 to the same gentleman. Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, 
 pp. 72, 96. Warburton's first effort, however, to get his notes pub- 
 Hshed was in Hanmer's edition, but he fell out with that editor for 
 reasons somewhat similar to those that made him break with Theobald. 
 
 ^ Watson, Life of Warburton, p. 301. See also Nichols, Illus- 
 trations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 242, where Warburton encourages Theo- 
 bald in the correspondence, teUing him it should by all means be kept up. 
 
210 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 who was fully cognizant of Theobald's financial straits, to 
 begrudge his friend the profits of his edition while he himself 
 was enjoying a comfortable living, was certainly not becom- 
 ing a Christian, much less a clergyman. ^^ Nor was this 
 charge merely an excuse to break up the friendship. Im- 
 mediately after Theobald announced Tonson's terms, War- 
 burton wrote Stukely that the editor was to have for his 
 edition "eleven hundred guineas, and your humble servant 
 for his pains one copy of the royal paper books." ^^ 
 
 Our critic was by no means ungrateful for the assistance 
 he received. He made a most handsome acknowledgment 
 of Warburton's services in his preface, while in the body of 
 the work each note belonging to the other was acknowledged 
 with high praise. Furthermore, he was eager to repay his 
 debt in kind. When he first heard of the other critic's 
 intention of editing Pater cuius, he rejoiced in the undertaking 
 and assured him that when Shakespeare was off his hands, 
 he would repay the least part of his debt by perusing the 
 Latin author to find corruptions, a task he would embrace 
 with great satisfaction.^^ In his subsequent correspondence 
 he frequently mentioned Warburton's design, at the same 
 time sending him such notes and transcripts as he thought 
 might be helpful. ^^ 
 
 Warburton's part in the disagreement was nothing short 
 
 3^ At this time Warburton possessed the living of Brant-Broughton, 
 worth £560, and of Frisby, worth £250. 
 
 38 Letter of November 10, 1731. Nichols, Illustrations of Litera- 
 ture, vol. 2, p. 13. From this source (or from Theobald's controversy 
 with the publishers) may have come the report that Johnson heard 
 and recorded in the proposals he issued in 1756 for an edition of Shake- 
 speare; namely, that Theobald "considered learning only as an instru- 
 ment of gain." 
 
 39 Letter of November 20, 1729. Nichols, Illustrations of Litera- 
 ture, vol. 2, p. 283. 
 
 *° See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 570, and letters 
 of 20 June, 4 July, 29 July, 1732. Appendix C. 
 
Theobald's later life 211 
 
 of contemptible. Two or three years later he was to be on 
 intimate terms with the man who had abused his friend. 
 Not only that, he himself was to slander that friend who had 
 always dealt honorably by him, a friend who, though suffering 
 grievous injuries at his hands and placed in a position to 
 make things very unpleasant for Pope and his newly acquired 
 champion, maintained a high-minded silence. ^^ But there 
 was one who did not forget the past. When, in 1748, 
 Mathew Concanen, Theobald's truest friend, returned from 
 Jamaica, where for seventeen years he had held the post of 
 attorney general, he avoided coming near Warburton, 
 which conduct the latter in characteristic fashion attributed 
 to his ''scoundrel temper." ^^ 
 
 In September Theobald returned his correspondent's 
 letters with the explanation that the delay was caused by 
 neither negligence nor reluctance, but by the fact that he had 
 been busily employed for self and friends. He renounced all 
 the privilege he might have in the notes, and said that as he 
 was preparing to throw out three supplementary volumes to 
 Shakespeare on the old footing, he claimed the right to revoke 
 all Warburton's notes that were to have appeared in them.'*^ 
 If Theobald was seriously undertaking such a project, he 
 never carried it through to completion. 
 
 From this time on there is little to be found on Theobald's 
 life. That his reputation as a scholar was not declining is 
 
 *^ Besides the material Theobald had in his letters for revealing 
 to Pope Warburton's opinion of the satirist, he could very easily have 
 called attention to three anonymus contributions his former associate 
 had made to The Daily Journal, wherein Pope is soundly berated. 
 (Professor Lounsbury discovered these. Text of Shakespeare, Chap. 
 17.) Warburton's attack on Theobald was pubHcly made only after 
 the latter's death, an event of which the former must have learned 
 with a sigh of relief. 
 
 *2 Watson, Life of Warburton, p. 30. 
 
 43 Letter of September 4, 1736. Appendix C. 
 
212 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 clearly evidenced by the fact that in 1737 Thomas Birch, 
 a friend of Warburton, who was at work on some lives of the 
 poets, sent to him a number of queries regarding Ben Jonson.'*^ 
 These Theobald answered in scholarly fashion, producing 
 his proofs and arriving at his conclusions with sound reason- 
 ing. In 1740 appeared the second edition of his Shakespeare 
 in eight volumes, from which those notes and parts of the 
 preface which he owed to his former assistant were excluded. 
 He also omitted the conclusion of the preface, in which he 
 had acknowledged the assistance he had received, and had 
 mentioned the works read in the preparation of the edition. 
 
 The profit realized on the first issue of his work was suffi- 
 cient to remove all want from his door for several years, 
 but by the time the second edition was published he was 
 again in straitened circumstances. In the spring of 1741 
 he wrote the Duke of Newcastle that ''a loss and disappoint- 
 ment" made it necessary for him to appeal to that noble- 
 man.'** About this time also he published in The London 
 Daily Post his last address to the public, ''delivered in a 
 most humble strain of supplication," in which he requested 
 assistance at the performance of a benefit.^^ It was prob- 
 ably the pressure of finances that incited him to attempt 
 his last critical work. In 1742 he entered into an agree- 
 ment with the Tonsons to edit the plays of Beaumont and 
 Fletcher, upon which he had been working for fifteen 
 years. Being unwilling to venture on the undertaking 
 alone, he publicly advertised for assistance, and was re- 
 warded with offers from two gentlemen, Thomas Seward 
 and a man by the name of Sympson.^^ Neither of them, 
 
 ^* See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 654. 
 
 ^^ See Appendix, p. 346. 
 
 46 May 13, 1741. See Nichols, vol. 2, p. 745. 
 
 *^ Seward was canon of Lichfield and Salisbury, a friend of Johnson, 
 and father of the " Swan of Lichfield." I have not been able to find any- 
 thing about the other gentleman. 
 
Theobald's later life 213 
 
 however, was able to render very valuable assistance. They 
 possessed only the later editions, were not well read in earlier 
 English literature, and Seward, at least, was afflicted with a 
 vanity almost equal to Warburton's. 
 
 It is not remarkable, then, that as soon as the first volume 
 had been printed, trouble arose. Theobald, following the 
 practice he had adopted with his first helper, refused to admit 
 notes that did not meet with his approval. Immediately 
 the two assistants were up in arms, nor would they be pacified 
 until the reluctant editor had promised to pubhsh the re- 
 jected notes in a postscript at the end of each volume. 
 Furthermore, Seward found fault with what he thought 
 was Theobald's dogmatic manner of speaking, a vice he 
 later piously claimed to have cured by pointing out that 
 it was neither right nor politic. 
 
 Death cut short the first editor's part in the work. The 
 responsibility of the edition then fell upon Seward, although 
 Sympson saw several volumes through the press. Not- 
 withstanding the fact that they claimed to have received the 
 deceased editor's valuable quartos, with his notes written 
 on the margin, the two men were not prepared to produce 
 a good edition. Yet, incompetent and rash as they were, 
 they tried to follow the method set before them. They were 
 not careful in their collating, yet they recognized the value 
 of collation ; they were to a great degree ignorant of Eliza- 
 bethan history and literature, but they realized that a 
 knowledge of such was essential to an editor.*^ Owing to 
 their ignorance of Elizabethan language, the supports to 
 their bold emendations are weak, but they evidence the feel- 
 ing that changes in the text should not be arbitrary, but 
 should be supported by some authority. 
 
 *^ Seward says it is necessary for a critic to know "every single 
 work, History, Custom, Trade, etc. that Shakespeare himself knew." 
 Introduction, p. Ixxiii. The italics are his. 
 
214 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 The edition did not appear until 1750.^^ Although now 
 recognized as the first serious attempt toward a critical re- 
 construction of an eclectic text, formed by collation and emen- 
 dation, it is not held in very high regard. Yet subsequent 
 editors have made the mistake of not considering Theobald's 
 part separately from the rest.^^ Even a superficial examina- 
 tion of the volumes reveals in his portion a more careful 
 collation, more variant readings, and a more manifest 
 hesitancy to depart from the text than can be found in the 
 plays edited by the other two men. Seward himself testified 
 to the fact that Theobald collated with accuracy, ^^ while 
 there is an abundance of evidence that the latter realized 
 the value of the old quartos, and recognized that a careful 
 collation of them was necessary to the establishment of a 
 good text.^^ His emendations have been so overshadowed 
 by his Shakespearean criticism that they have not received 
 due attention, but one editor, at least, has praised them.^^ 
 
 ^^ The Works of Mr. Francis Beaumont, and Mr. John Fletcher. In 
 ten Volumes. Collated with all the former Editions, and corrected. With 
 Notes Critical and Explanatory. By the late Mr. Theobald, Mr. Seward 
 of Eyaur in Derbyshire, and Mr. Sympson of Gainsborough. London: 
 Printed for J. and R. Tonson and S. Draper in the Strand 1750. 
 
 ^° Under Theobald's care were printed all of volume one, including 
 The Maid^s Tragedy, Philaster, A King and No King, The Scornful 
 Lady ; volume two to page 233, comprising The Custom of the Country, 
 The Elder Brother, and nearly four acts of The Spanish Curate; and 
 volume three to page 69, consisting of the first four and a half acts of 
 The Humorous Lieutenant. 
 61 Vol. 2, p. 276. 
 
 62 Theobald is constantly correcting from the old quartos, which, 
 he says, are the most to be depended on, and "are worth their Weight 
 in Gold." Vol. 2, p. 102; vol. 1, 148. "I am sorry, I have Occasion 
 so often to trouble the Readers with these Minutiae Litterarum : I 
 am very far from pleading any Merit in it; but it is the dull Duty of 
 an Editor to shew, at least, his industry in a faithful Collation of the 
 old Copies." Vol. 1, p. 109. His last slap at Pope! 
 
 63 See the introduction to Weber's edition of Beaumont and Fletcher. 
 
Theobald's later life 215 
 
 They employ the same method and evince the same acumen 
 and broad scholarship so characteristic of his earlier work.^* 
 Finally, in his illustrative notes are found a wealth of parallel 
 passages drawn from the literature of the sixteenth and 
 seventeenth centuries. 
 
 Of Theobald's last days nothing is known except that they 
 were embittered by a severe disease. After suffering from 
 a jaundice for several months, he met a peaceful death on 
 September 18, 1744. Two days later he was buried in 
 St. Pancras cemetery, attended by one friend. 
 
 ''He was of a generous spirit, too generous for his circum- 
 stances; and none knew how to do a handsome thing or 
 confer a benefit, when in his power, with a better grace than 
 himself." ^^ Thus wrote one who had known him for 
 thirty years. And in looking back over his career there 
 appears little to blame and much to praise. Continually 
 battling against adversity, the disheartening demands of 
 poverty, and the cruel attacks of Pope, he bravely struggled 
 through the task he had set himself. Sensitive, modest, 
 lacking in self-confidence, his nature was all the more open 
 to the thrusts of satire and the falsehoods of mahce. Though 
 for the most part suffering in silence and passing over with 
 manly dignity the libels of his adversary, at times he showed 
 a seeming vindictiveness, which, after all, was but the natural 
 reaction of an oversensitive and underconfident nature to 
 almost unendurable taunts. Even then he took no mean 
 advantage, he indulged in no falsehood ; he attacked only 
 
 ^ See vol. 1, pp. 30, 45, 142. Theobald wrote emendations and 
 variant readings on the margin of his copies. It was his custom to 
 put his initials where he intended a note or thought he had made an 
 unusually good emendation, Seward tells us that in one place Theo- 
 bald's initials, following a correction, are written in "old ink," while 
 "First Quarto" is written in new, showing that his emendation inde- 
 pendently made had been verified by collation. Vol. 2, p. 315. 
 
 ®^ See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 745. 
 
216 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 what was manifestly reprehensible. He made by far the 
 best figure in the Dunciad war. In the midst of all the dirt 
 and filth thrown up by both sides, he alone was free from 
 stooping. Sympathetic, liberal, true to his friends, it is 
 not strange that they so anxiously defended him. Only 
 one proved recreant. Possibly it would be hard to find in 
 history a man who has suffered more injustice at the hands 
 of posterity. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 
 
 The early years of the eighteenth century witnessed 
 numerous editions of the EngUsh classics, produced with 
 little or no care.^ The close of the century saw the modern 
 method of critical editing fairly well outlined and established. 
 In a way the change was gradual. Earlier editions were 
 studied more carefully and their respective merits determined. 
 The feeling for accuracy in collation gradually grew, fostered 
 by the successful restorations made by each succeeding 
 scholar. Investigation of earlier literature and history pro- 
 duced accumulative results that became the heritage of each 
 subsequent critic and suggested further fields of research. 
 Yet, as in most gradual changes, there was one point where 
 development was turned in the right direction, where the 
 path was so plainly pointed out that thereafter none needed 
 to go astray. 
 
 In the first quarter of the century two methods had been 
 followed in bringing the poets of the past before the public. 
 One was employed by publishers who, thinking that some 
 profit might be derived from reviving an old poet, issued an 
 edition of him generally taken verbatim, with some extra 
 errors, from the last printed copy. Such a production was 
 
 ^ The years intervening between Rowe's and Pope's editions of 
 Shakespeare produced editions of Beaumont and Fletcher, Ben Jonson, 
 Chaucer, Spenser, and MUton. In nearly all editions of earlier poets 
 Tonson had a hand. SuflBcient credit has not been given this pubUsh- 
 ing house for its part in these and later productions. 
 
218 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 The Works of Ben Jonson, 1715-1716, which is purely a 
 reprint of the foUo of 1692 — itself a reprint of the 1640 
 folio — and contains neither introduction nor notes. Another 
 was the edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, issued by Tonson 
 in 1711, which is only a reprint of the folio of 1679, and with 
 the exception of a preface contains nothing but the bare 
 text.^ The method, however, that grew in favor with the 
 publishers was the engaging of some living poet to edit an 
 older one. In this way they hoped to increase their profits 
 since the fame of the editor would give luster to his edition. 
 The procedure followed by these poetical editors was very 
 simple. They depended chiefly upon the last edition of the 
 poet, though sometimes pretending to collate older copies, 
 prefixed a preface giving some details of the life of the poet 
 and some remarks on his works, and sometimes added a 
 glossary. Rowe's edition of Shakespeare made popular the 
 prefatory biography, and Gildon added a glossary to Rowe's 
 second edition.^ In his edition of the Faerie Queene, 1715, 
 Hughes followed Rowe, while Fenton wrote a life for Tonson's 
 edition of Milton, 1725.^* The climax in this kind of editing 
 was reached in Pope's edition of Shakespeare, which, though 
 the best and most ambitious of its kind, rang down the 
 curtain on all such performances. The poetical editors were 
 
 2 The preface, entitled "Some Account of the Authors and their 
 Writings," mentions the quartos and the folios of 1645 and 1679 but 
 says nothing of collation. It gives, however, something of the hves 
 of the dramatists and the sources of many of their plays, all of which 
 material was drawn from Langbaine. 
 
 ' Rowe revised the works of Massinger, and at one time intended 
 to pubHsh them. See advertisement prefixed to an edition of The 
 Bondman, 1710. 
 
 * WiUiam Broome carried to completion Urry's edition of Chaucer, 
 1721. Teuton's edition of Waller, 1729, shows the influence of Shake- 
 speare Restored in its emphasis upon coUation and in the explanation of 
 words and historical allusions, wherein he quotes passages from various 
 authors and "expounds the author by himself." 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 219 
 
 not averse to revising their poets, but their corrections 
 were purely arbitrary though occasionally happy. ^ 
 
 Such was the state of editing when Theobald appeared 
 on the scene. Familiar with the care employed by classical 
 scholars on Greek and Roman writers, stimulated by the 
 unusual interest in the new textual criticism, and thoroughly 
 conversant with Bentley's method, he saw that to get results, 
 it was necessary to treat Shakespeare's text as that of a 
 classic. This realization led him to adapt Bentley's method 
 to his own purposes in Shakespeare Restored and his edition 
 of the dramatist. These mark the beginning of an epoch 
 in English scholarship just as plainly as the Epistle to Mill 
 and Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris mark a new era 
 in classical research. The importance of Theobald's work 
 lies in the fact that it inspired scholars with an interest in 
 their native literature, created a demand for critical editions 
 of Enghsh poets, and made popular a method which, with 
 amplifications and modifications, has come down to the 
 present day. 
 
 Too much emphasis cannot be placed upon the service 
 Theobald did for research in English literature when he 
 turned the attention of scholars to a new field of investiga- 
 tion, a field that had either been unnoticed or scorned before. 
 As long as editing remained in the hands of poets who were 
 not scholars, there was no hope for any critical work. It 
 was Pope's fame and not the worth of his edition that in- 
 creased the interest already felt in Shakespeare. The 
 merits of the work attracted no scholar, created no interest 
 in the text. Its defects aroused Theobald, but Pope can be 
 
 ^ Theobald constantly speaks of "poetical editors," and Zachary 
 Grey divides Shakespeare's editors into critical and poetical. See 
 preface to Critical, Historical and Explanatory Notes on Shakespeare, 
 1745. See also An Attempt to Rescue that Aunciente English Poet, and 
 Play-Wright, Maister Williaume Shakespeare, 1749, p. 20. 
 
220 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 given no more praise for that result than can be granted 
 Boyle for Bentley's Dissertation. Had not the scholar re- 
 viewed the poet's edition, textual criticism in the great 
 dramatist could hardly have been awakened. On the other 
 hand, the success of Theobald's method opened the eyes of 
 scholars as well as of general readers of Shakespeare : 
 
 No sooner therefore were Criticisms wrote on our English poets, 
 but each deep read scholar whose severer studies had made him 
 frown with contempt on Poems and Plays, was taken in to read, 
 to study, to be enamour'd; He rejoiced to try his strength with 
 the editor, and to become a critic himself. ^ 
 
 Theobald's first work on Shakespeare had created an 
 unusual interest in the text, and when it became known 
 that he was seriously intending an edition, many assistants 
 were glad to render aid.^ Among these were several scholars, 
 foremost of whom was Styvan Thirlby, editor of Justin 
 Martyr, 1721. At first he had intended to edit Shakespeare, 
 but upon learning that the task had fallen into able hands, 
 he gave up the design and sent to Theobald his copy of the 
 dramatist with marginal corrections together with a long 
 list of emendations. He also promised, if his health per- 
 mitted, to gather enough material to make an appendix 
 to the edition.^ Another student of the classics who assisted 
 Theobald with observations was Dr. Thomas Bentley, 
 
 ^ Seward's introduction to edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750, 
 p. Iviii. 
 
 ^ When Theobald j&rst closed his contract with Tonson, the latter 
 assured him that he would have the assistance of all admirers of Shakes- 
 peare. Among those who contributed were Thomas Coxeter, Hawley 
 Bishop, Martin Folkes, and an anonymous correspondent, L. H., who 
 prefaced his corrections with the remark, "As I am very well satisfied 
 with Mr. Theobald's capacity for the province he has undertaken, 
 perhaps there may be none of these observations new to him." Nichols, 
 Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, p. 631. 
 
 8 Nichols, Illustration of Literature, vol. 2, p. 222. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 221 
 
 nephew of the great Bentley and editor of the ''Little 
 Horace." ^ Still another was Nicholas Hardinge, who was 
 a graduate of Cambridge and enjoyed some reputation in 
 his day.^^ 
 
 The attention of scholars was turned not only to the 
 Shakespearean text but also to the texts of other EngHsh 
 poets. It is very probable that Shakespeare Restored inspired 
 Bentley to his fatal edition of Milton. ^^ For a number of 
 years after the appearance of that monstrosity there persisted 
 a feeling that it was the first critical edition of an English 
 poet. Theobald, in claiming that honor for his Shakespeare, 
 felt called upon to point out that his rival intended to show 
 not how Milton wrote but how he ought to have written. 
 Yet many years later Seward called Bentley, ''the first re- 
 markable introducer of Critical Editions of our English 
 Poets," and said that the 
 
 strange Absurdities in his Notes on Milton has this good effect, 
 that they engag'd a Pierce to answer, and perhaps were the first 
 Motives to induce the greatest Poet, the most universal Genius, 
 one of the most industrious Scholars in the Kingdom, each to 
 become Editor of Shakespeare.^^ 
 
 Of course, the Milton is not a critical edition; it merely 
 shows one phase of textual criticism gone mad. Yet while 
 the editor established no method, he did call the attention 
 of scholars to the text of the great epic. 
 
 Another classical critic to do pioneer work in the textual 
 study of English classics was the Reverend John Jortin, a 
 
 ^ Theobald's edition of Shakespeare, vol. 7, p. 427. 
 
 1° Idem, vol. 3, p. 367. Dr. Bentley praised one of his emendations 
 on Horace. See Nichols, Illustrations of Literature, vol. 1, p. 728. 
 
 " Jebb says Bentley first wrote criticisms on Milton in 1726, the 
 year Theobald's treatise appeared. 
 
 ^2 Introduction to Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750, p. Iviii. 
 Seward is obviously wrong in implying that Pope, Theobald, and Han- 
 mer drew their inspiration from Bentley's Milton. 
 
222 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 friend of Theobald and '^ a scholar in every sense of the word.'' 
 Owing to the influence of Shakespeare Restored his first in- 
 terest was in the subject of that treatise. He and Theobald 
 had discussed the need of a revision of Shakespeare's poems, 
 and had Thirlby published his edition of the dramatist, Jortin 
 would have assisted in pointing out the passages wherein the 
 classics seem to be imitated. Turning away from Shake- 
 speare, however, in 1734 he published his Remarks on 
 Spenser^ s Poems and on Milton^ s Paradise Lost, practically all of 
 which are concerned with verbal criticism, though the author 
 is somewhat fearful of emending. ^^ He points out Spenser's 
 peculiarities in spelling, pronunciation, meter, and diction. 
 He carefully studies the context of the passages he emends, 
 and some of his remarks show Theobald's fondness for parallel 
 passages.^'* 
 
 In the next quarter of a century nearly all the men who 
 attempted critical editions of English poets were recognized 
 classical scholars — Morell, Upton, Church, and Whalley — 
 and those who were not, with one or two exceptions, had no 
 claim to the title of poet. Shakespeare's first real editor 
 showed that critical care could be expended on English 
 classics with just as much profit and reputation as upon Latin 
 and Greek authors. He took the task of editing out of the 
 hands of poets and hacks, and gave it to those whose interest 
 and abilities lay in research. 
 
 " Theobald thought Jortin's work suffered from being too conserva- 
 tive, the author having been frightened by Markland's excessive 
 emendations in the classics. See Appendix, p. 329. 
 
 ^* See Tracts, Philological, Critical, and Miscellaneous, 1790, vol. 
 1, p. 192. While Jortin's notes are not very valuable, he at least 
 realized their insufficiency, and acknowledged that he was unable to 
 spend the time and apphcation necessary for a critical edition of Spen- 
 ser. He expressed the desire, however, to see the exact text restored 
 by collation and by comparing the author with himself, a procedure 
 Theobald had repeatedly emphasized. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 223 
 
 Although scholars were the first to awake to the significance 
 of the innovation that had been introduced into the study of 
 English texts, the public became more and more interested. 
 Theobald's edition of Shakespeare showed that careful 
 textual and explanatory notes enabled the less learned to 
 read older literature with a greater degree of pleasure and 
 understanding. Thence gradually arose a demand for 
 critical editions, and the incentive of praise, so powerful 
 before in producing editions of the classics, prompted scholars 
 to undertake English poets. 
 
 The favorable reception which the labours of those applauded 
 men have met with from the public, who have given new and 
 correct editions of our English poets, illustrated with notes, was 
 a principal inducement for publishing the works of Jonson in the 
 same manner.^ ^ 
 
 With both critics and general readers, English scholarship, 
 was rising to an equal dignity with classical, and its value 
 was firmly asserted : 
 
 To publish new and correct editions of the works of approved 
 authors has ever been esteemed a service to learning. It is not 
 material whether an author is ancient or modern. Good criticism 
 is the same in all languages. Nay I know not whether there is 
 not greater merit in cultivating our own language than any other. 
 And certainly next to a good writer, a good critic holds the second 
 rank in the republic of letters.^^ 
 
 ^5 Preface to Whalley's edition of Ben Jonson, 1756. Eleven 
 years before, Whalley had said that although Shakespeare had been 
 considered below his contemporaries, now he was extolled above all, 
 owing to the labors of his editors. An Enquiry into the Learning of 
 Shakespeare, 1745, p. 11. 
 
 Seward says that "Almost every one buys and reads the works of our 
 late critical editors, nay almost every man of learning aims at imitating 
 them and making emendations himself." Works of Beaumont and 
 Fletcher, 1750, Introduction, p. lix. 
 
 ^^ Preface to Thomas Newton's edition of Paradise Lost, 1749. 
 Another classical scholar of this period speaks to the same effect: 
 
224 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 One of the elements underlying the romantic revival was 
 an awakened interest in old poets.^^ To Theobald belongs 
 no small part of the credit for this movement. His critical 
 method inspired scholars to resurrect poets who had lain 
 in partial obscurity, and who, for the most part, had been 
 looked upon only as objects of interest to antiquarians ; ^* 
 while his numerous quotations from early writers tended 
 to excite curiosity concerning them. Undoubtedly the grow- 
 ing appreciation of the literary heritage of the past was first 
 stimulated by the efforts of critics and editors. ^^ 
 
 Every reader of Taste must congratulate the present age, on 
 the spirit which has prevailed of reviving our Old Poets. Within 
 
 "For the honour of criticism not only the divines already mentioned 
 but others also, of rank still superior, have bestowed their labours 
 upon our capital poets, suspending for a while their severer studies, 
 to relax in these regions of genius and imagination." James Harris, 
 Philological Inquiries, Chap, IV, p. 25. 
 
 ^^ See W. L. Phelps, The Beginning of the English Romantic Revival. 
 
 ^^ "I cannot dismiss this section [Spenser's imitations of Chaucer] 
 without a wish, that this neglected author whom Spenser proposed in 
 some measure, as the pattern of his language, and to whom he is not 
 a Uttle indebted for many noble strokes of poetry should be more 
 universally and attentively studied. Chaucer seems to be regarded 
 rather as an old poet, than as a good one, and that he wrote English 
 verses four hundred years ago seems more frequently to be urged in 
 his favor, than that he wrote four hundred years ago with taste and 
 judgment. We look upon his poems rather as venerable relics, than 
 as finish'd patterns; as pieces calculated rather to gratify the anti- 
 quarian than the critic. When I sat down to read Chaucer with that 
 curiosity of knowing how the first English poet wrote, I left him with 
 the satisfaction of having found what later and more refin'd ages could 
 hardly equal in true humour, pathos, or sublimity." Thomas Warton, 
 Observations on the Fairy Queen, 1754, p. 141. 
 
 " Seward speaks of "the merit of Criticism in estabUshing the 
 taste of the age, in raising respect in the contemptuous and attention 
 in the careless readers of our old poets." Works of Beaumont and 
 Fletcher, Introduction, p. lix. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 225 
 
 these few years, Shakespeare, Beaumont and Fletcher, Jonson, 
 and Milton have been pubUshed with elegance and accuracy.^** 
 
 The opening of a new field for scholarship, however, and 
 the promoting of a general interest in the literature of the 
 past were but the result of the method Theobald established. 
 The object of this method was twofold : the establishment 
 of the most correct text possible, and the elucidation of that 
 text. The first step taken was a careful collation of the 
 earliest editions. Both Rowe and Pope claimed to have 
 collated, but had done little in that direction. Again and 
 again Theobald lashed their carelessness and insisted upon 
 the need and value of a careful comparison of the various 
 editions. While he left much to be desired in recording 
 variant readings, he did note a large number, and where 
 necessary, gave reasons for the selection or rejection of read- 
 ings. If collation failed to remove obscurities, recourse was 
 had to emendations, not the arbitrary changes characteristic 
 of preceding editors, but changes supported by some evidence 
 and made only where the need was shown. In the elucidation 
 of the text, the plan most frequently followed was the 
 quoting of parallel passages that illustrated the meaning of 
 unfamiliar expressions. Obscure allusions were explained 
 by quotations from the literature and references to the 
 history of Shakespeare's time. Diligent use was made of 
 
 2° An Impartial Estimate of the Reverend Mr. Upton^s Notes on the 
 Fairy Queen, 1759, p. 1. This sentence is immediately followed by 
 another giving the reason for the popularity of critical editions: "They 
 [the poets mentioned above] have been explained from a diligent ex- 
 amination of the writings of their contemporary authors; and in 
 proportion as they have received this rational method of illustration, 
 they have been studied with new pleasure and improvement. Among 
 the rest Spenser, as he best deserves, has engaged the attention of 
 ingenious critics." When we consider that "this rational method" 
 was wholly unknown before Theobald made it popular, we see what he 
 contributed to romanticism. 
 
226 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 histories, dictionaries, glossaries, antiquarian productions, 
 and such other works of reference as were then available. 
 Finally, both textual and explanatory notes show a close 
 study of the author and knowledge of his peculiarities in 
 thought and style. 
 
 While the impulse to edit Shakespeare came from Theo- 
 bald, directly or indirectly, the editors immediately following 
 him did not show much familiarity with his method. ^^ Han- 
 mer followed Pope, but used some of Theobald's material. 
 Warburton contented himself with his former friend's colla- 
 tion, and stole from him to add to his own frequently absurd 
 notes. And Johnson, intent on his common sense remarks, 
 did not advance collation or investigation very far. 
 
 With the later editors of Shakespeare, however, the case 
 is different: ''So far as any later editor achieved success," 
 says Professor Lounsbury, "it was by following and improv- 
 ing upon the methods which Theobald had adopted." '^ 
 In speaking of Theobald's death Warburton's biographer 
 says. 
 
 Such was the end of him who first showed how Shakespeare's 
 text was to be amended and illustrated, and whom succeeding com- 
 mentators have followed, if not exactly, to borrow the illustration 
 of Holofernes, as a hound his master, yet assuredly, at least the 
 best of them, with close imitation.^^ 
 
 One scholar, by no means friendly to Theobald, is of the 
 opinion that by a careful collation of quartos and folios he 
 pointed the way to the modern editor.^^ When the same 
 
 21 Johnson's interest in the text was probably inspired by Hanmer's 
 edition, which, in turn, grew out of the interest aroused by Theobald's 
 work. Warburton's study of the plays is directly traceable to his 
 association with Theobald. See D. N. Smith, Eighteenth Century 
 Essays on Shakespeare, Introduction, p. li. 
 
 22 Text of Shakespeare, p. 544. 
 
 23 Watson, Life of William Warhurton, p. 43. 
 
 24 D. N. Smith, Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare, p. xxix. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 227 
 
 investigator later remarks that the best commentary on 
 Shakespeare is the hterature of his own age, he could very 
 well have given Theobald the credit for the discovery of this 
 fact also.2^ As Professor Lounsbury says, Theobald was the 
 first to attempt a real collation of the sources of the text, and 
 the first to illustrate its meaning by a study of contemporary 
 Elizabethan literature. ^^ Johnson gave Pope the credit 
 for pointing the way toward collation ; but though the poet 
 spoke of collating the old editions, his failure to follow his 
 own advice gave no weight to the suggestion. It certainly 
 did not teach Hanmer, Warburton, and Johnson to be more 
 accurate. To Steevens has been given the credit for first 
 following Johnson's plan of illustrating Shakespeare by the 
 writers of his time, but the method had been exemplified some 
 forty years before. 
 
 The influence of Theobald's treatment of the text is im- 
 mediately seen in those critical treatises, modeled upon 
 Shakespeare Restored, which appeared about the middle 
 of the eighteenth century. In 1740 Francis Peck published 
 his New Memoirs of the Life and Poetical Works of Mr. John 
 Milton, which contained a section entitled '' Explanatory 
 and Critical Notes on divers Passages of Milton and Shake- 
 speare." Peck claims that his remarks on the dramatist 
 were written in 1736, two years after Theobald's edition had 
 been given to the public. Though he is not very fortunate 
 in his emendations, which he advances in Theobald's manner, 
 his explanatory notes are often valuable, for he followed his 
 predecessor in bringing his extensive antiquarian knowledge 
 to bear upon allusions to the customs and history of former 
 times. In his explication of words and phrases he is fond 
 of ''expounding the author by himself," so that notes of this 
 kind are exact copies of Theobald's. Another praiseworthy 
 
 " D. N. Smith, Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare, p. xxxii. 
 28 Text of Shakespeare, p. 544. 
 
228 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 feature of the essay is the bibhography of Shakespeare's 
 works, placed at the end of the chapter, and arranged in 
 chronological order, which, besides being much more com- 
 plete than any previous one, contains remarks on the various 
 editions quoted from Theobald and Langbaine. 
 
 Another work which adopted the new method was Peter 
 Whalley's An Inquiry into the Learning of Shakespeare with 
 Remarks on several Passages of his Plays published in 1745. 
 Only a minor part of the production is devoted to the question 
 of Shakespeare's knowledge of the classics, the author adopt- 
 ing the moderate view that the dramatist had more learning 
 than was generally accorded him. To support this opinion 
 he lays much emphasis on the fact that the Hamlet story is 
 contained in Saxo Grammaticus, and quotes a number of 
 passages from Latin and Greek authors whom, he thinks, 
 Shakespeare imitated. Throughout his discussion of the 
 plays he adopts the historical point of view, explaining pass- 
 ages and allusions in Shakespeare by reference to the thought, 
 customs, and literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth 
 centuries. There could hardly be a more emphatic testi- 
 mony to the remarkable change that Theobald had introduced 
 into the study of Shakespeare than this small publication 
 which, besides drawing much unacknowledged information 
 from Theobald's edition, follows his method in explaining 
 Shakespeare by the times in which he lived, even touching on 
 the dramatic history of that period. 
 
 Besides being the editor of one splendid edition, John 
 Upton, prebendary of Rochester, was the author of three 
 critical treatises on English poets. The first of these was 
 Critical Observations on Shakespeare, 1746. This volume is 
 divided into three books. The first is concerned chiefly 
 with a discussion of the plots and characters of the plays 
 together with an account of the rise and development of the 
 classical drama. The second is confined strictly to verbal 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 229 
 
 criticism, the first part defending the text against previous 
 emendations, the second containing the author's own cor- 
 rections. The third book contains, besides a treatise on the 
 meter of EngUsh verse, a series of rules governing Shake- 
 speare's styhstic and grammatical peculiarities. 
 
 The two great handicaps under which Upton labored 
 were his failure to collate and his firm belief in Shakespeare's 
 first-hand knowledge of the classics. ^^ Being a good classical 
 scholar, he was prone to explain everything as an allusion 
 to the classics and to find classical parallels for almost every 
 line.2^ Yet in the defense of the text against the emendations 
 of others and in the support he gives his own corrections he 
 shows that he has been to school to Theobald. He upholds 
 the texts in a fine in the fourth act of Macbeth, "Then, my 
 queen, in silence sad," by quotations from Shakespeare, 
 Milton, and Spenser, which show the meaning of ''sad" to 
 be ''sober." He likewise supports emendations of his own 
 by quoting parallel passages from Shakespeare and the 
 classics. ^^ In one place he adds many more examples to 
 Theobald's account of the old Vice, and in the same manner. 
 In supporting his change of ''Adam Cupid" for ''Abraham 
 
 2' A different attitude to Shakespeare's learning is taken by the 
 author of An Attempte to Rescue that Aundente English Poet, and Play- 
 Wrighte, Maister Williaume Shakespeare, 1749, who, following Theo- 
 bald's lead, holds that the dramatist got most of his learning from 
 translations. The writer is very much opposed to emending the text, 
 on the ground that Shakespeare is too modern a writer to require 
 anything more than correction of printer's errors and the restoration 
 of passages found in the quartos. Yet he approves of a number of 
 Theobald's emendations, praises his collation and bitterly attacks 
 Warburton for his failure to acknowledge emendations derived from 
 the earher edition. 
 
 2* Such, for instance, is his explanation of "We have scorched the 
 snake" in the third act of Macbeth, which, he says, is an elegant and 
 learned allusion to the Hydra. 
 
 29 See pp. 192, 198. 
 
230 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 Cupid" in the second act of Romeo and Juliet, he makes use 
 of information furnished by Theobald's edition, and refers 
 his readers to Much Ado About Nothing, ''where Mr. Theo- 
 bald's note is worth reading." ^^ The method employed 
 in drawing up the rules in the third book of the volume is 
 exactly the same that had been used in Shakespeare 
 Restored.^^ 
 
 In 1754 Zachary Grey published his Critical, Historical, 
 and Explanatory Notes on Shakespeare, with emendations of 
 the Text and Metre, in the preface to which he says that in 
 spite of the many editions of Shakespeare references to a great 
 many laws and many allusions to historical incidents have 
 been overlooked. As would be expected from this statement, 
 most of his notes are explanatory ; what emendations he 
 does make are confined to meter. His investigation followed 
 the lines laid down by Theobald, being devoted to Ehza- 
 
 30 This manner of introducing Theobald's discoveries as if his own, 
 only mentioning him toward the last, is seen again on page 255 where 
 he gives the story of the Egyptian robber recounted in Heliodorus, 
 refers to the passage in the fifth act of Twelfth Night where Theobald 
 has given the story, and incidentally mentions the latter's note. It 
 is strange that Theobald after having made the discoveries should 
 have missed these two corruptions. 
 
 31 Upton is continually mentioning Bentley, whom he both admires 
 and condemns, and often joins Theobald with him: "As Mr. Theobald 
 and Dr. Bentley often tell us, that they had the happiness to make 
 many corrections, which they find afterwards supported by the au- 
 thority of better copies," etc., p. 236. 
 
 Three years later appeared Remarks on Three Plays of Benjamin 
 Jonson, which has been attributed to James Upton, John's father, 
 but which certainly belongs to the son. In addition to comments on 
 Volpone, Epicoene, and the Alchemist, it contains a number of remarks 
 on Shakespeare. The majority of the notes are devoted to showing 
 classical parallels, and the remainder are chiefly explanatory. Upton 
 draws on Theobald's edition for much of his information, while he em- 
 ploys the latter's method in illustrating Jonson by means of the litera- 
 ture and customs of his age. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 231 
 
 bethan history and literature, as well as Chaucer and 
 Skelton.32 
 
 Besides being the occasion of many pamphlets, War- 
 burton's edition of Shakespeare inspired Benjamin Heath's 
 treatise on the dramatist, but the latter was not published 
 until Johnson's edition made its appearance.^^ The author 
 says he carefully collated Pope, Theobald, Shakespeare Re- 
 stored, and Johnson's Remarks on Macbeth. Not possessing 
 the quartos or the two early folios, he reUed mainly on Pope's 
 and Theobald's collation. He claims that the explication of 
 the true meaning of the old readings removed many obscuri- 
 ties ; and, indeed, in attacking or supporting an emendation 
 he relies chiefly on explaining the passage. Little evi- 
 dence or illustrative material is introduced. For this reason 
 he resembles Theobald only in the close study of the text. 
 Most of his time is spent in agreeing with the latter's cor- 
 rections, and attacking those of Warburton, whose ''licentious 
 criticism" he lashes most mercilessly. 
 
 The application of Theobald's method was not confined 
 to Shakespeare. Although the great Elizabethan offered 
 the most inviting field, the need for critical work on other 
 writers impressed itself upon scholars, who soon saw that the 
 treatment accorded the Shakspearean text could be applied 
 with equal success to any poet of the preceding centuries. ^^ 
 
 ^2 Grey was handicapped in having only the folio of 1632 to collate. 
 Many of his corrections are introduced from this edition and, therefore, 
 are likely to be wrong. His notes bear a close resemblance to Theo- 
 bald's. See pp. 2, 13. 
 
 ^^ A Revisal of Shakespeare's Text, wherein the Alterations introduced 
 into it by the more modern Editors and Critics are particularly considered. 
 1765. 
 
 ^ "Beaumont and Fletcher are another field of criticism next in 
 beauty to Shakespeare, and like him over-run with weeds, many of 
 which are, we hope, now rooted out." Introduction to Works of 
 Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750, p. Ixxiii. 
 
232 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 Thus within a quarter of a century after the appearance 
 of Theobald's epoch-making work critical editions of the 
 most important EngUsh poets were attempted. 
 
 The first poet to benefit by the new criticism was Chaucer. 
 In the sixteenth century two editions of him had appeared, 
 Thynne's, 1532, and Speght's 1598, both of which made use 
 of collation. The second work was immediately reviewed by 
 Thynne's son, Francis, and had his Animadversions been 
 printed, Theobald could not have claimed for Shakespeare 
 Restored the honor of being the first attempt of its kind on an 
 Egnlish poet.^^ Over two hundred years later John Urry 
 undertook to edit Chaucer, but dying before the completion 
 of his design, left the task to be finished by William Broome. 
 Although agreeing with Tyrwhitt in thinking this edition 
 the worst that had appeared. Professor Lounsbury is of the 
 opinion that by a comparison of the manuscripts it made 
 plain the path that must be taken. ^^ 
 
 Urry's work, however, was such a failure that the editor 
 can hardly be said to have pointed the way to a good edition 
 any more than the two earlier editors who had also em- 
 ployed collation. But the next attempt to edit the poet 
 shows distinctly the influence of Theobald's method. In 
 1737 Dr. Thomas Morell, a classical scholar, issued a speci- 
 men of a new edition under the title The Canterbury Tales 
 of Chaucer in the original, from the most authentic manuscripts, 
 and as they are turned into Modern languages hy several Eminent 
 Hands, with references to authors ancient and modern, various 
 
 35 Animadversions upon the Annotations and Corrections of some im- 
 perfections of impressions of Chaucer's Workes was printed for the 
 first time by H. J. Todd in Illustrations of the Lives and Writings of 
 Gower and Chaucer, 1810. Thynne refutes Speght's remarks and 
 emendations by explaining allusions to history and Uterature, and 
 upholds his own conjectures by quoting authorities. In short, Chaucer 
 is treated hke a classic text. 
 
 ^ Studies in Chaucer, vol. 1, p. 294. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 233 
 
 readings and explanatory notes. The plan adopted was the 
 same as that given to the world three years before: the 
 collation of the best manuscripts, the recording of the most 
 important variant readings, the explanation of allusions to 
 history, mythology, and contemporary social hfe, and the 
 defining of obsolete words by parallel passages. Professor 
 Lounsbury holds that while the edition was by no means 
 perfect, it contained much of value and was very good for its 
 day: 
 
 The notes at the bottom of the page, with parallel passages ex- 
 planatory of the use of words, frequently contained information 
 of value, which has more than once been rediscovered in modern 
 times and announced with a good deal of ostentation.'^ 
 
 Another work that showed Theobald's influence was 
 Zachary Grey's edition of Butler's Hudibras, 1744.38 The 
 editor was vicar of St. Giles and St. Peters, and a man of 
 wide reading. Being a strong churchman, he got into many 
 quarrels with dissenters, in the course of which he wrote 
 numerous controversial books and pamphlets, and acquired 
 an extensive knowledge of the puritan Hterature of the 
 seventeenth century, so essential in illustrating Butler. The 
 new field of scholarly activity opened by Theobald inspired 
 him to put a critical hand to the Hudibras}^ 
 
 " Studies in Chaucer, vol. 1, p. 297. 
 
 38 Hudibras, in three parts, Written in the Time of the Late Wars; 
 Corrected and Amended. With large Annotations, and a Preface. By 
 Zachary Grey LL.D. 1744. 
 
 33 In his praise of Shakespeare Restored Concanen called especial 
 attention to the opportunities Hudibras offered to the critic. While 
 there is no evidence to the effect, Grey may possibly have read Con- 
 canen's statement. The large amount of illustrative material in the 
 notes compels the behef that the editor was a number of years collecting 
 it, which fact, together with Grey's high opinion of Theobald and the 
 numerous references to his Shakespeare, makes it probable that the 
 work was undertaken not long after Theobald's edition appeared. 
 
234 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 Since the text of Hudibras offered no particular difficulties, 
 most of the notes, as is mentioned in the preface, are ex- 
 planatory, though there are a few places where new readings 
 are introduced.'^^ The pages are filled with references to 
 every kind of writing :^^ ''Grey's knowledge of puritan 
 literature enabled him to illustrate his author by profuse 
 quotations from contemporary authors, a method com- 
 paratively new." "^^ Not only does Grey make use of puritan 
 literature, but he also levies upon antiquaries, chronicles, 
 medieval romances, Spenser, Chaucer and the Elizabethan 
 dramatists. He is continually profiting by information 
 given in Theobald's edition of Shakespeare,^^ and his notes 
 explaining customs, words, or historical allusions are but 
 copies of the Shakespearean scholar's.^ So thorough was 
 Grey's investigation that his notes are still valuable ^^ and 
 to him has been ascribed the method first exempUfied in 
 Theobald's work. 
 
 The poet whose influence was most widely felt throughout 
 the dechning years of classicism was Milton. The close of 
 the previous century had seen his reputation slowly rising, 
 and had witnessed at least one ambitious edition.*^ Interest 
 
 " See vol. 1, p. 10. 
 
 41 In his preface to his Voyage to Lisbon, Fielding speaks of the 
 edition as the "single book extant in which above five hundred authors 
 are quoted, not one of which could be found in the collection of the 
 late Dr. Mead." 
 
 42 D.N.B., vol. XXIII, p. 219. 
 
 43 See vol. 1, pp. 6, 33, 42, 45, 50. 
 
 44 See vol. 2, p. 33, where he makes use of information furnished by 
 Theobald, and adds, "I do not advance this without some Authority, 
 and a Quotation from Ben Jonson will do." See also vol. 1, p. 19, 
 where he explains the meaning of "hight." 
 
 45 See Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. VIII, p. 463. 
 
 46 Tonson's edition with Patrick Hume's annotations, 1695, "the 
 first attempt to illustrate an English Classic by copious and continued 
 notes." See J. W. Good, Studies in the Milton Tradition, p. 148. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 235 
 
 in the poet, however, received a tremendous impetus from 
 Addison's criticisms in the Spectator.'^^ The fruits of this 
 interest are seen in Tonson's two editions, 1719 and 1725, 
 in the first of which the pubUsher made use of Addison's 
 remarks, and in the second prefixed a fife written by Fenton. 
 Though these editions and criticisms did much toward 
 making the pubhc more famihar with the epic, they did not 
 stimulate interest in the text. This result was accomplished 
 by Bentley's performance, which, though worthless itself, 
 aroused other scholars to efforts in the same direction.*^ 
 Furthermore, the extremity of Bentley's views made later 
 critics more cautious. In his review of the edition Pearce 
 is sane and sober, never hesitating to demolish the editor's 
 belligerent corrections, though always treating him with 
 respect. Jortin's notes, while in general uninteresting, throw 
 some light on the text. John Hawkey, in his edition of 
 Paradise Lost, pubUshed at Dublin in 1747, sought to establish 
 the true text by a collation of the original editions. In every 
 case the methods employed were Theobald's, not Bentley's. 
 But the one eighteenth-century edition of Paradise Lost 
 that has claim to the title '^ critical" was prepared by Thomas 
 Newton in 1749.'*^ At one time a fellow of Trinity College 
 
 "7 Principally his Critique on Paradise Lost, which appeared during 
 the first three months of 1712. 
 
 *^ For the various critical and biographical treatises on Milton, 
 as well as editions of his poetry, see J. W. Good, Studies in the Milton 
 Tradition, chap. VI. 
 
 *^ Paradise Lost. With Notes of Various Authors. London, 1749. 
 Two Volumes. "By the middle of the century there was full prep- 
 aration already made for an extensive work on the part of a judicious 
 critical editor. . . . The great work was the first various edition of 
 Paradise Lost (May 20, 1749) which was indeed the first variorum edition 
 of an English classic. . . . The work was generally applauded; and 
 in various modifications became the standard edition of Paradise 
 Lost for the remainder of the eighteenth century." — J. W. Good, 
 op. dt., p. 182. 
 
236 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 through Bentley^s favor, the editor later became chaplain 
 to Pulteney, Earl of Bath, by whose aid he secured the 
 rectory of St. Mary-le-Bow. In his preface Newton speaks 
 of the esteem in which correct editions were then held, and 
 argues in behalf of their value. Like Theobald he went to 
 the classics for a model : 
 
 My design in the present edition is to publish the Paradise Lost 
 as the work of a classic author cum notis variorum. And in order 
 to this end, the first care has been to print the text correctly ac- 
 cording to Milton's own editions.^" 
 
 These he took as the basis of his text, and realizing that 
 there was less room for emendation in Milton than Shake- 
 speare, claims never to have emended without noting the 
 old reading and without giving some reason for the change. 
 He followed Theobald in describing the purpose of his notes, 
 which, he says, are critical and explanatory — to correct 
 errors of former editions, discuss various readings, establish 
 the true text of Milton, illustrate sense, clear syntax, explain 
 uncommon words, and show imitations. 
 
 Many of the notes in this edition, especially the remarks 
 of Hume and Addison, are concerned with aesthetic criticism, 
 but Newton's annotations are devoted mainly to explana- 
 
 5° Newton used notes of the following critics: Hume, Bentley, 
 Pearce, Upton, Heylin, Jortin, Addison, Thyer, Fenton, Richardson, 
 Birch, and Warburton. Though styUng the remarks of the great 
 scholar as the ''dotages of Bentley," he considered some very useful. 
 In this judgment he was doubtless influenced by Pope's copy of the 
 marvelous edition, wherein the poet had commended many of the 
 critic's corrections. Newton praises Pearce, and confesses that he 
 was led by the latter's remarks to edit Milton. Upton's comments 
 were taken from Critical Observations on Shakespeare, while Thyer 
 and Heyhn sent manuscript notes. Some of Warburton's notes were 
 taken from his contributions to the History of the Works of the Learned, 
 1738, while others were sent in manuscript by the author. Among 
 the latter may have been Theobald's explanation of "pernicious," 
 for Newton gives the same definition of the word. See vol. 1, p. 427. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 237 
 
 tion and textual criticism, though his emendations are 
 neghgible. He defends the text against the corrections of 
 earUer critics by quoting passages from Milton ; in other 
 words, by expounding Milton by himself. In giving ex- 
 planations of words he draws on the literature known to the 
 poet — Spenser, Shakespeare, Harrington, Bacon, and others. 
 In short, he walked in the path that was fast becoming 
 popular, and while Milton was almost too recent a writer to 
 receive the treatment accorded Spenser and Shakespeare, 
 Newton's notes are recognizably similar to Theobald's. ^^ 
 
 With the exception of Shakespeare, Spenser was the sub- 
 ject of closer study than any other poet. The age of Pope, 
 fettered with its critical prepossessions, had little knowledge 
 of the poet and less appreciation of his poetry. Yet a series 
 of satiric and burlesque imitations, as well as the serious 
 admiration of a few men like Prior, had at least kept him 
 in the public eye. Furthermore, the frequent references 
 to the Faerie Queene in such critical works as had appeared 
 attracted the attention of scholars burning with inquisitive 
 zeal. As early as 1734 Jortin had made the poem the sub- 
 ject of a textual treatise ; but it was not until the sixth dec- 
 ade of the century that critical interest in the poet reached 
 unusual proportions. Within this period there appeared 
 no less than four editions and three critical treatises. 
 
 The uncritical method employed in the first two of these 
 editions ^^ prompted Upton to write his A Letter Concerning 
 
 " See vol. 1, pp. 119, 400, 423, 428, and notes on Bk. II, 11. 108, 494, 
 and Bk. Ill, 11. 335, 562.* 
 
 52 A second edition of Hughes' edition, 1750, and Birch's reprint 
 of the foHo of 1609, 1751. Upton was among the first to reaUze that 
 the proper editing of an English classic required learning and industry. 
 He praised Jortin's refusal to edit Spenser because he lacked the re- 
 quisite time, and lamented the fact that hasty editors with Httle learn- 
 ing or application were wont to hire themselves to booksellers. Their 
 conduct, he says, could only be excused on the ground of poverty, an 
 
238 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 a New Edition of Spenser^s Faerie Queene. To Gilbert West, 
 Esq. 1751. A large part of the letter is devoted to telling 
 the story of the poem, explaining the religious symbolism, 
 describing historical personages, who, the author thought, 
 were disguised in the characters, and to pointing out classical 
 imitations and imitations of Chaucer. The rest of the 
 book is concerned with emending and explaining the text, 
 in which task he follows the new method closely. ^^ Further- 
 more, in giving the requirements of an editor, he merely 
 restates what Theobald had established, that ''an editor 
 of Spenser should be master of Spenser's learning : for other- 
 wise how could he know his allusions and various beauties." 
 The fault with Upton's work, first evident in his Remarks 
 on Shakespeare, is his constant introduction of the classics 
 where they have no business, and his addiction to absurd 
 etymologies, which, if credited, would force the inference 
 that English was derived directly from Greek. 
 
 The most important contribution made at this time to 
 Spenserian criticism was Thomas Warton's Observations on 
 the Faerie Queene of Spenser, 1754. To the author of this 
 treatise has been given the honor of laying the foundations 
 of historical criticism because he sought an explanation of 
 the poem in the literature of and before the sixteenth century 
 and in the customs and manners of the Elizabethan age.^^ 
 
 excuse which did not apply to Rowe and Pope, between whom there 
 was Httle to choose. Upton was the first to emphasize the duty of 
 recording variant readings: "Methinks every reader would require 
 that the last editor should faithfully and fairly exhibit all the various 
 readings of even the least authority." 
 
 53 See his correction of bilive for alive in Bk. 1, Canto II, St. 19. 
 As a subscriber to Theobald's Shakespeare, Upton was in a position to 
 learn the previous editor's method. 
 
 " Clarissa Rinaker, Thomas Warton A Biographical and Critical 
 Study. Univ. of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, vol. II, 
 No. I, p. 47. The reviewer of Upton's edition of the Faerie Queene 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 239 
 
 But he can hardly claim this credit. The preface to Theo- 
 bald's Shakespeare distinctly stated that an editor ''should 
 be well vers'd in the History and Manners of his Author's 
 age," while the notes to the various volumes gave ample 
 evidence of the editor's practice of acquainting himself 
 with the literature accessible to Elizabethans. Possibly 
 the consciousness that he was stealing another man's thunder 
 induced Warton to omit Shakespeare when, in propounding 
 Theobald's gospel, he says, 
 
 in criticism upon Milton, Johnson, Spenser, and some other of 
 our older poets, not only a competent knowledge of all ancient 
 classical learning is requisite, but also an acquaintance with those 
 books, which though now forgotten and lost, were yet in repute 
 at the time in which each author respectively wrote, and which 
 it is most likely he read.^^ 
 
 Warton approaches Theobald more closely than any other 
 critic, a fact especially evident in his use of out-of-the-way 
 reading to establish Spenser's sources. Compare, for in- 
 stance, the passage in which he shows that Spenser was in- 
 debted to the Morte D' Arthur rather than to Geoffrey of 
 Monmouth with Theobald's note showing that Shakespeare 
 went to Wynken de Worde rather than Chaucer. ^^ Further- 
 says of Warton: "Not content with the petty diligence of recovering 
 lost syllables nor acquiescing in the easy talk of praising without 
 reason, he has attentively surveyed the learning and the fashions 
 which prevailed in the age of his poet. He had happily discovered the 
 books which Spenser himself had read, and from whose obscure and 
 obsolete sources he derived most of his principal fictions. By means 
 of these materials, judiciously selected and conducted, he has been 
 enabled to give the world a more new and original piece of criticism, 
 than any before extant." An Impartial Estimate of the Reverend Mr. 
 Upton's Notes on the Fairy Queen, 1759, p. 2. 
 
 ^^ Observations, p. 243. 
 
 ^ Idem, pp. 15 ff., and ed. of Shakespeare, vol. 7, p. 14. Theobald's 
 discovery first appeared in Mist's Journal, March 16, 1728. Warton 
 makes the same use of the ** Blatant Beast" that Theobald made of 
 
240 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 more, the Spenserian critic makes the same use of parallel 
 passages as the Shakespearean. When he says that to pro- 
 duce an author's imitations of himself is particularly useful 
 in explaining diflficult passages and words, he is merely 
 stating in different language Theobald's dictum, ''To ex- 
 pound an Author by himself is the surest Means of coming 
 at the Truth of his Text." ^^ In showing Spenser's pe- 
 culiarities in spelling, versification, and language, and in 
 defending a reading against Upton or explaining the meaning 
 of a word, the critic produces, in Theobald's manner, a 
 number of quotations from Spenser or contemporary litera- 
 ture.^^ Warton's textual criticism taUies in almost every 
 detail with that of the previous scholar who must have been 
 his model. ^^ 
 
 the "Sagittary." Because of his explanation the latter was impaled 
 on Pope's satire for reading "All such reading as was never read." 
 No wonder Warton took Pope to task for the Une! 
 
 " Observations, p. 181, and Shakespeare Restored, p. 128. 
 
 " Compare Observations, pp. 84, 123, 201, 206, with Shakespeare 
 Restored, pp. 8, 40, 110, 151. Below is a typical note from Warton: 
 
 "Because I could not give her many a Jane. 
 So Chaucer. 
 
 Of Bruges were his hosin broun, 
 His Robe was of Chekelatoun 
 
 That cost many a Jane. 
 Many a jane, that is, much money. Skinner informs us, that Jane is 
 a coin of Geneva; and Speght Gl. to Chaucer, interprets Jane, half- 
 pence of Janua, or galy half -pence: 
 As ... Dere ynough, a Jane 
 
 And in other places." 
 
 59 In the introduction to his edition of Ben Jonson, Gifford gave 
 Warton the credit for originating the "cheap and miserable display 
 of learning" shown in quoting many parallel passages. Yet the more 
 modern editor adopted the practice — Theobald's not Warton's — in 
 his own notes, and confessed that "Uncommon and obsolete words 
 are briefly explained, and where the phraseology was doubtful or 
 obscure, it is illustrated and confirmed by quotations from contemporary 
 authors." 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 241 
 
 The year 1758 saw two critical editions of the Faerie Queene. 
 The preface to the first, edited by Ralph Church, a master 
 of arts of Oxford and a scholar of some note, gives a careful 
 account and full description of the old editions.^^ Since the 
 various editions are denoted by letters and numerals, the 
 first instance of such a procedure, and since many variant 
 readings are recorded at the bottom of the page, the volumes 
 present a very modern appearance. ^^ For the first three 
 books of the poem Church adopted as the standard text 
 the quarto of 1590 ; for the second three books the quartos 
 of 1596 ; and for the two cantos of the incomplete book the 
 folio of 1609. He held that the later editions were of no 
 authority, but in his footnotes he gave readings from them. 
 Church's collation was careful and thorough ; his faithfulness 
 in recording variant readings surpassed that of any previous 
 editor. 
 
 Church was incited to his work by the realization that 
 Spenser needed a critical editor, a realization that was be- 
 coming more and more prevalent not only as regards Spenser 
 but as regards all old poets. The method he employed was 
 that originated by the man who first pointed out the need and 
 value of critical research. When the Spenserian editor 
 refused, without giving due notice, to introduce into his 
 text any word differing from the editions he had accepted as 
 standard, he was only following that radical departure from 
 the ways of poetical editors which Theobald had established. ^^ 
 
 ^° The Faerie Queene, By Edmund Spenser. A New Edition, with 
 Notes critical and explanatory, by Ralph Church, M.A. Late Student 
 of Christ Church, Oxon. In four volumes. London 1758. 
 
 ®i He refers to the quarto of 1590 as P. 1., the quarto of 1596 as P. 
 2., the folio of 1609 as L., the folio of 1611 as L. 2., Hughes' editions as 
 HI, H2, and the edition of 1751 as B. 
 
 62 "Whenever I have ventur'd at an emendation, a Note is con- 
 stantly subjoined to justify and assert the Reason of it." Edition of 
 Shakespeare, preface, p. xliii. 
 
242 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 From the latter also was derived the procedure employed in 
 the explanatory notes. Church studies Spenser's metrical 
 peculiarities and quotes numerous passages from the Faerie 
 Queene to substantiate his conclusion. He has recourse to 
 dictionaries, antiquaries, chronicles, and histories. In elu- 
 cidating Spenser's expressions and allusions he makes ex- 
 tensive use of parallel passages quoted from the literature of 
 the poet's time, such as Jonson, Sidney, Raleigh, Shake- 
 speare, Fairfax, as well as Chaucer and Geoffry of Monmouth. 
 In short, he has given to Spenser the same treatment accorded 
 Shakespeare.^^ 
 
 The other edition was by John Upton, a man whom we 
 have had occasion to mention frequently, and who occupies 
 a respectable place in early English scholarship. ^^ He gives 
 
 «3 In his preface Church says that his edition "is intended for the 
 use of the English Reader, but is submitted hkewise to the judgment 
 of the learned." Scholars were beginning to write for scholars and 
 were willing to have their work judged by scholarly standards. Theo- 
 bald had expressed the same sentiment: "As to my Notts (from which 
 the common and learned Readers of our Author, I hope, will derive 
 some Pleasure;)" etc., Edition of Shakespeare, preface, p. xliii. 
 
 Church seldom introduces his conjectures into the text. In the 
 notes he produces them in Theobald's manner. See his emendation 
 on the Faerie Queene, Bk. Ill, c. 11, st. 50: " . . . and boldly had him 
 bace. So all the editions. But I incline to think that Spenser gave 
 
 . . . and boldly bad the bace . . . 
 i.e. they boldly challenged each other to run after OUyphant, 
 
 And each did strive the other to outgoe. 
 So Warner in his Albion's England, printed at London, 1598. 
 The Romaines bid the bace . . . (page 71) i.e. gave the challange. 
 And again, page 73. 
 
 Even we do dare to bid the bace.^' 
 See also vol. 1, pp. 98, 179. 
 
 ^ Spenser's Fairie Queene. A New Edition with a Glossary, and 
 Notes explanatory and critical. By John Upton, Prebendary of Rochester 
 and Rector of Great Ris^ngton in Glocester shire. In Two Volumes, 
 London: MDCCLVIII. Upton intended to add a third volume 
 consisting of Spenser's other works. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 243 
 
 an account of the old quartos and folios and takes as standard 
 the same editions as Church. Although he consulted and 
 mentions in his notes the later editions, he holds them of 
 little authority ; he cannot conceal his contempt for Hughes' 
 production and the edition published under Dr. Birch's 
 care, though really Mr. Kent's. While Upton is not as 
 thorough in recording variant readings as Church, he gives 
 a large number of those he thinks worth while. Refusing 
 to introduce any of his conjectures into the text, he consist- 
 ently relegates them to the notes. In this respect he was 
 far ahead of the times. 
 
 Upton's notes contain a wealth of information. His 
 illustrative material is drawn from authors contemporary 
 with Spenser — Shakespeare, Sidney, Raleigh, Fairfax, 
 Drayton. He also makes extensive use of the literature that 
 may have played a part in the making of the Faerie Queene, 
 many passages being quoted from Chaucer, Ariosto, Boiardo, 
 Lydgate, and Geoffrey of Monmouth. Besides these he 
 consulted chroniclers, historians, and antiquarians. Most 
 numerous are his quotations from the classics and references 
 to the Bible. He practices Theobald's theory of ''expound- 
 ing an author by himself" by quoting many lines from 
 Spenser, especially when showing the peculiarities of Spenser's 
 spelling or meter. Generally speaking, his notes are valuable 
 in that he brings to the study of the epic an extensive knowl- 
 edge of the literature accessible to Spenser. 
 
 Upton's edition is one of the best of the eighteenth-century 
 editions of any poet.^^ This fact is apparent even in the 
 
 ^5 "To Upton, a man of rare learning and sagacity, the student is 
 more indebted than to any other writer for elucidation of the authors 
 whom Spenser had read or had imitated. Much is due to Warton and 
 Jortin." F. G. Child, preface to edition of Spenser, 1855. In the 
 preface to his edition of Spenser, 1805, the Reverend H. J. Todd says, 
 "Of the Faerie Queene two separate editions by Mr. Upton and Mr. 
 
244 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 glossary, which is a marked improvement on any previous 
 one. Hughes' glossary was almost entirely copied from that 
 of the folio of 1679, which was itself in large part taken from 
 the glossary of E.K., the annotator of the Shepherd's Calendar. 
 In two respects Upton departed from the model set by Theo- 
 bald. Probably influenced by Johnson's dictionary, he in- 
 troduced into his glossary rather than his notes many parallel 
 passages illustrating the meaning of words. He also rele- 
 gated the notes to the end of the second volume, leaving 
 the pages free for the text. 
 
 More than any other, Spenserian investigation profited 
 by the method first applied to Shakespeare. With this 
 investigation Theobald was not directly associated. He was 
 certainly a friend of Jortin and probably of Upton, but at 
 no time showed any critical interest in the Elizabethan 
 poet, though he gave evidence of his familiarity with the 
 Faerie Queene by numerous quotations from it. Yet the 
 fact that Jortin, Warton, Upton, and Church used a method 
 which did not exist before Theobald, and which is almost 
 identically the same as was used by the latter, forces the 
 conclusion that they learned their handicraft from the sub- 
 ject of Pope's satire. 
 
 Not only as regards Spenser but also as regards other 
 writers was the middle of the eighteenth century a period 
 of unusual critical activity, during which the dramatists 
 contemporary with Shakespeare came in for their share of 
 
 Church appeared in 1758, in which the diHgence and utiUty of colla- 
 tion, more especially by the latter of these gentlemen, are as obvious 
 as they are important." After speaking of the "excellent illustrations 
 of Upton" and "important remarks of Church," Todd places before 
 us his own method, the same as we have been tracing: "My own notes 
 on the several poems, which I have presumed to lay before the public, 
 consist not only of regulations of the text; but also of explanations 
 arising from some attention to the literature of the age in which Spenser 
 Uved." 
 
THE PROGKESS OF THE METHOD 245 
 
 attention. As early as 1744 the appearance of Dodsley's 
 Select Collection of Old Plays gave notice that a part of the 
 public was coming to some appreciation of EHzabethan 
 drama. Since that footman-poet-pubUsher was in no way 
 equipped for the office of editor, it is not strange that the 
 dramas received little care, but the very fact that a publisher 
 should think it to his profit to pubUsh such a work is indica- 
 tive of the changing taste of the times. In the following 
 decade critical editions of Beaumont and Fletcher, Ben 
 Jonson, and Massinger were attempted. 
 
 With each of these three editions Theobald was in some 
 way associated. His part in the edition of Beaumont and 
 Fletcher has already been discussed, but it may be well to 
 repeat some of the points made. While the work is "the 
 first serious effort toward a reconstruction of the text," ^^ 
 it is not satisfactory. Those plays that came under our 
 editor's supervision show a much more careful collation than 
 the others. While he introduced into the text a number of 
 his conjectures — the value of some has never received suf- 
 ficient recognition — he drew most of his corrections from 
 the old copies, the worth of which he fully appreciated. 
 Although at his death, Seward and Sympson received ''his 
 valuable collection of old quartos," the remaining plays did 
 not receive careful collation, and the license of emendation 
 was indulged in to a much greater extent. The younger 
 editors' ignorance of EHzabethan history, language, and 
 literature caused them to emend where they should have 
 explained, while they fell into the habit of collating only 
 where there was some difficulty.^^ Yet the method they 
 strove to follow was Theobald's, and their ill success was due 
 to their own insufficiency. 
 
 66 The Knight of the Burning Pestle, edited»by H. S. Murch, 1908, 
 Yale Studies in English, xxxiii. Introduction, p. iv. 
 " Murch, op. dt., p. iv. 
 
246 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 The first critical edition of Ben Jonson appeared in 1756.^^ 
 The editor, Peter Whalley, was a graduate of Oxford and 
 vicar of Horley in Surrey; early in his career he had been 
 a schoolmaster in Christ's Hospital. Although Whalley 
 claimed that his edition was based on the foUo of 1611 and 
 the old quartos, he made the same mistake Theobald made 
 with Shakespeare ; he based his text upon the last printed 
 edition, introducing into it the various readings drawn from 
 the old copies, a procedure which militated against accurate 
 collation. Furthermore, he recorded few variant readings, 
 and did not always give a note when he deviated from the 
 text.6» 
 
 Whalley 's remarks on how to handle the text, remarks 
 that have been styled ''very just,"^^ read so much like those 
 given by Theobald that it is difficult not to suppose that 
 his preface was largely modeled upon the preface to Shake- 
 speare.'^^ He himself bears witness to the fact that his methods 
 were Theobald's. He had obtained the latter's copy of 
 Jonson with marginal notes: 
 
 But altho the advantages of this copy were not so many as I had 
 at first expected, it was a satisfaction to me to find that had Mr. 
 
 ^8 The Works oj Ben Jonson. In Seven Volumes. Collated with all 
 the Former Editions and Corrected ; with Notes Critical and Explanatory. 
 By Peter Whalley, Late Fellow of St. John's College in Oxford. London. 
 1756. See Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. VI, p. 470. 
 
 69 See The Alchemist, edited by C. M. Hathaway, 1903, p. 10. 
 
 '0 Idem, p. 10. 
 
 ^1 Whalley says his plan is to exhibit the correct text and explain 
 all obscurities due to Jonson's peculiar habit of thought and to ob- 
 scure allusions to the times. He claims the right of correcting flat 
 nonsense especially where the emendation follows traces of the text, 
 though he beUeves no emendation should be made to improve the author 
 himself. He states that many allusions need no correcting, but can be 
 explained by expounding the author by himself. He gives warning that 
 some of his notes are introduced merely to show imitations. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 247 
 
 Theobald published an edition of Jonson's works, he would have 
 proposed the same plan, and executed in the manner that I have 
 done." 
 
 The notes bear out this statement. Many allusions are 
 explained by references to the literature and customs of 
 Jonson's time, while the meanings of many words are illus- 
 trated by quotations from Jonson and his contemporaries. 
 UnUke Theobald, Whalley seldom supports his emendations, 
 which are sometimes introduced without notice, but they 
 are few and unimportant. Yet his own words, together with 
 the fact that he frequently makes use of material furnished 
 by Theobald's Shakespeare,"^^ show whom he was imitating. 
 In 1759 appeared the first modern edition of Massinger, 
 ostensibly edited by Thomas Coxeter.^^ The latter was a 
 student at Trinity College, Oxford, but removed to London 
 in 1710. Here he became acquainted with the booksellers 
 and collected materials for some biographies of the old poets. 
 Having gathered together many old plays, he once enter- 
 tained the idea of publishing a selection from them, a plan 
 afterwards executed by Dodsley. Though he did not follow 
 up his design, he put his old quartos to good use. When 
 Theobald began work on the edition of Shakespeare, Coxeter 
 made his acquaintance and assisted him with various black 
 letter plays, an obUgation the former adequately acknowl- 
 
 ^2 Whalley, op. cit., vol. 1, preface, p. xxix. Besides receiving help 
 from Zachary Grey, Whalley was assisted by Theobald's collaborators, 
 Seward and Sympson. 
 
 " Idem, vol. 1, pp. 39, 46, 77 and vol. 4, p. 8. 
 
 '^ The Dramatic Works of Philip Massinger, Compleat in Four Vol- 
 umes. Revised, Corrected, and all the various Editions Collated. By 
 Thomas Coxeter, Esq., with Notes Critical and Explanatory, of various 
 Authors. To which are prefixed Critical Reflections on the Old English 
 Dramatic Writers. Addressed to David Garrick, Esq. ; London : Printed 
 for T. Davies. 1761. The first edition was issued by Dell in 1759, 
 and did not contain the "Critical Reflections" (written by Colman). 
 
248 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 edged in his preface. At the time of his death in 1747 
 Coxeter was engaged upon this edition of Massinger. 
 
 Some years later a bookseller named Dell took over the 
 incomplete work and gave it to the public. The preface 
 bears the statement that Coxeter spared no diUgence in, 
 maldng the text as correct as possible by conjecture and 
 collation and had prepared ''several observations and notes 
 for his intended edition," which were inserted. The reader 
 is then assured that had the editor lived, he would have 
 completed his design which would have met with a favorable 
 reception from all persons of taste and genius. Thus it 
 seems that about all for which Coxeter was responsible was 
 the collation which wrung from unwilling Gifford an acknowl- 
 edgment of the ''ignorant fidelity of Coxeter." ^^ In 
 other respects Gifford was not so complimentary. He said 
 that the editor did not have sufficient learning to correct 
 corrupt passages; that his "conjectures are void aUke of 
 ingenuity and probability, and his historical references at 
 once puerile and incorrect." Had Coxeter's labors not been 
 cut short, he doubtless would have supported his corrections 
 with some evidence, and the absence of such evidence must 
 have been responsible for DelFs confession that the correc- 
 tions had been tacitly inserted in the text for fear notes would 
 only interrupt the reader.^^ In a few places there are emenda- 
 tions in Theobald's manner, while some of the explanations 
 of words and allusions are fashioned in the standard mold.'^^ 
 
 Had the work been completed by the original editor, no 
 doubt it would have been a creditable performance. Coxeter 
 had the materials necessary for a good edition and the ex- 
 ample of his friend as to how to use them. As the edition 
 
 ^5 The Plays of Philip Massinger, edited by Gifford, 1805. Intro- 
 duction, p. Ixvi. 
 
 76 See vol. 4, p. 254. 
 
 77 See vol. 2, p. 372, and vol. 4, pp. 44, 312. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 249 
 
 stands, it is impossible to tell to whom belongs the credit or 
 discredit of the work. There are practically no critical 
 notes on the text, and all others are rather scant. A large 
 part are concerned with interpretative criticism, while 
 others content themselves with parallel passages showing 
 imitations. Yet a number explain old customs and historical 
 allusions, thus throwing some light on Massinger.^^ 
 
 Throughout this period every attempt at critical work 
 on English texts was sure to show Theobald's influence. 
 Some critics fell short of his standard, others improved on 
 his practice, but in every instance the outline of his method 
 is discernible. Yet there has survived to the present day 
 the belief that the eighteenth century constantly associated 
 his name with dullness. It must be admitted that if reliance 
 is placed upon the comments made by the editors of Shake- 
 speare who followed Theobald, his reputation declined 
 rapidly after his death. These men unfortunately chose 
 from various causes to depreciate and slander their prede- 
 cessor. Warburton for obvious reasons had no good word 
 to say in behalf of his erstwhile friend. Johnson was under 
 obligation to Warburton for a timely word of praise and 
 naturally took his side. Capell, Steevens, and others 
 followed in the path thus marked out for them, sustained 
 by the increasing credence Pope's fame lent to his libels. 
 
 Yet, for a considerable time after his death, Theobald's 
 reputation was high, especially with scholars. Johnson 
 
 ^8 The preface affords an interesting example of the way Theobald's 
 idea of an editor's duty was taken over by others: "'Tis true, the 
 Business of an Editor is to amend such Passages that he finds corrupt, 
 to explain what is obscure and difficult, and to mark the Beauties and 
 Defects of Composition." Theobald had said, "The Science of Criti- 
 cism, as far as it affects an Editor, seems to be reduced to these three 
 Classes: the Emendation of corrupt Passages; the Explanation of 
 obscure and diflacult ones; and an Inquiry into the Beauties and 
 Defects of Composition." Preface to edition of Shakespeare, p. xl. 
 
250 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 himself, in his Observations on Macbeth, 1745, had nothing 
 but praise for the man he later attacked. The following 
 year John Upton spoke highly of himJ^ In 1754 Zachary 
 Grey singled him out to say that he had thrown a great deal 
 of light on Shakespeare's obscurities.^^ Grey was of the 
 opinion that the editor, "a, person seemingly in other 
 respects very modest," treated Pope too harshly notwith- 
 standing The Dunciad ; but he could not understand War- 
 burton's treatment of Theobald. As late as 1765 Benjamin 
 Heath, while speaking disparagingly of Shakespearean 
 editors in general, made an exception of Pope's rival, saying 
 that the public was under real and considerable obligation 
 to him.^^ The same year Wilham Kenrick, in his review 
 of Johnson's edition, treated Theobald with respect, while 
 in his defense of the review he said that the critic was the 
 only commentator on Shakespeare that had acquitted him- 
 self with reputation. ^2 
 
 It was not until the last half of the century was well under 
 way that the satire of Pope and the slanders of other editors 
 obscured his fame. Even then the very things for which 
 he had been satirized won a complete triumph over The Dun- 
 dad. The fact is apparent not only in the method employed 
 by later critics, but in the definite stands some of them took. 
 Johnson did not hesitate to attack Pope's ''dull duty of an 
 editor " : '' The duty of a collator is indeed dull, yet Uke other 
 
 ^^ Critical Observations on Shakespeare, passim. 
 
 *" Critical, Historical, and Explanatory Notes on Shakespeare, preface. 
 
 8^ A Revisal of Shakespeare's Text, preface. 
 
 *2 Defence of Mr. Kenrick's Review of Dr. Johnson's Shakespeare, 
 1766, p. 9. Seward spoke of Theobald as one "who is most obHged to 
 Shakespeare, and to whom Shakespeare is most obUged of any man 
 living," and affirms that he was unblasted by the Ughtning of Pope. 
 Edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, 1750, preface. See also the preface 
 to Whalley's edition of Ben Jonson, 1756, where Theobald is indirectly 
 complimented. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 251 
 
 tedious tasks, is very necessary ; but an emendatory critick 
 would ill discharge his duty, without qualities very different 
 from duhiess." Especially did Pope's line "All such reading 
 as was never read" arouse the ire of later scholars. Of this 
 line Warton said. 
 
 If Shakespeare is worth reading, he is worth explaining; and the 
 researches used for so valuable and elegant a purpose, merit the 
 thanks of genius and candour, not the satire of prejudice and 
 ignorance. ^^ 
 
 Farmer, though perpetually sneering at Theobald, was 
 forced to the confession that, ''In the course of this disquisi- 
 tion, you have often smiled at ' all such reading as was never 
 read ' ; and possibly I may have indulged it too far : but 
 it is the reading necessary for a comment on Shakespeare." ^* 
 Strange as it may seem. Pope's characterization of Theobald 
 was complacently accepted, yet the specific charges advanced 
 by the satirist were denied. The editor was considered 
 dull for the very offenses his calumniators were glad to 
 commit. 
 
 One reason why in the end Theobald's reputation was 
 unable to overcome the misrepresentations of Pope lay in 
 the fact that as his method became more general, its source 
 was obscured. The generation who knew Theobald and 
 his works realized his importance and patterned their own 
 procedure after his. Their work in turn became new centers 
 of influence, so that by the last quarter of the century the 
 later tribe of critics considered the method anybody's. 
 Not only was he deprived of the honor of formulating and 
 practicing a method by which results could be obtained, but 
 his own results were continually pillaged by critics, to whom 
 have been attributed discoveries made many years before. 
 
 ^ Observations on the Fairie Queene, 1807, II, p. 319. 
 *» D. N. Smith, Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare, 1903, 
 p. 214. 
 
252 LEWIS THEOBALD 
 
 Theobald the editor disappeared; Theobald the dunce 
 survived. 
 
 Because Theobald's work ceased to be the actual model 
 for later critics, it is unnecessary to trace the method any 
 farther. Yet it has come down to the present day and con- 
 stitutes the basic principles of modern editing. In the 
 construction of an accurate text — the first duty of an 
 editor — collation and the recording of variant readings are 
 the most important considerations. Theobald first em- 
 phasized and established the importance of collation, and 
 was the first to take any steps toward noticing variant read- 
 ings. Emending has fallen from the high place it once held, 
 but the imperative need of it is sometimes recognized, and 
 in such cases the only method entitled to respect is Theo- 
 bald's. He placed the science on the firmest foundation of 
 which it is susceptible. In the explanation of a text the 
 critical editor of to-day only enlarges on the earlier pro- 
 cedure. He must acquaint himself with the history, customs, 
 and manners of the age in which his author lived ; above all, 
 he must study the literature and language of that age. This 
 Theobald was the first to do. As for the parallel passages, 
 which the first editor used on all occasions, and which 
 flourished so luxuriantly throughout the rest of the century, 
 their need is now largely supplied by dictionaries,^^ without 
 which, however, it would be necessary to return to the 
 old plan. The scholar of to-day has every aid to investi- 
 gation, so that his research is naturally more thorough and 
 his feeling for accuracy more pronounced ; still, take away 
 what Theobald contributed to the science of editing, and 
 little is left. 
 
 8^ Johnson is generally given the credit for inaugurating the method 
 of illustrating the meaning of a word by quotations. He probably 
 took it over from the notes of critics and editors who followed the 
 example set by Shakespeare Restored. 
 
THE PROGRESS OF THE METHOD 253 
 
 To Bentley, however, really belongs the credit for stimu- 
 lating textual work in English, and in some part for formu- 
 lating the method. ^^ Theobald's treatment of collation and 
 variant readings was derived from his study of the great 
 scholar, while his emendatory notes were closely modeled 
 upon the other critic's. In explanatory notes the parallelism 
 is not so close, owing to the dissimilarity of their tasks, but 
 the same spirit that informs Bentley's work is apparent in 
 the Shakespearean annotations. In both there is the same 
 unwillingness to deal in random guesses and unfounded 
 hearsay, the same reliance on reasoning based upon fact, 
 upon evidence gathered from wide investigation and focused 
 upon obscurity; a spirit first seen in the members of the 
 young Royal Society, with whom Bentley was closely as- 
 sociated, and who, in spite of many freakish experiments 
 and outlandish notions, broke away from tradition and 
 superstition, and sought the reassuring conclusions drawn 
 from observed fact and logical thought. 
 
 ^ The late Professor Fliigel was certainly wrong in saying "Shakes- 
 perean scholarship, from Rowe to M alone, does not even find a standard 
 of textual criticism to be applied to Shakespeare's works: Bentley's 
 influence is not felt on this field." This is the very field in which 
 Bentley's influence was most potent, as we would expect from the 
 emphasis he himself placed on textual criticism. See Fliigel Memorial 
 Volume, Univ. of Cal. Publications, 1916, pp. 18, 20, 30. 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 ''Bibliotheca: A Poem, Occasioned by the sight of a 
 Modern Library. With some very useful episodes and 
 digressions," is to be found in the third volume, page 19, 
 of A Select Collection of Poems. 8 vols. London. 1780, 
 printed for and by J. Nichols. In a footnote Nichols says, 
 ''This is ascribed to Dr. King upon conjecture only. It was 
 published in 1712, the winter before he died, by his book- 
 seller, inscribed to his patron, and is very much in his manner. 
 His name is accordingly affixed to the author's notes." 
 It is now given to Thomas Newcomb, though on what 
 grounds I do not know. It seems to be written very much 
 in King's manner, especially when we compare this quotation 
 with that from Some Account of Horace's Behaviour, given in 
 Chapter II. 
 
 The idea of the poem was evidently derived from The 
 Battle of the Books. The poet goes into a modern hbrary, 
 and, the books impersonating their authors, the poet dis- 
 cusses them one by one ; Defoe especially comes in for some 
 hard knocks. Nichols (p. 65) points to the similarity 
 between the Oblivion of this poem and the Goddess of The 
 Dunciad, and adds that there are many more points of 
 similarity. He then compares the first two lines of the 
 passage quoted with these two in The Dunciad. 
 Bk. IV, fine 219, 
 
 *' Tis true. On words is still our whole debate 
 Disputes of Me or Te, of aut or at." 
 
 Compare the following selections also : 
 
APPENDIX A 255 
 
 Bibliotheca : 
 
 Beneath a dark and gloomy cell 
 A lazy Goddess chose to dwell 
 
 Obhvion was her dreaded name ; 
 On verse and laudanum she feeds, 
 
 Each weeping wall bedew 'd appears 
 With Cloe's sighs, and Strephon's tears ; 
 Sad dirges, breathing Lover's pain, 
 And soft complaints of Virgins slain : 
 While Female Sonnets, Poet's Themes, 
 Beaux Stratagems, Projectors' Dreams, 
 Around the lonely structure fly, 
 Slumber awhile, and gently die. 
 
 Dundad : 
 
 Here stood her opiimi, here she nursed her owl. 
 
 Hence hymning Tyburn's elegiac lay, 
 
 Hence the soft sing-song on CeciUa's day, 
 
 Sepulchral lyes our holy walls to grace 
 
 And New-year-Odes and all the Grubstreet race." 
 
 Other parallels between the two satires could be shown. 
 
APPENDIX B 
 
 The OdeSf Epodes, and Carmen Secular e of Horace. In 
 Latin and English; with a Translation of Dr. Bentley^s Notes. 
 To which are added Notes upon Notes. In 24 Parts complete. 
 By several Hands. London; Printed for Bernard Lintott 
 at the Cross-Keys, between the two Temple-Gates in Fleetstreet, 
 MDCCXIII. 
 
 This work is a collection of twenty-six pamphlets, the first 
 two being a translation of Bentley's dedication and ''The 
 Life of Horace with Bentley's Preface, Latin and EngUsh." 
 The other twenty-four are devoted to a translation of Horace 
 and Bentley's notes, to which are added the notes on notes. 
 These last are rather abundant at first, but toward the end 
 become short and scarce, many odes being passed over 
 entirely. Of the twenty-four parts, seventeen appeared in 
 1712 and seven the following year. Monk thinks they 
 were issued fortnightly. 
 
 As regards authorship, Monk says {Life of Bentley, vol. 1, 
 p. 319): "There appears once to have been a notion that 
 the author was no other than Bentley's old enemy, Dr. King. 
 A copy of the book, in an old binding, shown to me by Mr. 
 Evans, the eminent book seller of Pall-Mali, is lettered 
 King's Horace. But Dr. King was dead some time before 
 the completion of the work. The writer might have been 
 another person of the same name." Now it is generally 
 attributed to William Oldis worth (Notes and Queries, 1865, 
 vol. 2, p. 229; and article on Oldisworth in Dictionary of 
 National Biography). A translation of the poems alone, 
 
APPENDIX B 257 
 
 issued in 1719 as the second edition, bears Oldisworth's 
 name as translator. On this evidence, however, I hardly 
 think it safe to attribute the whole work to him. The title 
 page of the 1713 edition says specifically ''By several Hands." 
 It seems natural that Oldisworth should have been selected 
 to translate the poetry, for Lintot says (Carruther's Life 
 of Pope, p. 141) ''he translated an ode of Horace the quickest 
 of any man in England." Nor do I think it improbable that 
 King translated the notes and wrote the notes upon notes. 
 He did not die until late in December, and, according to 
 Monk's calculation of two weeks for each part, the work 
 must have been completed some three months later. 
 It seems possible that King might have completed his task 
 before Oldisworth had done his, since it would certainly 
 take longer to translate the odes than Bentley's notes and 
 since the notes on notes are very scarce toward the end. 
 The notes are in King's manner and contain allusions to 
 his works. Bentley is called BentivogUo (Pt. I. p. 13), a 
 name used in the Dialogues of the Dead, and a similar descrip- 
 tion of him is given. There are two references (Pt. 4, 
 p. 6, Pt. 15, p. 31) to the Trinity College Buttery which 
 figured in King's Some Account of Horace's Behaviour, and 
 a picture of Bentley which must have been made from 
 the same plate used in the Some Account. One note (Pt. I. 
 p. 23) reads much like Useful Transactions, and the doggerel 
 poems scattered through the notes are the same in pur- 
 pose, spirit, and nature as those in the Transactions. 
 
APPENDIX C 
 
 SOME UNPUBLISHED LETTERS OF THEOBALD 
 
 The originals of the following letters, with a few excep- 
 tions, are to be found in the British Museum, Egerton 
 MSS. 1956, contained in a small volume labeled "Letters 
 of L. Theobald and Dr. Warburton." They supplement 
 those given by Nichols in Illustrations of Literature, vol. 2, 
 pp. 189-656, beginning with December, 1729, and extend- 
 ing to the fall of 1736. Nichols said he obtained the originals 
 of the letters he published from a gentleman who had 
 received them from Theobald's son. In this case the 
 letters herein printed must have remained in Warburton's 
 hands, a conclusion further supported by the fact that there 
 is contained among them a statement in Warburton's hand- 
 writing to the effect that he had returned many of Theo- 
 bald's letters. In April, 1730, the latter wrote for his letters, 
 and the following month acknowledged their receipt, prom- 
 ising at the same time to return them, which promise must 
 not have been fulfilled. There are four more of Theobald's 
 letters, all containing notes on Shakespeare, given in the 
 Illustrations, which Warburton must have returned at some 
 later date, as well as five of Warburton's which Theobald 
 missed when he sent back his friend's correspondence in 
 1736. 
 
 Warburton made it a point to return all his friend's 
 manuscripts which contained notes on Shakespeare. For 
 that reason there is little Shakespearean criticism to be 
 found in the following letters, a fact much to be deplored. 
 Yet they have some value in the light they shed on Theo- 
 bald's feehngs and activities in the years following the 
 
APPENDIX C 259 
 
 Dunciad, and especially in making clear the cause of the 
 break between the two friends. 
 
 I have tried to print the letters as Theobald wrote them, 
 making no effort to correct punctuation, capitalization 
 and the like. In the Greek quotations I have not sought 
 to emend in accent and form. I have made few omis- 
 sions, and those only in cases where the passages are already 
 in print. To each omission attention is called in a foot- 
 note, and the place specified where it can be found. With 
 a few exceptions, which are noted, all the letters are ad- 
 dressed to Warburton. 
 
 [To Sir Hans Shane] 
 
 1 Sir, 
 
 I presume on the priviledge of a Neighbour to inclose 
 herewith One of my Proposals, & beg the Honour of yo'' 
 Name to grace one part of my List. In your own Pro- 
 fession Sir, I have been indulg'd w*^. the Encouragem*. 
 of D^ Mead, poor D^ Friend, D. Pellet &c having a par- 
 donable Ambition, as I hope, of desiring such Names as 
 may do my Subscription most Credit. Forgive Sir my not 
 personally attending you, & please to impute it to a Fear 
 of being too intruding; as I never had the Happiness of 
 Access to you. If you please to think me worthy of your 
 Commands, I shall with great Pride embrace the Favour, 
 & esteem myself 
 
 s^ 
 
 your most obliged, as well 
 as obedient humble 
 Wyan's Court Serv^ 
 
 Great Russell Street Lew. Theobald 
 
 Mond. 5 Aug^ 1728. 
 
 » British Museum, Sloane Mss. 4049, f. 214. 
 
260 APPENDIX C 
 
 (4). p. 71.2 
 
 The fairest grant is the Necessity :] I don't clearly com- 
 prehend, at least satisfy myself in the connection of This. 
 
 (5). p. 73. 
 
 1 wonder that Thou (being as thou say'st thou art, &c) 
 As being born under Saturn may carry two different In- 
 fluences, I am a little doubtfull concerning the Exposition 
 or the Truth, of the Text here. Does he mean, I wonder 
 y* thou, being born under such a malevolent planet, should'st 
 give such good & moral counsel ? — Or are we to read — 
 I wonder not that thou &c & then we may expound, I don't 
 wonder, y* Thou being born under such a heavy, plegmatic 
 Aspect, should'st be so moral in thy Advice, but I cannot 
 hide what I am &c. 
 
 (6). p. 74. 
 
 Being entertain'd for a Perfumer, as I was smoaking in 
 a musty Room.] This is ag* the Authority of the 3 oldest 
 Editions, w*'^ all read more rightly to y® Poet's Intention — as 
 I was smoaking a musty Room. i.e. fumigating, perfuming, 
 taking off the ill scent. 
 
 (7). p. 77. 
 
 Bene. Well, I would you did like me.] This and the 
 two subsequent little Speeches, y* are given to Benedict, 
 I think ought to be placed to Balthazar. Pedro, you will 
 observe talks to Hero : Balth : to Margaret : Ursula to 
 Antonio; & then Beatrice & Benedict advance their Dia- 
 logue. 
 
 2 The beginning and end of this letter are missing, but its date lies 
 between November 29 and December 4, 1729. Its proper place in 
 Nichols is after p. 299, vol. 2. The play commented on is Much Ado 
 about Nothing. 
 
APPENDIX C 261 
 
 (8). p. 81. 
 
 Huddling jeast upon jeast, with such IMPOSSIBLE 
 conveyance upon me, that I stood Hke a Man at a Mark, 
 with a whole Army shooting at me ;] This impossible con- 
 veyance communicates no sensible Idea to me, & I have of 
 old suspected it should be — with such IMPASSABLE 
 conveyance, i.e. not to be put by, parried, avoided. We 
 have a sentence very near to This in Sense in Twelfth Night. 
 
 p. 232. And he give me th ^ STUCK in with such a 
 
 MORTAL MOTION that it is INEVITABLE. 
 
 (9). p. 83. 
 Claud. And so she doth, Cousin. 1 Should not this be 
 Beatr. Good Lord, for Alliance J rather. Good Lord, 
 
 our Alliance! i.e. 
 
 how presently are we related, now you are going to marry my 
 
 Kinswoman. 
 
 I have suspected 
 this should be, — 
 
 (10). p. 84. 
 
 She is never sad but when she sleeps, 
 and not ever sad then ; for I have heard 
 my Daughter say, She hath often dreamt I She hath often 
 of Unhappiness. &c. J dream'd of an 
 
 happiness, &c i.e. 
 
 She hath often had 
 merry Dreams, ergo as is premis'd. She is not ever sad when 
 She sleeps. 
 
 (11). p. 88. 
 We'll fit the kid-fox with a pennyworth.] With a 
 
 penny worth 
 of what ? I don't well take his Allusion. 
 
 3 MS. is torn. 
 
262 APPENDIX C 
 
 (12). ibid. 
 
 Note this before my Notes. There's not a Note of mine 
 that's worth the noting. 
 
 Pedr. Why these are very Crotchets that he 1 Sure from 
 
 speaks J Balthazar's 
 
 Note Notes foresooth, & nothing own Words it 
 
 must be — and 
 noting. 
 (13). p. 91. 
 
 O She tore the Letter into a thousand halfpence] This 
 is a very whimsical Expression, yet I think I understand 
 it. Does he not mean into a thousand Pieces of the same 
 Bigness. There is a passage in AS YOU LIKE IT p. 350, 
 that favours this explanation — There were none principal : 
 they were all Uke ONE ANOTHER as HALF-PENCE 
 are. And both these Passages seem to allude to the Old 
 Piece of money that was struck with a cross in such a Manner, 
 that it might be spUt into Halves or Quarters, to pass for 
 Half-pence or Farthings. 
 
 Now as my Queries on the second Act are finish'd here, 
 give me leave. Dear S^ to fill up the Remaining Paper w*^ 
 Matter occasionally necessary. I confessed the Rec*. of 
 Two of yours by mine of y® 27*^ Instant ; & yesterday yo''. 
 3"*. arriv'd on TIMON all glorious Dissertation and Emenda- 
 tion! If this be deviating, 'tis to me delightfull Excursion; 
 & gives even Business the Air of Entertainment. Yet while 
 I wish for the Repetition of such Discourses, I cannot but 
 look on them w*^ Emulation ; I might almost be pardon'd, 
 if I said w*^ Envy. I find myself so obscur'd by Inequality ; 
 You shew such a Fluency of Thought & Expression, such a 
 clearness of Ideas, & such a Compass of general Reading, 
 y*. I can much easier admire than express my admiration. 
 Make no rash Vows, that you will start out no more ; permit 
 me both to be pleas'd w^^. Order, & ravish'd with EscapadeSf 
 
APPENDIX C 263 
 
 as Dryden expresses it. Nor grudge me, Dear S""., the 
 benefit of y"" Explanations, by paying a compliment to my 
 narrow Sagacity — But how shall I sufficiently thank you 
 for that overkind Opinion you are pleas'd to entertain of 
 my Task in Hand? Believe, S'"., I will faithfully consult 
 my Reputation as well as private Honour, in this Respect ; 
 that if I live to any little portion of Posterity, I shall be so 
 just to confess you One of my Supporters in y^. Rank. & take 
 a Pride to acknowledge both what Emendations I am in- 
 debted to you for, & where I have the pleasure of your 
 concurrence to Mine. 
 
 But as our Author's Hamlet says — Something too 
 much of This. — 
 
 The small compass of paper I have left shall be employ'd 
 to inform you how I had cur'd three passages in Timon of 
 w*'^ you have given me your Emendations. 
 
 p. 117. 
 
 Serving of Becks &c] You ingeniously correct serring 
 of becks. I wish the phrase be not a little too quaint. I 
 have read, w*^. very trivial Deviation from the Letter, 
 Scruing of Backs, & jutting out of Bums. For Apemantus, 
 I think, is observing on the unreasonable Distortions 
 practis'd in their Congees. 
 
 p. 130. 
 
 Of the same piece is ev'ry Flatterer's SPORT.] You 
 say COAT. & This is countenanc'd by piece. I had read, 
 (as, the World's Soul, are the Words in the preceding Verse) 
 Of the same piece is ev'ry Flat'rer's SPIRIT : i.e. all Flatt" 
 are of a piece one with another. 
 
 p. 168. 
 
 — let him take his TASTE]. You read tatch. This 
 word is in Skinner, but I'm afraid a little too obselete for 
 
264 APPENDIX C 
 
 Sh. I had read — let him take his HASTE, i.e. let him 
 make use of his best Speed. As in Haml : p. 314. Take 
 thy fair hour Laertes : i.e. make Use of the Hour y* favours 
 y*" Embarking. And Plutarch telling this very Story of 
 Timon in the Life of M. Anthony (& our Author you know- 
 is very faithfull where he borrows :) seems to give a Sort of 
 Authority for this Reading, where part of Timon's Words 
 are ; To the End that if any more among you have a Mind 
 to make the same Use of my Tree they may do it SPEEDILY 
 before it is destroy 'd. 
 
 I have yet a scrip left & therefore I'll trouble you w*^. 2 
 Passages that I think are notoriously corrupted in the 
 Pointing, a little deeper in this play, & w^^ I wonder have 
 escap'd you. 
 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 Pardon me for once, that I am obUg'd to give you the Ex- 
 pence of a Letter, without our delightfuU Affair going on. 
 I thought it however my Duty to give you a Line, y*. I 
 might not seem remiss where you are so kindly diligent. 
 But I flatter myself y*. you will not be displeased to know, 
 y*. Orestes is now upon a Rehearsal ; & y* my whole present 
 Time from Morning to Night, is employ'd in a Copy by 
 his Royal Highness's Command. By Thursday's post 
 notwithstanding I hope to fetch up Arrears. Excuse for 
 the present, strong as my Heart is, the tir'd Hand of Dearest 
 
 s^ 
 
 y. most affectionate 
 & ever oblig'd Friend & hum^^®. 
 Serv*. 
 
 Lew: Theobald. 
 Wyan's Court 
 10 Febry. 1729. [1730] 
 
APPENDIX C 265 
 
 14 Feb. 1729. [1730] My Dear Sir, I have now finished 
 this part of my Task, & have given you all the Remarks, 
 Conjectures & Emendations I have made upon y* Author 
 whom I have read for your Service. Your Merit & Goodness 
 make me wish them of more Worth I have now nothing to 
 do but to follow you, & w* Emendations, or Conjectures, 
 or Explanations I shall hit upon will arise from the Hints 
 your Queries will afford. 
 
 I am. Dearest Sir, 
 y'' most sincere & affectionate 
 Friend. 
 
 Dear Sir 
 
 I am now to acknowledge the Rec* of yours (No 32) of 
 the 13 Instant, & to thank you for yo'" kind promise of 
 reading over M"" P's preface for Me. The question of 
 Shakespeare's Learning, I beheve you'll find so very doubt- 
 fully decided by him, that the argument will put you in 
 Mind of — Jean a dance mieux que Pierre, et Pierre a dance 
 mieux que Jean; etc — And now, Dear S'", that we have 
 on each side run through all the 8 vols. I must beg the 
 favour that you will set what mark you think fit on my 
 poor Sett of letters, & transmit 'em to me ; & I will promise 
 faithfully, they shall be returned again to you, if you think 
 fit, et si res tanti est. As I could keep no copies, it will be 
 impossible, in so long an intercourse to recollect all my 
 reasons for the Conjectures I have submitted to you; and 
 to have them in hand to compare with your answers, will 
 be absolutely necessary to my task in hand. I beg you 
 will favour me with a letter of advice, how, & when, you are 
 pleased to send them. You once asked me about Tonson's 
 Greek Edition of Plutarch ; He has now advertis'd the pub- 
 
266 APPENDIX C 
 
 lication of it — By the way, that gentleman & I are coming 
 to a Treaty together. He has been w*^ my friend, the 
 Lady De la Warre, & submitts to make her the Arbitra- 
 tress of Termes betwix us for my publishing an edition of 
 Shakespeare. He says, a brace of hundreds shan't break 
 agreement. This is talking boldly ; & I wish heartily his 
 name was John. I shall know the Issue of this Proposition 
 in about a fortnight ; & so soon as known, w*^ great pleasure 
 communicate it. These things premis'd, you will indulge me 
 in a few conjectures, (to fill up,) which I am always pleased 
 to submit to you. You have not Locrine, you say, by you ; 
 but the passage, I am going to amend, will ask no Reference, 
 I think for the certainty of my conjecture. 
 
 Act 3. Sec 5. 
 
 The Arm-strong offspring of the DOUBTED KNIGHT, 
 
 Stout Hercules, Alcmena's mighty Son, 
 
 That tamed the Monsters of the threefold World ; etc. 
 
 The good editors that passed this stuff unsuspected, have 
 had so little of the Herculean Spirit in them, subduing 
 monsters, 'tis plain is none of their office. The Doubted 
 Knight, I make no question, they look on content for Am- 
 phitryon ; either as his fatherly Pretensions to Hercules 
 were to be disputed, by Reason of the Pains Jupiter took 
 in begetting him : or as the epithet doubted hero, by an 
 apocope warrantable enough among the old English 
 poets, might stand for redoubted; the valiant renown'd 
 Amphitryon. — But, in my opinion, Hercules is sufficiently 
 distinguished by being called Alcmena's mighty son; & 
 therefore we may spare the Mention of his Father. But can 
 we throw out the Father, without making the Blank Verse 
 halt for it? I'll venture by the alteration of one Mistaken 
 Letter, & the Rejection of another, which is but an Inter- 
 
APPENDIX C 267 
 
 loper, to restore a Reading truly Poetical & consonant to 
 the Tradition concerning the Begetting of Hercules. As 
 thus. 
 
 The valiant offspring of the Doubled Nights 
 Stout Hercules, Alcmena's mighty son, etc. 
 
 As M"" Rowe was so well acquainted with poetical story, 
 tis much, methinks, he did not remember this noted cir- 
 cumstance of the Fable, that Juppiter for the fuller enjoy- 
 ment of his pleasure with Alcmena, ordered two nights to 
 be clapt together, & that the sun should not rise at the 
 expected hour. Seneca, or whoever else has left us the 
 Latin Tragedy of Agamemnon, is express to this point 
 — Roscidae Noctis gemnavit horas, jussitque ; Phoebum 
 tardius celeres agitare currus, — Propert. 1 .2. El. 22. Jupiter 
 Alcmenae geminas requieverat Arctos Et Coelum noctu bis 
 sine rege fuit. Martian : Capella speaks of these two nights 
 clap'd together, & of Hercules in his cradle strangling the 
 Serpants, as Testimonies of his Divine Origin. In ortu 
 HercuUs geminatae Noctis obsequium, serpentesque ; idem 
 parvus, oblidens, vim numinis approbavit — And S^ Jerom 
 against Vigilantius says, that Jupiter coupled two nights 
 caressing Alcmena, that Hercules might derive the more 
 strength & vigour. In Alcmenae adulterio duas nodes 
 Jupiter Copulavit, ut magnae fortitudinis Hercules nascere- 
 tur. I might multiply quotations, but these seem sufficient 
 to justify my Conjectures. Glancing over the 2"^ p* of 
 Henry IV p. 303. I started a suspicion upon the following 
 passage : — 
 
 When your own Percy, when my heart-dear Harry 
 Threw many a Northward Look, to see his father 
 Bring up his powers, but he did LONG in vain! — 
 
 * The emendation is adopted and ascribed to Steevens in Tucker 
 Brooke's edition of the Shakespeare apocrypha. 
 
268 APPENDIX C 
 
 I think the turn & elegance of the Sentiment, to say nothing 
 of the common usage of our poet, determine that we should 
 read; — but he did LOOK in vain! When I made this 
 emendation, a passage of Aristophanes immediately re- 
 curred to my memory, upon which I have ventured to make 
 a conjecture. Thesmoph. v. 853. 
 
 lAAOS yeyevTjfjLai TpoadoKoJv 6 8'ov8eTO). 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 1t02 yeyevrjiiaL — 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 dj^e^epe — Td iiev avTos rjv vtto <i)0^ov — 
 Scil. Partim vero a Timore exsiccatus, is for Changing it 
 into avkois ', mutus prae Timore, Vulgata eiiim 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 yeyhrjuaL 6 5' ovdewoi. My Suspicion 
 then dear Sir is that if there be any Corruption, it may be 
 on the Word irpoaboKOiv, which is not quoted by Suidas. 
 Might not Aristophanes possibly have wrote? IXXos 
 yeykvntioii IIPOSAPAKfiN 6 5' ovbtTrm. Conversis ad eum 
 intente ocuHs, Strabus fact us Sum : Ille vero nusquam adhuc 
 
APPENDIX C 269 
 
 apparet. irpoa8epx^(T6eL you know is a very emphatic Verb, 
 & I need not incumber you with Proofs of its Usage in this 
 Signification, particularly with the Dramatic Writers — And 
 now I am in for It expect to be plagued with a little more 
 Greek. 
 
 The Pleasure you say, my Explanation of Suidas gave you, 
 about Sophocles declaiming for a Chorus to be granted to 
 some of Thespis & Choerilus's Pieces, invites me to trouble 
 you with another Attempt I have made upon that Author in 
 which I think, I can both correct & explain him. I wish my 
 Emendation were upon a more decent Subject ; but where 
 the cause of Learning is concerned & Modesty preserv'd 
 as far as may be, I hope, we need not stand on Niceties — 
 $ANH2 h TOLS 6p<f)LXo1s elarjvexOv o (f>0LVT]s, aldolov ex(j^v TrepLTrjv 
 nTPHN — 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 D'" Bentley should let it shp without Notice ; who, in 
 his Epistle to D'" 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. 0a^atos 6 AttoXXcoj/, says Hesichius. And Macrobius 
 in his Saturnal. line 1. c 17; Pleriq; autem a specie et 
 nitore Phoebum : i.e. KaSapov \ainrp6v dictum putant; item 
 Phaneta appellant, aTro rod (f)alveLv; et (pavatov, eTretSi) (palverai 
 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 
 
 Kara koctimp 
 XafXTTpov iiycov <f)aos ayvov, a<f) ov ere ^A'NHTA 
 
 H de nPI'HnON avaKTa. 
 
 A.nd by the Egyptians, Orus. Suidas, in -KpLairos — to ayoKfia 
 
 Tov irpLcnrov, rod ^pov Trap' At7i;7rTtots KeKKrjfxevov 
 
 ravTov Kai ropde HAIfl do^a^ovac. But let US see how the 
 Lexicographer describes to us the Statue of this Priapus, 
 or Egyptian Orus: h ry de^ia cKijirrpov Karkxov diaavei Trap' 
 avTov evTerafxevoVj 5t6rt ra KeKpvpifieva ev rfj yp <T'^'<^PP'O.Ta 0aj^epa 
 Kadi(TT7](jL. 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 
 SoHs Imperium ac Potestas in Orbem universam. Altero 
 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 (l)av7]s — ela-qvexOr} 6 (l)avr]s, alboiov exoiv wapa ttjv 
 'jrvyiJLTjv. Scil. In Pugno (sive in manu constricta) virilia 
 tenens. And again where he says in the third article of the 
 Word nPIAnOS — elxe 8e to AIAOION eirdvco els ttjv Trvyijv; 
 (which Keuster renders habebat autem Penem erectum, 
 & AEmilius Portus, habebat autem Pudendam Superne 
 
APPENDIX C 271 
 
 JUXTA NATES) surely we must read HTrMHN, 
 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 
 viriHa. — But Suidas ever copied the author before him. 
 
 I am, Dearest S"" 
 
 Yo'" most affectionate & obliged 
 
 Friend, & humble Servant 
 Wyans Court Lew : Theobald 
 
 25 Apr. 1730. 
 
 Dear S^ 
 
 I thank you most heartily for the Letter I reced by Yes- 
 terday's Post. The Emendations in it are as certain, as 
 they are accurate & ingenious — Herewith attends you 
 the volume of Shakespeare's Poems ; & my poor Attempt 
 in Manuscript. I am afraid the Obliterations in the 5*^ 
 Act will give you some little Trouble in the Reading; but 
 I hope, you will be able to make them out. Pray, D'". S''., 
 be not tender or partial in y'". Censure. I cannot judge 
 properly for myself ; but should be very sorry to hear when 
 tis too late to correct, that Something is Extravagant, 
 This passage puerile & That ridiculous; &c. Tis in y® 
 power of y'" Friendship to secure me from these Fears ; & 
 the free Exercise of that Power will much encrease the 
 obligations of 
 
 Dearest S'". 
 
 Y'^ most affectionate Friend 
 Wyan's Court. & humble servant 
 
 Tuesd. 12 May 1730 Lew : Theobald. 
 
272 APPENDIX C 
 
 Dear S^ 
 
 Inclosed I return yo"" Tryal of Col. Charteris,^ & the 
 Play of Pericles, w^^ you were so kind to say, tho' bad you 
 would take the Trouble of reading over w*^. a strict Eye; 
 & I am 
 
 Y^ most affectionate & oblig'd 
 Friend & humble serv*. 
 Wensday morn^ Lew. Theobald. 
 
 20 May 1730. 
 
 Dear S^ 
 
 I am vastly concernM y*. I have been so unfortunate to 
 miss the pleasure of y"". Company no less than three times 
 lately, when you did me the Favour of a Calling. For fear 
 of the like Unhappiness on my Side, pray be so kind to 
 appoint when it best sorts w*^. yo^ Leisure to give me 
 an Hour, & I will take care to reserve Myself from all trifling 
 Avocations : being most sincerely, 
 
 Dear S^ 
 y. most affectionate & 
 obliged Friend & humble 
 Wyan's Court. Serv.* 
 
 25 May 1730. Lew. Theobald. 
 
 I am indebted for yo'" accurate Animadversions on Orestes ; 
 but I'm afraid you have been sparing to its Faults, And 
 touch'd them w*^. the Pencil of a Friend. 
 
 5 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 
 
 « DearS^ 
 
 Fancying the repeated Showers Yesterday would indulge 
 our Town w*^ one day more of yo"" Company, I call'd at 
 Squire's, & found my Suspicions confirmed : and meant to 
 have taken a second Leave, had I been happy enough to 
 have found you at home. Meeting with the Volume, 
 w^^ attends this, ready bound, I take the Freedom to send 
 it, & beg you'll take an absolute Freedom of censuring its 
 Weaknesses, in our ensueing Correspondence. All good 
 Wishes most sincerely wait you, 
 
 from 
 
 Dearest S"". 
 y. most affectionate & obUged 
 Friend & humble Serv*. 
 Lew : Theobald. 
 Wyan's Court 
 Thursd. 11 June, 1730. 
 
 « Dear S^ 
 
 I received the pleasure of yours on Monday last which 
 I designed to have answerd my self this night but that my 
 blindness has led me into the worst Mischance that ever 
 befell me for walking apace on tuesday night I did not see 
 a set of railes sow tumbhng over them with force broke my 
 Wright arme and am now confined to my bed where I am 
 afraid I must do Penance for at least a week longer. I 
 thank God I have as yet scaped any symptoms of a fever 
 and live low in order to prevent one. I can only now beg 
 the favour that you will continue to throw your Eye over 
 Shakespeare Restored, and mark freely all that appeares 
 any thing amiss to you. You will be so good to let me 
 
 ^ This letter is in another's handwriting. 
 
274 APPENDIX C 
 
 conclude now because I am forced to trouble a female 
 
 hand to subscribe myself, 
 
 Dear S^ 
 
 Your most affectionate 
 friend and obliged Humble 
 Servant. 
 
 Wyans Court 
 
 July y^ 2.1730 L. Theobald. 
 
 ^ Dear S^ 
 
 I received the favour of yours of the 7*^ Instant, and 
 should not have troubled you with another Epistle by 
 proxy, but that I have your Commands to let you know 
 the progress of my Recovery. I thank you for your kind 
 cautions against lying a-bed and low Living ; but I confined 
 myself to the first but three days, & have since that time 
 been allow' d a temperate Refreshment of wine. The most 
 unlucky Circumstance that has attended this Accident, 
 is, that the next day I was sent for by Lady Delawarr, 
 who had that morning seen M"". Tonson. What was the 
 Substance of their Conference I yet know not, for the next 
 day my Lady took flight into the Country for the Summer : 
 but I have directions where to write to her, and in a short 
 time shall be able to inform you what Measures I am to 
 take. My Confinement at home gives me no Opportunity 
 of entertaining you with any news either from the great 
 world, or the World of Letters. I have only to tell you 
 that the Grubstreet continues to make a devil of our frind 
 Moore. ^ They have placed him in too Ridiculous a light by 
 
 "^ This letter is in another's handwriting. 
 
 * James Moore-Smythe (1702-34), a member of the "Concanen 
 Club," is best known by his Rival Modes, to which Theobald furnished 
 
APPENDIX C 275 
 
 inditing a whole Letter to him from Worm-powder More, 
 who calls him-self his Uncle, & requires him as a mad-man 
 to put himself under his care ; & cautions him against fall- 
 ing under the hands of a Graduate Physitian, who wants 
 the Management of him. They besides renew the charge 
 of Cowardice so strongly against him, that, I confess, I 
 should chuse to have two broken arms rather than be so 
 stigmatized in print ; but no more of him in present : if 
 I have not tired you, I am sure I have my scribe, so will 
 at once dismiss her by subscribing myself 
 
 Dearest S"". 
 
 Your most affectionate 
 Wyans Court Friend & Obliged Humble 
 
 14 July 1730. Servant 
 
 L. Theobald. 
 P.S. You will perceive, dear S'". the above letter was writ 
 a full week ago ; but by negligence, or forgetfulness, of my 
 family was omitted to be put in the post House. I hope 
 my arme continues to mend gradually. 
 
 Dear S^ 
 
 I received the pleasure of yours of y® 19*^ of last Month ; 
 w*'^ was a great Satisfation, because from your Silence, Both 
 M"". Concanen & I fear'd you might be ill. I 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 S'^., from my characters, that I 
 
 a prologue. Pope has satirized him in the Bathos, The Dunciad, The 
 Grub-street Journal, and the later version of the Epistle to Dr. Arhuthnot. 
 John Moore was a well known apothecary in his day, who because 
 of some notoriety gained by a particular kind of worm powder, eUc- 
 ited Pope's poem "To Mr. John Moore, Author of the Celebrated 
 Worm-powder." 
 
276 APPENDIX C 
 
 have yet neither a command of my Strokes, nor the Pen 
 of a ready Writer. 
 
 I am very glad to find, y* Shakespeare Restored is in your 
 Judgment neither full of gross faults, nor yet of many venial 
 slips. And I the rather flatter myself, that you have not 
 been partial in this Opinion, because if either had been the 
 case, It scarce would have escaped the Attacks of my Sneer- 
 ing Antagonist. 
 
 I beg to be resolv'd by your next, whether one of yours 
 has not miscarried ! The Reason of my doubt is this ; your 
 Last beginning abruptly w*^. the Word Appendix w^^out 
 any preceding Address as usual ; & the Last before That 
 w*^^ I received from you upon the Subject of my Book bears 
 Date above ten weeks ago. As Reading has been a great 
 Part of the Amusement in my Power during my Confine- 
 ment at home I have run thro' all Aristophanes & his Scho- 
 liast ; upon which I shall take the Liberty to trouble you 
 w*^. some Remarks in proper Time. Our Town is so very 
 empty, that I am quite destitute of my small circle of 
 Friends; so cannot pretend to entertain You w*^. any 
 News; only that the World of Pleasure, I am afraid, are 
 likely to lose M'■^ Oldfield : for she lies extreamly ill of an 
 inveterate Ulcer in Matrice: Upon w^^ a polite Clergyman 
 with us observ'd in a circle of Ladies, that she was punish'd 
 in that Part, w*^ w^^ she had so greatly offended God & 
 Mankind. But my Hand now calls upon me to favour its 
 Weakness : as my Inclination does to subscribe myself 
 Dearest S^ 
 Yo'". most Affectionate & 
 obliged Humble serv*. 
 Wyan's Court Lew. Theobald. 
 
 3*^ Sept^ 1730. 
 
APPENDIX C 277 
 
 Dear S''. 
 
 I hope I shall yet have so much Credit with you that you 
 will beleive, tho' I had not yesterday reced the Pleasure 
 of yours, I was fully determin'd this Evening to salute you 
 by letter : & I am convinced presently you will believe me. 
 
 You may, perhaps, imagine from my late Silence, that I 
 really took y'". last kind Letter, as you there hinted, for 
 the rudest I ever received ; but I assure you by my Honesty 
 (if I have any) I prize it as a most cordial Testimony of a 
 Friendship, that shall ever be dear to me ; & tho' for reasons 
 yet unknown to You, I have seemed to slumber over Grat- 
 itude, & postpon'd my Acknowledments till now; yet I 
 dare assure You, yo^. Counsel has not lost its Effects. 
 
 Whelm' d as I have been with Distresses (enough to sink 
 One of my obstinate Phlegm) yet at y'" Instigation I have 
 rous'd & exerted [myself] against the strongest Attacks of 
 Calamity. The Call of Reputation so justly urged by my 
 Dearest Friend, started me from my Lethargy, & you'll 
 begin to think I have been awake, when I have done Myself 
 the Pleasure to let you know, I have at last fix'd the Pro- 
 teus. No longer ago than Thursday, Tonson & I exchang'd 
 Articles for the Publication of Shakespeare. Till I could 
 bring this agreeable Point to bear, I was determin'd to be 
 silent ; & do me the Justice in yo"" kind Thoughts to believe, 
 that neither awkward Disgust, Disregard, nor Indolence, 
 have kept me dumb : but only the strong Desire of opening 
 my Correspondance w*^. this important Piece of good 
 news : upon w*^^ I know, I shall have your heartiest Con- 
 gratulations. As to the Booksellers, Dear S""., who once 
 made some Overtures to me, you hinted that they com- 
 plain' d I had not dealt so honourably w*^. them: I fancy, 
 you will be satisfied I can turn the Tables upon them, when 
 I tell you, Tonson has acceded to double the Terms they 
 offer 'd me : I was by their Contract to have had the la- 
 
278 APPENDIX C 
 
 bouring Oar upon Me, to have been entitled only to a first 
 Payment, & they to have reced the Second : I have now 
 closed my Agreement to have the Work published in 6 VoP. 
 in 8^°., to have 400 copies, compleat in Sheets, deliver'd 
 me on a Fine Genoa paper, free from all Expence whatever ; 
 & 100 copies more on Fine Royal Paper, I only paying for 
 the paper : so that if I can have my Compliment of Sub- 
 scriptions, the small paper will bring me in 800 guineas; 
 & the Books in Royal 300 more : besides w*'^. I have reserv'd 
 the Liberty of prefixing a Dedication to each Volume. — 
 And so much for that Affair. 
 
 As to Milton, Dear S''., D'". Bently is so far from having 
 laid aside the Thoughts of it, that the whole Paradise Lost 
 is work'd off, & the Book will be publish'd before Christmas. 
 I own, I venerate him so far as a Classical Critic, that I 
 am sorry he has now dabbled in a Province, where even the 
 Ladies are prepar'd to laugh at, & confute him. 
 mi am much oblig'd to your Friend M"". Taylor,^ for his 
 kind Intentions of having subscrib'd to my Remarks. I 
 don't know, whether the alteration in my scheme, may not 
 occasion an Alteration in his Intentions : therefore I wait 
 y'". Commands on that Head. 
 
 I thank you, Dearest S^ for yo'" Conjectures last 
 communicated, but indeed I have not yet had time to 
 weigh them sufficiently. In Return, I'll send you an Emen- 
 dation I made but the other Night, upon a Passage w*'^. I 
 am sure, you will be surpriz'd w*^ me, how it could scape 
 us Both. But to see how blind Pleasure & prepossession 
 may sometimes make one in Shakespeare ! 
 
 Merry Wives and I was hke to be apprehended for 
 
 of Wind', p. 282. the Witch of Brainford, but that my 
 
 » Robert Taylor (1710-62), physician and member of the Royal 
 Society, was educated under Warburton at Newark. His Harveian 
 lecture, 1755, was highly valued abroad. 
 
APPENDIX C 279 
 
 admirable Dexterity of Wit, my counterfeiting the 
 
 Action of AN OLD Woman delivered me, the Knave 
 
 Constable had set me i' th' Stocks &c. 
 
 Sure this Reading is no great Complement to the Sagacity 
 
 of our . . . ^^ etic Editors.* What! was it any Dexterity 
 
 of Wit in S"". J°. Falst to counterfeit the action of an 
 
 old Woman, in Order to escape being apprehended for a 
 Witch? Surely, one would imagine, this was the readiest 
 means to bring him into such a Scrape : for None but old 
 Women have ever been suspected of being Witches. If I 
 am not strangely deceived, 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 MaUce, 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 faciUtate the corruption to OLD. And now my 
 Dearest Friend, permit me to Hve in hopes of hearing a 
 fresh from you, as well as to confess myself inviolably 
 
 y. most obUged & affectionate humble 
 Serv*. 
 Wyan's Court Lew Theobald. 
 
 30 Octo^ 173L 
 
 Dear S^ 
 
 I have reced the pleasure of yours, w*'^. comes fraught 
 w*^. Kindness even beyond my own Prepossessions; And 
 it is no small comfort to me to find, that if Extremity be 
 the Text of Friendship, as it has ever been reckoned, I have 
 
 " MS. is torn. 
 
280 APPENDIX C 
 
 one sincere & cordial Friend left me in my Extremity. I 
 think the present Period of my Life may truely fall under 
 that Denomination ; for however the Affair, w^^. I am now 
 bringing to bear, may in time retrieve me from Necessities ; 
 yet at present, when I should set down with a IVIind & Head 
 at ease & disembarrassed, 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 w^^ I am professing to get rid off in my 
 Bosom. It convinces me (tho' I wanted not the Proof), 
 that I am in no degree the Philosopher. — Sed ad alia quae- 
 dam dulciora. 
 
 I have great Satisfaction in the News you tell me, that 
 you have a fresh Fund of Entertainment for Me upon 6 
 of our Author's Tragedies : & I shall hve in a sweet Expec- 
 tation of their Arrival. Tonson has sent me in a Shakes- 
 peare interleav'd; & I am now extracting such notes & 
 Emendations, as upon the Maturest Dehberation, I am 
 certain will stand the Test. For the Censures, that may 
 succeed, make me reflect in Time, that I had much better 
 smother uncertain Suspicions than appear too boldly peremp- 
 tory. There are some Passages in w^^. I shall be obUged to 
 retract my own Emendations ; & even where they have 
 met with your Concurrence. For instance ; — 
 Love's Lab^ lost. p. 301 
 
 A mfe, a heard, fair health & honesty ; 
 
 With threefold Love I wish you all these Three 
 
 It seem'd to me, you may remember, that She wish'd him 
 here 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 w^^ I have 
 since made of our Author w*^ the first foHo 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 yo^ Judgement a slight sus- 
 picion upon a Passage of Meas. for Meas. p. 335. 
 
 Claud. Now, Sister what's the Comfort ? 
 
 Isab. Why as all Comforts are : most good INDEED ! 
 This Reply at present conveys no satisfactory Idea to me ; 
 nor is so significant an Answer as I should expect from 
 Isabella to a Brother under his 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 y^ 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, calFd, The 
 right Excellent & famous History of Promos & Cassandra, 
 divided into two Comical Discourses; in the first part 
 whereof is shewn the unsufferable Abuse of a lewd Magistrate 
 & the virtuous Behaviours of a chast Lady : And in the 
 second part is discovered, The perfect Magnanimity of a 
 noble King, in checking Vice & favouring Virtue : wherin 
 is shewn the Ruine & Overthrow of dishonest Practices; 
 with the Advancement of upright Dealing. So much for 
 the Title : for the play itself, execrably bad as it is, I am 
 confident that our Author had consulted it; & it adds if 
 possible, to my Admiration of the Man, to have such a 
 Testimony, how finely he could improve upon a Predecessor, 
 without the modern Advantages of Stealing. 
 
 I cannot remember whether T ever have communicated 
 to you a Discovery that I have made with regard to the 
 Merry Wives of Windsor. M'". Pope speaks of an Old 4*^ 
 Edition of this play printed in 1619 ; & of a tradition of it's 
 being written by Queen EHzabeth's Command. But a 
 play printed 17 years after her Death gives this Tradition 
 but a very poor Authority. I can now support it a great 
 Deal better; for I have by me another Edition, printed in 
 1602, in the Title of which we are told it had been diverse 
 times acted by the right honourable the L^. Chamberlain's 
 Servants, Both before her Majesty & elsewhere. Whether 
 it was wrote by the Queen's Command, or no, is not very 
 material; however, we derive some Light as to the Time 
 of the Poet's Writing it; for as Harry the Fourth, I can 
 prove, was not earlier in its Date y°. 1599 ^^ (from w''^ 
 the PubUck had their first acquaintance w*^ S^ John Fal- 
 
 " Later Theobald must have found reason to doubt his proofs, for 
 in his edition, vol. 3, p. 349, he says the drama "had been play'd, and 
 was well known" before 1599. Furthermore he does not mention 
 Henry IV m dating the Merry Wives. 
 
APPENDIX C 283 
 
 staffe) this reduces the Intervall betwixt That & the first 
 Sketch of the Merry Wives to about two Seasons. 
 
 As to the Loci desperati, I'll take Notice of them as I go 
 along, & reduce them into a List for your Enquiry. 
 
 I should be very glad, Dear S""., if you can give me any 
 Account of Platonius the Grammarian, whose fragment 
 upon the 3 Sorts of Greek Comedy is prefixed to Aristo- 
 phanes. T 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 
 M'". Taylor ; for whom I have underwritten a subscription- 
 Receipt for Shakespeare ; & believe me, Dearest S""., with 
 the most inviolable Attachment 
 
 Yd' ever obliged & affectionate 
 
 humble Serv*. 
 Wyan's Court Lew Theobald. 
 
 ^ — ov^ 1731 
 
 My Dear Friend, 
 
 I reced by your Last (N** III) of y« 22^. of Nov^ ; your 
 kind Assurances w*^. Regard to my Preface; the Contents 
 of w°^. I am Endeavouring to modell in my Head, in Order 
 to communicate them to you, for your Directions & Refine- 
 ment. I have already rough-hewn the Exordium & Con- 
 clusion ; the Latter of w*'^. I now send you a Transcript of, 
 to shew you how methodical I am ; & by my Next, I shall 
 submit the Opening to yo"". Perusal. I beg earnestly, 
 Dear S^., you will not be tender of altering, everywhere; 
 (except in my Acknowledgm*^ to my Friends) I would have 
 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 : w*'^ I 
 hope may grow into a fine Building, under your judicious 
 Management. In short, Dirue, aedifica, muta quadrata 
 rotundis, &c. 
 
 [Having now run thro' all these Points, w^^ I intended 
 should make any Part of this Dissertation, it only remaines 
 that I should account to the Publick, but more particularly 
 to my Subscribers, why they have waited so long for this 
 Work; that I should make my Acknowledgments to those 
 Friends who have been generous Assistants to me in the 
 Conducting it : & lastly, that I should acquaint my Readers 
 what Pains I have Myself taken to make the Work as 
 compleat, as faithfull Industry & my best AbiUties could 
 render it. 
 
 In the Middle of the Year 1728, I first put out my proposals 
 for pubUshing only Emendations & Remarks on our Poet : 
 And I had not gone on many Months in this Scheme before 
 I found it to be the unanimous Wish of Those who, did me 
 the Honour of their Subscriptions, that I would likewise 
 give them the Poet's Text corrected ; & that I would sub- 
 join those Explanatory Remarks, w^^ I had purpos'd to 
 publish upon the Foot of my first Proposals. Earnest Sol- 
 licitations were made to Me, that I would think of such an 
 Edition, w^^. 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 M"^. 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 M"". Pope in 
 Twelves, he frankly told me, he could not with any Face 
 or Conscience, pretend to throw out another Impression, 
 
APPENDIX C 285 
 
 before those Books were a little 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 levelFd 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- 
 tained 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 employ'd all my Power to be 
 just to them in the Execution of my Task. 
 
 I come now to speak of those kind Assistances, w'' . I 
 have met with from particular Friends, towards forwarding 
 & compleating this Work. Soon after my Design was 
 known, I had the honour of an Invitation to Cambridge; 
 <fe a generous Promise from the Learned & ingenious D'". 
 Thirlby of Jesus-CoUedge there, who had taken great pains 
 w*^ my Author, that I should have the Liberty of collating 
 his copy of Shakespeare, mark'd thro' in the Margin with 
 his own Mss. References, & accurate Observations. He 
 not only made good this promise, but favour'd me with a 
 Sett of Emendations, interspers'd & distinguished in his 
 Name, thro' the Edition : & which can need no Recommen- 
 dation here to the judicious Reader. 
 
 The next Assistance I received was from my ingenious 
 Friend Hawley Bishop Esq'", whose great Powers & Exten- 
 
286 APPENDIX C 
 
 sive Learning are as well known as his uncommon Modesty, 
 to all who have the Hapiness of his Acquaintance. This 
 gentleman was so generous, at the Expence both of his 
 Pocket & Time, to run thro' all Shakespeare with me. We 
 join'd Business & Entertainment together; & at every of 
 our Meetings, w^^ were constantly once a Week,^^ we read 
 over a Play, & came mutually prepared to communicate 
 our Conjectures upon it to each other. The Pleasure of 
 these Appointments, I think I may say, richly compensated 
 for the Labour in our own Thoughts ; & I may venture to 
 affirm, in the behalf of my Assistant, that our Author has 
 deriv'd no little Improvement from Them. 
 
 To these I must add the indefatigable Zeal & Industry of 
 my most ingenuous & ever-respected Friend, the Rev^. 
 M"". Warburton of Newarke-upon-Trent. This Gentleman 
 from the Motives of his frank & communicative Disposi- 
 tion, voluntarily became a Labourer in the Vineyard : not 
 only read over the whole Author for Me with the exactest 
 care ; but enter' d into a long & laborious Epistolary Corres- 
 pondance, to which I owe no small part of my best Criticisms 
 upon my Author. The Number of Passages amended, & 
 admirably explain'd, w*'^. I have taken care to distinguish 
 with his Name, will shew a Fineness of Spirit, & Extent of 
 Reading, beyond all the Commendations I can give them. 
 Nor, indeed, would I any further be thought to commend a 
 Friend, than, in so doing, to give a Testimony of my own 
 Gratitude. How great a Share soever of my praise, I must 
 lose from myself, in confessing these Assistances; & how- 
 ever my own poor Conjectures may be weaken'd by the 
 Comparison w*^ theirs ; I am very well content to sacrifice 
 my Vanity to the Pride of being so assisted, & the Pleasure 
 of being just to their Merits. 
 
 I beg Leave to observe to my Readers in one Word here, 
 " These meetings were held by the so-called Concanen Club. 
 
APPENDIX C 287 
 
 that from the Confession of these successive Aids, & the 
 Manner in w"^^ I deriv'd them, it appears, I have pretty- 
 well fiird up the Interval, betwixt my first Proposals & my 
 PubUcation, w*^ having my Author always in View & at 
 Heart. 
 
 Some Hints I have the Honour to owe to the Information 
 of D^ Mead, & the late D^ Friend : Others the Kindness 
 of the ingenious Martin Folkes Esq"", who 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 Esq^ did w*^. several of the old 
 Quarto single Plays, w''^ I then had not in my own Collec- 
 tion. Some few Observations I likewise Owe to the Favour 
 of Anonymous Persons : for all Which I most gladly render 
 my Acknowledgments. 
 
 As to what regards myself singly, if the Edition do not 
 speak for the Pains I have taken about it, it will be very 
 vain to plead my own Labour & Diligence. Besides a faith- 
 full Collation of all the printed Copies, w*'^. I have exhibited 
 in my Catalogue of Editions, let it suffice to say, that to 
 clear up several Errors in the Historical ^^ . . . Plays, I pur- 
 posely read over Hall & Holingshead's Chronicles in the 
 Reigns o . . . n'd; all the Novells in Italian from which 
 our Author had borrowed any ... his Plots : such parts of 
 Plutarch, from w^^ he had derived any parts of his G . . . 
 Story; & above 800 old English Plays, to ascertain the 
 obsolete & uncommon . . . him : not to mention some Labour 
 & Pains unpleasantly spent in the dry task of . . . Etymo- 
 logical Glossaries. 
 
 But as no labour of mine can be equivalent to the dear & 
 ardent Love I bear for Shakespeare, so if the Publick shall 
 be pleased to allow that he owes Anything to my WilUng- 
 ness|& Endeavours of restoring him, I shall reckon the Part 
 
 " MS. is torn. 
 
288 APPENDIX C 
 
 of my Life, so engaged, to have been very happily em- 
 ploy'd : & put Myself with great submission, to be try'd 
 by my Country in the Affair. 
 
 Finis. 
 
 Forgive me, my dearest Friend, that I have inserted what 
 relates to y^'self, & believe that I had certainly dechn'd 
 it, only that I am determin'd to submit the Whole to you. 
 
 Because no paper shall be lost, I'll trouble you. Dear S*"., 
 with a second Thought upon this Passage of Hamlet, of 
 w*'^ you have given me an Emendation. 
 
 p. 292. Nature is Fine in Love & where 'tis Fine &c. 
 
 You conjecture Falne. But I have ruminated the Sentiment 
 over pretty much in Head, & let us see whether the Text 
 may not be explained, 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 Uke 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 J' 
 
 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 w*^ 
 Me that the Text may stand, I beUeve it will not be im- 
 proper to refute M"". Pope's silly Conjecture, & explain the 
 Poet by these Quotations. 
 
 I am, with the truest Respect, Dearest S'"., 
 Y^. most affectionate Friend, & obliged 
 humble Servant 
 Wyan's Court 
 4 Dec^ 1731. Lew. Theobald. 
 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 Since my last to you, I have had the pleasure of 3 of 
 yours, (No IV, V, & VI) to parts of w^^. when I have en- 
 deavoured to reply in This, I will account to you for some 
 portion of my present Engagements. 
 
 I am sorry the Impertinence of the Understrappers of 
 the Post-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, w*'^. your Friendship has lent 
 me from your Profession, I join w*^ you in the Reasonableness 
 of it : and will take due care to justify you ag*. the possible 
 Inconveniency. What I intend on this Head shall be sub- 
 mitted to yo"" View, as well as the other Contents of the Pref- 
 ace. For the same Reason, that such a palliating Caution 
 is to be observ'd, the phrase w^^. I had inadvertently used 
 of your becoming a Labourer in the Vineyard, must as indis- 
 pensibly be chang'd. 
 
 I make no Question of my being wrong in the disjointed Parts 
 of my Preface, but my Intention was, (after I had given 
 
290 APPENDIX C 
 
 you the Conclusion, & the Manner in w''^. I meant to start) 
 to give you a List of all the other general Heads design'd to 
 be handled, then to transmit to you, at proper Leisure, my 
 rough Working off of each respective Head, that you might 
 have the Trouble only of refining & embellishing w*^ : ad- 
 ditional Inrichments : of the general Arrangement, w^^. you 
 should think best for the whole; & of making the proper 
 Transitions from Subject to Subject, w^^. I account no in- 
 considerable Beauty. If you think right to indulge me in 
 this Scheme, my next shall be employ'd in Prosecution of it. 
 
 I will not fail to press all the physical Quaery's w°^ : you 
 have directed me, with an Encrease, upon D^ Mead; & 
 some Answer, upon the Strength of his written Promise, I 
 will extort. He may easily par cell 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 S'"., for every Part of my Character; 
 but do not let me, like a Fondling, be dress'd up in too glaring 
 Colours. To be a little diffident, will secure me from much 
 Envy & Detraction. 
 
 To the Critical parts of your Epistles, I reply no farther 
 in present, than in my Thanks. It will not displease you, 
 I know, to hear that M'". Tonson, since our Agreement, 
 behaves with great Candour, & professions of sincere Service. 
 He tells me. Expectations are greatly reviv'd from the pub- 
 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 Dutchess, who has two haughty Spanish 
 Brothers, y*. enjoin her not to marry again. She, however, 
 clandestinely marries the Master of her Household on the 
 Morning I open my Scene; & in the 3^. Act, I shew her 
 expecting her Bridegroom's private approach to her. So 
 much, by way of Argument. 
 
 Scene changes to the Dutchess's Bed-chamber. A Bed 
 seen & a Table w*^. Papers. The Dutchess sitting undrest. 
 
 Dutch : 
 How tedious is Suspence, that makes one Hour 
 Move slow & heavy as a Winter's Night, 
 When Nights are longest! — I have strove, in vain, 
 By Reading to beguile the Lazy Time : 
 But my unsteady Eye, & roving Mind, 
 Like two impatient restive Travellers, 
 Tho' bent the same Way get the Start by Turns ; 
 And will not keep each Other Company — 
 I know not what I read — What hideous Noise? 
 It may be, 'twas the melancholy Bird, 
 (The Friend of Silence & of Solitude,) 
 The Owl, that schream'd : or, was it Fancy's Coinage? — 
 
292 APPENDIX C 
 
 When once the SouFs disturb'd, each little Thing 
 Starts & alarms. — The Court's not yet at Rest, 
 Or He would come — My Breast is like a House 
 With many Servants throng'd, unruly All, 
 And All 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 S"" :, is in the 4*^ 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 tender' d to your 
 Friend, young D''. Taylor. I have sent, please to tell him, 
 a Rec*. over to M^. Botham at Cambridge for his small 
 Paper; & inclos'd I send the other, as directed, for the 
 Royal. M^. Taylor not knowing the Tenour of my pro- 
 posals, has sent up but a Guinea & | for the first payment : 
 but the Rule is 2 Guineas down, & so I have worded the Re- 
 ceipt, to prevent confusions at the Delivery of the Books. 
 I'll tell you how I fancy the | Guinea may be remitted w*^. 
 Safety & Secrecy, & w*^. no trouble to you. In the Sealing 
 your Letter, place it under a wet Wafer, & then put your 
 Wax-Impression over it, & it will be imperceptible. I 
 have often had this experimented here in Town, 
 
 I have only now, S""., to tender you the good Wishes 
 attending the approaching Season ; & to confess myself. 
 My dearest Friend 
 
 y. ever affectionate & oblig'd 
 humble Serv*. 
 Wyan's Court Lew : Theobald 
 
 18 Dec. 1731. 
 
294 APPENDIX C 
 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 I hope this will find you entirely recovered from y* trouble- 
 some Indisposition complain' d of in the postscript of yo^. 
 last (No. viii) that I reced by Inclosure from y® Commiss®'" 
 of y^ Post Office, together w*^ yours to your Sister & M^. 
 Twells's to M''. Carteret. These Remonstrances, seconded 
 by my Representation of y^ fact before them & y® Accident 
 of y® Doit being likewise intercepted, have had such an 
 Effect, y* I have not only had my | Guinea restor'd, but y® 
 Letter-Carrier is dismiss' d from his Business. It may seem 
 a little strange, perhaps, w^ I tell you, that I have placed 
 myself so far on y® side of Mercy, as to solliciting his Read- 
 mission. But my Reasons are, that Appearances only are 
 against him, & no proof that he is tardy in y^ Affair, however 
 y® Resentment has settled there. Besides, he has bin a 
 servant to the Office 18 years without Intermission, & this 
 y® very first complaint levell'd at him ; he is a man in the 
 Dechne of Life, has a sick Wife & 3 Children, & this small 
 Branch of Profit was their Whole Bread. — If good Nature 
 is misemploy'd in this Task, I hope, these are seeming 
 Motives to excuse the Frailty. And I may add to these, 
 what I am very well convinc'd of, that the Plectuntur Achivi 
 of Horace is a Lemma not yet out of Fashion in our pubUck 
 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 y^ particular Case 
 before Us ; but what has been. May be ; ut vulgo dicitur. 
 
 I shall wholly suspend the Affair of Shakespeare in This, 
 because other Matter offers, w^^ may not be displeasing. 
 I make no doubt, but M^ Pope's Epistle of Taste, address'd 
 to L"*. Burlington, has long since reach'd you, & pass'd 
 the Censure. Tis thought by some here, that this piece has 
 
APPENDIX C 295 
 
 not contributed much more to y®. Credit of his Poesie, than 
 of his Morals ; but this is a Criticism I do not take upon me 
 to meddle with. I mention it only, as it has occasioned 
 another Satirical Poem by a Gentleman of our Faction, M'". 
 Welsted, Of Dullness & Scandal. Now as I am willing to 
 allow, that our Ware may not have the same Alacrity in 
 TravelHng, and so it may not have reach'd your Parts ; I 
 design you an Extract from it, from w^^. you will be able to 
 determine whether M^. Welsted has not wip'd out his Score 
 w*^. Pope on the Topick of Slander. The Author at least 
 seems to think so by his Motto's. 
 
 Turno Tempus adest, magno cum optaverit emptum 
 Intactum Pallanta: Pallas te hoc Vulnere donat. 
 
 Virg. 
 
 The two particular Topicks w^^. incense M^. Welsted to 
 
 animadvert on P are first, his having reduced a very 
 
 pretty Lady, Sr. Peter Vanderput's Widow, of Richmond, to 
 a moping Frenzy w*^. obliging her to read over a second time 
 his version of Homer, to make her a Mistress of its Beauties ; 
 & then his being suppos'd to abuse y® Duke of Chandos 
 under y® Character of Timon, in his late Epistle on Taste. 
 Thence he passes to a tolerably-spreading Invective on 
 P himself, w^^. take in the Poet's own Words. 
 
 Nor Innocence alone it's Inj'ry rues, 
 Nor Beauty feels alone th' Assassin's Muse : 
 His Felon-Arts the Patriot's Seats alarm, . 
 And spite assails what Dullness cannot harm. 
 
 Inglorious Rhimer ! low licentious Slave ! 
 Who blasts the Beauteous, & 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 CataUne, & 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 sof tling Head that spleeny Whims devour ; 
 With Will to Satire, but deny'd the Pow'r ! 
 A Soul corrupt ! that hireling Praise suborns ! 
 That hates for Genius, & for Virtue scorns ! 
 A Coxcomb's Talents, with a Pedant's Art ! 
 A Bigot's Fury in an Atheist's Heart ! 
 Lewd without Lust, & without Wit prophane ! 
 Outragious, & afraid ! contemn'd, and vain ! 
 
 Immur'd, whilst young, in Convents hadst Thou been, 
 *Victoria, still with Rapture we had seen ; 
 But now our Wishes by 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 pahn'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 
 Whate'er 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 ^'^Cwpid's squirt, & gaping Tritons spew ; 
 *** All Sternhold's Spirit in thy Verse restore, 
 And be what Bass & Hey wood were before. 
 
 Upon the Whole, sure, Horace was in the right when he said 
 
 — facit Indignatio Versum. And if P be as sensible on 
 
 these Rebukes as 'tis said he is, I wish (& don't let the Word 
 undergo the Torture of an irony) his intermitting Headach 
 do not turn to a setted Agony. I am, My dearest Friend, 
 
 v. most affectionate & 
 obliged humble Serv*. 
 
 Lew. Theobald. 
 Wyan's Court 
 SJan^y. 1731. [1732] 
 
 * Pope's Epist. p. 14 (Theobald's note). 
 ♦* lUd. p. 10 and 12 (Theobald's note). 
 *** Ihid. p. 14 (Theobald's note). 
 
298 APPENDIX C 
 
 DearS^ 
 
 I reced y® pleasure of yours of y® 15*^ Instant, & had an- 
 swered it at last Post, but for the alarm of a suddain Fire, 
 where I had some Acquaintance in the Neighbourhood. 
 Yours of y^ 14*^ of Jan'^y, in answer to mine of y® 8*^ of that 
 Month, arriv'd safe : since w''^. I have intermitted writing, 
 because I would not trouble you w*^. impertinent Postage. 
 My Interval has, indeed, been fill'd up, but not with the 
 Affair of my new Tragedy. Matters have turn'd up so ill 
 with M^ Rich's Theatre this Season, that I have chosen 
 rather to weather the point without bringing it on, than to 
 make a Sacrifice of it to his ill Fortune. I'll tell you how 
 much more pleasingly I have been engag'd. During those 
 Hours w^^ I could borrow from y® Transcript of our Notes 
 on Shakespeare, my good Friend my Lord Orrery has done 
 me the Honour to put all his Father's papers under my 
 Regulation. The late Earl, you know, was Ambassador 
 at Brussells during the 4 last years of Q°. Anne's Reign : in 
 w*^^. space he reced a Number of Letters from Bolingbroke, 
 Ormonde, Marlborough, Strafford, Argyll, Shrewsbury and 
 Bp. of London, all w''^ I am transcribing in Books for my 
 Lord. I have great pleasure in L"^. 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 w*^. the Sentiments of a Sprightly 
 Genius upon more desirable Topicks. I have met D'". 
 Stukeley more than once : & will beg the Favour of him to 
 transmit a few of my Proposals to you. Pope, as you'll 
 find, has lent me an accidental hft 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 yo^ Cambridge 
 
APPENDIX C 299 
 
 Friend, who would father a Pamphlet on me y* is spoken 
 well of. I suppose he means the friendly letter from Oxford, 
 w*^^. has given me much Entertainment ; ^^ but I do assure 
 you faithfully I have not dipt a Pen either to praise, or dis- 
 pute, the Criticisms on our new Milton. There are, as you 
 judiciously hint, many Reasons why I should not at this 
 Crisis intermeddle in such a Controversy ; & indeed I should 
 have made you my confidant in it. 
 
 You want my opinion you say on D"". Bentley's perform- 
 ance ; & I'll give it you freely, but under the Seal of Friend- 
 ship : I had a very great veneration for him as a Classical 
 Critick; & was very much afraid of his descending to the 
 Levell of Women & Children ; that is, of his putting himself 
 in the Power of Coquets & Toupets to discant on. He has 
 not infrequently, you know, run riot on the dead Languages ; 
 but here, to use the Cibberian phrase, he has outdone his 
 usual Out doings. 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 distinguished. Sed eTrexco. 
 
 You say, dear Sir, it is a Book you are not likely to see in 
 haste. I don't know whether you speak this as to your want 
 of Desire, or Want of Opportunity. If you have a Curiosity 
 of dipping into his temerarious Notes & can appoint me the 
 Method of Conveyance, you may be sure you shall command 
 the Perusal of my Copy, together w*^. D'". Pearse's Criticism 
 on Bentley's 4 first Books, & the Friendly Letter from 
 Oxford above mentioned. At present our Friend Concanen 
 has them, but he's a Man of Dispatch. 
 
 ^* 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 D^ has 
 ventur'd at, he has omitted one easy hteral Emendation, in 
 the 1^* Book, w*'^. I cannot but think he ought to have made. 
 
 V's: 756. 
 
 At Pandaemonium, the high CAPITAL 
 Of Satan & his Peers. — 
 
 Thus indeed all the Editions : but it seems to me y* it ought 
 to be read, — the high CAPITOL &c. The argument to 
 this Book calls it expressly the Palace of Satan, & v's. 710, 
 713, 722, 762, 792, all confine it to a single Pile. There is 
 beside a singular propriety, methinks, in y^ Term here as 
 the Infernals were to meet on the great debate of Peace or 
 War : w*'^., you know, was always the Motive of the Romans 
 convening at y® capitol. Again, celsa capitolia, you must 
 remember is the frequent phrase of the Classics. And 
 Hogaeus I am apt to think, who has given us a Latin Para- 
 phrase of this Poem, understood our Author as I do : for I 
 find he has translated the passage — Inferni CapitoUa. I 
 must however take notice y* Book X. v. 424. Pandaemonium 
 is called city & proud Seat of Lucifer. But there, I think, 
 our Poet does not speak so precisely, but with a Latitude of 
 Expression : as in the jocular Song the Cobler's Stall is said 
 to be his Kitchen & Parlour & all. But forgive the low Al- 
 lusion. 
 
 I'll venture to submit 2 Passages more to you, because I 
 know I shall be safe from Ridicule, tho' I should not have 
 your Concurr^^ ... in Opinion. B. 1. 282. — fall'n such a 
 pernicious Height . . . & B. vi. 520. — Part incentive Reed. 
 Provide, pernicious wi . . . Touch to fire. — The Doct^ 
 will have this Epithet in both places to be stark Nonsense ; & 
 therefore substitutes different Readings of his own. I say, 
 the Word is one of Milton's PecuUarities ; an Adoption of 
 1^ MS. is torn. 
 
APPENDIX C 301 
 
 his own Coinage ; that, it has not its derivation from Pernicies 
 but Pernicitas ; k 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. 
 
 Youll excuse my entering on a Subject, from w*'^. I 
 could furnish many Dissertations, would they in Value 
 compensate for the Trouble they must give you. 
 
 I am, Dearest S^. 
 Your most affectionate & obhged 
 Wyan's Court. Friend & humble Servant 
 
 21 Mar. 1731. [1732] L: Theobald, 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 You may reasonably think ipe very slack in acknowledging 
 the Receipt of your two last of y^ 27*^ of Mar. & 5 May : but 
 indeed I have been so httle 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 w*^. a Specimen of y® Emendations on Paterculus : & 
 my hopes of them are not cool'd by this silent Intervention. 
 When you have presented the PubHck w*^ That & Arnobius, 
 We shall be taught not to value Editions on the Number of 
 their MSS. You are so obhging to demand some blank 
 Rec*®. & more of my Proposals ; w^^. I want to know how 
 shall be transmitted to you : & now I come towards the Con- 
 clusion of my Task, I find I want my Letters on y® latter 
 Plays to compleat my Notes, & compare w*^ your answers ; 
 w^^. you'll very much oblige me in sending up per Carrier, & 
 then I may by the same conveyance send you down the 
 Rec*®. & Proposals. Now my Lord Orrery has taken his 
 
302 APPENDIX C 
 
 Recess, I dare promise to become a better Correspondant ; 
 & for the present I'll send you in MSS. a little Poem, y* I dare 
 say, has not in print travell'd so far as your Parts. I am, my 
 dear Friend, 
 
 Yo'". most affectionate & 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 & fait 'ring Pow'r, 
 I wish'd & waited, that the rolUng Hour 
 Some Genius, fitter to the Task, might raise 
 At once to weep his Death, & sing his Praise ; 
 Forgive the Motives, Sir, that swayed my Breast, 
 And choak'd a Passion, labouring tho' represt. 
 
 Forgive me too, if, when I backward trace 
 And view with Mem'ry's Eye his ev'ry Grace, 
 I dare confess those Transports they inspir'd ; 
 I lov'd with equal Pace 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, & preserv'd the Great. 
 
 With what a charm did He his Thoughts dispense 
 How temper the resistless Force of Sense ! 
 Hold Wonder chain'd with fresh Delight to hear, 
 And to attention tune the ravish' d Ear. 
 Strong Eloquence, convey'd with winning Art, 
 Surpriz'd, yet took Possession of the Heart. 
 We doubted which we felt in most Excess, 
 His Strength of Reasoning, or his mild Address. 
 
 That Pleasure is no more : Penurious Fate 
 Lends few great Blessings, & contracts their Date. 
 Heav'n's choisest Gifts to swift Discomfort turn. 
 We scarce can tast' em, e'er we're doom'd to mourn. 
 Your Loss, my Lord, the common Lot transcends : 
 All bury Fathers, but all lose not Friends. 
 Such 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 pubUck Hope & publick Care ; 
 And answ'ring ev'ry Wish, & ev'ry Prayer. 
 Firm to the Rules w""^. Conscious Virtue lends ; 
 Firm to your Country's Rights, & Honour's Friends : 
 Scorning to bow you to a Court's Controul, 
 With venal Voice against the Bent of Soul. 
 
 Thus had I wish'd with Fondness void of Art, 
 And deck'd you up a Boyle in ev'ry Part ; 
 As if perhaps ambitiously, I meant 
 To share those Glories I in Fancy lent ; 
 But wishes come too late, & lost their Aim, 
 For you prevent them & usurp your Fame. 
 While tir'd Imagination laggs behind, 
 Lab'ring to trace the Beauties of y"* Mind. 
 
 Virtue unenvied, but divine Estate ! 
 The rare, the best companion of the Great ! 
 The Treasure of the Wise, that still expands 
 And swells beneath the glorious Spendthrift's hands ! 
 That when unwast'd still becomes the less. 
 When blessing Others, does its Owner bless. 
 This Wealth, my Lord, you hold in ample Store ; 
 An ever-spreading undiminish'd Ore ! 
 A shining Mass so properly your Own, 
 Inherited, it seems deriv'd from None. 
 
APPENDIX C 305 
 
 If on your private Stock you e'er refin'd ; 
 Twas when to Boyle an Hamilton you join'd 
 But if in That some Avarice you shew'd 
 You grew a Miser for the publick Good. 
 
 Long may She live, & still, as now, impart 
 Joy to 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 circhng 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, 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 3^^ 25*^ of last instant & 
 Ukewise the small packet of my remaining Letters by the 
 Waggon, & will take care by That, w^^. sets out on Thursday 
 next from Wood Street, to send you D^ Bentley's Milton, 
 some of my Proposals, 6 blank Rec*^ & one fill'd up for 
 the Earl of Tyrconnel. I beg you will make my Duty & 
 Thanks acceptable to His Lords^. If He is pleas'd to in- 
 sist that I may not have y® Honour of his Name in my printed 
 List, I must, though with Reluctance, give way to his Com- 
 mand: but, pray, recommend to his Lordship, that Shake- 
 
306 APPENDIX C 
 
 speare I apprehend to be of no Party : & that I shall have 
 the Names of many Persons of Quality very intimately 
 attach'd to M"". Pope, & Advocates for all his Merit. I was 
 informed by one of D^ Bentley's Friends, that he was hard 
 & fast upon Homer. I am in great Expectations of something 
 copious & elaborate upon the iEolick Digamma, because 
 the D^ held forth upon it pretty warmly, when I waited 
 upon him at Cambridge. ^^ I beg leave to assure you that 
 I have vehement Longings after Paterculus & Arnobius 
 in his turn. I thank you for your observation of the Greek 
 Usage of the word KeLvos, 'tis certain they do employ it in 
 the sense of ahsurdus; but does it ever w*^. them signify 
 nugax, for in that Acceptation, you know, our Shakespeare 
 puts Modern upon Us, in some passages. 
 
 I am greatly indebted for your kind sentiments of my 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 S^ 
 
 yo'" 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 
 
 " 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. H. 
 XII cap 3 & that there are 2 elaborate Chapters by 
 Bentley (in his Controversy with Boyle) to prove both 
 Zaleucus & Charondas spurious. ... I have, you'll observe, 
 Dear Sir, not knowing what use you were to make of it, been 
 rather redundant in my Transcript, than you should want 
 any part of it. You'll please to let me know, if the Version 
 of Gesner be of any Service to you, or any Transcript 
 from Diodorus Siculus, or anything else, & without the 
 least Scruple command the Pen of. Dearest Sir 
 
 y^ most affectionate & obliged Friend & Servant 
 
 Lew : Theobald 
 Wyans Court 29 July 1732. 
 
 I presume anon I shall enjoy the airoaooaafiaTa of your 
 Paterculus. Pray don't let L^ Tyrconnel slip through our 
 Fingers as he has once given his Promise. 
 
 My Dear Friend 
 
 My very trifling Concerns in Kent have 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 y® best 
 Manner that I can give them you. My Sextus Empiricus 
 is of Sylburgius, but I'll take Care to have the particular 
 Verses collated with Fabricius' Edition. I came home with 
 Pleasure designing to have tun'd a congratulatory Muse, 
 against E. of Orrery's Return from Ireland ; but to my great 
 Concern that Theme is disappointed, for poor dear Lady 
 
308 APPENDIX C 
 
 Orrery is dead. If I groan inwardly for this Loss ; you will 
 be pleased, I am sure, to hear, that Shakespeare is now 
 groaning under two Presses. As you encouraged me now & 
 then to throw in an occasional Philological Note in this 
 Work : I'll submit one to you in which I have attempted 
 Hesychius. I beg, you know, freely your Censure & would 
 by no Means be thought, in a pedantic Ostentation desirous 
 to trouble any Readers with Criticism that may turn to my 
 own Disreputation. I therefore the more earnestly entreat 
 y^ impartial Decision. I'll give you the Whole Note & 
 valeat quantum valere potest. 
 
 Merr. Wives. Ac. I. Sc. 3. I combat challenge of this 
 Latin Bilboe.] Our Modern Editors have distinguished this 
 Word (Latin) in Italic Characters, as if it was address'd to 
 S'" Hugh & meant to call him pedantic Blade, on account of 
 his being a Schoolmaster & teaching Latine. But I'll be 
 bold to say, in this they do not take the Poet's Conceit. 
 Pistol barely calls S'" Hugh mountain-Foreigner on 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 4*°^ write it Latten as it should 
 be in the common Characters : & as a Proof that the Author 
 designed this should be addressed to Slender, S'' Hugh does 
 not there interpose one Word in the Quarrel. But what 
 then signifies Latten Bilboe? Why, Pistol seeing Slender 
 such a slim puny Wight would intimate that he is as thin 
 as a Plate of that compound Metal w^^ is called Latten ; & 
 which was as we are told the old Orichalc. Mons Dacier 
 upon the verse of Horace De Arte Poetica — Tibia non ut 
 nunc Orichalco vincta etc — says, est une espece de cuivre 
 de Montague, come son nom meme le temoigne; c'est ce 
 que nous appellons aujourd'huy du Leton. It is a sort of 
 mountain copper as its very name imports & w*' we at this 
 day call latten. Scaliger upon Festus had said the same 
 
APPENDIX C 309 
 
 thing. The MetalUsts tell us it is Copper mingled with 
 Lapis Calammaris. . . . ^^ 
 
 I am 
 
 dearest Sir 
 Wyan's Court Y^ most affectionate & 
 
 19 Sept 1732. humble Servant 
 
 Lew. Theobald. 
 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 You are very good in making those allowances you mention 
 for my long Silence; & indeed, (besides that I have been 
 unwilling to trouble you with meer Postage ;) true Friend- 
 ship, like yours, could not but make me those allowances, 
 could you know the Succession of all those Fatigues. I 
 confess freely to you, & without affectation, what with my 
 own private affairs & negociations for others, what with 
 the necessary Attendances I am obliged to give at Levees & 
 y* constant Attachment to w^*^. I am pinned down in the Cor- 
 rection of Shakespeare, my poor weak Head, as the Captain 
 says in Macbeth, is like a Cannon overcharged. However 
 I had broke the chain of Business sooner to confess the 
 Favour of yours w*^. the Httle Bill at Top (w*'^. was properly 
 honour' d) but y* I have been so excessively ill as not to 
 be able to hold my Head down to Paper. Our great Town 
 has of late been almost universally oppressed with an ugly 
 comphcated Cold, w"^^. has attacked me w*^. 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 y^ Acco*^ I should 
 be glad to know. Dear Sir, if Lord Tyrconnel has conceded 
 to stand in the List : or whether I must be content with his 
 Money tacito nomine. I promise myself now shortly to 
 sit down upon y^ fine Synopsis, w''^. you so modestly call 
 the Skeleton of Preface ; after w^^. I shall be at Leisure to 
 give you a cool Dissertation on the great pleasure I feel in 
 y^. Commendatory on Vellerius Paterculus. I drank 
 your Health heartily w*^. our Friend M^ Attorney-General ^^ 
 before he went for Jamaica, & am in great Impatience to 
 hear of his safe Arrival. I hope I shall succeed him in 
 S^ W"". Yonge's good Offices, when Time serves ; S^ Robert 
 Walpole has been so good to turn me over to him as a Re- 
 membrancer & Intercessor for me to his Favour. But 
 these Prospects yet deo)v ev yovacn Keirai. But to pass from 
 these Affairs to a little better Entertainment : a passage, 
 w^^. was canvass'd betwixt Us, & w''^. I think I found out the 
 Joak of but the other day while the Press waited. That I 
 may have Room to give it you, I will at once confess Myself 
 
 Dearest Sir 
 
 Your most affectionate 
 Wyan's Court obliged Friend & Serv*. 
 
 10 Jan^y. 1732. [1733] Lew : Theobald. 
 
 Love's Lab' : lost. p. 294. 
 
 You will be scrap'd out of the painted cloth for this : 
 your Lion that holds the Poll-ax sitting on a Close 
 Stool will be given to Ajax : he will be then the Ninth 
 Worthy. 
 
 " Concanen. 
 
APPENDIX C 311 
 
 I had discover'd, you may remember, y* Alexander's Arms 
 as one of the Worthies were here alluded to : but upon Alex- 
 ander's being foil'd how the Jeast turn'd upon giving his 
 Arms to Ajax, I was perfectly at a Loss to guess : & it was 
 your Opinion that no J oak was intended any further than the 
 plain obvious Sense. But observe the word Closestool, & 
 then let us turn our Eyes on the Speaker. Costard, the 
 Clown, seems to have a Conceit very much of a Piece with 
 his Character. If so the Name of Ajax is equivocally used 
 by him, & he must mean : The Insignia of such a Conqueror, 
 as the Curate's stupid Representation exhibited, ought to 
 be given to A-j ax: i.e. A Jakes : Sit Verbo Reverentia ! 
 The same sort of Conundrum is used by B. Jonson, I know, 
 at the Close of his Poem, call'd The Famous Voyage : 
 
 And I could wish for their Eterniz'd Sakes 
 My Muse had plow'd with his that sung A-jax. 
 
 I [was] to venture the Conjecture, before my Health would 
 permit me to communicate it; but I hope,^*^ . . . not 
 over-strain' d. 
 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 I should have a thousand Apologies to make, might I 
 not persuade myself, you do not stand on Punctilios w*^. 
 me for not answering so precisely in time, for the Reasons 
 pleaded on my Side in my Last : And to those I have for 
 some Time past had the additional Fatigue of bringing my 
 Tragedy on, w^^. is to make its Appearance immediately 
 after Easter Holidays. I am to make my Acknowledg- 
 ments, Dear S""., for the little Bill by w^*^. I am honour'd 
 w*^. your 3 Subscribers. For One of them you'll please to 
 
 20 MS. is torn. 
 
312 APPENDIX C 
 
 join, to your own Thanks, mine to good M^ Taylor. I 
 drank your Health lately w*^. D^ Stukely, who puts me 
 in Hopes of your coming to London with him about August 
 next. No News yet of our dear Friend Concanen ; whose 
 safe Arrival at Jamaica I am impatient to hear of. As 
 to Shakespeare, I thank God, I am now venturing to adver- 
 tise, that it will be ready to be 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 w*^ 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 w*^. me, & bespoke a part of 
 its Patronage ; & I think I can do no less than compliment 
 him w*^. the Whole, turn my Address into an Epistle Dedi- 
 catory, (more Drydenians) & therein couch all I have to 
 say of my Author & the Edition. I must tell you, while 'tis 
 in my Memory, of a Mistake or two we had like to have run 
 into, w''^. Time & Casual Conversation have prevented. 
 
 3 Henry vi But while he thought to steal the single Ten, 
 p. 27L The King was 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 confirm'd to me that they call the Pack & Stock 
 of Cards. So no alteration is requisite. 
 
 Again Othello. The Food, that to him now is as luscious as 
 p. 345. Locusts, shall shortly be as bitter as 
 Coloquintida. You advis'd Lohock, as a proper contrast to 
 Coloquintida. But being, dear Sir, in company w*^. D^ 
 Beauford, he casually gave me the Fruit of the Locust-tree 
 to taste of, w*'^. is most egregiously luscious & the very Tree 
 
APPENDIX C 313 
 
 we have growing at Russell-house in our own Street. So 
 that as Coloquintida is the Fruit of a wild Gourd of bitter 
 Taste, the Fruit of the Locust w''^. is sweet comes more pecu- 
 Uarly in contrast. Will you forgive me if I should intimate 
 an ignorant suspicion? Perhaps, the Locusts w*'^. (with Wild 
 Honey) were S*. John's Diet in the Wilderness, might be 
 the Fruit of this Tree. For tho, I know, in Arabia & many 
 other Oriental Parts they eat the Animal call'd the Locust, 
 yet they eat it as a compounded Substance : They dried it 
 thoroughly, pounded it into a Bran, & then work'd it up in 
 their Bread : w*'^. could not be our holy Hermit's Case. 
 Sed kirkx^' 
 
 The next Observation, Dear Sir, gives me Occasion of 
 applauding your great Sagacity in a minute point, tho' it 
 happens there is no Occasion for making Use of it. 
 
 Macbeth 2 Murth. He needs not to mistrust, 
 p. 226. 
 
 You very ingeniously prescribe — We need not to mistrust. 
 But Pope's Ignorance had sophisticated the Text. The old 
 Copies have it — He needs not Our Mistrust, i.e. the Mistrust 
 of Us. w*'^. answers the purpose of your Correction. — Nam- 
 ing that little Gentleman gives me an Opportunity of telling 
 you he is most handsomely depicted in a severe Poem by 
 Lady Mary W. Mountague,^^ occasion'd by his late Imitation 
 of Horace in a Dialogue betwixt him and his Learned Counsel. 
 But now, to release you. I am 
 
 Dearest S^ 
 
 Yo'" ever affectionate, 
 as obliged humble Serv*. 
 Lew: Theobald. 
 Wyan's Court. 
 10 Mar. 1732. [1733] 
 
 21 Verses addressed to an Imitator of Horace, 1733. 
 
314 APPENDIX C 
 
 Dear Sir 
 
 I have the pleasure of yours of y® 23^ Instant & am to 
 account for my late long Silence from two Causes : a Desire 
 not to be superfluous, in troubling you with an idle Letter ; 
 & a stronger Desire w*^^. I had of waiting till I could inform 
 you of the Close of Shakespeare. But such has been the 
 State of printing with Us this last Season, y* with all the 
 Industry & Sollicitation imaginable on my part, I have not 
 yet been able to bring it to the wish'd Period. However 
 the Comfort is, Hamlet & Othello are All y*. want to be 
 compleated. The Source of this slow Proceeding, Dear 
 Sir, has been this. The great Number of our weekly Sub- 
 scriptions, set on Foot by Journeymen Printers has caus'd 
 such a general Desertion of them from the estabhsh'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 reduc'd 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 y^ 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 w^^. 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 
 Pubhck has yet had. The Respects of my httle Family 
 wait you ; & believe me to be most sincerely 
 
 Dearest Sir, 
 
 Your truely obHged Friend & 
 faithfuU humble Servant 
 Lew : Theobald. 
 Wyans Court 
 30 June 1733 
 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 I have reced the Pleasure of yo'^^ of y® 2P* 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 y® 3 parts are reprint- 
 ing & together w*^ one more additional part, & some new 
 Poems, are to be swell'd to 2 Volumes & make their Appear- 
 ance in his Name next Season. This Opportunity just offers 
 (before y® Revise comes to me) to consult you upon a Passage 
 in Hamlet, w^^. never was canvass'd betwixt us. p. 310. 
 
 Being thus benetted round with Villains, 
 E're I could make a Prologue to my Brains, 
 They had begun the Play. 
 
 I had made a Query in my Margin, but solv'd this odd Ex- 
 pression to Myself thus, "ere I could in my Brain, or 
 Thoughts, frame a Prologue &c." Btit then what was this 
 
316 APPENDIX C 
 
 Prologue to be fram'd to? M"". Chisselden the Surgeon,^^ 
 (whom, however, I have no Liberty to name), tells me it 
 should be, 
 
 E're I could make a Prologue to my Banes, 
 
 i.e. my Misfortunes, the Dilemma's I was under — they 
 had an actual Commission for his Death, before he had 
 devis'd any Expedient how to avoid the Danger. — I 
 shall be impatient of your Opinion upon it. I have taken y® 
 Liberty to dissent from a Correction of Yours in Antony ; 
 but I hope, w*^. such Reason as you'll be willing to accede 
 to. p. 35. 
 
 I'll raise the preparation of a War, 
 
 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 & faithfuU humble Serv*. 
 
 28 July. 1733. Lew. Theobald 
 
 Have I leave for printing L^. 
 Tyrconnel's Name? — And 
 Do you & D"". Stukely hold y® Intentions 
 of visiting London this next August ? 
 
 My Dear Friend 
 
 I have received the Pleasure of yours of the 9*^ Instant (as 
 well as the two preceding Ones occasionally mentioned) 
 & will take the best & speediest Care in obeying your Com- 
 mands with regard to the two Books you write about. Your 
 demanding back 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 inform'd by you. Li II 
 Chap, cm — tum 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 usM by the Classics. Luc. Flor. 
 1. I. c.I. itaque Matrimonia a finitimis petita ; quia non 
 impetrabantur, manu capta sunt. 
 
 Justin. L. 3. C. 3 Virgines sine dote nubere jussit ; ut uxores 
 legerentur, non pecuniae : Severiusque matrimonia, sua 
 
318 APPENDIX C 
 
 viri coercerent, cum nullis dotis froenis tenerentur. Idem 
 li. 3. c. 5. Qui tribus proeliis fusos eo usque desperationis 
 Spartanos adduxit, ut ad supplementum exercitus servos 
 suos manumitterent, 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 & connuhium used in the self 
 same acceptation. Justin li 43. c. 3. Tunc et vicinis con- 
 nubia pastorum dedignantibus, virgines Sabinae rapiuntur. 
 Ausonius, in Epicedio. Conjugium per lustra novem, sine 
 crimine, concors unum habui : gnatos quatuor edidimus. 
 Virgil AE. II. 519 Conjugiumque, domumque, patres, 
 natosque videbit. Idem. AEn. III. 295. 
 Priamidem Helenum Graias regnare per urbes, conjugio 
 Alacidae Pyrrhi sceptrisque potitum. In like manner, 
 you know, Servitia is used for servi, Scelus for Scelestus, 
 Ergastula for servi, (sic) 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, w*'^ you so kindly enquire after. I thank 
 God, the 7 Volumes are quite printed off, & nothing re- 
 maining to do but the dedication. Preface & list. As I am 
 obliged to defend 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. ^^ . . . 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 Octo^ 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 2°^ Verse, 
 ZHNA XEIPAS TTpos TON ojvlov eKirerdaas. But, I am afraid 
 this makes two false quantities in our Pentameter. The 
 1^* may easily be cured by reading Zrjva x^pas ; but top 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 Zrjva Kara irpcorON ^viajLov 
 eKTreracras tirl Kvaveas divas dpofiovs. The 12N & ON seem a 
 Reduplication of one & the same Syllable from the Care- 
 lessness of the stone cutter, or S"" George's transcript ; but 
 then, how by the same inaccuracy should wvlov be depraved 
 into covLaTLov? I believe I was too licentious in the use of 
 eKweTaaas & therefore we'll now tie him down to his native 
 Construction. I'll correct if you approve it. Zrjva Kara 
 7rpajrl2N; Icftlov eKireraaas Kvaveals dLvyatv e7rt5po/iON. 
 The alteration now is very minute & the sense will be thus: 
 Invocet aliquis ventum secujidum a puppi, 
 
 Jovem vero a 
 
 prima parte Navis (vel, in primis, praecipue) dum ex- 
 pandat Velum accursorium super coeruleos Vortices etc. 
 The Epidromos, you know, is the particular name of a sail 
 at y® Prow of a vessel. Your other conjecture, kirl Kvaveovs 
 Auj/as dpofjLovs, I think can never stand at y^ beginning of 
 an Hexameter. Sir George Wheeler, in his explanation of 
 this inscription, led me into y® notion of the Cyanean 
 Islands. You very dexterously guess that 'Evdvdrj might 
 
320 APPENDIX C 
 
 be y® name of a Female ; but then the nominative placed 
 betwixt Bade t6v and t6v det Bebv, & then the accusatives 
 (fyiXovvr' ayadrjv divided from their substantive by 'kvrnrarpov 
 TTols cFTTjue renders the position very harsh & the sense too 
 obscured & inelegant for the other parts of this little poem : 
 nor tho^ evavOii may not be the epithet generally appro- 
 priated to y® True God by the Greek Christians because 
 apphed to Idols, am I satisfied, that a poetical devotee (& 
 perhaps a new convert) might not indulge himself in using 
 it. For the sake of my more illiterate Readers, I have 
 attempted to put the whole in an EngUsh 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 y^ Fatigue is repaid to me in the 
 satisfaction of hearing from you, than which nothing can 
 afford greater pleasure to 
 
 Dearest Sir 
 y'" ever obliged as faithful! 
 Wyan's Court humble Ser* 
 
 25*^ October 1733. Lew. Theobald 
 
 [To Mr. Tonsori] 
 Sir. 24 
 
 As I have very few days left before I must close my 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 Jan^y. 1733. [1734] Lew : Theobald 
 
 My Dear Friend, 
 
 I defer'd replying to the Favour of yours of y® 30 Jan'y 
 till I could inform you y*. I had sent down yo^ Books, w*'^. 
 set out w*^. Newbal's Waggon on Monday last. You will re- 
 ceive 2 Parcells ; in One, a Royal Paper Sett bound, for 
 
 « British Museum, add. MSS. 28275, f. 310. 
 
322 APPENDIX C 
 
 Yourself, & 3 Setts on Demy ; & in the other, a Royal Set 
 in sheets for D''. Taylor, & 3 more Setts on Demy. At 
 the Top of this 2*^ Parcell you will find the Papers you fa- 
 vour'd me w*^. on Paterculus, because you say you want 
 them. 
 
 I had purpos'd now Shakespeare is off my Hands, to 
 obey you in considering them very strictly ; & if it can be 
 worth & y* you will take the Trouble to remitt a Copy of 
 them by one, or two, in a letter, as Leisure & Paper will 
 extend, I will w**". the utmost Freedom, to my Power, 
 give you my impartial Thoughts of each. A propos, to 
 one in particular y* occurs to me Lib. IL cap. cxiii. 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 y® 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. Juha relegata in Insulam, PATRIAEQUE et 
 PARENTUM subducta Oculis. — & again c. 120. Ar- 
 minio territo, quem arguisse PATER et PATRIA contenti 
 erant, &c. I don't know whether I am right : but I was 
 wilUng to offer it to your better Consideration. 
 
 The Rec* w'^^ you return me for Aeschylus I will keep 
 safely for you : since (by God's Leave) I mean to print y* 
 Work off this ensueing Summer. I thank you heartily for 
 yo"" kind Promise of collecting in your Friends' 2^ Paym*. It 
 will be of singular Service to me. You are very good 
 in accounting for, or rather excusing, my Silence. I assure 
 you faithfully, neither Indolence nor Neglect has been the 
 
APPENDDC C 323 
 
 Parent of it ; but a Strict and Painful Attention to the 
 closing of Shakespeare. I have been silent, indeed, too 
 upon another Motive y* gave me some little Uneasiness. 
 I intrusted M'". Prevost w*^ your letter of Directions ab*. 
 getting the two French Books for You. He is turn'd out a 
 Bankrupt, & had lost y® Letter; but I have agen recovered 
 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 deliver^ 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 faithful! 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 obhgations to acknowledge for the 
 grateful! 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, y^ 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, w^^ you had shewn long ago to have been of 
 your composure, gives me no cause of blushing. Let those 
 preacquainted Friends frankly know, I embraced them in a 
 just preference to what I could myself produce on the 
 Subject. They came a free Gift to me; & as Menander 
 finely observes, ra tcov <f>i\oi)v kolv^ ov fibvov ra xpw^to,, /cat 
 vov de Kal <t>pov7]ae(jos KOLvcovla. Nor would I have chose 
 tacitly to usurp the Reputation of them : but as I formerly 
 hinted, & you join'd with me in sentiment, it would have 
 looked too poor to have confess' d Assistances towards so 
 shght a Fabrick as my Preface. As to D"" Bentley (what- 
 ever the penetration of some readers may devine on this 
 head) in Shaking off the Similitude betwixt our tasks, I 
 hope that neither he, nor his Friends will see cause to sus- 
 pect any Sneer. The Stating the Difference was absolutely 
 necessary on my own side, & I think I have avoided saying 
 anything derogatory on his. As to the Omissions I have 
 so frequently made, in Both our Notes, to confess freely, 
 I easily foresaw there would arise Occasion for Improve- 
 ments on Shakespeare : & if I have given enough to awake 
 the Expectation of the publick, 'tis neither a fraud, nor 
 bad poUcy, to keep a good Fund in Reserve. You are 
 very kind to attribute them to your loose unmethodical 
 
APPENDIX C 325 
 
 papers, as you are pleas 'd to call them. To say a word to 
 your intention of composing a full & compleat Critic on 
 Shakespeare, I own, it would be a treasure to me to see 
 it : but to speak for the World, & throw off those pre- 
 possessions w^^ I have for our Author, I am afraid, the 
 generality will regard him as too irrgular a Writer to deserve 
 such a critic. I am very glad the Greek Criticisms strike 
 you. The Major part of them, I believe, will stand their 
 ground. But in one of them I have been most miserably 
 mistaken. I mean miserably, as not knowing a Fact : as 
 a Schollar & Conjecturer at large, I think the Mistake 
 will not affect me in Credit. It is the Votive Table, as I 
 called it, w^^ led me into the Error; & for your Enter- 
 tainment, I'll give you a separate Letter, in w^^ the Whole 
 shall be set right & explain'd. I with great pleasure em- 
 brace the Review of your efforts on Paterculus : & they 
 cannot visit me too soon. I thank you for the Repetition 
 of your Advice w*^ regard to the text of Aeschylus : &, I 
 will consult the opinions of what Connoisseurs we have here, 
 to determine the question for Me. By the way, Stanley's 
 Text, tho' the best, is not so accurate as you imagine, & 
 I have done much on the Chorus's by adjusting the Metre 
 of the Strophes & Antistrophes to each other, in which that 
 very learned Man was negligent or thought it was too trivial 
 a Reformation. I own, the Rythmus seems to me the most 
 certain Basis of Correction. I had like to have forgot 
 answering your question, as to Shakespeare's poems, whether 
 they are so good as to engage your thorough Attention in 
 Reading. I dare not promise & vow for them all in the Bulk. 
 I could wish them more equal : but still, to invite you, there 
 are pecuUar Douceurs in them ; there is Scope for Conjec- 
 ture & Explanation : & Adonis & Tarquin to my taste are 
 the sweetest Poems y* I have ever seen. And now. My 
 Dear Friend, with all your fund of Alacrity about you, I 
 
326 
 
 APPENDIX C 
 
 embrace your Challenge. Write as often as you dare, & 
 I will not be silent. The Spring invites to open the Cam- 
 paign ; & let's be as true generals as if we were paid for it ; 
 draw out our forces, tho' against Stone-Walls. Some of 
 our Artillery may possibly fly : but some other will batter & 
 make a breach. 
 
 I am 
 
 Dearest Sir 
 Yo'" most affectionate & 
 obUg'd Friend & humble 
 Wyan's Court Serv* 
 
 5 March 1733 [1734]. Lew. Theobald 
 
 P.S. I am in no pain 
 for spare me, James — in spite of 
 Philip Sparrow. 
 
 My dear Friend 
 
 I hope according to the old Style & Fashion, This will 
 find you as well as I am present. The Reason y* I did not 
 trouble you w*** acknowledging yo'' Hints on the Grubb, 
 wrote on the Road, was, y* we had previously determin'd 
 not to make any Reply; that I therefore imagined them 
 struck out for Amusement & flatter'd myself I should have 
 been saluted at yo'^ coming home, on the Contents of mine 
 w*'^. waited you there : tho', indeed, if I remember, it de- 
 manded no answer. Since I had the Pleasure of your 
 Company, I have been doubly engag'd : Partly, w*^. Trans- 
 scripts for my Lord Orrery ; & partly w*^. making my In- 
 terest for a Benefit-Play given me as Editor of Shakespeare, 
 for the Entertainment of the Grand Master & Society of 
 Free-Masons. 
 
 By the Way as you are so good to re Joyce in all my good 
 
APPENDIX C 327 
 
 Fortunes, I must let you know that the Prince of Wales 
 generously order' d me 20 Guineas for his Sett of Shakes- 
 peare ; & y* my Lord Orrery made me y® Complim* of 100 
 Guineas for the Dedication. I hope, the Work is rising in 
 Reputation : I have much said to me on that Side of y® 
 Question; & nothing in Detraction, since the idle Invec- 
 tive you saw. I should not have made this Report, but to 
 a Party concern'd ; & to obey a particular Injunction. And 
 so much for y* Author at Present. I'll trouble you, Dear 
 Sir, to look into a Passage for Me, out of Milton's Lycidas. 
 I own I am entirely in the Dark as to the Circumstances, 
 hinted at, et Davus sum, non Oedipus. 
 
 Ay me ! Whilst Thee the Shores & sounding Seas 
 Wash far away, where-e're thy Bones are hurl'd. 
 Whether beyond the stormy Hebrides, 
 Where Thou perhaps under the whelming Tide 
 Visit'st the Bottom of the monstrous World ; 
 Or whether Thou, to our moist Vows deny'd, 
 Sleep' st hy the Fable of Bellerus old, 
 Where the great Vision of the guarded Mount 
 Looks Namancos J & Bayona's § hold : &c 
 
 To sleep by a Fable — A Vision that looks — a guarded 
 Mount — Namancos — (Die quibus in terris) . These may 
 be all right, but they are all Mysteries to me : nor do I know 
 one Tittle of Bellerus Old. I know that Milton in all his 
 allusions is ever full of what we may call Learning, or, at 
 least, Reading : for, indeed, he as often trades in Romance 
 as in Classical Materials ; and if I am not greatly mistaken 
 the Fable of Bellerus & the Vision of the guarded Mount 
 seem of the stamp of Amadis du Gaule, or some of y* Tribe 
 of Rhapsodists. But I shall be happy in a better Informa- 
 t Naymancos (Theob.) § Boyona's (Theob.) 
 
328 APPENDIX C 
 
 tion from you, because I much admire this sweet little Poem : 
 & therefore will not take off yo"". Application from a Com- 
 ment on it by the intermingUng any other Matter whatever, 
 than that I am Dear Sir 
 
 y truely affec. as oblig'd 
 Wyan's Court. Friend & humble servant 
 
 9 May 1734. Lew : Theobald. 
 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 In yours of y® 17*^ Instant you told me of some Visits 
 you were going to pay, & therefore I forebore replying till 
 I might imagine you return' d. I have had a dreadful! 
 Interval of Anxiety; for my little Boy was seiz'd w*^ the 
 Small Pox, of the confluent Kind; & for 12 days we had 
 scarce the least Hopes of his Life ; but by the Care of D'". 
 Mead & the Kindness of Nature, I thank God, we now 
 think he is out of all Danger. 
 
 I am oblig'd to you for your Informations concerning Bel- 
 lerus, Naymancos, &c : tho' I have not been able yet to 
 proffit from them. Boyona's Hold, I presume to mean some 
 Fortress on the Boyne ; but as to Bellerus, Naymancos, & 
 the guarded Mount, I have derived no Light; tho' I have 
 turn'd over page by Page, D^ Keating's general History 
 of Ireland in fol : (w''^. is full throughout of fabulous Trash, 
 but has no Mention of the Fable requir'd) ; S^ James Ware's 
 De Hibernia et Antiquitatibus ejus, Disquisitiones 8^° 
 Lond : 1654 ; as also his Rerum Hibernicorum Annales, 
 fol. Dublin. 1664. There is, I know, in Hartley's Cata- 
 logus Universalis, mention'd a 2^ Edition of Ware's Antiq- 
 uities in 1668, said to be a 4^^-part enlarg'd from the first. 
 Whether the Fable of Bellerus &c be contain'd amongst 
 those Additions, I don't know : nor can meet w*^^ y® Book. 
 
APPENDIX C 329 
 
 By the Notices you have given me, I suppose, it is either 
 in yo"": Custody or in yo^. Neighbourhood. Whichever 
 of the two is the case, I shall be extreamly glad of a Trans . . .^^ 
 of what is said concerning this obscure Fable. 
 
 The omitted 50 Remarks & Explanations, y* you have 
 transcribed, you may please to send me at yo*". best Leisure. 
 For as, on the one Side, I would not press you in time ; so, 
 on the other, I would have Time fully to weigh them. 
 
 As to M"". Jortin^s Performance, ^^ or rather his Scheme, I 
 love the Gentleman, & think it savour'd rather of a Desire, 
 than Power of Critic; or if it had the latter Quality, it 
 was conducted in too dry & jejune a Method to heighten 
 Expectation, or, indeed, subsist. The Serpit humi tutus 
 was too prevalent a Rule with him. He had been alarm'd 
 at some of Markland's bold Emendations ; so y* to decline 
 splitting on the same Rock, he grows over fearfull of launch- 
 ing out ; & by being too dubious of Every thing he advances, 
 teaches his Readers to pass over his Conjectures as of no 
 Weight. No man cares to believe w*^. Distrust in common 
 Points : however we may strain Opinion in a Matter of 
 more Faith & Sanctity. Sed haec obiter et inter nos. I am 
 
 Dearest Sir, 
 y. most oblig'd & affection*®. 
 Wyan's Court Friend & humble Serv*. 
 
 30 May. 1734. Lew: Theobald 
 
 25 MS. is torn. 
 
 ^ Remarks on Spenser^s Poems and on Milton's Paradise Lost, 1734. 
 
330 APPENDIX C 
 
 My Dear Friend 
 
 Since the Favour of your last I have been making a short 
 Tour into my own County, Kent ; & am now to acknowledge 
 the Rec* of your Criticism on 13 disputable passages in 
 Shakespeare & y"" list of omitted Emendations : for both 
 w''^ I desire to return my thanks. In the postscript of 
 yours of June y^ 2°^ you say, you shall order a person to 
 bring the Four guineas to my House & leave them there. 
 I mention this only to let you know, no such person has 
 been near us, so that perhaps, your orders are either mis- 
 taken or neglected. Litterary News are at present quite 
 dead. You say, you are desirous of seeing my reply to the 
 Grubstreet. Our Controversy stands thus. He has at- 
 tacked me twice; about tlie 6/x/xa e^earpatx/jievov & the 
 Votive Table as I call'd it. I have entered my Defence 
 to Both, in separate Letters. I will either procure you the 
 4 journals, if you so desire : or if that is not to be done, 
 transcribe & send them to you. For the present I'll beg 
 to trouble you with two Conjectural Emendations. One 
 on Shakespeare, the other on Aeschylus in w^^ your opinion 
 will decide, 
 
 Dearest Sir 
 y"" most obliged & affectionate 
 Wyan's Court humble Servant 
 
 11 July 1734. L: Theobald 
 
 In the 13*^ Stanza of the Venus & Adonis, the poet says, 
 — The Goddess is equally enamour'd, whether the youth 
 looks sullen or pleas'd; whether he blushes, or looks pale; 
 & then subjoins, 
 
 ''Being Red, she loves him best : & being white, 
 ''Her Breast is better' d with a more deUght." 
 
 But how is her Breast better'd ? Sure, this is an odd phrase, 
 if it means she is made still happier. Have the Editors 
 
APPENDIX C 331 
 
 blunder'd this out, from best occurring in the preceding Hne? 
 Or is it a poor jingle design'd, betwixt best & better'df To 
 me, the Sense seems to be *'If she sees him blush, she loves 
 him to the height ; & when she sees his fair cheek, her heart 
 is still more captivated with his beauty." I suppose our 
 Author, wrote : 
 
 "Her Breast is fettered with a more delight." 
 
 An ''f " curtailed below the line in the M.S.S., might easily 
 be mistaken for a ''b" : & there is no metaphor more classical 
 you know, than the Chains or Fetters of Love. 
 
 Tum Pater aeterno fatur devinctus amore. Virg. AEn. 8 
 
 in gremium qui seape tuum se 
 
 Rejicit aeterno devinctus volnere Amoris 
 
 Luc. Lib. I. 
 
 hunc vincula Amicitiae 
 
 Rumpere et in summa pietatem evertere fundo. 
 
 Id. Lib. III. 
 Ipse ego praeda recens factum modo volnus habebo 
 Et nova captiva vincula mente feram 
 
 (Ovid Amor :) 
 
 anima, quales neque candidiores, 
 
 Terra tulit, neque queis me sit devinctior alter 
 
 Horat Sermo I. 
 Foelices ter & amplius 
 Quos inrupta tenet copula; Id. Od li. I ; 13. 
 
 Telephum, quem tu petis, occupavit 
 Non tuae sortis, juvenem puella, 
 Dives & lasciva, tenetque gratia 
 
 Compede vinctum Id Od IV. 11. 
 
 etc etc etc Instances from English poetry would be number- 
 less. AEschyl. in Prometheo. 
 
332 APPENDIX C 
 
 V®. 134. KTVTTov 5' 'Axd) xctXu/Sos dirj^ev avrpoiv eK 5' €7rXr7^€ 
 fjLOV Tav BeixepCiTTiv aldd), Xvdrjv 5' 'AIIEAIAOS 6x^ TrrepoiTc^ 
 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* bLirediKos here is, as in Hesiod TelToves af coo-rot eKiov. 
 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 21^* Epistle, says 
 y* Venus emerged from the sea barefoot. If the sea-nymphs 
 then were always barefooted, to say, they came ciTreStXot 
 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 Trarpcbas . . . ^^ irapeLTrovaa <ppkvas. 
 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 
 hasten'd trembling etc. And a very slight literal alter- 
 ation of the Text will reconcile it to this Sense : if, instead 
 of inrediXos, we may only read Xvdrjv 5' TrOAEIAOS etc. I 
 don't find, indeed, y* the Lexicons acknowledge the word, 
 but Hesychius has one Synonomous & similarly compounded 
 » MS. is torn. 
 
APPENDIX C 333 
 
 vwoderjs evderis, KaraSeris, eTrt^ojSos — In the Hecuba of Eurip- 
 edes, when Polyxena comes out to her, upon hearing her 
 violent transports of grief, she says something resembUng 
 this sentiment of Aeschylus; 
 
 otKCt3P fx' u3(tt' opviv 9AMBEI rq? 5' e^eTrra^as. 
 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 I have been so perpetually hurried, for this Month past 
 in L**. Orrery's Affairs, y* I cannot say I have had a Leisure 
 hour to myself or I should much sooner have reply' d to 
 the Favour of y^ Last. I hope, you have quite got rid of 
 y® uneasie cold with all its Concomitants ; tho' we have had 
 a Season too unfavourable easily to throw off the Attacks 
 of any Disorder. Your Friends from Cambridge have 
 remitted y® 4 Guins. pursuant to your Order, for w*'^. please 
 to receive my Thanks. The 2 Grubstreets w""^. you wanted 
 are not to be come at with the PubUshers. 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. 2 8 . . . The next Post my dear Friend, shall bring 
 you M^ Bavius's Cavil to this Letter : & after That, you 
 shall be visited with my Refutation of the Anonymous 
 Attack on my Emendation of Platonius & what M"". 
 Bavius thought fit to retort to y*. 
 
 I am Dear S^ Y^ most affectionate & oblig'd 
 humble serv*. 
 Wyan's Court, Lew : Theobald. 
 
 27 Aug. 1734. 
 
 *' I have omitted the copy of this letter communicated to the Grub' 
 street Journal, No. 232, June 6, 1734. 
 
334 APPENDIX C 
 
 My Dear Friend 
 
 I now transmit to you M'" Bavius's Replication or Cavil 2* 
 (quocunque nomine) subjoined to my letter w^^ I last 
 troubled you with : & shall only at present confess myself, 
 Dear Sir your most oblig'd & affectionate 
 
 humble Servant 
 Wyans Court Lew. Theobald. 
 
 3d Sepf 1734 
 
 [To Sir Hans Shane] 
 30 Sir 
 
 The encouragement you were so good to shew me in the 
 Case of Shakespeare makes me humbly hope I shall have 
 y® Honour of y'' Name to the Work I have now under the 
 Press, a Translation of AEschylus's Tragedies, with Notes 
 Critical and Philological : & an History of the Greek Stage 
 in all its Branches, in a Dissertation to be prefix' d. The 
 Work will be 2 thick Volumes in 4*° on the best Royal Paper, 
 & fine Copper Plates to each Play, the Subscription 2 Guineas. 
 
 I am advis'd by some Friends to give the Greek Text on 
 the Opposite Page ; because it may in many Cases be cor- 
 rected with Certainty : as well as that the Metre of the 
 Chorus's greatly wants adjusting, a Task w^^ even the 
 Learned Stanley took no considerable Pains about. I 
 mention this at pres*. Sir, only to let you know that by the 
 kindness of D"" Conyers Middleton I have a Collation of a 
 Mss. of this Poet from the Laurentian Library at Florence ; 
 w*'*'. Mss. was made for the use of Franciscus Philadelphus, 
 
 2' 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 know ^^ . . . pt of this Collation would be ac- 
 ceptable to S'". Hans . . . w*^ great pleasure make it at 
 y® same time for y'^ Service. I had an ambition of men- 
 tioning this on Thursday was Sennight to you at S^ Robert 
 Walpole's; but as I never had the Honour of approaching 
 you, I was fearfull of being too importunate. The Honour 
 of yo'" Commands will very much oblige Him, who is with 
 true Respect & Veneration 
 
 Sir 
 
 Your most obedient 
 Wyan's Court in humble serv*. 
 
 Great Russell Steet Lew. Theobald. 
 
 21 Sept^ 1734. 
 
 My dear Friend 
 
 The Favour of yours is arriv'd, & in Acknowledgment 
 I give you now the only Line y* I have attempted to write 
 above these two Months. Man has certainly neither Reason, 
 nor Priveledge, to complain ag*. Nature, & my Constitu- 
 tion in particular has been so kindly, that I have not a 
 Shadow for Quarrel. Whether Woodward's bihose Salts 
 are become predominant, & playing their Tricks in Me, I 
 can't say ; but I have been so attack'd, as to think strong 
 Texture, good Stamina &c very brittle Defences : & it 
 shall never be an Axiom w*^ Me, that a Middle-aged Man 
 has liv'd but half his Days. I was seiz'd at once w*^ Some- 
 thing Uke 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 y® Way. A few days 
 settled it in the fore part of my Head so intensely, that I 
 was almost afraid for my Eyes. This Ferment has been 
 succeeded by what I think They call a Feaver on the Spirits, 
 w*'^ has led me a strange Dance ; for tho' I have too much 
 Flegm to give Way to Whimsey, & have had no rub in 
 Fortune to induce me to succumb (as some people you know 
 would chuse to say;) to Oppression, yet I assure you it 
 has been out of my Power not to feel myself a damn'd, 
 insipid Animal. But too much of This, as Hamlet says, 
 — My Head is yet but weak, & my Hand not much firmer. 
 Excuse me a few Posts, & I hope to convince you that my 
 Intentions are no more alter'd, than that Zeal with w'^^. 
 I shall ever be proud to approve Myself 
 
 Dear Sir 
 
 Your most affect® & 
 Wyan's Court.' oblig'd humble Serv^ 
 
 7. Nov. 1734 Lew: Theobald. 
 
 Dear Sir 
 
 I have received the pleasure of yours, but find I am to 
 lose That expected one of seeing You this Spring; the 
 hope of w*'^. has for a long while suspended my troubling 
 you with any Letters. I had sooner reply'd to yo'" Last, 
 but was then mak^. a short Tour into Kent when it arriv'd. 
 D^ Stukely I have met twice at M^ Watts,^^ & once at S^ 
 Robert Walpole's. I will wait on Mr. Whiston,^^ who,-! 
 
 '2 One of Theobald's printers. 
 
 33 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 Utterary Matters is very dull at present, & 
 under manifest Discouragement. I don't know whether 
 you have heard what pains I am taking to carry thro' a 
 Bill for the Encouragem*. of Learning, & securing of Property 
 in Authors. I hope, I shall get it thro' unless my Appli- 
 cation is cut short by an abrupt Rising of y® Houses. But 
 in a few Posts I shall be able to ascertain my Success in it to 
 You. Would you 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 ,2^ as you say, imitates 
 Moliere full as badly as he translates him. I will look out 
 your Letter, mentioning the 2 or 3 books to be procured by 
 Vaillant, & will then call upon him about them. I am 
 
 Dear Sir 
 Wyan's Court Y^^ most affectionately 
 
 26 Apr. 1735. Lew. Theobald. 
 
 ^^ I am to acknowledge the Favour of Two of yours, but 
 y*. [I] should have done much earlier, but y* ever since the 
 Rising of Parliament my L^. 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 
 
 ^ 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. 
 
 36 The manuscript of this letter is in a very bad condition as the 
 frequent lacunae show. 
 
338 APPENDIX C 
 
 to get our Act (for the Propriety of Copies) thro' the Lords 
 this Season ; but I am so hardned a Wrestler, as not to give 
 over for a single Fall; & therefore design to try t'other 
 Bout w*^. them next Session. The Roberts (an Actor) 
 whom you mention to have wrote some Remarks on Shakes- 
 peare, never wrote any Thing that I know of, but some 
 Remarks on M'". Pope's Preface,^' as a pretended Defence 
 of his Fellow-Players. Nor can I yet find out any Epistle 
 addressed to M"". Pope, in w^^. You have been drawn into 
 a share of abuse. If I can trace any such I will not fail 
 to give you full Notice. You desire some Account of my 
 Zurich Correspondent. You must know, he had met , 
 w*. a trifling Poem of mine abroad, call'd the Cave of Poverty, 
 attempted by me near 20 Years ago in Imitation of Shakes- 
 peare. Something in it, it seems, happen'd to strike his 
 Fancy strongly; & about 2 Years ago he express'd his 
 Compliments in a Letter, brought to me by two itinerant 
 Abbees, w*'^ 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 w*'^ I'll give 
 you totidem verbis. 
 
 Viro CI . . . simo, Cel . . . rimoque, 
 Ludovico Theobald© 
 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 
 
 * 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 benevolo largiris, 
 eadem ut plene perfrua . . . Montium terrarumque Tractus 
 interject!, Oceanus denique interfu . . . negare videntur. 
 Literarum equidem beneficio id consequimur, quantum vis 
 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 hac Epistolari fruamur, qua licet 
 et Res et Locus fieri patiuntur. Gratulor Tibi egregiam 
 istam juvandi liber ales Disciplinas voluntatem, qua in- 
 flammatus novam Shakespear I Editionem procurare 
 adgressus es. Non equidem me fugit Alexandrum Popium, 
 quem tibi Editione Shakespearii praeivisse . . . bis, virum 
 ingenio felicissimo, faman nominis longe lateque . . . 
 neque poemata ejus miscellanea, quae ad Apinam banc 
 plagam usque devenerunt, adulationis hunc rumorem ad- 
 cusare videntur. Doctrina tamen, ingenio, atque ceteris 
 dotibus animi abund^ Te instructum et ornatum ad Shake- 
 spear I Fabulas inlustrandas accedere probe sentio, ex tuo 
 de Divae PAUPERTATIS spelunca eximio Poematio, 
 quod non stylum vocemque solum Shakespearii exprimit, 
 sed ipsummet enthei Poetae Spiritum feliciter audacem 
 undequaque Spirat. ContuU enim ad unam alteram ve 
 Shakespearii fabulam, quae jam olim ab ipso Editae, nescio 
 quo 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 Anglice reddere allaborasti, 
 
340 APPENDIX C 
 
 Poetam, si quid intelligo, res concipiendi verbisque ex- 
 primendi, pingendique more Shakespearis perquam similem ; 
 ita ut ingenii quadam 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 . . . quem 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, tum 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 eam 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 w*^ such unmerited Zeal & Com- 
 plaisance. Shall I send over a Sett of Shakespeare, & 
 trust to the Returns? I mean, of Literature; not of Com- 
 pliments. I shall be determin'd by your Opinion, as I 
 shall be proud to be in all Cases, as long as I can subscribe 
 myself 
 
 y"". most affect®. & oblig'd humble Serv*. 
 Wyan's Court Lew: Theobald. 
 
 24^1^ June 17 . . . [1735] 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I have delay'd some few Posts, since my Return from 
 Kent, (an Expedition y* I generally take ab* y®. Time of 
 the Year) to reply to the Favour of Your Last of y® 17*^ 
 Sepf., because I was desirous, if possible, to get you the 
 pirated 2^ Volume of M^ Pope's Poems in 12°'*'. But the 
 Trade, I find, will not own y^ it is to be procured by Them, 
 or y* They dare to meddle w*^ it if it was. I have been 
 several Times at M^ Vaillant's ab* y® odd Vol. of Mons'" 
 le Clerc ; & he has promised y* the Warehouse Keeper shall 
 look into the Wast ; & if there be a Volume without break- 
 ing a Sett y* the Mistake shall be rectified. I will call on 
 him again next Week, to keep up his Memory in this affair. 
 — You desire some little Account of Literary News ; but, 
 I am afraid, I am too much a Recluse to be able to furnish 
 much. Milton's Paradise Lost, no Doubt you have heard, 
 we are going to have in Greek hexameters ; if the first 
 Specimen meets w*^ sufficient Encouragement. The Be- 
 
342 APPENDIX C 
 
 ginning of next Month will be publish 'd an English version 
 of Anacreon & Sappho, with the Greek Text on the opposite 
 Page, by one M"". Addison. To say the Truth, I 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 2^. AEneis of Virgil, w*^ Notes Philological & Critical : 
 by a Relation & Namesake of Mine, a Doctor of Physick, 
 at a J Guinea Subscription. He prints it on fine Royal 
 Paper, in 4*°; 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 M'". Gyles, together w*^. a Trifle of mine w*'^. I have 
 lately printed, The Fatal Secret, a Tragedy; & w*'^ I 
 have dedicated to S^ Robert Walpole, who shews me all 
 Kindnesses, but the most important One; I mean the 
 Setting me in some comfortable Certainty. 
 
 As to Shakespeare's Poems, my Design is by no means 
 dropt, only deferr'd to Spring, when y* & AEschylus, I 
 hope in God, shall Both appear; & an Act be obtain'd to 
 preserve the Property of Them, together with That of more 
 valuable Productions. — And, as, I think, I mention'd to 
 You, that I was prepar'd to amend & account for above 
 20 Thousand passages in 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 y* Author. 
 
 I am, 
 
 My dear Friend 
 
 y"" most affectionate 
 Wyan's Court. obhged humble serv*. 
 
 18 Octo'*. 1735. Lew : Theobald. 
 
 Wyan's Court. 18 May 1736. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I reced yours of the 4*^ Instant, & should have reply'd 
 to it the next Post, but that I was willing to get over the 
 surprize its Contents gave me. It is now retorted upon 
 Me, that You gave Me your Notes with a Generosity I 
 could not complain of. I thought on the other hand, I 
 had not only confess'd the obligation in private but to the 
 World. But why am I told that I had all the Profit of my 
 Edition? I am sure, I never dreamt to this day, but that 
 the Assistance of my Friends were design'd gratuitous ; & if 
 I misunderstood this Point, I should have been set right 
 by some Hints before the Publication. I used, you say, 
 what Notes, I thought fit ; & the remaining Ones are your 
 Property. I own as Editor, I believ'd I had a discretionary 
 Power of picking & chusing my Materials ; & I am certain 
 during the Affair, you conceded this Liberty to Me : the 
 remaining Notes (in an Epistolary Correspondence) being 
 your Property, or no, is a piece of Casuistry w^^ I shall not 
 dispute upon. Tho' I foresee. They are now to be turn'd 
 upon Me, & I am to be in the State of a Country 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, y'". obliged Friend & 
 very 
 
 humble Serv*. 
 
 Lew : Theobald. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I have sent to M. Gyles's all the Letters y*. I could col- 
 lect of yours in my Possession ; & digested them near as I 
 could, according to their Dates. As you revoke any per- 
 mission I may imagine that I have, to use, or publish, any 
 more of them ; so I utterly renounce all suppos'd Priviledge ; 
 & as I am preparing to throw out 3 supplemental Volumes 
 to Shakespeare, on the old Footing; these, I presume, I 
 may claim an equal Title of Revoking. The sending these 
 Papers has neither been delay'd thro' neglect, nor Reluctance : 
 but indeed, for Self & Friends I have been more employed 
 than I could have wish'd. 
 
 I am, Sir 
 
 y. very humble servant 
 Wyan's Court. Lew : Theobald 
 
 4*^ Sept^ 1736 
 
 37 Tibbald's Word in a letter to me, of 18 Nov^ 1731, 
 which I sent him at his desire with Many others — "But 
 Dear Sir will you at your leasure hours think over for me 
 upon y® contents, Topicks Order &c of this branch of my 
 labour. You have a comprehensive Memory, & a happiness 
 
 ^ This passage is written on a scrap of paper in Warburton's hand- 
 vmting. 
 
APPENDIX C 345 
 
 of digesting the Matter joined to it, which my head is often 
 much embarrassed to perform : let that be the Excuse for 
 my inabihty, 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^ 
 
 3^ May it please Your Grace, 
 
 You were so good some few Months ago, to do me the 
 great Honour of subscribing to my Edition of Shakespeare's 
 Works. The Books, my Lord, are now pubhsh'd ; and 
 your Grace's Set waits Your Commands by the Bearer. 
 I presume to enclose my Receipt for your Grace's Second 
 Subscription Payment. 
 
 Permit me with the most profound Respect & Gratitude, 
 to profess myself, 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 Your Grace's most Obedient 
 
 11*^ March. & most humble Servant 
 
 1740. Lew: Theobald. 
 
 IV^. 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. 
 
 »8 British Museum, Add. MSS. 32, 696, ff. 217, 219. 
 
346 APPENDIX C 
 
 [To the Duke of Newcastle^ 
 
 ^^ May it please your Grace, 
 
 I have had such repeated Indulgence from your Goodness 
 upon every Application, that I am once more encouraged 
 to address your Grace on an Emergency. The Situation 
 of my Affairs upon a Loss & Disappointment, obliging me 
 to embrace a Benefit at this late & disadvantageous Season, 
 it lays me under a Necessity of throwing Myself on the 
 Favour of the Publick, & the kind Assistance of my Friends 
 & Well-wishers. If your Grace can be so good to honour 
 me with your Presence, & to engage a few of your noble 
 Friends in my Favour, it will be of the most important 
 Service to me, & fix an Obligation that shall always be ac- 
 knowledged 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. 
 
 12*^ May 1741 
 
 " British Museum, Add. MSS. 32696, f. 513. 
 
APPENDIX D 
 
 A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THEOBALD'S WORKS 
 
 A Pindaric Ode on the Union of Scotland and England, 1707. 
 I have not seen this poem. See Lounsbury, p. 124. 
 
 The Life and Character of Marcus Fortius Cato Uticensis : Col- 
 lected from the Best Ancient Greek and Latin Authors; and De- 
 signed for the Readers of Cato, a Tragedy. The Second Edition 
 with large Additions. London : Printed for Bernard Lintot, Between 
 the Two Temple-Gates in Fleetstreet. MDCCXIII. 
 
 Plato's Dialogue of the Immortality of the Soul, Translated from 
 the Greek by Mr. Theobald, Author of the life of Cato Uticensis. 
 London : Printed for Bernard Lintot at the Cross-Keys between the 
 Two Temple-Gates in Fleet-street. MDCCXIII. 
 
 The Mausoleum. A Poem. Sacred to the Memory of Her Late 
 Majesty 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 
 
 Electra: 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 pubUcation a 
 while, and continued from January 1 to May 30, 1717. See Brit. 
 Mus. 239. g. 11-13. 
 
 Translations from Ovid's Metamorphoses. [1717?] 
 I have discovered no trace of them. See Nichols, Illustrations 
 of Literature, vol. 2, p. 708. 
 
 Decius and Paulina, a Masque. London: 1718. 
 
 The Entertainments . . . for the comic-dramatic opera, called 
 The Lady's Triumph. London 1718. 
 
 These two trifles were contributed to E. Settle's opera. The 
 Lady's Triumph, 1718. 
 
350 APPENDIX D 
 
 Deems and Paulina, a masque. To which are added the other 
 musical entertainments . . . in the opera of Circe. London 1719. 
 
 The entertainments were introduced into Charles D'Avenant's 
 Circe, a tragedy, 1677, revived in 1719. 
 
 The Death of Hannibal. 
 
 Never acted or pubhshed. See G. Jacob, Poetical Register, vol. 
 1, p. 259. 
 
 The History of the Loves of Antiochu^ and Stratonice; in which 
 are interspersed some Accounts relating to Greece and Syria. London, 
 1719. 
 
 Memoirs of Sir Walter Raleigh ; His Life, his Military and Naval 
 Exploits, his Preferments and Death; In which are Inserted the 
 Private Intrigues between the Count of Gondamore, the Spanish 
 Ambassador, and the Lord Salisbury, then Secretary of State. Writ- 
 ten by Mr. Theobald. London : Printed for W. Mears, at the Lamb 
 without Temple-bar. 1719. 
 
 The Tragedy of King Richard the II ; As it is acted at the Theatre 
 in Lincoln' s-inn-fields. Altered from Shakespear, By Mr. Theobald. 
 London. 1720. 
 
 The Grove ; or a Collection of Original Poems, Translations, etc. 
 By W. Walsh, Esq., Dr. J. Donne. Mr. Dryden. Mr. Hall of 
 
 Hereford, The Lady E M , Mr. Butler, Author of Hudi- 
 
 bras. Mr. Stepney, Sir John Suckling, Dr. Kennick, And other 
 Eminent Hands. London : Printed for W. Mears, at the Lamb with- 
 out Temple-Bar. 1721. 
 
 Theobald's name as 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. 
 
 The 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 published. By Mr. THEOBALD. 
 
 . . . Laniatum Gorpore toto 
 
 Deiphobum vidi et lacerum crudeUter Ora, 
 
 Ora, manusque ambas, . . . 
 
 Virg. 
 
 LONDON: Printed for R. FRANGKLIN under Tom's, J. WOOD- 
 MAN and D. LYON under WiWs, Covent-Garden, and G. DAVIS 
 in Hatton-Garden. MDGGXXVI. 
 
 Second Edition, 1740. 
 
 London Journal. 
 
 A letter of Theobald communicated to the issue of September 3, 
 1726. 
 
 MisVs 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 Restored. London: 
 Printed by J. Watts, at the Printing-Office in Wild-Court near Lin- 
 coln's Inn Fields, MDCCXXVIII. 
 
 Authorship uncertain. 
 
 Second Edition, 1728. 
 Third Edition, 1767. 
 
 An Essay on the Art of a Poet's Sinking in Reputation; being a 
 Supplement to the Art of Sinking in Poetry. 
 
 Contributed anonymously to Mist's Journal, March 30, 1728, 
 and attributed by Pope to Theobald. There is some reason for 
 considering the ascription correct. 
 
 The Works of Hesiod Translated from the Greek. By Mr. Cooke. 
 London: MDCCXXVIII. 
 
 Theobald contributed a few notes. 
 
 The Posthumous Works of William Wycherly in Prose and Verse. 
 Published from his Original Manuscripts by Mr. Theobald. To 
 Which are Prefixed some Memoirs of Mr. Wycherly' s Life by Major 
 Peck. 2 pt. London 1728. 
 
 Perseus and Andromeda, 1730. 
 
 ^ Orestes : A Dramatic Opera. As it is Acted at the Theatre-Royal 
 in Lincoln' s-Inn Fields. Written by Mr. Theobald. London: 
 Printed for John Watts at the Printing-Office in Wild-Court, near 
 Lincoln's Inn Fields. MDCCXXXI. 
 
APPENDIX D 353 
 
 Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors Ancient and Modern. 
 London: MDCCXXXI. 2 vols. ed. J. Jortin. 
 
 Theobald contributed three papers to the first volume of this 
 periodical. 
 
 An Epistle humbly addressed to the Right Honorable John, Earl of 
 Orrery. 1732. 
 
 A Miscellany on Taste. By Mr. Pope, etc, London : 1732. 
 Ascribed without reason to Theobald. Possibly it was com- 
 piled by Concanen. 
 
 The Works of Shakespeare : in seven volumes. Collated with the 
 Oldest Copies, and Corrected; with Notes explanatory and Critical: 
 By Mr. Theobald. 
 
 I, Decu^, i, nostrum: melioribu^ utere Fatis. Virg. 
 London: Printed for A. Bettesworth and C. Hitch, J. Tonson, F. 
 Clay, W. Feales, and R. Wellington. MDCCXXXIII. 
 
 The edition did not appear until January, 1734. 
 
 The Works of Shakespeare: in eight volumes. With notes, ex- 
 planatory, and critical, by Mr. Theobald. The Second Edition. 
 H. Lintott, C. Hitch, J. and R. Tonson etc. London 1740. 12°. 
 
 The Works of Shakespeare . . . With Notes by Mr. Theobald. 
 The Third edition. 8 vol. J. & P. Knapton: London, 1752. 12°. 
 
 Another edition, 1757. 8 vols. 8°. 
 
 Another edition, 1762. 8 vols. 8°. 
 
 Another edition. Printed verbatim from the octavo edition 1767. 
 8 vols. 12°. 
 
 Another edition, 1772. 12 vols. 12°. 
 
 Another edition, Printed verbatim, from the octavo edition. 1773. 
 8 vols. 12°. 
 
354 APPENDIX D 
 
 Another edition [c. 1777]. 12 vols. 8°. 
 
 Macbeth . . . Edited hxj L. Theobald. Dublin, 1739. 
 
 Merry Wives of Windsor. . . . With notes explanatory and critical 
 by Mr. Theobald. Dvhlin. 1739. 
 
 As you like it. A Comedy ; as it is acted at the Theatre-Royal in 
 Aungier-Street, Dvhlin. . . . Collated with the oldest copies and 
 corrected, by Mr. Theobald. Dublin. 1741. 
 
 The Tempest. . . . with notes by L. Theobald. London. 1755. 
 
 Measure for Measure . . . Edited by L. Theobald [Edinburgh 
 & London] 1778. 
 
 Much ado about nothing . . . edited by L. Theobald [Edinburgh] 
 
 1778. 
 
 Much ado about nothing . . . As it is acted at the Theatres Royal 
 in Drury-Lane and Covent-Garden . . . London. 1778. 
 
 Grub-street Journal. 
 
 Theobald made contributions to issues of June 6, June 20, 1734. 
 
 ■ The Vocal Parts of an Entertainment, call'd Merlin ; or The Devil 
 of Stone Henge . . . With a Preface containing a succinct Account 
 of Stone-Henge and Merlin. Written by Mr. Theobald. . . .London: 
 1734. 
 
 iThe Fatal Secret. A Tragedy. As it is Acted at the Theatre- 
 Royal, in Covent-Garden. By Mr. Theobald. London: Printed 
 for J. Watts ; And Sold by W. Feales at Rowe's Head, the Corner of 
 Essex-Street in the Strand. MDCCXXXV. 
 
 An adaptation of Webster's The Duchess of Malfi. 
 
APPENDIX D 355 
 
 Orpheus and Eurydice, An Opera As it is Performed at the Theatre 
 Royal In Covent Garden. Set to Musick by Mr. John Frederick 
 Lampe. London 1739. 
 
 The Happy Captive, an English Opera, In Two Comick Scenes, 
 Betwixt Signor Capaccio, a Director from the Canary Islands ; and 
 Signora Dorinna, a Virtuosa. London 1741. 
 
 The Works of Mr. Francis Beaumont, and Mr. John Fletcher 
 In ten Volumes. Collated with all the former Editions, and Cor- 
 rected. With Notes Critical and Explanatory. By the late Mr. 
 Theobald, Mr. Seward, and Mr. Sympson of Gainsborough. London : 
 Printed for J. and R. Tonson and S. Draper, in the Strand. 1750. 
 
 Theobald edited the entire first volume, the second to page 
 233, and the third to page 69. 
 
 The Works of Ben Jonson. In Seven Volumes. Collated with 
 All former Editions and Corrected; with Notes Critical and Ex- 
 planatory. By Peter Whalley, Late Fellow of St. John's College in 
 Oxford. London. MDCCLVI. 
 
 Whalley used Theobald's copies with marginal corrections, 
 and adopted some. 
 
 Ai(Txv\ov IlpofiriOevs Aea-jxoTrjs, Aeschyli Prometheus Vinctus ad 
 fidem manuscriporum emendavit. Notas et Glossarium adjecit. 
 Carolus Jacobus Bloomfield. Edition Tertia. 1819. 
 
 ' Bloomfield made use of some of Theobald's notes written on the 
 margin of the latter's copy of Stanley's edition. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Addison, Joseph, 6, 13, 17, 109, 
 
 110, 170, 235, 236, 342 
 Aeneid, 40, 57, 342 
 Aeschylus, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 15, 20, 
 
 67, 117, 130, 134, 151, 152, 
 
 196, 197, 199, 201, 202, 203, 
 
 325, 330, 331, 332, 334, 339, 
 
 340, 342 
 Ajax, 6, 7, 130 
 Anacreon, 199, 342 
 An Author to Let, 135 
 AndroniciLS, 186 
 Answer to the many Plain and 
 
 Notorious Lyes, 28 
 Antigone, 6, 7 
 Aniiochu^, 11 
 Antiquities and History of Ireland, 
 
 195 
 Apollo and Daphne, 26 
 Arbuthnot, John, 57, 130 
 Argyle, Duke of, 9 
 Ariosto, 243 
 Aristophanes, 4, 8, 10, 12, 34, 
 
 151, 199, 276 
 Aristotle, 68, 268 
 Amobius, 301, 306 
 As You Like It, 65, 188, 189, 262 
 Athenaeus, 82, 152, 199 
 Atterbury, Francis, 53 
 
 Bartholomew Fair, 186 
 
 Bathos, 29, 108, 111, 113, 114, 275 
 
 Battle of the Books, 254 
 
 Beaumont and Fletcher, 95, 175, 
 203, 212, 217, 218, 225, 245 
 
 Bentley, Richard, 17, 19, 20 32- 
 43, 47, 51-53, 55, 57-60, 66, 
 69-71, 78, 80-82, 84-93, 98, 
 99, 138, 141-146, 154, 168, 
 169, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 
 180, 182, 183, 190, 191, 193, 
 195, 209, 219, 221, 235, 236, 
 253, 256, 257, 269, 278, 299, 
 305, 306, 307, 324 
 
 Bentley, Thomas, 193, 220 
 
 Betterton, Thomas, 102 
 
 Bibliotheca, 55, 254, 255 
 
 Biographica Dramatica, 6 
 
 Birch, Thomas, 168, 212, 236, 
 237, 243 
 
 Bishop, Harley, 220, 285 
 
 Blackmore, Richard, 109 
 
 Bodmer, Johann Jacob, 14, 338, 
 340 
 
 Boiardo, 243 
 
 Bolingbroke, Viscount, 155 
 
 Broome, William, 64, 109, 138, 
 149 
 
 Brown, Jonas, 115 
 
 Bacon, Francis, 237 
 Baker, Thomas, 193 
 Barnes, Joshua, 34, 46 
 
 Caesar, 39, 67 
 Callimachus, 34 
 Camden, William, 175 
 
358 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Canons of Criticism, 57 
 
 Cardenna, 104 
 
 Casaubon, 32, 34 
 
 Cato, 2 
 
 Cave of Poverty, 14, 16, 67, 130 
 
 Caxton, William, 175 
 
 Censor, 3, 4, 11, 17, 49, 67, 68, 
 70, 116, 133 
 
 Cervantes, 104 
 
 Chandos, Duke of, 149, 295, 298 
 
 Chapman, George, 175 
 
 Charteris, Francis, 272 
 
 Chaucer, Geoffrey, 95, 174, 175, 
 177, 218, 231, 234, 238, 239, 
 242 
 
 Cheats of Scapin, 23 
 
 Cheselden, WilHam, 316, 320 
 
 Church, Ralph, 222, 241-244 
 
 Churchill, Charles, 16 
 
 Gibber, CoUey, 30, 193 
 
 Gibber, Theophilus, 193 
 
 Cleland, WilHam, 130 
 
 Clouds, 2, 9, 80 
 
 Comedy of Errors, 176, 188 
 
 Complete Key to the What D^ye 
 Call It, 67 
 
 Goncanen, Matthew, 97, 100, 101, 
 111, 135, 136, 211, 275, 310, 
 312 
 
 Goncanen Club, 101, 136, 274 
 
 Cooke, Thomas, 101, 111, 118, 
 123, 124, 128, 135, 136 
 
 Coriolanus, 64, 107 
 
 Cosmography, 178, 236 
 
 Coxeter, Thomas, 220, 247, 248, 
 286 
 
 Critical, Historical, and Explana- 
 tory Notes, 230 
 
 Critical Observations on Shake- 
 speare, 228 
 
 Cupid and Bacchus, 23 
 
 Cythereia, 110 
 
 Dacier, Anne L., 10 
 
 Daily Journal, 122, 134, 149, 
 
 321 
 Daniel, Samuel, 175 
 Davies, John, 193 
 Death of Hannibal, 23 
 Dekker, Thomas, 175 
 Delawar, Lady, 147, 151, 156- 
 
 158, 266, 274 
 
 Dell, , 248 
 
 Dennis, John, 11, 17, 101, 110, 
 
 111, 116, 117, 136 
 De Quincy, Thomas, 35 
 Dialogues of the Dead, 257 
 Discovery of a London Monster, 175 
 Dissertation upon the Epistles of 
 
 Phalaris, 33, 35, 37, 51, 69, 70, 
 
 99, 178, 180, 219 
 Dodington, George, 102 
 Dodsley, Richard, 245, 247 
 Don Quixote, 102, 141 
 Double Falshood, 29, 102, 106, 
 
 108, 112, 130, 131, 180, 187 
 Downes, John, 102 
 Drayton, Michael, 243 
 Dryden, John, 11, 84, 127, 263 
 Duchess of Malfi, 152 
 Dugdale, Sir WiUiam, 175 
 Dunciad, 4, 6-9, 12, 16, 29, 101, 
 
 103, 108, 111, 112, 114-118, 
 
 120, 124, 126-128, 131-136, 
 
 141, 145-148, 179, 180, 190, 
 
 198, 201, 203, 250, 254, 255, 
 
 259, 275 
 Duncombe, William, 119 
 Durgen, 117, 118 
 
 Eledra, 3, 6, 7 
 Ellis, Rev., 2 
 
INDEX 
 
 359 
 
 Ejyistle, 155 
 
 Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot, 141 
 
 Epistle to Mill, 33, 36, 39, 71, 
 
 219, 269 
 Epistola Critica (Markland's) 47, 
 
 93 
 Erasmus, 31, 34 
 Essay on Man, 141 
 Essay on the Art of a PoeVs Sinking 
 
 in Reputation, 113, 128 
 Essay upon Mr. Pope's Judgment, 
 
 148 
 Euripides, 7, 43, 68, 333 
 Eustathius, 43, 149, 152, 199 
 Every Man in his Humour, 185 
 
 Faerie Queene, 218, 237, 241, 242 
 Fairfax, Edward, 242, 243 
 Famous Voyage, 311 
 Farmer, Richard, 104, 176, 251 
 -Fatal Secret, 152 
 Fenton, Elijah, 218, 235, 236 
 Fielding, Henry, 9, 10, 25, 146, 
 
 193 
 Fletcher, John, 102, 103, 106 
 Folkes, Martin, 220, 285 
 Ford, John, 175 
 Fragment of a Satire, 110, 114, 
 
 139, 145 
 Franklin, Thomas, 12 
 Friend, John, 121, 193, 259 
 
 Gay, John, 17, 19, 118 
 
 Garth, Samuel, 11 
 
 Geoffrey of Monmouth, 239, 242, 
 
 243 
 Gifford, William, 104, 240, 248 
 Gildon, Charles, 109, 110, 176, 218 
 Glanville, John, 2, 9 
 Goldsmith, Oliver, 18 
 Gottschedd, Johann, 14 
 
 Grafton, Duke of, 147 
 
 Grey, Zachary, 230, 233, 234, 250 
 
 Grove, 3, 7, 11, 69 
 
 Grub-street Journal, 4, 9, 103, 136, 
 
 140, 142, 159, 194, 200, 275, 
 
 330, 333 
 
 Hakluyt, Richard, 175 
 
 Hamlet, 64, 65, 67, 73, 79, 90, 91, 
 
 93, 94, 112, 123, 188, 288, 313, 
 
 315 
 Hamner, Thomas, 227 
 Happy Captive, 29 
 Hardinge, Nicholas, 193, 221 
 Hare, Francis, 40, 42, 48 
 Harlequin-Horace, 137 
 Harlequin Sorcerer, 26 
 Haywood, EUza, 115, 135 • 
 Heath, Benjamin, 231, 250 
 Hecatomuthi, 281 
 Henry IV, 282 
 Henry V, 185 
 Henry VI, 186, 187 
 Henry VIII, 185 
 Hercules Fur ens, 112 
 Hero and Leander, 15, 69 
 Hesiod, 15, 124, 125, 198, 332 
 Hesychius, 199, 202, 203, 308, 
 
 309, 332, 342 
 Hejrwood, Thomas, 175 
 Hill, John, 28, 29 
 Historica Danica, 123 
 History of Gardenia, 104, 106 
 History of the Works of the Learned, 
 
 236 
 Holinshed, Raphael, 175, 189 
 Homer, 5, 8, 15, 19, 149, 175, 332 
 Horace, 5, 11, 37, 39, 41-44, 52, 
 
 54-56, 58, 72, 75, 82, 84, 87, 
 
 89, 90, 91, 93, 143, 145, 173, 
 
 221, 256, 257, 308 
 
360 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Hudihras, 233, 234 
 
 Hughes, John, 6, 218, 237, 243, 
 
 244 
 Hume, Patrick, 234, 236 
 Humorous Lieutenant, 95 
 Hugo, Victor, 68 
 Hurd, Richard, 146 
 
 Iliad, 9, 19 
 II Penscroso, 169 
 
 Inquiry into the Learning of 
 Shakespeare, 228 
 
 Jack Drum's Entertainment, 184 
 
 Jackson, , 6, 7 
 
 Jacob, Giles, 3, 6, 11, 115, 119 
 Johnson, Samuel, 12, 51, 134, 146, 
 
 159, 169, 182, 188, 189, 226, 
 
 227, 244, 249, 250, 252 
 Jonson, Ben, 169, 175, 186, 212, 
 
 225, 239, 242, 245-247, 310 
 Jortin, John, 53, 141, 146, 198, 
 
 199, 221, 235, 236, 237, 243, 
 
 244, 329 
 Judgment of Apollo, 119 
 Junius Brutus, 119 
 Ju^in Martyr, 39, 48, 58, 220 
 
 Kennick, Dr., 11, 20 
 Kenrick, William, 188, 250 
 King John, 87, 174 
 King, WilUam, 52, 256, 257 
 Kyd, Thomas, 175 
 
 Lady's Triumph, 26 
 U Allegro, 169 
 Langbaine, Gerard, 189 
 Lear, 90, 151 
 Le Clerc, Jean, 13, 57 
 Letter Concerning a New Edition, 
 237 
 
 Life and Character of Cato, 2, 30 
 Life and Remarks of Zoilus, 18, 19 
 Lintot, Bernard, 2, 5, 6-8, 201, 
 
 257 
 LoUius, 23 
 Locrine, 266 
 
 Lodge, Thomas, 175, 189 
 London Daily Post, 212, 321 
 London Journal, 97, 100 
 Love's Labor's Lost, 280, 310 
 Loves of Mars and Venus, 23 
 Lycidas, 195, 327 
 Lydgate, John, 175, 243 
 
 Macbeth, 64, 76, 151, 177, 185, 
 
 229, 309 
 MaUet, David, 145, 170 
 Malone, Edmond, 104 
 Man of Taste, 337 
 Markland, Jeremiah, 40, 43, 58, 
 
 329 
 Marlowe, Christopher, 175 
 Marston, John, 175 
 Martial, 79, 82 
 Martyn, John, 136 
 Massinger, PhiHp, 104, 175, 245, 
 
 247, 248, 249 
 Mausoleum, 13, 17 
 Mead, Richard, 121, 193, 200, 
 
 259, 286, 290, 328 
 Mears, WiUiam, 115 
 Measure for Measure, 187 
 Memoirs of Scriblerus, 141 
 Memoirs of Sir Walter Raleigh, 20, 
 
 23,30 
 Menaechmi, 176, 189 
 Menander, 47, 71, 324 
 Merchant of Venice, 64 
 Merlin, 26 
 Merry Wives of Windsor, 185, 278, 
 
 282, 283, 308 
 
INDEX 
 
 361 
 
 Metamorphoses, 11, 16 
 Middleton, Conyers, 5, 202, 334 
 Midsummer's Night's Dream, 86, 
 
 207 
 Miller, James, 137, 337 
 MQton, John, 14, 50, 87, 142-145, 
 
 168-170, 173, 195, 217, 221, 225, 
 
 229, 234, 236, 237, 278, 299, 
 300, 327 
 
 Mirrour, 119 
 
 Miscellaneous Observations upon 
 
 Authors, 152, 198, 202 
 Miscellanies (Pope and Swift's) 
 
 108, 113 
 Miscellany on Taste, 149, 150 
 Mist's Journal, 106, 111, 113, 118, 
 
 120, 122, 127, 128 
 Moliere, 337 
 
 Montague, Lady M. W., 193, 313 
 Moore, John, 275 
 Moore-Smythe, James, 101, 111, 
 
 135, 136, 274 
 Morell, Thomas, 22 
 Morris, Bezaleel, 135 
 Morte D' Arthur, 239 
 Mosley, Humphrey, 104 
 Mr. Rich's Answer, 28 
 Much Ado About Nothing, 87, 90, 
 
 230, 260 
 Muretus, 32 
 Musaeus, 20 
 
 Necromancer, 24 
 
 Newcastle, Duke of, 212, 345, 346 
 
 New Memoirs of Milton, 227 
 
 Newton, Thomas, 235-237 
 
 NiccoH, 32 
 
 North's Plutarch, 23, 167, 188 
 
 Oldfield, Mrs. A., 276 
 Observations on Macbeth, 250 
 
 Observations on the Faerie Qtteen«, 
 
 238 
 Odyssey, 5, 8, 9, 19, 113 
 Oedipus Coloneus, 5 
 Oedipus Tyrannu^, 3, 5, 6 
 Of False Taste, 149, 294 
 Of Verbal Criticism, 145, 170 
 Oldisworth, William, 256, 257 
 Oldmixon, John, 111 
 On the Delicacy of Friendship, 146 
 Orestes, 148, 151, 272 
 Orpheus, 28 
 
 Orpheus and Eurydice, 23, 27 
 Orrery, Earl of (Charles Boyle) 
 
 13, 36, 79, 178, 220, 298, 307 
 Orrery, Earl of (John Boyle), 147, 
 
 155, 159, 194, 198, 289, 298, 301, 
 
 307, 312, 326, 327, 333 
 Othello, 67, 68, 185, 288, 313 
 Ovid, 13, 79 
 
 Pan and Syrinx, 26 
 Paradise Lost, 235, 341 
 Parnell, Thomas, 18, 19 
 Paterculus, 199, 210, 301, 306, 
 
 307, 310, 317, 322, 325 
 Pearce, Zachary, 143, 198, 235, 
 
 299 
 Peck, Francis, 227 
 PeUet, Thomas, 259 
 Perfidious Brother, 21, 130 
 Pericles, 185, 272 
 Perseus and Andromeda, 23, 26 
 Persian Princess, 2, 21, 130 
 Phaedo, 2, 130 
 Phaedrus, 48 
 Pharsalia, 6, 12 
 Philips, Ambrose, 109 
 Philoctetes, 5, 7 
 Philemon, 47, 71 
 Pindar, 15 
 
362 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Platonius, 199, 283 
 
 Plutus, 9 
 
 Poggio, 31 
 
 Politian, 31 
 
 Pope, 7, 8, 12, 16-18, 20, 29, 53, 
 61, 63, 65, 66, 81, 86, 88, 93, 
 94, 98, 103, 107-118, 120-122, 
 124, 126, 128, 130-132, 134, 
 136, 138, 146, 148-150, 154, 
 157-160, 169, 171, 179, 180, 
 182, 185, 186, 190, 191, 193, 
 204, 205, 211, 215, 217-219, 
 225-227, 237, 244, 250, 251, 
 265, 275, 282, 284, 289, 295, 
 306, 313, 324, 338, 339, 341 
 
 Porson, Richard, 60, 146, 203 
 
 Prevost, , 323 
 
 Prior, Mathew, 237 
 
 Promus and Cassandra, 187, 282 
 
 Pulteney, WilUam, 109 
 
 Raleigh, Sir Walter, 185, 242, 243 
 Ralph, James, 117, 118 
 Rape of Lucrece, 325 
 Rape of Proserpine. 24, 26 
 Reed, Isaac, 104 "^^ 
 Remarks on Macbeth, 231 
 Remarks on Mr. Pope's Rape of 
 
 the Lock, 116 
 Remarks on the Dunciad, 3, 116, 
 
 238 
 Remarks on Spenser's Poems, 222 
 Review of the Text of Milton's 
 
 Paradise Lost, 143 
 Rich, John, 24-30, 66, 152, 298 
 Richard II, 22, 67 
 Richardson, Samuel, 193, 236 
 Rival Modes, 274 
 RobortelH, 32 
 Rockingham, Earl of, 1 
 Romeo and Juliet, 112, 230 
 
 Roome, Edward, 111, 135, 136 
 Rowe, Nicholas, 6, 7, 62, 109, 
 
 170, 217, 218, 225, 267 
 Russel, , 136 
 
 Saint Evremond, 52 
 
 Savage, Richard, 135, 136 
 
 Sawney, 117 
 
 Saxo Grammaticus, 123, 187 
 
 Scaliger, JuUus Caesar, 32, 34, 36, 
 308 
 
 Select Collection of Old Plays, 
 245 
 
 Sermon against Adultery, 140 
 
 Seven Captains against Thebes, 3 
 
 Seward, Thomas, 212-214, 221, 
 223, 245 
 
 Sewell, George, 20, 161 
 
 Shaftesbury, Earl of (Anthony 
 Cooper), 53 
 
 Shakespeare Restored, 3, 4, 30, 47, 
 64, 71, 72, 84, 85, 89, 91, 99, 
 100, 107, 116, 118, 119, 123, 
 128, 129, 132, 134, 138, 139, 
 143, 149, 172, 175, 177, 178, 
 183, 209, 219, 221, 222, 227, 
 230, 231, 240, 252, 273, 276 
 
 Shepherd's Calendar, 244 
 
 Shirley, James, 104 
 
 Sidney, Philip, 242-243 
 
 Skelton, John, 231 
 
 Sloane, Sir Hans, 5, 121, 193, 201, 
 335 
 
 Soliman and Perseda, 174 
 
 Some account of Horace's Be- 
 haviour, 55, 254, 257 
 
 Sondres, Viscount, 2 
 
 Sophocles, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 20, 
 68 
 
 Spenser, Edmund, 16, 95, 174, 
 175, 218, 229, 234, 237-244 
 
INDEX 
 
 363 
 
 Stanley, Thomas, 5, 201, 325, 332, 
 
 334 
 Statius, 42, 84, 199 
 Stowe, John, 175 
 Suidas, 152, 199, 268 
 Surrey, Earl of, 175 
 Swift, Jonathan, 115, 118, 137, 
 
 196 
 Sympson, , 212, 213, 245 
 
 Taylor, John, 193, 198 
 
 Taylor, Robert, 278, 283, 293, 312, 
 
 322 
 Tempest, 107, 185, 207 
 Theocritus, 11 
 Thirlby, Styvan, 48, 70, 141, 193, 
 
 198, 220, 285 
 Three Destructions of Troy, 23, 107 
 Tickell, Thomas, 8 
 Timon of Athens, 23, 107, 184, 262 
 Titus Andronicus, 90, 186, 187 
 Tonson, Jacob, 151, 156-160, 
 
 163, 212, 217, 218, 220, 235, 
 
 265, 274, 277, 284, 290 
 Trachiniae, 5 
 Troilus and Cressida, 23, 64, 83, 
 
 107, 175, 177, 188, 288 
 Turnbull, George, 146 
 Tusculans, 39 
 Twelfth Night, 65 
 Two Epistles to Mr. Pope, 137 
 Two Gentlemen of Verona, 65 
 Two Noble Kinsmen, 186 
 Tyrconnel, Earl of, 159, 305, 307, 
 
 310 
 
 Upton, John, 193, 198, 222, 228, 
 235, 237, 238, 240, 242, 244, 250 
 Useful Transactions, 257 
 
 Vaillant, Paul, 323, 337, 341 
 
 Valla, Laurentius, 32 
 
 Vanderput, P., 295 
 
 Venv^ and Adonis, 15, 325, 330 
 
 Victorinus, 32 
 
 Virgil, 79, 84, 93, 130, 313 
 
 Virgilius Restauratus, 57 
 
 Voltaire, 119 
 
 Walpole, Robert, 147, 148, 198, 
 310, 335, 336, 342 
 
 Warburton, WilUam, 12, 43, 60, 
 57, 101, 106, 107, 125, 134, 136, 
 142, 144, 146-148, 150-154, 
 156-158, 161-168, 170, 174, 
 176, 182-184, 188, 193-197, 
 200-204, 206-209, 211, 226, 
 236, 249, 258, 259 
 
 Warton, Thomas, 238-240,1243, 
 244, 251 
 
 Wasse, Joseph, 40, 198 
 
 Weaver, John, 23, 25 
 
 Webster, John, 175 
 
 Welsted, Leonard, 109, 135, 136, 
 150, 295 
 
 Whalley, Peter, 222, 223, 228, 246, 
 247 
 
 What D'ye Call It, 16, 19 
 
 Wheler, Sir George, 199, 200, 
 318, 319 
 
 Whiston, WiUiam, 336 
 
 Winter's Tale, 112 
 
 Works of Ben Jonson, 218 
 
 Wotton, WiUiam, 53 
 
 Wyat, Sir Thomas, 175 
 
 Wycherly, WiUiam, 123 
 
 Wynken de Worde, 107, 176, 188, 
 239 
 
 Yonge, WiUiam, 319 
 Young, Edward 137, 193 
 Young, WiUiam, 9, 10 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 Columbia University in the City of New York 
 
 The Press was incorporated June 8, 1893, to promote the publi- 
 cation of the results of original research. It is a private corporation, 
 related directly to Columbia University by the provisions that its 
 Trustees shall be officers of the University and that the President of 
 Columbia University shall be President of the Press. 
 
 The publications of the Columbia University Press include 
 works on Biography, History, Economics, Education, Philosophy, 
 Linguistics, and Literature, and the following series: 
 
 Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology. 
 
 Columbia University Biological Series. 
 
 Columbia University Studies in Cancer and Allied Subjects. 
 
 Columbia University Studies in Classical Philology. 
 
 Columbia University Studies in Comparative Literature. 
 
 Columbia University Studies in English. 
 
 Columbia University Geological Series. 
 
 Columbia University Germanic Studies. 
 
 Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series. 
 
 Columbia University Contributions to Oriental History and 
 Philology. 
 
 Columbia University Oriental Studies. 
 
 Columbia University Studies in Romance Philology and Liter- 
 ature. 
 
 Records of Civilization: Sources and Studies. 
 
 Adams Lectures. Carpentier Lectures. 
 
 Julius Beer Lectures. Hewitt Lectures. 
 
 Blumenthal Lectures. Jesup Lectures. 
 
 Catalogues will be sent free on application. 
 
 LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
 
 30-32 East 20th St., NEW YORK 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 STUDIES IN ENGLISH 
 
 Joseph Glanvill. By Ferris Greenslet, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. 
 
 xi + 235. Price, $1.50 net. 
 The Elizabethan Lyric. By John Erskine, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. 
 
 xvi + 344. Price, $1.50 net. 
 Classical Echoes in Tennyson. By Wilfred P. Mustard, Ph.D. 
 
 Cloth, 12mo, pp. xvi + 164. Price, $1.25 net. 
 Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature. By Margaret Ball, Ph.D. 
 
 Paper, 8vo, pp. x + 188. Price, $1.00 net. 
 The Early American Novel. By Lillie Deminq Loshe, Ph.D. Paper, 
 
 8vo, pp. vii + 131. Price, $1.00 net. 
 Studies in New England Transcendentalism. By Harold C. God- 
 
 DARD, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. x + 217. Price, $1.00 net. 
 A Study of Shelley's Drama " The Cenci." By Ernest Sutherland 
 
 Bates, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. ix + 103. Price, $1.00 net. 
 Verse Satire in England before the Renaissance. By Samuel Marion 
 
 Tucker, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. xi + 245. Price, $1.00 net. 
 The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in 
 
 English. By Jacob Zeitlin, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. xi + 177. 
 
 Price, $1.00 net. 
 Government Regulation of the Elizabethan Drama. By Virginia 
 
 Crocheron Gildersleeve, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. vii + 259. 
 
 Price, $1.25 ne<. 
 The Stage History of Shakespeare's King Richard the Third. By 
 
 Alice I. Perry Wood, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 186. Price, 
 
 $1.25 nei. 
 The Shaksperian Stage. By Victor E. Albright, Ph.D. Cloth, 
 
 8vo, pp. xii + 194. Illustrated. Price, $1.50 net. 
 Thomas Carlyle as a Critic of Literature. By Frederic W. Roe, 
 
 Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 152. Price, $1.25 net. 
 Leigh Hunt's Relations with Byron, Shelley, and Keats. By Bar- 
 
 nette Miller, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. vii + 169. Price, $1.25 net. 
 The Authorship of Timon of Athens. By Ernest Hunter Wright 
 
 Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. ix + 104. Price, $1.25 net. 
 English Tragicomedy, Its Origin and History. By Frank H. Ristine, 
 
 Ph.D. Cloth, Svo, pp. XV + 247. Price, $1.50 net. 
 John Dennis. His Life and Criticism. By Harry G. Paul, Ph.D. 
 
 Cloth, 8vo, pp. viii + 229. Portrait. Price, $1.25 net. 
 The Rise of the Novel of Manners. By Charlotte E. Morgan, 
 
 Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. ix + 271. Price, $1.50 net. 
 The Political Prophecy in England. By Rupert Taylor, Ph.D. 
 
 Cloth, Svo, pp. XX + 165. Price, $1.25 net. 
 The Middle English Penitential Lyric. By Frank Allen Patterson, 
 
 Ph.D. Cloth, Svo, pp. ix + 203. Price, $1.50 net. 
 The Soliloquies of Shakespeare. By Morris LeRoy Arnold, Ph.D. 
 
 Cloth, Svo, pp. X + 177. Price, $1.25 net. 
 
 LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
 30-32 East 20th Street New York 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 The Exemplum in the Early Religious and Didactic Literature of Eng- 
 land. By Joseph Albert Mosher, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. 
 xi + 150. Price, $1.25 net. 
 
 New Poems by James I. of England. Edited by Allan F. Westcott, 
 Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xci + 121. Price, $1.50 net 
 
 Thomas Dekker. A Study. By Mary Leland Hunt, Ph.D. Cloth, 
 8vo, pp. xiii + 212. Price, $1.25 net. 
 
 Mathew Carey. Editor, Author and PubUsher. By Earl L. Bradsher, 
 Ph.D. Cloth, Svo, pp. xi -f 144. Price, $1.25 net. 
 (This series is continued under the title " Studies in English and 
 Comparative Literature ") 
 
 STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE LITERATURE 
 
 Romances of Roguery. By Frank Wadleigh Chandler, Ph.D. Part I. 
 
 The Picaresque Novel in Spain. Cloth, 12mo, pp. ix+ 483. Price, 
 
 $2.00 net. 
 A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance. By Joel Elias 
 
 Spingarn, Ph.D. Second edition, revised and augmented. Cloth, 
 
 12mo, pp. xi + 350. Price, $1.50 net. 
 The ItaUan Renaissance in England. Studies. By Lewis Einstein, 
 
 Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xvii+ 420. Illustrated. Price, $1.50 net. 
 Platonism in English Poetry of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Cen- 
 turies. By John Smith Harrison, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. 
 
 xi + 235. Price, $2.00 net. 
 Irish Life in Lrish Fiction. " By Horatio Sheafe Krans, Ph.D. 
 
 Cloth, 12mo, pp. vii + 338. Price, $1.50 net. 
 The English Heroic Play. By Lewis Nathaniel Chase, Ph.D. 
 
 Cloth, 12mo, pp. xii + 250. Price, $2.00 net. 
 The Oriental Tale in England in the Eighteenth Century. By 
 
 Martha Pike Conant, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xxvi + 312. 
 
 Price, $2.00 net. 
 The French Influence in English Literature. By Alfred Horatio 
 
 Upham, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. ix + 560. Price, $2.00 net. 
 The Influence of Moliere on Restoration Comedy. By Dudley H. 
 
 Miles, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xi + 272. Price, $1.50 net. 
 The Greek Romances in Elizabethan Prose Fiction. By Samuel 
 
 Lee Wolff, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. ix + 529. Price, $2.00 net. 
 Idylls of Fishermen. By Henry Marion Hall, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, 
 
 pp. xiii + 220. Price, $1.50 net. 
 
 ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE 
 
 Uniformly bound, 12mo, cloth. 
 Lord Byron as a Satirist in Verse. By Claude M. Fuess, Ph.D. 
 
 Pp. xi + 228. Price, $1.25 net. 
 Spenser's '* Shepherd's Calender " in Relation to Contemporary 
 
 Afifairs. By James Jackson Higginson, Ph.D. Pp. xiii + 364. 
 
 Price, $1.50 net. 
 
 LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
 30-32 East 20th Street New York 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 The Commedia deirArte. A Study in Italian Popular Comedy. By 
 
 Winifred Smith, Ph.D. Pp. xv + 290. Illustrated. Price, $2.00 net. 
 Literary Influences in Colonial Newspapers, 1704-1750. By Elizabeth 
 
 Christine Cook, Ph.D. Pp. xi + 279. Price, $1.50 net. 
 Learned Societies and English Literary Scholarship in Great Britain 
 
 and the United States. By Harrison R. Steeves, Ph.D. Pp. 
 
 xiv + 245. Price, $1.50 net. 
 Aaron Hill. Poet, Dramatist, Projector. By Dorothy Brewster, 
 
 Ph.D. Pp. xiii + 300. Portrait. Price, $1.50 net. 
 Chaucer and the Roman de la Rose. By Dean Spruill Fansler, 
 
 Ph.D. Pp. xi + 269. Price, $1.50 net. 
 Gnomic Poetry in Anglo-Saxon. By Blanche Colton Williams, 
 
 Ph.D. Pp. xiii + 171. Frontispiece. Price, $1.50 net. 
 The Relations of Shirley's Plays to the Elizabethan Drama. By 
 
 Robert S. Forsythe, Ph.D. Pp. xiv + 483. Price, $2.00 net. 
 The Ballade. By Helen Louise Cohen, Ph.D. Pp. xix + 397. 
 
 Price, $1.75 net. 
 The Life and Romances of Mrs. Eliza Haywood. By George F. 
 
 WEIGHER, Ph.D. Pp. xi + 210. Price, $1.50 net. 
 Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama. By Victor O. Freeburq, 
 
 Ph.D. Pp. xi + 241. Price, $1.50 net. 
 Robert Greene. By John Clark Jordan, Ph.D. Pp. xi + 231. 
 
 Price, $1.50 net. 
 Froissart and the English Chronicle Play. By Robert M. Smith, 
 
 Ph.D. Pp. xiii + 165. Price, $1.50 net. 
 Mary Astell. By Florence M. Smith, Ph.D. Pp. ix + 193. Price, 
 
 $1.50 net. 
 St. Jean de Crevecoeur. By Julia Post Mitchell, Ph.D. Pp. 
 
 xvii + 362. Price, $1.50 net. 
 American Literature in Spain. By John DeLancey Ferguson, 
 
 Ph.D. Pp. viii + 267. Price, $1.50 net. 
 The Rhythm of Prose. By William Morrison Patterson, Ph.D. 
 
 Second Edition. Pp. xxiii + 193. Price, $1.50 net. 
 English Domestic Relations, 1487-1653. By Chilton Latham 
 
 Powell, Ph.D. Pp. xii + 274. Price, $1.50 net. 
 The Mystic Vision in the Grail Legend and in the Divine Comedy. 
 
 By Lizette Andrews Fisher, Ph.D. Pp. xi + 148. Illustrated. 
 
 Price, $1.50 net. 
 The Early Life of Robert Southey, 1774-1803. By William Haller, 
 
 Ph.D. Pp. xi + 353. Price, $1.75 net. 
 English Translations from the Greek. A Bibliographical Survey. By 
 
 FiNLEY M. K. Foster, Ph.D. Pp. xxix + 146. Price, $1.50 net. 
 Lewis Theobald. His Contribution to English Scholarship. With 
 
 some Unpublished Letters. By Richard Foster Jones, Ph.D. 
 
 Pp. xi + 363. Price, $2.00 net. 
 Vergil and the English Poets. By Elizabeth Nitchie, Ph.D. In press. 
 Dickens, Reade, and Collins, Sensation Novelists. By Walter C. 
 
 Phillips, Ph.D. In press. 
 A Study of the Newe Metamorphosis, Written by J. M., Gent., i6oo. 
 
 By John Henry Hobart Lyon, Ph.D. In press. 
 
 LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
 30-32 East 20th Street New York 
 
~»J^ 
 
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: March 2009 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 
 
 111 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 (724)779-2111 
 

 M^