  64. above the Direction of their Tailors. Cf. Pope, p. 51. The succeeding remarks on the individuality of Shakespeare's characters also appear to have been suggested by Pope. 65. wanted a Comment. Contrast Rowe, p. 1. [pg 314]66. Judith was Shakespeare's younger daughter (cf. Rowe, p. 21). It is now known that Shakespeare was married at the end of 1582. See Mr. Sidney Lee's Life of Shakespeare, pp. 18-24. 68. Spenser's Thalia. Cf. Rowe, pp. 6, 7. The original editions read “Tears of his Muses.” 69. Rymers Foedera, vol. xvi., p. 505. Fletcher, i.e. Lawrence Fletcher. the Bermuda Islands. Cf. Theobald's note on “the still-vext Bermoothes,” vol. i., p. 13 (1733). Though Shakespeare is probably indebted to the account of Sir George Somers's shipwreck on the Bermudas, Theobald is wrong, as Farmer pointed out, in saying that the Bermudas were not discovered till 1609. A description of the islands by Henry May, who was shipwrecked on them in 1593, is given in Hakluyt, 1600, iii., pp. 573-4. 70. Mr. Pope, or his Graver. So the quotation appears in the full-page illustration facing p. xxxi of Rowe's Account in Pope's edition; but the illustration was not included in all the copies, perhaps because of the error. The quotation appears correctly in the engraving in Rowe's edition. 72. New-place. Queen Henrietta Maria's visit was from 11th to 13th July, 1643. Theobald's “three weeks” should read “three days.” See Halliwell-Phillips, Outlines, 1886, ii., p. 108. We have been told in print, in An Answer to Mr. Popes Preface to Shakespear.... By a Stroling Player [John Roberts], 1729, p. 45. 73. Complaisance to a bad Taste. Cf. Rowe, p. 6, Dennis p. 46, and Theobald's dedication to Shakespeare Restored; yet Theobald himself had complied to the bad taste in several pantomimes. Nullum sine venia. Seneca, Epistles, 114. 12. 74. Speret idem. Horace, Ars Poetica, 241. Indeed to point out, etc. In the first edition of the Preface, Theobald had given “explanations of those beauties that are less obvious to common readers.” He has unadvisably retained the remark that such explanations “should deservedly have a share in a general critic upon the author.” The “explanations” were omitted probably because they were inspired by Warburton. 75. And therefore the Passages ... from the Classics. Cf. the following passage with Theobald's letter to Warburton of 17th March, 1729-30 (see Nichols, Illustrations, ii., pp. 564, etc.). The letter throws strong light on Theobald's indecision on the question of Shakespeare's learning. “The very learned critic of our nation” is Warburton himself. See his letter to Concanen of 2nd January, 1726 (Malone's Shakespeare, 1821, xii., p. 158). Cf. Theobald's Preface to Richard II., 1720, and Whalley's Enquiry, 1748, p. 51. [pg 315]76. Effusion of Latin Words. Theobald has omitted a striking passage in the original preface. It was shown that Shakespeare's writings, in contrast with Milton's, contain few or no Latin phrases, though they have many Latin words made English; and this fact was advanced as the truest criterion of his knowledge of Latin. The passage is referred to by Hurd in his Letter to Mr. Mason on the Marks of Imitation (1757, p. 74). Hurd thinks that the observation is too good to have come from Theobald. His opinion is confirmed by the entire omission of the passage in the second edition. Warburton himself claimed it as his own. Though the passage was condensed by Theobald, Warburton's claim is still represented by the passage from For I shall find (p. 76, l. 7) to Royal Taste (l. 36). 77. Shakespeare ... astonishing force and splendor. Cf. Pope, p. 50. Had Homer, etc. Cf. Pope, p. 56. 78. Indulging his private sense. See p. 61. Lipsius,—Satyra MenippÆa (Opera, 1611, p. 640). 79. Sive homo, etc. Quintus Serenus, De Medicina, xlvi., “Hominis ac simiae morsui.” 80. Nature of any Distemper ... corrupt Classic. Cf. Shakespeare Restored, pp. iv, v. 81. Bentley's edition of Paradise Lost had appeared in 1732. the true Duty of an Editor. A shy hit at Pope's “dull duty of an editor,” Preface, p. 61. 82. as I have formerly observ'd, in the Introduction to Shakespeare Restored, pp. ii and iv. The paragraph is quoted almost verbatim. 83. labour'd under flat Nonsense. Here again Theobald incorporates a passage from the Introduction to Shakespeare Restored, p. vi. Corrections and conjectures. Yet another passage appropriated from his earlier work. The French quotation, however, is new. Edition of our author's Poems. Theobald did not carry out his intention of editing the Poems. References to the proposed edition will be found in Warburton's letters to him of 17th May and 14th October, 1734 (see Nichols, Illustrations, ii., pp. 634, 654). The only attempt as yet towards a Shakespearian Glossary is to be found in the supplementary volumes of Rowe's and Pope's editions. It is far from “copious and complete.” 84. The English are observ'd to produce more Humourists. See Congreve's letter to Dennis Concerning Humour in Comedy, 1695. Wit lying mostly in the Assemblage of Ideas, etc. So Locke, Essay concerning the Human Understanding, Book II., Ch. xi., § 2. The passage had been popularised by Addison, Spectator, No. 62. 85. Donne. Cf. Dryden's criticism of Donne. [pg 316]86. a celebrated Writer. Addison, Spectator, No. 297. Bossu. RenÉ le Bossu (1631-1680), author of the TraitÉ du poÈme Épique (1675). An English translation by “W. J.” was printed in 1695, and again in 1719. Dacier. See note, p. 18. Gildon showed himself to be of the same school as Rymer in his Essay on the Art, Rise, and Progress of the Stage (1710) and his Art of Poetry (1718); yet his earliest piece of criticism was a vigorous attack on Rymer. The title reads curiously in the light of his later pronouncements: Some Reflections on Mr. Rymer's Short View of Tragedy, and an Attempt at a Vindication of Shakespear. It was printed in a volume of Miscellaneous Letters and Essays (1694). 87. Anachronisms. The passage referred to occurs on pp. 134, 135 of Shakespeare Restored. this Restorer. See the Dunciad (1729), i. 106, note. it not being at all credible, etc. See p. 56. Sir Francis Drake. Pope had suggested in a note that the imperfect line in 1 Henry VI., i. 1. 56, might have been completed with the words “Francis Drake.” He had not, however, incorporated the words in the text. “I can't guess,” he says, “the occasion of the Hemystic, and imperfect sense, in this place; 'tis not impossible it might have been fill'd up with—Francis Drake—tho' that were a terrible Anachronism (as bad as Hector's quoting Aristotle in Troil. and Cress.); yet perhaps, at the time that brave Englishman was in his glory, to an English-hearted audience, and pronounced by some favourite Actor, the thing might be popular, though not judicious; and therefore by some Critick, in favour of the author, afterwards struck out. But this is a meer slight conjecture.” Theobald has a lengthy note on this in his edition. He does not allude to the suggestion which he had submitted to Warburton. See Introduction, p. xlvi. 88. Odyssey. This passage, to the end of the paragraph, appears in Theobald's letter to Warburton of March 17, 1729-30 (Nichols, ii., p. 566). In the same letter he had expressed his doubts as to whether he should include this passage in his proposed pamphlet against Pope, as the notes to the Odyssey were written by Broome. He had cast aside these scruples now. The preface does not bear out his profession to Warburton that he was indifferent to Pope's treatment. 89. David Mallet had just brought out his poem Of Verbal Criticism (1733) anonymously. It is simply a paraphrase and expansion of Pope's statements. “As the design of the following poem is to rally the abuse of Verbal Criticism, the author could not, without manifest partiality, overlook the Editor of Milton and the Restorer of Shakespear” (introductory note). Boswell attributed this “contemptuous mention of Mallet” to Warburton (Boswell's Malone, 1821, i., p. 42, n). But it was not [pg 317] Hang him, Baboon, etc. 2 Henry IV., ii. 4. 261. Longinus, On the Sublime, vi. 90. Noble Writer,—the Earl of Shaftesbury, in his Characteristicks: “The British Muses, in this Dinn of Arms, may well lie abject and obscure; especially being as yet in their mere Infant-State. They have hitherto scarce arriv'd to any thing of Shapeliness or Person. They lisp as in their Cradles: and their stammering Tongues, which nothing but their Youth and Rawness can excuse, have hitherto spoken in wretched Pun and Quibble” (1711, i., p. 217). Complaints of its Barbarity, as in Dryden's Discourse concerning Satire, ad fin (ed. W. P. Ker, ii., pp. 110, 113). |
|
