Lewis Theobald - Preface to the Works of Shakespeare (1734)
L >>
Lewis Theobald >> Preface to the Works of Shakespeare (1734)
[Transcriber's Note:
This e-text contains a few brief passages of Greek. They have been
transliterated and placed between +marks+.]
The Augustan Reprint Society
LEWIS THEOBALD
_Preface to The Works of Shakespeare_
(1734)
With an Introduction by
Hugh G. Dick
Publication Number 20
(Extra Series, No. 2)
Los Angeles
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
University of California
1949
* * * * *
_GENERAL EDITORS_
H. RICHARD ARCHER, _Clark Memorial Library_
RICHARD C. BOYS, _University of Michigan_
EDWARD NILES HOOKER, _University of California, Los Angeles_
H.T. SWEDENBERG, JR., _University of California, Los Angeles_
_ASSISTANT EDITORS_
W. EARL BRITTON, _University of Michigan_
JOHN LOFTIS, _University of California, Los Angeles_
_ADVISORY EDITORS_
EMMETT L. AVERY, _State College of Washington_
BENJAMIN BOYCE, _University of Nebraska_
LOUIS I. BREDVOLD, _University of Michigan_
CLEANTH BROOKS, _Yale University_
JAMES L. CLIFFORD, _Columbia University_
ARTHUR FRIEDMAN, _University of Chicago_
SAMUEL H. MONK, _University of Minnesota_
ERNEST MOSSNER, _University of Texas_
JAMES SUTHERLAND, _Queen Mary College, London_
* * * * *
INTRODUCTION
Lewis Theobald's edition of Shakespeare (1734) is one cornerstone
of modern Shakespearian scholarship and hence of English literary
scholarship in general. It is the first edition of an English writer in
which a man with a professional breadth and concentration of reading in
the writer's period tried to bring all relevant, ascertainable fact to
bear on the establishment of the author's text and the explication of
his obscurities. For Theobald was the first editor of Shakespeare who
displayed a well grounded knowledge of Shakespeare's language and
metrical practice and that of his contemporaries, the sources and
chronology of his plays, and the broad range of Elizabethan-Jacobean
drama as a means of illuminating the work of the master writer. Thus
both in the edition itself and in his Preface, which stands as the first
significant statement of a scholar's editorial duties and methods in
handling an English classic, Theobald takes his place as an important
progenitor of modern English studies.
It is regrettable, though it was perhaps historically inevitable, that
this pioneer of English literary scholarship should have been tagged
"piddling Theobald" by Pope and crowned the first king of _The Dunciad_.
Pope's edition of Shakespeare was completed by 1725, and in the
following year Theobald made the poet his implacable enemy when he
issued his _Shakespeare Restored_, which demolished Pope's pretensions
as an editor by offering some two hundred corrections. But the conflict
was not merely strife between two writers: it was a clash between two
kinds of criticism in which the weight of tradition and polite taste
were all on the side of Pope. What Theobald had done, in modern
terms, was to open the rift between criticism and scholarship or, in
eighteenth-century terms, to proclaim himself a "literal critic" and to
insist upon the need for "literal criticism" in the understanding and
just appreciation of an older writer. The new concept, which Theobald
owed largely to Richard Bentley as primate of the classical scholars,
was of course the narrower one--implicit in it was the idea of
specialization--and Theobald's opponents among the literati were
quick to assail him as a mere "Word-catcher" (cf. R.F. Jones, _Lewis
Theobald_, 1919, p. 114).
His own edition of Shakespeare, therefore, was the work of a man and a
method on trial. At first Theobald had proposed simply to write further
commentary on Shakespeare's plays, but by 1729 he determined to issue a
new edition and in October of that year signed a contract with Tonson.
From the first Theobald found warm support for his project among
booksellers, incipient patrons, and men of learning. His work went
forward steadily; subscribers, including members of the Royal Family,
were readily forthcoming; and by late 1731 Theobald felt that his labors
were virtually complete. But vexing delays occurred in the printing so
that the edition, though dated 1733, did not appear until early in 1734,
New Style. When it did appear, it was plain to all that Theobald's
vindication of himself and his method was complete. Judicious critics
like the anonymous author of _Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet_
(1736) were quick to applaud Theobald's achievement, and even Pope
himself was silenced.
Ultimately of course Theobald came under severe attack by succeeding
editors of Shakespeare, notably Warburton and Johnson, yet both men were
guilty of unwarranted abuse of their predecessor, whose edition was nine
times issued in the course of the century and was still in current use
by the time of Coleridge (cf. Wm. Jaggard, _Shakespeare Bibliography_,
1911, pp. 499-504). Warburton and Johnson's abuse, coupled with that of
Pope, obscured Theobald's real achievements for more than a century
until J.C. Collins did much to rehabilitate his reputation by an essay
celebrating him as "The Porson of Shakespearian Criticism" (_Essays and
Studies_, 1895, pp. 263-315). Collins's emotional defense was largely
substantiated by T.R. Lounsbury's meticulous _The Text of Shakespeare_
(1906), R.F. Jones's _Lewis Theobald_ (1919), which brought much new
material to light, and most recently by R.B. McKerrow's dispassionate
appraisal, "The Treatment of Shakespeare's Text by his Earlier Editors,
1709-1768" (_Proceedings of the British Academy_, XIX, 1933, 23-27). As
a result, so complete has been Theobald's vindication that even in a
student's handbook he is hailed as "the great pioneer of serious
Shakespeare scholarship" and as "the first giant" in the field
(_A Companion to Shakespeare Studies_, 1934, ed. H. Granville Barker
and G.B. Harrison, pp. 306-07).
Theobald's Preface occupied his attention for over a year and gave him
much trouble in the writing. Its originality was, and still is, a matter
of sharp dispute. The first we hear of it is in a letter of 12 November
1731 from Theobald to his coadjutor Warburton, who had expressed some
concern about what Theobald planned to prefix to his edition. Theobald
announced a major change in plan when he replied that "The affair of the
_Prolegomena_ I have determined to soften into a _Preface_." He then
proceeded to make a strange request:
But, dear Sir, will you, at your leisure hours, think over for me
upon the contents, topics, orders, &c. 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.... 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 (John Nichols, _Illustrations
of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century_, 1817, II,
621-22).
His next letter, which contains the list of acknowledgements
substantially as printed, thanks Warburton for consenting to give the
requested help, announces that he is himself busy about "the Contents...
wch. I am Endeavouring to modell in my Head, in Order to communicate
them to you, for your Directions & refinement," indicates that he has
"already rough-hewn the Exordium & Conclusion," and asserts that "What I
shall send you from Time to Time, I look upon only as Materials: wch I
hope may grow into a fine Building, under your judicious Management"
(Jones, _op. cit._, pp. 283-84).
Warburton apparently misunderstood or overlooked Theobald's remarks
about materials, for in his next letter Theobald was obliged to return,
somewhat ambiguously, to the same point:
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
Conclusion, & the Manner in wch. 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 wth: additional Inrichments: of the general Arrangement,
wch. you should think best for the whole; & of making the proper
Transitions from Subject to Subject, wch. I account no inconsiderable
Beauty (_Ibid._, pp. 289-90).
Finally on January 10, 1733, Theobald wrote Warburton: "I promise myself
now shortly to sit down upon ye fine Synopsis, wch. you so modestly call
the Skeleton of Preface" (_Ibid._, p. 310).
It is clear from the foregoing that Theobald wrote most of the Preface
topic by topic, and probably followed the plan for the general structure
as submitted by Warburton. Yet it is equally clear that certain parts of
the Preface, such as the contrast between _Julius Caesar_ and Addison's
_Cato_, which Warburton later claimed as his and which Theobald omitted
from his second edition, were furnished Theobald as "additional
Inrichments" (D.N. Smith, _Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare_,
1903, pp. xlviii-ix). When later a break did occur between the two men,
neither was free from blame. Theobald had asked and got so much help
with the Preface that he should have acknowledged the debt, no matter
how naked it might have made him seem. Warburton, on the other hand, had
had honest warning that acknowledgement would not be made for this part
of his help; and if his synopsis were followed, as seems likely, his
condemnation of the Preface as "Theobald's heap of disjointed stuff" was
disingenuous, to say the least. Far less defensible was his assertion in
the same letter to Thomas Birch that, apart from the section on Greek
texts, virtually the entire Preface was stitched together from notes
which he had supplied (Nichols, _Illustrations_, II, 81).
Three further points concerning the Preface demand mention. First, the
section on Shakespeare's life is often dismissed as a simple recension
of Rowe's Life (1709). Actually, however, the expansion itself is a
characteristic example of Theobald's habit of exploring original
sources. To take only a single instance, Rowe says that Shakespeare's
"Family, as appears by the Register and Publick Writings relating to
that Town, were of good Figure and Fashion there, and are mention'd as
Gentlemen" (ed. S.H. Monk, Augustan Society Reprints, 1949, p. ii).
To this statement Theobald adds plentiful detail drawn from the same
Stratford records, from tombs in the Stratford Church, and from
documents in the Heralds' Office connected with the coat of arms
obtained for the playwright's father. Such typical expansions were
the result of conscientious research.
Second, all critics have agreed to condemn the digression in which
Theobald advertised his ability to emend Greek texts. Theobald himself
was hesitant about including it lest he be indicted for pedantry, but
was encouraged to do so by Warburton, who later scoffed at what he had
originally admired. This much may be said in Theobald's behalf. Such a
digression would not have seemed irrelevant in an age which took its
classical scholarship seriously; and such digressions, arising naturally
out of context and strategically placed before the conclusion, were not
only allowed but actually encouraged by classical rhetoricians like
Cicero and Quintilian, whose teachings were still standard in the
English schools.
Finally, the Preface exists in two forms. The later and shorter form
was that designed for Theobald's second edition (1740), which omits all
passages presumably contributed by Warburton and more besides, the
section on Greek texts, and the list of acknowledgements to contemporary
Shakespearian enthusiasts. This abridged form has been frequently
reprinted. From a copy in the University of Michigan Library the
original Preface is here reproduced for the first time.
Hugh G. Dick
University of California,
Los Angeles
* * * * *
* * * *
* * * * *
[Transcriber's Note:
Most Sidenotes appear at the beginning of a paragraph. Where they
originally appeared at mid-paragraph, their approximate position is
shown with an asterisk*.]
The
WORKS
of
_SHAKESPEARE:_
in
Seven Volumes.
Collated with the Oldest Copies, and Corrected;
With NOTES, Explanatory, and Critical:
By Mr. _THEOBALD_.
_I, Decus, i, nostrum: melioribus utere Fatis._
Virg.
_LONDON:_
Printed for A. Bettesworth and C. Hitch,
J. Tonson, F. Clay, W. Feales,
and R. Wellington.
MDCCXXXIII.
* * * * *
THE
PREFACE.
The Attempt to write upon SHAKESPEARE is like going into a large, a
spacious, and a splendid Dome thro' the Conveyance of a narrow and
obscure Entry. A Glare of Light suddenly breaks upon you, beyond
what the Avenue at first promis'd: and a thousand Beauties of Genius
and Character, like so many gaudy Apartments pouring at once upon
the Eye, diffuse and throw themselves out to the Mind. The Prospect
is too wide to come within the Compass of a single View: 'tis a gay
Confusion of pleasing Objects, too various to be enjoyed but in a
general Admiration; and they must be separated, and ey'd distinctly,
in order to give the proper Entertainment.
[Sidenote*: A sketch of _Shakespeare's_ general Character.]
And as in great Piles of Building, some Parts are often finish'd up
to hit the Taste of the _Connoisseur_; others more negligently put
together, to strike the Fancy of a common and unlearned Beholder:
Some Parts are made stupendiously magnificent and grand, to surprize
with the vast Design and Execution of the Architect; others are
contracted, to amuse you with his Neatness and Elegance in little.
*So, in _Shakespeare_, we may find _Traits_ that will stand the Test
of the severest Judgment; and Strokes as carelessly hit off, to the
Level of the more ordinary Capacities: Some Descriptions rais'd to
that Pitch of Grandeur, as to astonish you with the Compass and
Elevation of his Thought: and others copying Nature within so
narrow, so confined a Circle, as if the Author's Talent lay only
at drawing in Miniature.
In how many Points of Light must we be oblig'd to gaze at this great
Poet! In how many Branches of Excellence to consider, and admire
him! Whether we view him on the Side of Art or Nature, he ought
equally to engage our Attention: Whether we respect the Force and
Greatness of his Genius, the Extent of his Knowledge and Reading,
the Power and Address with which he throws out and applies either
Nature, or Learning, there is ample Scope both for our Wonder and
Pleasure. If his Diction, and the cloathing of his Thoughts attract
us, how much more must we be charm'd with the Richness, and Variety,
of his Images and Ideas! If his Images and Ideas steal into our
Souls, and strike upon our Fancy, how much are they improv'd in
Price, when we come to reflect with what Propriety and Justness they
are apply'd to Character! If we look into his Characters, and how
they are furnish'd and proportion'd to the Employment he cuts out
for them, how are we taken up with the Mastery of his Portraits!
What Draughts of Nature! What Variety of Originals, and how
differing each from the other! How are they dress'd from the Stores
of his own luxurious Imagination; without being the Apes of Mode, or
borrowing from any foreign Wardrobe! Each of Them are the Standards
of Fashion for themselves: like Gentlemen that are above the
Direction of their Tailors, and can adorn themselves without the Aid
of Imitation. If other Poets draw more than one Fool or Coxcomb,
there is the same Resemblance in them, as in that Painter's
Draughts, who was happy only at forming a Rose: you find them all
younger Brothers of the same Family, and all of them have a Pretence
to give the same Crest: But _Shakespeare_'s Clowns and Fops come all
of a different House: they are no farther allied to one another than
as Man to Man, Members of the same Species: but as different in
Features and Lineaments of Character, as we are from one another in
Face, or Complexion. But I am unawares launching into his Character
as a Writer, before I have said what I intended of him as a private
Member of the Republick.
[Sidenote: Some Particulars of his private Life.]
Mr. _Rowe_ has very justly observ'd, that People are fond of
discovering any little personal Story of the Great Men of Antiquity:
and that the common Accidents of their Lives naturally become the
Subject of our critical Enquiries: That however trifling such a
Curiosity at the first View may appear, yet, as for what relates to
Men of Letters, the Knowledge of an Author may, perhaps, sometimes
conduce to the better understanding his Works: And, indeed, this
Author's Works, from the bad Treatment he has met with from his
Editors, have so long wanted a Comment, that one would zealously
embrace every Method of Information, that could contribute to
recover them from the Injuries with which they have so long lain
o'erwhelm'd.
'Tis certain, that if we have first admir'd the Man in his Writings,
his Case is so circumstanc'd, that we must naturally admire the
Writings in the Man: That if we go back to take a View of his
Education, and the Employment in Life which Fortune had cut out
for him, we shall retain the stronger Ideas of his extensive
Genius.
His Father, we are told, was a considerable Dealer in Wool; but
having no fewer than ten Children, of whom our _Shakespeare_ was the
eldest, the best Education he could afford him was no better than to
qualify him for his own Business and Employment. I cannot affirm
with any Certainty how long his Father liv'd; but I take him to be
the same Mr. _John Shakespeare_ who was living in the Year 1599,
and who then, in Honour of his Son, took out an Extract of his
Family-Arms from the Herald's Office; by which it appears, that he
had been Officer and Bailiff of _Stratford_, and that he enjoy'd
some hereditary Lands and Tenements, the Reward of his Great
Grandfather's faithful and approved Service to King _Henry_
VII.
Be this as it will, our _Shakespeare_, it seems, was bred for some
Time at a Free-School; the very Free-School, I presume, founded at
_Stratford_: where, we are told, he acquired what _Latin_ he was
Master of: but, that his Father being oblig'd, thro' Narrowness
of Circumstance, to withdraw him too soon from thence, he was
so unhappily prevented from making any Proficiency in the Dead
Languages: A Point, that will deserve some little Discussion in
the Sequel of this Dissertation.
How long he continued in his Father's Way of Business, either as an
Assistant to him, or on his own proper Account, no Notices are left
to inform us: nor have I been able to learn precisely at what
Period of Life he quitted his native _Stratford_, and began his
Acquaintance with _London_, and the _Stage_.
In order to settle in the World after a Family-manner, he thought
fit, Mr. _Rowe_ acquaints us, to marry while he was yet very young.
It is certain, he did so: for by the Monument, in _Stratford_
Church, erected to the Memory of his Daughter _Susanna_, the Wife of
_John Hall_, Gentleman, it appears, that she died on the 2d Day of
_July_ in the Year 1649, aged 66. So that She was born in 1583, when
her Father could not be full 19 Years old; who was himself born in
the Year 1564. Nor was She his eldest Child, for he had another
Daughter, _Judith_, who was born before her, and who was married to
one Mr. _Thomas Quiney_. So that _Shakespeare_ must have entred into
Wedlock, by that Time he was turn'd of seventeen Years.
Whether the Force of Inclination merely, or some concurring
Circumstances of Convenience in the Match, prompted him to marry
so early, is not easy to be determin'd at this Distance: but 'tis
probable, a View of Interest might partly sway his Conduct in this
Point: for he married the Daughter of one _Hathaway_, a substantial
Yeoman in his Neighbourhood, and She had the Start of him in Age no
less than 8 Years. She surviv'd him, notwithstanding, seven Seasons,
and dy'd that very Year in which the _Players_ publish'd the first
Edition of his Works in _Folio_, Anno Dom. 1623, at the Age of 67
Years, as we likewise learn from her Monument in _Stratford_-Church.
How long he continued in this kind of Settlement, upon his own
Native Spot, is not more easily to be determin'd. But if the
Tradition be true, of that Extravagance which forc'd him both to
quit his Country and way of Living; to wit, his being engag'd, with
a Knot of young Deer-stealers, to rob the Park of Sir _Thomas Lucy_
of _Cherlecot_ near _Stratford_: the Enterprize favours so much of
Youth and Levity, we may reasonably suppose it was before he could
write full Many. Besides, considering he has left us six and thirty
Plays, which are avow'd to be genuine; (to throw out of the Question
those Seven, in which his Title is disputed: tho' I can, beyond all
Controversy, prove some Touches in every one of them to come from
his Pen:) and considering too, that he had retir'd from the Stage,
to spend the latter Part of his Days at his own Native _Stratford_;
the Interval of Time, necessarily required for the finishing so many
Dramatic Pieces, obliges us to suppose he threw himself very early
upon the Play-house. And as he could, probably, contract no
Acquaintance with the Drama, while he was driving on the Affair of
Wool at home; some Time must be lost, even after he had commenc'd
Player, before he could attain Knowledge enough in the Science to
qualify himself for turning Author.
It has been observ'd by Mr. _Rowe_, that, amongst other Extravagancies
which our Author has given to his Sir _John Falstaffe_, in the
_Merry Wives_ of _Windsor_, he has made him a Deer-stealer; and that
he might at the same time remember his _Warwickshire_ Prosecutor,
under the Name of Justice _Shallow_, he has given him very near the
same Coat of Arms, which _Dugdale_, in his Antiquities of that
County, describes for a Family there. There are two Coats, I
observe, in _Dugdale_, where three Silver Fishes are borne in the
Name of _Lucy_; and another Coat, to the Monument of _Thomas Lucy_,
Son of Sir _William Lucy_, in which are quarter'd in four several
Divisions, twelve little Fishes, three in each Division, probably
_Luces_. This very Coat, indeed, seems alluded to in _Shallow_'s
giving the _dozen_ White _Luces_, and in _Slender_ saying, _he may
quarter_. When I consider the exceeding Candour and Good-nature of
our Author, (which inclin'd all the gentler Part of the World to
love him; as the Power of his Wit obliged the Men of the most
delicate Knowledge and polite Learning to admire him;) and that he
should throw this humorous Piece of Satire at his Prosecutor, at
least twenty Years after the Provocation given; I am confidently
persuaded it must be owing to an unforgiving Rancour on the
Prosecutor's Side: and if This was the Case, it were Pity but the
Disgrace of such an Inveteracy should remain as a lasting Reproach,
and _Shallow_ stand as a Mark of Ridicule to stigmatize his
Malice.
It is said, our Author spent some Years before his Death, in Ease,
Retirement, and the Conversation of his Friends, at his Native
_Stratford_. I could never pick up any certain Intelligence, when He
relinquish'd the Stage. I know, it has been mistakenly thought by
some, that _Spenser_'s _Thalia_, in his _Tears of his Muses_, where
she laments the Loss of her _Willy_ in the Comic Scene, has been
apply'd to our Author's quitting the Stage. But _Spenser_ himself,
'tis well known, quitted the Stage of Life in the Year 1598; and,
five Years after this, we find _Shakespeare_'s Name among the Actors
in _Ben Jonson_'s _Sejanus_, which first made its Appearance in the
Year 1603. Nor, surely, could he then have any Thoughts of retiring,
since, that very Year, a Licence under the Privy-Seal was granted
by K. _James_ I. to him and _Fletcher_, _Burbage_, _Phillippes_,
_Hemmings_, _Condel_, &c. authorizing them to exercise the Art of
playing Comedies, Tragedies, &c. as well at their usual House call'd
the _Globe_ on the other Side of the Water, as in any other Parts of
the Kingdom, during his Majesty's Pleasure: (A Copy of which Licence
is preserv'd in _Rymer_'s _Foedera_.) Again, 'tis certain, that
_Shakespeare_ did not exhibit his _Macbeth_, till after the _Union_
was brought about, and till after K. _James_ I. had begun to touch
for the _Evil_: for 'tis plain, he has inserted Compliments, on both
those Accounts, upon his Royal Master in that Tragedy.
