




                            Eighteenth Century

                          Essays on Shakespeare

                                Edited by

                          D. Nichol Smith, M.A.

                                 Glasgow

                         James MacLehose and Sons

                       Publishers to the University

                                   1903





CONTENTS


Preface.
Introduction. Shakespearian Criticism in the Eighteenth Century.
Nicholas Rowe: Some Account of the Life &c. of Mr. William Shakespear.
1709.
John Dennis: On the Genius and Writings of Shakespeare. 1711.
Alexander Pope: Preface to Edition of Shakespeare. 1725.
Lewis Theobald: Preface to Edition of Shakespeare. 1733.
Sir Thomas Hanmer: Preface to Edition of Shakespeare. 1744.
William Warburton: Preface to Edition of Shakespeare. 1747.
Samuel Johnson: Preface to Edition of Shakespeare. 1765.
Richard Farmer: An Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare: Addressed to
Joseph Cradock, Esq. 1767.
Maurice Morgann: An Essay on the Dramatic Character of Sir John Falstaff.
1777.
Notes.
   Nicholas Rowe.
   John Dennis.
   Alexander Pope.
   Lewis Theobald.
   Sir Thomas Hanmer.
   William Warburton.
   Samuel Johnson.
   Richard Farmer.
   Maurice Morgann.
Index.
Footnotes






PREFACE.


The purpose of this book is to give an account of Shakespeare's reputation
during the eighteenth century, and to suggest that there are grounds for
reconsidering the common opinion that the century did not give him his
due. The nine Essays or Prefaces here reprinted may claim to represent the
chief phases of Shakespearian study from the days of Dryden to those of
Coleridge. It is one of the evils following in the train of the romantic
revival that the judgments of the older school have been discredited or
forgotten. The present volume shows that the eighteenth century knew many
things which the nineteenth has rediscovered for itself.

It is at least eighty years since most of these essays were reprinted.
Rowe's _Account of Shakespeare_ is given in its original and complete form
for the first time, it is believed, since 1714; what was printed in the
early Variorum editions, and previously in almost every edition since
1725, was Pope's version of Rowe's _Account_. Dennis's Essay has not
appeared since the author republished it in 1721. In all cases the texts
have been collated with the originals; and the more important changes in
the editions published in the lifetime of the author are indicated in the
Introduction or Notes.

The Introduction has been planned to show the main lines in the
development of Shakespeare's reputation, and to prove that the new
criticism, which is said to begin with Coleridge, takes its rise as early
as the third quarter of the eighteenth century. On the question of
Theobald's qualifications as an editor, it would appear that we must
subscribe to the deliberate verdict of Johnson. We require strong evidence
before we may disregard contemporary opinion, and in Theobald's case there
is abundant evidence to confirm Johnson's view. Johnson's own edition, on
the other hand, has not received justice during the last century.

It is a pleasure to the Editor to record his obligations to Professor
Raleigh, Mr. Gregory Smith, and Mr. J. H. Lobban.

EDINBURGH, _October_, 1903.





INTRODUCTION. SHAKESPEARIAN CRITICISM IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.


The early nineteenth century was too readily convinced by Coleridge and
Hazlitt that they were the first to recognise and to explain the greatness
of Shakespeare. If amends have recently been made to the literary ideals
of Pope and Johnson, the reaction has not yet extended to Shakespearian
criticism. Are we not still inclined to hold the verdicts of Hume and
Chesterfield as representative of eighteenth-century opinion, and to find
proof of a lack of appreciation in the editorial travesties of the
playhouse? To this century, as much as to the nineteenth, Shakespeare was
the glory of English letters. So Pope and Johnson had stated in
unequivocal language, which should not have been forgotten. "He is not so
much an imitator as an instrument of Nature," said Pope, "and 'tis not so
just to say that he speaks from her as that she speaks through him"; and
Johnson declared that "the stream of time, which is continually washing
the dissoluble fabrics of other poets, passes without injury by the
adamant of Shakespeare." But Pope and Johnson had ventured to point out,
in the honesty of their criticism, that Shakespeare was not free from
faults; and it was this which the nineteenth century chose to remark.
Johnson's Preface in particular was remembered only to be despised. It is
not rash to say that at the present time the majority of those who chance
to speak of it pronounce it a discreditable performance.

This false attitude to the eighteenth century had its nemesis in the
belief that we were awakened by foreigners to the greatness of
Shakespeare. Even one so eminently sane as Hazlitt lent support to this
opinion. "We will confess," says the Preface to the _Characters of
Shakespeare's Plays_, "that some little jealousy of the character of the
national understanding was not without its share in producing the
following undertaking, for we were piqued that it should be reserved for a
foreign critic to give reasons for the faith which we English have in
Shakespeare"; and the whole Preface resolves itself, however reluctantly,
into praise of Schlegel and censure of Johnson. When a thorough Englishman
writes thus, it is not surprising that Germany should have claimed to be
the first to give Shakespeare his true place. The heresy has been exposed;
but even the slightest investigation of eighteenth-century opinion, or the
mere recollection of what Dryden had said, should have prevented its rise.
Though Hazlitt took upon himself the defence of the national intelligence,
he incorporated in his Preface a long passage from Schlegel, because, in
his opinion, no English critic had shown like enthusiasm or philosophical
acuteness. We cannot regret the delusion if we owe to it the _Characters
of Shakespeare's Plays_, but his patriotic task would have been easier,
and might even have appeared unnecessary, had he known that many of
Schlegel's acute and enthusiastic observations had been anticipated at
home.

Even those who are willing to give the eighteenth century its due have not
recognised how it appreciated Shakespeare. At no time in this century was
he not popular. The author of _Esmond_ tells us that Shakespeare was quite
out of fashion until Steele brought him back into the mode.(1) Theatrical
records would alone be sufficient to show that the ascription of this
honour to Steele is an injustice to his contemporaries. In the year that
the _Tatler_ was begun, Rowe brought out his edition of the "best of our
poets"; and a reissue was called for five years later. It is said by
Johnson(2) that Pope's edition drew the public attention to Shakespeare's
works, which, though often mentioned, had been little read. Henceforward
there was certainly an increase in the number of critical investigations,
but if Shakespeare had been little read, how are we to explain the
coffee-house discussions of which we seem to catch echoes in the
periodical literature? The allusions in the _Spectator_, or the essays in
the _Censor_, must have been addressed to a public which knew him. Dennis,
who "read him over and over and still remained unsatiated," tells how he
was accused, by blind admirers of the poet, of lack of veneration, because
he had ventured to criticise, and how he had appealed from a private
discussion to the judgment of the public. "Above all I am pleased," says
the _Guardian_, "in observing that the Tragedies of Shakespeare, which in
my youthful days have so frequently filled my eyes with tears, hold their
rank still, and are the great support of our theatre."(3) Theobald could
say that "this author is grown so universal a book that there are very few
studies or collections of books, though small, amongst which it does not
hold a place"; and he could add that "there is scarce a poet that our
English tongue boasts of who is more the subject of the Ladies'
reading."(4) It would be difficult to explain away these statements. The
critical interest in Shakespeare occasioned by Pope's edition may have
increased the knowledge of him, but he had been regularly cited, long
before Pope's day, as England's representative genius. To argue that he
had ever been out of favour we must rely on later statements, and they are
presumably less trustworthy than those which are contemporary. Lyttelton
remarked that a veneration for Shakespeare seems to be a part of the
national religion, and the only part in which even men of sense are
fanatics;(5) and Gibbon spoke of the "idolatry for the gigantic genius of
Shakespeare, which is inculcated from our infancy as the first duty of an
Englishman."(6) The present volume will show how the eighteenth century
could almost lose itself in panegyric of Shakespeare. The evidence is so
overwhelming that it is hard to understand how the century's respect for
Shakespeare was ever doubted. When Tom Jones took Partridge to the gallery
of Drury Lane, the play was _Hamlet_. The fashionable topics on which Mr.
Thornhill's friends from town would talk, to the embarrassment of the
Primroses and the Flamboroughs, were "pictures, taste, Shakespeare, and
the musical glasses." The greatest poet of the century played a leading
part in erecting the statue in the Poets' Corner. And it was an
eighteenth-century actor who instituted the Stratford celebrations.

During the entire century Shakespeare dominated the stage. He was more to
the actor then, and more familiar to the theatre-goer, than he is now. It
is true that from Betterton's days to Garrick's, and later, his plays were
commonly acted from mangled versions. But these versions were of two
distinct types. The one respected the rules of the classical drama, the
other indulged the license of pantomime. The one was the labour of the
pedant theorist, the other was rather the improvisation of the theatre
manager. And if the former were truly representative of the taste of the
century, as has sometimes been implied, it has to be explained how they
were not so popular as the latter. "Our taste has gone back a whole
century," says the strolling player in the _Vicar of Wakefield_,(7)
"Fletcher, Ben Jonson, and all the plays of Shakespeare are the only
things that go down." The whole passage is a satire on Garrick(8) and a
gibe at Drury Lane: "The public go only to be amused, and find themselves
happy when they can enjoy a pantomime under the sanction of Jonson's or
Shakespeare's name." But, whatever was done with Shakespeare's plays, they
were the very life of the theatre. When we remember also the number of
editions which were published, and the controversies to which they gave
rise, as well as the fact that the two literary dictators were among his
editors, we are prompted to ask, What century has felt the influence of
Shakespeare more than the eighteenth?

                  -------------------------------------

The century's interest in Shakespeare shows itself in four main phases.
The first deals with his neglect of the so-called rules of the drama; the
second determines what was the extent of his learning; the third considers
the treatment of his text; and the fourth, more purely aesthetic, shows
his value as a delineator of character. The following remarks take these
questions in order; and a concluding section gives an account of the
individual essays here reprinted. Though the phases are closely connected
and overlap to some extent, the order in which they are here treated
accords in the main with their chronological sequence.




I.


Dryden is the father of Shakespearian criticism. Though he disguised his
veneration at times, he expressed his true faith when he wrote,
deliberately, the fervent estimate in the _Essay of Dramatic Poesy_.
Johnson saw that Pope had expanded it, and his own experience made him say
that the editors and admirers of Shakespeare, in all their emulation of
reverence, had not done much more than diffuse and paraphrase this
"epitome of excellence." But concurrently on to Johnson's time we can
trace the influence of Thomas Rymer, who, in his _Short View of Tragedy_,
had championed the classical drama, and had gone as far in abuse as his
greater contemporary had gone in praise. The authority which each exerted
is well illustrated by Rowe's _Account of Shakespeare_. Rowe is of the
party of Dryden, but he cannot refrain from replying to Rymer, though he
has resolved to enter into no critical controversy. He says he will not
inquire into the justness of Rymer's remarks, and yet he replies to him in
two passages. That these were silently omitted by Pope when he included
the _Account of Shakespeare_ in his own edition in 1725 does not mean that
Rymer was already being forgotten. We know from other sources that Pope
rated his abilities very highly. But the condensed form in which the
_Account_ was regularly reprinted does not convey so plainly as the
original the influence of the rival schools at the beginning of the
eighteenth century. In addition to the passages on Rymer, Pope omitted
several valuable allusions to Dryden. The influence of Dryden, however, is
plain enough. He seems to have been ever present to Rowe, suggesting ideas
to be accepted or refuted. Rowe must have been indebted to the
conversation of Dryden as well as to the researches of Betterton.

Rowe's own dramatic work is an interesting comment on the critical
portions of his _Account of Shakespeare_. When he professes to have taken
Shakespeare as his model,(9) which shows that his editorial work had
taught him the trick of an occasional line contrary to the normal rules of
blank verse. Notwithstanding a brave prologue, he was not able to shake
himself free from the rules, which tightened their grip on English tragedy
till they choked it. His regard for Shakespeare did not give him courage
for the addition of a comic element or an underplot. He must obey the
"hampering critics," though his avowed model had ignored them.
Accordingly, in his more deliberate prose criticism we find, amid his
veneration of Shakespeare, his regard for the rules of the classical
drama. The faults of Shakespeare, we read, were not so much his own as
those of his time, for "tragi-comedy was the common mistake of that age,"
and there was as yet no definite knowledge of how a play should be
constructed.

The burden of Rowe's criticism is that "strength and nature made amends
for art." The line might serve as the text of many of the early
appreciations of Shakespeare. Though the critics all resented Rymer's
treatment of the poet, some of them stood by his doctrines. They might
appease this resentment by protesting against his manners or refuting his
plea for a dramatic chorus; but on the whole they recognised the claims of
the classical models. The more the dramatic fervour failed, the more the
professed critics counselled observance of the rules. In 1702 Farquhar had
pleaded for the freedom of the English stage in his _Discourse upon
Comedy_, but his arguments were unavailing. The duller men found it easier
to support the rigid doctrines, which had been fully expounded by the
French critics. The seventh or supplementary volume of Rowe's edition of
Shakespeare was introduced by Charles Gildon's _Essay on the Art, Rise,
and Progress of the Stage in Greece, Rome, and __ England_, which, as the
title shows, was a laboured exposition of the classical doctrines. Gildon
had begun as an enemy of Rymer. In 1694 he had published _Some Reflections
on Mr. Rymer's Short View of Tragedy and an Attempt at a Vindication of
Shakespeare_. Therein he had spoken of "noble irregularity," and censured
the "graver pedants" of the age. By 1710 he is a grave pedant himself. In
1694 he had said that Rymer had scarce produced one criticism that was not
borrowed from the French writers; in 1710 the remark is now applicable to
its author. Gildon's further descent as a critic is evident eight years
later in his _Complete Art of Poetry_. He is now a slave to the French
doctrine of the rules. He confesses himself the less ready to pardon the
"monstrous absurdities" of Shakespeare, as one or two plays, such as the
_Tempest_, are "very near a regularity." Yet he acknowledges that
Shakespeare abounds in beauties, and he makes some reparation by including
a long list of his finer passages. Gildon was a man whose ideas took their
colour from his surroundings. In the days of his acquaintanceship with
Dryden he appreciated Shakespeare more heartily than when he was left to
the friendship of Dennis or the favours of the Duke of Buckinghamshire.
His _Art of Poetry_ is a dishonest compilation, which owes what value it
has to the sprinkling of contemporary allusions. It even incorporates,
without any acknowledgment, long passages from Sidney's _Apologie_. We
should be tempted to believe that Gildon merely put his name to a
hack-work collection, were it not that there is a gradual deterioration in
his criticism.

John Dennis also replied to Rymer's _Short View_, and was classed
afterwards as one of Rymer's disciples. In his _Impartial Critick_ (1693)
he endeavoured to show that the methods of the ancient Greek tragedy were
not all suitable to the modern English theatre. To introduce a chorus, as
Rymer had recommended, or to expel love from the stage, would, he argued,
only ruin the English drama. But his belief in the classical rules made
him turn the _Merry Wives_ into the _Comical Gallant_. As he found in the
original three actions, each independent of the other, he had set himself
to make the whole "depend on one common centre." In the Dedication to the
letters _On the Genius and Writings of Shakespeare_ we read that
Aristotle, "who may be call'd the Legis