« AnteriorContinuar »
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.
Sir Francis Drake. Pope had suggested in a note that the imperfect line in i 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 filld 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” Warburton (Boswell's Malone, 1821, i., p. 42, n). But it was not
claimed by Warburton, and there is nothing, except perhaps the vigour of the passage, to support Boswell's contention. In the same note Boswell points out that the comparison of Shakespeare and Jonson in Theobald's Preface reappears in Warburton's note on Love's Labour's Lost, Act i., Sc. 1.
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).
SIR THOMAS HANMER
92. The “other Gentlemen ” who communicated their observations to Hanmer include Warburton (see Introduction), the “Rev. Mr. Smith of Harlestone in Norfolk' (see Zachary Grey, Notes on Shakespeare, Preface), and probably Thomas Cooke, the editor of Plautus (see Correspondence of Hanmer, ed. Bunbury, p. 229).
93. much obliged to them. Amid the quarrels of Pope, Theobald, and Warburton, it is pleasant to find an editor admitting some merit in his predecessors.
what Shakespeare ought to have written. Cf. the following passage in the Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet attributed to Hanmer : “ The former (Theobald) endeavours to give us an author as he is : the latter [Pope), by the correctness and excellency of his own genius, is often tempted to give us an author as he thinks he ought to be.” Theobald, it is said, is a
generally thought to have understood our author best (p. 4).
Henry V., iii. 4. 94. Merchant of Venice, iii. 5. 48.
Hanmer's Glossary, given at the end of vol. vi., shows a distinct advance in every way on the earlier glossary in the supplementary volume to Rowe's and to Pope's edition. It is much fuller, though it runs only to a dozen pages, and more scholarly.
95. fairest impressions, etc. The edition is indeed a beautiful piece of printing. Each play is preceded by a full-page plate engraved by Gravelot from designs by Francis Hayman, or, as in vol. iv., by himself. (See Correspondence of Hanmer, pp. 83-4.)
95. his Statue. The statue in the Poet's Corner in Westminster Abbey, erected by public subscription in 1741. See the Gentleman's Magazine for February, 1741, p. 105: “A fine Monument is erected in Westminster Abbey to the Memory of Shakespear, by the Direction of the Earl of Burlington, Dr. Mead, Mr. Pope, and Mr. Martin. Mr. Fleetwood, Master of Drury-Lane Theatre, and Mr. Rich, of that of Covent-Garden, gave each a Benefit, arising from one of his own Plays, towards it, and the Dean and Chapter made a present of the Ground. The Design, by Mr. Kent, was executed by Mr. Scheemaker."
96. the excellent Discourse which follows, i.e. Pope's Preface, which was reprinted by Warburton along with Rowe's Account of Shakespeare.
101. Essays, Remarks, Observations, etc. Warburton apparently refers to the following works :
Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, written by Mr. William Shakespeare. London, 1736. Perhaps by Sir Thomas Hanmer.
An Essay towards fixing the true Standards of Wit, Humour, Raillery, Satire, and Ridicule. To which is added an Analysis of the Characters of an Humourist, Sir John Falstaff, Sir Roger de Goverley, and Don Quixote. London, 1744. By Corbyn Morris, who signs the Dedication.
Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy of Macbeth : with Remarks or Sir Thomas Hanmer's Edition of Shakespeare. To which is affixed Proposals for a new Edition of Shakespear, with a Specimen. London, 1745. By Samuel Johnson, though anonymous.
Critical Observations on Shakespeare. By John Upton, Prebendary of Rochester. London, 1746. Second edition, with a preface replying to Warburton, 1748.
An Essay upon English Tragedy. With Remarks upon the Abbé de Blanc's Observations on the English Stage. By William Guthrie, Esq. (1747.) )
The last of these may not have appeared, however, till after Warburton's edition.
Johnson is said by Boswell to have ever entertained a grateful remembrance of this allusion to him “at a time when praise was of value." But though the criticism is merited, is it too sinister a suggestion that it was prompted partly by the reference in Johnson's pamphlet to “the learned Mr. Warburton"? When Johnson's edition appeared in 1765, Warburton expressed a very different opinion (see Nichols, Anecdotes, v., p. 595).
101-105. whole Compass of Criticism. Cf. Theobald's account of the “Science of Criticism,” pp. 81, etc., which Warburton appears to have suggested.
101. Canons of literal Criticism. This phrase suggested the title of the ablest and most damaging attack on Warburton's edition, The Canons of Criticism, and Glossary, being a Supplement to Mr. Warburton's Edition of Shakespear. The author was Thomas Edwards (1699-1757), a “gentleman of Lincoln's Inn,” who accordingly figures in the notes to the Dunciad, iv. 568. When the book first appeared in 1748 it was called A Supplement, etc. . . . Being the Canons of Criticism. It reached a seventh edition in 1765.
103. Rymer, Short View of Tragedy (1693), pp. 95, 6. 105. as Mr. Pope hath observed. Preface, p. 47.
Dacier, Bossu. See notes, pp. 18 and 86.
René Rapin (1621-1687). His fame as a critic rests on his Réflexions sur la Poétique d'Aristote et sur les Ouvrages des Poètes anciens et modernes (1674), which was Englished by Rymer immediately on its publication. His treatise De Carmine Pastorali, of which a translation is included in Creech's Idylliums of Theocritus (1684), was used by Pope for the preface to his Pastorals. An edition of The Whole Critical Works of Monsieur Rapin . . . newly translated into English by several Hands, 2 vols., appeared in 1706 ; it is not, however, complete.
John Oldmixon (1673-1742), who, like Dennis and Gildon, has a place in the Dunciad, was the author of An Essay on Criticism, as it regards Design, Thought, and Expression in Prose and Verse (1728) and The Arts of Logick and Rhetorick, illustrated by examples taken out of the best authors (1728). The latter is based on the Manière de bien penser of Bouhours.
A certain celebrated Paper, -The Spectator.
semper acerbum, etc. Virgil, Aeneid, v. 49. 106. Note, “See his Letters to me." These letters are not extant.
108. Saint Chrysostom . . . Aristophanes. This had been a commonplace in the discussions at the end of the seventeenth century, in England and France, on the morality of the drama. Ludolf Kuster (1670-1716), appears also in the Dunciad, iv.,
His edition of Sưidas was published, through Bentley's influence, by the University of Cambridge in 1705. He also edited Aristophanes (1710), and wrote De vero usu Verborum Mediorum apud Graecos. Cf. Farmer's Essay, p. 176.
who thrust himself into the employment. Hanmer's letters to the University of Oxford do not bear out Warburton's statement.
109. Gilles Ménage (1613-1692). Les Poésies de M. de Malherbe avec les Observations de M. Ménage appeared in 1666. Selden's “ Illustrations' or notes appeared with the firs
part Polyolbion in 1612. This allusion was suggested by a passage in a letter from Pope of 27th November, 1742 : “I have a particular reason to
make you interest yourself in me and my writings. It will cause botň them and me to make the better figure to posterity. A very mediocre poet, one Drayton, is yet taken some notice of, because Selden writ a few notes on one of his poems” (ed. Elwin and Courthope, ix., p. 225). 110. Verborum proprietas, etc. Quintilian, Institut. Orat., Prooem. 16.
Warburton alludes to the edition of Beaumont and Fletcher" by the late Mr. Theobald, Mr. Seward of Eyam in Derbyshire, and Mr. Sympson of Gainsborough,” which appeared in ten volumes in 1750. The long and interesting preface is by Seward. Warburton's reference would not have been so favourable could he have known Seward's opinion of his Shakespeare. See the letter printed in the Correspondence of Hanmer, ed. Bunbury, pp. 352, etc.
The edition of Paradise Lost is that by Thomas Newton (17041782), afterwards Bishop of Bristol. It appeared in 1749, and a second volume containing the other poems was added in 1752. In the preface Newton gratefully acknowledges this recommendation, and alludes with pride to the assistance he had received from Warburton, who had proved himself to be “the best editor of Shakespeare.”
Some dull northern Chronicles, etc. Cf. the Dunciad, iii. 185-194. 111. a certain satyric Poet. The reference is to Zachary Grey's edition of Hudibras (1744). Yet Warburton had contributed to it. In the preface “the Rev. and learned Mr. William Warburton” is thanked for his “curious and critical observations."
Grey's “coadjutor” was “the reverend Mr. Smith of Harleston in Norfolk," as Grey explains in the preface to the Notes on Shakespeare. In his preface to Hudibras, Grey had given Smith no prominence in his long list of helpers. Smith had also assisted Hanmer.
In 1754 Grey brought out his Critical, Historical, and Explanatory Notes on Shakespeare, and in 1755 retaliated on Warburton in his Remarks upon a late edition of Shakespear . to which is prefixed a defence of the late Sir Thomas Hanmer. Grey appears to be the author also of A word or two of advice to William Warburton, a dealer in many words, 1746.
our great Philosopher, Sir Isaac Newton. His remark is recorded by William Whiston in the Historical Memoirs of the Life of Dr. Samuel Clarke (1730), p. 143 : “ To observe such laymen as Grotius, and Nestton, and Lock, laying out their noblest Talents in sacred Studies ; while such Clergymen as Dr. Bentley and Bishop Hare, to name no others at present, have been, in the Words of Sir Isaac Newton, fighting with one another about a Playbook (Terence]: This is a Reproach upon them, their holy Religion, and holy Function plainly intolerable." Warburton's defence of himself in the previous pages must have been inspired partly by the “ fanatical turn” of this “ wild writer.” Whiston would hardly excuse Clarke for editing Homer till he“ perceived that the pains he had taken about Homer were when he was much younger, and the notes rather transcrib'd than made new”; and Warburton is careful to state that his Shakespearian studies were amongst his “ younger amusements.”