Chapter 6

_Taming of the Shrew._ Induction, i. 5.

_Hieronymo_, iii. 14, 117, 118 (ed. Boas, p. 78); cf. p. 193.

_Whalley._ _Enquiry._ p. 48.

_Philips_,—Edward Phillips (1630-1696), Milton’s nephew. See his _Theatrum Poetarum, or a Compleat Collection of the Poets_, 1675, ii. p. 195. Cf. also Winstanley’s _English Poets_, p. 218.

_Heywood_, in the _Apology for Actors_, 1612, alluded to above; see Hawkins’s _Origin of the English Drama_, 1773, ii., p. 3, and Boas’s _Works of Kyd_, 1901, pp. xiii, civ, and 411. Mr. Boas gives Hawkins the credit of discovering the authorship of _The Spanish Tragedy_ “some time before 1773,” but the credit is Farmer’s. Hawkins was undoubtedly indebted to Farmer’s _Essay_.

211. _Henry the fifth_, Act iii., Sc. 4.

_not published by the author._ “Every writer on Shakespeare hath expressed his astonishment that his author was not solicitous to secure his fame by a correct edition of his performances. This matter is not understood. When a poet was connected with a particular playhouse, he constantly sold his works to the _Company_, and it was their interest to keep them from a number of rivals. A favourite piece, as Heywood informs us, only got into print when it was copied _by the ear_, ‘for a double sale would bring on a suspicion of honestie.’ Shakespeare therefore himself published nothing in the drama: when he left the stage, his copies remained with his fellow-managers, Heminge and Condell; who at their own retirement, about seven years after the death of their author, gave the world the edition now known by the name of the _first Folio_, and call the previous publications ‘stolne and surreptitious, maimed and deformed by the frauds and stealths of injurious impostors.’ But _this_ was printed from the playhouse copies; which in a series of years had been frequently altered, thro’ convenience, caprice, or ignorance. We have a sufficient instance of the liberties taken by the actors, in an old pamphlet by Nash, called _Lenten Stuff, with the Prayse of the red Herring_, 4to, 1599, where he assures us that in a play of his, called the _Isle of Dogs_, ‘_foure acts_, without his consent, or the least guesse of his drift or scope, were supplied by the players.’—This, however, was not his first quarrel with them. In the Epistle prefixed to Greene’s _Arcadia_, which I have quoted before, Tom hath a lash at some ‘vaine glorious tragedians,’ and very plainly at Shakespeare in particular; which will serve for an answer to an observation of Mr. Pope, that had almost been forgotten: ‘It was thought a praise to Shakespeare that he scarce ever blotted a line. I believe the common opinion of his want of learning proceeded from no better ground. This, too, might be thought a praise by some.’ But hear Nash, who was far from _praising_: ‘I leaue all these to the mercy of their _mother-tongue_, that feed on nought but the crums that fall from the _translator’s_ trencher,—that could scarcely _Latinize_ their neck verse if they should haue neede; yet _English Seneca_, read by candle-light, yeelds many good sentences—hee will affoord you whole _Hamlets_, I should say, _handfuls_ of tragicall speeches.’ I cannot determine exactly when this _Epistle_ was first published; but, I fancy, it will carry the original _Hamlet_ somewhat further back than we have hitherto done; and it may be observed that the oldest copy now extant is said to be ‘enlarged to almost as much againe as it was.’ Gabriel Harvey printed at the end of the year 1592 _Foure Letters and certaine Sonnetts, especially touching Robert Greene_: in one of which his _Arcadia_ is mentioned. Now Nash’s Epistle must have been previous to these, as Gabriel is quoted in it with applause; and the _Foure Letters_ were the beginning of a quarrel. Nash replied in _Strange Newes of the intercepting certaine Letters, and a Convoy of Verses, as they were going_ privilie _to victual the Low Countries_, 1593. Harvey rejoined the same year in _Pierce’s Supererogation, or a new Praise of the old Asse_; and Nash again, in _Have with you to Saffron Walden, or Gabriel Harvey’s Hunt is up; containing a full Answer to the eldest Sonne of the Halter-maker_, 1596.—Dr. Lodge calls Nash our _true English Aretine_: and John Taylor, in his _Kicksey-Winsey, or a Lerry Come-twang_, even makes an oath ‘by sweet satyricke Nash his urne.’—He died before 1606, as appears from an old comedy called _The Return from Parnassus_” (Farmer). See Gregory Smith, _Elizabethan Critical Essays_, especially i. 424-5.

211. _Hawkins._ Johnson’s Shakespeare, vol. viii., Appendix, note on iv., p. 454. The quotation from Johnson, and the references to Eliot and Du Bartas, were added in the second edition.

_Est-il impossible._ _Henry V._, iv. 4. 17.

_French Alphabet of De la Mothe._ “Lond., 1592, 8vo.” (Farmer).

_Orthoepia of John Eliot._ “Lond., 1593, 4to. Eliot is almost the only _witty_ grammarian that I have had the fortune to meet with. In his Epistle prefatory to the _Gentle Doctors of Gaule_, he cries out for persecution, very like Jack in that most poignant of all Satires, the _Tale of a Tub_, ‘I pray you be readie quicklie to cauill at my booke, I beseech you heartily calumniate my doings with speede, I request you humbly controll my method as soone as you may, I earnestly entreat you hisse at my inventions,’ ” etc. (Farmer).

_Sejanus._ See Jonson’s “To the Readers”: “Lastly, I would inform you that this book, in all numbers, is not the same with that which was acted on the public stage; wherein a second pen had good share: in place of which, I have rather chosen to put weaker, and, no doubt, less pleasing, of mine own, than to defraud so happy a genius of his right by my loathed usurpation.” Jonson is supposed to refer here to Shakespeare.

_But what if ... Capell’s Prolusions_, added in the second edition.

_Pierce Penilesse_, ed. J. P. Collier (Shakespeare Society, 1842), p. 60.

212. _Tarlton_, Richard (d. 1588),—_Jests, drawn into three parts_, ed. Halliwell (Shakespeare Society, 1844), pp. 24, 25: _Old English Jest Books_, ed. W. C. Hazlitt (1864), pp. 218, 219.

_Capell._ Cf. pp. 197 and 198. He describes _Edward III._ on the title page of his _Prolusions or Select Pieces of Antient Poetry_, 1760, as “thought to be writ by Shakespeare.”

_Laneham_, Robert, who appears in Scott’s _Kenilworth_. The letter has been reprinted by the Ballad Society (1871), and the New Shakspere Society (1890). Referring to the spelling of the name, Farmer says in a note, “It is indeed of no importance, but I suspect the former to be right, as I find it corrupted afterward to _Lanam_ and _Lanum_.”

_Meres._ “This author by a pleasant mistake in some sensible _Conjectures on Shakespeare_, lately printed at Oxford, is quoted by the name of _Maister_. Perhaps the title-page was imperfect; it runs thus: ‘Palladis Tamia. Wits Treasury. Being the second part of Wits Commonwealth, By _Francis Meres Maister_ of Artes of both Universities.’ I am glad out of gratitude to this man, who hath been of frequent service to me, that I am enabled to perfect Wood’s account of him; from the assistance of our _Master’s_ very accurate list of graduates (which it would do honour to the university to print at the publick expense) and the kind information of a friend from the register of his parish:—He was originally of Pembroke-Hall, B.A. in 1587, and M.A. 1591. About 1602 he became rector of Wing in Rutland; and died there, 1646, in the 81st year of his age” (Farmer). See Ingleby’s _Shakspere Allusion-Books_ or Gregory Smith’s _Elizabethan Critical Essays_. The reference at the beginning of Farmer’s note is to Tyrwhitt’s _Observations and Conjectures upon some passages of Shakespeare_, 1766.

_the Giant of Rabelais._ See _As You Like It_, iii. 2. 238, and _King Lear_, iii. 6. 7, 8.

_John Taylor._ See note, p. 163. “I have quoted many pieces of John Taylor, but it was impossible to give their original dates. He may be traced as an author for more than half a century. His works were collected in folio, 1630, but many were printed afterward,” etc. (Farmer). The reference to Gargantua will be found on p. 160 of the Spenser Society Reprint of the Folio. Taylor refers to Rabelais also in his _Dogge of Warre_, _id._, p. 364.

213. _Richard the third._ “Some inquiry hath been made for the first performers of the capital characters in Shakespeare. We learn that Burbage, the _alter Roscius_ of Camden, was the original Richard, from a passage in the poems of Bishop Corbet; who introduces his host at Bosworth describing the battle:

“But when he would have said King Richard died, And call’d _a horse_, _a horse_, he _Burbage_ cried.”

The play on this subject mentioned by Sir John Harrington in his _Apologie for Poetrie_, 1591, and sometimes mistaken for Shakespeare’s, was a Latin one, written by Dr. Legge, and acted at St. John’s in our University, some years before 1588, the date of the copy in the Museum. This appears from a better MS. in our library at Emmanuel, with the names of the original performers.

It is evident from a passage in Camden’s _Annals_ that there was an old play likewise on the subject of _Richard the Second_; but I know not in what language. Sir Gelley Merrick, who was concerned in the hare-brained business of the Earl of Essex, and was hanged for it with the ingenious Cuffe in 1601, is accused, amongst other things, “quod _exoletam_ Tragœdiam de tragica abdicatione Regis Ricardi Secundi in publico theatro coram conjuratis data pecunia agi curasset” (Farmer).

213. _Remember whom ye are_, etc. _Richard III._, v. 3. 315.

_Holingshed._ “I cannot take my leave of Holingshed without clearing up a difficulty which hath puzzled his biographers. Nicholson and others have _supposed_ him a _clergyman_. Tanner goes further and tells us that he was educated at Cambridge and actually took the degree of M.A. in 1544.—Yet it appears by his will, printed by Hearne, that at the end of life he was only a _steward_, or a _servant_ in some capacity or other, to Thomas Burdett, Esq. of Bromcote, in Warwickshire.—These things Dr. Campbell could not reconcile. The truth is we have no claim to the education of the _Chronicler_: the M.A. in 1544 was not _Raphael_, but one _Ottiwell Holingshed_, who was afterward named by the founder one of the first Fellows of Trinity College” (Farmer).

214. _Hig, hag, hog._ _Merry Wives_, iv. 1. 44.

_writers of the time._ “Ascham, in the Epistle prefixed to his _Toxophilus_, 1571, observes of them that ‘Manye Englishe writers, usinge straunge wordes, as _Lattine_, _Frenche_, and _Italian_, do make all thinges darke and harde,’ ” etc. (Farmer).

_all such reading as was never read._ _Dunciad_, i., line 156, first edition (see Introduction, p. xliv.; iv., line 250, edition of 1742).

_Natale solum._ “This alludes to an intended publication of the _Antiquities of the Town of Leicester_. The work was just begun at the press, when the writer was called to the principal tuition of a large college, and was obliged to decline the undertaking. The plates, however, and some of the materials have been long ago put into the hands of a gentleman who is every way qualified to make a proper use of them” (Farmer). This gentleman was John Nichols, the printer, whose _History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester_ appeared from 1795 to 1815.

215. _primrose path._ _Hamlet_, i. 3. 50; cf. _Macbeth_, ii. 3. 21.

_Age cannot wither._ _Antony and Cleopatra_, ii. 2. 240.

Maurice Morgann.

221. _Candide_, chapters 9 and 15.

225. _general criticism is uninstructive._ Cf. Joseph Warton, _Adventurer_, No. 116: “General criticism is on all subjects useless and unentertaining; but it is more than commonly absurd with respect to Shakespeare, who must be accompanied step by step, and scene by scene, in his gradual developments of characters and passions,” etc.

239. line 28. _which._ The original has _who._

241. _Oldcastle._ See Rowe, p. 5, and note.

247. note. _Be thus when thou art dead._ _Othello_, v. 2. 18.

248. _Barbarian._ See notes on Voltaire, pp. 117, etc.

_Love’s Labour lost._ In his edition of _L.L.L._ (1768), Capell omitted fifteen lines from Biron’s speech in Act iv., Sc. 3 (iv. 1 in his own edition, p. 54). He did not record the omission.

249. _Nothing perishable about him except that very learning_, etc. Cf. Edward Young, _Conjectures on Original Composition_, 1759, p. 81, and Hurd, Notes on Horace’s _Art of Poetry_, line 286 (1757, i., pp. 213, 4): “Our Shakespear was, I think, the first that broke through this bondage of classical superstition. And he owed this felicity, as he did some others, to his want of what is called the advantage of a learned education.”

251. _Macbeth_, i. 5. 18, 49; v. 5. 13; v. 3. 23.

_practicer of arts inhibited._ _Othello_, i. 2. 78.

254. note. _Shakespeare’s magic_, etc. Dryden, Prologue to the _Tempest_, 1667, lines 19, 20.

258. _miching malicho._ _Hamlet_, iii. 2. 147.

260. _but a choleric word._ _Measure for Measure_, ii. 2. 130.

262. _Cadogan_, William (1711-1797), a fashionable London doctor, who published in 1771 a _Dissertation on the Gout and on all Chronic Diseases_, in which he held that gout is “a disease of our own acquiring” and “the necessary effect of intemperance.”

267, note. _For if the Jew._ _Merchant of Venice_, iv. 1. 280.

269. _Souls made of fire and children of the sun._ Edward Young, _The Revenge_, v. 2.

270. _just where youth ends._ Cf. _Paradise Lost_, xi. 245, 246.

270. _Old, cold, and of intolerable entrails._ _Merry Wives_, v. 5. 161.

_Mrs. Montague._ Two chapters in Mrs. Elizabeth Montagu’s _Essay on the Writings and Genius of Shakespear_ (1769) deal with the first and second parts of _Henry IV._ She speaks of “the cowardly and braggart temper of Falstaffe” (p. 103), and says that “gluttony, corpulency, and cowardice are the peculiarities of Falstaffe’s composition” (p. 107).

271. _golden fool._ _Timon of Athens_, iv. 3. 18.

277. _Players ... the worst judges of Shakespeare._ Cf. Pope, Preface, p. 51.

285. line 27. _attacked._ The original has _attached_. The reprints of 1820 and 1825 read _attached to_.

303. _He was shaked of a burning quotidian tertian._ _Henry V._, ii. 1. 124, 91; ii. 3. 10.

INDEX.

Addison, Joseph, xix, 86, 134, 170, 306, 311, 315, 316, 329. See _Spectator_.

_Adventurer, The_, xix, xxxii, 347.

Aeschylus, 55.

Akenside, Mark, lv.

Aleria, Bishop of, 158, 326.

Alleyn, Edward, 341.

Ames, Joseph, 186, 199, 210, 335.

Anacreon, 136, 174, 330.

_Andromana_, 181, 333.

_Annual Register, The_, lx.

Ariosto, 178, 201.

Aristophanes, 108, 319, 331.

Aristotle, 32, 50, 51, 56, 251, 311.

_Arraignment of Paris_, 206, 308.

_Arthur, Death of_, 133.

Ascham, Roger, 132, 346.

Ashmole, Elias, 331.

Atterbury, Francis, xxxiv, xl.

Aubrey, John, 205, 207, 340.

Ayre, William, xxix.

Bacon, Francis, Lord, 191.

Bandello, 199, 210, 342.

Barclay, Alexander, 175, 331.

Barclay, James, lx.

Bateman, Stephen, 185.

Beattie, James, xx.

_Beauties of Poetry_, 185.

Beeston, William, 205, 340.

Belleforest, 198, 199, 338.

Bellenden, John, 195.

Bentley, Richard, 81, 111, 158, 179, 315, 320.

Bermuda Islands, 69, 314.

Bernard, Sir John, of Abington, 22.

Betterton, Thomas, xii, xiv, xxxviii, 20, 206, 306, 307, 312, 327.

_Biographia Britannica_, xix, lvi, lxii, 204, 340.

Birch, Thomas, xlviii, lvii, 324.

Bishop, Hawley, l.

Bishop, Sir William, 72.

Blair, Hugh, xxxv.

Blefkenius, 188, 336.

Blount, Pope, xxxviii.

Boccaccio, 178, 332.

Bodley, Sir Thomas, 204.

Boece, Hector, 195.

Boisteau (Boaistuau), 210, 342.

Boswell, James, xx, lx, 318, 322, 325, 335

Boswell, James, the younger, 316.

Boyle, Robert, 139, 324.

Brantôme, 193.

Broke, Arthur, 342.

Broome, William, xli, 316.

Browne, William, 340.

Buchanan, George, 195, 196.

Buckinghamshire, Duke of, xvi, 38, 309.

Bunbury, Sir Henry. See Hanmer, _Correspondence_.

Burbage, Richard, 68, 313, 345.

Burgersdicius, 163, 326.

Burmann, Peter, 163, 326.

Butler, Samuel, 39, 169, 180, 309, 320, 342.

Bysshe, Edward, 308.

Cadogan, William, 262, 347.

Camden, William, 205, 210, 342, 345, 346.

Campion, Thomas, 190, 336.

_Candide._ See Voltaire.

Capell, Edward, xxviii, 197, 198, 212, 248, 338, 345, 347.

Casaubon, 111.

“Cassiopeia” (Theobald’s proposed reading in _1 Henry VI._), xlvi.

_Catiline._ See Jonson.

_Cato._ See Addison.

Cavendish, George, 200.

Caxton, William, 183, 330, 336, 337.

_Censor, The_, xi.

Cervantes, 166, 181, 328.

Chapman, George, 175, 331.

Chaucer, 53, 133, 138, 158, 183, 185, 324, 332, 335.

Cheke, Sir John, 132.

Chrysostom, Saint, 108, 319.

Churchill, Charles, lix.

Churchyard, Thomas, 183.

Cibber, Colley, 133, 307, 323.

Cibber, Theophilus, xiii, 186, 327, 335.

Cicero, 34, 36, 53, 109, 194, 337.

Cinthio, 178.

Clarke, Samuel, 320.

Clerk, John, 132.

Clopton, Family of, 70, 71.

Collier, Jeremy, _Historical and Poetical Dictionary_, xxxviii.

Colman, George, 199-201, 338.

Combe, John, 21, 69, 70.

_Comical Gallant._ See Dennis.

Concanen, Matthew, xlviii.

Condell, Henry, 51, 57, 60, 68, 144, 310.

Congreve, William, 315.

_Connoisseur, The_, 323, 339.

Cooke, Thomas, 317.

Cooke, William, xxi.

Copley, Anthony, 342.

Corbet, Richard, 345.

Corneille, Pierre, 37, 127, 322.

Cradock, Joseph, 162, 326.

Crendon. See Grendon.

_Critical Review, The_, lx, lxi, 326, 327, 334, 336, 338.

_Criticism, Science of_ (Theobald’s Preface), 81, etc. (Warburton’s Preface), 101, etc.; uninstructive if general, 225, 347. _Canons of Criticism_, see Edwards.

Cruden, Alexander, 177.

Cumberland, Richard, lxiii.

_Cursory Remarks on Tragedy_, xxi.

Dacier, André, 18, 86, 105, 307.

_Daily Journal, The_, xliv, xlvi.

Daniel, Samuel, 176, 190, 331, 336.

Davies, John, 176.

Dares Phrygius, 53, 187, 312.

Davenant, Sir William, 6, 8, 14, 206, 307, 327.

Dee, John, 180, 333.

Dekker, Thomas, 208, 337, 340.

Denham, Sir John, 167, 328.

Dennis, John, _On the Genius and Writings of Shakespeare_, xvii, xxii, xxxix, xl, 24-46; veneration for Shakespeare, xi, 46, 310; attitude to the dramatic rules, xvi, etc.; attitude to Rymer, xvi, xl; view on Shakespeare’s learning, xxii, 31-46; doctrine of “poetical justice,” 27-29, 309; _Letters to the Spectator_, xxxix; _Impartial Critick_, xvi, xxxix; _Comical Gallant_, xvii, xl, 304; _Invader of his Country_, xl, 24; _Letter to Steele_, xl, 309, 310; _Characters of Sir John Edgar_, xl; _Defence of a regulated Stage_, 304; _Essay on the Operas_, 311; criticised by Warburton, 105; criticised by Johnson, 117, 140; “attempted to stab a man in the dark,” 329.

De Quincey, Thomas, xix.

_Dictionary, General_ (1739-40), lvii.

Digby, Sir Kenelm, 191.

Digges, Leonard, 167, 328.

Dilworth, W. H., xxix.

Dodd, William, 169, 174, 184, 329.

Dodsley, Robert, 164, 327; _Old Plays_, 181, 333.

Dogget, Thomas, 306.

Donne, John, 85, 182.

_Dorastus and Faunia._ See Greene.

_Double Falshood._ See Theobald.

Douglas, Gawin, 176, 183, 188, 189, 336.

Downes, John, _Roscius Anglicanus_, 307, 322.

“Drake, Francis” (Pope’s suggested reading in _1 Henry VI._), xlvi, 87, 316.

Drayton, Michael, 109, 167, 320, 328.

Dryden, John, xiii, etc.; opinion on Shakespeare’s learning, xxii, 41, 166, 167; opinion on _Pericles_, 4; identified Spenser’s “Willy” as Shakespeare, 7; view on Jonson’s attitude to Shakespeare, 55, 305, 312; _Essay of Dramatic Poesy_, xiv, 160, 161, 166, 167, 305, 310, 322, 326; version of the _Tempest_, 14; prologue to the _Tempest_, 15, 254; Epistle Dedicatory of the _Rival Ladies_, 308; Preface to _Troilus and Cressida_, 307; Preface to _Ovid’s Epistles_, 39, 309; _Defence of the Epilogue, etc._, 304; _Discourse concerning Satire_, 305, 307, 313, 317; _MacFlecknoe_, 181.

Du Bartas, 167, 211.

Dugdale, Sir William, 11, 67-70.

_Edward III._, 212.

Edwards, Thomas, 149, 319, 325.

Eliot, John, 211, 344.

_English Historical Review, The_, 340.

_Esmond_, x.

Euripides, 40, 55, 164.

_European Magazine, The_, 329.

Falkland, Lord, 14, 305, 306, 307.

_Faerie Queen._ See Spenser.

Falstaff, 5, 10, 11, 67; Morgann’s _Essay_, _passim_; 305.

Farmer, Richard, _Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare_, xxvi, xxvii, xlv, lxi, 162-215; _Antiquities of Leicester_, lxi, 346; _Letter to Steevens_, lxi; “Pioneer of the commentators,” 164.

Farquhar, George, xv, 311, 322.

Fenton, Elijah, xli.

Fielding, Henry, xii, xxix, 322.

Fleming, Abraham, 183.

Fletcher, John, 15, 54, 110, 211, 320.

Fletcher, Lawrence, 68, 314.

Fuller, Thomas, xxxviii, 168, 305, 328.

_Gamelyn, Tale of_, xxv, 133, 178, 323, 332.

Gardiner, Stephen, 132.

Garrick, David, xii, xiii, 193, 325.

Gascoigne, George, 201, 339.

Gay, John, xli.

Gellius, Aulus, 178, 332.

Genest, John, _English Stage_, xl, 322.

_Gentleman’s Magazine, The_, xxi, lx, 318, 327.

Gerard, Alexander, 322.

Gerson, Jean, 183.

_Gesta Grayorum_, 200.

Gibbon, Edward, xii.

Gildon, Charles, attitude to the dramatic rules, xv, etc.; opinion on Shakespeare’s learning, xxii, 168, 183, 334; relations with Dennis, xvi, 328; criticised by Theobald, 86; by Warburton, 105; _Reflections on Rymer’s Short __ View_, xvi, 305, 316; supplementary volume of Rowe’s edition, xxxix, and of Pope’s, xli; _Essay on the Stage_, xv, xxii, xxxix, 310, 311, 312, 316, 334; _Remarks on Shakespeare_, xxxix, 312; _Art of Poetry_, xvi, xli.

_Golden Booke of the leaden Goddes_, 185.

Golding, Arthur, 183, 190, 312, 336.

Goldsmith, Oliver, xii, xiii, 326.

Gonsaga, Hanniball, 207.

_Gorboduc_, 140.

Gosson, Stephen, 202.

Gower, John, 178, 183, 332.

Granville, George, Lord Lansdowne, xxxix, 306.

Gravelot, Hubert Francois, 318.

Gray, Thomas, xxxiv.

Green, ?, author of “Specimen of a new version of the _Paradise Lost_ into blank verse,” 180, 333.

Greene, Robert, 16, 206, 307, 343, 344.

Grendon, 205, 340.

Grey, Zachary, _Notes on Shakespeare_, xxv, 150, 169, 178, 197, 210, 317, 324; _edition of Hudibras_, 111, 320; other works, 320; letter from Hanmer, lii.

Grimald, Nicholas, 194, 337.

_Guardian, The_, xi.

Guthrie, William, xx, 195, 318, 323, 338.

_Guy of Warwick_, 133.

Haddon, Walter, 132.

Hakluyt, Richard, 314.

Hales, John, of Eton, 8, 168, 305.

Hall, Edward, 192, 214, 337.

Hall, Dr. John (Shakespeare’s son-in-law), 22, 66.

Hall, John, 340.

Hall, Joseph, 189, 336.

_Hamblet, Hystorie of_, 197, 338.

_Hamlet, Miscellaneous Observations on_ (1752), xx.

_Hamlet, Some Remarks on the Tragedy of_, xx, liii, 317, 318, 322.

Hanmer, Sir Thomas, Edition of Shakespeare, xxix, lii-liv; Preface, 92-95; readings or notes, 171, 192, 208, 209; _Correspondence_, liv, 317, 318, 320; relations with Warburton, li, 98-101, 192; criticised by Johnson, lix, 146, 147, 325; by Grey, 324, 325. See _Hamlet, Some Remarks on_.

Hare, Francis, 111, 320, 321.

Harington, Sir John, 202, 332, 339, 346.

Harris, James, xx.

Harvey, Gabriel, 189, 336, 344.

Hawes, Stephen, 185.

Hawkins, Sir Richard, 208.

Hawkins, Sir John (1719-1789), 211, 343, 344.

Hayman, Francis, 318.

Hazlitt, William, x, xxxvii, 324.

Hearne, Thomas, 202, 207, 339.

Heath, Benjamin, xxxiii, 149, 171, 177, 209, 325, 329.

Heminge, John, 51, 57, 60, 68, 144, 310, 313.

Henryson, Robert, 335.

Heywood, John, 208, 209, 210.

Heywood, Thomas, 203, 210, 310, 312, 343.

Hierocles, 115, 321.

_Hieronymo_. See Kyd.

Higgins, John, 185.

_History of the Works of the Learned_, lvii.

Hobbes, Thomas, 111, 321.

Holinshed, Raphael, 176, 192, 195, 213, 214, 337, 346.

Holt, John, 190, 206, 336, 341.

Homer, 24, 40, 48, 77, 88, 109, 113, 158, 175, 187, 311.

Horace, 3, 23, 30, 33, 40, 42, 43, 44, 74; notes _passim_.

Howard, James, 322.

Howard, Sir Robert, 322.

Howell, James, 210, 342.

_Hudibras._ See Butler.

Huetius, D. P., 155, 325.

Hughes, John, xi.

Hume, David, xxxv, 181, 333.

Hurd, Richard, 170, 185, 187, 315, 322, 329, 335, 347.

_Idler, The_, lix, 321.

_Invader of his Country._ See Dennis.

_Jack Drum’s Entertainment_, 178, 331.

Jaggard, William, 203, 340.

James, Richard, 305.

_Jew of Venice._ See Granville.

Johnson, Samuel, Edition of Shakespeare, xxix-xxxi, lix, lx; Preface, 112-161; account of his own edition, 150, etc.; account of earlier editors, xxx, xliv, 143, etc.; examination of the dramatic rules, xix, etc.; of tragi-comedy, 118, etc.; of the unities, 126, etc.; opinion on Shakespeare’s learning, xxv, 135, etc.; opinion of Farmer’s essay, xxvii; _Observations on Macbeth_, lix, 318; Dedication to _Shakespear Illustrated_, lix, 323; _Lives of the Poets_, xi, 323, 335; Mrs. Piozzi’s _Anecdotes_, 323; allusions by Farmer to edition of Shakespeare, 166, 171, 201, 208, 211. See _Idler_ and _Rambler_.

Jonson, Ben, Relations with Shakespeare, 7-9, 54, 55; compared with Shakespeare, 77; “brought critical learning into vogue,” 50; “small Latin and less Greek,” xxii, 41, 74, 135, 166, 167, 323, 327; _Discoveries_, 22, 43, 51, 167, 328; _Every Man in his Humour_, 176; _Catiline_, 53, 310; _Sejanus_,68, 211, 344; _Bartholomew Fair_, 60; _Ode on the New Inn_, 60, 179, 332.

_Julius Caesar_ (alteration by the Duke of Buckinghamshire), 38, 309.

Kames, Henry Home, Lord, xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxv, 322.

Kemble, J. P., xxxvii.

Kenrick, William, lx, lxiii, 323, 327, 339.

_King Leire_, ballad, 323, 331.

Kirkman, Francis, 206, 341.

Kuster, Ludolf, 108, 176, 319, 331.

Kyd, Thomas, 140, 193, 210, 338, 343.

Laneham, Robert, 212, 345.

Langbaine, Gerard, xxxviii, 23, 178, 181, 308, 339.

Langland, William, 193.

La Mothe, N.G. De, 211.

Lauder, William, 182, 334.

Le Bossu, xviii, 86, 105, 316.

Le Loyer, Pierre, 191, 337.

Lennox, Charlotte, lix, 175, 323, 330, 332.

Lilly, William, astrologer, 177, 331.

Lily, William, grammarian, 132, 163, 201.

Linacre, Thomas, 132.

Lipsius, Justus, 78, 159.

Livy, 32, 309.

Locke, John, 163, 315, 326.

_Locrine_, 59, 203. See Shakespeare, spurious plays.

Lodge, Thomas, 178, 206, 312, 344.

_London Magazine, The_, lx, 323, 325.

_London Review, The_, lxiii.

Longinus, 89, 317.

Lope de Vega, 210.

Lort, Michael, 188, 199, 336.

_Lounger, The_, xxxiii, lxiii.

_Love’s Labour Wonne_, 178, 332.

Lowin, John, 313.

Lucan, 131, 323.

Lucretius, 109.

Lucy, Sir Thomas, 3, 67.

Lycurgus, 109.

Lydgate, John, 183, 187, 335.

Lyttelton, George, Lord, xii, xxxiv.

Macaulay, Thomas Babington, Lord, xxx, xxxi.

Maginn, William, xxvi, xxvii.

Malherbe, François de, 109.

Mallet, David, 89, 316.

Malone, Edmund, xxvii, xxxviii, 313, 340.

Mantuanus, Baptista, 3.

Manwaring, Edward, 180, 333.

_Marks of Imitation_. See Hurd.

Marlowe, Christopher, 183.

Marot, Clément, 211.

Marston, John, 181, 209.

Martial, 328.

Mason, George, xxxvii.

_Menaechmi._ See Plautus.

Ménage, Gilles, 109, 188, 319.

Meres, Francis, 202, 212, 339, 341, 345.

Merrick, Sir Gelley, 346.

Middleton, Thomas, 334.

Milton, John, 86, 249; _Paradise Lost_, 110, 179, 180, 182, 320; _L’Allegro_, 41, 167, 310, 328; _Samson Agonistes_, 45, 310.

_Mirror, The_, xxxiii.

_Mirror for Magistrates, The_, 185.

_Mist’s Journal_, xliv.

Montagu, Mrs. Elizabeth, xx, lxii, 270, 347.

_Monthly Review, The_, lx.

More, Sir Thomas, 132, 185, 335.

Morgann, Maurice, _Essay on Falstaff_, xxxiii, xxxvii, lxii, lxiii, 216-303; object of the _Essay_, 217; its “novelty,” 218; his opinion of Warburton, 248; of Johnson, xxxviii, 248; of Rymer, 251.

Morris, Corbyn, lxii, 318.

Muretus, 111.

Nash, Thomas, 206, 212, 341, 343, 344.

Nash, Thomas (husband of Shakespeare’s grand-daughter), 22.

Newcastle, Duke of, 198, 338.

New-place, Stratford, 71, 72, 314.

Newton, Sir Isaac, 111, 320.

Newton, Thomas, 182, 320, 333.

Nichols, John, xlii, etc., 314, 315, 316, 318, 346.

North, Sir Thomas, xxv, 133, 171-174, 178, 330

Northcote, James, xxvii.

_Observer, The_, lxiii.

Oldcastle, Sir John, 5, 241, 305.

Oldmixon, John, 105, 319.

Ovid, xxii, 39, 53, 184, 190, 203, 249, 312, 328, 336.

Painter, William, 178, 199, 210, 331, 332, 342.

_Palace of Pleasure._ See Painter.

_Palmerin_, 133.

Pauw, J. C. De, 174, 330.

Peele, George, 206, 341.

Percy, Thomas, 177, 331.

Phaer, Thomas, 183.

Phillippes, Augustine, 68.

Phillips, Edward, xxxviii, 210, 343.

Philpot, John, 210, 342.

_Piers Plowman_, 193.

Plautus, xxii, xxv, 9, 11, 38, 41, 53, 136, 200, 306, 310, 312, 324, 328, 339.

Players, social position in Shakespeare’s time, 59, 313; bad taste, 51; “the very worst judges of Shakespeare,” 277.

Plutarch, xxv, 32, 53, 133, 170-174, 178, 307, 309.

_Poems on Affairs of State_, 308.

Pole, Reginald, 132.

Pope, Alexander, Edition of Shakespeare, xxviii, xl, xlv; Preface, xviii, xxiii, xxxiv, xl, 47-62; alterations in Rowe’s _Account of Shakespeare_, xiv, xxxviii; attitude to the dramatic rules, xviii; opinion on Shakespeare’s learning, xxiii, 52-55, 168; debt to Betterton, 312; error in Latin inscription, 70, 314; relations with Theobald, xlii, etc., 78, 79; attitude to Hanmer, liii; criticised by Johnson, 143-145; by Farmer, 172; _Dunciad_, xviii, xl, etc., 184, 214, 316, 319, 320, 346; _Homer_, xviii; _Essay on Criticism_, 327; _Temple of Fame_, 158, 326; _Epistle to Augustus_, 311, 321, 324, 336; “Scriblerus,” 179, 332.

Porter, Endymion, 8.

Prior, Matthew, 170, 327, 329.

Prynne, William, 183, 334.

Puttenham, Richard, 174, 330.

Quiney, Thomas (Shakespeare’s son-in-law), 21, 66.

Quintilian, 110, 320.

Rabelais, 212, 345.

_Rambler, The_, lix, 322, 325.

Rapin, René, 105, 319.

Ravenscroft, Edward, 202, 340.

Rawlinson, Tom, 199, 338.

Reed, Isaac, xxi, xxxviii, xli, 329.

_Reliques of Ancient English Poetry._ See Percy.

_Rex Platonicus._ See Wake.

Riccoboni, Luigi, 200, 339.

Rich, John, xliv, 318.

_Richard II._, old play, 346; adaptation, see Theobald.

_Richard III._, Latin play by Dr. Legge, 346.

Richardson, Jonathan, 182, 334.

Richardson, William, xxi, xxxv, lxiii.

Roberts, John, _Answer to Mr. Pope’s Preface_, xli, 72, 314.

Rollin, Charles, 163.

_Romaunt of the Rose_, 183.

Ronsard, Pierre de, 175, 211, 330.

Roscommon, Earl of, 43, 310.

Rowe, Nicholas, Edition of Shakespeare, xi, xxviii, xxxviii; _Account of Shakespeare_, xiv, etc., xxii, etc., xxxviii, xxxix, 1-23; Pope’s version of the _Account of Shakespeare_, xiv, xxxviii; attitude to the dramatic rules, xiv, etc., 10, 14, 16; opinion on Shakespeare’s learning, xxii, 2; allusions by later editors, 66, etc., 97, 137, 143; by Farmer, 206; _Jane Shore_, xiv; his “delicacy,” 141.

Rowley, William, 308, 341.

Rymer, Thomas, xiv, etc., xl, 306, 308, 310; criticised by Rowe, 9, 10, 20; by Theobald, 78, 86; by Warburton, 103, 105; by Johnson, 117, 120; by Morgann, 251; _Foedera_, 69, 314.

Sachs, Hans, 200, 339.

Sallust, 34, 36.

Salmasius, 111, 159.

Saxo Grammaticus, 133, 197, 198, 338.

Scaliger, J. C., 190, 337.

Scaliger, J. J., 111; quoted, 159.

Schlegel, A. W. von, x.

Selden, John, 14, 109, 307, 319.

Seneca, 73.

Serenus, Quintus, 79.

Seward, Thomas, 320, 327.

Sewell, George, xxiii, xxviii, xli, 168, 184, 305, 309, 310, 329, 334, 340.

Shaftesbury, Earl of, xxxiv, 90, 317.

Shakespeare, Rowe’s biography, 1-23; Theobald’s account of his life, 65-72; story of deer-stealing, 3, 67, 204, 304; his father “a butcher,” 205; said to have been a “schoolmaster,” 205, 207; said to have “held horses,” 164, 327; acted the Ghost in _Hamlet_, 4, 206; acted in _Sejanus_, 68; story of dispute with Alleyn, 341; popularity in eighteenth century, ix-xiii; adaptations of his plays, xii-xiii; his neglect of the dramatic rules, xiv-xxi, 10, 14, 16, 118, etc., 126, etc.; his learning, xxi-xxvii, 2, 31-46, 52-55, 74-76, 135, etc., 162-215, 249; eighteenth century editions, xxvii-xxxi, 143, etc.; his characters, xxxii-xxxviii, 48, 64, 116, 117, 247; his power over the passions, 48; his sentiments, 49; attention to prevailing taste, 49, 73, 103, 104; plays upon words, 13, 73, 125, 126, 267; bombast, 45, 124; anachronisms, 32, 56, 87, 124, 316; his “magic,” 14, 15, 252-254; the “original of our English tragical harmony,” 25, 140; spurious plays, 59, 308, 313; corruption of text, 51, 93, 248, 343; sonnets neglected during eighteenth century, 312; glossary, 83, 315, 317; compared with Jonson, 77; with Addison, 134, 323; statue, 95, 318.

“Shakespeare, William,” _Compendious or Briefe Examination_, (1751), 204, 340.

Sheares, William, 181.

Shelton, Thomas, 181.

Shiels, Robert, 335.

Shippen, Robert, liii.

Shirley, James, xlv, 181, 182, 333.

Sidney, Sir Philip, xvi, 124, 183, 186.

Skelton, John, 193, 337.

Smith, Adam, xxxv.

Smith, Joseph, liii, lvi.

Smith, Sir Thomas, 132.

Smith, William, 210.

Smith, William, “of Harlestone in Norfolk,” 317, 320.

Somers, Sir George, 69, 314.

Sophocles, 18, 40, 55, 176.

Southern, John, 330.

Spanheim, 111.

_Spectator, The_, xi, 105, 307, 308, 309, 313, 319; Dennis’s Letters to, xxxix, xl, 309.

Speght, Thomas, 335.

Spence, Joseph, _Anecdotes_, 312, 322.

Spenser, Edmund, 6, 7, 68, 69, 110, 140, 175, 183, 186, 314, 331, 335, 340.

Stafford, William, 205, 340.

Stanyhurst, Richard, 183, 189.

Steele, Richard, x, xl.

Steevens, George, xxvii, xxxviii, 313, 326, 340.

Strype, John, 204.

Suckling, Sir John, 8, 167, 305, 328.

Summers. See Somers.

Surrey, Earl of, 183.

Sylvester, Joshua. See Du Bartas.

Tacitus, 54.

Tarlton, Richard, 212, 345.

_Tatler, The_, x, xi.

Taylor, Edward, xxi.

Taylor, John, the Water-Poet, 163, 184, 208, 212, 326, 334, 344, 345.

_Tempest_ (alteration by Dryden and Davenant), 14.

Terence, 11, 200, 201, 320, 338, 339.

_Testament of Creseide_, 186, 335.

Thackeray, W. M., x.

Theobald, Lewis, Edition of Shakespeare, xxix, xxx, xli-li; Preface, xlvii, etc., 63-91; account of his own edition, 80, etc.; attitude to the dramatic rules, xvii; views on Shakespeare’s learning, xxiii, 74-76, 168, 314, 315; relations with Pope, xlii-xlvi; connection with Warburton, xlv-l, 314-317; acknowledgment of Warburton’s assistance, l, li; debt to Warburton in Preface, xlvii-l; criticised by Warburton, 98-101; by Johnson, xxx, xliv, 145; by Farmer, 171, 187, 201, 209, 213; _Cave of Poverty_, xlii; essays in _Censor_, xi, xvii; _Richard II._, xviii, xxiv, xlii, 314, 330, 336; _Shakespeare Restored_, xi, xxx, xlii-xliv, 314, 316, 327; _Double Falshood_, xli, xlv, 179-181, 313; proposed _Remarks on Shakespeare_, xlv; proposed _Essay upon Mr. Pope’s Judgment_, xlvi; _Miscellany on Taste_, xlvi; proposed edition of Poems, 83; proposed Glossary, 83; edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, 320; “a’ babbled of green fields,” xliii.

Thirlby, Styan, l.

Thomson, James, 183.

Thornton, Bonnell, 339.

Tiptoft, John, Earl of Worcester, 337.

Towers, William, 327.

Trapp, Joseph, xx.

_Tristram Shandy_, 214.

Turberville, George, 178, 183, 332.

_Two Noble Kinsmen_, 54, 211.

Twyne, Lawrence, 183.

Tyrwhitt, Thomas, lx, 332, 345.

Udall, Nicholas, 201.

Upton, John, xxiv, 149, 165, 167, 169, 170, 171, 175, 177, 178, 186, 188, 193, 194, 200, 318, 322, 324, 331.

Urry, John, 335.

Vaughan, Sir John, 14, 307.

Victor, Benjamin, 181, 333.

Virgil, 30, 54, 105, 184, 188, 189, 335.

Voltaire, xx, 117, 131, 134, 221, 248, 249, 321, 323.

Wagstaffe, William, 170, 329.

Wake, Sir Isaac, 196, 338.

Walkington, Thomas, 337.

Waller, Edmund, 53, 310.

Warburton, William, Edition of Shakespeare, xxix, liv-lix; Preface, 96-111; opinion on Shakespeare’s learning, xxiv, 168, 315; connection with Theobald, xxiii, xxiv, xxx, xlv, etc., lv, lvi, 98-101; connection with Hanmer, li, lvi, lvii, 98-101; early attacks on Pope, xlix, lv, lvi; friendship with Pope, lviii, 97, 98; references to Johnson, 101, 325; criticised by Johnson, 147-149; by Farmer, 184, 190, 202, 208, 209, 213; by Morgann, 248; letter to Concanen, xlviii, lv.

Warner, William, 200, 306, 339.

Warton, Joseph, xix, xxxii, xxxiii, 325, 347.

Warton, Thomas, 205, 340.

Water-Poet. See Taylor.

Webb, Daniel, 185, 322, 335.

Whalley, Peter, xxv, xxxii, 169, 183, 184, 188, 197, 210, 314, 329, 336, 340.

Whately, Thomas, xxxvi.

Whetstone, George, 178, 332.

Whiston, William, 320.

White, James, lxiii.

Whytinton, Robert, 194.

Windham, William, _Diary of_, 321.

Winstanley, William, xxxviii, 206, 341, 343.

_Wits, Fits, and Fancies_, 207, 342.

Wood, Anthony, 205, 207, 340, 341.

Wooll, John, _Memoirs of Joseph Warton_, 325.

Worcester (or Botoner), William, 202, 337, 339.

Wordsworth, William, xxxv.

_Yorkshire Tragedy, The_, 181, 332. See Shakespeare, spurious plays.

Young, Edward, 323, 328, 347.

FOOTNOTES

_ 1 Esmond_, ii. 10. Thackeray was probably recalling a passage in the eighth _Tatler_.

2 In the _Life of Pope_.

_ 3 Guardian_, No. 37 (23rd April, 1713). The paper was written by John Hughes (1677-1720), who had assisted Rowe in his edition of Shakespeare (see Reed’s Variorum edition, 1803, ii. p. 149).

4 Introduction to _Shakespeare Restored_.

_ 5 Dialogues of the Dead_, xiv., Boileau and Pope.

_ 6 Memoirs_, ed. Birkbeck Hill, 1900, p. 105.

7 Chap. xviii. That the passage is animated by pique and that amusing jealousy which Goldsmith showed on unexpected occasions is evident from the _Present State of Polite Learning_, Ch. xi.

8 Cf. Theophilus Cibber’s attack on Garrick’s adaptations in his _Two Dissertations on the Theatres_, 1756.

9 See the Prologue to _Jane Shore_:

“In such an age, immortal Shakespeare wrote, By no quaint rules, nor hampering critics taught; With rough majestic force he mov’d the heart, And strength and nature made amends for art. Our humble author does his steps pursue, He owns he had the mighty bard in view; And in these scenes has made it more his care To rouse the passions than to charm the ear.”

10 The note has reference to Biron’s remark, towards the end of the last scene, that a “twelvemonth and a day” is “too long for a play” (ed. 1733, ii., p. 181). In Mr. Lounsbury’s _Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist_, 1901—which I regret I did not see before the present Introduction was in type—it is urged as “demonstration” of Theobald’s _sagacity_ that he had the insight to see that Shakespeare’s disregard of the unities was owing not to ignorance but to intention. Theobald’s note, however, has a suspicious similarity to what Gildon had said in his _Art of Poetry_, 1718, i., p. 99. It is, says Gildon, “plain from his [Shakespeare’s] own words he saw the _absurdities_ of his own conduct. And I must confess that when I find that ... he himself has written one or two plays very near a _regularity_, I am the less apt to pardon his errors that seem of choice, as agreeable to his lazyness and easie gain.”

11 Cf. the _Dunciad_, i. 69-72, where the inducements of satire make him adopt a decided attitude in favour of the dramatic rules.

12 No. 592. The quotation will prove the injustice of De Quincey’s attitude to Addison in his Essay on Shakespeare. De Quincey even makes the strange statement that “by express examination, we ascertained the curious fact that Addison has never in one instance quoted or made any reference to Shakespeare” (_Works_, ed. Masson, iv., p. 24).

13 It must be noted that some of Johnson’s arguments had themselves been anticipated in _Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet_, 1736. The volume is anonymous, but has been ascribed to Sir Thomas Hanmer (see below, p. liii). It examines the play “according to the rules of reason and nature, without having any regard to those rules established by arbitrary dogmatising critics,” and shows “the absurdity of such arbitrary rules” as the unities of time and place. It is a well-written, interesting book, and is greatly superior to the _Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy of Hamlet_, which appeared, likewise anonymously, in 1752.

For references to other works previous to Johnson’s Preface which dispute the authority of the classical rules, see note on p. 126.

14 Johnson’s opinion of Mrs. Montagu’s _Essay_ has been recorded by Boswell (ed. Birkbeck Hill, ii., p. 88). But the book was well received. It went into a fourth edition in 1777, in which year it was translated into French. It is praised by such writers as Beattie and James Harris. Cf. Morgann, p. 270.

15 See Monsieur Jusserand’s _Shakespeare en France_, 1898, and Mr. Lounsbury’s _Shakespeare and Voltaire_, 1902.

16 This book is ascribed in Charles Knight’s untrustworthy _Studies of Shakspere_, Book XI., to William Richardson (1743-1814), Professor of Humanity in the University of Glasgow. Unfortunately the British Museum Catalogue lends some support to this injustice by giving it either to him or to Edward Taylor of Noan, Tipperary. The error is emphasised in the _Dictionary of National Biography_. Though Richardson upholds some of the more rigid classical doctrines, his work is of a much higher order. The book is attributed to Richardson in Watt’s _Bibliotheca Britannica_, 1824, but it had been assigned to Taylor in Isaac Reed’s “List of Detached Pieces of Criticism on Shakespeare,” 1803. From the evidence of the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for 1797 (Vol. 67, Part II., p. 1076) it would appear that the author was Edward Taylor (1741-1797) of Steeple-Aston, Oxfordshire.

17 The only extant Elizabethan translation of the _Menaechmi_, however, is of later date than the _Comedy of Errors_. See note on p. 9.

18 It is to be noted that the three points above mentioned are dealt with at considerable length in Farmer’s _Essay_.

_ 19 Fraser’s Magazine_, Sept., Oct., and Dec., 1837; reprinted in _Miscellanies, Prose and Verse, by William Maginn_, 1885, vol. ii.

20 Recorded in Northcote’s _Memoirs of Sir Joshua Reynolds_, 1813, p. 90. An attempt to reopen the question has recently been made by Mr. Churton Collins in three articles in the _Fortnightly Review_ (April, May, and July, 1903). Mr. Churton Collins believes that Shakespeare had a first-hand knowledge of Ovid, Plautus, Seneca, Horace, Lucretius, Cicero, Terence, and Virgil, and that he was more or less familiar with the Greek dramatists through the medium of the Latin language.

_ 21 Journey from this World to the Next_, ch. viii.

_ 22 The Life of Alexander Pope, Esq._, by W. H. Dilworth, 1759, pp. 83-4. Cf. William Ayre’s _Memoirs of Pope_, 1745 (on which Dilworth’s _Life_ is founded), vol. i., p. 273.

23 It should be noted that Theobald had said that the _second_ Folio “in the generality is esteemed as the best impression of Shakespeare” (_Shakespeare Restored_, p. 70).

24 See the “Life of Johnson” contributed to the eighth edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, and reprinted in the ninth.

25 This had been recognised also by Whalley (_Enquiry_, 1748, p. 17).

26 See the Dedication of the _Revisal of Shakespeare’s Text_.

_ 27 Characteristicks_, 1711, i., p. 275.

28 See Pope’s _Works_, ed. Elwin and Courthope, ix., p. 26.

29 From a letter to Richard West, written apparently in 1742: see _Works_, ed. Gosse, ii., p. 109.

30 Richardson believed that the greatest blemishes in Shakespeare “proceeded from his want of consummate taste.” The same idea had been expressed more forcibly by Hume in his Appendix to the Reign of James I.: “His total ignorance of all theatrical art and conduct, however material a defect, yet, as it affects the spectator rather than the reader, we can more easily excuse than that want of taste which often prevails in his productions, and which gives way only by intervals to the irradiations of genius.” Hugh Blair, whose name is associated with the Edinburgh edition of 1753, had said in his lectures on rhetoric in the University of Edinburgh that Shakespeare was “deficient in just taste, and altogether unassisted by knowledge or art.” And Adam Smith believed so strongly in the French doctrines that Wordsworth could call him “the worst critic, David Hume not excepted, that Scotland, a soil to which this sort of weed seems natural, has produced.” Kames, however, was a Scot.

31 Hazlitt confounds Whately with George Mason, author of _An Essay on Design in Gardening_, 1768. Whately’s book was published as “by the author of _Observations on Modern Gardening_.” His name was given in the second edition, 1808.

J. P. Kemble replied to Whately’s _Remarks_ in _Macbeth re-considered_ (1786; republished in 1817 with the title _Macbeth and King Richard the Third_).

32 Morgann’s kinship with the romantic critics is seen even in so minor a matter as his criticism of Johnson; see p. 248.

33 Essay on “The Person of Shakspearian Criticism,” _Essays and Studies_, 1895, p. 270.

34 I am indebted to Dr. Aldis Wright for procuring for me the details of Warburton’s claims. As a few of the passages were omitted by Theobald in the second edition, the following page references are to the edition of 1733:

(1) P. xix, _This Similitude_, to _Nature and Science_, p. xx. (2) P. xxi, _Servetur ad imum_, to _the more wonder’d at_, p. xxii. (3) P. xxv, _That nice Critick_, to _Truth and Nature_, p. xxvii. (4) P. xxx, _For I shall find_, to _this long agitated Question_, p. xxxii. (p. 76). (5) P. xxxiii, _They are confessedly_, to _Force and Splendor_, p. xxxiv. (p. 77). (6) P. xxxiv, _And how great that Merit_, to _ill Appearance_ (p. 77). (7) P. xxxv, _It seems a moot Point_, to _from the spurious_, p. xxxvi. (p. 78). (8) P. xxxix, _For the late Edition_, to _have wrote so_, p. xl. (p. 81). (9) P. xl, _The Science of Criticism_, to _Editor’s Labour_, p. xli. (pp. 81, 82). (10) P. xlv, _There are Obscurities_, to _antiquated and disused_ (p. 84). (11) P. xlvi, _Wit lying mostly_, to _Variety of his Ideas_, p. xlvii. (pp. 84-86). (12) P. xlviii, _as to Rymer_, to _his best Reflexions_ (p. 86). (13) P. lxii, _If the Latin_, to _Complaints of its Barbarity_ (pp. 89, 90).

The passages which were retained are printed in the present text at the pages indicated above within brackets. Cf. Notes, p. 89.

35 Mr. Lounsbury has said that Hanmer’s authorship of this pamphlet “is so improbable that it may be called impossible. The sentiments expressed in it are not Hanmer’s sentiments” (_Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist_, p. 60). But he has omitted to tell us how he knows what Hanmer’s sentiments are.

_ 36 Ld._ Falkland, _Ld. C. J._ Vaughan, _and Mr._ Selden.

37 Alluding to the Sea-Voyage of _Fletcher_.

38 Much ado about nothing, _Act 2_. _Enter_ Prince, Leonato, Claudio, _and_ Jack Wilson, _instead of_ Balthasar. _And in Act 4._ Cowley, _and_ Kemp, _constantly thro’ a whole Scene_. Edit. Fol. of 1623, and 1632.

_ 39 Such as,_

—My Queen is murder’d! _Ring the little Bell_— —His nose grew as sharp as a pen, and _a table of Greenfield’s_, &c.

40 See his Letters to me.

41 I believe the stage was in possession of some rude outline of _Falstaff_ before the time of _Shakespeare_, under the name of _Sir John Oldcastle_; and I think it probable that this name was retained for a period in _Shakespeare_’s Hen. 4th. but changed to _Falstaff_ before the play was printed. The expression of “_Old Lad of the Castle_,” used by the Prince, does not however decidedly prove this; as it might have been only some known and familiar appellation too carelessly transferred from the old Play.

42 I doubt if _Shakespeare_ had Sir _John Fastolfe_ in his memory when he called the character under consideration _Falstaff_. The title and name of _Sir John_ were transferred from _Oldcastle_ not _Fastolfe_, and there is no kind of similarity in the characters. If he had _Fastolfe_ in his thought at all, it was that, while he approached the name, he might make such a departure from it as the difference of character seemed to require.

43 It would be no difficult matter, I think, to prove that all those Plays taken from the English chronicle, which are ascribed to _Shakespeare_, were on the stage before his time, and that he was employed by the Players only to refit and repair; taking due care to retain the names of the characters and to preserve all those incidents which were the most popular. Some of these Plays, particularly the two parts of Hen. IV., have certainly received what may be called a _thorough repair_; that is, _Shakespeare_ new-wrote them to the old names. In the latter part of Hen. V. some of the old materials remain; and in the Play which I have here censured (Hen. VI.) we see very little of the new. I should conceive it would not be very difficult to feel one’s way thro’ these Plays, and distinguish every where the metal from the clay. Of the two Plays of Hen. IV. there has been, I have admitted, a complete transmutation, preserving the old forms; but in the others, there is often no union or coalescence of parts, nor are any of them equal in merit to those Plays more peculiarly and emphatically _Shakespeare_’s _own_. The reader will be pleased to think that I do not reckon into the works of _Shakespeare_ certain absurd productions which his editors have been so good as to compliment him with. I object, and strenuously too, even to _The Taming of the Shrew_; not that it wants merit, but that it does not bear the peculiar features and stamp of _Shakespeare_.

The rhyming parts of the Historic plays are all, I think, of an older date than the times of _Shakespeare_.—There was a Play, I believe, of _the Acts of King John_, of which the bastard _Falconbridge_ seems to have been the hero and the fool: He appears to have spoken altogether in rhyme. _Shakespeare_ shews him to us in the latter part of the second scene in the first act of _King John_ in this condition; tho’ he afterwards, in the course of the Play, thought fit to adopt him, to give him language and manners, and to make him his own.

44 The reader must be sensible of something in the composition of _Shakespeare_’s characters, which renders them essentially different from those drawn by other writers. The characters of every Drama must indeed be grouped; but in the groupes of other poets the parts which are not seen do not in fact exist. But there is a certain roundness and integrity in the forms of _Shakespeare_, which give them an independence as well as a relation, insomuch that we often meet with passages which, tho’ perfectly felt, cannot be sufficiently explained in words, without unfolding the whole character of the speaker: And this I may be obliged to do in respect to that of _Lancaster_, in order to account for some words spoken by him in censure of _Falstaff_.—Something which may be thought too heavy for the _text_, I shall add _here_, as a conjecture concerning the composition of _Shakespeare_’s characters: Not that they were the effect, I believe, so much of a minute and laborious attention, as of a certain comprehensive energy of mind, involving within itself all the effects of system and of labour.

Bodies of all kinds, whether of metals, plants, or animals, are supposed to possess certain first principles of _being_, and to have an existence independent of the accidents which form their magnitude or growth: Those accidents are supposed to be drawn in from the surrounding elements, but not indiscriminately; each plant and each animal imbibes those things only which are proper to its own distinct nature, and which have besides such a secret relation to each other as to be capable of forming a perfect union and coalescence: But so variously are the surrounding elements mingled and disposed, that each particular body, even of those under the same species, has yet some _peculiar_ of its own. _Shakespeare_ appears to have considered the being and growth of the human mind as analogous to this system: There are certain qualities and capacities which he seems to have considered as first principles; the chief of which are certain energies of courage and activity, according to their degrees; together with different degrees and sorts of sensibilities, and a capacity, varying likewise in _degree_, of discernment and intelligence. The rest of the composition is drawn in from an atmosphere of surrounding things; that is, from the various influences of the different laws, religions and governments in the world; and from those of the different ranks and inequalities in society; and from the different professions of men, encouraging or repressing passions of particular sorts, and inducing different modes of thinking and habits of life; and he seems to have known intuitively what those influences in particular were which this or that original constitution would most freely imbibe and which would most easily associate and coalesce. But all these things being, in different situations, very differently disposed, and those differences exactly discerned by him, he found no difficulty in marking every individual, even among characters of the same sort, with something peculiar and distinct.—Climate and complexion demand their influence; “_Be thus when thou art dead, and I will kill thee, and love thee after_,” is a sentiment characteristic of, and fit only to be uttered by a _Moor_.

But it was not enough for _Shakespeare_ to have formed his characters with the most perfect truth and coherence; it was further necessary that he should possess a wonderful facility of compressing, as it were, his own spirit into these images, and of giving alternate animation to the forms. This was not to be done _from without_; he must have _felt_ every varied situation, and have spoken thro’ the organ he had formed. Such an intuitive comprehension of things and such a facility must unite to produce a _Shakespeare_. The reader will not now be surprised if I affirm that those characters in _Shakespeare_, which are seen only in part, are yet capable of being unfolded and understood in the whole; every part being in fact relative, and inferring all the rest. It is true that the point of action or sentiment, which we are most concerned in, is always held out for our special notice. But who does not perceive that there is a peculiarity about it, which conveys a relish of the whole? And very frequently, when no particular point presses, he boldly makes a character act and speak from those parts of the composition which are _inferred_ only, and not distinctly shewn. This produces a wonderful effect; it seems to carry us beyond the poet to nature itself, and gives an integrity and truth to facts and character, which they could not otherwise obtain: And this is in reality that art in _Shakespeare_ which, being withdrawn from our notice, we more emphatically call _nature_. A felt propriety and truth from causes unseen, I take to be the highest point of Poetic composition. If the characters of _Shakespeare_ are thus _whole_, and as it were original, while those of almost all other writers are mere imitation, it may be fit to consider them rather as Historic than Dramatic beings; and, when occasion requires, to account for their conduct from the _whole_ of character, from general principles, from latent motives, and from policies not avowed.

45 These observations have brought me so near to the regions of Poetic _magic_ (using the word here in its strict and proper sense, and not loosely as in the _text_), that, tho’ they lie not directly in my course, I yet may be allowed in this place to point the reader that way. A felt propriety, or truth of art, from an unseen, tho’ supposed adequate cause, we call _nature_. A like feeling of propriety and truth, supposed without a cause, or as seeming to be derived from causes inadequate, fantastic, and absurd,—such as wands, circles, incantations, and so forth,—we call by the general name _magic_, including all the train of superstition, witches, ghosts, fairies, and the rest.—_Reason_ is confined to the line of visible existence; our _passions_ and our _fancy_ extend far beyond into the _obscure_; but however lawless their operations may seem, the images they so wildly form have yet a relation to truth, and are the shadows at least, however fantastic, of _reality_. I am not investigating but passing this subject, and must therefore leave behind me much curious speculation. Of Personifications however we should observe that those which are made out of abstract ideas are the creatures of the Understanding only: Thus, of the mixed modes, virtue, beauty, wisdom and others,—what are they but very obscure ideas of _qualities_ considered as abstracted from any _subject_ whatever? The mind cannot steadily contemplate such an abstraction: What then does it do?—Invent or imagine a subject in order to support these qualities; and hence we get the Nymphs or Goddesses of virtue, of beauty, or of wisdom; the very obscurity of the ideas being the cause of their conversion into sensible objects, with precision both of feature and of form. But as reason has its personifications, so has _passion_.—Every passion has its Object, tho’ often distant and obscure;—to be brought nearer then, and rendered more distinct, it is personified; and Fancy fantastically decks, or aggravates the _form_, and adds “a local habitation and a name.”

But passion is the _dupe_ of its own artifice and _realises_ the image it had formed. The Grecian theology was mixed of both these kinds of personification. Of the images produced by passion it must be observed that they are the images, for the most part, not of the passions themselves, but of their remote effects. _Guilt_ looks through the medium, and beholds a devil; _fear_, spectres of every sort; _hope_, a smiling cherub; _malice_ and _envy_ see hags, and witches, and inchanters dire; whilst the innocent and the young behold with fearful delight the tripping fairy, whose shadowy form the moon gilds with its softest beams.—Extravagant as all this appears, it has its laws so precise that we are sensible both of a local and temporary and of an universal magic; the first derived from the general nature of the human mind, influenced by particular habits, institutions, and climate; and the latter from the same general nature abstracted from those considerations: Of the first sort the _machinery_ in _Macbeth_ is a very striking instance; a machinery, which, however exquisite at the time, has already lost more than half its force; and the Gallery now laughs in some places where it ought to shudder:—But the magic of the _Tempest_ is lasting and universal.

There is besides a species of writing for which we have no term of art, and which holds a middle place between nature and magic; I mean where fancy either alone, or mingled with reason, or reason assuming the appearance of fancy, governs some real existence; but the whole of this art is pourtrayed in a single Play; in the real madness of _Lear_, in the assumed wildness of _Edgar_, and in the Professional _Fantasque_ of the _Fool_, all operating to contrast and heighten each other. There is yet another feat in this kind, which _Shakespeare_ has performed;—he has personified _malice_ in his _Caliban_; a character kneaded up of three distinct natures, the diabolical, the human, and the brute. The rest of his preternatural beings are images of _effects_ only, and cannot subsist but in a surrounding atmosphere of those passions from which they are derived. _Caliban_ is the passion itself, or rather a compound of malice, servility, and lust, _substantiated_; and therefore best shewn in contrast with the lightness of _Ariel_ and the innocence of _Miranda_.—_Witches_ are sometimes substantial existences, supposed to be possessed by, or allyed to the unsubstantial: but the Witches in _Macbeth_ are a gross sort of shadows, “bubbles of the earth,” as they are finely called by _Banquo_.—_Ghosts_ differ from other imaginery beings in this, that they belong to no element, have no specific nature or character, and are effects, however harsh the expression, supposed without a cause; the reason of which is that they are not the creation of the poet, but the servile copies or transcripts of popular imagination, connected with supposed reality and religion. Should the poet assign the true cause, and call them the mere painting or _coinage of the brain_, he would disappoint his own end, and destroy the being he had raised. Should he assign fictitious causes, and add a specific nature, and a local habitation, it would not be endured; or the effect would be lost by the conversion of one being into another. The approach to reality in this case defeats all the arts and managements of fiction.—The whole play of the _Tempest_ is of so high and superior a nature that _Dryden_, who had attempted to imitate in vain, might well exclaim that

“——_Shakespeare_’s _magic_ could not copied be, Within that circle none durst walk but He.”

46 Ænobarbus, in Anthony and Cleopatra, is in effect the Chorus of the Play; as Menenius Agrippa is of Coriolanus.

47 The censure commonly passed on _Shakespeare’s puns_, is, I think, not well founded. I remember but very few, which are undoubtedly his, that may not be justifyed; and if _so_, a greater instance cannot be given of the art which he so peculiarly possessed of converting base things into excellence.

“For if the Jew doth cut but deep enough, I’ll pay the forfeiture _with all my heart_.”

A play upon words is the most that can be expected from one who affects gaiety under the pressure of severe misfortunes; but so imperfect, so broken a gleam, can only serve more plainly to disclose the gloom and darkness of the mind; it is an effort of fortitude, which, failing in its operation, becomes the truest, because the most unaffected _pathos_; and a skilful actor, well managing his tone and action, might with this miserable pun steep a whole audience suddenly in tears.