Part 1

THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

GERARD LANGBAINE

Momus Triumphans:

OR,

THE PLAGIARIES OF THE ENGLISH STAGE

(1688 [1687])

_Introduction by_ DAVID STUART RODES

PUBLICATION NUMBER 150

WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

1971

GENERAL EDITORS

William E. Conway, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_ George Robert Guffey, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Maximillian E. Novak, _University of California, Los Angeles_

ASSOCIATE EDITOR

David S. Rodes, _University of California, Los Angeles_

ADVISORY EDITORS

Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_ James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_ Ralph Cohen, _University of Virginia_ Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_ Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_ Earl Miner, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_ Everett T. Moore, _University of California, Los Angeles_ Lawrence Clark Powell, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_ James Sutherland, _University College, London_ H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., _University of California, Los Angeles_ Robert Vosper, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_ Curt A. Zimansky, _State University of Iowa_

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

Edna C. Davis, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Jean T. Shebanek, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_

INTRODUCTION

Gerard Langbaine's _Momus Triumphans, Or the Plagiaries of the English Stage_ (1687) is significant for a number of reasons. It is, first of all, the most comprehensive catalogue of the English theatre to its time, a list of surprising bibliographical competence and extent for its subject and period and a source study which is still of some use today. Secondly, it serves as the strong and carefully articulated skeleton for Langbaine's elaborately expanded _Account of the English Dramatick Poets_ published some three years later in 1691, and itself a catalogue which remains "a major work of literary scholarship that is immune from obsolescence."[1] Thirdly, and more privately, _Momus_ stands as both a partial record and efficient cause of a quarrel whose claim to our attention is its connection with Dryden. It is a quarrel minor in itself and of which few details are known. Indeed, to call it a quarrel at all is to give a corporeality to Langbaine's adversaries which facts will not directly support, but Langbaine's prejudices against Dryden in _Momus_ and their resulting intensification in the _Account_ suggest a matrix of literature, alliances of taste, politics and religion interestingly characteristic of late seventeenth-century England.

_Momus Triumphans_ is based on four prior literary catalogues:[2]

[Francis Kirkman,] _A True, perfect and exact Catalogue of all the Comedies, Tragedies, Tragi-Comedies, Pastorals, Masques and Interludes, that were ever yet Printed and Published, till this present year 1671_ (London, 1671);

Edward Phillips, _Theatrum Poetarum, Or A Compleat Collection of the Poets, Especially The most-Eminent, of all Ages_ (London, 1675);

[Gerard Langbaine,] _An Exact Catalogue of All All the Comedies, Tragedies, Tragi-Comedies, Operas, Masks, Pastorals, and Interludes That were ever yet Printed and Published, till this present year 1680_ (Oxford, 1680); and William Winstanley, _The Lives Of the most Famous English Poets, Or The Honour of Parnassus_ (London, 1687).

In his Preface to _Momus_ Langbaine acknowledges his indebtedness to these four earlier lists and asserts "_the general Use of_ Catalogues, _and the esteem they are in at present_" (A2r). But he argues that a new catalogue is needed because the former ones are out of print, "_they were all of them full of gross Errours_," and they are not "_so Methodical as this which I have now made_." Further, he proposes to add "_all the Plays which have been Printed since 1680_" ([A2v]).

The catalogues of Phillips and Winstanley are, as their titles state, not primarily play lists, and their importance to a discussion of dramatic bibliographies resides solely in the use made of them by Langbaine. Two hundred and fifty-two British poets are named in Phillips' _Theatrum Poetarum_. Of these some one hundred and sixty-nine were authors of plays. The titlepage of Winstanley's _Lives_ advertises an account "of above Two Hundred" poets, but "147 are actually listed in the catalogue, and only 168 are noted throughout."[3] Four hundred and sixty-seven plays by sixty authors are included. From Phillips' collection Winstanley omits the thirty-three Scottish poets and sixty-eight English poets. William Riley Parker believes that most of Winstanley's omissions were deliberate and that his "endeavor, unlike Phillips', was to give a chronological survey of English poetry from Robert of Gloucester down to Sir Roger L'Estrange."[4] Parker defines the differing contributions of the two men in the following manner:

Phillips is more the bibliographer and cataloguer, collecting names and titles; Winstanley is the amateur literary historian, seeking out the verse itself, arranging it in chronological order, and trying to pass judgment upon it.[5]

As a bibliographer Phillips was exceedingly inaccurate and "the _Theatrum_ was a hasty, careless piece of hack work," whose convenience was seriously damaged by a poor organization which alphabetizes the poets in four sections by their first names, with no last name index. His source materials were of the easiest and most superficial kind.[6] Both Phillips and Winstanley misunderstood Kirkman's method of listing anonymous plays and this, as Langbaine notes in the Preface to _Momus_, led "_both these charitable kind Gentlemen_" to find "_Fathers for them, by ranking each under the Authors Name that preceded them in the former Catalogues_"([A3r]).[7]

Although he acknowledged all three men in his Preface and mentions them each about thirty times in the _Account_, it was Kirkman who was most admired by Langbaine and of most use to him. Kirkman's _Catalogue_ of 1671, "_the_ first ... _printed of any worth_," was the principal source of _Momus_, and it, in turn, was based on a catalogue which Kirkman made and published ten years previously.[8] The format of Kirkman's 1671 catalogue followed the general format of his earlier catalogue and of several earlier play lists[9] by arranging the plays alphabetically by title and with some haphazard attempt at chronological order as well, but, as Langbaine described it, "promiscuously _as to those of_ Authors" except for "Shakespeare, Fletcher, Johnson, _and some others of the most voluminous Authors_," whose works were inserted in first place ([A3r]). The catalogue listed eight hundred and eight plays, and its principal orientation was most likely not scholarly but commercial, to list the books which Kirkman had for sale.[10] Nevertheless, Kirkman argued for the completeness of the second catalogue:

I really believe there are no more [plays], for I have been these twenty years a Collector of them, and have conversed with, and enquired of those that have been Collecting these fifty years. These, I can assure you, are all in Print, for I have seen them all within ten, and now have them all by me within thirty.[11]

Langbaine's first catalogue, _An Exact Account_, was published anonymously and his authorship of this work has been questioned.[12] But he refers to it as his own at least three times (on pages 13, 395 and 409[13]) in the _Account_. Basically, in _An Exact Account_ Langbaine "_Reprinted_ Kirkman's [catalogue] _with emendations, but in the same Form_" ([A3r]), with an added alphabetical list giving authors publishing from 1675 to 1680. As James Osborn has shown, Langbaine perpetuated most of Kirkman's errors, even where Dryden was concerned, still mistakenly attributing to him _Love in a Wood_ and to his brother-in-law, Sir Robert Howard, _The Maiden Queen_ and _Sir Martin Mar-All_.[14]

_An Exact Catalogue_, in turn, formed the basis for _Momus_.[15] It has been suggested that Langbaine worked for Kirkman and came into possession of his collection, but the small evidence in _Momus_ is to the contrary: Langbaine lists Kirkman's own play _Presbyterian Lash_ as anonymous, and in the play index he enters _The Wits_ (1672), a collection of drolls Kirkman claimed to have compiled, as "By Sir W. D." and then omits it from the main lists. In the _Account_, _Wits_ is assigned anonymously.

At the time of _An Exact Catalogue_ it can only be assumed that Langbaine's attitude toward Dryden was similar to Kirkman's:

And although I dare not be absolute in my Opinion, who is the best of this Age, yet I should be very disingenuous if I should not conclude that the _English_ Stage is much improved and adorned with the several Writings of several persons of Honour; but, in my Opinion chiefly with those of the most accomplished Mr. _John Dryden_.[16]

For _Momus_ Langbaine did adopt many opinions and much information from the earlier catalogues. In the seven years between his first and second catalogues, however, he began to deal more carefully with bibliographical matters, especially in his attributions to Dryden, and he found a new format which would allow him to present his later catalogues in a more accurate, useful and stimulating manner.

* * * * *

_Momus Triumphans_ was published in November, 1687 (although its titlepage is dated 1688), under two different imprints: the one reproduced here and another "Printed for N. C. and to be Sold by _Sam. Holford_, at the Crown in the _Pall-Mall_. 1688." In both issues there is a major press variant on page 7 under Dryden in which "[148] Maximin--T. 4o" is deleted and the note correctly rekeyed to "Tyrannick Love, or Royal Martyr" in the right-hand column. Where this variant occurs both title and note for "[149]Mistaken Husband--C. 4o" are moved from the top of the right-hand column to the bottom of the left-hand column.

In addition to its Preface, _Momus_ is divided into four sections: (1) Authors arranged alphabetically according to surnames, together with their plays, including the genre and format of each (pp. 1-26); (2) "_Supposed_ AUTHOURS" listed by initials with their plays, genre and format (pp. 27-28); (3) "_Unknown_ AUTHOURS" with plays divided alphabetically into groups by first initial of their titles (pp. 29-32); and (4) an Index of plays arranged alphabetically [pp. 33-40]. The alphabetizing is not exact, but the careful and efficient organization by format (with its handy, easily usable cross index)[17] is one of Langbaine's chief contributions to modern catalogue making. Furthermore, the format established in _Momus_ not only supports the enormous expansion which Langbaine himself makes in the _Account_, but it (in tandem with his marked prejudices) encouraged the copious annotations of later commentators. In other words, Langbaine discovered the form which was not only most useful to his contemporaries, but one which was to make him, in Osborn's phrase, "the chief tool of compilers for more than two generations."[18]

In _Momus_ Langbaine has entries for two hundred and thirty-two authors, of whom twenty-six have "_discover_[ed] _themselves but by halves_" ([A3v]) and are listed only by initials. Langbaine claims to "_have been Master of above_ Nine Hundred _and_ Fourscore _English_ Plays _and_ Masques, _besides_ Drolls _and_ Interludes" (A2r), and _Momus_ lists approximately one thousand and forty plays, though the number may actually be slightly higher since a few of these entries represent collections ("Terence's plays," for example) and in footnotes many foreign plays are given as sources for the English ones. Of the total, thirty-five are given to supposed authors and one hundred and sixty-nine are listed alphabetically by title since their authors are unknown to Langbaine even by initial. Although the _Account_ represents a five-hundred page expansion (but in octavo), the enlargement is accomplished within the basic arrangement and largely with the lists of authors and plays established in _Momus_. Langbaine adds only ten new authors,[19] while he deletes two,[20] and adds about fifty-one new plays, while omitting three.[21] The expansion takes the form, mainly, of added biographical, critical and source material, including discussions of classical authors and of non-dramatic works. The corrections take the form of deletion and reassignment, change of dates and format, and, most interestingly, change of genre designation. There are over one hundred and fifteen genre changes, of which at least three-quarters involve tragi-comedy, and of these nearly one half (about forty) represent a shift in description from comedy to tragi-comedy. These changes suggest that Langbaine was reading or re-reading the plays carefully between the end of 1687 and 1691 and perhaps the critical commentary on genre by the Caroline dramatists as well since many of the conversions occur in describing the works of Beaumont and Fletcher, Massinger, and Shirley. For bibliographical detail _Momus_ is not entirely superseded by the _Account_ since over sixteen descriptions of format[22] and thirty of genre are not incorporated in the later catalogue. Furthermore, about thirty-eight plays are given sources in _Momus_ which are not carried over into the _Account_. A large number of the source references in _Momus_, especially those not transferred to the _Account_, are general in nature, to national histories or to the compilations of Eusebius and Heylin.

* * * * *

In addition to a history of previous catalogues, his abhorrence of plagiarism and his attack on Dryden, the Preface contains statements of Langbaine's own literary interests and critical principles. He had an obvious "_relish of the_ Dramma" (A2r) which probably dated from the time he was "bound an Apprentice to a Bookseller called Nevil Simmons living in S. _Paul's_ Church Yard in _London_." This time spent in London, from about 1667 to 1672 was probably his greatest period of play-going.[23] His orientation, however, is not toward the performed play. He sees drama as essentially the history of the printed work and, unlike John Downes in _Roscius Anglicanus_ (1708), he approaches the appreciation of plays through criticism ([a3v]). Like his father, the sometime provost of Queen's College, Oxford, who left behind him "rhapsodies of collections,"[24] he was an antiquarian and bibliographer. He had the bibliographer's delight in the difficulty of the search ([A3v]) and his pleasure in ordering. _Momus_ is designed for those readers who "_may possibly be desirous, either to make a Collection, or at least have the curiosity to know in_ general, _what has been Publish't in our Language, as likewise to receive some Remarks on the Writings of_ particular _Men_" (A2r-[A2v]). As this statement suggests, his general literary principles are neo-classically sound and standard: "it being nobler to contemplate the general History of Nature, than a selected Diary of Fortune" ([A4v]), as is his unprejudiced attitude toward borrowings and the need for models. For Langbaine the end of literature is moral, "Decency _and_ Probability" ([A4v]), and there is a sense of balanced fairness which extends even to Dryden:

Mr. _Dryden_ has many excellencies which far out-weigh his Faults; he is an excellent _Critick_, and a good _Poet_, his stile is smooth and fluent, and he has written well, both in Verse and Prose. I own that I admire him, as much as any man ... ([a2v], italics reversed).

But, in the case of Dryden, the fairness is much a matter of strategy and the balance is partly stylistic. Langbaine's praise has the perfunctory quality of "Well, now that's out of the way," and, characteristically, the praise is followed closely by an intensely felt "but" clause which excoriates Dryden for his immodesty in debate and his misuses of literature. Langbaine's language is often that of theology, the "right Path to solid Glory" ([a2v-a3r]), and he intends to show that many authors (and especially Dryden) "_have fallen into very great Errours_" ([A3r]).

Langbaine's animadversions on "_crafty Booksellers_" ([A4r]) as well as his attacks on Dryden may have caused an embarrassing bibliographical trick to be played on him. Wood reports that _Momus_ was published in November, 1687, and five hundred copies sold before Langbaine "caused another title to be put to the rest of the copies (with an advertisement against the first)."[25] This new titlepage, added early in December, reads as follows:

A New Catalogue of English Plays, Containing All The Comedies, Tragedies, Tragi-Comedies, Operas, Masques, Pastorals, Interludes, Farces, &c. Both Ancient and Modern, that have ever yet been Printed, to this present Year, 1688. To which, are Added, The Volumes, and best Editions; with divers Remarks, of the Originals of most Plays; and the Plagiaries of several Authors. By Gerard Langbaine, Gent.... London, Printed for Nicholas Cox, and are to be Sold by him in Oxford MDCLXXXVIII.

Langbaine's reaction to the trick is contained in the Advertisement in which he compares this incident to one played on Oldham and decries "the Heathenish Name of _Momus Triumphans_."

I wish I knew my obliging Gossips who nam'd it, that I might thank them, as they deserv'd, for their signal Kindness. I have endeavour'd to be inform'd, who these Friends were, from my Bookseller; but he pleads _Ignoramus_.... Thus not being able to trace it further, and which is worse, _Five Hundred_ Copies being got into _Hucksters Hands_, past my recovery, I am forc'd to sit down with _Patience_, and must depend upon _this Apology_, that my _Friends_ may not think me _Lunatic_ (as they might with reason, were this Title my own) and my _Enemies_ have occasion to say, this just Revenge was inflicted on me by _Apollo_, for abusing his Sons, the Poets. But _whoever_ the _Author_ was, I dare swear, he thought, he had infinitely obliged me, in _dubbing_ me a _Squire_: a Title, no more my due, than _that_ of _Doctor_, is to a _Mountebank_; and which, I receive with the _same_ Kindness, as a _Crooked_ man would _that_ of _My Lord_.[26]

Macdonald believes this account is fictive and that Langbaine invented the story to cover an initial immodesty,[27] but Langbaine's style has nothing of the biting playfulness of tone of the spurious title. He is often righteous and sarcastic, but he is not given to direct immodesty or to the burlesque, and _he_ does not consider plagiarism his principal subject. Further, there is evidence in the Preface ([A3r]) that "New _Catalogue_" was at least his working title.

Nevertheless, the false title page is a clever and perceptive joke on Langbaine's classical bias and on his fixation with plagiary. His predecessor Kirkman has given an apt contemporary definition of a _momus_:

As for such, as either rashly condemn without judgment, or lavishly dislike without advice: I esteem them like feathers, soone disperst with every blast, accounting their discontent my content, not caring to please every _Momus_.[28]

If Langbaine was such a _momus_, he certainly dipped his feather into ink, "the common Remedy" against attack (the Advertisement), giving the lie to his enemies the Poets.

The third point of attack, that concerning the title of _esquire_, was perhaps intended as an insult to the humble origins of Langbaine's distinguished father and is certainly appropriate satire on a man so concerned with borrowing and on one who had left the university profligately to become "idle" and "a great jockey."[29] Langbaine was entitled to style himself a gentleman[30] as he does in _A New Catalogue_ (but not in the _Account_); ironically, Langbaine came to the address of esquire by his elections in 1690 and 1691 as inferior and then superior beadle of arts of Oxford University "in consideration of his ingenuity and loss of part of his estate."[31]

Langbaine's reactions to the trick served to intensify his source studies (though this was already promised in the Preface) and to increase his attention and antagonism to Dryden. Moreover, in the _Account_ he added titles very carefully, including that of esquire to Dryden himself. This particular response to his satirists reaches its most amusing dimension with the preciseness of the unknown author listing of "R. A. _Gent_." (_Account_, p. 516).

It is probably impossible ever to know if Dryden was involved in the trick played on Langbaine, and it is hard to imagine that Langbaine's criticisms would have engaged even so ardent a controversialist as Dryden, but whether the emotion is in any way mutual or not, Dryden is at the center of Langbaine's thoughts:

Thus our _Laureat_ himself runs down the _French_ Wit in his _Marriage a la Mode_, and steals from _Molliere_ in his _Mock Astrologer_; and which makes it more observable, at the same time he does so, pretends in his _Epistle_ to justifie himself from the imputation of Theft ... [and] I cannot but blame him for taxing others with stealing Characters from him, (as he does _Settle_ in his _Notes on Morocco_) when he himself does _the same_, almost in all the Plays he writes; and for arraigning his Predecessours for stealing from the _Ancients_, as he does _Johnson_; which tis evident that he himself is guilty of the same (Preface, a2r-[a2v], italics reversed).