William Shakespeare

The Critical Heritage Volume 2 1693-1733

Brian Vickers

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780415134057
• eBook ISBN: 9781134783618
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

The Critical Heritage gathers together a large body of critical sources on major figures in literature. Each volume presents contemporary responses to a writer's work, enabling students and researchers to read for themselves, for example, comments on early performances of Shakespeare's plays, or reactions to the first publication of Jane Austen's novels. The carefully selected sources range from landmark essays in the history of criticism to journalism and contemporary opinion, and little published documentary material such as letters and diaries. Significant pieces of criticism from later periods are also included, in order to demonstrate the fluctuations in an author's reputation. Each volume contains an introduction to the writer's published works, a selected bibliography, and an index of works, authors and subjects. The Collected Critical Heritage set will be available as a set of 68 volumes and the series will also be available in mini sets selected by period (in slipcase boxes) and as individual volumes.

82. Lewis Theobald, edition of Shakespeare

1733

---

From The Works of Shakespeare, Collated with the Oldest Copies,and Corrected, with Notes,Explanatory and Critical,7 vols (1733). On the allocation of parts of the text to Warburton see the Introduction above, p. 18.

---

THEOBALD : THE Attempt to write upon SHAKESPEARE is like going into a large, a spacious, and a splendid Dome thro’ the Conveyance of a narrow and obscure Entry. A Glare of Light suddenly breaks upon you beyond what the Avenue at first promis’d, and a thousand Beauties of Genius and Character, like so many gaudy Apartments pouring at once upon the Eye, diffuse and throw themselves out to the Mind. The Prospect is too wide to come within the Compass of a single View:’tis a gay Confusion of pleasing Objects, too various to be enjoyed but in a general Admiration; and they must be separated and ey’d distinctly in order to give the proper Entertainment.

And, as in great Piles of Building, some Parts are often finish’d up to hit the Taste of the Connoisseur; others more negligently put together, to strike the Fancy of a common and unlearned Beholder; some Parts are made stupendiously magnificent and grand, to surprize with the vast Design and Execution of the Architect; others are contracted, to amuse you with his Neatness and Elegance in little; so, in Shakespeare,we may find Traits that will stand the Test of the severest Judgment; and Strokes as carelessly hit off, to the Level of the more ordinary Capacities; some Descriptions rais’d to that Pitch of Grandeur, as to astonish you with the Compass and Elevation of his Thought: and others copying Nature within so narrow, so confined a Circle, as if the Author’s Talent lay only at drawing in Miniature.

In how many points of Light must we be obliged to gaze at this great Poet ! In how many Branches of Excellence to consider, and admire him! Whether we view him on the Side of Art or Nature he ought equally to engage our Attention. Whether we respect the Force and Greatness of his Genius, the Extent of his Knowledge and Reading, the Power and Address with which he throws out and applies either Nature, or Learning, there is ample scope both for our Wonder and Pleasure. If his Diction, and the cloathing of his Thoughts attract us, how much more must we be charm’d with the Richness, and Variety, of his Images and Ideas ! If his Images and Ideas steal into our Souls, and strike upon our Fancy, how much are they improv’d in Price, when we come to reflect with what Propriety and Justness they are apply’d to Character ! If we look into his Characters, and how they are furnish’d and proportion’d to the Employment he cuts out for them, how are we taken up with the Mastery of his Portraits ! What Draughts of Nature ! What Variety of Originals, and how differing each from the other ! How are they dress’d from the Stores of his own luxurious Imagination; without being the Apes of Mode, or borrowing from any foreign Wardrobe ! Each of Them are the Standards of Fashion for themselves: like Gentlemen that are above the Direction of their Tailors, and can adorn themselves without the Aid of Imitation. If other Poets draw more than one Fool or Coxcomb, there is the same Resemblance in them, as in that Painter’s Draughts, who was happy only at forming a Rose: you find them all younger Brothers of the same Family, and all of them have a Pretence to give the same Crest. But Shakespeare’s Clowns and Fops come all of a different House: they are no farther allied to one another than as Man to Man, Members of the same Species: but as different in Features and Lineaments of Character, as we are from one another in Face, or Complexion. (I, i-iii).

No Age, perhaps, can produce an Author more various from himself, than Shakespeare has been universally acknowledg’d to be. The Diversity in Stile, and other Parts of Composition, so obvious in him, is as variously to be accounted for. His Education, we find, was at best but begun, and he started early into a Science from the Force of Genius, unequally assisted by acquir’d Improvements. His Fire, Spirit, and Exuberance of Imagination gave an impetuosity to his Pen; his Ideas flow’d from him in a stream rapid, but not turbulent, copious, but not ever over-bearing its Shores. The Ease and Sweetness of his Temper might not a little contribute to his Facility in Writing, as his Employment as a Player gave him an Advantage and Habit of fancying himself the very Character he meant to delineate. He used the Helps of his Function in forming himself to create and express that Sublime which other Actors can only copy and throw out in Action and graceful Attitude. But Nullum sine Venia placuit Ingenium,says Seneca.¹ The Genius that gives us the greatest Pleasure sometimes stands in Need of our Indulgence. Whenever this happens with regard to Shakespeare I would willingly impute it to a Vice of his Times. We see Complaisance enough, in our Days, paid to a bad Taste,so that his Clinches, false Wit,and descending beneath himself may have proceeded from a Deference paid to the then reigning Barbarism. He was a Sampson in Strength, but he suffer’d some such Dalilah to give him up to the Philistines.

As I have mention’d the Sweetness of his Disposition, I am tempted to make a Reflexion or two on a Sentiment of his which, I am persuaded, came from the Heart.

[Merchant of Venice,5.1.83 ff]

Shakespeare was all Openness, Candour, and Complacence; and had such a Share of Harmony in his Frame and Temperature, that we have no Reason to doubt, from a Number of fine Passages, Allusions, Similies, &c. fetch’d from Musick,but that He was a passionate Lover of it…. (I, xv-xvii)

It has been remark’d in the Course of my Notes that Musick in our Author’s time had a very different Use from what it has now. At this Time it is only employ’d to raise and inflame the Passions; it then was apply’d to calm and allay all kinds of Perturbations. And, agreeable to this Observation, throughout all Shakespeare’s Plays, where Musick is either actually used or its Powers describ’d it is chiefly said to be for these Ends. His Twelfth Night,particularly, begins with a fine Reflexion that admirably marks ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• The Critical Heritage Series
• Full Title
• Copyright
• For Pat Rogers
• General EDitor's Preface
• Contents
• PREFACE
• INTRODUCTION
• NOTE ON THE TEXT
• 29 THOMAS RYMER, from A Short View of Tragedy, 1693
• 30 JOHN DENNIS on Rymer, 1693
• 31 JOHN DRYDEN on Rymer, 1693
• 32 CHARLES GILDON on Rymer, 1694
• 33 JOHN DRYDEN on Rymer, March 1694
• 34 JEREMY COLLiER, from A Short View of the Immorality, and ProJaneness of the English Stage, 1698
• 35 Unsigned work, Shakespeare defended from Collier, 1698
• 36 JOHN DENNIS, Shakespeare defended, 1698
• 37 JAMES DRAKE, Shakespeare defended, 1699
• 38 COLLEY CIBBER, from his adaptation of Richard III, 1700
• 39 SAMUEL COBB, Shakespeare's artless tragedies, 1700
• 40 CHARLES GILDON, from his adaptation of Measure Jor Measure, 1700
• 41 JOHN OLDMIXON on the mangling of Shakespeare's plays, 1700
• 42 JOHN DENNIS on Shakespeare's morals, 1701
• 43 GEORGE GRANVILLE, from his adaptation of The Merchant of Venice, 1701
• 44 JOHN DENNIS, from his adaptation of The Merry Wives of Windsor, 1702
• 45 GEORGE FARQUHAR on the Three Unities, 1702
• 46 JOHN DOWNES, Shakespeare on the Restoration stage, 1708
• 47 NICHOLAS ROWE, Shakespeare's life and works, 1709
• 48 SIR RICHARD STEELE, from the Tatler, 1709-10
• 49 HENRY FELTON on Shakespeare's genius, 1709
• 50 CHARLES GILDON, Shakespeare's life and works, 1710
• 51 THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY on Shakespeare, 1710
• 52 ELIjAH FENTON on Shakespeare, January 1711
• 53 JOSEPH TItAPP, Shakespeare and English drama, c. 1712
• 54 SIR RICHARD STEELE on Shakespeare, 1711
• 55 JOSEPH ADDISON on Shakespeare, 1711-14
• 56 JOHN DENNIS on Shakespeare's genius and morality, 1711
• 57 LEONARD WELSTED, Longinus illustrated from Shakespeare, 1712
• 58 JOHN HUGHES on Othello, April 1713
• 59 LEWIS THEOBALD on King Lear, Othello and Julius Caesar, 1715-17
• 60 THOMAS KILLIGREW the younger, suggestions for adapting Julius Caesar, c. 1715
• 61 THOMAS PURNEY, Shakespeare and francophilia, 1717
• 62 CHARLES GILDON, Shakespeare and the Rules, 1718
• 63 GEORGE SEWELL on the mangling of Shakespeare's plays, 1719
• 64 JOHN DENNIS, from his adaptation of Coriolanus, 1719
• 65 JOHN DENNIS, letters on Shakespeare, 1719
• 66 LEWIS THEOBALD, from his adaptation of Richard II, 1719
• 67 JOHN DENNIS, Shakespeare and the Rules, 1720
• 68 CHARLES GILDON on Shakespeare's faults, 1721
• 69 AARON HILL, from his adaptation of Henry V, 1723
• 70 THE DUKE OF WHARTON, in praise of Hill's Henry V, December 1723
• 71 ALEXANDER POPE, edition of Shakespeare, 1725
• 72 GEORGE SEWELL on Shakespeare's poems, 1725
• 73 RICHARD SAVAGE on The Rape of Lucrece, May 1725
• 74 LEWIS THEOBALD, from Shakespeare Restored, 1726
• 75 NICHOLAS AMHURST(?) on Cardinal Wolsey, November 1727
• 76 GEORGE ADAMS, Shakespeare and tragedy, 1729
• 77 Unsigned essay, Shakespeare and the actors defended, 1729
• 78 LEWIS THEOBALD on editing Shakespeare, 1729-30
• 79 THOMAS COOKE on the morality of Tate's King Lear, 1731
• 80 WILLIAM LEVIN on the decline in theatrical taste, 1731
• 81 LEWIS THEOBALD, 'On the Text of Shakespeare's Poems', 1732
• 82 LEWIS THEOBALD, edition of Shakespeare, 1733
• 83 WILLIAM WARBURTON, notes on Shakespeare, 1733
• A SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
• INDEX