LEWIS THEOBALD.* Tux story of Lewis Theobald is one of

the most curious in our literary annals, and lends point to many old saws and sayings-

Mediocribus esse poetic K. 7. those who are not witty are the cause of wit in others ; the hardest thing in poverty is that it exposes men to ridicule—tliese and many more readily recur to the mind. Above all, he remains as perhaps the most conspicu- ous example of the abiding force of malevolent satire, the chief victim of a hostility which doomed him to an unenviable immor- tality, and was in the last resort inspired by legitimate criticism. In the minds of smatterers his only title to remembrance is an unsavoury epithet, and the fact that he was- singled out as the hero of the Dunciad and gibbeted in some of the most famous and often-quoted lines of the most waspish and brilliant of satires. A few know of him as the author of the most wonderful and poetio of all the oonjectu.ral emendations of Shakespeare : while in the limited circle of real scholars his services as an editor and interpreter have never failed of a steadily progressive recognition. But the world at large still accepts Popes estimate, labels him as the prince of Dunces, and remembers him as the fly in amber.

This is not the first attempt to enlighten public opinion as to Theobald's true merits and to vindicate his reputation. The task was chivalrously essayed by the late John Churton Collins in a study of The Person of Shakespearean Criticism and in his article in the D.N.B., while the late Professor Lounsbury of Yale carried the process a good deal further in his examination of the Dunciad. Dr. Jones in this excellent monograph admits that he is largely indebted to the last-named author, and he has confirmed Professor Lounsbury's conclusions by the dis- covery of a number of Theobald's unpublished letters written to Warburton. More than that, he has upheld, with many convincing proofs, the thesis that "the basic principles of critical editing in English were derived directly from the method employed by Bentley in the classics. In his work on Shakespeare Theobald adapted this method to a new field, and in turn was followed by scholars who did not confine their labours to the great dramatist."

Bentley brought to his task massive but systematized erudi- tion, a powerful logic, and an insistence on minute accuracy. He had, however, the defects of his qualities, notably in the field of conjectural emendation. That Theobald was directly influ- enced by Bentley is beyond a doubt ; Dr. Jones shows by parallel passages how closely his method approximates in its suooeesive stages, and even its phraseology, to that of his master. But Theobald bettered his instructor in many respects. He was never a victim to the rage for emending which seized Bentley in

• Let.014 Theol*Id: tac (lontribution to English Scholarship, with Some Pnpubs lished Idiom By DAohard Posta Tones, Ph.D. Now York Columbia Uni- versity Preee.

his treatment of Milton. Indeed Theobald expressed his clear disapproval of that venture. But his procedure in textual criticism—his careful collation of variant readings once a critical doubt arises, and the application of grammatical, historical, and aesthetic tests to these variants before proceeding to emendation or conjecture—is substantially the same as Bentley's. And if he was weaker in logic than the great classical scholar, he excelled him in vision and in his appreciation of poetic license. " He was a poet, poor indeed, but with judgment superior to his accomplishment." His poetic sense served him better than logic in his truly wonderful emendation of the lines in Romeo and Juliet :- " As is the bud bit with an envious worm

Ere he can spread his sweet leaves to the air, Or dedicate his beauty to the same."

As Dr. Jones observes, " Logic or knowledge could find no fault with this p

It is perfectly clear and consistent. Bentley could have found little to cavil at. But the poetic sense of Theobald made him hesitate at the last line as being prose rather than poetry, and the same artistic feeling suggested ' sun ' for ' same.' It is hard to conceive of the great classical critic making an emendation that would show such a delicate poetic feeling. Perhaps we shall never know whether Shakespeare wrote ' sun,' but the

Wewill always remain a contribution to things beautiful. We even find Theobald escaping where Pope erred. His appre- ciation of poetic license made him reject Pope's conjecture of ' siege ' for sea ' in Hamlet's famous soliloquy [4 or to take arms against a sea of troubles'], even though there seemed to be a violation of reason."

We may add that in a witty footnote Dr. Jones imagines how Bentley would have attacked this passage from the stand- point of logic and historical parallels. But Theobald's equip- ment was not merely strong in judgment and poetic sense. It was reinforced by wide reading of the ancient classics, of English literature in general, and in especial of the " sources " available to Shakespeare. His labours as a translator, handsomely acknowledged by Churton Collins, must not be overlooked; and

Dr. Jones does well to insist on the value of his practical experi- ence of the stage as a playwright and adapter as a preparation

for editing the works of a great dramatist. It was only by a laborious apprenticeship as an author that he found his true metier as a critic. Pope unconsciously was the architect of Theobald's posthumous fame. He converted a bad poet into a great editor. But for Pope's Shakespeare we should probably never have had Shakespeare Restored, in which Theobald gave the first proofs of his quality ; but for Shakespeare Restored we should never have had the Dunciad, and but for the Dunciad we should never have had Theobald's edition of Shakespeare. Retaliationin kind was impossible to Theobald ; he had neither the genius nor the malevolence of his antagonist ; he reserved his fire, and disproved the charges of dullness, stupidity, and pedantry in a work which confirmed the judgment of those who had escaped the satire and were competent to judge, that " while Pope was supreme in poetry, Theobald was just as surely the better critic." This view was held by unconcerned observers long before Theobald's edition of Shakespeare appeared, and finds expression in Duncombe's epigram in which he sums up the controversy :-

"Theobald, 'tis thine to share what Shakespeare writ, But Pope shall reign -supreme in Poesy and Wit."

As an interpreter and illustrator Theobald stands high, but it is on his contributions to Shakespearean textual criticism that his fame most securely rests. Dr. Jones brings this home to us in a statistical survey of his conjectures, only considering those corrections which necessitate the substitution of a word entirely different from the current reading, the omission of a word or words, or the introduction. of a word or words :—

" When the emendation consists only of a change in the form of a word or an expansion of an abbreviation, it has not been included in the calculations. After corrections of this sort are eliminated, there still remain some 429 emendations for which Theobald had to rely upon his genius and learning alone. Of these 150 have been accepted, so that a little less than 37 per cent. of his corrections have stood the test of time and the scrutiny of scholars. . . . Certainly no other corrector, either m English or the classics, can boast such a high ratio of accepted readings."

Next to this achievement Dr. Jones places Theobald's dis- covery of sources, the credit of which was often assigned to others. The worst fault in the edition, in Dr. Jones's opinion, is the

unacknowledged adoption of many of Pope's metrical emenda- tions, which seek to put an eighteenth-century smoothing-iron over Shakespeare's lines. -On the-question Ulla indebtedness

to Warburton the newly published letters afford no justification for the charges of theft. Theobald construed his rights as an editor freely, but there is no excuse for Warburton's bitterness.

Dr. Jones reminds us that of Warburton's emendations only 13 per cent. of those introduced were successful ; while of the 36 rejected only one has been accepted. The quarrel embittered the closing years of Theobald's life, which were clouded by money troubles and ill-health. He died in 1744 at the age of 66, and only one friend attended his funeral. Yet one who had known him for thirty years testified that " he was of a generous spirit, too generous for his circumstances ; and none knew how to do a handsome thing or confer a benefit, when in his power, with a better grace than himself." We may fairly accept the estimate

of his latest biographer that there appears little to blame and much to praise in his career. Even when he was goaded to retort to the thrusts of satire and the falsehoods of malice, he took .no mean advantage, he indulged in no mendacity:— "He made by far the best figure in the Dunciad war. In the midst of all the dirt and filth thrown up by both sides, he alone was free from stooping. Sympathetic, liberal, true to his friends, it is not strange that they so anxiously defended him. Only one [Warburton] proved recreant. Possibly it would be hard to find in history a man who has suffered more injustice at the hands of posterity."

In a final chapter Dr. Jones traces the progress of Theobald's influence, noting that while the impulse to edit Shakespeare came from Theobald, directly or indirectly, the editors immediately following him did not show much familiarity with his method. Later editors, however, only achieved success by following or improving on one who was the first to attempt a real collation of the text, the first to illustrate its meaning by a study of

contemporary Elizabethan literature, the first, in fine, to establish " the basic principles of modern editing."