Warburton's edition of Shakespeare appeared in 1747.
Warburton was indeed a man out of his depth, but
supremely unaware of the fact, a poor scholar, sometimes monstrously
hypocritical, yet an avid antagonist. I have reproduced below J. Parker Norris' summary of the Warburton edition, encompassing, as it does, a long quote from Dr. Johnson and some original (and supplemental, to be sure) criticisms by Norris. Norris wrote during the gilded age for Shakespeariana, the publication of the Shakespeare Society of New York.
"The Editors of Shakespeare," by J. Parker
Norris, from Shakespeariana, Vol. II, 1885,
pp. 577-582.
WILLIAM WARBURTON.
William Warburton was
born December 24th, 1698, at Newark-upon-Trent, Nottingham, England. His father
was George Warburton, an attorney, and also Town Clerk. He was educated by
several teachers. His father intended that he should read law, and he commenced
the study of that profession, under an attorney named Kirke, at East Markham,
Nottinghamshire. He remained with him for five years, and was then called to the
bar, in one of the courts at Westminster. Afterward he returned to Newark, where
he entered upon the practice of his profession. He practiced for several years,
but his love of reading, and dislike for the bar, determined him to enter the
church. Accordingly in 1723 he took deacon's orders. The same year he published
his Miscellaneous Translations in Prose and Verse from Roman Authors.
This work he dedicated to Sir Robert Sutton; who, in 1726, presented him to the
vicarage of Gryesly, in Nottingham. In 1726 also, he came to London, and made
the acquaintance of a number of literary men; among whom was Lewis Theobald.
This was the beginning of a friendship which lasted several years. They kept up
a long correspondence about the text of Shakespeare and other kindred subjects,
in which they were mutually interested, and Warburton rendered Theobald much
valuable assistance in the preparation of his edition of Shakespeare. Theobald
gracefully acknowledged this assistance in his preface to that work.
In 1727 Warburton published A Critical and
Philosophical Enquiry into the Causes of Prodigies and Miracles as related by
Historians, etc. This work he also dedicated to Sir Robert Sutton, who
appears to have been a good friend, for he used his influence to have Warburton
put on the lists of King's Masters of Arts created when George II visited
Cambridge in 1728, and thus he got his degree. The same year Sir Robert
presented him to the rectory of Brand-Broughton, in the diocese of Lincoln. Here
he remained many years, and devoted his time largely to literary studies.
In 1736 he published The Alliance between the
Church and State, etc., a work which attracted much attention at the time.
In 1783 the first part of his principal theological work appeared, The Divine
Legation of Moses, etc., which met with some adverse criticism. He defended
it in A Vindication, etc., and in 1741 the second part was published.
Pope's Essay on Man had meanwhile been
published, and had been severely criticised. Warburton appeared in its defence,
and in 1739– 40 published A Vindication of Mr. Pope's Essay on Man. This
led to a friendship between Pope and Warburton, and when the former died, in
1744, he left Warburton half of his library, and his interest in those works
which he still possessed any copyright. Dr. Johnson estimated this legacy to
have been worth £400.
In 1744 and 1745 he
published answers to the attacks which had been made on his Divine Legation
under the name of Occasional Reflections, etc., and in 1745 he married
Miss Gertrude Tucker; by the the death of whose uncle, Ralph Allen, Esq., of
Prior Park, near Bath, he became possessed (through his wife,) of much valuable
property.
In 1738 he had been appointed
Chaplain to the Prince of Wales, and in 1744 he was presented to a prebend in
the Cathedral of Durham; while in 1747 he was made Dean of Bristol. In 1760 Mr.
Pitt (afterward Earl of Chatham,) promoted him to the see of Gloucester, and he
is best known to posterity as the Bishop of Gloucester. His mind failed somewhat
in his later years, and he died June 7th, 1779, at Gloucester, in his
eighty-first year.
His edition of
Shakespeare was published in 1747, in eight volumes small octavo. The first
title page in Vol. I reads thus :
"The Works of Shakespear in eight
volumes. The Genuine Text (collated with all the former Editions, and then
corrected and emended) is here settled : Being restored from the Blunders of
the first Editors, and the Interpolations of the two Last ; with A Comment
and Notes, Critical and Explanatory. By Mr. Pope and Mr. Warburton.—Quorum
omnium Interpretes, ut Grammatici Poetarum proxime ad eorum quos
interpretantur, divinationem videntur accedere. Cic de Divin... London :
Printed for J. and P. Knapton, S. Birt, T. Longman and T. Showell, H.
Lintott, C. Hitch, J. Brindley, J. and R. Tonson and S. Draper, R.
Wellington, E. New, and B. Dodd. MDCCLVII.[sic]"
There is also a second title-page which is as
follows : "The Works of Shakespear: Volume the first." etc. Similar ones to the
latter are in the other volumes.
The work
is tolerably well printed on fairly good paper, and in the first volume there is
a copy of the Chandos portrait of Shakespeare, engraved by G. Vertue. The work
is dedicated to Mrs. Allen, of Prior Park, near Bath. Then comes the preface,
occupying twelve pages. Pope's preface follows, then Rowe's life of Shakespeare,
the grant of arms to Shakespeare's father, and Ben. Jonson's ode to the poet.
"A Table of the Several Editions of Shakespeare's Plays, whether separate or
together, made use of, and collated for this edition by Mr. Pope and Mr.
Warburton." embraces the first three folios_ and fifty-two quartos. Next in
order is a classification of the plays into "Comedies" and "Tragedies" in their
order of merit according to Warburton's judgment. In Class I of the former he
places first, The Tempest; second, The Merry Wives of Windsor;
third, Measure for Measure; fourth, The Merchant of Venice; and
fifth, Twelfth Night; while Class II contains first, A Midsummer
Night's Dream; second, Much Ado about Nothing; third, As You Like
It; fourth, Alls Well that Ends Well; and fifth, A Winter's Tale.
Class III has first, The Two Gentlemen of Verona; and second, Love's
Labour's Lost; and Class IV : first, The Taming of the Shrew; and
second, The Comedy of Errors. "Tragedies" he thus classifies : Class I:
first, 1 Henry IV; second, 2 Henry IV; third, King Lear;
fourth, Macbeth; fifth, Julius Caesar; sixth, Hamlet; and
seventh, Othello. Class II : first, King John; second, Henry V;
third, Richard III; fourth, Henry VIII; fifth, Timon of Athens;
sixth, Antony and Cleopatra; and seventh, Cymbeline. Class III :
first, Richard II; second, Coriolanus ; third, Troilus and
Cressida; and fourth, Romeo' and Juliet. Class IV: first, 1 Henry
VI; second, 2 Henry VI; third, 3 Henry VI; and fourth Titus
Andronicus.
As a speciman of
Warburton's taste the above list is very interesting. Few persons at the present
time would agree with him.. Of the last class of "Comedies and "Tragedies"
he remarks they "are certainly not of Shakespear. The most that can be said of
them is, that he has, here and there, corrected the dialogue, and now and then
added a Scene." Regarding The Two Noble Kinsmen he says "the whole first
Act . . . was wrote by Shakespear, but in his worst manner."
In his preface Warburton tells us "The whole a
Critic can do for an Author who deserves his Service, is to correct the faulty
Text ; to remark the Peculiarities of Language ; to illustrate the obscure
Allusions; and to explain the Beauties and Defects of Sentiment or Composition."
He then explains the character of the notes, which he divides into three
classes: first, those which concern the restoration of the text; second, those
which explain the poet's meaning, when Warburton conceived it to be obscure
"either from a licentious Use of Terms; or a hard or ungrammatical Construction;
or lastly from farfetch'd or quaint Allusions;" and third, those which explain
Shakespeare's beauties and defects.
Warburton then continues :
These, such as they are, were amongst my
younger amusements, when, many years ago, I used to turn over these sort of
Writers to unbend myself from more serious applications: And what,
certainly, the Public, at this time of day, had never been troubled with,
but for the conduct of the last two Editors, and the persuasions of dear Mr.
Pope ; whose memory and name
semper acerbum,
Semper honoratum (sic Di voluistis) habebo.
He was desirous I should give a new Edition
of this Poet, as he thought it might contribute to put a stop to a
prevailing folly of altering the Text of celebrated Authors without Talents
or Judgment. And he was willing that his Edition should be melted
down into mine, as it would, he said, afford him (so great is the modesty of
an ingenuous temper) a fit opportunity of confessing his Mistakes. In memory
of our Friendship, I have, therefore, made it our joint Edition. His
admirable Preface is here added; all his Notes are given, with his name
annexed, and the Scenes are divided according to his regulation; and the
most beautiful passages distinguished, as in his book, with inverted commas.
In imitation of him, I have done the same by as many others as I thought
deserving of the Reader's attention, and have marked them with double
commas.
The faults of Warburton's notes are many, and
foremost among them is a spirit of dogmatic assertion and condescension towards
his author. He often asserts in the most positive manner that Shakespeare wrote
so and so, and he deliberately changes the text to suit his own ideas without
the slightest authority. He frequently altered passages which he did not
understand, and in others he proposed emendations without any apparent reason
except novelty. In Romeo and Juliet, IV, ii, 31, Capulet says of Friar
Laurence:
Now, afore God! this reverend holy friar,
All our whole city is much bound to him.
Here Warburton has the following note: "For the
sake of the grammar, I would suspect Shakespear wrote,
much bound to HYMN.
i. e. praise, celebrate."
Can this be surpassed? The learned editor is not
joking either, for the emendation is proposed in all seriousness.
In others of his notes he takes the poet to task
for certain passages that he does not like. One he calls "monstrous," of another
he says: "nothing can be worse, or more obscurely expressed; and all for the
sake of a wretched rhyme." An image he calls "ridiculous," and another passage
is "badly expressed."
Warburton's
arrogance is apparent in many of his notes, and he evidently considered himself
superior to Shakespeare, whose text he did not hesitate to alter whenever it did
not suit him. Thus in As You Like It, III, iv, 14, where Rosalind says of
Orlando's kissing,
And his kissing is as full of sanctity as
the touch of holy bread,
which certainly refers to the sacrament of the
Church, Warburton alters this to "holy beard," and says: "We should read beard,
that is, as the kiss of an holy saint or hermit, called the kiss of charity.
This makes the comparison just and decent; the other impious and absurd." And
yet "the other" is beyond all doubt what Shakespeare wrote.
Of course there are some good things in Warburton's
notes, and his text is better than Pope's, owing to his having retained many of
Theobald's best readings. It is more than doubtful if he collated the folios and
quartos himself. He appears to have used Theobald's edition to print from, and
thus had the benefit of the best text that had then appeared.
Although there had been a long and friendly
correspondence between Warburton and Theobald, (which it will be remembered the
latter, in his preface, said had been of the greatest assistance to him in the
preparation of his edition of Shakespeare,) there appears to have been some
bitter quarrel between these quondam friends. Warburton savagely attacks both
Theobald and Hanmer in his preface. He says:
The One [Theobald] was recommended to me as
a poor Man; the Other [Hanmer] as a poor Critic; and to each of them, at
different times, I communicated a great number of Observations, which they
managed as they saw fit, to the Relief of their several Distresses. As to
Mr. Theobald, who wanted Money, I allowed him to print what I gave him for
his own Advantage: and he allowed himself the Liberty of taking one Part for
his own, and sequestering another for the benefit, as I supposed, of some
future Edition. But, as to the Oxford Editor, who wanted nothing, but what
he might very well be without, the Reputation of a Critic, I could not so
easily forgive him for trafficking with my Papers without my Knowledge; and,
when that Project fail'd, for employing a number of my Conjectures in his
Edition against my express Desire not to have that Honour done unto me.
Warburton's arrogance, and his unnecessary
changes of the poet's text provoked much criticism, and several writers exposed
his blunders. Foremost among these was John Upton's second edition of his
Critical Observations on Shakespeare London: 1748, wherein he exposed many
absurd mistakes that Warburton had made. Next Thomas Edwards published A
Supplement to Mr. Warburton's Edition of Shakespeare, London: 1747. This was
a bitter satire on Warburton's work, and met with great success, for no less
than seven editions of it were issued, the third of which bore the title of
The Canons of Criticism. The latter title was also used in all the
subsequent editions. The criticisms in this work are very severe, yet they were
deserved. Then came Dr. Zachary Grey, with his Critical, Historical, and
Explanatory Notes on Shakespeare, London : 1754, whose criticisms of
Warburton's failure as an editor are very just. Benjamin Heath followed, in a
volume entitled A Revisal of Shakespeare's Text, London : 1865, and
contributed his quota of very severe comments on Warburton's blunders.
Dr. Johnson thus alludes to Warburton :
Of the last editor it is more difficult to
speak. Respect is due to high place, tenderness to living reputation, and
veneration to genius and learning; but he cannot be justly offended at that
liberty of which he has himself so frequently given an example, nor very
solicitous what is thought of notes, which he ought never to have considered
as part of his serious employments, and which, I suppose, since the ardour
of composition is remitted, he no longer numbers among his happy effusions.
The original and predominant errour of his
commentary is acquiescence in his first thoughts; that precipitation which
is produced by consciousness of quick discernment; and that confidence which
presumes to do, by surveying the surface which labour only can perform, by
penetrating the bottom. His notes exhibit sometimes perverse
interpretations, and sometimes improbable conjectures; he at one time gives
the authour more profundity of meaning than the sentence admits, and at
another discovers absurdities, where the sense is plain to every other
reader. But his emendations are likewise often happy and just; and his
interpretation of obscure passages learned and sagacious.
Of his notes, I have commonly rejected those,
against which the general voice of the publick has exclaimed, or which their
own incongruity immediately condemns, and which, I suppose, the authour
himself would desire to be forgotten. Of the rest, to part I have given the
highest approbation, by inserting the offered reading in the text; part I
have left to the judgment of the reader, as doubtful, though specious; and
part I have censured without reserve, but I am sure without bitterness of
malice, and, I hope, without wantoness of insult.
Certainly Dr. Johnson was mild in his censure,
but perhaps the high station of Bishop Warburton helped to moderate that which
otherwise might have been somewhat stronger.
The poems were not included in the edition.
Warburton received £460 from the booksellers for
his editorial labors, which was certainly good payment for what he did.
The same year that the original edition of
Warburton appeared, 1747, another was published in Dublin, in eight volumes
duodecimo. It is a mere reprint of the former.
When
the world, hardly more than fifty years ago, began with Cooper and Irving to
read "an American book,'' we can imagine the curl of the British lip at a
suggestion that an American opinion might be worth taking. Indeed, the question
as to when there began to be any American opinion at all upon matters
Shakespearian, might well be made a very perplexing one. Criticism is hardly to
be expected unless the thing criticised is at least potentially present. Where
there is no sea there are not apt to be sailors. The question as to when
American criticism of Shakespeare began, would naturally depend upon the answer
to a prior question, as to when Shakespeare and Shakespearian history began to
be printed and read in America.
