transparentfill.gif (65 bytes)

William Warburton
(1698 - 1779)

Warburton

"Warburton was the first prebendary to give up wearing a cope, because the high collar ruffled his bull-bottomed wig" ~DNB

"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."  ~J. Parker Norris

"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." ~Dr. Johnson on Warburton

Introduction

William Warburton was born the son of a Newark attorney.  In 1723 he took orders in the Church of England.  He was awarded the M. A. degree by Cambridge in 1728, and was subsequently curate, vicar, King's Chaplain, Lincoln's Inn Preacher, Prebendary, Dean and Bishop of Gloucester.  He had an intense interest in both theology and Shakespeare. 

Warburton’s most famous independent work was published in 1737:  The Divine Legation of Moses Demonstrated.  Of it the DNB says “Warburton’s dogmatic arrogance and love of paradox were sufficiently startling, while his wide reading enabled him to fill his pages with a great variety of curious disquisitions; and his rough vigour made even his absurdities interesting” (DNB, p. 760).  Most readers today would probably regard it as just one more of the dreary English Enlightenment disputations over religion.  In fact Warburton carried on vigorous attacks against many of the literati who sailed within his religious or literary purview, at times in a spirit so uncharitable that only an English clergyman could achieve it.  In one passage he says he was obliged to hunt down the “pestilent herd of libertine scribblers with which the island is overrun” (DNB, p. 761, yes, there will always be an England).  He made an enemy of nearly every literary man he had to do with.  Though he began by maligning Pope, in the end he became Pope’s literary executor and champion. 

Early Warburton formed an alliance with Lewis Theobald—Pope's nemesis and editor of his own 1733 edition of Shakespeare.  There is a voluminous correspondence between the two, recorded in John Nichols' Illustrations of the literary history of the eighteenth century. : Consisting of authentic memoirs and original letters of eminent persons; and intended as a sequel to the Literary anecdotes, vol. II.  1817.  Theobald relied heavily on Warburton's insights into the texts of Shakespeare, and even more so on his taste as an experienced author.  Theobald's Preface is much better for the suggestions made by Warburton.  As seems inevitable among the close world of eighteenth century Shakespeare scholars, Warburton quarreled with Theobald, feeling his contributions to Theobald's 1733 edition were not sufficiently acknowledged (and indeed, though Theobald included a handsome prefatory acknowledgement, he did not acknowledge Warburton's contributions in the detailed notes).  They became estranged.  In reaction, Warburton formed a close alliance with Pope, Theobald's arch enemy and editor of the 1725 edition of the Works that Theobald had taken to task in Shakespeare Restored.... (1726).  It was a move that made his reputation and his fortune.

In 1747 Warburton brought out his own edition of Shakespeare (Murphy §231).  He is known to have been working on the edition from 1738, when he prepared sample materials which appeared in the General Dictionary, Historical and Critical (1734-1741) edited, in part, by Dr. Thomas Birch.  As can be seen from Warburton's Preface, given below, his attack on the then deceased Theobald was petty, if not cruel.  Popes name appears on the title page of Warburton's edition, perhaps not without spite towards the memory of Theobald.  Warburton's edition is not thought highly of.  "His changes to the text were legion and he frequently emended passages which were, in the original, perfectly intelligible" (Murphy, Shakespeare in Print, p. 77).  Of his edition of Shakespeare the DNB, after a summary of his contentions with Hanmer and Theobald, says “It is now admitted that…Theobald was incomparably superior to Warburton as a Shakespearean critic.  Though a few of Warburton’s emendations have been accepted, they are generally marked by both audacious and gratuitous quibbling, and show his real incapacity for the task” (p. 763).  Just as Pope had been called to account by Theobald in 1726, Warburton received less generous criticism (though presented sardonically as praise) in Thomas Edwards' (1699-1757)  The Canons of Criticism: A Supplement to Mr. Warburton's Edition...  (7th ed., 1765—(see Johnson, Shakespeare and His Critics, 1909, for a long summary).  Warburton responded “by insulting Edwards in notes to Pope’s Works and saying that he was not a gentleman” (DNB, p. 763).   He was also criticized soundly by John Upton in Critical Observations on Shakespeare (2nd ed. 1748), and Benjamin Heath in A Revisal of Shakespeare's Text (1765).

 In 1750 Warburton returned to “theological inquiries," though remained within literary striking range of his critics.  He was even so bold as to criticize Dr. Johnson, who regarded Warburton with far more esteem than he deserved, complaining of Johnson's “insolence, malignity, and folly.”  (DNB 763) (!).  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.

"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.

J. Parker Norris

 

Warburton's Preface

It hath been no unusual thing for writers, when dissatisfied with the patronage or judgment of their own times, to appeal to posterity for a fair hearing. Some have even thought fit to apply to it in the first instance, and to decline acquaintance with the public till envy and prejudice had quite subsided. But, of all the trusters to futurity, commend me to the author of the following poems, who not only left it to time to do him justice as it would, but to find him out as it could. For what between too great attention to his profit as a player, and too little to his reputation as a poet, his works, left to the care of door-keepers and prompters, hardly escaped the common fate of those writings, how good soever, which are abandoned to their own fortune, and unprotected by party or cabal. At length, indeed, they struggled into light, but so disguised and travestied that no classic author, after having run ten secular stages through the blind cloisters of monks and canons, ever came out in half so maimed and mangled a condition. But for a full account of his disorders, I refer the reader to the excellent discourse which follows,' and turn myself to consider the remedies that have been applied to them.

Shakespeare's works, when they escaped the players, did not fall into much better hands when they came amongst printers and booksellers ; who, to say the truth, had at first but small encouragement for putting them into a better condition. The stubborn nonsense with which he was incrusted occasioned his lying long neglected amongst the common lumber of the stage. And when that resistless splendour which now shoots all around him had, by degrees, broke through the shell of those impurities, his dazzled admirers became as suddenly insensible to the extraneous scurf that still stuck upon him as they had been before to the native beauties that lay under it. So that, as then he was thought not to deserve a cure, he was now supposed not to need any.

His growing eminence, however, required that he should be used with ceremony, and he soon had his appointment of an editor in form. But the bookseller, whose dealing was with wits, having learned of them I know not what silly maxim, that none but a poet should presume to meddle with a poet, engaged the ingenious Mr. Rowe to undertake this employment. A wit indeed he was, but so utterly unacquainted with the whole business of criticism that he did not even collate or consult the first editions of the work he undertook to publish, but contented himself with giving us a meagre account of the author's life, interlarded with some commonplace scraps from his writings. The truth is, Shakespeare's condition was yet but ill understood. The nonsense, now, by consent, conceived for his own, was held in a kind of reverence for its age and author, and thus it continued till another great poet broke the charm by showing us that the higher we went, the less of it was still to be found.

or the proprietors, not discouraged by their first unsuccessful effort, in due time made a second ; and, though they still stuck to their poets, with infinitely more success in their choice of Mr. Pope, who, by the mere force of an uncommon genius, without any particular study or profession of this art, discharged the great parts of it so well as to make his edition the best foundation for all further improvements. He separated the genuine from the spurious plays ; and with equal judgment, though not always with the same success, attempted to clear the genuine plays from the interpolated scenes. He then consulted the old editions, and, by a careful collation of them, rectified the faulty, and supplied the imperfect reading in a great number of places. And lastly, in an admirable preface, hath drawn a general, but very lively sketch of Shakespeare's poetic character, and, in the corrected text, marked out those peculiar strokes of genius which were most proper to support and illustrate that character. Thus far Mr. Pope. And although much more was to be done before Shakespeare could be restored to himself (such as amending the corrupted text where the printed books afford no assistance, explaining his licentious phraseology and obscure allusions, and illustrating the beauties of his poetry), yet, with great modesty and prudence, our illustrious author left this to the critick by profession.

But nothing will give the common reader a better idea of the value of Mr. Pope's edition than the two attempts which have been since made by Mr. Theobald and Sir Thomas Hanmer in opposition to it ; who, although they concerned themselves only in the first of these three parts of criticism, the restoring the text (without any conception of the second, or venturing even to touch upon the third), yet succeeded so very ill in it that they left their author in ten times a worse condition than they found him. But, as it was my ill fortune to have some accidental connections with these two gentlemen, it will be incumbent on me to be a little more particular concerning them.

The one was recommended to me as a poor man, the other 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 in 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 critick, I could not so easily forgive him for trafficking with my papers without my knowledge ; and when that project failed, for employing a number of my conjectures in his edition against my express desire not to have that honour done unto me.

Mr. Theobald was naturally turned to industry and labour. What he read he could transcribe; but as to what he thought, if ever he did think, he could but ill express, so he read on, and by that means got a character of learning, without risquing to every observer the imputation of wanting a better talent. By a punctilious collation of the old books he corrected what was manifestly wrong in the latter editions by what was manifestly right in the earlier. And this is his real merit, and the whole of it. For where the phrase was very obsolete or licentious in the common books, or only slightly corrupted in the other, he wanted sufficient knowledge of the progress and various stages of the English tongue, as well as acquaintance with the peculiarity of Shakespeare's language, to understand what was right ; nor had he either common judgment to see, or critical sagacity to amend, what was manifestly faulty. Hence he generally exerts his conjectural talent in the wrong place ; he tampers with what is found in the common books, and, in the old ones, omits all notice of variations, the sense of which he did not understand..

How the Oxford editor came to think himself qualified for this office, from which his whole course of life had been so remote, is still more difficult to conceive. For whatever parts he might have either of genius or erudition, he was absolutely ignorant of the art of criticism, as well as of the poetry of that time, and the language of his author. And so far from the thought of examining the first editions, that he even neglected to compare Mr. Pope's, from which he printed his own, with Mr. Theobald's ; whereby he lost the advantage of many fine lines, which the other had recovered from the old quartos. Where he trusts to his own sagacity, in what affects the sense, his conjectures are generally absurd and extravagant, and violating every rule of criticism. Though, in this rage of correcting, he was not absolutely destitute of all art. For, having a number of my conjectures before him, he took as many of them as he saw fit to work upon, and by changing them to something he thought synonymous or similar he made them his own and so became a critick at a cheap expense. But how well he hath succeeded in this, as likewise in his conjectures which are properly his own, will be seen in the course of my remarks ; though, as he hath declined to give the reasons for his interpolations he hath not afforded me so fair a hold of him as Mr. Theobald bath done, who was less cautious. But his principal object was to reform his author's numbers, and this, which he hath done on every occasion, by the insertion or omission of a set of harmless unconcerning expletives, makes up the gross body of his innocent corrections. And so, in spite of that extreme negligence in numbers which distinguishes the first dramatick writers, he hath tricked up the old bard, from head to foot, in all the finical exactness of a modern measurer of syllables.

For the rest, all the corrections which these two editors have made on any reasonable foundation are here ad-mitted into the text and carefully assigned to their respective authors, a piece of justice which the Oxford editor never did, and which the other was not always scrupulous in observing towards me. To conclude width them in a word, they separately possessed those two qualities which, more than any other, have contributed to bring the art of criticism into disrepute—dulness of apprehension, and extravagance of conjecture.

I am now to give some account of the present undertaking. For as to all those things which have been published under the title of Essays, Remarks, Observations, etc., on Shakespeare (if you except some critical notes on "Macbeth," given as a specimen of a projected edition, and written, as appears, by a man of parts and genius), the rest are absolutely below a serious notice.

The whole a critick 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. And surely, if ever author had a claim to this service, it was our Shakespeare; who, widely excelling in the knowledge of human nature, hath given to his infinitely varied pictures of it, such truth of design, such force of drawing, such beauty of colouring, as was hardly ever equalled by any writer, whether his aim was the use, or only the entertainment of mankind. The notes in this edition, therefore, take in the whole compass of criticism.

I. The first sort is employed in restoring the poet's genuine text, but in those places only where it labours with inextricable nonsense ; in which, how much soever I may have given scope to critical conjecture, where the old copies failed me, I have indulged nothing to fancy or imagination, but have religiously observed the severe canons of literal criticism, as may be seen from the reasons accompanying every alteration from the common text. Nor would a different conduct have become a critic whose greatest attention, in this part, was to vindicate the established reading from interpolations occasioned by the fanciful extravagances of others. I once intended to have given the reader a body of canons for literal criticism, drawn out in form, as well such as concern the art in general, as those that arise from the nature and circumstances of our author's works in particular. And this for two reasons. First, to give the unlearned reader a just idea, and consequently a better opinion of the art of criticism, now sunk very low in the popular esteem, by the attempts of some who would needs exercise it without either natural or acquired talents, and by the ill success of others who seemed to have lost both when they come to try them upon English authors. Secondly, to deter the unlearned writer from wantonly trifling with an art he is a stranger to, at the expence of his own reputation and the integrity of the text of established authors. But these uses may be well supplied by what is occasionally said upon the subject in the course of the following remarks.

II. The second sort of notes consists in an explanation of the author's meaning when by one or more of these causes it becomes obscure: either from a licentious use of terms, or a hard or ungrammatical construction, or lastly, from far-fetched or quaint allusions.

1. This licentious use of words is almost peculiar to the language of Shakespeare. To common terms he hath affixed meanings of his own, unauthorised by use, and not to be justified by analogy. And this liberty he bath taken with the noblest parts of speech, such as mixed modes, which, as they are most susceptible of abuse, so that abuse much hurts the clearness of the discourse. The criticks (to whom Shakespeare's licence was still as much a secret as his meaning which that licence had obscured) fell into two contrary mistakes, but equally injurious to his reputation and his writings. For some of them, observing a darkness that pervades his whole expression, have censured him for confusion of ideas and inaccuracy of reasoning. " In the neighing of a horse (says Rymer) or in the growling of a mastiff, there is a meaning, there is a lively expression, and, I may say, more humanity than many times in the tragical flights of Shakespeare." The ignorance of which censure is of a piece with its brutality. The truth is, no one thought clearer, or argued more closely, than this immortal bard. But his superiority of genius less needing the intervention of words in the act of thinking, when he came to draw out his contemplations into discourse, he took up (as he was hurried on by the torrent of his matter) with the first words that lay in his way ; and if, amongst these, there were two mixed modes that had but a principal idea in common, it was enough for him. He regarded them as synonymous, and would use the one for the other without fear or scruple. Again, there have been others, such as the two last editors, who have fallen into a contrary extreme, and regarded Shakespeare's anomalies (as we may call them) amongst the corruptions of his text; which, therefore, they have cashiered in great numbers to make room for a jargon of their own. This hath put me to additional trouble, for I had not only their interpolations to throw out again, but the genuine text to replace and establish in its stead, which, in many cases could not be done without showing the peculiar sense of the terms and explaining the causes which led the poet to so perverse a use of them. I had it once, indeed, in my design, to give a general alphabetic glossary of those terms ; but as each of them is explained in its proper place, there seems the less occasion for such an index.

2. The poet's hard and unnatural construction had a different original. This was the effect of mistaken art and design. The publick taste was in its infancy, and delighted (as it always does during this state) in the high and turgid; which leads the writer to disguise a vulgar expression with hard and forced construction, whereby the sentence frequently becomes cloudy and dark. Here his criticks show their modesty, and leave him to himself. For the arbitrary change of a word doth little towards dispelling an obscurity that ariseth, not from the licentious use of a single term, but from the unnatural arrangement of a whole sentence. And they risqued nothing by their silence. For Shakespeare was too clear in fame to be suspected of a want of meaning, and too high in fashion for anyone to own he needed a critick to find it out. Not but, in his best works, we must allow, he is often so natural and flowing, so pure and correct, that he is even a model for style and language.

3. As to his far-fetched and quaint allusions, these are often a cover to common thoughts ; just as his hard construction is to common expression. When they are not so, the explanation of them has this further advantage that, in clearing the obscurity, you frequently discover some latent conceit not unworthy of his genius.

III. The third and last sort of notes is concerned in a critical explanation of the author's beauties and defects; but chiefly of his beauties, whether in style, thought, sentiment, character, or composition. An odd humour of finding fault hath long prevailed amongst the criticks, as if nothing were worth remarking that did not at the same time deserve to be reproved. Whereas the publick judgment hath less need to be assisted in what it shall reject than in what it ought to prize, men being generally more ready at spying faults than in discovering beauties. Nor is the value they set upon a work a certain proof that they understand it. For it is ever seen that half a dozen voices of credit give the lead, and if the publick chance to be in good humour, or the author much in their favour, the people are sure to follow. Hence it is that the true critick hath so frequently attached himself to works of established reputation: not to teach the world to admire, which, in those circumstances, to say the truth, they are apt enough to do of themselves, but to teach them how with reason to admire; no easy matter, I will assure you, on the subject in question, for though it be very true, as Mr. Pope hath observed, that Shakespeare is the fairest and fullest subject for criticism, yet it is not such a sort of criticism as may be raised mechanically on the rules which Dacier, Rapin, and Bossu have collected from antiquity, and of which such kind of writers as Rymer, Gildon, Dennis, and Oldmixon have only gathered and chewed the husks. Nor, on the other hand, is it to be formed on the plan of those crude and superficial judgments on books and things with which a certain celebrated paper so much abounds ;3 too good, indeed, to be named R ith the writers last mentioned, but being unluckily mistaken for a model, because it was an original, it hath given rise to a deluge of the worst sort of critical jargon—I mean that which looks most like sense. But the kind of criticism here re¬quired is such as judgeth our author by those only Taws and principles on which he wrote, nature and common-sense.

Our observations, therefore, being thus extensive, will, I presume, enable the reader to form a right judgment of this favourite poet without drawing out his character, as was once intended, in a continued discourse.

These, such as they are, were among 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 publick at this time of day had never been troubled with, but for the conduct of the two last editors, and the persuasion of dear Mr. Pope, whose memory and name,

“...semper acerbum,
Semper honoratum (sic Di voluistis) habebo."
The Spectator.

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 ; 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 most deserving of the reader's attention, and have marked them with double commas.If, from all this, Shakespeare or good letters have received any advantage, and the publick any benefit or entertainment, the thanks are due to the proprietors, who have been at the expence of procuring this edition. And I should be unjust to several deserving men of a reputable and useful profession if I did not, on this occasion, acknowledge the fair dealing I have always found amongst them, and profess my sense of the unjust prejudice which lies against them ; whereby they have been hitherto unable to procure that security for their property which they see the rest of their fellow-citizens enjoy ; a prejudice in part arising from the frequent piracies (as they are called) committed by members of their own body. But such kind of members no body is without. And it would be hard that this should be turned to the discredit of the honest part of the profession, who suffer more from such injuries than any other men. It hath in part, too, arisen from the clam-ours of profligate scribblers, ever ready for a piece of money, to prostitute their bad sense for or against any cause, profane or sacred, or in any scandal, publick or private; these meeting with little encouragement from men of account in the trade (who, even in this enlightened age, are not the very worst judges or rewarders of merit), apply themselves to people of condition, and support their importunities by false complaints against booksellers.

Rut I should now, perhaps, rather think of my own apology than busy myself in the defence of others. I shall have some Tartuffe ready on the first appearance of this edition to call out again and tell me that I suffer myself to be wholly diverted from my purpose by these matters less suitable to my clerical profession. " Well, but (says a friend) why not take so candid an intimation in good part? Withdraw yourself again, as you are bid, into the clerical pale ; examine the records of sacred and profane antiquity, and on them erect a work to the confusion of infidelity." Why, I have done all this, and more ; and hear now what the same men have said to it. They tell me, I have wrote to the wrong and injury of religion, and furnished out more handles for unbelievers. " Oh! now the secret is out ; and you may have your pardon, I find, upon easier terms. It is only to write no more." Good gentlemen! and shall I not oblige them? They would gladly obstruct my way to those things which every man who endeavours well in his profession, must needs think he has some claim to when he sees them given to those who never did endeavour, at the same time that they would deter me from taking those advantages which letters enable me to procure for myself. If then I am to write no more (though as much out of my profession as they may please to represent this work, I suspect their modesty would not insist on a scrutiny of our several applications of this profane profit and their purer gains), if, I say, I am to write no more, let me at least give the pub-lick, who have a better pretence to demand it of me, some reason for my presenting them with these amusements ; which, if I am not much mistaken, may be excused by the best and fairest examples ; and, what is more, may be justified on the surer reason of things.

The great Saint Chrysostom, a name consecrated to immortality by his virtue and eloquence, is known to have been so fond of Aristophanes as to wake with him at his studies, and to sleep with him under his pillow ; and I never heard that this was objected either to his piety or his preaching, not even in those times of pure zeal and primitive religion. Yet, in respect of Shakespeare's great sense, Aristophanes' best wit is but buffoonery; and in comparison of Aristophanes' freedoms, Shakespeare writes with the purity of a vestal. But they will say, St. Chrysostom contracted a fondness for the comick poet for the sake of his Greek. To this, indeed, I have nothing to reply. Far be it from me to insinuate so unscholar-like a thing, as if we had the same use for good English that a Greek had for his Attick elegance. Critick Kuster, in a taste and language peculiar to grammarians of a certain order, hath decreed that the history and chronology of Greek words is the most solid entertainment of a man of letters.

I fly then to a higher example, much nearer home, and still more in point, the famous university of Oxford. This illustrious body, which bath long so justly held, and with such equity dispensed the chief honours of the learned world, thought good letters so much interested in correct editions of the best English writers, that they very lately in their publick capacity undertook one of this very author by subscription. And if the editor 4 hath not discharged his task with suitable abilities for one so much honoured by them, this was not their fault, but his, who thrust himself into the employment. After such an example, it would be weakening any defence to seek further for authorities. All that can be now decently urged is the reason of the thing ; and this I shall do, more for the sake of that truly venerable body than my own.

Of all the literary exercitations of speculative men, whether designed for the use or entertainment of the world, there are none of so much importance or what are more our immediate concern than those which let us into the knowledge of our nature. Others may exercise the reason, or amuse the imagination, but these only can improve the heart and form the human mind to wisdom. Now, in this science, our Shakespeare is confessed to occupy the foremost place, whether we consider the amazing sagacity with which he investigates every hidden spring and wheel of human action, or his happy manner of communicating this knowledge, in the just and living paintings which he has given us of all our passions, appetites and pursuits. These afford a lesson which can never be too often repeated, or too constantly inculcated, and to engage the reader's due attention to it bath been one of the principal objects of this edition.

As this science (whatever profound philosophers may think) is, to the rest, in things ; so, in words (whatever supercilious pedants may talk), every one's mother tongue is to all other languages. This hath still been the sentiment of nature and true wisdom. Hence, the greatest men of antiquity never thought themselves better employed than in cultivating their own country idiom. So, Lycurgus did honour to Sparta in giving the first complete edition of Homer ; and Cicero to Rome, in correcting the works of Lucretius. Nor do we want examples of the same good sense in modern times, even amidst the cruel inroads that art and fashion have made upon nature and the simplicity of wisdom. Menage, the greatest name in France for all kinds of philologick learning, prided himself in writing critical notes on their best lyrick poet, Malherbe ; and our greater Selden, when he thought it might reflect credit on his country, did not disdain even to comment a very ordinary poet, one Michael Drayton. But the English tongue, at this juncture, deserves and demands our particular regard. It hath, by means of the many excellent works of different kinds composed in it, engaged the notice and became the study of almost every curious and learned foreigner, so as to be thought even a part of literary accomplishment. This must needs make it deserving of a critical attention ; and its being yet destitute of a test or standard to apply to in cases of doubt or difficulty, shows how much it wants that attention. For we have neither Grammar nor Dictionary, neither chart nor compass, to guide us through this wide sea of words. And indeed, how should we? since both are to be composed and finished on the authority of our best established writers. But their authority can be of little use till the text bath been correctly settled, and the phraseology critically examined. As, then, by these aids, a Gram-mar and Dictionary planned upon the best rules of logick and philosophy (and none but such will deserve the name) are to be procured, the forwarding of this will be a general concern; for, as Quintillian observes, "Verborum proprietas ac differentia omnibus, qui sermonem currae habent, debet esse communis." By this way, the Italians have brought their tongue to a degree of purity and stability which no living language ever attained unto before. It is with pleasure I observe that these things now begin to be understood among ourselves, and that I can acquaint the publick we may soon expect very elegant editions of Fletcher and Milton's "Paradise Lost," from gentlemen of distinguished abilities and learning. But this interval of good sense, as it may be short, is indeed but new. For I remember to have heard of a very learned man who, not long since, formed a design of giving a more correct edition of Spenser, and, without doubt, would have performed it well ; but he was dissuaded from his purpose by his friends, as beneath the dignity of a professor of the occult sciences. Yet these very friends, I suppose, would have thought it added lustre to his high station to have new-furnished out some dull northern chronicle, or dark Sibylline aenigma. But let it not be thought that what is here said insinuates anything to the discredit of Greek and Latin criticism. If the follies of particular men were sufficient to bring any branch of learning into disrepute, I do not know any that would stand in a worse situation than that for which I now apologise. For I hardly think there ever appeared, in any learned language, so execrable a heap of nonsense, under the name of commentaries, as hath been lately given us on a certain satyrick poet, of the past age, by his editor and coadjutor.

I am sensible how unjustly the very best classical criticks have been treated. It is said that our great philosopher s spoke with much contempt of the two finest scholars of this age, Dr. Bentley and Bishop Hare, for squabbling, as he expressed it, about an old play-book ; meaning, I suppose, Terence's comedies. But this story is unworthy of him, though well enough suiting the fanatick turn of the wild writer that relates it. Such censures are amongst the follies of men immoderately given over to one science, and ignorantly undervaluing all the rest. Those learned criticks might, and perhaps did, laugh in their turn (though still, sure, with the same indecency and indiscretion) at that incomparable man, for wearing out a long life in poring through a telescope. Indeed, the weaknesses of such are to be mentioned with reverence. But who can bear, without indignation, the fashionable cant of every trifling writer, whose insipidity passes, with himself, for politeness, for pretending to be shocked, forsooth, with the rude and savage air of vulgar criticks ; meaning such as Muretus, Scaliger, Casaubon, Salmasius, Spanheim, Bentley ! When, had it not been for the deathless labours of such as these, the western world, at the revival of letters, had soon fallen back again into a state of ignorance and barbarity as deplorable as that from which Providence had just redeemed it.

To conclude with an observation of a fine writer and great philosopher of our own, which I would gladly bind, though with all honour, as a phylactery, on the brow of every awful grammarian, to teach him at once the use and limits of his art: Words are the money of fools, and the counters of wise men.

Links to Warburton's Edition of 1747

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, London, J. & P. Napton, 1747; from Google Book Search, full text and PDF.  The "Blunders of the first Editors" refers collectively to the editors of the quarto and folio editions, and Rowe, who was safely dead by this time.  "The last two" refer to the editions of Theobald (1733) and Hanmer (1743-44).  Warburton had criticized Pope's edition, but having become an ally of Pope's by the time of this edition, does not mention it unfavorably.  His former ally, now enemy, Theobald, however, comes in for notable criticism.

Other Warburton Resources
  • "Warburton, William" in the Dictionary of National Biography, Leslie Stephen et al., eds., 1909, vol. 20pp. 758-768.

 
transparentfill.gif (65 bytes)


©1995-2009 Terry A. Gray
Last modified 09/21/09
Do not copy or reuse these materials without permission.