Preface to the Works of Shakespeare (1734) | Page 2

quick to applaud Theobald's
achievement, and even Pope himself was silenced.
Ultimately of course Theobald came under severe attack by succeeding
editors of Shakespeare, notably Warburton and Johnson, yet both men
were guilty of unwarranted abuse of their predecessor, whose edition
was nine times issued in the course of the century and was still in
current use by the time of Coleridge (cf. Wm. Jaggard, Shakespeare
Bibliography, 1911, pp. 499-504). Warburton and Johnson's abuse,
coupled with that of Pope, obscured Theobald's real achievements for
more than a century until J.C. Collins did much to rehabilitate his
reputation by an essay celebrating him as "The Porson of
Shakespearian Criticism" (Essays and Studies, 1895, pp. 263-315).
Collins's emotional defense was largely substantiated by T.R.
Lounsbury's meticulous The Text of Shakespeare (1906), R.F. Jones's
Lewis Theobald (1919), which brought much new material to light, and
most recently by R.B. McKerrow's dispassionate appraisal, "The
Treatment of Shakespeare's Text by his Earlier Editors, 1709-1768"
(Proceedings of the British Academy, XIX, 1933, 23-27). As a result,
so complete has been Theobald's vindication that even in a student's
handbook he is hailed as "the great pioneer of serious Shakespeare
scholarship" and as "the first giant" in the field (A Companion to
Shakespeare Studies, 1934, ed. H. Granville Barker and G.B. Harrison,
pp. 306-07).
Theobald's Preface occupied his attention for over a year and gave him
much trouble in the writing. Its originality was, and still is, a matter of
sharp dispute. The first we hear of it is in a letter of 12 November 1731
from Theobald to his coadjutor Warburton, who had expressed some

concern about what Theobald planned to prefix to his edition. Theobald
announced a major change in plan when he replied that "The affair of
the Prolegomena I have determined to soften into a Preface." He then
proceeded to make a strange request:
But, dear Sir, will you, at your leisure hours, think over for me upon the
contents, topics, orders, &c. of this branch of my labour? You have a
comprehensive memory, and a happiness of digesting the matter joined
to it, which my head is often too much embarrassed to perform.... But
how unreasonable is it to expect this labour, when it is the only part in
which I shall not be able to be just to my friends: for, to confess
assistance in a Preface will, I am afraid, make me appear too naked
(John Nichols, Illustrations of the Literary History of the Eighteenth
Century, 1817, II, 621-22).
His next letter, which contains the list of acknowledgements
substantially as printed, thanks Warburton for consenting to give the
requested help, announces that he is himself busy about "the Contents...
wch. I am Endeavouring to modell in my Head, in Order to
communicate them to you, for your Directions & refinement," indicates
that he has "already rough-hewn the Exordium & Conclusion," and
asserts that "What I shall send you from Time to Time, I look upon
only as Materials: wch I hope may grow into a fine Building, under
your judicious Management" (Jones, _op. cit._, pp. 283-84).
Warburton apparently misunderstood or overlooked Theobald's
remarks about materials, for in his next letter Theobald was obliged to
return, somewhat ambiguously, to the same point:
I make no Question of my being wrong in the disjointed Parts of my
Preface, but my Intention was, (after I had given you the Conclusion, &
the Manner in wch. I meant to start) to give you a List of all the other
general Heads design'd to be handled, then to transmit to you, at proper
Leisure, my rough Working off of each respective Head, that you might
have the Trouble only of refining & embellishing wth: additional
Inrichments: of the general Arrangement, wch. you should think best
for the whole; & of making the proper Transitions from Subject to
Subject, wch. I account no inconsiderable Beauty (_Ibid._, pp. 289-90).

Finally on January 10, 1733, Theobald wrote Warburton: "I promise
myself now shortly to sit down upon ye fine Synopsis, wch. you so
modestly call the Skeleton of Preface" (_Ibid._, p. 310).
It is clear from the foregoing that Theobald wrote most of the Preface
topic by topic, and probably followed the plan for the general structure
as submitted by Warburton. Yet it is equally clear that certain parts of
the Preface, such as the contrast between Julius Caesar and Addison's
Cato, which Warburton later claimed as his and which Theobald
omitted from his second edition, were furnished Theobald as
"additional Inrichments" (D.N. Smith, Eighteenth Century Essays on
Shakespeare, 1903, pp. xlviii-ix). When later a break did occur between
the two men, neither was free from blame. Theobald had asked and got
so much help with the Preface that he should have acknowledged the
debt, no matter how naked it might