THE 



311 



THE 



crustaceans, formed at the expense of Scyllarus of authors 



[SCYLLARIANS, vol. XxL, p. 144.] 



THEOBALD, LEWIS, was born at Sittingbourne, in 

 Kent. We have no record of the date of his birth. His 

 father was an attorney, and he was bred to his father's 

 business. His first literary production was 'Electra,' a 

 tragedy, which appeared in 1714. As the writer of twenty 

 \ cry indifferent plays, he is utterly forgotten. Those pro- 

 ductions belong to an age in which the true spirit of dra- 

 matic poetry was for the most part lost, and Theobalc 

 "ssed none of those brilliant qualities which could 

 impart a lengthened existence to his attempts in por- 

 traying the manners of his age. But he has attained a 

 celebrity of another description. He is most commonly 

 known as the unhappy dunce whom Pope assailed with the 

 most inveterate ridicule ; but, after a century of prejudice 

 against his name, he is now pretty generally acknowledged 

 to have deserved an honourable reputation as an editor of 

 Shakspere, having brought to that task diligence, know- 

 ledge, and judgment, beyond comparison superior to the 

 ciitical talents of his rival the author of the 'Dunclad.' 

 IIi^ -bad eminence' as the original hero of that poem was 

 earned by a pamphlet in which he pointed out many of 

 the errors of Pope's Shakspere. ' Shakespear Restored, or 

 Specimens of Blunders committed and unamended in 

 Pope : s Edition of this Poet,' was published in 1726. The 

 notice which Pope took of this pamphlet was in his 

 id edition of Shakspere, which appeared in 1728. 

 'Since the publication of our first edition, there having 

 been some attempts upon Shakspeare published by Lewis 

 Theobald (which he would not communicate during the 

 lime wherein that edition was preparing for the press, 

 when we, by public advertisements, did request the assist- 

 ance of all lovers of this author), we have inserted in this 

 ID as many of 'em as are judged of any the least 

 to the poet ; the whole amounting to about 

 twenty-live words.' In the same year came out the 

 ' Dunciad.' The revenge of Theobald was the severest 

 ould be inflicted, and it was unexceptionable. In 

 1733 he produced an edition of Shakspere which utterly 

 destroyed that of Pope. It has been asserted that of 

 edition, which was in seven volumes, 8vo., 

 nearly Thirteen thousand copies were sold. (Steevens's 

 !/"93, vol. i.j In his preface Theobald thus 

 notices the attacks of his distinguished rival : ' It is not 

 with any secret pleasure that I so frequently animadvert 

 0:1 Mr. Pope as a critic, but there are provocations which 

 we can never quite forget. His libels have been thrown 

 -I much inveteracy, that, not to dispute whether 

 they should come from a Christian, they leave it a ques- 

 tion whether they could come from a man. I should be 

 loth to doubt, as Quintus Serenus did in a like case, 



: i bestia nobis 

 Vuln'Ti ilriiV- diNtit." 



The indignation, pernaps, for being represented a block- 

 lu-ad, may be as strong in us as it is in the ladies for a re- 

 flection on their beauties. It is certain I am indebted to 

 him for some flagrant civilities ; and I shall willingly de- 

 vote a part of my life to the honest endeavour of quitting 



l ; with this exception, however, that I will not 

 return those civilities in his peculiar strain, but confine 

 myself, at least, to the limits of common decency. I shall 

 ever think it better to want wit, than to want humanity; 

 and impartial posterity may perhaps be of my opinion.' 

 It is to be feared that it was rather a new hatred than a 



of justice, however tardy, which induced Pope in 

 1743 to dethrone Theobald from the heroship of the 

 'Dunciad,' setting up Colley Gibber in his place. In the 



'|i;c-iit year both Pope and Theobald wore at peace; 

 nad f.'ir ever silenced their controversy. Theobald 



in September, 1744. On the 20th of the following 

 October, hi* library, which included 205 old English 

 old by auction. He had collected these pro- 

 ductions, now so rare and highly valued, at a time when 

 our early drama was neglected, if not despised ; and he 

 a judicious use of them in his edition of Shakspere. 

 . of his edition with commendation, we of 

 course look at those things which are of permanent value 

 in it : . cr those ebullitions of offended pride, 



venting itself in self-commendation and acrimonious ob- 

 jection, which were luitmal to one who had been so hunted 



:. Dr. Johnson says that 

 Ttieobald, 'by the gui,d luck of having Pope for hi.; 



enemy, has escaped and escaped alone with reputation 

 from this undertaking [the undertaking of editing Shaks- 

 pere]. So willingly does the world support those who 

 solicit favour against those who command reverence, and 

 so easily is he praised whom no man can envy.' This, we 

 think, is mere phrase-making, and does not represent the 

 world s opinion of any man at any period : reputations are 

 not made upon the compassion of the world. Johnson 

 has, a little before, stated the case with greater correct- 

 ness although not wholly correct. ' Pope was succeeded 

 by Iheobald, a man of narrow comprehension, and small 

 acquisitions, with no native and intrinsic splendour of 

 genius, with little of the artificial light of learning, but 

 zealous for minute accuracy, and not negligent in pursuing 

 it. He collated the ancient copies, and rectified many 

 errors. A man so anxiously scrupulous might have been 

 expected to do more, but what little he did was commonly 

 right.' The great merit of Theobald as an editor is that he 

 did not attempt too much, that he did not ' do more,' and 

 that therefore he was ' commonly right.' The great fault 

 of nearly all the editors of Shakspere has been that they 

 set themselves up above their author; that they would 

 exhibit their own ' native and intrinsic splendour of genius' 

 in the improvement of what they did not understand, and 

 the adaptation of the verse of Shakspere to the standard of 

 another age. The most happy emendations of Shakspere, 

 almost the only admissible ones, have been produced by the 

 caution of Theobald. In his own preface he says, ' I have 

 not by any innovation tampered with his text, out of an os- 

 tentation of endeavouring to make him speak better than the 

 old copies have done ;' aiid then he adds, ' Where, through 

 all the former editions, a passage has laboured under flat 

 nonsense and invincible darkness, if, by the addition or al- 

 teration of a letter or two, or a transposition in the pointing, 

 I have restored to him both sense and sentiment, such cor- 

 rections, I am persuaded, will need no indulgence.' All 

 subsequent editors have a debt to Theobald which has not 

 always been acknowledged. Johnson himself says, 'I 

 li;ive sometimes adopted his restoration of a comma, with- 

 out inserting the panegyric in which he celebrated himself 

 "or his achievement.' 



There is a curious matter connected with the history of 

 Theobald, which needs here only a slight mention. In his 

 edition of Shakspere in 1728, he printed a play, 'The 

 Double Falsehood,' as an original by William Shakspere, 

 t having been a short time before produced on the stage. 

 The play was stated to have been found in manuscript. 

 3ne passage, which is certainly not in the manner of 

 Shakspere, is said to have been particularly admired : 



' Strike up, my misters ; 



But touch the strings with a religious softness : 

 Teach souud to languish through tiie night's dull cor, 

 Till melancholy slart from her lazy cnifli. 

 Ami carelessness grow convert to attention.' 



The admiration was too much for the vanity of Theobald : 

 le came forward to state that he certainly had written 

 hose lines, but that all the rest was genuine Shakspere. 

 )r. Farmer holds that 'The Double Falsehood' was not 



Shakspere's because the word aspect was wrongly accen- 



uated, that is, not as aspect, according to the usage of 



hakspere and of his time ; and he holds the play to be 



hirlcy's. It is not worthy even of that writer. The pro- 



iability is that Theobald had a greater hand in the matter 



han he was subsequently willing to acknowledge. The 



estless vanity and love of notoriety which, according to 



lis own account, impelled Psalmanazar to his impostures, 



las perhaps in nearly every case been the great motive to 



iterary forgery. Theobald was the author of a Life of Sir 



Walter Raleigh ; and he also wrote the greater part of the 



>eriodical papers entitled ' The Censor,' which appeared 



is a separate work in 1717, having been previously pub- 



ished in Mist's 'Weekly Journal.' 



TIIEOBALDUS, a bishop who probably lived in Fiance, 



and whose name is sometimes written Tebaldus or Tibal- 

 fi/'V, the reputed author of a didactic and theological poem 

 mtitled ' Physiologus de Naturis Duodecim Animahum.' 

 t is written in hexameter, sapphic, and other kinds of verse, 



and describes first some one or more of the natural habits 

 f twelve' different animals, and then draws from each some 



moral and religious reflections. The twelve animals chosen 



are the lion, eagle, serpent, ant, fox, stag, spider, whale, 

 iren and centaur, elephant, dove, and panther; and the 



whole poem appeal's to be borrowed in a great measure 



