The Augustan Reprint Society
THE SCRIBLERIAD
(Anonymous)
(1742)
LORD HERVEY
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
VERBAL AND PRACTICAL VIRTUE
(1742)
Introduction byA. J. SAMBROOK
PUBLICATION NUMBER 125
WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
University of California, Los Angeles
1967
GENERAL EDITORS
George Robert Guffey, University of California, Los Angeles
Earl Miner, University of California, Los Angeles
Maximillian E. Novak, University of California, Los Angeles
Robert Vosper, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
ADVISORY EDITORS
Richard C. Boys, University of Michigan
James L. Clifford, Columbia University
Ralph Cohen, University of California, Los Angeles
Vinton A. Dearing, University of California, Los Angeles
Arthur Friedman, University of Chicago
Louis A. Landa, Princeton University
Samuel H. Monk, University of Minnesota
Everett T. Moore, University of California, Los Angeles
Lawrence Clark Powell, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
James Sutherland, University College, London
H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., University of California, Los Angeles
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY
Edna C. Davis, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
INTRODUCTION
Though they are never particularly edifying, literary quarrels may at times be educative. Always savage, attacks on Pope reached their lowest depths of scurrility in 1742, when, in addition to the usual prose and doggerel verse pamphlets, engravings were being circulated portraying Pope in a brothel—this on the basis of the story told in the notorious Letter from Mr. Cibber to Mr. Pope, dated 7 July 1742.[1] The Augustan Reprint Society has already reissued three of the anonymous Grub Street attacks made upon Pope in this busy year,[2] but the present volume is intended to complete the picture of the battle-lines by reprinting a verse attack launched from the court—by Hervey presenting himself as Cibber’s ally—and a verse defence that comes, in point of artistry, clearly from or near Grub Street itself.
Lord Hervey’s verses, The Difference between Verbal and Practical Virtue, were published between 21 and 24 August 1742, less than a week after the same author’s prose pamphlet (A Letter to Mr. C—b—r, On his Letter to Mr. P——.) which had compared the art of Pope and Cibber to Cibber’s advantage, and had roundly concluded that Pope was “a second-rate Poet, a bad Companion, a dangerous Acquaintance, an inveterate, implacable Enemy, nobody’s Friend, a noxious Member of Society, and a thorough bad Man.” In the course of the prose pamphlet Hervey had suggested that there was a certain incongruity between Pope’s true character and his assumed persona of the “virtuous man,” and this incongruity forms the main subject of his verse attack. Here Hervey finds examples of “the difference between verbal and practical virtue” in the lives of Horace, Seneca, and Sallust, before turning to lampoon Pope crossly and ineptly. The attack on Horace is well conceived for Hervey’s purpose and calculated to damage Pope who was in so many eyes, including his own, the modern heir of that ancient poet, but the straight abuse directed against Pope’s person is sad stuff. Such lines as those on the “yelping Mungril” (p. [6]) serve only to show how squarely the “well-bred Spaniels” taunt in the Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot had hit its target. Hervey’s poem carried a prefatory letter headed “Mr. C—b—er to Mr. P.,” making out that Cibber had a hand in writing the poem itself. Coming so soon after Hervey’s Letter to Cibber, which had carried the markedly intimate subscription “With the greatest Gratitude and Truth, most affectionately yours,” this prefatory letter to the poem further emphasized Hervey’s firm and deliberate alliance with Cibber.
Evidently it was the strangeness of this alliance between the two opponents of Pope that struck the fancy of that unidentified “Scriblerus” whose “Epistle to the Dunces,” The Scribleriad, was published between 30 September and 2 October 1742. When Hervey was “affectionately yours” to Cibber, the two stood shoulder to shoulder so temptingly open to a single volley that the author of The Scribleriad could fairly claim, as Pope had claimed in the appendix to The Dunciad Variorum of 1729, that “the Poem was not made for these Authors, but these Authors for the Poem.” Hervey appears as “Narcissus,” the nickname Pope had used for him in The New Dunciad. A “late Vice-Chamberlain” (because he had been dismissed from that post in July 1742) still gorged with the fulsome dedication of Conyers Middleton’s Life of Cicero (1741), he is shown (pp. [11-13]) rousing Cibber. Cibber’s situation, reclining on the lap of Dulness where he is found by Hervey, is taken from The New Dunciad, while his general Satanic role parallels Theobald’s in The Dunciad Variorum. This may reflect common knowledge that Pope was at work on revisions that would raise Cibber to the Dunces’ throne, but the belief that Cibber was King of the Dunces had been widespread from the date of his appointment as Poet Laureate.[3] The Scribleriad follows the general run of satires against Cibber—attacking his senile infatuation for Peg Woffington, his violently demagogic and chauvinistic Nonjuror (first acted in 1717 but still drawing an audience in 1741), his laureate odes and his frank commercialization of art.
Although the writer of The Scribleriad was obviously prompted by the example of The Dunciad and borrows many details from Pope, his poem has very little of that mock-epic quality its title might lead a reader to expect. There are slight traces of parody of Virgil when, on page [16], Cibber appears as Aeneas (the character he was soon to assume in The Dunciad in Four Books) and the epicene Hervey is portrayed as a rejuvenated Sybil guiding the hero through a hell of duncery. There are hints of Paradise Lost too, when Cibber, Satan-like, undertakes his mission (p. [17]) and the dunces, Belial-like, agree “they’re better in a cursed State,/Than to be totally annihilate” (p. [5]). But “Scriblerus’” use of Virgil and Milton, unlike Pope’s, does not import some graver meaning into his poem; it provides him with neither a framework of moral symbols nor a continuous narrative thread.
The action is slight and its setting vague. Sometimes we are in a brothel, crowded with bullies, punks, lords, draymen and linkboys, and managed by Cibber (pp. [11-12]) or by Dulness (p. [10]). This setting, together with the claim that Cibber’s own muse is a prostitute (p. [8]), serves as a retort to the Tom-Tit in the brothel story in Cibber’s Letter to Pope and to emphasize the element of literary prostitution in the activities of Cibber and his like. At other times the setting is a regular dunces’ club (pp. [9], [16]) of the type chronicled in the pages of The Grub Street Journal. Towards the end of the poem it is an Assembly Room (p. [19]) presided over by the Goddess of Puffs (a happy development of that more commonplace mythical figure “Fame,” Dulness’ handmaiden in The New Dunciad) who sets a test for the dunces and judges their performance. Only in this concluding episode can this rather shapeless poem (which certainly is neither the mock epic nor the epistle that its title-page promises) be assigned to any regular literary “kind.” This “kind” is that favorite of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the “Sessions Poem.”[4]
“Scriblerus’” account of the sessions of the dunces is more allusive and particularized than the rest of the poem and consequently calls for somewhat more detailed comment. The chief cases at the sessions embrace the pamphlet battle of summer 1742 and theatrical rivalry in the 1741-42 London season. Cibber’s contribution to the paper-war, the Letter to Pope (written according to Cibber “At the Desire of several Persons of Quality”), is introduced at page [17] and consigned on page [19] to William Lewis its printer. Hervey stalks in “under VIRTUE’s Name” in a “borrow’d Shape” (p. [24]), an allusion to the suggestion in the prefatory epistle to The Difference between Verbal and Practical Virtue that the poem was Cibber’s work. (The “horse him” on [25] of The Scribleriad refers to Cibber’s adaptation of Shakespeare’s Richard III.) Other pamphlets issued in August 1742 are mentioned on page [24]—Sawney and Colley,[5] which “Scriblerus” calls “CLODDY’s Dialogue,” and A Blast upon Bays.[6]
Turning to the theatre, “Scriblerus” attacks all three major companies of the 1741-42 London season. He first introduces the two patented theatres, Drury Lane and Covent Garden, as rivals only in that debased dramatic form the pantomime. “The angry Quack” (p. [25]) is John Weaver, dancing master at Drury Lane and author of Anatomical and Mechanical Lectures upon Dancing (1721), who claimed for himself[7] the credit of having originated pantomime upon the English stage. Weaver’s Orpheus and Eurydice at Drury Lane (1718) was hardly noticed, whereas John Rich had more recently bestowed “an ORPHEUS on the Town” (p. [25]) to very different effect. Rich’s Orpheus and Eurydice: With the Metamorphoses of Harlequin had opened on 12 February 1740 at Covent Garden, where he was manager. With Rich himself as Harlequin, it was a wild success that season—remaining a regular and highly popular afterpiece through the 1741-42 season and later.
What The Scribleriad tells us of “Ambivius Turpio, the Stage ’Squire” (p. [26]) suggests that he is to be identified with Charles Fleetwood, Esq.,[8] the wealthy, inexperienced amateur who managed Drury Lane (this even though the original Ambivius Turpio was an actor, while Fleetwood, apparently, was not). All managers were frequently involved in disputes over actors’ pay, but Fleetwood’s were the most notorious. It was the Drury Lane company that included “the contending POLLYS” (p. [27])—Mrs. Cibber and Mrs. Clive who had bitterly quarrelled in 1736 over who should play that role in The Beggar’s Opera. Fleetwood, like Rich, gave a play for the benefit of Shakespeare’s monument in Westminster Abbey.[9] What little that Fleetwood knew of management he might well have learned from his one-time under-manager Theophilus Cibber, the “young PTOLOMY” (p. [27]) who, of course, had derived his knowledge from his “great Sire alone.”
The third theatre attacked in The Scribleriad is Goodman’s Fields. Its manager, Henry Giffard, had no patent, but contrived to evade the Licensing Act by the subterfuge of charging admission to a concert in two parts and then offering, “gratis” in the interval, a regular full-length play and afterpiece. The “City Wrath” (p. [26]) arose from the fact that the theatre was inside the City boundaries and was thought to encourage vice; indeed, Sir John Barnard and his fellow aldermen managed to prevent it opening for the 1742-43 season and thereafter. Allusions in the poem are to the theatre’s highly successful 1741-42 season when Garrick sprang to fame as Cibber’s Richard III and also played Tate’s King Lear. On page [26] “Scriblerus” sneers at Garrick’s small stature,[10] and refers to the impropriety of including the figure of Cato in the décor at Goodman’s Fields.
Targets outside the three theatrical companies are chosen from among the obvious ones already attacked by Pope. Mrs. Haywood, who in 1742 had turned publisher under the sign of “Fame,” is shown (p. [21]) appropriately enough as the first dunce to recognize the Goddess of Puffs. “The Chief of the translating Bards” (p. [23]) is the aged and industrious Ozell, and his fellows include Theobald and Thomas Cooke (p. [24]).[11] The satire extends to touch the Administration and the City, with references to Britain’s hitherto inactive part in the War of the Austrian Succession (p. [9]) and to the manner in which stock-jobbers used false war news to aid their financial speculations (p. [4]). It alludes to the “grand Debate” (p. [8]) of the committee set up in March 1742 to consider charges of corruption against the deposed Walpole (created Lord Orford in February), which by the end of the summer had fizzled out, doubtless because so many members of the new government, including the numerous “Peers new-made” (p. [9]), had shared Walpole’s peculations and wished to cover their tracks. When it hits at the King for his patronage of Cibber (p. [13]), at the Queen for her ridiculous Merlin’s Cave and waxworks in Richmond Gardens (p. [16]),[12] and at the Daily Gazeteer which, until Walpole’s fall, had been expensively subsidized from the government secret service fund and had numbered among its journalists such highly placed statesmen as Walpole’s brother Horatio—then, The Scribleriad suggests, there is a general conspiracy between high ranks and low to encourage Dulness. The Hervey-Cibber alliance is merely the most recent manifestation of this conspiracy.
Although it so obviously arises immediately out of the pamphlet battle of summer 1742, The Scribleriad manages to range more widely in its satire than the anti-Pope lampoons it replies to. Further, it contrives to bring in Pope himself without degrading him to the level of his antagonists. This is done by mounting him on Pegasus and likening the dunces to curs (pp. [13-14]), or comparing him to the sun whose warmth hatches out maggots (pp. [6], [29]):
How many, who have Reams of Paper spoil’d,
Have often sleepless Nights obscurely toil’d,
And buried in their Eggs, like Silkworms, lay
’Till his warm Satire shew’d them Life and Day?
Here then, my Sons, is all your living Hope,
To be immortal Scriblers, rail at POPE.
The image, the attitude and the phrasing alike are borrowed from Pope, for The Scribleriad is highly derivative throughout. Only two or three times does “Scriblerus” improve at all upon the many hints he steals from Pope. I have already mentioned the Goddess Puffs, but other happy touches are to be found in a spirited travesty (pp. [16-17]) of the opening lines from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Book XIII:[13]
The Chiefs were sate, the Scriblers waited round
······
When he, the Master of the Seven-fold Face,
Rose gleaming thro’ his own Corinthian Brass.
Pope had written in The Dunciad Variorum, “The heroes sit; the vulgar form a ring” (II, 352), but one of the most memorable phrases in The Dunciad in Four Books of 1743—the ingeniously insolent “sev’nfold Face” (I, 244)—may well have been borrowed from The Scribleriad. “Corinthian Brass” is good also, economically combining as it does a hit against Cibber’s effrontery and a hint of his sexual irregularities. Such strokes of wit are rare; The Scribleriad is the work of a writer who in skill is far closer to Grub Street than to Pope, but it may serve as “a voice from the crowd” to remind us that Pope had his humbler literary supporters.
The University
Southampton
NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION
[1. ] The engravings are numbered 2571-2573 in F. G. Stephens, Catalogue of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, Division 1—Satires (London, 1877), Vol. III, Part I. For lists of pamphlets attacking, and in some cases defending, Pope in 1742, see R. W. Rogers, The Major Satires of Alexander Pope (Urbana, 1955), pp. 150, 151 and C. D. Peavy, “The Pope-Cibber Controversy: A Bibliography,” in Restoration and Eighteenth Century Theatre Research, III (1964), 53, 54. For accounts of the Pope-Cibber quarrel see R. H. Barker, Mr. Cibber of Drury Lane (New York, 1939), pp. 204-220, and N. Ault, New Light on Pope (London, 1949), pp. 298-324.
[2.] Sawney and Colley and Blast upon Blast in Number 83 (1960), and The Blatant Beast in Number 114 (1965).
[3.] E.g., in The New Session of the Poets (The Universal Spectator, 6 Feb. 1731) the Goddess Dulness calls a session and awards the crown to Cibber.
[4.] See Hugh Macdonald, “Introduction,” A Journal from Parnassus (London, 1937) and A. L. Williams, “Literary Backgrounds to Book Four of the Dunciad,” PMLA, LXVIII (1953), 806-813.
[5.] See note 2 above.
[6.] An anti-Cibber work in prose. It is doubtful that “Scriblerus,” who thought this work did more harm than good to Pope’s cause, would have endorsed the British Museum catalogue’s attribution of it to Pope himself.
[7.] In The History of the Mimes and Pantomimes (1728).
[8.] Some account of Fleetwood may be found in R. W. Buss, Charles Fleetwood, Holder of the Drury Lane Theatre Patent (privately printed, 1915). There are hostile contemporary accounts of Fleetwood in Henry Carey’s epistle Of Stage Tyrants [(1735) reprinted in The Poems of Henry Carey, ed. F. T. Wood (1930)], in Charlotte Charke’s The Art of Management (1735), and in A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Charlotte Charke, Youngest Daughter of Colley Cibber, Written by Herself (1735).
[9.] Julius Caesar, on 28 April 1738. Rich offered Hamlet on 10 April 1739.
[10.] A lady once asked Foote, “Pray, Sir, are your puppets to be as large as life?” “Oh dear, Madam, no: not much above the size of Garrick.” See William Cooke, Memoirs of Samuel Foote (1805), II, 58.
[11.] Theobald never published his long promised translation of Aeschylus; but, by bracketing it with Cooke’s musical farce from Terence, The Eunuch, which was performed (Drury Lane, 17 May 1737), “Scriblerus” seems to imply that he did complete it.
[12.] The immediate target of this shaft was the waxwork show kept by Mrs. Salmon near St. Dunstan’s Church in Fleet Street, but the original “Merlin’s Cave” built for Queen Caroline in 1735 remained a standing jest into the 1740’s.
[13.] “Consedere duces et vulgi stante corona surgit ad hos clipei dominus septemplicis” (Met., XIII, 1-2). Dryden translates:
The Chiefs were set; the Soldiers crown’d the Field:
To these the Master of the seven-fold Shield
Upstarted fierce.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
The text of this edition of The Scribleriad is reproduced from a copy in the Library of St. David’s College, Lampeter, and that of The Difference between Verbal and Practical Virtue from a copy in the British Museum.
THE
SCRIBLERIAD.
BEING AN
EPISTLE
TO THE
DUNCES,
On Renewing their
Attack upon Mr. POPE,
UNDER THEIR
Leader the LAUREAT.
By Scriblerus.
|
No Author ever spares a Brother; Wits are Game Cocks to one another. |
Gay. |
LONDON:
Printed for W. Webb, near St. Paul’s. 1742.
[Price Six-pence.]
THE
SCRIBLERIAD.
AN
EPISTLE
FINIS.
(Just Publish’d, Price 6d.)
The Political Padlock, and the English Key. A Fable. Translated from the Italian of Father M——r S——ini, who is now under Confinement for the same in Naples, by Order of Don Carlos. With Explanatory Notes.
I grant all Courses are in vain,
Unless we can get in again:
The only Way that’s left us now,
But all the Difficulty’s How?
THE
DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN
VERBAL and PRACTICAL
VIRTUE.
| Dicendi Virtus, nisi ei, qui dicit, ea, de quibus dicit, percepta sint, extare non potest. Cic. |
WITH
A Prefatory Epistle from Mr. C—b—r to Mr. P.
| Sic ulciscar genera singula, quemadmodum à quibus sum provocatus. |
| Cic. post Redit. ad Quir. |
LONDON:
Printed for J. Roberts, near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane.
Mdccxlii.
Mr. C—b—r to Mr. P.
Have at you again, Sir. I gave you fair Warning that I would have the last Word; and by —— (I will not swear in Print) you shall find me no Lyar. I own, I am greatly elate on the Laurels the Town has bestow’d upon me for my Victory over you in my Prose Combat; and, encouraged by that Triumph, I now resolve to fight you on your own Dunghil of Poetry, and with your own jingling Weapons of Rhyme and Metre. I confess I have had some Help; but what then? since the greatest Princes are rather proud than asham’d of Allies and Auxiliaries when they make War in the Field, why should I decline such Assistance when I make War in the Press? And since you thought most unrighteously and unjustly to fall upon me and crush me, only because you imagin’d your Self strong and Me weak, as France fell upon the Queen of Hungary; if I like her (si parva licet componere magnis) by first striking a bold and desperate Stroke myself with a little Success, have encouraged such a Friend to me, as England has been to her, to espouse my Cause, and turn all the Weight of the War upon you, till you wish you had never begun it; with what reasonable and equitable Pleasure may I not pursue my Blow till I make you repent, by laying you on your Back, the ungrateful Returns you have made me for saving you from Destruction when you laid yourself on your Belly. I am, Sir, not your humble, but your devoted Servant; for I will follow you as long as I live; and as Terence says in the Eunuch, Ego pol te pro istis dictis & factis, scelus, ulciscar, ut ne impune in nos illus eris.
THE
DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN
Verbal and Practical VIRTUE
EXEMPLIFY’D,
In some Eminent Instances both Ancient and Modern.
|
What awkard Judgments must they make of Men, Who think their Hearts are pictur’d by their Pen; That this observes the Rules which that approves, And what one praises, that the other loves. Few Authors tread the Paths they recommend, Or when they shew the Road, pursue the End: Few give Examples, whilst they give Advice, Or tho’ they scourge the vicious, shun the Vice; But lash the Times as Swimmers do the Tide, And kick and cuff the Stream on which they ride. His tuneful Lyre when polish’d Horace strung, [a]And all the Sweets of calm Retirement sung, In Practice still his courtly Conduct show’d His Joy was Luxury, and Power his God; []With great Mæcenas meanly proud to dine, [c]And fond to load Augustus flatter’d Shrine; [d]And whilst he rail’d at Menas ill-got Sway, [e]His numerous Train that choak’d the Appian Way, His Talents still to Perfidy apply’d, Three Times a Friend and Foe to either Side. Horace forgot, or hop’d his Readers would, [f]His Safety on the same Foundation stood. That he who once had own’d his Country’s Cause, Now kiss’d the Feet that trampled on her Laws: That till the Havock of Philippi’s Field, Where Right to Force, by Fate was taught to yield, He follow’d Brutus, and then hail’d the Sword, Which gave Mankind, whom Brutus freed, a Lord: Nor to the Guilt of a Deserter’s Name, Like Menas great (tho’ with dishonest Fame) Added the Glory, tho’ he shar’d the Shame. For whilst with Fleets and Armies Menas warr’d, Courage his Leader, Policy his Guard, Poor Horace only follow’d with a Verse That Fate the Freedman balanc’d, to rehearse; Singing the Victor for whom Menas fought, And following Triumph which the other brought. [g]Thus graver Seneca, in canting Strains, Talk’d of fair Virtue’s Charms and Vice’s Stains, And said the happy were the chaste and poor; Whilst plunder’d Provinces supply’d his Store, And Rome’s Imperial Mistress was his Whore. But tho’ he rail’d at Flattery’s dangerous Smile, A Claudius, and a Nero, all the while, With every Vice that reigns in Youth or Age, The Gilding of his venal Pen engage, And fill the slavish Fable of each Page. See Sallust too, whose Energy divine Lashes a vicious Age in ev’ry Line: With Horror painting the flagitious Times, The profligate, profuse, rapacious Crimes, That reign’d in the degenerate Sons of Rome, And made them first deserve, then caus’d their Doom; With all the Merit of his virtuous Pen, Leagu’d with the worst of these corrupted Men; The Day in Riot and Excess to waste, The Night in Taverns and in Brothels past: [h]And when the Censors, by their high Controll, Struck him, indignant, from the Senate’s Roll, From Justice he appeal’d to Cæsar’s Sword, []And by Law exil’d, was by Force restor’d. [k]What follow’d let Numidia’s Sons declare, Harrass’d in Peace with Ills surpassing War; Each Purse by Peculate and Rapine drain’d, Each House by Murder and Adult’ries stain’d: Till Africk Slaves, gall’d by the Chains of Rome, Wish’d their own Tyrants as a milder Doom. If then we turn our Eyes from Words to Fact, Comparing how Men write, with how they act, How many Authors of this Contrast kind In ev’ry Age, and ev’ry Clime we find. Thus scribbling P—— who Peter never spares, Feeds on extortious Interest from young Heirs: And whilst he made Old S—lkerk’s Bows his Sport, Dawb’d minor Courtiers, of a minor Court. If Sallust, Horace, Seneca, and He Thus in their Morals then so well agree; By what Ingredient is the Difference known? The Difference only in their Wit is shown, For all their Cant and Falshood is his own. He rails at Lies, and yet for half a Crown, Coins and disperses Lies thro’ all the Town: Of his own Crimes the Innocent accuses, And those who clubb’d to make him eat, abuses. But whilst such Features in his Works we trace, And Gifts like these his happy Genius grace; Let none his haggard Face, or Mountain Back, The Object of mistaken Satire make; Faults which the best of Men, by Nature curs’d, May chance to share in common with the worst. In Vengeance for his Insults on Mankind, Let those who blame, some truer Blemish find, And lash that worse Deformity, his Mind. Like prudent Foes attack some weaker Part, And make the War upon his Head or Heart. Prove his late Works dishonest as they’re dull; That try’d by Moral or Poetic Rule, The Verdict must be either Knave or Fool. [l]Whilst his false English, and false Facts combin’d, Betray the double Darkness of his Mind; [m]That Mind so suited to its vile Abode, The Temple so adapted to the God, It seems the Counterpart by Heav’n design’d A Symbol and a Warning to Mankind: As at some Door we find hung out a Sign, Type of the Monster to be found within. From his own Words this Scoundrel let ’em prove Unjust in Hate, incapable of Love; For all the Taste he ever has of Joy, Is like some yelping Mungril to annoy And teaze that Passenger he can’t destroy. To cast a Shadow o’er the spotless Fame, Or dye the Cheek of Innocence with Shame; To swell the Breast of Modesty with Care, Or force from Beauty’s Eye a secret Tear; And, not by Decency or Honour sway’d, Libel the Living, and asperse the Dead: Prone where he ne’er receiv’d to give Offence, But most averse to Merit and to Sense; Base to his Foe, but baser to his Friend, Lying to blame, and sneering to commend: Defaming those whom all but he must love, And praising those whom none but he approve. Then let him boast that honourable Crime, Of making those who fear not God, fear him; When the great Honour of that Boast is such That Hornets and Mad Dogs may boast as much. Such is th’ Injustice of his daily Theme, And such the Lust that breaks his nightly Dream; That vestal Fire of undecaying Hate, Which Time’s cold Tide itself can ne’er abate, But like Domitian, with a murd’rous Will, Rather than nothing, Flies he likes to kill. And in his Closet stabs some obscure Name, [n]Brought by this Hangman first to Light and Shame. Such now his Works to all the World are known, Who undeceiv’d, their former Error own; Whilst not one Man who likes his rhyming Art, Allows him Genius, or defends his Heart: But thus from Triumph snatch’d, and giv’n to Shame Lash’d into Penitence, and out of Fame. Since all Mankind these certain Truths allow, And speak so freely what so well they know; No wonder doom’d such Treatment to receive, That he can feel, and that he can’t forgive. Were I dispos’d to curse the Man I hate, Such would I wish his miserable Fate. Thus striving to inflict, to meet Disgrace, And wasted to the Ghost of what he was; And like all Ghosts which Men of Sense despise, Only the Dread of Folly’s coward Eyes. Thus would I have him despicably live, Himself, his Friends, and Credit to survive, Into Contempt from Reputation hurl’d, His own Detractor thro’ a scoffing World. |
FINIS.
The Augustan Reprint Society
WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
University of California, Los Angeles
Publications in Print
1948-1949
15. John Oldmixon, Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to Harley (1712), and Arthur Mainwaring, The British Academy (1712).
16. Henry Nevil Payne, The Fatal Jealousie (1673).
17. Nicholas Rowe, Some Account of the Life of Mr. William Shakespear (1709).
18. Anonymous, “Of Genius,” in The Occasional Paper, Vol. III, No. 10 (1719), and Aaron Hill, Preface to The Creation (1720).
1949-1950
19. Susanna Centlivre, The Busie Body (1709).
20. Lewis Theobald, Preface to the Works of Shakespeare (1734).
22. Samuel Johnson, The Vanity of Human Wishes (1749), and two Rambler papers (1750).
23. John Dryden, His Majesties Declaration Defended (1681).
1950-1951
26. Charles Macklin, The Man of the World (1792).
1951-1952
31. Thomas Gray, An Elegy Wrote in a Country Churchyard (1751), and The Eton College Manuscript.
1952-1953
41. Bernard Mandeville, A Letter to Dion (1732).
1958-1959
77-78. David Hartley, Various Conjectures on the Perception, Motion, and Generation of Ideas (1746).
1959-1960
79. William Herbert, Third Earl of Pembroke, Poems (1660).
81. Two Burlesques of Lord Chesterfield’s Letters: The Graces (1774), and The Fine Gentleman’s Etiquette (1776).
1960-1961
85-86. Essays on the Theatre from Eighteenth-Century Periodicals.
1961-1962
93. John Norris, Cursory Reflections Upon a Book Call’d, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690).
94. An. Collins, Divine Songs and Meditacions (1653).
96. Ballads and Songs Loyal to the Hanoverian Succession (1703-1761).
1962-1963
97. Myles Davies, [Selections from] Athenae Britannicae (1716-1719).
98. Select Hymns Taken Out of Mr. Herbert’s Temple (1697).
99. Thomas Augustine Arne, Artaxerxes (1761).
100. Simon Patrick, A Brief Account of the New Sect of Latitude-Men (1662).
101-102. Richard Hurd, Letters on Chivalry and Romance (1762).
1963-1964
103. Samuel Richardson, Clarissa: Preface, Hints of Prefaces, and Postscript.
104. Thomas D’Urfey, Wonders in the Sun; or, The Kingdom of the Birds (1706).
105. Bernard Mandeville, An Enquiry into the Causes of the Frequent Executions at Tyburn (1725).
106. Daniel Defoe, A Brief History of the Poor Palatine Refugees (1709).
107-108. John Oldmixon, An Essay on Criticism (1728).
1964-1965
109. Sir William Temple, An Essay Upon the Original and Nature of Government (1680).
110. John Tutchin, Selected Poems (1685-1700).
111. Anonymous, Political Justice (1736).
112. Robert Dodsley, An Essay on Fable (1764).
113. T. R., An Essay Concerning Critical and Curious Learning (1698).
114. Two Poems Against Pope: Leonard Welsted, One Epistle to Mr. A. Pope (1730), and Anonymous, The Blatant Beast (1740).
1965-1966
115. Daniel Defoe and others, Accounts of the Apparition of Mrs. Veal.
116. Charles Macklin, The Covent Garden Theatre (1752).
117. Sir Roger L’Estrange, Citt and Bumpkin (1680).
118. Henry More, Enthusiasmus Triumphatus (1662).
119. Thomas Traherne, Meditations on the Six Days of the Creation (1717).
120. Bernard Mandeville, Aesop Dress’d or a Collection of Fables (1704).
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: University of California, Los Angeles
The Augustan Reprint Society
General Editors: George Robert Guffey, University of California, Los Angeles; Earl Miner, University of California, Los Angeles; Maximillian E. Novak, University of California, Los Angeles; Robert Vosper, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
Corresponding Secretary: Mrs. Edna C. Davis, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
The Society’s purpose is to publish reprints (usually facsimile reproductions) of rare seventeenth and eighteenth century works. All income of the Society is devoted to defraying costs of publication and mailing.
Correspondence concerning subscriptions in the United States and Canada should be addressed to the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 2520 Cimarron St., Los Angeles, California. Correspondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to any of the general editors. Manuscripts of introductions should conform to the recommendations of the MLA Style Sheet. The membership fee is $5.00 a year for subscribers in the United States and Canada and 30/— for subscribers in Great Britain and Europe. British and European subscribers should address B. H. Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England. Copies of back issues in print may be obtained from the Corresponding Secretary.
PUBLICATIONS FOR 1966-1967
Henry Headley, Poems (1786). Introduction by Patricia Meyer Spacks.
James Macpherson, Fragments of Ancient Poetry (1760). Introduction by John J. Dunn.
Edmond Malone, Cursory Observations on the Poems Attributed to Thomas Rowley (1782). Introduction by James M. Kuist.
Anonymous, The Female Wits (1704). Introduction by Lucyle Hook.
Anonymous, Scribleriad (1742). Lord Hervey, The Difference Between Verbal and Practical Virtue (1742). Introduction by A. J. Sambrook.
Le Lutrin: an Heroick Poem, Written Originally in French by Monsieur Boileau: Made English by N. O. (1682). Introduction by Richard Morton.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
The Society announces a series of special publications beginning with a reprint of John Ogilby, The Fables of Aesop Paraphras’d in Verse (1668), with an Introduction by Earl Miner. Ogilby’s book is commonly thought one of the finest examples of seventeenth-century bookmaking and is illustrated with eighty-one plates. The next in this series will be John Gay’s Fables (1728), with an Introduction by Vinton A. Dearing. Publication is assisted by funds from the Chancellor of the University of California, Los Angeles. Price to members of the Society, $2.50 for the first copy and $3.25 for additional copies. Price to non-members, $4.00.
Seven back numbers of Augustan Reprints which have been listed as out-of-print now are available in limited supply: 15, 19, 41, 77-78, 79, 81. Price per copy, $0.90 each; $1.80 for the double-issue 77-78.
THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
2520 CIMARRON STREET AT WEST ADAMS BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90018
Make check or money order payable to The Regents of the University of California.
Footnotes:
[a] Beatus ille qui procul negotiis, &c. Epod. 2. Cum magnis vixisse invita fatebirur usque invidia. Sat. 1. Lib. 2.
[] Nunc quia Mæcenas tibi sum convictor. Sat. 6. Lib. 1.
——Tu pulses omne quod obstat
Ad Mæcenatem memori si mente recurras.
Hoc juvat, & melli est; ne mentiar. Sat. 6. Lib. 2.
[c] All his Works are full of Examples of Flattery to Augustus.
[d] Epod. 4. Mænas was a Freedman of Pompey the younger; and he deserted from him to Augustus, then back from Augustus to Pompey, and then from Pompey to Augustus again. This is in all the Histories. Appian. Dion.
[e] Et Appiam mannis terit. Epod. 4.
O sæpe mecum tempus in ultimum
Deducte, Bruto militiæ Duce.——
Tecum Philippos & celerem fugam
Sensi, relictâ non bene parmulâ
Cum fracta virtus, & minaces
Turpe solum tetigere mento. Hor. Ode. 7. B. 2.
[g] In his Seneca reus factus est multorum scelerum, sed præsertim quod cum Agrippinâ rem haberet, nec enim in hâc re solum, sed in plerisque aliis contra facere visus est quam Philosophabatur. Quum enim Tyrannidem improbaret, Tyranni præceptor erat: quumque insultaret iis qui cum principibus versarentur, ipse à Palatio non discedebat. Assentatores detestabatur, quum ipse Reginas coleret & libertos, ac Laudationes quorundam componeret. Reprehendebat divites is, cujus facultates erant ter millies sestertium: quique luxum aliorum damnabat quingentes tripodas habuit de ligno cedrino, pedibus eburneis, similes & pares inter se, in quibus cœnabat. Ex quibus omnibus ea quæ sunt his consentanea, quæque ipse libidinose fecit, facile intelligi possunt. Nuptias enim cum nobilissimâ atque illustrissimâ fœminâ contraxit. Delectabatur exoletis, idque Neronem facere docuerat etsi antea tanta fuerat in morum severitate ut ab eo peteret, ne se oscularetur, neve una secum cœnandi causa discumberet.
Vid. Dion. Excerpta per Xiphilinum, Lib. 61.
[h] Collegæ tamen, multos Nobilium, atque inter eos Crispum etiam Sallustium, eum, qui historiam conscripsit, Senatu ejicienti non repugnavit. Dion. Lib. 40.
[] Ab his Sallustius (qui ut Senatoriam dignitatem recupararet tum Prætor factus erat) propemodum occisus. Dion. Lib. 42.
[k] Numidas quoque in suam potestarem Cæsar accepit, iisque Sallustium præfecit. Sallustius & pecuniæ captæ & compilatæ provinciæ accusatus, summam infamiam reportavit, quod quum ejusmodi libros composuisset, in quibus multis acerbisque verbis eos, qui ex provinciis quæstum facerent, notasset, nequaquam suis scriptis in agendo sterisset. Itaque etsi à Cæsare absolutus fuit, tamen suis ipsius verbis proprium crimen abunde quasi in tabulâ propositum divulgavit. Dion. L. 43.
[l] See at least a hundred and fifty Places in his late Works.
[m] In quo deformitas corporis cum turpitudine cerrabat ingenii; adco ut animus eius dignissimo domicilio inclusus videretur. Vel. Pat. L. 2. B. 69.
[n] See the Dunciad.