THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY
GERARD LANGBAINE
Momus Triumphans:
OR,
THE PLAGIARIES OF THE ENGLISH STAGE
(1688 [1687])
_Introduction by_ DAVID STUART RODES
PUBLICATION NUMBER 150
WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
1971
GENERAL EDITORS
William E. Conway, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
George Robert Guffey, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Maximillian E. Novak, _University of California, Los Angeles_
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
David S. Rodes, _University of California, Los Angeles_
ADVISORY EDITORS
Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_
James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_
Ralph Cohen, _University of Virginia_
Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_
Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_
Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_
Earl Miner, _University of California, Los Angeles_
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_
Robert Vosper, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
Curt A. Zimansky, _State University of Iowa_
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY
Edna C. Davis, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT
Jean T. Shebanek, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
INTRODUCTION
Gerard Langbaine's _Momus Triumphans, Or the Plagiaries of the English
Stage_ (1687) is significant for a number of reasons. It is, first of
all, the most comprehensive catalogue of the English theatre to its
time, a list of surprising bibliographical competence and extent for
its subject and period and a source study which is still of some use
today. Secondly, it serves as the strong and carefully articulated
skeleton for Langbaine's elaborately expanded _Account of the English
Dramatick Poets_ published some three years later in 1691, and itself
a catalogue which remains "a major work of literary scholarship that
is immune from obsolescence."[1] Thirdly, and more privately, _Momus_
stands as both a partial record and efficient cause of a quarrel whose
claim to our attention is its connection with Dryden. It is a quarrel
minor in itself and of which few details are known. Indeed, to call it
a quarrel at all is to give a corporeality to Langbaine's adversaries
which facts will not directly support, but Langbaine's prejudices
against Dryden in _Momus_ and their resulting intensification in the
_Account_ suggest a matrix of literature, alliances of taste, politics
and religion interestingly characteristic of late seventeenth-century
England.
_Momus Triumphans_ is based on four prior literary catalogues:[2]
[Francis Kirkman,] _A True, perfect and exact Catalogue of all
the Comedies, Tragedies, Tragi-Comedies, Pastorals, Masques and
Interludes, that were ever yet Printed and Published, till this
present year 1671_ (London, 1671);
Edward Phillips, _Theatrum Poetarum, Or A Compleat Collection
of the Poets, Especially The most-Eminent, of all Ages_
(London, 1675);
[Gerard Langbaine,] _An Exact Catalogue of All All the
Comedies, Tragedies, Tragi-Comedies, Operas, Masks, Pastorals,
and Interludes That were ever yet Printed and Published, till
this present year 1680_ (Oxford, 1680); and William Winstanley,
_The Lives Of the most Famous English Poets, Or The Honour of
Parnassus_ (London, 1687).
In his Preface to _Momus_ Langbaine acknowledges his indebtedness to
these four earlier lists and asserts "_the general Use of_ Catalogues,
_and the esteem they are in at present_" (A2r). But he argues that
a new catalogue is needed because the former ones are out of print,
"_they were all of them full of gross Errours_," and they are not "_so
Methodical as this which I have now made_." Further, he proposes to add
"_all the Plays which have been Printed since 1680_" ([A2v]).
The catalogues of Phillips and Winstanley are, as their titles state,
not primarily play lists, and their importance to a discussion of
dramatic bibliographies resides solely in the use made of them by
Langbaine. Two hundred and fifty-two British poets are named in
Phillips' _Theatrum Poetarum_. Of these some one hundred and sixty-nine
were authors of plays. The titlepage of Winstanley's _Lives_ advertises
an account "of above Two Hundred" poets, but "147 are actually listed
in the catalogue, and only 168 are noted throughout."[3] Four hundred
and sixty-seven plays by sixty authors are included. From Phillips'
collection Winstanley omits the thirty-three Scottish poets and
sixty-eight English poets. William Riley Parker believes that most of
Winstanley's omissions were deliberate and that his "endeavor, unlike
Phillips', was to give a chronological survey of English poetry from
Robert of Gloucester down to Sir Roger L'Estrange."[4] Parker defines
the differing contributions of the two men in the following manner:
Phillips is more the bibliographer and cataloguer, collecting
names and titles; Winstanley is the amateur literary historian,
seeking out the verse itself, arranging it in chronological
order, and trying to pass judgment upon it.[5]
As a bibliographer Phillips was exceedingly inaccurate and "the
_Theatrum_ was a hasty, careless piece of hack work," whose convenience
was seriously damaged by a poor organization which alphabetizes the
poets in four sections by their first names, with no last name index.
His source materials were of the easiest and most superficial kind.[6]
Both Phillips and Winstanley misunderstood Kirkman's method of listing
anonymous plays and this, as Langbaine notes in the Preface to _Momus_,
led "_both these charitable kind Gentlemen_" to find "_Fathers for
them, by ranking each under the Authors Name that preceded them in the
former Catalogues_"([A3r]).[7]
Although he acknowledged all three men in his Preface and mentions
them each about thirty times in the _Account_, it was Kirkman who
was most admired by Langbaine and of most use to him. Kirkman's
_Catalogue_ of 1671, "_the_ first ... _printed of any worth_," was
the principal source of _Momus_, and it, in turn, was based on a
catalogue which Kirkman made and published ten years previously.[8]
The format of Kirkman's 1671 catalogue followed the general format
of his earlier catalogue and of several earlier play lists[9] by
arranging the plays alphabetically by title and with some haphazard
attempt at chronological order as well, but, as Langbaine described
it, "promiscuously _as to those of_ Authors" except for "Shakespeare,
Fletcher, Johnson, _and some others of the most voluminous Authors_,"
whose works were inserted in first place ([A3r]). The catalogue listed
eight hundred and eight plays, and its principal orientation was most
likely not scholarly but commercial, to list the books which Kirkman
had for sale.[10] Nevertheless, Kirkman argued for the completeness of
the second catalogue:
I really believe there are no more [plays], for I have been
these twenty years a Collector of them, and have conversed
with, and enquired of those that have been Collecting these
fifty years. These, I can assure you, are all in Print, for
I have seen them all within ten, and now have them all by me
within thirty.[11]
Langbaine's first catalogue, _An Exact Account_, was published
anonymously and his authorship of this work has been questioned.[12]
But he refers to it as his own at least three times (on pages 13,
395 and 409[13]) in the _Account_. Basically, in _An Exact Account_
Langbaine "_Reprinted_ Kirkman's [catalogue] _with emendations, but in
the same Form_" ([A3r]), with an added alphabetical list giving authors
publishing from 1675 to 1680. As James Osborn has shown, Langbaine
perpetuated most of Kirkman's errors, even where Dryden was concerned,
still mistakenly attributing to him _Love in a Wood_ and to his
brother-in-law, Sir Robert Howard, _The Maiden Queen_ and _Sir Martin
Mar-All_.[14]
_An Exact Catalogue_, in turn, formed the basis for _Momus_.[15] It
has been suggested that Langbaine worked for Kirkman and came into
possession of his collection, but the small evidence in _Momus_ is to
the contrary: Langbaine lists Kirkman's own play _Presbyterian Lash_
as anonymous, and in the play index he enters _The Wits_ (1672), a
collection of drolls Kirkman claimed to have compiled, as "By Sir W.
D." and then omits it from the main lists. In the _Account_, _Wits_ is
assigned anonymously.
At the time of _An Exact Catalogue_ it can only be assumed that
Langbaine's attitude toward Dryden was similar to Kirkman's:
And although I dare not be absolute in my Opinion, who is the
best of this Age, yet I should be very disingenuous if I should
not conclude that the _English_ Stage is much improved and
adorned with the several Writings of several persons of Honour;
but, in my Opinion chiefly with those of the most accomplished
Mr. _John Dryden_.[16]
For _Momus_ Langbaine did adopt many opinions and much information
from the earlier catalogues. In the seven years between his first
and second catalogues, however, he began to deal more carefully with
bibliographical matters, especially in his attributions to Dryden,
and he found a new format which would allow him to present his later
catalogues in a more accurate, useful and stimulating manner.
* * * * *
_Momus Triumphans_ was published in November, 1687 (although its
titlepage is dated 1688), under two different imprints: the one
reproduced here and another "Printed for N. C. and to be Sold by _Sam.
Holford_, at the Crown in the _Pall-Mall_. 1688." In both issues
there is a major press variant on page 7 under Dryden in which "[148]
Maximin--T. 4o" is deleted and the note correctly rekeyed to "Tyrannick
Love, or Royal Martyr" in the right-hand column. Where this variant
occurs both title and note for "[149]Mistaken Husband--C. 4o" are moved
from the top of the right-hand column to the bottom of the left-hand
column.
In addition to its Preface, _Momus_ is divided into four sections:
(1) Authors arranged alphabetically according to surnames, together
with their plays, including the genre and format of each (pp. 1-26);
(2) "_Supposed_ AUTHOURS" listed by initials with their plays,
genre and format (pp. 27-28); (3) "_Unknown_ AUTHOURS" with plays
divided alphabetically into groups by first initial of their titles
(pp. 29-32); and (4) an Index of plays arranged alphabetically [pp.
33-40]. The alphabetizing is not exact, but the careful and efficient
organization by format (with its handy, easily usable cross index)[17]
is one of Langbaine's chief contributions to modern catalogue making.
Furthermore, the format established in _Momus_ not only supports the
enormous expansion which Langbaine himself makes in the _Account_,
but it (in tandem with his marked prejudices) encouraged the copious
annotations of later commentators. In other words, Langbaine discovered
the form which was not only most useful to his contemporaries, but one
which was to make him, in Osborn's phrase, "the chief tool of compilers
for more than two generations."[18]
In _Momus_ Langbaine has entries for two hundred and thirty-two
authors, of whom twenty-six have "_discover_[ed] _themselves but by
halves_" ([A3v]) and are listed only by initials. Langbaine claims to
"_have been Master of above_ Nine Hundred _and_ Fourscore _English_
Plays _and_ Masques, _besides_ Drolls _and_ Interludes" (A2r), and
_Momus_ lists approximately one thousand and forty plays, though the
number may actually be slightly higher since a few of these entries
represent collections ("Terence's plays," for example) and in footnotes
many foreign plays are given as sources for the English ones. Of the
total, thirty-five are given to supposed authors and one hundred and
sixty-nine are listed alphabetically by title since their authors are
unknown to Langbaine even by initial. Although the _Account_ represents
a five-hundred page expansion (but in octavo), the enlargement is
accomplished within the basic arrangement and largely with the lists
of authors and plays established in _Momus_. Langbaine adds only ten
new authors,[19] while he deletes two,[20] and adds about fifty-one
new plays, while omitting three.[21] The expansion takes the form,
mainly, of added biographical, critical and source material, including
discussions of classical authors and of non-dramatic works. The
corrections take the form of deletion and reassignment, change of dates
and format, and, most interestingly, change of genre designation.
There are over one hundred and fifteen genre changes, of which at
least three-quarters involve tragi-comedy, and of these nearly one
half (about forty) represent a shift in description from comedy to
tragi-comedy. These changes suggest that Langbaine was reading or
re-reading the plays carefully between the end of 1687 and 1691 and
perhaps the critical commentary on genre by the Caroline dramatists
as well since many of the conversions occur in describing the works
of Beaumont and Fletcher, Massinger, and Shirley. For bibliographical
detail _Momus_ is not entirely superseded by the _Account_ since
over sixteen descriptions of format[22] and thirty of genre are not
incorporated in the later catalogue. Furthermore, about thirty-eight
plays are given sources in _Momus_ which are not carried over into
the _Account_. A large number of the source references in _Momus_,
especially those not transferred to the _Account_, are general in
nature, to national histories or to the compilations of Eusebius and
Heylin.
* * * * *
In addition to a history of previous catalogues, his abhorrence of
plagiarism and his attack on Dryden, the Preface contains statements
of Langbaine's own literary interests and critical principles. He had
an obvious "_relish of the_ Dramma" (A2r) which probably dated from
the time he was "bound an Apprentice to a Bookseller called Nevil
Simmons living in S. _Paul's_ Church Yard in _London_." This time
spent in London, from about 1667 to 1672 was probably his greatest
period of play-going.[23] His orientation, however, is not toward
the performed play. He sees drama as essentially the history of the
printed work and, unlike John Downes in _Roscius Anglicanus_ (1708), he
approaches the appreciation of plays through criticism ([a3v]). Like
his father, the sometime provost of Queen's College, Oxford, who left
behind him "rhapsodies of collections,"[24] he was an antiquarian and
bibliographer. He had the bibliographer's delight in the difficulty of
the search ([A3v]) and his pleasure in ordering. _Momus_ is designed
for those readers who "_may possibly be desirous, either to make a
Collection, or at least have the curiosity to know in_ general, _what
has been Publish't in our Language, as likewise to receive some Remarks
on the Writings of_ particular _Men_" (A2r-[A2v]). As this statement
suggests, his general literary principles are neo-classically sound
and standard: "it being nobler to contemplate the general History
of Nature, than a selected Diary of Fortune" ([A4v]), as is his
unprejudiced attitude toward borrowings and the need for models. For
Langbaine the end of literature is moral, "Decency _and_ Probability"
([A4v]), and there is a sense of balanced fairness which extends even
to Dryden:
Mr. _Dryden_ has many excellencies which far out-weigh his
Faults; he is an excellent _Critick_, and a good _Poet_, his
stile is smooth and fluent, and he has written well, both in
Verse and Prose. I own that I admire him, as much as any man
... ([a2v], italics reversed).
But, in the case of Dryden, the fairness is much a matter of strategy
and the balance is partly stylistic. Langbaine's praise has the
perfunctory quality of "Well, now that's out of the way," and,
characteristically, the praise is followed closely by an intensely
felt "but" clause which excoriates Dryden for his immodesty in debate
and his misuses of literature. Langbaine's language is often that of
theology, the "right Path to solid Glory" ([a2v-a3r]), and he intends
to show that many authors (and especially Dryden) "_have fallen into
very great Errours_" ([A3r]).
Langbaine's animadversions on "_crafty Booksellers_" ([A4r]) as well as
his attacks on Dryden may have caused an embarrassing bibliographical
trick to be played on him. Wood reports that _Momus_ was published
in November, 1687, and five hundred copies sold before Langbaine
"caused another title to be put to the rest of the copies (with an
advertisement against the first)."[25] This new titlepage, added early
in December, reads as follows:
A New Catalogue of English Plays, Containing All The Comedies,
Tragedies, Tragi-Comedies, Operas, Masques, Pastorals,
Interludes, Farces, &c. Both Ancient and Modern, that have ever
yet been Printed, to this present Year, 1688. To which, are
Added, The Volumes, and best Editions; with divers Remarks,
of the Originals of most Plays; and the Plagiaries of several
Authors. By Gerard Langbaine, Gent.... London, Printed for
Nicholas Cox, and are to be Sold by him in Oxford MDCLXXXVIII.
Langbaine's reaction to the trick is contained in the Advertisement in
which he compares this incident to one played on Oldham and decries
"the Heathenish Name of _Momus Triumphans_."
I wish I knew my obliging Gossips who nam'd it, that I might
thank them, as they deserv'd, for their signal Kindness. I
have endeavour'd to be inform'd, who these Friends were, from
my Bookseller; but he pleads _Ignoramus_.... Thus not being
able to trace it further, and which is worse, _Five Hundred_
Copies being got into _Hucksters Hands_, past my recovery, I am
forc'd to sit down with _Patience_, and must depend upon _this
Apology_, that my _Friends_ may not think me _Lunatic_ (as they
might with reason, were this Title my own) and my _Enemies_
have occasion to say, this just Revenge was inflicted on me
by _Apollo_, for abusing his Sons, the Poets. But _whoever_
the _Author_ was, I dare swear, he thought, he had infinitely
obliged me, in _dubbing_ me a _Squire_: a Title, no more my
due, than _that_ of _Doctor_, is to a _Mountebank_; and which,
I receive with the _same_ Kindness, as a _Crooked_ man would
_that_ of _My Lord_.[26]
Macdonald believes this account is fictive and that Langbaine invented
the story to cover an initial immodesty,[27] but Langbaine's style has
nothing of the biting playfulness of tone of the spurious title. He is
often righteous and sarcastic, but he is not given to direct immodesty
or to the burlesque, and _he_ does not consider plagiarism his
principal subject. Further, there is evidence in the Preface ([A3r])
that "New _Catalogue_" was at least his working title.
Nevertheless, the false title page is a clever and perceptive joke on
Langbaine's classical bias and on his fixation with plagiary. His
predecessor Kirkman has given an apt contemporary definition of a
_momus_:
As for such, as either rashly condemn without judgment, or
lavishly dislike without advice: I esteem them like feathers,
soone disperst with every blast, accounting their discontent my
content, not caring to please every _Momus_.[28]
If Langbaine was such a _momus_, he certainly dipped his feather into
ink, "the common Remedy" against attack (the Advertisement), giving the
lie to his enemies the Poets.
The third point of attack, that concerning the title of _esquire_, was
perhaps intended as an insult to the humble origins of Langbaine's
distinguished father and is certainly appropriate satire on a man
so concerned with borrowing and on one who had left the university
profligately to become "idle" and "a great jockey."[29] Langbaine
was entitled to style himself a gentleman[30] as he does in _A New
Catalogue_ (but not in the _Account_); ironically, Langbaine came to
the address of esquire by his elections in 1690 and 1691 as inferior
and then superior beadle of arts of Oxford University "in consideration
of his ingenuity and loss of part of his estate."[31]
Langbaine's reactions to the trick served to intensify his source
studies (though this was already promised in the Preface) and to
increase his attention and antagonism to Dryden. Moreover, in the
_Account_ he added titles very carefully, including that of esquire
to Dryden himself. This particular response to his satirists reaches
its most amusing dimension with the preciseness of the unknown author
listing of "R. A. _Gent_." (_Account_, p. 516).
It is probably impossible ever to know if Dryden was involved in the
trick played on Langbaine, and it is hard to imagine that Langbaine's
criticisms would have engaged even so ardent a controversialist as
Dryden, but whether the emotion is in any way mutual or not, Dryden is
at the center of Langbaine's thoughts:
Thus our _Laureat_ himself runs down the _French_ Wit in his
_Marriage a la Mode_, and steals from _Molliere_ in his _Mock
Astrologer_; and which makes it more observable, at the same
time he does so, pretends in his _Epistle_ to justifie himself
from the imputation of Theft ... [and] I cannot but blame
him for taxing others with stealing Characters from him, (as
he does _Settle_ in his _Notes on Morocco_) when he himself
does _the same_, almost in all the Plays he writes; and for
arraigning his Predecessours for stealing from the _Ancients_,
as he does _Johnson_; which tis evident that he himself is
guilty of the same (Preface, a2r-[a2v], italics reversed).
What is finally remarkable about Langbaine's work, especially in
the Preface to _Momus_ and throughout the _Account_, is his abiding
determination to insert himself into virtually every one of Dryden's
quarrels, no matter how passe. The quality which binds together
Langbaine's heros is not their talent, their common beliefs or their
rectitude in admitting sources, but their mutual fortunes in being
Dryden's adversaries. The list of support he marshals is a long one
and includes Sir Robert Howard and the debate over the rhymed heroic
drama; the group led by Clifford and known as the Rota;[32] _The
Empress of Morocco_ controversy with Settle;[33] Shadwell, Flecknoe and
_Mac Flecknoe_; the Ancients versus the Moderns; Rymer; and Dryden's
attitudes toward the classics, the French, and the English dramatists
of the earlier part of the century. The reiterations of these attacks
come from Langbaine at a time when Dryden was vulnerable to political
and religious charges, and Langbaine does not fail to include
those.[34] Langbaine's wholesale attacks seem, however, to have two
centers. The principal one concerns the charge of plagiarism, which,
as Osborn has shown, was an old one with Dryden, although Langbaine's
strictures against borrowing do not represent the most characteristic
attitude of his time.[35] More precisely, Langbaine focuses on
Dryden's (seeming) _arrogance_ toward the use of source material,
and he would "_desire our Laureat_ ... to shun this, Confidence and
Self-love, as the worst of Plagues" ([a2v]).[36] The second focus,
again one which is seemingly characterized by arrogance, is Dryden's
criticism of the three major pre-interregnum dramatists, "these three
Great Men" (_Account_, p. 136), Shakespeare,[37] Fletcher and Jonson.
Of these the attacks on Jonson and the "thefts" from him are seen
as the most disturbing. Well over a tenth of the Preface and of the
_Account_ are devoted to Dryden, but the next mentioned playwright,
at least in the _Account_, is Jonson. His "Excellencies ... are very
Great, Noble, and Various" (_Account_, p. 281). Everywhere his modesty
and his exemplary uses of the classics and of the English language
are vaunted as a rebuke to Dryden. His opinions on other dramatists
are quoted extensively and approvingly. Behind this admiration lie
Langbaine's love of ancient learning and the continuing affinity of
University men for Jonson. But there is a personal side, too (as there
may be with Dryden). Langbaine's father was a friend of Jonson, who
presented him with an inscribed copy of Vossius,[38] and Langbaine
concludes his article on Jonson with an encomium by his father's friend
Anthony Wood.
If Langbaine delights in exposing the antagonisms and contradictions
of Dryden's thirty years at the controversial center of London life,
he also inadvertently reveals to us a man on a hobby-horse riding
at full tilt with a motley pack. His obsession with Dryden, like
most obsessions, was, no doubt, a fault. It seems, however, to have
generated much of the energy required to accomplish so assiduously
such large tasks. Langbaine's attacks angered some contemporary
readers;[39] they seem, ineffectually, to have made no adverse
impression on at least one of Dryden's patrons: in the same year that
Langbaine dedicated the _Account_ to James, Earl of Abington, the Earl
commissioned Dryden to write a commemorative ode to his wife Eleanora.
For the modern reader, Langbaine's point of view happily supplies
the interest which raises his catalogues from any dullness inherent
in their genre. Langbaine is a writer one now appreciates not simply
for the extensive accuracy of his theatrical recording, but as a man
whose attitudes (and many of his inaccuracies) arise passionately out
of his interests and prejudices. To paraphrase Mirabell, _quite_ out
of context, we admire him "with all his faults, nay like him for his
faults."
University of California,
Los Angeles
NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION
FOOTNOTES:
[1] John Loftis, "Introduction," Gerard Langbaine, _An Account of
the English Dramatick Poets_, The Augustan Reprint Society Special
Publication (Los Angeles, 1971), p. i.
[2] For a bibliographical study of play catalogues, see Carl J.
Stratman, _Dramatic Play Lists, 1591-1963_ (New York, 1966).
[3] William Riley Parker, "Winstanley's _Lives_: An Appraisal," _MLQ_,
VI (1945), 313.
[4] Parker, pp. 317, 315.
[5] Parker, pp. 317-318.
[6] "Just as Phillips copied all of the source citations from Vossius
for the ancients, so he took most of the scholarly references to the
moderns from Edward Leigh's _Treatise_" (Sanford Golding, "The Sources
of the _Theatrum Poetarum_," _PMLA_, LXXVI [1961], 51).
[7] Parker believed that only Winstanley used Kirkman directly, but
Golding shows that Phillips used both Kirkman's 1661 and 1671 lists
(Golding, p. 51).
[8] The 1671 _Catalogue_ is bound, bibliographically independent, with
John Dancer's _Nicomede_, which was published by Kirkman. Kirkman's
earlier list, _A True, Perfect, and Exact Catalogue_ (London, 1661)
contains 685 plays and is bound with _Tom Tyler and His Wife_.
[9] Specifically, the catalogues of Richard Rogers and William Ley and
of Archer, both published in 1656. See Stratman, pp. 7-8.
[10] See, for example, Kirkman, The Stationer to the Reader, in _The
Thracian Wonder_ (1661); this and similar advertisements are reprinted
in Strickland Gibson, _A Bibliography of Francis Kirkman_, Oxford
Bibliographical Society Publications, N. S., I (1949), 73.
[11] Gibson, pp. 93-94.
[12] Principally by W. W. Greg, "Additional Notes on Dramatic
Bibliographers," The Malone Society, _Collections_, II. 3 (1931),
235-236. Based on evidence in the _Account_ Greg later corrected his
attribution from Kirkman to Langbaine: "Gerard Langbaine the Younger
and Nicholas Cox," _The Library_, N. S., XXV. 1 & 2 (1944), 67-69.
[13] It is, however, impossible that Phillips, published in 1675, was
"led into [error] by my Catalogue printed 1680."
[14] _John Dryden: Some Biographical Facts and Problems_, revised
Edition (Gainesville, Fla., 1965), p. 235.
[15] About 30 plays which appear in _An Exact Catalogue_, usually
wrongly attributed, are not brought into _Momus_. These include such
plays as "Cruelty of the Spanish in Peru," "Hieronomo in two parts" and
"Gyles Goose-cap." There are several changes in assignment from _An
Exact Catalogue_ to _Momus_, including "Appius and Virginia" from B. R.
to John Webster. _An Exact Catalogue_ seems to attribute "Virtuoso" to
D'Urfey, but _Momus_ gives it correctly to Shadwell.
[16] This is Osborn's suggestion, p. 235.
[17] Fewer than 25 plays in _Momus_ are missing from the index. Of
these Shakespeare's _Henry VIII_ and Sir Robert Howard's _Committee_
are the most significant. The Index lists several plays which are
omitted from the main list, most interestingly "Revenger's Tragedy, By
C. T."
[18] Osborn, p. 240.
[19] Henry Burnel, _Esq._; James Carlile; _Sir_ John Denham; Joseph
Harris; Will. Mountford; George Powel; John Stephens; _Dr._ Robert
Wild; R. D.; J. W.
[20] "--_Peaps_" and "_J. Swallow_."
[21] Decker, _Wonder of the Kingdom_; Unknown, _Robin Conscience_; and
Unknown, _Woman Will Have Her Will_.
[22] Although Langbaine claims to use "_the best Edition of each
Book_" (Preface, [A3v]), one of his eighteenth-century annotators,
Bishop Percy, is right in saying that "Langbaine's Work would have
been more valuable if he had everywhere set down the First Editions,"
but "the editions referred to" are "such as he happened to have in
his possession." Oldys had earlier expressed the same bibliographical
regret more succinctly: "A woeful Chronologist art thou, Gerard
Langbaine." These opinions are quoted by Alun Watkin-Jones in his
survey of annotated copies of the _Account_: "Langbaine's _Account of
the English Dramatick Poets_ (1691)," _Essays and Studies by Members of
the English Association_, XXI (1936), 77.
[23] For his biography and that of his father, Gerard Langbaine the
Elder, see Anthony Wood, _Athenae Oxonienses_, ed. Philip Bliss
(London, 1813-1820), III, 446-468. There is a note recording an illicit
romance for the son in Andrew Clark, _The Life and Times of Anthony
Wood_ (Oxford, 1891), I, 237-238.
[24] Wood, III, 446.
[25] Wood, III, 366.
[26] The Advertisement is on the recto of a leaf added after [a4];
"The ERRATA for the Preface" appears on the verso. For an account of
Oldham's "A Satyr Against Vertue," published without his consent in
1679, see Wood, IV, 120.
[27] Hugh Macdonald, "The Attacks on Dryden," _Essays and Studies by
Members of the English Association_, XXI (1936), 67.
[28] The Translators Epistle to the Reader, _Amadis de Gaule_ (1652).
[29] Wood, III, 364.
[30] His father's coat of arms is described in Clark, I, 237. But
for a conservative attitude toward use of the address, see Edward
Chamberlayne, _Angliae Notitia: or the Present State of England_, the
First Part, the Fifteenth Edition (London, 1684), p. 344.
[31] Wood, III, 367.
[32] Clifford makes the same charge of plagiarism in equally virulent
language: "And next I will detect your Thefts, letting the World know
how great a Plagery you are ..." (_Notes upon Mr. Dryden's Poems_
[London, 1687], P. 3).
[33] Maximillian E. Novak, "Introduction," Settle, Dryden, Shadwell,
Crowne, Duffet, _The Empress of Morocco and Its Critics_, The Augustan
Reprint Society Special Series (Los Angeles, 1968), pp. i-xix. Novak
also discusses Dryden's quarrels with Howard and the Rota.
[34] _Account_, p. 140, gives new information, or gossip, about
Dryden's pre-Restoration activities.
[35] Loftis, pp. ix-xiii.
[36] This is a focus of Clifford's charges as well: "There is one of
your Virtues which I cannot forbear to animadvert upon, which is your
excess of Modesty; When you tell us in your Postscript to _Granada_,
That _Shakespeare is below the Dullest Writer of Ours, or any precedent
Age_" (p. 10).
[37] Although Shakespeare's "Learning was not extraordinary," Langbaine
"esteem[s] his Plays beyond any that have ever been published in our
Language" (_Account_, pp. 453-454). In both _Momus_ and the _Account_
Langbaine employed the 1685 folio edition of Shakespeare's works which
was printed for Herringman and others and dedicated to the Earls of
Pembroke and Montgomery (Wing 2915, 2916, 2917). He catalogues the
seven plays added in this edition to those of the earlier collected
editions, but contrary to its genre designation in the First Folio
and in this edition, Langbaine refers to _Merchant of Venice_ as
a tragi-comedy and, in _Momus_, lists two parts of "John King of
England." In the _Account_ he changes the designation of _Winter's
Tale_ from comedy to tragi-comedy, and in both catalogues appends
"Birth of Merlin," altering his description of its genre from pastoral
to tragi-comedy.
[38] Wood, III, 449.
[39] See, for example, a review in the _Moderator_, no. 3 (23 June
1692); quoted in Wood, III, 367.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
This facsimile of _Momus Triumphans_ (1688 [1687]) is reproduced from a
copy (*ZPR/640/L271m) in the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library.
Momus Triumphans:
OR, THE
PLAGIARIES
OF THE
English Stage;
Expos'd in a
CATALOGUE
OF ALL THE
_Comedies_,
_Tragi-Comedies_,
_Masques_,
_Tragedies_,
_Opera's_,
_Pastorals_,
_Interludes_, &c.
Both Ancient and Modern, that were ever yet Printed in
_English_. The Names of their Known and Supposed Authors.
Their several Volumes and Editions: With an Account of
the various Originals, as well _English_, _French_, and
_Italian_, as _Greek_ and _Latine_; from whence most of them
have Stole their Plots.
By _GERARD LANGBAINE_ Esq;
_Indice non opus est nostris, nec vindice Libris:
Stat contra dicitq; tibi tua Pagina, Fures._ Mart.
_LONDON_: Printed for _Nicholas Cox_, and are to be Sold by him in
_Oxford_. MDCLXXXVIII.
The Preface.
If it be true, what =Aristotle=[40] that great Philosopher, and Father
of Criticism, has own'd, =that the= Stage =might instruct Mankind
better than= Philosophy it self. If =Homer= was thought by =Horace=[41]
to exceed =Crantor= and =Chrystippus= in the Precepts of Morality; and
if =Sophocles= and =Euripides=, obtained the title of Wise, for their
=Dramatich= Writing, certainly it can be no discredit for any man to
own himself a lover of that sort of Poetry, which has been stiled, =The
School of Vertue and good Manners=? I know there have been many severe
=Cato's= who have endeavoured all they could, to decry the use of the
Stage; but those who please to consult the Writings of the Learned
Dr. =Gager=, =Albericus Gentiles=, Sir =Philip Sidney=, Sir =Richard
Baker=, =Heywood=, the Poet and Actor both in one; not to mention
several others, as the famous =Scaliger=, Monsieur =Hedelin=, =Rapin=,
&c. will find their Objections fully answered, and the Diversion of
the Theatre sufficiently vindicated. I shall therefore without any
Apology, publickly own, that my inclination to this kind of Poetry in
particular, has lead me not onely to the view of most of our Modern
Representations on the Stage, but also to the purchase of all the Plays
I could meet with, in the =English= Tongue; and indeed I have been
Master of above =Nine Hundred= and =Fourscore= English =Plays= and
=Masques=, besides =Drolls= and =Interludes=; and having read most of
them, I think am able to give some tollerable account of the greatest
part of our Dramatick Writers, and their Productions.
The general Use of =Catalogues=, and the esteem they are in at
present, is so well known, that it were to waste Paper to expatiate
on it: I shall therefore onely acquaint my =Reader=, that I designed
=this Catalogue= for their use, who may have the same relish of the
=Dramma= with my self; and may possibly be desirous, either to make
a Collection, or at least have the curiosity to know in =general=,
what has been Publish't in our Language, as likewise to receive some
Remarks on the Writings of =particular= Men.
The =Reasons= that induc'd me to the publishing this =Catalogue=,
were these: =First=, That the former =Catalogues= were out of Print.
=Secondly=, That they were all of them full of groß Errours. =Thirdly=,
That they were not, as I thought, so Methodical as this which I have
now made; wherein the Reader will find the Imperfections I observed in
the former Catalogues, amended; all the Plays which have been Printed
since 1680, to this present time, added; with several Remarks, which
whether or no observed, I cannot tell, but never published by any
Author till now.
To begin then =first= with the Errours of =former= Catalogues, they are
chiefly =Five=:
=First=, There were Plays inserted in all of them, which were never in
Print; as for Brevity's sake, to give =one= instance for many, =The
Amorous Widow, and Wanton Wife=, a Comedy. This is a =Stock-Play=, and
was written (if not Translated from =Mollieres George Dandin=) by Mr.
=Batterton=.
=Secondly=, Some Plays were omitted, which had been Printed very
long ago; as, =Cola's Fury, and Lirenda's Misery=. Written by =Henry
Burkhead=. =The Religious Rebel=; and several others.
=Thirdly=, =Two= Titles which belong'd to one and the same Play, were
frequently printed, as if they had been two =distinct= Plays; as =The
Constant Maid=, or =Love will find out the Way=. Written by =Shirley=.
=Ferex and Porex=, or the Tragedy of =Gorboduc=. Written by =Sackvile=
and =Norton=; with many others.
=Fourthly=, The same Title was often times printed twice, and that
seperately, as if writ by =two several= persons; and sometimes ascrib'd
to =different= Authors likewise; when it was onely a new Edition of the
same Play; as for Example, =Patient Grissel= was again repeated under
the Title of =Patient Grißel Old=. And =Appius= and =Virginia=, written
by =Webster=, is afterwards ascrib'd to =T. B.= though as the deceased
Comedian Mr. =Carthwright=, a Bookseller by Profession, told me, 'twas
onely the old Play Reprinted, and Corrected by the above-mentioned =Mr.
Batterton=; with several others.
=Fifthly=, Some plays are ascribed to =one= Author which were writ by
another; as =Celum Britanicum=, a Masque, is to Sir =William Davenant=,
though it was written by =Carew= and =Jones=. Which fault is rather
to be imputed to the Publishers of Sir =William Davenant='s Workes,
1673, in Folio, than to the Compilers of the former =Catalogue=; who
are more excusable than, Mr. =Phillips= in his =Catalogue= of Poets,
called, =Theatrum Poetarum=; and his Transcriber =Winstanley=, who
has follow'd him at a venture in his Characters of the =Drammatick=
Writers, even to a word, in his =Lives of the English Poets=. Both
these Authors through a mistake of the Method of former Catalogues, and
their Ignorance in what Pieces each =Drammatick= Author had published,
have fallen into very great Errours, as I am going to shew.
The =first= Catalogue that was printed of any worth, was that Collected
by =Kirkman=, a =London= Bookseller, whose chief dealing was in Plays;
which was published 1671, at the end of =Nicomede=, a Tragi-comedy,
Translated from the =French= of Monsieur =Corneille=. This Catalogue
was printed =Alphabetically=, as to the Names of the =Plays=,
but =promiscuously= as to those of the =Authors=, (=Shakspeare=,
=Fletcher=, =Johnson=, and some others of the most voluminous Authors
excepted) each Authors Name being placed over against each Play
that he writ, and still repeated with every several Play, till a
new Author came on. About =Nine= Years after, the Publisher of this
Catalogue, reprinted =Kirkman='s with emendations, but in the same
Form. Notwithstanding the =Anonimous= Plays, one would think easily
distinguishable by the want of an Authors Name before them; yet have
both these charitable kind Gentlemen found Fathers for them, by
ranking each under the Authors Name that preceded them in the former
Catalogues. Thus =Charles= the First is placed by them both to =Nabbs=;
because in both the former Catalogues it followed his =Covent-Garden=:
and for the same reason =Cupid's Whirligig= is ascribed by both of them
to =Goff=; because it follow'd his =Careless Shepherdess=; and so of
many others, too tedious to repeat.
To prevent the like mistake for the future, and to make the Catalogue
more useful, I wholly altered the form: And yet that I might please
those who delight in old Paths, I have Transcribed the same as a Second
Part, after the former way of =Alphabet=, though more Methodically than
formerly, as I shall shew presently.
In this =New= Catalogue the Reader will find the whole to be divided
into =Three= distinct =Classes=. In the first I have placed the
=Declared= Authours, Alphabetically, according to their =Sirnames=, in
=Italick= Characters: and placed the Plays each Authour has written,
underneath in =Roman= Letters, which are rank'd Alphabetically
likewise; so that the Reader may at one glance view each Authours
Labours. Over against each Play, is plac'd as formerly a Letter to
indicate the =nature= of the Dramma: as C. for =Comedy=. T. for
=Tragedy=. T. C. for =Tragi-comedy=. P. for =Pastoral=. O. for =Opera=.
I. for =Interlude=. F. for =Farce=.
And, for the better use of those who may design a Collection, I have
added to the =Letter= the Volume also, (according to the best Edition)
as =Fol. 40o. 8o.= against each Play that I have seen. And for their
further help; where a Play is not printed single, the Reader will be
directed by a Letter or Figure to the bottom of the Colume, where he
will meet with Instructions how it is to be found; I mean, with what
Poems or other Plays it is printed, the Year =when=, the Place =where=,
and the best Edition of each Book so mentioned.
This may seem superfluous at first sight, but may possibly be no longer
thought so, when I shall have acquainted my Reader, that when I was
making my Collection, I found several Plays and Masks, bound up with
other Poems, which by the name were scarce known to the generality
of Booksellers: as for instance, Sir =Robert Howard='s =Blind Lady=;
=Daniel's Philotas=; =Carew='s =Coelum Britanicum=; =Shirley='s
=Triumph of Beauty;= with infinite others. But two Plays I might
particularly mention, both taken notice of in former Catalogues, to
wit, =Gripus and Hegio=, a Pastoral; and =Deorum Dona=, a Masque; both
which were written by =Baron=, and were wholly unknown to all the
Booksellers of whom I happened to enquire, and which I could never
have found but by chance; they being printed in a Romance called, =The
Cyprian Academy=, in 8o. The same I might add of =The Clouds=, (a
Play which was never in any Catalogue before, and was translated from
=Aristophanes='s =Nubes= by =Stanley=, and printed with his =History
of Philosophy=, Fol. =Lond. 1655=, and now newly reprinted; and of
several others) but that I must hasten back to give an Account of the
two other Divisions of my Catalogue. The =one= of which contains those
Plays whose Authors discover themselves but by halves, and =that= to
their intimate Friends, by two Letters only in the =Title-Page=, or
the bottom of their =Epistle=; and in the last Degree are plac'd all
=Anonemous= Plays; and thus compleats the =Fifth= Part.
The =Second= Part contains the Catalogue =Reprinted= in an exact
=Alphabetical= manner, according to the forms of =Dictionaries=, the
Authors Names being here left out as superfluous; and against each Play
is a Figure to direct you to the Page where you may find it in the
First Part.
Thus much as to the Method and Alterations of this Catalogue: Now as to
the Remarks, which are of =three= sorts; the =first= of use, and the
other =two= conducing to Pleasure at least, if not to Profit likewise.
The =First= is to prevent my Readers being impos'd on by crafty
Booksellers, whose custom it is as frequently to vent =old= Plays with
=new= Titles, as it has been the use of the Theatres to dupe the Town,
by acting old Plays under new Names, as if newly writ, and never acted
before; as, =The Counterfeit Bridegroom=, an old Play of =Middleton='s;
=The Debauchee=, another of =Brome='s; =The Match in Newgate=, another
of =Marston='s; with many more, too tedious to repeat. By these Remarks
the Reader will find =The Fond Lady=, to be only the =Amorous Old
Woman=, with a new Title, =The Eunuch=, to be =The Fatal Contract=, a
Play printed above thirty years ago; with many the like.
The =Second= is an Essay towards a more large Account of the =Basis=
on which each Play is built, whether it be founded on any Story or
Passage either in =History=, =Chronicle=, =Romance=, or =Novel=. By
this means the curious Reader may be able to form a Judgment of the
Poets ability in working up a =Dramma=, by comparing his =Play= with
the =Original= Story. I have not been so large and full in this as I
intend hereafter, not having by me several =Chronicles= and =Novels=,
which might have been subservient to my Design, as the =Chronicles=
of =particular= Countries, and the =Novels= of =Cynthio Geraldi=,
=Loredano=, =Bandello=, =Sansorino Belleforreste=, &c. For this reason,
in the Notes on several Plays which I have taken notice of, I have
been forc'd to refer to the Chronicles of a Country in =general=, not
have had time or opportunity to make an exact search what Historian
the Author has =chiefly= follow'd, or what Author has most largely
treated on that particular Action which is the subject of the Dramma.
So in Novels I have been forc'd through Necessity to quote some which
have been printed since the Plays were written to which they are
referred: because I knew that they were extracted and collected from
the Originals, whence the Plot was taken, though I had them not by me:
of which I could produce many instances, were it material.
I would desire my Readers leave to make this Observation by the by,
that a =Drammatick Poet= is not ty'd up to the Rules of =Chronology=,
or =History=, but is at liberty to new-model a Story at his pleasure,
and to change not only the Circumstances of a true Story, but even
the principal Action it self. Of this opinion are most of our modern
Critics; and =Scaliger= observes, not only that 'tis the priviledge
of =Epick= Poets, but also of =Tragedians=.[42] =Quis nescit omnibus
Epicis Poetis Historiam esse pro argumento? quam illi aut adumbratam,
aut illustratam certe alia facie quam ostendunt ex Historia consiciunt,
Poema. Nam quid alius Homeras? Quid Tragicis ipsis faciemus. Sic multâ
Lucano ficta. Patriæ Imago quæ sese offerat Cæsari: excitam ab Interis
animam, atq; alia talia.=[43] This instance of =Lucan=, makes me call
to mind what Sir =William Davenant= says on account of the same Author,
whom he blames for making choice of an Argument so near his own time,
that such an Enterprize rather beseem'd an Historian, than a Poet.
=For= (says he) =wise Poets think it more worthy to seek out truth in
the Passions, than to record the truth of Actions; and practise to
describe mankind just as we are perswaded or guided by instinct, not
particular persons, as they are lifted, or levelled by the force of
Fate, it being nobler to contemplate the general History of Nature,
than a selected Diary of Fortune=. So that we see the busineß of a Poet
is to =refine= upon History; and Reformation of Manners is so much his
busineß, that he is not to represent things on the Stage, as he finds
them =recorded= in History, but as they =ought= to have been: and
therefore we are not to make =History= so much the Standard and Rule of
our Judgment, as =Decency= and =Probability=. For indeed, provided the
Author shew Judgment in the heightning and working up of his Story, it
matters not whether the Play be founded on =History=, or =Romance=, or
whether the Story be his own, or another's Invention.