University of Virginia Library

The "Swingeing" of Cibber: The Suppression of the First Edition of The Refusal
by
Rodney L. Hayley

Two editions of Colley Cibber's comedy The Refusal; or, the Ladies Philosophy appeared in 1721. The play was first issued in quarto (Q1) as the last part of Volume II of Cibber's Plays, both volumes of which were delivered to subscribers on July 1 of that year.[1] In mid-November an octavo edition (O1) of The Refusal was released.[2] This edition consists of two issues, one dated 1721, the other 1722.[3] Despite the difference

in dates they were, as I shall discuss below, issued simultaneously. The collational formula of O1 (1721) is A4 B-H8 G4, with the text ending on G3r, and advertisements for books printed by B. Lintot, W. Mears, and W. Chetwood occupying G3v, G4r, and G4v respectively. The 1722 issue is identical, except in three respects. In the first place, its G3 leaf is a cancel: the text on G3r is exactly the same as that printed on the corresponding page of the 1721 issue, with only the tail-ornaments differing; furthermore, on G3v of the 1722 issue appear advertisements not for Lintot, but for T. Woodward. Secondly, there is no G4 leaf in the 1722 issue. And thirdly, the 1722 title-page, also a cancel, differs in certain details from the title-page of the 1721 issue. The latter issue, according to its title-page, was printed (like Volume II of the quarto Plays)[4] by Lintot, Mears, and Chetwood in 1721. The title-page of O1 (1722), on the other hand, bears the imprint, "Printed for W. MEARS, . . . W. CHETWOOD, . . . T. WOODWARD, . . . and sold by J. ROBERTS . . . M.DCC.XXII." It also gives the additional information, "Where may be had Mr. CIBBER'S Works, two Volumes, Quarto, Royal Paper."

Surprisingly, newspaper advertisements appearing at the time O1 was first issued name as its printers and sellers those listed on the 1722 issue title-page.[5] Moreover, the advertisements in O1 (1721) hint at a much earlier date of printing than one would expect, given that the octavo was released in November of 1721. For example, in The Daily Courant for October 6 Lintot advertises the publication of the seventh edition of Pope's Essay on Criticism, and the fourth edition of his Ode for Musick on St. Cœcilia's Day; yet on G3v of O1 (1721), Lintot advertises the fifth edition of the former work, and the third of the latter. Another seeming anomaly is presented by the fact that O1's collation (the text begins on B1, with the preliminaries ending on A4v, apparently printed last) suggests that the edition was set from manuscript,[6] and not from the earlier-issued quarto as one would expect. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that Q1 was printed from manuscript: its preliminaries begin on the sheet which completes the preceding work in the Plays collection, occupying leaves 3A3 to 3B1 (the text begins on 3B2.)[7]

All these apparently incongruous details can be reconciled, if we assume that Q1, although issued some four and a half months prior to O1, in fact derived from it. A collation of the two editions proves the validity of such an assumption.[8] The two are very similar: the comparison reveals, however, an attempt on the part of Q1's compositors to regularize O1's accidentals, and to correct obvious errors; the few substantive variants in Q1 appear to be attempts to improve the printer's copy, though sometimes the "corrections" pervert the author's intention. For example, Witling's familiar form of address in O1 for Sir Gilbert Wrangle—"Sir Gil."—was surely intended by Cibber, who is throughout the play bent on delineating the fop's insolent familiarity; but the Q1 compositor, thinking "Gil." to be merely a space-saving contraction, expands it to "Gilbert."[9]

Another such "correction" provides more definite proof of Q1's derivation from O1. In O1, lines 28-36 on D1v read as follows:

The above passage is obviously corrupt: probably a speech by Sophronia (with whom Lady Wrangle is conversing in this scene) has been omitted by the compositor. In Q1, the two speeches by Lady Wrangle are joined into one (the exclamation "But!" becomes "But", thus smoothing the transition, and the second speech prefix is dropped). If we assume O1 derives from Q1, we have also to assume that the O1 compositor chose to break up what seems in his conjectured copy a perfectly correct passage, giving each of these newly-formed speeches to the same character, Lady Wrangle. I would suggest such an assumption is at best highly unlikely (nowhere else in O1 do we detect any sign of such irresponsible creativity on the part of the compositors). If, however, we reverse the situation, and assume that Q1 derives from O1, an explanation for the difference between the two texts becomes readily apparent. The Q1 compositor, taking great care to produce adequate texts for the expensive Plays,[10] decided the two consecutive speeches by Lady Wrangle in O1, his copy, were simply one speech, and accordingly considered joining the two to be merely a routine correction.

Once we have decided on the order of O1 and Q1, a more puzzling problem arises: why was O1, though indeed the first edition, not published until some four and a half months after the second? To explain this bibliographic anomaly one must examine the events leading up to, and following, the production of the play. On January 10, 11, and 12, 1720/1, Lincoln's Inn Fields presented No Fools Like Wits,[11] which the Compleat List of all the English Dramatic Poets (1747) attributes to John Gay, observing of the play: "It is an Alteration of a Comedy called the Female Vertuosoes; and acted against Mr. Cibber's Refusal, which was partly taken from the same Play."[12] Cibber's Refusal in fact was not to appear on the Drury Lane boards until February 14, but it was completed as early as January 16, and was probably well known to Gay.[13] His revision of Thomas Wright's old play, with its similar plot to Cibber's, was no doubt intended to expose Cibber as a plagiarist.[14] At this point, the notorious bookseller and printer Edmund Curll joined the skirmish, advertising in the newspapers "No Fools like Wits: Or, the Female Vertuosoes. A Comedy. As it is now Acting at the Theatre in Lincoln's-Inn-Fields. By Mr. Wright."[15] Then early in February, a week before The Refusal was to be produced, Curll decided to cash in on Cibber's as well as Gay's profits: in The Post-Boy for February 7-9 he announced, "Next Week will publish'd in 8vo. the 2nd Edit. of No Fools like Wits, a Comedy; wherein will be marked the Passages which Mr. Cibber has borrow'd from Moliere in his Refusal, or the Ladies Philosophy."

With such unfavourable advance publicity, it is not surprising that the actual production of The Refusal was a failure: after a tempestuous six-day run, from February 14-20, the play was finally forced off the stage. According to one contemporary account, "Mr. Cibber's Enemies shew'd themselves very warmly at the Representation of this Piece, and I think without much Discretion; for they began to hiss it before they had heard it, and I remember very well, began their Uproar, on the first Night, as soon as he appeared to speak the Prologue. However it went on for six Nights, not without Disturbances every one of them."[16] Cibber's "plagiarism" in The Refusal was by now a well-known joke in the town. On February 18, Mist's Weekly Journal or Saturday's Post commented sarcastically on the play's genealogy:

Curll's campaign against Cibber now began to gather momentum. Shortly after the opening of The Refusal Curll released an edition with the imposing title No Fools like Wits: Or, The Female Vertuosoes. A Comedy As it was Acted at the Theatre in Lincolns-Inn-Fields. Or, The Refusal: Or, The Ladies Philosophy. As it is Acted at the Theatre Royal in Drury-Lane. The Second Edition.[18] Despite its title, this work was neither Gay's recently-acted play, nor Cibber's; rather, it was merely a verbatim reprint of Wright's 1693 Female Vertuoso's. Curll even includes the 1693 cast-list, and the original dedication (perhaps because in it Wright acknowledges his debt to Molière). In fact, the amusing title-page, a list of the "Cibberiz'd" equivalents to Wright's characters, and a satirical dedication to Cibber comprise the only new material in Curll's edition. In this dedication

"To Mr. Cibber" (dated February 15), Curll satirizes both Cibber and the reviver responsible for the Lincoln's Inn Fields production[19] for their plagiarism and lack of art. Though Curll admits on the title-page "His Title, not his Play, we set to Sale," it is plain that he wished not only to satirize Cibber, but to confuse the buying public into thinking his edition reproduced the text of Cibber's play. In the course of the next three months Curll regularly inserted large eye-catching advertisements in the newspapers for his edition of Wright's play—with the part of the title stolen from Cibber usually featured more prominently than the rest.[20]

Sometime during this period Lintot, Mears, and Chetwood printed The Refusal in octavo, but faced with the advertising campaign for Curll's "pirate" version, they decided to hold back publication until a more advantageous time. By the beginning of July the two-volume Plays was ready to be delivered to its subscribers, and thereafter was offered to the general public. Although Curll's advertisements for his Refusal had ceased, it still seemed unwise to release the octavo edition: Cibber and his printers did not want the Q1 and O1 editions to compete on the same market—at least not until the bulk of the very expensive Plays had been sold.[21]

Nothing more was heard from Curll until October 7; on that date Mist's Weekly Journal printed an amusing letter from him to the editor, in which the bookseller boasted of his dishonest trade practices, and specifically referred to their damaging effect on Cibber:

The allusions to his Refusal are unmistakable: by means of this pirate, he asserts, he "swinged off Colley very handsomely." Cibber, eager as always to get in the last word, quickly responded to Curll's letter.[23] "My Dear," he writes, "Thine to Nat. Mist I have this Day perused, and am hugely delighted with it." But, he continues merrily, "Though I have been heartily swinged by thee, I take it unkindly at thy Hands, that thou shouldst insult over my Chastisement, when I took my Correction so patiently."

Cibber's laughter was no doubt genuine. In this minor engagement between two of Pope's dunces, Curll was the aggressor, but Cibber clearly the victor. It is unlikely that Curll succeeded either in embarrassing Cibber, or in reducing his profits. Certainly he forced Cibber's printers to withhold the first edition of The Refusal—and the resulting delay could have been costly. The play featured the machinations of an unscrupulous South Sea director; by November of 1721, when the octavo was finally released, the controversy surrounding the bursting of the Bubble—an extremely hot issue when the play was originally acted—had died down to a certain extent. The vigorous advertising campaign carried on in the newspapers announcing the publishing of O1 may or may not have succeeded in stimulating sales.[24] But the existence of the issue dated 1722 does not necessarily prove that sales dragged on into the following year. As the newspaper advertisements indicate, the 1721 and 1722 issues were published simultaneously. When the octavo was released Lintot had already sold his share in the copy to Woodward (in November and December, 1721, advertisements were jointly placed by Mears, Chetwood, and Woodward for the octavo; during the same period Lintot advertises the Plays, but not the octavo edition of The Refusal). In order to make known his interest in the copy Woodward cancelled the title-page of O1 (1721), replacing it with one which substituted his name for Lintot's; at the same time he replaced the advertisements for Lintot, Mears, and Chetwood with his own. Since the cancellans title-page was printed late in 1721 it was given the date 1722 as a matter of course.[25] The octavo was not, to my

knowledge, advertised in the 1722 papers, by any of its printers, though this fact does not, of course, prove that the edition sold out in 1721. But in any case, it is very likely that receipts from the quarto Plays (which included The Refusal) more than made up for any possible reduction in anticipated profits from the octavo. Davies tells us that Cibber made "a considerable sum" from the sale of the Plays [26] —a fact which helps to explain Cibber's good humour in his letter to Curll.

And finally, if Curll hoped to divert Cibber's expected revenues from The Refusal to himself, he was to be sadly disillusioned. By his own testimony, receipts from his pirate Refusal were negligible: "humbled by Adversity," he had to admit in his letter to Mist that the "swingeing" of Cibber, however enjoyable at the time, had in the end brought him "nothing but waste Paper."[27]

Notes