University of Virginia Library

The Publication of Shaftesbury's Letter Concerning Enthusiasm
by
Richard B. Wolf

Early in his Miscellaneous Reflections on the works collected in volumes one and two of Characteristics, Shaftesbury responds to criticism regarding the structure of A Letter concerning Enthusiasm by citing Jean LeClerc's comment that the absence of systematic argument is appropriate to a work which is a letter, not a treatise. He then proceeds to draw a distinction between true private epistles such as his own (in which order and method are quite properly concealed) and public writings merely masquerading in epistolary form or mongrel letters such as those of Seneca to Lucilius in which "the author by degrees loses sight of his correspondent, and takes the world in general for his reader or disciple."[1] Whether this strict notion of genre was present in Shaftesbury's mind at the time he penned his playful discussion of inspiration and plea for religious tolerance, or whether it developed later as a convenient reply to critics of the Letter, it is probably responsible for supplying us with the most specific composition date for any of the works in Characteristics. When the Letter, originally published in 1708, reappeared

in 1711 as the first piece in Shaftesbury's magnum opus, its status as a true epistle was emphasized by the addition of the heading "Sept. 1707."[2]

S. F. Whitaker in "The First Edition of Shaftesbury's Moralists" briefly alludes to the story of the manuscript circulation of the Letter in the months between its composition and publication, but a fuller and more accurate account seems desirable.[3] The principal source for such an account is a copybook transcription in Shaftesbury's hand of his letter of March 1707/8 to Lord John Somers, "Lord * * * * *" to whom the Letter concerning Enthusiasm is addressed. This curious document not only reveals that the manuscript Letter had been sent to Brookmans, Somers's Hertfordshire estate, shortly after its composition but also records a subsequent experience which had greatly alarmed the work's author. Dining with a group of clergy and university men, Shaftesbury had been amazed to hear one of the company mention that the author of A Tale of a Tub was about to bring out a new piece addressed to Somers concerning prophecy, "wch the Author, he said, had taken upon him to treat in a very familiar way of Wit & Rallery, by a handle he had borrowd from the new London Prophets who made such a Noise of late."[4] Privately pressing this speaker for details after the meal, Shaftesbury was given a history of the manuscript's circulation which the man had heard from a friend. An acquaintance to whom Somers had lent the work had given it to "a principle Author," who in turn had passed it among the members of his literary club. Although Shaftesbury's informant could recite choice passages, he admitted that he had never actually seen the manuscript, but he added that he had been assured that the work was presently

at the press and would shortly be published, as Shaftesbury wrote Somers, "with a Title-Page bearing yr Ldps Name: a notable help to ye Book-Seller, especially when joynd with that of your pretended good Friend the Author of ye Tale of a Tub" (p. 69).

Perhaps to minimize Somers's embarrassment in an awkward situation, Shaftesbury expressed scepticism about the possibility of imminent publication, speculating that this part of the story might have been invented by one of the early borrowers to prevent further circulation and to hasten the return of the manuscript. He noted with evident concern, however, that he had since learned that a copy of the work remained in the hands of the principal author. Shaftesbury's letter of March 1707/8 is prefaced with his request that Somers conceal or burn the Letter concerning Enthusiasm—a request which was probably an indirect appeal to his correspondent to recall the manuscript or to exert his influence to squelch further circulation and possible publication. Shaftesbury's uneasiness about seeing the work in print was not, as he told Somers, on account of any ill consequences that might befall its author but because "in ye beginning . . . he has accidentally exposd ye weakness of a poor old Prelate who tho he was once a professd Informer from the Roof & Board (one might say Service too) of your Friend's [Shaftesbury's] Ancestour, yet your Friend, whether as an Enthusiast, or as a sound Christian, has too scrupulouse a Conscience to make such a seeming angry Return. And considering the old Clergy-Man's better Service to ye protestant Religion & Whigg-Cause in la[t]er Times, your Friend woud be unwilling to do any thing yt might look like an exposing the Man publickly" (p. 69). The passage to which Shaftesbury referred was plainly his allusion in the Letter to "an eminent, learned, and truly Christian prelate you once knew, who could have given you a full account of his belief in fairies" (I, 7). The man in question was Edward Fowler, Bishop of Gloucester, who had supplied the Cambridge Platonist Henry More with accounts of ghosts and spirits.[5] Although Fowler's role in betraying one of Shaftesbury's forebears (the notorious first earl?) is obscure, the prelate's later good service to Protestantism and the Whigs may have included his vigorous arguments before the London clergy against the reading of James II's first Declaration of Indulgence in 1687 and the answer to a Jacobite pamphlet which reportedly earned him his bishopric in 1691.[6]

Some four months after his appeal to Somers, Shaftesbury, despite his reluctance on Fowler's account, allowed the Letter concerning Enthusiasm to be published by John Morphew, a major purveyor of tracts on the London prophets. Justifying his decision to Somers in a letter of July 12, 1708, which accompanied a printed copy of the work, the author observed that "'Twas meer Fortune It came not out in Print before now since a Printer severall

Months ago had it left in his hands by some of those Persons formerly mentiond. Others have done it the honour to coppy pieces of it in their Letters wch. your Friend [Shaftesbury] has seen, & have given it the advantage of their own Dress: in wch. it was likely to come abroad soon into the world amongst the Writings of those Gentlemen who frequently supply the Press, and borrow freely of one another or whoever else comes in their way."[7] Although the Letter was published with neither his own nor Somers's name, Shaftesbury thought these would probably be guessed not only because of the manuscript's circulation in the club of authors but also because the man who had originally borrowed the work from Somers had shown it to friends of the author, "who knew him intimately, & coud discover his correcting hand" (p. 86). While there is no reason to believe that the printed Letter contained any major departures from the original manuscript, Shaftesbury, in a postscript which is crossed out in the surviving copybook transcript of his letter of July 12, called Somers's attention to two small changes in the passage concerning Fowler: "If your Lordsp. can think the enclos'd worth a second reading in this new Character, you will find among other slight Corrections one wch. relates to the old Bishop. The change of a Tense has put him out of ye way of Reflection & a good Epethite or two bestow'd on him, saves the breach of Charity in one who would willingly say all the Good of him that he cou'd, & conceal the rest" (p. 87).

Shaftesbury's letter of July 12 to Somers is the earliest known notice of the publication of A Letter concerning Enthusiasm. No evidence of contemporary attribution to Shaftesbury survives, and the printed work, like the manuscript, was apparently believed by many to be the product of the author of A Tale of a Tub. Swift indeed felt obliged to deny his authorship privately to three different correspondents as well as publicly in the Apology first printed with the fifth edition of the Tale (1710).[8]

Publication in no way diminished the notoriety of the Letter. In the August 1708 issue of his Censura Temporum, the Reverend Samuel Parker dubbed it "Nine or ten Sheets full of such flagrant Buffoonry, Raillery and Ridicule upon all Religion, Natural as well as Reveal'd, as are enough to shock an ordinary Atheist," and declared, "When I read it, almost every

Period seem'd to come like a Flash from Hell. And at this time I can't look into't without trembling."[9] In late 1708 an anonymous French translation appeared in Holland, and the next year the author of the third full-length response to the work complained that it was "industriously spread in the Nation; put, by way of ABC, into the hands of every young Fellow, who begins to speak great swelling Words, against what he Will not Understand, because he is Resolv'd not to Practice: And sent, by way of Mission, into Foreign Parts, upon that hopeful Project! which is now the Heroick Passion of exalted Spirits, the saving of Men's Sense, by the Damning of their Souls!"[10] None of Shaftesbury's other works was to arouse such immediate and intense controversy.

In view of the reception accorded the Letter, it is not at all surprising that two English editions of the work exist, although no one to my knowledge has ever noted the fact. Both bear the date 1708, but over half of the pages of the second consist of a line for line resetting of the first, while the remainder were reimpressed from standing type. Collation of six copies of the first edition and five of the second reveals no intermixing of the two sets of sheets, a finding which suggests that copies of the first edition had been gathered before printing of the second was begun. The order of 1708 editions can be conjectured on the basis of a correction introduced into standing type before reimpression: the omission of the redundant second "chiefly" from the sentence "'Tis in Adversity chiefly, or in ill Health, under Affliction, or Disturbance of Mind, or Discomposure of Temper, that we have chiefly recourse to it" (p. 50, lines 7-11).[11] The dropping of end type during the process of reimpression is probably responsible for two apparent errors on reimpressed page 74: the omission of a comma after "essent" (line 1) and omission of the final 's' of the catchword "sets." Improper spacing above the quotation at the top of page 72 is probably the result of another reimpression mishap, which created both vertical and horizontal shifting in the top half of the page.

A conflated description and list of variants (cited by page and line) follow:

Copies: First edition: Illinois, Urbana; Michigan, Ann Arbor (microfilm); Miami University; Princeton; 2 Yale, Beinecke. Second edition: Illinois, Urbana; Newberry; Princeton; University of Chicago; Yale, Sterling (microfilm).

Variants

                       

	First Edition	Second Edition
8.20	themselves	themselves
16.2	general	geneaal
16.9	kindˆ;	~,
20.16	wellˆ;	~,
21.18	laugh'd	laught
35.17	respect	Respect
37.13	theirs:	~:
50.10-11	have chiefly recourse	have recourse
60.7-8	excluded in	excluded
60.10	settled	settl'd
74.1	essent,	~ ˆ

Notes