University of Virginia Library

2.17. SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER
BY ROBERT W. LOWE.

THE transaction to which Cibber alludes in his last paragraph is one with regard to which he probably felt that his conduct required some explanation. After the death of Steele, a Patent was granted to Cibber, Wilks, and Booth, empowering them to give plays at Drury Lane, or elsewhere, for a period of twenty-one years from 1st September, 1732. [257.1]

Just after it came into operation Wilks died, and his share in the Patent became the property of his wife. Booth, shortly before his death, which occurred in May, 1733, sold half of his share for £2,500, to John Highmore, a gentleman who seems to have been a typical amateur manager, being possessed of some money, no judgment, and unbounded vanity. In making this purchase Highmore stipulated that, with half of Booth's share, he should receive the whole of his authority; and he accordingly exercised the same power of control as had belonged to Booth. Mrs. Wilks deputed Mr. John Ellys, the painter, to be her representative, so that Cibber had to manage the affairs of the theatre in conjunction with a couple of amateurs, both ignorant, and one certainly presumptuous also. He delegated his authority for a time to his scapegrace son, Theophilus, who probably made himself so objectionable that Highmore was glad to buy the father's share in the Patent also. [258.1] He paid three thousand guineas for it, thus purchasing a whole share for a sum not much exceeding that which he had paid for one-half. Highmore's first purchase took place in the autumn of 1732, his second somewhere about May, 1733; so that, when Drury Lane opened for the season 1733-34, he possessed one-half of the three shares into which the Patent was divided. Mrs. Wilks retained her share, but Mrs. Booth had sold her remaining half-share to Henry Giffard,[259.1] the manager of Goodman's Fields Theatre, at which, eight years later, Garrick made his first appearance. Highmore had scarcely entered upon his fuller authority when a revolt was spirited up among his actors, the chief of whom left him in a body to open the little theatre in the Haymarket. Shameful to relate, the ringleader in this mutiny was Theophilus Cibber; and, what is still more disgraceful, Colley Cibber lent them his active countenance. Benjamin Victor, though a devoted friend of Colley Cibber, characterizes the transaction as most dishonest, [259.2] and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of his information or the soundness of his judgment. Davies ("Life of Garrick," i. 76) states that Colley Cibber applied to the Duke of Grafton, then Lord Chamberlain, for a new License or Patent in favour of his son; but the Duke, on inquiring into the matter, was so disgusted at Cibber's conduct that he refused the application with strong expressions of disapprobation. The seceders had of course no Patent or License under which to act; but, from the circumstance that they took the name of Comedians of His Majesty's Revels, it is probable that they received a License from the Master of the Revels, Charles Henry Lee. Highmore, deserted by every actor of any importance except Miss Raftor (Mrs. Clive), Mrs. Horton, and Bridgwater, was at his wits' end. He summoned the seceders for an infringement of his Patent, but his case, tried on 5th November, 1733, was dismissed, apparently on some technical pleas. He could not prevail upon the Lord Chamberlain to exert his authority to close the Haymarket, so he determined to try the efficacy of the Vagrant Act (12 Queen Anne) against the irregular performers. John Harper accordingly was arrested on 12th November, 1733, and committed to Bridewell. On the 20th of the same month he was tried before the Court of King's Bench as a rogue and vagabond; but, whether from the circumstance that Harper was a householder, or from a decision that playing at the Haymarket was not an act of vagrancy, [260.1] he was discharged upon his own recognizance, and the manager's action failed. He had therefore to bring actors from the country to make up his company; but of these Macklin was the only one who proved of any assistance, and the unfortunate Highmore, after meeting deficiencies of fifty or sixty pounds each week for some months, was forced to give up the struggle.[261.1] Another amateur then stepped into the breach—Charles Fleetwood, who purchased the shares of Highmore and Mrs. Wilks for little more than the former had paid for his own portion. Giffard seems to have retained his sixth of the Patent. Fleetwood first set about regaining the services of the seceders, and, as the majority of them were probably ashamed of following the leadership of Theophilus Cibber, he succeeded at once. The last performance at the Haymarket took place on 9th March, 1734, and on the 12th the deserters reappeared on Drury Lane stage. This transaction ended Colley Cibber's direct interference in the affairs of the theatre, and his only subsequent connection with the stage was as an actor. His first appearance after his retirement was on 31st October, 1734, when he played his great character of Bayes. During the season he acted Lord Foppington, Sir. John Brute, Sir Courtly Nice, and Sir Fopling Flutter; and on 26th February, 1735, he appeared as Fondlewife for the benefit of his old friend and partner, Owen Swiney.[262.1] At the end of the season 1734-5, an arrangement was under consideration by which a committee of actors, including Mills, Johnson, Miller, Theo. Cibber, Mrs. Heron, Mrs. Butler, and others, were to rent Drury Lane from Fleetwood, for fifteen years, at £920 per annum; but the arrangement does not appear to have been carried out, and Fleetwood continued Patentee of Drury Lane until 1744-5.

The rival company, under the control of John Rich, acted at Lincoln's Inn Fields from 18th December, 1714, to 5th December, 1732; then they removed to the new Covent Garden Theatre, which was opened on 7th December with "The Way of the World." For several seasons both companies dragged along very uneventfully, so far as the artistic advancement of the stage was concerned, although the passing of the Licensing Act of 1737, already fully commended on, was an event of great historical importance. Artistically the period was one of rest, if not of retrogression; the methods of the older time were losing their meaning and vitality, and were becoming mere dry bones of tradition. The high priest of the stage was James Quin, a great actor, though not of the first order; and among the younger players perhaps the most notable was Charles

Macklin, rough in manner as in person, but full of genius and a thorough reformer. Garrick was the direct means of revolutionizing the methods of the theatre, and it was his genius that swept away the formality and dulness of the old school; but it ought to be remembered that the way was prepared for him by Charles Macklin, whose rescue of Shylock from low comedy was an achievement scarcely inferior to Garrick's greatest. During this dull period Cibber's appearances must have had an importance and interest, which, after Garrick's advent, they lacked.

In the season 1735-6 he acted Sir Courtly Nice and Bayes, and in the next season his play of "Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John," a miserable mutilation of Shakespeare's "King John," was put in rehearsal to Drury Lane. But such a storm of ridicule and abuse arose when this play was announced, that Cibber withdrew it, [263.1] and it was not seen till 1745, when, the nation being in fear of a Popish Pretender, it was produced at Covent Garden from patriotic motives.

Cibber's implacable foe, Fielding, was one of the ringleaders in the attack on him for mutilating Shakespeare; and in his "Historical Register for

1736,"[264.1] in which Colley is introduced as "Ground-Ivy," [264.2] gives him the following excellent rebuke:—

"Medley. As Shakspear is already good enough for People of Taste, he must be alter'd to the Palates of those who have none; and if you will grant that, who can be properer to alter him for the worse?"

In 1738, having, as Victor says ("History," ii. 48), "Health and Strength enough to be as useful as ever," he agreed with Fleetwood to perform a round of his favourite characters. He was successful in comedy, but in tragedy he felt that his strength was no longer sufficient; and Victor relates that, going behind the scenes while the third act of "Richard III." was on, he was told in a whisper by the old man, "That he would give fifty Guineas to be then sitting in his easy Chair by his own Fire-side." Probably

he never played in tragedy again until the production of his own "Papal Tyranny"—at least I cannot discover that he did. In 1740-1 he acted Fondlewife for the benefit of Chetwood, late prompter at Drury Lane, who was then imprisoned in the King's Bench for debt; and his reception was so favourable that he repeated the character a second and third time for his own profit.[265.1] Upon these occasions he spoke an "Epilogue upon Himself," which is given in "The Egotist" (p. 57 et seq.), and forms so good an epitome of Cibber's philosophy, besides giving an excellent specimen of his style, that I quote it at length:—

The representative of Lætitia (or Cocky) alluded to in this Epilogue was Mrs. Woffington, with whom stage-history has identified the "Susannah" of the following well-known anecdote, which I quote from an attack upon Cibber, published in 1742, entitled "A Blast upon Bays; or, A New Lick at the Laureat." The author writes: "No longer ago than when the Bedford Coffee house was in Vogue, and Mr. Cibber was writing An Apology for his own Life, there was

one Mr. S— (the Importer of an expensive Hay-market Comedy) an old Acquaintance of Mr. Cibber, who, as well as he, retain'd a Smack of his antient Taste. In those Days there was also a fair smirking Damsel, whose name was Susannah-Maria* * *, who happen'd to have Charms sufficient to revive the decay'd Vigour of these two Friends. They equally pursued her, even to the Hazard of their Health, and were frequently seen dangling after her, with tottering Knees, at one and the same Time. You have heard, Sir, what a witty Friend of your own said once on this Occasion: Lo! yonder goes Susannah and the two Elders." Even Genest has applied this anecdote to Mrs. Woffington, but the only circumstance that lends confirmation to this view is the fact that Swiney (who is Mr. S—) left her his estate. Against this must be set the important points that Susannah Maria was not Mrs. Woffington's name, and that the joke depended for its neatness and applicability on the name Susannah. The narrator of the story, also, gives no hint that the damsel was the famous actress, as he certainly would have done; and, most important of all, it must be pointed out that at the period mentioned, that is, while Cibber was writing his "Apology," Mrs. Woffington had not appeared in London. The "Apology" was published in April, 1740, and had probably been completed in the preceding November; while Mrs. Woffington made her London débût on 6th November, 1740.[267.1]

During the season 1741-2, "At the particular desire of several persons of Quality," Cibber made a few appearances at Covent Garden; the purpose being, in all probability, to oppose the extraordinary attraction of Garrick at Goodman's Fields. In 1743-4 he played at the same theatre as Garrick, being engaged at Drury Lane for a round of his famous characters; but there is no record that Garrick and he appeared in the same play. For the new actor Cibber had, naturally enough, no great admiration. He must have resented deeply the alteration in the method of acting tragedy which Garrick introduced, and is always reported as having lost no opportunity of expressing his low opinion of the new school.[268.1]

His last appearances on the stage were in direct rivalry with his young opponent. As has been related, Cibber's alteration of "King John," which had been "burked" in 1736-7, was produced, from patriotic motives, in 1745. As the principal purpose

of the alteration was to make King John resent the insolence of the Pope's Nuncio in a much more emphatic manner than he does in Shakespeare, it may easily be imagined how wretched a production Cibber's play is. Genest's criticism is not too strong when he says (iv. 161): "In a word, Cibber has on this occasion shown himself utterly void of taste, judgment and modesty—well might Fielding call his Ground-Ivy, and say that no man was better calculated to alter Shakespeare for the worse.... in the Epilogue (which was spoken by Mrs. Clive) Cibber speaks of himself with modesty, but in the dedication, being emboldened by the favourable reception of his Tragedy, he has the insolence to say 'I have endeavoured to make it more like a play than I found it in Shakespeare.'" "Papal Tyranny" was produced at Covent Garden on 15th February, 1745,[269.1] and, in opposition to it, Shakespeare's play was put up at Drury Lane, with Garrick as King John, Macklin as Pandulph, and Mrs. Cibber (the great Mrs. Cibber, wife of Theophilus) as Constance. Cibber's play was, nevertheless, successful; the profit resulting to the author being, according to Victor, four hundred pounds, which he wisely laid out in a profitable annuity with Lord Mountford. In this play Cibber made his last appearance on the stage, on 26th February, 1745, on which day "Papal Tyranny" was played for the tenth time. "After which," says Victor ("History," ii. 49) "he retired to his easy Chair and his Chariot, to waste the Remains of Life with a chearful, contented Mind, without the least bodily Complaint, but that of a slow, unavoidable Decay."

His state of mind was probably the more "chearful and contented" because of his unquestionable success in his tilt with the formidable author of "The Dunciad;" a success none the less certain at the time, that the enduring fame of Pope has caused Cibber's triumph over him to be lost sight of now. The progress of the quarrel between these enemies has already been related up to the publication of Cibber's "Apology" (see vol. i. p. 36), and on pages 21, 35, and 36 of the first volume of this edition will be found Cibber's perfectly good-natured and proper remarks on Pope's attacks on him. Whether the very fact that Cibber did not show temper irritated his opponent, I do not know; but it probably did so, for in the fourth book

of "The Dunciad," published in 1742, Pope had another fling at his opponent (line 17):—

And in line 532 he talks of "Cibberian forehead" as typical of unblushing impudence.

It is not surprising that this last attack exhausted Cibber's patience. He had hitherto received his punishment with good temper and good humour; but his powerful enemy had not therefore held his hand. He now determined to retaliate. Conscious of the diseased susceptibility of Pope to ridicule, he felt himself quite capable of replying, not with equal literary power, but with much superior practical effect. Accordingly in 1742 there appeared a pamphlet entitled "A Letter from Mr. Cibber, to Mr. Pope, inquiring into the motives that might induce him in his Satyrical Works, to be so frequently fond of Mr. Cibber's name." To it was prefixed the motto: "Out of thy own Mouth will I judge thee. Pref. to the Dunciad."

Cibber commences by stating that he had been persuaded to reply to Pope by his friends; who insisted that for him to treat his attacker any longer with silent disdain might be thought a confession of Dulness indeed. This is a highly probable statement; for an encounter between the vivacious Cibber and the thin-skinned Pope promised a wealth of

amusement for those who looked on—a promise which was amply fulfilled. Cibber proceeds to assure Pope that, having entered the lists, he will not in future avoid the fray, but reply to every attack made on him. [272.1] He confesses his vast inferiority to Pope, but adds: "I own myself so contented a Dunce, that I would not have even your merited Fame in Poetry, if it were to be attended with half the fretful Solicitude you seem to have lain under to maintain it; of which the laborious Rout you make about it, in those Loads of Prose Rubbish, wherewith you have almost smother'd your Dunciad, is so sore a Proof." On page 17 of his "Letter" Cibber gives an interesting account of a quarrel between Pope and himself, to which he, with sufficient probability, attributes much of Pope's enmity. The passage is curious and important, so I quote it in full:—

"The Play of the Rehearsal, which had lain some few Years dormant, being by his present Majesty (then Prince of Wales) commanded to be revived, the Part of Bays fell to my share. To this Character there had always been allow'd such ludicrous Liberties of Observation, upon any thing new, or

remarkable, in the state of the Stage, as Mr. Bays might think proper to take. Much about this time, then, The Three Hours after Marriage had been acted without Success; [273.1] when Mr.Bays, as usual, had a fling at it, which, in itself, was no Jest, unless the Audience would please to make it one: But however, flat as it was, Mr. Pope was mortally sore upon it. This was the Offence. In this Play, two Coxcombs, being in love with a learned Virtuoso's Wife, to get unsuspected Access to her, ingeniously send themselves, as two presented Rarities, to the Husband, the one curiously swath'd up like an Egyptian Mummy, and the other slily cover'd in the Pasteboard Skin of a Crocodile: upon which poetical Expedient, I, Mr. Bays, when the two Kings of Brentford came from the Clouds into the Throne again, instead of what my Part directed me to say, made use of these Words, viz. 'Now, Sir, this Revolution, I had some Thoughts of introducing, by a quite different Contrivance; but my Design taking air, some of your sharp Wits, I found, had made use of it before me; otherwise I intended to have stolen one of them in, in the Shape of a Mummy, and t'other, in that of a Crocodile.' Upon which, I doubt, the Audience by the Roar of their Applause shew'd their proprotionable Contempt of the Play they belong'd to. But why am I answerable for that? I did not lead them,

by any Reflection of my own, into that Contempt: Surely to have used the bare Word Mummy, and Crocodile, was neither unjust, or unmannerly; Where then was the Crime of simply saying there had been two such things in a former Play? But this, it seems, was so heinously taken by Mr. Pope, that, in the swelling of his Heart, after the Play was over, he came behind the Scenes, with his Lips pale and his Voice trembling, to call me to account for the Insult: And accordingly fell upon me with all the foul Language, that a Wit out of his Senses could be capable of—How durst I have the Impudence to treat any Gentleman in that manner? &c. &c. &c. Now let the Reader judge by this Concern, who was the true Mother of the Child! When he was almost choked with the foam of his Passion, I was enough recover'd from my Amazement to make him (as near as I can remember) this Reply, viz. 'Mr. Pope—You are so particular a Man, that I must be asham'd to return your Language as I ought to do: but since you have attacked me in so monstrous a Manner; This you may depend upon, that so long as the Play continues to be acted, I will never fail to repeat the same Words over and over again.' Now, as he accordingly found I kept my Word, for several Days following, I am afraid he has since thought, that his Pen was a sharper Weapon than his Tongue to trust his Revenge with. And however just Cause this may be for his so doing, it is, at least, the only Cause my Conscience can charge me with. Now, as I might have concealed this Fact if my Conscience would have suffered me, may we not suppose, Mr. Pope would certainly have mention'd it in his Dunciad, had he thought it could have been of service to him?

Cibber afterwards proceeds to criticise and reply to allusions to himself in Pope's works, some of which are in conspicuously bad taste. Cibber, of course, does not miss the obvious point that to attack his successful plays was a foolish proceeding on Pope's part, whose own endeavours as a dramatist had been completely unsuccessful, and who thus laid himself open to the charge of envy. Nor is this accusation so ridiculous as it may seem to readers of to-day, for a successful playwright was a notable public figure, and the delicious applause of the crowded theatre was eagerly sought by even the most eminent men. And again, it must be remembered that Pope's fame was not then the perfectly assured matter that it is now.

But Cibber's great point, which made his opponent writhe with fury, was a little anecdote—Dr. Johnson terms it "an idle story of Pope's behaviour at a tavern"—which raised a universal shout of merriment at Pope's expense. The excuse for its introduction was found in these lines from the "Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot":—

Cibber's anecdote cannot be defended on the ground of decency, but it is extremely ludicrous, and in the state of society then existing it must have been a knock-down blow to the unhappy subject of it. There can be little doubt that it was this pamphlet which Pope received on the occasion when the Richardsons visited him, as related by Johnson in his Life of the poet: "I have heard Mr. Richardson relate that he attended his father the painter on a visit, when one of Cibber's pamphlets came into the hands of Pope, who said, 'These things are my diversion.' They sat by him while he perused it, and saw his features writhing with anguish: and young Richardson said to his father, when they returned, that he hoped to be preserved from such diversion as had been that day the lot of Pope." How deeply Pope was galled by Cibber's ludicrous picture of him is manifested by the extraordinary revenge he took. And even now we can realize the bitterness of the provocation when we read the maliciously comic story of the vivacious Colley:—

"As to the first Part of the Charge, the Lord; Why—we have both had him, and sometimes the same Lord; but as there is neither Vice nor Folly in keeping our Betters Company; the Wit or Satyr of the Verse! can only point at my Lord for keeping such ordinary Company. Well, but if so! then why so, good Mr. Pope? If either of us could be good Company, our being professed Poets, I hope would be no Objection to my Lord's sometimes making

one with us? and though I don't pretend to write like you, yet all the Requisites to make a good Companion are not confined to Poetry! No, Sir, even a Man's inoffensive Follies and Blunders may sometimes have their Merits at the best Table; and in those, I am sure, you won't pretend to vie with me: Why then may not my Lord be as much in the Right, in his sometimes choosing Colley to laugh at, as at other times in his picking up Sawney, whom he can only admire?

"Thus far, then, I hope we are upon a par; for the Lord, you see, will fit either of us.

"As to the latter Charge, the Whore, there indeed, I doubt you will have the better of me; for I must own, that I believe I know more of your whoring than you do of mine; because I don't recollect that ever I made you the least Confidence of my Amours, though I have been very near an Eye-Witness of Yours— By the way, gentle Reader, don't you think, to say only, a Man has his Whore, without some particular Circumstances to aggravate the Vice, is the flattest Piece of Satyr that ever fell from the formidable Pen of Mr. Pope? because (defendit numerus) take the first ten thousand Men you meet, and I believe, you would be no Loser, if you betted ten to one that every single Sinner of them, one with another, had been guilty of the same Frailty. But as Mr. Pope has so particularly picked me out of the Number to make an Example of: Why may I not take the same Liberty, and even single him out for another

to keep me in Countenance? He must excuse me, then, if in what I am going to relate, I am reduced to make bold with a little private Conversation: But as he has shewn no Mercy to Colley, why should so unprovok'd an Aggressor expect any for himself? And if Truth hurts him, I can't help it. He may remember, then (or if he won't I will) when Button's Coffee-house was in vogue, and so long ago, as when he had not translated above two or three Books of Homer; there was a late young Nobleman (as much his Lord as mine) who had a good deal of wicked Humour, and who, though he was fond of having Wits in his Company, was not so restrained by his Conscience, but that he lov'd to laugh at any merry Mischief he could do them: This noble Wag, I say, in his usual Gayetè de Coeur, with another Gentleman still in Being,[278.1] one Evening slily seduced the celebrated Mr. Pope as a Wit, and myself as a Laugher, to a certain House of Carnal Recreation, near the Hay-Market; where his Lordship's Frolick propos'd was to slip his little Homer, as he call'd him, at a Girl of the Game, that he might see what sort of Figure a Man of his Size, Sobriety, and Vigour (in Verse) would make, when the frail Fit of Love had got into him; in which he so far succeeded, that the smirking Damsel, who serv'd us with Tea, happen'd to have Charms sufficient to tempt the little-tiny Manhood of Mr. Pope into the next Room with her: at which you may imagine, his Lordship was in as much Joy, at what might happen within, as our small Friend could probably be in Possession of it: But I (forgive me all ye mortified Mortals whom his fell Satyr has since fallen upon) observing he had staid as long as without hazard of his Health he might, I, As Shakespear says, without Ceremony, threw open the Door upon him, where I found this little hasty Hero, like a terrible Tom Tit, pertly perching upon the Mount of Love! But such was my Surprize, that I fairly laid hold of his Heels, and actually drew him down safe and sound from his Danger. My Lord, who staid tittering without, in hopes the sweet Mischief he came for would have been compleated, upon my giving an Account of the Actin within, began to curse, and call me an hundred silly Puppies, for my impertinently spoiling the Sport; to which with great Gravity I reply'd; pray, my Lord, consider what I have done was, in regard to the Honour of our Nation! For would you have had so glorious a Work as that of making Homer speak elegant English, cut short by laying up our little Gentleman of a Malady, which his thin Body might never have been cured of? No, my Lord! Homer would have been too serious a Sacrifice to our Evening Merriment. Now as his Homer has since been so happily compleated, who can say, that the World may not have been obliged to the kindly Care of Colley that so great a Work ever came to Perfection?

"And now again, gentle Reader, let it be judged, whether the Lord and the Whore above-mentioned might not, with equal Justice, have been apply'd to sober Sawney the Satyrist, as to Colley the Criminal?

"Though I confess Recrimination to be but a poor Defence for one's own Faults; yet when the Guilty are Accusers, it seems but just, to make use of any Truth, that may invalidate their Evidence: I therefore hope, whatever the serious Reader may think amiss in this Story, will be excused, by my being so hardly driven to tell it."

In the remainder of Cibber's pamphlet there is not much that is of any importance, though an allusion to one of Pope's victims having hung up a birch in Button's Coffee House, wherewith to chastise his satirist, was skilfully calculated to rouse Pope's temper. Cibber thoroughly succeeded in this object, [280.1] perhaps to a degree that he rather regretted. Pope made no direct reply to his banter, but in the following year (1743) a new edition of "The Dunciad" appeared, in which Theobald was deposed from the throne of Dulness, and Cibber elevated in his place.

By doing this Pope gratified his vengeance, but injured his poem, for the carefully painted peculiarities of Theobald, a slow and pedantic scholar, sat ill on the pert and vivacious Colley. [281.1] TO this retaliation Cibber, as he had promised, [281.2] replied with another pamphlet, entitled "Another Occasional Letter from Mr. Cibber to Mr. Pope. Wherein the New Hero's Preferment to his Throne, in the Dunciad, seems not to be Accepted. And the Author of that Poem His more rightful Claim to it, is Asserted. With An Expostulatory Address to the Reverend Mr. W. W—n, Author of the new Preface, and Adviser in the curious Improvements of that Satire." The motto on the title-page was:—

There is little that is of any note in this production, which is characterized by the same real or affected good-nature as marked the former pamphlet. The most interesting passages to us are those alluding to the effect of Cibber's previous attack, and exulting over Pope's distress at it. For instance (on page 7):—

"And now, Sir, give me leave to be a little surpriz'd

at the impenetrable Skull of your Courage, that (after I had in my first Letter) so heartily teiz'd, and toss'd, and tumbled you through all the Mire, and Dirt, the madness of your Muse had been throwing at other People, it could still, so Vixen like, sprawl out the same feeble Paw of its Satyr, to have t'other Scratch at my Nose: But as I know the Vulgar (with whose Applause I humbly content my self) are apt to laugh when they see a curst Cat in a Kennel; so whenever I observe your Grimalkin Spirit shew but the least grinning Gasp of Life, I shall take the honest liberty of old Towser the House-dog, and merrily lift up my Leg to have a little more Game with you.

"Well Sir, in plainer Terms, I am now, you see, once more willing to bring Matters to an Issue, or (as the Boxers say) to answer your Challenge, and come to a Trial of Manhood with you; though by our slow Proceedings, we seem rather to be at Law, than at Loggerheads with one another; and if you had not been a blinder Booby, than my self, you would have sate down quietly, with the last black Eye I gave you: For so loath was I to squabble with you, that though you had been snapping, and snarling at me for twenty Years together, you saw, I never so much as gave you a single Growl, or took any notice of you. At last, 'tis true, in meer Sport for others, rather than from the least Tincture of Concern for my self, I was inticed to be a little wanton, not to say waggish, with your Character; by which

having (you know) got the strong Laugh on my Side, I doubt I have so offended the Gravity, and Greatness of your Soul, that to secure your more ample Revenge, you have prudently taken the full Term of thirteen Months Consideration, before you would pour it, upon me! But at last, it seems, we have it, and now Souse! out comes your old Dunciad, in a new Dress, like fresh Gold, upon stale Gingerbread, sold out in Penny-worth's of shining King Colley, crown'd the Hero of Immortal Stupidity!"

And again (on page 15): "At your Peril be it, little Gentleman, for I shall have t'other Frisk with you, and don't despair that the very Notice I am now taking of you, will once more make your Fame fly, like a yelping Cur with a Bottle at his Tail, the Jest and Joy of every Bookseller's Prentice between Wapping and Westminster!"

To this pamphlet Pope, whose infirmities were very great, made no reply, and Cibber had, as he had vowed, the last word. Round the central articles of this quarrel a crowd of supplementary productions had gathered, a list of which will be found in the Bibliography of Cibber a few pages on.

Cibber's position of Poet Laureate furnished him with a steady income during his declining years, and his Odes were turned out as required, with mechanical precision and most unpoetic spirit. They were the standing joke of the pamphleteers and new-sheet writers, and were always accompanied with a running

fire of banter and parody. Those curious in the matter will find excellent specimens, both of the Odes and the burlesques, in the early volumes of the "Gentleman's Magazine."

After the termination of his quarrel with Pope, Cibber's life was very uneventful; and, although it extended far beyond the allotted span, he continued to enjoy it to the very end. Horace Walpole greeted him one day, saying, "I am glad, Sir, to see you looking so well." "Egad, Sir," replied the old man, "at eighty-four it is well for a man that he can look at all." On 11th December, 1757, he died, having attained the great age of eighty-six. [284.1] Dr. Doran ("Their Majesties' Servants," 1888 edition, ii. 235) says: "I read in contemporary publications that there 'died at his house in Berkeley Square, Colley Cibber, Esq., Poet Laureate;'" and although it has been stated that he died at Islington, I see no reason to doubt Dr. Doran's explicit statement. Cibber was buried in the Danish Church, Wellclose Square.[284.2]

So far as we know, only two of Cibber's children survived him, his ne'er-do-well son Theophilus, and his equally scapegrace daughter Charlotte, who married Charke the musician. The former was born in 1703, and was drowned in the winter of 1758, while crossing to Ireland to fulfil an engagement in Dublin. As an actor he was chiefly famous for playing Ancient Pistol, but he was also excellent in some of his father's characters, such as Lord Foppington, Bayes, and Sir Francis Wronghead. His private life was in the last degree disreputable, and especially so in his relations with his second wife, Susanna Maria Arne—the great Mrs. Cibber. The literature regarding Theophilus Cibber is considerable in quantity and curious in quality. Some account of it will be found in my "Bibliographical Account of English Theatrical Literature," pp. 52-55.

Charlotte Charke, who was born about 1710, and died in April, 1760, was of no note as an actress. Her private life, however, was madly eccentric, and her autobiography, published in 1755, is a curious and scarce work.

Cibber's principal plays have been noted in the course of his "Apology;" but, for the sake of convenience, I give here a complete list of his regular dramatic productions:—

• Love's Last Shift—Comedy—Produced at Drury Lane, 1696.
• Woman's Wit—Comedy—Drury Lane, 1697.
• Xerxes—Tragedy—Lincoln's Inn Fields, 1699.
• Richard III.—Tragedy (alteration of Shakespeare's play)—Drury Lane, 1700.
• Love Makes a Man—Comedy—Drury Lane, 1701.
• The School Boy—Comedy—Drury Lane, 26th October, 1702.
• She Would and She would Not—Comedy—Drury Lane, 26th November, 1702.
• The Careless Husband—Comedy—Drury Lane, 7th December, 1704.
• Perolla and Izadora—Tragedy—Drury Lane, 3rd December, 1705.
• The Comical Lovers—Comedy—Haymarket, 4th February, 1707.
• The Double Gallant—Comedy—Haymarket, 1st November, 1707.
• The Lady's Last Stake—Comedy—Haymarket, 13th December, 1707.

---

287



• The Rival Fools—Comedy—Drury Lane, 11th January, 1709.
• The Rival Queans—Comical-Tragedy—Haymarket, 29th June, 1710.
• Ximena—Tragedy—Drury Lane, 28th November, 1712.
• Venus and Adonis—Masque—Drury Lane, 1715.
• Bulls and Bears—Farce—Drury Lane, 1st December, 1715.
• Myrtillo-Pastoral Interlude—Drury Lane, 1716.
• The Nonjuror—Comedy—Drury Lane, 6th December, 1717.
• The Refusal—Comedy—Drury Lane, 14th February, 1721.
• Cæsar in Egypt—Tragedy—Drury Lane, 9th December, 1724.
• The Provoked Husband—Comedy (in conjunction with Vanbrugh)—Drury Lane, 10th January, 1728.
• Love in a Riddle-Pastoral—Drury Lane, 7th January, 1729.
• Damon and Phillida—Pastoral Farce—Haymarket, 1729.
• Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John— Tragedy (alteration of Shakespeare's "King John") —Covent Garden, 15th February, 1745.

Of these, his alteration of "Richard III." had practically undisputed possession of the stage, until the taste and judgment of Mr. Henry Irving gave us back the original play. [287.1] But in the provinces, when

stars of the old school play a round of legitimate parts, the adulterated version still reigns triumphant, and the great effect of the night is got in Cibber's famous line:—

In "The Hypocrite," a comedy still played at intervals, Cibber's "Nonjuror" survives. Bickerstaffe, who was the author of the alteration, retained a very large portion of the original play, his chief change being the addition of the inimitable Maw-worm.

That another of Cibber's plays survives is owing to the taste of an American manager and to the

genius of an American company of comedians. Mr. Augustin Daly's company includes among its repertory Cibber's comedy of "She Would and She Would Not," and has shown in London as well as in New York how admirable a comedy it is. It goes without saying to those who have seen this company, that much of the success was due to Miss Ada Rehan, who showed in Hypolita, as she has done in Katharine ("Taming of the Shrew"), that she is mistress of classical comedy as of modern touch-and-go farce.[289.1]

Cibber was the cause of quite a considerable literature, mostly abusive. The following list, taken from my "Bibliographical Account of English Theatrical Literature" (1888), is, I believe, a complete catalogue of all separate publications by, or relating to, Colley Cibber:—

A clue to the comedy of the Non-Juror. With some hints of consequence relating to that play. In a letter to N. Rowe, Esq; Poet Laureat to His Majesty. London (Curll): 1718. 8vo. 6d.

A lash for the Laureat: or an address by way of Satyr; most humbly inscrib'd to the unparallel'd

Mr. Rowe, on occasion of a late insolent Prologue to the Non-Juror. London (J. Morphew): 1718. folio. Title, 1 leaf: Pref. 1 leaf. pp. 8. 6d.

A compleat key to the Non-Juror. Explaining the characters in that play, with observations thereon. By Mr. Joseph Gay. The second edioion (sic). London (Curll): 1718. 8vo. pp. 24 including title and half-title.

The Theatre-Royal turn'd into a mountebank's stage. In some remarks upon Mr. Cibber's quack-dramatical performance, called the Non-Juror. By a Non-Juror. London (Morphew): 1718. 8vo. Title 1 leaf. pp. 38. 6d.

The Comedy call'd the Non-Juror. Shewing the particular scenes wherein that hypocrite is concern'd. With remarks, and a key, explaining the characters of that excellent play. London (printed for J. L.): 1718. 8vo. pp. 24, including title. 2d.

Some cursory remarks on the play call'd the Non-Juror, written by Mr. Cibber. In a letter to a friend. London (Chetwood) 1718. 8vo.

A journey to London. Being part of a comedy written by the late Sir John Vanbrugh, Knt. and

printed after his own copy: which (since his decease) has been made an intire play, by Mr. Cibber, and call'd The provok'd husband. &c. London (Watts): 1728. 8vo. pp. 51, including title.

Reflections on the principal characters in the Provoked Husband. London: 1728. 8vo.

An apology for the life of Mr. Colley Cibber, comedian, and late patentee of the Theatre-Royal. With an historical view of the stage during his own time. Written by himself. London (Printed by John Watts for the author): 1740. 4to. Port.

An apology for the life of Mr. T.....C....., comedian. Being a proper sequel to the Apology for the life of Mr. Colley Cibber, comedian. With an historical view of the stage to the present year. Supposed to be written by himself. In the stile and manner of the Poet Laureat. London (Mechell): 1740. 8vo. 2s.

A brief supplement to Colley Cibber, Esq; his lives of the late famous Actors and Actresses. Si tu scis, melior ego. By Anthony, Vulgò Tony Aston. Printed for the Author, N.P. (London): N.D. (1747-8). 8vo. pp. 24 including title.

The tryal of Colley Cibber, comedian, &c., for writing a book intitled An apology for his life, &c. Being a thorough examination thereof; wherein he is proved guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors against the English language, and in characterising many persons of distinction....Together with an indictment exhibited against Alexander Pope of Twickenham, Esq; for not exerting his talents at this juncture: and the arraignment of George Cheyne, Physician at Bath, for the Philosophical, Physical, and Theological heresies, uttered in his last book on Regimen. London (for the author): 1740. 8vo. pp. vii. 40. 1s.

The Laureat: or, the right side of Colley Cibber, Esq; containing explanations, amendments, and observations, on a book intituled, An apology for the life, and writings of Mr. Colley Cibber. Not written by himself. With some anecdotes of the Laureat,

which he (thro' an excess of modesty) omitted. To which is added, The history of the life, manners and writings of Æsopus the tragedian, from a fragment of a Greek manuscript found in the Library of the Vatican; interspers'd with observations of the translator. London (Roberts): 1740. 8vo. 1s. 6d.

The history of the stage. In which is included, the theatrical characters of the most celebrated actors who have adorn'd the theatre. Among many others are the following, viz. Mr. Betterton, Mr. Montfort, Mr. Dogget, Mr. Booth, Mr. Wilks, Mr. Nokes. Mrs. Barry, Mrs. Montfort, Mrs. Gwin, Mrs. Bracegirdle, Mrs. Porter, Mrs. Oldfield. Together with, the theatrical life of Mr. Colley Cibber. London (Miller): 1742. 8vo.

A letter from Mr. Cibber, to Mr. Pope, inquiring into the motives that might induce him in his satyrical works, to be so frequently fond of Mr. Cibber's name. London (Lewis): 1742. 8vo. 1s.

A letter to Mr. C—b—r, on his letter to Mr. P..... London (Roberts): 1742. 8vo. 26 pp. 6d.

Difference between verbal and practical virtue. With a prefatory epistle from Mr. C...b...r to Mr. P. London (Roberts): 1742. Folio. Title 1 leaf: Epistle 1 leaf: pp. 7.

A blast upon Bays; or, a new lick at the Laureat. Containing, remarks upon the late tatling performance, entitled, A letter from Mr. Cibber to Mr. Pope, &c. And lo there appeared an old woman! Vide the Letter throughout. London (Robbins): 1742. 8vo. pp. 26. 6d.

Sawney and Colley, a poetical dialogue: occasioned by a late letter from the Laureat of St. James's, to the Homer of Twickenham. Something in the manner of Dr. Swift. London (for J. H.): n.d. (1742). Folio. Title 1 leaf: pp. 21. 1s.

The egotist: or, Colley upon Cibber. Being his own picture retouch'd, to so plain a likeness, that no one, now, would have the face to own it, but himself. London (Lewis): 1743. 8vo. pp. 78 including title. 1s.

Another occasional letter from Mr. Cibber to Mr. Pope. Wherein the new hero's preferment to his throne, in the Dunciad, seems not to be accepted. And the author of that poem his more rightful claim

to it, is asserted. With an expostulatory address to the Reverend Mr. W. W—n, author of the new preface, and adviser in the curious improvements of that satire. By Mr. Colley Cibber. London (Lewis): 1744. 8vo. 1s.

A letter to Colley Cibber, Esq; on his transformation of King John. London. 1745. 8vo.

A new book of the Dunciad: occasion'd by Mr. Warburton's new edition of the Dunciad complete. By a gentleman of one of the Inns of Court. With several of Mr. Warburton's own notes, and likewise Notes Variorum. London (J. Payne & J. Bouquet): 1750. 4to. 1s.

Shakspere's tragedy of Richard III., considered dramatically and historically; and in comparison with Cibber's alteration as at present in use on the stage, in a lecture delivered to the members of the Liverpool Literary, Scientific and Commercial Institution, by Thos. Stuart, of the Theatre Royal. (Liverpool): n.d. (about 1850). 12mo.

Cibber published in 1747 a work entitled "The Character and Conduct of Cicero, considered from the history of his life by Dr. Middleton;" but it is of little value or interest.