¹ On the Tragedies of Shakespeare with reference to their fitness for Stage Representation: “Taking a turn the other day in the Abbey, I was struck with the affected attitude of a figure which I do not remember to have seen before, and which upon examination proved to be a whole length of the celebrated Mr Garrick. Though I would not go so far with some good catholics abroad as to shut players altogether out of consecrated ground, yet I own I was not a little scandalized at the introduction of theatrical airs and gestures into a place set apart to remind us of saddest realities. Going nearer I found inscribed under this harlequin figure the following lines.”

² June 1753, p. 282.

³ The Journal of the Tour of the Hebrides (Boston, 1910), p. 220. Johnson used the word “illustrate” in three senses: to brighten with light; to brighten with honor; to explain, clarify or elucidate (Dictionary, 1755).

⁴ London Magazine, Sept., 1745, p. 437 (see the quotation on p. 190 below); The Museum 29 March 1746; 28 Feb. 1747 (see below p. 191); Gray's Inn Journal, 27 Jan. 1753; “A Modest Proposal against abolishing Nature and Shakespeare Addressed to Mr Garrick”; ibid., 10 Feb. 1753: “I went the other night to see Mr Garrick in the character of Richard III, and I am sure he was possessed of the very soul of Richard … ”; ibid., 19 May 1753 (on Garrick's excellence in Lear, Hamlet, Macbeth, Richard, Benedict); ibid., 30 June 1753: “Now you talk of commentators says Shakespeare to his friend Johnson [sic] give me leave in a bumper of Helicon to drink to the health of my best commentator—Here's titles, Garrick to you. He has done me more service than all of them”; ibid., 19 Jan. 1754: “I can't forbear mentioning the obligation which the public has to the genius of Mr Garrick, who has exhibited with great lustre many of the most shining strokes of Shakespeare's amazing art; and may justly be styled (as he was once called by you) his best commentator: For 'tis certain, he has done our poet more justice by his manner of playing his principal characters, than any editor has yet done by a publication”; ibid., 15 April 1754: “Those who are not satisfied with this reasoning are referred to the noblest commentary this or any other poet ever had: I mean Mr Garrick's performance of Lear … ”; Adventurer, No. 113, comment by Warton (see below p. 192); London Chronicle, 19 March 1757, “The Theatre No. 24”: Letter of Abuse to D—d G—k, 1757, see below p. 192; Daily Advertiser, 1 Feb. 1759,poemon Garrick and Shakespeare in which Apollo asks Garrick to “protect his fav'rite bard”; Royal Female Magazine, n, 180, article by Dramaticus on difference between acting and mimicry; ibid., ii, 252, Garrick's influence on other actors and his preparation in a part; Universal Magazine, Aug., 1775, “Poetical Epistle Addressed to Mr Garrick”, asking him as Shakespeare's best commentator not to abandon the dramatist to the critics; Critical Review, Dec. 1776, in a review of Melmoth's Pupil of Pleasure: “What our Garrick is to Shakespeare, I am resolved to be to Chesterfield—the living comment upon the dead text”; Universal Magazine, Feb. 1776, Cumberland's New Dialogue, representing the Ghost of Shakespeare asking Garrick to “Freely correct my page …”

⁵ Private Correspondence of David Garrick, ed. James Boaden (London, 1831), I, 23, letter dated Gray's Inn, 20 Feb. 1744.

⁶ Yet Lamb continued the abuse in the same essay: “… as mere a player as ever existed … his mind tainted with lowest player's vices, envy, jealousy, and miserable cravings after applause … I am almost disposed to deny Garrick the merit of being an admirer of Shakespeare.”

⁷ Lamb's “Letter to the Editor of Hone's Table Book”, 27 Jan. 1827 (Works, ed. E. V. Lucas, iv, 397) : “It is not unknown to you that about nineteen years since I published Specimens of the English Dramatic Poets who lived about the Time of Shakespeare. For the scarcer plays I had recourse to the collection bequeathed to the British Museum by Mr Garrick. … In it is to be found almost every production in the shape of a play that has appeared in print from the time of the old mysteries and moralities to the days of Crown and D'Urfey.”

⁸ For collected evidence see my article, “The God of His Idolatry”, in Joseph Quincy Adams Memorial Studies (Washington, 1948).

⁹ Especially D. Nichol Smith, Shakespeare in the XVIII Century (Oxford, 1928); R. W Babcock, The Genesis of Shakespeare Idolatry (Chapel Hill, N. C, 1931); H. S. Robinson, English Shakespearean Criticism in the XVIII Century (N. Y., 1932); Augustus Ralli, A History of Shakespearean Criticism (London, 1932); R. B. McKerrow, The Treatment of Shakespeare's Text by His Earlier Editors, 1709–1768 (London, 1933); David Lovett, “Shakespeare as a Poet of Realism in the Eighteenth Century”, ELH(Nov. 1935). For significant treatment of the acting tradition see A. S. Downer's excellent article, “Nature to Advantage Dressed: Eighteenth Century Acting”, PMLA, LVIII (Dec. 1943).

¹⁰ We may be permitted a broader view than that of A. H. Scouten in his purely statistical article dealing with the years 1736–40, “Shakespeare's Plays in the Theatrical Repertory When Garrick Came to London”, Studies in English, 1944, University of Texas. My figures are based on the Winston Manuscript, Dramatic Register (16 vols.) Folger Shakespeare Library. James Winston [Bowes], actor in and manager of The Haymarket Theatre, died in 1843 leaving a vast collection of dramatic information, of which this Register, containing day by day notes of performances in London from 1700–1803, is but one item.

¹¹ Adaptations of Romeo and Juliet and The Taming of the Shrew respectively. 12 Percy Fitzgerald, New History of the Stage (1882), ii, 124.

¹³ From Cross-Hopkins Manuscript Diaries, Folger Shakespeare Library.

¹⁴ Evidence based on an examination of 356 critical references to Shakespeare in 165 extant periodicals from 1700–1740 compared with 953 critical observations in 99 such periodicals covering one year only from each decade from 1740–1800.

14a Analyzed judicially and appreciatively by C. D. Thorpe, Augustan Reprint Soc, ser. iii, no. 3.

¹⁵ The point appeared so well taken that Samuel Foote, against whom a portion of the Examen was directed, elaborated it further in his Roman and English Comedy Consider'd and Compar'd (1747), p. 21 : “I do not believe that it was ever in the power of man to furnish out a more elegant, pleasing, and interesting entertainment than Shakespeare has, in many instances, given us without observing any one unity but that of character . . . .”

¹⁶ During the months of May and June, 1776, Drury Lane produced 13 plays exclusive of actors' benefits. Seven of these were Shakespearean and six non-Shakespearean. One play from each group (Hamlet and The Wonder) was given for the benefit of the Theatrical Fund. The six remaining Shakespearean plays yielded box receipts of 1,794/6/7, while the five remaining non-Shakespearean ones brought in 1,304/12/6. Garrick played in all, yet no non-Shakespearean play brought over 279. Only one Shakespearean play fell that low (Much Ado) while the others averaged over 300 apiece. A full house was counted at 120. (Figures from Drury Lane Treasurer's Account Books, Folger Shakespeare Library.) It seems evident that the interest was not only in Garrick's last appearances, but in Gar-rick's last appearances in Shakespeare's characters. Hopkins, the prompter, notes sig-nificantly (13 May 1776, King Lear): “The people flock'd about the doors by two o'clock. There never was a greater overflow. Mr. G. never happier in Lear. The applause was beyond description, 3 or 4 loud claps succeeding one another at all his exits & many cried out Garrick forever!” 21 May 1776, King Lear: “Human nature cannot arrive at greater excellence in acting that Mr. G was possess'd of this night. All words must fall far short of what he did & none but his spectators can have an idea how great he was. The applause was unbounded!” 30 May 1776, Hamlet: “Pit and boxes were put together, most of the tickets were sold for a guinea apiece, very few under half a guinea & the whole quantity sold in about two hours.” (Notes from Cross-Hopkins Diaries, Folger Shakespeare Library.)

¹⁷ Stockdale was a sick man when he wrote his Lectures, and his judgment was not exactly impartial. His dislike of editors may have sprung from his especial animus towards Dr. Johnson. In general his criticism of Shakespeare is as undiscriminating as it is rhetorical. Garrick had helped him to a chaplaincy in the Navy, yet his statement about Garrick probably expressed sincere belief. See Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Percival Stockdale (London, 1809), ii, 75.

¹⁸ Richard III, Hamlet's Ghost, Lear, Hamlet, Macbeth, King John, Othello, Falcon-bridge, Iago, Hotspur, Chorus in Henry V, Benedict, Romeo, Leontes, Henry IV, Antony, Mercutio, Posthumus.

¹⁹ Private Correspondence, ed. Boaden, i, 216–217 (27 Dec. 1765).

²⁰ Ibid., p. 183 (18 May 1765).

²¹ “Garrick's Long Lost Alteration of Hamlet”, PMLA (Sept. 1934); “Garrick's Presentation of Antony and Cleopatra”, RES (Jan. 1937); “A Midsummer Night's Dream in the hands of Garrick and Colman”, PMLA(June 1939); “An Unknown Operatic Version of Love's Labour's Lost”, RES (July 1939); “Garrick's Handling of Macbeth”, SP (Oct. 1941); “Garrick's Production of King Lear”, SP (Jan. 1948).

²² Boaden, passim; The Journal of David Garrick, 1763, ed. G. W. Stone, Jr. (N. Y., 1939); “The God of His Idolatry”, Adams Memorial Studies (Washington, 1948).

²³ Observator No. 90 (12–16 Feb. 1703–04).

²⁴ Boaden, op. cit., I,180. For the stresses and strains under which Garrick the manager acted, see the excellent article, “David Garrick, Manager”, by Dougald MacMillan, SP(Oct. 1948).