Chapter I: Introduction (1)

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.

The last sort of Remarks, relate to Thefts: for having read most of our English Plays, as well ancient as those of latter date, I found that our modern Writers had made Incursions into the deceas'd Authors Labours, and robb'd them of their Fame. I am not a sufficient Casuist to determine whether that severe Sentance of =Synesius= be true, =Magis impium Mortuorum Lucubrationes quam vestes furari=; That 'tis a worse sin to steal dead mens Writings, than their Clothes: but I know that I cannot do a better service to their memory, than by taking notice of the Plagiaries, who have been so free to borrow, and to endeavour to vindicate the Fame of these ancient Authors from whom they took their Spoiles. For this reason I have observ'd what Thefts I have met with throughout the Catalogue, and have endeavour'd a restitution to their right Owners, and a prevention of the Readers being impos'd on by the Plagiary, as the Patrons of several of our Plays have been by our Modern Poets. But none certainly has attempted it with greater confidence, than he that stiles himself the Author of =The Country Innocence=, or =The Chambermaid turn'd Quaker=: a Play which was acted and printed in the year 1677, but first publish'd many years before by its genuine Author =Ant. Brewer=.

It is not to those of our own Nation only, but to Forreigners also, that I have endeavour'd to do Justice. For that reason I have remark'd (as far as my knowledge would permit me) what has been translated or stollen from =Tasso=, =Guarini=, =Bonarelli=, =Garnier=, =Scarron=, both the =Corneilles=, =Molliere=, =Rucine=, =Quinault=, and others both =French= and =Italians=. Neither have I omitted, to my power, to do right likewise to the ancient =Greek= and =Latin= Poets, that have written in this way, as =Sophocles=, =Euripides=, =Æschylus=, =Aristophanes=, =Seneca=, =Plautus=, =Terence=, &c. I must acknowledge, with regret, that these are not so well known to me as I could wish; but yet as far as my power, I have endeavour'd to do right to their Memories. But I dare assure my Reader, that for the future it shall be more my busineß to obtain a more intimate acquaintance with all worthy Strangers, as well as with my own Countrymen, so that if this Trifle should have the fortune to appear abroad a second time, it shall be more compleat and correct, than the shortneß of the time, and my small acquaintance with Authors at present allow; the Catalogue being in the Preß, and the first sheet of it set, before I thought of adding these Remarks.

But before I quit this Paper, I desire my Readers leave to take a View of =Plagiaries= in =general=, and that we may observe the different proceedings between the =Ancients= and our =Modern= Writers. This Art has reign'd in all Ages, and is as ancient almost as Learning it self. If we take it in its general Acceptation, and according to the extent of the word, we shall find the most Eminent Poets (not to move excentrically and out of our present Sphere) are liable to the charge and imputation of =Plagiary=. =Homer= himself is not free from it, if we will give credit to =Suidas=, =Ælian=, and others: and that the invention of the =Iliad= is not wholly due to him, seems to be confirm'd by the Testimony of =Aristotle=, who mentions a =small Iliad=,[44] which was written before his was produced. But whether there be any ground, for this Opinion, or no, certain it is that the most eminent Poets amongst the =Romans=, I mean =Virgil= and =Ovid=, made use of the Grecian Magazines, to supply their Inventions. To prove this, let us first consider =Virgil=, stil'd the King of Poets by =Scaliger=, and in the opinion of =Propertius= exceeding =Homer= himself, as appears by the following Lines[45] so well known amongst all learned men,

=Cedite Romani Scriptores, cedite Graii,
Nescio, quid majus nascitur Æneade.=

Yet even this great man has borrow'd in all his Works; from =Theocritus=, in his =Eclogues=; from =Hesiod= and =Aratus=, in his =Georgicks=; and from =Homer= and =Pisander=, in his =Æneads=: besides what he has borrow'd from =Parthenius Nicæus=, his Tutor in the =Greek= Tongue, and from =Q. Ennius= an ancient =Latin= Poet; as you may read more at large in =Macrobius=.[46] If we consider =Ovid=, the Flower of the =Roman= Wit, we shall find him imitating at least, if not borrowing from, the forementioned =Parthenius=: his =Metamorphosis=, that Divine Poem, (as =Ant. Muretus=[47] stiles it in his Orations) being built upon that Poem writ in the =Greek= Tongue, which bore the same Name, and handled the same Subject, as we are told by =Plutarch= and =Eustathius=. And if to these we add that worthy =Carthaginian Terence=, who by the kindneß of the generous =Lucan=, was at once made a free man and Citizen of =Rome=, and whom on the account of his Comedies written in the =Latin= Tongue, we may number among the =Roman= Writers: we shall find him likewise beholding, for his Productions, to that eminent =Athenian= Poet =Menander=.

But let us now observe how these Eminent Men manage what they borrow'd; and then compare them with those of our times. =First=, They propos'd to themselves those Authors whose Works they borrow'd from, for their Model. =Secondly=, They were cautious to borrow only what they found beautiful in them, and rejected the rest. This is prov'd by =Virgil='s Answer concerning =Ennius= his Works, when he was ask'd by one who saw him reading, what he was about, reply'd, =Aurum se ex Enii stercore colligere=. =Thirdly=, They plainly confess'd what they borrow'd, and modestly ascrib'd the credit of it to the Author whence 'twas originally taken. Thus =Terence= owns his Translations in his =Prologue= to =Eunuchus=.

=Qui bene vertendo, & eas discribendo malè
Ex Græcis bonis, Latinas fecit non bonas.=

This behaviour =Pliny=[48] commends in these words: =Est enim benignum & plenum ingenium Pudoris, fateri per quos profeceris=: and after having blam'd the Plagiaries of his time, he commends =Cicero= for making mention of =Plato=, =Crantor=, and =Panætius=, whom he made use of in his Works: and let it be observ'd by our =Modern= Poets, that though our modest =Carthaginian= own'd his Translations, yet was he not the leß esteem'd by the =Romans=, or his Poems leß valu'd for it. Nay, even in =this= Age he is universally commended by learned men, and the judicious =Rapin= gives =him= a Character, which I doubt few of our Age will deserve. Terence[49] =a ecrit d'une Maniere, & si naturelle, & si judicieuse, que de Copie qu'il estoit il est devenu original: car jamais Auteur n'a eu un goust plus par de la Nature=. =Lastly=, Whatsoever these ancient Poets (particularly =Virgil=) copyed from =any= Author, they took care not only to alter it for their purpose; but to add to the beauty of it: and afterwards to insert it so =handsomly= into their Poems, (the body and Oeconomy of which was generally their own) that what they =borrow'd=, seem'd of the same Contexture with what was =originally= theirs. So that it might be truly said of =them=; =Apparet unde sumptum sit, aliud tamen quam unde sit, apparet=.