Young, Edward, [323], [328], [347].

Footnotes

[1.]Esmond, ii. 10. Thackeray was probably recalling a passage in the eighth Tatler.[2.]In the Life of Pope.[3.]Guardian, No. 37 (23rd April, 1713). The paper was written by John Hughes (1677-1720), who had assisted Rowe in his edition of Shakespeare (see Reed's Variorum edition, 1803, ii. p. 149).[4.]Introduction to Shakespeare Restored.[5.]Dialogues of the Dead, xiv., Boileau and Pope.[6.]Memoirs, ed. Birkbeck Hill, 1900, p. 105.[7.]Chap. xviii. That the passage is animated by pique and that amusing jealousy which Goldsmith showed on unexpected occasions is evident from the Present State of Polite Learning, Ch. xi.[8.]Cf. Theophilus Cibber's attack on Garrick's adaptations in his Two Dissertations on the Theatres, 1756.[9.]

See the Prologue to Jane Shore:

“In such an age, immortal Shakespeare wrote,
By no quaint rules, nor hampering critics taught;
With rough majestic force he mov'd the heart,
And strength and nature made amends for art.
Our humble author does his steps pursue,
He owns he had the mighty bard in view;
And in these scenes has made it more his care
To rouse the passions than to charm the ear.”

It must be noted that some of Johnson's arguments had themselves been anticipated in Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet, 1736. The volume is anonymous, but has been ascribed to Sir Thomas Hanmer (see below, p. [liii]). It examines the play “according to the rules of reason and nature, without having any regard to those rules established by arbitrary dogmatising critics,” and shows “the absurdity of such arbitrary rules” as the unities of time and place. It is a well-written, interesting book, and is greatly superior to the Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy of Hamlet, which appeared, likewise anonymously, in 1752.

For references to other works previous to Johnson's Preface which dispute the authority of the classical rules, see note on p. [126].