The Augustan Reprint Society

GERARD LANGBAINE

[Momus Triumphans:]
OR,
THE PLAGIARIES
OF THE ENGLISH STAGE

(1688 [1687])

Introduction by
David Stuart Rodes

PUBLICATION NUMBER 150

WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY

University of California, Los Angeles

1971

GENERAL EDITORS

William E. Conway, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
George Robert Guffey, University of California, Los Angeles
Maximillian E. Novak, University of California, Los Angeles

ASSOCIATE EDITOR

David S. Rodes, University of California, Los Angeles

ADVISORY EDITORS

Richard C. Boys, University of Michigan
James L. Clifford, Columbia University
Ralph Cohen, University of Virginia
Vinton A. Dearing, University of California, Los Angeles
Arthur Friedman, University of Chicago
Louis A. Landa, Princeton University
Earl Miner, University of California, Los Angeles
Samuel H. Monk, University of Minnesota
Everett T. Moore, University of California, Los Angeles
Lawrence Clark Powell, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
James Sutherland, University College, London
H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., University of California, Los Angeles
Robert Vosper, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
Curt A. Zimansky, State University of Iowa

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

Edna C. Davis, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Jean T. Shebanek, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

[INTRODUCTION]

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. 4^o" 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. 4^o" 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 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.

[Table of Contents Created by Transcriber.]

[Momus Triumphans: OR, THE PLAGIARIES OF THE ENGLISH STAGE]
[INTRODUCTION]
[NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION]
[BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE]
[Momus Triumphans: OR, THE PLAGIARIES OF THE English Stage; Expos'd in a CATALOGUE]
[The Preface.]
[A Catalogue of Plays, WITH THEIR Known or Supposed Authors, &c.]
[Supposed Authors]
[Unknown Authours.]
[The Alphabetical Index of PLAYS, Referring to their AUTHOURS, &c.]
[REGULAR PUBLICATIONS FOR 1970-1971]
[SPECIAL PUBLICATION FOR 1969-1970-1971]
[The Augustan Reprint Society]

[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. 40^o. 8^o. 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 Cœlum 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 8^o. 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, Racine, 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.

If we now on the other side examine the proceedings of our late English Writers, we shall find them diametrically opposite in all things. Shakspear and Johnson indeed imitated these Illustrious Men I have cited; the one having borrow'd the Comedy of Errours from the Menechmi of Plautus; the other has made use not only of him, but of Horace, Ovid, Juvenal, Salust, and several others, according to his occasions: for which he is commended by Mr. Dryden,[50] as having thereby beautified our Language: and Mr. Rymer, whose Judgment of him is this; I cannot (says he) be displeas'd with honest Ben,[51] when he chuses rather to borrow a Melon of his Neighbour, than to treat us with a Pumpion of his own growth. But for the most part we are treated far otherwise; not with sound Roman Wit, as in Ben's time, but with empty French Kickshaws, which yet our Poetical Hosts serve up to us for Regales of their own Cookery; and yet they themselves undervalue that very Nation to whom they are oblig'd for the best share of their Treat. 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: Not unlike the Cunning of a Jugler (to apply his own Simile to him) [Epistle to the Spanish Fryer] who is always staring us in the Face, and overwhelming us with Gibberish, only that he may gain the opportunity of making the cleanlier conveyance of his Trick.[52] I will wave the Epistle to this Play, which seems to be the Picture of Bays in little, yet I cannot omit one Observation more, which is, that our Laureat should borrow from Old Flecknoe, whom he so much despises: and yet whoever pleases to read Flecknoe's Damoyselles a la Mode, will find that they have furnisht Mr. Dryden with those refin'd Expressions which his Retrenching Lady Donna Aurelea makes use of, as the Counsellor of the Graces, and that furious indigence of Ribons. But possibly he will own that he borrow'd them as Father Flecknoe did, from Mollieres Les Precieuses Ridicules: however, I hope he will allow that these Expressions better suit, with the Spiritual Temper of those French Damsels, than with the known Gravity of the Spanish Ladies. I hope Mr. Dryden will pardon me this Discovery, it being absolutely necessary to my design of Restoring what I could to the true Authors: and this Maxim I learnt from his own Father Aldo, Every one must have their Own.[53] Fiat Justitia, aut ruat Mundus. In pursuance to which, I own that 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;

----Neque ego illi detrahere ausim,
Hærentem Capiti multâ cum Laude Coronam.[54]

But at the same time 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. I would therefore desire our Laureat, that he would follow that good Advice which the modest History Professor Mr. Wheare gives to the young Academick in his Antelogium, to shun this, Confidence and Self-love, as the worst of Plagues; and to consider that Modesty is it which becomes every Age, and leads all that follow her in the streight, and right Path to solid Glory; without it we are hurld down Precepices, and instead of acquiring Honour, become the scorn of Men, and instead of a good Fame, we return loaden with Ignominy and Contempt.[55]

I have not time to examine the Thefts of other Plagiaries in particular, both from the French and our own Language, and therefore shall onely desire them to consider this Sentence of Pliny:[56] Obnoxii profecto animi, & infelicis ingenii est, deprehendere infurto malle, quam mutuum reddere cum presertim sors fiat ex usurâ.

Althô I condemn Plagiaries, yet I would not be thought to reckon as such either Translators, or those who own what they borrow from other Authors: for as 'tis commendable in any man to advantage the Publick; so it is manifest, that those Authors have done so, who have contributed to the Knowledge of the Unlearned, by their excellent Versions: Yet at the same time I cannot but esteem them as the worst of Plagiaries, who steal from the Writings of those of our own Nation. Because he that borrows from the worst Forreign Author, may possibly import, even amongst a great deal of trash, somewhat of value: whereas the former makes us pay extortion for that which was our own before.

For this reason I must distinguish one of our best Comick-Writers,[57] from the common Herd of Translators; since though proportionate to his Writings, none of our modern Poets have borrow'd leß; yet has he dealt ingenuously with the World, and if I mistake not, has publickly own'd, either in his Prefaces, or Prologues, all that he has borrow'd; which I the rather take notice of, because it is so little practised in this Age. 'Tis true indeed, what is borrow'd from Shakspeare or Fletcher, is usually own'd by our Poets, because every one would be able to convict them of Theft, should they endeavour to conceal it. But in what has been stolen from Authors not so generally known, as Murston, Middleton, Massenger, &c. we find our Poets playing the parts of Bathyllus to Virgil, and robbing them of that Fame, which is as justly their due, as the Reward the Emperour Augustus had promised to the Author of that known Distich affixed on the Court Gate, was to Virgil.

Neither can this Imputation be laid at the doors of such who are onely Imitators of the Works of others, amongst which, are admired Sir Charles Sidley, and the inimitable M. Wytcherley: The last of which, if I mistake not, has Copied Mollieres le Misanthrope, in his Character of the Plain Dealer; and his Celimene, in that of Olivia: but so well, that though the Character of the Misanthrope be accounted by Rapin,[58] Te Caractere le plus achevee; The compleatest Character, and the most singular that ever appeared on the Stage: yet certainly our Poet has equaled, if not exceeded his Copy. Imitation which Longinus commends in Stesichorus, Archilochus, and Herodotus, all of them being imitators of Homer; but particularly he says of Plato: Παντῶν δὲ τούτων μάλιστα ὁ Πλάτων, ἀπο τοῦ ὁμηρικοῦ ἐκείνου νάματος εἰς αὑτὸν μυρίας ὁσας παράτροπας.[59] Sed omnium hujus Poetæ studiosissimus imitator suit Plato, ab illis Homericis Laticibus ad se seductos vivos quam-plurimos transferens.

But to put an end to these Observations, which may prove alike troublesome to the Reader, as well as to the Poets: I must say this for our Countrymen, That notwithstanding our Modern Authors have borrow'd much from the French, and other Nations, yet have we several Pieces, if I may so say, of our own Manefacture, which equal at least, any of our Neighbours productions. This is a truth so generally known, that I need not bring instances to prove, that in the humour of our Comedies, and in the characters of our Tragedies, we do not yeild to any other Nation. 'Tis true the unities of Time, Place, and Action, which are generally allowed to be the Beauties of a Play, and which the French are so careful to observe, add all lusture to their Plays; nevertheleß, several of our Poets have given proof, that did our Nation more regard them, they could practice them with equal succeß: But as a correct Play is not so much understood, or at least regarded by the generality of Spectators; and that few of our Poets now-a-days write so much for Honour as Profit: they are therefore content to please at an easier rate. But would some great Man appear here in the defence of Poetry, and for the support of good Poets, as the great Cardinal Richlieu, that Noble Patron of Arts and Sciences, did in France; I doubt not but we should find several Authors, who would quickly evince, that neither the Writings of Aristotle, or the practice of those admirable Rules laid down by that Father of Criticism, and his best Commentator, Horace; with the rest of those eminent Men, that have written on the Art of the Stage, are unknown to them.

But in the mean time, would our Nobility and Gentry, who delight in Plays, but allow themselves so much time, as to read over what is extant on this Subject in English, as, Ben Johnson's Discoveries; Roscommon's Translation of Horace's Art of Poetry; Rapin's Reflections on Aristotle's Treatise of Poetry; Longinus of the loftineß of Speech; Boyleau's Art of Poetry; Hedelin's Art of the Stage; Euremont's Essays; Rimer's Tragedies of the last Age considered; Dryden's Drammatick Essay; and several others; though they understood none but their native Language, and consequently could not read what Vossius, Heinsius, Scaliger, Plutarch, Athenæus, Titius Giraldus, Castelvetro, Lope de Vega, Corneille, Menardiere, and others which have written to the same purpose in several Languages; yet those which are to be met with in English, are sufficient to inform them, both in the excellency of the Poetick Art, and the Rules which Poets follow, with the Reasons of them: They would then find their Pleasure encrease with their Knowledge; and they would have the greater satisfaction in seeing a correct Play, by how much they were capable (by the help of these Rules) to discern the Beauties of it; and the greater value for a good Poet, by how much they were sensible of the Pains and Study requisite to bring such a Poem to perfection. This would advance the fame of good Poets, and procure them Patrons amongst the Nobility and Gentry, and through their Emulation to exceed each other, Poetry might in a few Years be advanced to the same Perfection that it was in formerly, at Rome and Athens.

Gerard Langbaine.

ERRATA.

By reason of my great distance from the Preß, several confederate Errata's are to be met with throughout; but the most material are these which follow: Which the Reader is desired to Pardon and Correct.

In the Catalogue it self.

Page [6]. The Wits is left out, a Play of Sir W. Davenant. p. [10]. Courageous Turk, &c. for 4^o read 8^o p. [11]. Play of Love, &c. dele 4^o, for I never saw but the first Play. p. [13]. for Hymenes read Hymenæi. p. [16]. for Antiquarary read Antiquary. p. [17]. Heyre for 8^o read 4^o. p. [25]. for Loyal Brother read Revenger's Tragedy.

In the Notes.

Page [7]. and so throughout, for in vitam read in vitâ, and in vitas read in vitis. p. [9]. Note [177] for Procopis read Procopii. p. [10]. N. [196] add the Line of the next Page, viz. Plot from Guiciardine's History of Italy, p. [11]. dele and from Poetical History, ibid. to N. [197] instead of what is Printed, read, These three Plays are Translated from Seneca, and Printed with the rest, Lond. 1581. p. [13]. N. [220] for Book the Ninth, Satyr the first Part, read, Book the First, Satyr 9. p. [17]. N. [275] for du Bee, read du Bec. p. [18]. N. [288] for Fourteen, read Thirteen, and for Three, read Five. p. [19]. N. [300] belongs to Cambyses. p. [20]. N. [313] for Mons read Monsieur. p. [21]. N. [324] for Mænectrini, read Mænechmi. p. [22]. N. [344] for 1581, read 1653. ibid., to Triumph of Beauty, add (k) with this Note, Printed with his Poems, Lond. 1646. p. [25]. N. [370] for Publish'd, read Reprinted. ibid. N. [372] for Musæe Erotoprgnion, read Musæi Erotopagnion. p. [24]. N. [368] for K. read Prince. p. [25]. N. [381] to Observationum, add Medicarum Volumen. p. [27]. N. [393] for Poem, read Play. ibid. N. [397] belongs to French Conjurer, and N. [398] to Witty Combat. p. [28]. N. [407] belongs to Thornby-Abby: N. [408] to Marriage Broker, and the last Line to Menechmus. p. [31]. N. [447] belongs to Rivals.

FOOTNOTES:

[40] Poet. c. 10.

[41] Epist. 2. ad Lollium

[42] Poetices. Lib. 1,. c. 2.

[43] Pref. to Gondibert, p. 2.

[44] Poet. c. 23.

[45] Poet. l. 3. cap. 15.

[46] Saturnalia, l. 5. c. 11. l. 6. c. 1.

[47] Vol. 2. Orat. 3.

[48] Epist. ad Tit. Vespar.

[49] Reflect. 26, part 2.

[50] Epist. to Mock Astrologer.

[51] Tragedies of the last Age, p. 143.

[52] Ep. to the Spanish Fryer.

[53] Kind Keeper.

[54] Hor. Sat. 10. 1., 1.,

[55] Mr. Bohun's, translat.

[56] Ep. ad TY.

[57] Mr. Shadwell.

[58] Reflect. 26. part. 2

[59] Περι ὑψσοῦς Sect. 11.

[A]
Catalogue of Plays,
WITH THEIR
Known or Supposed Authors, &c.

[Supposed Authours.]

FOOTNOTES:

[60] Plot from Justin's Hist. Lib. 14.

[61] Plot from Herodotus, Lib. 1. Plutarch in Solon's Life.

[62] These of the Lord Sterline are all Bound with his Works (in Folio) called, Recreations with the Muses. Printed at London, 1637.

[63] Plot from Justin's Hist. Lib., 11.

[64] Plot from Suetonius and Plutarch.

[65] Plot from Guiciardine's Hist. of Italy.

[66] Plot from Plutarch's Lives.

[67] These two of R. Baron are mentioned in former Catalogues, but are part of a Romance writ by him, and called the Cyprian Academy. Printed at London, 1647.

[68] Plot from Herbert's Travels, Fol.

[69] From an old English Chronicle, Fol.

[70] These five of Richard Brome, are Printed in one Volume, Octavo, London, 1635.

[71] These five of Brome, are Printed in another Volume in Octavo, London, 1659.

[72] Reprinted, Lond. 1686.

[73] Lately Reprinted.

[74] These two of the Lord Brook's are Printed with his Poetical Works in Folio. London, 1633.

[75] Plot from the Turkish Chronicle.

[76] This is a play of Christopher Marlo's, call'd Lusts Dominion, Printed in Octavo, London, 1661.

[77] Part of the City Heiress, from a Play of Middleton's, call'd, A Mad World my Masters, Quarto; and part from another of Massenger's, called, The Guardian, Octavo.

[78] Plot from Don Fenise, Octavo.

[79] Stollen from Harlequin, Emperur dans le Monde de la Lune.

[80] Taken from Tho. Killegrew's Don Thomaso, or The Wanderer, Folio.

[81] A Play of John Tateham's, called, The Rump, altered, Quarto.

[82] Part of this Play taken from Richard Brome's Damoyselle, Octa. and Le malade imaginaire.

[83] A great part of this Play borrowed from a Play, called, The Miseries of forc'd Marriage, written by George Wilkins, Quarto.

[84] Plot from Alcamenes and Menalippa, in Cleopatra, Folio.

[85] Plot from the old Story so called.

[86] Plot from Cassandra, Folio.

[87] Plot from E. of Essex and Q. E. a Nov.

[88] Plot from Causin's Holy Court, Folio.

[89] Plot Q. Eliz. Novel, first Part 8^o.

[90] Plot from Chron. de Rebus Germanicis.

[91] Plot from the French Chron. Hen. 3.

[92] Plot from the French Chronicles.

[93] Plot from Lucan's Pharsalia, Suetonius, in the Life of Julius Cæsar.

[94] Plot from Petronius Arbyter.

[95] Written by Chapman, Johnson, and Marston.

[96] Plot from Ovid's Metamorph.

[97] Plot from Cassandra, Fol.

[98] Printed with Carew's Poems. London, 1670.

[99] Plot from Josephus, Folio.

[100] The first of Carlell's Plays, (viz.) in two Parts, bound in one Volume, Twelves. The three next Printed in another Volume, Octavo. London, 1657. And the next in Octavo. Printed 1659.

[101] Plot from Knolls's Turkish History, in the Reign of Mahomet the First.

[102] From Corneille.

[103] This Play is the Guardian, corrected and enlarged.

[104] Bound with his Second Volume, Folio, London, 1681.

[105] All Printed with his Poems, Lond. 1651.

[106] Occasion in Plutarch's Life of Cymon, and Part from Boccaces Novels, the Ninth Day, Novel the First.

[107] All Printed with his Poems, Lond. 1669.

[108] Plot from his Elegies.

[109] Plot from Trapolen creduto Principe.

[110] From Corneille.

[111] Part of this Play is borrowed from Sir William Lower's Noble Ingratitude.

[112] Translated from the French.

[113] Part from Molliere's Le Sicilien.

[114] Plot from Guiciardine's Hist. and the French Chron. in the Reign of Charles 8.

[115] The Foundation from Ovidii Metam. Lib. 2.

[116] Plot from Josephus's Hist. Book 6. 7.

[117] From English Chronicles, and part of the Language from Shakespear.

[118] Plot, and part of the Play from a Spanish Play, called No Puedeser.

[119] Plot from Poetical History.

[120] Plot from Sir Phil. Sidney's Arcadia.

[121] Writ by him, Rowly, and Wilkins.

[122] All Printed in one Volume, London, 1623.

[123] Plot from Appian of Alexandria.

[124] Plot from Plutarch's Life of Alexander, and Quintus Curtius, Book the 6th.

[125] Plot from Don Quixot's Novel, of the Curious Impertinent, and Boccaces Novels, Day the 7th, Novel 7th.

[126] English Chronicle.

[127] Writ by him and Webster.

[128] Writ by him, Rowly, and Ford.

[129] All, except the last, Printed with his Works, in Folio, Lond. 1673. The last writ by him, and Inigo Jones, the late King's Surveyor.

[130] Plot from Heylin's Cosmographie, Book the First. Chronicle of Italy.

[131] From Measure for Measure, and Much adoe about Nothing.

[132] From Mollieres's Joddelet, on le Maitre valet.

[133] Part from Mollieres Sganarelle.

[134] Not his, but Carew's, and Printed with his Poems, Octavo.

[135] Plot from Herbert's Travels, Life of Abbas. Printed with his Poems, London, 1670.

[136] Translated from the Italian of Tasso, and Printed with Dancer's Poems, London, 1660.

[137] Translated from Monsieur Quinault.

[138] Translated from Corneille.

[139] Sanderson's Hist. of K. James p. 577.

[140] Plot of the serious Part, from the Annals of Love: In the Story of Constance the Fair Nun. The Part of Aureleo, from Scarron's Comical Romance: In the Story of Destiny and Madam Star.

[141] Plot from Tavernier's Voyages into India, Volume the First, Part the Second, Book the Second.

[142] Plutarch's Life of Marcus Antonins, and other Roman Historians.

[143] Plot, Almanzor and Almahide, from Cleopatra in the Story of Artaban: and Almahide the Romance. Ozmyn and Benzaida, from Osman and Alibech, in Ibrahim. Abdalla, Abdelmelech, Lyndaraxa, from Prince Ariantes, Agathirses, and Elibesis, in the First Book of the Ninth Part of Cyrus.

[144] Part from Corneilles De Pit Amoreuse, part from Le-feinte Astrologue, and part from the Illustrious Bassa, a Romance.

[145] Plot, Heylin's Cosmography, Book the Fourth. Hen. Bonzonus rerum ab Hispanis in India Occidentali gestarum, Lib. 3. Octavo.

[146] Plot, from Cleobuline, Queen of Corinth, in the Second Book of the Seventh Part of Cyrus: and the character of Celadon and Florimel, from Pisistrate and Cerinthe in Cyrus, Part Ninth, Book Third; and from the French Marquess in Ibrahim, Part Second, Book the First.

[147] Plot of the serious Part, and the Characters from Sesostris and Timareta in Cyrus, Part the Sixth, Book the Second: and Palamedes from the Prince of Salamis, in the Story of Timantes and Parthenia, Part Sixth, Book First, of Cyrus; and from Nagaret, in the Annals of Love, Octavo.

[148] Plot from Jul. Capitolinus in vitam Maximini.

[149] Founded on Plautus's Amphytruo.

[150] Part from Molliere's L'Etourdy.

[151] Plot from Milton's Paradise lost. Octavo.

[152] Plot of the Comical Part from the Pilgrim, a Novel, Twelves.

[153] Originally Shakespear's.

[154] Part Shakespear.

[155] From D'Avila's History of France.

[156] From Sophocles, and the Poetical Histories.