In the Whitehall Evening Post for February 10-12, appeared the following: We hear the following PROLOGUE is to be spoken at the Theatre in Drury-Lane, upon the Revival of King JOHN, alter'd from SHAKESPEAR, by the Reviver and Author of the Alterations. To You, most learned Youngsters of the Law, Which fires the noblest, and ignoblest Blood; For who so proper to direct the Stage, As Those, who've rul'd the Land in ev'ry Age? And all our modern Muses, alias Misses, As for those slanting Dames, and Pig-tail'd Beaus, Who in the Boxes sit, to shew their cloathes, No, let the Law proceed in it's due Channel, So, with one Dash, I strike them off the Pannel; And if the Gall'ries dare to hiss, or bawl, If you stand by Me, S'blood! We'll stand Them all! O! save me for this Time, or I'm undone. The subject was still being bandied about in the papers March 3, when the Grub-Street Journal printed "An Epilogue, design'd to be spoken to King John, a Play written by Shakespeare, and amended by Colley Cibber, Esq; Poet Laureat." The following lines in it were addressed to the young Templars: Nay, you have prov'd you take it not amiss, I far out-did, my usual out-doing. Indeed, a set of envious men, who think, Who came, perhaps, to hear a prodigy Of flowing lines, and sense, at once from me; It is evident, in the light of these illustrations, that Fielding's mention of Cibber's alteration of King John, when The Historical Register appeared March 21, touched upon a topic which was not only exceedingly timely, but very popular as well. One can imagine that Fielding received a response from his audience when he made Medley say: "No, Sir, I have too great an Honour for Shakespear to think of burlesquing him, and to be sure of not burlesquing him, I will never attempt to alter him, for fear of burlesquing him by accident, as perhaps others have done;" and again, when he maintained that Ground-Ivy was "as proper as any Man in the Kingdom for the Business, for as Shakespear is already good enough for People of Taste, he must be alter'd to the Palates of those who have none; and if you grant that, who can be properer to alter him for the worse?" In view of the fact that there had been such a clamor raised against Cibber's alteration, we can hardly agree with Lawrence, Fielding's ninteenth-century biographer, when he says that this satire against Cibber "shows that Fielding, in point of dramatic taste, was much in advance of his age.' One more point in regard to Fielding's satire on Cibber's alteration should be pointed out. When he makes Ground-Ivy say, "The Bastard Faulconbridge is a most effeminate character, for which Reason I would cut him out, and put all his Sentiments in the Mouth of Constance, who is so much properer to speak them," Fielding shows that he was familiar to some extent with the text of Cibber's play, for he here puts his finger on a point in Cibber's alteration which critics fell foul of as soon as Papal Tyrrany in the Reign of King John was brought out in 1745. It was agreed that Cibber had murdered the characters of Falconbridge and Constance. This point was made in A Letter to Colley Cibber, Esq; on his Transformation of King John (1745), but it had also been made in a letter by "Philo-Shakespear" in the Daily Journal, February 7, 1737,5 in some words burlesquing Cibber's letter to the Students of the Inns of Court, London Daily Post, February 3: "Now know ye therefore, O ye Lawyers Clerks, that I Poet Laureat, thinking King John too weak for your Entertainment (by which I intend a Compliment to your Taste and Judgment) have cut out all the strong Parts in it, which I have supplied by something more suitable to your Taste than the Bombast and Rhodomontade of the Bastard Faulconbridge and the Whore his Mother: The Queen Mother of England too I have packed off. Moreover, thinking young Arthur's Scene with Hubert too moving, I have changed the Circumstance of it quite; so that you'll be able to see it with the utmost Tranquility and Indifference. In short, I have reformed the Play in such a manner, that, if you will but sit still and hear it out, I'll answer for it, you never saw any thing like it in 5 Possibly Fielding's knowledge concerning the changes in the characters of Falconbridge and Constance came from Philo-Shakespeare's letter. The wording suggests the possibility, and we may be sure from the other allusions to King John that Fielding was writing The Historical Register between Cibber's withdrawal of his play, and March 21, when The Historical Register was produced. His use of the very latest contemporary topics is quite evident. your Lives before. And this, by a Figure of Speech peculiar to myself, I call a Revisal."" In conclusion I should like to emphasize the character of Fielding's satire on the Cibbers as contrasted with other satires of the time. It was entirely satire directed against their professional activities-the acting of Theophilus, and the writings of Colley. It was not satire directed against their personalities or their characters. In this Fielding shows a remarkable restraint. In the case of Theophilus, whose character was contemptible, less careful satirists indulged in personal abuse. Colley too, was personally abused by many, and called fool and ass. Fielding merely held up for ridicule the odes and plays of Cibber's which were regarded as standing jokes of the time, and a reference to which would bring a laugh from his audience, this being Fielding's general policy in all of the four satires of 1736-1737. Far harder on Cibber was Alexander Pope in the personal satire of his revamped Dunciad. That Cibber took offense at Fielding, however, is perfectly plain from his description of Fielding, in the delightful Apology for his life (1740), as a broken wit whom he did not choose to name. "I shall not give the particular Strokes of his Ingenuity a Chance to be remembered, by reciting them," he somewhat vainly said. But the whirligig of time brings in his revenges. • The Daily Journal of February 11, answering this letter of PhiloShakespeare, concludes as follows: "I just now hear the Laureat has withdrawn his Tragedy; which I hope is not true, as it would look very much like not daring to stand to the Judgments he applied to." NOTES ON GLOVER'S INFLUENCE ON KLOPSTOCK By FLETCHER BRIGGS Klopstock's knowledge of Glover's poetry extended back to an early period in the former's life. As a student at Schulpforta, the young German made favorable comment on the Englishman, then famous for the epic, Leonidas-comment which appeared in his Abschiedsrede, September, 1745. If he did not reveal the extent, or the origin, of his knowledge at that time, later he left definite evidence of familiarity with Glover's poetry, and of correspondence between the two men. In letters to close friends Klopstock showed a lively literary interest in Glover. The object of this study is to make detailed comparisons of motifs which appear in certain literary productions of both poets. Of Glover's works Leonidas must be considered on account of Klopstock's allusions to some of its characters. In fact several of his works-passages in the Messias (1748) and in certain Oden, some of which have been cited by others-bear comparison with parts of the English epic. The present discussion is confined to these works. The closest parallel found in Klopstock's early writings involves his love for his cousin Sophie Schmidt. Judging from his letters, the ardent young man began to despair of her love almost from the beginning. Particularly after his visit to Sophie (also called "Fanny") during the spring of 1748 he mentions this fact several times. The hopeless lover speaks forth also in certain poems. The striking relation between his love affair and that of two characters in Leonidas is noted by Klopstock himself. In writing to Hagedorn, April 19, 1749, he remarks on his experience at considerable length: "Meine Geschichte hat einige Aehnlichkeit mit der Geschichte der Ariana und des Teribazus im Leonidas. Meine Singer [Sophie] hat einen Bruder, der der Freund meiner Jugend, und der Liebling unter meinen Freunden ist. Er ist der Vertrauter, und in dem, was ich mir selbst nicht will zu |