The Reception of Ancient Greek Tragedy in England 1660- 1760
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE RECEPTION OF ANCIENT GREEK TRAGEDY IN ENGLAND 1660- 1760 Michael Waters, University College London Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1 I, Michael Waters confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 ABSTRACT The dissertation enquires into some of the forms that the reception of ancient Greek tragedy took in England between 1660 and 1760. It looks at those critics and translators who engaged most with ancient Greek tragedy and whose engagement was accompanied by an interest in ancient theory and native English literature. Chapter 1, after examining works by George Gascoigne and Francis Kinwelmershe, Thomas Goffe, Thomas May and Christopher Wase, considers William Joyner’s original tragedy The Roman Empress (1670) in order to see what use Joyner made of Sophocles’ Oedipus and Euripides’ Hippolytus and Medea. Chapter 2 turns to the writings of, especially, John Dryden, Thomas Rymer, John Dennis and Charles Gildon, who were the most prolific and interesting commentators on dramatic theory in England at this time, and assesses their different perspectives on the questions of tragedy and the modern stage. Chapter 3 addresses separately comments on ancient Greek tragedy contained in Jeremy Collier’s attack on contemporary English theatre in A Short View of the Immorality, and Profaneness of the English Stage (1698) and in replies to him. Chapter 4 concentrates on Lewis Theobald’s translations of Sophocles’ Electra (1714) and Oedipus (1715) and how his views of ancient Greek tragedy influenced, and were influenced by, his interest in Shakespeare, an edition of whose plays he published in 1733. Chapter 5 examines Thomas Francklin’s The Tragedies of Sophocles and A Dissertation on Antient Tragedy (both 1759) and how they reflect his interest in the contemporary stage and contemporary ideas about the value of simplicity in literature and art. I argue that the writers I examine reflect through their engagement with Greek tragedy ideas about the relationships between ancient and early modern English tragedy, particularly that of Shakespeare, and between the present and the past. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preliminary notes 7 Introduction: purpose, scope and contexts of this dissertation 8-36 1. Purpose and scope of this dissertation 8-10 2. Previous scholarship 10-14 3. The continuing relevance of ancient Greek tragedy: Aristotle and Horace 14-18 4. The continuing relevance of ancient Greek tragedy: universality of human nature 19-23 5. The continuing relevance of ancient Greek tragedy: ‘ancients’ v ‘moderns’ 23-26 6. Attitudes to the ancient heathen gods 26-30 7. Theory of translation 30-34 8. Engagement with the past 34-36 Chapter 1: William Joyner’s The Roman Empress (1670) 37-82 1.1. George Gascoigne and Francis Kinwelmershe’s Jocasta 37-41 1.2. Thomas Goffe’s The Tragedy of Orestes 41-44 1.3. Thomas May’s Antigone 44-47 1.4. Christopher Wase’s Electra 48-58 1.5. William Joyner’s The Roman Empress 58-81 1.5.1. Joyner’s biography and publication of The Roman Empress 59-62 1.5.2. The plot and the printed and manuscript versions of the text 62-66 1.5.3. Joyner’s use of ancient Greek tragedy 66-74 1.5.4. Joyner and contemporary dramatic theory 74-81 1.5.5. Conclusion 81-82 Chapter 2: Theory of tragedy in late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century England 83-125 2.1. Introduction 83-86 4 2.2. Aristotle and Horace reach England 86-91 2.3. Attitudes to particular Greek tragedians 92-96 2.4. Reception of the ancient Greek tragedians: general 96-100 2.5. Reception of the ancient Greek tragedians: political 100-105 2.6. Reception of the ancient Greek tragedians: moral 105-115 2.7. Reception of the ancient Greek tragedians: formal 115-119 2.8. Why some thought that English plays were better than the Greeks’ 119-124 2.9. Conclusion 124-125 Chapter 3: Ancient Greek tragedy and the Collier controversy 126-162 3.1. The background to publication of Collier’s A Short View 126-134 3.2. Ancient Greek tragedy in previous attacks on the stage 134-136 3.3. Collier’s use of ancient Greek tragedy: general 136-141 3.4. Attacks on authority 141-147 3.5. The chorus and poetic justice 147-149 3.6. Sexual morality 149-153 3.7. The Electra stories and matricide, Oedipus and Medea 153-160 3.7.1 Electra 153-155 3.7.2 Oedipus 155-158 3.7.3 Medea 158-160 3.8. Conclusion 160-162 Chapter 4: Lewis Theobald (1688-1744) 163-206 4.1. The background to Theobald’s translations 164-168 4.2. Theobald’s translations of Electra and Oedipus 168-182 4.3. Theobald’s notes on his Electra and Oedipus, King of Thebes 182-191 4.4. Theobald, Shakespeare and the Greeks 191-203 5 4.5. Conclusion 203-206 Chapter 5: Thomas Francklin (1721-1784) 207-256 5.1. Francklin’s literary career and academic background 208-211 5.2. Francklin on translation 211-215 5.3. A Dissertation on Antient Tragedy 215-220 5.4. The style of Francklin’s translations 220-229 5.5. Francklin’s notes 229-236 5.6. Sophocles and the contemporary stage 236-245 5.7. Textual parallels between Sophocles and other authors 245-249 5.8. Reception of Francklin’s translations 249-254 5.9. Conclusion 254-256 Conclusion 257-262 Appendix: A comparison of Theobald’s and Francklin’s translations of Oedipus’ second speech in Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus 263-266 Bibliography 267-340 Manuscripts 267 Printed primary sources 267-304 Secondary sources 304-340 6 PRELIMINARY NOTES Except in quotations which use other terms, I refer to the titles of plays by Aeschylus, Euripides and Sophocles and to the names of characters, as well as to line numbers in particular plays, as they appear in the current editions of the Greek tragedians in the Loeb Classical Library series mentioned in the bibliography, except that for reasons of familiarity I shall refer simply to Oedipus and not Oedipus Tyrannus. When I quote English translations of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides that are not those of the writers I am studying, I use the current Loeb Classical Library versions on the basis that they are intended to reflect closely the sense of the originals. Hugh Lloyd-Jones notes that his translation of Sophocles ‘has no literary pretensions, being intended as an aid to those who wish to understand the Greek text that is printed opposite’ (p. vii). In quotations I have retained the spelling and punctuation of the sources, except that I have regularised the use of ‘i’ and ‘j’ and ‘u’ and ‘v’ and have expanded diphthongs. I have also reserved italics to titles of works. 7 INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE, SCOPE AND CONTEXTS OF THIS DISSERTATION 1. Purpose and scope of this dissertation In this dissertation I enquire into some of the forms that the reception of ancient Greek tragedies by Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides took in England between 1660 and 1760. The start date marks the reopening of the theatres under the restored monarchy of Charles II and an increase in literary debate about theatrical matters in England; for example, the 1660s saw the first critical writings of John Dryden. The end date relates to the publication in 1759 of the first complete verse translation of Sophocles by Thomas Francklin at a time when David Garrick, whose performances Francklin admired and drew on, was at the height of his powers. I look at those writers - critics and translators - who engaged most with ancient Greek tragedy and whose engagement was accompanied by an interest in ancient theory and native English literature, since study of the interaction between the two cultures is likely to be especially fruitful. On the whole I proceed chronologically. In chapter 1, after examining works by George Gascoigne and Francis Kinwelmershe, Thomas Goffe, Thomas May and Christopher Wase that in different ways derive directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from ancient tragedies, I consider William Joyner’s original tragedy The Roman Empress (performed 1670) and examine the use that Joyner made of Sophocles’ Oedipus and Euripides’ Hippolytus and Medea which he claimed as sources for his play. Although The Roman Empress postdates Dryden’s earliest critical writings, I address it first since it was not obviously influenced by them. In the next two chapters I focus on critical writings about the theatre. In chapter 2 I consider, especially, Dryden, Thomas Rymer, John Dennis and Charles Gildon, who were the most prolific and interesting commentators on dramatic theory at this time, and assess their different perspectives on the subject of tragedy and the modern stage. In chapter 3 I examine comments on ancient Greek tragedy contained in Jeremy Collier’s attack on contemporary English theatre in A Short View of the Immorality, and Profaneness of the English Stage (1698), and in replies to him; their starting point is often different from that of the writers considered in chapter 2. Although I take 1660 as my start date, in order to evaluate the extent and significance of continuity with previous thinking I look in chapters 1-3 at writers who, before 1660, anticipated later attitudes. In the last two 8 chapters I examine some eighteenth-century translations of Sophocles. In chapter 4 I concentrate on Lewis Theobald’s translations of Sophocles’ Electra (1714) and Oedipus (1715) and how his views of ancient Greek tragedy influenced, and were influenced by, his interest in Shakespeare, an edition of whose plays he published in 1733.