Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 10.djvu/366

 had for collaborators Pope and Arbuthnot. This led to a quarrel between Cibber and Pope, who 'came behind the scenes with his lips pale and his voice trembling to call Mr. Cibber to account for the insult' (A Letter from Mr. Cibber to Mr, Pope, 1742, v. 19). According to a statement quoted in the 'Biographia Dramatica' (iii. 384), this unlucky interpolation led to an actual fray behind the scenes between Cibber and Gay. That this quarrel was the only cause of Pope's injudicious substitution of Cibber for Theobald as the hero of the 'Dunciad' is incredible. Of actors Pope had always a low opinion. The failure of 'Three Hours after Marriage' is said to have accentuated this, and to have made him jealous of some successful dramatists. It is possible that the bestowal of the laureateship on Gibber converted into a fitting subject for satire one who had long been associated with unpleasant recollections, and had never stood high in Pope's favour. The distance of time between the production of 'Three Hours after Marriage' (1717) and the edition of the 'Dunciad' in which Cibber figures as the hero, a quarter of a century, disposes of the notion that this could be the only, or even the chief, source of quarrel. For a full account of the various phases of the feud the reader must be referred to the 'Quarrels of Authors' of Isaac D'Israeli, who espouses warmly the side of Cibber. Apart from some indiscreet and indecent revelations concerning an adventure, real or imaginary, that does little honour to any one concerned, Cibber's treatment of Pope in the pamphlet warfare which he waged is creditable, if only on the score of discretion. He writes of his adversary with respect, and successfully exonerates himself from some charges brought against him. Literary opinion in subsequent days has indeed ranged itself on the side of Cibber in the unequal contest. In his own day, besides the coarse anger of Dennis and the keen antipathy of Mist's 'Weekly Journal,' Warburton, Johnson, and Fielding were among Cibber's opponents. Johnson acquits him of being a blockhead, and bears grudging testimony to the value of his plays. He rarely fails, however, to speak of him with contempt. Against Johnson's not wholly unprejudiced expressions and Fielding's more damaging satire may be placed the praise of men such as Walpole, Swift, and Steele, and most writers on the stage. Steele had, of course, cause to uphold his associate. The praise he bestows upon Cibber in the 'Tatler' and the 'Spectator' has, however, the obvious ring of sincerity. Swift told Faulkner, the printer, who had sent him the 'Apology,' that Gibber's book had captivated him, and that he sat up all night to read it through. This story rests on the authority of Davies (Miscellanies, iii. 477). In subsequent days a less prejudiced view was taken of Cibber, and his merits as an actor or a dramatist have been sounded by most who have written on the stage or kindred subjects. Disraeli's remark (Quarrel of Authors) concerning Warburton and Johnson sums up the question. 'They never suspected that a "blockhead of his size could do what wiser men could not," and as a fine comic genius command a whole province in human nature.' This is strictly true. Cibber's 'Odes' are among the most contemptible things in literature. He was, to a certain extent, the coxcomb he presented on the state and his vanity, no unheard-of thing in his profession, was egregious. No graver charge against him, however, rests upon any trustworthy testimony. The anonymous author of 'The Laureate, or Right Side of Colley Cibber,' an ill-natured pamphlet in which Cibber's 'Apology' is reviewed chapter by chapter, and a mock sketch of his life is supplied under the title of 'The Life, Manners, and Opinions of Æsopus the Tragedian,' accuses Cibber of using in his own plays materials sent in by other writers. This is a charge from which few managers who were also authors have escaped. In a 'Blast upon "Bays," or a New Lick at the Laureate' (1742), evidently from the same source, no further imputation of the kind is made. In his comedies Cibber all but stands comparison with the best of the successors of Congreve. His share in his own work was often disputed, apparently without cause. To wit he seldom rises, but he has a smartness of dialogue and animal spirits that form an acceptable substitute. 'She would and she would not,' which is still occasionally revived, is not the only play of Cibber's that, with some alteration, might be fitted for the modern stage. Compared with most writers of his time. Gibber is cleanly. He was proud of the moral influence of his works, loose as portions of them must seem in plot and language to a modern generation. Of his adaptations from Shakespeare, he had the grace, under the lash of contemporary criticism, to appear ashamed, and his 'Odes,' in the curious pamphlet, 'The Egotist, or Colley upon Cibber,' 1748, he gives up. His tragedies are poor, but scarcely below the level of the age. His two letters to Pope (1742 and 1744 respectively) are dull but not ill-natured, considering the provocation he experienced. In his 'Apology' he is seen at his best. There are passages in this that are likely to live as long as the art with which they deal. In appearance Cibber was