Georgian Syntax A Study in Relational Grammar

1st Edition Alice C. Harris download

https://ebookname.com/product/georgian-syntax-a-study-in-
relational-grammar-1st-edition-alice-c-harris/

Get Instant Ebook Downloads – Browse at https://ebookname.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Georgian A Learner s Grammar 2nd Edition George Hewitt

https://ebookname.com/product/georgian-a-learner-s-grammar-2nd-
edition-george-hewitt/

Siblinghood and Social Relations in Georgian England

Share and Share Alike 1st Edition Amy Harris

https://ebookname.com/product/siblinghood-and-social-relations-
in-georgian-england-share-and-share-alike-1st-edition-amy-harris/

Human As Relational A Study in Critical Ontology 1st

Edition Joseph Kaipayil

https://ebookname.com/product/human-as-relational-a-study-in-
critical-ontology-1st-edition-joseph-kaipayil/

Philosophic Pride Stoicism and Political Thought from

Lipsius to Rousseau Christopher Brooke

https://ebookname.com/product/philosophic-pride-stoicism-and-
political-thought-from-lipsius-to-rousseau-christopher-brooke/
Icedome 3 1st Edition D. S. Weissman

https://ebookname.com/product/icedome-3-1st-edition-d-s-weissman/

Shakespeare and Indian Cinemas local Habitations Poonam

Trivedi

https://ebookname.com/product/shakespeare-and-indian-cinemas-
local-habitations-poonam-trivedi/

In My Power Letter Writing and Communications in Early

America 1st Edition Konstantin Dierks

https://ebookname.com/product/in-my-power-letter-writing-and-
communications-in-early-america-1st-edition-konstantin-dierks/

Photoshop CS5 Digital Classroom Jennifer Smith

https://ebookname.com/product/photoshop-cs5-digital-classroom-
jennifer-smith/

The Ultimate Guide to the Face Yoga Method Change Your

Face Change Your Life Fumiko Takatsu

https://ebookname.com/product/the-ultimate-guide-to-the-face-
yoga-method-change-your-face-change-your-life-fumiko-takatsu-2/
Materials selection in mechanical design 3ed Edition
Ashby M.

https://ebookname.com/product/materials-selection-in-mechanical-
design-3ed-edition-ashby-m/
In this series

I DAVID CRYSTAL: Prosodic systems and intonation in English·

2 PIETER A.M.SEUREN: Operators and nucleus
3 RODNEY D.HUDDLESTON: The sentence in written English

4 JOHN M.ANDERSON: The grammar of case·

5 M.L.SAMUELS: Linguistic evolution·

6 P.H.MATTHEWS: Inflectional morphology.

7 GILLIAN BROWN: Phonological rules and dialect variation·

8 BRIAN NEWTON: The generative interpretation of dialect·

9 R.M. W.D IX 0 N: The Dyirbal language of North Queensland ·

10 BRUCE L.DERWING: Transformational grammar as a theory of language

acquisition·
II MELISSA BOWERMAN: Early syntactic development·

12 W. SIDNEY ALLEN: Accent and rhythm

13 PETER TRUDGILL: The social differentiation of English in Norwich·

14 ROGER LASS and JOHN M.ANDERSON: Old English phonology

IS RUTH M.KEMPSON: Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics'"

16 JAMES R.HURFORD: The linguistic theory of numerals

17 ROGER LASS: English phonology and phonological theory

18 G.M .AWBERY: The syntax of Welsh

19 R.M.W.DIXON: A grammar of Yidi/l

20 JAMES FOLEY: Foundations of theoretical phonology

21 A.RADFORD: Italian syntax: transformational and relational grammar

22 DIETER WUNDERLICH: Foundations of linguistics·

23 DAVID W.LIGHTFOOT: Principles of diachronic syntax·

24 ANNETTE KARMILOFF-SMITH: Afunctional approach to child language·

25 PER LINELL: Psychological reality in phonology

26 CHRISTINE TANZ: Studies in the acquisition of deietic terms

27 ROGER LASS: On explaining language chonge

28 TORBEN THRANE: Referential-semantic analysis

29 TAMSIN DONALDSON: Ngiyambaa

30 KRISTJAN ARNASON: Quantity in historical phonology

31 JOHN LAVER: The phonetic description of 'Voice quality

32 PETER AUSTIN: A grammar of Diyari, South Australia

33 ALICE C.HARRIS: Georgion syntax

·Issued in hard covers and as a paper-back

GEORGIAN SYNTAX

A study in relational grammar

ALICE C. HARRIS
Research Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Vanderbilt University

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE

LONDON NEW YORK NEW ROCHELLE

MELBOURNE SYDNEY
Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 IRP
32 East 57th Street, New York, NYI0022, USA
296 Beaconsfield Parade, Middle Park, Melbourne 3206, Australia

© Cambridge University Press I98I

First published I98I

Printed in Great Britain by Western Printing Services Ltd, Bristol

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Harris, Alice C.
Georgian syntax. - (Cambridge studies in
linguistics; 33 ISSN 0068-676x)
I. Georgian language
1. Title II. Series
499.996 PK9I 05 80-4I497

ISBN 0 52I 2358 4 7 Univ.' Blbliothek

Passau

/1 2 -j � )
FOR JIM
Foreword

This book addresses a number of central issues in linguistic theory.

The first and most fundamental issue is that of the relevance of the
notions 'subject', 'direct object', and 'indirect object' to syntactic
description. Georgian has been claimed to be a language to which these
notions are not relevant. It therefore provides a particularly good test
of the basic claims of relational grammar. The issue of the relevance of
grammatical relations to Georgian syntax also affects other issues. These
include: (i) the viability of linguistic universals stated in terms of
grammatical relations, and (ii) the extent to which Georgian is different
from other languages.
In this book, Dr Harris brings out generalizations in Georgian gram­
mar that can be captured in terms of grammatical relations, but not in
terms of case or word order. She penetrates the complexities of Georgian
morphology to reveal the underlying syntactic generalizations. The re­
sult is a striking confirmation of the relevance of grammatical relations
to grammatical description. At the same time, Dr Harris shows that
Georgian has constructions such as Passive, Object Raising, Causative
Clause Union, and others found in better-known languages. Thus,
Georgian is not as different from other languages as has been claimed
in earlier work on Georgian. Indeed, Georgian is shown to have exactly
the constructions and kinds of phenomena that have been claimed in
relational grammar to characterize natural languages and to require
description in terms of grammatical relations.
The analysis of Georgian presented in this book also bears on what
promises to be another central issue in syntactic theory in the 1980s:
the question of whether or not it is necessary to posit more than one
syntactic level. Working in a derivational framework, Dr Harris shows
that there are rules and generalizations in Georgian that refer to distinct
syntactic levels. Most striking here are the rules that refer to the initial
level, those that refer to the final level, and those responsible for
V1l1 Foreword

the marking of 'retired terms' - nominals that bear a term relation

at one level and a non-term relation (chomeur or emeritus) at a
subsequent level. These results constitute a significant challenge to
theories that claim that a single level is sufficient for syntactic descrip­
tion.
This book illustrates the kinds of contributions that theory can make
to the understanding of individual languages, and the study of indi­
vidual languages to the development of linguistic theory. One of the
principal problems this book addresses is that of the Georgian case
system. Traditional descriptions state that transitive clauses in Georgian
occur in three distinct case patterns. Dr Harris argues convincingly that
Georgian has the Inversion construction, in which the subject is de­
moted to indirect object and the direct object promoted to subject.
Once Inversion is recognized in Georgian grammar, the three case pat­
terns are reduced to two. Another traditional problem in the Georgian
case system concerns intransitive clauses. Intransitive verbs are divided
into two classes, each of which is associated with a different case pattern.
This raises two questions: (i) What determines the class assignment of
intransitive verbs? (ii) Are there generalizations uniting the case patterns
in intransitive clauses with those in transitive clauses? Dr Harris
analyzes the case patterns of intransitive clauses in terms of the Unac­
cusative Hypothesis, under which there are two fundamentally different
types of initially intransitive clauses: one with an initial subject and the
other with an initial direct object. She shows that under this analysis,
the assignment of intransitive verbs to the two classes is not arbitrary,
and that there are indeed generalizations uniting the case patterns in
transitive and intransitive clauses. This book thus shows how theoretical
constructs can illuminate language-particular phenomena such as the
Georgian case system. At the same time, the Georgian data provides
evidence for these theoretical constructs.
In addition to its contributions to linguistic theory and its exemplifi­
cation of relational grammar, this book also gives a good picture of what
a portion of the grammar of a morphologically complex language looks
like. It provides clear, refutable analyses of syntactic phenomena in
what initially appears to be a n unusually complex language. These
analyses are in a form that facilitates comparison with other languages
and the study of linguistic universals. Indeed, this work provides one
of the best and most thorough studies yet available in English of the
syntax of a non-Indo-European language. The interplay of theory and
 Foreword IX

description that has produced this extensive documentation of Georgian

syntax is a model of syntactic investigation itself.

DAVID M.PERLMUTTER

San Diego, California

12 June, 1980
Contents

Preface xv
Notes on presentation xvu

INTRODUCTION 1
I. Posing the problems 1
2. The approach taken: theoretical framework 4
3. Results of the investigation 8
4. Some necessary preliminaries 12

1 SYNTACTIC TESTS FOR TERMHOOD

I. Tav-Reflexivization
2. Tavis-Reflexivization
3 . Person Agreement
4. Unemphatic Pronoun Drop
5. Summary

2 CASE MARKING IN SERIES I AND II 39

I. The case marking differential 39
2. Evidence for the analysis of case in Series II 41
3 . Case as a test for termhood 45
Appendix: Constituent screeves of Georgian Series 46

3 OBJECT CAMOUFLAGE

I. The facts to b e considered

2. An analysis

3. Interaction with some rules previously considered

4. An alternative analysis
5. Object Camouflage as a test for termhood

4 OBJECT RAISING 53
I. A description of the data in Georgian 53
xii Contents

2. An analysis 54
3. Facts concerning the nominative-nominal 56
4. Facts concerning the infinitive 60
5. Facts concerning the tvis-nominal 62
6. Object Raising as a test of direct-objecthood 63

5 CAUSATIVE CLAUSE UNION 66

I. An analysis of organic causatives 66
2. Initial grammatical relations 70
3. Derived grammatical relations 73
4. The tvis-nominal 81
5. Theoretical implications 85

·6 VERSION: RULES THAT CREATE INDIRECT OBJECTS 87

I. An analysis 88
2. Benefactive Version 89
3. Stative verbs 92
4. Why not generate version objects directly? 93
5. Coreferential Version Object Deletion 95
6. On so-called four-person verbs 99
7. Version as relation-changing rules 1 00
8. Summary 102

7 PASSIVIZATION 103
.
I. The passive from the viewpoint of language universals 1 04
2. Indirect objects in passives 110
3. Theoretical issues 112
4. Interaction with other rules 1 14
5. Conclusion 116

8 INVERSION 1 17
I. The problem: the case marking differential in Series III 1 17
2. The proposal: a rule of inversion 1 18
3 . Preliminary arguments 120
4. Inversion verbs 1 27
5. Additional arguments 132
6 . The form of the rule 1 33
7. Interaction with other rules 1 38
8. Summary 141
Appendix A: Additional arguments for inversion verbs 141
Appendix B : Transitive inversion verbs with no overt suhject 144
 Contents XIIl

9 WHY PATTERN A IS NOT REDUCIBLE TO PATTERN B 1 46

I. An analysis of A as a special instance of B 147
2. Arguments against the proposed analysis 1 47
3 . Conclusion 1 50

10 NON-FINITE VERB FORMS 151

I. Masdars : gerundives or 'derived nominals'? 1 52
2. Infinitive or 'future participle in the adverbial case'? 154
3 . The marking of nominals governed b y non-finite verb forms 1 56
4. The nature of the nominals governed by non-finite verb forms 1 60

II RETIRED TERM MARKING 168

I. Motivating retired termhood 168
2. Correlations between grammatical relations and final marking 1 70
3. Alternative analyses 175
4. Implications of this analysis 178

12 TRANSITIVITY 181
I. Analysis 181
2 . Causative Clause Union 1 82
3 . Retired Term Marking 1 84
4. Conclusion and extension 186
5. Transitive and intransitive 1 86
Appendix: Real and apparent exceptions to transitivity 187

13 SYNTHETIC PASSIVES 191

I. Identification of direct, analytic passive and synthetic
passive constructions 191
2. Some syntactic-semantic characteristics 195
3. A proposal that accounts for the differences 197
4. Arguments for the initial grammatical relations proposed
for synthetic passives 199
5. Arguments for the final grammatical relations proposed for
synthetic passives 201
6. Conclusion and extension 202
Appendix: On four 'passives' in Georgian 203

14 REFLEXIVIZATION 205
I. A review of the facts 205
2. A proposal 208
3. An alternative proposal 210
xiv Contents

15 NUMBER AGREEMENT 211

I. Polypersonalism 211
2. First refinement: failure of third person to trigger
Number Agreement 2 13
3. Second refinement : statement on final termhood 2 15
4. Third refinement : first subjects 2 16
5. Last refinement: relational hierarchy 218
6. The applicability of rule (18) 220
7. Alternative analyses of Number Agreement 223
8. Conclusions 226

16 THE NATURE OF THE GEORGIAN VERB CLASSES 228

I. Hypothesis A: The Ergative Hypothesis 229
2. Hypothesis B: The Unaccusative Hypothesis 235
3 . Inversion and the Georgian verb classes 247
4. The semantics of Class 249
5. Comparison and conclusions 252
6. Theoretical implications 257
Appendix A : Sample lists of verb classes 259
Appendix B: Ambivalent exceptions 267

EPILOGUE 275
1. The grammatical relations 'subject', 'direct object' and
'indirect object' 275
2. Simplifications in case marking 275
3 . Retired term marking 277
4. Rule interaction 277
5. Characteristics of grammatical relations 278

Notes
References
Index
Preface

This investigation of Georgian syntax originated as my 1976 disser­

tation at Harvard University ; additional chapters were written in the
fall of 1977. The work is based on interviews with native speakers of
Georgian. The interviews were conducted during a twelve-month stay
in Tbilisi in 1974-5 and a short research visit in 1977 and were sup­
plemented by work with Georgians in the United States from 1973
to 1978. The research was supported in part by the International
Research and Exchanges Board, by a Sinclair Kennedy Fellowship
from Harvard University, and by the National Science Foundation.
Although I have had occasion in this monograph to question many
assumptions and claims made by traditional Kartvelologists, I view my
work as a continuation, not a contradiction, of theirs. Without the
foundation laid by Chikobava, Shanidze, Topuria, Tschenkeli, Vogt,
,
and many other specialists, this work would have been impossible.
I am deeply indebted to David Perlmutter for ideas about language
universals that helped inspire the research reported here ; his insights
and criticism have improved this work in many ways. I am grateful to
Dee Ann Holisky for her willingness to debate with me any aspect of
the structure of Georgian and for her fine eye for the detail of language.
I wish also to extend a special thanks to my Georgian teacher for her
long-suffering tolerance of my ideas about the structure of her language.
I am grateful to Bernard Comrie for criticism that was extremely
valuable in revising this work. I wish to thank Stephen Anderson for
introduCing me to the problems of ergativity, which led to my working
on Georgian. In addition, Judith Aissen, Winfried Boeder, Jorge
Hankamer, George Hewitt, Susumu Kuno, Paul Postal, Hans Vogt, the
students in my class on Georgian syntax and other members of the
Department of Linguistics at Harvard University have read parts of the
analysis presented here and have given valuable comments. They do
not necessarily agree with the views presented.
XVi Preface

A great many Georgians, in the United States and in Georgia, have

helped me - as informants, as teachers, as colleagues, and as friends. I
am grateful, too, to the libraries of the Georgian Academy of Sciences,
of Tbilisi State University, and of the Linguistics Institute of the
Georgian Academy of Sciences for helping me to acquire research
materials.
Earlier or different versions of three chapters of the present work
have been separately published; these are:
Chapter 8, as 'Inversion as a Rule of Universal Grammar: Georgian
Evidence,' Studies in Relational Grammar, ed. David M. Perlmutter
(to appear).
Chapter II, as 'Marking Former Terms: Georgian Evidence,' Pro­
ceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic
Society, 8 1-98 (1977).
Chapter IS, as 'Number Agreement in Modern Georgian,' The Classifi­
cation of Grammatical Categories (International Review of Slavic Linguis­
tics 3. 1-2), ed. Bernard Comrie, 75-98 (1978).
Nates ;an presentatioYf

I Transliteration. The following system is used:

Georgian letter Phonetic equivalent Transliteration
'> a a
2> b b
0 g g
� d d
D e, c e

3 v, w, f v

� z z
(» t' t
(') i, I 1

J � �
� 1 1

a m m
I) n n

ro 0 0

3 p p
-a z z

M r r

lJ 8 8

0 t t
::J u u

en p' p
k' k
a y y
�
� q q
s- - s
'a
c c
f)
(3 C(t8) C

d dz 3
xviii Notes on presentation

Georgian letter Phonetic equivalent Transliteration

V 9 Us)
3 x
b x

� j j
h h
J
2 A note on glosses
The morphology of the Georgian verb. is very complex, and there is
no way to escape the use of examples with co mplicated verb forms. In
addition to the lexical meaning of the root, a single verb form may code
the following information:
person of subject
person of direct object
person of indirect object
number of subject
number of direct object
number of indirect object
tense
aspect (complete/incomplete, habitua l/non-habitual)
VOice
mood
direction and orien�ation
cilUsative/non-causative (cf. ch. 5)
version (cf. ch. 6)
etc.
In this work, the gloss of a verb will not i!lclude all this information
for two reasons: (i) A great deal of it is irrelevant to the topic of this
monograph and would simply overwhelm the reader with a mass of
material not necessary for interpreting pa rticlJlar examples. (ii) Although
Georgian is generally agglutinative, the information necessary to in­
terpret particular examples cannot always be attributed to any par­
ticular morpheme. Therefore, the principle behind my glosses is that
they should give only that information which will enable the reader to
understand the example in the context of the point under discussion.
Since one of the main concerns of this monograph is the correspondence
between case and grammatical relation, case is always dearly marked.
Since case varies with Series and Class of the governing verb, those
are always marked in the verb gloss . The grammatical relation is not
 Notes on presentation XIX

marked in the gloss, but it is discussed at length in the text. Particulars

are given below.

2.1 Analytic gloss.In the analytic gloss, which is directly below the
Georgian example, the information carried by one word is hyphenated
together in English; e.g. darera 'he-wrote-it'. Analytic glosses are not
generally given for examples quoted in the text itself.
2.1.1 Nouns. Plurality is indicated by plurality in the English word,

not by a 'PL'; e.g. 3aylebi 'dogs', not 'dOg-PL'.

Case is noted separately in capitals; genitives are indicated separately,
not by an English genitive; e.g. 3aylis 'dOg-GEN', not 'dog's'. An excep­
tion to this is the possessive reflexive, tavis-, which is genitive with
secondary case marking; it is glossed 'self 's'.
While nouns and most pronouns have a complete declension in
Georgian, first and second person personal pronouns and a few others
do not. These personal pronouns use a single form for the cases of
greatest concern to us, the ergative, nominative, and dative. For
example, me represents the ergative, nominative, and dative of 'I, me'.
In the examples, a case is always specified for these pronouns, on the
basis of the case used in the comparable sentence for a noun or third
person pronoun.
Positionals (adpositions) in Georgian are all postpositions. Some are
written together with the noun in Georgian and are hyphenated to
the noun in the English gloss; e.g. saxlSi 'house-in' from saxl- 'house'.
A few postpositions are not written with the noun in Georgian; I have
followed the Georgian spelling conventions, both in the Georgian
example and in the English gloss; e.g. 3aylis mier 'dog by'. Postpositions
govern particular cases, but these play no part in the discussion, and so
are generally not included in the glosses.
The Georgian alphabet has no capitals, so proper names are not
capitalized in Georgian. I have followed this spelling convention in the
examples transliterated here, but have capitalized the English gloss so
that the reader can identify those words as proper names; e.g. goca
'Gocha-NoM. '
2.1.2 Verbs. Because case patterns vary with Series and Class of the

verb, and because these characteristics would not otherwise be apparent

to the reader, they have been included in the gloss of every verb. They
are always the last two elements in the analytic gloss. Series is always
indicated with a Roman numeral, in text and gloss alike; Class is always
xx Notes on presentation

indicated with an Arabic numeral. For example, dafera 'he-wrote-it­

II- I ; rleba 'he-stays-I-2'. (These elements are not relevant to the rules
discussed in §4 of the Introduction, and therefore are not included
until ch. I. )
Person Agreement is indicated by the appropriate pronouns in the
following order: subject, v erb root, indirect object, direct object ; e.g.
gcem 'I-give-you-it-I - I ' . All terms are indicated in the gloss, though
they may be disguised in Georgian by zero markers or morphophonemic
rules (cf. ch. I , § 3).
Gender is included to aid the reader, although it is not indicated in
Georgian. Third person singular subjects are glossed 'he' except when
a female name is used, or when the subject must be inanimate. Objects
are glossed 'it' except wh en a nimacy is indicated by a noun in the
clause, or when an animate would be more natural.
Number Agreement is indicated in the gloss only when it is clearly
marked in the Georgian.
ma3levs sacukrebs.
he-gives-me-it-I- I gifts-DAT
'He gives gifts to me'.
Although 'gifts' is plural, i t does not trigger Number Agreement ; this
fact is reflected in the 'it' of the analytic gloss of the verb. In the fol­
lowing example, number of the indirect object is indicated morpho­
logically and is glossed:
gva3levs sacukrebs.
he-gives-us-it-I - I gifts-DAT
'He gives gifts to us.'
Tense is indicated in analytic glosses only by the present, past, and
future forms of the Engli sh verb ; e.g. dafers 'he-will-write-it'. The
simple (habitual) present in English is used in analytic glosses for the
present ; this is used for brevity only and implies no claim as to the
nature of this tense in Georgian .
When it is important that s ome morpheme be identified in the verb
form, as in the discussion s of agreement, the important morphemes
will be isolated by hyphenating or using heavy type. In some instances
the corresponding element in the gloss is in heavy type also ; e.g.
mornfera 'he-wrote-rne-it-I I- I '. Otherwise, parts of the verb will not
be separated by hyphens.
 Notes on presentation XXl

2. 1 .3 Adjectives. In Georgian, attributive adjedives do agree with the

nouns they modify, but the case is not fully apparent. For this reason
and because it is not important to the· discussion, no case is indicated
for adjectives that precede their head nouns.

2.2 Final gloss. The final gloss gives the sentence which corresponds
most closely in English, including the tense, which is the appropriate
one in English. In some instances, English has no corresponding syntac­
tic rule, and the sentences in which the rule has applied and those in
which it has not have the same gloss.
Final glosses are sometimes omitted from ungrammatical sentences,
since those sentences do not always have a meaning. But if it would not
be clear what the ungrammatical sentences show, a final gloss is given
in parentheses, that corresponds to the intended meaning of the sentence.

2.3 Quotational form. When a noun is referred to in the text, it is

usually quoted in its nominative case form or in its stem form (without
case marking). A verb will be quoted in its masdar (nominalized) form,
unless that is inappropriate, in which case it will be given in a finite
form ; this will be made apparent by the gloss.

3 Diagrams
This work uses the conventions of the 'network' diagramming developed
for relational grammar (Perlmutter & Postal 1 977). A clause and the
elements which constitute it are represented as nodes. Arrows connect­
ing the clause node with other nodes indicate that the latter are depen­
dents of the clause. Labels on the arrows indicate the grammatical
relations which various elements bear to the clause ; only the central
grammatical relations (cf. P.S below) are indicated in network dia­
grams. The predicate relation is labeled 'P' . The subject relation is
marked 'I', the direct object relation '2 ', and the indirect object re­
lation ' 3 ' . Benefactives are marked as 'B'. For example, network (I )

mno perangi bavSvi

'shirt' , child'
xxii Notes on presentation

should be read as 'gela is the subject of the matrix clause (or of the verb,
codna "know"); and its direct object is the clause consisting of the predi­
cate se�erva "sew", the subject nino, the direct objectperangi "shirt", and
the benefactive bavsvi "child".' This corresponds to the sentence (2).

(2) gelam icis, rom nino �eravs perangs bavsvistvis.

Gela he-knows that Nino she-sews shirt child-for
'Gela knows that Nino is sewing a shirt for the child. '

Levels are indicated as in (3), where Benefactive Version has applied

to make the benefactive an indirect object.

se�erva nino perangi bavIvi

This network indicates, among other things, 'bavsvi is an initial benefac­

tive and a final indirect object'.
Retired subjects, direct objects, and indirect objects are marked 'R-I',
'R-2', and 'R-3', respectively. O ther symbols used are introduced where
appropriate.

4 The reader
The monograph is written primarily for syntacticians who know little
or nothing of Georgian. For this reason, material that will be of interest
only to the Georgian specialist is put, as often as possible, into notes or
appendices. The complexities of case marking and verb agreement
are introduced gradually.

5 The dialect described

This monograph is based on work with informants in Georgia and the
United States from 1973 to 1978. The dialect described here is that
s poken in the capital city of Georgia, Tbilisi (Tiflis). In those insta nces
where I have isolated two dialects among my informants, I have made
reference to this fact in the text or in a footnote. No attempt is made to
account for divergences found in dialects outside Tbilisi or in earlier
periods, or for phenomena restricted to written Georgian.
Introduction

I Posing the problems

To many general linguists, Georgian has long seemed an inscrutable

language. The main difficulty has been that the apparent subject of a
given clause is not always in the same case, as it is in most languages.
The sentences in (I) illustrate the problem of the case differential.

(I) (a) glexi tesavs siminds.

peasant-NOM he -sows-it-I-I corn-DAT
'The peasant is sowing corn.'
(b) glexma datesa simindi.
peasant-ERG he-sowed-it-II-I corn-NOM
'The peasant sowed corn.'
(c) glexs dautesavs simindi.
peasant-DAT he -sowed-it-III-I corn-NOM
'The peasant has sown corn.'

The traditional names are used for cases; the names themselves are not
intended as a claim about the real structure of the language. The nomi­
na tive case is marked by -i (0 after a vowel), the ergative by -ma (-m
after a vowel), and the dative by -so The three case marking Patterns
possible for a given clause are stated in (2).

(2) Subject Direct Object Indirect Object

Pattern A ERGATIVE NOMINATIVE DATIVE
B NOMINATIVE DATIVE DATIVE
C DATIVE NOMINATIVE tvis-nominal

A second ob vious problem in case marking is that the case marking

Pattern does not vary for all verbs in the same way. The distribution of
Patterns A, B, and C is stated in (3).
WI"'
2 Introduction

(3) Series I II III

Class I B A C
2 B B B
3 B A C
4 C C C

Moreover, in Georgian Pattern A, with ergative subjects, is by no means

limited to transitive verbs. In order to predict the case of a subject in
Georgian, one must know the Series and Class of the governing verb
form. The three Series are groups of tense-aspect-mood categories; these
are listed in the appendix to ch. 2. In this work, the Class of the verb
is defined morphologically; the precise criteria used are given in ch. 16,
Appendix A. It is shown below that the Classes correlate with specific
syntactic and semantic properties.
Looking at (I) again in light of (2-3), and knowing that the governing
verb is a Class I verb, we can see that in (Ia), which is in a Series I
tense, the subject must be in the nominative and the object in the dative.
In (Ib), which is in a Series II tense, the subject is in the ergative, the
object in the nominative. And in ( IC) , we see the Series III variant:
subject in the dative and object in the nominative.
I have been using the labels 'subject' and 'direct object' in the way
they are usually used in the description of more familiar languages. In
fact, it is not at all obvious that these notions are even appropriate ones
for Georgian. This is the primary problem that this monograph
addresses: Are the notions 'subject', 'direct object', and 'indirect object'
relevant to Georgian?
The difficulty in approaching the notion 'subject' in Georgian is that
there is no agreement among the three most obvious criteria for defining
this concept - case, verb agreement, and some intuitive idea of subject.
In general, in order to make a claim about which nominals are subjects,
linguists have had to choose between these criteria on an arbitrary basis.
Shanidze (1973: 195-7) and Tschenkeli (1958: 497) select the intuitive
idea, and would call glexi 'peasant' the subject in all of the sentences
in (1). Vogt (1971: 81) chooses instead Person Agreement; this means
thatglexi is subject in (la-b), and simindi 'corn' in (IC). Chikobava (1968)
and Aronson (1970) define the subject as that nominal which always
triggers Number Agreement in the verb.! Marr and Briere (1931: 244),
writing mainly of Old Georgian, say that the 'nominative indicates the
grammatical object - in fact the real su�ject' in (rb-c). Patsch (1952/53)
 I. Posing the problems 3

considers 'subject' an Indo-European notion and therefore confusing

in Georgian. Sommerfelt (1937) suggests that 'subject' is an inappro­
priate notion for a language like Georgian.
Each of the above-mentioned analyses of 'subject' in Georgian is
unsatisfactory because the choice of the criterion used is not clearly
motivated. It is not clear, for example, why Chikobava considers Num­
ber Agreement to be the most important criterion, while Vogt considers
Person Agreement to be.2
No analysis of the notion 'subject' in Georgian can be adequate if it
is based upon a single criterion. Recent work on language universals
has shown that the following syntactic characteristics are typical of
subjects: they trigger reflexivization, they trigger coreferential deletion,
they trigger verb agreement, they undergo Unemphatic Pronoun Drop,
etc. (cf. Anderson 1976; Keenan 1974, 1976; Postal & Perlmutter 1974).
But no one of these criteria is sufficient to establish the notion 'subject'
for any language. In this monograph, I use, among others, the following
syntactic rules to argue for the notion 'subject':
(a) Tav-Reflexivization (full-pronoun reflexivization)
(b) Tavis-Reflexivization (possessive reflexivization)
(c) Person Agreement
(d) Number Agreement
(e) Unemphatic Pronoun Drop
(f ) Coreferential Version Object Deletion.

Additional phenomena will also be used to argue for the existence

of a subject in Georgian, as well as for a direct object and indirect
object.
Nor could an analysis of the notion 'subject' in Georgian be adequate
if it failed to recognize distinct levels of derivation. A large portion of
this work is devoted to an analysis of the major rules that change gram­
matical relations in Georgian. Because Georgian has rules like Passivi­
zation, Object Raising, Causative Clause Union, and Inversion, the
notion 'subject' cannot be adequately characterized by reference to a
single level of derivation. 3
This leads us to the second major problem addressed by the present
work: \Vhat is the nature of the rules that change grammatical relations
in Georgian? This question is addressed from several points of view.
From the language-internal viewpoint, individual rules provide
additional criteria for identifying the grammatical relations 'subject',
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
[73] Hester Santlow, the "Santlow, fam'd for dance" of Gay,
married Barton Booth. She appears to have retired from the stage
about 1733. Genest (iii. 375) says, "she seems to have been a
pleasing actress with no great powers." Her reputation was none
of the best before her marriage, for she was said to have been
the mistress of the Duke of Marlborough and of Secretary Craggs.
See memoir of Booth.
[74] Genest (ii. 430) has the following outspoken character of
Rich: "He seems in his public capacity of Patentee and Manager to
have been a despicable character—without spirit to bring the
power of the Lord Chamberlain to a legal test—without honesty to
account to the other proprietors for the receipts of the theatre—
without any feeling for his actors—and without the least judgment
as to players and plays."
[75] Rich's Patent was revived, as Cibber states (p. 78), in 1714,
when it was the property of his son, John Rich.
[76] There is no more curious transaction in theatrical history
than the acquisition of the entire right in the Patent by Rich and
his son. Christopher Rich's share (see note on p. 32) was
seventeen one-hundredths, or about one-sixth; yet, by obstinate
dishonesty, he succeeded in annexing the remainder.
[77] In March, 1705.
[78] There has been some doubt as to the locality of the theatre
in Little Lincoln's Inn Fields, in which Betterton acted, one
authority at least holding that he played in Gibbons' Tennis Court
in Vere Street, Clare Market. But Cibber distinctly states that Rich
rented the building which Betterton left in 1705, and old maps of
London show clearly that Rich's theatre was in Portugal Street,
just opposite the end of the then unnamed street, now called
Carey Street. In "A New and Exact Plan of the Cities of London
and Westminster," published 30th August, 1738, by George Foster,
"The New Play House" is given as the name of this building, and it
is worthy of notice that Cibber, a few lines above, writes of "the
New Theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields." See also vol. i. p. 192, note
1, where I quote Downes, who calls Betterton's theatre the New
Theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields. About 1756 this house was made a
barrack; it was afterwards an auction room; then the China
Repository of Messrs. Spode and Copeland, and was ultimately
pulled down about 1848 to make room for the extension of the
Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons.
[79] The Licence to Swiney, Wilks, Cibber, and Dogget, for Drury
Lane, is dated 6th November, 1710. In it Swiney's name is spelled
"Swyny," and Cibber's "Cybber."
[80] Westminster Bridge was authorized to be built in the face of
virulent opposition from the Corporation of London, who feared
that its existence would damage the trade of the City. Dr. Potter,
Archbishop of Canterbury, and others interested, applied for an
Act of Parliament in 1736; the bridge was begun in 1738, and not
finished till 1750, the opening ceremony being held on 17th
November of that year. Until this time the only bridge was London
Bridge. See "Old and New London," iii. 297.
[81] I presume the Noble Commissioner is the Earl of Pembroke,
who laid the first stone of the bridge on 29th January, 1739.
[82] Collier seems to have relied on Aaron Hill in all his theatrical
enterprises, for, as previously noted, Hill had been manager for
him at Drury Lane.
[83] At the end of the season 1708-9. See ante, p. 69.
[84] Collier's treatment of Swiney was so discreditable, that when
he in his turn was evicted from Drury Lane (1714) we cannot help
feeling gratified at his downfall.
[85] Swiney's Licence for the Opera is dated 17th April, 1712.
[86] For a further account of Steele's being given a share of the
Patent, which he got through Marlborough's influence, see the
beginning of Chapter XV.
[87] See vol. i. 284-285.
[88] That is, he had been the chief of Collier's Company at Drury
Lane at his opening in November, 1709. See ante, p. 94.
[89] Martial, x. 23, 7.
[90] This is a blunder, which, by the way, Bellchambers does not
correct. "Cato" was produced at Drury Lane on 14th April, 1713.
The cast was:—
Cato Mr. Booth.
Lucius Mr. Keen.
Sempronius Mr. Mills.
Juba Mr. Wilks.
Syphax Mr. Cibber.
 Portius Mr. Powell.
Marcus Mr. Ryan.
Decius Mr. Bowman.
Marcia Mrs. Oldfield.
Lucia Mrs. Porter.
[91] "The Laureat" says these Irish actors were Elrington and
Griffith, but I venture to think that Evans's name should be
substituted for that of Griffith. All three came from Ireland to
Drury Lane in 1714; but, while Elrington and Evans played many
important characters, Griffith did very little. Again, I can find no
record of the latter's benefit, but the others had benefits in the
best part of the season. The fact that they had separate benefits
makes my theory contradict Cibber on this one point; but what he
says may have occurred in connection with one of the two
benefits. Cibber's memory is not infallible.
[92] Genest's record gives Wilks about one hundred and fifty
different characters, Dogget only about sixty.
[93] Horace, Ars Poetica, 121.
[94] See note on page 120.
[95] Johnson (Life of Addison) terms this "the despicable cant of
literary modesty."
[96] 14th April, 1713. See note on page 120.
[97] Mrs. Oldfield, Powell, Mills, Booth, Pinkethman, and Mrs.
Porter, had their benefits before "Cato" was produced. "Cato" was
then acted twenty times—April 14th to May 9th—that is, every
evening except Monday in each week, as Cibber states. On
Monday nights the benefits continued—being one night in the
week instead of three. Johnson, Keen, and Mrs. Bicknell had their
benefits during the run of "Cato," and on May 11th the regular
benefit performances recommenced, Mrs. Rogers taking her
benefit on that night.
[98] The Duke of Marlborough is the person pointed at.
[99] Theo. Cibber ("Life of Booth," p. 6) says that Booth in his
early days as an actor became intimate with Lord Bolingbroke,
and that this "was of eminent advantage to Mr. Booth,—when, on
his great Success in the Part of Cato (of which he was the original
Actor) my Lord's Interest (then Secretary of State) established
him as a Manager of the Theatre."
[100] There are five Prologues by Dryden spoken at Oxford; one
in 1674, and the others probably about 1681.
[101] James II.
[102] Obadiah Walker, born 1616, died 1699, is famous only for
the change of religion to which Cibber's anecdote refers.
Macaulay ("History," 1858, ii. 85-86) relates the story of his
perversion, and in the same volume, page 283, refers to the
incident here told by Cibber.
[103] 1713. The performance on 23rd June, 1713, was
announced as the last that season, as the company were obliged
to go immediately to Oxford.
[104] Dryden writes, in one of his Prologues (about 1681), to the
University of Oxford:—

"When our fop gallants, or our city folly,

Clap over-loud, it makes us melancholy:
We doubt that scene which does their wonder raise,
And, for their ignorance, contemn their praise.
Judge, then, if we who act, and they who write,
Should not be proud of giving you delight.
London likes grossly; but this nicer pit
Examines, fathoms, all the depths of wit;
The ready finger lays on every blot;
Knows what should justly please, and what should not."
[105] In a Prologue by Dryden, spoken by Hart in 1674, at
Oxford, the poet says:—

"None of our living poets dare appear;

For Muses so severe are worshipped here,
That, conscious of their faults, they shun the eye,
And, as profane, from sacred places fly,
Rather than see the offended God, and die."
Malone (Dryden's Prose Works, vol. i., part ii., p. 13) gives a letter
from Dryden to Lord Rochester, in which he says: "Your Lordship
will judge [from the success of these Prologues, &c.] how easy 'tis
to pass anything upon an University, and how gross flattery the
learned will endure."
[106] Theo. Cibber ("Life of Booth," p. 7) says that Colley Cibber
and Booth "used frequently to set out, after Play (in the Month of
May) to Windsor, where the Court then was, to push their
different Interests." Chetwood ("History," p. 93) states that the
other Patentees "to prevent his solliciting his Patrons at Court,
then at Windsor, gave out Plays every Night, where Mr. Booth had
a principal Part. Notwithstanding this Step, he had a Chariot and
Six of a Nobleman's waiting for him at the End of every Play, that
whipt him the twenty Miles in three Hours, and brought him back
to the Business of the Theatre the next Night."
[107] The new Licence was dated 11th November, 1713. Dogget's
name was of course included as well as Booth's.
[108] This must have been in November, 1713.
[109] The Right Hon. Thomas Coke.
[110] The dates regarding this quarrel with Dogget are very
difficult to fix satisfactorily. In the collection of Mr. Francis Harvey
of St. James's Street are some valuable letters by Dogget in
connection with this matter. From these, and from Mr. Percy
Fitzgerald's "New History" (i. 352-358), I have made up a list of
dates, which, however, I give with all reserve. We know from "The
Laureat" that Dogget had some funds of the theatre in his hands
when he ceased acting, and this fact makes a Petition by Cibber
and Wilks, that he should account with them for money,
intelligible. This is dated 16th January, 1714—it cannot be 1713,
as Mr. Fitzgerald says, for Booth was not admitted then, and the
quarrel had not arisen. Then follows a Petition from Cibber, Booth,
and Wilks, dated 5th February, 1714, praying the Chamberlain to
settle the dispute. Petitions by Dogget bear date 17th April, 1714;
and, I think, 14th June, 1714. Mr. Fitzgerald gives this latter date
as 14th January, 1714, and certainly the date on the document
itself is more like "Jan" than "June;" but in the course of the
Petition Dogget says that the season will end in a few days, which
seems to fix June as the correct month. The season 1713-14
ended 18th June, 1714. Next comes a Petition that Dogget should
be compelled to act if he was to draw his share of the profits,
which is dated 3rd November, 1714. In this case we are on sure
ground, for the Petition is preserved among the Lord
Chamberlain's Papers. Another Petition by Dogget, in which he
talks of his being forced into Westminster Hall to obtain his rights,
is dated "Jan. ye 6 1714," that is, 1715. After this, legal action
was no doubt commenced, as related by Cibber.
[111] So full an account of Dogget is given by Cibber and by
Aston, that I need only add, that he first appeared about 1691;
and that he died in 1721.
[112] See memoir of Mrs. Porter at the end of this volume.
[113] On March 18th, 1717. Cibber is wrong in stating that this
was Dogget's last appearance; for a week after he played Ben in
"Love for Love" (March 25th, 1717), and made his last
appearance, after the lapse of another week (April 1st, 1717),
when he acted Hob in "The Country Wake."
[114] Downes ("Rosc. Ang.," p. 52) gives a quaint description of
Dogget: "Mr. Dogget, On the Stage, he's very Aspectabund,
wearing a Farce in his Face; his Thoughts deliberately framing his
Utterance Congruous to his Looks: He is the only Comick Original
now Extant: Witness, Ben. Solon, Nikin, The Jew of Venice, &c."
[115] "The Laureat," p. 83: "Thy Partiality is so notorious, with
Relation to Wilks, that every one sees you never praise him, but
to rail at him; and only oil your Hone, to whet your Razor."
[116] 1714.
[117] In the Dedication to Steele of "Ximena" (1719) Cibber
warmly acknowledges the great service Steele had done to the
theatre, not only in improving the tone of its performances, but
also in the mere attracting of public attention to it. "How many a
time," he says, "have we known the most elegant Audiences
drawn together at a Day's Warning, by the Influence or Warrant
of a single Tatler, when our best Endeavours without it, could not
defray the Charge of the Performance." In the same Dedication
Cibber's gratitude overstepped his judgment, in applying to
Steele's generous acknowledgment of his indebtedness to
Addison's help in his "Spectator," &c., Dryden's lines:—

"Fool that I was! upon my Eagle's Wings

I bore this Wren, 'till I was tir'd with soaring,
And now, he mounts above me——"
The following Epigram is quoted in "The Laureat," p. 76. It
originally appeared in "Mist's Journal," 31st October, 1719:—

"Thus Colley Cibber to his Partner Steele,

See here, Sir Knight, how I've outdone Corneille;
See here, how I, my Patron to inveigle,
Make Addison a Wren, and you an Eagle.
Safe to the silent Shades, we bid Defiance;
For living Dogs are better than dead Lions."
In one of his Odes, at which Johnson laughed (Boswell, i. 402)
Cibber had the couplet:—

"Perch'd on the eagle's soaring wing,

The lowly linnet loves to sing."
"Ximena; or, the Heroic Daughter," produced on 28th November,
1712, was an adaptation of Corneille's "Cid." We do not know the
cast of 1712, but that of 1718 (Drury Lane, 1st November) was
the following:—
Don Ferdinand Mr. Mills.
Don Alvarez Mr. Cibber.
Don Gormaz Mr. Booth.
Don Carlos Mr. Wilks.
Don Sanchez Mr. Elrington.
Don Alonzo Mr. Thurmond.
Don Garcia Mr. Boman.
Ximena Mrs. Oldfield.
Belzara Mrs. Porter.
[118] A Royal Licence was granted on 18th October, 1714, to
Steele, Wilks, Cibber, Dogget, and Booth. The theatre opened
before the Licence was granted. The first bill given by Genest is
for 21st September, 1714.
[119] Christopher Rich died before the theatre was opened, and it
was under the management of John Rich, his son, that Lincoln's
Inn Fields opened on 18th December, 1714, with "The Recruiting
Officer." The company was announced as playing under Letters
Patent granted by King Charles the Second.
[120] This refers to a riot raised by the supporters of Mrs. Rogers,
on Mrs. Oldfield's being cast for the character of Andromache in
Philips's tragedy of "The Distressed Mother," produced at Drury
Lane on 17th March, 1712.
[121] Cibber on one occasion manifested temper to a rather
unexpected degree. In 1720, when Dennis published his attacks
on Steele, in connection with his being deprived of the Patent, he
accused Cibber of impiety and various other crimes and
misdemeanours; and Cibber is said in the "Answer to the
Character of Sir John Edgar" to have inserted the following
advertisement in the "Daily Post": "Ten Pounds will be paid by Mr.
Cibber, of the Theatre Royal, to any person who shall (by a legal
proof) discover the Author of a Pamphlet, intituled, 'The
Characters and Conduct of Sir John Edgar, &c.'" (Nichols, p. 401.)
[122] Cibber refers to his remarks (see vol. i. p. 191) on the
conduct of the Patentees which caused Betterton's secession in
1694-5.
[123] In addition to Keen, Bullock (William), Pack, and Leigh,
whom Cibber mentions a few lines after, Spiller and Christopher
Bullock were among the deserters; and probably Cory and Knap.
Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. Knight, and Mrs. Kent also deserted.
[124] George Pack is an actor of whom Chetwood ("History," p.
210) gives some account. He first came on the stage as a singer,
performing the female parts in duets with Leveridge. His first
appearance chronicled by Genest was at Lincoln's Inn Fields in
1700, as Westmoreland in the first part of "Henry IV." Chetwood
says he was excellent as Marplot in "The Busy Body," Beau
Maiden in "Tunbridge Walks," Beau Mizen in "The Fair Quaker of
Deal," &c.: "indeed Nature seem'd to mean him for those Sort of
Characters." On 10th March, 1722, he announced his last
appearance on any stage; but he returned on 21st April and 7th
May, 1724, on which latter date he had a benefit. Chetwood says
that on his retirement he opened the Globe Tavern, near Charing-
Cross, over against the Hay-Market. When Chetwood wrote
(1749) Pack was no longer alive.
[125] Francis Leigh. There were several actors of the name of
Leigh, and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish them. This
particular actor died about 1719.
[126] In the "Weekly Packet," 18th December, 1714, the following
appears:—
"This Day the New Play-House in Lincolns-Inn Fields, is to be
open'd and a Comedy acted there, call'd, The Recruiting Officer,
by the Company that act under the Patent; tho' it is said, that
some of the Gentlemen who have left the House in Drury-Lane for
that Service, are order'd to return to their Colours, upon Pain of
not exercising their Lungs elsewhere; which may in Time prove of
ill Service to the Patentee, that has been at vast Expence to make
his Theatre as convenient for the Reception of an Audience as any
one can possibly be."
Genest remarks that this seems to show that the Lord
Chamberlain threatened to interfere in the interests of Drury
Lane. He adds: "Cibber's silence proves nothing to the contrary,
as in more than one instance he does not tell the whole truth" (ii.
565). In defence of Cibber I may say that the Chamberlain's
Records contain no hint that he threatened to interfere with the
Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre or its actors.
[127] In both the first and second editions Cibber writes 1718,
but this is so obviously a misprint that I correct the text. Steele
was elected for Boroughbridge in the first Parliament of George I.,
which met 15th March, 1715.
[128] "The very night I received it, I participated the power and
use of it, with relation to the profits that should arise from it,
between the gentlemen who invited me into the Licence."—
Steele, in "The Theatre," No. 8 [Nichols, p. 64].
[129] The managers also expended money on the decoration of
the theatre before the beginning of the next season after the
Patent was granted. In the "Daily Courant," 6th October, 1715,
they advertise: "His Majesty's Company of Comedians give Notice,
That the Middle of next Week they will begin to act Plays, every
day, as usual; they being oblig'd to lye still so long, to finish the
New Decorations of the House."
[130] This revival was on 2nd December, 1718. Dennis, whose
"Invader of his Country" was, as he considered, unfairly
postponed on account of this production, wrote to Steele:—
"Well, Sir, when the winter came on, what was done by your
Deputies? Why, instead of keeping their word with me, they spent
above two months of the season in getting up "All for Love, or,
the World well Lost," a Play which has indeed a noble first act, an
act which ends with a scene becoming of the dignity of the Tragic
Stage. But if Horace had been now alive, and been either a reader
or spectator of that entertainment, he would have passed his old
sentence upon the Author.
"'Infelix operis summâ, quia ponere totum
Nesciet.'" [Ars Poetica, 34.]
Nichols' "Theatre," p. 544.
[131] Cibber here skips a few years, for the report by Sir Thomas
Hewitt is dated some years after the granting of the Patent. The
text of it will be found in Nichols's "Theatre," p. 470:—

"My Lord,
Scotland-yard, Jan. 21, 1721.
 "In obedience to his Majesty's commands signified to me by
your Grace the 18th instant, I have surveyed the Play-house
in Drury-lane; and took with me Mr. Ripley, Commissioner of
his Majesty's Board of Works, the Master Bricklayer, and
Carpenter: We examined all its parts with the greatest
exactness we could; and found the Walls, Roofing, Stage, Pit,
Boxes, Galleries, Machinery, Scenes, &c. sound, and almost
as good as when first built; neither decayed, nor in the least
danger of falling; and when some small repairs are made,
and an useless Stack of Chimnies (built by the late Mr. Rich)
taken down, the Building may continue for a long time, being
firm, the Materials and Joints good, and no part giving way;
and capable to bear much greater weight than is put on
them.
"My Lord Duke,
"Your Grace's Most humble and obedient servant,
"Thomas Hewett.
"N.B. The Stack of Chimnies mentioned in this Report (which
were placed over the Stone Passage leading to the Boxes)
are actually taken down."

[132] See ante, vol. i. p. 234.

[133] Cibber, vol. i. p. 94, relates how, when the King's Company
proved too strong for their rivals, Davenant, "to make head
against their Success, was forced to add Spectacle and Music to
Action."
[134] In the season 1718-19, Rich at Lincoln's Inn Fields
frequently produced French pieces and operas. He must have had
a company of French players engaged.
[135] This is, no doubt, John Weaver's dramatic entertainment
called "The Loves of Mars and Venus," which was published, as
acted at Drury Lane, in 1717.
[136] The following lines ("Dunciad," iii. verses 229-244) are
descriptive of such pantomimes as Cibber refers to:—

"He look'd, and saw a sable Sorc'rer rise,

Swift to whose hand a winged volume flies:
All sudden, Gorgons hiss, and dragons glare,
And ten-horn'd fiends and giants rush to war.
Hell rises, Heav'n descends, and dance on Earth,
 Gods, imps, and monsters, music, rage, and mirth,
A fire, a jig, a battle, and a ball,
Till one wide conflagration swallows all.
Thence a new world, to nature's laws unknown,
Breaks out refulgent, with a heav'n its own:
Another Cynthia her new journey runs,
And other planets circle other suns:
The forests dance, the rivers upward rise,
Whales sport in woods, and dolphins in the skies,
And last, to give the whole creation grace,
Lo! one vast Egg produces human race."
The allusion in the last line is to "Harlequin Sorcerer," in which
Harlequin is hatched from a large egg on the stage. See Jackson's
"History of the Scottish Stage," pages 367-368, for description of
John Rich's excellence in this scene.
[137] In the "Dunciad" (book iii. verses 261-264) Pope writes:—

"But lo! to dark encounter in mid air

New wizards rise: here Booth, and Cibber there:
Booth in his cloudy tabernacle shrin'd,
On grinning Dragons Cibber mounts the wind."
On these lines Cibber remarks, in his "Letter to Mr. Pope," 1742
(page 37): "If you, figuratively, mean by this, that I was an
Encourager of those Fooleries, you are mistaken; for it is not true:
If you intend it literally, that I was Dunce enough to mount a
Machine, there is as little Truth in that too."
[138] Henry of Navarre, of whom it has been said that he
regarded religion mainly as a diplomatic instrument.
[139] It is hardly necessary to note that this was the Scottish
Rebellion of 1715; yet Bellchambers indicates the period as 1718.
[140] Cibber's most notorious play, "The Nonjuror," was produced
at Drury Lane on 6th December, 1717. The cast was:—
Sir John Woodvil Mr. Mills.
Colonel Woodvil Mr. Booth.
Mr. Heartly Mr. Wilks.
Doctor Wolf Mr. Cibber.
Charles Mr. Walker.
Lady Woodvil Mrs. Porter.
Maria Mrs. Oldfield.
[141] Genest (ii. 615) quotes the Epilogue to Sewell's "Sir Walter
Raleigh," produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields 16th January, 1719:—

"Yet to write plays is easy, faith, enough,

As you have seen by—Cibber—in Tartuffe.
With how much wit he did your hearts engage!
He only stole the play;—he writ the title-page."
[142] Genest says it was acted twenty-three times.
[143] Genest remarks (ii. 616) that "Cibber deserved all the abuse
and enmity that he met with—the Stage and the Pulpit ought
NEVER to dabble in politics."
Theo. Cibber, in a Petition to the King, given in his "Dissertations"
(Letter to Garrick, p. 29), says that his father's "Writings, and
public Professions of Loyalty, created him many Enemies, among
the Disaffected."
[144] "Mist's Weekly Journal" was an anti-Hanoverian sheet,
which was prominent in opposition to the Protestant Succession.
Nathaniel Mist, the proprietor, and, I suppose, editor, suffered
sundry pains and penalties for his Jacobitism. In his Preface to the
second volume of "Letters" selected from his paper, he relates
how he had, among other things, suffered imprisonment and
stood in the pillory.
[145] There can be little doubt that the "Nonjuror" was one of the
causes of Pope's enmity to Cibber. Pope's father was a Nonjuror.
See "Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot," where the poet says of his father:
—

"No courts he saw, no suits would ever try,

Nor dar'd an oath, nor hazarded a lie."
[146] Produced 10th January, 1728. See vol. i. p. 311, for list of
characters, &c.
[147] Meaning, no doubt, that the post of Poet Laureate was
given to him as a reward for his services to the Government.
[148] 1733.
[149] In leaping from 1717 to 1728, as Cibber does here, he
omits to notice much that is of the greatest interest in stage
history. Steele's connection with the theatre was of a chequered
complexion, and it is curious as well as regrettable that an
interested observer like Cibber should have simply ignored the
great points which were at issue while Steele was a sharer in the
Patent. In order to bridge over the chasm I give a bare record of
Steele's transactions in connection with the Patent.
His first authority was a Licence granted to him and his partners,
Wilks, Cibber, Dogget, and Booth, and dated October 18th, 1714.
This was followed by a Patent, in Steele's name alone, for the
term of his life, and three years after his death, which bore date
January 19th, 1715. Cibber (p. 174) relates that Steele assigned
to Wilks, Booth, and himself, equal shares in this Patent. All went
smoothly for more than two years, until the appointment of the
Duke of Newcastle (April 13th, 1717) as Lord Chamberlain. He
seems soon to have begun to interfere in the affairs of the
theatre. Steele, in the eighth number of "The Theatre," states
that shortly after his appointment the Duke demanded that he
should resign his Patent and accept a Licence in its place. This
Steele naturally and rightly declined to do, and here the matter
rested for many months. With reference to this it is interesting to
note that among the Lord Chamberlain's Papers is the record of a
consultation of the Attorney-General whether Steele's Patent
made him independent of the Lord Chamberlain's authority.
Unfortunately it is impossible to decide, from the terms of the
queries put to the Attorney-General, whether these were caused
by aggressive action on Steele's part, or merely by his defence of
his rights.
The next molestation was an order, dated December 19th, 1719,
addressed to Steele, Wilks, and Booth, ordering them to dismiss
Cibber; which they did. His suspension, for it was nothing more,
lasted till January 28th, 1720. Steele, in the seventh number of
"The Theatre," January 23rd, 1720, alludes to his suspension as
then existing, and in No. 12 talks of Cibber's being just restored
to the "Begging Bridge," that is, the theatre. The allusion is to an
Apologue by Steele ("Reader," No. II.) which Cibber quotes, and
applies to Steele, in his Dedication of "Ximena" to him. A peasant
had succeeded in barricading, with his whole belongings, a bridge
over which an enemy attempted to invade his native country. He
kept them back till his countrymen were roused; but when the
forces of his friends attacked the enemy, the peasant's property
was destroyed in the fray and he was left destitute. He received
no compensation, but it was enacted that he and his descendants
were alone to have the privilege of begging on this bridge. Cibber
applies this fable to the treatment of Steele by the Lord
Chamberlain, and there can be no doubt that this Dedication must
have caused great offence to that official, and contributed
materially to Cibber's suspension, though Steele declared that the
attack upon his partner was merely intended as an oblique attack
on himself. The author of the "Answer to the Case of Sir Richard
Steele," 1720 (Nichols's ed., p. 532), says that Cibber had
offended the Duke by an attack on the King and the Ministry in
the Dedication of his "Ximena" to Steele. He also says that when
the Chamberlain wanted a certain actor to play a part which
belonged to one of the managers, Cibber flatly refused to allow
him, and was thereupon silenced. (The actor is said to have been
Elrington, and the part Torrismond; but I doubt if Elrington was at
Drury Lane in 1719-20.) A recent stage historian curiously says
that the play which gave offence was "The Nonjuror," which is
about as likely as that a man should be accused of high treason
because he sang "God Save the Queen!"
Steele then, being made to understand that the attack on Cibber
was the beginning of evil directed against himself, wrote to two
great Ministers of State, and presented a Petition to the King on
January 22nd, 1720, praying to be protected from molestation by
the Lord Chamberlain. The result of this action was a revocation
of Steele's Licence (not his Patent specially, which is curious)
dated January 23rd, 1720; and on the next Monday, the 25th, an
Order for Silence was sent to the managers and actors at Drury
Lane. The theatre accordingly remained closed Monday, Tuesday,
and Wednesday, January 25th to 27th, 1720, and on the 28th re-
opened, Wilks, Cibber, and Booth having made their submission
and received a Licence dated the previous day.
On the 4th of March following the actors of Drury Lane were
sworn at the Lord Chamberlain's office, "pursuant to an Order
occasioned by their acting in obedience to his Majesty's Licence,
lately granted, exclusive of a Patent formerly obtained by Sir
Richard Steele, Knight." The tenor of the Oath was, that as his
Majesty's Servants they should act subservient to the Lord
Chamberlain, Vice-Chamberlain, and Gentleman-Usher in Waiting.
Whether Steele took any steps to test the legality of this
treatment is doubtful; but, on the accession of his friend Walpole
to office, he was restored to his position at the head of the
theatre. On May 2nd, 1721, Cibber and his partners were ordered
to account with Steele for his past and present share of the
profits of the theatre, as if all the regulations from which his
name had been excluded had never been made. This edict is
signed by the Duke of Newcastle, and must, I fancy, have been
rather a bitter pill for that nobleman. How Steele subsequently
conducted himself, and how much interest he took in the theatre,
Cibber very fully relates in the next few pages. After Steele's
death a new Patent was granted to Cibber, Wilks, and Booth, as
will be related further on. It may be noted here, however, that the
date of the new Patent proves conclusively that Steele's grant was
never superseded. The new power was dated July 3rd, 1731, but
it did not take effect till September 1st, 1732, exactly three years
after Steele's death, according to the terms of his original Patent.
[150] This is one of Cibber's bad blunders. The Case was heard in
1728. Genest (iii. 208) refers to the St. James's Evening Post's
mention of the hearing; and, in the Burney MSS. in the British
Museum, a copy of the paragraph is given. It is not, however, a
cutting, but a manuscript copy. "Saty. Feb. 17. There was an
hearing in the Rolls Chapel in a Cause between Sir Richard Steele,
Mr. Cibber, Mr. Wilks, and others belonging to Drury-Lane Theatre,
which held five hours—one of which was taken up by a speech of
Mr. Wilks, which had so good an effect, that the Cause went
against Sir Richard Steele."—St. James's Evening Post, Feb. 17 to
Feb. 20, 1728. In its next issue, Feb. 20 to Feb. 22, it corrects the
blunder which it had made in attributing Cibber's speech to Wilks.
[151] This was in the Dedication to "Ximena." The passage will be
found quoted by me in a note on page 163 of this volume.
[152] Cibber himself, of course.
[153] This Coronation was tacked to the play of "Henry VIII.,"
which was revived at Drury Lane on 26th October, 1727. Special
interest attached to it on account of the recent Coronation of
George II.
[154] This was in 1718. On 24th September, 1718, the bills
announce "the same Entertainments that were performed
yesterday before his Majesty at Hampton Court."
[155] In Whitelocke's "Memorials" there is an account of a
Masque played in 1633, before Charles I. and his Queen, by the
gentlemen of the Temple, which cost £21,000.
[156] The Earl of Burlington.
[157] "Calisto" was published in 1675. Genest (i. 181) says:
"Cibber, with his usual accuracy as to dates, supposes that
Crowne was selected to write a mask for the Court in preference
to Dryden, through the influence of the Duke of Buckingham, who
was offended at what Dryden had said of him in Absalom and
Achitophel—Dryden's poem was not written till 1681—Lord
Rochester was the person who recommended Crowne." I may add
that Dryden furnished an Epilogue to "Calisto," which was not
spoken.
[158] Boman, or Bowman, was born about 1651, and lived till
23rd March, 1739. He made his first appearance about 1673, and
acted to within a few months of his death, having thus been on
the stage for the extraordinary period of sixty-five years. He was
very sensitive on the subject of his age, and, if asked how old he
was, only replied, that he was very well. Davies speaks highly of
Boman's acting in his extreme old age ("Dram. Misc.," i. 286 and
ii. 100). Mrs. Boman was the adopted daughter of Betterton.
[159] Bishop Burnet.
[160] First edition, vol. i.
[161] Davies ("Dram. Misc.," i. 365) says: "Wolsey's filching from
his royal master the honour of bestowing grace and pardon on
the subject, appeared so gross and impudent a prevarication,
that, when this play was acted before George I. at Hampton-
Court, about the year 1717, the courtiers laughed so loudly at this
ministerial craft, that his majesty, who was unacquainted with the
English language, asked the lord-chamberlain the meaning of
their mirth; upon being informed of it, the king joined in a laugh
of approbation." Davies adds that this scene "was not unsuitably
represented by Colley Cibber;" but, in scenes requiring dignity or
passion, he expresses an unfavourable opinion of Cibber's playing.
[162] From the Lord Chamberlain's Records it is clear that £10
was the fee for a play at Whitehall during the time of Charles I. If
the performance was at Hampton Court, or if it took place at such
a time of day as to prevent the ordinary playing at the theatre,
£20 was allowed.
[163] The warrant for the payment of these performances is
dated 15th November, 1718. The expenses incurred by the actors
amounted to £374 1s. 8d., and the present given by the King, as
Cibber states, was £200; the total payment being thus £574 1s.
8d.
[164] M. Perrin, the late manager of the Theatre Français, was
virulently attacked for giving la jeune troupe no opportunities, and
so doing nothing to provide successors to the great actors of his
time.
[165] After the death of Wilks and Booth, and the retirement of
Cibber, the stage experienced a period of dulness, which was the
natural result of the want of good young talent in the lifetime of
the old actors. Such periods seem to recur at stated intervals in
the history of the stage.
[166] "Venice Preserved" was acted at the Haymarket on 22nd
February, 1707, but Dr. Burney's MSS. do not give the cast. On
15th November, 1707, Pierre was played by Mills.
[167] For an account of this matter, see ante, page 70.
[168] Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 255) has the following interesting
statement regarding Cibber and Wilks, which he gives on Victor's
authority:—
"However Colley may complain, in his Apology, of Wilks's fire and
impetuosity, he in general was Cibber's great admirer; he
supported him on all occasions, where his own passion or interest
did not interpose; nay, he deprived the inoffensive Harry Carey of
the liberty of the scenes, because he had, in common with others,
made merry with Cibber in a song, on his being appointed poet
laureat; saying at the same time, he was surprised at his
impertinence, in behaving so improperly to a man of such great
merit."
[169] John Dennis, in an advertisement to the "Invader of his
Country," remarks on this foible. He says:—
"I am perfectly satisfied that any Author who brings a Play to
Drury-Lane, must, if 'tis a good one, be sacrificed to the Jealousie
of this fine Writer, unless he has either a powerful Cabal, or
unless he will flatter Mr. Robert Wilks, and make him believe that
he is an excellent Tragedian." The "fine Writer" is, of course,
Cibber.
[170] "In the trajedy of Mackbeth, where Wilks acts the Part of a
Man whose Family has been murder'd in his Absence, the
Wildness of his Passion, which is run over in a Torrent of
calamitous Circumstances, does but raise my Spirits and give me
the Alarm; but when he skilfully seems to be out of Breath, and is
brought too low to say more; and upon a second Reflection, cry,
only wiping his Eyes, What, both my Children! Both, both my
Children gone—There is no resisting a Sorrow which seems to
have cast about for all the Reasons possible for its Consolation,
but has no Recource. There is not one left, but both, both are
murdered! Such sudden Starts from the Thread of the Discourse,
and a plain Sentiment express'd in an artless Way, are the
irresistible Strokes of Eloquence and Poetry."—"Tatler," No. 68,
September 15th, 1709.
The extraordinary language of Macduff is quoted from Davenant's
mutilation of Shakespeare's play. Obviously it is not Shakespeare's
language.
[171] Charles Williams was a young actor of great promise, who
died in 1731. On the production of Thomson's "Sophonisba" at
Drury Lane, on February 28th, 1730, Cibber played Scipio, but
was so hissed by a public that would not suffer him in tragic
parts, that he resigned the character to Williams. (See Footnote
201, vol. i. anchored on page 179.) This would seem to indicate
that Williams was an actor of some position, for Scipio is a good
part.
[172] "In the strong expression of horror on the murder of the
King, and the loud exclamations of surprize and terror, Booth
might have exceeded the utmost efforts of Wilks. But, in the
touches of domestic woe, which require the feelings of the tender
father and the affectionate husband, Wilks had no equal. His skill,
in exhibiting the emotions of the overflowing heart with
corresponding look and action, was universally admired and felt.
His rising, after the suppression of his anguish, into ardent and
manly resentment, was highly expressive of noble and generous
anger."—"Dram. Misc.," ii. 183.
[173] This revival took place 11th January, 1726. The play was
acted eleven times.
[174] Jeremy Collier specially attacked Vanbrugh and his
comedies for their immorality and profanity, and for their abuse of
the clergy. Even less strict critics than Collier considered
Vanbrugh's pieces as more indecent than the average play. Thus
the author of "Faction Display'd," 1704, writes:—

"Van's Baudy, Plotless Plays were once our boast,

But now the Poet's in the Builder lost."
[175] Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 455) says that he supposes
Cibber prevailed upon Vanbrugh to alter the disguise which Sir
John Brute assumes from a clergyman's habit to that of a woman
of fashion.
[176] Sir John Brute.
[177] Cibber's meaning is not very clear, but if he intends to
convey the idea that it was for this revival that Vanbrugh made
these alterations, he is probably wrong, for when the play was
revived at the Haymarket, on 19th January, 1706, it was
announced as "with alterations."
[178] Mrs. Oldfield played Lady Brute, whose lover Constant is.
[179] Wilks played Constant; Booth, Heartfree; and Cibber, Sir
John Brute.
[180] Cibber begins the seventh chapter of this work with an
account of Betterton's troubles as a manager. See vol. i. p. 227.
See also vol. i. p. 315.
[181]

"Ye Gods, what Havock does Ambition make

Among your Works!"—"Cato," act i. sc. 1.
[182]

"And, in despair their empty pit to fill,

Set up some Foreign monster in a bill.
Thus they jog on, still tricking, never thriving,
And murdering plays, which they miscall reviving."
"Address to Granville, on his Tragedy, Heroic
Love."
[183] "During Booth's inability to act, ... Wilks was called upon to
play two of his parts—Jaffier, and Lord Hastings in Jane Shore.
Booth was, at times, in all other respects except his power to go
on the stage, in good health, and went among the players for his
amusement His curiosity drew him to the playhouse on the nights
when Wilks acted these characters, in which himself had
appeared with uncommon lustre. All the world admired Wilks,
except his brother-manager: amidst the repeated bursts of
applause which he extorted, Booth alone continued silent."—
Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 256).
[184] Aaron Hill, quoted by Victor in his "Life of Barton Booth,"
page 32, says: "The Passions which he found in Comedy were not
strong enough to excite his Fire; and what seem'd Want of
Qualification, was only Absence of Impression."
[185] Wilks can have seen Mountfort only in his early career, for
he did not leave Ireland till, at least, 1692; and in that year
Mountfort was killed.
[186] Wilks first played Othello in this country on June 22nd,
1710, for Cibber's benefit. Steele draws attention to the event in
"Tatler," No. 187, and in No. 188 states his intention of stealing
out to see it, "out of Curiosity to observe how Wilks and Cibber
touch those Places where Betterton and Sandford so very highly
excelled." Cibber was the Iago on this occasion. Steele probably
found little to praise in either.
[187] The Earl of Essex, in Banks's "Unhappy Favourite," was one
of Wilks's good parts, in which Steele ("Tatler," No. 14) specially
praises him. Booth acted the part at Drury Lane on November
25th, 1709.
[188] See Cibber on Betterton's Hamlet and on Wilks's mistakes in
the part, vol. i. page 100.
[189] In the Theatre Français a similar arrangement holds to this
day, Tuesday being now the fashionable night. M. Perrin, the late
manager, was accused of a too great attention to his Abonnés du
Mardi, to the detriment of the theatre and of the general public.
[190] See ante, vol. i. page 234.
[191] Arcangelo Corelli, a famous Italian musician, born 1653,
died 1713, who has been called the father of modern instrumental
music.
[192] Jeanne Catherine Gaussin, a very celebrated actress of the
Comédie Française, was the original representative of Zaïre, in
Voltaire's tragedy, to which Cibber refers. She made her first
Parisian appearance in 1731; she retired in 1763, and died on 9th
June, 1767. Voltaire's "Zaïre" owed much of its success to her
extraordinary ability.
[193] Cibber has been strongly censured for his treatment of
authors. "The Laureat" gives the following account of an author's
experiences: "The Court sitting, Chancellor Cibber (for the other
two, like M——rs in Chancery, sat only for Form sake, and did not
presume to judge) nodded to the Author to open his Manuscript.
The Author begins to read, in which if he failed to please the
Corrector, he wou'd condescend sometimes to read it for him:
When, if the play strook him very warmly, as it wou'd if he found
any Thing new in it, in which he conceived he cou'd particularly
shine as an Actor, he would lay down his Pipe, (for the Chancellor
always smoaked when he made a Decree) and cry, By G—d there
is something in this: I do not know but it may do; but I will play
such a Part. Well, when the Reading was finished, he made his
proper Corrections and sometimes without any Propriety; nay,
frequently he very much and very hastily maimed what he
pretended to mend" (p. 95). The author also accuses Cibber of
delighting in repulsing dramatic writers, which he called
"Choaking of Singing birds." However, in Cibber's defence,
Genest's opinion may be quoted (iii. 346): "After all that has been
said against Chancellor Cibber, it does not appear that he often
made a wrong decree: most of the good plays came out at Drury
Lane—nor am I aware that Cibber is much to be blamed for
rejecting any play, except the Siege of Damascus in the first
instance."
[194] In the preface to "The Lunatick" (1705) the actors are
roundly abused; but the most amusing attack on actors is in the
following title-page: "The Sham Lawyer: or the Lucky
Extravagant. As it was Damnably Acted at the Theatre-Royal in
Drury Lane." This play, by Drake, was played in 1697, and among
the cast were Cibber, Bullock, Johnson, Haines, and Pinkethman.
Bellchambers notes: "Such was the case in Dennis's 'Comic
Gallant,' where one of the actors, whom I believe to be Bullock, is
most severely handled." I think he is wrong in imagining Bullock
to be the actor criticised. Dennis says that Falstaffe was the
character that was badly sustained, and I cannot believe Bullock's
position would entitle him to play that part in 1702. Genest (ii.
250) suggests Powell as the delinquent.
[195] Cibber's account of Booth is so complete that there is little
to be added to it. Booth was born in 1681, and was of a good
English family. He first appeared in Dublin in 1698, under Ashbury,
but returned to England in 1700, and joined the Lincoln's Inn
Fields Company. He followed the fortunes of Betterton until, as
related by Cibber in Chapter XII., the secession of 1709 occurred.
From that point to his retirement the only event demanding
special notice is his marriage with Hester Santlow (see p. 96 of
this volume). This took place in 1719, and was the cause of much
criticism and slander, some of which Bellchambers reproduces
with evident gusto. I do not repeat his statements, because I
consider them wildly extravagant. They are fully refuted by
Booth's will, from the terms of which it is clear that his marriage
was a happy one, and that he esteemed his wife as well as loved
her. Booth's illness, to which Cibber refers above, seized him early
in the season of 1726-27, and though after it he was able to play
occasionally, he was never restored to health. His last appearance
was on 9th January, 1728, but he lived till 10th May, 1733.
[196] See memoir of Mrs. Oldfield at end of volume.
[197] Mrs. Porter met with the accident referred to in the summer
of 1731. See Davies, "Dram. Misc.," iii. 495. She returned to the
stage in January, 1733.
[198] Wilks died 27th September, 1732. He was of English
parentage, and was born near Dublin, whither his father had
removed, about 1665. He was in a Government office, but about
1691 he gave this up, and went on the stage. After a short
probation in Dublin he came over to London, and was engaged by
Rich, with whom he remained till about 1695. He returned to
Dublin, and became so great a favourite there, that it is said that
the Lord Lieutenant issued a warrant to prevent his leaving again
for London. However, he came to Drury Lane about 1698, and
from that time his fortunes are closely interwoven with Cibber's,
and are fully related by him.
[199] "The Laureat," p. 96: "As to the Occasion of your parting
with your Share of the Patent, I cannot think you give us the true
Reason; for I have been very well inform'd, it was the Intention,
not only of you, but of your Brother Menagers, as soon as you
could get the great Seal to your Patent, (which stuck for some
Time, the then Lord Chancellor not being satisfied in the Legality
of the Grant) to dispose it to the best Bidder. This was at first kept
as a Secret among you; but as soon as the Grant was
compleated, you sold to the first who wou'd come up to your
Price."
[200] Among the Lord Chamberlain's Papers is a copy of a
warrant to prepare this Patent. It is dated 15th May, 1731, and
the Patent itself is dated 3rd July, 1731, though it did not take
effect till 1st September, 1732. The reason for this is noted on
page 196.
[201] "The Grub-Street Journal," 7th June, 1733, says: "One little
Creature, only the Deputy and Representative of his Father, was
turbulent enough to balk their Measures, and counterbalance all
the Civility and Decency in the other scale.... To remedy this, the
Gentleman who bought into the Patent first, purchased his
Father's Share, and set him down in the same obscure Place from
whence he rose."
[202] In "The Case of John Mills, James Quin," &c., given in Theo.
Cibber's "Dissertations" (Appendix, p. 48), it is stated that "such
has been the Inveteracy of some of the late Patentees to the
Actors, that when Mrs. Booth, Executrix of her late Husband,
Barton Booth, Esq; sold her sixth part of the Patent to Mr. Giffard,
she made him covenant, not to sell or assign it to Actors."
[203] "I must own, I was heartily disgusted with the Conduct of
the Family of the Cibbers on this Occasion, and had frequent and
violent Disputes with Father and Son, whenever we met! It
appeared to me something shocking that the Son should
immediately render void, and worthless, what the Father had just
received Thirty-one Hundred and Fifty Pounds for, as a valuable
Consideration."—Victor's "History," i. 14.
[204] Cibber, in Chapter VIII. (vol. i. p. 283), alludes to this trial,
and gives the first of these two suppositions as the reason of
Harper's acquittal, but Victor ("History," i. 24) says that he has
been informed that this is an error.
[205] "He was a Man of Humanity and strict Honour; many
Instances fatally proved, that his Word, when solemnly given,
(which was his Custom) was sufficient for the Performance,
though ever so injurious to himself."—Victor's "History," i. 25.
[206] See ante, Chapter IX. (vol. i. Footnote 367 anchored on
page 330)
[207] "The clamour against the author, whose presumption was
highly censured for daring to alter Shakspeare, increased to such
a height, that Colley, who had smarted more than once for
dabbling in tragedy, went to the playhouse, and, without saying a
word to any body, took the play from the prompter's desk, and
marched off with it in his pocket."—"Dram. Misc.," i. 5.
[208] Produced at the Haymarket, 1737.
[209]

"Enter Ground-Ivy.
Ground. What are you doing here?
Apollo. I am casting the Parts in the Tragedy of King John.
Ground. Then you are casting the Parts in a Tragedy that
won't do.
 Apollo. How, Sir! Was it not written by Shakespear, and was
not Shakespear one of the greatest Genius's that ever lived?
Ground. No, Sir, Shakespear was a pretty Fellow, and said
some things that only want a little of my licking to do well
enough; King John, as now writ, will not do——But a Word in
your Ear, I will make him do.
Apollo. How?
Ground. By Alteration, Sir; it was a Maxim of mine when I
was at the Head of Theatrical Affairs, that no Play, tho' ever
so good, would do without Alteration."—"Historical Register,"
act iii. sc. 1.

[210] These appearances took place on January 12th, 13th, and

14th, 1741.
[211] Fondlewife's pet name for his wife Lætitia.
[212] Lætitia's pet name for Fondlewife. See vol. i. page 206.
[213] An allusion to his own phrase in the Preface to "The
Provoked Husband." See vol. i. page 51.
Tha
[214] The name "Susannah Maria" naturally suggests Susanna
Maria Arne, the wife of Theo. Cibber; but the anecdote cannot
refer to her, because she was married in 1734, some years before
Cibber began his "Apology."
[215] Davies ("Dram. Misc.," iii. 501) says: "Mr. Garrick asked him
[Cibber] if he had not in his possession, a comedy or two of his
own writing.—'What then?' said Cibber.—'I should be glad to have
the honour of bringing it into the world.'—'Who have you to act
it?'—'Why, there are (said Garrick) Clive and Pritchard, myself,
and some others,' whom he named.—'No! (said the old man,
taking a pinch of snuff, with great nonchalance) it won't do.'"
Davies (iii. 502) relates how Garrick drew on himself a rebuke
from Cibber. Discussing in company the old school, "Garrick
observed that the old style of acting was banishing the stage, and
would not go down. 'How do you know? (said Cibber); you never
tried it.'"
[216] "Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John."
King John Mr. Quin.
Arthur, his Nephew Miss J. Cibber.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookname.com