I

‘There were embellishments to various editions from the time of Rowe, chiefly of a theatrical character, and, for the most part, thoroughly unnatural’; ‘Of course they are comically bad’; ‘Imagination was subordinated to a realistic portrayal of the modes of the contemporary theatre’; ‘a hodgepodge in conception, rising occasionally to mediocrity’.

It is hard to argue that the draughtsmanship of the frontispiece engravings to Rowe’s edition of 1709 is not severely limited. Their wooden figures, cast in stereotypical poses, placed within settings drawn with rigidly symmetrical perspective, fail to convince present-day readers, seeming to lack either specific theatrical reference or naturalistic presentation. But the critical judgments quoted above, and the many others of which they are representative, reveal a mindset nurtured on ideas of simple visual record that ignores the tradition through which the engravings operate – a tradition that should be regarded not as a weak stumbling towards naturalistic representation but as a powerful alternative to it, in which design and emblem convey narrative and concept through composition and allusion. At a time when criticism is embryonic and performance limited to a handful of plays, and as much concerned with adaptation as interpretation, they offer readings that have much to disclose about the plays and contemporary stances towards them.