vi 894 
 WEP 2 aN HE h 
 
 hi ‘ 
 Spee Ceo) 
 
 4 i uh 
 ee) a 
 See 
 
 is $9" % 
 A sds ae tit 
 ive elatat id Ae 
 yt Bot! ee ety agersy i's: 
 Ca * +-* 9749 OF *pre 42 a) ote bel 
 ARADO eR Ny PPh urate te i  trye ee Vom me Oa Bh ik) nae NAR ne 
 4.94.29 O10 O70. Wl O88 alsa latin eerste ated wba ora aa4:ba0g8. 8 O58 OY 1 Od Oe ah FSP e PH 
 Pere ws: tee bose iidauteataitesalrel Maat aicerunnetys mae ermatie nea 
 teh HRV Ri RIL SG Lem Bat A el ALR EVE LS ie CHUM CPU rurechet: her tone ea a 
 SOU i Ok aan aN ihe hth w Beit i) 94,9 8099959 96-4924 )0. 0:05 0-015 SiMe aad fh Vaseonrh wad 
 oo WO a PAcwiM TH AWA OWI a Te A428 9740099 4a Pago etre oN t 4/8880 A 8 PU te Oe 
 tines 009 4.494 84 €¢ aa gm $11,928 S98 8D ey PADRE tebe beer BC BRC Ce PU 
 4 Nh hehe rH Pew OOKC RL Ae ePeO mem MM eC MRC Be MMS Be) 
 - ao be ee dG re Lk eee 
 
 46 6:6 G08 8.6 4a) Tae 
 ’ "4 th, & at & 8G Par Mel Phe aC wr ELI OY rl He t 7 ” 
 4! : URI R RRNA RM Sa (e804 Ege 68 od On i toe 
 6.4 0.4.9 144-904 618 99.9 470.48 0 08 Od iW o ated ed Wet 0 series The DG AGH Fe OG OG ed 
 , i) . + 4 : tare ny of SEA NN 
 a4 «0? 
 
 ot “hk 
 rai \ 
 
 ag Peed ) i gh J 
 Saya eh 8 6.6 4-401,0 9905 
 
 RESON hia , “) 
 4 wheG Sr PPS whe 
 ~q-4 } 
 
 i438 
 * sob" 
 6 > 8 4 deel hf 8 Hot Gite “3 4h tee 
 aad SSS nN AN ND 
 eee 1% ar rH Sa) noe 
 SUA Lo wae HOE ho ICE Cac t Dian 
 TLR AT Joma Mulpae Rie ai Ee q400 
 $ h- , 4479-8 Ard va! 
 eueaee vane 4 ee setateti te af 
 Ri tie B02 9 Gated ee we A. 
 My apes AD 828 Or 44 Reta steht 
 
 ase. % ! 
 : APJ wh 4 | p74 31329 ale ead Ff of . 
 ae 4 {79 4.9758 28% 4 OSS AN ae $4, Gah aWaas he 
 44 4:46 6.4-% citation ass etal ba As til ine 
 ee eu RS rey 
 . Oh8 ERAT: 
 
 se tecwothM. way Hate ty PA i A ee ny 
 : ‘ a 
 
 a en! 4 
 
 » rie, maanooert ih 
 
 UR 
 (ia 
 BOD " i 
 
 RO 
 
 om 
 
 ey i 4 a * 
 
 Wer aie ( ish d Miia 
 
 he a Has oS mons tt bitin 
 4 He Ma) 1) t ; 
 
 ers ake 
 
 ~ J lah Pave: F) iy 4 ay pes ' ¥ inet 
 sGontsetei cans sana guar ean Eocene 
 EYE ye Be De SL I 6:99, 08-829 Meee atte 3 Ai seper 4994 Aas th sia hoaciget 
 ; “i ay oni fi te! PYM Re Ne ‘ity Li at sii Hn it cst Hu . Gains dias! MS Hsia Mt Bia fi 
 ‘) Ye May Nt ii ib Be atatatds i 
 x aneths 3 is 
 4 
 
 mh ae a ee ie ela 
 sta se iM 
 
 Be ni Ds ; : 
 ae a = Me 
 
 ites “ abet 
 etait Mala sicd se iach 
 
 he eke Ch Pali ert fic 
 : ~ EIN rea A, Die 
 Get At ret ed 1b 8 are a8, D “ee ‘oa fee 4a 44 OND mentary a) ox: 
 Tae a9 ot 6 08 Vern AP OU OR EK SAE ANN AWA ) i 
 
 ag @-a 4 i ly vite HORS Batata erase with tits "4 is 
 
 sH54 a te ase 4 ¥ 
 
 aff, ‘n 
 ae So a 
 at 
 
 lhl Ip iain oe 
 
 i 
 
 ine 
 a pit 
 
 a vs 0 i 
 
 Se Sh a es 1A10248 
 95.4 .9,9 C] Wdeleds | ao 499 ra OS 
 eA~6) 9 tan C6554 i 
 
 Baie iowa aaah, 
 SARS i) 
 
 ted! a: 
 aby Mis Ped fared ad. 
 ACPI Kh 
 
 ROE ;- fs 5 A 
 oh Ree i 
 - aM Oshs 43 i 
 
 “et 44 | SEAN A AN 9408 Ma Ta AEE 
 Porgy eve a 4-H aa 29: ican eras 4 
 $9 aad AK 4% x er. gig tata J ay: 
 
 4 is 
 y i qs ie ura ia : 
 \ ae . : : M nite es i 
 het F fh sities ets vant 
 
 4 
 
 aa tias 
 
 PONE aaa 
 rere 
 
 One 4 
 anand 
 
 ay 
 aaa Sarna eb rine Hoe 
 PEPE BO Ws 4M Org 
 aa “4.4 
 4:4 4-404 MriNg itn ) Nica ei; aia 
 
 an ded each’ 
 
 Fe oa 
 
 igh oh 
 ba eos 478-4 ii, if 
 G8 8 6 ed-625-0-0 4 nee Rtg ih wets latest @aaen at WW H FR AAC | is ui ia, ; ; Ot ‘ 
 babe Pare PWS Eee ie OE xy TIS te RU Ae na ie ee ‘4 HH api q 4 “4 fe et 
 ‘ ‘ « (4 rah hcl Set oa 4 a Wee ) af 
 é 42 7 ‘ a4 Per PL ALE “4 OW SE RC A PEELE nity Pt, 
 Pres ae DIAL Ree a 4 a ua ) “ ae 
 
 sisi a's White +5 
 iia 
 a 
 
 fi) 
 ae a 
 
 " 
 Ce Bik be a, 
 ‘- Pa Se 
 
 a \ $: 
 AP ype ie) iF geek 
 ' #4 Na 44H -A0 8 
 " ae 
 
 ry 
 “ial aeaw . 
 ew Uh ny Ceres 
 
 ea hake fe 
 Psatia eh i HH ine na 
 
 ee 
 oe 
 
 ‘i 
 ti ay i th tia, ett 
 rit pr Mai iN eaaiadaty 
 
 bape) wee 
 ita 
 
 is i 
 
 Maes nae 
 
 bad ROMA Ord eee @ 
 
 Pee TP 
 ri 
 
 ia tat Pages 
 Hae wea a 
 {hin ae 
 
 1 ‘ ; 
 ti, on, Ma ‘at 4 vie 
 sais ty ia" ee 
 Aw a ati 
 
 ie 
 4 se 
 
 y 49; oo. 
 
 40:92 10:4 $79 920 0e8 9 BY 
 
 Bork d 4-094. 84 CR ‘ 1) 
 
 AESOP RD ORE ay 
 ; Son ae 
 
 . titel Ast 
 
 alas 7 ss Bh 
 
 aint i is Hi 
 oH 1 bie Wdaticeacesaegchs ha 
 
 Wat ahigdy $) GR We 8 
 
 vip dt adn ea iene bh, 
 " 
 
 sea ni? Wea 
 stores Mi " Hay 
 
 ‘ 1 oA 
 fae ew Yt Vote th 
 
 Waits ath atiostctnesie mts sale ate 
 
 4-0 4 @ 8 Oe 
 aa ow ere hl ake ie \ Gah @ vied geted 
 Ay WC ee Rk are J 
 "ely 6A ta Fs bowed 
 
 Saati are awe 
 > here waite YE he 
 * 1 pity aca 'a'eacese ea! 
 eee ea-t J ae He hy st xii ta ‘ 
 . 4 e J ’ oe 
 anys Ah tala tale : , " RO SRR OR KI Shen 
 odd 9-4. 9.6-4 4-9 O POEs 4 Wr ir wr) ,eagage aak 
 a 2 Sw re wy ee ' Ry ry 
 PEW WILY: BYORI SRL Pay 
 Se ft VW ow Pt } 
 
 pit Wear 
 
ih 
 
Latest Date stamped below, 
 
 Theft, Mutilation, and underlining of books gre reasons 
 for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from 
 the University. A 
 
 To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 
 
 UNIVERSITy OF ILLINOIS LIBRA 
 
 L161—0.109¢6 
 
SPONSIDIEe for Its return to the library trom 
 Which jt was withdrawn On or before the 
 Latest Date Stamped below, 
 
 disciplinary 
 result in dismj 
 UNIVERSiTy OF ILL 
 
 L161 — 0-1096 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding from 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 https://archive.org/details/comedyconscienceOOkrut_1 
 
aE 2, 
 wT" rh 7 
 ‘jaa st | 
 
hos 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN ENGLISH 
 AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE 
 
 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 AFTER THE RESTORATION 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 CoLuMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 New York 
 
 SALES AGENTS 
 
 HUMPHREY MILFORD 
 AMEN CoRNER, E.C. 
 LONDON 
 
 EDWARD EVANS & SONS, LTD. 
 30 NortH §zECHUEN Roap 
 
 SHANGHAI 
 
COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 AFTER THE RESTORATION 
 
 BY 
 JOSEPH WOOD KRUTCH, Pu.D. 
 
 New York 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 1924 
 
Copyright, 1924 
 By CoLuMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 All rights reserved 
 Printed from type. Published October, 1924 
 
 THE PLIMPTON PRESS 
 NORWOOD:MASS:U:5:A 
 
Sect-OF 
 KH? +e 
 
 SACALL 
 
 : 
 
 Mebicated 
 
 Wy Mother 
 
 966279 
 
| a 
 ony 
 rt ARN 
 
 me, 
 "y 
 2 
 
 ‘ Ait 
 eve 
 
 ¢ 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 ERNIE ERIHEY eee et ee Mire. ac cickaleg thalighc eke’ Des eee bl Secs ix 
 THe DervELOPMENT oF THE ResTorATION Comic 
 PEASSIETON GMS cc cfet ch. c's wc otg atte aie ace tion eens 1 
 See A STA CANT MPMOCIIIT YG .< cnc os. kiels a sie she oa era's dere elaae 24 
 PUTT EATEN PUMA TRUE wl aoo yo 5 ood hereto tata tee el aves 48 
 PRA NE Rott TTY CATH LIOCMAR He slack eteeee al ac aba Aieatet nates 72 
 THe ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 22... 08.5.2 eee eee 89 
 THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE (continued) ...... 121 
 THE REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE.... 150 
 THe DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY .... 192 » 
 Tuer THEORY oF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY ......... +) DONS 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY | 
 Some Critical Works Published Between 1660 
 VEC. D5 1 Un ai gio aly Be Wg CAPT coc ted Op UP ELMO Ge. 259 
 
 Pere eOsnler: CODLTOVOIBY: {a creetcintata etetd sivemsecie eta 264 
 
 vil 
 
we: a 
 Te te) ey 
 : $7 ee, + 
 are bh Veg 4 
 Vie RRM L 
 
 oe aly ay 
 
 Wri OPTS 
 
 i 
 o 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 THE following book was completed in the Summer of 
 1920. Various circumstances which have arisen have 
 made it impossible for me to publish it before now and, 
 though I have grown increasingly sensible of its defects, 
 the pressure of other work has prevented me from making 
 any revisions since its completion. 
 
 When I first began my investigations it was my inten- 
 tion simply to study the controversy which arose over 
 Jeremy Collier’s attack upon the theater but I soon dis- 
 covered that this attack was not an isolated phenomenon 
 and was led further and further afield until I was com- 
 pelled to trace the various influences which led to the 
 decline of the Restoration Comedy and the rise of the 
 Sentimental Comedy by considering the general social and 
 literary history of the times. The present book is, there- 
 fore, an account of several more or less separated inove- 
 ments in literature and morals which converge towards a 
 single point. 
 
 As is usual in the case of such a book, there are too 
 many indebtednesses to be mentioned; but in addition to a 
 general acknowledgment of the services of the authorities 
 of Columbia University, the British Museum, and the 
 Public Records Office in London, I wish to tender thanks 
 to the following persons: to Professor W. P. Trent, whose 
 enormous general knowledge of the seventeenth and eight- 
 eenth centuries is matched only by his tolerance of people 
 who know little, for much counsel; to my friend Professor 
 ‘Mark Van Doren, both for specific information and for the 
 
 ix 
 
x FOREWORD 
 
 effect of his contagious enthusiasm for the writers of the 
 Restoration; to my brother Charles E. Krutch, for con- 
 tinuous interest and encouragement;:and to my wife, for 
 much help including the reading of the proofs. 
 
 New York Crry. 
 April, 1924. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESTORATION 
 COMIC TRADITION 
 
 “T wit. answer for the poets, that no one ever wrote 
 baudry for any other reason but dearth of invention,” 
 said the Spectator, but he was speaking as a moralist, and 
 no one who reads fairly the comedy of the Restoration 
 period can fail to see that men such as Congreve succeeded 
 frequently in being supremely witty and outrageously in- 
 decent at one and the same time. 
 
 As immoral as it was brilliant, is the conventional char- 
 acterization of Restoration comedy; and as we wish to 
 approach the subject first in its most superficial aspect, 
 we can do no better than accept this conventional judg- 
 ment, insisting only that sufficient emphasis be provided 
 for both of the adjectives.” A reader may be blinded by 
 its brilliance, as Lamb was, and see only the wit; or he 
 may be a Puritan and see only the immorality, but both 
 elements are there to a degree seldom matched elsewhere. 
 
 It is by no means impossible to take exception to the 
 Elizabethan drama, especially if one include under this 
 term some of the later plays of Fletcher and Shirley, 
 which, in fact, contain the germ of the later comedy. The 
 latter’s “‘Changes ” as we shall see later is loose enough, 
 and yet considering as a whole the drama before and after 
 the Commonwealth, one cannot but feel immediately the 
 difference in the atmosphere. There is much that is 
 naive in the earlier drama, but sophistication and super- 
 sophistication characterize that of the Restoration. Eliza- 
 
 1 
 
aeoene® 
 
 Pia 
 f ” 
 f: 
 * 
 
 V 
 
 2 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 bethan plays were much occupied with vice, it is true, but 
 vice was still, theoretically at least, “a creature of hideous 
 mien,” while the Restoration dramatist, in spite of all 
 protests of a satiric intention, often looked upon it toler- 
 antly or, at best, cynically. There is a good deal of faith 
 in human nature in the Elizabethan drama, especially in 
 its earlier period, but after the Restoration such faith is 
 almost dead. That society is wholly base, the dramatists 
 seem ready to admit, whether they accept this fact with 
 heartless calmness as Etherege did, or fulminate with what 
 seems to me the genuine bitterness and disgust of Wycher- 
 ley. There is corruption enough in the Elizabethan drama, 
 but there is also an abundance of ‘“ chaste maids” and 
 other models of virtue sadly lacking in the drama which we 
 are about to discuss. Here the pursuit of women is re- 
 garded as the regular occupation of most men, and a faith- 
 ful wife or a “ chaste maid” are decided exceptions. 
 
 The Restoration Comedies belong almost exclusively to 
 one type — what we call “ society comedy ” or the “ comedy 
 of manners.” ‘The scene is usually London, and the chief 
 persons, with few exceptions, members of high society. 
 If the country or any city besides London is introduced, it 
 
 is only for the purpose of ridicule. ‘“‘ The country is as 
 
 ‘ terrible, I find, to our English ladies, as a monastery to 
 
 t 
 f 
 
 those abroad; and on my virginity, I think they would 
 rather marry a London gaoler, than a high sheriff of a 
 county, since neither can stir from his employment,” says 
 one of the characters in ‘‘ The Country Wife,” and the atti- 
 tude is typical. The scene moves usually in a restricted 
 circle: the drawing room, the park, the bed chamber, the 
 
 tavern, then the drawing room again, through which 
 
 scenes move a set of ever recurring types—the graceful 
 
 oe 
 
 young rake, the faithless wife, the deceived husband, and, 
 
 perhaps, a charming young heroine who is to be bestowed 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMIC TRADITION 3 
 
 in the end on the rake. Shadwell (who himself sometimes 
 wrote very much the kind of thing he complained against) 
 described the type in a preface to “ The Sullen Lovers.” 
 “In the plays which have been wrote of late,” he says, 
 “there is no such thing as a perfect character, but the two 
 chief persons are commonly a swearing, drinking, whoring 
 ruffian for a lover, and an impudent ill-bred tomrig for a 
 mistress — and there is that latitude in this, that almost 
 anything is proper for them to say ; but their chief subject 
 is bawdy and profaneness.” 
 
 This characterization is but little different from the de- 
 scription given by Jeremy Collier in his ‘ Short View of 
 the Immorality and Pz Oe of the English Stage.” “A 
 fine gentleman,” he says, “is a fine whoring, swearing, 
 smutty, atheistical man. These qualifications it seems 
 complete the idea of honor. They are the top improve- 
 ments of fortune, and the distinguishing glories of birth 
 and breeding! This is the stage-test for quality, and those 
 that can’t stand it, ought to be disclaim’d.” Says 
 Farquhar: * “ A play without a beau, cully, cuckold, or co- 
 quette, is as poor an entertainment to some palates, as their 
 Sunday’s dinner would be without beef and pudding” 
 and the same author, this time in the prologue to his “ Sir 
 Harry Wildair,”’ sums up better than is to be found 
 anywhere else the aim and practice of the Restoration 
 dramatist. 
 
 “From musty books let others take their view, 
 
 He hates dull reading but he studies you. 
 * ak * * * ca ok x 
 
 Thus then, the pit and boxes are his schools, 
 “Your air, your humor, his dramatic rules. 
 
 Let critics censure then, and hiss like snakes, 
 
 He gains his ends, if his light fancy takes 
 
 St. James’s beaux and Covent Garden rakes.” 
 
 1 Preface to The Twin Rivals. 
 
4 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 It is not merely the looseness, but also the hardness of 
 the dramatic heroes which disgusts one. The world is usu- 
 ally pretty willing to forgive the young rake, if he is 
 represented as gay and thoughtless, but the absolute bru- 
 tality of some of the so-called heroes is appalling. Take 
 the case of Etherege’s “The Man of Mode,” which Steele, 
 writing over thirty years after its original production, 
 acknowledges to be still regarded in his time as “the 
 pattern of genteel comedy.”’ When the play opens, Dori- 
 mant, the hero, is entangled in three love affairs belonging 
 to the past, present, and future. He is seeking to break off 
 the old affair with one Mrs. Loveit by interposing his 
 present love Emilia, while at the same time his imagina- 
 tion is fired by the sight of Harriet, whom I have described 
 as the future love. In one act, Emilia, who is a girl of 
 his own social position, is seen leaving his room; in the 
 following he arranges marriage with Harriet. When 
 Emilia reproaches him, Harriet takes his part and exclaims 
 feelingly to Emilia, “Mr. Dorimant has been your God 
 Almighty long enough. ’Tis time for you to think of 
 another.” 
 
 If any excuse is to be made for the men, it is that the 
 women are as eager to be pursued as the men to pursue 
 them. Says Lady Fidget in “ The Country Wife”: ‘“ We 
 think wildness in a man is as desirable a quality as in a 
 duck or a rabbit. A tame man! Foh!” 
 
 Another type of character which belongs, more or less 
 exclusively, to the Restoration drama, is the so-called false 
 ingenue, whose characteristic is ignorance but not inno- 
 cence. Mrs. Pinchwife in “The Country Wife” and Miss 
 Prue in “ Love for Love” are good examples. Vanbrugh 
 has.two, Hoyden in “ The Relapse’ and Corinna in “ The 
 Confederacy.” The type, no doubt, was derived from 
 “T’Ecole des Femmes” of Moliére. Sometimes it is very 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMIC TRADITION 5 
 
 amusing, but it is indicative of the sophistication of the 
 times, which substituted the highly seasoned piquancy 
 of such indelicate characters for the simplicity of a 
 Miranda. 
 
 It would be rash indeed to accuse any age of exceptional 
 immorality because it made fun of marriage, since all ages © 
 apparently have done so; but one can at least say that 
 the dramatists of the Restoration worked this ever popu- 
 lar field more completely than had been done before. 
 Since praise of marriage came to be one of the favorite 
 themes of the later and reformed comedy, attention may be 
 directed to the reverse here. If the pursuit of women was 
 the prigcipal business of life for the characters of these 
 comedies, marriage was the most dreaded calamity, and 
 that love was strong indeed which would submit to it. 
 Heartfree, in Vanbrugh’s ‘“‘ The Provoked Wife,” breaks 
 out with this passionate declaration of his passion: “I 
 could love you even to matrimony itself, a-most, egad,” and, 
 though many comedies end with the marriage, no happy 
 married couples figure on the stage. Young Maggot in 
 Shadwell’s “A True Widow ”’ is afraid to marry for fear 
 that this would cause him to lose his reputation as a wit, and 
 the sacredness with which the marriage ceremony was held 
 is revealed in the speech with which the father in “ Sir Fop- 
 ling Flutter ” orders the priest to perform the ceremony over 
 his daughter, asking him to ‘‘ commission a young couple to 
 go to bed together i’ God’s name.”” One more quotation, and 
 we are done with this phase of the matter. It is from 
 Dryden’s “ Marriage a la Mode.” Rodophil is tired of his 
 wife, though she is young, amiable, and beautiful. 
 
 “ Palamede: But here are good qualities enough for 
 
 one woman. 
 
 Rhodophil: Ay, too many, Palamede. If I could put 
 
 them into three or four women, I should be content.” 
 
6 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 Before attempting to define or analyze any more closely 
 the characteristics of the later seventeenth century com- 
 edy, it will be as well to attempt to trace its development, 
 and to find out when and by what stages it differentiated 
 itself from the comedy of the earlier part of the century. 
 Let it be remembered also that to say that such-and-such 
 a famous work is the first novel, or the first novel of 
 character, or the first comedy of manners, is, ordinarily, to 
 display ignorance rather than knowledge. Types do not 
 leap. into being full formed, but are ordinarily fore- 
 shadowed by a series of works in which peculiarities of the 
 developed form show more and more plainly. Thus the 
 plays of Wycherley, or Farquhar, are obviously a distinct 
 species, recognized immediately as belonging to their kind, 
 not to an earlier one, yet it is impossible to say that anyone 
 invented this type. “It is possible, however, to watch the 
 gradual emergence of the characteristics which distinguish 
 it, as they appear in plays related on the other hand to 
 another species. Sir George Etherege, being the first author 
 to attain very great reputation as a writer of comedies of 
 manners, is sometimes given credit for their invention. 
 Yet Etherege learned much from others, and his own three 
 plays offer in themselves a remarkable example of the 
 evolution of a type, the first being an uncertain feeling out, 
 and the last a finished performance. But it must be re- 
 membered that in the years that intervened between his 
 first and last play, others from whom he learned much 
 were also experimenting. 
 
 Before examining the works of some of the less dis- 
 tinguished playwrights, it will be necessary to define 
 the Restoration»Comedy..of-manners.— a task which will 
 not be difficult after what has been said. They are, briefly, 
 rcomedies depicting realistically and in a sinister spirit 
 ‘the life of the most dissolute portion of the fashionable 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMIC TRADITION 7 
 
 | society of the city. The hero is ordinarily a man pursuing’ 
 ' the pleasures of drink, play, and love, with a complete 
 disregard for the well being of others; and the heroine is 
 @ woman whose scruples, if she has any, are based on 
 prudence rather than virtue. Great emphasis is laid on 
 repartee for its own sake, and upon epigrams propounding — 
 an elaborate and systematic code of immorality. | 
 
 This highly sophisticated offspring was derived from the 
 union of certain elements of the old comedy of Humours 
 with_certain_elements in the romantic plays of the same 
 period. From the former it took its realism, and from the 
 latter hints in the handling of dialogue, while it intensified 
 the tendency to coarseness often observable in both. Ben 
 Jonson had given a picture of the bottom of society, so that 
 we might call his plays comedies of bad manners. Fletcher 
 had elaborated the play of courtly characters, but chose 
 usually to lay his scenes in remote or imaginary countries. 
 The writers of the Restoration borrowed-from both, pre- 
 senting a picture as realistic as that of Jonson, but of a 
 society as cultivated as that in the imaginary courts of 
 Fletcher. Their characters might be no more decent than 
 Jonson’s, but they were more_refined. They gave their 
 rogues the manners of gentlemen, and, be it added, ap- 
 parently thought that they were gentlemen. As Voltaire 
 put it more wittily and cynically * when speaking of Con- 
 greve, ‘ The language is everywhere that of men of honor, 
 but their actions are those of knaves; a proof that he 
 [Congreve] was perfectly well acquainted with human na- 
 ture, and frequented what we call polite company.” 
 
 The relationship between Jonson, and the Restoration 
 Comedy has not been sufficiently emphasized. A play like 
 “Love for Love” may seem a long way from one by 
 
 Jonson, but by the aid of certain intermediary forms 
 | 1 Letters Concerning the English Nation. 1733. 
 
Sr COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 (to be discussed later) the relationship may be more 
 easily detected. Both are realistic portrayals of contem- 
 porary manners, the one of low life, and the other of high. 
 The tricks practiced in the later plays are not those of 
 ignorant rogues, but of wild gallants; the oaths are the 
 fashionable “ igads” and “ stap my vitals” instead of the 
 camp terms of the soldiers; and the verbal battles are the 
 contests of wit by accomplished conversationalists, instead 
 of vituperative battles between low bullies and swaggerers; 
 but both are realistic. The element of “ humor” in the 
 technical sense generally dies away, but in certain authors, 
 notably Wycherley, it is still generally evident. Dryden’s 
 “Wild Gallant” has at least as good a claim as any 
 other play to be called the first Restoration Comedy, but 
 Sir Timorous, a bashful knight, is irresolution personified ; 
 and True, the tailor, with his mania for jesting, might have 
 stepped from a Jonsonian comedy. Even in the best plays, 
 where this somewhat crude technique has been abandoned, 
 the descriptive names remain, as in the case of Wycherley’s 
 “Horner,” Congreve’s “ Lady Wishfort,’ or Farquhar’s 
 “ Lurewell.” 
 
 The Restoration did not, then, invent realistic studies 
 of manners, but it gave them a new development by com- 
 bining two old elements. Similarly, the wit combats, which 
 formed so important a part of Restoration Comedy, are 
 also a modification of an old tradition. The presence of 
 dialogue which exists for its own sake and without reference 
 to the situation, has always been remarkable in English 
 _ comedy. The enjoyment of talk for and in itself is seen 
 everywhere in Elizabethan plays, even in the best tragedies 
 of Shakespeare. But in the Jonsonian comedies, the point, 
 to speak paradoxically, lies in a vehement and exuberant 
 bluntness, in the grotesque oaths of the Miles, the copious 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMIC TRADITION 9 
 
 but meaningless jargon of the Puritan, or the boisterous 
 vulgarity of the denizen of Bartholomew Fair. The wit 
 combats of the later plays are related more to the courtly 
 tradition emanating from Lyly, but it is to be constantly 
 borne in mind that the realistic spirit is derived rather 
 from Jonson. The court comedies from Lyly to Fletcher 
 are as essentially Elizabethan in their constant tendency 
 to escape into the land of fancy as the later plays are 
 essentially. Restoration in the refusal of the dramatist to 
 leave the familiar haunts of London, even in imagination. 
 An excellent example of the comedy of manners that had 
 not yet freed itself from romance is found in Shirley’s 
 “Changes: or Love in a Maze” (1632). The scene of 
 this play is called London, but there is little or no local 
 color. Young Caperwit, the poet, and Sir Gervais Simple, 
 the ’Squire, are “ humorists”; but the serious characters 
 are not so much London youths as denizens of one of those 
 fanciful courts whence came the tradition of polite comedy. 
 The opening situation in which the sisters confess their love 
 for the same man is realistic enough; but when this too 
 fortunate lover finds that he loves both, and invites a 
 friend to relieve him of either, and when all this is done 
 not cynically but romantically and sentimentally, one 
 knows that he is in no real London. Before the play is 
 over, lovers and mistresses are handed about from one to 
 the other as though Puck had squeezed into their eyes the 
 juice of Love-in-Idleness, and manners have been lost in 
 romance. The Restoration Comedy borrows the sparkling 
 dialogue of such a play as this, but treats it in a spirit of 
 realism borrowed not from Fletcher but from Jonson. 
 During the twelve years from 1630 to the closing of the 
 _ theaters, realistic comedy was extremely popular, and there 
 \ are many plays, notably those by Shirley, Brome, Glap- 
 
10 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 thorne, Cartwright, Nabbes, Marmion, and others, which, 
 in the broadest sense of the term, might be called comedies 
 of manners; but very few of them in any way approximate 
 our definition of the Restoration form of light comedy. 
 Studies of low life are more common than attempts to de- 
 pict good society, and nowhere, not even in Shirley, who 
 more than any of the others anticipates the style of our 
 period, does one find realism, polish, and refinement com- 
 bined with complete cynicism. Brome concerns himself 
 _ almost exclusively with the vulgar, and with his plays may 
 _ ‘be placed Marmion’s “ Holland’s Leager ” and Cartwright’s 
 \ “The Ordinary.” + 
 
 Returning to the plays performed during the twelve 
 years before the closing of the theaters, we find that 
 Nabbes’ “ ‘The Bride” deals with respectable society, but 
 that it is really a bourgeois drama like some of Heywood’s, 
 or even like a problem play such as Middleton’s “A Fair 
 Quarrel.” The ethical side of the question (the right of a 
 son to steal his father’s bride!) is seriously discussed. 
 “ Covent Garden” (also by Nabbes) sounds more promis- 
 ing. High and low life are mingled, but the manners of 
 the wild gallant smack rather of the tavern than of the 
 drawing room, and the perfect gentleman declaims with 
 stiff propriety and little ease. The gallant of the Restora- 
 tion would have considered one as low, and the other as 
 
 1 The relative lateness with which true comedy of refined manners 
 develops may be due, in part, to the oft repeated definition of 
 the critics, who said that comedy consisted in stories of the vulgar 
 class. Dryden notices this belief, for instance, in his preface to An 
 Evening’s Love, and as late as 1698 Congreve (Animadversions on 
 Mr. Collier's, etc.) pointed out that when Aristotle said that 
 comedy was the imitation of the worst sort of people, he meant 
 worst in manners or morals, not worst in quality. This however was 
 denied by Congreve’s opponents, who objected that men of quality 
 should not be exposed to ridicule on the stage. 
 
 4 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMIC TRADITION 11 
 
 formal, and taken them as new proof that the true savoir 
 faire was not known in England until the King returned 
 from France. 
 
 Other comedies of this period by more or less obscure 
 authors might be discussed; but they are mainly either 
 somewhat romantic like Quarles’ “ Virgin Widow ”’ or they 
 contain foreign scenes like ‘“‘ The Knave in Grain,” or they 
 repeat the features described in plays of Brome, Nabbes, 
 and Shirley. Passing reference may be made, however, to 
 Cartwright’s “ Wit in a Constable,” as a clean and fairly 
 ingenious comedy of polite society, and to Killigrew’s 
 “Parson’s Wedding.” In considering the influence of the 
 court on the development of the new style of wit, it is 
 interesting to remember that Killigrew was close to Charles, 
 both during his exile and after his return. The “ Parson’s 
 Wedding,” though acted before the closing of the theaters, 
 was not printed until 1664. If the passages following 
 actually appeared in the original production, then Killigrew 
 was a Restoration wit before the Restoration. One char- 
 acter says, “I grew so acquainted with sin, I would have 
 been good (for variety:),” and another remarks, “ That 
 wife is a fool that cannot make her husband one.” During 
 the Restoration the technique of wit becomes that of ration- 
 alizing debauchery into a philosophical system and produc- 
 ing a great corpus of mock casuistry whose fine points are 
 expounded with a zeal worthy of a theologian. Killigrew 
 was in close connection with the court and he early caught 
 its spirit. 
 
 From our point of view, Shirley is the most interesting 
 of the dramatists before the civil war. He has not the 
 Restoration cynicism, but with him the play of polite 
 manners has in some cases detached itself from the Flet- 
 cherian tradition of romance, and real London characters 
 of the upper class appear in a real London setting. “ Hyde 
 
12 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 Park” is perhaps the best example of a play of this sort, 
 as it is a completely developed comedy of manners. It 
 differs from the later plays chiefly in the relative cleanness 
 of its moral tone. The grossness of some of Shirley’s pieces 
 shows that taste was already pointing downward, and his 
 frequent compliance with that taste in the matter of lan- 
 guage, in spite of his own evident preference for at least 
 the appearance of decency, is another proof that the public 
 and not the dramatist ruled. But in spite of the grossness 
 which he permitted as a sop to his audience, his prevail- 
 ing tone is ostensibly healthy, and in his plays virtue 
 usually triumphs and has the sympathy of the author. 
 
 His “ Gamester ” has been singled out for especial repro- 
 bation, but at least the Elizabethan pretense to virtue is 
 kept up. The opening situation in which the hero, Wilding, 
 makes love to his wife’s kinswoman, Penelope, is corrupt 
 enough; but one does not have to read more than a hundred 
 lines to see that it is intended to give a moral thrill to a 
 taste jaded with Jacobean horrors and not merely to arouse 
 cynical laughter. In the end Wilding,is hurriedly and un- 
 convincingly reformed, in a manner strongly suggestive of 
 that employed by Cibber. Obviously, such a play, in 
 making a study of the manners and morals of an upper 
 class, represents a step towards the Restoration tradi- 
 tion; but equally obviously, the new spirit of cynical 
 abandon and immorality had not been developed. 
 
 To transform Shirley into Congreve it would be neces- 
 sary first of all to sharpen the edge of his wit, and then to 
 inspire a spirit of cynical indifference to the carelessness 
 and the selfish indulgence of society as he saw it. It was 
 not that the Jacobeans found coarseness unpleasant — the 
 authors of the low life comedies had no reserves — but that 
 they did not draw those elegant and accomplished rakes 
 so characteristic of the Restoration. And they did ~ 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMIC TRADITION 13 
 
 not draw them chiefly, perhaps, because these gentlemanly 
 scoundrels were the product of Restoration society. 
 Though Shirley, as was pointed out, presented the rake as 
 
 the central character, he did not, like the authors of the | 
 
 Restoration, present him unblushingly as a hero. On the 
 contrary, the theme of the rake reformed was a favorite 
 one with him, being used in “ The Witty Fair One,” “ The 
 Wedding,” ‘The Example,” and, with the substitution of 
 an extravagant woman for a rake, in “The Lady of 
 Pleasure.” 
 
 In view of the close relationship which, in spite of differ- 
 ences, did exist between Shirley and the best writers of the 
 succeeding age, it is rather hard to understand his complete 
 loss of reputation — a loss so absolute that he came to be 
 regarded as almost a stock example of a bad playwright. 
 A reference to him in this light in “ MacFlecknoe”’ is 
 familiar, and. “‘The Play-House. A Satire,” speaks of 
 “Shirley! The very Durfey of his age.” 
 
 A caréful examination of the plays produced in the years 
 immediately preceding the closing of the theaters shows 
 conclusively that though the Restoration tradition was 
 foreshadowed, the plays were no more than a foreshadow- 
 ing. Plays of realism and plays seeking to represent the 
 spirit of a polished society are abundant, and the elements 
 of cynicism are common enough; but in order that these 
 tendencies should be fused together into the Restoration 
 tradition, there was necessary the influence of the peculiar 
 social conditions of the next age. The credit for the bril- 
 liance of the plays of the time of Charles and William 
 
 belongs largely to the genius of the writers. The perversity | 
 
 of their tone must be charged to the spirit of the age. 
 
 We must turn now to an examination of the plays 
 which appeared immediately after the re-opening of the 
 theaters. The records of these early years as collected by 
 
14 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 Genest are very imperfect, but it is evident from what is 
 known that neither author nor manager knew just what 
 was going to be required to suit the taste of the new age, 
 and accordingly they revived and imitated the old drama- 
 tists almost indiscriminately, until experience and observa- 
 tion taught them how to hit more accurately the taste of the 
 time. When the theaters were reopened, the tragedies, 
 comedies, and tragi-comedies of Beaumont and Fletcher, 
 Shakespeare, and Jonson, were again brought upon the 
 stage, as well as the works of lesser writers like Brome 
 and Suckling which were also rather indiscriminately 
 revived. | 
 
 The first new comedy of which we have record is Cow- 
 ley’s ‘Cutter of Coleman Street,” made over from his 
 “Guardian” and acted in 1661. It was a comedy of 
 intrigue with a scene laid in London in 1658, but in no 
 sense anticipated the Restoration Comedy. Rather it is a 
 story of true love temporarily frustrated by cruel parents 
 and by the unjust suspicion of the lover. Mr. Puny, the 
 coxcomb, belongs more to the old age than to the new, and 
 the hero actually thinks of abandoning his mistress be- 
 cause she seems to show unseemly ardor for him. One 
 is not surprised to find that Cowley was not the man to 
 hit Restoration taste. Next comes Wilson’s “ The Cheats ” 
 (acted in 1662), a somewhat Jonsonian comedy of soldiers, 
 a hypocrite, and an astrologer, though perhaps somewhat 
 looser in tone than Jonson would have written it, and with 
 somewhat more emphasis on the amorous intrigue. It at- 
 tracted lasting popularity, but is by no means a polite 
 comedy. Some attempt is made, though feebly, to express 
 the cynical spirit of the new age. For example: 
 
 “Those married men are like boys in the water, 
 
 Ask ’em how’t goes. Oh! Wondrous hot, they cry, 
 When yet their teeth chatter from mere cold.” 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMIC TRADITION 15 
 
 This is not a very successful epigram, but it is the kind 
 of remark that Congreve learned how to turn into a glit- 
 tering phrase. 
 
 Two other new comedies appeared in 1663. One of 
 them, ‘“ The Adventures of Five Hours,” a play by Sir Sam- 
 uel Tuke, with a plot taken from the Spanish, we can pass 
 over and then come to Dryden’s first and much neglected ef- 
 fort, “The Wild Gallant.” Here a very pretty, but not com- 
 pletely solvable problem arises. After a rather unsuccessful 
 appearance, “ The Wild Gallant,” which Pepys says was 
 badly acted, and “so poor a thing as ever I saw in my 
 life almost,” + was not printed, but remained in manuscript 
 until after its more successful revival in a revised form in 
 1667. As it stands it is not great literature, but in its 
 theme and spirit it is a typical Restoration play, and if 
 we could be sure that the revisions were not material, 
 then to Dryden could surely be given the credit for having 
 first seized completely the essentials of the coming tradi- 
 tion. 
 
 Sir A. W. Ward in the “ Cambridge History of English 
 Literature”? says that the play has no other claim than 
 that it was Dryden’s first “to be singled out among the 
 comedies, at the same time extravagant and coarse, in 
 which the period of dramatic decline abounds; though 
 there are some traces of the witty dialogue, often carried 
 on by a flirting couple, in which Dryden came to excel.” 
 Yet this last reservation is extremely important, for just 
 that witty dialogue between a flirting couple is one of the _ 
 most characteristic features of the Restoration Comedy that 
 was to follow, and, in conjunction with certain other char- 
 acteristics to be mentioned presently, gives “ The Wild 
 Gallant ”’ its important place. Such bits as the following 
 
 1 February 23, 1662-3. 
 2 Vol. VIII, chap. I. 
 
16 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 are the very quintessence of the Restoration manner and 
 spirit. The second might be from Congreve himself. 
 
 Isabelle: (To a suitor).—‘“ but he I marry must 
 
 promise me to live at London: I cannot abide to be 
 in the country, like a wild beast in the wilderness, 
 with no Christian soul about me.” 
 
 Frances: “I hope you intend to deal by my husband 
 
 like a gentleman, as they say? 
 
 Lovely: Then I should beat him most unmercifully, 
 
 and not pay him neither.” 
 
 To read the Dramatis Personae with its Lord Nonsuch, 
 an old rich humorous lord, and Sir Timorous, a bashful 
 knight, etc., one might expect a conventional comedy of 
 humors, but these two characters are only of minor impor- 
 tance and the hero, Lovely, is just the irresponsible reckless 
 spark that swaggers his ruthless way through the plays of 
 Etherege, Wycherley, and Congreve, or, in the actual per- 
 sons of Rochester, Sedley, and Grammont, through the court 
 at Whitehall. Already the pursuit of women had come to 
 
 be recognized as the chief occupation of a gentleman, and 
 \“ The Wild Gallant ” would be the best possible general 
 title for the plays of the Restoration, for he is almost 
 without exception their hero. 
 
 The prologue to the 1667 version gives some clue to the 
 changes which were made. From it we learn that the scene 
 in which the hero holds revel with the company of prosti- 
 tutes on the night before his marriage was introduced late, 
 so that his principles would be (in a sense the reverse of 
 the usual) unquestionable. “I swear not, I drink not, I 
 curse not, I cheat not,” says he, “they are unnecessary 
 vices. I save so much out of these sins and take it out in 
 that one necessary vice of wenching.” 
 
 The two prologues are themselves highly instructive. In 
 1663 was spoken the not very witty but clean one which 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMIC TRADITION 17 
 
 consists of a dialogue between two astrologers; but in 
 1667 the play was provided with the brilliantly written 
 verses in Dryden’s mature style which begin as follows: 
 
 “As some raw “Squire by tender mother bred, 
 "Till one-and-twenty keeps his maiden-head,” 
 
 and proceed thus to apologize for the comparative cleanness 
 of the rakish hero of the earlier versions of the play, and 
 boast that the author has increased the extent of the wild 
 gallant’s transgressions. 
 “Our unfledged author writ a Wild Gallant. 
 
 He thought him monstrous lewd, (I lay my life) 
 
 Because suspected with his landlord’s wife; 
 
 But, since his [i.e., the author’s] knowledge of the town began, 
 
 He thinks him now a very civil man; 
 
 And, much ashamed of what he was before, 
 
 Has fairly play’d him at three wenches more. 
 
 ’Tis some amends his [the author’s] frailties to confess; 
 
 Pray pardon him his want of wickedness.” ) 
 
 Nothing could show better not only the taste of the time, 
 but also the fact that in 1667 this taste was known and 
 could be counted upon in a way that was impossible in 
 1663, when playwrights were still experimenting. By 1667 
 the tradition that the more debauched the hero was, the 
 more completely he was a hero, had been firmly estab- 
 lished. In the four years between 1663 and 1667, the 
 Restoration spirit had been developed.and recognized. One 
 hesitates to give special importance to a play as universally 
 neglected as “ The Wild Gallant,” but it seems clear that 
 if the earlier form was substantially the same as the latter, 
 then Dryden wrote the first real Restoration Comedy. Nor 
 should this conclusion be surprising, for Dryden showed no 
 characteristic more marked than his ability to give the 
 people what they wanted. 
 
 The next important play to come after Dryden’s maiden 
 
18 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 effort was written by Etherege. His three plays furnish an 
 interesting study of the evolution of the type. The first, 
 “Love in a Tub” (1664), is as coarse as “ The Wild 
 Gallant,” but its material is more old fashioned. The title 
 is taken from a farcical situation in which Defoy, a dis- 
 eased French valet, has his head thrust through a tub, the 
 other chief comic material consisting of a Middletonian 
 story of the guller gulled at play and almost married to 
 a mock widow, while that portion which deals with the 
 better part of society is a romantic love story told partly in 
 rhyme, with occasional touches that have a certain genuine 
 prettiness. It might have been written before the civil 
 war. In “She Would If She Could” (1668), rhyme has 
 been discarded, and also the scenes of low life, so that one 
 gets nearer to the newer comedy and is concerned with a 
 series of polite intrigues. In “ Sir Fopling Flutter” (1676), 
 the emphasis is shifted from incident to character, and we 
 
 have in Sir Fopling that type of Restoration fop whose 
 
 follies are so polished as to cause him to be mistaken by 
 some for a wit. As Dryden has it: 
 
 “Sir Fopling is a fool so nicely writ, 
 
 The ladies would mistake him for a wit; 
 * * * * * * * * * 
 
 True fops help nature’s work, and go to school, 
 To file and finish God A’mighty’s fool.” 
 
 But before this last play was produced, comedies had 
 already been written which preceded Etherege’s final efforts 
 in the Restoration type. Wycherley had produced all of 
 his plays. He had shown that it was possible to base a 
 play not on impossible situations or intrigue, but purely 
 on contemporary manners, just as Dryden had shown the 
 extent to which cynicism could be made popular. Ether- 
 ege’s claim to be the originator of Restoration comedy 
 cannot rest on “ Sir Fopling Flutter,” which came too late, 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMIC TRADITION 19 
 
 and must fall to the ground if based on his other plays, 
 for they are but experiments. 
 
 Returning to glance rapidly at the other comedies pro- 
 duced in the years immediately following the Restoration, 
 we find several minor dramatists trying various. styles. 
 Sir Robert Howard’s “ The Committee” (pub. 1665) is a 
 not very successful satire on the Puritan domination; 
 Lacy’s “ The Old Troop ” (1665) is a rough comedy laid in 
 the same period. Skipping one or two insignificant plays, 
 we come to Dryden’s “Sir Martin Mar-all” (1667), an 
 adaptation from Moliére, and then to ‘ Mulberry Garden,” 
 a fairly good comedy of manners which shows its author, 
 the rake Sedley, to be more decent than the respectable 
 hack, Dryden. The latter professed, at least, that he had 
 no genius for comedy, and in fact his plays are never 
 absolutely first-rate. But though they are often foreign in 
 scene and built upon borrowed plots, they show the author 
 a clever journalist who knew how to employ his powers of 
 pointed assertion in those dialogues of cynicism and ob- 
 scenity which the audience demanded. Probably they were 
 written in cold blood and without enthusiasm, but ‘“ The 
 Assignation, or Love in a Nunnery” (1672) and “ An 
 Evening’s Love” (1668) are as outspokenly depraved as 
 any of the comedies of the time. The tone of the former 
 
 may be judged by the fact that the nunnery is referred to 
 
 as the “ seraglio of the godly.” 
 
 Dryden’s early plays are particularly important as dite 
 embodiments of the typical spirit of the Restoration. But 
 he has a fondness for something approaching romance 
 rather than realism. The later Restoration plays are re- 
 markable not only for their looseness of tone, but also for 
 their desire to represent the actual manners of the times, 
 and to show real characters in a familiar setting. In this 
 connection attention should be called to James Howard’s 
 
 & 
 
20 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 “The English Monsieur” (1666) and to ‘“ The Morning 
 Ramble ” (1673), by Nevil Payne, for in them the chief 
 emphasis is on the mere exhibition of familiar character 
 and the presentation of familiar scenes. The former is a 
 feeble satire on Frenchified Englishmen, and the second a 
 series of pictures in the life of a town rake of respectable 
 birth who arouses the sleeping citizens with his nocturnal 
 serenades and scoffs the authority of the constable, the 
 latter being a procedure considered by Restoration gallants 
 as an excellent exhibition of esprit. 
 
 Thomas Shadwell, whom, in spite of his substantial 
 merits as a dramatist, Dryden, by his mere genius for vehe- 
 ment assertion, succeeded in persuading the world to take 
 for a dunce, produced his first play in 1668. In time he 
 became one of the most successful playwrights of the age, 
 but he was constantly railing at the taste of the times. 
 Jonson, whom he resembled in size, petulance, and self- 
 esteem, was his god, and his witty contemporaries his aver- 
 sion. “A comedy of humor that is not borrowed is the 
 hardest thing to write well,’ he said, and he boasted that 
 he had never written a comedy without a new humor in it. 
 Those of his contemporaries who loved repartee for its 
 own sake he called men of little understanding. He despised 
 the “ Tittle-tattle sort”? of conventional conversation, 
 partly perhaps because his mind, unwieldy like his body, 
 was not equal to it. He set up, too, as a moralist and a 
 lasher of the vices of his age which, it is true, he did 
 satirize with a more scrupulous realism than did any of the 
 others. But whatever his moral basis, either the love of 
 representing life as it was or the pressure of public taste 
 made his plays coarse enough, and his wild gallants were 
 wild enough to please his audience and his moralizing not 
 insistent enough to trouble them. ‘‘ The Sullen Lovers ”’ 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMIC TRADITION 21 
 
 (1668) and “The Humorists” (1671) are dull, and 
 it was not until “ Epsom Wells” (1673) that he produced 
 his first really excellent play. He was at his best when, 
 as in the last-mentioned play, in ‘“‘ The Squire of Alsatia ” 
 (1688), and “ Bury Fair ” (1689), he selected some particu- 
 lar locality and caught the essence of the life there. Per- 
 haps because he had little imagination, his plays seem more 
 literally true than those of his more brilliant contempo- 
 raries, and give somehow the impression of being fully 
 documented. In “ The Lancashire Witches” (1681), in- 
 deed, he assures his readers that all the phenomena are 
 substantiated by the authority of standard works on witch- 
 craft. 
 
 In the seventies Wycherley ran his brief and astounding 
 career as a dramatist, and in the much abused “ The 
 Country Wife” (1673) produced the most powerful comedy 
 of the Restoration. It has not been customary for many 
 years to admire the “ manly Wycherley,” as he was called 
 by his contemporaries, but as a dramatist he was the 
 greatest genius who appeared during the century following 
 the civil war. The theme of “The Country Wife” is 
 perhaps inexcusable, but its raison d’etre is neither its ob- 
 scenity nor its wit. It is a moving drama, the result 
 of a realistic imagination as powerful almost as Ibsen’s. 
 
 Since this chapter does not aim to give a history of the 
 drama, but only to trace its evolution to the point where the 
 tradition of comedy was fully established, it is not necessary 
 to go further, for nothing strictly new appears to have been 
 introduced between Wycherley and the beginning of the 
 sentimental comedy at the end of the century. With “ The 
 Country Wife” (1673), every distinguishing feature of the 
 Restoration Comedy had appeared in definitely recogniz- 
 able form. Its development had been rapid. Before the 
 
22 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 civil war nothing more than the beginning of the tradition 
 could be found; in a few years scattered elements had 
 been fused into a new and definitely recognizable type. 
 Dryden hit first upon that peculiar cynical perversity 
 
 ‘ which dominates its tone. He, too, first laid predominant 
 
 stress upon the witty give and take of dialogue existing 
 for its own sake. Working upon the hint of a few 
 previous writers, Shadwell first showed what could be 
 done with prosaic and literary realism used to replace 
 the more or less fanciful elements of Dryden. Etherege led 
 the movement for the study, long continued, of the fop. 
 Wycherley showed how the familiar material could be 
 treated with a withering scorn in place of cynical indif- 
 ference or approval. Beyond this, nothing new was added; 
 there could be only increased effectiveness. And the other 
 dramatists were, in a way, mere followers. Mrs. Behn 
 could out-do even Dryden in lusciousness, and Congreve 
 could surpass all the rest in polish of dialogue, but neither 
 was an innovator. If the latter is the most read dramatist 
 of the Restoration, it is not because he added anything new 
 in spirit or incident. He simply gave the familiar material 
 the highest polish that it could bear, and by the perfection 
 of his workmanship raised it to an intellectual plane where 
 perverseness of spirit is lost in perfection of manner. 
 
 In conclusion, some attention should be called to the 
 literary influences upon the development of the Restoration 
 tradition. As might be supposed, a society centering about 
 a court lately returning from exile in France, and looking 
 to France as the center of fashionable life, was not un- 
 affected by the works of the great contemporary genius 
 across the Channel. In fact, Moliére may be said to have 
 come in with Restoration Comedy, for Davenant’s “ Play- 
 House to Let,” one of the first plays to be performed 
 after the reopening of the theaters, owed a part of itself 
 
 i 
 
 * 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMIC TRADITION 23 
 
 to Moliére. The latter’s influence has been the subject of 
 an exhaustive study, and here it will be necessary only to 
 observe that in spite of many borrowings from his plays, 
 his influence was not so significant as one might expect. 
 From him Etherege, Wycherley, and others may have re- 
 ceived an additional impulse to the study of contemporary 
 manners and a tendency to greater regularity and con- 
 straint in construgtion; but his spirit, the very reverse of 
 the bitter and cynical, was profoundly different. Many 
 dramatists ransacked his plays for the bare bones of situa- 
 tion, but from our point of view (the discussion of the 
 Re inatists’ attitude toward life) his influence is ay very 
 little importance. 
 
 If much that came from France was too correct to meet 
 exactly the demand of the English, a more congenial spirit 
 was found in a section of the classics. No poet was so 
 much translated as Ovid, and there was much in Ovid’s 
 thought that was congenial. Other of the less severe classi- 
 cal authors — especially Petronius and Lucian — were read 
 and imitated. The Elizabethan age had got from the 
 ancients chiefly the sterner side, and the days of Rome and 
 Athens appealed to them as the age of strict ideals; but 
 the more sophisticated Restoration found a lighter side to 
 classical literature and recognized its own kinship with the 
 decadent writers of antiquity.\ Consequently it translated 
 and absorbed them. From Ovid, especially, it derived all 
 that it could not invent of the animal tradition of love. To 
 him at times, as to them always, love was the chief busi- 
 ness of life, and love had none of the “seraphic part.” 
 Congreve’s most characteristic line is but a translation 
 and amplification of a well known phrase in Ovid’s 
 “ Elegies ”: “casta est quem nemo rogavit.” 
 
 1 Miles. The influence of Moliére on Restoration Comedy. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 THE DRAMA AND SOCIETY 
 
 In the preceding chapter we have been concerned with 
 a literary evolution; but this literary evolution was only an 
 accompaniment of a social evolution. The sophistication 
 of society tends naturally to produce a comedy of manners, 
 
 tet 
 
 ~e 
 
 and the peculiar characteristics of the Restoration Comedy 
 of manners were the result of the peculiar characteristics 
 of the sophistication of the times. 
 
 Jeremy Collier and his kind charged the drama with 
 having caused the corruption of the times, but as his 
 opponents pointed out, to make such a charge was to put 
 the cart before the horse, for it would be much more fair 
 to attribute the corruption of the drama to the times. In 
 the first part of this chapter I wish to show (that the 
 atmosphere of the plays corresponded very closely with the 
 atmosphere of a portion of society, that their heroes were 
 drawn from the characters of such persons as Sedley, 
 Rochester, and Charles himself, and that however shocking 
 the incidents and speeches might be, they are to be matched 
 in dissoluteness by what is to be found in the histories 
 and memoirs. John Dennis protested that the comedies 
 were but a faint representation of actuality, and that one 
 might hear more profanity in one evening in a tavern than 
 on the stage in a year. Similar protests are frequent. 
 
 Speaking broadly, the extraordinary debauchery which 
 succeeded the Restoration was the result of the reaction. 
 When Charles and his companions, whom Trevelyan calls 
 the merriest troop of comedians that ever stepped upon 
 
 24 
 
THE DRAMA AND SOCIETY 25 
 
 English soil, returned from exile, they determined to enjoy 
 to the full the pleasures that had been denied them before 
 and were now so abundantly offered. They were received 
 amid the greatest possible rejoicing, and their natures were 
 so little averse to merry-making that they threw them- 
 selves unrestrainedly into pleasure and even their partisans 
 were sometimes shocked. Thus Bishop Burnet? puts it 
 rather mildly when he speaks of “the general joy which 
 overran the whole nation upon his majesty’s restoration, 
 but was not regulated with that sobriety and temperance, 
 that became a serious gratitude to God for so great a 
 blessing.” 
 
 They wished to make the time to come in every way the 
 reverse of the time that was past, and the sin of regicide 
 of which the preceding generation had been guilty made it 
 seem a sort of piety to reverse all that had been done; 
 to pull down all that had been set up, and set up all that 
 had been pulled down; to hate all that had been loved and 
 love all that had been hated. The Puritans had tended to 
 regard all pleasure as sinful, and they determined to re- 
 gard no pleasure as such. The Puritans had condemned 
 the May-pole and ordered that Christmas should be kept 
 as a day of fast; so the courtiers of Charles determined to 
 carry pleasure and gallantry even to divine service, and 
 Charles himself ordered that church music should be such 
 as he could beat time to. Instead of whipping actors at 
 the cart tail, they received the women as mistresses; and 
 instead of forbidding all plays however innocent, they en- 
 couraged all however indecent. As to language, we learn 
 from Halifax:? “The hypocrisy of the former times in- 
 clined men to think they could not show too great an aver- 
 sion to it, and that helped to encourage this unbounded 
 
 1 Infe and Death of John Earl of Rochester. 
 2 A Character of King Charles II. 
 
26 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 liberty of talking, without the restraints of decency which 
 were before observed.” To be debauched was the easiest 
 way of clearing one’s self of suspicion of disloyalty. Thus 
 Dryden makes one of his characters in “ The Wild Gal- 
 lant” say: “ He has been a great fanatic formerly, and 
 now has got a habit of swearing that he may be thought a 
 cavalier.” 
 
 Sometimes the effect of reaction was observable in the 
 careers of individuals. Macaulay cites the case of Philip, 
 Lord Wharton, whose father was so severe a Calvinist that 
 he forbade not only plays, poems, and dancing, but even 
 hunting, in his household, with the result that his son early 
 acquired and “ retained to the last the reputation of being 
 the greatest rake in England.” ? 
 
 Clarendon? tells the story of Charles having fallen in 
 his youth into the hands of the Scotch Presbyterians, who 
 made him listen to interminable prayers and sometimes as 
 many as six sermons in a row, from which, not unnaturally, 
 he developed a distaste for piety of any sort. Of Charles 
 among the Presbyterians Burnet says: “He was not so 
 much as allowed to walk abroad on Sundays, and if at any 
 time there had been any gaiety at court, such as dancing 
 or playing cards, he was severely reproved for it.” It 
 must not be forgotten, however, that under the Restoration 
 debauchery was often combined with extraordinary genius, 
 
 as in the case of Rochester; or with genuine political 
 
 ability, as in the case of Wharton, who, in the intervals 
 of dissipation, was a power in the state for many years. 
 In the carnival which they were holding, the courtiers 
 were but little restrained by the teachings of the English 
 Church which they gave themselves so much credit for hav- 
 
 1 Macaulay. Hist., Chap. XX. 
 2 Book XIII. 
 
THE DRAMA AND SOCIETY 27 
 
 ing reéstablished. A writer in Traill’s “ Social England ” * 
 says that there perhaps has never been a time since the 
 fifteenth century when the clergy exercised such an influ- 
 ence as they enjoyed between 1660 and the death of 
 Queen Anne. But assuming that this is true, it must, so 
 far as the court during the early part of this period is — 
 concerned, be understood to mean political influence. 
 Under Charles, the church as an institution was exalted, 
 partly because the Puritans had pulled it down, but chiefly 
 because it was royalist, many of its leaders holding the 
 doctrine of divine right in its extreme form, and some 
 maintaining that the King could, literally, do no wrong. 
 But however much the courtiers were willing to honor the 
 church, they had no mind to listen to its precepts, and, 
 according to Burnet, Charles himself took care at his de- 
 votions to let people know that he took no interest in 
 the affair. His courtiers did not scruple to go to sleep 
 in the royal chapel, as is evidenced by the amusing story 
 of the great preacher who begged the noble not to snore 
 so loudly lest he should waken his majesty. Pepys, too, 
 has his evidence. After attending service at the Abbey, 
 he writes: * “ There I found but a thin congregation al- 
 ready. So I see that religion, be it what it will, is but a 
 humour, and so the esteem of it passeth as other things do.” 
 
 It was on such a court that the destinies of the theater 
 were dependent more closely than they had been at any 
 previous time. Before the civil war there is but one in- 
 stance, that of Henrietta Maria, of a sovereign witnessing 
 a performance at a public theater,? but Charles took the 
 greatest personal interest in the stage, and attended public 
 
 1 Rev. W. H. Hutton, Vol. IV, Chap. XV. 
 2 October 2, 1660. 
 8 Cunningham. Nell Gwyn. 
 
28 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 performances.t’ When in 1662 he gave patents for the two 
 companies of actors, he himself acted as patron for one, and 
 the Duke of York for the other. Nor was Charles’ interest 
 a merely formal one. The taste for French plays is attrib- 
 uted largely to him, and he was ready to make specific 
 suggestions to playwrights. Thus Crown (preface to “ Sir 
 Courtly Nice”’) remarks on the King’s preference for com- 
 edy, and says that he was often commanded by him to 
 write it. 
 
 From the court in general then, and from Charles in 
 (particular, our comedy took its tone. What that tone was 
 likely to be is evidenced by Charles’ character as it was so 
 well described by Clarendon, Halifax, Temple, Evelyn, 
 and other contemporaries. Gay, witty, polished, amorous, 
 pleasure-loving, unscrupulous, and cruel, he was a very 
 wild gallant on a throne. The famous epigram which 
 charged him with never having done a wise thing is fair only 
 if “ wise” be interpreted in the highest sense, for politically 
 he was astute enough. Still, on the lighter side of his 
 character he was simply the beau idéal (except in the 
 matter of personal beauty, which he certainly did not 
 have) of the man of fashion of his age. His religion, 
 Halifax says keenly, was that “of a young prince in his 
 warm blood,” and he adds that in the library of such a 
 prince “ the solemn folios are not much rumpled, books of 
 a lighter digestion have the dog’s ears.” The sharpness 
 of his wit is too well known to need illustration, and Hali- 
 fax remarked his tendency to make “ broad allusions upon 
 anything that gave occasion.” 
 
 From Fuller we learn that at his birth “ The star of 
 Venus was not only visible the whole day, but also during 
 the two which followed,’ certainly a fitting prodigy to 
 
 1 Anne returned to the habit of witnessing plays only when per- 
 formed at court. Strickland. Queens of England. 
 
 ge ~— air Aree 
 
 . atl eel 
 
THE DRAMA AND SOCIETY 29 
 
 signalize the birth of the amorous prince whom Louis 
 understood well enough to send to him the subsequent 
 Duchess of Portsmouth when he wished to cajole him dip- 
 lomatically. But it was Halifax who analyzed best this 
 side of his character. “It may be said,” Halifax wrote, 
 “that his inclinations to love were the effects of health 
 and a good constitution, with as little mixture of the 
 seraphic part as ever a man had.” As little mixture of the 
 seraphic part as ever a man had! Volumes could not fur- 
 nish a better comment on the gallantry of the Restoration 
 life or Restoration plays. Like the best dramatic authors, _. 
 Charles “had a very ill opinion both of men and women; 
 and did not think there was either sincerity or chastity in 
 the world out of principle.” + 
 
 As in the case of the heroes of comedy, it is necessary, 
 if we are to judge him favorably, to allow his graces to 
 blind us to the essential viciousness of one side of his char- 
 acter. When his subjects perceived the affability of his 
 manners, they were willing to forget everything else; but 
 it must be remembered that he was capable of forcing on 
 his Queen the shameful humiliation of honoring one of his 
 mistresses in her own household, and that he hired thugs 
 to waylay a member of Parliament. When in 1669 it was 
 proposed to tax the players, the move was opposed on the 
 ground that the players were part of the King’s pleasure. 
 Sir John Coventry asked if the King’s pleasure lay among 
 the men or the women of the company, and in revenge 
 Charles caused some blackguards to waylay him and cut his 
 nose to the bone. But his fashionable subjects forgave him 
 because of his brilliant manner, just as they forgave the 
 contemptible Dorimant, hero of “ Sir Fopling Flutter,” and 
 exasperated Steele because they insisted on considering 
 the former a fine gentleman though in spite of his outward 
 
 1 Burnet. History, Part II, Chap. I. 
 
 » 
 ie 
 
 Be ges 
 
30 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 perfection he was capable of complete baseness. Like 
 Charles, Dorimant broke the Ten Commandments but kept 
 the ten thousand. Restoration men, whether in real life or 
 “on the stage, were gentlemen in everything — except 
 essentials. 
 
 Estimates of Charles’ character varied much with the 
 political opinions of the writer, but his greatest admirers 
 could do no better by his personal habits than to turn 
 looseness into a virtue, as Dryden had done in “ Absalom 
 and Achitophel ” when he wrote: 
 
 Then Israel’s monarch after Heaven’s own heart, 
 His vigorous warmth did variously impart, 
 
 To wives and slaves; and, wide as his command, 
 Scatter’d his Maker’s image thro’ the land.” 
 
 When, in 1662, Charles gave to Killigrew and Davenant 
 grants to establish companies of players, he enjoined that 
 “they do not at any time hereafter cause to be acted or 
 represented any play, enterlude, or opera, containing any 
 matter of profanation, scurrility or obscenity.”1 Yet 
 certainly had this injunction been obeyed, none of the 
 spectators would have been more disappointed than Charles 
 himself. 
 
 The rest of the court imitated Charles’ vices assiduously, 
 and his graces as well as they could. In an anonymous 
 
 pamphlet of 1675 called the “Character of a Town Gal- 
 
 lant” the type is thus described: ‘‘ His trade is making of 
 love, yet he knows no difference between that and lust — 
 he is so bitter an enemy of marriage that some would 
 suspect him born out of lawful wedlock.” Reasonably 
 sober men, though no Puritans, could not but ery out 
 against the corruption of all kinds which flourished. . Pepys, 
 
 1 Printed in The Dramatic Records of Sir Henry Herbert, Edited 
 by Joseph Quincy Adams. 
 
 se = ag ong 
 
THE DRAMA AND SOCIETY 31 
 
 though timid, was not particularly averse to gallantry, 
 but he was honest, and could not help exclaiming: ' 
 “ But, good God! what an age is this, and what a world 
 is this! that a man cannot live without playing the knave 
 and dissimulation;”’ and similarly, he was shocked by the 
 dissoluteness of the court, and ashamed of what he heard 
 of Charles’ debauchery. The famous Lord Rochester was 
 an illustration of how not only wit but genius could be 
 united with the extreme of debauchery, and Sir Charles 
 Sedley, a wit and a very model of fashion, was morally 
 so bad that when Pepys? wants to damn a man he calls 
 him ‘“ worse than Sir Charles Sidly,” and from Pepys, 
 too, we get one of Sedley’s bon mots which might have 
 come from a play by Mrs. Behn. Having heard a char- 
 acter in a play comfort himself for the loss of his mistress 
 by saying that, though the other had possession of her body, 
 it was the speaker who deserved her, Sedley burst out, 
 “But what ’a pox does he want?” 
 
 Go as low as you will in the farces of the time, even 
 down to “ The Morning Ramble,” no extravagance will be 
 found worse than the exploit alluded to by Pepys and 
 described by Johnson in his life of Dorset. A convivial 
 company was at the “ Cock” in Bow Street. ‘ At last, as 
 they grew warmer, Sedley stood forth naked, and harangued 
 the populace [Pepys says, July 1, 1663, that there were 
 1000 people] in such profane language, that public indig- 
 nation was awakened; the crowd attempted to force the 
 door, and being repulsed, drove in the performers with 
 stones, and broke the windows of the house.” For this mis- 
 demeanor they were indicted and Sedley was fined. 
 According to Pepys (Oct. 23, 1668), Sedley again disported 
 himself nearly naked. 
 
 1 September Ist, 1661. 
 2 November 16, 1667. 
 
oe COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 The extraordinary coarseness of language, too, was no 
 mere literary tradition, but a fact of life. To be vile in 
 language was fashionable. Motteux, who claimed to keep 
 his “ Gentleman’s Journal” refined, tells how he saw a 
 young gallant look at a copy and describes his reaction 
 thus: “A young sport, whose pockets seemed better fur- 
 nished than his head, yet had wit enough to adorn his 
 outside, conscious perhaps that there was but little within, 
 read some of it with an audible voice; at last, here take 
 your book Mr., said he, there is not a word of baudy in’t. 
 How in the devil can it be a journal fit for a gentleman?” 
 Nell Gwyn, apparently, had no objection to owning the 
 most unequivocal Anglo-Saxon word descriptive of her 
 position, and when her carriage was mistaken by a mob 
 for that of Lady Castlemain, she is said merely to have 
 informed the mob good humoredly that she was the 
 Protestant not the Catholic whore. Yet it was she whom 
 Dennis called ‘one of the most beautiful and best bred 
 ladies in the world,” + and whom he represents as address- 
 ing Wycherley, whom she did not know, from her carriage 
 window in language which few other ages would have 
 attributed to a model of good breeding. 
 
 Nor were the cruel and unscrupulous tricks which often 
 formed the plot for plays unmatched in life. When the 
 Karl of Oxford failed in his attempt to seduce a beautiful 
 actress, he deceived her with a false marriage, and when 
 she appealed to the King he gave her none but a monetary 
 redress. If we are to believe another story, the dramatist 
 Farquhar allowed himself to be caught by so theatrical a 
 trick as a fake heiress, whose inheritance he discovered to 
 be fictitious only after he had married her. The ordinary 
 principles of decency and honor were no more essential to 
 the fine gentleman in real life than they were on the stage. 
 
 1 Some Remarkable Passages of the Infe of Mr. Wycherley. 
 
 — 
 
THE DRAMA AND SOCIETY 33 
 
 Anthony Hamilton, for instance, described complacently 
 how the Count de Grammont attempted to repair his for- 
 tune by cheating at cards, and had not, apparently, the 
 slightest feeling that such an action detracted anything 
 from the count’s claim to be regarded as the very model of 
 a fine gentleman. 
 
 In the theaters themselves all pretense of order and de- 
 cency was abandoned. During the early years of our 
 period respectable ladies came masked and sat in a box, 
 while the pit was filled with prostitutes. This is not denied 
 by even the most determined defenders of the stage, and 
 if we may believe the satirist, even ladies of quality sought 
 adventure there. Says Robert Gould + 
 
 “How often, Cl(evelan)d, hast thou here been found 
 By a lascivious herd encompass’d round.” 
 
 The young gallant, apparently, disregarded the play and 
 devoted himself to conversation with the orange girls or 
 the prostitutes. He came more to be seen than to see. 
 Advancing to the middle of the pit, he produced a comb 
 for his wig, called for an orange girl, and having bought 
 some fruit, presented an orange to the nearest mask. After 
 this, he fell asleep and only waked to start up at the end 
 with an oath and loudly damn the play which he had not 
 heard.? 
 
 It was a mark of wit to make loud-voiced comments on 
 the play, and apparently no one had a right to object if 
 his neighbor’s conversation happened to drown out the 
 voice of the actors. Pepys ® is thus deprived of the pleasure 
 of a play, but is quite reconciled because the disturber 
 
 1 The Play-House. A Satire. 1689. These quotations are from 
 the revised versions of 1709. 
 
 2 Character of a Town Gallant. 1675. 
 
 8 February 18, 1667. 
 
34 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 is no less a person than Sir Charles Sedley, and his con- 
 versation with a mask at his side as diverting as that on 
 the stage. Brawls commonly interrupted performances, 
 and Gould, in the satire quoted above, describes the scene 
 vividly thus: 
 “A harmless jest, or accidental blow, 
 
 Spilling their snuff, or touching but the toe, 
 
 With many other things too small to name, 
 
 Did blow these sparks of honor to a flame: 
 
 For such vile trifles, or some viler drab 
 ’Tis in an instant damn me, and a stab.” 
 
 In reading the memoirs and history as well as the plays 
 of the time, it is not so much the looseness which impresses 
 a modern reader as the terrible brutality. Between 1660 
 and 1700 much was done in reforming laws or administra- 
 tion to make human life less cruel, but during the early 
 part of this period there was much that was savage both 
 in public and private life. It was not only possible for 
 Titus Oates to send blameless men to execution, but also 
 possible to punish him with almost equal barbarity. 
 Politics was still a game played for heads, and you might 
 send your opponent to the block by fair means or foul. 
 The employment of thugs was almost a recognized manner 
 of avenging injured honor, and the case of Charles and Sir 
 John Coventry which has already been mentioned was only 
 a single instance. Others may be added. Rochester (again 
 be it noted a very fine gentleman) had Dryden beaten be- 
 cause he suspected that the latter had helped Mulgrave 
 with his “ Essay on Satyre,” which contained an attack on 
 Rochester, and Sedley took a similar revenge on the actor 
 Kynaston for burlesquing him on the stage. To us it 
 would seem that the disgrace would attach to the man who 
 took so cowardly a revenge, but contemporaries seemed to 
 think that the shame stuck not upon Charles, Rochester, 
 
THE DRAMA AND SOCIETY 35 
 
 or Sedléy, but upon Sir John Coventry, Dryden, and 
 Kynaston. 
 
 If one turns over the records of social or political history, 
 one sometimes turns sick at the hopeless tangle of intrigue 
 and corruption, barbarity and baseness, which oft-times 
 tainted even the best causes and the best men. Violence 
 was familiar. Not only criminals, but also the more 
 bigoted fanatics were punished with a revolting cruelty, as 
 in the case of the pamphleteering Whig clergyman Samuel 
 Johnson, who for his conscience suffered himself to be 
 flogged like Titus Oates, from Newgate to Tyburn, without 
 a murmur because, he said, he remembered how patiently 
 Christ had borne the cross on Mount Calvary. With life 
 as it was, it is no wonder that audiences at the theater 
 were less sensitive than we to treachery and heartlessness, 
 and were often moved only to laughter where we should 
 be shocked. As spectators of life as well as of the stage, 
 their feelings were necessarily less sensitive, and they were 
 compelled, in self defense, to develop stomachs stronger 
 than ours. 
 
 One might go on indefinitely citing illustrations and 
 making comment and comparison, but enough has already 
 been pointed out to show that no character or incident in 
 the plays was unwarranted by life, that the dramatists 
 were not perverse creatures creating monsters to debase the 
 auditors, but that they were merely holding the mirror up 
 to nature, or rather, to that part of nature which was best 
 known to their fashionable auditors. 
 
 It is not to be supposed, of course, that England was 
 exclusively made up of Rochesters and Sedleys, and that 
 honor and decency were dead. Even among the wits there 
 were no doubt many meetings like those described by 
 Dryden,’ where he speaks of “ our genial nights, where our 
 
 1 Dedication to The Assignation. 
 
36 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 discourse is neither too serious nor too light, but always 
 pleasant, and, for the most part, instructive; the railery, 
 neither too sharp upon the present, nor too censorious on 
 the absent; and the cups only such as will raise the con- 
 versation of the night, without disturbing the business of 
 the morrow.” Men like Evelyn and Pepys (though the 
 latter was somewhat given to gallantry) would be gentle- 
 men in any age, and the names of the Earl of Clarendon 
 and Sir William Temple are enough to remind us that not 
 all politicians were base. As for the ladies, the delight- 
 ful and eccentric Duchess of Newcastle proves that one of 
 them, at least, might be a wit and no prude; be beautiful, 
 and yet faithful to her husband. 
 
 When one comes to the middle class, too, there is, no 
 doubt, another story to tell. Many a Puritan still lived, 
 and certainly the great majority of the people looked with 
 horror upon the life of the fashionable set. While the 
 gallants considered adultery as a sport, there were not 
 wanting people to argue that it should be punished by 
 death? and who, instead of being drunk for five years 
 together, like Rochester, urged the prohibition of the im- 
 portation of brandy.” 
 
 To realize what a numerous class the pious were as com- 
 pared to the others, one need only study the bibliography 
 of the period. In his preface to the Term Catalogues, 
 Professor Arber says, ‘‘ We must largely reverse our ideas 
 as to the general character of English Literature during the 
 Restoration, Age — the general tone of its books was deeply 
 ‘religious; mingled with much philosophical inquiry,)and 
 deep research into nature — as this contemporary bibliog- 
 raphy clearly shows — all those shilling plays put together 
 
 1 See Pamphlet published 1675 and reprinted in the Harleian 
 
 Misc., Vol. III, p. 93. 
 2 Harleian Misc., Vol. III, p. 569. 
 
THE DRAMA AND SOCIETY 37 
 
 do not form two per centum of the total English books of 
 the times; whether as regards their printed bulk, or their 
 prices. It was the religious people first, and the scientists 
 next, that made the fortunes of the London book trade. 
 They often subscribed as much for the folios of a single 
 writer, like Tillotson or Rushworth, Baxter or Ray, Man- 
 ton or Bunyan, as would have bought a complete set of 
 all the plays of that time.” ? 
 
 Far from being debauched, the middle and lower class 
 was permeated with a spirit of somewhat crude and narrow 
 piety. We are more familiar with the obscene fugitive 
 pieces and tracts, but the British Museum has, in addition 
 to such pieces as are reprinted in the ‘“ Poems on State 
 Occasions,” an interesting collection of religious broadsides, 
 bearing such quaint titles as ‘‘ The Young Man’s Warning 
 Piece, or The Extravagant Youth’s Pilgrimage and Progress 
 in this World” (1682), or ‘“ Divers Examples of God’s 
 Severe Judgment upon Sabbath Brakers, etc.” (1672). 
 The latter is adorned with truly horrendous woodcuts de- 
 picting a collection of stiff youths breaking through the 
 ice on which they had been disporting themselves at foot- 
 ball, unmindful of the desecration of the Sabbath. White- 
 hall and the Puritan populace were far apart, and not all 
 the nation had joined in the unrestrained carnival following 
 the Restoration. 
 
 But it must be remembered that this great body of 
 respectable Englishmen, who were not interested in belles 
 lettres, does not concern us, because the theater, to an | 
 extent probably never true before or since, was the affair 
 only of the court and of the fashionable class. In the 
 time of Elizabeth, it belonged to the people almost as much 
 as the “ movies” do today; but under Charles and James, 
 the great middle class neither frequented the theater nor 
 
 1 Term Catalogue. Vol. III. 
 
38 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 was represented upon the stage, except, perhaps, as an 
 object of ridicule. That this is true there is abundance of 
 evidence. We know that to attend the theater and be 
 able to discuss the latest plays was part of the regular 
 business of the man of fashion, and we know also that a 
 small number of theaters were sufficient to supply the de- 
 mand, and that hence it must have been only the people of 
 fashion who attended. We have no complete record of the 
 play-houses under Elizabeth, but it is probable that as many 
 as seven were in operation at one time. When Charles 
 settled theatrical affairs in 1662, he gave license for only 
 two, and in 1682 it was discovered that there was not enough 
 business to justify both of them, and so the companies 
 were united. From that time until 1695, when Betterton 
 seceded, London, which had six or seven theaters in Eliza- 
 
 beth’s time, needed only one, in spite of the fact that the 
 ' city had greatly increased in size. 
 
 In this connection, the anonymous dialogue called ‘‘ His- 
 toria Histrionica,” attributed to James Wright, contains 
 an interesting passage. One of the speakers expresses sur- 
 prise at the decrease in the number of theaters, saying 
 that while there were a number before the Commonwealth, 
 two are now hardly able to exist. His companion replies 
 that in former times the price of admission was less and 
 that, moreover, plays were then innocent diversions, but 
 that of late they are no longer instructive, and the play- 
 houses so “ pestered with vizard-masks and their trade” 
 that many of the more civilized part of the town shun the 
 theater as they would a house of scandal. In 1706, at a 
 time when only Drury Lane and the Haymarket were 
 open, Congreve wrote that he did not believe that the 
 play-houses could go on another winter,t and Cibber dates 
 the beginning of the prosperity of the stage at 1711. 
 
 1 Letter to Kealley in Berkley’s Literary Relics. 
 
 lh 
 
 ; 
 i 
 9 
 j 
 4 
 ; 
 } 
 
THE DRAMA AND SOCIETY 39 
 
 Another indication that the theater was an affair of the 
 fashionable world is to be found in the persons of some 
 of the people who wrote for it. Of the five great comedy 
 writers, Etherege, Wycherley, Congreve, Vanbrugh and 
 Farquhar, four were distinguished men of fashion, and two 
 were, in addition, knights; so that, if we may reverse the 
 famous phrase, it may be said of them that they “ for fame 
 not money winged their airy flight.” If the success or 
 failure of a play had depended upon any but people of 
 fashion, it is not likely that they would have risked their 
 reputation before an audience. Briefly then, the Restora- 
 tion stage was a fashionable entertainment where the most 
 reckless of the upper class saw their follies and vices wittily 
 and realistically presented. 
 
 From this it is evident that certain of the characteristics 
 of the Restoration drama were inevitable. In the first 
 place, since “the drama’s laws the drama’s patrons give,” 
 any dramatist who had written idealistically would have 
 been neglected for some one who knew better how to 
 meet the taste of the audience. In the second place, any 
 comedy of manners which depicted the actual life of the 
 upper class of the times had to be in one sense corrupt if 
 it was to be true. It could not picture the times and be 
 pure. It is not strange that under the circumstances people 
 of the times should not have been shocked by this drama 
 as its modern readers have been shocked, because the people 
 for whom it was written were familiar with open corrup- 
 tion in a way that most modern readers are not. Dorimant 
 and Mirabel may seem to some mere creatures of fancy, 
 but the audience at the Restoration theater not only knew 
 that they existed but had come into personal contact with 
 them. This audience was not likely to resent on the stage 
 what it knew to exist openly. Nor is there anything in this 
 which need damn the dramatists as men. They had no 
 
= 
 
 40 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 deliberate intention of encouraging vice, which, being men 
 of sense, they no doubt hated. 
 
 The material, then, of Restoration Comedy was inevita- 
 ble; but there remains the question of the dramatists’ 
 attitude toward it. Those who attacked the stage came, 
 as will be seen later, to object to the representation of 
 impurity in any way, but it was also charged that the 
 dramatists not only represented the corruption of the time 
 but sympathized with it and encouraged it. The writers 
 of sentimental comedy depicted faulty characters in order 
 to show them in the end unsuccessful, and justified them- 
 selves on this plea. Certainly the Restoration writer did 
 
 _ nothing of this sort. His heroes, however debased and 
 
 however careless, found only greater success at the end 
 of the primrose path. We are faced, then, with the task 
 of discovering the attitude of the dramatist, of finding out 
 what he was trying to do and what he regarded as his func- 
 tion. Did he consider himself a satirist, opposing vices 
 and follies that. they might be scorned and corrected; did 
 he in the main sympathize with the society which he 
 pictured; or, finally, was he merely indifferent, presenting 
 life as it was and caring but little whether it was virtuous 
 or vicious? To help us, we have statements from many 
 of the dramatists themselves; for the literary art had 
 become a manner of fashionable interest, and the writer 
 found it worth his while to discuss for the benefit of his 
 public the principles of his craft in a way that would have 
 had but little interest for the general public in preceding 
 centuries. 
 
 One well-known critic of the present day has been so rash 
 as to assert that Jeremy Collier was the first man to pro- 
 pose a moral test for comedy. On the contrary, no critical 
 question concerning it is older. Comedy, like other forms of 
 
 R 
 “ 
 } 
 7 
 
THE DRAMA AND SOCIETY 41 
 
 literature, has endured because it pleases; but philosophers 
 have ever been loth to accept a hedonistic justification, and 
 comic poets,.when driven to defend themselves, have usu- 
 ally chosen to claim.a moral function, and to say that if 
 they did not always, like tragic writers, punish vice, they 
 at least discouraged it by making it ridiculous and_ by 
 putting laughter on the side of virtue. The great Rapin 
 represented a common opinion when he wrote in his “ Re- 
 flections on Aristotle’s Treatise of Poetry”:* “Comedy, 
 is an image of common life; its end is to show on the 
 stage the faults of particulars, in order to amend the faults 
 of the public and to correct the people by a fear of being 
 ridiculous.”’ This, which may be called the orthodox idea 
 of the function of comedy, is the one most commonly .. 
 stated by the Restoration dramatist; but it should be re- 
 membered that it was merely an orthodox opinion, and 
 like the 39 articles of the Church of England was accepted 
 as a matter of policy by many who had no intention of 
 doing more than giving a formal assent. 
 
 Thomas Shadwell was more fond than any of the others 
 of proclaiming the moral intention of his comedies, and 
 though it is certainly hard to imagine any one’s moral 
 standard being raised by witnessing that excellent comedy 
 “The Squire of Alsatia” (though he might learn some 
 lessons of prudence), it would only be fair to Shadwell to 
 say that probably few of the dramatists of the Restora- 
 tion were as honest in their intentions as he, and so he may 
 be allowed to speak first. In the preface to “The Humor- 
 ist” he writes: “ My design was in it, to reprehend some 
 of the vices and follies of the age, which I take to be the 
 most proper, and most useful way of writing comedy.” He 
 objects to the idea that comedies have no other purpose 
 
 1 Translated in 1674 by Thomas Rymer. 
 
42 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 than to entertain, and adds: “ Methinks the poet should 
 never acknowledge this, for it makes him of as little use to 
 ‘mankind as a fiddler, or dancing-master.” : 
 
 All this sounds well enough, but to what extent was the 4 
 theory borne out in practice? Such protest of the sincerely 
 satiric intention was the conventional attitude of the 
 dramatist when he thought that he ought to defend him- 
 self, and some modern writers like Mr. Bernbaum?+ seem b 
 disposed to accept it at its face value. The latter quotes 
 from several of the dramatists passages in which they 
 proclaim such intentions; but he only succeeds in proving 
 that satire was the ostensible theory on which they wrote. 
 To establish his contention, he selects passages like the 
 following, the first being from Dryden, and the last two 
 from Congreve: ‘Comedy presents us with the imperfec- 
 tions of human nature — [it] causes laughter in those who 
 can judge of men and manners, by the lively representation 
 of their folly and corruption.” “I designed the moral 
 first, and to that moral I invented a fable.” ‘‘ Men are to 
 be laughed out of their vices in comedy—as vicious 
 people are made ashamed of their follies or faults by 
 seeing them exposed in a ridiculous manner, so are good 
 people at once warned and diverted at their expense.” 
 
 If it were a question merely of what the dramatists said 
 they did (especially when they felt the necessity of defend- 
 ing themselves) rather than a question of their actual prac- 
 tice, then still more protestations of the kind given 
 
 ' above could be cited, but the plays themselves are more 
 significant than anything which their authors say about 
 them, and it would take a good deal to convince one that 
 | Congreve, for instance, wrote his plays for the sake of 
 anything but amusement, or that if he had a moral it was 
 anything but a cynical one. Moreover, Dryden himself, 
 
 1 The Drama of Sentiment. 
 
THE DRAMA AND SOCIETY 43 
 
 whom Mr. Bernbaum quotes, is not noted for the consis- 
 tency of his critical utterances, and in the preface to “ The 
 Mock Astrologer” he flatly repudiates any responsibility 
 of the dramatist to point a moral. The statement of his 
 case is so unequivocal that it is worth quoting: “It is 
 charged upon me that I make debauched persons (such 
 as, they say, my Astrologer and Gamester are) my pro- 
 tagonists, or the chief persons of the drama; and that I 
 make them happy in the conclusion of my play; against 
 the law of comedy, which is to reward virtue and punish 
 vice. I answer, first, that I know no such law to have been 
 constantly observed in comedy, either by the ancient or 
 modern poets — the chief end of it (comedy) is divertise- 
 ment and delight: and that so much, that it is disputed, 
 I think, by Heinsius before Horace’s ‘Art of Poetry,’ 
 whether instruction be any part of its employment. At 
 least 1 am sure it can be but its secondary end: for the 
 
 business of the poet is to make you laugh.” Here is the | 
 
 true spirit in which the Restoration dramatist worked, 
 whatever may have been his professed theory. 
 
 Mrs. Behn is equally clear when, in the preface 
 to “The Dutch Lovers,” she writes: “In my judgment 
 the increasing number of our later plays have not done 
 much more towards the amending of mens’ morals, or their 
 wit, than hath the frequent preaching, which this last 
 age hath been pester’d with, (indeed without all contro- 
 versy they have done less harm) nor can I once imagine 
 what temptation anyone can have to expect it from them; 
 for sure I am no play was ever writ with that design — as 
 I take it comedy was never meant, either for a converting 
 or conforming ordinance: In short, I think a play the best 
 divertisement that wise men have.” Yet Mrs. Behn was 
 perfectly willing to fall in with the prevailing pose when 
 there was occasion for it, as may be seen from her dedica- 
 
I 
 
 44 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 tion to ‘ The Lucky Chance” where she quotes Richelieu 
 and D’Aubignac on the moral and political value of plays. 
 Any attempt to regard the Restoration drama, as a 
 _ whole, as satiric in an austere sense is doomed to failure. 
 ' This is not, of course, to say that the method was not that 
 of satire. The method is that of picturing things in such 
 a way as to cause them to be laughed at, and this is, in 
 one sense, satire. But if, on the other hand, the term 
 implies also an attempt to promote moral improvement, 
 then the Restoration drama was not satiric. The dramatist 
 did not inspire to virtue, because he had no great faith in 
 it. He hated foolishness, cant, and all that was not easy 
 and graceful, and all these things he satirized. He sati- 
 L rized pretense, foppery, and failure, but not graceful vice. 
 Thus Sir Fopling Flutter is ridiculed, but there is no satire 
 for Dorimant, the graceful rake of the same play. In 
 “The Country Wife” there is a satire of the foolish hus- 
 band, but no satire of Horner, who takes advantage of him. 
 Worldly wisdom is the ideal, and he who has it escapes 
 satire just as surely as he mi lacks it falls under ridicule. 
 Virtue has nothing to do with the matter. The dramatists 
 cynically admire nothing but success, and satirize nothing 
 but failure — failure to be graceful, failure to be witty, 
 and failure in savoir faire, but not failure to be virtuous. 
 The truth of the matter seems to be that the poets were 
 not interested-in-moralityeither one way or the other. 
 They were not, as Collier tried to prove, actively engaged 
 in any systematic attempt to destroy it; but neither were 
 they engaged in any attempt through the employment of 
 satire, or by any other means, to recommend it. They 
 - wished their plays to be realistic, to be witty, to be polished, J 
 and, above all, to be penetrating; but they were expositors 
 rather than preachers, and they set forth the ideas of the 
 
 Oe ee ee a a 
 
 wt iii sia ae a 
 
 ore ae 
 
7 
 
 THE DRAMA AND SOCIETY 45 
 
 time without attempting either to improve or to debase 
 them. It is true that certain minor wits, including Dryden 
 and Mrs. Behn, did pander shamefully to the lust of 
 the audience, but that cannot be charged against Wycher- 
 ley, Congreve, or Vanbrugh. The worst that can be said 
 of them is that they were cynical, and that they accepted 
 life as they found it without any attempt to make it better. 
 Dryden, Wycherley, and Mrs. Behn were each cynical for 
 a different reason: Wycherley because he had no faith 
 that human nature, bad as it was, could be made better; 
 Mrs. Behn because to refuse to be bound in any manner 
 by morality gave her freedom to devise those amorous 
 intrigues which she loved; Dryden chiefly, it seems, be- 
 cause it paid a writer to be so. 
 
 These men were more definitely than most literary men, 
 * perhaps, a part of the life they depicted. The best writers 
 were themselves men of fashion and wit; and hence mem- 
 bers of the same class as their characters, whom they there- 
 fore saw from within rather than from without, and whose 
 ideas they expounded, and, to a certain extent, whose 
 limitations they shared. They were almost too much a 
 part of the life to have an attitude towards it, and they 
 shared its limitations too much to be able to criticise 
 
 them. Consequently they express rather than criticise or “ 
 
 advocate the Restoration manner and thought. They did 
 not exactly advocate sexual looseness, but they held no 
 very high standard of sexual purity, for neither they nor 
 their contemporaries practiced or much regarded it. Purity 
 was perhaps an ideal, but they never expected either them- 
 selves or others to live up to it. Scruples of honor and 
 faith in the other relations of life were also, no doubt, 
 beautiful, but hardly customary; for, although they made 
 an additional ornament to character, they were so often 
 
~ 
 
 46 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 lacking that they were not regarded as necessary to the 
 heroes of drama any more than they were to the great 
 in public life. 
 
 Within these general limits, most of the Restoration 
 writers may be confined. They were the very opposite of 
 idealistic, and the differences between them consist chiefly 
 in the degree of frankness with which they acknowledged 
 the facts and the extent to which they disapproved of them. 
 One would judge from Mrs. Behn’s plays that she thought 
 the world of restless amorous intrigue the best of all 
 possible worlds. Wycherley accepts it as frankly as she 
 does, and seems to have as little hope that it might be 
 better, but he recognizes its ugliness. The cynicism and’ 
 ferocious vigor with which he depicts the vices of the age 
 imply a genuine and savage disgust at its baseness. 
 Macaulay refers to him as “the most licentious writer of 
 a singularly licentious and hard-hearted school,” but this 
 is hardly fair. His plays are obscene, perhaps, but not 
 licentious. He recognizes the ugliness of vice, as Mrs. 
 Behn, for instance, does not, and is to that extent a moral- 
 ist, though he neither urges nor expects a reformation. An 
 upright character is a curiosity, and must be content like 
 Manly in “The Plain Dealer” to purchase personal 
 rectitude at the price of being himself deceived. The 
 successful man is the one who like Horner in “ The Country 
 Wife ” can play upon the weakness of his fellows. Wycher- 
 ley’s whole philosophy is summed up in a speech made by 
 Manly when an acquaintance remarks that, as for him, 
 he speaks well of all men. Manly replies that his friend 
 
 _ thereby does the greatest possible injustice to the few who 
 really deserve it. 
 
 Congreve’s estimate of the world is not different, but it 
 is less bitter. No more than Wycherley does he believe 
 in faith or honor. But he is less savage. He would, 
 
 . i a 
 
THE DRAMA AND SOCIETY 47 
 
 perhaps, admire virtue and truth, but they hardly exist. 
 One may if he likes lead a blameless life, but he need not 
 expect others to do so. Nor is it necessary to get excited 
 over the matter. Congreve watches the corruption of 
 society with an amused detachment, and is resolved to be 
 content if it is only graceful. Wycherley sums up his 
 philosophy in the bit of dialogue just quoted. Congreve 
 summed up his in a light song which ends: 
 
 “He alone won’t betray in whom none will confide: 
 And the nymph may be chaste that has never been tried.” 
 
 The judgments of the two men are closely akin, but where 
 one finds indignation the other finds only amusement. 
 
 It is evident that such a drama was too much a part of | ) 
 the spirit of the age wholly to please any other time. K 
 As manners improved, the plays would seem not like truths 
 but lke libels, and when idealism returned, moralists 
 would insist also that plays must in some measure inspire 
 as well as depict, and the drama would change. 
 
 We are to be concerned with this change. Before pro- 
 ceeding with the drama, it will be necessary to glance at 
 the development of literary criticism, which was preparing 
 a weapon to overturn the critical theories of the Restora- 
 tion dramatists.. 
 
 . 
 
CHAPTER III 
 CRITIC AND AMATEUR 
 
 In the preceding chapter, attention was called to the 
 fact that it was possible to cite the testimony of the play- 
 wrights themselves concerning their attitude toward their 
 art. This fact is extremely significant, and indicates one 
 of the greatest differences between the Elizabethan and the 
 Restoration ages. In the former it was the exception when 
 the dramatic author talked about his works to the public. 
 The earliest dramatists never did so. But the habit grew 
 during the seventeenth century, and by 1700 had become 
 customary. This fact illustrates especially an increasing 
 interest in literature, consciously thought of as such, on 
 the part of the general public. No doubt artists had 
 always been in the habit of discussing their craft among 
 themselves, but the general public was not interested. It 
 heard its ballad or saw its play, but cared nothing for the 
 principles of literary criticism, or very much for the per- 
 sonality of authors. When we reach the seventeenth cen- 
 tury, however, sophistication has advanced to ‘such a 
 point that literature has taken a prominent place in fash- 
 ionable life, and become a thing not merely to be enjoyed, 
 but also to be discussed. The principles of the art are in 
 everyone’s mouth, the dilettante has become fashionable, 
 and the author a public personage. He tells the public of 
 his ideas concerning literature, he publishes his letters, 
 and after he dies some one presents an account of his life. 
 Thus we are not very far from the modern tradition where 
 
 48 
 
 a irae ~——— 
 
CRITIC AND AMATEUR 49 
 
 everything that concerns an author, down to his taste in 
 food, is a matter of public interest and is “ written up” 
 in the magazines. 
 
 The present chapter is an attempt to trace the growing 
 importance of literary criticism, both formal and informal, 
 and of this general public interest in authors and author- 
 ship which increased so much between 1660 and 1700. Nor 
 is this subject at all foreign to our general topic. The de- 
 cline of Restoration Comedy and the rise of Sentimental 
 Comedy were accompanied by a great deal of discussion, 
 oral and written, over literary questions. Marlowe gave 
 but a brief warning that he was about to replace the early 
 Elizabethan jiggings with poetry. Jonson introduced his 
 style of comedy with somewhat more explanation and pro- 
 test, but neither change was accompanied by anything 
 like the amount of public discussion that attended the 
 “reform” of the English stage about 1700. Every one 
 was conscious of this change. Every one discussed it from 
 one point of view or another. The whole movement was 
 intensely self-conscious, and one of its chief protagonists, ~ 
 Steele, was a theorist more than he was a playwright. As 
 to the Jeremy Collier controversy itself, it was, as Spingarn 
 points out, really a critical controversy. Collier was prin- 
 cipally a moralist, but borrowed some of his weapons from 
 the critics, and indeed based some of his arguments on 
 purely critical grounds. Moreover the controversy raged 
 not only around questions of abstract morality, but also , 
 around the moral function of the stage and how it could 
 best fulfill this function. No previous critical discussion 
 ‘had produced such a bulk of writing, and it is unlikely 
 that the discussion would have taken the turn which it 
 did had it not been for the previous development of criti- 
 cism here to be discussed. And, inversely, it seems ex- 
 tremely probable that the amount of attention which the 
 
50 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 Collier controversy attracted encouraged succeeding writers 
 of criticism. 
 
 The debt which the reform movement owed to the critical 
 development of the latter part of the century was a double 
 one. This development gave currency to several theories 
 about the function of the stage which, if put into practice, 
 would necessitate a reform; and, second, by popularizing 
 criticism it made these theories seem no longer merely 
 academic propositions but live issues. It inspired the moral- 
 ists to demand that they be put into practice, and it en- 
 couraged the dilettante to wish to see the experiment tried. 
 ‘It is the: purpose of this chapter merely to show the 
 growth of interest in criticism itself, and of the following 
 one to set forth such of the ideas developed as are signifi- 
 cant in our discussion. 
 
 Criticism is a late birth. In its earliest form it is likely 
 to be learned, and prodigiously heavy; or, if popular, to 
 confine itself to the bestowal of epithets such as the 
 
 “ honey-tongued Shakespeare ” and the “ mellifluous Ovid.” J 
 
 For some decades after the close of the fifteenth century 
 there was not a single critical treatise on the English lan- 
 guage or literature existing in the English tongue. We 
 find a little later that Hawes’ “ Pastime of Pleasure ” 
 (1517), discusses poets, that Wilson’s “ Art of Rhetoric” 
 (1553), deals with the old technicalities, and that Ascham’s 
 “'Toxophilus”’ (1545) and “The Scholemaster” (1570), 
 attack “books of feyned chivalry” and the novella, but 
 that Gascoigne’s ‘‘ Certain Notes of Instruction concerning — 
 the Making of Verse ” is the first separate book of English ~ 
 criticism.* | 
 
 In Sidney’s “ An Apologie for Poetrie” (1595), Eliza- 
 bethan criticism produced one work which towers far above _ 
 all other English criticism before the time of Dryden. Be- — 
 tween Sidney and Jonson the principal critical writers, the — 
 
 1 Saintsbury. History of Criticism. 
 
CRITIC AND AMATEUR 
 
 Gossons, the Googes, and the Webbes, were concerned with 
 attack and defense of literature in general, or with tech- 
 nical questions, especially that concerning rhyme versus 
 quantity, but with Jonson we have the first Englishman to 
 devote sustained effort to criticism. He was the first to 
 furnish a preface to a play, and in taking this means to put 
 before the reader his theory of comedy, and his likes and 
 dislikes, he set a precedent of enormous importance in the 
 development of popular as opposed to academic and 
 pedantic criticism. Moreover he translated that, for seven- 
 teenth century critics, most sacred of sacred writings, 
 Horace’s “ De Arte Poetica,” and in his “ Discoveries,” if 
 he did not as was formerly thought show great originality, 
 he did at least give proof that he preceded the classicist 
 or pseudo-classicist of the latter part of the century and 
 read not only Aristotle, Seneca, Quintilian and other classi- 
 cal writers, but also the humanists, including the two 
 Scaligers and D. Heinsius. 
 
 Yet in spite of Jonson’s interest in the subject and the 
 interest also of Bacon, criticism does not bulk large during 
 the first half of the seventeenth century, and it is not too 
 much to say that it was the later seventeenth century that 
 gave it its place in‘ the popular mind as one of the 
 branches of literature. The Restoration age made the 
 critic a recognized figure like the poet or dramatist, and 
 so caused almost every successful work to be accompanied 
 by critical discussion. Rymer felt this change keenly. 
 Speaking of the early part of the century he says: “ At 
 this time — Ben Jonson, I think, had all the critical learn- 
 ing to himself; and till of late years England was as free 
 from critics as it is from wolves, that a harmless well- 
 Ineaning book might pass without any danger. But now 
 this privilege, whatever extraordinary talent it requires, 
 is usurped by the most ignorant; and they who are least 
 
 1 Gregory Smith. Ben Jonson. 
 
52 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 acquainted with the game are aptest to bark at every thing 
 that comes in their way.” This increasing tendency to dis- 
 cuss literature is important in our subject because it is 
 paving the way for the controversy over the stage, and 
 because it was not until such discussion should become 
 familiar that a Steele, for instance, could use criticism to 
 influence public literary taste as he did. 
 
 Speaking of the “great names” of Jonson, Bacon, 
 Milton, and Hobbes, Spingarn says:+ “It is doubtful 
 whether any of these four justified one of the most signifi- 
 cant. of the critic’s functions by interpreting a poet to his 
 contemporaries, or by making an unknown name a real 
 possession of English literature. Not a single author was 
 better understood because of any light shed by them.” 
 What this means is that criticism, which interested only a 
 few scholars and neither the general public nor many of the 
 popular authors, was as yet cold, pedantic, and half alive. 
 The later seventeenth century, on the other hand, loved 
 to talk about literature; and from this talk sprang a style 
 of criticism which was a sort of free and easy running 
 
 comment on the writings of the day and by its close 
 
 connection with living taste helped to mould it. “In 
 former times,” wrote D’Urfey,? “a play of humor or a 
 comedy with a good plot, could certainly please; but now 
 
 a poet must find out a third way, and adapt his scenes and © 
 
 plot to the genius of the critic, if he’d have it pass.” 
 What Steele said about his plays had perhaps as much to 
 do with establishing the Sentimental tradition as did the 
 plays themselves, but this could not have been true had 
 not the years between 1660 and 1700 prepared the way by 
 arousing public interest in criticism. 
 
 Hamelius, Saintsbury, and Spingarn have traced the de- 
 
 1 Camb. Hist. of Eng. Lit. Vol. VII, Chap. XI. 
 2 Preface to The Bandittv. 
 
 eS a 
 
CRITIC AND AMATEUR 53 
 
 velopment of the principal critical ideas during the seven-— 
 teenth century. My purpose in the present chapter is 
 somewhat different. Many of the ideas are not in them- 
 selves pertinent to our subject. What I want to do is to 
 demonstrate by means of a bibliography and a discussion 
 the growth in extent and variety of popular interest in 
 critical literature, and the increasing prominence of the 
 critic, so as to show how it was that by the end of the 
 seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries 
 people were as open to influence from talks about literature 
 as I shall later prove them to have been. The Sentimental 
 Comedy was an artificial product and it was born and \ 
 nourished partly as the result of talk — talk about morals 
 in general and about those of the theater in particular. ’ 
 That a general purification of language and manners should 
 take place was inevitable from social changes, but the 
 change in the drama went deeper than this. There was a 
 change in method from the satiric to the sentimental, and ° 
 this change took place partially through the operation of 
 critical theory. 
 
 We may divide seventeenth century criticism into two 
 streams, the formal and learned treatises in pseudo- 
 classical theory and the informal chit-chat of the coffee 
 house. Between the two came literary mediators, king of 
 whom is Dryden, who gave to formal criticism some of the 
 ease of conversation. We shall discuss the formalists first. 
 
 It was on the classical writers that all the formal criti- 
 cism was ostensibly based, but it was from the commenta- — 
 tors on classical writers that the influence really came. 
 Translations from Longinus appeared in 1652,! 1680, and 
 1692; Roscommon printed his verse translation of Horace’s 
 “Art of Poetry” in 1680; and another translation 
 
 1 This date is wrongly given as 1662 in the British Museum 
 catalogue. 
 
54 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 by Oldham appeared later (1681). The “ Poetics” of 
 » Aristotle appeared in English dress in 1705, but it was 
 _ to the French that the English looked most often for 
 critical guidance. The noise of the controversy over the 
 “Cid” had reached England, and it was probably from 
 Corneille that Dryden got the idea of prefixing criti- 
 cal discussions to his plays. With the English, René 
 Rapin was an especial favorite. No less than six of his 
 critical works were translated in our period, beginning with 
 “The Comparison of Plato and Aristotle” in 1673 and 
 ending with ‘Comparison of Thucidides and Livy” in 
 1694. Boileau’s “ Art of Poetry ” was translated in verse 
 in 1683 and Hédelin’s heavy volume called ‘The Whole 
 Art of the Stage” in the following year. Other transla- 
 tions from the French may be found by referring to the 
 Bibliography. 
 
 In France criticism was already alive, and Hédelin tells 
 us that so great was the interest in formal criticism that 
 not only did the players scarce discuss anything else than 
 
 the value of the unity of time, but even the ladies in their. 
 
 ruelles undertook to defend it. Hédelin himself was not 
 a mere theorist, as he had been made by Richelieu a sort 
 of overseer of the stage and so should have been a “ practi- 
 cal man of the theater.” He demanded, however, the most 
 rigid adherence to the rules, and would not purchase suc- 
 cess at the cost of violating one of them, so that even in 
 France where the unities were much more revered than 
 in England, his regular but dull play was the subject of 
 satiric comment. 
 
 The honor of having written the first formal critical 
 treatise on the stage published in England after the Res- 
 toration must be given to Flecknoe. It is doubtful if 
 even Marvell’s satire would have kept alive Flecknoe’s 
 name had that name not been taken over by Dryden to 
 
CRITIC AND AMATEUR 55 
 
 stigmatize Shadwell, and, accordingly, our unfortunate 
 critic may be said to owe such fame as he has, not to the 
 direct damnation of Marvell but to the reflected damnation 
 of Dryden. He was a by-word for bad poetry whom Lang- 
 baine described thus: ‘“ His acquaintance with the nobility, 
 was more than with the muses; and he had a greater 
 propensity to rhyming than a genius to poetry.” Though 
 only one of his plays was ever acted, he amused him- 
 self by making lists in which suitable actors were ar- 
 ranged to various persons of his dramas. His “ A Short 
 Discourse on the English Stage,” published in 1664 as 
 a preface to a pastoral-tragi-comedy, ‘“ Love’s Kingdom,” 
 is interesting in that it presents immediately the doctrine 
 of the moral end of all drama, which was so often pre- 
 sented by Restoration critics, but which somehow was 
 not taken seriously by the dramatists or the public 
 
 until the end of the seventeenth century. Aside from this, 
  Flecknoe can have but little interest. He was too well 
 recognized as a stock figure of a dunce for anyone to have 
 the hardihood to quote him, and so he can have had but 
 little influence. 
 
 The first Englishman to acquire a substantial reputation 
 solely as a critic was Thomas Rymer, now honored mostly 
 as an antiquarian for his collection of State Papers called 
 “ Foedera,” published comparatively late in his life (1704— 
 1713). Most people now remember only Macaulay’s re- 
 marks about “ Rymer whom we take to have been the 
 worst critic that ever lived,” but though violently attacked 
 in his own time, he nevertheless commanded considerable ~ 
 respect, for Pope called him “on the whole one of the 
 best critics we ever had,’ and we learn from the Gentle- 
 man’s Journal (Dec. 1692) that his “Short View of 
 Tragedy ” was “ expected with much impatience.” 
 
 1 Spence’s Anecdotes. 
 
56 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 Rymer borrowed his ideas from the French, and his first 
 critical effort was a preface to Rapin’s “ Reflexions sur la 
 Poétique en General” which he translated under the title 
 
 of “‘ Reflections on Aristotle’s Treatise of Poesie’”’ (1674). — 
 
 Rymer was an uncompromising neoclassicist, who held the 
 rules absolute, not because they had the support of au- 
 thority, but because (as Rapin had put it) they were 
 founded on reason and good sense, and poetry could not 
 be profitable and delightful in defiance of them. In his 
 own preface, Rapin had remarked that Lope de Vega? 
 was the only man who had dared to attack the rules, 
 and that he had succeeded so ill that this piece was not 
 deemed worthy of inclusion in his collected works. In the 
 ‘Tragedies of the Last Age” (1678) Rymer developed the 
 doctrine of Poetic Justice, and in “A Short View of 
 Tragedy ” (1693), he damned himself so far as futurity 
 was concerned by analyzing “ Othello” as an example of a 
 bad play and remarking that “ Gorboduc ” (because it was 
 according to the rules) would have been a better model for 
 
 Shakespeare and Jonson to follow than were those which — 
 
 they chose. In this respect he was only following Sidney, 
 who could give even qualified praise to ‘‘ Gorboduc ”’ alone 
 among contemporary plays. Sidney however saw only 
 the beginning of the great drama, and, had he known 
 Shakespeare, might not, like Rymer, have execrated him. 
 Rymer recognized the genius of the English poets, but la- 
 mented their irregularities, so that he is inclined to regard 
 them as Voltaire did Shakespeare —that is, as barbaric 
 geniuses. 
 
 He was replied to in his own age, notably by an anony- 
 mous attack on ‘“ Tragedies of the Last Age” in the col- 
 lection of “ Miscellaneous Letters and Essays” edited by 
 Charles Gildon in 1694, and by John Dennis, who objected 
 
 1 See Tha New Art of Writing Plays. Trans. W T. Brewster. 
 
 ot, Boel 
 
CRITIC AND AMATEUR 57 
 
 to “A Short View of Tragedy ” in “ The Impartial Critic ” 
 (1693). It would be unprofitable for us to inquire as some 
 moderns have done whether Pope or Macaulay was nearer 
 right in his estimate of Rymer. It is sufficient to say that, 
 granting him his premises, he was logical enough, and that 
 if consistency to principles which would have ruined the 
 stage is enough to entitle a man to the title of a “ good 
 critic,’ then Rymer was one. Jeremy Collier himself . 
 could not have insisted more firmly on the obligation of 
 the stage to teach morality; and this phase of Rymer’s 
 system will be discussed in the next chapter, as it bears 
 directly on the principal subject in hand. 
 
 The great difficulty with such a critic as Rymer was 
 that he went at the matter from the wrong end. The rules, 
 formulated a priori from reason, must be right, he said, 
 for reason could not be wrong. And, accordingly, if a play 
 written according to the rules failed, then it must be the 
 fault of the audience. His own “ Edgar” (1677) was a 
 complete failure, but that did not matter. Better to fail 
 with Aristotle than succeed with Shakespeare. Dryden, on 
 the other hand, was not that sort of man. He was a 
 dramatist first, and if some of the rules seemed to make 
 for bad plays, then he was more ready to suspect that 
 there was a flaw somewhere in the “reason” which sup- 
 ported the rules than that bad plays had been proved to be 
 good ones. Consequently, he felt, one had best re-examine 
 the reason. For instance, the pseudo-classicists “ proved ”’ 
 that it was absurd not to maintain the unity of place for, 
 said they, is it not ridiculous to suppose that the same spot 
 is in one scene Rome and in the next Athens? Dryden 
 saw that much better plays could be written if the play- 
 wrights were allowed liberty in this respect. He examined 
 the reason which supported the rule of the unity of place, 
 and shrewdly observed through the mouth of one of the 
 
58 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 speakers in his “Of Dramatick Poesie” (1668), that it is 
 no more absurd to imagine a place Athens after having 
 imagined it Rome than it was to imagine it Rome in the 
 first place. Thus is the light of common sense let into 
 criticism, and through the device of the dialogue in which 
 the essay is written, occasion is given to submit even the 
 sacred rules to the ordeal by question, and hence to facili- 
 tate the arrival at truth and the clearing away of rubbish. 
 So through all his magnificent series of prefaces, Dryden 
 acts as mediator between critic and playwright. No play- 
 wright could follow Rymer and be successful, and Rymer 
 demanded that he be followed implicitly. Dryden assumed 
 no infallibility. He brought forth the classical doctrines, 
 held them up to the light of day and said, “ Let us see 
 what there is in all this which is of value to us.” Thus 
 he did more than any other man to bridge the gulf which 
 separated playwright and critic, and to make criticism a 
 living force. 
 
 Most of Dryden’s criticism appeared in the form of 
 prefaces, and nothing is more significant of what we are 
 now trying to illustrate, namely the growing rapport be- 
 tween popular literature and criticism, than the rise of the 
 critical preface, which gradually became a recognized in- 
 stitution. Here we have critics who do not, as Sidney and 
 Rymer had done, stand off from dramatic literature and 
 unintentionally subtract from the effect of their criticisms 
 by pronouncing practically all that had been written and 
 admired basically at fault, but actually come to grips with 
 popular literature. 
 
 Beljame suggests’ that the genesis of the preface was 
 an economic necessity, and that prefaces were written 
 primarily to give some good reason why a person who had 
 
 1 Le Public et les Hommes de Lettres en Angleterre au Diz- 
 Hwtiéme Siecle. 
 
CRITIC AND AMATEUR 59 
 
 seen a play acted should buy the printed copy. Doubt- 
 less there is something in this, but the real reason goes 
 deeper, and lies in the need which the author felt of a 
 mediator between his play and the audience; the need, 
 in other words, for interpretative criticism. As has been 
 remarked, Jonson was the first to use the critical preface, 
 but, be it added, he was not the first to feel this need. 
 Even the reserve of Shakespeare is somewhat broken in 
 the famous prologue in which the audience is besought to 
 use its imagination to transform the wooden O; Marlowe 
 gave the audience due warning of his momentous innova- 
 tion in a few lines; and other playwrights had come before 
 their audience in prologue or in “ Induction” to explain 
 their plays. But in spite of Jonson’s example, the preface 
 did not rise to much importance before the Civil War. 
 Dekker has a few short epistles, and in ‘‘ The Whore of 
 Babylon” (1607), lets us into his theory by remarking: 
 “and whereas I may, — be critically taxed, that I falsify 
 the account of time, and set not down occurents, according 
 to their true succession, let such (that are so nice of 
 stomach) know that I write as a poet, not as an historian, 
 and that these two do not live under one law.” Marston 
 has one or two short addresses “To the Reader,” and 
 Webster, in the ‘“ White Devil” (1612), protests against 
 being tried according to the rules. On the whole, how- 
 ever, these dramatists did not offer much apology for 
 their plays; but after the Restoration it became much more 
 common to do so, and the prefaces of Cowley, Dryden, 
 Shadwell, Mrs. Behn, Vanbrugh, and many others furnish 
 us with most valuable information. By this time criticism 
 had become fashionable. The new play was sure to be 
 technically discussed, and the playwright was fain at once 
 to protect himself and to furnish material for talk by 
 writing a preface. 
 
60 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 If Rymer was the first man in England to be known 
 definitely as ‘a critic,” John Dennis was the first to make 
 a living as one. It is true that he did some other literary 
 work, and true also that his financial returns do not seem 
 to have been very large; but he was a professional critic, 
 and the fact that such a profession, which had never 
 existed in England before, had come into being, was again 
 an indication of the increasing importance of criticism in 
 _the popular mind. Dennis, though of infinitely smaller 
 X abilities, was, like Dryden, somewhat of a mediator. His 
 principles were orthodox and founded on those of pseudo- 
 classicism, but his method was to submit modern works 
 to judgment in accordance with his views. His ‘“ Remarks 
 on Prince Arthur” (1696) is sometimes called the first 
 book review, though it is not quite clear to me why this 
 title might not better be given to “ The Censure of the 
 Rota on Mr. Driden’s Conquest of Granada” (1673), in 
 which the new play is pulled to pieces and its absurdities 
 revealed. Dennis was on the constant lookout for copy. 
 Besides formal treatises like ‘The Advancement and 
 Reformation of Modern Poetry ” (1701), he seized every 
 opportunity of criticism or reply, as in his retort to Rymer 
 in “ The Impartial Critick ” (1693), and in the “ Remarks 
 on Prince Arthur.” Moreover he printed letters from Con- 
 greve, Wycherley and others. Most of his work, however, 
 lies beyond 1700. A 
 
 A glance at the bibliography will show that in addition 
 to the more or less formal treatises such as those men- 
 tioned, the impulse to criticism was seeking expression in 
 various other ways. There is, for instance, the strange com- 
 pilation “ De Re Poetica” by Sir Thomas Pope Blount 
 (1694), a sort of symposium on literature. It is divided 
 into sections, “Concerning the Antiquity of Poetry,” 
 “Concerning Tragedy,” etc., and the method is to proceed 
 
CRITIC AND AMATEUR 61 
 
 by a series of quotations introduced by phrases such as 
 “ Aristotle says,” “Mr. Dryden tells us,” “ Milton ob- 
 serves,” “‘ Vossius says,” etc., and thus to present a con- 
 sensus of opinion for the use, perhaps, of amateur critics 
 who wished to appear widely read at the cost of but little 
 effort. 
 
 The critical essays in verse furnish another class of 
 compositions which became almost a fad. The Earl of 
 Roscommon turned Horace’s precepts in favor of modera- 
 tion, judgment, and harmony into English, and published 
 them in 1680. Two years later the Earl of Mulgrave pro- 
 claimed that “ nature’s chief master-piece is writing well ” 
 and offered what he thought was a sort of Horace brought 
 up to date, in which modern faults were corrected, abuses 
 regulated, and obscenities censured. Boileau’s ‘“ Art of 
 Poetry ” was translated by Soame, to whom Dryden, it is 
 said, lent his aid in adapting it to English conditions by 
 substituting the names of native writers for the Frenchmen 
 whom Boileau had used in illustration; and, finally, Mul- 
 grave, aided possibly by Dryden, printed his “ Essay on 
 Satire” in which, in addition to satirizing some of his 
 contemporaries, especially Rochester, he laid down what 
 he considered were the general laws of the game. These 
 essays are not to be confused with more or less fugitive 
 verse satires. They were serious attempts, not so much to | 
 establish new principles as to phrase the old ones more | 
 aptly, and to give final form to generally accepted doc- 
 trines. They were taken seriously by men of taste, they 
 were often quoted as authority in published criticisms, and 
 the epigrammatic phrases were no doubt much in the 
 mouths of the talkers. It is perhaps a little difficult for 
 us to understand the amount of interest which was taken 
 in these repetitions of familiar dicta, but it must be re- 
 membered that in no previous age had it been so nearly 
 
62 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 regarded a literal truth that nature’s chief masterpiece is 
 writing well and that, in addition, there was an increasing 
 belief in the necessity of conscious art to achieve good 
 writing. Without it, genius was thought to be of no avail, 
 and apparent naturalness was believed to be, if success- 
 ful, only well hidden art. As Mulgrave put it: 
 
 “Read Homer once, and you can read no more, 
 
 For all things else will seem so dull and poor, 
 * * * * * * * * * 
 
 Had Bossu never writ, the world had still 
 
 Like Indians, view’d this wondrous piece of skill; 
 As something of divine the work admired, 
 
 Hoped not to be instructed, but inspired.” 
 
 Another type of critical publication never heard of be- 
 fore began to appear in the form of little pamphlets 
 devoted to the criticism of single new plays. They were 
 not at first very dignified or important. Thus the amusing — 
 “Censure of the Rota” (1673) describes the meeting of 
 an imaginary club in which Dryden’s ‘Conquest of 
 Granada” is discussed and damned. On a similar plan is ~ 
 “A Description of the Academy of the Athenian Virtuosi,” 
 published in the same year, and attacking the same play 
 which, moreover, receives a serious defense in “ Mr. Drey- 
 den Vindicated etc.” (1673). These pamphlets, I believe, 
 furnish the first instance of a separate publication of a — 
 criticism on a current play, but the custom became estab- — 
 lished. Another group centered around Settle’s “The © 
 
 Empress of Morocco ” (published 1673). “ Wit for Money; — 
 
 or Poet Stutter, a dialogue — containing reflections on some 
 late plays and particularly on Love for Money; or, the 
 Boarding School” (1691) is an attack on D’Urfey. Two 
 friends invite Stutter (D’Urfey) to a tavern. In conversa- 
 tion they attack his bungling revisions, his thievings, and 
 his habit of writing now on one side and now on the other. 
 
CRITIC AND AMATEUR 63 
 
 His fecundity is satirized by the statement that he has 
 made “some 7,953 songs, 2,250 ballads, 1,956 catches, 
 besides madrygals, odes, and other lyrick copies of verses 
 ad infinitum.” The dedication is signed “Sir Critic Cat- 
 Call.” D’Urfey also had the honor of receiving another 
 separately published criticism on one of his plays. It had 
 the complimentary title of “ Poeta Infamis; or a Poet not 
 Worth Hanging — With a Letter to the Author of ‘The 
 Marriage Hater Matched.’ Written by a Friend” (1692), 
 and was a satire on a letter of Charles Gildon’s praising 
 D’Urfey’s “ Marriage Hater Matched,” which letter had 
 been prefixed to the play. After 1700 such pamphlets 
 became more important. Minor controversies raged around 
 Addison’s ‘“ Cato,” Steele’s “Conscious Lovers,” and 
 others. 
 
 Further public interest in authors is indicated by the 
 publication of various familiar letters from well-known 
 authors.‘ Interest in literature on the historical side was 
 evinced by Sprat’s “ Life of Cowley,” prefixed to the 1668 
 edition of the latter’s works, by Fuller’s “ Worthies”’ 
 (1662), and by the Bibliographical and Biographical Dic- 
 tionaries represented by Philipps’ “ Theatrum Poetarum ” 
 (1675), Winstanley’s “ Lives of the Most Famous English 
 Poets” (1687), and Langbaine’s “ Momus Triumphans’”’ 
 (1687) and his “An Account of the English Dramatick 
 Poets” (1691), the latter being used as a basis for other 
 works. 
 
 Finally, note should be taken of the appearance of liter- 
 ary criticism, especially in the form of book reviews, in 
 journals. Motteux’s ‘The Gentleman’s Journal; or The 
 Monthly Miscellany,” which ran from January, 1693, to 
 October, 1694, is a precursor of the monthly magazine. 
 Besides original stories, poems, and the like, it contains 
 
 1 See Bibliography. 
 
64 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 short notices of new plays and a critical death notice of 
 Shadwell. John Dunton’s “The Complete Library: or, 
 News for the Ingenious,” which began in 1692 and ran at 
 least until April, 1694, was more definitely a ‘review ” 
 and contained articles on such things as Gildon’s popular 
 collection of epistles called ‘‘The Post Boy Rob’d of his 
 Mail,” Temple’s ‘ Essays,’ Rymer’s “ Short View of Trag- 
 edy,”’ Sir Thomas Pope Blount’s ‘‘ De Re Poetica.” This 
 sort of thing, like the other forms of criticsm, continued to 
 increase after 1700 and criticism became a familiar journal- 
 istic feature. 
 
 We may also notice the increasing frequency with which 
 the critic figures in contemporary satire, which again 
 illustrates the growing consciousness on the part of the 
 public of the existence of this new personage in the literary 
 commonwealth. Suckling in his “A Session of the Poets” 
 borrowed an idea from the Italian and started a fashion 
 in literary verse satire, but in his poem the critic does 
 not appear. In the anonymous ‘A New Session of the 
 Poets” (1700) the poets put in their claims for the laurel 
 left by Dryden, but the critics also appear. One para- 
 graph may be quoted for its illustration of the satirist’s 
 attitude towards them: 
 
 “ D’Ur—y withdrawn, a brace of criticks came, 
 That would by others’ failure purchase fame: 
 This peevish race will take a world of pains, 
 To show that both the Arthurs! had no brains: 
 And labor hard to bring authentic proof, 
 
 That he that wrote Wit’s Satire 2 was an oaf. 
 Like Bedlam curs, all that they meet they bite, 
 Make war with wit, and worry all that write: 
 
 1 Prince Arthur and King Arthur. Both by Sir Richard Black- 
 more. 
 2 Also by Blackmore. 
 
CRITIC AND AMATEUR 65 
 
 Thus while on Shakespeare one with fury flew, 
 T’other his pen on well-bred Waller drew; 
 
 Writ on, and vainly ventured to expose 
 
 The noblest verse, and most exalted prose: 
 
 To both these bards heaven gave so little grace, 
 As of Apollo to demand the bays. 
 
 After a pause — bright Phoebus silence broke, 
 And with a frown to both by turn thus spoke: 
 ‘How darest thou, Caitiff, Shakespeare to asperse, 
 Thou wretchedest Rymer in the universe! 
 
 * * * * *x * * *K ca 
 
 Revere the dead, the living let alone, 
 But if, in spite of me, you must write on, 
 Leave others’ works to criticise your own. 
 Critics, cried he, are most of all unfit, 
 
 To fill the peaceful throne of awful wit.” 
 
 Similarly Dennis is introduced in the “ Battle of the 
 Poets”? (1725), and, of course, the critics play a part in 
 the “ Dunciad.” By that time no satire on the literary 
 world could leave out this newly important class. 
 
 This increased interest in printed criticism was evidently 
 accompanied by a great deal of talk on similar subjects. 
 To the “wit” the satirist now added the “ critic ” in his 
 gallery of town characters, and nothing is more frequent 
 in prologues than an appeal to these pretended critics 
 who make criticism a new and fashionable foppery. Sed- 
 ley, for instance, in his prologue to ‘The Mulberry Gar- 
 den” (1668), complains of: 
 
 . “The cruel critick and malicious wit, 
 Who think themselves undone if a play hit.” 
 
 So fashionable had literary criticism become that the 
 Beau, if he had not taste, was obliged to counterfeit. it. 
 This may be illustrated by a story which is not, I believe, 
 very well known. It was said that a certain man, anxious 
 to shine in this respect, discovered that the Earl of Dorset 
 
66 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 turned down the edge of pages containing passages which 
 he liked, and that the pretender, who had access to Dorset’s 
 books, achieved a reputation for taste by commending in 
 company the passages so marked. Dorset suspected him 
 of the practice and turned down many pages in a very 
 dull book, with the result that the would-be man of taste 
 rushed to the coffee-houses and fell into raptures over a 
 piece of very dull writing. Finally convinced that he had 
 made a mistake, he gave himself away by crying out in 
 a passion, “ That my L-d D-t had betrayed him out of 
 spite and dog’s ear’d the book in the wrong places.’’* 
 
 Certain men like Dorset and Pope’s friend Walsh seem 
 to have founded a real reputation as talkers, while even — 
 the criticisms of Saint-Evremond were written only for his 
 private friends and afterwards pirated. The Coffee-house — 
 or tavern was the central meeting place where these liter- 
 ary discussions ordinarily took place. The “Censure of 
 the Rota” and the “ Academy of the Athenian Virtuosi ” 
 present burlesque pictures of a critical cabal, and in dia- — 
 logues such as “ Wit for Money,” “The Impartial Critic,” — 
 and Gildon’s ‘Comparison of the Two Stages” the dis- — 
 putants usually retire to a tavern. The coffee-houses, we — 
 learn from “The Reason of Mr. Bays’s Changing his Re- 
 ligion”’ (1688), were commonly thought somewhat more ; 
 respectable. 
 
 The first of these Coffee-houses, each of which consti- 
 tuted a public club, was opened in London in 1652, and © 
 by the beginning of the eighteenth century three thousand 
 were said to be open there.?, The crowd was very miscel- | 
 laneous, but the critic was a familiar figure, as may be 
 observed from an interesting pamphlet ‘ The Character 
 
 1A Vindication of the English Stage Exemplified in the Cato 
 
 of Mr. Addison. 1716. 
 2 Boulton. The Amusements of Old London. 
 
CRITIC AND AMATEUR 67 
 
 of a Coffee-House”’ (1673). The company is described 
 as consisting of “a silly fop and a worshipful Justice, 
 —a worthy lawyer and an errant pickpocket, a rev- 
 erend non-conformist and a canting mountebank, all 
 blended together to compose an oglio of impertinence.” 
 All met to read the gazette, to listen to the opinions of 
 others, and to air their own. Along with the town wit, 
 an arrant Hobbesite, who values himself chiefly on his 
 knowledge of that part of the town that is not worth 
 knowing, may be found “a cabal of kittling critics that 
 have only learned to spit and mew.” A poet slips in to © 
 hear his beloved work damned, and is glad he came 
 incognito. 
 
 So much for the satirist’s view. But at Will’s the great 
 Dryden himself was easy of access and a little later 
 Steele and Addison frequented Button’s. At the coffee- 
 house where a man might idle away several hours at the 
 cost of a few pence, the impecunious could secure that 
 feeling of Olympian idleness from which the impulse to 
 criticism is most likely to spring. How important this 
 familiar interchange of ideas was in the development of 
 critical literature is evinced by the frequency with which 
 critical pamphlets are cast into the form of familiar 
 dialogues. 
 
 Though the critic made a great figure in the literary 
 world, greater than he had ever done before, he was far 
 from having his own way, and whether formal classicist or 
 mere pamphleteer, was subject to many attacks. Though 
 the classics were revered, the classical critic was fortu- 
 nately not always followed by the dramatist, and his 
 dogmas were frequently repudiated. In his ‘“ Upon 
 Poetry,’”’? Sir William Temple made a dignified plea for 
 the freedom of inspiration as opposed to submission to 
 
 1 In Miscellanea. Second Part. 1690. 
 
68 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 the rules;“and as for the dramatists, they cared too much - 
 for popular success to wish to jeopardize it by following 
 too closely the doctrines of orthodox criticism. They 
 bowed to the unities so far as to prune the Elizabethan 
 exuberance which liked to spread a play over a whole 
 lifetime and move the scenes over the whole face of the 
 earth, and they felt that it was better as a rule to confine 
 scenes to a relatively restricted area and the time to a 
 few days; but they refused to cramp themselves as Hédelin, 
 for instance, demanded, within the twenty-four hours of 
 a natural day, or to follow Rymer’s precepts which would 
 have converted the drama into something wholly removed 
 from life. Like Moliére, the dramatists were inclined to 
 laugh without asking if Aristotle forbade it, and like Lope 
 de Vega to say that while classicism might be all very 
 well, the audience would not stand for it, and that it was 
 “St. James’ beaux and Covent Garden rakes ” rather than 
 the learned whom they had to please. And it was well 
 that they did so, for in France, as Saint-Evremond com- 
 plains, ‘‘ on n’a jamais vu tant de régles pour faire des belles 
 tragédies; et on en fait si peu, qu’on est obligé de re- 
 presenter les vielles.” M. d’Aubignac had boasted that his 
 unsuccessful play followed everywhere the rules of Aris- 
 totle, but “Je sais bon gré a M. d’Aubignac, dit M. le 
 Prince, d’avoir si bien suivi les régles d’Aristote; mais je 
 ne pardonne point aux régles d’Aristote d’avoir fait faire une 
 si méchante tragédie a M. d’Aubignac.”’? Or, as the same 
 idea was expressed in English: ? ‘I would no more excuse 
 a dull rogue that should entertain me ill by the rules of 
 Aristotle and Horace, than a physician who should in- 
 
 1 Quoted by Ker in preface to Essays of John Dryden. 
 2 Chit-Chat — A Comedy. Quoted in Critical Remarks on the — 
 Four Taking Plays of the Season. (1719). 
 
CRITIC AND AMATEUR 69 
 
 crease my disease, by the rules of Hippocrates and Galen.” 
 Samuel Butler expresses his opinion thus: 
 
 “ Whoever will regard poetic fury, 
 When it is once found idiot by a jury; 
 And every pert and arbitrary fool 
 Can all poetic license overrule; 
 Assume a barbarous tyranny to handle 
 The muses worse than Ostro-goth or Vandal; 
 Make ’em submit to verdict and report, 
 And stand or fall to th’ order of a court? 
 * * * * * * * * * 
 
 Reduce all tragedy by rules of art 
 
 Back to its antique theater, a cart, 
 
 And make ’em henceforth keep the beaten roads 
 Of reverend choruses and episodes; 
 
 Reform and regulate a puppet-play, 
 
 According to the true and ancient way, 
 
 That not an actor shall presume to squeak 
 
 Unless he have a license for’t in Greek. 
 
 x * * * 2K ok * * 2K 
 
 These are the reformations of the stage, 
 
 Like other reformations of the age, 
 
 On purpose to destroy all wit and sense, 
 
 As th’ other did all laws and conscience; 
 
 * * * * * * * * * 
 
 An English poet should be try’d b’ his Peers 
 And not by pedants and philosophers, 
 Incompetent to judge poetic fury, 
 
 As witches are forbid to b’ of a jury.’ 1 
 
 Ever since the critic has existed, he has been the mark 
 of the author’s scorn. His trade seems to consist in a 
 
 1 From Butler’s posthumous works. Pub. 1759 in “ Genuine 
 Remains of Samuel But'er,” and by Spingarn in his Critical Essays 
 of the Seventeenth Century. I have modernized the spelling. 
 Butler expressed his unfavorable opinion of the critics in other 
 works as well. 
 
70 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 double impertinence — that of telling his betters what they 
 should write, and his equals what they should like — and 
 all the hard things that could be said about him were said 
 in the latter seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. 
 He was generally regarded (and in the case of Rymer and 
 Dennis there was some basis for the opinion) as an unsuc- 
 cessful writer who out of malice took to abusing the works 
 of others. Another charge often made was that the critic 
 wrote only to make money, and that criticism existed only 
 for the purpose of being sold. Thus Swift: 
 “ Read all the prefaces of Dryden, 
 For these our critics much confide in; 
 
 Though merely write at first for filling, 
 To raise the volume’s price a shilling.” 1 
 
 Pope expresed the same idea.’ 
 
 “Yet then did Dennis rave in furious fret; 
 I never answered —I was not in debt. 
 If want provoked, or madness made them print, 
 I waged no war with Bedlam or the Mint.” 
 
 ~ 
 
 Dullness and ill nature were held to be the critic’s dis- q 
 
 tinguishing characteristics. Swift in the “ Battle of the 
 Books ” makes criticism the child of Ignorance and Pride 
 and describes her as having claws like a cat but a head, 
 ears, and voice like an ass. Garth thought the only use 
 of critics was to display authors by contrast: 
 
 “So diamonds take a lustre from their foil 
 And to a Bentley ’tis, we owe a Boyle.” 
 
 But perhaps Gay ® gave the crowning insult: 
 
 “ Here sauntring ’prentices o’er Otway weep, 
 O’er Congreve smile, or over D(ennis) sleep.’ 4 
 
 1 Poetry. A Rhapsody. 
 2 Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot. 
 3 Trivia. II. 
 
 4 It is possible however that the “ D——” refers to D’Urfey. 
 
 : 
 \) 
 7 
 
 ; 
 % 
 ' 
 ¥ 
 | 
 
CRITIC AND AMATEUR 71 
 
 Yet in spite of the stiff-necked dogmatism of many of 
 its professors, and in spite of the contemptuous opposition 
 of some of the wits, criticism was winning its battle for 
 recognition as a living force, and in the years from 1660, 
 when comedy was achieving a brilliant success without 
 troubling itself much about some of the fundamental doc- 
 trines of the pseudo-classicists, criticism was gradually, 
 by continual repetition, impressing on the public mind 
 certain ideas which the reformers were to seize upon and 
 turn against the prevailing style of comedy. Those of 
 its dogmas which concern us chiefly, and which will be 
 treated in the next chapter, are as follows: 
 
 1. The fundamental purpose of literature is to teach 
 morality. 
 
 2. It is the duty of the tragic, and perhaps the comic 
 poet, to distribute poetic justice. 
 
 3. Decorum demands that types be presented in ac- 
 cordance with their typical rather than their occasional 
 characteristics. 
 
 4. Obscenity is a fault of taste. 
 
cas] 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 SOME CRITICAL DOGMAS 
 
 Very few imaginative writers in whose minds the desire — 
 to give moral instruction was always uppermost have ever 
 produced great literature and very few people ever read 
 great literature primarily because it gave them explicit 
 moral instructions. Yet in spite of these facts, the com- — 
 monest of all critical doctrines is that such instruction is 
 the fundamental purpose of literature. The theory of art 
 for art’s sake has never been popular because it is a part 
 of a doctrine that, however consistently acted upoil, people 
 have generally been loath to admit — namely, that pleasure — 
 is the highest good. | | 
 
 That literature pleases has usually not been enough to — 
 satisfy the philosopher, and when the problem has been — 
 consciously thought about, the tendency has been either, — 
 as in Plato’s “ Republic,” to expel the poet, or, as with — 
 the pseudo-classicists, to give him a moral function. The ~ 
 justification of the poet is the beginning of literary criti- 
 cism in the Renaissance. That the purpose of literature 
 was the teaching of morality was the common belief of the — 
 ancients; it finds expression in Plutarch and in Horace, ~ 
 while Strabo mentions the existence of dissent on this point. — 
 Aristotle (Poetics, Chap. IV) in saying “the end of the , 
 fine arts is to give pleasure or rather enjoyment” is dis- — 
 tinctly heterodox, for the commonly accepted idea was that © 
 the end was instruction.1 With the coming of Christianity — 
 the task of defending literature became more and more 
 
 1 Butcher. Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art. 
 72 
 
SOME CRITICAL DOGMAS 73 
 
 urgent, for literature was pagan. When, during the 
 Renaissance, criticism received a new birth, the critics “ set 
 themselves to prove that poetry was not a sweet pleasant 
 deceit or corrupting influence in the republic, but a strong- 
 hold and rampart of religion and philosophical truth.” * 
 To them poetry was simply philosophy in a more persua- 
 sive form, and the delight which it offered was only a sugar 
 coating to the bitter pill of “ doctrine.” 
 
 When English criticism was born, it showed no tendency 
 to be unorthodox. Ascham denounced the popular ro- 
 mances and tales on the ground of immorality, and with 
 Sidney’s ““An Apologie for Poetrie ”’ we have a systematic 
 presentation of the conventional view. It had been written 
 (about 1580-5) as a reply to Gosson’s “ The School of 
 Abuse,” which had spoken of “ poets, pipers, players, 
 jesters and such like caterpillars of a commonwealth.” 
 Poetry, by which Sidney means all imaginative literature, 
 is, he says, a speaking picture made to teach and delight. 
 The end of all knowledge is virtuous action, which philoso- 
 phy undertakes to teach by precept, history by example, 
 and law formidine poenae rather than virtutis amore. But 
 the precepts of the philosopher are cold, and the historian 
 is handicapped by facts, while the poet may present a 
 perfect and moving picture of what should be. If he fails 
 to do so, he is perverting his art, but the abuse of his 
 power is no argument against its legitimate use. Sidney 
 himself lamented that the ‘ Naughtie Play-Makers and. 
 Stage-Keepers” had justly made comic poetry odious. 
 Poetry is in itself good, he says, but in these days its power 
 is abused. This is the burden of the usual treatise on 
 poetry, and here is the first systematic and permanent 
 expression in English of this orthodox doctrine. As such, 
 it must have had considerable influence in making the 
 
 1 Saintsbury. A History of Criticism. Vol. II. 
 
74 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 conventional view of critics familiar to Englishmen. — 
 Rymer refers to Sidney (Preface to Rapin’s Reflections), 
 and, in connection with the “ Arcadia,” the “ Defense ” was 
 published fourteen times between 1600 and 1700. More- 
 over it was used in the Collier controversy. Filmer quotes 
 it at length in his “‘ Defense of Plays.” 
 
 As was said in the preceding chapter, Flecknoe’s “ Dis- 
 course of the English Stage” (1664) was the first formal 
 critical treatise to be published after the Restoration, and 
 hence it was the first to present the conventional doctrine, 
 though Cowley (Preface to the “Cutter of Coleman 
 Street”) had already made a short defense of the stage. 
 Speaking of the drama, Flecknoe says: “ Its chiefest end 
 is to render folly ridiculous, vice odious and virtue and 
 nobleness so amiable and lovely, as everyone should be 
 delighted and enamoured with it: From which if it deflects, 
 as corruptio optimi pessima, of the best it becomes the 
 worst of recreation and this his majesty well understood 
 when after his happy restoration he took such care to 
 purge it from all vice and obscenity; and would to God 
 he had found all bodies and humors as apt and easy to 
 be purg’d and reform’d as that.” And we may quote 
 again: + “I deny not but aspersions (these latter times) 
 have been cast upon the stage by the ink of some who 
 have written obscenely and scurrilously, etc. but instead of 
 wiping them off, to break the glass, was too rigid and 
 severe. For my part I have endeavored here the clearing 
 of it, and restoring it to its former splendor, and first 
 institution; (of teaching virtue, reproving vice, and amend- 
 ment of manners) so as if the rest but imitate my example, 
 those who shall be enemies of it hereafter, must declare 
 themselves enemies of virtue, as formerly they did of vice: 
 whence we may justly hope to see it restored again, with 
 
 1 Love’s Dominion. 1654. 
 
SOME CRITICAL DOGMAS 75 
 
 the qualification of an honorable coadjutor of the pulpit, 
 to teach morality, in order to the others divinity, and th’ 
 moulding and tempering of mens’ minds for the better 
 receiving the impressions of godliness.” Flecknoe’s state- 
 ment in the same preface that Fletcher was the first to 
 introduce into his plays “that witty obscenity ”’ which 
 “like poison infused in pleasant liquor, is almost the most 
 dangerous the more delightful” is interesting as correctly 
 tracing to Fletcher the germ of that later style of dialogue 
 which was so brilliant in manner and so corrupt in matter. 
 
 I have ventured to quote these two long and clumsy 
 passages merely because they happen to be the first ex- 
 pression after the opening of our period of the idea com- 
 monly held by people who were not practical playwrights. 
 Neither Collier nor Steele was advancing novel ideas when 
 he demanded a moralized stage. Each was engaged simply 
 in stirring up the public to demand that the experiment 
 (which turned out to be a disastrous one) should be made 
 of consciously putting into practice the conventional 
 theories. Thus the following, which is the opening sentence 
 of Collier’s “ Short View,” would have struck no one fami- 
 liar with the formal criticism of the times as in any way 
 novel: ‘“‘ The business of plays is to recommend virtue, and , 
 discountenance vice; to show the uncertainty of human 
 greatness, the sudden turns of Fate, and the unhappy 
 conclusions of violence and injustice: "Tis to expose the 
 singularities of pride and fancy, to make folly and false- 
 hood contemptible, and to bring every thing that is ill 
 under infamy, and neglect.” Mr. John Palmer, in a book 
 of excellent criticism of the Restoration comedy, maintains 
 repeatedly that Jeremy Collier invented the moral test as 
 applied to comedy. Nothing could be farther from the 
 truth. One has but to read classical, Renaissance, and 
 English critics to see that, far from being new, the demand 
 
76 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 that all literature must have a moral justification has been 
 handed down from age to age and that to question it was 
 to be heterodox. 
 
 Rymer is equally uncompromising in his attitude. Ac- 
 cording to him poetry’s end is to teach, and it delights 
 only in order that it may teach. One can delight only by 
 following the rules, and one can teach only if he delights; 
 and so, ultimately, the purpose of following the rules is 
 to make instruction possible. In the days of Aristophanes, 
 he says, it was universally agreed that the best poet was 
 he who had done most to make men virtuous. Horace, too, 
 agrees with the Greek and provides the oft-quoted phrase, 
 “Simul et jucunda et idonea dicere vitae.” As schools 
 are for teaching children, so the stage, says Rymer, should 
 be a school for men of riper years and judgment, and hence 
 the poet must see that his doctrine is good and wholesome. 
 So important, he says, is the drama and its influence, that 
 it should not be permitted except under the eye of a 
 virtuous government, for otherwise it may degenerate until 
 it deserves all that the clerics have said against it. Rymer 
 was only following the French. ‘“ The end of any dis- 
 course,” said Dacier, in the ‘ Essay on Satire” (trans. 
 1692), “is the action for which the discourse is compos’d; 
 when it produces no action, ’tis only a vain amusement, 
 
 ) Which idly tickles the ear, without ever reaching the heart.” 
 ealely Dennis assumes these principles as self-evident, 
 and it would be but repetition to quote him. 
 
 From the formal critics no dissent was to be expected, 
 but the playwrights who made their living by amusing an: 
 actual audience were likely to dissent or to give only a 
 formal assent, for the audience was more eager for amuse- 
 ment than instruction, and if it got the one, it was not over 
 particular about the other. Dryden, never very consistent 
 
s 
 
 SOME CRITICAL DOGMAS 77 
 
 in his critical dogmas, and true now to his réle as dramatist 
 and now as critic, vacillates on this point as has already 
 been pointed out. When speaking generally he agrees with | 
 the orthodox view, but when he comes to defend his own | 
 practice, he switches about and doubts if instruction be 
 after all a part of comedy. What Mrs. Behn said on 
 the subject has already been pointed out. Shadwell, how- 
 ever, was insistent in his championship of the orthodox 
 view; though it may be doubted whether or not his com- 
 edies tended much to the raising of the moral standard. 
 Generally speaking, the Restoration writers of belles 
 lettres, whether dramatic or otherwise, were not much con- - 
 cerned with instruction. They gave formal assent to 
 orthodox critical doctrine in much the same spirit that 
 they accepted the teachings of the Church of England. A 
 gentleman would hardly think of denying or practising 
 either. ) 
 
 Assuming, as the orthodox critics did, that the business 
 of the poet was to teach virtue, the next step was to de- 
 cide how this could best be accomplished. Aristotle’s doc- 
 trine of Catharsis did not seem quite definite. The 
 renaissance critic either expected frank didacticism or fell 
 back upon allegorical interpretation. In England was de- 
 veloped especially the theory to which Rymer first gave 
 the name Poetic Justice. Tragedy, it was maintained, 
 should instruct by showing the virtuous rewarded and the 
 vicious punished according to a system more perfect than 
 was observable in actual life. Whether or not this should 
 be extended to comedy was doubtful. Rymer and Dennis 
 thought not. They maintained that ridicule was the 
 proper method of comedy. But Steele demanded that, in 
 comedy as in tragedy, virtue must be rewarded and vice 
 punished, so that the extension of poetic justice to comedy 
 
78 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 was one of the cardinal doctrines of his creed, and in fact 
 a distinguishing characteristic of sentimental comedy. Ac- 
 cordingly we shall examine the roots of this doctrine. 
 Though Rymer seems to have been the first to use the 
 phrase “ Poetic Justice,” the idea was extremely old. 
 Essentially it is the idea that things are to be presented 
 not as they are, but as they ought to be, and this idea 
 is found in classical thought, and influenced even the writ- 
 ing of history. Tacitus himself, though condemning the 
 historian of the empire who lied for the purpose of flattery, 
 “does not forbid the shaping of a story according to 
 artistic probability and moral end.”? Similarly, the world 
 
 as it ought to be is the essence of Plato, and a kindred — 
 
 idea, as applied to literature, finds expression in Aristotle 
 who, though he does not exactly recommend poetic justice, 
 maintains that tragedy presents things not as they are 
 but as they ought to be. 
 
 In England the doctrine grows more explicit from Sidney 
 to Jonson, and receives final expression with Rymer. 
 In Sidney it is fully implied. Some poets, he says, borrow 
 nothing of what is, but rise into. divine consideration of 
 what might be. While the historian is tied down to what 
 actually is, the freedom of the poet gives him greater 
 liberty to teach, and hence there is more doctrine to be 
 learned from the latter’s method. The historian, being 
 limited to facts, must often give a bad example by con- 
 fessing that vice triumphs; but “If evil men come to 
 
 the stage, they ever go out (as the tragedy writer answered — 
 to one that misliked the shew of such persons) so manacled, — 
 
 as they little animate folks to follow them. But the his- 
 torian, being captived to the truth of a foolish world, is 
 many times a terror from well doing, and an encouragement 
 
 1 See Boissier, Tacite. Cited by H. Osborn Taylor. The Mediae- 
 val Mind. I. 
 
 ‘ 
 a 
 *. 
 } 
 ‘ 
 
 + 
 
SOME CRITICAL DOGMAS 79 
 
 to unbridled wickedness.” Jonson (dedication of ‘“ Vol- 
 pone”’) comes very close to the actual words “ Poetic Jus- 
 tice’ when in defending the punishment of the villainous 
 character in this comedy he employs the phrase “ it being 
 the office of a comic poet to imitate justice and instruct to 
 life.’ This very phrase was quoted by Collier? in his 
 attack on the contemporary stage. 
 
 It is in “ The Tragedies of the Last Age” (1678) that 
 Rymer gives final expression to the theory. The ancients, 
 he says, rejected history for the fable of a tragedy be- 
 cause they found that in history the same end happens to 
 the just and the unjust, and saw often wickedness triumph- 
 ant and virtue oppressed. They realized that such mon- 
 strous occurrences represented only particular incidents and 
 not the universal and eternal truths which it is the business 
 of the poet to present, and, accordingly, they neglected 
 history and chose stories in which they were not tied to 
 facts, but were able to distribute ‘‘ Poetic Justice ” accord- 
 ing to eternal truth. The theater, he says, was wont to 
 be called the school of virtues, but no longer deserves this 
 title because poetic justice is neglected. To say that a 
 play is natural he considers no excuse for it, since it is the 
 business of the poet to represent typical or eternal nature; 
 and individual instances where the great laws of poetic 
 justice are violated represent only a partial view of nature 
 and not its eternal truth. 
 
 The extreme to which this theory was carried is well 
 illustrated by Dennis in his “ Remarks upon Cato” 
 (1713). He writes: “ ’Tis certainly the duty of every tragic 
 poet, by an exact distribution of poetical justice, to imitate 
 the divine dispensation, and to inculcate a particular 
 providence. ’Tis true indeed upon the stage of the world 
 that the wicked sometimes prosper, and the guiltless suffer. 
 
 1 Defense of the Short View, etc. 1699. 
 
80 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 But that is permitted by the governor of the world, to show 
 from the attribute of his infinite justice that there is a 
 compensation in futurity, to prove the immortality of the 
 human soul, and the certainty of future rewards and pun- 
 ishment. But the poetical persons in tragedy exist no 
 longer than the reading or the representation; the whole 
 extent of their entity is circumscribed by those; and there- 
 fore during that reading or representation, according to 
 their merits or demerits, they must be punish’d or re- 
 warded.”’ Applying this principle to “ Cato,’ he says: 
 “That Cato’s being writ with a design to support liberty, 
 is an objection of no manner of force; that let the design 
 be what it will, the effect is sure to be contrary; that the 
 shewing a man of consummate virtue unfortunate only for 
 supporting liberty, must of necessity in a free nation be 
 a pernicious consequence, and must justly raise the highest 
 indignation in all true lovers of liberty.” 
 
 The dogmatist, enamoured with the specious logic of 
 this theory, seemed blind to its essential childishness. 
 That virtue should be emulated only because it is thought 
 profitable, and that no one could be expected to admire the 
 dignity of right triumphant even in defeat, is a character- 
 istic eighteenth century opinion; but to suppose that an 
 
 audience thus minded would be encouraged by a picture - 
 
 of virtue triumphant to seek virtue in hope of reward 
 when the picture was admittedly at variance with the facts 
 of life, is simply infantile. If a man in actual life is 
 supposed to be influenced by the reflection that his mis- 
 fortunes are merely a device employed by God for the 
 purpose of proving that there must exist a compensative 
 future, it is not at all clear why this “same man cannot 
 apply similar reasoning to an imaginary representation of 
 distressed virtue unless, indeed, belief in God is considered 
 impossible in the theater. If one insists on drawing a 
 
 ’ 
 | 
 ‘i 
 i 
 f 
 
SOME CRITICAL DOGMAS 81 
 
 moral from history or literature it had better be, not that 
 justice is triumphant and virtue rewarded, but that no 
 righteousness can assure success, and that one had best 
 prepare himself for endurance. Addison, indeed (Spec- 
 tator 40), attacks the absurdity of poetic justice, observing 
 truly that ‘“ We find that good and evil happen alike to all 
 men on this side of the grave’’; but in spite of its artifi- 
 ciality, poetic justice became one of the cardinal doctrines 
 of orthodox poetic theory. Thus in 1699 Drake?* speaks 
 of “ Poetic Justice, which has now become the principal 
 article of the drama,” though he remarks that Aristotle is 
 so far from teaching it that he recommends as most 
 suitable for tragedy the story of the misfortunes of a 
 person unhappy through his mistakes not his fault, which 
 is quite contrary to the principle that a man must be given 
 an end nicely adjusted to the merit of his character. 
 Aristotle does say that tragedy should not represent the | 
 downfall of a perfectly good man, but his approval of 
 “Oedipus” shows that he allowed considerable latitude. 
 Nevertheless, as will be seen later, poetic justice continued 
 to receive ardent support from theorists. 
 
 Though the doctrine of poetic justice seems palpably 
 absurd, it must be admitted in fairness that the whole 
 question is bound up with, and receives support from, 
 Plato; for to the Platonist the contrast between things as 
 they are and things as they ought to be is not a contradic- 
 tion, as the rationalists would have it, between truth and 
 falsehood, but merely between higher and lower truth, the 
 things as they ought to be being ideally more general and 
 true than the incidental and temporary things as they are. 
 
 At first poetic justice was thought to be chiefly the 
 concern of tragedy. Jonson, though it is in the preface to 
 “Volpone”’ that he develops the idea, thinks a certain 
 
 1 The Ancient and Modern Stages Survey’d. 
 
82 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 amount of apology necessary to defend its use in comedy, 
 and Dennis himself is inclined to believe that laughter is 
 ' a sufficient punishment for the wicked in comedy. Steele, 
 however, demanded the extension of the principle to 
 comedy, and in the sentimental plays the pleasure arising 
 from the spectacle of virtue finally triumphant was, in a 
 large measure, to supplant the pleasure of laughter. The 
 influence of Moliére in establishing the tradition that the 
 evil doer in comedy should be punished may be suggested. 
 Miles? points out that he sometimes, though not consis- 
 tently, employs poetic justice, and attention is called to 
 the similarity between the situation in “L’Ecole des 
 Femmes,” where Arnolphe reaps but little reward for his 
 unenlightened attempt to secure the fidelity of his wife, and 
 that in “ The Country Wife,’ where Pinchwife marries 
 an innocent country girl so as to be sure to have her all 
 to himself, but is destined to suffer from the intimacy 
 between her and the suggestively named Horner. It will 
 be seen that the doctrine of Poetic Justice plays an im- | 
 portant part in the Collier controversy. 
 
 The relevance to our subject of the third of the critical 
 dogmas enumerated at the end of the last chapter—_ 
 namely the duty of the poet to present characters according 
 to their typical rather than occasional characteristics — - 
 is not immediately evident. But in his attack on con- 
 ' temporary plays Collier devotes considerable space to a 
 consideration of the abuse of the nobility and clergy, and 
 execrates the poets because they sometimes represent a 
 lord as an ass. His opponents replied that sometimes 
 lords were asses, and to understand why this reply seemed 
 irrelevant, it is necessary to go back to Horace and his 
 commentators. 
 
 In the Art of Poetry, Horace had said: 
 
 1 The Influence of Moliére on Restoration Comedy. 
 
SOME CRITICAL DOGMAS 83 
 
 “..If you bring great Achilles on the stage, 
 Let him be fierce and brave, all ire and rage, 
 Inflexible, and headstrong to all laws, 
 
 But those, which arms and his own will impose. 
 Ixion must be treacherous, Ino grieved, 
 
 Io must wonder, and Orestes rave. 
 
 But if you dare to tread in paths unknown, 
 And boldly start new persons of your own; 
 
 Be sure to make them in one strain agree, 
 And let the end like the beginning be.” 1 
 
 With their usual over-literalness and their passion for 
 definition, the commentators made this general principle 
 into a set system, and the general features of every char- 
 acter were analyzed and described, so that the poet was 
 presented with formulae from which he must not vary, for 
 the composition of all stock characters. ‘ In Minturno 
 and Scaliger we find every detail of character minutely 
 analyzed. The poet is told how young men and old men 
 should act, should talk, and should dress; and no devia- 
 tions from these fixed formulae were allowed under any 
 circumstances.” ” | 
 
 Rymer brings this idea into England and turns it against 
 Shakespeare in an astounding manner. In his attack on 
 “Othello,” he falls upon Iago with particular vehemence, 
 calling him the most intolerable thing in the whole play, 
 because he is not like a soldier. Shakespeare has been 
 guilty of representing him as crafty and under-handed, 
 when every one from Horace on has known that a soldier 
 should be “ impiger, iracundus, inexorabilis, acer.”” Shake- 
 speare, fully conscious that he was inconsistent, was deter- 
 mined to do something surprising “ against common sense, 
 and nature” by presenting a soldier who deviated from 
 
 1 Oldham’s translation. 
 2 Spingarn. A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance. 
 Chap. III. 
 
84 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 the type. It must be remembered, of course, that by 
 “nature ’ Rymer did not mean particular, but general or 
 typical nature. He recognized that a crafty soldier might 
 exist, but would insist that such a one was the exception 
 rather than the rule, and hence that he should not be 
 represented on the stage, where only general truths should 
 be presented. 
 
 Here, then, is the key to Collier’s position in regard 
 to the indignities offered to the nobility and clergy. While 
 it is perfectly true that you may here and there find a lord 
 who is an ass, asininity is not commonly regarded as the 
 typical and distinguishing characteristic of the nobility, 
 and to represent a lord so, instead of showing him as 
 noble in accordance with the typical characteristic of a 
 lord, is, he thinks, but another illustration of the general 
 perversity of the dramatist. The same argument applies 
 a fortior. to the clergy. In this connection it should be 
 noticed that Horace had not said that all soldiers should 
 be represented as he described Achilles, but this sublime 
 leap from the particular to the general is in accordance — 
 with the general method of the pseudo-classicists in deal- 
 ing with ancient authors. 
 
 The fourth and last of the dogmas which were developed 
 during the latter part of the century, and which formed 
 a weapon to be used in the determined attack on con- 
 temporary dramatic practices, is that which declares ob- — 
 scenity a fault of taste. It may as well be admitted 
 frankly that in the practice of the Restoration dramatists — 
 nothing was more characteristic than habitual lewdness 
 of language. Whatever the matter in hand, and whatever — 
 differences may have existed in the shades of their motives, © 
 whether they were frankly appealing to the lasciviousness 
 of their audience or whether, as at times was the case, they © 
 seemed animated by genuine if transitory disgust with men ~ 
 
SOME CRITICAL DOGMAS 85 
 
 or manners, the language in which they expressed them- 
 selves was always the plainest and most particular that 
 could be found, for they were inspired with a passion for 
 revealing all that convention ordinarily veiled. Moreover, 
 even when the subject under discussion was as far removed 
 as possible from the sexual, they habitually chose meta- 
 phors and turns of expression that would bring in a com- 
 parison from the subject which seems to have been usually 
 uppermost in their minds. A single instance from Dryden 
 will illustrate this familiar phenomenon. It is the prologue 
 to “ An Evening’s Love,” as clever as any piece of writing 
 Dryden ever did, but unprintable. The technique of ex- 
 pression which he uses there was conventional. 
 
 The critics, however, frowned upon obscenity not only 
 because it was definitely antagonistic to the purpose of 
 
 literature (which was moral instruction), but also because 2 
 it was a fault of taste. This idea, though a common one, ~ 
 
 was given epigrammatic expression in Mulgrave’s “An 
 Essay upon Poetry,’ where, referring to Rochester, he 
 wrote: 
 “ Here, as in all things else, is most unfit 
 
 Bare ribaldry, that poor pretence to wit; 
 
 Such nauseous songs by a late author made 
 
 Call an unwilling censure on his shade. 
 
 Not that one thought of the transporting Joy, 
 
 Can shock the chastest, or the nicest cloy; 
 
 But obscene words, too gross to move desire, 
 
 Like heaps of fuel do but choke the fire. 
 
 On other scenes he well deserves our praise, 
 
 But cloys that appetite it meant to raise.” 
 
 It is especially worthy of note that the quotations which 
 have been given to illustrate the orthodox view regarding 
 
 literature and morals came without exception from men. 
 who were not successful dramatists, and who were in 
 
 nearly every case out of sympathy with the drama of their 
 
86 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 time. Sidney not only did not write plays but condemned 
 the popular drama of his time, while Flecknoe, Rymer and 
 
 Dennis were unsuccessful dramatists. As to the play- 
 
 wrights themselves, they were usually interested only in 
 providing plays which would be successful and which 
 would satisfy their own artistic consciences. If one looks 
 at Congreve’s letter “Of Humor in Comedy’? he will 
 see that Congreve is interested in discussing what a cul- 
 tured man considers funny, but that he has not one word 
 to say about morality. Among critics, perhaps St. Evre- 
 mond. was closest to the literary group to which his gay, 
 polished and epicurean spirit made him closely akin. His 
 criticisms were written for private circulation only, but 
 were so much admired that they were printed in pirated 
 editions, and forged writings were sold under the attraction 
 of his name. But like Congreve, when he writes an essay 
 on English comedies? he tries them upon purely aesthetic 
 grounds. That the Restoration dramatists cared nothing 
 for the moral aspect of their work is a commonplace, but 
 it is a commonplace which takes on a significance when we 
 observe, first that in so doing they were in a way hetero- 
 dox, and second that Steele and Cibber, the leaders in the 
 sentimental movement, proclaimed their allegiance to 
 orthodox criticism. In other words, sentimental comedy 
 when strggling for supremacy could call upon orthodox 
 criticism for support. 
 
 It has already been shown that the Restoration dramatist 
 was sometimes, when pressed, forced to admit the validity 
 of the theory which regarded literature as a form of moral 
 instruction; but such an admission was made _ usually 
 as a defense, and abandoned both in practice and, often, 
 
 1 Letters upon several occasions; written by and. between Mr. 
 
 Dryden, Mr. Wycherley, Mr. Congreve, and Mr. Dennis, etc. 1696. 
 2 In Mizt Essays, etc. 1685. 
 
SOME CRITICAL DOGMAS 87 
 
 in more frank expressions of theory. He believed that the 
 value of a piece of literature should be judged rather by 
 the effectiveness and polish of its expression than by the 
 value of its subject matter. This attitude was expounded 
 in an extreme form by Robert Wolseley in his preface to 
 Rochester’s tragedy “ Valentinian” (1685), which had been 
 attacked by Mulgrave in his “ Essay on Poetry ” on the 
 ground that it was obscene. Wolseley maintains that the 
 manner of treatment, not the subject matter, must be the ’ 
 basis for any judgment passed upon a work of literature. 
 No one, he says, except Mulgrave, ever thought of judging 
 a poet by the worth of his subject matter, inasmuch as an 
 ill poet will disgrace the highest subject just as a good 
 poet will dignify the lowest. Growing enthusiastic over 
 his own theory, he exclaims: ‘“ Nay, the baser, the emptier, 
 the obscurer, the fouler, and less susceptible of ornaments 
 the subject appears to be, the more the poet’s praise, who 
 ean hide all the natural deformities in the fashion of his 
 dress, supply all the wants with his own plenty, and by a 
 poetical daemoniasm possess it with the spirit of good 
 sense and gracefulness.” He then draws support for his 
 theory from the kindred art of painting, and quotes Dry- 
 den’s preface to “ Tyrannic Love” where the latter says 
 that there is as much art in the representation of a lazar 
 as ina Venus. Wolseley defines wit as “a true and lively 
 expression of nature” and then proceeds ingeniously to 
 reduce Mulgrave’s censure to nonsense. Mulgrave char- 
 acterized Rochester’s work as “ bawdry bare-face’d, that 
 poor pretense to wit,” and Wolseley, working like a mathe- 
 matician with his equations, substitutes for “wit” his 
 definition of it, and reads, “ bawdry bare-face’d, that poor 
 pretense to a true and lively expression of nature,” which 
 is, as he says, manifestly nonsense. Again he takes Dry- 
 den’s definition of wit as “a propriety of thought and 
 
88 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 words” and again reduces Mulgrave’s. phrase to an 
 absurdity. 
 
 This is all very interesting and probably represents very 
 well the attitude of the typical Restoration dramatist or 
 poet, but it was not the conventional critical view adopted 
 by Collier when he wrote “ Smuttiness is a fault in be- 
 haviour as well as in religion. ”Tis a very coarse diversion, 
 the entertainment of those who are generally least both in 
 sense, and station,’? or by Cibber when he spoke in “ The 
 Careless Husband” of former plays as “unfit entertain- 
 ments for people of quality.” The Sentimental comedy 
 was more orthodox critically than that of the Restoration. 
 
 1 Short View. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 
 
 THE deep-seated distrust of the theater, which at dif- 
 ferent times finds more or less passionate expression, is in 
 itself perpetual. It is more deep-rooted than Christianity, 
 and arises as a logical application of the much more 
 ancient doctrine of asceticism. As the seventeenth century 
 controversialist was fond of pointing out, not only did the 
 early church Fathers thunder against the theater, but the 
 sterner sort of Pagans, from whom surely less was to be 
 expected than from Christians, were at best doubtful con- 
 cerning it. True, Aristotle wrote a treatise on the drama, 
 but Plato banished the players from the Republic, and 
 even in the actual government of the ancients there were 
 many statutes which implied that the theater was regarded 
 at best with suspicion. 
 
 With the coming of Christianity, asceticism received a 
 support of incalculable strength. The ancient philosophers 
 had urged the contempt of pleasure because pleasure was 
 undignified, and because in the end it was found to be 
 really not pleasure—a doctrine which the vulgar found 
 it difficult to understand. Christianity, however, appealed 
 to less rarefied sentiment. The man who found the pleas- 
 ures of earth sweet was not asked to give them up for 
 nothing, but was persuaded that for a little self-denial in 
 the present he would be rewarded with incalculable blisses 
 in the future, whereas, if he persisted in the short-sighted 
 policy of choosing the unimportant present, his folly 
 would be rewarded with torture more terrible and enduring 
 
 89 
 
90 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 than any which Caligula had been ingenious enough to 
 invent. Though the latter had given instructions that his 
 victims were to be made to “feel themselves die,” he 
 was incapable of inflicting a perpetuity of pain, for to him 
 man was mortal, a fact which imposed a limitation that 
 God was able to transcend. Thus many a man unable 
 to follow the Stoic in the contempt of pleasure was ap- 
 pealed to on prudential grounds and resolved, like a sensi- 
 ble man, to take some thought of the future. In this 
 manner asceticism became a religion not only for the 
 philosopher but also for the rabble. 
 
 With such a condition established, opposition to the 
 theater was inevitable. Fundamentally the objection was 
 not to bad plays—to indecency and profaneness — though 
 of course these aggravated the evil; but to plays as such, 
 and, indeed, to all art; for the beautiful is the pleasant, 
 and the pleasant is damnable. This life is, a priori, a vale 
 of tears, and any attempt to make it otherwise is sinful. 
 Moreover any interest in the affairs of the world is danger- 
 ous. The more one can withdraw from life the safer he 
 is. The wise man will, therefore, live in seclusion, and — 
 only a madman will, after all the temptations which livmg — 
 in the world necessitates, seek to increase them by allow- 
 ing imagination to strengthen his interest in the world. 
 Even with the utmost care it is hard to conquer the — 
 passions, and art, instead of teaching men to despise the — 
 world, is likely to lead them to love it.t 
 
 The bearing of these general ideas upon seventeenth- — 
 
 century controversies will be seen later on, when it will — 
 
 be evident that the movement for the reform of indecency 
 -was confused and even hindered by the introduction of a — 
 purely ascetic element, and that those who wished to 
 
 1 Tolstoi’s What is Art might be cited as a modern example of — 
 somewhat similar reasoning. 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 91 
 
 purify the stage were joined in a somewhat unstable union 
 _ with those who wished to destroy it. Two chapters have 
 been devoted to giving the critical background of the 
 reformers. ‘These brief paragraphs will have to suffice to 
 suggest the ascetic tendency which was constantly arising 
 to confuse the issue. 
 
 This moral and ascetic objection to the theater, though 
 it constantly exists, is not always very strongly felt. 
 Today, no doubt, the question engages the attention of 
 many provincial pulpits, but, as at most times, it hardly 
 reaches the theater-going public. At various times, how- 
 ever, some circumstance or other has aroused it to greater 
 vigor. It has then ceased to be an undercurrent and be- 
 come a matter. of universal attention. Two such periods 
 occur in English literary history. The first began even 
 before the Elizabethan drama entered upon its period of 
 glory, and ended in a complete triumph for the enemies of 
 the stage, when the theaters were closed in 1642. But 
 this particular movement against the theater was so closely 
 associated with the political and religious fortunes of the 
 Puritans that when that class suffered defeat the theaters 
 were reopened as a matter of course. In 1662, long after 
 the author’s death, was published ‘ Theatrum Redivivum,” 
 written by Sir Richard Baker in answer to Prynne. The 
 ordinary arguments—namely, that the Bible nowhere 
 forbids plays, that the Pagans and early Christians who 
 opposed the theater opposed only its corruption, and that 
 vices exhibited on the stage are only to teach virtue — 
 were advanced, but were hardly necessary. Opposition to 
 the theater was so closely associated with Puritanism that 
 its Wrongness was assumed. For some time after the Res- 
 toration one would scarcely have dared raise again the old 
 arguments, for they would have smacked too much of dis- 
 loyalty. Even some forty years later, when the controversy 
 
92 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 was revived, it was remarked that the last time a party 
 had torn down the stage in the city it had set up a 
 scaffold in the court, and though the stage has seldom been 
 so licentious as it was during the Restoration, opposition 
 was but tentative and sporadic between 1660 and 1698. 
 Opposition was neither dead nor completely inactive, 
 though it found no one with sufficient energy to make it a 
 leading issue until Jeremy Collier, a non-juring divine, 
 already famous, gathered together all the weapons, reli- 
 gious, moral, and ascetic, that could be turned against the 
 stage, and flung himself upon it with a fury and an exulta- 
 tion that seems to have left the wits momentarily stunned. 
 
 But he called forth a great and very miscellaneous com-' 
 
 pany of wits, critics, philosophers, and fanatics who fell 
 upon one another in a most undignified battle-royal through 
 which no one really distinguished himself except Collier. 
 He alone is much remembered, but he achieved a fame that 
 has lasted faintly, though genuinely, until today, when his 
 other writings and his political exploits have not even the 
 semblance of that popular fame which in some manner 
 does attach to his work as an opponent of the stage. 
 Before discussing this battle, it will be well to devote a 
 few pages to the opinions concerning the stage which found 
 expression between 1660 and 1698. 
 
 There has been perhaps too great a tendency to regard 
 the Collier controversy as something wholly unexpected 
 and unprepared for, and to think that his attack was an 
 isolated phenomenon in the history of late seventeenth- 
 century literature. Such was not the case. Neither satire, 
 sermon, nor essay had failed to touch upon the subject, 
 and what distinguished Collier was. determination and 
 vigor rather than originality of idea. The political odium 
 attached to Puritanism, and popular knowledge that the 
 court was at least as bad as the stage, naturally tended to 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 93 
 
 make comment less severe, but it was nevertheless made. 
 Pepys, a constant play-goer, was often shocked at the im- 
 morality of the court, but he does not seem to have been 
 much disturbed by the reflection of contemporary im- 
 morality on the stage, and Evelyn finds “ Love in a Tub” 
 merely a facetious comedy. The latter, however, enters 
 a protest that many must have felt when he writes to 
 Viscount Cornbery in February 1664-5.? . 
 
 Part of the letter is worth quoting. ‘It [playing] is 
 not allow’d in any city of christendom so much as in this 
 one town of London, where there are more wretched and 
 obscene plays permitted than in all the world beside. 
 At Paris three days, at Rome two weekly, and at the other 
 cities of Florence, Venice, etc., but at certain jolly periods 
 of the year, and that not without some considerable emolu- 
 ment to the public; whiles our enterludes here are every 
 day alike; so as the ladies and the gallants come reeking 
 from the play late on Saturday night, to their Sunday 
 devotions; the ideas of the farce possesses their fancies to 
 the infinite prejudice of devotion, besides the advantages 
 it gives to our reproachful blasphemers. ... You know, 
 my Lord, that I (who have written a play and am a 
 Scurvy poet too sometimes) am far from Puritanism; but 
 I would have no reproach left our adversaries in a thing 
 which may so conveniently be reform’d. Plays are now 
 with us become a licentious excess, and a vice, and need 
 severe censors that should look as well to their morality, 
 as to their lines and numbers.” 
 
 Burnet too, whose history though not published until 
 after his death was written many years before, expresses 
 
 disapproval. He speaks of the stage as the great corrupter 
 
 1 Diary, April 27, 1664. 
 
 2 Memoirs of John Evelyn, Esq., F.R.S. Edited by Bray, 1827. 
 Vol. IV. 
 
94 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 of the town, and the bad people of the town as the chief 
 corrupters of the stage. ‘It is a shame,” he writes, “ to 
 our nation and religion, to see the stage so reformed in 
 France, and so polluted in England; Moliére for comedy, 
 and Racine for tragedy, are patterns; few can, and few 
 will study to copy after them. But, ’till another scene 
 appears, certainly our plays are the greatest debauchers of 
 the nation.” ? 
 
 The anonymous author of “A Defense of Dramatic 
 Poetry ” (1698) remarks that if the drama is as bad as 
 Collier says it is, then one must conclude from the “ uni- 
 versal silence of the whole clergy ” on the matter that they 
 have been negligent in their Christian duty. But as the 
 author of ‘The Stage Condemn’d” (1698) pointed out, 
 this, also, is hardly accurate. He cites the case of Samuel 
 Wesley, who recently at St. James’s Church, Westminster, 
 and also at St. Brides, had anticipated Collier and declared 
 that “our infamous theaters seem to have done more mis- 
 chief than Hobbs himself, or our new Atheistical Clubs to 
 the faith and morals of the nation.” Moreover, Baxter in 
 his “ Christian Directory ” (1673) had written: ‘I think 
 I never knew or heard of a lawful stage play, comedy or 
 tragedy in the age that I have liv’d, and that those now 
 commonly used are not only sins, but heinous aggravated 
 sins.” The popular Dr. Anthony Horneck had also con- 
 demned contemporary plays in the second edition of his 
 ‘“Sirenes” (2nd ed. 1690) by including them under the 
 general heading of revellings which are condemned by the 
 Scriptures, while Dr. Bray, in his sermon on the baptismal 
 covenant, had specifically mentioned the stage as one of 
 the things renounced in the baptismal vows.? Attention 
 should also be called to Archbishop Tillotson’s famous ser- 
 
 1 History of His Own Times. 1724-34. Vol. II. 
 2 Preached in 1697. 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 95 
 
 mon “ On the Evil of Corrupt Communication,” which the 
 controversialists quoted from; for, though he refuses to con- 
 
 demn plays in toto, he declares that they are in their 
 
 present form intolerable and not fit to be permitted in a 
 civilized, much less a Christian, community. Moreover, 
 as will be seen from a succeeding chapter, the Societies 
 for the Reformation of Manners had, as early as 1694, 
 advocated the suppression of the theater. 
 
 Nor were there wanting lay writers who criticised the 
 immorality of the stage and who may be regarded as 
 forerunners of Collier, since the ground which they took 
 was much the same as that in the earlier portions of his 
 book. Consequently they will serve to show that his im- 
 portance depends rather upon his vigor and freshness of 
 application than on his originality. Johanes Ballein in his 
 book “Jeremy Colliers Angriff auf die Englische Buhne” 
 takes the preface to Sir Richard Blackmore’s “ Prince 
 Arthur ” (1695) as the first of these preliminary skirmishes, 
 but this is hardly correct. ‘ The Country Conversations ”’ 
 of James Wright (1694) has also been mentioned by 
 other writers, and I should like to add two others which 
 I believe have never been mentioned in this connection 
 before: namely “ The Playhouse. A Satire” (1689), by 
 Robert Gould, and the anonymous “A Reflection on our 
 Modern Poesie” (1695), which is, in a way, more inter- 
 esting than any of the other four works. All are dis- 
 tinguished, though perhaps somewhat indistinctly, from the 
 critical works mentioned in the previous chapters by being 
 not general treatises but specific protests against prevail- 
 ing conditions, or, as in the case of Gould’s poem, a direct 
 and rather vicious satire upon them. I shall discuss 
 briefly the four works mentioned above. 
 
 Of Robert Gould the satirist very little is known and two 
 of his works, afterwards acknowledged, are attributed in 
 
96 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 the British Museum catalog to Tom Brown. “ The Play 
 House ” appeared in a volume of 1689, and was afterwards 
 printed, much enlarged, in a volume of 1709, shortly after 
 his death.1 Gould published two plays and miscellaneous 
 poems, but his best work is Juvenalian satire —as violent 
 as Oldham, but better rhymed. In the preface to the 
 later edition of ‘The Play House” he confesses that this 
 poem brought great odium upon him, and that no apolo- 
 gies availed to make the actors forgive him or to accept 
 one of his plays—the latter statement arousing some sus- 
 picion. The opening lines of his poem are not without 
 truth: 
 
 “Of all the things which at this guilty time 
 Have felt the honest satyr’s wholesome rhyme 
 The play house has scap’t best, been most foreborne, 
 Though it, of all things, most deserves our scorn.” 
 
 Jonson, Shakespeare, Fletcher, Wycherley, and Southern 
 
 are praised, but many are damned: 
 
 “In short, our plays are now so loosely writ, 
 They’ve neither manners, modesty, or wit. 
 How can these things to our instruction lead 
 Which are unchaste to see, a crime to read?” 
 
 Some lines from his lurid picture of conditions in the play 
 houses have already been given. 
 
 ‘““A Reflection on our Modern Poesie” (Anon., 1695) is 
 less Juvenalian than Gould’s satire, and more in the style 
 of. the usual Restoration verse essay. It has never, I be- 
 lieve, been referred to in this connection before, but it 
 anticipates most of Collier’s points and shows again how 
 
 little was original with him, so far as the main heads of | 
 
 his discourse were. “congamed’ As with Collier, this. “essay 
 starts with the assumption that the stage was invented for 
 
 1 My quotations are from the poem in its ‘earlier £ orm. 
 
 eh 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 97 
 
 a moral purpose, and laments the degradation of the 
 modern drama as compared with that of ancient times, 
 which he represents as existing solely for its philosophy. 
 He speaks of Sophocles: 
 
 “Who ere he did pretend to poetry 
 Search’d the grave precepts of philosophy; ” 
 
 whereas, he says, modern dramatists forget the end for 
 which they write and are negligent of precept if only they 
 can delight. What especially suggests Collier.is the part 
 objecting to the ridicule of the clergy and the protest.that 
 the heathens never committed that impiety. 
 
 “See, now the poet’s bold in mischief grown, 
 And turns to ridicule the sacred gown! 
 The grace Divine a laughing stock he makes 
 And the firm basis of religion shakes: 
 
 * x * * * * * * 
 
 Happy the heathen! Whose impiety 
 Ne’er mounted yet to such a high degree.” 
 
 _ Juvenalian satire is of doubtful value, either for the 
 correction of contemporaries or for the enlightenment of 
 the historian seeking information concerning the actual 
 conditions of the satirist’s time. The lurid tone which 
 characterizes it gives rise to the suspicion that the satirist 
 realized too well the literary effectiveness of total de- 
 pravity to fail to see it everywhere. Hence neither the 
 doubtful testimony of such satire nor the denunciation of 
 preachers to be expected more or less at any time, indicates 
 so well the existence of some dissatisfaction with the 
 theater and contemporary drama in the minds of the 
 moderate class as does the little essay “Of Modern 
 Comedies” in the “Country Conversations ” published 
 anonymously in 1694 by James Wright.t. Wright was a 
 1 Attribution by Halkett and Lang. 
 
98 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 pleasant and unpedantic writer, and, moreover, a lover 
 of old plays, of which he had an extensive collection; so 
 his criticisms are significant as showing that within the 
 body of play-goers itself was to be found a spirit of pro- 
 test such as was much more likely to produce a change in 
 the drama than any. denunciation from the satirists or 
 the pulpiteers. The ‘ Country Conversations” are in the 
 form of dialogues between groups of gentlemen who visit 
 a friend in the country. 
 
 “The Plain Dealer” and “Sir Fopling Flutter” are 
 commended, but many of the new comedies are denounced 
 as immoral. It is admitted that. by satire comedy.may 
 achieve its true end of instruction, but. objected..that. in 
 many comedies vice is. protected. rather. than~satirized, 
 and the rakish heroes held up not to scorn .but.to-admira- 
 tion. ‘I must observe,” says one of the speakers, “ that 
 the common parts and characters of our modern comedy 
 are two young debauchés whom the author calls men of — 
 wit and pleasure, and sometimes men of wit and sense — 
 The bottle and the Miss (as they phrase it) twisted to- 
 gether make their Summum Bonum; all their songs and 
 discourse is on that subject. But at last, partly for 
 variety of faces, and partly in consideration of improving 
 their estate (shatter’d with keeping) they marry two 
 young ladies, one of which is as wild as possibly can be, — 
 so as to ’scape the main chance, the other, more reserved, 
 but really as forward to be marry’d as her sister.” 
 
 Wright’s well-bred protest, and the more or less literary 
 indignation of the satirist, indicate that even in the lay 
 mind the freedom of the theater was not always com- 
 placently regarded. But none of these protests was likely 
 to arouse a controversy. All were obviously of minor 
 importance, and the author of no one of them seemed 
 animated by any great determination to force a reform. 
 
amg ee” 
 oe 
 
 THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 99 
 
 The preface to “ Prince Arthur” (1695) was written by 
 a somewhat more determined reformer. Sir Richard 
 Blackmore, its author, was an indefatigable writer on 
 ethics and was the scorn of the wits who, according to Dr. 
 Johnson, hated him more for his virtue Gian for his dull- 
 ness. Posterity, however, has been inclined to agree with 
 the judgment of the wits, and perhaps it would not be un- 
 fair to say that Dr. Johnson loved him more for his piety 
 than his poetry. 
 
 Blackmore held firmly that the poet should, first of all, 
 instruct, and hence, perhaps, he should not feel too much 
 disappointed that his epics do not seem to delight moderns. 
 At any rate, the preface referred to contained a more or 
 less impassioned protest against the stage. Like Collier, 
 he begins his attack under the support of critical principles. 
 From universal Sah: See he says, the purpose of poetry 
 is recognized to be “ JnsiTUctON of our minds, and regula- 
 tion of our manners ”’ ; and, as to dramatic poetry, tragedy 
 is designed to rane or comedy to laugh men out of 
 their vices. He grants that drama should also delight, but 
 insists “that this is only a subordinate end, and really only 
 a means, and that only men of little genius will employ their 
 
 wit for no purpose higher than that of merely pleasing the 
 
 imagination. In all ages, he says, there have been men who 
 
 have perverted the end of poetry, but never so many as in 
 
 his own day. As to Collier, so to him, it seems that the 
 poets are engaged in a general confederacy to ruin virtue 
 and religion, and, along with them,.their..own..art.... The 
 stage, which was first, he says, raised for the protection 
 of religion, has been betrayed and given over to enemies 
 who have turned its artillery against the place they should 
 defend. If anyone doubts this, let him read the plays. 
 “A man of sense, and the fine gentleman in comedy, 
 who as the chief person propos’d to the esteem and imita- 
 
400 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 tion of the audience is enrich’d with all the sense and wit 
 the poet can bestow; this extraordinary person you will 
 find to be a derider of religion, a great admirer of Lucre- — 
 tius, not so much for his learning as for his irreligion, a 
 person wholly idle, dissolv’d in luxury, abandon’d to his 
 pleasures, a great debaucher of women, profuse and ex- — 
 travagant in his expenses; and in short, this finished 
 gentleman will appear a finished libertine.” He wishes that 
 the poets were completely in the pay and under the con- 
 trol of the State and might be suffered to write nothing 
 prejudicial to religion or government. 
 
 “ Prince Arthur ”’ was reprinted twice (1695 and 1696) 
 before 1698, and Blackmore, in his earnestness, is Collier’s 
 most significant predecessor in the attack on the stage. As 
 Dr. Johnson? remarks, Blackmore anticipated all that 
 was afterwards said by Collier. There is, however, one 
 thing to be noted. As we shall see, Collier’s affected 
 modesty did not set well upon him, and was indeed cast 
 off; whereas there is in Blackmore’s preface no indication 
 that he would have gone to the same lengths of fanaticism 
 as his better known successor. 
 
 “It is certainly not true then that in 1698 there was 
 anything novel in the idea of attacking the theater, that- 
 Collier’s general principles were in any way unfamiliar 
 to the public, or that no one had ever pointed out the dis- 
 crepancy which existed between orthodox critical theory 
 and contemporary dramatic. practice. On the contrary, 
 Puritanism had made the attacks on the side of religious 
 authority familiar, and several minor writers had called 
 attention to the discrepancy between dramatic theory and 
 practice. It is true, however, and it is this which gives to 
 Collier his importance, that no one had.made much of all 
 this. The dramatic tradition was long established, and 
 though many moderate people might be shocked, especially 
 1 Javes of the Poets. 
 
7 
 
 THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 101 
 
 if their attention was directed to the fact that they ought 
 to be shocked, they were familiar with the tradition 
 which had been firmly established at a time when most 
 men then living were at least only youths and they did not 
 tend of their own accord to question it. None of the men 
 whose works have just been discussed had shown much 
 determination, and not since the civil war had anyone 
 flung himself against the stage with the fanatical enthusi- 
 asm which makes for change. But a general movement for 
 reform was beginning to spread, the debauchery at court 
 which generated the comic tradition was reformed, and 
 people were more or less familiar with the arguments which 
 could be used against the stage. 
 
 _ By 1696 affairs were approaching a climax. The au- 
 dience was obviously dissatisfied with the old tradition. 
 Cibber’s obtrusively moral play, ‘“ Love’s Last Shift,” was 
 a tremendous success, and three plays of that season? refer 
 1m their prefaces to the fact that they were objected to on 
 
 ‘moral grounds. Moreover, a controversy concerning the 
 stage was already raging in France, and the English public 
 knew of it, for we read in the ‘ Gentleman’s Journal ”: ? 
 “The controversy is now as hot for and against the lawful- 
 ness of the French stage, as it was of late about the 
 ancients and moderns,” and several French books for and 
 against the theater are mentioned. Both the prologue and 
 text of “ The Provok’d Wife” (1697) show that an uneasy 
 feeling of imminent disturbance was in the air, and the 
 line in the prologue 
 
 “Kind heav’n! Inspire some venom’d priest to write,” 
 
 was positively prophetic. 
 The “ venom’d priest” received his inspiration, and ap- 
 peared in the form of Jeremy Collier, non-juring divine 
 
 1 The Country-Wake, The Cornish Comedy, and The She Gal- 
 lants. 2 November, 1694. 
 
102 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 and born controversialist; master of all weapons fair and 
 unfair, sure of himself as only a hopeless fanatic can be 
 sure of himself, and possessing an unholy joy in combat, 
 where he lays about him with all the exultation of Samson 
 slaying Philistines with (to make the.metaphor complete) 
 a jawbone. There is no doubt as to Collier’s ultimate pur- 
 pose. The end of his discourse, as the seventeenth-century 
 rhetoricians would have said, was action. He was not 
 writing literary satire or aesthetic criticism. His enemies 
 succeeded in alleging a variety of indirect motives. Some 
 said that he was merely striking at the government, which 
 had always supported the theaters; others that he sought 
 fame and money, and still others that he had an extra- 
 ordinary nose for bad odors, and that his corrupt nature 
 took pleasure in providing innocent passages with an ob- 
 scene gloss, or, as a satirist put it, in making a “ chymical — 
 extraction ” from the poets and then “subliming ’em after 
 to blasphemy.” * But these charges are unfair. His was 
 the genuine and irritating zeal of the reformer. From this © 
 fact arose his greatest merit and greatest defects. Noth- 
 ing is so likely as this same zeal to inspire confidence and 
 enthusiasm, and on the other hand, nothing is so sure to | 
 spoil the temper and banish urbanity. | 
 Collier had already achieved a certain amount of prom- — 
 inence. He was known as a man of learning, but also as — 
 a fanatic. The blessings of the revolution were too obvious — 
 not to make the sensible part of mankind regard with aver- — 
 sion those stiff-necked clergymen who refused to take the | 
 oath to William and maintained an ineffectual but trouble- 
 breeding loyalty to that James who had done all in his’ 
 power to ruin them and their church. The doctrine that — 
 complete submission to any ruler, even a Nero, was a 
 religious duty did not appeal to English common sense. — 
 1 Visits from the Shades. 1704. | 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 103 
 
 Moreover, Collier had just drawn attention to himself 
 by giving absolution on the scaffold to two traitors ex- 
 ecuted for complicity in the Jacobite plot in 1698, and was 
 even then living under censure by the government. Yet 
 in spite of this initial unpopularity, his personal triumph 
 was complete. Even his opponents testify to the éclat 
 which attended his performance. “ The tide of prejudice 
 runs high for my adversary,” says one,t and another com- 
 plains that “ The Short View ” “has been receiv’d by the 
 world with a generous applause, and stood the shock of 
 some of the greatest wits of the age.” ” 
 
 Prynne, for his book against the stage, was sentenced 
 _to be deprived of his university degrees, to be expelled from 
 Lincoln’s Inn, to pay a five-thousand-pound fine, to_have 
 his ears cut off, and to be imprisoned for life. Collier 
 won an everlasting fame and was granted by William an 
 order of “ Nolle prosequi,”’ which released him from all 
 further fear of prosecution as a political offender in the 
 case of the Jacobite plot.® 
 
 More than two score separate books, pamphlets, prefaces, 
 etc., may be counted as part of the storm which he raised. 
 To discuss each of them separately would be obviously 
 impossible and undesirable. Many may be grouped and 
 treated only as they represent general tendencies which 
 arose during the controversy. But the importance of the 
 “Short View” is so much greater than that of any other 
 book in the literature of the controversy, that it must be 
 
 1 Drake. 
 
 2 Filmer. 
 
 8 It is true that the severity of Prynne’s sentence was due to the 
 fact that his attack upon the theater was regarded as an attack 
 upon royalty. The fine was never collected but his ears were cut 
 
 off and, for a subsequent offense, the remaining stumps were also 
 amputated. He was released from prison after the opening of the 
 
 _ ‘Long Parliament. 
 
‘104 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 discussed at some length. ‘Mr. Collier has said” is a 
 phrase that meets one everywhere. No one, either friend or 
 enemy of the stage, ever doubted that he was the head of the 
 affair. 
 
 Since Collier’s purpose was primarily a practical one— 
 
 to get something done — he wisely assumed.at.the begin- : 
 
 ning an apparently moderate position. He realized that to 
 make his appeal wholly on the grounds of ascetic Christian 
 
 piety, while it might appeal to his brother divines and the - 
 
 at ain religious class, would not appeal to the worldly, 
 and consequently he determined to meet the wits on their 
 own ground—namely, the commonly accepted critical 
 dicta. Accordingly he begins with a well-known formula. 
 
 A brief summary of his argument will be given before 
 any attempt is made to censure or praise him. Poetry, 
 he says, is a noble institution. Its purpose is to recommend 
 virtue. The poets have in their hands a powerful | weapon 
 for the battle against vice. But in his’ age it has fallen 
 into bad hands, and been turned against thosé whom. it 
 should serve, so that nothing has gone so far to -debauch 
 the age as the playwrights. These wicked men are not 
 even indifferent to virtue. They are its declared enemies, 
 and in order to advocate vice most effectually, they have 
 craftily attacked religion and priests, which they know to 
 be virtue’s chief supports. 
 
 His first charge—and one that certainly had some 
 foundation —is immodesty. He finds that the lewdness 
 of the playwrights’ language not only raises evil passions, 
 but is unworthy of a gentleman, is a fault of behavior, 
 and degrades men to the level of beasts. ‘Goats and 
 monkeys, if they could speak, would express their brutal- 
 ity in such language as this.” Especially reprehensible 
 is the habit of putting obscenity in the mouths of-ladies 
 of quality. In the ‘ Double Dealer” there are but four 
 
 ev 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 105 
 
 ladies, and three of them are debauched. There can be 
 no plea of satire. Even if such things do exist they had 
 best be concealed, and moreover the language of the pro- 
 logue, where the author himself speaks in person, is just as 
 bad. Plautus and Terence are much less open to objection. 
 Their language is comparatively pure and they never make 
 ladies of quality or married women strumpets. Jonson, 
 too, is comparatively refined, and ‘The Faithful Shep- 
 herdess ”’ is a sort of exaltation of chastity. But Shake- 
 speare is “ too guilty to make evidence.” 
 
 Here Collier reveals one of his characteristic weaknesses. 
 There was enough undeniably objectionable in Restoration 
 drama to make it unnecessary to allege any doubtful cases. 
 The case of Shakespeare is sufficiently doubtful to cause 
 many people to question his judgment. So, too, there were 
 enough cases where the intent of the author was definitely 
 to satirize religion and the commonly accepted standards 
 of morality, and it was unwise to cite such a case as he 
 does from the “ Relapse,” where Lord Fopington makes 
 the following remark: “ Why faith madam,— Sunday. is 
 a vile day, I must confess. A man must have very little 
 to do at church that can give an account of the sermon.” 
 This, in the mouth of a ridiculous fop, is evidently not 
 meant to be approved. In citing it, Collier gave color to 
 the defence of his opponents who maintained that all such. 
 speeches could be justified on the ground of satire. i 
 
 Collier’s next chapter deals with the profaneness of the 
 stage, including the use of oaths which are plainly. for- 
 bidden by the statute Third Jac. I cap. 21. But the blas- 
 phemy, he says, is still worse. Wildblood in the “ Mock 
 Astrologer ” expresses a preference for the Turkish idea of 
 Paradise, and (horribile dictu) in another of Dryden’s 
 plays where a devil appears his sneezing is explained on 
 the ground that he has been too long from the fire. Dry- 
 
106 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 den’s preface to Juvenal apologizes for some pious lines, 
 and in his “Love Triumphant” occurs the following 
 passage: 
 
 “May heaven and your brave son, and above all, 
 Your own prevailing Genius guard your age.” 
 
 ‘What, says Collier, “‘ is meant by his genius, in this place, 
 is not easy to discover, only that ’tis something which is 
 a better guard than heaven. But ’tis no matter for the 
 sense, as long as the profaneness is clear.” 
 
 Chapter III is devoted to a discussion of the abuse of 
 
 \. the clergy, a point on which Collier was especially and 
 
 vulnerably earnest. The cases of ‘The Spanish Friar,” 
 “The Old Bachelor,” and “The. Relapse” are cited. 
 “These poets I observe, when they grow lazy, and are in- 
 clined to nonsense, they commonly get a clergyman to 
 speak it. Thus they pass their own dullness for humor, 
 and gratify their ease and their malice at once.” He will 
 not allow that clergymen may be satirized under any 
 conditions; and demands not. only that they be shown to 
 be pious, but that they be given worldly respect and posi- 
 tion. They have a right to such respect, he says, because 
 of their close relation to God, so that “ To expose a priest, 
 much more to burlesque his function, is an affront to the 
 Deity ”; because of their importance to society; and be- 
 cause of tradition, for they have always been honored 
 among Jews, Egyptians, Greeks, Latins, and the English. 
 
 How the wits made merry with Collier’s rather intem- 
 perate zeal for the dignity of his own profession will appear — 
 later. So great was his respect for the priesthood as such 
 that he was quite as tender of the reputation of heathen 
 members of the order as he was of Christian ones. Dry- 
 den’s line in “ Absalom and Achitophel,” “ For priests of all 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 107 
 
 religions are the same,” must have stuck in his mind. 
 Moliére, Virgil, and Sophocles, he says, all treat priests 
 better than do the English poets. Priests seldom appear 
 in classical plays (never in Moliére or Corneille), and when 
 they do “ ’tis business of credit that brings them there.” 
 
 In Chapter LV_Collier is on safer ground in making the 
 charge that the stage poets create their principal persons 
 vicious and then reward them at the end of the play. 
 Some few like Dryden might plead the facts of life in . 
 excuse, or might maintain that delight and not instruction 
 is the chief end of comedy, but the contrary was generally 
 believed. The idea of poetic justice was becoming more | 
 and more generally accepted. And the idea profoundly 
 influenced comedy. That reward should be given to virtue 
 and punishment to vice became almost axiomatic. Collier 
 cites Horace, Aristotle, Jonson, and Rapin to prove this 
 point. Moreover, all this he regards as an impropriety of 
 manners as well as a violation of critical doctrine. 
 
 So far, Collier had eschewed more or less strictly theo- 
 logical arguments, and leaving the methods of Prynne 
 alone had had almost always a background of critical 
 support. In this first part of the book it is not so much 
 the Bible or the Church Fathers or the theologians that 
 he cites, as it is Aristotle, Rapin, Boileau, and Dryden, 
 and, as Professor Spingarn points out, the very title 
 “Short View” suggests Rymer’s ‘“ Short View of Tragedy,” 
 as does the hectoring language and the main thought. We 
 might add that there is nothing in the following sentence 
 from Rymer’s translation of Rapin’s “ Reflections ” which 
 might not have come from Collier. Possibly, indeed, it 
 was the inspiration for his work. ‘‘Comedy has become, 
 by the licentiousness of these late times, a school of de- 
 bauchery; ’tis only to re-establish it in its natural estate, 
 
108 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 as it ought to be, according to Aristotle, that I pretend to 
 speak. The rest I leave to the zeal of the preachers, who 
 are a little slack on this subject.” 
 
 Collier’s ultimate purpose is, of course, only moral, but 
 in pursuit of that purpose he wishes to destroy contem- 
 porary comedy, and to do so he attacks it wherever he 
 considers it vulnerable, whether it be for the moment 
 from the point of view of morality or of literature. Thus 
 in his remarks on ‘“‘ The Relapse ” he devotes a considerable 
 portion of his space to pointing out the improbability of 
 the plot, not, of course, because he cares whether or not 
 plays are improbable, but because he sees. here.an.oppor- 
 tunity to weaken the position of the enemy by attacking 
 a matter indifferent to himself yet important to the writer. 
 Hence his connection with criticism. It was a tool or 
 weapon. Since he hoped to persuade the literary world to 
 ; accept the validity of current literary dogmas, he expected 
 _thus to win to his side many who cared more about art, 
 _ formally considered, than about ethics. Among the plays 
 which he picked out for detailed censure are Dryden’s 
 “ Amphytrion,” D’Urfey’s ‘“ Don Quixote,” and “ The 
 Relapse.” He censures the latter because while all good 
 plays should have the action confined within twenty-four 
 hours, the story of this must cover at least a week, and 
 because, also, it has two plots and so violates the unity 
 of action. Of course Collier cared nothing about the unity 
 of action, and the English dramatists had no notion of 
 submitting themselves to it; Congreve protested that all 
 this was mere pedantry. But Collier answered stoutly: 
 “Mr. Congreve is so kind as to inform me that I talk 
 pedantical cant of Fable, Intrigue, Discovery, of Unity of 
 Time etc. He means the pedantical cant of Aristotle and 
 Horace, and Bossu and Corneille, Rapin, and Mr. Dryden.” 
 As long as the formal critics opposed the methods of con- 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 109 
 
 temporary comedy, Collier was willing to swear by them 
 for the sake of damning the drama. 
 
 That his main contention —7.e., the end of art is moral- 
 ity — was in accord with contemporary theory has already © 
 been made evident. Dryden questioned _“ whether instruc- 
 tion. has anything to do with comedy,” but Collier falls 
 upon him with Horace’s praise of poets for reforming 
 manners, with Aristotle, with Jonson’ id _it being the mL: 
 with a quotation from Rapin, and ani the following Rot 
 Boileau, adapted to English conditions: 
 
 “T like an author that reforms the age; 
 And keeps the right decorum of the stage: 
 That always pleases by just reason’s rule: 
 But for a tedious droll, a quibbling fool, 
 Who with low nauseous baudry fills his plays; 
 Let him be gone and on two trestles raise, 
 Some Smithfield stage, where he may act his pranks, 
 And make Jack-puddings speak to mountebanks.” 
 
 He sums the matter up thus in his own vigorous style: 
 “Indeed to make delight the main business of comedy is 
 an unreasonable and dangerous principle: It opens the 
 way to all licentiousness, and confounds the distinction 
 between mirth and madness.” As to the method which the 
 dramatists should employ, he falls in with the recently 
 emphasized principle of poetic justice, for which he had 
 critical authority, and in accordance with which he attacks 
 the dramatists for allowing their debauched persons not 
 only to go unpunished but actually to be rewarded. Thus 
 because the rake of “ The Relapse ” gets the bride, he says 
 of the moral: “It points the wrong way, and puts the 
 prize into the wrong hand. It seems to make lewdness the 
 reason of desert, and gives Young Fashion a second fortune, 
 only for debauching away his first.” 
 
110 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 How Collier followed the critics in pointing out that 
 obscenity is a fault of taste has already been mentioned, 
 and some of his less obvious absurdities can be explained 
 on the same ground. He blames the playwrights with great 
 severity for representing a lord as a fool, and praises 
 Moliére because he makes no one higher than a Marquis 
 ridiculous. It was vain to answer that a lord might as 
 well as anyone else be a fool, for Rymer had taught that 
 one must represent character by types, and the type of 
 a lord was not a fool, but a truly noble man. So with the 
 women. Speaking of “ The Relapse” he says that “ The 
 fine Berinthia, one of the top characters,” is impudent and 
 profane, whereas the “ character ” of a woman is modesty, 
 and she must.be so-represented, just. as a soldier must be 
 represented as harsh and tumultuous. In attacking the 
 theatrically effective but hardly proper scene in which the 
 relapsing husband bears Berinthia, resisting but feebly, 
 from the darkened stage to. an adjoining closet, Collier 
 bases his censure not primarily on the moral tendency of 
 the characters and scenes, but on the fact that it is not in 
 accordince with the rules!; He quotes not the Scriptures 
 but Rapin and Rymer.'~ The former, he says, blames 
 Ariosto and Tasso for representing two of their women as 
 “too free and airy,” and Rymer in the “ Tragedies of the 
 Last Age” says that Nature (of course the general nature 
 of the critics, not actuality) knows nothing in manners 
 which so properly distinguishes a woman as modesty, and 
 that an impudent woman is fit only to be exposed and 
 kicked in comedy. So, too, in his plea for immunity for 
 the priesthood, Collier points out that Homer and Virgil 
 treated it with respect, for ‘‘ They were govern’d by the 
 reason of things, and the common usage of the world. 
 They knew the priesthood a very reputable employment, 
 and always esteem’d as such. To have used the priest ill, 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 111 
 
 they must have call’d their own discretion in question: 
 They must have run into impropriety, and fallen foul upon 
 custom, manners and religion.” Be it said again that 
 Collier chose this method not because he esteemed the 
 authority of Horace above that of St. Paul or Tertullian, 
 but because he knew that he was addressing not the 
 theologians but the wits. 
 
 In choosing his method Collier was extremely alilieul 
 . but in choosing plays for elaborate analysis and condemna- © 
 tion he showed a certain lack of discretion which is notable 
 throughout his work. He selected Dryden’s ‘“ King 
 Arthur” and “ Amphytrion,” D’Urfey’s ‘Don Quixote ” 
 and Vanbrugh’s “ The Relapse,” and was led to do so, no 
 doubt, by the fact that they were all comparatively recent. 
 But, although not one was absolutely unimpeachable, still 
 none was by any means the worst of its class. A good 
 deal could be said in extenuation of the morals of each of 
 them. “Don Quixote,” especially, though occasionally 
 coarse, would pass as a very innocent play in comparison 
 with almost any one of Mrs. Behn’s; and although not 
 particularly delicate, it is certainly not vicious. It lacks 
 the literary art of Congreve, and also lacks his cynical 
 perversity. By wasting his eloquence on the peccadillos 
 of this play, Collier has nothing left which is really effec- 
 tive when excitement might be less uncalled for. ‘‘ Amphy- 
 trion” is probably the happiest choice which he made, 
 and the least defensible of the plays, so that it justifies 
 pretty well all that Collier said about its lusciousness. 
 But as always he over-steps bounds. Instead of criticis- 
 ing it merely as an extremely loose tale, he alleges roundly 
 that Dryden, by making Jupiter a somewhat unexalted 
 character, secretly intends to satirize Jehovah. And who 
 but Collier, seeking for a typical example of Restoration 
 depravity, would have lit upon the same poet’s “ King 
 
112 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 Arthur ” to present in extenso as a horrible example? It 
 is a feeble and silly performance, but because it intro- 
 duces the devil and magic, Collier exclaims: ‘‘ Those that 
 bring devils upon the stage, can hardly believe them any- 
 where else. To mix Christian and heathen story, is to 
 imply that one is no more worthy of belief than the other.” 
 Collier was constitutionally incapable of distinguishing a 
 mote from a beam. 
 
 Students of Restoration Comedy have long been engaged 
 with the question as to how far Vanbrugh represents a 
 turn toward a more healthy tone in drama. Though more 
 or less engaged with this question himself, the present 
 writer believes firmly in the impossibility of success in 
 any attempt to determine the exact amount of instruction 
 to be derived from a play. Still he is inclined to believe 
 that Vanbrugh does indeed move with the reform stream, 
 and that here again Collier made a mistake in choosing 
 “The Relapse,” rather than some less equivocal comedy, 
 as the object of a special attack. In it Vanbrugh himself 
 alludes to the need of a reform, represents some virtuous 
 characters in an extremely favorable light, does not dis- 
 tribute epigrams of perverse morality to all his witty char- 
 acters, and actually has one man pay a tribute of respect 
 to chastity. Yet Collier attacks the play so violently that 
 
 ANA 
 
 one cannot refrain from quotation and comment. His 
 summary of the plot is reasonably fair. ‘‘ Fashion, a lewd, 
 prodigal, younger brother, is reduced to extremity: upon 
 his arrival from his travels, he meets with Coupler, an 
 old sharping match-maker; this man puts him upon a 
 project of cheating his elder brother, Lord Foppington, of 
 a rich fortune. Young Fashion being refused a sum of 
 money by his brother, goes into Coupler’s plot, bubbles Sir 
 Tunbelly of his daughter, and makes himself master of a 
 fair estate.” The play, he says, had more properly been 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE S1aGE 113 
 
 called ‘‘The Younger Brother, or the Fortunate Cheat.” 
 The moral, he says, “ puts the prize in the wrong hand,” 
 and he sums it up as follows: “ First, that all younger 
 brothers should be careful to run out their fortunes as 
 fast and as ill as they can—Secondly, that when a man 
 is press’d, his business is not to be governed by scruples, 
 or formalize upon conscience and honesty.” 
 
 Now, as has already been confessed, the general charge 
 that Restoration plays represent heroes as debauched and 
 also represent them as attractive is true; but one cannot 
 deduce neatly formulated morals from them without being 
 
 ridiculous. ‘‘ The Relapse ” is a comparatively moral play, . 
 
 and Collier’s method could deduce as bad a moral from 
 an even more innocent performance. The fact. that Van- 
 brugh wrote a play in which a younger brother loses his 
 money and afterwards marries a rich girl does not nec- 
 essarily prove that he meant to teach that ‘‘ All younger 
 brothers should be careful to run out their fortunes as 
 fast and as ill as they can.” And as for putting the prize 
 in the wrong hand, Sir Foppington is a heartless and brain- 
 less ass, and.certainly. deserves.a.prize as little as does his 
 brother. Besides, it is doubtful if the girl_is much of a 
 prize afterall. Her speech imdicates that the behavior 
 which she plans for life in town with her husband is such 
 that his fortune will not be easily earned. Might one not 
 with as much. show of truth as Collier can boast, formulate 
 the moral thus: ‘“‘ He who seeks a wife for her fortune will 
 
 get a bad bargain”? What I mean is, that from a play no 
 
 more than from life can one deduce hard and _ fast 
 
 “Morals,” and_that Collier made a mistake in choosing § 
 
 “The Relapse,” since its general tone is more healthy than 
 that of dozens of other Restoration plays. Whoever reads 
 the “Short View” must see that while Collier had much 
 evil to attack, and knew how to express himself forcibly, 
 
 megs 
 
114 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 he was too easily shocked, and weakened his case by being 
 unable to differentiate between what was of doubtful 
 propriety and what was undoubtedly abominable. 
 
 After finishing his detailed examination of a few con- 
 temporary plays, Collier turns aside from criticism and 
 bases his attack on what must have been more congenial 
 to his temperament — namely, authority. He summons 
 the testimony of the ancients and that of the church, 
 and it soon becomes evident that he shares to the fullest 
 extent the ascetic Christian hatred of all art, and that the 
 
 authority of Ben Jonson, or Dryden, was appealed to only — 
 
 because it happened to suit his purpose, and not because 
 he could possibly have had any sympathy with either of 
 them. It has been said in criticism of Collier that 
 the argument from the ancients was irrelevant. Actually 
 it was, but it could not seem so to his contemporaries. 
 It must be remembered that the Renaissance worship of 
 antiquity still lingered very markedly, that education was 
 
 based upon the study of Latin and Greek, and that there 
 was still a strong tendency to regard the sterner side 6f — 
 
 the ancient character as a.model of excellence, and. to 
 speak of “ Roman virtue” as something that even a mil- 
 
 lennium and a half of Christian civilization had “hardly— 
 been able to equal. Just as Horace was the model of taste, 
 
 so Cato the Censor was a model of virtue. 
 
 Collier begins the new phase of his subject thus: “ Hav- 
 ing in the foregoing chapters discover’d some part of the 
 “disorders of the English stage: I shall, in this last, present 
 the reader with a short view of the sense of antiquity. To 
 which I shall add some modern authorities; from all which 
 it will appear that plays have generally been look’d on as 
 the nurseries of vice, the corrupters of youth, and the 
 
 grievance of the country where they are suffer’d.” Here is — 
 
 a notable transition from what he had previously said. 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 115 
 
 From the first portion of his book one would get the im- 
 pression that plays had been invented to recommend virtue, 
 that such was their normal function, and that the English 
 dramas, particularly those of his own time, had formed an 
 exception and had been unaccountably perverted. But 
 here, be it noted, he says that plays have usually been 
 looked upon as “nurseries of vice.” From now on he 
 throws aside the disguise and appears frankly as an enemy 
 of the stage as such. 
 
 Plato, he says, “tells us that plays raise the passions, 
 and pervert the use of them, and by consequence are 
 dangerous to morality. For this reason he banishes these 
 diversions from his commonwealth.” Here we get at the 
 root of the matter discussed at the beginning of the present 
 chapter. Plays, like other forms of literature, raise the . 
 passions of Jove, ambition, and honor. These are the things 
 ‘that to the worldly mind” make the world worth while. — 
 But they are fundamentally opposed to asceticism, which 
 does not want to make the world worth while and looks 
 upon all the passions which attach one to it as nec- 
 essarily evil. Hence, though Collier believed the contem- 
 porary stage worse than most stages, he believed that 
 all were evil. “His opponents accused him of posing as a 
 reformer of the stage, whereas he really’ wished to destroy 
 it, and in his defenses he never denied’ this allegation. He 
 ‘praises Terence only comparatively, he says, and means 
 only that he was not'so bad as the English authors. Fol- 
 lowing the line of argument taken up, he shows that 
 Aristotle had objected that the young should not see plays, 
 that Cicero, Livy, Tacitus, and Valerius Maximus had pro- 
 tested against immoral plays; and then, passing to the legal 
 aspect, shows that the Spartans banished the theater com- 
 pletely, that the Athenians, the Romans, the Elizabethan 
 English, the French, and the Flemish had all at one time 
 
116 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 or another put some stigma or restriction upon the theater, 
 and that the early church had excommunicated players. 
 Lactantius, Augustine, and Ambrose are ransacked for all 
 references weighty or trivial against the stage or shows. 
 Authorities are piled one upon another in an effort to damn 
 the. whole institution on the strength of traditional oppo- 
 sition. 
 
 After all deductions are made for the facts that Collier 
 wrote at an extremely opportune moment, that the Eng- 
 lish stage was in many ways so objectionable that almost 
 any attack, however violent, must seem more or less 
 justified, and that a very definite reform movement both 
 in regard to the theater and to society in general was in 
 progress, it still is impossible to deny to Collier’s own 
 ability a considerable part of the credit for the enormous 
 stir which his book made. That he was essentially narrow- 
 minded, and that he was in no sense merely a stern, frank 
 friend of the stage, I think is already evident; yet he 
 presented his case with such force that people very different 
 from himself expressed approval of his work, and men like 
 Cibber and Steele, who fundamentally were on the other 
 side, were driven partly by the depraved condition of 
 contemporary drama on the strictly moral side, and partly 
 by the effectiveness of his book, to profess themselves in 
 agreement with him. 
 
 His earnestness was one great asset, his style another. 
 
 To the modern ear the latter is sometimes offensive, but 
 
 it was admirably in the tradition of seventeenth-century 
 controversy. His contemporaries liked learning and liked 
 raillery. Collier appealed to both of these traits by mixing 
 a bewildering number of citations, pertinent and imperti- 
 nent, with sneers, taunts and irony, together with exuber- 
 ant raillery and abuse. He is constantly hovering some- 
 where between eloquence and bombast, and his genuine 
 
 i nee | 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 117 
 
 earnestness often goes a long way toward convincing the 
 reader that the latter is the former. | 
 
 Dryden’s line suggesting an explanation of the superior 
 endowments of Absalom, 
 
 “Whether inspired with a diviner lust, 
 His father got him... ” 
 
 though expressing only an idea familiar in popular litera- 
 ture, lashed Collier to a fury. ‘“ This is downright de- 
 fiance of the living God! Have you the very essence and 
 spirit of blasphemy, and the Holy Ghost brought in upon 
 the most hideous occasion. I question whether the tor- 
 ments and despair of the damn’d, dare venture at such 
 flights as these. They are beyond description, I pray God 
 they may not be beyond pardon too.” The light use of 
 a Scriptural phrase brings this comment: ‘ This is an 
 eruption of hell with a witness. I almost wonder the 
 smoke of it has not darken’d the sun, and turn’d the air 
 to plague and poison!” And “ They conclude he [God] 
 wants power to punish, because he has patience to forbear. 
 Because there is a space between blasphemy and venge- 
 ance; and they don’t perish in the act of defiance; because 
 they are not blasted with lightning, transfixt with thunder, 
 and guarded off with devils, they think there’s no such 
 matter as a day of reckoning. But let no man, be de- 
 ceiv’d, God is not mock’d; not without danger they may 
 be assured. Let them retreat in time, before the floods 
 run over them.” Speaking in general, he says: ‘On what 
 unhappy times are we fallen! The oracles of truth, the 
 laws of omnipotence, and the fate of eternity are laughed 
 at and despis’d! That the poets should be suffer’d to 
 play upon the Bible, and Christianity be hooted off the 
 stage! Christianity that from such feeble beginnings made 
 so stupendous a progress! That over-bore all the opposi- 
 
118 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 tions of power and learning; and with twelve poor men, 
 outstretch’d the Roman Empire. But that this glorious 
 religion so reasonable in its doctrine, so well attested by 
 miracles, by martyrs, by all the evidence that fact is 
 capable of, should become the diversion of the town, and 
 the scorn of buffoons: And where, and by whom is all 
 this out-rage committed? Why not by Julian, or Porphyry, 
 not among Turks or heathens, but in a Christian country, 
 in a reform’d church, and in the face of authority.” No 
 wonder that Collier was read. Whether such writing be 
 justified by the facts or not, and whether it be eloquence 
 or bombast, it is certainly not dull. 
 
 One gets, perhaps, the highest idea of Collier’s ability by 
 regarding such passages apart from the things which call 
 them forth. He has a very keen eye for blasphemy, and 
 often an innocent or trivial thing brings down a ludicrously 
 disproportionate tirade. How he saw blasphemy in the 
 fact that one of Dryden’s imps sneezed from having been 
 too long away from the fire has already been referred to. 
 Many other examples of an exaggerated sensibility might 
 
 be mentioned, but one will suffice. He quotes the follow- — 
 
 ing song from D’Urfey’s “ Don Quixote ”: 
 
 “ Providence that formed the Fair 
 In such a charming skin 
 Their outside made his only care, 
 And never look’d within.” 
 
 This seems a harmless bit of wit, yet Collier calls it “a 
 bold song against Providence ” and says it is a “‘ direct blas- 
 pheming the creation, and a satire upon God Almighty.” 
 D’Urfey * spoke not untruly of Collier as “ foaming at the 
 mouth.” One would like to ask with Prior, “ Odds life! 
 must one swear to the truth of a song?” 
 
 1 Preface to The Campaigners. 1698. 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 119 
 
 The choice of such feeble examples when many better 
 offered themselves cast doubt on his power of discernment, 
 and offered weak points for the attacks of his enemies. 
 Moreover, these examples show that no possible stage could 
 really have pleased him, for he was able to find blasphemy 
 and obscenity in the most innocent phrases. His own 
 language was sometimes coarse. Criticising a passage in 
 Congreve’s “ The Mourning Bride,” he says: “ This litter 
 of epithets makes the poem look like a bitch overstock’d 
 with puppies, and sucks the sense almost to skin and 
 bone”; and when he says of Shakespeare and Ophelia, 
 “Since he was resolv’d to drown the lady like a kitten, he 
 should have set her a swimming a little sooner,” he proved 
 nothing but his own insensibility. 
 
 The things that he praises are often as unaccountable 
 as those that he abuses. Euripides is praised because, 
 when Orestes is about to kill his mother, he mentions the 
 murder of her husband but not her adultery — surely, no 
 very material point in comparison with matricide. Only a 
 lack of humor can account for Collier’s tactical error in 
 making so important an issue out of the necessity of giving 
 a priest of any sort, Pagan or Christian, not only almost 
 divine reverence, but also great worldly station. This 
 position only gave point to remarks like the following by 
 Vanbrugh, who maintained that “ ’twas the quarrel of his 
 gown and not of his God, that made him take arms against 
 me—in all probability, had the poets never discover’d a 
 rent in the gown, he had done by religion, as I do by my 
 brethren, left it to shift for itself.” The fact of the matter 
 is that Collier was not really quite enough a man of the 
 world for his task. The fairness and moderation which 
 he tried to assume did not fit his character, and it took 
 such_a man as Steele, who could congenially put himself / 
 on the side of poetry, to effect the reform of English 
 
120 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 comedy. That Steele did more harm than good I shall 
 maintain later on, but he brought to his task a power of 
 persuasion that Collier lacked. 
 
 The evils of the Restoration stage, and the fact that 
 Collier called forcible attention to them, have blinded many 
 later critics to the essential narrowness of his views. The 
 ‘Spectator ” confessed himself a great admirer of Collier, 
 and public opinion has been, since that time, generally 
 on his side. In the eighteenth century we find Davies in 
 his “ Dramatic Miscellaney ” calling Collier ‘a severe, 
 but just corrector of their [the dramatists] indecencies and 
 blasphemy.” Macaulay? also at least implies as much, 
 _and such is the prevailing estimate of Collier’s work. 
 
 But attention must again be called to the fact that so 
 _ to estimate him is to be over-impressed with the indecen- 
 eles that actually existed, and to forget that while many 
 of his charges were substantiated, there is abundant proof 
 »in the book that he was a narrow-minded fanatic appar- 
 _ently as much shocked by wit as he was by blasphemy, | 
 and that no conceivable stage could have pleased him, since 
 -he was fundamentally an enemy to imaginative literature 
 -and belonged to that school of critics who, like Ascham, 
 found the “ Morte D’Arthur ” only a story of wilful murder 
 and bold adultery. 
 
 1 History of England. Vol. III. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 
 (Continued) 
 
 Couuier’s book, being both powerful and opportune, 
 brought forth a flood of confutation and support, so that 
 between the publication of the “Short View” and 1725 
 one may count more than forty separate books and pam- 
 phlets which are definitely part of the controversy which 
 he raised. Nor were they confined to London alone; 
 they came from as far west as Bath and as far north 
 as Edinburgh. 
 
 To mention in chronological order all the contributions 
 to the controversy or to balance reply and counter-reply 
 would be tedious, and since there is endless repetition, 
 uninstructive. I have attempted to make the bibliography 
 as exhaustive as possible, and can say that it at least 
 includes more items than will be found in any other list. 
 I shall discuss in detail only some of the most important 
 books. 
 
 The dramatists who were attacked may fairly be allowed 
 to speak first. Dryden’s few words are best known. He 
 was probably too weary of controversy and of life to say 
 much, and contented himself with a few remarks in the 
 preface to the “Fables” and in the prologue to “ The 
 Pilgrim.” In the former he pleads guilty in so far as any 
 
 1 The single pamphlet which emanated from the latter city has 
 never been noticed before, I think, and the copy in the Edinburgh 
 library seems to be unique, but it is interesting only as showing 
 how far the noise of the discussion had proceeded, since it con- 
 tains nothing beyond the capacity of a provincial parson. 
 
 121 
 
122 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 of his expressions or thoughts can be fairly accused of 
 obscenity or profaneness. He says truly that Collier has 
 often put a worse interpretation on some passages than 
 they require, and that he has been hardly fair in calling 
 his age worse than any which had gone before. But on 
 the whole Dryden’s tone is one of submission. He kisses 
 the rod, and in the prologue to “The Pilgrim” contents 
 himself with protesting merely that the parson has 
 stretched the point too far. 
 
 Dryden has usually been praised for his moderation and 
 for his candor, but one may wish that he had answered 
 more at length. No one wag so fit as he to expose by 
 moderate censure of his time the unfair ferocity of Collier. 
 But perhaps he was too weary to enter into any new con- 
 troversy. We can never know how sincere was his cry of 
 mea culpa, for he died too soon to prove repentance by 
 his works. The cleanness of the “ Fables” is a point in 
 his favor, but one can never be sure. Some ten years 
 before he had written in the magnificent fourth stanza of 
 the ‘ Ode to Mistress Anne Killegrew ” a more moving la- 
 ment for the faults of his age and for his own too active 
 participation in them than any which appears in the 
 preface to the ‘ Fables.” Yet he had not hesitated, a 
 few years later, to lard ‘‘ Amphytrion ”’ plentifully. He was 
 a master of the art of saying what he wanted to say with 
 an air of conviction, whether he believed it or not; and had 
 he lived he might not have demonstrated in his works 
 the sincerity of the submission which he seemed so can- 
 didly to proclaim. 
 
 Congreve replied with “ Amendments to Mr. Collier’s 
 false and imperfect citations, etc., from the Old Bachelor, 
 Double Dealer, Love for Love, Mourning Bride,” and 
 Vanbrugh with ‘ A Short Vindication of the Relapse and 
 the Provok’d Wife.” Both disclaimed any intention of 
 
be i 
 
 THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 123 
 
 defending what was actually objectionable in the contem- 
 porary comedy, but neither was wholly wise in his method. 
 For while each could show that Collier was over-anxious 
 to find offense where none could reasonably be found, and 
 while some support could be given to Congreve’s state- 
 ment that the reformer had “ blackened the thoughts with 
 his own smut,” each made the mistake of himself stretching 
 
 — 
 
 the point too far and of pretending that Collier was only , 
 
 reading into plays things which any candid reader must 
 admit the authors had put there themselves. Thus Con- 
 greve is quite right when he refuses to admit that a speech 
 of Osmin in the “ Mourning Bride” is, as Collier called it, 
 “a rant of smut and profaneness.” The speech is as 
 follows: 
 
 Osmin: Oh my Elmira 
 
 What do the damn’d endure but to despair, 
 
 But knowing heaven to know it lost forever. 
 
 Osmin is referring to the loss of his mistress and is per- 
 haps a bit extravagant, but certainly not profane. Con- 
 greve is, however, not always so sincere. For instance, 
 Collier had objected also to a scene in the ‘‘ Old Bachelor ” 
 where one of the characters asks Bellmour if he would be 
 content to go to heaven, and gets the response: “‘ Hum, not 
 immediately, in my conscience, not heartily.” Now this is 
 
 an innocent enough joke, and Congreve would have done 
 
 well simply to say so, but instead he accuses Collier of 
 distorting his meaning, for, he says, Bellmour continues: 
 “T would do a little more good in my generation first, in 
 order to deserve it.” Of course this is facetious, and does 
 not change the meaning, but “ ’Tis one thing,” says Con- 
 greve, “for a man to say positively, he will not go to 
 heaven; and another to say, that he does not think himself 
 worthy, till he is better prepared.’ Bellmour’s little speech 
 
124 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 is not, as Collier would have us believe, horribly profane, 
 but neither is it, as Congreve tries to make it out, a pious 
 reflection, and it does not have, as he says, ‘‘ a moral mean- 
 ing contain’d in it.” Similarly, Congreve is right as long 
 as he maintains that there is no reason why he should not 
 ridicule a foolish clergyman, but he is insincere and un- 
 wise when he-maintains. that he did not intend ridicule 
 when he christened.one “ Mr. Prig.’ So, too, Vanbrugh 
 gets some telling blows at Collier, but mraaiteas his own 
 cause by obvious hypocrisy when, for instance, he refuses 
 to see any double entendre in the remark of Rasor in “ The 
 Provok’d Wife”; “And if my prayers were to be heard 
 her punishment for so doing shou’d be like the serpent’s 
 of old, she shou’d lye upon her face all the days of her 
 life.” 
 
 On the whole, Congreve’s reply is hastily written and 
 not very successful. He showed that Collier sometimes 
 exaggerated, but he made no very satisfactroy reply to 
 the principal charge, i.e., that he represented vice in an 
 attractive light and made vicious characters successful; 
 for he hardly attempted to show either that this was per- 
 missible or that it had not been done. Vanbrugh was more 
 successful. He protested that if his plays did not expose 
 vice and folly to ridicule, such had at least been his aim, 
 and he did succeed in proving that while he might. be guilty 
 occasionally of considerable freedom in speech and in the 
 full length depiction of rather questionable scenes, he could 
 not fairly be charged with teaching immorality. His illus- 
 tration of--Gollier’s..inability to recognize.satire when he 
 sees_it. and-of -his.unforunate habit of attributing to the 
 dramatists themselves the opinions of»any character is 
 particularly telling. Collier had objected to the following 
 speech of Lord Foppington in “ The Relapse ”: “ Why faith 
 madam, Sunday is a vile day, I must confess. A man 
 must have very little to do there that can give an account 
 
 ~~ 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 125 
 
 of the sermon.” Vanbrugh replies very tellingly to the . 
 objection by remarking, quite truly, that in the play Lord 
 Foppington does nothing that is not intended to be laughed 
 at and despised, and that “though my Lord Foppington is 
 not suppos’d to speak what he does to a religious end, yet 
 ‘tis so ordered, that his manner of speaking it, together 
 with the character he represents, plainly and obviously 
 instructs the audience (even to the meanest capacity) that 
 what he says of his church-behaviour, is design’d for their 
 contempt, and not. for their imitation.” There was in 
 Restoration Comedy much perversity spoken for the ap- 
 proval of the audience, but this was no example of it, an 
 Collier was so intent on finding matter for objection haf 
 he could not recognize satire when he saw it. 
 
 The replies of Vanbrugh and Congreve were replied to 
 by “A Letter to Mr. Congreve, etc.” (1698), by “ Ani- 
 madversions upon Mr. Congreve’s late answer to Mr. 
 Collier, etc.” (1698), and by Collier himself in “A De- 
 fense of the Short View, etc.” (1699). Neither of the 
 former two is very important. The first is merely raillery, 
 but the second makes one or two points, including the 
 suggestion that since Congreve is a dramatist it is not 
 sufficient for him merely to disapprove of what is immoral 
 on the stage; he has a duty to attempt to reform it. 
 Collier’s reply exposes Congreve’s unsuccessful attempt to 
 represent_his comedies as endowed with.a moral. purpose, 
 and truly enough finds the real. moral of the “Old 
 Bachelor” in Bellmour’s speech at the end of the fourth 
 act: 
 
 “No husband by his wife can be deceiv’d, 
 She still is virtuous, if she’s so believ’d.” 
 
 On the whole he does succeed in showing up the weakness 
 of Congreve’s defense. Congreve had, indeed, shown that 
 many of Collier’s attacks were on frivolous grounds; but 
 
126 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 Collier succeeded very well in maintaining his principal 
 contention that Congreve’s comedies were..such_as_ they 
 were: that is, cynical pictures of contemporary...society, 
 
 - not for the most part vicious in intent,.but-simply.-uncon- 
 
 cerned with any moral consideration. 
 
 Collier’s reply to Vanbrugh is less successful, for he re- 
 turns to the attack and again shows his unreasonableness. 
 Thus, the speech of Amanda (‘“ The Relapse”): ‘ What 
 slippery stuff are men composed of? Sure, the account of 
 their creation’s false, and ’twas the woman’s rib that they 
 were form’d of,” Collier cites as proof that the play “ not 
 only questions the truth of the Scriptures, but denies it.” 
 As to Vanbrugh’s assertion that the various speeches to 
 which Collier had objected were intended to be condemned 
 by the audience and must not be taken as expressing the 
 opinion of the dramatists, Collier falls back upon the as- 
 sumption that evil is not to be spoken upon the stage 
 
 ‘under any circumstances, and argues: “ One man injures 
 
 his neighbor, and another blames him for’t; does this 
 cancel the guilt, and make the fact nothing? One man 
 speaks blasphemy, and another reproves him; does this 
 justify the boldness, or make the words unspoken?” 
 Moreover, Collier says that whether what the characters 
 
 say is intended to be reproved or ridiculed, yet the people 
 
 who speak these blasphemies are fine gentlemen “ and 
 - when vice has credit as well as pleasure annexed, the 
 temptation is dangerously fortified.” In other words, 
 _ Collier would have no drama, only sermons; for drama 
 - may be misunderstood. | 
 
 Neither side profited much from the anonymous “A 
 Letter to A. H. Esq.” (1698) and “ A Letter to Mr. Con- 
 greve on His Pretended Amendment, etc.” (1698), which 
 were intended to support Collier (who was much better 
 able to support himself), nor from “Some Remarks upon 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 127 
 
 Mr. Collier’s Defense of his Short View” (1698), which, 
 as became quite common, charged Collier with vanity, 
 uncharitableness, and ill nature. 
 
 There was, in the replies to Collier, little that was con- 
 elusive. Whatever opinions the more worldly part of 
 society might ultimately reach concerning the stage, he 
 had scored a great triumph. Though his extreme view 
 could not be accepted, it achieved its main purpose of 
 arousing active interest in the condition of the English 
 stage, and from his time on the question of how the stage 
 might be held within the bounds of morality was in every 
 one’s mouth and on the tip of everyone’s pen. Books on 
 the stage became almost a recognized department of litera- 
 ture, and varied all the way from ponderous and unread- 
 able volumes like that by Arthur Bedford, who boasts that 
 he gives reference to almost two thousand instances of 
 corruption in the plays of the two preceding years, to 
 modest pamphlets for distribution among the masses by 
 the religious. — 
 
 Interest in the subject became so widespread as to be 
 shared “by every class of society. Steele could discourse 
 in a spirit of sweet reasonableness for the benefit of the 
 polished; men of a serious and ponderous nature like the 
 lawyer Edward Filmer and the critic John Dennis could: 
 seek a philosophical basis for defending the stage; and 
 learned but naive clergymen could search the classics and 
 the ponderous works of the fathers for light; while popular 
 preachers could seize the occasion for denouncing the 
 world’s corruption. From the heights of literature in the 
 “Spectator” the subject descends to the depths in the 
 works of men like Tom Brown and D’Urfey. In a “ Visit 
 from the Shades” (1704) Collier was introduced holding 
 a colloquy with Joe Haynes, the actor, and in “ The 
 Stage-Beau toss’d in a blanket: or hypocrisy a la mode”’ 
 
128 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 (attributed to Tom Brown) a Collierite is exposed by an 
 easy formula, furnished by Tartuffe, wherein the hypoc- 
 risy of the over-virtuous is unmasked when the pious 
 fraud makes love too recklessly. Settle, too, borrows an 
 idea from the “ Knight of the Burning Pestle” to ridicule 
 the citizens’ prejudice against the theater. Leaping from 
 these extremes of frivolity to the opposite extreme of seri- 
 ousness, we find that the terrible storm in November, 1703 
 (best remembered because of the reference to it in Addi- 
 son’s famous metaphor), which killed many and destroyed, 
 among other buildings, the theater in Dorset Garden, was 
 looked upon as “a dreadful judgment against the nation 
 for the impieties of the play houses,’”+ and. that a special 
 pamphlet called “ Mr. Collier’s dissuasive from the play 
 house, in a letter to a person of quality, occasion’d by the 
 late calamity of the tempest’ (1703) was printed for the 
 occasion. 
 
 Dennis made the Voltairian comment that the storm 
 covered a very large area, so “ that the Divine vengeance 
 which they [1.e. the theaters] brought down upon us has 
 involv’d the very innocent. Not only the poor inhabitants 
 of Cologne, but the very Hamburgers and Dantzichers, and 
 all the people of the Baltak, have suffer’d for the enormi- 
 ties of our English theaters; tho’ I believe in my con- 
 science they have never so much as heard of a play.” But 
 such irony was lost on a Bedford, who seriously replied to 
 a complaint that it was hardly fair that innocent sailors 
 should share the vengeance intended for London by saying 
 that they were one of the foundations of England’s great- 
 ness and hence a likely object to be visited with God’s 
 wrath against England. 
 
 Much of the mass of controversy which we are consider- 
 ing is anonymous, and even among the names which have 
 
 1 Bedford. Serious Reflections, etc. 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 129 
 
 survived none is that of a man with half of Collier’s 
 arresting power. Probably John Dennis and Arthur Bed- , 
 ford deserve best to be remembered, though Dennis is | 
 certainly heavy, and Bedford is interesting only as a curi- 
 ous example of fanaticism. The latter was an industrious 
 pedant who, after taking his M.A. at Brasenose in 1691, 
 became chaplain to the Duke of Bedford and later in life 
 to Frederick, Prince of Wales. He was so unworldly as — 
 to be completely out of touch with the world, and seems 
 to have divided his time between various studies and 
 puritanical fulmination. His mind was of a type which 
 found congenial the most unprofitable parts of Collier’s 
 book—the narrow asceticism and the most super-ingen- 
 ious twisting of innocent phrases into blasphemous ones — 
 and the actual appearance oi actors in Bristol, where he 
 lived, spurred him to a furious denunciation. If to his 
 opinion concerning the great storm (already cited) we add 
 that he believed that God had given great success to 
 certain medical baths in order to reduce the prosperity of 
 the people of Bath who had permitted acting, we shall get 
 some idea of the fanaticism, but not of the awful tedium, 
 of his books. 
 
 The worst is called ‘The Evil and Danger of Stage- 
 Plays: Shewing their natural tendency to destroy religion, 
 and introduce a general corruption of manners; in almost 
 two thousand instances, taken from the plays of the two 
 last years, against all the methods lately used for their 
 reformation” (1706). The title gives a sufficient hint as 
 to its contents. Collier and most of the other controversi- 
 alists are at least readable. Bedford certainly is not. 
 This volume of 227 pages is hardly a book, but a catalog. 
 The margins are not wide enough to hold all the page 
 references for the 2000 cases of profaneness and immorality 
 together with the notations of chapters and verses of the 
 
130 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 Scriptural texts which condemn them, so that these lists 
 usurp the place of the text. Had Lamb known “ The Evil 
 and Danger etc.,’ he would certainly have included it 
 among his list of “ things in book’s clothing! ” The volume 
 may be called scholarly. About 30 biblical texts are given 
 to prove that swearing is a sin before we are informed 
 that conversation which contains such phrases as “ Death 
 and Furies” is so bad that ‘the bare repetition of such 
 unparalleled blasphemy, will make the flesh tremble, and 
 the blood grow cold.” Abundant references to page and 
 line in printed play-books are given, so that anyone may 
 see for himself how in different plays characters ‘‘ Wish 
 that they may be damn’d, die, or rot, chang’d, confounded, 
 stricken blind, or stupid, that the devil may take them,” 
 and how on page 58, line 309, of “An Act at Oxford” 
 appears this crowning horror: ‘‘ May the devil choke me 
 upon a red herring.” Thus Bedford collects his 2000 in- 
 stances by means of an unequal eye for blasphemy and 
 profaneness, so that an innocent song like the following: 
 
 “To Fortune give immortal praise, 
 Fortune depresses and can raise. 
 All is as Fortune shall bestow 
 ’Tis Fortune governs all below.” 
 
 becomes terrible blasphemy, because it attributes to a 
 heathen God what belongs only to Providence. 
 
 Similar extravagances may be found in Bedford’s other 
 books. ‘A Serious Remonstrance, etc.” goes even further 
 than “The Evil and Danger, etc.,”” and includes almost 
 “7000 instances, taken out of the plays of the present 
 century,’ which show the “ plain tendency ” of the stage 
 “to overthrow all piety, and advance the interest and 
 honor of the devil in the world.” It begins with “ the 
 catalogue of about 1400 texts of Scripture, which are men- 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 131 
 
 tioned in the treatise, either as ridicul’d and expos’d by the 
 stage, or as opposite to their present practices.” The list 
 is long because Bedford found evil everywhere. The lines 
 from “ The ’Squire of Alsatia ”’: 
 
 “But never solid joy could find, 
 Where I my charming Sylvia miss’d.” 
 
 are proclaimed doubly sinful: first, because they use 
 “ charming ” in a favorable sense, when it is a plain teach- 
 ing of the Bible that all magic and charms are from the 
 devil: and second, because they are a defiance of Psalm 
 IV, “Lord, lift thou up ‘the light of Thy countenance 
 upon us. Thou hast put gladness in my heart.” The idea 
 apparently is that the lover in the play, by declaring the 
 impossibility of finding joy’ where his mistress is not, is 
 considered as denying God’s power to gladden the heart. 
 Bedford had simply pushed other-worldliness to a point 
 where any phrase not saturated with an immediate sense 
 of the presence of the Hebraic God must be ranked as 
 blasphemous. 
 
 Appalling as such works are, they cannot be neglected 
 by a student either of the present subject or the intellec- 
 tual life of the time, for Bedford was not recognized as a 
 fool by his contemporaries. Defoe read him with approval, 
 
 and Defoe represents the prevailing mental attitude of a 
 
 large class of people of narrow but genuine piety. Bedford 
 represented merely the extreme of the spirit generally wide-’ 
 spread —the spirit of the once dominant Puritan. The 
 bulk of even the middle class would not go to the extreme 
 of Bedford’s unworldliness, but it understood nothing and 
 eared nothing for the purely literary excellence of the 
 Restoration drama. It was interested by literature and 
 might perhaps be amused at the theater, but it demanded 
 that no amusement, literary or otherwise, should outrage 
 
132 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 its fundamental notions. The general attitude of this 
 
 moderate middle class was well expressed in the anony- | 
 
 mous ‘“ A Letter to A. H. Esq.,”+ which appeared shortly 
 after the “Short View.” The author favors a reformed 
 stage and remarks that, as to Collier, “ He has his faults, 
 but they are such as I wou’d not have lost his book for.” 
 Among all the books which form the controversy there 
 is scarcely one, even among those written by the drama- 
 tists themselves, which does not admit that there have been 
 - abuses, and there are practically no defenses of the status 
 quo. To this extent Collier had won an undoubted 
 ~ triumph. 
 
 Some of the other books listed in the bibliography are 
 almost as foolish as the “ Evil and Danger,’ but not all. 
 It represents simply an extreme, and in many others there 
 are attempts to settle, on the basis of a less fanatical idea 
 of the permissible, the questions which Collier had raised. 
 The man moderately inclined to conventional morality had 
 been awakened to the fact that he should be flagrantly out- 
 raged by a Restoration comedy. He was convinced that 
 it could not be justified, and was now moved to wonder 
 whether or not all drama was indefensible. Criticism was 
 again face to face with the old question of the justification 
 of literature, and it attempted to lay down rules and 
 define methods by means of which a comedy to which 
 reasonable men could not object could be produced. Of 
 course such an attempt, in so far as it tried to be rigidly 
 logical and definite, failed, since comedy is a wild jade 
 that refuses to be bound; but certain ideas which were de- 
 veloped, and above all the general admission made by 
 practically all the controversialists that comedy should be 
 morally instructive, succeeded in producing the profound 
 
 1 Probably Anthony Horneck of the Societies for the Reformation 
 of Manners. 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 133 
 
 modification which dramatic writing underwent. We shall 
 turn, then, to an examination not of the individual books 
 but of the drift of argument which they represented. 
 
 It has already been pointed out in the chapter on Collier / 
 that at the base of many attacks on the stage lay the 
 fundamental ascetic objection to all art that appealed to. 
 
 ™ worldly interest and a love of life, since it is a part of the 
 wise man and the Christian to hate all such things. As- 
 ceticism in bare and philosophical form is not particularly 
 congenial to the English mind, but Calvinistic asceticism 
 is plainly the background of the rather barbarous pedantry 
 of men like the journalist George Ridpath and some of the 
 authors of the amazing pamphlets in the literature of this 
 controversy. Moreover it had found full philosophical 
 expression in the French controversy concerning the stage, 
 with which Collier was certainly familiar, since he made 
 a translation from Bossuet under the title of “‘ Maxims and 
 Reflections upon Plays.” The best expression in English 
 of this fundamental objection to the stage is found in a 
 translation from the works of Armand de Bourbon, Prince 
 de Conti (a brother of “the grand Condé”), who in the 
 latter part of a tumultuous life fell into an excess of de- 
 votion and wrote among other things a “ Traité de la 
 Comédie” which was published shortly after his death in 
 1666. It was answered by the Abbé d’Aubignac, and was 
 published in English in 1711. 
 
 To the Prince de Conti the stage became simply one 
 of the expressions of the lust of the flesh which it was 
 necessary to suppress. ‘‘ A Christian having renounc’d the 
 world, its pomp and pleasure, cannot seek pleasure for 
 itself, nor diversion for the sake of diversion. It must 
 (that he may use it without sin) be in some manner nec- 
 essary for him,” and the stage is not necessary. Moreover, 
 the whole subject matter of dramatic literature is nec- 
 
134 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 essarily un-Christian, for the Christian virtues are not 
 dramatic. Corneille writes plays which are clean, but 
 ambition, revenge, and above all love are his subjects. All 
 of these are essentially un-Christian, but to treat of love 
 is especially so, for the Christian is the enemy of all sexual 
 passion, and sexual love is the subject of most plays. 
 Love, though lawfully exercised, “is nevertheless always 
 evil and irregular in itself, and it is not allowable to excite 
 it in one’s self or others. We ought always to look on it 
 ‘as the shameful effect of sin, as a source of poison capable 
 to infect us every minute.” 'To make plays clean is to 
 make them more rather than less dangerous, for when they 
 are not fair-seeming the world more readily avoids them. 
 
 No English writer expressed this ascetic idea in its logi- 
 cal purity so well, though William Law came nearest to 
 it; and Law was, like the Prince de Conti, a mystic, and his 
 mind, worked in the same way. To him also it is not a 
 question of good plays or bad plays, because to him-all 
 imaginative representations of this sinful world are nec- 
 essarily sinful. He has nothing to say of the reform of 
 the stage, for he does not believe that it is possible to re- 
 form it. To him the stage is sinful “not as things that 
 may only be the occasion of sin, but such as are in their 
 own nature grossly sinful.” Theater-going is “ contrary to 
 the whole nature of religion,” and ‘to talk of the lawful- 
 ness and unlawfulness of the stage is fully as absurd, as 
 contrary to the plain nature of things, as to talk of the 
 unlawfulness and mischief of the service of the church.” 
 His logic is unanswerable. The theater represents the 
 world and is necessarily worldly. Worldliness is anti- 
 Christian, therefore the theater is anti-Christian. He de- 
 scribes a mask of Apollo and Venus then playing. The 
 opening scene, he says, shows Venus and the pleasures 
 
 and, as Law asks, “ Now how is it possible, that such a. 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 135 
 
 scene as this should be fit for the entertainment of Chris- 
 tians? Can Venus and her Graces and Pleasures talk any 
 language that is like themselves, but what must be unlike 
 the spirit of Christianity? ” 
 
 A similar spirit is expressed in a few other pamphlets. 
 A play, no matter how moral in intention and instructive 
 in fable, is represented in a spirit of frivolity, and the 
 gaiety of the stage is considered inconsistent with the spirit 
 of that religion which commands us to crucify the flesh 
 and to turn away the eyes from vanity.* 
 
 Such a spirit offered, of course, no basis for a compro- 
 mise, and had it animated the bulk of the people, not even 
 a Steele could have been effectual, for it would have been 
 logically necessary not only that the theaters be closed 
 but that the “Spectator” itself be suppressed. In reply 
 to ascetic objections, one could only translate a play like 
 Racine’s “‘ Esther” and call attention to its innocence, or 
 summon the authority of some devotee as Motteux did 
 that of the Rev. Father Caffaro, whose opinions concern- 
 ing the usefulness of a theoretically perfect stage Motteux 
 printed as a preface to “Beauty in Distress” (1698) .? 
 Caffaro thought that the actual stage was for the most 
 part lewd and immoral, but that there was no fundamental 
 objection to the institution. Holy Writ, he says, is silent 
 on the subject, and hence one may fall back upon reason. 
 He cites the authority of Thomas Aquinas, who ranks 
 play-going among lawful diversions. To this it was’ 
 replied * that if the Bible does not specifically condemn’ 
 
 1 Conduct of the Stage. Some Considerations on the Danger of 
 Going to Plays. 
 
 2 Caffaro was an Italian Monk and a Professor of the University 
 of Paris. He had retracted his opinions in favor of the theater in 
 1694. 
 
 8 The Stage Condemn'd. 
 
136 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 plays it does so implicitly, for if plays teach immorality, 
 ‘then no one can defend them, and if they teach morality, 
 
 ‘they are nevertheless bad, for God has appointed other 
 
 ‘means for the teaching of morality, and “ that which God 
 -hath appointed sufficient means to accomplish it is unlaw- 
 ‘ful for men to appoint other means to accomplish.” 
 
 It does considerable credit to the perspicacity of John 
 Dennis that he saw more clearly than anyone else that 
 such ideas lay at the back of even Collier’s mind; that 
 quibbles such as Congreve and Vanbrugh indulged in got 
 nowhere; and that had they proved their plays as innocent 
 as they wished, Collier and Bedford would have still 
 found abundant cause for disapproval. Dennis saw that 
 there was involved a fundamental question of the value.of 
 are ae and he set himself to formulate a moral but 
 not in itself an evil, but that mankind lives for happiness. 
 And happiness, he says, is concerned with the passions 
 and comes only through such exercise of them as does not 
 result in a conflict with the will. Since, then, happiness 
 comes only through the rational exercise of the passions, to 
 destroy them as the ascetics demand is to make happiness 
 impossible. Drama arouses the rational passions, and is 
 therefore useful to the happiness of mankind. A man who 
 is familiar with the theater is less easily moved than one 
 who is not, and therefore to say that the drama unduly 
 stimulates the passions is false, for the theater-goer is less 
 likely than another to be swept away by irrational emo- 
 tion. It is true that plays may stimulate pride, but a 
 good play will stimulate only a good sort of pride, for 
 pride is not always sinful, but may, as in the case of 
 patriotism, constitute a virtue. The question of love he 
 also meets squarely. Only a bad play will encourage law- 
 less love, but to encourage virtuous love.is.to.perform a 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 137 
 
 service rather than, as some would have it, to stimulate a 
 vice." 
 
 Aside from the general consideration of the antipathy 
 between the stage and the spirit of Christianity, the re- 
 former made much of the specific objections which had 
 been offered at different times by the pagan philosophers 
 and the church. Collier had emphasized the fact that in 
 the early church players had been excommunicated, and 
 that Lactantius, Augustine, Ambrose, and others had 
 shown hostility, while Tertullian had devoted a whole 
 treatise, “‘ De Spectaculis,” to the subject. The latter is, 
 in fact, Tertullian’s most famous work, for it contains the 
 passage, made famous by Gibbon, in which is described the 
 joy which the saved experience in watching the tortures of 
 the damned. To the modern mind some of the Father’s 
 arguments seem somewhat far-fetched, as when he men- 
 tions the depreciation of God involved when we lift up to 
 him hands which have applauded a player, or finds that to 
 wear the tragic buskins is to defy that text which denies 
 the possibility of adding a cubit to one’s stature. Still 
 Tertullian was not one whit more fantastic than Bedford, 
 and Congreve and Wycherley were solemnly brought up 
 before Tertullian for judgment. 
 
 This argument from authority was a favorite one and 
 was taken up by many. The writings of the pagan philoso- 
 phers as well as the Church Fathers, and the records of 
 all the church councils, were ransacked for statements 
 unfavorable to the stage, and an impressive collection was 
 gathered by huddling together everything from blanket 
 condemnations of the dramatist and all his works down to 
 statements as mild as that of Aristotle, who, though he 
 had written the most famous treatise on the drama, did 
 
 1 The Usefulness of the Stage, etc. and The Stage Acquitt’d ad- 
 vance similar arguments. 
 
138 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 remark that the young should not be allowed to see 
 comedies. One writer‘ cites sixteen church councils 
 which occurred between 305 and 1617, all of which disap- 
 proved in some way of the stage. The violence of the 
 decrees ranges all the way from that of a council in Africa 
 in 409 which proclaimed that “Stage plays are against 
 the commandments of God” (which is certainly strong 
 enough) to that pronounced at Cologne in 1549, which 
 went no further than to forbid comedies in nunneries. 
 Attention is also called to the fact that in England Brad- 
 wardine ‘‘ wrote against the stage in 1345,” that Wycliff 
 in his “ De Causa Dei” records his disapproval of plays, 
 and that Archbishop Parker in ‘De Antiquitate Eccle- 
 siae”’ says ‘‘that stage plays are not to be suffer’d in any 
 Christian or well govern’d commonwealth.” Among more 
 recent English ecclesiastics, Baxter, Wesley and Dr. 
 Horneck had spoken against the stage. 
 
 To most of these arguments from authority there was 
 some sort of answer. The theater was pagan in its origin, 
 and the Fathers opposed it only for this reason, since they 
 feared the fostering of pagan influence through the con- 
 tinuation of a pagan institution, but they could have had 
 no possible objection to a properly managed Christian 
 drama.” Dennis attacks the authority of the Fathers, 
 and asks Collier roundly whether he is Catholic or Protes- 
 tant, and how, if he is the latter, he can presume to cite 
 the authority of the Fathers as inspired. If they were not 
 inspired, then their opinions were subject to revision in the 
 light of reason. To this Collier could only reply that they 
 were not inspired, but that their purity of character made 
 them the next thing to it. 
 
 1 George Ridpath (?). The Stage Condemm'd, etc. 
 2 Dennis. Usefulness of the Stage, ete. 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 139 
 
 The arguments taken from the pagan philosophers were 
 likely to turn out double edged. One writer had called 
 attention to the fact that Ovid recommended the theater as 
 a favorable place in which to seek for a mistress, where- 
 upon another pointed out that if this was to be considered 
 conclusive, then it ought to be remembered that it involved 
 the church also, for Ovid had mentioned the temple as 
 the next best place. If Plato’s republic was to be taken as 
 a model, then it must be remembered that he advocated 
 a community of women as well as the expulsion of actors. 
 
 More significant than such quibblings was the argument 
 of the defenders of plays that, since the pagan stage was 
 not at all the same thing as the modern one, no opinions 
 concerning the former had any weight. The old shows were 
 admittedly immoral and scandalous, and Collier and others, 
 in citing the opinions of the ancients concerning them, 
 had confused pantomime and the spectacles of the arena 
 with the drama, though there was no similarity between 
 them. Much learned quibbling followed as to what might 
 and what might not be fairly translated as “theater” or 
 “play.” Most of all this was irrelevant. The many pages 
 of quotations from ancient writers might have made a good 
 history of the opinions of antiquity concerning the classical 
 stage, but they had little to do with what English people 
 should think of their theater. Its condition offered a good 
 problem to a critic, and Collier showed at first some dis- 
 _ position to consider it, but he and his enemies and friends 
 continually wandered off into the, for them, easier field 
 of pedantry, and were constantly harking back to Greece 
 and Rome, and leaving Wycherley and Congreve in order 
 to argue over Plautus and Terence. 
 
 Next in importance to the attitude of the church was the 
 
 1 Edward Filmer. A Defense of Plays. 
 
140 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 attitude of the state. Historical citations showed that 
 from ancient times to the present, the stage had been fre- 
 quently subject to regulation and at times to suppression. 
 Constantine, the first of the Christian emperors, is said 
 to have abolished it.1 Other writers pointed out that this 
 did not outweigh the fact that it had been usually at least 
 tolerated.* 
 
 Collier and Bedford were of course members of the 
 Church of England,’ and it cannot but have been a thorn in 
 their side that opposition to the stage in England had been 
 
 ~ most closely connected with the Puritans. Collier had been 
 
 already accused of disloyalty, and this gave point to Cib- 
 ber’s remark: “I think the last time they pull’d down the 
 stage in the city, they set up a scaffold at court.”* Ac- 
 cordingly, probably neither Collier nor Bedford was much 
 pleased by the elaborate book “ The Stage Condemn’d ” 
 (probably by George Ridpath) in which the whole con- 
 troversy is moved to the political plane, and that corrupt 
 institution, the theater, traced directly to popery and the 
 Church of England. Ridpath was a violent Whig. He 
 assumes that the stage is damnable, but lays the blame 
 for its existence on the clergy, and declares that Collier’s 
 abuse of the stage is inconsistent with his allegiance to 
 the Stuarts who encouraged it. He points out that though 
 Tertullian, Jerome, Ambrose, and other lesser known 
 Fathers attacked the stage, Laud and his associates left 
 it to the Puritan Prynne to speak against this great evil, 
 while they promulgated the Book of Sports, and that 
 
 1 Stage Condemn'd. 
 
 2 Filmer. 
 
 3 Collier was a non-juror. Hence it would be more accurate to 
 say that he had been a member of the Church of England. At 
 least, his sympathies would not be with the dissenters. 
 
 * Preface to Love Makes a Man. 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 141 
 
 Charles I, whom Collier must regard as a saint, held a 
 mask on Sunday in which Imposture appeared in the guise 
 of a Puritan. Ridpath holds the school system equally 
 blamable with the court. Origen declares that those of 
 an amorous turn should avoid reading the Canticles, yet 
 these are read in schools, where the heathen poets, who 
 were inspired by Satan to advocate wickedness, are also 
 read. His implied remedy, is of course, a return to Puri- 
 tanism. Ridpath’s is the spirit that smashed organs and 
 knocked the heads off the statues in Gothic cathedrals. 
 Prynne is his ideal, and the latter’s appalling book, in 
 which few modern readers have been able to get beyond 
 the portentous title page, he praises as being “ perhaps the 
 largest, learned, and most elaborate” that has ever been 
 written on the subject. 
 
 Ridpath was replied to in “ The Stage Acquitted,” where 
 the author neatly reverses his argument. Ridpath had 
 said, in effect, that plays were bad, that the English Gov- 
 ernment and Church had continuously encouraged them, 
 and that therefore the English Government and Church 
 were bad. His opponent says that the Church and Govern- 
 ment have encouraged plays, that the Church and Gov- 
 ernment are good, and that therefore plays are good. St. 
 Charles is as good, he maintains, as St. Chrysostom. As 
 to Wesley, Horneck, and the others, they have spoken only 
 of the abuses of the stage. Properly regulated drama, he 
 maintains, teaches morality; and consequently a friend of 
 virtue must defend it. Its value, he says, depends entirely 
 on the manner in which you take it. St. Paul read plays 
 to get morality, for he takes his famous phrase “ Evil 
 communication corrupts good manners” from a Greek 
 play. Collier would do well to follow his example instead 
 of reading them in order to collect smut. As to Prynne, 
 he-was an enemy of the church and the state as well as of 
 
142 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 the theater. Ridpath, he maintains in conclusion, has only 
 succeeded in proving that various vicious men have at- 
 tacked the stage. 
 
 Dennis (to whom Ridpath replies) had already at- 
 tempted to settle the question of the relation of the state 
 and the theater by reference to general principles which are 
 laid down in his “ The Usefulness of the Stage, etc.” The 
 abuses, he admits, are so great that there is a necessity 
 for reforming them; and he declares that he would have 
 praised Collier for his attack had Collier not in his last 
 chapter showed himself the enemy of the stage itself, 
 whereas it is, Dennis maintains, useful not only to religion 
 and morality but also directly to the state. Public diver- 
 sions are necessary for the contentment of the people, and, 
 consequently, for the safety of the state. The theater is the 
 best possible public diversion. In Greece, Rome, France, 
 and England the period of the best national drama coin- 
 cides with the period of the greatest national glory. Plays 
 chastise the passions, show the disastrous effects of bad 
 ‘government and public tumult, and inspire patriotism and 
 ‘a noble union in the face of public enemies. The English 
 ‘people are by nature more inclined to tumult than any 
 other, and consequently more particularly in need of the 
 stage. Collier perhaps wished to suppress the stage in 
 order more easily to foment the rebellion. 
 
 Such discussion of the expediency or inexpediency of 
 permitting a theoretically perfect stage left untouched 
 Collier’s indictment of the vices of contemporary plays, 
 an indictment which his followers had made more and 
 more sweeping. The defenders, practically without excep- 
 tion, admitted there was much to be amended, but they 
 had to concern themselves first of all with a defense of 
 the stage from the condemnation in toto, and usually 
 
 admitted with Dennis “ there is no defending the immoral- . 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 143 
 
 ity, or immodesty, or unnecessary profaneness of some 
 of our plays.” They merely wished to prove that plays 
 might be innocent for, as Cibber said,’ the lawyers and 
 clergymen of the Restoration had not been above reproach, 
 and if they were to be allowed to reform, why should not 
 the players be given an equal opportunity? Perhaps the 
 opinion of the largest number of pamphleteers could be 
 
 summarized thus: ‘“ There may.be.an-innocent»representa~ 
 
 tion of persons and actions.in.a dramatic. way; yet. play- 
 houses as they have been, and..generally. are managed, 
 ought not to be frequented by Christians.” ? 
 
 ‘Laying aside, then, the question as to whether or not 
 the stage was, in itself, essentially evil, we find the pam- 
 
 phleteers engaged in discussing just where the actual : 
 contemporary comedies were evil, and attempting to lay | 
 
 down the laws which should embody the characteristics of 
 innocent or instructive drama. Practically nothing new is 
 added to Collier’s general charges against prevailing con- 
 ditions, but while many of those who wished to defend the 
 stage were inclined to admit that there were grounds 
 for these charges in many cases, they saw, nevertheless, 
 that the method of procedure used by Bedford and others 
 led simply to finding blasphemy and irreligion in every 
 representation of life, and saw the necessity of drawing 
 the line so as to admit of the representation of evil on 
 the stage. Clearly, if you were to have bad men in your 
 plays, you could not represent them talking like saints, 
 yet if swearing and blasphemy are put into plays, it must 
 be to show the ridiculousness of evil men. Smut, said 
 Filmer, is not dangerous in itself, nor is swearing a con- 
 tempt of God if it is shown in a vicious character. If the 
 stage is to castigate faults, it must show them. But Collier 
 
 1 Preface to Love Makes a Man. 
 2 Conduct of the Stage. 
 
 a? ee oe 
 
 fs. 
 
144 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 would have none of this. Profaneness, he said, is perni- 
 
 CEE 
 
 cious even if it is punished. It is’a” rime in itself, “the 
 baré pronouncing makes the crime; the guilt sticks upon 
 the syllables, and ’tis a sin in the sound.” The poets pro- 
 tested that they did not speak for themselves, but this he 
 called no defense.t You would not swear before a lady, 
 he said; to which Filmer replied that if nothing happened 
 on the stage but what might happen in a drawing room, 
 you could have no drama. Nor could you have had any 
 drama which would please Collier. 
 
 Similar reply and counter-reply occupied themselves 
 with Collier’s objection that the playwrights made vicious 
 
 ‘characters triumphant heroes. Vanbrugh and Congreve 
 ‘urged that it was unfair to attach to themselves the senti- 
 ‘ments of their heroes, or to suppose that an author nec- 
 -essarily approved of all that his characters said. Realism 
 ‘demanded that playwrights show persons as they were, 
 -and vices must be depicted if they were to be satirized. 
 
 t 
 
 ‘Of course their characters are vicious, for Aristotle says 
 that comedy is the imitation of the worst sort of people, 
 j and that it is the purpose of comedy to laugh them out of 
 ‘ their vices. The examples are put there not for imitation 
 
 but for caution. But Collier was not content, for, he said * 
 that the dramatist “treats loose characters with sense and 
 
 respect, provokes to imitation, and makes infection — 
 
 catching.” 
 
 Collier’s insistence that the nobility and clergy should 
 
 ‘be exempt from satire also aroused much discussion. If 
 
 ; there were evil clergymen, why, it was asked, should they 
 ‘not be ridiculed? After all, the wicked parson is the 
 
 1 Further Vindication of the Short View, ete. 
 2 Drake. Ancient and Modern Stages Surveyed. 
 3 A Second Defense of the Short View, etc. 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 145 
 
 most dangerous villain on earth, it was argued;? and until 
 virtue comes to be conferred along with the title, there is 
 no reason why one should not present a foolish or evil 
 nobleman on the stage.’ 
 
 In fact, says Drake, only evil or ridiculous noblemen 
 have any right in comedy. Filmer makes the curious point 
 that no Anglican priest should be ridiculed upon the stage, 
 but that this exemption does not apply to dissenters. To ,. 
 Collier’s statement that the clergy should be shown in 
 plays only when surrounded by worldly power and respect, 
 Vanbrugh answered scornfully that it must then be con- 
 cluded “that Christ and his Apostles took the thing by 
 the wrong handle, and that the Pope and his Cardinals 
 have much refin’d upon ’em in the policy of instruction.” 
 
 Some. writers fell back on the pure argument.of.realism. 
 There was nothing, they maintained, in plays that could 
 not be matched in life,* and the corruption of the times was 
 not due.to..plays, which only reflected what. already 
 existed.* “‘ Plays were ever counted the genuine history of 
 the age; and if their opposers wou’d have innocent enter- 
 tainment, and leave poetry honorable example for imitation 
 and instruction, ’tis but each amending himself; then not 
 the little but the great stage of life, will be so reform’d, 
 and in a state more suitable to wish, than possible to 
 
 life.”> Vanbrugh put the argument for instruction through \~ 
 
 realism very neatly as follows: “‘ The stage is a glass for 
 the world to view itself in; people ought therefore to see 
 themselves as they are; if it makes their faces too fair, 
 
 1 Immorality of the English Pulyt, ete. 
 
 2 Drake. Ancient and Modern Stages Surveyed, etc. 
 3 Thomas Baker. An Act at Oxford. 
 
 * Dennis. Usefulness of the Stage, etc. 
 
 5 An Act at Oxford. 
 
| 
 ; 
 
 a 
 
 Ea 
 
 hx 
 7 . a 
 
 146 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 they won’t know they are dirty, and by consequence will 
 neglect to wash ’em.” 
 
 The difficulty of the simple argument that whatever 
 is in life may be in literature was that, unless it could be 
 proved that such realism tended to make people virtuous, 
 it went directly contrary to the cardinal doctrine of 
 pseudo-classical criticism, that the purpose of literature is 
 to teach virtue, and that..it_does..this. by..showing lite 
 not as it is but as it ought to be. The old dramatists 
 defended themselves sometimes by refusing to admit the 
 validity of this principle, but the practical playwrights of 
 the early eighteenth century assumed, on the other hand, 
 the conventional critical attitude. I have already pointed 
 out in an earlier chapter how under the Restoration the 
 ideal of the dramatist was that of realism, wit, and polish, 
 but as_a_result..of the conflict which I have been de- 
 scribing the dramatists. themselves._took up a completely 
 new attitude, so that not only the moralists but the dra- 
 
 matic critic and the playwright himself assumed as funda- 
 mental the moral purpose of the drama. That idea, which 
 
 had, as it were, lain dormant and confined to pseudo-classi- 
 cal theory, became the leading principle not only of 
 popular critics like Dennis and Addison but also of the 
 most successful dramatists like Steele and Cibber. Dennis 
 falls back on pure pseudo-classical theory.“ A Dramatie 
 Fable,’ he says, ‘is a discourse invented to form the 
 manners by instruction disguised under the allegory of an 
 action;”’+ and from Dacier he borrows the idea that 
 tragedy is but a sugar-coated pill for those who cannot 
 swallow pure philosophy. 
 
 With this principle universally admitted, there remains 
 still the question how plays were to be constructed to ful- 
 fill their purpose. In the case of tragedy it was compara- ~ 
 
 1 Stage Defended, ete. 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 147 
 
 tively easy. The downfall of the evil characters and the 
 traditional speeches full of philosophy and morality might 
 be fairly considered as constituting moral instruction. But 
 with comedy it was different. It had to represent, as 
 Aristotle said, the worst sort of people, and its theory 
 demanded that it should provoke laughter. How was this 
 to be made instructive? The Restoration Comedy writers | 
 had, when pushed, declared that they wrote for instruction, | 
 but the reformers failed to consider their works edifying | 
 and.practically all. the defenders. of the stage admitted ; 
 that tl the old comedy was full of abuses and that if the © 
 stage was to be defended’ it must be reformed. The — 
 enemies of the stage said that the vicious characters which 
 had. been represented uttered smut and blasphemy, that 
 they. seenied frequently to be marked out not for contempt™ 
 but.for admiration and imitation, and that certainly they 
 did. not make for virtue. Dennis, it is true, maintained 
 that such plays as “Sir Fopling Flutter” were satirically 
 instructive, but not many theorists agreed with him. Some 
 new method must be found. 
 
 The easiest solution seemed to lie in the old doctrine 
 
 of poetic justice, which all agreed might be applied to 
 
 tragedy. Might it not be extended to comedy? Filmer, in 
 one of the most elaborate discussions of the stage, main- 
 
 tained the doctrine unconditionally. The stage should be 
 
 reformed, he said, not as Collier would have it, by the 
 abolition of vicious characters, but by rendering the ex- 
 ample of such characters instructive by “a constant pro- 
 portionate reward of virtue, and punishment of vice;” and 
 this, as we shall see later, was exactly what Steele advo- 
 cated and practiced. Dennis, though he was an advocate 
 of poetic justice in tragedy, would not admit that it was 
 
 applicable to comedy. The method of comedy, he said, 
 
 <br 
 
 falling back again upon a doctrine taken from pseudo- 
 
 ? er 
 7” me A 
 
148 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 , classicism, was to punish vices only by means of the 
 
 laughter which the audience directed against them. Just 
 
 ‘what position was arrived at and put into practice will 
 be seen in the two concluding chapters, which deal with 
 the new drama and the theory behind it. At present we are 
 more directly concerned with the controversy which voiced 
 the protest against the old comedy. 
 
 I have had occasion to mention by name by no means 
 all of the forty-odd items listed in the bibliography of the 
 literature of this controversy. I have, however, found and 
 read all except those marked with an asterisk,’ and, as the 
 various books and pamphlets involve endless repetition, 
 I think that they contain no point of view not alluded to. 
 Their interest lies chiefly in their bulk, which shows how 
 enduring was the interest in the questions involved, and in 
 the variety of their methods of presentation, which shows 
 that every class was appealed to. Collier’s book contains 
 something of interest to nearly every class. Others were 
 
 _more special. Only readers fond of rather heavy specula- 
 ‘tion could have been interested by the treatises of Filmer 
 or Dennis; and only the pedantically pious would have 
 understood much of Bedford’s book, so overladen with the 
 imposing pedantry of endless citation. But on the other 
 hand there were a large number of unpretentious pam- 
 phlets, such as “Mr. Collier’s Dissuasive from the Play 
 House, etc.,” or “Some Consideration about the Dangers 
 of Going to Plays,” in which journalists and popular 
 preachers presented in brief and simple form the charges 
 against the stage. If we add to them Steele’s papers, to 
 be discussed later, it 1s evident that every class was ad- 
 dressed, and that no class failed to take some interest in 
 the question of the stage. If we remember, also, that 
 hardly a writer fails to admit that something might be 
 
 1 See Bibliography. 
 
 4 
 
THE ONSLAUGHT ON THE STAGE 149 
 
 said against plays as they were constituted, it is easy to 
 see that there existed a spirit of dissatisfaction that was 
 bound to react on the theater. The general public was 
 familiar with three questions: Is the theater a permissible 
 institution? Is it its duty to teach morality? Can com- 
 edies : best teach morality by administering Poetic Justice? 
 
ta 
 me 
 
 —. 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND 
 THE STAGE 
 
 Tuat the attack on the stage came at an opportune 
 moment when a movement toward a_reform in life and a 
 
 -change of tone in literature had already begun has been 
 
 _stated, though not yet illustrated. In 1698 the reformation 
 “of manners was already an old story, but the reformation 
 
 _of literature was newer, and obviously the two movements 
 were closely connected. But as Collier’s attack came early 
 
 in the literary movement, one is faced with the problem of 
 determining to what extent he is responsible for it, and 
 how far he may be said to be responsible for the change 
 which took place in the drama. Most historians of the 
 
 _ stage have been inclined to attribute to him a large share 
 * of whatever credit may be due for transforming a brilliant 
 
 _ but immoral tradition into a dull and moral one. It was 
 the orthodox view of the eighteenth and nineteenth cen- — 
 ; turies that he was largely responsible. In the early eight- — 
 -eenth century any mention of the reform of the stage 
 
 (as in the “ Comparison of the Two Stages’’) was likely to 
 be linked with his name. Cibber says that his work had 
 a very wholesome effect; Davies says that the dramatists, 
 “though unwilling to reform themselves, at last found, in 
 Collier, a severe but just corrector of their indecencies and 
 blasphemy.” ‘‘ The physic he administered,’ Davies con- 
 tinues, “ was so powerful, that a sudden and almost effec- 
 tual reformation took place.”+ Nichols? remarks that “ it 
 
 1 Dramatic Miscellanies. Vol. III. 
 
 2 Literary Anecdotes. Vol. I, p. 342 n. 
 
 150 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 151 
 
 is allowed on all hands, that the decorum which has been 
 for the most part observed by the later writers of dramatic 
 poetry is entirely owing to the animadversions of Collier ”’; 
 and Macaulay (as usual) goes the whole way, both in the 
 “Comic Dramatists of the Restoration” and in the “ His- 
 tory of England.” In the former he remarks that “A 
 great and rapid reform in all the departments of our lighter 
 literature was the effect of his labors,” and in the latter 
 that “he is well entitled to grateful and respectful men- 
 tion; for to his eloquence and courage is to be chiefly as- 
 eribed the purification of our lighter literature from that 
 foul taint which had been contracted during the Anti- 
 puritan reaction.” 
 
 But a startling difference of opinion now exists. The 
 average seeker after light on this subject would turn natu- 
 rally to Ward’s “History of English Dramatic Poetry ”’ 
 and to “The Cambridge History of English Literature,” 
 but if he did so he would be much puzzled, for in the former 
 he would read: “in truth, the position in which he 
 (Collier) stood . . . . had been proved impregnable. From 
 this time forward a marked change becomes visible both 
 in the attitude of the Court, Government, and of a section 
 at least of the ruling classes, towards the stage, and in its 
 own consciousness of the purposes and restrictions proper 
 to the exercise of its art;”?t and in Mr. Whibley’s chapter 
 in the Cambridge History? he would read: ‘“ The poets 
 bowed their knee not an inch in obedience to Collier. They 
 replied to him, they abused him, and they went their way. 
 Congreve’s true answer was not his Amendments. but..The 
 Way_of the.World. ... The pages of Genest . .. make 
 evident the complete failure of Collier’s attack.’”’ To add 
 still further to the confusion of the authorities, it may be 
 
 1 Vol. III. 
 2 Vol. VIII. 
 
152 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 added that Beljame also regards “The Way of the World ” 
 and ‘The Provok’d Husband” as in a way answers to 
 Collier, but that, unlike Whibley, he thinks that in them 
 the authors “ se montrérent plus retenus quills ne l’avaient 
 été jusque-la.”’ 
 
 From what has been said of Collier’s position, it is ob- 
 vious that Ward’s statement that it was impregnable can- 
 not be true unless we admit that the position that the stage 
 is inherently damnable is impregnable, and, on the other 
 hand, if as Mr. Whibley maintains, the attack failed com- 
 pletely, we must find some other explanation for the change 
 which certainly did take place about this time, and which 
 at least produced a new species of comedy if it did not 
 immediately annihilate the old. Ward certainly has tradi- 
 tion on his side, but before we can come to a conclusion, 
 
 three questions will have to be considered. First, we 
 must determine to what extent _a general. reform movement. 
 
 existed, aside from the Collier controversy... Second,.we 
 
 must inquire how much conviction Collier and his party — 
 
 carried, and how much action they. aroused, .. Third, .we 
 must analyze just what happened to the dramatie-tradition 
 and discover just when it happened. The present chapter 
 will be concerned with the first two of these questions, and 
 the next with the third. 
 
 The orgy of dissipation into which the ruling class 
 plunged after the Restoration could not possibly last. 
 
 England was not, like the Roman Empire, decadent and — 
 
 hence destined to wear itself out and die. The mass of 
 the people was still probably even narrowly pious, pru- 
 dent, and sane, and the condition at the court itself was the 
 result rather of a triumph over a party which had made 
 virtue hateful than of a radical decay. As the effects of 
 the reaction passed, English moderation naturally reas- 
 
 serted itself. As long as the Merry Monarch lived, the i 
 
 > 
 > 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 153 
 
 tradition of debauchery would have a strong support; but 
 when he had died and James had run his brief and con- 
 temptible career as libertine and bigot, William brought 
 a new age. No adjective could be less applicable to him 
 than “merry.” Saturnine and able, he cared nothing for 
 literature or for the stage, which had occupied so much of 
 Charles’ thought. He was not to be seen with Tom 
 D’Urfey on his shoulder, he did not forgive incompetence 
 and corruption because of an able wit. Mary was fond 
 of plays, and had at least sufficient leniency to admire 
 Congreve, but she was also interested in reform, and wan- 
 ton indecency could no longer look for support and ex- 
 ample at court. Libertinism was naturally becoming less 
 fashionable. As time passed, the social tradition probably 
 changed more rapidly than the dramatic, and the plays of 
 1685 mirrored more truly court ideals than did those of 
 1695, which followed preceding drama rather than actual 
 life. 
 
 Besides its influence on the social life of the upper class, 
 the revolution had another effect. It tended to give the 
 middle class a new importance in government. and hence 
 helped it to a voice in literary matters. Books and the 
 theater became less and less the affair only of the aris- 
 regular in life but also less capable of regarding literature 
 with moral detachment, made its influence felt. Early in 
 the eighteenth century, at least, it found voice in the 
 
 _ hewspapers of Defoe and of Tutchin. 
 
 The middle class is inclined to care more for what is 
 said than for the manner of saying it, and with the pass- 
 ing of the seventeenth century passed also the age of pure 
 wit. The Restoration prided itself especially on polish and 
 sophistication, and no quality was prized above that of 
 saying a sharp thing. It was willing to forgive the im- 
 
154 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 morality of a play if it could be sure of its brilliance. 
 Even Mary, so Cibber tells us, though she disapproved 
 strongly of ‘The Rover” witnessed it because of her 
 admiration for the brilliant acting of the man who played 
 the hero. 
 
 The age of Anne also admired the power of expression, 
 but it wanted morality in addition. Pope is very different 
 from Congreve and Rochester, and Steele’s success in his 
 plan to moralize wit was too complete not to show that 
 people were no longer satisfied with mere brillance if it 
 outraged their sense of propriety. The merits of the Res- 
 toration Comedy had been purely intellectual ones. The 
 merit of polish had become a sufficient excuse for all 
 things. As Wolseley had said, wit might be just as good 
 in treating a filthy subject as in treating a clean one. 
 Moderation, however, began to assert itself, and there arose 
 a controversy on the subject of wit which throws con- 
 siderable light on the intellectual movement of the times. 
 “Solid men” were exasperated by the supreme tribute 
 paid to brilliance, and the serious-minded tended to depre- 
 ciate paradox. As early as 1695 the satire ‘A Reflection 
 on our Modern Poetry” entered a protest. The dedica- 
 tion points out that “ Poetry is no longer a fit trainer up 
 of youth, a bridler of the passions, and exorbitant desires: 
 But on the contrary, he is reckoned to be the ablest poet, 
 that is most dexterous, at crying up these evil spirits, to 
 disturb the calm and quiet of the soul.” Sir Richard 
 Blackmore rose as a representative of that class in which 
 moderation was somewhat closely related to dullness, and 
 became the arch enemy of wit. Wit had, indeed, become 
 almost a disease with which everyone was infected. No 
 character in comedy is more frequent than that of the 
 empty-headed beau who sets up for a wit, and the more 
 moderate part of society was not wholly wrong in feeling 
 
 = 7 eae, 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 155 
 
 that truth was being neglected in the worship of epigram 
 and paradox. The distemper, we learn from a play,’ 
 spread in the town like the itch, so that even the tradesman 
 had caught it, and would rather offend his customers than 
 stifle a jest. 
 
 Sir Richard Blackmore was a physician, and so he 
 undertook to cure the general disease, beginning with “A 
 Satyr against Wit” (1700) in which he writes: 
 
 “Who can forbear and tamely silent sit; 
 And see his native land undone by wit. 
 * * > *K * * K 
 
 “How happy were the old unpolished times 
 As free from wit as other modern crimes? 
 
 * * cs K *k *K * 
 
 They justly wit and fool believ’d the same, 
 And jester was for both the common name. 
 The mob of wit is up to storm the town, 
 And pull all virtue and right reason down. 
 Quite to subvert religion’s sacred fence 
 
 To set up wit, and pull down common sense.” 
 
 He received a satiric reply from the wits, but found others 
 willing to share his views. Dennis, who was emphatically 
 not a wit, and is said to have hated a pun above everything 
 else, is driven to exclaim: “ That it is not wit, but reason 
 which distinguishes a man of sense from a fool.’”’? The 
 “True Born Englishman” is not a wit and so one is not 
 surprised to find Defoe writing in “ The Pacificator”’: 
 
 “The men of sense against the men of wit, 
 Eternal fighting must determine it,” 
 
 or to see that in his extraordinary ‘“ The History of the 
 Devil” he refers, in a chapter heading, to the wits as the 
 devil’s “particular modern privy counsellors.” 
 
 1 Epistle Dedicatory to The Comical Gallant. 1702. 
 * Baker. The Humor of the Age. 1701. 
 
+} 
 
 156 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 There is a real significance in this controversy over wit 
 versus sense. The age of Anne was an age of reason, not 
 only in its opposition to mysticism, but also in its reac- 
 tion against the physically and politically destructive 
 moral anarchy of the Restoration. In a criticism of 
 Fletcher’s “The Scornful Lady” Steele attacks hotly the 
 “corruption of mind, that makes men resent offenses 
 against their virtue, less than those against their under- 
 standing. An author shall write as if he thought that 
 there was not one man of honor or woman of chastity in 
 the house, and come off with applause; for an insult upon 
 
 all the ten commandments with the little critic is not so . 
 
 bad as the breach of unity of time and place.” Again: 
 “A thing which is blamable in itself, grows still more so 
 by the success in the execution of it.” This is, of course, 
 a direct denial of Wolseley’s doctrine. Blackmore returned 
 to the attack in a prose essay + where he attempted to con- 
 sider the subject philosophically. Wit he treats as a dan- 
 gerous indulgence which is often the enemy of truth and 
 encourages a distaste for intellectual pursuits. The men 
 most characterized by its possession, he says, are often 
 lacking in prudence, and more likely than others to fall 
 into debauchery. Parents are warned to encourage their 
 children in intellectual pursuits instead of refining their 
 conversation. All this would have seemed the most bar- 
 baric heresy to a Restoration gallant proud of England’s 
 new-found urbanity. But it represented the spirit of the 
 new age, and mere wit disappears rapidly from the drama 
 as the eighteenth century advances. Addison in “ The 
 Freeholder”? replies to Blackmore, but goes only so far 
 as to maintain the value of properly directed raillery. 
 The final flower of middle-class protests against all 
 
 1 Published in Essays upon Several Subjects. 1716. 
 2 No. 45. May 25, 1716. 
 
 a 
 
 ay 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 157 
 
 glitter not strictly sensible is found in the so-called Bour- 
 geois Tragedy. This is usually supposed to begin with 
 Lillo’s “ George Barnwell” (1731), but it had its fore- 
 runner in earlier comedy, which expressed the ideals of 
 the middle class. In the early days when the theater had 
 been only an amusement of the upper class, the bourgeois 
 was not particularly concerned, but in the literature of the 
 Collier controversy there is much stress on the ill effect of 
 plays upon the middle class, and the theater is attacked 
 not only on strictly moral grounds but also on the charge 
 that it tends to undermine the industry and application 
 necessary for success in trade. In this connection especial 
 interest attaches to a few sentences which occur in the 
 essay “Of Plays and Masquerades.”+ ‘“ They [plays] 
 give a wrong notion of things, they undermine industry by 
 representing life in a more romantic aspect than is actually 
 true and thus give the mind a distaste of all that is com- 
 mon—how odd a turn is this for a man who must keep 
 plodding on, with a mind intent upon his business, and be 
 contented to drive as it will go?” Collier might speak 
 for the learnedly religious, but here is the authentic voice 
 of a nation of shop keepers. Eighteenth-century comedy 
 tries to meet this objection by stressing the more ordinary 
 virtues, and “ George Barnwell” makes a definite appeal 
 to the middle class by insisting on the virtue of the mer- 
 chant and the nobility of his trade. 
 
 During the Collier controversy, the middle class, be- 
 cause of its predisposition, lent support to the reformers 
 of the stage. It found voice in Defoe and Tutchin, both 
 of whom conducted political newspapers. The latter was 
 particularly violent, declaring that the play house was the 
 
 1 Published in A Collection of the Occasional Papers for the year 
 1708, an anonymous collection of moralizing essays by various au- 
 thors. 
 
158 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 devil’s chapel, and Defoe in his. writings makes many ref- 
 erences to the theater. He advocates the suppression of 
 acting and the purchase of the theater by funds raised 
 among the pious,” but he is not always, however, so violent. 
 He devoted a whole number of “A Review, etc.’ * to a 
 discussion of the opening of the new theater in the Hay- 
 market, and while entirely unsatisfied with the perform- 
 ance which he saw there, rightly enough undertook to lay 
 the blame rather on the public than upon the actors or 
 playwrights. More sensibly than most of the reformers 
 he writes as follows: “ But, gentlemen and ladies, if you 
 would have a reformation in the play house, you must 
 reform your taste of wit, and let the poet see, you can 
 relish a play, tho’ there be neither baudry nor blasphemy 
 in it.” He urges the audience to show its disapproval of 
 any improprieties no matter how wittily expressed, and 
 continues: ‘I cannot be without so much charity for our 
 players, as to believe this of them: They cannot be men 
 of action, without being men of sense, and as they are 
 the latter, they could not but be as well pleased with what 
 was clean, handsome and well perform’d, when it came 
 from the pure channel of honor and virtue, as from the 
 black Stygian lake of nastiness and corruption, —in short, 
 the errors of the stage lie all in the auditory; the actors, 
 and the poets, are their honorable servants, and being 
 good judges of what will please, are forced to write and 
 
 1 See The Observator, March, 1703. Also Vol. I, 95 and Vol. II, 
 40, 57, 59, 78, 90, 91. 
 
 2 Wilson’s “ Life of Defoe,” Vol. III, p. 69. In An Account of 
 some remarkable passages in the life of a private gentleman ete. 
 (1708) sometimes incorrectly attributed to Defoe, the hero com- 
 plains of his wicked companion who “seduced me to see a play” 
 and then proceeds to a sort of summary of Collier’s charges against 
 the theater. 
 
 3 Vol. II, No. 26. 
 
“ 
 
 REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 159 
 
 act with all the aggravation and excesses possible, that 
 
 they may not be undone and ruin’d, lose both their reputa- 
 tion and their employment.” ! 
 
 From what has been said in a previous chapter it will 
 be evident that the beginning of the general protest against | 
 the completely unethical attitude towards literature ante- / 
 dated Collier’s attack on the stage, but that it was intensi- ; 
 fied by that attack and was hardly prominent before it. | 
 The movement for the reformation of actual manners is | 
 traceable considerably further back. It found its most | 
 tangible expression in the “Societies for the Reformation | 
 of Manners,” organizations of enthusiasts which existed for | 
 many years, and about which there gathers a truly im- | 
 pressive bulk of printed matter, though their history has 
 never been written in modern times. Burnet mentions 
 them, and Lecky takes his short account mainly from sec- 
 ondary sources. The best contemporary history is “An 
 Account of the Rise and Progress of the Religious Societies 
 in the City of London and of their endeavors for reforma- 
 tion of manners,’ by the Rev. Josiah Woodward, which 
 
 reached what was called the sixth edition in 1744. 
 
 The beginning of the Societies for the Reformation of 
 Manners is obscure, but it is bound up with that of cer- 
 tain “ Religious Societies’? which had a less definitely 
 practical purpose. Burnet traces the origin of the latter 
 societies to the reign of James II, when a fear of popery 
 led to gatherings of religious persons similar to those which 
 had been held formerly only among the dissenters. After 
 the Revolution, Burnet continues, these societies deter- 
 
 1 Swift cared nothing for the theater, but in A Project for the 
 Advancement of Religion and the Reformation of Manners (1709) 
 devotes a paragraph to the stage. His tone would indicate that 
 he had read Collier with approval although the name is not 
 mentioned. 
 
160 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 mined to inform magistrates of the names of swearers, 
 drunkards, profaners of the Sabbath, keepers of lewd 
 houses, etc., and hence they came to be called “ Societies 
 of Reformation.” In the beginning, he says, they were 
 
 conducted chiefly by Dr. Beveridge and Dr. Horneck, and © 
 
 he adds that as soon as Queen Mary heard of them she 
 encouraged the good work by letter and proclamation. 
 The information given in “An Account of the Rise and 
 Progress of the Religious Societies, etc.” (1744) + does not 
 differ materially from that of Burnet except that it places 
 the origin of the societies as far back as 1678 and mentions 
 the aid of Bishop Stillingfleet in enlisting the sympathy of 
 Queen Mary. One hears most about the societies in the 
 early years of the eighteenth century, but the “ Proposal 
 for a National Reformation of Manners,— also the Black 
 Roll, containing the names and crimes of several hundred 
 persons who have been prosecuted by the Society, for 
 whoring, drunkenness, Sabbath-breaking, etc., published by 
 
 the Society for the Reformation, etc.,” published in 1694, — 
 
 shows that they were very active in the nineties. In an- 
 other account of the Society published in 1701 its members 
 are described as consisting of four different groups: One 
 of parliament members, justices of the peace and the like; 
 a second which occupies itself chiefly against lewd houses 
 of which 500 are said to have been suppressed; a third 
 consisting of constables; and a fourth consisting of young 
 men banded together for the purpose of giving information. 
 As its beginning, so the end of the Society was obscure. 
 It flourished mightily for a number of years, and seems 
 
 1 I do not know when the first account of the Societies was 
 published, but the second edition of “ An Account of the Rise and 
 Progress of Religious Societies in the City of London etc.,” is 
 entered in the Stationer’s Register for 1698, and there is a so-called 
 14th edition in 1706. 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 16i 
 
 to have become more and more closely associated with 
 the Methodist movement, for it is said that in 1763 nearly 
 half of its members were of that sect.* 
 
 At any rate it lived and flourished until the close of the 
 period we are considering, and, whatever its origin and 
 conclusion, created a tremendous stir in the life of the 
 period. To give even a bibliography of the large number 
 of publications which it called forth, such as sermons 
 preached before the societies, remonstrances and admoni- 
 tions to magistrates, pleas for a general reformation, etc., 
 would occupy more space than we have at our disposal. 
 Further mention of the Society may be found in the vari- 
 ous editions of Chamberlayne’s “ Angliae Notitia, or the 
 Present Stage of England.” The Societies were, appar- 
 ently, not confined to London, but spread to various pro- 
 vincial cities also. 
 
 They depended as much on coercion as on persuasion, 
 and were determined to “ prove their doctrine orthodox, by 
 apostolic blows and knocks.” Their habit of acting as 
 informers seems to have aroused some scruples against 
 such methods, which find expression in a sermon preached 
 1709 by the famous Dr. Sacheverell,? who speaks of good 
 nature and compassion and asks: “Do not these as 
 strictly command us not to thrust ourselves pragmatically 
 into his [our neighbor’s] business, or meddle with those 
 concerns that do not belong to us, or under the sanctify’d 
 pretense of reformation of manners, to turn informer, as- 
 sume an odious and factitious office, arrogantly entrench 
 upon other’s Christian liberty, and innocence and under 
 show of more zeal than purity—turn the world upside 
 
 *1 See Tyerman’s Life and Times of Samuel Wesley. Tyerman 
 
 says that from 1730 to 1757 the Society was inactive, but the 
 
 British Museum contains a 43rd Annual Report for the year 1738. 
 2 The Communication of Sin. 
 
162 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 down, and all mankind into quarrels and confusions? ” 
 But the peppery Doctor no doubt smelled dissent under 
 the more-pious-than-thou attitude. He was replied to in 
 more than one pamphlet,! and the work of reformation 
 went merrily on. The story? of a holy war in Lincolnshire 
 is amusing. It seems that even in Cromwell’s days it had 
 been impossible to break up the custom of spending the 
 three Sundays. after Lammas in horse racing and other 
 
 diversions, but that certain serious minded persons gathered - 
 
 together an army of parsons, constables, and others, so 
 strong “that the whole multitude were over-awed and 
 put to flight,—so that on such Lord’s days, when there 
 used to be many hundreds of this lewd mob, you could 
 only have beheld several decent ministers with their con- 
 stables walking around; or, if any vain person looked that 
 way, their care was, to flee with such speed as might secure 
 themselves from apprehension.” 
 
 The Society acted in a vigorous and wholesale fashion, 
 
 and had a passion for statistics. Tract distribution was — 
 
 one of its activities, and by 1720 upward of 400,000 tracts 
 are said to have been distributed. Prosecution of the pro- 
 fane and scandalous became a sort of popular sport, and 
 we find little hand-books of instructions for informers and 
 magistrates, in which the laws against profaneness and 
 blank forms for informing are published, along with cau- 
 tionary rules for the safe practice of the diversion. A 
 folio sheet which was published is also interesting. It is 
 called: “A sixth black list of the names and reputed 
 
 1 “ Remarks upon a sermon preached by Dr. Henry Sachaverell at 
 the assizes held at Derby ... containing a just and moderate 
 defense of the Society for the Reformation of Manners, ete.” (1711); 
 
 “The Judgment of H. Sachaverell concerning Societies for Ref- — 
 
 ormation of Manners, compared with the judgment of many of 
 the Lords, ete.” (1711). 
 2 Published in the 1744 Edition of An Account ete. 
 
 f= | an i ewe 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 163 
 
 names of 843 lewd and scandalous persons, who, by the 
 endeavors of a society, for promoting a reformation of 
 manners in the City of London and suburbs thereof, have 
 been legally prosecuted and convicted — all of which (be- 
 sides the prosecution of many notorious cursers, swearers, 
 Sabbath-breakers, and drunkards, not here included) have 
 been effected by the Society aforesaid, since the printing 
 of the former list, which consisted of 3,859 persons.” 
 Similar lists were apparently published annually for a 
 number of years, and we learn from the one for the year 
 ending Christmas, 1708, that 626 people had been pro- 
 ceeded against during that year for cursing and swearing. 
 When one reads‘ that in the forty years just passed about 
 98,970 people had been prosecuted, one wonders that the 
 Justices of the Peace were not over-tasked. 
 
 - Naturally the play houses were not overlooked. As 
 early as 1694? it is proposed ‘“ To supplicate their majes- 
 ties, that the public play-houses may be suppressed,” and 
 argued that while such diversions may be lawful for the 
 recreation of princes, public dramatic entertainments are 
 unadvisable for all people making even a pretense to Godli- 
 hess, since all agree that “in these houses, piety is strongly 
 ridiculed, the holy reverend and dreadful name of God 
 profaned, and his glory and interest rendered contemptible 
 or vile.” The account of the Society published in 1701, 
 and already referred to more than once, remarks that 
 “Blasphemy, was too often the wit and entertainment of 
 our scandalous play-houses, and sincere religion became 
 the jest and scorn of our courts in the late reign,” and 
 
 1 The Nine and Thirtieth Account of the Progress made in the 
 Cities of London and Westminster and places adjacent, by the 
 Societies, etc. Published at the end of A. Bedford’s sermon before 
 the society in 1734. 
 
 2 Proposal for a National Reformation of Manners, etc. 
 
164 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 among the rules for the members of the Society was that 
 they were “wholly to avoid lewd play-houses.”+ The 
 arrest of the actors, to be mentioned later, was also no 
 doubt due to their influence. 
 
 Creating such a stir as they did, it is not surprising that 
 these Societies came to be very well known, and helped 
 to give general currency to the idea, very strong with the 
 people of this time, that they were living in a reforming 
 age. Some indication of the prominence of the Societies 
 may be found in the fact that both the “ Tatler ”’ ? and the 
 “Spectator ’’* mentioned them. The Tatler was himself 
 a member, and in the “ Spectator”? was published a letter, 
 a bit satiric, purporting to be from a very active partic- 
 ipant in the work of the Society. He writes: “I am one 
 of the directors of the Society for the Reformation of 
 Manners, and therefore think myself a proper person for 
 your correspondence —I can tell you the progress that 
 virtue has made in all our cities, burroughs, and corpora- 
 tions, and know as well the evil practices that are com- 
 mitted in Berwick or Exeter as what is done in my own 
 family — I can describe every parish by its impieties, and 
 can tell you in which of our streets lewdness prevails; 
 which gaming has taken the possession of, and where 
 drunkenness has got the better of them both.” 
 
 Cynics like Tom Brown might jibe: 
 
 “*Tis now some years since drowsy reformation 
 Rous’d its dull head, and saw its restoration; 
 What influence has this upon the nation? 
 
 Ye Rakehells of the Rose, let Rouse confess 
 If at his house he draws one hogshead less. 
 
 1 A Brief Account of the Nature, Rise and Progress, of the 
 Societies for the Reformation, etc. Edinburgh. 1700. 
 
 2 See No. 3, April 16, 1709. 
 
 3 See No. 8, March 9, 1711. 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 165 
 
 And you intriguing sparks inquire of Jenny 
 If it has baulk’d her of one baudy guinea. 
 Is gaming grown a less destructive vice 
 
 Or fewer families undone by dice? 
 * * “ x * » * * * + 
 
 “ Now let us cast our eyes upon the City, 
 
 These (there?) are no vices—no—none that are witty. 
 But frugal, gainful vices are for cits. 
 
 They never swear, because for that they pay 
 
 But they will lie— yes, —=in a trading way.” 1 
 
 But the success of the reform movement was another tri- 
 umph for the middle class in its struggle for recognition. 
 The mention of it in the ‘“ Tatler” and ‘ Spectator” is 
 sufficient to show that men of fashion and influence had 
 been drawn into a participation in the middle class move- 
 ment, but still stronger proofs are found in the account of 
 the Societies published in 1701, which contains a declara- 
 tion of approval signed by thirty-four Lords Temporal, 
 nine Lords Spiritual, and seven Judges of England. In 
 pursuance, too, of a special request by her Majesty, the 
 poet laureate, Nahum Tate, combined with various other 
 gentlemen to produce in 1713 twenty numbers of a poetical 
 “Monitor” consisting of instructive verses “for the pro- 
 moting of religion and virtue, and the suppressing of vice 
 and immorality.” While it may be doubted whether or 
 not such verses as the following, which begins a piece 
 called ‘‘The Swearer,” 
 
 “Of all the nauseous complicated crimes 
 
 That both infect and stigmatize the times, 
 
 There’s none that can with impious oaths compare, 
 Where vice and folly have an equal share,” 
 
 served any very useful purpose, either moral or aesthetic, 
 still the “ Monitor” is another indication of the furor 
 reformandi which had seized the nation. 
 
 1 Epilogue to Stage Beau Toss’d in a Blanket. 1704. 
 
166 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 In this movement the government took a determined 
 stand on the side of the Reformers. After the Revolution, 
 the court no longer gave by example open encouragement 
 to dissipation. It is true that Charles had, immediately 
 upon his restoration, issued a proclamation against vicious 
 and debauched persons which was published May 30, 
 1660, and that James had done the same on the 29th 
 day of June, 1688,” but neither of these was likely to be 
 very effective as long as there was the example of extrava- 
 gance at court. After the coming of William, however, 
 all this was changed; and as for Anne, instead of encourag- 
 ing her courtiers to disregard such proclamations ° (as 
 Charles by his example had done), she mentioned particu- 
 larly in her proclamation for the “ Encouragement of 
 Piety and Virtue” (26th March, 1702) that debauchery 
 was to be discouraged “‘ and ee olin in’ suchas" are 
 employed near our Royal Persons;” and added “That for 
 
 the greater encouragement of peuercnt and morality, We . 
 
 will, upon all occasions, distinguish persons of piety and 
 virtue by marks of our royal favor.” This proclamation 
 was’ but one of a long series. William had considered the 
 reformation of manners one of the dutiés 0fhis-mew~goy- 
 ernioent. On January" 21; 169122 was isstéd"““ BY “the 
 King and Queen, a proclamation against vicious, debauched 
 and profane persons,”* in which it was noted that the 
 laws had been neglected and that the King and Queen 
 were moved by an address of the Bishop to command all 
 Justices, Sheriffs, etc., “to execute the laws against blas- 
 phemy, profane swearing and cursing, drunkenness, lewd- 
 ness, prophanation of the Lord’s Day, etc.” On February 
 9, 1697-8, the Commons desired William again to issue 
 
 1 Sommers’ Tracts, Ed. 1812, Vol. VII. 
 2 Published Copy in British Museum. 
 3 Copy preserved in British Museum. 
 
 i ee ee 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 167 
 
 a proclamation for the enforcement of existing laws and 
 added, moreover, “ since the examples of men in high and 
 public station have a powerful influence upon the lives of 
 others, we do most humbly beseech your Majesty, that 
 all vice, profaneness and irreligion, may in a particular 
 manner be discouraged, in those who have the honor to 
 be employed near your Royal Persons.”* The King re- 
 plied with request for a more effective law, and as a 
 result there was passed on February 26th “ An Act for the 
 more effective suppressing profaneness, immorality, and 
 debauchery ”’ ; and in 1699 the King issued another proc- 
 lamation. 
 
 When Anne came to the throne she took up the 
 fight. John Tutchin’s newspaper ‘“ The Observator” (No. 
 91, March 3-6, 1702-3) speaks of ‘‘ Her Majesty’s new 
 proclamation for the encouragement of piety and vir- 
 tue, and for the preventing and punishing of vice, profane- 
 ‘ness and immorality, wherein she has generously pleased 
 to direct and command all her judges of the assize, and 
 justices of the peace, to give strict charges at their 
 respective assizes and sessions, for the due prevention and 
 punishment of all persons that shall presume to offend in 
 any of the kinds afore mentioned.” And in the following 
 number of the newspaper we are informed that the “ wits ”’ 
 are offended by the proclamation. In the British Museum 
 there is a published copy of a similar proclamation which 
 is dated 26th June, 1702. Probably more than one was 
 issued. From all this it is evident that the Societies for 
 Reformation had the support of the Crown in their prose- 
 cutions. 
 
 Since the Societies for Reformation approved of legal 
 coercion, it is not surprising to find that they tried this 
 method in regard to the theater. The incident of the 
 
 1 Cobbet’s Parliamentary History, Vol. V. 
 
168 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 arrest of the actors is a very curious one in theatrical 
 history. Cibber mentions it and Gildon refers to the 
 occurrence thus in his “ Comparison of the Two Stages ” 
 (1702) : 
 
 Sull (en): But did you hear the news? 
 
 Ramb (le): What news? 
 
 Sull (en): The trial between the play-houses and in- 
 formers, for profane, immoral, lewd, scandalous, and 
 I don’t know how many sad things, utter’d and spoken 
 on the stage. 
 
 Crit (ick): Who were the persons that spoke ’em, and 
 what were the words? 
 
 Sull (en): Betterton, Brace-girdle, Ben Jonson and 
 others; but the words may not be repeated... . 
 
 Sull (en): The two first were fined, but the latter 
 escaped. 
 
 Crit (ick): ’Tis fit both poet and player shoul’d be 
 corrected for their immorality; but I do not like the 
 accusation that passes thro’ such hands; ’tis often a 
 question of truth, and at best there’s an alloy of cant 
 and hypocrisy in their zeal.” 
 
 Nearly all subsequent historians of the stage have men- 
 tioned this matter of common tradition. But different 
 authors give different dates, according to the source from 
 which they derive their information, and no one seems to 
 have taken the trouble to investigate. Owing to the in- 
 complete and confused character of the legal records made 
 at the time, and now preserved in the Public Records 
 Office, it is impossible to give a full history of the affair, 
 but I have collected some isolated fragments of informa- 
 tion which are of interest. 
 
 There are many difficulties and pitfalls. Mr. Gosse 
 quotes! Narcissus Luttrell (May 12, 1698): ‘ The Justices 
 
 1 English Men of Letters. Congreve. 
 
 _ on 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 169 
 
 of Middlesex did not only prosecute the play-houses, but 
 also Mr. Congreve for writing the ‘Double Dealer,’ 
 D’Urfey for ‘Don Quixote’ and Tonson and Brisco, book- 
 sellers, for printing them.” Now this is very interesting as 
 an illustration of the feeling against the persons mentioned, 
 but it is likely to be misunderstood. A legal action ac- 
 tually involving Congreve and D’Urfey would be very 
 interesting and the records would probably be preserved, 
 but it is extremely unlikely that any such legal action was 
 taken. A note in Dawkes’ “ News-Letter” No. 297 (May 
 12, 1698) presents the matter in a clearer light. It reads 
 simply: “ Last day of the session, at the Old Baily, the 
 grand jury of London delivered a presentment against all 
 stage-plays and lotteries (which tend so much to the cor- 
 ruption and debauchery of youth) and the Bench were 
 pleased to say they would take the same into considera- 
 tion.” The exact identity of dates makes it certain that 
 Luttrell and the news letter refer to the same event, but a 
 presentment to the grand jury is not a legal prosecution. 
 Congreve and D’Urfey were probably not prosecuted, for if 
 they had been it would most likely have been noted in 
 Dawkes’ “ News-Letter.” The presentment of the grand 
 jury means simply that certain citizens exhibited the 
 popular prejudice against the stage and that they men- 
 tioned it to the judge. He evidently let the mattter 
 drop. 
 
 But there were cases of actual trial and arrest. One of 
 the controversial pamphletst makes mention of three al- 
 leged trials. It states, first, that in 1699 several players 
 were prosecuted in the Court of Common Pleas upon a 
 statute of 3 Jac. I for profanely using the name of God 
 on the stage, and that verdicts were obtained against them; 
 
 1A Representation of the Impiety and Immorality of the Eng- 
 lish Stage, etc. 1704. 
 
170 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 second, that in the Easter Term of 1701 the players of. 
 one house were indicted at the King’s Bench Bar before the 
 Right Honorable the Lord Chief Justice Holt for certain 
 speeches contained in “ The Provok’d Wife’; third, that 
 the players of the other house were indicted in the same 
 term for expressions in “The Humour of the Age” and 
 “Sir Courtly Nice,” but that owing to a technical error 
 they were acquitted. 
 
 Of the first of these trials I have been able to find no 
 record. There is perhaps some error in the statement, 
 since it is hard to see how a criminal charge could be 
 considered by the Court of Common Pleas. The offense 
 was a statutory one and consequently would be considered, 
 as the other cases were considered, by the Court of the 
 King’s Bench. 
 
 I have, however, discovered documentary evidence which 
 seems to concern the second instance mentioned above. 
 In the Coram Rege Roll No. 2147 Michaelmas Term 13. 
 William III* one may read, if he has the patience to 
 decipher the obsolete handwriting and translate the bar- 
 barous Latin, that in October of the 12th year of the reign 
 of William III, Thomas Betterton, Thomas Doggett, John 
 Bowman, Cave Underhill, Elizabeth Barry, George Bright, 
 Elizabeth Bowman, and Abigail Lawson were charged in 
 the Court of the King’s Bench with having set up a com- 
 mon play-house in Little Lincoln’s Inn Fields in which the 
 said Thomas Doggett on the 25th day of December in 
 1700 “several times profanely and jestingly used the 
 sacred name of God upon the public stage in the said 
 theater —in the hearing of divers persons being then and 
 there present in these words viz: ’K God there isn’t more 
 fear of his head aching than my heart. ’E God I wowd be 
 hanged first before I wowd be your husband. ’E God take 
 
 1 Preserved in Public Records Office, London. 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 171 
 
 care of your own helm. ’E God I shall stick like pitch, 
 God! TI’le tell you one thing.” and that the said Cave 
 Underhill did on the said 5 and 20th day of December in 
 the year aforesaid jestingly and profanely use the sacred 
 name of God upon the public stage in the said theater. 
 Cave Underhill and Abigail Lawson are similarly charged, 
 and the indictment sets forth, in addition, that daily, 
 Sundays excepted, between the 24th day of June and the 
 12th day of February the players acted irreligious and 
 immodest spectacles tending to excite to fornication and 
 adultery, on account of which there resulted many evil 
 deeds and the shedding of blood besides the corruption of 
 youths and virgins to the great sorrow of their parents and 
 friends. To all this the actors pleaded not guilty. 
 
 In another part of the same roll it is charged that 
 Thomas Betterton, Thomas Doggett, Cave Underhill, 
 Elizabeth Barry, Ann Bracegirdle, George Bright, George 
 Pack, and John Hodgson, did between the 24th day of 
 June and the 7th day of March in the 13th year of 
 William’s reign present a certain obscene, profane, and per- 
 nicious comedy entitled “The Anatomist or Sham Doctor ” 
 in which were contained the following obscene and pro- 
 fane words: “I’me sure he left his breeches long ago the 
 devil take him, a curse on his systol and dyastol with a 
 pox to him, the devil fly away with him, the devil pick 
 his bones.” The actors are further charged with having 
 presented “ The Provok’d Wife,” from which a number of 
 quotations are given, including the following: ‘‘ But more 
 than all that, you must know I was afraid of being 
 damn’d in those days for I kept sneaking cowardly com- 
 pany, fellows that went to church and said grace to their 
 meat, and had not the least tincture of quality about ’em 
 —woman tempted me lust weaken’d and so the devil 
 overcame me, as fell Adam so fell I.” .To this as to the 
 
172 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 other indictments the actors pleaded, through their at- 
 torney Simon Harcourt, not guilty. 
 
 It appears that the policy adopted by the actors was 
 that of delay; for further information concerning the 
 course of the case we must refer to the Rule Book,! where 
 we read under the heading of Friday next after Michael- 
 mas, 18th William III, that in the case of the King vs. 
 Betterton and others a decree of “nihil dicunt” (i.e., 
 judgment by default) will be entered unless the several 
 defendants separately answer sufficiently by the following 
 Wednesday. Then on the Thursday after the Morrow of 
 All Souls of the same year it is entered that unless suffi- 
 cient answer be made by Monday next, the decree “ nihil 
 dicunt ” shall be entered. On that Monday there is an- 
 other entry stating that unless sufficient answer is made 
 by the following day the decree shall be entered peremp- 
 torily against them. The next entry occurs on Satur- 
 day after Christmas in the first year of the reign of 
 Anne, and orders that separate recognisances of the de- 
 fendants be estreated into the Exchequer. On the following 
 Monday it is ordered that upon the payment of such costs 
 as shall be taxed, and upon the withdrawing of the indict- 
 ment at the first session of the next term, the estreat of 
 the recognisances of the defendants shall cease, and on 
 Wednesday on the Morrow of the Purification of the Virgins 
 it is ordered that the estreat of the recognisances of Thomas 
 
 Betterton and Elizabeth Verbruggen shall cease until next — 
 
 term.” 
 
 1 Public Records Office. King’s Bench 21-26. 
 
 2 In this case a recognisance is an agreement to appear in court 
 at a certain time. An estreat of a recognisance is a process by 
 which a recognisance, forfeited by a failure to appear, is made the 
 basis of a plea for judgment by default. The stopping of an 
 estreat of a recognisance is a blocking of this attempt to gain a 
 judgment by default. 
 
 o— hg eee 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 173 
 
 These records inform us merely that the case dragged on 
 into the reign of Anne and that the actors had consider- 
 able success in securing delays. I have not been able to 
 find any further records of the case in the legal documents 
 themselves, but fortunately further information may be 
 derived from two letters preserved among the records of 
 the Lord Chamberlain’s office.t. Since these letters have 
 never been published and are very interesting I give them 
 in full. 
 
 The first is particularly interesting since it refers to 
 Betterton. It was overlooked by Mr. Lowe in his inter- 
 esting life of that actor. 
 
 To the Queens most Excell 
 Majt® The humble Petition | 
 of Thomas Betterton Eliza- 
 beth Barry, Ann Bracegirdle 
 & others Your Maj"*s Come- 
 dians Acting in the New 
 Theatre in Little Lincoln’s 
 Inn-fields. 
 Sheweth 
 
 That ever since the happy Restauration of your Royal 
 Uncle King Charles the second (of ever blessed memory) 
 for prevention of any indecent expressions in any playes 
 which might be Acted, The Lord Chamberlaine of the 
 Household for the time being hath constantly restrained 
 the acting of all new playes until they were first perused 
 by the Ma:* of the Revells who used to expunge what- 
 ever he thought unfitt to be acted. And your Petition:" 
 ever since they have had the hono" to serve your Maj:"° 
 and your Royal predecessors in that quality have con- 
 stantly given all due obedience to the said order and have 
 not been till very lately disturbed for acting any plays 
 
 1 Public Records Office. L. C. 7-3. 
 
174 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 that had passed such examination, and always thought 
 they might safely act any play so perused & approv’d by 
 the Mae of the Revells — 
 Notwithstanding which your Petition:* have been 
 lately prosecuted by Indictmt for acting plays perused & 
 approved as aforesaid in which were (as is alleged) divers 
 expressions not lawful to be used and the petition:" have 
 been put to great expenses and are yet prosecuted on 
 such Indictment. 
 To the end therefore since the prosecutors of such In- 
 dictments are not satisfied with the method that hath soe 
 long been used to prevent the Imorality of the Stage that 
 your petition:'s may be quiet for the future. 
 May it please your Maj‘* to give such orders and direc- 
 tions as in your princely wisdom you shall think fitt for 
 perusing & correcting plays prepared to be Acted, that 
 your petition:" may not be misled to act any plays wherein 
 may be contained any expressions that may give just oc- 
 casion of offence and that the prosecution on such Indict- 
 ment against your petition:"= may be stayed. 
 And yo: Pet:™, (asin 
 Duty bound shall ever pray 
 ete. 
 
 The second, which also has never been printed, follows. 
 The Case of Geo: Bright. 
 Comoe’: at y® Theatre in 
 Lincols Inn fields. 
 
 That some time since, y® saide Bright was playing his 
 part, in y® play called S* Fopling Flutter, & in y® Con- 
 clusion of his part, these words are Exprest (Please you 
 Sir to Commission a young couple to go to bed to- 
 gether a’ Gods name) w® being Lyconed & permited, y® 
 said Bright did humbly conceive, yt there was neither 
 imorality or prophainess therein, y® said Bright as well as 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 175 
 
 sev: " others, having often Exprest y® said words publickly 
 on y® stage, & no notice ever before taken thereof; But 
 some maliciously buissy person or psons informing ag*t y°® 
 said Bright have taken hold of y® Law, prosecuted him un- 
 knowingly, & have surreptitiously obtained a_ verdict 
 against him for 10 * besides Cost & Charges w** amounts to 
 as much more, so y‘ the s. Bright is in Continual danger 
 of being taken up for y® s?: 10 £: & Cost & committed to 
 gaol. 
 
 The said Bright therefore humbly Begs yo® Honor to 
 consider the hardness of this his case, & hopes y* since 
 the whole company are equally concerned in this matter, 
 That you will be Pleased to Order it so, That y® s* Com- 
 pany may be Equall sharers in y® payment of y® s¢ 10# 
 w™ cost of suit, since by Law it is ordered to be paid or 
 y* you would be pleased to protect him. Otherwise the s? 
 Bright & family must suffer. 
 
 This |[i.e. the law against profanity on the stage] was 
 Enacted in y® 3d year of King Jeams Ist as appears by 
 Keebles Collections & Statuts. 
 
 These petitions are interesting in several respects. They 
 bring up the whole question of the licensing of plays, a 
 question which will be discussed presently; but they are 
 quoted here only to show that in at least one case a large 
 fine was actually assessed against an actor. 
 
 The statement concerning the unsuccessful prosecution 
 of the actors at the other theater, which was made by the 
 author of “ A Representation of the Impiety and Profane- 
 ness of the English Stage ’’ and quoted above, may also be 
 given documentary support, but is less interesting. Among 
 a collection of very much battered documents? may be 
 found an indictment charging John Powell, John Mills, 
 Robert Wilkes, Elizabeth Verbruggen, Mariah Oldfield, 
 
 1 Public Records Office. King’s Bench 10-11 
 
176 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 Benjamin Jonson, William Pinkman, William Bullock, 
 Philip Griffin, Colly Cibber, and Jane Rogers with having 
 acted, and continued to act after public notice, obscene 
 and profane comedies in the theater called Drury Lane 
 between the 24th day of June in the 12th year of the 
 reign of William III and the 24th day of February in the 
 13th year of the reign of William III. The specific 
 passages on which the charge is based are taken from 
 ‘“Volpone, or the Fox,’ “The Humour of the Age,” and 
 “Sir Courtly Nice.” They also pursued the method of 
 delay and they were finally dismissed sine die. 
 
 Strangely enough I have not been able to find in any 
 contemporary source a definite statement concerning the 
 conclusions of these attempts on the part of certain people 
 to invoke the law against the actors. We do read, how- 
 ever, in “The Laureat: or, The Right Side of Colly 
 Cibber ” (Anon. 1740) that Anne stopped the prosecution 
 by a noli prosequi. This seems extremely prohable, for 
 though Anne promised to take the state of the stage under 
 consideration, and certainly made efforts to reform it, the 
 arrest of the actors was obviously unfair, and those who 
 resorted to such methods showed only the intemperate zeal 
 of reformers who can see no wrong except that against 
 which they are incensed. Poor Bright was but a sub- 
 ordinate, and to send him to jail for performing a play 
 which his superiors, under the license of the Crown, had 
 ordered him to act, was a manifest injustice. Moreover 
 the Crown, as he pointed out, was morally bound to pro- 
 tect him since the speeches for which he was convicted 
 had been licensed by the Master of the Revels. As will 
 be seen later, Anne or her ministers made an effort to deal 
 with the situation through the instrumentality of that officer 
 
 1 Coram Rege Roll. 2-147. 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 177 
 
 and so, no doubt, in fairness, stopped the prosecution of 
 the actors. 
 
 As an illustration of the widespread interest among the 
 official class in the regulation of the stage may be cited a 
 manuscript to be found in the library at Lambeth Palace.? 
 
 It comes from Nahum Tate, Poet Laureate, and is as 
 follows: 
 
 A Proposal for Regulating the Stage & Stage-Players. 
 
 All endeavors for a National Reformation being likely 
 to prove Ineffectual without a Regulation of the Stage, 
 the following is humbly offered to Consideration. 
 
 First, that supervisors of Plays be appointed by the 
 Government. Secondly, that all Plays (capable of being 
 reform’d) be rectify’d by their Authors if Living — and 
 proper Persons appointed to Alter and reform Those of 
 Deceased Authors and neither old or modern Plays per- 
 mitted to be acted till reform’d to the satisfaction of the 
 S* supervisors. Thirdly, that sufficient Encouragement be 
 for such Persons as make y® Aforesaid Alterations &c like- 
 wise for supervisors, and Penalties upon Default in Either. 
 And this Matter so adjusted as to have due Effect, as long 
 as any Stage shall be Permitted. Fourthly, the Theatres 
 & Actors to be Under Strict Discipline & Orders, that no 
 gentlemen be suffered to come behind the Scenes, nor 
 Women in Vizard-Masques admitted to see a Play &c. 
 Such Regulation of Plays and Play-houses will not only 
 
 1 Lambeth Misc. 933, Art. 57. This is from the miscellaneous 
 collection belonging to Edmund Gibson, Bishop of London, to 
 whom it was perhaps sent, but in the opinion of the Reverend 
 Claude Jenkins, Librarian at Lambeth Palace, the endorsement is 
 in the handwriting of Archbishop Tenison. There is another manu- 
 Script in Lambeth Palace (Misc. 953, Art. 131) which is a sort 
 of memorandum or petition addressed “apparently to some eccle- 
 Siastical authority and setting forth the evils of the stage. 
 
178 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 be a publique Benefitt, but also Beneficial to the Stage 
 itself —if Continued: for whether the present stages be 
 Reform’d or Silenc’d is left to the Government, but the 
 one or Other is Absolutely necessary. 
 
 [Endorsement.] Mr. Tate’s Proposal for Regulating 
 the stage. Rec’d. Feb. 6, 1699. 
 
 Particularly worthy of note is the fact that Tate speaks 
 of his suggestion as valuable only in case it is decided 
 not to suppress the theaters. So great indeed, was the 
 outcry against them that this was evidently actually con- 
 sidered, for Dennis in his ‘“ Person of Quality’s Answer 
 etc.” (1721) tells us that “there was a warm report about 
 town, that it had been twice debated in council, whether 
 the theater should be shut up or continued.’”’ Moderate 
 councils, however, prevailed. The documents quoted 
 earlier show how earnest Anne, at least, was in her desire 
 to regulate the stage, but she was not averse to plays 
 herself and had no intention of listening too seriously to 
 the fanatics. The orders which were sent out by the Lord 
 Chamberlain show the method which she intended to 
 pursue. | 
 
 Since the court was on the side of reformed plays, it 
 may well be asked why such reform could not have been 
 easily brought about through the control nominally ex-— 
 ercised by the Master of the Revels. There were two diffi- | 
 culties. In the first place, the custom of actually censor- 
 ing plays had fallen more or less into disuse, and in the 
 second place, as the letter from Bright shows, plays which 
 had been licensed in looser days no longer seemed ex- 
 cusable, though they had legal sanction. For some reason, 
 the records of the Lord Chamberlain’s office covering this 
 period have never been published. An examination of 
 them shows, however, that the Crown was extremely 
 anxious to gain control over the drama on the ethical side, — 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 179 
 
 but that it found it extremely hard to do so. Since these 
 records have not been published, and this phase of the 
 subject not fully studied by historians of the stage, I shall 
 print some of the most interesting documents. 
 
 There had never been such a thing as a technically free 
 stage in London. In Elizabeth’s time the drama came, 
 of course, under the control of the Master of the Revels, 
 and there are recorded instances of his prohibition of cer- 
 tain plays. Though he had considerable power, it is not 
 likely that he influenced to any great extent the develop- 
 ment of the Elizabethan drama.t When the theaters were 
 reopened after the Restoration, Sir Henry Herbert, who 
 had been Master of the Revels under Charles I, eagerly 
 reassumed his supposed right to what he evidently looked 
 upon as a profitable sinecure. The published records of 
 his office show how assiduous he was in demanding tribute 
 for the licensing of every sort of popular spectacle down 
 to the exhibition of a ‘ monster,” but do not reveal any 
 particular desire to regulate the stage, except in so far as 
 it was financially profitable to do so.2_ When he died 
 in 1673 and the office was handed over to Killegrew, the 
 . latter apparently continued Herbert’s tradition, and so the 
 office continued to be regarded chiefly as a source of 
 revenue.?® 
 
 From the order quoted below, it is evident that plays ~ 
 were sometimes performed without having been licensed. 
 Probably the fee was paid and no more said on the sub- 
 * ject. Cibber states that this was the censor’s practice later. 
 Now when the Crown had undertaken to reform society, 
 
 1 Gildersleeve. Government Regulation of the Elizabethan 
 Drama. 
 
 2 The Dramatic Records of Sir Henry Herbert, edited by Joseph 
 Quincy Adams. These extend to 1673 only. 
 
 3 Chambers. Apology for Believers in the Shakespeare Papers. 
 
180 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 and turned its attention to the stage, it discovered that 
 it had lost the power of controlling the drama, and the 
 records of the Lord Chamberlain’s office show a long and 
 unsuccessful effort to regain this authority. On the 24th 
 of January 1695-6 the Earl of Dorset, Lord Chamberlain, 
 sent out the following order: 
 
 Whereas several playes &c are Acted & prologues 
 spoken wherein many things ought to be struck out and 
 corrected, And y® plays approved and Licensed by y® 
 Master of the Revells according to y® Antient Custome of 
 His place and upon the Examination of the said Master 
 I find that he complanes that of Late several new & Re- 
 vived plays have been Acted at y® Theater of Drury Lane 
 & Dorsett Gardens without any Licence And that of Late 
 y° Managers of that Company have refused to send such 
 play®’ to be purused Corrected & allowed by y® Master 
 of y° Revels We therefore Order and Command that for 
 y® future noe playes shall be Acted but such as shall first 
 be sent (and that in due time) to Charles Killegrew Esq. 
 Master of y® Reveles by him to be purused and diligently 
 Corrected & Licensed And I Order all Persons concerned 
 in the Management of both Companys to take notis hereof 
 on y® Penalty of being Silenced according to y® Antient 
 Custom of His place for such default And I Order all — 
 y® said parties to pay to y® said Master His Antient Fees — 
 for such new & revived plays soe Licensed And Doe fur- 
 ther Order & Command the said Master to be very car- 
 ful in Correcting all Obsenitys & other Scandalous matters 
 & such as any ways Offend against y® Laws of God Good 
 Manners or the Knowne Statutes of this Kingdome as hee 
 will answer y® same to me Given under my hand & seal 
 this 24th day of Janu 1692 in the seventh yeer of His 
 Mates Reigne. 
 
 Dorsett [i.e. Lord Chamberlain]* 
 1 Public Records Office. L. C. 7-1. 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 181 
 
 This order seems to indicate a desire for a general 
 tightening up. It is directed not only against the negli- 
 gence of the players, but also against the Master of the 
 Revels himself, who is ordered to take his office seriously. 
 The sentence ‘‘ and that in due time” seems to indicate 
 that copies of new plays had sometimes been submitted 
 at the last moment under the assumption that only the 
 payment of fees was required for licensing. 
 
 Evidently all this did not have the desired effect, for on 
 the 4th of June, 1697, we find Sunderland, then Lord 
 Chamberlain, sending out the following order: 
 
 Order to the Comedians in 
 Lincolns Inn fields. 
 
 Whereas I am informed that many of the new plays 
 acted by both companys of his Maj* Comedians are scan- 
 dalously lewd and Prophane, and contain Reflections 
 against his Maj* Government. For Preventing therefore 
 so notorious abuses for the time to Come I do hereby 
 strictly order that you do not presume to Act any new 
 Play till you shall have first brought it to my Secretary, 
 and Receive my directions from him therein as you shall 
 answer the Contrary att your Perill. Given under my 
 hand and seal this 4th day of June, 1697. In the Ninth 
 year of his Maj® Reign. 
 
 Sunderland 
 
 To Mr. Thomas Betterton and the rest of his Majesties 
 Comedians Acting in Lincolns Inn Fields. 
 
 The like order verbatim as above to the Pattentees for 
 his Maj* Company of Comedians acting in Dorsett Garden 
 and Drury Lane.* 
 
 Two years later we have two more orders as follows: 
 
 1 Lord Chamberlain’s Warrant Books. Public Records Office. 
 L. C. 5-152. 
 
182 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 Whereas I am informed that not w Standing an order 
 lately made for the better regulating of the Stage: Severall 
 new Plays have been since Acted containing expressions 
 contrary to Religion and good manners. These are there- 
 fore to Signify his Maj* Pleasure, that you take great 
 care not to License any plays, wherein there are any such 
 expressions, and if you shall find that at any time, either 
 company of his Maj. Comedians do presume to Act any 
 thing which you have though fitt to strike out, that you — 
 immediately give notice thereof. Given under my hand 
 this 18th of Februry In the Eleventh year of his Majs 
 Reign. 
 
 Pere: Bertie [i.e. Peregrine Bertie, 
 Vice-Chamberlain ] 
 
 To Charles Killegrew Esq., 
 
 Master of the Revels; 
 
 Whereas I am informed that notwithstanding an Order 
 made the 4th of June 1697 by the Earl of Sunderland 
 then Lord Chamberlaine of his Maj. Household to pre- 
 vent the Profaness of the stage Several new Plays have 
 lately been Acted, containing expressions contrary to 
 Religion and good manners. And whereas the Master of — 
 the Revells has Represented to me; that in contempt of © 
 the said order, the Actors do often neglect to leave out 
 such prophane expressions, as he has struck out. These — 
 are therefore to Signify his Majesties Pleasure, that you | 
 do not hereafter presume to act any thing in any new 
 play, which the Master of the Revells shall think fitt to © 
 be left out, as you shall answer it att your utmost perill. 
 Given under my hand 10th of February. In the Eleventh © 
 year of his Maj Reign. 
 
 Pere: Bertie. 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 183 
 
 To Mr. Thomas Betterton & 
 the rest of his Mat’. Comedians 
 acting in Lincolns- Inn Fields. 
 
 The like order verbatim to the Patenties for his Majes- 
 ties Company of Comedians acting in Dorsett Garden or 
 Drury Lane. 18 Feb. 1698-9.* 
 
 Queen Anne inherited the difficulty from her predecessor, 
 and her Lord Chamberlain made similar orders, as the 
 following will show: 
 
 Whereas Complant has been made yt notwithstanding 
 y® severall orders lately made for y°® regulation of y° 
 Stage, many of y® Old as well as New Plays are still 
 acted w out due Care taken to leve out such Expressions 
 as are contrary to Religion & Good Manners. And 
 whereas I am informed that this Abuse is in great Meas- 
 ure owing to y® Neglect of both Companys, by not 
 sending Plays to y® Master of y® Revels, to be Licens’d 
 but all y® Parts are got up, & y® play ready to be acted, 
 by which Means his Censure & License cannot be so 
 well observed And also that Prologues, Epilogues, & Songs 
 w are often indecent are brought upon y® Stage w™ out 
 his License. These are therefore to Signify her Majesty’s 
 Special Command that you do not Presume to Act upon 
 the Stage any Play New, or Old, containing Profane or 
 Indecent Expressions which may give Offence. And that 
 you hereafter bring y® Master of y® Revels fair Copys 
 to be Licens’d of all Plays, Songs, Prologues, & Epilogues 
 before they be given out in Parts to be study’d, & Acted, 
 which copys so Licens’d shall be kept safe for you for 
 your Justification— And you are hereby Requir’d not 
 to fail in Observing these Orders upon pain of her Ma:* 
 
 1 Lord Chamberlain’s Warrant Books. Public Records Office. 
 pee; 6-152. 
 
184 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 high displeasure and being silenc’d from further Acting. 
 Given under my hand, this 15th day of January in y® 
 second year of her Majesty’s Reign. 
 
 To y® Company of her Ma* Sworn Comedians Acting 
 in. Little- Lincoln’s Inn- Fields. 
 
 The like Warrant Verbatim was sent to the Company 
 of Comedians Acting in Drury Lane.* 
 
 Whereas I am informed that the orders hitherto made for 
 Reformation of the Stage are yet ineffectual thro’ the 
 Neglect of both Companies of Comedians in not sending 
 Plays to you for your Inspection and License till they are 
 ready to be acted, by which means, what you strike out 
 as indecent, is often spoke upon the Stage and also that 
 of late Several Prologues, Epilogues and Songs have not 
 been brought to you for your License. 
 
 I do therefore hereby Order you to take special Care not 
 to License anything that is not Strictly agreeable to Re- 
 ligion and good Manners And to give Notice to both the 
 Companies of Comedians acting in Lincolns Inn Fields 
 and Drury Lane that they do not presume to give out any 
 New Play into parts before they have brought you a fair 
 Copy thereof to be Licens’d; nor do presume to bring upon 
 the Stage any Prologue, Epilogue or Song without your 
 License, and if you shall at any time know that either 
 Company do act any thing which you have thought fitt to 
 strik out that you immediately give me Notice there of 
 Given under my hand this 17th day of Jan’y in the second 
 year of her Majesties Reign. 
 
 To Charles Killegrew Esq. Master of the Revels to her 
 Majesty. 7 
 
 Jersey .t 
 
 In these last orders two new features may be observed. 
 First, great stress is laid on songs and epilogues (especially 
 attacked in Collier’s book, which had by this time made 
 
 1 Warrants of Several Sorts. Public Records Office. L. C. 5-153. 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 185 
 
 its impression) and second, a play containing “ profane 
 and indecent expressions” is not to be permitted even 
 though it has been formerly licensed. The phrase “ which 
 copies so Licens’d shall be kept safe by you for your 
 justification ” is evidently a reference to the arrest of the 
 actors and no doubt a reply to Bright’s appeal for some 
 means of security. Perhaps it coincides with the suspen- 
 sion of prosecution against the actors. 
 
 Unfortunately no records of the censor’s excisions seem 
 to have been kept, but Cibber tells us that he became 
 much more strict. The Censor’s activity, however, was 
 founded only on tradition, and since that tradi had 
 been allowed to lapse, it could not be effectively revived. 
 Finally Cibber? flatly defied him and there was an end 
 of an effective authority, although he continued to exist. 
 This defiance, however, did not take place until after 
 George I had granted a patent to Steele. Meanwhile, in 
 1709, an elaborate set of rules was formulated for the 
 Haymarket Theater which contains the following: ‘ That 
 you forthwith prepare and transmitt to me an exact list 
 of all such Comedyes you propose to act the next year 
 that were Licens’d before her Majestys accession to the 
 Crown, in Order to their being more carefully revis’d and 
 new Licens’d by the Master of the Revells and that from 
 and after Lady Day next you shall not suffer or permit 
 any such play to be acted until it has received new license.” 
 
 Anne (or her Ministers) was evidently anxious, in some 
 measure, to satisfy the reformers, but she did not desire, as 
 they did, the complete suppression of the stage. Nor did 
 she show any inclination to take its management out of the 
 hands of those men to whom the Reformers especially ob- 
 jected. Bedford in the “ Evil and Danger of Stage Plays” 
 notes triumphantly that her Majesty has been graciously 
 pleased by letters patent, dated 14th of December 1705, to 
 
 1 An Apology for His Life. Chapter VIII. 
 
186 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 authorize Sir John Vanbrugh and William Congreve to in- 
 spect plays for the better reforming of abuses and immorali- 
 ties. At first sight this looks like the establishment of a new 
 sort. of censorship, which indeed Bedford took it to be. But 
 such was not Anne’s intention. Bedford himself probably 
 did not know just what he was referring to, or he would 
 not have been so pleased, for the patent to which he refers 
 provided for the establishment of a new theatrical com- 
 pany that was established in the Haymarket. The war- 
 rant does, indeed, begin as follows: 
 
 Anne R 
 
 Whereas We have thought fitt for the reforming the 
 abuses, and Immorality of the Stage That a New Company 
 of Comedians should be Established for our Service, under 
 stricter Government and Regulations than have been 
 formerly. 
 
 We therefore reposing especial trust, and confidence in 
 our trusty and welbeloved John Vanbrugh & Will™ Con- 
 greve Esq. for the due Execution, and performance of this 
 our Will and Pleasure, do Give and Grant unto them the s 
 John Vanbrugh and Will™ Congreve full power and au- 
 thority to form, constitute and Establish for us, a Com- 
 pany of Comedians with full and free License to Act & 
 Represent in any Convenient Place, during Our Pleasure 
 all Comedys, Tragedies, Plays, Interludes, Operas, and 
 to perform all other Theatricall and Musicall Entertain- 
 ments Whatsoev’ and to Settle such Rules and Orders for 
 the good Goverm® of the said Company, as the Chamber- 
 lain of our Household shall from time to time direct and 
 approve of. Given at our Court at St. James this 14th 
 day of December in the third year of our Reign. 
 
 By her Majestys Command 
 Kent.* 
 
 1 Warrant Books. Public Records Office L. C. 5-154. Congreve 
 resigned his share in the management of the Company the same 
 year. See Gosse’s Congreve in the Great Writers series. 
 
 s 
 ee ee 
 
 ee ee 2 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 187 
 
 But if Anne thought that this new project would con- 
 ciliate the Reformers, she must have been greatly disap- 
 pointed. Vanbrugh was, no doubt, a very suitable person - 
 to manage a new theater, but the choice of him was not 
 likely to please the party which had taken speeches from 
 his plays as a basis for securing the arrest of the actors. 
 Before the theater was opened, his appointment brought 
 a protest from the Societies for the Reformation of Man- 
 ners in an impudent pamphlet called “A Letter — To the 
 Most Reverend Father in God, Thomas (Tenison) — Arch- 
 Bishop of Canterbury” (1704). In it Vanbrugh is de- 
 nounced as having debauched the stage “to a degree be- 
 yond the looseness of all former times,” and the Arch- 
 bishop is called upon to use his influence to prevent 
 the confirmation of Vanbrugh’s appointment. The Society 
 has, it says, been less active of late in attacking the theater 
 because of confidence in the Queen’s statement that she 
 had given special orders to the Master of the Revels for 
 the correction of irregularities, but it has heard the general 
 report that the management of the new theater in the 
 Haymarket is to be intrusted to Vanbrugh, “ the known 
 character of which gentleman has very much alarmed us, 
 and a full consideration of which, has given us so warm 
 a concern for Her Majesty’s honor, as to inform Your 
 Grace, whose post and degree in the church and state 
 give you so happy an opportunity of giving Her Majesty 
 an account of these reports.” ‘‘ Tho’ this be given out 
 both by him and his friends,’ the pamphlet ‘continues, 
 “vet we must suspect the truth, because ’tis impossible 
 that Her Majesty, who has declared against immorality 
 and profaneness, and against these crimes on the stage, 
 should act so directly contrary to the end she proposed, 
 as to commit the management of the stage to that very 
 man, who debauch’d it to a degree beyond the looseness 
 of all former times. Both the present houses were in- 
 
188 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 dicted and found guilty by the court of Queen’s Bench, 
 for the several obscene and profane expressions in the 
 ‘Relapse,’ ‘ Provok’d Wife,’ ‘False Friend,’ and the rest of 
 his plays, in which he is not satisfied to reflect on the 
 teachers of the Christian religion, but carries his impious 
 fury as far as the church, morality, and religion itself.” 
 
 The Reformers were certainly not won over by the open- 
 ing of the new theater. Defoe, a good index of bourgeois 
 opinion, devoted a whole number of his ‘‘ Review” (Vol. 
 II, No. 26, 1705) to the event. Speaking ironically of the 
 unfulfilled promise of reform, he falls into verse thus: 
 
 “The fabrick’s finish’d, and the builders’ part, 
 Has shown the reformation of his art, 
 
 Bless’d with success, thus have their first essays, 
 Reform’d their buildings, not reform’d their plays. 
 
 * K *K K cs * * * * 
 
 Never was charity so ill employ’d 
 Vice so encourag’d, virtue so destroy’d.” 
 
 The new theater had made a brave bid for popularity 
 with the moderate element by beginning with Shirley’s 
 “The Gamester,’”’ which had some claims to be considered 
 a moral play. They were, however, indiscreet with their 
 prologue, which contains the lines: 
 
 “The architect must on dull order wait, 
 But ’tis the poet only can create. 
 * * *K * * * * 
 
 In the good age of ghostly ignorance, 
 How did cathedrals rise, and zeal advance! 
 
 ** * * * * *k *K 
 
 “ But, now that pious pageantry’s no more, 
 And the stages thrive, as churches did before.” 1 
 
 The sentiment expressed in the last four of these lines 
 was obviously not calculated to conciliate the clerical 
 1 By Dr. Garth. 
 
 a 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 189 
 
 parties, and experience with the vagaries of the reformers 
 should have warned the managers of the new theater that 
 some one would find, as indeed Defoe did find, blasphemy 
 even in the apparently innocent reference to the poet as 
 the only creator. Bedford? finds this first performance at 
 the Haymarket such “ That the horrid blasphemy is so 
 rash, as to raise the blood at the reading thereof.” 
 
 The reformers were, indeed, determined not to be satis- 
 - fied under any circumstances, and did not wish it to be 
 thought that any progress had been made towards a ref- 
 ormation. Thus Bedford, in his “Evil and Danger of 
 Stage Plays, etc.,” is careful to note that the two thousand 
 instances of corruption which he has gathered are taken 
 from the plays of the last two years “against all the 
 methods lately used for their reform,’ and to analyze 
 “The Gamester ” in orded to show how bad a supposedly 
 moral play can be. He and his tribe wished the complete 
 destruction of the stage and no reform would have satisfied 
 them. 
 
 The study of plays to be made in the next chapter will 
 show that the movement for reform was producing very 
 definite results, but much of the change came from within, 
 and at no time during our period did the Crown succeed in 
 gaining quite the power which it wished over the theaters. 
 George I inherited Anne’s difficulty. But power seemed 
 rather to slip from his hands than to accrue to him. 
 Steele, in conjunction with Wilkes, Cibber, Doggett and 
 Booth, received a theatrical patent signed 18th October 
 1704.2, He replied with a petition* in which he showed 
 
 1 “ Evil. and Danger of Stage Plays, etc.” (1706). 
 
 2 Public Records Office. L. C. 7-3. 
 
 8 Public Records Office. L. C. 5-156. I do not print this and 
 the remaining documents referred to as they have already been 
 published in Aitken’s Life of Richard Steele. 
 
ly fee S| 
 i ee 
 
 190 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 “That the use of the theater has for many years last 
 past been much perverted to the great scandal of religion 
 and good government” and protested that since the ref- 
 ormation would be an arduous task, hd should be given 
 power for the term of his natural life and for three years 
 thereafter. This petition was referred to the attorney 
 general, who replied with more words about the need for 
 reforming the stage and with an expression of the opinion 
 that such power might be given to Steele “ subject to such 
 regulations as have been usual in grants of the like nature.” 
 But on October 25th, 1718, we find a letter to the attorney 
 general+ in which it is stated that the managers of Drury 
 Lane refused to obey orders and regulations from the 
 Lord Chamberlain. And on the 23rd of January, 1719, 
 Steele’s license was revoked. 
 
 Throughout this attempt to establish the authority of 
 the Lord Chamberlain, the government had been animated 
 by a variety of motives, by no means all of which were 
 connected with a desire to improve the moral state of the 
 stage; but in the case of Anne at least, the wish to exercise 
 a moral censorship was strong. The passage of the Licens- 
 ing Act in 1737 ends the struggle but falls without our 
 period, and has, besides, been treated fully by other 
 writers.? It is sufficient here to point out that though it 
 was partly political in purpose it was nevertheless passed 
 under the guise of a moral measure, and that when 
 Sir John Barnard brought in the bill he made a consider- 
 able point of the mischief which had been done in the 
 City of London by the theaters, which had corrupted the 
 youth and encouraged vice.* Accordingly the bill may be 
 
 1 Public Records Office. L. C. 5-157. 
 
 2 See Watson Nicholson. The Struggle for a Free Stage in 
 London and Cross, The History of Henry Fielding. 
 
 3 Cobbett. The Parliamentary History of England. 
 
REFORMATION OF MANNERS AND THE STAGE 191 
 
 regarded as, to some extent, one of the results of ‘the 
 government’s interest in the movement against the stage 
 which we have been considering. It is also, in one sense, 
 the end of the story. From that time on the morals of 
 the theater were under the control of the government cen- 
 sor, a person whose decisions have so often aroused feelings 
 of anger or amusement according to the temper of the 
 observer. 
 
 The two preceding chapters demonstrated the wide- 
 spread interest in the question of the theoretical relation 
 between drama and morality, and the rather heterogeneous 
 collection of facts in the present one illustrates how this 
 interest translated itself into a number of attempts to 
 regulate the stage practically or to suppress it entirely. 
 These practical attempts, like the theoretical discussion, 
 had their beginning before Collier’s book, for the earliest 
 order of the Lord Chamberlain and the earliest expression 
 of hostility on the part of the Society for the Reformation 
 of Manners came before 1698. But as in the case of the 
 theoretical discussion, development proceeded much more 
 rapidly after the appearance of the ‘‘ Short View.” 
 
 The following chapter will discuss the change which 
 took place in the drama itself. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 
 
 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY comedy is by no means merely 
 
 Restoration .comedy.purified. True, to the-moralist-it-is 
 much less objectionable, and his protest helped its develop- 
 , ment, but it is not merely the old comedy_expurgated. It 
 is a different species. It embodies the reforms that were 
 demanded, for in its fully developed form the language.is 
 pure, the moral not only good but obvious,.and the hero 
 always intended to be ultimately admired. But in addi- 
 tion to this, it adds the element called Sentimentalism, 
 which I take to be merely facile and, usually, shallow, 
 illegical emotion. 
 
 The best of the old writers of comedy were largely intel- 
 
 lectual. They observed a hard and unfeeling society and 
 
 they pictured it with delight, taking a cynical and purely 
 intellectual pleasure in contemplating its follies and its 
 vices. To this cold picture, the inferior dramatist added 
 a large amount and the better ones a small amount of the 
 purely luscious to tickle the imagination of the ground- 
 lings. But the emotions, except sometimes the misan- 
 thropic, were usually absent. With the coming of the 
 sentimental drama, comedy began to take on some of the 
 functions of tragedy. |The audience is expected now not 
 only to laugh at the characters, but to share their joys 
 and sorrows. It is no longer to look on with an Olympian 
 detachment, but to suffer with distressed virtue and rejoice 
 when the dark clouds reveal their silver lining. 7 Moreover, 
 all of.thisis’to be connected with°assentimental (i.e., not 
 192 
 
 : 
 ’ 
 | 
 a 
 7 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 193 
 
 necessarily genuine or deep rooted) admiration of virtue. 
 The spectator is to be always on the side of the angels, 
 and not only to believe that. virtue always. triumphs. but 
 also to feel a personal exultation when it.does. Benevo- 
 lence takes the place of esprit as the most admirable human 
 characteristic, and the reform of some vicious person be- 
 comes a favorite theme. sa FR 
 
 The. attitude.toward love undergoes a change. In the 
 Restoration plays there is no hint that it possesses a 
 “seraphic part.” At best, love is merely gallantry, a// 
 game rather than an experience. The mystical elements 
 never appear, and in a word love is Ovidian rather than 
 Dantesque. As sentimental comedy develops, the romantic 
 elements enter and the lover begins to languish. Face to 
 face with his mistress he ceases to banter and begins to 
 exclaim. Rapture becomes la mode. 
 
 In the plays of Wycherley or Etherege sentiment as 
 well as sentimentality is absent. People seldom sigh. 
 Though they may, as a matter of convention, talk of 
 flames and darts, it is merely a convention. When the 
 hero is about to marry he does not tell his mistress that 
 they are twin halves of the same soul, or that he cannot 
 live without her. He merely admits that he is hard-up 
 and a bit tired of many mistresses, and that, as he thinks 
 her an attractive woman, he believes he would rather settle 
 down with her than with anyone else whom he knows. 
 The heroine accepts in the same spirit. He is a hand- 
 some and vigorous young fellow. All the world admires 
 him, and if he will promise not to restrain her liberty, she 
 will have him. | } | 
 
 In the early years of the eighteenth century, however, 
 the characters come more and more to speak of love with 
 a eapital “ L,” even though the old machinery of amorous 
 intrigue is kept up. Not the amour, but married love, 
 
194 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 yeomes to be the ideal; and instead of constantly making 
 fun of the etinbatal institution and all connected with 
 it, the new dramatists vie with one another in lauding its 
 delights. The typical plot runs somewhat after this fash- 
 ion: A virtuous person comes in contact with a vicious 
 one. The sympathy of the audience goes out to the vir- 
 tuous one. Through some series of circumstances, the 
 vicious person is convinced of his error and every one is 
 made happy, the audience sharing in the joy of the char- 
 acters and rejoicing that another member has been added 
 to its party —i.e., the believers in virtue. 
 
 It is evident that a play of this type satisfies the more 
 / moderate requirements of the critics of the Restoration 
 
 Bae be It is, in the first place, purged to a very consider-. 
 
 ‘able extent of those things which might be objected to 
 ‘merely on the ground of delicacy and good taste. More- 
 “over, it aims to present conventional virtue in an attractive 
 blight, to convey the impression that uprightness is re- 
 
 warded, that repentance brings happiness and reconcilia- 
 tion, and that the ideal gentleman is not a selfish rake 
 but a kind and even soft-hearted philanthropist. That 
 
 it did not succeed very well in doing all these things will 
 
 be clear; but it is equally clear that it. had the ostensible 
 aim of doing so, and that this aim is the one which critics 
 had maintained comedy should pursue. Consequently we 
 must assume, either that the criticism and denunciation 
 had some effect on actual drama, or that both the criticism 
 and the new drama were the result of the same general 
 movement, though one did not influence the other. 
 
 To make the sweeping statement that the Collier con- 
 troversy had no effect. on. the drama. seems. to me. to.be 
 almost as.wrong as:tosay that it actually-produced senti- 
 mental comedy. There was a general movement. toward 
 
“A 
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 195 
 
 reform, but the Collier controversy called attention di- 
 rectly Sy stage as flagrantly out. of key with such a 
 movement, and the stage was modified. 
 
 To estimate how closely the attack of Collier and the 
 general moral movement were connected with the develop- 
 
 _ment of the new comedy, it will be necessary not only to 
 
 know what this comedy was like and when it was born, 
 but also when it began to win for itself a recognized 
 
 place on the stage and when, also, it came to dominate. 
 
 To say that Steele in 1722 wrote a very moral play which 
 was very successful tells a great deal, but it does not tell 
 all. What we need to know also is, when. and by what 
 steps the audience began to expect that sort of thing and 
 to consider Restoration comedy as a style which had been 
 outgrown. This chapter will suggest a scheme which may 
 enable us to watch the development. of the new type and 
 its gradual displacement of the old. 
 
 Misapprehension is likely to result from a partial survey 
 of theatrical conditions at this time. If one reads only 
 the plays of Farquhar, Gay, and Fielding, and, moreover, 
 observes that the old plays continue to make up the bulk 
 of the bills in the early years of the eighteenth century, 
 he will be inclined to believe that theatrical conditions 
 were not undergoing any very rapid change. On the other 
 hand, if he will read all the new plays being produced 
 at any given period in that time, and compare them with 
 all the plays produced in an equal length of time during 
 the eighties of the seventeenth century, he will perceive at 
 once that they are characterized by different complexions. 
 
 It is obviously impracticable to mention and discuss all 
 the plays from 1660 to 1725, but on the other hand to 
 select certain plays or certain authors is likely to be mis- 
 leading. Nor will it do to select only the most successful 
 
 AOS 
 
196 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 plays, for undoubtedly the Restoration dramatists and 
 those of their school were the abler playwrights, while 
 many failures or partial successes show definitely the 
 
 drift of dramatic experiment. The ideal method would be 
 
 to examine all the comedies (with the exception of mere 
 
 | revisions and pure farces) of, say, the years 1685, 1696, 
 
 - 1700, 1705, 1710, 1715, 1720, 1725, and thus secure a prac- 
 
 ' ticable means of comparing the dramatic complexion. of the 
 | English stage at different times over this critical period. 
 
 ' The only deviation from this perfect symmetry which con- 
 
 ditions will necessitate is caused by the fact that the bulk 
 of dramatic writing was never very great, and varied con- 
 siderably. Consequently we shall have to stretch the year 
 a little. Thus 1685-1689 will represent the typical product 
 of the earlier period,_1696. that of about the time when the 
 
 | appearance.of sentimentalism began to be recognized, while 
 
 ‘ the years 1704-5 and 1705-6 will represent conditions about 
 
 the year 1705, etc. However, since we take all the new 
 
 comedies in each period the comparison will be fair. 
 Genest will furnish the canon. 
 
 The years 1685-6-7-8-9 will yield us nine comedies 
 which show how little variation there was in general tone. 
 None is by a dramatist of the first rank, but four, Crown’s 
 “Sir Courtly Nice,’ Sedley’s “ Bellamira,” and Shad- 
 well’s “The Squire of Alsatia” and “Bury Fair,” are 
 capital comedies. Two, Mrs. Behn’s wretched farce, “ The 
 Emperor of the Moon,” and a low comedy, ‘“‘ The Devil of 
 a Wife,” are not worth mentioning except to say that they 
 offer nothing to contradict what will be said of the others. 
 Shadwell may be passed with no other comment than that 
 given in an earlier chapter. 
 
 “Sir Courtly Nice” is a very light-hearted, very loose, 
 very “smutty” (to use Collier’s favorite word), and very 
 amusing comedy. As often happens, the character who 
 
 ‘ 
 ; 
 { 
 Hi, 
 ; 
 ; 
 f 
 . 
 ’ 
 ; 
 4 
 x 
 ; 
 : 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 197 
 
 gives his name to the piece is not the hero. Leonora is in 
 love with Farewel, whom her father refuses because of 
 an old family feud. He wishes to marry her to the fop, 
 and when she asks why he has chosen a fool, he replies 
 “Because none but fools will marry.” Farewel employs 
 a go-between, remarking: 
 
 '“ Pimps manage the great business o’ the nation. 
 . That is, the heavenly work o’ propagation.” 
 
 Of course the lovers are successful in outwitting the 
 parents, but they are hardly the sort of lovers whom all 
 the world loves, for as always in Restoration plays, the 
 love has very little of the seraphic part. There is no 
 reason to suppose that the hero differs very much in his 
 ideas from the other speaker in the following dialogue: 
 
 “Fa(rewel): Have you no love for women? 
 
 Sur(ly): I ha’ lust. 
 
 Fa: No love? 
 
 Sur: That’s the same thing. The word love is a figleaf 
 to cover the naked sense, a fashion brought up by 
 Eve, the mother of jilts: she cuckolded her husband 
 with the serpent, then pretended to modesty, and fell 
 a making plackets presently.” 
 
 In “ Bellamira,”’ Sedley leaned heavily upon Terence 
 and redeemed his reputation as a wit, which he had lost 
 with “The Mulberry Garden.” One cannot pass this 
 comedy by with a simple condemnation of its indecency, and 
 what is worse, its callousness, for a passage like the follow- 
 ing could not be better dramatically and makes one forget 
 all else. The contrast between the phlegmatic Merryman 
 and the tempestuous Lionel, whom he overtakes on the 
 street, is excellent. 
 
 Lionel: I am undone! Ruin’d! I have lost the sight 
 
 of this pretty creature, and shall never find her any 
 
198 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 more! Which way shall I go? Whom shall I inquire 
 of? What shall I do, to have a glimpse of her? I 
 have only this comfort, where-e’re she is, she is too 
 beautiful to be long conceal’d. 
 
 Merry (man): Lost! Undone! Beautiful! I am sure 
 I heard those words plain: He is in love, and after 
 the manner of that sort of mad men is talking to 
 himself of his mistress; if he be we shall have fine 
 work; — he’ll commit rape, burglaries, fire houses, or 
 anything, but he’ll have her; and for money, he’ll 
 throw it away like dirt. I pity his father — What’s 
 the matter? You look as if you were drunk. 
 
 Lionel: I am worse; I am mad; I am anything; I am 
 in love. 
 
 * % * %* * % * * 
 
 Merry: Her age? 
 
 Lion: Seventeen. 
 
 Merry: I have drunk excellent Hockamore of that age. 
 
 Lion: Damn thy dull Hockamore and thy base jaded 
 palate that affects it; could I but get this divine 
 creature into my hands, by fraud, force, price, prayer, 
 anyway so that I enjoy her, I care not. | 
 
 Merry. Who is she? She may be a person of quality, 
 and you may bring an old house upon your head. 
 
 Lion. ’Tis but a duel or two that way; and if her 
 relatives be numerous, we'll fight six to six, and make 
 an end on’. 
 
 Merry. What country woman is she? 
 
 Lion. I know not. 
 
 Merry. Where does she live? 
 
 Lion. I can’t tell. 
 
 Merry. We are upon a very cold scent. Where did 
 you see her? 
 
 Lion. In the streets; with a servant behind her. 
 
- * 
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 199 
 
 Merry. How came you to lose her? 
 
 Lion. That’s it, I was cursing at, as I met you; nor 
 do I think there is a man whom all the stars conspire 
 against like me. What crime have I committed to 
 be thus plagu’d? 
 
 Merry. ‘The stars are pretty twinkling rogues, that light 
 us home, when we are drunk sometimes; but never 
 care for you, nor me, nor any man.” 
 
 Keepwell is at the mercy of his extravagant mistress 
 Bellamira, who frequently deceives him. A _ suitor pre- 
 sents her with an orphan for a maid and a eunuch for 
 a page. Lionel, who is in love with Isabella (the maid), 
 disguises himself as a eunuch and manages to rape her. 
 It is discovered that she is a long-lost sister of another 
 of the characters. The latter demands revenge, and Lionel 
 agrees to marry her. Most of the remainder of the plot is 
 concerned with the intrigue by which Keepwell’s friends 
 enjoy his mistress, to whom he is passionately attached. 
 There is no limit to the frankness of the dialogue, and the 
 moral standard of the characters may be judged by the 
 lines spoken by Merryman when he is about to make a 
 temporary theft of his friend’s mistress. ‘‘ Well, I am a 
 rogue, to betray my friends thus; but, who’d not be taken 
 off with such a bribe? Besides, in the matter of women, 
 we are all in the state of nature, every man is hard against 
 every man, whatever we pretend or argue.” Another bit 
 of dialogue may be given. 
 
 Cunningham: He wou’d give me now and then five 
 guineas for a song for her, which I let her know was 
 mine; when I saw her next, we laugh’t at the poor 
 fool together — you know he is but a dull silly fellow. 
 
 Merryman: And therefore you may very honestly pre- 
 tend friendship, borrow his money and lie with his 
 mistress. 
 
200 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 Cunningham: A pious citizen that goes to church twice 
 a day, will play the knave in a bargain; a lawyer 
 take your fee, and for a good sum of money, be absent 
 when your cause is tri’d; a parson marry you to a 
 great fortune without a license; we are all rogues in 
 our way, and I confess woman is my weak side. 
 
 This, the Restoration dramatist might say, was satire 
 against the folly of “keeping.” Yes, satire against the 
 silly dunce, but almost admiration for the false friends 
 who treacherously take advantage of his confidence and 
 laugh at him behind his back. This is satire, but satire 
 which offers no moral excuse for itself. It satirizes a 
 ‘weakness and defends a meanness. To object that the 
 characters do not receive poetic justice would be childish; 
 in fact, to object to anything about Restoration Comedy 
 on moral grounds is childish; but to defend it as satire 
 is doubly so. 
 
 Of the two plays which remain to us in this group, 
 neither is so brilliant as the two just discussed, but both 
 illustrate equally well the moral depravity of the atmos- 
 phere. In her exuberant and light-hearted way, Mrs. Behn 
 committed most of the sins of which Restoration Comedy 
 can be legitimately accused, but in “ The Lucky Chance, or 
 an Alderman’s Bargain,” the only one of her plays which 
 is included in the present group, she is guilty chiefly of 
 lengthy and elaborate lusciousness, the principal scenes 
 occurring in bed rooms, and the characters being perpetu- 
 ally either disrobed or disrobing. It appears that the 
 indecency of the play had aroused some criticism as com- 
 ing from a woman, for in the interesting preface Mrs. 
 Behn maintains her right to be as lewd as her male rivals 
 in the drama, begging the privilege of her “ masculine 
 part, the poet, to tread in the same paths my predecessors 
 have so long thriv’d in,” and challenging any unbiassed 
 person who does not know the author, to read the play 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 201 
 
 and compare it with other comedies of the age, “ and if 
 they find one word that can offend the chastest ear, 
 I will submit to all their peevish cavills.” Still Genest, 
 the most unsqueamish of clergymen, finds it unusually 
 indecent. 
 
 The gallant hero, Gayman, is in love with Julia, the 
 wife of an old alderman. Gayman leads the latter on to 
 gamble until he stakes a night with his wife against 
 money, and loses. Gayman goes to collect his winnings, 
 and she promises to leave the alderman forever. Like all 
 of Mrs. Behn’s plays, this one is not repulsive because of 
 the very frankness and lack of pretense. The premise 
 is that, for the man at least, love knows no law, and that 
 love is purely animal. The closing couplet is typical. The 
 alderman and his friend, both of whom have lost their 
 wives to younger men, console themselves thus: 
 
 “That warrior needs must to his rival yield, 
 Who comes with blunted weapons to the field.” 
 
 “The Fortune Hunters: or Two Fools Well Met,” by 
 James Carlile, is an excellent example of the type of 
 comedy especially denounced by the Reformers, in which 
 a heartless libertine is rewarded in the end with the hand 
 of a somewhat over-amorous heroine, upon whose fortune 
 he has all along had his eye. Young Wealthy has been 
 disinherited for having stolen a large sum of money from 
 his father. In town he meets his elder brother: 
 
 Elder Wealthy: But why have you not ask’d how my 
 father does? What brought us to town, or where you 
 might see us. 
 
 Young Wealthy: Why first, I suppos’d he was well, 
 or dead or alive, there is nothing to be got by him. 
 Next, I suppose you came to town for the same reason 
 I stay in town, to whore and drink. Lastly, I thought 
 I might meet you in a bawdy-house. 
 
202 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 This promising young man rivals the hero of Sir Fopling 
 Flutter in the multiplicity of his simultaneous intrigues. 
 He is supported by a rich widow, is also engaged in the 
 traditional sport of an amour with a tradesman’s wife and, 
 finally, at his brother’s suggestion, undertakes to woo 
 Marie, the possessor of ten thousand pounds. She, on her 
 part, has confessed that “the first young gentleman that 
 I like, (if he have good manners enough to like me) shall 
 have the spending of this ten thousand pounds of mine, 
 rather than I’ll die of the pip, to leave it to you and your 
 heirs.” Set in pursuit of her, Young Wealthy does not 
 give up either the widow or the tradesman’s wife, for 
 “Tis not like a wise man to leave off one trade, without 
 a certainty of living better by another.” He deceives the 
 widow to the last and plays a cruel joke on his father, but 
 when, having won Marie, he says “ We will forsake this 
 hole of sin and sea coal, and make you merry in a better 
 air. Come, spouse. Your blessing, sir,” his father for- 
 gives him, saying: ‘“ Pox take him, he talks as if he had 
 some grace; he made a long speech too without swearing.” 
 
 This rapid survey of comedy during the years 1685-9 
 confirms what has been said in general about Restoration 
 Comedy. The wild gallant treads a flowery path to for- 
 tune, without the slightest regard not merely for decency 
 but even for fairness, consideration of the rights of others, 
 or the most rudimentary sense ‘of honor. 
 
 I leap now to the year 1696, which alone yields us 
 thirteen new comedies,’ because that year includes Cibber’s 
 “TLove’s Last. Shift,”..which may be correetly~ealled~the 
 first sentimental comedy, since it was the first, play..to..be 
 recognized by contemporaries as such. Any author might 
 from time to time drop in expressions which were not 
 completely in the Restoration tradition, but no previous 
 
 1 [ have not been able to find She Ventures and He Wins men- 
 tioned by Genest. 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 203 
 
 play had struck the audience as establishing a new type.' 
 Cibber, then a young and not very well known actor, 
 took a conventional plot but gave it a new emphasis, call- 
 ing upon the audience to delight in the triumph of the 
 virtuous wife and presenting for their approval.a.ridicu- 
 lous masque in praise of marriage. The importance of\ 
 the play is purely historic. It is only an experiment and | 
 intrinsically a very bad one at that. The plot concerns 
 one Loveless, a thoroughly abandoned libertine who has 
 deserted his wife so long ago as to have forgotten her 
 completely. She wins him back, not only to love for her 
 but also to enthusiasm for the marriage state in general, 
 by becoming his mistress when she discovers that he does 
 not recognize her as his wife. From every point of view 
 the play is objectionable. Three-fourths of the dialogue 
 is as lewd as that of any Restoration play, and the virtu- 
 ous conclusion reeks with hypocrisy. It is hard to believe 
 that it was ever taken seriously, but it had a tremendous 
 success which the author himself? attributed to the “ mere 
 moral delight received from its fable.” 
 
 From now on Cibber was considered, and. considered 
 himself, as one of the reformers of the stage. The fol- 
 lowing dialogue* will illustrate what his contemporaries 
 thought of his experiment: 
 
 Ramble: Ay, marry, that play was the philosopher’s 
 
 stone: I think it did wonders. 
 
 Sullen: It did so, and very deservedly; there being 
 
 few comedies that come up to’t for purity of plot, 
 manners and moral.” 
 
 1 Mr. Allardyce Nicoll in his recently published “ A History of 
 Restoration Drama, 1660-1700 (1923) thinks that he can see ad- 
 umbrations of sentimentalism in certain comedies produced from 
 1680 on. 
 
 2 Apology. 
 
 8 Gildon. Comparison between the Two Stages. 
 
204. ~ COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 Davies! says roundly: ‘“ To a player we are indebted for 
 the reformation of the stage. The first comedy, acted 
 since the Restoration, in which were preserved purity of 
 manners and decency of language, with a due respect to 
 
 the honor ofthe. marriage-bed, was. Colley ..Cibber’s 
 ‘Love’s Last Shift.’” And again he tells us that “ The 
 joy of unexpected reconcilement, from Loveless’ remorse 
 and penitence, spread such an uncommon rapture of pleas- 
 ure in the audience, that never were spectators more happy 
 in easing their minds by uncommon and repeated plaudits. 
 The honest tears, shed by the audience at this interview, 
 conveyed a strong reproach to our licentious poets, and 
 “was to Cibber the highest mark of honor.” 
 
 Cibber had evidently been somewhat doubtful as to the 
 success of his attempt, for he had a comic and indecent 
 prologue in which he made fun of the whole thing. His 
 fears, however, were groundless. From what Gildon wrote, 
 it is obvious that the cause of the success lay in the new 
 
 _ element, and hence also obvious that if an audience could 
 | really be moved to tears by “ Love’s Last Shift” it was 
 thirsting for sentiment. Collier had not yet spoken, but 
 from the success of Cibber’s play it is almost certain that, 
 ‘without Collier, sentimental comedy with its praise of 
 ‘virtue was inevitable. Cibber profited by the lesson of 
 his success, and henceforth shares with Steele the posi- 
 tion of premier sentimentalist. He did not, however, 
 like the latter, take a very prominent part in the critical 
 advocacy of the new comedy, though he does so to some 
 extent in his prefaces, and, in the “Apology ” (1740), 
 published after his retirement from the stage, he appears 
 everywhere as an exponent of the moral theory of the dra- 
 matic function. Here he expresses amazement “ that our 
 best authors of that time could think the wit and spirit 
 
 1 Dramatic Miscellany. 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 205 
 
 of their scenes could be an excuse for making the looseness 
 of them public ” and proclaims himself content if his read- 
 ers will give him no other merit than that of having the 
 “interest and honor of virtue always in view.” 
 
 Looking at the other comedies of 1696, we find that 
 Cibber was not entirely alone, for there are here and 
 there indications of an inclination to break away from the 
 old tradition, though this inclination is nowhere -suffi- 
 ciently marked to attract attention, or to rob Cibber of 
 credit for the perspicacity which led him to invent a new 
 type of comedy surely predestined to great popularity. 
 “The Younger Brother” by ‘the late Mrs. Behn,” ‘ The 
 Mock Marriage” by Thomas Scott, ““ The Spanish Wives ” 
 by Mrs. Pix, “ The Country Wake” by the actor Thomas 
 Doggett, and “The Husband his own Cuckold” are pretty 
 well in the old traditions. The latter play, by John 
 Dryden, Jr., offers opportunity for reflection. In it, Sir 
 John Crossit discovers that his wife has made an amorous 
 appointment with a foolish physician. The husband keeps 
 the appointment in the dark, and leaves scratches on his 
 wife’s face. Angered at the supposed outrage of the physi- 
 cian, she turns upon him the next day and has him driven 
 from the house. Here we have, if you like, poetic justice 
 neatly administered, but there is no sentiment whatever. 
 Had the play been written in 1726 it might have proceeded 
 thus, but in the end the husband would have explained his 
 ruse, the wife would have fallen into repentance, promises 
 would have been given that no indiscretion should be com-: 
 mitted in the future, and the curtain would have fallen 
 upon a scene of reconciliation and tears. 
 
 Motteux’s flat comedy “ Love is a Jest” is neither centil 
 mental nor ingeniously immoral. It hardly makes evidence 
 one way or the other, except that there is at least no striv- 
 ing after immorality such as one is accustomed to find in 
 
206 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 the typical Restoration plays. In the anonymous “The 
 Cornish Comedy ” the hero is not particularly scrupulous 
 in his methods, but his love for the heroine is more or 
 less genuine. Neither he nor she indulges in the usual 
 epigrams of inverted morality, and the former actually 
 expresses some scruples of honor. Lord Lansdowne’s “ The 
 She Gallants”’ had a rather romantic plot of a deserted 
 heroine who wins back the affections of the hero, and 
 though loose enough in language and incidents had one 
 distinctly sentimental scene where the repentant hero 
 breaks out: ‘‘ Oh, raise not my confusion with reproaches, 
 so tender and so just: Alas! If you could look into my 
 breast, you would find yourself, if it be possible, enough 
 reveng’d by the shame and remorse that overwhelms me, 
 (Kneeling.) Thus prostrate, the vilest criminals have 
 leave, — to approach the heavens they have offended, etc. 
 ete.” There has been no preparation for this, the hero has 
 hitherto shown himself the most confirmed of libertines, 
 but this speech is definitely a foreshadowing of the sort 
 of thing that was to become very common. One of Con- 
 greve’s heroes could hardly have spoken it. 
 
 Dilke’s “ The Lover’s Luck” is the story of a soldier 
 
 rather than of a wild gallant, and his heroes show some 
 faint shadow of honor. The whole play is at times coarse 
 and always dull, but not particularly immoral, while Mrs. 
 Manley’s “The Lost Lover” shows some distinct traces 
 of sentimentality. The hero is a complete cad (which is 
 not unusual even in sentimental comedy), but he tends to 
 be a moralizing rather than a cynical one, indulging in 
 some heroics and exclaiming; “‘ Oh, the curse of lewdness! 
 What woman’s fair after we find her faulty ”—a com- 
 pletely non-Ovidian and hence non-Restoration idea. He 
 is half-way to becoming a Joseph Surface, a typical prod- 
 uct of the eighteenth century, when the libertine had 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 207 
 
 abandoned cynicism and taken to hypocrisy. D/’Urfey’s 
 unimportant and unexceptionable “ Don Quixote Part III ” 
 has already been mentioned. 
 
 Though “ Love’s Last Shift” is the only really striking 
 phenomenon of this year, it seems that bits of sentimental- 
 ism, or, if you prefer, bits of ordinary human feeling, are 
 creeping in here and there, though the movement was 
 not self-conscious before Cibber’s play appeared. It seems, 
 too, that even where sentiment is absent the authors strain 
 ery after. cynicism. and perverted morality, so that the 
 spirit. ‘of Restoration Comedy seems more or less on the 
 point of dissolution: “It must be borne in mind; however, 
 that such judgments as this should be made with some 
 caution and accepted with more. Beljame, for instance, 
 thinks that “The Way. of the.World.”.shows that Con- 
 greve was moderating his tone in answer to the moralist, 
 while Whibley? takes the same play as the best possible 
 proof that the dramatists cared not a rap for Collier. 
 Still I think that the dramatic production of 1696 does 
 show some tendency to moderate the persistent and cynical 
 lewdness of the typical Restoration plays, and that this 
 fact, since Collier’s book did not appear until 1698, is 
 significant. 
 
 The nine comedies furnished by the years 1700 and 1701 
 again show the new and old traits in conflict. The domina- 
 tion of the old school is shown by the fact that illegitimate 
 amorous intrigue still plays an important part; and that 
 whether or. not the intrigue is frustrated, the wife’s virtue 
 saved, and the wild gallant landed safely in the bonds of 
 matrimony, often depends rather on chance or policy than 
 on the principles of morality. ~ 
 This latter fact is indeed one of the things which sepa- 
 rates Restoration from Sentimental comedy. In the 
 
 1 Cam. Hist., Vol. VIII, Chap. VI. 
 
 be 
 
> 
 
 V 
 
 208 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 former, the hero often enough commits matrimony and 
 the erring wife is often enough erring only in intention, 
 but the happy conclusions are brought about through the 
 influence of chance or the direction of prudence rather. than 
 through the “workings of moral scruples, and the. interest 
 is centéréd’on’ the” intrigue rather than. on. the. ‘conclusion. 
 In the Sentimental Comedy,.on..the other, hand, ‘the charac- 
 ters are always being overtaken. by..remorse..or. prevented 
 by scruples.. Two contrasting plays will illustrate the 
 point. For an illustration of the old school take “The 
 Reform’d Wife” (1700) by Burnaby, which belongs to the 
 years now under discussion. The epilogue may be noticed 
 as illustrating the fact that it had become increasingly 
 necessary to pretend, at least, to morality. 
 
 “Let none hereafter plays ungodly call, 
 For this was writ to mortify you all. 
 No parson ’s here expos’d, no brothel storm’d 
 But a kind handsome keeping wife reform’d.” 
 
 These lines show the need felt to recognize the moral 
 movement, but if the play was “ writ to mortify you all” 
 then the author proceeded in a strange way. Astrea dis- 
 likes her husband, and keeps him at a distance by pre- 
 tending to dislike all men. She meets Freeman and begins 
 an intrigue with him, he not knowing that she is the wife 
 of an old acquaintance, Sir Solomon Empty. The lovers 
 agree to meet at the house of Clarinda, but she falls in 
 love with Freeman herself, and he concludes that though 
 he likes Astrea better, he had rather marry Clarinda’s 
 fortune than remain Astrea’s poor lover. Unwittingly he 
 discovers to Sir Solomon his rendezvous with the latter’s 
 wife. But by Sir Solomon’s excitement he suspects the 
 truth and tells Astrea. They plan that when they meet 
 she will pretend that there has been a mistake and that 
 
 Se en a ae oe 
 
 ee 
 
 ee a 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 209 
 
 she had never encouraged him. Sir Solomon, in hiding, is 
 taken in by this acted meeting, is convinced of his wife’s 
 chastity, and Clarinda and Freeman announce their en- 
 gagement. It is perfectly evident that the wife’s “ re- 
 form” is merely by necessity, and that the “lesson” of 
 the play, if we must seek it, is prudential rather than 
 moral. 
 
 This amoral treatment of the subject may be well con- 
 trasted with the treatment of a triangular or rather 
 quadrangular plot in a fully developed sentimental play 
 like “A Wife to be Let” (1723), by the novelist Mrs. 
 Haywood. The prologue expounds that mixture of senti- 
 ment and caution which the eighteenth century called 
 virtuous love: 
 
 “Learn, from the opening scene, ye blooming fair, 
 Rightly to know your worth, and watch with care; 
 When a fool tempts ye, arm your heart with pride, 
 And think the ungenerous born to be deny’d: 
 But, to the worthy, and the wise, be kind, 
 
 Their cupid is not, like the vulgar’s blind: 
 Justly they weigh your charms and sweetly pay 
 Your soft submission, with permitted sway.” 
 
 The epilogue sums up the moral thus: 
 
 “ ... the heroine of our play 
 Gains glory by a hard and dangerous way: 
 Belov’d, her lover pleads— she fears no spy, 
 Her husband favors—and her pulse beats high. 
 Warm blows his hope—her wishes catch the fire, 
 Mutual their flame, yet virtue quells desire.” 
 
 The beautiful Mrs. Graspall is married to an incredibly 
 avaricious husband. Beaumont, who has deserted his wife 
 Amadea, makes love to Mrs. Graspall. She loves him but 
 will “still hold my honor dearer than my life.” Graspall 
 finally offers to sell his wife to Beaumont, who seems to 
 
210 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 accept. She rebukes the lover and he protests that he had 
 no intention of enforcing his bargain. “ The flame I feel 
 for you, is in itself so pure, I grieve it shou’d appear in 
 any likeness with those unconstant fires which loose de- 
 sires create; I tremble when I approach you and tho’ I’d 
 forfeit life to touch that hand, so fearful am I to offend, | 
 I dare not ask it.” Now it happens that Amadea, his 
 wife, disguised as a man, has followed Beaumont and 
 confided in Mrs. Graspall. The latter questions Beau- 
 mont as to former loves. The eighteenth century prig 
 speaks: “I do not deny but that I have met temptations 
 in my way, which youth and inadvertency, at some un- 
 guarded hours, have yielded to.” She presses him fur- 
 ther. He: “Oh Amadea! Now thy image rises to my 
 view, and brings my broken vows to my remembrance.” 
 Of course Amadea is produced and forgiven. Beaumont: 
 “Can there be so much generosity in nature! ” Complete 
 reconciliation. This, it would seem, should be enough to 
 exhaust one’s stock of belief in the powers of virtue, but 
 more is to come. The more complete the orgy of redemp- 
 tion and reconciliation, the better is the sentimental 
 dramatist pleased. Mrs. Graspall pretends to have 
 granted the seeming-man Amadea all that she had refused 
 to Beaumont. Her husband is distracted, for it is worse 
 in retrospect than in anticipation. He wishes he were dead. 
 Now he has been punished enough. Behold! Amadea is 
 a woman. More raptures. The inconceivable miser be- 
 comes yet more inconceivable when we see that he also is 
 about to reform. So the play ends, and the audience ex- 
 periences what Steele calls that joy which is too deep 
 for laughter. Here the wife is kept upon the path of duty, 
 not as in “The Reform’d Wife” by prudence and the 
 force of circumstances, but purely through Virtue. 
 It is useless to comment on the absurdity and unwhole- ° 
 | someness of such a play as Mrs. Haywood’s, or to urge 
 
 4 
 a, 
 i 
 : 
 ' 
 } 
 , 
 i 
 
 a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 211 
 
 that the frank cynicism of the Restoration is perhaps 
 truer and consequently more wholésome. We are con- 
 cerned merely with pointing out the strangeness of a 
 phenomenon. An audience of 1673 liked “ The Country- 
 Wife”’ and an audience of 1723 was expected to endure 
 “A Wife to Let.” Mrs. Haywood, in accordance with the 
 movement of the time, gave the superficial appearance of 
 morality and so satisfied the superficial and even, at times, 
 hypocritical rage for the moral. 
 
 But it is time to return to the plays of 1700 and 1701 
 when sentimentalism was still struggling for expression. 
 David Crawford’s “ Courtship a-la-mode” is not senti- 
 mental, but at least the “moral points the right way.” 
 D’Uriey’s very dull “ The Bath, or, the Western Lass ” 
 also shows little sentiment except in the somewhat roman- 
 tic treatment of love. John Corye’s “A Cure for Jeal- 
 ousy,”’ however, shows many of the marks of sentimental- 
 ism in a plot which is quite old-fashioned in places. 
 Scrapeall is unjustly jealous of his virtuous young wife 
 Arabella, who, though virtuous, roundly tells him of his 
 unfitness for a young wife. He gets the idea that she 
 means to kill him, and hires an assassin to kill her first. 
 The plot is discovered, and he is frightened out of his wits 
 and his jealousy by the appearance of a mock corpse. In 
 a sub-plot, Colonel Blunt, having been driven into the 
 army because his father has refused to support his gay 
 life, returns in disguise and tells his father of the death 
 of his son. The father is stricken with remorse, and.there 
 is a sentimental scene of recognition, reunion, and recon- 
 ciliation. The rakish hero, and some of the incidents, 
 connect the play with the Restoration tradition, but much 
 of the dialogue, by its tendency to serious discussion 
 rather than epigrammatic dismissal of ethical questions, 
 by its romantic love scenes, and especially by its tear- 
 ful-joyful reconciliation motif, is definitely sentimental. 
 
 — 
 
212 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 Similarly, Manning’s ‘“ The Generous Choice,” though the 
 story of a perfect Don Juan, concludes with the hero’s 
 reform, and takes much of its point not from cynical 
 laughter but again from sentimental scenes of reconcilia- 
 tion and reformation, and in the end makes its plea to 
 the moralizing taste of the age with the concluding rhymed 
 tag: 
 “For what-soe’er delight bad men can find 
 
 In doing wrong, ’tis the unblemished mind 
 
 That makes our lives most sweet, 
 
 Our pleasure most refined.” 
 
 Whether or not “The Way of the World” (1700) does, 
 as Beljame thinks, show an attempt to give less cause for 
 offense to the moralist, I shall not attempt to decide; but 
 Burnaby’s “ The Ladies’ Visiting Day” complains in the 
 preface: ‘My care to avoid any thing that might shock 
 the ladies, I perceive has done me no service.” Probably 
 he was sincere. He constructed a rather cynical plot in 
 the old style, but no doubt flattered himself that he had 
 at least shown more regard to decency and morality than 
 audiences were accustomed to find in the plays of Wycher- 
 ley, Dryden, and Mrs. Behn. 
 
 Thomas Baker, in the preface to “ The Humor of the 
 Age,” makes his contribution to the stage controversy. He 
 speaks of those “who bustle mightily for a reformation, 
 and would fain atone their own crimes, by suppressing 
 the vices of others, which they have no pleasure in their 
 taking” ; and continues: “I would not excuse any im- 
 morality the stage is guilty of, but when men show so 
 much spleen, as to exclaim against a play, without con- 
 sidering whether the moral of it be virtuous or vicious but 
 ’ because it is a play, an author has not justice done him.” 
 ‘““The Humor of the Age” is not very dramatic. It is 
 primarily a series of dialogues discussing and illustrating 
 
 P 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 213 
 
 contemporary manners. The sinister Railton tries to force 
 the supposed Quaker Tremilia. Freeman saves her and 
 falls in love. He offers to marry her in spite of her lack 
 of fortune. Then she tells him: “ Reading and conversa- 
 tion taught me the deceitfulness of men, how many pre- 
 tended merely for a portion; and that an estate was often 
 a greater means to ruin a woman than make her happy. 
 I resolv’d therefore to conceal my fortune, and continue 
 in this habit, that I might give the world no occasion to 
 talk or to inquire after me, and either live single, or not 
 to marry till I found a man whose addresses were out of 
 pure love.” Nothing is more characteristic of sentimental 
 comedy than this sudden discovery that a disinterested 
 sacrifice made nobly turns out to be no sacrifice at all. 
 Poetic justice demands that noble deeds receive proper 
 payment. Virtue is not its own reward. The hero sacri- 
 fices material advantages for love, honor, duty or what 
 not, but always discovers in the end that a sacrifice has 
 not really been made. Hence the undeniable namby-pam- 
 byness of sentimental comedy. The moral always seems 
 to be that nobleness pays; that the best way to look out 
 for yourself is to appear unselfish, and that the plum will 
 always drop into your mouth if you appear not to desire 
 it. 
 
 The tone of Baker’s satire is gentle rather than misan- 
 thropic. Unlike Wycherley, he believed that things could 
 be improved; and he tried (though he failed) to attain 
 that sophisticated yet uncynical advocacy of virtue which 
 made the triumph of the “Spectator.” The epilogue con- 
 cludes: 
 
 “We beg the favors by the fair sex giv’n 
 With solemn awe as we petition heaven. 
 To please. them was the poet’s greatest care, 
 
 He thinks in this play, nothing can appear, 
 Rude or obscene to grate the nicest ear.” 
 
214 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 “The Humor of the Age” is an honest attempt to write 
 a moral play, but it will be remembered that one of the 
 charges against the actors when they were arrested in- 
 cluded obscene speeches from this play. No reasonable 
 reform -would satisfy the reformers. As I pronounce the 
 conclusion of the epilogue, just quoted, innocent, the shade 
 of Collier rises i: me and I seem to hear him speak 
 somewhat after the following manner: “ What! Petition 
 the fair sex with the solemn awe with which we petition 
 heaven! Thus is God defied, and the flesh-pots given 
 adoration equal to that due to the divine mystery. Under 
 a Christian commonwealth, the lewd poets dare rise to a 
 height of profanity that the Pagans never attained, for 
 they would not have dared pay to a woman the honor 
 due to Jupiter alone.” 
 
 The group of plays now under discussion shows con- 
 clusively that in 1700 and 1701 sentimentalism was mak- 
 ing considerable progress, but that it was by no means yet 
 completely triumphant. The best play which appeared in 
 those two years was Farquhar’s “Sir Harry Wildair,” 
 which is quite in the old tradition and shows its author 
 incapable of treating a romantic scene. In his “A Trip 
 to the Jubilee” (1699) to which the former play is a se- 
 
 quel, he had shown the sinister Lady Lurewell joyfully © 
 
 reunited to her husband, but now she relapses into the 
 character of an unfeeling flirt to accept a large sum of 
 money (which she considers the best love address which 
 she has ever received), and is prevented from fulfilling her 
 part_of the bargain only by an unexpected interruption. 
 
 _Farquhar indeed remained true to the old tradition. His. 
 
 two most popular plays, “The Recruiting Officer” (1706) 
 and “The Beaux’ Stratagem” (1707), though relatively 
 clean and in so far products of the reformed age, show him 
 
 | 
 | 
 . 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 215 
 
 a consistent adherent to the old belief that realism_and 
 satire, rather than sentiment and morality, were the busi- 
 ness of comedy. As long as he and Vanbrugh continued 
 to write successful plays, the triumph of sentimentalism 
 could not be called complete. 
 
 On the whole, however, the group of plays just dis- 
 cussed is remarkable both for frequent reference to the - 
 necessity for reform and for the evidences of continued 
 development in the direction of sentimentalism. Even 
 where the dramatists were not following the royal road to 
 
 pshetctannet iNerg) T  y 
 suecess which Cibber and Steele were pointing out, they 
 ustially~avoided the excessive cynicism of Etherege and 
 Wycherley. “Between 1696 and this time, the plays of 
 Vanbrugh, in ayhich a good measure of the Restoration 
 thought was mingled with serious discussions of ethical 
 problems and not a little sentiment, had been most suc- 
 cessful but had by no means satisfied the reformers. Van- 
 brugh was denounced (quite unjustly) as more immoral 
 than his predecessors and the continued “ reformation ” of 
 the stage went on. 
 
 Of the plays of the years 1704-5, two are really note- 
 worthy in the development of sentimental comedy, and all 
 the others show some influence from the reform movement, 
 though they are not important. John Dennis was too en- 
 thusiastic an admirer of the comedies of King Charles’ 
 time not to exclude sentiment from his tragi-comedy 
 “ Gibraltar,’ but he was also too much a believer in the 
 moral end of comedy not to give this one a purpose. 
 Motteux, who tried to pass as a reformer of the stage, 
 gives us “ Farewell Folly,” a comedy open to little objec- 
 tion either in incident or moral, and concludes thus: 
 
 “Long toss’d in youth, that stormy time of life; 
 Our safest port is a kind virtuous wife.” 
 
216 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 A. Chaves’ ‘ The Cares of Love” (1705) is uninteresting 
 but clean, while Nicholas Rowe’s comedy ‘“ The Biter ” 
 is one of those plays in which the prevailing perversity and 
 coarseness of the Restoration has been almost dropped, 
 though little sentiment has been added. This brings us 
 to the two important plays of the year, Cibber’s “ Careless 
 Husband” and Steele’s “ Tender Husband.” 
 
 The great success of both marks an important stage in 
 
 | the struggle of sentimental comedy for triumph. Both 
 
 were conscious attempts to establish a new school. Steele 
 had already written two moral plays and declared his set 
 purpose to write innocently. In the preface to “ The Care- 
 less Husband,” Cibber writes significantly as follows: 
 “The best criticks have long and justly complained, that 
 the coarseness of most characters in our late comedies, 
 have been unfit entertainments for people of quality, 
 especially the ladies.” He has waited in vain, he says, for 
 some one else to take the lead, but is now resolved to 
 strike the first blow himself. Like its predecessor ‘‘ Love’s 
 Last Shift,” ‘The Careless Husband” is the story of the 
 reform of a rake, but it is an infinitely better play. The 
 former was not only nonsense but hypocritical nonsense, 
 while the new play was developed with a greater appear- 
 ance of sincerity, and the reform made probable by prep- 
 aration from the beginning instead of being unconvinc- 
 ingly tacked on at the end. Sir Charles Easy carries on 
 amours with both his wife’s servant and a certain Lady 
 Gravairs. Lady Easy knows this, but hides her knowl- 
 edge. Sir Charles is growing weary of the impertinencies 
 of his mistress, and one day falls asleep in the servant’s } 
 room without his wig. His wife finds him there, and in- 
 stead of awakening him, simply covers his ead When 
 he wakes, he realizes Ls has happened and that his 
 wife is tender in spite of her knowledge of his unfaithful- 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 217 
 
 ness. This realization is the last straw, and he goes to 
 seek and find forgiveness from her. 
 
 In Steele’s play the situation is reversed. The tender 
 husband interrupts a rendezvous which his wife has with 
 a supposed lover whom he has sent to tempt her. A scene 
 of repentance and forgiveness supplies material for senti- 
 mentalism. Both of these plays were very successful, and 
 took their place as favorites in the standard repertory of 
 the theater. Since each called attention to itself as de- 
 
 parting from the Restoration tradition, success must be * ‘ 
 
 interpreted as constituting a substantial triumph for 
 sentimentalism. 
 
 The seasons of 1709-10 and 1710-11 together yield only 
 six new comedies. Settle’s “ City Ramble,” the central idea 
 of which is borrowed from “ The Knight of the Burning 
 Pestle,’ is innocent though not sentimental. The two 
 comedies which Mrs. Centlivre produced during the sea- 
 sons under consideration show her to belong half to the new 
 school and half tothe old. Her ‘“ Marplot ” (published 1711) 
 suggests the old tradition by the way in which the husband 
 is saved from adultery more or less against his will, but 
 “The Man’s Bewitch’d”’ is much cleaner in tone than the 
 Restoration plays and shows definitely the influence of the 
 new tradition. The hero seeks matrimony willingly and not 
 as a last resort. Illegitimate intrigue (the customary par- 
 allel to courtship in Restoration plays) is absent, and Shad- 
 well’s description of the type, quoted in a previous chapter, 
 - would not apply to this play. The names of her characters 
 will serve as well as anything else to show the change in 
 tone. In the old comedies one meets constantly Wildish, 
 Sparkish, Bellamour, etc. In this play appear Faithful, 
 Lovely, and Constant as heroes, and one rubs one’s eyes 
 to discover if he has not by chance strayed into ‘“ Pilgrim’s 
 Progress.” 
 
218 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 The three remaining plays of this group are definitely 
 and insistently sentimental. Charles Johnson’s “ The Gen- 
 erous Husband” links itself closely to the new tradition 
 by the importance given to a scene of repentance and 
 forgiveness, but the anonymous “ Injur’d Love” is still 
 more striking. Thrivemore has returned from a voyage on 
 which he was reported dead, to find that his former love 
 Charmilla is a widow and about to enter into a marriage 
 of convenience with Rashlove, who, believing his wife un- 
 faithful, had left her to die on a desert island from which 
 she has escaped and followed him disguised as a man. 
 Of course Thrivemore wins back Charmilla, and Rash- 
 love’s wife proves that his suspicions of her are unfounded. 
 At this discovery he breaks out: “ With surprise and joy, 
 ecstasy and wonder, my soul as by meeting torrents tost 
 leaves me not calm enough to consider whether I dream or 
 wake.” 
 
 Charles Shadwell’s “ The Fair Quaker of Deal” won a 
 permanent place in the dramatic repertory. It is a typical 
 sentimental comedy in that all the bad characters are 
 about to receive poetic justice but are reprieved on a 
 promise of reform, and in that the last scene consists of 
 an orgy of benevolence and happiness. Captain Worthy, 
 landing from a voyage to claim his faithful Quaker, Dorcas 
 (imagine a Quaker heroine in a Restoration play!), over- 
 hears a plot on the part of the foppish Lieutenant Mizen 
 to steal her for her money. He concocts a plan and writes 
 
 a false note of encouragement purporting to come from her, ° 
 
 but sends a disguised street-walker to take her place. A 
 similar trick is played on another rake. Then Dorcas’ 
 sister makes advances to Worthy. Instead of treating her 
 as a wild gallant would have done, he says, somewhat in 
 the vein of Joseph Surface: “ Madame, I know my own 
 unworthiness too well to believe you are in earnest; but 
 
 4 
 1 
 i 
 4 
 ; 
 Wy, 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 219 
 
 were it so, my honor tells me I must not be so base to 
 wrong your sister.” In revenge she writes a forged letter 
 to Dorcas, saying that Worthy is married to some one else. 
 Doreas swoons, but is revived to discover the imposture. 
 Now the two rakes enter with their disguised wives. They 
 are dismayed on hearing the truth, but Worthy tells them 
 he can relieve them if they will provide for the women so 
 as to enable them to lead honest lives. The rakes agree 
 and say moreover that they will reform themselves also. 
 Worthy then tells them that they were married by a bogus 
 parson and that the whole scheme was concocted to en- 
 compass their reform. It is significant that this play be- 
 came one of the most popular of the new pieces, and that 
 to it Cibber attributes a considerable share in the financial 
 success of the company which played it. By this time 
 sentimentalism was well on its way to the domination of the 
 English stage. 
 
 Dramatic production during these years was languishing 
 in quantity as well as quality. The seasons of 1714-15, 
 1715-16, and 1716-17 saw only six new comedies, includ- 
 ing the highly indecent “Three Hours after Marriage,” 
 which was so promptly and crushingly damned. Needless 
 to say, Addison’s ‘‘ The Drummer ” was free from offense. 
 It complains: 
 
 “To long has marriage in this tasteless age. 
 With ill bred raillery supplied the stage, 
 
 and attempts thus to rebuke a stock scene with the double 
 charge of immorality and bad taste, two criteria which 
 were coming to be regarded as supreme. Mrs. Davys’ 
 “The Northern Heiress” boasts that “it is free from the 
 three grand topics on which most of our modern comedies 
 are founded, viz: obscenity, faction and a general con- 
 tempt of religion.”’ It is indeed, like Christopher Bullock’s 
 
220 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 “Woman is a Riddle,” innocent enough and certainly dull. 
 “The Artful Husband,” attributed to William Taverner, 
 achieved success by borrowing from Shirley still another 
 story of the wife reformed of her errors; and Charles 
 Johnson, with ‘The Country Lasses,” showed that it was 
 possible to avoid both the virtues and the vices of Restora- 
 tion Comedy and still be mildly amusing without falling 
 into the worst excesses of sentimentalism. In this play 
 Hartwell and Modely find their horses lamed in the 
 country. They mistake two ladies, Flora and Aura, for 
 country wenches, and persuade them to find shelter. In 
 the manner of the usual wild gallant they make love and 
 propose that the girls become their mistresses. Flora pre- 
 sents to Hartwell a serious statement of the reasons why 
 it would be unwise for her to do so, and he marries her. 
 Modely, however, scoffs at him and tries to force Aura. 
 In a Restoration Comedy she might have remonstrated, 
 but at worst would probably have only called him a gay 
 dog, and considered the incident merely as a tribute to her 
 attractiveness. Here she slaps his face and calls for help. 
 Freeman, a country gentleman, arrives and denounces 
 Modely in good round terms. The latter puts up the 
 customary excuses of the Restoration hero —it is a custom 
 —he loves all women—and so forth and so forth. In- 
 stead of applauding this as an expression of liberal phi- 
 losophy, and pronouncing Modely a witty and charming 
 young man, Freeman tells him: “ You have broke every 
 virtue, and yet impudently imagine you are in the char- 
 acter of a gentleman,” thus merely reproducing Steele’s 
 remark that the famous hero of “Sir Fopling Flutter ”’ 
 was considered a type of the gentleman though he broke 
 all the laws of gentility. The significant fact is that the 
 audience of 1715 was taking pleasure in seeing the con- 
 ventional morality upheld, just as the audience in 1685 
 had taken pleasure in seeing it scoffed at. 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 221 
 
 To show that by 1725, the upper limit of this study, 
 the transformation of comedy was practically complete; 
 that in spite of sporadic reversions to type like the “ Beg- 
 gar’s Opera,” the plays of Fielding, and the burlesques 
 which led to the passing of the licensing Act of 1737, the 
 brilliant perversity of the old comedy had almost ceased 
 to exist, and that sentimentalism had become the prevail- 
 ing spirit, it will only be necessary to glance rapidly at 
 the twelve new comedies which appeared during the sea- 
 sons 1719-20 to 1725-6 inclusive.* 
 
 Several of the plays of this period, including by far the 
 most noteworthy, Steele’s ‘The Conscious Lovers,” reek 
 with sentiment, and not one is in the old spirit of cynical 
 abandon. The two which come nearest to the Restoration 
 spirit are Griffith’s “ Whig and Tory ” (1720), which, with- 
 out being particularly indecent, is not sentimental or 
 moralizing, and Mrs. Centlivre’s “The Artifice” (1722). 
 Mrs. Centlivre is hardly a sentimental dramatist. Her 
 personal predilections are for the good old days of Mrs. 
 Behn; but she knows that a bit of morality pleases her 
 generation, and so she adds a dash of maple sugar to the 
 spice, following the old tradition of making a hero a wild 
 gallant constantly engaged in dodging husbands and re- 
 pulsing mistresses, but satisfying the new taste by taking 
 on a moral conclusion. Face to face with a cast-off mis- 
 tress, the hero offers her a one-third share in his affections, 
 and she refuses. Then with that strange susceptibility to 
 conversion which began to manifest itself in rakes about 
 the year 1700, he is about to turn honorable when she 
 tells him that, anticipating no such conclusion, she has 
 just given him poison. The fear of matrimony is allayed 
 by the prospect of death, and he agrees to atone for past sins 
 
 1 A Wife to be Let has already been discussed. I have not been 
 able to find The Impertinent Lovers mentioned but not seen by 
 Genest. 
 
222 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 by marrying her. Of course the draught turns out not to be 
 fatal and the couple are left to live happily ever after, or at 
 least as happily as the reader can imagine them to have. 
 The prologue calls attention to the noble example proclaim- 
 ing: 
 
 “You tender virgins and neglected wives, 
 For you, she all her artifice contrives.” 
 
 Richardson was by no means the first to consider marriage 
 to a rake a suitable reward for virtue, for the history of 
 sentimentalism is full of such artifices. 
 
 Smythe’s ‘The Rival Modes,” Sturme’s “ The Compro- 
 mise,” and Odingsell’s ‘‘ The Capricious Lovers ” are com- 
 pletely innocent and terribly dull; while Thomas Southern 
 boasts (perhaps not wholly justifiably) of his ‘“‘ Money the 
 Mistress ” that “ ’tis fram’d on the model of Terence, and 
 as comedies ought to be, not to do harm; the characters 
 in nature, the manners instructive of youth, and at least 
 becoming sixty and six, the age of the writer. I have 
 punish’d infidelity in the lover and falseness in the 
 friends.” Leigh’s ‘‘ Kensington Gardens” again presents 
 the heroine who conceals her fortune in order to be sure 
 that she is loved for herself alone; and the concluding tag 
 adds another voice to the chorus which was endeavoring to 
 drown in a praise of matrimony the cynical views which 
 the Restoration wit had expressed of this subject. It runs: 
 
 “Let roving minds, vain empty joys pursue, 
 And court loose pleasures only, cause they’re new: 
 Let others by vile arts their ends obtain, 
 And try by falsehoods their desires to gain: 
 Man’s chiefest bliss, this night’s success does prove, 
 Is truth, and constancy, and virtuous love.” 
 
 In “The Bath Unmask’d” Odingsell registers a sort of 
 general protest against the conventional stage morals of 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 223 
 
 the Restoration which he embodies in the person of Pander, 
 while he takes as his hero a very sedate young man in 
 whom love has not only ceased to be animal but has grown 
 more or less into that “ esteem” of which we hear so much 
 in the eighteenth century. ‘ Virtue is the incentive of 
 love,’ says he; and when Pander expresses a seventeenth- 
 century commonplace thus: ‘Constancy is a crying sin 
 against the law of nature, because it tends to monopoly, 
 which robs others of that perfection which each has an 
 equal right to,” the virtuous hero is content to let who will 
 be clever and replies only: “ This is villainous scandal, 
 and I’ll not believe it.” In the end he slights his former 
 mistress (in the most innocent sense, of course) to marry 
 her younger sister because the former has imbibed too 
 much esprit from Pander. Yet Congreve was still alive. 
 
 Similarly, Welsted’s “The Dissembled Wanton” pre- 
 sents the hero as prig rather than the hero as rake. When 
 it is suggested that he appear, for strategic purposes, to 
 make love to some one not the object of his affections, he 
 replies: ‘Make love to one I have no love for, nor any 
 desire to obtain! Will that be honorable, dear Severne? 
 I may possibly win the young lady’s affections.” Wishing 
 to try the virtue of the object of his heart, he proposes 
 an irregular union. And she, planning to escape somehow, 
 agrees on the condition that he tell her the truth about a 
 rumor which credits him with an amour with another 
 woman. Of course the rumor is calumny, but the young 
 man, far from being enthralled as a Restoration hero would 
 have been with the idea of having his mistress without the 
 necessity of submission to the matrimonial yoke, is ap- 
 palled by her too great generosity and exclaims: “ Fall’n 
 from her bright orb of imnocence, and her great soul 
 level’d with vice,” and again: “ Oh, virgin honor! Oh, 
 spotless virtue. Have you a real being or do you subsist 
 
224 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 only in sound?” One wonders what one of Mrs. Behn's 
 heroines would have said to such a lover. 
 
 Steele’s “The Conscious Lovers” I have left to the last. 
 It assumes a position of primary importance because of 
 the extraordinary success which it achieved, and because 
 the author evidently intended it to be a telling blow 
 against the old comedies. The play is too well known to 
 require an elaborate discussion. The hero Bevil, a kind- 
 hearted gentleman and romantic lover, is intended to be 
 a sort of a model gentleman of the new and reformed 
 school; and the prologue, written for a performance of the 
 play at the College at Dublin, shows that he was thought 
 of as a sort of contrast to the hero of Sir Fopling Flutter, 
 the model gentleman of the old school. The plot, taken 
 from Terence, involves the familiar situation of the dis- 
 covery of a long-lost daughter, and concludes with a scene 
 of tender and almost tearful joy such as the sentimentalist 
 liked to offer instead of a comic dénouement. Dennis, 
 Steele’s inveterate enemy, makes fun of the care which 
 the latter took to insure the success of this crowning effort 
 and final plea for the new comedy. Advertisements, he 
 says,' have been sent to newspapers, saying that in the 
 opinion of excellent judges the comedy then in rehearsal 
 is the best that ever came upon the English stage; and he 
 remarks that “His play has traveled as far as Edinburgh 
 northward, and as far as Wales westward, and has been 
 read to more persons than will be at the representation of 
 it, or vouchsafe to read it, when it is published.” Indeed, 
 as early as 1720, Steele had spoken in “ The Theater ”’ of 
 ‘““a friend of mine who has lately prepared a comedy ac- 
 cording to the just laws of the stage,’ and in “ Mist’s 
 
 Weekly Journal” (Nov. 18, 1721) it is noted that “Sir . 
 
 Richard Steele proposes to represent a character upon the 
 1A Defense of Sir Fopling Flutter. 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 225 
 
 stage this season that was never seen there yet; his Gentle- 
 man has been two years a dressing, and we wish he may 
 make a good appearance at last.” ? 
 
 Steele took care that ‘The Conscious Lovers ”’ should be 
 understood to be not merely a play but also one more 
 protest against the Restoration Comedy; for he prefaced 
 it with a discussion in which he declared that its “ chief 
 design”? was to be an innocent performance, and boasted 
 of its ethical purpose by writing: ‘“ The whole was writ 
 for the sake of the scene of the fourth act, where Mr. 
 Bevil evades the quarrel with his friends.’”’ Its importance 
 as a triumph for sentimentalism was recognized by Dennis, 
 who directed pamphlets against it; by Benjamin Victor, 
 who befriended it; and by George I, who gave Steele a 
 handsome present in recognition of the play’s service in 
 contributing to the reform of the stage. Its success was 
 immense, as it not only had a long initial run, but became 
 a favorite piece in the standard repertory, thus showing 
 that popular favor had swung definitely to the sentimental 
 drama. It may indeed be taken as marking the final 
 victory of the new type. As the survey of comedy from 
 1720 to_1725 has shown, sentimentalism now dominated 
 the stage. 
 
 The method which we chose to select plays for comment 
 has its disadvantages. It has necessitated the mention of 
 many pieces of little importance, and the omission of some 
 intrinsically good ones by Farquhar, Vanbrugh, and Mrs. 
 Centlivre, but it has achieved our immediate purpose in 
 demonstrating the steps by which a change came over Eng- 
 lish dramatic writing. Emphatically, a marked change 
 did take place, beginning just before Collier’s attack on 
 the stage, and continuing until it had transformed the pre- 
 vailing tradition. Of course it was not abrupt. Congreve 
 
 1G. A. Aitken. Introduction to Mermaid ed. of Steele’s Plays. 
 
226 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 did not immediately cease to be Congreve, and the old 
 school did not immediately cease to have followers, yet 
 the change was, as such things go, rather surprisingly rapid. 
 As early as 1696 there could be observed some tendency to 
 moderate the tone of comedy. The authors were, perhaps, 
 not quite so anxious to be indecent, and their heroes were 
 probably not quite so hard or so base. Certainly such a 
 change is observable shortly after 1696, and it progresses 
 until by 1725 indecency was the exception rather than the 
 rule, and the rake had ceased to be the model of perfec- 
 tion. The new elements of sentiment, emotion, and con- 
 scious moralizing had also entered, and gradually became 
 more and more prominent until the typical play was more 
 likely to be idealistic, moralizing, and lachrymose than 
 cynical, perverse, and intellectual. 
 
 It must not be forgotten, however, that though new 
 plays had ceased to follow the old tradition, still the old 
 ones continued to be popular. The number of new plays 
 produced per year was usually not very large, and the 
 actors were forced to depend upon a tried repertory to 
 which new plays were added as soon as they were shown 
 to have an abiding popularity. The new theories con- 
 cerning propriety, though they influenced so markedly the 
 new dramatic output, did not prevent the continued 
 popularity of the best of the old plays. The following 
 table will illustrate this fact by showing the number of 
 performances of certain popular plays which occurred 
 during representative seasons of the first quarter of the 
 eighteenth century. From it, it will be seen that while 
 such sentimental plays as ‘“ Love’s Last Shift,” “ The 
 Tender Husband,” ‘‘The Careless Husband,” and “ The 
 Fair Quaker of Deal” established themselves in lasting 
 
 favor, nevertheless such plays as the lascivious ‘“ The | 
 
 Rover” of Mrs. Behn, Crown’s “Sir Courtly Nice” (for 
 
 RE 2S See = se a ee 
 
Aa eto, Sei 
 
 - 
 4 
 
 Careless Husband......... 16* 
 
 et 
 
 . » 
 - 
 
 > 
 
 yo 
 »——Man of Mode... .*». ater 
 
 S=<lender Husband... -...... 
 
 - Fair Quaker of Deal... 2/4 nf 1 
 
 Plain Dealer... .i¥%.... 
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 224 
 
 expressions in which the actors had been arrested), ‘ Sir 
 Fopling Flutter” (Steele’s béte noir) as well as other 
 typical Restoration plays continued to be popular.* 
 
 SEASON * | 1704-5 |1709-10}1714—15}1719-20) 1724-25 
 
 Number of Performances 
 during Season 
 (Approximate) 
 
 Amphytrion 20! ). Rah. -. 
 
 3 
 6 
 fommittee. A/G Mink... . 
 Constant Couple.......... 2 
 
 asove for Love... . .d«o07.. 
 move In & lub... too aw... 
 Love’s Last Shift. 2 ro" 
 
 Old Bachelor. ...Go... .. 
 
 OW We Or OO 
 
 Recruiting Officer......... 
 elapse 08. OAR 
 Re TORE 
 She Would if She Could... 
 Sir Courtly Nice. .. 220... 
 Squire of Alsatia......... 
 
 NORE UAUNDOWWNOHDAAKRWW 
 Nee NRK OWOPRWHReE NOOWH © 
 WWNEMORORWWOSOKHRORW 
 ye ee ee ee 
 
 DOPWWWW: 
 
 * 
 
 * Indicates Premier Performance. 
 
 1 A complete theatrical record for this period has never been 
 
 published. This table is compiled from a manuscript calendar 
 
 which is almost complete. It was made by Frederick Laterille and 
 bequeathed to the British Museum. It is no doubt only approxi- 
 mately correct, but it is suggestive. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 
 
 WHILE the controversy over the purely moral aspects of 
 the drama was going on, general literary criticism was con- 
 tinuing to develop in the different directions indicated in 
 a previous chapter, and was constantly increasing in bulk 
 and prominence. The great achievements of the period — 
 such as Congreve’s discussion of the Pindaric Ode, Addi- 
 son’s criticism of Paradise Lost and Chevy Chase, and the 
 Shakespearian scholarship of Rowe, Pope, and Theobald 
 —are well known, but there was restless critical activity 
 in other fields. Spenser was edited, and ballads were 
 collected. Translations from the French continued to ap- 
 pear, while Dennis, Gildon, and others wrote additional 
 heavy treatises. But here once more we are concerned 
 only with pointing out the greatly increasing interest in 
 literary criticism which reveals itself in the abundance of 
 trifling catch-penny publications as well as in those serious 
 works which have found a place in literary history. Popu- 
 lar literary biography began with a series of last wills and 
 testaments satirized by Addison. ‘“ There is,” he says, 
 ‘““a race of men lately sprung up—-whom one cannot 
 reflect upon without indignation as well as contempt. 
 They are our Grub-street biographers, who watch for the 
 death of a great man like so many undertakers, on pur- 
 pose to make a penny of him. He is no sooner laid in his 
 grave, but he falls into the hands of an historian; who, to 
 swell a volume, ascribes to him works which he never 
 
 1 “The Freeholder” No. 35. April 20, 1716. 
 228 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 229 
 
 wrote, and actions which he never performed; celebrates 
 virtues which he was never famous for, and excuses faults 
 4 which he was never guilty of. They fetch their only au- 
 _ thentic records out of Doctors Commons, and when they 
 have got a copy of his last Will and Testament, they 
 fancy themselves furnished with sufficient materials for 
 ‘ his history.” These little books deserve Addison’s con- 
 tempt, but they illustrate the growing public interest in 
 ; literature. Pamphlets on individual plays continue to ap- 
 i pear, and journalistic criticism takes a more and more 
 ; prominent part. In the journal “The Freeholder” we 
 | have a number of dramatic reviews not differing much in 
 % scope or character from the criticisms with which one is 
 d familiar today. 
 
 Criticism had established with literature a rapport which 
 made the controversy concerning the moral function of 
 the stage more rapidly effective. It is not to be under- 
 stood, of course, that the drama would not have changed 
 without criticism. The change was inevitable, since it > 
 was part of a great movement expressing itself everywhere 
 life. Still the existence of a rapport between literature 
 and a criticism whose fundamental tenets played into the 
 ands of the moralist made it possible for the drama to 
 respond much more readily to popular demands than would 
 otherwise have been possible. Nor is it probable that, 
 without criticism, the new drama would have taken just 
 the form which it did. As has already been pointed out, 
 Restoration Comedy could have been purified without the 
 addition of the sentimental element, but this and the other 
 distinguishing characteristics of the Sentimental Comedy 
 were encouraged by the development, of their theoretical 
 basis in criticism. The Elizabethan drama was of spon- 
 taneous growth, with no theory behind it. Every feature _ 
 of the Sentimental Comedy, on the other hand, was sup- © 
 
230 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 ported by critical dogmas which developed along with it. 
 Perhaps its own essential badness would have condemned — 
 
 it to an early death had not criticism “ proved ” that it was 
 good. 
 
 An interesting illustration of the influence of criticism 
 on popular taste may be seen in the case of Addison’s 
 “Cato,” the success of which has always seemed rather 
 strange to modern readers. It is not a good play. Nor 
 
 is it the sort of thing that the English public has ever 
 
 taken to naturally. Its success has been partially ex- 
 plained on the basis of its supposed application to the 
 politics of the day, but this is not all. It was a success 
 ,also because it fulfilled the requirements set by the now 
 popular criticism for a good tragedy. That it should please 
 was secondary. A tragedy, said the critics, must be regu- 
 lar, and, above all, must be instructive — must be a sugar- 
 coated pill of philosophy. These conditions ‘ Cato” 
 fulfilled, and consequently it was incumbent upon the 
 public to be pleased. As one writer in discussing this play 
 put it,? “the rules and what pleases are never contrary to 
 each other.” ‘ Cato,” he adds, is consonant with the rules 
 and so if it does not please this is the fault of the spectator 
 and not of the piece. At least five separate pamphlets 
 were called forth by the play.? 
 
 Dennis, it is true, wrote against it but he never thinks 
 of questioning the rules. He attacks “Cato” on the 
 grounds that it does not satisfy critical requirements. 
 
 1 Cato Examined. Anon. 1713. 
 
 2 Remarks upon Cato, etc. By Dennis. 1713; A Vindication of 
 the English Stage, exemplified in the Cato of Mr. Addison. Anon. 
 1713; Cato Examined. Anon. 1713; Mr. Addison turn’d Tory ... 
 wherein it is made to appear that the Whigs have misunderstood 
 that author in his tragedy ...to which are added, some cursory 
 
 remarks upon the play wtself. Anon. 1713; Observations upon Cato. 
 [W. Sewell] 1713. 
 
rr i = 
 
 | 
 ) 
 | 
 
 . 
 
 THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 231 
 
 Love should not have been introduced; and, above all, it 
 fails because it does not satisfy the requirements of poetic 
 justice. It shows Cato a blameless man brought to a 
 tragic end, and therefore has an immoral tendency, because 
 people should be taught that the virtuous are rewarded. 
 
 All this seems far enough from a modern attitude to- 
 wards literature; but it will help to make clear the im- 
 portance which critical theory had in moulding popular 
 taste of this period. The hack writer George Sewell wrote 
 a pamphlet called “A Vindication of the English Stage 
 Exemplified in the Cato of Mr. Addison,” in which his 
 enthusiasm cannot contain itself within the limits of prose 
 and ends with a burst of verse as follows: 
 
 “ Britons, with lessen’d wonder, now behold 
 Your former wit, and all your bards of old; 
 Jonson out-vi’d in his own way confess, 
 And own that Shakespeare’s self now pleases less.” 
 
 An Elizabethan audience would not have been so fooled. 
 It would have recognized immediately the lifelessness of 
 “Cato” and there would have been an end of it; but to 
 the Queen Anne audience it had been demonstrated by 
 logic absolute that ‘“‘ Cato” was a good play and there- 
 fore must be admired. 
 
 A sufficient number of quotations from prologues, epi- 
 logues, prefaces, and dedications was given in the preced- 
 
 ing chapter to illustrate how self-conscious was the 
 movement for a reformed drama, and how constantly the \ 
 
 playwrights appealed to their audience to note that the 
 play about to be presented or read complied with the new 
 ideas of stage morality and hence had a right to favor. 
 I wish now to examine the theory of sentimental comedy 
 as expounded by its practitioners. 
 
 Cibber, no doubt, was the first to seize the idea of the 
 
232 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 practical value of sentimentalism, and since ‘“ Love’s Last 
 Shift” came before the Collier controversy, it is evident 
 that the need which Cibber met could not be directly 
 traced to Collier, but that it existed before Cibber and 
 Steele made their successful efforts to meet it. Throughout 
 his long career Cibber never ceased to preach as well as 
 practice the principles of the new drama, and he was con- 
 stantly pointing out that his plays were conscious at- 
 tempts to meet its demands. He proclaimed that “The 
 Careless Husband” was written in answer to “ the best 
 criticks,” who “have long and justly complain’d, that 
 the coarseness of most characters in our late comedies have 
 been unfit entertainments for people of quality, especially 
 the ladies.” He adds: “I was long in hopes, that some 
 able pen (whose expectation did not hang upon the profits 
 of success) wou’d generously attempt to reform the town 
 into a better taste, than the world generally allows ’em: 
 But nothing of that kind having lately appear’d, that 
 wou'd give me an opportunity of being wise at another’s 
 expence, I found it impossible any longer to resist the 
 secret temptation of my vanity, and so ev’n struck the first 
 blow myself.” ‘A play without a just moral,” he says 
 elsewhere,t “is a poor and trivial undertaking; and ’tis 
 from the success of such pieces, that Mr. Collier was fur- 
 nish’d with an advantageous pretense of laying his un- 
 merciful axe to the roots of the stage.” Accordingly, 
 “The Lady’s Last Stake” has a moral, the evil of gam- 
 bling; and the purpose of the play, he declares, is answered 
 if one person is reformed. Similarly, “ The Non-Juror” 
 is an attempt to remove prejudice and to show “ what 
 honest and laudable uses may be made of the theater, 
 when its performances keep close to the true purposes 
 of its institution”; and as for the “ Provok’d Hus- 
 1 Dedication to The Lady’s Last Stake. 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 233 
 
 band,” “the design of this play [is] chiefly to expose, and 
 reform the irregularities that, too often break in upon 
 the peace and happiness of the married state.” In com- 
 pleting Vanbrugh’s posthumous fragment “ The Provok’d 
 Husband,” he assures us that Vanbrugh himself had been 
 convinced of the error of his former ways, and intended 
 this play to be strictly moral—even to go so far as to 
 show the erring wife banished from her home. However, 
 finding this too severe for comedy, Cibber has fallen back 
 upon the device of repentance and reform and given the 
 play a happy ending. Of Vanbrugh himself he says: 
 “ At length, he own’d, that plays should let you see 
 Not only, what you are, but ought to be; 
 
 Tho’ vice was natural, twas never meant 
 The stage should shew it, but for punishment.” 
 
 —-) 
 
 \To Steele, however, belongs whatever credit may attach 
 to the position of foremost theoretical advocate of the new 
 comedy. His exposition encouraged its development, and 
 to him we must turn for its most complete apologia. He 
 too was perfectly conscious of his purpose and set himself 
 definitely to his task. Nor did he regard himself as an 
 innovator. He acknowledged his debt to Collier, of whom 
 he proclaimed himself “a great admirer,’ * and in the pro- 
 logue to the “ Lying Lover ” he recognized the spirit of his 
 age and asked for favor: 
 
 If then you find our author treads the stage 
 With just regard to a reforming age. 
 
 He wished simply to throw his influence on the side of a 
 movement whose existence he recognized.) 
 
 His first play, “ The Funeral,” is harlily a sentimental 
 comedy, but in each of the others he proclaims his pre- 
 vailing intention. ‘“ The Lying Lover” was an attempt 
 
 1 Mr. Steele’s Apology for Himself and his Writings. 1714. 
 
234 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 to write comedy ‘ which might be no improper entertain- 
 ment in a Christian commonwealth.” In ‘ The Tender 
 Husband” he was careful, he says, to avoid everything 
 that might look “ill-natured, immoral, or prejudicial to- 
 ~ ward what the better part of mankind holds sacred and 
 honorable; ”’ while as for “ The Conscious Lovers,” “the 
 chief design of this was to be an innocent performance.” 
 So firmly did he believe that the fundamental function of 
 the drama was instruction that he had no objection to a 
 .. state censorship even though that censorship were con- 
 du.ted from a political standpoint. It ought to be the 
 aim of every government, he says, to see that public 
 spectacles are agreeable to the law, religion, and manners 
 of the country in which they are produced and to take 
 care that their teaching is in agreement with the govern- 
 ment’s policy. When he petitioned King George for a 
 theatrical patent, he based his claim upon his position 
 as areformer. ‘ Your petitioner,” he says, “ by writing the 
 comedy of ‘The Conscious Lovers,’ has found by experi- 
 ence that more regular and virtuous entertainment would 
 take place, if he had duration of time in which to estab- 
 lish rules and make contracts: accordingly.” + 
 
 There was no doubt as to his fitness for the task which 
 he set himself. If the stage was to be ‘“ reformed,” it 
 must be through the leadership of some one who had the 
 sympathy of the cultured and liberal part of mankind. The 
 theater-going public must be met half-way. Collier had 
 been an excellent awakener, but his extreme views made 
 
 1 British Museum. Add. Mss. 32, 685. It is to be noted that 
 Steele had no conception whatever of the value of that critical 
 spirit which is generally supposed to be the chief virtue of modern 
 literature. To him, morality, religion, and policy were simple 
 things concerning which there could be no legitimate difference of 
 
 opinion, and his idea of a perfect dramatic literature was one 
 completely orthodox in all particulars. 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 235 
 
 him useless except as an agitator. Over him Steele had an | 
 immense advantage. In the first place, being a wit, a 
 dramatist, and a man of letters, Steele belonged to the 
 class he was attacking, and was not, like Collier, a com- 
 plete outsider and hence at a tremendous disadvantage. 
 Secondly, being a man of the world, he could differentiate 
 between those things which practically all decent men 
 would agree in considering objectionable and those things 
 which could offend only fanatics like Collier, Bedford, and 
 the rest. Accordingly, when he makes an attack on a play 
 he chooses one obviously corrupt like “Sir Fopling 
 Flutter,” instead of confusing the issue by exercising in- 
 genuity to find offense in doubtful instances. All this was 
 necessary. The early eighteenth century was a reforming 
 age, but it was also a polished age; and the time was past 
 when people were willing to follow the leadership of 
 pedantic Puritans of the type of Gosson and Prynne. 
 Steele’s generation was opposed to the licentiousness of 
 the court of Charles II, but it had no intention of being 
 dragged back into fanaticism. Prynne and Gosson could 
 cause the theater to be closed, but they could not modify 
 the Elizabethan drama. By establishing a rapport be- 
 tween esthetics and morality in criticism, Cibber, Steele, 
 and others were able to produce a new comedy. 
 
 At least from the time of the performance of “ The 
 Lying Lover” to that of ‘The Conscious Lovers,” Steele 
 kept up a constant propaganda in favor of the reformed . 
 stage by writing plays which illustrated what he demanded 
 and by publishing in his periodicals little articles in which 
 he praised or blamed current dramatic works in accordance 
 with his principles, and unobtrusively laid down and de- 
 fended ‘the theoretical basis of sentimental comedy. Quo- 
 tations from the ‘“ Spectator” have a double significance. 
 They show, on the one hand, how Steele was, in a measure, 
 
236 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 leading public opinion. On the other hand, since the paper 
 was so enormously popular, he must have been, when he 
 was not leading, at least giving expression to ideas already 
 half formulated in the minds of his readers. Though he 
 did not initiate either the moral movement or the idea of 
 sentimentality, yet his contemporaries as well as subse- 
 quent generations were accustomed to look at him as the 
 center of influence. Cibber testifies to his success, saying 
 that scarcely a member of the theatrical company had not 
 been improved by “The Tatler” and that “many days 
 had our house been particularly fill’d by the influence and 
 credit of his pen.” * According to Gay,’ he was the first to 
 show that ‘“ anything witty could be said in praise of the 
 marriage state,” or that ‘‘ devotion or virtue were anywhere 
 necessary — to the character of a fine gentleman.” ® 
 Steele was not without some opposition. The old com- 
 edy had a violent supporter in John Dennis, who came 
 into ill-tempered conflict with him; but the greatest mem- 
 ber of the old school, Congreve, retired from: dramatic 
 writing and remained respected but silent. Congreve was 
 a genius and he was not opposed to decency, but he had too 
 keen an insight not to be conscious of the absurdities into 
 which the new style comedy was drifting, and he was too 
 much of an artist not to regret them. He realized that he 
 was out of the spirit of the times, and hence he held his 
 peace. One wishes that he had written fully what he 
 thought, but we must be content with a sentence, which, 
 however, reveals much. To Joseph Kealley, Esquire, of 
 Dublin, he writes from London on December 9, 1704: 
 ‘“Cibber has produced a play [no doubt the wonderful 
 
 1 Apology. 
 
 2 Character of Steele. 1729. 
 
 8 See also Steele’s discussion of plays in Town Talk. Nos. 1, 2, 
 6 (1714). 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 237 
 
 “Careless Husband ”’], consisting of fine gentlemen and 
 fine conversation altogether; which the ridiculous town for 
 the most part likes; but there are some that know better.” ? 
 Congreve had outlived his age, but he knew how to keep 
 silent. : 
 
 It is to the ‘ Discourse upon Comedy in reference to 
 the English Stage” (1702), by Farquhar, the last of the 
 old school, that we must look for the best exposition of the © 
 principles of Restoration Comedy. He finds in his unhappy 
 age that poor comedy is attacked on all sides. The scholar 
 calls out for decorum and economy, the courtier for wit 
 and purity of style, and the citizen for humor and ridicule, 
 while the clergy damns the theater for immorality. How- 
 ever willing he may be, the unfortunate poet cannot please 
 all. If he sets out to write according to the rules, he will 
 bore his audience so completely that it will seek other 
 amusements among the masks of the pit; and so “ tho’ the 
 play be as regular as Aristotle, and modest as Mr. Collier 
 cou’d wish, yet it promotes more lewdness in the conse- 
 quence, and procures more effectively for intrigue than 
 any Rover, Libertine, or old Batchelour whatsoever.” 
 
 Lay aside the rules, he says, and look at the institution 
 of comedy. He defines itas.a‘“well-fram’d tale hand- 
 somely told, as an agreeable vehicle for counsel and re- 
 
 proof,’ which "seems~conciliating enough to Dennis, Steele» / 
 
 and their like; but let us note his application. He finds that 
 Congreve’s “Old Bachelor” has an _ excellent moral. 
 “ Fondlewife and his young spouse are no more than the 
 eagle and cockle; he wanted teeth to break the shell himself, 
 so somebody else run away with the meat —here are pre- 
 cepts, admonitions and salutary innuendos for the ordering 
 of our lives and conversations couch’d in the allegories 
 and allusions.” In other words, says Farquhar, the 
 1 Interary Relics. George Monck-Berkley. 
 
238 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 moral is that if an old man marries a young wife he must 
 not be surprised if she is unfaithful to him. Truly this is 
 a moral, but not one which would have pleased Steele, 
 who would have been more anxious to reprove the moral 
 delinquency of the wife. Yet the fable does carry a 
 lesson. It does illustrate forcibly a truth. The best 
 Restoration comedies, such as those of Wycherley and 
 Congreve, do this constantly. They are not moral in the 
 sense of striving much to raise the ethical standard, but 
 like all good art they give information concerning the 
 life which they depict and to that extent are instructive 
 in worldly wisdom. But with such instruction Steele was 
 not satisfied. Like Collier and the other moralists he 
 wanted the drama to teach an ideal. Wycherley and Con- 
 greve were wise men. ‘They understood the life of their 
 time, they knew a good deal of human nature, and they 
 illustrated its principles in the actions of their characters, 
 but they made no attempt to improve it. As the author 
 of the “ Letter to Mr. Congreve, etc.” points out, the real 
 moral of ‘ Love for Love ” is contained in the tag: 
 
 “The miracle today is, that we find 
 A lover true: Not that a woman’s kind.” 
 
 This is indeed a pointed truth and hence in one sense a 
 genuine moral. Farquhar was making a plea for the recog- 
 nition of the value of such worldly instruction. When he 
 says that comedy teaches, it is evident that he does not 
 mean that it teaches abstract virtue, but merely that it 
 teaches prudence or, to put it more broadly, savoir vivre. 
 
 Steele insisted that. literature should inspire a desire for 
 ideal excellence, a thing which Restoration Comedy had 
 never attempted and which, indeed, Sentimental Comedy, 
 as anyone who will read it may see, failed lamentably to 
 accomplish. It wished to express an idealism, but it did 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 239 
 
 not succeed in embodying that idealism in any form capa- 
 ble of appealing to a sophisticated generation. Two cen- 
 turies have agreed that Restoration Comedy could not be 
 expected to elevate human nature in any way, but have 
 recognized its success within the limits which it proposed 
 itself. Sentimental Comedy attempted, perhaps,.a—nobler 
 task, but it failed because of an error in method. Anxious 
 to recommend virtue, it insisted that virtue be given * 
 material success and that, concretely, the honorable young | 
 man should infallibly marry an heiress. But in so doing it | 
 produced plays which were false. comedy. because they 
 were false to life. Neither the old comedy nor the new 
 can be said to have taught virtue, the first because it did 
 not make virtue attractive, and the second because, not 
 content with making virtue attractive, it insisted on mak- 
 ing it necessarily successful. Since every one recognized 
 the non-sequitur of this relationship which the dramatist 
 had established between uprightness and success, no one 
 was edified. 
 
 Let us turn now to a consideration of Steele’s theory of 
 the drama. 
 
 The most obviously just charge that could be brought 
 against Restoration Comedy was that it introduced what 
 Collier called “smut.” The Restoration audience liked 
 it, and the poorer writers used it as their chief stock in 
 trade, while even the best fell back upon it occasionally. 
 Collier said that the dramatist used smut “as the old ones 
 did machines to relieve a failing invention.” + And Steele 
 follows him.? Most writers, he says, have fallen back upon 
 it occasionally, and he observes that “it is remarkable 
 that the writers of least learning (Mrs. Behn and Mrs. 
 Pix) are best skilled in the luscious way.” He himself 
 
 1 Short View. 
 2 Spectator, No. 51. 
 
240 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 wishes first of all to be innocent. In the dedication to 
 ‘The Tender Husband” he writes to Addison: “I should 
 not offer it to you — had I not been careful to avoid every- 
 thing that might look ill-natured, immoral, or prejudicial 
 to what the better part of mankind holds sacred and honor- 
 able.” And he was not averse to revising even his own 
 works on the basis of his severe principles. A letter in 
 ‘Spectator ” 51 calls attention to the following speech from 
 “The Funeral ”: 
 
 Campley: Oh, that Harriot! To hold these arms about 
 the waist of the beauteous, struggling, and at last 
 yielding fair! ”’ 
 
 In the next edition the latter part of the speech was forth- 
 with expunged as being too “ luscious.”’ 
 
 The plea of the old dramatists had been that while of 
 course they represented vice on the stage, comedy was by 
 definition a picture of faulty people, and their characters 
 were held up to scorn rather than-admiration. Sometimes 
 such a plea was justified, but often, if made, it was obvi- 
 ously insincere, for much of the comedy dialogue consists 
 in nothing more than a flouting of all the principles of 
 conventional morality. Steele, like Collier, felt that smut 
 was not permissible under any circumstances, and of course 
 he rejected the insincere protestations of the dramatists, 
 recognizing that, for all they might say, the perverted in- 
 genuity of their characters represented too often the opin- 
 ions of themselves and their audience. In “ Spectator ” 525 
 he writes: “ Indeed, if I may speak my opinion of a great 
 part of the writings which once prevailed among us under 
 the notion of humor, they are such as would tempt one to 
 think there had been an association among the wits of 
 those times to rally legitimacy out of our island,” but as 
 for himself, ““I must confess it has been my ambition, in 
 the course of my writings, to restore, as well as I was able, 
 the proper ideas of things.” 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 241 
 
 The quotations just given represent the opinion of Steele, 
 not only upon the subject of smut, but also upon the kin- 
 dred subject of the bad man as hero or central character. 
 According to him, what one sees on the stage one tends to 
 imitate. If the characters talk smut, then the spectators 
 will talk smut; and if the central character is immoral, 
 then the spectators will tend to be immoral. The defense 
 of the old dramatist was the same in both cases. Comedy 
 must represent people as they are. Indelicacy is common 
 in contemporary life, therefore it must be common on the 
 stage. Many prominent men in life are bad, therefore 
 many heroes are bad. The dramatist must not be taken to 
 approve of all that he shows. The fact that his characters 
 talk smut does not mean that he approves of smut, and 
 when he makes a bad man a central character he intends 
 the picture to be satiric and the audience to avoid the 
 faults which are exhibited. | 
 
 Simple natures, however, have a not wholly unfounded 
 distrust of satire, which is indeed a dangerous weapon. 
 Whatever may be its purpose, it too often, as Dryden said 
 of his ‘‘ Limberham,” expresses the vices which it satirizes. 
 Steele would have no misunderstanding possible. There 
 must be no doubt as to what the dramatist intends. In 
 “Spectator ”’ 446 he writes: “ Whatever vices are repre- 
 sented upon the stage, they ought to be so marked and 
 branded by the poet, as not to appear laudable nor amiable 
 in the person who is tainted with them. But if we look into 
 the English comedies above mentioned, we would think 
 they were formed upon a quite contrary maxim, as if this 
 rule, though it held good upon the heathen stage, was not 
 to be regarded in Christian theaters.” It is not hard to 
 understand Steele’s protest. When the dramatists drew a 
 glittering picture of the young rake resplendent in his vices, 
 satire was often far from their minds; but to insist, as 
 Steele did, that all satire should be perfectly obvious so 
 
242 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 - that not even a Collier could misunderstand it as he had 
 misunderstood Vanbrugh’s picture of the-absurd Lord 
 Foppington, is to rob satire of its effectiveness; and so 
 while Steele’s requirements might make for morality, they 
 could hardly make for subtlety, and as a matter of fact the 
 typical Sentimental Comedy is childishly transparent: 
 
 If, said Collier and after him Steele, the Restoration 
 dramatists intended their pictures of young men about 
 town as satires, then they had been misunderstood, for 
 these heroes were commonly regarded by the audience as 
 models of perfect gentility. ‘“ The-truth of it is,” said 
 Steele,t “the accomplished gentleman upon the English 
 stage, is the person that is familiar with other men’s 
 wives, and indifferent to his own; as the fine woman is 
 generally, a composition of sprightliness and falsehoods — 
 I have often wondered that our ordinary poets cannot 
 frame to themselves the idea of a fine man who is not a 
 whore-master, or a fine woman that is not a jilt.” All 
 this, he said, repeating in more moderate language what 
 Collier had said before him, caused great mischief. The 
 frequent reflections on love and marriage which had been 
 heard from the mouths of the characters of comedy were 
 responsible for a great deal of the corrupt sentiment which 
 prevailed upon these subjects; for whatever the dramatist . 
 might pretend as to satire, “It is not every youth that 
 can behold the gentleman of the comedy represented with 
 a good grace, leading a loose and profligate life, and con- 
 demning virtuous affection as insipid, and not be made 
 secretly emulous of what appears so amiable to a whole 
 audience.” This evil was to be corrected in two ways: 
 first, by seeing that the bad man achieved failure and not 
 success in the end, and second, since the audience persisted 
 
 in regarding dramatic types as examples for imitation, by 
 cde 1 Spectator, 446. 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 243 
 
 presenting for such imitation images of virtue instead of 
 profligacy. 
 - Both of these suggestions ran counter to certain ideas 
 long prevalent. As far back as Jonson poetic justice had 
 been looked upon as somewhat out of place in comedy, 
 and the point had been brought up in the course of the 
 Collier controversy. The purpose of comedy, said Drake,* 
 is, indeed, to instruct by example; but it proceeds by 
 showing what should be avoided rather than what should 
 be imitated. And there must be no examples except for 
 caution. Vanbrugh had expressed the same idea more 
 fully.2 He has drawn, he says, the fine gentleman as he 
 appears in life. He has laid open his vices as well as his 
 virtues, and it is the business of the audience to observe 
 where the gentleman’s flaws lessen his value, and to see 
 how much finer a thing he would have been without them. 
 In theory, Vanbrugh was nearer right than Steele or 
 Collier. Comedy must present real and not ideal char- 
 ‘acters, but Restoration Comedy had not fairly laid open 
 virtues and vices. It had too often covered the faults of 
 its gallant heroes or represented vices so amiably that they 
 seemed virtues. A great drama might have been made by 
 throwing, as Vanbrugh suggests, the faults of a character 
 in relief by placing them side by side with his virtues; but 
 this the Restoration drama had not often done. In dis- 
 gust with the dramatic product of the preceding age, 
 Steele threw overboard its whole method, sound as it was, 
 and attempted to found.a new comedy on an impossible 
 principle. The ideally virtuous hero whom he wished to 
 set up must always appear as a perfect monster. 
 Disgusted as he was with the actual dramatic product 
 of the Restoration period, Steele was in no mood to con- 
 
 1 Ancient and Modern Stages Surveyed. 1699. 
 2 Short Vindication, etc. 
 
244 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 sider the soundness of its theory. In numerous papers in 
 the “Spectator” he attacked the old plays violently and laid 
 down the theory of a new sort of comedy, while in his 
 plays he illustrated how this theory might be put into 
 practice. When engaged on the destructive side, he wisely 
 picked out “ Sir Fopling Flutter ” as the particular object of 
 his wrath. It was a play of long-continued popularity, 
 and as he said, regarded as a type of genteel comedy. Yet 
 it was one of the very worst, and pretty well justified his 
 definition of it as a perfect contradiction of good manners, 
 good sense, and common honesty. The hero, as he says, is 
 a direct knave in his dealings and often a clown in his 
 language. He tries to marry his friend to a girl whom 
 he hopes afterwards to make his mistress, and he not only 
 deserts but reviles those women who have been foolish 
 enough to listen to his love-making in the past. 
 
 Dennis, a staunch upholder of the old comedy, wrote 
 ““A Defense of Sir Fopling Flutter” in reply to Steele 
 who, he says, admits that it represents nature but “nature 
 in its utmost corruption and degeneracy.” ‘“ But,’ Dennis 
 continues, “can anything but corrupt and degenerate 
 nature be the proper subject of ridicule? and can anything 
 but ridicule be the proper subject of comedy”? For 
 nearly half a century, he says, judges praised Sir Fopling 
 because it was found to “ answer the two ends of comedy, 
 pleasure and instruction.” Steele says that Dorimant is 
 not a fine gentleman. He was, says Dennis, a fine gentle- 
 man according to the idea of the time, as is proved by the 
 fact that he was so regarded. Steele, he says, in supposing 
 that the hero of this play is held up for imitation, shows 
 simply that he knows nothing of the rules of comedy, the 
 purpose of which is not to set up patterns of perfection 
 but to picture existing follies which we are to despise, 
 and to show that being done upon the comic stage which 
 
 ———— es 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 245 
 
 ought never to be done upon the stage of the world. Here 
 again Dennis was right so far as theory was concerned. 
 He put his finger upon the danger of Steele’s comedy, 
 which lay in the fact that by proposing examples of vir- 
 tue it was likely to cease to be either realistic or funny. But 
 in the case of the particular example, “ Sir Fopling Flutter,” 
 Steele was right. Dennis failed to see that in fact 
 Etherege’s comedy failed as lamentably as Steele’s to live 
 up to the rule which he was laying down; for its rakish hero 
 was presented in such a way that his vices seemed virtues 
 and he was indeed proposed and taken as an example of 
 the perfect man of pleasure. Steele saw all this perfectly 
 and he turned again to Etherege’s play as the most effec- 
 tive contrast for his own plays. 
 
 In an epilogue written for ‘“‘ Measure for Measure” he 
 says the nation is corrupt: 
 
 “ Else say, in Briton why shou’d it be heard, 
 That Etheredge to Shakespeare is preferr’d? 
 Whilst Dorimant to crowded audience wenches, 
 Our Angelo repents to empty benches: 
 
 ok *x * 2k * * K * 
 
 The perjur’d Dorimant the beaux admire; 
 
 Gay perjur’d Dorimant the belles desire: 
 
 With fellow-feeling, and well conscious gust, 
 Each sex applauds inexorable lust. 
 
 For shame, for shame, ye men of sense begin, 
 And scorn the base captivity of sin: 
 Sometimes at least to understanding yield 
 
 Nor always leave to appetite the field; 
 
 Love, glory, friendship languishing, must stand, 
 While sense and appetite have sole command; 
 Give man sometimes some force in the dispute, 
 Be sometimes rational, tho’ ofterer brute.” 
 
 And another time he represents the ghost of Sir Fopling 
 Flutter as appalled by the popular success of the more 
 
246 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 virtuous hero of “ The Conscious Lovers.” The ghost 
 speaks: + 
 
 “ Ladies, ye stare as if ye knew me not— 
 What! Can Sir Foppling be so soon forgot? 
 There was a time, when Dorimant and I, 
 Won every heart, and reign’d in every eye; 
 Till this new sot, this moralizing fool, 
 
 Had turn’d the theater into a school: 
 
 * * 2 * * * * * 
 
 Oh gentle George, if he had studied thee, 
 He wou’d have learnt to lard his comedy: 
 
 * * x * * K * * 
 
 His hero too— oh, ’tis a faithful swain, 
 
 As ever sigh’d upon Arcadian plain; 
 
 Loving and eke belov’d, of youth and beauty, 
 Yet wants to reconcile his love and duty. © 
 Oh! Etheridge, bard of easy, luscious vein, 
 Where are the heroes, of thy happy reign? 
 
 Old Roman heroes famous for undoing, 
 
 Who rais’d their characters on rape and ruin! 
 Thy Dorimant with nobler maxims blest, 
 
 Had made right use of innocence distressed; 
 Superior to reproach of guilt, or shame, 
 
 Had first enjoy’d and then despis’d the dame; 
 While thou his waste of fortune to repair, 
 Had crown’d his virtues with some wealthy fair. 
 Rise, mighty shade, nor let this upstart drone, 
 This puling moralist, usurp thy throne; 
 
 Once more assert thy juster empire here, 
 
 Till then, I take my leave—adieu mes cheres.” 
 
 There was no danger that the audience would fail to 
 realize the difference between the new comedy and the old. 
 
 The theories expressed in the quotation just given de- 
 mand a modification of the Restoration tradition in two 
 
 1 Prologue to The Conscious Lovers when played before the 
 gentlemen of the College of Dublin, 7th March, 1722. 
 
 ee han he & 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 247 
 
 ways: first, by the elimination of over-frankness whatever 
 its purpose; and second, by the introduction of the ideal 
 hero as a foil to the imperfect one. In making these de- 
 mands, however, Steele expressed nothing that was not 
 implicit in Collier. Like Collier, he had pointed out that 
 that old comedy was smutty and blasphemous, and that 
 the audience had taken as models for imitation characters 
 who were by no means perfect. 
 
 Steele’s original contribution consisted in the introduc- 
 tion of the element called sentiment, which, though new 
 in theory, was no invention of his. Cibber had stumbled 
 upon it in 1696, and the success of his play had shown 
 that it. appealed to an actual appetite of the audience. 
 Steele saw in it a useful element to replace the salt which 
 he extracted from the old formula, and proceeded to he 
 it a theoretical defense. sa 
 
 (Sentiment was totally out of place in Pesrcratinn Com- 
 edy with its fondness for a hard, intellectual and cruel 
 attitude. Comedy had concerned itself with the crimes 
 and follies of mankind, and regarded emotional idealism, 
 if existent, as at least outside its sphere of hard realism. 
 Drake*+ had put the case clearly when in speaking of 
 Etherege’s ‘‘ The Comical Revenge” he had said: ‘“ These 
 scruples of honor, and extravagancies of jealousy and de- 
 spair are unnatural on the comic stage,” and again: “ how- 
 ever brave and generous in action it appear, consider’d 
 simply in itself, it is a trespass against justice and pro- 
 priety of manners in that place” (ie., in comedy)) But 
 to make a place in comedy for ecstasies of jealousy and 
 despair, and for scenes illustrating heroism and the prin- 
 ciples of honor, was exactly the aim that Steele had. 
 “Anything,” he wrote, “that has its foundation in happi- 
 
 1 Ancient and Modern Stages Surveyed. 
 
248 COMEDY AND CONSCIRNCE 
 
 ness and success must be allowed to be the object of 
 comedy; and sure it must be an improvement of it to 
 friroduce a joy too exquisite for laughter.” * 
 
 Persuasive as this plea is, it contains the fatal germ of 
 | half of what is bad in Reiental Comedy. When com- 
 edy left the path of laughter to seek sentiment, it went 
 down and down until it not only ceased to be funny but 
 became maudlin. ’One does not know what to think of an 
 audience that would weep over “ Love’s Last Shift” 
 “The Conscious Lovers.” But we are told that ae cnnee 
 did so, and in referring to a performance of the latter 
 play Steele writes: ‘‘I must, therefore, contend that the 
 tears which were shed on that occasion flowed from reason 
 and good sense, and that men ought not to be laughed 
 at for weeping till we are come to a more clear notion 
 of what is to be imputed to the hardness of the head and 
 the softness of the heart.’”’ Modern criticism has decided 
 that the softness which results in such tears as these lies 
 in the head. 
 
 The device of the eleventh-hour or fifth-act repentance 
 became popular because it so perfectly fitted the require- 
 ments of the new comedy. The well-known difficulty of 
 devising intrigue for a perfect character was avoided by 
 making him fallible at first and perfecting him at the end 
 by means of remorse and repentance. Thus plot-making 
 was made easier, and in addition a splendid opportunity 
 was given for the introduction of tender scenes of forgive- 
 ness and reconciliation which were redolent with that joy 
 too deep for laughter. As is the case with all the devices 
 of Sentimental Comedy, Steele gave this one a theoretical 
 defense; and in the preface to “ The Lying Lover ” he gives 
 the moral of his action. Speaking of his hero, he says: 
 ‘Thus he makes false love, gets drunk, and kills his man; 
 
 1 Preface to The Conscious Lovers. 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 249 
 
 but in the fifth act awakes from his debauch, with the 
 compunction and remorse which is suitable to a man’s 
 finding himself in a gaol for the death of his friend, with- 
 out his knowing why. The anguish he there expresses, and 
 the mutual sorrow between an only child and a tender 
 father in that distress, are, perhaps, an injury to the rules 
 of comedy, but I am sure they are a justice to those of 
 morality.” 
 
 This is but another illustration of the fact that Senti- | 
 mental Comedy was not a spontaneous expression but a_ 
 machine-made product constructed in accordance with 
 definite rules. As such, it became necessarily stereotyped 
 and artificial, and the late-reform motif was so obviously 
 a mere convention that, as Fielding protested, the heroes 
 were often notorious rogues and the heroines abandoned 
 jilts during the first four acts and became respectively 
 worthy gentlemen and women of virtue at the end for no 
 other reason than that the play was drawing to a conclu- 
 sion. It is as natural, he said, for stage rogues to repent 
 in the last act_of a play as for real ones to be seized 
 with remorse in the last. hour_of.their lives. 
 
 Steele thought he had found in Latin comedy a justifica- 
 tion for his theory that laughter was not the chief business 
 of comedy. In “ Spectator’ 502 he discusses the question in 
 connection with a play of Terence. ‘ There is,” he says, 
 in ‘The Self-Tormenter’ a perfect picture of human life 
 but nothing to raise a laugh.” He notes that the famous 
 phrase ‘‘ Homo sum,” etc. is said to have created instanta- 
 neous applause in the Roman theater, but regrets that it 
 would not have done so had the words been spoken on an 
 English stage; for an English audience cares nothing for 
 the truths of simple human nature but prefers to laugh at 
 what is directly against common sense and honesty. Ac- 
 
 1 Tom Jones. Book VIII, Chap. 1. 
 
250 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 cordingly, when Steele determined to write a final illustra- 
 tion of all his theories, he went to Terence for the plot of 
 “The Conscious Lovers.” And he took care to warn the 
 public long beforehand that it was to see not merely a 
 play but an illustration of all that the stage, henceforth, 
 should aim to be. How carefully he advertised it in ad- 
 vance has already been shown in Chapter VIII. 
 
 \ The play was to make its principal appeal not to the 
 sense of the comic but to more serious emotions. Its 
 chief aim was to be innocent and to instruct by presenting 
 a picture of the perfect gentleman. The plain tendency 
 of such a comedy to upset the long-established but dying 
 English tradition was recognized immediately; and a little 
 controversy raged around it. Dennis, especially, attacked 
 it violently in “ Remarks on the Conscious Lovers ” (1728). 
 Whatever one may think of Dennis, he showed consider- 
 able penetration. and a tendency to go directly to the root 
 of the matter. Even before the appearance of ‘“ The Con- 
 scious Lovers” he had recognized Terence’s weakness on 
 the comic side,’ and in the pamphlet just referred to he 
 goes immediately to the point. Steele had said that his 
 chief design was to write an innocent performance. Dennis 
 thereupon points out that, while innocence may be a good 
 beginning, it is hardly a satisfactory chief design. He 
 points out so well the fact that Sentimental Comedy is 
 bad Comedy because it is not comedy at all that it is 
 worth while to quote him: 
 
 a When Sir Richard says, that anything that has its 
 in happiness and success must be the subject 
 —with that species of 
 tragedy_which has _ahappy catastrophe. When he says, 
 that ’tis an improvement of comedy to introduce a joy too 
 
 1 Original Letters, ete. 1721. 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 251 
 
 exquisite for laughter, he takes all the care that he can 
 to show that he knows nothing of the nature of comedy. 
 ... When Sir Richard talks of a joy too exquisite for 
 laughter, he seems not to know that joy, generally taken, 
 is common like anger, indignation, love, to all sorts of 
 poetry, to the epic, the dramatic, the lyric; but that 
 that kind of joy which is attended with laughter, is a 
 characteristic of comedy; as terror or compassion, accord- 
 ing as the one or the other is predominant, makes the 
 characteristic of tragedy, as admiration does of epic 
 poetry. 
 
 “When Sir Richard says, that weeping upon the sight 
 of a deplorable object is not a subject for laughter, but 
 that ’tis agreeable to good sense and to humanity, he says 
 nothing but what all the sensible part of the world has 
 already granted; but then all the sensible part of the 
 world have always deny’d, that a deplorable object is fit 
 to be shown in comedy. When Sir George Etherege, in 
 his comedy of ‘Sir Fopling Flutter,’ shows Loveit in all 
 the heights and violence of grief and rage, the judicious 
 poet takes care to give those passions a ridiculous turn by 
 the mouth of Dorimant.” | 
 
 The newspaper “ The Freeman’s Journal” attacks the 
 play twice, and on the first occasion devotes nearly three 
 columns to it.t It finds,? as a modern reader must find, 
 : that the hero is so perfect as almost to suggest burlesque, 
 and justly enough complains of the play: ‘there are more 
 tears than laughter produced by it.’”’ Like Dennis, too, the 
 critic of this newspaper sees the weakness of sentimental 
 comedy when he writes: 
 
 “We are told after, that anything that has its founda- 
 
 1 November 14, 1722. 
 2 November 28, 1722. 
 
Zoe COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 tion in happiness and success, must be allow’d to be the 
 subject of comedy; here we are equally at a loss in our 
 critic as in our comedian — 
 
 “For it is indisputably true, that some instances of 
 success and happiness may be of a kind too elevated, and 
 by consequence, very improper for comedy. 
 
 “We are likewise in very moving terms instructed, that 
 tears, which were shed in the case of the father and 
 daughter, flow’d from reason and good sense. It seems 
 that crying as well as laughing are marks of a reasonable 
 nature, and ought to specially enter the definition of a 
 Np timental comedy was not good comedy for the sim- 
 ple reason that it was not comedy at all; and it was not 
 good drama because of its artificiality and falsity. But 
 there was no doubt as to the popular success of “ The 
 Conscious Lovers.” It triumphed in spite of its plain 
 tendency, which Dennis and others pointed out, to upset 
 the comic tradition; and its triumph was a triumph for 
 the type. After it, plays like those by Fielding were only 
 sporadic anachronisms. There were protests, such as that 
 voiced by parson Adams when he remarked slyly that 
 Steele’s play contained some things almost solemn enough 
 for a sermon, or when Fielding wrote the still more 
 delightful scene in “Tom Jones”’ where the puppet show 
 is performed ‘“ with great regularity and decency,” being 
 only the fine and serious part of ‘‘ The Provok’d Husband ” 
 “without any low wit or humor, or jest, and performed 
 by a man whose discourse is only the necessity of rational 
 entertainment and the duty of every puppet-show to aim 
 chiefly at the improvement of the morals of the young.” 
 
 It was not until the time of Goldsmith and Sheridan 
 that an effective protest was set up, and even those two 
 writers by no means immediately killed the tradition, as 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 253 
 
 the complaints of Hazlitt will show. The triumph of 
 sentimental comedy was the triumph~of~ morality” and 
 criticism over_wit. Certainly morality was more powerful 
 than criticism, but morality was backed by the efforts of 
 the most influential dramatic critic of the time. From the 
 old criticism he took the idea of the moral end of literature 
 and made this idea dominant in his theories; but he was 
 careful, also, to give a critical justification, to all the new 
 elements which were introduced so that his audience 
 might indulge their moralistic tendencies with the further 
 satisfaction of feeling that they had the support of critical 
 theory. . 
 
 So just are many of the charges brought against Restora- 
 tion Comedy, and so persuasive are Steele’s pleas for a 
 comedy which would substitute ideals for cynicism, and 
 human emotion for heartless laughter, that if one reads 
 only the criticism and does not taste its fruit, one is 
 inclined to sympathize wholly with the reformers. But 
 one has only to read a few of the comedies of the early 
 eighteenth century to see how completely they failed, not 
 only to embody ideals, but to achieve readability. Nat- 
 urally one asks why. 
 
 Primarily, they were failures because their authors re- } 
 
 fused to recognize that a comedy cast in a realistic mould 
 
 must make some attempt to be true to actual character | 
 and events. An ideal world may be made convincing if | 
 
 the scene is laid in far-off time, or perhaps on the coast 
 of some unknown Bohemia, but if the action of a play 
 takes place in a contemporary drawing-room, it must bear 
 some sort of resemblance to what really takes place in such 
 a drawing-room. One can learn no lesson from the high 
 tone and the romantic nobility exhibited by the perfected 
 heroes of Steele or Cibber because one sees that they bear 
 no relation to the life which the comedy of manners pre- 
 
254 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 tends to depict. It is all very well to show the mag- 
 nanimous hero rewarded in the end by the discovery of 
 unexpected wealth in the possession of his true love; but 
 it gives no impulse to imitation, because the reader knows 
 that though he may behave as nobly as the hero he has 
 no reason to expect a similar prize, there being no con- 
 nection between virtuous action and fortuitous reward. 
 In other words, the whole theory of poetic justice, if 
 
 ' interpreted as childishly as the eighteenth century in- 
 
 terpreted it, is wrong. If men are to be encouraged to 
 seek virtue, one must show its real rewards by picturing 
 the inherent beauty of uprightness or the self-satisfaction 
 of conscious rectitude. But this the sentimentalist was 
 not content to do. He insisted on showing that virtue paid 
 in the material sense; and he made material prosperity its 
 reward, though all the world knew that such was not 
 necessarily the case. {Over all the drama of the period 
 there is the taint of falsity in language and sentiment, 
 for the dramatists did not believe the truth of what they 
 
 _ were writing. Under this tradition wit died, for the basis 
 
 of wit is a realization and recognition of the contrast be- 
 
 | tween ideals and reality, while the sentimentalist insisted 
 _ upon their identity. The new dramatist was so afraid of 
 reality that he could never give it the opportunity of a 
 
 _jest, and pungent observation disappears in false and com- 
 'placent morality. Humor comes to be considered as “ low,” 
 
 and Fielding asks in vain what his contemporaries mean, 
 pointing out that at any rate they have succeeded in 
 banishing all humor from the stage and have made the 
 theater as dull as a drawing room. 
 
 The Restoration comic dramatist, on the other hand, was 
 right in theory. He saw that a comedy of manners must 
 represent to a considerable extent the actual manners of 
 
 1 Tom Jones. Book V, Chap. 1. 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 255 
 
 its time, that it must be allowed a certain freedom of 
 satire, and that its action should be regulated to a con- 
 siderable extent by an observation of what actually takes 
 place in society. He distributed rewards and punishments 
 not according to any ideal system of morality but accord- 
 ing to probability, and realized that to be convincing he 
 must be worldly. He saw the fallacy of the perfect 
 monster as hero, and realized that characters must be pre- 
 sented with their beauties and blemishes in conflict and 
 that he must, in a word, show life rather as it is than as 
 it ought to be, and must rather depict than ignore vice. 
 But sound as it was in theory, Restoration Comedy has 
 shocked all succeeding generations; partly because it 
 mirrored Restoration life, which itself would have shocked 
 all subsequent generations, but partly also because the | 
 sound method of comedy was perversely used. The men 
 who wrote the plays were men of their age, and they 
 shared its vices. Sometimes they cynically pandered to a 
 corrupt taste which they did not wholly share, as in the 
 case of Dryden; while sometimes they were repulsive only 
 because they carefully expressed that cynical idea of life 
 which they held but which the bulk of their subsequent 
 readers has not shared. 
 
 But the remedy for ‘this was not to be found in a new 
 type of comedy. There was no reason why a comedy 
 open to no reasonable objection on the moral ground 
 might not have been written in the old style. There was 
 nothing essentially vicious in the model. We may con- 
 ceive that if society purified itself the drama would have 
 purified itself also. It would have continued to mirror 
 real life, but as real life became less brutal than Restora- 
 tion life the reflection of it would have been less revolting, 
 and a Wycherley born in the latter eighteenth century 
 would not have been the same as a Wycherley of the 
 
256 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 seventeenth. A start toward a better comedy had been 
 made by Vanbrugh. In spite of some freedom, there is 
 nothing that need shock a sophisticated reader in “ The 
 Relapse,” though there is much in Etherege, for instance, 
 to shock any reader. But such a development was not 
 to be. The self-conscious moral movement, and the 
 simultaneous development of sentimentalism, practically 
 killed comedy. 
 
 This study has taken us over a wide field both of time 
 and of subject matter — over too wide a field, perhaps, to 
 be adequately examined in a single book. But such a com- 
 prehensive survey was necessary if anything was to be 
 added to the understanding of the phenomenon whose 
 ending was Sentimental Comedy —a phenomenon often 
 observed, but never adequately explained, and concerning 
 which there has been the widest possible difference of 
 opinion. I hope that I have been able to make clear what 
 happened, when it happened, and, to some extent, why it 
 happened. Certainly the movement cannot be said to have 
 had any single cause. It is not true that it was the 
 direct result of the Collier controversy, nor is it true that 
 Collier had no influence upon it. Still less is it true that, 
 as Mr. Bernbaum in his “ Drama of Sensibility ’”’ seems 
 to imply, the movement was not fundamentally the result 
 of the moral badness of Restoration writers, but simply 
 the result of the development of a sentimental view 
 of life. It was the result of many causes interacting upon 
 one other, and like any important intellectual movement 
 it was too complex ever to be fully explained. But 
 by examining the drama itself, the social life which it re- 
 flects, the movement for general reform, specific attacks 
 on the stage, and the development of criticism, we get a 
 _ truer idea of the phenomenon than would have been pos- 
 
THE THEORY OF SENTIMENTAL COMEDY 257 
 
 sible if we had confined our attention to any one of these 
 departments. At least we can see what happened. 
 
 In the beginning a leisure class, relieved from adversity 
 and artificial restriction, plunged into dissipation, and de- 
 veloped a comedy which reflected its life and expressed its 
 ideals, embodying all its wit, cynicism, and perversity. As 
 the reaction died away and life returned to something more 
 like normal conditions, comedy continued to picture the 
 social life of the time which had given it birth; and by | 
 the latter part of the seventeenth century was already | 
 somewhat of an anachronism following rather a tradition | 
 than expressing the idea of the new generation which had | 
 grown up and taken its place in the theater. A general | 
 movement for reform predisposed the public to receive 
 favorably the violent but pointed attacks of an able 
 fanatic; and it awoke violently to the realization that 
 popular comedy did not express the ideals of its age. 
 Finally, criticism, just establishing a rapport with popular 
 literature, evolved a set of critical theories based partly on 
 old and partly on new ideas, which encouraged and, to 
 some extent, directed the development of a new comic 
 tradition more closely suited than the old to the taste of 
 its generation. 
 
 Thus the question with which we started, “ To what ex- 
 tent was Collier responsible for the development of senti- 
 mental comedy?” is seen to be an extremely complicated 
 one, and one which is perhaps unanswerable. No man 
 and no argument can control the course of events. A man 
 and his arguments are merely a crystallization of the 
 spirit of the age; and the man leads only in the sense of 
 taking people where they want to go, for arguments are the 
 result of opinions rather than opinions the result of argu- 
 ments. Since all the characteristics of the movement were 
 discernible before Collier wrote, he cannot be said to 
 
258 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE 
 
 be responsible for it. On the other hand, since it became 
 considerably accentuated immediately after the appear- 
 ance of his book, and since Steele, its principal protagonist, 
 acknowledged himself as Collier’s follower, the latter must 
 have been, at least, the most effective mouthpiece of the 
 opposition. He formulated the argument which was the 
 result of the opinion of his time, and he led the people 
 where they were ready to go. Without him, Restoration 
 Comedy would have died of its own accord; but he hastened © 
 its death. He produced Sentimental Comedy not more 
 than Rousseau produced the French Revolution; but like 
 Rousseau he made a movement articulate. And as Rous- 
 seau’s is the name most closely associated with the French 
 Revolution, so justly enough that of Collier is the one most 
 closely associated with the literary triumph of morality 
 and dullness. nore Ta hipaleeaie 
 
 “ 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 Some Critical Works Published Between 1660 and 1700. 
 
 It was thought advisible to add this bibliography which is, so far 
 as I know, the only one which has been compiled, as an 
 illustration of Chapter Ill. It is not continued beyond 1700 
 as there is a bibliography to W. H. Durham’s “ Critical Essays 
 of the Eighteenth Century.” I include biographies of literary 
 men and in general any “ books about books” in this list. 
 
 (F. Kirkman.) Tom Tyler and his wife. — Together with an exact 
 catalogue of all the plays that were ever yet printed. The 
 second impression. 1661. 
 
 Richard Flecknoe. Loves Kingdom — With a short treatise of the 
 English Stage. 1664. 
 
 Letters upon several occasions; written by and between Mr. Dry- 
 den, Mr. Wycherley, Mr. , Mr. Congreve, and Mr. Dennis. 
 Published by Mr. Dennis. 1666. 
 
 The Works of Mr. Abraham Cowley. (With Sprat’s “ Life.’’) 
 1668. 
 
 Richard Flecknoe. Sir William Davenant’s voyage to the other 
 world: with his adventures in the poet’s Elyzium. A Poetical 
 Fiction. 1668. 
 
 (F. Kirkman.) Nicomede— Together with an exact catalogue of 
 all the English stage-plays printed. 1671. 
 
 (R. Rapin.) Reflections upon the use of the eloquence of these 
 times. 1672. 
 
 (R. Rapin.) A Comparison between the eloquence éf Demosthenes . 
 and Cicero. Translated out of the French. 1672. 
 
 George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham: The Rehearsal. 1672. 
 
 (Richard Leigh?) The Censure of the Rota on Mr. Dryden’s Con- 
 quest of Granada. 1673. 
 
 A description of the Academy of the Athenian Virtuosi with a 
 discourse held there in vindication of Mr. Dryden’s Conquest 
 of Granada; against the author of the Censure of the Rota. 
 1673. 
 
 259 
 
 ele ie 
 
260 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Mr. Dryden vindicated, in a reply to the Friendly Vindication of 
 Mr. Dryden. With reflections on the Rota. 1673. 
 
 Remarks on the humors and conversations of the town. 1672. 
 
 Remarks upon Remarks, or a vindication of the conversations of 
 the town. 1673. 
 
 Animadversions on two late books. — One called — Remarks etc. 
 The other called Reflections on Marriage ete. 1673. 
 
 R. Rapin. The comparison of Plato and Aristotle — translated 
 from the French. 1673. 
 
 (Dryden, Shadwell, and Crown.) Notes and observations on “The 
 Empress of Morocco.” 1673. 
 
 Raulery a la mode considered ete. 1673. (The British Museum has 
 a copy with a title page dated 1663. This is probably an 
 error as the book is entered in the Term Catalogues in 1673.) 
 
 R. Rapin. Reflections on Aristotle’s Treatise of Poesie. (Trans- 
 lated by Thomas Rymer.) 1673. 
 
 (E. Settle.) Notes and observations on The Empress of Morocco 
 revised. 1674. 
 
 R. Flecknoe. A treatise of the sports of wit. 1675. 
 
 Edward Phillips. Theatrum Poetarum.—with some observations 
 and reflections upon many of them, particularly those of our 
 nation. Together with a prefactory discourse of the poets and 
 poetry in general. 1675. 
 
 W. Williams. Poetical Piety, or poetry made pious. 1677. 
 
 T. Rymer. The tragedies of the last age considered and examined 
 by the practice of the ancients and by the common sense of 
 all ages. 1678. 
 
 Reflections upon ancient and modern philosophy —translated out 
 of the French by A. L. 1678. 
 
 (Thomas Durfy) The Fool turned critic. A Comedy. 1678. 
 
 The Refined Courtier, or a correction of several indecencies crept 
 into civil conversation. 1678. 
 
 J. Davies. Instructions for history —out of the French. (of R. 
 Rapin.) 1680. 
 
 Genuine Remains of Samuel Butler. (Printed in 1759 but written 
 before 1680.) 
 
 (J. Puleney.) A treatise of the loftiness or elegency of speech. 
 Written originally in Greek —and now translated out of the 
 French etc. 1680. 
 
 Wentworth Dillon, Earl of Roscommon. Horace’s Art of Poetry 
 made English. 1680. 
 
 (Mulgrave and Dryden?) An essay upon Satyre. 1680. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 261 
 
 T. Hobbes. The art of rhetoric. 1681. 
 
 John Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave. An essay upon poetry. 1682. 
 
 Some instructions concerning the art of oratory. 1682. 
 
 Hedelin, Archbishop. The whole art of the stage— written in 
 French — and now made English. 1684. 
 
 (Soame and Dryden.) The art of poetry —made English. (From 
 Boileau.) 1683. 
 
 (Shadwell?) Some reflections on the pretended parallel in the 
 play The Duke of Guise. 1683. 
 
 John Dryden. Of dramatic poesie. 1684. 
 
 T. Creech. The Idylliums of Theocritus, with Rapin’s discourse of 
 pastorals. Done into English. 1684. 
 
 - Mixed essays upon Tragedies, Comedies, Italian comedies, English 
 comedies and operas. Written originally in French by Sieur 
 de Saint Evremond. 1685. 
 
 (W. Winstanly.) The lives of the most famous English poets — 
 from the time of King William the Conqueror to the reign 
 of his present Majesty, King James II. 1686. 
 
 Miscellanea: or various discourses. Written originally by Sieur de 
 St. Evremond and made English by F. Spence. 1686. 
 
 M. Clifford. Notes upon Mr. Dryden’s poem in four letter — To 
 which are annexed some reflections upon The Hind and the 
 Panther. By another hand. 1687. 
 
 (EK. Settle.) Reflections on several of Mr. Dryden’s plays. Particu- 
 larly the first and second parts of the Conquest of Granada. 
 1687. 
 
 Spenser Redivivious. Containing the first book of the Fairy Queen, 
 his essential design preserved, but his obsolete language and 
 manner of verse totally laid aside— By a person of quality. 
 (Contains a critical preface.) 1687. 
 
 (Tom Brown.) The reason of Mr. Bays’ changing his religion. 1688. 
 To Poet Bavius. (Against Dryden.) 1668. 
 
 G. Langbaine. Momus Triumphans; or the plagiaries of the Eng- 
 lish stage. 1688. 
 
 The man of honor.. (Concerning Dryden.) 1688. 
 
 The modest critic; or remarks upon the most eminent historians 
 — By one of the Port-Royal. 1698. 
 
 (Tom Brown?) The Reason of Mr. Joseph Haines the player’s con- 
 version and re-conversion. 1689. 
 
 The late converts exposed: Or the reason of Mr. Bays’ changing his 
 religion — part the second. 1690. 
 
 Sir William Temple. Miscellanea, the second part. 1690. 
 
262 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Wit for money, or poet Stutter (Durfey). A dialogue — contain- 
 ing reflections on some late plays, particularly on Love for 
 Money, or the Boarding School. 1691. 
 
 A search after wit, or a visitation of the authors. 1691. 
 
 G. Langbaine. An account of the English dramatic poets. 1691. 
 
 The art of pleasing conversation. Written by Cardinal Richelieu. 
 1691. 
 
 A letter to Mr. Durfey occasioned by his play called The Marriage- 
 Hater Matched. (Prefixed to the play.) 1692. 
 
 Poeta Infamis; or, a poet not worth hanging. 1692. 
 
 (Charles Gildon?) Miscellaneous poems upon several occasions; 
 consisting of original poems by the Duke of Buckingham, 
 
 --Cowley, Milton, Prior, etc. — with an essay upon satyr by M. 
 Dacier. 1692. 
 
 Thomas Rymer. A short view of tragedy. 1693. 
 
 John Dennis. The impartial critic, or some observations upon a 
 late book, entitled, A Short View of Tragedy. 1698. 
 
 John Dennis. Miscellanies in verse and prose. 1693. 
 
 (R. Rapin.) Mr. Rapin’s reflections on Aristotle’s treatise of 
 poesie — Made English by—Mr. R. to which is added some 
 reflections on English poetry. 1694. 
 
 (J. Wright.) Country conversations. 1694. 
 
 (P. Motteux.) The Works of F. Rabelais— with a large account of 
 his life. 1694. 
 
 Edward Phillips. Letters of state written by John Milton —to 
 which is added an account of his life. 1694. 
 
 (Charles Gildon.) Miscellaneous letters and essays, on several sub- 
 jects. — By several gentlemen and ladies. 1694. 
 
 (T. Taylor.) Monsieur Rapin’s comparison of Thucydides and Livy. 
 Translated into English. 1694. 
 
 (L. Echard.) Plautus’ comedies, Amphitryon, Epidicus, and Rudens, 
 made English, with critical remarks upon each play. 1694. 
 
 Sir Thomas Pope Blount: De re poetica. 1694. 
 
 Monsieur Bossu’s treatise of the Epic Poem—to which are added 
 an essay upon satyr, by Monsieur D’Acier; and a treatise upon 
 pastorals, by Monsieur Fontanell. 1695. 
 
 The Miscellaneous works of Charles Blount, esq.— To which is 
 prefixed the life of the author, and an account and vindica- 
 tion of his death. 1695. 
 
 A reflection on our modern poesie, an essay. 1695. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 263 
 
 Letters upon several occasions; written by and between Mr. Dry- 
 den, Mr. Wycherley, Mr. Congreve, and Mr. Dennis. (Con- 
 tains Congreve’s “An Essay Concerning Humor”.) 1696. 
 
 John Dennis. Remarks on—Prince Arthur, an heroic poem — 
 and — several new remarks upon Virgil. 1696. 
 
 A letter to the Duke of Vivone by — Monsieur Boileau. Translated 
 by T. Check esq. Monsieur Boileau’s speech to the Academy. 
 Translated by Mr. Dennis. 1697. 
 
 Familiar Letters. (Rochester, Otway, Katherine Phillips and 
 others.) 1697. | 
 
 Money masters all things: —To which is added—a satyr on Mr. 
 Dryden, and several other modern translators ete. 1698. 
 
 (Charles Gildon.) The lives and characters of the English dramatic 
 poets; — First begun by Mr. Langbaine; improved and con- 
 tinued down to this time, by a careful hand. (1698). 
 
 Luke Milbourne. Notes on Dryden’s Virgil. 1698. 
 
 Verdicts of the learned concerning Virgil’s and Homer’s heroic 
 poems; with regular and irregular thoughts on poets and orators. 
 1698. 
 
 An essay upon sublime style, translated from the Greek of Longinus, 
 the rhetorician; compared with the French of the Sieur Boileau- 
 Despreaux. 1698. 
 
 (John Toland.) A Complete collection of the historical, poetical 
 and miscellaneous works of John Milton—To which is pref- 
 aced the life of the author. 1698. 
 
 (J. Wright.) Historia Histrionica: An historical account of the 
 English stage — In a dialogue of Plays and Players. 1699. 
 
 (John Toland.) Amyntor; or a defense of Milton’s life. 1699. 
 
 Sir Richard Blackmore: A Satyre against wit. 1700. 
 
 A satyr upon a late pamphlet, entitled, A Satyr Against Wit. 1700. 
 
 Discommendatory verses, on those which are truly commendatory, 
 on the author of the two Arthurs, and the Saytr Against Wit. 
 1700. ; 
 
 Samuel Wesley: An epistle to a friend concerning poetry. 1700. 
 
 A new session of the poets, occasioned by the death of Mr. Dry- 
 den. 1700. 
 
 Poetae Brinnicae. A poem satirical and panegyrical upon the 
 English poets. 1700. 
 
 Homer and Virgil not to be compared with the two Arthurs. 1700. 
 
 The polite gentleman. 1700. 
 
264 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Familiar and courtly letters, written by Monsieur Voiture —To 
 which is added, a collection of letters of friendship, and other 
 occasional letters, written by Mr. Dryden, Mr. Wycherley, 
 Mr. ——, Mr. Congreve, Mr. Dennis, and other hands. 1700. 
 
 John Toland. The Oceana of James Harrington and his other 
 works — with an exact account of his life prefixed. 1700. 
 
 Edward Bysshe. The art of English poetry. 1700(?) 1702(?) 
 
 II 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE COLLIER 
 CONTROVERSY 
 
 I have attempted to make this bibliography as nearly complete 
 as possible. Some years ago a tentative one was published in 
 “Notes and Queries” and Dr. Johannes Ballein in his “ Jeremy 
 Colliers Angriff auf die Englische Buhne” gives a much more 
 extensive one. Mine contains more items than either. Three 
 disagreements with Dr. Ballein may be noted and defended. 
 
 He records one title, “ Hell upon Earth ” and in the text says: 
 “Gegen die Buhne gerichted ist dagegen das anonyme Hell upon 
 Earth, or The Language of the Play-House. Diese Schrift, die 
 ich ebenfalls nicht habe sehen konnen, wird von W. C. Ward in 
 seiner Ausgabe von Vanbrugh’s Werken citiert und erschein nach 
 ihm 2-3 Jahre nach dem Sturm, d. h. also wohl 1705 or 1706.” 
 
 Ward’s statement is: “The anonymous author of a pamphlet 
 published two or three years later, under the edifying title of 
 Hell upon Earth or the Language of the Play-House, makes the 
 mournful admission that the horrid comedy of Love for Love, 
 the Provok’d Wife, and the Spanish Fryar, are frequently acted 
 in all places to which the players come.” I have been able to 
 find no such pamphlet but the title is given in some editions of 
 Bedford’s “Evil and Danger of Stage Plays ” to a section of 
 that work. Ward’s pamphlet is probably Bedford’s “Evil and 
 Danger of Stage Plays” and Ballein’s bibliography is wrong in 
 assuming a separate and unproduceable pamphlet. 
 
 But why did W. C. Ward give the title “Hell upon Earth,” 
 and why did he call it anonymous? An examination of one copy 
 of the “ Evil and Danger of Stage Plays” in the British Museum, 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 265 
 
 reveals a mystery. After an elaborate title page “The Evil and 
 Danger of Stage Plays etc.” come five sheets “To the Reader,” 
 then a table of contents, then a page one, nearly half of which 
 is taken up with the heading “The Evil and Danger of Stage 
 Plays.” Next comes a second page one, identical with the first 
 in text and key words at the bottom, but differing in that it is 
 headed “ Hell upon Earth; or the Language of the Play-House.” 
 
 Another copy of “ The Evil and Danger” in the British Museum 
 does not show this peculiarity as it has only the first page one. 
 But in it, as in the other, page 204 contains the quotation given 
 by Ward. Hence it is obvious that the pamphlet he quotes is 
 identical with “The Evil and Danger.” But did he simply copy 
 this heading in the British Museum copy instead of the title 
 page, and, furthermore, call it anonymous, or does there some- 
 where exist a separate and anonymous edition of this pamphlet 
 called “ Hell upon Earth ete.”, and is the British Museum copy 
 a composite of the two different editions? That there should 
 actually have been two editions is less likely, from the fact that 
 the work is not a pamphlet in size, but a book of over 200 pages. 
 
 As to the second disagreement, Ballein quotes the following from 
 the dedication to “An Act at Oxford” (1704): “The viewer, 
 (who wishes her majesty, the same place in the throne she has 
 in his dictionary), drew the proclamation against irreligion, and 
 her regulation of the theaters as imperfect as his works; therefore 
 on the fast day out comes his supplemental pamphlet to rectify 
 the government’s omission with the same modesty he formerly 
 absolv’d it traytors.” Then Ballein comments: 
 
 “ Mit was fiir einer Schrift haben wir in diesem “Supplemental 
 Pamphlet” zu tun? Zunachst kénnte man sich versucht fihlen, 
 an Colliers Dissuasive zu denken. Aber bei dem “ Supplemental 
 Pamphlet ” handelt es sich ganz augenscheinlich um eine am Fasttag 
 neu herausgekommene Schrift, wahrend Mr. Colliers ‘“ Dissuasive ” 
 schon drei Wochen friiher erschienen und in den berechtigten 
 Kreisen jedenfalls schon vor dem Fasstage verbreitet und gelesen 
 worden war. Auch weist die Bezeichnung “Supplemental Pam- 
 phlet” darauf hin, dass bereits eine andere Schrift Colliers 
 vorangegangen war. Und endlich ist seine “ Dissuasive”’ durchaus 
 nicht gegen irgendwelche “Omissions of the Government” 
 gerichtet. Es wird zwar von dem Widerstand der Biihne gegen alle 
 bishérigen Massregeln gesprochen, aber die Regierung wird mit 
 keiner Silbe wegen irgendwelcher “ Ommissions” getadelt. Auch 
 
266 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 von den andern genannten Schriften durfte keine in Betracht 
 kommen: denn erstlich erscheinen sie anonym, was bei der Frage 
 stehen allem Anschein nach nicht der Fall war, und sodann stimmen 
 auch sie inhaltlich nicht zu Backers Angaben. So durfen wir wohl 
 annehmen, dass wir es hier mit einer neuen, wahrscheinlich verlorenen 
 Schrift Colliers zu tun haben.” 
 
 Here, Bellein has, I think, quite unnecessarily hypotheeated a 
 lost pamphlet, where there is no reason to suspect it ever existed. 
 Baker (the author of “An Act at Oxford”) does not use the words 
 “Supplemental Pamphlet” as a title, but only means “ another 
 pamphlet by Collier.” As Ballein himself points out earlier, the 
 “ Daily Courrant ” for the day following the storm advertises Collier’s 
 “ Dissuassive” for sale, and notes that on the fast day thousands 
 of pamphlets were given away. No doubt Baker got one. If he 
 received Collier’s “ Dissuasive,” then, when it was being advertised 
 in the newspapers, he did not observe whether it was published 
 that day or three weeks before. There is little doubt that it 
 was the “ Dissuasive” that he referred to as the Supplemental 
 Pamphlet. Ballein’s objects that it is not directed against Anne, 
 but this is not to the point. Baker in the preface calls attention 
 to the fact that Collier is not loyal to his sovereign. What he 
 means is “ Anne has just ordered a reform of the theater. Every 
 good subject will have confidence that she will do all this, but if 
 that non-juror Collier comes out with his Dissuasive he implies 
 that the Queen does not know her business.” The German scholar 
 has, apparently (to revive the old story), evolved the book in- 
 stead of the camel out of his inner consciousness. Such subjective . 
 bibliography is not likely to please anyone but the compiler. 
 
 As to the third disagreement, Settle’s “The City Ramble ” was 
 printed without a date, and, owing to Settle’s unpopularity, with- 
 out his name. Ballein feels that the reference in it to Collier is so 
 direct that the play must have appeared earlier than August 17, 
 1711, which is the date Genest gives it. Ballein finds support for 
 his belief in Baker’s “Companion to the Play-House” which in 
 one place gives the date as 1699, and then in another place leaves 
 the play undated. The unsupported statement of an eighteenth 
 century bibliography is not worth much, and a glance at con- 
 temporary newspapers will reveal several advertisements like the 
 following: “Never acted before. At the Theater-Royal and Drury 
 Lane, this present Friday, being the 17th of August, (1711) will 
 be presented a new comedy call’d ‘ The City Ramble’; or ‘ A Play- 
 House Wedding.’” This same paper for August 21st, adds “ This 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 267 
 
 play is sold by J. Knapton at the Crown in St. Paul’s churchyard 
 and B. Lintott Nado’s Coffee-House, Temple Bar.’ The British 
 Museum copy has “as it is acted at the Theater-Royal,” so, since 
 there does not seem to me to be any strong internal evidence to 
 show that the play might not have been written and first per- 
 formed in 1711, I see nothing but the unsupported statement in an 
 eighteenth century bibliography to support the unlikely theory 
 that it was printed long after it was acted, and must conclude 
 that 1711 is the proper date for the play. 
 * Indicates that I have not read or seen the work in question. 
 
 Animadversions on Mr. Congreve’s late answer to Mr. Collier. In 
 a dialogue between Mr. Smith and Mr. Johnson. 1698. 
 
 Baker, Thomas. An Act at Oxford. 1704. 
 
 Bedford, Arthur. The evil and danger of stage-plays showing their 
 natural tendency to destroy religion, and introduce a general 
 corruption of manners; in almost two thousand instances, 
 taken from the plays of the two last years, against all the 
 methods lately used for their reformation. 1706. 
 
 Bedford, Arthur. The great abuse of music. 1711. 
 
 (Bedford, Arthur?) A second advertisement concerning the pro- 
 faneness of the play-house. 1705. , 
 
 Bedford, Arthur. Serious reflections on the scandalous abuse and 
 effects of the stage: in a sermon— preached —in the city of 
 Bristol. 1705. 
 
 Bedford, Arthur. A serious remonstrance in behalf of the Christian 
 religion, against the horrid blasphemies and impieties which 
 are still used in the English play-houses ... Shewing their 
 plain tendency to overthrow all piety ... from almost seven 
 thousand instances, taken out of the plays of the present 
 century. 1719. 
 
 Bedford, Arthur. The evil and mischief of stage playing: a sermon 
 preached—in the city of London. 17380. (Second edition 
 1735.) 
 
 Bourbon, Armand, Prince de. The works of the most illustrious 
 and pious Prince of Conti.— Translated from the French. 
 *Bossuet, J. B. Maxims and reflections on plays. (A translation.) 
 
 1699. 
 
 (Tom Brown.) The Stage-beau tossed in a blanket: or, hypocrycy 
 a la mode; exposed in a true picture of Jerry ..., a pre- 
 tending scourge to the English stage. 1704. 
 
268 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 *Burridge, R. Scourge for the play-house, or the character of the 
 English stage. 1702. 
 
 Cibber, Colly. Love makes a man. 1701. 
 
 Collier, Jeremy. A short view of the immorality and profaneness 
 of the English stage, together with the sense of antiquity upon 
 this argument. 1688. (8rd. edition 1698. 4th 1699.) 
 
 Collier, Jeremy. A defense of the short view of the immorality and 
 profaneness of the English stage Being a reply to Mr. 
 Congreve’s Amendment.—And to the Vindication of the 
 author of The Relapse. 1699. 
 
 Collier, Jeremy. A second defense of the short view— Being, a 
 reply to a book, entitled, The Antient and Modern Stages 
 Surveyed. 1700. 
 
 Collier, Jeremy. Mr. Collier’s dissuasive from the play-house, in a 
 letter to a person of quality, occasioned by the late calamity 
 of the tempest. 1703. 
 
 Collier, Jeremy. Mr. Collier’s dissuasive from the play-house etc. — 
 To which is added, a letter written by another hand; in an- 
 swer to some questions sent by a person of quality. 1704. 
 
 Collier, Jeremy. A farther vindication of The Short View — in 
 which the objections of a late book, entitled A Defense of 
 Plays, are considered. 1708. 
 
 *Concio Laici, or the lay man’s sermon. (Cited in Bedford’s Evil 
 and Danger.) 
 
 The conduct of the stage considered. Being a short historical ac- 
 count of its origin, progress, various aspects, and treatment in 
 the Pagan, Jewish and Christian world. 1721. 
 
 Congreve, William. Amendments of Mr. Collier’s false and imper- 
 fect citations) &c. from the Old Batchelor, Double Dealer, 
 Love for Love, Mourning Bride. By the author of those 
 plays. 1698. 
 
 A defense of dramatic poetry. 1698. 
 
 Drake, J. The ancient and modern stages surveyed. Or Mr. 
 Collier’s view of the immorality and prophaneness of the Eng- 
 lish stage set in a true light. 1699. 
 
 Esther; —A sacred tragedy.— With a dedication to the Lord 
 Archbishop. of York. (From Racine.) 1705. 
 
 Caffaro, Father. Beauty in distress. A tragedy, written by Mr. 
 Motteux. With a discourse of the lawfulness and unlawful- 
 ness of plays, lately written in French by the learned Father 
 Caffaro, Divinity Professor at Paris. Sent in a letter to the 
 author by a divine of the Church of England. 1698. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 269 
 
 Defoe, Daniel. The Pacificator. 1700. 
 
 Dennis, John. The person of quality’s answer to Mr. Collier’s 
 letters: containing a defense of a regulated stage. (In “ Original 
 Letters.”) 1721. 
 
 Dennis, John. The stage defended — Occasioned by Mr. Law’s late 
 pamphlet. 1726. 
 
 Dennis, John. The usefulness of the stage to the happiness of 
 mankind, to government and to religion. 1698. 
 
 Durfey, Thomas. The campaigners: or, the pleasant adventures 
 at Brussels. A comedy: With a preface upon a late reformer 
 of the stage. 1698. 
 
 Dryden, John. Fables: (Preface.) 1700. 
 
 *Feigned Friendship, or the mad reformer. n.d. cir. 1700. 
 
 *Field, John. A humble supplication to the Queen and parlia- 
 ment to suppress play-houses and bearbaiting. 1703. 
 
 Filmer, Edward. A defense of plays— wherein is offered the most 
 probable method of reforming our plays. With a consideration 
 how far vicious characters may be allowed on the stage. 1707. 
 
 Heydegger’s letter to the Bishop of London. 1724. 
 
 The immorality of the English pulpit as justly subjected to the 
 notice of the English stage, as the immorality of the stage is 
 to that of the pulpit. In a letter to Mr. Collier. 1698. 
 
 Law, William. The absolute unlawfulness of the stage-entertain- 
 ment fully demonstrated. 1726. 
 
 Law Outlawed: — Together with an humble petition to the gov- 
 ernors of the incurable ward of Bethlem to take pity on the 
 poor distracted authors of the town, and not suffer ’em to 
 terrify mankind at this rate. Written at the request of the 
 orange-women. 1726. 
 
 (Gildon, Charles.) Phaeton—A Tragedy — With some reflections 
 on a book called, A Short View etc. 1698. 
 
 *A letter to A. H. Esq. 1698. 
 
 A letter to Mr. Congreve on his pretended amendments, &c., of 
 Mr. Collier’s Short View etc. 1698. 
 
 (Josiah Woodward?) A letter to a lady concerning the new play- 
 house. 1706. 
 
 *A new project for regulating the stage, by John Dennis and 
 Charles Gildon. (A satire.) 1720. 
 
 *Oldmixon, John. Reflections on the stage, and on Mr. Collier’s 
 defense of the Short View. 1699. 
 
 A collection of the Occasional Papers for the year 1708. (Contains 
 a paper “Of Plays and Masquerades.’’) 1708. 
 
270 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 *Reflections on the stage, and on Mr. Collier’s defense of the 
 Short View. 1699. 
 
 *A refutation of the apology for the actors. 1703. 
 
 A representation of the impiety and immorality of the English 
 Stage, with reasons for putting a stop there to: and some 
 questions addressed to those who frequent the play-house. 
 1704. 
 
 A seasonal apology for Mr. H(eide)g(ge)r. 1724. 
 
 Settle, E. The Citty-ramble: or, A  play-house wedding. <A 
 comedy. 1711. 
 
 Some considerations about the danger of going to plays. In a 
 letter to a friend. (In “The Occasional Paper’ Number 9.) 
 1698. (Reprinted 1704). 
 
 Some remarks upon Mr. Collier’s defense of his Short View of the 
 English Stage, &c. In vindication of Mr. Congreve. In a 
 letter to a friend. 1698. Some thoughts concerning the stage. 
 In a letter to a lady. 1704. The stage acquitted. Being a full 
 answer to Mr. Collier. 1699. The stage condemned. 1698. 
 
 Stage Plays justly condemned. 1720. 
 
 The stage vindicated: a satyr. By I. H. Esq. (In “ The Muses 
 Mercury ” for July, 1707.) 
 
 Vanbrugh, John. A short vindication of The Relapse and The 
 Provoked Wife. 1698. 
 
 (Gildon, Charles?) A vindication of the stage, with the usefulness 
 and advantages of dramatic representations, in answer to Mr. 
 Collier’s late book. 1698. | 
 
 Visits from the shades: or, dialogues serious, comical, and political. 
 Calculated for these times — Jo. Hains’ ghost and the reform- 
 ing Mr. Collier. 
 
 «<= = 
 
f iy 1 
 Mall a Tl (\! ‘ 
 
 ee, AG 
 
rl 
 it 
 
 i 
 
 ’ 
 
 iy 
 7} 
 
 Woke fe 
 
 we 
 ee a teek 
 LH 
 
 wt 
 oe 
 hi 
 
 Os 
 
 ree 
 bebe? 
 i t 
 bebe 
 { byt 
 b i i 
 i VI 
 pee 
 iT 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 822.09K94C c001 
 
 COMEDY AND CONSCIENCE AFTER THE RESTORAT 
 
 HL 
 
 2 01 
 
 INIT 
 
 11 0591425 
 
 bop i hfe bet 
 ow ioe al: rit rit i enw 
 ‘i ' ue he ij Ta ' 7 
 
 t 64 i > ‘ ye ‘ , 
 He pie het { hpi j , 
 
 i teen vl ’ iv bey 1 vive 
 iebil ¥ 74 / i snot 
 ibd i | i ! 
 
 j bo , hea +? , o’ ce 
 i Howe ies ! fe (pret J f 
 Vbek heehee hoot ) ; bo em ly Ree ' 
 peiit bedsnetis ' (4 (an ; 
 i yal wed kre oy ' yt i 
 t { i ‘ hi at | if a t ’ 
 Ped ey tt i q i ‘ a hee 
 iad ‘uy i ‘ \ } } j ei 
 itt jieb bebe he be i . " 
 t ' i ' wy P ; 
 b hei't ares | ne j i ‘ ‘ 
 i hedehehe® Ged ‘ { 
 \ feb #4 bh heb ay \ i 
 oa ead ‘ tiled 10 fr it ‘ 
 jot ‘ ome hie 
 
 how yet ih weer f , a \ | 
 
 # i wee i ; we ‘ \ 
 hay Hi v ‘ , 
 
 Wb: fied baw h ib » + biohy 
 wt} i i eel f } ri y 
 A rit } , 
 ear hice Ss os re uehaget 
 hide t \ 
 ‘ 4 i >] | $ 
 y bee ' j : ’ ‘a ; bie 
 j 4 bis { h ’ ) 
 eee a ae G 
 A it i i ie mt , oa 
 ees A bole nn 
 wi ‘ j 
 i ; Ps Hilhet ; i i 
 : itenel Tw wrk ' ' ‘ ‘ 
 ‘ “ yw ,% ‘ eos 
 ‘ paid 
 4 f54 , fh hey he, yo wep: ars , f 
 i Ma te ee a ta hii { \ ; ’ oh ' 
 bet me hee | us - sels ~~ h 
 bea eb f ' . 
 Pep be pon ie hee ") , mhb i ‘ 
 j i er a) ih ) ‘ f 
 i Web he wl , n> ‘ 
 vai it b "ft i ’ 
 ir t net ‘ } + 
 ie he ‘ ; bil ‘ ’ 
 i { bs eeiek ry : hy i 
 j Me ww ‘ a i i +-w¥ ; 
 we ie, ie he beh hese hh . A at 
 i tea ti i ine f kel ' 
 
 ' poh bel BR | ‘ a} 
 poy meee Wee he ee ' * 
 eh Wt , { iia ier ' 
 het phe t ' $ 
 tol hte he ee ier 7) b 
 hi woop ’ r : , 
 
 . ‘ ' i vy ' ‘ ‘ t . ’ 
 ' ‘ by ty i \ 
 ' ‘ j ' a) 
 | j es i ( + j 
 ' j vearhe ; j ' U 
 ' j ra i ' j . 
 j ‘ ‘ ous \ 
 ; it io 
 PT ey ea tee 09 | it ( ' ’ 
 et ; “oe hie > / ry wy D 
 fl i ‘ e+ , ‘ ‘ \ 
 ' ‘ i ‘ ; ‘ i 
 ha , i t'@ 49 t ’ . 
 hey i , . ‘ 
 ir pep bit f ' ,