Part 1

Note: H. T. Swedenberg, Jr. (1906-1978) was a professor at the University of California (Los Angeles). In 1946 he, Edward N. Hooker, and Richard C. Boys founded the Augustan Reprint Society, with Swedenberg as general editor. The Society reprinted many rare works, drawn largely from the collections of the University of California's library. The two anonymous essays here were part of a series of essays on the stage.

Series Three: Essays on the Stage

No. 1

A LETTER TO A.H. ESQ; CONCERNING THE STAGE (1698)

and

THE OCCASIONAL PAPER: NO. IX (1698)

With an Introduction by H. T. Swedenberg, Jr.

The Augustan Reprint Society September, 1946

Price: 75c

Membership in the Augustan Reprint Society entitles the subscriber to six publications issued each year. The annual membership fee is $2.50. Address subscriptions and communications to The Augustan Reprint Society in care of the General Editors: Richard C. Boys, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; or Edward N. Hooker or H.T. Swedenberg, Jr., University of California, Los Angeles 24, California. Editorial Advisors: Louis I. Bredvold, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and James L. Clifford, Columbia University, New York.

INTRODUCTION

In the spring of 1698 the rumblings against the excesses of the English stage broke into a roar with the publication of Jeremy Collier's _Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage_. A wild joyousness marked Collier's attack, and at times it seemed as though the zeal of the Lord had eaten him up. But he was no enthusiast without plan or reason. A man of some learning, he used it for all it was worth to confound the playwrights and the critics.

Collier was careful to make good use of accepted and honored critical principles. He contended that the purpose of the stage is to instruct; he argued for poetic justice; he discussed the unities; he spoke of propriety of manners and language; and he warned of the danger of fancy's overriding judgment--"the Fancy may be gain'd, and the Guards corrupted, and Reason suborn'd against itself." Unfortunately for Collier, however, such argument from reason and critical theory was only part of his book. He pretended to be attacking the current excesses, but a reading of his entire book gives the definite impression that he was really opposing the stage as an institution. His enemies were quick to point this out. He also weakened his argument by finding bawdry where there was none, overlooking the many unquestionably off-color passages in the Restoration plays. Furthermore he was extremely touchy about the clergy, arguing violently that no priest should ever be satirized. In short, Collier weakened a strong position by immoderate demands and contentions.

After a short, uneasy silence, the defenders of the stage began to answer. By the end of the summer, ten rejoinders had appeared, among which was the anonymous _A Letter to A.H. Esq; Concerning the Stage_. The initials in the title have been identified as those of Anthony Hammond, pamphleteer, small poet, and politician, whom Bolingbroke characterized as "silver-tongued Hammond." Charles Hopkins has been suggested as the probable author of the pamphlet (E.N. Hooker, _Modern Language Notes_, LIV [1939], 388). Hopkins was a wit, a friend of Hammond, as of Dryden, Congreve, Dorset, Southerne, and Wycherley, a clever fellow who loved the bottle and the ladies so much that, according to Giles Jacob, he died at 36, "a Martyr to the cause." _His Epistolary Poems_, published in 1694, had been dedicated to Hammond and had included an effusive poem addressed to him. Some other wit among Hammond's friends might have been the author of the pamphlet, however, for Hammond yearned for immortality through the works of others and frequently asked writers of his acquaintance to mention him.

Whoever the author was, he spotted the weaknesses in Collier's arguments, at the same time pointing out the essential usefulness of the _Short View_ as a corrective. He was not particularly original, for many of the points he made were considered public property by writers in the controversy. Thus, along with Dennis and others, the writer admitted the necessity for reform, but opposed Collier's apparent desire to abolish the stage. He pointed out the fallacy of Collier's argument from the authority of the church fathers and the absurdity of his contentions about the ridicule of the clergy. And using ancient doctrine, he defended the stage as an instrument of instruction in manners and morals. Of particular interest is his belief that the stage had contributed to the improvement of the language, especially in dissuading the clergy from a fantastic, conceited rhetoric.

The fury of Collier's attack seemed to dull the wits of the defenders of the stage. Too often they allowed themselves to be drawn into quibbling over trivialities. None of them distinguished himself with a brilliant answer. With the exception of Dennis's _The Usefulness of the Stage_, the _Letter to A.H. Esq._ is as suave and sensible as any of the answers, and considerably better then many.

Among the pamphlets taking the part of Collier was _The Occasional Paper: Number IX_, attributed to Richard Willia, Chaplain to William III and later Bishop of Winchester. In this paper the approach of literary criticism is abandoned completely, the author feeling that the controversy over the stage has already been obscured by wit and learning. He concerns himself with religion and morality, and argues the danger of going to plays. Though he admits that good plays are possible, it is clear that he considers the stage a bad influence upon Christians. Collier might veil his true attitude toward the theater, but Willis makes no pretense of hiding his. Plays are bad.

The _Letter to A.H. Esq._ was announced in the _Post Man_ of June 11-13, 1698; _The Occasional Paper: Number IX_ was noted in the same journal for May 19-21, 1698. The copy of the _Letter to A.H. Esq._ reprinted here is owned by the University of Michigan. _The Occasional Paper: No. IX_ is reproduced by permission of the The Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

H. T. Swedenberg, Jr.

University of California, Los Angeles

A LETTER TO A.H. Esq; Concerning the STAGE.

LONDON, Printed for A. Baldwin, near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane, 1698.

(I)

TO A.H. Esq; &c.

SIR,

Forgive me if I think it Ill-nature in you to leave the Town, at a Time when it wants your Company, and seems to beg your Assistance: How can you propose to live at Ease in the Country, when so many of your Friends, the Wits, are engag'd here in open War? Let Mr. _Collier_ say what he pleases of Mr. _Dryden_, I begin to think 'twas his prophetick Genius mov'd him to declaim against Priests; and there is great reason to complain of their being the Incendiaries of the People, when they set the World on fire by Preaching, which they were only sent to warm. But what can Mr. _Collier_ mean by exposing the Stage so? he wou'd not surely have it silenc'd: That wou'd be a little too barbarous, and too much like Cant to be entertain'd by Men of Thought or Ingenuity. I wou'd rather suppose he design'd a Reformation; and that is so reasonable, I wonder any Man should put his Face in disorder, or study a Revenge for the Attempt. But it may be ask'd, Cou'd he not have done that without exposing so many great _Genius_'s? Had it not been better to have let Mr. _Durfey_ alone? Tho' even this Method wou'd not have pleas'd every body; for whate'er Effect it has had on Mr. _Vanbroug_ and _Congreve; Motteux_ and _Guildon_ resent it to the last degree. Is their nothing in their Works Illustrious, or that cou'd merit Censure? Indeed some People are not to be reclaim'd by Ridicule; and Mr. _Collier_ knowing their Vertues, with how much Compos'dness and Resignation they can bear a Hiss, out of Compassion, took Example by the Town and neglected both.

It is the Observation of some, That whereever the State flourishes, the Theatre has never fail'd of Encouragement; and that 'tis hardly possible the State shou'd suffer without the others sinking in its Reputation. It is Pity that _England_ shou'd be the only Exception, and since we have some of our Nobility, who have a Taste of Eloquence, and all those Vertues which adorn the Stage, that It shou'd want their Assistance by whom it was at first rais'd, and since maintain'd: If it has fallen from its Purity, or never arriv'd to what they fully lik'd, let it not want their Countenance, without whom 'tis impossible to be any thing at all, and by whom it may become all that we can wish. They alone can free it from Contempt and Censure, by maintaining such an Awe, that the least Glymps of Profaneness and Immorality shou'd not dare to appear on the Stage; and this may be done by encouraging none but those who write well: for when a good Poet takes on him to instruct, we need fear no Immodesty; for 'tis impossible in a Regular Play, he shou'd find room for an Indecency. I know you'll ask, Why shou'd I appear so zealous in desiring the Favour of the Nobility for what is deny'd to be lawful; and that I ought not to wish an Encouragement of the Stage, when 'tis affirm'd that from Thence we derive our Corruption of Manners. Mr. _Collier_ has endeavour'd to prove this from the Looseness of some of our Plays, and then has brought the Opinion of the Fathers to condemn the Theatre in general.

As to the _First_ Objection, _That the Debauchery of the Town is to be attributed to the Looseness of our Plays and Stage_.

If this were true, it is an Objection only against the present Corruption of the Theatre; and is of no force against a regulated Stage; for that admits of nothing Immodest or Immoral.

As to the _Second_ Objection brought from Councils and Fathers, if what is quoted were really design'd by them against the Theatre in general, yet it can have but little effect with the People, I mean the Men of Probity and Learning; for they are not to be mov'd by the Opinions of others no longer than those Opinions are agreeable to Reason: No Man ought to pay such a Respect either to Councils or Fathers, as to submit his Judgment contrary to his Reason. Their saying so in this Case ought to have no more effect with us than if they had at the same time given us their Opinion of the Truth of _Transubstantiation_.

I think the Matter ought to be disputed by it self; for the Opinion of the Fathers cannot alter the Nature of the Thing. Sir, give me leave to make this Digression: 'Tis my Opinion, even in Matters of Religion, the preaching up the Fathers so much has been of fatal Consequence. If we run out of our selves to search for Truth, we are expos'd to be deceiv'd; and relying too much upon another's Judgment, may be the occasion of an Errour in our own. A false Quotation or Interpretation by a Man of some Figure, to an easie Credulous Bigot, has been the Conversion of a great many, and of excellent Service in the Church of _Rome_: They cannot attack any without a Father or Council, and that to a Person who knows nothing of the matter, is as good as a Demonstration. The Fathers were but Men, and as capable to be deceiv'd as others: And I do not know why the Bishop of _Worcester_ may not deserve an equal Esteem; he understands the Languages, and has as much Sincerity as any of them; and why then shou'd he not be able to give the Sense of the Scripture as well.

I have a Veneration for them as good Men, and where their Opinion is a Consequent of true Reason, it ought to be embraced; but where 'tis not, I need not say it ought to be rejected; and I think any Man may be allowed to dispute whether it be so or no. The Bishop of _Worcester_ cannot publish a Book, but you'll have an Answer to it. It would indeed be of Reputation to the Councils and Fathers, some of them at least, if what were objected against them were of no more force. His Philosophy is too rational to be weak'ned by Sophistry, his Divinity too solid to be shook by Heresie: He seems to have been predestinated to Glory, and the appointed Instrument to deliver us from Popery, Atheism, Deism, and Socinianism, with all those spurious Sectaries which have been spawned into the Worlds: What can resist the Power of his Arguments? And who is able to abide his Force. But to return, I think the Controversie, in short, is this:

_Whether the Allowance of a Theatre in a Christian Country, is consisting with the Christian Religion._

The Answer to this Question may be this:

That whatever is approved by lawful Authority, and is not against any positive revealed Law of God, is consisting with the Christian Religion.

Now it lies upon the Adversaries of the Stage to prove, That the Theatre is against Law or Scripture.

'Tis unfair to take the advantage of the present Corruptions, and cry down the Stage, because Men make an ill use of it. The Priests Won't allow this Argument in another Case; and I think an ill Poet is no more an Objection against the Stage, than a Clergyman's being a Blockhead, is to the Pulpit. 'Tis our Misfortune to have too many in both Vocations; tho', as bad as the Stage is, I don't doubt but the World has receiv'd a great many Advantaged from it. I shall name you some, and the first may be the reclaiming the Manners of the Clergy.

'Tis certain, since the Stage has used the Gown freely, and the Laity have not been afraid to look into their Faults, that they are more humble, and less publickly vicious: They know if _Tom D'urfey_ can light upon a frail Priest, he won't scruple to expose his Infirmities, tho' he is not the only _Whipping Tom_ of the Stage; if they had not others to fear, they wou'd soon grow too many for him. I believe they wou'd be angry, if they thought the People gave the Honour of their Reformation to the Stage; tho' you can't believe otherwise, if you consider the difference of the former and present Clergy, what a strange alteration there is where the Knowledge of Plays have come (I wou'd be understood only of those who needed a Reformation) There are now, and have always been, Men among them able and fit to give Laws, and from whom the World was glad to receive them, who appear'd as burning and shining Lights in their Generation; and it was from them we learnt the difference; it was their Light which expos'd the other, and the Stage only took their evil Deeds, to shew them truly the Evils of them. But besides their Reforming of Manners, the Stage has taught them to speak English, and preach more like Ambassadors of their great Master. It has taught them to argue rationally, and at once mended their Stile, and Form of their Sermons. How did Religion labour under heavy Language, and how many People rather absented the Church, than come to hear the Word of God Burlesqu'd? In what a ridiculous Dress did Religion appear? When to spin out the time in old Proverbs, and wretched Puns, a Fellow wou'd run it up to _Six and thirtiethly_, before he came to his _Use_ and _Applications_. In short, the Drunkenness, Whoring, Insolence, and Dulness that has appear'd under a Black Coat on the Stage, have made the Men of the same Colour of it keep within Bounds: And that a Man might not teize them with the Representation, they have endeavour'd to appear in as differing a Form as possible.

If what Mr. _Collier_ says was true, That when a Clergyman is brought on the Stage, it is with a design to ridicule the Function, it wou'd be abominable, and as bad as the Town is, wou'd be hiss'd off the Stage. I dare say, whatever the Intention of the Poet is, 'tis not receiv'd so by the Audience. For at this rate, every foolish Peer who Is brought on the Stage, must be suppos'd to intend a Reflection on all the Men of Condition; and an Alderman, who is a Cuckold, must be look'd on as the Representative of his Brethren. 'Tis absurd to make no distinction; as if a particular Vice in a particular Man, cou'd not be expos'd without a design'd Reflection on all who belong to him. It ought to touch no body but whom it concerns; and it has its end, if it reclaims where it was design'd, and prevents others, by shewing the Danger: And this is the Design of Comedy. But the Question is, Whether our Poets have managed it as they ought? Whether they have not pick'd out a particular Person, and expos'd the Character in general, under the Notion of one Man? I answer to this, That whatever the Design of the Poet has been, it has not had the effect with the People: For who disbelieves the Authority of their Function, or thinks the worse of Good, Learned, and Ingenious Men among them? Are not the Religious very much reverenc'd? Has any Body thought the worse of _Stillingfleet_, _Tillotson_, and _Burnet_, upon this Account? Who can believe, that when Mr. _Vanbroug_ disguises a Parson, that he thought of these Men, or any who lives soberly, and makes Religion their Business, and at the same time, don't make it inconsistent with good Manners? The Good among them know the People love them, and that nothing but their own mis-behaviour draws them into Contempt. Any Minister, tho' he was but of mean Understanding, yet if he had other good Qualities, if he liv'd soberly, and did his Duty religiously, that ever such a Man was pickt out to be the Scandal of his Neighbours, or a Ridicule of the Stage. Whence is it then, that the Clergy are so angry? If you hook but one of them, all the rest are upon your Back, and you can't expose his Vices without being an Enemy to the Church: And in this, _Priests of all Religions are the same_.

But after all, why shou'd Mr. _Collier_ blame Mr. _Dryden_ for making _Dorax_ exclaim against the _Mahometan_ Priest? Or how can that be a Prejudice to the Character of the Christian Clergy? Is it not natural for such a one as _Dorax_ to say as much, and especially against such a one as the _Mufti_ in the Play? And does Mr. _Collier_ blame Mr. _Dryden_ for writing naturally? I think it is a Fault throughout Mr. _Collier's_ Book, that in his Criticisms of the Plays, he never considers the Person who speaks; that is, Whether 'tis not natural for a Man of such a Character, to say such a thing? It wou'd have been of more Service to have proved, That no Person is to be brought on the Stage to say an ill thing, and then he had thrown away all the Profaneness, which is so much an Offence, at once. But if such Persons are to be represented, there is not so much Reason against any of our present Plays, as is urg'd by Mr. _Collier_; for you must allow a Coquett to talk like her self, a Lover to vent his Passion in Raptures, and a Rake to speak the Language of the Town.

I have already told you, That I am far from vindicating the present Stage. I don't know a regular Play, or that ought to be represented on a regular Stage; yet I know a great many Plays that I would not loose for want of that Regularity. Who wou'd not have Sir _G. Etheridge_, Mr. _Wicherly_, and even some of Mr. _Dryden_'s Plays? Who would reject the _Orphan_, because Mr. _Collier_ objects against a loose Speech in it.

But Mr. _Collier_ has laid other things to the Poet's Charge besides the Abuse of the Clergy; and that the profane Characters in the Play, has had an ill Effect on the Age, by promoting of Immorality and Vice. This I very much question; for I can't apprehend so much danger even in the present Stage as Mr. _Collier_ wou'd suggest. The greatest Faults of our Plays are their being generally, in one part or other, unnatural: That which is regular in any of them can never be an Offence; and where that Monster appears, it rather frightens than allures; so that we are not in so much danger, even from our very bad Plays: For the more monstrous, the less Power it has to please; and whatever looses the Power, can never do much damage. So that if Mr. _Collier_ should make a Collection of _D'urfey_'s Works, who is there that wou'd become a Convert? And who wou'd turn Parson to be drunk and beat the Watch? Or who wou'd be proud of an Imitation of any of his Heroes? Has any Body brought themselves under his Character, in hopes to recommend them to the World? It would be happy if the World had learnt no more Irreligion from the Pulpit than it has from the Stage; at least, the Consequence of the first has been more fatal. What dismal Effect has the holy Cant had upon the Multitude: What Rebellion, Blood-shed and Mischief have been encourag'd under the Name of _Sanctity_, _Religion_, and the _Good old Cause_. Whoever learnt to cut a King's Throat by seeing of Plays? But by going to Church, the People were instructed to _bind the King in Chains, and his Nobles in Fetters of Iron, That the Kingdom ought to be taken away, and given to the Saints_; And who wou'd not be a Saint for such an Inheritance? Who cou'd refuse resisting of Authority, when instead of _Damnation_, it was _coming forth to the Help of the Lord against the Mighty_? But this is but one Mischief of the Pulpit; this is only putting a Kingdom in Civil Broils, intestine Wars, and unnatural Murthers. But when Men of debauch'd Principles shall become the Teachers of the Nation, what may we not expect from their Industry and Sedition.

After all, my Lord _Foppington_ was never design'd to teach People to speak or act like him; nor was it intended that the Ladies shou'd be byass'd by the Example of _Berinthia_ to turn Coquetts. These and the like Characters in other Plays, are not propos'd as a Direction for the _Gallant Man_, or the _Vertuous Lady_; but that seeing how such Persons behave themselves on the Stage, that they may not make the like Figure in the World; but if any body shou'd rather be in love than terrified by these Examples, 'tis their Fault, and not the Poets, since the best things are liable to Corruptions. But it may be objected, That our Poets don't make Persons speak like themselves. That indeed is a Fault, and I can't say any thing to excuse it but this; That they who, have the Judgment to know when a Poet speaks improperly, ought to have so much Judgment, as not to be byassed by his Irregularities: The People who don't understand it, generally suppose, that what is Vertuous is to be imitated, and what is Vicious is to be avoided. That this is the general Observation of those who frequent Plays, may justly be inferr'd from the Practice of the Town: For I challenge any Man to prove, That any one Vice, now in being, took its Rise from the Stage. The Stage takes Examples from the Town. The Scene must be really acted in the World before it comes to be expos'd: So that whatever appears Vicious or Ridiculous, is owing to the Wickedness of the Times, and not to the Theatre. It may be objected, That what is generally acted on the Stage, if it was done before; yet it was done in private, but the Stage publishes it. To this I answer, That it does not intend to license it, only to set it in a true Light, that it may be expos'd and shunn'd.