Edward Moore - The Gamester (1753)
E >>
Edward Moore >> The Gamester (1753)
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 Series Five:
_Drama_
No. 1
Edward Moore, _The Gamester_ (1753)
With an Introduction by
Charles H. Peake
and
a Bibliographical Note by
Philip R. Wikelund
The Augustan Reprint Society
July, 1948
_Price: 75 cents_
* * * * *
_GENERAL EDITORS_
RICHARD C. BOYS, _University of Michigan_
EDWARD NILES HOOKER, _University of California, Los Angeles_
H. T. SWEDENBERG, JR., _University of California, Los Angeles_
_ASSISTANT EDITOR_
W. EARL BRITTON, _University of Michigan_
_ADVISORY EDITORS_
EMMETT L. AVERY, _State College of Washington_
BENJAMIN BOYCE, _University of Nebraska_
LOUIS I. BREDVOLD _University of Michigan_
CLEANTH BROOKS, _Yale University_
JAMES L. CLIFFORD, _Columbia University_
ARTHUR FRIEDMAN, _University of Chicago_
SAMUEL H. MONK, _University of Minnesota_
ERNEST MOSSNER, _University of Texas_
JAMES SUTHERLAND, _Queen Mary College, London_
Lithoprinted from copy supplied by author
by
Edwards Brothers, Inc.
Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.
1948
* * * * *
INTRODUCTION
This reprint of Edward Moore's _The Gamester_ makes available to
students of eighteenth century literature a play which, whatever its
intrinsic merits, is historically important both as a vehicle for a
century of great actors and as a contribution to the development of
middle-class tragedy which had considerable influence on the Continent.
_The Gamester_ was first presented at the Drury Lane Theatre February 7,
1753 with Garrick in the leading role, and ran for ten successive
nights. Up to the middle of the nineteenth century it remained a popular
stock piece--John Philip Kemble, Mrs. Siddons, Mrs. Barry, the Keans,
Macready, and others having distinguished themselves in it--and in
America from 1754 to 1875 it enjoyed even more performances than in
England. (J.H. Caskey, _The Life and Works of Edward Moore_, 96-99).
Moore's middle-class tragedy is the only really successful attempt
to follow Lillo's decisive break with tradition in England in the
eighteenth century. His background, like Lillo's, was humble, religious,
and mercantile. The son of a dissenting pastor, Moore received his early
education in dissenters' academies, and then served an apprenticeship to
a London linen-draper. After a few years in Ireland as an agent for a
merchant, Moore returned to London to join a partnership in the linen
trade. The partnership was soon dissolved, and Moore turned to letters
for a livelihood. Among his works are _Fables for the Female Sex_ (1744)
which went through three editions, _The Foundling_ (1748), a successful
comedy, and _Gil Blas_ (1751), an unsuccessful comedy. In 1753, with
encouragement and some assistance from Garrick, he produced _The
Gamester_, upon which his reputation as a writer depends.
It is impossible, of course, to review here all the factors involved in
the development of middle-class tragedy in England in the eighteenth
century. However, certain aspects of that movement which concern Moore's
immediate predecessors and which have not been adequately recognized
might be mentioned briefly. Aside from Elizabethan and Jacobean attempts
to give tragic expression to everyday human experience, historians have
noted the efforts of Otway, Southerne, and Rowe to lower the social
level of tragedy; but in this period middle-class problems and
sentiments and domestic situations appear in numerous tragedies,
long-since forgotten, which in form, setting, and social level present
no startling deviations from traditional standards. Little or no
attention has been given to some of these obscure dramatists who in the
midst of the Collier controversy attempted to illustrate in tragedy the
arguments advanced in the third part of John Dennis's _The Usefulness of
the Stage, to the Happiness of Mankind, to Government, and to Religion_
(1698). Striving to demonstrate the usefulness of the stage, these
avowed reformers produced essentially domestic tragedies, by treating
such problems as filial obedience and marital fidelity in terms of
orthodox theology. The argument that the stage can be an adjunct of
the pulpit is widespread, and appears most explicitly in Hill's preface
to his _Fatal Extravagance_ (1721), sometimes regarded as the first
middle-class tragedy in the eighteenth century, and in Lillo's
dedication to _George Barnwell_ (1731). The line from these obscure
dramatists at the turn of the century to Lillo is direct and clear. Of
these forgotten plays we can note here only _Fatal Friendship_ (1698)
by Mrs. Catherine Trotter whom John Hughes hailed as "the first of
stage-reformers"
(_To the Author of Fatal Friendship, a Tragedy_), an unquestionably
domestic tragedy inculcating a theological "lesson". To this play,
which was acted with "great applause" (_Biographica Dramatica_,
107), Aaron Hill was, I am convinced, considerably indebted for his
_Fatal Extravagance_, which is, in turn, one of the sources of _The
Gamester_.
In the early eighteenth century, then, there is clearly discernible a
two-fold tendency toward middle-class tragedy which reaches its fullest
expression in Lillo: the desire to lower the social level of the
characters in order to make the tragedy more moving; and the desire to
defend the stage by demonstrating its religious and moral utility. In
his prologue to _The Fair Penitent_ (l703), Rowe gave expression to the
first: the "fate of kings and empires", he argues, is too remote to
engage our feelings, for "we ne'er can pity that we ne'er can share";
therefore he offers "a melancholy tale of private woes". In his
prologue, Lillo repeats this idea, but in his dedication he shows
himself primarily concerned with the second tendency. Specifically
challenging those "who deny the lawfulness of the stage", he argues
that "the more extensively useful the moral of any tragedy is, the more
excellent that piece must be of its kind"; the generality of mankind is
more liable to vice than are kings; therefore "plays founded on moral
tales in private life may be of admirable use... by stifling vice in its
first principles". Dramatists who were concerned only or primarily with
the first of these tendencies (the emotional effect), produced domestic
or pseudo-domestic tragedies in the manner of Otway and Rowe. But those
who stressed the second (moral and religious utility), seeking practical
themes of widespread applicability, quite logically moved toward genuine
middle-class tragedy. Thus Hill's _Fatal Extravagance_ is concerned with
the "vice" of gambling; while Charles Johnson's _Caelia, or The Perjur'd
Lover_ (1732) attacks fashionable libertinism of the day, telling the
story which Richardson was later to retell in seven ponderous volumes.
In _Caelia_ the religious rationalization of the tragic action is
subdued, Johnson apparently preferring to stress the social and moral
aspects of his subject, and to this end he resolutely refused to
expunge or modify the boldly realistic brothel scenes, against which
a fastidious audience had protested.
A comparison of _The Gamester_ with its predecessor, _Fatal
Extravagance_, reflects certain developments in the intellectual
background of the first half of the eighteenth century. Hill anticipated
Lillo in repeating Rowe's argument for lowering the social level of
tragedy and in stating vigorously his desire to defend the stage by
demonstrating its religious and moral utility. An admirer of Dennis's
critical writings, Hill repeats Dennis's argument that the stage can
affect those whom the pulpit falls to reach, and he offers his play
as proof that "sound and useful instruction may be drawn from the
_Theatre_", challenging the enemies of the stage to test his play "by
the rules of religion and virtue" (Preface). Taking a "hint", as he
says, from _A Yorkshire Tragedy_, Hill endeavored to show the "private
sorrows" that result from gaming.
At the opening of the play, the hero, having gambled away his fortune,
faces poverty. His friend who signed his bond is in jail and a kindly
uncle has failed to secure the needed relief. In a fit of passion
growing out of despair, the hero kills the villainous creditor, and
decides to poison his (the hero's) wife and children, and then stab
himself. In his dying moments he learns that the uncle has substituted
a harmless cordial for the poison and that a long-lost brother has died
leaving him a fortune. This bare outline gives no indication of Hill's
careful theological rationalization of character and plot which he
promised in his preface. Hill incorporated in his play the teachings of
orthodox divines; there is nothing 'revolutionary' in his analytical
presentation of human nature. The theological significance of Hill's
play has not, to my knowledge, been recognized; thematic passages tend
to be dismissed as tiresome and gratuitous moralizing and the plot
is often regarded as empty melodrama or the representation of some
ambiguous 'fate'. It is in this deliberate theological rationalization
of his materials that Hill owes most to Mrs. Trotter's domestic tragedy
and that he differs significantly from Moore.
As with Hill and Lillo, Moore's desire to write a play with an
extensively useful 'moral' led him to middle-class realism and prose.
To attack the widespread fashion of gaming which he regarded as a "vice",
Moore attempted to present "a natural picture" in language adapted "to
the capacities and feelings of every part of the audience" (Preface,
1756). That he should have treated this social problem tragically is to
be explained, perhaps, by his sources and by his religious background.
He justified the "horror of its catastrophe" on the grounds that "so
prevailing and destructive a vice as Gaming" warranted it. _The
Gamester_ has been justly credited with superior dramatic qualities in
comparison with Hill's _Fatal Extravagance,_, but we might perhaps note
briefly certain aspects of the two plays which reflect changes in the
intellectual background. In both plays theological ideas are involved
in the treatment of the fall of the hero, partially in Moore's play,
completely In Hill's. Not recognizing ideas common to early eighteenth
century sermons, the modern reader may perhaps puzzle over the steadily
increasing moral paralysis and despondency in Moore's hero, Beverly.
Vice, preached the divines, beclouds the reason, leaving it
progressively incapable of controlling the passions:
Follies, if uncontroul'd, of every kind,
Grow into passions, and subdue the mind. (V, 4)
Further each commission of sin causes progressive loss of grace, without
which man cannot act rightly. In prison Beverly is incapable of prayer
("I cannot pray--Despair has laid his iron hand upon me, and seal'd me
for perdition..."). However, a benevolent deity touches him with the
finger of grace, enabling him to repent ("I wish'd for ease, a moment's
ease, that cool repentance and contrition might soften vengeance"). He
can now pray for mercy and in his dying moments is vouchsafed assurance
of forgiveness ("Yet Heaven is gracious--I ask'd for hope, as the bright
presage of forgiveness, and like a light, blazing thro' darkness, it
came and chear'd me...").
In this aspect Moore is working along the lines laid down by Hill, but
there is a significant difference, attributable perhaps to the weakening
of orthodox theology and the spreading influence of the Shaftesburian
school of ethical theorists. In the older theology, man's progressive
loss of grace correspondingly releases his natural propensity for evil,
and working in these concepts neither Hill nor Lillo hesitated to show
his hero descending to murder. Moore, influenced perhaps by the ethical
sentiments of the day, compromised his theological concepts and
permitted his hero no really evil act (excluding of course his suicide),
and stressed instead Beverly's mistaken trust in Stukely, who is, as
Elton has pointed out, a "Mandevillian man" (_Survey of English
Literature: 1730-1760_, I, 329-30).
There is another significant difference between the two plays which
reflects the development of religious thought in the first half of the
eighteenth century. Commenting on the too-late arrival of the news of
the uncle's death, Elton remarks that "this _too-lateness_... which
is in the nature of an accident, is a common and mechanical device of
Georgian tragedy" (I, 330). Hill employed the device, the good news
coming as a complete surprise, but he made it part of a carefully
ordered plot designed to reveal the direct intervention and mysterious
workings of a particular Providence, making characterization and action
consistent, and giving his play a precise theological significance. In
Moore's day, however, under the impact of deism and the developing
rationalism, the concept of a particular Providence in orthodox theology
had become so subtilized that the older idea of direct and striking
intervention in human affairs all but disappeared. By mid-eighteenth
century, deity, as Leslie Stephen points out, "appears under the
colourless shape of Providence--a word which may be taken to imply
a remote divine superintendence, without admitting an actual divine
interference" (_History of English Thought In the Eighteenth Century_,
II, 336). The references to Providence in Moore's play are of this type,
pious labels on prudential morality. Moore carefully avoids the various
devices employed by Hill to indicate direct divine intervention;
consequently the late arrival of the news of the uncle's death (which
was expected throughout the play) is without special meaning, and serves
only as a theatrical device intended to heighten the emotional effect.
_The Gamester_, then, is a clear reflection of the state of English
thought in the middle of the eighteenth century, in which a declining
theology becomes suffused with the ideas and sentiments of the moralists
of the age.
Despite the popularity of their plays, neither Lillo nor Moore inspired
any significant followers in England. On the Continent, however, their
influence was considerable. In his introduction to his edition of _The
London Merchant_, A.W. Ward traces Lillo's influence on the Continent,
and Caskey gives a detailed account of Moore's (119-134). _The Gamester_
was translated into German, French, Dutch, Spanish, and Italian. It was
first acted at Breslau in 1754 and retained its stage popularity for
more than two decades. A German translation appeared in 1754, and for
more than twenty years numerous editions and translations continued to
appear. In France, Diderot admired the play and translated it in 1760
(not published until 1819); Saurin's translation and adaptation (1767)
proved popular on the French stage (he later provided an alternate happy
ending which was frequently played).
_The Gamester_ is reproduced, with permission, from a copy owned by the
University of Michigan.
Charles H. Peake
University of Michigan
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
The first edition of Moore's _The Gamester_ appeared in 1753 shortly
after the opening of Garrick's performance of the play on February 7.
This edition is in many respects a good text; it has seemed desirable
for several reasons, however, to reprint this work from the 1756 edition
of _Poems, Fables, and Plays_ (often referred to as the "Collected
Works"). The 1756 text often corrects that of 1753 and is generally
superior to later printings; it contains passages and improved readings
not present in other editions; it aims at formal correctness, employing
classical scene division; as a "Works" edition it exhibits excellent
editorial and typographical treatment; it enjoys a superior general
readability advantageous to classroom use; and, finally, it contains
Moore's vindicatory preface, which, as far as an examination of
available copies shows, does not appear in other editions. Inasmuch
as the 1756 printing is somewhat late, standing between the fourth and
fifth editions of the play, a brief bibliographical account of _The
Gamester_ is offered.
The play was printed separately many times in the eighteenth century.
The first edition, in the University of Michigan copy, bears the title:
THE / GAMESTER. / A / TRAGEDY. / As it is Acted at the / _Theatre-Royal_
in _Drury-Lane_. / [rule] / ornament / [rule] / _LONDON_: / Printed for
R. FRANCKLIN, in _Russel-Street_, / _Covent-Garden_; and Sold by
R. DODSLEY, / in _Pall-Mall_. M.DCC.LIII. / The anonymity of the
titlepage is half-hearted, for the dedication to Henry Pelham is
signed "Edw. Moore." A prologue written by Garrick, an epilogue,
and the cast of the original performance precede the eighty-four page
text. Francklin and Dodsley brought out a second edition in the same
year and a fourth edition in 1755; presumably a third edition had
been issued in the interim. In 1771 a fifth and a sixth edition
appeared, and in 1776 another London edition came out. In 1784 two
more editions made an appearance, the first printed for R. Butters
(John H. Caskey, _The Life and Works of Edward Moore_, Yale Studies
in English, LXXV [New Haven, 1927], p. 174), the second printed for
a group of four booksellers--Thomas Davies, W. Nicoll, Samuel Bladon,
and John Bew. The same combination of booksellers, with W. Lowndes
taking the place of Davies, issued in 1789 an inferior reprinting of
their 1784 text. The editions of 1784 and 1789 are interesting because
they identify by inverted commas the cuts made in contemporary stage
versions. Before the end of the century three editions were printed
outside London: two Dublin imprints of 1763 and 1783, and an American
imprint of 1791 by Henry Taylor in Philadelphia.
In addition to these separate publications, _The Gamester_ was included
in two collections of Moore's works. The 1756 edition has already been
noticed. THE DRAMATIC WORKS OF Mr. Edward Moore, as the 1788 titlepage
describes the volume, was issued by the Lowndes-Nicoll-Bladon-Bew group
and was actually an assembled text made up of the 1784 printing of _The
Gamester_, the 1786 _The Foundling_, and the 1788 _Gil Blas_.
The play was a favorite in many popular dramatic collections of the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth century; it appeared in Bell's
_British Theatre_ in 1776 and thereafter, in Mrs. Inchbald's _The
British Theatre_ in 1808, in Dibdin's _London Theatre_ in 1815, and in
Cumberland's _British Theatre_ in 1826. According to Caskey and other
sources the play was thus reprinted more than a dozen times by the
middle of the nineteenth century. Since then it has declined in favor
and has seldom been reprinted, even in textbook anthologies covering
representative literature of the period.
The 1756 text of the play and the plates from the Davies-Nicoll-
Bladon-Bew 1784 edition have been reproduced through the cooperation of
the University of Michigan Library from copies of these editions in its
possession. Because of its lack of significance, the dedication to
Henry Pelham has not been reprinted.
Philip R. Wikelund
University of Michigan
* * * * *
* * * *
* * * * *
THE
GAMESTER.
A
TRAGEDY.
As it is Acted at the
Theatre-Royal
in
Drury-Lane.
[Illustration: MRS SIDDONS and MR KEMBLE as
_Mr. & Mrs. Beverley Act 5. Sc. 4_.
Bev. _O! for a few short Moments to tell you
how my Heart bleeds for you._]
PREFACE.
It having been objected to this tragedy, that its language is prose, and
its catastrophe too horrible, I shall entreat the reader's patience for
a minute, that I may say a word or two to these objections.
The play of the GAMESTER was intended to be a natural picture of that
kind of life, of which all men are judges; and as it struck at a vice so
universally prevailing, it was thought proper to adapt its language to
the capacities and feelings of every part of the audience: that as some
of its characters were of no higher rank than _Sharpers_, it was
imagined that (whatever good company they may find admittance to in the
world) their speaking blank verse upon the stage would be unnatural,
if not ridiculous. But though the more elevated characters also speak
prose, the judicious reader will observe, that it is a species of prose
which differs very little from verse: in many of the most animated
scenes, I can truly say, that I often found it a much greater difficulty
to avoid, than to write, _measure_. I shall only add, in answer to this
objection, that I hoped to be more interesting, by being more natural;
and the event, as far as I have been a witness of it, has more than
answered my expectations.
As to the other objection, the horror of its catastrophe, if it be
considered simply what that catastrophe is, and compared with those of
other tragedies, I should humbly presume that the working it up to any
uncommon degree of horror, is the _merit_ of the play, and not its
_reproach_. Nor should so prevailing and destructive a vice as GAMING be
attacked upon the theatre, without impressing upon the imagination all
the horrors that may attend it.
I shall detain the reader no longer than to inform him, that I am
indebted for many of the most popular passages in this play to the
inimitable performer, who, in the character of the_ Gamester, _exceeded
every idea I had conceived of it in the writing.
PROLOGUE.
Written and spoken by Mr. GARRICK.
Like fam'd La Mancha's knight, who launce in hand,
Mounted his steed to free th' enchanted land,
Our Quixote bard sets forth a monster-taming,
Arm'd at all points, to fight that hydra--GAMING.
Aloft on Pegasus he waves his pen,
And hurls defiance at the caitiff's den.
The _First_ on fancy'd giants spent his rage,
But _This_ has more than windmills to engage:
He combats passion, rooted in the soul,
Whose pow'rs, at once delight ye, and controul;
Whose magic bondage each lost slave enjoys,
Nor wishes freedom, though the spell destroys.
To save our land from this MAGICIAN's charms,
And rescue maids and matrons from his arms,
Our knight poetic comes. And Oh! ye fair!
This black ENCHANTER's wicked arts beware!
His subtle poison dims the brightest eyes,
And at his touch, each grace and beauty dies:
Love, gentleness and joy to rage give way,
And the soft dove becomes a bird of prey.
May this our bold advent'rer break the spell,
And drive the _demon_ to his native hell.
Ye slaves of passion, and ye dupes of chance,
Wake all your pow'rs from this destructive trance!
Shake off the shackles of this tyrant vice:
Hear other calls than those of cards and dice:
Be learn'd in nobler arts, than arts of _play_,
And other debts, than those of _honour_ pay:
No longer live insensible to shame,
Lost to your country, families and fame.
Could our romantic muse this work atchieve,
Would there one honest heart in _Britain_ grieve?
Th' attempt, though wild, would not in vain be made,
If every honest hand would lend its aid.
Dramatis Personae.
MEN.
Beverley, Mr. GARRICK.
Lewson, Mr. MOSSOP.
Stukely, Mr. DAVIES.
Jarvis, Mr. BERRY.
Bates, Mr. BURTON.
Dawson, Mr. BLAKES.
Waiter, Mr. ACKMAN.
WOMEN
Mrs. Beverley, Mrs. PRITCHARD.
Charlotte, Miss. HAUGHTON.
Lucy, Mrs. PRICE.
SCENE, LONDON.
THE
GAMESTER.
A
TRAGEDY.
ACT I. SCENE I.
_Enter Mrs. BEVERLEY, and CHARLOTTE._
_Mrs. Beverley._ Be comforted, my dear; all may be well yet.
And now, methinks, the lodgings begin to look with another face.
O sister! sister! if these were all my hardships; if all I had
to complain of were no more than quitting my house, servants,
equipage and show, your pity would be weakness.
_Char._ Is poverty nothing then?
_Mrs. Bev._ Nothing in the world, if it affected only Me. While we
had a fortune, I was the happiest of the rich: and now 'tis gone,
give me but a bare subsistance, and my husband's smiles, and I'll be
the happiest of the poor. To Me now these lodgings want nothing but
their master. Why d'you look so at me?
_Char._ That I may hate my brother.
_Mrs. Bev._ Don't talk so, Charlotte.
_Char._ Has he not undone you? Oh! this pernicious vice of gaming!
But methinks his usual hours of four or five in the morning might
have contented him; 'twas misery enough to wake for him till then:
need he have staid out all night? I shall learn to detest him.
_Mrs. Bev._ Not for the first fault. He never slept from me
before.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6
