Thomas D\'Urfey and Bossuet - Essays on the Stage
T >>
Thomas D\'Urfey and Bossuet >> Essays on the Stage
Series Three:
_Essays on the Stage_
No. 4
Thomas D'Urfey, Preface to _The Campaigners_ (1698)
and
Anonymous, Preface to the Translation of Bossuet's
_Maxims and Reflections upon Plays_ (1699)
With an Introduction by
Joseph Wood Krutch
The Augustan Reprint Society
March, 1948
Price: $1.00
* * * * *
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
The three parts of D'Urfey's "The Comical History of Don Quixote" were
performed between 1694 and (probably) the end of 1696. Some of the
songs included were conspicuously "smutty"--to use a word which D'Urfey
ridiculed--but the fact that the plays were fresh in the public mind
was probably the most effective reason for Jeremy Collier's decision
to include the not very highly respected author among the still living
playwrights to be singled out for attack in "A Short View of the
Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage", which appeared at
Easter time 1698. In July of the same year D'Urfey replied with the
preface to his "smutty" play "The Campaigners". It is this preface
which is given as the first item of the present reprint.
Pope's contemptuous prologue, written many years later and apparently
for a benefit performance of one of D'Urfey's plays, is sufficient
evidence that the playwright was not highly regarded; but he was reputed
to be a good natured man and, by the standards of the time, his twitting
of Collier--whom he accused of having a better nose for smut than a
clergyman should have--is not conspicuously vituperative. Even his
attack on the political character of the notorious Non-Juror is bitter
without being really scurrilous. But like his betters Congreve and
Vanbrugh, D'Urfey both missed the opportunity to grapple with the real
issues of the controversy and misjudged the temper of the public. Had
that public been, as all the playwrights seem to have assumed, ready to
side with them against Collier, there might have been some justification
in resting content as he and Congreve did with the scoring of a few
debater's points. But the public, even "the town", was less interested
in mere sally and rejoinder than it was in the serious question of the
relation of comedy to morality, and hence Collier was allowed to win the
victory almost by default.
Collier's own argument was either confused or deliberately disingenuous,
since he shifts his ground several times. On occasion he argues merely
in the role of a moderate man who is shocked by the extravagances of the
playwrights, and on other occasions as an ascetic to whom all worldly
diversion, however innocent of any obvious offence, is wicked. At one
time, moreover, he accuses the playwrights of recommending the vices
which they should satirize and at other times denies that even the most
sincere satiric intention can justify the lively representation of
wickedness. But none of his opponents actually seized the opportunity
to completely clarify the issues. Vanbrugh, it is true, makes some real
points in his "A Short Vindication of The Relapse and The Provok'd
Wife", and John Dennis, in his heavy handed way, showed some realization
of what the issues were both in "The Usefulness of the Stage to the
Happiness of Mankind, to Government and to Religion" (1698) and, much
later, In "The Stage Defended" (1726). But, Vanbrugh is casual, Dennis
is slow witted, and it is only by comparison with the triviality of
D'Urfey or the contemptuous disingenuity of Congreve's "Amendments of
Mr. Collier's False and Imperfect Citations" (1698) that they seem
effective.
At least forty books and pamphlets published between 1698 and 1725 are
definitely part of the Collier controversy, but the fact that none of
them really discusses adequately fundamental premises concerning the
nature, method, and function of comedy had serious consequences for the
English stage. The situation was further complicated by the rise of
sentimental comedy and the fact that the theories supposed to justify
it were expounded with all the completeness and clarity which were so
conspicuously lacking in the case of those who undertook halfheartedly
to defend what we call "high" or "pure", as opposed to both sentimental
and satiric comedy. Steele's epilogue to "The Lying Lover", which
versified Hobbes' comments on laughter and then rejected laughter itself
as unworthy of a refined human being, is a triumphant epitaph inscribed
over the grave of the comic spirit.
The second item included in the present reprint, namely the anonymous
preface to a translation of Bossuet's "Maxims and Reflections Upon
Plays", belongs to a different phase of the Collier controversy. It
serves as an illustration of the fact that Collier was soon joined by
men who were, somewhat more frankly than he had himself admitted he was,
open enemies of the stage as such. He had begun with arguments supported
by citations from literary critics and he called in the support of
ascetic religious writers after his discourse was well under way. But
the direct approach by way of religion was soon taken up by others,
of whom Arthur Bedford was probably the most redoubtable as he was
certainly the most long winded, since his "Evil and Danger of Stage
Plays" (1706) crowds into its two hundred and twenty-seven pages some
two thousand instances of alleged profaneness and immorality with
specific references to the texts of scripture which condemn each one.
But Bedford had not been the first to treat the issue as one to be
decoded by theologians rather than playwrights or critics. Somewhat
unwisely, perhaps, Motteux had printed before his comedy "Beauty in
Distress" a discourse "Of the Lawfulness and Unlawfulness of Plays"
(1698), written by the Italian monk Father Caffaro, who was professor of
divinity at the Sorbonne. Unfortunately Caffaro had, some years before
this English translation appeared, already retracted his mild opinion
that stage plays were not, _per se_, unlawful, and it was possible not
only to cite his retraction but also to offer the opinions of the Bishop
of Meux, who was better known to English readers than Father Caffaro.
The anonymous author of the preface to "Maxims and Reflections"
grants that dramatic poetry might, under certain circumstances, be
theoretically permissible, but rather more frankly than Collier he makes
it clear that his real intention is to urge the outlawing of the theater
itself, since all efforts to reform it are foredoomed to failure. "But
if", he writes, "the Reformation of the Stage be no longer practicable,
reason good that the incurable Evil should be cut off". That lets the
cat out of the bag.
Both pieces reprinted here are from copies owned by the University of
Michigan.
Joseph Wood Krutch
Columbia University
* * * * *
The Campaigners:
or, the
_Pleasant Adventures at_ Brussels.
A
COMEDY
As it is Acted at the _Theatre-Royal_.
with a
Familiar Preface
upon
_A Late Reformer of the STAGE._
Ending with a Satyrical Fable
of
the DOG and the OTTOR.
Written by Mr. _D'urfey_.
LONDON,
Printed for _A. Baldwin_, near the _Oxford Arms_ Inn
in _Warwick lane_. MDCXCVIII.
PREFACE.
I Must necessarily inform the Partial, as well as Impartial Reader,
that I had once design'd another kind of Preface to my Comedy than what
will appear in the following sheets; but having in the interim been
entertain'd with a Book lately Printed, full of Abuses on all our
Antient as well as Modern Poets, call'd _A view of the Immorality and
Prophaness of the English Stage_; and finding the Author, who, no doubt,
extreamly values himself upon his Talent of _Stage-reforming_, not
only (to use his own Ironical words) _particular in his Genius and
Civilities_, but indecently, unmanner'd, and scurrilous in his unjust
Remarks on me, and two of my Plays, _viz._ the first and second parts
of the _Comical History of_ Don Quixote. [Footnote: Collier, p. 196.]
I thought I cou'd not do better, first as a Diversion to the Town, and
next to do a little Iustice to my self, than (instead of the other) to
print a short Answer to this very Severe and Critical Gentleman; and at
the same time give him occasion to descant upon the following Comick
Papers, and my self the opportunity of vindicating the other; with some
familiar Returns (_en Raillere_) upon his own Extraordinary _Integrity_,
and Justness of the _Censure_.
But first, lest I should plunge my self out of my depth, or like an
unskilful Swimmer, endanger my self by a too precipitate Rashness, let
me warily consider the Office and Habit of this unchristianlike Critick
before I Attack him: He has, or had the honour to wear the Robe of a
Clergyman of the Church of _England_: A Church, which for its Purity,
Principles, and most Incomparable Doctrines, surpasses without objection
all others in the world, which with a number of its pious, virtuous and
learned Rulers and Ministers, I admire and acknowledge with all the
faculties of my soul, heart and understanding; and on which I never
seriously reflect, but I feel a secret shame for my remissness of duty,
and my neglect, in not living hitherto up to its Admirable Principles.
This reflection would indeed have been enough to awe any one in my
circumstances from proceeding to answer his bold Censures, had I not
Courage to consider that the rest of the worthy Gentlemen of that Robe
are so good, that they will not excuse or defend our aforesaid Critick's
Injustice or Mistakes in some places, tho they are pleas'd with his
Truths in others; or be angry at me for endeavouring to gain their good
opinion, by defending my self from most of his black Aspersions (how
fair soever as yet they seem) and by unfolding him be judg'd by their
impartial reason, start a question, whither he, tho a happy member of
the aforesaid Adorable Church, does not come in for his share of
_Immorality_, and other frailties; and consequently is not as fit to be
detected, by the Wit of a Satyrical Poet; as the Poet by the positive
Authority of an Angry Malecontent, tho in the garb of an humble
Churchman.
The _Vates_, or Poets in antient times were held in special veneration,
even their Kings, and other chief Rulers, often submitted to the virtue
of their Inspiration: Amongst which, the never enough admir'd Mr
_Cowley_, in his noble version of the _Davideidos_, gives the _Royal
David_ this Title, _Rex olim & Vates duo Maxima munera Coeli_; and
numbers of others might be inserted to prove Poetical Authority, and
the respect it bore in past Ages; which, tho I have not capacity to
parallel, I hope I may be allow'd to imitate on another subject; and in
this have leave to acquit my self of several heinous Accusations, which
this Tyrannical Critick has Impos'd upon me.
I am not at all Ignorant of his eminent parts, Learning, and other
qualifications; nor am I insensible, as well as the rest of his Readers,
that his Book has a very fair and engaging Title-page, and is no less
Illustrated with many weighty and just censures upon the _Immorality of
the Stage_, and our licentious Writings for many years past; and tho
this has been proved by the late Ingenious Author of _the Vindication of
the Stage_ to be occasion'd by the vices of the Times, and not those of
the Poets; yet thus for we can endure the Scourge, and kiss his Rod with
patience enough: And for my own part, I declare if I had found his
Severity had been moral, and had ended in the good design of cleansing
the Stage from its Impurities, and had been only a kind Instruction to
my Brethren and my self, to reform our Immoral errors, I had, as the
rest of us, with all humility imaginable, thank'd him for his wit and
good reproof; and had been so far from answering in this manner, that I
should have been proud to have my name before his Book, with a Copy of
Verses in applause of his Admirable Design. But when, instead of this,
I find he strikes at the root of our Dramatick Labours, and the Town's
diversion, for some sly and selfish ends; and instead of reproving us
with a Pastorly Mildness, Charity and Good Nature, gives us the basest
language, and with the most scurillous expression, sometimes raging and
even foaming at mouth, taxing the little liberty has always been us'd,
with horrid horrid Blasphemy, Prophaneness, and Damnable Impiety; when
Reason must inform every one we intend nothing of the matter, besides
the poor priviledge _Poetica Licentia_: and pretending to prove this
with false Quotations, unnatural Mistakes, and Hypocritical Hypotheses,
I resolv'd to controvert him, and endeavour to prove that 'tis meerly
his malice that has abus'd me and the rest, without Reason or
Provocation; and that his own Wit and Morals are not so Infallible,
but they lye also open to the censure of any Poetical Critick, who
has Courage and Sense enough to attack 'em.
I once more therefore address my self to the Reverend of the Gown, from
highest to the lowest, and humbly desire that they will not appear
Interested against me, because I defend myself against one that has
abus'd me, and has the honour to wear one, (to what purpose the Judgment
and Clemency of our Government knows best) I assure 'em my design is
only to turn, like the Worm that is trod upon, complain being hurt,
vindicate my self from abusive malice, and at the same time am heartily
sorry that ever I had the occasion.
'Tis a pleasure to me however to know that I have for many years, as
well as now, the honour of the Conversation of several eminent men of
the Church; and I dare say, upon occasion, I could easily gain their
good words to prove my good behaviour. I do declare I never abus'd the
sacred order in my life, but have always had, and still have, all the
veneration for 'em that's possible; nor have any of my printed Writings
contradicted this, unless when spoken in the person of Atheists,
Libertines, and Ignorants, where 'tis natural in Comedy; nay, in my Book
of Poems you will find a _Satyr against Atheists_, and in another Book,
call'd _Colin's walk thro' London and Westminster_, a Moral through the
whole, and design'd in the honour of the Church of _England_, to shew
the stubbornness of _Romanists_, Grumblers, and other dissenting Sects;
but this my partial Antagonist never read, nor heard of; nay, tho by his
Book we may suppose he has read a thousand, yet amongst twenty of my
Comedies Acted and Printed, he never heard of the _Royalist_, the
_Boarding School_, the _Marriage Hater Match'd_, the _Richmond Heiress_,
the _Virtuous Wife_, and others, all whose whole Plots and designs I
dare affirm, tend to that principal instance, which he proposes, and
which we allow, _viz._ the depression of Vice and encouragement of
Virtue. Not he, he has not had leisure since his last _holding forth in
the late Reign_, to do me this Justice, 'tis enough for him that he has
encounter'd _Don Quixot_. [Footnote: Collier, p.] And truly, I must own,
was a most proper Combatant for him; for if he had not been mad with the
Wind-mill that was in his pate, or had ever perus'd that _Giant_ of an
Author, upon whom I am the _Pigmy_, as he wittily observes, he would
have found the Bockheaded Chaplain had been greazing his old Gassock
there long before I new rigg'd him: But that's all one, I, poor I, must
be denounc'd as Criminal; I brought him upon the Stage, I wash'd his
Face, put on a new Crape Vest, and a clean Band, which, oh, fatal
accident, made him look so like somebody, that I, in his opinion, and
condemn'd by his infallibility, have been no body ever since, _vox &
praeterea nihil_. Well, however this is determin'd, let me beg of my
impartial Readers, to give me leave to try what I can be, I have had
good fortune I am told by others in Lyrical Verse, which I am sure is
one principal part of Poetry, I'll see now if I can match my Antagonist
in Rallying Prose. Several ingenious Authors have already, I think, so
well confuted his Assertions against the Stage, by proofs from the
Antient Poets, the Primitive Fathers, and their Authorities, that they
have far excell'd what I can pretend to do there; only, I could have
wish'd one who is best able, and whose admirable Genius and Skill in
Poetry would have been remarkably serviceable, had drawn his Pen to
defend the Rights of the Stage, tho he had own'd the loosenesses of it,
and had ventured the being presented for it; but since we, the forlorn,
are not so happy to have that Aid, let my Antagonist, the Reformer, who,
for all the gravity in some part of his Book, and the solid Piety he
would insinuate in his Arguments, I perceive to be a Joker, and as full
of Puns, Conundrums, Quibbles, Longinquipetites, and Tipiti-witchets, as
the rest of us mortals, be pleas'd to take the length of my Weapon at
that sport, for now I cannot help telling my Audience, which is the
Town, that he has laid his reforming Cudgel upon me so severely, and it
smarts so damnably, that I can't forbear smiting again if I were to be
hang'd, desiring only, as the usual method is, a clear Stage, and from
him no favour.
To begin then, I shall illustrate my first Scene with a comical hint
upon some part of his Character; and that the Jest may be worthy of
making you laugh, you are to know, that the first view I ever had of
this extraordinary Person, was neither better nor worse than under the
_Gallows_. Well, but think you, I warrant, 'twas about some Charitable
Duty that his sacred Function and Piety oblig'd him to, such as
Exhorting the poor Souls to confess their Crimes, in order to be sav'd,
or the like; no, faith, but quite contrary, for he was rather hardning
them, and infusing a strong Portion of his own obstinacy, to fortifie
'em for their dubious Journey; and in few minutes after, possess'd with
a stronger Spirit of Priesthood than e'er, for some past Ages there has
been Example for, pronounc'd the _Absolution_, the extremest and most
mysterious Grace the Church can possibly give to the most repentant
Sinner, to wretches Justly condemn'd by Law to die, for the most
horrible Crimes in nature, _viz._ the intended Murder of the King,
and Subversion of the Protestant Religion and Government. Now that
such a Person should set up for a Protestant Example, and a Teacher
of Morality, is somewhat new, for upon my veracity, this Gentleman may
insinuate as he pleases, that our Church, and its Doctrines govern his
heart; but as to that matter what may be in his heart I can't tell, but
if a Pope is not crept into his belly, very near it, I am very much
mistaken.
_Pliny_ indeed, in his Natural History, _Lib._ 28, _Cap._ 10. tells ye,
He that is bitten by a Scorpion may have relief, if immediately he go
and whisper his grief into the Ear of an Ass. This Historian, perhaps,
had so great credit with these Malefactors that they thought the remedy,
by Auricular Confession, might serve too in their Concerns. But we are
confirm'd, they were enough mistaken in the rest of their Opinions, and
so 'tis very likely were in this. If this Parallel be found a little
gross, I hope the Reader will excuse it, when he examines the bold
Critick's Stile relating to the Poets. Besides, how wise soever he may
be in other things, I'm sure all those that are so, and true Sons of
the Church, when they reflect on that Action of his, will own that he
deserves that, or a worse Title. And so to proceed.
But before we inspect further, or touch upon the Moralist's Immorality,
for I dare ingage it is not altogether impossible to prove, the
_Pulpiteer_ may be tainted a little as well as the _Poetaster_, let us
see whether we can find him guilty of the first Charge against us, which
is _Immodesty_; and upon this subject indeed, if our Learn'd Reformer
did not impose upon us with a Fallacy, I should (to shew my good Nature
walk hand in hand with my resentment) once more admire him for his
Character of Modesty in the 11th page of his Book, which is, to do him
Justice, very fine; but then he only tells us of one kind of Modesty,
when he knows there are two, and therein he is Falacious, in not
exposing the other, which is decency of Speech and Behaviour; and truly,
meerly, I believe, through a conscious reflection of his own frequent
miscarriages in that case. If therefore, these Papers differ a little
from that Civility which is proper, I beg the Readers pardon, and assure
him 'tis only in imitation of his Stile to me, as all those that read
his Book may find.
For, in the first place, he does not shew his own, nor, indeed, any part
of decent modesty, in exposing any Gentlemans Name in print, when the
subject matter is Satyr, Reflection, Scandal, _&c._ and in which case I
believe the Law might do Justice, if apply'd to; but if not, I am sure
good Manners, and civil Education, ought to tie the Cassock as close as
the Sash or Sursingle; but this our Divine helper, most Bully-like,
disallows; for he, puff'd with his Priestly Authority, calls us boldly
to the Bar of his Injustice by our own Names, the same minute that he is
roaringly accusing us of Blasphemy, Smuttery, Foolery, and a thousand
Monstrosities besides, as he'd make you believe; unless for variety, he
picks out one amongst the rest, now and then, to abuse a little more
civilly, and then, rubbing up his old College Wit, he Nicknames 'em,
as you may find elegantly made out at the latter end of his Book,
(for he shall see that I have read it quite through, and can hop over
pages as fast as he for the life of him) where he can find no other
Name or Character for two Gentlemen of Honour and Merit, _viz._ Mr.
_Congreve_ and Captain _Vanbrooke_, who have written several excellent
Plays, and who are only scandalous to our Critick, by being good Poets,
yet these he can give no other Names or Characters, but what are Abusive
and Ridiculous. [Footnote: Collier, p. 74] The first, for only making
_Jeremy_, in _Love for Love_, call the Natural inclinations to eating
and drinking, _Whorson Appetites_, he tells, That the _Manicheans,
who made Creation the Work of the Devil, scarcely spoke any thing so
course_. And then very modestly proceeding onwards says, _The Poet was
_Jeremy_'s Tutor_. The t'other Gentleman he dignifies by a new Coin'd
name of his own, _viz._ _The Relapser_, and much like an humble Son of
the Church, a Man of Morals and Manners tells us, _This Poet is fit to
Ride a Match with Witches: And, that _Juliana Cox_ (_a Non-juring Hag,
I suppose, of his Acquaintance_) never switch'd a Broom-stick with more
expedition._ [Footnote: Collier, p. 230.] Faith, such sentences as
these, may be taking enough amongst his Party; but if this be his way of
Reproving the Stage, and Teaching the Town Modesty, he will have fewer
Pupils, I believe, than he imagines.
But to do that Gentleman Broom-stick Rider some Justice, and because we
shall want a Name hereafter to Christen the t'other, as he has given the
Name of _Relapser_, so I think that of the _Absolver_ will be a very
proper one to distinguish our Switcher, by which the Reader may observe,
that we are civiller to him than he to us however. And first then, I
desire all Persons to observe, that in other places of the same Chapter
of his Book, our _Absolver_, for all his detestation of the Stage, and
of Poetry in general, yet takes a huge deal of pains in taking to
pieces, and mending the Comedy of the _Relapse_; nay, and to shew how
transcendent his own Skill in these things is, he has help'd the Author
to a better Name for his Play, and says, _The Younger Brother_, or, _The
Fortunate Cheat_, had been much properer. [Footnote: Collier, p. 210.]
This shews some good will he has to the Comick Trade however; and I
doubt not, but if his Closet were Ransack'd, we might find a divertive
Scene or two, effects of his idle Non-preaching hours, where Modesty,
Wit, and good Behaviour, would be shewn in perfection.
And yet, as to his own humour, we find it to be, by his Book, more
fickle than even the Wind, or Feminine frailty in its highest
Inconstancy. One while he's for Instructing our Stage, Modelling our
Plays, Correcting the Drama, the Unity, Time and Place, and acts as very
a Poet as ever writ an ill Play, or slept at an ill Sermon; and then,
presently after, wheiw, in the twinkling of an Ejaculution, as Parson
_Say-grace_ has it, he's summoning together a Convocation of old
Fathers, to prove the Stage in past Ages exploded, and all Plays
horrible, abominable Debauchers of youth, and not to be encourag'd in a
Civil Government. What can we think of this, especialiy when I find him
in this Paragraph of his Book * raving on at this rate, and quoting to
us, That St. _Cyprian_, or the Author _de Spectaculis_, argues thus
against those who thought the Play-House no unlawful diversion; 'tis too
tedious to recite all, but enough of St. _Cyprian_ for my purpose runs
thus:
