Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

2

son wrote it had become thoroughly bourgeois." For the drama to become bourgeois, however, was fatal; and not unnaturally it gave way before long to a form of literature less intense and better adapted to the life of the common man-the novel.

One thing in its uncertainty the age could still do, however; it could criticize. It could criticize and theorize. Shakespeare and Molière, Marlowe and Racine, Sophocles and Dryden were all before it; and it could decide for itself which was the best model to follow. Withal there was beginning some genuine study of the Elizabethans. Rowe's editing of Shakespeare and Dennis' criticism set good standards for those who came afterwards; and Dodsley's Collection of Old Plays appeared in 1744. Sometimes controversy became lively. In 1725, for instance, appeared Pope's edition of Shakespeare. The next year Lewis Theobald issued a pamphlet with the title Shakespeare Restored, or a Specimen of the many Errors committed as well as unamended by Mr. Pope in his late edition of this Poet. Theobald, however, whose own edition of Shakespeare did not appear until 1733, was in the habit of contributing notes on Shakespeare to a weekly paper called Mist's Journal. This Pope termed "crucifying Shakespeare once a week," and he made Theobald the original hero of the Dunciad. Thus the feud went on, with variations.

The eminent critic of the age, however, was another Frenchman, a man of singular importance to the English stage. In 1726 Voltaire began in England a residence of almost three years. One of the first glimpses we catch

'Cross: The Development of the English Novel (Macmillan, New York, 1909), 59.

66

படு

of him is in connection with Congreve. The famous dramatist, who was resting on his laurels, bore honors lightly and on the basis of a gentleman rather than as a representative of literature" received his guest. Voltaire, to whom literature was a serious business, was baffled and remarked in substance that if Congreve had been simply a gentleman he would never have bothered to look him up. This was the man who brought to England a new emphasis on classical dramatic theory and practice, and yet whose own work shows numerous adaptations from the master Shakespeare. Voltaire's whole attitude toward Shakespeare is in fact a baffling problem. There can be no doubt that he did more than any other writer of the century to make the works of the English dramatist familiar on the Continent. On the other hand, he developed toward Shakespeare in his later years a relentless antagonism. Sometimes this has been ascribed to personal motives. Much of it, however, is doubtless to be ascribed to the seventeenth century classicism which he upheld and the influence of which he felt that Shakespeare did most to undermine. He was engaged in a losing fight, but he fought to the very end.

Two well-known English literary men were also in greater or less degree under the influence of French classical tragedy, though neither was primarily a dramatist. Edward Young (1648-1765), the poet of Night Thoughts, wrote three tragedies. Busiris (1719) was in blank verse and successful; The Revenge (1721) was on the French model and also succeeded for a while; and The Brothers (1728) was withdrawn in rehearsal because of the author's taking holy orders. James Thomson (1700-1748), the poet of The Seasons, in Sophonisba (1730) used a theme

handled fifty years previously by Lee. In this play the characters declaim but hardly act; moreover a certain labored effect in the phrasing readily loaned itself to parody, as in the line, "O Sophonisba, Sophonisba, O!" Agamemnon (1738) was greeted with applause by a splendid audience; Edward and Eleanora was rejected by the censor as praising the Prince of Wales at the expense of the court; and Tancred and Sigismunda (1745) was afterwards used by Garrick with considerable success. The Masque of Alfred (1740) contained the ode "Rule, Britannia!" Coriolanus (1749) was an attempt, hardly successful, to adapt Shakespeare in conformity with the dramatic unities. Thomson did some fair work in the drama; but his plays show a great tendency toward rant and labored expression, and in general he represents no new tendency.

65. Pantomime: John Rich.-In the uncertain age under discussion regular drama had to encounter various rivals for popular favor. One of these was pantomime. This was a form of entertainment not altogether unknown on the English stage. Ever since Gorboduc and Hamlet there had been some representation of action in dumbshows. Mrs. Aphra Behn moreover had introduced a Harlequin into one of her productions, and for John Weaver, a contemporary of Rich, a case might be made out as the man who introduced the form in the new era. To John Rich (1628?-1761), however, the real credit of the pantomime belongs. He carried the form to such popularity that the rival theatres of Drury Lane and Lincoln's Inn Fields were able to advance prices on pantomime nights. At the latter playhouse Rich in 1723 competed successfully with Drury Lane in a performance on the subject of Dr. Faustus. This was one of the kinds of

[ocr errors]

entertainment which Cibber regarded as an encroachment on the drama and against which he protested; but pantomime continued to hold public favor. the t

66. Ballad-Opera: John Gay. To his successes Rich was destined to add yet another rival to the regular drama. 'At Lincoln's Inn in 1728 he produced John Gay's The Beggar's Opera and thus brought before the public a new species of entertainment with emphasis on songs, burlesque of Italian opera, and an undercurrent of political satire (in this case specially directed against Walpole). The idea of the new piece was originally suggested to Gay by Swift. Ballad-opera at once became immensely popular; but Cibber still held aloof. "If the judgment of the crowd were infallible," he said, "I am afraid we shall be reduced to allow that The Beggar's Opera was the bestwritten play that ever our English theatre had to boast of." In spite of its great success with the public, however, the production was officially regarded as "an insolent performance" containing "the most venomous allegorical libel" against the Government that had appeared in years. From this point of view of political satire it is important not only on its own account but as anticipating Fielding.

67. Domestic Tragedy: George Lillo.-The democratic tendencies of the day and something of the influence of ballad-opera, find further expression in the work of George Lillo (1693-1739), who is primarily remembered, however, as a representative of sentimentalism and domestic tragedy. The son of a London jeweller, Lillo was well fitted to become the dramatist of domestic life. His first venture, Silvia, or The Country Burial (1730), was called a ballad-opera, which in this case signifies not much more than that it was interspersed with songs. The perform

ance at Drury Lane, however, of The London Merchant or The History of George Barnwell (1731), commonly known as George Barnwell, was an important event in English dramatic history. Domestic tragedy was not unknown on the English stage from the time of Thomas Heywood down to that of Rowe. With Lillo, however, it took on a new importance and came closer to the publie than ever before. The story is that of a merchant's clerk who, led astray by a courtesan, Millwood, embezzles money, murders his uncle, and is at last executed for his crime. Throughout his trials he is supported and comforted by Thorowgood, his employer, Trueman, a fellowclerk, and Maria, Thorowgood's daughter. Lillo stated that his play was drawn from a "famed old song," referring to "The Ballad of George Barnwell." 3 In the ballad, neither Maria nor Trueman is mentioned, and Thorowgood appears only as a nameless master for whom Barnwell has no affection. Lillo's Thorowgood is characterized in detail: he has a high sense of the dignity of the merchant class, a fatherly interest in young men, and a pitying and forgiving heart in the hour of Barnwell's distress. The most important difference between the play and the ballad is that between their respective heroes. The Barnwell of the ballad is not placed in a flattering light. It is he himself who thinks of murdering his uncle; and, after enjoying the latter's hospitality, he commits the deed with deliberation, and enjoys its fruits without remorse. He brings about the capture of Millwood by his testimony, and subsequently perpetrates

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

3

* See English and Scottish Popular Ballads, edited by F. J. Child, Boston, 1859 (VIII, 213). The ballad is also easily accessible in Ward's edition of The London Merchant and Fatal Curiosity, 121-35.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »