Chapter I: 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.

As to those Objections, That the Actors are generally debauch'd, and of leud Conversation; and that no Person who is a known Adulterer, or Profane, ought to be encouraged. That the Play-house is a Resort of vicious Persons, and gives Opportunity to such who have wicked Inclinations. All these wou'd fall upon the advancement of a regular Stage; but as 'tis, the Objections are not levell'd Right; for the State is chargeable with the Immoralities. There are Laws for the Punishment of Vice; and if the Magistrate neglect his Duty, he must answer for it. I don't know that any body is oblig'd to a Conversation with the Players; and their Lives can influence only their Associates; and such they wou'd find, whether they are Players or not. When they are on the Stage they are confin'd to the Poets Language: And if we shou'd see Mr. _Powel_ acting a Brave, Generous and Honest Part; or Mrs. _Knight_, a very Modest and Chaste one, it ought not to give us Offence; because we are not to consider what they are off the Stage, but whom they represent: We are to do by them as in Religion we do by the Priest, mind what they say, and not what they do. Tho' the Stage is not so abandon'd but that there are some Honest and Vertuous, for any thing the Town can say to the contrary. And I wou'd leave it to themselves, whether they don't find their Account in it; whether the Town is not more favourable on any Occasion; so that it ought to be an Encouragement to persist in their Vertue.

The Objection against the Play-House it self, because it gives Opportunities for Wickedness, is so trifling, it is hardly worth answering, for they who are viciously inclin'd will find an Opportunity; and as long as the Toleration Act is in force, there is never a Meeting in Town but will afford extraordinary Hints of that kind; the Morning and Evening Lectures are precious Seasons, Mr. _Doelittle_ may thresh his Heart out, there will be Tares among the Wheat; and those Houses are haunted with a sort of Spirits that are not to be cast out with Prayer and Fasting.

I think from the little I have said, it is certain the Town has not been debauch'd by the Stage, and that 'tis much easier to demonstrate the Good, than prove the Evil Effect even of our bad Plays. I have shew'd that there has been a Vertue in them; and we might very well pardon them if it were only for that one Benefit, of being so serviceable to the reclaiming of the Clergy. If they can give me an Instance of any Play, whose Vices have had so ill Effect with the People as to counter-balance the Good it has wrought in them, I shou'd set my self against the Stage too; but then as to other Advantages which we have receiv'd from the Plays of the first Rank, we are certainly very much in debt to them. The Refinement of our Tongue is principally owing to them; Good Manners and good Conversation is owing to our Comedy; and I don't doubt but some of our Tragedies have fired some with a Greatness of Spirit, and taught to act the Hero with Prudence, Vertue and Courage.

I shall conclude this part of my Letter with this Observation, that if the present Stage has not been so terrible an Enemy to Christianity, but on the contrary, has afforded a great deal of good to the World; that a Regulated Stage wou'd be of infinite Service to the Nation.

I have proposed it as an Argument in Defence of a Regular Stage, that it lies on its Adversaries to prove it against Law or Scripture, and so might leave it justify'd till some Person or other make the Discovery to the World: But because 'tis my Opinion 'tis utterly impossible, I shall give you some Reasons why I think it not only lawful in it self but very necessary in this populous City. And, First, if we consider the Matter that ought to be represented, whether it be Tragedy or Comedy; there is nothing in either that can offend Religion or Good Manners.

Tragedy is a Representation of an Action by some Great Man, teaching us to regulate our Passions with exactness, and by shewing the strange and differing Accidents of Life, to which the most important Persons are subject; proving to us that Vice never goes unpunished; and that true Happiness does not chiefly consist in the Enjoyment of this World.

Comedy is a Representation of common Conversation; and its Design is to represent things Natural; to shew the Faults of Particular Men in order to correct the Faults of the Publick, and to amend the People thro' a fear of being expos'd, with this Observation, That the Ridiculous of the Stage is to be only a Copy of the Ridiculous found in Nature.

In short, 'tis the Property both of Tragedy and Comedy to instruct: The Characters in both are to be Natural; and the Persons concern'd in the whole Action, are to be such whose Vertues ought to provoke us to an Emulation, or whose Vices ought to deter us from imitating their Example, The Language and Sentiments are to be suitable to each Character: A Wife, Good, and Great Man is to say nothing but what is natural for such a one to say: The Gallant Man is to appear with all the Qualities of a Man of Honour: and the Fool in his proper colour'd Coat. The Vices of the Wicked are not to be represented so nicely, as punish'd severely; that is, a Vicious Person is not to be allow'd to plead in favour of his Vices, or to represent his Villany so calmly as to tempt any Man to try Practices in another Place. Vice is only to be brought there to be condemn'd, and the reason of this is, that our Terrour may be excited, and all our Passions vent themselves with Strength and Reason. Our Pity is not to be extended in a wrong place. In short, The Disposition of the play is to be such that all the Characters have a proper Effect with us. Our Fear, Love, and Anger are to be exerted with Justice; and we are to learn from a just Fable how to behave our selves in earnest. Thus may we exercise our Souls by examining our reasonable Faculties, and try how we can love to extremity, and yet without a Fault; to be angry and sin not; to be just without partiality, and rejoyce with them that rejoyce. We are there instructed to Love, Hate, and Fear within measure, how we may be Men without debasing our Souls; and all this by moving Examples, which in spite of Stubbornness, will force its Impressions; and 'tis our own Fault if they are not lasting. This certainly must recommend the Stage to the Vertuous; and Piety can't be offended at the decent reproving of Vice, and the insinuating recommendation of Vertue. Here we find Morality urg'd by Precept and Example, and the Stage reprehending those Follies which the Pulpit wou'd blush to correct; for tho' the Church is the Place to declaim against Sin, yet there are some sorts of Wickedness which can't be so decently reprov'd there; so that the Stage is serviceable on this account, to supply the Defects of the Pulpit. In short, whatever may be objected against the present management of the Stage, is of no force against such Proceedings as these. Religion and Morality can receive no Damage here; for as long as these Rules are observ'd, they strictly include both.

It was the Opinion of a great Master of Reason, that Tragedy conduces more to the Instruction of Mankind, than even Philosophy itself, because it teaches the Mind by Sense, and rectifies the Passions by the Passions themselves. And there is this further Advantage, that we have always the Example of great Men before us, and are generally inclinable to take our Manners from them. There has indeed Authorities been produc'd against the Stage, tho' there don't want as ancient Advocates for it; and some of the Fathers themselves writ Plays, however Mr. _Collier_ came to forget it.

If the Theatre is capable to give us such Advantage, it will easily be prov'd of what necessity there is for its encouragement in this Populous City: If there were no Politick Reasons, yet the Good to Religion that may be done by it, is a convincing Argument at once for its Lawfulness and Use. I know the Gravity of some can't dispense with so much time to be spent in Diversion, tho' I can't think this a reasonable Objection where so much Profit may attend our Delight. If it be lawful to recreate our selves at all, it can never be amiss to frequent such a Diversion, that only takes up our Time to make us wiser. I wou'd to God all of them were directed to the same End. No Man is to employ himself so as to exclude the Duties of Religion; and there is as much danger in minding too much the Business of the World, as the Pleasures of it; both of them are to be kept within bounds, and both subservient to Religion. The Passions of Men are active and restless; and 'tis the Prudence of every State to encourage some publick Exercise to keep them at quiet. If the Theatre was down, the Churches wou'd not be the fuller for't. Or if they shou'd, Religion is not always the design of them who come there; so that I cannot see that any thing can be allow'd for the publick Diversion with so much Innocence and so much, Advantage. I'm only afraid that such a Regularity wou'd be too Vertuous for the Age; and I don't doubt but the Beaux and Poetasters wou'd be full of Exclamation: For it wou'd be a dreadful Time if the Ladies should regard the Play more than their Beaux Airs; and how wou'd _Vanbroug_ be able to pass a Comedy on them, if they shou'd once be so nice in their Taste as to disgust Obscenity; this indeed wou'd be a Vexation, and such a Delicacy which Mr. _Congreve_ cou'd not be pleased with: And if the Town shou'd be so refin'd to admit of nothing but what is Natural, we can't expect that ever he will gratifie us with another Tragedy. _Durfey_ and _Motteux_ wou'd write no more Farces; _Guildon_ and _Tom_. _Brown, &c._ wou'd be the Saints with wry Mouthes and scrue'd Faces: Mr. _Guildon_ indeed has Philosophy enough to support himself under such a Calamity, and knows a Method to prevent starving; for who can think that he who writ _Blunt_'s Life can be at a loss for a decent dispatch of his own? 'Tis a deplorable Case, indeed, and I pity a Man who cannot get Bread by Writing, and yet must beg or starve without it.

The Prince of _Conti_ believ'd the _French_ Stage wou'd not have been so bad if the Priests had begun sooner to declaim against it: It is possible that some of our Defects may be owing to such a Negligence. However 'tis never too late to mend; and since Mr. _Collier_ has took up the Cudgels, I wish the rest of the same Coat wou'd so far as is just and reasonable, stand his Second: He has his Faults, but they are such as I wou'd not have lost his Book for. I know there are some violent Wits, who will not allow him either Wit or Style, but, in plain terms, to be a Fool. I hope none of them will go about to prove it. I confess he has kept ill Company of late; but surely they don't ground a Conjecture upon that, especially when a Man only converses to convince. The naming Mr. _Durfey_, or examining his Works, is not so contagious as to stain a Man's Reputation. We are indeed to answer for evil Communication; and tho' I cannot justifie a Man who wou'd read Mr. _Durfey_ with too much Delight, because we must not set our Affection on things below, yet I wou'd pardon any who wou'd read him only to forewarn others of the Danger.

'Tis a Misfortune to have good Poets stand in need of Assistance; but 'tis very much aggravated when they are deny'd it. A Man who is oblig'd to write for his Bread, is forc'd to be very hasty to prevent starving; And every Man's Genius is not so sharp as his Appetite. This may be one Reason we have so many things appear Abortive. Some Poets have not so much as to save their longing; and if their Muse miscarry, or come with an ugly Mark into the World, are rather to be pity'd than condemn'd. In what Pangs have I seen some poor Creatures to be deliver'd, when at the same time they have fear'd the Poverty of their Brats, and that the World wou'd discover they were very sick in the breeding. A good Poet ought never to want a worthy Patron; and our Nobility and Gentry ought to be Industrious in the Advancement of Letters. They might do it with great ease and little Expence; for the Number is not so great who deserve their Countenance. In vain we complain of the Irregularity of the Stage, if they who cou'd support its Honour, want support themselves: So that one great Step to advance the Theatre, is to take care, that they who write for the Stage, do not want for Encouragement.

You see, Sir, I have given my Thoughts freely: I wish they may receive your Approbation; because I wou'd never think but to please you. I dare not now think of excusing any thing I have writ, for I was resolv'd to tie my self to no Method, but to think as much as I cou'd for the advantage of the Stage, which I must believe very lawful, for any thing I have yet met to the contrary. Nor can I be perswaded, that our Plays have had so ill effect as some wou'd imagine. The best of our Plays have nothing in them that is so scandalous; and for the worst, I wou'd not allow them the Credit, nor the Authors the Vanity to think they could influence any one Man. The evil Conversation of some of them wou'd frighten a Man from being vicious; so that they are serviceable against their Wills, and do the World a Kindness through mistake. I dare not stay any longer with you, tho' I have a great Inclination to beg you'd excuse the roughness of my Stile: But you know I have been busie in _Virgil_; and that they say, at _Will_'s, is enough to spoil it: But if I had begg'd a more important thing, and ask'd you to forgive the length of my Letter, I might assure my self you wou'd oblige,

Your Humble Servant.

FINIS.

THE Occasional Paper: Number IX.

Containing some CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE DANGER Of going to PLAYS.

In a Letter to a Friend.

LONDON, Printed for M. Wotton, at the Three Daggers in Fleet Street. 1698.

SIR,

Being well assured that you sincerely desire to live as becomes a Christian, though you are not in Holy Orders; and that your complying with some things in use among those with whom you converse, is rather from a care to avoid being over-nice to the prejudice of Religion, than any want of a due Concern for the Interest of it: I cannot refuse the letting you see all at once, my thoughts of that, which having been at several times discoursed on between us, was never yet brought to a perfect Conclusion.

I have always found you doubting the _Lawfulness_, at least the _Expedience_ of going to _Plays, as they are now acted amongst us_; and sometimes you have seem'd to think it did not consist with the Faith of the _Gospel_, considering the Outrage committed there for the most part upon it, in one instance or other. And a fresh sense of this I perceive has been given you, by the late _lively Account of the Stages_, the natural colours of which indeed are so black as to be more than enough to affright those who have any _Fear of Him that ought to be feared_, or any Dread of the Ruin of Men.

But for as much as the thread of that serious _Design_ may seem broken too often with Observations of Learning, and Reflections of Wit, to be closely follow'd by those who are either not used to the one, or too fond of the other; the same good End may perhaps be helped forward a little, by setting this matter in a less interrupted Light, and a Simpler View.

And if things are as bad as they are there represented apart, looking on them together, you will scarce think those expressions too hard, which in a more large and general State of the Case, you sometimes thought did a little exceed. And very possibly the Zeal of some may have proceeded too far in running down to the ground, all _Diversions of this kind_ without any distinction: Tho' at the same time 'tis easie accounting for that seeming distance between those who agree that _Vertue_ shall be their common Design.

For they that are most for condemning these Entertainments, do not deny but some proper Instructions for civil Conduct at least, might thereby be gently instill'd; nor are they wholly against _Unbending_ the Mind, as if they suppose the Spirits of Men wou'd carry them through the Business of Life without any Relief: But they think these, as they stand, are _dangerous Schools_: And, as for _Refreshment_, they see none in that which _unfits_ us for our respective duties. And thus much is granted by those who wou'd shew a regard to the weakness of Nature, and not be over severe upon the Practice of those they think well enough of in other Respects.

Whenever you have inclined to savour these _Idle Amusements_, you have set them before you in an Innocent Dress, and contended for nothing but what might _Please_ without giving _Offence_, you never design'd that what was _Prophane_ or _Immodest_, should have your _Protection_; or to allow your self or your Friends a _Conversation_ that was apt to _Corrupt_. You always hoped such _Spots_ might be separated from those things you took in to _Divert_, and when you had made them as clear as you cou'd, you was easie to own, they might still be too freely indulged: For which reason I do not believe we shall differ much when we come to the End.

Taking then these _Plays_ at the best, _pure_ from all those _defiling Ingredients_, and _free_ from the blemish of a _Vicious Resort_, a condition so perfect as we never yet saw the _Theater_ in: All this would not make it a Place to be greatly frequented by those, that desire to keep their Minds in a suitable frame. No one wou'd chuse to converse always with _Fiction_ and _Show_, that cared to preserve something _Real_ within; Mens Minds in effect being nothing else but their usual Thoughts, which passing continually through them with repeated delight, are sure to leave their Image upon them; as we can't but observe the _Admirers_ of _Scenes_ to have something Romantick in all that they do.

Were we daily to be in the _House_ of _Feasting_ and the soberest Mirth, our Spirits wou'd grow by degrees so frothy and light, that we shou'd not easily bring them to settle again on any thing that was worthy our care: Without something now and then to raise them a little, they wou'd be dull and unactive, but _all_ Relaxation wou'd make them too airy, and of no sort of Use. They wou'd not serve to keep up our Souls from sinking under the pleasures of sense, but so unawares betray us into them, by loosning the strength we have to resist, and improving the Charm, that tho' we supposed the whole Concern of the _Stage_ to set out all Virtuous at first, we cou'd not expect its continuing long in that primitive State, before it run into some foolish Excess. For if Mens coming often and many together, on business, or kind and friendly Occasions, is apt to lay a snare in their Way; Nay if _Societies_ form'd for the very promotion of Virtue; and ti'd to all the Discipline of it, are yet hardly kept from growing irregular: What can we hope from such places of Concourse, where Imagination expects to be rais'd, and the End is Delight?

But I doubt we never began so fairly as this, because our present _Corruption_ is greater, than can well be conceiv'd to have sprung from a _Root_ that had at first no _Bitterness_ in it.

Was there nothing _ill_ in the _Representations_ themselves, yet there is so much of that by agreement of All, in the Vain _Behaviour of those that are there_; that they must needs be very fond of a _Play_, that can bring themselves to sit often and long in such _Company_ for it.

And yet one wou'd think sufficient care had been taken by those on the _Stage_, to heighten and please the most vicious _Tast_. They appear to have study'd all the _Arts_ of an easie _Defilement_, and to have left out no _Colours_ that were likely to _Stain_. And that these may be sure to sink deep enough, their business is to discharge the Heart of all its pure and _native Impressions_, that it may be the better disposed to receive what _Tincture_ they please.

Men must here begin to _unlearn_ what their _Parents_ and grave _Instructors_ have told them in the very tenderest part of their care; and learn to suspect some of their first and plainest Notions of things. They are now to be taught how they might _Be_, without a Creator; and how, now they are, they may live best without any Dependance on his Providence. They are call'd to doubt of the _Existence_ of _God_, or if that be allow'd them, 'tis only to question what _Notice_ he takes: His Wise _Providence_ at every turn is charged with _Neglect_, and often not for, that which has something of Precedent, supporting the Wicked, but which is _dreadfully New_ disappointing their _Lusts_. Things they are no longer ashamed of, but publickly own, without so much as pretending to hide them from _God_, whom they are not afraid to treat as blind, or as giving _Consent_.

Thus is His _Holiness_ turn'd to the vilest Reproach, his perfect _Knowledge_ mention'd with scoffing, and his infinite _Power_ despised.

Had we nothing to oppose to this; but that sense of things which is natural to Us, and which even with all these Arts is not quickly defaced, we could not but stand amazed at such Presumptions as these, in so poor, and ignorant, and short lived a Creature as _Man_; who came naked but lately out of the Earth, and must soon return to that condition again; who finds his sight bounded in every thought, and meets with a thousand stops in all his Designs; who every step that he takes, wants some one to help him, and can scarce avoid being conscious of that Hand to which he ows his Support. And yet as if it was honour to rave, this impotent Wretch must still be daring at something above him, as if he reckon'd it weakness to own of what he was made, and thought any submission too great a price to pay for being preserv'd.

This cou'd not be accounted less than a Monstrous _Extravagance_, had we no other _Rule_ than that of _Reason_ to measure it by; and a Man with only his senses about him, would have a horrour to be thus Entertain'd. How then shall he that professes the _Christian Religion_, be able to bear so licentious a Treatment of all that is Good? a little degree of _temperate Zeal_ wou'd turn him against such _Abuses_ as these, and a middle proportion of _Faith_ spread over the World, wou'd keep these Places from being so throng'd in their present State as they shamefully are.

They whose Dependence is on them, are so apprehensive of this; that they are very industrious to weaken the force of that _Revelation_ which darts it's rays so strongly against them, and discovers the vileness of that, they wou'd have Men admire. _Redeemer_ and _Saviour_ are Titles bestow'd upon infamous persons, which shews what sense they have of the want of him to whom they belong: And for what they are pleas'd to mention as _Sins_, they are sure to find as slight an _Attonement_. They make very bold with the _Grace_ of God, and crave _Inspiration_ to serve the ends of _Lust_ and _Revenge_: In which that they may have nothing to check them, all _Flames_ but their own are meer _Fancies_ and _Dreams_; the sickly Thoughts of a future Account must be banish'd away, and _Conscience_ dismissed as a weak and _Cowardly_ thing.

That nothing may bind it, the Holy _Scripture_ is used as a _Fable_, and at every turn brought out in disguise to be the better exposed: They will allow it to be but one of these two, either _Imposture_ or _Madness_. And they who profess to make it their _Rule_, and to lead others by it, are scorn'd and traduc'd as running into _Frenzy_ or _Cheat_, that no body else may have any regard to them or their way.

And when the _Fences_ are thus broken down, what hopes can we have any _Virtue_ shou'd stand without being impair'd at the least? Nor do they stick to pursue their design, but go on overturning the natures of things as fast as they can, and they have met but with too much success.

The _Sense of God_ being pretty well laid, the next thing to be sunk is all Respect to Superiours here; A _Prince_ seldom appears to advantage, and 'tis easie to guess what use of this the Subjects will make. Imposing on _Parents_, and despising their Age is made a Mark of Spirit and Wit, and few are brought in _dull_ enough to _Obey_. False Notions of _Honour_ are here proposed as the ground of Esteem, and something of _Wildness_ must go to the gaining _Applause_. To set up for themselves is the first thing young People must learn, and to think it brave to trample on all that stands in their Way: No _Greatness_ like a thorough _Revenge_, nor any Spirit so _Mean_ as that which _forgives_; _Abusing_ those that honestly help them with their _Labour_, or _Goods_, has briskness and _Reach_, and a lively _Cheat_ go's off with more _Reputation_ than paying ones _Debts_.

Their _Friendships_ are built upon serving their Pleasures, and so cannot but be as loose as that which holds them together: They who are Constant in breaking their _Vows_, shall here be caress'd as _Faithful_ and _True_; but to shew _Fidelity_ where it is ow'd, is too _formal_ a business for those who have the _sense_ to be _free_, and can relish nothing but what is forbid.

This makes them treat all _Regular Love_ with that Stile of contempt, as if keeping of Measures was unbecoming our nature; and it was a shame to have the _Bed undefiled_. They mix with _Marriage_ all the disagreeable things they can find to turn the _single_ against it, and make those that are in weary and sick of so flouted a _State_: To increase their uneasiness under which Holy and Prudent Restraint, wandring Images are dressed up with all possible skill to affect them, and their heads are filled with the ways, of bringing these strange Desires to pass.

If this be the Case in the Main, as it plainly appears from the _Account_ above mention'd, and might further be shewn by a very great addition of proof; then whether all this can be found at any one time, or whether some Days may not possibly be pretty clear of it all but what is brought thither, is not very material, more than to determin, what particular _Plays_ should always be chosen by those that will go to Any. For the fitness of allowing this Custom, or giving it any Encouragement, will not depend upon it's not being faulty alike in every Part; but 'tis enough to condemn it, if what has been said is the general Scope, tho' I doubt a Tryal wou'd shew that All offend in one thing or other.