Part 8

[8] The "Wild Gallant," which Charles commanded to be performed before him more than once, was of the class of Spanish comedies. The "Maiden Queen," which the witty monarch honoured with the title of _his play_, is in the same division. Sir Samuel Tuke's "Adventures of Five Hours," and Crowne's "Sir Courtly Nice," were both translated from the Spanish by the king's express recommendation.

[9] The _gracioso_ or buffoon, according to Lord Holland, held an intermediate character between a spectator and a character in the play; interrupting with his remarks, at one time, the performance, of which he forms an essential, but very defective part in another. His part was, I presume, partly written, partly extempore. Something of the kind was certainly known upon our stage. Wilson and Tarleton, in their capacity of clowns, entered freely into a contest of wit with the spectators, which was not at all held inconsistent with their having a share in the performance. Nor was tragedy exempted from their interference. Hall, after telling us of a tragic representation, informs us,

"Now least such frightful showes of fortunes fall, And bloudy tyrants' rage, should chance appall The dead-struck audience, 'midst the silent rout Comes leaping in a selfe-misformed lout, And laughes, and grins, and frames his mimick face, And justles straight into the prince's place: Then doth the theatre echo all aloud With gladsome noyse of that applauding croud. A goodly hoch-poch, when vile russetings Are matcht with monarchs and with mighty kings."

This extemporal comic part seems to have been held essential to dramatic representation, in most countries in Europe, during the infancy of the art. Something of the same kind is still retained in the lower kinds of popular exhibitions; and the clowns to the shows of tumbling and horsemanship, with my much-respected friend Mr. Punch in a puppet-show, bear a pretty close resemblance to the _gracioso_ of the Spaniards, the _arlequino_ of the Italians, and the clown of the ancient English drama. See Malone's _History of the Stage._

[10] [This is at least not true of the "Parson's Wedding."--ED.]

[11] Notes on Mr. Dryden's Poems, 1687.

[12] Preface to "King Arthur."

[13] "I remember," (says a correspondent of the 'Gentleman's Magazine,' for 1745), "plain John Dryden, before he paid his court with success to the great, in one uniform clothing of Norwich drugget. I have eat tarts with him and Madam Reeve at the Mulberry Garden, when our author advanced to a sword and a Chadreux wig."--Page 99 [This letter is a famous _crux_ in the biography of Dryden. It has been suggested that the writer was Southerne, but it is impossible to make things tally. As Dryden certainly had paid his court to the great by 1670, if not by 1665, there is the almost insuperable difficulty of supposing that the writer could have associated with Dryden in parties of pleasure seventy-five years before date--a difficulty all the more difficult in that he only claims to be in his eighty-seventh year. It would be worthy of little attention, if the eager assailants of Dryden's moral character had not sought to see evidence of the deepest turpitude in this tart-eating with Mrs. Reeve and the anonymous letter-writer.--ED.]

[14] He describes him as,

"Still smooth, as when, adorned with youthful pride, For thy dear sake the blushing virgins died, When the kind gods of wit and love combined, And with large gifts thy yielding soul refined."

[15] The epilogue has these lines:

"But now if by my suit you'll not be won, You know what your unkindness oft has done,-- I'll e'en forsake the playhouse, and turn Nun."

[16] [Scott's account of the marriage is incorrect in one or two particulars, and incomplete in others. It took place on the 1st of December 1663, at St. Swithin's, and the licence, dated the day before, removes all idea of a clandestine match or of family disapproval.

"Ultimo Novembris 1663

[Sidenote: Juratus Hen: Smyth: Jun:]

Which day appeared personally John Driden of St. Clemt. Danes in the County of Midd Esqr aged about 30ty yeeres and a Batchelor and alledged that hee intendeth to marry with Dame Elizabeth Howard of St. Martin in the Fields in the County aforesaid aged about 25 yeeres with the consent of her Father Thomas Earle of Berke not knowing nor believing any impediment to hinder the intended marriage of the truth of the prmisses he made faith and prayed Licence for them to bee married in the parish church of St. Swithins London." [Transcriber's note: spelling as in the original.]

While, however, this entry, discovered since Scott wrote, clears up one part of the story, another discovery has been thought to darken it again. The following letter from Lady Elizabeth Howard appears in the letters of Philip, second Earl of Chesterfield:--

"_From the_ Lady Elizabeth Howard _Daughter to the_ Earle of Barksshire.

"1658.

"My LORD,--I received yours, though not without great trouble, but am not guilty of any thing you lay to my charge, nor will I ever alter from the expressions I have formerly made, therefore I hope you will not be so unjust as to beleive all that the world sayes of mee, but rather credit my protestation of never having named you to my friends, being allwayes carefull of that for my own sake as well as yours; and therefore let it not be in the power of any, nor of your own inclinations, to make mee less,

Your very humble Servant.

"If you will meet mee in the Old Exchange, about six a clock, I will justify my selfe."--_Letters of Philip, second Earl of Chesterfield_, 1829, p. 95. This was the same Earl of Chesterfield to whom Dryden dedicated the _Georgics_ thirty years later.

As Dryden's detractors have been nearly as anxious to blacken his wife's character as his own, they have seized on this letter to confirm the reckless and random assertions of contemporary libellers, that her reputation was questionable. The matter may be left to readers to decide,--I can see nothing in the phrases necessarily implying any improper intimacy.

Perhaps it is not superfluous to observe that Scott has not shown his accustomed judgment and knowledge of the seventeenth century in his remark about the Howards and the tobacconists. The separation between classes, as such, was indeed sharp; but it was probably rather more than less usual then than now for scions of noble and gentle families to go into retail trade. It may be added that the evidence of a quarrel between Dryden and his own family is far from strong, and that one of the causes assigned by Scott for that quarrel, the change of spelling, is very dubious as a matter of fact. It has been seen that "Driden" appears in the licence, and it is not certain that the poet invented the _y_, or first used it.

Very shortly after the marriage occurs the first mention of Dryden of a personal kind. Pepys writes, under date February 3d, 1664: "In Covent Garden to-night at the great coffee-house, where Dryden the poet I knew at Cambridge and all the wits of the town."--ED.]

[17] [To give exact dates, the preface to Sir R. Howard is dated November 10th, 1666. The poem appeared immediately afterwards. Pepys bought it on the 2d of February, and pronounced it "a very good poem." Some other dates and facts of a more precise kind than those in the text may be given here. Dryden left London in the summer of 1665, either from dread of the plague, or because the playhouses were shut. The interval of eighteen months seems to have been wholly spent at Charlton, and Charles Dryden, his eldest son, was born during this time, though the precise date is not known. Charlton is near Malmesbury in Wiltshire, and as Dryden afterwards speaks of himself as possessed of some property in that county, it has been reasonably conjectured that it was in virtue of a settlement on his wife. But if so, it cannot have been freehold property of Lord Berkshire's, as the poet says that he holds of the Hydes. Lady Elizabeth had received a considerable grant (£3000) from the Crown in recognition of her father's services, but it is not certain that it was ever paid. No London domicile of his is known except the house in Gerrard Street, now marked with a plate by the Society of Arts. There is a house--now subdivided--in Fetter Lane which also has a plate (the successor of a stone inscription) stating that Dryden lived there. No biographer takes notice of this, and the topographers who do notice it do not believe the story. If there be any foundation for it, the period of his residence must probably have been before his marriage.-- ED.]

[18] [I venture to think this last remark overstated. Sarcasms on matrimony were the fashion, and Dryden followed it. The evidence of mutual unhappiness is almost _nil_.--ED.]

[19] Sandford, a most judicious actor, is said, by Cibber, cautiously to have observed this rule, in order to avoid surfeiting the audience by the continual recurrence of rhyme.

[20] The Honourable Edward Howard, Sir Robert's brother, expresses himself in the preface to the "Usurper," a play Published in 1668, "not insensible to the disadvantage it may receive passing into the world upon the naked feet of verse, with other works that have their measures adorned with the trappings of rhyme, which, however they have succeeded in wit or design, is still thought music, as the heroic tone now goes; but whether so natural to a play, that should most nearly imitate, in some cases, our familiar converse, the judicious may easily determine."

[21] [A dislike which was silent for five years, if it existed.--ED.]

[22] Who drew Sir Robert in the character of Sir Positive Atall in the "Sullen Lovers;" "a foolish knight, that pretends to understand everything in the world, and will suffer no man to understand anything in his company; so foolishly positive, that he will never be convinced of an error, though never so gross." This character is supported with great humour.

[23] In a letter from Dryden to Tonson, dated 26th May 1696, in which he reckons upon Sir Robert Howard's assistance in a pecuniary transaction.

[24] "I am informed Mr. Dryden is now translating of Virgil; and although I must own it is a fault to forestall or anticipate the praise of a man in his labours, yet, big with the greatness of the work, and the vast capacity of the author, I cannot here forbear saying, that Mr. Dryden, in the translating of Virgil, will of a certain make Maro speak better than ever Maro thought. Besides those already mentioned, there are other ingredients and essential parts of poetry, necessary for the forming of a truly great and happy genius, viz. a free air and spirit, a vigorous and well governed thought, which are, as it were, the soul which inform and animate the whole mass and body of verse. But these are such divine excellencies as are peculiar only to the brave and the wise. The first chief in verse, who trode in this sweet and delightful path of the Muses, was the renowned Earl of Roscommon, a great worthy, as well as a great wit; and who is, in all respects, resembled by another great Lord of this present age, viz. my Lord Cutts, a person whom all people must allow to be an accomplished gentleman, a great general, and a fine poet.

"The two elaborate poems of Blackmore and Milton, the which, for the dignity of them, may very well be looked upon as the two grand exemplars of poetry, do either of them exceed, and are more to be valued than all the poets, both of the Romans and the Greeks put together. There are two other incomparable pieces of poetry, viz. Mr. Dryden's 'Absalom and Achitophel,' and the epistle of a known and celebrated wit (_Mr. Charles Montague_) to my Lord of Dorset, the best judge in poetry, as well as the best poet; the tutelar _numen_ o' the stage, and on whose breath all the Muses have their dependence."--_Proem to an Essay on Pastoral, and Elegy on Queen Mary, by the Honourable Edward Howard, 21st January_ 1695.

[25] That now before me is prefixed to the second edition of the "Indian Emperor," 1668.

[26] [It seems to have been a memorial addressed to the Lord Chamberlain for the time, and was long in the possession of the Killigrew family. It was communicated by the learned Mr. Reed to Mr. Malone, and runs as follows:--

"Whereas, upon Mr. Dryden's binding himself to write _three playes_ a yeere, the said Mr. Dryden, was admitted, and continued as a sharer, in the King's Playhouse for diverse years, and received for his share and a quarter, three or four hundred pounds, _communibus annis_; but though he received the moneys, we received not the playes, not one in a yeare. After which, the House being burnt, the Company, in building another, contracted great debts, so that the shares fell much short of what they were formerly. Thereupon, Mr. Dryden complaining to the Company of his want of proffit, the Company was so kind to him, that they not only did not presse him for the playes which he so engaged to write for them, and for which he was paid beforehand, but they did also, at his earnest request, give him a third day for his last new play, called 'All for Love;' and at the receipt of the money of the said third day, he acknowledged it as a guift, and a particular kindnesse of the Company. Yet, notwithstanding this kind proceeding, Mr. Dryden has now, jointly with Mr. Lee (who was in pension with us to the last day of our playing, and shall continue), written a play, called 'Oedipus,' and given it to the Duke's Company, contrary to his said agreement, his promise, and all gratitude, to the great prejudice and almost undoing of the Company, they being the only poets remaining to us. Mr. Crowne, being under the like agreement with the Duke's House, writt a play, called the 'Destruction of Jerusalem,' and being forced, by their refusall of it, to bring it to us, the said Company compelled us, after the studying of it, and a vast expence in scenes and cloathes, to buy off their clayme, by paying all the pension he had received from them, amounting to one hundred and twelve pounds paid by the King's Company, besides neere forty pounds he, the said Mr. Crowne, paid out of his owne pocket.

"These things considered, if, notwithstanding Mr. Dryden's said agreement, promise, and moneys, freely given him for his said last new play, and the many titles we have to his writings, this play be judged away from us, we must submit.

(Signed) "CHARLES KILLIGREW. CHARLES HART. RICH. BURT. CARDELL GOODMAN. MIC. MOHUN."

Dryden also appears as a regular partner in the King's Company in an agreement to repay money lent for the purpose of rebuilding the Theatre after its burning in 1672.--_Shakespeare Society's Papers_, iv. 147.-- ED.]

[27] Cibber, with his usual vivacity, thus describes the comic powers of Nokes in this admired character:

"In the ludicrous distresses, which, by the laws of comedy, folly is often involved in, he sunk into such a mixture of piteous pusillanimity, and a consternation so ruefully ridiculous and inconsolable, that when he had shook you to a fatigue of laughter, it became a moot point, whether you ought not to have pity'd him. When he debated any matter by himself, he would shut up his mouth with a dumb studious powt, and roll his full eye into such a vacant amazement, such palpable ignorance of what to think of it, that his silent perplexity (which would sometimes hold him several minutes) gave your imagination as full content, as the most absurd thing he could say upon it. In the character of Sir Martin Mar-all, who is always committing blunders to the prejudice of his own interest, when he had brought himself to a dilemma in his affairs, by vainly proceeding upon his own head, and was afterwards afraid to look his governing servant and counsellor in the face; what a copious and distressful harangue have I seen him make with his looks (while the house has been in one continued roar for several minutes) before he could prevail with his courage to speak a word to him! Then might you have, at once, read in his face vexation--that his own measures, which he had piqued himself upon, had failed; envy of his servant's wit; distress--to retrieve the occasion he had lost; shame--to confess his folly; and yet a sullen desire to be reconciled, and better advised for the future! What tragedy ever showed us such a tumult of passions rising, at once, in one bosom! or what buskin hero, standing under the load of them, could have more effectually moved his spectators by the most pathetic speech, than poor miserable Nokes did by this silent eloquence, and piteous plight of his features?"--CIBBER'S _Apology_, p. 86.

[28] [This sentence rests on a rather slender basis of fact. Butler is said to have had a share in the "Rehearsal," and certainly wrote a charming parody of the usual heroic-play dialogue, in his scene between "Cat and Puss." But this of itself can hardly be said to justify the phrase "adversary of our author's reputation." As for Dryden, he nowhere attacks Butler, and speaks honourably of him after his death in his complaint to Lawrence Hyde.--ED.]

[29] [This is the correct date of the patent. There is however in the Record Office an instruction for the preparation of a bill for the purpose, dated April 13. This was pointed out to me by Mr. W. Noel Sainsbury.--ED.]

[30] Pat. 22 Car. 11. p. 6, ii. 6. Malone, i. p. 88.

[31] Their account was probably exaggerated. Upon a similar occasion, the master of the revels stated the value of his winter and summer benefit plays at £50 each; although, in reality, they did not, upon an average, produce him £9. See Malone's _Historical Account of the Stage_.

[32] [1672.--ED.]

SECTION III.

_Heroic Plays--The Rehearsal--Marriage à la Mode--The Assignation-- Controversy with Clifford--with Leigh--with Ravenscroft--Massacre of Amboyna--State of Innocence_.

The rage for imitating the French stage, joined to the successful efforts of our author, had now carried the heroic or rhyming tragedy to its highest pitch of popularity. The principal requisites of such a drama are summed up by Dryden in the first two lines of the "_Orlando Furioso_,"

"_Le Donne, i cavalier, l'arme, gli amori Le cortesie, l'audaci imprese_."

The story thus partaking of the nature of a romance of chivalry, the whole interest of the play necessarily turned upon love and honour, those supreme idols of the days of knight-errantry The love introduced was not of that ordinary sort, which exists between persons of common mould; it was the love of Amadis and Oriana, of Oroondates and Statira; that love which required a sacrifice of every wish, hope, and feeling unconnected with itself, and which was expressed in the language of prayer and of adoration. It was that love which was neither to be chilled by absence, nor wasted by time, nor quenched by infidelity. No caprice in the object beloved entitled her slave to emancipate himself from her fetters; no command, however unreasonable, was to be disobeyed; if required by the fair mistress of his affections, the hero was not only to sacrifice his interest, but his friend, his honour, his word, his country, even the gratification of his love itself, to maintain the character of a submissive and faithful adorer. Much of this mystery is summed up in the following speech of Almahide to Almanzor, and his answer, from which it appears, that a lover of the true heroic vein never thought himself so happy, as when he had an opportunity of thus showing the purity and disinterestedness of his passion. Almanzor is commanded by his mistress to stay to assist his rival, the king, her husband. The lover very naturally asks,

_Almanz_. What recompence attends me, if I stay?

_Almah_. You know I am from recompence debarred, But I will grant your merit a reward; Your flame's too noble to deserve a cheat, And I too plain to practise a deceit. I no return of love can ever make, But what I ask is for my husband's sake; He, I confess, has been ungrateful too, But he and I are ruined if you go; Your virtue to the hardest proof I bring; Unbribed, preserve a mistress and a king.

_Almanz_. I'll stop at nothing that appears so brave: I'll do't, and now I no reward will have. You've given my honour such an ample field, That I may die, but that shall never yield.

The king, however, not perhaps understanding this nice point of honour, grows jealous, and wishes to dismiss the disinterested ally, whom his spouse's beauty had enlisted in his service. But this did not depend upon him; for Almanzor exclaims,

_Almanz_. I wonnot go; I'll not be forced away: I came not for thy sake; nor do I stay. It was the queen who for my aid did send; And 'tis I only can the queen defend: I, for her sake, thy sceptre will maintain; And thou, by me, in spite of thee, shalt reign.

The most applauded scenes in these plays turned upon nice discussions of metaphysical passion, such as in the days of yore were wont to be agitated in the courts and parliaments of love. Some puzzling dilemma, or metaphysical abstraction, is argued between the personages on the stage, whose dialogue, instead of presenting a scene of natural passion, exhibits a sort of pleading or combat of logic, in which each endeavours to defend his own opinion by catching up the idea expressed by the former speaker, and returning him his illustration, or simile, at the rebound; and where the lover hopes everything from his ingenuity, and trusts nothing to his passion. Thus, in the following scene between Almanzor and Almahide, the solicitations of the lover, and the denials of the queen, are expressed in the very carte and tierce of poetical argumentation:

_Almah_. My light will sure discover those who talk.-- Who dares to interrupt my private walk?

_Almanz_. He, who dares love, and for that love must die. And, knowing this, dares yet love on, am I.

_Almah_. That love which you can hope, and I can pay, May be received and given in open day; My praise and my esteem you had before; And you have bound yourself to ask no more.

_Almanz_. Yes, I have bound myself; but will you take The forfeit of that bond, which force did make?

_Almah_. You know you are from recompence debarred; But purest love can live without reward.

_Almanz_. Pure love had need be to itself a feast; For, like pure elements, 'twill nourish least.

_Almah_. It therefore yields the only pure content; For it, like angels, needs no nourishment. To eat and drink can no perfection be; All appetite implies necessity.

_Almanz_. 'Twere well, if I could like a spirit live; But, do not angels food to mortals give? What if some demon should my death foreshow, Or bid me change, and to the Christians go; Will you not think I merit some reward, When I my love above my life regard?

_Almah_. In such a case your change must be allowed: I would myself dispense with what you vowed.

_Almanz_. Were I to die that hour when I possess, This minute shall begin my happiness.

_Almah_. The thoughts of death your passion would remove; Death is a cold encouragement to love.