Essays on the Stage by Bossuet and Thomas D'Urfey


Main
- books.jibble.org



My Books
- IRC Hacks

Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare

External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd

books.jibble.org

Previous Page | Next Page

Page 1




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.

Previous Page | Next Page


Books | Photos | Paul Mutton | Thu 28th Mar 2024, 15:39