U-SV

raw”

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

DR.HAT¥C CRITICISX IN
TEE GEXTLEKlK 5 IAGAZIKE, 1747-1734-

by Donald E. Ieesey

The third quarter of the eighteenth century produced
a large amount of written dramatic criticism. This production

terest

‘11

was partly the result of the period's unprecedente i

:3

in the theatre and partly the result of the widesp ead

H

concern with questions of literary and critical theory. But,
above all, the marked increase in dramatic criticism was due
to the fact that, with the development of the monthly period-
icals, the outlet for this criticism was now available. That
the bulk of this periodical criticism has no great permanent

value or intrinsic merit must be admitted. Kevertheless, it

+4.

is also true that a large portion of the significant dramat c
criticism of the age first appeared in these publications, and,
more importantly, it was the literary essais and reviews in
the periodicals that most literate Englishmen were reading.
Thus, for any attempt to draw an accurate picture of late
eighteenth-century taste, the periodicals furnish an obvious,
though largely uneXplored, area for research.

This study examines the dramatic criticism in ne of the

most important of these periodicals, the Gentleman's hagazine.

 

It analyzes, in detail, the magazine's dramatic reviews from

the appearance of the first original review in 1747 to a point

Donald E. Ieesey

in the early 1780's when these reviews became less frequent
and less detailed. The identity of the magazine's reviewers
remains largely unknown. John Hawkesworth was almost
certainly the author of several reviews; and a few have
been attributed to Samuel Johnson who was closely connected
with the magazine in its early years. But the basic premise
of this study is that the position of the magazine alone
makes its criticism significant. For the Gentleman's magazine .i..
was not only the "first" but, in terms of circulation and
influence, the most important of the monthly magazines. As
such, it should furnish a reasonably accurate index to the
tastes of its time.
This study is mainly concerned with questions of
literary theory. It analyzes the assumptions with which the
magazine's reviewers approached the drama; it shows how
they stood on the major critical questions of their day;
and it examines the extent to which their views agreed with
or departed from what is generally taken to be the prevailing
critical theory of the period. Although no completely
uniform attitude emerges, aside from a characteristically
heavy emphasis on the moral value of the drama, it can be
said that the magazine's reviewers had little regard for the
"rules" of dramatic composition. Their basic criterion for
judgment was the "effect" the play produced, and particularly
the effect of the stage presentation. The most obvious
departure from the dominant critical theory is found, not

unexpectedly, in the magazine's treatment of comedy. Though the

Donald E. Keesey

non-journalistic critics continued to stress ridicule and
"character" as the essence of comic drama, the magazine most
frequently praised comedies of sentiment and comedies of
intrigue. In short, the m gazine's reviewers were closcr to
contemporary dramatic production than they were to contem-
porary critical theory.

Finally, the study presents a series of detailed com-

parisons between the dramatic criticism in the Gentleman's

 

Iaaazine and that found in three other representative and

important periodicals: the London Kagazine, the Gcntl man's

(D

 

 

earliest and most serious competitor, and the Honthlz and
Critical Reviews, the two most influential literary reviews
of the time. It concludes that in its approach to drama,
in its treatment of the central critical questions, and in
its direction and emphasis, the dramatic criticism in the

Gentleman's Kagazine is clearly representative of the

 

Journalistic criticism of its age.

DRAXATIC CRITICISH II

m'rir'm *nxnn “'1?!" \ «.7! ‘1 “‘R n A '7 1-?) (3 '
.Lflall Gbl. .LLEJL'Jfi-L. D L'A—L'JJLILJ -...‘.J , 1747-l7d4

Donald E. Leesey

A. TIESIS

Submitted to
Hichigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of English

1964

eSpeciallv indebted to

U

P
m
H‘
U}

The author of this thes’
Professor Arthur Sherbo for his prompt and careful direction,
and to Professors Robert Geist, A. J. H. Smith, and
John Yunck for their advice and suggestions. I wish also
to thank the library staffs of Kichigan State University,
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the University of
Wisconsin-Kadison, the Kilwauhee Public Library, and the
Newberry Library for allowing me the use of their facilities.
Finally, to my wife, Phyllis, for her encouragement,

understanding, and assistance, I am forever grateful.

ii

TABLE

CHAPTER

I. Introduction...................

II. The General Position..

III. Tragedy................

IV. Comedy................

V. Periods and Authors...

VI. Some Comparisons.......

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

COITEITS

A. Plays Reviewed in the Gentleman's hagazine

1747-1784...........

B. Secondary Sources.......

NJ
5‘.)

L? l

(D

H

\O
R)

H
\)J
U 1

H
C\
O

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The third quarter of the eighteenth century was one of
the most productive and complex periods in the history of
literary criticism. It was, in the first place, the period of
a fundamental shift in critical philosophy. The change has
been variously labeled, to choose some common terms, as a
shift from the classic to the romantic, from the objective to
the subjective, from the mechanical to the organic conceptions
of literature. As numerous commentators have pointed out,
these are all at least partially misleading tags. And yet,
however much one is inclined to quarrel about a particular
label or to insist on a different emphasis, the fact remains
that the dominant critical theory which emerges at the end of
the century is fundamentally different from that current at
the beginning.1 That the critical literature of the inter-
vening years should be unusually complex is not surprising.

But if this complexity resulted partly because this shift
was underway, it also resulted from the fact that there was

simply a great deal more literary criticism being written

 

lRene Wellek, for example, selects this period as the
starting point for his study of ”modern" criticism (A Histor
Other

of Modern Criticism, 1%20-1220 [New Haven, 1955-- ).
recent and important 3 u es of this shift are J. Bate,

Prom Classic to Romantic (Cambridge, Mass., 1946), Gordon
McKenzie, Or itIc aI Res onsiveness (Berkeley and Lostngeles,
1949). and H. H. Ibrams, Lfie Mirror and the Lamp (New York,
1953)

-1-

-2...

during these years than ever before in history. For in the
eighteenth century, with the tremendous growth of the reading
public, there was not only a significant increase in the pro-
duction of literary works to fill the needs of that public
(the "rise of the novel" furnishing the most obvious example),
but a preportionate, indeed, a more than proportionate,
increase in the production of literary criticism. For this
new public had a great appetite for both kinds of writing,
and, in fact, for all kinds of writing--political, religious,
historical, and scientific as well as "literary." Thus it
was no accident that these years saw the development of the
vehicle most precisely suited to satisfy this appetite--the
monthly magazine. From its tentative beginnings in the last
part of the seventeenth century to its establishment, with
the founding of the Gentleman's magazine in 1731, as a per-
manent form, and through its continued development as an
increasingly influential cultural force, the rise of the
magazine furnishes one of the most interesting chapters in
eighteenth-century literary history.

But it is not the task of this study to trace this
development in detail. It will be sufficient to point out
the obvious fact that the growth of the magazines meant that
hundreds of pages of literary criticism were produced and
disseminated each month to thousands of readers. It must be

granted that the bulk of this writing has no more permanent

value or intrinsic merit than much of the literature about

which it was written; often it has somewhat less. But one

-3-

should not overlook the fact that a large portion of the
significant critical literature of the age first appeared in
these periodicals. And, more importantly, it was the literary
essays and reviews in these publications that most literate
Englishmen were reading. Thus, if our purpose is not simply
to trace the main lines of influence or to exhibit the gems of
literary criticism, but rather to draw an accurate picture of
eighteenth-century taste, the magazines, with their wide and
varied audience, must be carefully examined.

But the focus of this study is not simply Journalistic
criticism, but, more specifically, criticism of the drama,
and a brief word about that form is called for. Admittedly,
the last half of the eighteenth-century was not one of the
“great" periods of the drama. And yet, although Goldsmith
and Sheridan were certainly the best as well as the best
remembered dramatists of their time, they did not stand alone.
Cumberland, Colman, Foote, Garrick, Kelly, Murphy, and many
lesser figures were producing not only a great number of
plays, but often very competent plays during these years.
That is to say, Sheridan and Goldsmith were not working in a
vacuum; they did not lack competition.

Nor did they lack an enthusiastic audience. For no
matter what the modern reader may finally decide about the
merit of late eighteenth-century drama, the fact remains

that this was a period of great and unprecedented interest
in the stage. In London, the two main theatres, Drury Lane

-4-

and Covent Garden, which between them had a seating capacity
of around 4,000, flourished as they never had before, while
the few minor houses also did well. The account books give us
a convenient measure. G. W. Stone reports, for example, that
Convent Garden's season income for 1741 was 511,881; by 1773
this figure was $30,740. Likewise, Drury Lane's income rose
from £18,096 for the 1749-50 season to £32,538 for 1771-1772.2
New plays and revivals, tragedies, comedies, pantomimes,
farces, Operas, interludes, preludes, masques, burlettas,
ballets, and even vaudeville acts made up the varied programs
these audiences flocked to see. More lavish costuming and
more elaborate scenery no doubt added to the theatre's
attractions in the last half of the century as well as being,
in part, a result of its popularity. And finally, one should
remember that this, the age of Garrick, was one of the great
periods of English action.

The result of all this was, if not one of the great eras
of the drama, at least one of the great ages of the English
stage. Interest in the theatre was at an all-time high.

That this interest should have resulted in a steep rise in
the amount of dramatic criticism was inevitable, especially
since the audience for such criticism and the facilities for
reaching that audience were already at hand. The consequence

of the meeting of these strands or forces was a body of

 

2
G. W. Stone, ed., The London Stage, 1660-1800, Part 4
1747-1776 (Carbondale. 111., 19825, I, xliv.

 

-5-

printed comment on the drama--in daily papers and occasional
pamphlets as well as in the monthly magazines-- of wholly
unprecedented size, scope, and complexity. The entire body
has never been treated in detail, and to do so would be a
monumental task.3 The objective of this paper is much more
limited: to examine the results of the meeting of these
trends in one of the most conspicuous examples--that is, to
study in detail the dramatic criticism in what was certainly
the most influential magazine of the period, the Gentleman's

magazine.
The Gentleman's Magazine, which was founded in 1731 by

 

Edward Cave, was originally designed to be a "magazine" or
storehouse of material first published elsewhere. In his
introduction to the first volume Cave indicated his intention
to gather the best of the daily and weekly serials, which had
long ago become far too numerous to be read by one man, and
to present this material, along with a summary of the news, in
an attractive, convenient, and more permanent form. The idea
was not original. There had been "magazines" or miscellanies
before, most notably Peter Motteux‘s the Gentleman's Journal
(1692-1694). But most of these were slight and short-lived
enterprises. Why Cave should have succeeded so completely

where others had failed before was due, in part no doubt, to

 

3c. H. Gra , Theatrical Criticism 33 London to 125
(New York, 1931 , gIves a survey of the maIn trends, u
his scope is far too broad to allow for much detailed
analysis.

-6-

the fact that the ever-increasing audience had reached pro-
portions which would allow such success. But apparently the
great success of the Gentleman's Magazine was primarily due
to the fact that Cave carried the idea of the earlier
miscellanies to its logical conclusion. He did substantially
the same thing; he simply did it more thoroughly.

From the beginning it is clear that Cave set out to appeal
to readers of every class and interest. The first issue of
the magazine contained material, in the form of extracts or
summaries, from the January issues of the Craftsman, the London
Journal, the Grub-Street Journal, the Weekly Register, the
Universal Spectator, the £333 BritonI the British Journal, the
Daily Courant, and Reed's Journal. Several of these, and many
others that were gradually added, continued to supply material
for the Gentleman's4 in the years that followed. And the list
of subjects that came to be included is equally varied. In
the pages of the GM the reader can find--in addition to the
summaries of the news and lists of births, deaths, promotions,
and stocks--articles on recondite historical questions, bibical
scholarship, scientific discoveries, foreign and domestic
affairs, political problems, mathematics, health, love,
religion, morality, indeed, on anything at all which struck
the editor as interesting, instructive, or amusing. And
included among these, as regular features, were pages of

poetry, a register of newly published books, and, with

 

4In this study I use "the Gentleman's" or the abbrevia-
tion‘gg to refer to the Gentleman's MagazIne.

-7-

increasing frequency, essays on literary topics. Cave's
claim, on the title page, that his magazine contained "more
than any book of the kind or price" was amply supported.

The development of the Gentleman's Magazine, and especi-
ally the gradual increase in the amount of original material
that it came to include, will be covered briefly below. But
here one might pause to take notice of the magazine's immediate
and amazing success. Perhaps the best measure of that success
is the number of imitators which soon appeared. Johnson,
writing a preface to the magazine in 1738, claimed that no
fewer than twenty publications which attempted to copy the
Gentleman's were begun in the seven years since its inception.
Probably the most important of these was the London Magazine
which began in 1732 and which was, in purpose and scope and
even in format, motto, and sub-title, an almost exact copy.
And the London did not stop with imitating the original design
but continued to add new features or sections to duplicate
each of Cave's innovations. This magazine, which was con-
trolled by an association of London booksellers, was the EM's

most serious competitor until its demise in 1786.5

 

5

C. Lennart Carlson, The Firstm A Histo of
the Gentleman' s Ma azine ( rovIdenca 3. a1? 819 38) gIves_ an
account of the errce competition and, in fact, provides a
great amount of information about the Gentleman' s up to the
time of Cave' s death in l75#. This chapter is very much
indebted to Carlson' 3 study, and also to those by Walter
Graham English Literary Periodicals ew York, 19317) and
Edward W( WJ—W Street @rovl'dence,

R. 1., 19517).

-8-

The London magazine was the first and most important
imitator, but, as Johnson's list attests, it was far from
the only one. A few of the other imitations might be men-
; tioned, if only to show the influence of Cave's project. In
1733 Eustace Budgell'sIggg appeared. This was the first
weekly magazine built on the same plan as the monthlies. The
.EEE! however, gave the monthlies no serious competition, nor
did the Literary Magazine, or the Select British Library,
‘which was begun in 1735 and which had a more literary slant.
But this magazine did anticipate a later development of the
Gentleman's by emphasising bibliographies as a leading feature.
Another of the imitators, and one of the most direct, was the
Gentleman's Magazine: $29 Monthly Oracle. Begun in 1736,
this periodical copied not only Cave's title, but his title
page in almost every detail as well as adopting the same
format and features. The Country Magazine, also begun in
1736, was not so flagrant a copy and aimed more directly at
the audience outside of London. It will not be necessary to
treat these early imitations in detail; their very existence
proves the point. Carlson thinks Johnson may have been
exaggerating in saying there were twenty imitators by 1738.6
Johnson names only eleven and there is no existing informa-
tion about six of these. Nevertheless, the founding of even

five or six competitors or would-be competitors within as
many years after the first issue of the Gentleman's Magazine

 

63113 First Magazine, p. 78.

 

 

-9-

is one measure of the success of Cave's venture.

Another and equally telling measure is the magazine's
impressive circulation. There are no figures for the early
issues; but some idea of the immediate success of the magazine
can be gained by noting the speed with which the early numbers
were reprinted. For example, in the issue for April, 1733
(II,220) we are told that the fourth edition of the October
and November 1731 issues will soon be ready for sale. And
the title page for December 1733 informs us that some of the
1731 issues are being reprinted for the fifth time. The
success, then, was immediate; and it was sustained. In spite
of the increasing competition, the circulation of the magazine
continued to grow. Johnson once remarked that Cave used to
sell 10,000 cepies of each issue, and Hawkins claimed that
after the inclusion of the "Debates in the Senate of Magna
Lilliputia" (1738) the sales rose from 10,000 to 15,000.7
Perhaps these figures are, as some scholars have suggested,
exaggerations. They seem unusually high. Still, they are
all we have, and, even allowing for some degree of exaggeration,
it is clear that the magazine was enormously popular. By
1741 Cave could claim in his Preface:

The Gentleman's Magazine is read as far as the English

language extends, and we see it reprinted from several

 

7Boswell, Life‘gf Johnson, ed., Hill-Powell (Oxford, 1934),
111,322, and Si—r‘r ohn Hm Life of Johnson, 2nd ed.

(London, 1787). C. H. Timperly, Enc-Elo edIa‘gf Literar and
Typographical Anecdote, 2nd ed. (Longon, I842), p. 795, Iists
t e 0 re at

on of the Q! at 4,550 in 1797.

presses in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Plantations.
Our Debates and Poetical Pieces are copied by some, our
Foreign History by others, and the Lives which we have
inserted of eminent Men, have been taken into works of
a large size, and with other parts of our Book been

translated into foreign languages.

The "lives" referred to above were the biographical
essays on important figures which began to appear in 1738,
probably at Johnson's urging. In any case, Johnson wrote
most of the early biographies for the magazine. And this
suggests another reason for the Gentleman's continued suc-
cess. Throughout the century the magazine managed to attract
some of the best literary talent of the age. Johnson, who
was closely associated with the magazine in the late 1730's
and the 1740's and to a lesser degree in later years, is
certainly the most august example; but he merely heads a
list of contributors which reads like an index to a history of
late eighteenth-century literature. John Nichols, surveying
"The Rise and Progress of the Magazine" in 1821, gives a
selected list of contributors from which I further select:
Moses Browne, Richard Savage, Samuel Boyse, mark Akenside,
William Guthrie, Sir John Hill, Christopher Smart, John
Hawkesworth, Thomas Percy, James Boswell, Charles Burney,
Benjamin Franklin, William Gilpin, William Mason, Arthur

Murphy. Joseph Priestly, Joseph and Thomas Warton, and

-11..

Gilbert White. 8

And if, with the advantage of hindsight, the modern
reader feels that the Gentleman's borrows some of its glory
from its association with Johnson and the fact that his first
important publications appeared in its pages, one might recall
his remark to Boswell that "when he first saw St. John's Gate,
the place where that deservedly popular Miscellany was
originally printed, he beheld it with reverence."9 To
Johnson, who had just arrived in London in 1737, the Gentle-
.EEELE Magazine was already an important publication. Seven-
teen years later he could write (in his Preface to the Index,
1754) that the magazine "still continues to enjoy the favour
of the world" and ”is one of the most successful and lucrative
pamphlets which literary history has upon record." Johnson,
whose editorial duties included the writing of such prefatory
material, is a prejudiced source, but an accurate one none-
theless. And though the number and types of magazines
continued to expand throughout the rest of the century, none
was able to dislodge the Gentleman's from its position of
eminence. After the close of the century the magazine became
less important, though it continued to be issued until 1907;
but during the eighteenthpcentury it was undoubtedly the most

 

8 )8Preface to vol. iii of the Index, 1787-1818 (London,
1 21 .

9Boswe11, Life‘gf Johnson, ed. Hill-Powell (Oxford, 1934),
I, 111-112. AlI subsequent references are to this edition.

-12-

influential periodical of the time. Several modern scholars
have advanced this opinion; it will suffice to quote one.
Walter Graham, evaluating the EM in his survey of English

literary periodicals, concludes:

The Gentleman's Magazine....was for one hundred and
fifty years--and its files remain to this day--the great-
est storehouse or "magazine" we have of eighteenth and
nineteenth-century science, genealogy, biography, of the
antiquities of city or church or ruined castle, of topo-
graphy, laws, criticism, poetry, Parliamentary proceedings,
and news summaries. Moreover, the Gentleman's was a
sort of literary clearing house, and for many generations
performed the functions of the later Athenaeum, Academy,
M and Queries, and the specialized periodicals of
travel, biography, and science, as well. To students of
literature it is of importance-~beyond most periodicals
of the time, for its critical articles and reprinted

poems and essays.10

As such comments and such a list of distinguished con-
tributors would suggest, the Gentleman's magazine did not
long remain simply a repository for material originally
published elsewhere. The poetry sectionll accepted original

 

loEnglish Literary Periodicals, p. 160.

11The contents of this section have been treated by
C. D. fast, The Poetry_ of the Gentleman' 8 magazine (Phil-
adelphia, 1933). Yost, incidentally, also uses the magazine
as a focus of a "study of eighteenth-century taste.

-13-

contributions almost from the beginning and the biographical
essays began to appear in the late 1730's. By the early
1740's the magazine was printing occasional original essays
on many subjects, some of them literary; and by Cave's death
in 1754 the Gentleman's was well on its way to becoming a
"magazine" in the modern sense of the term--that is, a publi-
cation made up of largely original materials. Cave's brother-
in-law, David Henry, took over the magazine in 1754, and under
his guidance this trend was accelerated. Literary subjects,
particularly, were given increased emphasis. One of the
significant developments was the eXpansion of the "Register
of Books." Cave had begun by simply giving a lists-usually
quite incomplete--of books published in London each month.
In March 1736 a separate section was devoted to a list of
"Books published abroad," and, after 1741, this too became a
regular feature. Critical comments were usually added to
this section, but the English books were simply listed until,
in August 1748, comments began to be added here as well. In
the following decades this section was eXpanded to the point
where it contained several actual book reviews each month.
Especially in the later years some of the reviews of drama
appeared in this section.

This development of the Gentleman's magazine in the
fourth decade of the century toward the inclusion of a larger
amount of original material coincided with a marked increase

in critical literature about the drama in periodical essays,

-14..

pamphlets, and books. Shakespeare was receiving considerable
attention during this period. Johnson's Miscellaneous
Observations 22.3hg Tragedy‘gf Macbeth, which appeared in 1745,
is one notable example, and many other books and essays on
Shakespeare were brought out about the same time. In the

next few years the EM, usually an accurate barometer of cur-
rent interest, printed several articles--some of them quite
detailed and learned--dealing with Shakespeare's work and
reviewed some of these books.

- But the interest was not confined to Shakespeare; the ~
contemporary stage was also given increased attention. In
fact, this decade marks the beginning of what was to become,
in the next, a virtual flood of theatrical criticism.12 It
is impossible to say to what extent the introduction of the
dramatic reviews in the Gentleman's in the late 1740's was
responsible for this flood, although no doubt it exerted some
influence in this, as in most other aspects of periodical
publication. At any rate, again the magazine at least faith-
fully reflected the spirit of its age by introducing such
reviews at this time. Actually, the GM had begun to print
articles on the theatre with some regularity after the mid-
l730's. But these were all reprints, the main source being
Aaron Hill's the Prompter. The first piece of original

dramatic criticism in the magazine was the review of

 

12See 0. H. Gray, Theatrical Criticism, eSp. pp. 105-106.

-15-

Benjamin Hoadly's Suspicious Husband which appeared in March,
1747. This seven page comment on the "Characters and Plot
of the Suspicious Husband, with reflexions critical and moral"
was supposedly sent to Mr. Urban (i;g., the editor) by an
unnamed person "into whose hands a copy had fallen." This
copy was, we are told, "originally made by someone to be sent
to some gentleman in the country." In this roundabout fashion
the dramatic reviews, which were to become a regular and
important feature, were begun. The magazine printed no more
reviews in 1747, but the next year there appeared a lengthy
two-part review of Moore's 2h£|Foundling and this criticism
was followed by a two-part reply from a "correspondent."
The same year the magazine also printed lengthy reviews of
Voltaire's Semiramis and Otway's 2h§_0rphan.

For the next three and one half decades reviews of plays
appeared regularly in the Gentleman's. Other articles on
the drama, scholarly essays on the history of the stage or on
dramatists of the past, reports of theatrical events, and
comments on actors and managers were also printed frequently.
But my concern here is with the reviews alone. The appear-
ance of the first original review in 1747 furnishes an
abvious starting point for this study; unfortunately, there is
no equally convenient terminus. 1784, the year of Johnson's
death, has been somewhat arbitrarily chosen as marking the
end of an ear; but there are less arbitrary considerations.
In the late 1770's the reviews begin to appear less frequently,

and after 1784 they occur so sporadically that it would serve

~16-

no useful purpose to carry the analysis beyond this date.

Between March 1747 and August 1784, then, the Gentleman's

 

Magazine printed 131 dramatic reviews. With very few
exceptions these are reviews of plays currently appearing on
the London stage. Also with few exceptions they deal with
plays by contemporary authors. The reviews themselves are
highly uneven in scope and interest. Some are quite long,
covering several pages of closely printed double columns;
some are quite short. Some give detailed criticism of the
plot, characters, language, and theme; some merely summarize
the action. The earliest reviews are in the form of unsol-
icited "letters" from "correspondents." Whether these were
really unsolicited there is no way of knowing. At any rate,
soon the reviews begin to appear as a regular feature written
at the editor's request. In the mid-fifties some reviews
show up in the book review section of the magazine, though it is
sometimes apparent that the reviewer has seen a performance as
well as the text; and they are found in this section with
increasing frequency in the following decades.

The reviews vary in method as well as scope, but their
format is generally fairly standard. For one thing, they
nearly always give a summary of the action, sometimes briefly,

sometimes eXpansively; this was done, perhaps, for the reasons

expressed in this early review:

It is not easy to give such an epitome of these

pieces as will enable our readers to determine whether

-17-

the different fate they suffered was the effect of justice 5
or caprice, or whether the publick voice was directed by

the merits of the author or the actors; some account how-

ever will be expected by our distant friends; for whom we

have always extracted these important events from

dramatic history.13

If the play is written with poetic dialogue, the reviewer
usually also includes a sample of the language, or else refers
the reader to the poetry section where selected passages
from the play as well as from the prologue or epilogue were
often reprinted. Critical comments are sometimes interspersed
among the summary material, but more often they are added at
the end.

After presenting a list of the magazine's distinguished
contributors during this period, it would be convenient to
be able to indicate that certain of these were reaponsible
for the Gentleman's dramatic criticism. Unfortunately, the
authorship of these reviews remains largely unknown. Of the
131 reviews, only thirty-four are "signed," or, more precisely,
initialed; and none of these initials can be identified with
complete certainty. A list of the reviews, along with the
"signatures," is given in the bibliography, but the facts may
be summarized briefly. Between March.l748 and June, 1752

 

13xxxv (March, 1754), 128.

-18...

there are six initialed reviews. Two of these are signed
"H. 3.”; the initials "H. s.," "N. s.," "o. s.," and "A. B."
each appear once. Between June, 1752 and April, 1767 none of
the reviews bears any signature. On this last date there
appears a review signed "X," and between November, 1767 and
March, 1773 all but two of the reviews are so initialed--a
total of twenty-seven in all. That is to say, with the
exception of a brief review signed "Y" in August, 1770 and
one unsigned piece in December, 1772, all the reviews for a
period of about five years are apparently the work of one man.
This man has been identified with some confidence as
John Hawkesworth. Hawkesworth, who is largely remembered as
a friend of Johnson and as the editor and major contributor
to the Adventurer (1752-1754), a serial more popular in its
time than the Rambler,14 was closely connected with the{§M
for many years. He began to contribute poetry to its pages
as early as 1741 and in 1744 he replaced Johnson as author of
the important parliamentary debates. By 1756 he was apparently
working as co-editor with David Henry.15 According to Carlson
he was "appointed reviewer of new publications" in 1765. or
two years before the dramatic reviews signed "1" began to
appear.16 0. H. Gray, remarking on these circumstances, and

noticing also that Hawkesworth died in November, 1773, after

 

14Graham, English Literary Periodicals, p. 125.
15Carlson, The First Magazine, p. 125.
16Ibid., p. 24.

-19-

a long illness, has concluded, "we may safely surmise that this
was his signature and we may consider the essays so signed as
his contribution to theatrical criticism."l7 And in support
of his position he points out that William Kenrick in the
Critical Memoirs gf'ghg‘gimgg (1769) refers to "the very
learned Dr. H.---in the Gentleman's Magazine," and again to
"the Gentleman's Critick Dr. H.---"18 '

I More impressive evidence for Hawkesworth's authorship of
these reviews has recently been offered by Donald D. Eddy.19
Eddy compares the articles in the Monthly Review known to be
by Hawkesworth with those on the same subjects by "X" in the
Gentleman's Magazine, and he turns up many close parallels in
thought, style, and wording. To pick one example from a
dramatic review, Hawkesworth, reviewing Charlotte Lennox's

The Sister in the Monthly writes:

Mrs. Lennox is already well known as the writer of
Shakespeare illustrated, the Female Quixote, and several
other performances, which make any compliment either to
her judgment or imagination unnecessary.

This comedy is taken from a little novel which she

published some years ago, entitled Henrietta; it was

 

17Dramatic Criticism.ig London, p. 172.
18Ibid., p. l72n.

19"John Hawkesworth: Book Reviewer in the Gentleman's
Magazine,” 23, XLIII (April, 1964), 223-38.

-20...

exhibited only one night at the theatre in Covent-
garden; the audience expressed great disapprobation,
and would not suffer it to be given out for another
exhibition. (XL, March, 1769, 245)

And "X," reviewing the same play in the Gentleman's,says:

This is the performance of Mrs. Charlotte Lenox,
an ingenious lady, well known in the literary world by
her excellent writings, particularly the Female-Quixote,
and ShakeSpeare illustrated.

She has taken the fable from one of her own novels,
intitled, Henrietta.......

The audience expressed their disapprobation of it
with so much clamour and appearance of prejudice, that
she would not suffer an attempt to exhibit it a second
time. (xxxxx, April, 1769. 199)

Several other examples could be cited. In all, Eddy finds 22
reviews by Hawkesworth in the Monthly which exhibit similar
parallels with reviews by "X" in the Gentleman's. Since

the reviews often appeared simultaneously, and since these
parallels occur regardless of whether the Gentleman's or the
Monthly's review appeared first, the obvious conclusion is the
one Eddy draws: "....I believe that the evidence now
available establishes the probability that‘ZHawkesworth7

-21...

wrote the "X" reviews in the Gentleman's Magazine from 1767
to 1773."20

Such evidence, of course, cannot be entirely conclusive.
And, as Cave himself had earlier warned on several occasions,
one should not take the repetition of a "signature“ in the
Gentleman's as a proof that all the work so signed is by the
same man. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason to
insist that, if Hawkesworth was responsible for all the reviews
initialed this way, he was therefore not responsible for any
others. Nevertheless, in the absence of any better evidence
either way, I have thought it best to follow Gray's prece-
dent and to assume that the reviews signed "X" are by
Hawkesworth.21 ' .

And it might be noted at this point that another candi-
date has been proposed for some of the earlier reviews--no
less a figure than Dr. Johnson. Donald Greene, in his

article, "was Johnson Theatrical Critic of the Gentleman's

 

Magazine?” begins by reminding us that Alexander Chalmers
had long ago attributed the review of Mbore's Gil Blas

 

2°1bid., p. 236.

21C. H. Gray, in fact, treats the other 1767 reviews
(those not signed "X") as Hawkesworth's for he finds the
style similar. And Arthur Sherbo, En lish Sentimental
Drama (East Lansing, 1957). goes even further and discusses
HEEEEsworth as the author of reviews appearing earlier in
the decade.

-22..

22 Greene agrees with this attrib-

(Feb., 1751) to Johnson.
ution and suggests,further, that Johnson may well have been

the author of five other early reviews-~those of Mason's
Elfrida (May, 1752), Moore's Egg semester (Feb., 1753).

Young's gag Brothers (Mar., 1753). Morgan's Philoclea (Feb.,
1754), and Philip Francis' Constantine (Mar., 1754). In
suggesting these additions Greene points to Johnson's close
association with the magazine and the fact that the publication
of his $3322 in 1749 would have given weight to his Opinions

on the drama. But his main argument is that the style of the
reviews is Johnsonian. Greene admits that his evidence is

not conclusive, but he adds that "it is sobering to recall

what a large proportion of the journalistic writing that

most readers now accept as Johnson's was originally ascribed

to him on no more solid grounds than Chalmers had for
ascribing to him the Ell.§l2§ review or than I have for sug-
gesting that he may have had a hand in five other reviews of
p1ays--on almost purely subjective grounds, in short."23

And Arthur Sherbo, in his article "Samuel Johnson and

the Gentleman's Magazine, 1750-1755," not only agrees with

 

22335, 111 (1952), 158-161. Chalmers made the attrib-
ution ifi‘Eie edition of Boswell' a Life (London 1822), 1,
xxxv. And Arthur Sherbo (Johnsonian Studies flairo, 196%7, ,)
139 notes that Richard Wright*had*made the same attribut
in his Account 93. the Life 93 .133. Samuel Johnson (1805).

23Greene, p. 161.

-23-

all of Greene's attributions but adds four more--the reviews
of Shirley's 223.25325 Prince (Feb., 1750), Glover's Boadicea
(Dec., 1753), and, with somewhat less confidence, Whitehead's
Creusa (May, 1754) and Dr. John Brown's Barbarosa (Dec.,
1754).24 Again the basis for the attributions is mainly
stylistic.

In other words, two modern Johnson scholars have claimed
for him no fewer than ten of the magazine's dramatic reviews
for the period between 1750 and 1754. Nevertheless, as these
scholars have themselves pointed out, stylistic evidence is
more conclusive when it is applied to rule out an attribution
then when it is applied to make one; and this is, perhaps,
especially true in this case for some other authors of the
period wrote in a style somewhat similar to Johnson's
(Hawkesworth, for one). In any case, these reviews are not as
yet an established part of the Johnson canon, so I have thought
it best to treat them as the work of an unknown writer or
writers.

If Johnson were the author of these reviews, of course,
this fact would add a further degree of importance to the
criticism. But, to return to the basic premise of this study,
the position of the magazine in itself makes its comments on
the drama significant. For the Gentleman's Magazine was the
most influential magazine of its time, and what it said about

 

24Johnsonisn Studies (Cairo, 1962), 133-159.

-24-

the theatre was read by thousands every month. That what it
said was not always unusually penetrating or strikingly
different must be admitted; in fact, it might even have been
predicted. Still, whatever the intrinsic merit of these
reviews, there can be little doubt, considering the central
importance of this periodical, that they furnish a reasonably

accurate index to late eighteenth-century taste.

CHAPTER II
THE GENERAL POSITION

G. W. Stone, commenting on the large amount of written
dramatic criticism in this period, has pointed out that for
all its diversity it tends to concentrate on four things:

1) the moral and social value of the stage itself; 2) actors
and theories of acting; 3) managers and production problems--
scenery, costume, repertory, price; 4) playing texts--lan-
guage, plot structure, characterization, and theme.1 In

the dramatic reviews in the Gentleman's Magazine the second
of these areas receives comparatively little attention, the
third receives almost none; the concern lies almost entirely
with the first and last elements.

0n the questions of "moral and social value," the
position of the Gentleman's critics must appear to the modern
reader to be rather extreme; but in their treatment of the
other elements they were seldom overly pedantic, rigid, or
picayune. And this in an age when criticism, and particularly
journalistic criticism, was notorious for its display of
these traits. Indeed one of the most obvious features of the
EM reviews is their tendency to judge a play largely by its
own intentions and pretentions rather than to force it onto

the procrustian bed of a rigid set of rules. This does not

 

1The London Stage, Part 4, I, cciii.

-25-

-26..

mean that a play's defects are allowed to pass unnoticed. In
fact, they are sometimes analyzed at length, perhaps for the

reasons expressed in the following passage:

Having thus exhibited an epitome of the first
act, we should rather apologize to our readers for having
done so much, than for not having done more; but the
exhibition of the follies and extravagancies of bad
writers, may perhaps answer as good a purpose in litera-
ture, as the exhibition of drunken slaves is said

formerly to have done in morals.2

And yet these "follies" and "extravagancies" were
usually not to be discovered by a microscopic examination of
details. When Richard Cumberland prefaced his Th2 Fashion-
2213 Lag E with an acknowledgment of its defects and a protest
that he was aiming to "create beauties" and to "please," he
deplored the tendency of present day reviewers to judge so
critically that, had they been Shakespeare's contemporaries,
they would have suppressed ”the bold and daring sallies of
the sublimest Muse." TheIQM agreed, and its review not only

censures the use of personal abuse in criticism, but goes on

to point out:

It is also true, that, when the chief object is minute
correctness, there will seldom be positive excellence;

not, however, because positive excellence and correctness

 

exxxxx (Oct.. 1769). 502.

-27-

are incompatible, but because, where the chief attention
is to exclude blemishes, the production of beauties must

comparatively be neglected.3

The reviewer in this case is Hawkesworth; but the same
operating principle was voiced as early as 1750. Here, after
a sketch of what he considers to be the salient points, the
critic remarks: "These are the blemishes that appear on
the first view of this play: to particularize those which
are of an inferior kind, and are discover'd only by a more
attentive examination, would betray a propensity to blame,
and a kind of industrious ill-nature, which has render'd
criticism infamous."4 In the same vein, Hawkesworth notes of
Garrick's I_ri_s_h M, which was prefaced by the statement
that the author was as aware of its defects as the "severest
critic," that "such a performance, with such an apology,
should, at least, be received with good humour, and not
severely brought to the Test of Rules, which the author did
not prescribe to himself."5

This approach to criticism, this tendency to take into

account the author's intention, to point out his achieve-

ments as well as his failures, and to concentrate on the

 

3x111 (Feb., 1772), 81.
4XIX (Feb., 1750). 52.
5x111 (Nov., 1772), 528.

-28..

totality while giving comparatively less attention to the
minor defects, is generally representative of the magazine's
reviews. These are, of course, the same qualities which

Pope had called for years before in £1; M 23 Criticism:

"In every work regard the writer's end/ Since none can compass
more than they intend." But underlying this approach is an
attitude which sets these reviews apart from most of the
criticism of the early eighteenth-century or any previous
time. For, with few exceptions, the dramatic reviews in the
Gentleman's Magazine are clearly representative of that trend
in critical thought, so marked in the last half of the cen-
tury, which insisted that the critic should test the work "on
the pulse," should look inward rather than outward, and should,
in short, be more concerned with the emotional impact which
the work creates and less concerned to compare it with
previous models or ”rules."

The shift to this approach was well underway by the third
quarter of the century, and, as some of the EM reviews illus-
trate, it had in a few cases at least reached a rather
advanced stage. No doubt the need to develop a critical
theory which would account for the genius--and the great
papularity--of writers, like Shakespeare, who so flagrantly
violated the "rules" of the neo-classicists was partly
responsible for this fundamental shift in critical thought.
Perhaps an equally important influence was the develOpment of
psychology and the application of psychological concepts and
theory to literary criticism. The writings of John Baillie,

-29-

Lord Kames, George Campbell, David Hume, the Wartons, and
other theorists of the age illustrate the effects of this
influence.6 In addition, and in the area of journalistic
criticism particularly, one should not overlook the reviewer's
concern with audience reaction and, more importantly, with
his public's standards. That the reviewer often agreed with
these standards is one of the significant facts about the
development of the magazines. The frankly patronizing tone
of, say, the Tatler or the Spectator is not usually found in
the Gentleman's or in its imitators. In any case, the
magazine reviewers were generally willing to concede that
”the drama's laws, the drama's patrons give."

. This last consideration is, of course, as much symptom
as cause; but whatever the causes, and they were undoubtedly
many and complexly related, it is apparent that in the last
half of the eighteenth-century there was a basic change in
the literary critic's assumptions about the nature of the work
he was to judge and his relation to that work. In dramatic
criticism the influence of this shift can be clearly seen.
0. H. Gray has described what the critic at the beginning of
the century generally thought his task required:

‘1337 must make his definition of tragedy and comedy
clear... He must decide whether a play should hold the

mirror up to nature or should arrange the facts of life

 

6This "psychological current" has been treated in detail
and neatly labelled in Gordon McKenzie's Critical Responsive-
ness (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1949).

-30-

in a way conducive to more righteous living. The unities

he would perforce accept in theory, but he must decide "
whether to interpret them loosely or strictly, for there ~
was authority for either interpretation. He must decide

by force of reason whether it was good taste to mix

comic matter with tragic. He must further decide whether

he would or would not be shocked at the spectacle of vice

trimphant and virtue brought low.....Then he must be

able to say what he thought of Shakespeare. How far

could he go in admiration? What emphasis upon "nature,"

what upon "art?" These and other problems must be .

settled before he could ever hope to express himself as

a critic. For to criticize was to do just this: to f'
affirm certain principles and then to apply them

rigorously to the drama.7

By the end of the century the emphasis had shifted, and most

of these questions had been settled--or, more often, forgotten.

For now the critic was likely to consider his basic task to be

to indicate exactly how the work had affected him, and to

explain by what means this effect had been achieved.

Since it was during the period under discussion that this

fundamental shift was taking place, it would be surprising

if one were to find a perfect agreement or a commonly held

 

7Dramatic Criticism.ig_London £2,122 , pp. 13-14.

-31..

position among any group of critics. But although there are
occasional indications that the older view is not quite dead,
and while the reviews are, of course, devoted to reviewing

plays rather than arguing critical theory, it is nevertheless
clear that this body of dramatic criticism in the Gentleman's

 

Magazine represents a rather advanced stage of this movement.
The reviewers seldom fail to indicate the emotional effect
produced by a play in addition to commenting on its more
"objective" features. And, more significantly, this "effect"
is often the sole criterion for the final judgment--even when
an examination of precedents or "rules" would suggest an
opposite verdict. Witness, for example, the conclusion of

the review of John Home's tragedy Alonzo:

Perhaps the reader will think, that nothing which
could pass between two women, could justify the assertion
of Alonzo, 1'23! myself dishonoured. Perhaps, also, they
will think that an intrigue with a rival, at the very
time, and in the very place, when and where she had
appointed to meet her husband, and in which, therefore,
she must of necessity be detected, is too absurd to be
the cause of such events as it is here supposed to
produce even in a Spanish husband. The heart, however,
which does not so forcibly feel these scenes in the
representation, as to forget every violation of the
laws of Criticism in producing them, must be at once

unworthy and incapable of that divine pleasure which

-32-

the tears of Virtue only can bestow.8

This passage also illustrates the great preoccupation of
theIQM reviewers, the moral effect of the drama, as well as
the characteristic concern with the stage presentation as
opposed to a reading of the play; but the important consider-
ation here is the emphasis on emotional effect to the point
where the "heart" can be so affected that ”every violation of
the laws of Criticism" can be set aside. The critic in this
case is Hawkesworth, but later in the year we find another
reviewer condemning Colman's alteration of Gay's Achilles i3
Petticoats by the same reasoning, viz., it "has not one
character or incident to excite a desirable emotion.”9 It is
the dramatist's business to master the techniques of achieving
the prOper effect; and it is high praise to find that the
author has "shewn great knowledge of the heart and its
affections.“

The effect that this approach had on such questions as,
for example, the importance of formal "rules" or the value of
”sentimental" drama will be treated in detail below, but it is
obvious that it could only work against the former and to the
advantage of the latter. Such an approach also accounts, at

least in part, for the keen interest in character portrayal

 

811111 (Mar., 1773). 140.

911111 (Dec., 1773). 611.

-33-

which is so evident in the dramatic criticism of the period.10

But here I wish to emphasize the point that this tendency to
test the work "on the pulse," this shift to "critical respon-
siveness" which is one of the outstanding features of late
eighteenthpcentury criticism, is clearly illustrated by the GM
reviews. It pervades most of the reviews and it is sometimes
evident in a rather advanced form. Hawkesworth furnishes some
of the best illustrations. In a review of Joseph Cradock's

Zobeide, for example, he falls back on a version of the jg 23

sais guoi:

The dialogue frequently passes from speaker to speaker
with an abrupt rapidity that gives it nature and spirit;
and replies are sometimes pointed with unexpected per-
tinency, which discovers a whole train of sentiments
by a single word.....The characters are by no means ill
sustained, and the situation in the last act cannot be
exceeded; yet, by some occult defect, like that which
prevents a musical instrument from receiving the last
excellence from the utmost diligence and skill, it

does not forcibly excite pity, either upon the stage or
in the closet.11

 

10393 c, H. Gray, Dramatic Criticism.;2 London 32_1125.
p. 19 2 283311110

111111 (Feb., 1772), 82-83.

-34-

By nearly every standard, then, the play should be good, yet

it is not; by "some occult defect" it fails to move the critic.
0n the other hand, a play which has many defects according to
the usual criteria may still manage to affect the audience in
such a way that the rules of criticism and even that very
important sense of'probability" will become irrelevant. This
is the conclusion of the review of Cumberland's Th3 Fashionable
nggg'which appeared in the same issue as the review just

quoted:

It has been our usual practice to give the dramatic
story of every new Theatrical performance; but this
would make a story so absurd and extravagant, that it
would disgust our readers, and at the same time injure
the author, by exhibiting only the bran of his perform-
ance, after having sifted away the flour. The piece has
been successful upon the stage, it has deserved its
success; yet it pleases like a fairy-tale, and its
excellence consists in producing an interest by the
violation of Nature. But a writer, who has been able to
warm the heart and to melt it, in spite of improbabil-
ities perpetually recurring, both with respect to
character and incident; who has interested the passions
in the cause of virtue, and endeavoured to correct the
vices and follies of a dissolute age, at the very moment

when he is administering to its pleasures; has no reason

-35-

to be ashamed of his performance, and may well set both

the envy and accuracy of criticism at distance.12

But again it should be noted that although a piece which
manages to stir the viewer will be judged favorably, even if
the rules of criticism or the laws of logic are violated, it
is essential that such a play also have the proper moral tone
and create the proper moral effect. This is, by and large,
the §$22.332.222 of the Gentleman's magazine's dramatic
criticism which is at once quite liberal as regards the "neo-
classic" tenets of criticism, but extremely rigid in its.
insistence upon moral absolutes. Such a combination is not
at all unusual in this period. Indeed, a strong "moral tone"
pervades the criticism of the age to such a degree that it .
cannot be separated from purely aesthetic questions; and this
insistence upon the proper “moral effect" as a necessary
constituent of successful drama is one of the most charac-

teristic and obtrusive traits of the Gentleman's reviews.

 

Here, for example, is an excerpt from a review of Otway's
Th3 Orphan which levels an attack at a favorite target--
Restoration wit--and which is slightly atypical only in the
force and clarity with which the concept of a universal

morality is set forth:

I know it will be urged, in defence of this part
of the Poet's conduct....that he lived in a licentious

age, when criminal gratifications were not looked on

IEXLII (Feb., 1772), 81.

-36-

as derogatory from the character of a gentleman. I
admit it; but who does not know that, as virtue is
uniform, and entirely independent of custom wherever
they interfer, if a man will give way to the prevalence
of vicious examples, he may become a very fashionable
gentleman; but will the wise and good part of mankind
esteem him on this account? Will they not rather
detest and shun the man who, with such confidence and
assurance, tramples on those laws and obligations, upon
which the peace, order and happiness of society so

manifestly depend.13

That the critics of this period should find Restoration drama
Open to attack on these grounds is hardly surprising. The
idea that a play must be viewed as a product of its time

is considered by this reviewer only to be flatly rejected;

in questions of morality, there could be no compromise. In

a continuation of this review in the next issue the reviewer

elaborates:

In defence of this conduct‘ZExpressions of "immoral"
and "indelicate" sentiments by the main character§7 of '
our author, the licentiousnesslgf'hi§.tigg....may
possibly be urged. Now, as this is an apology, behind
which a great number of the wits (as they were pleased to
call each other) of that blessed day, have thought proper

to screen themselves, it may be worth while to observe,

IEEGIII (Nov., 1748), 504.

-37...

that, however plausible arguments of this kind, considered
in some lights, may seem, yet, when applied to the merit
they are very fallacious; for in poetry, as in all other
works of art, our approbation of a performance is, and
only can be, determined by the consideration of its own

intrinsic excellence.14

Both internal and external evidence suggest that this
"correspondent" was reSponsible for only the review just
quoted, but, while his expression of the doctrine of universal
morality is stated rather more directly than usual, his insist-
ence on the overriding importance of the moral effect of a
play as a standard for judgment is representative of the
attitude underlying nearly all of the Gentleman's criticism.
This emphasis, of course, was not unique with the
Gentleman's Magazine. Indeed, it is probable that the threat
to the freedom of the stage posed by the Licensing Act of
1737 was in part responsible for the great increase in
dramatic criticism in the middle of the century because the
reviewers felt compelled to defend the stage as a positive
moral and social force.15 Certainly the theatre was fre-
quently attacked on this point. William Law's Unlawfulness

2; Stage Entertainment fully Demonstrated had run through

 

14XVI11 (Dec., 1748). 551.

15See C. H. Gray, Dramatic Criticism‘ig London‘tg 172 .
esp 0 pp 0 103-1040

-38-

four editions by 1759. indicating that attacks in the style of
Jeremy Collier continued to find large audiences; and the large
number of books and pamphlets with such titles asighg.§tggg‘thg
Highgoad tgmggll (1767) suggests that Opponents of the

theatre continued to be voca1--even though the theatre account
books show that they were largely ineffective.

It is against the background of this opposition that the
concern with morality in the dramatic criticism of the period
must be viewed. And if one considers the general spirit of
the age, the increasingly middle class character of the theatre
audience and, of course, of the magazine's readers, this
emphasis on moral tone and moral consequences in the criticism
of the period is not surprising.16 The playwrights, obviously,
were not at all immune to these influences, as the most
cursory comparison between Restoration and late eighteenth-
century drama would indicate. Nevertheless, their plays were
not always quite as "instructive" as the critics could wish,
for they found much to censure. .The GM reviews offer no
exception to this spirit as subsequent analysis will show, for
the concern with stage "morality" so pervades these reviews
that it will be necessary to return to this point again in

the discussion of the different genres.

 

16A. Aronson, "The Anatomy of Taste: A Note on Eighteenth
Century Periodical Literature,' _, LXI (1946), 228-36,
discusses the influence of "middle class morality" in the
periodical criticism of the time.

-39-

Another matter which demands at least brief consider-
ation in this attempt to sketch the general assumptions of
the EM reviewers is the question of whether the "stage" or
the "closet" was the ultimate test of a play's merit. .As
S. A. Larrabee has demonstrated, the question was not at
all settled during this period.17 Larrabee notes YOung's
remarks, in his Conjectures 23 Original Composition (1759).
to the effect that the real test of a play's force is its
performance on the stage--a test which, in his view, such
well known works as Addison's 9232 fail to pass. On the
other hand, in the same year Goldsmith was writing, in 53

Enguigy into the Present State 9; Polite Learning, that

The success...of pieces upon the stage would be of little
moment, did it not influence the success of the same
piece in the closet. Nay, I think it would be more for
the interests of virtue, if stage performances were

read, not acted; made rather for companions in the

closet than on the theatre.......For all must allow,

that the reader receives more benefit by persuing a well

written play, than by seeing it acted.

This seems, at first glance, a curious view for Goldsmith
to advance. But then his own success on the stage was not
to come for another decade. At any rate, he was not alone

in his opinion; neither, of course, was Young.

 

17"1he 'Closet' and the 'Stage' in 1759:" EEK: LVI
(1941), 282-84. -

-40..

To some extent the reviews in the Gentleman's Magazine
reflect this division of opinion; no completely uniform
attitude emerges. Though a critic will often indicate that
he is working only with the printed text, there are very few
cases where the stage presentation alone is the basis for a
review. Frequently, however, it is clear that the reviewer
has seen both the text and a performance. There are some
indications that in certain cases at least the closet was the
better test. The review of O'Brien's 23253 Purposes, for
example, claims it a point in the play's favor that it
carries "so much of the pleasure that it gave upon the stage

into the closet."18

Since this is a farce, it deserves,
perhaps, a special classification. Nevertheless, Hawkesworth
approved Charlotte Lennox's 223 Sister in its published form
and stated that "those who read it in the closet will probably
wonder at its [fihfavorab1g7 treatment on the stage."19 And

of Thomas Hull's T23 R3131 Merchant we are told that
“although this performance was not successful upon the stage,
it certainly has great merit."20 Furthermore, it should be
noted that most of the criticism of language, character
development, and plot structure found in the Gentleman's

reviews could only be made on the basis of a close examination

of the printed text.

 

181111 (Dec., 1772), 580.
19xxxxx (Apr., 1769). 200.
2Oxxxvni (Jan., 1768). 31.

-41-

But the bulk of the evidence is on the other side.
In the great majority of cases it is apparent that the EM
critics regarded the effect of the stage performance as the
true test of dramatic merit. In the first place, as Hawkes-
worth.notes in his review of Cumberland's 323 Brothers, some
faults which loom large in the reading would seldom be

noticed at all in the theatre:

The...story is not only improbable with respect to
single facts, but by the inconsistency of the facts
taken together.....These improbabilities however signify
very little with reSpect to the representation on the
stage; the scenes are all lively and interesting; and
the audience is not at leasure [Eig7 to inquire how they

were produced, or how they are connected.21

"Probability" was still, as shall be seen, an important
consideration for these critics, but it was not to be judged
on the basis of a close study in the closet. Likewise, we

read of Samuel Foote's The Liar:

The principal excellence of'ZThe Liag7 is the humour of
the scenes, and the spirit of the dialogue; and the
principal defect is in the plot, which is not wholly
free from confusion and inconsistency, and which, like

Shakespeare's, is wound up in a hurry....

 

leXXIX (Dec., 1769), 595-96-

-42-

But the audience loses very little pleasure, if
any, from these defects; they are discovered, perhaps,
only by the silent and attentive reader; and if the
audience discovered them, they would not be less delighted
by the comic power of the scenes and dialogue, which

are certainly so great as to have been seldom equalled.22

In short, an effective presentation may make the spectator
suspend his sense of probability and overlook some confusion
and inconsistency. And this is true not only with respect
to plot but also language: "The language, though it is
measured, is scarcely elevated into poetry; but as all
dialogue in verse is a deviation from nature, this defect,
however it may detract from its merit as a poem, could not
much lessen its effect upon the spectator."23

Some faults, in other words, which trOuble the reader,
do not seriously injure the play upon the stage, hence they
are not sufficient to allow one to judge the play a failure.
0n the other hand, those aspects which please only the

reader are not enough to make the work successful. Witness

the review of the tragedy Codrus:

This is one of the many foundlings, which, having
been stifled in the birth by our theatrical nurses, now

appeals from their injustice and cruelty to the impartial

 

22xx111v (Aug., 1764). 388.
23x11v (Feb., 1754), 84.

-43-

public. But, were we on the jury in this cause, we
should not scruple to acquit Mess. Garrick and Colman
[The managers, respectively, of Drury Lane and Covent
Garde§7 of any malice prepense in this case, as though
(without metaphor) many parts of this tragedy are very
readable, the speeches are much too long, and the story

too uninteresting to please on the stage.24

The real test, then, is the stage. Thisis the basic
position of the EM critics. Hawkesworth, in his review of
John Hoole's giggg, a play which the author feared would not
be as well received in the closet as it had been on the stage,
concludes his remarks with a warning to the reader that to
discover the play's real merit it is necessary to "conceive
the effect of such events and situations brought on by
poetic dialogue and supported by the graces of action and
utterance."25 And the reviewer Of Garrick's £335 3; Nothing
tells us that he had taken the trouble to read the piece
to a small group in order to note its effect before passing
judgment.26 Indeed, even when the critics comment on aspects
which could only be discovered by a careful reading--as they
often do--they generally return to the effect or the probable

effect of the stage performance as the basis for their final

 

24xr1v (May, 1774), 228.
25XXXVI11 (De... 1768). 581.
26XXXVI (Dec., 1766). 591.

-44-

decision. The conclusion to the review of Colman and Garrick's
Clandestine Marriage states the usual position of the magazine's
critics most succinctly and unequivocally: "Its success upon
the stage, the truest test of theatrical merit, would justify
a farther commendation, which at the same time it renders
unnecessary."27

One final point. It is true that the reviews vary in
scope and in degree of critical perception and penetration,
but there is, throughout, a conviction that the drama is a
valuable literary form and an important social and moral
force. It was, in short, something to be taken seriously,
both by the critic and the writer. The playwright's task was
important and difficult. One of the early reviews set forth

what this task involved.

To form a set of characters which shall exhibit a
just and instructive picture of real life, and to suit
each character with sentiments and expressions which
shall amuse the fancy, while they tend to correct the
manners, and inform the judgment, is not easily effected;
but to bring these characters together, to engage them
in some uniform and interesting design, in which each
shall be essentially necessary, and have Opportunity of
delivering his peculiar sentiments pertinently, while a

series of probable and consistent events is to be produced

 

27xxxvx (Mar., 1766), 128.

-45-

within the time limited for the action of dramatic
pieces, is yet more difficult: this requires at once
the invention Of a poet, and the judgment of a critic.
A writer may therefore be allowed considerable merit as
a moralist, a poet, or a critic, though he fails in a

performance which demands the united abilities of all.28

This set a high standard for the playwright. And if the
modern reader feels that the writers of the age met this
standard rather less frequently than the Gentleman's Magazine
gave them credit for doing, the fact remains that these critics
approached their task quite seriously; they viewed neither the
writing nor the judging of drama as an idle pursuit. Hawkes-
worth, who was probably responsible for many of these reviews,
gave this estimation of his task: "......no consideration
shall ever bias by judgment in this work, for literary
characters and literary performances are too serious and
important to be the objects of wanton Censure, or unmerited
Commendation. [3137 perhaps there is no work so important
as a Review honestly and ably executed.”29
The reviewers, then, took their jobs seriously; and by
and large they focused their attention on the same aspects.

Plot structure, character development, and moral tone received

 

28XVIII (Mar., 1748), 114.

29In a letter to Ralph Griffiths, March 3, 1769. Quoted
from D. Eddy, "John Hawkesworth: Book Reviewer in the
Gentleman's Magazine," 23, XLIII (April, 1964), 226.

-46-

the most comment, and the emotional effect--particularly the
effect of the stage performance-~wasthe basic criterion for
judgment. The consequences of this approach, what these
critics had to say about the major plays and the important
critical questions of the period and how this was related

to the dominant critical theories of the third quarter of
the century are among the questions which suggest themselves

for more detailed study.

CHAPTER III
TRAGEDY

As the shift to an emphasis on “dramatic effect" as a
basis for judgment would suggest, the reviewers for the
Gentleman's Magazine generally had little regard for the neo-
classic "rules" of tragic composition. This position is not
entirely typical of late eighteenth-century dramatic criticism.
Actually, the battle over the usefulness of "rules" for poetic
composition raged throughout the period. If it is an obvious
over—simplification to assume that POpe's dictum "Learn hence
for ancient rules a just esteem/ To copy nature is to copy them,"
was taken as gospel by all of his contemporaries, it is equally .
false to assume that the critics of following generations were
quick to reject this position. In fact, these very lines were
paraphrased again and again during the century;1 and even in
the later decades there were several critics who continued to
insist that ShakeSpeare himself might have done well to have
paid more attention to the "rules." William Mason, for
example, deplored Shakespeare's ignorance of the classic
formulae, largely because his influence was so great, and even
Dr. Johnson admitted that his "gold and diamonds in unexhaust—

ible plenty" were "clouded by incrustations, debased by

 

lCompare, for example, the Monthly Review, XLI (1769),
135. “rules are nothing more than nature at second hand."

-47-

-48-

impurities, and mingled with a mass of meaner minerals."2

Indeed, as late as 1769 222 Monthly Review could decide that
Shakespeare would in the future be condemned "for omissions,
commissions, or deviations, which would have been faults if
gag; had 21.22.121.22EE forbidden."3 It is an indication of
the seriousness with which many later-century critics regarded
the "rules" that they could still be applied to Shakespeare.
As C. C. Green has pointed out, in the late eighteenth
century the defense of the rules could go no further than
this.4

And yet it is clear that the proponents of this point of
view felt that a "defense" was necessary, for the "neo-classic
rules," as such, were under heavy attack. This attack took
several different forms. Certainly the growth of historical
criticism with its insistence that a work be judged according
to the prevailing standards of its own time was an important
factor; Aristotle's prescriptions were applicable to Greek
drama but they were not necessarily relevant to other periods.
Even more important was the shift already noted toward
"critical responsiveness." If, as was Often the case, the

less "regular” dramatists were obviously more successful,

 

2"Letters Concerning the Following Drama," prefixed
to Elfrida, A Dramatic Poem (2nd ed., 1752). pp. iv-v; and
the Preface'fo SEEEes care (1765). in Johnson 22 Shakespeare,
ed. WaIter REIe or , 1929), p. 34.

3111, 135. My italics.

4
C. C. Green, The Neo-Classic Theor of Tra ed lg En land
During the EighteentE Century (CambrIdge, Mass, I§3£), p. 80.

-49-

it was the business of the critic to explain how this could
be. Shakespeare, of course, provided the major stumbling
block, as Addison pointed out early in the century: "Our
inimitable Shakespaare is a Stumbling-block to whole tribe of
those rigid Critics. Who would not rather read one of his
plays, where there is not a single Rule of the Stage observed,
than any Production of a modern Critick, where there is not
one of them violated."5 As admiration for Shakespeare contin-
ued to grow, the implications of these remarks became more
and more apparent. Although many, like Dr. Johnson, tried to
make a distinction between "true" and "accidental" rules,6
an equally common approach was largely to disregard them.
Arthur Murphy, for example, while admitting that the rules
were "agreeable to Nature,” went on to insist that although
"inferior Genius's may avail themselves by a skillful
Conformity to them....Fable is but a secondary Beauty; the
Exhibition of Character, and the Excitement of the Passions,

7 Murphy's

justly claiming the Precedence in dramatic Poetry."
remark is worth quoting since it is identical with the basic
QM position on the question of the "rules." The position is

not quite absolute; once in a while the reader finds a passage

 

5The s ectator, No. 592 (Sept. 10, 1714). 3;. The
Critical Rev ew, (1765), 322: "Shakespeare proceeds by
storm. He Eiows nothing Of regular approaches to the fort of
the human heart. He effects his breach by the weight of his
metal, and makes his lodgment, though the enemy's artillery is
thundering around him from every battery of criticism, learning,
and even probability."

6Rambler, No. 156 (Sept. 14, 1751).
7The Gray's 122 Journal, No. 12 (Dec. 15. 1753).

-50-

1ike the following: "This piece is written with sufficient
regard to dramatic rules, and, in general, is such as a good
critic might expect from the author of Leonidas."8 Exactly
what is meant by "sufficient regard" is not precisely clear,
but it seems that this reviewer apparently found some value
in the ”rules." The following passage is also not quite
unequivOcal; it suggests that, if one does violate the rules,
one had better have some compensatory virtues, although the
reviewer admits that it is difficult to conform exactly to

the standard prescriptions:

By this sketch it will appear, that the tragedy of
Philoclea abounds with events, which perhaps may be
considered as at once an attonement and apology for the
neglect of a scrupulous conformity to dramatic rules;
for such conformity is always difficult, in preportion
as the events are numerous, and when they rise in a
rapid succession, they necessarily please, as well
those who discern the irregularities which they produce,

as those who do not, tho' in a less degree.9

But even so slight a bow to the "rules" is not char-
acteristic of the'QM critics. Usually the "rules" are

dismissed as useless abstractions quite unsuited to the

 

8XXIII (Dec., 1753). 578.

9x11v (Feb., 1754), 83-84.

-51-

criticism of contemporary drama and those who apply them
rigidly are either mere pedants or are laboring under a

mistaken reverence for the past:

When science first dawned after a long night of
ignorance and superstition, it is easy to conceive why
great regard was paid to antiquity. As no improvements
had been made in any branch of literature for many
centuries, the world was become rude and barbarous; the
taste of mankind was universally vitiated, and genius
could derive no assistance but from those who lived
before the period of intellectual darkness commenced.
But after learning has been not only revived but
improved, after genius has again formed the taste, and
criticism regulated the judgment, the same fondness for
antiquity is ridiculous; nor is it more absurd to prefer
the philosophy of Aristotle to that of Newton, than to
prefer his rudiments to the more perfect plan of the

modern drama.1°

The ancients-moderns controversy was not dead by the middle
of the eighteenth century, but it was certainly dead in the
mind of this reviewer. And if the authority of antiquity
was no longer a sufficient justification for the rules,
neither were they recommended by an inductive examination

of successful drama:

 

101x11 (May, 1752), 224.

-52-

Mr. Jones, however he may have improved the language,

‘ZEf Thg Ear1_qf E§§§§7’is generally supposed to have

degraded the story by reducing it to the dramatic rules,
which, however prOper for interlocutary declamation, are
not adapted to the busy and interesting scenes by which
alone the passions can be forcibly moved; and which are
violated in every tragedy that is now a favourite on the

English stage.11

The "rules of old," it appears, were devised, not dis-
covered. .At any rate, they were clearly not relevant to
modern tragedy for the drama was not to be judged by the
rules, but rather by the effect which it produced upon the
viewer. Vicesimus Knox, writing in 1771, stated the case
plainly: "I cannot help thinking, that the effect which a
literary wOrk is found to produce is the best criterion of
its merit; and that sentiment 9r feeling, after all that has
been urged by theoretical critics, is the ultimate and
infallible touchstone to appreciate with precision the works
of taste and genius." "Theoretical criticism," he continued,
"constitutes, indeed, a very ingenious Species of writing;
but before I can be really pleased with a peom or a piece of
oratory, I must feel its excellence."12 The Gentleman's

drama critics would have approved this statement, and the

 

111x11 (Jan., 1761), 46.

1293153222: .4221 9.21 1123521 (London. 1808). 1, 164,165.

-53-

change which it implies from a primary concern with the work
as a formal construct to a basic interest in the viewer's
emotional response had important consequences. If a critic
expounds rules at all they will be those designed to produce

particular effects:

And upon this occasion it may be observed that
though the prologue is in general well adapted to the
play, and yet better to the times, yet it has a capital
fault: it anticipates the great event in which the
dramatic action terminates, and which it has been always
a rule, by every possible art to conceal. We are told
that 5,513 is to fall before AgLs appears, and learn at
once from the prologue, that which should be slowly

discovered, even in a play.13

What this reviewer means by "always" is not clear. He cer-
tainly did not have classical tragedy in mind. But his basic
position is apparent enough--it is the effect which is all-
important. Given this point of view, no rules can be con-
sidered absolute; hence, arguing from the same assumption,

this review reaches a different conclusion:

It has been objected to this tragedy (Qreusa7that
Aletes is discovered to be Nicander, and Ilyssus his son

by Creusa, too soon; but the tender solicitude which

 

13XXVI11 (Mar., 1758), 134.

-54-

this discovery produces, is more than equivalent to the

4
surprise of a discovery more sudden and longer delayed.l

Is the play moving, and, if so, why? These are the
fundamental questions. And operating from this position, the
EM critics generally tend to favor a variety of action and a
rather unrestrained expression of emotion. The comment on
John Logan's Runnameda is interesting: "The....speech of the
father of Evlina is a faithful picture of the human heart;
and, though the determination is Roman, it by no means par-
takes of the stoical apathy, which was the pride of that
stern nation."15 When stoicism is equated with apathy, we
are at a considerable distance from that criticism which
could applaud Addison's 2332. Even worse than sparse emotion,

however, is sparse action:

...the mind is more affected by things than words, and
incident and event become the vehicles of instruction...
by the series in which they happen, and causes by which
they are produced. These are comprehended by every under-
standing, they strike every imagination, and are retained
by every memory. The beauties of poetry are perceived

but by few, and the aphorisms of philOSOphy are easily

overlooked and forgotten.16

 

14xx1v (may, 1754), 229.
15inv (July, 1784). 528. My italics.
151111 (May, 1752), 224-25.

-55-

And of Gorges Howard's Almeida we read that "its principal
defect upon the stage is, that the narrative prevails over
the action."17

This use of "effect" as the main criterion for judgment
rings some interesting changes on the neo-classic theory of
"imitation." Although naturalness and probability are, as
shall be seen, still vitally important, accuracy of represen-
tation is not, in itself, necessarily a virtue. Reviewing

Alexander Dow's Zingis, Hawkesworth writes:

In the Prologue....we are told, that the author does
not “offer manners and men from the store of fancy,"
having lived among the people he describes. This wOuld
certainly have given his piece merit and power, if it
had been exhibited before an audience who had lived among
them too; but the manners of fancy have as good an
effect as the manners of life, upon those who are wholly

unacquainted with the originals from which they are

drawn.18

When the audience is acquainted with the "originals,"
however, the EM reviewers are apt to give "fancy" a very short
rein. The use of the supernatural, for example, was generally

condemned. Again, most of the critics of the period held

 

17111 (mar., 1771), 127.
18xxx11 (Jan., 1769). 41.

-55-

the same view, but not necessarily for the same reasons.

The basic question involved the concept of theatrical

"illusion"; and on this point that age was divided. Many

critics were certain that it was the poet's primary concern

to delude the audience into thinking that the stage was

reality; thus, anything which took place there must be

capable of rational eXplanation. Others, most notably,

Dr. Johnson, insisted that the viewer is never deceived at

all: ”The truth is that the spectators are always in their

senses, and know, from the first act to the last, that the

stage is only a stage, and that the players are only players."19
But even those who thought with Johnson, and they were a-

minority,20 usually found sufficient reason to reject the use

of the supernatural. There were, to be sure, a few heretics.

Hugh Blair, for example, though he took the orthodox View

that the need for strict probability "excludes from Tragedy

all machinery, or fabulous interventiOn of the Gods," felt

obliged to grant that "Ghosts have, indeed, maintained their

place; as being strongly founded on popular belief, and

peculiarly suited to heighten the terror of Tragic Scenes."21

And George Colman, arguing that "dramatic Nature is of a more

 

19preface pg Shakespeare in Raleigh, p. 27-

20See C. C. Green, The Nee-Classic Theory pf Tragedy, esp.
pp. 203-2180

21Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres (6th ed., 1797),
III, 276. III SEESequent references are to this edition.
According to the author's preface these lectures were read at
the University of Edinburgh for twenty-four years before they
were first published in 1783.

 

-57-

1arge and liberal quality than [Rodern critic§7 are willing

to allow," stated that the author's task was "to body forth,

by the Powers of Imagination, the forms of things unknown,

and to give airy Nothing a local Habitation and a Name."22

But Colman, as he realized, was at odds with his age on this
point. The Gentleman's approach was more common. The reviewer
of ppgipgggg Prince, for example, takes great pains to point

out why the use of the supernatural is unacceptable:

The incident of the Ghost is wholly unnatural and
absurd; for it must be supposed either that a spectre
was really present, or that the apparition described by
Ribemont was merely the effect of his imagination. But
to suppose that the spirit of his father was really
present, cloathed in some vehicle that resembled his
person, is to confirm the tales of the nurse, and realize
the drams of ignorance and superstition; and admitting
the reality of an intercourse between departed spirits
and surviving friends, by the miraculous interposition
of providence, such event cannot be justly supposed in
the present case, because it answers no end.....nor can
the imagination of such a person as Ribemont suggest
the appearance of spectres that strike with terror, or

forebode calamity.23

 

22critical Reflections 2p the Old En lish Dramatick
Writers (I761) in Prose pp|SeveraI OccasIons (1
116-11 i e

2311 (Feb., 1750). 52-53.

-58—

For this critic there are only two alternatives: either
the ghost is really there, which would be absurd, or else
the audience must suppose it to be a product of the character's
imagination, which, in this case, is improbable. But such a
thoroughly rationalistic approach is not typical. Mere Often
the same conclusion was reached, not by arguing to "reality,"

but simply on the grounds that the supernatural was bad

theatre:

....it is highly injudicious to intrOduce the pppgpg
natural into dramatic poems, because the scenes then lose
that power of interesting the audience, without which

it is scarce possible that theatrical performances

should succeed; and the reason is very obvious. As soon
as the gods, who are the disposers of allevents, appear
either for or against a principal character in the drama,
expectation is anticipated, and we are no longer
attentive with pleasing anxiety, to the turns of his
fortune; because the last event, whether it render him

happy or unhappy, is foreseen, and known to be inevitable.24

 

24XVIII (Nov., 1748), 483. This emphasis upon the
importance of ”suspense" would, of course, if carried to its
logical conclusion. rule out all classical drama and much
modern drama as well. Indeed, it should, theoretically,
prevent one from enjoying the same play twice. And yet at
least one writer was willing to carry it nearly that far:
"But to this, and all scripture-stories, not excepting
Miss More's excellent Sacred Dramas one reat objection is
their notoriety, whichfentrre trays he grace of novelty
and the pleasure of surprise." (LIII (Mar., 17837, 245.)

-59-

That is, it is not the improbability but the vitiating effect
on "suSpense" which prohibits its use. At any rate, what-
ever the reasons, it is clear that this group of critics
found the employment of the supernatural, at least by anyone
other than Shakespeare, quite inadmissible: "Any play in this
age would infallibly be damned by the introduction of a
spectre to which nothing but the superstitious reverence due
to Shakespeare can reconcile us: 'Within that circle none
must walk but he.'"25

But if the emetional "effect" of the stage presentation
was more important than mere technical proficiency or fidelity
to the "rules," it counted for nothing unless a drama produced
the proper moral effect as well. The play must,above all,
be designed to teach as well as to delight. Although this
emphasis on the moral aspect of drama is, as has been seen,
a marked characteristic of the Gentleman's criticism, it
hardly makes this criticism unique. Indeed, there are very
few instances of an eighteenth-century critic suggesting
that the 22122 was in any way more important than the 21112:
and there were more than a few who said the opposite.
Examples could be cited from nearly every source. Francis
Gentleman, for instance, thought it "an irrefragable maxim,
that moral tendency is the first great and indispensible

e;n26

merit of any piece written for the stag and James Beattie

 

25XLIV (May, 1774), 228.

26L“ 2211:2119. 9.92.925 (London. 1770). I. 104.

-6 O-

was equally convinced that "every composition ought to have a
moral tendency, or at least be innocent.” The reason was
self-evident. "That mind is perverted, which can either
produce an immoral book, or be pleased with one. Virtue

and good taste are so nearly allied, that what offends the
former can never gratify the latter."27 Hugh Blair expressed
the general view very plainly when, finding Aristotle's idea
that tragedy should purge the passions "somewhat obscure,"

he offered a clearer statement of its purpose: "Without I
entering into any controversy upon this head, the intention
of Tragedy may, I think, be more shortly and clearly defined,
To Improve our virtuous sensibility."28 For once, everyone
agreed. The Gentleman's Magazine certainly had no doubts on

the matter.

That a tendency to promote the cause of Virtue is
essential to Epic and Dramatic poetry, will hardly be
contested; and accordingly we find the great poets not
content with barely holding up ppp_mirror pp Nature, and
exercising the virtuous affections of mankind (which yet,
it must be confess'd, are valuable ends of these species
of writing) but that they have constantly endeavoured to

inculcate some prudential maxim, or moral precep .29

 

27Dissertations, Moral and Critical (London, 1783), 1, 224.
28Lectures pp Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, III, 275.
29XVI11 (Nov., 1748), 503.

-61-

But before one can instruct, one must know; and it follows,
of course, that before one can be a good tragic poet, one
must first be a good man. And again the EM critic confidently

asserts the accepted Opinion:

‘ZIE7 has been entertained by the wisest and greatest

men in all ages....that Virtue and Genius, especially
that of the Poet, are very nearly, if not inseparably
allied. To paint the calamities of human life; to inter-
est the affections in behalf of suffering virtue; to
excite just ideas of the superintendance of providence,
and a resignation to the divine will; to raise an abhor-
rence of vice, and animate the soul in its progress to-
wards perfection, are the proper ends of tragical
representations, and these require a heart soften'd

and humanized by a tender sense of all the social and
benevolent affections, an accurate knowledge of the
distinctions and boundaries of characters, together with
gflpggp relish‘pf'pppg; excellence. Whoever considers the
frame and structure of the human mind, and the nature and
end of dramatic poesy, will be convinced of the truth of
this proposition, which, in short, is, that to constitute
a great Poet, the primary and essential qualification is
TO BE A GOOD MAN.3O

 

3°xv111 (Dec., 1748). 553.

-62-

This review is quoted at length because it so well ex-
presses the Gentleman's, and the century's, view of the purpose
of tragedy. Indeed, if it came to a choice, the instruction
was more essential than the delight. Thus we find John
Home's Aggg recommended because "The piece in general, what-
ever may be its defects, abounds with warm and generous
sentiments of liberty and public Spirit";31 and, on the other
hand, however well the poet manages to “interest the affec-
tions," the play may still be condemned if it fails to
"inculcate some moral precept." Hence, Otway's Tpg Opphan,
although the reviewer admits that "whoever considers the
performance now under examination, must confess that the
story is admirably well calculated to excite compassion," is
finally condemned because "if we view it in the light of the
above-mention'd, pp exhibiting pppg useful instruction, we
shall find it very deficient." In fact, this play, the
critic finds, has an even worse fault. It not only lacks
useful instruction but, "compassion" notwithstanding, its

effect is immoral:

I say immoral, because it charges Providence as being
the author of a series of misfortunes, which are al-
together owing to the vicious and imprudent conduct of

the persons concerned...

 

31xxv111 (Mar., 1758), 121.

"Take care good Arcasto, whilst I go
.To search the means 5y which the Fates have

la u'd us.
'Tis tfius that heav'n its empire does maintain:
It may afflict, but man must not complain.

How much more prOperly might he have said with Edgar,
in K. Lear,

The Gods are just, and of our pleasant vices
Make instruments to scourge us.

Which is a pious sentiment, and worthy of the stage.32

No more need be said, I think, to indicate the QM'S
position on the function of tragedy. A related problem,
however, is somewhat more complex. If it was the purpose of
tragedy to teach as well as to delight, as most of the
century's critics agreed, then it would seem to follow that
these critics should also insist upon a scrupulous dispensation
of "poetic justice" as the proper conclusion to a tragedy.
But such was not the case. In fact the main lines of battle
had been drawn early in the century. With a certainty which
would have pleased the EM reviewer just quoted, Dennis had
set down the doctrine in 1701:

...I conceive, that every Tragedy, ought to be a very
Solemn Lecture, inculcating a particular Providence,

and showing it plainly protecting the Good and chastizing
the Bad, or at least the Violent: and that if it is

 

32XVI11 (Nov., 1748), 503.

 

 

-64-

otherwise, it is either an empty Amusement, or a
scandalous and pernicious Libel upon the Government of

the World.33
before long Addison raised an influential objection:

The English writers of Tragedy are possessed with
a Notion, that when they represent a virtuous or innocent
Person in Distress, they ought not to leave him till they
have delivered him out of his Troubles, or made him
triumph over his Enemies. This Error they have been led
into by a ridiculous Doctrine in Modern Criticism, that
they are obliged to an equal Distribution of Rewards
and Punishments, and an impartial Execution of Poetical

Justice.34

Addison then went on to insist that the doctrine was quite

modern, that it was contrary to nature, reason, and exper-

ience, and that it was inimical to the raising of pity and

terror. But the proponents of the doctrine were not con-

vinced, and the controversy continued through the rest of

the

century.

Shakespeare, naturally, caused the supporters of poetic

justice considerable difficulty; but it is a measure of the

 

.33"The Advancement and Reformation of Modern Poetry,"

in The Critical Works pf John Dennis, ed. E. N. Hooker
(Baltimore, 1939), I, 200.

34The spectator, No. 40 (April 16, 1711).

-65-

vitality of the doctrine that even his example did not force
them to retreat. Dr. Johnson, for instance, though certainly
no enthusiastic supporter of the rule, felt constrained to
remark that Shakespeare "sacrifices virtue to convenience,
and is so much more careful to please than to instruct, that
he seems to write without any moral purpose."35 This point
of view was so prevalent that, for all its "bardolatry," the
period often preferred its Shakespeare in a somewhat modi-
fied form which, like Nathum Tate's very popular 1681
alteration of ggpg‘éggp, scrupulously observed poetic justice.
And this preference for the neo-classic doctrine was not
confined to nee-classic critics. Here,for example, a writer
for the-Critjgal Review Offers a very un-neo-classical reason
for choosing the alteration: "Lear has derived little
advantage from the efforts of those who endeavoured to remove
its imperfections; but we still prefer the happy conclusion:
reason opposes l3, 1111.13. 1:313 tortured feelings a_p 9393 decide
$22 contest."36 And one might also note that even as late as
1795 the Monthly Review could object to the thirteenth
chapter of Aristotle's Poetics by reasoning that the pro-
hibition against showing the downfall of an utter villain
would "tend to banish retribution from the theatre, to

preserve the tyrant whose villainy has molested us with

 

3§§£g£ggg pp Shakespeare in Raleigh, pp. 20-21,
35LV111 (1784). 58-59.

(h
-’\

hibitual anxiety, and, by prohibiting poetical justice, to
abolish that solution of the plot which has apparently the
merit of being the most instructive."37 This is, of course,
an obvious misreading 0f the Poetics, but it clearly
indicates that the doctrine of poetic justice remained a
central tenant for some critics to the end of the century.
But the opposition, following Addison, was equally
vocal; and again the EM critics rather faithfully represent
their age by disagreeing among themselves. Thus, in 1748 a
writer takes to task a previous reviewer for supporting the

doctrine:

But where had the author 13f the criticisp7 these

notions of poetic justice? not from Aristotle, not

 

from Mr. Addison.........

It is the lot of providence, and consequently of
nature, that good and evil happen out alike to all men
on this side of the grave; that virtue and innocence
are not always as happy and successful as it [3197

deserves.38

At the other extreme, in a critical note on King Lear, a

 

writer who signs himself "A. B." allies himself with those

 

37XVIII (second series), 129.

38XVIII (June, 1748), 258.

-57-

who considered the doctrine so important that its intro-

duction could improve even Shakespeare:

I have nothing to say in defence of the general
absurdities in this and all his other plays, but can
easily pardon a great number of them when I consider
how much they are eclipsed by his excellencies.

There seems to be one absurdity indeed which he

might have corrected, without the knowledge of mechanical
rules, and that is, in the catastrophe of this piece,
Cordelia and £333 should have survived, as My. Tapg

has made them in his alterations of this play.‘ 'Tis

more agreeable to see virtue rewarded and vice punished;

but this moral is broken through by their death.39

In short, although everyone was quite sure that tragedy
should have a moral purpose, it is impossible to perceive
any clear-cut position in the EM criticism on the question
of poetic justice. For the most part, however, it is pro-
bably accurate to say the reviewers generally shared the
opinion of Johnson who, while recognizing that a play

representing unfortunate virtue may be good "because it is

 

39XXII (June, 1752), 254. There is an editorial note to
this criticism which refers the reader to Spectator 44 where
Addison takes an opposite position on TateTs alteration.
C. C. Green (pp. 146-147) reports that in addition to
Addison's remark, he found only one other adverse criticism
of Tate's changes in the entire century. This editorial note
suggests that, perhaps, things were not quite that one-sided.

 

-68-

a Just representation of the common events of human life,"
could not "easily be persuaded, that the observation of .
Justice makes a play worse; or, that if other excellencies
are equal, the audience will not always rise better pleased
from the final triumph of persecuted virtue."4O Thus we
find, for example, that the reviewer of Oroonoko remarks
approvingly that "in this play the author has taken care to
make his guilty characters suffer, tho' he could not preserve
the innocent ones from destruction."41 It is not eXplained
why the innocent ones could not be preserved, but the critic
is apparently satisfied with the punishment of the guilty.
This rather compromising approach probably best represents
the magazine’s attitude, such as it is, on the doctrine of
poetic justice.

And, it might be noted, the theoretical critics in the
last half of the century were not much more precise. Johnson's
statement on the doctrine has already been presented, and
Hume held much the same opinion. That is, while he granted
that poetic justice was not essential, he nevertheless
warned that "the mere suffering of plaintive virtue under
the triumphant oppression of vice forms a disagreeable

Spectacle and is carefully avoided by all masters of the

 

49_J__O_§_n_§__qg9_gShakespeare, ed. Raleigh, p. 101.

4lxxxn (April, 1752), 167.

—69_

drama." And he decided that "in order to dismiss the
audience with entire satisfaction and contentment, the virtue
must either convert itself into a noble courageous diSpair,

or the vice receive its prOper punishment."42 And Hugh.Blair,
who clearly identified most of the critical problems of his
age even when he could not resolve them, reached a similar

conclusion on the matter:

It is not necessary....that poetical justice, as it is
called, should be observed in the catastrophe of the
Piece. This has been long exploded from Tragedy; the
end of which is, to affect us with pity for the virtuous
in distress, and to afford a probable representation of
the state of human life, where calamites often befal
13:27 the best, and a mixed portion of good and evil is
appointed for all. But, withal, the Author must beware
of shocking our minds with such representations of life
as tend to raise horror, or to render virtue an object
of aversion. Though innocent persons suffer, their
sufferings ought to be attended with such circumstances,
_ as shall make virtue appear amiable and venerable; and
shall render their condition, on the whole, preferable
to that of bad men, who have prevailed against them.
The strings and remorse of guilt, must ever be

represented as productive of greater miseries, than any

4 .
2"0f Tragedy" (1757) in H. H. Adams and B. Hathaway, eds.,
W E's—SEE gig-the Neoclassic Age (New York, 1950), p. 343.

-70-

that the bad can bring upon the good.43

If this looks suspiciously close to that "long exploded"
doctrine of poetic justice, it nevertheless represents the
thinking of most critics of the period, including those who
wrote for the magazines.

Even more difficult to indicate precisely is the
Gentleman's position on the type of character most suited to
tragedy. The reviewers obviously shared the interest in
character development which was typical of much of the
criticism of the period, an interest which arose along with
the critical concern with. "emotional effect" and was
clearly related to the increased attention given to Shake-
Speare's plays, and especially to his handling of character.
Indeed, the reviews seldom fail to comment on the competence
of an author's character develOpment. But the reviews are
largely silent about the theoretical question which occupied
many critics of the period--what are the attributes of the
ideal tragic hero? Perhaps the reviewers could afford gener-
ally to ignore the question because, although they arrived
at it by sometimes far different routes, the same answer
was given by nearly all the commentators. He should, in
the first place, be neither very good nor very bad--especially

not very had. A drama which had no estimable characters

 

43W 9.11. W 22.9 ____Be11es ____Lettr_es.. III. 303.

-71-

could hardly be eXpected to interest an audience: "All the
personages of this play may be considered as devils incarnate,
mutually employed in tormenting one another; as their char-
acters excite no kindness, their distress moves no pity."44
Aristotle, of course, had said as much 2000 years before; and
the eighteenth century, and the Gentleman's Magazine, agreed
with him.

Concerning the rank of the tragic characters, however,
there was less agreement. Certainly an extreme view was
mummified in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the first edition
of which offered the following definition in 1771: "Tragedy,
a dramatic poem, representing some signal action performed by
illustrious persons, and which has frequently a fatal issue,
or end."45 But this position, narrow as it is, did not lack
for supporters who insisted--either on the grounds that the
fall from high station was more moving, or on the grounds
that the suffering of the great would make the common man
more content with his station-~that for prOper tragedy the
main characters must be of high station. Hurd, for one,
thought it a matter of simple deduction: "...as the proper
object of tragedy is action, so it is important action, and

therefore more especially the action of great and illustrious

 

44XXXVI (Feb., 1766), 90.

Th. 45III,.901. Quoted from C. C. Green, The Neo-Classic
__53351 of Tra ed , p. 153. Green reports that this definition
“a53 reprinted In all editions until 1842.

-72-

232.46 He was not alone in his opinion. In fact, one
commentator, T. R. Lounsbury, has claimed that "The belief
in the necessity of preserving unimpaired the dignity of
tragedy by excluding from it all men of baser sort prevailed

generally in the critical literature of the eighteenth

century.“+7

But, as usual, the case was not so simple. Indeed,

Steele had voiced an Opposite Opinion as early as 1710.

. I was thinking it would be of great use (if any-
body could hit it) to lay before the world such
adventures as befall persons not exalted above the
common level. This, methought, would better prevail
upon the ordinary race of men, who are so prepossessed
with outward appearances, that they mistake fortune for
nature, and believe nothing can relate to them that

does not happen to such as live and look like themselvesf”8

These remarks are interesting because, while later critics
adopted the essentials of the argument, the condescension was
generally less noticeable. That is, the later critics, and
especially those writing for the magazines, tended to identify
themselves with the audience and to find domestic tragedy

Simply good tragedy by the same line of reasoning. In any

h

46"A Dissertation on the Provinces of the Drama" (1757)
in 'Works (1811), II, 36. '

47Shakespeare 23.2 Dramatic Artist (New York and London,
1902), p.145. "'""""

4arhe Tatler, No. 172.

 

 

-73..

case, throughout the century there was an ever growing number
of critics who found that "domestic" tragedy was either more
moving, or more instructive, or both, than "royal" tragedy.
And whatever the consensus may actually have been, it is
clear, simply from the number and success of the domestic
tragedies, that the audiences did not share the Britannica's
narrow view; nor, for that matter, did the _§ reviewers.

Domestic tragedy is often praised, probably for the reasons

suggested in this review of William Woodfall's Sir Thomas

Overbury:

This "orphan offspring of an orphan bard" ZIhe
reference is to Richard Savage; Woodfall altered his
plaz7 has been received with applause on the stage,
and cannot well fail of approbation in the closet. As
the distress is of a private domestic kind, and has
also its foundation in strict historical truth, it
affects us much more strongly, as Hr. Sherridan, in his
prologue, justly observes, than "bleeding heroes or
falling states," calamities which we can never experience,

and which we know never happened}9

The review echos Steele; it also echoes Johnson--"What is
inearest touches us most. The passions rise higher at

dcnnestic than at imperial tragedies."50 And yet this view

49XLVII (Mar., 1777). 134.

BQESEEEEE’ ed. G. D. Hill (New York, 1892), I, 162.

-74-

hardly accounts, among other things, for the undisputed great-
ness Of Shakespeare, whose tragedies featured both noble and
"bleeding" heroes and "falling states." Again, taken as a
whole, the GE position is characteristically eclectic. NO
doubt the reviewers would have endorsed Samuel Foote's
Opinion that "if the Incidents are truly interesting, and

the Story affecting, the Rank and Quality of the Personae are
of no great Consequence."51 This put the emphasis where the
GE generally thought it should be.

It is apparent, then, that to an eighteenth-century
critic a tragedy was not necessarily a play featuring noble
characters, nor was it simply a play which ended "unhappily."
Indeed, to the many serious supporters of poetic justice, an.
unhappy ending could be, in some cases, quite improper.

Hugh Blair gives what is probably as near as one can come to
an inclusive definition Of tragedy for the period: "though,
in the end, good men are rendered successful," there must be
"Sufficient agitation and distress, and many tender emotions
raised by the sufferings and dangers Of the virtuous."52

This definition, unfortunately, is so inclusive that it
becomes difficult to distinguish tragedy from "sentimental
comedy." But, setting this problem aside, if the play is

t0 produce "distress" and "raise many tender emotions," it

5¥Thg Roman 229 English Comedy Consider'd and Compared
(LOIldon, 1747), pp. 6-7.

52£2.222222 2.2 32222222 2212 22222 £222.222 III» 292-

-75-

follows that the dramatist must be careful not to introduce
any discordant elements into his plot. Hence the general
disapproval, at least in theory, of tragi—comedy. Even
Shakespeare was attacked on these grounds, though quite Often
he was considered a special case ("Within that circle none
must walk but he"). For mere mortals the stricture was

supposedly absolute:

If tragedy is perfect in proportion as it is an imita-
tion of nature, and exhibits some great event as it is
supposed really to have happened, whatever is foreign
to that event ought to be excluded from tragedy, and
what ever is out of nature is an Offence against the

highest law.53

The reviewer who set down this opinion had many supporters.
Kames, for example, thought it "a solid Objection to
tragi-comedy" that it raised "discordant passions" which
"are unpleasant when jumbled together"; Arthur Murphy
(claimed "such productions" were "at best a sort of equivocal
generatiOn"; and BishOp Hurd went even further and called

for simplicity as well as unity:

....§§ unity and even simplicity $3 the conduct 2; the

fable‘ig‘g perfection....For the course of the affections

 

is diverted and weakened by the intervention of what we

53xx11 (May, 1752), 224.

-76-

call a double plot; and even by a multiplicity of sub-
ordinate events, though tending to a common end; and of
persons, though all of them, some way, concerned in

promoting 1t.54

Few critics Of the day were willing to follow Hurd this far;
they were for unity, but not for "simplicity." Nevertheless,
although the form had some supporters,55 tragi-comedy was
generally thought an unhappy mixture.

In the realm of practical criticism, however, there is
not a great deal Of evidence of the effect of this reasoning,
simply because--and this may, in itself, indicate the effect--
there were very few tragi-comedies produced. The fig reviews
only two dramas usually so labeled during the period under
consideration; and both are revivals Of earlier plays. The

first, Southerne's Oroonoko, is roundly condemned:

Of all the inventions that ever came into a poet's
teeming brain, the tragi-comedy may justly be deemed

the most absurd and most unnatural. A man who should

54Kames, The Elements of Criticism (2nd ed., 1763):

III, 281; Murphy? the Iondon—Chronicle (Nov. 14-16, 1758) in
A. Sherbo, ed., New Essa s 5 ‘Arthur Murphy (East Lansing,
1963), p. 91; andffihrd, “I ssertation on the Provinces

0f the Drama," (1757) in.Works (1811), II, 43.

55Dr. Johnson, for example, although he pronounced
5¥§ainst the type in 1751 (Rambler, NO. 125), later came to

3C30ept it (Preface to Shakes eare, 1765). c. C. Green, The
Nee-Classicmy Ff Trag dy, pp. 166-180, gives a deta'i'I'Ed

Eacussion o the crItical Opinions Of tragi-comedy in
thGi eighteenth century.

-77-

attempt to weave the adventures Of Ulysses and 222
Quixote together in one place, might, perhaps, (from
such an odd variety) catch little readers and afford
them great entertainment; but surely all those of
taste and judgment would exclaim against so wild a
scheme.

By introducing an underplot Of the comic kind,
though complete in all its parts, by exhibiting mirth
in one scene and distress in another, our attention is
too much diverted from the main story, and our concern
for those who suffer too much weakened by such quick
transitions. The best Of these motley productions are
not to be vindicated; they were written merely to comply
with the taste of a depraved age. With such a taste
was Mr. Southerne forced (much against his inclination)
to comply, whose tragedy of Oroonoko, if stripped of
all the low wit and dull obscenity, would be an excel-

lent performance.56

Hawkesworth himself later undertook to "strip" the play of
its "low wit and dull Obscenity" by dropping Out the comic
sub-plot; and the GE greatly approved the amputation.57
And.yet, the only other tragi-comedy reviewed during this

Period, Garrick's revival of Albumazar, received the

56XXII (April, 1752), 163.

57xxrx (Dec., 1759), 588.

—78-

following comment:

The author of this new-revived play Of Albumazar

is unknown; yet the language, plot, and conduct of it,
might do credit to the most established....nor can there
be much stronger testimony borne to the merit of that
under our present consideration, than the general

approbation it met with when [firsg revived by

m2. Garrick in 1747.58

Again the characteristic concern with "effect" overrides

any theoretical Objections, if, indeed, this reviewer had

any to begin with. And then, too, there was always

Dhak espeare .

On some of the other elements Often considered to be

incompatible with tragedy, such as love as a tragic theme,

the gig reviewers have little to say, though their silence
(351321. :1arge1y be taken as an indication of approval. Concerning
-t&:L‘Ei cquestion of how much and what type of violence should
be portrayed on the stage, the critics seem to be quiteiin
harmony with their age. That is, they again took a compro-
I11 % e position, finding the classical French prohibition
:%Q inst any execution or murder rather absurd, and yet

13‘ Sisting that the more extreme forms of violence and blood-

S
h Q<1 were more likely to excite horror and disgust than the

Db
Q:per tragic emotions of pity and terror: "2th but would

\

 

58XLIII (Oct., 1773). 509.

 

-79-

turn with abhorrence and disgust, from a scene in which Indian
savages are represented as tossing the scalps of murdered
IEnglishmen from one to the other."59 When handled differently,
however, the reviewers are apt to find death scenes "most
affecting." In fact, they were apparently somewhat less
"refined" in this matter than many of the more theoretical
critics for although theory almost invariably condemned

"extremes" Of violence and bloodshed, the stage continued to
supply them plentifully.60 Yet the _g seldom found the matter
worthy of comment.

Concerning the problem of the dramatic "unities,"

particularly the unities of time and place, the eighteenth-
century English critics had a great deal to say; but apparently
the amount of comment was not proportionate to the amount of
disagreement for nearly every one concluded that, after all,
these unities were not especially important. Indeed, by the
time of Johnson's famous pronouncement against them in 1765,

a great number of critics had already reached a similar
conclusion.61 The playwrights, it is true, continued to pay

lip-service to the unities though,.as Kames remarked, they

seldom observed them in practice;62 and a few critics

 

59xxxv1 (Feb., 1766). 90.

60T. R. Lounsbury, Shakespeare as g_Dramatic Artist, pp.
174-208, gives a detailed account of_the wide difference

between theory and practice on this point during the eighteenth
century.

 

61See T. H. Raysor, "The Downfall Of the Three Unities,"
Law, XLII (1927), 1-9. .

62The Elements 2: Criticism (1763), II, 404: "The unities
of time and pIace are acknowledged by our best poets, though
their practice seldom corresponds." Kames himself was per-
fectly willing to see these unities disregarded.

-80...

persisted in believing that these minor unities were consequen-
tial. The dramatic rules, argued Edward Taylor in 1774, are
"consonant to reason, and calculated to deceive the spectator
into a persuasion, that he is interested in a real event,
whilst time, place, and action, conspire to strengthen the

delusion."63

And Hugh Blair, though he granted that

"strict observance" was unnecessary, nevertheless maintained

that "frequent and wild changes of time and place; hurrying

the spectator from one distant city, or country, to another;

or making several days or weeks to pass during the course of

the Representation, are liberties which shock the imagination,

which give the performance a romantic and unnatural appearance,

and, therefore, cannot be allowed in any Dramatic Writer, who

aspires to correctness."64
But these writers were fighting a rear-guard action. In

fact, as early as 1748 a writer for the Gentleman's dismissed

the unities as a matter unworthy Of his attention.

The merit of the Orphan is the subject of our present
inquiry, in which the consideration of the unities of
time, place, 60. will be left to such as imagine these
laws of the Drama to be of the first importance, and

regard will be had only to the Fable, the manners, and

63Cursory; Remarks gp’Tragedy, pp. 6-7.
6“'Lectures gr; Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, III, 299.

'v

-81..

the Sentiments of this admired traged'g.65

From the general lack of comment on this point it might be
assumed that this reviewer stated the magazine's basic position.
Of course the central unity, the unity of action, was seldom

seriously questioned:

In this general view of the piece, abstracted from
language, sentiment, and incident, it appears to be de-
fective in that the action is not 223. This would have
been a fault, even tho' the under Plot had influenced
the principal action; and has been justly objected to

Dryden's alteration Of the Oedipus Of Sophocles.66

Nevertheless, one should not overlook the remarks appearing
three years later which suggest that again there was Often

some distance between the theory and the practice:

The author seems to have been somewhat embarrassed by
the underplot; for all that passes between the two
Rpggg captives concerning their escape, and the love Of
Flaminius to the daughter of Boadicia is but slightly
connected with the principal action, tho' the expecta-
tion Of an English audience would scarce have been

gratified without it.67

 

65XVIII (Nov., 1748), 502. The reviewer, incidentally,
was not among those who "admired".the tragedy.

55xx (Feb., 1750). 51.
67XXIII (Dec., 1753). 578.

C .3 in h to:- —..£. 2.14

-82..

And the "expectation" of the audience was not without critical
support.‘ Johnson, fOr instance, felt that "the connexion of
important with trivial incidents, since it is not only common
but perpetual in the world, may surely be allowed upon the
stage, which pretends only to be the mirror of life."68

In any case, one should not assume that even thOse who
held most tenaciously to the concept Of "unity" Of action
preferred the relatively spare classical plot to the more
varied action of contemporary drama. When William Mason,
for example, in the preface to his Elfrida, attempted to
defend his imitations of classical tragedy, a Eh critic
replied that "Neither is the ancient tragedy more excellent
for being more simple; for if by simplicity he meant the
want of incident, it is a defect which picturesque description
322 sublime allegory cannot supply."69

In his preface Mason also made a plea for another
feature Of ancient tragedy--the use of a chorus--by an
interesting line of reasoning: "Play-makers may have gain'd
by rejecting the Chorus, but the true Poet has lost con-
siderably by it. For he has lost a graceful and natural
resource to the embellishments of Picturesque Description,
sublime allegory, and whatever else comes under the denom-

ination of pure Poetry."7O Mason also thought the chorus

k

68The Rambler, No. 156 (Sept. 14, 1751).
69xx11 (May, 1752), 224-25.

7O"Letters Concerning the Following Drama," p. xi.

9-.

-83-

should be used to further the moral effect of the play by
correcting any false impressions the audience might get from
the action. Bishop Hurd was Of the same Opinion. "The
sound philosophy Of the chorus," he reasoned, "will be con-
stantly wanting to rectify the wrong conclusions of the
audience, and prevent the ill impressions that might other-
wise be made upon it."71
Other examples might be cited, if only to show that mason
and Hurd did not stand entirely alone; but most of the critics
were agreed that the chorus was, at best, a useless ornament.
In fact one of them, John Pinkerton, thought its effect was
contrary to the moral of a play: "The chorus...destroyed
the whole moral effect of tragedy, by thinking for the
spectators, who in that case never think for themselves."72
Though Pinkerton's reasoning was unique, his conclusion-4
that the chorus was a positive defect--was not. Most Often
it was excluded on the grounds that it violated probability.
The reviewer of Mason's play in the Gentleman's stated the

usual argument.

A chorus is purely artificial, and wholly foreign to
every natural event; it is only an eXpedient which
was used to assist the representation before a better

was discovered; for nothing surely can be more absurd

 

71works (1811), I, 146-47.

72Robert Heron.zpseudp7, Letters pf Literature (London,
1785), p. 227.

-84-

than to admit the reality of a company of women, who are
not only present to every incident, but make and sing an
extemporary Ode on the occasion: whenever this Chorus
is present, the power of fancy is at an end, the hero
and the palace vanish, and the theatre and the actors
rush upon the mind. [Its whole effect i§7 to render the
drama totally different from life, and to diffuse those
ideas through the whole representation, which in the

modern tragedy are only excited between the acts.73

The chorus, in short, destroys theatrical illusion. "Ideus
Dactylus," writing in the fig twenty-five years later, expressed

precisely the same thought.

We have been much told about the justice and probability
of a chorus, and that there always must be spectators

in all scenes; but it seems to me absurd to suppose,
that the principal persons Of a tragedy would conduct
their affairs so badly as to have all their thoughts

exposed to the public eye.74

This was the prevailing view. Although the chorus apparently
retained some supporters throughout the period, it was
generally condemned, and its use by contemporary dramatists

was practically non-existent.

73XXII (May, 1752), 224.
74XLVII (Jan., 1777). 64.

“.D.¢A~_n_ -

Fr?

-85-

The question of the number of acts which a tragedy
should have was somewhat analogous. Green reports that
Horace's rule that a play must be divided into five acts had

very few supporters in the century;75

everyone either ignored
the prescription, or, especially after Johnson's pronounce-
ment in 1751,76 condemned it. The Gentleman's Magazine, a
year later, insisted that plain common sense was enough to

point up the_absurdity of the rule.

And here I must beg leave to enquire, why a play con-
sisting of three or four acts should not be reckoned as
perfect as one of five. If the rigid laws imposed by
the antient critics, and still obeyed by the modern,
are directly Opposite to the dictates Of common sense,
should not they be annulled and others instituted in
their place. But who will first have courage enough to
deviate from the beaten track? for till some person

of distinction in the literary world makes the first
gallant attempt, the same formal method of proceeding

must be kept up.77

And yet, whatever the critical consensus may actually have

been, the passage clearly implies that this writer felt his

 

75The Neo-Classic Theory pf Tragedy, p. 227.

76The Rambler, NO. 156. "By what Accident the Number of --. 'f.
Acts was limiied to five, I know not that any Author has informed ‘ -
us, but certainly it is not determined by any necessity arising '.'

either from the Nature of Action or the PrOpriety Of Exhibition
....indeed the Rule is upon the En lish Stage, every Day broken
in Effect without any other Misc e nan that which arises
from an absurd Endeavour to Observe it in Appearance."

77xx11 (April, 1752), 163.

-86-

view was not widely accepted.

Another of the "minor rules," and one which sometimes
occupied the GE reviewers at some length, concerned the suit-
ability Of certain types of language for tragedy. Reporting
on Philip Francis' Constantine, a critic remarks that the
language "indeed is very sounding, and, in some places,
poetical, but if it does not sink into flatness, it swells
into impropriety." He then goes on to object to such
locutions as "shapeless forms" and'rapid moments."78 In the
same year the magazine convicted William Whitehead's Creusa

of grossly violating the principle of "decorum":

The idiom is sometimes vulgar and sometimes barbarous;
unlucky fgpg is not only a coarse, but an inaccurate
expression; please ypp is a phrase of low civility, by
which the stile of tragedy is debased; "please ypp--to
taste some light refection," are words so ill sorted, as
to have the appearance of burlesque; for either the
address should have been more elevated than please ypp,

or the terms Of the request more familiar than refection.

 

...You and thee are used promiscuously in the same
speech; and absolute terms are used in a comparative

sense, as pp totally exposed g2 totally transformed.79

78xx17 (April, 1754), 180

79XXIV (Hay, 1754), 229.

-37-

The same reviewer considers "settle all" a "phrase tOO common
and too mercantile to become the priestess Of Apollo,” and
finds "there is mischief toward" fitting only for a "rude
provencial." "'0 God!’" he concludes, is "a vulgar and a
profane exclamation." Eour years before, the magazine had
given the language of William Shirley's Th£_§;gpk.Prince at
least a left-handed compliment by remarking that "if it is
not adorned with the most brilliant and striking beauties

Of poetry, it is not debased by groveling expressions."80

And a later review again undertook to defend the dignity of

tragedy:

The dialogue, however adapted to the characters, is so
much below the dignity of tragedy, that it cannot be
read without disgust, damning and sinking, and calling
.pgpgh, can scarcely be endured in any composition, much

less in a composition of this kind.81

This defense of the principle Of decorum is interesting
since it concedes that even "natural" language, that is,
language "adapted to the Characters,“ may still be considered
below the dignity of tragedy, and hence this view seems to
run counter to the concept of "naturalness" and the theory of

"theatrical illusion." This ambivalence runs through a 800d

 

80xx (Feb., 1750). 52.
81xxva (Feb., 1766), 90

-88..

deal of the EH criticism and, indeed, through much of the
criticism of the period. Once one had granted, as most
critics did, that characters of "lower station" were suitable
for tragedy, and further, that dramatic presentation should,
as far as possible, give the illusion of "reality" (the
chorus was, as we have seen, generally ruled out On these
grounds), then it would seem to follow that the most natural
language would also be the best language.

This was, in fact, the generally accepted position on
the use of rhyme in tragedy. Reviewing a revival Of Richard
Savage's §$E Thomas Overbury, the magazine remarks that "the
language is in general easy and natural, though, in compliance
with the fashion Of those times (now justly exploded), every

"02 But the critics were not Often

act is tagged with rhymes.
willing to press this line of reasoning to its logical con-
clusion. Although rhyme was clearly artificial, completely
colloquial speech was somehow not quite fitting either.

Hence the reviewer of Thomas Francklin's Egg; pf'Warwick, while
he apparently thinks it a point in the play's favor that "the
language, though measured, less deviates from the dialect-

of life and nature than usual," feels obliged to admit that

"tragic language, though it is seldom poetry, is yet, very

different from prose."83 This position was a common one.

 

82XLVII (Mar., 1777). 134.

83xxxv: (Supplement, 1766), 625.

The use of blank verse was considered good practice--an
agreeable compromise between "nature" and"dignity." Yet
even here the GE reviewers tend to favor “nature."' Thus a
writer Objects to the language of one tragedy that "though
the syllables are scrupulously numbered," still "that cadence
of which constitutes an English verse is not always preserved:84
And even "English" verse was, for some, too much of a departure
from "nature." ' .

But, to return to the magazine's basic critical stance,
the "dramatic effect" was, in the final analysis, the true
test of merit; and from this standpoint the question became

largely irrelevant:

.....if Zihe Gamester7 is not worked up with the pomp,

the force, and the elegance of poetry'Zifi7 is yet
heighten'd with many tender incidents, and, as the dialect
is perfectly colloquial, it probably produced a greater
effect upon the majority Of the audience than if it had
been decorated with beauties which they cannot miss at

the expence of that plainness without which they cannot

understand.85

In short, the question Of the propriety of poetic language,
like the problem of the rank of the tragic hero or the
importance of the "unities," was not an essential question

for these critics. For the effect Of poetic language upon

 

84XXIV (May, 1754), 229.
85xx111 (May, 1753). 61.

-90-

the emotions of the viewer, or even the reader, was not
decisive. A 1766 review expresses the magazine's basic

position on this matter:

This tragedy does not abound with the flowers of
poetry: The deficiency, however, is not greater than in
some other modern compositions of the same kind, where
the authors have apparently laboured to scatter them.
The beauties of poetry do not, indeed, much increase
the pleasure received from a dramatic performance on the
stage; nor even in the closet, till after the passions
have been submitted to its general power as a concaten-

ation of events exhibited by dialogue.86

A "concatenation of events exhibited by dialogue" which
shall have the power to excite the "passions"--this is the
essence of successful tragedy. The more severe prescriptions
of the neo-classicists were, in the view Of these critics,
obviously absurd. Other fashionable-~and less restrictive--
"rules" were sometimes given more support; but, by comparison
with many of the "theoretical" critics of their time, the
magazine's reviewers were decidedly "liberal." If a play
had sufficient action, interesting characters, and, of course,
the proper moral tone, if, in other words, it had the power

to "move" the viewer, then the rank of the characters, the

 

85xxxv1 (Supplement, 1766), 624-25.

-91-

observance Of the unities, the beauty of the dialogue, and
several other questions Of critical dispute became largely
superfluous. This strong emphasis on "effect," or, to put
it another way, on the values which the audiences had
probably always held, is the most Obvious characteristic to
emerge from an examination Of the reviews of tragedy in the

Gentleman's Magazine.

CHAPTER IV
COMEDY

If the critical theorists Of the late eighteenth century
were less concerned to define the principles of comedy than
of tragedy this was neither because there was more agreement
about what the form required nor because the genre was given
less attention by the playwrights or the producers. For the
period was-~certainly in our eyes, at least--essentially an
age Of comic drama. Of the authors remembered (or half-
remembered), Goldsmith, Sheridan, George Colman, the elder,
Garrick, Foote, Murphy, and a swarm of lesser figures, all
are remembered for their comedies. And yet, as even this
short list of authors suggests, the term "comic drama" in
this period covers several different kinds of compositions
involving satire and sentiment, farce and pathos, laughter and
tears. The later eighteenth century was, of course, a great
period of the sentimental drama; but such leading play-
wrights as Sheridan, Goldsmith, and Murphy as well as many
critics remained ambivalent, if not hostile, toward the
form. Again, it is impossible to draw a completely coherent
picture of either theory Or practice; and again, the gap
between the two was Often very large.

Disagreement about what constituted "good comedy" was

hardly a new development. Years before Farquhar had remarked

the fact that there were no "rules" for comedy: "The scholar

-92-

 

..93-

calls upon us for Decorum and Oeconnomy; the Courtier crys
out for flip and Purity Of giilg; the Citizen for Humour and
Ridicule; the Divines threaten us for Immodesty; and the
Ladies will have an Intreague."l And Johnson, writing in

the middle Of the century, noted that

Comedy has been particularly unpropitious to definers;
for though perhaps they might properly have contented
themselves, with declaring it to be such a dramatick
representation pi m 1323, 233‘. may excite m, they
have embarrassed their definition of the means by which
the comick writers attain their end, without considering
that the various methods Of exhilarating their audience,
not being limited by nature, cannot be comprised in

precept.

He then went on to object to such limitations as insisting
that the characters must be "mean or corrupt," that the
action must be "trivial," or that the story must be "ficti-
tious." And he wisely suggested that "if the two kinds Of
dramatic poetry had been defined only by their effects upon
the mind, some absurdities might have been prevented."2

But Johnson's advice did not prevent his contempOraries

from pointing to these, or other features, as being the

 

IDiscourse upon Comedy," in W. H. Durham, ed., Critical
Essays 9; the Eighteenth Century (New Haven, 1915), p. 259.

2The Rambler, No. 125 (1751).

-94-

necessary elements of comic drama. In fact, four years later,
in his dictionary, Johnson himself defined comedy as "A
dramatick representation of the lighter faults of mankind."
And so it went throughout the period. Although the stage did
not much reflect its influence, the classical definition
which stressed "ridicule" was most often cited by the critics.
Farquhar voiced the popular conception of comedy at the turn
Of the century: "a well fram'd Tale handsomely told, as an
agreeable Vehicle for Counsel or Reproof";3 and most later
writers were of the same Opinion. Samuel Foote, for example,
declared that "the sole objects of comedy" were "the follies
and absurdities of men"; Arthur Murphy claimed it was "the
chief Merit Of Comedy" to raise "Emotions Of gay Contempt....
making us dispise and laugh at an Object at the same time";
and Hugh Blair laid it down that "the chief, or rather the
sole instrument Of [EOmedy7 is ridicule."4 It followed,

for most critics, that the Objects of this ridicule should
not be of high station. As Goldsmith phrased it; "when
comedy, therefore, ascends to produce the characters Of
princes and generals upon the stage, it is out of its walk,

since low life and middle life are entirely its object."5

 

3"Discourse upon Comedy," in Durham, p. 273.

4"Dedication" to Taste (2nd ed., 1753); Gra 's Inn
Journal, No. 96; and Leciures on Rhetoric and Beiies iettres,

IIIT_332. """"'"""“"“"'

5"An Essay on the Theatre; or, A Comparison between
Laughing and Sentimental Comedy," in H. H. Adams and B. Hath-
away, eds., Dramatic Essays pf'phg Neoclassic Agp (New York,
1950). P- 382.

-95-

On other aspects, though, there was less agreement. Most
critics were convinced that comedy required a certain subject
matter or a certain treatment, Or that character, language,
or plot deserved special emphasis, but they were not always
able to agree on what the treatment should be or where the
emphasis should be placed.

The relative importance of "character" or "plot," for
example, was never fully decided. While character was
usually given the most stress, there were writers like John
Pinkerton who thought plot was more essential. "Shakespeare,"
he wrote, "excells in the strength of his characters and in
wit; but as plot must be regarded as an essential of good
comedy, he must not be erected as a model in the comic

academy."6

When such writers put their emphasis on plot,
however, they were not asking for classical simplicity; as
with tragedy, a "spare" plot was seldom approved. Hurd, it
is true, objected that "Our writers are all for plot and
intrigue; and never appear so well satisfied with themselves
as when,to speak in their own phrase, they contive to have a
great deal Of business on their hands."7 But Hurd stood
almost alone in his plea for simplicity.

Certainly the Gentleman's critics were quite convinced

 

that no English audience would, or should, put up for long

 

6Robert Heron (pseud. 1 Letters of Literature (London,
1785), p. 44.

7"A Dissertation on the Provinces of the Drama" (1757):
in Works (1811), II, 45

-95-

with a play which did not include a good deal of "business."
A reviewer in 1766 voiced the general complaint that "half .
the first act of almost every play is spent in a dull dialogue,
in which the speakers tell each other what they must be sup-
posed to know already, that the audience may be prepared for

8

the dramatic action." In fact, this stress upon action is

apparent in the magazine's first review.

This skeleton is a sufficient proof of the fertility
Of the author's invention; and equal skill and judgment
appear in his having conducted it so as that the plot
unravels itself in the action, without the assistance of
tedious narrative speeches; and, instead Of long dialogues
full of quaint repartees, common-place wit, forc'd
conceits, and double entendres, some unexpected event

arises every mement.9

It is true, of course, that the "action" must be integrated,
that is, that it must somehow arise "naturally," and mere
"business” for its own sake is, at least in theOry, not
condoned.- But it is also clear that if action was not an
end in itself, a classical simplicity was nonetheless a

serious defect.

 

8xxxvr (Mar., 1766), 125.
9xv11 (Mar., 1747), 139.

VA

.nQ.

we

...-
60

MI

-97-

Simplicity is indeed an excellent quality, as
opposed to Perplexity and Confusion, but as opposed to
an artiful and judicious complication of incidents,
it will always be considered as a defect in pieces
exhibited upon our theatres, where those only have been
successful, which perpetually excite, and gratify
curiosity, by a rapid succession Of events, where the
plot is intricate without Obscurity, and the incidents

numerous without confusion. Such are all Shakespeare's,

 

and the want of this variety is but ill attoned by
conformity to those rules, which can only restrain the
powers Of imagination, or sooth those who want them by

the Offer of an ineffectual succedaneum.lO

The invocation of Shakespeare, the disparagement of the
rules, and the "argument to the audience" as well as the
insistence upon a full measure of interesting incidents are
all characteristic of the magazine's criticism. A later

review praises Arthur Murphy's School for Guardians for the

 

same reasons: "It is full of business, one of the best
recommendations to an English audience."11 And another
critic points up the importance Of this aspect by remarking

in 1765 that The Sham Beggar "is not indeed a comedy, for it

 

lOXXXII (Apr., 1762), 157.
llxxxvri (Jan., 1767), 34.

f...

A.“

T-
a»
T a

on I III -v .flsv .- U:
o .2 .. -

,0 it. a; a:

' Fly ’1”

.t a

-98-

wants a constituent part Of comedy, dramatic action."12

But if a good deal Of dramatic action was one of the
essential ingredients Of successful comedy, certainly another
essential ingredient was character. Indeed, past theorists
had Often identified character as php necessary feature.

The comedy of "humours," for example, put the emphasis almost
entirely upon the handling of character; and, as Allardyce
Nicoll has pointed out, many eighteenth-century critics
accepted Ben Johnson as the master of English comedy.13

This acceptance, it is true, did not result in much imitation
on the part Of the playwrights, but it corresponds with the
fact that most of the theoretical critics continued to claim

that character was the essence of comedy.14

Hugh Blair, for
one, had no doubt on the matter: "...the Poet must never
forget, that to exhibit characters and manners, is his
principal Object. The action in Comedy, though it demands
his care, in order to render it animated and natural, is a
less significant and important part of the performance."15
And Bishop Hurd was of the same Opinion. He defined comedy
as "phai, which proposeth, for the gpgp of its representation,

'2; Characters, more especially their specifk3differences.'"

 

 

lzxxvr (Apr., 1756), 200.

13A Histor of En lish Drama 1660-1900 2nd ed
— ”, ’ .
(Cambridge, i95g), II, i25.

14See J. W. Draper, "The Theory Of the Comic in Eighteenth
Century England," JEGP, XXXVII (1938), 218.

152222.22 2.2 211222.222 2.22 2212.22. £222222. III. 337.

-99-

And he added that "Comedy, by the very terms of the definition,

is conversant about characters....By turning the thought on

event and action, this entertainment is proportionably les-

sened; that is, the pad of comedy is less perfectly attained."16
Some of the Gentleman's reviews seem to be based, at

least in part, on a Similar theory, especially the series Of

reviews of comic drama which appeared in the mid-1760's. The

remarks on Colman and Garrick's Clandestine Marriage are

worth quoting at length since they indicate that, in the

reviewer's Opinion at least, the emphasis on character which

theory valued so highly was seldom to be found in contemporary

comedy.

By this sketch of the Cladestine Marriage, it will
appear to be not as plays generally are, a series of
events, artificially complicated in the action, and
unravelled in the catastrophe; giving pleasure by unex-
pected incidents and changes of fortune; and principally
by the sudden discovery of something artfully and studi-
ously concealed by the poet. The power of this piece
depends upon the spectator's being let into the whole
secret at once, while the dramatic characters, are per-
petually brought into circumstances of a very ridiculous
joy or distress by their not knowing it. It is a

succession of scenes, which the situations of the parties

 

l6"A Dissertation on the Provinces of the Drama," in
Works (1811), II, 30, 37.

-100-

renders interesting; and their characters comic; scenes
which could not be drawn but by those who are acquainted,
not only with general nature, but characteristic pecu-
liarities; not only with human passions, but with the
modes they assume in the various situations of artificial

life.17

The importance of "characteristic peculiarities" to comic
drama is explained in a review which appeared the next year

and which was written, one might assume, by the same man:

....upon this occasion let it be remarked that character
results rather from the mode in which passion is ex-
pressed, than from the combination of passions, or the
predominance of any. Two men may be equally angry, and

in love, and yet by the manner of expressing these

passions may form very different characters in the drama

of life, not so much because these passions are differently
complicated with other passions in the two persons, as
because different habits Of life have been acquired by

external and adventitious situations and circumstances.18

"Characteristic peculiarities" then are not quite the same
thing as "humours" in the Jonsonian sense. Whether this

critic thought he was advancing a similiar idea or not there

 

l7xxxv1 (war., 1766), 127-28.
lBXXXVII (Mar., 1767). 130.

-101-

is no way of knowing. As Draper has demonstrated, eighteenth-
century critics, while they usually cited Jonson as authority
and example in identifying character as the essence of
comedy, seem to have had only a vague notion Of "humours" in
his sense of the term.19 In any case, the critie just quoted
was convinced that the eXpression of "characteristic peculi-
arities" was the main business Of comedy. He may also have
been responsible for the review of Thomas Hull's Th3
Perplexities which appeared the same year for the critic
acknowledges that "the story is admirable, the incidents
numerous, the turns uneXpected, the time short, the whole
concatentation within the bounds of dramatic probability,

and the catastrophy natural and complete." Nevertheless, he
condemns the play because "it exhibits no character, nor are
the events characteristic:. they might have happened to ten
thousand persons, as well as to those of the drama; they do
not depend upon peculiarities of disposition, consequently do
not exhibit living manners with characteristic differences."2O
As a comedy, then, the play is a failure. Conversely, .
Goldsmith's Thg'gppngatur'd Map is praised because "the

play Of these characters upon each other produces scenes of

humour that have seldom been equalled."21 Finally, the

 

19"The Theory of the Comic in Eighteenth Century England."
p. 211 pp passim. '

2Oxxxvn (Feb., 1767). 84-85.

2lxxxvrll (Feb., 1768). 78.

~102-

importance Of character to comic drama is most explicitly
pointed up by Hawkesworth's condemnation of Kenrick's Th3
Widowed E233 which concludes with these remarks: "The
principal persons of the drama are not marked with such
characteristic differences as constitute the 22$2£.E££li
222.ppygp pf comedy, and the peculiarities of the subordinate
characters are such as exist only upon the stage."22
But whether the critics chose to concentrate on dramatic
action or on characterization as constituting the essence of
comedy, they generally agreed that both the action and the
characters should be "realistic." Addison years before had
decided that the proper subject for comedy was "actual life,"
and Hurd, writing in the middle of the century, thought that.

23

the proper setting was "at home." Johnson agreed--"the

lighter species of dramatic poetry professes the imitation

of life, of real manners, and daily incidents."24

As has
been seen, the critics Of the later eighteenth century gener-
ally felt that tragedy should be "natural"; they were even
more certain that comedy should be. Fielding, who insisted
that comedy should confine itself "strictly to Nature,"

provided the usual rationale.

 

22XXXVII (Dec., 1767), 600. My italics.

23The S ectator, No. 249; and "A Dissertation on the
Provinces of {He Drama," in Works (1811), II, 55. cf. Kames
(Elements Of Criticism, II, The scene of comEEy is
generaiiy'Iaid at home...we are peculiarly sensible to the
ridicule of our own manners." Compare, also, Hugh Blair
(Lectures, III, 335),"....the scene and subject of Comedy

SEBEIHIEIways be laid. in our own country, and in our own times."
24Lives, ed. G. D. Hill (Oxford, 1905).I 216. cf.

UilliameBOEe (Elements of Dramatic Criticism ondon,'5I77§7,
p. 157). "Comedy ZsfiouId—Be/a picture Of“living manners.‘

Os

:1

‘ ' L
.M“ v:

-103-

And perhaps there is one reason why a comic writer should
of all others be the least excused for deviating from
nature, since it may not be always so easy for a serious
poet to meet with the great and the admirable; but life
every where furnishes an accurate observerwith the

ridiculous.25

Goldsmith, noting the decline of tragedy, said much the same
thing: "The pompous train, the swelling phrase, and the
unnatural rant are displaced for that natural portrait of
human folly and frailty, Of which all are judges, because all
have sat for the picture"; and Samuel Foote remarked that
"no unnatural Assemblages, no Creatures of Fancy can procure
the Protection of the EEEES Muse; Men and Things must appear
as they are."26
The corrolary of this stress on realism was that the
action of comedy should be confined within the "bounds of
probability." Exactly how far the boundaries extended is
sometimes difficult to determine, and no doubt different
critics would have drawn somewhat different lines; but the
fact remains that it is a rare review which does not indicate

how far the play in question conforms or fails to conform to

"probability." A preoccupation with this question is not

 

25"Author's Preface" to Joseph Andrews (New York
Rinehart & CO., 1948). XiX- ’

26"An Essay on the Theatre," in Adams, p. 381; and the
"Dedication" to Taste (2nd ed., London, 1753).

-104-

unique with the Gentleman's Magazine, but some Of the
magazine's reviewers track down violations of the "laws of
probability" with a vengence--and, it sometimes seems, with
a curious disregard for dramatic conventions.

Hawkesworth's review of Thp'fippp Indian, for example, not
only Objects to some inconsistences within the play, but also
to some which "must have existed" before the action of the
play began. And while he ends by remarking that "antecedents
to the drama should be implicitly admitted, like the agency
of Fairies and Geni in Oriental Tales," and that, if all that
follows is consistent, "the critic should be content," it is
nevertheless symptomatie that he should have devoted SO much
space to the improbabilities of the "antecedents."27 An earlier
review Of Murphy's Np 9113.3 m EB}. Hip gyp- is Similar.

Here the reviewer finds the characterization improbable on
the grounds that "a thoughtless debauchee may naturally
enough tell the secrets of his pleasures to his comrades, yet

a gentleman would scarce make confidants of his barber and

There is, on occasion, some recognition that in drama one
should not be overly insistent in urging absolute conformity
to probability--even when the piece is "Open to objection" on

these grounds. Thus, we are told that the incidents in

 

27XLI (mare, 1771), 126-270

28xxx1v (Jan., 1764), 22.

—105-

Garrick'sigggg'gg Nothing are "at least within dramatic
probability, to which, by commOn consent, wider bounds are
allowed than to life," while certain particulars of Kenrick's
322 Widowed E333 are fiscarce within the circle of probability,
widely as it is extended in favour of the stage."29 Just

how "widely" it was extended, however, is not clear; and from
these examples the modern reader must conclude that the
boundaries were rather narrow. Again, as with tragedy, this
fairly narrow concept of probability was applied SO as to
rule out any kind of "artificial" language--even when such

language had poetic merit.

Notwithstanding all that the author has advanced in
favour of rhyming comedies, we cannot approve of common
life being represented in a language which, in common
life, is never spoken; though, at the same time, we
must allow that Mr. ageyieg7 has a facility of writing
verses...that would reconcile us, if anything could, to

such an imprOpriety.30

But, of course, nothing could. On the matter of language in
comedy the critics of the period agreed that it must be
"realistic." AS Johnson put it, "real mirth must be always
natural...the dialogue of comedy, when it is transcribed

from popular manners and real life, is read from age to age

 

29xxx71 (Dec., 1766). 591 and XXXVII (Dec., 1767). 600.
3OLIV (May, 1784), 345.

-106-

with equal pleasure."31 Blair was of the same opinion. In
his view, rhyme in cOmedy was "an unnatural bondage. Certainly
if Prose belongs to any composition whatever, it is to that
which imitates the conversation Of men in ordinary life."32
In tragedy some doubt lingered about the prOpriety of com-
pletely realistic language; but in comedy the question was
quite settled--anything else was unnatural and improbable.

The same criterion raised some Objections to other
"artifical" features as well. The reviewer of Benjamin
Hoadly's Suspicious Husband, for example, dissects several
"inconsistencies," among them the "unnatural" soliloquy:
"Jacinta's talking aloud to herself, when in her chamber,
before she discovers Ranger, is not natural." He goes on to
admit, however, that "this is a fault which has been generally
allowed to, and practiced by dramatic writers for the infor-
mation Of audience and therefore can not reasonably be denied
to Jacinta."33 Certainly to Object to a soliloquy, even
while admitting it is a "fault generally allowed," is to carry
the idea of probability to rather extreme lengths; But in
this the GM was doing no more than following certain funda-
mental trends in the critical thought of the period. And it
should also be noted that most Often the tendency of the

Gentleman's critics to judge by effect, to find reasons to

 

31Lives, ed. G. B. Hill, I, 39-40.

32Lectures pp Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, III, 339.
33x71: (Mar., 1747), 140. V

-lO?-

explain their reactions rather than to measure the work

against a set of critical dogmas, combined with their common
sense to counter the most extreme restrictions of "probability."
though it objects to the moral effect of the play, adds that
"the whole is a picture of life, a little heightened, indeed,
into caricature, but by no means the worse for that."34 And

a review of the same author's The Egz_§g_§ggp Elm praises the
play for being written in the "spirit of true comedy" and for

keeping all "natural and characteristic," and concludes:

If any objection can be supported against this piece, it
must be that some of the incidents are not sufficiently
probable. This however, if it be allowed, is an objection
that will lie against every dramatic piece upon the stage;
the improbability is not such as can in any degree lessen
the pleasure of the representation, or invalidate the
moral, and it cannot therefore derogate from the merit of

the piece so much as from the candour of those that shall

urge it.35

On other elements of the comic the Gentleman's critics

 

had less to say, and what they said generally followed log-

ically enough from their stance on the basic issues. The

 

34xxx1v (Jan., 1764), 23.

35xxx (Feb., I760).74.

~108-

importance of satire or ridicule was not stressed nearly so
heavily as it was by the theorists. As has been seen, most
of the commentators of the period continued to hold to the
theory that the main function of comedy was to satirize the
vices of mankind. The relative lack of emphasis on this point
in the 93 is probably simply the result of the fact that,
critical theory notwithstanding, the authors, with the
exception of a few like Murphy and Foote, were not writing
many plays to this formula. But the magazine did appreciate
"Just satire" and even thought it could compensate for other

deficiencies. Thus, of Samuel Foote's The Lame Lover we read:

 

Many of the scenes are exceedingly comical and con-
tain much just and well pointed satire....Upon the whole,
the humour of this piece may well attone £3127 for its
{ant of plot and regularity, and for the introduction of
some trite stories which are unworthy of the author's

invention and wit.36

On the matter of language, it has already been noted
that these critics felt it should be ”natural." They also
felt that the real source of the comic lay more in the action
and characterization than in "sparkling" phrasing or "witty"
dialogue. Again, the "argument to the audience" was often '

employed as at least an implied standard: "The wit here lies

 

6
3 XL (Aug., 1770), 381-82.

-109...

more in things than words, and is therefore perceived by almost
every capacity, and admired by the many who cannot taste a

"37

fine sentiment wittily express'd... The critic himself,

of course, may have a taste for these, but only if they were

' As Kames put it, "....action being the

not "excessive.'
fundamental part of every composition...the sentiments and
tone of language ought to be subservient to the action, so as

"38 Indeed

to appear natural,~and proper for the occasion.
among the many charges leveled against Restoration comedy,
one of the most frequent was that its "wit" was "excessive."
Stuart Tave reports that criticism of Congreve on this point
can be found in the writings of Samuel Foote, Joseph Uarton,
Samuel Johnson, Alexander Gerard, Arthur Murphy, Lord Kames,
the Encyclopaedia Britannica, James Beattie, and Richard
Cumberland; and he makes no claim that his list is exhaustive.39
In short, the period, and the Gentleman's Magazine, was con-
vinced that the "wit" should lie "more in things than words."

A full measure of interesting incidents and characters,'
"natural" but sufficiently differentiated to provide contrast,
all combining to give an accurate ("if somewhat heightened")

picture of life--these were, the critics felt, the basic

ingredients of true comic drama. Other effects were ultimately

 

37XVII (Mar., 1747), 139.
58Elements 2; Criticism, II, 303.
39The Amiable Humorist (Chicago, 1960), p. 265. See also

Emmett I. Avery, Congreve's Fla 5 on the Eighteenth-Century
Stage (New York, 1951), pp. II“%5:7‘106:7.

-llO-

unimportant. The review of Garrick's Cymon is interesting
in this context because it devotes more than the usual space
to theoretical considerations and it provides a perspective

on the theory of the comic as expressed in the Gentleman's

 

criticism.

To paint from Fancy, requires talents very different
from those which can copy life; and there are advantages
and disadvantages peculiar to both performances.......

The advantage of works of Fancy is, that they are
principally objects of a taste, which, in general, is
formed upon the very performances it should try. If
prOpriety, therefore, is violated, it is a propriety
of which very few can judge, and of which, for that
reason, few can detect the violation. This advantage is
wanting to imitations of life; they are immediately
brought to the standard, and compared with their
originals, with which almost every one is sufficiently
acquainted to form a general judgment of the imitation.

The advantages of these pieces is, that their
excellence is perceived, and relished from the very cause
that ascertains it. Where there is character, the very

incidents are characteristic; and this is the pgincipal

 

source pf pleasure in our best comedies, eminently in

the Clandestine Marriage.4O

 

4OXXXVII (Jan., 1767), 31. my italics. This review is
not signed "X,".but I suspect it is Hawkesworth's nevertheless.
The style and hrasing are quite close to Adventurer, No. 4
éNov. 18, 1752 where Hawkesworth makes a similar diStinction.
62cc A; Chalmers, EgghBritish Essayists (Boston, 1856), XIX,
-70, "““"

 

-111-

Despite what has often been described as the "artifici-
ality" of eighteenth-century comedy, the keynote of the
criticism is "imitation." For an epitome of the general fig
position on what is essential to "true comedy" one can do no

better than to return to the review of Hurphy's The ”al.22

Keep Him:

This piece is written in the spirit of true comedy.
It is comic not only in the dialogue, but in the action,
yet perfectly pure from quaint repartee and farcical
buffoonery: the manners are comic, and the dialogue
and incidents are comic, as eXpressive of the manners;

all is natural and characteristic.41

So far I have been attempting to abstract from the
reviews in the Gentleman's Magazine what might be taken to
represent a general theory of the comic. But comedy during
this period included a large number of plays which were
clearly not designed primarily to provoke mirth, much less to
ridicule the vices of mankind. For this was the great age of
the "sentimental" comedy. The term, admittedly, causes some
problems, but there is probably no need here to repeat the
various definitions that have been offered or to attempt to
determine the distinctive traits of the form. These problems

have been treated by many modern commentators, most notably

 

41xxx (Feb., 1760), 74.

-112-

and most fully by Bernbaum, Bateson, Krutch, Nicoll, and
Sherbo;42 and the reader may safely be referred to these
studies for a close examination of the genre. For the
purposes of this study it will be sufficient to note that
"sentimentalism" forms a part of a great number of plays
usually not so labelled during this period and, at the same
time, that many of the more pronounced examples of the type
contain some very "comic" scenes. With these facts in mind,
it should be possible to make a rough distinction between,
say, "laughing" and "weeping" comedies, or between those
designed mainly to provoke mirth and those which were not.
The distinction, it is true, is imprecise and, in some cases,
misleading. But it is a distinction which the age itself
made; and if one stays with the main examples of each type
there should be few problems.

In any case, no matter which definition of the form is
chosen, it is a fact that "sentimental" drama was quite
popular during this period. And it is also a fact that, in
spite of this popularity, many, indeed, most, of the critics
continued to hold to the older conception of comedy. Several
commentators have remarked on this point. As Wellek puts
it, "Compared to tragedy, the theory of comedy was given

little attention during the 18th century. The old commonplaces

 

42E. Bernbaum, The Drama 2: Sensibility (Boston, 1915);
F. W. Bateson, English Comic Drama,_l700-l750 (Oxford, 1929);
J. W. Krutch, Comed and Conscience after the Restoration
(New York, 194 ; . flIcoll, A History gz'EfiglISh‘Drama
(Cambridge, 1952), II, III; and Arthur Sherbo, English
Sentimental Drama (East Lansing, 1957).

 

 

-113-

about its salutary effect on morals and its ridicule of vice
were repeated ad nauseam. Sentimental comedy, which flour-
ished on the stage, seemed hardly to have any defenders

. 4
among critics." 3

Wellek is right, of course, if "critics"

is taken here to mean mainly the "theoretical" critics; and
the attitudes toward "sentimentalh drama serve nicely to

point up the contrast between theory and practice, and between
the theoreticians and the magazine reviewers. For judging by

the number of "

sentimental" comedies produced, the reception
they were given by the audiences, and the way they were
reviewed in the magazines,“+ it is clear that on this point
at least the critical theorists were not representative of
their age.

Certainly the E3 critics, while they were not at all
hostile to "laughing" comedy, were more than willing to
applaud the "sentimental” as well. Hawkesworth, for example,
in sentiments of virtue, generosity, delicacy, and honour;

contains many useful lessons to young people, and is in every

respect worthy of a better fate than it received."45 Indeed,

 

43A Histor 9; Modern Criticism, I, 119—120. cf. J. :7.
Draper ("The Theory of the Comic," pp. 221,222), ".TTthe
theory of comedy did not adapt itself to the sentimental and
Romantic fashions of the contemporary stage...Despite the
popularity of sentimental comedy, critical theory still defined
comedy as a sort of satirizing of suddenly striking
incongruities."

44Arthur Sherbo, English Sentimental Drama, devotes a
chapter (pp. 141-66) to determining the popularity of the genre.

4SXL (May, 1770), 227. The play was taken off the stage
when Kelly became involved in political difficulties. The
play itself is not political.

~114-

Hawkesworth was particularly receptive to the type. His
review of Cumberland's The Egg; Indian is extremely favorable.
He praises the play for being ”full of sentiment and
character” and for having many parts "exceeding comic" and

' and he concludes: "with all its imper-

"many very tender,‘
fections on its head, take it for all in all, we have not
often seen it's like, nor is it probable we should soon see

,
"40 And his review of Charlotte Lenox's

it's like again.
.292 Sister further illustrates his perference for the senti-
mental, for although he notes that the play "wants an inter-
mixture of light scenes," he still finds it a good performance:
"The dialogue is natural, lively, and elegant, the incidents
are uncommon, yet within the pale of dramatic probability,
and the sentiments are just and refined."47
And the type of "light" scenes that are wanting are not
those usually associated with the comedy of manners or "wit,"

certainly not in the Restoration sense at least. Compare,

for example, the review of Hoore's’The Foundling which, while

 

generally unfavorable, admits that "as to the manner in which
the author has conducted his scene, which falls next under
consideration, it must be confessed, to his honor, that there
is no double entendre introduced, no mirth at the expense of

modesty, none of the low wit usually played off with great

 

453cm (Mar., 1771), 126.
47xx.Ix (April, 1769), 199.

~115-

.1"

applause between iavourite footmen and chambermaids."48
Iawkesworth, however, was not the only one of the fig

critics who admired sentimental comedy. The extent to which

some of the reviewers were willing to carry their praise

for the form is illustrated by a couple of the reviews which

appeared in the 1760's. Of William Khitehead's School 323

Lovers we read:

The characters are extremely well drawn, and
sustained; the dialogue is natural and spirited; the
sentiments are chaste and elegant, and some of the
situations are touching and tender in the highest degree.

"The broadest mirth unfeeling folly wears, 49
.Gives less delight than Virtue's easy tears."

(Pope)
And the reviewer of Colman's Th3 English Merchant, one of
the best of the sentimental comedies, concentrates on the
same features in praising the play as having "great merit of
every kind; the dialect is easy and natural, the sentiments
noble, the incidents tender and touching, and the characters

well imagined and sustained." Then, anticipating the obvious

criticism, he goes on to remark:

A more general objection to this piece is, that
it does not much provoke laughter; it must, I think
48

 

XVIII (March, 1748), 116.

49
xxx1I (April, 1762), 161.

~116-

be admitted, but to those who can taste higher pleasure
this defect is abundantly attoned. There is a luxury in
tears that laughter can never taste; but these luxurious
tears are perhaps less the tribute of pity to distress,
than of virtue to virtue; they are an effusion of tender-
ness, complacancy, admiration and joy excited by generous
passion, untutored benevolence, and unexpected felicity.
In this piece, they are produced by the character which
[Eig7 they do not belong, and Freeport, who tells us he
never wept in his life, is continually doing and saying
something that fills our eyes with applause.50

Apparently the tears of virtue were indeed easy. In any case,
the review is interesting because it offers a rationale
for the admirers of sentimental drama; and it probably
eXpresses the feelings of many who flocked to see this type
of play. At this level of criticism, at least, sentimental
comedy did not lack defenders.

Nevertheless, it should be remembered that the critics'
eyes were not so filled with applause for this form that they
were insensitive to the other and more traditional type of

comedy--that which was designed to provoke laughter. It is
true that the Restoration style of comedy with its "immorality,"

its "excessive wit,” and its mirth at the expense of the
rising middle class found little favor with the magazine, or,

for that matter, with the age as a whole. Still, as has been

 

5OxxxVII (Mar., 1767). 130

~117-

seen, the Gentleman's critics could applaud with their
laughter as well as their eyes; and if the sentimental
comedies received so much attention in the magazine, this was
at least in part because they received so much attention on
the stage. Actually, the reviewers were quite willing to
praise either type.

A good illustration of this willingness can be found in
the 1768 review by Hawkesworth.which treats, in the same
article, Goldsmith's 222.9228 Natur'd 233.3nd Hugh Kelly's
Eglgg Delicacy. Goldsmith had first submitted his play to
Garrick at Drury Lane. The play is, of course, "anti—
sentimental" and Garrick, apparently fearing that the audi-
ence would not be receptive, rejected it. The piece was
finally staged at Covent Garden in January of 1768. In the
same week Garrick presented Kelly'splay which was destined
to become one of the most successful "sentimental" dramas.
Hawkesworth, it has been noted, was an admirer of the latter
form, and one should eXpect that he would praise Kelly's
play; as it turns out, he praises them both. "The dramatic
action 0f.222.§223 Natur'd E32 is a mere vehicle for character
and humour; that of Falgg Delicacy for critical situations and
noble sentiments....both of these pieces, though very
different, have great merit."51 In fact, if one were

required to draw a line, Goldsmith comes out slightly better

 

51XXXVIII (Feb., 1768), 78.

-118-

in the review. In so far as the Gentleman's critics truly
represent their period, the conclusion is apparent: despite
the critical controversy between the proponents of "laughing"
comedy and the supporters of "sentimental" drama, most of the
viewers were ready to applaud either type.

And again, they were entirely convinced that either
type should, above all, point a proper moral. This concern
with moral effect prevades the criticism of tragedy, and it
is, if such a thing is possible, even more evident in the
discussions of comedy. 'Nhile it was assumed that tragedy would
have a serious moral purpose, the function of comedy on this

point was rather more suspect. As Hugh Blair phrased it:

Taking Tragedies complexly, I am fully persuaded, that
the impressions left by them upon the mind, are, on the
whole, favourable to virtue and good disposition. And,
therefore, the zeal which some pious men have shown
against the entertainments of the Theatre, must rest
only upon the abuse of Comedy; which, indeed, has
frequently been so great as to justify very severe

censures against it.52

"Justifiable" or not, the censures were made freely and often.
The attitude which lay behind Jeremy Collier's famous attack
in 1698 was still very much in evidence in the middle of the

 

Safiggfigggg‘gn Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, III, 274.

-ll9-

century and works like William Law's Unlawfulness'gf.§§agg
Entertainment Fglly Demonstrated continued to sell very well.
And yet, despite the frequent attacks, "immoral" comedy,

as least as one thinks of the term in association with the
Restoration, was relatively scarce. The real distinction
for this period, as several scholars have pointed out, is
between "sentimental" and "laughing" comedy, not between
"moral" and "immoral." And if the sentimental form had
begun, at least in part, as a reaction to the "immodest wit"
of the Restoration, the distinction had ceased to be signi-o
ficant by the middle of the century. The best "laughing"
comedies are certainly as moral as the modern reader could
wish, and even the lowly farce did not often far transgress
the limits imposed by the age. But the question, obviously,
is relative; and if the comedy of the period is "pure" by
comparison to that of the previous age, it was not always
pure enough for the critics--including those who wrote for
the Gentleman's Magazine.

It goes without saying, of course, that bawdy, foul
language, and "immodest wit" would hardly meet with the
approval of these critics. 'But these did not form a part
of many of the comedies of the period. What the critics
were most often concerned about was the "moral effect" of
the play. What sort of lesson did it teach? That it should
teach one was never questioned. The importance of a play's

pointing a direct moral is clearly evident in the review of

—l20-

Murphy's The Apprentice where the magazine voices the hope
that the play will "reclaim ignorant and idle young pe0p1e"
from aiming at a stage career for which "they are more unfit

than any other,’ and concludes that if the piece accomplishes

this it will be one of the must "useful" pieces of its kind.53
what different treatment,but the critical approach was the
same. Taking the title quite literally, the reviewer went

on to object:

The intimation in the title, that the confusion,
disagreeament (Eig7, and vexation produced by the squab-
bles of Sir Charles and Lady Racket are inevitable in
the marriage state, is unjust and pernicious; married
pe0ple are not always, nor in general thus miserable;
to insinuate that they are, is to discourage a union
which is the great band of society, and, indeed, to
preclude all pretence of utility in the piece; for if
discontent and infelicity are what we mpg: all come to
when we marry, the piece can contribute to the harmony
and happiness of mankind, only by deterring them from

54

marriage.

Surely this strikes one as taking a comedy a bit too

explicity and seriously. Nevertheless, the approach is

 

53XXVI (Jan., 1756), 47.

54xxx1v (Jan., 1764), 23.

-l2l-

typical. Besides, it should be remembered that the Restoration
comedies-—generally the object of attack by the critics of
this period--had often held marriage and the virtues of
constancy up to ridicule, and any repetition of this tone
and direction was not likely to go undetected nor uncondemned.
Likewise, anything which looked remotely like a slight on
religion, even if the piece were not deliberately designed
for this purpose, was bound to meet the same kind of opposi-
tion. Thus Hawkesworth objects to Isaac Bickerstaff's
Th3 Hypocrite that "this piece might easily have been managed
so as to expose the danger and folly of erroneous tenets....of
believing that reason has nothing to do with religion, nor
morality with the salvation of the soul"; as it stands, how-
ever, the satire misses the point and "religion" is not sup-
ported. Hence the piece "serves no moral purpose."55
In this context it is interesting to note that at least
a couple of the reviews also object to the stock figure of
the "reformed rake," and thus, in this one respect at least,
they approach a somewhat more sophisticated view of character
development and psychological consistency. For the device,
as is well known, was very popular and was often used to give
a moral turn to a play while still allowing the playwright
to use the comic potential of the "rake." Moore's'ghg

Foundling is a case in point. The play Contains many

 

55XXXVIII (Supplement, 1768), 618.

-122-

conventional features including, in the character of Belmont,
a hero who is basically generous and noble but who, neverthe-
less, is something of a libertine. At the end of the play he
is supposedly reformed, his essential good nature is tri-
umphant, and he is rewarded with the hand of the long suffer-
ing Fidelia. The GE reviewer cannot accept the transformation.
He objects, in the first place, to the idea that Belmont's
actions should be excused as "the gaieties of youth” or

that such actions could ever be consistent with what is
supposed to be a basically noble nature. And he objects

most strongly to the final "distribution of what is called
poetic justice." That Belmont should be rewarded with
Fidelia could only, he thinks, teach the men that they need
not be virtuous to be successful and confirm "the ladies in
a destructive, tho' common maxim, that a reformed rake makes
the best husband." That Fidelia should be rewarded with
Belmont is equally destructive because, on the one hand, he
is not much of a reward and, on the other hand, the marriage
is dependent on the chance discovery of her high birth
rather than being a direct result of her virtuous behavior.
"As the author has not punished vice, so he has not rewarded
virtue in his principal character; for nothing is properly

the reward of virtue, as such, that is not the consequence of

it."56

 

56XVIII (Mar., 1748), 116.

~123-

The concern with a proper distribution of "poetic
ustice" and the re'ection of the "reformed” rake are also
3

the main features of the review of Hoadly's Suspicious

 

Husband which appeared the previous year. The character
Ranger is precisely the same type as Belmont and the action
takes a similar course. Again the magazine finds that the
moral is seriously flawed. In the first place, the reviewer
notes, Ranger is not, at the end, sufficiently reformed;
thus "no moral view can be answered by the character." But
the piece has a more fundamental flaw, a flaw which must be

present in any play which uses the figure of the reformed

....every fool, who has vanity enough to think himself
possess'd of Ranger's good qualities, will indulge him-
self in the same vices, and eXpect the same favourable
sentiments from others, which he feels for Ranger. And
every rake may ruin an innocent girl, and even a family,
for a moment's pleasure, and yet flatter himself with
being a pgp|pf honour. Destructive and brutal as they
are, custom and prejudice screen these vices from
infamy; if it were not for this, all our Rangers would
renounce them. It is, therefore, the part of moral, and
especially dramatic writers, to exhibit them in such a
light as shall render all who are guilty of them
objects of contempt and detestation, which is not done

by this author, who has represented them as consistent

-l24-

with generosity, honour and humanity.57

Such reviews illustrate the seriousness with which the
Gentleman's critics approached the question of the moral
effect of comedy. Whatever they decided about the utility
of the "reformed rake," they were sure that it was the
primary business of comedy to offer some useful instruction.
Thus the reviewer of Edward Moore's adaptation of 9El.§l§§
objects that "Upon the whole the author appears to have
intended rather entertainment than instruction, and to have
disgusted the pit by adapting his comedy to the taste of the
galleries." Not unexpectedly, the reviewer shares the
tastes of the pit, and he will not approve a play which aims
at "entertainment" to the exclusion of "instruction." He
goes on to voice his disapproval while indicating that, in

his view, this type of drama was still too much with them:

To animadvert upon a piece which is almost uni-
versally condemned is unnecessary, and to defend this
is impossible.

There is not one elegant eXpression, or moral
sentiment in the dialogue; nor indeed one character in

the drama, from which either could be expected. It is

 

5
7XVII (Mar., 1747), 140. Twenty-four years later Hawkes-

worth remarked in his review of 222 West Indian that "the moral
objections to the character of Belcour are such as we made long
ago to that of Ranger in our account of the Suspicious

Husband." (XLI Afar” 177g, 126.)

 

-125-

however to be wished that the 223p, which opposed this
play with so much zeal, would exclude from the theatre
every other in which there is not more merit; for parti-
ality and prejudice will always be suspected in the
treatment of new plays, while such pieces as the London
Cuckolds, and the.§l£XJE$X p Confederacy, are suffered

to waste the time, and debauch the morals of society.

The discrimination of the audience, as far as this critic was
concerned, left something to be desired. And he was certainly
not alone in his opinion. And yet, if the very close

scrutiny of "moral effect" which one finds in the Gentleman's

 

reviews was not typical of the average audience, or even of
that portion which occupied the pit, it is nevertheless true
that the audience in this period was a group far different
from that which had turned out for the Restoration comedies.
Its taste in matters of stage morality and "propriety" tended
in the same direction as the Gentleman's. . '

The treatment of Goldsmith's 333 gm—Natur'd pap
furnishes a good example. Goldsmith's problems in getting the
play produced have already been touched upon and it has been
noted that the magazine mainly approved the piece. But in
this context the review is worth examining more closely for
it neatly draws together several of these characteristics,

and it presents concisely the magazine's stand on stage

 

58XXI (Feb., 1751), 77-78. This review has been
attributed to Johnson (see pp. 21-22).

-l26-

morality. When the play was first produced, it included the
scene in which Honeywood has two bailiffs pose as gentlemen
friends of his. Naturally they betray their identity by
their coarse language. This scene would probably not be
thought "shocking" by most standards; in fact, Frederick

Boas has claimed that "today this scene, instead of appearing
low, is the high-water mark of the comedy."59 Nevertheless,
the scene was too "low" for the first audience, and it had to
be taken out. In his review, hawkesworth notes the omission:
"One scene of humour, which in the last age would probably
have been received with a roar of applause, having been
disapproved by the audience, has been since the first night
left out of the representation"; and, while he admits the

scene is funny, he finally casts his lot with the audience.

The solicitude and perplexity of Honeywood, and his
fruitless attempts to put such a gloss upon what [the
bailiff§7 say, as may do the same office to their
sentiment as his cloaths have done to their persons,
produces a situation of distress infinitely ridiculous,
though it depends upon the exhibition of manners, which
the taste of the present age will scarce admit even in
farce. If in this instance it may be thought over nice,

it cannot be denied to have driven from the stage, many

 

SQAE Introductgpp pp Eighteenth-Century Drama, 1700-1780
(Oxford, 1953?. p. 337. r—r"

 

~127-

things that were in the highest degree offensive to

virtue and good sense.60

This puts the case clearly: if one is to err, it is
far better to err in the direction of being "over nice"
than to run the danger of approving anything "offensive to
virtue and good sense." Such is the basic position of the
GE critics on stage morality. But'we should not leave the
discussion of comedy without noting that another strain
sometimes breaks through, that the picture of the critic as
stern-minded moralist is, if usually quite accurate and
temptingly neat, not quite the whole truth. To pick one
example, this is the conclusion of the comments on Foote's

The Commissggy:

This piece is to be considered rather as a collection
of glowing scenes, boldly put together by a spirited hand,
than the elaborate work of a master inflexibly mindful of
nature and propriety. However, what Mr. Fpppp_wants in
conduct, he has so amply atoned for in humour, that it is
utterly impossible for the most sanctified son of the
Tabernacle to be present without unbending the austere
solemnity of his phyz, and joining in the universal grin

that possesses the more ungodly part of the spectators.61

 

60xxxv111 (Feb., 1768), 80.

61xxxv (June, 1765), 254.

~128-

Thus far I have confined my attention to, or at least
discussed everything under the heading of, the major genres,
comedy and tragedy. It has seemed advisable to do so for two
reasons. In the first place, these are, after all, the major
categories and they include the most significant pieces; and,
secondly, it seems reasonable to discuss, for instance, comedy,
without attempting to draw neat distinctions between minor
forms or types. Indeed, the distinction between "laughing"
and "sentimental" comedy is often difficult enough. But '
this approach should not be allowed to obscure the fact that
many minor forms of dramatic entertainment-~farce, masque,
comic opera, ballad opera, dramatic opera, interlude, and
burletta, to name a few--were written, staged, and reviewed
during this period.

It would serve no purpose to attempt to isolate for
discussion most of these types. Farce, perhaps, might claim
a separate section. Garrick, strangely enough, seems to
have felt that the form was vanishing:

Bold is the man, and compos mentis, scarce...

Who, in these nicer times, dares write a Farce;

A vulgar long----forgotten taste renew; 62

All now are comedies, five acts, or two.
But, as Allardyce Nicoll has demonstrated, it was the word
rather than the thing itself that had fallen into disrepute.

Actually, farce was rather popular during the period.63

 

62"Prologue" to‘A Peep Behind the Curtain (1767)-

63A History pf English Drama, III, 178-190o

1‘

-129-

Eaturally enough, although there was some influence, senti-
mentalism touches this type least of all; but otherwise the
farce followed the spirit of the age, and it was largely
judged by the same standards. Johnson, it is true, thought
the form was fundamentally different from comedy. Commenting
on Foote's "talent" for exhibiting character, he remarked:
"Sir, it is not a talent; it is a vice; it is what others
abstain from. It is not comedy, which exhibits the character
of a species, as that of a miser gathered from many misers:

it is farce, which exhibits individuals."64 BishOp Hurd made
a different distinction: "By farce, I understand, that
species of the drama, 'ppqsg pop; _a_._i_IIl 2.13.2 tendency is. pg
excite laughter.”65 And John Pinkerton, who thought that "in
many of our farces are to be found some of the strongest .
comic situations, and the most genuine wit and humour that
grace our stage," drew the line in the same way: "Comedy, tho
she ought always to be cheerful, is generally content merely
to simper and smile; whereas Farce ought always to laugh

"66 There are a few indications in the Gentleman's

aloud.
reviews that the form was to be considered a somewhat different
species. As the review of O'Brien's gpppg Purposes phrases

it: "The merit of this little piece does not consist of

variety of incidents, or refinement of sentiment, but in

 

64Life, 11, 95.

65"A Dissertation on the Provinces of the Drama," in
Works (1811), II, 30- '

66Letters pf Literature (1785), p. 199.

 

-]_30-

character and humour, the true sources of the comic, especially
in the short, and less elaborate species of the Drama called

"67 For the most part, however, the magazine's

Farces.
critics made no distinction and applied no special set of
standards for the form, so I have thought it best to treat it,
as they did, under the general heading of comedy.

Of the other minor forms, only opera appears to me
sufficiently distinctive and important to deserve separate
attention. Many Operas were performed during the period, and
several were reviewed in the magazine. These reviews vary
greatly in length and scope of treatment; and if anything
like a representative position can be extracted it must be
that, by and large, the magazine thought the form did not
merit serious criticism. But there are several exceptions.
The prevalence of Italian opera, for example, was often
looked upon with something approaching abhorrence by many
critics of the period. To doubt "patriotic" as well as

"aesthetic" considerations were at work here. In any event,

the Gentleman's reviewers, usually acutely conscious of the

 

"English" spirit, did not fail to remark the trend. Thus
the reviewer of Garrick's The Fairies notes that "the music

is said by many good judges to have considerable merit, but

f

to be too much in the Italian taste."08 And a later review

makes a similar point concerning Edward Toms The Accom-

plished Maid: "This is a translation of the Italian comic

 

 

67XLII (Dec., 1772). 577.
58xxv (Feb., 1755), 94.

-l§l-

Opera called La buona figliuola. The story is that of

 

Pamala, with such alterations as might possibly make it more

suitable to an Italian audience, but have totally spoilt it

for us, as they totally destroy all probability, and

introduce such characters as we can scarce conceive to exist."69
Exactly what sort of opera the magazine did favor is not.

quite clear. Few of the reviews of opera offer much in the

way of elaborate critical comment and many times the reviewers

are content to report the judgment of others in matters of

music. But a 1765 review furnishes at least a little insight:

We are told also, that though some people may be of
the Opinion that old English or Spppp ballads ought to
have been chosen or music composed in the same taste,
yet that such sort of compositions scarce deserve the
name of music at all, at least can have little or no
merit on the stage. It is, however, unfortunate that he
did not recollect such a piece as the Beggars Qpppg
which had and still has more effect upon the stage than
any musical drama, and yet consists wholly of such music

as is here said to have no effect at all.70

The lengthy review of Garrick's Cypon is worth noticing
in this context because, in the first place, it gives a more

elaborate criticism than the magazine usually lavished on

 

69xxxv1 (Dec., 1766), 591.
70xxxv'(0ct., 1765), 484.

-132-

opera and because, in the second place, it illustrates
several Of the H's usual concerns. The review is written

from a reading knowledge only, and the reviewer begins by

reporting that the performance pleased many and that "

an
adequate idea of the merit Of this piece, as a theatrical
entertainment, cannot be formed in the closet." But he
then goes on to Object that although "the author seems to
have intended this piece principally as a vehicle for the
machinery," it is a "pity" that "his incidents are not such

"....it does not

as render his machinery necessary." For
appear that any thing is done by enchantment, which might not
have been done without." And the reviewer has a more funda-
mental, and equally typical, objection to the piece--it

lacks a proper moral. "The love...of the principal characters,
is neither delicate Or interesting....they discover nothing
but blind instinct in the first conception of their passion,
and in this, therefore, there is no more merit than in
hunger." "A work of imagination," he concludes, "in which
beings and powers are introduced that have no real existence,
is a kind Of emblem, in which passions and qualities are
substituted for persons, and it should never terminate in

mere amusement, but always inculcate or illustrate a moral."71

In other words, when the reviewers did examine Opera carefully,

they generally thought it subject to the same requirements as

 

71xxxv1I (Jan., 1767), 31-32.

-133-

other dramatic pieces. The usual preoccupations--the concern
with audience reaction, the suggestion that the stage was the
true test of merit, the rejection Of the supernatural, the
close examination of "probability," the preference for
"English" taste, and, above all, the requirement of a clear
moral purpose--are equally apparent in the reviews of every
type of dramatic composition.

Aside from these general characteristics, the reviews
Of comedy and the minor forms reveal mainly that the tastes
Of the Gentleman's critics were like the tastes Of the
audiences, markedly eclectic. They asked Of a play mainly
that it be "affecting" and, while they thought some Obser-
vation of the principles Of decorum and probability were
necessary to that end, whether a play ridiculed vice or
commended suffering virtue, or whether it moved them to
laughter or to tears made little difference. Certainly
their tastes in comedy were more diverse than the pre-
vailing theory would have suggested. As J. W. Draper has
demonstrated, "the comic theory Of this century of trans-
ition is, indeed, surprisingly homogeneous; and this homo-
geneity illustrates the tenuous relationship between literary
theory and actual contemporary productivity."72 That is,
while the theorists continued to define comedy as a

"satirizing' Of vice and folly having as its main object the

 

72"The Theory of the Comic in Eighteenth Century
England," p. 223-

-134-

" the dramatists were most

delineation of "character,
frequently providing comedies Of intrigue or comedies of
sentiment. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the
magazine reviewers, since it was their business to deal

with "actual contemporary productivity,’ should more accurately

reflect the taste of their age.

CHAPTER V

PERIODS AND AUTHORS

Thus far, this study has considered the dramatic

criticism in the Gentleman's magazine from a thematic or

 

tOpical point of view. It has attempted to show what these
critics thought about drama and how they stood on the major
critical questions of their day and to give some indication
of the extent to which their Opinions agreed with or departed
from what are generally taken to be the dominant critical
theories Of the age. Since this was the main intention,
the thematic arrangment seemed most suitable. Certainly
any attempt to give an account Of how each author or each
play fared in the pages Of the magazine would be not only
tedious and chaotic, but ultimately unrewarding, for it
would involve discussion Of several figures probably well
forgotten, and it would result in no clear picture of the
criticism itself. Nevertheless, the thematic approach
produces its own type Of chaos, and a brief look at the
treatment the magazine gives to different periods and to
a few significant authors might serve to tie some of the
various themes and strands together.

The dramatic criticism in the £3 for this period is
almost entirely concerned with contemporary drama. My basic
interest, of course, is with the reviews Of acted drama, and

in the Gentleman's Magazine this usually means either reviews

-135-

-136-

Of original plays Or plays of earlier dramatists rather
extensively revised. From time to time the magazine also
printed articles dealing with the drama Of other periods,
but these largely represent a different and sometimes rather
scholarly type Of criticism by a different set Of contributors
and, therefore, they lie outside the scope of this study.
Besides, with the exception of the articles on Shakespeare,
which have been treated in other places,1 these scattered
essays do not represent a body of criticism Of sufficient
scope or interest to require a separate section. That there
is to be said, then, about the reviewers’ attitudes toward the
drama Of other periods can be said briefly. And, if one
considers their basic critical stance, their emphasis on
"effect," characterization, and moral tone, these attitudes,
in so far as they can be determined on the basis of relatively
slight evidence, will not be surprising. The Elizabethans,
and especially Shakespeare, were rated fairly highly, the
Restoration dramatists were generally scorned, and classical
drama was sometimes given conventional praise while neo-
classic imitations were mainly Judged unacceptable.

Although there were many productions Of Shakespeare's
plays during this period, the fig reviews only one.2 This

review, while suggesting that Lear is better when altered to

 

1See esp. R. W. Babcock, The Genesis Of Shakespeare
Idolatry, 1766-1799 (Chapel Hill? FT ., 1551).

 

2See p. 67.

 

-137-

' sounds the

conform with the doctrine Of "poetic justice,’
keynote of the period's view Of ShakeSpeare--his superiority
was unquestioned. And although none of his other plays are
treated by the magazine's reviewers, his name is invoked
time and again--usually as a proof Of the critic's theories.
Shakespeare's contemporaries, naturally, are mentioned less
Often. Their plays were revived fairly frequently, but they

were usually rather seriously altered.3 To pick one example,

the fig's review Of Beaumont and Fletcher's Philaster is quite

 

favorable: "Such is the story Of Philaster, in which are
many beauties; and the unravelling the plot (Eig7 is so
natural, that the great Duke of Buckingham, in his Baggy 22
Criticism, proposes it as a model for all authors.”4 In
this case it is clear enough that the praise is for the
original authors. Sometimes, unless the reviewer remarks on
it specifically, it is difficult to tell how much he values
the original drama or how much the alteration. But in other
scattered passages the Elizabethans, and especially Jonson,
are given favorable mention. And, considering the magazine's
general outlook, it is easy to see why it might applaud the
dramatists Of that period.

The Restoration, on the other hand, had, for equally

Obvious reasons, reached a low point in the tide of critical

 

3See A. Nicoll, g_Historz 2; English Drama, III, 56-58.
For an extensive list, see pp. 111-113.

4XXXIII (Oct., 1763), 504.

-138-

Opinion. Curiously enough, Restoration plays, tragic and
comic, were frequently revived during the period. But
usually they were considerably altered to fit the taste Of
the time. And even this did not necessarily save them from
attack. In the CE, an early two-part review of Otway's
Th3 Orphan by a "correspondent" who signs himself "N. S."
is interesting--mainly because it expresses an attitude .
which was held by many critics of the period. The reviewer
begins by noting that the play had already been presented
four times that season, and he remarks that "Of all the
dramatic poets this nation has produced, next to Shakespeare
scarce any has been so much applauded as Otway." He then
proceeds to attack the play on the grounds of its "moral

deficiency,’ and he rounds Off his criticism by condemning

the entire age:

Wit and gallantry were the darling qualifications of the
time; did an author's genius lead him to paint £22 terrors
of the tragic E23233 his Hero was generally some
illustrious personage, who was sure to be endued (Eig7
with a plentiful share of a certain temper of mind,
commonly called Quixotism; a disposition which renders a
man very susceptible Of Love, and an utter stranger to
Fear, that makes him at once Egght.imorous, and plaguy
quarrelsome; and, if to these shining qualities he Joined

the virtue Of Constancy in his amours, how was he admired

by the men, and adored by the ladies!--But, if the humbler

-139-

vein of Comedy delighted him more, the principal

 

character was of a different cast; a fing gentleman
that could dress, dance, use his sword, and, with equal
facility and address, EEEEE 3 justice, roast a person,
or cuckold an alderman.

That this was the current strain of dramatic writing,
for many years after the Restauration, cannot be denied;
and that an almost total extinction Of genius and taste
for poetry, Of every kind, was the unhappy consequence Of
that event, is no less certain. Can any one then, who is
sensible of the dignity Of this divine art, and the
excellent purposes it is capable of serving, with
patience think on such a nest Of pestilent vermin, as,
warmed by the sun-shine Of court favours, crawled forth
at that time, and spread their poisonous influence around
them? Who, I say, can, without indignation, behold such
shameless profligates as 2232K, Killigrew, Howard, Sedleg,
Etheregg, Sheffield, Durfey, and hasty Shadwell, and even
the slow Wycherely, corrupting the taste, and consequently
the manners of an age, and arrogating to themselves the

Sacred and Venerable Character of Poets?

And the reviewer concludes by suggesting that Otway "was but
2 novice i3 his art," and that "it was owing to nothing less
than the meanness'gf his abilities, that his characters are

so greatly deficient in regard to moral exeellence."5

 

5XVIII (Dec., 1748), 551-52.

-l40-

As an estimate of Otway's abilities, this statement is
too extreme to fairly represent prevailing critical thought.
Indeed, according to one modern scholar, Otway's reputation
was quite high at this point, though it was soon to suffer

6 Nevertheless, in his attack on the "licen-

a rapid decline.
tiousness" Of the Restoration stage, the attitude of "N. S."
was truely representative. And if one considers some Of the
salient features of Restoration drama-~the declamatory
speeches, the emphasis on witty dialogue, the ribaldry and
the bawdy humor, the ridicule of marriage, constancy,

"virtue,"

and "trade," the wit at the expense of the rising
middle classes, and the Over-all lack of a serious "moral
tone"--it is not surprising to find that there was little in
RestOration drama which could, in its Original form, please
the Gentleman's critics. Although their eclecticism was, even
for a group Of perhaps several reviewers, Often extreme, it
was not quite schizophrenic.

References to foreign drama are also scattered through
the reviews, though they do not, in the final analysis, form
a very large part Of the criticism. Certainly the French
influence was quite strong during this period.7 Voltaire,

for example, was frequently translated and, more frequently,

altered. The magazine reviews three Of his plays, not

 

6See Aline Taylor, Next t3 Shakespeare (Durham, N. C.,

1950), esp. Pp. 255-270.

7See Nicoll, History, III, 59-61, 117-122.

~141-

including alterations, during this period but, while the
reviewers grant his international eminence, they usually make
it clear that they are unable to account for it. But then
Voltaire was frequently attacked by the English for his
strictures on English authors and manners as well as for his
own aesthetic merits Or failures. That is, an element Of
patriotism is commonly present in the criticism of the period,
and especially in the periodical criticism.8 Thus, as in the
case Of Italy and the opera, there is, on the one hand, a
great deal Of borrowing on the part Of the writers, and, on
the other hand, an insistence on the part of the critics
that the English excel on all counts and that the borrowing
is either an unfortunate influence, or else that the product
has been significantly improved by the borrower.

The g3 Offers no exceptiontn this trend. For example,
an early review Of Voltaire's Semiramis, which appears in
the form Of a letter sent by "an English gentleman who saw
the play" in Paris, finds the play definitely over-rated.
The writer then goes on to Offer some remarks comparing the
English and the French Theatre--to the detriment of the latter.
Concerning acting, he finds that "Mrs. Cibber may still be
considered as the most finished actress that ever yet appeared"
and, as for the actors, the "men on the French stage are .
scarcely worth notice." One, he concedes, has some merit, but

he "will not suffer comparison with our Garrick." The

 

8The point is noted in A. Aronson, "The Anatomy of Taste:
A Note Of Eighteenth Century Periodical Literature,’ MIN, LXI
(1946), 228-236 as well as elsewhere. Aronson, reasonably
enough, ties it in with the general appeal to the new middle
class audience.

-l42-
writer then Offers a description of the French theatre:

The disposition Of their theatre is bad. Instead of
galleries, they have a double row Of boxes, which go
round the house. The pit has no seats, and, which is
more inconvenient, is quite level. It forms an exact
square from the stage, and has still a Space behind it,
made by the curving of the boxes, which is called the
amphitheatre, which is the dearest place of all; so that
the front boxes are at tOO great a distance from the
stage, to hear and see with advantage. In short, in our
theatre, scenes, and actors, we as much excel the French

as we do in our dramatic writings.9

This attitude appears frequently in the reviews.
Remarks like "the story has received several alterations to
fit it for the French stage, but after all, an English
reader will greatly wonder at its success” are common.10
English taste was not only different, it was clearly superior.
And for "English" taste one should read "modern" English
taste or, more precisely, "London" taste. For the theatre
outside Of London was not particularly important--especially

not in the eyes Of Londoners. Several plays were first

produced in Edinburgh or Dublin, but if they never appeared

 

9XVIII (Oct., 1748), 438.

loxxxv (June, 1765), 292.

-143-

on the London stage they were Of no account. London was the
real test. Witness the review of Ralph Schomberg's burlesque

tragedy, The Death 2: Bucephalus:

 

It is not wholly distitute of humour; but however

it may have succeded in Edinburgh, its indecency would

 

have damned it at London, where we have two pieces Of
the same kind with which it can stand in no degree of
competition, Chrononhotonthologos and The Life and death

Of Tom Thumb the Great."11

In addition, in a few of the reviews and in several
articles, the magazine contains information about acting,
theatrical management, the theatre riots, and similar subjects.
But these are mainly of interest to the historian of the
theatre. My concern is with the reviews, and especially with
literary criticism. And here the emphasis is almost entirely
confined to contemporary authors. Again, an index of the
magazine's ratings of each dramatist or Of every Obscure
play would serve no useful purpose and would provide no focus
for the thematic approach. But one might gain some perspective
on this body Of criticism by looking briefly at the magazine's
treatment Of a few significant figures. TO determine which
authors are i’significant" for this purpose, I have considered
three factors: 1) Is the author usually rated one Of the

better dramatists Of the age? 2) Is his work representative

 

llXXXV (June, 1765), 290.

-l44-

of one Of the dominant types of drama? 3) Does the magazine
give his work enough attention to allow one to draw any
conclusions about the magazine's views? In deciding the first
two Of these questions I have leaned heavily on general
accounts, especially those by Boas and 1110011.12

In the field of tragedy, as with the epic, the eighteenth
century provided much elaborate critical theory but very few
significant works. And here again one finds considerable diver-
sity within the genre. Nicoll has determined three classi-
fications which might be taken as being accurate enough for
our purposes-_domeStic,”pseudo-romantic," and "pseudo-
elassical." Of the first type, in spite Of Lillo's success
with George Barnwell, there are not many examples; but Of those
who did practice the form, Edward Koore was probably the most
successful. Actually, his first two plays were comedies.

The Foundling (1748) was first reviewed in the Gentleman's

 

‘P

magazine by a writer who signed himself "H. G.” This
reviewer found the "fable" defective, the characterization
unnatural, and the moral Objectionable. He particularly
thought the distribution Of "poetic justice" unsatisfactory.
An interesting point about this review is that, for the only
time in the gg's dramatic criticism for this period, the
reviewer was answered by a "correspondent" (unsigned) who,

in a two-part reply, proceeded to contradict "H. G." point

 

l2Frederick S. Boas, An Introduction to Eighteenth-
Century Drama, 1700-1780 (Oxford, 1953), a'n‘I 2.. Nicoll,
History,II & III.

 

 

-145—

for point. He especially took him to task for invoking the

' claiming it had neither authority

doctrine Of "poetic justice,I
or sense, and he went on to praise Koore as a dramatist. On
the matter Of poetic justice, however, the first review is

the more typical.

Moore's next play, Ell §E§§.(1751)’ is also a comedy.
Ehat is interesting in the criticism has already been covered
and the reader need only be reminded that neither the audience
nor the magazine approved the piece. But Hoore's most famous
work, the domestic tragedy 223 Gamester, received better
treatment from both. In fact, it was frequently revived
throughout the century and was to become, in Nicoll's words,
"one Of the models Of its particular class."13 It is like
Lillo's play in several respects. Here the passion for
gambling and a misplaced trust ruin an other wise admirable
character, and, although he is eventually discovered to be
innocent Of certain crimes Of which he had been unjustly
accused, he has by this time already taken poison. At the end,
one Of the characters steps forward to pronounce the Obvious
moral: "Save but one error, and this last fatal deed, thy
life was lovely. Let frailer minds take warning; and from
example learn that want of prudence is want Of virtue."

1 As one would eXpect, the fig found more to praise here
than it had in the author's earlier efforts. The piece

certainly seems moral enough to escape any censure on that

 

l3History3, III, 89.

-l46-

score-~and it does. The reviewer gives the language special
attention. He notes that "this tragedy is written in prose
after the manner Of George Barnwell" and, while he cannot
completely reconcile himself to the loss Of "the pomp, the
force, and the elegance Of poetry," he admits that the
"colloquial" language probably produced a greater effect on

14 On the whole, the review is quite favorable.

the audience.
Whatever the fate Of Moore's comedies, the magazine approved
this, his most famous piece; and in so far as the fig was
representative Of its time, this approval would suggest that
the relative scarcity of domestic tragedy was not the result

of an unreceptive audience.

Among the writers Of the second type of tragedy, the
"pseudo-romantic," Nicoll classifies John Homes as the earliest
and one Of the best. Home's career spans nearly the entire
period under consideration here, and while the magazine's
review of his greatest success, Douglas (1757), unfortunately
contains nothing of interest, three of his other plays--

Agig (1758), Thg|§gt§l Discovery (1769), and Alonzo (1773)

are given more attention. The first of these is described

by Nicoll as a "dull" play with a Spartan setting and Boas,
who finds more merit in the piece, reports that Garrick had
rejected the play in 1747 apparently on the grounds that a

Drury Lane audience would find little of interest in the

Obscure and confusing rivalries Of Spartan Kinds and their

 

l4XXIII (Feb., 1753). 61.

-147-

respective factions.15 Nevertheless, when the play was
finally staged in 1758, the GE approved it with some reserva-
tions. And the reasons for both the reservations and the
approval are worth noting. In the play's disfavor, the
reviewer complains that the prologue, "while well adapted to
the play, and yet better to the times,“ tells us that Agis is
going to fall and thus ruins the suSpense. But the play is
praised for reasons equally divorced from intrinsic merit and

quite typical of the magazine's approach.

The piece in general, whatever may be its defects,
abounds with warm and generous sentiments Of liberty and
pubic spirit, and the applause with which it has been
received is therefore a proof that these principles are
still alive among us. There is also one passage, which,
in a few words, more strongly recommends religion as a
principle of heroic actions than the most elaborate

reasoning or florid declamation.l6

A decade later Home's next major piece, 222.3232;
Discovery, was produced. Because of political matters
quite unrelated to the play, it was withdrawn after eleven
performances, but Nicoll, while he does not value the work,
Speculates that it would otherwise have been successful.
Here Home took his subject matter from Ossian and the play,

more than Agis, merits classification as "pseudo-romantic"

 

l 1
5History, III, 93, and Eighteenth-Century Drama, p. 262.

l6xxvxil (Mar., 1758), 120.

-l48—

tragedy. Boas feels the play contains some memorable passages
and he tOO thinks it might have succeded had not political
events interfered.l7 But if the fig is a measure Of the taste
of the period it would not have done well in any case. Hawkes-
worth reviewed the play and roundly condemned it. He found

the language especially unsuitable.

This is one Of Ossian's poems converted to a drama..
....The language Of this piece is by no means adapted to
the drama; it is the same as the translator's of Ossian,
only reduced to measure; it wants nature, elegance,
harmony and ease, and without genuine poetry, there is
the appearance Of much labour tO produce it; upon the
whole it produces no forcible or pleasing effect, either
upon the passions or the imagination, the audience
rather suffered than enjoyed it, and probably it will

never be presented again.18

Despite the period's interest in "Ossianic" verse, one
critic at least was convinced that this type Of language had
no place in drama. On the other hand, Home's next tragedy,
Alonzo, was also reviewed by Hawkesworth and was very
favorably received. The play has a Spanish setting and the
entire action hinges upon the hero's Overhearing and mis-

understanding a remark by his wife, whereupon he has absented

 

l7Eighteenth-Century Drama, p. 276.
18xxx1x (Apr., 1769), 200.

-149-

himself for eighteen years. Boas feels that this is a "funda-
mental flaw." "It is incredible that Alonzo on such a flimsy
misconception, without putting it to the test, should give
way to such savage rage against his wife, desert her for
eighteen years, and return disguised to cover her with Open
shame."19 Boas undoubtedly states the modern reader's Opinion.
But Hawkesworth, while he is not insensitive to the Objection,
finally discounts it. And though his reasons for doing so have
been presented elsewhere, they are worth repeating here, for
the different judgments on this play nicely illustrate the
magazine's approach. "The heart," wrote Hawkesworth, "which
does not so forcibly feel these ssenes in the representation,
as to forget every violation Of the laws of Criticism in
producing them, must be at once unworthy and incapable of
that divine pleasure which the tears of Virtue only can bestow.2O
The other form Of tragedy in this period, the "classical"
or, to use Nicoll's term, the "pseudo-classical," was not .
especially pOpular in this half of the century, but a few
plays of this type were well received, the best example
being, perhaps, William Whitehead's Creusa (1754). The
magazine also reviewed two other Of Whitehead's plays,.Thg
Rgmganather (1750) and Th3 School £23 Lovers (1762). The
first Of these reviews contains little Of importance,but

The School for Lovers was given more serious attention. The

 

19Eighteenth-Century Drama, pp. 279-80.

2OXLIII (Mar., 1773), 140.

-lSO-

play is a "comedy" but apparently here too the author sought

to maintain a "classical simplicity” of structure. The

magazine thought this aspect very defective, pointing out that
an English audience could never approve the lack of "business”
and invoking Shakespeare by way Of contrast. But the '
reviewer finally gave a favorable judgment because "the dialogue
is natural and spirited; the sentiments are chaste and elegant,
and some Of the situations are touching and tender in the

highest degree."21

Again, the magazine's "sentimental" bias
is quite marked in this review . '

But Whitehead's most important drama was the classically
modeled tragedy Creusa. The play is based on Euripides' I23,
and Nicoll has claimed that "this attempt to rationalise
Euripides' legendary drama must be accounted one of the decided

'22 The.gggtlgmgnL§ review is inter-

esting. It contains a detailed discussion Of the language,

successes Of the period.’

Obviously written from a close examination Of the text, in
which the critic Objects that the language is not always
"sufficiently elevated or pure," that metaphors are not always
“unmixed," that "that cadence which constitutes an English
verse is not always preserved," and, finally, that "the
numbers are frequently such as suit rather with epic than
dramatic poetry." But the reviewer is not completely hostile

and he justifies his close analysis by pointing out that these

 

21xxx11 (Apr., 1762), 161.

22History, III, 80.

-151-

faults would not have been remarked "if they had been found

in a work less likely to be quoted as a precedent, and followed
as an example." Actually, he finds much to praise in the play.
Concerning plot, for example, he reverses the position taken

in the review Of Home's Aglg and declares that the ”tender
solicitude" produced by the early discovery more than makes

up for the loss Of suspense. Again, the "effect" is the key-
note Of the criticism. And even though the review contains a
very careful analysis Of the text, the critic is firmly
convinced that the real test is the effect Of the stage

performance.

Perhaps some incidents may be thought to exceed the
bounds Of probability, as the delivery of Creusa on the
night Nicander was banished, without suspicion of such
an accident, and his preserving the new born infant during
his flight, who, as his birth was premature, stood in
2greater need of that assistance, which, in such a
fisituation could not be procured; this, however, is an
Objection which the mind is not at leisure to make when
the passions are strongly excited, and curiosity is

impatient for the catastrophe.23

”Pseudo-classical" tragedy, then, despite its relative
unpOpularity during this period, also received a fair hearing

in the magazine. But it is interesting to note that the line

 

23xx1v (May, 1754) 229.

-152-

Of reasoning exhibited above is essentially the same as

that which Hawkesworth applied to Home's Alonzo in a review
written nearly twenty years after this one. And, of course,
even though the plays represent distinctly different types,

the result Of this reasoning is the same in either case. Quite
possibly, what appears to be a rather marked eclecticism in

the magazine's criticism is simply the result of this shift Of
emphasis from formal considerations to psychological "effect”
which, in essence, made quite irrelevant the critera according
to which the "types" Of tragedy are usually distinguished.

In any case, the brief discussion of these three authors
will suffice to indicate the magazine's treatment Of the main
forms Of tragedy, for their work includes most of the better
examples. In comedy, naturally, the period Offers a much
richer diet, and this makes selection somewhat more difficult.
The pervasive influence of "sentimentalism" has already been
noted, but it is generally agreed that the major plays Of
Richard Cumberland are relatively "pure" examples of the type,
and that he was perhaps the best, Or at least the best
remembered, Of the sentimental dramatists. Cumberland's
first effort in this form was Th3 Brothers (1769). Hawkes-
worth's review of this play is generally quite favorable.

It begins by pointing out that the plot has some faults--

"The story...is not only improbable with respect to single
facts, but by the inconsistency Of facts taken together"--
and these faults are then treated.in.some detail. That is,

as in the review Of Creusa, the reviewer begins with a

-153-

careful analysis Of the text itself. But, again as with Creusa,
the reviewer is conscious that the real test is the stage, and
, . 24
nere the play fares rather well.
Hawkesworth was also responsible for the criticism of

Cumberland's next two plays, The West Indian (1771) and Egg

Fashionable Lover (1772). The first of these was enormously

 

successful having an initial run Of thirty nights,25 and its
story will probably be familiar to most readers. Nicoll,
while granting that the play has intrinsic merit, claim

"we cannot but stand amazed at the artificiality of both
character-drawing and Of dialogue, and the subjugation Of all
to the requirements Of a sentimental moral."26 Again, the
Gentleman's was Of a different mind. Hawkesworth begins, as
usual, by analyzing certain improbabilities only later to
insist that these are unimportant. He praises the play for
presenting both "comic" and "tender" parts and for being ”full
of sentiment and charaeter."- In shOrt, he finds it, with all
its "faults," undoubtedly one of the best ever produced. But
the “faults" which he mentions are not those listed by Nicoll.
And it is precisely the moral tendency which calls forth his
most serious Objection. That is, he Objects to Belcour, who,
for all his admirable characteristics, is guilty of attempting
to seduce Louisa, being rewarded with her hand in marriage at

the end.27

 

24xxx1x (Dec., 1769), 595-96.

25Boas, Eighteenth-Century Drama, p. 305.
26History, III, 126.

27221.1 (Mar., 1771), 126.

-154-

Cumberland's The Fashionable Lover, while having much

 

less merit, was also praised by Hawkesworth; and in this re-
view the sentimental strain is even more marked. Hawkesworth
begins by noting that critics generally are too severe and
abusive, and that they tend to focus on the defects while

ignoring the "beauties."

This play, he continues, has so
many of the fOrmer that he will depart from the usual practice
of giving a plot summary because it would give tOO distorted
a picture of the value Of the piece. And he concludes by
remarking that since the author has demonstrated his ability
tO "warm the heart" and to interest "the passions in the cause
Of virtue," he needn't worry at all about the critics'
Objections to the formal defects.28

On the whole, then, Cumberland fares extremely well in
the Gentleman's pages. Of the other sentimental dramatists,
perhaps Hugh Kelly is the most significant, and the magazine's
treatment Of him merits a brief examination at this point.
Only two Of his plays are reviewed in the fig, and since
Hawkesworth is the reviewer in both instances, one should
expect to find the reviews favorable. But this is not
entirely the case. The first of these plays, EEAEE Delicacz
(1768), was unusually successful. It sold 3,000 c0pies before
2 p.m. on the day Of its publication, and 10,000 before the

end Of the season.29 Its success is at least partly accounted

28XLII (Feb., 1772) 80-81.

 

29Boas, Eighteenth-Century Drama, p. 295.

-155-

for by the fact that it deals with one of the period's most
popular themes--the complications that result from a woman's
concealing her true feelings from some principle of modesty
or delicacy. Other types of "delicacy" are also at work,
and each causes its own form of mischief. Nicoll claims
that the "false delicacy" satirized in the play was a "curse
of the time," and he characterizes the drama as "a highly

30 And there is no doubt that it was intended

moral work."
to be. But Hawkesworth, although he grants that the play
has "great merit," nevertheless finds its moral deficient.
"As to Eglgg Delicacy, though the situations render it
extreamly entertaining, and in general are brought about
with sufficient probability, yet the sentiments are so
managed, as to destroy their merit with their use. The
piece, as it stands, is more a satire on True Delicacy than
false, and indeed there does not appear to be one instance
of false delicacy in the dramatic action."31 He then goes
on to argue at some length that all the action is inspired
either by "true delicacy" or by something else entirely.

The analysis is penetrating, but the most obvious feature of
it is that Hawkesworth apparently had a somewhat different
idea of what "delicacy" was. And it is worth noting in this

context that 0. J. Rawson has recently advanced the view

that the play is really more satiric than sentimental, and

 

BOHistory, III, 130.

31XXXVIII (Feb., 1768), 80.

F/

that the object of the satire is sentimentalism itself.32 The
play is certainly open to this kind of interpretation, and it
is quite possible that it was precisely this aSpect which
Hawkesworth found so troublesome. He also found the

conclusion open to objection.

When the several mistakes of the parties are cleared
up, and the obstacles to their happiness removed, Mrs. Har-
ley cries out "Now all is as it should be--this is the
triumph of good sense over Delicacy." The happiness of
the parties, however, is not produced by removing their
principles, but by changing their circumstances and
situations; removing a man from a situation of danger
might with the same propriety, be said to be triumphing

33
over his courage.

The objection is logically sound, but it is hardly of the kind
that would make the least difference to an audience. Probably
Hawkesworth was himself aware of this for he concluded the
review by remarking: "Yet this performance upon the whole
justifies the very favourable reception with which it has

been received by the public."

same type, but it had no chance to repeat the success of
Eglge Delicacy, because it was withdrawn--for unrelated

political reasons--after two performances. Hawkesworth

 

32"Some Remarks on Eighteenth-Century ’Delicacy' with a

goigo on Hugh Kelly' 8 False Delicacy (1768)," JE GP, LXI (1962),

33XXXVIII (Feb., 1768), 82.

-157-

lamented its demise and apparently thought it a better piece

"abound-

than the other for he praised it unconditionally as
ing in sentiments of virtue, generosity, delicacy, and
honour" and for having--this probably was most important--
”many useful lessons to young people.”34
. But for all the success of the sentimental dramatists,
one should not forget that the other type of comedy was also
popular and that there were several dramatists and critics

"sentimental" influence and fought

who deplored the pervasive
against it in essays, prologues, and counter-examples. Gold-
smith, of course, was one of the most articulate as well.as
the most famous of this group. He attacked the "sentimental"
again in his essay "A Comparison between Laughing and Senti-
mental Comedy" (1772). And he continued the attack in the
prologue to his first play, Thg'gggd-Natur'd §§E°
Considering the vigor of Goldsmith’s assult, it is

surprising to note that there are "sentimental" elements in

the play itself--though perhaps not so surprising if one

thinks of The Vicar gflwakefield or The Deserted Village.

fl

 

 

Even so the play was near enough to the older "manners" form
that Goldsmith had trouble getting it produced. Garrick
refused it at Drury Lane in 1767 when he and Goldsmith were
unable to agree on certain changes, and Colman, at Covent

Garden, was also reluctant to accept it. Both managers were

 

34XL (May. 1770). 227.

-153-

apparently fearful that it ran too much against the popular
current.35 Nevertheless, despite this initial handicap and
the managers' fears, and even though the play had to compete
with Kelly's phenomenally successful gala; Delicacy, it was
fairly well received. Boas reports that the play ran for

nine nights and went into five editions in the same year.35

Hawkesworth reviewed this play, along with False Delicacy,

 

in the fig. And, in spite of Goldsmith's announced hostility
to sentimental drama, which contrasts with Hawkesworth's
rather eager acceptance of the type, Goldsmith's wo k
nevertheless comes out the better in this joint review. In
praising the play, Hawkesworth put his finger on its strongest
point-~"the characters in the 922$ Natur'd EEE.3T9 admirably
drawn, contrasted, and sustained," and "the play of these
characters upon each other produces scenes of humour that
have seldom been equalled."37

This certainly squares with the magazine's usual position
on the essence of "true comedy," as well as with the period's
dominant critical theory which stressed the importance of
character in comic drama. And yet, even after the unexpected
reception of Th£_g23deNatur'd Egg, Goldsmith had trouble

getting his masterpiece, She StOOES'Eg Concuer, performed.

 

35See Boas, Eighteenth-Centur Drama, pp. 335-36. In
addition, it might be noted that Goldsmith had said some unkind
things about Garrick as a manager in The Present State which
may have prejudiced Garrick's attitude—toward the play.

36Ibid., p. 341.
37xxxv1II (Feb., 1768). 78.

~159-

Although it was finished by 1771 and accepted by Colman, he
delayed so long in having it produced that Goldsmith offered
it to Garrick at Drury Lane. Apparently Dr. Johnson finally
persuaded the reluctant Colman to put it on in March, 1773.
Again it was most likely Colman's fear that the play was
contrary to the spirit of the times--critical theory not-

withstanding--that caused his vacillation.38

Goldsmith's
"Comparison” had appeared the previous year, and this play
was clearly designed as an "anti-sentimental" piece. But
Colman had misjudged his audience this time as well, for they

received the play enthusiastically. And the Gentleman's

 

shared the enthusiaism. The review (which is apparently not

by Hawkesworth--the last review signed "X" appears the month
before) is brief, but what it says about this, a frankly
anti-sentimental play and, incidentally, one of the few

from this period still regarded as a masterpiece, is completely

favorable:

This play is truly comic. The humour is irresistible;
and it pleases in the closet as well as in the theatre.
Dr. Goldsmith has been happy in the choice of his char-
acters; they are supported throughout with great pro-
priety; and the incidents that appear improbable are,
in general, the natural effects of the thoughtless

fallies 13127 of a young frolicsome country squire.39

 

38Boas, Eighteenth-Century Drama, p. 341.
39XLIII (Apr., 1775). 192.

-160-

Goldsmith, of course, was not alone in his counter-
attack on sentimental drama, a fact which his continuing
fame tends to obscure. Certainly one of the most vocal and
talented of those who shared his views was Arthur Hurphy.

A prolific and versatile playwright, Murphy produced twenty-

40

three ”dramatic pieces" between 1756 and 1798. These
include tragedies, comedies, farces, "dramatic poems," and
"burlesques"; and since he is the author most often reviewed
in the _H (the magazine discusses nine of his plays during

this period), as well as one of the more significant writers

of the age, the Gentleman's treatment of his work is of some

 

interest. Because the magazine reviewed him so frequently,
some selectivity will be necessary. And since comedy was the
area of his most distinctive achievement, one might safely
ignore his work in the other forms. For our purposes, then,
the first important play is 1H2 Hail ism Hemp Him (1760).

Again elements of "sentimentalism" are present, but they are
minor and the play is really closer to the Restoration in
form and subject. The plot tells the adventures of a "married

' or, more precisely, two of them, and finally recon-

rake ,'
ciles all the couples at the end. The change is produced by
having the wives learn that they must devote more attention
to their husbands. This time the EH was apparently disposed
to overlook the conduct of the husbands for it thought the

moral excellent and advised its readers:

 

40According to Nicoll's "Handlist," History, III, 289-90.

-l@l-

It is hoped that the excellent and important moral of
this piece will be understood in its whole extent, as
well that which is eXpressed as that which is implied,
for it is absurd not to suppose that if the way to keep
him is to exert every power of giving pleasure, every
thing that can disgust must be not religiously only,

but even superstitiously avoided.41

 

But the reviewer finds more to praise than the moral. The
play, as has been remarked, looks ack to the comedy of
manners. And, while the critic thinks some of the incidents
"improbable” (he then remarks that this doesn't matter); he
notes that the dialogue is comic (though he is careful to
add it is "perfectly pure from quaint repartee"), and that the
action is also humourous (though free from "farcical
buffoonery"), and he concludes that the play is "in the Spirit
of true comedy" with everything "natural and characteristic."42
Four years later the magazine considered two more of
Murphy's comedies, £1.23 _.~-_9_ __1_1_§_t_ iii 92mg 29. and __c_)_ M
m H159 Him 91:31, in the same review. Here the reviewer
found something to object to in the moral tendency of each.
The first, he thought, implied that marriage would inevitably
produce unhappy results--a pernicious idea. The second he

objected to on the grounds that the main character, who

seduces his friends' wives--then tells about it, is really

 

4lxxx (Feb., 1760), 69.
Z*2xxx (Feb., 1760). 74.

-162-

the enemy of quite a few besides himself. These reviewers,

it has been seen, tended to carry their analyses of the moral
implications of comedy to rather extreme lengths, a fact
which sometimes worked to Hurphy's favor, but usually did not.
Still, this critic ends by remarking that despite these
faults the second play "has its merit" and the first is "a
picture of life."43 The last of Murphy's comedies to be.
reviewed by the magazine is 2H3 School £9; Guardians (1767).
The play is based on elements from'Wycherley's 2mg Country

I
Wife and Holiere's L'Ecole des Femmes and, as this basis would

suggest, it is clearly in the "comedy of manners" style.44
The QH'S review is brief but highly favorable and praises
the play for being "full of business" and for having "scenes
of very great humour."45 h I
After Murphy, the dramatists who receive most attention
in the magazine, judged simply on the basis of the number of
reviews, are Samuel Foote, Issac Bickerstaff, and David
Garrick. But the genius of the first lay in that sub-Species,
farce, which these reviewers seldom thought merited detailed

criticism; the second produced primarily operas, about

which nothing more needs to be said; and the third is

 

43xxx1v (Jan., 1764), 22-23.

4%33. Nicoll, History, III, 163, "...if we mean by the
term, comedy of manners, nothing but immoral comedy,’ then
assuredly Hurphy's play is not in this style; but if we
signify by the phrase a certainmethod of comic treatment of
life, then we have in this work, as in the others, examples of
that art form which is developed first by Fletcher and finds
its heyday of pOpularity at the close of the seventeenth
century."

45X*IVII (Jan., 1767), 34.

-163-

certainly more important as an actor and manager than as a
playwright. His works are not of first significance and
they represent no particular type. It would be interesting
to know what the magazine would have said about Sheridan's
plays; unfortunately, his greatest work appeared in the mid-
l770s, the period in which, for some reason, the magazine
gave up its dramatic reviews to return to them only
sporadically in the early 1780's. The only reference to
him appears in a 1784 review which calls his School £23
Scandal a "masterpiece” while condemning an anonymous play
of the same title. '

One more dramatist, however, deserves some mention.
George Colman, the elder, who, in the course of a long and
productive career, produced a couple of the century's best
plays, is interesting both because of the merit of his work
and because he was able to write effective comedy in either
of the two forms. It has been shown that in the EH there
existed a group of critics who could applaud both the "senti-
mental" and the "manners" comedy, and it has been noted that
the audience shared in this applause. In Colman we meet a
playwright who produced not only clearly recognizable examples
of each type but good examples at that, and this within the
space of seven years.

2mg Jealous fliig (1761), a comedy of manners, was an
outstanding contemporary success. Nicoll finds in it "some-

thing of Vanbrugh's breezy laughter, and occasionally not a

-164-

little of Hycherley's wit," which might serve as a rough
measure of its distance from the sentimental school, and he
adds, "Truly the comic spirit in the late eighteenth century
was not so dormant when it could produce a work such as this

."46 Nor, as we have seen, was the "comic spirit" dormant

is
among the EH critics, for the play received a very favorable
review praising it as "a very high and a very rational
entertainment, having, as a comedy, few equals, and no
superior.“¢7This play was followed five years later by Colman's
greatest success, 222 Clandestine Marriage. Garrick is listed
as joint author, but it is generally agreed that Colman was
responsible for most of the play. Succeeding generations

have concurred in the favorable judgment pronounced by the
first audiences, and the play is so famous that it needs no
description here. It will suffice to say that the magazine
was not blind to its merits. The reviewer praises it for
avoiding the dull introductory scenes common to most plays,

and especially for provoking laughter by drawing natural and
interesting characters. And he concludes by pointing to its
success on the stage as positive evidence of its value.48

These reviews offer further proof, if any be required,

that in spite of their willingness to praise the sentimental

 

46H1story, III, 168. Nicoll adds that "Colman's indebt-
edness o e estoration masters was not confined to general
atmosphere. While much of the plot is taken from Fielding's
Tom Jones, resemblances have been traced to Congreve's Love

for Love and to Shadwell's The Squire.g£ Alsatia.

47xxx1 (Feb., 1761),54.
4axxxvx (Mar., 1766), 128.

-165-

dramatists, the magazine's critics were very receptive to

other types of comedy. The idea of the audiences and the critics
of the age being divided into two opposing groups on the

matter of the relative merits of each type of comedy is, on

the basis of this evidence, clearly an oversimplification--at
least on the level of journalistic criticism. The idea of

two different camps of writers has somewhat more justification;
certainly authors like Goldsmith and Murphy were vocal enough
in their opposition to the sentimental school. Yet even here
the distinction cannot be neatly drawn. Sentimental elements
can be detected in the works of these writers; and Colman
offers an even better example of the period's cross-currents
meeting in one man. For, in spite of his success with the
"manners" form and even though he had occasionally satirized
sentimental comedy, he produced, in 222 English Merchant (1767),
what Nicoll has described as "one of the most representative
sentimental dramas of the age."49 Not uneXpectedly, the

Gentleman's praised this play fully as much as it had the

 

author's other, and far different, efforts. Its reviewer found
that the piece had "great merit of every kind," and he noted
that the general objection that the play did not provoke
laughter was "abundantly attoned" by the fact that it gave

50

a "higher pleasure." 0n the whole, then, one may generalize

to the effect that, when the form was well handled, the comedy

 

49History, III, 140.

5Oxxxvn (Mar., 1767), 130.

-166-

of manners fared very well in the pages of the Gentleman's

Magazine, while the sentimental drama, providing it wasn't

 

"too sentimental," fared even better. And it might be added,

incidentally, that if the magazine sometimes praised what

are considered today to be rather poor specimens of drama,

it also abundantly praised those now judged to be the best.
But the fundamental concern of this study is not to

determine the merit of these critic's judgments, but rather

to determine, in the first place, exactly what these judgments

were, and, further, what kind of reasoning lay behind them.

To this end, the study has examined the magazine's views on

the important critical questions of the day, it has given

some indication of how these views were related tothe dominant

critical theories, and it has shown what the magazine's

reviewers had to say about the period's main dramatic forms

and its most important authors. And whatever one may decide

about the merit of these judgments, the fact remains that

this was the view of drama that was circulated each month

among thousands in London and beyond. In so far as this

view differed from that advanced by the non-journalistic

critics, this was the view that most readers were getting.

But at this point it is well to remember that the third

quarter of the eighteenth century was the first great age

of the "magazine." And if the Gentleman's Magazine was in

many ways not only the "first" but the most impressive of these,

it was certainly not the only important periodical of the time.

-167-

It remains, then, to consider to what extent the criticism
detailed here may be taken to be representative of the

journalistic criticism of the age.

CHAPTER VI.
SCI-IE C OI-IPARI S ONS

By the time the original dramatic reviews had become an
established feature of the Gentleman's Magazine, London was
already flooded with "magazines" and periodicals of various
types. And the tide was to continue to rise to the end of
the century. These publications varied greatly in s00pe and
quality and in method and purpose; and most were short-lived
enterprises. Among the monthly "magazines," the wave of
imitators which had attempted to repeat the success of the

Gentleman's in the 1730's was but a slight foreshadowing of

 

the flood that was to follow. It will not be necessary to
list the titles here. Such a list, along with a brief
description of the more important examples, is easily
available in Walter Graham's English Literary Periodicals;

and Graham also supplies an assessment of the situation:

' or miscellaneous monthly

Before 1800 the "magazine,’
periodical, had found a public and become a necessary
part of the literature of the day. Readers sent letters,
stories, poems, or essays to it; scholars inquired through
its columns, or answered the queries of others. It
supplemented the private library of the country squire

or city merchant by furnishing copious extracts from

most of the new books of importance, and the more

-l68-

-169-

important articles from the weekly and daily journals.
It encouraged the young poet, and furnished him with
models of the poetry of the masters. Although the
major part of its contents were of a general and

un literary nature, this form of periodical had become
by the end of the eighteenth century an indispensable

vehicle of literature in all its forms.1

The Gentleman's Magazine remained the most important of
this particular type, and it was also one of the first to
move toward the inclusion of an ever encreasing amount of
original material. But the conditions which allowed the

success of the Gentleman's and its imitators also made pos-

 

sible the proliferation of kinds as well as numbers of per-
iodicals. These ranged from daily and weekly news sheets to
the polished essays of Johnson's Rambler, Fielding's Covent-
Garden Journal, Murphy's Gray's imm Journal, and Hawkesworth's
Adventurer; and they ranged from specialized journals of
original materials to omnivorous predators like the gmmmg

Magazine 23 Magazines (1758-1759) which borrowed the best of

 

what others had borrowed.

Since many of these periodicals contained some comments
on literature, the student of journalistic criticism for this
period finds himself confronting a great and diverse mass of

materials. The proliferation of periodical criticism presents

 

1(New York, 1930), p. 191.

~170-

a problem, then, from the point of view of this study, for
it makes it difficult to determine precisely the extent to

which the Gentleman's dramatic criticism might be taken as

 

representative. But the development of one particular kind

of periodical, the literary review, offers, if not a solution,
at least a reasonable approach. "Literary review" is in some
ways a misleading term for these publications. In the first
place, they sought to treat books of all kinds, not necessarily
works having ”literary” value; and, in the second place, they
more often gave summaries or abstracts of works rather than
"reviews" in the modern sense of the term. Nevertheless, as
the century wore on, the better of these began to approach
more closely the method of the influential nineteenth-century

reviews like the Edinburgh or the Quarterly. In the period

 

under consideration, clearly the two most important represent-
atives of the type were the Monthly Review and the Critical
Review. Their eminence was never challenged during the

century, and while neither or them apparently ever reached a
circulation comparable to the Gentleman's in its most prosperous
days, their influence in literary matters was undoubtedly

great.2 A comparison, then, between the Gentleman's dramatic

 

criticism and that found in these two Reviews should furnish

 

2Norman Cakes ("Ralph Griffiths and the Monthl Review,"
[unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia Univ., lgbi7,
working from the printer's records, finds the circulation of
the Monthly rising from 1,000 copies in the early years to
3,500 in the middle of this period (p. 40). C. H. Timperley,
Encyclopaedia 2i Literary and Typographical Anecdote, 2nd ed.

(London, 1842), p. 795, lists the Monthly's circulation at
5,000, the Critical's at 3,500, in 1797.

 

 

-l7l-

some insight into late eighteenth-century theatrical taste.

Among the literary reviews, the Monthly Review held the

 

same position that the Gentleman's Magazine held among the

 

monthly miscellanies. As Graham phrases it, "In view of its
size, general quality, and long career as a periodical, the
justice of calling the Monthly Review the earliest Review of
importance in English literature must be granted."3 From
its beginning in 1749, the Monthly set out to cover almost
all English publications as well as the best from the foreign
presses. Although at first it supplied mainly a series of
abstracts with little criticism, the amount of comment
gradually became larger. Very early the magazine settled on
its standard format which consisted of several long articles
followed by a "Monthly Catalogue" containing numerous short
reviews. ' ‘

The Monthly was founded by Ralph Griffiths, a London
bookseller, and it remained under his control until his
death in 1805. In contrast to most other periodicals of the
time, the Monthly was, so far as editing was concerned, a
one-man show; Griffiths devoted most of his time to the
enterprise, and he displayed considerable skill in solving

the problems of an eighteenth century editor--not the least

 

3English Literary Periodicals, p. 209. For a detailed
discuss10n 0 the deve10pment of book reviewing techniques
see Edward A. Bloom, "'Labours of the Learned': Neoclassic
Book Reviewing Aims and Techniques," SP, LIV (1957), 537-

563. See also Robert D. Mayo, The English Novel im the
Magazines, 1740-1815 (Evanston, ., I952), esp. pp. I90-208.

-l72-

of which was the fundamental one of getting COpies of the

4 But above all, Griffiths' success as

books to be reviewed.
an editor was due to his recruitment of a large and competent
staff of reviewers. In place of ill-paid hacks who would
review books on any and all subjects, Griffiths mainly
employed eXperts in various fields to review books about their
particular subject. That Griffiths did, on occasion, employ
"hacks" of the worse sort is true.5 But generally he exerted
considerable effort to get highly qualified reviewers. The
reviews themselves, of course, were unsigned; and Griffiths,
following the tradition of the period, took pains to insure
that the anonymity of his contributors was maintained. But he
kept, for his own use, a marked set of the Review, and today
it can be seen that his efforts to recruit a qualified staff
were largely successful. Benjamin Nangle, who has provided

an almost complete index from Griffiths' records, describes

the staff as follows:

The miserable hacks of legend thus prove to be in fact
among the most eminent scholars in the kingdom: in
history, Gillies and Stuart; in politics, Owen Ruffhead;
in science, Bewley, Planta, Wales, Goodenough, and Aikin;
in theology, Abraham Rees, Andrew Kippis, and William
Rose, probably the three leading dissenting clergymen

 

40akes provides a thorough discussion of Griffiths'
editorial practices.

5William Kenrick, for example, who contributed several
reviews of drama, would certainly fall into this class.

-173-

in England, John Seddon, rector of the academy at Uarington,
Gregory Sharpe, Master of the Temple; in the classics,
Porson, Parr and Charles Burney the younger, the three

most eminent classical scholars of their time; in

Oriental studies, white, Laudian Professor of Arabic and
later Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford; in antiquities,
Francis Grose; in the drama, Arthur Murphy and George
Colman the elder; in belles lettres, John Langhorne,

Edmund Cartwright, John Hawkesworth, William Enfield,

Samuel Rose, and John Wolcot (Peter Pindar).

"It would have been difficult," Nangle continues, "to assemble
for a single periodical a staff boasting of higher academic
degrees and memberships of learned societies, or better
qualified to speak with authority on the subjects which they
discussed."6 And to this impressive list there might be
added the names of such contributors as The0philus Cibber,
David Garrick, Oliver Goldsmith, and even Tobias Smollett,
who contributed three reviews in the early fifties.

Exactly how much control Griffiths exercised over the
Opinions of his reviewing staff is difficult to determine.
Like most journals of the period, the Monthly was often
attacked by irate authors or rival reviewers, and the attacks

generally centered on the pervasive influence of the editor's

 

6The Monthly Review, First Series, 1749-1789. Indexes
I_£ Contributors and Articles (Oxford, 1934), pp. viii-ix.

 

-174-

publishing activities, the Review's "liberal” bias in poli-
tics and religion, and Griffiths' personal favoritism or
prejudice towards individual authors. A staunch Whig in
politics and a "dissenter" in religion, Griffiths' undoubtedly

influenced the Monthly's position in these sensitive areas, if

 

only by his selection of the staff and his assignment of the
books to be reviewed. In purely literary matters, too,it is
clear that Griffiths was not always completely impartial. A
case in point is his puffing of John Cleland's Memoirs gf
Emmy Hiii, a "watered down" version of the Memoirs BE 2 m
.gf Pleasure. Griffiths had had a hand in the publication of
the original, a fact which had involved him in some difficulty
with the courts. But in his own review of the second version,
which he published, he claimed not to have seen the original,
and he recommended the book as a corrective to vice.7 The
review also omitted the usual mention of publisher and price.
But such instances were apparently not very frequent.8
Similarly, the Monthly's treatment of individual authors
was not quite as impartial as the review maintained; but
neither was it as blatantly prejudiced as its victims insisted.
.Arthur Murphy furnishes a typical example. The Monthly had

given his play, The gpprentice, a largely unfavorable review

 

7Monthly Review, II (1750), 431. All information on
the aut ors p of articles in the Monthly is taken from
Hangle's index.

8This is the estimate of Cakes who has examined the
reviews along with Griffiths' extensive correspondence. See
esp. pp. 111-12.

-175-

in which it praised him for ”having hit upon a mgm and prOper
subject for ridicule,” but objected to his "ill-conducted
plot" and "unnatural” language.9 Murphy retaliated by con-
vening "the Court of Censorial Enquiry for the Cities of
'Hestminster and London." In this mock trial, reminiscent of
Fielding's satires in the Covent-Garden Journal, Murphy con-
victed the Monthly's reviewers of several critical abuses,
claiming they accepted bribes, mistreated clergymen of the
Church of England, and generally lacked intelligence. The
last witness to be called, one Edmund Grounding (Griffiths?),

" and revealed to the

admitted that he was "one of the gang,
court that the reviewers had "a general list of Things to be
abused, hung up in the Garret, and we always go according to

that for Abuse." He offered part of the list in evidence.

23'H3.Abused
Hm. Smart, whenever he publishes.

The Author of the Grays-Inn-Journal, whenever he
publishes.

The Author of Barbarossa. ‘ZDr. John Browm7

All writers in Favour 0f the Church of England.

The Liturgy, the Athanasian Creed, etc.

Paul Whitehead, Esq.; whenever he publishes a spirited

and Manly Satyr; and, in short true Genius and Taste
whenever they appear.

 

93m, XIV (Jan., 1756), 78.

”Alana Arm mama-i (1756). II. 295-305.

. .
mum‘tfiw— i._A_

EFT. '

 

-176-

Murphy's attack is worth quoting simply because it is
typical; it neatly summarizes the charges usually brought
against the Monthly. Murphy himself displayed an admirable

impartiality by launching a similar attack on the Monthly's

 

bitter rival, the Critical Review, which had also found The

Apprentice not to its liking, and again his charges were

probably more typical than accurate.ll As a counter-state-

 

ment, one might compare Johnson's remarks on the two

.- I

~
.
“1.—

Reviews: "I think them very impartial: I do not know of an
instance of partiality."l2 Clearly neither Johnson nor Murphy
gives us the whole truth. But it might be noted that Murphy
later became ”one of the gang" himself; and, while some
instances of prejudice can be cited, the Monthly appears to
have lived up to its claim of impartiality rather well. This

is the conclusion reached by the Monthly's most recent and

 

most thorough student.13 And Roger Lonsdale, who has carefully

 

11Murphy was very probably the author of the "Letter on
Criticism" which appeared in the Literary Magazine (Ho. X,
January 15 to February 15, 1757. pp. 25:30) and which held
the Critical Review up as an example of all that was wrong in
contemporary criticism. And he was almost certainly the author
of the review of Smollett's The Reprisal which appeared in the
same issue (pp. 36-38). The review attacks Smollett's play
using the same phrasin. that the Critical's review had applied
to The Apprentice (I an. & Feb., 175§2 78-82). These two
articles are reprinted in Arthur Sherbo, ed., New Essavs 31
Arthur Murnh‘ (East Lansing, 1963), pp. 101-1077‘1T—IT'0- 3.

See pp. 99- 1, 109-110 for evidence of Murphy's authorship. ' - .
12

 

 

 

Boswell, Life, ed. Hill-Powell (Oxford, 1934), III, 32.

13Cakes, p. 126.

 

 

-177-

studied Dr. Burney's relations with the Review, also grants
that Hangle's claims for Griffiths' impartiality are
"basically justified," though he adds that ”there was still
considerable scope for his reviewers to indulge in self-
advertisement and personal animosity on a lesser scale,
which.[3riffith§7 could do little to prevent."14

The Monthly's eminence among the literary reviews was

 

most effectively challenged by the Critical Review. This
periodical was founded in February 1756 by Archibald
Hamilton, but Tobias Smollett was really its editor. In a
letter to Dr. John Moore in that same year, Smollett
acknowledged that he held that position, and he told Moore

that "the Critical Review is conducted by four Gentlemen of

 

approved abilities and meets with a very favourable reception.”
These four gentlemen have now been identified as Thomas
Francklin, Samuel Derrick, John Armstrong, and Patrick
Murdoch.15 For the first year, the only year for which an
annotated copy of the Critical exists, Smollett and the four
men named above contributed nearly all the reviews. But

other writers of "approved abilities" were soon added.

Dr. Johnson supplied a few articles, and Goldsmith contributed
several reviews in the late 1750's. Other reviewers, regular

or occasional, were George Steevens, David Hume and

 

14" - V' H 1.,
Dr. Burney and the monthly Review, RiS (New Series),
XIV (1963). 351-52. "“"‘ ""

15Derek R0per, "Smollett's 'Four Gentlemen': The
First Contributors to the Critical Review," RES (New Series),

X (1959). 38.

 

-172-

David Garrick.16

Like the Monthly, the Critical attempted to treat all
books published in London, and some foreign books as well.

t copied the Monthly's format, having in each issue several

 

"Monthly Catalogue” of several

long articles followed by a
brief reviews. And it went its rival one better by adding a
survey of public affairs at the end of each issue. In the
preface to the first number, the Critical gave, as its aim,
”To exhibit a succinct plan of every performance; to point

out the most striking beauties and glaring defects; to illus-
trate remarks with proper quotations, and to convey those
remarks in such a manner as might conduce to the entertainment
of the public."17 What the preface did not indicate, but

what was nevertheless widely known, was that the Critical

Review had been, as Graham phrases it, "established under Tory

and Church patronage to maintain principles in Opposition to
8
those of the Monthly.”1 It was, of course, to these

political and religious principles that Johnson was referring

when he remarked to George III that ”the Monthly Review was

done with most care, the Critical upon the best principles."19

 

16
Graham, English Literar Periodicals, p. 213 and C. E.
Jones, Smollett Studies (Berkeiey and Los‘Angeles,1942), pp. 93-
101, lisi {Kese wriiers as contributors. W. P. Courtney and
D. Nichol Smith, A Biblio ra h of Samuel Johnson (London, 1925)
pp. 102-103, giveE a s o a tibies ascribed”to Johnson.
Jones (100. cit.) thinks the list is probably incomplete.

l7"Preface," I (1756).

lsEnglish Literary Periodicals, p. 213.

 

 

l9Life, II, 40.

\
A A, A‘u“‘.* .—

TIL.

-179-

Given this bias, it is not surprising that the Critical

 

did not always live up to its motto, "Hothing extenuate, nor

set down in malice." For one thing, it showed considerable
malice toward its rival, the Monthly. Smollett frequently
attacked Griffiths, accusing him of the usual malpractices;
and he was particularly fond of insinuating that Mrs. Grif-
fiths had a heavy, and unfortunate, influence upon the conduct
of that journal. The Monthly responded in kind, and the
rivalry between the two periodicals was sustained and abusive
in the best eighteenth-century tradition. In addition,
Smollett managed to get himself and the Review embroiled in

several other literary and political squabbles.2O

They earned
for the review the enmity of several authors, and one alter-
cation, that with Admiral knowles, earned Smollett a stay in
prison. It was this kind of dispute, multiplied many times
over, that caused Smollett to say later that the only thing

he had received from his editorial work for the Critical was

a good deal of abuse. No doubt he gave as good as he got.

But the really relevant question, for the purposes of this
study, is the extent to which prejudice or favoritism
influenced the dramatic reviews. There were probably factors

at work here that we can never know, especially so long as

the authors of the reviews remain unidentified; but, from the

 

200. E. Jones, Smollett Studies, pp. 107-110, gives a long,
but not complete, bibliography of attacks on the Critical
Review from 1756 to 1771.

 

 

available evidence, it would appear that the Critical, like
the Monthly, was much more impartial than its victims liked
to think-~particularly where questions of religion or politics
were not involved.21

As to the relative merits of these, the two most important
literary periodicals of the age, the reviews of drama do not
reveal any striking differences in format, approach, or
emphasis. Johnson, though he admitted the Eonthly was done
"with most care," evidently favored the Critical: "The
Critical Reviewers, I believe, often review without reading
the books through; but lay hold of a topick, and write
chiefly from their minds. The Monthly Reviewers are duller

men and are glad to read the books through."22 "Duller men"

or not, the Monthly's critics, we now know, were certainly

 

highly qualified; the Critical apparently never maintained as
large nor as impressive a staff as its rival could boast.

But both had writers well qualified to Speak on literary
tOpics; indeed, they included among their contributors the

best literary critics of the period.

 

210. E. Jones, though he remarks elsewhere that the
Critical's reviewers were not entirely impartial (”The English
waver: A Critical View, 1756-1785," E29: XIX 9587, 1477,
nevertheless finds it possible to discuss the ramatic
criticism in the Review without reference to the effects of
prejudice or favoritism ("Dramatic Criticism in the Critical
Review, 1756-1785," mpg, XX ZI9SS7’ 18-26, 133—44).""““"

22Life, III, 32.

 

 

‘2‘, n

|
.
C‘nulmL-A-_. A-
a

‘3.

~181-

These two reviews, with their important influence in
literary matters, will serve as the main basis for my com-
parisons. One other periodical, however, might furnish a
somewhat different perspective. The London Magazine, the
reader may recall, was the Gentleman's first and most serious
competitor. Begun in 1732 by a syndicate of London book-
sellers, the London COpied almost every feature of its more : .1
famous rival; and the competition between the two was fiercely

and often unscrupulously conducted. Although, eSpecially in

Q
.
I... tlga'l?‘—__ _

its early days, the London could claim no list of contributors ‘ ' L ,

of the stature of the Gentleman's, it did manage to attract
some more than competent writers. Boswell, for example, had
a hand in its management for a time later in the century, and
between 1767 and 1783 he contributed many articles, including
23

the seventy "Hypochondriack" essays.

When the Gentleman's began to feature dramatic reviews

 

in the late 1740's, the London followed this innovation more
slowly than it had the others. Its dramatic criticism in the
early 1750's is of slight scOpe and interest. Later in the
decade summaries with some critical remarks were included more
frequently, and these reviews were continued fairly regularly
for the next few years. The comments, however, were seldom
very full. In June 1767, though, the editors announced a far

more ambitious program:

 

23Graham, English Literary Periodicals, p. 162.

 

Oh,

As theatrical subjects engage a principal part of
the public conversation in this country, and as the
theatre under proper regulations is certainly capable of
giving very great assistance to the cause of good sense

and morality; the authors of the London Hagazine, to

 

render themselves more worthy of the encouragement with
which they have been so long distinguished by their
numerous purchasers, intend to devote a particular
portion of their work for the future to the business of
the stage....In the first place, they purpose to give a
summary view of the British stage, from its first
institution to the present time;...In the second place,
the authors design to examine the merit of the most
celebrated poets who have written for the stage, that the
reader, by having a fair critique constantly before him,
may be enabled to form his taste, and know how to
distinguish the flights of genius from the ravings of
bombast, and the genuine face of nature from the

flaring daubs of affectation. This part of their work
they flatter themselves will be highly useful, as a
variety of pieces are now universally admired, which want
but a moments consideration to be universally condemned;
and are frequently exhibited in our theatres, out of a
ridiculous reverence for the taste of our fathers,

though their tendency to prejudice the cause of virtue

renders them justly detestable to ourselves.

 

-133-

For the next ten years the London Magazine offered many full

 

reviews of current plays as well as essays on theatre history

and authors of other periods. Host of the reviews carry out

pm

the implications of the attitude eXpresse in this plan, and
a large number of these reviews appear to be the work of one
man. So far as I can determine, he has not been identified.

The intrinsic interest of at least a few of these reviews

offers one reason for including the London Kagazine as a third

 

point of comparison. But the most important reason for
including it here is that the London was for years the

Gentleman's most serious competitor, and, unlike the Konthly

 

and the Critical Reviews, it was, in format and purpose, very

 

similar to its prototype. Thus, an examination of its
dramatic criticism will furnish an additional perspective on
the subject of this study.

Although my central interest is the critical theories
underlying the reviews rather than their judgements on
specific authors or plays, one way to approach the problem of
comparisons is to show how the reviewers treated a few
selected works. The selection will be random enough to give
a representative picture, but, beyond the obvious need to
find plays treated by all the magazines, I have chosen works
which illustrate the basic types of drama for this period.

One of the first plays to receive critical comment in

all four periodicals was John Home's Asia. The Gentleman's,
*—

 

as has been noted, was not entirely kind to the play. The

‘

reviewer felt the "suspense" should have been better

(A, . ._. ll

lim" 53F . p

 

-134—

maintained, and he offered some picayune objections to the
language; he insisted, for example, that ”to risk danger”

was an inaccurate expression, "To risk and to endanger being

 

flu

synonymous terms.” But he ended by praising the play for its
”warm and generous sentiments in behalf of
l

liberty and

public spirit and for ”recommending" re igion. Virtues

}

which, for this critic, more than compensated for the play's

24

defects. The Honthly was even less enthusiastic. Its

reviewer found the play much inferior to Home's earlier piece,
Douglas, a work which this critic did not value highly; and
for this reason he declined to provide much elaborate critic-
ism. He noted, though, that the audiences had been enthu-
siastic, a reaction which he attributed to the dismal state
of the English stage: ”If such generous encouragement is
afforded to such indifferent performances, what grateful,
what unbounded returns of applause and munificence, may not
GENIUS, KIT, and POETRY eXpect, if ever THEY should deign to
revisit the British Theatre."25

The Critical, on the other hand, granted the play a long
and generally favorable review. Although the critic allows
that the subject is "too remote" the play is set in ancient
Sparta), and that the introduction of a secondary love plot

is clearly a flaw, he finds: "In characters and manners,

which is the second part of tragedy, it is not easy to excel

 

2&93, XXVIII (Har.. 1758), 117—20.
2? .

KR, XVIII (Iar., 1758), 275-76.

-185-

Y?
(I

our author.” he particularly praises Home for his ability to
fit speech to character: "One would imagine that his were no
uncommon talent, and that whoever could draw characters, could
likewise make them speak their own language. But to what ever
cause it is owing, no tragic poet for many years, our author
excepted, has made his characters Speak any other than the

same language." And, like the Gentleman's critic, this

 

reviewer was especially pleased by the play's ”many thoughts

(j
b.

that are virtuous, noble, and in the true spirit of patriotism."
The review, incidentally, probably furnished additional
incriminating evidence to those who claimed that the "Scotch
Tribunal" always praised Scots, no matter what the merit of
their writing. The accuracy of such charges might be guaged

by noting that the Critical had given Home's Douglas an

.._.L...
27

 

unfavorable review only the year before.
The London, as was often the case, had less good to say
about the play than the others. Its reviewer objected, like

the Gentleman's, to some flaws in the language: ".......in

 

many places it wants even the harmony of prose; in others it
has not the variety, that a judicious ear always eXpects in
verse composition.” But he found none of the compensating

virtues which had impressed the Gentleman's critic, and he

 

confessed himself quite unable to account for the success

of this or of Home's earlier play.28

 

2623.. v (Mar., 1758), 233-242.
2793, III (Mar., 1757). 258-268.

28LH, XXVII (Mar., 1758), 156-159.

nu-

-186-

The reviews of Agis are rather more typical than intri-

sically interesting. With the exception of the Monthly's

 

review, which is a brief article in the "Monthly Catalogue"

section, all the reviews follow the usual format. They in-
clude a plot summary and some quotation with critical remarks
confined largely to the beginning and end. The same format,

in short, as that found throughout in the Gentleman's. The

 

Critical and Monthly, in their major articles, often gave very

 

elaborate summaries and quoted extensively, sometimes repro-
ducing entire scenes. And, while in this particular case the
periodicals had somewhat different opinions of the merit of
the work, their comments were mainly focused on the same
features. This pattern occurs in almost all of the reviews.
To turn to a different kind of performance, the treat—
ment of Garrick's Eymgn is worth noting because the piece is
a "musical entertainment," and it is not usual to find such
a work reviewed in all of the magazines. Perhaps the author's
name accounts for the attention it received. In any case,
the Gentleman's gave it a very full review. Characteristically,
the reviewer begins by remarking that ”an adequate idea of the
merit of this piece, as a theatrical entertainment, cannot be
formed in the closet, as it depends in great measure upon the
music, scenes, and machinery. Upon perusal, the dialogue and
incidents seem to have the least share in producing the plea—
sure eXpressed by those who have been present at the represen-
tation." He then proceeds, again characteristically, to

analyze these very aSpects, and he finds much to object to.

-137—

He thinks the supernatural machinery not only unnatural but
unnecessary, the love story insufficiently ”delicate,” and
the characters undistinguished--"Arcadian characters are, in
effect, no characters at all: '%e have Love, Resentment,
Jealousy, and Revenge, but not Love, Resentment, Jealousy,
and Revenge marked with the striking and known diversities
that distinguish men from men among the realities of living
nature.” And he also objects to the lack of a clear moral.
The most interesting feature of the review is the long section
already cited (p. 110) devoted to a theoretical discussion of
the differences between works of "fancy" and works of "imita-
tion." The latter are more difficult, but ultimately more
valuable, and gymgn, the critic notes, is a work of the former
kind. Nevertheless, he ends by remarking that, if the play
will not stand comparison with the best comedies, still, it
"was intended to produce pleasure of another kind, by other
means, and is not defective for wanting what is incompatible
with its plan.”29
The Monthly's commentary is not nearly as full, but it
follows the same lines. Again the critic Opens by admitting
that this play, at least, must be judged as a stage perform-
ance: "The author of Cymon seems professedly to have
calculated his piece to Speak to the eye and the ear; but the
Eggd letter alone falls under the cognisance [Eig7of our
tribunal, so that near half of what the writer has to alledge

in his favour becomes inadmissible." 1e finds more of a more

 

299g, XXXVII (Jan., 1767). 28-32.

-138—,

to the piece than the Gentleman's could discover, though he

 

wishes "that Merlin did not appear in some measure to act
from a spirit of revenge, which is a passion unallied to pure
virtue." And he adds that the songs are "happiliy written”
and "well accommodated” to the actions and persons.

The Critical is equally ”relativistic" and concentrates
on the same aspects. Its reviewer finds that the "airs are
characteristic and poetical" and he too points out that the

"The dramatic

usual criteria for judgment must be abandoned:
romance now under consideration, however unequal to Shake-
Speare, equally eludes the laws of regular criticism...Its
charms, however, are not the less on that account; and many
who have seen this romantic lady-muse painted and $3333 on

the theatre, have been apt to cry her up."31

In other words,
all three periodicals focus on the same features and deliver
nearly identical judgments. Specifically, they agree, in the
first place, that the piece should not be subjected to "the

laws of regular criticism,"

and, in the second place, that

the play must be seen to be adequately judged. It is true

that neither this approach nor the fact that apparently none

of the reviewers had seen the play prevented them from deliver-
ing the usual judgments on character deve10pment or probabil-

ity. But they all imply that such comments count for little

in this case.

 

30MB, XXXVI (Jan., 1767). 71.

5193, XXIII (Jan., 1767), 58-59.

-189-

The London's review, which appears under the heading
"Theatrical Connoisseur," provides some contrast. The critic
begins by saying he had set about his task by calling for
his copy of Aristotle, hoping to "go as adroitly to work as
the Monthly Reviewers did, when they damned Fingal, because
it was not an epic poem constructed on the model of the Iliad."
He finds, of course, that nothing in Cymgn fits the classical
prescriptions, or any prescriptions: "It is, indeed, difficult
to say by what laws the writers of Romance are strictly bound.”
But the difference is that this fact bothers him much more

than it had the reviewers for the other periodicals; and

despite his sarcastic reference to the Monthly's handling of

 

Fingal, he proceeds to give the play a rather scathing review,
2
condemning it particularly for its many ”improbabilities."3
The simultaneous appearance the next year of Kelly's

False Delicacy and Goldsmith's The Good-Ratur'd Kan furnishes

 

 

examples of the main types of comedy for the period. Hawkes-

worth's comments on both in the Gentleman's have already

 

been presented (pp. 154-158), and it will only be necessary to
remind the reader that, despite his sentimental bias, he
found more to object to in Kelly's play, although he granted
that both had "great merit."33 The Monthly, while generally

favorable, was less convinced of the merit of either. The

 

3221?, XXXVI (Jan., 1767). 25-26.
35%. XXXVIII (Feb., 1768), 78-32.

-190...

plays were reviewed in two consecutive articles in the ”monthly
Catalogue" and the reviews appear to be the work of the same

man. The critic begins his comments on False Delicacy by

 

pointing out that it is ”a very agreeable play to Egg; but

the critical reader, who has not been present at the represen-
tation, will be apt to wonder what its uncommon success could
be owing to.” And he is unable to throw any light on the

matter:

There is undoubted merit, however, in this comedy;
though it is no easy matter to say, precisely, in what
parts of the work its merit chiefly consists. 'Tis not
in the plot, for there is nothing in the story which
merits that name; 'tis not in the characters, for there
is scarcely one character in the piece;—-not in the
language, for that is by no means pure;--not in the
sentiments, for in them there is nothing uncommon. In

short, as the song says 'tis Celia altogether.34

The praise of Goldsmith's piece is even less generous,
The review opens by pointing out that this, in contrast to
Kelly's work, is "an agreeable play to read.--It is not

every dramatic production that will act well...Of this, V G's

\
A; O

 

comedy is a proof." On the bailiff scene, which was cut from

the stage performance after the first night, the critic

 

342m, XXXVIII (Feb., 1768), 159.

-l9l-

remarks that "the bailiff and his black-guard follower appeared
intolerable on the stage; but we are not disgusted with them

in the perusal." And he finally decides that "on the whole,
though there are considerable defects, and several absurd-
ities in the piece, some parts of it are truly comic, and

shew the writer to be a man of genius; though, perhaps, not
sufficiently conversant with the world to lay a foundation for
great success, in a first attempt especially, in this most
difficult branch of literary composition."35

The Critical, like the monthly, thought that Kelly's

 

play was fairly good, but was equally unable to say why. In
the first place, its reviewer was not convinced that the

subject was worth the attention--"False Delicacy is at most

 

but a sin against petites morals, and seems rather to call for
ridicule than to demand our graver censure.” He admits that
the author has "introduced [His sentiment§7 with peculiar
felicity and address;” but he finds many flaws in the play.
”The fable," he continues, ”is liable to many objections. It
treSpasses most Openly against the rules of unity and simplic-
ity; and, what is worse, the subject of the underplot is more
important in itself, and in its moral, than the principal
story." He further objects that the "catastrophe...is indeed
defective, and seems to be hurried on merely because we are
arrived to the last act. If plays should, according to rule,

consist of five acts, according to reason it should appear to

 

35 ,
gfi, XXXVIII (Feb., 1708), 159-160.

-192-

the spectator, as if the story could not have occupied more
or less Space, without tediousness or obscurity." And he
agrees with Hawlesworth that most of the complications in

the play stem from "false sense" or something other than
"false delicacy." And yet, this catalogue of violations does
not prevent him from concluding, with the other critics,

that the play has merit.36

The Critical took up Goldsmith's piece in the next

 

article, and, considering the fact that Goldsmith was one of
the periodical's contributors, the review is certainly
critical enough to allay any charges of favoritism in this
case. Again, the play is granted neither unqualified praise
nor complete censure-~"this play has much merit, and many
faults." But most of the Space is devoted to the faults.
Remarking on Goldsmith's argument that character is the

essence of comedy, the reviewer comments:

The chief merit, as well as the principal aim of the
author, seems to be in the delineation of character:

but surely he has fallen into an error by supposing,
that, in the composition of a comedy, 'no more would be
expected of him} Much more may be, and always will be,
eXpected from a comic writer; and if the author's
prepossession in favour of our old poets had led him to
a more studious imitation of them, he would have thought

the fable as worthy of his attention as the characters.

 

6
j 93, XXV (Feb., 1768), 145—147.

-193-

And on the bailiff scene he seems, like the others, not quite

able to make up his mind. ”We neither wholly approve nor

condemn. Coarse characters should be touched by a delicate

pencil, and forcible situations should be rather softened

than aggravated. 'Humour (it is true) will sometimes lead

us into the recesses of the mean'; but in pursuing humour into

those recesses, the author, like Jove under Philemon's roof,

should not wholly abandon the dignity of his own character.”37
The London again provides a contrast. It was the most.

enthusiastic about Kelly's play, and the least impressed by

Goldsmith's. The review of False Delicacy appeared in the

 

January 1768 issue under the heading ”The British Theatre."
The first review under this heading had appeared in June of
the previous year, and the feature was continued in July and
August. In September, however, it was missing, and the
publishers added a note to that number, "5e desire to hear
from our Theatrical Correspondent." Apparently they did not
hear from him until this January review. After this date,
"The British Theatre” appeared as a regular feature until
the middle of the neXt decade. Most of the reviews under
this heading appear to be the work of one man; they are
fairly consistent in form and in the critical principles
they express. One of the characteristics of this body of
criticism is its strong sentimental bias, a bias clearly

revealed by the reviews of these two plays. Thus, of False

 

3703, XXV (Feb., 1788), 147-143.

-194-

Delicacy, we read that ”the fable of this comedy is extremely

 

interesting, and most admirably conducted,” a point flatly con-

 

tradicted by both the Konthly and the Critical; and we are

H

T‘

told, further, that the language is easy, elegant, and

I

characteristic,‘ and that ”the sentiments are such as will

eminently distinguish the writer as long as virtue and morality
are held reSpectable.” The reviewer ends by ”congratulating
the public upon this addition to their entertainment, in which

the comic muse appears in her native Simplicity, undebauched

.33

by ribaldry or licentiousness.‘
But when the London took up Goldsmith's play the follow—
ing month, it found the work "disappointing." The cr'tic was
particularly annoyed by its lack of a "moral,” which brings
out another characteristic of this reviewer--his firm
conviction that ”instruction” was far more important tha

mere ”

pleasure" in a dramatic production. Such a position,
of course, is hardly a distinguishing trait in this period,

but the London's reviewer was usually even more insistent on

 

this point than the critics of the other journals, who were
certainly insistent enough. In this review, for example, the
critic quotes Goldsmith's preface in defense of ”laughing"
comedy with qualified approval, but he is careful to add that
"we have too much understanding, thank God, in these times to
be charmed with obscenity because it may be brilliantly

expressed, and we have too much shame to encourage the

 

38;, XXXVI: (Jan., 1768), 6-7.

infamous licentiousness of the literary blashemer, who form-
rly dared to crack his jest upon divinity.” The last remark
is clearly another slap at Restoration drama, one of this
critic's favorite targets; but Goldsmith's sins are of
omission rather than commission. "The great end of he stage,"
he continues, ”should be to mingle instruction in such a
manner with amusement, as constantly to interest the spec-
tators in the cause of virtue and abilities so extensive as
Dr. Goldsmith's, are but meanly employed, when they labour
more earnestly to provoke a smile, then to advance the most
exalted purposes of humanity.”

Commenting on Goldsmith's emphasis on character, the
reviewer echos the Critical in claiming that character and
humor are certainly important "where they increase our
amusement, or add to our instruction" but warning that the
author who supplies only these will find his play condemned.
and he adds a passage which accounts both for his critical
treatment of this play and his unqualified praise for False
Delicacy: "we cannot be instructed at a theatrical repre-
sentation, unless our passions are affected; the picture must
be lifeless which is not calculated to work upon our hearts."39
This critic was very probably the author of the essay which
appeared in "The British Theatre” section later in the year.
It provides a View of "sentimental" drama which accurately

reflects the position of all of these periodicals.

 

392g, XXXVII (Feb., 1768), 59-62.

 

-196-

The theatrical productions of the present time,
though so generally ridiculed by the pert, or the in-
considerate, are nevertheless founded upon good sense,
and have a manifest view to promote the laudable ends
for which the stage was originally erected.--If there-
fore the public mind is so well disposed as to prefer
them to those glittering compositions of wit and
licentiousness, which formerly gave so much satisfaction,
he must be an enemy to virtue who Speaks of them with
disapprobation on account of their gravity.--By condemning
sentimental pieces, we reason against the sense of our own
conviction, and nothing can be a stronger argument of a
bad heart, than a willingness to be entertained at the
eXpense of morality.--From this I would by no means infer
that the abortive endeavours of stupidity are to be
encouraged, because they may be written with a good
design.--Dullness will always be exposed to contempt,
and the wretched execution of a blockhead be treated with
derision, however meritorious his motive; but where men

of real talents give us a connected interesting fable,

 

where they conduct that fable judiciously, and present us
not only with an instructive but an entertaining picture
of life, it is the business of every benevolent spectator
to give the strongest marks of applause, and the kindest
thing that can be said of those who censure it for being

grave, is, that they are wholly destitute of understanding.43

 

409g, XXXVII (July, 1768), 340.

~197-

These remarks, with their distinction between the dull and
the affecting on the one hand, and between the "licentious"
and the chaste on the other, put the emphasis where the
reviewers for each of these periodicals generally thought it
should be. Dull comedies certainly were not to be praised
simply because they were prOperly moral; but no play could
be good if it were not designed "to promote the laudable
ends for which the stage was originally erected." As for
laughter, it was agreeable, but not essential. -

The implications of this view can be seen in the reviews
just quoted. Taken together, they reveal, in the first
place, that each of the journals was quite willing to applaud
a ”sentimental" comedy. Though none of the others was as
enthusiastic as the London, they all praised Kelly's play,

even when, as in the case of the Monthly and Critical, the

 

reviewer couldn't quite decide what made it good. On The

Good-Natur'd Man, the excised "bailiff scene” apparently

 

caused them some difficulty. with the exception of the London's

 

reviewer, who did not comment on the scene, none of the other
critics found it as offensive as the first audience had.
Nevertheless, they were careful to add that they disapproved

1‘

Or "licentiousness" in any form, and, as if to emphasize the
point, they took the occasion to deliver a few remarks on
the corrupt taste of the previous age. No doubt Hawkesworth,

writing in the Gentleman's, put the case for all of them

 

when he said that "if in this instance the taste of the

-l98-

present age may be thought over nice, it cannot be denied
to have driven from the stage, many things that were in the
highest degree offensive to virtue and good sense."41
Concerning Goldsmith's prefatory remarks on comedy, the
consensus was that his emphasis on character and laughter was
too extreme. The reviewers granted the importance of these,
but insisted that plot development was quite as essential as
character drawing, and a pointed moral more valuable than
mirth, though, ideally of course, all should be combined.

The treatment of one more play, Cumberland's ghg_fl£§£

Indian, will serve to complete these comparisons. The

London, which had handled Cumberland's The Brothers rather

 

severely two years before, gave this work a full and generally

favorable review. To the play's discredit, the London's

 

critic noted that "the story is exceedingly incorrect, and is,
on a variety of occassions, carried on in a manner repugnant

to probability.” And he objected, further, that the characters
were "unoriginal," the diction, "not unexceptional," and the
manners "violated glaringly.” But, turning to more important
matters, he found the moral "excellent" and he thought the
sentiments merited "the greatest approbation." "With all its
imperfections on its head, it pleases very much in the

"42

representation. The critic's sentimental bias is again

quite apparent in this review.

 

419g, XXXVIII (Feb., 1768), 80.

-199-

The Critical was even more generous with its praise.

 

The reviewer's approach is interesting: "We saw it per-
formed with pleasure; but having been long accustomed to

the splendid impositions of a theatre, forebore to give our
judgment till we had dispassionately perused it in the
closet.” This critic, at least, thought the closet the more

reliable test; but elsewhere the Critical reviewers usually

 

allowed the "splendid impositions" of the theatre to influence

their judgments. In this case, though, it makes little

difference, for the play passes either test. The only objec-

tion the critic has to offer is that perhaps the West Indian

is not really an accurate portrait, being a little better

than most West Indians in the reviewer's eXperience! But

his, he admits, counts for little. "The reader," he concludes,

"will be surprised with new prOSpects at every turn; and will

be ready to join with us in pronouncing, that he never

received greater pleasure from any comic performance of modern

date, either in the closet or on the stage.“1L3
The Gentleman's and the Monthly were equally laudatory.

It is known that Hawkesworth wrote the review for the honthly,

and since I have assumed throughout this study that he was

responsible for the reviews in the Gentleman's signed "X,"

 

a comparison of the two comments would furnish a test for

this hypothesis. Since the test has recently been performed,

 

4393, XXXI (Feb., 1771), 112-116.

-200-

there will be no need to repeat it here; it will suffice to
say that such a comparison supports the theory that Hawkes-

44 Because the review in the

worth and "X" are the same.
Honthly is fuller, I will confine my attention to it alone.
Here Hawkesworth praises warmly and for characteristic

reasons .

we think there are few pieces intended for the
stage that, upon the whole, have more merit than the
Jest Indian. The plot is complicated without confusion
or perplexity; the characters are strongly marked, yet
natural; the dialogue is sprightly, without laboured
turns of epigrammatic wit, and the sentiment is at once
elevated and tender. It excites a curiosity strongly
interested, and has so blended the pathetic and
ridiculous, that if the spectator or reader has sensi-
bility or discernment, he will be kept almost continually

laughing with tears in his eyes.45

The paragraph reads like a summary of the Gentleman's usual

 

requirements for a good play, and it would serve as well for

the Monthly, the Critical, or the London. The play, of course,

 

44See Donald D. Eddy, "John Hawkesworth: Book .eviewer

in the Gentleman's Magazine." P<, XLIII (April, 1964), 223-38.
Eddy compares all of Hawkeswort s articles in the Konthl*
with the reviews signed "X" in the Gentleman's and cone udes,
”...I believe that the evidence now available establishes the
probability that ZHawkesworth7 wrote the "X” reviews in the

Gentleman's Magazine from 1767-1773." (p. 236)

45gg, XLIV (Mar., 1771), 142.

 

 

-201-

is not free from defects, and these Hawkesworth catalogues at
great length. There are the usual objections to "improbabil-

ities," and, more seriously, to the moral effect.

In the character of the fest Indian, the Author has
furnished an apology for vice, or rather countenanced an
apology that every libertine uses to silence the remon-
stances of conscience, and reconcile good principles
with bad practices. He makes high spirits, strong feel-
ings, and warm passions, a kind of despensation for
debauchery; as if virtue, with regard to women, was
only to be eXpected in the indifference of frigidity, or
never to be purchased but when it could be had at a low

/

price.

But, after detailing these and other "defects," Hawkesworth
remarks that "From such inaccuracies, supposing this criticism
in every article to be just, no performance is free; and,
perhaps, it would not be easy to find another piece upon our
stage in which they are so few." And he concludes that ”The
West Indian is an appeal to sound judgment and true taste,

from the sterile affectation of lovers_gf simplicity, and the

 

unimpassioned fecundity of those who put mere incidents into
dialogue.”47 The method, the tone, the style, and the critical

principles eXpressed here are characteristic of "X” in his

461b1d., p. 144. lgf. gg, XLI (Xar., 1771), 126. ”The
moral ijections to the character of Belcour are such as.we
made long ago to that of Ranger, in our account of the
Sugpicious Husband,” Ei§., that a ”rake" should not be so
handSomer rewarded. - .

471b1d., p. 150.

 

 

-p

0 so 0 1 fl . I . o,
reView of this and of other plays in tne gentleman s magazine.

More to the point, the principles are characteristic of the
reviews in each of these periodicals.

Other reviews could be examined in this fashion, but it
would serve little purpose to do so.48 Those already presented
give a reasonably accurate picture of the usual approach and
some indication of the treatment given to different types of
plays. The reviews show a marked similarity in format and
focus. Although, from even such a small and largely random
sampling, it is clear that there was often disagreement about
the merit of a particular work or the emphasis due a specific
aspect, it is equally clear that most of those critics
approached a play with similar assumptions about the nature
and purpose of drama, and that their attention was concentrated
on the same features. A larger sampling would only reinforce
these conclusions. But since my concern is primarily with
the attitudes these reviewers held toward the dominant
questions of critical theory, it should be possible at this
point to abstract from these and other reviews the positions
taken by the different periodicals on these questions.

Again, the fact that the reviews were written by several
authors over a period of several years almost insures that

even for a single periodical there will be no complete

uniformity, no unanimous stand on all questions, and perhaps

 

48It might be noted here that Arthur Sherbo, English

Sentimental Drama, pp. 147-161, compares the reviews oi
several other plays in these same periodicals in an effort
to determine the popularity of sentimental drama.

"I

-20)-

no entirely coherent theory underlying all the criticism.
Further, I make no attempt here to examine each periodical as

thoroughly as the Gentleman's has been examined. Nevertheless,

 

by using the dramatic criticism in the Gentleman's Magazine

 

as a reference point, it should be possible to plot the

positions of the others and to determine to what extent the

 

Gentleman's criticism is representative of the journalistic
criticism of the period.

Because the dramatic criticism in the London Magazine

 

 

before 1759 is so slight, and because:iu3reviews were neither
as frequent nor as full as those in the Monthly and the

Critical, it can be dealt with separately and briefly.

 

Between 1759 and 1767 the magazine printed several reviews of
current plays. Some of these were from other sources, espec-
ially the g2, James's Chronicle, but many were original.

They consist largely of summary with an occassional paragraph
of criticism appended. The most obvious feature of those

reviews which sets them apart from those of the gentleman's

 

is their concern with the ”rules." They seldom fail to
remark the extent to which the play in question has conformed
to these rules, and any wide departure is labelled a flaw.

In other aspects, most notably in their emphasis on the moral

function of drama, they are similar to the Gentleman's,

 

though the comments are seldom very full.
But with the appearance of "The British Theatre" feature
in the summer of 1767, and then regularly after January 1768,

the London's criticism of drama becomes more interesting.

 

-204-

Until 1776, when there appears to have been a change in
reviewers, the criticism is fairly consistent in tone, style,
and principle and was, probably, the work of one man. As the
previously quoted reviews would suggest, this critic's
judgements sometimes departed from those rendered in the
other periodicals. He had, for example, less praise than the
others for Goldsmith's two plays, mainly because they
emphasized mirth to the loss, he thought, of moral. And even

though he applauded She Stoops £2 Conquer (March 1773) for

 

”taking the field against that monster called Sentimental
Comedy," he generally favoured the better examples of that
form, even going so far as to suspend his usual criteria in
favor of fine and moral sentiments: "How far the piece

[Colman's English Merchant7may bear the test of severe

*—

 

criticism, we pretend not to determine, but must say, that
if sentimental speeches, together with a mixture of true
humour, devoid of the least tincture of obscenity or immor-
ality, can please an audience, this cannot fail of having a
happy effect."49
Elsewhere, however, he applied the "test of severe
criticism" rigorously, and he was generally less willing
than the other critics to let the effect of the stage per-
formance influence his judgments. On the whole he was

convinced that the present state of the English stage was

pretty sad, a condition which he blamed largely on the bad

 

49%, XXXVI (Mar., 1767), 143.

~205-

taste of the public and on the theatre managers for catering
to and, worse, for forming that taste. Still, he granted that
the present age was superior in this respect to the Restoration,
for he seldom missed an opportunity to lash the dramatists of
that period. He thought them deficient in many respects, but
mainly, of course, he disapproved of their "immorality."

The bulk of this criticism appeared between 1767 and 1773.
At this point the reviews began to be less detailed. Full
reviews appeared again in 1776 and 1777, but these seem to
have been done by another critic. They are similar in some
aspects, but notably different in others. One obvious
change is the increased amount of favorable comment given to
Restoration drama. Even so, this critic could object to
the figure of the "good-hearted rake" in the School Egg
Scandal (May, 1777), though he warmly praised the play. fter

this brief revival, the London's reviews again became less

 

frequent and less detailed. From this relatively small body
of criticism, then, the obvious point to be extracted is that
while it exhibits some differences from the dramatic criticism
in the Gentleman's and in the two literary reviews, the
differences are mainly of degree, not of kind. With the
exception of the rather marked tendency to disregard the

stage as a test of a play's merit, the London's critics were

 

Operating on the same principles as those of the other

periodicals.

The two literary reviews, of course, furnish a much

richer diet for a longer period. A point by point comparison

-206-

with the Gentleman's on questions of critical theory reveals
some differences. The Critical, for example, sometimes
exhibits a somewhat more conservative stance on the matter of
the "rules." Thus a 1758 review of Robert Dodsley's Cleone

laments the modern ignorance of these prescriptions:

Here we to judge this performance by the rules of
Aristotle and Horace, we should find it defective in
many articles. These, however, are so little known,
and so much less regarded in this country, that the very
mention of them will be supposed to imply pedantry. We
are certainly so little used to regular dramatic pieces,
that the majority among us have no idea of a perfect

play.50

This critic then goes on to object that his fellow reviewers
tend to carry the doctrine of probability too far, being un-
able to distinguish what is “£3322 naturam" from that which
is ”contra naturam." But he is not completely out of step
with his time, for he ends by praising the play because the
author, "has made ample amends in awakening all the com-
passion and tenderness of the human heart.”51

Similarly, the Critical departs from the Gentleman's in

 

showing, on occasion, somewhat less receptivity to sentimental

comedy. No uniform attitudes emerges. C. E. Jones, in his

 

50933, VI (Dec., 1758), 465.
51Ibid., p. 467.

-207-

survey of the Critical's treatment of drama, sees a pattern

 

in the reviews of this form. He finds the periodical
accepting it slowly in its first decade, and suddenly reject-
ing it again in the mid-1770's.52 Certainly ”sentimentalism”
is disparaged rather frequently in the journal toward the

end of this period. Thus, a 1773 review of Goldsmith's

She Stoops £3 Conquer welcomes the play as a revival of true
comedy and remarks: "The public have for some years submitted
to being imposed on by a species of comedy very different from
what the ancients conceived, or the moderns, upon the revival

d.”53 This review cites Aristotle on

of literature, adopte
comedy with approval, as does a review from the following
year: ”Ridicule, as Aristotle teaches us, is the proper
business of comedy, and we cannot avoid looking on the very
sentimental parts of our modern comedies as heterogeneous."54
And four years later a critic complains that "whining I
tragedies are, if possible, more unnatural than sentimental

comedies."55 Elsewhere, however, sentimental plays are

praised. Perhaps the Critical did not accept the form quite

 

as readily as the Gentleman's or the London, but it was far

 

from hostile toward plays like Kelly's False Delicacy, Colman's

 

The English Merchant, or Cumberland's The West Indian.

 

 

 

52”Dramatic Criticism in the Critical Review, 1756-1735,"
p. 135.-
5323, XXXV (man, 1773), 230.

5&93, XXXVIII (Sept., 1774), 238.

f"

59“
b3, XLV (Feb., 1778), 154,

 

Other departures from the Gentleman's position are
equally slight. A late review approves tragicomedy on the
same reasoning Johnson had advanced, namely, that it was "not

inconsistent with nature or the events of real life,‘ which

contrasts with the Gentleman's statement on this form; but

 

the evidence on either side is slight.56 Another difference
can be found in the praise given to authors of other periods.
The Restoration dramatists, though usually condemned for
their "immorality,” are given more favorable mention in the

Critical than in the Gentleman's; and Addison, curiously, is

 

 

often praised. A 1764 review, for example, speaks of "the

English stage, of which Mr. Addison's Cato is one of the

greatest ornaments,‘ and a later review claims that ”The

sterling lines of Addison are worth all the sing-song,

tedious declamation of Corneille."57

In fact, Jones has found
that, after Shakespeare of course, Addison is the author most
frequently cited with fevor.58 It is difficult to account for

this, for it seems to run counter to the Criticalis usual

 

preferences in tragedy. Other minor differences could be

 

56GB, LVII (Mar., 1784), 205. of. Johnson, Ramblep 156:

"the connexion of important with trivial incidents, since it
is not only common but perpetual in the world, may surely be
allowed upon the stage, which pretends only to be the mirror
of life." (Sept. 14, 1751). The GM's comment appeared the
following year (XXII (key, l75g72247, ”Of all the inventions
that ever came into a poet's teeming brain, the tragi-comedy
may justly be deemed the most absurd and most unnatural."

570R, XVII (Jan., 1764), 71 and XXX (July, 1770), 25.

 

" ”Dragatic Criticism in the Critical Review,1756-
1785, p. 2 .

 

-209-

noted, but, in comparison with the great number of similar-
ities in the reviews of the two periodicals, such differences
are insignificant.

An examination of the Ionthly's reviews for the same

 

period also uncovers occasional departures of the Gentleman's

 

usual position. One critic, for example, still thought the
perservation of the "unities" a point in a play's favor:
"With respect to the critical rules of the ancients, Hr.
EEEEE has strictly observed the three grand unities, and his
poem has thereby the advantage of the nicest regularity,
added to the peculiar races and ornaments of the author's
imagination: an example which may suffice to 'obviate the
current opinion, that a strict adherence to these unities,
restrains the genius of the poet.”59 This reviewer also

thought Kason's use of a chorus "amply compensated" for the

play s "want of incident,” a view which clearly sets him
apart from most critics of the period--including the others
who wrote for the Monthly.

And once again there were different ideas on the matter
of the ”closet" and the ”stage.” The notion that the closet
was the better test shows up rather more frequently in the
gppihly than in the Gentleman's or the Critical. The reviewer
just quoted, for example, says of Mason's Elfrida that it ”was

not intended for the stage. hr. Eason did not chuse £3197 to

sink his plan to that level to which it must have been

 

 

lowered, in order to secure its success before an Jfl”lle“
audience; who would scarcely have relished its want of

K
00
” This

incidents, and of the usual variety of character.
reviewer, obviously, was not typical. But John Berhenhout,
who furnished many reviews for the Ionthlv, writes of the

Clandestine Iarriage that "this comedy may not (in the perisal)

 

have quite answered our eXpectations, so greatly raised by
the united names in the title-page," and Owen Ruffhead,

another regular contributor, says of The Jealous' ife that

 

"Lhile the minds of the audience are taken up with this agree-
able bustle, they have no leisure to remark impropriety of
character, inelegance of diction, or improbability of incident,’
and thus he decides, "....not withstanding the general
applause with which this comedy has been represented on the

stage, we shall venture to appeal from the peOple in the

O 61 o
theatre, to the same people in their closets.” This t-.as an
appeal the Gentleman's and the Critical seldom made.62 cit

 

counter examples on all of these points could be cited from
the Honthlv itself, as well as from any of the other period-

icals. G. 3. Stone, concluding his brief survey of dramatic

 

 

bOIbid.

61LR, XXIV (Mar., 1766), 219 and XXIV (Har-, 1751), 131’
183.

62

of. CR, CXVI (Sept., 1773), 309; "It may appear some-
that pres _umpt1ous to vindicate in the closet a piece tinich ha
been rejected in the theatre." Or compare Gh, XKECII (Mar.,
1766), 128: "...the stage, the truest test 0. theatrical
merit.” -

-211-

criticism for these years, gives some indication of the dif-
ficulty: ”Does this comparative approach clarify, or further
obscure the problem of judging eighteenth-century theatrical
taste and perceptive dramatic criticism? The body of critica
literature is one which has so many valences, so to Speak, and
turns out to be so various, both in adulation and damnation,
that one can find verse and chapter to support practically

any thesis he wishes to put forward.63 There is a good deal
of truth to this statement; and if this chapter were to be
expanded to cover other periodicals, the ”valences" would be
even more numerous. And yet, among these three periodicals,
one the most prominent magazine of the period and the others
clearly the two most important literary reviews, the simi-
larity of their dramatic criticism easily overshadows the
differences. In their approach to the task, in their
attitudes toward the central questions of critical theory,
they are fundamentally the same.

Examples of these similarities can be cited for almost
every question. On the purpose of the drama, for instance,
it was never doubted that "pleasing instruction," with the
emphasis on ”instruction,” was the primary goal. The stage,

the reviewers were convinced, was above all a 'school of

"64

virtue, and if a play should be pleasing as well as

instructive, still the fact that it was instructive enough

 

6
3The London Stage, Part 4, 1747-1776, I, ccvii.

 

6403, xv: (Aug., 1763), 385.

 

-212-

could save it from too rough handling: ”if our author has
been the occasion of saving a single person from that
destruction which is the natural attendant of this vice
[gambling7, he deserves more honour and praise than he would
have gained from the wise and the good by writing a finer
piece, finished according to the nicest rules of criticism,
and embellished with all the flowers of poetry."6

The logical corollary of this approach, that "ridiculous
doctrine of modern criticism--Poetical Justice,"66 occasioned
some disagreement, but in essence it was precisely what most
of these critics were calling for. Thus, the Critical argues
that vicious characters "should never have natural weakness,
or foible that arises from generosity," and sets it down for
the hundredth time that a good tragedy must result in the
”signal punishment of vice"; and the Monthly, like the others,
frequently objects to the imprOper distribution of rewards:
”Zthe authoL7 is, surely, reprehensible for bestowing he
prize of beauty, innocence, and fortune on a Gamester, who
has recourse to matrimony, merely as an eXpedient to recruit

his exhausted finances.”67

 

65113, VIII (Feb., 1753), 146-47.

66Addison, Spectator, we. 40 (April 16, 1711).

6

70R, XL (Aug., 1775), 162-63; XXIX (Mar., 1770), 211;
and METXLVII (Dec., 1772), 486. 23;. p.200. above. It is
possible, of course, that Hawkesworth wrote this review as
V'Iello

 

On the essential elements of tragedy, the Critical

 

supplies a list that would serve for any of the periodicals:
"Those who yet retain a true English taste, eXpect in an
English tragedy, variety of character, elevated sentiments,
the prominent and striking features of nature, [and7 a
number of uneXpected and great incidents."68 All the key
terms are here. ”Nature,” "variety," "incidents,” these were
the things an "English" audience, and an ”English” critic,
expected of tragedy. ”Poetical embellishments" were well

enough, but hardly essential.

The pathos is the very life and soul of tragedy: and
though we do not disapprove of the natural and graceful
introduction of poetical embellishments; yet when these
are unjudiciously or too frequently inserted in pieces
of this kind, they interrupt the influence of the scenes
on the passions, and have the same effect on the beauty
of dramatic representation, as a profusion of ornaments

on that of a fine woman."69

Following this reasoning, the critics agreed in rejecting

 

0893, XXIX (Mar., 1770), 211.

69113, XX (June, 1759), 508. william Kenricy of. GM,
XXXVI (gupplement, 1766), 625: ”T e beauties of poetry 35
not, indeed, much increase the pleasure received from a
dramatic performance on the stage; nor even in the closet,
till after the passions have been submitted to its general
power as a concatenation of events exhibited by dialogue.

 

~214-

"stoical apathy” in tragic characters. Thus Colman, reviewing
Hayley's plays in the Konthlz, remarks of one character that
he has "all the firmness and resignation of Cato, without

his rigour and coldness. A Christian hero has not the apathy

of a stoic”; and the Critical, despite its praise for Addison,

 

objects to the stoical resolution which makes men despise

and disregard their misery...but is not sufficiently natural
to excite our pity.”7O
In their treatment of comedy, the periodicals again
agreed far more often than they differed. ”Ridicule" and
i'laughter” remained the key terms in theory, while in practice
"sentimental" plays were praised fully as much as ”manners"

sun

comedies or satires. Kelly's r alse Delicacy was applauded

 

by the same critics who approved Goldsmith's attack on the
form it represented; and the reviewers joined in objecting

to Goldsmith's emphasis on character to the exclusion of ”plot"
or didactic moral. Farce, they theorized, might be granted a
"more extensive latitude,” as long as it excluded ”what is

obviously immoral or profane"; 71

but this did not prevent them,
in practice, from holding plays of this type to the same

rather rigid rules of probability and decorum. "Nature,"

 

701m, LXX (April, 1784), 292 and CR, XXXVII (:zay, 1774),
391ch G1__:, LXIv (July, 1784), 528: "'"Ihe speech...by no
means partakes of the stoical apathy, which was the pride of
that stern nation‘ZI. . Rom37.

7%23, LVI (Oct., 1783), 319.

 

-215

they thought, was always to be the guide. The concept was
used to reject "artificial” language of any sort--"Think not,
however, learned and Judicious Reader! that we mean to
authorize {BEES} as the general vehicle of comic dialogue";72
and it probably accounts in large part for the lack of critical
interest in opera: ”If the excellence of the drama consists
in representing life and manners, the Grecian choruses are
certainly beauties improperly placed. The same holds good
against the music; it undoubtedly had the same degree of
merit as our operas have, but they are both equally unnatural."73
In short, the reviewers for each periodical asked of

H

comedy a good deal of ”business, as long as the incidents

maintained ”that degree of probability which is a fundamental

principle of the drama";74

they liked strongly marked char-
acters, but thought the plot equally important; they agreed
that the wit should lie in "things" rather than in language,
this being the best way to please an "English audience"; they
joined in condemning the "licentiousnéss" of the Restoration
comedies; and they asked, above all, that the playlwwe a clear
moral purpose. William Kenrick, writing in the Ionthlz,

supplies a list of the usual desiderata: "thig7'comedy is

 

well written; the sentiments are for the most part chaste and

elegant; the incidents natural and diverting; the characters

 

721m. LXX (1er 1784), 288. [Colman7

7393, LIV (Nov., 1782), 350.

7&23, XXIX (Apr. 1770), 236.

-216-

drawn from life, and the fable well conducted."75

Parallel examples on these and other aspects could be
added; but enough has been said, I think, to indicate the
essential similarity of these reviews. One additional
aspect deserves mention. It has been suggested in this
study that the dramatic criticism in the Gentleman's Magazine
provides a fairly clear illustration of the shift toward
"critical responsiveness," toward the view, in other words,
that the critic should test the work ”on his pulse" and should
be more concerned to account for the emotional effect of the
drama rather than to apply mechanically a set of critical
rules. This shift in emphasis is somewhat less noticable
in the two reviews, but its influence can be seen there too.
We find, for example, the Critical praising Lillo because
"No man knew better how to seize the heart; to wring it with
contending passions; to melt it into pity; to rouse it to
honour; and to tourture it with remorse"; achievements which
make his deficiencies insignificant; and we are told that
obviated because it is "tremblingly alive in the theatre.
This magic is worth a host of criticism."76 And in the Honthlz
we read that "pathos in the very soul of tragedy" and that

nothing should be allowed to "interrupt the influence of

 

751mg, XXIX (Feb., 1760), 145.

7023: XV (Apr., 1753), 134 and LVII (Mar., 1784), 201

-217-

the scenes on the passions.” We learn that "in our [English7

' and we find that Moore

tragedies we require more passion,’
has compensated for the lack of "poetical beauties" by "having
wrought up the sentiments, dialogue, and distress, in such a
77
H

manner as to move the passions extremely. And we see a
reviewer for the Critical reversing everything he has said
about a play to conclude: "On the whole, though we will not
venture to say that Cleone is a perfect tragedy, we will
recommend it as a performance which abounds with the most
affecting strokes of nature; for, as often as the hgad_may
sit in judgment against it, the hgagt will never fail to
bring in a verdict in its favour."78
It would not do to press the point too far, of course.

Such examples occur less frequently in the Monthly and the

Critical than they do in the Gentleman's, and even there the

 

shift is by no means complete. Nevertheless, its influence
can be seen, and I think it accounts in part for the kind of
ambivalence illustrated above. Time and again, as has been
shown, a critic will invoke the "laws of probability" only

to suspend them; he will detail the absurdies of a play, only

to remark that, after all, they matter little in the

 

77kg. VIII Feb., 1753). 146; xx (June, 1759). 508
[William Kenrick ; and X (Mar., 1754), 222 [The0philus Cibbefl.

78GB, v1 (Dec., 1758), 475. ‘gf. LVIII (Jan., 1784),
58-59; "Tear has derived little advantage from the efforts of
those who endeavoured to remove its imperfections; but we
still prefer the happy conclusion: reason opposes ii, while
the tortured feelings at once decide the contest.

-218-

performance; he will analyze the deficiencies of the language,
only to suggest that these have little to do with the merit
of the piece. It is almost as if these critics felt a
”review” demanded that they remark on these points, that it
was necessary to prove they were acquainted with the usual
tenets of criticism and that they had noticed the deficiencies
of the play, even though they were convinced that such
objections made little difference. The ambivalence is most

noticeable in the Gentleman's criticism, but it emerges

 

occasionally in the other reviews as well.
This, then, is still another point of similarity; and
the list could be eXpanded almost indefinitely. C. E. Jones,

surveying the dramatic criticism in the Critical Review,

 

concludes his study with this summary:

"The reviewers for the Critical approached the drama

 

with moral, patriotic, and stage standards which affected
their treatment of plays, both English and foreign. In
general, the drama, like other forms of literature, is
supposed to improve the morals of both spectators and
readers. For this purpose, poetic justice should be
followed where possible, and vice painted in must un-
attractive colors. Bourgeois characters are allowed in
tragedy, because the audience of the period will identify
themselves more closely with such protagonists. The

English dramatists, especially ShakeSpeare, are preferred

-219-

to the versifying French or the insipid Italians.
Other equally important characteristics might be mentioned;
but the obvious point to be made about this summary is that

it could serve as well for the London Kagazine, for the

 

Monthly Review, or for the Gentleman's Hagazine. For all the

 

diversity of detail, the views these periodicals held on the
fundamental questions of critical theory were the same. The
dramatic criticism in the Gentleman's Magazine, in its
approach to drama, in its treatment of the basic critical
questions, in its direction and emphasis, and even in its

confusions and contradictions, is clearly representative of

the journalistic criticism of its age.

 

79"Dramatic Criticism in the Critical Review, 1756-
1785." pp. 143-144.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Plays Reviewed in the Gentleman's Kr zine

\

5.)
1
t

l

1747-1784

Hhen the review is initialed, the initials appear in

parentheses after the page numbers.

Arne, Thomas. Artaxerxes. XXXII (Feb., 1762), 66-67.

 

. The Guardian Out-witted. XXXIV (Dec., 1764),
593-

Averay, Robert. Britannia and the Gods in Council. XXVI
(June, 1756),*3082

Bickerstaff, Isaac. Love in'a Village. XXXII (Supplement,
1762), 607-609.

 

The Raid RE the Mill. XXXV (Feb.,

 

1765), 77-78.°

. Daphne and Amvntor. XXXV (Oct., 1765),

 

 

 

fl , g ...4_._.._.
Love in the City. XXXVII (Har., 1767),
135.

. The Hypocrite. XXXVIII (Supplement,
1768), 619-620. (X)

 

'Tis Well it's gq'fiorse. XL (Dec.,

1770), 578-82: YXS“

Brook, Frances. Rosina. LIII (Jan., 1783), 28. (Ear.,
1783), 245.““““

 

 

 

Brooke, Henry. The Earl pf Essex. XXXI (Jan., 1761), 45—46.
Brown, John. Barbarossa. XXIV (Dec., 1754), 539-542.

 

. Athelstan. XXVI (Apr., 1756), 155-159.

Burney, Charles. The Cunning Ian. XXXVI (Kov., 1766), 545.

-220-

n22l-

Carey, George. The Xobie Pedlar. XL (Aug., 1770), 383. (Y)

 

Celisia, Dorotea. Almida. XLI (Har., 1771), 127-128. (X)

Colman, George (the elder). The Jealous Tife. XXXI (Feb.,

 

. Philaster. (alt.) XXXIII
(Oct.,‘1763), 503-504.

 

 

and David Garrick. The Clandestine
‘harrfage. *XXXVI (Ear., 1766), 124-128.

 

 

The English Herchant. XXXVII

 

 

(hhr., 1767), 126-130:

. Achilles in Petticoats. (alt.)

XLIII (Dec., 1773): 611-5I2.
Cradock, Joseph. Zobeide. XLII (Feb., 1772), 81-85. (X)

 

 

Crisp, Henry. Virginia. XXIV (Mar., 1754), 128-129.

Cumberland, Richard. The Summer's Tale. XXXV (Dec., 1765),
577-580.

. The Brothers. XXXIX (Dec., 1769),

 

 

5944596. (X)

The fiest Indian. XLI (Har., 1771),

 

1244127. (X)

. The Fashionable Lover. XLII (1772),

 

8098i. (X)

D

Denis, Charles. The Seic

C

f Calais. (Adapt.) XXXV (June,

L

 

Dibden, Charles. The Shepherd's Artifice. XXXV (Hay,
1765), 234-

Dodsley, Robert. Cleone. XXVIII (Dec., 1758), 579-583.

Dow, Alexander. Zingis. XXXIX (Jan., 1769), 40-44. (X)
Fielding, Henry. Th3 Fathers. XLVIII (Dec., 1778), 586-587.
Foote, Samuel. flag m. XXX (July, 1760), 325-329.

. The Lyar

. XXXII (Jan., 1762), 7-8. XXXIV

 

-222-

Foote, Samuel. The Commissary. XXXV (June, 1765), 255-254.

 

The Lame Lover. XL (Aug., 1770), 578-58 . (X)

 

 

 

. The Bankrupt. XLIII (July, 1773). 339-341.

 

Francklin Thomas. -he Earl 23 fiarwich. XXXVI (Supplement,
1766), 624-625. ‘““‘“”‘

 

 

Francis, Philip. Eueenia. XXII (Feb., 1752). 51-52.

Constantine. XXIV (Apr., 1754), 179-131.

 

Gay, John. Achilles in Petticoats. (Alt. by George Colman)
XLIII (Dec., 17737} 611-612.

 

Garrick, David. The Fairies. XXV (Feb., 1755), 93-94.

 

The Guardian. XXIX (Feb., 1759). 84-86.

 

and Georce Colman. The Clandestine Marriage.
XXXVI (Xar., 1766), 124-128.

 

 

Neck or Nothing. XXXVI (Dec., 1766), 591.

 

. ngon. XXXVII (Jan., 1767), 28-32.

 

. §_Peep Behind the Curtain. XXXVII (Rov.,
1767), 551-502. (X)

. The Irish :idow. XLII (Nov., 1772). 528-

 

 

 

532. (XI
Albumazar. (A1t.) XLIII (Oct., 1775), 509.

 

Glover, Richard. Boadicia. XXIII (Dec., 1753), 576-578.

Goldsmith, Oliver. The Good Natur'd Han. XXXVIII (Feb.,

. She Stoops to Concuer. XLIII (Apr.,

 

1773), 192-

Griffigh, Elizabeth. The Platonic rife. XXXV (Jan., 1765),

The Double Mistake. XXXVI (Jan, 1766),

 

19-22.

. The School for Rakes. XXXIX (Apr.,
1769), 199. (X)

 

 

Harrod, X. The Patriot. XXXIX (Oct., 1769), 500-502.

 

Harston, Hall. The Countess oi Salisbury. XXXVII (Sept.,
1767). 468.

 

 

Hawkesworth, John. Oroonokq. (Alt.) XXIX (Dec., 1759), 588.

 

. Edgar and Emmeline. XXXI (Feb., 1761),

 

#1.

Hayley, William. Fla 3 of Three Acts. LIV (Hay, 1784), 354-
355, (July, 17SZTT'S2623277'““‘

Kill, John. The Rout. XXIX (Jan., 1759), 37.

Hoadly, Benjamin. The Suspicious Husband. XVII (Xar., 1747),

some, John. Douglas. XXVII (Xar., 1757), 124-127.
. Aqis. XXVIII (Mar., 1758), 117-120.

 

The Fatal Discovery. XXXIX (Apr., 1769), 200. (X)

 

Alonzo. XLIII (Mar., 1773), 137-140. (x)

 

Hoole, John. Cvrus. XXXVIII (Dec., 1768), 579-581. (X)
. Timanthes. XL (Mar., 1770), 125-126. (X)

 

Hull, Thomas. Pharnaces. XXXV (Feb., 1765), 55.

. The Spanish Lady. XXXV (Kay, 1765), 235.

 

The Fairy Favour. XXXVII (Feb., 1767), 74-75.

 

. The Perplexities. XXXVII (Feb., 1767), 84-85.

 

The Royal Merchant. XXXVIII (Jan., 1768), 51-

 

*32. (X)
Johnson, Samuel. EEEEE- XIX (Feb., 1749), 76-81. (H. H.)
Kelly, Hugh. E3133 Delicacy. XXXVIII (Feb., 1768), 78-82. (X)
. A Word to the Kiss. XL (nay, 1770), 225-227. (X)

 

Kenrick, William. The Widowed Wife. XXXVII (Dec., 1767),
599-600. (X) "' ""'”" "

. The Duellist. XLIII (Dec., 1773). 610-611.

 

-224-

King, Thomas. Hit's Last Stake. XXXIX (Apr., 1769), 199. (X)

 

Lee, Sophia. The Chapter 3: Accidents. LI (Jan., 1781), 33-34.

 

Lennox, Charlotte. The Sister. XXXIX (Apr., 1769), 199-200. (X)
Lloyd, Robert. The Capricious Lovers. XXXIV (Dec., 1764), 593.
Logan, John. Runnameda. LIV (July, 1784), 527-528.

 

Hackli2,40harles. The harried Libertine. XXXI (Jan., 1761),
“\- 7.

 

Mallet, David. Elvira. XXXIII (Jan., 1763), 29-31.
Mason, William. Elfrida. XXII (Hay, 1752), 224-227.

 

 

Moore, Edward. The Foundlina. XVIII (Feb., 1748), 51-54;
(Mar., 174877‘1I4ZII77‘TH. G.); (Hay, 1748), 207-209;
June, 1748), 257-259.

. Gil Blas. XXI (Feb., 1751), 75-78.

 

 

. The Gamester. XXIII (Feb., 1753), 59-61.

 

 

More, Hannah. Percy. XLVIII (Jan., 1778), 33-34.
Korgan, McNamara. Philoclea. XXIV (Feb., 1754), 81-84.

 

Hurphy, Arthur. The Apprentice. XXVI (Jan., 1756), 47.

 

. The Upholsterer. XXVIII (Apr., 1758),

 

 

178-179.
. The Orphan r China. XXIX (Hay. 1759),

*—

 

 

217-220.
. The Desert Island. XXX (Jan., 1760), 3-5.

 

. The Way to Keep Him. XXX (Feb., 1760), 68-74.

 

. The Way to Kee Him. (revised and eXpanded
versionIXXXI_(Jan., 1 o ,—332

 

fig One's Enemy But His Own. XXXIV (Jan.,

 

 

1764), 22.
. Hhat 13 Must All Come To. XXXIV (Jan., 1764),

 

22-230

. The School for Guardians. XXXVII (Jan.,
1767), 34.

-225-

Hurphy, Arthur. The Grecian Daughter. XLII (Xar., 1772),

O'Brien, William. Cross Purposes. XLII (Dec., 1772), 577-580.

 

 

O'Hara, Kane. Midas. XXXIV (Feb., 1764), 89.

Ogborne, David. The Herr Midnight histake. XXXV (Oct.,

 

Otway, Thomas. The Or han. XVIII (Nov., 1748), 503-506.
(H. 3.); (D337, 1 ' , 551-553. (H. S.)

Rogers, Robert. Poneach. XXXVI (Feb., 1766), 90.
Rolt, Richard. The Royal Shepherd. XXXIV (Mar., 1764), 110.
. Almena. XXXIV (Nov., 1764), 521-522.

 

Savage, Richard. Sir Thomas Overbur . (alt. by William
Hoodfall) XLVIT_(Mar., 1777777fg4-135

Schomberg, Ralph. The Death 2; Bucephalus. XXXV (June,l765), 29C.

. The Judgment 33 Paris. XXXVIII (Oct.,

 

Shakespeare, William. King Lear. XXII (June, 1752), 253-
255. (A. B.)

Shirley, William. The Black Prince. XX (Jan., 1750),
5-7; (FGb-, 1730), Si-SB.

Southerne, Thomas. Oroonoko. XXII (Apr., 1752), 163-167.
Thompson, James. Coriolanus. XIX (Jan. 1749), 32-35. (0. R-)

Toms, Edward. The Accomplished Maid. XXXVI (Dec., 1766),
591-592-

Townley, James. Hivh Life Below Stairs. XXIX (Nov.,
1759), 541-553-

Voltaire. Semiramis. XVIII (Oct., 1748), 435-438; (Nov.,
1748), 483l484.

 

. MerOpe. (alt. by Aaron Hill). XIX (Apr., 1749),
171:-1 o J. o H.)

. The Chinese Orphan. XXV (Dec., 1755), 545-549.

 

-226-

Jhitehead, William. The Roman Father. XX (Har., 1750),

 

 

 

 

99-100.
. Creusa. XXIV (Hay, 1754), 227-229.
. The School for Lovers. ’XXII (Apr.,
'I76?);fi157¥161.

dorsdale, James. Gasconado the Great. XXIX (Hay, 1759), 233.
Young, Edward. The Brothers. XXIII (Mar., 1753), 135-137.
(Unknown). The Sham Beaqar. XXVI (Apr., 1756), 200.

*

 

. The Invasion. XXIX (Aug., 1759). 384-385.

 

. The Coach Drivers. XXXVI (Sept., 1766), 430-432.

 

 

. The Ghost. XXXVII (Apr., 1767), 172-173. (X)

 

Codrus. (attrib. to Dorning Ramsbottom). XLIV

(hay, 1774), 228.
. School for Scandal. LIV (Aug., 1784), 612.

 

 

 

B. Secondary Sources

Abrams, Meyer M. The Mirror and the Lamp. New York, 1953.

Adams, Henry H. and Baxter Hathaway, eds. Dramatic Essays
‘2: the Neoclassic Age. New York, 1950.

 

Aronson, A. "The Anatomy of Taste: A Note of Eighteenth
Century Periodical Literature," Hodern Language KOtes,
LXI (1946), 228-236.

 

Avery, Emmett L. Congreve's Plavs 23 the Eighteenth-Century
Stage. New York{*1951.

 

Babcock, Robert H. The Genesis of Shakegpeare Idolatry,

Bate, Halter Jackson. From Classic 33 Romantic. Cambridge,
Lia-880’ 19460

 

 

 

Bateson, F. H. English Comic Drama, 1700-1750. Hew York,
1929.

 

-227-

Bernbaum, Ernest. The Drama 2E Sensibility. Boston, 1915.

 

Blair, Hugh. Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres.
6th ed. 3 vols. Lofidon,l797.

 

 

 

Bloom, Edward A. "'Labours of the Learned': heoclassic
Book Reviewing Aims and Techniques,” Studies 3g
PhilOlOSY’ LIV (1957), 537-563.

. Samuel Johnson in Grub Street. Providence,
R. I., 19370

 

 

Boas, Frederick S. Ag Introduction t_.Bighteenth-Century
Drama, 1700-1780. Oxford, 1953.

 

Boswell, James. Life 9: Johnson, ed. Hill, Powell. 6 vols.
Oxford, 1934-50.

Carlson, C. Lennart. The First Haeazine. Providence, R. I.,

1938. I

Chalmers, Alexander. The British Essayists. Vol. XIX.
Boston, 1865.

 

Colman, George. Prose 23 Several Occasions. 3 vols.
London, 1787.

 

 

Cooke, Yilliam. Elements gfi Dramatic Criticism. London,

1775.

 

 

Draper, John I. ”The Theory of the Comic in Eighteenth
Century England," Journal of English and Germanic
Philolqgl, XXXVII (I938)T'207-233.

Durham, Hillard H., ed. Critical Essays _£ the Eighteenth
Century, H w Haven, 1915.

 

 

 

Eddy, Donald D. ”John Hawkesworth: Book Reviewer in the
Gentleman's Kagazine," Philological Quarterly, XLIII

 

 

Fielding, Henry. Joseph Andrews. Hew York: Rinehart a 00.,
1948.

 

Foote, Samuel. Taste. 2nd ed. London, 1753.

Gentleman, Francis. The Dramatic Censor. 2 vols. London, 1770.

 

Graham,'flalter. English Literary Periodicals. Hew York, 1930.

 

Gray, Charles H. Theatrical Criticism.ig_London 32 1795.
Raw York, 1931.

 

(8.33

Greene, Donald. 'fias Johnson Theatrical Critic of the
Gentleman »a ine?” Review of an “1 sh Studies

 

 

Hawkins, Sir John. Life of Johnson. 2nd ed. London, 1787.

Heron, Robert [E'sued. of John Pinkertog7. Letters 9:
Literaturg. London, 1785.

 

Hooker, Edward H., ed. The Critical Works 2; John Dennis.
2 vols. Baltimore, 1939.

 

 

Hurd, Richard. Horks. 8 vols. London, 1811.

Johnson, Samuel. Letters, ed. G. B. Hill. 2 vols. New York,
1892 '

. Lives of the English Poets ed. G. B. Hill.
3 vols. Oxford, 1905.

 

 

 

 

Jones, Claude E. "Dramatic Criticism in the Critical Review,
1756-1785,” Hodern Languase Ouarterly, X}' (1959), 13-20,
133-144. -

. ”The Rug lish Novel: A Critical View,
1756-1785," Hodern Langua 2e Quarterly, XIX (1958),
147- 159, 213- 224.

 

 

. Smollett Studies. Berlzeley and Los An geles,

 

Xames, Lord (Henry Home). Elements of Criticism. 2nd ed.
3 vols. Edinburgh, 1763.

 

 

Knox, Vicesimus. Es sags, Moral and Literary. 2 vols.
London, 1808.

Xrutch, Joseph. Comedy and Conscience after the Restoration.
New York, 1949.

Larrabee, Stephen A. "The 'Closet' and the Stage' in 1759."
hodern Language Hotes, LVI (1941), 282- 284. .

Lonsdale, Roger. ”Dr. Burney and the Honthl Review,"
Review 2: English Studies New Series), X17 (1 63),

Lounsbury, T. R. Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist. New York,
1902. "" "'

 

Hason, Jilliam. "Letters Concerning the Following Drama,”
prefixed to Elfrida, A Dramatic Poem. 2nd ed.
London, 1752.

—229-

Hayo, Robert D. The English Lovel in the Hagazines, 1740-
1815. Evanston, ., 19o2.

 

HcKenzie, Gordon. Critical Responsiveness. Berkeley and
Los Angeles, 1949.‘

 

Murphy, Arthur. The Gray's Inn Journal. 2nd ed. 2 vols.
London, 1756.

 

Rangle, Benjamin C. The Monthly Review, Indexes of
Contributors and Articles. 2 vols. Oxford, 1934.

 

Richols, John. ”Rise and Progress of the Gentleman's
I

Magazine,' in Index to the Gentleman's Hagazine, p
1787-1818. London, 1821. 2

 

 

 

 

 

Nicoll, Allardyce. A Histor,._£ English Drama, 1660-1900.
6 vols. Cambridge, 195%.

 

Oakes, Norman. "Ralph Griffiths and the Monthly Review," E
Columbia Univ., 1961 (Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation).

 

Raleigh, Walter, ed. Johnson on Shakespeare. xford, 1929.

 

Raysor, Thomas H. ”The Downfall of the Three Unities,"
Modern Language Notes, XLII (1927), 1-9.

Robinson, Herbert S. English Shakespearian Criticism in
the Eighteenth Century. Rew York, 1932.

Roper, Derek. ”Smollett's 'Four Gentlemen': The First
Contributors to the Critical Review,” Review of

English Studies (New Series), X (1959), 38-447—

Sherbo, Arthur. English Sentimental Drama. East Lansing,
1957.

 

, ed. Hew Essays by Arthur Hurphy. East
*Lansing, 1963. .

 

. ”Samuel Johnson and the Gentleman's Harazine,
1750-1755," Johnsonian Studies (Cairo,l9o2),_l3)- b9.

 

 

The Spectator, ed. George A. Aitkin. 6 vols. London, 1898.

Stone, George H., ed. The London Stage, 1660-1800, Part 4,
1747-1776. 3 vols. Carbondale, 111.,1962.

 

 

The Tatler, ed. George A. Aitkin. 4 vols. London, 1898-9.

Tave, Stuart. The Amiable Humorist. Chicago, 1960.

Taylor, Aline H. Next to Shakespeare. Durham, H. C., 1950.

-230-

Timperley, C. H. Encyclopaedia of Literary and Typographical

 

 

Anecdote. 2nd ed. London,“1842.

' a I v-r Vu- _. 9
gellek, Rene. A History of modern Criticism. Vols. I a II.
New Haven, 1955.

 

Tf'

Yost, Calvin D. The Poetry of the Gentleman's hegazine.
Philadelphia, 1936.

 

 

 

 

n.111fuu‘l

.‘U‘IL