Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/456

436 436 D 11 A M A [ENGLISH. dull, to be anything but improper. Much of this found its way even into the epilogues, which, together with the pro logues, proved so important an adjunct of the Restoration drama. These influences determine the general character of what is with a more than chronological meaning termed the comedy of the Restoration. In construction, the national love of fulness and solidity of dramatic treat ment induced its authors to alter what they borrowed from foreign sources, adding to complicated Spanish plots characters of native English directness, and supplementing single French plots by the addition of others. At the same time the higher efforts of French comedy of character, as well as the refinement of expression in the list of their models, notably in Moliere, were alike seasoned to suit the coarser appetites and grosser palates of English patrons. The English comic writers often succeeded in strengthening the borrowed texture of their plays, but they never added comic humour without at the same time adding coarseness of their own. Such were the productions of Sir George Etherege (c. 1636-c. 1694), Sir Charles Sedley (c. 1639- c. 1728), and the ether &quot;gentlemen who wrote at ease ; &quot; nor was there any signal difference between their productions and those of a playwright-actor, such as J. Lacy (d. 1681), and a professional dramatist of undoubted ability, such as J. Crowne. Such, though often displaying the bril liancy of a genius which even where it sank could never wholly abandon its prerogative, were, it must be confessed, the comedies of Dryden himself. On the other hand, the lowest literary deeps of the Restoration drama were sounded by T. D Urfey (1630-1723), while of its moral degradation the &quot; divine Astnea,&quot; the &quot;unspeakable &quot; Mrs Aphra Behn (1642-1689) has an indefeasible title to be considered the most faithful representative. T. Shadwell (1640-1692), fated like the tragic poet Elkanah Settle (1648-1724), to be chiefly remembered as a victim of Drydeu s satire, deserves more honourable mention. Like J. Wilson (d. 1690), whose plays seem to class him with the pre-Restoratidn dramatists, Shadwell had caught something not only of the art, but also of the spirit, of Ben Jonson ; but in most of his works he was, like the rest of his earlier contemporaries, and like the brilliant group which succeeded them, content to take his moral tone from the reckless society for which, or in deference to the tastes of which, he wrote. The absence of a moral sense, which, together with a grossness of ex pression often defying exaggeration, characterizes our comic dramatists from the days of Dryden to those of Con- greve, is the main cause of their failure to satisfy the demands which are legitimately to be made upon their art. They essayed to draw character as well as to paint manners, but they rarely proved equal to the former and higher task ; and while choosing the means which most readily commended their plays to the favour of their immediate public, they achieved but little as interpreters of those essential distinctions which their art is capable of illustrating. Within these limits, though occasionally passing beyond them, and always with the same deference to the immoral tone which seemed to have become an indispensable adjunct of the comic style, even the greatest comic authors of this age moved. W. Wycherley (1640-1715) was a comic dramatist of real power, who drew his characters with vigour and distinct ness, and constructed his plots and chose his language with natural ease. He lacks gaiety of spirit, and his wit is of u cynical turn. But while he ruthlessly uncloaks the vices of his age, his own moral tone is aifected by their influence in as marked a degree as that of the most light-hearted of his contemporaries. The most brilliant of these was in disputably W, Congreve (1672-1728), who is not only one of the very wittiest of English writers, but equally excels in the graceful ease of his dialogue, and draws his characters and constructs his plots with the same masterly skill. His chief fault as a dramatist is one of excess the brilliancy of the dialogue, whoever be the speaker, overpowers the dis tinction between the &quot;humours&quot; of his personages. Though he is less brutal in expression than &quot; manly &quot; Wycherley, and less coarse than the lively Sir J. Yanbrugh (c. 1666- 1726), licentiousness in him as in them corrupts the spirit of his comic art ; but of his best though not mosb successful play 1 it must be allowed that the issue of the main plot is on the side of virtue. G. Farquhar (1678- 1707), whose morality is ou a par with that of the other members of this group, is inferior to them in brilliancy ; but as pictures of manners in a wider sphere of life than that which contemporary comedy usually cho.s&amp;gt;j to illustrate, two of his plays deserve to be noticed, in which we already seem to be entering the atmosphere of the 18th century novel. 2 The improvement which now begins to manifest itself in the moral tone and spirit of English comedy is partly due to the reaction against the reaction of the Restoration, partly to the punishment which the excesses of the comic stage had brought upon it in the invective of Jeremy Collier 3 (1698), of all the assaults the theatre in England has had to undergo the best -founded, and that which pro duced the most perceptible results. The comic poets, who had always been more or less conscious of their sins, and had at all events not defended them by the ingenious sophistries which it has pleased later literary criticism to suggest on their behalf, now began with uneasy merriment to allude in their prologues to the reformation which had come over the spirit of the town. Writers like Mrs Centlivre (c. 1678-1722) became anxious to reclaim their offenders with much emphasis in the fifth act ; and Colley Gibber (1671-1757) whose Apology for his Lift furnishes a useful view of this and the subsequent period of the history of the stage, with which he was connected as author, manager, and actor (excelling in this capacity as representative of those fools with which he peopled the comic stage 4 ) may be credited with the moral intention he claims to have kept in view throughout his career as a drama tist. Sir R. Steele (1671-1729), in accordance with his general tendencies as a writer, pursued a still more definite moral purpose in his comedies ; but his genius perhaps lacked the sustained vigour necessary for a dramatist, and his humour naturally sought the aid of pathos. Accord ingly, taking a hint from Colley Gibber, who so well under stood the public taste, Steele, passing from partial 5 to more complete 6 experiment, became the founder of that sentimen tal comedy which exercised so depressing an influence upon the progress of our drama. Thus the two writers whose associated efforts so largely contributed to open a new and productive vein in our literature, both signally helped to hasten the decline of its dramatic branch. With Cato English tragedy committed suicide, though its pale gho.^t survived ; with The Conscious Lovers English comedy sank into the tearful embrace of artificiality and weak ness, from which it has never again altogether torn itself away. It seems superfluous within the limits of a summary like the present to attempt to classify with any degree of minuteness the remaining phenomena in the history of our dramatic literature. During the 18th century its produc tions were still as a rule legitimately designed to meet the demands of the stage, from which its higher efforts aftir- 1 The Double Dealer. 2 The Recruiting Officer; The Jieaux Stratagem. 3 A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the, English Stage. * Sir Novelty Fashion (Lord Foppington), kc. 5 The Lying Lover; The Tender Husband. 6 The Conscious Lorers. Senti- nieiita corned The di anil sti in the period Wore Carrie