[Footnote 1: Like the chopping in two of the _Respublica_ in the
quotation just above of the well-known Roman formula by which consuls
were to see _ne quid Respublica detrimenti capiat_, this is a jest on
the ignorance of the political wiseacres. Port wine had been forced on
England in 1703 in place of Claret, and the drinking of it made an act
of patriotism,--which then meant hostility to France,--by the Methuen
treaty, so named from its negotiator, Paul Methuen, the English Minister
at Lisbon. It is the shortest treaty upon record, having only two
clauses, one providing that Portugal should admit British cloths; the
other that England should admit Portuguese wines at one-third less duty
than those of France. This lasted until 1831, and so the English were
made Port wine drinkers. Abraham Froth and his friends of the
'Hebdomadal Meeting', all 'Grave, Serious, Designing Men in their Way'
have a confused notion in 1711 of the Methuen Treaty of 1703 as 'the Act
for importing French wines,' with which they are much offended. The
slowness and confusion of their ideas upon a piece of policy then so
familiar, gives point to the whimsical solemnity of their 'Had we been
aware,' &c.]
[Footnote 2: The subject of Mr. Froth's profound comment is now the
memorable March of Charles XII of Sweden to the Ukraine, ending on the
8th of July, 1709, in the decisive battle of Pultowa, that established
the fortune of Czar Peter the Great, and put an end to the preponderance
of Sweden in northern Europe. Charles had seemed to be on his way to
Moscow, when he turned south and marched through desolation to the
Ukraine, whither he was tempted by Ivan Mazeppa, a Hetman of the
Cossacks, who, though 80 years old, was ambitious of independence to be
won for him by the prowess of Charles XII. Instead of 30,000 men Mazeppa
brought to the King of Sweden only himself as a fugitive with 40 or 50
attendants; but in the spring of 1809 he procured for the wayworn and
part shoeless army of Charles the alliance of the Saporogue Cossacks.
Although doubled by these and by Wallachians, the army was in all but
20,000 strong with which he then determined to besiege Pullowa; and
there, after two months' siege, he ventured to give battle to a
relieving army of 60,000 Russians. Of his 20,000 men, 9000 were left on
that battle-field, and 3000 made prisoners. Of the rest--all that
survived of 54,000 Swedes with whom he had quitted Saxony to cross the
steppes of Russia, and of 16,000 sent to him as reinforcement
afterwards--part perished, and they who were left surrendered on
capitulation, Charles himself having taken refuge at Bender in
Bessarabia with the Turks, Mr. Froth's Infidels.]
[Footnote 3: Perhaps Monsieur Palmquist is the form in which these
'Grave, Serious, Designing Men in their Way' have picked up the name of
Charles's brave general, Count Poniatowski, to whom he owed his escape
after the battle of Pultowa, and who won over Turkey to support his
failing fortunes. The Turks, his subsequent friends, are the 'Infidels'
before-mentioned, the wise politicians being apparently under the
impression that they had marched with the Swedes out of Saxony.]
[Footnote 4: Here Mr. Froth and his friends were truer prophets than
anyone knew when this number of the _Spectator_ appeared, on the 19th of
April. The news had not reached England of the death of the Emperor
Joseph I on the 17th of April. During his reign, and throughout the war,
the Hungarians, desiring independence, had been fighting on the side of
France. The Archduke Charles, now become Emperor, was ready to give the
Hungarians such privileges, especially in matters of religion, as
restored their friendship.]
[Footnote 5: After Pultowa, Frederick IV of Denmark, Augustus II of
Poland, and Czar Peter, formed an alliance against Sweden; and in the
course of 1710 the Emperor of Germany, Great Britain, and the
States-General concluded two treaties guaranteeing the neutrality of all
the States of the Empire. This suggests to Mr. Froth and his friends the
idea that there is a 'Neutrality Army' operating somewhere.]
[Footnote 6: Dyer was a Jacobite printer, whose News-letter was twice in
trouble for 'misrepresenting the proceedings of the House,' and who, in
1703, had given occasion for a proclamation against 'printing and
spreading false 'news.']
[Footnote 7: ''The British Princes', an Heroick Poem,' by the Hon.
Edward Howard, was published in 1669. The author produced also five
plays, and a volume of Poems and Essays, with a Paraphrase on Cicero's
Laelius in Heroic Verse. The Earls of Rochester and Dorset devoted some
verses to jest both on 'The British Princes' and on Edward Howard's
Plays. Even Dr. Sprat had his rhymed joke with the rest, in lines to a
Person of Honour 'upon his Incomparable, Incomprehensible Poem, intitled
'The British Princes'.' Edward Howard did not print the nonsense here
ascribed to him. It was a burlesque of his lines:
'A vest as admir'd Vortiger had on,
Which from this Island's foes his Grandsire won.']
* * * * *
No. 44. Friday, April 20, 1711. Addison.
'Tu, quid ego et populus mecum desideret, audi.'
Hor.
Among the several Artifices which are put in Practice by the Poets to
fill the Minds of [an] [1] Audience with Terror, the first Place is due
to Thunder and Lightning, which are often made use of at the Descending
of a God, or the Rising of a Ghost, at the Vanishing of a Devil, or at
the Death of a Tyrant. I have known a Bell introduced into several
Tragedies with good Effect; and have seen the whole Assembly in a very
great Alarm all the while it has been ringing. But there is nothing
which delights and terrifies our 'English' Theatre so much as a Ghost,
especially when he appears in a bloody Shirt. A Spectre has very often
saved a Play, though he has done nothing but stalked across the Stage,
or rose through a Cleft of it, and sunk again without speaking one Word.
There may be a proper Season for these several Terrors; and when they
only come in as Aids and Assistances to the Poet, they are not only to
be excused, but to be applauded. Thus the sounding of the Clock in
'Venice Preserved', [2] makes the Hearts of the whole Audience quake;
and conveys a stronger Terror to the Mind than it is possible for Words
to do. The Appearance of the Ghost in 'Hamlet' is a Master-piece in its
kind, and wrought up with all the Circumstances that can create either
Attention or Horror. The Mind of the Reader is wonderfully prepared for
his Reception by the Discourses that precede it: His Dumb Behaviour at
his first Entrance, strikes the Imagination very strongly; but every
time he enters, he is still more terrifying. Who can read the Speech
with which young 'Hamlet' accosts him, without trembling?
Hor. Look, my Lord, it comes!
Ham. Angels and Ministers of Grace defend us!
Be thou a Spirit of Health, or Goblin damn'd;
Bring with thee Airs from Heav'n, or Blasts from Hell;
Be thy Events wicked or charitable;
Thou com'st in such a questionable Shape
That I will speak to thee. I'll call thee Hamlet,
King, Father, Royal Dane: Oh! Oh! Answer me,
Let me not burst in Ignorance; but tell
Why thy canoniz'd Bones, hearsed in Death,
Have burst their Cearments? Why the Sepulchre,
Wherein we saw thee quietly inurn'd,
Hath op'd his ponderous and marble Jaws
To cast thee up again? What may this mean?
That thou dead Coarse again in compleat Steel
Revisit'st thus the Glimpses of the Moon,
Making Night hideous?
I do not therefore find Fault with the Artifices above-mentioned when
they are introduced with Skill, and accompanied by proportionable
Sentiments and Expressions in the Writing.
For the moving of Pity, our principal Machine is the Handkerchief; and
indeed in our common Tragedies, we should not know very often that the
Persons are in Distress by any thing they say, if they did not from time
to time apply their Handkerchiefs to their Eyes. Far be it from me to
think of banishing this Instrument of Sorrow from the Stage; I know a
Tragedy could not subsist without it: All that I would contend for, is,
to keep it from being misapplied. In a Word, I would have the Actor's
Tongue sympathize with his Eyes.
A disconsolate Mother, with a Child in her Hand, has frequently drawn
Compassion from the Audience, and has therefore gained a place in
several Tragedies. A Modern Writer, that observed how this had took in
other Plays, being resolved to double the Distress, and melt his
Audience twice as much as those before him had done, brought a Princess
upon the Stage with a little Boy in one Hand and a Girl in the other.
This too had a very good Effect. A third Poet, being resolved to
out-write all his Predecessors, a few Years ago introduced three
Children, with great Success: And as I am informed, a young Gentleman,
who is fully determined to break the most obdurate Hearts, has a Tragedy
by him, where the first Person that appears upon the Stage, is an
afflicted Widow in her mourning Weeds, with half a Dozen fatherless
Children attending her, like those that usually hang about the Figure of
Charity. Thus several Incidents that are beautiful in a good Writer,
become ridiculous by falling into the Hands of a bad one.
But among all our Methods of moving Pity or Terror, there is none so
absurd and barbarous, and what more exposes us to the Contempt and
Ridicule of our Neighbours, than that dreadful butchering of one
another, which is so very frequent upon the _English_ Stage. To delight
in seeing Men stabbed, poysoned, racked, or impaled, is certainly the
Sign of a cruel Temper: And as this is often practised before the
_British_ Audience, several _French_ Criticks, who think these are
grateful Spectacles to us, take occasion from them to represent us as a
People that delight in Blood. [3] It is indeed very odd, to see our
Stage strowed with Carcasses in the last Scene of a Tragedy; and to
observe in the Ward-robe of a Play-house several Daggers, Poniards,
Wheels, Bowls for Poison, and many other Instruments of Death. Murders
and Executions are always transacted behind the Scenes in the _French_
Theatre; which in general is very agreeable to the Manners of a polite
and civilized People: But as there are no Exceptions to this Rule on the
_French_ Stage, it leads them into Absurdities almost as ridiculous as
that which falls under our present Censure. I remember in the famous
Play of _Corneille_, written upon the Subject of the _Horatii_ and
_Curiatii_; the fierce young hero who had overcome the _Curiatii_ one
after another, (instead of being congratulated by his Sister for his
Victory, being upbraided by her for having slain her Lover,) in the
Height of his Passion and Resentment kills her. If any thing could
extenuate so brutal an Action, it would be the doing of it on a sudden,
before the Sentiments of Nature, Reason, or Manhood could take Place in
him. However, to avoid _publick Blood-shed_, as soon as his Passion is
wrought to its Height, he follows his Sister the whole length of the
Stage, and forbears killing her till they are both withdrawn behind the
Scenes. I must confess, had he murder'd her before the Audience, the
Indecency might have been greater; but as it is, it appears very
unnatural, and looks like killing in cold Blood. To give my Opinion upon
this Case; the Fact ought not to have been represented, but to have been
told, if there was any Occasion for it.
It may not be unacceptable to the Reader, to see how _Sophocles_ has
conducted a Tragedy under the like delicate Circumstances. _Orestes_ was
in the same Condition with _Hamlet_ in _Shakespear_, his Mother having
murdered his Father, and taken possession of his Kingdom in Conspiracy
with her Adulterer. That young Prince therefore, being determined to
revenge his Father's Death upon those who filled his Throne, conveys
himself by a beautiful Stratagem into his Mother's Apartment with a
Resolution to kill her. But because such a Spectacle would have been too
shocking to the Audience, this dreadful Resolution is executed behind
the Scenes: The Mother is heard calling out to her Son for Mercy; and
the Son answering her, that she shewed no Mercy to his Father; after
which she shrieks out that she is wounded, and by what follows we find
that she is slain. I do not remember that in any of our Plays there are
Speeches made behind the Scenes, though there are other Instances of
this Nature to be met with in those of the Ancients: And I believe my
Reader will agree with me, that there is something infinitely more
affecting in this dreadful Dialogue between the Mother and her Son
behind the Scenes, than could have been in anything transacted before
the Audience. _Orestes_ immediately after meets the Usurper at the
Entrance of his Palace; and by a very happy Thought of the Poet avoids
killing him before the Audience, by telling him that he should live some
Time in his present Bitterness of Soul before he would dispatch him; and
[by] ordering him to retire into that Part of the Palace where he had
slain his Father, whose Murther he would revenge in the very same Place
where it was committed. By this means the Poet observes that Decency,
which _Horace_ afterwards established by a Rule, of forbearing to commit
Parricides or unnatural Murthers before the Audience.
_Nec coram populo natos_ Medea _trucidet_.
_Let not_ Medea _draw her murth'ring Knife,
And spill her Children's Blood upon the Stage._
The _French_ have therefore refin'd too much upon _Horace's_ Rule, who
never designed to banish all Kinds of Death from the Stage; but only
such as had too much Horror in them, and which would have a better
Effect upon the Audience when transacted behind the Scenes. I would
therefore recommend to my Countrymen the Practice of the ancient Poets,
who were very sparing of their publick Executions, and rather chose to
perform them behind the Scenes, if it could be done with as great an
Effect upon the Audience. At the same time I must observe, that though
the devoted Persons of the Tragedy were seldom slain before the
Audience, which has generally something ridiculous in it, their Bodies
were often produced after their Death, which has always in it something
melancholy or terrifying; so that the killing on the Stage does not seem
to have been avoided only as an Indecency, but also as an Improbability.
_Nec pueros coram populo_ Medea _trucidet;
Aut humana palam coquat exta nefarius_ Atreus;
_Aut in avem_ Progne _vertatur_, Cadmus _in anguem,
Quodcunque ostendis mihi sic, incredulus odi_.
Hor.
Medea _must not draw her murth'ring Knife,
Nor_ Atreus _there his horrid Feast prepare._
Cadmus _and_ Progne's _Metamorphosis,
(She to a Swallow turn'd, he to a Snake)
And whatsoever contradicts my Sense,
I hate to see, and never can believe._
(Ld. ROSCOMMON.) [4]
I have now gone through the several Dramatick Inventions which are made
use of by [the] Ignorant Poets to supply the Place of Tragedy, and by
[the] Skilful to improve it; some of which I could wish entirely
rejected, and the rest to be used with Caution. It would be an endless
Task to consider Comedy in the same Light, and to mention the
innumerable Shifts that small Wits put in practice to raise a Laugh.
_Bullock_ in a short Coat, and _Norris_ in a long one, seldom fail of
this Effect. [5] In ordinary Comedies, a broad and a narrow brim'd Hat
are different Characters. Sometimes the Wit of the Scene lies in a
Shoulder-belt, and Sometimes in a Pair of Whiskers. A Lover running
about the Stage, with his Head peeping out of a Barrel, was thought a
very good Jest in King _Charles_ the Second's time; and invented by one
of the first Wits of that Age. [6] But because Ridicule is not so
delicate as Compassion, and [because] [7] the Objects that make us laugh
are infinitely more numerous than those that make us weep, there is a
much greater Latitude for comick than tragick Artifices, and by
Consequence a much greater Indulgence to be allowed them.