Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Shirley McAleer and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.) TRANSCRIBERâS NOTES: The pagination of this book is unusual. The book consists of four sections, each of which is page numbered within itself. Additionally, the pages of the entire document are numbered consecutively. This results in sections two, three, and four in the original document having two page numbers on each page, one for the page number of the section and one for the page number of the whole document. To aid in clarity the pages in this eBook have been numbered consecutively for the entire document. However, the page numbers shown in the Table of Contents for each section and the Indexes, where they appear, have been left as they appear in the original document. The links, of course, have been made to the correct pages. Other transcriber's notes will be found at the end of this eBook, following the Footnotes. HUMANISTIC STUDIES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS VOLUME I LAWRENCE, KANSAS PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY 1915 COMMITTEE ON HUMANISTIC STUDIES FRANK HEYWOOD HODDER FRANK WILSON BLACKMAR EDWIN MORTIMER HOPKINS ARTHUR TAPPAN WALKER SELDEN LINCOLN WHITCOMB, Editor CONTENTS I. STUDIES IN THE WORK OF COLLEY CIBBER. _By De Witt C. Croissant, Ph. D._ II. STUDIES IN BERGSONâS PHILOSOPHY. _By Arthur Mitchell, Ph. D._ III. BROWNING AND ITALIAN ART AND ARTISTS. _By Pearl Hogrefe, A. M._ IV. THE SEMANTICS OF -MENTUM, -BULUM, AND -CULUM. _By Edmund D. Cressman, Ph. D._ BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS HUMANISTIC STUDIES _Vol. I_ _October 1, 1912_ _No. 1_ STUDIES IN THE WORK OF COLLEY CIBBER BY DE WITT C. CROISSANT, PH. D. _Assistant Professor of English Language in the University of Kansas_ LAWRENCE, OCTOBER, 1912 PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY CONTENTS I Notes on Cibberâs Plays II Cibber and the Development of Sentimental Comedy Bibliography PREFACE The following studies are extracts from a longer paper on the life and work of Cibber. No extended investigation concerning the life or the literary activity of Cibber has recently appeared, and certain misconceptions concerning his personal character, as well as his importance in the development of English literature and the literary merit of his plays, have been becoming more and more firmly fixed in the minds of students. Cibber was neither so much of a fool nor so great a knave as is generally supposed. The estimate and the judgment of two of his contemporaries, Pope and Dennis, have been far too widely accepted. The only one of the above topics that this paper deals with, otherwise than incidentally, is his place in the development of a literary mode. While Cibber was the most prominent and influential of the innovators among the writers of comedy of his time, he was not the only one who indicated the change toward sentimental comedy in his work. This subject, too, needs fuller investigation. I hope, at some future time, to continue my studies in this field. This work was suggested as a subject for a doctorâs thesis, by Professor John Matthews Manly, while I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago a number of years ago, and was continued later under the direction of Professor Thomas Marc Parrott at Princeton. I wish to thank both of these scholars, as well as Professor Myra Reynolds, who first stimulated my interest in Restoration comedy. The libraries of Harvard, Yale, and Columbia have been very generous in supplying books which would otherwise have been inaccessible; but especial gratitude is due to the Library of Congress, and to Mr. Joseph Plass, who called my attention to material in the Library of Congress, which would have escaped my notice but for his interest. I wish to express my gratitude to Professor R. D. OâLeary, of the University of Kansas, who has read these pages in manuscript and in proof, and has offered many valuable suggestions. D. C. C. University of Kansas, October, 1912. STUDIES IN THE WORK OF COLLEY CIBBER De Witt C. Croissant I NOTES ON CIBBERâS PLAYS Colley Cibberâs activity was not confined to writing plays. Besides being a leader in the development of comedy and a skilful adapter in tragedy, he was the greatest actor of his day in comic rÃ´les; was the dominant personality in the triumvirate of managers of the playhouse, so that the healthy theatrical conditions of his time were largely due to him; was a writer of poetry, some of which is fairly good; was the author of some of the most amusing and clever controversial pamphlets of the time; and was the author of a most interesting autobiography. Today he is thought of by many merely as the hero of Popeâs _Dunciad_. In some respects he deserved Popeâs satire, but the things he did well entitle him to more consideration than he has received. It is the purpose of these _Notes_ to discuss merely his plays; and to treat these principally from the point of view of what may be called external relations, with some discussion of dramatic technique. Under the heading of external relations I have considered the dates of the various plays, the circumstances of their presentation, their sources, and their relation to the various types of the drama of the time. I have discussed the plays in chronological order within the various classes. 1. FARCES. Of the farces ascribed to Cibber, only two, _The Rival Queans_ and _Bulls and Bears_, are unquestionably his, and these two are not accessible. _The Rival Queans_, acted at the Haymarket, June 29, 1710, printed in Dublin in 1729, is without doubt by Cibber. But in the collected edition of his plays, published in 1777, the editors substituted a farce of the same name, which, however, deals with a different subject and is by another writer. Cibberâs farce was a burlesque of Leeâs _Rival Queens_; the piece that was substituted deals with the operatic situation in England. An adaptation of Doggettâs _Country Wake_ (1696), called _Hob, or The Country Wake_ (1715), has been ascribed to Cibber, but Genest[1] doubts his authorship because it was brought out while Doggett was still on the stage. _Bulls and Bears_, Cibberâs second undisputed farce, was acted at Drury Lane, December 2, 1715, but was apparently not printed. _Chuck_ (1736) seems to have been ascribed to him by either the author or the publisher without grounds, for in a list of plays âwrote by anonymous authors in the 17th century,â appended to the fourth edition of the _Apology_ (1756), there is a note on this play to the effect that âthe author or printer has set the name of Mr. Cibber to this piece.â This is not proof positive that Cibber did not write the play, for _Cinnaâs Conspiracy_, which is unquestionably by him, appears in the same list. In _The New Theatrical Dictionary_ (1742), it is stated that âthis piece [_Chuck_] is extremely puerile, yet the author has thought proper to put Mr. Cibberâs name to it.â This again is not necessarily convincing argument against Cibberâs authorship, for he was capable of poor work, as his poems and some of his plays show. On the whole, it seems probable that _Hob_ and _Chuck_ are not by Cibber. In any case, they are entirely without value, and it is therefore a matter of no importance to literary history whether their authorship is ever determined or not. Coffeyâs _The Devil to Pay_ (1736) is stated in the catalogue of the British Museum to have been ârevised by Colley Cibber.â But the work of revision was done by Theophilus Cibber, his son, and Cibber himself contributed only one song.[2] 2. OPERAS. In common with many of his contemporaries, Cibber attempted operatic pieces. His undisputed operas are _Venus and Adonis_ (1715), _Myrtillo_ (1716), _Love in a Riddle_ (1729), and _Damon and Phillida_ (1729), the last being merely the sub-plot of _Love in a Riddle_ acted separately.[3] Two other operatic pieces, _The Temple of Dullness_ (1745) and _Capochio and Dorinna_, have been ascribed to him. _Love in a Riddle_ (1729) seems to have been the cause of some unpleasantness. In the _Life of Quin_ (1766) the following account of it is given:[4] âThis uncommon reception of _The Beggarâs Opera_ induced Colley Cibber to attempt something the same kind the next year, under the title of _Love in a Riddle_, but how different was its reception from Gayâs production; it was damned to the lowest regions of infamy the very first night, which so mortified Cibber, that it threw him into a fever; and from this moment he resolved as soon as he conveniently could to leave the stage, and no longer submit himself and his talents to the capricious taste of the town. âIt was generally thought that his jealousy of Gay, and the high opinion he entertained of his own piece had operated so strongly as to make him set every engine in motion to get the sequel of _The Beggarâs Opera_, called _Polly_, suppressed in order to engross the town entirely to _Love in a Riddle_. Whether Cibber did or did not bestir himself in this affair, it is certain that Gay and Rich had the mortification to see all their hopes of a succeeding harvest blasted by the Lord Chamberlainâs absolute prohibition of it, after it had been rehearsed and was just ready to bring out.â In this same volume[5] it is stated that the failure of the piece was one of the potent causes of the dissolution of the Drury Lane company, though this seems an exaggeration, as does also the effect on Cibber that is ascribed to the failure. Cibber denies[6] that he had anything to do with the suppression of the second part of _The Beggarâs Opera_, and gives as his reason for writing that he thought something written in the same form, but recommending virtue and innocence instead of vice and wickedness, âmight not have a less pretence to favor.â _The Temple of Dullness_ (1745), which _The Biographia Dramatica_[7] states had been ascribed to Cibber, is in two acts of two scenes each, the second scene of each act being the comic âinterludeâ of Theobaldâs _Happy Captive_ (1741). These two scenes have as their principal characters, Signor Capochio and Signora Dorinna.[8] The other two scenes, which give the principal title to the piece, are based, as is stated in the preface, on the fact that Pope in _The Dunciad_ makes the Goddess of Dullness preside over Italian operas. It is inconceivable that either Cibber or Theobald would have based anything of the sort on a hint from _The Dunciad_ and complacently given the credit to Pope, after the way they had both been handled in _The Dunciad_. There is nothing on the title page to indicate that Cibber had anything to do with the piece. The ascription of the authorship of _The Temple of Dullness_ to Cibber seems to be without foundation, and the probability is that this piece was composed by a third person soon after Theobaldâs death, which occurred about four months before it was acted.[9] Concerning _Capochio and Dorinna_, _The Biographia Dramatica_ has the following note: âA piece with this title, but without a date, is, in Mr. Barkerâs catalogue, ascribed to Colley Cibber. It was probably an abridgment from _The Temple of Dullness_.â This statement concerning the source of _Capochio and Dorinna_ would seem plausible from the supplementary title of _The Temple of Dullness_,--_With the Humours of Signor Capochio and Signora Dorinna_. _Capochio and Dorinna_ is no doubt the two scenes from Theobaldâs _The Happy Captive_ which had been used in _The Temple of Dullness_, as is stated above. Cibberâs operatic writings belong chiefly to the English type of pastoral drama, rather than to the type of Italian opera. In fact, they are not operas either in the Italian or in the modern sense, but are rather plays interspersed with songs appropriate to the characters who sing them. They show the common characteristics of the pastoral drama of the time.[10] They possess the court element, have the same plot devices, and their characters belong to the same general types. It is noticeable that Cibber here, as well as in his comedies, arrays himself with the moralists, as is seen in his introduction of a moral purpose in _Love in a Riddle_. These pieces are in verse of varying meters. In _Venus and Adonis_ and _Myrtillo_ there is apparent imitation of the versification of Drydenâs _Alexanderâs Feast_; in _Love in a Riddle_ and _Damon and Phillida_ the dialogue is in blank verse, but in neither case is the verse inspired. His operas are neither intrinsically nor historically important; they are merely representative of a vogue which was popular but which left no permanent impress on the English drama. 3. TRAGEDIES. Cibberâs seven tragedies appeared in the following order: _Xerxes_, 1699; his adaptation of Shakspereâs _Richard III_, 1700; _Perolla and Izadora_, 1705; the three translations of Corneille, _Ximena_, acted 1712, but not published until 1719, _Cinnaâs Conspiracy_, 1713, and _Caesar in Egypt_, 1725; and finally _Papal Tyranny_, an adaptation of Shakspereâs _King John_, 1745. The best stage play is _Richard III_, but those that make the most agreeable reading are the alterations of Corneille. _Xerxes_ (1699), which was a failure, belongs to the type of the tragedies of the last decade of the century, in which the material of the heroic play is handled in blank verse, in which there is no comedy, and in which there is in general a following of French models.[11] In its presentation of a story of distressed womanhood, it allies itself with the sentimental tragedy of the school of Southerne and Otway. In its use of the supernatural, in its puerile use of claptrap, and in the bombast and extravagance of emotion, it follows the general usage of the tragedies of the time. When it was written Cibber was one of the company at Drury Lane, but the play was refused there, and was accepted at Lincolnâs Inn Fields only when Cibber guaranteed the expenses of the production. Notwithstanding the fact that two such great actors as Betterton and Mrs. Barry were in the cast, the play was a failure.[12] The common supposition that it was acted only once, is based on Addisonâs inventory of Richâs theatrical paraphernalia, in which are mentioned âthe imperial robes of Xerxes, never worn but once.â[13] The play had been acted ten years previously, and Addison is speaking of an entirely different playhouse and manager so that this testimony, if it does apply to this play, is probably not to be given much weight. While the play may have been withdrawn from the stage after only one performance, Addisonâs evidence does not establish the matter one way or the other. Cibberâs next venture in tragedy was more successful, for while his adaptation of Shakspereâs _Richard III_ has not received critical commendation, it was for over a century practically the only version presented on the stage and is still used by many actors. When Cibberâs _Richard III_ was originally acted at Drury Lane in 1700, Charles Killigrew, Master of the Revels, forbade the first act, because the distress of Henry, introduced from Shakspereâs _Henry VI_, might bring the exiled King James to the mind of the people; so that only four acts could be given. The play was a comparative failure at first, owing no doubt to the omission of so important and necessary a part of the revision, so that Cibberâs profits from the third night, as author, came to less than five pounds.[14] Later, when this act was restored, the piece became a success. As has been pointed out by Dohse[15] and Wood[16], Cibber may in making this adaptation have used the chronicles of Hall and others, and probably was influenced by _The Mirror for Magistrates_ and Carylâs _English Princess_ (1667). In his alteration Cibber has cut down the play to a little more than half its original length, and of this remainder only a little over a third is found in Shakspereâs _Richard III_, while the rest is from a number of Shakspereâs plays or is made up of original additions by Cibber.[17] The alterations vary from the change of single words,[18] to the addition of scenes entirely by Cibber. The omissions, such as Anneâs spitting at Gloster, I, ii, 146, are generally happy; the lines he has substituted are generally easier to understand, if less aesthetically pleasing, than those of the original; and the additions throughout are such as add clearness and theatric effectiveness. Richard is made the central figure, so that the play revolves more closely about him than in Shakspere. A love story, more slightly developed than usual in the adaptations of this period, is introduced at the end of the play in accordance with contemporary usage. The women are made less prominent, the lyric chorus effect of the various scenes in which these women foretell and bewail is omitted, and the whole action is made more simple and direct. Shakspereâs _Richard III_ is full of this lyric element which Cibber has excised. With this curtailment of plot comes likewise a less highly presented delineation of character. Not only is the number of characters diminished, but modifications are made in those that remain. Richard becomes less the unfeeling hypocrite, by use of asides his motives and character are made more clear, and he is influenced more by love; his victims are not so vividly presented, and though their weakness of will and character is not less than in the original, the reader does not feel it so much. Cibberâs _Richard III_, like his _King John_, is more play than poem; in it Cibber has attempted to make everything subservient to dramatic effectiveness. _Perolla and Izadora_ was acted at Drury Lane on December 3, 1705, and published the next year. Lintot had bought the copyright November 14, 1705, a few weeks before its presentation, for thirty-six pounds, eleven shillings, next to the largest amount that he paid Cibber for any of his plays. Cibber explains that he omitted _Womanâs Wit_ from the 1721 edition of his plays because it was so inferior a drama, which was no doubt his reason for omitting _Xerxes_; but why he should not have included _Perolla and Izadora_, which brought him a good third and sixth day at the theatre, though it does not appear to have been presented afterwards, is not clear, unless, as is probable, he included in this edition only such plays as had gained a more or less permanent place on the stage. Cibber shows unusual modesty in his dedication of this play, which he founded on a part of the story of Perolla and Izadora from _The Romance of Parthenissa_[19] (1654) by Roger Boyle, Earl of Orrery. He âsaw so many incidents in the fable, such natural and noble sentiments in the characters, and so just a distress in the passions, that he had little more than the trouble of blank verse to make it fit for the theatre.â[20] Cibber has followed the events in _Parthenissa_ very closely, making few changes or additions. However, he has Perolla and Izadora in love before the action begins, whereas they do not meet in the romance until after Perolla has saved the life of Blacius in what makes the end of Cibberâs second act; and at the close of the play he unites the lovers, while the story goes on indefinitely in _Parthenissa_. The characters display about the same qualities; Blacius is made perhaps a trifle more reasonable and Poluvius a little less so. The play is much better as a play than the original is as a story. The play in general conforms to the French classical type; the unities are observed, the characters are few and noble, it is written in blank verse, and there are no humorous touches. Only in the two deaths and the one fight on the stage does the play violate the French tradition. In the death of the wicked, the reward of the virtuous, and the general nature of the action, it groups itself with the heroic plays of the preceding century, but of course it does not conform to that type in versification. Cibber was here probably writing under the influence of Corneille. _Ximena, or The Heroic Daughter_, an alteration of Corneilleâs _Cid_, was acted at Drury Lane, November 28, 1712, when it had a run of about eight performances;[21] but it was not printed until 1719, when it appeared in octavo after it had been revived at Drury Lane, November 1, 1718. Cibber explains that he thus delayed publishing the play because âmost of his plays had a better reception from the public when his interest was no longer concerned in them.â[22] The dedication of _Ximena_ brought a storm of criticism on Cibber[23] because in it he spoke of Addison as a wren being carried by Steele as an eagle, which figure he later applied, in his odes, to himself and the king. He had the judgment to omit this dedication from the collected edition of his plays. As in the case of _Richard III_, he added a first act to the _Cid_ in order that the audience might understand the situation of the various characters at the outset; a most important and necessary thing if the audience is not familiar with the story and the situation beforehand. In his alterations of Shakspere he followed the English method and presented this information to his audience by action; in his alteration of Corneille he followed the French method by having his characters tell each other about it for the benefit of the audience. Cibber has discussed at length the changes he has made in the _Cid_, and his reasons for them, in the prefatory âexamen.â The main reason seems to have been his desire to make the play less âromanticâ and the action more probable and reasonable from the point of view of the eighteenth century Englishman, whose ideals of honor and whose general characteristics were very different from those of the seventeenth century Frenchman. Indeed, Cibber explains in relation to one of these changes: âHere they seem too declamatory and romantic, which I have endeavored to avoid, by giving a more spirited tone to the passions, and reducing them nearer to common life.â _Ximena_, because of its source, would naturally have the general characteristics of French tragedy, in which almost everything happens off the stage, and in which the characters appear before the audience only to tell it what they think or what has been done. It violates the French canons by having a sub-action, though this sub-action is not sufficiently important to distract the attention materially from the main action, and is bound very closely to it. The blow which Don Gormaz gives Alvarez constitutes the nearest approach to violent action; but this blow, however, appears in the original play. Besides the anonymity of _Cinnaâs Conspiracy_, the closeness with which it follows Corneilleâs _Cinna_ and the difference in its tone from the rest of Cibberâs work have led to doubt as to his authorship.[24] To see that Cibber was not always sprightly and inconsequential, however, as he is usually supposed to be, one has but to read his _Cicero_ and his poems. The play was presented less than three months after _Ximena_, and to bring out another French tragedy translated by the same hand in so short a time might have subjected Cibber to the charge of hasty work. Though _Ximena_ apparently had a run of eight nights, it did not receive critical approbation, and _Cinnaâs Conspiracy_, if known to be by Cibber, was likely to bring further critical disapproval, so that Cibber may have thought it would have better chance of success if his authorship were not known. Cibber was ambitious to be thought wise and serious, as his prefaces and _Cicero_ show, and the lack of success of the play together with its nearness to _Ximena_ in time of presentation would sufficiently explain his failure to claim the authorship. But there is external proof which would seem to be convincing in support of his authorship. Defoe, according to the _Biographia Dramatica_,[25] in a pamphlet written about 1713 ascribed the play to Cibber; and Nichols, in _Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century_,[26] gives an extract from a memorandum book of Lintot, entitled _Copies when purchased_, according to which Cibber, on March 16, 1712 (O.S.), was paid thirteen pounds for _Cinnaâs Conspiracy_. The play was first acted at Drury Lane, February 19, 1713, about a month before the purchase by Lintot. The fact that Cibber was paid for the play so short a time after its presentation would seem to be sufficient proof that it is by Cibber, even though he apparently made no public claim to its authorship. In the alteration of Corneilleâs _Cinna_, Cibber has made remarkably few changes. There is only one of any moment, the account of the meeting of the conspirators in the second scene of the first act. Corneille has had Cinna give an account of this meeting to Emilie, while Cibber presents the meeting itself. This involves the omission of some narration and the creation of some new characters who have a few short speeches. Cibber throughout his adaptation seeks to gain vividness and clearness, and his handling of this incident is probably the best example of his method in this respect. The other changes consist merely in the omission and shortening of speeches. On the whole _Cinnaâs Conspiracy_ is almost a literal translation, though a little free here and there. The testimony of the critics concerning the source of _Caesar in Egypt_, acted at Drury Lane,[27] December 9, 1724, published in 1725, is somewhat confusing. The _Biographia Dramatica_ finds its source in Beaumont and Fletcherâs _The False One_; Genest[28] says: âThe plan of this tragedy is chiefly borrowed from _The False One_--that part of it which concerns Cornelia is said to be taken from Corneilleâs _PompÃ©e_.â Stoye,[29] while apparently oblivious of Corneilleâs play, mentions Lucanâs _Pharsalia_ in addition to _The False One_; and Miss Canfield says:[30] âTaking Beaumont and Fletcherâs _False One_, Corneilleâs _PompÃ©e_, and one or two ideas of his own, he stirred them all together with such vigor, and so disguised them with his wonderful versification, that it is an almost impossible task to distinguish the different elements in the dish.... The general plan and construction of the play are undoubtedly Corneilleâs, many of the best speeches are literally translated, especially some of the famous ones between Cornelia and Caesar; and the description of Pompeyâs death is taken verbatim from the French.â This last statement of Miss Canfieldâs comes nearest to the truth, but it leaves out of account the slight indebtedness to Lucan.[31] An examination of these three plays shows, in fact, how little Cibber used _The False One_ in the construction of _Caesar in Egypt_. He was no doubt familiar with the Beaumont and Fletcher play and used some things from it, though very little in comparison with what he has used from _PompÃ©e_. He used it for hints in some particulars[32] just as he did the _Pharsalia_, from which he apparently took the idea of having one scene occur before the tomb of Alexander, and from which he obtained the burning of Pharos. One incident, the display of Pompeyâs head, well illustrates the change that had come since the days of Beaumont and Fletcher. In _The False One_, the head was actually brought on the stage; but in neither Cibber nor Corneille was the head actually displayed. The actual appearance of the head would probably have been almost as distasteful to Cibberâs audience as to Corneilleâs. His method of adaptation here is more like that in his alteration of Shakspere than his method in _Ximena_ or _Cinnaâs Conspiracy_. He has crowded the incidents, has expanded the action and increased its liveliness, has enhanced the value of the piece as a stage play, without, however, improving its literary quality. He has a good deal happen in one day, but manages to satisfy the technical demands of the unity of time. He increases the probability by the alteration of certain passages. For instance, whereas both the _Pharsalia_, as completed by Rowe,[33] and _The False One_, from one of which he took the incident, have Caesar swimming from the island of Pharos with drawn sword in one hand and documents in the other, Cibber has him swim with only the documents. While this play is essentially an adaptation of Corneille, the general atmosphere and effect are not those of French tragedy, but are rather those of the minor Elizabethan tragicomedy. Its beginning and end have a historical rather than a dramatic interest, so that the play produces the effect of a love story with an impersonal enveloping action, which is again more English than French. _Papal Tyranny_ was acted at Covent Garden, February 15, 1745, when it had a run of ten nights, and was published in the same year. Shakspereâs _King John_, which had been played in 1737 and 1738, after Cibberâs alteration had been talked of and withdrawn, was again revived on February 20, 1745,[34] with Garrick as King John and Mrs. Theophilus Cibber, then at the height of her popularity, as Constance. This was no doubt done both to profit by the publicity Cibberâs work had brought about, and to take as much credit as possible from Cibber, by showing the lack of originality in his work.[35] According to Victor,[36] Cibberâs profits from _Papal Tyranny_ amounted to four hundred pounds, which probably includes what he received from acting Pandulph as well as his authorâs profits. The play had been written some years before it was finally acted, the parts had been distributed, and everything was practically ready for the presentation in public during the season 1736-7. But so much criticism was leveled at Cibber for daring again to alter Shakspere that one day he quietly walked into the theatre, removed the copy of the play from the prompterâs desk, and went away with it without a word to any one.[37] It was finally presented, as already stated, in 1745, when there was a threatened invasion by the Young Pretender, which made the political and anti-Catholic elements of the play timely. Cibber says in the dedication that he had two reasons for altering the play: antagonism to Catholicism, and a desire to adjust the play to contemporary stage requirements--âto make it more like a play than he found it in Shakspere.â His additions to the anti-Catholic elements of the play are inconsistent with the rest of the action, and the changes in structure have increased rather than diminished the epic quality. He has, without being conscious that he was doing so, gone back of Shakspereâs time in introducing the anti-popish element; a quality of Shakspereâs source which Shakspere had omitted, but which Cibber reintroduced to the detriment of his play as drama. The entire first act of Shakspereâs play is omitted, besides which there are other shorter omissions. The point of view, too, is very different; for in Cibberâs play Pandulph is the central figure, instead of King John, as is indicated by the change of title from _The Life and Death of King John_ to _Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John_. Various short scenes entirely by Cibber are introduced, the most noticeable being one in the last act in which Constance attends the funeral of Arthur at Swinestead, where King John has been brought to die. The characters are more changed than the plot; all those which appear only in the first act are omitted, besides such characters as Peter of Pomfret, Elinor, Austria, and Chatillon. The part of the bastard Faulconbridge is very much cut down and softened, for as Shakspere conceived him he was too âlowâ and comic for a dignified tragedy according to the views of the eighteenth century. The rÃ´le of Constance is much enlarged as well as that of Pandulph. Cibberâs tragedies are imitative; he showed no creative ability in this field. That his _Richard III_ has held the stage until the present is an indication that it is at least a good stage play. The other tragedies, except _Xerxes_ and _Papal Tyranny_, do not possess any very positive virtues or defects; they are of average merit as compared with the work done by Cibberâs contemporaries. They are alterations of Shakspere or Corneille, except _Xerxes_ and _Perolla and Izadora_. In his alterations of the French he has anglicized some of the ideas, has had a tendency to present rather than relate incidents, and generally has tried to make the productions conform to English ideas. Turning them into English has not made them romantic or altered in any essential degree their neo-classical quality. His alterations of Shakspere have not changed the essential qualities; they are still characteristically English, and display the characteristics of the originals. He has not altered Shakspere because Shakspere is too âGothic,â or too romantic and extravagant, for Cibber complains that _King John_ is too restrained. In relation to these alterations of Shakspere one naturally thinks of the flood of plays about this time which had Shakspere as a basis.[38] Cibber does not, in _Richard III_ at least, follow the example of Tate and his kind, but adheres more closely than they to the originals. It is for this reason, principally, that Cibberâs _Richard III_ was successful. In this he has not attempted to follow contemporary practice in adhering to the unities, in the observance of poetic justice, in the making of the hero virtuous, or in adding the element of show and pageantry. His addition of a scene of violence[39] is for the purpose of helping the spectator to understand the play. Even his borrowing of lines from other plays by Shakspere has saved him partially from the incongruous or weak mixture of two styles which mars the work of other adapters. He has told the same story as Shakspere, and has not done violence to his original either in character, plot, or, for the most part, in language. His adaptation of _King John_ is handled differently. This play, even more than Shakspereâs _King John_, is unfitted for the modern stage; its plot is not dramatic, and its persons are not modern in their qualities. Such a play must depend for its appeal on its poetic qualities, and Cibber was personally incapable of altering the play and retaining its poetic qualities. Although Cibber is not unaffected by the sentimental type of tragedy, as _Xerxes_ and _Perolla and Izadora_ show, he does not seem influenced by it to any great extent. This is remarkable in one who was in the very forefront of the movement toward sentimental comedy; though it is to be remarked that the two tragedies which do show traces of this sentimental note are the only two which are not based on previous plays. As Thorndike[40] has pointed out, during this period two influences are at work--the influence of the Elizabethan romantic drama, and the influence of the French classical drama; and Cibber rather fairly represents both of these. _Xerxes_ shows some French influence in the construction, though it is probably more Elizabethan in the handling of the material; but _Perolla and Izadora_ and the three plays from Corneille conform to French usage almost entirely in material as well as in method. The restraint in _Richard III_--for notwithstanding Hazlitt, this play is not as brutal as Shakspereâs--is due to the change brought about through the imitation of French tragedy. In accordance with contemporary usage, all these tragedies are in blank verse; but the verse is of no great merit. Cibberâs verse for the most part is not musical nor subtle, but it has few mannerisms. He sometimes uses alliteration, but not to an objectionable or excessive degree, and although his style has been called alliterative, his use of this device in his verse is so infrequent as to make the term a misnomer. Cibber conforms to the custom of the time in respect to rime. Occasionally he introduces a couplet in the midst of a scene, but this is seldom and for no apparent reason. The exits, except those of minor importance, are marked by rime. This device, descended from the Elizabethan drama, where it was probably used to mark more strongly the ends of scenes because of the lack of a curtain which concealed the whole stage, is continued during and after the Restoration period without any valid reason and becomes for the most part a mere convention, which is not confined to tragedy but appears in comedy and even in farce. Cibber shows a tendency to increase the number of couplets with the increased importance of the exits,[41] and in _Ximena_ and _Caesar in Egypt_ we find several scenes closing with as many as three. It has perhaps been made sufficiently evident that Cibber was not a great writer of tragedy. He lacked any deep philosophy of life, tragic consciousness, and deep poetic feeling. He was not without power of thought, but his thought concerned itself with the obvious and the external, and had an element of friskiness, so that when he turned to tragedy his work became labored and even commonplace. Nor does he show originality in his themes. The story of _Xerxes_ is apparently derived from history,[42] and aside from _Perolla and Izadora_, whose story is taken from a romance, is the only one of his tragedies which is not based on the work of greater men than himself. Although _Richard III_ is a better stage play than its source, the other adaptations are inferior to the originals both as acting versions and as pure literature. 4. COMEDIES. _Loveâs Last Shift_, Cibberâs first play, was acted at Drury Lane in January, 1696, and was published the same year, when he was a little more than twenty-four years old. The comedy was accepted by the managers through the good offices of Southerne, for Cibberâs standing with the patentees was such that they were not disposed to recognize ability in him. So little had been expected of the piece, and so great was its success, that Cibber was immediately charged with plagiarism,[43] a charge which he entirely denies in the dedication. He claims that âthe fable is entirely his own, nor is there a line or thought throughout the whole, for which he is wittingly obliged either to the dead or the living.â There are, however, some striking similarities in the situations and the characters in the sub-action of _Loveâs Last Shift_ and Carlileâs _Fortune Hunters_ (1689). Carlileâs Elder Wealthy and Young Wealthy are closely paralleled by Elder Worthy and Young Worthy, as are likewise the young women with whom they are in love, and Carlileâs Shamtown belongs to the same family as Sir Novelty Fashion, though he is much more crudely portrayed. So too, the jealousy of Elder Worthy in regard to Hillaria and Sir Novelty is very much like that of Elder Wealthy in regard to Sophia and Shamtown. So great is the similarity that, notwithstanding his denial, one must believe that Cibber deliberately used the situation and characters as a basis for his own, though he did not copy the language, and has made an entirely new and original thing out of his source. So great was the failure of his second play that Cibber refuses to mention it in his _Apology_ and omitted it from the collected edition of his plays in 1721. _Womanâs Wit, or The Lady in Fashion_ was acted at Drury Lane in 1697, but met with a most unfavorable reception, though in management of the plot it is not inferior to a great many plays whose success was much greater. Carlileâs _Fortune Hunters_ (1689) and Mountfordâs _Greenwich Park_ (1691) have been suggested as the sources of that part of the plot in which Young Rakish and Major Rakish appear, but this is only partially true. In _The Fortune Hunters_ the father and son are rivals for a young woman, in _Womanâs Wit_ she is an elderly widow; in both, the son has obtained five hundred pounds from the father. But notwithstanding the fact that these situations are superficially similar the characters and the details of the action are so different that it does not seem possible that there can be any connection between the two plays. There does seem to be a more valid reason for affirming the influence of _Greenwich Park_ in the play. The likeness of Sir Thomas Reveller and Young Reveller to Old Rakish and Young Rakish is so great that Cibber must have had them in mind, but the differences both of character and action are such that it seems probable that he was attempting to portray two characters of the same type rather than trying to copy them. In _Greenwich Park_ there is not even a superficial similarity of situation to _Womanâs Wit_.[44] The sub-action of _Womanâs Wit_ was separated and acted successfully at Drury Lane in 1707 as _The School Boy_. _Love Makes a Man_ was acted at Drury Lane in 1701, and was published the same year. It continued to be played until 1828. It is made from Beaumont and Fletcherâs _The Elder Brother_ and _The Custom of the Country_, and is an attempt on the part of Cibber merely to provide amusement. Ost[45] points out that this play, though it has no original literary worth, helped continue the literary tradition, and notices it in connection with the healthful influence of Cibberâs work in the moralizing tendency of the drama. He adds that Cibberâs plays have more value in relation to âkulturgeschichteâ than in aesthetic interest. That is entirely true so far as this play is concerned; various parts have a purely contemporary interest, or are an indication to us of the state of dramatic taste, and the aesthetic value is certainly often inconsiderable. When Cibber introduces such references as âhatchet faceâ of Clodio, a term which had been applied to Cibber himself, who played the part, and more particularly in the farcical discussion of the two playhouses in the fourth act, he is not even attempting to write anything but horseplay. By the omission and transposition of scenes, and the introduction of some lines of his own, mainly for the purpose of gaining probability, as Ost has pointed out, Cibber has condensed _The Elder Brother_ so that it forms practically the first two acts, and _The Custom of the Country_ so that it forms the last three. In the main, the plays, so much of them as is used, are followed with very few changes, and the whole makes a sprightly and amusing, if not particularly literary comedy. The change of place and the introduction of an entirely new set of characters with fresh plot developments are dramatically faulty; but for the purpose for which the play was written these faults are not particularly great. To join the plots of two separate plays end on end without breaking the continuity of the story, and to adjust the characters so that there is no glaring inconsistency, is surely no slight feat. In the characterization Cibber has made some changes. These changes appear particularly in Eustace, who becomes Clodio, Miramont, who becomes Don Lewis, and Elvira, who is the sister instead of the mother of Don Duart. It is difficult to understand how this play could have been other than a theatrical success with Bullock to interpret the farcical obstinacy of Antonio, Penkethman to portray the humorously choleric Don Lewis, and Cibber as the âpert coxcomb,â Clodio. But it is farce rather than pure comedy. Cibber has changed these plays from verse to prose, except in the first scene between Carlos and Angelina, in which the romantic seriousness of the situation leads him to write blank verse, which is however printed as prose. _She Would and She Would Not_, considered by Genest as âperhaps his best play,â was acted at Drury Lane, November 26, 1702, and continued to be acted frequently as late as 1825.[46] The striking similarity of the two plays has caused the suggestion that Cibberâs play is based on Leanerdâs _The Counterfeits_ (1678). The similarity indicates a common source, rather than that Cibber drew from _The Counterfeits_. The source of Cibberâs play was no doubt _The Trepanner Trepanned_, which is the third story of John Daviesâs _La Picara, or The Triumphs of Female Subtilty_, published in London in 1665.[47] This play is amusing, is well constructed, and while it is not of serious import, is such as might be presented today with success. Cibber commenced to write _The Careless Husband_ in the summer of 1703, but laid it aside because he despaired of finding any one to take the part of Lady Betty Modish. In 1704 he again took up the writing of the play, and in that year it was acted at Drury Lane on December 7; and it was published in 1705. It was one of the best and most successful plays of the period.[48] It was charged that Cibber received direct assistance in writing the play, but he denied the charge, and as no proof was offered, Cibber is no doubt to be believed. It seems to have no literary source; but one incident, that in which the wife finds the husband and her maid asleep in easy chairs, is said to have been suggested to Cibber by Mrs. Brett, the reputed mother of the poet Savage, from her own experience.[49] This is Cibberâs best play of the sentimental type. Its plot is consistent, has dramatic probability, and is serious enough in interest to have real reason for being. The characters are well conceived and well portrayed. In style, too, Cibber is here at his best and the dialogue approaches the finest of the period. The Haymarket opened the season 1706-7 under Swiney, and in order to encourage the new venture, Lord Halifax headed a subscription for the revival of three plays: Shakspereâs _Julius Caesar_, Beaumont and Fletcherâs _King and No King_, and the comic scenes of Drydenâs _Marriage Ã la Mode_ and _A Maiden Queen_. The last took the form of an adaptation called _The Comical Lovers_, the adaptation being the work of Cibber. It was acted February 4, 1707, and was published the same year. The alteration was the result of only six daysâ labor,[50] and Cibber claims no originality in it. It met with slight success. _The Comical Lovers_ is another such adaptation as _Love Makes a Man_. Cibber has merely taken the two comic threads from their serious settings and interwoven them, first a scene from one and then a scene from the other, with only the changes necessary to join them, and has followed his sources almost word for word. Cibber was not under the necessity of changing verse into prose, as he had done in _Love Makes a Man_, for the comic sections of Dryden are in prose, according to the changed convention of his time; and in the scene between Melantha and her maid, Cibber has not even taken the trouble to alter a single one of the French words, many of which must have acquired a place in the language and been in good use by Cibberâs time. So far as Cibberâs part is concerned, this is the least important of his plays. _The Double Gallant_ was acted at the Haymarket, November 1, 1707, but was apparently not successful at its first performance. _The Biographia Dramatica_[51] says: âIn a letter from Booth to A. Hill we learn that the play, at its first appearance was, as he expressed it, hounded in a most outrageous manner. Two years after, it was revived, met with most extravagant success, and has continued a stock play ever since.â Cibber says nothing about any hounding of the play, but ascribes the failure of the piece to the fact that the Haymarket was too big for plays; a fact that he thinks caused the lack of success of other plays as well as his own. In regard to the authorship, Cibber says:[52] âIt was made up of what was tolerable, in two, or three others, that had no Success, and were laid aside, as so much Poetical Lumber; but by collecting and adapting the best Parts of them all, into one Play, the _Double Gallant_ has had a Place, every Winter, amongst the Publick Entertainments, these Thirty Years. As I was only the Compiler of this Piece, I did not publish it in my own Name.â The title would lead one to suppose that it is taken directly from Corneilleâs _Le Galant Double_, but it is a weaving together of Mrs. Centlivreâs _Love at a Venture_, which is an adaptation of Corneille, Burnabyâs _Ladies Visiting Day_, and the Lady Dainty action from Burnabyâs _Reformed Wife_. In consolidating such parts of these three plays as are used, the crudities of the first two are polished off, and certain additions are made
{'title': 'Humanistic Studies of the University of Kansas, Vol. 1 by Edmund Dresser Cressman et al.', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}