TheBritishIsleshavebeenringingforthelastfewyearswiththeword’Art’initsGermansense；with’HighArt，’’SymbolicArt，’
’EcclesiasticalArt，’’DramaticArt，’’TragicArt，’andsoforth；andeverywell-educatedpersonisexpected，nowadays，toknowsomethingaboutArt。YetinspiteofalltranslationsofGerman’AEsthetic’
treatises，and’Kunstnovellen，’themassoftheBritishpeoplecaresverylittleaboutthematter，andsitscontentedundertheimputationof’badtaste。’Ourstage，longsincedead，doesnotrevive；ourpoetryisdying；ourmusic，likeourarchitecture，onlyreproducesthepast；ourpaintingisonlyfirst-ratewhenithandleslandscapesandanimals，andseemslikelysotoremain；but，meanwhile，nobodycares。Someofthedeepestandmostearnestmindsvotethequestion，ingeneral，a’shamandasnare，’andwhispertoeachotherconfidentially，thatGothicartisbeginningtobea’bore，’andthatSirChristopherWrenwasaverygoodfellowafterall；whilethemiddleclasseslookontheArtmovementhalfamused，aswithaprettytoy，halfsulkilysuspiciousofPoperyandPaganism，andthink，apparently，thatArtisverywellwhenitmeansnothing，andismerelyusedtobeautifydrawing-roomsandshawlpatterns；nottomentionthat，iftherewerenopainters，Mr。Smithcouldnothanddowntoposteritylikenessesofhimself，Mrs。Smith，andfamily。Butwhen’Art’darestobeinearnest，andtomeansomething，muchmoretoconnectitselfwithreligion，Smith’stonealters。Hewillteach’Art’tokeepinwhatheconsidersitsplace，andifitrefuses，takethelawofit，andputitintotheEcclesiasticalCourt。Sohesays，andwhatismore，hemeanswhathesays；andasalltheworld，fromHindostantoCanada，knowsbymostpracticalproof，whathemeans，hesoonerorlaterdoes，perhapsnotalwaysinthewisestway，butstillhedoesit。
Thus，infact，thetemperoftheBritishnationtoward’Art’issimplythatoftheoldPuritans，softened，nodoubt，andwidened，butonlyenoughsoastopermitArt，nottoencourageit。
Somemen’sthoughtsonthiscuriousfactwouldprobablytaketheformofsomeaestheticaprioridisquisition，beginningwith’thetendencyoftheinfinitetorevealitselfinthefinite，’andending——whocantellwhere？Butaswecannothonestlyarrogatetoourselvesanyskillinthescientiascientiarum，orsay，’TheLordpossessedmeinthebeginningofHisway，beforeHisworksofold。WhenHepreparedtheheavens，Iwasthere，whenHesetacompassuponthefaceofthedeep；’weshallleaveaestheticsciencetothosewhothinkthattheycomprehendit；weshall，assimpledisciplesofBacon，dealwithfactsandwithhistoryas’thewillofGodrevealedinfacts。’Wewillleavethosewhochoosetosettlewhatoughttobe，andourselveslookpatientlyatthatwhichactuallywasonce，andwhichmaybeagain；thatsooutoftheconductofouroldPuritanforefathers（rightorwrong），andtheirlongwaragainst’Art，’wemaylearnawholesomelesson；aswedoubtlessshall，ifwebelievefirmlythatourhistoryisneithermorenorlessthanwhattheoldHebrewprophetscalled’God’sgraciousdealingswithhispeople，’andnotsayinourhearts，likesomesentimentalgirlwhosingsJacobiteballads（writtenfortyyearsagobymenwhocarednomorefortheStuartsthanforthePtolemies，andwerereadytokissthedustoffGeorgetheFourth’sfeetathisvisittoEdinburgh）——’VictrixcausaDiisplacuit，sedvictapuellis。’
Thehistorianofatimeofchangehasalwaysadifficultandinvidioustask。ForRevolutions，inthegreatmajorityofcases，arisenotmerelyfromthecrimesofafewgreatmen，butfromageneralviciousnessanddecayofthewhole，orthemajority，ofthenation；andthatviciousnessiscertaintobemadeup，ingreatpart，ofalooseningofdomesticties，ofbreachesoftheSeventhCommandment，andofsinsconnectedwiththem，whichawriterisnowhardlypermittedtomention。An’evilandadulterousgeneration’hasbeeninallagesandcountriestheonemarkedoutforintestineandinternecinestrife。Thatdescriptionisalwaysapplicabletoarevolutionarygeneration；whetherornotitalsocomesundertheclassofasuperstitiousone，’seekingafterasignfromheaven，’
onlyhalfbelievingitsowncreed，and，therefore，ontiptoeformiraculousconfirmationsofit，atthesametimethatitfiercelypersecutesanyonewho，byattemptinginnovationorreform，seemsabouttosnatchfromweakfaiththelastplankwhichkeepsitfromsinkingintotheabyss。Indescribingsuchanage，thehistorianliesunderthisparadoxicaldisadvantage，thathiscaseisactuallytoostrongforhimtostateit。Ifhetellsthewholetruth，theeasy-goingandrespectablemultitude，ineasy-goingandrespectabledayslikethese，willeithershuttheirearsprudishlytohispainfulfacts，orrejectthemasincredible，unaccustomedastheyaretofindsimilarhorrorsandabominationsamongpeopleoftheirownrank，ofwhomtheyarenaturallyinclinedtojudgebytheirownstandardofcivilisation。Thusifanyone，injustificationoftheReformationandtheBritishhatredofPoperyduringthesixteenthcentury，shoulddaretodetailtheundoubtedfactsoftheInquisition，andtocommentonthemdramaticallyenoughtomakehisreadersfeelaboutthemwhatmenwhowitnessedthemfelt，hewouldbeaccusedofa’morbidloveofhorrors。’Ifanyone，inordertoshowhowtheFrenchRevolutionof1793wasreallyGod’sjudgmentontheprofligacyoftheancienregirne，weretopaintthatprofligacyasthemenoftheancienregimeunblushinglypainteditthemselves，respectabilitywouldhavearighttodemand，’Howdareyou，sir，dragsuchdisgustingfactsfromtheirmeritedoblivion？’Those，again，whoarereallyacquaintedwiththehistoryofHenrytheEighth’smarriages，arewellawareoffactswhichprovehimtohavebeen，notamanofviolentandlawlesspassions，butofacoldtemperamentandascrupulousconscience；butwhichcannotbestatedinprint，saveinthemostdelicateandpassinghints，tobetakenonlybythosewhoatonceunderstandsuchmatters，andreallywishtoknowthetruth；whileyoungladiesingeneralwillstilllookonHenryasamonsterinhumanform，becausenoonedares，orindeedought，toundeceivethembyanythingbeyondbareassertionwithoutproof。
’Butwhatdoesitmatter，’someonemaysay，’whatyoungladiesthinkabouthistory？’Thisitmatters；thattheseyoungladieswillsomedaybemothers，andassuchwillteachtheirchildrentheirownnotionsofmodernhistory；andthat，aslongasmenconfinethemselvestotheteachingofRomanandGreekhistory，andleavethehistoryoftheirowncountrytobehandledexclusivelybytheirunmarriedsisters，solongwillslanders，superstitions，andfalsepoliticalprinciplesbeperpetuatedinthemindsofourboysandgirls。
Butastillworseevilarisesfromthefactthatthehistorian’scaseisoftentoostrongtobestated。Thereisalwaysareactionaryparty，oroneatleastwhichlingerssentimentallyoverthedreamofpastgoldenages，suchasthatofwhichCowleysays，withasortofnaiveblasphemy，atwhichoneknowsnotwhethertosmileorsigh-
’WhenGod，thecausetomeandmenunknown，Forsooktheroyalhouses，andhisown。’
Thesehavefulllibertytosayalltheycaninpraiseofthedefeatedsystem；butthehistorianhasnosuchlibertytostatethecaseagainstit。Ifheevenassertsthathehascounter-facts，butdarenotstatethem，heisatoncemetwithapraejudicium。Themerefactofhishavingascertainedthetruthisimputedasablametohim，inasortofprudishcant。’Whataveryimproperpersonhemustbetoliketodabbleinsuchimproperbooksthattheymustnotevenbequoted。’Ifinself-defencehedesperatelygiveshisfacts，heonlyincreasesthefeelingagainsthim，whilstthereactionists，hidingtheirblushingfaces，findintheirmodestyanexcuseforavoidingthetruth；if，ontheotherhand，hecontenthimselfwithbareassertion，andwithindicatingthesourcesfromwhencehisconclusionsaredrawn，whatcarethereactionists？Theyknowwellthatthepublicwillnottakethetroubletoconsultmanuscripts，Statepapers，pamphlets，rarebiographies，butwillcontentthemselveswithready-madehistory；andtheythereforegoonunblushingtorepublishtheiroldromance，leavingpoortruth，aftershehasbeenpainfullyhaleduptothewell’smouth，totumblemiserablytothebottomofitagain。
Inthefaceofthisdangerwewillgoontosayasmuchaswedareofthegreatcause，Puritansv。Players，beforeourreaders，trustingtofindsomeofthematleastsufficientlyunacquaintedwiththecommonnotionsonthepointtoformafairdecision。
Whatthosenotionsareiswellknown。VerymanyofherMajesty’ssubjectsareofopinionthatthefirsthalfoftheseventeenthcentury（ifthePuritanshadnotinterferedandspoiltall）wasthemostbeautifulperiodoftheEnglishnation’slife；thatinitthechivalryandardentpietyoftheMiddleAgewerehappilycombinedwithmodernartandcivilisation；thatthePuritanhatredoftheCourt，ofstage-plays，ofthefashionsofthetime，wasonly’ascrupulousandfantasticalniceness’；barbaricandtasteless，ifsincere；ifinsincere，thebasesthypocrisy；thatthestage-plays，thoughcoarse，werenoworsethanShakspeare，whomeverybodyreads；
andthatiftheStuartspatronisedthestagetheyalsoraisedit，andexercisedapurifyingcensorship。Andmanymorewhodonotgoalltheselengthswiththereactionists，andcannotmakeuptheirmindtolooktotheStuartreignseitherformodelchurchmenormodelcourtiers，arestillinclinedtosneeratthePuritan’preciseness，’
andtosaylazily，thatthough，ofcourse，somethingmayhavebeenwrong，yettherewasnoneedtomakesuchafussaboutthematter；
andthatatalleventsthePuritansweremenofverybadtaste。
Mr。Gifford，inhisintroductiontoMassinger’splays（1813），wasprobablythespokesmanofhisowngeneration，certainlyofagreatpartofthisgenerationalso，whenheinformsus，that’withMassingerterminatedthetriumphofdramaticpoetry；indeed，thestageitselfsurvivedhimbutashorttime。Thenationwasconvulsedtoitscentrebycontendingfactions，andasetofaustereandgloomyfanatics，enemiestoeveryelegantamusementandeverysocialrelaxation，roseupontheruinsoftheState。Exasperatedbytheridiculewithwhichtheyhadlongbeencoveredbythestage，theypersecutedtheactorswithunrelentingseverity，andconsignedthem，togetherwiththewriters，tohopelessobscurityandwretchedness。
Taylordiedintheextremeofpoverty，ShirleyopenedalittleschoolatBrentford，andDowne，theboastofthestage，keptanale-houseatBrentford。Others，andthosethefargreaternumber，joinedtheroyalstandard，andexertedthemselveswithmoregallantrythangoodfortuneintheserviceoftheiroldandindulgentmaster。’
’Wehavenotyet，perhaps，fullyestimated，andcertainlynotyetfullyrecovered，whatwaslostinthatunfortunatestruggle。Theartswererapidlyadvancingtoperfectionunderthefosteringwingofamonarchwhounitedinhimselftastetofeel，spirittoundertake，andmunificencetoreward。Architecture，painting，andpoetrywerebyturnstheobjectsofhispaternalcare。Shakspearewashis"closetcompanion，"Jonsonhispoet，andinconjunctionwithInigoJones，hisfavouredarchitect，producedthosemagnificententertainments，’etc。
***
HethengoesontoaccountforthesupposedsuddenfallofdramaticartattheRestoration，bythesomewhatfar-fetchedtheorythat-
’Suchwasthehorrorcreatedinthegeneralmindbytheperverseandunsocialgovernmentfromwhichtheyhadsofortunatelyescaped，thatthepeopleappeartohaveanxiouslyavoidedallretrospect，and，withPrynneandVicars，tohavelostsightofShakspeareand"hisfellows。"Instead，therefore，oftakingupdramaticpoetrywhereitabruptlyceasedinthelaboursofMassinger，theyelicited，asitwere，amanneroftheirown，orfetcheditfromtheheavymonotonyoftheircontinentalneighbours。’
Soishistorywritten，and，whatismore，believed。Theamountofmisrepresentationinthispassage（whichwouldprobablypasscurrentwithmostreadersinthepresentday）isquiteludicrous。Inthefirstplace，itwillhardlybebelievedthatthesewordsoccurinanessaywhich，afterextollingMassingerasoneofthegreatestpoetsofhisage，second，indeed，onlytoShakspeare，alsoinformsus（and，itseems，quitetruly）that，sofarfromhavingbeenreallyappreciatedorpatronised，hemaintainedaconstantstrugglewithadversity，——’thateventhebountyofhisparticularfriends，onwhichhechieflyrelied，lefthiminastateofabsolutedependence，’——thatwhile’otherwritersforthestagehadtheirperiodsofgoodfortune，Massingerseemstohaveenjoyednogleamofsunshine；hislifewasallonemistyday，and"shadows，clouds，anddarknessrestedonit。"’
SomuchforCharles’spatronageofareallygreatpoet。Whatsortofmenhedidpatronise，practicallyandinearnest，weshallseehereafter，whenwecometospeakofMr。Shirley。
ButMr。GiffordmustneedsgiveaninstancetoprovethatCharleswas’notinattentivetothesuccessofMassinger，’andacuriousoneitis；ofthesameclass，unfortunately，asthatwiththemanintheoldstory，whorecordedwithpridethattheKinghadspokentohim，and——
hadtoldhimtogetoutoftheway。
Massingerinhis’KingandtheSubject’hadintroducedDonPedroofSpainthusspeaking-
’Monies！We’llraisesupplieswhichwayweplease，Andforceyoutosubscribetoblanks，inwhichWe’llmulctyouasweshallthinkfit。TheCaesarsInRomewerewise，acknowledgingnolawButwhattheirswordsdidratify，thewivesAnddaughtersofthesenatorsbowingtoTheirwill，asdeities，’etc。
AgainstwhichpassageCharles，readingovertheplaybeforeheallowedofit，hadwritten，’Thisistooinsolent，andnottobeprinted。’Tooinsolentitcertainlywas，consideringthestateofpublicmattersintheyear1638。ItwouldbeinterestingenoughtoanalysethereasonswhichmadeCharlesdislikeinthemouthofPedrosentimentssoverylikehisown；butwemustproceed，onlypointingoutthewayinwhichmen，determinedtorepeatthetraditionalclap-
trapabouttheStuarts，areactuallyblindtothemeaningoftheveryfactswhichtheythemselvesquote。
Where，then，dothefactsofhistorycontradictMr。Gifford？
Webelievethat，sofarfromthetriumphofdramaticpoetryterminatingwithMassinger，dramaticarthadbeensteadilygrowingworsefromthefirstyearsofJames；thatinsteadoftheartsadvancingtoperfectionunderCharlestheFirst，theysteadilydeterioratedinquality，thoughthesupplybecamemoreabundant；thatsofarfromtherehavingbeenasuddenchangefortheworseinthedramaaftertheRestoration，thetasteofthecourtsofCharlestheFirstandofCharlestheSecondareindistinguishable；thatthecourtpoets，andprobablytheactorsalso，oftheearlypartofCharlestheSecond’sreignhadmanyofthembelongedtothecourtofCharlestheFirst，asdidDavenant，theDukeandDuchessofNewcastle，Fanshaw，andShirleyhimself；thatthecommonnotionofa’newmanner’havingbeenintroducedfromFranceaftertheRestoration，orindeedhavingcomeinatall，isnotfoundedonfact，theonlychangebeingthattheplaysofCharlestheSecond’stimeweresomewhatmorestupid，andthatwhilefiveofthesevendeadlysinshadalwayshadfreelicenceonthestage，blasphemyandprofaneswearingwerenowenfranchisedtofilluptheseven。Asfortheassertionthatthenewmanner（supposingittohaveexisted）wasimportedfromFrance，thereisfarmorereasontobelievethattheFrenchcopiedusthanwethem，andthatiftheydidnotlearnfromCharlestheFirst’spoetsthesuperstitionof’thethreeunities，’theyatleastlearnttomakeancientkingsandheroestalkandactlikeseventeenthcenturycourtiers，andtoexchangetheiroldclumsymasquesandtranslationsofItalianandSpanishfarcesforacomedydepictingnativescoundrelism。Probablyenough，indeed，thegreatandsuddendevelopmentoftheFrenchstage，whichtookplaceinthemiddleoftheseventeenthcenturyunderCorneilleandMoliere，wasexcitedbytheEnglishcavalierplaywrightswhotookrefugeinFrance。
Nodoubt，asMr。Giffordsays，thePuritanswereexasperatedagainstthestage-playersbytheinsultsheapedonthem；butthecauseofquarrellayfardeeperthananysuchpersonalsoreness。ThePuritanshadattackedtheplayersbeforetheplayersmeddledwiththem，andthatonprinciple；withwhatjustificationmustbeconsideredhereafter。Butthefactis（andthisseemstohavebeen，likemanyotherfacts，convenientlyforgotten），thatthePuritanswerebynomeansaloneintheirprotestagainstthestage，andthatthewarwasnotbegunexclusivelybythem。Asearlyasthelatterhalfofthesixteenthcentury，notmerelyNorthbrooke，Gosson，Stubs，andReynoldshadlifteduptheirvoicesagainstthem，butArchbishopParker，BishopBabington，BishopHall，andtheauthoroftheMirrorforMagistrates。TheUniversityofOxford，in1584，hadpassedastatuteforbiddingcommonplaysandplayersintheuniversity，ontheverysamemoralgroundsonwhichthePuritansobjectedtothem。ThecityofLondon，in1580，hadobtainedfromtheQueenthesuppressionofplaysonSundays；andnotlongafter，’consideringthatplay-
housesanddicing-housesweretrapsforyounggentlemenandothers，’
obtainedleavefromtheQueenandPrivyCounciltothrusttheplayersoutofthecity，andtopulldowntheplay-houses，fiveinnumber；
and，paradoxicalasitmayseem，thereislittledoubtthat，bytheletterofthelaw，’stageplaysandenterludes’were，eventotheendofCharlestheFirst’sreign，’unlawfulpastime，’beingforbiddenby14Eliz。，39Eliz。，1Jacobi，3Jacobi，and1Caroli，andtheplayerssubjecttoseverepunishmentas’roguesandvagabonds。’TheActof1
Jacobiseemseventohavegonesofarastorepealtheclauseswhich，inElizabeth’sreign，hadallowedcompaniesofplayerstheprotectionofa’baronorhonourablepersonofgreaterdegree，’whomight’authorisethemtoplayunderhishandandsealofarms。’SothatthePuritanswereonlydemandingofthesovereignsthattheyshouldenforcetheverylawswhichtheythemselveshadmade，andwhichtheyandtheirnoblesweresettingatdefiance。Whethertheplaysoughttohavebeenputdown，andwhetherthelawswerenecessary，isadifferentquestion；butcertainlythecourtandthearistocracystoodinthequestionable，thoughtoocommon，positionofmenwhomadelawswhichprohibitedtothepooramusementsinwhichtheythemselvesindulgedwithoutrestraint。
Butweretheseplaysobjectionable？Asfarasthecomediesareconcerned，thatwilldependontheanswertothequestion，Areplaysobjectionable，thestaplesubjectofwhichisadultery？Now，wecannotbutagreewiththePuritans，thatadulteryisnotasubjectforcomedyatall。Itmaybefortragedy；butforcomedynever。Itisasin；notmerelytheologically，butsocially，oneoftheveryworstsins，theparentofsevenothersins，——offalsehood，suspicion，hate，murder，andawholebevyofdevils。Theprevalenceofadulteryinanycountryhasalwaysbeenasignandacauseofsocialinsincerity，division，andrevolution；whereapeoplehaslearnttoconniveandlaughatit，andtotreatitasalightthing，thatpeoplehasbeenalwayscareless，base，selfish，cowardly，——ripeforslavery。AndwemustsaythateitherthecourtiersandLondonersofJamesandCharlestheFirstwereinthatstate，orthatthepoetsweredoingtheirbesttomakethemso。
Weshallnotshockourreadersbyanydetailsonthispoint；weshallonlysaythatthereishardlyacomedyoftheseventeenthcentury，withtheexceptionofShakspeare’s，inwhichadulteryisnotintroducedasasubjectoflaughter，andoftenmadethestapleofthewholeplot。Theseduceris，ifnotopenlyapplauded，atleastlettopassasa’handsomegentleman’；theinjuredhusbandis，asinthatItalianliteratureofwhichweshallspeakshortly，theobjectofeverykindofscornandridicule。Inthislatterhabit（commontomostEuropeannations）thereisasortofjustice。Amancangenerallyretainhiswife’saffectionsifhewillbehavehimselflikeaman；and’injuredhusbands’haveforthemostpartnoonetoblamebutthemselves。Butthematterisnotasubjectforcomedy；noteveninthatcasewhichhasbeenalwaystoocommoninFrance，Italy，andtheRomishcountries，andwhichseemstohavebeenpainfullycommoninEnglandintheseventeenthcentury，when，byamariagedeconvenance，ayounggirlismarrieduptoarichidiotoradecrepitoldman。Suchthingsarenotcomedies，buttragedies；subjectsforpityandforsilence，notforbrutalribaldry。ThereforethemenwholookontheminthelightwhichtheStuartdramatistslookedarenotgoodmen，anddonogoodservicetothecountry；especiallywhentheyerectadulteryintoascience，andseemtotakeaperversepleasureinteachingtheiraudienceeverypossiblemethod，accident，cause，andconsequenceofit；always，too，whentheyhaveanopportunity，pointing’EastwardHo！’i。e。tothecityofLondon，asthequarterwherecourtgallantscanfindboundlessindulgencefortheirpassionsamidthefairwivesofdullandcowardlycitizens。IfthecitizensdrovetheplayersoutofLondon，theplaywrightstookgoodcaretohavetheirrevenge。Thecitizenistheirstandardbutt。Theseshallowparasites，andtheirshallowersovereigns，seemtohavetakenaperverseand，asithappened，afatalpleasureininsultingthem。
SaditistoseeinShirley’s’Gamester，’CharlestheFirst’sfavouriteplay，apassagelikethatinActi。Scene1，whereoldBarnacleproclaims，unblushing，hisownshameandthatofhisfellow-
merchants。Surely，ifCharlesevercouldhaverepentedofanyactofhisown，hemusthaverepented，inmanyahumiliatingafter-passagewiththatsamecityofLondon，ofhavinggiventhosebasewordshisroyalwarrantandapprobation。
Thetragediesoftheseventeenthcenturyare，onthewhole，asquestionableasthecomedies。Thattherearenobleplaysamongthemhereandthere，noonedenies——anymorethanthatthereareexquisitelyamusingplaysamongthecomedies；butasthestapleinterestofthecomediesisdirt，sothestapleinterestofthetragediesiscrime。Revenge，hatred，villany，incest，andmurderuponmurderaretheirconstantthemes，and（withtheexceptionofShakspeare，BenJonsoninhisearlierplays，andperhapsMassinger）
theyhandlethesehorrorswithlittleornomoralpurpose，savethatofexcitingandamusingtheaudience，andofdisplayingtheirownpowerofdelineationinawaywhichmakesonebuttooreadytobelievetheaccusationsofthePuritans（supportedastheyarebymanyuglyanecdotes）thattheplay-writersandactorsweremostlymenoffierceandrecklesslives，whohadbuttoopracticalanacquaintancewiththedarkpassionswhichtheysketch。ThisisnotoriouslythecasewithmostoftheFrenchnovelistsofthemodern’LiteratureofHorror，’andthetwoliteraturesaremorallyidentical。WedonotknowofacomplaintwhichcanbejustlybroughtagainsttheSchoolofBalzacandDumaswhichwillnotequallyapplytotheaveragetragedyofthewholeperiodprecedingthecivilwars。
Thispublicappetiteforhorrors，forwhichtheycateredsogreedily，temptedthemtowardanothermistake，whichbroughtuponthem（andnotundeservedly）heavyodium。
OneoftheworstcountsagainstDramaticArt（aswellasagainstPictorial）wasthesimplefactthatitcamefromItaly。WemustfairlyputourselvesintothepositionofanhonestEnglishmanoftheseventeenthcenturybeforewecanappreciatethehugepraejudiciumwhichmustneedshaveariseninhismindagainstanythingwhichcouldclaimaTransalpineparentage。ItalywasthennotmerelythestrongholdofPopery。ThatinitselfwouldhavebeenafairreasonforothersbesidePuritanssaying，’Iftherootbecorrupt，thefruitwillbealso：anyexpressionofItalianthoughtandfeelingmustbeprobablyunwholesomewhilehervitalsarebeingeatenoutbyanabominablefalsehood，onlyhalfbelievedbythemasses，andnotbelievedatallbythehigherclasses，eventhoseofthepriesthood；
butonlykeptupfortheirprivateaggrandisement。’Buttherewasmorethanhypothesisinfavourofthemenwhomightsaythis；therewasuniversal，notorious，shockingfact。ItwasafactthatItalywasthecentrewheresinswereinventedworthyofthedoomoftheCitiesofthePlain，andfromwhencetheyspreadtoallnationswhohadconnectionwithher。Wedaregivenoproofofthisassertion。
TheItalianmoralsandtheItalianlighterliteratureofthesixteenthandofthebeginningoftheseventeenthcenturyweresuch，thatoneisalmostashamedtoconfessthatonehaslookedintothem，althoughthepainfultaskisabsolutelynecessaryforonewhowishestounderstandeithertheEuropeansocietyofthetimeorthePuritanhatredofthedrama。Nonragionamdilor：maguardaepassa。
ItisequallyafactthattheseviceswereimportedintoEnglandbytheyoungmenwho，underpretenceoflearningtheItalianpolish，travelledtoItaly。FromthedaysofGabrielHarveyandLordOxford，aboutthemiddleofElizabeth’sreign，thisfoultidehadbeguntosettowardEngland，gaininganadditionalcoarsenessandfrivolityinpassingthroughtheFrenchCourt（thenanutterGehenna）initscoursehitherward；till，tojudgebyMarston’s’Satires，’certainmembersofthehigherclasseshad，bythebeginningofJames’sreign，learntnearlyallwhichtheItalianshadtoteachthem。Marstonwritesinarage，itistrue；foaming，stamping，andvapouringtoomuchtoescapethesuspicionofexaggeration；yethedarednothavepublishedthethingswhichhedoes，hadhenotfairgroundforsomeatleastofhisassertions。AndMarston，beitremembered，wasnoPuritan，butaplaywright，andBenJonson’sfriend。
BishopHall，inhis’Satires，’describesthingsbadenough，thoughnotsobadasMarstondoes；butwhatisevenmoretothepurpose，hewrote，anddedicatedtoJames，alongdissuasiveagainstthefashionofrunningabroad。Whatevermaybethoughtoftheargumentsof’Quovadis？——aCensureofTravel，’itsmaindriftisclearenough。Younggentlemen，bygoingtoItaly，learnttobefopsandprofligates，andprobablyPapistsintothebargain。Theseassertionsthereisnodenying。SincethedaysofLordOxford，mostoftheridiculousandexpensivefashionsindresshadcomefromItaly，aswellasthenewestmodesofsin；andtheplaywrightsthemselvesmakenosecretofthefact。Thereisnoneedtoquoteinstances；theyareinnumerable；
andthemostseriousarenotfittobequoted，scarcelythetitlesoftheplaysinwhichtheyoccur；buttheyjustifyalmosteverylineofBishopHall’squestions（ofwhichsomeofthestrongestexpressionshavenecessarilybeenomitted）：-
’Whatmischiefhaveweamonguswhichwehavenotborrowed？
’Tobeginatourskin：whoknowsnotwhencewehadthevarietyofourvaindisguises？Asifwehadnotwitenoughtobefoolishunlessweweretaughtit。Thesedresses，beingconstantintheirmutability，showusourmasters。Whatisitthatwehavenotlearnedofourneighbours，saveonlytobeproudgood-cheap？whomwoulditnotvextoseehowthattheothersexhathlearnedtomakeanticksandmonstersofthemselves？Whencecometheir（absurdfashions）；buttheonefromsomeill-shapeddameofFrance，theotherfromtheworse-mindedcourtesansofItaly？Whenceelselearnedtheytodaubthesemud-wallswithapothecaries’mortar；andthosehighwashes，whicharesocunninglylickedonthatthewetnapkinofPhryneshouldhedeceived？Whencethefrizzledandpowderedbushesoftheirborrowedhair？AsiftheywereashamedoftheheadofGod’smaking，andproudofthetire-woman’s。Wherelearnedwethatdevilishartandpracticeofduel，whereinmenseekhonourinblood，andaretaughttheambitionofbeinggloriousbutchersofmen？Wherehadwethatluxuriousdelicacyinourfeasts，inwhichthenoseisnolesspleasedthanthepalate，andtheeyenolessthaneither？whereinthepilesofdishesmakebarricadoesagainsttheappetite，andwithapleasingencumbrancetroubleahungryguest。Wherethoseformsofceremoniousquaffing，inwhichmenhavelearnedtomakegodsofothersandbeastsofthemselves，andlosetheirreasonwhiletheypretendtodoreason？Wherethelawlessness（miscalledfreedom）ofawildtongue，thatruns，withreinsontheneck，throughthebedchambersofprinces，theirclosets，theircounciltables，andsparesnottheverycabinetoftheirbreasts，muchlesscanbebarredoutofthemostretiredsecrecyofinferiorgreatness？Wherethechangeofnobleattendanceandhospitalityintofourwheelsandsomefewbutterflies？WheretheartofdishonestyinpracticalMachiavelism，infalseequivocations？Wheretheslightaccountofthatfilthinesswhichisbutcondemnedasvenial，andtoleratedasnotunnecessary？Wheretheskillofcivilandhonourablehypocrisyinthoseformalcomplimentswhichdoneitherexpectbelieffromothersnorcarryanyfromourselves？Where’（andhereBishopHallbeginstospeakconcerningthingsonwhichwemustbesilent，asofmattersnotoriousandundeniable。）’WherethatcloseAtheism，whichsecretlylaughsGodintheface，andthinksitweaknesstobelieve，wisdomtoprofessanyreligion？Wherethebloodyandtragicalscienceofking-killing，thenewdivinityofdisobedienceandrebellion？withtoomanyotherevils，wherewithforeignconversationhathendangeredtheinfectionofourpeace？’——BishopHall’s’QuoVadis，oraCensureofTravel，’volxii。sect。22。
Addtotheseathirdplainfact，thatItalywasthemother-countryofthedrama，whereithadthrivenwithwonderfulfertilityeversincethebeginningofthesixteenthcentury。Howevermuchtruththeremaybeinthecommonassertionthattheold’miracleplays’and’mysteries’weretheparentsoftheEnglishdrama（astheycertainlywereoftheSpanishandtheItalian），wehaveyettolearnhowmuchourstageowed，fromitsfirstriseunderElizabeth，todirectimportationsfromItaly。Thisismerelythrownoutasasuggestion；
toestablishthefactwouldrequireawideacquaintancewiththeearlyItaliandrama；meanwhile，lettwopatentfactshavetheirdueweight。ThenamesofthecharactersinmostofourearlyregularcomediesareItalian；soarethescenes；andso，onehopes，arethemanners，atleasttheyprofesstobeso。Next，theplotsofmanyofthedramasarenotoriouslytakenfromtheItaliannovelists；andifShakspeare（whohadatrulydivineinstinctforfindinghoneywhereothersfoundpoison）wenttoCinthiofor’Othello’and’MeasureforMeasure，’toBandellofor’RomeoandJuliet，’andtoBoccacciofor’Cymbeline，’therewereplentyofotherplaywrightswhowouldgotothesamesourcesforworsematter，oratleastcatchfromtheseprofligatewriterssomewhatoftheirItalianmorality，whichexaltsadulteryintoavirtue，seductionintoascience，andrevengeintoaduty；whichrevelsinthehorribleasfreelyasanyFrenchnovelistoftheromanticschool；andwhoseonlyvalueisitspitilessexposureoftheprofligacyoftheRomishpriesthood：ifanexposurecanbevaluablewhichmakesamockequallyofthingstrulyandfalselysacred，andleavesonthereader’smindthefearthatthewritersawnothinginheavenorearthworthyofbelief，respect，orself-
sacrifice，savepersonalenjoyment。
NowthisisthemoralityoftheItaliannovelists；andtojudgefromtheirvividsketches（which，theydonotscrupletoassert，weredrawnfromlife，andforwhichtheygivenames，places，andalldetailswhichmightamusethenoblegentlemenandladiestowhomthesestoriesarededicated），thishadbeenthemoralityofItalyforsomecenturiespast。This，also，isthegeneralmoralityoftheEnglishstageintheseventeenthcentury。CanwewonderthatthinkingmenshouldhaveseenaconnectionbetweenItalyandthestage？Certainlytheplaywrightsputthemselvesbetweenthehornsofanuglydilemma。EithertheviceswhichtheydepictedwerethoseofgeneralEnglishsociety，andofthemselvesalso（fortheylivedintheveryheartoftownandcourtfoppery）；orelsetheywerethevicesofaforeigncountry，withwhichtheEnglishwerecomparativelyunacquainted。Inthefirstcase，wecanonlysaythattheStuartageinEnglandwasonewhichdeservedpurgationofthemostterriblekind，andtogetridofwhichtheseverestandmostabnormalmeasureswouldhavebeennotonlyjustifiable，but，tojudgebytheexperienceofallhistory，necessary；forextraordinarydiseasesneverhavebeen，andneverwillbe，eradicatedsavebyextraordinarymedicines。
Inthesecondcase，theplaywrightswerewantonlydefilingthemindsofthepeople，and，insteadof’holdingupamirrortovice，’
instructingfrailvirtueinviceswhichshehadnotlearned，andfullyjustifyingoldPrynne’sindignantcomplaint-
’Theactingofforeign，obsolete，andlongsinceforgottenvillaniesonthestage，issofarfromworkingadetestationoftheminthespectators’minds（who，perchance，wereutterlyignorantofthem，tilltheywereacquaintedwiththemattheplay-house，andsoneedednodehortationfromthem），thatitoftenexcitesdangerousdunghillspirits，whohavenothinginthemfortomakethememinent，toreducethemintopractice，ofpurposetoperpetuatetheirspuriousill-
servingmemoriestoposterity，leastwiseinsometragicinterlude。’
ThatPrynnespokehereinnoughtbutsobersense，ourownpolicereportswillsufficientlyprove。Itisnotoriousthattherepresentationinourowndaysof’TomandJerry’andof’JackSheppard’didexcitedozensofyoungladstoimitatetheheroesofthosedramas；andsuchmusthavebeentheeffectofsimilarandworserepresentationsintheStuartage。NorationalmanwillneedtheauthorityofBishopBabington，DoctorLeighton，ArchbishopParker，Purchas，Sparkes，Reynolds，White，oranyoneelse，ChurchmanorPuritan，prelateor’penitentreclaimedplay-poet，’likeStephenGosson，toconvincehimthat，astheyassert，citizens’wives（whoaregenerallyrepresentedasthepropersubjectsforseduction）
’have，evenontheirdeathbeds，withtearsconfessedthattheyhavereceived，atthesespectacles，suchevilinfectionsashaveturnedtheirmindsfromchastecogitations，andmadethem，ofhonestwomen，lighthuswives；……havebroughttheirhusbandsintocontempt，theirchildrenintoquestion，……andtheirsoulsintotheassaultofadangerousstate；’orthat’Thedevicesofcarryingandre-
carryinglettersbylaundresses，practisingwithpedlarstotransporttheirtokensbycolourablemeanstoselltheirmerchandise，andotherkindsofpoliciestobeguilefathersoftheirchildren，husbandsoftheirwives，guardiansoftheirwards，andmastersoftheirservants，wereaptlytaughtintheseschoolsofabuse。’{2}
Thematterissimpleenough。Weshouldnotallowtheseplaystobeactedinourownday，becauseweknowthattheywouldproducetheireffects。Weshouldcallhimamadmanwhoallowedhisdaughtersorhisservantstoseesuchrepresentations。{3}Why，inallfairness，werethePuritanswrongincondemningthatwhichwenowhaveabsolutelyforbidden？
Wewillgonofurtherintothedetailsofthelicentiousnessoftheoldplay-houses。GossonandhiscolleaguetheanonymousPenitentassertthem，asdoesPrynne，tohavebeennotonlyschoolsbutantechamberstohousesofaworsekind，andthatthelessonslearnedinthepitwereonlynotpractisedalsointhepit。Whatreasonhavewetodoubtit，whoknowthattillMr。Macreadycommencedapracticalreformationofthisabuse，forwhichhisnamewillbeeverrespected，ourowncomparativelypurifiedstagewasjustthesame？LetanyonewhoremembersthesaloonsofDruryLaneandCoventGardenthirtyyearsagojudgeforhimselfwhattheaccessoriesoftheGlobeortheFortunemusthavebeen，indayswhenplayerswereallowedtotalkinsideasfreelyasthepublicbehavedoutside。
Notthatthepoetsortheplayershadanyconsciousintentionofdemoralisingtheirhearers，anymorethantheyhadofcorrectingthem。Wewilllayonthemtheblameofnospecialmalusanimus：
but，atthesametime，wemusttreattheirfinewordsabout’holdingamirroruptovice，’and’showingtheageitsowndeformity，’asmerecant，whichthementhemselvesmusthavespokentongueincheek。
Itwasasmuchaninsincerecantinthosedaysasitwaswhen，twogenerationslater，JeremyCollierexposeditsfalsehoodinthemouthofCongreve。Ifthepoetshadreallyintendedtoshowviceitsowndeformity，theywouldhaverepresentedit（asShakspearealwaysdoes）
aspunished，andnotastriumphant。Itisridiculoustotalkofmoralpurposeinworksinwhichthereisnomoraljustice。Theonlyconditionwhichcanexcusetherepresentationofevilisomitted。
Thesimplefactisthatthepoetswantedtodrawahouse；thatthiscouldmosteasilybedonebythecoarsestandmostviolentmeans；andthatnotbeingoftenabletofindstoriesexcitingenoughinthepastrecordsofsoberEnglishsociety，theywenttoItalyandSpainfortheviolentpassionsandwildcrimesofsoutherntemperaments，excited，andyetleftlawless，byasuperstitionbelievedinenoughtodarkenandbrutalise，butnotenoughtocontrol，itsvictims。
Thosewerethecountrieswhichjustthenfurnishedthatstrangemixtureofinwardsavagerywithoutwardcivilisation，whichistheimmoralplaywright’sfittestmaterial；because，whiletheinwardsavagerymovesthepassionsoftheaudience，theoutwardcivilisationbringsthecharacternearenoughtothemtogivethemalikenessofthemselvesintheirworstmoments，suchasno’MysteryofCain’or’TragedyofPrometheus’cangive。
Doesthisseemtoosevereintheeyesofthosewhovaluethedramaforitslessonsinhumannature？Onthatspecialpointsomethingmustbesaidhereafter。Meanwhile，hearoneofthesixteenthcenturypoets；onewhocannotbesuspectedofanyleaningtowardPuritanism；
onewhohadashighnotionsofhisvocationasanyman；andonewhosofarfulfilledthosenotionsastobecomeadramatistinferioronlytoShakspeare。LetBenJonsonhimselfspeak，andinhisprefaceto’Volpone’tellusinhisownnobleprosewhathethoughtoftheaveragemoralityofhiscontemporaryplaywrights：-
’Forifmenwillimpartiallyandnotasquintlooktowardtheofficesandfunctionsofapoet，theywilleasilyconcludetothemselvestheimpossibilityofanyman’sbeingagoodpoetwithoutfirstbeingagoodman。Hethatissaidtobeabletoinformyoungmentoallgooddiscipline，inflamegrownmentoallgreatvirtues，keepoldmenintheirbestandsupremestate，or，astheydeclinetochildhood，recoverthemtotheirfirststrength；thatcomesforththeinterpreterandarbiterofnature，ateacherofthingsdivinenolessthanhuman，amasterinmannersandcanalone（orwithafew）effectthebusinessofmankind；this，Itakehim，isnosubjectforprideandignorancetoexercisetheirrailingrhetoricupon。Butitwillherebehastilyansweredthatthewritersofthesedaysareotherthings，thatnotonlytheirmannersbuttheirnaturesareinverted，andnothingremainingofthemofthedignityofpoetbuttheabusedname，whicheveryscribeusurps；thatnow，especiallyindramatick，or（astheytermit）stagepoetry，nothingbutribaldry，profanation，blasphemies，alllicenceofoffencetowardGodandmanispractised。
Idarenotdenyagreatpartofthis（andIamsorryIdarenot），becauseinsomemen’sabortivefeatures（andwouldGodtheyhadneverseenthelight！）itisovertrue；butthatallareboundonhisboldadventureforhell，isamostuncharitablethought，anduttered，amoremaliciousslander。ForeveryparticularIcan（andfromamostclearconscience）affirmthatIhaveevertrembledtothinktowardtheleastprofaneness，andhaveloathedtheuseofsuchfoulandunwashed……[hisexpressionistoostrongforquotation]asisnowmadethefoodofthescene。’
Itisapitytocurtailthissplendidpassage，bothforitsloftyidealofpoetry，andforitscorroborationofthePuritancomplaintsagainstthestage；butafewlinesonastillstrongersentenceoccurs：-
’Theincreaseofwhichlustinliberty，togetherwiththepresenttradeofthestage，inalltheirmasculineinterludes，whatliberalsouldothnotabhor？Wherenothingbutfilthofthemireisuttered，andthatwithsuchimproprietyofphrase，suchplentyofsolecisms，suchdearthofsense，soboldprolepses，suchrackedmetaphors，with（indecency）abletoviolatetheearofaPagan，andblasphemytoturnthebloodofaChristiantowater。’
SospeaksBenJonsonin1605，notfinding，itseems，play-writingapeacefultrade，orplay-poetsandplay-hearersimprovingcompany。
Afterhimweshouldsaynofurthertestimonyonthisunpleasantmatteroughttobenecessary。Hemayhavebeenmorose，fanatical，exaggerative；buthisbitterwordssuggestatleastthisdilemma。
Eithertheyaretrue，andtheplay-houseatmosphere（asPrynnesaysitwas）thatofGehenna：ortheyareuntrue，andthemerefruitsofspiteandenvyagainstmoresuccessfulpoets。Andwhatdoesthatlatterprove，butthatthegreatestpoetofhisage（afterShakspearehasgone）wasnotasmuchesteemedassomepoetswhomweknowtohavebeenmorefilthyandmorehorriblethanhe？which，indeed，isthemaincomplaintofJonsonhimself。Itwillberejoined，ofcourse，thathewasanaltogetherenviousman；thatheenviedShakspeare，girdedathisYorkandLancasterplays，at’TheWinter’sTale’and’TheTempest，’intheprologueto’EveryManinhisHumour’；and，indeed，Jonson’swritings，andthoseofmanyotherplaywrights，leavelittledoubtthatstagerivalrycalledoutthebitteresthatredandthebasestvanity；andthat，perhaps，Shakspeare’sgreatsoulwasgivingwaytothepettiestpassions，whenin’Hamlet’hehadhisflingatthe’aieryofchildren，littleeyases，thatcryoutonthetopofquestion，andaremosttyrannicallyclappedfor’t。’ItmaybethathewasgirdinginreturnatJonson，whenhecomplainedthat’theirwriterdidthemwrongtomakethemcomplainagainsttheirownsuccession，’i。e。againstthemselves，when’growntocommonplayers。’
Bethatasitmay。GreatShakspearemayhavebeenunjusttoonlylessgreatJonson，asJonsonwastoShakspeare：butJonsoncertainlyisnotsoinallhischarges。SomeofthefaultswhichheattributestoShakspearearereallyfaults。
Atallevents，weknowthathewasnotunjusttotheaverageofhiscontemporaries，bytheevidenceofthemen’sownplays。Weknowthatthedecadenceofthestageofwhichhecomplainswentonuninterruptedlyafterhistime，andintheverydirectionwhichhepointedout。
Onthispointtherecanbenodoubt；forthesehodmenofpoetry’madeawallinourfather’shouse，andthebricksarealivetotestifyuntothisday。’Sothatwecannotdobetterthangiveafewsamplesthereof，atleastsamplesdecentenoughformodernreaders，andletusbegin，notwithahodman，butwithJonsonhimself。
Now，BenJonsonisworthyofourloveandrespect，forhewasaverygreatgenius，immaculateornot；’RareBen，’withallhisfaults。