Henry Fielding

The Critical Heritage

Thomas Lockwood, Ronald Paulson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN:
  9780415134248
• eBook ISBN:
  9781136171314
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

The Critical Heritage gathers together a large body of critical sources on major figures in literature. Each volume presents contemporary responses to a writer's work, enabling students and researchers to read the material themselves.

The Covent-Garden Tragedy

1 June 1732

6. ‘Prosaicus’

The Grub-street Journal No. 127

8 June 1732

From the PEGASUS in Grub-street.

Sir,

As Dramatical performances come under the cognizance of your Society, I hope, without any apology, you’ll give this letter a place in your next.

The depravity of modern taste has been long complained of; and several Dramatic performances have been instanced to prove that depravity, I thought this only the bigotted opinion of some peevish old Gentlemen, who commend every thing of the last age, and condemn every thing of the present. I entered into a dispute on this subject the other evening with a Gentleman of the Temple, who esteems it a more amiable Character to be a man of wit and pleasure, than a great Lawyer. After I had urged all the common arguments against our present theatrical taste, and he had spoken as strenuously in the defence of it. Sir, says he, there is a fine burlesque Piece to be played to night at Drury lane; which, for pointed satire, true humour, and mock heroick, will exceed any thing that ever appeared on the stage. It is founded on as good a subject as the Beggars Opera; and I assure you, the moral is as instructive. In short, he urged our theatrical taste was rather improved than depraved, and engaged me to go with him to see it the next evening.

But, Mr. BAVIUS, how was I surprized to see the most notorious Bawds, Pimps, and Whores, brought on the stage to please as polite an audience as I ever saw for the time of the year. My Man of pleasure was not only very busy in explaining the beauties of the language, but the secret history, the reality of the characters, and some personal scandal. I observed there were several young fellows in the pit and boxes smiling, and mightily pleased at some passages; which, tho’ they knew the meaning of them, were entirely misunderstood by three parts of the audience. It gave me some satisfaction to see so many too ignorant to relish the archness of the Poet, and dull enough not to applaud the wit they did not understand.

After an Epilogue entirely adapted to the Play, and listening to some different whispers in the pit, of Critics, Wits, Men of pleasure, &c. as my companion and I were returning to his Chambers, coming along the Play-house passage, a Lady of his acquaintance trip’d out of an adjoining Coffee-house, and clapping him on the shoulder, accosted him with two lines of this new Piece. He replied in two others, which, tho’ I’ve forgot, were in the character of LOVEGIRLO; and then they very lovingly hurried into the Rose.

I had seen too much in the Play-house to follow them, and went to a Coffee-house to examine, whether there was any thing in this Co vent Garden Tragedy, that could lay the least claim to wit, or deserve any encouragement from the Town. I must submit it to all men of sense, whether that can pass for humour, which is only the dull representation of the most obscene characters in life; and humour is the only thing the Poet can pretend to boast. Were it so, I doubt not but every Drury-lane Bully might make a humourous Poet: for surely he could very naturally describe a scene of life in which he was always conversant; nor is there the most stupid wretch but might pass for a Wit, would he gain that name at the expence of all decency, as well as innocence.

Where is the humour of the Bawdy-house scene to any but a Rake? Or that of HACKABOUTA¹ and STORMANDRA to any women, but those of the Town? These indeed, may smile to see how naturally the Poet enters into their characters; but the joke is entirely lost to all others.—As to the mock Heroic, the lines are bad, nor any thing to recommend the numerous similies. The success of this Piece will determine whether the age is fallen to the lowest ebb; for I should entertain but a bad opinion of the intellects of that Man, or chastity of that Woman, who would give the least encouragement to the most dull obscene Piece, that, I may venture to say, ever appeared on any public stage.

Tom’s Coffee-house, Covent-Garden, June 3.

PROSAICUS.

7. ‘Dramaticus’

The Grub-street Journal No. 128

15 June 1732²

From the PEGASUS in Grub-street.

Sir,

I did not think I should have troubled you before next winter, as Censor of theatrical performances, little dreaming I should have been call’d upon to exercise that Office sooner. But the horrible profanation of the Stage at present is such, that unless some stop be put to it, no man of any taste, or woman of common modesty must dare henceforward to appear there.

For the truth of this, Mr. BAVIUS, I appeal to last night’s new Entertainment, and particularly to that part of it, called, The Common Garden Tragedy, written, as is said, by the Author of The Modern Husband. Such a scene of infamous lewdness, was never brought, I believe, before on any Stage whatsoever! For my part, if I had any interest in the present young Managers, who copy, but too well, the old in their choice of (I presume) theatrical Pieces, I would advise them, instead of acting this Play again, to invite the audience to some noted Bawdy house in Drury-lane, giving the old Lady timely notice to have her Whores, Bullies, Cullies, &c. in readiness. There would be no difference in the Entertainment I assure you. Sir JOHN GONSON³ might indeed interrupt the action there, and send the Actors to Bridewell, which he cannot so well do, where the thing is theatrically represented. In every respect else it would do full as well.

If these, Mr. BAVIUS, are theatrical Pieces; these the only fit Entertainments for the Town; these such only as can be undertaken to be acted; I despair indeed of ever making mine fit for the Stage, or seeing it there. God forbid I should ever attempt it.

It would be ridiculous to aim at any sort of criticism upon so shameful a Piece; for which reason I shall drop it, and only add, that if I had not a greater regard for the public, than I have for my own self, I should be overjoyed to see such monstrous Pieces received in a House where mine had been rejected; which certainly must be the most consolatory thing that could happen to me, as it necessarily implies, that the true reason for rejecting mine, was because it was not bad enough for the Stage.

If any body should be foolish enough to alledge in justification of such proceedings, that this being a dead time of the year, most of the Company being either gone, or going out of Town, any Play will go down; I will go so far as to agree, that the best Plays ought indeed to be kept for the best Company, and the best time of the year: but no Company, nor any time of the year can justify the turning the Stage into a rank Bawdy-house, and the Actors into arrant Bawds, Pimps, Whores, Rogues, Rakes, and Cullies. I am, Mr. BAVIUS,

Your admirer, and old correspondent,

Friday, June 2, 1732.

DRAMATICUS.

¹ An allusion to M. Hackabout, the protagonist of Hogarth’s Harlot’s Progress, which had been published in April 1732. No character named Hackabouta appears in the printed version of Fielding’s play; it is possible that ‘Prosaicus’ simply used the name to allude to the obvious debt the Covent-Garden Tragedy owed to the Harlot’s Progress; or perhaps there was a character named Hackabouta in the play, whose name was changed before publication.

² For this, and subsequent references to ‘Dramaticus’, see No. 4.

³ Sir John Gonson (d. 1765), a Westminster Magistrate, was. notable for his zeal in apprehending prostitutes. See, e.g., Hogarth’s Harlot’s Progress, Plate 3.

The Modern Husband

The Covent-Garden Tragedy

The Old Debauchees

1 June 1732

The Mock Doctor

23 June 1732

8. ‘Prosaicus’ and ‘A.B.’

The Grub-street Journal No. 130

29 June 1732

Following Dramaticus’s attack of 15 June, a letter signed ‘Mr. Wm. Hint, Candle-Snuffer’ (probably Theophilus Cibber in consultation with Fielding), appeared in the Daily Post on 21 June, replying to ‘Dramaticus, alias Prosaicus, alias Bavius, alias &c. &c. &c.’ Hint challenged the Grub-street Journal to produce ‘some quotations’ or ‘some particular scene or incidents’ to substantiate their accusations of indecency. His only point of critical interest is quoted by A.B. below, most of his essay being a personal attack on the Journal. Bavius replied in a personal vein in the Journal No. 129 (22 June). Then in No. 130 Prosaicus and A.B. both returned to the attack, A.B. replying specifically to Hint.

This is thy Province this thy wondrous way,

New humours to invent for each new Play:

This is that boasted byass of thy mind,

By which one way to dulness ’tis inclin’d.

DRYDEN’S Mac Flecknoe.¹

Sir,

As some observations on our Dramatic performances may be useful, as well as entertaining, especially to your Readers in the Country, I intend to send you some remarks on each new Piece, as it shall appear, during this summer season at Drury-Lane. I undertake not this office, as instituting myself sole Critic, and invading the known liberties of the Pit; but rather as a task imposed on me by a young Templar, whom I have lately had occasion to mention, to give him an account of the progress of theatrical poetry in his absence. How far he may agree with my sentiments, I know not; but he is very well assured, that I shall not be biassed by partiality or prejudice. He was the more earnest to engage me in this correspondence, as he had been assured, that the Manager of the young Company had several good Pieces, which were every way theatrical.—Theatricality is sure something of which the Drury-lane Managers only can form an idea. There have been so many expositions of its sense, that it seems to me almost impossible accurately to define it. But whatever it be, this I have observed, that those Pieces, which were said to be most theatrical, were least consistent with the rules of Dramatic writing. I could prove the truth of this assertion in an examen of the Modern Husband: but as Mr. DRAMATICUS hath given already a critique on it in your 117th Journal,² I shall at present only observe, that there is scarce a scene in the whole, but what betrays want of judgment, or, to use softer terms, manifests at least the Author’s hasty way of writing. The latter I believe, he himself will most readily...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• General Editor’s Preface
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• Note On The Text
• The Author’s Farce (30 March 1730) Tom Thumb (24 April 1730)
• The Modern Husband (14 February 1731–2)
• The Covent-Garden Tragedy (1 June 1732)
• The Modern Husband The Covent-Garden Tragedy The Old Debauchees (1 June 1732) The Mock Doctor (23 June 1732)
• The Miser (17 February 1732–3)
• Tom Thumb and the Early Plays
• Fielding’s ‘Industry’
• An Old Man Taught Wisdom: or, The Virgin Unmask’d (17 January 1734–5) The Universal Gallant (10 February 1734–5)
• Pasquin (5 March 1735–6)
• Pasquin The Historical Register (21 March 1736–7) Eurydice Hiss’d (13 April 1737)
• Fielding and the Licensing Act
• Tom Thumb
• Fielding and the Licensing Act
• Shamela (4 April 1741)
• Joseph Andrews (22 February 1741–2)
• Tom Thumb
• Joseph Andrews
• Joseph Andrews in France
• Joseph Andrews
• Joseph Andrews in France
• Joseph Andrews
• Tom Jones (28 February 1748–9)
• Joseph Andrews and the Jacobite’s Journal
• Tom Jones
• Tom Jones and Joseph Andrews
• Tom Jones
• Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones
• Tom Jones
• Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones
• Tom Jones
• Works to 1750
• Tom Jones
• Joseph Andrews
• Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones
• Tom Jones in France (March 1750)
• Tom Jones
• An Enquiry into the Causes of the Late Increase of Robbers (January 1750–1)
• Tom Jones
• Fielding’s ‘New Species of Writing’
• The Enquiry, Tom Jones, etc.
• Tom Jones
• Tom Jones in France
• Fielding’s ‘New Species of Writing’
• The Scurrilous Plays of the 1730s
• Amelia (18 December 1751)
• Tom Jones and Amelia
• The Novels of Richardson and Fielding
• The Covent-Garden Journal (4 January-25 November 1752)
• Amelia
• Fielding’s ‘New Species of Writing’
• Fielding’s Art
• Tom Jones
• Elizabeth Canning and Tom Jones
• The Novels of Richardson and Fielding
• Amelia and the Domestic Novel
• The Novels of Richardson and Fielding
• Humour and Ridicule in Fielding
• The Novels
• The Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon (25 February 1755)
• The Journal and Answer to Bolingbroke
• The Journal
• Fielding’s Understanding of Human Nature
• Fielding’s Art
• Amelia in France
• Jonathan Wild in France
• Fielding’s Art
• The Fathers (30 November 1778)
• The Survivors
• Select Index