Edward Niles Hooker, The Critical Works of John Dennis
Vol. II: 1711–1729. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1943, 241–250.
A DEFENSE of Sir Fopling Flutter.
A Certain Knight, who has employ’d so much of his empty Labour in extolling the weak Performances of some living Authors, has scurrilously and inhumanly in the 65th Spectator, attack’d one of the most entertaining Comedies of the last Age, written by a most ingenious Gentleman, who perfectly understood the World, the Court, and the Town, and whose Reputation has now for near thirty Years together, surviv’d his Person, and will, in all Probability, survive it as long as Comedy shall be in vogue; by which Proceeding, this worthy Knight has incurr’d the double Censure, that Olivia in the Plain-Dealer has cast upon a certain Coxcomb, Who rather, says she, than not flatter, will flatter the Poets of the Age, whom none will flatter; and rather than not rail, will rail at the Dead, at whom none besides will rail.
If other Authors have had the Misfortune, to incurr the Censure of ill-nature with unthinking deluded People, for no other so much as pretended Reason, than because to improve a noble Art, they have expos’d the Errors of popular Writers, who ow’d their Success, to the infamous Method of securing an ignorant or a corrupt cabal; when those Writers were not only living, but in full Prosperity, and at full Liberty to answer for themselves; what Appellation must he deserve, who has basely and scurrilously attack’d the Reputation of a Favourite of the comick Muse, and of the Darling of the Graces, after Death has for so many Years depriv’d him of the Means of answering for himself?
What the Knight falsely and impudently says of the Comedy, may be justly said of the Criticism, and of the whole 65th Spectator, that ’tis a perfect Contradiction to good Manners and good Sense. He allows this Comedy, he says, to be in Nature, but ’tis Nature in its utmost Corruption and Degeneracy.
Suppose this were true, I would fain know where he learnt, that Nature in its utmost Corruption and Degeneracy, is not the proper Subject of Comedy? Is not this a merry Person, who, after he has been writing what he calls Comedy for twenty Years together, shews plainly to all the World, that he knows nothing of the Nature of true Comedy, and that he has not learnt the very first Rudiments of an Art which he pretends to teach? I must confess, the Ridicule in Sir Fopling Flutter, is an Imitation of corrupt and degenerate Nature, but not the most corrupt and the most degenerate; for there is neither Adultery, Murder, nor Sodomy in it. But can any Thing but corrupt and degenerate Nature be the proper Subject of Ridicule? And can any Thing but Ridicule be the proper Subject of Comedy? Has not Aristotle told us in the Fifth Chapter of his Poeticks, that Comedy is an Imitation of the very worst of Men? Not the worst, says He, in every Sort of Vice, but the worst in the Ridicule. And has not Horace, in the Fourth Satyr of his First Book, reminded us, that the old Athenian Comick Poets made it their Business to bring all Sorts of Villains upon the Stage, Adulterers, Cheats, Thieves, Murderers? But then they always took Care, says a modern Critick, that those several Villanies should be enveloped in Ridicule, which alone, says he, could make them the proper Subjects of Comedy. If this facetious Knight had formerly liv’d at Lacedemon with the same wrong turn’d Noddle that he has not among us, would he not, do you think, have inveighed against that People, for shewing their drunken Slaves to their Children? Would he not have represented it as a Thing of most pernicious Example? What the Lacedemonians did by Drunkenness, the Comick Poet does by that all and all other Vices. He exposes them to the View of his Fellow Subjects, for no other Reason, than to render them ridiculous and contemptible.
But the Criticism of the Knight in the foresaid Spectator, is as contrary to good Manners as it is to good Sense. What Aristotle and his Interpreters say of Tragedy, that ’tis infallibly good, when it pleases both the Judges and the People, is certainly as true of Comedy; for the Judges are equally qualify’d to judge of both, and the People may be suppos’d to be better Judges of Comedy than they are of Tragedy, because Comedy is nothing but a Picture of common Life, and a Representation of their own Humours and Manners. Now this Comedy of Sir Fopling Flutter, has not been only well receiv’d, and believ’d by the People of England to be a most agreeable Comedy for about Half a century, but the Judges have been still more pleas’d with it than the People. They have justly believ’d (I speak of the Judges) that the Dialogue is the most charming that has been writ by the Moderns: That with Purity and simplicity, it has Art and Elegance; and with Force and Vivacity, the utmost Grace and Delicacy. This I know very well, was the Opinion of the most eminent Writers, and of the best Judges contemporary with the Author; and of the whole Court of King Charles the Second, a Court the most polite that ever England saw.
Now, after this Comedy has pass’d with the whole People of England, the knowing as well as the Ignorant, for a most entertaining and most instructive Comedy, for fifty Years together, after that long Time comes a Two-Penny Author, who has given a thousand Proofs thro’ the Course of his Rhapsodies, that he understands not a Tittle of all this Matter; this Author comes and impudently declares, that his whole celebrated Piece, that has for half a Century, been admir’d by the whole People of Great Britain, is a perfect Contradiction to good Sense, to good Manners, and to common Honesty. O Tempora! O Mores!
The Knight certainly wrote the foremention’d Spectator, tho’ it has been writ these ten Years, on Purpose to make Way for his fine Gentlemen, and therefore he endeavours to prove, that Sir Fopling is not that genteel Comedy, which the World allows it to be. And then, according to his usual Custom, whenever he pretends to criticize, he does, by shuffling and cutting and confounding Notions, imposed upon his unwary Reader; for either Sir George Etheridge, did design to make this a genteel Comedy, or he did not. If he did not design it, what is it to the Purpose, whether ‘tis a genteel Comedy or not? Provided that ‘tis a good one. We may say the same of The Fox, and The silent Woman, and of a great man y more. But if Sir George did design to make it a genteel one, he was oblig’d to adapt it to that Notion of Gentility, which he knew very well, that the World at that Time had, and he succeeded accordingly. For it has pass’d for a very genteel Comedy, for fifty Years together. Could it be expected that the admirable Author, should accommodate himself, to the wrong headed Notions of a would be Critick, who writes criticism, as Men commit Treason or Murder, by the Instigation of the Devil himself, whenever the old Gentleman owes the Knight a Shame?
To prove that this Comedy is not a genteel one, he endeavours to prove that one of the principal Characters, is not a fine Gentleman. I appeal to every impartial Man, if when he says, that a Man or a Woman are genteel, he means any Thing more, than that they are agreeable in their Air, graceful in their Motions, and polite in their Conversation. But when he endeavours to prove, that Dorimont is not a fine Gentleman, he says no more to the Purpose, that he said before, when he affirm’d that the Comedy is not a genteel Comedy; for either the Author design’d in Dorimont a fine Gentleman, or he did not. If he did not, the Character is ne’er the less excellent on that Account, because Dorimont is an admirable Picture of a Courtier in the Court of King Charles the Second. But if Dorimont was design’d for a fine Gentleman by the Author, he was oblig’d to accommodate himself to that Notion of a fine Gentleman, which the Court and the Town both had at the Time of the writing of this Comedy. ’Tis reasonable to believe, that he did so, and we see that he succeeded accordingly. For Dorimont not only pass’d for a fine Gentleman with the Court of King Charles the Second, but he has pass’d for such with all the World, for Fifty Years together. And what indeed can any one mean, when he speaks of a fine Gentleman, but one who is qualify’d to please the best Company of either Sex?
But the Knight will be satisfy’d with no Notion of a fine Gentleman but his own. A fine Gentleman, says he, is one who is honest in his Actions, and refin’d in his Language. If this be a just Description of a fine Gentleman, I will make bold to draw two Consequences from it. The first is, That a Pedant is often a fine Gentleman. For I have known several of them, who have been Honest in their actions, and Refin’d in their Language. The second is, That I know a certain Knight, who, though he should be allow’d to be a Gentleman born, yet is not a fine Gentleman. I shall only add, that I would advise for the future, all the fine Gentlemen, who travel to London from Tipperary, to allow us Englishmen to know what we mean, when we speak our native Language.
To give a true Character of this charming Comedy, it must be acknowledg’d, that there is no great Mastership in the Design of it. Sir George had but little of the artful and just Designs of Ben Johnson: But as Tragedy instructs chiefly by its Design, Comedy instructs by its Characters; which not only ought to be drawn truly in Nature, but to be the resembling Pictures of our Contemporaries, both in Court and Town. Tragedy answers to History-Painting, but Comedy to drawing of Portraits.
How little do they know of the Nature of true Comedy, who believe that its proper Business is to se us Patterns for Imitation: For all such Patterns are serious Things, and Laughter is the Life, and the very Soul of Comedy. ’Tis its proper Business to expose Persons to our View, whose Views we may shun, and whose Follies we may despise; and by shewing us what is done upon the Comick Stage, to shew us what ought never to be done upon the Stage of the World.
All the Characters in Sir Foppling Flutter, and especially the principal Characters, are admirably drawn, both to please and to instruct. First, they are drawn to please, because they are drawn in the Truth of Nature; but to be drawn in the Truth of Nature, they must be drawn with those Qualities that are proper to each respective Season of Life.
[Dennis goes on here to cite Horace’s rules for depicting characters of different ages, as well as Aristotle’s advice on representing young characters.]
A Comick Poet, who gives to a Young Man the Qualities that belong to a Middle Ag’d Man, or to an Old Man, can answer neither of the Ends of his Art. He cannot please, he cannot instruct; because, by shewing such a young Man as is not to be seen in the World, he shews a Monster, and not a Man, sets before us a particular Character, instead of an allegorical and universal one, as all his Characters, and especially his principal Characters, ought to be; and therefore can give no general Instruction, having no Moral, no Fable, and therefore no Comedy.
Now if any one is pleased to compare the Character of Dorimont, to which the Knight has taken so much absurd Exception with the two forementioned Descriptions, he will find in his Character all the chief distinguishing Strokes of them. For such is the Force of Nature, and so admirable a Talent had she given sir George for Comedy, that, tho’ to my certain Knowledge he understood neither Greek nor Latin, yet one would swear, that in drawing his Dorimant, he copy’d the foresaid Draughts, and especially that of Aristotle. Dorimont is a young Courtier, haughty, vain, and prone to Anger, amorous, false, and inconstant. He debauches Loveit, and betrays her; loves Belinda, and as soon as he enjoys her is false to her.
But 2dly, The Characters in Sir Fopling are admirably contriv’d to please, and more particularly the principal ones, because we find in those Characters, a true Resemblance of the Persons both in Court and Town, who liv’d at the Time when that Comedy was writ: For Rapin tells us with a great deal of Judgment, That Comedy is as it ought to be, when an Audience is apt to imagine, that instead of being in the Pit and Boxes, they are in some Assembly of the Neighbourhood, or in some Family Meeting, and that we see nothing done in it, but what is done in the World. For it is, says he, not worth one Farthing, if we do not discover our selves in it, and do not find in it both our own Manners and those of the Persons with whom we live and converse.
The Reason of this Rule is manifest: For as ’tis the Business of a Comick Poet to cure his Spectators of Vice and Folly, by the Apprehension of being laugh’d at; ’tis plain that his Business must be with the reigning Follies and Vices. The violent Passions, which are the Subjects of Tragedy, are the same in every Age, and appear with the same Face; but those Vices and Follies, which are the Subjects of Comedy, are seen to vary continually: Some of those that belonged to our Ancestors, have no Relation to us; and can no more come under the Cognisance of our present Comick Poets, than the Sweating and Sneezing Sickness can come under the Practice of our contemporary Physicians. What Vices and Follies may infect those who are to come after us, we know not; ’tis the present, the reigning Vices, and Follies, that must be the Subjects of our present Comedy: the Comick Poet therefore must take Characters from such Persons as are his Contemporaries, and are infected with the foresaid Follies and Vices.
…
Now I remember very well, that upon the first acting this Comedy, it was generally believed to be an agreeable Representation of the Persons of Condition of both Sexes, both in Court and Town; and that all the World was charm’d with Dorimont; and that it was unanimously agreed, that he had in him several of the Qualities of Wilmot Earl of Rochester, as, his Wit, his Spirit, his amorous Temper, the Charms that he had for the fair Sex, his Falshood, and his Inconstancy; the agreeable Manner of his chiding his Servants, which the late Bishop of Salisbury takes Notice of in his Life; and lastly, his repeating, on every Occasion, the Verses of Waller, for whom that noble Lord had a very particular Esteem; witness his Imitation of the Tenth Satire of the First Book of Horace:
“Waller, by Nature for the Bays design’d,
With Spirit, Force, and Fancy unconfin’d,
In Panegyrick is above Mankind.”
Now, as several of the Qualities in Dorimont’s Character were taken from that Earl of Rochester, so they who were acquainted with the late Sir Fleetwood Shepherd, know very well, that not a little of that Gentleman’s Character is to be found in Medley.
But the Characters in this Comedy are very well form’d to instruct as well as to please, especially those of Dorimont and of Loveit; and they instruct by the same Qualities to which the Knight has taken so much whimsical Exception; as Dorimont instructs by his Insulting, and his Perfidiousness, and Loveit by the Violence of her Resentment and her Anguish. For Loveit has Youth, Beauty, Quality, Wit, and Spirit. And it was depending upon these, that she repos’d so dangerous a Trust in Dorimont, which is a just Caution to the Fair Sex, never to be so conceited of the Power of their Charms, or their other extraordinary Qualities, as to believe they can engage a Man to be true to them, to whom they grant the best Favour, without the only sure Engagement, without which they can never be certain, that they shall not be hated and despis’d by that very Person whom they have done every Thing to oblige.
To conclude with one General Observation, That Comedy may be qualify’d in a powerful Manner both to instruct and to please, the very Constitution of its Subject ought always to be Ridiculous. Comedy, says Rapin, is an Image of common Life, and its End is to expose upon the stage the Defects of the Publick, and to correct and amend the People, by the Fear of being laugh’d at. That therefore, says he, which is most essential to Comedy, is certainly the Ridicule.
…
’Tis by Ridicule that there is in the Character of Sir Fopling, which is one of the principal ones of this Comedy, and from which it takes its Name, that he is so very well qualify’d to please and to instruct. What true Englishman is there, but must be pleas’d to see this ridiculous Knight made the Jest and Scorn of all the other Characters, for shewing, by his foolish aping foreign Customs and Manners, that he prefers another Country to his own? And of what important Instruction must it be to all our Youth who travel, to shew them, that if they so far forget the Love of their Country, as to declare by their espousing foreign Customs and Manners, that they prefer France or Italy to Great Britain, as their Return, they must justly expect to be the Jest and the Scorn of their own Countrymen.
Thus, I hope, I have convinc’d the Reader, that this Comical Knight, Sir Fopling, has been justly form’d by the Knight his Father, to instruct and please, whatever may be the Opinion to the contrary of the Knight his Brother.
Whenever The Fine Gentleman of the latter comes upon the Stage, I shall be glad to see that it has all the shining Qualities which recommend Sir Fopling, that his Characters are always drawn in nature, and that he never gives to a young Man the Qualities of a Middle-aged Man, or an old one; that they are the just Images of our Contemporaries, and of what we every Day see in the World; that instead of setting us Patterns for our Imitation, which is not the proper Business of Comedy, he makes those Follies and Vices ridiculous, which we ought to shun and despise; that the Subject of his Comedy is comical by its Constitution; and that the Ridicule is particularly in the Grand Incidents, and in the principal Characters. For a true Comick Poet is a Philosopher, who, like old Democritus, always instructs us laughing.
Nicolas Rapin (1535–1608) French poet, translator, and critic.
Sir Fleetwood Sheppard was a courtier and poet who was closely associated with Charles II. Medley has also been identified with Etheridge himself.