Who standing, as at Cyprus, in her Shrine,
The Strumpet was ador'd with Rites divine, &c.
This Epilogue, and the Prologue to the same Play, written by Dryden, I spoke myself, which not being usually done by the same Person, I have a mind, while I think of it, to let you know on what Occasion they both fell to my Share, and how other Actors were affected by it.
Sir John Vanbrugh, who had given some light touches of his Pen to the Pilgrim to assist the Benefit Day of Dryden, had the Disposal of the Parts, and I being then as an Actor in some Favour with him, he read the Play first with me alone, and was pleased to offer me my Choice of what I might like best for myself in it. But as the chief Characters were not (according to my Taste) the most shining, it was no great Self-denial in me that I desir'd he would first take care of those who were more difficult to be pleased; I therefore only chose for myself two short incidental Parts, that of the stuttering Cook[296] and the mad Englishman. In which homely Characters I saw more Matter for Delight than those that might have a better Pretence to the Amiable: And when the Play came to be acted I was not deceiv'd in my Choice. Sir John, upon my being contented with so little a Share in the Entertainment, gave me the Epilogue to make up my Mess; which being written so much above the Strain of common Authors, I confess I was not a little pleased with. And Dryden, upon his hearing me repeat it to him, made me a farther Compliment of trusting me with the Prologue. This so particular Distinction was looked upon by the Actors as something too extraordinary. But no one was so impatiently ruffled at it as Wilks, who seldom chose soft Words when he spoke of any thing he did not like. The most gentle thing he said of it was, that he did not understand such Treatment; that for his Part he look'd upon it as an Affront to all the rest of the Company, that there shou'd be but one out of the Whole judg'd fit to speak either a Prologue or an Epilogue! to quiet him I offer'd to decline either in his Favour, or both, if it were equally easy to the Author: But he was too much concern'd to accept of an Offer that had been made to another in preference to himself, and which he seem'd to think his best way of resenting was to contemn. But from that time, however, he was resolv'd, to the best of his Power, never to let the first Offer of a Prologue escape him: Which little Ambition sometimes made him pay too dear for his Success: The Flatness of the many miserable Prologues that by this means fell to his Lot, seem'd wofully unequal to the few good ones he might have Reason to triumph in.
I have given you this Fact only as a Sample of those frequent Rubs and Impediments I met with when any Step was made to my being distinguish'd as an Actor; and from this Incident, too, you may partly see what occasion'd so many Prologues, after the Death of Betterton, to fall into the Hands of one Speaker: But it is not every Successor to a vacant Post that brings into it the Talents equal to those of a Predecessor. To speak a good Prologue well is, in my Opinion, one of the hardest Parts and strongest Proofs of sound Elocution, of which, I confess, I never thought that any of the several who attempted it shew'd themselves, by far, equal Masters to Betterton. Betterton, in the Delivery of a good Prologue, had a natural Gravity that gave Strength to good Sense, a temper'd Spirit that gave Life to Wit, and a dry Reserve in his Smile that threw Ridicule into its brightest Colours. Of these Qualities, in the speaking of a Prologue, Booth only had the first, but attain'd not to the other two: Wilks had Spirit, but gave too loose a Rein to it, and it was seldom he could speak a grave and weighty Verse harmoniously: His Accents were frequently too sharp and violent, which sometimes occasion'd his eagerly cutting off half the Sound of Syllables that ought to have been gently melted into the Melody of Metre: In Verses of Humour, too, he would sometimes carry the Mimickry farther than the hint would bear, even to a trifling Light, as if himself were pleased to see it so glittering. In the Truth of this Criticism I have been confirm'd by those whose Judgment I dare more confidently rely on than my own: Wilks had many Excellencies, but if we leave Prologue-Speaking out of the Number he will still have enough to have made him a valuable Actor. And I only make this Exception from them to caution others from imitating what, in his time, they might have too implicitly admired—— But I have a Word or two more to say concerning the Immoralities of the Stage. Our Theatrical Writers were not only accus'd of Immorality, but Prophaneness; many flagrant Instances of which were collected and published by a Nonjuring Clergyman, Jeremy Collier, in his View of the Stage, &c. about the Year 1697.[297] However just his Charge against the Authors that then wrote for it might be, I cannot but think his Sentence against the Stage itself is unequal; Reformation he thinks too mild a Treatment for it, and is therefore for laying his Ax to the Root of it: If this were to be a Rule of Judgment for Offences of the same Nature, what might become of the Pulpit, where many a seditious and corrupted Teacher has been known to cover the most pernicious Doctrine with the Masque of Religion? This puts me in mind of what the noted Jo. Hains,[298] the Comedian, a Fellow of a wicked Wit, said upon this Occasion; who being ask'd what could transport Mr. Collier into so blind a Zeal for a general Suppression of the Stage, when only some particular Authors had abus'd it? Whereas the Stage, he could not but know, was generally allow'd, when rightly conducted, to be a delightful Method of mending our Morals? "For that Reason, reply'd Hains: Collier is by Profession a Moral-mender himself, and two of Trade, you know, can never agree."[299]
WILLIAM CONGREVE.