Volume I Part 4 (2/2)

Killigrew, a royalist to the core, partic.i.p.ated in the protracted exile of Charles II, and devoting this interim to literature, wrote _Thomaso_ whilst at Madrid, probably about the year 1654-5. Although undeniably interesting in a high degree, and not ill written, it shares in no small measure the salient faults of his other productions, boundless and needless verbosity, slowness of action, unconscionable length.

For all its wit and cleverness, such blemishes would, without trenchant cutting, have been more than sufficient to prohibit it from any actual performance, and, indeed, _Thomaso_ may be better described as a dramatic romance than a comedy intended for the boards. Clumsy and gargantuan speeches, which few actors could have even memorized, and none would have ventured to utter on the stage, abound in every scene.

This lack of technical ac.u.men (unless, as may well be the case, Killigrew wrote much of these plays without any thought of presentation) is more than surprising in an author so intimately connected with the theatre and, after the Restoration, himself manager of the King's Company.

Nor is _Thomaso_ without its patent plagiarisms. Doubtless no small part is simply autobiographical adventuring, but, beside many a reminiscence of the later Jacobeans, Killigrew has conveyed entire pa.s.sages and lyrics wholesale without attempt at disguise. Thus the song, 'Come hither, you that love,' Act ii, Scene 3, is from Fletcher's _Captain_, Act iv, the scene in Lelia's chamber. Again, the procedure and orations of Lopus the mountebank are but the flimsiest alterations of _Volpone_, Act ii, Scene I, nor could Killigrew change Jonson for anything but the worse. He has even gone so far as to name his quack's spouse Celia, a distinct echo of Corvino's wife.

In dealing with these two plays Mrs. Behn has done a great deal more than merely fit the pieces for the stage. Almost wholly rewriting them, she has infused into the torpid dialogue no small portion of wit and vivacity, whilst the characters, p.r.o.ne to devolve into little better than prosy and wooden marionettes, with only too apparent wires, are given life, vigour movement, individuality and being. In fact she has made the whole completely and essentially her own. In some cases the same names are retained. We find Phillipo, Sancho, Angelica Bianca, Lucetta, Callis, in Killigrew. But as Willmore is a different thing altogether to Thomaso, so Ned Blunt is an infinitely more entertaining figure than his prototype Edwardo. Amongst other details Killigrew, oddly and stupidly enough, gives his English gentlemen foreign names:-- Thomaso, Ferdinando, Rogero, Harrigo[*]. This jar is duly corrected in _The Rover_.

[Footnote *: There is a strange commixture here. The character is familiarly addressed as 'Hal', the scene is Madrid, and he rejoices in the Milanese (not Italian) nomenclature Arrigo = Henry in that dialect.]

Mrs. Behn has further dealt with the Lucetta intrigue in a far more masterly way than Killigrew's clumsily developed episode. In _Thomaso_ it occupies a considerable s.p.a.ce, and becomes both tedious and brutally unpleasant. The apt conclusion of the amour in _The Rover_ with Blunt's parlous mishap is originally derived from Boccaccio, Second Day, Novel 5, where a certain Andreuccio finds himself in the same unsavoury predicament as the Ess.e.x squireen. However, even this was by no means new to the English stage. In _Blurt Master Constable_, Lazarillo de Tormes, at the house of the courtezan Imperia, meets with precisely the same accident, Act iii, Scene 3, Act iv, Scenes 2 and 3, and it is probable that Mrs. Behn did not go directly to the _Decameron_ but drew upon Middleton, of whom she made very ample use on another occasion, borrowing for _The City Heiress_ no small portion of _A Mad World, My Masters_, and racily reproducing in extenso therefrom Sir Bounteous Progress, d.i.c.k Folly-Wit, the mock grandee, and that most excellent of all burglaries good enough for Fielding at his best.

In dealing with _Thomaso_ Astrea did not hesitate, with manifest advantage, to transfer incidents from Part II to Part I, and vice versa.

Correcting, pruning, augmenting, enlivening, rewriting, she may indeed (pace the memory of the merry jester of Charles II) be well said to have clothed dry bones with flesh, and to have given her creation a witty and supple tongue.

THEATRICAL HISTORY.

The first part of _The Rover_ was produced at the Duke's House, Dorset Gardens, in the summer of 1677, and licensed for printing on 2 July of the same year. It met, as it fully deserved, with complete success, and remained one of the stock plays of the company. Smith, the original Willmore, and the low comedian Underhill as Blunt were especially renowned in their respective roles. Another famous Willmore was Will Mountford, of whom Dibdin relates, 'When he played Mrs. Behn's dissolute character of The Rover, it was remarked by many, and particularly by Queen Mary, that it was dangerous to see him act, he made vice so alluring.'

Amongst the more notable representations of the eighteenth century we find:-- _Drury Lane; 18 February, 1703._ Willmore by Wilks; h.e.l.lena, Mrs. Oldfield; repeated on 15 October of the same year. _Haymarket; 20 January, 1707._ Willmore by Verbruggen; Blunt, Underhill; h.e.l.lena, Mrs.

Bracegirdle; Angelica, Mrs. Barry; Florinda, Mrs. Bowman. _Drury Lane; 22 April, 1708._ Willmore by Wilks; Blunt, Estcourt; Frederick, Cibber; h.e.l.lena, Mrs. Oldfield; Angelica, Mrs. Barry; Florinda, Mrs. Porter.

_Drury Lane; 30 December, 1715._ Willmore, Wilks; Blunt, Johnson; h.e.l.lena, Mrs. Mountfort; Angelica, Mrs. Porter. _Drury Lane; 6 March, 1716._ Don Pedro, Quin; Frederick, Ryan; Florinda, Mrs. Horton.

_Lincoln's Inn Fields; 5 April, 1725._ 'Never acted there.' Performed for Ryan's benefit. Willmore, Ryan; Belvile, Quin; Blunt, Spiller; h.e.l.lena, Mrs. Bullock; Angelica, Mrs. Parker. _Covent Garden; 9 November, 1748._ Willmore, Ryan; Blunt, Bridgewater; h.e.l.lena, Mrs.

Woffington; Angelica, Mrs. Horton. To make this performance more attractive there was also presented 'a musical entertainment', ent.i.tled, _Apollo and Daphne_, which had been originally produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1726. _Covent Garden; 19 February, 1757._ 'Not acted twenty years.' Willmore, Smith; Belvile, Ridout; Frederick, Clarke; Don Antonio, Dyer; Blunt, Shuter; h.e.l.lena, Mrs. Woffington; Angelica, Mrs.

Hamilton; Florinda, Mrs. Elmy. This, the latest revival, was performed with considerable expense, and proved successful, being repeated no less than ten times during the season. Wilkinson says that Shuter acted Blunt very realistically, and, as the stage directions of Act iii require, stripped to his very drawers.

On 8 March, 1790, J. P. Kemble presented at Drury Lane a pudibond alteration of _The Rover_, which he dubbed _Love in Many Masks_ (8vo, 1790). It was well received, and acted eight times; in the following season once. Willmore was played by Kemble himself; Belvile, Wroughton; Blunt, Jack Bannister; Stephano, Suett; h.e.l.lena, Mrs. Jordan; Angelica, Mrs. Ward; Florinda, Mrs. Powell; Valeria, Mrs. Kemble; Lucetta, Miss Tidswell. It is not entirely worthless from a purely technical point of view, but yet very modest and mediocre. As might well be surmised, the raciness and spirit of _The Rover_ entirely evaporate in the insipidity of emasculation. This is the last recorded performance of Mrs. Behn's brilliant comedy in any shape.

THE ROVER;

or, the Banish'd Cavaliers.

PART I.

<script>