| Citation |
NYJ-N.767.239
31 Dec 1767:13 (1304)
(The remainder of the piece on the play-house, begun in our
last.)
Thus much may be said as to the religious principles of this
bold advocate for the stage. . . [6 more lines]
He considers the utility of the stage under two distinct
heads, viz. instruction and amusement. Every thing he has
said, except as to the first point, I shall suppose
sufficiently answered and exposed in what I have already
offered. Under his head of instruction, there is something
that seems to look like reasoning, and therefore it may
deserve a more serious refutation. As to his position that
the stage is the best school for acquiring the knowledge of
mankind, his argument stands thus; The knowledge of human
nature, is necessary to all who are conversant with mankind.
Human nature being the subject of every play, the success of
it depends upon its familiarity to nature. Therefore, every
play that in its exhibition meets with applause, proves that
the author understands human nature. Again, none can give
better lessons in any science than those who the united
voices of the people declare proficients in it. All agree,
that a knowledge of mankind is necessary. Therefore, those
who refuse to frequent the play-house, act inconsistent with
reason and their own principles. . . [18 lines about lack of
"prerequisite qualifications " for the "students'' of this
method of instruction; then]
Nor whether they have abilities for improving in this
mysterious science that is taught upon the stage. . . [9
more lines] We are told the subject of every play is human
nature, and that its perfection and excellency consists in a
conformity to that, as a standard. Now suppose this really
to be the case, yet how are we to find out where there is
this conformity? Or are we to take it for granted that every
dramatic writer executes his task in a perfect and finished
manner? No; Dramaticus seems to be sensible there ought to
be some proof that this similarity to nature is preserved.
The criterion is this; if says he, the play in its
exhibition meets with applause, then it is certainly proved
that the author understood human nature. If this friend to
the stage means to argue consistently, then he means to say,
that this applause must accompany the acting of the play.
Hence those who bestow the plaudit, ought to be capable of
following the author minutely thro' his whole design,
otherwise they cannot be competent judges of the subject,
nor of his merit in executing it. . . [8 more lines]
Now amidst a mixed audience at a play-house, I believe it
will be found that the actors engage more of their attention
than the author of a play. The principal thing regarded is,
whether the actor performs his part well; the plaudit is
oftner given to him than the author of the play. The manner
and appearance of the one strikes the imagination with a
pleasing and agreeable surprise, while the character of the
other lies in a great measure concealed from the vulgar eye.
There are indeed a few who can relish the beauties of both.
Now if it should happen that the actor acquits himself in a
manner that pleases, he will receive the general applause of
the audience, tho'here and there one might see that the
author deserved reproach and censure in that very part where
the actor made his exit with so much applause; Thus an
indifferent play well acted, may become the subject of
general applause, and the author be almost wholly indebted
to the actor for giving a credit to his work: This united
applause therefore, which a play may accidentally meet with
in the exhibition of it upon the stage, does not prove that
the author understands human nature. I have traced this part
of the argument through, merely to show its falacy: For tho'
I do not admit that all plays which are approved by an
audience, are for that reason founded in a perfect knowledge
of human nature; yet I would not be understood to assert,
that there never was a play wrote in which the author
appeared to understand human nature. There are some whose
dramatic writings, exhibit an illustrious display of this
knowledge; but then as I said before, it lies beyond the
reach of common minds. So intricate is the science of human
nature, that lost and bewildered in the fruitless search,
they know not how the windings run, nor where the regular
confusion ends. But as I seem to have admitted, that
persons of judgment and taste, may profit by this knowledge
of human nature that is discovered in some plays; it will
perhaps be asked, why they should not enjoy the advantages
of a theatre?
The answer is easy; (1st) It is clear that in point of
improvement, the reading of those plays will afford them all
the advantages that can be derived from the author's
knowledge; For it happens that in this new school, the
tutors do not (as they usually do in our old fashioned
seminaries) explain the doubts, enforce the truths, and
illustrate the beauties contained in the volumes from which
they instruct us. The actors give us just what the play
itself would furnish and no more; how then do they advance
us one jot in point of knowledge? Surely it will not be
said that the acting of a play is essential to our
understanding it? As well might it be pretended that every
other book is unintelligible, unless the truths it contains
are held up to us under theatrical representations; an
absurdity that no man will attempt to maintain. (2nd) There
is a further reason to be assigned by way of answer to this
question; namely, that if these men of taste can acquire the
knowledge they seek for, without the aid of theatre: And if
the acquisition of it from the theatre may be attended with
any evil consequences to themselves or others; then they
should not, merely for the sake of a little entertainment,
desire to receive their knowledge thro' that channel. (3rd)
That as these better kind of plays, are not even without
their blemishes; and if they were, are not the only ones
that are acted, but the good and the bad go promiscuously
together; so it is reasonable upon the whole to suppose,
that tho' some might promote knowledge among a few, yet
others would, without having that good effect, promote vice
and immorality among many. And those who may carry off this
knowledge with them, will be happy if they are not tinctured
with some touches of this immoral stain; for good sense and
a clear head do not always guard the heart from vice. Hence
I dare venture to conclude in opposition to Dramaticus: That
the man who refuses to frequent the play-house, does act
consistent with reason, and a just regard to the principle
of properly cultivating the knowledge of mankind.
[Signed] Philander.
|