Complete Works of Thomas Otway

by Thomas Otway

  In the swift impetuous parts of a play such a diction is certainly best. Only Heywood, so far as I know, among the older dramatists, is equally pure. But I admit that where the action pauses, where it demands reflective soliloquy, Otway and Lee are inferior to their great predecessors. In Venice Preserved, and The Orphan, the pace is so tremendous, however, that we have hardly leisure to perceive their poverty in that respect. But there are occasions, in Don Carlos especially, where we do feel this inferiority, although the play is one of Otway’s finest. Thus, at the beginning of the fifth act, when the king soliloquises on his misery in having lost the love of his bride, there was scope and verge for poetry of reflection, which Beaumont and Fletcher would have given, as well as Shakespeare. Dryden also would have given it, though perhaps of a somewhat coarser grain. This passage in Otway is poor, unworthy the occasion. His versification, moreover, though very good sometimes, is inferior on the whole to that of Dryden. Yet there are some passages of true reflective poetry in Otway, though certainly few and far between. In Southerne they are almost entirely wanting.

  In Don Carlos we note the same want of political and historic sense which we had also to note in Venice Preserved, especially when we compare both plays with the narratives of Saint-Réal, from which they are taken, and which have high merit; or when we compare Otway’s with Schiller’s Don Carlos, and even with Alfieri’s tragedy, Filippo, though the extraordinary concentration of the latter admits of little historic detail. Still Alfieri’s Philip is as life-like and graphic a study of individuality as that of Saint-Réal, or Schiller; whereas the Philip of Otway makes no pretence to being other than a mere conventional stage-tyrant, violent, and ever in extremes; yet is he a man capable of much tenderness also; for he actually loves the Queen and his son, feelings of which the real Philip was incapable. Philip’s jealousy in real life, as in the other two plays, only arises from a fierce sensual greed of personal possession, and from wounded pride. In Otway the king repents, although too late, and becomes reconciled to his wife and son, when he discovers that his jealousy has made him a blind tool in the hands of the enemies of Carlos and the Queen, and that they have not sinned in act. But the real Philip could not have repented. He did not believe them guilty in act. Otway’s range is limited, his types are few. He could not draw a cold deliberate villain. As for his politics, they are simply those of an ordinary country clergyman’s son. But he died very young, with little experience. The Philip of Schiller and Alfieri is a cold, cruel, ambitious bigot, only capable of simulating natural affection. But in each of the three tragedies the Queen and Don Carlos are powerfully presented. The German play has all the Elizabethan lack of unity. Schiller’s own intense and catholic sympathy with human progress and popular aspirations dominates throughout; and while unity of motive — for instance, in the important place given to Posa, friend of Carlos, a magnificent humane ideal — is somewhat lacking, there is more human verisimilitude in his play than in that of Otway, because men and women are usually swayed by complex and manifold impulses. The political part taken by the Queen and Prince in favour of the Flemish rebels had indeed a great deal to do with the King’s anger against them. The splendid interview of Posa with the tyrant, and also the Grand Inquisitor’s are quite beyond Otway. Philip had wickedly married Elisabeth, who was originally betrothed to his son Carlos, and the conflict of conjugal duty with love is admirably rendered in all the tragedies, although the passion and pathos are perhaps warmest in Otway. This is the sole motive in the English and Italian plays. In Schiller there is a whole era, “the very form and pressure” of a time.

  We get as little philosophy or theology, as political and historic sympathy from Otway. In this respect he is inferior not only to Shakespeare, but to Dryden, who is able to afford more food for the intellect, if less for the heart. The terse and nervous expression of ripe and mellow life-wisdom in Dryden’s Spanish Friar, for instance, is very remarkable. The greater poets indeed are usually men of great general intellectual power. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Spenser, Goethe, Dante, Milton, Byron, Coleridge, Browning, occur at once to memory. Otway is perhaps exceptional in this respect. Possibly the free-thinking sentiments so fiercely hurled in the teeth of the priest by Pierre on the scaffold afford a clue to Otway’s own attitude toward religion. In The Orphan we find the same ardour of friendship and attachment between the sexes, the same raging despair and revolted denial, when those fierce affections are disappointed — no faith. Castalio’s last words are —

  Patience! preach it to the winds, To roaring seas, or raging fires; the knaves That teach it laugh at ye when ye believe them. * * * Now all I beg is, lay me in one grave, Thus with my love! Farewell, I now am — nothing.

  And Chamfort’s, the last in the play:

  ’Tis thus that Heaven its empire does maintain; It may afflict, but man must not complain.

  The scenes in Don Carlos, where Carlos and the Queen meet, are admirably right in their abrupt, interrupted utterance, and must have been most effective on the stage. On the whole, no better opportunity exists for comparing the classical and romantic manners than in the examples afforded by these three plays on the reign of Philip. Don John’s soliloquy about bastardy and free love is exceptionally good as a purple patch of poetry in Otway, though not without a reminiscence of Shakespeare’s Edmund. There are likewise two splendid lines uttered by the King when Gomez is tempting him to suspect his son and queen. Gomez says:

  ’Tis true they gazed, but ’twas not very long.

  King. Lie still, my heart. Not long was’t that you said?

  Gomez. No longer than they in your presence stayed.

  King. No longer? Why a soul in less time flies To Heaven, and they have changed theirs at their eyes.

  The Orphan I do not myself like so much as Don Carlos, but it is full of Otway’s peculiar power, and has a greater reputation. The plot is repulsive, with a flavour of Elizabethan unsoundness. All the mischief and misery arise from a want of moral courage shown by Castalio, the passionate, but weak and irresolute hero, in concealing — partly from a kind of dastardly, rakish, bravado, and partly from fear of his father’s disapproval, as well as a certain misplaced deference to fraternal affection — his own ardent and honourable affection for the orphan girl to whom he is secretly married. The character of Castalio is similar to that of Jaffier, Carlos, and of Otway himself, judging from what we know of his relations with Mrs. Barry. Monimia is another Belvidera, though less powerfully conceived. They are exquisite types of womanhood, own sisters to Cordelia, Imogen, Desdemona. There is no local colour in the play, but we miss that in Don Carlos and Venice Preserved more particularly. Otway’s scenes might be in abstract space. The poetry of the period of Charles II., William, and Anne, was singularly blind to the face of external nature, a very serious defect; not even Greek or Latin poetry was thus blind.

  I have drawn a distinction between two kinds of poetry in drama — that of movement or crisis, and that of repose or contemplation. The poetry appropriate to the one condition must necessarily be different from that appropriate to the other, and he is so far a bad poet who confounds the species. It will be the second kind that can be transplanted to books of beautiful extracts, and lends itself to quotation, because that is more germane to many similar circumstances; whereas the former belongs especially to the particular event or crisis. In the former species I have allowed that Otway is not rich. We look in vain for the poetry of Hamlet, of brooding, irresolute, melancholy; for the poetry of Lorenzo, that of music; or Portia, which is that of mercy; for any lovely words like those of Perdita, the very breath and symphony of flowers; for any accents like those of heart-stricken Aspatia, in her swan-song of desertion; or visionary anthem of Helen’s ideal beauty, as in Marlowe. No Claudio out of Shakespeare has uttered a final word concerning physical death equal to this: “To lie in cold obstruction, and to rot”; no Cæsar has fixed for us the visible tokens of a born conspirator; no Jaques summed for us the seasons of human life. Nor are these mere “
purple patches”; far from it, they are of the seamless garment’s very warp and woof.

  But, if we consider, we shall find that much of the poetry we love best in that earlier drama is the poetry of movement or supreme event; and this we do find in Otway, as the passages which I have already quoted, or mentioned, are sufficient to prove. We do find in him poetry parallel to that of mad Lear’s heart-quaking utterance in presence of Cordelia, which commences —

  Pray do not mock me; I am a very foolish fond old man,

  and ends —

  Do not laugh at me; For as I am a man, I think this lady To be my child Cordelia.

  or to her answer —

  And so I am, I am!

  She has some cause to be angry with him, but her sisters none, he says; and she answers “No cause! no cause!” That, which is, perhaps, the finest passage in all literature, has not one metaphor, one trope, one “precious” phrase; but any old injured madman might speak just so. When poor, laughable, dissolute old Falstaff, dying, “babbles o’ green fields”; when Lear at the last apostrophises his dead Cordelia —

  Thou’lt come no more, Never, never, never, never, never! * * * Pray you, undo this button. Thank you, sir! * * * Do you see this? Look on her — look — her lips —

  we can hardly bear to hear them. It is so much finer, because so much truer to nature than when those ingeniously poetical ladies, entreating the sepulture of their best beloved, urge that they are “rinsing their holy begging in their eyes.” But Tourneur’s Castiza takes our breath away when she adjures the trusted and reverenced mother, who has suffered her own better nature to be warped and darkened, and invites her daughter to suffer moral degradation, in the words —

  Mother, come from that poisonous woman there!

  It is a gleam of heavenly light blinding us out of the gloom. And when the Duchess of Malfi in her last struggle entreats —

  I pray thee look thou givest my little boy Some syrup for his cold; and let the girl Say her prayers ere she sleep. Now what you please

  we are reminded of the equally touching words of Belvidera about her child, and the last words of dying Monimia:

  When I am laid low in the grave, and quite forgotten, May’st thou be happy in a fairer bride! But none can ever love thee like Monimia. * * * I’m here; who calls me? Methought I heard a voice Sweet as the shepherd’s pipe upon the mountains When all his little flock’s at feed before him * * * How my head swims. ’Tis very dark. Good night.

  It is true that the poet, since he takes the liberty to translate into verse men’s ordinary language, may also interpret and mould his story, together with the speech it may involve, artistically, according to his own genius. But then the turn of thought, of feeling and of phraseology must have verisimilitude, that is to say, must seem related, not only to the event as it might appear to the poet personally, but as it ought to appear to him when he has imagined himself into the character and circumstances represented. Thus the strange figure made use of by Jaffier in addressing Pierre, who is about to be tortured on the rack, is felt to be absolutely fitting. For anger, despair, remorse, will sometimes burst forth in hyperbole. Wisdom is justified of her children.

  And now perhaps we may hardly be surprised to hear the consenting voice of great authorities place Otway very high among the masters of English tragedy. Dryden, though, when “fearing a rival near the throne,” he had called Otway “a barren illiterate man,” said afterwards: “The motions which are studied are never so natural as those which break out in the height of a real passion. Mr. Otway possessed this part as thoroughly as any of the ancients or moderns.” And again:

  Charming his face and charming was his verse.

  Addison says: “Otway has followed nature in the language of his tragedy, and therefore shines in the passionate parts more than any of our English poets.” Goldsmith again: “The English language owes very little to Otway, though next to Shakespeare the greatest genius England has ever produced in tragedy.” Then let us remember the beautiful lines of Collins:

  But wherefore need I wander wide To old Ilissus’ distant side, Deserted stream and mute! Wild Arun too has heard thy strains, And echo ‘midst my native plains Been soothed by Pity’s lute. There first the wren thy myrtles shed On gentlest Otway’s infant head, To him thy cell was shown, And while he sung the female heart, With youth’s soft notes unspoiled by art, Thy turtles mixed their own.

  And Coleridge, musing upon “mighty poets in their misery dead,” in his “Monody on the death of Chatterton” sang:

  Is this the land of song-ennobled line? Is this the land where genius ne’er in vain Poured forth his lofty strain? Ah me, yet Spenser, gentlest bard divine, Beneath chill disappointment’s shade His weary limbs in lonely anguish laid, And o’er her darling dead, Pity, hopeless, hung her head; While ‘mid the pelting of that merciless storm Sunk to the cold earth Otway’s famished form.

  Respecting Otway’s scenes of passionate affection, Sir Walter Scott says that they “rival and sometimes excel those of Shakespeare; more tears have been shed probably for the sorrows of Belvidera and Monimia than for those of Juliet and Desdemona.”

  Thomas Otway3 was born March 3rd, 1651, at Trotton near Midhurst in Sussex, and was the only son of the Rev. Humphrey Otway, Rector of Wolbeding in the same county. He was educated at Wickeham School, Winchester, and at eighteen was entered a commoner of Christ Church College, Oxford, early in 1669. He does not display much learning, and probably did not study very hard, but preferred amusing himself with his friends, among whom was young Lord Falkland. He had been intended for the Church; but the death of his father, who, as he tells us, “left him no other patrimony than his faith and loyalty,” probably obliged him to leave Oxford without taking a degree. In 1671 he went to London to seek his fortune there. At the theatre in Dorset Garden, Salisbury Court, all Otway’s plays, except the last, were performed by the Duke of York’s company; and here Otway himself made his first and only appearance as an actor, taking the part of the King in Mrs. Behn’s Forced Marriage. This attempt was eminently unsuccessful. He seems now to have cultivated the society of men of rank and fashion, who tolerated him as a boon companion for the sake of his agreeable social qualities, but who, while they helped him to get rid of his money in many foolish ways, left him in the lurch when he needed them most. The young Earl of Plymouth, however, a natural son of the king, and a college friend, did befriend him. His premature death at Tangier, aged twenty-two, was a serious loss to Otway.

  The dramatist’s earliest play was Alcibiades, first printed in 1675. It is a poor production, though there are scenes in it of distinct promise. Don Carlos appeared in the year after, and won extraordinary favour, partly owing to the patronage of Rochester, who dropped an author as soon as he acquired, by merit or popularity, some independent standing, fancying that his own literary dictatorship might be thereby imperilled. Thus he had dropped Dryden, taken up Elkanah Settle, the “City poet,” dropped him, and elevated Crowne. But Crowne’s Calisto becoming too popular for the malignant wit, he transferred his patronage to Otway. In 1677 Otway produced two translations from the French, Titus and Berenice, from Racine, and The Cheats of Scapin, from Molière. All these were rhyming, so-called “heroic” plays, our playwrights herein following the French example. But Dryden, in the Prologue to Aurungzebe, having announced that he would henceforth abandon the use of rhyme in tragedy, other writers soon followed his lead. The success of Don Carlos was the occasion of a coolness between Otway and Dryden, who, with the proverbial amiability of literary rivals, said some sharp things about one another; but we have seen how generously Dryden afterwards gave Otway his due meed of praise. To this period, says Thornton, we may probably assign a duel between Otway and Settle (“Doeg”), in which Settle is said to have misbehaved.

  With the fine actress, Mrs. Barry, a daughter of Colonel Barry, who had sacrificed his fortune in the service of Charles I., Otway fell desperately in love. She had taken a part in his Alcibiades, and became famous
by her representations of Belvidera and Monimia. To this affection, with all the depth of his character, Otway remained constant; but Mrs. Barry did not return it; at any rate, she deemed the attractions of Lord Rochester superior. Possibly Mr. Gosse may be right in thinking that she was a cold and calculating woman, who would reject a penniless lover, yet keep him dangling attendance upon her if he wrote parts that suited her as an actress. In this case, however, it seems odd that such parts should have suited her; and it would be touching to note how Otway must have idealized his lady in writing them for her. But she may honestly have preferred the witty and 5 peer to the tragic and penniless poet — though Otway was a goodlooking man with very fine eyes, and Rochester, according to Otway (a prejudiced witness), looked like an owl. Yet, judging by Rochester’s portraits, he was distinguished, though rather feminine in appearance. However, Rochester was as sincerely attached to Mrs. Barry as such a rake could be, and she really owed him much, for he personally educated her in the duties of her profession. Otway loved “not wisely, but too well,” as we know from the remarkable love letters, reprinted in the appendix to the present volume. With characteristic hotheadedness and weakness combined he could not resolve to renounce her, even though he knew she was Rochester’s mistress. Hence the insolent bitterness of Rochester’s attack upon him in his “Session of the Poets,” in which he alludes to Otway’s pitiable condition on his return from Flanders.4 For even Otway’s human nature had to yield at last, and he could no longer bear to hang about the Duke’s Theatre, as had been his wont, in order to get a glimpse of his lady. He therefore obtained from the Earl of Plymouth a cornet’s commission in a new regiment of horse, which was sent out at this time (1678) to join the army under Monmouth in Flanders — not, surely, as Mr. Gosse says, in the service of France, but, on the contrary, to relieve Mons in the Dutch interest. Very shortly after, however, the troops were disbanded and recalled, while the money voted by the Commons for their payment was shamefully misappropriated, they being paid only by debentures, the credit of which was so low that they were hardly saleable. This is why the poet came home in so miserable a plight, and not on account of any want of courage.