The artist, who raised the famed structure at Blenheim, laid the foundation of this play. He died in the midst of his labour, and the dramatic edifice was erected by another.²

Sir John Vanbrugh, celebrated as an architect, and no less so as a dramatist, was descended from an ancient family in Cheshire,³ and born about the middle of the reign of King Charles the Second. He was a man of wit, yet a man of business; and without suffering any one of the many talents which he possessed to destroy the other, he made the most of every gift which Providence had bestowed on him, and left an example to poets—that affluence and the muses may dwell in the same habitation, provided the door is not shut against prudence and industry.

Sir John, with all his wisdom and discretion, had still, in the decline of his life, some past deeds of which he repented; and that his contrition was sincere, his amendment appears to have given ample proof—his regret was, that he had ever written a licentious play; and he began to write this moral drama, "The Provoked Husband," in atonement for his former le-
b 2[Page 4]vity.⁴ Heaven, it is hoped, accepted his good intention, though it forbade the completion of his pious desire.

Colley Cibber, the author, actor, and manager, who finished this work, which the deceased Vanbrugh had commenced, has given an account of the above laudable design, which was communicated to him by the author, some little time previous to his death; when Cibber waited upon him to inquire after the progress he had made in composing his new comedy, which, as the manager of the theatre, he was impatient to have in his possession.

Cibber relates, that Sir John had even carried his conscientious scruples so far, that he did not mean his gay, dissipated, woman of fashion should be pardoned at the end of the play; but that she should be repudiated by her husband, and all her honourable friends, as a proper warning to the unthinking wives of that inconsiderate period.⁵

Whether Vanbrugh had perceived any symptoms of approaching dissolution when he planned this catastrophe, is not said—but Colley Cibber, in perfect health and spirits when the departed author's manuscript was laid before him, felt more compassion for female frailty, and less zeal for the conversion of the female world, than to give such a severe example as the original author had intended, to the splendid rows of his side boxes.

Cibber, to his honour, preserved Vanbrugh's moral, yet complied with his own feelings and taste.—By this artful lenity, the cause of morality was, perhaps,
4[Page 5] more benefited than it would have been by more rigid means. Lady Townly, by Vanbrugh's plot, must have been made too unamiable for compassion: the interest in her final punishment would then have been lost, and her case rendered so desperate, that none but the reprobate would have found a resemblance of themselves in her [sic] character—a description of women, too hardened for the reformation of a dramatist.

Colley Cibber, in his variety of occupations, held a post the most difficult to guard against enemies. He was the manager of a London theatre.⁶ In this station, he had to repulse numberless unskilful adventurers, both as authors, and actors, to tell them in plain terms, that they were such—and they, of course, resented this want of supposed discernment in their favour.

When "The Provoked Husband" first appeared, Cibber's enemies, it is said, knowing that part of the work was his, and part the renowned Vanbrugh's, they resolved to spare the dead man, but to have no mercy on the living one. In this design they were happily disappointed; for, mistaking the Wronghead family⁷ as the production of Cibber's pen, and the house of Lord Townly as proceeding from Sir John's, they applauded the very scenes they came to condemn, and condemned those which they came to applaud.

Cibber took the honest revenge of pointing out to them their error, by publishing the manuscript of Sir John exactly as he left it; where all the merit of the elegant part of the drama was seen to be wanting; and that it was Cibber, and not Vanbrugh, to whom they
b 3[Page 6] had been indebted for the chief part of the dialogue between Lord and Lady Townly; more especially for that admirable scene at the conclusion of the comedy.⁸

Although refined characters are sometimes so dull on the stage, and those of low humour so pleasant, that elegance gives place to nature unadorned—in this comedy it is otherwise; for here, that which is elegant is interesting, and all which is vulgar is tedious and insipid, with the exception of Sir Francis,⁹ who is a character drawn with truth and judgment, though somewhat removed in worldly comprehension from the country gentleman of the present day; and as such, not perfectly understood by the majority of an audience.