Critical Strictures on the New Tragedy of Elvira, Written by Mr. David Malloch | Page 6

the Sum total of this contemptible Piece.
After the Play we were entertained with an Epilogue fraught with
Humour, and spoken with Spirit. There was a Simile of a Bundle of
Twigs formed into a Rod, which seemed to convey a delicate Allusion
to Mr. Malloch's original Profession,[E] and some of the Lines
contained an exquisite and severe Criticism on the Play itself.
Amidst all the harshness inspired by a real Feeling of the Dulness of
the Composition itself, it would be unjust not to bestow the highest
Applause on the principal Performers, by the Energy of whose Action
even Dulness was sometimes rendered respectable. We were sorry to
find such great Talents so very ill employed. The melting Tones of a
Cibber should make every Eye stream with Tears. Pritchard should
always elevate. Garrick give Strength and Majesty to the Scene. Let us
soften at the keen Distress of a Belvidera; let our Souls rise with the
Dignity of an Elizabeth; let us tremble at the wild Madness of a Lear;[F]
but let us not Yawn at the Stupidity of uninteresting Characters.
FINIS
* * * * *

NOTES ON CRITICAL STRICTURES
[Footnote A: (P. 5) Advertisement. Johnson's dictum first appeared in

the abridgment of his dictionary, 1756, under Alias, which he defined
as "A Latin word signifying otherwise; as Mallet alias Mallock; that is,
otherwise Mallock." In four places in his Memorials and Letters
Relating to the History of Britain in the Reign of James the First (1762)
Dalrymple had given Mallet "his real name"; he had repented after the
sheets were printed and had inserted a corrigendum, "For Malloch, r.
Mallet," which only made matters worse. See The Yale Edition of
Horace Walpole's Correspondence, iv. 78 n. 17. Dalrymple chided the
authors of Critical Strictures gently for using his name, and said he was
sorry for having thus yielded to a private pique (LJ, p. 190 n. 6). But
the matter remained of interest to him, for as late as 1783 he sent
Johnson a copy of one of Mallet's earliest productions, the title-page of
which bore the name in its original spelling (Life, iv. 216-217; see also
Private Papers of James Boswell ... in the Collection of ... R.H. Isham,
ed. Geoffrey Scott and F.A. Pottle, 18 vols., Privately Printed,
1928-1934, xv. 208).]
[Footnote B: (P. 15) "We heard it once asserted by David Hume, Esq."
On 4 November 1762, in Hume's house in James's Court, Edinburgh.
"Mr. Mallet has written bad Tragedies because he is deficient in the
pathetic, and hence it is doubted if he is the Author of William and
Margaret. Mr. Hume said he knew people who had seen it before
Mallet was born. Erskine gave another proof, viz. that he has written
Edwin and Emma, a Ballad in the same stile, not near so good." See
Private Papers (as in the note preceding this), i. 126-127, or the
Limited Edition of Boswell's London Journal, 1762-1763,
McGraw-Hill and Heinemann, 1951, p. 101. Hume protested
vigorously, though with good humor, at this breach of confidence, and
Boswell wrote a flippant reply (LJ, pp. 206-207, 208-209).]
[Footnote C: (P. 20) "... her Punishment was reserved for the Farce,
which for that Purpose was, contrary to Custom, added to the Play."
Stock plays were always followed by an afterpiece, but the afterpiece
was in most cases omitted during the first run of a new play. For
example, Mrs. Sheridan's Discovery opened 3 February 1763 and ran
for ten nights before an afterpiece was added. The afterpieces presented
with Elvira up to 27 January were as follows: 19 January, The Male

Coquette (Garrick); 20 January, High Life Below Stairs (Townley); 21
January, Old Maid (Murphy); 22 January, Catharine and Petruchio
(Garrick's adaptation of Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew); 24
January, High Life Below Stairs; 26 January, Catharine and Petruchio;
27 January, Edgar and Emmeline (Hawkesworth). But Mrs. Pritchard,
who played the Queen in Elvira, seems not to have appeared in any of
these afterpieces, and no one of them contains a queen (Dougald
MacMillan, Drury Lane Calendar, 1747-1776, Clarendon Press, 1938,
pp. 94, 217, 239, 260, 282, 297). Furthermore, if the jest could be
understood only with reference to a particular farce, that farce would
surely have been named. This is no doubt a case where less is meant
than meets the ear. The authors are merely saying that Mallet's play is
badly constructed, and is so ridiculous generally that no one will know
when the tragedy ends and the farce begins.]
[Footnote D: (P. 21) "Though in general this Tragedy is colder than the
most extreme Parts of Nova Zembla ..." This is perhaps the only
passage in Critical Strictures that can be attributed with certainty to
one of the three authors. The remark is Dempster's,