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.