a boy, even a Scottish boy, should have an overweening
passion for this unlucky piece, that he should expect
by such a work to climb a step on fortune’s
ladder, is nowadays amazing. For ten years he
clung to it, modified it, polished, improved it, and
then published it in 1749, after the success of “Roderick
Random.” Twice he told the story of his
theatrical mishaps and disappointments, which were
such as occur to every writer for the stage.
He wailed over them in “Roderick Random,”
in the story of Mr. Melopoyn; he prolonged his cry,
in the preface to “The Regicide,” and
probably the noble whom he “lashed” (very
indecently) in his two satires ("Advice,” 1746,
“Reproof,” 1747, and in “Roderick
Random”) was the patron who could not get the
tragedy acted. First, in 1739, he had a patron
whom he “discarded.” Then he went
to the West Indies, and, returning in 1744, he lugged
out his tragedy again, and fell foul again of patrons,
actors, and managers. What befell him was the
common fate. People did not, probably, hasten
to read his play: managers and “supercilious
peers” postponed that entertainment, or, at least,
the noblemen could not make the managers accept it
if they did not want it. Our taste differs so
much from that of the time which admired Home’s
“Douglas,” and “The Regicide”
was so often altered to meet objections, that we can
scarcely criticise it. Of course it is absolutely
unhistorical; of course it is empty of character, and
replete with fustian, and ineffably tedious; but perhaps
it is not much worse than other luckier tragedies
of the age. Naturally a lover calls his wounded
lady “the bleeding fair.” Naturally
she exclaims—
“Celestial powers
Protect my father, shower upon his—oh!”
(Dies).
Naturally her adorer answers with—
“So may our mingling
souls
To bliss supernal wing our happy—oh!”
(Dies).
We are reminded of—
“Alas, my Bom!”
(Dies).
“‘Bastes’ he would have said!”
The piece, if presented, must have been damned.
But Smollett was so angry with one patron, Lord Lyttelton,
that he burlesqued the poor man’s dirge on the
death of his wife. He was so angry with Garrick
that he dragged him into “Roderick Random”
as Marmozet. Later, obliged by Garrick, and
forgiving Lyttelton, he wrote respectfully about both.
But, in 1746 (in “Advice"), he had assailed
the “proud lord, who smiles a gracious lie,”
and “the varnished ruffians of the State.”
Because Tobias’s play was unacted, people who
tried to aid him were liars and ruffians, and a great
deal worse, for in his satire, as in his first novel,
Smollett charges men of high rank with the worst of
unnamable crimes. Pollio and Lord Strutwell,
whoever they may have been, were probably recognisable
then, and were undeniably libelled, though they did
not appeal to a jury. It is improbable that Sir
John Cope had ever tried to oblige Smollett.
His ignoble attack on Cope, after that unfortunate
General had been fairly and honourably acquitted of
incompetence and cowardice, was, then, wholly disinterested.
Cope is “a courtier Ape, appointed General.”