CHAPTER EIGHT 'Dire is the Dearth and Famine on the Stage': Drama, 1682-1688 In November 1682 the ailing King's Company merged with the more adven- turously and expertly managed Duke's, and for the next thirteen years the London stage became a monopoly. The absence of commercial rivalry in- duced an unenterprising reliance upon stock plays, and new plays for a while became scarce and unadventurous. Most comedies, for example, are farcical or lightweight, and in the period up to the end of the 1688 season only four plays ( Lee The Princess of Cleve, Otway The Atheist, Behn The Lucky Chance, and Sedley Bellamira) provide a serious and exploratory treatment of human sexuality. The Tory triumph turned hitherto ambivalent dramatists into partisans and thereby assisted the decline of tragedy. With The Duke of Guise ( November 1682) and Constantine the Great ( November 1683) Dryden and Lee make their last, and least distinguished, contributions to Exclusion Crisis drama; Rochester's adaptation of Fletcher Valentinian received a posthumous premiere by February 1684; but thereafter there is nothing until Mountfort The Injur'd Lovers ( February 1688) and Crowne Darius King of Persia ( April 1688). The Dryden- Lee Duke of Guise had been prepared for performance the previous July, but had been banned, probably because its attack on Monmouth offended his much tried but still protective father. Despite Dryden's disingenuous assertions to the contrary in his defence of the play, 1 the play develops a clear (and intellectually barren) parallel between the sedi- tion of the Catholic League against Henri III and that of the Whigs against Charles: Blois, where the sedition is crushed, corresponds to Oxford; Guise, who is murdered, to Monmouth; and Henri of Navarre (Henri IV) to James, though Navarre never actually appears. 2 Whereas Navarre is associated with ____________________ | | Epigraph: Behn, The Lucky Chance, prologue. | | 1 | [John] Dryden, The Vindication; or, the Parallel of the French Holy-League, and the English League and Covenant, Turn'd into a Seditious Libell against the King and his Royal Highness, By Thomas Hunt and the Authors of the Reflections upon the Pretended Parallel in the Play called The Duke of Guise ( London, 1683). In the Vindication, Dryden claims only I. i, Act IV, and the first half of Act V ( Dramatick Works ( 1735), v. 313). | | 2 | It is probably unwise to seek any close parallels between the ineffectual Henri III and Charles. He has been interpreted as a further expression of Tory exasperation with the King's apparent inaction, though, if so, the exasperation is surely retrospective ( Anne Barbeau Gardiner, "'A Conflict of Laws: Consequences of the King's Inaction in The Duke of Guise'", English Language Notes, 19 ( 1981-2), | -307- |