of rapturous enthusiasm, which might sometimes contain matter unpleasing
to a royal ear.[5] But the merry monarch saw no good reason why the muse
of comedy should be compelled to "dwell in decencies for ever," and did
not feel at all degraded when enjoying a gross pleasantry, or profane
witticism, in company with the mixed mass of a popular audience. The
stage, therefore, resumed more than its original licence under his
auspices. Most of our early plays, being written in a coarse age, and
designed for the amusement of a promiscuous and vulgar audience, were
dishonoured by scenes of coarse and naked indelicacy. The positive
enactments of James, and the grave manners of his son, in some degree
repressed this disgraceful scurrility; and, in the common course of
events, the English stage would have been gradually delivered from this
reproach by the increasing influence of decency and taste.[6] But
Charles II., during his exile, had lived upon a footing of equality with
his banished nobles, and partaken freely and promiscuously in the
pleasure and frolics by which they had endeavoured to sweeten adversity.
To such a court the amusements of the drama would have appeared insipid,
unless seasoned with the libertine spirit which governed their lives,
and which was encouraged by the example of the monarch. Thus it is
acutely argued by Dennis, in reply to Collier, that the depravity of the
theatre, when revived, was owing to that very suppression, which had
prevented its gradual reformation. And just so a muddy stream, if
allowed its free course, will gradually purify itself; but, if dammed up
for a season, and let loose at once, its first torrent cannot fail to be
impregnated with every impurity. The licence of a rude age was thus
revived by a corrupted one; and even those plays which were translated
from the French and Spanish, were carefully seasoned with as much
indelicacy, and double entendre, as was necessary to fit them for the
ear of the wittiest and most profligate of monarchs.