Mr.Crisp seems, as far as we can judge, to have been a man eminently qualified for the useful office of a connoisseur.His talents and knowledge fitted him to appreciate justly almost every species of intellectual superiority.As an adviser he was inestimable.Nay, he might probably have held a respectable rank as a writer, if he would have confined himself to some department of literature in which nothing more than sense, taste, and reading was required.Unhappily he set his heart on being a great poet, wrote a tragedy in five acts on the death of Virginia, and offered it to Garrick, who was his personal friend.Garrick read, shook his head, and expressed a doubt whether it would be wise in Mr.Crisp to stake a reputation, which stood high, on the success of such a piece.But the author, blinded by ambition, set in motion a machinery such as none could long resist.His intercessors were the most eloquent man and the most lovely woman of that generation.Pitt was induced to read Virginia, and to pronounce it excellent.Lady Coventry with fingers which might have furnished a model to sculptors, forced the manuscript into the reluctant hand of the manager; and, in the year 1754, the play was brought forward.
Nothing that skill or friendship could do was omitted.Garrick wrote both prologue and epilogue.The zealous friends of the author filled every box; and, by their strenuous exertions, the life of the play was prolonged during ten nights.But, though there was no clamorous reprobation, it was universally felt that the attempt had failed.When Virginia was printed, the public disappointment was even greater than at the representation.The critics, the Monthly Reviewers in particular, fell on plot, characters, and diction without mercy, but, we fear, not without justice.We have never met with a copy of the play; but, if we may judge from the scene which is extracted in the Gentleman's Magazine, and which does not appear to have been malevolently selected, we should say that nothing but the acting of Garrick, and the partiality of the audience, could have saved so feeble and unnatural a drama from instant damnation.
The ambition of the poet was still unsubdued.When the London season closed, he applied himself vigorously to the work of removing blemishes.He does not seem to have suspected, what we are strongly inclined to suspect, that the whole piece was one blemish, and that the passages which were meant to be fine, were, in truth, bursts of that tame extravagance into which writers fall, when they set themselves to be sublime and pathetic in spite of nature.He omitted, added, retouched, and flattered himself with hopes of a complete success in the following year;but in the following year, Garrick showed no disposition to bring the amended tragedy on the stage.Solicitation and remonstrance were tried in vain.Lady Coventry, drooping under that malady which seems ever to select what is loveliest for its prey, could render no assistance.The manager's language was civily evasive;but his resolution was inflexible.
Crisp had committed a great error; but he had escaped with a very slight penance.His play had not been hooted from the boards.It had, on the contrary, been better received than many very estimable performances have been, than Johnson's Irene, for example, or Goldsmith's Good-natured Man.Had Crisp been wise, he would have thought himself happy in having purchased self-knowledge so cheap.He would have relinquished, without vain repinings, the hope of poetical distinction, and would have turned to the many sources of happiness which he still possessed.
