London (England) -- History; London (England) -- Social life and customs
It is not proposed here to swell with any new groans the general chorus
of lamentation over the deplorable morals of King Charles's court. Let
us acknowledge that we want all the available groans for the deplorable
morals of our own time. Let us leave severely on one side Whitehall,
with the indolent king: his mistresses, his singing boys, his gaming
tables, his tinkling guitars, his feasting and his dancing. We will have
nothing whatever to do with Chiffinch and his friends, nor with
Rochester, nor with Nell Gwynne, nor with Old Rowley himself. Therefore,
of course, we can have nothing to do with Messrs. Wycherley, Congreve,
and company. It is, I know, the accepted excuse for these dramatists
that their characters are not men and women, but puppets. To my humble
thinking they are not puppets at all, but living and actual human
creatures--portraits of real men and women who haunted Whitehall. Let us
keep to the east of Temple Bar: hither come whispers, murmurs, rumors,
of sad doings at court: sober and grim citizens, still touched with the
Puritan spirit, speak of these rumors with sorrow and disappointment;
they had hoped better things after the ten years' exile, yet they knew
so little and were always ready to believe so well of the King--and his
Majesty was always so friendly to the City--that the reports remained
mere reports. It is really no use to keep a king unless you are able to
persuade yourself that he is wiser, nobler, more virtuous, braver, and
greater than ordinary mortals. Indeed, as the head and leader of the
nation, he is officially the wisest, noblest, bravest, best, and
greatest among us, and is so recognized in the Prayer-book. Even those
who are about the court, and therefore are so unhappy as to be convinced
of the exact contrary, do their best to keep up the illusion. The great
mass of mankind still continue to believe that moral and intellectual
superiority goes with the crown and belongs to the reigning sovereign.
The only change that has come over nations living under the monarchic
form of government as regards their view of kings is that they no longer
believe all this of the reigning sovereign's predecessor; as regards the
present occupant of the throne, of course. Are the citizens of a
republic similarly convinced as regards their President?
[Illustration: PALACE OF WHITEHALL IN THE REIGN OF JAMES II]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account