An old correspondent in a respectable periodical work*, has reported of Otway, whom he seems to have known, that " he ran away from Oxford with the players at an act, in the year 1674." But this date is manifestly erroneous; and the anecdote (suggested, perhaps, by the fact of his having appeared upon the stage,) may have been derived by the writer from those suspicious sources of information, the libels, and scurrilous productions of the day. A very short time must certainly have elapsed, upon his leaving the university, before he appeared in London. The metropolis, where vice and profligacy, dressed in the most alluring garb, seemed the readiest path to preferment, was a most pernicious place to our author, who had no guide but the ardour of youthful inexperience to instruct him in the choice of life. Necessity conspiring with inclination, drew him to the theatre, the frequent

1681. A subsequent passage in the same epistle, clearly indicates, that the object of Otway's visit, whenever it did take place, was merely to see his friend.

*The Gentleman's Magazine for February 1745, vol. xv. This writer (under the signature of W. G.) has afforded many interesting particulars concerning the literary characters of Charles the Second's reign. He describes himself as being 87 years of age, in 1745; consequently he could know little of the early part of Otway's life, except from report or tradition.

resort of distressed genius; and in the character of an actor, so far below his merit or expectations, he made the first important step in life.

Dramatic amusements, which, during the dominion of the puritans, had been totally suppressed, revived with royal authority; and two theatrical patents were granted by Charles II. immediately after the Restoration one to Mr. Thomas Killigrew, the celebrated wit, whose company, chiefly composed of the veteran actors before the civil wars, established themselves at Drury-Lane, and were denominated the King's Company; the other to Sir William Davenant, who was the holder of a patent under Charles I. The latter (to whom we are indebted for the introduction of moveable scenery*, so powerful an auxiliary to the poet), collected a company of new performers, or such as had been initiated by Rhodes, a bookseller, who was suffered to exhibit plays in the Cock-pit, Drury-lane, the year before the Restoration. This was styled the Duke of York's company, (being sworn to serve

* The little Theatre, Lincoln's-Inn Fields, opened in the spring of 1662, with Davenant's "Siege of Rhodes," having new scenes and decorations, which, Downes says, were the "first ever introduced in England." Rosc. Anglic. But Mr. Malone has found earlier instances of the use of scenery. See his Hist. Account of the English Stage.

His Royal Highness) and at first occupied a little theatre in Lincoln's-Inn Fields; from whence they removed, in 1671, to Dorset-garden, Salisburycourt. It was at this theatre (where all Otway's plays, except the last, were exhibited,) that our author made his appearance, as the King, in Mrs. Behn's" Forced Marriage; or, the Jealous Bridegroom." This attempt was eminently unsuccessful; for, according to Downes*, the appearance of the house threw him into such an agony, that he instantly relinquished a profession for which nature had omitted to furnish him with the most essential requisites.

After this disappointment, he appears to have cultivated, with assiduity, the, acquaintance of men of rank and fashion, to whose society his gay and sprightly conversation gave him ready admittance. The easy and familiar manners which distinguished the monarch, were imitated by all who surrounded the throne; and men of inferior stations were, in those days, admitted,

* His curious account is as follows: "In this play, (i.e. "The Jealous Bridegroom") Mr. Otway, the poet, having an inclination to turn actor, Mrs. Behn gave him the King in the play, for a probation part; but he being not us'd to the stage, the full house put him to such a sweat, and tremendous agony, being dash't, spoilt him for an actor."-Roscius Anglicanus, p. 34.

without difficulty, to the familiarity of the great, when recommended by any pretensions to wit and vivacity. This encouragement, however, was rather a bane, than a benefit, to men of genius. They were permitted to share in the convivial pleasures, the riots and excesses, of fashionable life; but here the friendship ceased: from these scenes they were dismissed, as a biographer observes, to their own narrow circumstances, with the loss of their modesty and virtue; and were thus doomed to languish in poverty, without the support of innocence*." Among the number of his friends, Otway ranked Charles Fitz-Charles, the young Earl of Plymouth, a natural son of the king, by Mrs. Catherine Pegge; with whom, and, it is said, with Lord Rochester, he spent much of his time. By such companions, his jovial disposition, and propersity to dissipation, were flattered and encouraged. It is, therefore, natural to conclude, that where vice was recommended by double attractions, namely, his interest and inclination, he seldom restrained his appetite of intemperance; and that

* A sketch of the life of Otway, prefixed to an early edition of his works. Dr. Johnson, in quoting this passage, has altered the sense of it, by substituting eminence for innocence. See his Lives of the Poets.

every step, he made to win the favour of his patrons, he receded from decency and virtue.

At length he extricated himself, in some degree, from these indolent and unprofitable habits, by attempting dramatic composition. Whether he was incited to this (as he seems to hint) by his noble associates; or, which is more probable, he discovered his talent, like Shakespeare and others, by the accident which first drew him to the stage; is uncertain.

The first subject upon which he employed his genius, was the tragedy of " Alcibiades," which appeared in 1675*; and the result was such as might be expected from a young writer, who had not much directed his mind or studies to this arduous mode of writing. There is little reason to conclude that he borrowed this tragedy from the French. Palaprat wrote no play of that name (of which Dr. Johnson seems not to have been aware); and the Alcibiade of Campistron was not brought upon the French stage till December 1685. Controversy, however, upon this point, is needless; for, even as an original, it confers little fame upon it's author; who, indeed, speaks of it contemptuously in the preface to his next play.

*This was the year in which it was printed, but whether it was acted earlier, is not known.