Nicholas Rowe

• Born: June 20, 1674
• Birthplace: Little Barford, England
• Died: December 6, 1718
• Place of death: London, England

Other Literary Forms

Nicholas Rowe adapted some odes of Horace to current affairs and published many poems on public occasions. He contributed a memoir of Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux to a translation of Boileau-Despréaux’s Le Lutrin (1674, 1683; partial English translation, 1682) in 1708, took some part in a collective rendering of Ovid’s Metamorphoses (c. 8 c.e. (English translation, 1567), and published translations of work by Jean de la Bruyère in the same year. In 1709, he edited William Shakespeare’s works, creating the first truly modern edition, an edition still highly respected. A highly praised translation of Lucan’s Bellum civile (60-65 c.e.; Pharsalia, 1614) was published posthumously.

Achievements

Nicholas Rowe was an extremely cultivated man, well-acquainted with the classics and with French, Italian, and Spanish literature. He was esteemed as a conversationalist; Alexander Pope called him “the best of men” and seemed to delight in his society, both in London and in the country.

One of Rowe’s chief achievements was his edition of Shakespeare’s works, first published in 1709, generally regarded as the first attempt to edit Shakespeare in the modern sense. It was Rowe who first added a list of dramatis personae to each play. He was also the first to divide and number acts and scenes on rational principles, to mark the entrances and exits of the characters, and to modernize the spelling.

Hugh Blair and Samuel Johnson, also eighteenth century writers, found most of Rowe’s drama too cold and too flowery, but two of his plays escaped such censure: The Tragedy of Jane Shore and The Fair Penitent. Johnson found Rowe’s other literary efforts more enduring than his plays; he described Rowe’s translation of Lucan as one of the greatest productions of English poetry.

Biography

Nicholas Rowe was born in the house of his mother’s father at Little Barford, Bedfordshire, in 1674. His father’s family settled at Lamerton, Devonshire, and one of his ancestors is said to have been distinguished as a Crusader. His father was a London barrister of the Middle Temple and a sergeant-at-law.

After attending a private school at Highgate, Rowe was in 1688 elected a king’s scholar at Westminster. Not long afterward, he was removed and entered as a student at the Middle Temple. The law, however, proved to be uncongenial. From his youth, Rowe had read widely in literature, especially that of the theater, and soon he was ambitious to try his hand as a playwright. When his father died in 1692, Rowe was enabled to follow his own inclinations.

Early in 1700, Rowe saw his first play, entitled The Ambitious Step-Mother, produced at Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Following this success, Rowe was for some years a professional playwright and soon gained the acquaintance of the leaders of literary society of eighteenth century London, including Pope and Joseph Addison. In 1702, he published his second tragedy, Tamerlane, the play he valued most of those he was to write. It was common knowledge that the play was really intended to portray William III, endowed with most amiable virtues, and Louis XIV, his villainous rival. The political tone of the play made it quite popular; it became tradition to perform it annually on November 5 of each year, in celebration of the anniversary of William III’s landing.

In 1703, Rowe completed The Fair Penitent, a sentimental tragedy adapted from Philip Massinger’s The Fatal Dowry (pr. 1616-1619). It was produced at Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and the public approved its pathos; the villain Lothario acquired a proverbial reputation. Rowe’s Ulysses was not nearly as successful, but it did enjoy a long run at the Queen’s Theatre in the Haymarket in 1705. The Royal Convert, produced in 1707 at the Haymarket, was based on early British history. The final lines, spoken by Ethelrede, describe the blessing anticipated from the union of England and Scotland and panegyrize Queen Anne. Several years passed before Rowe wrote again, but his next play was one of his most popular ones. When first produced at Drury Lane in February, 1714, The Tragedy of Jane Shore ran for nineteen nights, and it long held the stage. His last tragedy, The Tragedy of Lady Jane Gray, was produced on April 20, 1715, at Drury Lane.

Rowe found himself involved in politics as an ardent Whig soon after he had begun writing plays. In February, 1708, he became undersecretary to the duke of Queensberry, secretary of state for Scotland, and held office until the duke’s death in 1711. After some years of political service, Rowe obtained the recognition he sought. On August 1, 1715, he was made poet laureate in succession to Nahum Tate.

Later, Rowe produced official odes addressed to the king and eventually a collection entitled “State Poems.” In 1717, he completed a verse translation of Lucan’s Pharsalia, but the whole was not published until after his death.

Analysis

The consensus among critics is that of all Nicholas Rowe’s plays, The Tragedy of Jane Shore is his greatest. The tenderness and pathos of this play show how thorough and affectionate had been Rowe’s study of great Elizabethan drama. The proof of Rowe’s power is in the fact that such a play held the stage so long and was so popular even in an age much different from his own.

The Ambitious Step-Mother

Rowe’s first play, The Ambitious Step-Mother, produced in 1700, continues the tradition of heroic drama. It is set against the exotic Oriental background characteristic of the type. The play opens with Arsaces, the aged Persian king, on his deathbed. Real power is in the hands of the second wife, Artemisa. He had contrived to have her first husband killed and had then wedded her. She has gained control over the king, who is infatuated with her beauty. Artemisa is determined to secure the succession of the crown for her own son, Artaban. Arsaces had sent into exile his elder son, Artaxerxes, who has now returned, demanding his right of succession. In order to make her plan succeed, Artemisa finds a supporter in a scheming courtier, Mirza, who seeks revenge because the king’s son Artaxerxes rejected the offer of his daughter Cleone for his bride. Instead, Artaxerxes chose to marry Amestris, the daughter of his counselor, Memnon.

The scheming Mirza then confides a plan for estranging Artaxerxes and Memnon, and Artemisa bars the way of Artaxerxes to his dying father’s bedside. Their plot is complicated by the fact that Cleone, although rejected by Artaxerxes, is passionately in love with him and deaf to her father’s desires. In the meantime, Mirza devises a plot to overpower his and the queen’s enemies. Artaxerxes, Memnon, and Amestris are all seized by guards at the annual Festival of the Sun. It is Mirza’s intent that Artaxerxes and Memnon shall be executed on the morrow, but he does not take into account Cleone. She dons masculine dress and offers the two prisoners the chance of escaping through Mirza’s palace. Meanwhile, Amestris, confined in Mirza’s palace, is sexually assaulted by Mirza. In the struggle, she stabs him with his own poniard. In one last revengeful attempt, he bids the captain of the guard to drag Amestris near him, and he stabs her. As she lies dying, Artaxerxes and Memnon enter to hear the tale of her wrongs and her last appeal to her lover. She dies, whereupon Artaxerxes stabs himself. So ends the tragedy, showing the innocent suffering along with the guilty.

Rowe’s ending was severely criticized by many as too barbarous, even though he defended it on the basis of Aristotle’s precept that terror and pity are the ends of tragedy. Others saw weakness in the characterization. Perhaps certain spectacular scenes made up for this deficiency, however, because the play had a good run.

Tamerlane

Rowe’s Tamerlane, produced in 1701, also employs the Oriental theme. Although Christopher Marlowe had written his Tamburlaine the Great (pr. 1587), on the same subject, there is little similarity between the two. Rowe intentionally perverts historical truth when he presents the Oriental conqueror as a prototype of the ideal political leader, William III. His dedicatory letter includes comments about how the two share courage, piety, moderation, justice, love of their subjects, and hatred of tyranny and oppression. It is evident that just as Tamerlane typifies William III, so Bajazet represents Louis XIV. The action of the play centers on Tamerlane’s camp, where he is about to battle Bajazet. When the contest goes in Tamerlane’s favor, he takes no personal pride in victory. He remarks, in fact, that all such pride is vain “pretence to greatness.” Bajazet defies him as a dervish and declares his own conception of good rule, which in his view necessitates the ruler’s thirst for more territory, this being the call of nature. Although in British terms, such ideas of sovereignty are villainous, Tamerlane nevertheless releases Bajazet and restores to him his captive queen, all of which will eventually be his undoing.

Tamerlane’s religious tolerance is great, also—so great, in fact, that he takes into his council the Christian Italian Prince Axalla. This act alone angers Bajazet, who wants to conquer all lands and make all people followers of Mohammet. Because he is not able to win the argument, Bajazet attempts to stab Tamerlane with a concealed dagger, an act that Tamerlane forgives as he has certain others. Bajazet is not satisfied, however, and plots with a general, Omar, who supported Tamerlane in his rise to power but who now is angry with him because Tamerlane has not allowed him to take Bajazet’s daughter Selima as his bride. Selima has given her love to Axalla, and Omar, in vengeance, arrests them both. Selima’s father, Bajazet, attempts to kill her, but she is saved by the arrival of Tamerlane with Axalla, who has escaped in the disguise of a slave. Another pair of lovers are not so successful. Arpasia, who had been contracted to her countryman of royal lineage, Moneses, had been forced earlier to become one of Bajazet’s brides. Moneses appeals to Tamerlane to undo this terrible wrong, but Tamerlane feels that he cannot interfere. Bajazet decides to have Moneses killed, and as his henchmen struggle with Moneses and strangle him, Arpasia sinks in a fatal swoon.

Tamerlane has effective dialogue, but it is less impressive theatrically than The Ambitious Step-Mother. Probably the greatest weakness in the play lies in the crude contrast between the high-souled Tamerlane and the villain Bajazet. It did remain a popular play, however, evidently because of its political allegory. It was acted at various London playhouses, usually on William III’s birthday, until 1749, a period of forty-eight years. Dramatically, critics generally agree, the tragedy has little to recommend it. The love scenes are either insipid or unreal. Its chief merit lies in the vigorous action of the villain, who has the bragging manliness of John Dryden’s heroes; also, the unhappy love of Moneses and Arpasia anticipates the “she tragedies” which were to follow. Dr. Johnson’s estimate of the play is perhaps the best criticism: “This was the tragedy which Rowe valued most, and that which probably by the help of the political auxiliaries, excited most applause; but occasional poetry must often content itself with occasional praise.”

The Fair Penitent

Rowe’s next play, The Fair Penitent, written in 1703 and produced in the same year, is set in Italy. The plot involves a Genoese nobleman, Sciolto, who has taken the place of Lord Altamont’s father, thrust out by his ungrateful state. Sciolto, in the opening scene, is about to give his daughter Calista in marriage to Altamont. Calista, however, is cold toward Altamont because she is secretly in love with Lothario, Altamont’s enemy. She has in fact allowed Lothario to seduce her and has begged him to marry her, all in vain. When she learns of her betrothal to Altamont, she writes Lothario informing him of her situation and asking for a last meeting between them, but the letter accidentally falls into the hands of Altamont’s friend, Horatio. Horatio confronts Calista with the information, but she declares that the letter was forged. She denounces Horatio as a slanderer, so he is forced then to show the letter to Altamont. Altamont, not wanting to believe the facts, strikes Horatio, and they fight until Horatio’s wife, Lavinia, also Altamont’s sister, runs between their swords to part the two. Shortly thereafter, Altamont surprises Lothario and Calista in a rendezvous and kills Lothario. With nothing to live for, Calista tries to kill herself by using Lothario’s sword, but Altamont takes it from her. Sciolto, learning the truth, impetuously begins to slay his own daughter, but recoils. Later at night, he visits Calista where she is in mourning at Lothario’s body. There, Sciolto offers his daughter a dagger, but as she lifts it, he prevents her death, because he cannot forget that she is his daughter. Altamont, too, experiences a strong passion for revenge against Calista, but like her father, controls his emotions. In the midst of this repentance, however, catastrophe erupts. Horatio comes in to announce that Sciolto has been attacked by Lothario’s faction in revenge and is dying. Hearing his news, Calista stabs herself and begs for Altamont’s and her father’s blessings.

The Fair Penitent had an even greater success than did Tamerlane. The play was eventually adapted into French, and all over Europe, Lothario became proverbial as the equivalent of a rake: His name entered the English language, and even today a “lothario” is a seducer. The tragedy illustrates the working theme of most of Rowe’s plays: the temptation of a more or less pure woman by a libertine. Indeed, Rowe serves as the link between Thomas Otway and George Lillo as a writer of domestic tragedy. Scholar Frank J. Kearful analyzes the play’s characterization thoroughly, pointing out that Rowe was endeavoring to create something more than a melodrama of “unsuspecting virtue assailed by diabolical vice.” By injecting issues of property and respectability into the drama, Rowe confronted his audience with the complexity of moral experience and the various kinds of moral problems they might encounter in their daily lives.

The Tragedy of Jane Shore

The Tragedy of Jane Shore centers on the crowning of Prince Edward and the desire of Richard of York to usurp the throne. The duke of Gloster, a supporter of Richard, fears that Lord Hastings, a staunch Edwardite, will stand in his way if he attempts to help put Richard into power, but he very much wants to do so. Hastings is loved by fair Alicia. Jane Shore, the mistress of the late King Edward IV, is being officially deprived of her property, and Hastings enters the scene to plead for gentle treatment of her.

To make matters worse, Dumont, Jane’s husband in disguise, assures her that her husband died three years ago, leaving Jane in complete grief with no one but Alicia to reassure her. Alicia, who had persuaded Hastings to intercede for Jane, tries to comfort her friend, who ironically will become her rival, for Hastings falls in love with Jane in the process.

After Alicia has comforted Jane, she leaves to greet Hastings and berates him for his recent coldness to her. Hastings admits that he has lost his love for her and is attracted to Jane. From this point on, Alicia tries to ruin Jane in every way possible. When Hastings later confesses his love to Jane, she refuses him, only to have Hastings attempt rape. Jane is saved only by the intercession of Dumont.

Now set on revenge, Alicia tries to make Gloster hostile to Hastings. She openly accuses Hastings of blocking Gloster’s plans for Richard. When Jane enters later to report that Dumont has been arrested by Hastings’s men, Alicia tricks her into giving Gloster the letter she has written about Hastings’s supposed treachery, rather than the letter pleading for merciful treatment toward Jane. The former not only accuses Hastings but also implicates Jane Shore in the treacherous action.

Although Gloster tries to persuade Jane to get Hastings to change his mind about supporting Edward, Jane, too, is loyal to the Edwardian line and praises the steadfastness of Hastings. In response, Gloster turns Jane into the streets and arrests Hastings for high treason. Though Alicia has found her revenge, it is not sweet, because she is sorry to see her lover Hastings in prison awaiting death.

Jane, left to beg, goes to Alicia and requests sustenance, but Alicia pushes her away. Only Dumont runs to her aid. She faints when she recognizes that Dumont is really her deserted, ill-treated husband, who still loves her very much. All is not well, however, because Dumont is seized by guards and accused of aiding a traitor. He is taken to prison as Jane dies of starvation and suffering.

The Tragedy of Jane Shore enjoyed as much popularity as The Fair Penitent, perhaps because the moral taste of the audience was oriented toward justice for the wrongdoer. Though Jane repents and receives Dumont’s blessing, she has erred by breaking the marriage vow. The play ran for several weeks and was even translated into French. Most critics regard it as Rowe’s finest play.

The Tragedy of Lady Jane Gray

Before Rowe ended his career as a dramatist, he penned one more play, The Tragedy of Lady Jane Gray. Again there is the theme of a disputed succession to the throne, but in this play, it receives the focus of attention. The issue of succession is complicated by a bitter religious feud. Edward IV is dying, and there is a rivalry for the throne between the supporters of Lady Jane and Mary, the latter being Roman Catholic. Lady Jane has been named successor by Edward, but the girl’s thoughts are not on the crown but on the dying man. When Guilford Dudley promises that he will forgo a usual bridegroom’s right and will join her in mourning, she consents to an immediate wedding with him. It so happens that Jane is loved also by the earl of Pembroke, hitherto Guilford’s close friend. Pembroke now denounces Guilford as a betrayer to Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, who is Mary’s chief supporter.

Soon, Jane’s mother, who has forced her into a sudden marriage, tells her that she is to wear England’s crown. She shudders at the very thought of being queen, but at last is persuaded to take the crown to save England from Rome’s tyranny. Jane’s fears are soon justified. The London crowd that had earlier supported her veers to Mary’s side, and Jane finds herself in a precarious situation. Gardiner is appointed chancellor and orders Jane and Guilford imprisoned in the Tower. There is a touch of hope for the two, because Pembroke repays an earlier kindness from Guilford and secures from Mary a pardon for Jane and her husband. The hope is short-lived, however, for Gardiner intervenes and makes the pardon conditional on their renouncing their Protestant heresy. This they refuse to do, and they must die.

The irony of this production is that even though it did not enjoy the popularity of The Fair Penitent or The Tragedy of Jane Shore, it is in one way actually a better-written play. The interest is not dispersed; it remains focused on Lady Jane. With the writing of this play, Rowe’s work for the stage came to an end.

Bibliography

Aikins, Janet E. “To Know Jane Shore: ‘Think on All Time, Backward.’” Papers on Language and Literature 18 (Summer, 1982): 258-277. Provides an intriguing close reading of The Fair Penitent and The Tragedy of Jane Shore, describing the nature of the two protagonists as “static.” Rowe deliberately creates passive heroines to whom events happen, rather than active individuals, to suggest the role of fate in their downfall. Consequently, he creates a tragedy that arouses “generous pity” in the audience, leading them to pardon the offenders.

Burns, Landon C. Pity and Tears: The Tragedies of Nicholas Rowe. Salzburg, Austria: Institut für Englische Sprache und Literatur, 1974. Examines Rowe’s gradual abandonment of the style of the seventeenth century heroic play for pathos and sentimentality. Rowe gives to his villains the posturing and bravado of John Dryden’s heroes, while creating realistic heroes; further, Rowe redefines the drives for both love and admiration that animate heroic characters in the earlier plays.

Canfield, Douglas. Nicholas Rowe and Christian Tragedy. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1977. Canfield’s is the first book to analyze all Rowe’s tragedies. He links Rowe’s use of the structuring device of the “trial” of the protagonist’s faith to the Christian worldview of the period. Good bibliography and a listing of Rowe’s library as found in a sale catalog published after his death.

Dammers, Richard H. “The Importance of Being Female in the Tragedies of Nicholas Rowe.” McNeese Review 26 (1979-1980): 13-20. Examines Rowe’s creation of the “religious preceptress” figure and finds that the women of his plays lead their husbands to faith and virtue. Rowe’s depiction of idealized married love is a shift from the “courtship” scenes of earlier dramatists. He thus critiques his society’s double standards in sexual conduct and upholds humility and fidelity for both partners.

Goldstein, Malcolm. “Pathos and Personality in the Tragedies of Nicholas Rowe.” In English Writers of the Eighteenth Century, edited by John H. Middendorf. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. An excellent introduction to Rowe’s work, with a review of the two “types” of women characters Rowe frequently used.

Hesse, Alfred W. “Who Was Bit by Rowe’s Biter?” Philological Quarterly 62 (1983): 477-485. Hesse argues that Rowe’s generally unsuccessful comedy possibly satirized Elihu Yale, benefactor of Yale University, then recently returned from the Orient.

Jenkins, Anibel. Nicholas Rowe. Boston: Twayne, 1977. Jenkins provides a brief biographical summary, then analyzes Rowe’s works individually. Unlike Douglas Canfield (above), she discusses Rowe’s comedy The Biter and his editorial and poetic work.

Kearful, Frank J. “The Nature of Tragedy in Rowe’s The Fair Penitent.” Papers on Language and Literature 2 (1966): 351-360. Discusses Rowe’s shift from heroic drama to domestic tragedy, avoiding the sentimental treatment of character and plot common of Thomas Otway or John Banks. To essentially middle-class characters, he adds an element of moral instruction missing earlier. Kearful examines Rowe’s Calista, unfaithful to her husband, yet under very real social pressures that contribute to her downfall.