*p1763 01 19 dl Elvira. Principal parts by: Garrick, Holland, Love, Packer, Burton, Ackman, Castle, Fox, Mrs Pritchard, Miss Bride, Mrs Cibber, <i>Prologue</i> and <i>Epilogue</i>. Don Alonzo-Garrick; Don Pedro-Holland; Don Alvarez-Love; Don Roderigo-Packer; Elvira-Mrs Cibber; Queen-Mrs Pritchard; Almayda-Miss Bride; Ambassador (?)-Burton; Ramirez-Ackman; Mendozo-Castle; Courtier-Fox; <i>Prologue</i>-Holland; <i>Epilogue</i> (writ by $Garrick=)-Mrs Cibber (Edition of 1763).*a1763 01 19 dl The Male Coquette. ^As17630115^.*c1763 01 19 dl Mainpiece: Never acted before. Characters new dressed &c. [See <i>Theatrical Review; or, Annals of the Drama</i>, 1763, pp. 67-74: Bless us what a sweet consistent piece of business is a modern Tragedy." See $Boswell='s account of his attendance that night with two friends, With oaken cudgels in our hands and shrill sounding catcalls in our pockets," ready prepared to damn the play (<i>London Journal</i>), p. 154 ff.).] <i>Critical Strictures on the New Tragedy of Elvira</i>, published this month (<i>Gentleman's Magazine</i>). I then undressed for the Play. My father and I went to the <i>Rose</i>, in the Passage of the Playhouse, where we found $Mallet=, with about thirty friends. We dined together, and went from thence into the Pitt, where we took our places in a body, ready to silence all opposition. However, we had no occasion to exert ourselves. Not withstanding the malice of a party, Mallet's nation, connections and indeed imprudence, we heard nothing but applause. I think it was deserved. The play was borrowed from $de la Motte=, but the details and language have great merit. A fine Vein of dramatick poetry runs thro' the piece. The Scenes between the father and son awaken almost every sensation of the human breast; and the Council would have equally moved, but for the inconvenience unavoidable upon all Theatres, that of entrusting fine Speeches to indifferent Actors. The perplexity of the Catastrophe is much, and I believe justly, critisized. But another defect made a strong impression upon me. When a Poet ventures upon the dreadful situation of a father who condemns his son to death; there is no medium; the father must either be monster or a Hero. His obligations of justice, of the publick good, must be as binding, as apparent as perhaps those of the first <i>Brutus</i>r. The cruel necessity consecrates his actions, and leaves no room for repentance. The thought is shocking, if not carried into action. In the execution of Brutus's sons I am sensible of that fatal necessity. Without such an example, the unsettled liberty of <i>Rome</i>v would have perished the instant after its birth. But <i>Alonzo</i>r might have pardoned his son for a rash attempt, the cause of which was a private injury, and whose consequences could never have disturbed an established government. He might have pardoned such a crime in any other subject; and the laws could exact only a equal rigor for a son; a Vain appetite for glory, and a mad affectation of Heroism, could only influence him to exert an unequal & superior severity (<i>Gibbon's Journal</i>, ed. $D. M. Low= [New York, n.d.], pp. 202-4).