"A jest's prosperity lies in the ear Of him that hears it, never in the tongue Of him that makes it.
It is related of Charles Ii., that, being present at a meeting of the Royal Society, he very gravely requested to know the reason "Why the insertion of a fish of three pounds weight, into a bucket of water, made no difference in the weight of the bucket?" A vast quantity of learning and ingenuity was immediately put in requisition to account for the phenomenon; at length, one gentleman observed that, before they endeavoured to ascertain the reason, they should establish the fact, and that, with submission to his majesty, he believed that the insertion of the fish would make a difference in the weight of the bucket. "You are quite right," said Charles, "it would."
The exceeding favour which has been shown to this Drama, by nearly the whole of the Metropolitan Press, flatters me into the belief that the verdict wou'd have been unanimous if the two or three dissentients, before they discussed the merits of the piece, as a burlesque, had ascertained that it was a burlesque.
It has never been advertised or officially entitled "a burlesque." It is an humble attempt to imitate or paraphrase (but not burlesque or travesty) such portions of the Comedy of "the Birds,"as were capable of being adapted to local and recent circumstances. To new set the teeth of the old saws, and make them cut through "modern instances." "An experiment,"(as it is called in the bills) undertaken with the view of ascertaining how far the theatrical public would be willing to receive a higher class of entertainment than the modern Extravaganza of the English stage, or the "Revue" of the French. To open a field—not for myself alone - but in which much abler men might give the reins to their imagination and their wit in a dramatic form, unfettered by the rules and conventionalities of a regular Comedy, and assisted to any extent by Music and Decoration. Notwithstanding the probable disappointment of the lovers of mere absurdity, and the natural mystification of a few good humoured holyday spectators, the experiment, I am happy to say, was as successful as my poor abilities could make it, and, what is of more consequence, it ensures the future triumphs of superior writers, if such will make the trial. The kind and complimentary manner in which, even my censors, have expressed their opinions, demands my best acknowledgements, and if I do not bow to their decision, it is because, as I have stated, I deny the fact upon which they found their arguments. One Critic, for instance, who insists on comparing "The Golden Fleece,"a burlesque of a tragic subject with "The Birds," a paraphrase of portions of a comic one, is shocked at the introduction of Jupiter, and remarks that his language "was far too earnest; too literal; it was no longer burlesque; it was no less than the voice of offended Heaven." My only answer is that I nsver contemplated burlesque. The fable is ended; the allegory over; the moral to be drawn, however trite, is a serious one, I could not too earnestly, too literally point out (the sole aim of the piece).
And it is the feebleness, and not the strength or gravity that I regret, of the language in which the concluding exhortation is couched :