صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

hermit may estimate the transactions of the world, and a confeffor predict the progress of the passions.

{ His adherence to general nature has exposed him

to the censure of criticks, who form their judgments upon narrower principles. Dennis and Rhymer think his Ronans not sufficiently Roman; and Voltaire cenTures his kings as not completely royal. Dennis is offended, that Menenius, a senator of Rome, should play the buffoon; and Voltaire perhaps thinks de. cency violated when the Danish usurper is represented as a drunkard. But Shakespeare always makes nature predominate over accident; and if he preserves the essential character, is not very careful of distinctions superinduced and adventitious. His story requires Romans or kings, but he thinks only on men. He knew that Rome, like every other city, had men of all dispositions; and wanting a buffoon, he went into the senate-house for that which the senate-house would certainly have afforded him. He was inclined to Mew an usurper and a murderer not only odious, but despicable; he therefore added drunkenness to his other qualities, knowing that kings love wine like other men, and that wine exerts its natural power upon kings. These are the petty cavils of petty minds; a poet overlooks the casual distinction of country and condition, as a painter, satisfied with the figure, neglects the drapery.

The censure which he has incurred by mixing comick and tragick scenes, as it extends to all his works, deserves more confideration. Let the fact be firft stated, and then examined.

Shake

Shakespeare's plays are not in the rigorous and cri. tical sense either tragedies or comedies, but compo- . fitions of a distinct kind; exhibiting the real state of sublunary nature, which partakes of good and evil, joy and forrow, mingled with endless variety of pro. portion and innumerable modes of combination; and expressing the course of the world, in which the loss of one is the gain of another; in which, at the same time, the reveller is hafting to his wine, and the mourner burying his friend; in which the malignity of one is sometimes defeated by the frolick of another; and many mischiefs and many benefits are done and hindered without design.

Out of this chaos of mingled purposes and casu. ! alties the ancient poets, according to the laws which custom had prescribed, selected some the crimes of men, and some their absurdities; some the momen. , tous vicissitudes of life, and some the lighter occurrences; some the terrors of distress, and some the gayeties of prosperity.' Thus rose the two modes of imitation, known by the names of tragedy and comedy, compofitions intended to promote different ends by contrary means, and considered as fo little allied, that I do not recollect among the Greeks or Romans a fingle writer who attempted both.

Shakespeare has united the powers of exciting laughter and sorrow not only in one mind, but in one compofition. Almost all his plays are divided be- ; tween serious and ludicrous characters, and, in the successive evolutions of the design, sometimes pro

duce

duce feriousness and sorrow, and sometimes levity and laughter.

That this is a practice contrary to the rules of cri. ticism will be readily allowed; but there is always an appeal open from criticism to nature. The end of writing is to instruct; the end of poetry is to instruct by pleasing. That the mingled drama may convey all the instruction of tragedy or comedy cannot be denied, because it includes both in its alterations of exhibition, and approaches nearer than either to the appearance of life, by shewing how great ma.. chinations and slender designs may promote or obviate one another, and the high and the low co-operate in the general system by unavoidable concatenation.

It is objected, that by this change of scenes the passions are interrupted in their progression, and that the principal event, being not advanced by a due gradation of preparatory incidents, wants at last the power to move, which conftitutes the perfection of dramatick poetry. This reasoning is so fpecious, that it is received as true even by those who in daily expe. rience feel it to be false. The interchanges of mingled scenes feldom fail to produce the intended vicissitudes of passion. Fiction cannot move so much, but that the attention may be easily transferred; and though it must be allowed that pleasing melancholy be sometimes interrupted by unwelcome levity, yet Jet it be considered likewise, that melancholy is often not pleafing, and that the disturbance of one man may be the relief of another; that different auditors

have different habitudes; and that, upon the whole, all pleasure consists in variety.

The players, who in their edition divided our au. thor's works into comedies, histories, and tragedies, seem not to have distinguished the three kinds, by any very exact or definite ideas.

An action which ended happily to the principal persons, however serious or distressful through its intermediate incidents, in their opinion constituted a comedy. This idea of a comedy continued long amongst us, and plays were written, which, by changing the catastrophe, were tragedies to-day, and comedies to-morrow,

Tragedy was not in those times a poem of more general dignity or elevation than comedy ; it required only a calainitous conclusion, with which the common criticism of that age was satisfied, whatever lighter pleasure it afforded in its progress,

History was a series of actions, with no other than chronological succession, independent on each other, and without any tendency to introduce or regulate the conclusion. It is not always very nicely distinguished from tragedy. There is not inuch nearer approach to unity of action in the tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra, than in the history of Richard the Second. But a hiftory might be continued through many plays; as it had no plan, it had no limits.

Through

: Through all these denominations of the drama, Shakespeare's mode of composition is the same; an interchange of seriousness and merriment, by which the mind is softened at one time, and exhilarated at another. But whatever be his purpose, whether to gladden or depress, or to conduct the story, without vehemence or emotion, through tracts of easy and familiar dialogue, he never fails to attain his purpose; as he commands us, we laugh or mourn, or fit filent with quiet expectation, in tranquility without indifference.

! When Shakespeare's plan is understood, most of the criticisms of Rhymer and Voltaire vanilh away. The play of Hamlet is opened, without impropriety, by two centinels; Iago bellows at Brabantio's window, without injury to the scheme of the play, though in terms which a modern audience would not easily endure; the character of Polonius is seasonable and useful; and the Grave-diggers themselves may be heard with applause.

Shakespeare engaged in dramatick poetry with the world open before him; the rules of the ancients were yet known to few; the publick judgment was unformed; he had no example of such fame as might force him upon imitation, nor criticks of such authority as might restrain his extravagance: he therefore indulged his natural disposition, and his disposition, as Rhymer has remarked, led him to comedy. In tragedy he.often writes with great appearance of toil and study, what is written at last with little felicity ; but in his comick scenes, he seems to produce without

labour,

« السابقةمتابعة »