صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

cannot therefote wonder, if Shakespeare, having at his first appearance no other aim in his writings than to procure a fubfiftence, directed his endeavours folely to hit the taste and humour that then prevailed. The audience was generally compofed of the meaner fort of people, and therefore the images of life were to be drawn from thofe of their own rank and accordingly we find, that not our author's only, but almost all the old comedies, have their fcene among tradesmen and mechanicks: and even their historical plays strictly follow the common old ftories or vulgar traditions of that kind of people. In tragedy, nothing was so sure to furprize and cause admiration, as the most strange, unexpected, and confequently most unnatural, events and incidents; the most exaggerated thoughts; the moft verbose and bombaft expreffion; the most pompous rhymes, and thundering verfification. In comedy, nothing was fo fure to please, as mean buffoonry, vile ribaldry, and unmannerly jefts of fools and clowns. Yet even in these, our author's wit buoys up, and is borne above his fubject: his genius in those low parts is like fome prince of a romance in the disguise of a fhepherd or peafant; a certain greatness and spirit now and then break out, which manifeft his high extraction and qualities.

It may be added, that not only the common audience had no notion of the rules of writing, but few even of the better fort piqu'd themselves upon any great degree of knowledge or nicety that way; till Ben Johnson getting poffeffion of the ftage, brought critical learning into vogue: and that this was not done without difficulty, may appear from those frequent leffons (and indeed almost declamations) which he was forced to prefix to his first plays, and put into the mouth of his actors, the grex, chorus, &c. to remove the prejudices,

[ocr errors]

and inform the judgment of his hearers. "Till then, our authors had no thoughts of writing on the model of the ancients: their tragedies were only histories in dialogue; and their comedies followed the thread of any novel as they found it, no less implicitly than if it had been true history.

To judge therefore of Shakespeare by Aristotle's rules, is like trying a man by the laws of one country, who acted under those of another. He writ to the people, and writ at first without patronage from the better fort, and therefore without aims of pleasing them: without affistance or advice from the learned, as without the advantage of education or acquaintance among them: without that knowledge of the best models, the ancients, to infpire him with an emulation of them: in a word, without any views of reputation, and of what the poets are pleas'd to call immortality fome or all of which have encouraged the vanity, or animated the ambition of other writers.

Yet it must be observed, that when his performances had merited the protection of his prince, and when the encou ragement of the court had fucceeded to that of the town, the works of his riper years are manifestly raised above those of his former. The dates of his plays fufficiently evidence that his productions improved, in proportion to the respect he had for his auditors. And I make no doubt this obfervation would be found true in every instance, were but editions extant from which we might learn the exact time when every piece was compofed, and whether writ for the town, or the court.

Another caufe (and no lefs ftrong than the former) may be deduced from our author's being a player, and forming himself first upon the judgments of that body of men whereof he was a member. They have ever had a standard VOL. I.

e

to themselves, upon other principles than those of Aristotle. As they live by the majority, they have no rule but that of pleafing the present humour, and complying with the wit in fashion; a confideration which brings all their judgment to a short point. Players are just such judges of what is right, as taylors are of what is graceful. And in this view it will be but fair to allow, that most of our author's faults are lefs to be ascribed to his wrong judgment as a poet, than to his right judgment as a player.

By these men it was thought a praise to Shakespeare, that he scarce ever blotted a line. This they industriously propagated, as appears from what we are told by Ben Johnson in his Discoveries, and from the preface of Heminges and Condell to the first folio edition. But in reality (however it has prevailed) there never was a more groundless report, or to the contrary of which there are more undeniable evidences. As, the comedy of the Merry Wives of Windfor, which he entirely new writ; the Hiftory of Henry the VIth, which was first published under the title of the Contention of York and Lancaster; and that of Henry the Vth, extremely improved; that of Hamlet enlarged to almost as much again as at first, and many others. I believe the common opinion of his want of learning proceeded from no better ground. This too might be thought a praise by fome, and to this his errors have as injudiciously been afcribed by others. For 'tis certain, were it true, it could concern but a small part of them; the most are fuch as are not properly defects, but fuperfœtations: and arise not from want of learning or reading, but from want of thinking or judging: or rather (to be more just to our author) from a compliance to those wants in others. As to a wrong choice of the subject, a wrong conduct of the incidents, false thoughts, forced expreffions, &c. if these

are not to be ascribed to the foresaid accidental reasons, they must be charged upon the poet himself, and there is no help for it. But I think the two disadvantages which I have mention'd (to be obliged to please the loweft of the people, and to keep the worst of company) if the confideration be extended as far as it reasonably may, will appear fufficient to mislead and depress the greatest genius upon earth. Nay the more modefty with which such a one is endued, the more he is in danger of fubmitting and conforming to others, against his own better judgment.

But as to his want of learning, it may be neceffary to fay fomething more: there is certainly a vast difference between learning and languages. How far he was ignorant of the latter, I cannot determine; but 'tis plain he had much reading at least, if they will not call it learning. Nor is it any great matter, if a man has knowledge, whether he has it from one language or another. Nothing is more evident than that he had a taste of natural philofophy, mechanicks, ancient and modern history, poetical learning and mythology: we find him very knowing in the customs, rites, and manners of antiquity. In Coriolanus and Julius Cæfar, not only the spirit, but manners, of the Romans, are exactly drawn; and ftill a nicer diftinction is fhewn, between the manners of the Romans, in the time of the former, and of the latter. His reading in the ancient hiftorians is no lefs confpicuous, in many references to particular paffages; and the speeches copy'd from Plutarch in Coriolanus may, I think, as well be made an inftance of his learning, as those copy'd from Cicero in Cataline, of Ben Johnson's. The manners of other nations in general, the Egyptians, Venetians, French, &c. are drawn with equal proprietv. Whatever object of nature, or branch of science, he either speaks

of or describes, it is always with competent, if not extenfive knowledge; his descriptions are still exact; all his metaphors appropriated, and remarkably drawn from the true nature and inherent qualities of each fuject. When he treats of ethic or politic, we may constantly observe a juftness of diftinction, as well as extent of comprehenfion. No one is more a mafter of the poetical ftory, or has more frequent allufions to the various parts of it: Mr. Waller (who has been celebrated for this last particular) has not shewn more learning this way than Shakespeare. We have translations from Ovid published in his name, among those poems which pafs for his, and for fome of which we have undoubted authority (being published by himself, and dedicated to his noble patron the earl of Southampton :) he appears also to have been converfant in Plautus, from whom he has taken the plot of one of his plays: follows the Greek authors, and particularly Dares Phrygius, in another, (although I will not pretend to fay in what language he read them.) The modern Italian writers of novels he was manifeftly acquainted with; and we may conclude him to be no less converfant with the ancients of his own country; from the use he has made of Chaucer in Troilus and Creffida, and in the Two Noble Kinfmen, if that play be his, as there goes a tradition it was, (and indeed it has little refemblance of Fletcher, and more of our author than fome of those which have been received as genuine.)

I am inclined to think, this opinion proceeded originally from the zeal of the partizans of our author and Ben Johnfon; as they endeavoured to exalt the one at the expence of the other. It is ever the nature of parties to be in extremes; and nothing is fo probable, as that because Ben Johnson had much the more learning, it was said on the

« السابقةمتابعة »