صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

His characters are fo much nature itself, that it is a fort of injury to call them by fo diftant a name as copies of her. Thofe of other poets have a conftant refemblance, which fhews that they received them from one another, and were but multipliers of the fame image: each picture, like a mock-rainbow, is but the reflexión of a reflexion. But every fingle character in Shakespeare is as much an individual, as thofe in life itself; it is as impoffible to find any two alike; and fuch as from their relation of affinity in any respect appear most to be twins, will, upon comparifon, be found remarkably diftinct. To this life and variety of character, we muft add the wonderful prefervation of it; which is fuch throughout his plays, that had all the fpeeches been printed without the very names of the perfons, I believe one might have applied them with certainty to every fpeaker.

The power over our paffions was never poffeffed in a more eminent degree, or difplayed in fo different inftances. Yet all along, there is feen no labour, no pains to raise them; no preparation to guide our guefs to the effect, or be perceived to lead toward it: but the heart fwells, and the tears burft out, just at the proper places: we are furprised the moment we weep; and yet upon reflexion find the paffion fo juft, that we should be surprised if we had not wept, and wept at that very moment.

How aftonishing is it again, that the paffions directly oppofite to thefe, laughter and fpleen, are no lefs at his command! that he is not more a master of the great than of the ridiculous in human nature; of our nobleft tenderneffes, than of our vainest foibles; of our strongest emotions, than of our idleft fenfations!

Nor does he only excel in the paffions: in the coolness of reflexion and reafoning he is full as admirable. His fentiments are not only in general the most pertinent and judicious upon every fubject; but by a talent very peculiar, fomething between penetration and felicity, he hits upon that particular point on which the bent of each argument turns, or the force of each motive depends. This is perfectly amazing, from a man of no education or experience in thofe great and publick fcenes of life which are ufually the fabject of his thoughts: fo that he seems to have known the world by intuition, to have looked through human nature at one glance, and to be the only author that gives ground for a very new opinion, that the philofopher, and even the man of the world, may be born, as well as the poct.

It must be owned, that with all these great excellencies, he has almost as great defects; and that as he has certainly written better, fo he has perhaps written worse than any other. But I think I can in fome measure account for thefe defects, from feveral causes and accidents; without which it is hard to imagine that fo large and fo enlightened a mind could ever have been fufceptible of them. That all these contingencies should unite to his disadvantage feems to me almost as fingularly unlucky, as that so many various (nay contrary) talents fhould meet in one man, was happy and extraordi

nary.

It must be allowed that stage-poetry, of all other, is more particularly levelled to pleafe the populace, and its fuccefs more immediately depending upon the camman fuffrage. One cannot therefore 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 tafte 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 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 hiftorical plays ftrictly follow the common old ftories or vulgar traditions of that kind of people. In tragedy, nothing was fo fure to furprize and caufe admiration, as the moft ftrange, unexpected, and confequently moft 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 pleafe, as mean buffoonry, vile ribaldry, and unmannerly jefts of fools and clowns. Yet even in thefe our author's wit buoys up, and is borne above his fubject: his genius in thofe low parts is like fome prince of a romance in the difguife of a fhepherd or peafant; a certain greatnefs and fpirit now and then break out, which manifeft his higher 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 piqued themfelves upon any great degree of knowledge or nicety that way; till Ben Jonfon 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 almoft declamations) which he was forced to prefix to his first plays, and put into the mouth

of

of his actors, the grex, chorus, &c. to remove the prejudices, 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 hiftories in dialogue; and their comedies followed the thread of any novel as they found it, no lefs implicitly than if it had been true hiftory. To judge therefore of Shakespeare by Ariftotle's rules, is like trying a man by the laws of one country, who acted under thofe of another. He writ to the people; and writ at first without patronage from the better fort, and therefore without aims of pleafing them: without affiftance or advice from the learned, as without the advantage of education or acquaintance among them: without that knowledge of the beft models, the ancients, to infpire him with an emulation of them; in a word, without any views of reputation, and of what poets are pleased to call immortality: fome or all of which have encouraged the vanity, or animated the ambition, of other writers.

Yet it must be obferved, that when his performances had merited the protection of his prince, and when the encouragement 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 inftance, 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 ftandard to themselves, upon other principles than thofe of Aristotle. As they live by the majority, they know no rule but that of pleafing the prefent humour, and complying with the wit in fashion; a confideration which brings all their judgment to a short point. Players are juft fuch 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 afcribed to his wrong judgment as a poet, than to his right judgment as a player.

By these men it was thought a praife to Shakespeare, that he fearce ever blotted a line. This they induftriously propaVOL. I.

[H]

gated,

gated, as appears from what we are told by Ben Jonfon 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 Sixth, which was first published under the title of The Contention of York and Lancafter; and that of Henry the Fifth, extremely improved; that of Hamlet enlarged to almoft 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 it is certain, were it true, it could concern but a fmall part of them; the most are fuch as are not properly defects, but fuperfcctations: and arife 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 fubject, a wrong conduct of the incidents, falfe thoughts, forced expreflions, &c. if these are not to be afcribed to the forefaid accidental reasons, they must be charged upon the poet himself, and there is no help for it. But I think the two difadvantages which I have mentioned (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 miflead and deprefs the greateft genius upon earth. Nay, the more modeity with which fuch 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 say fomething more: there is certainly a vaft difference between learning and languages. How far he was ignorant of the latter, I cannot determine; but it is 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 from another. Nothing is more evident than that he had a taste of natural philofophy, mechanicks, ancient and modern hiftory, poetical learning, and mythology: we find him very knowing in the customs, rites, and manners of antiquity. In Coriolanus and Julius Cafar, not only the fpirit, but manners, of the Romans are exactly drawn; and ftill a nicer diftinction is fhewn between

the

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 fpeeches copied from Plutarch in Coriolanus may, I think, as well be made an inftance of his learning, as thofe copied from Cicero in Catiline, of Ben Jonfon's. The manners of other nations in general, the Egyptians, Venetians, French, &c. are drawn with equal propriety. Whatever object of nature, or branch of fcience, he either speaks of or defcribes; it is always with competent, if not extenfive knowledge: his defcriptions are ftill exact; all his metaphors appropriated, and remarkably drawn from the true nature and inherent qualities of each fubject. When he treats of ethick or politick, we may constantly observe a wonderful juftnefs of diftinction, as well as extent of comprehenfion. No one is more a master of the poetical story, or has more frequent allufions to the various parts of it: Mr. Waller (who has been celebrated for this laft particular) has not fhewn more learning this way than Shakespeare. We have tranflations 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 alfo to have been converfant in Plautus, from whom he has taken the plot of one of his plays: he 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 lefs converfant with the ancients of his own country, from the ufe 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 some 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 Jonfon; 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 becaufe Ben Jonfon had much the more learning, it was faid on the one hand that Shakespeare had none at all; and becaufe Shakefpeare had much the most wit and fancy, it was retorted on the other, that Jonfon wanted both. Because Shakespeare borrowed

[H2]

« السابقةمتابعة »