صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

or practised by a writer for his ease, he will soon be convinced of his mistake by the difficulty of reaching the imitation of them."

Speret idem, sudet multùm, frustràque laborety
susus idem.

Indeed, to point out and exclaim upon all the beau. ties of Shakspere, as they come singly in review, would be as insipid, as endless; as tedious, as unnecessary : but the explanation of those beauties that are less obvious to common readers, and whose illustration depends on the rules of just criticism, and an exact knowledge of human life, should deservedly have a share in a general critique upon the author. But to pass over at once to another subject :· It has been allowed on all hands, how far our author was indebted to nature; it is not so well agreed. how much he owed to languages and acquired learning. The decisions on this subject were certainly set on foot by the hint from Ben Jonson, that he had small Latin, and less Greek : and from this' tradition, as it were. Mr. Rowe has thought fit peremptorily to declare, that; “ It is without controversy, he had no knowledge of " the writings of the ancient poets, for that in his “ works we find no traces of any thing which looks “ like an imitation of the ancients. For the delicacy " of his taste (continues he) and the natural bent of “ his own great genius (cqual, if not superior, to “ some of the best of theirs), would certainly have

“ led

« led him to read and study them with so much plea. “ sure, that some of their fine images would naturally “ have insinuated themselves into, and been mixed “ with, his own writings: and so his not copying, “ at least, something from them, may be an argu“ ment of his never having read them.” I shall leave it to the determination of my learned readers, from the numerous passages which I have occasionally quoted in my notes, in which our poet seems closely to have imitated the classicks, whether Mr. Rowe's assertion be so absolutely to be depended on. The result of the controversy must certainly, either way, terminate to our author's honour : how hiappily he could imitate them, if that point be allowed; or how gloriously he could think like them, without owing any thing to imitation.

Though I should be very unwilling to allow Shakspere so poor a scholar, as many have laboured to represent him, yet I shall be very cautious of declaring too positively on the other side of the question ; that is with regard to my opinion of his knowledge in the dead languages. And therefore the passages, that I occasionally quote from the classicks, shall not be urged as proofs that he knowingly imitated those originals ; but brought to shew how happily he has expressed himself upon the same topicks. A very learned critick of our own nation has declared, that a sameness of thought, and sameness of expression too, in two writers of a different age, can hardly happen, without a violent suspicion of the latter copying from

his predecessor. I shall not therefore run any great risque of a censure, though I should venture to hint, that the resemblances in thought and expression of our author and an ancient (which we should allow to be imitation in the one, whose learning was not questioned), may sometimes take its rise from strength of memory, and those impressions which he owed to the school. And if we may allow a possibility of this, considering that, when he quitted the school, he gave into his father's profession and way of living, and had, it is likely, but a slender library of classical learning ; and considering what a number of translations, romances, and legends, started about his time, and a little before (most of which, it is very evident, he read); I think it may easily be reconciled, why he rather schemed his plots and chara&ters from these more latter informations, than went back to those fountains, for which he might entertain a sincere veneration, but to which he could not have so ready a recourse.

In touching on another part of his learning, as it related to ihe knowledge of history and books, I shall advance something, that, at first sight, will very much wear the appearance of a paradox. For I shall find it no hard matter to prove, that, from the grossest blunders in history, we are not to infer his real ignorance of it ; nor from a greater use of Latin words, than ever any other English author used, must we infer his intimate acquaintance with that language,

A reader

the

A reader of taste may easily observe, that though Shakspere, almost in every scene of his historical plays, commits the grossest offences against chronology, his. tory, and ancient politicks; yet this was not through ignorance, as is generally supposed, but through the too powerful blaze of his imagination, which, when once raised, made all acquired knowledge vanish and disappear before it. But this licence in him, as I have said, must not be imputed to ignorance ; since as often we may find him, when occasion serves, reasoning up to the truth of history; and throwing out sentiments as justly adapted to the circumstances of his subject, as to the dignity of his characters, or dictates of nature in general.

Then to come to his knowledge of the Latin tongue, it is certain, there is a surprising effusion of Latin words made English, far more than in any one English author I have seen; but we must be cautious to imagine, this was of his own doing. For the English tongue, in his age, began extremely to suffer by an inundation of Latin: and this, to be sure, was occa- ' sioned by the pedantry of those two monarchs, Eliza. beth and James, both great Latinists. For it is not to be wondered at, if both the court and schools, equal flatterers of power, should adapt themselves to the royal taste. .

But now I am touching on the question (which has been so frequently agitated, yet so entirely undecided) of his learning and acquaintance with the languages; an additional word or two naturally falls in here upon

the

the

Then

lave

ften s up

ents

the genius of our author, as compared with that of
Jonson his contemporary. They are confessedly the
greatest writers our nation could ever boast of in the
drama. The first, we say, owed all to his prodigious
natural genius; and the other a great deal to his art
and learning. This, if attended to, will explain a
very remarkable appearance in their writings. Besides
those wonderful master-pieces of art and genius, which
cach has given us, they are the authors of other works
very unworthy of them ; but with this difference, that
in Jonson's bad pieces we do not discover one single
trace of the author of The Fox and Alchymnist; but,
in the wild extravagant notes of Shakspere, you every
now and then encounter strains that recognize the di.
vine composer. This difference may be thus accounted
for : Jonson, as we said before, owing all his excel-
lence to his art, by which he sometimes strained him.
self to an uncommon pitch, when at other times he
unbent and played with his subject, having nothing
then to support him, it is no wonder that he wrote so
far beneath himself. But Shakspere, indebted more
largely to nature, than the other to acquired talents, in
his most negligent hours could never so totally divest
himself of his genius, but that it would frequently
break out with astonishing force and splendour.
• As I have never proposed to dilate farther on the
character of my author, than was necessary to explain
the nature and use of this edition, I shall proceed to
consider him as a genius in possession of an everlasting
name. And how great that merit must be, which

could

« السابقةمتابعة »