Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

medies 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 firft 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 best models, the ancients, to inspire 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 observed, 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 refpect 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 less strong than the former) may be deduced from our author's being a player, and forming himself firft upon the judgments of that body of men whereof he was a member. They have ever had a ftandard to themfelves, upon other principles than thofe of Ariftotle. As they live by the majority, they know no rule but that of pleafing the prefent humour, and complying with the wit in fashion; à confideration which brings all their judgment to a fhort 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 scarce ever blotted a line. This they industrioufly propagated, as appears from what we are told by Ben Jonfon in his Discoveries, and from the preface of Heminges and Condell to the firit 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 Lancaster; and that of Henry the Fifth, 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 it is 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 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, false thoughts, forced expreffions, &c. if these are not to be afcribed to the forefaid accidental reafons, 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 lowest of 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

more modesty 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 fay fomething more: there is certainly a vast difference between learning and languages. How far he was ignorant of the latter, I cannot deterinine, but it is plain he had much reading at leaft, 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 tafte 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 Cæfar, not only the fpirit, 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 less 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 science, he either speaks of or describes; 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 conftantly obferve a wonderful juftnefs of dif tinction, 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)

cular) has not fhewn more learning this way than Shakespeare. We have translations from Ovid published in his name, among those poems which pass for his, and for fome of which we have undoubted authority (being publifhed 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 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 thofe 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 because Ben Jonfon had much the more learning, it was faid on the one hand that Shakespeare had none at all; and because Shakespeare had much the most wit and fancy, it was retorted on the other, that Jonfon wanted both. Becaufe Shakespeare borrowed nothing, it was faid that Ben Jonfon borrowed every thing. Because Jonfon did not write extempore, he was reproached with being a year about every piece; and because Shakespeare wrote with ease and rapidity, they cried, he never once made a blot. Nay, the fpirit of oppofition ran fo high, that whatever thofe of the one fide objected to the other, was taken at the rebound, and turned into praises; as injudi

ciously,

ciously, as their antagonists before had made them objections.

Poets are always afraid of envy ; but fure they have as much reafon to be afraid of admiration. They are the Scylla and Charybdis of authors; those who escape one, often fall by the other. Peffimum genus inimicorum laudantes, fays Tacitus and Virgil defires to wear a charm against thofe who praise a poet without rule or reafon.

-Si ultra placitum laudârit baccare frontem
Cingito, ne vati noceat-

But however this contention might be carried on by the partizans on either fide, I cannot help thinking these two great poets were good friends, and lived on amicable terms and in offices of fociety with each other. It is an acknowledged fact, that Ben Jonfon was introduced upon the ftage, and his first works encouraged, by Shakespeare. And after his death, that author writes, To the memory of his beloved Mr. William Shakespeare, which fhews as if the friendship had continued through life. I cannot for my own part find any thing invidious or fparing in those verses, but wonder Mr. Dryden was of that opinion. He exalts him not only above all his cotemporaries, but above Chaucer and Spenfer, whom he will not allow to be great enough to be ranked with him; and challenges the names of Sophocles, Euripides, and Æfchylus, nay, all Greece and Rome at once, to equal him; and (which is very particular) exprefly vindicates him from the imputation of wanting art, not enduring that all his excellencies fhould be attributed to nature. It is remarkable too, that the praise he gives him in his Difcoveries feems to proceed from a perfonal kindnefs; he tells us, that he loved the man, as well as honoured his memory; celebrates the honefty, opennels, and frankness of his temper; and only diftinguishes,

« ElőzőTovább »