DRYDEN ON SHAKSPERE.
"Dryden may be properly considered as the father of English criticism, as the writer who first taught us to determine upon principles the merit of composition."—Samuel Johnson.
No one of the early prose testimonies to the genius of Shakspere has been more admired than that which bears the signature of John Dryden. I must transcribe it, accessible as it is elsewhere, for the sake of its juxtaposition with a less-known metrical specimen of the same nature.
"He [Shakspere] was the man who of all modern, and perhaps ancient poets, had the largest and most comprehensive soul. All the images of nature were still present to him, and he drew them not laboriously, but luckily: when he describes any thing, you more than see it, you feel it too. Those who accuse him to have wanted learning, give him the greater commendation: he was naturally learned; he needed not the spectacles of books to read nature; he looked inwards, and found her there. I cannot say he is every where alike; were he so, I should do him injury to compare him with the greatest of mankind. He is many times flat, insipid; his comic wit degenerating into clenches, his serious swelling into bombast. But he is always great when some great occasion is presented to him: no man can say he ever had a fit subject for his wit, and did not then raise himself as high above the rest of poets,
'Quantùm lenta solent inter viburna cupressi.'"
John Dryden, Of dramatick poesie, an essay.
London, 1668. 4to. p. 47.
The metrical specimen shall now take its place. Though printed somewhat later than the other, it has a much better chance of being accepted as a rarity in literature.
Prologue to Iulius Cæsar.
"In country beauties as we often see
Something that takes in their simplicity,
Yet while they charm they know not they are fair,
And take without their spreading of the snare—
Such artless beauty lies in Shakespear's wit;
'Twas well in spite of him whate'r he writ.
His excellencies came, and were not sought,
His words like casual atoms made a thought;
Drew up themselves in rank and file, and writ,
He wondering how the devil it were, such wit.
Thus, like the drunken tinker in his play,
He grew a prince, and never knew which way.
He did not know what trope or figure meant,
But to persuade is to be eloquent;
So in this Cæsar which this day you see,
Tully ne'er spoke as he makes Anthony.
Those then that tax his learning are to blame,
He knew the thing, but did not know the name;
Great Iohnson did that ignorance adore,
And though he envied much, admir'd him more.
The faultless Iohnson equally writ well;
Shakespear made faults—but then did more excel.
One close at guard like some old fencer lay,
T'other more open, but he shew'd more play.
In imitation Iohnson's wit was shown,
Heaven made his men, but Shakespear made his own.
Wise Iohnson's talent in observing lay,
But others' follies still made up his play.
He drew the like in each elaborate line,
But Shakespear like a master did design.
Iohnson with skill dissected human kind,
And show'd their faults, that they their faults might find;
But then, as all anatomists must do,
He to the meanest of mankind did go,
And took from gibbets such as he would show.
Both are so great, that he must boldly dare
Who both of them does judge, and both compare;
If amongst poets one more bold there be,
The man that dare attempt in either way, is he."
Covent Garden drolery, London, 1672. 8o p. 9.
A short historical comment on the above extracts is all that must be expected. The rest shall be left to the critical discernment of those persons who may be attracted by the heading of this Note—Dryden on Shakspere.
When Johnson wrote his preface to Shakspere, he quoted the first of the above extracts to prove that the plays were once admired without the aid of comment. This was written in 1765. In 1769 Garrick placed the same extract at the head of his collection of undeniable prose-testimonies to the genius of Shakspere. Johnson afterwards pronounced it to be "a perpetual model of encomiastic criticism;" and Malone quoted it as an admirable character of Shakspere. Now, admirable as it is, I doubt if it can be considered as expressive of the deliberate opinion of Dryden. The essayist himself, in his epistolary address to lord Buckhurst, gives a caution on that point. He observes, "All I have said is problematical." In short, the essay Of dramatick poesie is in the form of a dialogue—and a dialogue is "a chace of wit kept up on both sides."
I proceed to the second extract.—Who wrote the Prologue to Julius Cæsar? To what master-hand are we to ascribe this twofold specimen of psychologic portraiture? Take up the dramatic histories of Langbaine and Baker; take up the Theatrical register of the reverend Charles Burney; take up the voluminous Some account of the reverend John Genest; examine the mass of commendatory verses in the twenty-one-volume editions of Shakspere; examine also the commendatory verses in the nine-volume edition of Ben. Jonson. Here is the result: Langbaine calls attention to the prologue in question as an excellent prologue, and Genest repeats what had been said one hundred and forty years before by Langbaine. There is not the slightest hint on its authorship.
I must therefore leave the stronghold of facts, and advance into the of conjecture. I ascribe the prologue to John Dryden.
It appears by the list of plays altered from Shakspere, as drawn up by Steevens and Reed, that Julius Cæsar had been altered by sir William D'Avenant and Dryden jointly, and acted at the Theatre-royal in Drury-lane. It would therefore seem probable that one of those poets wrote the prologue on that occasion. Nevertheless, it does not appear in the works of either poet.
The Works of sir William D'Avenant were edited by Mr. Herringman, with the sanction of lady D'Avenant, in 1673; and its exclusion so far decides the question.
The non-appearance of it in the Poems of Dryden, as published by Mr. Tonson in 1701, is no disproof of the claim which I advocate. The volume contains only twenty prologues and epilogues—but Dryden wrote twice that number!
I shall now produce some circumstantial evidence in favour of Dryden. It is derived from an examination of the volume entitled Covent Garden drolery. This small volume contains twenty-two prologues or epilogues, and more than fifty songs—all anonymous, but said to be written by the refinedest wits of the age. We have, 1. A prologue and epilogue to the Maiden queen of Dryden—not those printed in 1668; 2. A prologue and epilogue to the Parson's wedding of Thomas Killigrew; 3. A prologue and epilogue to the Marriage à la mode of Dryden—printed with the play in 1673; 4. The prologue to Julius Cæsar; 5. A prologue to the Wit without money of Beaumont and Fletcher—printed in the Poems of Dryden, 1701; 6. A prologue to the Pilgrim of Fletcher—not that printed in 1700. These pieces occupy the first twelve pages of the volume. It cannot be requisite to give any further account of its contents.
I waive the question of internal evidence; but have no misgiving, on that score, as to the opinion which may henceforth prevail on the validity of the claim now advanced in favour of Dryden.
Sir Walter Scott observes, with reference to the essay Of dramatick poesie, "The contrast of Ben. Jonson and Shakspere is peculiarly and strikingly felicitous." He could have said no less—whatever he might have said as to its authorship—had he seen the Prologue to Julius Cæsar.
Bolton Corney.