[Footnote 1: Dr. Thomas Burnet, who produced in 1681 the 'Telluris
Theoria Sacra,' translated in 1690 as 'the Sacred Theory of the Earth,'
was living in the 'Spectator's' time. He died in 1715, aged 80. He was
for 30 years Master of the Charter-house, and set himself against James
II. in refusing to admit a Roman Catholic as a Poor Brother. Burnet's
Theory, a romance that passed for science in its day, was opposed in
1696 by Whiston in his 'New Theory of the Earth' (one all for Fire, the
other all for Water), and the new Romance was Science even in the eyes
of Locke. Addison, from Oxford in 1699, addressed a Latin ode to Burnet.]
[Footnote 2: Lord Cowper.]
* * * * *
No. 39. Saturday, April 14, 1711. Addison.
'Multa fero, ut placem genus irritabile vatum,
Cum scribo.'
Hor.
As a perfect Tragedy is the Noblest Production of Human Nature, so it is
capable of giving the Mind one of the most delightful and most improving
Entertainments. A virtuous Man (says _Seneca_) struggling with
Misfortunes, is such a Spectacle as Gods might look upon with Pleasure:
[1] And such a Pleasure it is which one meets with in the Representation
of a well-written Tragedy. Diversions of this kind wear out of our
Thoughts every thing that is mean and little. They cherish and cultivate
that Humanity which is the Ornament of our Nature. They soften
Insolence, sooth Affliction, and subdue the Mind to the Dispensations of
Providence.
It is no Wonder therefore that in all the polite Nations of the World,
this part of the _Drama_ has met with publick Encouragement.
The modern Tragedy excels that of _Greece_ and _Rome_, in the Intricacy
and Disposition of the Fable; but, what a Christian Writer would be
ashamed to own, falls infinitely short of it in the Moral Part of the
Performance.
This I [may [2]] shew more at large hereafter; and in the mean time,
that I may contribute something towards the Improvement of the _English_
Tragedy, I shall take notice, in this and in other following Papers, of
some particular Parts in it that seem liable to Exception.
_Aristotle_ [3] observes, that the _Iambick_ Verse in the _Greek_ Tongue
was the most proper for Tragedy: Because at the same time that it lifted
up the Discourse from Prose, it was that which approached nearer to it
than any other kind of Verse. For, says he, we may observe that Men in
Ordinary Discourse very often speak _Iambicks_, without taking notice of
it. We may make the same Observation of our _English_ Blank Verse, which
often enters into our Common Discourse, though we do not attend to it,
and is such a due Medium between Rhyme and Prose, that it seems
wonderfully adapted to Tragedy. I am therefore very much offended when I
see a Play in Rhyme, which is as absurd in _English_, as a Tragedy of
_Hexameters_ would have been in _Greek_ or _Latin_. The Solaecism is, I
think, still greater, in those Plays that have some Scenes in Rhyme and
some in Blank Verse, which are to be looked upon as two several
Languages; or where we see some particular Similies dignifyed with
Rhyme, at the same time that everything about them lyes in Blank Verse.
I would not however debar the Poet from concluding his Tragedy, or, if
he pleases, every Act of it, with two or three Couplets, which may have
the same Effect as an Air in the _Italian_ Opera after a long
_Recitativo_, and give the Actor a graceful _Exit_. Besides that we see
a Diversity of Numbers in some Parts of the Old Tragedy, in order to
hinder the Ear from being tired with the same continued Modulation of
Voice. For the same Reason I do not dislike the Speeches in our
_English_ Tragedy that close with an _Hemistick_, or half Verse,
notwithstanding the Person who speaks after it begins a new Verse,
without filling up the preceding one; Nor with abrupt Pauses and
Breakings-off in the middle of a Verse, when they humour any Passion
that is expressed by it.
Since I am upon this Subject, I must observe that our _English_ Poets
have succeeded much better in the Style, than in the Sentiments of their
Tragedies. Their Language is very often Noble and Sonorous, but the
Sense either very trifling or very common. On the contrary, in the
Ancient Tragedies, and indeed in those of _Corneille_ and _Racine_ [4]
tho' the Expressions are very great, it is the Thought that bears them
up and swells them. For my own part, I prefer a noble Sentiment that is
depressed with homely Language, infinitely before a vulgar one that is
blown up with all the Sound and Energy of Expression. Whether this
Defect in our Tragedies may arise from Want of Genius, Knowledge, or
Experience in the Writers, or from their Compliance with the vicious
Taste of their Readers, who are better Judges of the Language than of
the Sentiments, and consequently relish the one more than the other, I
cannot determine. But I believe it might rectify the Conduct both of the
one and of the other, if the Writer laid down the whole Contexture of
his Dialogue in plain _English_, before he turned it into Blank Verse;
and if the Reader, after the Perusal of a Scene, would consider the
naked Thought of every Speech in it, when divested of all its Tragick
Ornaments. By this means, without being imposed upon by Words, we may
judge impartially of the Thought, and consider whether it be natural or
great enough for the Person that utters it, whether it deserves to shine
in such a Blaze of Eloquence, or shew itself in such a Variety of Lights
as are generally made use of by the Writers of our _English_ Tragedy.
I must in the next place observe, that when our Thoughts are great and
just, they are often obscured by the sounding Phrases, hard Metaphors,
and forced Expressions in which they are cloathed. _Shakespear_ is often
very Faulty in this Particular. There is a fine Observation in
_Aristotle_ to this purpose, which I have never seen quoted. The
Expression, says he, ought to be very much laboured in the unactive
Parts of the Fable, as in Descriptions, Similitudes, Narrations, and the
like; in which the Opinions, Manners and Passions of Men are not
represented; for these (namely the Opinions, Manners and Passions) are
apt to be obscured by Pompous Phrases, and Elaborate Expressions. [5]
_Horace_, who copied most of his Criticisms after _Aristotle_, seems to
have had his Eye on the foregoing Rule in the following Verses:
Et Tragicus plerumque dolet Sermone pedestri,
Telephus et Peleus, cum pauper et exul uterque,
Projicit ampullas et sesquipedalia verba,
Si curat cor Spectantis tetigisse querelâ.
Tragedians too lay by their State, to grieve_.
Peleus _and_ Telephus, _Exit'd and Poor,
Forget their Swelling and Gigantick Words.
(Ld. ROSCOMMON.)
Among our Modern _English_ Poets, there is none who was better turned
for Tragedy than _Lee_; [6] if instead of favouring the Impetuosity of
his Genius, he had restrained it, and kept it within its proper Bounds.
His Thoughts are wonderfully suited to Tragedy, but frequently lost in
such a Cloud of Words, that it is hard to see the Beauty of them: There
is an infinite Fire in his Works, but so involved in Smoak, that it does
not appear in half its Lustre. He frequently succeeds in the Passionate
Parts of the Tragedy, but more particularly where he slackens his
Efforts, and eases the Style of those Epithets and Metaphors, in which
he so much abounds. What can be more Natural, more Soft, or more
Passionate, than that Line in _Statira's_ Speech, where she describes
the Charms of _Alexander's_ Conversation?
_Then he would talk: Good Gods! how he would talk!_
That unexpected Break in the Line, and turning the Description of his
Manner of Talking into an Admiration of it, is inexpressibly Beautiful,
and wonderfully suited, to the fond Character of the Person that speaks
it. There is a Simplicity in the Words, that outshines the utmost Pride
of Expression.
_Otway_ [7] has followed Nature in the Language of his Tragedy, and
therefore shines in the Passionate Parts, more than any of our _English_
Poets. As there is something Familiar and Domestick in the Fable of his
Tragedy, more than in those of any other Poet, he has little Pomp, but
great Force in his Expressions. For which Reason, though he has
admirably succeeded in the tender and melting Part of his Tragedies, he
sometimes falls into too great a Familiarity of Phrase in those Parts,
which, by _Aristotle's_ Rule, ought to have been raised and supported by
the Dignity of Expression.
It has been observed by others, that this Poet has founded his Tragedy
of _Venice Preserved_ on so wrong a Plot, that the greatest Characters
in it are those of Rebels and Traitors. Had the Hero of his Play
discovered the same good Qualities in the Defence of his Country, that
he showed for its Ruin and Subversion, the Audience could not enough
pity and admire him: But as he is now represented, we can only say of
him what the _Roman_ Historian says of _Catiline_, that his Fall would
have been Glorious (_si pro Patriâ sic concidisset_) had he so fallen in
the Service of his Country.