NOTE

For the benefit of readers unacquainted with Morgann's Essay I reproduce

here, with additions, some remarks omitted from the lecture for want of

time. 'Maurice Morgann, Esq. the ingenious writer of this work,

descended from an antient and respectable family in Wales; he filled the

office of under Secretary of State to the late Marquis of Lansdown,

during his first administration; and was afterwards Secretary to the

Embassy for ratifying the peace with America, in 1783. He died at his

house in Knightsbridge, in the seventy-seventh year of his age, on the

28th March, 1802' (Preface to the edition of 1825). He was a remarkable

and original man, who seems to have written a good deal, but, beyond

this essay and some pamphlets on public affairs, all or nearly all

anonymous, he published nothing, and at his death he left orders that

all his papers should be destroyed. The _Essay on the Dramatic Character

of Sir John Falstaff_ was first published in 1777. It arose out of a

conversation in which Morgann expressed his belief that Shakespeare

never meant Falstaff for a coward. He was challenged to explain and

support in print what was considered an extraordinary paradox, and his

essay bears on its title-page the quotation, 'I am not John of Gaunt,

your grandfather: but yet no coward, Hal'--one of Falstaff's few serious

sentences. But Morgann did not confine himself to the question of

Falstaff's cowardice; he analysed the whole character, and incidentally

touched on many points in Shakespearean criticism. 'The reader,' he

observes, 'will not need to be told that this inquiry will resolve

itself of course into a critique on the genius, the arts, and the

conduct, of Shakespeare: for what is Falstaff, what Lear, what Hamlet,

or Othello, but different modifications of Shakespeare's thought? It is

true that this inquiry is narrowed almost to a single point; but general

criticism is as uninstructive as it is easy: Shakespeare deserves to be

considered in detail;--a task hitherto unattempted.'

The last words are significant. Morgann was conscious that he was

striking out a new line. The Eighteenth Century critics had done much

for Shakespeare in the way of scholarship; some of them had praised him

well and blamed him well; but they had done little to interpret the

process of his imagination from within. This was what Morgann attempted.

His attitude towards Shakespeare is that of Goethe, Coleridge, Lamb,

Hazlitt. The dangers of his method might be illustrated from the Essay,

but in his hands it yielded most valuable results. And though he did not

attempt the eloquence of some of his successors, but wrote like a

cultivated ironical man of the world, he wrote delightfully; so that in

all respects his Essay, which has long been out of print, deserves to be

republished and better known. [It was republished in Mr. Nichol Smith's

excellent _Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare_, 1903; and, in

1912, by itself, with an introduction by W. A. Gill.]

Readers of Boswell (under the year 1783) will remember that Morgann, who

once met Johnson, favoured his biographer with two most characteristic

anecdotes. Boswell also records Johnson's judgment of Morgann's Essay,

which, says Mr. Swinburne, elicited from him 'as good a jest and as bad

a criticism as might have been expected.' Johnson, we are told, being

asked his opinion of the Essay, answered: 'Why, Sir, we shall have the

man come forth again; and as he has proved Falstaff to be no coward, he

may prove Iago to be a very good character.' The following passage from

Morgann's _Essay_ (p. 66 of the 1825 edition, p. 248 of Mr. Nichol

Smith's book) gives, I presume, his opinion of Johnson. Having referred

to Warburton, he adds: 'Another has since undertaken the custody of our

author, whom he seems to consider as a sort of wild Proteus or madman,

and accordingly knocks him down with the butt-end of his critical staff,

as often as he exceeds that line of sober discretion, which this learned

Editor appears to have chalked out for him: yet is this Editor,

notwithstanding, "a man, take him for all in all," very highly

respectable for his genius and his learning.'

Oxford Lectures on Poetry · 第 58 / 74 题