"_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. 8^o 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.
{96}
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_.