Letter I.
Sir, Feb. 1. 1710/11.
I here send you the Tragedy of
Coriolanus, which I have alter'd from the Original of
Shakespear, and with it a short Account of the Genius and Writings of that Author, both which you desired me to send to you the last time I had the good Fortune to see you. But I send them both upon this condition, that you will with your usual Sincerity tell me your Sentiments both of the Poem and of the Criticism.
Shakespear was one of the greatest Genius's that the World e'er saw for the Tragick Stage. Tho' he lay under greater Disadvantages than any of his Successors, yet had he greater and more genuine Beauties than the best and greatest of them. And what makes the brightest Glory of his Character, those Beauties were entirely his own, and owing to the Force of his own Nature; whereas his Faults were owing to his Education, and to the Age that he liv'd in. One may say of him as they did of
Homer, that he had none to imitate, and is himself inimitable. His Imaginations were often as just, as they were bold and strong. He had a natural Discretion which never cou'd have been taught him, and his Judgment was strong and penetrating. He seems to have wanted nothing but Time and Leisure for Thought, to have found out those Rules of which he appears so ignorant. His Characters are always drawn justly, exactly, graphically, except where he fail'd by not knowing History or the Poetical Art. He has for the most part more fairly distinguish'd them than any of his Successors have done, who have falsified them, or confounded them, by making Love the predominant Quality in all. He had so fine a Talent for touching the Passions, and they are so lively in him, and so truly in Nature, that they often touch us more without their due Preparations, than those of other Tragick Poets, who have all the Beauty of Design and all the Advantage of Incidents. His Master-Passion was Terror, which he has often mov'd so powerfully and so wonderfully, that we may justly conclude, that if he had had the Advantage of Art and Learning, he wou'd have surpass'd the very best and strongest of the Ancients. His Paintings are often so beautiful and so lively, so graceful and so powerful, especially where he uses them in order to move Terror, that there is nothing perhaps more accomplish'd in our
English Poetry. His Sentiments for the most part in his best Tragedies, are noble, generous, easie, and natural, and adapted to the Persons who use them. His Expression is in many Places good and pure after a hundred Years; simple tho' elevated, graceful tho' bold, and easie tho' strong. He seems to have been the very Original of our
English Tragical Harmony; that is the Harmony of Blank Verse, diversifyed often by Dissyllable and Trissyllable Terminations. For that Diversity distinguishes it from Heroick Harmony, and, bringing it nearer to common Use, makes it more proper to gain Attention, and more fit for Action and Dialogue. Such Verse we make when we are writing Prose; we make such Verse in common Conversation.
If
Shakespear had these great Qualities by Nature, what would he not have been, if he had join'd to so happy a Genius Learning and the Poetical Art? For want of the latter, our Author has sometimes made gross Mistakes in the Characters which he has drawn from History, against the Equality and Conveniency of Manners of his Dramatical Persons. Witness
Menenius in the following Tragedy, whom he has made an errant Buffoon, which is a great Absurdity. For he might as well have imagin'd a grave majestick
Jack-Pudding, as a Buffoon in a
Roman Senator.
Aufidius the General of the
Volscians is shewn a base and a profligate Villain. He has offended against the Equality of the Manners even in his Hero himself. For
Coriolanus who in the first part of the Tragedy is shewn so open, so frank, so violent, and so magnanimous, is represented in the latter part by
Aufidius, which is contradicted by no one, a flattering, fawning, cringing, insinuating Traytor.
For want of this Poetical Art,
Shakespear has introduced things into his Tragedies, which are against the Dignity of that noble Poem, as the Rabble in
Julius Caesar, and that in
Coriolanus; tho' that in
Coriolanus offends not only against the Dignity of Tragedy, but against the Truth of History likewise, and the Customs of Ancient
Rome, and the Majesty of the
Roman People, as we shall have occasion to shew anon.
For want of this Art, he has made his Incidents less moving, less surprizing, and less wonderful. He has been so far from seeking those fine Occasions to move with which an Action furnish'd according to Art would have furnish'd him, that he seems rather to have industriously avoided them. He makes
Coriolanus, upon his Sentence of Banishment, take his leave of his Wife and his Mother out of sight of the Audience, and so has purposely as it were avoided a great occasion to move.
If we are willing to allow that
Shakespear, by sticking to the bare Events of History, has mov'd more than any of his Successors, yet his just Admirers must confess, that if he had had the Poetical Art, he would have mov'd ten times more. For 'tis impossible that by a bare Historical Play he could move so much as he would have done by a Fable.
We find that a Romance entertains the generality of Mankind with more Satisfaction than History, if they read only to be entertain'd; but if they read History thro' Pride or Ambition, they bring their Passions along with them, and that alters the case. Nothing is more plain than that even in an Historical Relation some Parts of it, and some Events, please more than others. And therefore a Man of Judgment, who sees why they do so, may in forming a Fable, and disposing an Action, please more than an Historian can do. For the just Fiction of a Fable moves us more than an Historical Relation can do, for the two following Reasons: First, by reason of the Communication and mutual Dependence of its Parts. For if Passion springs from Motion, then the Obstruction of that Motion or a counter Motion must obstruct and check the Passion: And therefore an Historian and a Writer of Historical Plays, passing from Events of one nature to Events of another nature without a due Preparation, must of necessity stifle and confound one Passion by another. The second Reason why the Fiction of a Fable pleases us more than an Historical Relation can do, is, because in an Historical Relation we seldom are acquainted with the true Causes of Events, whereas in a feign'd Action which is duly constituted, that is, which has a just beginning, those Causes always appear. For 'tis observable, that, both in a Poetical Fiction and an Historical Relation, those Events are the most entertaining, the most surprizing, and the most wonderful, in which Providence most plainly appears. And 'tis for this Reason that the Author of a just Fable must please more than the Writer of an Historical Relation. The Good must never fail to prosper, and the Bad must be always punish'd: Otherwise the Incidents, and particularly the Catastrophe which is the grand Incident, are liable to be imputed rather to Chance, than to Almighty Conduct and to Sovereign Justice. The want of this impartial Distribution of Justice makes the
Coriolanus of
Shakespear to be without Moral. 'Tis true indeed
Coriolanus is kill'd by those Foreign Enemies with whom he had openly sided against his Country, which seems to be an Event worthy of Providence, and would look as if it were contriv'd by infinite Wisdom, and executed by supreme Justice, to make
Coriolanus a dreadful Example to all who lead on Foreign Enemies to the Invasion of their native Country; if there were not something in the Fate of the other Characters, which gives occasion to doubt of it, and which suggests to the Sceptical Reader that this might happen by accident. For
Aufidius the principal Murderer of
Coriolanus, who in cold Blood gets him assassinated by Ruffians, instead of leaving him to the Law of the Country, and the Justice of the
Volscian Senate, and who commits so black a Crime, not by any erroneous Zeal, or a mistaken publick Spirit, but thro' Jealousy, Envy, and inveterate Malice; this Assassinator not only survives, and survives unpunish'd, but seems to be rewarded for so detestable an Action, by engrossing all those Honours to himself which
Coriolanus before had shar'd with him. But not only
Aufidius, but the
Roman Tribunes,
Sicinius and
Brutus, appear to me to cry aloud for Poetick Vengeance. For they are guilty of two Faults, neither of which ought to go unpunish'd: The first in procuring the Banishment of
Coriolanus. If they were really jealous that
Coriolanus had a Design on their Liberties, when he stood for the Consulship, it was but just that they should give him a Repulse; but to get the Champion and Defender of their Country banish'd upon a pretended Jealousy was a great deal too much, and could proceed from nothing but that Hatred and Malice which they had conceiv'd against him, for opposing their Institution. Their second Fault lay in procuring this Sentence by indirect Methods, by exasperating and inflaming the People by Artifices and Insinuations, by taking a base Advantage of the Open-heartedness and Violence of
Coriolanus, and by oppressing him with a Sophistical Argument, that he aim'd at Sovereignty, because he had not delivered into the Publick Treasury the Spoils which he had taken from the
Antiates. As if a Design of Sovereignty could be reasonably concluded from any one Act; or any one could think of bringing to pass such a Design, by eternally favouring the Patricians, and disobliging the Populace. For we need make no doubt but that it was among the young Patricians that
Coriolanus distributed the Spoils which were taken from the
Antiates; whereas nothing but caressing the Populace could enslave the
Roman People, as
Caesar afterwards very well saw and experienc'd. So that this Injustice of the Tribunes was the original Cause of the Calamity which afterwards befel their Country, by the Invasion of the
Volscians, under the Conduct of
Coriolanus. And yet these Tribunes at the end of the Play, like
Aufidius, remain unpunish'd. But indeed
Shakespear has been wanting in the exact Distribution of Poetical Justice not only in his
Coriolanus, but in most of his best Tragedies, in which the Guilty and the Innocent perish promiscuously; as
Duncan and
Banquo in
Mackbeth, as likewise Lady
Macduffe and her Children;
Desdemona in
Othello;
Cordelia,
Kent, and King
Lear, in the Tragedy that bears his Name;
Brutus and
Porcia in
Julius Caesar; and young
Hamlet in the Tragedy of
Hamlet. For tho' it may be said in Defence of the last, that
Hamlet had a Design to kill his Uncle who then reign'd; yet this is justify'd by no less than a Call from Heaven, and raising up one from the Dead to urge him to it. The Good and the Bad then perishing promiscuously in the best of
Shakespear's Tragedies, there can be either none or very weak Instruction in them: For such promiscuous Events call the Government of Providence into Question, and by Scepticks and Libertines are resolv'd into Chance. I humbly conceive therefore that this want of Dramatical Justice in the Tragedy of
Coriolanus gave occasion for a just Alteration, and that I was oblig'd to sacrifice to that Justice
Aufidius and the Tribunes, as well as
Coriolanus.
Thus have we endeavour'd to shew that, for want of the Poetical Art,
Shakespear lay under very great Disadvantages. At the same time we must own to his Honour, that he has often perform'd Wonders without it, in spight of the Judgment of so great a Man as
Horace.
Natura fieret laudabile carmen, an arte,
Quaesitum est: ego nec studium sine divite vena,
Nec rude quid prosit video ingenium; alterius sic
Altera poscit opem res, & conjurat amice.
But from this very Judgment of
Horace we may justly conclude that
Shakespear would have wonderfully surpass'd himself, if Art had been join'd to Nature. There never was a greater Genius in the World than
Virgil: He was one who seems to have been born for this glorious End, that the
Roman Muse might exert in him the utmost Force of her Poetry: And his admirable and divine Beauties are manifestly owing to the happy Confederacy of Art and Nature. It was Art that contriv'd that incomparable Design of the
AEneis, and it was Nature that executed it. Could the greatest Genius that ever was infus'd into Earthly Mold by Heaven, if it had been unguided and unassisted by Art, have taught him to make that noble and wonderful Use of the
Pythagorean Transmigration, which he makes in the Sixth Book of his Poem? Had
Virgil been a circular Poet, and closely adher'd to History, how could the
Romans have been transported with that inimitable Episode of
Dido, which brought a-fresh into their Minds the
Carthaginian War, and the dreadful
Hannibal? When 'tis evident that that admirable Episode is so little owing to a faithful observance of History, and the exact order of Time, that 'tis deriv'd from a very bold but judicious Violation of these; it being undeniable that
Dido liv'd almost 300 Years after
AEneas. Yet is it that charming Episode that makes the chief Beauties of a third Part of the Poem. For the Destruction of
Troy it self, which is so divinely related, is still more admirable by the Effect it produces, which is the Passion of
Dido.
I should now proceed to shew under what Disadvantages
Shakespear lay for want of being conversant with the Ancients. But I have already writ a long Letter, and am desirous to know how you relish what has been already said before I go any farther: For I am unwilling to take more Pains before I am sure of giving you some Pleasure. I am,
Sir,
Your most humble, faithful Servant.
Letter II.
Sir, Feb. 6. 1710/11.
Upon the Encouragement I have receiv'd from you, I shall proceed to shew under what Disadvantages
Shakespear lay for want of being conversant with the Ancients. But because I have lately been in some Conversation, where they would not allow but that he was acquainted with the Ancients, I shall endeavour to make it appear that he was not; and the shewing that in the Method in which I pretend to convince the Reader of it, will sufficiently prove what Inconveniencies he lay under, and what Errors he committed for want of being conversant with them. But here we must distinguish between the several kinds of Acquaintance: A Man may be said to be acquainted with another who never was but twice in his Company; but that is at the best a superficial Acquaintance, from which neither very great Pleasure nor Profit can be deriv'd. Our Business is here to shew that
Shakespear had no familiar Acquaintance with the
Graecian and
Roman Authors. For if he was familiarly conversant with them, how comes it to pass that he wants Art? Is it that he studied to know them in other things, and neglected that only in them, which chiefly tends to the Advancement of the Art of the Stage? Or is it that he wanted Discernment to see the Justness, and the Greatness, and the Harmony of their Designs, and the Reasonableness of those Rules upon which those Designs are founded? Or how come his Successors to have that Discernment which he wanted, when they fall so much below him in other things? How comes he to have been guilty of the grossest Faults in Chronology, and how come we to find out those Faults? In his Tragedy of
Troylus and
Cressida, he introduces
Hector speaking of
Aristotle, who was born a thousand Years after the Death of
Hector. In the same Play mention is made of
Milo, which is another very great Fault in Chronology.
Alexander is mention'd in
Coriolanus, tho' that Conqueror of the Orient liv'd about two hundred Years after him. In this last Tragedy he has mistaken the very Names of his Dramatick Persons, if we give Credit to
Livy. For the Mother of
Coriolanus in the
Roman Historian is
Vetturia, and the Wife is
Volumnia. Whereas in
Shakespear the Wife is
Virgilia, and the Mother
Volumnia. And the
Volscian General in
Shakespear is
Tullus Aufidius, and
Tullus Attius in
Livy. How comes it that he takes
Plutarch's Word, who was by Birth a
Graecian, for the Affairs of
Rome, rather than that of the
Roman Historian, if so be that he had read the latter? Or what Reason can be given for his not reading him, when he wrote upon a
Roman Story, but that in
Shakespear's time there was a Translation of
Plutarch, and there was none of
Livy? If
Shakespear was familiarly conversant with the
Roman Authors, how came he to introduce a Rabble into
Coriolanus, in which he offended not only against the Dignity of Tragedy, but the Truth of Fact, the Authority of all the
Roman Writers, the Customs of Ancient
Rome, and the Majesty of the
Roman People? By introducing a Rabble into
Julius Caesar, he only offended against the Dignity of Tragedy. For that part of the People who ran about the Streets upon great Festivals, or publick Calamities, or publick Rejoicings, or Revolutions in Government, are certainly the Scum of the Populace. But the Persons who in the Time of
Coriolanus rose in Vindication of their just Rights, and extorted from the Patricians the Institution of the Tribunes of the People, and the Persons by whom afterwards
Coriolanus was tried, were the whole Body of the
Roman People to the Reserve of the Patricians, which Body included the
Roman Knights, and the wealthy substantial Citizens, who were as different from the Rabble as the Patricians themselves, as qualify'd as the latter to form a right Judgment of Things, and to contemn the vain Opinions of the Rabble. So at least
Horace esteems them, who very well knew his Countrymen.
Offenduntur enim, quibus est equus, aut pater, aut res,
Nec, siquid fricti ciceris probat aut nucis emptor,
AEquis accipiunt animis donantve Corona.
Where we see the Knights and the substantial Citizens are rank'd in an equal Degree of Capacity with the
Roman Senators, and are equally distinguish'd from the Rabble.
If
Shakespear was so conversant with the Ancients, how comes he to have introduc'd some Characters into his Plays so unlike what they are to be found in History? In the Character of
Menenius in the following Tragedy, he has doubly offended against that Historical Resemblance. For first whereas
Menenius was an eloquent Person,
Shakespear has made him a downright Buffoon. And how is it possible for any Man to conceive a
Ciceronian Jack-pudding? Never was any Buffoon eloquent, or wise, or witty, or virtuous. All the good and ill Qualities of a Buffoon are summ'd up in one Word, and that is a Buffoon. And secondly, whereas
Shakespear has made him a Hater and Contemner and Villifier of the People, we are assur'd by the
Roman Historian that
Menenius was extremely popular. He was so very far from opposing the Institution of the Tribunes, as he is represented in
Shakespear, that he was chiefly instrumental in it. After the People had deserted the City, and sat down upon the sacred Mountain, he was the chief of the Delegates whom the Senate deputed to them, as being look'd upon to be the Person who would be most agreeable to them. In short, this very
Menenius both liv'd and dy'd so very much their Favourite, that dying poor he had pompous Funerals at the Expence of the
Roman People.
Had
Shakespear read either
Sallust or
Cicero, how could he have made so very little of the first and greatest of Men, as that
Caesar should be but a Fourth-rate Actor in his own Tragedy? How could it have been that, seeing
Caesar, we should ask for
Caesar? That we should ask, where is his unequall'd Greatness of Mind, his unbounded Thirst of Glory, and that victorious Eloquence, with which he triumph'd over the Souls of both Friends and Enemies, and with which he rivall'd
Cicero in Genius as he did
Pompey in Power? How fair an Occasion was there to open the Character of
Caesar in the first Scene between
Brutus and
Cassius? For when
Cassius tells
Brutus that
Caesar was but a Man like them, and had the same natural Imperfections which they had, how natural had it been for
Brutus to reply, that
Caesar indeed had their Imperfections of Nature, but neither he nor
Cassius had by any means the great Qualities of
Caesar: neither his Military Virtue, nor Science, nor his matchless Renown, nor his unparallell'd Victories, his unwearied Bounty to his Friends, nor his Godlike Clemency to his Foes, his Beneficence, his Munificence, his Easiness of Access to the meanest
Roman, his indefatigable Labours, his incredible Celerity, the Plausibleness if not Justness of his Ambition, that knowing himself to be the greatest of Men, he only sought occasion to make the World confess him such. In short, if
Brutus, after enumerating all the wonderful Qualities of
Caesar, had resolv'd in spight of them all to sacrifice him to publick Liberty, how had such a Proceeding heighten'd the Virtue and the Character of
Brutus? But then indeed it would have been requisite that
Caesar upon his Appearance should have made all this good. And as we know no Principle of human Action but human Sentiment only,
Caesar, who did greater Things, and had greater Designs than the rest of the
Romans, ought certainly to have outshin'd by many Degrees all the other Characters of his Tragedy.
Caesar ought particularly to have justified his Actions, and to have heighten'd his Character, by shewing that what he had done, he had done by Necessity; that the
Romans had lost their
Agrarian, lost their Rotation of Magistracy, and that consequently nothing but an empty Shadow of publick Liberty remain'd; that the
Gracchi had made the last noble but unsuccessful Efforts for the restoring the Commonwealth, that they had fail'd for want of arbitrary irresistible Power, the Restoration of the
Agrarian requiring too vast a Retrospect to be done without it; that the Government, when
Caesar came to publick Affairs, was got into the Hands of a few, and that those few were factious, and were contending among themselves, and, if you will pardon so mean an Expression, scrambling as it were for Power; that
Caesar was reduc'd to the Necessity of ruling, or himself obeying a Master; and that apprehending that another would exercise the supreme Command without that Clemency and Moderation which he did, he had rather chosen to rule than to obey. So that
Caesar was faulty not so much in seizing upon the Sovereignty, which was become in a manner necessary, as in not re-establishing the Commonwealth, by restoring the
Agrarian and the Rotation of Magistracies, after he had got absolute and uncontroulable Power. And if
Caesar had seiz'd upon the Sovereignty only with a View of re-establishing Liberty, he had surpass'd all Mortals in Godlike Goodness as much as he did in the rest of his astonishing Qualities. I must confess, I do not remember that we have any Authority from the
Roman Historians which may induce us to believe that
Caesar had any such Design. Nor if he had had any such View, could he, who was the most secret, the most prudent, and the most discerning of Men, have discover'd it before his
Parthian Expedition was over, for fear of utterly disobliging his Veterans. And
Caesar believ'd that Expedition necessary for the Honour and Interest of the State, and for his own Glory.
But of this we may be sure, that two of the most discerning of all the
Romans, and who had the deepest Insight into the Soul of
Caesar,
Sallust and
Cicero, were not without Hopes that
Caesar would really re-establish Liberty, or else they would not have attack'd him upon it; the one in his Oration for
Marcus Marcellus, the other in the Second Part of that little Treatise
De Republica ordinanda, which is address'd to
Caesar.
Haec igitur tibi reliqua pars, says Cicero, Hic restat Actus, in hoc elaborandum est, ut Rempublicam constituas, eaque tu in primis composita, summa Tranquillitate & otio perfruare. Cicero therefore was not without Hope that
Caesar would re-establish the Commonwealth; and any one who attentively peruses that Oration of
Cicero, will find that that Hope was reasonably grounded upon his knowledge of the great Qualities of
Caesar, his Clemency, his Beneficence, his admirable Discernment; and that avoidless Ruine in which the whole Empire would be soon involv'd, if
Caesar did not effect this.
Sallust urges it still more home to him and with greater vehemence; he has recourse to every Motive that may be thought to be powerful over so great a Soul. He exhorts him by the Memory of his matchless Conquests, not to suffer the invincible Empire of the
Roman People to be devour'd by Time, or to be torn in pieces by Discord; one of which would soon and infallibly happen, if Liberty was not restor'd.
He introduces his Country and his Progenitors urging him in a noble Prosopopeia, by all the mighty Benefits which they had conferr'd upon him, with so little Pains of his own, not to deny them that just and easy Request of the Restoration of Liberty. He adjures him by those Furies which will eternally haunt his Soul upon his impious Refusal: He implores him by the foresight of those dismal Calamities, that horrible Slaughter, those endless Wars, and that unbounded Devastation, which will certainly fall upon Mankind, if the Restoration of Liberty is prevented by his Death, or his incurable Sickness: And lastly, he entreats him by his Thirst of immortal Glory, that Glory in which he now has Rivals, if he has not Equals; but which, if he re-establishes Liberty, will be acknowledg'd by consenting Nations to have neither Equal nor Second.
I am apt to believe that if
Shakespear had been acquainted with all this, we had had from him quite another Character of
Caesar than that which we now find in him. He might then have given us a Scene something like that which
Corneille has so happily us'd in his Cinna; something like that which really happen'd between
Augustus,
Mecaenas, and
Agrippa. He might then have introduc'd
Caesar consulting
Cicero on the one side, and on the other
Anthony, whether he should retain that absolute Sovereignty which he had acquir'd by his Victory, or whether he should re-establish and immortalize Liberty. That would have been a Scene which might have employ'd the finest Art and the utmost force of a Writer. That had been a Scene in which all the great Qualities of
Caesar might have been display'd. I will not pretend to determine here how that Scene might have been turn'd; and what I have already said on this Subject, has been spoke with the utmost Caution and Diffidence. But this I will venture to say, that if that Scene had been manag'd so, as, by the powerful Motives employ'd in it, to have shaken the Soul of
Caesar, and to have left room for the least Hope, for the least Doubt, that
Caesar would have re-establish'd Liberty, after his
Parthian Expedition; and if this Conversation had been kept secret till the Death of
Caesar, and then had been discover'd by
Anthony; then had
Caesar fall'n, so belov'd and lamented by the
Roman People, so pitied and so bewail'd even by the Conspirators themselves, as never Man fell. Then there would have been a Catastrophe the most dreadful and the most deplorable that ever was beheld upon the Tragick Stage. Then had we seen the noblest of the Conspirators cursing their temerarious Act, and the most apprehensive of them in dreadful expectation of those horrible Calamities which fell upon the
Romans after the Death of
Caesar. But, Sir, when I write this to you, I write it with the utmost Deference to the extraordinary Judgment of that great Man who some Years ago, I hear, alter'd the
Julius Caesar. And I make no doubt but that his fine Discernment and the rest of his great Qualities have amply supply'd the Defects which are found in the Character of
Shakespear's
Caesar.
I should here answer an Argument, by which some People pretend to prove, and especially those with whom I lately convers'd, that
Shakespear was conversant with the Ancients. But besides that the Post is about to be gone, I am heartily tir'd with what I have already writ, and so doubtless are you; I shall therefore defer the rest to the next opportunity, and remain
Your, _&c.
Letter III.
Sir, Feb. 8.
I come now to the main Argument, which some People urge to prove that
Shakespear was conversant with the Ancients. For there is, say they, among
Shakespear's Plays, one call'd
The Comedy of Errors, which is undeniably an Imitation of the
Menechmi of
Plautus. Now
Shakespear, say they, being conversant with
Plautus, it undeniably follows that he was acquainted with the Ancients; because no
Roman Author could be hard to him who had conquer'd
Plautus. To which I answer, that the Errors which we have mention'd above are to be accounted for no other way but by the want of knowing the Ancients, or by downright want of Capacity. But nothing can be more absurd or more unjust than to impute it to want of Capacity. For the very Sentiments of
Shakespear alone are sufficient to shew that he had a great Understanding: And therefore we must account some other way for his Imitation of the
Menechmi. I remember to have seen, among the Translations of
Ovid's Epistles printed by Mr.
Tonson, an Imitation of that from
OEnone to
Paris, which Mr.
Dryden tells us in his Preface to those Epistles was imitated by one of the Fair Sex who understood no
Latin, but that she had done enough to make those blush who understood it the best. There are at this day several Translators, who, as
Hudibrass has it,
Translate from Languages of which
They understand no part of Speech.
I will not affirm that of
Shakespear; I believe he was able to do what Pedants call construe, but that he was able to read
Plautus without Pain and Difficulty I can never believe. Now I appeal to you, Sir, what time he had between his Writing and his Acting, to read any thing that could not be read with Ease and Pleasure. We see that our Adversaries themselves acknowledge, that if
Shakespear was able to read
Plautus with Ease, nothing in Latinity could be hard to him. How comes it to pass then, that he has given us no Proofs of his familiar Acquaintance with the Ancients, but this Imitation of the
Menechmi, and a Version of two Epistles of
Ovid? How comes it that he had never read
Horace, of a superiour Merit to either, and particularly his Epistle to the
Piso's, which so much concern'd his Art? Or if he had read that Epistle, how comes it that in his
Troylus and
Cressida [we must observe by the way, that when
Shakespear wrote that Play,
Ben Johnson had not as yet translated that Epistle] he runs counter to the Instructions which
Horace has given for the forming the Character of
Achilles?
Scriptor: Honoratum si forte reponis Achillem,
Impiger, Iracundus, Inexorabilis, Acer,
Jura neget sibi nata.
Where is the
Impiger, the
Iracundus, or the
Acer, in the Character of
Shakespear's
Achilles? who is nothing but a drolling, lazy, conceited, overlooking Coxcomb; so far from being the honoured
Achilles, the Epithet that
Homer and
Horace after him give him, that he is deservedly the Scorn and the Jest of the rest of the Characters, even to that Buffoon
Thersites.
Tho'
Shakespear succeeded very well in Comedy, yet his principal Talent and his chief Delight was Tragedy. If then
Shakespear was qualify'd to read
Plautus with Ease, he could read with a great deal more Ease the Translations of
Sophocles and
Euripides. And tho' by these Translations he would not have been able to have seen the charming colouring of those great Masters, yet would he have seen all the Harmony and the Beauty of their great and their just Designs. He would have seen enough to have stirr'd up a noble Emulation in so exalted a Soul as his. How comes it then that we hear nothing from him of the
OEdipus, the
Electra, the
Antigone of
Sophocles, of the
Iphigenia's, the
Orestes, the
Medea, the
Hecuba of
Euripides? How comes it that we see nothing in the Conduct of his Pieces, that shews us that he had the least Acquaintance with any of these great Masterpieces? Did
Shakespear appear to be so nearly touch'd with the Affliction of
Hecuba for the Death of
Priam, which was but daub'd and bungled by one of his Countrymen, that he could not forbear introducing it as it were by Violence into his own
Hamlet, and would he make no Imitation, no Commendation, not the least Mention of the unparallell'd and inimitable Grief of the
Hecuba of
Euripides? How comes it that we find no Imitation of any ancient Play in Him but the
Menechmi of
Plautus? How came he to chuse a Comick preferably to the Tragick Poets? Or how comes he to chuse
Plautus preferably to
Terence, who is so much more just, more graceful, more regular, and more natural? Or how comes he to chuse the
Menechmi of
Plautus, which is by no means his Master-piece, before all his other Comedies? I vehemently suspect that this Imitation of the
Menechmi was either from a printed Translation of that Comedy which is lost, or some Version in Manuscript brought him by a Friend, or sent him perhaps by a Stranger, or from the original Play it self recommended to him, and read to him by some learned Friend. In short, I had rather account for this by what is not absurd than by what is, or by a less Absurdity than by a greater. For nothing can be more wrong than to conclude from this that
Shakespear was conversant with the Ancients; which contradicts the Testimony of his Contemporary and his familiar Acquaintance
Ben Johnson, and of his Successor
Milton;
Lo
Shakespear, Fancy's sweetest Child,
Warbles his native Wood-notes wild;
and of Mr.
Dryden after them both; and which destroys the most glorious Part of
Shakespear's Merit immediately. For how can he be esteem'd equal by Nature or superior to the Ancients, when he falls so far short of them in Art, tho' he had the Advantage of knowing all that they did before him? Nay it debases him below those of common Capacity, by reason of the Errors which we mention'd above. Therefore he who allows that
Shakespear had Learning and a familiar Acquaintance with the Ancients, ought to be look'd upon as a Detractor from his extraordinary Merit, and from the Glory of
Great Britain. For whether is it more honourable for this Island to have produc'd a Man who, without having any Acquaintance with the Ancients, or any but a slender and a superficial one, appears to be their Equal or their Superiour by the Force of Genius and Nature, or to have bred one who, knowing the Ancients, falls infinitely short of them in Art, and consequently in Nature it self?
Great Britain has but little Reason to boast of its Natives Education, since the same that they had here, they might have had in another place. But it may justly claim a very great share in their Nature and Genius, since these depend in a great measure on the Climate; and therefore
Horace, in the Instruction which he gives for the forming the Characters, advises the noble
Romans for whose Instruction he chiefly writes to consider whether the Dramatick Person whom they introduce is
" Colchus an Assyrius, Thebis nutritus an Argis. "
Thus, Sir, I have endeavour'd to shew under what great Disadvantages
Shakespear lay, for want of the Poetical Art, and for want of being conversant with the Ancients.
But besides this, he lay under other very great Inconveniencies. For he was neither Master of Time enough to consider, correct, and polish what he wrote, to alter it, to add to it, and to retrench from it, nor had he Friends to consult upon whose Capacity and Integrity he could depend. And tho' a Person of very good Judgment may succeed very well without consulting his Friends, if he takes time enough to correct what he writes; yet even the greatest Man that Nature and Art can conspire to accomplish, can never attain to Perfection, without either employing a great deal of time, or taking the Advice of judicious Friends. Nay, 'tis the Opinion of
Horace that he ought to do both.
Siquid tamen olim
Scripseris, in Metii descendat Judicis aures,
Et Patris, & nostras; nonumque prematur in Annum.
Now we know very well that
Shakespear was an Actor, at a time when there were seven or eight Companies of Players in the Town together, who each of them did their utmost Endeavours to get the Audiences from the rest, and consequently that our Author was perpetually call'd upon, by those who had the Direction and Management of the Company to which he belong'd, for new Pieces which might be able to support them, and give them some Advantage over the rest. And 'tis easie to judge what Time he was Master of, between his laborious Employment of Acting and his continual Hurry of Writing. As for Friends, they whom in all likelihood
Shakespear consulted most were two or three of his Fellow-Actors, because they had the Care of publishing his Works committed to them. Now they, as we are told by
Ben Johnson in his
Discoveries, were extremely pleas'd with their Friend for scarce ever making a Blot; and were very angry with
Ben for saying he wish'd that he had made a thousand. The Misfortune of it is that
Horace was perfectly of
Ben's, mind.
----Vos, O
Pompilius sanguis, carmen reprehendite, quod non
Multa dies & multa litura coercuit, atque
Praesectum decies non castigavit ad unguem.
And so was my Lord
Roscommon.
Poets lose half the Praise they should have got,
Could it be known what they discreetly blot.
These Friends then of
Shakespear were not qualify'd to advise him. As for
Ben Johnson, besides that
Shakespear began to know him late, and that
Ben was not the most communicative Person in the World of the Secrets of his Art, he seems to me to have had no right Notion of Tragedy. Nay, so far from it, that he who was indeed a very great Man, and who has writ Comedies, by which he has born away the Prize of Comedy both from Ancients and Moderns, and been an Honour to
Great Britain; and who has done this without any Rules to guide him, except what his own incomparable Talent dictated to him; This extraordinary Man has err'd so grossly in Tragedy, of which there were not only stated Rules, but Rules which he himself had often read, and had even translated, that he has chosen two Subjects, which, according to those very Rules, were utterly incapable of exciting either Compassion or Terror for the principal Characters, which yet are the chief Passions that a Tragick Poet ought to endeavour to excite. So that
Shakespear having neither had Time to correct, nor Friends to consult, must necessarily have frequently left such faults in his Writings, for the Correction of which either a great deal of Time or a judicious and a well-natur'd Friend is indispensably necessary.
Vir bonus & prudens versus reprehendet inertes,
Culpabit duros, incomptis allinet atrum
Transverso calamo signum, ambitiosa recidet
Ornamenta, parum claris lucem dare coget,
Arguet ambigue dictum, mutanda notabit.
There is more than one Example of every kind of these Faults in the Tragedies of
Shakespear, and even in the
Coriolanus. There are Lines that are utterly void of that celestial Fire of which
Shakespear is sometimes Master in so great a Degree. And consequently there are Lines that are stiff and forc'd, and harsh and unmusical, tho'
Shakespear had naturally an admirable Ear for the Numbers. But no Man ever was very musical who did not write with Fire, and no Man can always write with Fire, unless he is so far Master of his Time, as to expect those Hours when his Spirits are warm and volatile.
Shakespear must therefore sometimes have Lines which are neither strong nor graceful: For who ever had Force or Grace that had not Spirit? There are in his
Coriolanus, among a great many natural and admirable Beauties, three or four of those Ornaments which
Horace would term ambitious; and which we in
English are apt to call Fustian or Bombast. There are Lines in some Places which are very obscure, and whole Scenes which ought to be alter'd.
I have, Sir, employ'd some Time and Pains, and that little Judgment which I have acquir'd in these Matters by a long and a faithful reading both of Ancients and Moderns, in adding, retrenching, and altering several Things in the
Coriolanus of
Shakespear, but with what Success I must leave to be determin'd by you. I know very well that you will be surpriz'd to find, that after all that I have said in the former Part of this Letter against
Shakespear's introducing the Rabble into
Coriolanus, I have not only retain'd in the second Act of the following Tragedy the Rabble which is in the Original, but deviated more from the
Roman Customs than
Shakespear had done before me. I desire you to look upon it as a voluntary Fault and a Trespass against Conviction: 'Tis one of those Things which are
ad Populum Phalerae, and by no means inserted to please such Men as you.
Thus, Sir, have I laid before you a short but impartial Account of the Beauties and Defects of
Shakespear, with an Intention to make these Letters publick if they are approv'd by you; to teach some People to distinguish between his Beauties and his Defects, that while they imitate the one, they may with Caution avoid the other [there being nothing of more dangerous Contagion to Writers, and especially to young ones, than the Faults of great Masters], and while with
Milton they applaud the great Qualities which
Shakespear had by Nature, they may follow his wise Example, and form themselves as he assures us that he himself did, upon the Rules and Writings of the Ancients.
Sir, if so candid and able a Judge as your self shall happen to approve of this Essay in the main, and to excuse and correct my Errors, that Indulgence and that Correction will not only encourage me to make these Letters publick, but will enable me to bear the Reproach of those who would fix a Brand even upon the justest Criticism, as the Effect of Envy and Ill-nature; as if there could possibly be any Ill-nature in the doing Justice, or in the endeavouring to advance a very noble and a very useful Art, and consequently to prove beneficent to Mankind. As for those who may accuse me of the want of a due Veneration for the Merit of an Author of so establish'd a Reputation as
Shakespear, I shall beg leave to tell them, that they chuse the wrongest time that they could possibly take for such an Accusation as that. For I appeal to you, Sir, who shews most Veneration for the Memory of
Shakespear, he who loves and admires his Charms and makes them one of his chief Delights, who sees him and reads him over and over and still remains unsatiated, and who mentions his Faults for no other Reason but to make his Excellency the more conspicuous, or he who, pretending to be his blind Admirer, shews in Effect the utmost Contempt for him, preferring empty effeminate Sound to his solid Beauties and manly Graces, and deserting him every Night for an execrable
Italian Ballad, so vile that a Boy who should write such lamentable Dogrel would be turn'd out of
Westminster-School for a desperate Blockhead, too stupid to be corrected and amended by the harshest Discipline of the Place?
I am,
Sir,
Yours, &c. NOTES:
John Dennis
24.
Shakespear ... Tragick Stage. Contrast Rymer's
Short View, p. 156: "Shakespear's genius lay for Comedy and Humour. In Tragedy he appears quite out of his element." Cf. Dennis's later statement, p. 40.
25.
the very Original of our English Tragical Harmony. Cf. Dryden, Epistle Dedicatory of the
Rival Ladies, ed. W. P. Ker, i., p. 6, and Bysshe,
Art of English Poetry, 1702, p. 36. See Johnson's criticism of this passage, Preface, p. 140.
Such verse we make, etc. Dennis makes these two lines illustrate themselves.
26.
Jack-Pudding. See the
Spectator, No. 47. The term was very common at this time for a "merry wag." It had also the more special sense of "one attending on a mountebank," as in Etherege's
Comical Revenge, iii. 4.
Coriolanus. Contrast Dennis's opinion of
Coriolanus in his letter to Steele of 26th March, 1719: "Mr. Dryden has more than once declared to me that there was something in this very tragedy of
Coriolanus, as it was writ by Shakespear, that is truly great and truly Roman; and I more than once answered him that it had always been my own opinion."
29.
Poetical Justice. Dennis defended the doctrine of poetical justice in the first of the two additional letters published with the letters on Shakespeare. Addison had examined this "ridiculous doctrine in modern criticism" in the
Spectator, No. 40 (April 16, 1711). Cf. Pope's account of Dennis's "deplorable frenzy" in the
Narrative of Dr. Robert Norris (Pope's
Works, ed. Elwin and Courthope, x. 459).
30.
Natura fieret. Horace,
Ars poetica, 408.
a circular poet,
i.e. a cyclic poet. This is the only example of this sense of
circular in the
New English Dictionary.
32.
Hector speaking of Aristotle,--
Troilis and Cressida, ii. 2. 166;
Milo,
id. ii. 3. 258;
Alexander,
Coriolanus v. 4. 23.
Plutarch. Though Dennis is right in his conjecture that Shakespeare used a translation, the absence of any allusion to North's Plutarch would show that he did not know of it. He is in error about Livy. Philemon Holland's translation had appeared in 1600.
33.
Offenduntur enim, etc.
Ars poetica, 248.
34.
Caesar. Cf. the criticism of
Julius Caesar in Sewell's preface to the seventh volume of Pope's Shakespeare, 1725.
36.
Haec igitur, etc. Cicero,
Pro M. Marcello, ix.
38.
Julius Caesar. Dennis alludes to the version of
Julius Caesar by John Sheffield, Duke of Buckinghamshire, published in 1722. In the altered form a chorus is introduced between the acts, and the "play begins the day before Caesar's death, and ends within an hour after it." Buckinghamshire wrote also the
Tragedy of Marcus Brutus.
39.
Dryden, Preface to the Translation of Ovid's
Epistles (1680)
ad fin.: "That of
OEnone to Paris is in Mr. Cowley's way of imitation only. I was desired to say that the author, who is of the fair sex, understood not Latin. But if she does not, I am afraid she has given us occasion to be ashamed who do" (Ed. W. P. Ker, i., p. 243). The author was Mrs. Behn.
Hudibras, i. 1, 661. But
Hudibras has it slightly differently,--"Though out of languages in which," etc.
39.
a Version of two Epistles of Ovid. The poems in the seventh volume of Rowe's edition of Shakespeare include Thomas Heywood's
Amorous Epistle of Paris to Helen and
Helen to Paris. They were attributed to Shakespeare, till Farmer proved their authorship (p. 203). Cf. Gildon,
Essay on the Stage, 1710, p. vi.
40.
Scriptor, etc.
Ars poetica, 120.
41.
The Menechmi. Dennis's "vehement suspicion" is justified. See above, note on p. 9.
Ben Johnson, "small Latin and less Greek" (
Verses to the Memory of Shakespeare).
Milton,
L'Allegro, 133: "Or sweetest Shakespeare, Fancy's child." The same misquotation occurs in Sewell's preface, 1725.
Dryden,
Essay of Dramatic Poesy: "Those who accuse him to have wanted learning give him the greater commendation" (ed. W. P. Ker, i., p. 80).
42.
Colchus, etc.
Ars poetica, 118.
Siquid tamen, etc.
Id. 386. The form
Maeci was restored about this time by Bentley.
43.
Companies of Players. See Mr. Sidney Lee's
Life of Shakespeare, p. 34.
we are told by Ben Johnson. See p. 22. But Heminge and Condell tell us so themselves in the preface to the Folio: "His mind and hand went together: and what he thought he uttered with that easinesse, that wee have scarce received from him a blot in his papers."
Vos, O. Ars poetica, 291.
Poets lose half the Praise, etc. These lines are not by the Earl of Roscommon, but by Edmund Waller. They occur in Waller's prefatory verses to Roscommon's translation of Horace's
Ars poetica.
Dennis's criticism of Jonson is apparently inspired by Rymer's remarks on
Catiline (
Short View, pp. 159-163). "In short," says Rymer, "it is strange that Ben, who understood the turn of Comedy so well, and had found the success, should thus grope in the dark and jumble things together without head or tail, without rule or proportion, without any reason or design."
44.
Vir bonus, etc. Horace,
Ars poetica, 445.
45.
ad Populum Phalerae. Persius, iii. 30.
Milton. See Milton's prefatory note to
Samson Agonistes.
46.
Veneration for Shakespear. Cf. Dennis's letter to Steele, 26th March, 1719: "Ever since I was capable of reading Shakespear, I have always had, and have always expressed, that veneration for him which is justly his due; of which I believe no one can doubt who has read the Essay which I published some years ago upon his Genius and Writings."
Italian Ballad. Cf. Dennis's
Essay on the Operas after the Italian Manner, 1706.
[The end]
David Nichol Smith's essay: John Dennis: On The Genius And Writings Of Shakespeare. 1711