ePub 版
[ocr errors]

And in this view it will be but fair to allow | Jonson borrowed everything. Because Jonson that most of our author's faults are less to did not write extempore, he was reproached be ascribed to his wrong judgment as a poet with being a year about every piece; and, than to his right judgment as a player.” because Shakspeare wrote with ease and

Of Shakspere's learning his editor thus rapidity, they cried, he never once made a speaks

blot. Nay, the spirit of opposition ran so “As to his want of learning it may be ligh, that whatever those of the one side necessary to say something more: there is objected to the other was taken at the certainly a vast difference between learning rebound, and turned into praises, as injuand languages. How far he was ignorant of diciously as their antagonists before had the latter I cannot determine; but it is plain made them objections." he had much reading at least, if they will Much of Pope's Preface is then occupied not call it learning. Nor is it any great with illustrations of his opinion that Shakmatter, if a man has knowledge, whether he spere's works have come down to us defaced has it from one language or from another. with innumerable blunders and absurdities Nothing is more evident than that he had a which are not to be attributed to the author. taste of natural philosophy, mechanics, We cannot at all yield our consent to this ancient and modern history, poetical learning, opinion, which goes upon the assumption and mythology: we find him very knowing that, whenever there is an obscure passage ; in the customs, rites, and manners of an


mean conceits and ribaidries tiquity.

The manners of other are found ; whenever “low scenes of mobs, nations in general, the Egyptians, Venetians, plebeians, and clowns” are very prominent; French, &c., are drawn with equal propriety. there the players have been at work; and he Whatever object of nature or branch of thus argues upon the assumption :-“If we science he either speaks of or describes, it is give in to this opinion, how many low and always with competent if not extensive vicious parts and passages might no longer knowledge ; his descriptions are still exact ; reflect upon this great genius, but appear all his metaphors appropriated, and remark- unworthily charged upon him! And, even ably drawn from the true nature and inherent in those which are really his, how many qualities of each subject. When he treats faults may have been unjustly laid to his of ethic or politic, we may constantly observe account from arbitrary additions, expunca wonderful justness of distinction as well as tions, transpositions of scenes and lines, extent of comprehension. No one is more a confusion of characters and persons, wrong master of the poetical story, or has more application of speeches, corruptions of infrequent allusions to the various parts of it. numerable passages by the ignorance, and Mr. Waller (who has been celebrated for this wrong corrections of them again by the last particular) has not shown more learning impertinence, of his first editors ! From one this way than Shakspeare.

or other of these considerations I am verily “I am inclined to think this opinion pro- persuaded that the greatest and the grossest ceeded originally from the zeal of the parti- part of what are thought his errors would zans of our author and Ben Jonson, as they vanish, and leave his character in a light endeavoured to exalt the one at the expense very different from that disadvantageous one of the other. It is ever the nature of parties in which it now appears to us.” There is a to be in extremes ; and nothing is so probable larger question even than this that Pope as that, because Ben Jonson had much the propounds. Are these parts and passages more learning, it was said on the one hand low and vicious ? Have we these corruptions that Shakspeare had none at all; and, because and imperfections ? We believe not. Pope Shakspeare had much the most wit and accepted Shakspere in the spirit of his time, fancy, it was retorted on the other that and that was not favourable to the proper Jonson wanted both. Because Shakspeare understanding of him. His concluding obborrowed nothing, it was said that Ben servations are characteristic of his critical


power :-“I will conclude by saying of decimos. The title-page of Theobald's ShakShakspeare, that, with all his faults, and with spere bore that it was collated with the all the irregularity of his drama, one may oldest copies, and corrected, with Notes.' look upon his works, in comparison of those Pope's edition was not again reprinted in that are more finished and regular, as upon London ; but of Theobald's there have been an ancient majestic piece of Gothic archi- many subsequent editions, and Steevens astecture compared with a neat modern build- serts that of his first edition thirteen thousand ing; the latter is more elegant and glaring, copies were sold. Looking at the advantage but the former is more strong and more which Pope possessed in the pre-eminence of solemn. It must be allowed that in one of his literary reputation, the preference which these there are materials enough to make was so decidedly given to Theobald's editions many of the other. It has much the greater is a proof that the public thought for themvariety, and much the nobler apartments; selves in the matter of Shakspere. Pope was though we are often conducted to them by not fitted for the more laborious duties of an dark, odd, and uncouth passages. Nor does editor. He collated, indeed, the early copies, the whole fail to strike us with greater but he set about the emendation of the text reverence, though many of the parts are in a manner so entirely arbitrary, suppressing childish, ill-placed, and unequal to its passage after passage upon the principle that grandeur.”

the players had been at work here, and In 1726 LEWIS THEOBALD published a tract a blundering transcriber there, that no reader entitled 'Shakespear Restored, or Specimens of Shakspere could rely upon the integrity of Blunders Committed and Unamended in of Pope's version. Theobald states the conPope's Edition of this Poet.' In Pope's second trary mode in which he proceeded :edition of Shakspere, which appeared in “ Wherever the author's sense is clear 1728, was inserted this contemptuous notice: and discoverable (though, perchance, low

-“Since the publication of our first edition, and trivial), I have not by any innovation there having been some attempts upon tampered with his text, out of an ostentation Shakspeare published by Lewis Theobald of endeavouring to make him speak better (which he would not communicate during than the old copies have done. the time wherein that edition was preparing “Where

, through all the former editions, for the press, when we, by public advertise- a passage has laboured under flat nonsense ments, did request the assistance of all lovers and invincible darkness, if, by the addition of this author), we have inserted, in this or alteration of a letter or two, or a transimpression, as many of 'em as are judged of position in the pointing, I have restored to any the least advantage to the poet; the him both sense and sentiment, such corwhole amounting to about twenty-five words.” rections, I am persuaded, will need no In the same year came out “The Dunciad,' indulgence. of which Theobald was the hero :

“ And whenever I have taken a greater

latitude and liberty in amending, I have “High on a gorgeous seat that far outshone Henley's gilt tub, or Flecknoe's Irish throne, constantly endeavoured to support my cor

rections and conjectures by parallel passages Great Tibbald nods."

and authorities from himself, the surest means In a few years Theobald was deposed from of expounding any author whatsoever.” this throne, and there, then, “Great Cibber Dr. Johnson accurately enough describes sate.” The facility with which Theobald the and consequences of Pope's was transformed to Cibber is one of the many failure :—“Confidence is the common conproofs that Pope threw his darts and dirt sequence of success. They whose excellence about him at random. But Theobald took a of any kind has been loudly celebrated are just revenge.

In 1733 he produced an ready to conclude that their powers are edition of Shakspere, in seven volumes octavo, universal. Pope's edition fell below his own which annihilated Pope's quartos and duo- expectations, and he was so much offended,





when he was found to have left anything for this great poet! In how many branches of others to do, that he passed the latter part excellence to consider and admire him ! of his life in a state of hostility with verbal Whether we view him on the side of art or criticism.” But Johnson does not exhibit nature, he ought equally to engage our his usual good sense and knowledge of man- attention: whether we respect the force and kind when he attributes Theobald's success greatness of his genius, the extent of his to the world's compassion. He calls him knowledge and reading, the power and weak and ignorant, mean and faithless, address with which he throws out and applies petulant and ostentatious; but he affirms either nature or learning, there is ample that this editor, “ by the good luck of having scope both for our wonder and pleasure. If Pope for his enemy, has escaped, and escaped his diction and the clothing of his thoughts alone, with reputation, from this undertaking. attract us, how much more must we be So willingly does the world support those charmed with the richness and variety of his who solicit favour against those who command images and ideas ! If his images and ideas reverence; and so easily is he praised whom steal into our souls and strike upon our

can envy.” This is mere fine fancy, how much are they improved in price writing. The real secret of Theobald's when we come to reflect with what propriety success is stated by Johnson himself:- and justness they are applied to character ! “Pope was succeeded by Theobald, a man of If we look into his characters, and how they narrow comprehension and small acquisitions, are furnished and proportioned to the emwith no native and intrinsic splendour of ployment he cuts out for them, how are we genius, with little of the artificial light of taken up with the mastery of his portraits ! learning, but zealous for minute accuracy, What draughts of nature ! What variety and not negligent in pursuing it. He collated of originals, and how differing each from the the ancient copies, and rectified many errors. other!” A man so anxiously scrupulous might have Undeterred by the failure of Pope in his been expected to do more, but what little he slashing amputations, Sir Thomas HANMER did was commonly right.” It was because appeared, in 1744, with a splendid edition in Theobald was “anxiously scrupulous,” be- six volumes quarto, printed at the Oxford

" cause he did not attempt “to do more” than University Press. Nothing can be more an editor ought to do, that he had the public satisfactory than the paper and the type. support. Nearly every succeeding editor, in The work was intended as a monument to his scorn of Theobald, his confidence in the memory of Shakspere ; one of the modes himself, and, what was the most influential, in which the national homage was to be his want of reverence for his author, en- expressed :—“As a fresh acknowledgment deavoured to make Shakspere “speak better hath lately been paid to his merit, and a than the old copies have done." Each for high regard to his name and memory, by a while had his applause, but it was not a erecting his statue at a public expense ; so lasting fame.

it is desired that this new edition of his There is little in Theobald's Preface to works, which hath cost some attention and mark the progress of opinion on the writings care, may be looked upon as another small of Shakspere. Some parts of this Preface monument designed and dedicated to his are held to have been written by Warburton; honour.” Capell, who came next as but, if so, his arrogance must have been greatly editor, says truly of Hanmer that he “ “purmodified by Theobald's judgment. There is sues a track in which it is greatly to be not much general remark upon the character hoped he will never be followed in the of the poet's writings; but what we find is publication of any authors whatsoever, for sensibly conceived and not inelegantly ex- this were in effect to annihilate them if pressed. We shall content ourselves with carried a little further.” Collins's 'Epistle extracting one passage :-"In how many to Sir Thomas Hanmer on his Edition of points of sight must we be obliged to gaze at | Shakspeare's Works' is an elegant though


not very vigorous attempt to express the practical wisdom, with a critic who delights universal admiration that the people of in the most extravagant paradoxes, we might England felt for the great national poet. prefer the amusement of Warburton's edition The verse-homage to Shakspere after the to toiling through the heaps of verbal days of Milton had no very original character. criticism which later years saw heaped up. The cuckoo-note with which these warblers Warburton, of course, belonged to the school generally interspersed their varied lays was of slashing emendators. The opening of his the echo of Milton's “wood-notes wild,” preface tells us what we are to expect from which they did not perceive had a limited him :application to some particular play-As You “ It hath been no unusual thing for Like It, for instance. In Rowe's prologue to writers, when dissatisfied with the patronage Jane Shore' we have,

or judgment of their own times, to appeal to “In such an age immortal Shakspeare wrote,

posterity for a fair hearing. Some have even By no quaint rules nor hamp'ring critics thought fit to apply to it in the first instance, taught;

and to decline acquaintance with the public With rough majestic force he mov'd the heart, till envy and prejudice had quite subsided. And strength and nature made amends for But, of all the trusters to futurity, commend art.”

me to the author of the following poems, who Thomson asks

not only left it to time to do him justice as

it would, but to find him out as it could : “ For lofty sense,

for, what between too great attention to his Creative fancy, and inspection keen Through the deep windings of the human profit as a player, and too little to his repu

tation as a poet, his works, left to the care of heart, Is not wild Shakspeare thine and nature's door-keepers and prompters, hardly escaped boast?"

the common fate of those writings, how good

soever, which are abandoned to their own T. Seward, addressing Stratford, says, fortune, and unprotected by party or cabal. "Thy bard was thine unschool’d.”

At length, indeed, they struggled into light;

but so disguised and travestied, that no Collins's Epistle begins thus, speaking of the classic author, after having run ten secular works of Shakspere

stages through the blind cloisters of monks “ Hard was the lot those injur'd strains endur'd, and canons, ever came out in half so maimed Unown'd by science.”

and mangled a condition."

There is little in Warburton's preface But Collins, in many respects a true poet, which possesses any lasting interest, perhaps has a higher inspiration in his invocations of with the exception of his defence against the the great master of the drama than most of

charge that editing Shakspere was unsuitable his fellows :

to his clerical profession :“O more than all in powerful genius bless'd, “ The great Saint Chrysostom, a name Come, take thine empire o'er the willing | consecrated to immortality by his virtue and breast!

eloquence, is known to have been so fond of Whate’er the wounds this youthful heart shall Aristophanes as to wake with him at his feel,

studies, and to sleep with him under his Thy songs support me, and thy morals heal.

pillow; and I never heard that this was There every thought the poet's warmth may objected either to his piety or his preaching, raise,

not even in those times of pure zeal and There native music dwells in all the lays."

primitive religion. Yet, in respect of ShakTo Hanmer succeeded WARBURTON, with a speare's great sense, Aristophanes's best wit new edition of Pope, enriched with his own is but buffoonery; and, in comparison of Arismost original notes. If it were not painful to tophanes's freedoms, Shakspeare writes with associate Shakspere, the great master of the purity of a vestal. Of all the literary exercitations of speculative men, whether of all our passions, appetites, and pursuits. designed for the use or entertainment of These afford a lesson which can never be too the world, there are none of so much im- often repeated, or too constantly inculcated; portance, or what are more our immediate and to engage the reader's due attention to concern, than those which let us into the it hath been one of the principal objects of knowledge of our nature. Others may ex- this edition. ercise the reason, or amuse the imagination ; “ As this science (whatever profound phibut these only can improve the heart, and losophers may think) is, to the rest, in things, form the human mind to wisdom. Now, in so, in words (whatever supercilious pedants this science our Shakspeare is confessed to may talk), every one's mother-tongue is to occupy the foremost place, whether we con- all other languages. This hath still been the sider the amazing sagacity with which he sentiment of nature and true wisdom. Hence, investigates every hidden spring and wheel the greatest men of antiquity never thought of human action, or his happy manner of themselves better employed than in culcommunicating this knowledge, in the just tivating their own country idiom." and living paintings which he has given us





It was in the year 1741 that David Garrick
at once leaped into eminence as an actor,
such as had not been won by any man for
half a century. He was the true successor
of Burbage, Betterton, and Harris. His
principal fame was, however, like theirs,
founded upon Shakspere. But it is a mistake
to imagine that there had not been a constant
succession of actors of Shakspere's great
characters, from the death of Betterton to
Garrick's appearance. His first character in
London was Richard III. He made all the
great parts of Shakspere familiar to the play-
going public for five-and-thirty years. The
Alchymist’and the 'Volpone' of Ben Jonson
were sometimes played ; 'The Chances,' and
* Rule a Wife and Have a Wife,' of Beaumont
and Fletcher ; but we are told by Davies, in
his ‘Dramatic Miscellanies,' that, of their
fifty-four plays, only these two preserved
their rank on the stage. This is a pretty
convincing proof of what the public opinion
of Shakspere was in the middle of the last
century. The Prologue of Samuel Johnson,
spoken by Garrick at the opening of Drury-
lane Theatre in 1747, is an eloquent expres-
sion of the same opinion :-

“ When Learning's triumph o'er her barbarous

First reard the stage, immortal Shakspeare

rose ;
Each change of many-colour'd life he drew,
Exhausted worlds, and then imagin'd new :
Existence saw him spurn her bounded reign,
And panting Time toil'd after him in vain.
His powerful strokes presiding truth im-

And unresisted passion storm'd the breast.
“ Then Jonson came, instructed from the

To please in method, and invent by rule;
His studious patience and laborious art
By regular approach essay'd the heart;
Cold approbation gave the lingering bays;
For those who durst not censure scarce could

A mortal born, he met the gen'ral doom,
But left, like Egypt's kings, a lasting tomb.
“ The wits of Charles found easier ways to

fame, Nor wish'd for Jonson's art, or Shakspeare's

Themselves they studied; as they felt, they

Intrigue was plot, obscenity was wit.


« 上一頁繼續 »