Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

his compositions with "that state of almost universal licence and ignorance in which he lived." w Nor ought we to consider this defence much strengthened by the consideration of his having lived under a kind of light of nature which exempted him from the written precepts of Aristotle, as from the rigour of a law of which he knew not the promulgation:* or that his practice is much extenuated by the circumstance of his having had no good model by which he might be led to the imitation of excellence, or turned from the perversions of errour. In the grounds of his defence it has been mentioned, but with no great success in determining the present question, that there is a perfect conformity between his execution and his plan; and that he is not to be arraigned for having left that undone which he never intended. This mode of exculpation rather removes the objection a step back, than sets it wholly aside. With any errour which is discoverable in his plan, a poet becomes generally and indeed fundamentally chargeable: and from the rules of

JOHNSON's Pref. to Shakespeare.

z Rowe's Pref. to Shakespeare.

[ocr errors]

Aristotle, as far as they are supported by reason and nature, no poet can purchase any exemption. How far Shakespeare has accommodated himself to these rules, when taken according to their spirit and to the extent of their application, has I think been already made evident: so far so, indeed, that may be summarily concluded that he will not suffer by any application to those parts of his dramas over which they profess to take any cognizance.

it

The observation which M. de Voltaire has made on the historical epopee, that it is a dangerous enterprise, may be applied to the historical drama: and it may be declared to be such as cannot be recommended to any writer who does not possess more than uncommon address in giving interest to what is known, and novelty to what is familiar in his subject. In this respect historical poetry of the dramatick kind is placed in the same situation as that of the epical; and a like obligation laid upon the poet who engages in either kind of composition to supply the natural deficiencies of the subject by heightening those parts of his work which admit of alteration or embellishment. Nor should it be forgotten, in justice to the apologists of

Shakespeare, that his extraordinary merit in this respect has not escaped unnoticed; and his power of gratifying our taste by heightening those qualities which are most prominent and most striking in dramatick productions, has been justly insisted on in the defence of his historical accuracy. With this object in view Rowe has particularly dwelt on his skill in delineating characters. And Johnson, with rather an apparent than a real difference in the grounds of his defence, has particularly specified his irresistible power in moving the passions. But here the nature of our inquiries, as confined merely to the historical incidents of poetry, reminds us that any discussion on this point should be reserved for another opportunity. And I think it may eventually be shewn, that the practice of Shakespeare not only falls within the verge of antient criticism, but that as far as Aristotle embraces the nature and extent of his plan, he yields very unqualified approbation to the practice of a poet, who indeed no where deserted the suggestions of nature, and rarely transgressed the decisions of judg

ment.

The historick drama, thus brought under the same regulations as the historick

epopee, and circumscribed by the same restrictions, claims an equal right to the same privileges and exemptions. The licences which the epick writer possesses over the unimportant incidents in his fable, extend with equal latitude, and on the same principles, to the tragedian; and allow him the liberty of altering, introducing, or omitting all facts of this description, as far as it may tend to increase the beauty, or heighten the interest of his composition.

Thus, according to the principles by which the poet takes advantage of any doubtful point of history, Shakespeare, in his "Henry IV," uses the privilege of his art, in making Hotspur fall by the hand of Prince Henry. The former, it is certain, was killed at the battle of Shrewsbury, but the authour of his death was unknown. The poet profited by this uncertainty, and ascribing the event to the prince, has considerably increased the general interest of his play, and at the same time has elevated his favourite character. In

66

King John," he has exhibited equal judgment in the manner he has represented the death of Prince Arthur. The account of this inhuman deed has been variously re

lated by historians; and the poet, by making it the effect of an accident, has in a great measure removed the odium of his death from his uncle, and softened down the horrours of the transaction.

A still more striking instance of this licence, which has been pointed out by Mr. Dryden, occurs in his "Julius Cæsar." In this play, which, together with "Antony and Cleopatra," may be justly ranked among historick dramas, as well on account of the authenticity of its events, as from the fidelity with which the poet has generally adhered to history, both in its incidents and in their arrangement, the authour has placed. the death of Portia some time before its actual occurrence. He was influenced to introduce this deviation from history with the desire, as has been observed by Mr. Dryden, of giving some shadow to the anger of Brutus, and thus raising a foundation for that exquisite scene which thence arises between him and Cassius. "If he has made Brutus, who was naturally a patient man, to fly into excess at first, let it be remembered in his defence, that, just before, he has received the news of Portia's death; whom the poet, on purpose neglecting a little chronology, sup

« ПредишнаНапред »