principal authors; but it must be owned that they make no great impression. For this there are indeed other causes; the wit is not such as amuses at the present day; the passion is rather Italian or Spanish than English; but it is also true that the story is seldom sufficiently interesting, or the thoughts sufficiently striking, to enchain our attention for their own sakes, apart from the pleasure given by rhyme. On the other hand, in reading such a collection as Mr. Palgrave's Golden Treasury, all of us are conscious of the continued presence of pleasurable feeling. What reason can be found for this difference of impression, except that rhyme,—and often exquisitely managed rhyme, — is present throughout Mr. Palgrave's collection, and absent throughout Lamb's collection? If the English serious drama, expressed in blank verse, had continued to make progress from the beginning of the seventeenth century, and were in a flourishing condition at the present time, Dryden's plea for rhyme, since it might seem to have been disproved by the event, might well be rejected. But the English serious drama1 at this moment is in such a low condition as to be almost non-existent. seems therefore to be a question open to argument whether, in spite of the success, due to exceptional power, of Hamlet or King Lear, Dryden was not right in holding that the average dramatist could not safely dispense, if he wished permanently to please English audiences, with the music and the charm of rhyme. It 1 Of course I am not speaking of chamber pieces, but of plays intended for the stage. The Defence of the Essay of Dramatic Poesy appeared later in the same year, 1668. After the publication of the Essay, Sir Robert Howard printed his tragedy of The Duke of Lerma, in the preface to which (printed by Malone in his collected edition of Dryden's prose works) he attacked with blundering vehemence the poet's argument on behalf of rhyme. Dryden seems to have been much nettled, and in this sharp and masterly reply he exposes the blunders, and makes short work of the arguments, of his brother-in-law. This Defence was prefixed to the second edition, just at that time called for, of The Indian Emperor. But Dryden must have been unwilling for many reasons to let this passage of arms ripen into a formal quarrel. From later editions of The Indian Emperor he suppressed the preface, and forbore ever to publish it in a separate form. It was not again printed till after his death. Three editions of the Essay of Dramatic Poesy were published in the author's lifetime; see page 8. Since 1700 it has been three times reprinted; first by Robert Urie in his Select Essays on the Belles Lettres, Glasgow, 1750; secondly, by Malone in his edition of Dryden's prose works (1800); and lastly, by Sir Walter Scott in his general edition of all Dryden's works, published in 18081. 1 And now in course of republication under the superintendence of Mr. Saintsbury. EPISTLE DEDICATORY TO THE ESSAY OF DRAMATIC POESY1 TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHARLES, LORD BUCKHURST 2. MY LORD, 3 As I was lately reviewing my loose papers, amongst the rest I found this Essay, the writing of which, in this rude and indigested manner wherein your lordship now sees it, served as an amusement 5 to me in the country, when the violence of the last plague had driven me from the town. Seeing then our theatres shut up, I was engaged in these kind of thoughts with the same delight with which men think upon their absent mistresses. I confess I find 10 many things in this Discourse which I do not now approve; my judgment being not a little altered1 1 A edition of 1668. B=edition of 1684 (here, in the main, reprinted). C=edition of 1693. 2 C has, 'Charles Earl of Dorset and Middlesex, Lord Chamberlain of their Majesties Houshold, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, &c.' Lord Buckhurst had become Earl of Dorset in 1677. It is hard to say why Dryden did not give him his proper title in the edition of 1684. 3 The great plague of 1665 (Malone). B 4 a little altered, A. since the writing of it; but whether1 for the better or the worse, I know not: neither indeed is it much material, in an essay, where all I have said is problematical. For the way of writing plays in verse, 5 which I have seemed to favour, I have, since that time, laid the practice of it aside, till I have more leisure, because I find it troublesome and slow. But I am no way altered from my opinion of it, at least with any reasons which have opposed it. For your lord10 ship may easily observe, that none are very violent against it, but those who either have not attempted it, or who have succeeded ill in their attempt. It is enough for me to have your lordship's example for my excuse in that little which I have done in it; 15 and I am sure my adversaries can bring no such arguments against verse, as those with which the fourth act of Pompey will furnish me 2 in its defence. Yet, my lord, you must suffer me a little to complain of you, that you too soon withdraw from us a con20 tentment, of which we expected the continuance, because you gave it us so early. It is a revolt, without occasion, from your party, where your merits had already raised you to the highest commands, and where you have not the excuse of other men, that 25 you have been ill used, and therefore laid down arms 3. I know no other quarrel you can have to verse, than that which Spurinan had to his beauty, when he tore and mangled the features of his face, only because they pleased too well the sight. It 1 whither, A. as the fourth Act of Pompey will furnish me with, A. 2 3 Armes, A. 1 then that, A. 5 onely, A. |