Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

that are lefs obvious to common readers, and whofe illustration depends on the rules of just criticism, and an exact knowledge of human life, fhould defervedly have a fhare in a general critick upon the author. But to pass over at once to another fubject:

It has been allowed on all hands, how far our author was indebted to nature; it is not fo well agreed, how much he owed to languages and acquired learning. The decifions on this fubject were certainly fet on foot by the hint from Ben Jonfon, that he had small Latin and lefs Greek: and from this tradition, as it were, Mr. Rowe has thought fit peremptorily to declare, that, "It is without controverfy, he had no "knowledge of the writings of the ancient poets, "for that in his works we find no traces of any thing "which looks like an imitation of the ancients. For "the delicacy of his tafte (continues he) and the "natural bent of his own great genius (equal, if

not fuperior, to fome of the beft of theirs) would "certainly have led him to read and study them with "fo much pleasure, that fome of their fine images "would naturally have infinuated themselves into, "and been mixed with his own writings and fo his "not copying, at least, fomething from them, may "be an argument of his never having read them." I fhall leave it to the determination of my learned readers, from the numerous paffages which I have occafionally quoted in my notes, in which our poet feems clofely to have imitated the clafficks, whether Mr. Rowe's affertion be fo abfolutely to be depended on. The refult of the controverfy muft certainly, either way, terminate to our author's honour: how happily he could imitate them, if that point be allowed; or how gloriously he could think like them, without owing any thing to imitation.

Though I fhould be very unwilling to allow Shakefpeare fo poor a scholar, as many have laboured to reprefent him, yet I fhall be very cautious of declaring

tco

too pofitively on the other fide of the queftion; that is, with regard to my opinion of his knowledge in the dead languages. And therefore the paffages, that I occafionally quote from the clafficks, fhall not be urged as proofs that he knowingly imitated thofe originals; but brought to fhew how happily he has exprefed himself upon the fame topicks. A very learned critick of our own nation has declared, that a fameness of thought and famenefs of expreffion too, in two writers of a different age, can hardly happen, without a violent fufpicion of the latter copying from his predeceffor. I fhall not therefore run any great rifque of a cenfure, though I fhould venture to hint, that the refemblances in thought and expreffion of our author and an ancient (which we fhould allow to be imitation in the one, whofe learning was not queftioned) may fometimes take its rife from ftrength of memory, and thofe impreffions which he owed to the school. And if we may allow a poffibility of this, confidering that, when he quitted the fchool, he gave into his father's profeffion and way of living, and had, it is likely, but a flender library of claffical learning; and confidering what a number of tranflations, romances, and legends started about his time, and a little before (most of which, it is very evident, he read) I think it may eafily be reconciled, why he rather schemed his plots and characters from thefe more latter informations, than went back to thofe fountains, for which he might entertain a fincere veneration, but to which he could not have fo ready a recourse.

In touching on another part of his learning, as it related to the knowledge of hiftory and books, I fhall advance fomething, that, at firft fight, will very much wear the appearance of a paradox. For I fhall find it no hard matter to prove, that, from the groffeft blunders in hiftory, we are not to infer his real ignorance of it: nor from a greater ufe of Latin words,

[H2]

than

than ever any other English author used, muft we infer his intimate acquaintance with that language.

A reader of taste may eafily obferve, that though Shakespeare, almoft in every scene of his hiftorical plays, commits the groffeft offences against chronology, history, and ancient politicks; yet this was not through ignorance, as is generally fuppofed, but through the too powerful blaze of his imagination; which, when once raised, made all acquired knowledge vanifh and disappear before it. But this licence in him, as I have faid, muft not be imputed to ignorance: fince as often we may find him, when occafion ferves, reafoning up to the truth of hiftory; and throwing out fentiments as juftly adapted to the circumstances of his fubject, as to the dignity of his characters, or dictates of nature in general.

Then to come to his knowledge of the Latin tongue, it is certain, there is a furprising effufion of Latin words made English, far more than in any one English author I have feen; but we must be cautious to imagine, this was of his own doing. For the English tongue, in his age, began extremely to fuffer by an inundation of Latin: and this, to be fure, was occafioned by the pedantry of those two monarchs, Elizabeth and James, both great Latinifts. For it is not to be wondered at, if both the court and schools, equal flatterers of power, fhould adapt themselves to the royal tafte.

But now I am touching on the question (which has been fo frequently agitated, yet fo entirely undecided) of his learning and acquaintance with the languages; an additional word or two naturally falls in here upon the genius of our author, as compared with that of Jonfon his contemporary. They are confeffedly the greatest writers our nation could ever boast of in the drama. The firft, we fay, owed all to his prodigious natural genius; and the other a great deal to his art and learning. This, if attended to, will explain a

very remarkable appearance in their writings. Besides those wonderful mafter-pieces of art and genius, which each has given us; they are the authors of other works very unworthy of them: but with this difference; that in Jonfon's bad pieces we do not difcover one fingle trace of the author of The Fox and Alchymift: but in the wild extravagant notes of Shakespeare you every now and then encounter ftrains that recognize the divine compofer. This difference may be thus accounted for. Jonfon, as we faid before, owing all his excellence to his art, by which he fometimes ftrained himself to an uncommon pitch, when at other times he unbent and played with his fubject, having nothing then to fupport him, it is no wonder he wrote fo far beneath himself. But Shakespeare, indebted more largely to nature, than the other to acquired talents, in his moft negligent hours could never fo totally diveft himself of his genius, but that it would frequently break out with astonishing force and fplendor.

As I have never propofed to dilate farther on the character of my author, than was neceffary to explain the nature and use of this edition, I fhall proceed to confider him as a genius in poffeffion of an everlasting name. And how great that merit muft be, which could gain it against all the disadvantages of the horrid condition in which he has hitherto appeared! Had Homer, or any other admired author, firft ftarted into publick fo maimed and deformed, we cannot determine whether they had not funk for ever under the ignominy of fuch an ill appearance. The mangled condition of Shakespeare has been acknowledged by Mr. Rowe, who published him indeed, but neither corrected his text, nor collated the old copies. This gentleman had abilities, and fufficient knowledge of his author, had but his industry been equal to his talents. The fame mangled condition has been acknowledged too by Mr. Pope, who published him [H 3] likewife,

likewife, pretended to have collated the old copies, and yet seldom has corrected the text but to its injury. I congratulate with the manes of our poet, that this gentleman has been fparing in indulging his private fenfe, as he phrafes it; for he, who tampers with an author, whom he does not understand, must do it at the expence of his fubject. I have made it evident throughout my remarks, that he has frequently inflicted a wound where he intended a cure. He has acted with regard to our author, as an editor, whom LIPSIUS mentions, did with regard to MARTIAL; Inventus eft nefcio quis Popa, qui non vitia ejus, fed ipfum excidit. He has attacked him like an unhandy flaughterman; and not lopped off the errors, but the poet.

When this is found to be the fact, how abfurd muft appear the praises of fuch an editor? It feems a moot point, whether Mr. Pope has done moft injury to Shakespeare, as his editor and encomiaft; or Mr. Rymer done him fervice, as his rival and cenfurer. They have both fhewn themfelves in an equal impuissance of suspecting or amending the corrupted paffages and though it be neither prudence to cenfure, or commend what one does not underftand; yet if a man must do one when he plays the critick, the latter is the more ridiculous office; and by that Shakespeare fuffers moft. For the natural veneration which we have for him, makes us apt to fwallow whatever is given us as his, and fet off with encomiums; and hence we quit all fufpicions of depravity: on the contrary, the cenfure of fo divine an author fets us upon his defence; and this produces an exact fcrutiny and examination, which ends in finding out and difcriminating the true from the fpurious.

It is not with any fecret pleasure, that I fo frequently animadvert on Mr. Pope as a critick; but there are provocations, which a man can never quite forget. His libels have been thrown out with fo

much

« AnteriorContinuar »