A DEFENCE1 OF AN ESSAY OF DRAMATIC POESY*. THE former edition of The Indian Emperor being full of faults, which had escaped the printer, I have been willing to overlook this second with more care; and though I could not allow myself so much time as was necessary, yet, by that little I have done, the press is freed from some gross errors which it had to answer 1 The text of the 'Defence' is reprinted from the original edition of 1668 (the only one published in Dryden's life-time), a copy of which is in the British Museum; it is prefixed as a sort of Introduction to the second edition of Dryden's Indian Emperor. *Our author married, probably about the year 1664, Lady Elizabeth Howard, sister of Sir Robert Howard knt., and daughter of Thomas, the first Earl of Berkshire [ancestor of the present Earl of Suffolk]. In 1660 he had addressed some complimentary verses to Sir Robert, which were prefixed to his poems, published in 8vo. in that year. In 1666 they appear to have been on good terms; Dryden having then addressed to him an encomiastick Epistle in prose, which is dated from Charleton, in Wiltshire (the seat of the Earl of Berkshire), and was prefixed to his Annus Mirabilis, published in 8vo. in 1667, by Sir Robert Howard, who revised the sheets at the press for the author, who was then in the country; and in the Epistle he describes him as one whom he knew not to be of the number of those, qui carpere amicos suos judicium vocant. In the Essay on Dramatick Poesy, as we have already seen, he speaks of Sir Robert Howard with great respect. That gentleman, how for before. As for the more material faults of writing, which are properly mine, though I see many of them, I want leisure to amend them. 'Tis enough for those who make one poem the business of their lives, to leave that correct: yet, excepting Virgil, I never met 5 with any which was so in any language. But while I was thus employed about this impression, there came to my hands a new printed play, called, The Great Favourite, or The Duke of Lerma; the author of which, a noble and most ingenious 10 person, has done me the favour to make some observations and animadversions upon my Dramatique Essay. I must confess he might have better consulted his reputation, than by matching himself with so weak an adversary. But if his honour be diminished in the 15 choice of his antagonist, it is sufficiently recompensed in the election of his cause: which being the weaker, in all appearance, as combating the received opinions of the best ancient and modern authors, will add to his glory, if he overcome, and to the opinion of his 20 ever, having in 1668 published [in the preface to his tragedy, The Duke of Lerma] reflections on the Essay, our author retorted in the following observations, which are found prefixed to the second edition of The Indian Emperor, published in the same year. In many copies, however, of that edition, they are wanting; nor were they reprinted in any other edition of that play which appeared in the life-time of the author: so that it should seem he was induced by good nature, or the interposition of friends, to suppress this witty and severe replication. One of the lampoons of the time gives a more invidious turn to this suppression, and insinuates that he was compelled to retract. They lived afterwards probably in good correspondence together; at least, it appears from an original letter of our author now before me, that towards the close of his life they were on friendly terms. (Malone.) generosity, if he be vanquished: since he ingages at so great odds, and, so like a cavalier, undertakes the protection of the weaker party. I have only to fear on my own behalf, that so good a cause as mine may 5 not suffer by my ill management, or weak defence; yet I cannot in honour but take the glove, when 'tis offered me though I am only a champion by succession; and no more able to defend the right of Aristotle and Horace, than an infant Dimock" to 10 maintain the title of a King. For my own concernment in the controversie, it is so small, that I can easily be contented to be driven from a few notions of Dramatique Poesie; especially by one, who has the reputation of understanding all 15 things and I might justly make that excuse for my yielding to him, which the Philosopher n made to the Emperor,-why should I offer to contend with him, who is master of more than twenty legions of arts and sciences? But I am forced to fight, and therefore it 20 will be no shame to be overcome. Yet I am so much his servant, as not to meddle with any thing which does not concern me in his Preface; therefore, I leave the good sense and other excellencies of the first twenty lines to be considered 25 by the critiques. As for the play of The Duke of Lerma, having so much altered and beautified it, as he has done, it can justly belong to none but him. Indeed, they must be extream ignorant as well as envious, who would rob him of that honour; for you see 30 him putting in his claim to it, even in the first two lines: Repulse upon repulse, like waves thrown back, That slide to hang upon obdurate rocks. After this, let detraction do its worst; for if this be not his, it deserves to be. For my part, I declare for distributive justice; and from this and what follows, he certainly deserves those advantages which he acknowledges to have received from the opinion of sober 5 men. In the next place, I must beg leave to observe his great address in courting the reader to his party. For intending to assault all poets, both ancient and modern, he discovers not his whole design at once, 10 but seems only to aim at me, and attacques me on my weakest side, my defence of verse. To begin with me, he gives me the compellation of The Author of a Dramatique Essay, which is a little discourse in dialogue, for the most part borrowed 15 from the observations of others: therefore, that I may not be wanting to him in civility, I return his compliment by calling him The Author of The Duke of Lerma. But (that I may pass over his salute) he takes 20 notice of my great pains to prove rhyme as natural in a serious play, and more effectual than blanck verse. Thus, indeed, I did state the question; but he tells me, I pursue that which I call natural in a wrong application: for 'tis not the question whether 25 rhyme or not rhyme be best or most natural for a serious subject, but what is nearest the nature of that it represents. If I have formerly mistaken the question, I must confess my ignorance so far, as to say I continue still 30 in my mistake: but he ought to have proved that I mistook it; for it is yet but gratis dictum: I still shall think I have gained my point, if I can prove that rhyme is best or most natural for a serious subject. As for the question as he states it, whether rhyme be nearest the nature of what it represents, I wonder he should think me so ridiculous as to dispute whether prose or verse be nearest to ordinary conversation. It still remains for him to prove his inference,that, since verse is granted to be more remote than prose from ordinary conversation, therefore no serious Io plays ought to be writ in verse: and when he clearly makes that good, I will acknowledge his victory as absolute as he can desire it. The question now is, which of us two has mistaken it; and if it appear I have not, the world will suspect 15 what gentleman that was, who was allowed to speak twice in parliament, because he had not yet spoken to the question; and perhaps conclude it to be the same, who, 'tis reported, maintained a contradiction in terminis, in the face of three hundred persons. 20 But to return to verse; whether it be natural or not 426 |