ACT II. SCENE VII. Page 199. The rugged Pyrrhus he, &c.] The two greatest poets of this and the last age, Mr. Dryden, in the preface to Troilus and Creffida, and Mr. Poe, in his note on this place, have concurred in thinking that Shakespear pro duced this long paffage with defign to ridicule and expofe the bombaft of the play from whence it was taken; and that Hamlet's commendation of it is purely ironical. This is become the general opinion. I think juft ctherwife; and that it was given with commendation to upbraid the falfe tafte of the audience of that time, which would not fuffer them to do juftice to the fimplicity and fublime of this production. And I reafon, Firf, From the Character Hamlet gives of the Play, from whence the paffage is taken. Secondly, From the paffage itself. And Thirdly, From the effect it had on the audience. Let us confider the character Hamlet gives of it: The Play, I remember, pleas'd not the m llion, twas Caviar to the general; but it was (as I received it, and others, whofe judgment in fub matters cried in the top of mine) an excellent Play well digefted in the fcenes, fet down with as much modefty as cunning. I remember, one faid, there was no falt in the lines to make the matter favoury; nor no matter in the phrafe that might indite the author of affec tion; but called it an honest me thod. They who fuppofe the paffage given to be "ridiculed, muit needs fuppofe this characters to be purely ironical. But if fo, it is the frangeft irony that ever was written. It pleafed not the multitude. This we muft conclude to be true, however ironical the rest be. Now the reafon given of the defigned ridicule is the fuppofed bombaft. But thofe were the very plays, which at that time we know took with the multitude. And Fletcher wrote a kind of Rehearsal purposely to expofe them. But say it is bombaft, and that, therefore, it took not with the multitude. Hamlet prefently tells us what it was that difpleased them. There was no falt in the lines to make the matter favoury; nor no matter in the phrase that might indite the author of affection; but called it an honeft method. Now whether a perfon fpeaks ironically or no, when he quotes others, yet common fenfe requires he should quote what they fay. Now it could not be, if this play dif pleafed because of the bombaft, that thofe whom it displeased fhould give this reason for their diflike. The fame inconfiftencies and abfurdities abound in every other part of Hamlet's fpeech fuppofing it to be ironical: but take him as fpeaking his fentiments, the whole is of a piece; and to this purpose: The Play, I remember, remember, pleafed not the multitude, and the reafon was, its being wrote on the rules of the ancient Drama; to which they were entire ftrangers. But, in my opinion, and in the opinion of thofe for whofe judgment I have the highest efteem, it was an excellent Play, well difted in the fcenes, i. e. where the three unities were well preferved. Set down with as much modefty as funning, i. e. where not only the art of compofition, but the fimplicity of nature, was carefully attended to. The characters were a faithful picture of life and manners, in which nothing was overcharged into Farce. But thefe qualities, which gained my efteem, loft the public's. For I remember one faid, There was no falt in the lines to make the maiter favoury, i. e. there was not, according to the mode of that time, a fool or clown to joke, quibble, and talk freely. Nor no matter in the phrafe that might indite the author of affection, i, e. nor none of thofe paffionate, pathetic love fcenes, fo effential to modern tragedy. But he called it an honeft method, i, e. he owned, however tasteless this method of writing, on the ancient plan, was to our times, yet it was chafte and pure; the diftinguishing character of the Greek Drama. I need only make one observation on all this; that, thus interpreted, it is the jufteft picture of a good tragedy, wrote on the arcient rules. And that I have rightly interpreted it appears farther from what we find added in the old Quarto, an honeft method, as wholesome as feet, and by Th' unnerved father falls, &c. To,-So after Pyrrhus' paufe. Now this circumftance, illustrated with the fine fimilitude of the ftorm, is fo highly worked up as, to have well deferved a place in Virgil's fecond Book of the Eneid, even tho' the work had been carried on to that perfection which the Roman Poet had conceived. 3. The third proof is, from the effects which followed on the recital. Hamlet, his best character, approves it; the Player is deeply affected in repeating it; and only the foolish Polonius tired with it. We have faid enough before of Hamlet's fentiments. As for the player, he changes colour, and the tears start from his eyes. But our author was too good a judge of nature to make bombaft and unnatural fentiment produce fuch an effect. Nature and Horace both inftructed him, Si vis me flere, dolendum eft MALE SI And it may be worth observing, that Horace gives this precept particularly to fhew, that bombaft and unnatural fentiments are incapable of moving the tender paffions, which he is directing the poet how to raife. For, in the lines juft before, he gives this rule, Telephus & Peleus, cùm pauper &exul uterque, Projicit Ampullas, & fefquipe dalia verba. Not that I would deny, that very bad lines in very bad tragedies have had this effect. But then it always proceeds from one or other of these causes. 1. Either when the fubject is domeftic, and the fcene lies at home: The fpectators, in this cafe, become interested in the fortunes of the diftreffed; and their thoughts are so much taken up with the fubject, that they are not at liberty to attend to the poet; who, otherwife, by his faulty fentiments and diction, would have ftifled the emotions fpringing up from a sense of the diftrefs. But this is nothing to the cafe in hand. For, as Hamlet fays, What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba ? 2. When bad lines raise this affection, they are bad in the other extreme; low, abject, and groveling, instead of being highly figurative and fwelling; yet when attended with a natural fimplicity, they have force enough to ftrike illiterate and fimple minds. The Tragedies of Banks will justify both these obfervations. But if any one will ftill fay, that Shakespear intended to reprefent a player unnaturally and fantaftically affected, we muft appeal to Hamlet, that is, to Shakespear himfelf, in this matter? who on the reflection he makes upon the Player's emotion, in order to excite his own revenge, gives not the least hint that the player was unnaturally or indjudiciously moved. On the contrary, his fine defcription of the Actor's emotion fhews, he thought juft otherwife. hungh this Player here," But in a fiction, in a dream of paffion, J Could force his foul fo to his own conceit, That from her working all his vifage wan'd: Tears in his eyes, diftraction in bis afpect, A broken voice, &c. And indeed had Hamlet efteemed this emotion any thing unnatural, it had been a very improper circumftance to fpur him to his purpose. As Shakespear has here fhewn the effects which a fine defcription of Nature, heightened with all the ornaments of art, had upon an intelligent Player, whole bufinefs habituates him to enter intimately and deeply into the characters of men and manners, and to give nature its free workings on all occafions; fo he has artfully fhewn what effects the very fame scene would have upon a quite different man, Polonius; by nature, very weak and very artificial [two qualities, tho' commonly enough joined in life, yet generally fo much difguiled as not to be feen by common eyes eyes to be together; and which an ordinary Poet durft not have brought fo near one another] by difcipline, practifed in a fpecies of wit and eloquence, which was ftiff, forced, and pedantic; and by trade a Politician, and therefore, of confequence, without any of the affecting notices of humanity. Such is the man whom Shakespear has judiciously chofen to reprefent the falfe tafte of that audience which had condemned the play here reciting. When the actor comes to the finest and most pathetic part of the fpeech, Polonius cries out, this is too long; on which Ham let, in contempt of his ill judgment, replies, It shall to the barber's with thy beard. [intimating that, by this judgment, it appeared that all his wifdom lay in his length of beard.] Pr'ythee, fay on. He's for a jig or a tale of bawdry, [the common entertain. ment of that time, as well as this, of the people] or he fleeps, fay on. And yet this man of modern tafte, who stood all this time perfectly enmoved with the forcible imagery of the relator, no fooner hears, amongst many good things, one quaint and fantaftical word, put in, I fuppofe, purpofely for this end, than he profeffes his approbation of the propriety and dignity of it. That's good. Moble Queen is good. On the whole then, I think, it plainly appears, that the long quotation is not given to be ridiculed and laughed at, but to be admired. The character given of the Play, by Hamlet, cannot be ironical. The paffage itfelf is extremely beautiful. It has the effect that all pathetic relations, naturally written, should have; and it is condemned, or regarded with indifference, by one of a wrong, unnatural taste. From hence (to obferve it by the way) the Actors, in their reprefentation of this play, may learn how this fpeech ought to be spoken, and what appearance Hamlet ought to affume during the recital. That which supports the common opinion, concerning this paffage, is the turgid expreffion in fome parts of it; which, they think, could never be given by the poet to be commended. We fhall therefore, in the next place, examine the lines moft obnoxious to cenfure, and fee how much, allowing the charge, this will make for the induction of their conclufion. Pyrrhus at Priam, drives, in Th' unnerved Father falls. Out, out, thou Arumpet For- Break all the Spokes and fellies And bowl the round nave down the bill of Heaven, As low as to the Fiends. Now whether these be bombaft or not, is not the question; but whether Shakespear esteemed them fo. That he did not fo esteem them appears from his having ufed the very fame thoughts in the fame expreffion, in his best plays, and given them to to his principal characters, where he aims at the fublime. As in the following paffages. Troilus, in Troilus and Creffida, far outstrains the execution of Pyrrhus's fword, in the character he gives of Hector's, When many times the cative Ev'n in the fan and wind of your fair fword, You bid them rife and live. Cleopatra, in Antony and Cleopatra, rails at Fortune in the fame manner. No, let me speak, and let me rail fo high, That the falfe hufwife Fortune break her wheel, Provok'd at my offence. But another ufe may be made of these quotations; a difcovery of the Author of this recited Play; which, letting us into a circumftance of our Author's life (as a writer) hitherto unknown, was the reafon I have been fo large upon this question. F think then it appears, from what has been faid, that the Play in difpute was Shakespear's own: and that this was the occafion of writing it. He was defirous, as foon as he had found his ftrength, of restoring the chaftness and regularity of the ancient Stage; and therefore composed this Tragedy on the model of the Greek Drama, as may be seen by throwing fo much action into relation. But his attempt proved fruitless; and the raw, unnatural tafte then prevalent, forced him back again into his old Gothic manner. For which he took this revenge upon his Audience. WARB, OTHELLO, |