Feb. 4. 1854.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



95 



LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1854. 



DRYDEN ON SHAKSPERE. 



" Dryden may be properly considered as the father of 

 English criticism, as the writer who first taught us to 

 determine upon principles the merit of composition." — 

 Samuel Johnson. 



No one of the early prose testimonies to the 

 genius of Shakspere has been more admired than 

 that which bears the signature of John Dryden. 

 I must transcribe it, accessible as it is elsewhere, 

 for the sake of its juxtaposition with a less-known 

 metrical specimen of the same nature. 



" He [Shakspere] was the man who of all modern, 

 and perhaps ancient poets, had the largest and most 

 comprehensive soul. All the images of nature were 

 still present to him, and he drew them not laboriously, 

 but luckily : when he describes any thing, you more 

 than see it, you feel it too. Those who accuse him to 

 have wanted learning, give him the greater com- 

 mendation : he was naturally learned ; he needed not 

 the spectacles of books to read nature ; he looked in- 

 wards, and found her there. I cannot say he is every 

 where alike ; were he so, I should do him injury to 

 compare him with the greatest of mankind. He is 

 many times flat, insipid ; his comic wit degenerating 

 into clenches, his serious swelling into bombast. But 

 he is always great when some great occasion is pre- 

 sented to him : no man can say he ever had a fit sub- 

 ject for his wit, and did not then raise himself as high 

 above the rest of poets, 



' Quantum lenta solent inter viburna cupressi.' " 

 John Dkyden, Of dramatick poesie, an essay. 



London, 1668. 4to. p. 47. 

 The metrical specimen shall now take its place. 

 Though printed somewhat later than the other, it 

 has a much better chance of being accepted as a 

 rarity in literature. 



Prologue to Iulius Caesar. 

 " In country beauties as we often see 

 Something that takes in their simplicity, 

 Yet while they charm they know not they are fair, 

 And take without their spreading of the snare — 

 Such artless beauty lies in Shakespear's wit; 

 'Twas well in spite of him whate'er he writ. 

 His excellencies came, and were not sought, 

 His words like casual atoms made a thought ; 

 Drew up themselves in rank and file, and writ, 

 He wondering how the devil it were, such wit. 

 Thus, like the drunken tinker in his play, 

 He grew a prince, and never knew which way. 

 He did not know what trope or figure meant, 

 But to persuade is to be eloquent ; 

 So in this Ccesar which this day you see, 

 Tully ne'er spoke as he makes Anthony. 

 Those then that tax his learning are to blame, 

 He knew the thing, but did not know the name ; 

 Great Iohnson did that ignorance adore, 

 And though he envied much, admir'd him more. 



The faultless Iohnson equally writ well ; 



Shahespear made faults — but then did more excel. 



One close at guard like some old fencer lay, 



T'other more open, but he shew'd more play. 



In imitation Johnson's wit was shown, 



Heaven made his men, hut Shakespear made his own. 



Wise Iohnson's talent in observing lay, 



But others' follies still made up his play. 



He drew the like in each elaborate line, 



But Shakespear like a master did design. 



Iohnson with skill dissected human kind, 



And show'd their faults, that they their faults might 



find; 

 But then, as all anatomists must do, 

 He to the meanest of mankind did go, 

 And took from gibbets such as he would show. 

 Both are so great, that he must boldly dare 

 Who both of them does judge, and both compare ;. 

 If amongst poets one more bold there be, 

 The man that dare attempt in either way, is he." 

 Covent Garden drolery, London, 1672. 8° p. 9. 



A short historical comment on the above ex- 

 tracts is all that must be expected. The rest shall 

 be left to the critical discernment of those persons 

 who may be attracted by the heading of this Note 

 — Dryden on Shakspere. 



When Johnson wrote his preface to Shakspere, 

 he quoted the first of the above extracts to prove 

 that the plays were once admired without the aid 

 of comment. This was written in 1765. In 1769 

 Garrick placed the same extract at the head of his 

 collection of undeniable prose-testimonies to the 

 genius of Shakspere. Johnson afterwards pro- 

 nounced it to be "a perpetual model of enco- 

 miastic criticism;" and Malone quoted it as an 

 admirable character of Shakspere. Now, admir- 

 able as it is, I doubt if it can be considered as 

 expressive of the deliberate opinion of Dryden. 

 The essayist himself, in his epistolary address to 

 lord Buckhurst, jjives a caution on that point. 

 He observes, " All I have said is problematical." 

 In short, the essay Of dramatick poesie is in the 

 form of a dialogue — and a dialogue is "a chace 

 of wit kept up on both sides." 



I proceed to the second extract. — Who wrote 

 the Prologue to Julius Casar ? To what master- 

 hand a*e we to ascribe this twofold specimen of 

 psychologic portraiture ? Take up the dramatic 

 histories of Langbaine and Baker; take up the 

 Theatrical register of the reverend Charles Burney ; 

 take up the voluminous Some account of the 

 reverend John Genest ; examine the mass of com- 

 mendatory verses in the twenty-one-volume edi- 

 tions of Shakspere ; examine also the commenda- 

 tory verses in the nine- volume edition of Ben. 

 Jonson. Here is the result : Langbaine calls 

 attention to the prologue in question as an excel- 

 lent prologue, and Genest repeats what had been 

 said one hundred and forty years before by 

 Langbaine. There is not the slightest hint on 

 its authorship. 



