234 



CORNEILLE. 



Corneille. by which minds of singular force are placed in situa- 

 "— -"Y" - ^ tions which call all their energies into full exertion ; and 

 it is partly from a natural curiosity to see how human 

 beings will acquit themselves in ■ the most trying and 

 unusual circumstances, that the eager attendance on tra- 

 gical spectacles, both real and fictitious, must be ex- 

 plained. Corneille excelled in conceiving characters of 

 the most exalted heroism, and in making them express 

 their majestic sentiments in language of corresponding 

 magnificence. It is to be doubted, however, whether 

 he does not impair our sympathy with some of his he- 

 roes, from carrying their magnanimity beyond what is 

 warranted by the imperfect nature of \vbich we are con- 

 scious, as we sympathize chiefly with eonduct which 

 we suppose might, under similar circumstances, have 

 been our own. The sententious grandeur, too, and the 

 antithetical brevity, in which his speakers couch their 

 lofty ideas, may sometimes appear more like the lan- 

 guage of laborious study, than the artless and sudden 

 expression of vehement emotion- His countrymen, 

 however, will perhaps not allow these objections, as 

 they are still so prone to the imitation of the ancient 

 sentimental apothegm, and so prompt in pointing it 

 with felicity, that what a foreigner conceives to be too 

 artificial, may be a just representation of human nature, 

 under the peculiar modification which it has received 

 from local character : and critics of a different nation 

 should remember, that it is not from the study of hu- 

 man nature only, but of French nature also, that man- 

 kind will be delineated by a dramatist of France. Cor- 

 neille is charged with slovenly versification, and metri- 

 cal negligence ; and he is certainly far from equalling 

 the delicate suavity of Racine, or the minute exactness 

 of Boileau. This may, however, be partly explained 

 by the priority of his appearance, in an age when the 

 improvements of style were singularly rapid. The sub- 

 limity of those passages which he frequently produ- 

 ced, would appear to their anthor, as they did to others 

 his contemporaries, an apology for the imperfection of 

 others in which he took less interest, because he had been 

 less successful. " The piece," says Madarne Sevigne, 

 speaking of Racine's Bajazet, " has doubtless its beau- 

 ties, but none of those strokes, that, like Corneille's, 

 make one tremble. Let us forgive the bad lines we 

 meet with in the latter, for the sake of those divine sal- 

 lies that so often transport us, and bid defiance to imi- 

 tation." 



In comparing Corneille with Shakespeare, we must 

 recollect, not only that the latter was born half a cen- 

 tury before the former, but also that, even if his ap- 

 pearance had been deferred to the end of that period, 

 the art of composition was more advanced in France 

 than in England during the age of Corneille. In testi- 

 mony of this, we have to remark, that, in every coun r 

 try, the improvement of style generally begins in its 

 poetry, and is slowly communicated to its prose, and 

 that the prose writing of Corneille differs less than that 

 of his English contemporaries from the present lan- 

 guage of their respective countries. To this we must 

 add, that Corneillehad all the aid of a classical educa- 

 tion, of which Shakespeare was comparatively destitute. 

 Under these disadvantages, though the latter be infe- 

 rior in critical disposition and design, he is surpassed 

 by none in the successful boldness of his portraiture of 

 character, in luxuriance of invention, in combining no- 

 velty of conception with fidelity to nature, and in the 

 irresistible power with which he absorbs the attention, 

 and agitates the passioHs. The favourite heroes of Cor- 



neille display a magnanimity, of winch the probability t omeiife. 

 is perhaps impaired by our sense of human weak- s -"-y"""*' 

 ness ; while those of Shakespeare excite a keener sym- 

 pathy, from the leaven of infirmity which is mingled 

 with their virtues. The inflexible heroism of the for- 

 mer is a more obvious and manageable idea, than the 

 intricate and interesting struggle of sensibility and in- 

 decision in the character of Hamlet, or the blaze of re- 

 gal virtue, emerging from the eclipse of early dissipa- 

 tion, in that of Henry the Fifth. Corneille exhibits no- 

 thing in tragedy, at once so extraordinary and so natu- 

 ral, as the progressive wickedness of Richard or Mac- 

 beth ; and in comedy, nothing so amusing, yet so con- 

 ceivable, as the mirthful profligacy of Falstaff, or the 

 engaging peculiarities of Fluellen. Corneille sustains 

 the grand but simple characters which his mind had 

 created, through a short transaction, with masterly skill : 

 while those of Shakespeare, though of a more delicate, 

 and singular mechanism, are conducted, with apparent 

 ease, through a long succession of situations, by. which 

 all their involutions are artfully unfolded. Corneille 

 proceeds, with a straight majestic step, on even ground ; 

 but Shakespeare delights to force his way amid tortuo- 

 sities and obstructions, and to surmount them all. Cor- 

 neille has been said to represent men as they should be, 

 and Racine as they are ; but the last of these encomi- 

 ums belongs with more propriety to Shakespeare. Cor- 

 neille seems to have studied human character in books 

 or in reflection, and Shakespeare in the experience and 

 observation of real life. The sentiments with which 

 Corneille supplies his interlocutors are splendid and 

 impressive, but appear occasionally couched in a style 

 too rhetorical for the sudden effusions of unstudied dia- 

 logue; while those of Shakespeare grow so spontaneous- 

 ly from the occasion, and drop from the speaker with 

 such prompt felicity, that we imagine the speech would 

 have been incomplete without them. In the conduct 

 of their fables, Corneille is betrayed into errors by his 

 adherence to the unities, and Shakespeare by his ne- 

 glect of them. The former crowds his incidents into 

 too narrow a space ; and the latter, in lengthening the 

 intervals between them, forgets that they were to be 

 accommodated to dramatic representation. Both poets 

 excel in bringing their characters into situations, which 

 create the most violent conflict of the passions ; yet the 

 struggle of China between loyalty and love, or of Po- 

 lyeuctes between religious enthusiasm and conjugal af- 

 fection, is at least not superior to that between the re- 

 morse and ambition of Macbeth, or the jealousy and 

 tenderness of Othello. Corneille sometimes mistakes 

 the description which would suit a spectator, for the na- 

 tural expression of a passion in one who speaks under 

 its immediate impulse ; while in Shakespeare, the pas- 

 sions are recognised in the agitated accents of the,ir vic- 

 tim, as readily as the existence of pain is inferred from 

 the cry of the sufferer. In language, Corneille must be 

 allowed a negative preference ; as ne never descends to 

 the quibbles and conceits to which Shakespeare could 

 not, for ten lines together, resist the temptation ; but 

 the positive pre-eminence of the latter might be demon- 

 strated by innumerable passages, which his rival has 

 never equalled. In the invention of imagery, Corneille 

 is more correct, and Shakespeare more original. N» 

 simile of the former is at once so touching, so graceful, 

 and so new, as that by which a female concealing her 

 love, is painted by the latter : 



" She sate like Patience on a momunent 

 Smiling at Grief." 



