Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare Part 5

JOHN DENNIS: ON THE GENIUS AND WRITINGS OF SHAKESPEARE. 1711.

Letter I.

_Sir_, Feb. 1. 1710/11.

I here send you the Tragedy of _Coriola.n.u.s_, which I have alter'd from the Original of _Shakespear_, and with it a short Account of the Genius and Writings of that Author, both which you desired me to send to you the last time I had the good Fortune to see you. But I send them both upon this condition, that you will with your usual Sincerity tell me your Sentiments both of the Poem and of the Criticism.

_Shakespear_ was one of the greatest Genius's that the World e'er saw for the Tragick Stage. Tho' he lay under greater Disadvantages than any of his Successors, yet had he greater and more genuine Beauties than the best and greatest of them. And what makes the brightest Glory of his Character, those Beauties were entirely his own, and owing to the Force of his own Nature; whereas his Faults were owing to his Education, and to the Age that he liv'd in. One may say of him as they did of _Homer_, that he had none to imitate, and is himself inimitable. His Imaginations were often as just, as they were bold and strong. He had a natural Discretion which never cou'd have been taught him, and his Judgment was strong and penetrating. He seems to have wanted nothing but Time and Leisure for Thought, to have found out those Rules of which he appears so ignorant.

His Characters are always drawn justly, exactly, graphically, except where he fail'd by not knowing History or the Poetical Art. He has for the most part more fairly distinguish'd them than any of his Successors have done, who have falsified them, or confounded them, by making Love the predominant Quality in all. He had so fine a Talent for touching the Pa.s.sions, and they are so lively in him, and so truly in Nature, that they often touch us more without their due Preparations, than those of other Tragick Poets, who have all the Beauty of Design and all the Advantage of Incidents. His Master-Pa.s.sion was Terror, which he has often mov'd so powerfully and so wonderfully, that we may justly conclude, that if he had had the Advantage of Art and Learning, he wou'd have surpa.s.s'd the very best and strongest of the Ancients. His Paintings are often so beautiful and so lively, so graceful and so powerful, especially where he uses them in order to move Terror, that there is nothing perhaps more accomplish'd in our _English_ Poetry. His Sentiments for the most part in his best Tragedies, are n.o.ble, generous, easie, and natural, and adapted to the Persons who use them. His Expression is in many Places good and pure after a hundred Years; simple tho' elevated, graceful tho' bold, and easie tho'

strong. He seems to have been the very Original of our _English_ Tragical Harmony; that is the Harmony of Blank Verse, diversifyed often by Dissyllable and Trissyllable Terminations. For that Diversity distinguishes it from Heroick Harmony, and, bringing it nearer to common Use, makes it more proper to gain Attention, and more fit for Action and Dialogue. Such Verse we make when we are writing Prose; we make such Verse in common Conversation.

If _Shakespear_ had these great Qualities by Nature, what would he not have been, if he had join'd to so happy a Genius Learning and the Poetical Art? For want of the latter, our Author has sometimes made gross Mistakes in the Characters which he has drawn from History, against the Equality and Conveniency of Manners of his Dramatical Persons. Witness _Menenius_ in the following Tragedy, whom he has made an errant Buffoon, which is a great Absurdity. For he might as well have imagin'd a grave majestick _Jack-Pudding_, as a Buffoon in a _Roman_ Senator. _Aufidius_ the General of the _Volscians_ is shewn a base and a profligate Villain. He has offended against the Equality of the Manners even in his Hero himself. For _Coriola.n.u.s_ who in the first part of the Tragedy is shewn so open, so frank, so violent, and so magnanimous, is represented in the latter part by _Aufidius_, which is contradicted by no one, a flattering, fawning, cringing, insinuating Traytor.

For want of this Poetical Art, _Shakespear_ has introduced things into his Tragedies, which are against the Dignity of that n.o.ble Poem, as the Rabble in _Julius Caesar_, and that in _Coriola.n.u.s_; tho' that in _Coriola.n.u.s_ offends not only against the Dignity of Tragedy, but against the Truth of History likewise, and the Customs of Ancient _Rome_, and the Majesty of the _Roman_ People, as we shall have occasion to shew anon.

For want of this Art, he has made his Incidents less moving, less surprizing, and less wonderful. He has been so far from seeking those fine Occasions to move with which an Action furnish'd according to Art would have furnish'd him, that he seems rather to have industriously avoided them. He makes _Coriola.n.u.s_, upon his Sentence of Banishment, take his leave of his Wife and his Mother out of sight of the Audience, and so has purposely as it were avoided a great occasion to move.

If we are willing to allow that _Shakespear_, by sticking to the bare Events of History, has mov'd more than any of his Successors, yet his just Admirers must confess, that if he had had the Poetical Art, he would have mov'd ten times more. For 'tis impossible that by a bare Historical Play he could move so much as he would have done by a Fable.

We find that a Romance entertains the generality of Mankind with more Satisfaction than History, if they read only to be entertain'd; but if they read History thro' Pride or Ambition, they bring their Pa.s.sions along with them, and that alters the case. Nothing is more plain than that even in an Historical Relation some Parts of it, and some Events, please more than others. And therefore a Man of Judgment, who sees why they do so, may in forming a Fable, and disposing an Action, please more than an Historian can do. For the just Fiction of a Fable moves us more than an Historical Relation can do, for the two following Reasons: First, by reason of the Communication and mutual Dependence of its Parts. For if Pa.s.sion springs from Motion, then the Obstruction of that Motion or a counter Motion must obstruct and check the Pa.s.sion: And therefore an Historian and a Writer of Historical Plays, pa.s.sing from Events of one nature to Events of another nature without a due Preparation, must of necessity stifle and confound one Pa.s.sion by another. The second Reason why the Fiction of a Fable pleases us more than an Historical Relation can do, is, because in an Historical Relation we seldom are acquainted with the true Causes of Events, whereas in a feign'd Action which is duly const.i.tuted, that is, which has a just beginning, those Causes always appear. For 'tis observable, that, both in a Poetical Fiction and an Historical Relation, those Events are the most entertaining, the most surprizing, and the most wonderful, in which Providence most plainly appears. And 'tis for this Reason that the Author of a just Fable must please more than the Writer of an Historical Relation. The Good must never fail to prosper, and the Bad must be always punish'd: Otherwise the Incidents, and particularly the Catastrophe which is the grand Incident, are liable to be imputed rather to Chance, than to Almighty Conduct and to Sovereign Justice. The want of this impartial Distribution of Justice makes the _Coriola.n.u.s_ of _Shakespear_ to be without Moral. 'Tis true indeed _Coriola.n.u.s_ is kill'd by those Foreign Enemies with whom he had openly sided against his Country, which seems to be an Event worthy of Providence, and would look as if it were contriv'd by infinite Wisdom, and executed by supreme Justice, to make _Coriola.n.u.s_ a dreadful Example to all who lead on Foreign Enemies to the Invasion of their native Country; if there were not something in the Fate of the other Characters, which gives occasion to doubt of it, and which suggests to the Sceptical Reader that this might happen by accident. For _Aufidius_ the princ.i.p.al Murderer of _Coriola.n.u.s_, who in cold Blood gets him a.s.sa.s.sinated by Ruffians, instead of leaving him to the Law of the Country, and the Justice of the _Volscian_ Senate, and who commits so black a Crime, not by any erroneous Zeal, or a mistaken publick Spirit, but thro' Jealousy, Envy, and inveterate Malice; this a.s.sa.s.sinator not only survives, and survives unpunish'd, but seems to be rewarded for so detestable an Action, by engrossing all those Honours to himself which _Coriola.n.u.s_ before had shar'd with him. But not only _Aufidius_, but the _Roman_ Tribunes, _Sicinius_ and _Brutus_, appear to me to cry aloud for Poetick Vengeance. For they are guilty of two Faults, neither of which ought to go unpunish'd: The first in procuring the Banishment of _Coriola.n.u.s_. If they were really jealous that _Coriola.n.u.s_ had a Design on their Liberties, when he stood for the Consuls.h.i.+p, it was but just that they should give him a Repulse; but to get the Champion and Defender of their Country banish'd upon a pretended Jealousy was a great deal too much, and could proceed from nothing but that Hatred and Malice which they had conceiv'd against him, for opposing their Inst.i.tution.

Their second Fault lay in procuring this Sentence by indirect Methods, by exasperating and inflaming the People by Artifices and Insinuations, by taking a base Advantage of the Open-heartedness and Violence of _Coriola.n.u.s_, and by oppressing him with a Sophistical Argument, that he aim'd at Sovereignty, because he had not delivered into the Publick Treasury the Spoils which he had taken from the _Antiates_. As if a Design of Sovereignty could be reasonably concluded from any one Act; or any one could think of bringing to pa.s.s such a Design, by eternally favouring the Patricians, and disobliging the Populace. For we need make no doubt but that it was among the young Patricians that _Coriola.n.u.s_ distributed the Spoils which were taken from the _Antiates_; whereas nothing but caressing the Populace could enslave the _Roman_ People, as _Caesar_ afterwards very well saw and experienc'd. So that this Injustice of the Tribunes was the original Cause of the Calamity which afterwards befel their Country, by the Invasion of the _Volscians_, under the Conduct of _Coriola.n.u.s_. And yet these Tribunes at the end of the Play, like _Aufidius_, remain unpunish'd. But indeed _Shakespear_ has been wanting in the exact Distribution of Poetical Justice not only in his _Coriola.n.u.s_, but in most of his best Tragedies, in which the Guilty and the Innocent perish promiscuously; as _Duncan_ and _Banquo_ in _Mackbeth_, as likewise Lady _Macduffe_ and her Children; _Desdemona_ in _Oth.e.l.lo_; _Cordelia_, _Kent_, and King _Lear_, in the Tragedy that bears his Name; _Brutus_ and _Porcia_ in _Julius Caesar_; and young _Hamlet_ in the Tragedy of _Hamlet_. For tho'

it may be said in Defence of the last, that _Hamlet_ had a Design to kill his Uncle who then reign'd; yet this is justify'd by no less than a Call from Heaven, and raising up one from the Dead to urge him to it. The Good and the Bad then peris.h.i.+ng promiscuously in the best of _Shakespear_'s Tragedies, there can be either none or very weak Instruction in them: For such promiscuous Events call the Government of Providence into Question, and by Scepticks and Libertines are resolv'd into Chance. I humbly conceive therefore that this want of Dramatical Justice in the Tragedy of _Coriola.n.u.s_ gave occasion for a just Alteration, and that I was oblig'd to sacrifice to that Justice _Aufidius_ and the Tribunes, as well as _Coriola.n.u.s_.

Thus have we endeavour'd to shew that, for want of the Poetical Art, _Shakespear_ lay under very great Disadvantages. At the same time we must own to his Honour, that he has often perform'd Wonders without it, in spight of the Judgment of so great a Man as _Horace_.

Natura fieret laudabile carmen, an arte, Quaesitum est: ego nec studium sine divite vena, Nec rude quid prosit video ingenium; alterius sic Altera poscit opem res, & conjurat amice.

But from this very Judgment of _Horace_ we may justly conclude that _Shakespear_ would have wonderfully surpa.s.s'd himself, if Art had been join'd to Nature. There never was a greater Genius in the World than _Virgil_: He was one who seems to have been born for this glorious End, that the _Roman_ Muse might exert in him the utmost Force of her Poetry: And his admirable and divine Beauties are manifestly owing to the happy Confederacy of Art and Nature. It was Art that contriv'd that incomparable Design of the _aeneis_, and it was Nature that executed it. Could the greatest Genius that ever was infus'd into Earthly Mold by Heaven, if it had been unguided and una.s.sisted by Art, have taught him to make that n.o.ble and wonderful Use of the _Pythagorean_ Transmigration, which he makes in the Sixth Book of his Poem? Had _Virgil_ been a circular Poet, and closely adher'd to History, how could the _Romans_ have been transported with that inimitable Episode of _Dido_, which brought a-fresh into their Minds the _Carthaginian_ War, and the dreadful _Hannibal_? When 'tis evident that that admirable Episode is so little owing to a faithful observance of History, and the exact order of Time, that 'tis deriv'd from a very bold but judicious Violation of these; it being undeniable that _Dido_ liv'd almost 300 Years after _aeneas_. Yet is it that charming Episode that makes the chief Beauties of a third Part of the Poem. For the Destruction of _Troy_ it self, which is so divinely related, is still more admirable by the Effect it produces, which is the Pa.s.sion of _Dido_.

I should now proceed to shew under what Disadvantages _Shakespear_ lay for want of being conversant with the Ancients. But I have already writ a long Letter, and am desirous to know how you relish what has been already said before I go any farther: For I am unwilling to take more Pains before I am sure of giving you some Pleasure. I am,

_Sir_, _Your most humble, faithful Servant_.

Letter II.

_Sir_, Feb. 6. 1710/11.

Upon the Encouragement I have receiv'd from you, I shall proceed to shew under what Disadvantages _Shakespear_ lay for want of being conversant with the Ancients. But because I have lately been in some Conversation, where they would not allow but that he was acquainted with the Ancients, I shall endeavour to make it appear that he was not; and the shewing that in the Method in which I pretend to convince the Reader of it, will sufficiently prove what Inconveniencies he lay under, and what Errors he committed for want of being conversant with them. But here we must distinguish between the several kinds of Acquaintance: A Man may be said to be acquainted with another who never was but twice in his Company; but that is at the best a superficial Acquaintance, from which neither very great Pleasure nor Profit can be deriv'd. Our Business is here to shew that _Shakespear_ had no familiar Acquaintance with the _Graecian_ and _Roman_ Authors. For if he was familiarly conversant with them, how comes it to pa.s.s that he wants Art? Is it that he studied to know them in other things, and neglected that only in them, which chiefly tends to the Advancement of the Art of the Stage? Or is it that he wanted Discernment to see the Justness, and the Greatness, and the Harmony of their Designs, and the Reasonableness of those Rules upon which those Designs are founded? Or how come his Successors to have that Discernment which he wanted, when they fall so much below him in other things? How comes he to have been guilty of the grossest Faults in Chronology, and how come we to find out those Faults? In his Tragedy of _Troylus_ and _Cressida_, he introduces _Hector_ speaking of _Aristotle_, who was born a thousand Years after the Death of _Hector_. In the same Play mention is made of _Milo_, which is another very great Fault in Chronology. _Alexander_ is mention'd in _Coriola.n.u.s_, tho' that Conqueror of the Orient liv'd about two hundred Years after him. In this last Tragedy he has mistaken the very Names of his Dramatick Persons, if we give Credit to _Livy_. For the Mother of _Coriola.n.u.s_ in the _Roman_ Historian is _Vetturia_, and the Wife is _Volumnia_. Whereas in _Shakespear_ the Wife is _Virgilia_, and the Mother _Volumnia_. And the _Volscian_ General in _Shakespear_ is _Tullus Aufidius_, and _Tullus Attius_ in _Livy_. How comes it that he takes _Plutarch_'s Word, who was by Birth a _Graecian_, for the Affairs of _Rome_, rather than that of the _Roman_ Historian, if so be that he had read the latter? Or what Reason can be given for his not reading him, when he wrote upon a _Roman_ Story, but that in _Shakespear_'s time there was a Translation of _Plutarch_, and there was none of _Livy_? If _Shakespear_ was familiarly conversant with the _Roman_ Authors, how came he to introduce a Rabble into _Coriola.n.u.s_, in which he offended not only against the Dignity of Tragedy, but the Truth of Fact, the Authority of all the _Roman_ Writers, the Customs of Ancient _Rome_, and the Majesty of the _Roman_ People? By introducing a Rabble into _Julius Caesar_, he only offended against the Dignity of Tragedy. For that part of the People who ran about the Streets upon great Festivals, or publick Calamities, or publick Rejoicings, or Revolutions in Government, are certainly the Sc.u.m of the Populace. But the Persons who in the Time of _Coriola.n.u.s_ rose in Vindication of their just Rights, and extorted from the Patricians the Inst.i.tution of the Tribunes of the People, and the Persons by whom afterwards _Coriola.n.u.s_ was tried, were the whole Body of the _Roman_ People to the Reserve of the Patricians, which Body included the _Roman_ Knights, and the wealthy substantial Citizens, who were as different from the Rabble as the Patricians themselves, as qualify'd as the latter to form a right Judgment of Things, and to contemn the vain Opinions of the Rabble. So at least _Horace_ esteems them, who very well knew his Countrymen.

Offenduntur enim, quibus est equus, aut pater, aut res, Nec, siquid fricti ciceris probat aut nucis emptor, aequis accipiunt animis donantve Corona.

Where we see the Knights and the substantial Citizens are rank'd in an equal Degree of Capacity with the _Roman_ Senators, and are equally distinguish'd from the Rabble.

If _Shakespear_ was so conversant with the Ancients, how comes he to have introduc'd some Characters into his Plays so unlike what they are to be found in History? In the Character of _Menenius_ in the following Tragedy, he has doubly offended against that Historical Resemblance. For first whereas _Menenius_ was an eloquent Person, _Shakespear_ has made him a downright Buffoon. And how is it possible for any Man to conceive a _Ciceronian Jack-pudding_? Never was any Buffoon eloquent, or wise, or witty, or virtuous. All the good and ill Qualities of a Buffoon are summ'd up in one Word, and that is a Buffoon. And secondly, whereas _Shakespear_ has made him a Hater and Contemner and Villifier of the People, we are a.s.sur'd by the _Roman_ Historian that _Menenius_ was extremely popular. He was so very far from opposing the Inst.i.tution of the Tribunes, as he is represented in _Shakespear_, that he was chiefly instrumental in it. After the People had deserted the City, and sat down upon the sacred Mountain, he was the chief of the Delegates whom the Senate deputed to them, as being look'd upon to be the Person who would be most agreeable to them. In short, this very _Menenius_ both liv'd and dy'd so very much their Favourite, that dying poor he had pompous Funerals at the Expence of the _Roman_ People.

Had _Shakespear_ read either _Sall.u.s.t_ or _Cicero_, how could he have made so very little of the first and greatest of Men, as that _Caesar_ should be but a Fourth-rate Actor in his own Tragedy? How could it have been that, seeing _Caesar_, we should ask for _Caesar_? That we should ask, where is his unequall'd Greatness of Mind, his unbounded Thirst of Glory, and that victorious Eloquence, with which he triumph'd over the Souls of both Friends and Enemies, and with which he rivall'd _Cicero_ in Genius as he did _Pompey_ in Power? How fair an Occasion was there to open the Character of _Caesar_ in the first Scene between _Brutus_ and _Ca.s.sius_?

For when _Ca.s.sius_ tells _Brutus_ that _Caesar_ was but a Man like them, and had the same natural Imperfections which they had, how natural had it been for _Brutus_ to reply, that _Caesar_ indeed had their Imperfections of Nature, but neither he nor _Ca.s.sius_ had by any means the great Qualities of _Caesar_: neither his Military Virtue, nor Science, nor his matchless Renown, nor his unparallell'd Victories, his unwearied Bounty to his Friends, nor his G.o.dlike Clemency to his Foes, his Beneficence, his Munificence, his Easiness of Access to the meanest _Roman_, his indefatigable Labours, his incredible Celerity, the Plausibleness if not Justness of his Ambition, that knowing himself to be the greatest of Men, he only sought occasion to make the World confess him such. In short, if _Brutus_, after enumerating all the wonderful Qualities of _Caesar_, had resolv'd in spight of them all to sacrifice him to publick Liberty, how had such a Proceeding heighten'd the Virtue and the Character of _Brutus_?

But then indeed it would have been requisite that _Caesar_ upon his Appearance should have made all this good. And as we know no Principle of human Action but human Sentiment only, _Caesar_, who did greater Things, and had greater Designs than the rest of the _Romans_, ought certainly to have outs.h.i.+n'd by many Degrees all the other Characters of his Tragedy.

_Caesar_ ought particularly to have justified his Actions, and to have heighten'd his Character, by shewing that what he had done, he had done by Necessity; that the _Romans_ had lost their _Agrarian_, lost their Rotation of Magistracy, and that consequently nothing but an empty Shadow of publick Liberty remain'd; that the _Gracchi_ had made the last n.o.ble but unsuccessful Efforts for the restoring the Commonwealth, that they had fail'd for want of arbitrary irresistible Power, the Restoration of the _Agrarian_ requiring too vast a Retrospect to be done without it; that the Government, when _Caesar_ came to publick Affairs, was got into the Hands of a few, and that those few were factious, and were contending among themselves, and, if you will pardon so mean an Expression, scrambling as it were for Power; that _Caesar_ was reduc'd to the Necessity of ruling, or himself obeying a Master; and that apprehending that another would exercise the supreme Command without that Clemency and Moderation which he did, he had rather chosen to rule than to obey. So that _Caesar_ was faulty not so much in seizing upon the Sovereignty, which was become in a manner necessary, as in not re-establis.h.i.+ng the Commonwealth, by restoring the _Agrarian_ and the Rotation of Magistracies, after he had got absolute and uncontroulable Power. And if _Caesar_ had seiz'd upon the Sovereignty only with a View of re-establis.h.i.+ng Liberty, he had surpa.s.s'd all Mortals in G.o.dlike Goodness as much as he did in the rest of his astonis.h.i.+ng Qualities. I must confess, I do not remember that we have any Authority from the _Roman_ Historians which may induce us to believe that _Caesar_ had any such Design. Nor if he had had any such View, could he, who was the most secret, the most prudent, and the most discerning of Men, have discover'd it before his _Parthian_ Expedition was over, for fear of utterly disobliging his Veterans. And _Caesar_ believ'd that Expedition necessary for the Honour and Interest of the State, and for his own Glory.

But of this we may be sure, that two of the most discerning of all the _Romans_, and who had the deepest Insight into the Soul of _Caesar_, _Sall.u.s.t_ and _Cicero_, were not without Hopes that _Caesar_ would really re-establish Liberty, or else they would not have attack'd him upon it; the one in his Oration for _Marcus Marcellus_, the other in the Second Part of that little Treatise _De Republica ordinanda_, which is address'd to _Caesar_. _Haec igitur tibi reliqua pars, says Cicero, Hic restat Actus, in hoc elaborandum est, ut Rempublicam const.i.tuas, eaque tu in primis composita, summa Tranquillitate & otio perfruare. Cicero_ therefore was not without Hope that _Caesar_ would re-establish the Commonwealth; and any one who attentively peruses that Oration of _Cicero_, will find that that Hope was reasonably grounded upon his knowledge of the great Qualities of _Caesar_, his Clemency, his Beneficence, his admirable Discernment; and that avoidless Ruine in which the whole Empire would be soon involv'd, if _Caesar_ did not effect this. _Sall.u.s.t_ urges it still more home to him and with greater vehemence; he has recourse to every Motive that may be thought to be powerful over so great a Soul. He exhorts him by the Memory of his matchless Conquests, not to suffer the invincible Empire of the _Roman_ People to be devour'd by Time, or to be torn in pieces by Discord; one of which would soon and infallibly happen, if Liberty was not restor'd.

He introduces his Country and his Progenitors urging him in a n.o.ble Prosopopeia, by all the mighty Benefits which they had conferr'd upon him, with so little Pains of his own, not to deny them that just and easy Request of the Restoration of Liberty. He adjures him by those Furies which will eternally haunt his Soul upon his impious Refusal: He implores him by the foresight of those dismal Calamities, that horrible Slaughter, those endless Wars, and that unbounded Devastation, which will certainly fall upon Mankind, if the Restoration of Liberty is prevented by his Death, or his incurable Sickness: And lastly, he entreats him by his Thirst of immortal Glory, that Glory in which he now has Rivals, if he has not Equals; but which, if he re-establishes Liberty, will be acknowledg'd by consenting Nations to have neither Equal nor Second.

I am apt to believe that if _Shakespear_ had been acquainted with all this, we had had from him quite another Character of _Caesar_ than that which we now find in him. He might then have given us a Scene something like that which _Corneille_ has so happily us'd in his Cinna; something like that which really happen'd between _Augustus_, _Mecaenas_, and _Agrippa_. He might then have introduc'd _Caesar_ consulting _Cicero_ on the one side, and on the other _Anthony_, whether he should retain that absolute Sovereignty which he had acquir'd by his Victory, or whether he should re-establish and immortalize Liberty. That would have been a Scene which might have employ'd the finest Art and the utmost force of a Writer.

That had been a Scene in which all the great Qualities of _Caesar_ might have been display'd. I will not pretend to determine here how that Scene might have been turn'd; and what I have already said on this Subject, has been spoke with the utmost Caution and Diffidence. But this I will venture to say, that if that Scene had been manag'd so, as, by the powerful Motives employ'd in it, to have shaken the Soul of _Caesar_, and to have left room for the least Hope, for the least Doubt, that _Caesar_ would have re-establish'd Liberty, after his _Parthian_ Expedition; and if this Conversation had been kept secret till the Death of _Caesar_, and then had been discover'd by _Anthony_; then had _Caesar_ fall'n, so belov'd and lamented by the _Roman_ People, so pitied and so bewail'd even by the Conspirators themselves, as never Man fell. Then there would have been a Catastrophe the most dreadful and the most deplorable that ever was beheld upon the Tragick Stage. Then had we seen the n.o.blest of the Conspirators cursing their temerarious Act, and the most apprehensive of them in dreadful expectation of those horrible Calamities which fell upon the _Romans_ after the Death of _Caesar_. But, Sir, when I write this to you, I write it with the utmost Deference to the extraordinary Judgment of that great Man who some Years ago, I hear, alter'd the _Julius Caesar_. And I make no doubt but that his fine Discernment and the rest of his great Qualities have amply supply'd the Defects which are found in the Character of _Shakespear_'s _Caesar_.

I should here answer an Argument, by which some People pretend to prove, and especially those with whom I lately convers'd, that _Shakespear_ was conversant with the Ancients. But besides that the Post is about to be gone, I am heartily tir'd with what I have already writ, and so doubtless are you; I shall therefore defer the rest to the next opportunity, and remain

Your, _&c_.

Letter III.

_Sir_, Feb. 8.

I come now to the main Argument, which some People urge to prove that _Shakespear_ was conversant with the Ancients. For there is, say they, among _Shakespear_'s Plays, one call'd _The Comedy of Errors_, which is undeniably an Imitation of the _Menechmi_ of _Plautus_. Now _Shakespear_, say they, being conversant with _Plautus_, it undeniably follows that he was acquainted with the Ancients; because no _Roman_ Author could be hard to him who had conquer'd _Plautus_. To which I answer, that the Errors which we have mention'd above are to be accounted for no other way but by the want of knowing the Ancients, or by downright want of Capacity. But nothing can be more absurd or more unjust than to impute it to want of Capacity. For the very Sentiments of _Shakespear_ alone are sufficient to shew that he had a great Understanding: And therefore we must account some other way for his Imitation of the _Menechmi_. I remember to have seen, among the Translations of _Ovid_'s Epistles printed by Mr. _Tonson_, an Imitation of that from _none_ to _Paris_, which Mr. _Dryden_ tells us in his Preface to those Epistles was imitated by one of the Fair s.e.x who understood no _Latin_, but that she had done enough to make those blush who understood it the best. There are at this day several Translators, who, as _Hudibra.s.s_ has it,

Translate from Languages of which They understand no part of Speech.

I will not affirm that of _Shakespear_; I believe he was able to do what Pedants call construe, but that he was able to read _Plautus_ without Pain and Difficulty I can never believe. Now I appeal to you, Sir, what time he had between his Writing and his Acting, to read any thing that could not be read with Ease and Pleasure. We see that our Adversaries themselves acknowledge, that if _Shakespear_ was able to read _Plautus_ with Ease, nothing in Latinity could be hard to him. How comes it to pa.s.s then, that he has given us no Proofs of his familiar Acquaintance with the Ancients, but this Imitation of the _Menechmi_, and a Version of two Epistles of _Ovid_? How comes it that he had never read _Horace_, of a superiour Merit to either, and particularly his Epistle to the _Piso's_, which so much concern'd his Art? Or if he had read that Epistle, how comes it that in his _Troylus_ and _Cressida_ [we must observe by the way, that when _Shakespear_ wrote that Play, _Ben Johnson_ had not as yet translated that Epistle] he runs counter to the Instructions which _Horace_ has given for the forming the Character of _Achilles_?

Scriptor: Honoratum si forte reponis Achillem, Impiger, Iracundus, Inexorabilis, Acer, Jura neget sibi nata.

Where is the _Impiger_, the _Iracundus_, or the _Acer_, in the Character of _Shakespear_'s _Achilles_? who is nothing but a drolling, lazy, conceited, overlooking c.o.xcomb; so far from being the honoured _Achilles_, the Epithet that _Homer_ and _Horace_ after him give him, that he is deservedly the Scorn and the Jest of the rest of the Characters, even to that Buffoon _Thersites_.

Tho' _Shakespear_ succeeded very well in Comedy, yet his princ.i.p.al Talent and his chief Delight was Tragedy. If then _Shakespear_ was qualify'd to read _Plautus_ with Ease, he could read with a great deal more Ease the Translations of _Sophocles_ and _Euripides_. And tho' by these Translations he would not have been able to have seen the charming colouring of those great Masters, yet would he have seen all the Harmony and the Beauty of their great and their just Designs. He would have seen enough to have stirr'd up a n.o.ble Emulation in so exalted a Soul as his.

How comes it then that we hear nothing from him of the _dipus_, the _Electra_, the _Antigone_ of _Sophocles_, of the _Iphigenia_'s, the _Orestes_, the _Medea_, the _Hecuba_ of _Euripides_? How comes it that we see nothing in the Conduct of his Pieces, that shews us that he had the least Acquaintance with any of these great Masterpieces? Did _Shakespear_ appear to be so nearly touch'd with the Affliction of _Hecuba_ for the Death of _Priam_, which was but daub'd and bungled by one of his Countrymen, that he could not forbear introducing it as it were by Violence into his own _Hamlet_, and would he make no Imitation, no Commendation, not the least Mention of the unparallell'd and inimitable Grief of the _Hecuba_ of _Euripides_? How comes it that we find no Imitation of any ancient Play in Him but the _Menechmi_ of _Plautus_? How came he to chuse a Comick preferably to the Tragick Poets? Or how comes he to chuse _Plautus_ preferably to _Terence_, who is so much more just, more graceful, more regular, and more natural? Or how comes he to chuse the _Menechmi_ of _Plautus_, which is by no means his Master-piece, before all his other Comedies? I vehemently suspect that this Imitation of the _Menechmi_ was either from a printed Translation of that Comedy which is lost, or some Version in Ma.n.u.script brought him by a Friend, or sent him perhaps by a Stranger, or from the original Play it self recommended to him, and read to him by some learned Friend. In short, I had rather account for this by what is not absurd than by what is, or by a less Absurdity than by a greater. For nothing can be more wrong than to conclude from this that _Shakespear_ was conversant with the Ancients; which contradicts the Testimony of his Contemporary and his familiar Acquaintance _Ben Johnson_, and of his Successor _Milton_;