Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

SCENE V.

Scene V.] Let those who talk so confidently about the skill of Shakspeare's contemporary, Jonson, point out the conclusion of any one of his plays which is wrought with more artifice, and yet a less degree of dramatic violence than this. In the scene before us, all the surviving characters are assembled; and at the expence of whatever incongruity the former events may have been produced, perhaps little can be discovered on this occasion to offend the most scrupulous advocate for regu larity: and, I think, as little is found wanting to satisfy the spectator by a catastrophe, which is intricate without confusion, and not more rich in ornainent than in nature. STEEV.

Mr. Steevens is much too lavish of encomium on the conduct of the piece. The audience are made to listen to a detail of circumstances with which they were already fully acquainted. This is very inartificial. It is necessary, indeed, that Cymbeline should be informed of every particular, but this might have been brought about in a different way. On the other hand Dr. Johnson's censure of the play is rude and intemperate in the extreme; folly of the fiction' unresisting imbecility,' &c. Shakspeare has faults, and not a few: but we are not permitted so to speak of them; as I have, indeed, before observed in my preface. B.

Bel. I never saw

Such noble fury in so poor a thing;

[ocr errors]

Such precious deeds in one that promis'd nought
But beggary and poor looks.

·One that promis'd nought

But beggary and poor looks.]

But how can it be said that one, whose poor looks promise beggary, promised poor looks too? It was not the poor look which was promised: that was visible. We must read:

But beggary and poor luck.

This sets the matter right, and makes Belarius speak sense and to the purpose. For there was the extraordinary thing; he promised nothing but poor luck, and yet performed all these wonders. WARB.

To promise nothing but poor looks, may be, to give no promise of courageous behaviour. JOHN.

'I never saw

Such noble fury in so poor a thing,' &c.

Warburton's objection is sufficiently reasonable; but his poor luck' must not be admitted. The expression is vulgar, while it derogates from the merits of a commander. If victory is to be held as nothing more than good-fortune, wherefore our praise of the man who has gained such victory; and why is he loaded with honors and rewards? That the battle is not always to the strong, we very well know: we

also know that the arm of the Almighty is ever raised in a virtuous cause. Shall success in combat, then, be distinguished in no other way than by the heathenish term of good-luck; in no other way the valor of the soldier considered, and while heaven is assisting in the fight?

With respect to the passage in question, little more is requisite to the understanding of it than transposition. The second poor,' however, should, I think, be boor; boor looks,' i. e. boorish, rustic looks. Shakspeare frequently employs a substantive adjectively. I read the whole as follows:

'I never saw

Such noble fury in so poor a thing;

Such precious deeds in beggarly, boor looks,
And one who promised nought.' B.

Iach.

For feature, laming

The shrine of Venus, or straight-pight Minerva,
Postures beyond brief nature;

for feature, laming] Feature for proportion of parts, which Mr. Theobald not understanding, would alter to stature.

-for feature, laming

The shrine of Venus, or straight-pight Minerva,

Postures beyond brief nature;

i. e. The ancient statues of Venus and Minerva, which exceeded, in beauty of exact proportion any living bodies, the work of brief nature: i.e. of hasty, unelaborate nature. He gives the same character of the beauty of the antique in Antony and Cleopatra:

"O'er picturing that Venus where we see

The fancy out-work nature."

It appears, from a number of such passages as these, that our author was not ignorant of the fine arts. WARB.

for feature laming.'

If the women of Italy' lamed' or outvied the statues of Venus and Minerva, which statues "exceeded in beauty of exact proportion any living bodies"-we must suppose that the poet describes those females as surpassing the object which went beyond nature, which is extravagant, and even nonsensical. Laming a shrine' too, is not very easily understood. To explain the shrine of Venus or Minerva, by the statues of those deities, is allowing too great a latitude to the expression. I read and interpret the passage very differently: -for feature claiming

[ocr errors]

The shrine of Venus and straight dight Minerva,

Posters beyond brief nature.'

It is the misprint postures' which has led the editors to talk of sta'tues, feature' is beauty, claiming the shrine,' for claiming the sacrifices due at the shrine. Posters beyond brief nature, i. e.

"They (the goddesses) who went before, or were superior to, the order of beings known among us by the name of women."

The meaning of the whole is this-Such is the loveliness, the beauty of our Italian dames, that they may lay claim to the sacri-. fices or incense which is offered at the shrines of Venus and Minerva. In short, and as the modern fine gentlemen would say, they are goddesses. B.

Cym. What of him? he is

A banish'd traitor.

Bel. He it is, that hath

Assum'd this age; indeed, a banish'd man:
I know not how, a traitor.

'Assumed this age:] I believe is the same as reach'd, or attain'd this age. STEEV.

cer.

'Assum'd this age.'

[ocr errors]

Age' (contracted of ageyne) is the old word for again. See ChauThe old man says to Cymbeline, you had a subject named Belarius, which subject hath assumed this [name] age',' i. e. again. 'He has taken it on himself once more.' B.

This play has many just sentiments, some natural dialogues, and some pleasing scenes, but they are obtained at the expence of much incongruity. To remark the folly of the fiction, the absurdity of the conduct, the confusion of the names, and manuers of different times, and the impossibility of the events in any system of life, were to waste criticism upon unresisting imbecility, upon faults too evident for detection, and too gross for aggravation. JOHN.

The general observations of Johnson on the plays of Shakspeare, I have before had occasion to condemn. In the present instance they are at once indecent and unjust, and by what kind of logic he is to prove that the faults which are manifest will remain undiscovered, may not be easy to tell.

But the language of this critic is often too much involved for me ; the sense, indeed, is sometimes lost in his far-fetched and elaborate expression. Yet this is the man who has termed the diction of Miltona Babylonish dialect.' What an insult! and where sublimity is so particularly found. An insult? it is a crime, and such as the lover of heaven-born poesy ought never to forget or forgive.

Samuel Johnson was the hero of a cabal; and, as a writer, that is in point of elegance, he has been commended much beyond his deserts. I have said, however, and repeat it, that in moral and religious sentiment he is excellent, so very excellent, that words are wanting to speak his praise. With respect to his criticisms, they are frequently erroneous. He was clearly deficient in the quality

of taste a quality absolutely essential to criticism; and, indeed, to every other, the most inferior of the arts. This I will maintain of him, and boldly: for would true taste, at any time, speak harshly, and disrespectfully, of a Shakspeare, a Milton, or a Gray ? Certainly not: nor would true taste have exhibited the tumour and puffy grandeur so generally prevalent in his works. This "literary giant," as the feeble have been taught to consider him, thus vulgarly pronounces of Gray: 'He has a kind of strutting dignity, and is tall by walking on tiptoe.'

Such expressions criticism refuses to acknowledge; and, if appli cable to their author, disdains to employ them against him. B.

The Tempest.

Pro.

ACT I. SCENE II.

That there is no soul

No, not so much perdition as an hair,
Betid to any creature in the vessel.

That there is no soul.] Thus the old editions read: but this is apparently defective. Mr. Rowe, and after him Dr. Warburton, read that there is no soul lost, without any notice of the variation. Mr. Theobald substitutes no foil, and Mr. Pope follows him. To come so near the right, and yet to miss it, is unlucky: the author probably wrote no soil, no stain, no spot for so Ariel tells,

Not a hair perish'd;

On their sustaining garments not a blemish,

But fresher than before.

And Gonzalo, The rarity of it is, that our garments being drench'd in the sea, keep notwithstanding their freshness and glosses. Of this emendation I find the author of notes on The Tempest had a glimpse, but could not keep it. JOHN,

'That there is no soul.'

I have no doubt but that the poet wrote soulk, the old word for calamity, ill. This agrees with the whole tenor of the speech. B.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »