« ZurückWeiter »
" And yet Johnson has objected to Shakspeare, that his pathos is not always natural and free from affectation. There are, it is true, pas-sages, though, comparatively speaking, very few, where his poetry exceeds the bounds of true dialogue, where a too soaring imagination, a too luxuriant wit, rendered the complete dramatick forgetfulness of himself impossible. With this exception, the censure originates only in a fanciless way of thinking, to which every thing appears unnatural that does not suit its own tame insipidity. Hence, an idea has been formed of simple and natural pathos, which consists in exclamations destitute of imagery, and nowise elevated above every-day life. But energetical passions electrify the whole of the mental powers, and will, consequently, in highly favoured natures, express themselves in an ingenious and figurative manner. It has been often remarked, that indignation gives wit; and, as despair occasionally breaks out into laughter, it may sometimes also give vent to itself in antithetical comparisons.
“Besides, the rights of the poetical form have not been duly weighed. Shakspeare, who was always sure of his object, to move in a sufficiently powerful manner when he wished to do so, has occasionally, by indulging in a freer play, purposely moderated the impressions when too painful, and immediately introduced a musical
alleviation of our sympathy. He had not those rude ideas of his art which many moderns seem to have, as if the poet, like the clown in the
proverb, must strike twice on the same place. An ancient rhetorician delivered a caution against dwelling too long on the excitation of pity; for nothing, he said, dries so soon as tears; and Shakspeare acted conformably to this ingenious maxim, without knowing it.
“ The objection, that Shakspeare wounds our feelings by the open display of the most disgusting moral odiousness, harrows up the mind unmercifully, and tortures even our senses by the exhibition of the most insupportable and hateful spectacles, is one of much greater importance. He has never, in fact, varnished over wild and blood-thirsty passions with a pleasing exterior, never clothed crime and want of principle with a false show of greatness of soul; and in that respect he is every way deserving of praise. Twice he has pourtrayed downright villains; and the masterly way in which he has contrived to elude impressions of too painful a nature, may be seen in Iago and Richard the Third. The constant reference to a petty and puny race must cripple the boldness of the poet. Fortunately for his art, Shakspeare lived in an age extremely susceptible of noble and tender impressions, but which had still enough of the firmness inherited from a vigorous olden time, not to shrink back
with dismay from every strong and violent picture. We have lived to see tragedies of which the catastrophe consists in the swoon of an enamoured princess. If Shakspeare falls occasionally into the opposite extreme, it is a noble errour, originating in the fulness of a gigantick strength: and yet this tragical Titan, who storms the heavens, and threatens to tear the world from off its hinges; who, more terrible than Æschylus, makes our hair stand on end, and congeals our blood with horrour, possessed, at the same time, the insinuating loveliness of the sweetest poetry. He plays with love like a child; and his songs are breathed out like melting sighs. He unites in his genius the utmost elevation and the utmost depth ; and the most foreign, and even apparently irreconcileable properties subsist in him peaceably together. The world of spirits and nature have laid all their treasures at his feet. In strength a demi-god, in profundity of view a prophet, in all-seeing wisdom a protecting spirit of a higher order, he lowers himself to mortals, as if unconscious of his superiority: and is as open and unassuming as a child.
“ Shakspeare's comick talent is equally wonderful with that which he has shown in the pathetick and tragick: it stands on an equal elevation, and possesses equal extent and profundity. All that I before wished was, not to admit that
the former preponderated. He is highly inventive in comick situations and motives. It will be hardly possible to show whence he has taken any of them ; whereas, in the serious part of his drama, he has generally laid hold of something already known. His comick characters are equally true, various, and profound, with his serious. So little is he disposed to caricature, that we may rather say many of his traits are almost too nice and delicate for the stage, that they can only be properly seized by a great actor, and fully understood by a very acute audience. Not only has he delineated many kinds of folly ; he has also contrived to exhibit mere stupidity in a most diverting and entertaining manner. Vol. ij. p. 145.
We have the rather availed ourselves of this testimony of a foreign critick in behalf of Shakspeare, because our own countryman, Dr. Johnson, has not been so favourable to him. be said of Shakspeare, that “those who are not for him are against him:" for indifference is here the height of injustice. We may sometimes, in order “ to do a great right, do a little wrong.' An overstrained enthusiasm is more pardonable with respect to Shakspeare than the want of it; for our admiration cannot easily surpass his genius. We have a high respect for Dr. John. son's character and understanding, mixed with something like personal attachment: but he was
neither a poet nor a judge of poetry. He might in one sense be a judge of poetry as it falls within the limits and rules of prose, but not as it is poetry. Least of all was he qualified to be a judge of Shakspeare, who " alone is high fantastical." Let those who have a prejudice against Johnson read Boswell's Life of him : as those whom he has prejudiced against Shakspeare should read his Irene. We do not say that a man to be a critick must necessarily be a poet: but to be a good critick, he ought not to be a bad poet. Such poetry as a man deliberately writes, such, and such only will he like. Dr. Johnson's Preface to bis edition of Shakspeare looks like a laborious attempt to bury the characteristick merits of his author under a load of cumbrous phraseology, and to weigh his excellencies and defects in equal scales, stuffed full of “swelling figures and sonorous epithets." Nor could it well be otherwise ; Dr. Johnson's general powers of reasoning overlaid his critical susceptibility. All his ideas were cast in a given mould, in a set form : they were made out by rule and system, by climax, inference, and antithesis :-Shakspeare's were the
Johnson's understanding dealt only in round numbers: the fractions were lost upon him. He reduced every thing to the common standard of conventional propriety; and the most exquisite refinement or sublimity pro