It
was necessary, he says, either not to print the bold epilogue, which we
have quoted, or to show that he could defend it. He censures decidedly
the antiquated language, irregular plots, and anachronisms of
Shakespeare and Fletcher; but his main strength seems directed against
Jonson. From his works he selects several instances of harsh, inelegant,
and even inaccurate diction. In describing manners, he claims for the
modern writers a decided superiority over the poets of the earlier age,
when there was less gallantry, and when the authors were not admitted to
the best society. The manners of their low, or Dutch school of comedy,
in which Jonson led the way, by his "Bartholomew Fair," and similar
pieces, are noticed, and censured, as unfit for a polished audience. The
characters in what may be termed genteel comedy are reviewed, and
restricted to the Truewit of Jonson's "Silent Woman," the Mercutio of
Shakespeare, and Fletcher's Don John in the "Chances." Even this last
celebrated character, he observes, is better carried on in the modern
alteration of the play, than in Fletcher's original; a singular instance
of Dryden's liberality of criticism, since the alteration of the
"Chances" was made by that very Duke of Buckingham, from whom he had
just received a bitter and personal offence. Dryden proceeds to contend,
that the living poets, from the example of a gallant king and sprightly
court, have learned, in their comedies, a tone of light discourse and
raillery, in which the solidity of English sense is blended with the air
and gaiety of their French neighbours; in short, that those who call
Jonson's the golden age of poetry, have only this reason, that the
audience were then content with acorns, because they knew not the use of
bread.
Pages:
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155