even those characters which appear to be the moft exaggerated are faid to have had their refpective archetypes in nature and life.' But this folution does not go to the bottom; nay, indeed, rather eludes than diffolves the force of the objection; which does not mean to affert the exaggeration of the leading or predominant quality above nature or the life, in any of the characters; but that every other quality, as it really exifts in nature, is dropped, fo that the man is turned all into a fingle paffion, of which nature affords no fpe cimen. Thus the ancients obferved of the famous ftatue of Apollodorus, by Silarius, That it expreffed not the angry Apollodorus, but his paffion of anger *.* writer's fhare in most of them was furnished by him, and there feldom paffed a year wherein he did not provide one or two poetical pieces of this kind. The first piece of this fort, which he had a hand in, was an entertainment composed for King James, as he passed through the city from the Tower, to his coronation in Westminster abbey, on Thursday, March 15, 1603: Our poet applied the firft and laft pageants only; the other three were devised by Decker, that antagonist being affociate with Jonfon on this occafion; and he published his own part under this title, The magnificent Entertainment given to King James, and Henry-Frederic the Prince, upon the Day of his Majefty's Paffage from the Tower, through this honourable City and Chamber of London, being the 15th of March, 1603, London, 4to, 1604.' This rival of our author projected a device too, at the King's first arrival in the city, but it was never executed: In that he had introduced the genius of London; and, Jonfon afterwards having done the like in this, and printed his part of the work, with explanatory notes of the ancient rites and paffages alluded to therein, Decker attempted to ridicule his tafte in these words: To make a falfe flourish here, with the borrowed weapons of all the old mafters of the noble fcience of poefy, and to keep a tyrannical wit in anatomifing genius from head to foot, only to fhew how nimbly we can carve up the whole mafs of the poets, were to play the executioner, and to lay our city's houfhold god on the rack, to make him confefs how many pair of Latin sheets we have fhaken, and cut into fhreds, to make him a garment: Such feats of activity are ftale and common among scholars, before whom it is protefted we come not now (in a pageant) to play a master's prize.' This cenfure is fuppofed to be the legitimate offspring of envy or malice in Decker, who had no genius or learning himself, and thought to be even with his betters, by endeavouring to rail or laugh them out of countenance; however that be, it is evident the prefent attack is not defective either in point of wit or fpirit. But the truth is, Jonfon's tafte was the taste of their common master, who, as is well known, was no lefs pedant than pageant wife: No wonder then that he became the Court-factor in general for thofe fhews, which he took care to perfume with another effence, ftill more grateful than the Our author was called off from his defign former, I mean the incenfe of the moft ferof furnishing annually a new play, by the vile and abject adulation. He saw how very mafques and entertainments made for the re-acceptable this tribute was, and provided it ception of King James I, on his acceffion to the throne of England. In thefe performances he was the chief factor for the Court; the Jonfon continued to furnish a new play every year; and the firft of thefe, Cynthia's Revels,' he called a comical fatire, as being not properly a comedy, fince there is little or no plot, and the perfons of the play are rather vices or paffions perfonalifed, than characters copied from real life. His defign was a compliment to Queen Elifabeth, under the allegorical perfonage of the goddefs Cynthia: It was acted, in 1600, by the children of her Majesty's chapel, who vied with the moft celebrated players of that time: Accordingly, his next piece, The Poetafter,' had the fame performers, in 1601. The cor.teft between Jonion and Decker has been already mentioned; and this fatire was the genuine offspring of it, wherein that compe titor is ridiculed under the character of Crif pinus. Our author was alfo taxed with reflecting, in it, on fome profeffors of the law and military men, both well known at that time. As the popular clamours against him ran very high, he thought proper to make a reply in an epilogue, which however was fpoken only once. Decker refolved to attack the aggreffor at his own weapons, and wrote a play intitled Satyromaftíx; or, the Untruffing the humorous Poet;' where, under the character of Horace junior, he lashes Jonfon, who, in the Poetafter,' had filed himfelf Horace, and given many long and direct verfions from that favourite author, in contempt, as it fhould feem, of the vulgar clamour, which had before cenfured him for his imitations. To complete the oppofition, as Jonfon's piece was acted by the children of the chapel, fo Decker's revenge was performed by thofe of St. Paul's, who were the only rivals to the former. with no unfparing hand; for this all the * Non hominem ex ære fecit, fed iracundiam. enough to find out the foundation of a handfome compliment to Prince Henry, (that darling of the people as long as he lived) which has escaped the diligence of our beft hiftorians, I mean his refemblance in the face to Henry V. It is introduced in a piece called The Speeches at Prince Henry's Barriers,' where Merlin, addreffing himself to that Prince, recounts the heroical deeds of his anceftors, Kings and Princes of England; and in that detail, after the Black Prince, he defcends to Henry V, in these lines : Yet refts the other thunderbolt of war, in one. The continuity of scenes is obferved more than in any of our's, except his own Fox and Alchemift. The action of the play is intirely one; the end or aim of which is the fettling of Morofe's eftate upon Dauphine: The intrigue is the greatest and moft noble of any pure unmixed comedy in any language: The converfation of Gentlemen, in the perfons of Truewit and his friends, is defcribed with more gaiety, air, and freedom, than in the reft of Jonson's comedies. The contrivance of the whole is ftill the more to be admired, because it is a comedy where the perfons are only of a common rank, and their bufinefs private, not elevated by paffions or high concernments, as in ferious plays. Lally, the unravelling of the plot is fo admirable, that, when it is done, no one of the audience would think the poet could have miffed it; and yet it was concealed so much before the laft fcene, that any other way would fooner have entered into your thoughts. Thus that excellent poet may be faid to have governed the opinion of the public fo far, which muft needs be pleased, as he was, to view the English theatre rivalling that of France in its molt boafted quality, a ftrict obfervation of the unities; but when his fondness carried him farther, to juftify the character of Morofe, as quite in nature, and not overcharged, it is no wonder that fome critics appeared, who, being of a fourer difpofition, judged with lefs partiality to the author in this point. It has been obferved, that Jonson might probably borrow the character and marriage of Morofe from the declamation of the Greek fophift Libanius upon a morofe perfon; who, having married a talkative wife, is fuppofed to plead his own accufation before the Judges, in order to obtain a fentence of death against himself: However, Mr. Dryden tells us, from tradition, that Jonfon was really acquainted with a perfon of this whimsical turn of mind, which indeed is very poffible in nature; and then, the defign being to expofe the foible of a real perfon, it was very convenient to exaggerate the peculiarities and enlarge the features of the character; notwithstanding he may be cenfured therein for sinking beneath the true dignity of the comic scene, and degenerating into farce. Mr. Dryden was so much struck with the perfection of this performance, that he fets it down for a pattern of a perfect play, wherein all the unities infifted on by the niceft and moft fcrupulous critics are most strictly obferved: For instance, the length of the action, fo far from exceeding the compafs of a natural day, does not make up an artificial one; but is all included in the limits of three hours and a half, which is no more than is required for its prefentment on the ftage. The feene is laid in London: The latitude of the place is almost as little as you can imagine; for it lies all within the compafs of two houses, and, after the firft act, * See his prologue to that comedy, in answer to a reproach, that he was not less than a year about very play. The next year he brought forth The Alchemift,' one of the best of his comedies. Mr. Dryden intimates, that the character of the Alchemist was copied from the Astrologer, in the comedy of Albumazar, a play which was revived in his time, and a prologue wrote by him, wherein are these lines: Subtle Subtle was got by our Albumazar, The author of this play is unknown; but the earliest edition of it is feveral years later than the Alchemist; and the filence of Jonfon's enemies on this head is a prefumption in his favour, wherein it has been fuggefted, that Mr. Dryden might poffibly be misinformed or mistaken. The very judicious critic mentioned in a preceding remark, having fhewn the incongruity there is between farce and comedy, and, in confequence thereof, the abfurdity of the modern practice in perpetually mixing them together, proceeds thus: "Of our own comedies, fuch of them I mean as are worthy of criticism, Ben Jonfon's Alchemift and Volpone bid the fairest for being written in the genuine unmixed manner; yet, though their merits are very great, the impartial critic will hardly allow them this perfection: The Alchemift is, I think, throughout exaggerated, and at beft belongs to that species of comedy which we have before called particular and partial; the extravagant purfuit, fo ftrongly expofed in that play, hath been now of a long time forgotten, and we therefore find it difficult to enter fully into the humour of this highly wrought character: We may remark in general of fuch fubjects, that they are a ftrong temptation to the writer to exceed the bounds of truth and mediocrity in his draught of them at first, and are farther liable to an imperfect, and even unfair sentence from the reader afterwards; for the welcome reception which thefe pictures of prevailing local folly meet with on the stage, cannot but induce the poet, almoft without defign, to inflame the reprefentation; and the want of archetypes, in a little time, makes it pafs for immoderate, were it originally given with ever so much difcretion and justice. The plan of the Alchemift is then effentially fuch as fubjects this comedy to the imputation of farce. The Volpone, on the other hand, is a fubject fitted for the entertainment of all times, and is therefore of the fort a great writer would chufe, when he wanted to tranfmit a monument of his art and genius to pofterity. Such appears to have been the generous purpose of the poet in this admirable comedy, and the fate of it has been anfwerable to his intentions; yet I am afraid it cannot well be deemed a complete model; there are even fome incidents of a farcical invention, particularly the mountebank's fcene and Sir Politique's tortoife, are in the tate of the old comedy; befides, the humou of the dialogue is fometimes on the point of becoming inordinate, as may be feen in the pleafantry of Corbaccio's mistakes through deafnefs, and in other inftances: The caft of his plays indeed could hardly be any other, if we attend to the character of the writer; for his nature was fevere and rigid; and this, in giving a strength and manliness, gave at times too an intemperance to his fatire. His tafte for ridicule was ftrong but indelicate, which made him not over curious in the choice of his topics. And, laftly, his style in picturing characters, though masterly, was without that elegance of hand which is required to correct and allay the force of fo bold a colouring. Thus, the biass of his nature leading him to Plautus, rather than Terence, for his model, it is not to be wondered that his wit is too frequently caustic, his raillery coarfe, and his humour exceffive.' This impartial pen concludes the remark in the following terms: 'Some late writers for the stage have, no doubt, avoided these defects in the exacteft of our old dramatists: But do they rival his excellencies ? Posterity, I am afraid, will judge otherwise, whatever may now be thought of fome more fashionable comedies; and, if they do not, neither the state of general manners, nor the turn of the public taste, appears to be fuch as countenances the expectation of greater improvements. To those who are not over fanguine in their hopes, our forefathers will perhaps be thought to have furnifhed (what in nature seem linked together) the fairest example of dramatic as of real manners.' The Alchemist was followed, the enfuing year, 1611, by the worst of Jonfon's tragedies intitled Cataline.' This and the Sejanus are the only trials of his skill and taste in tragedy; and they have both been condemned by the general fentence, from their firft appearance down to this day: Neverthelefs our poet himself appears to have set no fmall value on each of them, a confpicuous proof of the common remark how ill a judge any author is of the merit of his own productions. The following extract will justify this cenfure. Horace, in his Art of Poetry, lays down three rules to be observed by every dramatic writer in the management of his fable; firft, not to follow the trite obvious round of the original work; that is, not fervilely and fcrupulously to adhere to its plan or method; fecondly, not to be translators instead of imitators; that is, if it fhall be thought fit to imitate more exprefly any part of the original, to do it with freedom and fpirit, and without a flavish attachment to the mode of expreffion; thirdly, not to THE SUPPLEMENT TO particular incident that may ocropofed model, which either dee nature of the work would re ingenious commentator upon this paffage having obferved, that though the poet refers to the Iliad of Homer for an illuftration of these rules, probably without an eye to particular inftances of the errors here condemned, in the Latin tragedies, proceeds thus: For want of thefe, fays he, it may be of use to fetch an illuftration from fome examples in our own; and we need not look far for them. Almoft every modern play affords an inftance of one or other of thefe faults. The fingle one of Cataline by B. Jonfon is, itfelf, a fpecimen of them all. This tragedy, which hath otherwife great merit, and on which its author appears to have fet no small value, is, in fact, the Catalinarian war of Salluft put into poetical dialogue, and fo offends against the first rule of the poet, in following too fervilely the plain beaten road of the chronicle. Next the fpeeches of Cicero and Cataline, of Cato and Cæfar, are, all of them, direct and literal tranflations of the hiftorian and orator, in violation of the second rule, which forbids a too close attachment to the mode or form of expreffion. Thirdly, there are feveral tranfgreffions of that rule which enjoins a strict regard to the nature and genius of the work: One is obvious and striking. In the history, which had for its fubject the whole Catalinarian war, the fates of the confpirators were distinctly to be recorded, and the preceding debates concerning the manner of their punishment afforded an occafion too inviting to be overlooked by an historian (and above all a republican hiftorian) of embellishing his narration by fet harangues. Hence the long fpeeches of Cæfar and Cato in the Senate have great propriety, and are justly efteemed amongst the leading beauties of that work. But the cafe was totally different in the drama; which, taking for its fubject the single fate of Cataline, had no concern with the other confpirators, whofe fates, at most, fhould only have been hinted at, not debated with all the circumftances of pomp and rhetoric on the stage. Nothing can be more flat and difguftful than this calm impertinent pleading, efpecially in the very heat and winding up of the plot. But the poet was misled by the beauty it appeared to have in the original compofition, without attending to the peculiar laws of the drama, and the indecorum it muft needs have in fo very different a work.' Thus that judicious critic. And in aggravation of Jonfon's fault it hath been farther obferved, what, though he was conscious of what might poffibly be objected to him upon thofe heads, yet he was fo far from regarding them as errors or imperfections in his poem, that he, in truth, confidered them as beauties, and prided himself upon his tranflations as fo many real excellencies, and the chief ornaments of his play. However, in justice to him, it must be acknowledged, that he hath difcovered great art and fpirit in defigning and fupporting his characters; and has occafionally deviated from the leading thread of the ftory, and varied the arrangemement of circumftances in the manner that was moft conducive to draw out his characters, and difplay the ruling paffion inherent in the breast of each. Thefe remarks upon the Cataline are, in fome degree, alfo applicable to his Sejanus. In this indeed the narration from which he copied was lefs obvious and direct; and hence it demanded a greater share of judgement to combine and connect the distinct periods and members, to form a regular and confiftent whole; but as the ftory lay before him, from which he drew his incidents, he copied with too close an attachment to historic compofition; and, in breach of the fecond rule, what he hath translated in the Latin, is expreffed with too exact a conformity to the mode and letter of the original expreffion. And, laftly, he hath adopted incidents which the law and nature of his work would reject. The play fhould naturally have ended with the fall and tragical death of Sejanus. For this reason the fubfequent descriptions taken from Juvenal, of the indignities and infults offered by the multitude, both to himfelf and his ftatues, are wholly out of place. Nor was it lefs improper to defcribe, with the attendant circumstances, the unfortunate end of the fon and daughter of Sejanus, who with brutal violence were dragged from home, and inhumanly put to death by the public executioner. But the poet intended to recount a tale of horror, and excite pity in the breafts of the spectators, by relating the untimely fate of the innocent and tender fufferers; and this farther contributed, in concurrence with the moral, to infinuate that divine vengeance would not fail to punish and exterminate the whole race of thofe who contemned the providence and power of Heaven. He might also have still another defign in his view in not concluding his play without these stories, as they ferved to take off the force of the objection made to the choice of his fubject, that Sejanus and Cataline were historical characters fo well known, that no diftrefs which befals them, can poffibly raise any kind of pity, the chiefert and nobleft paffion belonging to tragedy, in the breast of the beholder. However, after all, all, it must be acknowledged, that pity is not the only paffion, which the tragic poet is concerned with. To excite dread and terror in the mind of the fpectator is equally the defign of tragedy with raising the fofter and more tender emotions of the heart. Wickedness and guilt, when they are reprefented to an audience, fhould naturally create no other fenfations but thofe of fear and horror; and the catastrophe should be defigned as a monitory leffon to deter others from perpetrating the like crimes. Our poet is not fingular in the choice of his fubjects. One of them has lately been exhibited on a ftage that is no way remarkable for prefenting fcenes of cruelty to the beholder. The rival wits of France, M. Crebillon in his Catalina, and M. Voltaire in his Rome fauvée,' have actually pitched on the fame event with Jonfon, in their conteft for the dramatic laurel. In 1613, our author took a tour to Paris, where he was admitted to an interview and converfation with Cardinal Perron, whom he treated with all that franknefs and bluntnefs, which was fo much his nature: Among other things, the Cardinal fhewing him his tranflation of Virgil, he fcrupled not to tell him flatly it was a bad one. It was about this time, that he commenced a quarrel with Inigo Jones, whom he therefore made the fubject of his ridicule in his next comedy, called Bartholomew Fair,' acted in 1614. The rupture feems not to have ended but with Jonfon's death. A very few. years before that happened, he wrote a moft virulent coarse fatire, which he called an Expoftulation with Inigo Jones.' The time when this was written is afcertained by Howell's Letters, among which there is one, dated May 3, 1635, addreffed to his friend and father Ben Jonfon, concluding in these terms: I heard you cenfured lately at Court, that you have lighted too foul upon Sir Inigo, and that write with a porcupine's quill dipped in too much gall. Excufe me that I am fo free with you; it is because I am in no common way of friendship. you Your's, J. H.' But the poet, it feems, was too much incenfed, and too vain withal to liften to the first advice of his friend, whereupon Mr. Howell addreffed the following letter to him intirely upon this fubject, affuring him that the King was much offended, efpecially with the coarfeness of his abufe: over his hold, till he feels his teeth meet and bone crack. Your quill hath proved fo to Mr. Inigo; but the pen, wherewith you fo gafhed him, was made rather of a porcupine than a goofe-quill, it is fo keen and firm.. -Anfer, apes, vitulus, populos & regna gubernant. The goofe, the bee, and the calf, (meaning wax, parchment, and the pen) rule the world; but, of the three, the pen is most predominant. I know you have a commanding one; but you must not let it tyrannife in that manner, as you have done lately. Some give out there was a hair in your pen, and that your ink was too thick with gall; elfe it would not have bepattered and fhaken the reputation of a Royal Architect; for reputation, you know, is like a fair ftructure, a long time a raifing, but quickly ruined.-If your fpirit will not let you retract, yet you shall do well to reprefs any more copies of the fatire; for, to deal plainly with you, you have loft fome ground at Court by it; and, as I hear from a good hand, the King, who hath fo great judgment in poetry as in other things elfe, is not well pleafed therewith. Difpenfe with this freedom of your refpectful fon and fervant, Westminster, July 3, 1635. J. H.' After the expoftulation juft mentioned, Jonfon added another piece, intitled, To a friend. An Epigram of him. And alfo a third, infcribed, To Inigo Marquis Would be. A Corollary. Howell, in his first letter, plainly points to the epigram, which runs thus: And labours to feem worthy of this fear; verfe, Able to eat into his bones, and pierce Father Ben feems at length to have followed his fon's advice, finding it neceffary, perhaps, to comply thereto, and accordingly fuppreffed the whole. The Architect had made fome attempts in the poetical way, either in the business of mafques, or otherwise, or perhaps both. This intrufion into the poet's province had raised Ben's fpleen; and, in the beginning of the quarrel, one principal ftroke of the ridicule, bestowed upon Lan thern |