New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-12-11
4 VOLUME OF CRITICISM.
LOWELLS OLD ENGLISH DRAMATlSIS.


d Co.
| This volume contains tho substance OF SIN
| lectures on the old English dramatsts which were
road bv Mr.. Lowell at the Lowell Institute, III
roston in the spring of 1887. Professor Charles
| Eliot Norton, who has prepared them Tor
| notification. states in PREDATORY note tnat they
,ycrc never revised by Mr.. Lowell for puDllca-
tion "but they contain such admirable ana In
| tercstinr criticism and in themselves SIGN
genuine pieces of good literature, that IL mas
seemed to me that they should be given 10 uhc
publicr or this there will be no doubt In the
minds Of those who read them; but 1T seems
fair prcsumption that II Mr.. Lowell had lived
longer he would. in preparing them to take their
Mace in n permanent form with his other literary
works have extended his criticism so az 10 CHI
| brace several notabitics here somewhat uhac-
| couutably excluded. In the Introductory lecture
| he does, indeed, intimate feeling OF dislike anu
! contcmpt for Pcclc. 1t would be easy to join
| Issue on that question, but perhaps 1t - hoI
worth while to express any other opinion thah
that Pcclc, with all his faults and shortcomings,
| is an old English dramatist some at LEAST OIL
| whose work merits less summary dismissal.
Mr. Lowell has confined his review 10 Mar
| lowe Webster Chapman. Beaumont and Fletcher,
| Massingrr and Ford. This, Of course, cAcludcS
| a considerable number Of dramatlsts Of the same
| period and some Of these it is quite surprising
| TO find virtually ignored. For II Pccle DC not
| deserving OF even a passing survey this cannot
| he intimated Of MarstOn, who, notwithstanding
his pcrycrse and pessmistic temperament, did some
! very good work. However that may be. no 1ault
| can be found with the selection of the thre"
| names first honorcd in these lectures thoS"'
| namely, Of Marlowc, Webster and Chapman. Tn
| these Mr. Lowell discourscs delightfully."- ana IN
one respect at least we prefer his criticism TO
| that of Lamb AZ literature let MS hasten to
| add. Lamb il fully satisfying; but from the
| point Of view Of pure criticism he is sometimes
carried away by an enthusiasm difficult to justify.
| Unfortunately too many later writers have fol-
| lowed him In this the result being an undlS-
terminating laudaion Of the old English dramatistS
which cannot hut make the judcious Crl"vc.
Now Mr. Lowclrs robust intelligence protcct"J
him agairnt this pitfall. and il is really refreshing
to find him frankly declaring that a great deal OF
the Elizahcthan drama il sad stuff, and In great
measure unreliable
As regards even the best Of This work, tho
plays OF Marlowc and Webster for example, 1t
contains few prizes and many blanks. II has
been the practice Of nearly oil writers upon it TO
extract and exhibit tho former. This WIS
Lambs method. and in his hands an IDEAL was
produced which corrcspon1cd but fccblv with
whether tho Elizabethan drama proceeded at all
directly or lcgtimatcly from the old morals and
mysteries. There il som, warrant for such
doubt for the morals and mysteries were certainly
f., IN no sense dramatic, ana they were, so FAR rs
wc know without an exception insuncrably dull
and stupid. But al the same time IL ought to ne
remembered that there great deal OF both
dulncss and stupidity in the Elizlbethan drama
always excepting the work Of Shakespeare. Even
Ben Jonson often nodded, his classcism acting
specifically, and qucnching whatever ardor he
may originally have possessed. In Marlowe ana
Webster on the other hand we find bursts OF true
poetry outbreaks Of extravaganza. aud stretches
Fox piatitudnous work, all mixed together. Some
| thing OF this mclange is indeed 10 he noted in
Shakespeare earlier plays, though never TO the
same extent.
Mr. Lowell holds dcscrvedly high opinion Of
Marlowe and Webster though il il open 10 qGcs
ton whether the first named should Outrank his
ncghbor Webster is chargcable with cX-
iravagancc OF passion which AZ every turn dchcs
the probabilities, and he is certainly much too
fond OF killing of his dramatis personae.' But
withal there is tragic fury-a wind Of destiny,
so TO say-in his tragedies, which carries away the
reader The latter is made to sup fun OF
horrors II sensitive he may revolt from the
unbridlcd fcrocty Of Webstcr's villains. He may
Shalicspcarc's Iago there is the whole difference
between the possible and the impossible. Bat
one need not 20 further back than to the time
Of Imperial Rome 10 find parallels for Wcbstcr's
most trucucnt characters, and il may be Il timely
reflection that the actually impossible in this
world is really only the uncomfortable.
The cctur, Oh Chapman is excellent and os
pcciauy valuable is Mr.. Lowcll's estimate OF his
translation of Homer. OF course no amount OF dis
cussion can ever settle the oil question Of wha.
point Of view translator should take. IL is
very much the old story Of the shield having
| gold and silver side, which many goot
knights fought Chapman deliberately preferred
the spirit to the letter. and il it is admissible
that any poetry can be translated (which Mr..
Lowell will hardly allow, then he thinks that
Chapman Succeeded with Homer Perhaps" he
SAYS IL is fair, and this lis sometimes forgotten,
TO suppose that translation is intended only for
such as have no knowledge of the original, and
10 whom il viii be a new poem. If that be- so,
there can be no question that free reproduction
q TRANSMISSION into the moulds of another language
with an absolute Difference TO itg associations
whether of the ear or of the memory is the true
method. There no more mastery Illustrations
Of this than the versions from the Greek, Persian
and Spanish of the late Mr.. Fitzgerald. Ills
TRANSACTIONS, however else they may fail make the
same vivid impression on ny that an original
would lie has aimed at translating the genius
in short letting all else take care of itself, and
has succeeded. Chapman aimed at the same
thing, and | mink has also succeeded"
Bcaumont and Fletcher receive Il full measure
Of praise II even seems to us that of their
shortcomings is treated rather too cnicntly In the
matter Of loose language they certainly not as
bad as the worst among their contemporaries, but
they were bad enough. The concluding lecture
on Massinger and Ford, is not less interesting
than the others, taking into due account the
inferior consequence Of the subjects, but Ford
is dismissed SO cursorily that We su.pcct he wao