The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-11-30

| IN Q single drama Why? asks Dryden IL
variety Is not mere confusion. IL II not always
pleasing? The question Of narrated gainst
represented action Is treated less boldly.
but Dryden arrives at the conclusion that
II the English dramatists show too much
action the French show too little. He re-
Dukes Ben Jonson for experimenting the
Incompatible Shakespeare" and. after cit
ing Comedies own confession Of the cramp-
ing effect Of the Entities. enlargos on the
theme and exposes the utterly unnatural
| conditions " hich observance Of these Cnities
brings about. Then, after some remarks
OH pros ody and the earlier use Of rhyme in
English, Dryden undertakes to give char
acterizations of Shakespeare. Ben JON on
and BEAUMONT and Fletcher. These are not
quoted In the book before us. Prof. Saints
bury deeming IL suffici, Et TO m that 9TH
ing like even the orst OF The three that on
Beaumont and Fletcher, which wants the
adequacy and close grip Of the other two)
had previously been seen in English. and
not many 'hings in any other langua &c,
while TO this day. with all faults, the char
! acter of Shakespeare il one of the opices OF
universal criticism" The chsracterizations
are followed by an eromcn, aud Dryden ends
with short peroration, the keynote OF
whichis, i ask no favor from the French.
After reviewing Drydens critical work
from the Essay OF Dramatic Poesy,' with
which il may be said TO have begun. to the
-Pr.fac, to the Fables" in which IL cul-
| minated. Mr. Salisbury not only con-
| ce6es that Dryden was not entirely STU
| pcrior to the spirit of his age which was
also the spirit Of the age behind him, and +.
with rare exceptions. the spirit of the age
| to come for nearly a hundred years but
| also expresses parodOXical satisfaction
that he was not entirsy superior. He
was enabled by his partial and. in 80 far
as his consciousness went. quite sincere
orthodoxy, to obtain an access to the gem
eral hearing in England and even Z, in
| f1uence, long after his death. important
| literary authorities. as he never could
have done If he had set up for an icono-
clast. Furthermore. II was not vet time
J to break these idols. Apollo winked AT the
ne ca ssical ignorance and heresy becaus"
! il was useful. We are 40 apt-so gener-
| ously and excusably apt-,o look at the
/ Millions without considering the Cleve-
| lands that We forget how absolutely un-
/ governed. and. in some Gases. how near to
puerility. the latest Elizabethan school
| was We forget the slough of shambling
| verse In which true poets, men like Suck
I ling in drama mon like Lovelsce in lyric.
complacently wallow. The str gh,-waiSt-
coat was almost necessary. even after
the fine madness. much more after the
madness not 40 fine of mid-seyenteenth
century verse. and. in a less degree. prose,
| And 80, when wa find DRYDEN beittling the
rhymes of 'Comus' and Lycidas,' shaking
| mis- head over Shakespeare carelessness,
unable with Chapman. as Ben had been
! with Marlowe, to see the fire for the smoke.
| we need not in the least excite ourselves.
| any more than when we find him dalying
with the Dowsabels of Renaissance school
| criticism. In the first place. the thing
had TO be done. and in the second place his
| manner of doing it went very far to supply
| antidote to all the bane as well a. to ad-
minister the corsives.' IA they said then.
In the midest and most inocuous way
| possible
Mr. Saintsbury thinks that in no instance
| Of critical authorship and authority does
| the method Of comparison assist US 40
much as in the case of Dryden and Boileau.
| 1t will not Ire denied that the comparison
| is fair. The two men were almost exact
| contemporaries. They represented, so far
~ their expressed literary creed went,
| the same sect Both we're extremely pow
erful satirists. Both, though not COM
| parable in intrinsic merit were among the
chief men of letters in their respective
countries. Both had real devotion to
literature. So much being granted. let
us look at some of the differences between
the French and the English critic Our
author holds that. though Dryden makes
mistakes enough in Literary history. these
mistakes are slight, in comparison with
Boileau's; that. though his Satire touch
was more whitening even than the French
mans. he has no love Of lashing merely
for the sport and never INDUCES in insolent
filings at harmless dulness. suffering pow
erty or irregular genius; that, though quite
prone enough to fattei. Dryden declined
TO bow the knee to William OF Orange.
while Boileau persistently grovclled al the
| feet of Williams enemy" Our author
does not pretend that these things matter
very much What he does dwell on is
| the fact that the faults of his time and Of
his theory did the least harm to Dryden
OF all men that We know. while they did the
! most to Boileau, The reason of the fact
Is more valuable than the fact itself,
Boileau. as we have seen, has not left US n
single impartial and appreciative criticism
Of single author. ancient or modern.
Dryden simply cannot find himself in pres
ence Of man Of real genius. whether he
belongs to his own school or another. with
out having his critical lips at once touched
by Apollo and Pallas lie WAS sadly igno-
rant about Chaucer-a board school child
might take him to task; but he has written
about Chaucer with far more real light and
sympathy than some at least Of the authors
| Of the books from which the board school
child derives its knowledge had shown.
His theory about Shakespeare. Fletcher
and Jonson was defective, but he has left
us criticisms of all three than which we
have. and are likely to have. no better.
About the ancients he borrows from both
ancients and moderns; but il is remarkable
that. while Boileau's borrowings ara his
best. Dryden's are infinitely his worst
part. So. the consequence is that, while
Boileau is merely a point dc rsTkrc. a his
torical document which men simply strive
to bring to some relation with the present
and the future. Dryden is and will remain
at once a source and a model forever. And
he is these because he had the wisdom to
ask himself the question. DO | think this
good or bad?' and the wit to answer il
instead Of asking and answering the other
question. Ia it good or bad, according To
this or that scheme and schedueY