Ben Jonson's Fox is clearly against Mr. Dryden. And here I have his own confession for proof. He declares the poet's end in this play was the punishment of vice and the reward of virtue. Ben was forced to strain for this piece of justice and break through the unity of design. This Mr. Dryden remarks upon him. However, he is pleased to commend the performance and calls it an excellent fifth act.
Ben Jonson shall speak for himself afterwards in the character of a critic; in the meantime I shall take a testimony or two from Shakespeare. And here we may observe the admired Falstaff goes off in disappointment. He is thrown out of favor as being a rake and dies like a rat behind the hangings. The pleasure he had given would not excuse him. The poet was not so partial as to let his humour compound for his lewdness. If 'tis objected that this remark is wide of the point, because Falstaff is represented in tragedy, where the laws of justice are more strictly observed. To this I answer, that you may call Henry the Fourth and Fifth tragedies if you please; but for all that, Falstaff wears no buskins; his character is perfectly comical from end to end.
The next instance shall be in Flowerdale the prodigal. This spark, notwithstanding his extravagance, makes a lucky hand on't at last and marries up a rich lady. But then the poet qualifies him for his good fortune and mends his manners with his circumstances. He makes him repent and leave off his intemperance, swearing, etc. And when his father warned him against a relapse, he answers very soberly: Heaven helping me, I'll hate the course of Hell.
I could give some instances of this kind out of Beaumont and Fletcher, but there's no need of any farther quotation: for Mr. Dryden is not satisfied with his apology from authority. He does as good as own that this may be construed no better than defending one ill practice by another. To prevent this very reasonable objection he endeavors to vindicate his precedents from the reason of the thing. To this purpose he makes a wide difference between the rules of tragedy and comedy. That vice must be impartially prosecuted in the first, because the persons are great, etc.
It seems then executions are only for greatness and quality. Justice is not to strike much lower than a prince. Private people may do what they please. They are too few for mischief and too little for punishment! This would be admirable doctrine for Newgate and give us a general Gaol-Delivery without more ado. But in tragedy (says the Mock Astrologer) the crimes are likewise horrid, so that there is a necessity for severity and example. And how stands the matter in comedy? Quite otherwise. There the faults are but the sallies of youth and the frailties of human nature. For instance. There is nothing but a little whoring, pimping, gaming, profaneness, etc. And who could be so hard hearted to give a man any trouble for this? Such rigors would be strangely inhumane! A poet is a better natured thing I can assure you. These little miscarriages move pity and commiseration and are not such as must of necessity be punished. This is comfortable casuistry! But to be serious. Is dissolution of manners such a peccadillo? Does a profligate conscience deserve nothing but commiseration? And are people damned only for human frailties? I perceive the laws of religion and those of the stage differ extremely! The strength of his defense lies in this choice maxim, that the chief end of comedy is delight. He questions whether instruction has any thing to do in comedy. If it has, he is sure 'tis no more than its secondary end; for the business of the poet is to make you laugh. Granting the truth of this principle, I somewhat question the serviceableness of it. For is there no diversion to be had unless vice appears prosperous and rides at the head of success? One would think such a preposterous distribution of rewards should rather shock the reason and raise the indignation of the audience. To laugh without reason is the pleasure of fools, and against it, of something worse. The exposing of knavery and making lewdness ridiculous is a much better occasion for laughter. And this, with submission, I take to be the end of comedy. And therefore it does not differ from tragedy in the end, but in the means. Instruction is the principal design of both. The one works by terror, the other by infamy. 'Tis true, they don't move in the same line, but they meet in the same point at last.
Mobile users, click here to return to the main page.
