HEADS OF AN ANSWER TO RYMER'S REMARKS, ETC. THOMAS RYMER, distinguished as the editor of the Fœdera of England, was in his earlier years ambitious of the fame of a critic. In 1678 he published a small duodecimo, entitled, "The Tragedies of the last Age considered and examined by the practice of the Ancients, and the common Sense of all Ages, in a Letter to Fleetwood and Shepherd." The criticisms apply chiefly to the tragedies of the latter part of the reigns of Elizabeth and James I.; out of which he has singled, as the particular subjects of reprehension, those of "Rollo," "The Maid's Tragedy," and "King and no King." In this criticism. there was "much malice mingled with a little wit;" obvious faults and absurdities were censured as disgusting to common sense, on the one hand; on the other, licences unpractised by the ancients were condemned as barbarous and unclassical. A severe critic, if able but plausibly to support his remarks by learning and acumen, strikes terror through the whole world of literature. It is in vain to represent to such a person, that he only examines the debtor side of the account, and omits to credit the unfortunate author with the merit that he has justly a title to claim. Instead of a fair accounting between the public and the poet, his cause is tried as in a criminal action, where, if he is convicted of a crime, all the merit of his work will not excuse him. There must be something in the mind of man favourable to a system which tends to the levelling of talents in the public estimation, or such critics as Rymer could never have risen into notice. Yet Dryden, in the following projected Answer to his Remarks, has treated him with great respect; and Pope, according to Spence, pronounced him "one of the best critics we ever had." That Dryden should have been desirous to conciliate the favour of an avowed critic, was natural enough; but that Pope should have so spoken of Rymer, only argues, either that he was prejudiced by the opinions which his youth had sucked in from Walsh, Wycherly, and Trumbull, or that his taste for the drama was far inferior to his powers in every other range of poetry. If Dryden had arranged and extended the materials of his Answer, it is possible that he would have treated Rymer with less deference than he showed while collecting them; for in the latter years of Dryden's life they were upon bad terms. See vol. xii. p. 51, and Epistle to Congreve, vol. xi. p. 58. To a reader of the present day, when the cant of criticism has been in some degree abandoned, nothing can be more disgusting than the remarks of Rymer, who creeps over the most beautiful passages of the drama with eyes open only to their defects, or their departure from scholastic precept; who denies the name of poetry to the "Paradise Lost," and compares judging of "Rollo" by "Othello," to adjusting one crooked line by another. But I would be by no means understood to say, that there is not sometimes justice, though never mercy, in his criticism. Dryden had intended to enter the lists with Ryıner in defence of the ancient theatre, and with this view had wrote the following Heads of an Answer to the Remarks. They were jotted down on the blank leaves of a copy of the book presented to Dryden by Rymer. The volume falling into the hands of the publisher of Beaumont and Fletcher's works, in 1711, they prefixed Dryden's observations, as furnishing an apology for their authors. They were again published by Dr. Johnson, into whose hands they were put by Garrick, who had the original in his collection. The arrangement is different in the two copies; that of Dr. Johnson has been adopted, as preferred by Mr. Malone. [By the kindness of Mr. George Clinch I was enabled to restore this piece to what was probably its original form. The actual original мs. appears to be destroyed or lost. But sometime ago Mr. Clinch knowing from Dr. Richard Garnett of the British Museum, the common friend of all who are interested in English letters, that I was engaged on the present edition, wrote to ask me whether I knew anything of an Essay on Tragedy by Dryden, of which he had a мs. copy. In consequence of the correspondence which followed, he very liberally sent me the Ms. in question, which I at once saw to be identical with the "Heads, etc.," and to preserve the order which Johnson altered. It forms part of a small quarto commonplace book, entitled, Miscellanea Tragica, vol. vii., and is inscribed on the cover W. Harte, 1726. The Dryden мs. fills up 133 pp., and is headed, "An Essay on Tragedy, being a мs. of Mr. Dryden's against Mr. Rymer." It ends at " It ends at "so are Shakespeare's," with asterisks following, and the note "Here Mr. Dryden's мs. ends. N.B.-This Ms. is now at Tonson's." Besides the variations in order, it will be seen that there are several minor (as well as one important) differences in the text. The arrangement adopted by Johnson, Malone, and Scott can be seen by reading the bracketed divisions in the order of the numbers on the right-hand side of the page. The piece contains some of Dryden's best criticism, expressed, of course, in a somewhat shorthand fashion, but with all the more terseness and pregnancy.—ED.] HEADS OF AN ANSWER TO RYMER'S REMARKS ON THE TRAGEDIES OF THE LAST AGE. [HE who undertakes to answer this excellent 4 critique of Mr. Rymer, in behalf of our English poets against the Greek, ought to do it in this manner: either by yielding to him the greatest part of what he contends for, which consists in this, that the μúbos, i.e. the design and conduct of it, is more conducing in the Greeks to those ends of tragedy, which Aristotle and he propose, namely, to cause terror and pity; yet the granting this does not set the Greeks above the English poets. But the answerer ought to prove two things: First, that the fable is not the greatest masterpiece of a tragedy, though it be the foundation of it. Secondly, that other ends, as suitable to the nature of tragedy, may be found in the English, which were not in the Greek. Aristotle places the fable first; not* quoad dignitatem, sed quoad fundamentum: for a fable, * [Harte мs., “non.”—ED.] never so movingly contrived to those ends of his, pity and terror, will operate nothing on our affections, except the characters, manners, thoughts, and words are suitable. So that it remains for Mr. Rymer to prove, that in all those, or the greatest part of them, we are inferior to Sophocles and Euripides; and this he has offered at, in some measure; but, I think, a little partially to the ancients.] [To make a true judgment in this competition 7 betwixt the Greek poets and the English in tragedy: Consider, first, how Aristotle has defined a tragedy. Secondly, what he assigns the end of it to be. Thirdly, what he thinks the beauties of it. Fourthly, the means to attain the end proposed. Compare the Greek and English tragic poets justly, and without partiality, according to those rules. Then, secondly, consider whether Aristotle has made a just definition of tragedy; of its parts, of its ends, and of its beauties; and whether he, having not seen any others but those of Sophocles [Euripides], etc., had, or truly could determine what all the excellences of tragedy are, and wherein they consist. Next show in what ancient tragedy was deficient; for example, in the narrowness of its plots, and fewness of persons; and try whether that be not a fault in the Greek poets, and whether their excellency was so great, when the variety was visibly so little; or whether what they did was not very easy to do. Then make a judgment on what the English have added to their beauties; as, for example, not only more plot, but also new passions, as, namely, that *[Not in Harte MS.-ED.] |