Margaret Ball - Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature

M >> Margaret Ball >> Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

Of the northern Teutonic languages Scott had slight knowledge, though he
was always interested in the northern literatures. In a review of the
_Poems of William Herbert_, of which the part most interesting to the
reviewer consisted of translations from the Icelandic, Scott says: "We
do not pretend any great knowledge of Norse; but we have so far traced
the 'Runic rhyme' as to be sensible how much more easy it is to give a
just translation of that poetry into English than into Latin." In the
same review we find him saying, after a slight discussion of the style
of Scaldic poetry, "The other translations are generally less
interesting than those from the Icelandic. There is, however, one poem
from the Danish, which I transcribe as an instance how very clearly the
ancient popular ballad of that country corresponds with our own." So we
see him drawing from all sources fuel for his favorite fire--the study
of ballads. Very characteristically also Scott suggests that the author
should extend his researches to the popular poetry of Scandinavia,
"which we cannot help thinking is the real source of many of the tales
of our minstrels."[95] It seems probable that Scott's acquaintance with
northern literatures came partly through his ill-fated amanuensis, Henry
Weber.[96] His acknowledgement in the introduction to _Sir Tristrem_
would indicate this, taken together with other references by Scott to
Weber's attainments.

Scott could hardly be called a student of Anglo-Saxon, though he was
perhaps able to read the language. His remarks on the subject may,
however, mean simply that he was familiar with early Middle English.[97]
In his essay on Romance he referred to Sharon Turner's account of the
story of Beowulf, but called the poem Caedmon, and made no correction
when he added the later footnote in regard to Conybeare's fuller and
more interesting analysis published in 1826.[98] The researches of these
men indicate the state of Anglo-Saxon scholarship in England. Sharon
Turner's very inaccurate description of _Beowulf_ was published in 1805.
Danish scholars made the first translations of the poem, but no one
could give a really scholarly text or translation until the year after
Scott died, when the first edition by J.M. Kemble appeared. There were
students of the language, however, who were doing good work in feeling
their way toward a comprehension of its special qualities. One of these
was George Ellis. In his _Specimens_ he published examples of
Anglo-Saxon and Middle-English poetry, and his information was helpful
in enlarging Scott's outlook. Scott's own knowledge of Anglo-Saxon
literature did not amount to enough to be of importance by itself, but
it served perhaps to fortify the basis of his generalizations about all
early poetry.

A review of the _Life and Works of Chatterton_ gave Scott an opportunity
to discuss the characteristics of Middle-English poetry, but his general
thesis, that the Rowley poems exhibit graces and refinements which are
in marked contrast to the tenuity of idea and tautology of expression
found in genuine works of the period, is supported by an argument which
seems to be based on a characterization of the romances rather than on a
close acquaintance with other Middle-English poetry. We notice a similar
quality in what Scott says elsewhere concerning Frere's translation into
Chaucerian English of the _Battle of Brunanburgh_: "This appears to us
an exquisite imitation of the antiquated English poetry, not depending
on an accumulation of hard words like the language of Rowley, which in
everything else is refined and harmonious poetry, nor upon an
agglomeration of consonants in the orthography, the resource of later
and more contemptible forgers, but upon the style itself, upon its
alternate strength and weakness, now nervous and concise, now diffuse
and eked out by the feeble aid of expletives."[99] Of Middle-English
poets other than Chaucer and the author or translator of _Sir Tristrem_,
Laurence Minot was the one to whom Scott alluded most frequently,
doubtless because in Ritson's edition of Minot that poet had become more
accessible than most of his contemporaries. Whatever detailed work Scott
did on the poetry of this period was chiefly in connection with _Sir
Tristrem_, which has naturally been considered in relation with his
other studies in romances.

Scott's familiarity with Chaucer appears in his numerous quotations from
that poet, but usually the passages are cited to illustrate mediaeval
manners rather than for any specifically literary purpose. Yet there are
Chaucer enthusiasts among the characters of _Woodstock_ and _Peveril of
the Peak_.[100] Chaucer's fame was well enough established so that Scott
seems on the whole to have taken his merit for granted, and not to have
said much about it except in casual references.[101] Among general
readers he must have been comparatively little known, however,
notwithstanding the respect paid him by scholars. In 1805 we find Scott
writing to Ellis that his scheme for editing a collection of the British
Poets had fallen through, for, he said, "My plan was greatly too liberal
to stand the least chance of being adopted by the trade at large, as I
wished them to begin with Chaucer. The fact is, I never expected they
would agree to it."[102]

Scott's review of Godwin's _Life of Chaucer_, one of the best known of
his periodical essays, is altogether concerned with the manner in which
Godwin did his work, and so exhibits Scott's ideas on the subject of
biography and his methods of reviewing rather than his attitude towards
Chaucer's poetry. His most definite remarks concerning Chaucer are to be
found in his comments upon Dryden's _Fables_, as for example: "The
Knight's Tale, whether we consider Chaucer's original poem, or the
spirited and animated version of Dryden, is one of the best pieces of
composition in our language";[103] "Of all Chaucer's multifarious
powers, none is more wonderful than the humour with which he touched
upon natural frailty, and the truth with which he describes the inward
feelings of the human heart."[104] Yet he once called _Troilus and
Criseyde_ "a somewhat dull poem."[105] _The Cock and the Fox_, on the
other hand, he speaks of as "a poem which, in grave ironical narrative,
liveliness of illustration, and happiness of humorous description,
yields to none that ever was written."[106]

In estimating the importance of Scott's studies on any one period we
have to think of them as part of a greater whole. The wide range of his
investigations would evidently make it impossible to expect a complete
treatment of all the subjects he might choose to discuss, and we have
found, in fact, that his criticism of mediaeval literature led to
systematic results in no other lines than those of the ballad and the
romance. But these were large and important matters. Moreover, to all
that he wrote in connection with the Middle Ages there attaches a
special interest; for with that work he made his real start in
literature; and it reflected the peculiarly delightful vein in his own
nature which was constant from youth to age, and which gave to his poems
and novels some of their most brilliant qualities.[107]

THE DRAMA

Scott's fondness for the drama and his acquaintance with actors--His
ideas about plot structure--His own dramatic experiments--His
opinion of the theaters of his day--His knowledge of English
dramatic literature--Familiarity with Elizabethan plays shown in his
novels--His Essay on the Drama--Ancient drama--French
drama--Dramatic unities--German drama--Elizabethan
drama--Shakspere--Ben Jonson--Dryden and other Restoration
dramatists--Morality of theater-going--Character of Scott's interest
in the drama.

Like most of his characteristics, Scott's taste for the theater was
exhibited in his childhood. We find him reverting, in a review written
in 1826,[108] to his rapturous emotions on the occasion of seeing his
first play; and in the private theatricals which he and his brothers and
sister performed in the family dining-room he was always the manager. In
1810 he was active in helping to bring out in Edinburgh the _Family
Legend_ of his friend Joanna Baillie.[109] One of the actors on that
occasion was Daniel Terry,[110] who became an intimate friend of
Scott's. For Terry Scott wrote _The Doom of Devorgoil_, but the piece
was not found suitable for presentation. Several of the novels were more
successfully dramatized by the same friend, so that we find the "Author"
humorously complaining in the "Introductory Epistle" to _The Fortunes of
Nigel_, "I believe my muse would be _Terry_fied into treading the stage
even if I should write a sermon." Among Scott's friends were several
other actors, particularly Mrs. Siddons and her brother John Kemble, and
the comedian Charles Mathews. In Scott's review of _Kelly's
Reminiscences and the Life of Kemble_ we find recorded many of the
discriminations he was fond of making in regard to the talents of
particular actors.

In his childhood Scott felt well qualified to take the part of Richard
III., for he considered that his limp "would do well enough to represent
the hump."[111] After a similar fashion we find him commenting on the
improbabilities of the tragedy of _Douglas_: "But the spectator should,
and indeed must, make considerable allowances if he expects to receive
pleasure from the drama. He must get his mind, according to Tony
Lumpkin's phrase, into 'a concatenation accordingly,'[112] since he
cannot reasonably expect that scenes of deep and complicated interest
shall be placed before him, in close succession, without some force
being put upon ordinary probability; and the question is not, how far
you have sacrificed your judgment in order to accommodate the fiction,
but rather, what is the degree of delight you have received in
return."[113]

Scott disclaimed any special knowledge of stage-craft. "I know as little
about the division of a drama as the spinster about the division of a
battle, to use Iago's simile,"[114] he once wrote to a friend. Yet as a
critic he had of course some general ideas about the making of plays,
without having worked out any subtle theories on the subject. In
criticising a play by Allan Cunningham, who had asked for his judgment
on it, he remarked first that the plot was ill-combined. "If the mind
can be kept upon one unbroken course of interest, the effect even in
perusal is more gratifying. I have always considered this as the great
secret in dramatic poetry, and conceive it one of the most difficult
exercises of the invention possible, to conduct a story through five
acts, developing it gradually in every scene, so as to keep up the
attention, yet never till the very conclusion permitting the nature of
the catastrophe to become visible,--and all the while to accompany this
by the necessary delineation of character and beauty of language."[115]
And again he said to the same person, "I hope you will make another
dramatic attempt; and in that case I would strongly recommend that you
should previously make a model or skeleton of your incidents, dividing
them regularly into scenes and acts, so as to insure the dependence of
one circumstance upon another, and the simplicity and union of your
whole story."[116] Here we find Scott giving advice which by his own
admission he was not himself able to follow in the composition of
fiction. "I never could lay down a plan, or having laid it down I never
could adhere to it," he wrote in his journal[117]. And the "Author" in
the introductory epistle to _Nigel_ remarks, "It may pass for one good
reason for not writing a play, that I cannot form a plot."

The few experiments that he made he did not seem to regard seriously at
any time, though he was rather favorably impressed on rereading the
_Doom of Devorgoil_ after it had lain unused for several years.[118] Of
_Halidon Hill_ he said, "It is designed to illustrate military
antiquities and the manners of chivalry. The drama (if it can be called
one) is in no particular either designed or calculated for the
stage."[119] He seems to have been "often urged" to write plays, if one
may trust Captain Clutterbuck's authority, and the effectiveness of the
many poetical mottoes improvised by the Author of Waverley for the
chapters of his novels, and subscribed "Old Play,"[120] was naturally
used as an argument.[121] Scott's own judgment in the matter was
expressed thus: "Nothing so easy when you are full of an author, as to
write a few lines in his taste and style; the difficulty is to keep it
up. Besides, the greatest success would be but a spiritless imitation,
or, at best, what the Italians call a _centone_ [_sic_] from
Shakspeare."[122] When Elliston became manager of Drury Lane in 1819 he
applied to Scott for plays, but without effect.[123] Scott seems never
to have felt any concern over the fact that the dramatized versions of
his novels were often very poor, but Hazlitt wished that he would "not
leave it to others to mar what he has sketched so admirably as a
ground-work," for he saw no good reason why the author of Waverley could
not write "a first-rate tragedy as well, as so many first-rate
novels."[124]

Scott felt that to write for the stage in his day was a thankless and
almost degrading occupation. "Avowedly I will never write for the stage;
if I do, 'call me horse.'" he said in a letter to Terry.[125] Again in
a letter to Southey: "I do not think the character of the audience in
London is such that one could have the least pleasure in pleasing
them.... On the whole, I would far rather write verses for mine honest
friend Punch and his audience";[126] and to a would-be tragedian he
said: "In the present day there is only one reason which seems to me
adequate for the encountering the plague of trying to please a set of
conceited performers and a very motley audience,--I mean the want of
money."[127] This degraded condition of the London stage Scott thought
to be a consequence of limiting the number of theaters. We can hardly
suppose, however, that he was pessimistic in regard to the written drama
of his day, when he could say of Byron, "There is one who, to judge from
the dramatic sketch he has given us in Manfred, must be considered as a
match for Aeschylus, even in his sublimest moods of horror";[128] or
when he could place Joanna Baillie in the same class with
Shakspere[129].

Scott probably did much reading in the drama in his early life. We know
that by 1804 he had "long since" annotated his copy of Beaumont and
Fletcher sufficiently so that he wished to offer it to Gifford, who,
Scott erroneously understood, was about to edit their dramas.[130] The
edition of Dryden, published in 1808, shows familiarity with Elizabethan
as well as Restoration dramatists. He seems to have had first-hand
knowledge of such men as Ford, Webster, Marston, Brome, Shirley,
Chapman, and Dekker, whom he mentions as being "little known to the
general readers of the present day, even by name."[131] But 1808 was
the very year in which appeared Lamb's _Specimens of English Dramatic
Poets_ and Coleridge's first course of lectures on Shakspere. The old
dramatists were beginning to come to their own, through the sympathetic
appreciation of the Romantic critics. Scott never refers, however, to
the work of Lamb, Coleridge, or Hazlitt[132] in this field and we
conclude that his researches in dramatic literature were the recreation
of a man who realized that his business lay in another direction. But in
preparing the _Dryden_, he doubtless read more widely in Restoration
drama than he would otherwise have done. Throughout his life he
continued to read plays at intervals, as we know from occasional
references in the _Journal_; but after the _Dryden_ appeared we can
point to no time in his career when such reading was his especial
occupation. His familiarity with Elizabethan drama he showed even more
emphatically than by serious critical writings on the subject, in his
fragments from mythical "Old Plays,"[133] in his frequent references to
single plays, and in the substance of some of the novels, particularly
_The Fortunes of Nigel_ and _Woodstock_, which make use of settings,
situations, and characterizations suggested by the drama.[134] Mr. Lang
says of _The Fortunes of Nigel_, "The scenes in Alsatia are a distinct
gain to literature, a pearl rescued from the unread mass of
Shadwell."[135]

His serious critical writings on the subject comprise little else than
his _Essay on the Drama_, which appeared in the supplement to the
_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, published in 1819, and the discussions given
in connection with Dryden's plays.[136] Although the Essay was written
ten years later than the _Dryden_, we have no reason to think that Scott
changed his views or added greatly to his knowledge in the interval, and
using these two sources we may discuss his account of the drama in
general without regard to the particular date at which his opinions were
expressed.

His exposition in the _Essay on the Drama_ rested on the basis furnished
by a historical study of the stage. He did not, of course, pretend to
have formed his own conclusions on all points, and we find him quoting
from various authorities, sometimes naming them and sometimes only
indicating, perhaps, that he was "abridging from the best antiquaries."
This, however, was chiefly in connection with the ancient drama. As I
have already remarked, we do not find him referring to recent studies on
the English drama. And though Scott had forgotten all his Greek we
observe that he is bold enough to disagree with "the ingenious Schlegel"
in regard to the comparative value of the Greek New Comedy. In his
treatment of the ancient drama the main point for note is the success
with which he gives a broad and connected view of the subject. His
account of the drama in France needs correction in certain
respects,[137] but it seems to indicate some first-hand knowledge and
very definite opinions. He quotes Moliere frequently throughout his
writings, and always speaks of him with admiration; but with no other
French dramatist does he seem to have been familiar to such a degree.
Judging French tragic poets too much from the Shaksperian point of view,
he was not prepared to do them justice.[138] On the dramatic unities, of
which he remarked, "Aristotle says so little and his commentators and
followers talk so much," Scott wrote, here and elsewhere, with decision
and vivacity. The unities of time and place he calls "fopperies," though
time and place, he admits, are not to be lightly changed.[139] He
connects the whole discussion with the study of theatrical conditions,
and never bows down to authority as such. He says, "Surely it is of less
consequence merely to ascertain what was the practice of the ancients,
than to consider how far such practice is founded upon truth, good
taste, and general effect"; and again, "Aristotle would probably have
formulated different rules if he had written in our time." And though he
adopted and applied to the drama the Horatian dictum that the end of
poetry is to instruct and delight, it was not because Horace and a long
line of critics had said it, but because he thought it was true.
Doubtless his phrase would have been different if he had not taken what
was lying nearest, but his habit was never carefully to avoid the common
phrase. His general opinion of French drama was decidedly unfavorable,
and he thought it was doubtful whether their plays would ever be any
nearer to nature. "That nation," he observes calmly, "is so unfortunate
as to have no poetical language."

His remarks on German drama are general in character, though we know
that in his early days he was much interested in translating
contemporary German plays. His version of Goethe's _Goetz von
Berlichingen_ was the most important of these translations. A letter of
Scott's contains the following reference to this play:[140] "The
publication of Goetz was a great era ... in German literature, and
served completely to free them from the French follies of unities and
decencies of the scene, and gave an impulse to their dramas which was
unique of its kind. Since that, they have been often stark mad but
never, I think, stupid. They either divert you by taking the most
brilliant leaps through the hoop, or else by tumbling into the custard,
as the newspapers averred the Champion did at the Lord Mayor's dinner."

When he is on English ground we can best trace Scott's individual
opinions, yet even here he reflects some of the limitations of the less
enlightened scholarship of his time, especially in connection with early
Elizabethan writers. He passes from _Ferrex and Porrex_[141] and _Gammer
Gurton's Needle_ directly to Shakspere, and quite omits Marlowe and the
other immediate predecessors. He was not ignorant of their existence,
for against a statement of Dryden's that Shakspere was the first to use
blank verse we find in Scott's edition the note,--"This is a mistake.
Marlowe and several other dramatic authors used blank verse before the
days of Shakespeare";[142] and one of his youthful notebooks contains
this comment on _Faustus_: "A very remarkable thing. Grand subject--end
grand."[143] In 1831 Scott intended to write an article for the
_Quarterly Review_ on Peele, Greene, and Webster, and in asking
Alexander Dyce to have Webster's works sent to him he said, "Marlowe and
others I have,--and some acquaintance with the subject, though not
much."[144] Webster he considered "one of the best of our ancient
dramatists." The proposed article was never written, because of Scott's
final illness.

In spite of his statement that "the English stage might be considered
equally without rule and without model when Shakspeare arose," Scott did
not seem inclined to leave the great man altogether unaccounted for, as
some critics have preferred to do, for he says, "The effect of the
genius of an individual upon the taste of a nation is mighty; but that
genius in its turn is formed according to the opinions prevalent at the
period when it comes into existence." These opinions, however, Scott
assigns very vaguely to the influence of "a nameless crowd of obscure
writers," and thinks it fortunate that Shakspere was unacquainted with
classical rules. The critic had evidently made no attempt to define the
influence of particular writers upon Shakspere. His criticism is at some
points purely conventional, as for instance when he calls the poet "that
powerful magician, whose art could fascinate us even by means of
deformity itself "; but on the whole Scott seems to write about
Shakspere in a very reasonable and discriminating way.

He has a good deal to say of Ben Jonson, in other places as well as in
this Essay on the Drama.[145] He was evidently well acquainted with that
poet, and admired him without liking him. Somewhere he calls him "the
dry and dogged Jonson,"[146] and again he speaks of his genius in very
high terms. The contrast between Shakspere and Jonson moved him even to
epigram:[147] "In reading Shakespeare we often meet passages so
congenial to our nature and feelings that, beautiful as they are, we can
hardly help wondering they did not occur to ourselves; in studying
Jonson, we have often to marvel how his conceptions could have occurred
to any human being." It was characteristic of Scott to note the fact
that Shakspere wrote rapidly, Jonson slowly, for he was fond of getting
support for his theory that rapid writing is the better.

As early as 1804 Scott referred to _The Changeling_ as "an old play
which contains some passages horribly striking,"[148] and in so doing
voiced, as Mr. Swinburne says, "the first word of modern tribute to the
tragic genius of Thomas Middleton."[149] Scott also praised Massinger
highly, especially for his strength in characterization, and once called
him "the most gentleman-like of all the old English dramatists."[150] He
discussed Beaumont and Fletcher sympathetically, for he knew them well
and frequently quoted from them. He named Shirley, Ford, Webster, and
Dekker in a group, and spoke of the singular profusion of talents
devoted in this period to the writing of plays, an observation which is
made more explicitly later in the _Journal_, when he has just been
reading an old play which, he says, "worthless in the extreme, is, like
many of the plays in the beginning of the seventeenth century, written
to a good tune. The dramatic poets of that time seem to have possessed
as joint-stock a highly poetical and abstract tone of language, so that
the worst of them often remind you of the very best."[151] This
circumstance he accounts for by a reference to the audiences, and this
in turn he seems to ascribe partly to the great number of theaters then
open in London. He dwells so much on the evils of limiting the number of
play-houses to two or three, that we may fairly consider it one of his
hobbies, and it is possible that he had some slight influence toward
increasing that public opposition to the theatrical monopoly which
finally, in 1843, resulted in the nullification of the patents.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18