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

Scott's discussion of Restoration drama is admirably vigorous and clear.
He probably simplified the matter too much at some points, indeed, as
for example in over-estimating the influence exerted upon the stage by
Charles II. and his French tastes, and in tracing the origin of the
French drama to romances. But in general his facts are right and his
deductions fair. Mr. Saintsbury has accused him of depreciating Dryden's
plays, especially the comedies, out of disgust at their indecency; yet
in judging the period as a whole he seems to discriminate sufficiently
between indelicacy and dulness. "The talents of Otway," he says, "in his
scenes of passionate affection rival, at least, and sometimes excel
those of Shakspeare." Again: "The comedies of Congreve contain probably
more wit than was ever before embodied upon the stage; each word was a
jest, and yet so characteristic that the repartee of the servant is
distinguished from that of the master; the jest of the cox-comb from
that of the humorist or fine gentleman of the piece." Lesser writers of
the time are also sympathetically characterized,--Shadwell, for
instance, whom he thought to be commonly underestimated.[152] The heroic
play Scott discussed vivaciously in more than one connection, for, as we
should expect, his sense of humor found its absurdities tempting.[153]
On the rant in the _Conquest of Granada_ he remarked, "Dryden's apology
for these extravagances seems to be that Almanzor is in a passion. But
although talking nonsense is a common effect of passion, it seems hardly
one of those consequences adapted to show forth the character of a hero
in theatrical representation."[154] Scott's opinion of the form of these
plays appears in the following comment: "We doubt if, with his utmost
efforts, [Moliere] could have been absolutely dull, without the
assistance of a pastoral subject and heroic measure."[155] Concerning
the indecency of the literature of the period Scott wrote emphatically.
He was much troubled by the problem of whether to publish Dryden's works
without any cutting, and came near taking Ellis's advice to omit some
portions, but he finally adhered to his original determination: "In
making an edition of a man of genius's works for libraries and
collections ... I must give my author as I find him, and will not tear
out the page, even to get rid of the blot, little as I like it."[156]

The question of the morality of theater-going was one Scott felt obliged
to discuss when he was writing upon the drama. He found its vindication,
characteristically, in a universal human trait,--the impulse toward
mimicry and impersonation,--and in the good results that may be supposed
to attend it. In naming these he lays what seems like undue stress on
the teaching of history by the drama, in language that might quite as
well be applied to historical novels. His argument on the literary side
also is stated in a somewhat too sweeping way:--"Had there been no
drama, Shakespeare would, in all likelihood, have been but the author of
_Venus and Adonis_ and of a few sonnets forgotten among the numerous
works of the Elizabethan age, and Otway had been only the compiler of
fantastic odes."[157] A final plea, in favor of the stage as a
democratic agency--though this of course is not Scott's phrasing--seems
slightly unusual for him, although not essentially out of character.
"The entertainment," he says, "which is the subject of general
enjoyment, is of a nature which tends to soften, if not to level, the
distinction of ranks."[158] In another mood he admitted the greater
likelihood that immoral plays would injure the public character than
that moral plays would elevate it.[159]

It is sufficiently apparent to any student of Scott's work that he was
personally very fond of the drama. Many of the literary references and
allusions which appear in great abundance throughout his writings are
from plays, and show, as we have seen, a wide acquaintance with English
dramatic writers, from Shakspere to such comparatively little-known
playwrights as Suckling and Cowley. In the _Letters of Malachi
Malagrowther on the Currency_, for example, Scott's unusual range of
reading reveals itself even in connection with a subject remote from his
ordinary field, and here as elsewhere he shows himself prone to quote
from the drama.[160] But Scott was interested in plays for what he found
in them of characters and manners, of witty and sententious speech, of
situations and incidents, and only secondarily in the technical aspects
of the drama. Reading his novels we could guess that he would care more
for the concrete elements of a play than for the orderly march of events
through the various stages of a formally proper construction. In this
respect he differs from Coleridge; but indeed the two men may be
contrasted at almost every point. In summing up this part of Scott's
criticism we must remember also that it was chiefly incidental. Perhaps
whatever qualities it exhibits are on this account particularly
characteristic: at any rate his opinions on the drama were the reaction
of an unusually capable mind upon a department of literature in which
his reading was all the more fruitful because it followed the lines of a
natural inclination.

THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

_Dryden_

Scott's preparations for his edition of Dryden--Wide Scope of the
work--Scott's estimation of Dryden--Grounds for putting Dryden above
Chaucer and Spenser--Admirable style of the biography--Comments by
Scott on other seventeenth century writers.

The edition of _Dryden's Complete Works_ deserves further notice,
especially since only eight of the eighteen volumes are occupied with
the plays, and these have less commentary than other parts of the works.
In 1805 Scott wrote to his friend George Ellis, "My critical notes will
not be very numerous but I hope to illustrate the political poems, as
_Absalom and Achitophel_, the _Hind and Panther_, etc., with some
curious annotations. I have already made a complete search among some
hundred pamphlets of that pamphlet-writing age, and with considerable
success, as I have found several which throw light on my author."[161]
He added that another edition of Dryden was proposed, and Ellis wrote in
answer, "With regard to your competitors, I feel perfectly at my ease,
because I am convinced that though you should generously furnish them
with all the materials, they would not know how to use them; _non cuivis
hominum contingit_ to write critical notes that anyone will read."[162]

When Scott's Dryden was reedited and reissued in 1882-93 by Professor
Saintsbury, the new editor said: "It certainly deserves the credit of
being one of the best-edited books on a great scale in English, save in
one particular,--the revision of the text."[163] The elaborate
historical notes are left untouched, as being "in general thoroughly
trustworthy,"[164] though the editor considers them somewhat excessive,
especially as sometimes containing illustrative material from perfectly
worthless contemporaries. On the other hand, the "explanation of word
and phrase is a little defective."[165]

The most notable quality of the _Life of Dryden_ which composes the
first of the eighteen volumes is its breadth of scope. Scott's aim may
best be given in his own words in the Advertisement: "The general
critical view of Dryden's works being sketched by Johnson with
unequalled felicity, and the incidents of his life accurately discussed
and ascertained by Malone, something seemed to remain for him who should
consider these literary productions in their succession, as actuated by,
and operating upon, the taste of an age where they had so predominant
influence; and who might, at the same time, connect the life of Dryden
with the history of his publications, without losing sight of the fate
and character of the individual."[166]

Errors of judgment appear in places; sometimes they are due to the
imperfect scholarship of the time; sometimes they arise from prejudices
of Scott's own. In the very first chapter we find him condemning Lyly
and all writers of "conceited" language--particularly of course the
Metaphysicals--with a thoroughness that a truly catholic critic ought
probably to avoid. Scott had a constitutional dislike for a labored
style, and at the same time a fondness for the direct and
straightforward way of looking at things. So, though he was open to the
emotional appeal of a poem like _Christabel_, he took no pleasure in the
devious processes by which the cold intellect has sometimes tried to
give fresh interest to familiar words and ideas. They quite prevented
him from seeing the passion in the work of Donne, for example, and he
considered all metaphysical poets, in so far as they showed the traits
of their class, to be without poetical feeling.

Scott placed Dryden after Shakspere and Milton as third in the list of
English writers. I think he would even have been willing to say that
Dryden was the third as a poet. For greatly as he admired Chaucer, Scott
did not feel Chaucer's full power, and indeed it was only beginning to
be possible to read Chaucer with any appreciation of his metrical
excellence. Spenser, of whom he once wrote: "No author, perhaps, ever
possessed and combined in so brilliant a degree the requisite qualities
of a poet,"[167] was more of a favorite with Scott than Chaucer. But at
another time he spoke of Drayton as possessing perhaps equal powers of
poetry,[168] and he seems to have felt that Spenser becomes tedious
through the continued use of his difficult stanza and even more because
of the "languor of a continued allegory."[169] In comparing his
judgments on Spenser and Dryden we may conclude that the critic found
more in the later poet of that solid intellectual basis which he
emphasizes in characterizing him. "This power of ratiocination," says
Scott, "of investigating, discovering, and appreciating that which is
really excellent, if accompanied with the necessary command of fanciful
illustration and elegant expression, is the most interesting quality
which can be possessed by a poet."[170] Again he lays emphasis on
Dryden's versatility,--greater, he says, than that of Shakspere and
Milton. In _Old Mortality_ Dryden is referred to as "the great
High-priest of all the Nine." Scott would have called this another point
of his superiority over Spenser, if he had made the comparison.

Yet he saw Dryden's deficiencies. "It was a consequence of his mental
acuteness that his dramatic personages often philosophized and reasoned
when they ought only to have felt,"[171] Scott remarks and he frequently
deplores Dryden's failure "in expressing the milder and more tender
passions."[172] Of Dryden's great gift of style, Scott speaks in the
highest terms. "With this power," he says, "Dryden's poetry was gifted
in a degree surpassing in modulated harmony that of all who had preceded
him and inferior to none that has since written English verse [_sic_].
He first showed"--and here we see Scott's eighteenth-century
affinities--"that the English language was capable of uniting smoothness
and strength."[173]

Such criticism as Scott gives on specific parts of Dryden's work is
clear-cut, fair for the most part, and has the sanity and reasonableness
which are the most noticeable qualities of his criticism in general. It
would be easier to find illustrations of shrewdness than of subtlety
among his notes, but his discriminations are often effective and
satisfying. His discussion, for example, of prologues and epilogues
considered in relation to the theatrical conditions which determined
their character is admirable.[174] A note on "the cant of supposing that
the _Iliad_ contained an obvious and intentional moral"[175] is also
full of sense and vigor, but these qualities are so thoroughly diffused
through the work that there is no need of particularizing. His praise of
_Alexander's Feast_ may be referred to, however, as showing his
characteristic delight in objective poetry.[176] As a lyric poet, he
says, Dryden "must be allowed to have no equal."[177]

The peculiarly congenial qualities of the subject may have had something
to do with the fact that the style in which the _Life of Dryden_ is
written is noticeably better than that of Scott's ordinary work. It is
marked with a care and accuracy that were not, unfortunately, habitual
to him. Perhaps it was an advantage that when he wrote the book he had
not yet become altogether familiar with his own facility; certainly the
substance and the manner of treatment unite in making this the most
important of his critical biographies.

Various references indicate that Scott was acquainted in at least a
general way with English writers throughout the whole of Dryden's
century. He speaks of the poems of Phineas Fletcher as containing "many
passages fully equal to Spenser"[178]; he says that Cowley "is now ...
undeservedly forgotten"[179]; he calls _Hudibras_ "the most witty poem
that ever was written,"[180] but says, "the perpetual scintillation of
Butler's wit is too dazzling to be delightful"[181]; he talks of Waller
and quotes from him[182]; he refers to the charming quality of Isaac
Walton's work;[183] and he adopts Samuel Pepys as a familiar
acquaintance.[184] These references occur mostly in the _Dryden_ or in
the novels, and we may conclude that the work for the _Dryden_ gathered
up and strengthened all Scott's acquaintance with the literature of the
seventeenth century, from Shakspere and Milton down to writers of
altogether minor importance; and gave him material for many of the
allusions that appear in his later work. It is probably true that there
are more quotations from Dryden in Scott's books than from any other one
author,[185] though lines from Shakspere occurred more often in his
conversation and familiar letters.

THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

_Swift_

The preparation of _Swift's Complete Works_--Comparison of the
_Dryden_ and the _Swift_--The bibliographical problem presented by
Swift's works--Inaccuracies in the biography--Scott's success in
portraying a perplexing temperament--Judicious quality of his
literary criticism.

As soon as the _Dryden_ was completed Scott was offered twice as much
money as he had received for that work, for a similar edition of
Swift.[186] He readily undertook the task, and in the midst of many
other editorial engagements set to work upon it. The preparation of the
book extended over the six years during which Scott ran the greater part
of his poetical career. On its appearance one of his friends expressed
the feeling which every student of Scott must have had in regard to the
large editorial labors that he undertook, in saying, "I am delighted and
surprised; for how a person of your turn could wade through, and so
accurately analyze what you have done (namely, all the dull things
calculated to illustrate your author), seems almost impossible, and a
prodigy in the history of the human mind."[187] The work was first
published in 1814. Ten years later it was revised and reissued; and
Scott's _Swift_ has, like his _Dryden_, been the standard edition of
that author ever since.

In each case Scott had to deal with an important and varied body of
literature in the two fields of poetry and prose, though the proportions
were different; and in each case he had occasion for illustrative
historical annotations of the kind that he wrote with unrivalled
facility. He was master of the political intrigues of Queen Anne's reign
no less completely than of the circumstances which gave rise to _Absalom
and Achitophel_, and the fact that his notes are less voluminous in the
_Swift_ is probably to be accounted for by the comparative absence of
quaintness in the literary and social fashions of the eighteenth
century.

The peculiar conditions under which Swift's writings had appeared, and
his remarkable indifference to literary fame, gave the editor
opportunity to look for material which had not before been included in
his works. The diligent search of Scott and his various correspondents
enabled him to add about thirty poems, between sixty and seventy letters
from Swift, and about sixteen other small pieces. The most noteworthy
item among these additions was the correspondence between Swift and Miss
Vanhomrigh, of which only a very small part had previously been made
public.[188]

Scott's notes seem to indicate that most of the necessary searching
through newspapers and obscure pamphlets for forgotten work of Swift was
performed by "obliging correspondents," and that the editor himself had
only to pass judgment on what was brought to his attention. This
impression may arise largely from his cordiality in expressing
indebtedness to his helpers, but it is certain that his position as a
popular poet gave Scott the assistance of many people who would not have
been enlisted in the work by an ordinary editor. But Scott had the
difficult task of deciding whether the unauthenticated pieces were to be
assigned to Swift. The bibliography of Swift is still so uncertain that
it is impossible to say how many of the small pamphlets in verse and
prose added in this edition are really his work.[189] Scott had good
reason for his additions in most cases, though sometimes, as he was
aware, the Dean had merely revised the work of other people. The editor
was occasionally over-credulous in attributing pieces to Swift, but he
was perhaps oftener too generous in giving room to things which he knew
had very little claim to be considered Swift's work. When he was in
doubt he chose to err on the safe side, according to the principles set
forth in the following note on the _Letter from Dr. Tripe to Nestor
Ironside_: "The piece contains a satirical description of Steele's
person, and should the editor be mistaken in conjecturing that Swift
contributed to compose it, may nevertheless, at this distance of time,
merit preservation as a literary curiosity."[190] The ample space
afforded by the nineteen volumes of the book gives room to Arbuthnot's
_History of John Bull_--because it was "usually published in Swift's
works,"--to the verses addressed to the Dean and those written in memory
of him, as well as to the prose and verse miscellanies of Pope and
Swift, and the miscellanies and _jeux d'esprit_ of Swift and Sheridan.
Swift's correspondence fills the last four and a half volumes.

The biography, which occupies the first volume, is admirable in tone,
but the facts Scott gives are less to be relied upon than the inferences
and conclusions he derives from them. He corresponded with persons who
were in a position to know about Swift from his friends and
acquaintances, and probably he trusted too much to these "original
sources." We find, as perhaps the most noteworthy instance, that the
marriage to Stella is stated as an ascertained fact, on authority that
is not now considered convincing. Later biographers of Swift,--Sir Henry
Craik, Leslie Stephen, Mr. Churton Collins,--have borne witness to the
human interest of Scott's biography, and its preeminence, in spite of
inaccuracies, among all the Lives of Swift that have been written. But
Mr. Churton Collins thinks Scott did not present a really clear view of
Swift's mysterious character, and Craik says he took only the
conventional attitude towards Swift's politics, misanthropy, and
religion. The charge indicates Scott's weakness, and perhaps also much
of his strength, as a biographer and critic, for he had no prejudice
against the conventional as such, and was never anxious to exhibit
special "insight" of any kind. Yet I think his portrayal of Swift has
seemed to most readers a clear presentation of a real and comprehensible
character.[191]

Scott's remark when he undertook the work, that Swift was of his early
favorites,[192] seems surprising when one remembers how his genial
nature recoiled from misanthropy and cynicism; but his treatment of the
Dean was so sympathetic that Jeffrey thought him decidedly too lenient,
and was moved to express righteous indignation in the pages of the
_Edinburgh Review_.[193] The rebuke was unnecessary, for Scott did not
omit to record Swift's failings and to express wholesomely vigorous
opinions concerning them, though he felt that they ought to be looked
upon as evidences of disease rather than of guilt. He felt also, with
perhaps some excess of charity but surely not such as could be in the
least harmful, that "if the Dean's principles were misanthropical, his
practice was benevolent. Few have written so much with so little view
either to fame or to profit, or to aught but benefit to the
public."[194] Jeffrey's condemnation of Scott's point of view was
mingled with just praise. He said of the biography: "It is quite fair
and moderate in politics; and perhaps rather too indulgent and tender
towards individuals of all descriptions,--more full, at least, of
kindness and veneration for genius and social virtue, than of
indignation at baseness and profligacy. Altogether it is not much like
the production of a mere man of letters, or a fastidious speculator in
sentiment and morality; but exhibits throughout, and in a very pleasing
form, the good sense and large toleration of a man of the world."

The very practical motives that inspired most of Swift's pamphlets would
naturally attract Scott. Probably it was the remembrance of the
_Drapier's Letters_ that suggested to him a similar form of protest
against proposed changes in the Scottish currency; certainly the
_Letters of Malachi Malagrowther_ had an effect comparable to that of
Swift's more consummately ingenious appeal. Another quality in Swift's
work that would naturally arouse Scott's admiration was the remarkable
directness and lucidity of the style. Scott appreciated the originality
force of Swift, even when it was used in the service of satire.
Sometimes, he says, "the intensity of his satire gives to his poetry a
character of emphatic violence which borders upon grandeur."[195] The
editor's discussion of _Gulliver's Travels_ an acute and illuminating
little essay, contains one comment that gives an amusing revelation of
his point of view. He says in regard to the fourth part of the story:
"It is some consolation to remark that the fiction on which this libel
on human nature rests is in every respect gross and improbable, and, far
from being entitled to the praise due to the management of the first two
parts, is inferior in plan even to the third."[196] This is a sound
verdict, even if it does contain an extra-literary element. Scott
surpassed most of his contemporaries, except the younger Romantic
writers, in his ability to eliminate irrelevant considerations in
estimating any literary work; and if occasionally his strong moral
feeling appears in his criticism, it serves to remind us how much less
often this happens than a knowledge of his temperament would lead us to
expect. In spite of the qualities in his subject that might naturally
bias Scott's judgment, his criticism throughout this edition of Swift
seems on the whole very judicious. It defines the literary importance
and brings out plainly the power of a man whose work presents unusual
perplexities to the critic.

_The Somers Tracts_

Character of the collection and of Scott's work on it--Occasional
carelessness--Purpose of the notes--Scott's attitude towards these
studies.

While Scott was working on his _Dryden_ and before he began the _Swift_
he undertook to edit the great collection which had been published fifty
years before as _Somers' Tracts_. His task was to arrange, revise, and
annotate pamphlets which represented every reign from Elizabeth to
George I. He grouped them chronologically by reigns, and separated them
further into sections under the headings,--Ecclesiastical, Historical,
Civil, Military, Miscellaneous; he also added eighty-one pamphlets, all
written before the time of James II. The largest number of additions in
any one section was historical and had reference to Stafford. Among the
miscellaneous tracts that he incorporated were Derrick's _Image of
Ireland_ from a copy in the Advocates' Library, and Gosson's _School of
Abuse_. Scott's statement in the Advertisement as to why he did not omit
any of the original collection shows his unpedantic attitude toward the
kind of studies which he was encouraging by the republication of this
series. He says: "When the variety of literary pursuits, and the
fluctuation of fashionable study is considered, it may seem rash to pass
a hasty sentence of exclusion, even upon the dullest and most despised
of the essays which this ample collection offers to the public. There
may be among the learned, even now, individuals to whom the rabbinical
lore of Hugh Broughton presents more charms than the verses of Homer;
and a future day may arise when tracts on chronology will bear as high a
value among antiquaries as 'Greene's Groats' Worth of Wit,' or 'George
Peele's Jests,' the present respectable objects of research and
reverence."

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