DR

CHAPTER III

BEN JONSON

RUMMOND informs us in the Conversations that Jonson "hath commented and translated Horace's Art of Poesy: it is in dialogue ways;" (III. 487). The translation has come down to us, but the commentary was destroyed by the fire in which a considerable number of his works perished. As to the nature of the commentary we have two bits of evidence. One is Drummond's statement above that it was in the form of a dialogue; the other is Jonson's own meager description in his Execration upon Vulcan:

But, in my desk, what was there to accite
So ravenous and vast an appetite?

I dare not say a body, but some parts
There were of search, and mastery in the arts.
All the old Venusine, in poetry,

And lighted by the Stagirite, could

Was there made English.

spy,

1 All the references to Jonson's works are to the three volume Gifford-Cunningham edition.

Gifford takes it for granted that "lighted by the Stagirite" means "illustrated with notes from Aristotle's Poetics." This meaning is not quite so evident. A more plausible interpretation, it seems to me, would render the lines: "all which Horace, guided by Aristotle, could spy in poetry." But even if my interpretation is adopted, Gifford's assertion that the commentary dealt largely with Aristotle, cannot be denied; for if he mentions the influence of Aristotle when he chooses to make only one comment, he surely must have dilated on this point in a treatise on the subject.

In any event we must regret the loss of this dialogue. Had it come down to us we should now be in possession of one systematic treatment of the poetic art by a prominent Elizabethan playwright; and a consideration of Jonson as a theorist would have been a much simpler matter.

The facts being what they are, however, we must be resigned to the will of fate and content ourselves with the material he has bequeathed us. This material is indeed more substantial than afforded by any other dramatist of the age, and in one important respect is

more satisfactory, in that it includes a substitute for the lost commentary. I refer of course to the Timber, or Discoveries. The substitute is not all we should like to have it, but it possesses the merit of being extra-dramatic, and therefore purely critical.

The work is now passing through a crisis. It has only recently been revealed (what indeed had been proclaimed on the title-page of the first edition),' that it contains transcripts from Roman and Renascence authors.

We are ac

Prof, Wm. Dinsmore Briggs, in his article on the Sources of Jonson's Discoveries (Mod. Lang. Notes, XXIII. 46) says: "One thing at least is certain: we ought to know how much of Jonson is contained in the Discoveries, how much of other men. customed to utilize them in the other work, in the discussion of his critical theories and of his view of life. Can we do so safely without some definite notion as to how far they really represent his critical theories and his view of life?"

1

study of his

1 This reads: Timber; or, Discoveries; Made upon Men and Matter; as they have flow'd out of his daily Readings; or had their reflux to his peculiar Notion of the Times. By Ben Jonson. Tecum habita, ut noris quam sit tibi curta supellex.

In Mr. Percy Simpson's article in the Modern Language Review (II. 202), we may find an appropriate comment: "I doubt if they contain a single original remark." Even if this surmise is correct there is not sufficient ground for the anxiety expressed by Professor Briggs. It must be granted that a man will take the trouble to translate and copy into his note-book only such things as he is interested in, either sympathetically or the reverse. Now if the Discoveries contained views which were contradictory, it would be a question which side was favored by Jonson. This, it seems to me, is not the case. All the notes, I believe, tend in the same direction. At any rate, so far as the present study is concerned, there is no occasion for solicitude. The notes relating to our topic bespeak his own views. There can be no doubt about that, for they agree with what he has to say in his original writings.

Yet in one respect this assiduous appropriation by Jonson of other men's thoughts is highly significant. It brings out the chief difference between him and Shakspere, considered as theorists. Shakspere was creative, Jonson was assimilative. The second differ

ence between them lay in the temper of their minds-Shakspere was romantic, Jonson classic. And right here we must disabuse ourselves of the notion that classicism with Jonson meant the propriety of obeying learned laws in artistic production. His writing was classic as opposed to that of Shakspere because his own spirit was such-not because he was dominated by a respect for antiquity. His denial of authority was perhaps as arrogant as Shakspere's, as we shall see presently. Indeed the main impression that one carries away from a study of his opinions is the spirit of independence that prevails in them.

INFLUENCE OF BACON.

It was observed that Jonson's genius was assimilative. It needed suggestion. If one reads his reflective utterances, bearing in mind the work of Francis Bacon, one is strongly tempted to infer that the attitude of uncompromising self-reliance which prevails in the writing of the dramatist was largely the result of contact with the great founder of empiricism. The evidence extant points to an intimate association between the two men. One cannot help picturing them as constant com