  Induction. Scrivener's speech:— “If there be never a servant-monster in the Fair, who can help it he says, nor a nest of antiques?” The best excuse that can be made for Jonson, and in a somewhat less degree for Beaumont and Fletcher, in respect of these base and silly sneers at Shakespeare is, that his plays were present to men's minds chiefly as acted. They had not a neat edition of them, as we have, so as, by comparing the one with the other, to form a just notion of the mighty mind that produced the whole. At all events, and in every point of view, Jonson stands far higher in a moral light than Beaumont and Fletcher. He was a fair contemporary, and in his way, and as far as Shakespeare is concerned, an original. But Beaumont and Fletcher were always imitators of, and often borrowers from him, and yet sneer at him with a spite far more malignant than Jonson, who, besides, has made noble compensation by his praises. Act ii. sc. 3.— “Just. I mean a child of the horn-thumb, a babe of booty, boy, a cut purse.” Does not this confirm, what the passage itself cannot but suggest, the propriety of substituting “booty” for “beauty” in Falstaff's speech, Henry IV. part i. act i. sc. 2. “Let not us, &c.?” [pg 278]It is not often that old Ben condescends to imitate a modern author; but Master Dan. Knockhum Jordan, and his vapours are manifest reflexes of Nym and Pistol. Ib. sc. 5.— “Quarl. She'll make excellent geer for the coachmakers here in Smithfield, to anoint wheels and axletrees with.” Good! but yet it falls short of the speech of a Mr. Johnes, M.P., in the Common Council, on the invasion intended by Buonaparte:—“Houses plundered—then burnt;—sons conscribed—wives and daughters ravished,” &c., &c.—“But as for you, you luxurious Aldermen! with your fat will he grease the wheels of his triumphant chariot!” Ib. sc. 6.— “Cok. Avoid in your satin doublet, Numps.” This reminds me of Shakespeare's “Aroint thee, witch!” I find in several books of that age the words aloigne and eloigne—that is,—“keep your distance!” or “off with you!” Perhaps “aroint” was a corruption of “aloigne” by the vulgar. The common etymology from ronger to gnaw seems unsatisfactory. Act iii. sc. 4.— “Quarl. How now, Numps! almost tired in your protectorship? overparted, overparted?” An odd sort of propheticality in this Numps and old Noll! Ib. sc. 6. Knockhum's speech:— “He eats with his eyes, as well as his teeth.” A good motto for the Parson in Hogarth's Election Dinner,—who shows how easily he might be reconciled to the Church of Rome, for he worships what he eats. [pg 279]Act v. sc. 5.— “Pup. Di. It is not profane. Lan. It is not profane, he says. Boy. It is profane. Pup. It is not profane. Boy. It is profane. Pup. It is not profane. Lan. Well said, confute him with Not, still.” An imitation of the quarrel between Bacchus and the Frogs in Aristophanes:— “?????. ???? ?? ?e??a??es?? ?', ?p?s?? ? f????? ?? ??? ?a?d??? d?' ???a?, ?e?e?e???, ????, ????. ?????s??. t??t? ??? ?? ????sete. ?????. ??d? ?? ??? s? t??t??. ?????s??. ??d? ?? ?e?? ?e d? ' ??d?p?te.” |
|
