Source text:
Swinburne,
Algernon.
The Age of Shakespeare.
The
Complete Works of Algernon
Charles
Swinburne. Ed. Sir
Edmund Gosse, C.B. and Thomas
James Wise. vol. 11 (Prose
Works vol. 1). London: Heinemann, 1926. 267-480.
The Age of Shakespeare
[353]
JOHN MARSTON
If justice has never been done, either in his own
day or in any after age, to a poet of real genius and
original powers, it will generally be presumed, with
more or less fairness or unfairness, that this is in great
part his own fault. Some perversity or obliquity
will be suspected, even if no positive infirmity or
deformity can be detected, in his intelligence or in
his temperament: some taint or some flaw will be
assumed to affect and to vitiate his creative instinct
or his spiritual reason. And in the case of John
Marston, the friend and foe of Ben Jonson, the fierce
and foul-mouthed satirist, the ambitious and overweening
tragedian, the scornful and passionate humourist,
it is easy for the shallowest and least appreciative
reader to perceive the nature and to estimate the
weight of such drawbacks or impediments as have
so long and so seriously interfered with the due
recognition of an independent and remarkable poet.
The praise and the blame, the admiration and the
distaste excited by his works, are equally just, but
are seemingly incompatible: the epithets most exactly
appropriate to the style of one scene, one page,
one speech in a scene or one passage in a speech, are
most ludicrously inapplicable to the next. An anthology
of such noble and beautiful excerpts might
be collected from his plays, that the reader who
should make his first acquaintance with this poet
through the deceptive means of so flattering an
introduction would be justified in supposing that he
354
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
had fallen in with a tragic dramatist of the very
highest order—with a new candidate for a station
in the very foremost rank of English poets. And
if the evil star which seems generally to have presided
over the literary fortunes of John Marston should
misguide the student, on first opening a volume of
his works, into some such arid or miry tract of wilderness
as too frequently deforms the face of his uneven
and irregular demesne, the inevitable sense of disappointment
and repulsion which must immediately
ensue will too probably discourage a casual explorer
from any renewal of his research.
Two of the epithets which Ben Jonson, in his
elaborate attack on Marston, selected for ridicule as
characteristically grotesque instances of affected and
infelicitous innovation—but which nevertheless have
taken root in the language, and practically justified
their adoption—describe as happily as any that could
be chosen to describe the better and the worse quality
of his early tragic and satiric style. These words
are 'strenuous' and 'clumsy.' It is perpetually,
indefatigably, and fatiguingly strenuous; it is too often
vehemently, emphatically, and laboriously clumsy.
But at its best, when the clumsy and ponderous
incompetence of expression which disfigures it is
supplanted by a strenuous felicity of ardent and
triumphant aspiration, it has notes and touches in
the compass of its course not unworthy of Webster
or Tourneur or even Shakespeare himself. Its occasionally
exquisite delicacy is as remarkable as its more
frequent excess of coarseness, awkwardness, or violent
and elaborate extravagance. No sooner has he said
anything especially beautiful, pathetic, or sublime,
than the evil genius must needs take his turn, exact
as it were the forfeit of his bond, impel the poet into
355
JOHN MARSTON
some sheer perversity, deface the flow and form of
the verse with some preposterous crudity or flatulence
of phrase which would discredit the most incapable or
the most fantastic novice. And the worst of it all is
that he limps or stumbles with either foot alternately.
At one moment he exaggerates the license of artificial
rhetoric, the strain and swell of the most high-flown and
hyperbolical poetic diction; at the next, he falls flat
upon the naked level of insignificant or offensive realism.
These are no slight charges; and it is impossible
for any just or sober judgment to acquit John Marston
of the impeachment conveyed in them. The answer
to it is practical and simple: it is that his merits are
great enough to outweigh and overshadow them all.
Even if his claim to remembrance were merely dependent
on the value of single passages, this would suffice
to secure him his place of honour in the train of Shakespeare.
If his most ambitious efforts at portraiture
of character are often faulty at once in colour and
in outline, some of his slighter sketches have a freshness
and tenderness of beauty which may well atone
for the gravest of his certainly not infrequent offences.
The sweet constancy and gentle fortitude of a Beatrice
and a Mellida remain in the memory more clearly,
leave a more lifelike impression of truth on the reader's
mind, than the light-headed profligacy and passionate
instability of such brainless and bloodthirsty wantons
as Franceschina and Isabella. In fact, the better
characters in Marston's plays are better drawn, less
conventional, more vivid and more human than those
of the baser sort. Whatever of moral credit may be
due to a dramatist who paints virtue better than vice,
and has a happier hand at a hero's likeness than at a
villain's, must unquestionably be assigned to the
author of
Antonio and Mellida. Piero, the tyrant
356
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
and traitor, is little more than a mere stage property
like Mendoza in
The Malcontent and
Syphax in Sophonisba, he would be a portentous ruffian if he
had a little more life in him; he has to do the deeds
and express the emotions of a most bloody and crafty
miscreant; but it is only now and then that we
catch the accent of a real man in his tones of cajolery
or menace, dissimulation or triumph. Andrugio, the
venerable and heroic victim of his craft and cruelty,
is a figure not less living and actual than stately and
impressive: the changes of mood from meditation
to passion, from resignation to revolt, from tenderness
to resolution, which mark the development of the
character with the process of the action, though
painted rather broadly than subtly, and with more
of vigour than of care, show just such power of hand
and sincerity of instinct as we fail to find in the hot
and glaring colours of his rival's monotonous ruffianism.
Again, in
The Wonder of Women, the majestic
figures of Massinissa, Gelosso, and Sophonisba stand
out in clearer relief than the traitors of the senate,
the lecherous malignity of Syphax, or the monstrous
profile of the sorceress Erichtho. In this laboured
and ambitious tragedy, as in the two parts of Antonio
and Mellida, we see the poet at his best-and also
at his worst. A vehement and resolute desire to
give weight to every line and emphasis to every
phrase has too often misled him into such brakes
and jungles of crabbed and convulsive bombast,
of stiff and tortuous exuberance, that the reader
in struggling through some of the scenes and speeches
feels as though he were compelled to push his way
through a cactus hedge: the hot and heavy blossoms
of rhetoric blaze and glare out of a thickset fence of
jagged barbarisms and exotic monstrosities of metaphor.
357
JOHN MARSTON
The straining and sputtering declamation of narrative
and oratory scarcely succeeds in expressing through a
dozen quaint and far-fetched words or phrases what
two or three of the simplest would easily and amply
have sufficed to convey. But when the poet is content
to deliver his message like a man of this world,
we discover with mingled satisfaction, astonishment,
and irritation that he can write when he pleases in a
style of the purest and noblest simplicity; that he
can make his characters converse in a language worthy
of Sophocles when he does not prefer to make them
stutter in a dialect worthy of Lycophron. And in
the tragedy of
Sophonisba the display of this happy
capacity is happily reserved for the crowning scene
of the poem. It would be difficult to find anywhere
a more preposterous or disjointed piece of jargon
than the speech of Asdrubal at the close of the second
act:
Brook open scorn, faint powers!— | |
Make good the camp!—No, fly!—yes, what?—wild rage!— | |
To be a prosperous villain! yet some heat, some hold; | |
But to burn temples, and yet freeze, O cold! | |
Give me some health; now your blood sinks: thus deeds | |
Ill nourished rot: without Jove nought succeeds. | |
And yet this passage occurs in a poem which
contains such a passage as the following:
And now with undismayed resolve behold, | |
To save you—you—for honour and just faith | |
Are most true gods, which we should much adore— | |
With even disdainful vigour I give up | |
An abhorred life!—You have been good to me, | |
And I do thank thee, heaven. O my stars, | |
I bless your goodness, that with breast unstained, | |
Faith pure, a virgin wife, tried to my glory, | |
I die, of female faith the long-lived story; | |
Secure from bondage and all servile harms, | |
But more, most happy in my husband's arms. | |
358
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
The lofty sweetness, the proud pathos, the sonorous
simplicity of these most noble verses might scarcely
suffice to attest the poet's possession of any strong
dramatic faculty. But the scene immediately preceding
bears evidence of a capacity for terse and
rigorous brevity of dialogue in a style as curt and
condensed as that of Tacitus or Dante.
Sophonisba.
What unjust grief afflicts my worthy lord? | |
Massinissa.
Thank me, ye gods, with much beholdingness; | |
For, mark, I do not curse you. | |
Sophonisba.
The cause of thy much anguish. | |
Massinissa.
Let's see; wreathe back thine arms, bend down thy neck, | |
Practise base prayers, make fit thyself for bondage. | |
Sophonisba.
Massinissa.
Sophonisba.
Massinissa.
How then have I vowed well to Scipio? | |
Sophonisba.
Massinissa.
Run mad? impossible distraction!2
| |
Sophonisba.
Dear lord, thy patience; let it maze all power, | |
And list to her in whose sole heart it rests | |
To keep thy faith upright. | |
Massinissa.
Sophonisba.
359
JOHN MARSTON
Massinissa.
How then keep I my faith? | |
Sophonisba.
Gives help to all. From Rome so rest we free: | |
So brought to Scipio, faith is kept in thee. | |
Massinissa.
Thou darest not die!—Some wine.—Thou darest | |
Sophonisba.
How near was I unto the curse of man, Joy! | |
How like was I yet once to have been glad! | |
He that ne'er laughed may with a constant face | |
Contemn Jove's frown. Happiness makes us base. | |
The man or the boy does not seem to me enviable
who can read or remember these verses without a
thrill. In sheer force of concision they recall the
manner of Alfieri; but that noble tragic writer could
hardly have put such fervour of austere passion into
the rigid utterance, or touched the note of emotion
with such a glowing depth of rapture. That ' bitter
and severe delight '—if I may borrow the superb
phrase of Landor—which inspires and sustains the
imperial pride of self-immolation might have found
in his dramatic dialect an expression as terse and as
sincere: it could hardly have clothed itself with such
majestic and radiant solemnity of living and breathing
verse. The rapid elliptic method of amœbæan dialogue
is more in his manner than in any English
poet's known to me except the writer of this scene;
but indeed Marston is in more points than one the
most Italian of our dramatists. His highest tone of
serious poetry has in it, like Alfieri's, a note of self-
conscious stoicism and somewhat arrogant self-control;
while as a comic writer he is but too apt, like too
many transalpine wits, to mistake filth for fun, and
to measure the neatness of a joke by its nastiness.
Dirt for dirt's sake has never been the apparent
aim of any great English humourist who had not
360
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
about him some unmistakable touch of disease—
some inheritance of evil or of suffering like the
congenital brain-sickness of Swift or the morbid
infirmity of Sterne. A poet of so high an order
as the author of
Sophonisba could hardly fail to be
in general a healthier writer than such as these; but
it cannot be denied that he seems to have been somewhat
inclined to accept the illogical inference which
would argue that because some wit is dirty all dirt
must be witty—because humour may sometimes be
indecent, indecency must always be humorous.' The
clartier the cosier' was an old proverb among the
northern peasantry while yet recalcitrant against the
inroads of sanitary reform: 'the dirtier the droller'
would seem to have been practically the no less
irrational motto of many not otherwise unadmirable
comic writers. It does happen that the drollest
character in all Marston's plays is also the most
offensive in his language—'the foulest-mouthed profane
railing brother'; but the drollest passages in
the whole part are those that least want washing.
How far the example of Ben Jonson may have influenced
or encouraged Marston in the indulgence
of this unlovely propensity can only be conjectured;
it is certain that no third writer of the time, however
given to levity of speech or audacity in the selection
of a subject, was so prone-in Shakespeare's phrase—to
'talk greasily ' as the authors of
Bartholomew Fair
and
The Dutch Courtesan.
In the two parts of his earlier tragedy the interest
is perhaps, on the whole, rather better sustained than
in
The Wonder of Women. The prologue to
Antonio's
Revenge (the second part of the
Historie of Antonio
and Mellida) has enjoyed the double correlative
honour of ardent appreciation by Lamb and responsive
361
JOHN MARSTON
depreciation by Gifford. Its eccentricities
and perversities of phrase
1 may be no less noticeable,
but should assuredly be accounted less memorable,
than its profound and impassioned fervour of grave
and eloquent harmony. Strange, wayward and savage
as is the all but impossible story, rude and crude
and crabbed as is the pedantically exuberant language
of these plays, there are touches in them of such
terrible beauty and such terrible pathos as to convince
any competent reader that they deserve the
tribute of such praise and such dispraise. The youngest
student of Lamb's Specimens can hardly fail to
recognise this when he compares the vivid and piercing
description of the death of Mellida with the fearful
and supernatural impression of the scene which brings
or thrusts before us the immolation of the child
her brother.
The laboured eccentricity of style which signalises
and disfigures the three chief tragedies or tragic
poems of Marston is tempered and subdued to a
soberer tone of taste and a more rational choice of
expression in his less ambitious and less unequal
works. It is almost impossible to imagine any
insertion or addition from the hand of Webster which
would not be at once obvious to any reader in the
text of
Sophonisba or in either part of
Antonio and
Mellida. Their fierce and irregular magnificence,
their feverish and strenuous intemperance of rhetoric,
would have been too glaringly in contrast with the
sublime purity of the greater poet's thought and
style. In the tragicomedy of
The Malcontent, published
two years later than the earlier and two years
earlier than the later of these poems, if the tone of
362
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
feeling is but little changed or softened, the language
is duly clarified and simplified.
The Malcontent,
(augmented) by Marston, with the additions written
by John Webster, is as coherent, as harmonious,
as much of a piece throughout, as was the text of
the play in its earlier state. Not all the conscientious
art and skill of Webster could have given this uniformity
to a work in which the original design and
execution had been less in keeping with the bent
of his own genius and the accent of his natural style.
Sad and stern, not unhopeful or unloving, the spirit
of this poem is more in harmony with that of Webster's
later tragedies than with that of Marston's previous
plays; its accent is sardonic rather than pessimistic,
ironical rather than despondent. The plot is neither
well conceived nor well constructed; the catastrophe
is little less than absurd, especially from the ethical
or moral point of view; the characters are thinly
sketched, the situations at once forced and conventional;
there are few sorrier or stranger figures in
serious fiction than that of the penitent usurper when
he takes to his arms his repentant wife, together
with one of her two paramours, in a sudden rapture
of forgiving affection; the part which gives the
play its name is the only one drawn with any firmness
of outline, unless we except that of the malignant
and distempered old parasite; but there is a certain
interest in the awkward evolution of the story, and
there are scenes and passages of singular power
and beauty which would suffice to redeem the whole
work from condemnation or oblivion, even though
it had not the saving salt in it of an earnest and
evident sincerity. The brooding anger, the resentful
resignation, the impatient spirit of endurance,
the bitter passion of disdain, which animate the
363
JOHN MARSTON
utterance and direct the action of the hero, are something
more than dramatically appropriate; it is as
obvious that these are the mainsprings of the poet's
own ambitious and dissatisfied intelligence, sullen in
its reluctant submission and ardent in its implacable
appeal, as that his earlier undramatic satires were
the tumultuous and turbid ebullitions of a mood as
morbid, as restless, and as honest. Coarse, rough,
and fierce as those satires are, inferior alike to Hall's
in finish of verse and to Donne's in weight of matter,
it seems to me that Dr. Grosart, their first careful
and critical editor, is right in claiming for them equal
if not superior credit on the score of earnestness.
The crude ferocity of their invective has about it a
savour of honesty which atones for many defects
of literary taste and executive art; and after a more
thorough study than such rude and unattractive work
seems at first to require or to deserve, the moral and
intellectual impression of the whole will not improbably
be far more favourable than one resulting
from a cursory survey or derived from a casual selection
of excerpts. They bring no manner of support
to a monstrous and preposterous imputation which
has been cast upon their author; the charge of having
been concerned in a miserably malignant and stupid
attempt at satire under the form of a formless and
worthless drama called
Histriomastix;
1 though his
partnership in another anonymous play—a semi-
romantic semi-satirical comedy called
Jack Drum's
Entertainment—is very much more plausibly supportable
by comparison of special phrases as well as of
364
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
general style with sundry mannerisms as well as with
the habitual turn of speech in Marston's acknowledged
comedies. There is a certain incomposite
and indigestive vigour in the language of this play
which makes the attribution of a principal share
in its authorship neither utterly discreditable to
Marston nor absolutely improbable in itself; and
the satire aimed at Ben Jonson, if not especially
relevant to the main action, is at all events less incongruous
and preposterous in its relation to the
rest of the work than the satirical or controversial
part of Dekker's
Satiromastix. But on the whole,
if this play be Marston's, it seems to me the rudest
and the poorest he has left us, except perhaps the
comedy of
What you Will, in which several excellent
and suggestive situations are made less of than they
should have been, and a good deal of promising comic
invention is wasted for want of a little more care and
a little more conscience in cultivation of material
and composition of parts. The satirical references
to Jonson are more pointed and effective in this
comedy than in either of the two plays last mentioned;
but its best claim to remembrance is to be
sought in the admirable soliloquy which relates the
seven years' experience of the student and his spaniel.
Marston is too often heaviest when he would and
should be lightest—owing apparently to a certain
infusion of contempt for light comedy as something
rather beneath him, not wholly worthy of his austere
and ambitious capacity. The parliament of pages
in this play is a diverting interlude of farce, though
a mere irrelevance and impediment to the action;
but the boys are less amusing than their compeers
in the anonymous comedy of
Sir Giles Goosecap,
first published in the year preceding: a work of
365
JOHN MARSTON
genuine humour and invention, excellent in style if
somewhat infirm in construction, for a reprint of
which we are indebted to the previous care of Marston's
present editor. Far be it from me to intrude on
the barren and boggy province of hypothetical interpretation
and controversial commentary; but I
may observe in passing that the original of Simplicius
Faber in
What you Will must surely have been the
same hanger-on or sycophant of Ben Jonson's who
was caricatured by Dekker in his
Satiromastix under
the name of Asinius Bubo. The gross assurance of
self-complacent duncery, the apish arrogance and
imitative dogmatism of reflected self-importance and
authority at second hand, are presented in either
case with such identity of tone and colouring that
we can hardly imagine the satire to have been equally
applicable to two contemporary satellites of the same
imperious and masterful egoist.
That the same noble poet and high-souled humourist
was not responsible for the offence given to Caledonian
majesty in the comedy of
Eastward Ho, the authentic
word of Jonson would be sufficient evidence; but
I am inclined to think it a matter of almost certain
likelihood—if not of almost absolute proof—that
Chapman was as innocent as Jonson of a jest for which
Marston must be held responsible—though scarcely,
I should imagine, blamable at the present day by
the most rabid of Scottish provincialists. In the
last scene of The Malcontent a court lady says to
an infamous old hanger-on of the court— 'And is
not Signor St. Andrew a gallant fellow now? 'to
which the old hag replies— 'Honour and he agree
as well together as a satin suit and woollen stockings.'
The famous passage in the comedy which appeared
a year later must have been far less offensive to the
366
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
most nervous patriotism than this; and the impunity
of so gross an insult, so obviously and obtrusively
offered, to the new knightships and lordships
of King James's venal chivalry and parasitic nobility,
may naturally have encouraged the satirist to repeat
his stroke next year—and must have astounded his
retrospection, when he found himself in prison, and
under threat of worse than imprisonment, together
with his unoffending associates in an admirable and
inoffensive comedy. It is impossible to suppose
that he would not have come forward to assume
the responsibility of his own words—as it is impossible
to imagine that Jonson or Chapman would
have given up his accomplice to save himself. But
the law of the day would probably have held them
all responsible alike.
In the same year as
Eastward Ho appeared the
best and completest piece of work which we owe
to the single hand of Marston. A more brilliant
and amusing play than
The Dutch Courtesan, better
composed, better constructed, and better written, it
would be difficult to discover among the best comic
and romantic works of its incomparable period.
The slippery and sanguinary strumpet who gives
its name to the play is sketched with such admirable
force and freedom of hand as to suggest the existence
of an actual model who may unconsciously have
sat for the part under the scrutiny of eyes as keen
and merciless as ever took notes for a savagely veracious
caricature—or for an unscrupulously moral exposure.
The jargon in which her emotions are expressed is
as Shakespearean in its breadth and persistency as
that of Dr. Caius or Captain Fluellen; but the
reality of those emotions is worthy of a less farcical
vehicle for the expression of such natural craft and
367
JOHN MARSTON
passion. The sisters, Beatrice and Crispinella, seem
at first too evidently imitated from the characters of
Aurelia and Phcenixella in the earliest surviving
comedy of Ben Jonson; but the 'comedy daughter,'
as Dickens (or Skimpole) would have expressed it,
is even more coarsely and roughly drawn than in
the early sketch of the more famous dramatist. On
the other hand, it must be allowed—though it may
not be recognised without a certain sense of surprise
—that the nobler and purer type of womanhood or
girlhood which we owe to the hand of Marston is
far above comparison with any which has been accomplished
or achieved by the studious and vehement
elaboration of Ben Jonson's. The servility of subservience
which that great dramatist exacts from
his typically virtuous women—from the abject and
anaemic wife of a Corvino or a Fitzdottrel—is a
quality which could not coexist with the noble and
loving humility of Marston's Beatrice. The admirable
scene in which she is brought face to face with
the impudent pretensions of the woman who asserts
herself to have been preferred by the betrothed
lover of the expectant bride is as pathetic and impressive
as it is lifelike and original; and even in
the excess of gentleness and modesty which prompts
the words—' I will love you the better; I cannot
hate what he affected '—there is nothing less noble
or less womanly than in the subsequent reply to the
harlot's repeated taunts and inventions of insult.
'He did not ill not to love me, but sure he did not
well to mock me: gentle minds will pity, though
they cannot love; yet peace and my love sleep
with him.' The powerful soliloquy which closes the
scene expresses no more than the natural emotion
of the man who has received so lovely a revelation
368
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
of his future bride's invincible and single-hearted
love:
Cannot that woman's evil, jealousy, | |
Despite disgrace, nay, which is worse, contempt, | |
Coarse as is often the language of Marston's plays
and satires, the man was not coarse-minded—not
gross of spirit nor base of nature—who could paint
so delicately and simply a figure so beautiful in the
tenderness of its purity.
The farcical underplot of this play is worthy of
Molière in his broader mood of farce. Hardly any
Jourdain or Pourceaugnac, any George Dandin or
Comtesse d'Escarbagnas of them all, undergoes a
more grotesque experience or plays a more ludicrous
part than is devised for Mr. and Mrs. Mulligrub
by the ingenuity of the indefatigable Cocledemoy—
a figure worthy to stand beside any of the tribe of
Mascarille as
fourbum imperator. The animation and
variety of inventive humour which keep the reader's
laughing attention awake and amused throughout
these adventurous scenes of incident and intrigue
are not more admirable than the simplicity and clearness
of evolution or composition which recall and
rival the classic masterpieces of Latin and French
comedy. There is perhaps equal fertility of humour,
but there certainly is not equal harmony of structure
in the play which Marston published next year—
Parasitaster, or the Fawn; a name probably suggested
by that of Ben Jonson's
Poetaster, in which the author
had himself been the subject of a greater man's rage
and ridicule. The wealth and the waste of power
displayed and paraded in this comedy are equally
admirable and lamentable; for the brilliant effect
of its various episodes and interludes is not more
369
JOHN MARSTON
obvious than the eclipse of the central interest, the
collapse of the serious design, which results from
the agglomeration of secondary figures and the alternations
of perpetual byplay. Three or four better
plays might have been made out of the materials
here hurled and huddled together into one. The
Isabelle of Molière is not more amusing or more
delightful in her audacity of resource, in her combination
of loyalty with duplicity, innocence with intrigue,
than the daring and single-hearted young heroine
of this play; but the
École des Maris is not encumbered
with such a crowd of minor interests and characters,
of subordinate humours and complications, as the
reader of Marston's comedy finds interposed and
intruded between his attention and the main point
of interest. He would fain see more of Dulcimel
and Tiberio, the ingenious and enterprising princess,
the ingenuous and responsive prince; he is willing
to see as much as is shown him of their fathers, the
masquerading philosopher and the self-complacent
dupe; Granuffo, the patrician prototype of Captain
John Bunsby, may take a seat in the chambers of
his memory beside the commander of the Cautious
Clara; the humours of a jealous foul-minded fool
and a somewhat audaciously virtuous wife may divert
him by the inventive and vigorous exposure of their
various revolutions and results; but the final impression
is one of admiring disappointment and
possibly ungrateful regret that so much energetic
satire and so much valuable time should have been
spent on the somewhat nauseous follies of 'sickly
knights' and 'vicious braggarts' that the really
admirable and attractive parts of the design are
cramped and crowded out of room for the due
development of their just and requisite proportions.
370
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
A more eccentric, uneven, and incomposite piece
of work than
The Insatiate Countess it would be
difficult to find in English or in other literature.
The opening scene is picturesque and impressive;
the closing scene of the serious part is noble and
pathetic; but the intervening action is of a kind which
too often aims at the tragic and hits the burlesque.
The incessant inconstancy of passion which hurries
the fantastic heroine through such a miscellaneous
multitude of improvised intrigues is rather a comic
than a tragic motive for the conduct of a play; and
the farcical rapidity with which the puppets revolve
makes it impossible for the most susceptible credulity
to take any real interest or feel any real belief in the
perpetual rotation of their feverish moods and motives,
their irrational doings and sufferings. The humour
of the underplot constantly verges on horseplay,
and is certainly neither delicate nor profound; but
there is matter enough for mirth in it to make the
reader duly grateful for the patient care and admirable
insight which Mr. Bullen has brought to bear
upon the really formidable if apparently trivial task
of reducing the chaotic corruption and confusion
of the text to reasonable form and comprehensible
order. William Barkstead, a narrative poet of real
merit, and an early minister at the shrine of Shakespeare,
has been credited with the authorship of this
play: I am inclined to agree with the suggestion of
its latest editor—its first editor in any serious sense of
the word—that both he and Marston may have had
a hand in it. His
Myrrha belongs to the same rather
morbid class of poems as Shakespeare's
Venus and
Adonis and Marston's
Pygmalion's Image. Of the
three Shakespeare's is not more certainly the finest
in occasional touches of picturesque poetry than it
371
JOHN MARSTON
is incomparably the most offensive to good taste and
natural instinct on the score of style and treatment.
Marlowe's
Hero and Leander can only be classed with
these elaborate studies of sensual aberration or excess
by those ' who can see no difference between Titian
and French photographs.' (I take leave, for once
in a way, to quote from a private letter—long since
addressed to the present commentator by the most
illustrious of writers on art.)
There are some pretty verses and some ingenious
touches in Marston's
Entertainment, offered to Lady
Derby by her daughter and son-in-law; but the
Latinity of his city pageant can scarcely have satisfied
the pupil of Buchanan, unless indeed the reputation
of King James's tutor as a Latin versifier or master
of prosody has been scandalously usurped under the
falsest of pretences: a matter on which I am content
to accept the verdict of Landor. His contribution
to Sir Robert Chester's problematic volume may
perhaps claim the singular distinction of being more
incomprehensible, more crabbed, more preposterous,
and more inexplicable than any other copy of verses
among the ' divers poetical essays—done by the
best and chiefest of our modern writers, with their
names subscribed to their particular works,' in which
Marston has the honour to stand next to Shakespeare;
and however far he may be from any pretension to
rival the incomparable charm of Shakespeare's opening
quatrain—incomparable in its peculiar melody and
mystery except with other lyrics of Shakespeare's or
of Shelley's—it must, I think, be admitted that an
impartial student of both effusions will assign to
Marston rather than to Shakespeare the palm of
distinction on the score of tortuous obscurity and
enigmatic verbiage. It may be—as it seems to me—
372
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
equally difficult to make sense of the greater and the
lesser poet's riddles and rhapsodies; but on the
whole I cannot think that Shakespeare's will be found
so desperately indigestible by the ordinary intelligence
of manhood as Marston's. 'The turtles fell to
work, and ate each other up,' in a far more comprehensible
and reasonable poem of Hood's; and
most readers of Chester's poem and the verses appended
to it will be inclined to think that it might
have been as well—except for a few lines of Shakespeare's
and of Jonson's which we could not willingly
spare—if the Phoenix and Turtle had set them the
example.
If the apparently apocryphal
Mountebank's Masque
be really the work of Marston—and it is both coarse
enough and clever enough to deserve the attribution
of his authorship—there is a singular echo in it from
the opening of Jonson's
Poetaster, the furious dramatic
satire which blasted for upwards of two centuries
the fame or the credit of the poet to whose hand
this masque has been hitherto assigned. In it, after
a full allowance of rough and ribald jocosity, the
presence of a poet becomes manifest with the entrance
of an allegoric figure whose declamatory address
begins with these words:
Light, I salute thee; I, Obscurity, | |
The son of Darkness and forgetful Lethe; | |
I, that envý thy brightness, greet thee now, | |
Few readers of these lines will forget the verses
with which Envy plays prologue to
Poetaster, or
his Arraignment:
Light, I salute thee, but with wounded nerves, | |
Wishing thy golden splendour pitchy darkness. | |
373
JOHN MARSTON
Whoever may be the author of this masque, there are
two or three couplets well worth remembrance in one
of the two versions of its text:
It is a life is never ill | |
To lie and sleep in roses still. | |
Who would not hear the nightingale still sing, | |
Or who grew ever weary of the spring ? | |
The day must have her night, the spring her fall, | |
All is divided, none is lord of all. | |
These verses are worthy of a place in any one of
Mr. Bullen's beautiful and delightful volumes of
lyrics from Elizabethan song-books; and higher
praise than this no lyrical poet could reasonably
desire.
An inoffensive monomaniac, who thought fit to
reprint a thing in dramatic or quasi-dramatic form
to which I have already referred in passing—
Histriomastix, or the Player Whipt—thought likewise fit
to attribute to John Marston, of all men on earth, a
share in the concoction of this shapeless and unspeakable
piece of nonsense. The fact that one of
the puppets in the puppetshow is supposed to represent
a sullen scholar, disappointed, impoverished, and
virulent, would have suggested to a rational reader
that the scribbler who gave vent to the impotence
of his rancour in this hopeless ebullition of envious
despair had set himself to ape the habitual manner
of Jonson and the occasional manner of Marston
with about as much success as might be expected
from a malignant monkey when attempting to reproduce
in his grimaces the expression of human
dignation and contempt. But to students of natural
literary history who cannot discern the human
from the simious element it suggests that the man
374
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
thus imitated must needs have been the imitator of
himself; and the fact that the whole attempt at
satire is directed against dramatic poetry—that all
the drivelling venom of a dunce's denunciation, all
the virulent slaver of his grovelling insolence, is
aimed at the stage for which Marston was employed
in writing—weighs nothing in the scales of imbecility
against the consideration that Marston's or Jonson's
manner is here and there more or less closely imitated;
that we catch now and then some such echo of his
accent, some such savour of his style, as may be
discovered or imagined in the very few scattered
lines which show any glimmer of capacity for composition
or versification. The eternal theme of envy,
invented by Jonson and worked to death by its inventor,
was taken up again by Marston and treated
with a vigorous acerbity not always unworthy of
comparison with Jonson's: the same conception
inspired with something of eloquence the malignant
idiocy of the satirical dunce who has left us, interred
and imbedded in a mass of rubbish, a line or two
like these which he has put into the mouth of his
patron saint or guardian goddess, the incarnate essence
of Envy:
Turn, turn, thou lackey to the wingèd time! | |
I envy thee in that thou art so slow, | |
And I so swift to mischief. | |
But the entire affair is obviously an effusion and an
example of the same academic sagacity or lucidity
of appreciation which found utterance in other contemporary
protests of the universities against the
universe. In that abyss of dullness
The Return from
Parnassus, a reader or a diver who persists in his
thankless toil will discover this pearl of a fact—that
men of culture had no more hesitation in preferring
375
JOHN MARSTON
Watson to Shakespeare than they have in preferring
Byron to Shelley. The author of the one deserves
to have been the author of the other. Nobody can
have been by nature such a fool as to write either:
art, education, industry, and study were needful to
achieve such composite perfection of elaborate and
consummate idiocy.
There is a good deal of bad rubbish, and there is
some really brilliant and vigorous writing, in the
absurdly named and absurdly constructed comedy
of Jack Drum's Entertainment; but in all other points
—in plot, incident, and presentation of character—
it is so scandalously beneath contempt that I am sorry
to recognise the hand of Marston in a play which
introduces us to a 'noble father,' the model of knightly
manhood and refined good sense, who on the news
of a beloved daughter's disappearance instantly proposes
to console himself with a heavy drinking bout.
No graver censure can be passed on the conduct of
the drama than the admission that this monstrous
absurdity is not out of keeping with the rest of it.
There is hardly a single character in all its rabble
rout of lunatics who behaves otherwise than would
beseem a probationary candidate for Bedlam. Yet
I fear there is more serious evidence of a circumstantial kind in favour of the theory which would
saddle the fame of Marston with the charge of its
authorship than such as depends on peculiarities
of metre and eccentricities of phrase. Some other
poet—though I know of none such—may have accepted and adopted his theory that 'vengeance' must count in verse as a word of three syllables: I
can hardly believe that the fancy would sound sweet
in any second man's ear; but this speciality is not
more characteristic than other and more important
376
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
qualities of style—the peculiar abruptness, the peculiar
inflation, the peculiar crudity—which denote this
comedy as apparently if not evidently Marstonian.
On the other hand, if it were indeed his, it is impossible
to conjecture why his name should have been
withheld from the title-page; and it must not be
forgotten that even our own day is not more fertile
than was Marston's in the generation of that slavish
cattle which has always since the age of Horace fed
ravenously and thievishly on the pasture-land of
every poet who has discovered or reclaimed a field
or a province of his own.
But our estimate of John Marston's rank or regiment
in the noble army of contemporary poets will not be
in any way affected by acceptance or rejection of any
apocryphal addition to the canon of his writings.
For better and for worse, the orthodox and undisputed
roll of them will suffice to decide that question beyond
all chance of intelligent or rational dispute. His rank
is high in his own regiment; and the colonel of that
regiment is Ben Jonson. At first sight he may seem
rather to belong to that brighter and more famous
one which has Webster among its captains, Dekker
among its lieutenants, Heywood among its privates,
and Shakespeare at its head. Nor did he by any means
follow the banner of Jonson with such automatic
fidelity as that imperious martinet of genius was wont
to exact from those who came to be 'sealed of the
tribe of Ben.' A rigid critic—a critic who should
push rigidity to the verge of injustice—might say
that he was one of those recruits in literature whose
misfortune it is to fall between two stools—to halt
between two courses. It is certain that he never
thoroughly mastered either the cavalry drill of Shakespeare
or the infantry drill of Jonson. But it is no
377
JOHN MARSTON
less certain that the few finest passages which attest
the power and the purity of his genius as a poet are
above comparison with any such examples of tragic
poetry as can be attributed with certainty or with
plausibility to the hand which has left us no acknowledged
works in that line except
Sejanus his Fall and
Catiline his Conspiracy. It is superfluous to add that
Volpone was an achievement only less far out of his
reach than Hamlet. But this is not to say or to imply
that he does not deserve an honourable place among
English poets. His savage and unblushing violence
or vehemence of satire has no taint of gloating or morbid
prurience in the turbid flow of its fitful and furious
rhetoric. The restless rage of his invective is as far as
human utterance can find itself from the cynical
infidelity of an Iago. Of him we may say with more
rational confidence what was said of that more potent
and more truculent satirist:
An honest man he is, and hates the slime | |
That sticks on filthy deeds. | |
We may wish that he had not been so much given
to trampling and stamping on that slime as to evoke
such malodorous exhalations as infect the lower and
shallower reaches of the river down which he proceeds
to steer us with so strenuous a hand. But it is in a
spirit of healthy disgust, not of hankering delight,
that he insists on calling the indignant attention of
his readers to the baser and fouler elements of natural
or social man as displayed in the vicious exuberance
or eccentricity of affectation or of self-indulgence.
His real interest and his real sympathies are reserved
for the purer and nobler types of womanhood and
manhood. In his first extant tragedy, crude and
fierce and coarse and awkward as is the general
378
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
treatment of character and story, the sketch of Mellida
is genuinely beautiful in its pathetic and subdued
simplicity; though certainly no such tender and
gentle figure was ever enchased in a stranger or
less attractive setting. There is an odd mixture of
care and carelessness in the composition of his plays
which is exemplified by the fact that another personage
in the first part of the same dramatic poem was
announced to reappear in the second part as a more
important and elaborate figure; but this second
part opens with the appearance of his assassin, red-
handed from the murder: and the two parts were
published in the same year. And indeed, except in
Parasitaster and
The Dutch Courtesan,
a general defect
in his unassisted plays is the headlong confusion of
plot, the helterskelter violence of incident, which
would hardly have been looked for in the work of a
professional and practised hand.
What you Will is
modestly described as 'a slight-writ play': but slight
and slovenly are not the same thing; nor is simplicity
the equivalent of incoherence. I have already observed
that Marston is apt to be heaviest when he aims at
being lightest; not, like Ben Jonson, through a
laborious and punctilious excess of conscience which
is unwilling to let slip any chance of effect, to let
pass any detail of presentation; but rather, we are
tempted to suspect, through a sardonic sense of scorn
for the perfunctory task on which his ambitious and
impatient hand is for the time employed. Now and
then, however—or perhaps it would be more accurate
to say once or twice—a gayer note is struck with a
lighter touch than usual.: as for instance in the
excellent parody of Lyly put into the mouth of an
idiot in the first scene of the fifth act of the first part
of
Antonio and Mellida. 'You know, the stone
379
JOHN MARSTON
called
lapis, the nearer it comes to the fire, the hotter
it is; and the bird which the geometricians call
avis,
the further it is from the earth, the nearer it is to the
heaven; and love, the nigher it is to the flame, the
more remote (there 's a word, remote !) the more
remote it is from the frost.' Shakespeare and Scott
have condescended to caricature the style or the
manner of the inventor of euphuism: I cannot think
their burlesque of his elaborate and sententious
triviality so happy, so humorous, or so exact as this.
But it is not on his capacity as a satirist or humourist,
it is on his occasionally triumphant success as a serious
or tragic poet, that the fame of Marston rests assuredly
established. His intermittent power to rid himself
for awhile of his besetting faults, and to acquire or
assume for a moment the very excellences most incompatible
with these, is as extraordinary for the
completeness as for the transience of its successful
effects. The brief fourth act of
Antonio and Mellida
is the most astonishing and bewildering production
of belated human genius that ever distracted or discomfited
a student. Verses more delicately beautiful
followed by verses more simply majestic than these
have rarely if ever given assurance of eternity to the
fame of any but a great master in song:
Conceit you me: as having clasped a rose | |
Within my palm, the rose being ta'en away, | |
My hand retains a little breath of sweet, | |
So may man's trunk, his spirit slipped away, | |
Hold still a faint perfume of his sweet guest. | |
'Tis so: for when discursive powers fly out, | |
And roam in progress through the bounds of heaven, | |
The soul itself gallops along with them | |
As chieftain of this wingèd troop of thought, | |
Whilst the dull lodge of spirit standeth waste | |
380
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
Then follows a passage of sheer gibberish; then a
dialogue of the noblest and most dramatic eloquence;
then a chaotic alternation of sense and nonsense, bad
Italian and mixed English, abject farce and dignified
rhetoric, spirited simplicity and bombastic jargon.
It would be more and less than just to take this act
as a sample or a symbol of the author's usual way of
work; but I cannot imagine that a parallel to it, for
evil and for good, could be found in the works of any
other writer.
The Muse of this poet is no maiden of such pure
and august beauty as enthralls us with admiration
of Webster's; she has not the gipsy brightness and
vagrant charm of Dekker's, her wild soft glances and
flashing smiles and fading traces of tears; she is no
giddy girl, but a strong woman with fine irregular
features, large and luminous eyes, broad intelligent
forehead, eyebrows so thick and close together that
detraction might call her beetle-browed, powerful
mouth and chin, fine contralto voice (with an occasional
stammer), expression alternately repellent and attractive,
but always striking and sincere. No one has ever
found her lovely; but there are times when she has
a fascination of her own which fairer and more famous
singers might envy her; and the friends she makes
are as sure to be constant as she, for all her occasional
roughness and coarseness, is sure to be loyal in the
main to the nobler instincts of her kind and the loftier
traditions of her sisterhood.
Home