[From J. Dennis, Letters upon Several Occasions (1695).]
An exchange of letters printed in Dennis's collection, which also included contributions by Dryden and Wycherley.
The critic and dramatist John Dennis (1657-1734) began his literary career as a member of Dryden's circle; his first two comedies draw heavily on Jonson's humours comedy, as Graham (1941), 370-2 shows.
William Congreve (1670-1729) had achieved success in 1693 with his first play, The Old Batchelour, and with The Double Dealer (see Literary Record 118). In Congreve's dedication of The Way of the World (1700) he explains that he has attempted to represent 'an affected Wit' in the play, alluding briefly to Jonson's character Truewit as a touchstone for genuine wit: some of the audience for his play, he says, needed the leisure of two or three days before they could 'distinguish betwixt the Character of a Witwoud and a Truewit' (sig. A3v-4r).
*****************************************Dear Sir, I have now read over the Fox, in which though I admire the strength of Ben Johnson's Judgement, yet I did not find it so accurate as I expected. For first the very thing upon which the whole Plot turns, and that is the Discovery which Mosca makes to Bonario; seems to me, to be very unreasonable. For I can see no Reason, why he should make that Discovery which introduces Bonario into his Masters House. For the Reason which the Poet makes Mosca give in the Ninth Scene of the third Act, appears to be a very Absurd one. Secondly, Corbaccio the Father of Bonario is expos'd for his Deafness, a Personal defect; which is contrary to the end of Comedy Instruction. For Personal Defects cannot be amended; and the exposing such, can never divert any but half-witted Men. It cannot fail to bring a thinking Man to reflect upon the Misery of Human Nature; and into what he may fall himself without any Fault of his own. Thirdly, the play has two Characters, which have nothing to do with the design of it, which are to be look'd upon as Excrescencies. Lastly, the Character of Volpone is Inconsistent with it self. Volpone is like Catiline, alieni appetens, sui profusus; but that is only a double in his Nature, and not an Inconsistence. The Inconsistence of the Character appears in this, that Volpone in the fifth Act behaves himself like a giddy Coxcombe, in the Conduct of the very Affair which he manag'd so craftily in the first four. In which the Poet offends against that Fam'd rule which Horace gives for the Characters.
Servetur ad imum, Qualis ab incepto processerit, et sibi constet.
And Secondly, against Nature, upon which, all the rules are grounded. For so strange an Alteration, in so little a time, is not in Nature, unless it happens by the Accident of some violent Passion; which is not the case here. Volpone on the sudden behaves himself without common discretion, in the Conduct of the very Affair which he had manag'd with so much Dexterity, for the space of three Years together. For why does he disguise himself? Or, why does he repose the last Confidence in Mosca? Why does he cause it to be given out that he's dead? Why, only to Plague his Bubbles. To Plague them, for what? Why only for having been his Bubbles. So that here is the greatest alteration in the World, in the space of twenty-four hours, without any apparent cause. The design of Volpone is to Cheat, he has carried on a Cheat for three years together, with Cunning and with Success. And yet he on a sudden in cold blood does a thing, which he cannot but know must Endanger the ruining all.
(73-5)
Dear Sir, I will not augment the Trouble which I give you by making all Apology for not giving it you sooner. Though I am heartily sorry that I kept such a trifle as the inclos'd, and a trifle writ Extempore, long enough to make you expect a labour'd Letter. But because in the Inclos'd, I have spoken particularly of Ben. Johnson's Fox, I desire to say three or four words of some of his Plays more generally. The Plots of the Fox, the silent Woman, the Alchimist, are all of them very Artful. But the Intrigues of the Fox, and the Alchimist, seem to me to be more dexterously perplexed, than to be happily disentangled. But the Gordian knot in the Silent Woman is untyed with so much Felicity, that that alone, may Suffice to show Ben Johnson no ordinary Heroe. But, then perhaps, the Silent Woman may want the Foundation of a good Comedy, which the other two cannot be said to want. For it seems to me, to be without a Moral. Upon which Absurdity, Ben Johnson was driven by the Singularity of Moroses Character, which is too extravagant for instruction, and fit, in my opinion, only for Farce. For this seems to me, to Constitute the most Essential Difference, betwixt Farce and Comedy, that the Follies which are expos'd in Farce are Singular; and those are particular, which are expos'd in Comedy. These last are those, with which some part of an Audience may be suppos'd Infected, and to which all may be suppos'd Obnoxious. But the first are so very odd, that by Reason of their Monstrous Extravagance, they cannot be thought to concern an Audience; and cannot be supposed to instruct them. For the rest of the Characters in these Plays, they are for the most part true, and Most of the Humorous Characters Master-pieces. For Ben Johnson's Fools, seem to shew his Wit a great deal more then his Men of Sense. I Admire his Fops, but barely Esteem his Gentlemen. Ben seems to draw Deformity more to the Life than Beauty. He is often so eager to pursue Folly, that he forgets to take Wit along with him. For the Dialogue, it seems to want very often that Spirit, that Grace, and that Noble Railery, which are to be found in more Modern Plays, and which are Virtues that ought to be Inseparable from a finish'd Comedy. But there seems to be one thing more wanting than all the rest, and that is Passion, I mean that fine and delicate Passion, by which the Soul shows its Politeness, ev'n in the midst of its trouble. Now to touch a Passion is the surest way to Delight. For nothing agitates like it. Agitation is the Health and joy of the Soul, of which it is so entirely fond, that even then, when we imagine we seek repose, we only seek Agitation. You know what a Famous Modern Critick has said of Comedy.
Il faut que ses acteurs badinent noblement,[Boileau, L'Art Poétique, 3.405-12, translated by Sir William Soame and John Dryden (The Art of Poetry, 1683, p. 52: see Literary Record 111).]
Que son Noeud bien formé se denoue aisement;
Que l'action Marchant ou la raison la guide,
Ne se perde Jamma dans une Scens vuide,
Que son Stile humble et doux se releve a propos,
Que ses discours par tout fertiles en bons mots,
Soient pleins de passions finement maniées,
Et les Scenes toujours l'une a l'autre liées,
[With well-bred Conversation you must please,
And your Intrigue unravel'd be with ease:
Your Action still should Reason's Rules obey,
Nor in an empty Scene may lose its way.
Your humble Stile must sometimes gently rise;
And your Discourse Sententious be, and Wise:
The Passions must to Nature be confin'd,
And Scenes to Scenes with Artful weaving joyn'd....
I leave you to make the Aplication to Johnson --- Whatever I have said myself of his Comedies, I submit to your better Judgment. For you who, after Mr. Wicherly, are incomparably the best Writer of it living; ought to be allowed to be the best Judge, too....
(76-9)
'Covetous of others' possessions, he was prodigal of his own': Sallust, Bellum Catalinae , 5.4.
'Have it kept to the end even as it carne forth at first, and have it self-consistent': Ars Poetica, ll. 126-7.