|
His Place in English Literature
Jonson’s influence, moreover, has been felt in the novel as
well as in the drama. His plays have been often read and have always
encouraged a study of the strangeness of character and the inappropriateness
of manners. Fielding and Smollett were aware of their motive. Dickens, who
knew them well and himself acted Bobadill, must have been thankful to their
suggestion. Not only are there specific similarities, as between
Zeal-of-the-land Busy and Stiggins, but also Dickens’s comic invention and
characterization are often Jonsonian in method and effect. Whether Jonson’s
comedies are revived on the stage or not, they continue to encourage in
fiction a frank and searching presentation of weak points and stupidity.
A supporter of classic drama, Jonson insisted on a careful
study of the old Greek and Roman masters. He firmly supported the “three
unities” and strongly disagreed with a mixture of serious and comic episodes
in a play. At the same time, he demanded a high skill in play-writing,
logical and strict development of plot and truthful and realistic
description of life and people. He was a pioneer of classicism in English
literature, which was to reach its top in the 18th century.
Jonson’s qualities as a dramatist are fully played. His
merits are his wide and deep observation of manners, and his outstanding and
systematic construction of plots. But the great excellence of both his
tragedies and his comedies is their description of character. This is less
in other Elizabethan dramatists, but more by classical models and rules, as
in his observance of the unities, or his loyalty to historical authorities,
or his copying of the Plautian plan and types. It is also caused by his
method of making each person the illustration of one feature or humour. In
addition, it is because he substituted description for drama, and satire for
fact, and exaggerated his satire into farce. He refuses to stop with his
person, speech, or situation until it is absolutely exhausted. Although
there are so many limitations, Jonson’s comic characterization is still the
greatest achievements of the English drama. The reason is that his writing
is clear and certain, humorous and honest. A. W. Ward is right in giving him
excellence in the highest species of comedy, that “in which everything else
is subordinated to the dramatic unfolding of character.”
His influence, significant in his own day, has continued down
to the present. His comedies were imitated as soon as they appeared; witness
Every Woman in Her Humor (1609). Beaumont and Fletcher studied in his
school, as The Woman Hater written by the former, testifies; and
Marston, Middleton and Chapman profited from his example. Of later
dramatists, Field, Randolph, Cartwright, Nabbes and May—to name no
others—employed Jonson’s methods and wrote plays in his manner. Actually,
the comedy of humours became an established model. Few later writers paid no
attention to it. All realistic comedy owned its influence.
After the Restoration, Jonson’s reputation, increased.
Dryden’s praise was echoed by Dennis and others, especially by those who
were most eager to see neo-classical rules and models popular in the
theatres. Both his tragedies and his comedies were highly respected. The
former came back to life again, but did not long hold the stage. The latter
found a warm welcome on the stage and maintained themselves there during the
long period when Shakespeare’s romantic comedies did not please the
audience. Bartholomew Fayre Disappeared (1731), even before As You
Like It returned to the stage (1740), and, among Volpone, The
Silent Woman and The Alchemist not one has lived beyond the 18th
century on the public boards. The last three were revived by Garrick, who
also brought out a correction of Every Man in his Humour. That play
continued on the stage well into the19th century.
|
