Milton, John, 1608-1674; Poets, English -- Early modern, 1500-1700 -- Biography
Such is Milton's drama: a thing worth dwelling on as entirely unique in
any modern language. Some good judges have thought it the finest of
his works. That will not be admitted if poetry is to be judged either
by universality of appeal or by extent and variety of range.
_L'Allegro_ and _Il Penseroso_ will always have far more readers: and
_Paradise Lost_ embraces an immeasurably {240} greater span of human
life. But, if not the greatest, _Samson_ is probably for its own
audience the most moving of Milton's works. It is not everybody who
has in him the grave emotions to which it appeals: but whoever has will
find them stirred by Samson as few other books in all the literature of
the world can stir them.
It is curious to think of Milton composing such a drama in the midst of
the theatrical revival of the Restoration. Did ever poet set himself
in such opposition to the literary current of his day? Dryden's
unbounded admiration for him is well known: but he understood the
genius of _Paradise Lost_ so little as to make an opera out of it, and
he must have understood even less of Samson. The drama was then so
much the most fashionable form of literature that he may have felt that
in writing _The State of Innocence_ and its preface he was taking the
best means of directing public attention to _Paradise Lost_. But he
would scarcely have tried to do the same for _Samson_. He had wished,
perhaps, as Mr. Verrall has suggested, to write an epic and had failed
to do so: hence his profound reverence for the man who had not failed.
But he had written many dramas and here he had succeeded: he had
pleased both his {241} contemporaries and himself. He would feel no
need there to take lessons from Milton. Nor is he to be blamed. He
and his fellow dramatists are justly criticized for many things, but
there is nothing to complain of in their unlikeness to Milton. They
wrote for the stage. He avowedly did not. They wrote in the spirit of
the theatre of their day, with the object of providing themselves with
a little money and "the town" with a few hours of more or less
intellectual amusement. He wrote out of his own mind and soul, not for
the entertainment of the idle folk of his own or any other day, but for
men who in all times and countries should prove capable of knowing a
great work when they saw it. Besides, his contemporary dramatists
followed, quite legitimately, the theatrical traditions of England or
France: he the very different dramatic system of the Greeks. His drama
is what Greek tragedies were, an act of religion. It could take its
place quite naturally, as they did, as part of a great national
religious festival performed on a holy day. It is like them in the
solemn music of its utterance: in its deep sense of the gravity of the
issues on which human life hangs. It is like them also in technical
points such as the use of a Chorus to give expression to the {242}
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account