His Sejanus (for we need not stop to notice the dates of his masques and entertainments) was first icted in 1603, and unfavourably received. In the first state, the author himself informs us that another hand had a good share in it ; but when recast, with alterations entirely his own, it was again brought on the stage. and experienced a much better reception. It was not published till 1605. It is re markable, that it is not divided into scenes in any of the editions; it has neither exits nor entrances, and is, upon the whole, the most involved and puzzling drama, in its inter nal arrangements, that was ever produced. Sejanus has all the learning of Jonson, and it also displays the peculiar force and loftiness of mind that belonged to him. It has passages of great eloquence, and a masculine tone of mo rality ; but its merit is more historical and oratorical than, strictly speaking, dramatic. We come, however, (anno 1605) to the very brightest period of his dramatic career, when, in the course of a few years, successively came out, his Votflone. ur Fox ; his Epicene, or Silent Ilronzan ; and his 4/ehymist. The Fox was fist acted at the Globe theatre in 1605. It kept the stage till the dispersion of the players by the Puritans : Was revived at the Restoration, and made its last appearance in the life-time of the elder Colman, but unfortunately at a period when the dramatic taste of the age w as giving way, not to the hatred of the Pu ritans, hut to the growing affection of the public for the ex hibition of quadrup,ds on the stage. The Epicene, or Si lent Woman, also continued a popular favourite in the best times of the stage. Garrick attempted to retrieve it also from the neglect which it began to experience in the latter part of last century, but is said to have been unsuccessful. From what is recorded of his power of acting in Abel Dragger, it must be supposed that he succeeded better with the Alchymist Indeed, we cannot willingly believe public taste to be at any period so degraded as to make the .://e/iymisbunwelcome. The illchymist has, indeed, been well pronounced in the words of Tate,* to be astonishing. It has a full popular breadth of humour—a vast strength and well adjusted complexity of characters—and a rich minuteness of information respecting the profound mumme rirs of alchemy, that leave the mind as much amused with the learning, as exhilarated by the wit and humour of the poet. He speaks like an initiated mystic in alchemy, whilst he makes us laugh at its exposed imposture ; and he exhi bits so much knowledge of the pretended secrets of the science, that we feel as if he had taken to pieces in our presence some curious automaton, which had deceived the eyes of the ignorant with an imitation of life.
C'atiline, which followed the .41chymist, was brought out in 1611. It was not, as Mr. Malone asserts, deservedly damned ; it met, indeed, with opposition, but continued on the stage until the civil wars. Whatever may be the faults of Catiline as a tragedy, it has pages of Roman eloquence, which neither deserve to be damned nor forgotten. We allude particularly to the speeches of Petreius, which are not, as has been rashly asserted, mere translations from the classics. That one which begins with the following lines is wholly original : In the same year King James settled upon Jonson a pen sion for life, of a hundred marks per annum. This has been in courtesy termed his appointment to be laureate, and per haps it was so. Hitherto, any one tv:io chose to write verses for the court, called himself, and was often called by others, the laureate ; but the title has since been confined to those who receive a pension.
In the summer of 1618, our poet made a journey to Scotland ; and in the April of the knowing year, after hav ing resided for several months on visits to different noble men and gentlemen who spewed hits hospitality, reserved his last visit for his poetical acquaintance William Di um mond of I lawthornden. From the record of his conversa tions with Drummond, no pains have been spared to draw matter of detraction upon his character. It has certainly been Jonson's fate to be calumniated. His memory has absolutely been loaded with persecutions sufficient to shake the confidence of a mind conscious of its own virtue in that justice, which, it is common to say, that posterity ex erts towards the virtuous. At the late vindications of Jun son's memory, who would not rejoice ? It is from no wish to cavil at those vindications, that we beg leave to differ in some points from the sentiments which Jonson's latest edi tor and biographer has expressed respecting Drummond. Jonson came to the house of Drummond, who took notes of his conversation, and threw them into his repositories, without the slightest discoverable intention of ever giving them to the public. Those notes, however, were found among Drummond's papers after his death, and they con tain some unfavourable reflections on Jonsou's manners and character. After he had taken those notes, Drummond re ceived some affectionate letters from Jonson, and answered him with kindness and civility. For this Mr. Gifford pro nounces Drummond a cankered hypocrite, who decoyed his friend under his roof, for the express purpose of defam ing him, as one who sat down complacently to destroy Jon son's character for ever ; and who, having framed a libel lous attack on the reputation of a friend, kept it carefully in store for thirty years, and finally bequeathed it, fairly en grossed, to the caprice or cupidity of his executors, This language is intemperate and unjust. Whatever Drummond thought of Jonson, he was at liberty to make a memorandum of it, and that memorandum which he made was, to all appearance, a private one. The words, " be queath, and fairly engrossed," are either without meaning, or insinuate what is untrue. Mr. Gifford does not know whether the notes were fairly engrossed, (by which we ge nerally mean very distinctly written.) or rely indistinctly scrawled. Nor can he, or any mm, pretend to decide whe ther they were left among the writer's papers by accident or design. Their being found, implied no bequest of them to any one. Drummond was apparently disgusted by Ben's propensity to intoxication, and by his arrogance. And we know, from other testimony than Drummond's, that Jonson was find of his bottle, and could talk very loftily of himself. Drummond's general private character is sufficient to make us believe his testimony. After all, W, hat he has even privately recorded, as his own impression of Jonson's character, does not amount to its total condemnation. There are many men as intemperate and overbearing as Jonson is des, gibed by Drumnimul, fur whom we ti ul it possible to re tain a considt rabic shay( of esteem. especially w hen splen did t :lents aecompiny the.r f.ibles. We cannot believe that Drummond lent tee st tint, titkii to decoy Jonson under his roof with the view of destroy mg his reputation; or that his memory deserves to be blasted for those remarks which he never published.