Mac Flecknoe is primarily a personal satire. In it Dryden has attacked Shadwell’s literary ability, and through him, the petty poetasters and rhymesters in general. The first satirical portrait, painted in detail next to Shadwell’s is that of Flecknoe. He is represented as the reigning monarch of Dullness and Nonsense and as father of Shadwell. However, the hero, and prime butt of ridicule, is Shadwell.
Dryden’s satire against Shadwell is supremely annihilating. He succeeds in destroying Shadwell, or rather, reducing him to an unenviably small personage. And he does it through good humored ‘Olympian’ laughter. Indeed, so effective has Dryden’s effort been, that picture to be true. Epic comparisons, elevated words and phrases and associations of grandeur as used by Dryden, render Shadwell’s utterly ridiculous. We are given a detailed account of Shadwell’s merit in Flecknoe’s speeches.
Shadwell has been born for ‘anointed dullness’, and his huge bulk designed for ‘thoughtless majesty’. He is a pastmaster of tautology. His plays are stupid and his characters witless. His tragedies provoked smiles, while his comedies sent people to sleep. As for his satires, they had neither bite nor could they give offence. Shadwell is ‘a mighty prince born for a scourge of wit and flail of sense’. He is also plagiarist. He is, in other words, a fit successor to the throne of Nonsense and Dullness. He looked liked Ben Jonson in his corpulence, but there the resemblance ended, for Shadwell had no wit.
Shadwell, of course, was not as dull or stupid as he is made out by Dryden. Though not great poet, his dramatic works do not deserve the ridicule which Dryden directs at them. To that extent, the portrait is unjust. Dryden carefully avoids merits which, in fact, were there.
Much of the injustice sinks into the air of comedy and humour which envelops the portraiture. The greater part of rancor is submerged by Dryden in the humour of conception. The reader enjoys the fun without thinking much of its application to an individual. Pure amusement effectively overcomes one’s realization of what is meant to the target of Dryden’s satire.
To sum up, personal motives having prompted Mac Flecknoe, it not possible to expect just and impartial portraiture of those whom Dryden wished to satirise. As for the injustice of the portraits, we need not trouble to pity the victim, but may allow ourselves to enjoy the exquisite intellectual pleasure which is offered by Dryden’s wit and sparkling malignity.
Post a Comment