Shakspere : a critical study of his mind and art

Front matter

1.IBRARY Brigham Young University

8HAKSPEEE

A CRITIOAL STUDY OP

Preface To The Third Edition

In the present edition, I have made such corrections as appeared needful, and have brought my statements on some doubtful points into harmony with the latest results of Shaksperian scholarship.

I wish to insist upon the statement made on p. 246 that Julius Gcesar lies in point of time beside Hamlet Both are tragedies of thought rather than of passion; both present, in their chief characters, the spectacle of noble natures which fail through some weakness or deficiency rather than through crime. Upon Brutus as upon Hamlet a burden is laid which he is not able to bear ; neither Brutus nor Hamlet is fitted for action, yet both are called to act in dangerous and difficult affairs. Julius Ccesar was probably complete before Hamlet assumed its latest form, perhaps before Hamlet was written. Still, giving the reader a caution, as I did in the case of The Tempest^ I am not unwilling to speak of Hamlet as the second of Shakspere's tragedies. Hamlet seems to have its roots so deep in Shakspere's nature, it was so much a subject of special predilection, it is so closely connected with older dramatic work. We acquire the same feeling with reference to Hamlet which we have for Goethe's Faust — that it has to do with almost the whole of the deeper part of the poet's life up to the date of its creation.

vi Preface to the Third Edition.

After Shakspere had written these two tragedies, oi •while he was writing them, he continued to write comedy. But the genial spirit of comedy was deserting him. Twelfth Night resumes all the admirable humorous characteristics of the group of comedies which it completes. Then the change comes ; All ^s Well that Ends Well is grave and earnest; Measure for Measure is dark and bitter. In the first edition of this work I did not venture to attempt an interpretation of Troilus and Cressida. I now believe this strange and difficult play was a last attempt to continue comedy, made when Shakspere had ceased to be able to smile genially, and when he must be either ironical or else take a deep, passionate, and tragical view of life.

I have elsewhere written as follows :

" Troilus and Cressida appeared in two quarto editions in the year 1609 ; in the title-page of the earlier of the two it is stated to have been acted at the Globe ; the later contains a singular preface in which the play is spoken of as * never stal'd with the stage, never clapper-claw'd with the palmes of the vulgar,' and as having been published against the will of * the grand possessors.' Perhaps the play was printed at first for the use of the theatre, and with the intention of being published after being represented, and that the printers, against the known wish of the proprietors of Shakspere's manuscript, anticipated the first representation and issued the quarto with the attractive announcement that it was an absolute novelty. The editors of the folio, after having decided that Troilus and Cressida should follow Borneo and Juliet among the Tragedies, changed their minds, apparently uncertain how the play should be classed, and placed it between the Histories and Tragedies; this led to the cancelling of a leaf, and the filling-up of a blank space left by the alteration with*the Prologue to Troilus and Cressida — a prologue which is believed by several critics not to have come from Shakspere's hand.

" There is extreme uncertainty with respect to the date of the play. Dekker and Chettle were engaged in 1599 upon a play on this subject, and from an entry in the Stationers^ Register on Feb. Y, 1602-3, it appears that a

Preface to the Third Edition. vfl

Trcihis and Cressida had been acted by Shakspere's company, the Lord Chamberlain's Servants. Was this Shakspere's play? We are thrown back upon internal evidence to decide the question, and the internal evidence is itself of a conflicting kind, and has led to opposite conclusions. The massive worldly wisdom of Ulysses argues, it is supposed, in favor of a late date, and the general tone of the play has been compared with that of Timon of Athens, The fact that it does not contain a single weak- ending and only six light-endings is, however, almost decisive evidence against our placing it after either Timon or Macbeth^ and the other metrical characteristics are considered by Hertzberg^ the most careful student of this class of evidence, in the case of the present play, to point to a date about 1603. Other authorities place it as late as 1608 or 1609; while a third theory (that of Verplanck and Grant White) attempts to solve the difficulties by supposing that it was first written in 1603 and revised and enlarged shortly before the publication of the quarto. Parts of the play — notably the last battle of Hector — appear not to be by Shakspere. The interpretation of the play itself is as difficult as the ascertainment of the external facts of its history. With what intention, and in what spirit, did Shakspere write this strange comedy ? All the Greek heroes who fought against Troy are pitilessly exposed to ridicule ; Helen and Cressida are light, sensual, and heartless, for whose sake it seems infatuated folly to strike a blow ; Troilus is an enthusiastic young fool ; and even Hector, though valiant and generous, spends his Ufe in a cause which he knows to be unprofitable, if not evil. All this is seen and said by Thersites, whose mind is made up of the scum of the foulness of human life. But can Shakspere's view of things have been the same as that of Thersites ?

" The central theme, the young love and faith of Troilus given to one who was false and fickle, and his discovery of his error, lends its color to the whole play. It is the comedy of disillusion. And as Troilus passed through the illusion of his first love for woman, so by middle life the world itself often appears like one that has not kept her promises, and who is a poor deceiver. We come to see the seamy side of life ; and from this mood of disillusion it is a deliverance to pass on even to a dark and tragic view of life, to which beauty and virtue reappear, even though human weakness or human vice may do them bitter wrong. Now such a mood of contemptuous depreciation of life may have come over Shakspere, and spoiled him, at that time, for a writer of comedy. But for Isabella we should find the comingon of this mood in Measure for Measure ; there is perhaps a touch of it in Hamlet, At this time Troilus and Cressida may have b«eu written, and viii Preface to the Third Edition.

then Shakspere, rousing himself to a deeper inquest into things, may have passed on to his great series of tragedies.

" Let us call this, then, the comedy of disillusion ; and certainly, wherevef we place it, we must notice a striking resemblance in its spirit and structure to Timon of Athens, Timon has a lax benevolence and shallow trust in the goodness of men ; he is undeceived, and bitterly turns away from the whole human race in a rage of disappointment. In the same play Alcibiades is, in like manner, wronged by the world ; but he takes his injuries firmly, like a man of action and experience, and sets about the subduing of his base antagonists. Apemantus, again, is the dog-like reviler of men, knowing their baseness, and base himself. Here, Troilus, the noble green -goose, goes through his youthful agony of ascertaining the unworthiness of her to whom he had given his faith and hope ; but he is made of a stronger and more energetic fibre than Timon, and he comes out of his trial a man, no longer a boy, somewhat harder perhaps than before, but strung up for sustained and determined action. He is completely delivered from Cressida and from Pandar, and by Hector's death supplied with a motive for the utmost exertion of his heroic powers. Ulysses, the antithesis of Troilus, is the much-experienced man of the world, possessed of its highest and broadest wisdom, which yet always remains worldly wisdom, and never rises into the spiritual contemplation of a Prospero. He sees all the unworthiness of human life, but will use it for high worldly ends ; the spirit of irreverence and insubordination in the camp he would restrain by the politic machinery of what he calls * degree' — I. iii. 75-136. Cressida he reads at a glance, seeing to the bottom of her sensual shallow nature ; and he assists at the disillusioning of the young Prince, whose nobleness is apparent to him from the first. Thersites also sees through the illusions of the world, but his very incapacity to have ever been deceived is a sign of the ignoble nature of the wretch. He feeds and grows strong upon garbage ; physical nastinesses and moral sores are the luxuries of his imagination. The other characters — the brute warrior, Ajax ; the insolent self-worshipper, Achilles ; Hector, heroic, but too careless how and when he expends his heroic strength — are of minor importance. As the blindness of youthful love is shown in Troilus, so old age in its least venerable form, given up to a gratification of sensuality by proxy, is exposed to derision in Pandar, The materials for Troilus and Cressida were found by Shakspere in Chaucer's Troilus and Cressida; Caxton's translation from the French, Recuyles^ or Destruction of Troy; perhaps, also, Lydgate's Troye Boke, Thersites he probably found m Book II. of Chapman's Homer. Shakspere'a conception of Cressida and of Pandar differs widely from Chaucer's; in

Preface to the Third Edition.

IX

Shakspere's hands, in accordance with the general design of the drama, Cressida and her uncle grow base and contemptible. Some critics have supposed that the love-story was written at a much earlier date than the part which treats of Ulysses ; but we have seen that the contrasted characters of Troilus and Ulysses are both essential parts of the conception of the drama, and were created as counterparts.''

The following table presents the plays in a series of groups which succeed one another in chronological order. The position of three or four plays of secondary importance may be doubtful ; and I claim no certainty for the order of the plays within the groups ; but I offer the arrangement of groups with great confidence as to its general correctness. It will be observed that in some cases one group overlaps in point of time that which follows it. To keep the comedies together, I have placed "Middle Tragedy" after the third division of what I have named "Later Comedy ;" it will suffice if the reader bear in mind that, as a fact, the comedy overlaps the succeeding group of tragedies.

1. Pre-Shaksperian Group. {Touched by Shakspere.) Titus Andronicus (1588-90).

2. Early Comedy.

Love's Labor 's Lost (1590).

Comedy of Errors (1591).

Two Gentlemen of Verona (1592-

93).

Midsummer-Night's Dream(1593-94).

3. Marlowe-Shakspere Group.

Early History.

Richard III (1593).

4. Early Tragedy.

Romeo and Juliet (? two dates. 1^9 1, 1597).

5. Middle History.

Richard IL (1594).

King John (1595).

6. Middle Comedy.

Merchant of Venice (1596).

'7. Later History.

Histojy and Comedy United

Preface to the Third Edition.

8. Later Comedy.

(a) Rough and Boisterous Comedy,

Taming of the Shrew (? 1597).

Merry Wives (? 1598).

(b) Joycms^ Refined^ Romantic.

Much Ado about Nothing (1598).

As You Like It (1599).

Twelfth Night (1600-1).

(c) Serious^ Darh^ Ironical,

All 's Well (? 1601-2).

Measure for Measure (1603).

Troilus and Cressida (? 1603 ; revised 1607 ?).

9. Middle Tragedy.

Julius Caesar (1601).

Hamlet (1602).

10. Later Tragedy.

Othello (1604).

Lear (1605).

Macbeth (1606).

Antony and Cleopatra (1607), Coriolanus (1608).

Timon (1607-8).

11. Romances.

Pericles (1608).

Cymbeline (1609).

Tempest (1610).

Winter's Tale (1610-11).

12. Fragments.

Two Noble Kinsmen (1612).

Henry VIIL (1612-13).

Poems.

The student will observe in this arrangement early, middle, and later Comedy ; early, middle, and later History ; and early, middle, and later Tragedy. Not only is it well to view the entire body of Shakspere's plays in the order of their chronological succession, but also to trace in chronological order the three separate lines of Comedy, History, and Tragedy. The group named Romances connect themselves, of course, with the Comedies ; but there is a grave element in them which is connected with the Tragedies which preceded them. It has been noticed that the Romances have in common the incidents of reunions, reconciliations, and the recovery of lost children. Shakspere, though so remarkable for his

Preface to the Third Edition. xi

power of creating character, is not distinguished among dramatists for his power of inventing incident. Having found a situation which interested his imagination or was successful on the stage, he introduced it again and again, with variations. Thus, in the Early Comedies, mistakes of identity, disguises, errors, and bewilderments, in various forms, recur as a source of merriment and material for adventure. In the Later Comedies, again, it is quite remarkable how Shakspere (generally in the portions of these plays which are due to his own invention) repeats, with variations, the incident of a trick or fraud practised upon one who is a self -lover, and its consequences, grave or gay. Thus Falstaff is fatuous enough to believe that two English matrons are dying of love for him, and is made the victim of their merry tricks. Malvolio is made an ass of by the mischievous Maria taking advantage of his solemn self-esteem; Beatrice and Benedick are cunningly entrapped, through their good-natured vanity, into love for which they had been already predisposed ; the boastful Parolles is deceived, flouted, and disgraced by his fellow-soldiers ; and (Shakspere's mood growing earnest, and his thoughts being set upon deep questions of character) Angelo, the selfdeceiver, by the craft of the Duke, is discovered painfully to the eyes of others and to his own heart.

For the index, which adds to the usefulness of the present edition, I have to thank my friend Mr. Arthur E. Love, of Trinity College, Dublin.

It has been a happiness to me to find that what I have written on Shakspere has been approved by distinguished Shakspere scholars in England, in Germany, in France, and in America. I do not thank my critics for their xii Preface to the Third Edition.

generous recognition of whatever may deserve comment dation in my work ; I may, however, at least express the sense of encouragement derived from what they have said. One of the earliest voices which spoke a word of emphatic approval of this book is now silent in death, and I cannot but desire to associate, at least by my grateful recollection, this Study of Shakspere with the honored name of its reviewer in The Academy^ the late Mr, Richard Simpson, ,

Preface To The First Edition

The attempt made in this volume to connect the study of Shakspere's works with an inquiry after the personality of the writer, and to observe, as far as is possible, in its several stages, the growth of his intellect and character from youth to full maturity, distinguishes the work from the greater number of preceding criticisms of Shakspere. A sense of hazard and difficulty necessarily accompanies the attempt to pass through the creations of a great dramatic poet to the mind of the creator. Still no one, I suppose, would maintain that a product of mind so large and manifold as the writings of Shakspere can fail in some measure to reveal its origin and cause.

The reader must not fall into the error of supposing that I endeavor to identify Shakspere with any one of his dramatic personages. The complex nature of the poet contained a love-idealist like Eomeo (students of the Sonnets will not find it difficult to admit the possibility of this) ; it contained a speculative intellect like that of Hamlet. But the complete Shakspere was unlike Romeo and unlike Hamlet. Still, it is evident, not from one play, but from many, that the struggle between "blood" and "judgment" was a great affair of Shakspere's life ; and in all his later works we observe the

effort to control a wistful curiosity about the mysteries

I i xiv Preface to the First Edition.

of human existence. And therefore, I say, a potential Eomeo and a potential Hamlet, taking these names as representative of certain spiritual tendencies or habits, existed in Shakspere. Nor do I identify Shakspere with Prospero ; although Shakspere's temper in the plays of the last period is the temper of Prospero. It would not be easy to picture to ourselves the great magician waited on by such ministering spirits as Sir John Falstaff, Sir Toby Belch, and the nurse of Juliet.

In order to get substantial ground to go upon, I have thought it necessary to form acquaintance with a considerable body of recent Shakspere scholarship, both English and Continental. But I avoid the discussion of purely scholastic questions. To approach Shakspere on the human side is the object of this book ; but I believe that Shakspere is not to be approached on any side through dilettantism.

I have carefully acknowledged my obligations to preceding writers. In working out the general design and main features of this study, I was able to obtain little help; but in details I obtained much. My references express, I may say, considerably more than my actual debt; for in those instances in which I found that my thought had been anticipated, and well expressed elsewhere, I have noted the coincidence. Doubtless many instances of such coincidence remain unobserved by me. Since I wrote the chapter in which The Tempest is considered, I have read for the first time Lloyd's essay upon the play, and I have found some striking and satisfactory points of agreement between myself and that good critic.

In all essentials I have adhered to the chronological method of studying Shakspere's writings. But it seemed

Preface to the First Edition. xv

pedantry to sacrifice certain advantages of contrast and comparison to a procedure in every instance, from play to play, according to dates. Thus, in the chapter on the English Historical Plays I have, for convenience of illustration, treated Henry VI. after King John^ and before Richard III. In the opening of the eighth chapter, I have explained what I believe to be the right manner of using the chronological method. I have called The Tempest Shakspere's last play, but I am quite willing to grant that A Winter^s Tale^ Henry VIII.^ and perhaps Cymbeline may actually have succeeded The Tempest. For the purpose of such a study as the present, if it be admitted that these plays belong to one and the same period— the final period of the growth of Shakspere's art — it matters little how the plays succeeded one another within that period.

I refer in one passage to Henry YIII. (act iv., sc. 2) as if written by Shakspere. The scene was, I believe, conceived by Shakspere, and carried out in the spirit of his design by Fletcher.

About half of this volume was read in the form of lectures (" Saturday Lectures in connection with Alexandra College, Dublin") in the Museum Buildings, Trinity College, Dublin, during the spring of the year 1874.

In some instances I have referred to, and quoted from, papers by the Rev. F. G. Fleay as read at meetings of the New Shakspere Society, but which have not received the final corrections of their author.

In seeing the volume through the press, I received valuable suggestions and corrections from Mr. Harold Littledale, the editor, for the ]S"ew Shakspere Society, of " The Two Noble Kinsmen," for which I thank him.

XVI

Preface to the First Edition.

I have to thank the Director of the New Shakspere Society, Mr. F. J. Furnivall, for permission to print the "Trial Table of the Order of Shakspere's Plays," which appears in his introduction to the new edition of " Shakespeare Commentaries " by Gervinus.

TRIAL TABLE OF THE ORDER OF SHAKSPERE'S PLAYS.

[This, like all other tables, must be looked on as merely tentative, and open to modification for any good reasons. But if only it comes near the truth, then reading the plays in its order will the sooner enable the student to find out its mistakes. (M. stands for " mentioned by Francis Meres in his *Palladis Tamia,' 1598.")]

In his introductory essays to *' Shakespeare's Dramatische Werke " (German Shakespeare Society), Prof. Hertzberg dates Titus 1587-89 ; Love's Labor '« Lost^ 1592 ; Comedy of Errors^ about New-year's-day, 1591 ; Two Gentlemen^ 1592; All 's Well, 1603 ; Troilus and Cressida, 1603 ; and Cymhelim, 1611.

Supposed Date.

Earliest AUasion.

Date of Publication.

First Period.

Venus and Adonis

Titus Andronicus touched up Love's Labor 's Lost .... [Love's Labor 's Wonne . .

Comedy of Errors

Midsummer-Night's Dream )

(? two dates) ]

Two Gentlemen of Verona . (?) 1 Henry VI. touched up . (?) Troilus and Cressida begun

(?) Lucrece

(?) A Lover's Complaint . , .

Richard II

Richard III

2 and 3 Henry VI. recast • .

John

Second Period.

Merchant of Venice

Taming of the Shrew, part .

1 Henry IV

2 Henry IV

1589-91

1590-91

1590-92 (?) 1590-92

(?) 1591-93

(?) 1596

1623 1623

1594 1597

1597 1597 1623 1623

Preface to the First Edition.

Trial Table of the Order of Shakspere's Plats — Continued,.

xvii

Supposed Date.

Earliest Allusion.

Date of Publication.

Merry Wiv^s ..,,.••.

Henry V

Much Ado

As You Like It

Twelfth Night

All 's Well (? Love's Labor 's )

Wonne recast) J

Sonnets

Third Period.

Hamlet . .

Measure for Meiasure ....

Julius Caesar . . . . . . . .

Othello

Macbeth ,• • •

Lear

Troilus and Cressida (?) com- \

pleted )

Antony and Cleopatra ....

Coriolanus

Timon, part

Fourth Period.

Pericles, part

Two Noble Kinsmen ....

Tempest

Cymbeline

Winter's Tale

Henry VIIL, part leooj leoij

1601-2 (?) 1592-1602

1 606-7

1606-7

(?) 1607-8

1607-8

(?) 1610

1608 (?)

(?) 1614

1611 1613 (?)

1623§

1603*

1608*

1623 1623 1623

1609*

* Entered one year before at Stationers' Hall.

f Entered two years before at Stationers' Hall.

X May be looked on as fairly certain.

§ Entered in the Stationers' Registers in 1600.

D " The Taming of a Shrew " was published in 1694,