The labour of an age in piled stones?
Or that his hallowed reliques should be hid
Under a star-ypointing pyramid?
Dear son of memory, great heir of fame,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
Thou in our wonder and astonishment
Hast built thyself a lifelong monument.
A writer of fine insight who veiled himself under the initials I. M. S.
{327b} contributed to the Second Folio of 1632 a splendid eulogy. The
opening lines declare 'Shakespeare's freehold' to have been
A mind reflecting ages past, whose clear
And equal surface can make things appear
Distant a thousand years, and represent
Them in their lively colours' just extent.
It was his faculty
To outrun hasty time, retrieve the fates,
Roll back the heavens, blow ope the iron gates
Of death and Lethe, where (confused) lie
Great heaps of ruinous mortality.
Milton and I. M. S. were followed within ten years by critics of tastes
so varied as the dramatist of domesticity Thomas Heywood, the gallant
lyrist Sir John Suckling, the philosophic and 'ever-memorable' John Hales
of Eton, and the untiring versifier of the stage and court, Sir William
D'Avenant. Before 1640 Hales is said to have triumphantly established,
in a public dispute held with men of learning in his rooms at Eton, the
proposition that 'there was no subject of which any poet ever writ but he
could produce it much better done in Shakespeare.' {328} Leonard Digges
(in the 1640 edition of the 'Poems') asserted that every revival of
Shakespeare's plays drew crowds to pit, boxes, and galleries alike. At a
little later date, Shakespeare's plays were the 'closet companions' of
Charles I's 'solitudes.' {329a}
1660-1702. Dryden's view.
After the Restoration public taste in England veered towards the French
and classical dramatic models. {329b} Shakespeare's work was subjected
to some unfavourable criticism as the product of nature to the exclusion
of art, but the eclipse proved more partial and temporary than is
commonly admitted. The pedantic censure of Thomas Rymer on the score of
Shakespeare's indifference to the classical canons attracted attention,
but awoke in England no substantial echo. In his 'Short View of Tragedy'
(1692) Rymer mainly concentrated his attention on 'Othello,' and reached
the eccentric conclusion that it was 'a bloody farce without salt or
savour.' In Pepys's eyes 'The Tempest' had 'no great wit,' and
'Midsummer Night's Dream' was 'the most insipid and ridiculous play;' yet
this exacting critic witnessed thirty-six performances of twelve of
Shakespeare's plays between October 11, 1660, and February 6, 1668-9,
seeing 'Hamlet' four times, and 'Macbeth,' which he admitted to be 'a
most excellent play for variety,' nine times. Dryden, the literary
dictator of the day, repeatedly complained of Shakespeare's
inequalities--'he is the very Janus of poets.' {330a} But in almost the
same breath Dryden declared that Shakespeare was held in as much
veneration among Englishmen as AEschylus among the Athenians, and that
'he was the man who of all modern and perhaps ancient poets had the
largest and most comprehensive soul. . . . When he describes anything,
you more than see it--you feel it too.' {330b} In 1693, when Sir Godfrey
Kneller presented Dryden with a copy of the Chandos portrait of
Shakespeare, the poet acknowledged the gift thus:
TO SIR GODFREY KNELLER.
_Shakespear_, thy Gift, I place before my sight;
With awe, I ask his Blessing ere I write;
With Reverence look on his Majestick Face;
Proud to be less, but of his Godlike Race.
His Soul Inspires me, while thy Praise I write,
And I, like _Teucer_, under _Ajax_ fight.
Writers of Charles II's reign of such opposite temperaments as Margaret
Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle, and Sir Charles Sedley vigorously argued
for Shakespeare's supremacy. As a girl the sober duchess declares she
fell in love with Shakespeare. In her 'Sociable Letters,' which were
published in 1664, she enthusiastically, if diffusely, described how
Shakespeare creates the illusion that he had been 'transformed into every
one of those persons he hath described,' and suffered all their emotions.
When she witnessed one of his tragedies she felt persuaded that she was
witnessing an episode in real life. 'Indeed,' she concludes,
'Shakespeare had a clear judgment, a quick wit, a subtle observation, a
deep apprehension, and a most eloquent elocution.' The profligate
Sedley, in a prologue to the 'Wary Widdow,' a comedy by one Higden,
produced in 1693, apostrophised Shakespeare thus:
Shackspear whose fruitfull Genius, happy wit
Was fram'd and finisht at a lucky hit
The pride of Nature, and the shame of Schools,
Born to Create, and not to Learn from Rules.
Restoration adaptations.
Many adaptations of Shakespeare's plays were contrived to meet current
sentiment of a less admirable type. But they failed efficiently to
supersede the originals. Dryden and D'Avenant converted 'The Tempest'
into an opera (1670). D'Avenant single-handed adapted 'The Two Noble
Kinsmen' (1668) and 'Macbeth' (1674). Dryden dealt similarly with
'Troilus' (1679); Thomas Duffett with 'The Tempest' (1675); Shadwell with
'Timon' (1678); Nahum Tate with 'Richard II' (1681), 'Lear' (1681), and
'Coriolanus' (1682); John Crowne with 'Henry VI' (1681); D'Urfey with
'Cymbeline' (1682); Ravenscroft with 'Titus Andronicus' (1687); Otway
with 'Romeo and Juliet' (1692), and John Sheffield, duke of Buckingham,
with 'Julius Caesar' (1692). But during the same period the chief actor
of the day, Thomas Betterton, won his spurs as the interpreter of
Shakespeare's leading parts, often in unrevised versions. Hamlet was
accounted that actor's masterpiece. {332a} 'No succeeding tragedy for
several years,' wrote Downes, the prompter at Betterton's theatre, 'got
more reputation or money to the company than this.'
From 1702 onwards.
From the accession of Queen Anne to the present day the tide of
Shakespeare's reputation, both on the stage and among critics, has flowed
onward almost uninterruptedly. The censorious critic, John Dennis, in
his 'Letters' on Shakespeare's 'genius,' gave his work in 1711
whole-hearted commendation, and two of the greatest men of letters of the
eighteenth century, Pope and Johnson, although they did not withhold all
censure, paid him, as we have seen, the homage of becoming his editor.
The school of textual criticism which Theobald and Capell founded in the
middle years of the century has never ceased its activity since their
day. {332b} Edmund Malone's devotion at the end of the eighteenth
century to the biography of the poet and the contemporary history of the
stage, secured for him a vast band of disciples, of whom Joseph Hunter
and John Payne Collier well deserve mention. But of all Malone's
successors, James Orchard Halliwell, afterwards Halliwell-Phillipps
(1820-1889), has made the most important additions to our knowledge of
Shakespeare's biography.
Meanwhile, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, there arose a
third school to expound exclusively the aesthetic excellence of the
plays. In its inception the aesthetic school owed much to the methods of
Schlegel and other admiring critics of Shakespeare in Germany. But
Coleridge in his 'Notes and Lectures' {333} and Hazlitt in his
'Characters of Shakespeare's Plays' (1817) are the best representatives
of the aesthetic school in this or any other country. Although Professor
Dowden, in his 'Shakespeare, his Mind and Art' (1874), and Mr. Swinburne
in his 'Study of Shakespeare' (1880), are worthy followers, Coleridge and
Hazlitt remain as aesthetic critics unsurpassed. In the effort to supply
a fuller interpretation of Shakespeare's works textual, historical, and
aesthetic--two publishing societies have done much valuable work. 'The
Shakespeare Society' was founded in 1841 by Collier, Halliwell, and their
friends, and published some forty-eight volumes before its dissolution in
1853. The New Shakspere Society, which was founded by Dr. Furnivall in
1874, issued during the ensuing twenty years twenty-seven publications,
illustrative mainly of the text and of contemporary life and literature.
Stratford festivals.
In 1769 Shakespeare's 'jubilee' was celebrated for three days (September
6-8) at Stratford, under the direction of Garrick, Dr. Arne, and Boswell.
The festivities were repeated on a small scale in April 1827 and April
1830. 'The Shakespeare tercentenary festival,' which was held at
Stratford from April 23 to May 4, 1864, claimed to be a national
celebration. {334}
On the English stage. The first appearance of actresses in Shakespearean
parts. David Garrick, 1717-1779.
On the English stage the name of every eminent actor since Betterton, the
great actor of the period of the Restoration, has been identified with
Shakespearean parts. Steele, writing in the 'Tatler' (No. 167) in
reference to Betterton's funeral in the cloisters of Westminster Abbey on
May 2, 1710, instanced his rendering of Othello as proof of an
unsurpassable talent in realising Shakespeare's subtlest conceptions on
the stage. One great and welcome innovation in Shakespearean acting is
closely associated with Betterton's first name. He encouraged the
substitution, that was inaugurated by Killigrew, of women for boys in
female parts. The first role that was professionally rendered by a woman
in a public theatre was that of Desdemona in 'Othello,' apparently on
December 8, 1660. {335} The actress on that occasion is said to have
been Mrs. Margaret Hughes, Prince Rupert's mistress; but Betterton's
wife, who was at first known on the stage as Mrs. Saunderson, was the
first actress to present a series of Shakespeare's great female
characters. Mrs. Betterton gave her husband powerful support, from 1663
onwards, in such roles as Ophelia, Juliet, Queen Catherine, and Lady
Macbeth. Betterton formed a school of actors who carried on his
traditions for many years after his death. Robert Wilks (1670-1732) as
Hamlet, and Barton Booth (1681-1733) as Henry VIII and Hotspur, were
popularly accounted no unworthy successors. Colley Cibber (1671-1757) as
actor, theatrical manager, and dramatic critic, was both a loyal disciple
of Betterton and a lover of Shakespeare, though his vanity and his faith
in the ideals of the Restoration incited him to perpetrate many outrages
on Shakespeare's text when preparing it for theatrical representation.
His notorious adaptation of 'Richard III,' which was first produced in
1700, long held the stage to the exclusion of the original version. But
towards the middle of the eighteenth century all earlier efforts to
interpret Shakespeare in the playhouse were eclipsed in public esteem by
the concentrated energy and intelligence of David Garrick. Garrick's
enthusiasm for the poet and his histrionic genius riveted Shakespeare's
hold on public taste. His claim to have restored to the stage the text
of Shakespeare--purified of Restoration defilements--cannot be allowed
without serious qualifications. Garrick had no scruple in presenting
plays of Shakespeare in versions that he or his friends had recklessly
garbled. He supplied 'Romeo and Juliet' with a happy ending; he
converted the 'Taming of the Shrew' into the farce of 'Katherine and
Petruchio,' 1754; he introduced radical changes in 'Antony and
Cleopatra,' 'Two Gentlemen of Verona,' 'Cymbeline,' and 'Midsummer
Night's Dream.' Nevertheless, no actor has won an equally exalted
reputation in so vast and varied a repertory of Shakespearean roles. His
triumphant debut as Richard III in 1741 was followed by equally
successful performances of Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, King John, Romeo, Henry
IV, Iago, Leontes, Benedick, and Antony in 'Antony and Cleopatra.'
Garrick was not quite undeservedly buried in Westminster Abbey on
February 1, 1779, at the foot of Shakespeare's statue.
Garrick was ably seconded by Mrs. Clive (1711-1785), Mrs. Cibber
(1714-1766), and Mrs. Pritchard (1711-1768). Mrs. Cibber as Constance in
'King John,' and Mrs. Pritchard in Lady Macbeth, excited something of the
same enthusiasm as Garrick in Richard III and Lear. There were, too,
contemporary critics who judged rival actors to show in certain parts
powers equal, if not superior, to those of Garrick. Charles Macklin
(1697?-1797) for nearly half a century, from 1735 to 1785, gave many
hundred performances of a masterly rendering of Shylock. The character
had, for many years previous to Macklin's assumption of it, been allotted
to comic actors, but Macklin effectively concentrated his energy on the
tragic significance of the part with an effect that Garrick could not
surpass. Macklin was also reckoned successful in Polonius and Iago.
John Henderson, the Bath Roscius (1747-1785), who, like Garrick, was
buried in Westminster Abbey, derived immense popularity from his
representation of Falstaff; while in subordinate characters like
Mercutio, Slender, Jaques, Touchstone, and Sir Toby Belch, John Palmer
(1742?-1798) was held to approach perfection. But Garrick was the
accredited chief of the theatrical profession until his death. He was
then succeeded in his place of predominance by John Philip Kemble, who
derived invaluable support from his association with one abler than
himself, his sister, Mrs. Siddons.
John Philip Kemble, 1757-1823. Mrs. Sarah Siddons, 1755-1831.
Somewhat stilted and declamatory in speech, Kemble enacted a wide range
of characters of Shakespearean tragedy with a dignity that won the
admiration of Pitt, Sir Walter Scott, Charles Lamb, and Leigh Hunt.
Coriolanus was regarded as his masterpiece, but his renderings of Hamlet,
King John, Wolsey, the Duke in 'Measure for Measure,' Leontes, and Brutus
satisfied the most exacting canons of contemporary theatrical criticism.
Kemble's sister, Mrs. Siddons, was the greatest actress that
Shakespeare's countrymen have known. Her noble and awe-inspiring
presentation of Lady Macbeth, her Constance, her Queen Katherine, have,
according to the best testimony, not been equalled even by the
achievements of the eminent actresses of France.
Edmund Kean, 1787-1833.
During the present century the most conspicuous histrionic successes in
Shakespearean drama have been won by Edmund Kean, whose triumphant
rendering of Shylock on his first appearance at Drury Lane Theatre on
January 26, 1814, is one of the most stirring incidents in the history of
the English stage. Kean defied the rigid convention of the 'Kemble
School,' and gave free rein to his impetuous passions. Besides Shylock,
he excelled in Richard III, Othello, Hamlet, and Lear. No less a critic
than Coleridge declared that to see him act was like 'reading Shakespeare
by flashes of lightning.' Among other Shakespearean actors of Kean's
period a high place was allotted by public esteem to George Frederick
Cooke (1756-1811), whose Richard III, first given in London at Covent
Garden Theatre, October 31, 1801, was accounted his masterpiece. Charles
Lamb, writing in 1822, declared that of all the actors who flourished in
his time, Robert Bensley 'had most of the swell of soul,' and Lamb gave
with a fine enthusiasm in his 'Essays of Elia' an analysis (which has
become classical) of Bensley's performance of Malvolio. But Bensley's
powers were rated more moderately by more experienced playgoers. {338}
Lamb's praises of Mrs. Jordan (1762-1816) in Ophelia, Helena, and Viola
in 'Twelfth Night,' are corroborated by the eulogies of Hazlitt and Leigh
Hunt. In the part of Rosalind Mrs. Jordan is reported on all sides to
have beaten Mrs. Siddons out of the field.
William Charles Macready, 1793-1873.
The torch thus lit by Garrick, by the Kembles, by Kean and his
contemporaries was worthily kept alive by William Charles Macready, a
cultivated and conscientious actor, who, during a professional career of
more than forty years (1810-1851), assumed every great part in
Shakespearean tragedy. Although Macready lacked the classical bearing of
Kemble or the intense passion of Kean, he won as the interpreter of
Shakespeare the whole-hearted suffrages of the educated public.
Macready's chief associate in women characters was Helen Faucit
(1820-1898, afterwards Lady Martin), whose refined impersonations of
Imogen, Beatrice, Juliet, and Rosalind form an attractive chapter in the
history of the stage.
Recent revivals.
The most notable tribute paid to Shakespeare by any actor-manager of
recent times was paid by Samuel Phelps (1804-1878), who gave during his
tenure of Sadler's Wells Theatre between 1844 and 1862 competent
representations of all the plays save six; only 'Richard II,' the three
parts of 'Henry VI,' 'Troilus and Cressida,' and 'Titus Andronicus' were
omitted. Sir Henry Irving, who since 1878 has been ably seconded by Miss
Ellen Terry, has revived at the Lyceum Theatre between 1874 and the
present time eleven plays ('Hamlet,' 'Macbeth,' 'Othello,' 'Richard III,'
'The Merchant of Venice,' 'Much Ado about Nothing,' 'Twelfth Night,'
'Romeo and Juliet,' 'King Lear,' 'Henry VIII,' and 'Cymbeline'), and has
given each of them all the advantage they can derive from thoughtful
acting as well as from lavish scenic elaboration. {340a} But theatrical
revivals of plays of Shakespeare are in England intermittent, and no
theatrical manager since Phelps's retirement has sought systematically to
illustrate on the stage the full range of Shakespearean drama. Far more
in this direction has been attempted in Germany. {340b} In one respect
the history of recent Shakespearean representations can be viewed by the
literary student with unqualified satisfaction. Although some changes of
text or some rearrangement of the scenes are found imperative in all
theatrical representations of Shakespeare, a growing public sentiment in
England and elsewhere has for many years favoured as loyal an adherence
to the authorised version of the plays as is practicable on the part of
theatrical managers; and the evil traditions of the stage which
sanctioned the perversions of the eighteenth century are happily
well-nigh extinct.
In music and art.
Music and art in England owe much to Shakespeare's influence. From
Thomas Morley, Purcell, Matthew Locke, and Arne to William Linley, Sir
Henry Bishop, and Sir Arthur Sullivan, every distinguished musician has
sought to improve on his predecessor's setting of one or more of
Shakespeare's songs, or has composed concerted music in illustration of
some of his dramatic themes. {341} In art, the publisher John Boydell
organised in 1787 a scheme for illustrating scenes in Shakespeare's work
by the greatest living English artists. Some fine pictures were the
result. A hundred and sixty-eight were painted in all, and the artists,
whom Boydell employed, included Sir Joshua Reynolds, George Romney,
Thomas Stothard, John Opie, Benjamin West, James Barry, and Henry Fuseli.
All the pictures were exhibited from time to time between 1789 and 1804
at a gallery specially built for the purpose in Pall Mall, and in 1802
Boydell published a collection of engravings of the chief pictures. The
great series of paintings was dispersed by auction in 1805. Few eminent
artists of later date, from Daniel Maclise to Sir John Millais, have
lacked the ambition to interpret some scene or character of Shakespearean
drama.
In America.
In America no less enthusiasm for Shakespeare has been manifested than in
England. Editors and critics are hardly less numerous there, and some
criticism from American pens, like that of James Russell Lowell, has
reached the highest literary level. Nowhere, perhaps, has more labour
been devoted to the study of his works than that given by Mr. H. H.
Furness of Philadelphia to the preparation of his 'New Variorum' edition.
The Barton collection of Shakespeareana in the Boston Public Library is
one of the most valuable extant, and the elaborate catalogue (1878-80)
contains some 2,500 entries. First of Shakespeare's plays to be
represented in America, 'Richard III' was performed in New York in March
1750. More recently Edwin Forrest, Junius Brutus Booth, Edwin Booth,
Charlotte Cushman, and Miss Ada Rehan have maintained on the American
stage the great traditions of Shakespearean acting; while Mr. E. A. Abbey
has devoted high artistic gifts to pictorial representation of scenes
from the plays.
Translations. In Germany. German translations.