Atlantic,--Professor Ashley Horace Thorndike,--has lately made some
studies in dramatic chronology which go far to confirm the unromantic
conjecture that to the end Shakspere remained imitative and little else.
Professor Thorndike, for example, has shown with convincing probability
that certain old plays concerning Robin Hood proved popular; a little
later, Shakspere produced the woods and outlaws of 'As You Like It.' The
question is one of pure chronology; and pure chronology has convinced
me, for one, that the forest scenes of Arden were written to fit
available costumes and properties.... Again, Professor Thorndike has
shown that Roman subjects grew popular, and tragedies of revenge such as
Marston's; a little later, Shakspere wrote 'Julius Caesar' and 'Hamlet.'
With much more elaboration Professor Thorndike has _virtually proved_
that the romances of Beaumont and Fletcher--different both in motive and
in style from any popular plays which had preceded them--were
conspicuously successful on the London stage before Shakspere began to
write romances. It seems likely, therefore, that 'Cymbeline,' which less
careful chronology had conjectured to be a model for Beaumont and
Fletcher, was in fact imitated from models which they had made. In other
words, Professor Thorndike has shown that one may account for all the
changes in Shakspere, after 1600, by merely assuming that the most
skilful and instinctive imitator among the early Elizabethan dramatists,
remained to the end an instinctively imitative follower of fashions set
by others."
Again, he says: "The likeness of their work to the romances of
Shakspere--in subject, in structure, in peculiarities of verse,--has
been often remarked; and they have consequently been supposed to have
begun by skilful superficial imitation of his spiritually ripest phase.
The question is one of chronology not yet fixed in detail; but as I have
told you already, the studies of my friend Professor Thorndike have
virtually proved that several of their plays must have been in existence
decidedly before the dates commonly assigned to 'Cymbeline,' the
'Tempest' or the 'Winter's Tale.' If he is right,--and I believe him
so,--the relation commonly thought to have existed between them and
Shakspere is precisely reversed. Shakspere was the imitator, not they;
indeed, as we have seen, he was from the beginning an imitator, not an
inventor. And here his imitations are not in all respects better than
his models."
Here the grave accusation is distinctly made that Shakspere imitated
Beaumont and Fletcher, and to support it, reference is made to one man
only, Professor Thorndike, his pupil and disciple.
And so, in this new case, we have two judges, and the curious fact that
the instructor refers to the student and the student to the instructor
as the sole authority for the soundness of the decision.
The "Introduction" of Professor Thorndike to his "Influence of Beaumont
and Fletcher on Shakspere" sufficiently shows the animus of his essay:
he cites the libel of Greene, and intimates that it is an accusation of
plagiarism which we have rejected, but which "contains an element of
truth worth keeping in mind"; he repeats in positive words the charge of
Professor Wendell that Shakspere began by "imitating or revamping the
work of others"; that "Titus Andronicus" and "Henry VI.," "so far as
they are his, are certainly imitative of other plays of the time," and
adds that "Richard II." and "Richard III." show the influence of
Marlowe's tragedies, and "Love's Labour's Lost" of Lilly's comedies.
We have sufficiently answered as to "Henry VI.," "Titus Andronicus," and
"Love's Labour's Lost." There is no proof offered as to the histories of
the two Richards. The assertion is made without authority or example,
without even the application of the usual "verse-tests" by which
authorship is so conveniently determined.
Having repeated the erroneous and unsupported statements of his master,
Professor Thorndike announces that after these early "imitations" little
attention has been given to Shakspere's subsequent indebtedness to his
contemporaries, for the reason that "to most students it has seemed
absurd," while to him it is clear that "Hamlet" and "Lear" "contain
traces of the 'tragedy of blood type'"; that "a closer adherence to
current forms can be seen in the relation between the 'Merchant of
Venice' and the 'Jew of Malta,'" "or in the many points of similarity
between 'Hamlet' and the ... tragedies dealing with the theme of blood
revenge," and that "characters ... are often clearly developments of
types familiar on the stage," "as for example, Iago is a development of
the conventional stage villain." He is certainly correct in saying that
to most students these assumptions "seem absurd." Let us examine them
briefly, for the purpose of learning whether they deserve any more
serious adjective.
Marlowe's "Jew of Malta" appeared about 1589. As the author announces in
the prologue, it is based upon Machiavel's theory of life--pure
selfishness. The Jew makes war upon all the world, for the gratification
of his passion for revenge; he poisons his daughter "and the entire
nunnery in which she had taken refuge"; he kills, he betrays, he
prepares a burning caldron for a whole garrison,--"tragedy such as this
is simply revolting. The characters of Barabas and of his servant, and
the motives by which they are stimulated, are the mere coinage of
extravagance; and the effect is as essentially undramatic as the
personification is unreal." The conduct of the drama is in keeping with
the character of this incomprehensible monster of vindictiveness; he is
"without shame or fear, and bloodthirsty even to madness." His bad
schemes are always successful; but the action proceeds without
connection, the characters come and go without apparent cause; the three
Jews, the monks and nuns, the mother of Don Mathias "appear and
disappear so unexpectedly, and are interwoven with the action in so
entirely an external manner, that the defects of the composition are at
once apparent."
If this seems a good model for Shakspere's Shylock, it will seem
impossible, when Barabas shows us his own portrait:
"As for myself, I walk abroad a-nights,
And kill sick people groaning under walls;
Sometimes I go about and poison wells;
And now and then, to cherish Christian thieves
I am content to lose some of my crowns;
That I may, walking in my gallery,
See 'em go pinion'd along by my door.
Being young, I studied physic, and began
To practice first upon the Italian;
There I enriched the priest with burials,
And always kept the sexton's arms in use,
With digging graves and ringing dead men's knells;
And after that was I an engineer,
And in the wars 'twixt France and Germany,
Under pretence of helping Charles the Fifth,
Slew friend and enemy with my stratagems.
And after that was I an usurer,
And with extorting, cozening, forfeiting,
And tricks belonging unto brokery,
I filled the jails with bankrupts in a year,
And with young orphans planted hospitals,
And every moon made some or other mad,
And now and then one hung himself for grief,
Pinning upon his breast a long great scroll,
How I with interest tormented him.
But mark how I am bless'd for plaguing them;
I have as much coin as will buy the town.
But tell me now, how hast thou spent thy time?"
And the servant answers in sympathetic lines:
"Faith, master, in setting Christian villages on fire,
Chaining of eunuchs, binding galley slaves.
One time I was an ostler in an inn,
And in the night-time secretly would I steal
To travellers' chambers, and there cut their throats;
Once at Jerusalem, where the pilgrims kneel'd,
I strewed powder on the marble stones,
And therewithal their knees would rankle so
That I have laughed a-good to see the cripples
Go limping home to Christendom on stilts."
Undoubtedly, the "groundlings" shouted with delight when this fiend was
plunged into the boiling caldron which he had heated for others. Barabas
dies, "in the midst of his crimes, with blasphemy and cursing on his
lips; everything is the same at the end as it was from the beginning."
To the unlearned reader, there is no "relation" between this wild drama
and the perfect art shown in Shakspere's Jew, who utters no curse when
the gentle Portia pronounces sentence, but retires with dignity from her
court, because "he is not well."
Professor Thorndike tells us that the "traces" of blood revenge in
"Hamlet" and "Lear" have been frequently "remarked." What those traces
are we are not informed, but he assures us that "they have not led to
any careful investigation of Shakspere's indebtedness to his
contemporaries." That investigation was reserved for his research, and
we hope to show how successfully he has performed his great task.
Meanwhile, we may be allowed to say that if "Lear" contains any "trace"
of the tragedy of blood, it is utterly undiscoverable to the ordinary
reader, in the action, character or fate of the victims; and as for
"Hamlet," so far is he from any idea of blood revenge, that he doubts
and disobeys the message from the other world, doubts indeed the
existence of any other world, and dies at last not a bloody death, but
by a foil "unbated and envenomed."
If Iago is but the development of the conventional stage villain, his
origin and some of the missing links of his evolution ought to be shown;
they have never been guessed, and no critic can produce a single member
of his kindred.
From such premises, Professor Thorndike concludes that "it is only
natural to expect that the genius who brought many of these forms to
their highest perfection should not have been so much an inventor as an
adapter"; "We may naturally expect," he says, "that Shakspere's
transcendent plays owe a considerable debt to the less perfect but not
less original efforts of his contemporaries." This "natural expectation"
is not disappointed, in Professor Thorndike's opinion, by a comparison
between some of Beaumont and Fletcher's plays and those he calls the
"romances" of Shakspere,--"Cymbeline," "The Tempest," and "Winter's
Tale." The argument is circuitous, but must be carefully followed in
order to estimate the validity and weight of the conclusion.
In the first place, it is assumed as probable that Shakspere and
Fletcher wrote "The Two Noble Kinsmen," and that Fletcher wrote part of
"Henry VIII." It is admitted that this last assumption is "at odds with
the weight of authority" and rests mainly, if not wholly, upon
Spedding's essay, in 1850. The only additional suggestion is the new and
original test, the so-called "em-them" test. A laborious table is made,
purporting to show that in the part assigned to Shakspere "them" is used
seventeen times, "'em" only five; that in the part assigned to Fletcher
"them" is used but four times, "'em" fifty-seven. We are not told from
what source this table was made, but "Henry VIII." was first published
in the folio of 1623. Professor Thorndike says that later editions have
strictly followed it, and in Knight's edition, which he certifies to be
a reprint of the first folio, "'em" as a contraction for "them" occurs
just once and no more. Thus far, then, the new "test" seems to give us
no satisfactory aid.
It may be permitted an ordinary reader to wonder how any critic can
persuade himself that Fletcher wrote the speech of Wolsey on his
downfall, or the prophecy of Cranmer at the christening of Elizabeth.
Why is it not a permissible hypothesis that "Henry VIII." was written
during the reign of the great Queen, and subsequently revised by
Shakspere, after her death, and presented as a "new play," as Wotten
calls it?
The only external evidence that Shakspere wrote any portion of "The Two
Noble Kinsmen" is the quarto of 1634. On the contrary, all the previous
external evidence is against that guess, for it was left out of the
First Folio, and Heminge & Condell's positive knowledge is certainly of
more weight than the opinion of Professor Thorndike's sole authority,
Mr. Littledale. Moreover, the play was not included among Shakspere's
works in the folio of 1632, and did not appear among them until, with
six other doubtful plays, the editions of 1664 and 1685. In view of this
proof, it is admitted that the question of collaboration is likely to
remain forever unsettled, "because it does not admit of complete
demonstration." Nevertheless, collaboration is assumed, and the
"em-them" test is applied to the text so as to credit 1034 lines to
Shakspere, 1486 to Fletcher.
German criticism has taken up the subject with minute care, and, we may
assert with confidence, has settled beyond doubt that Shakspere never
wrote a single line of "The two Noble Kinsmen." And it may be added with
equal certainty that if the citations from that play are correctly
credited to Fletcher, he never wrote a line of "Henry VIII." Professor
Thorndike is not consistent with himself. On one page he calls his
theory conjectural, on another, a "reasonable conclusion." The play
itself ought to convince any fair mind that Shakspere had no share in
it, for it contains an obvious imitation of Ophelia's madness in
"Hamlet," which in some points "is a direct plagiarism." But it was
important for Professor Thorndike to show what he calls a "probability"
that Shakspere and Fletcher collaborated, in order to establish his
theory that Fletcher "influenced" Shakspere. With the vanishing of the
"probability" the "influence" vanishes.
The second step in the argument is a review of the chronology of the
plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, among which only _seven_ are
immediately important. "The Woman Hater," licensed 20th May, 1607,
published in quarto 1607, as lately acted, again in 1648, and assigned to
Beaumont and Fletcher. Its first representation is put by Mr. Fleay on
April 5th, 1607. Professor Thorndike conjectures that this play was
produced in 1606. "Philaster," the most important in connection with our
subject, was first published in 1620. Mr. Fleay dates its composition in
1611; Professor Thorndike, in 1608. The "Four Plays in One" he likewise
assigns conjecturally to the same year. The fact is, it was first
printed in the folio of 1647, and no authority fixes the date of its
production. "Thiery and Theodoret" was first published in 1621, without
giving the name of any author. The quarto of 1648 credits Fletcher as
the sole author; that of 1649, Beaumont and Fletcher as the joint
authors. Fleay places the date about 1617; Oliphant maintains that it
was written about 1607 or 1608, and afterwards revised in 1617 by
Fletcher and Massinger; Professor Thorndike ventures the guess that it
was written in 1607.
"The Maid's Tragedy" he places doubtfully in 1609. It was first
published in 1619 without naming its authors. The only evidence as to
its date is that it was licensed October 31st, 1611.
"Cupid's Revenge" was acted at Court in 1612, and first published in
1615. Professor Thorndike thinks it was an effort to repeat the success
of "Philaster," and therefore assigns it to 1609 or 1610.
"A King and No King" he puts without hesitation in the year 1611, and
this is supported by authority. Professor Thorndike remarks that this is
the only play (of Beaumont and Fletcher), "acted before 1612, the year
of whose production is fixed."
The only reason for referring to "The Woman Hater" is to fix the date of
Beaumont and Fletcher's appearance. There is absolutely no proof that
they were known to literature before that play was licensed by Sir
George Buc on the 20th May, 1607. Yet Professor Thorndike, in spite of
this, assigns "The Woman's Prize," first printed in 1647, and first
acted, so far as the record shows, November 28th, 1633, to the year
1604.
It is to be noted that of the six other plays referred to by Professor
Thorndike, and claimed to have been in existence before the end of 1611,
the dates of all except "A King and No King" are only conjecturally
given.
Compared with these, the chronology of "Cymbeline," "Tempest" and
"Winter's Tale" is reviewed. "Cymbeline," according to Dr. Simon
Forman's Diary, was acted between April 20th, 1610, and May 15th, 1611;
it must therefore have been written before the last named date. Mr.
Fleay fixes the date in 1609, Malone in 1605, and both Chalmers and
Drake substantially agree with Malone. Ulrici assigns the date of
composition to 1609 or 1610.
"The Tempest," according to Professor Thorndike, cannot be dated earlier
than October 13th, 1610, nor later than 1613, and was probably written
and acted late in 1610 or early in 1611. Ulrici agrees with this.
"The Winter's Tale," as appears by Forman's Diary, was acted May 15,
1611. Ulrici says: "It is now a matter of certainty that it must have
been brought upon the stage between August, 1610, and May, 1611." It has
been suggested with some plausibility that this play was an early
production by Shakspere which he remodelled. A play called "A
Winternyght's Pastime" is entered at Stationer's Hall as early as 1594.
Professor Thorndike fixes the date between January 1st and May 15th,
1611 and assumes that the drama is imitated from Jonson's "Masque of
Oberon." He suggests that as in the "Masque" the chariot of Oberon is
drawn by two white bears, "perhaps here, as in the dance, costume and
actor reappeared in the play, in the bear who chases Antigonus."
Anything to show that Shakspere imitated anybody.
The argument is based upon this chronology and the alleged similarity
between the enumerated dramas: the issue is made upon the respective
dates of Beaumont and Fletcher's "Philaster" and Shakspere's
"Cymbeline." There is no claim that Shakspere imitated Beaumont and
Fletcher or was influenced by them, except in his three "romances," and
of these, "Cymbeline" is placed first. Professor Thorndike undertakes to
prove that "Philaster" was written before October 8th, 1610, and this
is his reasoning:
"In the 'Scourge of Folly' by John Davies of Hertford, entered in the
Stationer's Register October 8th, 1610, occurs an epigram referring to
this play." Let us examine this statement first. On the next page he
says: "The '_Scourge of Folly_' furnishes no further clue in regard to
the date of the epigram." On page 59 of the same essay, referring to
another play, "Don Quixote," the statement is made that it was "entered
S. R. 1611 and printed 1612." The entry was therefore in the nature of a
"license to print." It is clear that in this instance the actual
printing or publication was after the entry. The same rule must apply to
other plays of the same period. The date of entry affords no proof
whatever of the date of publication or of presentation. Therefore the
date of the entry of "The Scourge of Folly," October 8th, 1610, as
Professor Thorndike states, "affords no clue in regard to the date" of
Davies's "epigram." The "epigram" may have been written long after the
entry in the Stationer's Register, and probably was, because it is not
to be assumed that the "epigram" appeared in the entry of the play, and
Davies cannot be assumed to have had any knowledge of the existence of
"Philaster" until it appeared upon the stage, a date entirely uncertain.
Further, Professor Thorndike says: "There is no reason why 'Philaster'
may not have been produced before Burbage took up the Blackfriar's lease
in 1608. There is in fact no early limit that can be set for the date;
the final limit is of course fixed by Davies' epigram." Of what value is
the final limit "fixed by the epigram" when there is no proof of the
date of that? What ground is there, beyond mere arbitrary assumption,
for assigning "Philaster" to 1608? That play was not printed till 1620.
Mr. Fleay, Professor Thorndike's constant authority, says it was written
in 1611, after "Cymbeline" was upon the stage. There is absolutely no
proof, therefore, that "Philaster" was written before October 8th, 1610,
no proof when it was entered, licensed or first acted; and so it is
clear, as Professor Thorndike says, that "the date, 1608, adopted by
Dyce, Leonhardt, and Macaulay, is no more than a conjecture." On the
other hand, as we have shown, the external evidence is conclusive that
"Cymbeline" was upon the bills before May 15th, 1611, and therefore the
argument that "Philaster" preceded "Cymbeline" finds no better support
than the opinion of Dyce, Leonhardt, and Macaulay. It is mere
conjecture.
Professor Thorndike expressly admits that of the six plays which are
claimed as "romances," "A King and No King" "is the only one acted
before 1612 the year of whose production is fixed," but he states
without qualification that "Winter's Tale" and the "Tempest" were not
acted until after "Philaster." As we have seen, "Winter's Tale" was
acted May 15th, 1611, and Professor Thorndike himself says that "'The
Tempest' was probably written and acted late in 1610 or early in 1611";
"Cupid's Revenge" "was acted the Sunday following New Year's 1612; 'A
King and No King' in December, 1611." These are the only two of the six
of which the date of acting is given. Nowhere does Professor Thorndike
pretend to give any date whatever when "Philaster" was acted; the only
question discussed is as to the year of authorship, and that is left
uncertain. The statement that "Winter's Tale" and "The Tempest" were
"not acted until after 'Philaster'" is utterly without warrant or
authority. If Shakspere is to be adjudged the "imitator" of Beaumont and
Fletcher, the judgment must rest upon facts or inference from facts, and
not upon the unsupported opinion of Professor Wendell's pupil.
Professor Thorndike in fact admits that "we cannot be certain about the
date of 'Cymbeline,'" but yet assumes that "Philaster" preceded it, both
in date of production and public appearance, and proceeds to draw a
long parallel between the "romances" of Beaumont and Fletcher and those
of Shakspere, for the purpose of showing that the "romance" or the
heroic "romance" was a new style of drama, "created" by Beaumont and
Fletcher and probably adapted and improved by Shakspere.
Whether there is any difference in definition between the "romance" and
the "heroic romance" seems immaterial, since Professor Thorndike uses
one term as synonymous with the other. He gives "the most noticeable
characteristics of the romances": "A mixture of tragic and idyllic
events, a series of highly improbable events, heroic and sentimental
characters, foreign scenes, happy denouements." This definition is
elaborated in connection with the "romances" of Beaumont and Fletcher:
1st. They took the plots from any source.
2nd. The plots are ingenious and improbable.
3rd. The plots lack realism.
4th. The plots deal with heroic persons and actions.
5th. The characters are not historical.
6th. The plays are located far off, for example, in Milan, Athens,
Messina, Lisbon.
7th. The action has little to do with the real life of any historic
period, but with "romance."
8th. The story is of sentimental love, as contrasted with gross, sensual
passion.
9th. There is variety of emotional effect.
10th. There is always a happy denouement.
All these elements of the definition are applied to "Cymbeline," "The
Tempest" and "Winter's Tale," and it is maintained that none of
Shakspere's previous dramas present the same features. This is a
convenient method of showing that Beaumont and Fletcher "created the
romantic drama" and that Shakspere was "influenced" in writing
"Cymbeline" by "Philaster," but it is not criticism; it is rather an
attempt to "create" a definition and apply it to "Philaster," and then
to deny its application to "Midsummer Night's Dream," "Much Ado About
Nothing," "The Merchant of Venice," "Twelfth Night" or "Measure for
Measure."