LECTURE XXIV.

Criticisms on Shakspeare's Comedies.

The best and easiest mode of reviewing Shakspeare's dramas will be to

arrange them in classes. This, it must be owned, is merely a makeshift:

several critics have declared that all Shakspeare's pieces substantially

belong to the same species, although sometimes one ingredient, sometimes

another, the musical or the characteristical, the invention of the

wonderful or the imitation of the real, the pathetic or the comic,

seriousness or irony, may preponderate in the mixture. Shakspeare himself,

it would appear, did but laugh at the petty endeavours of critics to find

out divisions and subdivisions of species, and to hedge in what had been

so separated with the most anxious care; thus the pedantic Polonius in

_Hamlet_ commends the players, for their knowledge of "tragedy, comedy,

history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-

historical, tragical-comical, historical-pastoral, scene-undividable, or

poem unlimited." On another occasion he ridicules the limitation of

Tragedy to an unfortunate catastrophe:

"And tragical, my noble lord, it is;

For Pyramus therein doth kill himself."

However the division into Comedies, Tragedies, and Historical Dramas,

according to the usual practice, may in some measure be adopted, if we do

not lose sight of the transitions and affinities. The subjects of the

comedies are generally taken from novels: they are romantic love tales;

none are altogether confined to the sphere of common or domestic

relations: all of them possess poetical ornament, some of them run into

the wonderful or the pathetic. With these two of his most famous tragedies

are connected by an immediate link, _Romeo and Juliet_ and _Othello_; both

true novels, and composed on the same principles. In many of the

historical plays a considerable space is occupied by the comic characters

and scenes; others are serious throughout, and leave behind a tragical

impression. The essential circumstance by which they are distinguished is,

that the plot bears reference to a poetical and national interest. This is

not equally the case in _Hamlet_, _Lear_, and _Macbeth_; and therefore it

is that we do not include these tragedies among the historical pieces,

though the first is founded on an old northern, the second on a national

tradition; and the third comes even within the era of Scottish history,

after it ceased to be fabulous.

Among the comedies, _The Two Gentlemen of Verona_, _The Taming of the

Shrew_, and _The Comedy of Errors_, bear many traces of an early origin.

_The Two Gentlemen of Verona_ paints the irresolution of love, and its

infidelity to friendship, pleasantly enough, but in some degree

superficially, we might almost say with the levity of mind which a passion

suddenly entertained, and as suddenly given up, presupposes. The faithless

lover is at last, on account of a very ambiguous repentance, forgiven

without much difficulty by his first mistress; for the more serious part,

the premeditated flight of the daughter of a Prince, the capture of her

father along with herself by a band of robbers, of which one of the Two

Gentlemen, the betrayed and banished friend, has been against his will

elected captain: for all this a peaceful solution is soon found. It is as

if the course of the world was obliged to accommodate itself to a

transient youthful caprice, called love. Julia, who accompanies her

faithless lover in the disguise of a page, is, as it were, a light sketch

of the tender female figures of a Viola and an Imogen, who, in the latter

pieces of Shakspeare, leave their home in similar disguises on love

adventures, and to whom a peculiar charm is communicated by the display of

the most virginly modesty in their hazardous and problematical situation.

_The Comedy of Errors_ is the subject of the _Menaechmi_ of Plautus,

entirely recast and enriched with new developments: of all the works of

Shakspeare this is the only example of imitation of, or borrowing

from, the ancients. To the two twin brothers of the same name are added

two slaves, also twins, impossible to be distinguished from each other,

and of the same name. The improbability becomes by this means doubled: but

when once we have lent ourselves to the first, which certainly borders on

the incredible, we shall not perhaps be disposed to cavil at the second;

and if the spectator is to be entertained by mere perplexities they cannot

be too much varied. In such pieces we must, to give to the senses at least

an appearance of truth, always pre-suppose that the parts by which the

misunderstandings are occasioned are played with masks, and this the poet

no doubt observed. I cannot acquiesce in the censure that the discovery is

too long deferred: so long as novelty and interest are possessed by the

perplexing incidents, there is no need to be in dread of wearisomeness.

And this is really the case here: matters are carried so far that one of

the two brothers is first arrested for debt, then confined as a lunatic,

and the other is forced to take refuge in a sanctuary to save his life. In

a subject of this description it is impossible to steer clear of all sorts

of low circumstances, abusive language, and blows; Shakspeare has however

endeavoured to ennoble it in every possible way. A couple of scenes,

dedicated to jealousy and love, interrupt the course of perplexities which

are solely occasioned by the illusion of the external senses. A greater

solemnity is given to the discovery, from the Prince presiding, and from

the re-union of the long separated parents of the twins who are still

alive. The exposition, by which the spectators are previously instructed

while the characters themselves are still involved in ignorance, and which

Plautus artlessly conveys in a prologue, is here masterly introduced in an

affecting narrative by the father. In short, this is perhaps the best of

all written or possible Menaechmi; and if the piece be inferior in worth

to other pieces of Shakspeare, it is merely because nothing more could be

made of the materials.

_The Taming of the Shrew_ has the air of an Italian comedy; and indeed the

love intrigue, which constitutes the main part of it, is derived mediately

or immediately from a piece of Ariosto. The characters and passions are

lightly sketched; the intrigue is introduced without much preparation, and

in its rapid progress impeded by no sort of difficulties; while, in the

manner in which Petruchio, though previously cautioned as to Katherine,

still encounters the risks in marrying her, and contrives to tame her--in

all this the character and peculiar humour of the English are distinctly

visible. The colours are laid on somewhat coarsely, but the ground is

good. That the obstinacy of a young and untamed girl, possessed of none of

the attractions of her sex, and neither supported by bodily nor mental

strength, must soon yield to the still rougher and more capricious but

assumed self-will of a man: such a lesson can only be taught on the

stage with all the perspicuity of a proverb.

The prelude is still more remarkable than the play itself: a drunken

tinker, removed in his sleep to a palace, where he is deceived into the

belief of being a nobleman. The invention, however, is not Shakspeare's.

Holberg has handled the same subject in a masterly manner, and with

inimitable truth; but he has spun it out to five acts, for which such

material is hardly sufficient. He probably did not borrow from the English

dramatist, but like him took the hint from a popular story. There are

several comic motives of this description, which go back to a very remote

age, without ever becoming antiquated. Here, as well as everywhere else,

Shakspeare has proved himself a great poet: the whole is merely a slight

sketch, but in elegance and delicate propriety it will hardly ever be

excelled. Neither has he overlooked the irony which the subject naturally

suggested: the great lord, who is driven by idleness and ennui to deceive

a poor drunkard, can make no better use of his situation than the latter,

who every moment relapses into his vulgar habits. The last half of this

prelude, that in which the tinker, in his new state, again drinks himself

out of his senses, and is transformed in his sleep into his former

condition, is from some accident or other, lost. It ought to have followed

at the end of the larger piece. The occasional remarks of the tinker,

during the course of the representation of the comedy, might have been

improvisatory, but it is hardly credible that Shakspeare should have

trusted to the momentary suggestions of the players, whom he did not hold

in high estimation, the conclusion, however short, of a work which he had

so carefully commenced. Moreover, the only circumstance which connects the

play with the prelude, is, that it belongs to the new life of the supposed

nobleman to have plays acted in his castle by strolling actors. This

invention of introducing spectators on the stage, who contribute to the

entertainment, has been very wittily used by later English poets.

_Love's Labour Lost_ is also numbered among the pieces of his youth.

It is a humorsome display of frolic; a whole cornucopia of the most

vivacious jokes is emptied into it. Youth is certainly perceivable in the

lavish superfluity of labour in the execution: the unbroken succession of

plays on words, and sallies of every description, hardly leave the

spectator time to breathe; the sparkles of wit fly about in such

profusion, that they resemble a blaze of fireworks; while the dialogue,

for the most part, is in the same hurried style in which the passing masks

at a carnival attempt to banter each other. The young king of Navarre,

with three of his courtiers, has made a vow to pass three years in rigid

retirement, and devote them to the study of wisdom; for that purpose he

has banished all female society from his court, and imposed a penalty on

the intercourse with women. But scarcely has he, in a pompous harangue,

worthy of the most heroic achievements, announced this determination, when

the daughter of the king of France appears at his court, in the name of

her old and bed-ridden father, to demand the restitution of a province

which he held in pledge. Compelled to give her audience, he falls

immediately in love with her. Matters fare no better with his companions,

who on their parts renew an old acquaintance with the princess's

attendants. Each, in heart, is already false to his vow, without knowing

that the wish is shared by his associates; they overhear one another, as

they in turn confide their sorrows in a love-ditty to the solitary forest:

every one jeers and confounds the one who follows him. Biron, who from the

beginning was the most satirical among them, at last steps forth, and

rallies the king and the two others, till the discovery of a love-letter

forces him also to hang down his head. He extricates himself and his

companions from their dilemma by ridiculing the folly of the broken vow,

and, after a noble eulogy on women, invites them to swear new allegiance

to the colours of love. This scene is inimitable, and the crowning beauty

of the whole. The manner in which they afterwards prosecute their love-

suits in masks and disguise, and in which they are tricked and laughed at

by the ladies, who are also masked and disguised, is, perhaps, spun out

too long. It may be thought, too, that the poet, when he suddenly

announces the death of the king of France, and makes the princess postpone

her answer to the young prince's serious advances till the expiration of

the period of her mourning, and impose, besides, a heavy penance on him

for his levity, drops the proper comic tone. But the tone of raillery,

which prevails throughout the piece, made it hardly possible to bring

about a more satisfactory conclusion: after such extravagance, the

characters could not return to sobriety, except under the presence of some

foreign influence. The grotesque figures of Don Armado, a pompous

fantastic Spaniard, a couple of pedants, and a clown, who between whiles

contribute to the entertainment, are the creation of a whimsical

imagination, and well adapted as foils for the wit of so vivacious a

society.

_All's Well that Ends Well_, _Much Ado about Nothing_, _Measure for

Measure_, and _The Merchant of Venice_, bear, in so far, a resemblance to

each other, that, along with the main plot, which turns on important

relations decisive of nothing less than the happiness or misery of life,

and therefore is calculated to make a powerful impression on the moral

feeling, the poet, with the skill of a practised artist, has contrived to

combine a number of cheerful accompaniments. Not, however, that the poet

seems both to allow full scope to the serious impressions: he merely adds

a due counterpoise to them in the entertainment which he supplies for the

imagination and the understanding. He has furnished the story with all the

separate features which are necessary to give to it the appearance of a

real, though extraordinary, event. But he never falls into the lachrymose

tone of the sentimental drama, nor into the bitterness of those dramas

which have a moral direction, and which are really nothing but moral

invectives dramatized. Compassion, anxiety, and dissatisfaction become too

oppressive when they are too long dwelt on, and when the whole of a work

is given up to them exclusively. Shakspeare always finds means to

transport us from the confinement of social institutions or pretensions,

where men do but shut out the light and air from each other, into the open

space, even before we ourselves are conscious of our want.

_All's Well that Ends Well_ is the old story of a young maiden whose

love looked much higher than her station. She obtains her lover in

marriage from the hand of the King as a reward for curing him of a

hopeless and lingering disease, by means of a hereditary arcanum of her

father, who had been in his lifetime a celebrated physician. The young man

despises her virtue and beauty; concludes the marriage only in appearance,

and seeks in the dangers of war, deliverance from a domestic happiness

which wounds his pride. By faithful endurance and an innocent fraud, she

fulfils the apparently impossible conditions on which the Count had

promised to acknowledge her as his wife. Love appears here in humble

guise: the wooing is on the woman's side; it is striving, unaided by a

reciprocal inclination, to overcome the prejudices of birth. But as soon

as Helena is united to the Count by a sacred bond, though by him

considered an oppressive chain, her error becomes her virtue.--She affects

us by her patient suffering: the moment in which she appears to most

advantage is when she accuses herself as the persecutor of her inflexible

husband, and, under the pretext of a pilgrimage to atone for her error,

privately leaves the house of her mother-in-law. Johnson expresses a

cordial aversion for Count Bertram, and regrets that he should be allowed

to come off at last with no other punishment than a temporary shame, nay,

even be rewarded with the unmerited possession of a virtuous wife. But has

Shakspeare ever attempted to soften the impression made by his unfeeling

pride and light-hearted perversity? He has but given him the good

qualities of a soldier. And does not the poet paint the true way of the

world, which never makes much of man's injustice to woman, if so-called

family honour is preserved? Bertram's sole justification is, that by the

exercise of arbitrary power, the King thought proper to constrain him, in

a matter of such delicacy and private right as the choice of a wife.

Besides, this story, as well as that of Grissel and many similar ones, is

intended to prove that woman's truth and patience will at last triumph

over man's abuse of his superior power, while other novels and

_fabliaux_ are, on the other hand, true satires on woman's inconsistency

and cunning. In this piece old age is painted with rare favour: the plain

honesty of the King, the good-natured impetuosity of old Lafeu, the

maternal indulgence of the Countess to Helena's passion for her son, seem

all as it were to vie with each other in endeavours to overcome the

arrogance of the young Count. The style of the whole is more sententious

than imaginative: the glowing colours of fancy could not with propriety

have been employed on such a subject. In the passages where the

humiliating rejection of the poor Helena is most painfully affecting, the

cowardly Parolles steps in to the relief of the spectator. The

mystification by which his pretended valour and his shameless slanders are

unmasked must be ranked among the most comic scenes that ever were

invented: they contain matter enough for an excellent comedy, if

Shakspeare were not always rich even to profusion. Falstaff has thrown

Parolles into the shade, otherwise among the poet's comic characters he

would have been still more famous.

The main plot in _Much Ado about Nothing_ is the same with the story

of _Ariodante and Ginevra_ in Ariosto; the secondary circumstances

and development are no doubt very different. The mode in which the

innocent Hero before the altar at the moment of the wedding, and in the

presence of her family and many witnesses, is put to shame by a most

degrading charge, false indeed, yet clothed with every appearance of

truth, is a grand piece of theatrical effect in the true and justifiable

sense. The impression would have been too tragical had not Shakspeare

carefully softened it in order to prepare for a fortunate catastrophe. The

discovery of the plot against Hero has been already partly made, though

not by the persons interested; and the poet has contrived, by means of the

blundering simplicity of a couple of constables and watchmen, to convert

the arrest and the examination of the guilty individuals into scenes full

of the most delightful amusement. There is also a second piece of

theatrical effect not inferior to the first, where Claudio, now convinced

of his error, and in obedience to the penance laid on his fault, thinking

to give his hand to a relation of his injured bride, whom he supposes

dead, discovers on her unmasking, Hero herself. The extraordinary success

of this play in Shakspeare's own day, and even since in England, is,

however, to be ascribed more particularly to the parts of Benedict and

Beatrice, two humoursome beings, who incessantly attack each other with

all the resources of raillery. Avowed rebels to love, they are both

entangled in its net by a merry plot of their friends to make them believe

that each is the object of the secret passion of the other. Some one or

other, not over-stocked with penetration has objected to the same artifice

being twice used in entrapping them; the drollery, however, lies in the

very symmetry of the deception. Their friends attribute the whole effect

to their own device; but the exclusive direction of their raillery against

each other is in itself a proof of a growing inclination. Their witty

vivacity does not even abandon them in the avowal of love; and their

behaviour only assumes a serious appearance for the purpose of defending

the slandered Hero. This is exceedingly well imagined; the lovers of

jesting must fix a point beyond which they are not to indulge in their

humour, if they would not be mistaken for buffoons by trade.

In _Measure for Measure_ Shakspeare was compelled, by the nature of

the subject, to make his poetry more familiar with criminal justice than

is usual with him. All kinds of proceedings connected with the subject,

all sorts of active or passive persons, pass in review before us: the

hypocritical Lord Deputy, the compassionate Provost, and the hard-hearted

Hangman; a young man of quality who is to suffer for the seduction of his

mistress before marriage, loose wretches brought in by the police, nay,

even a hardened criminal, whom even the preparations for his execution

cannot awaken out of his callousness. But yet, notwithstanding this

agitating truthfulness, how tender and mild is the pervading tone of the

picture! The piece takes improperly its name from punishment; the true

significance of the whole is the triumph of mercy over strict justice; no

man being himself so free from errors as to be entitled to deal it out to

his equals. The most beautiful embellishment of the composition is the

character of Isabella, who, on the point of taking the veil, is yet

prevailed upon by sisterly affection to tread again the perplexing ways of

the world, while, amid the general corruption, the heavenly purity of her

mind is not even stained with one unholy thought: in the humble robes of

the novice she is a very angel of light. When the cold and stern Angelo,

heretofore of unblemished reputation, whom the Duke has commissioned,

during his pretended absence, to restrain, by a rigid administration of

the laws, the excesses of dissolute immorality, is even himself tempted by

the virgin charms of Isabella, supplicating for the pardon of her brother

Claudio, condemned to death for a youthful indiscretion; when at first, in

timid and obscure language, he insinuates, but at last impudently avouches

his readiness to grant Claudio's life to the sacrifice of her honour; when

Isabella repulses his offer with a noble scorn; in her account of the

interview to her brother, when the latter at first applauds her conduct,

but at length, overcome by the fear of death, strives to persuade her to

consent to dishonour;--in these masterly scenes, Shakspeare has sounded

the depths of the human heart. The interest here reposes altogether on the

represented action; curiosity contributes nothing to our delight, for the

Duke, in the disguise of a Monk, is always present to watch over his

dangerous representative, and to avert every evil which could possibly be

apprehended; we look to him with confidence for a happy result. The Duke

acts the part of the Monk naturally, even to deception; he unites in his

person the wisdom of the priest and the prince. Only in his wisdom he is

too fond of round-about ways; his vanity is flattered with acting

invisibly like an earthly providence; he takes more pleasure in

overhearing his subjects than governing them in the customary way of

princes. As he ultimately extends a free pardon to all the guilty, we do

not see how his original purpose, in committing the execution of the laws

to other hands, of restoring their strictness, has in any wise been

accomplished. The poet might have had this irony in view, that of the

numberless slanders of the Duke, told him by the petulant Lucio, in

ignorance of the person whom he is addressing, that at least which

regarded his singularities and whims was not wholly without foundation. It

is deserving of remark, that Shakspeare, amidst the rancour of religious

parties, takes a delight in painting the condition of a monk, and always

represents his influence as beneficial. We find in him none of the black

and knavish monks, which an enthusiasm for Protestantism, rather than

poetical inspiration, has suggested to some of our modern poets.

Shakspeare merely gives his monks an inclination to busy themselves in the

affairs of others, after renouncing the world for themselves; with

respect, however, to pious frauds, he does not represent them as very

conscientious. Such are the parts acted by the monk in _Romeo and Juliet_,

and another in _Much Ado about Nothing_, and even by the Duke, whom,

contrary to the well-known proverb, the cowl seems really to make a monk.

The _Merchant of Venice_ is one of Shakspeare's most perfect works:

popular to an extraordinary degree, and calculated to produce the most

powerful effect on the stage, and at the same time a wonder of ingenuity

and art for the reflecting critic. Shylock, the Jew, is one of the

inimitable masterpieces of characterization which are to be found only in

Shakspeare. It is easy for both poet and player to exhibit a caricature of

national sentiments, modes of speaking, and gestures. Shylock, however, is

everything but a common Jew: he possesses a strongly-marked and original

individuality, and yet we perceive a light touch of Judaism in everything

he says or does. We almost fancy we can hear a light whisper of the Jewish

accent even in the written words, such as we sometimes still find in the

higher classes, notwithstanding their social refinement. In tranquil

moments, all that is foreign to the European blood and Christian

sentiments is less perceptible, but in passion the national stamp comes

out more strongly marked. All these inimitable niceties the finished art

of a great actor can alone properly express. Shylock is a man of

information, in his own way, even a thinker, only he has not discovered

the region where human feelings dwell; his morality is founded on the

disbelief in goodness and magnanimity. The desire to avenge the wrongs and

indignities heaped upon his nation is, after avarice, his strongest spring

of action. His hate is naturally directed chiefly against those Christians

who are actuated by truly Christian sentiments: a disinterested love of

our neighbour seems to him the most unrelenting persecution of the Jews.

The letter of the law is his idol; he refuses to lend an ear to the voice

of mercy, which, from the mouth of Portia, speaks to him with heavenly

eloquence: he insists on rigid and inflexible justice, and at last it

recoils on his own head. Thus he becomes a symbol of the general history

of his unfortunate nation. The melancholy and self-sacrificing magnanimity

of Antonio is affectingly sublime. Like a princely merchant, he is

surrounded with a whole train of noble friends. The contrast which this

forms to the selfish cruelty of the usurer Shylock was necessary to redeem

the honour of human nature. The danger which almost to the close of the

fourth act, hangs over Antonio, and which the imagination is almost afraid

to approach, would fill the mind with too painful anxiety, if the poet did

not also provide for its recreation and diversion. This is effected in an

especial manner by the scenes at Portia's country-seat, which transport

the spectator into quite another world. And yet they are closely connected

with the main business by the chain of cause and effect: Bassanio's

preparations for his courtship are the cause of Antonio's subscribing the

dangerous bond; and Portia again, by the counsel and advice of her uncle,

a famous lawyer, effects the safety of her lover's friend. But the

relations of the dramatic composition are the while admirably observed in

yet another respect. The trial between Shylock and Antonio is indeed

recorded as being a real event, still, for all that, it must ever remain

an unheard-of and singular case. Shakspeare has therefore associated it

with a love intrigue not less extraordinary: the one consequently is

rendered natural and probable by means of the other. A rich, beautiful and

clever heiress, who can only be won by the solving the riddle--the locked

caskets--the foreign princes, who come to try the venture--all this

powerfully excites the imagination with the splendour of an olden tale of

marvels. The two scenes in which, first the Prince of Morocco, in the

language of Eastern hyperbole, and then the self-conceited Prince of

Arragon, make their choice among the caskets, serve merely to raise our

curiosity, and give employment to our wits; but on the third, where the

two lovers stand trembling before the inevitable choice, which in one

moment must unite or separate them for ever, Shakspeare has lavished all

the charms of feeling--all the magic of poesy. We share in the rapture of

Portia and Bassanio at the fortunate choice: we easily conceive why they

are so fond of each other, for they are both most deserving of love. The

judgment scene, with which the fourth act is occupied, is in itself a

perfect drama, concentrating in itself the interest of the whole. The knot

is now untied, and according to the common ideas of theatrical

satisfaction, the curtain ought to drop. But the poet was unwilling to

dismiss his audience with the gloomy impressions which Antonio's

acquittal, effected with so much difficulty, and contrary to all

expectation, and the condemnation of Shylock, were calculated to leave

behind them; he has therefore added the fifth act by way of a musical

afterlude in the piece itself. The episode of Jessica, the fugitive

daughter of the Jew, in whom Shakspeare has contrived to throw a veil of

sweetness over the national features, and the artifice by which Portia and

her companion are enabled to rally their newly-married husbands, supply

him with the necessary materials. The scene opens with the playful

prattling of two lovers in a summer evening; it is followed by soft music,

and a rapturous eulogy on this powerful disposer of the human mind and the

world; the principal characters then make their appearance, and after a

simulated quarrel, which is gracefully maintained, the whole end with the

most exhilarating mirth.

_As You Like It_ is a piece of an entirely different description. It

would be difficult to bring the contents within the compass of an ordinary

narrative; nothing takes place, or rather what is done is not so essential

as what is said; even what may be called the _dénouement_ is brought

about pretty arbitrarily. Whoever can perceive nothing but what can as it

were be counted on the fingers, will hardly be disposed to allow that it

has any plan at all. Banishment and flight have assembled together, in the

forest of Arden, a strange band: a Duke dethroned by his brother, who,

with the faithful companions of his misfortune, lives in the wilds on the

produce of the chase; two disguised Princesses, who love each other with a

sisterly affection; a witty court fool; lastly, the native inhabitants of

the forest, ideal and natural shepherds and shepherdesses. These lightly-

sketched figures form a motley and diversified train; we see always the

shady dark-green landscape in the background, and breathe in imagination

the fresh air of the forest. The hours are here measured by no clocks, no

regulated recurrence of duty or of toil: they flow on unnumbered by

voluntary occupation or fanciful idleness, to which, according to his

humour or disposition, every one yields himself, and this unrestrained

freedom compensates them all for the lost conveniences of life. One throws

himself down in solitary meditation under a tree, and indulges in

melancholy reflections on the changes of fortune, the falsehood of the

world, and the self-inflicted torments of social life; others make the

woods resound with social and festive songs, to the accompaniment of their

hunting-horns. Selfishness, envy, and ambition, have been left behind in

the city; of all the human passions, love alone has found an entrance into

this wilderness, where it dictates the same language alike to the simple

shepherd and the chivalrous youth, who hangs his love-ditty to a tree. A

prudish shepherdess falls at first sight in love with Rosalind, disguised

in men's apparel; the latter sharply reproaches her with her severity to

her poor lover, and the pain of refusal, which she feels from experience

in her own case, disposes her at length to compassion and requital. The

fool carries his philosophical contempt of external show, and his raillery

of the illusion of love so far, that he purposely seeks out the ugliest

and simplest country wench for a mistress. Throughout the whole picture,

it seems to be the poet's design to show that to call forth the poetry

which has its indwelling in nature and the human mind, nothing is wanted

but to throw off all artificial constraint, and restore both to mind and

nature their original liberty. In the very progress of the piece, the

dreamy carelessness of such an existence is sensibly expressed: it is even

alluded to by Shakspeare in the title. Whoever affects to be displeased,

if in this romantic forest the ceremonial of dramatic art is not duly

observed, ought in justice to be delivered over to the wise fool, to be

led gently out of it to some prosaical region.

_The Twelfth Night, or What you Will_, unites the entertainment of an

intrigue, contrived with great ingenuity, to a rich fund of comic

characters and situations, and the beauteous colours of an ethereal

poetry. In most of his plays, Shakspeare treats love more as an affair of

the imagination than the heart; but here he has taken particular care to

remind us that, in his language, the same word, _fancy_, signified

both fancy and love. The love of the music-enraptured Duke for Olivia is

not merely a fancy, but an imagination; Viola appears at first to fall

arbitrarily in love with the Duke, whom she serves as a page, although she

afterwards touches the tenderest strings of feeling; the proud Olivia is

captivated by the modest and insinuating messenger of the Duke, in whom

she is far from suspecting a disguised rival, and at last, by a second

deception, takes the brother for the sister. To these, which I might call

ideal follies, a contrast is formed by the naked absurdities to which the

entertaining tricks of the ludicrous persons of the piece give rise, under

the pretext also of love: the silly and profligate Knight's awkward

courtship of Olivia, and her declaration of love to Viola; the imagination

of the pedantic steward Malvolio, that his mistress is secretly in love

with him, which carries him so far that he is at last shut up as a

lunatic, and visited by the clown in the dress of a priest. These scenes

are admirably conceived, and as significant as they are laughable. If this

were really, as is asserted, Shakspeare's latest work, he must have

enjoyed to the last the same youthful elasticity of mind, and have carried

with him to the grave the undiminished fulness of his talents.

_The Merry Wives of Windsor_, though properly a comedy in the usual

acceptation of the word, we shall pass over at present, till we come to

speak of _Henry the Fourth_, that we may give our opinion of the character

of Falstaff in connexion.

_The Midsummer Night's Dream_ and _The Tempest_, may be in so far compared

together that in both the influence of a wonderful world of spirits is

interwoven with the turmoil of human passions and with the farcical

adventures of folly. _The Midsummer Night's Dream_ is certainly an earlier

production; but _The Tempest_, according to all appearance, was written in

Shakspeare's later days: hence most critics, on the supposition that the

poet must have continued to improve with increasing maturity of mind, have

honoured the last piece with a marked preference. I cannot, however,

altogether concur with them: the internal merit of these two works are, in

my opinion, pretty nearly balanced, and a predilection for the one or the

other can only be governed by personal taste. In profound and original

characterization the superiority of _The Tempest_ is obvious: as a whole

we must always admire the masterly skill which he has here displayed in

the economy of his means, and the dexterity with which he has disguised

his preparations,--the scaffoldings for the wonderful aërial structure. In

_The Midsummer Night's Dream_, on the other hand, there flows a luxuriant

vein of the boldest and most fantastical invention; the most extraordinary

combination of the most dissimilar ingredients seems to have been brought

about without effort by some ingenious and lucky accident, and the colours

are of such clear transparency that we think the whole of the variegated

fabric may be blown away with a breath. The fairy world here described

resembles those elegant pieces of arabesque, where little genii with

butterfly wings rise, half embodied, above the flower-cups. Twilight,

moonshine, dew, and spring perfumes, are the element of these tender

spirits; they assist nature in embroidering her carpet with green leaves,

many-coloured flowers, and glittering insects; in the human world they do

but make sport childishly and waywardly with their beneficent or noxious

influences. Their most violent rage dissolves in good-natured raillery;

their passions, stripped of all earthly matter, are merely an ideal dream.

To correspond with this, the loves of mortals are painted as a poetical

enchantment, which, by a contrary enchantment, may be immediately

suspended, and then renewed again. The different parts of the plot; the

wedding of Theseus and Hippolyta, Oberon and Titania's quarrel, the flight

of the two pair of lovers, and the theatrical manoeuvres of the mechanics,

are so lightly and happily interwoven that they seem necessary to each

other for the formation, of a whole. Oberon is desirous of relieving the

lovers from their perplexities, but greatly adds to them through the

mistakes of his minister, till he at last comes really to the aid of their

fruitless amorous pain, their inconstancy and jealousy, and restores

fidelity to its old rights. The extremes of fanciful and vulgar are united

when the enchanted Titania awakes and falls in love with a coarse mechanic

with an ass's head, who represents, or rather disfigures, the part of a

tragical lover. The droll wonder of Bottom's transformation is merely the

translation of a metaphor in its literal sense; but in his behaviour

during the tender homage of the Fairy Queen we have an amusing proof how

much the consciousness of such a head-dress heightens the effect of his

usual folly. Theseus and Hippolyta are, as it were, a splendid frame for

the picture; they take no part in the action, but surround it with a

stately pomp. The discourse of the hero and his Amazon, as they course

through the forest with their noisy hunting-train, works upon the

imagination like the fresh breath of morning, before which the shapes of

night disappear. Pyramus and Thisbe is not unmeaningly chosen as the

grotesque play within the play; it is exactly like the pathetic part of

the piece, a secret meeting of two lovers in the forest, and their

separation by an unfortunate accident, and closes the whole with the most

amusing parody.

_The Tempest_ has little action or progressive movement; the union of

Ferdinand and Miranda is settled at their first interview, and Prospero

merely throws apparent obstacles in their way; the shipwrecked band go

leisurely about the island; the attempts of Sebastian and Antonio on the

life of the King of Naples, and the plot of Caliban and the drunken

sailors against Prospero, are nothing but a feint, for we foresee that

they will be completely frustrated by the magical skill of the latter;

nothing remains therefore but the punishment of the guilty by dreadful

sights which harrow up their consciences, and then the discovery and final

reconciliation. Yet this want of movement is so admirably concealed by the

most varied display of the fascinations of poetry, and the exhilaration of

mirth, the details of the execution are so very attractive, that it

requires no small degree of attention to perceive that the

_dénouement_ is, in some degree, anticipated in the exposition. The

history of the loves of Ferdinand and Miranda, developed in a few short

scenes, is enchantingly beautiful: an affecting union of chivalrous

magnanimity on the one part, and on the other of the virgin openness of a

heart which, brought up far from the world on an uninhabited island, has

never learned to disguise its innocent movements. The wisdom of the

princely hermit Prospero has a magical and mysterious air; the

disagreeable impression left by the black falsehood of the two usurpers is

softened by the honest gossipping of the old and faithful Gonzalo;

Trinculo and Stephano, two good-for-nothing drunkards, find a worthy

associate in Caliban; and Ariel hovers sweetly over the whole as the

personified genius of the wonderful fable.

Caliban has become a by-word as the strange creation of a poetical

imagination. A mixture of gnome and savage, half daemon, half brute, in

his behaviour we perceive at once the traces of his native disposition,

and the influence of Prospero's education. The latter could only unfold

his understanding, without, in the slightest degree, taming his rooted

malignity: it is as if the use of reason and human speech were

communicated to an awkward ape. In inclination Caliban is maliciously

cowardly, false, and base; and yet he is essentially different from the

vulgar knaves of a civilized world, as portrayed occasionally by

Shakspeare. He is rude, but not vulgar; he never falls into the prosaic

and low familiarity of his drunken associates, for he is, in his way, a

poetical being; he always speaks in verse. He has picked up every thing

dissonant and thorny in language to compose out of it a vocabulary of his

own; and of the whole variety of nature, the hateful, repulsive, and

pettily deformed, have alone been impressed on his imagination. The

magical world of spirits, which the staff of Prospero has assembled on the

island, casts merely a faint reflection into his mind, as a ray of light

which falls into a dark cave, incapable of communicating to it either heat

or illumination, serves merely to set in motion the poisonous vapours. The

delineation of this monster is throughout inconceivably consistent and

profound, and, notwithstanding its hatefulness, by no means hurtful to our

feelings, as the honour of human nature is left untouched.

In the zephyr-like Ariel the image of air is not to be mistaken, his name

even bears an allusion to it; as, on the other hand Caliban signifies the

heavy element of earth. Yet they are neither of them simple, allegorical

personifications but beings individually determined. In general we find in

_The Midsummer Night's Dream_, in _The Tempest_, in the magical part of

_Macbeth_, and wherever Shakspeare avails himself of the popular belief in

the invisible presence of spirits, and the possibility of coming in

contact with them, a profound view of the inward life of nature and her

mysterious springs, which, it is true, can never be altogether unknown to

the genuine poet, as poetry is altogether incompatible with mechanical

physics, but which few have possessed in an equal degree with Dante and

himself.

_The Winter's Tale_ is as appropriately named as _The Midsummer Night's

Dream_. It is one of those tales which are peculiarly calculated to

beguile the dreary leisure of a long winter evening, and are even

attractive and intelligible to childhood, while animated by fervent

truth in the delineation of character and passion, and invested with the

embellishments of poetry lowering itself, as it were, to the simplicity of

the subject, they transport even manhood back to the golden age of

imagination. The calculation of probabilities has nothing to do with such

wonderful and fleeting adventures, when all end at last in universal joy;

and, accordingly, Shakspeare has here taken the greatest license of

anachronisms and geographical errors; not to mention other incongruities,

he opens a free navigation between Sicily and Bohemia, makes Giulio Romano

the contemporary of the Delphic oracle. The piece divides itself in some

degree into two plays. Leontes becomes suddenly jealous of his royal

bosom-friend Polyxenes, who is on a visit to his court; makes an attempt

on his life, from which Polyxenes only saves himself by a clandestine

flight;--Hermione, suspected of infidelity, is thrown into prison, and the

daughter which she there brings into the world is exposed on a remote

coast;--the accused Queen, declared innocent by the oracle, on learning

that her infant son has pined to death on her account, falls down in a

swoon, and is mourned as dead by her husband, who becomes sensible, when

too late, of his error: all this makes up the three first acts. The last

two are separated from these by a chasm of sixteen years; but the

foregoing tragical catastrophe was only apparent, and this serves to

connect the two parts. The Princess, who has been exposed on the coast of

Polyxenes's kingdom, grows up among low shepherds; but her tender beauty,

her noble manners, and elevation of sentiment, bespeak her descent; the

Crown Prince Florizel, in the course of his hawking, falls in with her,

becomes enamoured, and courts her in the disguise of a shepherd; at a

rural entertainment Polyxenes discovers their attachment, and breaks out

into a violent rage; the two lovers seek refuge from his persecutions at

the court of Leontes in Sicily, where the discovery and general

reconciliation take place. Lastly, when Leontes beholds, as he imagines,

the statue of his lost wife, it descends from the niche: it is she

herself, the still living Hermione, who has kept herself so long

concealed; and the piece ends with universal rejoicing. The jealousy of

Leontes is not, like that of Othello, developed through all its causes,

symptoms and variations; it is brought forward at once full grown and

mature, and is portrayed as a distempered frenzy. It is a passion whose

effects the spectator is more concerned with than with its origin, and

which does not produce the catastrophe, but merely ties the knot of the

piece. In fact, the poet might perhaps have wished slightly to indicate

that Hermione, though virtuous, was too warm in her efforts to please

Polyxenes; and it appears as if this germ of inclination first attained

its proper maturity in their children. Nothing can be more fresh and

youthful, nothing at once so ideally pastoral and princely as the love of

Florizel and Perdita; of the prince, whom love converts into a voluntary

shepherd; and the princess, who betrays her exalted origin without knowing

it, and in whose hands nosegays become crowns. Shakspeare has never

hesitated to place ideal poetry side by side of the most vulgar prose: and

in the world of reality also this is generally the case. Perdita's foster-

father and his son are both made simple boors, that we may the more

distinctly see how all that ennobles her belongs only to herself.

Autolycus, the merry pedlar and pickpocket, so inimitably portrayed, is

necessary to complete the rustic feast, which Perdita on her part seems to

render meet for an assemblage of gods in disguise.

_Cymbeline_ is also one of Shakspeare's most wonderful compositions.

He has here combined a novel of Boccacio's with traditionary tales of the

ancient Britons reaching back to the times of the first Roman Emperors,

and he has contrived, by the most gentle transitions, to blend together

into one harmonious whole the social manners of the newest times with

olden heroic deeds, and even with appearances of the gods.

In the character of Imogen no one feature of female excellence is omitted:

her chaste tenderness, her softness, and her virgin pride, her boundless

resignation, and her magnanimity towards her mistaken husband, by whom she

is unjustly persecuted, her adventures in disguise, her apparent death,

and her recovery, form altogether a picture equally tender and affecting.

The two Princes, Guiderius and Arviragus, both educated in the wilds, form

a noble contrast to Miranda and Perdita. Shakspeare is fond of showing the

superiority of the natural over the artificial. Over the art which

enriches nature, he somewhere says, there is a higher art created by

nature herself. [Footnote: The passage in Shakspeare here quoted, taken

with the context, will not bear the construction of the author. The whole

runs thus:--

Yet nature is made better by no mean,

But nature makes that mean: so, o'er that art

Which you say adds to nature, is an art

That nature makes. You see, sweet maid, we marry

A gentler scion to the wildest stock;

And make conceive a bark of baser kind

By bud of nobler race: this is an art

Which does mend nature, change it rather; but

The art itself is nature.

_Winter's Tale_, Act iv. sc. 3.

Shakspeare does not here mean to institute a comparison between the

relative excellency of that which is innate and that which we owe to

instruction; but merely says, that the instruction or art is itself a part

of nature. The speech is addressed by Polyxenes to Perdita, to persuade

her that the changes effected in the appearance of flowers by the art of

the gardener are not to be accounted unnatural; and the expression of

_making conceive a bark of baser kind by bud of nobler race_ (i.e.,

engrafting), would rather lead to the inference, that the mind derived its

chief value from the influence of culture.--TRANS.] As Miranda's

unconscious and unstudied sweetness is more pleasing than those charms

which endeavour to captivate us by the brilliant embellishments of a

refined cultivation, so in these two youths, to whom the chase has given

vigour and hardihood, but who are ignorant of their high destination, and

have been brought up apart from human society, we are equally enchanted by

a _naïve_ heroism which leads them to anticipate and to dream of

deeds of valour, till an occasion is offered which they are irresistibly

compelled to embrace. When Imogen comes in disguise to their cave; when,

with all the innocence of childhood, Guiderius and Arviragus form an

impassioned friendship for the tender boy, in whom they neither suspect a

female nor their own sister; when, on their return from the chase, they

find her dead, then "sing her to the ground," and cover the grave with

flowers:--these scenes might give to the most deadened imagination a new

life for poetry. If a tragical event is only apparent, in such case,

whether the spectators are already aware of it or ought merely to suspect

it, Shakspeare always knows how to mitigate the impression without

weakening it: he makes the mourning musical, that it may gain in solemnity

what it loses in seriousness. With respect to the other parts, the wise

and vigorous Belarius, who after long living as a hermit again becomes a

hero, is a venerable figure; the Italian Iachimo's ready dissimulation and

quick presence of mind is quite suitable to the bold treachery which he

plays; Cymbeline, the father of Imogen, and even her husband Posthumus,

during the first half of the piece, are somewhat sacrificed, but this

could not be otherwise; the false and wicked Queen is merely an instrument

of the plot; she and her stupid son Cloton (the only comic part in the

piece) whose rude arrogance is portrayed with much humour, are, before the

conclusion, got rid of by merited punishment. As for the heroical part of

the fable, the war between the Romans and Britons, which brings on the

dénouement, the poet in the extent of his plan had so little room to

spare, that he merely endeavours to represent it as a mute procession. But

to the last scene, where all the numerous threads of the knot are untied,

he has again given its full development, that he might collect together

into one focus the scattered impressions of the whole. This example and

many others are a sufficient refutation of Johnson's assertion, that

Shakspeare usually hurries over the conclusion of his pieces. Rather does

he, from a desire to satisfy the feelings, introduce a great deal which,

so far as the understanding of the _dénouement_ requires, might in a

strict sense be justly spared: our modern spectators are much more

impatient to see the curtain drop, when there is nothing more to be

determined, than those of his day could have been.

Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature · 第 63 / 74 题