_Respecting the Pieces said to be falsely attributed to Shakspeare._
The commentators of Shakspeare, in their attempts to deprive him of parts
of his works, or even of whole pieces, have for the most part displayed
very little of a true critical spirit. Pope, as is well known, was
strongly disposed to reject whole scenes as interpolations by the players;
but his opinion was not much listened to. However, Steevens acceded to the
opinion of Pope, as to the apparition of the ghosts and of Jupiter, in
_Cymbeline_, while Posthumus is sleeping in the dungeon. But Posthumus
finds on waking a tablet on his breast, with a prophecy on which the
_dénouement_ of the piece depends. Is it to be imagined that Shakspeare
would require of his spectators the belief in a wonder without a visible
cause? Can Posthumus have got this tablet with the prophecy by dreaming?
But these gentlemen do not descend to this objection. The verses which the
apparitions deliver do not appear to them good enough to be Shakspeare's.
I imagine I can discover why the poet has not given them more of the
splendour of diction. It is the aged parents and brothers of Posthumus,
who, from concern for his fate, return from the world below: ought they
not consequently to speak the language of a more simple olden time, and
their voices, too, ought they not also to seem a feeble sound of wailing,
when contrasted with the thundering oracular language of Jupiter? For this
reason Shakspeare chose a syllabic measure which was very common before
his time, but which was then going out of fashion, though it still
continued to be frequently used, especially in translations of the
classical poets. In some such manner might the shades express themselves
in the then existing translations of Homer and Virgil. The speech of
Jupiter is, on the other hand, majestic, and in form and style bears a
complete resemblance to Shakspeare's sonnets. Nothing but incapacity to
appreciate the views of the poet, and the perspective observed by him,
could lead them to stumble at this passage.
Pope would willingly have declared the _Winter's Tale_ spurious, one
of the noblest creations of the equally bold and lovely fancy of
Shakspeare. Why? I suppose on account of the ship coming to Bohemia, and
of the chasm of sixteen years between the third and fourth acts, which
Time as a prologue entreats us to overleap.
_The Three Parts of Henry the Sixth_ are now at length admitted to be
Shakspeare's. Theobald, Warburton, and lastly Farmer, affirmed that they
were not Shakspeare's. In this case, we might well ask them to point out
the other works of the unknown author, who was capable of inventing, among
many others, the noble death-scenes of Talbot, Suffolk, Beaufort, and
York. The assertion is so ridiculous, that in this case _Richard the
Third_ might also not be Shakspeare's, as it is linked in the most
immediate manner to the three other pieces, both by the subject, and the
spirit and style of handling.
All the editors, with the exception of Capell, are unanimous in rejecting
_Titus Andronicus_ as unworthy of Shakspeare, though they always
allow it to be printed with the other pieces, as the scape-goat, as it
were, of their abusive criticism. The correct method in such an
investigation is first to examine into the external grounds, evidences,
&c., and to weigh their value; and then to adduce the internal reasons
derived from the quality of the work. The critics of Shakspeare follow a
course directly the reverse of this; they set out with a preconceived
opinion against a piece, and seek, in justification of this opinion, to
render the historical ground suspicious, and to set them aside. Now
_Titus Andronicus_ is to be found in the first folio edition of
Shakspeare's works, which it is known was published by Heminge and
Condell, for many years his friends and fellow-managers of the same
theatre. Is it possible to persuade ourselves that they would not have
known if a piece in their repertory did or did not really belong to
Shakspeare? And are we to lay to the charge of these honourable men an
intentional fraud in this single case, when we know that they did not show
themselves so very desirous of scraping everything together which went by
the name of Shakspeare, but, as it appears, merely gave those plays of
which they had manuscripts in hand? Yet the following circumstance is
still stronger. George Meres, a contemporary and admirer of Shakspeare, in
an enumeration of his works, mentions _Titus Andronicus_, in the year
1598. Meres was personally acquainted with the poet, and so very
intimately, that the latter read over to him his sonnets before they were
printed. I cannot conceive that all the critical scepticism in the world
would ever be able to get over such a testimony.
This tragedy, it is true, is framed according to a false idea of the
tragic, which by an accumulation of cruelties and enormities, degenerates
into the horrible, and yet leaves no deep impression behind: the story of
Tereus and Philomela is heightened and overcharged under other names, and
mixed up with the repast of Atreus and Thyestes, and many other incidents.
In detail there is no want of beautiful lines, bold images, nay, even
features which betray the peculiar conception of Shakspeare. Among these
we may reckon the joy of the treacherous Moor at the blackness and
ugliness of his adulterous offspring; and in the compassion of Titus
Andronicus, grown childish through grief, for a fly which had been struck
dead, while his rage afterwards, when he imagines he discovers in it his
black enemy, we recognize the future poet of _Lear_. Are the critics
afraid that Shakspeare's fame would be injured, were it established that
in his early youth he ushered into the world a feeble and immature work?
Was Rome the less the conqueror of the world, because Remus could leap
over its first walls? Let any one place himself in Shakspeare's situation
at the commencement of his career. He found only a few indifferent models,
and yet these met with the most favourable reception, because in the
novelty of an art, men are never difficult to please, before their taste
has been made fastidious by choice and abundance. Must not this situation
have had its influence on him before he learned to make higher demands on
himself, and by digging deeper in his own mind, discovered the rich veins
of noble metal that ran there? It is even highly probable that he must
have made several failures before he succeeded in getting into the right
path. Genius is in a certain sense infallible, and has nothing to learn;
but art is to be learned, and must be acquired by practice and experience.
In Shakspeare's acknowledged works we find hardly any traces of his
apprenticeship, and yet apprenticeship he certainly had. This every artist
must have, and especially in a period where he has not before him the
examples of a school already formed. I consider it as extremely probable
that Shakspeare began to write for the theatre at a much earlier period
than the one which is generally stated, namely, after the year 1590. It
appears that, as early as the year 1584, when only twenty years of age, he
had left his paternal home and repaired to London. Can we imagine that
such an active head would remain idle for six whole years without making
any attempt to emerge by his talents from an uncongenial situation? That
in the dedication of the poem of _Venus and Adonis_ he calls it "the
first heir of his invention," proves nothing against the supposition. It
was the first which he printed; he might have composed it at an earlier
period; perhaps, also, in this term, "heirs of his invention," he did not
indulge theatrical labours, especially as they then conferred but little
to his literary dignity. The earlier Shakspeare began to compose for the
theatre, the less are we enabled to consider the immaturity and
imperfection of a work a proof of its spuriousness in opposition to
historical evidence, if only we can discern in it prominent features of
his mind. Several of the works rejected as spurious, may still have been
produced in the period betwixt _Titus Andronicus_, and the earliest of
the acknowledged pieces.
At last, in two supplementary volumes, Steevens published seven pieces
ascribed to Shakspeare. It is to be remarked, that they all appeared in
print in Shakspeare's life-time, with his name prefixed at full length.
They are the following:--
1. _Lochrine._ The proofs of the genuineness of this piece are not
altogether unambiguous; the grounds for doubt, on the other hand, are
entitled to attention. However, this question is immediately connected
with that respecting _Titus Andronicus_, and must with it be resolved
in the affirmative or negative.
2. _Pericles, Prince of Tyre._ This piece was acknowledged by Dryden
to be a work, but a youthful work of Shakspeare's. It is most undoubtedly
his, and it has been admitted into several late editions of his works. The
supposed imperfections originate in the circumstance, that Shakspeare here
handled a childish and extravagant romance of the old poet Gower, and was
unwilling to drag the subject out of its proper sphere. Hence he even
introduces Gower himself, and makes him deliver a prologue in his own
antiquated language and versification. This power of assuming so foreign a
manner is at least no proof of helplessness.
3. _The London Prodigal._ If we are not mistaken, Lessing pronounced
this piece to be Shakspeare's, and wished to bring it on the German stage.
4. _The Puritan; or The Widow of Wailing Street._ One of my literary
friends, intimately acquainted with Shakspeare, was of opinion that the
poet must have wished for once to write a play in the style of Ben Jonson,
and that in this way we must account for the difference between the
present piece and his usual manner. To follow out this idea, however,
would lead to a long and very nice critical investigation.