We shall give for the satisfaction of the reader what the cele. brated German critic, Schlegel, says on this subject, and then add a very few remarks of our own.

* All the editors, with the exception of ('apell, are unanimous in rejecting Titus Andronicus as unworthy of Shakspeare, thugh they always allow it to be printed with the other pieces, as the scape-goat, as it were, of their abusive criticism. The currect method in such an investigation is first to examine into the exter. bal grounds, evidences, de., and to weigh their worth ; aralthen 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 preonceived spina against a piece, and seek, in justification of this opinion, to render the historical grounds suspicious, and to set them asude. Termas Andronicus is to be found in the first folo edition of Shakspeare's works, which it is known was conducted by Hleminge and (io. deil, 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 do not actually beling to Shak-prare! And are we to lay to the charge of these bo porable men a designed fraud in this single case, when we know that they did not show themselves so very desirous of scraping everything together wluch went by the name of Shakspeare, but, as it appears, merely gave those plays of which they had manuscripts in hand? Yet the following cir. cumstance is still stronger : George Meres, a contemporary and admirer of Shakspeare, mentions Titus Andronicus in an enumeration of his works, 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 can. not conceive that all the critical scepticism in the world would be sufficient 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 enor. mities 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 Shak. speare. Among these we may reckon the joy of the treache. rous Moor at the blackness and ugliness of his child begot in adultery; and in the compassion of Titus Andronicus, grown childish through grief, for a fly which had been struck dead, and 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 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 mo. dels, and yet these met with the most favorable reception, because men are never difficult to please in the novelty of an art before their taste has become fastidious from choice and abun. dance. 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 richest veins of a noble metal ? It is even highly probable that he must have made several failures before getting into the right path. Ge. nius is in a certain sense infallible, and has nothing to learn ;

but art is to be learned, and must be acquired by practice and ex. perience. In Shakspeare's acknowledged works we find hardly any traces of his apprenticeship, and yet an apprenticeship he certainly had. This every artist must have, and especially in a period where he has not before him the example of a school already formed. I consider it as extremely probable, that Shakspeare be. gan to write for the theatre at a much earlier period than the one which is generally stated, namely, the year 1590. It appears that, as early as the year 15-4, 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 inventwin,' proves nothing against the supposition. It was the first which he printed; he might have composed it at an earlier period; perhaps, also, he did not include theatrical labors, as they then possessed but little literary dignity. The earlier Shakespeare began to compose for the theatre, the less are we enabled to con. sider the immaturity and imperfection of a work as a proof of its spuriousness, in opposition to historical evidence, if we only find in it prominent features of his mind. Several of the works rejected as spurious may still have been produced in the porud betwixt Titus Andronicus, and the earliest of the acknowledged pieces.

“ Al last, Steevens published seven pieces ascribed to Shaks. peare in two supplementary volumes. It is to be remarkrd, that they all appeared in print in Shak-peare's life time, with bus name prefixed at full length. They are the following :

“1. Locrine. The proofs of the genuineness of this parce are not altogether unambiguous ; the grounds for doubt, on the other hand, are entitled to attention. However, this questa is immediately connected with that respecting Titus Andronicus, and must be at the same time resolved in the affirmative or ne. kative.

* 2. Pericles, Prince of Tyre. This pareer was acanowledad by Dryden, but as a youthful work of Shakpare. It is inest undoubtedly his, and it has been admitted into several of the late editions. The supposed imperfections originate in the cir. cumstance, that Shakspeare here handled a childish and extra. vagant 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 entirely in his 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 Watling Street. One of my literary friends, intimately acquainted with Shakspeare, was of opinion that the poet must have wished to write a play for once 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 very nice critical investigation.

5. Thomas, Lord Cromwell.
“6. Sir John Oldcastle, First Part.
7. A Yorkshire Tragedy.

“The three last pieces are not only unquestionably Shakspeare's, but in my opinion they deserve to be classed among his best and maturest works. Steevens admits at last, in some degree, that they are Shakspeare's, as well as the others, excepting Lo. crine, but he speaks of all of them with great contempt, as quite worthless productions. This condemnatory sentence is not, however, in the slightest degree convincing, nor is it supported by a critical acumen. I should like to see how such a critic would, of his own natural suggestion, have decided on Shakspeare's acknowledged master-pieces, and what he would have thought of praising in them, had the public opinion not imposed on him the Juty of admiration. Thomas, Lord Cromwell, and Sir John Oldcastle, are biographical dramas, and models in this species: the first is linked, from its subject, to Henry the Eighth, and the second to Henry the Fifth. The second part of Oldcasile is wanting ; I know not whether a copy of the old edition has been discovered in England, or whether it is lost. The Yorkshire Tragedy is a tragedy in one act, a dramatised tale of murder: the tragical effect is overpowering, and it is extremely important to see how poetically Shakspeare could handle such a subject.

“There have been still farther ascribed to him - 1st. The Merry Deril of Edmonton, a comedy in one act, printed in Dods. ley's old plays. This has certainly some appearances in its favor. It contains a merry landlord, who bears a great similar. ity to the one in the Merry Wires of Windsor. However, at all events, though an ingenious, it is but a hasty sketch. 21. The Accusation of Paris. 3d. The Birth of Merlin. 4th. Ed. ward the Third. 5th. The Fair Emma. 6th. Mucedorus. 7th. Arden of Ferersham. I have never seen any of these, and can. not therefore say anything respecting them. From the passagens cited, I am led to conjecture that the subject of Mucedorus is the popular story of Valentine and Orson; a beautiful subgert, which Lope de Vega has also taken for a play. Arden of Fe. rersham is said to be a tragedy on the story of a man, fmm whom the port was descended by the mother's side. If the quality of the piece is not too directly at variance with this claim, the circumstance would afford an additional probability in its favor. For such motives were not foreign to Shakaprare: he treated Henry the Seventh, who bestowed lanes on his fire fathers for services performed by them, with a visible partiality.

"Whoever takes from Shahpuare a play early aserbod to him, and confeswdly belonging to his time, is unquestionably bound to answer, with some degree of probability, this question: who did write it? Shak-peare's competitors in the dramatie walk are pretty well known, and if those of them who have even acquired a considerable name, a Lily, a Marlone, a Heywowi. are still so pery far below him, we can hardly imagine that the author of a work, which rises s high beyond theirs, would have remained unknown."- Lectures on Dramatic Literature, vol. u, p. 252.

We agree to the tru'h of this last oborrvation, but not to the justice of its application to some of the plays here mentumed. It is trur tha' Shakuparr's tweet works are very supruer to the of Marlour or Has well, but it is next true that the best of the

« VorigeDoorgaan »