Page images
PDF
EPUB

V

in 1604. Lastly, language and versification also point to a somewhat earlier origin than in the case of 'Antony and Cleopatra,' therefore Julius Cæsar' must have appeared upon the stage somewhere about 1605-6; this is the opinion also of Malone, Chalmers, Drake and Tieck. In Julius Cæsar,' as in Antony and Cleopatra' Shakspeare, moreover, has followed his authority-North's translation of Plutarch- as closely as in the case of 'Coriolanus,' except that somewhat more light is thrown upon the character of Antony than is met with in history. In this respect also all three pieces are essentially of the same stamp.

[ocr errors]

Th. Vatke,* in an excellent treatise has mentioned the several points in which Shakspeare has deviated from Plutarch's account. These are invariably but chronological alterations of unimportant incidents and (especially in acts iv. and v.) of different motives for the conduct of both heroes, by means of which not only Antony, but Cleopatra also appears in a somewhat better light than according to Plutarch's conception. I, however, cannot agree with Vatke when he infers from these deviations and from the corresponding treatment of the historical matter in general, that the tragedy cannot be considered as an historical drama, in the narrower sense of the word, on account of the preponderance, throughout the play, of what is purely personal and æsthetic compared with the historical,' and on account of the interest in the historical events being quite subordinate to the interest in what is purely personal. A glance at the first scene of the third act-in which Vent dins (Antony's legate) enters as in triumph,' Decause of his victory over the Parthians, and which is so characteristic of the condition of Rome at the time, and of the relation of the first men of the empire (more especially that of the victorious generals) to the triumvirs -would, I think, suffice to refute this opinion. For an incident which is important only in an historical respect, is here so purposely interwoven with the course of the action, and made so prominent, that the poet's intention

*Shakspeare's Antonius und Kleopatra, and Plutarch's Biographie des Antonius, in the Jahrbuch des Deutschen Shaksp. Gesellschaft, iii. 301 ff.

of everywhere doing justice to the historical matter, is clearly evident. Had Shakspeare wished merely to describe the life and story of the loves of Antony and Cleopatra upon an historical background, he wouldassuredly not only have not introduced the Parthians, but also have left Sextus Pompeius and his pirates, etc., out of the question, or, at most have mentioned them and their relations to Antony in a secondary scene, whereas in the drama they are personally introduced to us, and their deeds and fortunes form a part of the dramatic action. It is true that some historically important events are treated in a brief and sketchy manner, and that, accordingly, more scope is given to the personal relations of the principal characters, but these historical incidents offered but little or no poetical material, and hence could not be admitted into a drama.

Shakspeare, however, has acted in the same way in all of his historical pieces, because, as a poet, he could not do otherwise, inasmuch as pure facts, and the impersonal elements of history are at the same time unpoetical. The dramatist can take them into consideration only in so far as they are represented in persons, or can be placed in some personal relation to the chief characters of the piece. And in so far Shakspeare has taken them into consideration in his Antony and Cleopatra;' whether, however, he has done this exactly to the same extent here as in his other historical dramas is, in my opinion, a question which it would be very difficult to answer, and scarcely worth the trouble of deciding.

6

[ocr errors]

In Antony and Cleopatra' the historical matter offered much greater difficulties for dramatic treatment than, in in the case of ' Julius Cæsar' and · Coriolanus.' The life of Antony, which is so closely connected with the life and fate of Cleopatra, is interwoven with such a variety of circumstances, events and persons, that this amount of subject-matter was difficult to manage without robbing the action represented of its clearness and simplicity; and therefore in spite of the compressed and hence often obscure brevity of the expression employed by Shakspeare, and which is the chief difference of its diction compared with that of Julius Cæsar,' the representation is so broad

[ocr errors]

in detail, that we are scarcely able to grasp the whole. Even Schlegel* complained that the preparatory and concurring circumstances are not sufficiently collected in masses, to avoid distracting our attention; and Gervinus observes that the piece is full of discordant interruptions, perpetually changing between what is external, historical and private, and between restlessness and calm; that the voluptuous love of Antony and Cleopatra invariably interrupts the peace of political life, and this again the calmness of enjoyment; and further that this contrast is not properly exhibited owing to the brevity and ruggedness of the scenes. However, even in regard to this point, I think that the laws which regulate the composition of an historical drama are not the same as those which apply to a freely invented dramatic work; the historical drama must, in this respect also, be allowed greater freedom, if it is not to lose in truth, in depth and in significance, what it gains in simplicity, in clearness and in beauty of dramatic form. Now this very fulness and complicated variety of circumstances of events and characters, this sharp contrast between political, public and private life, between old Roman energy and effeminate voluptuousness, essentially belonged to the character of the age which the drama represents; only such a position of affairs would explain the fall of Antony and the victory of Octavius, the downfall of the oligarchy and the foundation of the monarchy. Shakspeare could here have hardly acted otherwise if his work was to preserve an historical character, and not to renounce the dignity and significance of an historical drama.

Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, translated by Dr. John Black.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER V.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS TO THE ENGLISH HISTORIES,
KING JOHN.

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS TO THE ENGLISH HISTORIES.

IN turning to the second great cycle, consisting of the English histories, we shall find that the poet has, in them, proceeded on an apparently different course, that he has treated the historical matter with greater freedom, and paid more regard to his public, and to the dramatic effects of his works. Gervinus disputes Schlegel's assertion that in Shakspeare's histories the leading features of events are so faithfully conceived, their causes and even their secret motives so clearly penetrated that the truth of history may be learned from them.' And H. Courtenay,* also, has taken the trouble, in a work of two volumes, to point out how far every single incident, every turn in the course of the action in Shakspeare, coincides with its historical source, and finally pretty well denies that they possess any historical value. But Gervinus †-whose judgment in historical matters is assuredly more to be depended upon than Mr. Courtenay's-expressly acknowledges that Shakspeare often brings together a series of facts which display a unity of action; that he comprehends various actions under one cause and traces them to one and the same origin, so as to be able to make use of the wealth of history without destroying the unity of the action; that he rejects other facts which could not be brought into this unity; in short, that he indeed pays little heed either to the laws of chronology or, in fact, to anything that might be termed external truth, but that he invariably respects 'the law of internal truth,' that higher and universal * Commentaries or the Historical Plays of Shakspeare. + Shakespeare Con mentaries, p. 252 f.

VOL. II.

P

truth,' which is gathered by the poet, not as would be done by an historian by entering into every detail of the historical subject, but from a series of facts; and from the very circumstance of this internal truth proceeding from historical and actual facts, and being supported and upheld by them, it must be admitted that it acquires a double authority, i.e. the authority of poetry and of history combined.' When, accordingly, Gervinus thus acknowledges the 'internal truth' of Shakspeare's dramas, he, in reality, maintains exactly what Schlegel meant to imply, but expressed in a form less precise and liable to be misunderstood. For, 'to learn the truth of history' does not mean to learn external historical facts by heart, but to understand their significance and meaning, that is, to gain a knowledge of their internal truth.'

[ocr errors]

This internal truth,' however, lies more deeply concealed in modern than in ancient history; in the former, the relations and conditions from which events proceed, are not so natural and simple, the leading ideas and persons, the characters of the nations and their representatives do not stand out so distinctly, or in so plastic and round a manner, as in antiquity; even an age like that of Antony and Cleopatra seems clear and simple when compared with the times of King John, Henry IV. and his successors. Hence the poet could not give a poetical reflex of the historical substance with the same fidelity and truth; in the latter case, the more important and the more complicated the mass of events, the number and characters of the dramatic personages, and the co-operating relations and conditions, the more frequently he was obliged to 'combine' facts, to 'comprise' various actions under one kind of cause, or to refer them to one and the same origin, and the less could he avoid occasionally offending the law of chronology, and all that which may be termed external truth. To this must be added the fact that a portion of the English histories were written by Shakspeare in his younger days, and that all (with the exception of Henry VIII.') belong to the first two stages of the poet's career, a period in which his mind had not yet attained its full maturity, or its full power in carrying cut

[ocr errors]
« EelmineJätka »