Now Malone's first objection loses the best part of its weight, as soon as it is assumed that the play was first performed, perhaps even first written, or at least adapted and arranged, for the celebration of the marriage of the Count Palatine Frederick with the Princess Elizabeth (1613); and this supposition is not improbable in so far as it is a well-known fact that several of Shakspeare's plays were performed at Court during the visit of the Count. If this be assumed, it is clear that the compliments to Elizabeth must have been much less offensive to the king's ears when the feted princess was likewise called Elizabeth, and the eulogies might, therefore, be considered as so many covert compliments to the latter. This would also explain the pomp and the many pageants, the banquets, masques, and the coronation and baptismal festivities, etc., with which the play is so amply furnished, and which, at the same time, are a proof of its late origin, that is, at a period when Shakspeare's theatre had at its disposal a greater number of stage appurtenances than it had possessed for the representation of those of his historical plays which directly preceded it, for instance, his 'Henry IV.' (Part II.) and Henry V.' (as Delius justly observes). My hypothesis acquires its chief weight, however, from a closer examination of the language and versification of Henry VIII.' It had even struck Roderick that the play contained almost twice as many lines with a redundant (final) syllable than any other of Shakspeare's dramas; that the cæsuras also were less uniform (freer, more irregular). And Delius observes-quite in accordance with my view-that Henry VIII.,' in common with the plays belonging to the latest period of Shakspeare's life (especially with Cymbeline' and 'The Winter's Tale') is found to possess the same obscurity and condensation of expression which is the result of the complicated structure of sentences and the ellipses, the same free, metrical principles which aim more at delineation of character than euphony, and that, more especially, the language of the chorus in The Winter's Tale' possesses a striking resemblance to the prologue and epilogue in 'Henry VIII.'* * Gervinus contradicts himself when he recognises and expressly Steevens explains the striking carelessness in the treatment of the verse and rhythm, by Shakspeare's having often inserted whole speeches from Iolinshed with no more alteration than was necessary to the numbers of his verse.' The other alternative of the same critic, whose opinion is shared by Malone, that the reason of this carelessness might be explained by Ben Jonson having revised the play for a performance at Court, is a mere vague hypothesis, as Ben Jonson was not more careless as regards diction and versification than Shakspeare, and he, the Court poet par excellence, would hardly have ventured to be so careless. But no doubt traces of hurry might be pointed out, not only in the versification and language, but also in the composition, especially in the somewhat obscure development of the third and fourth acts, as well as in the arrangement of the scene eulogising Elizabeth and Jamesa fact to be accounted for only by external circumstances, inasmuch as it was Shakspeare's custom when writing his plays, not indeed to correct much. but subsequently to revise them.* We must therefore assume, either that Shakspeare was urged by a command from Court, or from his own company, to write a new play for the festivities in honour of the marriage of the princess Elizabeth, or at least urged in haste to finish a work which he had probably already commenced (the first three acts perhaps finished); he may possibly even have had to alter the original structure, more particularly the end, or it may be that he wrote the play in his latter years, and accordingly found no time to make a later revision, or to write the mentions these peculiarities of the diction and versification, which he likewise considers as criteria of the last period of the poet's career, and yet assigns the play to the winter of 1603-4. * These reasons make it impossible for me to agree with Collier (Shakespeare's Works, vol. v. 495 f.) in considering the Enterlude of King Henry 8th, which is entered in the Stationers' registers under Feb. 12th, 1605, as Shakspeare's Henry VIII.; Collier himself shows us, from Henslowe's Diary, that about that time there existed, besides Rowley's play When You See Me, You Know Me, one or two other dramas which treated of the same subject, more especially of the relation in which Wolsey and King Henry stood to one another. Why therefore must the Enterlude be considered absolutely to have been Shakspeare's Henry VIII.? contemplated continuation in a second part. Any one of these suppositions would explain the above-mentioned defects, and to a great extent excuse most of them.* Whatever may have been Shakspeare's reason for writing his Henry VIII.,' the play at all events furnishes another proof of the great contrast between the works belonging to the last period of his dramatic career, and those of his earlier years, more especially his first productions. This contrast must be kept carefully in view, when any attempt is made to decide the question regarding the genuineness or spuriousness of the plays ascribed to him, which, if written by him, belong, at all events, to his youthful works. In so far Henry VIII.' forms a kind of transition to our next Book, in which this question will be more fully discussed. *It affords me great pleasure and satisfaction to find that W. A. B. Hertzberg, in his scholarly and able introduction to Henry_VIII. (vol. iv. of the Schlegel-Tieck'sche Uebersetzung, published for the German Shakespeare Society) not only agrees with my criticism of the play, but also with my conjecture that it must be regarded as a play, written for some express occasion as a theatrical after-celebration of the marriage of the princess Elizabeth. Hertzberg, in opposition to Gervinus and Delius, very justly maintains that the eulogy to James (act v. 5) is evidently a later interpolation, but that English critics have, from this fact, drawn the erroneous conclusion that the play was written during Elizabeth's reign. But, in fact, this circumstance only supports my conjecture, inasmuch as, from it, we may further infer, that probably the Master of the Revels, or the King himself, desired the company in his service to give a dramatic performance in honour of the princess's marriage, and accordingly, that Shakspeare, being demanded quickly to provide a suitable piece, wrote his Henry VIII., but that after having presented it, and in consequence of the eulogies therein lavished upon Queen Elizabeth, he was induced to add a compliment to James.-Hertzberg, with his usual sagacity and his profound understanding of Shakspeare's historical dramas, also points out that the few and, generally speaking, unimportant chronological deviations which Shakspeare has made from Holinshed, were necessary, partly as regards the dramatic composition itself, partly for carrying out his intentions, and that not only do they not injure the historical truth, which alone required to be considered, but that they rather throw a clearer light upon it. BOOK VII. ON THE PLAYS ASCRIBED TO SHAKSPEARE, THE GENUINENESS OF WHICH IS DOUBTFUL. CHAPTER I. THE FIRST PART OF THE CONTENTION, AND THE TRUE In addition to the thirty-six dramas already examined, which are included in the first folio edition of Shakspeare's works (1623), and are admitted into all the subsequent innumerable editions of Shakspeare's works-notwithstanding the doubt entertained by many English critics concerning the genuineness of Titus Andronicus' and the three parts of 'Henry VI.'-there is another series of plays published under Shakspeare's name, the majority of which are decidedly not genuine, and the remaining few at least of doubtful genuineness. The earlier English critics, after Theobald, rejected them one and all, because, in their opinion, Shakspeare did not begin to write for the stage till 1593; that up to that time he had, at most, provided the works of other authors with additions, or corrected and remodelled them; and because the plays which possess the most claim to be considered genuine, must-if written by Shakspeare-have been written before 1593. In other words it was their opinion that the poet who wrote 'Venus and Adonis'the poem which Shakspeare himself calls the first heir of his invention,' and dedicated to the Earl of Southampton in 1593-could not, at a later date have penned 'Titus Andronicus' or the three parts of 'Henry VI.,' and still less other plays that are wholly unworthy of him. But according to the testimonies already adduced,* Shakspeare, by calling Venus and Adonis' the first heir of his invention,' cannot possibly have meant to say that it was the first production of his Muse in that kind of poetry, as well as in the dramatic species. According to the testimonics alluded to above, we are forced to assume that, as early as 1592 Shakspeare had not only made attempts, but had already won applause and fame in all the different forms of dramatic poetry (comedies, tragedies, and histories). The most eminent English critics and literary historians-Dyce, Collier, Halliwell, Knight, etc. -are now agreed on this point. The question, therefore, is no longer whether he wrote for the stage before 1592, but which and how many plays had he supplied to the stage up to that year? As almost all the plays, the genuineness of which is doubtful, must -if written by Shakspeare-be reckoned among his youthful works, the standpoint maintained by most English critics in discussing the point, is obviously a wrong one, inasmuch as they take Shakspeare's later master-pieces as the standard for their judgment. It is clear that-if we wish to arrive at a result that will prove critically tenable—the plays, upon which the question chiefly turns can and ought to be compared only with such pieces as are well known to be the poet's first and earliest productions. It is a universally recognised fact that the genius of every great master, in whatever domain of art he may have worked, undergoes a process of development, and that his first youthful attempts differ widely from his later masterpieces; of this we hardly need bring forward any proofs, as every page of the history of art bears witness to the fact. Compare, for example, Goethe's 'Mitschuldigen' with his 'Iphigenia,' or his 'Faust;' Schiller's 'Raüber' with his Wallenstein,' or his Tell;' Mozart's 'Bastien and Bastienne,' or his 'Mithridates,' with his Figaro' or his Don Juan;' Handel's Italian operas with his 'Messiah ;' Rafaelle's first paintings in the style of Perugino with his grand Roman * See vol. i. p. 204 f. เ 6 |