Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER VII.

THE BIRTH OF MERLIN, THE TWO NOBLE KINSMEN, AND 1:1 CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF SHAKSPEARE'S PLAYS.

In closing the examination of the doubtful plays, I have still to consider other two which are said to have been written by Shakspeare in conjunction with some other poet.

The first of these is The Birth of Merlin, a fantastic play, which was published in 1662, by Kirkman (from his collection of manuscripts), with the names of Shakspeare and William Rowley. Otherwise we know nothing about the piece, and hence it is very doubtful whether a man like Kirkman-the same who made such a decided mistake in regard to 'The Arraignment of Paris'-can be trusted. English critics are unanimously opposed to his assertion. Tieck,* on the other hand, has translated the play, and in a detailed critique has endeavoured to make it probable, that Shakspeare, in his maturer years (for the play cannot well have been written earlier than towards the middle of James's reign) had, out of friendship, assisted a brother actor and poet to produce this singular and charming work. Tieck ranks it with the best of this species of writing that he knows of. Delius† also, who has had it reprinted in his recent edition of Shakspeare's doubtful plays, speaks of it with undisguised approval. I do not deny the merits of the play, although I am far from believing them to be as great as Tieck thinks. But its excellence can prove nothing, as all the essential parts -plan, composition and characterisation—are no doubt Rowley's, and Shakspeare at most only assisted him. However, even admitting the justness of all that is advanced by Tieck in favour of his view, it nevertheless seems to me more than doubtful whether Shakspeare wrote as much

In the Preface to his Vorschule Shakspeare's, xvi. f. xxxiv. f.
In his Pseudo Shakspeare'sche Dramen.
VOL II.

2 D

as one line of it. For the language, upon which in this case all depends, s throughout so invariably the same, that Tieck himse.f is unable to determine which parts may have been Shakspeare's. It is only on account of the peculiar beauty of the third and fifth acts, that Tieck supposes them to be the work of a master hand, a supposition which is unwarrantable unless the supposed assistance were an established fact; this, however, is quite an arbitrary assumption as long as its advocates have to admit that language and versification, imagery and thoughts, etc., are throughout of the same character.

[ocr errors]

Now the language of 'The Birth of Merlin'--as every unprejudiced reader will at once acknowledge-is so thoroughly unlike Shakspeare (especially if it be considered that the play must have been composed almost contemporaneously with 'King Lear,' Coriolanus,' Macbeth,' etc.), that Tieck himself is obliged to have recourse to a second supposition: that Shakspeare possessed the talent of completely casting aside his own style and of adopting the language and individuality of another poet. Who would deny that Shakspeare's language is wont to reflect with equal truth the most different tones of the most different characters in the most different moments of life? And yet through all its most manifold modifications, it always remains Shakspeare's language, in the same way as in the most varied compositions we may have the most various forms and colourings, and yet always detect the colouring of a Rafaelle, a Titian, or a Correggio. It is always Shakspeare that is speaking, and he speaks differently only in so far as he speaks in different characters. At any rate there would be an end to all criticism of language, were it to admit so great a degree of power in disguising language, as Tieck assumes here to be the case. For, naturally, it would come to be a matter of impossibility to infer the genuineness or spuriousness of a work from its language, were it true that an author could, at pleasure, express himself with ease and fluency either in his own style or in that of another. But this could scarcely be the result even of intentional and most careful imitation, which, Lowever, is not the point at issue in the present rase

Hence, in making the above assertion, Tieck throws up his best weapon of criticism and puts the game into the hands of his adversaries. His method of criticism is, in fact, somewhat arbitrary. He appeals so frequently 'to certain usages of Shakspeare's, to certain turns and figures of speech, certain transitions common to him, certain ways of turning or breaking off his thoughts'— in short, to peculiarities of which he himself cannot or does not choose to give any closer definition. He is too arbitrary in his assumption that Shakspeare worked in a variety of different manners-an assertion which would require first to be established in the case of the poet's genuine works, which Tieck, however, adduces only in favour of those doubtful plays the genuineness of which he defends. He adheres too little to the precise, unchanging and primary form of Shakspeare's poetry, which his various compositions merely serve to develop, that is, to a style entirely and peculiarly Shakspearian. By such a proceeding the critical estimate of what is genuine or spuriou becomes a mere play of subjective opinion. According to such principles, all the more or less excellent plays of unknown authorship-in which this period of English literature abounds-might be attributed to the great master. I therefore perfectly agree with the verdict of English critics, that Shaksp are had no hand whatever in the composition of The Birth of Merlin.'

[ocr errors]

Lastly, as regards the play which Shakspeare is said to have written in conjunction with Fletcher, I mention it here again merely out of consideration for A. Dyce and his opinion. I allude to Fletcher's well-known tragedy, the original edition of which appeared in 1634 under the title of The Two Noble Kinsmen: presented at Blackfriars by the King's Maiesties servants, with great applause: written by the memorable Worthies of their time, Mr. John Fletcher and Mr. William Shakspeare, Gent.'

6

The play was first included among the works of Shakspeare (together with six other doubtful pieces) by the editors of the folios of 1664 and 1685. Dyce has admitted it into his edition of Shakspeare, by the side of ' Pericles,' because, as he says, he is perfectly convinced that por

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*

tions of the play are from Shakspeare's pen.' He appeals, in confirmation of his view, to Coleridge, who incidentally observes that he unhesitatingly believes that Shakspeare was concerned in the composition of this play.' Walker,t also, was of the opinion that 'the whole [of the first] act bears indisputable marks of Shakspeare's hand;' that in the first scene of that act we have surely aut Shakspearius aut diabolus,' and that the first scene of the fifth act 'surely is Shakspeare's also.' Spalding, too, declares that the whole of the first act may safely be pronounced to be Shakspeare's,' that 'in the second act no part seems to have been taken by Shakespeare,' that nothing in the third act can with confidence be attributed to Shakspeare except the first scene,' that the fourth act may safely be pronounced wholly Fletcher's,' that 'in the fifth act we again feel the presence of the master of the spell . . . the whole act, a very long one, may be boldly attributed to him with the exception of one episodical scene.' Dyce thinks that Shakspeare wrote all those portions of the play which Spalding assigns to him, but adds, 'I conceive that in some places they may have been altered and interpolated by Fletcher.'

[ocr errors]

These are certainly authorities whom I scarcely venture to contradict, and whom it would be better not to contradict, as my judgment will probably find no acceptance in opposition to theirs. However, in the first place, they do not altogether agree among one another; in this alone are they unanimous, that the first act must be Shakspeare's. In addition to this, however, Dyce§ remarks, most justly, as I think, that: Fletcher's contributions include the distraction of the Gaoler's daughter, which in some points is a direct plagiarism of Ophelia's madness in "Hamlet," and it is highly improbable that, if the two dramatists had worked together on the tragedy, Fletcher would have ventured to make so free with the poetical property of Shakspeare indeed, I fully assent to the truth of Mr. Table Talk, ii. 119.

† Critical Examination of the Text of Shakspeare, i. 227; ii. 75. A Letter on Shakespeare's Authorship of the Two Noble Kinsmen. § Some Account of the Lives and Writings of Beaumont and Fletcher, p. lxxx.

Knight's remark that the underplot, the love of the Gaoler's (nameless) daughter for Palamon, her agency in his escape from prison, her subsequent madness, and her unnatural and revolting union with one who is her lover under these circumstances, is of a nature not to be tolerated in any work with which he [Shakspeare] was concerned I feel assured that they [the Shakspearian portions] existed before Fletcher contributed anything to the play.' But how does Dyce, with such a supposition, conceive the whole to have come into its present shape? Can he have thought that Shakspeare worked piecemeal in the manner of a joiner, who first makes the legs and then the top of a table, &c. Or, in the case before us, are we to suppose that Shakspeare wrote the first and the fifth acts-which stand in no sort of connection-and of the intermediate part nothing but the first scene of the third act, in which the two noble kinsmen dispute about their passion for Emilia, without having previously described the origin of this passion or the character of the two heroes? What is supposed to have induced Fletcher to appropriate these fragments (with or against Shakspeare's consent), he, who could himself have written all these supposed Shakspearian portions, if not as well as Shakspeare, at least as well as the intermediate parts? And what are the characteristics, the evidences of the Shakspearian origin of those portions?

Let us examine the first act, which is supposed to have the best claim, a little more closely. Theseus and Hippolyta, accompanied by Hymen, nymphs, and a boy in a white robe, etc., appear on the stage in festal garments to celebrate their marriage; but before the procession has reached the temple, there enter three nameless Queens in mourning attire and with stained veils, beseeching Theseus to give them assistance against Creon, the tyrant of Thebes, who has refused burial to their royal consorts who fell in battle, and who means to leave the bodies on the field to become a prey to wild beasts. Theseus, touched by their entreaties and urged by Hippolyta and Emilia, determines to march against Thebes, from which expedition he hopes to have returned ere the wedding feast is over. This closes the first scene. Second scene: a long deliberation between Palamon and

« EelmineJätka »