THE writer of this review was once asked by some
one—a reader to the Press, he believes—to recommend him " a Shakespeare in one volume, with copious notes." Such a volume never was produced by human press. The bare text, if we reckon all the plays commonly attributed to the poet, occupies much space, for it is scarcely less than all that survives of the Attic drama, whether in comedy or tragedy. As for prolegomena and notes, it is difficult to imagine a limit to what might be said without exhausting the subject. The admirable edition of which we now give a long-delayed notice assigns a volume to each play, and the three which we have before us, The Taming of the Shrew, The Merchant of Venice, and A Midsummer Night's Dream (selected, we may say, because they are among the most recent), con- tain together six hundred and eighty-five pages, of which, to speak roughly, two-sevenths may be text and five-sevenths comment of one kind or another. Nor will any one, we venture to say, complain of prolixity or irrelevance in the added matter. The Taming of the Shrew has been edited by Mr. IL Warwick Bond. The question of text is here simple. The play appears for the first time in the Folio of 1623, and the errors and corrections of the Quarto of 1631 and of Folios 2, 3, and 4 are not of much importance. As to authorship much may be said. " The Taming of a Shrew" appeared in 1594, George Gascoigne having published in 1566 a drama entitled "Supposes, Englished from the Italian of .Asiosto." "A Shrew" and "The Shrew" both borrow from this play, though not always the same things. The really important question, however, is this : Is the play as we have it substantially Shakespeare's ? Mr. Bond thinks that it is; he is "strongly opposed to any attempt to differentiate [doubtful passages] by the use of smaller type." Doctors, however, do not agree about the matter. Pro- fessor Herford sees " skilled mediocrity " in the first act. Various details of style and versification are suspicious, yet, according to our editor, there is " plenty of Shakespearean verse and prose in the Act." Mr. Fleay's metrical test is, from the nature of the case, not so conclusive as usual, for the necessary preliminary of separating the Shakespearean from the non-Shakespearean lines cannot be supplied. The diraE Xeroµeva argument tells "rather for than against Shakespeare's authorship," in view of the fact that the Shakespeare vocabulary is the largest known. Altogether, it is a very pretty problem in the Higher Criticism, • The Arden Shakmpeare. General Editor. W. T. Craig. London : Methuen and Co. [2s. 13d. net per vol.]
and may be instructive as regards writings of even more importance than Shakespeare's.
The Merchant of Venice has been dealt with by Mr. Charles Knox Pooler. This is one of the plays that appeared in the author's lifetime. Two quarto editions were published in 1600 ; the relations between the two are curiously obscure, and scholars are not agreed about the value of the texts which they give, Mr. Furness preferring the Second or Heyes, Dr. Furnivall the First or Roberts, Quarto. When we come to discuss the sources we find a large field before us. The deed by which the debtor binds himself in default of payment to allow the creditor a pound of flesh, and the story of the caskets, appear in many forms and at different places and times. They may be described as part of the stock-in-trade of tellers of stories. Ser Giovanni, if there ever was such a writer, the Gesta Roinamorum, the Popular Tales of the High- lands, tales from Persia, and other authorities might be quoted. The stories, in fact, are part of the folk-lore of the world. Which of these Shakespeare actually had in his mind when he wrote his play no one can say. It is sufficient to know that he used his materials, whatever the sources from which he got them, with supreme skill. Mr. Pooler gives an excellent conspectus of the materials used, and an equally good criticism of the result produced.
The problems attacked by Mr. Henry Cuningbam in his edition of A Midsummer Night's Dream differ somewhat from those with which his colleagues have had to deal. About the sources there is not much to be said. The main plot, as far as it is taken from any one, may be said to come from Plutarch, the Oberon and Titania from fairy lore generally, with possibly some special adaptations, and the Pyramus and Thisbe from Ovid. On the other hand, the editor has given special attention to the text, with what we may fairly call satisfactory results, though we cannot enter into details; and he has discussed at length some interesting questions touching the date of the play, the circumstances in which it was produced upon the stage, and the bearing and interpretation of some notable passages in it. Among the latter is the famous speech of Oberon in Act II., Scene 1: " Thou re-
memberest in maiden meditation, fancy-free." "The Fair -Vestal throned by the west" is universally allowed to be Queen Elizabeth—the elaborate compliment is hardly consistent with the theory that Shakespeare was a Roman Catholic—but the " mermaid " is less easily identified. Warburton thought that Mary Queen of Scots was in- tended ; " on a dolphin's back " was an allusion to her French marriage, and the "certain stars" that "shot madly from their spheres" were great nobles, such as the Duke of Norfolk, who perished in her cause. All this seems a little absurd; but what are we to say of the "little western flower" on which "the bolt of Cupid fell" being Lettice, Countess of Essex P Mr. Cuningham deals judiciously with all the questions of interpretation that occur, a praise which we may with justice extend to his collaborators mentioned above, and indeed, as far as we have examined their work, to all who have taken part in this truly national undertaking.
Previous page
