SHAKESPEARE COMMENTARIES.*
[FIRST NOTICE.]
It is an old charge against us English that we allow the Germans to show greater appreciation of and to bestow far more attention on our great national poet than we do ourselves. Somewhat modified in form, the accusation is repeated by Mr. Furnivall in the introduction to the book before us. He cannot, indeed, in face of the labours of the Cambridge Editors, Dyce, Halliwell, Knight, Singer, and so many others, lay total neglect at our door ; but he says "that the study of him has been so narrow, and the criticism, however good, so devoted to the text and its illustration, and to studies of single plays, that no book by an Englishman exists which deals in any worthy manner with Shake- speare as a whole," and he proceeds to contrast this indigence with the "profound and generous commentaries of Gervinus." There is, no doubt, truth in the charge as he puts it, but the reason, we suspect, is to be sought deeper, and will be found rather in the inherent tendencies of the national mind than in indolent neglect or incapacity for appreciation. Everybody has heard the story of the camel, and the different modes in which his natural history was handled by members of three different nationalities ; and as far as the German and Englishman are con- cerned, the treatment received by Shakespeare appears to be somewhat similar. While the latter is busying himself about texts and suchlike minutim, the former is constructing the idea of a Hamlet out of his own mental consciousness, much as his country- man in the story constructed that of a camel. And these Shake- speare Coninzentaries by Gervinus are exactly a case in point. The Professor is always ready to retire into his internal consciousness, with Shakespeare in one hand and a bundle of theories in the other, and indulge in any amount of mental construction. Not that we deny them the possession of great merit. They are, indeed, strikingly, at times even ludicrously, deficient in power of humorous appreciation, —and besides being liable to some other objections, which will be noticed presently, they are written throughout with a solemnity, a ponderous earnestness which in the end—aye, and before the end—becomes wearisome. But they are evidently the result of thorough and conscientious study, and bear witness everywhere to the learning, the acuteness, and, in a certain sense, the candid * Shakespeare Commentaries. By Dr. G. G. Gervinus. Translated by F. E. Bunnhtt. London: Smith, Elder, and Co.
spirit of their author. They display such a picture of the poet's mind as shown in his works, and abound in such valuable (though not always intentional) hints, as would entitle their author to the gratitude of every student of Shakespeare, even without the mass of collateral information they afford. And this tribute of deserved praise we feel all the more bound to pay, because we object to his method, and as will be seen in the sequel, have not unfrequently the misfortume to dissent from his conclusions.
But let us turn to the book itself. First, with regard to Shake- speare's popularity, hepoints out that it cannot have been universal even among his contemporaries, by reason of the great disfavour with which all connected with the Stage was looked upon by a considerable portion of the community. Indeed, so early as 1632 (the year in which the second Folio was published) his popularity was already on the wane, and though his plays were still acted occasionally, an " over-excited " public had already, within six- teen years of his death, learned to give the preference to a Fletcher. The Civil War, which broke out ten years later, result- ing as it did in the triumph of the Puritan party, put a stop for the time to all stage-plays ; and Shakespeare, though he might be read in the study, could no longer hope, any more than his com- peers, to reach the dignity of representation. That he was read in the study Milton's eulogistic notice would suffice to prove, though it is somewhat remarkable that even Milton evidently considers him merely an irregular, untutored genius, " Fancy's child, warbling his native wood-notes wild." Even when the Restora- tion led to a revival of the Theatre, his reputation remained entirely confined to his own country ; and while the great Italian poets attained European celebrity within a few years of their first appearance, Shakespeare remained, for at least a century after his death, almost unknown out of England. Voltaire, early in the eighteenth century, was the first to bring him, with all the air of a discoverer, before the Continental public, though he after- wards bitterly repented of his condescension, and did what in him lay to counteract the favour he had shown. Shakespeare, how- ever, once introduced, flourished vigorously, especially in the congenial soil of Germany, though when Gervinus traces the cul- tivation of the poet from that country into England, he seems to overlook the fact he had previously pointed out,—that from Rowe, in 1709, an unbroken series of editors, at the rate of at least one in every decade, had published his works, thereby proving pretty satisfactorily the interest he excited. Passing to the Life, he follows the poet through the Stratford Grammar School (whence he was soon, removed on account of the failing fortunes of the family), through his reputedly wild youth and his early marriage with Ann Hathaway, up to London, whither he proceeded in search of fortune in 1586-7. His life in the metropolis seems to have continued for several years much of a piece with what it had been previously. At least, Gervinus, along with the well-known stories of deer-stealing from Sir Thomas Lucy's park, and of Will Davennant's godfather, tells one not so generally current, of an occasion on which our poet (rather unhandsomely, as we think,) enacted the part of William the Conqueror, to the utter discomfiture of his friend Richard Burbage. On the vexed question of Shakespeare's learning, lie pronounces (perhaps too confidently) by placing him in the same position, compared to a deeply learned man like Ben Jonson, that Goethe and Schiller occupied with regard to Voss. That he was familiar with the Latin poets, particularly with Ovid, he considers certain, basing his view upon the descriptive poems, which teem with classical imagery and allusion. But it is curious that though, when Gervinus speaks directly of the poet's life, its faults and follies are fairly enough set before us, when we come to the commentary on the Plays, and notably to the essay on Shakespeare, with which the volume closes, his conception of the poet is something quite different. He appears as an austere teacher, living in serene ab- straction from the world and its weaknesses, and sending down from heights of inaccessible superiority moral treatises for the edification of his contemporaries and the instruction of all time. But it is quite another figure that history presents to us,—a splendid genius, but a rather wild young man, sharing, and de- lighting to share, in all the excitement the world could offer,—an author, and at first a struggling author, who wrote plays mainly for the amusement of the London public, who was so utterly careless of future fame, that lie did not even take the trouble to collect his pieces, but cast them forth, to stand or fall, to sink or swim, as "wit and fortune will, or destinies decree." Then follows an interesting and very instructive sketch of the develop- ment of the English Drama from the Mysteries and Moralities of the Middle Ages, with which we will not delay our readers.
After some other preliminary matter, Gervinus turns to the consideration of the Plays. But the excellence of his remarks on them is seriously impaired by over-subtlety, and an inclina- tion (perhaps "determination" would be the better word) to find more meaning in Shakespeare's characters than the poet himself ' intended them to bear. Naturally the Professor has views upon Hamlet—Mr. Gigadibs must have had extraordinary confidence in his powers of sight, if he really entertained the belief Bishop Blougram ascribes to him, and thought he saw "two points in Hamlet's soul unseized as yet by the Germans "—but it would be very hard to interfere with a German Professor's prerogative as regards that particular play. Besides, the most noticeable pecu- liarity in his remarks is the discovery that Hamlet is the (un- conscious) typification of the whole German nation—which is surely a very harmless piece of enthusiasm. But his peculiar treatment is by no means limited to Hamlet. "Thou haat frighted the word out of his right sense, so forcible is thy wit," says Bene- dick to Beatrice ; and this, mutatis mutandis, is exactly the charge we have to bring. One would hesitate to accuse the Professor of having too forcible a wit, unless, indeed, he is like Hudibras, who although he had great wit, was very shy of using it, but he manages to make a preconceived theory answer the purpose of frightening "the word out of his right sense" equally well. We do not exactly mean that he is consciously guilty of perverting the sense, or misapplying a passage, but to quote a dictum of his own, "that which we wish we readily believe," and the fault we lay to his charge resolves itself into over-eagerness to establish his own view. Rather than modify the theory, stretch the facts a little. It is the old story of " Mais, Monsieur, les faits s'y opposent. Tent pis pour lea faits,—mon siege eat fait." Bringing a ready-made theory to the study of each individual play, he is apt to show himself less anxious to discover the poet's real meaning, than to find a confirmation of his own opinion. Thus in Twelfth Night 4), where Viola, after describing the love of her imaginary sister, reminds the Duke of the commis- sion with which he had charged her, Gervinus's view re- quires that she should burst into tears, and leave the stage in that condition. Every one can see that there is no ex- pressed authority for anything of the kind, and the probabilities of the case seem decidedly against it. The Duke is represented throughout as of a kindly, though fanciful nature, considerate to his attendants in general, and much attached to this one in par- ticular. It is not likely, if even possible, that he could have failed to notice such a disturbance in his favourite, and even in his selfish preoccupation it must have excited his remark and sympathy. The absence of any such indication in the text seems to show that Viola's tears may be looked upon as existing purely ex hypothesi,—a mere subjective quiddity. Again, when there is absolutely nothing predicated for or against a thing, when we are forced to form conjectures according to the general probabilities, it would seem best to proceed with extreme caution, and advance whatever theory may be formed with diffidence and a certain hesi- tation. But this is not at all the mode of procedure which Gervinus adopts. In Hamlet, for instance, it suits his exegesis to declare as an established fact that Osric is Laertes's accomplice, and in order to darken Hamlet's conduct, that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were quite unacquainted with the contents of their despatches. The fact may, of course, have been so, and at any rate it is notoriously difficult to prove a negative ; but if a rival commentator chose to assume that Osric was not Laertes's accomplice, and that the two others knew perfectly what they were doing, it is hard to see, in the absence of any authority in the play, what means the Professor could employ to disprove his opponent's assertion. A good example of the manner in which Gervinus attributes to Shake- speare's words a meaning different from that which to simple folk they seem to convey occurs in Twelfth Night 4). The clown, when after singing his song he takes leave of the Duke, says, "I would have men of such constancy put to sea, that their business might be everything, and their intent everywhere ; for that's it that always makes a good voyage of nothing." The commentary on these words is :—
"Thus, those natures which, forgetful of all else, become absorbed in one constant affection, he would drive into the very element of adventure, that they might forget their ponderings upon one intent, that in a natural course of life they might be delivered from the hard service of one idol, that that freshness might be restored to them which permits a man even in matters of love to reach his aim more quickly and easily, while the weak votaries of love forfeit their end."
But it is very certain that the clown intended nothing so elaborate. His meaning merely is that a sea voyage turns out best when one has no particular business, and follows no definite plan, but is prepared for anything that may befall. It must of course have been an oversight which induced the commentator to declare, in his remarks on the same play, that when "the Countess laughingly upbraids Malvolio for his intolerable dress," he takes it for serious praise. Malvolio never does anything of the sort, for the excellent reason that the Countess never so upbraided him. Maria indeed says that he would do so, but this is clearly quite a different thing.
Previous page
