The Interpretation of Shakespeare IF ever the history of taste
in England comes to be written, one of the most illuminating chapters will be headed " Shakes- pearian Criticism." In the present century there have been three marked phases. A. C. Bradley's Shakespearian Tragedy was the culmination of the method of psychological analysis of character. Then followed the patriotic criticism of Raleigh, Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, and, a little lated, John Bailey, who all adopted the attitude towards Shakespeare - of - " We understand each other, we Englishmen ; don't we, old chap ? " The latest phase is the minute study of Shakespeare's symbol- ism and poetic imagery, shown especially in the work of Professor Caroline Spurgeon.
Mr. G. Wilson Knight belongs to this last school. His purpose is not to criticize but to interpret, a process which he explained in his Wheel of Fire, published in 1930, thus : " We should not, in fact, think critically at all : we should inter. pret our original imaginative experience into the slower con- sciousness of logic and intellect, preserving something of that child-like faith which we possess, or should possess, in the theatre. It is exactly this translation from one order of consciousness to another that interpretation claims to perform. Uncritically, and passively, it receives the whole of the poet's vision ; it then proceeds to re-express this experience in its own terms."
Mr. Knight continues these methods in The Imperial Theme, which he prefaces with an essay on imaginative interpretation. Shakespeare, he says, plays many variations on certain univer- sal ideas and symbols which persist :
" such essentials, however, will only be apparent to an imaginative response. Imagination will, having observed a striking ' honour ' speech, allow other ' honour ' thoughts to attach themselves, clustering round the original nucleus, until they form a compact unit of such ideas throughout Shakespeare. Imagination is synthetic, continually at work to make new wholes."
Certain ideas are symbolized by particular groups of images. Thus sun, moon and stars are used to suggest an infinite splen- dour and universal justification ; music symbolizes concord, tempests discord. Mr. Knight elaborates this theme in the chapters which follow, entitling his essay on the Life-themes in Hamlet " The Rose of May," on Coriolanus " The Royal Occupation," on Antony and Cleopatra " The diadem of love."
The method to one not accustomed to think of Shakespeare as a philosopher expressing his teaching by an elaborate system of symbols is not without difficulty. At times an uneasy feeling arises that Mr. Knight is following the common scheme of those sermons wherein the preacher essays to interpret the mind of God by grouping scattered texts into a pattern of his own devising. Mr. Knight certainly reveals many significances, often unsuspected, in Shakespeare's imagery, but it needs further demonstration to show how far Shakespeare was himself conscious of an underlying unity. It may indeed be that Mr. Knight is himself unconsciously expressing his own philosophy through Shakespeare—a process commoner in criticism than critics themselves always realize. This suspicion is strengthened when some of Mr. Knight's imaginative experiences are examined critically.
In his chapter on " The eroticism of Julius Caesar," for instance, he begins by saying, " The human element in Julius Caesar is charged highly with a general eroticism." He remarks that " the word ' lover' is amazingly frequent, sometimes meaning little more than ' friend,' but always helping to build a general atmosphere of comradeship and affection." Actually, however, the word " lover " is to be found four times only throughout the play, and twice in Brutus' speech to the mob. Nor is " love " used with notable frequency. It occurs 41 times in Julius Caesar against 68 in Hamlet and 50 times in Lear ; similarly, the figures for " loved " are Julius Caesar 5, Hamlet 7, Lear 9. Mr. Knight's original impression of frequency is not supported by the Concordance. Apparently having first received an impression from the play, he has proceeded to justify it by examining the symbols. This, however, is an extreme and possibly unfair instance, for Mr. Knight's intuition is usually keen, subtle and penetrative. He is at his best when he is simplest, as in the description of the Ghost in Hamlet, of which only a few sen- tences can be quoted : " It is a portentous, unnatural thing, something mortality must reject : yet, at the same time, it is a loved father, an honoured King. Father and King : both are important. The ideals of love and kingship are at stake. But that father, that king, is dead.
So, clearly, the ghost is also Death. . Is he devil or loved parent / Spirit of health or goblin damned / With exquisite aptness the poet has placed him, not in heaven or hell, but purgatory. Through- out our problem is unsolved for us. If we seek for a final answer we must say : the ghost is neither ' right,' nor ' wrong,' but it is thing of dark, not light ; of Death, not Life."
Mr. Knight relies solely on the Globe text. Much may be argued in favour of excluding all externals, problems of text, conditions of stage, or the precise significance of Elizabethan
ideas, lest interpretation be darkened by irrelevancies ; but there is a danger in the method of forgetting how vastly words have changed their meanings and associations in three cen- turies ; many of Shakespeare's images convey an essentially different suggestion to:us. The frequent imagery of blood, for example, was full of colour and smell to Shakespeare's contemporaries ; many moderns have never seen blood in greater quantity than exudes from a cut chin. Even more difficult to apprehend is the change in the subtle associations that cluster round the commonest words, such as " father," " son," " Prince," " magistrate."
A reader who is new to interpretation will find The Imperial Theme hard reading ; but it is well worth the effort.
G. B. HAantsoN.
Previous page
