A Letter on Shakspere's Authorship of The Two Noble Kinsmen: and on the characteristics of Shakspere's style and the secret of his supremacySpalding, William
General
A Letter on Shakspere's Authorship of The Two Noble Kinsmen: and on the characteristics of Shakspere's style and the secret of his supremacy
Now here we have a play founded on a poem, the original
delicate and noble, where the other is coarse and trivial; and
we ask, 'Was this Shakspere's way of treating his originals?'
In his earlier years he based his _Romeo and Juliet_ on
Brooke's poem of the same name--a fine work, and little
disfigured by the coarseness of the time. Yet he pruned it of
all really offensive matter, and has given us a perfect
love-story, as ardent as it is pure. His skill in omission is
remarkably shown in one respect. In Brooke's poem, Juliet,
reflecting when alone on Romeo's sudden love, remembers that
he is an enemy to her house, and suspects that he may intend
dishonourable love as a base means of wreaking vengeance on
hereditary foes. It seems to me that a thought so cunning is
out of character with Juliet--certainly would have been felt
as a stain on Shakspere's Juliet. That Shakspere deliberately
omitted this, is known by one slight reference. Juliet says to
Romeo,
'If thy intent of love be honourable,
Thy purpose marriage.'
That is all--no cunning caution, no base doubt.
Now if in this original, and in this play, we trace the very
manner of Shakspere's working--taking up gold mixed with
dross, and purifying it in the furnace of his genius--are we
to suppose that later in life, with taste more fastidious,
even if his imagination were less strong, he carried out a
converse process; that he took Chaucer's gold, and mixed it
with alloy? That, I greatly doubt. Also, would he imitate
himself so closely as he is imitated in certain scenes of the
_Two N. K._?
Another point. Love between persons of very different rank has
been held by many dramatists to be a fine subject for the
stage. Shakspere never introduces it. _Ophelia_ loves a
Prince, and _Violet_ a duke, and Rosalind a Squire's son; but
gentlehood unites all. Helena in _All's Well_ is a
gentlewoman. With anything like levelling aspirations
Shakspere had clearly no sympathy. In no undoubted play of his
have we, so far as I remember, any attempt to make the love of
the lowly born for the high a subject of sympathy: there is no
Beggar maid to any of his King Cophetuas. Goneril and Regan
stoop to Edmund through baseness; Malvolio's love for Olivia
is made ridiculous. The Gaoler's Daughter of the _Two N. K._
stands alone: like the waiting-maid in the _Critic_, she goes
mad in white linen, and as painfully recalls Ophelia, as our
cousins the monkeys remind us of men.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account