History of English Literature from "Beowulf" to SwinburneLang, Andrew
History
History of English Literature from "Beowulf" to Swinburne
Lang, Andrew
English literature -- History and criticism
The mirth and high spirit of Beatrice, the humours of Benedick, endear
the comedy to every reader, yet the end is "huddled up," like the ends
of many of the plays; Claudio is lightly taken back into favour, with
Shakespeare's almost limitless tolerance. He can scarcely ever bring
himself to punish one of his rogues, such as Lucio and Parolles, and is
as clement to the less deserving Claudio.
The mirth of "Twelfth Night" might border on the farcical, if Sir Toby,
Maria, Sir Andrew Aguecheek, and the rest of the light people, were
not so delightfully human and living, like their butt, Malvolio; and
did not Viola and Olivia lend their exquisite grace. Meanwhile, in "As
You Like It," we fleet our time carelessly as they did in the golden
world, under the greenwood tree, in the enchanted company of Rosalind,
Touchstone, the greatest of Shakespeare's clowns, and the melancholy
and humorous Jaques, the contemplator.
Returning to historical drama, and using North's translation of
Plutarch as his material, fusing North's prose into blank verse, he
now produced "Julius Cæsar," in which the chief personages are Brutus,
Marcus Antonius, and the Roman populace. Brutus appears as the virtuous
and irresolute man, slave to a pedantic conscience which pushes him on
to the slaying of great Cæsar. All readers note Shakespeare's way of
placing a man of nature more or less noble, but irresolute, in a crisis
which demands decision. Hamlet, Brutus, and Macbeth are the great
examples. It does not follow that Shakespeare himself was irresolute,
and that, when he thought of a man who is obliged to take a constant
part, he felt that, had he been that man, he would have wavered. He
simply, chose to illustrate that tragedy of a soul. Where would be the
interest in a play of Hamlet had the prince gone straight to his mark
and slain the king "at sight"? There would have been no play! How could
we endure a Brutus who, in his relations with Cæsar, mobbed and stabbed
the greatest of mortals, in a forthright business manner, with no
hesitations? If there were not enough of nobility in Macbeth to unman
him, he would be a vulgar usurper. When he chose, Shakespeare could
design men as true to their single aim as Richard III and Iago. Tragedy
requires in the chief sufferer, as the Greeks saw, greatness with a
fatal blemish; this idea runs through their poetry from Achilles to the
Aias and Œdipus of Sophocles. The purpose of Brutus, a deed, to reverse
his own words, "to make whole men sick," when in contemplation, would
not let him eat, nor talk, nor sleep; but, once resolved, his heart is
steeled, nor does the ghost of Cæsar fright him, as the spectres of his
fancy appal Macbeth.
The other great character is the fickle Roman crowd, played on by the
rhetoric of Antony. Shakespeare was not hostile to the people, but the
mob he knew, and drew it relentlessly again and again.
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