Why a National Literature Cannot Flourish in the United States of North AmericaRocchietti, Joseph
General
Why a National Literature Cannot Flourish in the United States of North America
Rocchietti, Joseph
American literature; United States -- Social life and customs
Perhaps no author did benefit more, and injured more at the same time a
national theatre, than Shakspeare. Such an extraordinary genius wrote
plays, which have not the common sense. Andronichus for instance,
is such an ugly monster, which must astonish every body who judge
by themselves, how Shakspeare could write such an unnatural play.
Andronichus is neither a tragedy, nor a parody. As Shakspeare had
never been crazy, I am inclined to believe he was drunk, when he wrote
Andronichus. That it was written by Shakspeare and by no body else, I
have no doubt, since we find the style, the wit, and the might of his
genius in it; a language which no body, but Shakspeare had ever been
able to coin. The Andronichus of Shakspeare proves, that men judge like
parrots in literature. Down to our days, all the learned say, that all
the works of Shakspeare are the nature itself. They cannot say even,
which is the best of them!
He who would deny a mighty genius in Shakspeare, might say, that the
sun is a dark body. But, he who would approve a Lavinia, acting more
than three acts, after Chiron and Demetrius had chopped off her arms,
and tongue, without going to bed, it shows how ridiculous must be
those, who find beauties in every thing Shakspeare did write.
My purpose here, is not to write a criticism on Shakspeare: but, no
lady in the world could fall in love with Richard the third, the
murderer of her husband, king Edward the fourth; and at the very moment
in which she is going to bury him. Were Elizabeth not a lady, the love
of ambition, might change a woman into a monster, at least, a month
after the crime was committed. But, to love a cruel monkey, in the
street, before the very victim, and this victim her beloved husband,
over whom five minutes ago she shed bitter tears; to love the very
Richard still reeking with her husband’s blood, at the very time in
which he uses violence in stopping the sacred burial, to love him, I
say, because he flatters her, it is the very parody, and the ridiculous
caricature with which he wanted demonstrate the power of flattery in
woman’s breast. Were woman such a selfish, vain, degraded being, the
honest man would shudder at, and feel aversion rather than love the
beauty. And if one of the best ladies has so low a mind, what shall we
think of those less perfect than Elizabeth? But, the hyperbole is such
a big one, for which nature wishes to have nothing to do with it. And
such a satire to woman, instead of striking at the purpose, it becomes
but a ridiculous exaggeration.
I brought here only these two instances to demonstrate, that, if the
english theatre has not yet reached the italian, or french perfection,
it is owing to a national, religious veneration for every thing written
by Shakspeare; and when the english critic will not be awed by the
great Shakspeare, and, really, Shakspeare is great, I do not see why
the english theatre will not be as good as any.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account