Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616 -- Criticism and interpretation
Shakespeare's dramatic intention is indicated in the scenes written by
him. Knowing his practice, and having before us Holinshed, his
authority, it is easy to sketch out the kind of play that he would have
written by himself. Wolsey, eaten up by his obsession for worldly power,
betraying Buckingham to his fall, breaking the power of the Queen, and
ruling England, would have filled the first two acts. The third act
would have told (much more subtly than Fletcher has told) of his
downfall. Fletcher attributes the downfall to the chance discovery of
his attempt to thwart the king's marriage with Anne Bullen. That
discovery would have been put to full dramatic use by Shakespeare; but
it would have been represented as something working from beyond the
grave, the result of many unjust acts that have cried to God for justice
till God hears. The last acts would have exposed other sides of Wolsey's
character. The play would have been a fuller, nobler work than _Richard
II_, and of an ampler canvas than _Timon_. Shakespeare's share in the
play as we have it is all noble work. Wolsey, Katharine and the King are
drawn with the great, sharp, ample line of a master. The difference
between genius and supreme genius is shown very clearly in the first
act, where a great work, greatly begun, with the masterly power of
exposition that makes Shakespeare's first acts like daybreaks, is ended
by another spirit, without vision, but with a tremendous sense of Vanity
Fair.
WORK ATTRIBUTED TO SHAKESPEARE
A play called _Cardenno_, or _Cardenna_, was acted at Court by
Shakespeare's company in 1613. It is thought that this play was the
_History of Cardenio_, described as "by Fletcher and Shakespeare," which
was licensed for publication in 1653 but never published. The play is
now lost. It was attributed to Fletcher and Shakespeare on very poor
authority.
_Arden of Feversham_ is a domestic tragedy founded on a story told by
Holinshed. It was published anonymously in 1592. It is held by some to
be an early work of Shakespeare's, on the ground that no other known
poet, then living, could have written it. It is a strong play, but it is
the work of a joyless mind. It bears no single trace of Shakespeare's
mind. It could not have been written by him at any stage in his career.
_Edward III_ is an historical chronicle play by at least two unknown
hands. It was published anonymously in 1596. Some think that part of Act
I and the whole of Act II (dealing with the King's obsession of passion
for the Countess of Salisbury) were by Shakespeare, on the grounds that
the writing is too good to be by anybody else then living, and that the
unknown author makes use of a line and a phrase which occur in the
genuine sonnets of Shakespeare. The scenes attributed to Shakespeare
contain several beautiful lines in something of the Shakespearean
manner. The construction of the scenes, and their relation to the rest
of the play is un-Shakespearean. It is unlikely that Shakespeare wrote
them.
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