in my first paper, in other dramas of his last period almost contemporaneous with Henry VIII, The Winter's Tale, and Cymbeline. The poet introduces two gentlemen in conversation in order to inform his public of the events of the day, and to prepare them for the coming ones. Thus in this colloquy Buckingham's bearing before his judges and the preparatory steps to the king's divorce are dwelt upon. These same two gentlemen again meet at the beginning of the 4th Act, and report on the further calamities of the divorced Queen Katherine. As a set-off to this, a third gentleman joining them tells the coronation of Anna Boleyn in Westminster Abbey. To present this ecclesiastical spectacle on the boards, our poet was probably forbidden alike by deficient theatrical means as by other considerations. He, or rather the direction of the Globe Theatre, had therefore to content themselves with exhibiting the coronation-procession to the Abbey. In the following scene between Katherine and her confidential servant Griffith, the last hours of Wolsey are discussed, and his character and actions impartially appreciated. Since Katherine was to die in the same touching scene, its pathos would have been impaired if Wolsey's end had been shown the spectators just before. For the same reasons as the coronation of Anna Boleyn, the christening of the new-born Princess Elizabeth could not take place on the stage. In this case, however, Shakspere does not again resort to the gossip of noble eye-witnesses, but finds a much more original expedient. The pressure of the loyal people in the royal palace-yard on the occasion of this solemnity is better depicted by the humorous dialogue between the porter and his man, who have to resist this mob, than could have been attained by any scenical appearance of the motley crowd. To make amends, however, the solemn procession passes over the boards on its return from the christening in the Palace, and Archbishop Cranmer in an inspired oration prophesies the glorious reign of Queen Elizabeth. After having examined with regard to their epic element the ten plays whose themes Shakspere borrowed from the history of his own country and people, we shall conclude by the consideration of the three plays from Roman history. As the copious materials offered our poet by the English chronicles could for his dramatic purpose not always be scenically elaborated, but were to be worked in by way of reports, descriptions, and occasional allusions, so he employs on a still larger scale the contents of Plutarch's Biographies both epically and dramatically, just as it suits every single case. As to the proceeding observed by Shakspere in Coriolanus, I may refer to my dissertation in the last volume of the Jahrbuch (vol. xi. p. 32); I have there spoken of the relation between Shakspere's Coriolanus and the Coriolanus of Plutarch with regard to the scenic representation, characteristics, and language, and in the discussion of the two first points I entered so fully into the question now treated of that I could only repeat here the results there arrived at. Three of Plutarch's Biographies-Cæsar, Brutus, and Antonyoffered our poet for his Julius Caesar such an abundance not only of historic events, but also of characteristic traits, that he could of course not use the whole dramatically, but had to avail himself of it to a great extent epically. He resorted the more freely to the latter expedient, as the structure of this his first Roman play is much simpler, and its dimensions smaller, than is the case in either of the two Roman dramas of his last period. The antagonism between Cæsar and his great rival Pompey precedes the commencement of our play, and is therefore only alluded to in the sketch by the tribune (Act I. sc. i.) of Pompey's former triumphal marches through the streets of Rome. This retrospect, intended to rebuke the people's fickleness, is followed up in the subsequent scene by a retrospect intended to work upon Brutus's mind, Cassius reminding him of moments in Cæsar's life which showed the now God-like ruler as a frail man crying for help. The Comedy played between Antony and Cæsar, the one repeatedly offering the crown, the other repeatedly refusing it amidst the acclaiming shouts of the assembled people, is brought forward not scenically, but through Casca's scurrilous report. Shakspere's artistic aim to impress upon the spectators the deeper sense of this incident and its effect upon Brutus and Cassius, was thus evidently more surely attained. A similar intention may have induced him (Act I. sc. vi.) only to relate the prodigies recorded by Plutarch. Their visible production, even if possible in the then state of the theatre, would hardly have answered the profounder tendency of the poet. Hence he contented himself with the conventional "thunder and lightning," and left it to the fancy of his audience to imagine, in keeping with Casca's words, the flaming hands of the slave, the lion at the Capitol, the fiery men in the streets of Rome, the bird of night sitting upon the Market Place. He likewise makes Calphurnia (Act II. sc. iii.) return to these ill-boding wonders and relate other ones. In the apostrophe of Antony to the dead Cæsar (Act III. sc. i.) we have, in anticipation of coming events, an energetically comprehensive delineation of all the horrors of the civic strife that shall break forth on Cæsar's death, and " as a curse, shall light upon the limbs of men." Shakspere interwove this description the better here, as, according to the whole plan of this play, these horrors could not have been scenically enacted in the following Acts. Historical retrospects such as Plutarch offered them, the poet embodied in the mutual recriminations of Brutus and Cassius (Act IV. sc. iii.), but only so far as he thought it necessary for the illustration of the quarrel and subsequent reconciliation of the two friends. The decisive battle of Philippi, with which the tragedy concludes, could not have been fought on the boards of his theatre. Apart from the actual battlefield he produces only the episodes, first of the fall of Cassius, then of Brutus; and he has the occurrences of the battle, as far as needful for the information of the public, reported by different persons concerned in it. If in the play just considered the poet developes a comparatively simple action on not too large a scale, he, on the contrary, unfolds before the eye of the public in his last Roman drama-Antony and Cleopatra―a much more complicated series of events, grouped round the two leading figures on an incomparably larger field and with a constant change of scene and actors. To unroll the connecting unity of these variegated, almost bewildering multitude of events, dramatic action alone was inadequate; for the exposition and completion of the already overflowing dramatic element the poet was more than ever forced to resort to the epic element. There had to be recounted and related what could not be exhibited in additional scenes; decorative detail-painting had to supply the deficiencies of the stage, prevailing even at Shakspere's later period. Thus at the commencement of the play, in the reports of the messengers, the disasters threatening from different sides are in quick gradation announced to Antony, instead of being shown to the spectators. A messenger informs Octavius in the same conventional way of sinister news (Act I. sc. iv.), which evokes in him reminiscences of Antony's earlier life : his manly endurance of the hardships and privations of war, as opposed to his before-described effeminacy and lasciviousness which he now indulges in, in the bondage of Cleopatra. The mutual recriminations (Act II. sc. ii.) of the rival triumvirs complete by their historical retrospects the public's knowledge of preceding events. The brilliant description of the first meeting of Antony and Cleopatra that follows, I have already discussed in my first paper, and explained the leading motive of the poet. The historical retrospect placed in the mouth of the younger Pompey (Act II. sc. vi.) has the same tendency as the former ones, and also justifies his claim inherited from his father. Our poet could not think of putting upon the stage the Parthian war, in which neither Antony nor Octavius had participated. But its victorious termination by Ventidius might well be recounted in order to characterize the position which the subaltern victor occupies, or believes he occupies, with respect to his Commander Antony. Antony's further unpolitical and reckless doings at Alexandria (Act III. sc. vi.) and the motives of his later fall are related in the speech of Octavius; and in the same scene the failure of her mission to her faithless husband is reported by Octavia returned to Rome. Shakspere spared himself and his public the painful scene of the meeting and parting of the ill-paired consorts. Generally, in contradistinction to the modern treatment of the same subject, he with true historic conception lays by far less stress on the rivalry between Cleopatra and Octavia than on that between Antony and Octavius. The sea-fight near Actium, the poet could as little present scenically as the land-battle at Philippi. It passes, on the contrary, behind the scenes, but because of its influence on Antony's further destiny, the poet makes the spectators at least indirectly witness this great catastrophe through the reflected light of the effects that its prelude, progress, and result produce on the persons engaged in it. In the two last Acts, Shakspere evidently allows the psychological and personal interest attaching to the two principal actors in his drama to outweigh the historical interest. The further action up to the tragic end is scenically enacted before our eyes, within a narrower compass, so that the poet had no need to again make use of the epic element. [In this Paper, Prof. Delius assumes that Shakspere wrote the whole of 1 Henry VI,-a supposition that I know no Englishman who would sanction, and also all 2 & 3 Henry VI, and all Henry VIII; theories that some, though I hope few, Englishmen would support, though the monologue of Henry VI in 2 H. VI, II. v. is of course Shakspere's. But the Professor's discussion of the use of narrative in these many-handed plays is none the less interesting and valuable, by whomsoever we hold they were written. As the obsolescent word "parentation," p. 333, sent me to the Dictionary for its definition, I copy that for the benefit of other readers: "Parentation. s. Something done or said in honour of the dead. May, Translation of Lucan, b. iv. "Some other ceremonies were practised, which differed not much from those used in parentations.-Archbishop Potter, Antiquities of Greece, ii. 18."-Latham's Johnson.-F. J. F.] |
