Had cause of much misunderstanding not only of SHAKESPEARE'S plays in general, but of this present play in particular. An idea is thereby conveyed that SHAKESPEARE worked, to a certain extent, at hap-hazard, or, at least, that at times he lost sight of the requirements of his story and was willing to vary the characters of his creation at the suggestion of caprice, to introduce a blundering constable here or a drunken. porter there just to lighten his play or to raise a horse-laugh in the groundlings. It would be difficult to imagine a falser imputation on SHAKESPEARE'S consummate art. Never did SHAKESPEARE lose sight of the trending of his story; not a scene, I had almost said not a phrase, did he write that does not reveal the true hard-working artist labouring, with undeviating gaze, to produce a certain effect. The opinion is abroad that SHAKESPEARE produced his Dogberry and Verges out of the mere exuberance of his love of fun and that in this 'star y-pointed' comedy, they are the star of comicality, merely to give the audience a scene to laugh at. This inference is utterly wrong. They do, indeed, supply endless mirth, but SHAKESPEARE had to have them just as they are. He was forced to have characters like these and none other. The play hinges on them. they been sufficiently quick-witted to have recognised the villainy of the plot betrayed by Borachio to Conrade, the play would have ended at once. Therefore, they had to be stupid, most ingeniously stupid, and show 'matter and impertinency' so mixed that we can understand how they came to be invested with even such small authority as their office implies. Men less stupid would never have had their suspicions aroused by what they supposed to be an allusion to 'Deformed, a vile 'thief;' even this allusion is not hap-hazard; stupid by nature as these watchmen are, no chance must be given them to discern the importance of their prisoners, their attention must be diverted from the right direction to something utterly irrelevant, which shall loom up as important in their muddled brains. Hence, this 'Deformed' is not a mere joke, but a stroke of art; and does not, of necessity, involve a contemporary allusion, as is maintained. At no previous point in the play could Dogberry and Verges have been introduced; where they first appear is the exact point at which they are needed. Through the villainy of Don John and the weakness of Claudio the sunshine of this sparkling comedy is threatened with eclipse, and the atmosphere becomes charged with tragedy. Just at this point appear these infinitely stupid watchmen, all whose talk, preliminary to the arrest of Borachio and Conrade, is by no means merely to make us laugh, but to give us assurance that the play is still a comedy and that however ludicrous may be the entanglement in which these blundering fools will involve the story, the resolu tion, the denouement, will be brought about by their means and that the plot against Hero, which we see is hatching, will by them be brought to nought. Had Dogberry been one whit less conceited, one whit less pompous, one whit less tedious, he could not have failed to have dropped at least one syllable that would have arrested Leonato's attention just before the tragic treatment of Hero in the marriage scene, which would not have taken place and the whole story would have ended then and there. Dogberry had to be introduced just then to give us assurance that Don John's villainy would come to light eventually, and enable us to bear Hero's sad fate with such equanimity that we can listen, immediately after, with delighted hearts to the wooing of Benedick and Beatrice. I do by no means say that SHAKESPEARE could have dramatised this story in no other way, his resources were infinite, but I do say that, having started as he did start, he was forced, by the necessities of the action, to have stupidity rule supreme at those points where he has given us the immortal Dogberry. KNIGHT among editors, and BOAS among critics, are the only ones that I can recall, who have had even an inkling of the true position which Dogberry holds. One pleasure yet remains to me whereby to enliven the dulness of a Preface to thank my sister, Mrs Annis LEE WISTER, for translating the extracts, in the Appendix, from German Critics. In regard to one portion, therefore, of this volume I can be shut up in measureless content. November, 1899. C H. H. F. |