No. 147. April 1841. The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher. With an Introduction. By George Darley.

No. 164. April 1845. 1. The Pictorial Edition of the Works of Shakespeare. Edited by Charles Knight.--2. The Comedies, Histories, Tragedies, and Poems of William Shakespeare. Edited by Charles Knight.--3. The Works of William Shakespeare. The text formed from an entirely new collation of the old editions; with the various Readings, Notes, a Life of the Poet, and a History of the English Stage. By J.

Payne Collier, Esquire, F.S.A.

No. 173. July 1847. The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher. By the Rev.

Alexander Dyce.

No. 181. July 1849. 1. Lectures on Shakespeare. By H. N. Hudson.--2.

Macbeth de Shakespeare, en 5 Actes et en vers. Par M. Emile Deschemps.

_ib._ King Arthur. By Sir E. Bulwer Lytton. 2nd edition, London, 1849, 8vo.

A LETTER

ON

SHAKSPEARE'S AUTHORSHIP

OF THE DRAMA ENt.i.tLED

_THE TWO n.o.bLE KINSMEN_.

My dear L----, We have met again, after an interval long enough to have made both of us graver than we were wont to be. A few of my rarely granted hours of leisure have lately been occupied in examining a question on which your taste and knowledge equally incline and qualify you to enter. Allow me to address to you the result of my inquiry, as a pledge of the gratification which has been afforded me by the renewal of our early intercourse.

Proud as SHAKSPEARE'S countrymen are of his name, it is singular, though not unaccountable, that at this day our common list of his works should remain open to correction. [Sidenote: The list of SHAKSPERE'S works is not yet settled.] [Sidenote: Are all his in his publisht "_Works_"?]

Every one knows that some plays printed in his volumes have weak claims to that distinction; but, while the exclusion even of works certainly not his would now be a rash exercise of prerogative in any editor, it is a question of more interest, whether there may not be dramas not yet admitted among his collected works, which have a right to be there, and might be inserted without the danger attending the dismissal of any already put upon the list. [Sidenote: Six "Doubtful Plays:" none by Shakspere.] A claim for admission has been set up in favour of Malone's six plays,[1:1] without any ground as to five of them, and [1:2]with very little to support it even for the sixth. [Sidenote: Ireland's forgery, _Vortigern_.] [Sidenote: The folly of supposing _Vortigern_ genuine.] Ireland's impostures are an anomaly in literary history: even the spell and sway of temporary fashion and universal opinion are causes scarcely adequate to account for the blindness of the eminent men who fell into the snare. The want of any external evidence in favour of the first fabrication, the Shakspeare papers, was overlooked; and the internal evidence, which was wholly against the genuineness, was unhesitatingly admitted as establishing it. The play of 'Vortigern' had little more to support it than the previous imposition.

There are two cases, however, in which we have external presumptions to proceed from; for there are traditions traceable to Shakspeare's own time, or nearly so, of his having a.s.sisted in two plays, still known to us, but never placed among his works. [Sidenote: Shakspere said (absurdly) to have helpt in Ben Jonson's _Seja.n.u.s_.] The one, the 'Seja.n.u.s', in which Shakspeare is said to have a.s.sisted Jonson, was re-written by the latter himself, and published as it now stands among his writings, the part of the a.s.sistant poet having been entirely omitted; so that the question as to that play, a very doubtful question, is not important, and hardly even curious. But the other drama is in our hands as it came from the closets of the poets, and, if Shakspeare's partial authorship were established, ought to have a place among his works. [Sidenote: _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_ attributed to Shakspere and Fletcher; and rightly so.] It is, as you know, THE TWO n.o.bLE KINSMEN, printed among the works of Beaumont and Fletcher, and sometimes attributed to SHAKSPEARE and FLETCHER jointly. I have been able to satisfy myself that it is rightly so attributed, and hope to be able to prove to you, who are intimately conversant with Shakspeare, and familiar also with the writings of his supposed co-adjutor, that there are good grounds for the opinion. [Sidenote: It is unjustly excluded from _Shakspere's Works_.] The same conclusion has already been reached by others; but the discussion of the question cannot be needless, so long as this fine drama continues excluded from the received list of Shakspeare's works; and while there is reason to believe that there are many discerning students and zealous admirers of the poet, to whom it is known only by name. The beauty of the work itself will make much of the investigation delightful to you, even though my argument on it may seem feeble and stale.

[Sidenote: I. Historical or External Evidence.]

[Sidenote: II. External Evidence, p. 10.]

The proof is, of course, two-fold; the first branch emerging [2:1]from any records or memorials which throw light on the subject from without; the second, from a consideration of the work itself, and a comparison of its qualities with those of Shakspeare or Fletcher. You will keep in mind, that it has not been doubted, and may be a.s.sumed, that Fletcher had a share in the work; the only question is,--Whether Shakspeare wrote any part of it, and what parts, if any?

The Historical Evidence claims our attention in the first instance; but in no question of literary genuineness is this the sort of proof which yields the surest grounds of conviction. [Sidenote: I. External Evidence.] Such questions arise only under circ.u.mstances in which the external proof on either side is very weak, and the internal evidence has therefore to be continually resorted to for supplying the defects of the external. It is true that a complete proof of a work having been actually written by a particular person, destroys any contrary presumption from intrinsic marks; and, in like manner, when a train of evidence is deduced, showing it to be impossible that a work could have been written by a certain author, no internal likeness to other works of his can in the least weaken the negative conclusion. [Sidenote: Historical evidence cannot exclude internal, unless the former is complete.] In either case, however, the historical evidence must be incontrovertible, before it can exclude examination of the internal; and the two cases are by no means equally frequent. It scarcely ever happens that there is external evidence weighty enough to establish certainly, of itself, an individual's authorship of a particular work; but the external proof that his authorship was impossible, may often be convincing and perfect, from an examination of dates, or the like.

Since, therefore, external evidence against authorship admits of completeness, we are ent.i.tled, when such evidence exclusively is founded on, to demand that it shall be complete. Where by the very narrowest step it falls short of a demonstration of absolute impossibility, the internal evidence cannot be refused admittance in contravention of it, and comes in with far greater force than that of the other. There may be cases where authorship can be made out to the highest degree, at least, of probability, by strong internal evidence coming in aid of an external proof equally balanced for and against; and even where the extrinsic proof is of itself sufficient [3:1]to infer improbability, internal marks may be so decided the opposite way, as to render the question absolutely doubtful, or to occasion a leaning towards the affirmative side. [Sidenote: Internal evidence the true test for _The Two N. K._]

These principles point out the internal evidence as the true ground on which my cause must be contested; but it was not necessary to follow them out to their full extent; for I can show you, that the external facts which we have here, few as they are, raise a presumption in favour of Shakspeare's authorship, as strong as exists in cases of more practical importance, where its effect has never been questioned.

[Sidenote: _The Two N. K._ printed in 1634 as by Fletcher and Shakspere.]

The fact from which the maintainers of Shakspeare's share in this drama have to set out, is the first printing of it, which took place in 1634.

In the t.i.tle-page of this first edition,[4:1] the play is stated to be the joint work of Shakspeare and Fletcher. [Sidenote: Steevens's doubts.] It is needless to enumerate categorically the doubts which have been thrown, chiefly by the acute and perverse Steevens, on the credit due to this a.s.sertion; for a few observations will show that they have by no means an overwhelming force, while there are contrary presumptions far more than sufficient to weigh them down. [Sidenote: A.D. 1634 was 18 years after Shakspere's death, 9 after Fletcher's.] The edition was not published till eighteen years after Shakspeare's death, and nine years after Fletcher's; but any suspicion which might arise from the length of this interval, as giving an opportunity for imposture, is at once removed by one consideration, which is almost an unanswerable argument in favour of the a.s.sertion on the t.i.tle-page, and in contravention of this or any other doubts. [Sidenote: No motive to forge Shakspere's name, as he (Sh.) had then fallen into neglect.] There was no motive for falsely stating Shakspeare's authorship, because no end would have been gained by it; for it is a fact admitting of the fullest proof, that, even so recently after Shakspeare's death as 1634, he had fallen much into neglect. Fletcher had become far more popular, and his name in the t.i.tle-page would have been a surer pa.s.sport to public favour than Shakspeare's. If either of the names was to be [4:2]fabricated, Fletcher's (which stands foremost in the t.i.tle-page as printed) was the more likely of the two to have been preferred. It appears then that the time when the publisher's a.s.sertion of Shakspeare's authorship was made, gives it a right to more confidence than it could have deserved if it had been advanced earlier. If the work had been printed during the poet's life, and the height of his popularity, its t.i.tle-page would have been no evidence at all. And when the a.s.sertion is freed from the suspicion of designed imposture, the truth of it is confirmed by its stating the play to have been acted by the king's servants, and at the Blackfriars. [Sidenote: _2 N. K._ acted at the Blackfriars (in whose profits Shakspere had once a share).] It was that company which had been Shakspeare's; the Globe and Blackfriars were the two theatres at which they played; and at one or the other of these houses all his acknowledged works seem to have been brought out. The fact of the play not having been printed sooner, is accounted for by the dramatic arrangements and practice of the time: the first collected edition of Shakspeare's works, only eleven years earlier than the printing of this play, contained about twenty plays of his not printed during his life; and the long interval is a reason also why the printer and publisher are different persons from any who were concerned in Shakspeare's other works. The hyperbolical phraseology of the t.i.tle-page is quite in the taste of the day, and is exceeded by the quarto editions of some of Shakspeare's admitted works.

[Sidenote: Custom of authors writing plays together.]

Was the alleged co-operation then in itself likely to have taken place?

It was. Such partnerships were very generally formed by the dramatists of that time; both the poets were likely enough to have projected some union of the kind, and to have chosen each other as the parties to it.

[Sidenote: Shakspere followed this custom, though rarely.] Although Shakspeare seems to have followed this custom less frequently than most of his contemporaries, we have reason to think that he did not wholly refrain from it; and his favourite plan of altering plays previously written by others, is a near approach to it. [Sidenote: Fletcher very often.] As to Fletcher, his name is connected in every mind with that of Beaumont; and the memorable and melancholy letter of the three players,[5:1] proves him to have coalesced with other writers even during that poet's short [5:2]life. This is of some consequence, because, if the two poets wrote at the same time, it would seem that they must have done so previously to Beaumont's death; for Shakspeare lived only one year longer than Beaumont, and is believed to have spent that year in the country. There is no proof that the drama before us was not written before Beaumont's death (1615), and it is only certain that its era was later than 1594. [Sidenote: Fletcher's co-authors.] After the loss of his friend, Fletcher is said to have been repeatedly a.s.sisted by Ma.s.singer: he joined in one play with Jonson and Middleton, and in another with Rowley. [Sidenote: His sonship to a bishop, no hindrance.] His superior rank (he was the son of a bishop) has been gravely mentioned as discrediting his connection with Shakspeare; but the same objection applies with infinitely greater force to his known co-operation with Field, Daborne, and the others just named; and the idea is founded on radically wrong notions of the temper of that age.

[Sidenote: Fletcher's burlesquing Shakspere is no argument against their having written together.] There is scarcely more substance in a doubt raised from the frequency with which Shakspeare is burlesqued by Beaumont and Fletcher. Those satirical flings could have been no reason why Fletcher should be unwilling to coalesce with Shakspeare, because they indicate no ill feeling towards him. [Sidenote: Shakspere pokes fun at Kyd, Peele, Marlowe.] They were practised by all the dramatic writers at the expense of each other; Shakspeare himself is a parodist, and indulges in those quips frequently, not against such writers only as the author of the Spanish Tragedy, but against Peele and even Marlowe, his own fathers in the drama, and both dead before he vented the jests, which he never would have uttered had he attached to them any degree of malice. And therefore also Fletcher's sarcasms cannot have disinclined Shakspeare to the coalition, especially as his personal character made it very unlikely that he should have taken up any such grudge as a testy person might have conceived from some of the more severe.

But the circ.u.mstance on which most stress has been laid as disproving Shakspeare's share in the drama in question, is this. [Sidenote: The _2 N. K._ not in the First Folio of Shakspere's Works, 1623, put forth by Shakspere's fellows.] While the first edition of it was not printed till 1634, two editions of Shakspeare's collected works had been published between the time of his death (1616) and that year, in neither of which this play appears; and it is said that its omission in the first folio (1623), in particular, is fatal to its claim, since Heminge and [6:1]Condell, who edited that collection, were Shakspeare's fellow-actors and the executors of his will, and must be presumed to have known perfectly what works were and what were not his. I have put this objection as strongly as it can be put; and at first sight it is startling; but those who have most bibliographical knowledge of Shakspeare's works, are best aware that much of its force is only apparent. The omission in the second folio (1632) should not have been founded on; for that edition is nothing but a reprint of the contents of the first; and it is only the want of the play in this latter that we have to consider. [Sidenote: But the First Folio is not of much authority.] Now, you know well, that in taking some objections to the authority of the First Folio, I shall only echo the opinions of Shakspeare's most judicious critics. It was a speculation on the part of the editors for their own advantage, either solely or in conjunction with any others, who, as holders of shares in the Globe Theatre, had an interest in the plays: for it was to the theatre, you will remark, and not to Shakspeare or his heirs personally, that the ma.n.u.scripts belonged. [Sidenote: It was just a speculation for profit;] The edition shews distinctly, that profit was its aim more than faithfulness to the memory of the poet, in the correctness either of his text or of the list of his works. Even the style of the preface excites suspicions which the work itself verifies. [Sidenote: designd to put down the Quartos, which yet it copies.] One object of it was to put down editions of about fifteen separate plays of Shakspeare's, previously printed in quarto, which, though in most respects more accurate than their successors, had evidently been taken from stolen copies: the preface of the folio, accordingly, strives to throw discredit on these quartos, while the text, usually close in its adherence to them, falls into errors where it quits them, and omits many very fine pa.s.sages which they give, and which the modern editors have been enabled by their a.s.sistance to restore.

[Sidenote: The Table of Contents of the First Folio of Shakspere's Works is of less worth.]

Here it is, however, of more consequence to notice, that the authority of the Table of Contents of the Folio is worse than weak. The editors profess to give all Shakspeare's works, and none which are not his: we know that they have fulfilled neither the one pledge nor the other.

There is no doubt but they could at least have enumerated Shakspeare's works correctly: but their knowledge and their design of profit did [7:1]not suit each other. [Sidenote: It lets in two Plays that are not Shakspere's.] They have admitted, for plain reasons, two plays which are not Shakspeare's. Their edition contains about twenty plays never before printed; it was evidently their interest to enlarge this part of their list as far as they safely could. [Sidenote: _1 Henry VI_,] The pretended First Part of Henry VI., in which Shakspeare may perhaps have written a single scene,[8:1] but certainly not twenty lines besides, had not been printed, and could be plausibly inserted; it does not seem that they could have had any other reasons for giving it a place. [Sidenote: and _t.i.tus Andronicus_.] The Tragedy of the Shambles, which we call 't.i.tus Andronicus,' if it had been printed at all, had been so only once, and that thirty years before; therefore it likewise was a novelty; and a pretext was easily found for its admission. The editors then were unscrupulous and unfair as to the works which they inserted: professing to give a full collection, they were no less so as to those which they did not insert. [Sidenote: _Troilus and Cressida_] 'Troilus and Cressida,' an unpleasing drama, contains many pa.s.sages of the highest spirit and poetical richness, and the bad in it, as well as the good, is perfectly characteristic of Shakspeare; it is unquestionably his.

[Sidenote: is not in the Table of Contents.] It does not appear in Heminge and Condell's table of contents, and is only found appended, like a separate work, to some copies of their edition. Its pages are not even numbered along with the rest of the volume; and if the first editors were the persons who printed it, it was clearly after the remainder of the work. If they did print it, their manner of doing so shews their carelessness of truth more strongly than if they had omitted it altogether. They first make up their list, and state it as a full one without that play, which they apparently had been unable to obtain; they then procure access to the ma.n.u.script, print the play, and insert it in the awkward way in which it stands, and thus virtually confess that the a.s.sertion in their preface, made in reference to their table of contents, was untrue. At any rate, a part of their impression was circulated without this play. [Sidenote: _Pericles_ is not in the volume, and yet is in part Shakspere's.] 'Pericles' also is wholly omitted by those editors; it appears for the first time in the third folio (1666), an edition of no value, and its genuineness rests much on the internal proofs, which [8:2]are quite sufficient to establish it. It is an irregular and imperfect play, older in form than any of Shakspeare's; but it has clearly been augmented by many pa.s.sages written by him, and therefore had a right to be inserted by the first editors, upon their own principles. [Sidenote: The editors of the First Folio put forth an incomplete book.] These two plays then being certainly Shakspeare's, no matter whether his best or his worst, and his editors being so situated that they must have known the fact, their edition is allowed to appear as a complete collection of Shakspeare's works, although its contents include neither of the two. They probably were unable to procure copies; but they were not the less bound to have acknowledged in their preface, that these, or any other plays which they knew to be Shakspeare's, were necessary for making up a complete collection. It in no view suited their purposes to make such a statement; and it was not made. [Sidenote: We cannot trust the Editors of the First Folio.] In short, the whole conduct of these editors inspires distrust, but their unacknowledged omission of those two plays deprives them of all claim to our confidence. The effect of that omission, in reference to any play which can be brought forward as Shakspeare's, is just this, that the want of the drama in their edition, is of itself no proof whatever that Shakspeare was not the author of it, and leaves the question, whether he was or was not, perfectly open for decision on other evidence. It leaves the inquiry before us precisely in that situation. Why Heminge and Condell could not procure the ma.n.u.scripts of 'Troilus,' 'Pericles,' or the 'Two n.o.ble Kinsmen,' I am not bound to shew. As to the last, Fletcher may have retained a partial or entire right of property in it, and was alive at the publication of their edition. Difficulties at least as great attach to the question as to the other two rejected plays, in which the strength of the other proofs has long been admitted as counterbalancing them. But the argument serves my purpose without any theory on the subject. [Sidenote: The First Folio no evidence against _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_.] The state of it ent.i.tles me, as I conceive, to throw the First Folio entirely out of view, as being no evidence one way or the other.

Laying the folio aside then, I think I have shewn that, in the most unfavourable view, no doubts which other circ.u.mstances can throw on the a.s.sertion made in the t.i.tle-page of the first edition of the 'Two n.o.ble Kinsmen,' are of such strength as to ren[9:1]der the truth of it improbable. [Sidenote: Strong internal evidence will prove it in part Shakspere's.] Strong internal evidence therefore will, in any view, establish Shakspeare's claim. But, if the consideration first suggested be well-founded, (as I have no doubt it is,) namely, that the statement of the publisher was disinterested, there arises a very strong external presumption of the truth of his a.s.sertion, which will enable us to proceed to the examination of the internal marks with a prepossession in favour of Shakspeare's authorship.

As I wish to make you a convert to the affirmative opinion, it may be wise to acquaint you that you will not be alone in it, if you shall finally see reason to embrace it. [Sidenote: Early annotators on Shakspere narrow-minded.] Shakspeare, you know, suffered a long eclipse, which left him in obscurity till the beginning of last century, when he reappeared surrounded by his annotators, a cla.s.s of men who have followed a narrow track, but yet are greater benefactors to us than we are ready to acknowledge. The commentators have given little attention to the question before us; but some of the best of them have declared incidentally for Shakspeare's claim; and though even the editors who have professed this belief have not inserted the work as his, this is only one among many evil results of the slavish system to which they all adhere. [Sidenote: Yet Pope, Warburton, Farmer, believe _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_ genuine: so does Schlegel.] We have with us Pope, Warburton, and above all, Farmer, a man of fine discernment, and a most cautious sifter of evidence. The subject has more recently been treated shortly by a celebrated foreign critic, the enthusiastic and eloquent Schlegel,[10:1] who comes to a conclusion decidedly favourable to Shakspeare.

[Sidenote: II. Internal evidence.]

There still lies before us the princ.i.p.al part of our task, that of applying to the presumption resulting from the external proof, (whatever the amount of that may be,) the decisive test of the [10:2]Internal Evidence. Do you doubt the efficacy of this supposed crucial experiment?

It is true that internal similarities form almost a valueless test when applied to inferior writers; because in them the distinctive marks are too weak to be easily traced. [Sidenote: Shakspere's work specially fit for the Internal Evidence test.] But, in the first place, great authors have in their very greatness the pledge of something peculiar which shall identify their works, and consequently the test is usually satisfactory in its application to them; and, secondly and particularly, Shakspeare is, of all writers that have existed, that one to whose alleged works such a test can be most confidently administered; because he is not only strikingly peculiar in those qualities which discriminate him from other poets, but his writings also possess singularities, different from, and opposite to, the usual character of poetry itself.

I cannot proceed with you to the work itself, till I have reminded you of some distinctive differences between the two writers whose claims we are to adjust, the recollection of which will be indispensable to us in considering the details of the drama. [Sidenote: Differences between Shakspere and Fletcher to be discusst.] We shall then enter on that detailed examination, keeping those distinctions in mind, and attempting to apply them to individual pa.s.sages; and, when all the scenes of the play have thus pa.s.sed successively before us, we shall be able to look back on it as a whole, and investigate its general qualities.

[Sidenote: Shakspere's and Fletcher's versification contrasted.]

The first difference which may be pointed out between Shakspeare and Fletcher, is that of their versification. You have learned from a study of the poets themselves, in what that difference consists. [Sidenote: Shakspere's.] Shakspeare's versification is broken and full of pauses, he is sparing of double terminations to his verses, and has a marked fondness for ending speeches or scenes with hemi-st.i.tches. [Sidenote: Fletcher's.] Fletcher's rhythm is of a newer and smoother cast, often keeping the lines distinct and without breaks through whole speeches, abounding in double endings, and very seldom leaving a line incomplete at the end of a sentence or scene.[11:1] And the opposite taste of the two poets in their choice and arrangement [11:2]of words, gives an opposite character to the whole modulation of their verses. [Sidenote: Modulation of Fletcher's verse: of Shakspere's.] Fletcher's is sweet and flowing, and peculiarly fitted either for declamation or the softness of sorrow: Shakspeare's ear is tuned to the stateliest solemnity of thought, or the abruptness and vehemence of pa.s.sion. The present drama exhibits in whole scenes the qualities of Shakspeare's versification; and there are other scenes which are marked by those of Fletcher's; the difference is one reason for separating the authorship.

[Sidenote: Shakspere's images and words in _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_.]

You will notice in this play many instances of Shakspeare's favourite images, and of his very words. Is this a proof of the play having been his work, or does it only indicate imitation? In Shakspeare's case, such resemblance, taken by itself, can operate neither way. [Sidenote: Shakspere a mannerist in style, and] Shakspeare is a mannerist in style.

He knew this himself, and what he says of his minor poems, is equally true of his dramatic language; he "keeps invention in a noted weed[12:1];" and almost every word or combination of words is so marked in its character that its author is known at a glance. [Sidenote: wanting in variety. Shakspere repeats himself.] But not only is his style so peculiar in its general qualities, as scarcely to admit of being mistaken; not only is it deficient in variety of structure, but it is in a particular degree characterised by a frequent recurrence of the same images, often clothed in identically the same words. You are quite aware of this, and those who are not, may be convinced of it by opening any page of the annotated editions. So far, then, this play is only like Shakspeare's acknowledged works. It is true, that one who wished to write a play in Shakspeare's manner, would probably have repeated his images and words as they are repeated here; but Shakspeare would certainly have imitated himself quite as often. [Sidenote: The likeness to Shakspere in _The Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_, and the repet.i.tions of him, are likely to be by him.] The resemblance could be founded on, as indicating imitation, only in conjunction with other circ.u.mstances of dissimilarity or inferiority to his genuine writings; and where, as in the present case, there seems to be reason for a.s.serting that the accompanying circ.u.mstances point the work out as an original composition of his, this very likeness and repet.i.tion become a strong argument in support of those concomitant indications. [12:2]Such repet.i.tion is more or less common in all the play-writers of that age. The number of their works, the quickness with which they were written, and the carelessness which circ.u.mstances induced as to their elaboration or final correction, all aided in giving rise to this. [Sidenote: Ma.s.singer also repeats himself much. Fletcher but little.] But all are not equally chargeable with it; Beaumont and Fletcher less than most, Ma.s.singer to an extent far beyond Shakspeare, and vying with the common-places of Euripides. May not the professional habits of Shakspeare and Ma.s.singer as actors, have had some effect in producing this, by imprinting their own works in their memories with unusual strength? Fletcher and his a.s.sociate were free from that risk.

[Sidenote: Singularity of Shakspere's style.]

It would not be easy to give a systematic account of those qualities which combine to const.i.tute Shakspeare's singularity of style. Some of them lie at the very surface, others are found only on a deeper search, and a few there are which depend on evanescent relations, instinctively perceptible to the congenial poetical sense, but extremely difficult of abstract prose definition. Several qualities also, which we are apt to think exclusively his, (such, for instance, as his looseness of construction,) are discovered on examination to be common to him with the other dramatic writers of his age. Such qualities can give no a.s.sistance in an inquiry like ours, and may be left wholly out of view.

But I think the distinctions which I can specify between him and Fletcher are quite enough, and applicable with sufficient closeness to this drama, for making out the point which I wish to prove.

[Sidenote: Qualities of Shakspere's style: energy, obscurity, abruptness, brevity (in late plays).]

No one is ignorant that Shakspeare is concise, that this quality makes him always energetic and often most impressive, but that it also gives birth to much obscurity. He shows a constant wish to deliver thought, fancy, and feeling, in the fewest words possible. Even his images are brief; they are continual, and they crowd and confuse one another; the well-springs of his imagination boil up every moment, and the readiness with which they throw up their golden sands, makes him careless of fitly using the wealth thus profusely rendered. He abounds in hinted descriptions, in sketches of imagery, in glimpses of ill.u.s.tration, in abrupt and vanishing s.n.a.t.c.hes of fancy. [Sidenote: Shakspere never vague.] But the merest hint that he gives is of force [13:1]enough to shew that the image was fully present with him; if he fails to bring it as distinctly before us, it is either from the haste with which he pa.s.ses to another, or from the eagerness induced by the very force and quickness with which he has conceived the former. [Sidenote: Milton and language.] It has been said of Milton that language sunk under him; and it is true of him in one sense, but of Shakspeare in two. [Sidenote: Shakspere's new meanings and new words.] Shakspeare's strength of conception, to which, not less than to Milton's, existing language was inadequate, compelled him either to use old words in unusual meanings, or to coin new words for himself.[13:2] But his mind had another quality powerful over his style, which Milton's wanted. [Sidenote: Milton slow, Shakspere rapid,] Milton's conception was comparatively slow, and allowed him time for deliberate expression: Shakspeare's was rapid to excess, and hurried his words after it. When a truth presented itself to his mind, all its qualities burst in upon him at once, and his instantaneousness of conception could be represented only by words as brief and quick as thought itself. [Sidenote: specially in reflective pa.s.sages.] This cause operates with the greatest force on his pa.s.sages of reflection; for if his images are often brief, his apophthegms are brief a thousand times oftener: his quickness of ideas seems to have been stimulated to an extraordinary degree by the contemplation of general truths. [Sidenote: He forces speech to bear a burden beyond its strength.] And everywhere his incessant activity and quickness, both of intellect and fancy, engaged him in a continual struggle with speech; it is a sluggish slave which he would force to bear a burden beyond its strength, a weary courser which he would urge at a speed to which it is unequal. He fails only from insufficiency in his puny instrument; not because his conception is indistinct, but because it is too full, energetic, and rapid, to receive adequate expression. It is excess of strength which hurts, not weakness which incapacitates; he is injured by the undue prevalence of the good principle, not by its defect.

[Sidenote: Shakspere's obscurity.] The obscurity of other writers is often the mistiness of the evening twilight sinking into night; his is the fitful dimness of the dawn, contending with the retiring darkness, and striving to break out [14:1]into open day. [Sidenote: Fletcher most unlike Shakspere.] Scarcely any writer of Shakspeare's cla.s.s, or of any other, comes near him either in the faults or the grandeur which are the alternate results of this tendency of mind; but none is more utterly unlike him than the poet to whom, some would say, we must attribute pa.s.sages in this play so singularly like Shakspeare. [Sidenote: Fletcher diffuse.] Fletcher is diffuse both in his leading thoughts and in his ill.u.s.trations. [Sidenote: He amplifies, is elaborate, not vigorous.] His intellect did not present truth to him with the instant conviction which it poured on Shakspeare, and his fancy did not force imagery on him with a profusion which might have tempted him to weave its different suggestions into inconsistent forms; he expresses thought deliberately and with amplification; he paints his ill.u.s.trative pictures with a careful hand and by repeated touches; his style has a pleasing and delicate air which is any thing but vigorous, and often reaches the verge of feebleness. Take a pa.s.sage or two from the work before us, and do you say, who know Fletcher, whether they be his, or the work of a stronger hand.

[Sidenote: Shakspere. Fletcher could not have written these pa.s.sages,]