T PREFACE some this volume may appear to be unduly discursive, because it combines historical with literary criticism. To the author's mind, however, the defect of our literary criticism is that it too often ignores history, and of our history that it seldom condescends to make use of literature. We hear a great deal in these days about original research, and the earth is raked over for "documents," when all the while there are the open documents of printed books, notably in the form of poetry, of which little or no use is made. The cause of this seems to lie in the misconceptions which prevail as to the origin of poetry, and in the belief that it springs in some mysterious fashion out of nothing. Thus Sir Sidney Lee appears to think that he has disposed of The Tempest by protesting against the detection in it of "something more than the irresponsible play of poetic fancy," whatever that may be, and he asserts, as though it were not open to question, "It is by accident, and not by design, that in Ariel appear to be discernible," etc. (it is immaterial to mention what).1 Anyone who writes in this way only shows ignorance of the processes by which poetry is produced. For it is the most intellectual and definite of the arts and draws all its greatest effects out of reality. And its greatest effects are found in the poetry of action and characterization, that is to say in the epic and the drama. Genius must provide the combinations, but only reading, experience and observation can supply the knowledge. In examining a large body of poetry we may thus expect it, at some point or other, to bring us into contact with contemporary life, and if, without indulging in rash and fanciful 1A Life of William Shakespeare, 3rd edn., p. 256. guesses, we can succeed in penetrating the veil of the form, we may hope to arrive at some substance of value for the purposes of historical knowledge. This is what I have attempted, and if to some I may seem, in the process, to have done violence to tradition, I hope they will acquit me of any other intention than the service of truth. Appendices II. and III. are inserted with the twofold object (1) of illustrating the historical problems discussed in this book, (2) of correcting certain errors into which I have since realised that I fell in the constructions which I gave in my book on Spenser's works of the "Cynthia " poem, and of the character of "Timias" in the Faerie Queene. These errors illustrate the difficulty which everyone must find of liberating himself from the authority of established opinion, and, as regards the Timias episodes, the very elusive character of Spenser's work, which it was one of my purposes in writing the book to expose, and by which, in this particular instance, I was myself deceived. The construction which I put forward was, as I regard it, an advance towards the truth, but not quite in the right direction. Appendix IV., about Ralegh and Spenser's " Indamour," is added for convenience of reference in connection with the discussion on Shakespeare's "Othello." London, September, 1919. E.G.H. Some important dates in connection with this discussion: Queen Elizabeth, b. 1533; ascended to the throne, 1558; d. 1603. Francis Bacon, b. Jan., 1561; at Trinity College, Cambridge, 1573-1575; went to France, 1576; returned to England, March, 1579; Solicitor-General, 1607; Attorney-General, 1613; Lord Chancellor, 1618; impeached and sentenced, 1621; died, 1626. Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, 1532?—1588. Sir Walter Ralegh, 1552?—1618. Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, 1567—1601. William Shakespeare (Shakspur), 1564-1616. Supposed to have come to London about 1587; Venus and Adonis published, under the name of Shakespeare, 1593; returned to Stratford about 1596; first play published under his name 1598; first folio edition of plays published 1623. THE "IMPERSONALITY" OF SHAKESPEARE CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY Nature," wrote Dr. Johnson, "gives no man knowledge, and when images are collected by study and experience, can only assist in combining or applying them. Shakespeare, however favoured by nature, could impart only what he had learned."1 Every human creation, and a work of art no less than any other, must express the personality of its author. To suppose that Shakespeare's work is an exception is unscientific; it is a theory which has been invented to account for the apparent detachment of his work from his circumstances, and would probably never have been heard of but for that appearance. It does not seem to occur to those who blindly accept this theory to inquire whether the operation which it involves is humanly possible or whether it is confirmed by any other examples. But when inquiry is made it is found that in Shakespeare, under the accepted tradition of his existence, it stands alone. Thus we are asked to believe that he differed from every other member of the human race, and that his work was performed under conditions which apply to no other human being; in short, that he was a miracle. Believing, as I do, that the plays of Shakespeare were given to the world under the disguise of an actor's name, modified in the spelling, and sometimes printed with a hyphen, to convey the idea of penetration and power, and that their real author was Francis Bacon, I am no longer bound by this theory, but am entitled to do what I should do without 1 Preface to Shakespeare. question or reproach in the case of every other writer, namely, look for indications of the author's personality and circumstances in his work. It then ceases to be necessary to suppose that the author, under some strange theory of art, deliberately suppressed his own personality, and writing about things of which it was humanly impossible for him to have any firsthand experience, nevertheless was able, from hints derived from books and conversation, to express them with a precision of detail and correctness of sentiment unsurpassed by any other writer. That he appears to do this with the minimum of intrusion of his own individuality I fully allow, and that this is not wholly due to the dramatic form which he uses is evident from other examples, which show that the suppression of the author's personality is not by any means a necessity for the perfection of that form of art. Thus Eschylus, than whom there is no greater dramatist, makes his personality felt throughout his plays, and frequently quite directly, and the same thing is true in the case of Euripides; true also, though in a lesser degree, in that of Sophocles, and true absolutely of Aristophanes, the almost-Shakespeare of Greece. And similarly throughout all the poets and creative writers, all, that is, except our supposed miraculous genius. But the fact really is that Shakespeare's personality, however concealed, is to be found in his work, and that, in this respect, he presents no exception to the rule. It seems possible then that we have all along been misled by over-subtlety, and that where Shakespeare has been credited with conscious art based on a preconceived theory of what the drama should be, he has in reality only followed the promptings of his nature and displayed himself as he was, a creature without any definite personality. In short, if he reveals no personality it is mainly because he had none to reveal, or one of so plastic a nature that it took form only in a "projected" personality, depending on the idea by which his mind was possessed at a given time. If, too, it be the fact that the writer had a motive for self-concealment, this also must have influenced his work. An explanation for this may emerge if we consider the nature of the male and the female, and realise that in Shake speare, more than in any other creative artist, the two natures are combined. It has often been remarked that there is a feminine element in all genius. It is this which supplies the responsiveness to impressions. But the sense of form is male; male also is all constructive originality in whatever field of human activity. It seems that where a woman is content with sensation a man desires its expression in form, and seeks thereby to preserve for future use or admiration its significance. It is clear that the degree of personality in either sex, will, normally, and apart from exceptions, be mainly determined by this difference of psychic quality. Where in the male it may be expected to be more defined, in the female it will be more inchoate and fluid. Thus I take the absence of any well-defined personality in Shakespeare to be due to his intense sensitiveness to impressions. His ideas on the other hand are essentially masculine, and they are always well-balanced and clear. But they proceed from the working of his intellect, and they seem, in him, to have little relation to desire, will or character. Hence it is that he brings to his work a prodigious equipment. All the sources of feeling seem to be open to him, and, by the power of a phenomenal apprehension and memory, he illustrates them by examples drawn not only from life but from a vast range of reading in books ancient and modern and in the leading European languages. But he never failed to remember that he was appealing to unlearned people, and that if he was to influence and instruct them, which was the motive of his work, he must not puzzle or fatigue them, but always hold the beaten way of human speech. Hence with conscious craft, which with time and practice became a second nature, he avoids every appearance of erudition and produces thereby the illusion of being an untutored genius. The illusion is enhanced by his habit of turning Romans and the heroes of Troy into Englishmen, and making, for example, the Queen of ancient Egypt play billiards, and speaking of her in terms in which the poets of the day were accustomed to describe Queen Elizabeth.1 Wholly wanting in the historical sense! Let 1" This great faery." |