Part 20 (2/2)

The re to make can have an interest only for those who share the position I have tried to indicate; who believe that theof hinise that in Shakespeare's case we can expect a reasonable certainty only within narrow limits, while beyond them we have to trust to impressions, the value of which s, on freedom from prejudice and the desire to reach any particular result, and on the amount of perception we may happen to possess I offer my own impressions, insecure and utterly unprovable as I know them to be, simply because those of other readers have an interest for uht be useful it requires more time than a lecture can afford For the sa to define it further, and without dilating on its i about Shakespeare and Fielding and Scott

But, before we come to impressions at all, we must look at the scanty store of external evidence: for we may lay down at once the canon that impressions derived from the works must supplement and not contradict this evidence, so far as it appears trustworthy It is scanty, but it yields a decided outline

This figure that thou here seest put, It was for gentle Shakespeare cut:

--so Jonson writes of the portrait in the Folio, and the saentle' is used elsewhere of Shakespeare It had not in Elizabethan English so confined a , and I do not remember that their conteentle' Next, in the earliest extant reference that we have to Shakespeare, the writer says that he himself has seen his 'de much; but it is not the first remark an acquaintance would probably have made about Ben Jonson or Samuel Johnson The same witness adds about Shakespeare that 'divers of worshi+p have reported his uprightness of dealing which argues his honesty'

'Honesty' and 'honest' in an Elizabethan passage like this mean more than they would now; they answer rather to our 'honourable' or 'honour'

Lastly we have the witness borne by Jonson in the words: 'I loved the man, and do honour his memory, on this side idolatry, as much as any He was, indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature' With this notable phrase, to which I shall have to return, we come to an end of the testimony of eye-witnesses to Shakespeare the Man (for we have nothing to do with references to the mere actor or author) It is scanty, and insufficient to discriht in their dealings, honourable, open, and free: but I submit that there have been not a feriters to whom all these qualities could not be truly ascribed, and that the testi definite To which must be added that we have absolutely no evidence which conflicts with it Whatever Greene in his jealous eht, but in fact, apart froeneral abuse of actors, he only says that the upstart had an over-weening opinion of his own capacities

There remain certain traditions and certain facts; and without discussing them I will nificance Stratford stories of drinking bouts , but not the consensus of tradition to the effect that Shakespeare was a pleasant and convivial person, 'very good company, and of a very ready and pleasant smooth wit'[4] That after his retirement to Stratford he spent at the rate of 1000 a year is incredible, but that he spent freely seeot into trouble with Sir Tho (which would probably be an escapade rather than an essay in serious poaching) is supported by his unsavoury jest about the 'luces' in Sir Robert Shallow's coat The eneral statement that in youth he ild does not sound iard as comfortable the little we know of the circue A contemporary story of an amorous adventure in London may well be pure invention, but we have no reason to reject it pereossip about Milton Lastly, certain inferences may safely be drawn from the facts that, once securely started in London, Shakespeare soon began to prosper, and acquired, for an actor and playwright, considerable wealth; that he bought property in his native town, and was consulted sometimes by fellonsmen on matters of business; that he enforced the payet a coat of aric or any safety be inferred is that he, any more than Scott, was impelled to write simply and solely by the desire to make money and improve his social position; and the comparative abundance of business records will et that, if they buy a house or sue a debtor, the fact will be handed dohile their kind or generous deeds may be recorded, if at all, only in the statement that they were 'of an open and free nature'

That Shakespeare was a good and perhaps keen man of business, or that he set store by a coat of ars But we could have judged frouessed with soentleman' than an actor And most of the other characteristics that appear from the external evidence would, I think, have seee us to hope that we ht in other iin with one on which the external evidence has a certain bearing

Readers of Shakespeare, I believe, iine him to have been not only sweet-te I do not doubt that they are right; and, vague as the Folio portrait and the Stratford bust are, it would be difficult to believe that their subject was an irritable, boastful, or pushi+ng person But if we confine ourselves to the works, it is not easy to give reasons for the idea that their author was ; and a ood company Perhaps we feel that a man as not so would have allowed much more of hiain we think that anything like presumption or self-importance was incompatible with Shakespeare's sense of the ridiculous, his sublinificance And, lastly, it seeht ad, and plain; while it may perhaps safely be said that those who lack these qualities rarely admire them in others and not seldom despise them But, however we may justify our impression that Shakespeare possessed the it to be as correct as the similar io on to observe that the possession of them does not of necessity imply a want of spirit, or of proper self-assertion or insistence on rights[5] It did not in Scott, and we have ground for saying that it did not in Shakespeare If it had, he could not, being of an open and free nature, have prospered as he prospered He took offence at Greene's attack on hientle,' but he liked his debts to be paid However his attitude as to the enclosure at Welcombe may be construed, it is clear that he had to be reckoned with It appears probable that he held hi up the injury because he could not resent it, gave him tit for tat after soives his friend easily, but it is not from humility; and towards the world he is very far from humble Of the dedication of _The Rape of Lucrece_ we cannot judge, for we do not know Shakespeare's relations with Lord Southampton at that date; but, as for the dedication of _Venus and Adonis_, couldpoet to a great noble than they are there?

Sos point to a strain of deep reflection and of quasi-ination in his nature; and a few of them seem to reveal a melancholy, at times merely sad, at times embittered or profound, if never hopeless It is on this side mainly that we feel a decided difference between hi in the conteest that he was notably thoughtful or serious, and h we could lay no stress on this fact if it stood alone, it is probably significant Shakespeare's writings, on the whole, leave a strong irave They seem always to have enius generally was jocular and inclining him to festivity, yet he could, when so disposed, be solereed with Rymer that his 'natural disposition' led hih Johnson after his eration and by perverting distinctions into antitheses, there is truth in his development of Rymer's remark It would be easy to quote nineteenth century critics to the same effect; and the study of Shakespeare's early works leads to a similar result It has been truly said that we feel ourselves in much closer contact with his personality in the early comedies and in _Romeo and Juliet_ than in _Henry VI_ and _Richard III_ and _titus Andronicus_ In the latter, so far as we suppose the, and then i with subjects which engage hi to him personally With _Romeo and Juliet_, on the other hand, and with _Richard II_ (which seeedy in a manner entirely his own), it is different, and we feel the presence of the whole ic_ aspect of therotesquely false of the later tragedies, that 'in tragedy he is always struggling after soeration in respect to _Roedies, as from _Love's Labour's Lost_ and the other early co ht-hearted, full of romance and poetry, but full also of fun; blessed with a keen enjoyment of absurdities, but, for all his intellectual subtlety and power, not rave or ht even suspect, I venture to think, that with such a flow of spirits and such exceeding alacrity ofand disposed to levity

In any case, if our general impression is correct, we shall not find it hard to believe that the author of these plays and the creator of Falstaff was 'very good coht easily happen that he was teo here and there'

in society, and 'make himself a motley to the view' in a fashi+on that left some qualms behind[8]

There is a tradition that Shakespeare was 'a handsome well-shaped man'

If the Stratford re man And if our notion of his temperament has any truth, he can hardly have been physically feeble, bloodless, or inactive Most readers probably iine him the reverse Even sceptical critics tell us that he was fond of field-sports; and of his fae of them there can be no question Yet--I can but record the is do not at all suggest to , or that he greatly enjoyed bodily exertion, or was not easily tired He says much of horses, but he does not ht to hi natural love of adventurous deeds, or longed to be an explorer or a soldier The island of his boyish dreaes as a boy--was, I fancy, the haunt ofsprites, lovely colours, sounds and sweet airs that give delight and hurt not, less like Treasure Island than the Coral Island of Ballantyne in the original illustrations, and ers He would have liked the Arabian Nights better than Dumas Of course he admired men of action, understood thes; but we do not feel particularly close to his personality as we read the warrior speeches of Hotspur, Henry, Othello, Coriolanus, as we do e read of Romeo or Hamlet, or e feel the attraction of Henry's modesty In the same way, I suppose nobody feels Shakespeare's personal presence in the ambition of Macbeth or the pride of Coriolanus; ust of Coriolanus at the idea of recounting his exploits in order to win votes When we seem to hear Shakespeare's voice--and we hear it from many mouths besides Romeo's or Ha, but still contemplative and even dreamy nature, not of a s either of strenuous action or of self-assertion If he had drawn a Satan, we should not have felt his personality, as we do Milton's, in Satan's pride and indoe and intolerance of rule

We kno often Shakespeare uses the antithesis of blood or passion, and judg of the two, or the control of the first by the second; how frequently it is the want of such control that exposes his heroes to the attack of Fortune or Fate What, then, were the passions or the 'affections of the blood'

ht, those of pride or ae; and still less that of avarice But, in the first place, let us remember Jonson's words, 'he was honest and of an open and free nature,' and let , that these words are true also of the great ic heroes Jonson alo:

The Moor is of a free and open nature, That thinkssays that Haenerous, and free fros, Will not peruse the foils

The words 'open and free' apply no less eminently to Brutus, Lear, and Timon Antony and Coriolanus are e Prospero lost his dukedoh his trustfulness Rohter characters, are so far of the same type Now such a free and open nature, obviously, is specially exposed to the risks of deception, perfidy, and ingratitude If it is also a nature sensitive and intense, but not particularly active or (if the word may be excused) volitional, such experiences will teer, possibly even misanthropy If it _is_ thus active or volitional, it may become the prey of violent and destructive passion, such as that of Othello and of Coriolanus, and such as Lear's would be if he were not so old These affections, passions, and sufferings of free and open natures are Shakespeare's favourite tragic subject; and his favouritisoes so far as to constitute a decided peculiarity, not found thus in other tragic poets

Here he painted most, one cannot but think, what his own nature was most inclined to feel But it would rather be e or misanthropy, than any destructive passion; and it would be a further question whether, and how far, he may at any ti here only of his disposition[9]

That Shakespeare was as much inclined to be a lover as most poets wefurther on this subject? I will confine ically, and humorously In the earlier plays especially the humorous aspect of the ht's Drea, is at least as much dwelt on as the romantic, and with at least as much relish:

Lord! what fools thesepeculiar in the pictures here, it is, perhaps, the special interest that Shakespeare see of love in an iinative nature Romeo as he first appears, and, in a later play, Orsino, are examples of this

They are perfectly sincere, of course, but neither of them is really in love with a wo in love This state is able to attach itself to a particular object, but it is not induced by the particular qualities of that object; it is more a drea any of the lover's heart with it; and in that sense it is unreal This weakness, no doubt, is not confined to iinative natures, but they may well be specially disposed to it (as Shelley was), and Shakespeare may have drawn it frothened e think of _Richard II_ In Richard this ih not in relation to love He luxuriates in iuard his divine right, and of his own pathetic and ales are not insincere, and yet they are like dreams, for they refuse to touch earth and to connect themselves either with his past ht now to perforain in Hah only as one strain in a much more deep and complex nature But this is not a common theme in poetry, much less in dramatic poetry[10]

To come to our second question When Shakespeare painted Cressida or described her through the ain, when he portrayed the love of Antony for Cleopatra, was he using his personal experience? To answer that he _o must be a portrait of hi which, by itself, would justify us even in thinking that he probably did so But we have the series of sonnets about the dark lady; and if we accept the sonnets to the friend as to some considerable extent based on fact and expressive of personal feelings, how can we refuse to take the others on the sa? Even if the stories of the two series were not intertwined, we should have no ground for treating the two in different ways, unless we could say that external evidence, or the general impression we derive from Shakespeare's works, forbids us to believe that he could ever have been entangled in an intrigue like that iht in theunable to say this, I aretfully, to hold it probable that this series is, in the retfully,' not ret to think that Shakespeare was the victim of a Cressida or even the lover of a Cleopatra, but because the story implied in these sonnets is of quite another kind They leave, on the whole, a very disagreeable impression

We cannot compare it with the impressions produced, for exaies_, or by the passion of Shakespeare's Antony In these two cases, widely dissimilar of course, we may speak of 'iusted The feeling and the attitude are poetic, whole-hearted, and in one case passionate in the extreme But the state of mind expressed in the sonnets about the dark lady is half-hearted, often prosaic, and never worthy of the name of passion It is uneasy, dissatisfied, distempered, the state of mind of a man who despises his 'passion' and its object and hi intellectually far above it, still has not resolution to end it, and only pains us by his gross and joyless jests In _Troilus and Cressida_--not at all in the portrayal of Troilus's love, but in the atmosphere of the drama--we seem to trace a similar mood of dissatisfaction, and of intellectual but practically impotent contempt