Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

ways in the usual manner then adopted by Christians with the chosen people, that is, by spitting upon him, buffeting him, and kicking him.

That a man subjected for years to treatment of this sort should be ready at the proper moment to make a lively exhibition of the Christian graces seems to have occurred only to critics of Shakespeare; it assuredly never occurred to Shakespeare himself. It was, therefore, all-important, from the point of view of art, that the malevolence of the Jew should be brought out in this trial scene in as impressive a manner as possible. To the production of this effect the poet paid special heed. Again and again is Shylock entreated to accept the money due him. Not the mere amount only, but three times the amount; not only three times, but practically any amount he chooses to demand. Again and again does Portia press upon him the cancellation of the bond. Again and again she brings up the question of releasing the merchant now in his power. By fine but steadily increasing gradations the refusal in each case is made more emphatic. Appeals to his clemency, appeals to his avarice are alike in vain. It is by these repeated offers and repeated denials that the malignity of Shylock forces itself upon the apprehension of the dullest of us all. It is our consciousness of this which alone reconciles us to the result of the trial, which in one sense is an utter travesty of justice.

No feeling of this sort will be awakened by Lansdowne's version. It has in one way an interest of its own, because it enables us to see how slight are the changes, how few are the omissions which are required

to convert a high-wrought scene into commonplace, which is always crude and sometimes offensive. The apparent leaning of the tribunal at the outset to the justice of Shylock's plea, heightening by contrast the dramatic effect of the subsequent action, is sensibly lessened in this alteration. To compensate for this abatement, Portia, at the end, casts off the judicial dignity, which in the original she never for a moment lays aside, and hastens to exhibit the feelings of a partisan and to proclaim herself such openly and even offensively. The railing invectives of Gratiano, thoroughly in keeping with the character, are transferred to Bassanio, in whose mouth they are inappropriate and unbecoming; while the dignity of the whole scene is impaired and indeed almost destroyed by the cheap expedients of the latter in seeking to interfere with the processes of the court, by making offers of self-sacrifice, which he must know cannot be accepted, and by attempting acts of violence which he must know equally well cannot prevail. Very little, in truth, of the skilful art of the original has been preserved in the version of the trial scene which Lansdowne perpetrated. It is throughout hurried and crude. The almost agonizing intensity of feeling, which slowly but steadily deepens and broadens on both sides, is no longer seen or felt. The repeated offers and repeated refusals to accept anything that will stand in the way of the accomplishment of revenge no longer force themselves upon the attention. These variations would of themselves settle the question of art, if there were a question in regard to it, independent of the genius of the writers.

[ocr errors]

But even more pronounced is the difference of light in which the Jew appears in the two productions. In the Shylock of Shakespeare is concentrated the wrath of a race turning upon its oppressors, a race conscious of the importance of the part it has played in the past, with its long line of lawgivers and prophets to which all nations turn, equally conscious of the misery it has endured and is continuing to endure in the present. As it has been great in suffering, so will it be great in vengeance. Entreaties are useless; threats are mere empty breath. Pity will not soften the heart nor obloquy cause it to yield. In Lansdowne, on the contrary, Shylock is no longer exalted by wrath. He is not indeed a comic character, as has been so persistently asserted; but he is essentially a vulgar one. He exhibits nothing of that sublimity of hate which awes us by its intensity, and gives to malignity a character almost of grandeur. Though he feels antipathy, his antipathy is purely of the nature of a business investment. He is willing to sacrifice the wealth he holds dear in order to free himself from the further interposition of a man who has hindered him in his gains, thwarted him in his bargains, and laughed at his losses. He is not, as in Shakespeare, the representative of the long martyrdom of a race. He is nothing but the Jew of the huckster's stall, of the old-clothes' shop, whose ideal in life is a profit of at least two hundred per cent, and whose Messiah is desired to come, not to effect the conquest of the world, but to give his people the possession of its traffic.

CHAPTER IX

CONFLICTING EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY VIEWS

ABOUT SHAKESPEARE

To the men of modern times there is something very amusing, when it is not exasperating, in the attitude exhibited by the eighteenth century towards the Elizabethan age. There was, to be sure, nothing new about it then; it had begun to be displayed with the beginning of the Restoration period. Strength and force, it was always confessed, had been shown by the writers of the past; but it was Charles who, on his return from exile, had brought with him correctness and grace and refinement. To use the language of Dryden, he had cured the rankness of the soil with the rules of husbandry; he had tamed the rudeness of the stage, and had imparted to it manners and decorum; he had, in fine, endowed boisterous English wit with art.1 But it was not until the so-called Augustan age was in full bloom that men rose to the full consciousness of their superiority to their fathers. The audience which Shakespeare addressed, it was then held, was the most incapable of judgment of any that ever existed. It was made up of the lowest and the meanest of the populace. It was the tastes and the wishes of this class which the

1 Epistle to Congreve.

dramatic writer was compelled to consult. This is the view regularly expressed during the whole of the eighteenth century. It is what Gildon tells us in the early part of it. In the latter part of it we find the same assertions made by Mrs. Montagu, who had put herself forward as the champion of Shakespeare against Voltaire.

The absurdity of this self-satisfied complacency of the eighteenth century comes home to us with peculiar force the moment we stop to contrast the men who stand out as the conspicuous representatives of its political and intellectual life with the corresponding characters of the period to which it felt and expressed superiority. It approaches the comic to find the petty writers of an inferior time gravely commenting upon the barbarism of an age in which had flourished Raleigh, Sidney, Spenser, Bacon, Jonson, Shakespeare,- to name some of the greatest,- beside a whole host of writers who, while falling below the grade of the highest, were nevertheless distinctively men of genius. Yet this attitude of condescension was taken in all sincerity and seriousness. The men who assumed it had of course no knowledge of the period they were criticising. There was accordingly displayed by them a total ignorance of the predecessors of Shakespeare. He was represented as having been the one to create the stage, and his advocates constantly dwelt upon the barbarism of his times as a palliation, if not a complete excuse for his conceded faults. The prologue to Dryden's alteration of Troilus and Cressida' is 1 The Complete Art of Poetry, vol. i. p. 64.

« AnteriorContinuar »