the incidents, he has made only slight alterations, having done almost no more than condense what is undramatically diffuse in the narrative. All the characters, also, are given by Holinshed, at least in outline; even the witches and their prophecies are not wanting. And yet we need only place Holinshed's Chronicle and Shakspeare's drama side by side, to see what a mighty genius it required to produce such a work out of the given materials: the less the external facts, the position of affairs, the circumstances and relations of the acting personages are altered, the more astonishing is the skill and the poetical power with which the subject-matter has received depth, poetical animation and harmonious arrangement. The character of the hero also, although altered but in a few features, appears, nevertheless, by this very means changed into a truly tragic character.* That the play was not composed till James's reign, is proved even by the introduction of the kings of Banquo's race, among whom James himself figures as the bearer of a triple crown. Moreover, by making Banquo appear ignorant of the murder of Duncan, Shakspeare unquestionably deviated from the historical tradition, simply out of regard for his patron; but even this small matter of politeness is, at the same time, a poetical excellence, for, if Banquo were made an accomplice, the weight of the tragic pathos would partly be transferred from Macbeth to him, and thereby become weakened. James's descent from Banquo is expressly mentioned in the appendices to Warner's 'Albion's England,' which first appeared in print in 1606, and may, probably, not have been a generally known fact before that date. Malone,† therefore, with the concurrence of Chalmers, Drake, and the best English critics, assigns the drama to about the year 1606. That it was not written earlier, seems to me as almost certain, to judge from its character, language and composition. I would rather agree to its having been written some years later, and this supposition is confirmed by the remark in a manuscript diary belonging to a Dr. Simon Formanrecently discovered by Collier-which reports the perform *Compare Hiecke: Shakspeare's Macbeth, p. 98. + Chronolog. order, etc., in Reed's Shakspeare, ii., 337 f. VOL. I. 2 L ance of Macbeth,' on the 20th of April, 1610, and intimates that the piece had only just appeared, at least, that he had hitherto been unaware of its existence.* Accordingly it is probable that the play opened a cycle of summer representations for that year, and a new play was likely to be chosen for such an occasion. This supposition has met with objections, inasmuch as the allusion to the union of the three kingdoms under James's sceptre, made it seem probable that the play appeared soon after James's accession to the throne; but I do not see why this courtesy should lose its meaning by the play being performed before the king in 1610, in place of 1609. The tragedy was first printed in the folio edition in 1623—a circumstance which also supports the supposition of its later origin. * Collier, New Particulars, etc., p. 23. CHAPTER VII. TITUS ANDRONICUS. TIMON OF ATHENS. I CLASS these two tragedies together for several reasons, but especially on account of a certain internal affinity between them, and because, in regard to date they most probably form the opening and the close of Shakspeare's activity in the domain of Tragedy. These two plays when compared with each other, throw a peculiar light upon the nature of Shakspeare's tragic poetry, as well as upon the tragedies which were written in the interval between them. 1. TITUS ANDRONICUS. This was a favourite piece with the people; according to a remark of Ben Jonson in his Bartholomew Fair (1604), it had been on the boards for from twenty-five to thirty years, and, therefore, must have been written in 1587-88. Meres-who was not only acquainted with the dramatic art and literature of his day, but seems also to have been a personal friend of Shakspeare's-cites the play among the twelve pieces which he mentions with approbation in his work of 1598, already frequently quoted. The piece also exists in the first folio edition which was arranged by Heming and Condell, likewise friends of Shakspeare, and joint shareholders with him of the Globe Theatre. In face of historical testimonies of such weight, no critical arguments can be of any value, much less then the often petty remarks of the early English critics, who were prejudiced by a false feeling of taste, and doubted the genuineness of the piece because they considered it unworthy of Shakspeare; further, because many passages (according to Marlowe's calculation twenty) contained allusions and images from ancient mythology and history, nay, even Latin verses; again because there was not a single humorous scene, and because the lines run on in unchanging irregularity without Shakspeare's usual dissyllabic terminations; and lastly, because the piece was entered at Stationers' Hall, without the poet's name, on Feb. 6th, 1594, and had also been printed anonymously in two earlier editions, during the poet's lifetime (in 1594 and 1611).* The last reason, which in our day would be the strongest, when applied to Shakspeare's time is the weakest. For when a piece first appeared on the stage, the poet's name- -in accordance with the custom of the time and the general estimation of such productionswould unquestionably not have been mentioned, and may, therefore, in 1594, have been unknown to the publisher, who, certainly edited it without the author's knowledge or consent; or else, the addition of the name may have appeared quite superfluous as the piece had long had its admirers, and did not require the authority of a name to recommend it. For, are not the three above-mentioned editions of Romeo and Juliet' as well as several other quartos (for instance, the three old editions of 'Henry V.,' those of Richard II.,' of 1597, and of ' Henry IV.' of 1598) published without Shakspeare's name? The edition of 1611 is, moreover, most probably merely a reprint of the earlier one of 1594 which is lost. But as to the supposed un-Shakspearian peculiarities in regard to language, versification, etc., they are partly not at all so un-Shakspearian as they are thought to be-for in those pieces which are well known to be his earliest, i.e., his youthful productions, we meet with the same regularity of versification, the same monotony of cadence and rhythm as in Titus Andronicus,'-and partly, become perfectly intelligible as soon as we consider that when young Shakspeare first came to London, he knew nothing more of dramatic art and poetry than what he may have become acquainted with through representations given by the companies of players who visited Stratford; accordingly, that in his first poetical attempts, he could scarcely have done otherwise than follow the footsteps of the earlier celebrated mastersin the present case, especially Kyd and Marlowe-in whom we find an abundance of such peculiarities. It would, on the contrary, have been as much surprising had * Reed's Shakspeare, xxi., 138, 140 f. he not done this, and had his first attempts at once been perfect masterpieces. This Titus Andronicus' is cer tainly not. On the contrary it is not difficult to discover the great defects of the piece. The deeds and fortunes represented are so hideous, so revolting that they can only excite horror and disgust, nay, in this respect the play even surpasses Marlowe's well-known pieces of violence and rage, in the same proportion as it stands above them in tragic power and moral earnestness. Atrocity is succeeded by atrocity, which follow upon one another in an astounding gradation; when we fancy we have reached the highest pitch of unnatural cruelty and wickedness, we are suddenly, in the next scene, shown a still higher degree. The characters are sketched in rough outlines and harsh colours, nay, the Moor Aaron is perhaps I fear only perhaps untrue to nature, being a devil rather than a man. It is true that the nature of human wickedness is most difficult to understand and most easy to depict. The development of the action is hurried on, if not actually without consideration, still with precipitate haste and without adequate motives. The composition, lastly, is not well rounded off, although the great variety of actions and incidents is not inartistically arranged and can readily be surveyed. These are, indeed, important defects. But if we bear in mind the wild tragedies of Marlowe (which were so highly praised in his own day) and the other favourite pieces of the English public, such as The Spanish Tragedy,' Soliman and Perseda,' etc., it will seem very natural that Shakspeare, in the overflowing energy of youth, should have fallen into the same aberrations. For his school of art was chiefly nothing but his own experience in art. He had to pass through the existing state of dramatic poetry which he was subsequently to leave so far behind; and his having in Tragedy followed the footsteps of Kyd and Marlowe, rather than those of Greene and Peele, happened no doubt from the same reason which led Goethe and Schiller to prefer Shakspeare to Racine and Voltaire, and Pindar to prefer Stesichoros to Simonides. That, however, he has far surpassed his models in their own style, and accordingly that Titus Andronicus' cannot |