CHAPTER XIV. INDICATIONS OF GLOOM IN THE SONNETS AND SOME OTHER OF SHAKESPEARE'S WORKS. THERE is a remarkable passage in Hallam's Literature of Europe (Part III., chap. vi. § 42), from which a quotation must here be made :--"There seems to have been a period in Shakespeare's life when his heart was ill at ease, and ill content with the world or his own conscience; the memory of hours misspent, the pang of affection misplaced or unrequited, the experience of man's worser nature, which intercourse with unworthy associates, by choice or circumstance peculiarly teaches;-these, as they sank down into the depths of his great mind, seem not only to have inspired into it the conception of Lear and Timon, but that of one primary character, the censurer of mankind. This type is first seen in the philosophic melancholy of Jaques, gazing with an undiminished serenity, and with a gaiety of fancy, though not of manners, on the follies of the world. It assumes a graver cast in the exiled Duke of the same play, and next one rather more severe in the Duke of Measure for Measure. In all these, however, it is merely contemplative philosophy. In Hamlet this is mingled with the impulses of a perturbed heart under the pressure of extraordinary circumstances; it shines no longer, as in the former characters, with a steady light, but plays in fitful coruscations under feigned gaiety and extravagance. In Lear it is the sudden flash of inspiration across the incongruous imagery of madness; in Timon it is obscured by the exaggerations of misanthropy. These plays all belong to nearly the same period: As You Like It being usually referred to 1600, Hamlet, in its altered form, to about 1602, Timon to the same year, Measure for Measure to 1603, and Lear to 1604." In this passage no mention is made of some plays of Shakespeare which must be referred to the period in question; and objection may be made to Hallam's statements with regard to certain details. Nevertheless the passage just quoted is a remarkable one; and it is to be observed that in arriving at the conclusion expressed Hallam does not seem to have taken any account of the Sonnets. It will be seen, however, that Hallam's conclusions derived from the Plays are in singular agreement with those which we have attained concerning the Sonnets.1 The period of Shakespeare's life, when his heart was ill at ease, Hallam places about the year 1600. According to the chronological indications already reviewed it was a little before this time that Shakespeare's mistress proved unfaithful to him, deserting him for his young friend; that his feelings were wounded through the favour supposed to be shown by his friend to George Chapman, and that through these or other causes there occurred a breach of the intimacy lasting for some time, probably about eighteen months (1599–1601). During this interval there was, as shown in the last chapter, scandal afloat concerning the poet's character, but, notwithstanding this, and the "wretched errors" which he confesses that he had committed (119), it would appear nevertheless from 100 that he had been busy with literary work. Obviously, however, the complimentary language of this Sonnet 1 In treating of the Sonnets, however, in Part III. chap. v., Hallam adds in a note:-"Pembroke succeeded to his father in 1601. I incline to think that the Sonnets were written about that time, some probably earlier, some later. That they were the same as Meres, in 1598, has mentioned . . . I do not believe, both on account of the date, and from the peculiarly personal allusions they contain." is not to be taken as a serious estimate by Shakespeare of the value of his work : "Where art thou, Muse, that thou forget'st so long And gives thy pen both skill and argument." On which of his works was Shakespeare then engaged? In 1600 there were placed on the Stationers' Register the titles of the three plays Henry V., Much Ado about Nothing, and As You Like It. This, however, does not enable us to determine as precisely as is desirable for our present purpose the date of composition. And a remark somewhat similar may be made with regard to the time when Twelfth Night was written, though this may very possibly be of the date 1599 or 1600.1 From the allusion in the Chorus before Act v. it may be inferred that Henry V. was written in 1599, when Essex was absent in Ireland. Much Ado about Nothing and As You Like It were probably both written in or about the year 1599. The former play, notwithstanding the lively encounters of Benedick and Beatrice, conveys, in relation to the plot against Hero and its consequences, an impression of sadness-an impression which, it has been observed, "would have been too tragical had not Shakespeare carefully softened it, in order to prepare for a fortunate catastrophe " (Schlegel). In As You Like It we have, according to Hallam, the first example of the " censurer of mankind." It might almost be said that we have a double presentation of the pessimistic philosopher in Jaques and his comic counterpart, Touchstone. The one seems to play 1 The entry in Manningham's Diary of February 2, 1601[-2] may fix the time when he first saw the play, but it cannot fix certainly the date of its composition, or even its first presentation on the stage. into the other's hands. This comes out most clearly, perhaps, with regard to the speech of Touchstone, as reported in Act ii. sc. 7, lines 26-28 :: "And so, from hour to hour, we ripe and ripe, And then, from hour to hour, we rot and rot; This "tale," the sorry account of man's life-history, is probably to be understood as given by Jaques in the wellknown passage towards the conclusion of the same scene, "All the world's a stage," and giving the "strange eventful history" which ends "In second childishness and mere oblivion, Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything." In Twelfth Night the most noteworthy thing, with reference to our present purpose,1 is the clown's song at the end, a 'song which Charles Knight declared to be, in his judgment, "the most philosophical clown's song upon record." But if the song is a philosophical song, the philosophy has a strong tinge of pessimism. The course of things in the world ever goes on in the same way :-"A great while ago the world began." Men are prone to evil, and for evildoers and all, the world is at best a rough and harsh world, "for the rain it raineth every day." But whatever element of melancholy or pessimism there may be in the three comedies just mentioned, they are separated by a wide gulf from those so-called "bitter comedies," Troilus and Cressida and Measure for Measure.2 A similar remark might be made with regard to Julius Cæsar and the tragedy 1 Dr. Furnivall has remarked, with regard to Twelfth Night, in his Introduction to the Leopold Shakspere :-" It is to the Sonnets that we turn for a parallel to Viola's pleading with Olivia to marry the Duke, and not to forbear to leave a copy of her beauty to the world, and to the Sonnets to his mistress for Shakspere's love of music" (p. lix.). 2 The Merry Wives of Windsor was first printed (imperfectly) in 1602; but the play was probably written before Henry V. which probably stands next to it in order of time, Hamlet. Julius Cæsar is the first of Shakespeare's series of greater tragedies. An allusion in Weever's Mirror of Martyrs (1601) pretty certainly fixes the date of production to about 1600. The play is very symmetrical; and though Fate is everywhere dominant, steadily working on to the tragical consummation, the play cannot be called pessimistic. For the vast difference which appears when we turn to Hamlet a reason may be assigned if at this point we place (and, as we have seen, the chronological indications are entirely in accordance with our so placing it) that scandal concerning his character which pressed on Shakespeare so heavily (supra, p. 115), making him feel as if his forehead had been branded, and causing him to speak as though cut off from the world, with his ears deaf alike to flattery and censure (112). To the hostility to mankind thus displayed may be ascribed (as being at least one cause) the deep pessimism of Hamlet. Mankind are exhibited in this play as though perhaps attractive without, like "the most beautified Ophelia," yet incurably diseased, and rotten to the core. It is this view of mankind generally, and certainly not any special depravity on the part of Ophelia, which accounts for Hamlet's mysterious treatment of her while she was sewing in her chamber, when, after that intent look at her with his hand over his brow, drawing back "to the length of all his arm," "He rais'd a sigh so piteous and profound, That it did seem to shatter all his bulk, And in the next scene, somewhat less obscurely, after speaking of an honest man as excessively rare, only one such in two or ten thousand, Hamlet describes the race as carrion putrefying in the sun. Elsewhere, too, in the play, there are various things quite in harmony with what is here said.1 1 See the present writer's Philosophy of "Hamlet." |