Page images
PDF
EPUB

bearing indisputable testimony to the genius and execution of the great master."* This theory of companionship in the production of the play is merely a repetition of the theory of Stevens : “ The purpurei panni are Shakspeare's, and the rest the productions of some inglorious and forgotten playwright.” We have no faith whatever in this very easy mode of disposing of the authorship of a doubtful play-of leaving entirely out of view the most important part of every drama, its action, its characterisation, looking at the whole merely as a collection of passages, of which the worst are to be assigned to some âme damnée, and the best triumphantly claimed for Shakspere. There are some, however, who judge of such matters upon broader principles.

Mr. Hallam says, “. Pericles' is generally reckoned to be in part, and only in part, the work of Shakspeare. From the poverty and bad management of the fable, the want of any effective or distinguishable character (for Marina is no more than the common form of female virtue, such as all the dramatists of that age could draw), and a general feebleness of the tragedy as a whole, I should not believe the structure to have been Shakspeare's. But many passages are far more in his manner than in that of any contemporary writer with whom I am acquainted.”+ Here the poverty and bad management of the fable”—“the want of any effective or distinguishable character,” are assigued for the belief that the structure could not have been Shakspere's. But let us accept Dryden's opinion, that

66

“Shakspeare's own muse his Pericles first bore,”

with reference to the original structure of the play, and the difficulty vanishes. It was impossible that the character of the early drama should not have been impressed upon Shakspere's earliest efforts. Do we therefore think that the drama, as it has come down to us, is presented in the form in which it was first written ? By no means. We agree with Mr. Hallam that in parts the language seems rather that of

* Shakspeare and his Times,' vol. ii. p. 268.
+'History of Literature,' vol. iii. p. 569.

Shakspere's “second or third manner than of his first." But this belief is not inconsistent with the opinion that the original structure was Shakspere's. No other poet that existed at the beginning of the seventeenth century—perhaps no poet that came after that period, whether Massinger, or Fletcher, or Webster-could have written the greater part of the fifth act. Coarse as the comic scenes are, there are touches in them uplike any other writer but Shakspere.

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed]

PERSONS REPRESENTED.

SATURNINUS, son to the late Emperor of Rome.
Appears, Act I. sc. 1; sc. 2. Act II. sc. 2; sc. 4. Act IV. sc. 4.

Act V. sc. 3.
BASSIANUS, brother to Saturninus.
Appears, Act I. sc. 1; sc. 2. Act II. sc. 2, sc. 3.

Titus ANDRONICUS, a noble Roman.
A ppears, Act I. sc. 2. Act II. sc. 2; sc. 4. Act III. sc. 1; sc. 2.

Act IV. sc. 1; sc. 3. Act V. sc. 2; sc. 3.

MARCUS ANDRONICUS, brother to Titus. Appears, Act I. sc. 1; sc. 2. Act II. sc. 2; sc. 5. Act III. sc. 1; sc. 2.

Act IV. sc. 1; sc. 3. Act V. sc. 2; sc. 3.

LUCIUS, son to Titus Andronicus.
Appears, Act I. sc. 2. Act II. sc. 2; sc. 4. Act III. sc. 1.

Act V. sc. l; sc. 3.

QUINTUB, son to Titus Andronicus.
Appears, Act I. sc. 2. Act II. sc. 2; sc. 4. Act III. sc. 1.

MARTIUS, son to Titus Andronicus.
Appears, Act I. sc. 2. Act II. sc. 2; sc. 4. Act III. sc. 1.

MUTIUS, son to Titus Andronicus.

Appears, Act I. sc. 2.

Young Lucius, a boy, son to Lucius. Appears, Act III. sc. 2. Act IV. sc. l; sc. 2; sc. 3. Act V. sc. 3.

PUBLIUS, son to Marcus the tribune.

Appears, Act V. sc. 2.

Æmilius, a noble Roman.
Appears, Act IV. sc. 4. Act V. sc. 1; sc. 3.

ALARBUS, son to Tamora.

Appears, Act I. sc. 2.

CHIRON, son to Tamora.
Appears, Act I. sc. 2. Act II. sc. 1; sc. 2; sc. 3; sc. 5.

Act IV. sc. 2; sc. 4. Act V. sc. 2.

« PreviousContinue »