Shakespeare, the First Steps / Marko Minkoff → Обява 23892372

Shakespeare, the First Steps / Marko Minkoff

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION......7

THE HISTORY PLAYS ............................... 11

Henry VI. Part 1................................... 11

Henry VI. Part 2................................... 27

Henry VI. Part 3................................... 39

Richard III....................................... 45

THE POETICS OF THE HISTORY PLAYS...............68

TRAGEDY: TITUS ANDRONICUS........................112

THE COMEDIES.....................................138

The Taming of the Shrew.............................138

The Comedy of Errors ...............................156

The Two Gentlemen of Verona..........................174

Love’s Labour’s Lost ...............................189

APPENDIX: THE DATE AND UNITY OF TITUS ANDRONICUS.......210

INDEX .............................................216

***

INTRODUCTION

Although






Shakespeare’s early plays have, naturally enough, received far less






attention than his riper ones, they have nevertheless, especially in the






last few years, been the object of various full-length studies,






sufficiently detailed for any further book on the subject to require a






special justification. The excuse for the present study is that it seeks






to lay a more particular stress on the development of Shakespeare’s






craftsmanship both as dramatist and poet than has been attempted






hitherto. This has become possible owing above all to a general change






of attitude towards the early history plays during the last generation






and the realization of the true nature of the bad quartos. Indeed by






now, instead of dismissing these early works as shapeless chronicles on






which to vent an instinctive sense of superiority towards the form of






Elizabethan drama, the critic is more likely to be hampered by a sense






of the reverence due to even the first steps of a genius. But at least






he is able to see them as the work of a single man, and also, after






Cairncross’s edition of the three parts of Henry VI in the New Arden






Shakespeare, to see them in their proper order of composition, with Part






I taking its obvious place as the point of departure, and the whole






leading on without any logical break in the action down to the close of






Richard III.

Each of these four plays, however, while forming






part of a series and closely linked to the others, has a certain






character of its own, distinguishing it from the rest and making it, in






some ways at least, an experiment in a different type of drama. This is






no doubt due in very large part to the character of the material on






which each is based, but it does seem to show at the same time a certain






groping after a more perfect form, even more evident in the stylistic






developments than in the dramaturgy. For the manner of writing sometimes






seems to change more markedly within a given play than from play to






play, and the latter half of Part 3, for instance, seems to differ more






from the earlier half than that does from the closing acts of the






preceding play. But the more epic approach of Part 1, based






predominantly on the clash of impersonal forces, of nation with nation,






does differ markedly from the treatment of the meshwork of personal






entanglements in Part 2, and from the more controlledly dramatic






structure of Part 3, which seems more like a synthesis of the two






methods; while the possibility of centering the whole action in a single






protagonist in Richard III was an invitation to employ here the






machinery and structure of tragedy.

Thus each play, while






belonging to the same fairly specific genre, does to some extent






represent an experiment in a different form, and this is true to an even






greater extent of the comedies, which one must presume to have been






written at roughly the same time as the histories, and which do rather






markedly seem to stand out even as conscious experiments in the various






types known, though scarcely very clearly distinguished in theory, in






his day. And for this very reason, since each is apparently seeking for






its own appropriate style, they do not present such an obvious line of






development as the histories. Indeed, no clear agreement as to the order






in which they were written exists to this day among scholars, and it






was largely with a view to throwing more light on this problem that the






present study was undertaken. For the more usual methods, based on






attempts at absolute dating, give very few handholds, though I believe






the interpretation offered here of Love's Labour's Lost as including a






skit on Henry IV’s abandonment of the Protestant cause does give the






possibility of an absolute dating of that play, and confirms the






impression it makes as the most sophisticated of the early comedies.

The






importance of the stylistic development in this context has imposed a






rather sharp separation of style and matter, or form and content, in the






treatment of the histories. Not that I would advocate such a separation






in principle, though in dealing with a period that very definitely did






itself regard style as an external ornament to be imposed at will on a






given subject, and that to a very large extent worked in just that way,






the separation is less objectionable than it would be at any other time.






And it does, I hope, justify itself in the results, for the picture






obtained is of a development taking its own path, and only very






gradually achieving a more marked interdependence with the matter. It






was hoped that the sliding scale obtained in this way would provide a






standard against which the other plays could be measured. And in some






respects at least the hope was fulfilled. The Taming of the Shrew does






show definite affinities with the earliest parts of the series, while






the remaining comedies belong more clearly towards the end. And the






great stylistic gap between the Henry VI plays and Richard III suggests a






point at which much of the other work could best be fitted in. But the






concept of style as a garment to be assumed at will does at the same






time mitigate rather strongly against any very close contacts between






plays of different genres. And with Titus Andronicus the scale offers






very little help indeed, beyond a general suggestion that it would be






one of the plays best suited to fill the gap. Perhaps its having been






written for Strange’s men may explain its peculiar position as odd man






out.

Finally a word of justification must be said for treating the






plays as a separate group. For though the idea that Shakespeare’s work






falls naturally into four periods is so widespread that it may be said






to work automatically, Soviet scholars like Morozov have pointed out,






with a great deal of truth, that there is no difference of mood or






outlook separating the first period from the second, and have preferred






to run them both together, admitting only three periods in all. And even






in the Anglo-Saxon world, while most scholars accept the idea of an






early period,

( here is less agreement as to which plays it






comprises and where the boundary should be drawn, showing that it is






after all a rather artificial concept. In general, it might be said that






the plague years of 1592-93 mark a break in Shakespeare’s work no less






than they do in the theatrical history of the troupes, and that the work






he produced after the reopening of the theatres shows the marks of the






more luscious style he had developed in his two narrative poems and, at






any rate, the earlier sonnets. Yet traces of the "lyrical" style occur






in the early plays also, and it is by no means certain that the date of






the first known performance of The Comedy of Errors in 1594 is not also






the date of its composition. One may say too, as has already been






suggested, that the early plays seem more experimental, more uncertain






in their approach, and that they often suggest lines that were not






explored any further. Yet Shakespeare never ceased experimenting, and






The Merry Wives of Windsor or Traitas and Cressida, though more easily






explained through the theatrical fashions of the moment, represent just






such blind alleys in their different ways as The Comedy of Errors or






Titus Andronicus. However, for the purposes of this book, which seeks in






the first place to trace certain lines of development and to keep the






interpretation down to sober, solid fact, it is less important to






determine common links that would bind the plays to a whole than to fix






the limits of the development treated. The history plays form together a






logical series, and they lead up to Richard III, which not only marks a






definite achievement in itself but led on to nothing further in just






the same vein, even though it does mark a turning point in Shakespeare’s






dramatic style. Along the comic line Love's Labour's Lost even more






obviously marks a definite stage, the achievement of the comedy of love






with its delicate mockery of the foolish ways of lovers as its theme. In






some ways it would have been more logical to continue to the much more






definite achievement of A Midsummer Night’s l>rcam, in which the full






synthesis of court comedy with popular romance is. onipleted, and which






represents a better point of departure for the riper l omedies of love.






But at the same time, it belongs definitely beyond the boundary marked






by the plague years, and could not conveniently be discussed apart from a






number of other plays with which it is intimately connected in style.






And the same holds good of Romeo and Juliet, which, if it links on to






the early plays at all, does so rather with The Two Gentlemen of Verona






than with either of the tragedies. That leaves Titus Andronicus standing






alone as the one pure tragedy; its true successor would be Hamlet.

My






thanks are due to the publishers and editors of English Studies and






Shakespeare Quarterly for permission to reprint largely from articles






that first appeared in those periodicals.

Забележка: Здраво книжно тяло, без забележки в текста.