The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-02-02

by every recent editor and commenta,o,
notwithstanding the adverse consensus n,
recent expert opinion. Mr.. Garnett is con.
WINGED that Mr.. Goodwin Smith was rigb,
and he holds that the proof can be found
in an elaborate investigation of the drama,
We cannot here attempt to follow hi,
inquiry In detail, but merely note that
he undertakes to show. first. that aThs
Tempest" was written for Performance
before a private audience. and on the occa-
sion OF a marriage: secondly. that ne par-
ticular audience and the particular mar.
rage are know n from documentary evil
dence, and further revealed by evident
illusions to the personality Of the bride
groom, 20 the recent death Of Prince Henry,
and by the introduction OF King james
himself into the piece; thirdly. that there
il additional internal evidence for the date.
1913. and no evidence for any other date.
II IL clear enough that, If Prof. Goodwin
Smith and Mr.. Richard Garnett are right.
We must reject the specious hypothesis
put forward by NJ. Emile Montegut that
Shakespeare idealized himself in prospero.
II Miranda and Ferdinand are the Princes,
Elizabeth and the Elector Palatine. it fol-
lows that Prospero Is James |. To have
passed over the sovereign without notice
Ia a piece written for the nuptials Of tho
sovereign's daughter would nave been
an impoliteness which Shakespeare would
never have perpetrated. Moreover, II
would have been unjust. As Mark Patti
son has pointed out: those whose i'm
pressions Of character have been chiefly
derived from modern historians will find
that, az they become better acquainted
with contemporary memoirs, their esti-
mate of James's abilities will be raised.'
It should be remembered that Prospero
himself betrays ~fretfulness. irritability
and self-importance, traits which were
conspicuous in James. These traits, how-
ever, lie upon the surface. and upon a broad
view Of the character. Mr.. Garrett finds
IL impossible TO conceive one more COM
pletely e~mbodying. than does ~Prospero's.
James's ideal Of himself. or more dex-
trously yet truthfully bringing the really
strong sides OF his personality into view.
Mr.. Garnet himself comedies that Il
must at first sight seem a visionary en-
deavor to establish any sort OF affinity
between Shelley n Lord Beaconsfeld.
The differences between the characters OF
the two men are p~alpable, and their respec-
tive careers were so dissimilar that II may
we'll seem useless to look for any likeness.
Nevertheless, the writer Of these essays
has detected several points Of contact
Confning himself 10 facts capable Of verb
f%cation, he considers, first, the external
evidence Of Disraeli's acquaintance with
Shelley; secondly. Disraeli's estimate Of
Shelley as deduced from the portrait OF
the latter given In 'Venetin, - and. thirdly.
the traces Of Shelley's influence on Dis
raeli's writings. Mr.. Garrett unquestion-
I II. Nj - -
Of information concerning Shelley. and that
he IL entitled TO a place in the honorable
list OF those who defended Shelley when
the unfavorable estimate Of his character
was by far the preponderating one. There
seems TO be no doubt that the character OF
Herbert" In -venetia" is a portrait OF
Shelley. and the authors estimate Of Her
bert" proves that he had made his way
through prejudice and misrepresentation
to a substantially accurate conception Of
the actual man. h Dtsraeli should
have done this Ia creditable TO himself,
and Il makes for the honor Of Shelley that
among the first TO exhibit constituencies 20
his influence and appreciation Of his char
acter should have been a brilliant n
original person who in his own way con-
tributed 20 redeem the nineteenth century
! from the lHlDuAdllDu VI 'oHiiiApilfo'''
In the essay on -Shelley's Views on Art
We are reminded that the direct references
to works Of art in Shelley's poems are not
very numerous. and are usually concerned
with sculpture rather than painting There
Is one poem, however, entirely devoted to
a single picture. a picture whose character
was adapted 10 fascinate an imaginative
spirit, 20 wit: the -Medusa" In the Ufizi
Gallery at Florence. attributed to Leon
ardo da Vinci. This poem Is, perhaps.
the only one Ia which Shelley deliberately
set himself 10 translate a picture into verse
and NAV be read with profit Ia connec-
ton with the distinct IONS drawn 10y Lees
inr In the sLac,0ln." The remarkable
effect Of a picture in inspiring Shelley
may be recognized in tine portrait. genuine
or otherwise, Of Beatrice Cenci by Guido
which in a manner compelled him 20 write
his tragedy q the -Cenci.' Mr. Garnet
suggests that Guido. II he really were us
painter Of the picture. had little notion that
a Cenol tragedy lay la his Cercl p rtflit'
Az 20 the practical value Of Slcleys Jutg
ments on works 81 art 20 artists, the author
J Of these e-says admits that this IN dlsput-
able. for. while Shelley was prceminenty
endowed with penetraiive insight and with
delicacy AZ well ~ with intensity ~ i-"ling'
he was devoid Of the technical equipment
Of q professional art critic.
Mr. Oarnett n not 1ne q those Engiish-
men who can ses IN Ralph Waldo Ln'srson
nothing but a polisl.-r and tunse u ep.-
srammAto sayings lie deems Il i'm
po..ible 20 argue With any man who can
mo-, recognize. Tho deep vitality Of Mature
OF the two ssres ~ essays fret publlslsd'
I ana Of moo, ~ ths early OfatloDs aud do
course A. tic sams uma he 10 wiling
20 Acknowledge that Emerson fountain
of inspiration vas 40 more porutaiiiAI uAh
Aordsu ouhfs. and that la ias lAttsf yoAfs
81 xAs mainly lac gift ~ .p~Asisininsuo
,ta,amsnt u.at enabled him "a Asoid bath
th. soylla aud tic ChATyldls 0f m'n q
.,pt.s ulu-s fouht ~ I4spli suon had
10 Joe w zone sueh oa-rs ts"t -
N,riss .rh's. do Huiluf simply soc
-. uTa.durns stfN loas and lsss s~sHiAlity
81 every expressive a0t a. ouhsrs
.uel a. HfsNnT Fr d. ueaalE lnaN y
~ sinlaut saaEFrfau,A ~ Id aiafafai H
~ m-snnslsn. Af bsHsii HtoFnias