New-York tribune., 1902-08-15
SHAKESPEARE.
THE POETS DRAMATIC METHOD

FLETCHER ON SHAKESPEARE I9ralt By Asney
Mass: Press Of Oliver B. Wood.
Mr. Thorndike's inquiry into the nature and
extent Of the influence of Beaumont and FleIcher
on Shakespeare is. emphatically. book Tor STU
dents, the purpose Of IL being to summarize eFi-
dence that Shakespeare, not only in his youth
while he was learning his art. but in MS ma
turity when he had learned ii, was closely op-
servant OF the styles and achievements OF other
s5ramatists, and was accustomed TO initiate
adapt. and, to a considerable extent, utilize the
ideas and the works of his contemporaries This
fact-howsoever demonstrable. and howsoever
Iearnedly and skilfully demonstrated,-would not
inapress any considera bic number of general
readers as a fact of momentous Importance; but
to the student of Shakespeare's mind and
method il is one Of special interest and signif-
canoe. Mr. Thorndfke has not attempted an eX-
haustive examination Of all the contemporary in
fuences by which Shakespeare. possibly, was
affected. as writer of plays but, after COM
prehensive preliminary statement of the subject
has limited inquiry TO the effect on Shakespeare
of ''one current and popular form" the form
namely. of the Beaumont and Fletcher tragedies
and tragi-comedies-as shown in ''Cymbeline,
The Tempest" and THE Winters Tale
shakespeares period extended from 1864 to
1915: Beaumonts from 1856 TO 1916: Fletcher's
from 1876 to 1925. Shakespeare it is thought
began 10 write for the stage about 1855 and he
had written most of his plays before Beaumont
and Fletcher made their appearance dram
atists about 1907 so that. If he initiated them al
all, he must have done so toward the end OF his
career Mr. Thorndike's contention is that
Beaumont and Fletcher created a new dramatic
form. which he calls the heroic romance. and
that Shakespeare initiated that form. in the
three conspicuous plays above mentioned. of his
closing period as a dramatic author. This con-
tention If it be not concusively esta blshed Is
at least ably sustained. The arguments ad-
duced for Il are Notwithstanding, in par
ticular, critical examination OF the play OF
-PhiIaster'' as the proba ble precursor and model
of "Cymbeline, and they are marshalled with
admirable skill, while the treatise is written in
judicial spirit and lucid style, without any Of
the acrimony that so often projects itself into
the discussion Of Eliza bethan dramatic liter
ature. The learning Of the book is ample. Rec
ords and remarks Of valuable significance
scattered through its pages, with all the liber-
elity Of exuberant knowledge. The author, evil
IDENTIFY. has taken great pleasure in his work,
studying the subject carefully. and fortifying
his argument by authoritative citation at every
essential point AS an incentive TO the study Of
Beaumont and Fletcher, this book ought 10 have
an excellent effect
Mr Thorndilze's view of Shakespeare is free
good sense. Whatever he touched" says this
essayist. ''he transformed into a permanent
work Of art; but II is no less true that, in his
work Of transformation or creation, he was
working under the same conditions as his fel-
low playwrights. He actor and the
stre owner. conversant with all the conventions
Of an ElizabeJhan theatre. and practically inter
ested in the stage fashions and stage rivalries of
his time He made plays that paid; situations
that held the interest Of the audiences; char
acters that were effective in London theatres. He
must have understood and been Influenced by
the stage demand whose varying wants he and
his fellow dramatistis were engaged in supply
ing. AS in the case of any other Elizabethan
dramatist we may be reasonably sure that the
final character OF his work must have been
partly determined by definite objective causes.
Subjective explanations are. at best only
attempts TO interpret the authors moods in
terms Of the aesthetic effect his work exerts
upon US, and they give US few cIews as TO the
actual methods OF his creative art. We are on
far safer grounds when study objective in
fuences. There is much clear evidence of
his use of contemporary conventions and dra-
matte forms"
The greater plays of Shakespeare could never
have been inspired by popular demand, for they
contain more substance deeper meaning, and
finer poetry than the average popular perception
has ever required or has ever grasped. They
are. in fact, extraordinary for their superfux Of
everything-an overflow Of the poetic mind,
such as far transcends the actual wants of the
public and the actual needs Of the theatre; but
undoubtedly. the plays Of Shakespeare were
written for the stage. and written by a man
who had actors practical knowledge of the
needs OF the stage. II is We'll that this view of
Shakespeare's authorship should be stated with
emphasis. since il serves as an antidote TO
the wild, vague, unintelligent rhapsodies Of some
OF his aesthetic worshippers. who appear TO think
that his writings are absolutely faultless. that
he himself was an angel of light, and that his
works were evolved by some sort Of celestial ma
chinery, transcendent of all earthly circum-
stances and of all the known laws OF the human
mind.
Mr.. Thorndike sometimes writes a little
loosely, as when he declares that the editors
of the First Folio OF Shakespeare are not to
be trusted questions of authorship" and
when he affirns that Mr.. SPEEDING by one Of his
essays 'conclusivey proved" that there were
two authors Of the play Of Henry VIII" Shake
speare being one and Fletcher the other If
Henainge and Condeu. who gathered the plays
for the First Folio OF Shakespeare. are not TO
be trusted as TO that poet, then there is no
basis Of Shakespearian scholarship-for every
thing depends on the First Folio, the greatest
and most precious book in the poetical and
dramatic literature of the world. AS matter
of fact, no evidence has ever been adduced by
anybody TO discredit that Folio Mr.. Thorndike
qualities his somewhat peremptory language by
admitting that it is not certain that Heminge
and Condeu included in their Folio any play in
which Shakespeare did not have share if
anybody on earth was qualified to decide the
question Of authorship, Heminge and CondeH
were qualified. since they received the plays