New-York tribune., 1906-04-22

A ~
though lmost every phrase in the play as we read
II Is Shakespeares and though the conception of
the chief characters is also his there hardly an
incident IN the structure that taken from the
older drama.
AS You Like It" affords an excellent example
OF his method in the comedies. The germ of this
story IS an old and widespread folk-tale-the
theme of the l-treated younger brother who finally
triumphs over his tyrannical elder and comes to
high estate. 1t is the male counterpart of Gin
derea and it is fundamentally the story of Joseph
and his brethren. As one finds it in English in the
Middle Ages 1t is practically void OF love interest,
and the hero is notable chiefly for his physical
Prowess. In Shakespeare's own time Thomas
Lodge turned 1t into novel in the affected style of
the day, added the love affairs with Rosalind and
Celia the forest life of the banished Duke and his
lords and the minor plot of the shepherd and
shepherdess. Thus before Shakespeare touched it.
the plot we know it almost fully developed
Fixing Up AS You Like 1t"
VET the contrast between Lodges Rosalynde"
and Shakespeare's AS You Like 1t " is that
between a waX-wOrk group and company of living
beings The dramatist cut down the earlier scenes
depicting Orlando somewhat rOwdyfeats in resisting
his brothers tyranny, and left only the wrestling
a trace OF the muscular hero of the earlier
romance For mass OF sentimental passOning
he substituted sparkling repartee; and out of a
group OF purely conventional romantic figures he
created the brilliant and witty society that makes
the Forest OF Arden one OF the most delightful
localities in imaginative literature OF the charac-
ters, he created Jaques Touchstone, Audrey
William, and lie Beau. Thus we have here a
clear OF the dramatizng of a contemporary
novel; rank plagiarism If you care to call it but
AT the same time abundant imaginative originality
OF the most precious kind.
But the most startling instances of Shakespeares
borrowing occur in the Roman plays From
point of view, all he seems to have done in these
dramas is have taken North's translation of
PlutarChs Lives Of Julius Cesar, CassiuS, Brutus
Antony, and CorIolanus, divided them into scenes
and thrown the prose narrative into blank-verSe
dialogue. For here the quality of his material
much higher than in the English histories and in
most of the romantic comedies Plutarch was a
skilled bOgrapher, with keen sense of character
and quick eye for the salient and the picturesque
In HOlInShcd, Shakespeare found a great mass of
detail compiled from earlier annaliSts, without any
but a rough chronological arrangement, and without
any selection emphasizing OF the really significant
In PlutarCh he had a with passionate reCOg-
milton Of the heroic, and artist skill in choosing
what telling and characteristic. In dealing
with material already thus highly refined he had
clearly different task, and his way of undertaking
II is noteworthy. He showed no sef-important
eagerness to make changes for their sake or TO
give the stamp OF his own powers. What of finished
and complete characterization expression Norths
PlutarCh offered he accepted thankfully, altering
and modifying only far the difference of
literary form between biography and drama made
1t necessary. Thus the general of the three
crises IN Roman history which he portrayed is be
found IN its main outlines in his predecessor.
Yet the difference between Plutarch and Shakes
peare immense; and the comparison between
them is most fruitful in revealing only the skill
OF Shakespeare's craftsmanship but almost the
very secret OF imaginative art. The fact that the
rough heWng had already been done by PlutarCh
forces us TO the observation of the finer and more
subtlV poeical elements the Shakespearean drama
Take trSt Ju1uS Cesar In PutarCh have