New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-03-11
THE SHAKESPEARIANS
Andrew Lang on Anachronism in
Criticism Of the Poet.
ON The London Morning Post.

rom ! lie 4slOl lllls rust
DR.. Johnson advised people to read
Shakespeare's plays without glancing at
Shakospeare's commentators. Perhaps
from Incidence l have taken DR.. John
sens advice and have but rarely looked
at what Coleridge or. Hazlitt, or a me-
nagerie OF professors, British and for
cign, have written about him. No doubt
there is much to be learned from the
essays, OF Mr.. Bradley and Mr.. Sym
monds among the moderns, OF Coleridge
and Hazlitt among the elders; dark
places are made clear, and beautiful pas
Sages are adequately recommended. But
one is not anxious TO find new points In
Hamlets soul, as yet untouched by Ger
mans. because the old points, which any
reader can sec for himself, are at least
sufficient. Perhaps Shakespeare did not
see all his points himself or. at least.
aid not see them as the critics do, for
he had indeed brave notions" and they
crowded so fast into his intelligence that
Ben Jonson wished some one would put
on the drag. His epithets and single
phrases are like sparkles, thrown or
from an Imagination fired by the whirl-
ing rapidity of it's own notion says
Hazlltt, and his ideas are born with the
same rapidity. Before one idea has
burst It's she'll" SAYS Lamb, another is
Matched and clamorous for disclosure
In the work of an Imagination so fer
tile it may be that, as Aristotle says,
fortune favors art" and more Is given
than the poet had any preconcelved pur-
pose 10 give; more than he afterward
could account for having given, had he
been his own critic. Genius does not
work so consciously and consclentiously
as the critics who come plodding after
Il. examining it's results through mod
a a
power over words: they come winged at
his bidding and seem TO know their
places. IN trying to recollect any
other author" SAYS Hazlitt, 'one some
times stumbles in case Of failure on
word as good In Shakespeare any other
word out the true one is sure TO be
wrong" In quoting six words Of
Shakespeare, Hazlitt gave two aosurdly
wrong. and never corrected them) Yet
wo feel assured that Shakespeare did
not, like that unhappy Flaubert and our
modern prGcjPuT, sit biting his pen for
an hour hunting for the right word. the
right word came vinging TO him"
There is evidence enough from their
manuscripts and corrected proof sheets
that IZaak Walton, r. l.. Stevenson and
Thackeray would write a phrase over
and over again till II was fashioned to
their liking; we have no such evidence
IN Shakespeare's case, but we are apt
to conceive that the hurrying thoughts
came winging ready clad in their appro-
pirate plumage.
An American critic. Mr.. Stoll. kindly
sends me a paper of his own on "Anach-
ronism in Shakespeare Criticism" he
seems TO be rather too hard on the
critics. Sainte-Beuve said very we'll
about Homer that every new age sees
him from its own "belvedere" in &. new
perspective. from new point Of view.
Still, all that II sees is Homer. His
translators betray their point Of view by
what they add and alter; and our critics
betray their point Of view. as TO Shake
speare. by their comments. Lamb quotes
with high approval 10 Coleridge the fol-
lowing terrible lines from Chapmans
version of the Had:
As when most sharp and bitter pangs dis
tract labouring dame,
Which the divine Ilithie, that rule the
OF human Childbirth pour on her. the Iithlse
that are
The daughters OF saturnla, with whose ex-
IRENE repair
The woman strives 70 take the worst u
gives.
"Issplain this men and hangels" But
Chapman wrote II and Lamb admired It:
his point of view being EliZahethan. Il
take the Chapman quotation from
modern edition Of Lambs Letters. The
last line must he wrong)
Now. not TO he anachronistic in our
views Of Shakespeare. we are asked. APP
parently, 70 throw ourselves back into
tho very frame Of mind, thought and
taste Of Shakespeares contemporaries.
saw. Of Chapman, himself, Jonson, Chef
tie. Decker. Southampton. Pembroke
and 50 on. But they were all In different
conditions of mind. thought and taste;
not one Of them was in Shakespeare's,
and the thing cannot be done. Shake
sueare lried 10 write for his contempt
raries. of course. but his genius carried
him beyond them. beyond all men. He
was not for an age, but for all time"
said Ben Jonson. with literal truth; nor
can the minds Of any age Of the world
have an exhaustive knowledge Of his ex-
cellonces. Consequently. his critics, in
each age. must contemplate him from
their own "belvedere"; which is made
quate. of course. but may lend a more
extensive view than the standpoint OF
his contemporaries. The criticisms, II
inst. will be anachronistic-that Is. will
not he Elizabethan criticisms though,
indeed. they cannot be more just than
the line OF Ben Jonson which / have
cited.
If II be urged that modern students
will be Judging Shakespeare In the light,
true or false. of ideas and conceptions of
which he can never have dreamed.
reply that mortal man is never likely
to havo any ideas (worth anything
which had not passed through Shake
sIoare's mind. OF course. do not mean
that he had contemplated all our new
inventions I'm mechanical detail-aero-
planes. wireless telegraphy. quickfirins
BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS.