Massinger, or even Dekker may have excelled him as a dramatist; but, in comparison with his, their language is poor and weak. Yet, when we come to analyse it, we find that, though it may be a more refined euphuism than theirs, it is euphuism nevertheless, expressing its thoughts by means of antithesis and simile. Thus, under the former figure, we have such passages as And yet for aught I see, they are as sick who surfeit with too much, as they that starve with nothing. (Merchant of Venice, I. 2.) and I like not fair terms and a villain's mind. (King John, I. 1.) while under the latter we have Now is the winter of our discontent and (Richard III., I. 1.) Care keeps his watch in every old man's eye; (Romeo and Juliet, II. 3.) It contains, however, an element which theirs usually wants it is rich in proverbial philosophy. Where else do we find passages like— and The sleeping and the dead Are but as pictures. 'Tis the eye of childhood (Macbeth, II. 2.) Time hath, my lord, a wallet at his back, Wherein he puts alms for oblivion. (Troilus and Cressida, III. 3.) This may exhaust the purely literary characteristics, but the language of the plays is pregnant with QUALITATIVE elements that distinguish it from all others. Other writers of the period draw their illustrations from what was then thought the only fount of poetic description, the pagan mythology. Shakespeare, on the other hand, has recourse to natural philosophy, astronomy, medical science, and English jurisprudence. This is so obvious that we have treatises on his knowledge of each. Thus we have The Philosophy of Shakespeare's Plays Unfolded,' by Delia Bacon, London, 1857; 'Shakespeare's Medical Knowledge,' by W. Stearns, M.D., New York, 1865; A Medicochirurgical Commentary on Shakespeare,' by W. Wadd, Quarterly Journal of Science, 1829; Shakespeare a Lawyer,' by W. L. Rushton, Liverpool, 1857 ; and 'Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements,' by John Lord Campbell, London, 1859. But, though Shakespeare avoids the then fashionable habit of classical illustration, his plays reveal a vast amount of classical erudition and an intimate acquaintance with Spanish and Italian literature-subjects we shall discuss farther in considering the originals of his dramas. CHAPTER IV, ORIGINALIA LATINA. Plautus Terence-Livy. THE subject of foreign literature in Shakespeare's plays has brought us naturally to the question of originality. We do not pretend that any literary work can be absolutely original; knowledge and art being, from the nature of things, matters of evolution. We only propose, therefore, to enquire whether the plays are original, within the limits of possibility—that is, whether the mind of the author, having been schooled in the literature of the past, had applied itself to the task of composition, without further reference to it; or whether he had simply copied from it, limiting his own efforts to such changes as would produce a colourable alteration. And, as regards Latin literature, our conclusion is that he has copied. Two of the comedies are mere adaptations from Plautus; while speeches, characters and incidents are taken bodily from Terence and Plautus." Thus the Comedy of Errors' is an adaptation of the Menæchmi.' This will be seen from a slight sketch of the Roman play. The plot, as described in the prologue, supposes that A certain merchant of Syracuse had twin sons, so much alike that even their mother could not distinguish one from the other. When the children were seven years old, their father took one of them with him on a voyage to Tarentum. There, as it happened, great crowds had assembled to witness the public games, and among them the child was lost. He was found by a merchant from Epidamnus, who took him * Of late years it seems to have become the fashion for persons to undertake the exposition of Elizabethan literature, who are entirely unacquainted with the Latin dramatists, regardless of the fact that Elizabethan writers were all forming themselves on classical models. A very curious illustration of the result may be found in the Mermaid Edition of Dekker's plays, London, 1887. Thus in the Shoemaker's Holiday' (I. i., p. 12) we have an amazing note on the following speech of Eyre to his wife: "Away with your pishery-pashery, your pols and your edepols." The editor explains that "pols and edepols is apparently one of Eyre's improvised phrases, referring to his wife's trick of repeating herself!" Pol or edepol is, however, a Roman oath, meaning by Pollux, and, like ecastor, by Castor, was in common use on the Roman stage. |