ON THE PRINCIPLES OF SHAKESPEAREAN INTERPRETATION
ON THE PRINCIPLES OF
SHAKESPEAREAN INTERPRETATION
The following essays
present an interpretation of Shakespeare’s work which may tend at first to
confuse and perhaps even repel the reader: therefore I here try to clarify the
points at issue. In this essay I outline what I believe to be the main
hindrances to a proper understanding of Shakespeare; I also suggest the path
which I think a sound interpretation should pursue. My remarks are, however, to
be read as a counsel of perfection. Yet, though I cannot claim to follow them
throughout in practice, this preliminary discussion, in showing what I have
been at pains to do and to avoid, will serve to indicate the direction of my
attempt.
THE
SHAKESPEAREAN METAPHYSIC
Two groups must be contrasted: first, plays of the hate-theme, that is:
Hamlet, Troilus and Cressida, Othello, King Lear, Timon of Athens; second,
plays analysing evil in the human mind: the Brutus-theme in Julius Caesar,
Hamlet, and Macbeth. The division cannot be absolute: Hamlet’s mental agony has
much of the abysmal and bottomless nightmare fear of Macbeth; Measure for
Measure, being related to both sex and temptation, touches both groups. But I
shall first notice the two kinds primarily in their difference, laying no
emphasis on those points where they blend with each other and are seen to be ultimately
two aspects of one reality: at the extremes it will be clear that the
divergence is both rigid and important. I shall first make some general remarks
to clarify the points at issue with reference to the Macbeth evil.
HAMLET RECONSIDERED
This essay, a rough preliminary draft of
which I have had by me for a number of years, is intended to supplement, though
not to replace, those already written (including my ‘Rose of May’ in The
Imperial Theme). I hope all the essays will be read in conjunction. It is not,
however, supposed that they exhaust the latent meanings of Hamlet; and I would
draw the attention of my readers to Mr. Roy Walker’s very important study in
imaginative interpretation, The Time is Out of Joint, being published by Andrew
Dakers (which I had the privilege of seeing in typescript). Though our
approaches are basically similar, and our material in places overlaps, the
clashes are, on the whole, comparatively few: an additional witness, if such be
needed, of the play’s peculiar and inexhaustible wealth.
THE LEAR UNIVERSE
There has been a remark that all
the persons in King Lear are either very good or very bad. This is an
overstatement, yet one which suggests a profound truth. This chapter
illuminates many human and natural qualities in the Lear universe and tends to
reveal its implicit philosophy. King Lear is a tragic vision of humanity, in
its complexity, its interplay of purpose, its travailing evolution. The play is
a microcosm of the human race—strange as that word ‘microcosm’ sounds for the
vastness, the width and depth, the vague vistas which this play reveals. The
chapter analyses certain strata in the play’s thought, thus making more clear
the quality of the mysterious presence enveloping the action. The naturalism of
King Lear is agnostic and sombre often, and often beautiful. Human life is
shown as a painful, slow struggle, in which man travails to be born from
animal-nature into his destined inheritance of human nature and supreme love.
Comments