SOME PERPLEXITIES IN SHAKESPEARE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1461, 8 June 1912, Page 9

SOME PERPLEXITIES IN SHAKESPEARE.

It is reported of Lord Hyrou (hat when asked the cause of his notorious estrangement from his wile, he replied: "Jt is too dimple ever to be, found out." I suggest in all humility that much in Shakespeare which has,so long perplexed his critics might find a solution in this iVireetion. 'Hie worship of Shakespeareami no one hn< a greater worship than I lie present writer--has become fanatical adoration: imbed, Io" criticise al all is to r-om'mil h-V-majestr in art. Is it m.l. possible, however, that what Is railed deep mav he at limes merely turbid, and lint what is called sulitl- i< on occasion an ill-consiilrrcd ronceplinii. The brilliant :iinl successful revival of "1)1 In-llo" bv Sir Herbert. Tree at. If:s Majesty's Theatre, affords a ease in point; for criticisms directed against both his performance and that of Mr. Laurence Irving should have been levelled at tho play rather than at: the nbivers. There is the question of Othello's nationality and appearance. According to Shakespeare—and the point is insisted on again and apoin—though described as a Moor, he is in reality a fullblooded negro. And be it n nieinbered that in this tragedy, at anyrale, lln-quo-lion of caste is the tragedy. II would be difiieiilt Io gather from any two quarters of the habitable globe two types of face more, opposed than that of Moor

and negro. Yet imagine the following passago spoken through protruded "thick lips" and with heave of a "sooty bosom": had it pleased heaven To Iry mo with affliction; had it rain'd All kinds of sores ami shames on mv bare head. Sloep'd mo in poverty to Hie very lips, tliveu t.i captivity mo and my utmost hopes, I should have found in some part of my soul A drop of patience: but, alas, to make me The fixed figure of Iho time, for scorn To p.iint his slow umaoving linger at! let could 1 bear that too; well, very well; Hut Ihero where 1 havo yarnee'd up my heart. Where either I must live or bear no life; The fountain from tho which my current runs, Or else dries up; lo bo discarded thence! Yet this is Iho dilemma which confronts every vclor who would plav Othello, lie must cither "look Die part" according I.) Shakespeare, <:n which case the emotion ho expresses is unconvincing, and tho poetry sounds unnatural, or ho must ropic-ent tho Moor in the proper Moorish hue and as a gentleman, in which caso he. is called lo account for disregarding Shakespeare's express description, and (ho opilhct "black" is hurled in his iace. Sir Herbert Tree in Iho present revival has, .[' think, wisely decided lc risk the lesser of two charges. But why should the poet luivo inflicted on his id a.vers the necessity of facing anv charge at all? Here, then, J venture to suggest that the explanation of this in-' consi.-lcm-y lies not in any complex depih ol intellect, but in a sheer lack of lucidity. So, 100, willi lago. Whatever different concepts of tragedy there may be. as to whether tragedy proceeds from character alone or ficin a ruthless succession of events, Ihis much is certain: that the promises should bo clear and clearly stated at tho outset, even at the risk, if necessary, of seeming uudulv prolonged. But what are the premises of "Othello?" The confusion with regard to the personality of the Moor has been already noticed; but what is it that involves him in ultimate despair and ruin? The machinations of lago; and the motive of these is obscure enough. Was it then, as is stated, tho hatred of the lesser for the higher being? Qr was it. as is also stated, a merely sordid and suspicious icalousy with regard lo Emilia? Or, finally, are we to take refuge with Coleridge in "tho molive-iuinlingof a motiveless malignity"? Any one of these three solutions can" bo elaborately defended. The point, hewever, is that the bare structure on which a tragedy rests must not for a moment be open to doubt. Did Shakespeare realise this difficulty, or, realising, did he care? So, too, with the everlasting debate on the madness of Hamlet. Shakespeare took tho story as he found it because it saved him trouble. Tn the play, therefore. a 5 in the story, Hamlet feigns madness; but in certain concluding scenes of tho playit is evident, bcth from his action and from his speech, that his reason is now, if not dethroned, at least disordered. Can, then, it man feign madness and yet bo really mad? Shakespeare's critics resolutely refuse to admit, cither hero or elsewhere, that this confusion of conception is probably due to mere carelessness. Hid Hamlet in realily love Ophelia, or did he not? This' matter has been debated for centuries by critics striving perpetually tn find some deep solution, incomprehensible to the average mind. But did Shukcsncarc realise the difficulty at all, or, realising, did he care? l'Mtbably not, and this explanation, .simple, ikough it be, corresponds with what wo know, little enough, of his personality and private life.—Stephen Phillips, in the ''Westminster Gazette."