FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   >>  
est' or 'Winter's Tale,'" "that the relation commonly thought to have existed between them and Shakspere is precisely reversed." Let us answer both Teacher and Pupil. Suppose, to follow the Thorndike method, that "Cymbeline" appeared before "Philaster," that six romances by Beaumont and Fletcher followed in rapid succession, while only two by Shakspere appeared, but differing essentially from each other and from "Philaster." Suppose that "Cymbeline" upon its first night "filled the audience with surprise and delight," that Beaumont and Fletcher, perceiving "its dramatic and poetic excellence," copied in "Philaster" a portion of its plot and attempted to copy some of its characters and situations. Suppose their experiment with this copy took the crowd by storm--Isn't it reasonable to suppose that they would repeat the profitable attempt as many times as the applause warranted? Isn't that just what they did, repeating and imitating themselves over and over, until Beaumont died? Does the number of repetitions and imitations increase the "plausibility" or "likelihood" of the theory that "Philaster" was the original of the type? If Shakspere found his gain increasing by copying the fable, character, style, and denouement of "Philaster," why did he not continue to copy in "The Tempest" and "Winter's Tale," and why is it impossible for Professor Thorndike to deny originality to either of these plays, except by his careless error as to Miranda's "proposal" and the reference to Lady Amelia gathering flowers at Oxford in 1566? Professor Thorndike's argument comes to this and only this: If Shakspere wrote "Cymbeline" before Beaumont and Fletcher wrote "Philaster," then Shakspere was the "creator of the heroic romances." If the question of priority is doubtful, it is just as impossible to prove the "plausibility" or "likelihood" of priority as it is to prove the date. There is no proof, therefore, no presumption, strong or weak, that "Cymbeline" was influenced by "Philaster" or was a "copy" of it. But there is proof that Beaumont and Fletcher repeatedly and habitually imitated Shakspere, and we cite it mostly from Professor Thorndike's essay. In "The Two Noble Kinsmen" there is a "distinct imitation of the circumstances of Ophelia's madness and death in Hamlet." In "The Woman Hater," assigned conjecturally to 1605 or 1606 by Professor Thorndike, there are "several burlesque imitations of Hamlet." In "The Knight of the Burning
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   >>  



Top keywords:
Philaster
 

Shakspere

 
Thorndike
 

Beaumont

 
Professor
 
Cymbeline
 
Fletcher
 

Suppose

 

plausibility

 

likelihood


Hamlet

 

priority

 

Winter

 

impossible

 

romances

 

appeared

 

imitations

 

flowers

 

continue

 

Oxford


originality

 

denouement

 

Tempest

 

proposal

 
Miranda
 
reference
 

gathering

 

Amelia

 

careless

 

presumption


circumstances

 
Ophelia
 
madness
 

imitation

 

distinct

 

Kinsmen

 

burlesque

 

Knight

 

Burning

 
assigned

conjecturally
 
doubtful
 

question

 

heroic

 
creator
 

character

 

strong

 

imitated

 

habitually

 
repeatedly