Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

stolen venison, Shakespeare went to London new light over the history of Shakespeare's in 1581 ; and Mr. Halliwell thinks that he mind, and the development of his opinions

. may have been an actor in 1582. It would | We have already seen Nash referring Shakebe quite consonant with tradition to suppose speare to English Seneca for such sentences that he began his career of author, as well as - blood is a beggar.” Those who are acas his career of player, as a young malcon- quainted with the history of the times know tent, in opposition both to the laws and to of the persistent policy by which the Tudors the governors of his country.

sought to depress and impoverish the old But whatever conclusions we may arrive nobility, and raise up rivals against them in at in the instance of Pericles, one thing is new men, and of the opposition which this certain-namely, that the Elizabethan dra- policy aroused in men of various tendencies. matists, and Shakespeare perhaps more than Here, then, is one topic, one line of investiany other of them, give the abstracts and gation of Shakespeare's relations with current brief chronicles of their own age, translated political ideas, which is calculated to throw into and symbolized by the chronicles of much light on the intention of his chronicle other countries and of former times. Herein plays. Another topic is his relation with we have a line of investigation which is the ideas represented by the Earl of Essex wholly unworked, and which promises con- and his party. It may safely be said that siderable results. The labours of Shake- the politics of that period can be fully eluspearean critics have been chiefly occupied cidated only by the contemporary criticism in finding literary correspondences, in trac- of the stage. The two, the fact and the ing the origin of his plots, and discovering the comment, mutually reflect light; and neither sources of his expressions. The task still history nor literary criticism can dispense remains, to trace his political correspon- with the method which interprets each by dences and thus to discover his political, and the other. even perhaps his philosophical and religious, And such a method requires quite a new affinities. It is only thus that we shall come way of dealing with the dramas of Shaketo understand the true growth and the vital speare. Since for many years of his life his nature of the Elizabethan drama. It was authorship was a secret, it follows that the not a fixed manufacture, but a living Proteus, history of his dramas ought to be traced far having its home not in printed books but in beyond and behind the first acknowledged an alterable manuscript and in the changeful and named editions of his plays. It is mera memories of the actors; it was a thing which superstition to identify the dates of their could be adapted to many purposes, and printing with those of their first composiinade to correspond to various occasions, by tion. In an age when even poems meant slight alterations, omissions, and additions. only to be read were circulated in manuA new prologue might give quite a new script for years before they were printed, it drift to old allusions; an intercalated speech, is preposterous to identify the period of the such as Hamlet talks of, might make an in- production with that of the printing of: nocent play into “ mitching mallecho" that play. The play was seldom printed till it

means mischief.” The play was never fin- had become obsolete. If the method in ally fixed till it was printed ; and even then question could be carried out, we should be it was only fixed in what might soon prove able to trace the dramatic career of Shakean obsolete and antiquated form. Indeed, speare from the first years of his coming to there are many indications to show that, London, from 1581 instead of 1591, and to when the players had finally abandoned an understand his critical, not practical, relaold form of a drama, they handed it over to tionship to the events of his time, and thence the printers, in order to make profit of the to deduce his position in his own world. old form as a pamphlet, while they made The very perfection of his artistic powers profit of the new form as a play. Henslow's has led to a depreciation of his personality

: diary tells us a good deal of the fact of the He is regarded rather as a mirror in which adaptation of old plays for new occasions, nature is perfectly reflected than as a person such as for exhibition at court. It is a pro- actuated by the common motives of nature. blem for the critic, to trace this gradual The ideal usually formed of him is one in growth of plays, to find the original matter which the preference of one thing over anobelow the luxuriant after-growth, and to trace ther is limited to the most rudimentary plathe dates and the occasions of the various titudes; and it is thought derogatory additions. It is a difficult, but perhaps not genius to make him an upholder of auy wholly impossible task; and any successful principle worth asserting. It would be a solution of the problem, even with regard to good deed to remove him from this Epicua limited number of plays, would shed a rean heaven of moral indifference, and to

66

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

show that he took, as a reasoner, a decided | But it is monstrous to suppose that nobody part in the affairs which engrossed the high- knows, and that scarcely anybody cares to est minds of his day.

know, whether his will is bond or free. This is so hard to believe that it rather suggests a trenchant remark, by way of ending the controversy at a blow. Every man, it might be said, has a will of some sort or

other, which he exercises all day long in ART. IV.-THE WILL AND FREEWILL. some way or other; and doubtless he knows

how this will works, as well as he ever can THERE is no need of many words to prove know anything; therefore you may call it the exceeding difficulty of the question bond or free as you please. Though this usually proposed under the term Freedom of will hardly prove the discussion to have been the Will

. In Great Britain it has attracted nugatory, yet it is enough to advance us to more of the attention of philosophers than an important stage in our examination. For any other problem in metaphysics ; and it is it does prove that the real point at issue perhaps further than any other from showing must have been, not the facts of volition, but signs of approaching settlement. When we something connected with the facts of volireview what has been already urged in the tion by way of inference. And we accordcourse of the controversy, and ask ourselves ingly find that speculators have been under how the opposed views may be made more an obligation to propose no theory of the intelligible to the opponents, we might easily will which should tend to alter practice, just conclude that nothing now remains to be as they were bound, in their disputes about done, and that the question must be left un- the evidence of the senses, to admit beforeanswered, apparently, for ever. At present, hand that their conclusions, whatever they the principal combatants seem to be reduced might be, would leave the world just as they to a blank aye on the one side, and a blank had found it. The attempt to give a pracno on the other. We have to consider once tical issue to speculations about the will has more whether it is possible to advance be-commonly involved the speculator in absuryond this stage ; and, even if it should ap- dity. In the last century some so-called pear to be impossible, something will be Fatalists proposed to abrogate all penal laws, gained by exhibiting the impossibility. It on the ground that it is unjust to punish an will therefore be my object, not so much to involuntary malefactor; as if, said Bishop prove the truth of my own opinion, as to as Butler, the necessity which is supposed to certain what is the point at issue, and to set destroy the injustice of the crime would not forth impartially what has been said on all also destroy the injustice of punishing it. sides. When that has been done, it will be And Priestley, who, following Hartley, comparatively easy to state my own view. seems to have held precisely the same theory It would be no small thing to determine the of the will with Mr. J. S. Mill, though the point at issue, and the number of possible former used it to support a conclusion (Optidoctrines about it, and what these are, and mism) which the latter seems not to accept, what are the arguments for and against each speaks with equal wisdom. "I cannot," he of them, and what consequences they logi- says, “ as a necessarian” (meaning a necescally entail upon their adherents. Then it sitarian, sneers Boswell, who quotes the pasmay be hoped that each of us will at least sage), “hate any man; because I regard him know what it is that he believes, and why as being, in all respects, just what God has he believes it, and who are his opponents, de him to be, and also as doing, with reand why they differ from him. This, then, spect to me, nothing but what he was exwill be the scope of my undertaking :-I. To pressly designed and appointed to do; God ascertain the point at issue ; II. To examine being the only cause, and man nothing more the arguments commonly alleged ; III. To than the instrument in his hands to execute add what I have to say on my own behalf. all his good pleasure."*

Now of course the It will be sufficient for my purpose to refer Fatalist might plead that he had made his exclusively to writers of the British Schools. absurd proposal by decree of Fate ; and

Priestley might find some sort of shelter for Not the least puzzling feature in the pre- himself under Philosophical Necessity. But sent inquiry is the fact that the great bulk of in the eye of common sense, each has the practical men in the world are utterly mightily the air of a man who is testifying indifferent to the whole matter. Only one to the freedom of his own will, with which thing seems to be ascertained—that, while the philosophers differ toto cælo, the world

* The Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity Illusis apathetic or even ignorant of the fact trated, 1782, p. 128.

N--4

[ocr errors]

VOL. LII.

stolen venison, Shakespeare went to London new light over the history of Shakespeare's in 1581; and Mr. Halliwell thinks that he mind, and the development of his opinions. may have been an actor in 1582. It would We have already seen Nash referring Shakebe quite consonant with tradition to suppose speare to English Seneca for such sentences that he began his career of author, as well as “ blood is a beggar.” Those who are acas his career of player, as a young malcon- quainted with the history of the times know tent, in opposition both to the laws and to of the persistent policy by which the Tudors the governors of his country.

sought to depress and impoverish the old But whatever conclusions we may arrive nobility, and raise up rivals against them in at in the instance of Pericles, one thing is new men, and of the opposition which this certain-namely, that the Elizabethan dra- policy aroused in men of various tendencies. matists, and Shakespeare perhaps more than Here, then, is one topic, one line of investiany other of them, give the abstracts and gation of Shakespeare's relations with current brief chronieles of their own age, translated political ideas, which is calculated to throw into and symbolized by the chronicles of much light on the intention of his chronicle other countries and of former times. Herein plays. Another topic is his relation with We have a line of investigation which is the ideas represented by the Earl of Essex wholly unworked, and which promises con- and his party. It may safely be said that siderable results. The labours of Shake the politics of that period can be fully eluspearean crities have been chiefly occupied cidated only by the contemporary criticism in finding literary correspondences, in trae- of the stage. The two, the fact and the ing the origin of his plots, and discovering the comment, mutually reflect light; and neither sources of his expressions. The task still history nor literary criticism can dispense remains to trace his political correspon- with the method which interprets each by derees and thus to discover his political, and the other. even perhaps his philosophical and religious, And such a method requires quite a new etfinities. It is only thus that we shall come way of dealing with the dramas of Shaketo understand the true growth and the rital speare. Since for many years of his life his nature of the Elizabethan drama. It was authorship was a secret, it follows that the not a tired manufzeture, but a living Proteus history of his dramas ought to be traced far having its home net in printed books but in berond and behind the first acknowledged an alterable manuscript and in the change!ul and named editions of his plats. It is mera memories of the actors; it was a thing which superstition to identify the dates of their eould be s ispred to many purposes, and printing with those of their Est composiinade to correspond to rarious occasions, by tion. In an are when eren poems meant slight alterations, omissions, and additions, i only to be real were cirerated in mạnuA new pro rue ruight give quite a new seript for years before they were printed, it driftslasious: an intenslated speech, is preposterous to identify the period of the sach us !Iamlet talks of. might make an in- production with that of the painting of a nokent play into “mitchiny malecho" that play. The play was seldom ained till it omneang mischiet." The play was nerer tio- hai bune obsolere. If the method in ally sisi ti it was priatei; and eren then question esalj be carried out, we should be it was orir drei in what migas suur prurz able to mae the dramatis esraar of Shake

obsite ad sutiquated form. Indeed, speare fron the first years of his coming to there are maar indications to show that. London, fron 1551 izsteai of 1591. aad to when the parais had finals svandoned an understand his erits! not partial releold form of a drama, they hadzi it orar to'tionship to the events of his time and hence the printers in order to make puit of the to deduce his position is his own sərld

. vid tumassa pumphlet, wile they made The rat perfection of his arisie powers profit eine nespora ss a par, Heston's Essledi a depreciation of his personality: diary and desi of the fast of the He is nulei rather as a rinn ia waich adago el plass for 225 Ocussions asture is pertany rdetei taxes 3 reson saca satirerudicijos cuart. It is a po- saated by the conna metres of astare

. den for be eziti: trace this grijual The ideal tsar forei of Liz is one in owh of pars i ini che original matter. Erich the prince of one this: deireistarter past so true the is limited to the morninay plathe dites siibe ones of the various stales: azi is is consider nobis aitses K***a: 53: perhaps Des genius o masa kina urade of any wirine tass; and ser sacuestad przepie vrà ring It cibe : soba, crea with a tod deed to rezzera bifru Epicsà Emzie of purs would szi a ran bearen of moral instve, and w

[ocr errors]

show that he took, as a reasoner, a decided But it is monstrous to suppose that nobody part in the affairs which engrossed the high- knows, and that scarcely anybody cares to est minds of his day.

know, whether his will is bond or free. This is so hard to believe that it rather suggests a trenchant remark, by way of ending the controversy at a blow. Every man, it might be said, has a will of some sort or

other, which he exercises all day long in ART. IV.—THE WILL AND FREEWILL. some way or other; and doubtless he knows

how this will works, as well as he ever can There is no need of many words to prove know anything; therefore you may call it the exceeding difficulty of the question bond or free as you please. Though this usually proposed under the term Freedom of will hardly prove the discussion to have been the Will

. In Great Britain it has attracted nugatory, yet it is enough to advance us to more of the attention of philosophers than an important stage in our examination. For any other problem in metaphysics; and it is it does prove that the real point at issue perhaps further than any other from showing must have been, not the facts of volition, but signs of approaching settlement. When we something connected with the facts of volireview what has been already urged in the tion by way of inference. And we accordcourse of the controversy, and ask ourselves ingly find that speculators have been under how the opposed views may be made more an obligation to propose no theory of the intelligible to the opponents, we might easily will which should tend to alter practice, just conclude that nothing now remains to be as they were bound, in their disputes about done, and that the question must be left un- the evidence of the senses, to admit beforeanswered, apparently, for ever. At present, hand that their conclusions, whatever they the principal combatants seem to be reduced might be, would leave the world just as they to a blank aye on the one side, and a blank had found it. The attempt to give a pracno on the other. We have to consider once tical issue to speculations about the will has more whether it is possible to advance be- commonly involved the speculator in absuryond this stage; and, even if it should ap- dity. In the last century some so-called pear to be impossible, something will be Fatalists proposed to abrogate all penal laws, gained by exhibiting the impossibility. It on the ground that it is unjust to punish an will therefore be my object, not so much to involuntary malefactor; as if, said Bishop prove the truth of my own opinion, as to as Butler, the necessity which is supposed to certain what is the point at issue, and to set destroy the injustice of the crime would not forth impartially what has been said on all also destroy the injustice of punishing it. sides. When that has been done, it will be And Priestley, who, following Hartley, comparatively easy to state my own view. seems to have held precisely the same theory It would be no small thing to determine the of the will with Mr. J. S. Mill, though the point at issue, and the number of possible former used it to support a conclusion (Optidoctrines about it, and what these are, and mism) which the latter seems not to accept, what are the arguments for and against each speaks with equal wisdom. “ I cannot,” he of them, and what consequences they logi- says, as a necessarian” (meaning a necescally entail upon their adherents. Then it sitarian, sneers Boswell, who quotes the pasmay be hoped that each of us will at least sage), “ hate any man; because I regard him know what it is that he believes, and why as being, in all respects, just what God has he believes it, and who are his opponents,

ad him to be, and also as doing, with reand why they differ from him. This, then, spect to me, nothing but what he was exwill be the scope of my undertaking :-I. To pressly designed and appointed to do; God ascertain the point at issue; II. To examine being the only cause, and man nothing more the arguments commonly alleged ; III. To than the instrument in his hands to execute add what I have to say on my own behalf. all his good pleasure."* Now of course the It will be sufficient for my purpose to refer Fatalist might plead that he had made his exclusively to writers of the British Schools. absurd proposal by decree of Fate ; and

Priestley might find some sort of shelter for Not the least puzzling feature in the pre- himself under Philosophical Necessity. But sent inquiry is the fact that the great bulk of in the eye of common sense, each has the practical men in the world are utterly mightily the air of a man who is testifying indifferent to the whole matter. Only one to the freedom of his own will, with which thing seems to be ascertained—that, while the philosophers differ toto cælo, the world

* The Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity Illusis apathetic or even ignorant of the fact. | trated, 1782, p. 124.

N--4

66

VOL, LII.

he is well acquainted, and to the bondage of | have been used ; for these sometimes refer the will of his neighbour, about which he directly to the facts of volition, and someknows nothing.

times to inferences supposed to be drawn A mere question of fact can hardly supply from the facts. That the inferences and not matter for infinite discussion ; because the the facts were the point at issue, appears relevant facts must either be such as can be from this, that though all parties made much observed, or else such as cannot, and in both parade of analysing the facts yet they did cases we have an end in view. Not but not rest in the result of their analysis as in what the facts of volition are difficult to ob- an end, but proceeded to use it as a means serve; because they are acts of the mind to impugn or support certain inferences. which have been so often performed without Little importance was attached to a knowobservation that observation has at length ledge of the facts, except by way of an arbecome both irksome and difficult. Long gument; and therefore the doctrine which study and patient care are needed in order the argument was designed to support was that the observer may feel assured that his the real aim of their proceeding, rather task has been well done and truly remem- than the facts from which the argument was bered ; nor is any person fitted to consider drawn. Now these inferences, which I take the weight of the arguments until he has to be the real issue, were twofold, a philowith much pains acquired a clear knowledge sophical and a theological; and so the conof the facts

. Few of the people who have troversy has always presented a twofold asventured to act as judges have cared to take pect, with a corresponding twofold method the necessary trouble; and this goes far to of proceeding. Those who have approached explain why the controversy has always the question from a philosophical point of come to nothing. If the facts of volition view have been concerned with the vulgar were as easy of observation as the facts of notion of moral desert: those who have apvision, the theory of the will would perhaps proached it from a theological point of view, be now in the same state as the theory have been concerned with the efficacy of of optics. But facts accompanying acts of Divine Grace. The philosophers have chiefbodily sensation are much more easy both to ly appealed to facts of observation, and the observe and to remember than facts of purely theologians to facts of revelation ; but since mental sensation.

there are some doctrines, belonging both to Perhaps it may be thought that the conclu- Natural and to Revealed Religion, which sion, that the debate was properly not about have an intimate bearing upon the discussion

, the facts but about inferences to be drawn there has always been a great tendency to from the facts, is so obvious as to need no confuse together the two aspects of the quesproof. But it is by no means so obvious as tion, and the two methods of treating it, never to have been overlooked. On the con- And those who have been most successful trary, the confusion has been very common; in keeping to one method and aspect seem and hence we find such phrases as Freedom to have done so by accident rather than by of the Will used habitually in two senses. design, appearing not to know that it was Practical sagacity kept the disputants right possible to look at the question in any other in the main; because ambiguity of terms light than that in which they looked at it does not produce error unless the same term themselves

. My attempt to treat the matter is used in two senses in the same syllogism, will be avowedly philosophical ; and theoloso that the syllogism contains four terms.

But gical ideas and arguments will enter into it it was something added to a load of difficul- only accidentally, and so far as they are neties, that everybody, so to speak, should have cessary to a complete discussion. Since apprehended only dimly what was the mat- speculation is empty when pursued with no ter in dispute, and what the facts of volition reference to possible practice, and since the had to do with it; though this confusion theory of the will is connected, though in; was not the cause of their failure, and clear- directly, with matters of the gravest practical ness would only have enabled them, not to interest, it would be unwise to pass by theodo what they attempted, but to do by a shorter logical lines of thought, if they should cross method what they did—viz. to edify them- our path, without a hint either of their exiiselves by the statement of their own position, tence or of their direction. And we should without convincing those who differed from remember that it is solely to its bearing upthem.

on theology that the question owes any

wideA great

deal of light is thrown upon the ly spread interest which it has ever aroused. question, what is the real matter in dispute, Yet it is true that the two modes of proceedand what is its relation to the facts of voli- | ing can be to a great extent kept apart, tion, by considering the double sense in it is enough, while pursuing the one, to inwhich the terms peculiar to the controversy dicate briefly the nature of the other. What

so that

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »