the victim of a determined man; Shakespeare's is a sudden, a willing, and an impossible wanton. If it was the purpose of the dramatist to emphasize her defection, he overreached himself and defeated that purpose. This may be partly accounted for in my remark on Troilus on the former page.

Most of the other characters bear labels on their backs, and the labels are often conventional; Thersites is "a scurvy, railing knave";1 Nestor "he cannot but be wise "; Agamemnon is "the great commander," and so forth; these require no comment; but I cannot help repeating that one of them is labelled "Shakespeare,” viz. Ulysses.

No wonder, therefore, that this drama is deep-thoughted beyond the rest; beyond even Hamlet; not ethically, perhaps, but socially, politically, and I might add, scientifically. We shall not again hear so much from Shakespeare himself until we reach "The Tempest"; but there the thought will be as wide and as lofty as here it is deep.

As to Shakespeare's “Iliad” in miniature, which is the background of the Cressida story, it is wonderfully contrived in such a narrow compass; and whatever may seem burlesque in it belongs more to the age of Shakespeare than to the writer.

(30) MEASURE FOR MEASURE, 1604

Historical Particulars

As far as we know, this play was first printed in the Folio of 1623, where the text presents many difficulties. The figure in II. iv. 24, "So play," etc., seems to have been imitated in the "Myrrha" of W. Barksted, 1607; and we have possible allusions to the accession of James I in I. i. 68 sqq., and II. iv. 27 sqq. Further, the forged entry in the accounts of the "Revels " gives the year 1604,

1 Troilus and Thersites have some resemblance to Timon and Apemantus.

which is probably very near the true date of the play. It certainly belongs to the "Hamlet" period,' both as regards manner and matter, and it has affinities with "Troilus and Cressida," "Othello," and "All's Well that Ends Well."

Shakespeare's immediate authority was George Whetstone's "Promos and Cassandra," published in 1578. This play in two parts attempts to introduce order into the English drama which it had found too much "out of order "-so says the Dedication; but Shakespeare gave more attention to the materials it supplied than to the principles it professed to illustrate; some of these materials—“The vertuous Behaviours of a chaste Ladye”. are set forth in its long title-page. Four years later Whetstone re-told the story in prose ("Heptameron of Civil Discourses," 1582).

But the Italian novelist, Cinthio, from whom Shakespeare was to take his Othello, had already twice told the story of Whetstone; we find it in a tragedy, "Epitia," and in the "Hecatommithi" (Dec. VIII, Nov. 5). On this novel, which may also have contributed to "Measure for Measure," Whetstone made little advance; but Shakespeare after his wont re-creates to such moral and artistic purpose that his own comparison, "Hyperion to a Satyr," is both apt and just if applied to his resulting play. Cinthio's "Epitia," though untranslated, may also have given him some help; from it he probably took the name Angela, which he slightly changed in spelling.

The extent to which Shakespeare transformed his original will be understood if I mention that in Whetstone's long and clumsy drama, Cassandra, who corresponds to Isabella, forfeits her honour to save her brother's life; and his "Heptameron," where she is compared to Lucretia, is an attempt to justify her conduct.

1 For a detail, cf. the curious figure "skins the vice o' the top" (II. ii. 136) with "skin and film the ulcerous place" ("Hamlet," III. iv. 147).

The time analysis is: 1st day, I. i. Interval. 2nd day, I. ii.-IV. ii. 3rd day, IV. ii.-iv. 4th day, IV. v, vi.; V.

Critical remarks

The main motive of this play may be found in its title; "Measure for measure must be answered" (3 Henry VI, II. vi. 55); it was death for death in the earlier play, and though the fine is remitted, it is "death for death" here (V. i. 16); for "where the evill is derived from a man's own fault, there all strikes deadly inwardes and suffocateth." But, adds Bacon, "the reprehension of this colour is first in respect of hope, for reformation of our faultes is in nostra potestate." Therefore Shakespeare pardons Angelo, for sorrow sticks deep in his penitent heart.

There is a good deal of philosophy in all the plays of Shakespeare; there is most in the three plays, "Hamlet," "Measure for Measure," and "Troilus and Cressida "problem plays, I might almost call them. "Hamlet," as I have pointed out, is Shakespeare's philosophy and criticism of life in general, but embodied in the person of one individual; in the other two plays, though we have the Duke in one and Ulysses in the other, the philosophy is more special; in the first it is the philosophy of morals, notably in the light of the new Puritanism; in the second, of politics and society.

Appreciation of these three plays-we may add, of Shakespeare--is impossible without an acquaintance with the writings of Shakespeare's great contemporary, Bacon. In this volume I cannot always support a statement with an illustration, for the subject is vast and details must sometimes be sacrificed; but it may encourage the student if I direct him to Bacon's "Colours of Good and Evil" and his "Meditationes sacrae" and the earlier "Essays,"

1 "Colours of Good and Evil," viii.

U

which I think Shakespeare must have been studying about this time. (See also pp. 292, and 309, footnote.)

And in dealing with this philosophy of morals as we find it in "Measure for Measure," I must again refer to Bacon; for the doctrines of Shakespeare are based, like Bacon's, on the classics, the schools, on logic good or bad, even on verbal quibbles; but seldom on religious dogma; neither writer will permit his philosophy to encroach on the province of that "eternal blazon" which "is not for mortal ears.” It is possible, however, that Shakespeare, who in "Twelfth Night" had smiled at the social extravagancies of the Puritans, may here, in "Measure for Measure," be delivering his protest against their extravagance in doctrine.

But the poet in Shakespeare comes first, and the philosopher only second; and the title of the play should rather be "Isabella." It is better to know the dramas of Shakespeare by their women than by their philosophy; and of these women Isabella is the best. You may like them for several virtues, these women; and by the word "best" I mean the most "moral"; this accords with the whole scheme of the play. Isabella-we conclude with the poet's own description-is a saint. I am not quoting "a thing ensky'd and sainted"; these words have reference to the cloister; but I allude to II. ii. 181-2. Again, let me illustrate, and by comparison; there is no inductive method in literature. Isabella we may compare with the Portia of "The Merchant of Venice," and the distinction is most striking; she combines all the daring of Portia with cold calmness and a hesitancy of peculiar charm. Portia would have importuned Angelo quite otherwise (II. ii.); Isabella is at war 'twixt will and will not; but for the urgency of Lucio she might have withdrawn from the contest; this is one of the finest things in the play. But as she proceeds, love dominates the scruple of morality, and she gains the respite of another interview.

But although the character of Isabella is magnificent and especially belies that current doctrine, "virginity, though valiant in the defence, yet is weak" ("All's Well," I. i. 126), there are still some traces of convention in the play: "Women are frail" (II. iv. 124); “Then was your sin of heavier kind?" (II. iii. 28); these, however, are slight, compared with the enormous advance in Shakespeare's art and ethics as illustrated by Isabella. But even Mariana is a noteworthy example of womanly virtue and constancy, well worthy to inspire two of the most characteristic of Tennyson's lyrical poems; nor are we reconciled to her devotion to Angelo, however repentant.

Indeed the character of Angelo involves a difficulty; this is not the only occasion on which we find Shakespeare blowing hot and cold with the same breath; the dramatist sets before us a man whose past is pure, but whose pride of doctrine comes before a fall; yet Angelo's past is by no means pure; "thou cruel Angelo," said Mariana; this was the Angelo of five years before, and he merely renews his crimes by the despicable attempt to throw mud (V. i. 220-3) on the woman, his combinate wife, whom he had deserted because she lost her fortune; Isabella "partly thinks A due sincerity governed his deeds"; so does Shakespeare; it suits his moral scheme; but I prefer the estimate of Mariana and the overwhelming evidence of all that early baseness.

The character of Claudio is distressing to the last degree; I find no stumbling-block, moral or artistic, in the Mariana episode or the Duke's slender disguise; all this is implied and involved in the ideal; but Claudio's abject and clamorous "Nay, hear me Isabel!" (III. i. 147) is the most dreadful mistake in all the drama of Shakespeare; one fire drives out another's burning; and this fire from hell pales if it does not quench the flame on the altar of Vesta. So Shakespeare sacrificed Emilia for Desdemona or Caesar for Brutus.