A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W X Z

A History of English Literature

R >> Robert Huntington Fletcher >> A History of English Literature




The historical element in the poem above referred to is this: In several
places mention is made of the fact that Hygelac, Béowulf's king, was killed
in an expedition in Frisia (Holland), and medieval Latin chronicles make
mention of the death of a king 'Chocilaicus' (evidently the same person) in
a piratical raid in 512 A. D. The poem states that Béowulf escaped from
this defeat by swimming, and it is quite possible that he was a real
warrior who thus distinguished himself.

The other facts at the basis of the poem are equally uncertain. In spite of
much investigation we can say of the tribes and localities which appear in
it only that they are those of the region of Scandinavia and Northern
Germany. As to date, poems about a historical Béowulf, a follower of
Hygelac, could not have existed before his lifetime in the sixth century,
but there is no telling how far back the possibly mythical elements may go.
The final working over of the poem into its present shape, as has been
said, probably took place in England in the seventh or eighth century; in
earlier form, perhaps in the original brief ballads, it may have been
brought to the country either by the Anglo-Saxons or by stray 'Danes.' It
is fundamentally a heathen work, and certain Christian ideas which have
been inserted here and there, such as the mention of Cain as the ancestor
of Grendel, and the disparagement of heathen gods, merely show that one of
the later poets who had it in hand was a Christian.

The genealogical introduction of something over fifty lines (down to the
first mention of Hrothgar) has nothing to do with the poem proper; the
Béowulf there mentioned is another person than the hero of the poem. In the
epic itself we can easily recognize as originally separate stories: 1.
Béowulf's fight with Grendel. 2. His fight with Grendel's mother. 3. His
fight with the fire-drake. And of course, 4, the various stories referred
to or incidentally related in brief.

Subjects for discussion: 1. Narrative qualities, such as Movement,
Proportion, Variety, Suspense. Do the style (terse and suggestive rather
than explicit) and the tendency to digressions seriously interfere with
narrative progress and with the reader's (or listener's) understanding? 2.
Dramatic vividness of scenes and incidents. 3. Descriptive qualities. 4. Do
you recognize any specifically epic characteristics? 5. Characterization,
both in general and of individuals. 6. How much of the finer elements of
feeling does the poet show? What things in Nature does he appreciate? His
sense of pathos and humor? 7. Personal and social ideals and customs. 8.
The style; its main traits; the effect of the figures of speech; are the
things used for comparisons in metaphors and similes drawn altogether from
the outer world, or partly from the world of thought? 9. The main merits
and defects of the poem and its absolute poetic value?

Written discussions may well begin with a very brief outline of the story
(not over a single page).

3. Above, chapter II. One day.

4. 'SIR GAWAIN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT' (in translation). One day.
Preliminary, pages 57-58 above. The romance combines two stories which
belong to the great body of wide-spread popular narrative and at first had
no connection with each other: 1. The beheading story. 2. The temptation.
They may have been united either by the present author or by some
predecessor of his. Subjects for discussion: 1. Narrative qualities--Unity,
Movement, Proportion, Variety, Suspense. Is the repetition of the hunts and
of Gawain's experience in the castle skilful or the reverse, in plan and in
execution? 2. Dramatic power--how vivid are the scenes and experiences? How
fully do we sympathize with the characters? 3. Power of characterization
and of psychological analysis? Are the characters types or individuals? 4.
Power of description of scenes, persons, and Nature? 5. Character of the
author? Sense of humor? How much fineness of feeling? 6. Theme of the
story? 7. Do we get an impression of actual life, or of pure romance? Note
specific details of feudal life. 8. Traits of style, such as alliteration
and figures of speech, so far as they can be judged from the translation.

5. THE PERIOD OF CHAUCER. Above, pages 59-73. One day.

6. CHAUCER'S POEMS. Two or three days. The best poems for study are: The
Prolog to the Canterbury Tales. The Nuns' Priest's Tale. The Knight's Tale.
The Squire's Tale. The Prolog to the Legend of Good Women. The text, above,
pp. 65 ff., suggests topics for consideration, if general discussion is
desired in addition to reading of the poems.

7. THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY AND THE POPULAR BALLADS. One day. Study above,
pages 74-77, and read as many ballads as possible. A full discussion of the
questions of ballad origins and the like is to be found in the 'Cambridge'
edition (Houghton Mifflin) of the ballads, edited by Sargent and Kittredge.
In addition to matters treated in the text, consider how much feeling the
authors show for Nature, and their power of description.

8. MALORY AND CAXTON. Two or three days. Study above, pages 77-81, and read
in Le Morte Darthur as much as time permits. Among the best books are: VII,
XXI, I, Xlll-XVII. Subjects for discussion: 1. Narrative qualities. 2.
Characterization, including variety of characters. 3. Amount and quality of
description. 4. How far is the book purely romantic, how far does reality
enter into it? Consider how much notice is given to other classes than the
nobility. 5. The style.

9. THE EARLIER MEDIEVAL DRAMA, INCLUDING THE MYSTERY PLAYS. Two days.
Above, Chapter IV, through page 88. Among the best plays for study are:
Abraham and Isaac (Riverside L. S. vol., p. 7); The Deluge or others in the
Everyman Library vol., pp. 29-135 (but the play 'Everyman' is not a Mystery
play and belongs to the next assignment); or any in Manly's 'Specimens of
the Pre-Shakespearean Drama,' vol. I, pp. 1-211. The Towneley Second
Shepherds' Play (so called because it is the second of two treatments of
the Nativity theme in the Towneley manuscript) is one of the most notable
plays, but is very coarse. Subjects for discussion: 1. Narrative structure
and qualities. 2. Characterization and motivation. 3. How much illusion of
reality? 4. Quality of the religious and human feeling? 5. The humor and
its relation to religious feeling. 6. Literary excellence of both substance
and expression (including the verse form).

10. THE MORALITIES AND INTERLUDES. One day. Above, pp. 89-91. Students not
familiar with 'Everyman' should read it (E. L. S. vol., p. 66; Everyman
Library vol., p. 1). Further may be read 'Mundus et Infans' (The World and
the Child. Manly's 'Specimens,' I, 353). Consider the same questions as in
the last assignment and compare the Morality Plays with the Mysteries in
general excellence and in particular qualities.

11. THE RENAISSANCE, with special study of The Faerie Queene. Four days.
Above, Chapter V, through page 116. Read a few poems of Wyatt and Surrey,
especially Wyatt's 'My lute, awake' and 'Forget not yet,' and Surrey's
'Give place, ye lovers, heretofore.' In 'The Faerie Queene' read the
Prefatory Letter and as many cantos of Book I (or, if you are familiar with
that, of some other Books) as you can assimilate--certainly not less than
three or four cantos. Subjects for discussion: 1. The allegory; its
success; how minutely should it be applied? 2. Narrative qualities. 3. The
descriptions. 4. General beauty. 5. The romantic quality. 6. The language.
7. The stanza, e. g., the variety of poetical uses and of treatment in such
matters as pauses. The teacher may well read to the class the more
important portions of Lowell's essay on Spenser, which occur in the latter
half.

12. THE ELIZABETHAN LYRIC POEMS. Two days. Above, pages 117-121. Read as
widely as possible in the poems of the authors named. Consider such topics
as: subjects and moods; general quality and its contrast with that of later
lyric poetry; emotion, fancy, and imagination; imagery; melody and rhythm;
contrasts among the poems; the sonnets. Do not merely make general
statements, but give definite references and quotations. For the second day
make special study of such particularly 'conceited' poems as the following
and try to explain the conceits in detail and to form some opinion of their
poetic quality: Lyly's 'Apelles' Song'; Southwell's 'Burning Babe';
Ralegh's 'His Pilgrimage'; and two or three of Donne's.

13. THE EARLIER ELIZABETHAN DRAMA, with study of Marlowe's Tamburlaine,
Part I. Two days. Above, Chapter VI, through page 129. Historically,
Tamerlane was a Mongol (Scythian) leader who in the fourteenth century
overran most of Western Asia and part of Eastern Europe in much the way
indicated in the play, which is based on sixteenth century Latin lives of
him. Of course the love element is not historical but added by Marlowe.
Written discussions should begin with a very brief outline of the story
(perhaps half a page). Other matters to consider: 1. Is there an abstract
dramatic theme? 2. Can regular dramatic structure be traced, with a clear
central climax? 3. Variety of scenes? 4. Qualities of style, e. g.,
relative prominence of bombast, proper dramatic eloquence, and sheer
poetry. 5. Qualities, merits, and faults of the blank verse, in detail.
E.g.: How largely are the lines end-stopped (with a break in the sense at
the end of each line, generally indicated by a mark of punctuation), how
largely run-on (without such pause)? Is the rhythm pleasing, varied, or
monotonous? 6. Characterization and motivation.

14. THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE; SHAKSPERE; AND 'RICHARD II' AS A REPRESENTATIVE
CHRONICLE-HISTORY PLAY. Three days. Above, pages 129-140. The historical
facts on which Richard II is based may be found in any short English
history, years 1382-1399, though it must be remembered that Shakspere knew
them only in the 'Chronicle' of Holinshed. In brief outline they are as
follows: King Richard and Bolingbroke (pronounced by the Elizabethans
_Bullenbroke_) are cousins, grandsons of Edward III. Richard was a
mere child when he came to the throne and after a while five lords, among
whom were his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester (also called in the play
Woodstock), and Bolingbroke, took control of the government. Later, Richard
succeeded in recovering it and' imprisoned Gloucester at Calais in the
keeping of Mowbray. There Gloucester was murdered, probably by Richard's
orders. According to Holinshed, whom Shakspere follows, Bolingbroke accuses
Mowbray of the murder. (This is historically wrong; Bolingbroke's charge
was another, trumped up, one; but that does not concern us.) Bolingbroke's
purpose is to fix the crime on Mowbray and then prove that Mowbray acted at
Richard's orders.

The story of the play is somewhat similar to that of Marlowe's 'Edward II,'
from which Shakspere doubtless took his suggestion. Main matters to
consider throughout are: The characters, especially Richard and
Bolingbroke; the reasons for their actions; do they change or develop? How
far are the style and spirit like Marlowe; how far is there improvement? Is
the verse more poetic or rhetorical? In what sorts of passages or what
parts of scenes is rime chiefly used? Just what is the value of each scene
in furthering the action, or for the other artistic purposes of the play?
As you read, note any difficulties, and bring them up in the class.

_For the second day,_ read through Act III. Act I: Why did Richard at
first try to prevent the combat, then yield, and at the last moment forbid
it? Are these changes significant, or important in results? (The 'long
flourish' at I, iii, 122, is a bit of stage symbolism, representing an
interval of two hours in which Richard deliberated with his council.)

_For the third day,_ finish the play and write your discussion, which
should consist of a very brief outline of the story and consideration of
the questions that seem to you most important. Some, in addition to those
above stated, are: How far is it a mere Chronicle-history play, how far a
regular tragedy? Has it an abstract theme, like a tragedy? Are there any
scenes which violate unity? Is there a regular dramatic line of action,
with central climax? Does Shakspere indicate any moral judgment on
Bolingbroke's actions? General dramatic power--rapidity in getting started,
in movement, variety, etc.? Note how large a part women have in the play,
and how large a purely poetic element there is, as compared with the
dramatic. The actual historical time is about two years. Does it appear so
long?

15. 'TWELFTH NIGHT' AS A REPRESENTATIVE ROMANTIC COMEDY. Three days, with
written discussion. In the Elizabethan period the holiday revelry continued
for twelve days after Christmas; the name of the play means that it is such
a one as might be used to complete the festivities. Helpful interpretation
of the play is to be found in such books as: F. S. Boas, 'Shakspere and his
Predecessors,' pp. 313 ff; Edward Dowden, 'Shakspere's Mind and Art,' page
328; and Barrett Wendell, 'William Shakspere,' pp. 205 ff. Shakspere took
the outline of the plot from a current story, which appears, especially, in
one of the Elizabethan 'novels.' Much of the jesting of the clown and
others of the characters is mere light trifling, which loses most of its
force in print to-day. The position of steward (manager of the estate)
which Malvolio holds with Olivia was one of dignity and importance, though
the steward was nevertheless only the chief servant. The unsympathetic
presentation of Malvolio is of the same sort which Puritans regularly
received in the Elizabethan drama, because of their opposition to the
theater. Where is Illyria, and why does Shakspere locate the play there?

_First day_: Acts I and II. 1. Make sure you can tell the story
clearly. 2. How many distinct actions? 3. Which one is chief? 4. Why does
Shakspere combine them in one play? 5. Which predominates, romance or
realism? 6. Note specifically the improbable incidents. 7. For what sorts
of scenes are verse and prose respectively used? Poetic quality of the
verse? 8. Characterize the main persons and state their relations to the
others, or purposes in regard to them. Which set of persons is most
distinctly characterized?

_Second day_: The rest. (The treatment given to Malvolio was the
regular one for madmen; it was thought that madness was due to an evil
spirit, which must be driven out by cruelty.) Make sure of the story and
characters as before. 9. How skilful are the interweaving and development
of the actions? 10. How skilful the 'resolution' (straightening out) of the
suspense and complications at the end? 11. Is the outcome, in its various
details, probable or conventional? 12. Is there ever any approach to tragic
effect?

_Third day_: Write your discussion, consisting of: I, a rather full
outline of the story (in condensing you will do better not always to follow
Shakspere's order), and II, your main impressions, including some of the
above points or of the following: 13. How does the excellence of the
characterization compare with that in 'Richard II'? 14. Work out the
time-scheme of the play--the amount of time which it covers, the end of
each day represented, and the length of the gaps to be assumed between
these days. Is there entire consistency in the treatment of time? 15. Note
in four parallel columns, two for the romantic action and two for the
others together, the events in the story which respectively are and are not
presented on the stage.

16. 'HAMLET' AS A REPRESENTATIVE TRAGEDY. Four days, with written
discussion. Students can get much help from good interpretative
commentaries, such as: C. M. Lewis, 'The Genesis of Hamlet,' on which the
theories here stated are partly based; A. C. Bradley, 'Shakspearean
Tragedy,' pp. 89-174; Edward Dowden, 'Shakspere Primer,' 119 ff.; Barrett
Wendell, 'William Shakspere,' 250 ff.; Georg Brandes, 'William
Shakespeare,' one vol. ed., book II, chaps. xiii-xviii; F. S. Boas,
'Shakespeare and his Predecessors,' 384 ff.; S. T. Coleridge, 'Lectures on
Shakspere,' including the last two or three pages of the twelfth lecture.

The original version of the Hamlet story is a brief narrative in the
legendary so-called 'Danish History,' written in Latin by the Dane Saxo the
Grammarian about the year 1200. About 1570 this was put into a much
expanded French form, still very different from Shakspere's, by the
'novelist' Belleforest, in his 'Histoires Tragiques.' (There is a
translation of Belleforest in the second volume of the 'Variorum' edition
of 'Hamlet'; also in Hazlitt's 'Shakespeare Library,' I, ii, 217 ff.)
Probably on this was based an English play, perhaps written by Thomas Kyd,
which is now lost but which seems to be represented, in miserably garbled
form, in an existing text of a German play acted by English players in
Germany in the seventeenth century. (This German play is printed in the
'Variorum' edition of 'Hamlet,' vol. II.) This English play was probably
Shakspere's source. Shakspere's play was entered in the 'Stationers'
Register' (corresponding to present-day copyrighting) in 1602, and his play
was first published (the first quarto) in 1603. This is evidently only
Shakspere's early tentative form, issued, moreover, by a piratical
publisher from the wretchedly imperfect notes of a reporter sent to the
theater for the purpose. (This first quarto is also printed in the
'Variorum' edition.) The second quarto, virtually Shakspere's finished
form, was published in 1604. Shakspere, therefore, was evidently working on
the play for at least two or three years, during which he transformed it
from a crude and sensational melodrama of murder and revenge into a
spiritual study of character and human problems. But this transformation
could not be complete--the play remains bloody--and its gradual progress,
as Shakspere's conception of the possibilities broadened, has left
inconsistencies in the characters and action.

It is important to understand the situation and events at the Danish court
just before the opening of the play. In Saxo the time was represented as
being the tenth century; in Shakspere, as usual, the manners and the whole
atmosphere are largely those of his own age. The king was the elder Hamlet,
father of Prince Hamlet, whose love and admiration for him were extreme.
Prince Hamlet was studying at the University of Wittenberg in Germany; in
Shakspere's first quarto it is made clear that he had been there for some
years; whether this is the assumption in the final version is one of the
minor questions to consider. Hamlet's age should also be considered. The
wife of the king and mother of Prince Hamlet was Gertrude, a weak but
attractive woman of whom they were both very fond. The king had a brother,
Claudius, whom Prince Hamlet had always intensely disliked. Claudius had
seduced Gertrude, and a few weeks before the play opens murdered King
Hamlet in the way revealed in Act I. Of the former crime no one but the
principals were aware; of the latter at most no one but Claudius and
Gertrude; in the first quarto it is made clear that she was ignorant of it;
whether that is Shakspere's meaning in the final version is another
question to consider. After the murder Claudius got himself elected king by
the Danish nobles. There was nothing illegal in this; the story assumes
that as often in medieval Europe a new king might be chosen from among all
the men of the royal family; but Prince Hamlet had reason to feel that
Claudius had taken advantage of his absence to forestall his natural
candidacy. The respect shown throughout the play by Claudius to Polonius,
the Lord Chamberlain, now in his dotage, suggests that possibly Polonius
was instrumental in securing Claudius' election. A very few weeks after the
death of King Hamlet, Claudius married Gertrude. Prince Hamlet, recalled to
Denmark by the news of his father's death, was plunged into a state of
wretched despondency by the shock of that terrible grief and by his
mother's indecently hasty marriage to a man whom he detested.

There has been much discussion as to whether or not Shakspere means to
represent Hamlet as mad, but very few competent critics now believe that
Hamlet is mad at any time. The student should discover proof of this
conclusion in the play; but it should be added that all the earlier
versions of the story explicitly state that the madness is feigned.
Hamlet's temperament, however, should receive careful consideration. The
actual central questions of the play are: 1. Why does Hamlet delay in
killing King Claudius after the revelation by his father's Ghost in I iv?
2. Why does he feign madness? As to the delay: It must be premised that the
primitive law of blood-revenge is still binding in Denmark, so that after
the revelation by the Ghost it is Hamlet's duty to kill Claudius. Of course
it is dramatically necessary that he shall delay, otherwise there would be
no play; but that is irrelevant to the question of the human motivation.
The following are the chief explanations suggested, and students should
carefully consider how far each of them may be true. 1. There are external
difficulties, _a_. In the earlier versions of the story Claudius was
surrounded by guards, so that Hamlet could not get at him. Is this true in
Shakspere's play? _b_. Hamlet must wait until he can justify his deed
to the court; otherwise his act would be misunderstood and he might himself
be put to death, and so fail of real revenge. Do you find indications that
Shakspere takes this view? 2. Hamlet is a sentimental weakling, incapable
by nature of decisive action. This was the view of Goethe. Is it consistent
with Hamlet's words and deeds? 3. Hamlet's scholar's habit of study and
analysis has largely paralyzed his natural power of action. He must stop
and weigh every action beforehand, until he bewilders himself in the maze
of incentives and dissuasives. 4. This acquired tendency is greatly
increased by his present state of extreme grief and despondency.
(Especially argued by Professor Bradley.) 5. His moral nature revolts at
the idea of assassination; in him the barbarous standard of a primitive
time and the finer feelings of a highly civilized and sensitive man are in
conflict. 6. He distrusts the authenticity of the Ghost and wishes to make
sure that it is not (literally) a device of the devil before obeying it.
Supposing that this is so, does it suffice for the complete explanation,
and is Hamlet altogether sincere in falling back on it?

In a hasty study like the present the reasons for Hamlet's pretense of
madness can be arrived at only by starting not only with some knowledge of
the details of the earlier versions but with some definite theory. The one
which follows is substantially that of Professor Lewis. The pretense of
madness was a natural part of the earlier versions, since in them Hamlet's
uncle killed his father openly and knew that Hamlet would naturally wish to
avenge the murder; in those versions Hamlet feigns madness in order that he
may seem harmless. In Shakspere's play (and probably in the older play from
which he drew), Claudius does not know that Hamlet is aware of his guilt;
hence Hamlet's pretense of madness is not only useless but foolish, for it
attracts unnecessary attention to him and if discovered to be a pretense
must suggest that he has some secret plan, that is, must suggest to
Claudius that Hamlet may know the truth. Shakspere, therefore, retains the
pretense of madness mainly because it had become too popular a part of the
story (which was known beforehand to most theater-goers) to be omitted.
Shakspere suggests as explanations (motivation) for it, first that it
serves as a safety-valve for Hamlet's emotions (is this an adequate
reason?); and second that he resolves on it in the first heat of his
excitement at the Ghost's revelation (I, iv). The student should consider
whether this second explanation is sound, whether at that moment Hamlet
could weigh the whole situation and the future probabilities, could realize
that he would delay in obeying the Ghost and so would need the shield of
pretended madness. Whether or not Shakspere's treatment seems rational on
analysis the student should consider whether it is satisfactory as the play
is presented on the stage, which is what a dramatist primarily aims at. It
should be remembered also that Shakspere's personal interest is in the
struggle in Hamlet's inner nature.

Another interesting question regards Hamlet's love for Ophelia. When did it
begin? Is it very deep, so that, as some critics hold, when Ophelia fails
him he suffers another incurable wound, or is it a very secondary thing as
compared with his other interests? Is the evidence in the play sufficiently
clear to decide these questions conclusively? Is it always consistent?

_For the second day,_ study to the end of Act II. Suggestions on
details (the line numbers are those adopted in the 'Globe' edition and
followed in most others): I, ii: Notice particularly the difference in the
attitude of Hamlet toward Claudius and Gertrude respectively and the
attitude of Claudius toward him. At the end of the scene notice the
qualities of Hamlet's temperament and intellect. Scenes iv and v: Again
notice Hamlet's temperament, v, 107: The 'tables' are the waxen tablet
which Hamlet as a student carries. It is of course absurd for him to write
on them now; he merely does instinctively, in his excitement and
uncertainty, what he is used to doing. 115-116: The falconer's cry to his
bird; here used because of its penetrating quality. 149 ff.: The speaking
of the Ghost under the floor is a sensational element which Shakspere keeps
for effect from the older play, where it is better motivated--there Hamlet
started to tell everything to his companions, and the Ghost's cries are
meant to indicate displeasure. II, ii, 342; 'The city' is Wittenberg. What
follows is a topical allusion to the rivalry at the time of writing between
the regular men's theatrical companies and those of the boys.

Copyright (c) 2007. famouswriterz.com. All rights reserved.