Encyclopaedia Britannica > Volume 21, ROT-Siam

748
SHAKESPEARE
struck with so sure a hand and with such depth and
intensity of tone, in the early tragedies.
Qualities But in addition to her constant influence and example the
from hid was l,r0^)ably indebted to his mother for certain ele-
mother S ments own mind and character directly inherited from
her. This position may be maintained without accepting the
vague and comparatively empty dictum that Shakespeare
derived his genius from his mother, as many eminent men
are loosely said to have done. The sacred gift of genius
has ever been, and perhaps always will be, inexplicable.
No analysis, however complete, of the forces acting on
the individual mind can avail to extract this vital secret.
The elements of race, country, parentage, and education,
though all powerful factors in its development, fail ade¬
quately to account for the mystery involved in pre-eminent
poetical genius. Like the unseen wind from heaven it
bloweth where it listeth, and the inspired voice is gladly
heard of men, but none can tell whence it cometh or
whither it goeth. While, however, genius is thus without
ancestry or lineage, there are elements of character and
qualities of mind that, like the features of the countenance
and the lines of the bodily frame, appear to be clearly
transmissible from parent to child. Shakespeare not
unfrequently recognizes this general truth, especially in
relation to moral qualities; and it is mainly qualities of
this kind that he himself appears to have inherited from
his gently born and nurtured mother, Mary Arden of
the Asbies. At least it is hardly fanciful to say that
in the life and character of the poet we may trace ele¬
ments of higher feeling and conduct derived from the
hereditary culture and courtesy, the social insight and
refinement, of the Ardens. Amongst such elements may
be reckoned his strong sense of independence and self-
respect, his delicate feeling of honour, his habitual con¬
sideration for others, and, above all perhaps, his deep
instinctive regard for all family interests and relationships,
for everything indeed connected with family character
and position. The two epithets which those who knew
Shakespeare personally most habitually applied to him
appear to embody some of these characteristics. They
unite in describing him as “gentle” and “honest” in
character, and of an open and free, a frank and generous
disposition. The epithet “gentle ” may be taken to repre¬
sent the innate courtesy, the delicate consideration for the
feelings of others, which belongs in a marked degree to
the best representatives of gentle birth, although happily
it is by no means confined to them. The second epithet,
“honest,” which in the usage of the time meant honourable,
may be taken to express the high spirit of independence
and self-respect which carefully respects the just claims
and rights of others. One point of the truest gentle
breeding, which, if not inherited from his mother, must
have been derived from her teaching and example, is the
cardinal maxim, which Shakespeare seems to have faith¬
fully observed, as to nice exactness in money matters—
the maxim not lightly to incur pecuniary obligations, and
if incurred to meet them with scrupulous precision and
punctuality. This he could not have learnt from his
father, who, though an honest man enough, was too eager
and careless to be very particular on the point. Indeed,
carelessness in money matters seems rather to have
belonged to the Snitterfield family, the poet’s uncle Henry
having been often in the courts for debt, and, as we have
seen, this was true of his father also. But, while his
father was often prosecuted for debt, no trace of any such
action against the poet himself, for any amount however
small, has been discovered. He sued others for money
due to him and at times for sums comparatively small,
but he never appears as a debtor himself. Indeed, his
whole life contradicts the supposition that he would ever
have rendered himself liable to such a humiliation. The
family troubles must have very early developed and
strengthened the high feeling of honour on this vital
point he had inherited. He must obviously have taken
to heart the lesson his father’s imprudence could hardly
fail to impress on a mind so capacious and reflective.
John Shakespeare was no doubt a warm-hearted lovable
man, who would carry the sympathy and affection of his
family with him through all his troubles, but his eldest
son, who early understood the secret springs as well as the
open issues of life, must have realized vividly the rock on
which their domestic prosperity had been wrecked, and
before he left home he had evidently formed an invincible
resolution to avoid it at all hazards. This helps to explain
what has often excited surprise in relation to his future
career—his business industry, financial skill, and steady
progress to what may be called worldly success. Few
things are more remarkable in Shakespeare’s personal
history than the resolute spirit of independence he seems
to have displayed from the moment he left his straitened
household to seek his fortunes in the world to the time
when he returned to live at Stratford as a man of wealth
and position in the town. While many of his fellow
dramatists were spendthrifts, in constant difficulties, lead¬
ing disorderly lives, and sinking into unhonoured graves,
he must have husbanded his early resources with a rare
amount of quiet firmness and self-control. Chettle’s testi¬
mony as to Shakespeare’s character and standing during
his first years in London is decisive on this head. Having
published a posthumous work by Greene, in which Mar¬
lowe and Shakespeare were somewhat sharply referred to,
Chettle expressed his regret in a preface to a work of his
own issued a few months later, in December 1592; he
intimates that at the time of publishing Greene’s Groats-
worth of Wit he knew neither Marlowe nor Shakespeare,
and that he does not care to become acquainted with the
former. But having made Shakespeare’s acquaintance
in the interval he expresses his regret that he should,
even as editor, have published a word to his disparage¬
ment, adding this remarkable testimony : “ Because myself
have seen his demeanour, no less civil than he excellent
in the qualities he professes; besides, divers of worship
have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues
his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing, which
approves his art.” So that Shakespeare, during his
earliest and most anxious years in London, had not only
kept himself out of debt and difficulty, but had estab¬
lished a reputation of strictly honourable conduct, “ divers
of worship,” i.e., men of position and authority entitled
to speak on such a point, “ having reported his upright¬
ness of dealing, which argued his honesty.” Now, consider¬
ing the poet’s associates, occupations, and surround¬
ings, this is significant testimony, and conclusively proves
that, although fond of social life and its enjoyments,
and without a touch of harshness or severity in his temper,
he yet held himself thoroughly in hand, that amidst
the ocean of new experiences and desires on which he
was suddenly launched he never abandoned the helm,
never lost command over his course, never sacrificed the
larger interests of the future to the clamorous or excessive
demands of the hour. And this no doubt indicates the
direction in which he was most indebted to his mother.
From his father he might have derived ambitious desires,
energetic impulses, and an excitable temper capable of
rushing to the verge of passionate excess, but, if so, it is
clear that he inherited from his mother the firmness of
nerve and fibre as well as the ethical strength required for
regulating these violent and explosive elements. If he
received as a paternal heritage a very tempest and whirl¬
wind of passion, the maternal gift of temperance and