Encyclopaedia Britannica > Volume 21, ROT-Siam

758 SHAKESPEARE
hand, and, as their writings show, were well acquainted
with recent Italian literature. But the dramatic element
in that literature extended far beyond the circle of regular
plays, whether tragedies, comedies, or pastorals. It in¬
cluded the collections of short prose stories which appeared,
or were published for the first time, in such numbers during
the 16th century, the novels or novelettes of Ser Giovanni,
Cinthio, Bandello, and their associates. These stories,
consisting of the humorous and tragic incidents of actual
life, told in a vivid and direct way, naturally attracted
the attention of the dramatists. We know from the
result that Shakespeare must have studied them with
some care, as he derived from this source the plots and
incidents of at least a dozen of his plays. Many of the
stories, it is true, had already been translated, either
directly from the Italian, or indirectly from French and
Latin versions. Of Cinthio’s hundred tales, however,
only two or three are known to have been rendered into
English; and Shakespeare derived the story of Othello
from the untranslated part of this collection. Many of
the Italian stories touched on darker crimes or more aggra¬
vated forms of violence than those naturally prompted by
jealousy and revenge, and are indeed revolting from the
atrocities of savage cruelty and lust related so calmly as
to betray a kind of cynical insensibility to their true
character. Shakespeare, however, with the sound judg¬
ment and strong ethical sense that guided the working of
his dramatic genius, chose the better and healthier materials
of this literature, leaving the morbid excesses of criminal
passion to Webster and Ford. But the Italian influence
on Shakespeare’s work is not to be estimated merely by
the outlines of plot and incident he borrowed from
southern sources and used as a kind of canvas for his
matchless portraiture of human character and action. It
is apparent also in points of structure and diction, in
types of character and shades of local colouring, which
realize and express in a concentrated form the bright and
lurid, the brilliant and passionate, features of southern life.
The great majority of the dramatis'personae, in his comedies,
as well as in some of the tragedies, have Italian names,
and many of them, such as Mercutio and Gratiano on the
one hand, lachimo and lago on the other, are as Italian in
nature as in name. The moonlight scene in the Merchant
of Venice is Southern in every detail and incident. And,
as M. Philarete Chasles justly points out, Romeo and
Juliet is Italian throughout, alike in colouring, incident,
and passion. The distinctive influence is further traceable
in Shakespeare’s use of Italian words, phrases, and pro¬
verbs, some of which, such as “ tranect ” (from tranare), or
possibly, as Rowe suggested, “traject” (traghetto), are of
special local significance. In the person of Hamlet
Shakespeare even appears as a critic of Italian style.
Referring to the murderer who in the players’ tragedy
poisons the sleeping duke, Hamlet exclaims, “ He poisons
him in the garden for his estate. His name ’s Gonzago :
the story is extant and written in very choice Italian.”
In further illustration of this point Mr Grant White has
noted some striking turns of thought and phrase which
seem to show that Shakespeare must have read parts of
Berni and Ariosto in the original. No doubt in the case
of Italian poets, as in the case of Latin authors like
Ovid, whose works he was familiar with in the original,
Shakespeare would also diligently read the translations,
especially the translations into English verse. For in
reading such works as Golding’s Ovid, Harrington’s Ariosto,
and Fairfax’s Tasso, he would be increasing his command
over the elements of expressive phrase and diction which
were the verbal instruments, the material vehicle, of his
art. But, besides studying the translations of the Italian
poets and prose writers made available for English readers,
he would naturally desire to possess, and no doubt
acquired for himself, the key that would unlock the whole
treasure-house of Italian literature. The evidence of
Shakespeare’s knowledge of French is more abundant and
decisive, so much so as hardly to need express illustration.
There can be little doubt therefore that, during his early
years in London, he acquired a fair knowledge both of
French and Italian.
But, while pursuing these collateral aids to his higher Early-
work, there is abundant evidence that Shakespeare alsodramatie
devoted himself to that work itself. As early as 1592 peeflorls*
is publicly recognized, not only as an actor of distinction,
but as a dramatist whose work had excited the envy and
indignation of his contemporaries, and especially of one so
accomplished and so eminent, so good a scholar and master
of the playwright’s craft, as Robert Greene. Greene had,
it is true, a good deal of the irritability and excitable
temper often found in the subordinate ranks of poetical
genius, and he often talks of himself, his doings, and
associates in a highly-coloured and extravagant way. But
his reference to Shakespeare is specially deliberate, being
in the form of a solemn and last appeal to his friends
amongst the scholarly dramatists to relinquish their
connexion with the presumptuous and ungrateful stage.
In his Groatsworth of Wit, published by his friend Chettle
a few weeks after his death, Greene urges three of his
friends, apparently Marlowe, Lodge, and Peele, to give up
writing for the players. “ Base-minded men, all three of
you, if by my misery ye be not warned; for unto none of
you like me sought those burs to cleave; those puppets, I
mean, who speak from our mouths, those anticks garnisht
in our colours. Is it not strange that I, to whom they
have all been beholding; is it not like that you, to whom
they have all been beholding, shall (were ye in that case
that I am now) be both of them at once forsaken? Yes,
trust them not; for there is an upstart Crow, beautified
in our feathers, that, with his tiger’s heart wrapt in a
player’s hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a
blank verse as the best of you, and, being an absolute
Johannes fac totum, is, in his own conceit, the only
Shakescene in a country. Oh that I might intreat your
rare wits to be employed in more profitable courses, and let
these apes imitate your past excellence, and never more
acquaint them with your admired inventions.” This curious
passage tells us indirectly a good deal about Shakespeare.
It bears decisive testimony to his assured position and rapid
advance in his profession. The very term of reproach
applied to him, “Johannes Factotum,” is a tribute to
Shakespeare’s industry and practical ability. From the
beginning of his career he must have been in the widest
and best sense a utility man, ready to do any work con¬
nected with the theatre and stage, and eminently successful
in anything he undertook. In the first instance he had
evidently made his mark as an actor, as it is in that
character he is referred to by Greene, and denounced for
going beyond his province and usurping the functions of
the dramatist. Greene’s words imply that Shakespeare
not only held a foremost place as an actor, but that he
was already distinguished by his dramatic success in
revising and rewriting existing plays. This is confirmed
by the parodied line from the Third Part of Henry VI.,
recently revised if not originally written by Shakespeare.
This must have been produced before Greene’s death,
which took place in September 1592. Indeed, all the
three parts of Henry VI. in the revised form appear to
have been acted during the spring and summer of that
year. It is not improbable that two or three of Shake¬
speare’s early comedies may also have been produced
before Greene’s death. And if so, his resentment, as an
academic scholar, against the country actor who had not