ART. XIII. A few observations on the composition of the "Midsummer Night's Dream." The perusal of a very clever article on the "Midsummer Night's Dream," in the "Edinburgh Review" for April, 1848, has suggested the following brief observations, which, it is hoped, will be received with the indulgence required by the discussion of a subject of the greatest intricacy, on which scarcely two minds can be found to agree. The great difficulties which surround all æsthetic commentary on this play arise in some measure from its unity of action and of purpose having been considered axiomatical. If, however, we approach the subject without any preconceived opinion formed upon the results of an examination of other plays of the great dramatist, and regard the "Midsummer Night's Dream" sui generis, an anomaly not regulated by ordinary laws, we shall find the discussion less intricate. In fact, our chief perplexity will be the necessity of disconnecting some particular action from the rest, and regarding it as a subsequent invention. Now, I think it must be admitted, that the reviewer is unquestionably right in his opinion that the fairies constitute the main action. Remove them from the scene, and the play would be an impotent skeleton, variegated with a few narrow robes of exquisite poetry. How, or in what manner, the poet formed his frame-work—and a beautiful and graceful frame it is—is a question accessible only to conjecture. The permutations of Shakespeare's fancy were infinite, and here, as elsewhere, they have resolved themselves into an organic and systematic whole. And yet mere theories on the subject are attractive-so attractive, that almost every student forms one for himself. I somewhat unwillingly add another to a list already sufficiently extensive, and commence by asking whether, in discussing VOL. IV. K the question, the social position of Shakespeare, as affecting the form of his works, has been properly considered by the critics? It would seem, after what we have been told by a recent school, little better than heresy to doubt the perfection of the results of the poet's genius, yet who will venture to say that his plays, as they have descended to us, are the same that would have been presented to the world had the author not been more or less dependant upon popular favour? Shakespeare's object in writing was to please an audience-to fill a theatre. We are not even to presume that he disregarded the opinion of the denizens of the gallery. Is it to be supposed that, under such circumstances, he would venture to introduce a play composed entirely of ethereal poetry before a public insufficiently refined to appreciate it? May not the "clowns" be the result of this position; and can we be certain that, under other conditions, Bottom, the weaver,' inimitable as he is, would not have been exchanged for a more ethereal character? The Reviewer (p. 426) has fallen into a slight oversight respecting a piece entitled "The Merry Conceited Humours of Bottom the Weaver,” 1661, which consists only of the comic portions of the "Midsummer Night's Dream," converted into a farce, or droll. The error is easily accounted for, by the rarity of the tract, which the Reviewer had evidently not scen. I cannot, however, think that the artisans, even at that period, were supposed to constitute the main action of the drama. The existence of the droll, and other circumstances alleged by the Reviewer, may be readily accounted for by the superior popular attraction of the comic parts. Drolls were frequently formed in that manner, and they are, therefore, no evidence of the critical opinion of the period. I may here remark, that it requires a close examination to enable us to reconcile the discourse of Bottom, in act iv., sc. i., with the conclusions that have generally been drawn from his language in the earlier part of the drama. Here he is a clever humourist, and although, as throughout the play, exhibiting a consciousness of superiority, yet he is without his former absurdities. Is it quite certain that his wrongly-applied phrases in the second scene of the first act are not intended to proceed from his whimsical humour ? In adopting, or rather suggesting, this line of argument, I am not losing sight of the "essentially dramatic" nature of the play; neither do I dissent in the least from the opinion of its absolute harmony and congruity. But the poet's genius could have harmonized, had it been necessary, far more discordant elements than these. All that I am venturing to suggest, is the possibility of the introduction of the artisans having been occasioned by the external circumstances in which the author was placed. With respect to the drama itself, we are somewhat in Miranda's position when she first saw Ferdinand, and cannot believe in the existence of a lovelier object. But the hand that wrought that fairy picture, and introduced into it a company of illiterate workmen, without shocking the ideal-what would he not have accomplished had he further isolated his enchantments from the external world? Without some modifying explanation of this kind, the grouping, although so wonderfully connected as to conceal its inconsistency, almost appears as the inexplicable work of a mind that had passed the "thin partitions" which separate genius from insanity. Even as it is, unnatural combinations have been formed, to harmonize the conditions of the various actions. The statures of Oberon and Titania are inconsistent with the author's picture of their fairy kingdom. This insuperable difficulty has been admitted by the Reviewer, p. 421, but in despair of any solution of the enigma; and artists fail to reconcile the discordant conditions of the problem. There is, then, a certain oversight, an inconsistency that would probably have been avoided, had not the original purpose been overwhelmed by complicated actions. To adopt the theory that the fairies are the primary conception of the 1 Not excluding even Mr Paton, whose beautiful picture of the Reconciliation of Oberon and Titania is the nearest approach to an illustration worthy of the play that has yet been produced. piece, ibid., p. 427, and that the ulterior creation of the groups occasioned that inconsistency, appears the most feasible conjecture. It appears to me, however, that the Reviewer refines too much on the probabilities of the author's system of formation, when he follows this by expressing his opinion that Shakespeare wished to represent the fairies in contact with two strongly marked extremes of human nature. It is by no means impossible to give Shakespeare credit for a much greater refinement of the ideal than he actually shared: for, notwithstanding the unlimited extent of his imagination, there can be no doubt that modern reasoning has unfolded systems of argument "not dreamt of” even "in his philosophy." I am aware the suggestion will be considered prosaic, and inconsistent with many hundred pages that have been reared upon a different belief. But Shakespeare was writing for a public of an earlier age-in all the freshness of merry, laughter-loving England, when even philosophy on the stage required a joke to render it palatable. Every kind of rational philosophy was evolved by the workings of his mind. But it was a consequence, not a cause; and it is inconsistent with every known fact in his life to suppose that his dramas were formed without a reference to the taste of the individuals before whom they were to be produced. 2nd December, 1848. J. O. HALLIWELL. ART. XIV.-On Massinger's "Believe as you List," a newly discovered manuscript Tragedy, printed by the Percy Society. As a member of the Percy Society, I have just received what must be looked upon as a valuable literary curiosity— the impression of a lost play by Philip Massinger, called, "Believe as you List." No explanatory or other notes are appended to it, excepting merely such as relate to the state of the manuscript; which, as well as the license by the Master of the Revels, bears date 6th of May, 1631. I am sorry for it on all accounts, and more especially because the accomplished editor, Mr. Crofton Croker, would have been able, had his leisure allowed, to have subjoined much useful, and sometimes necessary, illustrative matter. My purpose is not now so much to attempt to supply this deficiency, as to ask a question, the answer to which may possibly explain some points regarding which I am now somewhat in the dark. My question relates to the prologue, which, with the epilogue, is annexed to the "tragedy:" it commences in these words and letters : "[Soe] far our author is from arrogance, A late, and sad example, 'tis confest, I suspect more than one misprint in this passage; and I am half afraid, from this and other indications, that Mr. C. Croker employed some person to transcribe the old manuscript who was not sufficiently familiar with the writing of the time: the punctuation must also be wrong, but the editor (whether rightly or not is another question) professes to |