Macbeth, and King Richard The Third

An Essay, In Answer to Remarks on Some of The Characters of Shakespeare

J.P. Kemble

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317278672
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Letteratura
• Subtopic: Critica letteraria

John Philip Kemble was an ambitious and successful stage actor in London, perhaps most well-known for his turn as Shakespeare's Macbeth. Kemble passionately disagreed with the posthumous work of Thomas Watley, Remarks on Some of the Characters of Shakespeare (1785), particularly Watley's representations of some of Shakespeare's greatest villains, Richard III and Macbeth. This title, first published in 1786 (this reprint of the second edition first published in 1970), presents Kemble's nuanced criticisms of the characters leaving the impression that the villainies of Macbeth and Richard III are indeed similar. A historically important literary reaction, this title will be of interest to students of English literature and literary criticism.

MACBETH,
AND
KING RICHARD THE THIRD.

PLAYS are intended, by employing the united powers of precept and example, to have a good influence on the lives of men. It is not necessary towards this end, that the drama should be modelled to the individual form recommended by Aristotle for its construction, and the distribution of its parts.* Though the observance or neglect of the much-debated unities in the concoction of a play, as Dryden expresses himself, may excite the praise or censure of the learned and curious; yet it must be allowed, that the Grecian or modern arrangement of acts and scenes is but a conventional merit or defect, that can contribute nothing either to the amendment or depravation of the mind. The stage, without a necessity for further restraints, promotes the cause of good morals, whenever, by the personated imitation of some history or fable,—drawn to an impressive conclusion by principles and actions natural to the agents who produce it,—we are instructed to love virtue and abhor vice.

Shakspeare’s disregard of the rules to which the tragedians of antiquity appear to have generally confined themselves, has been much insisted on by Voltaire, and others both of his nation and our own, as an insurmountable obstacle to the theatrical effect of his plays; and, indeed, in their skirmishes against them, they have employed every weapon of wit, ridicule, and misrepresentation.* But these trammelled notions, these paper bullets of the brain, neither have, nor ought to have, any power to awe us from the career of our delight in the drama of this heavenly-inspired bard. In every fine art there is an excellence that soars above the control of its ordinary laws. When the soul is captivated by beauties irreconcileable to the strict discipline of precept, Sensibility properly assumes the arbitration between method and genius; and its decisions justify us in concluding that our admiration is rationally fixed. Truth of character and passion, the real touchstone and test of dramatic worth, is the unrivalled attribute of Shakspeare’s muse; and, in the general estimation of mankind, this charm will probably maintain to him the highest place among the poets of the stage, as long as Human Nature shall hold on in its appointed course*

An Answer to Mr. Whateley’s Remarks was published immediately on their appearance. There the debate died away; and no thought was entertained of ever reviving it. Mr. Steevens, in his last edition of Shakspeare’s plays, thought proper to awaken this dispute by some reflexions of his own, in support of Mr. Whateley’s opinions. These reflexions have occasioned a revision of the Answer to the Remarks, and its republication in this Essay. Mr. Steevens, though confessedly a commentator of the first class, adds, it is true, no effectual strength to the cause which he undertakes to reinforce; he would, indeed, willingly second by sap and mine; but seldom cares to venture with his ally into the open field: nevertheless, it is worth while to repel him; because his ingenuity has, sometimes, so exquisite a bias to insinuation against proof, and assumption without it, that, were it possible to think it exerted even for that only end, it could hardly serve better to bewilder the uninquisitive and careless. Except when Mr. Steevens calls for distinct notice by some new and explicit objection, it is meant that he is answered conjointly in the replies to Mr. Whateley. The advocate for what is estimable in Macbeth, depends with confidence on Shakspeare, to clear the “Fiend of Scotland” from the vilifying imputation laid on his nature by these gentlemen; and will beg leave here to say, once for all, that he does not renew this discussion from a spirit of controversy; but from a wish to prevent the diffusion of unwholesome criticism, and out of regard for what he believes to be useful truth.

This Essay does not profess the offering of any observations on the conduct of the tragedy of Macbeth; it concerns itself strictly with the sentiments of the hero of the play: in hopes, that this grandest of its author’s works may be fixed stedfastly to its purpose of benefit to mankind, if, in analysing the characters of Macbeth and Richard, it be shown, that there is no room to suppose any degrading distinction between them in the quality of personal courage. If Macbeth is really what Mr. Whateley and Mr. Steevens would have him pass for, we must forego our virtuous satisfaction in his repugnance to guilt, for it arises from mere cowardice; nor can we take any salutary warning from his remorse, for it is only the effect of imbecility. The stage will not conduce to our improvement, by presenting to us the example of a wretch who is uniformly the object of our contempt.

Having stated many instances of the difference which, no doubt, there is between the characters of Macbeth and Richard, Mr. Whateley speaks of the quality of their courage, and says:—

“In Richard it is intrepidity, and in Macbeth no more than resolution: in him (Macbeth) it proceeds from exertion, not from nature; in enterprise he betrays a degree of fear, though he is able, when occasion requires, to stifle and subdue it.”*

The attempt to controvert this assertion, and those that are subsequently founded upon it, falls easily under three heads; namely, an exhibition of the character of Macbeth, as it stands in its simplicity, before any change is wrought in it by the supernatural soliciting of the Weird sisters; next, an examination into his conduct towards Banquo and Macduff; and, lastly, a review of his general deportment, particularly as opposed to that of Richard in the Remarks. This order will lead to an inquiry into Mr. Whateley’s interpretation of some passages of the poet’s text; into the appositeness of the facts which he adduces in support of his doctrine; and into his philosophy of the peculiar passion of each of these sangui­nary usurpers, when, facts not supplying proof, he grounds himself only on the evidence of characteristic sentiment.

The appeal for judgement on the quality of the courage of Macbeth, does not depend, as questions of criticism often necessarily must, on conjecture and inference; it addresses itself directly to the plain meaning of every passage where Shakspeare touches on this subject. The shortness of the time allotted for the performance of a play, usually makes it impracticable to allow the principal personages space sufficient for their unfolding themselves gradually before the spectator; it is, therefore, a necessary and beautiful artifice with dramatic writers, by an impressive description of their heroes, to bring us in great measure acquainted with them, before they are visibly engaged in action on the stage; where, without this previous delineation, their proceedings might often appear confused, and sometimes perhaps be unintelligible. We are bound, then, to look on the introductory portrait which our author has drawn of Macbeth, as the true resemblance of him; for the mind may not picture to itself a person of the poet’s arbitrary invention, under any features, but those by which that invention has thought fit to identify him.—Here is the portrait.

Serg. The merciless Macdonwald

* * * * * * * from the western isles

Of kernes and gallowglasses...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• MACBETH, AND KING RICHARD THE THIRD.