A Study of Shakespeare | Page 3

this that they call the metrical test is doubtless, as they say,
the surest or the sole sure key to one side of the secret of Shakespeare;
but they will never understand it properly who propose to secure it by
the ingenious device of numbering the syllables and tabulating the
results of a computation which shall attest in exact sequence the
quantity, order, and proportion of single and double endings, of rhyme
and blank verse, of regular lines and irregular, to be traced in each play
by the horny eye and the callous finger of a pedant. "I am ill at these
numbers"; those in which I have sought to become an expert are
numbers of another sort; but having, from wellnigh the first years I can
remember, made of the study of Shakespeare the chief intellectual
business and found in it the chief spiritual delight of my whole life, I
can hardly think myself less qualified than another to offer an opinion
on the metrical points at issue.
The progress and expansion of style and harmony in the successive

works of Shakespeare must in some indefinite degree be perceptible to
the youngest as to the oldest, to the dullest as to the keenest of
Shakespearean students. But to trace and verify the various shades and
gradations of this progress, the ebb and flow of alternate influences, the
delicate and infinite subtleties of change and growth discernible in the
spirit and the speech of the greatest among poets, is a task not less
beyond the reach of a scholiast than beyond the faculties of a child. He
who would attempt it with any chance of profit must above all things
remember at starting that the inner and the outer qualities of a poet's
work are of their very nature indivisible; that any criticism is of
necessity worthless which looks to one side only, whether it be to the
outer or to the inner quality of the work; that the fatuity of pedantic
ignorance never devised a grosser absurdity than the attempt to separate
aesthetic from scientific criticism by a strict line of demarcation, and to
bring all critical work under one or the other head of this exhaustive
division. Criticism without accurate science of the thing criticised can
indeed have no other value than may belong to the genuine record of a
spontaneous impression; but it is not less certain that criticism which
busies itself only with the outer husk or technical shell of a great artist's
work, taking no account of the spirit or the thought which informs it,
cannot have even so much value as this. Without study of his forms of
metre or his scheme of colours we shall certainly fail to appreciate or
even to apprehend the gist or the worth of a painter's or a poet's design;
but to note down the number of special words and cast up the sum of
superfluous syllables used once or twice or twenty times in the
structure of a single poem will help us exactly as much as a naked
catalogue of the colours employed in a particular picture. A tabulated
statement or summary of the precise number of blue or green, red or
white draperies to be found in a precise number of paintings by the
same hand will not of itself afford much enlightenment to any but the
youngest of possible students; nor will a mere list of double or single,
masculine or feminine terminations discoverable in a given amount of
verse from the same quarter prove of much use or benefit to an adult
reader of common intelligence. What such an one requires is the
guidance which can be given by no metremonger or colour-grinder: the
suggestion which may help him to discern at once the cause and the
effect of every choice or change of metre and of colour; which may

show him at one glance the reason and the result of every shade and of
every tone which tends to compose and to complete the gradual scale of
their final harmonies. This method of study is generally accepted as the
only one applicable to the work of a great painter by any criticism
worthy of the name: it should also be recognised as the sole method by
which the work of a great poet can be studied to any serious purpose.
For the student it can be no less useful, for the expert it should be no
less easy, to trace through its several stages of expansion and
transfiguration the genius of Chaucer or of Shakespeare, of Milton or of
Shelley, than the genius of Titian or of Raffaelle, of Turner or of
Rossetti. Some great artists there are of either kind in whom no such
process of growth or transformation is perceptible: of these