SHAKESPEARE’S DACHELOR GIRL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 50, 13 October 1911, Page 8

SHAKESPEARE’S DACHELOR GIRL.

A STUDY IN PROPORTIONS. ROSALIND V. MEREDITH’S .DIANA. A piquant contrast between Shakespeare’s Rosalind and Meredith's Diana is drawn hy C. L. Moore in the “Dial.” “On a hill a little remote from hr.t still overlooking the town of Stratford in England there is a granite

shaft, nearly a hundred foot high, which dominates the neighbourhood,” writes Mr Moore. “The history of its erection is as follows; A young man of Stratford, in the manner of his predecessor Shakespeare, went up to London, but instead of going into poetry devoted himself to the manufacture of that other intoxicant, beer. Accumulating a fortune, he returned to his native (own, and, possibly fearing that posterity might not realise his superiority to Shakespeare, built himself this monument. In Shakespeare's Class. “It seems to me that it is a symbol of what is happening all over the world to-day. Shakespeare is accepted as tiic standard of Iranian greatness, and people are everywhere putting up memorials to themselves, or to those they admire, to equal or overtop his. In criticism, biography, current talk, there is a continual shriek arising that ‘I, thou, ho, or she is as great as Shakespeare.’ Is there any modern writer of importance who lias not been compared with, preferred to, jor at least judged only a shade less potent than, the mast&r-poot? Literary criticism has not yet decided who is the greatest writer of the last century. Byron, Hugo, Wordsworth, Balzac, Shelley, Dickens, Tolstoi, and a score or so of others, are in the running. Each of these has his crowd of followers who cry his name to the skies. In the sober judgment of the world, only one modern has drawn himself out of the ruck and got into the class with Shakespeare. And Goethe—as ho saw and said himself—has little of the power of his predecessor. At! Masterpieces Equal. “Near things loom large, and now things are usually bright. Criticism is largely a matter of nerves; appreciation depends on subjective feeling. What is novel strikes us with mere force than what we have long known. And there is a measure of truth in \ ictor Hugo’s lino saying that all masterpieces arc equal. Anyone who has done perfectly a piece of work, however small, which is of constant appeal, is free of the domain of letters. But writers differ in intensity, variety, velocity, mass. There are many elements which must be calculated before wo can assign them their respective importance. Shakespeare's Type of Girl. “Just to lift one corner of the cloud-curtain of that supreme and starry world of Shakespeare which impends over modern literature, I should like to make a little study of the typo of female character which lie has mado_ peculiarly his own—the brilliant, intellectual, fearless girl, who is really ‘a pure anticipated cognition’ of our most recent feminine ideals. Where did he get his conception? “Of course, history is strewn over with women of force and intellect, from Hypatia to Joan of Arc; and many others emerged from mythology and poetry—-the Greek and ‘Scandinavian goddesses and heroines, the Clorinda of Tasso, the Britomart of Spenser. These are satisfactory enough in action, but it was reserved for Shakespeare to make them speak. Retaing the nobility of character belonging to the scattered historic of mythical women, he gave them the glittering rapier of the tongue, hy which they could more than hold their own against their opposites or enemies, the men. The Wise-Virgin Type. “There are many studies of this wise-virgin typo in Shakespeare— Beatrice, Portia, Isabella ; hut his best all-round girl is Rosalind. Fearless, witty ,true-hearted, and brilliant, she is his most dazzling, if not deepest female creation. For centuries she has been the favourite of the Englishspeaking stage. As Hamlet is said to be actor-proof, so Rosalind plays herself. Many actresses have interpreted her extremely well; but, given only the most modern equipment, it would he difficult for any young woman to fail entirely in presenting the part. “For one thing, Rosalind dominates her play as completely as Hamlet does his. She is the central lire which lights up all the other pensive, and rather shadowy characters. Even in her eclipse at court, the reigning Duke’s daughter is only a foil to her’ and she goes into exile like a torch carried through the woods. Probably the very best kind of a young woman has a touch of hoy in her. Something more of Rosalind than her attire is virile. She seeks adventures like a Paladin; and though she faints when her affections receive a shock, wo loci that she would meet real clangor with heroism. But of course her supreme gift is that of brilliant speech. It runs through all the gamut of which wit is capable—gaiety, mockery, irony, bandiage, humour, sarcasm. Yet it is never loss than womanly, ladylike. She is the brilliant. forerunner of the Bachelor Girl of to-day—the bright exemplar whom most women would like to resemble.” Mr Moore then goes a-luinting to see if any subsequent literary creator has made, the match of Rosalind, and, coming to Meredith, he says:— Meredith’s Diana. “George .Meredith was interested all his life in the question of woman’s intellectual equality with man. He believed in it and fought for it ; and when he made his greatest effort to exemplify it he seems to have persuaded himself that ho had won his cause and achieved a masterpiece. And, verily, by his enthusiasm he almost persuades his readers also. Before Diana of the Crossways to prosit rates himself with Fasten) obeisance, i He serves her as a lover and a slave, j Ho thinks no e\il of her himself, nor will Iso permit anyone else to do so. Probably no author ever exhibited iiis adoration of a character to such an extent. Yet when the reader can free himself from Meredith's special pleading, things do not seem to he as he states them. Diana’s Meed;:. “Dianna docs about cvcrylliing that j she ought not to do. Endowed with I a small properly and many friends,

she vet permits herself to cor.av.ct a loveless marriage .with the first well-to-do man who offers himself. iMoni him she runs away, and only is saved from scandal—rather mysteriously by the intervention of a former lover. Then she becomes a bluc-SLOck-ii;.r, writes ‘brilliant’ novels, and sets up a rather emancipated salon in London. She flirts witn an aged I nmo Minister, and falls in love witn lus rising nephew, and she betrays him with inexplicable Judas treachery Joi a sum of money. Perhaps this isi all right—perhaps a woman is permitted to do these things; but what we arc most concerned with is Diana, s succession to the throne of .wit and intellect founded hy Rosalind. Meredith assures us that this is so. He has even less patience with rcadois

who doubt her wit than with those who hesitate at her character. Diana's Dullness. “Now while there may he no question at all that the novelist himself nad a groat inheritance of wit, ho seems absolutely unable to estate Ins cherished heroine with any of it. As long as he keeps on describing her, fighting her up witli his own verbal torenes, we fancy that she does really dim the glories of Cefimene or Millamant. But the moment she opens her month she is betrayed. Compared with them, she can hardly say ‘Bo’ to a goose. It is certainly singular that oaek in the dark ages when woman’s intellectual equality with man was nardty suspected, bhakespeare should have projected the most brilliant female figure in fiction; while recently, in the very van of .the feminist movement, and in the tendance of an intense believer in that creed, the clear might flame of Rosalind type should sputter out in the dismal failure of Diana.”