Nov. 10, 1882. 



KNOWLEDGE • 



389 



Irvinj; and Terry faithfully study a character, and 

 earnestly give their reading of it, this reading is necessarily 

 right. Actors will tell you that they should be, and are, 

 the best judges of a dramatist's meaning; but repeatedly 

 it has been seen that this is not the case. Great actors 

 and actresses have often, ere now, taken commonplace 

 views of noble characters, yet have commanded atten- 

 tion by their histrionic mastery of their self-imagined 

 characters. 



Whether Irving has formed the truest idea of Bene- 

 dick's nature, or Ellen Terry of Beatrice's, may be 

 open to question. Sliakespeare's characters (like the men 

 .ind women of real life) are many-sided; and much 

 more time than any actor has yet given to their interpre- 

 tation might well fail to reveal all that is in them. For 

 our own part, we must admit that after some thirty years' 

 acquaintance with 8ignor Benedick and fair Beatrice — • 

 an acquaintance renewed many times each year — we are 

 as far from fathoming their real nature as we are from 

 fully understanding the character of our acquaintances in 

 actual life. Mr. Irving and Miss Terry may have been 

 more successful. Yet frankly, we miss certain qualities 

 in their presentation of Benedick and Beatrice which the 

 real Benedick and Beatrice, as we seem to know them, 

 possess. 



Benedick is a brave and steadfast gentleman, apt to say 

 more than he thinks against women, and especially against 

 one woman (of whom he thinks more than he knows), but 

 tender-hearted and Ljentle,* slow to think evil yet thinking 

 less well of Claudio and the prince than he speaks (though 

 better than they merit, for they are shallow and ungracious, 

 cruel, vindictive, and morally cowards, both), keen to recog- 

 nise villany, true in friendship, faithful and withal generous 

 in love. Mr. Irving's Benedick is nearly all this, but not 

 quite. We cannot quite forgive his raising a laugh among 

 the groundlings, just after Hero's most cruel trial. There 

 is not a word said by Shakespeare's Benedick on that 

 occasion which is not meant solely to soothe and comfort 

 the sorrowing and indignant soul of Beatrice. 



And how of Beatrice herself ? How of the lady whose 

 heart has been wrung by the villanous wrong done to 

 Hero ? If Miss Terry had not so touchingly and power- 

 fully depicted Beatrice in that most affecting scene, we 

 might have forgiven her for so thoroughly misunderstanding 

 Beatrice's admission of love a few moments after. For all 

 would then have lieen of a piece — Beatrice misunderstood 

 throughout the finest scene in the play and one of the 

 finest scenes in all Shakespeare. But that she should so 

 move our feelings Ijy her just rendering of Beatrice's 

 sorrow, and should then render a confession of love which 

 was, in truth, an ajipoal for sympathy, this was passing 

 strange. Can aught be clearer? "It were as possible 

 for me to say 1 loved nothing so well as you ; but 

 believe me not ; and yet I lie not ; I confess nothing, nor I 

 •deny nothing : / mn surryfor mij cnmt'ni." As Miss Terry 

 says these words, she and Mr. Irving moved hither and 

 thither almost as farcically as the Milkmaid and her Archi- 

 bald in "Patience," and the pit and gallery laughed loudly. 

 Yet there is scarce anything more pathetic in all Shake- 

 speare. The brilliant Beatrice, who till now has been 

 moved by love to scornful jests, is now so moved by 

 sorrow that she no longer cares to hide her real feelings. 

 "I confess nothing, nor I deny nothing; I am sorry for 



* Mr. Sala find.s in Benedick's " I'll deviso thee bravo punish- 

 ments for him" [Don John], cvidonco nf cniolty. Wo always 

 nndorstood him to moan that he would allow tlio rest how to pnnirh 

 Don John best by letting him see how happy they all were in spito 

 of his rillauies. 



my cousin." If Shakespeare meant to raise a laugh here, 

 then, say we, as Dogberry enjoins, he 's not the man we 

 took him for. That something of her old scoffing manner 

 should remain, we can understand. That in one of her 

 spirit sorrow should be close on bitter anger, we can 

 forgive, and almost approve. She is just, even in her 

 fiery indignation. She rightly judges the Prince and 

 Claudio. " What ! bear her in hand until they come to 

 take hands ; and then, with public accusation, uncovered 

 slander, unmitigated rancour — Oh, God, that I were a 

 man ! " But " I cannot be a man with wishing, therefore 

 will I die a woman with grieving." Yet this scene raised 

 laughter more than once ; and the fault was not wholly 

 with those who laughed. 



(To be continued.) 



SATURN'S RINGS. 



I GATHER from the editorial note appended to the 

 very interesting letter by Mr. Ward, on page 376 of 

 the last number of Knowledge, that Mr. ^Maunder is 

 exercised in his mind with reference to an absolutely 

 imaginary claim on my part to have restored to Cassini 

 the credit of having first discovered the division between 

 the two bright rings of Saturn. I rather fail, though, to 

 see how he can insist upon the merit of such restoration 

 (quantum raleat) being due to Mr. Lynn, if it be merely 

 based upon that fact that " two years ago " that gentleman 

 " pointed out that the sketch said to have accompanied 

 Ball's paper in the ' Phil. Trans.' was omitted from several 

 copies." Apropos of what, I would ask, was this fact 

 pointed out ? Was it in connection with the actual ques- 

 tion of the discovery of two concentric rings round the 

 planet— or what I In this method of treating the matter 

 I am rather afraid that the man who is at least as much 

 entitled as Mr. Lynn to the credit of having brought the 

 question to a definite issue (I mean, of course, Mr. C. Leeson 

 Prince), is in danger of being lost sight of altogether. It was 

 he who first induced me to examine the evidence in favour 

 of Ball's supposed discovery ; and I know personally, as a 

 matter of fact, that he has for years been greatly in- 

 terested in the question of Saturn and its system generally. 

 He possesses a valuable library of old astronomical works, 

 with the contents of which he is thoroughly familiar ; and 

 it is very odd indeed to me (to put it as mildly as possible) 

 if he received his first hint that Cassini was the real dis- 

 coverer of the duplicity of the ring from IMr. Lynn, less 

 than two months ago. Mr. Lynn and he talked the matter 

 over, as did Jlr. Prince and I a few hours afterwards, and, 

 on careful refiection, we all arrived at the same conclusion — 

 viz., that the Brothers Ball never saw a trace of the division 

 which has so long been called by their name. Mr. Prince's 

 modesty is equal to his acquirements ; and he is aV)out the 

 last man in the world to make any reclamation 

 on his own behalf. I therefore feel it all the more 

 incumbent on me to point out that it is through 

 his initiation of the discussion that a satisfactory 

 conclusion has at length been arrived at As far as I was 

 concerned, I found "it stated in my copy of Breen's 

 "Planetary Worlds," tliat Huyghens was ^^ritten to in 

 IGG.") by Wallis with reference to the (alleged) percep- 

 tion of a di\ ision in the ring by Ball ; and, thinking that 

 the recovery of the original letter could not fail to clear 

 up dcfinitelv the question as to what Ball really had seen 

 (or fancied he had seen), I wrote to Knowleuge (p. 295) 

 to ask if any one could inform me whether this letter was 

 still extant, "and if so, where it could be foimd. This is 



