But the negligence of writers in the due observance of costume is but trifling, when compared with what is to be laid to the charge of painters and other artists. Volumes have been professedly filled, and the number might still be augmented, with the errors of even the best of the old painters. Nor are the modern by any means to be acquitted on this score. We too frequently see works of the greatest intrinsic worth, both in composition and execution, depreciated by the most absurd violations of historical accuracy and a want of adherence to the manners of the times they refer to. In this case they are not what they profess to be; and whilst they delight the eye, they delude the understanding. It is extremely pleasing to observe the zeal which manifests itself among the leading artists of the present day to obtain correct notions of the manners of former times whenever they have occasion to depict them. The works of many of our best painters will not only excite the admiration but the gratitude of posterity for the faithful delineation of their subjects, and the labours of future antiquaries will be reduced in proportion as pictures of this kind shall increase.[44]
To return to Shakspeare. In the dramatis personæ of many of his plays we find a medley of ancient and modern names that is often extremely ridiculous. At Ephesus we meet with Pinch, a schoolmaster; at Mitylene with Boult, a clown; and at Athens with Snug, Bottom, Snout, Quince, &c. In his later stories English names are given to foreigners. Thus at Vienna we have Froth and Elbow; in Navarre, Dull, Costard, and Moth; and in Illyria, Sir Toby Belch and Sir Andrew Aguecheek. But these, strictly speaking, are not anachronisms, but, on the whole, justifiable licences; for it would have been impossible to transmit the humour of such characters as the above to an English audience under the disguise of foreign names, though it must be admitted that mere English characters as well as names are sometimes introduced. Nor is Shakspeare always responsible for such whimsicalities, for they are occasionally to be traced in the materials whereof his plays were constructed; and others belong to those authors whom he had only assisted in dramas the whole composition of which had been improperly ascribed to him.
MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR.
The incidents in this play are supposed to belong to the reign of Henry the Fourth, and consequently the introduction of the shillings of Edward the Sixth, and the mention of Machiavel, are improper; as well as the then newly-introduced terms of the fencing-school ridiculed by Shallow. Perhaps Ancient Pistol and Corporal Nym are objectionable titles. The allusions to Guiana and the West Indies by Falstaff are obvious anachronisms.
TWELFTH NIGHT.
The introduction of the bed of Ware may be justified, because it is referred to as in England; but the same defence cannot be made for the bells of Saint Bennet, as they are specifically alluded to.
MEASURE FOR MEASURE.
We have here an English jury in a German court of justice.