Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

players of Lord Hunsdou; and hence Malone argued that it inust have been first performed and printed between July, 1596, and April, 1597. The company to which Shakespeare was attached called themselves the servants of the Lord Chamberlain." Henry Lord Hunsdon died Lord Chamberlain on 22nd July, 1596, and his son George succeeded to the title, but not to the office, which, in August, was conferred upon Lord Cobham. Lord Cobham filled it until his death in March subsequent to his appointment, very soon after which event George Lord Hunsdon was made Lord Chamberlain. It seems that the theatrical servants of Henry Lord Hunsdon, Lord Chamberlain, did not, on his decease, transfer their services to his successor in office, Lord Cobham, but to his successor in title, George Lord Hunsdon, and called themselves the servants of that nobleman in the interval between the death of his father on 22nd July, 1596, and 17th April, 1597, when he himself became Lord Chamberlain. Malone concludes that in this interval, while those players who had been the servants of the Lord Chamberlain called themselves the servants of Lord Hunsdon, "Romeo and Juliet" was first performed and printed; and that, in consequence, the title-page of the first edition states, that it had been played by "the L. of Hunsdon his servants."

The answer that may be made to this argument is, that though the tragedy was printed in 1597, as it had been acted by Lord Hunsdon's servants, it does not follow that it might not have been played some years before by the same actors, when calling themselves the Lord Chamberlain's servants. This is true; and it is not to be disputed that there is an allusion in one of the speeches of the Nurse (Act i. sc. 3) to an earthquake which, she states, had occurred eleven years

before:

"But as I said,

On Lammas eve at night shall she be fourteen;
That shall she, marry; I remember it well.
"T is since the earthquake now eleven years;
And she was wean'd."

It is remarkable that in no edition of "Romeo and Juliet," printed anterior to the publication of the folio of 1623, do we find Shakespeare's name upon the title-page. Yet Meres, in his Palladis Tamia, had distinctly assigned it to him in 1598; and although the name of the author might be purposely left out in the imperfect copy of 1597, there would seem to be no reason, especially after the announcement by Meres, for not inserting it in the "corrected, augmented, and amended " edition of 1599. But it is wanting even in the impression of 1609, although Shakespeare's popularity must then have been at its height. "King Lear," in 1608, had been somewhat ostentatiously called "M. William Shake-speare, his, &c. Life and Death of King Lear;" and his Sonnets, in 1609, were recommended to purchasers, as "Shake-speare's Sonnets," in unusually large characters on the title-page.

TIMON OF ATHENS.

"The Life of Tymon of Athens" first appeared in the folio of 1623, where it occupies, in the division of "Tragedies," twenty-one pages, numbered from p. 80 to p. 98 inclusive; but pp. 81 and 82, by an error, are repeated. Page 98 is followed by a leaf, headed, "The Actors' Names," and the list of characters fills the whole page: the back of it is left blank. The drama bears the same title in the later folios. SHAKESPEARE is supposed not to have written "Timon of Athens" until late in his theatrical career, and Malone has fixed upon 1610 as the probable date when it came from his pen. We know of no extrinsic evidence to confirm or contradict this opinion. The tragedy was printed in.1623, in the folio edited by Heminge and Condell; and having been inserted in the Registers of the Stationers' Company as a play "not formerly entered to other men," we may infer that it had not previously come from the press. The versification is remarkably loose and irregular, but it is made to appear more so by the manner in which it was originally printed. The object, especially near the close, seems to have been to make filled: consequently, many of the lines are arbitrarily divided into two: the drama extends to p. 98 in the folio, in the division of "Tragedies;" what would have been p. 99, if it had been figured, contains a list of the characters, and what would have been p. 100 is entirely blank: the next leaf, being the first page of "Julius Cæsar," is numbered 109. It is possible that another printer began with "Julius Cæsar," and that a miscalculation was made as to the space which would be occupied by "Coriolanus," "Titus Andronicus," "Romeo and Juliet," and "Timon of Athens.' The interval between what would have been p. 100 of the folio of 1623, and p. 109, which immediately follows it, may at all events be in this way explained.

It has been supposed that this passage refers to the earth-the drama occupy as much space as could be conveniently quake of 1580, and, consequently, that the play was written in 1591. However, those who read the whole speech of the Nurse cannot fail to remark such discrepancies in it as to render it impossible to arrive at any definite conclusion, even if we suppose that Shakespeare intended a reference to a particular earthquake in England. First, the Nurse tells us, that Juliet was in a course of being weaned; then, that she could stand alone; and, thirdly, that she could run alone. It would have been rather extraordinary if she could not, for even according to the Nurse's own calculation the child was very nearly three years old. No fair inference can, therefore, be drawn from the expression, ""T is since the earthquake now eleven years," and we coincide with Malone that the tragedy was probably written towards the close of 15961.

There is an apparent want of finish about some portions of Another trifling circumstance may lead to the belief that "Timon of Athens," while others are elaborately wrought. "Romeo and Juliet" was not written, at all events, until after In his Lectures in 1815, Coleridge dwelt upon this discordance 1594. In Act ii. (not Act iii., as Malone states) there is an of style at considerable length, but we find no trace of it in allusion, in the words of Mercutio-" a gentleman of the very the published fragments of his Lectures in 1818. Coleridge first house-of the first and second cause," to a work on said, in 1815, that he saw the same vigorous hand at work duelling, called "Vincentio Saviolo his Practise." That book throughout, and gave no countenance to the notion, that any was first printed in 1594, and again in 1595, and the issue of parts of a previously existing play had been retained in the second impression might call Shakespeare's attention to Timon of Athens," "Timon of Athens," as it had come down to us. It was it just before he began "Romeo and Juliet." We have Shakespeare's throughout; and, as originally written, he already seen "Vincentio Saviolo his Practise " more particu-apprehended that it was one of the author's most complete larly referred to in "As You Like It." We place little performances: the players, however, he felt convinced, had reliance upon the allusion in "Romeo and Juliet," because done the poet much injustice; and he especially instanced (as "the first and second cause" are also mentioned in "Love's indeed he did in 1818) the clumsy, "clap-trap" blow at the Labour's Lost," though the passage may, like some others, Puritans in Act iii. sc. 3, as an interpolation by the actor of have been an insertion just prior to Christmas, 1598. the part of Timon's servant. Coleridge accounted for the ruggedness and inequality of the versification upon the same principle, and he was persuaded that only a corrupt and imperfect copy had come to the hands of the player-editors of the folio of 1623. Why the manuscript of "Timon of Athens should have been more mutilated, than that from which other dramas were printed for the first time in the same volume, was a question into which he did not enter. His admiration of some parts of the tragedy was unbounded; but he maintained that it was, on the whole, a painful and disagreeable production, because it gave only a disadvantageous picture of human nature, very inconsistent with what, he firmly believed, was our great poet's real view of the characters of his

Malone hastily concluded from a reference in Marston's Satires, that Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" was acted at the Curtain Theatre, in Shoreditch; but we can be by no means sure that Marston, by the terms "Curtain plaudities," did not mean applauses at any theatre, for all had "curtains," and we have no trace that any other of our great dramatist's plays was acted at the Curtain. The subject must have been à favourite with the public, and it is more than probable that rival companies had contemporaneous plays upon the same story. (See the Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, p. 19.) To some piece formed upon the same incidents, and represented at the Curtain Theatre, Marston may have referred.

1 The Registers of the Stationers' Company throw little light upon the question when "Romeo and Juliet" was first written. On 5 Aug. 1596, Edward White entered "A newe ballad of Romeo and Juliett," which may possibly have been the tragedy, printed (without a bookseller's name) in 1597, though called only a ballad. On 22 Jan. 1606-7, "Romeo and Juliet" (together with "Love's Labour 's Lost"

[ocr errors]

and "The Taming of a Shrew ") was entered to "Mr. Linge," with consent of "Mr. Burby." On 19 Nov. 1607, John Smythick entered "Hamlet," "The Taming of a Shrew," "Romeo and Juliet," and "Love's Labour 's Lost," as having derived his property in them from Linge.

fellow creatures. He said that the whole piece was a bitter dramatic satire,-a species of writing in which Shakespeare had shown, as in all other kinds, that he could reach the very highest point of excellence. Coleridge could not help suspecting that the subject might have been taken up under some temporary feeling of vexation and disappointment.

JULIUS CÆSAR.

[The Tragedie of Julius Cæsar" was first printed in the
folio of 1623, where it occupies twenty-two pages; viz. from
p. 109 to p. 130 inclusive, in the division of "Tragedies."
The Acts, but not the Scenes, are distinguished; and it
appeared in the same manner in the three later folios.]
No early quarto edition of "Julius Cæsar" is known, and
there is reason to believe that it never appeared in that form.
The manuscript originally used for the folio of 1623 must
have been extremely perfect, and free from corruptions, for
there is, perhaps, no drama in the volume more accurately
printed.

Malone and others have arrived at the conclusion that "Julius Cæsar" could not have been written before 1607. We think there is good ground for believing that it was acted before 1603.

How far this notion is well founded can of course be matter of mere speculation; but a whole play could hardly be composed under a transient fit of irritation, and to us it seems more likely, that in this instance, as in others, Shakespeare adopted the story because he thought he could make it acceptable as a dramatic representation. We agree with Farmer in thinking that there probably existed some earlier popular play of which Timon was the hero. The novels in Paynter's "Palace of Pleasure" were the common property of the poets of the day; and "the strange and beastly nature of Timon of Athens " is inserted in the first volume of that collection, which came out before 1567. Paynter professes to have derived his brief materials from the life of Marc Antony, We found this opinion upon some circumstances connected in Plutarch; but Sir Thomas North's translation having made with the publication of Drayton's "Barons' Wars," and the its appearance in 1579, all the circumstances may have been resemblance between a stanza there found, and a passage in familiar to most readers. True it is, that Shakespeare does" Julius Caesar," both of which it will be necessary to quote. not appear to have followed these authorities at all closely, In Act v. sc. 5, Antony gives the following character of and there may have been some version of Lucian then current Brutus :— with which we are now unacquainted. To these sources dramatists preceding Shakespeare may have resorted; and we find Timon so often mentioned by writers of the period, that his habits and disposition, perhaps, had also been made known through the medium of the stage. Shakespeare himself introduces Timon into "Love's Labour's Lost," which, in its original shape, must certainly have been one of our great dramatist's early plays. In Edward Guilpin's collection of Epigrams and Satires, published, under the title of "Skialetheia," in 1598, we meet with the following line, (Epigr. 52,) which seems to refer to some scene in which Timon had been represented :

[blocks in formation]

We know also that there existed about that date a play upon the subject of Timon of Athens. The original manuscript of it is in the library of the Rev. Alexander Dyce, who has recently superintended an impression of it for the Shakespeare Society. He gives it as his opinion, that it was "intended for the amusement of an academic audience," and although the epilogue may be considered rather of a contrary complexion, the learned editor is probably right: it is, how ever, nearly certain that it was acted; and although it will not bear a moment's comparison with Shakespeare's "Timon of Athens," similar incidents and persons are contained in both. Thus, Timon is in the commencement rich, bountiful, and devoured by flatterers: he becomes poor, and is at once deserted by all but his faithful steward;-but before he abandons Athens in disgust, he invites his parasites to a last banquet, where he gives them stones painted to resemble artichokes, which he flings at them as he drives them out of his hall. Shakespeare represents Timon as regaling his guests with warm water; but it is very remarkable, that at the end of his mock-banquet scene, after the hero has quitted the stage, leaving certain lords behind him, upon whom he had thrown the warm water, the following dialogue occurs :"1 Lord. Let's make no stay.

2 Lord. Lord Timon's mad. 3 Lord.

I feel 't upon my bones.

4 Lord. One day he gives us diamonds, next day stones." Shakespeare's Timon had cast no "stones" at his guests, and the above extract reads exactly as if it had formed part of some play in which stones (as in the "Timon" edited by the Rev. A. Dyce) had been employed instead of warm water. Unless stones had been thrown, there could, as Steevens observes, be no propriety in the mention of them by the fourth Lord; and though Shakespeare may not have seen the academic play to which we have alluded, a fragment may by accident have found its way into his "Timon of Athens," which belonged to some other drama, where the banquetscene was differently conducted. It is just possible that our great dramatist, at some subsequent date, altered his original draught, and by oversight left in the rhyming couplet with which the third Act concludes. We need not advert to other resemblances between the academic play and "Timon of Athens," because, by the liberality of the possessor of the manuscript, it may be now said to have become public property.

[ocr errors]

"His life was gentle; and the elements

So mix'd in him, that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world, This was a man.”
meet with the subsequent stanza. The author is speaking of
In Drayton's "Barons' Wars," book iii. edit. 8vo., 1603, we
Mortimer :-

"Such one he was, of him we boldly say,

In whose rich soul all sovereign powers did suit,
In whom in peace th' elements all lay

So mix'd, as none could sovereignty impute;

As all did govern, yet all did obey:

His lively temper was so absolute,

That 't seem'd, when heaven his model first began,
In him it shew'd perfection in a man."

Italic type is hardly necessary to establish that one poet must have availed himself, not only of the thought, but of the very words of the other. The question is, was Shakespeare indebted to Drayton, or Drayton to Shakespeare? We shall not enter into general probabilities, founded upon the original and exhaustless stores of the mind of our great dramatist, but advert to a few dates, which, we think, warrant the conclusion that Drayton, having heard "Julius Cæsar" at the theatre, or seen it in manuscript before 1603, applied to his own purpose, perhaps unconsciously, what, in fact, belonged to another poet.

Drayton's "Barons' Wars" first appeared in 1596, quarto, under the title of "Mortimeriados." Malone had a copy without date, and he and Steevens imagined that the poem had originally been printed in 1598. In the quarto of 1596, and in the undated edition, it is not divided into books, and is in seven-line stanzas: and what is there said of Mortimer bears no likeness whatever to Shakespeare's expressions in " Julius Cæsar." Drayton afterwards changed the title from "Mortimeriados" to "The Barons' Wars," and re-modelled the whole historical poem, altering the stanza from the English ballad form to the Italian ottava rima. This course he took before 1603, when it came out in octavo, with the stanza first quoted, which contains so marked a similarity to the lines from "Julius Cæsar." We apprehend that he did so because he had heard or seen Shakespeare's tragedy before 1603; and we think that strong presumptive proof that he was the borrower, and not Shakespeare, is derived from the fact, that in the subsequent impressions of "The Barons' Wars," in 1605, 1608, 1610, and 1613, the stanza remained precisely as in the edition of 1603; but that in 1619, after Shakespeare's death and before "Julius Cæsar" was printed, Drayton made even a nearer approach to the words of his original, thus :—

"He was a man, then boldly dare to say,

In whose rich soul the virtues well did suit;
In whom so mix'd the elements did lay,
That none to one could sovereignty impute;
As all did govern, so did all obey:
He of a temper was so absolute,
As that it seem'd, when Nature him began,

She meant to show all that might be in man.”

We have been thus particular, because the point is obviously of importance, as regards the date when "Julius Cæsar" was brought upon the stage. Malone seems to have thought that "The Barons' Wars" continued under its original name and in its first shape until the edition of 1608, and concluded that the resemblance to Shakespeare was first to be traced in

that impression. He had not consulted the copies of 1603, or
1605 (which were not in his possession), for if he had looked
at them he must have seen that Drayton had copied "Julius
Cæsar
as early as 1603, and, consequently, unless Shake-
speare imitated Drayton, that that tragedy must then have
been in existence. That Drayton had not remodelled his
"Mortimeriados " as late as 1602, we gather from the circum-
stance, that he reprinted his poems in that year without "The
Barons' Wars" in any form or under any title.
Another slight circumstance might be adduced to show that
"Julius Cæsar "
was even an older tragedy than "Hamlet,"
In the latter (Act iii. sc. 2) it is said that Julius Cæsar was
"killed in the Capitol :" in Shakespeare's drama such is the
representation, although contrary to the truth of history.
This seems to have been the popular notion, and we find it
confirmed in Sir Edward Dyer's "Prayse of Nothing," 1585,
quarto, a tract unknown to every bibliographer, where these
words occur: "Thy stately Capitol (proud Rome) had not
beheld the bloody fall of pacified Cæsar, if nothing had accom-
panied him." Robert Greene, a graduate of both Universities,
makes the same statement, and Shakespeare may have fol-
lowed some older play, where the assassination scene was laid
in the Capitol Chaucer had so spoken of it in his "Monk's
It is not, however, likely that Dr. Eedes, who wrote
a Latin academical play on the story, acted at Oxford in 1582,
should have committed the error.

Tale."

Shakespeare appears to have derived nearly all his materials from Plutarch, as translated by Sir Thomas North, and first published in 15791. At the same time, it is not unlikely that there was a preceding play, and our reason for thinking so is assigned in a note in Act iii. sc i. It is a new fact, ascertained from an entry in Henslowe's Diary dated 22nd May, 1602, that Anthony Munday, Michael Drayton, John Webster, Thomas Middleton, and other poets, were engaged upon a tragedy entitled "Cæsar's Fall" The probability is, that these dramatists united their exertions, in order without delay to bring out a tragedy on the same subject as that of Shakespeare, which, perhaps, was then performing at the Globe Theatre with success. Malone states, that there is no proof that any contemporary writer "had presumed to newmodel a story that had already employed the pen of Shakespeare. He forgot that Ben Jonson was engaged upon a Richard Crookback" in 1602; and he omitted, when examining Henslowe's Diary, to observe, that in the same year four distinguished dramatists, and "other poets," were employed upon "Cæsar's Fall."

[ocr errors]

From Vertue's manuscripts we learn that a play, called "Cæsar's Tragedy," was acted at Court in 1618, which might be the production of Lord Stirling, Shakespeare's drama, that written by Munday, Drayton, Webster, Middleton, and others, or a play printed in 1607, under the title of "The Tragedy of Cæsar and Pompey, or Cæsar's Revenge." Mr. Peter Cunningham, in his "Revels' Accounts," (Introd. p. xxv.) has shown that a dramatic piece, with the title of "The Tragedy of Cæsar," was exhibited at Court on Jan. 31, 1636-7.

MACBETH.

and did so.

in the days of Edward the Confessor. And Duncan bad them both kindly welcome, and made Macbeth forth with Prince of Northumberland; and sent him home to his own Castle, and appointed Macbeth to provide for him, for he would sup with him the next day at night, "And Macbeth contrived to kill Duncan, and through the persuasion of his wife did that night murder the king in his own Castle. being his guest. And there were many prodigies seen that night and the day before. And when Macbeth had murdered the King, the blood on his hands could not be washed off by any means, nor from his wife's hands, which handled the bloody daggers in hiding them, by which means they became both much amazed and affronted. England, the [other to] Wales, to save themselves: they, being fled, "The murder being known. Duncan's two sons fled, the one to were supposed guilty of the murder of their father, which was nothing so.

"Then was Macbeth crowned King, and then he for fear of Banquo, he contrived the death of Banquo, and caused him to be murdered on his old companion, that he should beget Kings but be no king himself, the way that he rode. The night, being at supper with his noblemen, whom he had bid to a feast, (to the which also Banquo should have come,) he began to speak of noble Banquo, and to wish that he were there. And as he thus did, standing up to drink a carouse to him, the ghost of Banquo came, and sat down in his chair behind him. And he, turning about to sit down again, saw the ghost of and fury, uttering many words about his murder, by which. when Banquo, which fronted him, so that he fell in a great passion of fear they heard that Banquo was murdered, they suspected Macbeth.

"Then Macduff fled to England to the King's son, and so they raised an army and came to Scotland, and at Dunston Anyse overthrew Macbeth. In the mean time, while Macduff was in England, Macbeth slew Macduff's wife and children, and after, in the battle, sleep, and walk, and talked and confessed all, and the Doctor noted "Observe, also, how Macbeth's Queen did rise in the night in her her words.”

Macduff slew Macbeth.

Our principal reason for thinking that "Macbeth" had been originally represented at least four years before 1610, is the striking allusion, in Act iv. sc. 1, to the union of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the hands of James I. That monarch ascended the throne in March, 1602-8, and the words,

"Some I see,

That two-fold balls and treble sceptres carry, would have had little point, if we suppose them to have been delivered after the king who bore the balls and sceptres had been more than seven years on the throne. James was proclaimed king of Great Britain and Ireland on the 24th of October, 1604, and we may perhaps conclude that Shakespeare wrote "Macbeth" in the year 1605, and that it was first acted at the Globe, when it was opened for the summer season, in the spring of 1606.

We are

Malone elaborately supports his opinion, that "Macbeth" was produced in 1606, by two allusions in the speech of the Porter, Act ii. sc. 3, to the cheapness of corn, and to the doctrine of equivocation, which had been supported by Robert Garnet, who was executed on the 3d of May, 1606. generally disposed to place little confidence in such passages, not only because they are frequently obscure in their application, but because they may have been introduced at any subsequent period, either by the author or actor, with the purpose of exciting the applause of the audience, by reference know that dramatists were in the constant habit of making to some circumstance then attracting public attention. We additions and alterations, and that comic performers had the vice of delivering "more than was set down for them." The speech of the Porter, in which the two supposed temporary allusions are contained, is exactly of the kind which the per THE Only ascertained fact respecting the performance of former of the part might be inclined to enlarge, and so "Macbeth," in the lifetime of its author, is that it was repre- strongly was Coleridge convinced that it was an interpolation sented at the Globe Theatre on the 20th of April, 1610. by the player, that he boldly "pledged himself to demonstrate Whether it was then a new play, it is impossible to decide; it." (Lit. Rem. vol. ii. p. 285.) This notion was not new to but we are inclined to think that it was not, and that Malone him in 1818; for three years earlier he had publicly declared was right in his conjecture, that it was first acted about the it in a lecture devoted to "Macbeth," although he admitted year 1606. The subsequent account of the plot is derived that there was something of Shakespeare in "the primrose from Dr. Simon Forman's manuscript Diary, preserved in the way to the everlasting bonfire." It may be doubted whether Ashmolean Museum, from which it appears, that he saw he would have made this concession, if he had not recollected "Macbeth" played at the Globe on the day we have stated:-"the primrose path of dalliance" in "Hamlet."

["The Tragedie of Macbeth" was first printed in the folio of 1628, where it occupies twenty-one pages; viz. from p. 131 to p. 151 inclusive, in the division of "Tragedies." The Acts and Scenes are regularly marked there, as well as in the later folios.]

"In Macbeth, at the Globe, 1610, the 20th of April, Saturday, there was to be observed, first, how Macbeth and Banquo, two noblemen of Scotland, riding through a wood, there stood before them three women Fairies, or Nymphs, and saluted Macbeth, saying three times unto him, Hail, Macbeth, King of Codor, for thou shalt be a King, but shalt beget no Kings, &c. Then, said Banquo, What! all to Macbeth, and nothing to me? Yes, said the Nymphs, Hail to thee, Banquo; thou shalt beget Kings, yet be no King. And so they departed, and came to the Court of Scotland, to Duncan, King of Scots, and it was 1 Lord Stirling published a tragedy under the title of "Julius Cæsar," in 1604: the resemblances are by no means numerous or obvious, and probably not more than may be accounted for by the fact, that two writers were treating the same subject. The popularity

Shakespeare, doubtless, derived all the materials he required from Holinshed, without resorting to Boethius, or to any other authority. Steevens continued to maintain, that Shakespeare was indebted, in some degree, to Middleton's "Witch" for the preternatural portion of " Macbeth;" but Malone, who at first entertained the same view of the subject, ultimately abandoned it, and became convinced that "The Witch" was a play written subsequently to the production of " Macbeth." of Shakespeare's tragedy about 1603 may have led to the printing of that by Lord Sterling in 1604, and on this account the date is of consequence. Malone appears to have known of no edition of Lord Stirling's "Julius Cæsar" until 1607.

Those who read the two will, perhaps, wonder how a doubt could have been entertained. "The Witch," in all probability, was not written until about 1613; and what must surprise every body is, that a poet of Middleton's rank could so degrade the awful beings of Shakespeare's invention; for although, as Lamb observes, "the power of Middleton's witches is in some measure over the mind," (Specimens of Engl. Dram. Poets, p. 174,) they are of a degenerate race, as if, Shakespeare having created them, no other mind was sufficiently gifted even to continue their existence.

This undated edition was probably printed in 1607, as it was entered at Stationers' Hall on Nov. 19, in that year. An impression, by R. Young, in 4to, 1637, has also John Smethwicke at the bottom of the title-page.

In the folio of 1623, "The Tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke," occupies thirty-one pages, in the division of “Tragedies;” viz. from p. 152 to p. 280, inclusive, there being a mistake of 100 pages between p. 156 and what ought to have been p. 157.]

Whether Shakespeare obtained his knowledge regarding THE story upon which, there is reason to believe, Shakespeare these agents, and of the locality he supposes them to have founded his tragedy of "Hamlet," has recently been reprinted, frequented, from actual observation, is a point we have con- "Shakespeare's Library;" and there is, perhaps, nothing from the only known perfect copy, as part of a work called sidered in the Biography of the poet. The existing evidence on the question is there collected, and we have shown, that more remarkable than the manner in which our great dramaten years before the date hitherto assigned to that circum-tist wrought these barbarous, uncouth, and scanty materials stance, a company called "the Queen's Players" had visited into the magnificent structure he left behind him. A comEdinburgh. This fact is quite new in the history of the parison of "The Historie of Hamblet," as it was translated at introduction of English theatrical performances into Scotland. an early date from the French of Belleforest, with "The That the Queen's comedians were north of the Tweed in 1599, Tragedy of Hamlet," is calculated to give us the most exalted on the invitation of James VI., we have distinct evidence notion of, and profound reverence for, the genius of Shakewe know also that they were in Aberdeen in 1601, when the speare: his vast superiority to Green and Lodge was obvious freedom of the city was presented to Laurence Fletcher (the in "The Winter's Tale," and "As You Like It;" but the first name in the patent of 1608); but to establish that they novels of "Pandosto" and "Rosalynde," as narratives, were were in Edinburgh in 1589 gives much more latitude for perhaps as far above "The Historie of Hamblet," as speculation on the question, whether Shakespeare, in the Winter's Tale" and "As You Like It " were above the origiinterval of about fourteen years before James I. ascended the hals from which their main incidents were derived. Nothing, throne of England, had at any time accompanied his fellow- in point of fact, can be much more worthless, in story and style, than the production to which it is supposed Shakespeare was indebted for the foundation of his "Hamlet."

actors to Scotland.

"Macbeth" was inserted by the player-editors in the folio of 1623; and, as in other similar cases, we may presume that it had not come from the press at an earlier date, because in the books of the Stationers' Company it is registered by Blount and Jaggard, on the 8th of November, 1623, as one of the plays "not formerly entered to other men.". handed down in an unusually complete state, for not only are the divisions of the acts pointed out, but the subdivisions of the scenes carefully and accurately noted.

It has been

"The

At whatever date we suppose Shakespeare to have written "Macbeth," we may perhaps infer, from a passage in Kemp's There is, however, some ground for thinking, that a lost "Nine Days' Wonder," 1600, that there existed a ballad upon play upon similar incidents preceded the work of Shakethe story, which may have been older than the tragedy: such speare: how far that lost play might be an improvement upon is the opinion of the Rev. Mr. Dyce, in his notes to the reprint the old translated "Historie" we have no means of deciding, of this tract by the Camden Society, p. 34. The point, how-nor to what extent Shakespeare availed himself of such imever, is doubtful, and it is obvious that Kemp did not mean provement. A drama, of which Hamlet was the hero, was to be very intelligible: his other allusions to ballad-makers of certainly in being prior to the year 1587, (in all probability his time are purposely obscure. too early a date for Shakespeare to have been the writer of it) for we find it thus alluded to by Thomas Nash, in his preliminary epistle to the "Menaphon" of Robert Greene, published in that year3:-"Yet English Seneca, read by candle-light, yeelds many good sentences, as blood is a beggar, and so forth; and if you entreat him fair in a frosty morning, he will afford you whole Hamlets, I should say handfuls, of their productions at that period, and he seems to have gone tragical speeches." The writer is referring to play-poets and tragical speeches." out of his way, in order to introduce the very name of the performance against which he was directing ridicule. Another piece of evidence, to the same effect, but of a more questionable kind, is to be found in Henslowe's Diary, under the date of June 9th, 1594, when a "Hamlet" was represented at the theatre at Newington Butts: that it was then an old play is ascertained from the absence of the mark, which the old manager usually prefixed to first performances, and from the fact that his share of the receipts was only nine shillings. At that date, however, the company to which Shakespeare belonged was in joint occupation of the same theatre, and it is certainly possible, though improbable, that the drama represented on June 9th, 1594, was Shakespeare's "Hamlet."

HAMLET, PRINCE OF DENMARK.

[The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke By William Shake-speare. As it hath beene diuerse times acted by his Highnesse seruants in the Cittie of London: as also in the two Vniuersities of Cambridge and Oxford, and else-where. At London printed for N. L. and Iohn Trundell. 1603. 4to. 33 leaves.

We feel confident, however, that the "Hamlet" which has come down to us in at least six quarto impressions, in the folio of 1623, and in the later impressions in that form, was not written until the winter of 1601, or the spring of 1602.

The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke. By William Shakespeare. Newly imprinted and enlarged to almost as much againe as it was, according to the true and perfect Coppie. At London, Printed by I. R. for N. L. and are to be sold at his shoppe vnder Saint Dunstons Church in Fleetstreet. 1604. 4to. 51 leaves. Malone, Steevens, and the other commentators, were acThe title-page of the edition of 1605 does not differ in the most quainted with no edition of the tragedy anterior to the quarto minute particular from that of 1604. of 1604, which professes to be "enlarged to almost as much The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke. By William again as it was" they, therefore, reasonably suspected that Shakespeare. Newly imprinted and enlarged to almost as it had been printed before; and within the last twenty years much againe as it was, according to the true and perfect a single copy of an edition in 1603 has been discovered. This, Coppy. At London, Printed for Iohn Smethwicke and are in fact, seems to have been the abbreviated and imperfect to be sold at his shoppe in Saint Dunstons Church yeard in edition, consisting of only about half as much as the impresFleetstreet. Vnder the Diall. Vnder the Diall. 1611. 4to. 1611. 4to. 51 leaves. sion of 1604. It belongs to the Duke of Devonshire, and, by The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke. Newly Im- the favour of his Grace, is now before us. From whose press printed and inlarged, according to the true and perfect it came we have no information, but it professed to be Copy lastly Printed. By William Shakespeare. London," printed for N. L. and Iohn Trundell." The edition of the Printed by W. S. for Iohn Smethwicke, and are to be sold at his Shop in Saint Dunstans Church-yard in Fleetstreet: Vnder the Diall. 4to. 51 leaves.

1 Dr. Farmer had an imperfect copy of it, but it is preserved entire among Capell's books in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, and was printed in 1608, by Richard Bradocke, for Thomas Pavier. "There can be little doubt that it had originally come from the press considerably before the commencement of the seventeenth century, although the multiplicity of readers of productions of the kind, and the carelessness with which such books were regarded after perusal, has led to the destruction, as far as can now be ascertained, of every earlier copy."-Introduction to Part IV. of "Shakespeare's Library.

following year was printed by I. R. for N. L. only; and why Trundell ceased to have any interest in the publication we know not. N. L. was Nicholas Ling; and I. R., the printer

2 Belleforest derived his knowledge of the incidents from the History of Denmark, by Saxo Grammaticus, first printed in 1514.

3 We give the date of 1587 on the excellent authority of the Rev. A. Dyce, (Greene's Works, vol. i. pp. xxxvii. and ciii.) We have never been able to meet with any impression earlier than that of 1589. Sir Egerton Brydges reprinted the tract from the edition of 1616, (when its name had been changed to "Green's Arcadia ") in "Archaica,” vol. i.

[graphic]

of the edition of 1604, was, no doubt, James Roberts, who, two years before, had made the following entry in the Registers of the Stationers' Company:

"26 July 1602.

James Roberts] A booke, The Revenge of Hamlett prince of Denmarke, as yt was latelie acted by the Lord Chamberlayn his servantes."

"The words, "as it was lately acted," are important upon the question of date, and the entry farther proves, that the tragedy had been performed by the company to which Shakespeare belonged. In the spring of 1603" the Lord Chamberlain's servants" became the King's players; and on the title-page of the quarto of 1603 it is asserted that it had been acted "by his Highness' servants." On the title-page of the quarto of 1604 we are not informed that the tragedy had been acted by any company.

The impression of 1604 being intended to supersede that of 1603, which gave a most mangled and imperfect notion of the drama in its true state, we may perhaps presume that the quarto of 1604 was, at least, as authentic a copy of "Hamlet" as the editions of any of Shakespeare's plays that came from the press during his lifetime. It contains various passages, some of them of great importance to the conduct and character of the hero, not to be found in the folio of 1623; while the folio includes other passages which are left out in the quarto of 1604; although, as before remarked, we have the evidence of the quarto of 1603, that they were originally acted. The different quarto impressions were printed from each other; and even that of 1637, though it makes some verbal changes, contains no distinct indication that the printer had resorted to the folios.

The three later folios, in this instance as in others, were Thus we see, that in July, 1602, there was an intention to printed from the immediately preceding edition in the same print and publish a play called "The Revenge of Hamlet, form; but we are inclined to think, that if "Hamlet,” in the Prince of Denmark;" and this intention, we may fairly con- folio of 1623, were not composed from some now unknown clude, arose out of the popularity of the piece, as it was then quarto, it was derived from a manuscript obtained by Hemacted by "the Lord Chamberlain's servants," who, in May inge and Condell from the theatre. The Acts and Scenes following, obtained the title of "the King's players." The are, however, marked only in the first and second Acts, after object of Roberts in making the entry already quoted, was which no divisions of the kind are noticed; and where Act iii. to secure it to himself, being, no doubt, aware that other commences is merely matter of modern conjecture. Some printers and booksellers would endeavor to anticipate him. large portions of the play appear to have been omitted for It seems probable, that he was unable to obtain such a copy the sake of shortening the performance; and any editor who of "Hamlet" as he would put his name to; but some inferior should content himself with reprinting the folio, without large and nameless printer, who was not so scrupulous, having additions from the quartos, would present but an imperfect surreptitiously secured a manuscript of the play, however notion of the drama as it came from the hand of the poet. imperfect, which would answer the purpose, and gratify public The text of "Hamlet" is, in fact, only to be obtained from curiosity, the edition bearing date in 1603 was published. a comparison of the editions in quarto and folio, but the misSuch, we have little doubt, was the origin of the impression prints in the latter are quite as numerous and glaring as in of which only a single copy has reached our day, and of which, the former. In various instances we have been able to correct probably, but a few were sold, as its worthlessness was soon the one by the other, and it is in this respect chiefly that the discovered, and it was quickly entirely superseded by the quarto of 1603 is of intrinsic value. enlarged impression of 1604.

Coleridge, after vindicating himself from the accusation As an accurate reprint was made in 1825 of "The Tragicall that he had derived his ideas of Hamlet from Schlegel, (and Historie of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke," 1603, it will be we heard him broach them some years before the Lectures, unnecessary to go in detail into proofs to establish, as we Ueber Dramatische Kunst und Litteratur, were published,) could do without much difficulty, the following points:- thus, in a few sentences, sums up the character of Hamlet: 1. That great part of the play, as it there stands, was taken" In Hamlet, Shakespeare seems to have wished to exemplify down in short-hand. 2. That where mechanical skill failed the moral necessity of a due balance between our attention the short-hand writer, he either filled up the blanks from to the objects of our senses, and our meditation on the workmemory, or employed an inferior writer to assist him. 3. That ings of our mind, -an equilibrium between the real and although some of the scenes were carelessly transposed, and others entirely omitted, in the edition of 1603, the drama, as it was acted while the short-hand writer was employed in taking it down, was, in all its main features, the same as the more perfect copy of the tragedy printed with the date of 1604. It is true, that in the edition of 1603, Polonius is called Corambis, and his servant, Montano, and we may not be able to determine why these changes were made in the immediately subsequent impression; but we may perhaps conjecture that they were names in the older play on the same story, or names which Shakespeare at first introduced, and subsequently thought fit to reject. We know that Ben Jonson changed the whole dramatis persona of his "Every Man in

his Humour.'

the imaginary worlds. In Hamlet this balance is disturbed;
his thoughts and the images of his fancy are far more vivid
than his actual perceptions; and his very perceptions, in-
stantly passing through the medium of his contemplations,
acquire, as they pass, a form and a color not naturally their
own. Hence we see a great, an almost enormous, intellectual
activity, and a proportionate aversion to real action conse-
quent upon it, with all its symptoms and accompanying
qualities. This character Shakespeare places in circumstances
under which it is obliged to act on the spur of the moment.
Hamlet is brave, and careless of death; but he vacillates
from sensibility, and procrastinates from thought, and loses
the power of action in the energy of resolve."
(Lit. Rem.
vol. ii. p. 205.)

[ocr errors]

But although we entirely reject the quarto of 1603, as an It has generally been supposed that Joseph Taylor was authentic "Hamlet," it is of high value in enabling us to the original actor of Hamlet-and Wright, in his Historia settle the text of various important passages. It proves, Histrionica," 1699, certainly speaks of him as having perbesides, that certain portions of the play, as it appears in the formed the part. This, however, must have been after the folio of 1623, which do not form part of the quarto of 1604, death of Richard Burbage, which happened precisely eighty were originally acted, and were not, as has been hitherto years before Wright published his tract. We know, from imagined, subsequent introductions. We have pointed out the manuscript Elegy upon Burbage, sold among Heber's these and other peculiarities so fully in our notes, that we books, that he was the earliest representative of Hamlet; need not dwell upon them here; but we may mention, that and there the circumstance of his being "fat and scant of in Act iii. sc. 4, the quarto of 1603 explains a curious point breath," in the fencing scene, is noticed in the very words of stage-business, which puzzled all the commentators. Just of Shakespeare. Taylor did not belong to the company for as the Ghost is departing from the Queen's closet, Hamlet which Shakspeare wrote at the date when "Hamlet" was exclaims, produced.

(C Look, how it steals away! My father, in his habit as he lived !"

Malone, Steevens, and Monck Mason argue the question whether in this scene, the Ghost, as in former scenes, ought to wear armour, or to be dressed in "his own familiar habit;" and they conclude, either that Shakespeare had "forgotten himself," or had meant "to vary the dress of the Ghost at this his last appearance." The quarto of 1603, shows exactly how the poet's intention was carried into effect, for there we meet with the stage-direction, "Enter the Ghost in his nightgown;" and such was unquestionably the appearance of the performer of the part when the short-hand writer saw the tragedy, with a view to the speedy publication of a fraudulent impression. 'My father, in the habit as he lived," are the words he recorded from the mouth of the actor of Hamlet.

KING LEAR.

M. William Shak-speare: His True Chronicle Historie of the life and death of King Lear and his three Daughters. With the vnfortunate life of Edgar, sonne and heire to the Earle of Gloster, and his sullen and assumed humour of Tom of Bedlam. As it was played before the Kings Maiestie at Whitehall vpon S. Stephans night in Christmas Hollidayes. By his Maiesties seruants playing vsually at the Gloabe on the Bancke-side. London, Printed for Nathaniel Butter, and are to be sold at his shop in Paul's Church-yard, at the signe of the Pide Bull neere St. Austin's Gate. 1608. 4to. 41 leaves.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »