Notes on above: Act I.] Actus Primus. Ff. Scene I.] Scœna Prima. F1. Scæna Prima. F2. F4. Scena Prima F3. Elsinore.] Cap. A platform. . .] Mal. An open Place before the Palace. Rowe, Pope. A Platform before the Palace. Theob. + Platform of the Castle. Cap. Francisco...] Dyce. Francisco upon. . . Cap. Enter Bernardo and Francisco, two Centinels. QqFf (Bernardo Q4) Rowe + Francisco on guard. Sta. 1-5. Who's. . . . He] Two lines, the first ending unfold. Cap. Steev. Var. Cald. Knt, Coll. White, El. 1. Who's] Whose Qq. 1. Who's there] Coleridge (p. 148): That Shakespeare meant to put an effect in the actor's power in these very first words is evident from the impatience expressed by the startled Francisco in the line that follows. A brave man is never so peremptory as when he fears that he is afraid. Tschischwitz finds a "psychological motive" in thus representing Bernardo as so forgetful of all military use and wont as to challenge Francisco who is on guard. Evidently Bernardo is afraid to meet the Ghost all alone, and it is because he feels so unmanned that his last words to Francisco are to bid Horatio and Marcellus make haste. (For other instances of irregularities in metre, which may be explained by the custom of placing ejaculations, appellations, &c., out of the regular verse, see Abbott, § 512. Ed.) 2. me] Jennens: This is the emphatic word. [Hanmer printed it in italics. Ed.] Francisco, as the sentinel on guard, has the right of insisting on the watch-word, which is given in Bernardo's answer. Hor. It would have much amazed you. Ham. Very like, very like. Stay'd it long? Notes on above lines: 235, 236. It... like.] One line, Cap. Steev. Var. Cald. Knt i, Coll. White. 236, 237. very . . . haste.] One line, Cap. Mal. 236. Very like, very like.] Very like Qq, Pope +, Jen. El. 236. like] Claredon: See 11, ii, 336. This use of "like" instead of "likely" has become provincial. Congreve (Way of the World, Iv, iv) puts it into the mouth of the rustic, Sir Wilfull. There is more on these perfectly simple words, but this is perhaps sufficient. Ham. (aside). A little more than kin, and less than kind. These lines plainly indicating that the king was kin to him, having slain his father, incite Furness to oppress us with the equivalent of a page and a third of the text of the play, a fair example of the foggy and mischievous nature of the criticism in which Stratfordian critics love to indulge: 65. kin... kind] Hanmer: Probably a proverbial expression for a relationship so confused and blended that it was hard to define it. Johnson supposes "kind" to be here the German word for child. That is, "I am more than cousin and less than son." This conjecture Steevens properly disposes of by requiring some proof that "kind" was ever used by any English writer for child. He adds: A jingle of the same sort is found in Mother Bombie, 1594, - the nearer we are in blood, the further we must be from love, the greater the kindred is, the less the kindness must be." Again, in Gorboduc, 1561, "In kinde a father, but not kindelynesse." As "kind," however, signifies nature, Hamlet may mean that his relationship had become an unnatural one, as it was partly founded on incest. Be wary then; best safety lies in fear; Youth to itself rebels, though none else near. Notes on the word "best" and "safety": 43. best] The not uncommon omission of the article before superlatives is perhaps to be explained, according to Abbott, § 82, by the double meaning of the superlative, which means not only "the best of the class," but also "very good." 43. safety] Francke: See Macb. III, v, 32. Also Velleius Paterculus, ii, 218: frequentissimum initium esse calamitatis securitatem. Elze: See Tro. & Cress. II, ii, 14: "the wound of peace is surety, Surety secure." This should be enough to weary the reader. The most insignificant words, "the," "and," "though," "near," are exploited in the same dreary manner; yet, when we think of poor Furness sitting long years engaged in his literary carpentry, patiently copying or directing an apprentice to copy such stuff as we have quoted from the mass of books surrounding him,— those of the "lowlier pilgrims" as well as of the more daring "Who have climbed over the magnificence of the highest mountains," -we can have for him nothing but pity, and are ready to forgive his harsh treatment of a young friend, who excited his wrath and "tears" by venturing upon such an act of sacrilege as putting his hand into an old glove, which Furness had deluded himself into believing once belonged to the subject of his lifelong idolatry. At the present time seventeen volumes of his work have been printed comprising over eight thousand pages, a large part of which is of the precise character of what we have here quoted; and though Furness has ended his labors, his work is being carried on in the same manner by his worthy son, who has admirably learned his trade, and can dovetail with the same nicety as his honored forbear. The world, therefore, is to be endowed with many more volumes, probably no more flawed with erroneous opinions and positive errors than those already published, a trifling matter, as a volume of corrigenda would take care of these if not annotated; if they were, it would, of course, require several more volumes, and this might be thought desirable in order to maintain the "monumental" feature of the work. It was estimated many years ago that ten thousand volumes, large and small, had been written on the "Shakespeare" Works. This number should have about doubled by this time, and it is but true to say that they constitute such a confusing mass of irreconcilable opinions as to be useless to students, except as a warning against juggling with glittering theories in literary criticism. This, however, can hardly compensate for the dissemination of so much fiction, and the imposition of useless toil to overworked librarians and callow students. V A STUDY OF OTHER "SHAKESPEARE" PLAYS AMONG plays bearing the authorial name of William Shakespeare, or its initials, we cannot afford to shirk the responsibility imposed upon us by our title-page of examining, briefly at least, those admitted to the Third Folio, as well as several others having quite as good a claim to canonization, if we accept contemporary evidence, or the claims of the so-called "Cipher Story," to be treated later. SIR JOHN OLDCASTLE, bearing the full name, "William Shakespeare," on the title-page, was never disowned by the actor, nor disputed by critics until, in 1790, Malone, who then almost monopolized the field of speculative criticism, passed upon it an unfavorable opinion; indeed, he goes so far as to say that he cannot "perceive the least trace of our great poet in any part of the play." No less a critic, however, than Schlegel declares that this play, "Thomas Lord Cromwell," and "Locrine" "are not only unquestionably Shakspere's, but, in my opinion, they deserve to be classed among his best and maturest works." "Thomas Lord Cromwell" and "Sir John Oldcastle" he classes together as biographical dramas, and models of their kind, the first in the nature of its subject linked to "Henry VIII," and the second to "Henry V." Tieck also has no hesitation in assigning these plays to the author of "Hamlet." On the other hand, Phillipps, realizing the danger of questioning the infallibility of the Canon, rejects, in accord with the prevailing policy, the play of "Oldcastle," suggesting an old play of that name, while Ulrici ascribes it to an imitator "who tried to model himself upon Shakespeare's style." The personalities of Oldcastle and Falstaff have been con fused unnecessarily by critics. There were real personages of both names, but there is nothing in the drama we are considering to lead one to suppose that the worthy Sir John was the prototype of the selfish and lascivious Falstaff. In the "Famous Victories" there is a Sir John Oldcastle, a disreputable fellow associated with Prince Henry in his madcap adventures, whom the public later recognized in Falstaff, seemingly to the annoyance of the Cobhams who were allied to the Oldcastle family. The following quotations from the Prologue to "Sir John Oldcastle," and the Epilogue to the second part of "Henry IV," should settle the matter:— It is no pamper'd glutton we present, Nor aged Councellor to youthfull sinne, But one whose virtue shown above the rest, For anything I know Falstaffe shall dye of a sweat unless already he be kill'd with your hard Opinions: For Old-Castle dyed a Martyr, and this is not the man. The First Quarto was printed anonymously in 1600, and the Second followed, with "William Shakespeare" on the titlepage. The play opens with a street quarrel between the followers of Lords Powis and Herbert, which is suppressed by the appearance of the judges upon the scene. In the Second, the Bishop of Rochester denounces Lord Cobham, or Oldcastle, as a heretic. This is followed by a gathering of rebels in London who proclaim Oldcastle their general, and then we have a scene between him and the king: K. Henry. Cob. 'T is not enough, lord Cobham, to submit; My gracious lord, unto your majesty, |