صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

with "Troilus and Cressida," and in the folios of 1664 and 1685"Coriolanus" is inserted in the same order.]

NOTHING has yet been discovered to lend to the belief that there was a play on the story of Coriolanus anterior to Shakespeare's tragedy. Henslowe's Diary contains no hint of the kind.

The materials for this drama appear to have been derived exclusively from "the Life of Caius Martius Coriolanus," in the early translation of Plutarch by Sir Thomas North. That translation came from the press in folio in 1579, with the following title: The Lives of the noble Grecians and Romanes, compared together by that grave learned Philosopher and Historiographer, Plutarke of Charonea." It was avowedly made from the French of Amiot, Bishop of Auxerre, and appears to have been very popular: though published at a high price (equal to about £5 of the present money), it was several times reprinted; and we may, perhaps, presume that our great dramatist made use of an impression nearer his own time, possibly that of 1595. In many of the principals sheches he has followed this authority with verbal exstress; and he was indebted to it for the wh • con lust of his plot. T. ction occupies less than four yen for it conces subseent to the retirement of the prope Mons Sacer in 262, aver the woundation of Rou, and terminates

1

with the death of Coriolanus in A. U. C. 266.

Hence we

"The Tragedy of Coriolanus" originally appeared in the folio of 1623, where it is divided into acts but not into scenes; and it was registered at Stationers' Hall by Blount and Juggard on the 8th November of that year, as one of the "copies" which had not been "entered to other men." infer that there had been no previous edition of it in quarto. Malone supposed that "Coriolanus" was written in 1610; but we are destitute of all evidence on the point, beyond what may be derived from the style of composition: this would certainly induce us to fix it somewhat late in the career of our great dramatist.

TITUS ANDRONICUS.

["The most lamentable Romaine Tragedie of Titus Andronicus. As it hath sundry times becue playde by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke, the Earle of Darbie, the Earle of Sussex, and the Lorde Chamberlaine theyr

Seruants. At London, Printed by I. R. for Edward White, and are to bee solde at his shoppe, at the little North door of Paules, at the signe of the Gun. 1600." 4to. 40 leaves. "The most lamentable Tragedie of Titus Andronicus. As it hath sundry times beene plaide by the Kings Maiesties Seruants, London, Printed for Eedward White, and are to be solde at his shoppe, nere the little North dore of

Pauls, at the signe of the Gun. 1611." 4to. 40 leaves. In the folio of 1623, "The Lamentable Tragedy of Titus Andronicus" occupies twenty-two pages, in the division of "Tragedies," viz., from p. 31 to p. 52, inclusive. The three later folios, of course, insert it in the same part of the volume.]

We feel no hesitation in assigning "Titus Andronicus" to Shakespeare. Whether he may lay claim to it as the author of the entire tragedy, or only in a qualified sense, as having made additions to, and improvements in it, is a different and a more difficult question.

We find it given to him by his contemporary, Francis Meres, in his Palladis Tamia, 1598. was also inserted in the folio of 1623 by Shakespeare's fellow-actors, Heminge and Condell. Had it not been by our great dramatist, Meres, who was well acquainted with the literature of his time, would

not have attributed it to him; and the player-editors, who had been Shakespeare's " fellows and friends," and were men of character and experience, would not have included it in their volume. These two facts are, in our view, sufficient.

It was, undoubtedly, one of his earliest, if not his All are aware very earliest dramatic production. that there is a most marked distinction between his mode of composition early and late in life; as exhibited, for instance, in "Love's Labor's Lost," and in "The Winter's Tale ;" and we apprehend that "Titus Andronicus" belongs to a period even anterior to the former. Supposing "Titus Andronicus" to have been written about 1588, we are to recollect that our dramatic poets were then only beginning to throw off the shackles of rhyme, and their versification partook of the weight and monotony which were the usual accompaniments of couplets. "Titus Andronicus" is to be read under this impression, and many passages will then be found in it which, we think, are remarkable indications of skill and power in an unpractised dramatist: as a poetical production it has not hitherto had justice done to it, on account, partly, of the revolting nature of the plot. Neither is internal evidence wholly wanting, for words and phrases employed by Shakespeare in his other works may be pointed out; and in Act iii., sc. 1, we meet a remarkable expression, which is also contained in "Venus and Adonis."

With reference to the general complexity of the drama, and the character of the plot, it must also be borne in mind that it was produced at a time, when scenes of horror were especially welcome to public audiences, and when pieces were actually recommended to their admiration in consequence of the blood and slaughter with which they abounded.

The oldest known edition of "Titus Andronicua"

bears date in 1600: but we feel convinced that a more ancient impression will some time or other again be brought to light. That it once existed, we have the testimony of Langbaine, in his "Account of English Dramatic Poets," 1691, where he tells us that the play was "first printed 4to. Lond. 1594." Consistently with this assertion we find the following entry in the Registers of the Stationers' Company:

"6 Feb. 1593

John Danter] A booke entitled a noble Roman Historye of Tytus Andronicus."

The Stationers' books contain several subsequent memoranda respecting "Titus Andronicus," bearing date 19th April, 1602, 14th December, 1624, and 8th November, 1630; but none which seems to have relation to the editions of 1600 and 1611. No quarto impressions of a subsequent date are known, and the tragedy next appeared in the folio of 1623, which was printed from the quarto of 1611.

dronicus" was founded upon some anterior dramatic It is very possible that Shakespeare's "Titus Anperformance, but on this point we have no evidence beyond what may be collected from the piece itself, in certain real or supposed dissimilarities of com position.

ROMEO AND JULIET.

It["An excellent conceited Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet. As
it hath been often (with great applause) plaid publiquely,
by the right Honourable the L. of Hunsdon his scruants.
London, Printed by John Danter. 1597" 4to. 39 leaves.
"The most excellent and lamentable Tragedie, of Romeo and
Iulict. Newly corrected, augmented, and amended: As

46 leaves.

it hath bene sundry times publiquely acted, by the right | obtained, and partly from notes taken at the theatre Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his Seruants. Lon: during representation. The second edition was don Printed by Thomas Creede, for Cuthbert Burby, and are to be sold at his shop neare the Exchange, 1599." 4to. printed in 1599, and it professes to have been "newly corrected, augmented, and amended:" the "The most excellent and Lamentable Tragedie, of Romeo third dated edition appeared in 1609; but some And Juliet. As it hath beene sundrie times publiquely Acted, by the Kings Maiesties Seruants at the Globe. copies without a date are known, which most likely were posterior to 1609, but anterior to the appear ance of the folio in 1623. The quarto, 1637, is of no authority.

Newly corrected, augmented and amended: London Printed for John Smethwick, and are to be sold at his Shop in Saint Dunstanes Church-yard, in Fleetestreete vnder the Dyall. 1609." 4to 46 leaves.

In the folio of 1623 "The Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet" occupies twenty-five pages, viz. from p. 53 to p. 79, inclusive, in the division of "Tragedies." It fills the same space in the folios of 1632, 1664, and 1685.]

Ir is certain that there was an English play upon the story of Romeo and Juliet before the year 1562; and the fact establishes that, even at that early date, our dramatists resorted to Italian novels, or translations of them, for the subjects of their productions. It is the most ancient piece of evidence of the kind yet discovered, and it is given by Arthur Brooke, who in that year published a narrative poem, called "The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet." At the close of his address "to the Reader" he observes:-"Though I saw the same argument lately set forth on stage with more commendation than I can look for, (being there much better set forth, than I have, or can do,) yet the same matter, penned as it is, may serve the like good effect." Thus we see also, that the play had been received "with commendation," and that Brooke himself, unquestionably a competent judge, admits its excellence.

We can scarcely suppose that no other drama would be founded upon the same interesting incidents between 1562 and the date when Shakespeare wrote his tragedy, a period of, probably, more than thirty years; but no hint of the kind is given in any record, and certainly no such work, either manuscript or printed, has come down to us. Of the extreme popularity of the story we have abundant proof, and of a remote date. It was included by William Paynter in the "second tome" of his "Palace of Pleasure," the dedication of which he dates 4th November, 1567; and in old writers we find frequent mention of the hero and heroine.

How far Shakespeare might be indebted to any such production we have no means of deciding; but Malone, Steevens, and others have gone upon the supposition, that Shakespeare was only under obligations either to Brooke's poem, or to Paynter's novel; and least of all do they seem to have contemplated the possibility, that he might have obtained assistance from some foreign source.

Arthur Brooke avowed that he derived his materials from Bandello (Part ii. Nov. 9), La sfortunata morte di due infelicissimi Amanti, &c.; and Paynter very literally translated Boisteau's Histoire de deux Amans, &c., in the collection of Histoires Tragiques, published by Belle-forest. Steevens was disposed to think that our great dramatist had obtained more from Paynter than from Brooke, while Malone supported, and we think, established, a contrary opinion.

Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" originally came out, but in an imperfect manner, in 1597, quarto. This edition is in two different types, and was probably executed in haste by two different printers. It has generally been treated as an authorized impression from an authentic manuscript. Such, after the most careful examination, is not our opinion. We think that the manuscript used by the printer or printers (no book seller's or stationer's name is placedat the bottom of the title-page) was made up, partly from portions of the play as it was acted, but unduly

The quarto, 1609, was printed from the edition which came out ten years earlier; and the repeti tion, in the folio of 1623, of some decided errors of the press, shows that it was a reprint of the quarto, 1609. It is remarkable, that although every early quarto impression contains a Prologue, it was not transferred to the folio. The quarto, 1597, has lines not in the quartos, 1599, 1609, nor in the folio: and the folio, reprinting the quarto, 1609, besides ordinary errors, makes several important omissions. Our text is that of the quarto, 1599, compared, of course, with the quarto, 1609, and with the folio of 1623, and in some places importantly assisted by the quarto of 1597.

It will be observed that on the title-page of the quarto, 1597, it is stated that "Romeo and Juliet" was acted by the players of Lord Hunsdon; and hence Malone argued that it mus have been first performed and printed between July, 1596, and April, 1597. In this opinion we coincide.

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 'n ust then have been at its height.

TIMON OF ATHENS.

["The Life of Tymon of Athens" first appeared in the folio of 1623, where it occupies, in the division of Toedies," twenty-one pages, numbered from p. 80 to p. 98 inelas but pp. 81 and 82, by an error, are repeated. Page 9 is followed by a leaf, hended, "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 the drama occupy as much space as could be conveniently filled: consequently, many of the lines are arbitrarily divided into two.

There is an apparent want of finish about some portions of "Timon of Athens," while others are elaborately wrought. Coleridge said, in 1815, that

[ocr errors]

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

he saw the same vigorous hand at work throughout; | No early quarto edition of "Julius Cæsar" is that it was one of the author's most complete per-known, and there is reason to believe that it never formances; and he gave no countenance to the no- appeared in that form. The manuscript originally tion, that any parts of a previously existing play had used for the folio of 1623 must have been extremely been retained in "Timon of Athens," as it had come perfect, and free from corruptions, for there is, down to us. The players, however, he felt con- perhaps, no drama in the volume more accurately vinced, had done the poet much injustice; and he printed. especially instanced the clumsy, "clap-trap" blow at the Puritans in Act iii. sc. 3, as an interpolation by the actor of 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. His admiration of some parts o 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 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.

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 some more likely, that in this instance, as in others, Shakespeare adopted the story because he thought he could make it acceptable as a dramatic represention. We aee with Furmer in thinking that there probably existed some earlier popularay 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 Atheus" 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, in Plutarch; but Sir Thomas North's translation having made its appearance in 1579, all the circumstances may have been familiar to most readers. True it is, that Shakespeare does not ppear to have followed these authorities at all closely, and there may have been some version of Lucian then current with which we are now unacquainted.

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, however, 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.

JULIUS CAESAR.

["The Tragedie of Julius Caesar" 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 "Trage dies." The Acts, but not the Scenes, are distinguished: and it appeared in the same manner in the three later folios.]

[ocr errors]

We found this opinion upon the resemblance between a stanza found in Drayton's "Barons' Wars," 8vo, 1603, and a passage in "Julius Cæsar," Act v. sc. 5, from which, after mature consideration of all the circumstances, we feel warranted in concluding, 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.

Shakespeare appears to have derived nearly all his materials from Plutarch, as translated by Sir Thomas North, and first published in 1579. At the same time, it is not unlikely that there was a preceding play. It is a new fact, ascertained from an entry in Henslowe's Diary dated 22d 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.

From Vertue's manuscripts we learn that a play, called "Cæsar's Tragedy," was acted at Court in 1613, which might be 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 Caesar and Pompey, or Caesar's Revenge." Mr. Peter Cunningham, in his "Revels' Accounts," has shown that a dramatic piece, with the title of "The Tragedy of Cæsar," was exhibited at Court on January 31, 1636-7.

MACBETH.

("The Tragedie of Macbeth" was first printed in the folio
of 1623, 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.]

THE only ascertained fact respecting the performance of "Macbeth," in the lifetime of its author, is that it was represented at the Globe Theatre on the 20th of April, 1610. Whether it was then a new play, it is impossible to decide; but we are inclined to think that it was not, and that Malone was right in his conjecture, that it was first acted about the year 1606. A detailed account of the plot is contained in Dr. Simon Forman's manuscript Diary, preserved in the Ashmolean Museum, from which it appears, that he saw "Macbeth" played at the Globe on the day we have stated.

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, 1602-3,

[blocks in formation]

"The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke. Newly Im-
printed and inlarged, according to the true and perfect
Copy lastly Printed. By William Shakespeare. London,
Printed by W. S. for John Smethwicke, and are to be
sold at his Shop in Saint Dunstans Church-yard in Fleet-
street: Vnder the Diall." 4to. 51 leaves.

This undated edition was probably printed in 1607, as it was
entered at Stationers' Hall on November 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.]

Shakespeare, doubtless, derived all the materials he required from Holinshed, without resorting to Boethus, or to any other authority. Steevens continued to maintain, that Shakespeare was indebted, in some degree, to Middleton's "Witch" for the THE story upon which, there is reason to believe, preternatural portion of "Macbeth" but Malone, Shakespeare founded his tragedy of "Hamlet," who at first entertained the same view of the subject, has recently been reprinted, from the only known ultimately abandoned it, and became convinced that perfect copy, as part of a work called "Shake"The Witch" was a play written subsequently to the speare's Library;" and there is, perhaps, nothing production of "Macbeth." What must surprise more remarkable than the manner in which our every body is, that a poet of Middleton's rank could great dramatist wrought these barbarous, uncouth, so degrade the awful beings of Shakespeare's inven- and scanty materials into the magnificent structure tion; for although, as Lamb observes, "the power he left behind him. A comparison of "The Hisof Middleton's witches is in some measure over the torie of Hamblet," as it was translated at an early mind," they are of a degenerate race, as if, Shake-date from the French of Belle forest, with "The speare having created them, no other mind was sufficiently gifted even to continue their existence. Whether Shakespeare obtained his knowledge regarding these agents, and of the locality he supposes them to have frequented, from actual observation, whether, in short, he had ever visited Scotland,—is

a point we have considered in the Biography of the

[blocks in formation]

scure.

"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." It has been 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.

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 elsewhere. At London printed for N. L. and John "The Tragical 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 vuder Saint Dunstons

Trundell. 1603." 4to. 33 leaves.

Church in Fleetstreet. 1604." 4to. 51 leaves. The title-page of the edition of 1605 does not differ in the most minute particular from that of 1604. "The Tragedy 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 Coppy. At London, Printed for Iohn Smethwicke and are to be sold at his shoppe in Saint Dunstons Church yeard in Fleetstreet. Vnder the Diall. 1611." 4to. 51

leaves.

Tragedy of Hamlet," is calculated to give us the
most exalted notion of, and profound reverence for,
the genius of Shakespeare: his vast superiority to
Greene and Lodge was obvious in "The Winter's
Tule," and "As You Like It;" but the novels of
"Pandosto" and "Rosalynde," as narratives, were
perhaps as far above "The Historie of Hamblet,

as "The Winter's Tale" and "As You Like It"
were above the originals from which their main in-
cidents were derived. Nothing, in point of fact,
can be much more worthless, ia story and style,
than the production to which it is supposed Shake-
was indebted for the foundation of his
re
"Hamlet."

There is, however, some ground for thinking, that a lost play upon similar incidents preceded the work of Shakespeare: how far that lost play might be an improvement upon the old translated "Historie" we have no means of deciding, nor to what extent Shakespeare availed himself of such improvement.

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.

Malone, Steevens, and the other commentators, were acquainted with no edition of the tragedy anterior to the quarto of 1604, which professes to be

66

enlarged to almost as much again as it was:" they, therefore, reasonably suspected that it had been printed before; and within the last twenty years a single copy of an edition in 1603 has been discovered. This, in fact, seems to have been the abbreviated and imperfect edition, consisting of only about half as much as the impression of 1604. From whose press it came we have no information, but it professed to be "printed for N. L. and Iohn Trundell." N. L. was Nicholas Ling; and I. R., the printer of the edition of 1604, was no doubt, James Roberts, who, two years before, had made the following entry in the Řegisters of the Stationers' Company:—

[blocks in formation]

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."

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, instantly 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 alinost enormous, intellectual activity, and a proportionate aversion to real action consequent 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

Thus we see, that in July, 1602, there was an intention to print and publish a play called "The Revenge of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark ;" and this intention, we may fairly conclude, arose out of the popularity of the piece, as was then acted by the Lord Chamberlain's servants," who, in May following, obtained the title of "the King's players." The object of Roberts in making the entry already quoted, was to secure it to himself, being, no doubt, aware that other printers and booksellers would endeavor to anticipate him. It seems prob-resolve." able, that he was unable to obtain such a copy of "Hamlet" as he would put his name to; but some inferior and nameless printer, who was not so scrupulous, having surreptitiously secured a manuscript of the play, however imperfect, which would answer the purpose, and gratify public curiosity, the edition

KING LEAR.

bearing date in 1603 was published. Such, we have. William Shakspeare: His True Chronicle Historie

little doubt, was the origin of the impression of which only a single copy has reached our day, and of which, probably, but a few were sold, as its worthlessness was soon discovered, and it was quickly entirely superseded by the enlarged impression of 1604.

But although we entirely reject the quarto of 1603, as an authentic "Hamlet," it is of high value in enabling us to settle the text of various important passages. It proves, besides, that certain portions of the play, as it appears in the folio of 1623, which do not form part of the quarto of 1604, were originally acted, and were not, as has been hitherto imagined, subsequent introductions.

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.

of the life and death of King Lear and his three Daugh ters. With the unfortunate life of Edgar, soune 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 Globe 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,

"M. William Shake-speare, His True Chronicle History 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 Glocester, and his sullen and assumed humour of Tom of Bedlam. As it was plaid before the Kings Maiesty at White-hall, vppon S. Stephens night, in Christmas Hollidaies. By his Maiesties Seruants, playing vsually at the Globe on the Banck-side. Printed for Nathaniel Butter. 1608." 4to. 44 leaves.

The title-page of a third impression in 1608 corresponds with that last above given.

[ocr errors][merged small]

THE most remarkable circumstance connected with the early publication of "King Lear" is, that the same stationer published three quarto impressions of it in 1608, that stationer being a person who had not put forth any of the authentic (as far We are inclined to think, that if "Hamlet," in as they can deserve to be so considered) editions of the folio of 1623, were not composed from some Shakespeare's plays. After it had been thus thrice now unknown quarto, it was derived from a manu-printed (for they were not merely re-issues with script obtained by Heminge and Condell from the theatre. The Acts and Scenes are, however, marked only in the first and second Acts, after which no divisions of the kind are noticed; and where Act iii. commences is merely matter of modern conjecture. Some large portions of the play appear to have been omitted for the sake of shortening the performance; and any editor who should content himself with reprinting the folio, without large additions from the quartos, would present but an imperfect notion of the drama as it came from the hand of the poet.

Coleridge, after vindicating himself from the accusation that he had derived his ideas of Hamlet from Schlegel, thus sums up the character of Hamlet: "In Hamlet, Shakespeare seems to have wished to exemplify the moral necessity of a due balance between our attention to the objects of our senses, and our meditation on the workings of our mind,-an equilibrium between the real and the imaginary

fresh title-pages) in the same year, the tragedy was not again printed until it appeared in the folio of 1623. Why it was never republished in quarto, in the interval, must be matter of speculation, but such was not an unusual occurrence with the works of our great dramatist. The extreme popularity of "King Lear" seems proved by the mere fact that the public demand for it, in the first year of its publication, could not be satisfied without three distinct impressions.

It will be seen by the copies of the title-pages which we have inserted, that although Nathaniel Butter was the publisher of the three quarto editions, he only put his address on the title-page of one of them. A more remarkable circumstance, in relation to the title-pages of "King Lear," is, that the name of William Shakespeare is made so obvious at the top of them, the type being larger than that used for any other part of the work: moreover, we have it again at the head of the leaf on which

« السابقةمتابعة »