was thus connected, as a publisher, with Shakespeare. It is true that this entry might possibly have been (as some of the editors suppose) the play of Decker and Chettle, already mentioned, which was in preparation for Henslowe, in 1599. But this was afterwards brought out under the title of " Agamemnon," and was besides composed for another and a rival theatrical company-the Earl of Nottingham's. We have, moreover, in the “ HistrioMastix"-a contemporary dramatic satire, something like Sheridan's modern "Critic"-a direct ridicule of Shakespeare's incident of Cressida's receiving from Troilus his "sleeve" as a pledge of love, both characters being there introduced in a burlesque interlude. This piece, having been written and acted during the reign of Elizabeth. cannot be of a later date than 1602, and must refer to a Troilus" of prior date, which must have been Shakespeare's, unless we suppose the same incident to have been used in both pieces. This strong presumption of Shakespeare's play having been acted, in some form, before 1602, is corroborated by still stronger internal indications. The original plot is certainly from Chaucer's "Troilus and Creseide,” which is founded on the old romantic version of the Trojan war, in many particulars in direct contradiction with the Homeric narrative, and in others not at all indebted to it. This version of the Trojan war, with Caxton and Lydgate for the author's guides, where he left Chaucer, clearly furnished the original plot and characters. The story of Calchas, the death of Hector, the Sagittary, and many other particulars, all betray their origin in these sources. Chaucer's tale furnished a natural and enticing theme to a young poet; and the author of ROMEO AND JULIET, before 1595, might well have preceded it with the lighter loves of Cressida. In 1596, George Chapman published his translation of the first seven books of the "Iliad," in a new edition; in 1600, he increased the number to fifteen, which were completed some years after.* Chapman was not only a brother dramatist, but, as his biography informs us, a personal friend of Shakespeare's, who, therefore, could not but have read this "Homer," independently of its great attractions in itself. His translation, with much redundancy and extravagance, and exhibiting almost as little of the grand simplicity of the original as Pope's, yet breathes an impetuous and fiery animation which, with his free and spirited versification, and his bold invention of compound epithets, render many loftier portions of his version exceedingly Homeric. "Brave language are Chapman's Iliads," said a critical contemporary; and there can be little doubt that Shakespeare was familiar with it. The author of the first three acts of TROILUS AND CRESSIDA certainly was so; and it is equally clear to me that he had become acquainted with the true Homeric characters after his first concoction of his play, and engrafted them upon his own youthful production. All the more purely intellectual portions, the moral and political reasonings, and some of the nicer touches of character, have as much the impress of afterthoughts, inserted in a groundwork of a different taste and composi tion, as the added passages of "thoughtful philosophy" in HAMLET have when compared with the dialogue in the first printed copy. On the other hand the bustle and excursions, and stage-directions of the last act, are exactly in the melodramatic taste of those latter scenes of CYMBELINE, which, on account of their resemblance to the tragedies of Shakespeare's predecessors, have been pronounced to be the spared remnants of the original drama, almost wholly re-written, after an interval of many years. It would seem that the author became satisfied, perhaps before he had finished his work, that the revised play was little fitted for the stage, and against his usual practice, at that period, committed it to the press; for its first edition is not one of those mutilated copies justly complained of by his folio editors, but certainly printed from a full and correct manuscript. For some reason, soon after its publication, it was thought expedient to try its success upon the stage; probably because the manager thought that the Poet's popularity would make up for any want of stage-effect. In such a re-casting and improvement of a juvenile work, unless it was wholly re-written-which seems never to have been Shakespeare's method-the work would bear the characteristics of the several periods of its composition, and with the vernal flush of his youthful fancy, it would have its crudity of taste, but contrasted with the matured fullness of thought, and the labouring intensity of compressed expression, of his middle career. It affords some support to this theory, that Coleridge, in 1802, classed this play as belonging to an epoch of the author's life when, with a greater energy of poetry, and "all the world of thought," there was still some of the growing pains and the awkwardness of growth; but when again, he reviewed the same question of chronological classification of Shakespeare's dramas, in 1819, he placed TROILUS AND CRESSIDA at the very last point in the cycle of his genius. But at least the theory, if not founded on much positive evidence, has the merit of being an hypothesis solving all the observed phenomena; and the Copernican theory of astronomy itself was adopted, and long maintained, on no more conclusive proof. If more accurate investigation should overthrow this conjecture, it will be no great mortification to have erred, when the most sagacious and accomplished of my predecessors have failed before me. The text may, in the main, be regarded as in a very satisfactory state. All the original editions were printed with tolerable accuracy, and Mr. Collier's recent collation of the two issues of the quarto editions, has furnished two valuable corrections of errors that had puzzled former editors. Messrs. Gifford, Dyce, and other later critics, have been enabled, by their greater familiarity with the old dramatists and poets, to clear up other obscurities. There are not more than two or three places where there appear any necessity to resort to conjectural emendation. The first complete edition of "The Iliads of Homer, Prince of Poets-Done according to the Greek, by George Chapman," is without date; but is ascertained to have been published later than 1603, and before 1611-probably about the last date. SOURCE OF THE PLOT. In the preceding remarks, the principal sources of the plot and characters have already been indicated; Chaucer's "Creseide," with some additions or casual recollections of the rest of the romantic version of the Trojan war, as told by Caxton and Lydgate, forming the framework of the plot, while Chapman's "Homer" served to illustrate the original Homeric characters, introduced at large in the first three acts. Johnson, Malone, Stevens, and all the minor critics of their school, agree in overlooking Chaucer's large share in the plot, and represent the play as wholly founded upon the story of Caxton and Lydgate's " Troye Boke." Even T. Warton, usually so accurate, says, (" History of English Poetry," sect. iii.,) that the old French compilation by Raoul le Faure, was translated into English prose, in 1471, by Caxton, under the title of the "Recuyel of Historyes of Troy;" and from Caxton's book, afterwards modernized, Shakespeare borrowed his drama of TROILUS AND CRESSIDA. William Godwin, in his "Life of Chaucer," has done his duty as a biographer to the old poet, by vindicating his share of the invention in this remarkable drama : "It would be extremely unjust to quit the consideration of Chaucer's poem of Troilus and Creseide,' without noticing the high honour it has received in having been made the foundation of one of the plays of Shakespeare. There seems to have been in this respect a sort of conspiracy, in the commentators upon Shakespeare, against the glory of our old English bard. In what they have written concerning this play, they make a very slight mention of Chaucer; they have not consulted his poem for the purpose of illustrating this admirable drama; and they have agreed, as far as possible, to transfer to another author the honour of having supplied materials to the tragic artist. Dr. Johnson says, 'Shakespeare has in his story followed, for the greater part, the old book of Caxton, which was then very popular; but the character of Thersites, of which it makes no mention, is a proof that this play was written after Chapman had published his version of Homer.' Mr. Stevens asserts that Shakespeare received the greatest part of his materials for the structure of this play from the Troye Boke of Lydgate.' And Mr. Malone repeatedly treats the History of the Destruction of Troy, translated by Caxton,' as 'Shakespeare's authority' in the composition of this drama. The fact is, that the play of Shakespeare we are here considering has for its main foundation the poem of Chaucer, and is indebted for many accessory helps to the books mentioned by the commentators. # * * * # "We are not, however, left to probability and conjecture as to the use made by Shakespeare of the poem of Chaucer. His other sources were Chapman's translation of Homer, the Troy Book' of Lydgate, and Caxton's History of the Destruction of Troy.' 'It is well known that there is no trace of the particular story of Troilus and Creseide' among the ancients. It occurs, indeed, in Lydgate and Caxton; but the name and actions of Pandarus, a very essential personage in the tale as related by Shakespeare and Chaucer, are entirely wanting, except a single mention of him by Lydgate, and that with an express reference to Chaucer as his authority. Shakespeare has taken the story of Chaucer, with all its imperfections and defects, and has copied the series of its incidents with his customary fidelity; an exactness seldom to be found in any other dramatic writer."-(GODWIN's Life of Chaucer, vol. i. chap. 16.) |