« AnteriorContinuar »
imbrues his hands in the blood of his own mother; and that barbarous action is performed, though not immediately upon the stage, yet so near, that the audience hear Clytemnestra crying out to Ægyfthus for help, and to her son for
while Electra her daughter, and a Princess, (both of them characters that ought to have appeared with more decency,) stands upon the stage and encourages her brother in the parricide. What horror does this not raise! Clytemnestra was a wicked woman, and had deserved to die; nay, in the truth of the story, she was killed by her own son; but to represent an action of this kind on the stage, is certainly an offence against those rules of manners proper to the persons, that ought to be observed there. On the contrary, let us only look a little on the conduct of Shakspeare. Hamlet is represented with the same piety towards his father, and a resolution to revenge his death, as Orestes; he has the fame abhorrence for his mother's guilt, which, to provoke him the more, is heightened by incest: but it is with wonderful art and justness of judgment, that the poet restrains him from doing violence to his mother. To prevent any thing of that kind, he makes his father's Ghost' forbid that part of his vengeance:
« But howsoever thou pursu'st this a&.
Against thy mother aught; leave her to heav'n,
This is to distinguish rightly between horror and
The latter is a proper passion of tragedy, but the former ought always to be carefully avoid
ed. And certainly no dramatick writer ever suca ceeded better in raising terror in the minds of an audience than Shakspeare has done. The whole tragedy of Macbeth, but more especially the scene where the King is murdered, in the second ac, as well as this play, is a noble proof of that manly fpirit with which he writ; and both fhew how powerful he was, in giving the strongest motions to our souls that they are capable of. I cannot leave Hamlet, without taking notice of the advantage with which we have seen this master-piece of Shakspeare distinguish itself upon the stage, by Mr. Retterton's fine performiance of that part. A man, who, though he had no other good qualities, as he has a great many, must have made his way into the esteem
of all men of letters, by this only excellency: No man is better acquainted with Shakspeare's manner of expression, and indeed he has studied him so well, and is so much a master of him, that whatever part of his he performs, he does it as if it had been written on purpose for him, and that the author had exactly conceived it as he plays it. I must own a particular obligation to him, for the most considerable part of the passages relating tô this life, which I have here transmitted to the publick; his veneration for the memory of Shakspeare having engaged hinu to make a journey into Warwickshire, on purpose to gather up what remains he could of a name for which he had so great a veneration.
.-- of a name for which he had so great a veneration.] Mr. Betterton was born in 1635, and had many opportunities of collc&ing information relative to Shakspeare, but unfortunately the age in which he lived was not an age of curiosity. VOL. I.
To the foregoing Accounts of SHAKSPEARE's Life, I
have only one Passage to add, which Mr. Pope re
lated, as communicated to him by Mr. Rowe. In the time of Elizabeth, coaches being yet uncommon, and hired coaches not at all in use, those who were too proud, too tender, or too idle to walk, went on horseback to any distant business or diversion.
Many came on horseback to the play, and when Shakspeare fled to London from the terror of a criminal prosecution, his first expedient was to wait at the door of the playhouse, and hold the horses of those that had no fervants, that they might be ready again after the performance.' In this office he became so conspicuous for his care and readiness, that in a short time every man as he alighted called for Will. Shakspeare, and scarcely any other waiter was trusted with a horse
Had either he or Dryden or Sir William D'Avenant taken the trouble to visit our poet's youngest daughter, who lived till 1662, or his grand-daughter, who did not die till 1670, many particulars might have been preferved which are now irrecoverably loft. Shakspeare's fifter, Joan Hart, who was only five years younger than him, died at Stratford in Nov. 1646, at the age of seventy-fix; and from her undoubtedly his two daughters, and his grand-daughter Lady Barnard, had learned feveral circumstances of his early history antecedens year
1600. MALONE. This Account of the Life of Shakspeare is printed from Mr. Rowe's second edition, in which it had been abridged and altered by himself after its appearance in 1709. STEEVENS.
Many came on horseback to the play, ) Plays were at this time performed in the afternoon. “ The pollicie of plaies is very necessary, howsoever fome shallow-brained censurers (not the deepest fearchers into the secrets of government) mightily oppugne them. For whereas the afternoon being the
while Will. Shakspeare could be had. This was the first dawn of better fortune. Shakspeare, finde ing more horses put into his hand than he could hold, hired boys to wait under his inspection, who, when Will. Shakspeare was summoned, were immediately to present themselves, I am Shakspeare's boy, Sir.
In time Shakfpeare found higher employment: but as long as the practice of riding to the playhouse continued, the waiters that held the horses retained the appellation of, Shakspeare's boys. JOHNSON.
idlest time of the day wherein men that are their own masters (as gentlemen of the court, the innes of the court; and a number of captains and soldiers about London) do wholly bea ftow themselves upon pleasure, and that.pleafure they divide (how virtuously it skills not) either in gaming, following of harlots, drinking, or seeing a play, is it not better (fince of four extreames all the world cannot keepe them but they will choose one ) that they should betake them to the least, which is plaies ?” Nash's Pierce Pennilesse his Supplication to the Dea vil, 1592. STEEVENS.
the waiters that held the horses reained the appellation of Shakspeare's boys.] I cannot dismiss this anecdote without observing that it seems to want every mark of probability. Though Shakspeare quitted Stratford on account of a juvenile irregularity, we have no reason to suppose that he had forfeited the protection of his father who was engaged in a lucrative buGness, or the love of his wife who had already brought him two children, and was herself the daughter of a fubftantial yeoman.
It is unlikely therefore, when he was beyond the reach of his profecutor, that he should conceal his plan of life, or place of residence, from those who, if he found himself distressed, could not fail to afford. him such fupplies as would have set him above the necessity of holding horses for fubsistence. Mr. Malone has remarked in his Attempt to ascertain the Order in which the Plays of Shakspeare mere written, that he might have found an easy introduction to the stage; for Thomas Green, a celebrated
Mr. Rowe has told us that he derived the principal anecdotes in his account of Shakfpeare, from
comedian of that period, was his townsman, and perhaps his relation. The genius of our author prompted him to write poetry; his connection with a player might have given his productions a dramatick turn; or his own fagacity might have taught him that fame was not incompatible with profit, and that the theatre was an avenue to both. That it was once the general custom to ride on horse-back to the play, I am likewise yet to learn. The most popular of the theatres were on the Bankside; and we are told by the fatirical pam-. phleteers of the time, that the usual mode of conveyance to these places of amusement, was by water; but not a single writer so much as hints at the custom of riding to them, or at the practice of having horfes held during the hours of exhibition. Some allusion to this usage (if it had exifted) muft, I think, have been discovered in the course of our researches after contemporary fashions. Let it be remembered too, that we receive this tale on no higher authority than that of Cibber's Lives of the Poets, Vol. I. 130. Sir William Da. venant told it to Mr. Betterton, who communicated it to Mr. Rowe,” who (according to Dr. Johnson) related it to Mr. Pope. Mr. Rowe (if this intelligence be authentick) seems to have concurred with me in opinion, as he forbore to introduce a circumstance fo incredible into his life of Shakspeare. As to the book which furnishes this anecdote, not the smallest part of it was the composition of Mr. Cibber, being entirely written by a Mr. Shiells, amanuensis to Dr. Johnson, when his Dictionary was preparing for the prefs. T. Cibber was in the King's Bench, and accepted of ten guineas from the booksellers for leave to prefix his name to the work; and it was purposely fo prefixed as to leave the reader
doubt whether himself or his father was the person designed.
The foregoing anecdote relative to Gilber's Lives &c. I received from Dr. Johnson. See, however, The Monthly Review for December 1781, p. 409. STEEVENS.
Mr. Steevens in one particular is certainly mistaken. To the theatre in Blackfriars I have no doubt that many gentlemen rode in the time of Queen Elizabeth and King James I. From the Strand, Holborn, Bishopsgate-ftreet, &c. where many of the nobility lived, they could indeed go no other