Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

his audience were familiar with Gower, is, we think, sufficiently apparent. Upon what other principle can Gower perpetually take up the dropped threads of the action? Upon what other principle are the verses spoken by Gower, amounting to several hundred lines, | formed upon a careful imitation of his style; so as to present to an audience at the latter end of the sixteenth century some notion of a poet about two centuries older? It is perfectly evident to us that Gower, and Gower only, was in the thoughts of the author of 'Pericles.'

We call the play before us by the name of 'PERICLES,' because it was so called in the first rudely printed copies, and because the contemporaries of the writer, following the printed copies, so called it in their printed books. But Malone has given us an epigram of Richard Flecknoe, 1670, 'On the Play of the Life of PYROCLES.' There can be little doubt, we think, as Steevens has very justly argued, that Pyrocles was the name of the hero of this play. For who was Pyrocles? The hero of Sidney's Arcadia.' Steevens says, "It is remarkable that many of our ancient writers were ambitious to exhibit Sidney's worthies on the stage; and, when his subordinate agents were advanced to such honour, how happened it that Pyrocles, their leader, should be overlooked?" To a young poet, who, probably, had access to the Arcadia,' in manuscript, before its publication in 1590, the name of Pyrocles would naturally present itself as worthy to succeed the somewhat unmanageable Appollinus of Gower; and that name would recommend itself to an audience who, if they were of the privileged circles, such as the actors of the Blackfriars often addressed, were familiar with the 'Arcadia' before its publication. After 1590 the 'Arcadia' was the most popular work of the age.

It will be seen, then, that we advocate the belief that 'Pyrocles,' or 'Pericles,' was a very early work of Shakspere, in some form, however different from that which we possess. That it was an early work, we are constrained to believe; not from the evidence of particular passages, which may be deficient in power, or devoid of refinement, but from the entire con

struction of the dramatic action. The play is essentially one of movement, which is a great requisite for dramatic success; but that movement is not held in subjection to a unity of idea. The writer, in constructing the plot, had not arrived to a perfect conception of the principle "That a tragedy is tied to the laws of Poesy, and not of History, not bound to follow the story, but having liberty either to feign a quite new matter, or to frame the history to the most tragical convenience." But with this essential disadvantage we cannot doubt that, even with very imperfect dialogue, the action presented a succession of scenes of very absorbing interest. The introduction of Gower, however inartificial it may seem, was the result of very profound skill. The presence of Gower supplied the unity of idea which the desultory nature of the story wanted; and thus it is that, in "the true history" formed upon the play which Mr. Collier has analysed, the unity of idea is kept in the expression of the title-page, as it was lately presented by the worthy and ancient poet, John Gower." Nevertheless, such a story we believe could not have been chosen by Shakspere in the seventeenth century, when his art was fully developed in all its wondrous powers and combinations. With his perfect mastery of the faculty of representing, instead of recording, the treatment of a story which would have required perpetual explanation and connection would have been painful to him, if not impossible.

[ocr errors]

Dr. Drake has bestowed very considerable attention upon the endeavour to prove that 'Pericles' ought to be received as the indisputable work of Shakspere. Yet his arguments, after all, amount only to the establishment of the following theory: "No play, in fact, more openly discloses the hand of Shakspeare than 'Pericles,' and fortunately his share in its composition appears to have been very considerable: he may be distinctly, though not frequently, traced in the first and second acts; after which, feeling the incompetency of his fellow-labourer, he seems to have assumed almost the entire management of the remainder, nearly the whole of the third, fourth, and fifth acts bearing in

written? By no means. We agree with Mr. Hallam that in parts the language seems rather that of Shakspere's "second or third manner than of his first." But this belief is not inconsistent with the opinion that the original structure was Shakspere's. No other poet that existed at the beginning of the seventeenth century-perhaps no poet that came after that period, whether Massinger, or Fletcher, or Webster-could have written the greater part of the fifth act. Coarse as the comic scenes are, there are touches in them unlike any other writer but Shakspere. Horn, with the eye of a real critic, has pointed out the deep poetical profundity of one apparently slight passage in these unpleasant scenes:

disputable testimony to the genius and exe- | presented in the form in which it was first cution of the great master."* This theory of companionship in the production of the play is merely a repetition of the theory of Steevens: "The purpurei panni are Shakspeare's, and the rest the productions of some inglorious and forgotten play-wright." We have no faith whatever in this very easy mode of disposing of the authorship of a doubtful play-of leaving entirely out of view the most important part of every drama, its action, its characterization, looking at the whole merely as a collection of passages, of which the worst are to be assigned to some ûme damnée, and the best triumph- | antly claimed for Shakspere. There are some, however, who judge of such matters upon broader principles. Mr. Hallam says, "Pericles is generally reckoned to be in part, and only in part, the work of Shakspeare. From the poverty and bad management of the fable, the want of any effective or distinguishable character (for Marina is no more than the common form of female virtue, such as all the dramatists of that age could draw), and a general feebleness of the tragedy as a whole, I should not believe the structure to have been Shakspeare's. But many passages are far more in his manner than in that of any contemporary writer with whom I am acquainted."+ Here "the poverty and bad management of the fable" -"the want of any effective or distinguishable character," are assigned for the belief that the structure could not have been Shakspere's. But let us accept Dryden's opinion, that

[ocr errors]

Shakspeare's own muse his Pericles first bore," with reference to the original structure of the play, and the difficulty vanishes. It was impossible that the character of the early drama should not have been impressed upon Shakspere's earliest efforts. Sidney has given us a most distinct description of that drama; and we can thus understand how the author of 'Pericles' improved upon what he found. Do we therefore think that the drama, as it has come down to us, is

*Shakspeare and his Times,' vol. ii. p. 268. History of Literature,' vol. iii. p. 569.

Mar. Are you a woman?

Bawd. What would you have me be, an I be not a woman?

Mar. An honest woman, or not a woman.”

Touches such as these are not put into the work of other men. Who but Shakspere could have written

"The blind mole casts Copp'd hills towards heaven, to tell, the earth is throng'd

By man's oppression; and the poor worm doth die for 't."

And yet this passage comes naturally enough in a speech of no very high excellence. The purpurei panni must be fitted to a body, as well for use as for adornment. We think that Shakspere would not have taken the trouble to produce these costly robes for the decoration of what another had essentially created. We are willing to believe that, even in the very height of his fame, he would have bestowed any amount of labour for the improvement of an early production of his own, if the taste of his audiences had from time to time demanded its continuance upon the stage. It is for this reason that we think that 'Pericles,' which appears to have been in some respects a new play at the beginning of the seventeenth century, was the revival of a play written by Shakspere some twenty years earlier.

CHAPTER III.

THE HAMLET OF 1603.

THE earliest edition of 'Hamlet' known to exist is that of 1603. It bears the following title: The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke, by William Shakespeare. As it hath beene diverse times acted by his Highnesse servants in the Cittie of London as also in the two Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, and elsewhere. At London, printed for N. L. and John Trundell, 1603.' The only known copy of this edition is in the library of the Duke of Devonshire; and that copy is not quite perfect. It was reprinted in 1825.

The second edition of 'Hamlet' was printed in 1604, under the following title: '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.'

[ocr errors]

In the reprint of the edition of 1603, it is stated to be "the only known copy of this tragedy, as originally written by Shakespeare, which he afterwards altered and enlarged." We believe that this description is correct; that this remarkable copy gives us the play as originally written by Shakspere. It may have been piratical, and we think it was so. It may, as Mr. Collier says, have been "published in haste from a short-hand copy, taken from the mouths of the players." But this process was not applied to the finished 'Hamlet;' the Hamlet' of 1603 is a sketch of the perfect 'Hamlet,' and probably a corrupt copy of that sketch. Mr. Caldecott believes that this copy exhibits, "in that which was afterwards wrought into a splendid drama, the first conception, and comparatively feeble expression, of a great mind." We think, further, that this first conception was an early conception; that it was remodelled,"enlarged to almost as much againe as it was," at the beginning of the 17th century; and that this original copy, being then of comparatively little value, was piratically published.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The interest of this edition of 1603 consists, as we believe, in the opportunity which it affords of studying the growth, not only of our great poet's command over language -not only of his dramatical skill,—but of the higher qualities of his intellect-his profound philosophy, his wonderful penetration into what is most hidden and obscure in men's characters and motives. We request the reader's indulgence whilst we attempt to point out some of the more important considerations which have suggested themselves to us, in a careful study of this original edition.

And, first, let us state that all the action of the amended 'Hamlet' is to be found in the first sketch. The play opens with the scene in which the Ghost appears to Horatio and Marcellus. The order of the dialogue is the same; but, in the quarto of 1604, it is a little elaborated. The grand passage beginning—

"In the most high and palmy state of Rome," is not found in this copy; and it is omitted in the folio. The second scene introduces us, as at present, to the King, Queen, Hamlet, Polonius, and Laertes, but in this copy Polonius is called Corambis. The dialogue here is much extended in the perfect copy. We will give an example :

QUARTO OF 1603.

"Ham. My lord, 't is not the sable suit I wear;
No, nor the tears that still stand in my eyes,
Nor the distracted 'haviour in the visage,
Nor altogether mixt with outward semblance,
Is equal to the sorrow of my heart;
Him have I lost I must of force forgo,
These, but the ornaments and suits of woe."

QUARTO OF 1604.

"Ham. "T is not alone my inky cloak, good mother,

Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forced breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected 'haviour of the visage,

Together with all forms, modes, shows of Such changes are not the work of shortgrief, hand writers.

That can denote me truly: these, indeed, seem, For they are actions that a man might play; But I have that within which passeth show; These, but the trappings and the suits of woe." We would ask if it is possible that such a careful working up of the first idea could have been any other work than that of the poet himself? Can the alterations be accounted for upon the principle that the first edition was an imperfect copy of the complete play, "published in haste from a shorthand copy taken from the mouths of the players?" Could the players have transformed the line

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Seem to me all the uses of this world." Neither have we the noble comparison of "Hyperion to a satyr." The fine Shaksperean phrase, so deep in its metaphysical truth, "a beast that wants discourse of reason," is, in the first copy, "a beast devoid of reason." Shakspere must have dropt verse from his mouth, as the fairy in the Arabian tales dropt pearls. It appears to have been no effort to him to have changed the whole arrangement of a poetical sentence, and to have inverted its different members; he did this as readily as if he were dealing with prose. In the first copy we have these lines,

"Why, she would hang on him as if increase Of appetite had grown by what it look'd on."

In the amended copy we have

"Must I remember? Why, she would hang on
him

As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on.”

The interview of Horatio, Bernardo, and Marcellus, with Hamlet, succeeds as in the perfect copy, and the change here is very slight. The scene between Laertes and Ophelia in the same manner follows. Here again there is a great extension. The injunction of Laertes in the first copy is contained in these few lines :-

"I see Prince Hamlet makes a show of love.
Beware, Ophelia; do not trust his vows.
Perhaps he loves you now, and now his tongue
Speaks from his heart; but yet take heed, my
sister.

The chariest maid is prodigal enough
If she unmask her beauty to the moon;
Virtue itself 'scapes not calumnious thoughts:
Believe 't, Ophelia; therefore keep aloof,
Lest that he trip thy honour and thy fame."

Compare this with the splendid passage
which we now have. Look especially at the
following lines, in which we see the deep
philosophic spirit of the mature Shak-

spere :

"For nature, crescent, does not grow alone
In thews, and bulk; but, as this temple waxes,
The inward service of the mind and soul
Grows wide withal."

Polonius and his few precepts next occur; and here again there is slight difference. The lecture of the old courtier to his daughter is somewhat extended. In the next scene, where Hamlet encounters the Ghost, there is very little change. The character of Hamlet is fully conceived in the original play, whenever he is in action, as in this scene. It is the contemplative part of his nature which is elaborated in the perfect copy. This great scene, as it was first written, appeared to the poet to have been scarcely capable of improvement.

The character of Polonius, under the name of Corambis, presents itself in the original copy with little variation. We have extension, but not change. As we proceed, we find that Shakspere in the first copy more emphatically marked the supposed madness of Hamlet than he thought fit to

Thus Ophelia

Immediately after the scene of the original copy in which Polonius describes Ham

do in the amended copy. does not, as now, say,"Alas my lord, my lord, I have been so af let's frenzy, Hamlet comes in and speaks frighted;" the celebrated soliloquy. In the amended but she comes at once to proclaim Hamlet copy this passage, as well as the scene with mad:

"O my dear father, such a change in nature, So great an alteration in a prince! He is bereft of all the wealth he had; The jewel that adorn'd his feature most Is filch'd and stolen away-his wit's bereft him."

Again, in the next scene, when the King communicates his wishes to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he does not speak of Hamlet as merely put "from the understanding of himself;" but in this first copy he says

"Our dear cousin Hamlet

Hath lost the very heart of all his sense." In the description which Polonius, in the same scene, gives of Hamlet's madness for Ophelia's love, the symptoms are made much stronger in the original copy :—

"He straightway grew into a melancholy;

From that unto a fast; then unto distraction; Then into a sadness; from that unto a mad

ness;

And so, by continuance and weakness of the brain,

Into this frenzy which now possesses him." It is curious that, in Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy,' we have the stages of melancholy, madness, and frenzy, indicated as described by Celsus; and Burton himself mentions frenzy as the worst stage of madness, "clamorous, continual." In the first copy, therefore, Hamlet, according to the description of Polonius, is not only the prey of melancholy and madness, but, "by continuance," of frenzy. In the amended copy the symptoms, according to the same description, are much milder ;-a sadnessa fast-a watch—a weakness—a lightness and a madness. The reason of this change appears to us tolerably clear. Shakspere did not, either in his first sketch or his amended copy, intend his audience to believe that Hamlet was essentially mad; and he removed, therefore, the strong expressions which might encourage that belief.

Ophelia which follows it, is placed after Hamlet's interview with the players. The soliloquy in the first copy is evidently given with great corruptions, and some of the lines appear transposed by the printer: on the contrary, the scene with Ophelia is very slightly altered. The scene with Polonius, now the second scene of the second act, follows that with Ophelia in the first copy. In the interview with Guildenstern and Rosen

crantz the dialogue is greatly elaborated in the amended copy; we have the mere germ of the fine passage, "This goodly frame, the earth," &c.-prose with almost more than the music of poetry. In the first copy, instead of this noble piece of rhetoric, we have the following somewhat tame pas

sage:

"Yes, faith, this great world you see contents me not; no, nor the spangled heavens, nor earth, nor sea; no, nor man that is so glorious a creature contents not me; no, nor woman too, though you laugh."

We pass over for the present the dialogue between Hamlet and the players, in which there are considerable variations, not only between the first and second quartos, but between the second quarto and the folio, tending, as we think, to fix the date of each copy.

In the same way we pass over the speeches from the play "that pleased not

the million," as well as the directions to the

players in the next act. These passages, as it appears to us, go far to establish the point, that the Hamlet' of the edition of 1603 was an early production of the poet. Our readers, we think, will be pleased to compare the following passage of the first copy and the amended play, which offer us an example of the most surpassing skill in the elaboration of a first idea

QUARTO OF 1603.

"Ham. Horatio, thou art even as just a man As e'er my conversation coped withal. Hor. O, my lord!

« AnteriorContinuar »