Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

count of Cordelia's death. Further, Shakespeare's play has features in common with the original version, which are not to be found either in Spenser, or in the old play, or in Holinshed. Geoffrey of Monmouth mentions the reason, or rather the occasion, of the rupture between parent and the two daughters: the gradual diminution of his retinue of sixty knights (Shakespeare has a hundred). This is not referred to, or only very faintly hinted at, in the other versions just. mentioned.1 But it is to be found in the 'Mirror for Magistrates'." Another point of agreement between Shakespeare and the Geoffrey (-Mirror) version is this. In his play Goneril is the wife of the Duke of Albany, where Lear sojourns first. In the old drama she is the wife of the King of Cornwall. Holinshed's words are not clear on this point at all. In Geoffrey Gonorilla is married to the 'dux Al'baniae', in the Mirror to the 'Prince of Albany'.

To Camden's Remains Shakespeare is said to be indebted for Cordelia's reference to conjugal love in her fatal answer (Lear, I, 1, 98ff.). Apart from Camden, only Polydore Vergil and the Mirror have a like reference. However, the coincidence may be accidental. It is not certain whether Camden's Remains concerning Britain (1605) appeared anterior to King Lear. 3

From Spenser's Fairy Queen (II, x, 27 ff.) Shakespeare took the name Cordelia (see ante, p. 90).

THE TROUBLESOME RAIGNE OF KING IOHN,

acted by the Queen's Men and printed in 1591 is the original of Shakespeare's King John, which follows it very closely, almost scene for scene.

The author of the older play, I may note parenthetically, probably derived most of his materials from Holinshed, without adhering

1 Geoffrey's version is followed by Robert of Gloucester, Robert of Brunne, and Layamon. In the Gesta Romanorum, too, Lear has 40 knights, which number is gradually reduced.

2 But the Mirror gives no clear reason for the dismissal of the 60 knights, while Geoffrey distinctly refers to the quarrels of the knights with the servants and members of the households. Similarly, Shakespeare's Goneril complains of the "rank and not-to-be-endured riots" and quarrels of Lear's retinue. This coincidence may or may not be accidental.

3

Concerning the Lear-story I refer to Eidam, Die Sage von K. Lear. Programm, Würzburg, 1880. It is a matter of regret that he made no attempt at forming a genealogical table of the different versions.

2

to historical truth. (See Boswell-Stone, Shakspere's Holinshed.) He must have also referred to Grafton's (or Caxton's) Chronicle for details concerning the death of the king. "The inwards of a Toad', for example, to poison the king, as well as the absolution of the monk before committing the crime, are not taken from Holinshed.

1

Though Shakespeare may have referred to Holinshed, he makes no independent use of this work. One item in his play betrays that he had opened his Grafton.2

THE FAMOUS VICTORIES OF HENRY THE FIFTH, printed in 1598,3 but acted much earlier, probably even before 1588, by the Queen's Men, and entered on the Stationers' Registers in 1594, May 14. The 'Harry V', mentioned in Henslowe's Diary as being acted (probably) by the Admiral's Men in 1595-96, may be identical with the Famous Victories.1

The popularity which this old play probably enjoyed was doubtless the occasion of the composition of Henry IV. and Henry V. Vastly inferior though it is to these, it has the honour of having presented in dramatic form the bare outlines of the story with numerous hints of Shakespearean scenes, and the figure of Henry, first as the madcap Prince amongst his wild companions (of whom Sir John Oldcastle is one), and then as the good king and triumphant conqueror of France.

THE TRUE TRAGEDIE OF RICHARD THE THIRD.

It appears that Shakespeare was under obligations to this play, acted by the Queen's Players and printed in 1594 (but of older date),

1 The death-scene in King John (V, vii, 49–65) reminds one of an account related by Holinshed (omitted by Boswell-Stone), according to which the king's death was accelerated by an evil tiding. In the older play he receives only consolatory news immediately before his death.

2

"A monk, I tell you; a resolved villain,
"Whose bowels suddenly burst out."

(John, V, vi, 29)

Compare Grafton (ed. 1809) p. 246: 'The Monke anone after went to the Farmory, and there dyed, his guttes gushing out of his belly'. In Caxton's Chronicle we read 'his wombe was broken in sonder'. (Comp. my Dissertation, Berlin, 1900.)

3 Facsimiled by Praetorius, with an Introduction by P. A. Daniel, in 1887. 4 Collier's "harey the vth" of 1592 is either a blunder or a forgery. It is high time that Henslowe's Diary were re-edited.

or to some play nearly related to it, for the conception and some traits and phrases of his 'Richard III.'1

THE TAMING OF A SHREW

had been acted by Lord Pembroke's Servants as we learn from the title page of the play, as printed in 1594. But the play must have passed into the hands of the Lord Chamberlain's Men in or before 1594, as we may infer from Henslowe's mention of it among the plays acted by the Admiral's and the Chamberlain's Men at Newington Butts (South of the Thames) from June 3 to 13, 1594.

Some commentators maintain, that Shakespeare refurbished the old play (which contains the general outlines of The Taming of the Shrew) after it had been recast by another hand."

A PRE-TIMON.

Professor Herford, pointing out the resemblances between Shakespeare's play of Timon and Lucian's Dialogue Timon, concludes: 'Lucian's dialogue evidently comes nearer to the drama than either 'Plutarch or Painter [comp. my note above on p. 41]. The entire 'scheme of the plot is already there, and the germ of Timon's character.' 3 In what form Lucian's dramatic dialogue reached Shakespeare is not known. For my part, I am inclined to believe that he had an older play before him which he revised, bringing out into clearer relief the character of Timon, one of Shakespeare's most powerful creations. * The relation between Shakespeare's drama and a manuscript academic play printed in 'Shakespeare's Library' is well discussed by Prof. Brandl. Whether it was, however, known to Shakespeare remains uncertain.

5

1 See Dr. Churchill's dissertation on Richard III. up to Shakespeare (Palaestra X, Berlin 1900),—a work seen through the press with patience, care, and self-denial by my friend Mr. W. Perrett. Compare also Prof. Brandl's succinct introduction to the play, in his edition of Schlegel-Tieck's translation of Shakespeare. Dr. Churchill's remarks relating to Henslowe's Play on Richard III. require to be corrected according to Fleay's Chronicle of the English Drama, vol. II, p. 284, item 13. 2 Comp. Dr. Furnivall, New Shaksp. Soc. Trans., 1874, p. 102-114; and also Herford, Eversley Ed., vol. 2.

3 From Herford's able Introduction, Eversley Edition, X, p. 155.—Cf. also Lloyd's Essay.

4 An estimable lady, who saw Shakespeare's 'Timon' acted by the Meiningen Company, has repeatedly told me that the play made an ineffaceable impression on her mind.

5 Schlegel-Tieck Translation, VI, 235-8.

A PRE-MERCHANT.

The hypothesis of a pre-Shakespearean play on the same subject as his Merchant of Venice is based on the following passage in Stephen Gosson's School of Abuse (1579):1

And as some of the Players are farre from abuse, so some of their Playes are without rebuke: which are as easily remembered, as-quickly reckoned. The twoo prose Bookes plaied at the Belsavage, where you shall finde never a woorde without wit, never a line without pith, never a letter placed in vaine. The 'Tew' and 'Ptolome', showne at the Bull, the one representing the greedinesse of worldly chusers, and bloody mindes of Usurers: The other very lively discrybing howe seditious estates, with their owne devises, false friendes, with their own swoordes, and rebellious commons in their own snares are overthrowne: neither with Amorous gesture wounding the eye: nor with slovenly talke hurting the eares of the chast hearers.

There is a general consensus of opinion that "The Jew' referred to by Gosson is the forerunner of Shakespeare's play. From ‘the 'greediness of worldly choosers and the bloody minds of usurers' we infer that it combined the story of the caskets and that of the pound of flesh. 2

What the 'venesyan comodey' of Henslowe's Diary (1594) was, and whether there is any link of connexion between it and Shakespeare's play, must for ever remain dubious.

May we suppose that Spenser alludes to the old play in a humorous letter to Harvey, dated 1579 (?), where he signs himself thus:

He that is faste bownde unto the in more obligations then any marchante in Italy to any Jewe there.

And did Greene, too, make an allusion to the casket story of the old play, in 'Mamilia' (1583)?—

1 Arber's Reprint 1868, p. 40.

2 There is one dissentient voice. Mr. Fleay, who is entitled to a respectful hearing, seeks to identify Gosson's Jew with The Three Ladies of London (printed 1584). Moreover he suggests that 'chusers' chousers. (Hist. of the Stage, p. 40.) What Dr. Murray says about 'chouse(r)' in his Dictionary seems to tell against Mr. Fleay's interpretation of the word. It is difficult to see why "The Three Ladies of London' should have ever acquired the name of the Jew, as the Jew is not at all the prominent figure of the play: Moreover the Jew is not Jewish.

He which maketh choyce of bewty without vertue commits as much folly as Critius did, in choosing a golden boxe filled with rotten bones. But it would be unsafe to build conclusions on these two passages.

A PRE-GENTLEMEN.

The story of the shepherdess Felismena, related in Montemayor's 'Diana', had been dramatized as early as 1585 in a play entitled "The History of Felix and Philismena', acted at Greenwich before the Queen. Now, Don Felix in the 'Diana' corresponds to Proteus in The Two Gentlemen of Verona, while Felismena is Shakespeare's Julia. There is therefore much probability in the supposition that Shakespeare was indebted to a dramatic version of Montemayor's tale for the main incidents of his "Two Gentlemen'."

FURTHER OLD PLAYS,

REAL, HYPOTHETICAL, AND CHIMERICAL,-SUPPOSED (RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY) TO HAVE FORMED THE BASES OF SHAKESPEAREAN PLAYS. In this section dealing with purely hypothetical matter, which requires further working out, I mention briefly: 1) hypothetical plays which I consider likely sources of some Shakespearean plays, though the external evidence is somewhat meagre; II) old plays, really existent, but probably not the bases of Shakespearean plays; 1) chimerical or unlikely sources,-plays that have been suggested on very insufficient grounds to have formed the bases of the respective Shakespearean plays.

I) HYPOTHETICAL PLAYS, BEING LIKELY SOURCES.

Shakespeare's Othello, Cymbeline, Much Ado, and The Merry Wives are founded on Italian tales, of which English translations do not seem to have existed. This circumstance, the marked divergence of these plays from their Italian originals, Stephen Gosson's assertion that numerous stories of all sorts had been dramatized to furnish the play houses of London (cf. ante, p. 59)—an assertion which extant lists of the names of old plays strongly bear out-, Shakespeare's apparent want of knowledge of Italian literature beyond the stories

1 Comp. Furness, VII, p. 322; Englische Studien, XVI, 372.

2 Comp. ante, p. 72.

3 'Othello' keeps more closely to its source.

Anders, Shakespeare's books.

10

1

« AnteriorContinuar »