How to understand Shakespeare's plays E-Book

Thomas Keightley

• Herausgeber: Thomas Keightley
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Beschreibung

In reading and criticising the plays of Shakespeare, we must always bear in mind that they were written for the stage, not for the closet, to be acted, not to be read. Shakespeare, as it would appear, was utterly regardless of literary fame; he had, as we have seen, one sole object in view, to acquire as much money as would enable him to quit the hurry and bustle of London, and settle down in his native Stratford-on-Avon as a man of independent property, and be, if possible, the founder of a family. Pouring forth, therefore, his tragic and comic strains, with as little apparent effort as the songsters of the grove warble their native notes, he set no value on them but as they filled the Globe and the Blackfriars and thus tended to the realization of the great object of all his ambition; and he never gave a single one of them to the press, as was done by Jonson and others who sought for literary fame by their dramas.

Leseprobe

Thomas Keightley

How to understand Shakespeare's plays

UUID: 594c0e5a-4ef8-11e5-a6b0-119a1b5d0361

This ebook was created with StreetLib Write (http://write.streetlib.com)by Simplicissimus Book Farm

Table of contents

LIFE OF SHAKESPEARE.

EDITIONS, DATES, AND ORIGINS OF SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS.

COMEDIES.

HISTORIES.

TRAGEDIES.

The Text.

THE VERSE.

COMEDIES.

COMEDY OF ERRORS.

THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA.

LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST.

ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL.

MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM.

TAMING OF THE SHREW.3

MERCHANT OF VENICE.

AS YOU LIKE IT.

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR.

TWELFTH NIGHT.

MEASURE FOR MEASURE.

WINTER'S TALE.

THE TEMPEST.

HISTORIES.

KING JOHN.

KING RICHARD II.

KING HENRY IV.—PART I.

KING HENRY IV.—PART II.

THE LIFE OF HENRY V.

KING HENRY VI.—PART I.

KING HENRY VI.—PART II.

KING HENRY VI.—PART III.

KING RICHARD III.

KING HENRY VIII.

TRAGEDIES.

ROMEO AND JULIET.

HAMLET.

OTHELLO.

JULIUS CÆSAR.

ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA.

KING LEAR.

MACBETH.

TROILUS AND CRESSIDA.

TIMON OF ATHENS.

CORIOLANUS.

CYMBELINE.

ADDITIONAL NOTES.

ALLUSIONS, USAGES, WORDS, AND PHRASES.

LIFE OF SHAKESPEARE.

A FAMILY of the name of Shakespeare—pronounced, it would seem, Shǎkspěr—was numerous in Warwickshire during the middle ages. About the middle of the sixteenth century John, the son of Richard Shakespeare, a farmer residing at Snitterfield in that county, was settled at Stratford-on-Avon, and was—though it appears he could neither read nor write—a leading member of the Corporation. Various accounts are given of his trade and occupation. We have proof that in 1556 he was a glover; he was afterwards a farmer or yeoman; Aubrey says he was a butcher; and according to Rowe, he was "a considerable dealer in wool." He would seem in fact to have been one who was ready to turn to any honest occupation by which money might be made.In 1557 John Shakespeare married Mary, the youngest daughter of Robert Arden of Wilmecote, a man of good landed property, and belonging to a family of no mean note in the county of Warwick. By her he had either eight or ten children, of whom we need only notice William, the third, who was baptized April 26th, 1564; but the exact date of his birth is unknown. As his father was a member of the Corporation, it is highly probable that, as Rowe asserts, he was sent to the Free School of the town. How long he continued at it, and what he learned there, are matters on which we have no certain information. He had probably an ordinary English education, and he certainly, as his writings show, had learned some Latin; but he does not seem to have got beyond the elementary books, and of Greek, if it was taught in the school, he learned nothing whatever. We are told by one authority that he acted as an assistant in the school; by another that his father took him away early to assist in his own business of wool-stapling or, as the former, namely Aubrey, says, of butchering, who adds that "when he killed a calf he would do it in a high style, and make a speech,"—of course a mere figment. Malone conjectures—and in my opinion not without a show of probability—from the frequent occurrence of law-terms in his dramas, and his correct appreciation of their meaning, that he may have been for some time in the office of an attorney in Stratford. This, however, is all uncertainty; but at all events, judging from the turn of his mind, I should be inclined to say that, beside his accurate observation of men and manners, he read all the books he could obtain in his native town.In the registry of the diocese of Worcester is preserved a document bearing date November 28, 1582, securing the Bishop against injury in the case of his licensing certain persons to be married with once asking of the banns. These persons are William Shakespeare, then in his nineteenth year, and Anne Hathaway, then apparently aged twenty-six years; for she died in 1623 at the age of sixty-seven years: she was therefore about eight years her husband's senior. When their marriage was celebrated we are unable to learn; but the baptism of Susanna, their first child, took place on the 26th of May, 1583, just six months after the date of the document quoted above. The natural inference is obvious. Shakespeare, like Burns, knew his wife before the law had made her his; and, like him, he acted honourably towards her.This, perhaps the only imprudent act of Shakespeare's life, has been variously judged. Nothing, we know, is more common than for young men to fall in love with women older than themselves; and among the class of society to which both parties belonged, instances were, and are, not uncommon of the rules of prudence being transgressed in moments of weakness, while the moral principle remains untainted. We know that Burns's "Bonnie Jean" proved a most exemplary wife; and one of the most truly virtuous and unaffectedly modest women I ever knew was one who had acted thus imprudently. The bride of the future poet was Anne, daughter of Richard Hathaway, a husbandman, or substantial yeoman, of Shottery, a hamlet about a mile from Stratford, an intimate friend, it would appear, of John Shakespeare's; and hence we may presume that an intimacy prevailed also between the two families, and the not unlikely result was what has been stated.We now have Shakespeare, at the commencement of his twentieth year, a married man, and the father of a child. On the 2nd of February, 1584-85, before he had completed his twenty-first year, were baptized Hamnet and Judith, twins. We hear of no more children of William and Anne Shakespeare; and soon after—most probably in 1586—Shakespeare left Stratford, and set out to seek his fortune in the metropolis. According to Rowe, he fled to escape from the persecution of Sir Thomas Lucy, of Charlecote-park, near Stratford, from whose park he and some other young men had stolen deer—a not unusual, and not very discreditable practice in those days. The knight, we are told, was indignant and vindictive, and the transgressor took his revenge by writing and affixing to the gate of Charlecote-park a satirical ballad, of which the first stanza has been preserved, and which, if genuine, is mere doggrel and utterly unworthy of Shakespeare. He may, however, have so written it on purpose. This is said to have added oil to the fire of the knight's rage, and to escape from it the author fled to London. His biographers in general are of opinion that his resentment against his persecutor did not die out, and that after his death and the lapse of many years he ridiculed him in the character of Justice Shallow in The Merry Wives of Windsor. But this was little in the character of "gentle" Shakespeare; and the whole theory is refuted by the fact that the allusion to "the dozen white luces" in the Justice's coat-armour, on which it is founded, does not occur in the original form of that play. It may have been made afterwards by way of joke, and without any malignity.There is certainly no inherent improbability in this narrative; and it may have had its effect in determining Shakespeare to quit Stratford. But that it should have been the sole cause of his doing so is what I am disposed to question. We must recollect that Shakespeare was a man endowed with genius of the very highest order, and that he must have aspired to a wider field for its exercise than his native town could afford, that he had a family, and that his circumstances were very slender, while those of his father, as we have sufficient evidence, had been greatly reduced. Nor does it appear that he—who, as has been already observed, except in the case of his marriage, was always prudent—set out for London without having a definite object in view.Now various companies of players, as we learn, were in the habit of visiting Stratford, like other country towns, and performing there in the Guildhall. It can be hardly doubted that Shakespeare, in whom dramatic genius was inborn, must have been excited by these performances, however low the merit of the pieces—perhaps even have felt that he was capable of producing something superior to them of the same kind. He probably then made the acquaintance of the players, one of whom, Burbage, was, it is supposed, a native of the town, and some others, natives of the county, and proposed embracing their profession. He was young, handsome, of animated and even brilliant conversation. There can be little doubt, then, that he met with encouragement, and was readily received among them. This was, it is most likely, in the year 1586, when he was two-and-twenty. Rowe says "he was received into the company at first in a very mean rank;" and in 1693 the parish-clerk of Stratford, a man eighty years of age, told a person named Dowdall, that he "was received into the playhouse as a serviture." Of course, like almost every other actor, he began at the bottom, having as it were to serve his apprenticeship. This, then, seems to be all true enough; not so another tradition, related by Johnson as coming from Pope and Rowe, namely, that his first occupation in London was holding gentlemen's horses at the door of the playhouse, in which business he succeeded so well that he hired boys to act under him. How little like Shakespeare this is need hardly be said.A question which cannot be answered very satisfactorily is, What did Shakespeare at this time do with his wife and children? The probability would seem to be, that he left them at Stratford, and, as is most likely, at his father's, till he should see what success he was likely to meet with in London.It would seem that for the first few years he was merely an actor; and if the Ellesmere Papers, published by Mr. Collier, be genuine, he had in 1589 become a sharer in the Blackfriars Theatre. Before this date he may have begun to try his hand at making additions and alterations in the plays of others. Of these we seem to have examples in the Second and Third Parts of King Henry VI.; and there is a manifest allusion to this practice of his in the following passage of Green's Groat's Worth of Wit, bought with a Million of Repentance, published after his death in 1592. Green is addressing his fellow dramatists Marlow, Peele, and others; and he says, "There is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygre's heart wrapt in a player's hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you; and, being an absolute Johannes Factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country." Here the allusion to Shakespeare's name is quite plain, and the line in italics is a parody on one in one of the plays which he appears to have thus treated. As this allusion seems to have caused just offence, Chettle, who had given Green's work to the world, took occasion shortly after in a work of his own, his Kind-hart's Dream, to make an apology, in which he says of Shakespeare, "Myself have seen his demeanour, no less civil than he excellent in the quality he professes. Besides, divers of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing that approves his art." We thus see that Shakespeare was regarded as an excellent player (for quality then answered to profession at the present time), as an elegant writer (facetious being employed in its classic sense), and as an upright and honourable man, and further, perhaps, as moving in what we should term good society.Moreover this work of Chettle's, published at the end of 1592 or beginning of 1593, furnishes what I regard as a proof that Shakespeare had not at that time brought an original piece on the stage; for speaking of Green he says, "He was of singular pleasance, the very supporter, and—to no man's disgrace be this intended—the only comedian of a vulgar writer in this country;" of which last words the plain meaning is, that Green had as yet been the only tolerable writer of English comedy. Now we have sufficient means for judging of Green's comic powers; and surely no man in his senses would have ventured to write these words, had he been ever so prejudiced, if Shakespeare had already produced the Comedy of Errors or The Two Gentlemen of Verona. We may therefore venture to assert that neither of these plays was acted earlier than 1593.We may here, by the way, notice some curious coincidences between Shakespeare and the great comic poet of France, Molière. There is some reason to suppose that both of them were originally connected with the law; they both went on the stage at, we may say, the age of twenty, or a little later. Shakespeare was in his thirtieth year when he produced his first original play, Molière in his thirty-second when he wrote L'Etourdi; but he had previously given some short pieces. Finally, the former died at the close, the latter at the commencement of his fifty-second year.The allusion to the poet's literary character in Kindhart's Dream was in all probability to his Venus and Adonis, which was published in 1593, but which may, as was the custom in those days, have previously circulated in manuscript among his "private friends;" or it may have been to his Sonnets, which, as we shall presently see, thus circulated at this time. It is impossible to say when this poem was written; but there certainly is no necessity for supposing, with Mr. Collier, that it was composed at Stratford. Shakespeare's mind easily retained the requisite rural imagery; and with his power of rapid composition and command of language, a very few weeks would suffice at any time for its production. This poem, which he terms his "unpolished lines," and "the first heir of my invention," was dedicated to Henry Wriothesly, Earl of Southampton. It met with general applause, and was followed, in 1594, by Lucrece, also dedicated to the same accomplished nobleman. The dedication, commencing with "The love I dedicate to your lordship is without end," would seem to intimate some degree of friendship on both sides; and as Shakespeare's private character, as we have seen, appears to have been most respectable, and Southampton was a well-known admirer of the drama, some kind of intimacy between him and the poet is not by any means improbable. There is also nothing incredible in what Rowe says had been "handed down by Sir William Davenant," of Lord Southampton's having "at one time given him £1000 to enable him to go through with a purchase which he heard he had a mind to." But the amount must be much exaggerated; for none of Shakespeare's purchases that we hear of ever came to so large a sum. Mr. Collier thinks, with some probability, that, as it appears that the Globe Theatre on the Bankside was built in 1594 by the company to which Shakespeare belonged, Lord Southampton may have given him as much money as his share of the cost came to, which could not well have been more than a few hundred pounds.It was probably also about this time that he wrote his very enigmatic Sonnets, which Meres, in 1598, calls "his sugred sonnets among his private friends," meaning perhaps which only circulated privately in manuscript. I assign them this early date because their style and language so strongly resemble those of his two poems and his early plays, such as Love's Labour's Lost. They were not published till 1609, and then not by the author himself. They seem to have been collected from those who had the manuscripts by a Mr. W. H., whom therefore the publisher in his dedication terms "the only begetter" of them, "begetter" in the language of the time being getter, collector, &c. It has been conjectured, with great probability, that many of them were written in the person of Lord Southampton for the lady with whom he was enamoured; and others may have been written for other persons, a usual custom then of the poets of France and England. I feel almost convinced that few or none of them were written in the poet's own person. Thus in 1598 he was only thirty-four years old, and yet some of them are in the character of a man grey and advanced in years; even in 1609 he was only forty-five.Along with the Sonnets was published a poem named A Lover's Complaint, of the genuineness of which I am rather dubious. There had already appeared, in 1599, under the name of Shakespeare, a catchpenny collection called The Passionate Pilgrim, in which are two of his manuscript sonnets, and three of those published the preceding year in Love's Labour's Lost, all of them with an altered text.An account of the dates, &c., of Shakespeare's plays will follow this Life. Here, therefore, it need only be remarked that they extended over a space of less than twenty years (from 1592 to 1610?), during which time he had an active share in the management of the two theatres, and was also an actor for the whole or the greater part of it. He was, as we may well suppose, with Jonson, Beaumont, Fletcher, and others, a member of the club instituted by Sir Walter Raleigh, and which met at the Mermaid Tavern in Bread Street, in which street, it may be observed by the way, Milton was born during this period. Fuller has left us some account of the wit-combats that used to take place at the Mermaid between our poet and Ben Jonson.The relations between Shakespeare and his family during this time are in a state of ambiguity, which no conjecture can fully clear up. There is not the slightest ground for supposing that he ever was on ill terms with his wife; and surely we have no right to suppose that, like La Fontaine, he left her in the country while he himself lived in the metropolis; for Shakespeare was a householder, while La Fontaine lived usually in the hôtels of his patrons. The more natural supposition is that he would have removed his wife and children to London as soon as he had got a firm footing there. Certainly no entry of the birth of any child of his is to be found in the register of any London parish; but may not some physical change, with which we are unacquainted, have caused his wife to cease from childbearing after the birth of the twins? There is also no entry of this kind in the register of Stratford; and yet it can hardly be that he, any more than La Fontaine, abstained from the bed of his wife in the annual visits which, according to Aubrey's very probable account, he was in the habit of making to his native town. But the burial of his son Hamnet took place in Stratford on the 11th of August, 1596, whence it might appear that the family was living there at that time. To this, however, it may be replied that the family, though usually resident in London, may have been down at Stratford when Hamnet took ill, or that he may have taken ill in London and have been ordered by the physicians to try the effect of his native air, or that, finally, he may have died in London, and his body have been taken down to Stratford for interment with his family, an act quite in character with Shakespeare. The mist, therefore, remains so far undispelled. But we are also to remember that Shakespeare, as above stated, was a householder in London, which might seem to intimate that he had a family there. It is to me a matter of extreme difficulty to believe that he who created so many of the loveliest female characters that the world has ever witnessed, should have led, as, we may say, he otherwise must have done, an irregular life with regard to the sex; for the effect of such conduct is almost always a degrading view of female nature; and how pure on this subject his ideas must always have been is strongly indicated by the circumstance that three of his most lovely female characters—Perdita, Miranda, Imogen—occur in the very last plays he wrote. We may here note the difference between him and La Fontaine. On the whole, then, my opinion is that Shakespeare had his wife and children with him in London, and that his life there was as regular and domestic as his profession permitted.It has been argued, from a passage in Twelfth Night, in which a man is advised always to marry a woman younger than himself, that Shakespeare had felt the evil consequences of the opposite course. But surely we should not press thus closely language resulting from the situation of a character in a drama. And if Shakespeare was so convinced of the ill consequences of such a procedure, how came it that only a few months before his death he gave an apparently cheerful consent to the marriage of his daughter Judith with Thomas Quiney, who was four years her junior? This objection, then, also may be dismissed, and we remain as uncertain as ever.We may also venture to deal in a similar way with a passage in the Tempest (iv. 1.), condemnatory of the conduct which he and his wife had pursued before their marriage. Further, as the only mention of his wife in his will is an interlineation, bequeathing her his "second best bed, with the furniture," a want of due regard for her comfort and independence has been inferred. But this in reality is rather indicative of affection; for, as Mr. Knight was the first to observe, as his property was mostly freehold, the law provided for her by assigning her what it terms dower. Lastly, the desire which Mrs. Shakespeare is said to have expressed to be buried with her husband is surely some proof of mutual affection.It would also seem to be a matter of which there can be little doubt, that Shakespeare must have been an indefatigable reader during the first years of his residence in London. It is strange how none of the commentators appear to have been aware of this fact; for it is the only way of accounting for the remarkable copiousness of his vocabulary. Max Müller, following Professor Marsh, in his Lectures on the Science of Language, having observed, on the authority of a country clergyman, that some of our peasantry have not more than 300 words in their vocabulary, proceeds as follows:—"A well-educated person in England, who has been at a public school and at the university, who reads his Bible, his Shakespeare, the Times, and all the books of Mudie's Library, seldom uses more than about 3000 or 4000 words in actual conversation. Accurate thinkers and close reasoners, who avoid vague and general expressions, and wait till they find the word that exactly fits their meaning, employ a larger stock; and eloquent speakers may rise to a command of 10,000. Shakespeare, who displayed a greater variety of expression than probably any writer in any language, produced all his plays with about 15,000 words; Milton's works are built up with about 8000; and the Old Testament says all that it has to say with 5642 words."Now how else but by reading could Shakespeare have got such a store of words? It could not be by conversation, and he surely did not invent more than a few of them. This also tends to prove that Venus and Adonis was not written at Stratford; for his rural vocabulary could hardly have sufficed for such a poem.But further, I think I am justified in asserting that during the earlier years of his dramatic career Shakespeare acquired a competent knowledge of the French and Italian languages. As we shall see, some of his plays were founded on Italian tales and plays of which no translation has ever been discovered; and the natural inference then is, that he had read them in the original. As to the French, he must have been able to write as well as read it. As a proof, in his Henry V. there are scenes of mingled French and English, which scenes are, like all the prose scenes in our old dramatists, in what I have denominated metric prose; and this could only be caused by the whole scene having been the production of the one mind. The French, too, is incorrect, as it is also in the really prose French scene between Katherine and Alice. It seems therefore probable in the highest degree that Shakespeare was able to write French. In like manner Ben Jonson has shown in his Alchemist and elsewhere, that he was able to write Spanish and other languages.Another curious question is, Was Shakespeare ever out of England? This, too, cannot be determined; but it is clear to me, from various passages of his plays, that he must have been familiar with the sea-shore; and, from his correct use of nautical terms, we might suspect that he had been at sea on board a ship once, if not oftener. I cannot see any equal proof of his having been familiar with mountain scenery; and from the comparative vagueness of his language respecting mountains in Cymbeline and elsewhere, I rather suspect that he had never gazed on a mountain-range.In 1597, the year after he had lost his only son, Shakespeare began to carry into effect his long-cherished project of acquiring property in his native county. For the seemingly trifling sum of £60 he purchased from William Underhill one of the best houses in the town of Stratford, named New Place, built by Sir Hugh Clopton in the reign of Henry VII., consisting of one messuage, two barns, and two gardens, with their appurtenances. It was situated in Chapel-street Ward; and as, in a note taken of corn and malt during a dearth in the beginning of the following year, we find him set down as the holder of ten quarters, it would appear that his family, if not he himself, must have been residing at that time in this place.For some years subsequent to this date we find a few notices of purchases &c. in which Shakespeare was engaged, but nothing that throws any light on his personal history. Neither can we ascertain at what time it was that he disposed of his theatric property; for that he did so is plain, as he says nothing of it in his will. It would seem, however, to have been subsequent to 1610. It would also appear that he lived in Stratford in very handsome style, probably exercising a generous hospitality; for we learn from the diary of the Rev. J. Ward, vicar of that town in 1662, that he had heard that Shakespeare "spent at the rate of £1000 a-year." This sum, however, though not by any means so large, relative to the present value of money, as is usually supposed, is utterly incredible; but still it proves the tradition of his housekeeping having been liberal.On the 5th of June, 1607, Shakespeare's eldest daughter, Susanna, was married to Dr. John Hall, a physician of some eminence, settled in Stratford. They had but one child, a daughter named Elizabeth, who was married first to Thomas Nash, and secondly to John (afterwards Sir John) Barnard, of Abington, in Northamptonshire. She died in 1649, having had no children by either husband; and with her ended the lineal descent from the great Shakespeare; for Judith, his other daughter, who married a couple of months before his death, though she had three sons, outlived them all, as none of them attained to the age of twenty years. Poetic genius seems fated never to found a family; it is above the vulgar distinctions of human life.We know not the exact date of Shakespeare's final departure from London and settlement at Stratford; but it probably was not much later than the year 1610. His life after his retirement was not destined to be very long. We may picture him to ourselves as passing his days in tranquil enjoyment, interesting himself somewhat in the affairs of the borough, conversing with his neighbours, telling anecdotes of his life in London, reading his Bible and Chaucer, Spenser, and other poets, and no doubt his North's Plutarch, giving occasional play to his wit, in short, leading the life of a wise and sensible man, contented with the condition he had made his mature choice of as most productive of happiness.It is probable that in his fifty-second year he felt a decline in his constitution which reminded him of the uncertainty of life; for on the 25th of January, 1615-16, he made his Will, which was executed exactly two months later; and on the 23rd of the following April he breathed his last. He was buried in the church of Stratford, where his grave and monument may still be seen. The disease of which he died is unknown. The vicar, Mr. Ward, already referred to, says, "Shakespeare, Drayton, and Ben Jonson had a merry meeting, and, it seems, drank too hard; for Shakespeare died of a fever there contracted." This no doubt is not impossible, but it is not very probable. If we may judge from passages in his plays, Shakespeare was an enemy to deep drinking; and it is hardly likely that he should, so late in life too, have committed such excess (worthy only of a Burns) as is here supposed, even in the company of Ben Jonson, a visit from whom to Stratford, if he had made it, would with its consequences in all probability have formed part of his communications to Drummond two years later. We may then, I think, safely venture to reject this account of Shakespeare's death, and acknowledge that its cause is utterly unknown, and will probably always remain unknown.It would appear from Shakespeare's Will that he had at the time of his death but very little money; for, excepting a few trifling legacies, the only sum mentioned is £300 which he left to his younger daughter Judith, making apparently a very unequal division of his property; for to his elder daughter Susanna he left all his lands, tenements, etc., in Stratford and elsewhere, the value of which must have been very far beyond that of the sum devised to Judith. In fact we might suppose that the property enumerated in a general way in his Will had cost more, and were of greater value than would seem to be indicated.It might be supposed that the cause of this unequal division was displeasure at Judith's marriage; but, beside that we have no proof of any such feeling towards her, the real cause lies evidently far deeper. It was his passionate desire to be the founder of a family in his native county. This it was that animated all his theatric exertions, and he regarded the wonderful creations of his genius merely as means to this one great end. We might have presumed that the death of his only son in 1596 would have given a check to this passion; but, on the contrary, it was, as we have seen, in the very next year that he commenced purchasing property in Warwickshire; and we also find that in that year, or more certainly in 1599, a grant of arms was made to John Shakespeare by the Heralds' College, in which he was authorized to impale the bearings of the Ardens, his wife's family, with his own; and the probability would seem to be, that previously the Shakespeare family had had no coat of arms. By a statute, however, of the later Plantagenets every freeholder was to have his proper seal of arms; and that of the Shakespeares may have been the eagle and spear, whence the Heralds easily formed the coat of arms used by Shakespeare. In obtaining this, John Shakespeare must have acted under the influence and at the expense of his son William.In his Will, Shakespeare leaves his lands, tenements, &c. to his daughter Susanna, and after her death to her eldest son and his heirs male, and, in default of heirs male of him, to her second son, and so on to the seventh son, and, in default of such issue, to his niece (i.e. granddaughter) Elizabeth Hall and her heirs male, and, in default of them, to his daughter Judith and her heirs male, and, in their default, to the right heirs of the testator.Every precaution we see was here taken, but all in vain; for, as we have hinted, it seems to be the order of Providence that literary genius should not be the foundation of worldly rank and greatness. Most persons will here call to mind the parallel case of Sir Walter Scott, who, too, as fondly and as vainly yearned to be the founder of a part of the rural aristocracy of his native land, and in whose eyes it was greater to be Laird of Abbotsford than the author of Waverley. But the advantage was on the side of the bard of Avon; for he sought no literary fame, content with a life of peace and competence, while the Scottish baronet would fain have had literary fame as well as wealth and title. How different were the latter days of the two men!From what precedes—few, very few, as the circumstances are—some faint idea may be formed of Shakespeare as a man. As a poet, his works present him to us, in all his fulness, as the most wonderful dramatic genius that ever the world has seen, ranging with equal ease from the lowest to the highest point of the whole scale of the drama, from the broad farce of the Comedy of Errors, through the enchanting light and graceful comedy of As You Like It, and similar pieces, up to the sublimest tragedy of Macbeth, Lear, Othello. Of him alone can this be asserted. We have no reason to suppose that the great tragic poets of Greece, any more than those of France, excelled also in comedy; while the dramatists of Spain notoriously failed in tragedy, and their comedy, gay, spritely and animated as it is, depends chiefly on plot and intrigue, and is greatly deficient in variety of character.Mr. Dyce has justly observed how absurd it is to say that Shakespeare was, though the greatest, only one of a race of contemporary giants. The poetic greatness of Jonson, Fletcher, and Massinger was doubtless beyond that witnessed in most other ages of the world; but surely they were but as the stars to the sun when compared with Shakespeare. In like manner I apprehend few will agree with the following character of Shakespeare as a poet, drawn by Gifford in his Introduction to the Plays of Massinger."The claims of this great poet on the admiration of mankind are innumerable, but rhythmical modulation is not one of them; nor do I think it either wise or just to hold him forth as supereminent in every quality which constitutes genius. Beaumont is as sublime, Fletcher as pathetic, and Jonson as nervous. Nor let it be accounted poor or niggard praise to allow him only an equality with these extraordinary men in their peculiar excellencies, while he is admitted to possess many others, to which they made no approaches. Indeed if I were asked for the discriminating quality of Shakespeare's mind, that by which he is raised above all competition, above all prospect of rivalry, I should say it was WIT."That Shakespeare possessed that aroma of humour which we denominate wit, beyond any of his contemporaries or successors, is a matter about which, I think, there cannot be two opinions. I will not deny that in nervousness Jonson may have equalled him, but I certainly know not where to look for the sublime in Beaumont which rivalled that of Macbeth and Lear; and unquestionably I should never even dream of putting the morbid softness of Fletcher in comparison with the genuine manly pathos of Shakespeare. There was however one thing in which I must confess they all exceeded him—perspicuity; for though in many, very many parts of his plays the language is most lucid and unconstrained, there are others—in Troilus and Cressida for instance—which task the intellect to understand them, and which never could have been intelligible to an ordinary audience. But the fact is, neither he nor any other of his brother dramatists ever seems to have asked himself the simple question, Will the audience understand this? I finally must assert, in opposition to Gifford, that, where Shakespeare's verse is uninjured, we have abundant proof that no poet ever excelled him in "rhythmical modulation," and that, when we would produce the most melodious verse in our language, it is in his plays that we shall find our best specimens. It seems to me quite idle to say with Coleridge that Shakespeare's verse is peculiar in rhythm and structure; for, from the nature of verse, it could not be so. It is just as idle to say with Johnson that the blank verse of Thomson is not that of Milton. The difference in such cases lies wholly in the language; and that of Shakespeare is peculiar. This is caused by an excess of figurative expression, in which his metaphors are often broken and confused and his similes imperfect, by inversions and transpositions, and by the use of words in unusual and even incorrect senses.Shakespeare's power of observation must have been not merely extensive but marvellous:—"He walk'd in every path of human life,Felt every passion, and to all mankindDoth now, will ever, that experience yieldWhich his own genius only could acquire."Nothing, in fact, high or low, seems to have escaped him; he discerned the nicest shades and varieties of looks, of manners, of language. He had also, in a remarkable degree, that power—that clairvoyance, as we may perhaps venture to term it—so requisite to the dramatist and the novelist, of developing from the faintest sketch, the merest outline, the entire of a character, with its appropriate sentiments, action, and language. In the number and variety of characters no writer ever equalled him, and all are fully and completely delineated, none are, as in other dramatists, mere sketches. Some, such as his Clowns, are peculiar to himself; we meet with no Clowns in the dramas of his contemporaries and successors,—the Gracioso of the Spanish drama, an independent creation, being the nearest approach to them. But of all his creations what has always most astonished me are his women. They are exclusively his own; Fletcher, Massinger, or any other, has nothing like them. Perhaps the nearest approach is made in Spain also, by Cervantes; in whom, however, as in the Spanish drama, they want variety. They would seem to have been produced, if I may so express it, by a projection of his own gentle and noble nature into female forms; for he surely never met his Rosalinds, Mirandas, and Perditas in real life, though he may have had some faint sketches of some of them in his own daughters. He seems to have shrunk almost instinctively from portraying bad women. Goneril and Regan alone are unredeemed; for Lady Macbeth is awful, not detestable, and even the Queen of Cymbeline is but an Agrippina, for like her she is criminal but not selfish.In fine, though I will not, with Mr. Buckle, term Shakespeare "the greatest of the sons of men"—for I cannot give that preeminence to imagination, observation, and language over the other mental powers, so as to place him above Aristotle and Newton—I will say here of him, as I have said in my 'Life of Milton' that "he was the mightiest poetic mind that Nature has ever produced," and that, in his case, statues and other memorials are utterly needless and superfluous. If we are asked for his monument, we should simply point to his Plays and say,—Monumentum si quæris, inspice! and, in my opinion, he consults best for the poet's fame who seeks to restore his works to their pristine form.The reader will see by this sketch how little is really known concerning Shakespeare. I have endeavoured, as will be seen, to rectify some points in his biography.

EDITIONS, DATES, AND ORIGINS OF SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS.

In 1598 appeared a work, named Palladis Tamia, written by Francis Meres, in which among other passages respecting Shakespeare we meet with the following:—"As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for comedy and tragedy among the Latines, so Shakespeare among the English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage. For comedy witness his Gentlemen of Verona, his Errors, his Love Labour's Lost, his Love Labour's Won, his Midsummer's Night Dream, and his Merchant of Venice; for tragedy his Richard II., Richard III., Henry IV., King John, Titus Andronicus, and his Romeo and Juliet."Critics have hence inferred that these were Shakespeare's only plays written before 1598; but they have not observed that, moved probably by a love of symmetry and uniformity, Meres has given just half a dozen of each; and as in reality there were only five of our author's original tragedies then in being, he adds a play to which he could at most have only given a few touches, omitting the two Parts of Henry VI., for which he had done a vast deal more. In like manner he seems in his list of comedies to have omitted The Taming of the Shrew, which must be regarded as the least original of the comedies, and which the language and verse prove to belong to this period of his plays. It is generally agreed that Shakespeare never himself gave a play to the press; those, then, of which there are editions published during his lifetime, must have been printed from copies surreptitiously obtained, perhaps from the prompter. Hence their inaccuracies and imperfections. There is a theory indeed that they may have been taken down in short-hand during representation; but this theory seems only tenable in a single instance, Henry V., and the practice must have found a strong obstacle in the metre, to speak of no other difficulty. My opinion is that when once a copy of a play had been obtained and printed, it became the groundwork of all the subsequent editions which were printed from it, sometimes with corrections, made by the printer himself or by some man of letters employed by him for the purpose—except in such cases as Romeo and Juliet, or The Merry Wives, where the author had himself "corrected, augmented, and amended" his play. I may add that our forefathers, like the Orientals, had not our ideas about adhering strictly to the text of an author. If they thought they could improve it, they never hesitated to do so. I will now briefly state what is of most importance respecting the editions, the dates, and the origins of these immortal dramas.

COMEDIES.

The Comedy of Errors.Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.Date. As it is mentioned by Meres it must be anterior to 1598. It was probably Shakespeare's first original piece. From the plain allusion (III. 2) to the civil war in France, it must have been written before February 1594, in which year Henry IV. was crowned. I have shown above that it could not have been acted earlier than 1593.Origin. It is manifestly founded on the Menæchmi of Plautus; but Shakespeare hardly went to the original. He may have merely got an account of that piece from some learned friend; and there was a piece named The Historie of Error, which was played at Hampton Court before the Queen, on New Year's day 1576-77, which may have been formed on the Menæchmi. The proper title of this play seems to have been simply Errors, and The Comedy of Errors is like The Tragedy of Macbeth, &c.The Two Gentlemen of Verona.Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.Date. Anterior to 1598 as it is in Meres's list. The critics have not observed that the resemblance is so strong between Act III. Sc. 1 of this play, and Act I. Sc. 2 of Lyly's Midas, that the one must have been taken from the other. In my opinion our poet was the borrower, as his scene is so superior to Lyly's. Now Midas was printed in 1592; but Shakespeare, it may be said, may have seen the play acted, or he may have written that scene, and added it to his play after he had read Lyly's; so the present comedy might have been written before 1592. This, however, I have shown to be at the least very unlikely. Though in my edition of the Plays I have given, as here, precedence to The Comedy of Errors, I do not feel at all certain upon the point, and would by no means assert that this is not rather "the first heir of his [dramatic] invention."Origin. The plot seems to have been, in the main, of our poet's own invention; though what relates to Proteus and Julia may have been suggested, mediately or immediately, by the story of Felix and Felismena in the Diana of Montemayor. Indeed the points of resemblance are such that I feel confident the poet must have been acquainted with that part of the Diana; and yet it was not translated till 1598. Might he not have learned it from some one who had read the work in Spanish?Love's Labour's Lost.Editions. 4to, 1598; in the folio, 1623.Date. We have no means of ascertaining the exact time of its composition; but from internal evidence we must regard it as one of our author's earliest pieces, yet, I think, later than those I have placed before it.Origin. It is apparently wholly our poet's own invention, as no novel, play, or anything else at all resembling it has been discovered.All's Well that Ends Well.Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.Date. Meres, as we have seen, terms one of Shakespeare's comedies "Love Labour's Won." Among our author's extant comedies there is none with that title, and we have no reason whatever for supposing any original play of his to be lost; while on the other hand the subject of the present play accords most accurately with that title. It has therefore been conjectured, with great probability, that this is one of Shakespeare's early plays, which he altered and improved at a later period, giving it at the same time a new title. We can certainly discern in it the style and mode of composition of two different periods—the riming scenes, for instance, belonging to the earlier one. It is to be observed of these riming scenes, that they only occur in the three preceding plays, and in Romeo and Juliet, in all which plays soliloquies, letters, &c. are in stanzas—like the sonnets in Spanish plays; and the very same is the case in the present play, and in it alone of the later ones; whence we may fairly conclude that it belonged to the early period. The second act seems to retain, both in the serious and the comic scenes, much of the original play unaltered; and every one must be struck with the resemblance of the style in it to that of Love's Labour's Lost.Origin. The tale of Giletta di Narbona in Boccaccio's Decameron, which Shakespeare may have read in the original, or in the translation in Painter's Palace of Pleasure. The comic scenes are, of course, our author's own, as usual.A Midsummer-Night's Dream.Editions. 4to (by Fisher), 1600; 4to (by Roberts), 1600; in the folio, 1623.Date. Anterior to 1598, as it is mentioned by Meres. I do think that in Act II. Sc. 1 there is an allusion to the state of the weather in the summer of 1594, and that Shakespeare may have been writing this play at that very time. I therefore incline to give that year, or 1595, as the date of its composition.Origin. Purely and absolutely the whole the poet's own invention. He was well read in Chaucer, in Golding's Ovid, and in North's Plutarch, where he got the names of his characters and some circumstances.The Taming of the Shrew.Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.Date. We have no means of ascertaining the exact date of this play; but the style proves it to belong to Shakespeare's early period. The reason of its omission by Meres has been already given.Origin. It is a rifacimento of an anonymous play, first printed in 1594, though perhaps written and acted some time earlier, and termed "The Taming of a Shrew," and it may be anterior to the Midsummer-Night's Dream; the date 1594 would seem to have some connexion with both plays. The incident of the Pedant personating Vincentio was taken from The Supposes, a translation by Gascoigne of Ariosto's I Suppositi.The Merchant of Venice.Editions. 4to (by Roberts), 1600; 4to (by Heyes), 1600; in the folio, 1623. The two 4tos are in effect the same; for Heyes's was printed by J. R., i.e. James Roberts, who probably had contrived to get a transcript from the copy in the theatre, and then may have made some arrangement with Heyes for the publication.Date. It is in Meres's list, and it was entered by Roberts in the Stationers' Registers 22nd July 1598; so that it was probably first acted in that or the preceding year. It is, I think, certainly later than any of the preceding comedies.Origin. The remote origin of the incidents both of the bond and of the caskets is the Gesta Romanorum portions of which had been translated and published by Robinson in 1577. The incident of the bond is also in Il Pecorone of Ser Giovanni Fiorentino, first printed in 1558, and which Shakespeare may have read. There was also a ballad on the subject, in Percy's Reliques, with which he may have been acquainted.As You Like It.Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.Date. It is posterior to 1598, as Meres does not mention it, and was entered in the Stationer's Registers, August 4, 1600, by the booksellers Wise and Aspley; but for some reason, which we cannot now discover, they did not print it.Origin. It is founded on Lodge's novel of Rosalynde, of which the chief origin was The Coke's Tale of Gamelyn, ascribed, but wrongly, to Chaucer. The characters of Jaques, Touchstone, and Audrey, and of course all the comic scenes, are Shakespeare's own.Much Ado About Nothing.Editions. 4to, 1600; in the folio, 1623.Date. Not being mentioned by Meres, it is posterior to 1598; and as it is said, in the title-page of the 4to, that "it hath been sundry times publicly acted," it may have been written in 1598, and may be older than As You Like It; but we have no means of deciding.Origin. The story of Ariodante and Ginevra in the Orlando Furioso, which Shakespeare may have read either in the original or in Sir John Harington's translation, published in 1591. The story had also been translated by Beverley and Turberville; and there was a play on it, performed before the Queen on Shrove Tuesday 1582-83; so that it was well known. Shakespeare's other authority was the novel of Timbreo di Cardona, &c., in Bandello, in which occur the names Pietro di Aragona, Messina, and Felicia Lionata, and with which therefore Shakespeare must have been acquainted. As there was no known translation of it, save a French one in Belleforest's Histoires Tragiques, I am of opinion that Shakespeare had read the original Italian. It need hardly be added that all the comic scenes and characters are our author's own.The Merry Wives of Windsor.Editions. 4to, 1602; 4to, 1619; in the folio, 1623.Date. It was entered in the Stationers' Registers 18th January 1601-02, and was, consequently, written between 1597 (it is not in Meres's list) and that date; but we have no means of ascertaining the exact time. Mr. Dyce thinks it was written before 1600. It may be observed that, though some of the characters are the same as those in Henry IV. and Henry V., it is quite independent of these plays. I must here remark that the play is so brief, and, as it were, elementary, in the 4tos as compared with the folio, that it seems quite clear that the poet revised and augmented it some time after its first appearance; and this gives some probability to the tradition of its having been written at the command of the Queen, and in a few days, possibly in 1598 or 1599. Further, as in the 4tos there is no allusion whatever to the Lucy coat of arms, it is highly improbable that the poet showed in it any ill feeling towards that family. Lastly, the occurrence in the 4tos of numerous riming couplets which are not in the folio, completely upsets Mr. Collier's theory of that edition having been made up from memory, and from notes taken at the theatre. The expression "king's English" (I. 4) might seem to indicate that the enlargement of the play was not made till after the accession of James. The change, however, of queen to king may have been made by the Editors; but surely Shakespeare must have been aware that Falstaff lived in the time of the Henries.Origin. Though some Italian and English tales are referred to as the possible sources of the plot, we may, I think, regard it as, at least in the greater part, Shakespeare's own invention. There is, however, a strong resemblance in part of it to a German play by Duke Henry Julius of Brunswick, who died in 1611. See on The Tempest.Twelfth Night.Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.Date. We learn from the MS. diary of a barrister named Manningham, that this play was performed in the Middle Temple, on the 2nd of February 1601-02. It was therefore written between 1597 and that date; but the exact time is quite uncertain.Origin. The more remote origin of this play is apparently one of the tales of Bandello, which Shakespeare may have read in the original, or in a French or English version of it; for there were such. But the Rev. Jos. Hunter directed attention to three Italian comedies, two named "Inganni"—one of which is noticed by Manningham—and a third named "Gl'Ingannati," or "Il Sacrificio;" and the resemblance between this last and Twelfth Night is so strong that it is hardly possible to suppose that Shakespeare was unacquainted with it. If so, as it was never translated, as far as we know, he must have read it in the original Italian, which was printed in 1537.N.B. The reader will observe with respect to these last four comedies, that all that we know with certainty respecting their date is that they were written between 1597 and 1600 or 1602. The arranging of them is little more than guess-work. I have placed first those that we know to have been written before 1600.Measure For Measure.Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.Date. In the Accounts of the Revels at Court, we are informed that this play was performed at Whitehall December 26, 1604. It was therefore probably written in that or the preceding year.Origin. "The right excellent and famous History of Promos and Cassandra, a drama in Two Parts, by George Whetstone," published in 1578. Whetstone's drama was taken from one of the tales in the Hecatommithi of Cinthio, which Shakespeare may also have read. The comic scenes are of course all his own.The Winter's Tale.Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.Date. It appears from the MS. diary of Dr. Forman, that he saw this play performed at the Globe, May 15, 1611; it was also performed at Whitehall on the 5th of November following. Its exact date cannot be assigned; but the great probability is that it could not have been written earlier than 1610. I am disposed to regard it as anterior to The Tempest, which was probably the last play that ever Shakespeare wrote. When we consider the probable date of this play, we see how utterly untenable is the theory of some writers that it was an indirect apology for Anne Boleyn, and a direct compliment to her royal daughter. I may here observe that those ingenious persons who find allusions (except in a very few plain instances) to public events and public persons in Shakespeare's plays merely waste their own and their readers' time. Thus Sir Philip Sidney died the very year the poet came to London; and yet we are told that he is figured in Hamlet, a play not written till many years afterwards!Origin. With the exception of the comic scenes—which as usual are wholly Shakespeare's own—it was founded on Green's popular novel of Pandosto, The Triumph of Time.The Tempest.Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.Date. As it (II. 1) copies a passage from Florio's translation of Montaigne's Essays, published in 1603, we may assume that it is posterior to that year; and Malone has directed attention to the shipwreck of Sir George Somers on the island of Bermuda in July 1609, which may have suggested the scene of "The Tempest." We may therefore venture to assume that it may have been written not long after the account of that event reached England.Origin. Collins, the poet, told Warton that he had seen a romance called "Aurelio and Isabella," printed in Italian, Spanish, French, and English in 1588, which was the original of the Tempest. But no such romance has ever been discovered, and it may justly be questioned if ever such a one existed. Still it is not improbable that Shakespeare may have heard or read some story of people cast away on a desert island. There is also a German play by Jacob Ayrer of Nuremberg, who died early in the seventeenth century, named "Die schöne Sidea," which in its plot and principal characters, bears so strong a resemblance to The Tempest that it is very difficult to avoid supposing a connexion between them; and it might thence appear that Collins was correct, for Shakespeare could hardly have had any knowledge of a German drama. It may, however, be said that he got his knowledge of the plot, &c., from one of the English actors who, as it is now well known, used to go over and perform in Germany.

HISTORIES.

The Life and Death of King John.Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.Date. Anterior to 1598, as it is in Meres's list.Origin. It was founded on a play called "The First and Second Part of the Troublesome Reign of King John of England," published in 1591.The Life and Death of King Richard II.Editions. 4to, 1597; 4to, 1598; 4to, 1608; 4to, 1615; in the folio, 1623.Date. The exact date cannot be ascertained; but from the style I should be inclined to regard it as one of Shakespeare's earliest plays.Origin. Hollinshed's Chronicle, and an older play on the same subject.The First Part of King Henry IV.Editions. 4to, 1598; 4to, 1599; 4to, 1604; 4to, 1608; 4to, 1613; in the folio, 1623.Date. All we can say is, that it was anterior to 1598, and was most probably written in 1597.Origin. Hollinshed's Chronicle, and an anonymous play called "The Famous Victories of Henry V." The comic scenes are entirely Shakespeare's own, both in this and the two succeeding plays.The Second Part of King Henry IV.Editions. 4to, 1600; in the folio, 1623.Date. Apparently in one of the years between 1597 and 1600. As has been already observed, it could hardly have been in existence when Meres wrote, or he would not have placed Titus Andronicus in his list. It is an objection that before 1597 Shakespeare had changed the name Oldcastle to Falstaff in the First Part, while in the 4to edition of this play a speech (I. 2) has the prefix Old. instead of Fal. But surely that may have been a slip of the copyist's memory, in consequence of Oldcastle having been the original title.Origin. The same as of the First Part.The Life of King Henry V.Editions. 4to, 1600; 4to, 1602; 4to, 1608; in the folio, 1623.Date. As in the chorus to Act V. there is an evident allusion to the expedition of the Earl of Essex to Ireland, whither he went in April 1599, and whence he returned in the following September, it would seem to be clear that the play was acted in the interval between those two months. The insertion of this passage seems to be inexplicable on any other hypothesis. This also proves that the choruses formed a part of the original play, though they are not to be found in the 4to editions, which, it is well known, are scandalously imperfect.Origin. The same as that of the two preceding plays.The Life and Death of King Richard III.Editions. 4to, 1597; 4to, 1598; 4to, 1602; 4to, 1605; in the folio, 1623.Date. Anterior, of course, to 1597. I incline to regard it as posterior to King John and to Richard II.; for it has no stanzas and no riming passages. It is also very free from quibbles and plays upon words, except in the unfortunate soliloquy of Richard in the last act—a wonderful instance of want of taste, and even of judgment. The same may be said of the scenes between Richard and Lady Anne and the Queen.Origin. Hollinshed, and probably More.The Life of King Henry VIII.Edition. Only in the folio, 1623.Date. The following memorandum is in the Stationers' Registers:—"12 Feb. 1604[-5]. Nath. Butter. Yf he get good allowance for the Interlude of K. Henry the 8th, before he begin to print it, &c." This has been supposed to be the present play; but the style militates against this supposition. I offer the following proof, which has never, that I am aware of, been observed. In his early plays Shakespeare very rarely puts the preposition or conjunction at the end of one line and the noun or verb at the beginning of the next; in his succeeding ones he does so more frequently, and in his latest he is rather profuse of the practice. Now this construction is as frequent in Henry VIII. as in Coriolanus, Cymbeline, The Winter's Tale, and his other later ones, whence it might seem that it should be referred to the same epoch. We are told, indeed, that in 1613 the Globe Theatre was set on fire and burned down by the discharge of chambers in a new play called "Henry VIII.;" but it is hardly possible that it could be this play, as Shakespeare had retired before that year.Origin. Hollinshed's Chronicle.

TRAGEDIES.

Romeo and Juliet.Editions. 4to, 1597; 4to, 1599; 4to, 1609; in the folio, 1623. There is also an undated 4to issued by Smethwick, the publisher of that of 1609, in which many typographical errors are corrected.