Hamlet

edition of Chaucer, which formerly belonged to Dr Gabriel Harvey (the antagonist of Nash), who, in his own handwriting, has set down the play as a performance with which he was well acquainted, in the year 1598. His words are these: "The younger sort take much delight in Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, but his Lucrece and his tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke, have it in them to please the wiser sort, 1598."'

In consequence of this note of Steevens, MALONE was induced to believe that Shakespeare's Hamlet was first published in 1596, but afterwards, in the Variorum of 1821 (ii, 369), he has the following note: In a former edition of this Essay, I was induced to suppose that Hamlet must have been written prior to 1598, from the loose manner in which Mr Steevens has mentioned a manuscript note by Gabriel Harvey, in a copy, which had belonged to him, of Speght's Chaucer, in which, we are told, he has set down Hamlet as a performance with which he was well acquainted in 1598. But I have been favored by the Bishop of Dromore [Dr Percy], the possessor of the book referred to, with an inspection of it, and, on an attentive examination, I have found reason to believe that the note in question may have been written in the latter end of the year 1600. Harvey doubtless purchased this volume in 1598, having, both at the beginning and end of it, written his name. But it by no means follows that all the intermediate remarks which are scattered throughout were put down at the same time. He speaks of translated Tasso in one passage; and the first edition of Fairfax, which is doubtless alluded to, appeared in 1600.'

Wherefore, and in consequence of the allusion to the inhibition' of the players spoken of in Hamlet, II, ii, 320, Malone supposed Hamlet to have appeared first in 1600.

According to SINGER (Preliminary Remarks to Hamlet, p. 152, 1826), the translated Tasso, referred to by Malone, need not necessarily have been Fairfax's translation of 1600, but Harvey may have alluded to the version of the first five books of the Jerusalem, published by R. C[arew] in 1594. Singer therefore 'safely places the date of the first composition of Hamlet at least as early as 1597.'

KNIGHT: Not a tittle of distinct evidence exists to show that there was any other play of Hamlet but that of Shakspere; and all the collateral evidence upon which it is inferred that an earlier play of Hamlet than Shakspere's did exist may, on the other hand, be taken to prove that Shakspere's original sketch of Hamlet was in repute at an earlier period than is commonly assigned to its date. . . . . In Henslowe's diary, the very next entry is at the taminge of a shrewe;' and Malone, in a note, adds: the play which preceded Shakespeare's.' When Malone wrote this note he believed that Shakspere's Taming of the Shrew was a late production; but in the second edition of his Chronological Order' he is persuaded that it was one of his very early productions. There is nothing,' says Knight in conclusion, 'to prove that both these plays thus acted were not Shakspere's.'

MALONE, in his edition of 1790, finds another reference to this old tragedy in Jonson's The Case is Altered, which was written before the end of 1599. It is as follows: But first I'll play the ghost; I'll call him out.' The allusion is so very doubtful that Malone did not refer to it in his subsequent editions. As Gifford says, we might as well find an allusion in the ghost of every play that has appeared since the days of Thespis.'

The last allusion to this old tragedy that we find before the publication of the First Quarto in 1603 is given by CAPELL (Notes, iii, 232), and bears witness to the

distinguishing phrase before quoted: 'Asinius. Wod I were hang'd if I can call you any names but Captaine and Tucca. Tucca. No. Fye'st; my name's Hamlet reuenge: thou hast been at Parris garden, hast not?'-Dekker's Satiro-mastix, 1602. This allusion by Dekker may be compared, says HALLIWELL, with another passage, in Westward Hoe, 1607,-'I, but when light wives make heavy husbands, let these husbands play mad Hamlet; and crie revenge. So likewise in Rowlands's The Night Raven, 1618,- I will not cry Hamlet Reuenge my greeues, But I will call Hang-man Reuenge on theeues' [p. 27, ed. Hunterian Club, where the date of the first edition is given as 1620]. Halliwell adds: There is also reason to suppose that another passage in the old tragedy of Hamlet is alluded to in Armin's Nest of Ninnies, 1608,—'ther are, as Hamlet saies, things cald whips in store' [p. 55, ed Sh. Soc. But may not this refer to the whips and scorns of time' in the later Hamlet?].

DOUCE (ii, 265): In a poem, written by Anthony Scoloker, a printer, entitled Daiphantus, or The passions of love, &c., 1604, there are the following allusions to Hamlet or to come home to the vulgars Element, like Friendly Shake-speare's Tragedies, where the Commedian rides, where the Tragedian stands on Tip-toe: Faith it should please all, like Prince Hamlet. But in sadnesse, then it were to be feared he would runne mad.'

'Calls players fooles, the foole he judgeth wisest,

Will learne them action, out of Chaucer's Pander.
Puts off his cloathes, his shirt he only weares,
Much like mad-Hamlet; thus his passion teares.'

In Eastward Hoe, by Chapman, Jonson, and Marston, 1605, says STEEVENS, there is a fling at the hero of this tragedy. A footman named Hamlet enters, and a tankard-bearer asks him: "Sfoote, Hamlet, are you mad?' MALONE says there was no satire intended. Eastward Hoe was acted at Shakespeare's own play-house (the Blackfriars), by the children of the revels.'

STEEVENS also cites from Dekker's Bel-man's Night-walkes, 1612:—' But if any mad Hamlet, hearing this, smell villainie, and rush in by violence,' &c.

DR LATHAM (Two Dissertations on Hamlet, &c. London, 1872, p. 87) says that we know the date' of this older Hamlet to be 1589, but gives no proofs for his assertion, and in the next sentence weakens our faith in his figures by stating that Shakespeare was then in his twenty-third year. We are still more puzzled by finding on page 91 a reference to the Hamlet of 1598. Under either date, I believe, Dr Latham denies that this older Hamlet, referred to by Nash, Lodge, and others, was written by Shakespeare, but maintains that it is wholly or partially preserved' in the text of the Bestrafte Brudermord. See Note prefixed to a translation of this old German drama in this volume.

The foregoing are all the allusions, I believe, to a play of Hamlet which many critics believe preceded Shakespeare's tragedy. Some of these allusions that occur after 1602 probably refer to Shakespeare's tragedy, but I have given them all because they are mentioned by one or another of the editors, and because it is proper that in an edition for students, like this, every item of evidence should be set forth.

We now come to something more definitely connected with Shakespeare than anything thus far.

STEEVENS discovered the following entry in the Stationers' Registers:

[1602] xxvj to Julij

James Robertes Entred for his Copie vnder the handes of master PASFEILD and master waterson warden A booke called the Revenge of HAMLETT Prince [of] Denmarke' as yt was latelie Acted by the Lord Chamberleyne his servantes

vjd (I have exactly followed the transcript of the entry as given by ARBER.) Whether or not the book, thus licensed, was printed in this year we cannot tell; no copy of it has survived. That it was Shakespeare's tragedy we can have but little doubt, since it was acted by the company to which he belonged. In the following spring, in 1603, 'The Lord Chamberlain's Servants' became 'The King's Players,' and the Quarto published in that year states that it had been acted by his Highness' servants.' 'Thus we see,' says COLLIER, that in July, 1602, there was an intention to print and publish a play called The Revenge of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke, and this intention, we may fairly conclude, arose out of the popularity of the piece, as it was then acted by "the Lord Chamberlain's Servants," who, in May following, obtained the title of "the King's Players." The object of Roberts, in making the entry, was to secure it to himself, being, no doubt, aware that other printers and booksellers would endeavor to anticipate him. It seems probable that he was unable to obtain such a copy of Hamlet as he would put his name to; but some inferior and nameless printer, who was not so scrupulous, having surreptitiously secured a manuscript of the play, however imperfect, which would answer the purpose, and gratify public curiosity, the edition bearing date 1603 was published.'

This edition of 1603 is reprinted in this volume; reference to the title-page will show that although it is there stated to have been printed at London' for N. L. [i. e. Nicholas Ling] and John Trundell,' no printer's name is mentioned. Hence COLLIER'S inference that the nameless printer' was some unscrupulous rival of James Robertes. But DYCE says (Introduction to Hamlet, p. 100, 1866), 'we have no proof that Roberts was not the "nameless printer” of the Quarto of 1603; on the contrary, there is reason to suspect that he was, since we find that he printed the next Quarto of 1604 for the same Nicholas Ling, who was one of the publishers of the Quarto of 1603.' The title-page of the Quarto published in 1604 states that it was printed by J.[ames] R. [obertes] for N. [icholas] L. [ing]; wherefore Dyce's inference is probably correct that James Roberts was also the printer of the Quarto of 1603, or what we now call the First Quarto.' COLLIER, in his second edition, in support of his conjecture that Robertes did not print Q,, calls attention to the fact that Q, 'has Ling's device on the title-page, and that it was possibly from his types; the edition of 1604 was printed for, not by, him;' be that as it may, it is a matter of very small moment, and one thing is certain: that the edition, by whomsoever printed, reflects but little credit on the printer; it gives a very inadequate idea of the tragedy as it was acted, if not at the very time, certainly within a few months afterwards. Possibly, if Roberts was the printer, this consciousness withheld his name from the title-page of a publication whose chief object appears to have been to forestall the market until something better could be furnished.

It will be noticed, by referring to the Reprint p. 37, that on the title-page of the Quarto of 1603 it is stated that it had been acted in the two Vniuersities of Cambridge and Oxford.' 'No evidence,' says CLARENDON, has yet been discovered of the occasion on which the play was acted at the two universities; but if we might hazard a conjecture, it seems not improbable that it might have been at some

entertainment in honor of the king's accession, and it may have been selected as being connected with the native country of his queen.'

Of this edition of 1603 only two copies have survived, and both are imperfect; one lacks the title-page, and the other the last leaf. The Quarto of 1604 was the earliest copy known down to 1823, when a copy of the Quarto of 1603 was found by Sir Henry Bunbury, who gives the following account of it in his Correspondence of Sir Thomas Hanmer, London, 1838, p. 80:- [The only copy of the First Quarto] known to be in existence, was found by me in a closet at Barton, 1823. This curiosity (for a great curiosity it is, independently of its being an unique copy) is now in the possession of the Duke of Devonshire; it probably was picked up by my grandfather, Sir William Bunbury, who was an ardent collector of old dramas. For the satisfaction of bibliographers, I take this opportunity of recording the particulars of the little volume, which contained this Hamlet of 1603. It was a small quarto, barbarously cropped, and very ill-bound; its contents were as follows:Merchant of Venice, 1600, complete; Merry Wives of Windsor, 1602, do.; Much Ado about Nothing, 1600, do.; Midsummer Night's Dream, 1600, do.; Troilus and Cressida (wanting the title-page); Romeo and Juliet, 1599, complete; Hamlet, 1603 (wanting the last page); Second Part of Henry the Fourth, 1600, complete; First Part of do., 1598, do.; Henry the Fifth, 1602, do.; Richard the Third, 1602, do.; Two Noble Kinsmen, 1634, with MS corrections of the text. I exchanged the volume with Messrs Payne and Foss, for books to the value of £180, and they sold it for £230 to the Duke of Devonshire.'

See also The Athenæum, 18 Oct. 1856, for a fuller account of this volume. There was a reprint of this copy made by Payne and Foss in 1825, which is said to be exceedingly accurate. It was lithographed in facsimile in 1858, under the supervision of COLLIER, at the expense of the Duke of Devonshire. It was again reprinted in 1860 under the supervision of S. TIMMINS, esq., with the Quarto of 1604 printed on opposite pages, —a highly valuable edition. It takes its place also among the lithographic reprints by E. W. ASHBEE, under the supervision of HALLIWELL, and it is from this edition that the present reprint, in this volume, is made. It is also reprinted with extreme accuracy in the Cambridge Edition.

The CAMBRIDGE EDITORS State (I think without sufficient authority) that this copy ⚫ belonged to Sir Thomas Hanmer, though he does not appear to have mentioned it in his notes to Shakespeare, or in his correspondence, and its existence was not known till his library came into the possession of Sir E. H. [sic] Bunbury in 1821.' Sir H. E. Bunbury, as we have seen, believed that its original owner was his grandfather, who was the nephew of Sir Thomas Hanmer.

In 1856 the second copy, lacking the title-page, was bought from a student of Trinity College, Dublin, by a Dublin book dealer, for one shilling, and sold by him for £70; it was afterwards bought by Mr Halliwell for £120, and is now in the British Museum.

The next year after the First Quarto was issued the Second Quarto was published, with the following title-page:

Lowndes mentions an edition of 1604 as 'printed by J. R. for N. Landure,' but this is probably a mistake, which is repeated, however, in Halliwell's Shakespeariana. It has found its way into several editions,-Knight's, for instance, as well as Elze's and François-Victor Hugo's. ELZE called attention to it in The Athenæum, 11 Feb. 1860, and gave as his authority Halliwell's Shakespeariana. HALLIWELL replied in the same Journal, 25 Feb. 1860: 'I fear I have fallen into a blunder respecting the name of the publisher of the Hamlet of 1604. The initials are all that are given in the imprint, but the fish in the printer's device over the letters N. L. would seem clearly to show that Ling, not Landure, was the publisher.'

The statement that this edition is enlarged to almost as much again as it was' is correct enough for a bookseller's announcement,—there are about five hundred and sixty-seven lines lacking to make it exactly as much again. The First Quarto numbers two thousand one hundred and forty-three lines; the Second Quarto about three thousand seven hundred and nineteen.

This notable difference in quantity, coupled with a marked difference in words, phrases, and even in the order of the Scenes, together with a change in the names of some of the characters, has given rise to an interesting discussion, which probably will never be decided: it is whether, in the Quarto of 1603, we have the first draught of Shakespeare's tragedy, which the author afterwards remodelled and elaborated until it appears as we now have it substantially, in the Quarto of 1604, or is the First Quarto merely a maimed and distorted version of the true and perfect coppie'?

COLLIER was, I think, the first to maintain, from a careful comparison of the two, that the copy of 1603 was printed from manuscript taken down in short-hand from the players' mouths. SINGER in his earlier edition in 1826, and in his later in 1856, suggests that it may have been printed from an imperfect manuscript of the prompt books, or the play-house copy, or stolen from the author's papers. It is next to impossible that it can have been taken down during the representation. . . . . The variations . . . . are too numerous and striking to admit of a doubt of the play having been subsequently revised, amplified, and altered by the poet.'

....

CALDECOTT (Preface to Hamlet, 1832, p. vi): [This First Quarto exhibits] in that which was afterwards wrought into a splendid drama, the first conception, and comparatively feeble expression of a great mind.

The next and the chiefest advocate of this view is KNIGHT, and his arguments are here given almost in full; his extracts from Q, are omitted, and references to the lines of the Reprint in this edition are substituted. His remarks are to be found in the Introductory Notice to Hamlet in his edition of Shakespeare's Plays, p. 87; no difference has been observed between his first and last editions, twenty-four years apart.

In the reprint of the edition of 1603 [by Payne and Foss, 1825], 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 Shakespeare. 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 present Hamlet; the Hamlet of 1603 is a sketch of the perfect Hamlet, and probably a corrupt copy of that sketch. We agree with Caldecott, and 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 seventeenth century; and that

« Předchozí Pokračovat »

Knihy

Hamlet, Svazek 4