this original copy being then of comparatively little value was piratically published. . . . . The highest interest of this edition consists, as we believe, in the opportunity which it affords of studying the growth, not only of the great poet's command over language,—not only of his dramatic 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. [Compare lines 173-179 of Q, with I, ii, 77-86.]

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 short-hand copy taken from the mouths of the players'? Could the players have transformed the line, But I have that within which passeth show,' into Him have I lost, I must of force forego.' The haste of short-hand does not account for what is truly the refinement of the poetical art. The same nice elaboration is to be found in Hamlet's soliloquy in the same scene. In the first copy we have not the passage so characteristic of Hamlet's mind: How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of this world.' Neither have we the noble comparison of Hyperion to a satyr.' The fine Shaksperian 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, 'as if increase Of appetite had grown by what it look'd on.' In the amended copy we have, by what it fed on.' Such changes are not the work of short-hand writers.

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. [See lines 331-339 of Q,.]

Compare this with the splendid passage which we now have. Look especially at the four lines beginning, 'For nature, crescent,' &c. [I, iii, 11-14], in which we see the deep philosophic spirit of the mature Shakspere. Polonius and his few precepts next occur; and here again there is a slight difference. The lecture of the old courtier to his daughter is somewhat extended. . . . .

The character of Hamlet is fully conceived in the original play, whenever he is in action, as in this scene [where Hamlet encounters the Ghost]. It is the contem

plative 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 improve

ment.

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 do in the amended copy. Thus Ophelia does not, as now, say,- Alas, my lord, my lord, I have been so affrighted,' but she comes at once to proclaim Hamlet mad. [See lines 664-672 of Q,.]

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. [See Q,, lines 788–792.]

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 sadness—a 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.

Immediately after the scene of the original copy in which Polonius describes Hamlet's frenzy, Hamlet comes in and speaks the celebrated soliloquy. In the amended copy this passage, as well as the scene with 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 Rosencrantz the dialogue is greatly elaborated in the amended copy; we have the mere germ of the fine passage,This goodly frame,' &c.-prose with almost more than the music of poetry. In the first copy, instead of this noble piece of rhetoric, we have the somewhat tame passage:- 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.'. . . .

[Page 90.] Our readers, we think, will be pleased to compare the following passage of the first copy and the amended play, which offers us an example of the most surpassing skill in the elaboration of a first idea. [Compare Q,, lines 1222-1231, with III, ii, 49-69.]

6

Schlegel observes that Shakspere has composed "the play" in Hamlet altogether in sententious rhymes, full of antitheses.' See the opening speech of the Player King [III, ii, 145-150]. Here is not only the antithesis, but the artificial elevation, that was to keep the language of the Interlude apart from that of the real drama. Shakspere has most skilfully managed the whole business of the Player King and

Queen upon this principle; but, as we think, when he wrote his first copy, his power as an artist was not so consummate. In that copy the first lines of the Player King are singularly flowing and musical; and their sacrifice shows us how inexorable was his judgement. [See Q,, lines 1274-1279.]

The soliloquy of the King in the Third Act is greatly elaborated from the first copy; and so is the scene between Hamlet and his mother. In the Play, as we now have it, Shakspere has left it doubtful whether the Queen was privy to the murder of her husband; but in this scene, in the first copy, she says,- But, as I have a soul, I swear by heaven, I never knew of this most horrid murder.' And Hamlet, upon this declaration, says,—' And, mother, but assist me in revenge, And in his death your infamy shall die.' The Queen, upon this, protests- I will conceal, consent, and do my best, What stratagem soe'er thou shalt devise.' In the amended copy the Queen merely says,-Be thou assured if words be made of breath, And breath of life, I have no life to breathe What thou hast said to me.'....

The madness of Ophelia is beautifully elaborated in the amended copy, but all her snatches of songs are the same in both editions. What she sings, however, in the First Scene of the original copy is with great art transposed to the Second Scene of the amended one. The pathos of' And will he not come again?' is doubled, as it now stands, by the presence of Laertes.

We are now arrived at a scene in the Quarto of 1603 altogether different from anything we find in the amended copy. It is a short scene between Horatio and the Queen, in which Horatio relates Hamlet's return to Denmark, and describes the treason which the King had plotted against him, as well as the mode by which he had evaded it by the sacrifice of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The Queen, with reference to the subtle treason that the King had plotted,' says: 'Then I per

ceive there's treason in his looks,' &c. [See Q,, lines 1756-1759.]

This is decisive as to Shakspere's original intentions with regard to the Queen; but the suppression of the scene in the amended copy is another instance of his admirable judgement. She does not redeem her guilt by entering into plots against her guilty husband; and it is far more characteristic of the irregular impulses of Hamlet's mind, and of his subjection to circumstances, that he should have no confidences with his mother, and form with her and Horatio no plans of revenge. The story of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is told in six lines. [See Q,, 1773-1778.] The expansion of this simple passage into the exquisite narrative of Hamlet to Horatio of the same circumstances presents, to our minds, a most remarkable example of the difference between the mature and the youthful intellect.

The scene of the Grave-digger, in the original copy, has all the great points of the present scene. The frenzy of Hamlet at the grave is also the same. Who but the poet himself could have worked up this line- Anon, as mild and gentle as a dove,' into-Anon, as patient as the female dove, When that her golden couplets are disclosed, His silence will sit drooping.'? The scene with Osric is greatly expanded in the amended copy. The catastrophe appears to be the same; but the last leaf of the copy of 1603 is wanting [sic in Knight's last edition].

..

We must express our decided opinion, grounded upon an attentive comparison of the original sketch with the perfect play, that the original sketch was an early production of our poet. The copy of 1603 is no doubt piratical; it is unquestionably very imperfectly printed. But if the passage about the inhibition' of the players fixes the date of the perfect play as 1600, which we believe it does, the essential differences between the sketch and the perfect play,-differences which do not depend

VOL. II.-2

upon the corruption of a text,—can only be accounted for upon the belief that there was a considerable interval between the productions of the first and second copy, in which the author's power and judgement had become mature, and his peculiar habits of philosophical thought had been completely established. This is a matter which does not admit of proof within our limited space, but the passages which we have already given from the original copy do something to prove it. . . . .

In proof that Romeo and Juliet is one of Shakspere's early plays, Hallam points out the want of that thoughtful philosophy which, when once it had germinated in Shakspere's mind, never ceased to display itself.' The Hamlet of 1604 is full of this thoughtfull philosophy.' But the original sketch, as given in Q,, exhibits few traces of it in the form of didactic observations. Note the following passages which are not there found: For nature crescent,' &c., I, iii, 11; This heavy-headed revel,' &c., I, iv, 17; 'There is nothing, either good or bad, but thinking makes it so,' &c., II, ii, 244; I could be bounded in a nutshell,' &c., II, ii, 249; Bring me to the test,' &c., III, iv, 142; I see a cherub,' &c., IV, iii, 47; Nature is fine in love,' &c., IV, v, 157; There's a divinity,' &c., V, ii, 10. Further, the plays which belong to the beginning of the seventeenth century, as Hallam points out, indicate a censuring of mankind. If, then, this quality be not found in the original sketch of Hamlet, we may refer that sketch to an earlier period. It is remarkable that in this sketch the misanthropy, if so it may be called, of Hamlet can scarcely be traced; his feelings have altogether reference to his personal griefs and doubts. The first Hamlet was, we think, written when this bitter remembrance,' whatever it was, had no place in his heart. Note the following passages, which indicate these morbid feelings, which are wanting in Q,: 'How weary, flat, stale, and unprofitable,' &c., I, ii, 133; 'Denmark's a prison,' &c., II, ii, 239; I have of late. . . . lost all my mirth,' &c., II, ii, 288. The soliloquy, To be, or not to be,' &c., where the outpourings of a wounded spirit are generalized in the Q,, III, i, 56; Absent thee from felicity awhile,' &c., V, ii, 334, 335. These examples are sufficient, we think, to show that we have internal evidence that the original sketch and the augmented and perfect copy of Hamlet were written under different influences and habits of thought.

[The argument against the early composition of Hamlet, derived from the negative testimony of Francis Meres, who in 1598 mentioned twelve plays of Shakespeare's, among which Hamlet is not named, Knight (Chronology of Shakespeare's Plays) opposes by contending that Meres's list is not to be supposed to be complete. 'The expression which Meres uses, for comedy witness," implies that he selects particular examples of excellence.']

66

Thus far Knight. No one, I think, can deny that his remarks are shrewd and forcible.

A writer in THE EDINBURGH REVIEW (April, 1845, vol. lxxxi, p. 378) maintains the same views, as follows:

The reason of the thing has long made it be admitted as probable that Shakespeare's activity as an original dramatist must have commenced much sooner than the dates commonly assigned to the oldest of his works in the received copies. . . . . In these circumstances we find that a play named Hamlet, and described by marks tending to establish (though not decisively establishing) its identity with a play of Shakespeare's is mentioned as existing in 1587, or the poet's twenty-fifth year [sic]; and that similar notices occur in 1594 and 1596. We are thus entitled to assume it as probable that Hamlet did exist, in one shape or another, from the oldest of those

dates. If any of us still have difficulty in believing that this drama, as we possess it in its complete form,-the most deeply contemplative of all its author's works,— could have come into being as an effusion of his earliest manhood, there is now at hand the hypothesis,-rendered plausible by what we know in regard to other works of his,—that, as first composed, Hamlet may have been not inconsiderably unlike what it is in the shape best known to us. So far we are entitled to proceed without knowing that any edition exists which throws more light on the question.

When we open the Quarto of 1603, the conjectures previously formed become certainties. Though we had otherwise no reason to suspect that Hamlet had existed in a different shape before its publication in 1604, we should at once perceive that it had done so; and that the edition of 1603, notwithstanding the imperfections and blunders which make it perhaps the very worst of all the badly printed plays of the time, does yet present no unsatisfactory representation of the state and peculiarities of the work in its earlier form. Afterwards, taking again into account the external circumstances, we find them to square, as exactly as could be expected, with the internal evidence afforded by a comparison of the editions. In short, we have no difficulty in believing that Q, gives us, although with provoking imperfections and corruptions, a form of the work older by a good many years than that in which we have been accustomed to study it,—a form exhibiting such dissimilarities from the later one, as indicate not obscurely the progress of the poet's mind, from the unripe fervor of early manhood to the calmer and more philosophic inspiration of perfect maturity. [Page 380.] In other words, the older Play evolves but partially either of the ele ments of the Prince's contemplative character,—the philosophic and the poetic,-those deep and fine touches of a moody and cheerless yet noble philosophy,-those dazzling flashes of imaginative light which make all that is around them blaze up with reflected splendor. But it wants more of the philosophy than of the poetry. Although the story, as Knight has appositely observed, does really, when we reflect upon its accumulation of revolting and bloody incidents, present an aspect which throws it back into the school of Titus Andronicus; although it is one which, perhaps, Shakespeare would not in later years have selected, in its full mass of horror at least, as a fit subject for genuine tragedy; yet, even in the earliest form in which we possess the drama, we perceive the theme to have been idealized by the high working of a great poetic mind. Thus, in the First Act, which puts in representation the most imaginative features of the idea, there is not in the most prominent parts a material difference between the two editions. The mighty conception had arisen in the young poet's imagination with full and ripe distinctness; and that rich strength of words and of illustrative images, that bright array of lights and shades caught from external nature and reflected back upon the poetic heart, that early ease and felicity which he had proved in his youthful lyrics and descriptive verses, here enabled him to bestow on the induction of his drama a development to which subsequent changes in his own mind qualified him to add but little. The Ghost scenes receive only some additional polishing and a few additional strokes of imagery. It is in the minor scenes,—the scene at court, and the interview of Corambis (the Polonius of the old play) with his two children,-that the material changes occur. In them there is a remodelling of almost everything. Even in the First Act, however, there are not a few instances which would exemplify well the gradual progress by which the character of Hamlet reached its full complement of representation. His first soliloquy, although glaringly misprinted in the older copy, is as apt an illustra tion as any.