written? By no means. We agree with Mr. Hallam that in parts the language seems rather that of Shakspere's "second or third manner than of his first." But this belief is not inconsistent with the opinion that the original structure was Shakspere's. No other poet that existed at the beginning of the seventeenth century-perhaps no poet that came after that period, whether Massinger, or Fletcher, or Webster-could have written the greater part of the fifth act. Coarse as the comic scenes are, there are touches in them unlike any other writer but Shakspere. Horn, with the eye of a real critic, has pointed out the deep poetical profundity of one apparently slight passage in these unpleasant scenes : disputable testimony to the genius and exe- | presented in the form in which it was first cution of the great master."* This theory of companionship in the production of the play is merely a repetition of the theory of Steevens: "The purpurei panni are Shakspeare's, and the rest the productions of some inglorious and forgotten play-wright." We have no faith whatever in this very easy mode of disposing of the authorship of a doubtful play-of leaving entirely out of view the most important part of every drama, its action, its characterization, looking at the whole merely as a collection of passages, of which the worst are to be assigned to some âme damnée, and the best triumphantly claimed for Shakspere. There are some, however, who judge of such matters upon broader principles. Mr. Hallam says, "Pericles is generally reckoned to be in part, and only in part, the work of Shakspeare. From the poverty and bad management of the fable, the want of any effective or distinguishable character (for Marina is no more than the common form of female virtue, such as all the dramatists of that age could draw), and a general feebleness of the tragedy as a whole, I should not believe the structure to have been Shakspeare's. But many passages are far more in his manner than in that of any contemporary writer with whom I am acquainted."+ Here "the poverty and bad management of the fable" -"the want of any effective or distinguishable character," are assigned for the belief that the structure could not have been Shakspere's. But let us accept Dryden's opinion, that 66 Shakspeare's own muse his Pericles first bore," with reference to the original structure of the play, and the difficulty vanishes. It was impossible that the character of the early drama should not have been impressed upon Shakspere's earliest efforts. Sidney has given us a most distinct description of that drama; and we can thus understand how the author of 'Pericles' improved upon what he found. Do we therefore think that the drama, as it has come down to us, is *Shakspeare and his Times,' vol. ii. p. 268. tHistory of Literature,' vol. iii. p. 569. "Mar. Are you a woman? Bawd. What would you have me be, an I be not a woman? Mar. An honest woman, or not a woman." Touches such as these are not put into the work of other men. Who but Shakspere could have written "The blind mole casts Copp'd hills towards heaven, to tell, the earth is throng'd By man's oppression; and the poor worm doth die for 't." And yet this passage comes naturally enough in a speech of no very high excellence. The purpurei panni must be fitted to a body, as well for use as for adornment. We think that Shakspere would not have taken the decoration of what another had essentially trouble to produce these costly robes for the created. We are willing to believe that, even in the very height of his fame, he would have bestowed any amount of labour for the improvement of an early production of his own, if the taste of his audiences had from time to time demanded its continuance upon the stage. It is for this reason that we think that 'Pericles,' which appears to have been in some respects a new play at the beginning of the seventeenth century, was the revival of a play written by Shakspere some twenty years earlier. CHAPTER III. THE HAMLET OF 1603. THE earliest edition of Hamlet' known to exist is that of 1603. It bears the following title: The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke, by William Shakespeare. As it hath beene diverse times acted by his Highnesse servants in the Cittie of London as also in the two Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, and elsewhere. At London, printed for N. L. and John Trundell, 1603.' The only known copy of this edition is in the library of the Duke of Devonshire; and that copy is not quite perfect. It was reprinted in 1825. The second edition of 'Hamlet' was printed in 1604, under the following title: 'The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke. By William Shakespeare. Newly imprinted and enlarged to almost as much againe as it was, according to the true and perfect coppie.' In the reprint of the edition of 1603, it is stated to be "the only known copy of this tragedy, as originally written by Shakespeare, which he afterwards altered and enlarged." We believe that this description is correct; that this remarkable copy gives us the play as originally written by Shakspere. It may have been piratical, and we think it was so. It may, as Mr. Collier says, have been "published in haste from a short-hand copy, taken from the mouths of the players." But this process was not applied to the finished 'Hamlet;' the 'Hamlet' of 1603 is a sketch of the perfect 'Hamlet,' and probably a corrupt copy of that sketch. Mr. Caldecott believes that this copy exhibits, “in that which was afterwards wrought into a splendid drama, the first conception, and comparatively feeble expression, of a great mind." We think, further, that this first conception was an early conception; that it was remodelled,— "enlarged to almost as much againe as it was,” at the beginning of the 17th century; and that this original copy, being then of comparatively little value, was piratically published. The interest of this edition of 1603 consists, as we believe, in the opportunity which it affords of studying the growth, not only of our great poet's command over language -not only of his dramatical skill,—but of the higher qualities of his intellect—his profound philosophy, his wonderful penetration into what is most hidden and obscure in men's characters and motives. We request the reader's indulgence whilst we attempt to point out some of the more important considerations which have suggested themselves to us, in a careful study of this original edition. And, first, let us state that all the action of the amended 'Hamlet' is to be found in the first sketch. The play opens with the scene in which the Ghost appears to Horatio and Marcellus. The order of the dialogue is the same; but, in the quarto of 1604, it is a little elaborated. The grand passage beginning— "In the most high and palmy state of Rome," is not found in this copy; and it is omitted in the folio. The second scene introduces us, as at present, to the King, Queen, Hamlet, Polonius, and Laertes, but in this copy Polonius is called Corambis. The dialogue here is much extended in the perfect copy. We will give an example :— QUARTO OF 1603. "Ham. My lord, 't is not the sable suit I wear; QUARTO OF 1604. "Ham. "T is not alone my inky cloak, good mother, Nor customary suits of solemn black, Together with all forms, modes, shows of Such changes are not the work of shortgrief, hand writers. That can denote me truly: these, indeed, seem, For they are actions that a man might play; But I have that within which passeth show; These, but the trappings and the suits of woe." We would ask if it is possible that such a careful working up of the first idea could have been any other work than that of the poet himself? Can the alterations be accounted for upon the principle that the first edition was an imperfect copy of the complete play,"published in haste from a shorthand copy taken from the mouths of the players?" Could the players have transformed the line "But I have that within which passeth show," into, "Him have I lost I must of force forgo." The haste of short-hand does not account The interview of Horatio, Bernardo, and Marcellus, with Hamlet, succeeds as in the perfect copy, and the change here is very slight. The scene between Laertes and Ophelia in the same manner follows. Here again there is a great extension. The injunction of Laertes in the first copy is contained in these few lines : "I see Prince Hamlet makes a show of love. The chariest maid is prodigal enough for what is truly the refinement of the poeti- Compare this with the splendid passage 66 66 Seem to me all the uses of this world." Neither have we the noble comparison of Hyperion to a satyr." The fine Shaksperean phrase, so deep in its metaphysical truth, a beast that wants discourse of reason," is, in the first copy, 66 a beast devoid of reason." Shakspere must have dropt verse from his mouth, as the fairy in the Arabian tales dropt pearls. It appears to have been no effort to him to have changed the whole arrangement of a poetical sentence, and to have inverted its different members; he did this as readily as if he were dealing with prose. In the first copy we have these lines, "Why, she would hang on him as if increase Of appetite had grown by what it look'd on." In the amended copy we have— "Must I remember? Why, she would hang on him As if increase of appetite had grown which we now have. Look especially at the following lines, in which we see the deep philosophic spirit of the mature Shak spere: "For nature, crescent, does not grow alone In thews, and bulk; but, as this temple waxes, Polonius and his few precepts next occur; and here again there is slight difference. The lecture of the old courtier to his daughter is somewhat extended. In the next scene, where Hamlet encounters the Ghost, there is very little change. The character of Hamlet is fully conceived in the original play, whenever he is in action, as in this scent. It is the contemplative part of his nature which is elaborated in the perfect copy. This great scene, as it was first written, appeared to the poet to have been scarcely capable of improvement. The character of Polonius, under the name of Corambis, presents itself in the original copy with little variation. We have extension, but not change. As we proceed, we find that Shakspere in the first copy more emphatically marked the supposed madness of Hamlet than he thought fit to Thus Ophelia Immediately after the scene of the original copy in which Polonius describes Ham do in the amended copy. does not, as now, say,— "Alas my lord, my lord, I have been so af- let's frenzy, Hamlet comes in and speaks frighted;" the celebrated soliloquy. In the amended but she comes at once to proclaim Hamlet copy this passage, as well as the scene with mad: "O my dear father, such a change in nature, Is filch'd and stolen away-his wit's bereft him." Again, in the next scene, when the King communicates his wishes to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he does not speak of Hamlet as merely put "from the understanding of himself;" but in this first copy he says "Our dear cousin Hamlet Hath lost the very heart of all his sense." In the description which Polonius, in the same scene, gives of Hamlet's madness for Ophelia's love, the symptoms are made much stronger in the original copy :— "He straightway grew into a melancholy; From that unto a fast; then unto distraction; Then into a sadness; from that unto a madness; And so, by continuance and weakness of the brain, Into this frenzy which now possesses him." It is curious that, in Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy,' we have the stages of melancholy, madness, and frenzy, indicated as described by Celsus; and Burton himself mentions frenzy as the worst stage of madness, "clamorous, continual." In the first copy, therefore, Hamlet, according to the description of Polonius, is not only the prey of melancholy and madness, but, "by continuance," of frenzy. In the amended copy the symptoms, according to the same description, are much milder ;—a 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. 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, the earth," &c.-prose with almost more than the music of poetry. In the first copy, instead of this noble piece of rhetoric, we have the following somewhat tame pas sage: "Yes, faith, this great world you see contents me not; no, nor the spangled heavens, nor earth, nor sea; no, nor man that is so glorious a creature contents not me; no, nor woman too, though you laugh." We pass over for the present the dialogue between Hamlet and the players, in which there are considerable variations, not only between the first and second quartos, but between the second quarto and the folio, tending, as we think, to fix the date of each copy. In the same way we pass over the speeches from the play "that pleased not the million," as well as the directions to the players in the next act. These passages, as it appears to us, go far to establish the point, that the 'Hamlet' of the edition of 1603 was an early production of the poet. Our readers, we think, will be pleased to compare the following passage of the first copy and the amended play, which offer us an ample of the most surpassing skill in the elaboration of a first idea QUARTO OF 1603. ex "Ham. Horatio, thou art even as just a man As e'er my conversation coped withal. Hor. O, my lord! Ham. Nay, why should I flatter thee? Why should the poor be flatter'd? What gain should I receive by flattering thee, That nothing hath but thy good mind? Let flattery sit on those time-pleasing tongues, To glose with them that love to hear their praise, And not with such as thou, Horatio." QUARTO OF 1604. "Ham. Horatio, thou art e'en as just a man As e'er my conversation coped withal. Hor. O, my dear lord,— Nay, do not think I flatter: No, let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp; And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee, Where thrift may follow fawning. Dost thou hear? Since my dear soul was mistress of my choice, And could of men distinguish, her election Hath seal'd thee for herself: for thou hast been in suffering all, that suffers nothing; A man that fortune's buffets and rewards Has ta'en with equal thanks: and bless'd are those, As one, real drama. Shakspere has most skilfully managed the whole business of the playerking 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 playerking are singularly flowing and musical; and their sacrifice shows us how inexorable was his judgment: "Full forty years are pass'd, their date is gone, Since happy time join'd both our hearts as one; And now the blood that fill'd my youthful veins Runs weakly in their pipes, and all the strains 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 action of the amended copy, for the present, proceeds as in the first copy. Gertrude describes the death of Polonius, and Hamlet pours forth his bitter sarcasm upon the king :-"Your fat king and your lean beggar are but variable services." Hamlet is despatched to England. Fortinbras and his forces appear upon the stage. The fine scene between Hamlet and the captain, and Hamlet's subsequent soliloquy, are not to be found in the quarto of 1603. The madness |