says -subtle treason that the king had plotted," "Then I perceive there's treason in his looks That seem'd to sugar o'er his villainy; But I will soothe and please him for a time, For murderous minds are always jealous." 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 judgment. 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 should not form with her and Horatio any plans of revenge. The story of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is told in six lines: 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. There is a general belief that some play under the title of 'Hamlet' had preceded the 'Hamlet' of Shakspere. Probable as this may be, it appears to us that this belief is sometimes asserted too authoritatively. Mr. Collier, whose opinion upon such matters is indeed of great value, constantly speaks of "The old 'Hamlet,'" in his 'Annals of the Stage.' Mr. Skottowe is more unqualified in his assertion of this fact :-" The history of 'Hamlet' formed the subject of a play which was acted previous to 1589; and, arguing from the general course of Shakspere's mind, that play influenced him during the composition of his own 'Hamlet.' But, unfortunately, the old play is lost." In a very useful and accurate work, 'Lowndes's Bibliographer's Manual,' we are told in express terms of "Kyd's old play of 'Hamlet.'" Mr. Skottowe and Mr. Lowndes have certainly Queen. “But what became of Gilderstone and mistaken conjecture for proof. Not a tittle Rossen craft? Hor. He being set ashore, they went for England, And in the packet there writ down that doom To be perform'd on them pointed for him: And by great chance he had his father's seal, So all was done without discovery.” The expansion of this simple passage into 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 as its date. This evidence | atre, with others, and some of note, below is briefly as follows: 6 1. Dr. Farmer, in his Essay on the Learning of Shakspere,' first brought forward a passage in An Epistle to the Gentlemen Students of the Two Universities,' by Thomas Nash, prefixed to Green's 'Arcadia,' which he considers directed "very plainly at Shakspere in particular." It is as follows:-" It is a common practise now-a-days, among a sort of shifting companions, that runne through every art, and thrive by none, to leave the trade of Noverint, whereto they were born, and busie themselves with the endevors of art, that could scarcely latinize their neck-verse if they should have neede; yet English Seneca, reade by candle-light, yields many good sentences, as Bloud is a beggar, and so forth: and, if you intreat him farre in a frosty morning, he will affoord you whole Hamlets, I should say, handfuls, of tragical speeches." Farmer adds, "I cannot determine exactly when this epistle was first published, but I fancy it would carry the original 'Hamlet' somewhat further back than we have hitherto done." Malone found that this epistle was published in 1589; Mr. Dyce says 1587; but no proof of this earlier date is given (Greene's Works); and he, therefore, was inclined to think that the allusion was not to Shakspere's drama, conjecturing that the 'Hamlet' just mentioned might have been written by Kyd. him in the list of sharers. 2. In the accounts found at Dulwich College, which were kept by Henslowe, an actor contemporary with Shakspere, we find the following entry as connected with the theatre at Newington Butts : 66 9 of June 1594, Rd. at hamlet VIII S." The eight shillings constituted Henslowe's share of the profits of this representation. Malone says, that this is a full confirmation that there was a play on the subject of Hamlet prior to Shakspere's; for "it cannot be supposed that our poet's play should have been performed but once in the time of this account, and that Mr. Henslowe should have drawn from such a piece but the sum of eight shillings, when his share in several other plays came to three and sometimes four pounds." We cannot go along with this reasoning. Henslowe's accounts are thus headed-"In the name of God, Amen, beginning at Newington, my lord admirell men, and my lord chamberlen men, as followeth, 1594." Now, "my lord chamberlen" men were the company to which Shakspere belonged; and one of their theatres, the Globe, was erected in the spring of 1594. The theatre was wholly of wood, according to Hentzner's description of it; it would, therefore, be quickly erected; and it is extremely Mr. probable that Shakspere's company only used the theatre at Newington Butts for a very short period, during the completion of their own theatre, which was devoted to summer performances. We can find nothing in Malone's argument to prove that it was not Shakspere's 'Hamlet' which was acted by Shakspere's company on the 9th of June, 1594. On the previous 16th of May, Henslowe's accounts are headed, "by my lord admirell's men ;" and it is only on the 3rd of June that we find the "lord chamberlen men," as well as the "lord admirell men,' performing at this theatre. Their occupation of it might have been very temporary; and, during that occupation, Shakspere's Hamlet' might have been once performed. The very next entry, the 11th of June, is, "at the taminge of a shrewe;" and Malone, Brown, in his ingenious work on Shakspere's Sonnets, contends that the passage applies distinctly to Shakspere ;—that the expression, "the trade of Noverint," had reference to some one who had been a lawyer's clerk; -and that the technical use of law phrases by Shakspere proves that his early life had been so employed. We have then only the difficulty of believing that the original sketch of 'Hamlet' was written in, or before, the year 1589. Mr. Brown leaps over the difficulty, and assigns this sketch, as published in the quarto of 1603, to the year 1589. We see nothing extravagant in this belief. Let it be remembered that in that very year, when Shakspere was twenty-five, it has been distinctly proved by Mr. Collier that he was a sharer in the Blackfriars The in a note, adds, "the play which preceded | comparison of the original sketch with the Shakspere'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 to prove that both these plays thus acted were not Shakspere's. 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 at 1600, which we believe it does, the essential differences between the sketch and the perfect 3. In a tract entitled 'Wit's Miserie, or play-differences which do not depend upon the World's Madnesse,' by Thomas Lodge, the corruption of a text-can only be acprinted in 1596, one of the devils is said to counted for upon the belief that there was a be "a foul lubber, and looks as pale as the considerable interval between the production vizard of the ghost, who cried so miserably of the first and second copy, in which the at the theatre, Hamlet, revenge." In the first author's power and judgment had become edition of Malone's 'Chronological Order,' he mature, and his peculiar habits of philosays, "If the allusion was to our author's sophical thought had been completely estatragedy, this passage will ascertain its ap-blished. This is a matter which does not pearance in or before 1596; but Lodge may have had the elder play in his contemplation." In the second edition of this essay, Malone changes his opinion, and says, "Lodge must have had the elder play in his contemplation." 4. Steevens, in his Preliminary Remarks to 'Hamlet,' has this passage:-"I have seen a copy of Speght's edition of Chaucer,' which formerly belonged to Dr. Gabriel Harvey (the antagonist of Nash), who, in his own hand-writing, has set down 'Hamlet' as a performance with which he was well acquainted, in the year 1598." Malone considered this decisive in the first edition of his 'Chronological Order,' but in the second edition, having seen the book, he persuaded himself that the date 1598 referred to the time when Harvey purchased it; and he therefore rejects the evidence. He then peremptorily fixes the first appearance of ́ Hamlet' in 1600, from the reference that is made in it to the "inhibition" of the players. We shall speak of this presently. In the mean time it may be sufficient to remark, that the passage is not found in the first quarto of 1603, of the existence of which Malone was uninformed; and that, therefore, this proof goes for nothing. And now, leaving our readers to form their own judgment upon the external evidence as to the date of 'Hamlet,' we must express our decided opinion, grounded upon an attentive admit of proof within our limited space; but the passages which we have already given from the original copy do something to prove it, and we have other differences of the same character to point out, which we shall do as briefly as possible. Mr. Hallam (in his admirable work, the "Introduction to the Literature of Europe'), speaking of 'Romeo and Juliet' as an early production of our poet, points out, as a proof of this, "the want of that thoughtful philosophy, which, when once it had germinated in Shakspere's mind, never ceased to display itself."* 'Hamlet,' as it now stands, is full of this "thoughtful philosophy." But the original sketch, as given in the quarto of 1603, exhibits few traces of it in the form of didactic observations. The whole dramatic conduct of the action is indeed demonstrative of a philosophical conception of incidents and characters; but, in the form to which Mr. Hallam refers, the "thoughtful philosophy" is almost entirely wanting in that sketch. We must indicate a few examples very briefly, of passages illustrating this position, which are not there found, requesting our readers to refer to the text:— Act I., Sc. 3. "For nature, crescent," &c. 4. "This heavy-headed revel," &c. II., 66 Further, Mr. Hallam observes, There seems to have been a period of Shakspeare's life when his heart was ill at ease, and ill content with the world or his own conscience: the memory of hours mis-spent, the pang of affection misplaced or unrequited, the experience of man's worser nature, which intercourse with ill-chosen associates, by choice or circumstance, peculiarly teaches, these, as they sank down into the depths of his great mind, seem not only to have inspired into it the conception of Lear and Timon, but that of one primary character, the censurer of mankind." The type, Mr. Hallam proceeds to say, is first seen in Jaques,-then in the exiled duke of the same play,-and in the duke of 'Measure for Measure;' but in these in cate the existence of the morbid feelings to which Mr. Hallam alludes: Act I., Sc. 2. "How weary, flat, stale, and II., III., دو unprofitable," &c. 2. "Denmark's a prison," &c. "I have of late (but wherefore 1. The soliloquy. All that ap- "Who'd bear the scorns and flattery of the world, Scorn'd by the rich, the rich cursed of the poor, the shape of "merely contemplative phi- Act V., Sc. 2. "Absent thee from felicity losophy." "In 'Hamlet' this is mingled with the impulses of a perturbed heart, under the pressure of extraordinary circumstances." These plays, Mr. Hallam points out, all belong to the same period-the beginning of the seventeenth century: he is speaking of the 'Hamlet,' "in its altered form." Without admitting the absolute correctness of this reasoning, we may ground an opinion upon it. If this type be not found in the 'Hamlet' of the original sketch, 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. Mr. Hallam says that, in the plays subsequent to these mentioned above, "much of moral speculation will be found; but he has never returned to this type of character in the personages." ""* We shall give a few examples, as in the case of the thoughtful philosophy," of the absence in the first sketch of the passages which indi 66 *Vol. iii. pp. 568 and 569. awhile, And in this harsh world draw thy breath of pain." We could multiply examples. But there are differences between the first and second copies which address themselves more distinctly to the understanding, in corroboration of our opinion that there was a considerable interval between the production of the sketch and the perfect play. We will first take the passage relating to the "tragedians of the city," placing the text of the first and second quartos in juxtaposition : QUARTO OF 1603. "Ham. Players, what players be they? Ros. My lord, the tragedians of the city, those that you took delight to see so often. Ham. How comes it that they travel? Do they grow restie? Gil. No, my lord, their reputation holds as it was wont. Ham. How then? Gil. Yfaith, my lord, novelty carries it away; for the principal public audience that came to them are turned to private plays, and to the humour of children." QUARTO OF 1604. "Ham. What players are they? Ros. Even those you were wont to take such delight in, the tragedians of the city. F Ham. How chances it they travel? their residence, both in reputation and profit, was better both ways. Ros. I think their inhibition comes by the means of the late innovation. Ham. Do they hold the same estimation they did when I was in the city? are they so followed? Ros. No, indeed are they not." We thus see that in the original play the “tragedians of the city," by which are unquestionably meant certain players of Shakspere's own day, were not adequately rewarded, because the public audience "turned to private plays, and to the humour of children." On the contrary, in the augmented play, published in the following year, they were not so followed-they were inhibited in | consequence of a late innovation. The words "inhibition" and "innovation" point to some public proceeding; "novelty," on the other hand, “private plays," and "the humour of children," would seem to have reference to some popular caprice. "The humour of children,” in the first copy, points to a period when plays were acted by children; when the novelty of such performances, diminishing the attractions of the tragedians of the city, compelled them to travel. The children of Paul's represented plays in their singing school at a very early period. Several of Lyly's pieces were presented by them subsequent to 1584, according to Mr. Collier; but in 1591 we find these performances suppressed. In the address of the printer before Lyly's 'Endymion,' published in 1591, the suppression is mentioned as a recent event: -“Since the plays in Paul's were dissolved, there are certain comedies come to my hand." In 1596 the interdict was not taken off; for Nash, in his 'Have with You to Saffron Waldon,' printed in that year, wishes to see the "plays at Paul's up again." But in 1600 we find a private play, attributed to Lyly, "acted by the children of Powles." In 'Jack Drum's Entertainment,' 1601, we find the performances of these children described, with the observation,-"The apes in time will do it handsomely." The audience is mentioned as a "good gentle audience." Our belief, founded upon this passage, is, that the first copy of 1603 refers to the period before 1591, when "the humour of children" prevailed; and that the "innovation," mentioned in the second copy, refers to the removal of the interdict, which removal occasioned the revival of plays at Paul's, about 1600. In that year came the “inhibition.” On the 22nd of June, 1600, an order of the Privy Council appeared, "for the restraint of the immoderate use of play-houses;” and it is here prescribed "that there shall be about the city two houses and no more allowed, to serve for the use of the common stage plays." No restraint was, however, laid upon the children of Paul's. It appears to us, therefore, that the inhibition and innovation are distinctly connected in Shakspere's mind. The passage is to us decisive, as fixing the date of the augmented play about 1600; as it is equally clear to us that the passage of the first copy has reference to an earlier period. The text, as we now have it,— There is, Sir, an ayrie of children," who so berattle the common stages,"-belongs to a later period, when the children of Paul's acted the plays of Marston, Dekker, and other writers of repute, and the Blackfriars' Theatre was in the possession of a company of boys. In 1612, the performances of children had been made the vehicle for scurrility, and they were again suppressed. (See Mr. Collier's 'Annals of the Stage,' vol. i. pp. 279, 282; and Malone's Historical Account of the English Stage,' Boswell's edition, pp. 62 and 453.) 66 66 |