Queen. "But what became of Gilderstone and Rossencraft?

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 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

into

"Anon, as mild and gentle as a dove,"

"Anon, as patient as the female dove,

When that her golden couplets are disclos d,
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.

66

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." 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 mistaken conjecture for proof. 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 as its date. This evidence is briefly as follows:

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 first published in 1589;* 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. Mr. 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 boldly 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 Theatre, with others, and some of note, below him in the list of sharers.

* Mr. Dyce says 1587; but no proof of the earlier date is given. (Greene's Works.)

2. In the accounts found at Dulwich College, which were kept by Henslowe, an actor contem. porary with Shakspere, we find the following entry as connected with the theatre at Newington Butts:

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 Shaksperc belonged; and we find from Mr. Collier that 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 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, in a note, adds, "the play which preceded 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.

3. In a tract entitled 'Wit's Miserie, or the World's Madnesse,' by Thomas Lodge, printed in 1596, one of the devils is said to be "a foul lubber, and looks as palo as the vizard of the ghost, who cried so miserably at the theatre, Hamlet, revenge." In the first edition of Malone's Chronological Order,' he says, "If the allusion was to our author's tragedy, this passage will ascertain its appearance 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 handwriting, 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 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 upon the corruption of a text-can only be accounted for upon the belief that there was a considerable interval between the production of the first and second copy, in which the author's power and judgment had become mature, and his peculiar habits of philosopical 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, 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,'—which, without doubt, is the most comprehensive and elegant contribution to Literary History and Criticism that our language possesses), 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.

2. "There is nothing, either good or bad, but thinking makes it so," &c.
"I could be bounded in a nut-shell," &c.

4." Bring me to the test, and I the matter will re-word," &c.

3. " I see a cherub," &c.

5. "Nature is fine in love," &c.

2. "There's a divinity," &c.

Further, Mr. Hallam observes, "There seems to have been a period of Shakspere'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 the shape of "merely contemplative philosophy." "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." If this type, then, 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." The first Hamlet was, we think, written at a period when this 'bitter remembrance," whatever it was, had no place in his heart; the later plays when it had been obliterated by a more expansive philosophy-when the intellect had triumphed over the passions. 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 indicate the existence of the morbid feelings to which Mr. Hallam allides :

:

III.

"

2. "Denmark's a prison," &c.

"I have of late (but wherefore I know not) lost all my mirth," &c.

1. The soliloquy. All that appears in the perfect copy as the outpouring of a
wounded spirit, such as "the pangs of dispriz'd love,"-"the insolence of
office,"—" the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes,”—are generalized
in the quarto of 1603, as follows:-

"Who'd bear the scorns and flattery of the world,-
Scorn'd by the rich, the rich curs'd of the poor,

The widow being oppress'd, the orphan wrong'd,

The taste of hunger, or a tyrant's reign,

And thousand more calamities beside ?'

Act V, Sc. 2. "Absent thee from felicity awhile,

And in this harsh world draw thy breath of pain."

We could multiply examples; but those we have given 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. 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 apposition :—

[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.

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, they are 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 haud." 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.)

million,"--is found, with very slight alteration, in the quarto of 1603; and so is Hamlet's commen. dation of it. We agree with Coleridge, that "the fancy that a burlesque was intended sinks below criticism." Warburton expressed the same opinion, in opposition to Dryden and Pope. Coleridge very justly says, that the diction of these lines was authorized by the actual style of the tragedies before Shakspere's time. Ritson, we think, has hit the truth: "It appears to me not only that Shakspere had the favourable opinion of these lines which he makes Hamlet express, but that they were extracted from some play which he, at a more early period, had either produced or projected upon the story of Dido and Eneas. The verses recited are far superior to those of any coeval writer: the parallel passage in Marlowe and Nash's Dido will not bear the comparison. Possibly, indeed, it might have been his first attempt, before the divinity that lodged within him had instructed him to despise the tumid and unnatural style so much and so unjustly admired in his predecessors or contemporaries." The introduction of these lines, we think, cannot be accounted for upon any other supposition but that they were written by Shakspere himself; and he is so thoroughly in earnest in his criticism upon the play, and his complaint of its want of success is so apparently sincere, that it is impossible to imagine that the passage had reference to something non-existent. But would Shakspere, then, have produced such a play, except in his very early career, before he understood his own peculiar powers?—and would he have written so sensitively about it, except under the immediate influence of the disappointment occasioned by its failure? The dates of the first copy of Hamlet, and of the play which contained the description of "Priam's slaughter," are certainly not far removed.

Lastly, we are of opinion that the directions to the players, especially as given in the first copy, point to a state of the stage anterior to the period when Shakspere had himself reformed it. The mention of "Termagant" and "Herod" has reference to the time when these characters possessed the stage in pageants and mysteries. Again, the reproof of the extemporal clowns,-the injunction that they should speak no more than is set down for them,-applied to the infancy of the stage. Shakspere had reformed the clowns before the date usually assigned to Hamlet. In a book, called 'Tarleton's Jeasts,' published in 1611, we have some specimens of the license which this prince of clowns was wont to take. The author, however, adds, "But would I see our clowns in these days do the like? No, I warrant ye." In the original copy of Hamlet, the reproof of the clowns is more diffuse than in the augmented copy; and the following passage distinctly shows one of the evils which Shakspere had to contend with, and which he probably had overcome before the end of the sixteenth century :-"And then you have some again that keeps one suit of jests, as a man is known by one suit of apparel; and gentlemen quote his jests down in their tables before they come to the play, as thus: Cannot you stay till I eat my porridge? and, you owe me a quarter's wages; and, my coat wants a cullison; and, your beer is sour; and, blabbering with his lips, and thus keeping in his cinkapase of jests, when, God knows, the warm clown cannot make a jest unless by chance, as the blind man catcheth a hare: Masters, tell him of it." The additions to these directions to the players, in the augmented copy, are, on the other hand, such as bespeak a consciousness of the elevation which the stage had attained in its "high and palmy state," a little before the death of Elizabeth, when its purpose, as realised by Shakspere and Jonson especially, was "to hold, as 't were, the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time, his form and pressure."

SUPPOSED SOURCE OF THE PLOT.

THE history of Hamlet, or Hamleth, is found in the Danish historian, Saxo Grammaticus, who died about 1204. The works of Saxo Grammaticus are in Latin, and in Shakspere's time had not been translated into any modern language. It was inferred, therefore, by Dr. Grey, and Mr. Whalley, that Shakspere must have read the original. The story, however, is to be found in Belleforest's collection of novels, begun in 1564; and an English translation of this particular story was published as a quarto tract, entitled "The Hystorie of Hamblet, Prince of Denmarke.' Capell, in his 'School of Shakspere,' has given some extracts from an edition of this very rare book, dated 1608; but he conjectures that it first appeared about 1570. Mr. Collier has since reprinted this tract, from the only copy known, which is preserved amongst Capell's collection at Cambridge. Horvendile, in the novel, is the name of Hamlet's father, Fengon that of his uncle, and Geruth that of his mother. Fengon traitorously slays Horvendile,