in motion, on whom he had no less dependence than upon Brissac, and at
nine o'clock in the morning presented himself, at the head of eight
thousand men, before the Porte Neuve, where the Mayor of Paris and the
other magistrates received him in form. He went immediately and took
possession of the Louvre, the Palace, the Great and Little Châtelet, and,
finding no opposition anywhere, he proceeded even to the Church of Notre
Dame, which he entered to return thanks to God for his success. His
soldiers, on their part, fulfilled with such exactness the orders and
intentions of their master that no one throughout this great city
complained of having received any outrage from them. They took possession
of all the squares and crossways in the street, where they drew up in
order of battle. Everything was quiet, and from that day the shops were
opened with all the security which a long-continued peace could have
given.
The Spaniards had now only the Bastille, the Temple, and the quarters of
St. Anthony and St. Martin in their possession; and there they fortified
themselves, being about four thousand in number, with the Duc de Feria
and Don Diego d'Evora at their head, all greatly astonished at such
unexpected news, and firmly resolved to defend themselves to the last
extremity, if any attempts were made to force them from those
advantageous posts. The King relieved them from their perplexity by
sending to tell them that they might leave Paris and retreat in full
security. He treated the Cardinals of Placentia and Pelleve with the same
gentleness, notwithstanding the resentment he still retained for their
conduct with regard to him. Soissons was the place whither these enemies
of the King retired,[6] protected by a strong escort. His majesty then
published a general pardon for all the French who had borne arms against
him. When this sacrifice is not extorted by necessity, but, on the
contrary, made at a time when vengeance has full liberty to satiate
itself, it is not one of the least marks of a truly royal disposition.
[6]The King had a mind to see them march out, and viewed them from
a window over St. Denis' gate. They all saluted him with their
hats off, bowing profoundly low. The King, with great politeness,
returned the salute to the principal officers, adding these words:
"Remember me to your master; go, I permit you, but return no
more." This anecdote agrees with that in the _Memoirs for the
History of France_, but is contradicted by the _Journal_ written
by the same author.
CULMINATION OF DRAMATIC LITERATURE IN "HAMLET"
A.D. 1601
JAMES O. HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS
The tragedy of _Hamlet_ is generally regarded by critics as
Shakespeare's masterpiece. Hence it is often referred to as the
highest literary product of human genius. In the following
discussion of the play, Mr. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, the master
and dean of later Shakespearean scholars, gives 1601 as the probable
date of its first production. At that time Shakespeare was a London
actor, and leading shareholder in the Globe Theatre, where his play
was presumably produced. He had made his first big success some five
years before with _Romeo and Juliet_, and was, so far as we can
judge, on the high tide of financial prosperity. The profession of
an actor carried with it in those days much discredit, but in his
far-off home at Stratford, Shakespeare had in 1601 already begun to
seek the repute of a country gentleman, and had purchased the finest
house and estate in the little village.
Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps' _Memoranda on Hamlet_ were never thrown
into final shape by the author. Therefore the editors have taken
such slight liberties in rearranging the order of his text as were
necessary to make its discourse consecutive.
The tragedy of _Hamlet_ is unquestionably the highest effort of artistic
literary power yet given to the world. There is nothing to be found in
real competition with it excepting in the other works of Shakespeare,
but all are inferior to this great masterpiece. There is hardly a speech
in the whole play which may not fairly be made the subject of an
elaborate discourse, especially when viewed in connection with its
bearings, however occasionally remote, on the character of Hamlet, the
development of which appears to have been the chief object of the
author, not only in the management of the plot, but in the creation of
the other personages who are introduced. There is contemporary evidence
to this effect in the _Stationers' Register_ of 1602 in the title there
given--_The Revenge of Hamlet_.
There was an old English tragedy on the subject of Hamlet which was in
existence at least as early as the year 1589, in the representation of
which an exclamation of the Ghost--"Hamlet, revenge!"--was a striking
and well-remembered feature. This production is alluded to in some
prefatory matter by Nash in the edition of Greene's _Menaphon_, issued
in that year, here given: "I'le turne backe to my first text, of studies
of delight, and talke a little in friendship with a few of our triuiall
translators. It is a common practise now a daies amongst a sort of
shifting companions that run through euery arte and thriue by none, to
leaue the trade of _Nouerint_ whereto they were borne, and busie
themselues with the indeuors of art, that could scarcelie latinize their
necke-verse if they should haue neede; yet English _Seneca_ read by
candle light yeeldes manie good sentences, as _Bloud is a beggar_, and
so foorth: and if you intreate him faire in a frostie morning, he will
afoord you whole _Hamlets_, I should say hand-fulls of tragical
speeches."
Another allusion occurs in Lodge's _Wits' Miserie_, "and though this
fiend be begotten of his father's own blood, yet is he different from
his nature; and were he not sure that jealousie could not make him a
cuckold, he had long since published him for a bastard: you shall know
him by this, he is a foule lubber, his tongue tipt with lying, his heart
steeled against charity; he walks for the most part in black under color
of gravity, and looks as pale as the visard of the ghost which cried so
miserably at the theator like an oister-wife,' _Hamlet, revenge_'."
Again, in Decker's _Satiromastix_, 1602: "_Asini_. 'Wod I were hang'd,
if I can call you any names but Captaine and Tucca.' _Tuc._ 'No, fye'st,
my name's _Hamlet, revenge_. Thou hast been at Parris Garden, hast not?'
_Hor._ 'Yes, Captaine, I ha plaide Zulziman there'"; with which may be
compared 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 Rowland's _Night Raven_, 1620, a
scrivener, who has his cloak and hat stolen from him, exclaims, "I will
not cry, _Hamlet, revenge_ my greeves." 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: "There are, as Hamlet sayes, things
cald whips in store," a sentence which seems to have been well known and
popular, for it is partially cited in the _Spanish Tragedie_, 1592, and
in the _First Part of the Contention_, 1594.
It seems, however, certain that all the passages above quoted refer to a
drama of Hamlet anterior to that by Shakespeare, and the same which is
recorded in Henslowe's _Diary_ as having been played at Newington in
1594 by "my Lord Admeralle and my lorde Chamberlen men, 9 of June, 1594,
receved at Hamlet, viii, 5," the small sum arising from the performance
showing most probably that the tragedy had then been long on the stage.
As Shakespeare was a member of the Lord Chamberlain's Company at that
time, it is certain that he must have been well acquainted with the older
play of _Hamlet_, one of a series of dramas on the then favorite theme
of revenge, aided by the supernatural intervention of a ghost.
There are a few other early allusions to the first _Hamlet_ which appear
to deserve quotation. "His father's empire and government was but as the
_Poeticall Furie in a Stageaction_, compleat, yet with horrid and wofull
Tragedies: a first, but no second to any _Hamlet_; and that now
_Reuenge_, iust _Reuenge_ was coming with his Sworde drawne against him,
his royall Mother, and dearest Sister to fill up those Murdering
Sceanes."--Sir Thomas Smithe's _Voiage and Entertainment in Rushia_,
1605. "Sometimes would he overtake him and lay hands upon him like a
catch-pole, as if he had arrested him, but furious Hamlet woulde
presently eyther breake loose like a beare from the stake, or else so
set his pawes on this dog that thus bayted him that, with tugging and
tearing one another's frockes off, they both looked like mad Tom of
Bedlam."--Decker's _Dead Terme_, 1608. "If any passenger come by and,
wondering to see such a conjuring circle kept by hel-houndes, demaund
what spirits they raise there, one of the murderers steps to him,
poysons him with sweete wordes and shifts him off with this lye, that
one of the women is falne in labor: but if any mad Hamlet, hearing this,
smell villanie and rush in by violence to see what the tawny divels are
dooing, then they excuse the fact, lay the blame on those that are the
actors, and perhaps, if they see no remedie, deliver them to an officer
to be lead to punishment."--Decker's _Lanthorne and Candle-light, or the
Bellman's Second Nights-Walke_, 1609, a tract which was reprinted under
more than one different title.
Mr. Collier, in his _Farther Particulars_, 1839, cites a very curious
passage--"a trout, Hamlet, with four legs"--which is given as a
proverbial line in Clarke's _Paroemiologia Anglo-Latina_ (or _Proverbs
English and Latin_), 1639. It is unnecessary to be too curious in
searching for the exact meaning of the phrase, but, as Dr. Ingleby
suggested to me, it is in all probability taken from the older play of
_Hamlet_, which does not appear to have been entirely superseded at once
by the new, or at least was long remembered by play-goers.
The preceding notices may fairly authorize us to infer that the ancient
play of _Hamlet_--1. Was written by either an attorney or an attorney's
clerk, who had not received a university education; 2. Was full of
tragical, high-sounding speeches; 3. Contained the passage "There are
things called whips in store," spoken by Hamlet; 4. Included a very
telling brief speech by the Ghost in the two words "Hamlet, revenge!" 5.
Was acted at the theatre in Shoreditch and at the playhouse at Newington
Butts; 6. Had for its principal character a hero exhibiting more general
violence than can be attributed to Shakespeare's creation of Hamlet.
As the older _Hamlet_ was performed by the Lord Chamberlain's Company in
the year 1594, it is possible that Shakespeare might then have undertaken
the part of the Ghost, a character he afterward assumed in his own
tragedy. There is a curious inedited notice of this personage in
Saltonstall's _Picturæ Loquentes_, 1635: "a chamberlaine is as nimble as
Hamlet's ghost, heere and everywhere, and when he has many guests,
stands most upon his pantofles, for hee's then a man of some calling."
There are a number of critics, following the lead of Coleridge, who tells
us that Shakespeare's judgment is commensurate with his genius; but they
speak of the former generally as if it were always unfettered, and
neglect to add that it was continually influenced by the conditions under
which he wrote, and that it was often his task to discover a route to a
successful result through the tortuous angularities of a preconceived
foreground. There is every reason to believe that this was the case with
the tragedy of _Hamlet_ and, if so, it is certain that no genius but
that of Shakespeare could have moulded the inartistic materials of a
rude original into that harmonious composition, which, although it has
certainly been tampered with by the players, and is therefore not the
perfect issue of his free inspiration, is the noblest drama the world is
ever likely to possess.
It must be recollected that in 1602 Shakespeare was in the zenith of his
dramatic power. His tragedy of _Hamlet_ was produced on the stage either
in 1601 or 1602, as appears from the entry of it on the books of the
Stationers' Company on July 26, 1602: "James Robertes--Entered for his
copie under the handes of Mr. Pasfeild and Mr. Waterson, warden, a booke
called the _Revenge of Hamlett, Prince (of) Denmarke_, as yet was
_latelie acted_ by the Lo: Chamberleyne his servantes."
No copy of this date is known to exist, but a surreptitious and imperfect
transcript of portions of the tragedy appeared in the following year
under the title of "_The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Prince of
Denmarke_. By William Shakespeare. As it hath been diuerse times acted
by his Highnesse seruants in the Cittie of London: as also in the two
Vniuersities of Cambridge and Oxford, and elsewhere. At London, printed
for N. L. and Iohn Trundell, 1603." In the next year, 1604, N. L., who
was Nicholas Ling, obtained by some means a playhouse copy of the
tragedy, not a copy in the state in which it left the hands of the
author, but representing in the main the genuine words of Shakespeare. It
was published 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. At London, Printed by I. R. for N. L., and are to be sold
at his shoppe under Saint Dunston's Church in Fleetstreet, 1604." This
impression was reissued in the following year, the title-page and a few
leaves at the end, sigs. N. and O., being fresh-printed, the sole
alteration in the former being the substitution of 1605 for 1604.
_Hamlet_ is not mentioned by Meres in 1598, and it could not have been
written before 1599, in which year the Globe was erected, there being a
clear allusion to that theatre in act ii, sc. 2. The tragedy continued to
be acted after Shakespeare's company commenced playing at the Blackfriars
Theatre, it being alluded to in a manuscript list, written in 1660,
of "some of the most ancient plays that were played at Blackfriars."
According to Downes, Sir William Davenant, "having seen Mr. Taylor of the
Black-Fryars Company act it, who, being instructed by the author, Mr.
Shaksepeur, taught Mr. Betterton in every particle of it."--_Roscius
Anglicanus_, 1708. Roberts, in his answer to Mr. Pope's _Preface on
Shakespeare_, 1729, thinks that Lowin was the original Hamlet.
The date of 1601 for the production of _Hamlet_ appears to suit the
internal evidence very well. That evidence decidedly leads to the
conclusion that it could not have been written long before that time,
and, without placing too much reliance on the general opinion that
Shakespeare entirely laid aside his earlier style of composition at some
particular era, that year is probably about the latest in which he would
have written in the strain of the following lines, which, taken by
themselves, might be assigned to the period of the _Two Gentlemen of
Verona_:
"Fear it, Ophelia, fear it, my dear sister;
And keep you in the rear of your affection
Out of the shot and danger of desire.
The dearest maid is prodigal enough
If she unmask her beauty to the moon:
Virtue itself scapes not calumnious strokes:
The canker galls the infants of the spring,
Too oft before their buttons be disclos'd;
And in the morn and liquid dew of youth
Contagious blastments are most imminent.
Be wary, then; best safety lies in fear;
Youth to itself rebels, though none else near."
Were it not that the elder play of _Hamlet_ did not belong to Shakespeare's
company, these lines might lead to the conjecture that he had made some
additions to it long before he wrote his own complete tragedy.
There was once in existence a copy of Speght's edition of Chaucer, 1598,
with manuscript notes by Gabriel Harvey, one of those notes being in the
following terms: "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." This note was
first printed in 1766 by Steevens, who gives the year 1598 as the date of
its insertion in the volume, but, observed Dr. Ingleby, "we are unable to
verify Steevens' note or collate his copy, for the book which contained
Harvey's note passed into the collection of Bishop Percy, and his library
was burned in the fire at Northumberland House." Under these
circumstances one can only add the opinions of those who have had the
opportunity of inspecting the volume. Firstly, from the letter of Percy
to Malone, 1803: "In the passage which extols Shakespeare's tragedy,
Spenser is quoted by name among our flourishing metricians. Now this
edition of Chaucer was published in 1598, and Spenser's death is
ascertained to have been in January, 1598-1599, so that these passages
were all written in 1598, and prove that _Hamlet_ was written before that
year, as you have fixed it." Secondly, from a letter from Malone to
Percy, written also in 1803, in which he gives reasons for controverting
this opinion: "When I was in Dublin I remember you thought that, though
Harvey had written 1598 in his book, it did not follow from thence that
his remarks were then written; whilst, on the other hand, I contended
that, from the mention of Spenser, they should seem to have been written
in that year; so that, like the two Reynoldses, we have changed sides and
each converted the other; for I have now no doubt that these observations
were written in a subsequent year. The words that deceive are 'our now
flourishing metricians,' by which Harvey does not mean 'now living,' but
now admired or in vogue; and what proves this is that in his catalogue he
mixes the living and the dead, for Thomas Watson was dead before 1593.
With respect to Axio Philus, I think you will agree with me hereafter
that not Spenser, but another person, was meant. Having more than once
named Spenser, there could surely be no occasion to use any mysterious
appellation with respect to that poet. My theory is that Harvey bought
the book in 1598 on its publication, and then sat down to read it, and
that his observations were afterward inserted at various times. That
passage, which is at the very end, and subjoined to Lydgate's catalogue,
one may reasonably suppose was not written till after he had perused the
whole volume."
The tragedy of _Hamlet_ is familiarly alluded to more than once in the
play of _Eastward Hoe_, printed in 1605, in a manner which indicates
that the former drama was very well established in the memories of the
audience. There is a parody on one of Ophelia's songs which is of some
interest in regard to the question of the critical value of the quarto of
1604; the occurrence of the word "all" before "flaxen" showing that the
former word was incorrectly omitted in all the early quartos excepting
in that of 1603. One of the subordinate characters in _Eastward Hoe_ is
a running-footman of the name of Hamlet, who enters in great haste to
tell the coachman to be ready for his mistress, whereupon Potkin, a
tankard-bearer, says: "Sfoote, Hamlet, are you madde? Whether run you
nowe? You should brushe up my olde mistresse."
There is an unsupported statement by Oldys to the effect that Shakespeare
received but five pounds for his tragedy of _Hamlet_, but whether from
the company who first acted it or from the publisher is not mentioned.
This is the only information that has reached us respecting the exact
emolument received by Shakespeare for any of his writings, but it cannot
be accepted merely on such an authority. It is, however, worthy of remark
that Greene parted with his _Orlando_ to the Queen's Players for twenty
nobles; so the sum named appears to have been about the usual amount
given for a play sold direct from the author to a company, but in all
probability, when _Hamlet_ was produced, Shakespeare was playing at the
Globe Theatre on shares.
Notwithstanding the extreme length of the tragedy of _Hamlet_, there
is such a marvellously concentrative power displayed in much of the
construction and dialogue that, in respect to a large number of the
incidents and speeches, a wide latitude of interpretation is admissible,
the selection in those cases from possible explanations depending upon
the judgment and temperament of each actor or reader. Hence it may be
confidently predicted that no æsthetic criticisms upon this drama will
ever be entirely and universally accepted, and as certainly that there
will remain problems in connection with it which will be subjects for
discussion to the end of literary time. Among the latter the reason or
reasons which induced Hamlet to defer the fulfilment of his revenge may
perhaps continue to hold a prominent situation, although the solution of
that special mystery does not seem to be attended with difficulties equal
to those surrounding other cognate inquiries which arise in the study of
the tragedy.
In respect to this drama, as to many others by the same author, the
prophetic words of Leonard Digges may be usefully remembered--"Some
second Shakespeare must of Shakespeare write." Until this miracle occurs,
it is not likely that any æsthetic criticism on the tragedy will be
successful; and certainly at present, notwithstanding the numbers of
persons of high talent and genius who have discussed the subject, nothing
has been, nor is likely to be, produced which is altogether satisfactory.
The cause of this may perhaps to some extent arise from the latitude of
interpretation the dramatic form of composition allows, to the
appreciation of the minor details of a character, and the various
plausible reasons that can often be assigned for the same line of action;
something also may be due to the unconscious influence exercised by
individual temperament upon the exposition of that character, and again
much to the defective state of the text; but the reason of the general
failure in _Hamlet_ criticism is no doubt chiefly to be traced to the
want of ability to enter fully into the inspiration of the poet's genius.
It may, however, be safely asserted that the simpler explanations are,
and the less they are biassed by the subtleties of the philosophical
critics, the more likely they are to be in unison with the intentions of
the author. Take, for instance, the well-established fact that immodesty
of expression, the recollection derived, it may often be, accidentally
and unwillingly from oral sources during the previous life, is one of the
numerous phases of insanity; and not only are the song-fragments chanted
by Ophelia, but even the ribaldry addressed to her by Hamlet, in the
play-scene, vindicated, there being little doubt that Shakespeare
intended the simulated madness of the latter through his intellectual
supremacy to be equally true to nature, the manners of his age permitting
the delineation in a form which is now repulsive and inadmissible.
The present favorite idea is that in Hamlet the great dramatist intended
to delineate an irresolute mind depressed by the weight of a mission
which it is unable to accomplish. This is the opinion of Goethe
following, if I have noted rightly, an English writer in the _Mirror_ of
1780. A careful examination of the tragedy will hardly sustain this
hypothesis. So far from Hamlet being indecisive, although the active
principle in his character is strongly influenced by the meditative, he
is really a man of singular determination, and, excepting in occasional
paroxsyms, one of powerful self-control. His rapidity of decision is
strikingly exhibited after his first interview with the Ghost. Perceiving
at once how important it was that Marcellus, at all events, should not
suspect the grave revelations that had been made, although they had been
sufficient to have paralyzed one of less courage and resolution than
himself, he outwits his companions by banter, treating the apparition
with intentional and grotesque disrespect and jocularity at a moment when
an irresolute mind would have been terrified and prostrated.