An Introduction to Shakespeare Part 8

But the playwright of to-day cannot help plagiarizing his technique, many of his situations, and even his plots from earlier plays; consequently, he tries to conceal his borrowings, to placate public opinion by changing the names and the environment of his characters.

The Elizabethan audiences were less exacting. If a play about King Lear were written and acted with some success, they thought it perfectly honest for another dramatist to use this material in building up a new and better play on the story of King Lear. They cared {106} even less when the dramatist went to other dramas for hints on minor details. The modern audience, if not the modern world at large, holds the same view. So long as the mind of the borrower transforms and makes his own whatever he borrows, so long will his work be applauded by his audience, whatever be the existing state of the copyright laws or of public fastidiousness.

Hence we do not to-day hunt up the sources of Shakespeare's plots and characters in order to prove plagiarism, but in order to understand just how great was the power of his genius in trans.m.u.ting common elements into his fine gold.

It is customary to say: "Shakespeare did not invent his plots. He was not interested in plots." So far is this from the truth that the amount of pains and skill spent by him in working over any one of his best comedies or tragedies would more than suffice for the construction of a very good modern plot. It is more true to say of most of his work, "Shakespeare did not waste his time in inventing stories.[1] He took stories where he found them, realized their dramatic possibilities, and spent infinite pains in weaving them together into a harmonious whole."

There is one other point to remember. The sources of Shakespeare's plays were no better literary material than the sources of most Elizabethan plays. Shakespeare's practice in adapting older plays was {107} the common practice of the time. We can measure, therefore, the greatness of Shakespeare's achievement by a comparison with what others have made out of similar material.

Just as Shakespeare's plays fall into the groups of history, tragedy, and comedy, so his chief sources are three in number: biography, as found in the _Chronicle_ of Holinshed and Plutarch's _Lives_; romance, as found in the novels of the period, which were most of them translations from Italian _novelle_; and dramatic material from other plays.

+Holinshed+.--Raphael Holinshed (died 1580?) published in 1578 a history of England, Scotland, and Ireland, usually known as Holinshed's _Chronicle_. The two immense folio volumes contain an account of Britain "from its first inhabiting" up to his own day, largely made up by combining the works of previous historians. The _Chronicle_ bears evidence, however, of enormous and painstaking research which makes it valuable even now. Holinshed's style was clear, but not possessed of any distinctly literary quality. Much of what Shakespeare used was indeed but a paraphrase of an earlier chronicler, Edward Hall.

Holinshed was uncritical, too, since he made no attempt to separate the legendary from the truly historical material. So far as drama is concerned, however, this was rather a help than a hindrance, since legend often crystallizes most truly the spirit of a career in an act or a saying which never had basis in fact. The work is notable chiefly for its patriotic tone, of which there is certainly more than an echo in Shakespeare's historical plays. But the effects of {108} steadfast continuity of national purpose, of a belief in the greatness of England, and of an insistent appeal to patriotism, which are such important elements in Shakespeare's histories, are totally wanting in Holinshed.

Not only are all of the histories of Shakespeare based either directly or through the medium of other plays upon Holinshed, but his two great tragedies, _Macbeth_ and _King Lear_ (the latter through an earlier play), and his comedy _Cymbeline_ are also chiefly indebted to it. The work was, moreover, the source of many plays by other dramatists.

+Plutarch+.--Plutarch of Chaeronea, a Greek author of the first century A.D., wrote forty-six "parallel" Lives, of famous Greeks and Romans.

Each famous Greek was contrasted with a famous Roman whose career was somewhat similar to his own. The _Lives_ have been ever since among the most popular of the cla.s.sics, for they are more than mere biographies. They are the interpretation of two worlds, with all their tragic history, by one who felt the fatal force of a resistless destiny.

A scholarly French translation of Plutarch's _Lives_ was published in 1559 by Jacques Amyot, Bishop of Bellozane. Twenty years after (1579) Thomas North, later Sir Thomas, published his magnificent English version.[2] The vigor and spirit which he flung into his work can only be compared to that of William Tyndale in his translation of the New Testament. Here was very different material for drama from the {109} dry bones of history offered by Holinshed. Shakespeare paid North the sincerest compliment by borrowing, particularly in _Antony and Cleopatra_, and _Coriola.n.u.s_, not only the general story, but whole speeches with only those changes necessary for making blank verse out of prose. The last speeches of Antony and Cleopatra are indeed nearly as impressive in North's narrative form as in Shakespeare's play.

In addition to the tragedies already named, _Julius Caesar_ and almost certainly the suggestion of _Timon of Athens_, though not the play as a whole, were taken from Plutarch's _Lives_. Other Elizabethans were not slow to avail themselves of this unequaled treasure-house of story.

+Italian and Other Fiction+.--Except for Geoffrey Chaucer (1338-1400), whose _Troilus and Criseyde_ Shakespeare dramatized, and John Gower (died 1408), whose _Confessio Amantis_ is one of the books out of which the plot of _Pericles_ may have come, there was little good English fiction read in the Elizabethan period. Educated people read, instead, Italian _novelle_, or short tales, which were usually gathered into some collection of a hundred or so. Many of these were translated into English before Shakespeare's time; and a number of similar collections had been made by English authors, who had translated good stories whenever they found them.

One of these was _Gli Heccatommithi_, 1565 (The Hundred Tales), by Giovanni Giraldi, surnamed Cinthio, which was later translated into French and was the source of _Measure for Measure_ and _Oth.e.l.lo_.

Another collection was that of Matteo Bandello, whose {110} _Tales_, 1554-1573, translated into French by Belleforest, furnished the sources of _Much Ado About Nothing_, and perhaps _Twelfth Night_. The greatest of these collections was the _Decameron_, c. 1353, by Giovanni Boccaccio, one of whose stories, translated by William Painter in his _Palace of Pleasure_, 1564, furnished the source of _All's Well That Ends Well_. Another story of the _Decameron_ was probably the source of the romantic part of the plot of _Cymbeline_. The _Merry Wives of Windsor_ had a plot like the story in Straparola's _Tredici Piacevole Notte_ (1550), _Thirteen Pleasant Evenings_; and _The Merchant of Venice_ borrows its chief plot from Giovanni Florentine's _Il Pecorone_.

Two of Shakespeare's plays are based on English novels written somewhat after the Italian manner--_As You Like It_ on Thomas Lodge's novel-poem, _Rosalynde_, and _The Winter's Tale_ from Robert Greene's _Pandosto_. The _Two Gentlemen of Verona_ is from a Spanish story in the Italian style, the _Diana_ of Jorge de Montemayor. The _Comedy of Errors_ from Plautus is his only play based on cla.s.sical sources.

The Italian _novelle_ emphasized situation, but had little natural dialogue and still less characterization. The Elizabethan dramatists used them only for their plots. Never did works of higher genius spring from less inspired sources.

+The Plays used by Shakespeare+.--Although Shakespeare made up one of his plots, the _Comedy of Errors_, from two plays of Plautus (254-184 B.C.), the _Menaechmi_ and _Amphitruo_, the rest of the plays he used for material were contemporary work. He borrowed from them plots and situations, and {111} occasionally even lines. With the exception, however, of one of the early histories, the plays he made use of are in themselves of no value as literature. Their sole claim to notice is that they served the need of the great playwright. None but the student will ever read them. In practically every case Shakespeare so developed the story that the fiction became essentially his own; while the poetic quality of the verse, the development of character, and the heightening of dramatic effect, which he built upon it, left no more of the old play in sight than the statue shows of the bare metal rods upon which the sculptor molds his clay.

Seven histories go back to the earlier plays on the kings of England.

The Second and Third Parts of _Henry VI_ are taken from two earlier plays often called the _First and Second Contentions_ (between the two n.o.ble houses of York and Lancaster). The First and Second parts of _Henry IV_, and _Henry V_, are all three an expansion of a cruder production, the _Famous Victories of Henry V_. _Richard III_ is based upon the _True Tragedie of Richard, Duke of York; King John upon the Troublesome Reigne of John, King of England_, the latter undoubtedly the best of the sources of Shakespeare's Histories.

_King Leir and His Daughters_ is the only extant play which is known to have formed the basis of a Shakespearean tragedy. Shakespeare made additions in this case from other sources, borrowing Gloucester's story from Sidney's _Arcadia_. The earlier play of _Hamlet_, which it is believed Shakespeare used, is not now in existence.

Among the comedies, the _Taming of the Shrew_ is {112} directly based upon the _Taming of a Shrew_. _Measure for Measure_ is less direct, borrowing from George Whetstone's play in two parts, _Promos and Ca.s.sandra_ (written before 1578).

The existence of versions in German and Dutch of plays which present plots similar in structure to Shakespeare's, but less highly developed, leads scholars to advance the theory that several lost plays may have been sources for some of his dramas. Entries or mentions of plays, with details like Shakespeare's, dated earlier than his own plays could have been in existence, are also used to further the same view. The _Two Gentlemen of Verona_, the _Merchant of Venice_, _Romeo and Juliet_, _Hamlet_, and, with less reason, _Timon of Athens_, and _Twelfth Night_, are thought to have been based more or less on earlier lost plays.

Finally, a number of plays perhaps suggested details in Shakespeare's plays. Of plays so influenced, _Cymbeline_, _The Winter's Tale_, and _Henry VIII_ are the chief. But the debt is negligible at best, so far as the general student is concerned.

To conclude, what Shakespeare borrowed was the raw material of drama.

What he gave to this material was life and art. No better way of appreciating the dramatist at his full worth could be pursued than a patient perusal and comparison of the sources of his plays with Shakespeare's own work.

The best books on this subject are: H. E. D. Anders, _Shakespeare's Books_ (Berlin, 1904); _Shakespeare's Library_, ed. J. P. Collier and W. C. Hazlitt (London, 1875); and the new _Shakespeare Library_ now being published by Chatto and Windus, of which several volumes are out.

[1] There are two plays at least which have plots probably original with Shakespeare--_Love's Labour's Lost_ and _The Tempest_. Both of these draw largely, however, from contemporary history and adventure, and the central idea is directly borrowed from actual events.

[2] It is not unlikely that it was the second edition published in 1595 by Richard Field (Shakespeare's printer) that the poet read.

{113}

CHAPTER IX

HOW SHAKESPEARE GOT INTO PRINT

The Elizabethan audiences who filled to overflowing the theaters on the Bankside possessed a far purer text of Shakespeare than we of this later day can boast. In order to understand our own editions of Shakespeare, it is necessary to understand something, at least, of the conditions of publishing in Shakespeare's day and of the relations of the playhouses with the publishers.

The printing of Shakespeare's poems is an easy tale, _Venus and Adonis_ in 1593, and _The Rape of Lucrece_ in 1594, were first printed in quarto by Richard Field, a native of Stratford, who had come to London.

In each case a dedication accompanying the text was signed by Shakespeare, so that we may guess that the poet not only consented to the printing, but took care that the printing should be accurate.

Twelve editions of one, eight of the other, were issued before 1660.

The other volume of poetry, the Sonnets, was printed in 1609 by Thomas Thorpe, without Shakespeare's consent. Two of them, numbers 138 and 144, had appeared in the collection known as _The Pa.s.sionate Pilgrim_, a pirated volume printed by W. Jaggard in 1599. No reedition of the Sonnets appeared till 1640.

With regard to the plays it is different. It is first {114} to be said that in no volume containing a play or plays of Shakespeare in existence to-day is there any evidence that Shakespeare saw it through the press. All we can do is to satisfy ourselves as to how the copy of Shakespeare's plays may have got into the hands of the publishers, and as to how far that copy represents what Shakespeare must have written.

The editions of Shakespearean plays may be divided into two groups,--the separate plays which were printed in quarto[1] volumes before 1623, and the First Folio of Shakespeare, which was printed in 1623, a collected edition of all his plays save _Pericles_. Our text of Shakespeare, whatever one we read, is made up, either from the First Folio text, or in certain cases from the quarto volumes of certain plays which preceded the Folio; together with the attempts to restore to faulty places what Shakespeare must have written--a task which has engaged a long line of diligent scholars from early in the eighteenth century up to our own day.

+The Stationers' Company+.--In the early period of English printing, which began about 1480 and lasted up to 1557, there was very little supervision over the publishing of books, and as a result the compet.i.tion was unscrupulous. There was a guild of publishers, called {115} the Stationers' Company, in existence, but its efforts to control its members were only of a general character. In 1557, however, Philip and Mary granted a charter to the Stationers' Company under which no one not a member of the Stationers' Company could legally possess a printing press. Queen Mary was, of course, interested in controlling the press directly through the Crown. Throughout the Elizabethan period the printing of books was directly under the supervision of Her Majesty's Government, and not under the law courts. Every book had to be licensed by the company. The Wardens of the company acted as licensers in ordinary cases, and in doubtful cases the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, or some other dignitary appointed for the purpose. When the license was granted, the permission to print was entered upon the Register of the company, and it is from these records that much important knowledge about the dates of Shakespeare's plays is gained.

The Stationers' Company was interested only in protecting its members from prosecution and from compet.i.tion. The author was not considered by them in the legal side of the transaction. How the printer got his ma.n.u.script to print was his own affair, not theirs.

Many authors were at that time paid by printers for the privilege of using their ma.n.u.script; but it was not considered proper that a gentleman should be paid for literary work. Robert Greene, the playwright and novelist, wrote regularly in the employ of printers. On the other hand, Sir Philip Sidney, a contemporary {116} of Shakespeare's, did not allow any of his writings to be printed during his lifetime. Francis Bacon published his essays only in order to forestall an unauthorized edition, and others of the time took the same course. Bacon says in his preface that to prevent their being printed would have been a troublesome procedure. It was possible for an author to prevent the publication by prosecution, but it was scarcely a wise thing to do, in view of the legal difficulties in the way.

Nevertheless, fear of the law probably acted as some sort of a check on unscrupulous publishers.

The author of a play was, however, really less interested than the manager who had bought it. The manager of a theater seems, from what evidence we possess, to have believed that the printing of a play injured the chances of success upon the stage. The play was sold by the author directly to the manager, whose property it became. Copies of it might be sold to some printer by some of the players in the company, by the manager himself, or, in rarer cases, by some unscrupulous copyist taking down the play in shorthand at the performance. When a play had got out of date, it would be more apt to be sold than while it was still on the stage. In some cases, however, the printing might have no bad effect upon the attendance at its performances.

During the years before 1623, seventeen of Shakespeare's plays were published in quarto. Two of these, _Romeo and Juliet_ and _Hamlet_, were printed in two very different versions, so that we have nineteen texts of Shakespeare's plays altogether published before the First Folio. A complete table of these {117} plays with the dates in which the quartos appeared follows:--

1594. t.i.tus Andronicus. Later quartos in 1600 and 1611.

1597. Richard II. Later quartos in 1598, 1608, and 1615.

1597. Richard III. Later quartos in 1598, 1602, 1605, 1612, and 1622.

1597. Romeo and Juliet. Later quartos in 1599 (corrected edition) and 1609.

1598. I Henry IV. Later quartos in 1599, 1604, 1608, 1613, and 1622.

1598. Love's Labour's Lost.

1600. Merchant of Venice. Later quarto in 1619. (Copying on the t.i.tle-page the original date of 1600, however.) 1600. Henry V. Later quartos in 1602 and 1619. (Dated on the t.i.tle-page, 1608.) 1600. Henry IV, Part II.

1600. Midsummer Night's Dream. Later quarto in 1619.

(Dated, however, 1600.) 1602. Merry Wives of Windsor. Later quarto in 1619.

1603. Hamlet.

1604. Second edition of Hamlet. Later quartos in 1605 and 1611.