Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare Part 20

"But a character in the _Taming of the Shrew_ is borrowed from the _Trinummus_, and no translation of _that_ was extant."

Mr. Colman indeed hath been better employ'd: but if he had met with an old Comedy, called _Supposes_, translated from Arios...o...b.. George Gascoigne, he certainly would not have appealed to Plautus. Thence Shakespeare borrowed this part of the Plot (as well as some of the phraseology), though Theobald p.r.o.nounces it his own invention: there likewise he found the quaint name of _Petruchio_. My young Master and his Man exchange habits and characters, and persuade a Scenaese, as he is called, to personate the Father, exactly as in the _Taming of the Shrew_, by the pretended danger of his coming from Sienna to Ferrara, contrary to the order of the government.

Still, Shakespeare quotes a line from the _Eunuch_ of Terence: by memory too, and, what is more, "purposely alters it, in order to bring the sense within the compa.s.s of one line."-This remark was previous to Mr.

Johnson's; or indisputably it would not have been made at all.-"Our Authour had this line from Lilly; which I mention that it may not be brought as an argument of his learning."

But how, cries an unprovoked Antagonist, can you take upon you to say that he had it from Lilly, and not from Terence? I will answer for Mr. Johnson, who is above answering for himself.-Because it is quoted as it appears in the _Grammarian_, and not as it appears in the _Poet_.-And thus we have done with the _purposed_ alteration. Udall likewise in his _Floures for Latine speakyng, gathered oute of Terence_, 1560, reduces the pa.s.sage to a single line, and subjoins a Translation.

We have hitherto supposed Shakespeare the Author of the _Taming of the Shrew_, but his property in it is extremely disputable. I will give you my opinion, and the reasons on which it is founded. I suppose then the present Play not _originally_ the work of Shakespeare, but restored by him to the Stage, with the whole Induction of the Tinker, and some other occasional improvements; especially in the Character of Petruchio. It is very obvious that the _Induction_ and the _Play_ were either the works of different hands, or written at a great interval of time: the former is in our Author's _best_ manner, and the greater part of the _latter_ in his _worst_, or even below it. Dr. Warburton declares it to be _certainly_ spurious: and without doubt, _supposing_ it to have been written by Shakespeare, it must have been one of his _earliest_ productions; yet it is not mentioned in the List of his Works by Meres in 1598.

I have met with a facetious piece of Sir John Harrington, printed in 1596 (and possibly there may be an earlier Edition), called, _The Metamorphosis of Ajax_, where I suspect an allusion to the old Play: "Read the _booke_ of _Taming a Shrew_, which hath made a number of us so perfect, that _now_ every one can rule a Shrew in our Countrey, save he that hath hir."-I am aware, a _modern_ Linguist may object that the word _Book_ does not at present seem _dramatick_, but it was once almost _technically_ so: Gosson in his _Schoole of Abuse, contayning a pleasaunt inuective against Poets, Pipers, Players, Jesters, and such like Caterpillars of a Common-wealth_, 1579, mentions "twoo prose _Bookes_ plaied at the Belsauage"; and Hearne tells us, in a Note at the end of _William of Worcester_, that he had seen "a MS. in the nature of a _Play_ or _Interlude_, int.i.tled, the _Booke_ of Sir _Thomas Moore_."

And in fact there is such an old _anonymous_ Play in Mr. Pope's List: "A pleasant conceited History, called, _The Taming of a Shrew_-sundry times acted by the Earl of Pembroke his Servants." Which seems to have been republished by the Remains of that Company in 1607, when Shakespeare's copy appeared at the Black-Friars or the Globe.-Nor let this seem derogatory from the character of our Poet. There is no reason to believe that he wanted to claim the Play as his own; it was not even printed 'till some years after his death: but he merely revived it on his Stage as a _Manager_.-Ravenscroft a.s.sures us that this was really the case with _t.i.tus Andronicus_; which, it may be observed, hath not Shakespeare's name on the t.i.tle-page of the only Edition published in his life-time. Indeed, from every internal mark, I have not the least doubt but this _horrible_ Piece was originally written by the Author of the _Lines_ thrown into the mouth of the _Player_ in _Hamlet_, and of the Tragedy of _Locrine_: which likewise, from some a.s.sistance perhaps given to his Friend, hath been unjustly and ignorantly charged upon Shakespeare.

But the _sheet-anchor_ holds fast: Shakespeare himself hath left some Translations from Ovid. The Epistles, says One, of Paris and Helen give a sufficient proof of his acquaintance with _that_ poet; and it may be concluded, says Another, that he was a competent judge of _other_ Authors who wrote in the same language.

This hath been the universal cry, from Mr. Pope himself to the Criticks of yesterday. Possibly, however, the Gentlemen will hesitate a moment, if we tell them that Shakespeare was _not_ the Author of these Translations. Let them turn to a forgotten book, by Thomas Heywood, called _Britaines Troy_, printed by W. Jaggard in 1609, Fol. and they will find these identical Epistles, "which being so pertinent to our Historie," says Heywood, "_I_ thought necessarie to translate."-How then came they ascribed to Shakespeare? We will tell them that likewise. The same voluminous Writer published an _Apology for Actors_, 4to. 1612, and in an Appendix directed to his new Printer, Nic. Okes, he accuses his old One, Jaggard, of "taking the two Epistles of _Paris to Helen_ and _Helen to Paris_, and printing them in a less volume and under the name of _Another_:-but _he_ was much offended with Master Jaggard, that, altogether unknowne to him, he had presumed to make so bold with his Name." In the same work of Heywood are all the other Translations which have been printed in the modern Editions of the Poems of Shakespeare.

You now hope for land: We have seen through little matters, but what must be done with a whole book?-In 1751 was reprinted "A compendious or briefe examination of certayne ordinary complaints of diuers of our Countrymen in these our days: which although they are in some parte unjust and friuolous, yet are they all by way of Dialogue throughly debated and discussed by William Shakespeare, Gentleman." 8vo.

This extraordinary piece was originally published in 4to. 1581, and dedicated by the Author, "To the most vertuous and learned Lady, his most deare and soveraigne Princesse, Elizabeth; being inforced by her Majesties late and singular clemency in pardoning certayne his unduetifull misdemeanour." And by the modern Editors, to the late King; as "a Treatise composed by the most extensive and fertile Genius that ever any age or nation produced."

Here we join issue with the Writers of that excellent tho' very unequal work, the _Biographia Britannica_: "If," say they, "this piece could be written by our Poet, it would be absolutely decisive in the dispute about his learning; for many quotations appear in it from the Greek and Latin Cla.s.sicks."

The concurring circ.u.mstances of the _Name_ and the _Misdemeanor_, which is supposed to be the old Story of _Deer-stealing_, seem fairly to challenge our Poet for the Author: but they hesitate.-His claim may appear to be confuted by the date 1581, when Shakespeare was only _Seventeen_, and the _long_ experience which the Writer talks of.-But I will not keep you in suspense: the book was _not_ written by Shakespeare.

Strype, in his _Annals_, calls the Author SOME _learned Man_, and this gave me the first suspicion. I knew very well that honest John (to use the language of Sir Thomas Bodley) did not waste his time with such _baggage books_ as _Plays_ and _Poems_; yet I must suppose that he had heard of the name of Shakespeare. After a while I met with the original Edition. Here in the t.i.tle-page, and at the end of the Dedication, appear only the Initials, W. S. Gent., and presently I was informed by Anthony Wood, that the book in question was written, not by William Shakespeare, but by William Stafford, Gentleman: which at once accounted for the _Misdemeanour_ in the Dedication. For Stafford had been concerned at that time, and was indeed afterward, as Camden and the other Annalists inform us, with some of the conspirators against Elizabeth; which he properly calls his _unduetifull_ behaviour.

I hope by this time that any One open to conviction may be nearly satisfied; and I will promise to give you on this head very little more trouble.

The justly celebrated Mr. Warton hath favoured us, in his _Life of Dr.

Bathurst_, with some _hearsay_ particulars concerning Shakespeare from the papers of Aubrey, which had been in the hands of Wood; and I ought not to suppress them, as the _last_ seems to make against my doctrine. They came originally, I find, on consulting the MS., from one Mr. Beeston: and I am sure Mr. Warton, whom I have the honour to call my Friend, and an a.s.sociate in the question, will be in no pain about their credit.

"William Shakespeare's Father was a Butcher,-while he was a Boy he exercised his Father's trade, but when he killed a Calf, he would do it in a high stile, and make a speech. This William being inclined _naturally_ to Poetry and Acting, came to London, I guess, about _eighteen_, and was an Actor in one of the Playhouses, and did act _exceedingly well_. He began _early_ to make Essays in dramatique Poetry.-The humour of the Constable in the _Midsummer Night's Dream_ he happened to take at Crendon in Bucks.-I think I have been told that he left near three hundred pounds to a _Sister_.-_He understood Latin pretty well, _FOR_ he had been in his younger yeares a Schoolmaster in the Country._"

I will be short in my animadversions; and take them in their order.

The account of the _Trade_ of the Family is not only contrary to all other Tradition, but, as it may seem, to the instrument from the Herald's office, so frequently reprinted.-Shakespeare most certainly went to London, and commenced Actor thro' necessity, not natural inclination.-Nor have we any reason to suppose that he did act _exceedingly well_. Rowe tells us from the information of Betterton, who was inquisitive into this point, and had very early opportunities of Inquiry from Sir W. Davenant, that he was no _extraordinary Actor_; and that the top of his performance was the Ghost in his own _Hamlet_. Yet this _Chef d'Oeuvre_ did not please: I will give you an original stroke at it. Dr. Lodge, who was for ever pestering the town with Pamphlets, published in the year 1596 _Wits miserie, and the Worlds madnesse, discovering the Devils incarnat of this Age._ 4to. One of these Devils is _Hate-virtue_, or _Sorrow for another mans good successe_, who, says the Doctor, is "_a foule lubber_, and looks as pale as the Visard of the Ghost, which cried so miserably at the Theatre, like an Oister-wife, _Hamlet revenge_." Thus you see Mr. Holt's supposed _proof_, in the Appendix to the late Edition, that _Hamlet_ was written after 1597, or perhaps 1602, will by no means hold good; whatever might be the case of the particular pa.s.sage on which it is founded.

Nor does it appear that Shakespeare did begin _early_ to make _Essays in Dramatique Poetry_: the _Arraignment of Paris_, 1584, which hath so often been ascribed to him on the credit of Kirkman and Winstanley, was written by George Peele; and Shakespeare is not met with, even as an a.s.sistant, 'till at least seven years afterward.-Nash, in his Epistle to the Gentlemen Students of both Universities, prefixed to Greene's _Arcadia_, 4to. _black Letter_, recommends his Friend, Peele, "as the chiefe supporter of pleasance now living, the Atlas of Poetrie, and _primus Verborum Artifex_: whose first increase, the _Arraignment of Paris_, might plead to their opinions his pregnant dexteritie of wit, and manifold varietie of inuention."

In the next place, unfortunately, there is neither such a Character as a Constable in the _Midsummer Night's Dream_: nor was the _three hundred pounds_ Legacy to a Sister, but a Daughter.

And to close the whole, it is not possible, according to Aubrey himself, that Shakespeare could have been some _years a Schoolmaster in the Country_: on which circ.u.mstance only the supposition of his learning is professedly founded. He was not surely _very_ young, when he was employed to _kill Calves_, and he commenced Player about _Eighteen_!-The truth is that he left his Father, for a Wife, a year sooner; and had at least two Children born at Stratford before he retired from thence to London. It is therefore sufficiently clear that poor Anthony had too much reason for his character of Aubrey: You will find it in his own Account of his Life, published by Hearne, which I would earnestly recommend to any Hypochondriack;

"A pretender to Antiquities, roving, magotie-headed, and sometimes little better than crased: and being exceedingly credulous, would stuff his many Letters sent to A.W. with _folliries_ and misinformations." p. 577.

Thus much for the Learning of Shakespeare with respect to the ancient languages: indulge me with an observation or two on his supposed knowledge of the modern ones, and I will promise to release you.

"It is _evident_" we have been told, "that he was not unacquainted with the Italian": but let us inquire into the _Evidence_.

Certainly some Italian words and phrases appear in the Works of Shakespeare; yet if we had nothing else to observe, their Orthography might lead us to suspect them to be not of the Writer's importation. But we can go further, and prove this.

When Pistol "cheers up himself with ends of verse," he is only a copy of Hanniball Gonsaga, who ranted on yielding himself a Prisoner to an English Captain in the Low Countries, as you may read in an old Collection of Tales, called _Wits, Fits, and Fancies_,

Si Fortuna me tormenta, Il speranza me contenta.

And Sir Richard Hawkins, in his Voyage to the South-Sea, 1593, throws out the same jingling Distich on the loss of his Pinnace.

"Master Page, sit; good Master Page, sit; _Proface._ What you want in meat, we'll have in drink," says Justice Shallow's _Fac totum_, Davy, in the 2d Part of _Henry the fourth_.

_Proface_, Sir Thomas Hanmer observes to be Italian, from _profaccia, much good may it do you_. Mr. Johnson rather thinks it a mistake for _perforce_. Sir Thomas however is right; yet it is no argument for his Author's Italian knowledge.

Old Heywood, the Epigrammatist, addressed his Readers long before,

Readers, reade this thus: for Preface, _Proface_, Much good do it you, the poore repast here, &c.-_Woorkes._ Lond.

4to. 1562.

And Dekker in his Play, _If it be not good, the Diuel is in it_ (which is certainly true, for it is full of Devils), makes Shackle-soule, in the character of Friar Rush, tempt his Brethren with "choice of dishes,"

To which _proface_; with blythe lookes sit yee.

Nor hath it escaped the quibbling manner of the _Water-poet_, in the t.i.tle of a Poem prefixed to his _Praise of Hempseed_: "A Preamble, Preatrot, Preagallop, Preapace, or Preface; and _Proface_, my Masters, if your Stomacks serve."

But the Editors are not contented without coining Italian. "_Rivo, says the Drunkard_," is an Expression of the _madcap_ Prince of Wales; which Sir Thomas Hanmer corrects to _Ribi, Drink away_, or _again_, as it should rather be translated. Dr. Warburton accedes to this; and Mr. Johnson hath admitted it into his Text; but with an observation, that _Rivo_ might possibly be the cant of English Taverns. And so indeed it was: it occurs frequently in Marston. Take a quotation from his Comedy of _What you will_, 1607:

Musicke, Tobacco, Sacke, and Sleepe, The Tide of Sorrow backward keep: If thou art sad at others fate, _Rivo_ drink deep, give care the mate.

In _Love's Labour Lost_, Boyet calls Don Armado,

--A Spaniard that keeps here in Court, A Phantasme, a _Monarcho_.--

Here too Sir Thomas is willing to palm Italian upon us. We should read, it seems, _Mammuccio_, a Mammet, or Puppet: Ital. _Mammuccia_. But the allusion is to a fantastical _Character_ of the time.-"Popular applause,"

says Meres, "dooth nourish some, neither do they gape after any other thing, but vaine praise and glorie,-as in our age Peter Shakerlye of Paules, and MONARCHO that liued about the Court." p. 178.

I fancy you will be satisfied with one more instance.

"_Baccare_, You are marvellous forward," quoth Gremio to Petruchio in the _Taming of the Shrew_.