in the fruitless endeavour to acquire the perfect sovereignty of thought over circumstances and events. This is still more apparent in the scene with the grave-diggers; it demonstrates, as it were, in oculis, the powerlessness of this endeavour and the presumption contained in it, by pointing out how the inquisitive mind in its pride of intellectwhile wishing freely and boldly to direct the whole course of life is not even capable of saving itself from the teeth of the small, busy worms. The riddles of the two merry clowns with their broad humour, is a parody on the great toil and trouble which the mind imposes upon itself in order to soar up to that giddy height upon which, after all, it cannot maintain itself. How significant also is the connection between this scene and that where Hamlet meets Laertes at Ophelia's grave; how significant is Hamlet's direct fall from his philosophical height, from his profound reflections into passionate ardour and want of self-possession! In my opinion, therefore, even this scene has its full poetical justification and is by no means disturbing or superfluous.

Equally unjust, lastly, are the objections raised against the closing scene. The motives of the sudden and unexpected solution of the complication-which is occasioned more by accident than by premeditated intrigue—have already been pointed out. But in addition to this, objection has also been made to the introduction of Fortinbras (although preparation is already made for his appearance in the very first act); it has been regarded as a purely external, arbitrary and meaningless piece of ornamentation, stuck on to the story only in order to give the conclusion a striking effect. But apart from the fact that, as already remarked, Fortinbras forms the complementary pendant to Horatio, and that both in their mode of thought and action represent the necessary organic contrast to Hamlet and the other dramatic characters, Shakspeare is justly fond of concluding his overpowering tragedies with the prospect of a new and better state of things which rises up out of suffering, ruin and death. As in Romeo and Juliet,' 'King Lear' and 'Macbeth,' so it is here. It is the elevating, conciliatory power of the tragic, which is manifested not merely in the purification and sublimation

of the tragic characters, but also in the blessing and peace which springs up out of the storm and tempest for the survivors and coming generations. When Hamlet has fought and struggled so long, that-in giving up his grand endeavour-he finally perceives (v. 2):

"There's a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough hew them how we will,”

He

when he has thus acknowledged the internal necessity in the course of the historical events, from which he tried to escape, and is now finally prepared to relinquish what he does not possess; when his mind is at rest, the disturbance of his mind at an end, and the stormy vehemence of his temperament overcome, i.e., when the contradiction out of which the action proceeded is solved-at first towards the inner side, in the mind and character of the hero, and then externally by the violent death of the guilty King and Queen, and when the task of revenge imposed upon the hero is accomplished-more by the hand of Providence in the form of accident than by Hamlet's free action-i.e., when the fearful deed upon which the drama turns is finally accomplished in that form which alone corresponds with its substance-Hamlet then dies in the calm hope of a better existence. dies not only as his last words to Horatio imply-with the firm conviction of receiving pardon from Heaven, but also in the certainty that his beloved Denmark is about to see happier times. The elevating, conciliatory element of the tragic pathos lies indeed more especially in the purification, the sublimation of the hero, as reflected in Hamlet's resignation and self-denial which are based upon purely moral motives. But for this very reason the prospect of a better future for the whole country-which is represented in the person of young Fortinbras and springs up from the downfall of the old royal house-must not be wanting if its downfall and more especially the death of its last, noble scion (who has been swept along by a tragic fate), is not meant to leave in us the impression of a disturbing dissonance.

CHAPTER VI.

THE DATES AND SOURCES OF THE FIVE GREAT TRAGEDIES.

6

I HAVE been loth to disturb the charming climax to which these five tragedies ascend in succession, and which draw the essential principles and different stages of life into the tragic view of the world, by dry historical, philological and critical disquisitions. I propose, therefore, now to give the few necessary remarks concerning their respective dates and origin. Romeo and Juliet' and 'Othello,' as has hitherto generally been assumed, are respectively the earliest and latest. Of Romeo and Juliet' there exist two very old editions; the first is dated 1597, the second 1599; the former was, probably, originally a stenographic transcript made during the performance of the play, the latter is augmented in every scene, and not only corrects the errors and omissions of the first, but is probably also founded upon a subsequent revision of the whole poem by the poet himself. And, while, according to the first edition, the piece, as regards language and versification, colouring and character, possesses something of the youthful awkwardness and want of power in portraying the whole wealth of the inner life in a corresponding breadth of expression and action, and consequently is much briefer and more condensed (as in the case of Titus Andronicus' and 'Henry VI.' 2nd and 3rd parts), the second edition appears already to possess quite the same ampleness, polish and completeness as the folio of 1623, which with but few alterations, is reprinted in the later quarto of 1609. If we take the first of these editions, Tyrwhitt's supposition that the Nurse's words: 'tis since the earthquake now eleven years,' may have originally applied to the earthquake felt in England in 1580, is not at all so entirely unfounded as Malone at first thought. For if he, with the concurrence of Drake, is

disposed to find an error of reckoning in the Nurse's words, he forgets that children are not necessarily weaned after their first year, that on the contrary in earlier times it was the custom for a mother to suckle her child for two years and longer, and this may the more readily be assumed in the present case, as the Nurse expressly says that Juliet could not only stand, but even run about and speak. In fact there is nothing to prevent the play (in the form it stands in the edition of 1597) being-in accordance with its first appearance-assigned to about the year 1592, therefore pretty soon after Henry VI.,' The Two Gentlemen of Verona' and 'Love's Labour Lost.' This is corroborated not only by the many passages in rhymethe whole scene between Friar Laurence and Romeo moves in rhymes-but especially by the frequent occurrence of alternate rhymes-which are rarely met with in Shakspeare's later dramas. The versification is as carefully correct as in the poet's youthful plays. The language, also, still exhibits a prevailing lyrical character and frequently reminds one of Venus and Adonis;' it is rich in those so-called conceits which Lilly had introduced from Italian novels; and in spite of the later revision, there still remain many lines where the expression of the pathetic loses itself in the obscurity of bombast, and the imagery reminds one of the often forced similes and farfetched points in Shakspeare's youthful works. These considerations, in my opinion, make it seem probable that 'Romeo and Juliet' may have been composed before 'Richard II.' and 'King John,' and therefore not so late as 1592, as is supposed, by Collier and Dyce, who follow Malone. Othello,' in the form we now have it, was formerly pretty generally accounted among the poet's last works, most critics assigned it to the year 1612. But there is no doubt that the manuscript which Collier * is said to have discovered and, according to which 'Othello' was performed by Burbage's company as early as August 1602, for the entertainment of the Queen at Lord Ellesmere's residence, is a forgery. However, according to a re*New Particulars, p. 59.

6

Ingleby, l.c., 261 f.-According to an article in the The Athenæum, June, 1868, p. 863, The Extracts from the Accounts of the

cently discovered document (a list of the plays performed at Court in 1604), a drama entitled The Moor of Venice was acted in the Banqueting House at Whitehall, on the 1st of November, 1604.* The poet's name is not mentioned, it is true, but there is no reason for doubting that it was Shakspeare's 'Othello.' Possibly therefore, the piece was brought upon the stage in 1604, but was probably remodelled at a later day by Shakspeare himself and put into the form we now have it. For it did not appear in print till 1622, and according to the partially extant accounts of Lord Harrington, the King's treasurer, it was acted at Court in May, 1613, at the celebration of the marriage of the Princess Elizabeth with the Elector Palatine.† That Shakspeare remodelled it for this occasion is of itself very likely, and becomes almost a matter of certainty by the fact that in the third act, there is a distinct allusion to King James's second patent of the 28th of May, 1612, concerning the creating of baronets.‡ The substance of both these tragedies, moreover, is founded upon Italian novels;§ Romeo and Juliet,' upon Bandello's Sfortunata morte di due infelicissimi Amanti,|| 'Othello' upon Giraldi Cinthio's Hecatommithi.¶ although there existed a drama of the same subject and title as Romeo and Juliet' even before 1562, still it is not likely that Shakspeare was acquainted with the piece which had never been printed, and had certainly long since disappeared from the stage; and that later dramas had treated the same subject-which certainly seems to have been very popular-is a mere conjecture. The first novel Shakspeare may have known either from the version in

For

Revels, etc., in so far as they refer to the theatrical performances at Court (hence those concerning the representations of Othello and Measure for Measure), are suspected of being forgeries. Compare the further discussion on this point in vol. ii.

*Dyce's Shaks., i. p. 92.

etc.

+ Dyce, l.c., 94.

Chalmer's Suppl. Apol., p. 160. Drake, ii. 527 f.

§ Compare Echtermeyer, Henschel, and Simrock: Quellen des Shaks., Berlin, 1831.

II. 9, Ed. of 1554.

Dec. iii. Nov. 7.