Volume 5 — Notes.

READINGS IN SHAKSPEARE, NO. III.

Hamlet, Act I. Sc. 5.

This line (which might have suggested to our worthy patron, Captain Cuttle, the posy on our title-page) has, in my opinion, been misapplied and misinterpreted; and, as I am unable to convince myself that the view I take of it, albeit in opposition to all other readers of Shakspeare, is wrong, I venture to remove my light from under the bushel, although in so doing am sorely in dread of its being rudely puffed upon.

The more so, because the natural hesitation which must be felt, in any case, when challenging for the first time the correctness of a generally received reading, is, in this instance, greatly augmented, by finding that an illustrious commenter upon Shakspeare—himself a great and congenial poet—has conferred a special approbation upon the old reading, by choosing it out as an item in his appreciation of Hamlet's character.

I allude to Coleridge, whose remark is this:

"Shakspeare alone could have produced the vow of Hamlet, to make his memory a blank of all maxims and generalised truths that 'observation had copied there,' followed immediately by the speaker noting down the generalised fact—

"'That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.'

"Now, that this last line is really what Shakspeare intended to be noted down, is precisely the point that goes so much "against the stomach of my sense!"

This jotting down by Hamlet, upon a real substantial table, of one of those "generalised truths" which he had just excluded from the table of his memory, would be such a literalising of the metaphor, that it is a great relief to me to feel convinced that Shakspeare never intended it.

In Hamlet's discourse there may be observed an under current of thought that is continually breaking forth in apostrophe. In the present instance it is directed to his uncle:

Is not all this one continued apostrophe? The second line an admirative comment upon the first, and the fourth line, even in the present day, a common exclamation expressive of misdeeds, or intentions, unexpectedly brought to light? But it is not this most trite reflection, in the second line, that Hamlet wishes to set down. No, it is the all-absorbing commandment:

Set it down, in order that the exact words of the commandment—subsequently quoted to the very letter—may be preserved.

To suppose that Hamlet gets forth his tables for the purpose of setting down a common-place truism, because he has reserved no place for such matters in the table of his memory, is surely to materialise a fine poetical image by contrasting it with a substantial matter of fact operation.

And to suppose, with Coleridge, that the very absurdness of the act is a subtle indication of incipient madness, is an over refinement in criticism, as intenable as it is unnecessary.

Hamlet evinces no semblance of unsettled mind, real or assumed, until joined by Horatio and Marcellus; and, even then, his apparently misplaced jocularity does not commence until he has finally determined to withhold the secret he had twice been on the point of disclosing:

Again:

I do not know whether I am singular in the view I take of these two sentences, but I understand them as inchoate disclosures, suddenly broken off through the irresolution of the speaker.

For instance, I do not understand the last, as Horatio understood it—"There needs no ghost from the grave to tell us this;" but I understand it as an intended revelation, begun, withdrawn, and cleverly turned off by the substitution of a ridiculous termination. It is then, when Hamlet finally resolves to withhold the secret, at least from Marcellus (when or where Horatio afterwards acquires it, is not explained), that he seeks to conceal his overwrought feelings by assumed levity.

Such is the way I read this scene; and, while I freely admit the difficulty presented in the fact, that, amongst so many acute students of Shakspeare, no one before should have seen any difficulty in the usual interpretation of this passage, I must at the same time declare, that I can perceive no single point in favour of that interpretation, save and except the placing of the "stage direction" where it now is. But this may have arisen from the early printers being misled by the apparent sequence of the word "that," with which the next line commences:

It may be observed, however, that such a commencement, to a sentence expressive of wonder or incredulity, was by no needs uncommon. As, for example, in the first scene of Cymbeline:

I really can perceive little else than this "stage direction" to favour the usual reading, while, in that proposed by me, the sequence of action appears to be the most natural in the world:—

First, "My tables, my tables," &c.

Next, the continuation of the interrupted apostrophe, which occupies the time while getting forth and preparing the tables.

Next, the abrupt exclamation, "Now to my word."

And finally, the dictating, to the pen, the express words of the last line of the ghost's speech.

In point of fact, the best possible stage direction is given by Shakspeare himself, when he makes Hamlet exclaim, "Now to my word," or, now to my memorandum, reverting to the purpose for which he had got his tables forth. In the old reading, Steevens was driven to explain "now to my word" in this way, "Hamlet alludes to the watchword given every day in military service."

It is of the more importance that this point, raised by me, should be fairly and impartially examined, because, being in correction of alleged misinterpretation, its decision must have some influence upon a right discrimination of the character of Hamlet's madness, as opposed to the deduction drawn by Coleridge. In taking it into consideration, the following alterations in the existing punctuation must be premised:—

After "set it down," a full stop; after "and be a villain," a note of admiration; the stage direction "(writing)" to be removed two lines lower down.

A. E. B.

Leeds.

FOLK LORE.

Burning Fern brings Rain.

—In a volume containing miscellaneous collections by Dr. Richard Pococke, in the British Museum, MS. Add. 15,801, at fol. 33. is the copy of a letter written by Philip Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain, to the Sheriff of Staffordshire, which illustrates a curious popular belief of the period, from which even the king was not free. It is as follows:

"Sr.—His Majesty taking notice of an opinion entertained in Staffordshire, that the burning of Ferne doth draw downe rain, and being desirous that the country and himself may enjoy fair weather as long as he remains in those parts, His Majesty hath commanded me to write unto you, to cause all burning of Ferne to bee forborne, untill his Majesty be passed the country. Wherein not doubting but the consideration of their own interest, as well as of his Maties, will invite the country to a ready observance of this his Maties command, I rest,

Do any other writers of the time notice this "opinion," and do any traces of it exist at present?

μ.

TRANSLATIONS.

It becomes needful that the translations which are to be copyright should be accurately made when the new international law comes into effect. In the Consulship and Empire of M. Thiers, vol. iii. p. 220., purporting to be translated by D. Forbes Campbell, "under the sanction and approval of the author," the following happy piece of translation occurs:—

"They urged also, that the Maltese people would offer great resistance to the destruction of those fine fortresses, and proposed the reconstitution of the Order on a new and more solid basis. They had no objection to allow the French language still to be used there, stipulating only that a college should be instituted for teaching the English and Maltese languages. The latter for the advantages of the Maltese people, who should have a share in its management; they were desirous of placing this new settlement under the guarantee of some great power, Russia for example. The English were in hopes that with the English and Maltese languages spoken by the people who would still be devoted to them, they should still have an influence in the island, which would prevent the French from again obtaining possession of it."

The translator has invented a college and system of instruction, because he did not know how to translate "langue!"[1] Thus this important passage is wholly perverted.

"Ils alléguaient la resistance de la population maltaise à toute destruction de ses belles forteresses, et proposaient la reconstitution de l'Ordre sur des bases nouvelles et plus solides. Ils voulaient y laisser une langue française, moyennant qu'on y institût une langue anglaise et une langue maltaise, celle-ci accordée à la population de l'îsle, pour lui donner part à son gouvernement; ils voulaient que ce nouvel établissement fût placé sur la garantie d'une grande puissance, la Russie par exemple. Les Anglais espéraient qu'avec les langues anglaise et maltaise qui leur seraient dévotée, ils auraient un pied dans l'isle, et empêcheraient les Français d'y rentrer."

C. REDDING.

BALLAD OF LORD DELAMERE. (Vol. ii., p. 104.)

A correspondent gives the first two lines of a ballad called Lord Delamere, and inquires to what political event it refers. DR. RIMBAULT (Vol. ii., p. 158.) suggests that this song may be another version of one published in Mr. Thomas Lyte's Ancient Ballads and Songs, which begins differently, and which Mr. Lyte fancies may refer to some corn-law debate in parliament about the years 1621 and 1622. I have a song which I took down from recitation in Derbyshire, entitled The Long-armed Duke, but which is no doubt identical with Mr. Lyte's, the first verse being nearly the same. That it refers to some transaction much later than 1622 is evident from the mention of Lord Delamere, that title having been first conferred by Charles II. upon Sir George Warrington. Henry, second Earl of Delamere, and William, Earl of Devonshire, are the heroes of the ballad, which I believe to be founded upon some obscure report of the quarrel which took place between the latter and Colonel Colepepper, of which an account will be found in the Works of Lord Delamere, London, 1694, p. 563. (reprinted in Howell's State Trials, vol. ii. p. 510.), and also in Collins's Peerage, vol. i. p. 343.; and see also Colley Cibber's Apology, chap. iii.

The Earl of Devonshire struck Colonel Colepepper in the anteroom at Whitehall, having previously received an affront from the Colonel in the king's palace. He was summoned to appear at the King's Bench, and gave bail to the amount of 30,000l.; Lord Delamere being one of his sureties. A fine to that amount was inflicted on him, but he appealed from the judgment to the House of Lords, where one of his warmest advocates was Lord Delamere. Vague reports of these proceedings would find their way into the North, where the matter would be handled by the balladmongers in a style congenial to the manners and ideas of their rustic auditory. Lord Delamere is described by a cotemporary versifier as

These lines are given, without a reference, in a note to Burton's Diary. Query, Where do they come from?

My version of the ballad was printed about nine years ago in a periodical called The Storyteller, which came to an abrupt conclusion in the second volume, and is probably now in the hands of few. Mr. Lyte's volume also appears to be a rarity. I therefore append a copy, which you can add to this note if you do not think it too long. Perhaps your correspondent would send the remainder of his fragment, which it might be interesting to compare.

C. W. G.

Minor Notes.

A Note on Henry III.

—In Vol. v., p. 28., is the Query, "Are our Lists of English Sovereigns completed?" Some further illustration of the case of the king usually styled Henry III., to which particular attention was directed, may be derived from the subjoined extract taken from a MS. (No. 146.) in the University Library at Cambridge. The MS. is a parchment roll containing a "genealogical tree" of the kings of England, with brief notices written in the fifteenth century. On one side of the medallion on which is inscribed "Henricus tercius," is a brief eulogy of the king; on the other side is the following:

"Iste Henricus dictus est tercius quia sic intitulatur in Cronicis hystoriis scriptis et cartis non ratione numerali sed regie denominationes (sic) vel dignitatis verbi gracia si numeretur. Henricus filius conquestoris. Deinde Henricus secundus filius Plantagenet postea filius eiusdem Henrici erit iste profecto quartus. Prætermittitur autem in stipite regnantium Henricus filius eius quia non regnavit, ratione igitur regnantium dicitur iste Henricus tercius. Obiit die sancti Edmundi Regis anno regni sui LVIIo et sepultus est apud Westmonasterium."

W. R. C.

Old Books and New Titles (Vol. v., p. 125.).

—Your correspondent J. H. is quite correct in his remarks on the above subject. A friend of mine lately saw advertised in a catalogue the following title of a work, Fulfilment of Scripture Prophecies on Nations and Kingdoms, by John Hoyland. He sent for the book and found it was exactly the same as what he already had, viz., Epitome of the History of the World, by John Hoyland, but with another title. Such practices are neither fair nor honorable.

JOHN ALGOR.

Sheffield.

Bowdler's Family Shakspeare.

—It has occurred to me that a cheap edition of Bowdler's Family Shakspeare would be in much request, and might conveniently be published in numbers consisting of single plays at 3d. each. This would bring the whole to about 9s., bound in three handy volumes. A new edition might contain the more recent typographical corrections and the names printed at length, a very desirable amendment. Will Messrs. Longman, the publishers of Bowdler's Shakspeare, look favourably on this suggestion when they see it in "N. & Q."? It would be an invaluable addition to their Traveller's Library.

A LADY.

Torquay.

[We have reason to believe that Messrs. Longman have it in contemplation to produce such a cheap edition as our correspondent suggests, but not, perhaps, as a portion of their Traveller's Library.]

The French Language.

—It has continually appeared to me as a great absurdity, that the terms masculine and feminine should be applied to inanimate things in the French language, when common sense is opposed to such a distinction. I think the reason for using feminine and masculine articles in conjunction with nouns said to be of those genders, is to be found in the rule which obtains in the Irish or Celtic language, namely, that of "caol re caol," i.e. fine with fine, and "leatair re leatair," i.e. broad with broad vowels or sounds. I throw out this hint to those who are better qualified to investigate the matter; as I feel sure it would be a great benefit to learners of the French language to have a clear rule to guide them, instead of the present system, which is very complicated.

FRAS. CROSSLEY.

Curious Epitaph.

—The following portion of an epitaph from the tomb of Thomas Carter, 1706, in the church of St. Gregory, Sudbury, will doubtless interest some of your readers; it is as well to premise that he was a very charitable man, as the whole inscription (which would occupy about forty lines) fully records:

"Viator mirum referam

Quo die efflavit animam Thos. Carter, prædictus,

Acûs foramen transivit Camelus Sudburiensis.

Vade, et si dives sis, tu fac similiter.

Vale."

Permit me to translate it for the benefit of your lady readers:

The allusion is of course to St. Matthew xix. 24.

W. SPARROW SIMPSON, B.A.