Part 13
This beautiful sentiment accords very much with the following speech made by Sir James Melvil to the queen of Scots, and printed in his _Memoirs_, p. 149, edit. 1752, 8vo. These, however, were not published till a considerable time after his death. "For as princes are called divine persons, so no _prince_ can pretend to this title, but he who _draws near the nature of God_ by godliness and good government, being slow to vengeance, and _ready to forgive_."
SCENE 1. Page 518.
GRA. Had I been judge thou should'st have had _ten_ more To bring thee to the gallows.
We had already had an English trial by jury at Vienna. See p. 78. Here we have one at Venice.
ACT V.
SCENE 1. Page 523.
LOR. Stood Dido with a willow in her hand.
On this passage Mr. Steevens founds an argument that Shakspeare _was no reader of the classics_. It is true that no classical authority for the above circumstance relating to Dido can be found, and that other instances of our poet's errors in classical matters might be adduced; but this will not prove his ignorance of Greek and Roman writers. On the contrary, do not the numerous quotations from them in the notes of his commentators afford sufficient testimony that he had read many ancient authors through the medium of English translations? If this had not been the case, to what end has the useful and interesting list of such translations been drawn up and published by the above learned critic? Wherever Shakspeare met with the image in question, it has reference to the popular superstitions relating to the willow, which will be more fully illustrated in some remarks on a passage in Othello.
SCENE 1. Page 529.
LOR. You shall perceive them make a mutual _stand_, Their savage eyes turn'd to a modest _gaze_.
This is spoken of young _colts_, but the speech is only a poetical amplification of a phrase that seems more properly to belong to _deer_. In the _Noble arte of venerie or hunting_, ascribed to Turbervile, the author or translator, speaking of the hart, says, "when he stayeth to looke at any thing, then he _standeth at gaze_;" and again, "he loveth to hear instruments and assureth himselfe when he heareth a flute or any other sweete noyse. He marvelleth at all things, and taketh pleasure to _gaze_ at them." See likewise Holland's translation of _Pliny_, tom. i. p. 213.
SCENE 1. Page 530.
LOR. The man that hath no musick in himself, Nor is not mov'd with concord of sweet sounds, Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils; The motions of his spirit, &c.
Had the sentiments in the note on this passage been expressed by Dr. Johnson, disorganized as he was for the enjoyment of music, it would not have been matter to wonder at: but that such a man as Mr. Steevens, whose ordinary speech was melody, and whose correct and elegant ear for poetical concord is so frequently manifested in the course of his Shakspearean labours, should have shown himself a very Timon in music, can only be accounted for by supposing that he regarded the speech in question as a libel on his great colleague's organization. He has here assumed a task, which Dr. Johnson would for obvious reasons have declined; and with the feeble aid of an illiberal passage from Lord Chesterfield's _Letters_, has most disingenuously endeavoured to cast an odium on a science which from its intimate and natural connexion with poetry and painting, deserves the highest attention and respect. He that is happily qualified to appreciate the _better parts_ of music, will never seek them in the society so emphatically reprobated by the noble lord, nor altogether in the way he recommends. He will not lend an ear to the vulgarity and tumultuous roar of the tavern catch, or the delusive sounds of martial clangour; but he will enjoy this heavenly gift, this exquisite and soul-delighting sensation, in the temples of his God, or in the peaceful circles of domestic happiness: he will pursue the blessings and advantages of it with ardour, and turn aside from its abuses.
The quotation which Mr. Steevens has given from Peacham, is in reality an _encomium_ on music as practised in the time of Shakspeare. It indicates that gentlemen then associated with their equals only in the pursuit of this innocent recreation; and the same writer would have furnished many other observations that tend to place the science of music in an amiable, or at least in a harmless point of view. Mr. Steevens might have also recollected that Cicero has called it "Stabilem thesaurum, qui _mores_ instituit, componitque, ac mollit irarum ardores." It will be readily conceded that Shakspeare has overcharged the speech before us, and that it by no means follows that a man who is unmusical must be a traitor, a Machiavel, a robber; or that he is deserving of no confidence. This, however, is all that should have occupied the commentator's notice; and herein his castigation would have been really meritorious. The Italians too have a proverb that is equally reprehensible: "Whom God loves not, that man loves not music." Let such extravagancies be consigned to the censure they deserve!
SCENE 1. Page 542.
GRA. ... The first _intergatory_ That my Nerissa shall besworn on----
This word being nothing more than a contraction of _interrogatory_, should be elliptically printed, _inter'gatory_.
THE CLOWN.
There is not a single circumstance through the whole of this play which constitutes Lancelot an _allowed fool or jester_; and yet there is some reason for supposing that Shakspeare intended him as such, from his being called _a patch_, a _fool_ of Hagar's offspring, and in one place _the_ fool. It is not reasonable, however, to conclude that a person like Shylock would entertain a domestic of this description; and it is possible that the foregoing terms may be merely designed as synonymous with the appellation of _clown_, as in _Love's labour's lost_. On the whole, we have here a proof that Shakspeare has not observed that nice discrimination of character in his clowns for which some have given him credit.
ON THE SOURCES FROM WHICH THE STORY OF THIS PLAY HAS BEEN DERIVED.
The present subject, notwithstanding it has been already discussed with considerable labour and ingenuity, may still be said to rest in much obscurity. This has partly arisen from some confusion in the mode of stating the information conveyed in the several notes wherein it has been discussed. To render this position the more intelligible, it will be necessary to say a few words on each commentator's opinion: and first on that of Dr. Farmer. He states that the _story_ was taken from an old translation of the _Gesta Romanorum, first printed_ by Wynkyn de Worde; and that Shakspeare has closely copied some of the language. The Doctor's use of the word _story_ is not consistent with his usual accuracy, because, in what follows, he speaks only of the incident of the caskets, which forms in reality but _a part of the story_. It is much to be wished, for reasons which will hereafter appear, that Dr. Farmer had been more particular in his account of the edition of the _Gesta Romanorum_ which he says was printed by Wynkyn de Worde, none such having, after much inquiry, been discovered; and it is to be feared that he had trusted to a previous statement of his friend the accomplished and elegant historian of English poetry, whose accuracy is unhappily known to have been by no means commensurate with his taste. The Doctor's assertion, that Shakspeare "closely copied some of the language," cannot be maintained until it be first ascertained if any use had been made of the _Gesta Romanorum_ by the author of the old play of the _Jew_, mentioned by Gosson, and also in what particulars Shakspeare followed him. It is proper to take notice in this place of the mistake that has been committed by those who speak of Shakspeare's _imitations_ of the sources of this play, and who forget that one on the same subject had already appeared, and which might have furnished him with the _whole_ of the plot. It is however probable that he improved it by means of other novels, as will be seen hereafter.
The next critic to be noticed is the truly learned and judicious Mr. Tyrwhitt. He informs us that the _two principal incidents_ of this play occur in the _Gesta Romanorum_, and produces some extracts from a _Latin manuscript_ of that work in the British museum. Admitting that the incident of the _caskets_ might have been taken from the _English Gesta Romanorum_, as mentioned by Dr. Farmer, he cautiously gives it as his opinion that both the stories in the _Gesta Romanorum_ quoted by himself are the remote originals of Shakspeare's play; for he had also forgotten the elder drama mentioned by Gosson. He thinks, however, that the bond story might have come to Shakspeare from the _Pecorone_, but suspects on the whole that he followed some hitherto unknown novelist, who had saved him the trouble of working up the two stories into one. Aware also that Shakspeare's small acquaintance with the Latin language would scarcely enable him to consult the manuscript _Gesta Romanorum_, he has very properly used the expression _remote originals_; and the rather, because he had probably examined the printed English editions without finding the story of the bond, which would hardly have escaped the diligent researches of Dr. Farmer, had it really been there. The fact however is, that the bond story did exist in English long before Shakspeare's time, and it is extremely probable that the original author of the _Jew_ used some English _Gesta Romanorum_ for the _whole_ of his plot. There is more stress to be laid on this opinion so far as it regards the original dramatist, because it seems most probable that Shakspeare, on account of the closer resemblance of the story in the _Pecorone_ to _his_ incident of the bond, had, with great advantage, made use of some translation of it now irrecoverably lost. For this reason, with all due respect for Mr. Tyrwhitt's opinion, it is improbable that Shakspeare followed some unknown novelist _who had saved him the trouble of working up the two stories into one_; unless it be conceded that such person was the author of the elder play.
The last opinion to be noticed is that of Dr. Johnson; and he remarks that the modern translator of the _Pecorone_ thought the incident of the caskets was borrowed from Boccaccio. This shall be examined presently. The Doctor thinks, however, that Shakspeare had some other novel in view, a conjecture which Mr. Malone very properly supports by a reference to Dr. Farmer's note.
In offering some additional observations on the stories that are connected with the _Merchant of Venice_, it will be necessary, for the purpose of avoiding confusion, to speak separately of the two main incidents on which that play is constructed.
STORY OF THE CASKETS.
The novel of Boccaccio that has been cited on this occasion, together with some other tales that resemble it, have, it is conceived, no manner of connexion with the play. The curious reader will find one of these stories, and perhaps the most ancient of them, in the lives of Barlaam and Josaphat, as related in the Golden legend, though compiled at a period much anterior to that amusing work. Another is in Gower's _Confessio amantis_, fo. 96, edit. 1532; and a third in the same work, fo. 96, verso. The latter has been related in a more ample and ingenious manner in the _Cento novelle antiche_, nov. 65.
In chap. 109 of _the Latin printed copy_ of the _Gesta Romanorum_, a very different work from that referred to by Dr. Farmer and Mr. Tyrwhitt, there is the following story: A smith had lost a chest of money, which being carried by the sea to the shores of a distant country, was taken up by an inn-keeper, who, not suspecting that it contained any thing, threw it carelessly aside. Having occasion one day for some fuel to warm his guests, he broke up the chest, and finding the money, laid it by safely, till some one should arrive to claim it. The smith soon afterwards appeared; and having publicly declared his loss, the inn-keeper resolved to ascertain if it were the will of Providence that he should make restitution. He therefore caused three pasties to be made; the first he filled with earth, the second with dead men's bones, and the third with money. He then invited the smith to dinner, and gave him the choice of the pasties. The smith fixed on those with the earth and bones, and relinquished the other. The host now concluded that it was not the will of Heaven that he should restore the money; he therefore called in the blind and the lame, opened the other pasty in their presence, and divided the treasure between them.
But the work to which the play stands immediately indebted, is a _Gesta Romanorum_ in English, _never printed in Latin_, and of which the earliest edition that could be procured on the present occasion was printed by Thomas Est, in 1595, 12mo, and several times afterwards. The latter part only of the 32nd history has been used. This has already been given in English by Dr. Farmer, and in Latin by Mr. Tyrwhitt. It has undoubtedly furnished the author of the play with the incident of the caskets; but he has transposed the mottoes of the gold and silver ones, and substituted another for that of lead.
THE BOND STORY.
The character of Leti as an historian warrants an opinion that _his_ story is a mere fabrication, grafted on one of those that he had met with on the same subject. The tale itself is most probably of Eastern origin. Besides that given by Mr. Malone from Ensign Munro's manuscript, a similar one is related in Gladwin's _Persian Moonshee_, story 13; and another likewise from an oriental source, in the _British magazine_ for 1800, page 159.
In Tyron, _Recueil de plusieures plaisantes nouvelles_, &c., Anvers, 1590, 18mo, a Christian borrows 500 ducats of a Jew at Constantinople, on condition of paying two ounces of flesh for usury. At the expiration of the term the Christian refuses to pay more than the principal. The matter is brought before the Emperor Solyman, who orders a razor to be brought, and admonishes the Jew not to cut off more or less than the two ounces on pain of death. The Jew gives up the point. The same story occurs in _Roger Bontemps en belle humeur_; in the _Tresor des recreations_, Douay, 1625, 18mo, p. 27; in _Doctæ nugæ Gaudensij Jocosi_, 1713, 12mo, p. 23; in the _Courier facetieux_, Lyon, 1650, 8vo, p. 109; in the _Chasse ennuy_, Paris, 1645, 18mo, p. 49; in Corrozet _Divers propos memorables_, &c., 1557, 12mo, p. 77, of which work there is an English translation under the title of _Memorable conceits of divers noble and famous personages of Christendome_, &c., 1602, 24mo; in _Apophthegmes, ou La recreation de la jeunesse_, p. 155. It agrees also with the story related by Gracian in his _Hero_. See Steevens's _Shakspeare_, V. 515.
It has been imitated by Antony Munday in his _Astræpho, being the third part of Zelauto, or The fountaine of fame_, 1580, 4to. This writer had found it in Silvayn's _Orator_, which, as we have already seen, he translated. Instead of the cutting off a pound of flesh, it is agreed that one of the party's eyes shall be pulled out. Besides the ballad of _Gernutus the Jew of Venice_, printed in Dr. Percy's Reliques, there is another less ancient, under the title of _The cruel Jew's garland_, in which the story is varied, and with some ingenuity.
A part of the novel in the _Pecorone_ is most likely of Oriental origin, and might have been transmitted to Ser Giovanni from the same source that supplied Boccaccio and many of the French minstrels with their stories, viz. the crusades.
As the Bond Story in the _Gesta Romanorum_ is not known to exist at present in any printed edition, though it might in Shakspeare's time, and as the Latin original mentioned by Mr. Tyrwhitt _has never been printed_, it is therefore offered to the reader's notice, and will afford besides an interesting specimen of ancient English. It occurs in a manuscript preserved in the Harleian collection, No. 7333, written in the reign of Henry the Sixth. The language is of the same period.