Part 36

Page 96. To the list of imitations, &c. of the story of _Measure for measure_, add the novel of _Waldburgh and Belanca_, in Reynolds's _God's revenge against adultery_. This is the substance of it: In the reign of Gustavus Adolphus king of Sweden, Moruffi, a Danish general, in attacking the castle of Colmar, was taken prisoner by the governor count Waldbourg. Belanca, the wife of Moruffi, obtained a promise from the count to liberate her husband on the terms of her submitting to his unlawful desires. The unfortunate woman was afterwards inhumanly presented with the head of her husband. When Gustavus heard of the fact, he compelled the count to marry the injured lady, and then condemned him to death. Reynolds pretended that all his stories in this and his other once celebrated work, _God's revenge against murder_, were originals, and that he had collected the materials for them in the course of his travels.

Page 119. The recipe here given for making men seem like horses or asses, from Scot's _Discoverie of witchcraft_, where Shakspeare might have seen it, is the real property of Baptista Porta, in the serious refutation of whom the Jesuit Kircher has wasted too much time. See his treatise _De luce et umbra_.

In the _Prodromo apologetico alii studi Chircheriani_ of Petrucci, there are similar receipts, and especially one in which an oil is directed to be made from the semen of a horse, which being used in a lamp, the company present will appear to have horses' heads. It is accompanied with a curious engraving of a Houyhnhnm party engaged in conversation, among whom there is the figure of an _equus togatus_, that will not fail to make a due impression on such readers as are acquainted with the trick put by Mr. Spence, the author of _Polymetis_; on Dr. Cooke, the provost of King's College Cambridge, a sour pedant who had offended him. See the tail-piece to the 17th dialogue in the _first_ edition of the above work.

Page 123. The blessing of the bridal bed had doubtless, during the dark ages that preceded the promulgation of the gospel in many parts of Europe, been deemed the immediate office of fairies and other supernatural beings. The object of it was to make the issue of the marriage happy, and to avert deformity. In this, as in numerous other instances, the priests felt themselves obliged, in their attempt to do away a Pagan superstition, which, as we see, continued notwithstanding to maintain its influence, to substitute some congenial ceremony that should console the deluded people; but their particular enmity to fairies on the present occasion seems manifest in the passage cited from the Salisbury manual, in the words "ab omnibus fantasmaticis demonum illusionibus;" unless they should be thought rather to allude to the subject which is particularly noticed in the subsequent remarks on the night-spells.

The above ceremony is thus mentioned by Chaucer in his description of the marriage of January and May:

"The bride is brought a-bed as stil as ston; And whan the bed was with the preest yblessed, Out of the chambre hath every wight him dressed."

_Marchantes tale_, v. 9692.

On the evidence relating to the consummation of the marriage between prince Arthur and the Lady Catharine, Robert Viscount Fitzwater deposed that "the prince was then about fifteen, and queen Katherine elder, and that the next day after being in bed together (_which he remembred after they entered to have been solemnly bless'd_), he waited at breakfast on prince Arthur, &c."--Lord Herbert's _Life of Henry the Eighth_, p. 243. It is said that some vestiges of this custom still remain among the Presbyterians in Scotland.

Page 169. There is a story of _two_ caskets, &c., in Morlini _novellæ_, nov. 5.

Quære if the general construction of all these stories have not been borrowed from the trick related to have been put by Prometheus on Jupiter with the two bull-skins filled with flesh and bones?

Page 178 (note). Dr. Taylor, in his treatise _De inope debitore in partes dissecando_, has offered some strong arguments against the supposed mutilation of the debtor's body, and endeavoured to show that the law in question demanded nothing more than that the produce of his servitude should be divided among the creditors. Yet Aulus Gellius was of a different opinion. At a very early period, among the Jews, the creditor had a right to make a slave of the debtor. See 2 Kings, chap. iv. ver. 1.

Page 185. To the explanation of _sans_, add that in the early editions of the dictionaries of Coles and Littelton the word is printed _sance_.

Page 214. Morgan the herald must be acquitted of having conveyed to us the _original_ information that "Jesus Christ was a gentleman and bore arms." He was indebted for it to Dame Julian Berners, who, in her treatise on coat armour, speaks of "the gentyl Jesus," and states that "Cryst [was] a gentylman of his mother's behalf and bare cote armure." She also tells us that "Cain became a churl from the curse of God, and Seth a _gentleman_ through his father and mother's blessing." So that we find J. C. was not the _first_ gentleman.

Page 317. In further confirmation of the opinion here expressed, the curious reader is referred to Wlson de Colombiere's _Vray theatre d'honneur_, vol. ii. p. 313, for the account of a duel on appeal for murder which was fought at Valenciennes in the year 1454, where the dead body of the vanquished party was adjudged to be hanged on a gallows as a convicted murderer.

The frequent use which has been made in the course of these remarks of a work cited under the title of Bartholomæus _de proprietatibus rerum_, may require that a more particular description of it should be given. It is a general history of nature, composed in Latin by Bartholomew Glanvile, an English Minorite or Franciscan, of the family of the earls of Suffolk. He flourished about the year 1360, and appears to have been the Pliny of his time. It was several times printed abroad in the infancy of the typographic art, and translated into the English, French, Dutch, and Spanish languages. The English version was made by John Trevisa, a Cornish man, and vicar of Barkley in Gloucestershire, at the request of his patron Thomas Lord Barkley, in the year 1398, and originally printed by Wynkyn de Worde; for there is no evidence that it came from Caxton's press in English, though it has been so asserted. Neither is the date of Wynkyn de Worde's edition, if it ever had any, been ascertained. The next edition was printed in 1535, by Thomas Berthelette, in folio. The last was published under the title of _Batman uppon Bartholome_, his _Booke de proprietatibus rerum_, &c. Printed by Thomas East, 1582, in folio. Stephen Batman appears to have been a worthy and pious character, and was chaplain to Lord Hunsdon. His additions were compiled from Gesner and other writers of his own time. In a manuscript diary of expenses in the reign of Elizabeth, the price of this book is stated to have been eight shillings.

ON

THE ANACHRONISMS

AND

SOME OTHER INCONGRUITIES

OF

SHAKSPEARE.

The transgressions against the rules of chronology committed by those who, in recording the events of preceding ages, introduce matters which have originated in subsequent periods, seem almost exclusively to belong to authors whose works, in point of date, are to be separated from those admirable compositions which are usually styled the Classics. In the latter, such instances seldom, if ever, occur; whilst in the writers, as well as the artists, of the middle ages, they are innumerable. Nor do these absurdities diminish as we approach periods more enlightened as to general science. From the time of Chaucer to that of Shakspeare, there is scarcely an author to be found who is not implicated in this accusation; and about the age of Elizabeth, the dramatists in particular seem to have been remarkably inattentive to the unities of time and place. It has been observed that Ben Jonson is almost the only writer against whom the charge of uniting dissimilar manners and discordant periods is not to be laid; and though the poets of the ensuing century are not wholly free from the imputation in question, it is certain that from about the reign of king James the First more care was taken to preserve a due attention to the manners and customs of particular ages, or at least to avoid any very palpable anachronisms, than had already been done. But whilst the compositions of dramatic writers remained pretty free from these blemishes, the directors of the theatres continued to practise their, perhaps innocent, impostures on the public; and every absurdity that could be devised, or distortion of reality in costume, still continued to disgrace the stage. We were not indeed more absurd in this respect than other European nations, nor was it until a short time before the late revolution that the French theatre had reformed itself in this respect. Many persons now recollect the state of the English stage in Garrick's time, when that excellent performer used to exhibit his Hamlet in a common French suit of black velvet and a cocked hat, and his Macbeth in a scarlet coat with broad gold lace like the uniform of a modern general. Quin is said to have played Othello in a flowing powdered periwig. How Shakspeare's characters were habited on the stage in his time, would be difficult or even impossible to ascertain with accuracy at present, except in a few instances; but we have no reason to suppose that much propriety was manifested on the occasion. Unluckily for us it was not then the practice to decorate the printed plays with frontispieces; and the theatrical prints and pictures even of succeeding times are not very commonly to be met with. It is on this account that the cuts to Mr. Rowe's edition of Shakspeare, and those to the first octavo edition of the works of Beaumont and Fletcher, are at present extremely valuable, as they serve to record many pleasant absurdities that will not fail to excite a smile in the beholder.

It was reserved for the great actor who to the scenic talents of a Garrick unites that managerial skill and judgment in the costume of nations which the other wanted, to reform these follies; and, by exhibiting to us times as they were, to render the stage what it should be, a true and perfect mirror of history and manners.

The above very slight notice of the subject before us may perhaps be sufficient for the purpose of introducing the mention of those anachronisms that are ascribable to Shakspeare: and this has not been done with any view to exhibit him as more culpable in this respect than most of his contemporaries, but solely for the purpose of collecting them together as an object of amusement: nothing however could have been less judicious than the conduct of Mr. Pope when he placed them to the account of the publishers. Nor is the catalogue offered as a complete one; the diligent and critical reader will discover some that are here unnoticed.

But the negligence of writers in the due observance of costume is but trifling, when compared with what is to be laid to the charge of painters and other artists. Volumes have been professedly filled, and the number might still be augmented, with the errors of even the best of the old painters. Nor are the modern by any means to be acquitted on this score. We too frequently see works of the greatest intrinsic worth, both in composition and execution, depreciated by the most absurd violations of historical accuracy and a want of adherence to the manners of the times they refer to. In this case they are not what they profess to be; and whilst they delight the eye, they delude the understanding. It is extremely pleasing to observe the zeal which manifests itself among the leading artists of the present day to obtain correct notions of the manners of former times whenever they have occasion to depict them. The works of many of our best painters will not only excite the admiration but the gratitude of posterity for the faithful delineation of their subjects, and the labours of future antiquaries will be reduced in proportion as pictures of this kind shall increase.[44]

To return to Shakspeare. In the _dramatis personæ_ of many of his plays we find a medley of ancient and modern names that is often extremely ridiculous. At Ephesus we meet with _Pinch_, a schoolmaster; at Mitylene with _Boult_, a clown; and at Athens with _Snug_, _Bottom_, _Snout_, _Quince_, &c. In his later stories English names are given to foreigners. Thus at Vienna we have _Froth_ and _Elbow_; in Navarre, _Dull_, _Costard_, and _Moth_; and in Illyria, _Sir Toby Belch_ and _Sir Andrew Aguecheek_. But these, strictly speaking, are not anachronisms, but, on the whole, justifiable licences; for it would have been impossible to transmit the humour of such characters as the above to an English audience under the disguise of foreign names, though it must be admitted that mere English characters as well as names are sometimes introduced. Nor is Shakspeare always responsible for such whimsicalities, for they are occasionally to be traced in the materials whereof his plays were constructed; and others belong to those authors whom he had only assisted in dramas the whole composition of which had been improperly ascribed to him.

MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR.

The incidents in this play are supposed to belong to the reign of Henry the Fourth, and consequently the introduction of the _shillings of Edward the Sixth_, and the mention of _Machiavel_, are improper; as well as the then newly-introduced terms of the fencing-school ridiculed by Shallow. Perhaps _Ancient_ Pistol and _Corporal_ Nym are objectionable titles. The allusions to _Guiana_ and the _West Indies_ by Falstaff are obvious anachronisms.

TWELFTH NIGHT.

The introduction of the _bed of Ware_ may be justified, because it is referred to as in England; but the same defence cannot be made for _the bells of Saint Bennet_, as they are specifically alluded to.

MEASURE FOR MEASURE.

We have here an English jury in a German court of justice.

MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM.

The scene of this play lies at Athens, in the time of Theseus, but we find the mention of _guns_; of _French-crowns_ and _French-crown-coloured beards_; of _church-yards_ and _coats in heraldry_; of clean _linen_, new _ribbons to pumps_, and _masks_; of _Jack and Gill_, the _nine-mens morris_, and _blessing the bridal bed_. _Carols_, inasmuch as they are applicable to songs in general, and, in an antiquated sense, to dances, may be doubtful, though the allusion was in all probability to Christmas carols. Hermia is made to speak of the fire which burned the _Carthage queen_.

MERCHANT OF VENICE.

English juries are introduced into the Venetian republic.

WINTER'S TALE.

The transactions of this play arise in Sicily and Bohemia; and though the characters are imaginary, they are supposed to exist in Pagan times. Notwithstanding this we have _Whitson_ pastorals, _Christian_ burial, a _hobby-horse_, an emperor of _Russia_, and an Italian printer of the _fifteenth century_.

COMEDY OF ERRORS.

In the _ancient_ city of Ephesus we have _ducats_, _marks_, and _guilders_, and the _abbess of a nunnery_. Mention is also made of several _modern_ European kingdoms, and of _America_; of _Henry the Fourth of France_, of _Turkish_ tapestry, a _rapier_, and a _striking clock_; of _Lapland_ sorcerers, _Satan_, and even of _Adam_ and _Noah_. In one place Antipholis calls himself a _Christian_. As we are unacquainted with the immediate source whence this play was derived, it is impossible to ascertain whether Shakspeare is responsible for these anachronisms.

MACBETH.

The errors here are confined to the introduction of _cannon_ and of _dollars_.

KING JOHN.

In this play we also find _cannon_, with _angels_, _half-fac'd groats_, and _three-farthing pieces_. _Cards_ too are introduced, and _Basilisco_, a character of the time of Shakspeare.

KING HENRY THE FOURTH.

The anachronisms are very numerous in the plays on this reign. We have _pistols_ and _silk_ stockings; _gilt two-pences_, and _ten-shilling-pieces_; a ballad with a _picture_ on it, evidently alluding to the wood-cuts on those compositions; the game of _shove-groat_ or _slide shrift_, which was not invented before the reign of Henry the Eighth. Mention is also made of _John_ Scogan jester to Edward the Fourth, and of _Arthur's show_, though not introduced till a long time afterwards.

KING HENRY THE FIFTH.

The Turks are put into possession of Constantinople, which did not fall into their hands till upwards of thirty years after Henry's death.

KING HENRY THE SIXTH.

Machiavel, who was not born till 1469, is twice introduced in these plays. Printing is also prematurely mentioned.

KING HENRY THE EIGHTH.

An old woman is made to talk of bow'd _three-pences_; but these pieces were not known in England till the reign of Edward the Sixth, though some are said to have been coined in Ireland during that of Edward the Fourth.

TROILUS AND CRESSIDA.

Hector quotes _Aristotle_; Ulysses speaks of the bull-bearing _Milo_, and Pandarus of a man born in _April_. _Friday_ and _Sunday_, and even _minced-pies_ with dates in them are introduced.

TIMON OF ATHENS.

_Paper_ is mentioned in this play. In a Roman drama it might have passed; but we have no evidence that the Greeks used the papyrus plant at this early period.

CORIOLANUS.

_Alexander_, _Cato_, and _Galen_, are improperly alluded to, all being posterior to the time of Coriolanus. Other anachronisms are--the mention of graves in a holy _church-yard_; _groats_, _mummers_, _lockram_, and a kitchen _malkin_. Coriolanus describes the populace by the names of _Hob and Dick_.

JULIUS CÆSAR.

Cassius speaks of a _masker_ and _reveller_, and of the _clock striking three_.

ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA.

Antony talks of _packing cards_, and deals out his _knaves_, _queens_, _hearts_, and _trumps_, as if he were a whist-player. His bestowing the epithet of _gipsy_ on Cleopatra is whimsical, but may perhaps admit of defence.

CYMBELINE.

The British tribute being estimated at three thousand pounds, strikes on the ear as a modern computation. Imogen calls her supposed master, a valiant ancient Briton, by the name of _Richard Du Champ_. We find mention of the recreation of _bowling_; of _paper_; of _rushes_ strewed in apartments; of a _striking clock_; of _cherubims_, and a _chapel_ as a _burial place_. Cymbeline is made to knight Bellario and his sons on the field of battle by _dubbing_ them according to the fashion of the middle ages.

TITUS ANDRONICUS.

The period in which the incidents in this play are supposed to have happened (for they are all fictitious) is difficult to ascertain. There was an usurper called Saturninus during the reigns of Gallien and Aurelian, but he was not the son of any Roman emperor, as stated in the _dramatis personæ_. From the introduction of the Goths, the author perhaps adverted to the time of the above sovereigns. In all events the play has many absurdities to answer for. A child is sent to Aaron the Moor to be _christened_ by him. He accuses Lucius of twenty _Popish_ tricks; talks of an _idiot's bauble_; and says he can blush "like a black dog, as the saying is." A clown invokes "God and _Saint Stephen_." Aaron calls for _clubs_, as if addressing the _London 'prentices_; and Demetrius speaks of a _dancing rapier_. _Cards_ and a _monastery_ are also introduced.

PERICLES.

The story, though altogether fabulous, belongs to a period a little antecedent to the Christian æra; and therefore it is a manifest inconsistency to introduce _crowns of the sun_; _sequins_; a _pistol_; _cambrick_; a _Spanish ruff_; _signs_ of inns; _Monsieur Veroles a French knight_; a _Spanish_ name and motto, and the _lues Venerea_. Amidst numerous invocations to Heathen Gods, there is an immediate allusion to the unity of the Deity.

KING LEAR.

We have here a plentiful crop of blunders. Kent talks, like a good Protestant, of _eating no fish_; and Gloster, of not standing in need of _spectacles_. We have _Turks_, _Bedlam_ beggars, _child Roland_, _Saint Withold_, a _Marshal of France_, _steeples_, _dollars_, _paper_, _holy water_, and the _French disease_. There is an allusion to the old theatrical _moralities_; and _Nero_, who did not live till several hundred years after Lear, is mentioned by Edgar as an angler in the lake of darkness.

HAMLET.

The Danish history has placed Hamlet in fabulous times, long before the introduction of Christianity into the North of Europe; and therefore there is great impropriety in the frequent allusion to Christian customs. Hamlet swears by _Saint Patrick_; and converses with Guildenstern on the _children of the chapel of Saint Paul's_. In several places _cannon_ are introduced, and a good deal of the theatrical manners of Shakspeare's own time. We have a Danish _seal royal_ long before seals were used; a _university_ at Wittemberg; _Swiss_ guards; _serjeants_ or _bailiffs_; _bells_; _ducats_; _crown-pieces_; _modern heraldry_; _rapiers_, and terms of _modern fencing_.

FOOTNOTES:

[44] Mr. Stothard, the most unassuming of men, but with every claim to superior talent, has recently finished a painting of the procession of Chaucer's Canterbury pilgrims, which may be classed among the choicest morsels of its kind. The attention to accuracy of costume which it displays has never been exceeded, and but very seldom so well directed.

DISSERTATION I.

ON THE CLOWNS AND FOOLS OF SHAKSPEARE.

The ensuing dissertation originated from the opinion of a late eminent critic and antiquary that the subject was deserving of particular consideration. How imperfectly it must be executed will best be felt by those who are already accustomed to obscure inquiries; and little more can here be offered, or reasonably expected, than some attempt to arrange a few materials that have occurred during a course of reading immediately connected with the history of ancient manners. The critic above alluded to had remarked, that Shakspeare has most judiciously varied and discriminated his fools.[45] Without doubting that great writer's capacity to have done so, it certainly remains to be proved that he has; or it might even be maintained that on some occasions he has left his sketches so imperfect as to render it by no means an easy matter to comprehend them. It has already been thought better to make the attempt in a separate note to the plays in which a clown or fool is introduced, and to direct what is now offered to a more general view of the subject.