| Welcome to PhiloLogic |
| home | the ARTFL project | download | documentation | sample databases | |
|
Samuel Johnson [1778], The plays of William Shakspeare. In ten volumes. With the corrections and illustrations of various commentators; to which are added notes by Samuel Johnson and George Steevens. The second edition, Revised and Augmented (Printed for C. Bathurst [and] W. Strahan [etc.], London) [word count] [S10901]. To look up a word in a dictionary, select the word with your mouse and press 'd' on your keyboard.
Shakespeare's Life, I have
only one Passage to add, which Mr. Pope related, as communicated
to him by Mr. Rowe.
Mr. Rowe has told us that he derived the principal anecdotes in his account of Shakespeare, from Betterton the player, whose zeal had induced him to visit Stratford for the sake of procuring all possible intelligence concerning a poet to whose works he might justly think himself under the strongest obligations. Notwithstanding this assertion, in the manuscript papers of the late Mr. Oldys it is said, that one Bowman (according to Chetwood, p. 144, “an actor more than half an age on the London theatres”) was unwilling to allow that his associate and contemporary Betterton had ever undertaken such a journey. Be this matter as it will, the following particulars, which I shall give in the words of Oldys, are, for ought we know to the contrary, as well authenticated as any of the anecdotes delivered down to us by Rowe. Mr. Oldys had covered several quires of paper with laborious collections for a regular life of our author. From these I have made the following extracts, which (however trivial) contain the only circumstances that wear the least appearance of novelty or information; the song excepted, which the reader will find in a note on the first scene of the Merry Wives of Windsor. “If tradition may be trusted, Shakespeare often baited at the Crown Inn or Tavern in Oxford, in his journey to and from London. The landlady was a woman of great beauty and sprightly wit; and her husband, Mr. John Davenant, (afterwards mayor of that city) a grave melancholy man, who as well as his wife used much to delight in Shakespeare's pleasant company. Their son young Will Davenant (afterwards Sir William) was then a little school-boy in the town, of about seven or eight years old, and so fond also of Shakespeare, that whenever he heard of his arrival, he would fly from school to see him. One day an old townsman observing the boy running homeward almost out of breath, asked him whither he was posting in that heat and hurry. He answered, to see his god-father Shakespeare. There's a good boy, said the other, but have a care that you don't take God's name in vain. This story Mr. Pope told me at the Earl of Oxford's table, upon occasion of some discourse which arose about Shakespeare's monument then newly erected in Westminster Abbey; and he quoted Mr. Betterton the player for his authority. I answered that I thought such a story might have enriched the variety of those choice fruits of observation he has presented us in his preface to the edition he had published of our poet's works. He replied—“There might be in the garden of mankind such plants as would seem to pride themselves more in a regular production of their own native fruits, than in having
the repute of bearing a richer kind by grafting; and this
was the reason he omitted it.” The same story, without the names of the persons, is printed among the jests of John Taylor the Water poet, in his works, folio, 1630, page 184, No 39: and, with some variations, may be found in one of Hearne's pocket books. “One of Shakespeare's younger brothers, who lived to a good old age, even some years, as I compute, after the restoration of K. Charles II. would in his younger days come to London to visit his brother Will, as he called him, and be a spectator of him as an actor in some of his own plays. This custom, as his brother's fame enlarged, and his dramatic entertainments grew the greatest support of our principal, if not of all our theatres, he continued it seems so long after his brother's death, as even to the latter end of his own life. The curiosity at this time of the most noted actors to learn something from him of his brother, &c. they justly held him in the highest veneration. And it may be well believed, as there was besides a kinsman and descendant of the family, who was then a celebrated actor among them, [Charles Harte. See Shakespeare's Will] this opportunity made them greedily inquisitive into every little circumstance, more especially in his dramatick character, which his brother could relate of him. But he, it seems, was so stricken in years, and possibly his memory so weakened with infirmities (which might make him the easier pass for a man of weak intellects) that he could give them but little light into their enquiries; and all that could be recollected from him of his brother Will, in that station was, the faint, general, and almost lost ideas he had of having once seen him act a part in one of his own comedies, wherein being to personate a decrepit old man, he wore a long beard, and appeared so weak and drooping and unable to walk, that he was forced to be supported and carried by another person to a table, at which he was seated among some company, who were eating, and one of them sung a song.” See the character of Adam in As you like it. Act. II. Sc. ult. “Verses by Ben Jonson and Shakespeare, occasioned by the motto to the Globe Theatre.—Totus mundus agit histrionem.
Jonson.
Poetical Characteristicks, 8vo. MS. vol. I. some time in the Harleian Library; which volume was returned to its owner.” “Old Mr. Bowman the player reported from Sir William Bishop, that some part of Sir John Falstaff's character was drawn from a townsman of Stratford, who either faithlessly broke a contract, or spitefully refused to part with some land, for a valuable consideration, adjoining to Shakespeare's, in or near that town.” To these anecdotes I can only add the following. At the conclusion of the advertisement prefixed to Lintot's edition of Shakespeare's poems, it is said, “That most learned prince and great patron of learning, King James the First was pleased with his own hand to write an amicable letter to Mr. Shakespeare; which letter, though now lost, remained long in the hands of Sir William Davenant, as a credible person now living can testify.” Mr. Oldys, in a MS. note to his copy of Fuller's Worthies, observes, that “the story came from the duke of Buckingham, who had it from Sir William D'Avenant.” It appears from Roscius Anglicanus, (commonly called Downes the prompter's book) 1708, that Shakespeare took the pains to instruct Joseph Taylor in the character of Hamlet, and John Lowine in that of K. Henry VIII. Steevens.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 thoroughly 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, though 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 classicks. The concurring circumstances 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 the reader in suspense: the book was not written by Shakespeare. Strype, in his Annals, calls the author I hope by this time, that any one open to conviction may be nearly satisfied; and I will promise to give 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 associate 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 style, 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
happen'd to take at Crendon* note in Bucks.—I think, I have
been told, that he left near three hundred pounds to a sister.
He understood Latin pretty well, 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 through 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 enquiry 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 man's 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* note
.” 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 passage 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† note, was written by George Peele; and Shakespeare is not met with, even as an assistant, 'till at least seven years afterward‡ note.—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* note
.” 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 circumstance 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: we 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. Farmer. The late Mr. Thomas Osborne, bookseller, (whose exploits are celebrated by the author of the Dunciad) being ignorant in what form or language our Paradise Lost was written, employed one of his garreteers to render it from a French translation into English prose. Left, hereafter, the compositions of Shakespeare should be brought back into their tongue from the version of Monsieur le Comte de Catuelan, le Tourneur, &c. it may be necessary to observe, that all the following particulars, extracted from the preface of these gentlemen, are as little founded in truth as their description of the Jubilee at Stratford, which they have been taught to represent as an affair of general approbation and national concern. They say, that Shakespeare came to London without a plan, and finding himself at the door of a theatre, instinctively stopped there, and offered himself to be a holder of horses:—that he was remarkable for his excellent performance of the Ghost in Hamlet:—that he borrowed nothing from preceding writers:—that all on a sudden he left the stage, and returned without eclat into his native county:— that his monument at Stratford is of copper:—that the courtiers of James I. paid several compliments to him which are still preserved:—that he relieved a widow, who, together with her numerous family, was involved in a ruinous lawsuit: —that his editors have restored many passages in his plays, by the assistance of the manuscripts he left behind him, &c. &c. Let me not however forget the justice due to these ingenious Frenchmen, whose skill and fidelity in the execution of their very difficult undertaking, is only exceeded by such a display of candour as would serve to cover the imperfections of much less elegant and judicious writers. Steevens.
* noteBaptisms, Marriages, and Burials of the Shakespeare
family; transcribed from the Register-book
of the Parish of Stratford upon Avon, Warwickshire.
† note Margaret, daughter of John Shakspere, was buried April 30, 1563. ‡ noteWILLIAM, son of John Shakspere, was baptized April 26, 1564. Gilbert, son of John Shakspere, was baptized Oct. 13, 1566. § noteJone, daughter of John Shakspere, was baptized April 15, 1569. Anne, daughter of Mr. John Shakspere, was baptized Sept. 28, 1571. Richard, son of Mr. John Shakspere, was baptized March 11, 1573. Anne, daughter of Mr. John Shakspere, was buried April 4, 1579. Edmund, son of Mr. John Shakspere, was baptized May 3, 1580. Elizabeth, daughter of Anthony Shakspere, of Hampton, was baptized Feb. 10, 1583. Susanna, daughter of WILLIAM SHAKSPERE, was baptized May 26, 1583. &sign; noteSamuel and Judith, son and daughter of WILLIAM
SHAKSPERE, were baptized Feb. 2, 1584. John Shakspere and Margery Roberts were married Nov. 25, 1584. Margery, wife of John Shakspere, was buried Oct. 29, 1587. Ursula, daughter of John Shakspere, was baptized March 11, 1588. Thomas Greene, alias Shakspere, was buried March 6, 1589. Humphrey, son of John Shakspere, was baptized May 24, 1590.
Philip, son of John Shakspere, was baptized Sept. 21, 1591. Samuel, son of WILLIAM SHAKSPERE, was buried Aug. 11, 1596. Mr. John Shakspere was buried Sept. 8, 1601. * note Mary Shakspere, widow, was buried Sept. 9, 1608. Gilbert Shakspere, adolescens, was buried Feb. 3, 1611. Richard Shakspere was buried Feb. 4, 1612. † noteThomas Queeny and ‡ note Judith Shakspere were married Feb. 10, 1616. WILLIAM SHAKSPERE&sign; note, gentleman, was buried April 25, 1616§ note. ¶ noteMrs. Shakspere was buried Aug. 6, 1623.
Extracts from the Rev. Mr. Granger's Biographical History of England.
The PORTRAITS of SHAKESPEARE.
Vol. I. p. 259. 8vo. Edition.
“ “ “ “ “This was painted in the reign of Charles II.”
“ “ “ “ “ “
Next section
|
|||||
