Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth

264

So Rowe. The direction in Q1 is negligible, the text being different. Q2 etc. have nothing, Ff. simply 'In scuffling they change rapiers.'

265

Capell. The Quartos and Folios have no directions.

266

The reader who is puzzled by this passage should refer to the conversation at the end of the thirtieth tale in the Heptameron.

267

He alludes to her cry, 'O falsely, falsely murder'd!'

268

These are i. i.; ii. i.; ii. ii., except 194-204; in iii. vi. Timon's verse speech; iv. i.; iv. ii. 1-28; iv. iii., except 292-362, 399-413, 454-543; v. i., except 1-50; v. ii.; v. iv. I am not to be taken as accepting this division throughout.

269

It has been suggested that 'his' means 'Gloster's'; but 'him' all through the speech evidently means Lear.

270

I ignore them partly because they are not significant for the present purpose, but mainly because it is impossible to accept the division of battle-scenes in our modern texts, while to depart from it is to introduce intolerable inconvenience in reference. The only proper plan in Elizabethan drama is to consider a scene ended as soon as no person is left on the stage, and to pay no regard to the question of locality,—a question theatrically insignificant and undetermined in most scenes of an Elizabethan play, in consequence of the absence of movable scenery. In dealing with battles the modern editors seem to have gone on the principle (which they could not possibly apply generally) that, so long as the place is not changed, you have only one scene. Hence in Macbeth, Act v., they have included in their Scene vii. three distinct scenes; yet in Antony and Cleopatra, Act iii., following the right division for a wrong reason, they have two scenes (viii. and ix.), each less than four lines long.

271

One of these (v. i.) is not marked as such, but it is evident that the last line and a half form a soliloquy of one remaining character, just as much as some of the soliloquies marked as such in other plays.

272

According to modern editions, eight, Act ii., scene ii., being an instance. But it is quite ridiculous to reckon as three scenes what are marked as scenes ii., iii., iv. Kent is on the lower stage the whole time, Edgar in the so-called scene iii. being on the upper stage or balcony. The editors were misled by their ignorance of the stage arrangements.

273

Perhaps three, for v. iii. is perhaps an instance, though not so marked.

274

There are exceptions: e.g., in the editions of Delius and Mr. W.J. Craig.

275

And it is possible that, as Koppel suggests, the Doctor should properly enter at this point; for if Kent, as he says, wishes to remain unknown, it seems strange that he and Cordelia should talk as they do before a third person. This change however is not necessary, for the Doctor might naturally stand out of hearing till he was addressed; and it is better not to go against the stage-direction without necessity.

276

Where did Spedding find this? I find no trace of it, and surely Edgar would not have risked his life in the battle, when he had, in case of defeat, to appear and fight Edmund. He does not appear 'armed,' according to the Folio, till v. iii. 117.

277

Spedding supposed that there was a front curtain, and this idea, coming down from Malone and Collier, is still found in English works of authority. But it may be stated without hesitation that there is no positive evidence at all for the existence of such a curtain, and abundant evidence against it.

278

The 'beacon' which he bids approach is not the moon, as Pope supposed. The moon was up and shining some time ago (ii. ii. 35), and lines 1 and 141-2 imply that not much of the night is left.

279

'Hold' can mean 'take'; but the word 'this' in line 160 ('Know'st thou this paper?') favours the idea that the paper is still in Albany's hand.

280

E.g. Mr. Chambers's excellent little edition in the Warwick series.

281

These two considerations should also be borne in mind in regard to the exceptional shortness of the Midsummer Night's Dream and the Tempest. Both contain scenes which, even on the Elizabethan stage, would take an unusual time to perform. And it has been supposed of each that it was composed to grace some wedding.

282

The fact that King Lear was performed at Court on December 26, 1606, is of course very far from showing that it had never been performed before.

283

I have not tried to discover the source of the difference between these two reckonings.

284

Der Vers in Shakspere's Dramen, 1888.

285

In the parts of Timon (Globe text) assigned by Mr. Fleay to Shakespeare, I find the percentage to be about 74.5. König gives 62.8 as the percentage in the whole of the play.

286

I have noted also what must be a mistake in the case of Pericles. König gives 17.1 as the percentage of the speeches with broken ends. I was astounded to see the figure, considering the style in the undoubtedly Shakespearean parts; and I find that, on my method, in Acts iii., iv., v. the percentage is about 71, in the first two Acts (which show very slight, if any, traces of Shakespeare's hand) about 19. I cannot imagine the origin of the mistake here.

287

I put the matter thus, instead of saying that, with a run-on line, one does pass to the next line without any pause, because, in common with many others, I should not in any case whatever wholly ignore the fact that one line ends and another begins.

288

These overflows are what König calls 'schroffe Enjambements,' which he considers to correspond with Furnivall's 'run-on lines.'

289

The number of light endings, however, in Julius Caesar (10) and All's Well (12) is worth notice.

290

The Editors of the Cambridge Shakespeare might appeal in support of their view, that parts of Act v. are not Shakespeare's, to the fact that the last of the light endings occurs at iv. iii. 165.

291

The 'swearing' might of course, on this view, occur off the stage within the play; but there is no occasion to suppose this if we are obliged to put the proposal outside the play.

292

To this it might be answered that the effect of the prediction was to make him feel, 'Then I shall succeed if I carry out the plan of murder,' and so make him yield to the idea over again. To which I can only reply, anticipating the next argument, 'How is it that Shakespeare wrote the speech in such a way that practically everybody supposes the idea of murder to be occurring to Macbeth for the first time?'

293

It might be answered here again that the actor, instructed by Shakespeare, could act the start of fear so as to convey quite clearly the idea of definite guilt. And this is true; but we ought to do our best to interpret the text before we have recourse to this kind of suggestion.

294

So in Holinshed, as well as in the play, where however 'cousin' need not have its specific meaning.

295

'May,' Johnson conjectured, without necessity.

296

As this point occurs here, I may observe that Shakespeare's later tragedies contain many such reminiscences of the tragic plays of his young days. For instance, cf. Titus Andronicus, i. i. 150 f.:

In peace and honour rest you here, my sons,Secure from worldly chances and mishaps!Here lurks no treason, here no envy swells,Here grow no damned drugs: here are no storms,No noise, but silence and eternal sleep,

with Macbeth, iii. ii. 22 f.:

Duncan is in his grave;After life's fitful fever he sleeps well;Treason has done his worst: nor steel, nor poison,Malice domestic, foreign levy, nothing,Can touch him further.

In writing iv. i. Shakespeare can hardly have failed to remember the conjuring of the Spirit, and the ambiguous oracles, in 2 Henry VI. i. iv. The 'Hyrcan tiger' of Macbeth iii. iv. 101, which is also alluded to in Hamlet, appears first in 3 Henry VI. i. iv. 155. Cf. Richard III. ii. i. 92, 'Nearer in bloody thoughts, but not in blood,' with Macbeth ii. iii. 146, 'the near in blood, the nearer bloody'; Richard III. iv. ii. 64, 'But I am in So far in blood that sin will pluck on sin,' with Macbeth iii. iv. 136, 'I am in blood stepp'd in so far,' etc. These are but a few instances. (It makes no difference whether Shakespeare was author or reviser of Titus and Henry VI.).