LONDON, OCTOBER 14, 1922. CONTENTS.-No. 235. NOTES:-The First Quarto Hamlet,' 301-Samuel Richard- Henry Hawks, Merchant (ft. 1572)-Royal Dramatic College -Bacon Family-Goring Family-Nicholas de Lyra- of River Savidge Surname, 318-Couvade-Slates in NOTES ON BOOKS :-Transactions of the Newcomen Society 66 an impression of imperfection and mutilation greatly exaggerated and far from the truth.' Further, Prof. Hubbard does not believe Q1. is a piracy. He also points out that the requisite dramatic motives are all there, nothing is wanting that is necessary to the complete play." This, too, was Dr. Furnivall's opinion. Again, Prof. Hubbard believes that the play was the property of the Globe players. Doubtless it was a version known, and possibly used, by English actors in Germany early in the seventeenth century, and perhaps also in our Prof. Pollard, Q. was provincial towns. And, in the opinion of a shortened text for provincial performance. Conjecture, then, can be advanced a step further, and it may be inferred now that Qi. is a cut-down and rearranged text, adapted for acting purposes from the playhouse copy which appeared in print, twenty years later, in the first folio. Throughout the whole play there are resemblances to the fuller text as published in the folio, and certainly no little ingenuity has been shown by the adapter in removing from the longer play a third of the dialogue while preserving 'Sir Thomas Browne: Religio Medici '-' The Seventeenth- entire the skeleton of the plot, an outline century Accounts of the Masters of the Revels.' Notices to Correspondents. 66 of Prof. Hubbard, of the University Wisconsin, in his recent edition of the first quarto, has given us that new edition with an introduction in which he states that the mind of the reader has been prejudiced against Q1. by being told that the mutilated text was obtained by careless shorthand reporters, corrupted actors, dishonest publishers and printers, and patched together by passages written by stupid hack poets. And Prof. Hubbard considers that when a reader to-day puts the modernized, edited text of 'Hamlet' beside the original typography and obsolete spelling of Q., he gets which does much to elucidate the character of the Prince. As far back as 1881 the present writer expressed to Dr. Furnivall his belief as to the above explanation of the origin of Ql., and, at Dr. Furnivall's request, he read a paper on the subject to the members of the New Shakespeare Society. Also, in the same year, on April 16, at St. George's Hall in London, he gave a performance of this version of the play with a company of amateurs. It was not favourably criticized by the Press, and there was the additional disadvantage that Sir Henry Irving had just made his first appearance in the part, at the Lyceum Theatre, in the eighteenthcentury stage version then still in vogue. There are given below some of Shakespeare's lines, taken from the folio text, and underneath these are placed corresponding lines from Q1. The latter are selected not only to show a few of the variations between the two versions but also that the altered words which have been italicized are, as regards Q1. text, intentional, and were changed in the sense of being emended. That is to say, the adapter of Q1. may reasonably be regarded not as a man of letters nor a dramatist but as an actor who altered to satisfy his prosaic and logical mind. For the actor is continually faced with the concrete side of drama and revises in order to make some words referring to movement less ambiguous, or to tone down expressions which he thinks unnecessarily exaggerated. Moreover, it is contended in this paper that the adapter of Q. had a transcript of the folio play before him, or, if not, that he was familiar with that version from having often acted in it. In other words, the lines compared are chosen to support the assertion that Q1. is a later and not an earlier version of the play than the one in the folio. Another connexion between the folio play and Q. is found in the following parallel passage, Anon as mild and gentle as the Dove," which in both versions is given inappropriately to the King instead of to the Queen; also the poor man's contumely "the rich cursed of the pcor." becomes in Q1. In Q2. the words are "the proud man's contumely." It will be remembered that in Twelfth Night Olivia says, "O world, how apt the poor are to be proud! It is admitted, however, that there are many corrupt passages in the text of Q1. which cannot be explained in the same way as are those quoted below, also that of the 218 lines that are found in Q2., and which were omitted in the folio version, two lines can be traced in Q1. How they got there it is difficult to say if Q2., as we gather from its title page, was not a playhouse copy. AN ELIZABETHAN ACTOR'S EMENDATIONS (References to acts, scenes and lines as given in the Globe edition.) Q1. So gratious and so hallowed is that time. F. But looke, the Morne in Russet mantle clad 4. 5. Walkes o're the dew of yon high Easterne Hill (I. i. 167). *The first quarto corrects the error in rank of Gonzago and Baptista. They are not King and Queen. + This correction is in keeping with Hamlet's Q1. But see the Sunne in russet mantle clad, character, who, on his own showing, was not &c. F. Oh that this too too solid Flesh, would melt (I. ii. 129). Q1. O that this too much grieu'd and sallied F. Of Life, of Crowne, and Queene (I. v. 75). 6.* F. Never to speake of this that you have heard (I. v. 159). 7. Q1. Of that which you have seen. F. Doubt thou, the Starres are fire (II. ii. 116). Q1. Doubt that in earth is fire. stout-hearted. Throughout the first quarto Hamlet is regarded as a youth. This sentence, which is not in the folio, is incomplete without the word Beggar" being Hamlet wished to show "how a King added. may go a progress through the guts of a beggar." Ben Jonson and other writers having called attention to the absurdity of Ophelia asking for her "coach," the first quarto omits it. The longer period gives more point to the argument that " the toe of the peasant comes su near the heel of the courtier." ** The first quarto, by its alteration, makes *Horatio and Marcellus had seen the ghost, Hamlet 18 years old. but they had not heard it speak. 21. F. He's fat and scant of breath (V. ii. 298). (Omitted in Q1.) Q1. Here Hamlet take my napkin wipe thy face. 22. F. Then venome to thy worke (V. ii. 333). Q1. Then venom to thy venome. WILLIAM POEL. SAMUEL RICHARDSON AND HIS FAMILY CIRCLE.-IV. polate some particulars I have collected of Hitch, and of his father-in-law and partner, Arthur Bettesworth, who was contemporary of the novelist and his near neighbour in trade. a letter from the celebrated Edward Harley, "Mr. Arthur Bettesworth, an eminent To his (See ante, pp. 181, 224, 263.) The Bettesworth and Hitch families.-As mentioned in my last article (ante, p. 263), Bookseller in Paternoster Row, died June James Leake the younger, nephew of Mrs. 5, 1739" (Nichols's Literary Anecdotes,' Richardson, married Catherine, daughter vol. viii., p. 453). The will of Arthur of Charles Hitch, in 1765. I therefore Bettesworth, citizen and stationer of London, think it worth while here to interdated Dec. 27, 1736, was proved June 9, 1739, in P.C.C. (Henchman 123). He left to his daughter, Martha Bettesworth, £1,000 on her marriage, equal to the marriage portion he had given to each of his three married daughters, Elizabeth, wife of Mr. Charles Arthur, son of Hitch, Katherine, wife of Mr. Arthur Bettesworth‡ of Midhurst, Sussex, gentleman, was apRichard Heming, and Thomasine, wife of Mr. John Middleton; as well as £70 for prenticed at Stationers' Hall to John Back, wedding clothes. son Thomas, for seven years, on Oct. 6, 1690. He was made a freeman of the Company on June £1,000 at 21 and £50 for wedding clothes. 6, 1698, and a liveryman on June 9, 1707. All his copies of books (those in co-partnerAccording to Roberts (Earlier History of ship excepted), with his rights and title English Bookselling,' p. 136), Arthur Bettes- therein, were to go to his son Thomas; and worth in his early days was a bookseller on his stock at Cook's Hall, and all his shares London Bridge, under the sign of the Red in copies of books and debts in trade, to To the be divided among his children. his sign to Paternoster Row. In 1713 Company of Stationers he left 20 guineaswe find him among the benefactors of it "was applied to purchase a pair of silver candlesticks William Bowyer (Nichols's 'Literary Anec(Nichols's Literary Anecdotes,' vol. i., p. 62). His name dotes,' vol. iii., p. 601); and to his servants as a bookseller in 1725 (ibid., i. 329). About Mr. Nicholas Carr and Mr. William Frederick, His executors, Charles 1719 he entered a syndicate of printers 10 guineas each. called "The Printing Conger," with which Hitch and Richard Heming, were to be his he remained associated many years (ibid., i. son's guardians, and were to make a vault 340). He is mentioned in a letter of Walter in East Ham churchyard for him and his Harris's of July 28, 1728, to Dr. Stukeley family. The witnesses were Robert Pople(Nichols's Literary Illustrations,' vol. ii., well, Nicholas Robinson, and William p. 801), who on Nov. 30, 1728, received a Legard. The poor of East Ham were to Lion," who some time after 1712 transferred : occurs have £5. In this instance "fat is used in the same | The tomb at East Ham tells us that sense as by Olivia in Twelfth Night.' It alludes Arthur Bettesworth, bookseller, died in to Hamlet's being heated by the exertion of fencing the first quarto omits the line. It is the King, not Laertes, in the first quarto, who supplies the poisoned foil, and this gives point to the double use of the word venome. According to the 'Visitation of Surrey, 1662-8' (Harleian Soc., vol. lx., p. 11), under Bettesworth of Stoke,' one Arthur Bettesworth married Anne, daughter of Hiller of London, merchant, and had sons Thomas and Arthur. The latter might conceivably have been the bookseller's father. 1739; his daughter Elizabeth, widow of Charles Hitch, in 1777; his daughter Catherine, widow of Richard Heming (died 1741*), in 1758; and his daughter Thomasine, wife of William Stepple (died 1781-evidently her second husband), in 1777 (Lysons' Environs of London,' vol. iv., p. 145). A benefaction of £500 by Thomas wife, and Mr. Charles Clavey and Martha Bettesworth, Esq., to West Ham charity his wife. He also remembered Mr. Arthur school is ascribed to 1760 (ibid., iv. 268). Heming and Elizabeth his wife; his two This, no doubt, was the son, who died un- journeymen, Robert Collins and Robert married (Nichols's Literary Anecdotes,' Knap; his shopman, John Stockwell; his vol. ix., p. 539); while a fourth daughter, footman, John Wall; and his coachman, who was the wife of Mr. Charles Clavey, John Morris. From codicils of Jan. 9 and Wholesale Linendraper in Newgate Street," Feb. 25, 1764, we learn that his daughter must have been Martha. 66 Thomasine had married Mr. Arthur Heming, and his daughter Charlotte, Mr. Thomas Woolley, each receiving a marriage portion of £2,000. On Oct. 1, 1764, Richard Hett and Edward Littleton, both of Stationers' Hall, gentlemen, swore to the handwriting as that of Charles Hitch, a freeman of London. The executors were Sir Francis Gosling and Charles Lowth; and the witnesses George Knapp and John Wall, servants to Mr. Hitch, and Edward Alexander, clerk to Mr. Grose. Charles, son of Maurice Hitch, late citizen and skinner of London, was apprenticed at Stationers' Hall to Arthur Bettesworth of Paternoster Row, for seven years, on April 7, 1718, the consideration paid being £45. He became a freeman on May 4, 1725, and a liveryman on Sept. 1, 1730. He was Master of the Stationers' Company in 1758, and died Sept. 20, 1764 (Nichols's Literary Anecdotes,' vol. iii., p. 390). From a letter of William Bowyer's, on Dec. 3, 1751, it appears he was then ill (ibid., ii. 231). In Charles Hitch the younger died April addition to being an eminent bookseller," 20, 1781 (Nichols's Literary Anecdotes,' he was in the commission of the peace vol. iii., p. 390), and was buried at East for Essex (Gentleman's Magazine, 1764, Ham, where a monument was placed to his p. 450). The will of Charles Hitch of memory in the chancel (Lysons' Environs Paternoster Row, Esquire, dated July 20, of London,' vol. iv., p. 144). He purchased 1762, was proved Oct. 3, 1764, in P.C.C. the estate of East Ham Burnels about 1767 (Simpson 388). He bequeaths his various (Morant's Essex,' vol. i., p. 16). The will properties at East Ham, including his of Charles Hitch of "Plaskett," Co. Essex, house at Plashett, in the parish, "wherein Esq., was dated March 5, 1780, and proved I now live," as well as other properties May 8, 1781, in P.C.C. (Webster 244), by at Barking, at Dagenham, in Queen Street Elizabeth, the relict, Sarah, wife of John near Little Tower Hill, and at Little Ilford, Mitchell, and James Mitchell, his executors. to Sir Francis Gosling, Knt., alderman of In it are mentioned (his sister) Charlotte, the City of London, and Edward Grose wife of Mr. Thomas Woolley of Cheapside, of Threadneedle Street, gentleman, in trust hardwareman, and their son, Charles Hitch for the use of his wife Elizabeth, with Woolley; his brother, the Rev. Paul Hitch; contingent remainders to his elder son and Mr. Arthur Heming and his wife; while Charles, his younger son Paul, and his three a codicil of March 26, 1781, leaves £20 for daughters, Catherine, Thomasine, and Char- mourning to his cousin, Miss Elizabeth lotte Hitch. To his wife he left the £40 Richardson. He had no children, and his a year income from £360 share in the widow carried the great tithes of East Ham Stationers' Company, called English Stock; to a second husband, Mr. David Davies as well as £3,000 three per cent. Bank (Lysons' 'Environs of London,' vol. iv., annuities, his coach and horses, and the p. 146). use of his plate, linen, &c., in his houses at Plashett and in Paternoster Row. Properties at West Ham and in Warwick Lane he left for the use of his son Paul, with his leasehold messuage in St. Paul's Churchyard. To each of his children he left £1,750 three per cent. Bank annuities. To Mr. John Rivington of St. Paul's Churchyard, bookseller, £50, to aid his executors to settle his affairs in trade; to his partner, Mr. Lacey Hawes, £50; to Elizabeth Richardson, spinster, placed under his care, £100; and small bequests to his brothers-in-law, Mr. William Stepple and Thomasine his Paul Hitch, the younger son, matriculated from Oriel College, aged 15, on Oct. 14, 1762 (Foster's Alumni Oxonienses'). He became vicar of East Ham and rector of Horton, Co. Gloucester, dying at Harwich on Sept. 19, 1786 (European Magazine, 1786, Pt. II., p. 311). Administration of his estate was granted on Dec. 6, 1786, in P.C.C., to Thomasine, wife of Arthur Heming, sister and next-of-kin; he is described as bachelor. He was buried at East Ham (Lysons' Environs of London,' vol. iv., p. 145). 6 There was a third son, not mentioned in the father's will, whose death is noticed in The Gentleman's Magazine for 1786, p. 909, under Oct. 2: At Falmouth, Mr. Hitch, son of the late Mr. H., bookseller in Paternoster-row. He was in the delirium of a fever; and, taking opportunity of his servant's absence, leaped out of a two pair of stairs window, and ran into the sea, where he was drowned. 66 66 And from The Gentleman's Magazine for 1816, Pt. II., p. 566, we learn that Charlotte, relict of Thomas Woolley, Esq., of Hatton Garden, and youngest of the three daughters and co-heiresses of Charles Hitch, Esq.," died Nov. 4, 1816, aged 76, after having been deprived of sight upwards of 20 years, a misfortune which she bore with happy serenity." She left three daughters respectably married," so Charles Hitch Woolley had probably died. From the same reference it appears that her sister of Thomasine was still living, as widow Arthur Heming of Hadleigh, Suffolk, Esq., who had died in 1809. It will be seen later that Sir Francis Gosling, who proved Charles Hitch's will in 1764, had proved Samuel Richardson's will three years earlier; and that the novelist left a ring to Mrs. Gosling," while his widow, in 1773, similarly remembered "Lady Gosling.' And John Rivington, the well-known bookseller, whom Charles Hitch desired should assist his executors in settling his business affairs, was also the recipient of one of the novelist's rings. John's father, Charles Rivington, had been associated with Arthur Bettesworth in a partnership styled The New Conger (Nichols's Literary Anecdotes,' vol. i., 340). p. We shall see, too, that Samuel Richardson had a niece, Elizabeth Richardson, a minor in 1750, but whether she was the spinster placed under the elder Charles Hitch's care, and alluded to as "cousin" by Charles Hitch the younger in 1781, I cannot at present say. I know of no cousinship between them. ALEYN LYELL READE. Treleaven House, Blundellsands, near Liverpool. (To be continued.) THE MILTON-OVID SCRIPT.-VI. (See ante, pp. 201, 221, 242, 265, 281.) IN concluding the study of the script-hand, but before setting out the text as a whole, I will notice a few peculiarities of style in the four following stanzas (denoted now by The brazen age succeades somewhat bent to warrs But last the Iron age so full of Jarrs Craft, treason, violence, envie lust and pride As nought doth reigne in all the world beside Truth hides her head, Justice cannot be found And now to hell they dig and delue the ground To finde out gold, and Iron, they castles rear Build ships and boates from seas to seas to steare The stanza A is strongly suggestive of Milton. When read aloud to an ear acquainted with his rhythm, the hearer rarely hesitates to name him as the author. The present invstigation began with this experiment. The typical stately tread is most distinctly heard in the two concluding lines; analysis helps to explain this, for we find that these lines contain at least three features admitted to be characteristic of Milton's style (1) inversion of the order of wordsif the words of the last line be arranged in the natural order prescribed by syntax all rhythm disappears, though the words are the same; (2) the elliptical parenthesis; (3) choice of word that suits or suggests the sense; no other word can be substituted for "majestick" without grave injury to the verse. It is worth noting perhaps that Milton has used this word in relation to Eve ('P.L.,' VIII. 42). It also occurs in the script of 'Comus' (T. 24, 12), and this |