LONDON, OCTOBER 14, 1922. CONTENTS.-No. 235. NOTES:-The First Quarto Hamlet,' 301-Samuel Richard-out that VI., 305-The Dickens Amateurs-Some Account of -Miss Mitford's 'Our Village-Folk-lore: Changelings- Sardines and Mackerel-T. Jones, Engraver-J. D. Griffith REPLIES:-The Fighting Sword of Lord Nelson, 313- of River Savidge Surname, 318-Couvade-Slates in * Cymon, a Dramatick Romance,' 319. NOTES ON BOOKS :-Transactions of the Newcomen Society century Accounts of the Masters of the Revels.' Notices to Correspondents. Notes. THE FIRST QUARTO 'HAMLET.' AN ELIZABETHAN ACTOR'S EMENDATIONS. MR. DOVER WILSON, in his pamphlet on the 1603 Hamlet,' which was published in 1918, writes: "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 are all there, nothing is wanting that is the requisite dramatic motives 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. Doubt. less it was a version known, and possibly used, by English actors in Germany early in the seventeenth century, and perhaps also in our provincial towns. And, in the opinion of Prof. Pollard, Q1. was 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 entire the skeleton of the plot, an outline 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 Q1., 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 eighteenthof century stage version then still in vogue. a new edition of Hamlet' Q1. is needed. When that edition comes to be made it will no doubt be found that many cruces resolve themselves into a balance of possibilities. Too often, it is feared, the scales will remain even. 66 Prof. Hubbard, of the University 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 Q. 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 Q. 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 becomes in Q1. "the rich cursed of the poor." 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!" 66 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.) (III. ii. 412). Q1. the heart of Nero enter This soft bosome. Ger.: Why how now Hamlet? (III. iv. 13). Queene: How now boy? Q1. 13.§ Q2. 14. 15. 16. Q1. F. Q1. F. A man may fish with the worm that hath eate of a King, and eate of the fish that hath fedde of that worme (IV. iii. 29). a man may fish with that worme That hath eaten of a King, And a Beggar eate that fish, Which that worme hath caught. That Soop-stake you will draw both Q1. Therefore will you like a most desperate gamster Swoop-stake-like, draw at friend and foe, and all? 17.**F. 18. Q1. F.. 20. these three yeares I have taken note of it (V. i. 150). This seauen yeares have I noted it. this Scull has laine in the earth three and twenty years (V. i. 190). heres a scull hath bin here this dozen yeare. he has borne me on his backe a thousand times (V. i. 205). he hath caried mee twenty times upon his backe. might they not stopp a Beere-barrell? (V. i. 213). Q. might stoppe the boung hole of a beere- F. I loved Ophelia, forty thousand brothers *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 character, who, on his own showing, was not 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. Jonson Ben 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 se 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. (See ante, pp. 181, 224, 263.) The Bettesworth and Hitch families.-As mentioned in my last article (ante, p. 263), James Leake the younger, nephew of Mrs. Richardson, married Catherine, daughter of Charles Hitch, in 1765. I therefore think it worth while here to interpolate 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 his "Mr. Arthur Bettesworth, an eminent Bookseller in Paternoster Row, died June 5, 1739" (Nichols's Literary Anecdotes,' vol. viii., p. 453). The will of Arthur Bettesworth, citizen and stationer of London, dated 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. Arthur, son of Arthur Bettesworth‡ Charles Hitch, Katherine, wife of Mr. of Midhurst, Sussex, gentleman, was apRichard Heming, and Thomasine, wife of prenticed at Stationers' Hall to John Back, as well as £70 for Mr. John Middleton; He was for seven years, on Oct. 6, 1690. wedding clothes. To son Thomas, 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 Lion," who some time after 1712 transferred be divided among his children. To the his sign to Paternoster Row. In 1713 Company of Stationers he left 20 guineas— we find him among the benefactors of was applied to purchase a pair of silver William Bowyer (Nichols's Literary Anec- candlesticks (Nichols's Literary Anecdotes,' vol. i., p. 62). His name occurs 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, 1719 he entered a syndicate of printers 10 guineas each. His executors, Charles 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 have £5. *In this instance "fat" is used in the same sense as by Olivia in Twelfth Night.' It alludes 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." it The tomb at East Ham tells us that Arthur Bettesworth, bookseller, died in 1739; his daughter Elizabeth, widow of Charles Hitch, in 1777; his his daughter Catherine, widow of Richard Heming (died 1741*), in 1758; and his daughter ThomasAccording to the Visitation of Surrey, ine, wife of William Stepple (died 1781-1662-8 (Harleian Soc., vol. lx., p. 11), under evidently her second husband), in 1777 Bettesworth of Stoke, one Arthur Bettesworth (Lysons' Environs of London,' vol. iv., married Anne, daughter of - Hiller of London, merchant, and had sons Thomas and Arthur. The latter might conceivably have been the bookseller's father. * Richard "Hemmings," Common Council Man, died Oct., 1741 (Musgrave's Obituary,' Harleian Soc.). 66 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 Hitch the younger died April 20, 1781 (Nichols's Literary Anecdotes,' vol. iii., p. 390), and was buried at East Ham, where a monument was placed to his memory in the chancel (Lysons' Environs of London,' vol. iv., p. 144). He purchased the estate of East Ham Burnels about 1767 (Morant's Essex,' vol. i., p. 16). The will of Charles Hitch of Plaskett," Co. Essex, Esq., was dated March 5, 1780, and proved May 8, 1781, in P.C.C. (Webster 244), by Elizabeth, the relict, Sarah, wife of John Mitchell, and James Mitchell, his executors. In it are mentioned (his sister) Charlotte, wife of Mr. Thomas Woolley of Cheapside, 66 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. Thomasine had married Mr. Arthur Heming, Charles, son of Maurice Hitch, late citizen and his daughter Charlotte, Mr. Thomas 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 addition to being an eminent bookseller," he was "in the commission of the peace for Essex" (Gentleman's Magazine, 1764, p. 450). The will of Charles Hitch of Paternoster Row, Esquire, dated July 20, 1762, was proved Oct. 3, 1764, in P.C.C. (Simpson 388). He bequeaths his various properties at East Ham, including his house at Plashett, in the parish, "wherein I now live," as well as other properties at Barking, at Dagenham, in Queen Street near Little Tower Hill, and at Little Ilford, to Sir Francis Gosling, Knt., alderman of the City of London, and Edward Grose of Threadneedle Street, gentleman, in trust hardwareman, and their son, Charles Hitch for the use of his wife Elizabeth, with contingent remainders to his elder son Charles, his younger son Paul, and his three daughters, Catherine, Thomasine, and Charlotte Hitch. To his wife he left the £40 a year income from £360 share in the Stationers' Company, called English Stock; as well as £3,000 three per cent. Bank annuities, his coach' and horses, and the 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 Woolley; his brother, the Rev. Paul Hitch: and Mr. Arthur Heming and his wife; while a codicil of March 26, 1781, leaves £20 for mourning to his cousin, Miss Elizabeth Richardson. He had no children, and his widow carried the great tithes of East Ham to a second husband, Mr. David Davies (Lysons' 'Environs of London,' vol. iv., p. 146). 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). 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 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 Thomasine was still living, as widow of 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., p. 340). A, B, C, D), which will appear again, duly numbered, in the series. A. After the heauens, earth sea, created were, B. Then sprang the prime, the first and golden age Joue ushers in, the second on the stage, D. 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 |
