In 1554, Bandello published at Lucca a novel on the same subject (tom. ii., nov. 9); and shortly afterwards Boisteau exhibited one in French, founded on the Italian narratives, but varying from them in many particulars. From Boisteau's novel the same story was, in 1562, formed into an English poem, with considerable alterations and large additions, by Mr. Arthur Brooke. Painter in the second volume of his "PALACE OF PLEASURE" (1567), published a prose translation from the French of Boisteau, which he entitled "ROMEO AND JULIETTA." Shakspeare had probably read Painter's novel, having taken one circumstance from it or from some other prose translation of Boisteau; but his play was undoubtedly formed on the poem of Arthur Brooke. This is proved decisively by the following circumstances:-1. In the poems, the Prince of Verona is called Escalus: so also in the play. In Painter's translation from Boisteau he is named Signor Escala, and sometimes Lord Bartholomew of Escala.-2. In Painter's novel, the family of Romeo are called the Montesches: in the poem and in the play, the Montagues.-3. The messenger employed by Friar Lawrence to carry a letter to Romeo, to inform him when Juliet would awake from her trance, is in Painter's translation called Anselme in the poem and in the play, Friar John is employed in this business.-4. The circumstance of Capulet's writing down the names of the guests whom he invites to supper, is found in the poem and in the play, but is not mentioned by Painter, nor is it found in the original Italian novel.-5. The residence of the Capulets, in the original and in Painter, is called Villa Franca: in the poem and in the play, Freetown.-6. Several passages of Romeo and Juliet appear to have been formed on hints furnished by the poem, of which no traces are found either in Painter's novel, or in Boisteau, or the original.- MALONE. Romeo and Juliet is a picture of love and its pitiable fate, in a world whose atmosphere is too rough for this tenderest blossom of human life. Two beings, created for each other, feel mutual love at first glance; every consideration disappears before the invisible influence of living in one another: they join themselves secretly, under circumstances in the highest degree hostile to the union, relying merely on the protection of an irresistible power. By unfriendly events following blow upon blow, their heroic constancy is exposed to all manner of trials, till, forcibly separated from each other, they are united in the grave to meet again in another world. All this is to be found in the beautiful story which Shakspeare has not invented; and which, however simply told, will always excite a tender sympathy: but it was reserved for Shakspeare to unite purity of heart and the glow of imagination, sweetness and dignity of manners and passionate violence, in one ideal picture. By the manner in which he has handled it, it has become a glorious song of praise on that inexpressible feeling which ennobles the soul, and gives to it its highest sublimity, and which elevates even the senses themselves into soul; and at the same time is a melancholy elegy on its frailty, from its own nature and external circumstances: at once the deification and the burial of love. It appears here like a heavenly spark that, descending to the earth, is converted into a flash of lightning, by which mortal creatures are almost in the same moment set on fire and consumed. Whatever is most intoxicating in the odor of a southern spring, languishing in the song of the nightingale, or voluptuous in the first opening of the rose, is to be found in this poem. But, even more rapidly than the first blossoms of youth and beauty decay, it hurries on from the first timidly-bold declaration of love and modest return, to the most unlimited passion, to an irrevocable union: then, amidst alternating storms of rapture and despair, to the death of the two lovers, who still appear enviable as their love survives them, and as by their death they have obtained a triumph over every separating power. The sweetest and the bitterest love and hatred, festivity and dark forebodings, tender embraces and sepulchres, the fullness of life and self-annihilation, are all here brought close to each other: and all these contrasts are so blended, in the harmonious and wonderful work, into a unity of impression, that the echo which the whole leaves behind in the mind resembles a single but endless sigh.SCHLEGEL. ntroductory Remarks BUILDING wisely on legendary tale and simple ballad, - those sure foundations for him who seeks to interest the public heart, the mighty architect has raised, in "LEAR," a structure before whose giant beauties Criticism stands rebuked, in silent and boundless admiration: - as the traveler ascending the Peak of Teneriffe intent to measure its height, suspends his scientific labors in spell-bound contemplation of the magnificent scene that on every side lies spread before him. The story of the aged monarch, self-willed and impetuous, yet still "more sinned against than sinning," is told, with various modifications, by many ancient writers; but the narrative of Holinshed was probably the immediate source of the poet's inspiration. There is, moreover, an older play than Shakspeare's on the subject, called "The true Chronicle History of King Leir and his three Daughters, Gonorill, Ragan, and Cordella." Of this very inferior, although not meritless effort, he has undoubtedly availed himself, but not to such extent as to impugn the essential originality of his own great work. It is remarkable that both Holinshed and the older dramatist have given a prosperous termination to the legend, so far at least as Lear himself is implicated. In so doing, they have doubtless fallen in with the general yearning for poetic justice: but whether it were wise to wish that Shakspeare had in this respect adhered to his supposed authorities, may well admit of question. The force and splendor of his execution naturally induce the thought that he has chosen for the best in working out his plot: let us, then, be content to inherit the invaluable legacy on such conditions as the donor has imposed, nor seek to tamper with the genuine document. The profane attempts at emendation, by Tate's berouged and smirking muse, are so amusingly vile, that indignation soon relieves itself in laughter. Lear, as a suitable climax to much previous fustian, is made, in the last Act, to call upon the winds to catch certain joyous sounds, " and bear them on their rosy wings to heaven." The love passages, too, between the daring laureate's facetiously "wretched Edgar," and no less comical "Cordelia, royal fair," betray a master in the school of unconscious burlesque: they are sacrifices dear to Momus, although Melpomene affects them not. In Percy's "RELIQUES," there is a reprint of "A lamentable Song of the Death of King Leir and his three Daughters," in which the o'er-afflicted father expires with grief for the loss of Cordelia, who is slain in the battle fought to recover his kingdom. This production was originally published without a date, but is, with great probability, thought to have appeared before the play of Shakspeare: and from this popular ballad he may have derived the tragic catastrophe he has deemed it expedient to adopt. The episode of Edmund and Edgar, so skilfully interwoven with the main plot of "LEAR," is founded on the story of the blind King of Paphlagonia, in Sidney's "ARCADIA." The Leonatus of the tale is Edgar in the play. Shakspeare's "LEAR" was first published in 1608, with this "full and particular" title-page: "Mr. William Shake-speare, his true Chronicle History of the Life and Death of King Lear and his three Daughters. With the unfortunate Life of Edgar, Sonne and Heire to the Earle of Glocester, and his sullen and assumed humor of Tom of Bedlam. As it was plaid before the King's Majesty at White-hall, upon S. Stephens Night, in Christmas Holidaies. By his Majesties Servants playing usually upon the Banck-side. Printed for Nathaniel Butter, and are to be sold at his shop in Paul's Churchyard, at the signe of the Pied Bull, neere St. Austin's Gate, 1608." There were two other editions of the play published by the same bookseller, in the same year; but, notwithstanding these indubitable evidences of popularity, "KING LEAR," for some inexplicable reason, was not again reprinted till its appearance in the original folio of 1623. |