Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

MY

XXIV.

CORDELL ANSLYE.

(From the Athenæum for Sept. 2, 1876.)

Y friend, Mr. S. J. Low, sends me a copy of the following epitaph from a slab let in the wall of what was formerly the tower of the church at Lee, Kent :

:

“Here lyeth buried the bodyes of Bryan Anslye Esquier, late of Lee in the county of Kent, and Audry his wife, the only davghter of Robert Turell, of Bvrbrocke in ye county of Essex Esquier. He had issue by her one sonne and three daughters, Bryan who died wthout issve; Grace married to St John Wilgoose, Knight; Christian married to the Lord Sands; and Cordell married to Sir William Hervey, Knight. Ye said Bryan the father died on the Xth of Jvly 1604; he served Qveene Elizabeth as one of ye band of Gentlemen Pencioners to her Matie the space of XXXtye yeares. The said Awdry died on ye XXVth of Novebeber (sic) 1591. Cordell, the youngest daughter, at her owne proper cost and chardges, in further testimonie of her dvtifvll love vnto her father and mother, caused this monvment to be erected for the p'petvall memorie of their names against the ingratefvll natvre of oblivious time.

"Nec primus, nec ultimus; multi ante,
Cesserunt, et omnes sequetitur” (sic).

The mention of " ye band of Gentlemen Pencioners" is interesting. How gay and grand they were we know from the Midsummer Night's Dream, II. i. 10:—

"The cowslips tall her pensioners be;

In their gold coats spots you see.

and Merry Wives of Windsor, II. ii. 78, where Mistress Quickly is boasting of Mrs. Ford's suitors :

"The best courtier of them all, when the Court lay at Windsor, could never have brought her to such a canary . . . And yet there has been earls, nay which is more pensioners; but I warrant you all is one with her." "As brave as any pensioners" is a phrase of Nash's (Piers Penniless).

But more interesting is the last sentence, where Cordell is not unmindful of her greater namesake, for there is certainly in it an echo of the old story. And it is not impossible that she may have been influenced by Shakespeare's version of it; for that in all probability was just come out at the time she was erecting her filial monument. But it is not necessary to suppose so, for the popularity of the old tale, which her very name illustrates, is shown by many various sixteenth century versions, to say nothing of the old play, of which we first hear in 1593 as acted at the Rose Theatre, and have a printed edition in 1605.

The form of the name is worth noting. Other forms that occur are Cordilla, Cordeilla, Cordoille, or Gordoylle. In the pre-Shakespearian play it is Cordella. Spenser has Cordeill, and also Cordelia.

We may fondly trust that Grace and Christian, the elder sisters, by no means corresponded to Goneril and Regan.

XXV.

THE PORTER IN MACBETH.

(Read at the Fifth Meeting of the New Shakspere Society, May 22, 1874.) "I pray you remember the Porter.”—ii. 3.

S is well known, the earliest extant copy of the play of

[ocr errors]

earliest allusion to the play occurs, as Mr. Halliwell points out, in the year 1607, in the Puritan1 (iv. 3); where the words "We'll ha' the ghost i' th' white sheet sit at upper end o' th' table,” seem distinctly to refer to the apparition of Banquo. So that Macbeth had been exhibited at least sixteen years before its publication in the first Folio. And it has been suspected that in more than one part the play is not preserved in the Folio in the exact shape in which it left the hand of its creator. Thus the passage in the 3rd scene of the 4th act, where the touching for the "King's evil" is described, has been supposed to be an interpolation, and it certainly has the air of being so. In the preface of the Clarendon press edition of the play, many other passages are mentioned which the editors, rightly or wrongly, incline to believe were written by Middleton. Amongst the passages that have been doubted are the soliloquy of the Porter, and the short dialogue that follows between the Porter and Macduff. And the doubts concerning it deserve

1 See Hazlitt's Shakespeare's Plays and Poems, vol. v. p. 293, ed. 1852. Hazlitt's note is :-"Dr. Farmer thinks this was intended as a sneer at Macbeth."

T

all consideration, because they were supported, if not originated, by the best Shakespearian critic this country has yet produced. "The low soliloquy of the Porter," says Coleridge, "and his few speeches afterwards, I believe to have been written for the mob by some other hand, perhaps with Shakespeare's consent; and finding it take, he, with the remaining ink of a pen otherwise employed, just interpolated the words, 'I'll devil-porter it no further: I had thought to let in some of all professions, that go the primrose way to the everlasting bonfire.' Of the rest not one syllable has the ever-present being of Shakespeare."—(Literary Remains, ii. 246-7.) Coleridge is not be followed implicitly, because he has in other Shakespearian matters erred strangely; but yet this doom of his must not be lightly disregarded. It cannot be said, however, to have convinced the world. Many editors do not even acknowledge that a doubt should exist. Gervinus does go just so far. "Coleridge and Collier," he says, "are in favour of this omission, as they consider his [the Porter's] soliloquy to be the unauthorized interpolation of an actor. It may be so." And then he proceeds, in fact, to show how it may not be so.

I propose in this paper to consider whether the Porter is not after all a genuine offspring of Shakespeare's art. It is possible to show beyond controversy, that he is an integral part of the original play; and therefore we must conclude, if he is not the creation of Shakespeare, that the play was originally the fruit of a joint authorship, and not merely amended by some reviser. But if, in addition to this, it can

1 Thus, in 1802, he places The London Prodigal amongst Shakespeare's plays, The Merchant of Venice after Henry V., &c.; in 1810, The Tempest in the 2nd Period, Othello amongst the latest plays; in 1819, The Tempest in the same epoch with The Merchant of Venice, &c. See Literary Remains, ii. 86-91.

be shown that his appearance is in accordance with the artistic system by which Shakespeare worked, that it relieves the awful intensity of the action, and permits the spectator to draw breath,—further, that he satisfies that law of contrast which rules, not unfrequently in a manner that perplexes and astonishes, the undoubted compositions of Shakespeare-that his speech has a certain dramatic pertinence, and is by no means an idle outflow of irrelevant buffoonery ;-if such theses can be maintained, then certainly the Porter is the result of Shakespeare's direct dictation, if not his own manufacture. Lastly, if his particular style and language prove to be Shakespearian, it must surely be a confirmed hypersceptic that persists in believing that he is not of the family of Shakespeare, but begotten by some skilful mimic. Certainly these are the five points which should be thoroughly considered before any final verdict is pronounced. On each one of them I shall try to offer a few suggestions. For the sake of clearness I recapitulate them :

(i.) That a Porter's speech is an integral part of the

play.

(ii.) That it is necessary as a relief to the surrounding

horror.

(iii.) That it is necessary according to the law of contrast elsewhere obeyed.

(iv.) That the speech we have is dramatically relevant. (v.) That its style and language are Shakespearian.

(i.) That a Porter's speech is an integral part of the play. This is a very simple matter. No one will deny that the knocking scene is an integral part of the play. In the whole Shakespearian theatre there is perhaps no other instance. where such an awful effect is produced by so slight a means,

« VorigeDoorgaan »