Illustrations of Shakspeare, and of Ancient Manners: / with Dissertations on the Clowns and Fools of Shakspeare; on a Collection of Popular Tales Entitled Gesta Romanorum; and on the English Morris dance.

ON
THE ANACHRONISMS
AND
SOME OTHER INCONGRUITIES
OF
SHAKSPEARE.

The transgressions against the rules of chronology committed by those who, in recording the events of preceding ages, introduce matters which have originated in subsequent periods, seem almost exclusively to belong to authors whose works, in point of date, are to be separated from those admirable compositions which are usually styled the Classics. In the latter, such instances seldom, if ever, occur; whilst in the writers, as well as the artists, of the middle ages, they are innumerable. Nor do these absurdities diminish as we approach periods more enlightened as to general science. From the time of Chaucer to that of Shakspeare, there is scarcely an author to be found who is not implicated in this accusation; and about the age of Elizabeth, the dramatists in particular seem to have been remarkably inattentive to the unities of time and place. It has been observed that Ben Jonson is almost the only writer against whom the charge of uniting dissimilar manners and discordant periods is not to be laid; and though the poets of the ensuing century are not wholly free from the imputation in question, it is certain that from about the reign of king James the First more care was taken to preserve a due attention to the manners and customs of particular ages, or at least to avoid any very palpable anachronisms, than had already been done. But whilst the compositions of dramatic writers remained pretty free from these blemishes, the directors of the theatres continued to practise their, perhaps innocent, impostures on the public; and every absurdity that could be devised, or distortion of reality in costume, still continued to disgrace the stage. We were not indeed more absurd in this respect than other European nations, nor was it until a short time before the late revolution that the French theatre had reformed itself in this respect. Many persons now recollect the state of the English stage in Garrick's time, when that excellent performer used to exhibit his Hamlet in a common French suit of black velvet and a cocked hat, and his Macbeth in a scarlet coat with broad gold lace like the uniform of a modern general. Quin is said to have played Othello in a flowing powdered periwig. How Shakspeare's characters were habited on the stage in his time, would be difficult or even impossible to ascertain with accuracy at present, except in a few instances; but we have no reason to suppose that much propriety was manifested on the occasion. Unluckily for us it was not then the practice to decorate the printed plays with frontispieces; and the theatrical prints and pictures even of succeeding times are not very commonly to be met with. It is on this account that the cuts to Mr. Rowe's edition of Shakspeare, and those to the first octavo edition of the works of Beaumont and Fletcher, are at present extremely valuable, as they serve to record many pleasant absurdities that will not fail to excite a smile in the beholder.

It was reserved for the great actor who to the scenic talents of a Garrick unites that managerial skill and judgment in the costume of nations which the other wanted, to reform these follies; and, by exhibiting to us times as they were, to render the stage what it should be, a true and perfect mirror of history and manners.

The above very slight notice of the subject before us may perhaps be sufficient for the purpose of introducing the mention of those anachronisms that are ascribable to Shakspeare: and this has not been done with any view to exhibit him as more culpable in this respect than most of his contemporaries, but solely for the purpose of collecting them together as an object of amusement: nothing however could have been less judicious than the conduct of Mr. Pope when he placed them to the account of the publishers. Nor is the catalogue offered as a complete one; the diligent and critical reader will discover some that are here unnoticed.

But the negligence of writers in the due observance of costume is but trifling, when compared with what is to be laid to the charge of painters and other artists. Volumes have been professedly filled, and the number might still be augmented, with the errors of even the best of the old painters. Nor are the modern by any means to be acquitted on this score. We too frequently see works of the greatest intrinsic worth, both in composition and execution, depreciated by the most absurd violations of historical accuracy and a want of adherence to the manners of the times they refer to. In this case they are not what they profess to be; and whilst they delight the eye, they delude the understanding. It is extremely pleasing to observe the zeal which manifests itself among the leading artists of the present day to obtain correct notions of the manners of former times whenever they have occasion to depict them. The works of many of our best painters will not only excite the admiration but the gratitude of posterity for the faithful delineation of their subjects, and the labours of future antiquaries will be reduced in proportion as pictures of this kind shall increase.[44]

To return to Shakspeare. In the dramatis personæ of many of his plays we find a medley of ancient and modern names that is often extremely ridiculous. At Ephesus we meet with Pinch, a schoolmaster; at Mitylene with Boult, a clown; and at Athens with Snug, Bottom, Snout, Quince, &c. In his later stories English names are given to foreigners. Thus at Vienna we have Froth and Elbow; in Navarre, Dull, Costard, and Moth; and in Illyria, Sir Toby Belch and Sir Andrew Aguecheek. But these, strictly speaking, are not anachronisms, but, on the whole, justifiable licences; for it would have been impossible to transmit the humour of such characters as the above to an English audience under the disguise of foreign names, though it must be admitted that mere English characters as well as names are sometimes introduced. Nor is Shakspeare always responsible for such whimsicalities, for they are occasionally to be traced in the materials whereof his plays were constructed; and others belong to those authors whom he had only assisted in dramas the whole composition of which had been improperly ascribed to him.

MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR.

The incidents in this play are supposed to belong to the reign of Henry the Fourth, and consequently the introduction of the shillings of Edward the Sixth, and the mention of Machiavel, are improper; as well as the then newly-introduced terms of the fencing-school ridiculed by Shallow. Perhaps Ancient Pistol and Corporal Nym are objectionable titles. The allusions to Guiana and the West Indies by Falstaff are obvious anachronisms.

TWELFTH NIGHT.

The introduction of the bed of Ware may be justified, because it is referred to as in England; but the same defence cannot be made for the bells of Saint Bennet, as they are specifically alluded to.

MEASURE FOR MEASURE.

We have here an English jury in a German court of justice.

MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM.

The scene of this play lies at Athens, in the time of Theseus, but we find the mention of guns; of French-crowns and French-crown-coloured beards; of church-yards and coats in heraldry; of clean linen, new ribbons to pumps, and masks; of Jack and Gill, the nine-mens morris, and blessing the bridal bed. Carols, inasmuch as they are applicable to songs in general, and, in an antiquated sense, to dances, may be doubtful, though the allusion was in all probability to Christmas carols. Hermia is made to speak of the fire which burned the Carthage queen.

MERCHANT OF VENICE.

English juries are introduced into the Venetian republic.

WINTER'S TALE.

The transactions of this play arise in Sicily and Bohemia; and though the characters are imaginary, they are supposed to exist in Pagan times. Notwithstanding this we have Whitson pastorals, Christian burial, a hobby-horse, an emperor of Russia, and an Italian printer of the fifteenth century.

COMEDY OF ERRORS.

In the ancient city of Ephesus we have ducats, marks, and guilders, and the abbess of a nunnery. Mention is also made of several modern European kingdoms, and of America; of Henry the Fourth of France, of Turkish tapestry, a rapier, and a striking clock; of Lapland sorcerers, Satan, and even of Adam and Noah. In one place Antipholis calls himself a Christian. As we are unacquainted with the immediate source whence this play was derived, it is impossible to ascertain whether Shakspeare is responsible for these anachronisms.

MACBETH.

The errors here are confined to the introduction of cannon and of dollars.

KING JOHN.

In this play we also find cannon, with angels, half-fac'd groats, and three-farthing pieces. Cards too are introduced, and Basilisco, a character of the time of Shakspeare.

KING HENRY THE FOURTH.

The anachronisms are very numerous in the plays on this reign. We have pistols and silk stockings; gilt two-pences, and ten-shilling-pieces; a ballad with a picture on it, evidently alluding to the wood-cuts on those compositions; the game of shove-groat or slide shrift, which was not invented before the reign of Henry the Eighth. Mention is also made of John Scogan jester to Edward the Fourth, and of Arthur's show, though not introduced till a long time afterwards.

KING HENRY THE FIFTH.

The Turks are put into possession of Constantinople, which did not fall into their hands till upwards of thirty years after Henry's death.

KING HENRY THE SIXTH.

Machiavel, who was not born till 1469, is twice introduced in these plays. Printing is also prematurely mentioned.

KING HENRY THE EIGHTH.

An old woman is made to talk of bow'd three-pences; but these pieces were not known in England till the reign of Edward the Sixth, though some are said to have been coined in Ireland during that of Edward the Fourth.

TROILUS AND CRESSIDA.

Hector quotes Aristotle; Ulysses speaks of the bull-bearing Milo, and Pandarus of a man born in April. Friday and Sunday, and even minced-pies with dates in them are introduced.

TIMON OF ATHENS.

Paper is mentioned in this play. In a Roman drama it might have passed; but we have no evidence that the Greeks used the papyrus plant at this early period.

CORIOLANUS.

Alexander, Cato, and Galen, are improperly alluded to, all being posterior to the time of Coriolanus. Other anachronisms are—the mention of graves in a holy church-yard; groats, mummers, lockram, and a kitchen malkin. Coriolanus describes the populace by the names of Hob and Dick.

JULIUS CÆSAR.

Cassius speaks of a masker and reveller, and of the clock striking three.

ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA.

Antony talks of packing cards, and deals out his knaves, queens, hearts, and trumps, as if he were a whist-player. His bestowing the epithet of gipsy on Cleopatra is whimsical, but may perhaps admit of defence.

CYMBELINE.

The British tribute being estimated at three thousand pounds, strikes on the ear as a modern computation. Imogen calls her supposed master, a valiant ancient Briton, by the name of Richard Du Champ. We find mention of the recreation of bowling; of paper; of rushes strewed in apartments; of a striking clock; of cherubims, and a chapel as a burial place. Cymbeline is made to knight Bellario and his sons on the field of battle by dubbing them according to the fashion of the middle ages.

TITUS ANDRONICUS.

The period in which the incidents in this play are supposed to have happened (for they are all fictitious) is difficult to ascertain. There was an usurper called Saturninus during the reigns of Gallien and Aurelian, but he was not the son of any Roman emperor, as stated in the dramatis personæ. From the introduction of the Goths, the author perhaps adverted to the time of the above sovereigns. In all events the play has many absurdities to answer for. A child is sent to Aaron the Moor to be christened by him. He accuses Lucius of twenty Popish tricks; talks of an idiot's bauble; and says he can blush "like a black dog, as the saying is." A clown invokes "God and Saint Stephen." Aaron calls for clubs, as if addressing the London 'prentices; and Demetrius speaks of a dancing rapier. Cards and a monastery are also introduced.

PERICLES.

The story, though altogether fabulous, belongs to a period a little antecedent to the Christian æra; and therefore it is a manifest inconsistency to introduce crowns of the sun; sequins; a pistol; cambrick; a Spanish ruff; signs of inns; Monsieur Veroles a French knight; a Spanish name and motto, and the lues Venerea. Amidst numerous invocations to Heathen Gods, there is an immediate allusion to the unity of the Deity.

KING LEAR.

We have here a plentiful crop of blunders. Kent talks, like a good Protestant, of eating no fish; and Gloster, of not standing in need of spectacles. We have Turks, Bedlam beggars, child Roland, Saint Withold, a Marshal of France, steeples, dollars, paper, holy water, and the French disease. There is an allusion to the old theatrical moralities; and Nero, who did not live till several hundred years after Lear, is mentioned by Edgar as an angler in the lake of darkness.

HAMLET.

The Danish history has placed Hamlet in fabulous times, long before the introduction of Christianity into the North of Europe; and therefore there is great impropriety in the frequent allusion to Christian customs. Hamlet swears by Saint Patrick; and converses with Guildenstern on the children of the chapel of Saint Paul's. In several places cannon are introduced, and a good deal of the theatrical manners of Shakspeare's own time. We have a Danish seal royal long before seals were used; a university at Wittemberg; Swiss guards; serjeants or bailiffs; bells; ducats; crown-pieces; modern heraldry; rapiers, and terms of modern fencing.