way been connected with Shakespeare. Herr Karl Elze appeals to the omission of Pericles and Henry VI. from the list as a parallel instance, but we submit that there is no reason at all for associating Shakespeare with Pericles at this period, and that his connexion with the three parts of Henry VI. is doubtful. In any case the last-mentioned play would hardly be quoted by an admirer as a proof of his genius; whereas if Hamlet had existed, even in the imperfect form in which it appears in the quarto of 1603, it would have supplied at least as good an instance of his tragic power as Titus Andronicus or Richard III. At some time therefore between 1598 and 1602 Hamlet, as retouched by Shakespeare, was put upon the stage. We are inclined to think that it was acted not very long before the date of Roberts' entry in the Stationers' Registers, namely, 26 July 1602. Our reason for this opinion is, that if the play had been long a popular one and had been frequently represented, the printer or publisher would have had many opportunities of procuring a more accurate copy than that from which the edition of 1603 was made. The errors of this edition, and the manifest haste with which it was printed, seem to show that the play had only been acted a short time before, and that the publisher went to press with the first copy he could obtain, however imperfect. This supposition is favoured by the expression in the Stationers' Register, 'as it was lately acted,' which would hardly have been used of a play which had long been popular. Steevens endeavoured, very unfairly we think, to make it appear that Shakespeare's Hamlet was known in 1598, by quoting a MS. note written by Gabriel Harvey in a copy of Speght's edition of Chaucer published in that year. He attributed to the note the date of the book, but Malone has shown that, although Harvey may have purchased the volume in 1598, there is nothing to prove that he wrote the note till after 1600, in which year Fairfax's translation of Tasso, mentioned in another note, was published. In fact, Harvey may have written the note in any one of the thirty years which he lived after the book came into his possession. Malone himself fixed the date of the first performance of Hamlet in the autumn of 1600, because in the

June of that year all players were 'inhibited' except those at the Fortune and the Globe; and this he supposes will explain the reference in ii. 2. 323, 'their inhibition comes by the means of the late innovation.' But as this passage appears for the first time in 1604 and is not in the edition of 1603, with which Malone was unacquainted, it would seem, if it had any special meaning at all, to refer to something which had happened between those two years.

After a careful examination of the quarto of 1603, and a comparison of the play as there exhibited with its later form, we have arrived at a conclusion which, inasmuch as it is conjectural and based to a large extent upon subjective considerations, we state with some diffidence. It is this:-That there was an old play on the story of Hamlet, some portions of which are still preserved in the quarto of 1603; that about the year 1602 Shakespeare took this and began to remodel it for the stage, as he had done with other plays; that the quarto of 1603 represents the play after it had been retouched by him to a certain extent, but before his alterations were complete; and that in the quarto of 1604 we have for the first time the Hamlet of Shakespeare. It is quite true, as Mr. Knight has remarked, that in the quarto of 1603 we have the whole 'action' of the play; that is to say, the events follow very much the same order and the catastrophe is the same. There are however some important modifications even in this respect. The scene with Ophelia, which in the modern play occurs in iii. 1, is in the older form introduced in the middle of ii. 2. Polonius is Corambis in the older play, and Reynaldo is Montano. The madness of Hamlet is much more pronounced, and the Queen's innocence of her husband's murder much more explicitly stated, in the earlier than in the later play. In fact, the earlier play in these respects corresponds more closely with the original story. In the earlier form it appears to us that Shakespeare's modification of the play had not gone much beyond the second act. Certainly in the third act we find very great unlikeness and very great inferiority to the later play. In fact, in the first, third, and fourth scenes there is hardly a trace of Shakespeare,

and in the second, which is the scene where the play is introduced, there are very remarkable differences. The fourth act in language has very little in common with its present form, and in the first scene of the fifth act there are still some traces of the original play. In the second scene of this act the dialogue between Hamlet and Horatio is not found, and the interview with Osric in its old dress may fairly be put down to the earlier writer. The rest of the scene is much altered, and of course improved, and wherever these improvements come it strikes us with irresistible force that in comparing the later with the earlier form of the play we are not comparing the work of Shakespeare at two different periods of his life, but the work of Shakespeare with that of a very inferior artist. If any one desires to be convinced of this, let him read the interview of Hamlet with his mother, in the two quartos of 1603 and 1604. Going backwards we come to the second act, and here the first scene is so imperfectly given in the quarto of 1603 that it is impossible to say what it really represented. Here and there a line occurs as it now stands, but on the whole it is very defective, and appears to have been set down from memory. The opening of the second scene is changed, and in the quarto of 1603 seems to belong to the original play. On the other hand, the speeches of Corambis (Polonius) and Voltemar (Voltimand) are nearly verbatim the same as the later edition. The rest of the scene is altered and much improved. The first act is substantially the same in the two editions, allowing for the extremely imperfect and careless manner in which it is given in the quarto of 1603. The first scene is fairly rendered, the speeches of Marcellus and Horatio being, so far as they go, almost word for word the same as in the quarto of 1604, where the dialogue is expanded. In the second scene the speeches are very imperfect, and it is difficult to say how far they represent the earlier or the later play; Hamlet's soliloquy is sadly mutilated, as if written down in fragments from memory; but in the interview with Horatio the early quarto agrees closely with the later. The third and fourth scenes are badly reported, but otherwise contain the groundwork of the

present play, and Hamlet's address to the Ghost is given almost verbatim, as is the dialogue which follows. In the fifth scene the order of the dialogue is slightly altered but not materially changed, and Hamlet's soliloquy after the Ghost's disappearance is very much mutilated. The interview with Marcellus and Horatio is but little altered.

In conclusion, we venture to think that a close examination of the quarto of 1603 will convince any one that it contains some of Shakespeare's undoubted work, mixed with a great deal that is not his, and will confirm our theory that the text, imperfect as it is, represents an older play in a transition state, while it was undergoing a remodelling but had not received more than the first rough touches of the great master's hand.

In Mr. Albert Cohn's Shakespeare in Germany, the text of a German play on the subject of Hamlet is given (pp. 237-304), the original of which is thought to have been brought to Germany by the English players as early as 1603. If this hypothesis be correct it is probable that the German text even in its present diluted form may contain something of the older English play upon which Shakespeare worked. As in the quarto of 1603 Polonius is Corambis, in the German he is Corambus. It does not appear that the German playwright made use of Shakespeare's Hamlet, or even of the play as represented in the quarto of 1603. The theory that it may be derived from a still earlier source is therefore not improbable.

We have reserved for the preface the discussion of a question which properly belonged to the notes, but which would there have taken up too much space. It is this:-What explanation is to be given of the passage in Act ii. Sc. 2, which refers to the 'tragedians of the city,' who apppear to have been compelled to 'travel,' that is to stroll, in consequence of some inhibition? Is there any reference in this to any special act of legislation, and if so, to what? In the quarto of 1603 the passage stands thus:

Ham. How comes it that they trauell? Do they grow restie? Gil. No my Lord, their reputation holds as it was wont.

Gil. Yfaith my Lord, noueltie carries it away,
For the principall publike audience that

Came to them, are turned to priuate playes,
And to the humour of children.

Ham. I doe not greatly wonder of it, &c.

Lines 330-351, are omitted, as they are in the other quartos, which have simply,

Ham. How chances it they trauaile? their residence both in reputation, and profit was better both wayes.

Ros. I thinke their inhibition, comes by the meanes of the late innouasion.

Ham. Doe they hold the same estimation they did when I was in the Citty; are they so followed.

Ros. No indeede are they not.

Ham. It is not very strange, &c.

In the earlier play the tragedians are driven to strolling because the public taste was in favour of the private plays and the acting of children; in the later, they are represented as being prohibited from acting in consequence of what is darkly called an 'innovation.' Both these causes are combined in the play as it stands in the folios, where the 'inhibition' and the 'aery of children' are introduced to account for the tragedians having forsaken the city. Steevens explains the 'inhibition' in this way: 'their permission to act any longer at an established house is taken away, in consequence of the new custom of introducing personal abuse into their comedies,' and then asserts that 'several companies of actors in the time of our author were silenced on account of this licentious practice.' But it is not clear that this is the reference intended. For a very long period there had been a strong opposition in the city to theatrical performances. In March 1573-4 the Lord Mayor and Corporation declined to license a place for them within the city. In 1575 players were again forbidden to act there, and in consequence in 1576 the Blackfriars Theatre was built without the limits of the jurisdiction of the city. In 1581 the Lord Mayor was ordered to allow performances in the city by certain companies of actors on week days only, being holidays; but his inhibition must have remained still in force, because in the following year, 1582, the Lords of the