NOTE Z.

FOOTNOTES:[278]The 'beacon' which he bids approach is not the moon, as Pope supposed. The moon was up and shining some time ago (ii.ii. 35), and lines 1 and 141-2 imply that not much of the night is left.[279]'Hold' can mean 'take'; but the word 'this' in line 160 ('Know'st thou this paper?') favours the idea that the paper is still in Albany's hand.

FOOTNOTES:

[278]The 'beacon' which he bids approach is not the moon, as Pope supposed. The moon was up and shining some time ago (ii.ii. 35), and lines 1 and 141-2 imply that not much of the night is left.

[279]'Hold' can mean 'take'; but the word 'this' in line 160 ('Know'st thou this paper?') favours the idea that the paper is still in Albany's hand.

I have assumed in the text that almost the whole ofMacbethis genuine; and, to avoid the repetition of arguments to be found in other books,[280]I shall leave this opinion unsupported. But among the passages that have been questioned or rejected there are two which seem to me open to serious doubt. They are those in which Hecate appears: viz. the whole ofiii.v.; andiv.i. 39-43.

These passages have been suspected (1) because they contain stage-directions for two songs which have been found in Middleton'sWitch; (2) because they can be excised without leaving the least trace of their excision; and (3) because they contain lines incongruous with the spirit and atmosphere of the rest of the Witch-scenes:e.g.iii.v. 10 f.:

all you have doneHath been but for a wayward son,Spiteful and wrathful, who, as others do,Loves for his own ends, not for you;

andiv.i. 41, 2:

And now about the cauldron sing,Like elves and fairies in a ring.

The idea of sexual relation in the first passage, and the trivial daintiness of the second (with which cf.iii.v. 34,

Hark! I am call'd; my little spirit, see,Sits in a foggy cloud, and stays for me)

suit Middleton's Witches quite well, but Shakespeare's not at all; and it is difficult to believe that, if Shakespeare had meant to introduce a personage supreme over the Witches, he would have made her so unimpressive as this Hecate. (It may be added that the original stage-direction ativ.i. 39, 'Enter Hecat and the other three Witches,' is suspicious.)

I doubt if the second and third of these arguments, taken alone, would justify a very serious suspicion of interpolation; but the fact, mentioned under (1), that the play has here been meddled with, trebles their weight. And it gives some weight to the further fact that these passages resemble one another, and differ from the bulk of the other Witch passages, in being iambic in rhythm. (It must, however, be remembered that, supposing Shakespearedidmean to introduce Hecate, he might naturally use a special rhythm for the parts where she appeared.)

The same rhythm appears in a third passage which has been doubted:iv.i. 125-132. But this is notquiteon a level with the other two; for (1), though it is possible to suppose the Witches, as well as the Apparitions, to vanish at 124, and Macbeth's speech to run straight on to 133, the cut is not so clean as in the other cases; (2) it is not at all clear that Hecate (the most suspicious element) is supposed to be present. The original stage-direction at 133 is merely 'The Witches Dance, and vanish'; and even if Hecate had been present before, she might have vanished at 43, as Dyce makes her do.

FOOTNOTES:[280]E.g.Mr. Chambers's excellent little edition in the Warwick series.

FOOTNOTES:

[280]E.g.Mr. Chambers's excellent little edition in the Warwick series.

Macbethis a very short play, the shortest of all Shakespeare's except theComedy of Errors. It contains only 1993 lines, whileKing Learcontains 3298,Othello3324, andHamlet3924. The next shortest of the tragedies isJulius Caesar, which has 2440 lines. (The figures are Mr. Fleay's. I may remark that for our present purpose we want the number of the lines in the first Folio, not those in modern composite texts.)

Is there any reason to think that the play has been shortened? I will briefly consider this question, so far as it can be considered apart from the wider one whether Shakespeare's play was re-handled by Middleton or some one else.

That the play, as we have it, isslightlyshorter than the play Shakespeare wrote seems not improbable. (1) We have no Quarto ofMacbeth; and generally, where we have a Quarto orQuartos of a play, we find them longer than the Folio text. (2) There are perhaps a few signs of omission in our text (over and above the plentiful signs of corruption). I will give one example (i.iv. 33-43). Macbeth and Banquo, returning from their victories, enter the presence of Duncan (14), who receives them with compliments and thanks, which they acknowledge. He then speaks as follows:

My plenteous joys,Wanton in fulness, seek to hide themselvesIn drops of sorrow. Sons, kinsmen, thanes,And you whose places are the nearest, know,We will establish our estate uponOur eldest, Malcolm, whom we name hereafterThe Prince of Cumberland; which honour mustNot unaccompanied invest him only,But signs of nobleness, like stars, shall shineOn all deservers. From hence to Inverness,And bind us further to you.

Here the transition to the naming of Malcolm, for which there has been no preparation, is extremely sudden; and the matter, considering its importance, is disposed of very briefly. But the abruptness and brevity of the sentence in which Duncan invites himself to Macbeth's castle are still more striking. For not a word has yet been said on the subject; nor is it possible to suppose that Duncan had conveyed his intention by message, for in that case Macbeth would of course have informed his wife of it in his letter (written in the interval between scenes iii. and iv.). It is difficult not to suspect some omission or curtailment here. On the other hand Shakespeare may have determined to sacrifice everything possible to the effect of rapidity in the First Act; and he may also have wished, by the suddenness and brevity of Duncan's self-invitation, to startle both Macbeth and the audience, and to make the latter feel that Fate is hurrying the King and the murderer to their doom.

And that anyextensiveomissions have been made seems not likely. (1) There is no internal evidence of the omission of anything essential to the plot. (2) Forman, who saw the play in 1610, mentions nothing which we do not find in our play; for his statement that Macbeth was made Duke of Northumberland is obviously due to a confused recollection of Malcolm'sbeing made Duke of Cumberland. (3) Whereabouts could such omissions occur? Only in the first part, for the rest is full enough. And surely anyone who wanted to cut the play down would have operated, say, on Macbeth's talk with Banquo's murderers, or oniii.vi., or on the very long dialogue of Malcolm and Macduff, instead of reducing the most exciting part of the drama. We might indeed suppose that Shakespeare himself originally wrote the first part more at length, and made the murder of Duncan come in the Third Act, and thenhimselfreduced his matter so as to bring the murder back to its present place, perceiving in a flash of genius the extraordinary effect that might thus be produced. But, even if this idea suited those who believe in a rehandling of the play, what probability is there in it?

Thus it seems most likely that the play always was an extremely short one. Can we, then, at all account for its shortness? It is possible, in the first place, that it was not composed originally for the public stage, but for some private, perhaps royal, occasion, when time was limited. And the presence of the passage about touching for the evil (iv.iii. 140 ff.) supports this idea. We must remember, secondly, that some of the scenes would take longer to perform than ordinary scenes of mere dialogue and action;e.g.the Witch-scenes, and the Battle-scenes in the last Act, for a broad-sword combat was an occasion for an exhibition of skill.[281]And, lastly, Shakespeare may well have felt that a play constructed and written likeMacbeth, a play in which a kind of fever-heat is felt almost from beginning to end, and which offers very little relief by means of humorous or pathetic scenes, ought to be short, and would be unbearable if it lasted so long asHamletor evenKing Lear. And in fact I do not think that, in reading, wefeel Macbethto be short: certainly we are astonished when we hear that it is about half as long asHamlet. Perhaps in the Shakespearean theatre too it appeared to occupy a longer time than the clock recorded.

FOOTNOTES:[281]These two considerations should also be borne in mind in regard to the exceptional shortness of theMidsummer Night's Dreamand theTempest. Both contain scenes which, even on the Elizabethan stage, would take an unusual time to perform. And it has been supposed of each that it was composed to grace some wedding.

FOOTNOTES:

[281]These two considerations should also be borne in mind in regard to the exceptional shortness of theMidsummer Night's Dreamand theTempest. Both contain scenes which, even on the Elizabethan stage, would take an unusual time to perform. And it has been supposed of each that it was composed to grace some wedding.

Dr. Forman sawMacbethperformed at the Globe in 1610. The question is how much earlier its composition or first appearance is to be put.

It is agreed that the date is not earlier than that of the accession of James I. in 1603. The style and versification would make an earlier date almost impossible. And we have the allusions to 'two-fold balls and treble sceptres' and to the descent of Scottish kings from Banquo; the undramatic description of touching for the King's Evil (James performed this ceremony); and the dramatic use of witchcraft, a matter on which James considered himself an authority.

Some of these references would have their fullest effect early in James's reign. And on this ground, and on account both of resemblances in the characters of Hamlet and Macbeth, and of the use of the supernatural in the two plays, it has been held thatMacbethwas the tragedy that came next afterHamlet, or, at any rate, next afterOthello.

These arguments seem to me to have no force when set against those that point to a later date (about 1606) and placeMacbethafterKing Lear.[282]And, as I have already observed, the probability is that it also comes after Shakespeare's part ofTimon, and immediately beforeAntony and CleopatraandCoriolanus.

I will first refer briefly to some of the older arguments in favour of this later date, and then more at length to those based on versification.

(1) Inii.iii. 4-5, 'Here's a farmer that hang'd himself on the expectation of plenty,' Malone found a reference to the exceptionally low price of wheat in 1606.

(2) In the reference in the same speech to the equivocator who could swear in both scales and committed treason enough for God's sake, he found an allusion to the trial of the Jesuit Garnet, in the spring of 1606, for complicity in the GunpowderTreason and Plot. Garnet protested on his soul and salvation that he had not held a certain conversation, then was obliged to confess that he had, and thereupon 'fell into a large discourse defending equivocation.' This argument, which I have barely sketched, seems to me much weightier than the first; and its weight is increased by the further references to perjury and treason pointed out on p.397.

(3) Halliwell observed what appears to be an allusion toMacbethin the comedy of thePuritan, 4to, 1607: 'we'll ha' the ghost i' th' white sheet sit at upper end o' th' table'; and Malone had referred to a less striking parallel inCaesar and Pompey, also pub. 1607:

Why, think you, lords, that 'tisambition's spurThatprickethCaesar to these high attempts?

He also found a significance in the references inMacbethto the genius of Mark Antony being rebuked by Caesar, and to the insane root that takes the reason prisoner, as showing that Shakespeare, while writingMacbeth, was reading Plutarch'sLives, with a view to his next playAntony and Cleopatra(S.R. 1608).

(4) To these last arguments, which by themselves would be of little weight, I may add another, of which the same may be said. Marston's reminiscences of Shakespeare are only too obvious. In hisDutch Courtezan, 1605, I have noticed passages which recallOthelloandKing Lear, but nothing that even faintly recallsMacbeth. But in readingSophonisba, 1606, I was several times reminded ofMacbeth(as well as, more decidedly, ofOthello). I note the parallels for what they are worth.

WithSophonisba, Acti.Sc. ii.:

Upon whose tops the Roman eagles stretch'dTheir large spread wings, which fann'd the evening aireTo us cold breath,

cf.Macbethi.ii. 49:

Where the Norweyan banners flout the skyAnd fan our people cold.

Cf.Sophonisba, a page later: 'yet doubtful stood the fight,' withMacbeth,i.ii. 7, 'Doubtful it stood' ['Doubtful long itstood'?] In the same scene ofMacbeththe hero in fight is compared to an eagle, and his foes to sparrows; and inSoph.iii.ii. Massinissa in fight is compared to a falcon, and his foes to fowls and lesser birds. I should not note this were it not that all these reminiscences (if they are such) recall one and the same scene. InSophonisbaalso there is a tremendous description of the witch Erictho (iv.i.), who says to the person consulting her, 'I know thy thoughts,' as the Witch says to Macbeth, of the Armed Head, 'He knows thy thought.'

(5) The resemblances betweenOthelloandKing Learpointed out on pp.244-5and inNote R. form, when taken in conjunction with other indications, an argument of some strength in favour of the idea thatKing Learfollowed directly onOthello.

(6) There remains the evidence of style and especially of metre. I will not add to what has been said in the text concerning the former; but I wish to refer more fully to the latter, in so far as it can be represented by the application of metrical tests. It is impossible to argue here the whole question of these tests. I will only say that, while I am aware, and quite admit the force, of what can be said against the independent, rash, or incompetent use of them, I am fully convinced of their value when they are properly used.

Of these tests, that of rhyme and that of feminine endings, discreetly employed, are of use in broadly distinguishing Shakespeare's plays into two groups, earlier and later, and also in marking out the very latest dramas; and the feminine-ending test is of service in distinguishing Shakespeare's part inHenry VIII.and theTwo Noble Kinsmen. But neither of these tests has any power to separate plays composed within a few years of one another. There is significance in the fact that theWinter's Tale, theTempest,Henry VIII., contain hardly any rhymed five-foot lines; but none, probably, in the fact thatMacbethshows a higher percentage of such lines thanKing Lear,Othello, orHamlet. The percentages of feminine endings, again, in the four tragedies, are almost conclusive against their being early plays, and would tend to show that they were not among the latest; but the differences in their respective percentages, which would place them in the chronological orderHamlet,Macbeth,Othello,King Lear(König), orMacbeth,Hamlet,Othello,King Lear(Hertzberg), areof scarcely any account.[283]Nearly all scholars, I think, would accept these statements.

The really useful tests, in regard to plays which admittedly are not widely separated, are three which concern the endings of speeches and lines. It is practically certain that Shakespeare made his verse progressively less formal, by making the speeches end more and more often within a line and not at the close of it; by making the sense overflow more and more often from one line into another; and, at last, by sometimes placing at the end of a line a word on which scarcely any stress can be laid. The corresponding tests may be called the Speech-ending test, the Overflow test, and the Light and Weak Ending test.

I. The Speech-ending test has been used by König,[284]and I will first give some of his results. But I regret to say that I am unable to discover certainly the rule he has gone by. He omits speeches which are rhymed throughout, or which end with a rhymed couplet. And he counts only speeches which are 'mehrzeilig.' I suppose this means that he counts any speech consisting of two lines or more, but omits not only one-line speeches, but speeches containing more than one line but less than two; but I am not sure.

In the plays admitted by everyone to be early the percentage of speeches ending with an incomplete line is quite small. In theComedy of Errors, for example, it is only 0.6. It advances to 12.1 inKing John, 18.3 inHenry V., and 21.6 inAs You Like It. It rises quickly soon after, and in no play written (according to general belief) after about 1600 or 1601 is it less than 30. In the admittedly latest plays it rises much higher, the figures being as follows:—Antony77.5,Cor.79,Temp.84.5,Cym.85,Win. Tale87.6,Henry VIII.(parts assigned to Shakespeare by Spedding) 89. Going back, now, to the four tragedies, we find the following figures:Othello41.4,Hamlet51.6,Lear60.9,Macbeth77.2. These figures placeMacbethdecidedly last, with a percentage practically equal to that ofAntony, the first of the final group.

I will now give my own figures for these tragedies, as they differ somewhat from König's, probably because my method differs.(1) I have included speeches rhymed or ending with rhymes, mainly because I find that Shakespeare will sometimes (in later plays) end a speech which is partly rhymed with an incomplete line (e.g. Ham.iii.ii. 187, and the last words of the play: orMacb.v.i. 87,v.ii. 31). And if such speeches are reckoned, as they surely must be (for they may be, and are, highly significant), those speeches which end with complete rhymed lines must also be reckoned. (2) I have counted any speech exceeding a line in length, however little the excess may be;e.g.

I'll fight till from my bones my flesh be hacked.Give me my armour:

considering that the incomplete line here may be just as significant as an incomplete line ending a longer speech. If a speech begins within a line and ends brokenly, of course I have not counted it when it is equivalent to a five-foot line;e.g.

Wife, children, servants, allThat could be found:

but I do count such a speech (they are very rare) as

My lord, I do not know:But truly I do fear it:

for the same reason that I count

You know notWhether it was his wisdom or his fear.

Of the speeches thus counted, those which end somewhere within the line I find to be inOthelloabout 54 per cent.; inHamletabout 57; inKing Learabout 69; inMacbethabout 75.[285]The order is the same as König's, but the figures differ a good deal. I presume in the last three cases this comes from the difference in method; but I think König's figures forOthellocannot be right, for I have tried several methods and find that the result is in no case far from the result of my own, and I am almost inclined to conjecture that König's 41.4 is really the percentage of speeches ending with the close of a line, which would give 58.6 for the percentage of the broken-ended speeches.[286]

We shall find that other tests also would putOthellobeforeHamlet, though close to it. This may be due to 'accident'—i.e.a cause or causes unknown to us; but I have sometimes wondered whether the last revision ofHamletmay not have succeeded the composition ofOthello. In this connection the following fact may be worth notice. It is well known that the differences of the Second Quarto ofHamletfrom the First are much greater in the last three Acts than in the first two—so much so that the editors of the Cambridge Shakespeare suggested thatQ1represents an old play, of which Shakespeare's rehandling had not then proceeded much beyond the Second Act, whileQ2represents his later completed rehandling. If that were so, the composition of the last three Acts would be a good deal later than that of the first two (though of course the first two would be revised at the time of the composition of the last three). Now I find that the percentage of speeches ending with a broken line is about 50 for the first two Acts, but about 62 for the last three. It is lowest in the first Act, and in the first two scenes of it is less than 32. The percentage for the last two Acts is about 65.

II. The Enjambement or Overflow test is also known as the End-stopped and Run-on line test. A line may be called 'end-stopped' when the sense, as well as the metre, would naturally make one pause at its close; 'run-on' when the mere sense would lead one to pass to the next line without any pause.[287]This distinction is in a great majority of cases quite easy to draw: in others it is difficult. The reader cannot judge by rules of grammar, or by marks of punctuation (for there is a distinct pause at the end of many a line where most editors print no stop): he must trust his ear. And readers will differ, one making a distinct pause where another does not. This, however, does not matter greatly, so long as the reader is consistent; for the important point is not the precise number of run-on linesin a play, but the difference in this matter between one play and another. Thus one may disagree with König in his estimate of many instances, but one can see that he is consistent.

In Shakespeare's early plays, 'overflows' are rare. In theComedy of Errors, for example, their percentage is 12.9 according to König[288](who excludes rhymed lines and some others). In the generally admitted last plays they are comparatively frequent. Thus, according to König, the percentage in theWinter's Taleis 37.5, in theTempest41.5, inAntony43.3, inCoriolanus45.9, inCymbeline46, in the parts ofHenry VIII.assigned by Spedding to Shakespeare 53.18. König's results for the four tragedies are as follows:Othello, 19.5;Hamlet, 23.1;King Lear, 29.3;Macbeth, 36.6; (Timon, the whole play, 32.5).Macbethhere again, therefore, stands decidedly last: indeed it stands near the first of the latest plays.

And no one who has ever attended to the versification ofMacbethwill be surprised at these figures. It is almost obvious, I should say, that Shakespeare is passing from one system to another. Some passages show little change, but in others the change is almost complete. If the reader will compare two somewhat similar soliloquies, 'To be or not to be' and 'If it were done when 'tis done,' he will recognise this at once. Or let him search the previous plays, evenKing Lear, for twelve consecutive lines like these:

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere wellIt were done quickly: if the assassinationCould trammel up the consequence, and catchWith his surcease success; that but this blowMight be the be-all and the end-all here,But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,We 'ld jump the life to come. But in these casesWe still have judgement here; that we but teachBloody instructions, which, being taught, returnTo plague the inventor: this even-handed justiceCommends the ingredients of our poison'd chaliceTo our own lips.

Or let him try to parallel the following (iii.vi. 37 f.):

or this (iv.iii. 118 f.):

Macduff, this noble passion,Child of integrity, hath from my soulWiped the black scruples, reconciled my thoughtsTo thy good truth and honour. Devilish MacbethBy many of these trains hath sought to win meInto his power, and modest wisdom plucks meFrom over-credulous haste: but God aboveDeal between thee and me! for even nowI put myself to thy direction, andUnspeak mine own detraction, here abjureThe taints and blames I laid upon myself,For strangers to my nature.

I pass to another point. In the last illustration the reader will observe not only that 'overflows' abound, but that they follow one another in an unbroken series of nine lines. So long a series could not, probably, be found outsideMacbethand the last plays. A series of two or three is not uncommon; but a series of more than three is rare in the early plays, and far from common in the plays of the second period (König).

I thought it might be useful for our present purpose, to count the series of four and upwards in the four tragedies, in the parts ofTimonattributed by Mr. Fleay to Shakespeare, and inCoriolanus, a play of the last period. I have not excluded rhymed lines in the two places where they occur, and perhaps I may say that my idea of an 'overflow' is more exacting than König's. The reader will understand the following table at once if I say that, according to it,Othellocontains three passages where a series of four successive overflowinglines occurs, and two passages where a series of five such lines occurs:

(The figures forMacbethandTimonin the last column must be borne in mind. I observed nothing in the non-Shakespeare part ofTimonthat would come into the table, but I did not make a careful search. I felt some doubt as to two of the four series inOthelloand again inHamlet, and also whether the ten-series inCoriolanusshould not be put in column 7).

III.The light and weak ending test.

We have just seen that in some cases a doubt is felt whether there is an 'overflow' or not. The fact is that the 'overflow' has many degrees of intensity. If we take, for example, the passage last quoted, and if with König we consider the line

The taints and blames I laid upon myself

to be run-on (as I do not), we shall at least consider the overflow to be much less distinct than those in the lines

but God aboveDeal between thee and me! for even nowI put myself to thy direction, andUnspeak my own detraction, here abjure

And of these four lines the third runs on into its successor at much the greatest speed.

'Above,' 'now,' 'abjure,' are not light or weak endings: 'and' is a weak ending. Prof. Ingram gave the name weak ending to certain words on which it is scarcely possible to dwell at all, and which, therefore, precipitate the line which they close into the following. Light endings are certain words which have the same effect in a slighter degree. For example,and,from,in,of, are weak endings;am,are,I,he, are light endings.

The test founded on this distinction is, within its limits, the most satisfactory of all, partly because the work of its authorcan be absolutely trusted. The result of its application is briefly as follows. Until quite a late date light and weak endings occur in Shakespeare's works in such small numbers as hardly to be worth consideration.[289]But in the well-defined group of last plays the numbers both of light and of weak endings increase greatly, and, on the whole, the increase apparently is progressive (I say apparently, because the order in which the last plays are generally placed depends to some extent on the test itself). I give Prof. Ingram's table of these plays, premising that inPericles,Two Noble Kinsmen, andHenry VIII.he uses only those parts of the plays which are attributed by certain authorities to Shakespeare (New Shakspere Soc. Trans., 1874).

Now, let us turn to our four tragedies (withTimon). Here again we have one doubtful play, and I give the figures for the whole ofTimon, and again for the parts ofTimonassigned to Shakespeare by Mr. Fleay, both as they appear in his amended text and as they appear in the Globe (perhaps the better text).

Now here the figures for the first three plays tell us practically nothing. The tendency to a freer use of these endings is notvisible. As toTimon, the number of weak endings, I think, tells us little, for probably only two or three are Shakespeare's; but the rise in the number of light endings is so marked as to be significant. And most significant is this rise in the case ofMacbeth, which, like Shakespeare's part ofTimon, is much shorter than the preceding plays. It strongly confirms the impression that inMacbethwe have the transition to Shakespeare's last style, and that the play is the latest of the five tragedies.[290]

FOOTNOTES:[282]The fact thatKing Learwas performed at Court on December 26, 1606, is of course very far from showing that it had never been performed before.[283]I have not tried to discover the source of the difference between these two reckonings.[284]Der Vers in Shakspere's Dramen, 1888.[285]In the parts ofTimon(Globe text) assigned by Mr. Fleay to Shakespeare, I find the percentage to be about 74.5. König gives 62.8 as the percentage in the whole of the play.[286]I have noted also what must be a mistake in the case of Pericles. König gives 17.1 as the percentage of the speeches with broken ends. I was astounded to see the figure, considering the style in the undoubtedly Shakespearean parts; and I find that, on my method, in Actsiii., iv., v.the percentage is about 71, in the first two Acts (which show very slight, if any, traces of Shakespeare's hand) about 19. I cannot imagine the origin of the mistake here.[287]I put the matter thus, instead of saying that, with a run-on line, one does pass to the next line without any pause, because, in common with many others, I should not in any case whateverwhollyignore the fact that one line ends and another begins.[288]These overflows are what König calls 'schroffe Enjambements,' which he considers to correspond with Furnivall's 'run-on lines.'[289]The number of light endings, however, inJulius Caesar(10) andAll's Well(12) is worth notice.[290]The Editors of the Cambridge Shakespeare might appeal in support of their view, that parts of Actv.are not Shakespeare's, to the fact that the last of the light endings occurs ativ.iii. 165.

FOOTNOTES:

[282]The fact thatKing Learwas performed at Court on December 26, 1606, is of course very far from showing that it had never been performed before.

[283]I have not tried to discover the source of the difference between these two reckonings.

[284]Der Vers in Shakspere's Dramen, 1888.

[285]In the parts ofTimon(Globe text) assigned by Mr. Fleay to Shakespeare, I find the percentage to be about 74.5. König gives 62.8 as the percentage in the whole of the play.

[286]I have noted also what must be a mistake in the case of Pericles. König gives 17.1 as the percentage of the speeches with broken ends. I was astounded to see the figure, considering the style in the undoubtedly Shakespearean parts; and I find that, on my method, in Actsiii., iv., v.the percentage is about 71, in the first two Acts (which show very slight, if any, traces of Shakespeare's hand) about 19. I cannot imagine the origin of the mistake here.

[287]I put the matter thus, instead of saying that, with a run-on line, one does pass to the next line without any pause, because, in common with many others, I should not in any case whateverwhollyignore the fact that one line ends and another begins.

[288]These overflows are what König calls 'schroffe Enjambements,' which he considers to correspond with Furnivall's 'run-on lines.'

[289]The number of light endings, however, inJulius Caesar(10) andAll's Well(12) is worth notice.

[290]The Editors of the Cambridge Shakespeare might appeal in support of their view, that parts of Actv.are not Shakespeare's, to the fact that the last of the light endings occurs ativ.iii. 165.

A good many readers probably think that, when Macbeth first met the Witches, he was perfectly innocent; but a much larger number would say that he had already harboured a vaguely guilty ambition, though he had not faced the idea of murder. And I think there can be no doubt that this is the obvious and natural interpretation of the scene. Only it is almost necessary to go rather further, and to suppose that his guilty ambition, whatever its precise form, was known to his wife and shared by her. Otherwise, surely, she would not, on reading his letter, so instantaneously assume that the King must be murdered in their castle; nor would Macbeth, as soon as he meets her, be aware (as he evidently is) that this thought is in her mind.

But there is a famous passage inMacbethwhich, closely considered, seems to require us to go further still, and to suppose that, at some time before the action of the play begins, the husband and wife had explicitly discussed the idea of murdering Duncan at some favourable opportunity, and had agreed to execute this idea. Attention seems to have been first drawn to this passage by Koester in vol.i.of theJahrbücher d. deutschen Shakespeare-gesellschaft, and on it is based the interpretation of the play in Werder's very ableVorlesungen über Macbeth.

The passage occurs ini.vii., where Lady Macbeth is urging her husband to the deed:

Here Lady Macbeth asserts (1) that Macbeth proposed the murder to her: (2) that he did so at a time when there was no opportunity to attack Duncan, no 'adherence' of 'time' and 'place': (3) that he declared he wou'dmakean opportunity, and swore to carry out the murder.

Now it is possible that Macbeth's 'swearing' might have occurred in an interview off the stage between scenes v. and vi., or scenes vi. and vii.; and, if in that interview Lady Macbeth had with difficulty worked her husband up to a resolution, her irritation at his relapse, in sc. vii., would be very natural. But, as for Macbeth's first proposal of murder, it certainly does not occur in our play, nor could it possibly occur in any interview off the stage; for when Macbeth and his wife first meet, 'time' and 'place'doadhere; 'they have made themselves.' The conclusion would seem to be, either that the proposal of the murder, and probably the oath, occurred in a scene at the very beginning of the play, which scene has been lost or cut out; or else that Macbeth proposed, and swore to execute, the murder at some time prior to the action of the play.[291]The first of these hypotheses is most improbable, and we seem driven toadopt the second, unless we consent to burden Shakespeare with a careless mistake in a very critical passage.

And, apart from unwillingness to do this, we can find a good deal to say in favour of the idea of a plan formed at a past time. It would explain Macbeth's start of fear at the prophecy of the kingdom. It would explain why Lady Macbeth, on receiving his letter, immediately resolves on action; and why, on their meeting, each knows that murder is in the mind of the other. And it is in harmony with her remarks on his probable shrinking from the act, to which,ex hypothesi, she had already thought it necessary to make him pledge himself by an oath.

Yet I find it very difficult to believe in this interpretation. It is not merely that the interest of Macbeth's struggle with himself and with his wife would be seriously diminished if we felt he had been through all this before. I think this would be so; but there are two more important objections. In the first place the violent agitation described in the words,

Back to Index Next