INTRODUCTION.

HERE are three ways by which we may estimate the extent of Shakspeare's

knowledge and use of Holy Scripture. The first is the obvious references to the facts and characters of the Bible which his plays contain; the second, the tone and colouring which pervade his moral and religious principles and sentiments; and the third, the poetical thoughts or imagery which he appears to have borrowed more or less directly from the Scriptures. I shall begin with the first, that is, the historical references, as affording the clearest and most direct proofs of our poet's study of the Bible, which it is my purpose to establish; because, if we are satisfied that the point in question is demonstrated by these, we shall be more ready to admit the same conclusion when we come to deal with the two other branches of the evidence, which, from their own nature, must necessarily be of a less definite and exact, and consequently less convincing character.

But before proceeding with the task thus pre

scribed, it is due to the character of our great poet that I should point out how much misconception respecting Shakspeare's treatment of Holy Scripture has prevailed among his critics, even of the highest rank. Let me produce one notable example, derived from the play of Antony and Cleopatra, Act iii. Sc. II.

After the ignominious flight, in which Antony had followed Cleopatra from the coast of Actium back to Alexandria, Octavius Cæsar, the conqueror, sends a messenger to endeavour to detach the queen from her paramour. This messenger is received favourably by Cleopatra in a private interview, and just as he is kissing her hand, previous to his departure, Antony comes in, and in the highest strain of indignation, embittered by the consciousness of his downfall and disgrace, upbraids her as follows:

Antony. To let a fellow that will take rewards,
And say, God quit you! be familiar with

My playfellow, your hand; this kingly seal,
And plighter of high hearts! O that I were

Upon the hill of Basan, to outroar

The horned herd, for I have savage cause:

And to proclaim it civilly, were like

A halter'd neck, which does the hangman thank
For being yare about him.

*

This passage gives striking evidence of our poet's familiarity with the Old Testament; see

* i. e. adroit.

Ps. xxii. 12, lxviii. 15; Ezek. xxxix. 18; Amos iv. I. But is there anything to give offence even to the most pious mind, in the way in which he has applied his knowledge of these passages? And yet not only has Mr. Bowdler omitted the reference to the hill of Basan' as indecorous, but critics, including Johnson himself, have concurred in condemning it as matter for regret, nay even for 'pity and indignation!'

I confess I am not surprised that the editor of the Variorum edition,' Mr. James Boswell, though he professes in general to have scrupulously retained all the critical remarks of his predecessors, yet made an exception, by venturing, as he says, 'in a very few instances,' to expunge a note in which Shakspeare had been, in his opinion, most perversely and injuriously charged with an irreverent allusion to Scripture.'* I am sorry he did not carry process of expunction so far as to delete the note of Johnson just referred to.† Nor can I omit to add that, while I desire to express my thankfulness to Mr. Bowdler for the manner in which he has executed his praiseworthy undertaking in many respects, I very much regret the undue sensitiveness which has led him sometimes to alter, and sometimes to omit, passages perfectly inoffensive, for no other

the

* Vol. i. Advertisement, p. 8.

† See also another note of Johnson, to the same effect, given in that edition, vol. xi. p. 455.

reason that I can discover, except the allusion they contain to the language of Scripture.

The following example affords an instance both of alteration and of omission. In the Second Part of King Henry VI. Queen Margaret says to the king

What, dost thou turn away, and hide thy face?

I am no loathsome leper, look on me.

What, art thou, like the adder, waxen deaf?

Be poisonous too, and kill thy forlorn queen.
Act iii. Sc. 2.

These three last lines are omitted by Mr. Bowdler. And why? Because we read about 'lepers,' and still more, because we read about' deaf adders' in the Bible. See Psalm lviii. 4, 5 : ‹ Their poison is like the poison of a serpent; they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear; they will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.' This beautiful image appears to have struck the imagination of our poet, and not without reason. He therefore makes use of it again, and with singular propriety, in Troilus and Cressida; where Hector says to Paris and Troilus:

Pleasure and revenge

Have ears more deaf than adders, to the voice
Of any true decision.

Act iii. Sc. 2.

This Mr. Bowdler has altered into

Have ears for ever deaf unto the voice, &c.,

whereby the notion of truth charming wisely, but in