of a comedy, coming by report of them to his representations, have found that wit there that they never found in themselves, and have parted better witted than they came; feeling an edge of wit set upon them more than ever they dreamed they had brain to grind it on. So much and such favoured salt of wit is in his comedies, that they seem (for their height of pleasure) to be born in that sea that brought forth Venus. Amongst all there is none more witty than this: and had I time I would comment upon it, though I know it needs not (for so much as will make you think your testern well bestowed), but for so much worth as even poor I know to be stuffed in it. It deserves such a labour, as well as the best comedy in Terence or Plautus. And believe this, that when he is gone, and his comedies out of sale, you will scramble for them, and set up a new English Inquisition. Take this for a warning, and at the peril of your pleasures' loss and judgments, refuse not, nor like this the less for not being sullied with the smoky breath of the multitude ; but thank Fortune for the scape it hath made amongst you, since by the grand possessors' wills I believe you should have prayed for them rather than been prayed. And so I leave all such to be prayed for (for the states of their wit's healths) that will not praise it. VALE.'

We learn distinctly from this address, that in 1609 Troilus and Cressida was a new play. It had not been acted, at least not publicly. And from the Stationers' Registers containing the following entry: Jan. 28, 1608. Richard Bonian and Hen. Walley. A booke called the History of Troylus and Cressida,' we seem to be warranted in assigning 1608 as the period of the composition of this play. But in the same registers there had been previously recorded a play on the same subject, the entry being, 'Feb. 7, 1602. Mr. Roberts. The booke of Troilus and Cresseda, as yt is acted by my Lo. Chamberlen's men.' This, however, appears to have been the composition of Dekker and Chettle; but it was probably made the basis of Shakspeare's play, for several portions of our author's drama are evidently the work of an inferior hand, and we may suppose him to have borrowed these from an earlier play through want of leisure or of inclination to alter them.

women.

'The original story,' says Dryden, 'was written by one Lollius, a Lombard, in Latin verse, and translated by Chaucer into English; intended, I suppose, as a satire on the inconstancy of I find nothing of it among the ancients, not so much as the name Cressida once mentioned.' This name, however, it should be observed, is written by Chaucer Cryseyde, and is derived through the Italian, from Chryseida, the accusative form of Chryseis, the name given by Homer to the daughter of Chryses, priest of Apollo, In Chaucer and Shakspeare she is the daughter of the soothsayer Calchas. As for the personage whom Chaucer calls 'Myn auctor Lollius,' he is perhaps only ideal. Chaucer took his story chiefly from the Filostrato of Boccaccio, though probably he consulted also a prose chronicle by Guido de Colonna, the remotest source to which the story of Troilus and Cressida has been traced. Of this chronicle there may have been some English version on which either Shakspeare's or the earlier play was immediately founded; but Chaucer is generally considered to have been Shakspeare's principal purveyor. Godwin, in his Life of Chaucer, complains that Shakspeare's commentators have done injustice to Chaucer in not more distinctly associating his memory with that of Shakspeare, in relation to the present play.

'It would be extremely unjust,' says Godwin, 'to quit the consideration of Chaucer's poem of Troilus and Creseide without noticing the high honour it has received in having been made the foundation of one of the plays of Shakespear. There seems to have been in this respect a sort of conspiracy in the commentators upon Shakespear against the glory of our old English bard. In what they have written concerning this play, they make a very slight mention of Chaucer; they have not consulted his poem for the purpose of illustrating this admirable drama; and they have agreed, as far as possible, to transfer to another author the honour of having supplied materials to the tragic artist. Dr. Johnson says, Shakespeare has in his story followed, for the greater part, the old book of Caxton, which was then very popular; but the character of Thersites, of which it makes no mention, is a proof that this play was written after Chapman had published his version of Homer." Mr. Steevens

66

asserts that "Shakspeare received the greatest part of his materials for the structure of this play from the Troye Boke of Lydgate." And Mr. Malone repeatedly treats the "History of the Destruction of Troy, translated by Caxton," as "Shakspeare's authority" in the composition of this drama. * *The

fact is, that the play of Shakespear we are here considering has for its main foundation the poem of Chaucer, and is indebted for many accessory helps to the books mentioned by the commentators.

*

'We are not, however, left to probability and conjecture as to the use made by Shakespear of the poem of Chaucer. His other sources were Chapman's translation of Homer, the "Troy Book" of Lydgate, and Caxton's History of the Destruction of Troy. It is well known that there is no trace of the particular story of Troilus and Creseide among the ancients. It occurs, indeed, in Lydgate and Caxton; but the name and actions of Pandarus, a very essential personage in the tale as related by Shakespear and Chaucer, are entirely wanting, except a single mention of him by Lydgate, and that with an express reference to Chaucer as his authority. Shakespear has taken the story of Chaucer with all its imperfections and defects, and has copied the series of its incidents with his customary fidelity; an exactness seldom to be found in any other dramatic writer.'

ix

REMARKS OF VARIOUS AUTHORS

ON

SHAKSPEARE'S 'TROILUS AND CRESSIDA.'

'SHAKSPEARE has drawn in Cressida the portrait of a vehement passion, that, having its true origin and proper cause in warmth of temperament, fastens on, rather than fixes to, some one object by liking and temporary preference. This he has contrasted with the profound affection represented in Troilus, and alone worthy the name of love ;-affection, passionate indeed, swoln with the confluence of youthful instincts and youthful fancy, and growing in the radiance of hope newly risen, in short enlarged by the collective sympathies of nature;-but still having a depth of calmer element in a will stronger than desire, more entire than choice, and which gives permanence to its own act by converting it into faith and duty. Hence, with excellent judgment, and with an excellence higher than mere judgment can give, at the close of the play, when Cressida has sunk into infamy below retrieval and beneath hope, the same will, which had been the substance and the basis of his love, while the restless pleasures and passionate longings, like sea-waves, had tossed but on its surface, this same moral energy is represented as snatching him aloof from all neighbourhood with her dishonour, from all lingering fondness and languishing regrets, whilst it rushes with him into other and nobler duties, and deepens the channel which his heroic brother's death had left

empty for its collected flood. Yet another secondary and subordinate purpose Shakspeare has inwoven with his delineation of these two characters,—that of opposing the inferior civilization, but purer morals, of the Trojans, to the refinements, deep policy, but duplicity and sensual corruptions, of the Greeks.

To all this, however, so little comparative projection is given,—nay, the masterly group of Agamemnon, Nestor, and Ulysses, and, still more in advance, that of Achilles, Ajax, and Thersites, so manifestly occupy the foreground, that the subservience and vassalage of strength and animal courage to intellect and policy seems to be the lesson most often in our poet's view, and which he has taken little pains to connect with the former more interesting moral impersonated in the titular hero and heroine of the drama. But I am half inclined to believe, that Shakspeare's main object, or shall I rather say, his ruling impulse, was to translate the poetic heroes of paganism into the not less rude, but more intellectually vigorous, and more featurely, warriors of Christian chivalry,—and to substantiate the distinct and graceful profiles or outlines of the Homeric epic into the flesh and blood of the romantic drama,— in short, to give a grand history-piece in the robust style of Albert Dürer.

'The character of Thersites, in particular, well deserves á more careful examination, as the Caliban of demagogic life; the admirable portrait of intellectual power deserted by all grace, all moral principle, all not momentary impulse ;-just wise enough to detect the weak head, and fool enough to provoke the armed fist of his betters;-one whom malcontent Achilles can inveigle from malcontent Ajax, under the one condition, that he shall be called on to do nothing but abuse and slander, and that he shall be allowed to abuse as much and as purulently as he likes, that is, as he can;-in short, a mule, -quarrelsome by the original discord of his nature,—a slave by tenure of his own baseness,―made to bray and be brayed at, to despise and be despicable.'-COLERIDGE.

'Homer's characters are drawn with a laudable portion of variety and consistency; but his Achilles, his Ajax, and his Nestor, are, each of them, rather a species than an individual,