Shakspere and Montaigne | Page 2

quarto, published the year before (1603), we find that almost
every one of these innovations is directed against the principles of a
new philosophical work--The Essays of Michel Montaigne--which had
appeared at that time in England, and which was brought out under the
high auspices of the foremost noblemen and protectors of literature in
this country.
From many hints in contemporary dramas, and from some clear
passages in 'Hamlet' itself, it follows at the same time that the polemics
carried on by Shakspere in 'Hamlet' are in most intimate connection
with a controversy in which the public took a great interest, and which,
in the first years of the seventeenth century, was fought out with much
bitterness on the stage. The remarkable controversy is known, in the
literature of that age, under the designation of the dispute between Ben
Jonson and Dekker. A thorough examination of the dramas referring to
it shows that Shakspere was even more implicated in this theatrical
warfare than Dekker himself.
The latter wrote a satire entitled 'Satiromastix,' in which he replies to
Ben Jonson's coarse personal invectives with yet coarser abuse.
'Hamlet' was Shakspere's answer to the nagging hostilities of the
quarrelsome adversary, Ben Jonson, who belonged to the party which
had brought the philosophical work in question into publicity. And the
evident tendency of the innovations in the second quarto of 'Hamlet,'
we make bold to say, convinces us that it must have been far more
Shakspere's object to oppose, in that masterly production of his, the
pernicious influence which the philosophy of the work alluded to
threatened to exercise on the better minds of his nation, than to defend
himself against the personal attacks of Ben Jonson.
The controversy itself is mentioned in 'Hamlet.' It is a disclosure of the
poet, which sheds a little ray of light into the darkness in which his
earthly walk is enveloped. The master, who otherwise is so sparing

with allusions as to his sphere of action, speaks [2] bitter words against
an 'aery of children' who were then 'in fashion,' and were 'most
tyrannically clapped for it.' We are further told that these little eyases
cry out on the top of the question and so berattle the common stages (so
they call them), that many, wearing rapiers, are afraid of goose-quills,
and dare scarce come thither.' The 'goose-quills' are, of course, the
writers of the dramas played by the 'little eyases.' We then learn 'that
there was for a while no money bid for argument' (Shakspere, we see,
was not ashamed of honest gain) 'unless the poet and the player went to
cuffs in the question.' Lastly, the reproach is made to the nation that it
'holds it no sin to tarre them (the children) to controversy.' This satire is
undoubtedly--all commentators agree upon this point--directed against
the performances of the children who at that time flourished. The most
popular of these juvenile actors were the Children of Paul's, the
Children of the Revels, the Children of the Chapel Royal.
Shakspere's remarks, directed against these forward youngsters, may
appear to us to-day as of very secondary importance in the great drama.
To the poet, no doubt, it was not so. The words by which he alludes to
this episode in his life come from his very heart, and were written for
the purpose of reproving the conduct of the public in regard to himself.
'Hamlet' was composed in the atmosphere of this literary feud, from
which we draw confirmatory proof that our theory stands on the solid
ground of historical fact.
Even should our endeavour to finally solve the great problem of
'Hamlet' be made in vain, we believe we shall at least have pointed out
a way on which others might be more successful. In contradistinction to
the manner hitherto in use of drawing conclusions from impressions
only, our own matter-of-fact attempt will have this advantage, that the
time spent in it will not be wholly wasted; for, in looking round on the
scene of that eventful century, we shall become more intimate with its
literature and the characters of Shakspere's contemporaries.
Before entering upon the theme itself, it is necessary to cast a rapid
glance at the condition of the dramatic art of that period.

0. 'Enlarged to almost as much-againe as it was.'
0. Act ii. sc. 2.
II.
THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ENGLISH DRAMA.
THE STAGE A MEDIUM FOR POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS
CONTROVERSIES.
SHAKSPERE'S POLITICAL CREED.
FLORIO'S TRANSLATION OF MONTAIGNE'S ESSAYS.
Long before Shakspere, perhaps with fardel on his back, travelled to
London, the stage, not only in the capital, but in the whole country, had
begun to exercise its attractive power upon the people's imagination.
In the year 1586, a Protestant zealot, a soldier, [1] writes:--'When the
belles tole to the Lectorer, the