INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. TH CHRONOLOGY, STATE OF THE TEXT, AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. THE MERCHANT OF VENICE was first printed in 1600, when it appeared in two distinct quarto editions, by different publishers, Roberts, and Hayes, with such variations of text as, although slight, clearly show that they were different editions, and printed from different manuscripts, although both of them are, in the main, correct copies. In the folio edition of 1623 the edition of Hayes is reprinted, with some corrections of its misprints, and some few slight improvements, as if from a copy revised at some later period by the author. Accordingly, with the exception of two or three obscure passages, (such as the famous one-" Masters of passion sway it to the mood," etc.,) together with a few evident misprints, and some confusion of the names of minor characters, and of the assignment of their speeches, the text in every edition is nearly such as it came from the author's hand, and affords little room for the exercise of critical sagacity. Although it was first printed in 1600, it has lately been ascertained from the Stationers' Register that the "Merchaunt of Venice," evidently and indubitably Shakespeare's play, was in July, 1598, entered by Roberts, who afterwards published the best early edition. This was not to be printed "without lycense first had from the Lord Chamberlain." It is also mentioned in 1598, by Meares, in his "Wit's Treasury," in a list which he gives of Shakespeare's works; placing it at the last of the comedies he there names-LOVE'S LABOUR LOST, COMEDY OF ERRORS, and MIDSUMMER-NIGHT'S DREAM. Thus it appears probable that this comedy was written not very long before 1598, and was a popular piece on the stage at the time it was entered for pub-. ication in the Stationers' Register, in anticipation of procuring a copy for the press, and permission from the Lord Chamberlain, as the guardian of the interests of the company interested in the profits of the play. As the license was not obtained until two years after, it would seem that the attraction of novelty lasted to that time. The internal evidence of style and thought shows that this was not one of the class of the author's earliest dramatic works. It has few of the peculiar marks which stamp his earlier plays as partaking of the general taste of the age, rather than being the peculiar property of him who (according to Ben Jonson's noble eulogy) "was not for an age, but for all time." It is evidently the work of the period of full maturity of power, and confidence in its exercise; yet without that overflowing abundance of reflection, sentiment, varied allusion, with which every succeeding year more and more stored the Poet's mind, till his drama became (so to speak) "o'er-informed" with excess of crowded thought. The precise year of its composition it is impossible to ascertain, and is indeed of little moment; but the comparison of the other dramas clearly shows that it must have been written before MACBETH OF OTHELLO, and after ROMEO AND JULIET in its original form, resembling indeed in its taste, style, and versification, far more the additions and improvements of that tragedy than the original groundwork of it. As Coleridge has well remarked, it belongs to that epoch of the author's mind which "gave him all the graces and facilities of a genius in full possession and habitual exercise of power, and peculiarly of the feminine-of the lady's character." It was certainly written some time before the author's thirty-fourth year; and, in all probability, within a year or two before or after the thirtieth year of his age. In this point of view, it presents a literary phenomenon to which poetic history offers but few parallels. The freedom and beauty of its unborrowed and unrivalled melody, exquisite in itself, affords a rare example of that mastery over "the numbers of his mothertongue," which we have the great authority of Dryden for saying "nature never gives the young." As a dramatic work of art and judgment, it has been pronounced by the best critics of Europe (Mr. Hallam is among the number) to be perfect in the construction of the plot, the skilful involution and blending of the two stories,-that of Portia, and that of the Merchant, the deep interest of the action, the variety, spirit, truth, and vivid discrimination of character, the copiousness of its wit, the splendour of its poetry, and the depth and beauty of its moral eloquence. It has, I think, one peculiarity which has escaped critical attention. Ranking deservedly, as it does, among Shakespeare's most perfect and certainly among his most pleasing works, and bearing throughout the deep stamp of his genius, yet it is (at least so it strikes my mind) the least Shakespearian of his greater dramas, in the same sense that LEAR and MACBETH are the most so. My meaning will be made more clear than any critical discussion can make it, by the comparison of Portia's beautiful exhortation-"The quality of mercy is not strained," etc., with any of those briefer passages in LEAR, urging the great duties of human sympathy and charity upon "the superfluous and lust-dieted man." The play is less Shakespearian than many others, because it has less of that marvellous combination of impassioned imagery with ponderous thoughts, clothed in such burning words as Shakespeare could alone give to his language, and compressing volumes of wisdom or feeling into a brief phrase, a hasty allusion, or a rapidly passing image. He here rather seems to luxuriate in a more diffuse moral eloquence, and to dwell in a calmer mood upon all the ideas, and incidents, and scenes, and circumstances of surpassing beauty, grace, or splendour, which his lavish imagination pours around with profuse magnificence. It has, too, |