University of Virginia Library

PREFACE.

Conscious that any attempt to treat with levity the works of our Immortal Poet is in some danger of being received with displeasure, the following production is submitted to the public with that diffidence which the delicacy of the subject must, naturally, excitc. In order, however, to remove those objections arising solely out of partiality or of prejudice, a few observations may not be, altogether, unnecessary.

The objection most commonly urged against burlesques and parodies in general, is, that they tend to bring into ridicule and contempt those authors against whose works they are directed. That this objection will hold when applied to works of inferior merit, or to such as are deficient in sense or genius, is freely admitted; but when used with reference to such writings as, from their intrinsic merit, have been long established in the public estimation, its futility is evident. Homer and Virgil have both been the subjects of strong burlesques, but they are still read with unabated admiration; the bay that adorns them still flourishes, and its verdure remains undiminished: and it would be an insult to the high character of our Poet,

were it supposed that the wreath is so loosely twined around his brows as to be endangered by so mere a trifle as that which gives rise to these remarks. Whilst the beauties of poetry shall continue to delight, the works of Shakspeare will be read with enthusiasm; and any serious attempt to tarnish his fame, or to degrade him from his exalted station, must ever be considered as weak and as ridiculous in the design, as it would certainly be found unavailing and impossible in the execution.

But whatever apology or extenuation may be deemed necessary for the liberty that is taken with the poet, it is presumed that neither

will be required for the use that is made of his annotators: for no real admirer of Shakspeare but must feel indignant at finding his sense perverted, and his meaning obscured , by the false lights, and the fanciful and arbitrary illustrations, of Black-letter Critics and Coney-catching Commentators. And it had been well if some able satirist had exposed and punished their folly, their affectation, and their arrogance, at the time when the rage for editing and commenting on Shakspeare was at its height, and every pedant in Black-letter lore assumed the prerogative of an authorized pollutor of his text .

From the force of its sentiments, the beauty of its imagery, and, above all, the solemnity

of its conduct, there is, perhaps, no tragedy in the English language better adapted to receive a burlesque than “Hamlet;” and from its being so frequently before the public, so very generally read, and so continually quoted, it is, more than any other, calculated to give to burlesque its full effect, and which can only be produced by a facility of contrast with its subject work. For it is obvious, that in a work of this nature (the object of which is to convey the precise sentiments and ideas of the author, but in language, and in a manner, unsuited to their subject and the character of the speaker) many parts must appear ridiculous, and even contemptible, when considered independently of the passage or passages to which they allude. For a reader, therefore, to derive entertainment from a burlesque, but more particularly to be enabled to decide whether it be ill or well executed, a familiar acquaintance with the original is indispensable.

The travestie having been originally undertaken with an idea to its representation on the stage, it will be perceived that stage-effect is sometimes considered: as in the opening of the piece amidst the magnificence of the palace, in preference to the stillness of the platform; and in the substitution of a pugilistic trial of skill, in the last scene, for the more elegant exercise of the rapier.

With respect to the annotations, particular allusions are sometimes made; but, in general, nothing more is intended than an imitation of the general style, manner, and character of the commentators; and an attempt to produce the ludicrous by the application of the pomp and affectation of critical sagacity and of controversial asperity, to subjects light, trifling, and insignificant.

With no other view, in the publication of this trifle, than to afford an hour's amusement, the author solicits for it an exemption from severe and minute criticism: with an apology for having occupied so much of his

reader's time, upon so unimportant a subject, he respectfully submits his work to the public, and trusts to an indulgent and liberal reception.