148apps.com BestAppEver: “Stanza has redefined how everyone thinks about reading on a mobile device.”
2008 Best Free App

Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Written by Mr. William Shakespeare (1736) by Anonymous - ACT V.

(download Open eBook Format)

Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Written by Mr. William Shakespeare (1736)

ACT V.

The Scene of the Grave-​Dig­gers. (p. 344.) I know is much ap­plaud­ed, but in my hum­ble Opin­ion, is very un­be­com­ing such a Piece as this, and is on­ly par­don­able as it gives Rise to _Ham­let's_ fine moral Re­flec­tions up­on the In­fir­mi­ty of hu­man Na­ture.

Page 354.

Ham­let's Re­turn to _Den­mark_ is not ill con­triv'd; but I can­not think that his Stratagem is nat­ural or easy, by which he brings that De­struc­tion up­on the Heads of his En­emies, which was to have fall­en up­on him­self. It was pos­si­ble, but not very prob­able; be­cause me­thinks, their Com­mis­sion was kept in a very neg­li­gent Man­ner, to be thus got from them with­out their know­ing it. Their Pun­ish­ment was just, be­cause they had de­vot­ed them­selves to the Ser­vice of the Usurp­er in what­ev­er he should com­mand, as ap­pears in sev­er­al Pas­sages.

It does not ap­pear whether _Ophe­lia's_ Mad­ness was chiefly for her Fa­ther's Death, or for the Loss of _Ham­let_. It is not of­ten that young Wom­en run mad for the Loss of their Fa­thers. It is more nat­ural to sup­pose, that like _Chimene_ in the _Cid_, her great Sor­row pro­ceed­ed from her Fa­ther's be­ing kill'd by the Man she lov'd, and there­by mak­ing it in­de­cent for her ev­er to mar­ry him.

Page 351.

In _Ham­let's_ leap­ing in­to _Ophe­lia's_ Grave, (which is ex­press'd with great En­er­gy and Force of Pas­sion) we have the first re­al Proof of his Love for her, which dur­ing this whole Piece has been forced to sub­mit to Pas­sions of greater Weight and Force, and here is suf­fered to break out chiefly, as it is nec­es­sary to­wards the Wind­ing up of the Piece. It is but an Un­der-​Pas­sion in the Play, and seems to be in­tro­duced more to con­form to the Plan our Po­et built up­on, than for any Thing else; tho' as the whole Play is man­aged, it con­duces to­wards the Con­clu­sion, as well as it di­ver­si­fies, and adds Beau­ties to the whole Piece.

Page 357.

The Scene of the Fop _Os­rick_ is cer­tain­ly in­tend­ed as a Satire up­on the young Courtiers of those Days, and is hu­mourous­ly ex­press'd, but is, I think, im­prop­er for Tragedy.

Ham­let's feel­ing, as it were, a Presage in his own Breast, of the Mis­for­tune im­pend­ing from his ac­cept­ing _Laertes's_ Chal­lenge, is beau­ti­ful; and we are to note, that our Au­thor in sev­er­al of his Plays, has brought in the chief Per­son­ages as hav­ing a sort of prophet­ick Idea of their Death; as in _Romeo_ and _Juli­et_. It was (I doubt not) the Opin­ion of the Age he lived in.

Laertes's Death, and the Queen's, are tru­ly po­et­ical Jus­tice, and very nat­ural­ly brought about; al­though I do not con­ceive it to be so easy to change Rapiers in a Scuf­fle, with­out know­ing it at the Time.

The Death of the Queen is par­tic­ular­ly ac­cord­ing to the strictest Rules of Jus­tice, for she los­es her Life by the Vil­lany of the very Per­son, who had been the Cause of all her Crimes.

Page 364.

Since the Po­et de­ferred so long the Usurp­er's Death, we must own, that he has very nat­ural­ly ef­fect­ed it, and still added fresh Crimes to those the Mur­der­er had al­ready com­mit­ted.

Up­on _Laertes's_ Re­pen­tance for con­triv­ing the Death of _Ham­let_, one can­not but feel some Sen­ti­ments of Pity for him; but who can see or read the Death of the young Prince with­out melt­ing in­to Tears and Com­pas­sion? _Ho­ra­tio's_ earned De­sire to die with the Prince, (_p. 365, and Se­quel_,) thus not to sur­vive his Friend, gives a stronger Idea of his Friend­ship for _Ham­let_ in the few Lines on that Oc­ca­sion, than many Ac­tions or Ex­pres­sions could pos­si­bly have done. And _Ham­let's_ beg­ging him to _draw his Breath in this Harsh World_ a lit­tle longer, to clear his Rep­uta­tion and man­ifest his In­no­cence, is very suit­able to his vir­tu­ous Char­ac­ter, and the hon­est Re­gard that all Men should have not to be mis­rep­re­sent­ed to Pos­ter­ity; that they may not let a bad Ex­am­ple, when in re­al­ity they have set a good one; which is the on­ly Mo­tive that can, in Rea­son, rec­om­mend the Love of Fame and Glo­ry.

Page 366.

When the Am­bas­sadors from _Eng­land_ say,

_Where shall we have our Thanks?_

And _Ho­ra­tio_ an­swers,

_Not from his Mouth, He nev­er gave_, &c.

I won­der that Mr. _Theobalds_ should see any Dif­fi­cul­ty in this; for it is but ap­ply­ing to the King what _Ho­ra­tio_ says, who knew the whole Af­fair, and then his An­swer is just and true; and in­deed, I think it can­not well be un­der­stood in any oth­er Sense from the whole Tenour of the Pas­sage.

Ho­ra­tio's De­sire of hav­ing the Bod­ies car­ried to a Stage, &c. is very well imag­ined, and was the best way of sat­is­fy­ing the Re­quest of his de­ceased Friend. And he acts in this, and in all Points, suit­ably to the man­ly, hon­est Char­ac­ter un­der which he is drawn through­out the whole Piece. Be­sides, it gives a sort of Con­tent to the Au­di­ence, that tho' their Favourite (which must be _Ham­let_) did not es­cape with Life, yet the great­est amends will be made him, which can be in this World, viz. Jus­tice done to his Mem­ory.

Fort­in­brass comes in very nat­ural­ly at the Close of this Play, and lays a very just Claim to the Throne of _Den­mark_, as he had the dy­ing Voice of the Prince. He in few Words gives a no­ble Char­ac­ter of _Ham­let_, and serves to car­ry off the de­ceased Hero from the Stage with the Hon­ours due to his Birth and Mer­it.

I shall close these Re­marks with some gen­er­al Ob­ser­va­tions, and shall avoid (as I have hith­er­to done) re­peat­ing any Thing which has been said by oth­ers, at least as much as I pos­si­bly can: Nor do I think it nec­es­sary to make an os­ten­ta­tious Shew of Learn­ing, or to draw quaint Par­al­lels be­tween our Au­thor and the great Trag­ic Writ­ers of An­tiq­ui­ty; for in Truth, this is very lit­tle to the Pur­pose in re­view­ing _Shake­speare's_ Dra­mat­ic Works; since most Men are I be­lieve con­vinced, that he is very lit­tle in­debt­ed to any of them; and a re­mark­able In­flu­ence of this is to be ob­served in his Tragedy of _Troilus_ and _Cres­si­da_, where­in it ap­pears (as Mr. _Theobalds_ has ev­ident­ly demon­strat­ed it,) that he has cho­sen an old _En­glish_ Ro­mance con­cern­ing the _Tro­jan_ War, as a wor­thi­er Guide than even _Homer_ him­self. Na­ture was our great Po­et's Mis­tress; her alone has he fol­lowed as his Con­duc­tress; and there­fore it has been with re­gard to her on­ly, that I have con­sid­ered this Tragedy. It is not to be de­nied, but that _Shake­speare's_ Dra­mat­ic Works are in gen­er­al very much mix'd; his Gold is strange­ly min­gled with Dross in most of his Pieces. He fell too much in­to the low Taste of the Age he liv'd in, which de­light­ed in mis­er­able Puns, low Wit, and af­fect­ed sen­ten­tious Max­ims; and what is most un­par­don­able in him, he has in­ter­spersed his no­blest Pro­duc­tions with this Poor­ness of Thought. This I have shewn in my Re­marks on this Play. Yet, notwith­stand­ing the De­fects I have point­ed out, it is, I think, be­yond Dis­pute, that there is much less of this in _Ham­let_ than in any of his Plays; and that the Lan­guage in the Whole, is much more pure, and much more free from Ob­scu­ri­ty or Bom­bast, than any of our Au­thor's Tragedies; for some­times _Shake­speare_ may be just­ly tax'd with that Fault. And we may more­over take No­tice, that the Con­duct of this Piece is far from be­ing bad; it is su­pe­ri­or in that re­spect (in my Opin­ion) to many of those Per­for­mances in which the Rules are said to be ex­act­ly kept to. The Sub­ject, which is of the nicest Kind, is man­aged with great Del­ica­cy, much be­yond that Piece where­in _Agamem­non's_ Death is re­venged by his Son _Orestes_, so much ad­mired by all the Lovers of An­tiq­ui­ty; for the Pun­ish­ment of the Mur­der­er alone by the Son of the mur­dered Per­son, is suf­fi­cient; there is some­thing too shock­ing in a Moth­er's be­ing put to Death by her Son, al­though she be nev­er so guilty. _Shake­speare's_ Man­age­ment in this Par­tic­ular, has been much ad­mired by one of our great­est Writ­ers, who takes No­tice of the beau­ti­ful Cau­tion giv­en by the Ghost to _Ham­let_,

_But how­so­ev­er thou pur­suest this Act_, &c.

The mak­ing the Whole to turn up­on the Ap­pear­ance of a Spec­tre, is a great Im­prove­ment of the Plan he work'd up­on; es­pe­cial­ly as he has con­duct­ed it in so sub­lime a Man­ner, and ac­com­pa­nied it with all the Cir­cum­stances that could make it most per­fect in its kind.

I have ob­served in my Re­marks, that the Po­et has, with great Art, brought about the Pun­ish­ment of the guilty Queen by the very Per­son who caused her Guilt, and this with­out Stain­ing her Son's Hands with her Blood.

There is less Time em­ploy'd in this Tragedy, as I ob­served else where, than in most of our Au­thor's Pieces, and the Uni­ty of Place is not much dis­turbed. But here give me leave to say, that the Cr­it­ick's Rules, in re­spect to these two Things, if they prove any Thing, prove too much; for if our Imag­ina­tion will not bear a strong Im­po­si­tion, sure­ly no Play ought to be sup­posed to take more Time than is re­al­ly em­ploy'd in the Act­ing; nor should there be any Change of Place in the least. This shews the Ab­sur­di­ty of such Ar­bi­trary Rules. For how would such a Ge­nius as _Shake­speare's_ have been cramped had he thus fet­tered him­self! But there is (in Truth) no Ne­ces­si­ty for it. No Rules are of any Ser­vice in Po­et­ry, of any kind, un­less they add Beau­ties, which con­sist (in Tragedy) in an ex­act Con­for­mi­ty to Na­ture in the Con­duct of the Char­ac­ters, and in a sub­lim­ity of Sen­ti­ments and no­ble­ness of Dic­tion. If these two Things be well ob­served, tho' of­ten at the Ex­pence of Uni­ty of Time and Place, such Pieces will al­ways please, and nev­er suf­fer us to find out the lit­tle De­fects in the Plot; nay it gen­er­al­ly hap­pens (at least Ex­pe­ri­ence has shewn it fre­quent­ly) that those Pieces where­in the fan­ta­stick Rules of Cr­it­icks have been kept strict­ly to, have been gen­er­al­ly flat and low. We are to con­sid­er, that no Dra­mat­ick Piece can af­fect us but by the Delu­sion of our Imag­ina­tion; which, to taste true and re­al Plea­sures at such Rep­re­sen­ta­tions, must un­der­go very great Im­po­si­tions, even such as in Spec­ula­tion seem very gross, but which are nev­er­the­less al­lowed of by the strictest Cr­it­icks. In the first Place, our Un­der­stand­ings are nev­er shocked at hear­ing all Na­tions, on our Stage, speak _En­glish_; an Ab­sur­di­ty one would think that should im­me­di­ate­ly re­volt us; but which is, how­ev­er, ab­so­lute­ly nec­es­sary in all Coun­tries where Dra­mat­ick Per­for­mances are re­sort­ed to, un­less the Char­ac­ters be al­ways sup­posed to be of each re­spec­tive Na­tion; as for in­stance, in all _Shake­speare's_ His­tor­ical Plays. I say, this nev­er shocks us nor do we find any Dif­fi­cul­ty in be­liev­ing the Stage to be _Rome_, (or _Den­mark_, for in­stance, as in this Play;) or _Wilks_ to be _Ham­let_, or _Booth_ to be a Ghost, &c. These Things, I re­peat it, ap­pear dif­fi­cult in Spec­ula­tion; but we find, that in Re­al­ity they do go down; and must nec­es­sar­ily do so, or else farewel all Dra­mat­ick Per­for­mances; for un­less the Dis­tress and Woes ap­pear to be re­al (which they nev­er can, if we do not be­lieve we ac­tu­al­ly see the Things that are rep­re­sent­ed) it is im­pos­si­ble our Pas­sions should be moved. Let any one fair­ly judge, if these do not seem as great Im­po­si­tions on our Rea­son, as the Change of Place, or the Length of Time, which are found fault with in our Po­et. I con­fess there are Bounds set to this Delu­sion of our Imag­ina­tions, (as there are to ev­ery Thing else in this World) for this Delu­sion is nev­er per­form'd in di­rect De­fi­ance of our Rea­son; on the con­trary, our Rea­son helps on the De­ceit; but she will con­cur no far­ther in this Delu­sion, than to a cer­tain Point which she will nev­er pass, and that is, the Es­sen­tial Dif­fer­ence be­tween Plays which de­ceive us by the As­sis­tance of our Rea­son, and oth­ers which would im­pose up­on our Imag­ina­tions in De­spight of our Rea­son. It is ev­ident by the Suc­cess our Au­thor's Pieces have al­ways met with for so long a Course of Time; it is, I say, cer­tain by this gen­er­al Ap­pro­ba­tion, that his Pieces are of the for­mer, not of the lat­ter Sort. But to go to the Bot­tom of this Mat­ter, would lead me be­yond what I pro­pose.

Since there­fore it is cer­tain, that the strict Ob­ser­vance of the Cr­it­ick's Rules might take away Beau­ties, but not al­ways add any, why should our Po­et be so much blamed for giv­ing a Loose to his Fan­cy? The Sub­lim­ity of Sen­ti­ments in his Pieces, and that ex­alt­ed Dic­tion which is so pe­cu­liar­ly his own, and in fine, all the Charms of his Po­et­ry, far out­weigh any lit­tle Ab­sur­di­ty in his Plots, which no ways dis­turb us in the Plea­sures we reap from the above-​men­tion'd Ex­cel­len­cies. And the more I read him, the more I am con­vinced, that as he knew his own par­tic­ular Tal­ent well, he study'd more to work up great and mov­ing Cir­cum­stances to place his chief Char­ac­ters in, so as to af­fect our Pas­sions strong­ly, he ap­ply'd him­self more to This than he did to the Means or Meth­ods where­by he brought his Char­ac­ters in­to those Cir­cum­stances. How far a gen­er­al Vogue is the Test of the Mer­it of a Tragedy, has been of­ten con­sid­ered by em­inent Writ­ers, and is a Sub­ject of too com­pli­cat­ed a Na­ture to dis­cuss in these few Sheets. But I shall just hint two or three of my own Thoughts on that Head. Na­ture is the Ba­sis of all Trag­ick Per­for­mances, and no Play that is un­nat­ural, i.e. where­in the Char­ac­ters act in­con­sis­tent­ly with them­selves, and in a Man­ner re­pug­nant to our nat­ural Ideas, can please at all. But a Play may be nat­ural, and yet dis­please one Sett of Peo­ple out of Two, of which all Au­di­ences are com­posed. If a Play be built up­on low Sub­jects, but yet car­ried on con­sis­tent­ly, and has no Mer­it but Na­ture, it will please the Vul­gar; by which I mean, all the un­learned and ill-​ed­ucat­ed, (as for In­stance, _George Barn­well_, a Piece cal­cu­lat­ed for the Many) but it must be nau­seous to the Learned, and to those of im­proved and ex­alt­ed Un­der­stand­ings. So on the oth­er Hand, a Piece which turns up­on Pas­sions, which re­gard those of high Sta­tion chiefly, can­not be so pleas­ing to the Vul­gar; for tho' all Men are born with the same Pas­sions, yet Ed­uca­tion very much ex­alts and re­fines them. Thus the Loves of Boors and Peas­ants may de­light the Pop­ulace, but those of bet­ter Sort must have Del­ica­cy in that Pas­sion to see it rep­re­sent­ed with any tol­er­able Pa­tience. The same is to be said of Jeal­ousy and Re­venge, which are in­deed felt by all, but in Breasts well ed­ucat­ed are felt with sharp­er Pangs, and are com­bat­ed with more Ve­he­mence, and from more and greater Mo­tives; there­fore such Peo­ple are fit­ter to judge, and more like­ly to be tak­en with no­ble and sub­lime Rep­re­sen­ta­tions of such In­ci­dents. I need not ob­serve, that the Vul­gar can­not judge of the His­tor­ical Pro­pri­ety of a great Char­ac­ter, This is ob­vi­ous to ev­ery one; nor can they judge of the Pas­sion of Am­bi­tion, as it has Pow­er with Princes and great Men, be­cause not be­ing versed by Read­ing in par­al­lel Sto­ries, and not be­ing in such a Sit­ua­tion of Life, as to feel the Tor­ments of such Pas­sions, they can­not cer­tain­ly tell whether such Things are rep­re­sent­ed with prop­er Cir­cum­stances, and prop­er Con­se­quences drawn from them. And more­over, as all Men are by Na­ture more prone to some Pas­sions than to oth­ers, This must cause Va­ri­ety of Sen­ti­ments in re­la­tion to the same Piece. Be­sides all this, we may be very cer­tain that dif­fer­ent Ed­uca­tion, dif­fer­ent De­grees of Un­der­stand­ing, and of the Pas­sions com­mon to all Men, must cause a Va­ri­ety of Sen­ti­ments con­cern­ing such Rep­re­sen­ta­tions. To prove this, let us ob­serve how the Tastes of Na­tions dif­fer in re­la­tion to these Things; so much, that one would be tempt­ed some­times to think, that they did not all par­take of the same Pas­sions; but cer­tain­ly they vary in the De­grees of them; there­fore by a Par­ity of Rea­son we may just­ly con­clude, that Dif­fer­ence of Ed­uca­tion among those of the same Na­tion must af­fect their Pas­sions and Sen­ti­ments. The bet­ter sort have (if one may so ex­press it) some ac­quired Pas­sions which the low­er sort are ig­no­rant of. Thus in­deed it seems at first Sight; but on a near­er View they are found to be, as I said, the same Pas­sions aug­ment­ed or re­fined, and turned up­on oth­er Ob­jects. The dif­fer­ent Man­ner in which one of _Corneille's_ or _Racine's_ Pieces would be re­ceived by an Au­di­ence of _Turks_ or _Rus­sians_, and an Au­di­ence of _French­men_, (sup­pos­ing the for­mer to un­der­stand the Lan­guage, and the lat­ter to be free from any na­tion­al Prej­udices for the Au­thors) is a live­ly and strong Em­blem of the Force of Ed­uca­tion and Cus­tom among Crea­tures, all cast in the same Mould, and en­dued with the same Fac­ul­ties and Pas­sions with very lit­tle re­al Dif­fer­ence. Still far­ther, we may ob­serve, that even good Act­ing will rec­om­mend some bad Pieces, as bad Act­ing will take away half the Mer­it of good Ones; and some Na­tion­al Sub­jects are pleas­ing (as the _Al­bion Queens_ and _Earl_ of _Es­sex_) to the Many, tho' they very lit­tle af­fect the Few. When I speak of Plays, I de­sire to be un­der­stood of Tragedies, in which I think the _En­glish_ ex­cell; for I can men­tion very few of our Come­dies with any Ap­pro­ba­tion; since in the Lat­ter, nei­ther the Morals of the In­hab­itants of this Na­tion are re­gard­ed, or Na­ture fol­lowed. In short, not to pur­sue a Sub­ject, that would car­ry me great Lengths, I con­clude from this, that a Piece which has no Mer­it in it but Na­ture, will please the Vul­gar; where­as ex­alt­ed Sen­ti­ments, and Pu­ri­ty and No­ble­ness of Dic­tion, as well as Na­ture, are ab­so­lute­ly req­ui­site to please those of a true Taste. And it is very pos­si­ble, that a Play which turns up­on some great Pas­sion, sel­dom felt by the Vul­gar, and where­in that Pas­sion is treat­ed with the great­est Del­ica­cy and Just­ness; I say, it is very pos­si­ble that such a Piece may please the Few, and dis­please the Many. And as a Proof of the bad Taste of the Mul­ti­tude, we find in this Na­tion of ours, that a vile _Pan­tomime_ Piece, full of Ma­chin­ery, or a lewd blas­phe­mous Com­edy, or wretched Farce, or an emp­ty ob­scure low Bal­lad Opera, (in all which, to the scan­dal of our Na­tion and Age, we sur­pass all the World) shall draw to­geth­er crowd­ed Au­di­ences, when there is full El­bow-​Room at a no­ble Piece of _Shake­speare's_ or _Rowe's_.

Be­fore I con­clude, I must point out an­oth­er Beau­ty in the Tragedy of _Ham­let_, be­sides those al­ready men­tioned, which does in­deed arise from our Au­thor's con­form­ing to a Rule which he fol­lowed, (prob­ably, with­out know­ing it,) on­ly be­cause it is agree­able to Na­ture; and this is, that there is not one Scene in this Play but what some way or oth­er con­duces to­wards the _De­noüe­ment_ of the Whole; and thus the Uni­ty of Ac­tion is in­dis­putably kept up by ev­ery Thing tend­ing to what we may call the main De­sign, and it all hangs by Con­se­quence so close to­geth­er, that no Scene can be omit­ted, with­out Prej­udice to the Whole. Even _Laertes_ go­ing to _France_, and _Ophe­lia's_ Mad­ness, how­ev­er triv­ial they may seem (and how much so­ev­er I dis­like the Method of that last men­tioned) are In­ci­dents ab­so­lute­ly nec­es­sary to­wards the con­clud­ing of all; as will ap­pear to any one up­on due Con­sid­er­ation. This all holds good, notwith­stand­ing it is my Opin­ion, that sev­er­al of the Scenes might have been al­tered by our Au­thor for the bet­ter; but as they all stand, it is, as I said, quite im­pos­si­ble to sep­arate them, with­out a vis­ible Prej­udice to the Whole. I must add, that I am much in Doubt, whether Scenes of Prose are al­low­able, ac­cord­ing to Na­ture and Rea­son, in Tragedies which are com­posed chiefly of Blank Verse; the Ob­jec­tion to them seems to be this, that as all Verse is not re­al­ly in Na­ture, but yet Blank Verse is nec­es­sary in Tragedies, to en­no­ble the Dic­tion, and by Cus­tom is be­come nat­ural to us, Prose mixed with it serves on­ly, me­thinks, to dis­cov­er the Ef­fects of Art, by the Con­traste be­tween Verse and Prose. Add to all this, That it is not suit­able to the Dig­ni­ty of such Per­for­mances.

In short, Vice is pun­ished in this ex­cel­lent Piece, and there­by the Moral Use of it is un­ques­tion­able. And if _Ham­let's_ Virtue is not re­ward­ed as we could wish, Mr. _Ad­di­son's_ Max­im ought to sat­ify us, which is this, “That no Man is so thor­ough­ly Vir­tu­ous as to claim a Re­ward in Tragedy, or to have Rea­son to re­pine at the Dis­pen­sa­tions of Prov­idence; and it is be­sides more In­struc­tive to the Au­di­ence, be­cause it abates the In­so­lence of Hu­man Na­ture, and teach­es us not to judge of Men's Mer­it by their Suc­cess­es. And he pro­ceeds far­ther, and says, that though a vir­tu­ous Man may prove un­for­tu­nate, yet a vi­cious Man can­not be hap­py in a well wrought Tragedy.” This last Rule is well ob­served here.

An­oth­er Rea­son why we ought to bear with more Pa­tience the Suf­fer­ings of a vir­tu­ous Char­ac­ter, is the Re­flec­tion on the fu­ture Re­wards pre­pared for such, which is more suit­able to the Moral Max­ims es­tab­lished in a Chris­tian Coun­try. Be­sides, had it pleased our Au­thor to have spared _Ham­let's_ Life, we had been de­prived of that pleas­ing Sen­sa­tion which al­ways (as I have else where ob­served) ac­com­pa­nies a Con­scious­ness that we are moved as we ought to be; which we most as­sured­ly are, when we feel Com­pas­sion rise in us for the young Prince's Death in the last Scene. I shall just touch up­on one Thing more, and then I shall end these Re­flec­tions.

I am very sen­si­ble that our Na­tion has long been cen­sur'd for de­light­ing in bloody Scenes on the Stage, and our Po­ets have been found fault with for com­ply­ing with this vi­cious Taste. I can­not but own, that there is a great deal of Jus­tice in these Com­plaints; and must needs be of Opin­ion, that such Sights should nev­er be ex­hib­it­ed but in or­der, vis­ibly, to con­duce to the Beau­ty of the Piece. This is some­times so much the Case, that Ac­tion is of­ten ab­so­lute­ly nec­es­sary. And to come more par­tic­ular­ly to the Sub­ject now in hand, I de­sire any un­prej­udiced Man, of any Na­tion what­ev­er, (if such can be found) who un­der­stands our Lan­guage, to con­sid­er whether the Ap­pear­ance of the Ghost, and the Deaths of the sev­er­al prin­ci­pal Per­son­ages, (with what­ev­er else may of­fend the Del­ica­cy I men­tion) could pos­si­bly have that great, that no­ble Ef­fect, by be­ing told to the Au­di­ence, as they most un­doubt­ed­ly have, by be­ing brought on the Stage. If this Mat­ter be well ex­am­ined with all pos­si­ble Can­dour, I am well per­swad­ed that it would be found in the End, that this Piece would, by the Method I speak of, loose half its Beau­ty.

The _French_, (as has been of­ten ob­serv'd) by their Rules of Crit­icism, have vol­un­tar­ily im­posed on them­selves an un­nec­es­sary Slav­ery; and when lit­tle Ge­nius's among them have writ­ten Tragedies with these Chains on, they have made most mis­er­able work of it, and giv­en Plays en­tire­ly void of Spir­it. Even the great Ge­nius's in that Na­tion, such as _Corneille_ and _Racine_, and Mr. _De Voltaire_ (which last be­ing ca­pac­itat­ed by hav­ing liv'd among us, and by learn­ing our Lan­guage, to judge of the De­fects and Mer­its of both Na­tions, is high­ly sen­si­ble of the Truth of what I now say, as ap­pears in his Pref­ace to his _Bru­tus_) even they have been forced to damp their Fire, and keep their Spir­it from soar­ing in al­most all their Pieces; and all this is ow­ing to the false No­tions of De­cen­cy, and a Re­fine­ment of Taste among our Neigh­bours, which is get­ting now to such a Height, that so far from be­ing able to bear the Rep­re­sen­ta­tion of Trag­ical Ac­tions, they are hard­ly able to bear any Sub­jects which turn up­on the weight­ier Pas­sions; such as Am­bi­tion, Re­venge, Jeal­ousy, &c. The Form of their Gov­ern­ment, in­deed, is of such a Na­ture, that many Sub­jects can­not be treat­ed as they ought, nor work'd up to that Height which they are here, and were for­mer­ly at _Athens_, &c. and Love, for that Rea­son among oth­ers is made to be the Ba­sis of al­most all their Tragedies. Nay, the Ed­uca­tion of the Peo­ple un­der such a Gov­ern­ment, pre­vents their de­light­ing in such Per­for­mances as pleased an _Athe­ni­an_ or a _Ro­man_, and now de­light us _Britons_. Thus ev­ery Thing con­duces to de­base Tragedy among them, as ev­ery Thing here con­tributes to form good Trag­ick Writ­ers; yet how few have we! And what is very re­mark­able, each Na­tion takes De­light in that, which, in the Main, they the least ex­cel in, and are the least fit for. The Au­di­ence in _Eng­land_ is gen­er­al­ly more crowd­ed at a Com­edy, and in _France_ at a Tragedy; yet I will ven­ture to af­firm, (and I shall be ready up­on Oc­ca­sion to sup­port my As­ser­tion by good Rea­sons) that no Comick Writ­er has ev­er equal'd _Moliere_, nor no Trag­ick Writ­er ev­er came up to _Shake­speare_, _Rowe_, and Mr. _Ad­di­son_. Be­sides the many Rea­sons I have al­ready giv­en in Re­la­tion to the _French_, I might add, that their Lan­guage is less fit for Tragedy, and the Servi­tude of their Rhime en­er­vates the Force of the Dic­tion. And as for Our Come­dies, they are so full of Lewd­ness, Impi­ety and Im­moral­ity, and of such com­pli­cat­ed per­plexed Plots, so stuffed with Com­par­isons and Sim­ilies, so re­plen­ished with En­deav­ours at Wit and Smart­ness, that I can­not for­bear say­ing, that who­ev­er sees or reads them for Im­prove­ment (I make some Ex­cep­tions in this Cen­sure) will find a con­trary Ef­fect; and what­ev­er Man of a True Taste ex­pects to see Na­ture, ei­ther in the Sen­ti­ments or Char­ac­ters, will (in gen­er­al) find him­self very much mis­tak­en.

_FI­NIS_.

The _Re­marks_ was print­ed anony­mous­ly, in 1736, with the fol­low­ing ti­tle page:

Some / Re­marks / on the / Tragedy / of / _Ham­let_ Prince of _Den­mark_, / Writ­ten by / Mr. _William Shake­speare_. / [dou­ble rule en­clos­ing a print­er's de­vice] / _Lon­don_: / Print­ed for W. Wilkins, in _Lom­bard_-/ _Street_. M,DCC,XXXVI. price 1s.

The edi­tion of 1736 was reprint­ed in Lon­don, 1864, for sale by John Rus­sell Smith, with an iden­ti­cal ti­tle page. The reprint bore the fol­low­ing cov­er:

Reprints of Scarce Pieces of Shake­speare Crit­icism. No. 1. Re­marks on Ham­let, 1736.

The usu­al as­crip­tion of the es­say hereto­fore to Sir Thomas Han­mer de­rives from the state­ment by Sir Hen­ry Bun­bury, on page 80 of his _The Cor­re­spon­dence of Sir Thomas Han­mer, Bart_, Lon­don, 1838, that he had “rea­son to be­lieve that he was the au­thor ...”

--Wal­lace A. Ba­con North­west­ern Uni­ver­si­ty

AN­NOUNC­ING

THE

_Pub­li­ca­tions_

OF

THE AU­GUS­TAN REPRINT SO­CI­ETY

_Gen­er­al Ed­itors_

RICHARD C. BOYS ED­WARD NILES HOOK­ER H.T. SWE­DEN­BERG, JR.

_THE AU­GUS­TAN REPRINT SO­CI­ETY_

MAKES AVAIL­ABLE

_In­ex­pen­sive Reprints of Rare Ma­te­ri­als_

FROM

EN­GLISH LIT­ER­ATURE OF THE SEV­EN­TEENTH AND EIGH­TEENTH CEN­TURIES

Stu­dents, schol­ars, and bib­li­og­ra­phers of lit­er­ature, his­to­ry, and philol­ogy will find the pub­li­ca­tions valu­able. _The John­so­ni­an News Let­ter_ has said of them: “Ex­cel­lent fac­sim­iles, and cheap in price, these rep­re­sent the tri­umph of mod­ern sci­en­tif­ic re­pro­duc­tion. Be sure to be­come a sub­scriber; and take it up­on your­self to see that your col­lege li­brary is on the mail­ing list.”

The Au­gus­tan Reprint So­ci­ety is a non-​prof­it, schol­ar­ly or­ga­ni­za­tion, run with­out over­head ex­pense. By care­ful man­age­ment it is able to of­fer at least six pub­li­ca­tions each year at the un­usu­al­ly low mem­ber­ship fee of $2.50 per year in the Unit­ed States and Cana­da, and $2.75 in Great Britain and the con­ti­nent.

Li­braries as well as in­di­vid­uals are el­igi­ble for mem­ber­ship. Since the pub­li­ca­tions are is­sued with­out prof­it, how­ev­er, no dis­count can be al­lowed to li­braries, agents, or book­sellers.

New mem­bers may still ob­tain a com­plete run of the first year's pub­li­ca­tions for $2.50, the an­nu­al mem­ber­ship fee.

Dur­ing the first two years the pub­li­ca­tions are is­sued in three se­ries: I. Es­says on Wit; II. Es­says on Po­et­ry and Lan­guage; and III. Es­says on the Stage.

_PUB­LI­CA­TIONS FOR THE FIRST YEAR (1946-1947)_

MAY, 1946: Se­ries I, No. 1--Richard Black­more's _Es­say up­on Wit_ (1716), and Ad­di­son's _Free­hold­er_ No. 45 (1716).

JU­LY, 1946: Se­ries II, No. 1--Samuel Cobb's _Of Po­et­ry_ and _Dis­course on Crit­icism_ (1707).

SEPT., 1946: Se­ries III, No. 1--Anon., _Let­ter to A.H. Esq.; con­cern­ing the Stage_ (1698), and Richard Willis' _Oc­ca­sion­al Pa­per_ No. IX (1698).

NOV., 1946: Se­ries I, No. 1--Anon., _Es­say on Wit_ (1748), to­geth­er with Char­ac­ters by Flec­knoe, and Joseph Warton's _Ad­ven­tur­er_ Nos. 127 and 133.

JAN., 1947: Se­ries II, No. 2--Samuel Wes­ley's _Epis­tle to a Friend Con­cern­ing Po­et­ry_ (1700) and _Es­say on Hero­ic Po­et­ry_ (1693).

MARCH, 1947; Se­ries III, No. 2--Anon., _Rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the Impi­ety and Im­moral­ity of the Stage_ (1704) and anon., _Some Thoughts Con­cern­ing the Stage_ (1704).

_PUB­LI­CA­TIONS FOR THE SEC­OND YEAR (1947-1948)_

MAY, 1947: Se­ries I, No. 3--John Gay's _The Present State of Wit_; and a sec­tion on Wit from _The En­glish Theophras­tus_. With an In­tro­duc­tion by Don­ald Bond.

JU­LY, 1947: Se­ries II, No. 3--Rapin's _De Carmine Pas­torali_, trans­lat­ed by Creech. With an In­tro­duc­tion by J.E. Con­gle­ton.

SEPT., 1947: Se­ries III, No. 3--T. Han­mer's (?) _Some Re­marks on the Tragedy of Ham­let_. With an In­tro­duc­tion by Clarence D. Thor­pe.

NOV., 1947: Se­ries I, No. 4--Cor­byn Mor­ris' _Es­say to­wards Fix­ing the True Stan­dards of Wit_, etc. With an In­tro­duc­tion by James L. Clif­ford.

JAN., 1948: Se­ries II, No. 4--Thomas Pur­ney's _Dis­course on the Pas­toral_. With an In­tro­duc­tion by Earl Wasser­man.

MARCH, 1948: Se­ries III, No. 4--Es­says on the Stage, se­lect­ed, with an In­tro­duc­tion by Joseph Wood Krutch.

The list of pub­li­ca­tions is sub­ject to mod­ifi­ca­tion in re­sponse to re­quests by mem­bers. From time to time Bib­li­ograph­ical Notes will be in­clud­ed in the is­sues. Each is­sue con­tains an In­tro­duc­tion by a schol­ar of spe­cial com­pe­tence in the field rep­re­sent­ed.

The Au­gus­tan Reprints are avail­able on­ly to mem­bers. They will nev­er be of­fered at “re­main­der” prices.

_GEN­ER­AL ED­ITORS_

RICHARD C. BOYS, _Uni­ver­si­ty of Michi­gan_ ED­WARD NILES HOOK­ER, _Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­ifor­nia, Los An­ge­les_ H.T. SWE­DEN­BERG, JR., _Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­ifor­nia, Los An­ge­les_

_AD­VI­SO­RY ED­ITORS_

EM­METT L. AV­ERY, _State Col­lege of Wash­ing­ton_ LOUIS I. BRED­VOLD, _Uni­ver­si­ty of Michi­gan_ BEN­JAMIN BOYCE, _Uni­ver­si­ty of Ne­bras­ka_ CLEANTH BROOKS, _Louisiana State Uni­ver­si­ty_ JAMES L. CLIF­FORD, _Columbia Uni­ver­si­ty_ ARTHUR FRIED­MAN, _Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go_ SAMUEL H. MONK, _Uni­ver­si­ty of Min­neso­ta_ JAMES SUTHER­LAND, _Queen Mary Col­lege, Lon­don_

* * * * *

Ad­dress com­mu­ni­ca­tions to any of the Gen­er­al Ed­itors. British and Con­ti­nen­tal sub­scrip­tions should be sent to

B.H. BLACK­WELL BROAD STREET OX­FORD, ENG­LAND

End of the Project Guten­berg EBook of Some Re­marks on the Tragedy of Ham­let, Prince of Den­mark, Writ­ten by Mr. William Shake­speare (1736), by Anony­mous

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTEN­BERG EBOOK SOME RE­MARKS ON THE TRAGEDY OF HAM­LET ***

***** This file should be named 14899-8.txt or 14899-8.zip ***** This and all as­so­ci­at­ed files of var­ious for­mats will be found in: http://www.guten­berg.net/1/4/8/9/14899/

Pro­duced by David Starn­er, Graeme Mack­reth, David King, and the PG On­line Dis­tribut­ed Proof­read­ing Team

Up­dat­ed edi­tions will re­place the pre­vi­ous one--the old edi­tions will be re­named.

Cre­at­ing the works from pub­lic do­main print edi­tions means that no one owns a Unit­ed States copy­right in these works, so the Foun­da­tion (and you!) can copy and dis­tribute it in the Unit­ed States with­out per­mis­sion and with­out pay­ing copy­right roy­al­ties. Spe­cial rules, set forth in the Gen­er­al Terms of Use part of this li­cense, ap­ply to copy­ing and dis­tribut­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works to pro­tect the PROJECT GUTEN­BERG-​tm con­cept and trade­mark. Project Guten­berg is a reg­is­tered trade­mark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, un­less you re­ceive spe­cif­ic per­mis­sion. If you do not charge any­thing for copies of this eBook, com­ply­ing with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for near­ly any pur­pose such as cre­ation of deriva­tive works, re­ports, per­for­mances and re­search. They may be mod­ified and print­ed and giv­en away--you may do prac­ti­cal­ly ANY­THING with pub­lic do­main eBooks. Re­dis­tri­bu­tion is sub­ject to the trade­mark li­cense, es­pe­cial­ly com­mer­cial re­dis­tri­bu­tion.

*** START: FULL LI­CENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTEN­BERG LI­CENSE PLEASE READ THIS BE­FORE YOU DIS­TRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To pro­tect the Project Guten­berg-​tm mis­sion of pro­mot­ing the free dis­tri­bu­tion of elec­tron­ic works, by us­ing or dis­tribut­ing this work (or any oth­er work as­so­ci­at­ed in any way with the phrase “Project Guten­berg”), you agree to com­ply with all the terms of the Full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense (avail­able with this file or on­line at http://guten­berg.net/li­cense).

Sec­tion 1. Gen­er­al Terms of Use and Re­dis­tribut­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works

1.A. By read­ing or us­ing any part of this Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work, you in­di­cate that you have read, un­der­stand, agree to and ac­cept all the terms of this li­cense and in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty (trade­mark/copy­right) agree­ment. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agree­ment, you must cease us­ing and re­turn or de­stroy all copies of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works in your pos­ses­sion. If you paid a fee for ob­tain­ing a copy of or ac­cess to a Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agree­ment, you may ob­tain a re­fund from the per­son or en­ti­ty to whom you paid the fee as set forth in para­graph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Guten­berg” is a reg­is­tered trade­mark. It may on­ly be used on or as­so­ci­at­ed in any way with an elec­tron­ic work by peo­ple who agree to be bound by the terms of this agree­ment. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works even with­out com­ply­ing with the full terms of this agree­ment. See para­graph 1.C be­low. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works if you fol­low the terms of this agree­ment and help pre­serve free fu­ture ac­cess to Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works. See para­graph 1.E be­low.

1.C. The Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion (“the Foun­da­tion” or PGLAF), owns a com­pi­la­tion copy­right in the col­lec­tion of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works. Near­ly all the in­di­vid­ual works in the col­lec­tion are in the pub­lic do­main in the Unit­ed States. If an in­di­vid­ual work is in the pub­lic do­main in the Unit­ed States and you are lo­cat­ed in the Unit­ed States, we do not claim a right to pre­vent you from copy­ing, dis­tribut­ing, per­form­ing, dis­play­ing or cre­at­ing deriva­tive works based on the work as long as all ref­er­ences to Project Guten­berg are re­moved. Of course, we hope that you will sup­port the Project Guten­berg-​tm mis­sion of pro­mot­ing free ac­cess to elec­tron­ic works by freely shar­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm works in com­pli­ance with the terms of this agree­ment for keep­ing the Project Guten­berg-​tm name as­so­ci­at­ed with the work. You can eas­ily com­ply with the terms of this agree­ment by keep­ing this work in the same for­mat with its at­tached full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense when you share it with­out charge with oth­ers.

1.D. The copy­right laws of the place where you are lo­cat­ed al­so gov­ern what you can do with this work. Copy­right laws in most coun­tries are in a con­stant state of change. If you are out­side the Unit­ed States, check the laws of your coun­try in ad­di­tion to the terms of this agree­ment be­fore down­load­ing, copy­ing, dis­play­ing, per­form­ing, dis­tribut­ing or cre­at­ing deriva­tive works based on this work or any oth­er Project Guten­berg-​tm work. The Foun­da­tion makes no rep­re­sen­ta­tions con­cern­ing the copy­right sta­tus of any work in any coun­try out­side the Unit­ed States.

1.E. Un­less you have re­moved all ref­er­ences to Project Guten­berg:

1.E.1. The fol­low­ing sen­tence, with ac­tive links to, or oth­er im­me­di­ate ac­cess to, the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense must ap­pear promi­nent­ly when­ev­er any copy of a Project Guten­berg-​tm work (any work on which the phrase “Project Guten­berg” ap­pears, or with which the phrase “Project Guten­berg” is as­so­ci­at­ed) is ac­cessed, dis­played, per­formed, viewed, copied or dis­tribut­ed:

This eBook is for the use of any­one any­where at no cost and with al­most no re­stric­tions what­so­ev­er. You may copy it, give it away or re-​use it un­der the terms of the Project Guten­berg Li­cense in­clud­ed with this eBook or on­line at www.guten­berg.net

1.E.2. If an in­di­vid­ual Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work is de­rived from the pub­lic do­main (does not con­tain a no­tice in­di­cat­ing that it is post­ed with per­mis­sion of the copy­right hold­er), the work can be copied and dis­tribut­ed to any­one in the Unit­ed States with­out pay­ing any fees or charges. If you are re­dis­tribut­ing or pro­vid­ing ac­cess to a work with the phrase “Project Guten­berg” as­so­ci­at­ed with or ap­pear­ing on the work, you must com­ply ei­ther with the re­quire­ments of para­graphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or ob­tain per­mis­sion for the use of the work and the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark as set forth in para­graphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an in­di­vid­ual Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work is post­ed with the per­mis­sion of the copy­right hold­er, your use and dis­tri­bu­tion must com­ply with both para­graphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any ad­di­tion­al terms im­posed by the copy­right hold­er. Ad­di­tion­al terms will be linked to the Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense for all works post­ed with the per­mis­sion of the copy­right hold­er found at the be­gin­ning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not un­link or de­tach or re­move the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense terms from this work, or any files con­tain­ing a part of this work or any oth­er work as­so­ci­at­ed with Project Guten­berg-​tm.

1.E.5. Do not copy, dis­play, per­form, dis­tribute or re­dis­tribute this elec­tron­ic work, or any part of this elec­tron­ic work, with­out promi­nent­ly dis­play­ing the sen­tence set forth in para­graph 1.E.1 with ac­tive links or im­me­di­ate ac­cess to the full terms of the Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense.

1.E.6. You may con­vert to and dis­tribute this work in any bi­na­ry, com­pressed, marked up, non­pro­pri­etary or pro­pri­etary form, in­clud­ing any word pro­cess­ing or hy­per­text form. How­ev­er, if you pro­vide ac­cess to or dis­tribute copies of a Project Guten­berg-​tm work in a for­mat oth­er than “Plain Vanil­la ASCII” or oth­er for­mat used in the of­fi­cial ver­sion post­ed on the of­fi­cial Project Guten­berg-​tm web site (www.guten­berg.net), you must, at no ad­di­tion­al cost, fee or ex­pense to the us­er, pro­vide a copy, a means of ex­port­ing a copy, or a means of ob­tain­ing a copy up­on re­quest, of the work in its orig­inal “Plain Vanil­la ASCII” or oth­er form. Any al­ter­nate for­mat must in­clude the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense as spec­ified in para­graph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for ac­cess to, view­ing, dis­play­ing, per­form­ing, copy­ing or dis­tribut­ing any Project Guten­berg-​tm works un­less you com­ply with para­graph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a rea­son­able fee for copies of or pro­vid­ing ac­cess to or dis­tribut­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works pro­vid­ed that

- You pay a roy­al­ty fee of 20% of the gross prof­its you de­rive from the use of Project Guten­berg-​tm works cal­cu­lat­ed us­ing the method you al­ready use to cal­cu­late your ap­pli­ca­ble tax­es. The fee is owed to the own­er of the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark, but he has agreed to do­nate roy­al­ties un­der this para­graph to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion. Roy­al­ty pay­ments must be paid with­in 60 days fol­low­ing each date on which you pre­pare (or are legal­ly re­quired to pre­pare) your pe­ri­od­ic tax re­turns. Roy­al­ty pay­ments should be clear­ly marked as such and sent to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion at the ad­dress spec­ified in Sec­tion 4, “In­for­ma­tion about do­na­tions to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion.”

- You pro­vide a full re­fund of any mon­ey paid by a us­er who no­ti­fies you in writ­ing (or by e-​mail) with­in 30 days of re­ceipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Guten­berg-​tm Li­cense. You must re­quire such a us­er to re­turn or de­stroy all copies of the works pos­sessed in a phys­ical medi­um and dis­con­tin­ue all use of and all ac­cess to oth­er copies of Project Guten­berg-​tm works.

- You pro­vide, in ac­cor­dance with para­graph 1.F.3, a full re­fund of any mon­ey paid for a work or a re­place­ment copy, if a de­fect in the elec­tron­ic work is dis­cov­ered and re­port­ed to you with­in 90 days of re­ceipt of the work.

- You com­ply with all oth­er terms of this agree­ment for free dis­tri­bu­tion of Project Guten­berg-​tm works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or dis­tribute a Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work or group of works on dif­fer­ent terms than are set forth in this agree­ment, you must ob­tain per­mis­sion in writ­ing from both the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion and Michael Hart, the own­er of the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark. Con­tact the Foun­da­tion as set forth in Sec­tion 3 be­low.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Guten­berg vol­un­teers and em­ploy­ees ex­pend con­sid­er­able ef­fort to iden­ti­fy, do copy­right re­search on, tran­scribe and proof­read pub­lic do­main works in cre­at­ing the Project Guten­berg-​tm col­lec­tion. De­spite these ef­forts, Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works, and the medi­um on which they may be stored, may con­tain “De­fects,” such as, but not lim­it­ed to, in­com­plete, in­ac­cu­rate or cor­rupt da­ta, tran­scrip­tion er­rors, a copy­right or oth­er in­tel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty in­fringe­ment, a de­fec­tive or dam­aged disk or oth­er medi­um, a com­put­er virus, or com­put­er codes that dam­age or can­not be read by your equip­ment.

1.F.2. LIM­IT­ED WAR­RAN­TY, DIS­CLAIMER OF DAM­AGES - Ex­cept for the “Right of Re­place­ment or Re­fund” de­scribed in para­graph 1.F.3, the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion, the own­er of the Project Guten­berg-​tm trade­mark, and any oth­er par­ty dis­tribut­ing a Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic work un­der this agree­ment, dis­claim all li­abil­ity to you for dam­ages, costs and ex­pens­es, in­clud­ing le­gal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REME­DIES FOR NEG­LI­GENCE, STRICT LI­ABIL­ITY, BREACH OF WAR­RAN­TY OR BREACH OF CON­TRACT EX­CEPT THOSE PRO­VID­ED IN PARA­GRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUN­DA­TION, THE TRADE­MARK OWN­ER, AND ANY DIS­TRIB­UTOR UN­DER THIS AGREE­MENT WILL NOT BE LI­ABLE TO YOU FOR AC­TU­AL, DI­RECT, IN­DI­RECT, CON­SE­QUEN­TIAL, PUNI­TIVE OR IN­CI­DEN­TAL DAM­AGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NO­TICE OF THE POS­SI­BIL­ITY OF SUCH DAM­AGE.

1.F.3. LIM­IT­ED RIGHT OF RE­PLACE­MENT OR RE­FUND - If you dis­cov­er a de­fect in this elec­tron­ic work with­in 90 days of re­ceiv­ing it, you can re­ceive a re­fund of the mon­ey (if any) you paid for it by send­ing a writ­ten ex­pla­na­tion to the per­son you re­ceived the work from. If you re­ceived the work on a phys­ical medi­um, you must re­turn the medi­um with your writ­ten ex­pla­na­tion. The per­son or en­ti­ty that pro­vid­ed you with the de­fec­tive work may elect to pro­vide a re­place­ment copy in lieu of a re­fund. If you re­ceived the work elec­tron­ical­ly, the per­son or en­ti­ty pro­vid­ing it to you may choose to give you a sec­ond op­por­tu­ni­ty to re­ceive the work elec­tron­ical­ly in lieu of a re­fund. If the sec­ond copy is al­so de­fec­tive, you may de­mand a re­fund in writ­ing with­out fur­ther op­por­tu­ni­ties to fix the prob­lem.

1.F.4. Ex­cept for the lim­it­ed right of re­place­ment or re­fund set forth in para­graph 1.F.3, this work is pro­vid­ed to you 'AS-​IS' WITH NO OTH­ER WAR­RANTIES OF ANY KIND, EX­PRESS OR IM­PLIED, IN­CLUD­ING BUT NOT LIM­IT­ED TO WAR­RANTIES OF MER­CHAN­TIBIL­ITY OR FIT­NESS FOR ANY PUR­POSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not al­low dis­claimers of cer­tain im­plied war­ranties or the ex­clu­sion or lim­ita­tion of cer­tain types of dam­ages. If any dis­claimer or lim­ita­tion set forth in this agree­ment vi­olates the law of the state ap­pli­ca­ble to this agree­ment, the agree­ment shall be in­ter­pret­ed to make the max­imum dis­claimer or lim­ita­tion per­mit­ted by the ap­pli­ca­ble state law. The in­va­lid­ity or un­en­force­abil­ity of any pro­vi­sion of this agree­ment shall not void the re­main­ing pro­vi­sions.

1.F.6. IN­DEM­NI­TY - You agree to in­dem­ni­fy and hold the Foun­da­tion, the trade­mark own­er, any agent or em­ploy­ee of the Foun­da­tion, any­one pro­vid­ing copies of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works in ac­cor­dance with this agree­ment, and any vol­un­teers as­so­ci­at­ed with the pro­duc­tion, pro­mo­tion and dis­tri­bu­tion of Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works, harm­less from all li­abil­ity, costs and ex­pens­es, in­clud­ing le­gal fees, that arise di­rect­ly or in­di­rect­ly from any of the fol­low­ing which you do or cause to oc­cur: (a) dis­tri­bu­tion of this or any Project Guten­berg-​tm work, (b) al­ter­ation, mod­ifi­ca­tion, or ad­di­tions or dele­tions to any Project Guten­berg-​tm work, and (c) any De­fect you cause.

Sec­tion 2. In­for­ma­tion about the Mis­sion of Project Guten­berg-​tm

Project Guten­berg-​tm is syn­ony­mous with the free dis­tri­bu­tion of elec­tron­ic works in for­mats read­able by the widest va­ri­ety of com­put­ers in­clud­ing ob­so­lete, old, mid­dle-​aged and new com­put­ers. It ex­ists be­cause of the ef­forts of hun­dreds of vol­un­teers and do­na­tions from peo­ple in all walks of life.

Vol­un­teers and fi­nan­cial sup­port to pro­vide vol­un­teers with the as­sis­tance they need, is crit­ical to reach­ing Project Guten­berg-​tm's goals and en­sur­ing that the Project Guten­berg-​tm col­lec­tion will re­main freely avail­able for gen­er­ations to come. In 2001, the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion was cre­at­ed to pro­vide a se­cure and per­ma­nent fu­ture for Project Guten­berg-​tm and fu­ture gen­er­ations. To learn more about the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion and how your ef­forts and do­na­tions can help, see Sec­tions 3 and 4 and the Foun­da­tion web page at http://www.pglaf.org.

Sec­tion 3. In­for­ma­tion about the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion

The Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion is a non prof­it 501(c)(3) ed­uca­tion­al cor­po­ra­tion or­ga­nized un­der the laws of the state of Mis­sis­sip­pi and grant­ed tax ex­empt sta­tus by the In­ter­nal Rev­enue Ser­vice. The Foun­da­tion's EIN or fed­er­al tax iden­ti­fi­ca­tion num­ber is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) let­ter is post­ed at http://pglaf.org/fundrais­ing. Con­tri­bu­tions to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion are tax de­ductible to the full ex­tent per­mit­ted by U.S. fed­er­al laws and your state's laws.

The Foun­da­tion's prin­ci­pal of­fice is lo­cat­ed at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fair­banks, AK, 99712., but its vol­un­teers and em­ploy­ees are scat­tered through­out nu­mer­ous lo­ca­tions. Its busi­ness of­fice is lo­cat­ed at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email busi­ness@pglaf.org. Email con­tact links and up to date con­tact in­for­ma­tion can be found at the Foun­da­tion's web site and of­fi­cial page at http://pglaf.org

For ad­di­tion­al con­tact in­for­ma­tion: Dr. Gre­go­ry B. New­by Chief Ex­ec­utive and Di­rec­tor gb­new­by@pglaf.org

Sec­tion 4. In­for­ma­tion about Do­na­tions to the Project Guten­berg Lit­er­ary Archive Foun­da­tion

Project Guten­berg-​tm de­pends up­on and can­not sur­vive with­out wide spread pub­lic sup­port and do­na­tions to car­ry out its mis­sion of in­creas­ing the num­ber of pub­lic do­main and li­censed works that can be freely dis­tribut­ed in ma­chine read­able form ac­ces­si­ble by the widest ar­ray of equip­ment in­clud­ing out­dat­ed equip­ment. Many small do­na­tions ($1 to $5,000) are par­tic­ular­ly im­por­tant to main­tain­ing tax ex­empt sta­tus with the IRS.

The Foun­da­tion is com­mit­ted to com­ply­ing with the laws reg­ulat­ing char­ities and char­ita­ble do­na­tions in all 50 states of the Unit­ed States. Com­pli­ance re­quire­ments are not uni­form and it takes a con­sid­er­able ef­fort, much pa­per­work and many fees to meet and keep up with these re­quire­ments. We do not so­lic­it do­na­tions in lo­ca­tions where we have not re­ceived writ­ten con­fir­ma­tion of com­pli­ance. To SEND DO­NA­TIONS or de­ter­mine the sta­tus of com­pli­ance for any par­tic­ular state vis­it http://pglaf.org

While we can­not and do not so­lic­it con­tri­bu­tions from states where we have not met the so­lic­ita­tion re­quire­ments, we know of no pro­hi­bi­tion against ac­cept­ing un­so­licit­ed do­na­tions from donors in such states who ap­proach us with of­fers to do­nate.

In­ter­na­tion­al do­na­tions are grate­ful­ly ac­cept­ed, but we can­not make any state­ments con­cern­ing tax treat­ment of do­na­tions re­ceived from out­side the Unit­ed States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Guten­berg Web pages for cur­rent do­na­tion meth­ods and ad­dress­es. Do­na­tions are ac­cept­ed in a num­ber of oth­er ways in­clud­ing in­clud­ing checks, on­line pay­ments and cred­it card do­na­tions. To do­nate, please vis­it: http://pglaf.org/do­nate

Sec­tion 5. Gen­er­al In­for­ma­tion About Project Guten­berg-​tm elec­tron­ic works.

Pro­fes­sor Michael S. Hart is the orig­ina­tor of the Project Guten­berg-​tm con­cept of a li­brary of elec­tron­ic works that could be freely shared with any­one. For thir­ty years, he pro­duced and dis­tribut­ed Project Guten­berg-​tm eBooks with on­ly a loose net­work of vol­un­teer sup­port.

Project Guten­berg-​tm eBooks are of­ten cre­at­ed from sev­er­al print­ed edi­tions, all of which are con­firmed as Pub­lic Do­main in the U.S. un­less a copy­right no­tice is in­clud­ed. Thus, we do not nec­es­sar­ily keep eBooks in com­pli­ance with any par­tic­ular pa­per edi­tion.

Most peo­ple start at our Web site which has the main PG search fa­cil­ity:

http://www.guten­berg.net