Scene 2. Page 146.
Fal. ... this Vice's dagger——
To each of the proposed etymologies of Vice in the note there seem to be solid objections.
Hanmer's derivation from the French visdase, is unsupported by any thing like authority. This word occurs in no ancient French writer as a theatrical character, and has only been used by modern ones in the sense of ass or fool, and then probably by corruption; there being good reason to suppose that it was originally a very obscene expression. It is seldom, if ever, that an English term is made up from a French one, unless the thing itself so expressed be likewise borrowed; and it is certain that in the old French moralities and comedies there is no character similar to the Vice.
Mr. Warton says it is an abbreviation of device, because in the old dramatical shows this character was nothing more than a puppet moved by machinery, and then originally called a device. But where is the proof of these assertions, and why should one puppet in particular be termed a device? As to what he states concerning the name of the smith's machine, the answer is, that it is immediately derived from the French vis, a screw, and neither probably from device; for the machine in question is not more a device than many other mechanical contrivances. Mr. Warton has likewise informed us that the vice had appeared as a puppet before he was introduced into the early comedies; but it would be no easy task to maintain such an opinion. Nor is it by any means clear that Hamlet, in calling his uncle a vice, means to compare him to a puppet or factitious image of majesty; but rather simply to a buffoon, or, as he afterwards expresses it, a king of shreds and patches. The puppet shows had, probably, kings as well as vices in their dramas; and Hamlet might as well have called his uncle at once, a puppet king.
What Mr. Steevens has said on this subject in a note to Twelfth night, vol. iv. 146, deserves a little more consideration. He states, but without having favoured us with proof, that the vice was always acted in a mask; herein probably recollecting that of the modern Harlequin, the illegitimate successor to the old vice. But the mask of the former could have nothing to do with that of the latter, if he really wore any. Admitting however that he might, it is improbable that he should take his name from such a circumstance; and even then, it would be unnecessary to resort, with Mr. Steevens, to the French word vis, which, by the bye, never signified a mask, when our own visard, i. e. a covering for the visage, would have suited much better.
A successful investigation of the origin and peculiarities of this singular theatrical personage would be a subject of extreme curiosity. The etymology of the word itself is all that we have here to attend to; and when the vicious qualities annexed to the names of the above character in our old dramas, together with the mischievous nature of his general conduct and deportment, be considered, there will scarcely remain a doubt that the word in question must be taken in its literal and common acceptation. It may be worth while just to state some of these curious appellations, such as shift, ambidexter, sin, fraud, vanity, covetousness, iniquity, prodigality, infidelity, inclination; and many others that are either entirely lost, or still lurk amidst the impenetrable stores of our ancient dramatic compositions.
ACT IV.
Scene 3. Page 174.