70 
The Animal-Lore of Shakspeare’s Time. 
The animal lette here mentioned probably supplied the 
lettice fur already referred to. 
The wearing of sable was prohibited by statute in the 
reign of Queen Mary, to any one below the rank of earl. 
Gowns furred with sable were deemed of sufficient value 
to be bestowed as presents, and to be mentioned as rich 
legacies by the possessors unto their heirs. Sir John 
Wallop, in 1551, bequeaths to different friends gowns 
furred with sable, lucerns, and black coney. In the col¬ 
lection of wills, Testamenta Vetusta, by Sir H. Nicolas, 
1826, we find many such bequests. 
Hamlet’s exclamation, “ Let the devil wear black, for 
I’ll have a suit of sables,” has given rise to much con¬ 
troversy. The only passage in Shakspeare’s plays where 
the word sable may be understood to mean the fur is in 
the same play:— 
11 For youth no less becomes 
The light and careless livery that it wears 
Than settled age his sables and his weeds, 
Importing health and graveness.” 
{Hamlet, iv. 7, 79.) 
But in these latter lines the meaning may well be the 
dark and sombre costume appropriate to advanced years, 
in contrast with the more lively colours and the paler 
tints preferred by youth. If Hamlet , after speaking of 
his “ inky cloak,” professes his intention of going into 
mourning, the announcement is certainly unnecessary. 
At the same time, there is no reason why he should 
array himself in a costume so expensive as a suit of 
sables. Warburton, the commentator, suggested a plau¬ 
sible reading—^Let the devil wear black, ’fore [before] 
I’ll have a suit of sables.” Mr. G. Wightwick, in The 
Critic , declares that Hamlet meant to say, “I’ll have a 
suit of sabell,” i.e. of flame colour. A misspelling, this 
writer considers, has caused the confusion. There would 
certainly be a novelty in Hamlet’s making his appear¬ 
ance in a brilliant red costume. 
