| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare - Player, Poet, and Playmaker
Author: Fleay, Frederick Gard
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare - Player, Poet, and Playmaker" ***
(This file was produced from images generously made
Transcriber's Note.
A list of the changes made can be found at the end of the book.
Formatting and special characters are indicated as follows:
_italic_
_{subscript}
^{superscript}
[=i] i with macron
[)i] i with inverted breve
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
_PLAYER, POET, AND PLAYMAKER_
[Illustration]
[Illustration: W. Heydemann, Sc.
EDWARD ALLEYN.]
A CHRONICLE HISTORY
OF THE
LIFE AND WORK
OF
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
_PLAYER, POET, AND PLAYMAKER_
BY
FREDERICK GARD FLEAY
With Two Etched Illustrations.
LONDON
JOHN C. NIMMO
14, KING WILLIAM STREET, STRAND, W.C.
1886
[_All rights reserved_]
Dedication.
TO
THE SHAKESPEARE OF OUR DAYS,
_ROBERT BROWNING_,
A PERMITTED TRIBUTE
FROM
HIS EVER-DEVOTED LIEGEMAN,
FREDERICK GARD FLEAY.
To him, whose craft, so subtly terse,
(While lesser minds, for music's sake,
From single thoughts whole cantos make),
Includes a poem in a verse;--
To him, whose penetrative art,
With spheric knowledge only his,
Dissects by keen analysis
The wiliest secrets of the heart;--
To him, who rounds us perfect wholes,
Where wisdom, wit, and love combine;
Chief praise be this:--he wrote no line
That could cause pain in childlike souls.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION I.
THE PUBLIC CAREER OF SHAKESPEARE 7
SECTION II.
THE PERSONAL CONNECTIONS OF SHAKESPEARE WITH OTHER POETS 73
SECTION III.
ANNALS ON WHICH THE PRECEDING SECTIONS ARE FOUNDED 83
SECTION IV.
THE CHRONOLOGICAL SUCCESSION OF SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS 175
SECTION V.
ON THE MARLOWE GROUP OF PLAYS 255
SECTION VI.
ON THE PLAYS BY OTHER AUTHORS ACTED BY SHAKESPEARE'S COMPANY 284
SECTION VII.
EARLY ENGLISH PLAYS IN GERMANY 307
APPENDIX 319
TABLES 324
I. QUARTO EDITIONS OF SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS 324
II. QUARTO EDITIONS OF OTHER PLAYS PERFORMED BY SHAKESPEARE'S COMPANY
326
III. NUMBER OF PERFORMANCES AT COURT, 1584-1616 327
IV. ENTRIES OF PLAYS IN THE STATIONERS' REGISTERS, 1584-1640 328
V. TRANSFERS OF COPYRIGHT IN PLAYS, 1584-1640 350
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE OF MOSELEY'S ENTRIES IN 1653 AND 1660, AND
WARBURTON'S LIST 358
INDEX 361
NOTE ON ETCHINGS 364
[Illustration: W. Heydemann, Sc.
SHAKESPEARE'S FONT.]
INTRODUCTION.
IT is due to the reader of a new work on a subject already so often
handled as the Life of Shakespeare to tell him at the outset what he
may expect to find therein, and to state the reasons for which I have
thought it worth while to devote nearly ten years to its production.
Previous investigators have with industrious minuteness already
ascertained for us every detail that can reasonably be expected of
Shakespeare's private life. With laborious research they have raked
together the records of petty debts, of parish assessments, of
scandalous traditions, of idle gossip; and they have shown beyond
doubt that Shakespeare was born at Stratford-on-Avon, was married, had
three children, left his home, made money as an actor and play-maker
in London, returned to his native town, invested his savings there,
and died. I do not think that when stript of verbiage, and what the
slang of the day calls padding, much more than this can be claimed
as the result of the voluminous writings on this side of his career.
For one I am thankful that things are so; I have little sympathy with
the modern inquisitiveness that peeps over the garden wall to see in
what array the great man smokes his pipe, and chronicles the shape and
colour of his head-covering. But on the public side of Shakespeare's
career little has been adequately ascertained; and with this we are
deeply concerned. Not for a mere personal interest, but in its bearings
on the history of English literature, we ought to ascertain so far as
is possible what companies of actors Shakespeare belonged to, at what
theatres they acted, in what plays besides his own he was a performer,
what authors this brought him into personal contact with, what
influence he exerted on or received from them, what relations, friendly
or unfriendly, they had with rival companies, and finally, in what
order his own works were produced, and what if any share other hands
had in their production. All these matters have been treated carelessly
and inaccurately by biographers of the peeping school; and in the last
of these we are gravely referred for the chronology of Shakespeare's
plays to a schoolboy compilation the author of which is so ignorant
as to speak of _Lust's Dominion_ as a play of _Jonson's_, the _News
from Hell_ as a _play_ of Dekker's, and Achilles as Laertes' son. This
marvel of inefficiency we are told is the best work on the subject;
and this while Malone and Drake are accessible to any student. In the
present treatise this hitherto neglected side of Shakespeare's career
has been chiefly dwelt on. The facts of his private life are also
given; but not the documents on which they are founded, these having
been excellently well collected and arranged in the recent _Outlines
of the Life of Shakespeare_, by J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, F.R.S.,
F.S.A., Hon. M.R.S.L., Hon. M.R.I.A. This book is a treasure-house
of documents, and it is greatly to be regretted that they are not
published by themselves, apart from hypotheses founded on idle rumour
or fallacious mis-reasoning. I do not know any work so full of fanciful
theories and "_ignes fatui_" likely to entice "a deluded traveller
out of the beaten path into strange quagmires."[1] There is much else
besides documents not given in the present treatise; discussions as
to who might have been Shakespeare's schoolmaster, whether he was
apprenticed to a butcher, whether he stole a deer out of a non-existent
park, whether he held horses at the theatre door or "was employed in
any other equine capacity," whether he went to Denmark or to Venice,
and whether Lord Bacon wrote his plays for him. On all these points I
must refer to earlier and less sceptical treatises. What the reader
will find here is--(1.) A continuous narrative in which the statements
are mostly taken for granted in accordance with my own view of the
evidence accessible to us; (2.) Annals or chronological arrangement of
the same facts, with discussion of their mutual interrelations; (3.)
Discussion of the evidence on which the chronological succession of
Shakespeare's plays is based; (4.) Similar discussions for plays in
which he was not main author but only "coadjutor, novice, journeyman,
tutor," or even merely one of the possible actors; (5.) A few remarks
on the German versions of his plays acted on the Continent; and (6.)
Tables of quarto editions of his plays, &c., with a list of all plays
entered on the Stationers' Registers from the first opening of theatres
to their closing in 1640-42. This last item may seem to be somewhat
beyond the scope of this book, but it is greatly needed, and it is
better that so difficult a task should be performed by one acquainted
with dramatic literature than by some scissors-and-paste compiler who
cannot distinguish a play from a prose tract. As to the preparation
for the whole work it has been to me a labour of love, not, I trust,
altogether lost. I have read and re-read for it every play accessible
to me that dates earlier than 1640, have compiled annals for every
known writer of that period and discussions of the dates of his plays,
and have compared the results and corrected and re-corrected until
a consistent whole has been obtained. Of this whole only the part
relating to Shakespeare is here issued. I have to thank the editors
of _Anglia Englische Studien_ and _Shakespeariana_ for enabling me to
print some portions relating to other authors, which will, however,
require some minor corrections. I have also to thank Dr. Furnivall and
Mr. Swinburne for some wholesome criticism upon my earlier work; Dr.
Ingleby, Miss Lee, Mr. Boyle, Mr. A. H. Bullen, and especially Dr. H.
H. Furness, for kindly sympathy and copies of their own writings, some
of which might otherwise have escaped my notice; and above all Mr.
P. A. Daniel, for ever-ready help when asked for, and for judicious
strictures on received hypotheses or points debatable. The main
regret for the earnest student is that so many of these still exist;
as any attempt to give a biography of Shakespeare the form which is
æsthetically its due must fail so long as the true order of the facts
on which it rests is still esteemed matter of argument. If the reader
would wish to judge before proceeding further of the quality of such
argument in the present work I would refer him to the discussion on
_Mucedorus_ or that on _Henry VI._ in subsequent Sections.
One other point requires notice, if not apology. The plan followed
in this volume requires much repetition in order that the separate
arguments as to the chronological succession of the plays, and as to
the order of events in Shakespeare's life, should be presented in
intelligible sequence. This is an evil only to be avoided either by
mixing up the two, as is usually done, or by numerous cross-references.
Either of these methods leads to greater evils, both by interrupting
the logical connection of each series (for unfortunately the evidences
are mostly independent of each other), and, which is still more
important, by obliterating the mutual support given to the arguments
in the twofold lines of evidence by their leading in each division
to compatible results. The inconvenience of these repetitions has
therefore been submitted to.
FOOTNOTES:
[1]
"These phrases to their owner I resign,
For God's sake, reader, take them not for mine."
LIFE OF SHAKESPEARE.
SECTION I.
THE PUBLIC CAREER OF SHAKESPEARE.
ON or about Saturday 22d April 1564, William Shakespeare, son of John
Shakespeare, glover and dealer in wool, and his wife Mary, _née_ Arden,
was born in Henley Street, Stratford-on-Avon, and was baptized on the
26th. Nothing whatever is known of his early life, and the few meagre
details ascertained as to the condition of his family will be found
in a subsequent division of this work. Tradition and imagination have
supplied untrustworthy materials, with which his biographers have
endeavoured to fill up the gap in our information; but it is not until
28th November 1582 that we find any further reliable fact established
concerning him. On that day his marriage bond is dated, he being in his
nineteenth year, and his bride, Anne Hathaway, in her twenty-sixth.
Their first child, Susanna, was baptized 26th May 1583. To account
for this young lady's premature arrival a pre-contract is assumed,
but not proved, by recent writers. On 2d February 1585 their twin
children, Hamnet and Judith, were baptized; and in 1587, in the spring,
Shakespeare gave his assent to a proposed settlement of a mortgage on
his mother's Asbies estate. For ten years after there is no vestige of
any communication with his family. It is at this point that his public
life begins.
In 1587 Leicester's players visited Stratford for the first time. The
company, under the same name, that had performed there in 1576 had as
well as Warwick's been dissolved in 1583, in order that the Queen's
men might be selected from them. In 1586, during the prevalence of
the plague in London, this more recent company had been travelling on
the Continent, and on their return to England made a provincial tour.
Shakespeare probably joined them during or immediately after their
visit to Stratford, and during their travels received his earliest
instruction in comic acting from Kempe and Pope, who soon after became
noted performers; Bryan also belonged to the company at this date.
They probably acted mere interludes, not regular five-act plays. On
4th September 1588 the Earl of Leicester died; and his players soon
after found a new patron in Lord Strange. They then settled in London,
and acted at the Cross Keys in Bishopsgate Street. The head of the
company, in its altered constitution, was "Famous Ned Allen," who on 3d
January 1588-9 bought up for £37, 10s. Richard Jones' share of "playing
apparels, play-books, instruments, &c.," in order to set up his new
company. These properties had belonged to Worcester's men under Robert
Brown, and were no longer needed by him, as he and his players were
about to visit the Continent.
It was in this way that Shakespeare came to London as a poor strolling
player, but nevertheless his position was not without its advantages;
he was associated already with the most noted comedians of the time,
Kempe and Pope; and in Alleyn he had the advantage of studying the
method of the greatest tragic actor that had yet trod the English
stage. But he did not remain content with merely acting; he now
commenced as author. In order to ascertain under what conditions,
it will be necessary to briefly state what was the position of the
companies and authors in London in 1589.
At that date there were two theatres in London: the better of the
two, the Theater, was occupied by the Queen's men, for whom Greene
was the principal play-writer. Marlowe, Kyd, and R. Wilson had
also contributed plays to their _repertoire_, but just at this time
left them and joined Pembroke's, which, like Leicester's, had been
a strolling company, but were now settling in London. On the other
hand, Peele and Lodge, who had previously written for the Admiral's
company, acting at the other theatre, the Curtain, had also joined,
and still remained with, the Queen's. Nearly all these writers, if
not quite all, were actors as well as authors. Greene, the Johannes
Factotum of the Queen's men, had evidently expected to establish a
monopoly of play-acting in their favour, and was indignant at the
arrival of vagrant troops of Thespians from the country, just when he
had practically succeeded in crippling the rival company in London, by
enlisting some of their best authors in the service of his own. Hence
on 23d August 1589 his publication of _Menaphon_, with Nash's address,
containing a virulent attack on Kyd and Marlowe, then writing for
Pembroke's men, together with a glorification of Peele, then writing
in conjunction with Greene. The absence of any allusion in this tract
to Shakespeare or Lord Strange's company conclusively proves that
they were not as yet dangerous rivals to the Queen's. Pembroke's men
were, and there is indirect evidence that they had from their first
settlement in London obtained possession of the second theatre, the
Curtain. This evidence is connected with the first direct mention which
is extant of Shakespeare's company. For in this same year, 1589, the
Martinist controversy had been raging in London; Lyly, Nash, Greene,
Monday, and Cooper were the anti-Martinist champions; the Martinists
had been ridiculed on the stage in April, probably by Greene at the
Theater, possibly by the Paul's children in some play of Lyly's, or
by the Earl of Oxford's boys in one of Monday's. The authorities did
not interfere. But in November certain players "within the city,"
to wit, Lord Strange's and the Admiral's, were silenced for "abuses
or indecent reflexions" (Strype). A comparison of the _worthies_ in
_Love's Labour's Lost_ with the anti-Martinist writers, of the Euphuist
Armado with Lyly, the boy-satirist Mote with Nash, the curate with the
Reverend Robert Greene, the schoolmaster-pedant with the pedagogue
Cooper, and Antony Dull with Antony Monday, will I think confirm the
theory developed by me in a separate essay, that this was the play
suppressed on this occasion. It is characteristic of the independence
of action shown by Shakespeare's company throughout the reign of
Elizabeth that they refused to obey the injunction, and went and
played at the Cross-Keys that same afternoon, while the subservient
Admiral's company dutifully submitted. I do not suppose, however,
that the play as then performed was in all parts from the hand of
Shakespeare. It is extremely unlikely that he should have commenced his
career by independent writing, and there is not a play of his that can
be referred even on the rashest conjecture to a date anterior to 1594,
which does not bear the plainest internal evidence to its having been
refashioned at a later time. In all probability he began to compose
plays, as we know so many of his contemporaries did, as an assistant
to some experienced dramatist. It may seem idle, in the absence of any
positive evidence, to guess who was his original tutor in composition,
and yet, as the careers of Peele, Greene, and Marlowe conclusively show
that none of them were in 1589 connected with Lord Strange's company,
I venture to suggest that it was Robert Wilson. That dramatist is not
heard of in connection with Pembroke's or any other company after
August 1589, and he certainly continued to write for the stage. That
Shakespeare was greatly influenced by him and Peele is evident from
the metrical character of Shakespeare's earliest work, which abounds
in heroic rhyme like Peele's in tragedy, and in doggerel and stanza
like Wilson's in comedy. It is not till the Historic plays that the
influence of Marlowe's blank verse is fully perceptible, and in the
earliest of these, _Richard II._, rhyme is still dominant. Wilson was
in this view a better teacher for the inexperienced Shakespeare than
a greater man. Marlowe, for instance, might have biassed him on the
tragic side, and deferred or prevented his comedy from its earlier
pastoral development. _Love's Labour's Won_ must have been written at
about the same time as _Love's Labour's Lost_, and before the end of
1590 _The Comedy of Errors_ probably appeared in its original form. In
this same year was produced a play in which, although I cannot detect
Shakespeare's hand as coadjutor with its probable author, R. Wilson,
he most likely appeared as an actor--_Fair Em_; and that this comedy
contained a satirical attack on Greene is evident from the offence he
took at it, as shown in his virulent address prefixed to his _Farewell
to Folly_. Up to this date Greene's chief attacks had been directed
against Kyd in _Menaphon_ and in _Never too late_, but as yet there has
been found no allusion to Shakespeare in his writings anterior to 1592.
Yet Shakespeare must have been known to him as at least part author of
the plays acted by Lord Strange's men in 1589 and 1590. Of _Romeo and
Juliet_, originally acted in 1591, we also possess a version anterior
to Shakespeare's final remodelling, which palpably contains scenes not
written by him. These scenes, however, seem due to a finer artist than
Kyd, and there is independent evidence that George Peele had by 1591
also become a playwright for Lord Strange's men. One of the plays acted
by them in this year was probably Peele's _Edward I._, here mentioned
on account of a curious allusion which would seem to fix the character
performed by Shakespeare. In scene 3 Elinor says to Baliol--
"_Shake_ [thou] thy _spear_ in honour of _his name_
Under whose royalty thou wear'st the same."
Shakespeare is known to have acted "kingly parts," and this of Edward
I. was probably one of them. To this same year may probably be assigned
the original production of _The Two Gentlemen of Verona_.
The Court festivities of Christmas 1591-2 mark an important epoch
in the fortunes of Lord Strange's company, and consequently of
Shakespeare, now rapidly coming to the front as their chief writer.
During the period we have been considering, 1587-1591, the Queen's and
the Admiral's were the only men's companies who performed at Court, but
at Christmas 1591-2 the Admiral's did not act at all, and the Queen's,
after one performance, gave place to Lord Strange's, and until the
death of that nobleman in 1594, his players enjoyed almost a monopoly
of Court performances. One presentation by the Earl of Hertford's men,
of whom nothing else is recorded, one by the Earl of Sussex', and two
by the Earl of Pembroke's, are all that can be balanced with six by
Lord Strange's in 1591-2, and three in 1592-3. This pre-eminence at
Court was retained by the company under all its changes of constitution
far beyond Shakespeare's time, until the closing of the theatres in
1642. Possibly the influence of Lord Southampton, who had come to
town and entered at Gray's Inn in 1590, and was stepson to Sir Thomas
Heneage, the treasurer, may have had something to do with this. He does
not yet, however, appear to have come into direct communication with
Shakespeare.
Immediately after this first appearance at Court, Alleyn arranged with
Henslow, his father-in-law, to give his company a local habitation in
a permanent theatre. This was of no small importance to them; they had
hitherto had to play in the inn-yard at the Cross-Keys. Henslow's new
theatre was the Rose on the Bankside, which opened in February 1591-2.
The singular fact that every old play (_i.e._, every play that had been
previously performed) there acted in this season had been with one
possible exception derived from the Queen's players, shows that the
hitherto most successful company were reduced to sell their copies, and
were probably on the verge of bankruptcy. Among these we find Greene's
_Orlando_ and _Friar Bacon_, Greene and Lodge's _Looking-glass for
London_, Marlowe's _Jew of Malta_, and Kyd's two plays of _Jeronymo_.
The only play traceable to another company is Peele's _Battle of
Alcazar_, called by Henslow _Mulomorco_. In fact, the Queen's company
were now practically without a play-writer. Of their formerly numerous
staff Marlowe was writing for Pembroke's men, Kyd and Peele for Lord
Strange's, Lodge was abroad, Wilson had left them, and Greene had
also quitted them for the Earl of Sussex'. Besides the plays above
enumerated, Lord Strange's players acted a dozen others of which only
the titles are known, and produced as new plays the following:--On
March 3, _Henry VI._ (a re-fashioning by Shakespeare of an old Queen's
play, into which he introduced the Talbot scenes, celebrated by Nash,
which drew such crowded audiences); on April 11, _Titus and Vespasian_
(a version of the Andronicus story extant in a German translation, and
probably written by Kyd); on April 28, the second part of _Tamburlane_
(not extant); on June 10, _A Merry Knack to Know a Knave_ (probably
by Peele and Wilson); and after an interval, during which the theatres
were closed on account of the plague, on 5th January 1592-3, _The
Jealous Comedy_ (probably _The Merry Wives of Windsor_); and finally,
January 30, _The Guise_ (Marlowe's _Massacre of Paris_).
I have brought together this enumeration of the new plays of Strange's
men that the reader may better appreciate the often quoted but sadly
misunderstood address by Greene to his fellow-dramatists in his
_Groatsworth of Wit_, not published till September after its author's
death, but manifestly written and probably circulated in manuscript
in the early months of 1592. Its aim is directed against a company
of players, "burs, puppets, antics, apes, grooms, painted monsters,
peasants," among whom is "an upstart crow, a Johannes Factotum, a
Shakescene," who supposes he can bombast out a blank verse. This is
palpably directed against Shakespeare and Lord Strange's players, for
whom he was then writing and with whom he was then acting. But Greene
also says that they had all been beholding to him and to his fellow
writers whom he addresses; that is, to Marlowe, Peele, "young Juvenal"
(Lodge), and two more (Kyd and Wilson) "that both have writ," whom he
might "insert against these buckram gentlemen." This can only apply
to the Queen's players, for which company alone Greene had written up
to 1591, having supplied them with a play every quarter and purveyed
more plays for them than the other four (Marlowe, Peele, Kyd, and
Lodge), as Nash tells us in his _Piers Penniless_. There must then
have been an amalgamation of the better portions of the two companies,
the Queen's and Lord Strange's, just before the opening of the Rose
Theatre, a conclusion confirmed by the fact that the Queen's plays had
passed into the hands of the other company, and, as will be seen when
I treat of the Henry VI. plays, deduced by me on other and independent
grounds. This attack of Greene's was, I think, answered by Shakespeare
in his _Midsummer Night's Dream_, produced in its first form c. June
1592. Bottom and his scratch company have long been recognised as a
personal satire, and the following marks would seem to indicate that
Greene and the Sussex' company were the butts at which it was aimed.
Bottom is a Johannes Factotum who expects a pension for his playing;
his comrades are unlettered rustics who once obtain an audience at
Theseus' court. The Earl of Sussex' men were so inferior a company
that they acted at Court but once, viz., in January 1591-2, and the
only new play which can be traced to them at this date is _George a
Greene_, in which Greene acted the part of the Pinner himself. This
only shows that the circumstances of the fictitious and real events
are not discrepant; but when we find Bottom saying that he will get
a ballad written on his adventure, and "it shall be called Bottom's
Dream, because it hath no bottom" (iv. i. 212) and that peradventure
he shall "sing it at her (?) death," we surely may infer an allusion
to Greene's _Maiden's Dream_ (S. R. 6th December 1591), apparently so
called because it hath no maiden in it, and sung at the death of Sir
Christopher Hatton. This play of _Midsummer Night's Dream_ was produced
after the closing of the theatres, c. 12th June 1592, on account of
the plague; it and the _Jealous Comedy_, produced 5th January 1592-3,
when the theatres reopened for that month only, were almost the last
in which Shakespeare worked as a journeyman or with a coadjutor. When
he revived these earlier plays for the Chamberlain's men he carefully
replaced in almost every instance the work of his quondam companions
by other and certainly not weaker lines of his own. Some of his own
work of this date, apparently left unfinished on account of the sudden
closure of the playhouses, he appears to have taken up and completed
in his 1601-2 plays. But no doubt the greater part of this autumn was
occupied in writing _Venus and Adonis_, dedicated to Lord Southampton
(S. R. 18th April 1593) as "the first heir of his invention," a product
of "idle hours:" idle because during the plague no new plays were
required of him, nor even rehearsals; the players travelled and acted
old plays only. In these circuits a whole company did not usually
journey together; it was more profitable to separate into parties of
half-a-dozen, and of course to cut down their plays so as to be capable
of representation by this small body of actors. One part of Lord
Strange's men, consisting of Alleyn, Pope, Bryan, Hemings, Phillips,
and Kempe, so travelled in 1593; but no document has been preserved
respecting the remainder of the company, which included probably
Burbadge, Sly, Condell, Holland, Cowley, and Shakespeare. It appears
from Alleyn's correspondence that Cowley was the bearer of a letter
to him from London to Bristol; that his section of the company had
been at Chelmsford in May, were at Bristol in August, and afterwards
visited Shrewsbury, Chester, and York. Meanwhile, on June 1, Marlowe
had been killed in a brawl, and his version of the Andronicus story
was acted by Sussex' men at the Rose, 23d January 1594. From their
hands this play passed to Pembroke's men c. 8th February, when Sussex'
company broke up and went into the country, and from them to the Earl
of Derby's before 16th April. But this company of Derby's was no other
than Lord Strange's. After Henry Earl of Derby died, 25th September
1593, Ferdinand, his son, who succeeded him, and who had previously
borne the title of Lord Strange, was called either Strange or Derby
indifferently, he having no son to whom the title of Lord Strange could
be, in accordance with custom, assigned in courtesy, although by strict
right this title appertained to the Earls of Derby and not to their
sons. Along with this Andronicus play the following can be traced as
passing from Pembroke's company to Lord Strange's at this date: _The
Taming of a Shrew_, _Edward III._, _Hamlet_, _3 Henry VI._; and besides
this transfer of playbooks there was also a partial transfer of the
company itself. Beeston, Cooke, Sinkler, Holland, and others were among
these new members. The cause of this arrangement was no doubt poverty;
already on 28th September 1593 they could not "save their charges to
travel, and were fain to pawn their apparel." So writes Henslowe to
Alleyn.
I must now recur to 1593. Immediately after Christmas the theatres
reopened; but at the Rose the Earl of Sussex' men acted instead of
Lord Strange's, who played about the city, at the Cross-Keys for
example. When Sussex' men broke up, on the 8th April, the Rose remained
empty except for three days, 14-16th May, when the Admiral's company
acted there, no doubt under Alleyn, who was servant to the Admiral
as well as to Lord Strange. The Admiral, however, had himself laid a
restraint on the Rose theatre (probably c. 8th April), and ordered
that Lord Strange's players should play "three days" (_i.e._, three
days a week) at Newington Butts. This was petitioned against by the
watermen, whose calling was greatly in request when the Rose was
open, and by Lord Strange's players themselves. No redress appears to
have been granted during the life of Lord Strange, who died on 16th
April, but when the company had found a new patron in Lord Hunsdon the
Chamberlain, and had submitted to the order by playing on alternate
days with the Admiral's at Newington Butts, then the restraint on the
Rose was removed. The Chamberlain's players, however, did not act
there, but under Shakespeare and Burbadge reopened the old Theater,
while Alleyn left them and acted with the Admiral's at the Rose.
Before passing to notice the poems written by Shakespeare during this
period of "travelling," I may note that these plays acquired from
Pembroke's men appear to have been written by Marlowe or Kyd. _Edward
III._, by Marlowe, was, with alterations by Shakespeare, acted about
the city in 1594. _Titus Andronicus_ and _3 Henry VI._ were also acted
by the Chamberlain's company; but they show no evidence of extensive
alterations at Shakespeare's hand; he probably merely corrected them.
Another play of this date, _Richard III._, bears strong internal
evidence of Marlowe's craftmanship, but was no doubt completed and
partly rewritten by Shakespeare. The Kyd plays, on the other hand,
were not utilised in this way. New plays on the same plots as the old
_Hamlet_ and _The Taming of a Shrew_ were afterwards produced by the
Chamberlain's men--_Hamlet_ by Shakespeare, _The Taming of the Shrew_
by Lodge (most likely), but greatly altered by Shakespeare some years
after. Another play performed by Derby's men contemporaneously with
these was _The Seven Deadly Sins_. This play had not been derived from
Pembroke's men, but from the Queen's, for whom Tarleton had originally
plotted it. The plot as acted in 1594 still exists, and is especially
valuable as showing the composition of Lord Strange's company at that
date. Shakespeare, however, took no part in it. The large number
of performers singularly agrees with the statement in the players'
petition above alluded to that "our company is great." There was also
a play _Locrine_, published S. R. 20th July 1594, as revised by W. S.,
which has been interpreted William Shakespeare. I do not think he could
in any way have been concerned in this revival of Peele and Tilney's
stilted performance, and suspect that W. S. means William Sly; nor
do I think that any other play of Shakespeare's, save those already
mentioned, can be assigned to a date anterior to the formation of the
Chamberlain's company except _Troylus and Cressida_ in its original
form, which was probably acted c. 1593. In fact, Shakespeare was from
the breaking out of the plague in 1592 until the settlement of his
reconstituted company in 1594 chiefly occupied, not with plays, but
with poems. His _Venus and Adonis_ has already been noticed, and on
9th May 1594 his _Rape of Lucrece_ was published. In the Dedication to
Lord Southampton, Shakespeare speaks of "the warrant I have of your
honourable disposition:" in what especial way Southampton had shown
his favour to Shakespeare has been the subject of many conjectures.
My own opinion is that he had introduced him as representative of his
fellow-actors to Lord Hunsdon, and procured them their new patron;
but in a scandalous book called _Willobie his Avisa_, published 3d
September 1594, the version of the connection between the nobleman
and the "old player" is that W. S. had parted with a mistress to H. W.
and been rewarded accordingly; and it would be useless to deny that
the _Sonnets_ written between 1594 and 1598 distinctly allude to some
circumstance of this kind. The _Avisa_ book was, however, suppressed or
"called in" on 4th June 1599, as a libellous production.
This year may be regarded as the turning-point in Shakespeare's
public career. Until the establishment of the Chamberlain's company,
he had been an actor gradually rising in the esteem of his fellows,
but often obliged to travel and to act about town in inn-yards, and
his play-writing had been confined to vamping old plays by other men,
or at best to assisting such writers as Wilson or Peele in producing
new ones. He had served, as it were, a seven years' apprenticeship.
But henceforward he takes his place as one of the chief actors in the
principal company in London, acting in a licensed theatre; he is also,
with occasional assistance, the sole purveyor of plays to this company,
and he is the acknowledged writer of the most popular love poems of
his time. For it is to the author of _Lucrece_ and _Adonis_ that his
contemporaries assign their praises far more than to the writer of
_Lear_ or _Hamlet_. Poems were in their opinion fit work for a prince;
but plays were only congruous with strolling vagabondism. It is just
at this turning-point that the first nominal mention of Shakespeare is
found as acting before the Court at Greenwich on December 26 and 28,
along with Kempe and Burbadge.
The performance on 26th December was on the same day that Shakespeare
and his company had acted _The Comedy of Errors_ at Gray's Inn--the
earliest of his plays in their present form, but founded on a previous
version, in which another pen was concerned.
On 26th January 1594-5, _Midsummer Night's Dream_ was, I conjecture,
acted at Greenwich at the marriage of W. Stanley, Earl of Derby,
and afterwards on the public stage; it was evidently written for a
marriage, but, like the preceding play, had been altered for this
special occasion. Its original production was probably in 1592, at
the marriage of Robert Carey, afterwards Earl of Monmouth. In both
instances the bridegrooms were close connections of the patrons of the
actors; W. Stanley being brother to Ferdinand, Lord Strange, and Robert
Carey son to Henry, Lord Hunsdon, the Chamberlain. Another 1595 play
was _Richard II._, evidently an imitation of Marlowe's _Edward II._
Marlowe was Shakespeare's first model in Historical Plays, as Kyd was
in Tragedy and Lyly in Comedy, but he followed Marlowe much more
closely than either of the other two. If any other author contributed
plays to the Chamberlain's company this year it must have been
Lodge, to whom _Mucedorus_ and _A Larum for London_ may probably be
attributed. At Christmas they acted five plays at Court.
In 1596, there is little doubt that Shakespeare produced his _King
John_, founded on two old plays on the same subject which were written
for the Queen's men in 1589 by Peele, Marlowe, and Lodge. Their plot
has been very closely followed by Shakespeare and a few lines borrowed.
At some time between 23d July 1596 and 5th March 1597 he also revived
_Romeo and Juliet_, at the Theater; this new version was founded on
the old play of 1591, in which Shakespeare was only part writer. Of
plays by other authors only one can be traced to his company in this
year, namely, _Sir Thomas More_ (? by Drayton and Lodge). This play
was severely handled by the Master of the Revels for its allusions
to contemporary events, and the alterations made by him afford
instructive study to dramatic critics. On August 5, immediately after
the appearance of _Romeo and Juliet_, a ballad on the story was entered
S. R., and on August 27, T. Millington was fined for printing ballads
on _The Taming of a Shrew_ and _Macbeth_. This indicates the existence
of a Macbeth play at this time, but probably, like the older _Hamlet_
and _Lear_, one in whose production Shakespeare had no share. Kempe
mentions the Macbeth ballad as the first production of its author in
his _Nine Days' Wonder_. In February this same year James Burbadge
bought the property in Blackfriars, on which he began in November to
build the Blackfriars Theatre, wherein in 1597, after some opposition,
he succeeded in establishing the Chapel children under Evans. The
Chamberlain's company did not act at this theatre in Shakespeare's
time. There were six Court performances at Christmas 1596-7.
It is necessary now to recur to Shakespeare's private life. On 5th
August 1596 his son Hamnet died, and he unquestionably visited
Stratford and renewed relations with his family at this time. John
Shakespeare having applied to the Heralds' College for a grant of
arms, obtained this concession in October, and in the Easter term
1597 William Shakespeare purchased the property called New Place in
Stratford. In November 1597 the Asbies business was revived in a
Chancery suit brought by Shakespeare's parents against John Lambert,
son of Edmond. In the bill of complaint the Shakespeares describe
themselves as "of small wealth, and very few friends;" but it is clear
that their wealth must have had a recent accession, or they would not
now have renewed a dispute which, on their own statement, had lain in
abeyance since 1580. All these proceedings alike, the acquisition of a
residence in Stratford, the obtaining a grant of arms, the endeavour to
establish old claims to family property, point to Shakespeare's desire,
now that he had succeeded in London and made money, to settle in
Stratford as a country gentleman, and found a family. He may have hoped
for the birth of another son, his wife being in 1596 still under forty
years of age. But the inferences usually drawn from the incidents of
this time, that Shakespeare had constantly held communication with his
family, whom he had supported during his theatrical career in London,
and that he was, on this occasion, largely indebted to the bounty of
Lord Southampton, are mere fancies. The natural interpretation of such
records as have reached us is that it was not till touched by the hand
of the great reconciler Death, in the person of the expected heir to
his new-founded fortunes, that he ever visited his family at all during
the nine years since he left them to carve his own way as a strolling
player. If conjecture is to be allowed at all, I would rather suggest
that his family were offended at his choice of an occupation, and that
it was not till he had made a marked success that they were reconciled
to him.
Returning to Shakespeare's public career--on 5th March 1597 George
Carey, Lord Hunsdon, was created Chamberlain, and his players resumed
the title of "The Lord Chamberlain's." Early in this year was almost
certainly produced _The Merchant of Venice_, founded on an old play of
Dekker's called _Joseph the Jew of Venice_, written c. 1592, and acted
in 1594 by the Admiral's men, but not now extant. In the same year
was performed _1 Henry IV._ The comic powers of Shakespeare appear in
these plays in their highest development in Shylock and Falstaff, and
endeavours have been made by several (myself included) to mark this as
the beginning of a new period in his manner of work. In such attempts,
however, it is necessary to assign specific single dates to each play,
and consequently to neglect the proved fact of frequent alterations of
considerable extent having been made at revivals. I think it better to
regard as Shakespeare's first period the time anterior to the formation
of the Chamberlain's company, 1587-93, during which he was employed
only as "journeyman or coadjutor," and not to separate the series of
Comedies and Histories which were produced in their perfected forms
from 1594 to 1602. It may, however, be noted that at this time, 1597,
he had entirely discarded the doggerel couplets and the excessive
use of rhyme that mark his early work, and that this fact is useful
in analysing plays which, though produced later in the form in which
they have reached us, were founded on earlier versions in which he
was probably only a part writer. Another play acted by Shakespeare's
company this year was Drayton's _Merry Devil of Edmonton_. In this,
as well as in _Henry IV._, Sir John Oldcastle was originally one
of the characters. This name was adopted from the old Queen's play
of _The Famous Victories of Henry V._, from which the main plot of
Shakespeare's Henry V. series was taken, and certainly was not intended
to give offence to the Cobhams, his descendants. They took offence,
however, and the name was altered to that of Sir John Falstaff, taken
from another Queen's play, _1 Henry VI._, which I have already noticed,
and which, with the addition of the scene of the Temple Garden, was
acted by the Chamberlain's company.
Between August and October, the Theater having become ruinous, and
litigation between James Burbadge, its lessee, and Giles Alleyn, the
ground landlord, being imminent, the Chamberlain's company removed to
the Curtain. The Earl of Pembroke's company, who have for controversial
purposes been unjustifiably confused with the Chamberlain's, in August
acted as strollers at Rye, in September at Dover, and on their return
to London amalgamated with the Admiral's, and acted at the Rose. Among
the plays acted by Shakespeare's company at the Curtain was _Romeo and
Juliet_, as appears from a singular allusion in Marston's _Satires_,
which also serves to show that this play then, as now, was one of the
most popular of his productions. But his popularity is shown in another
way this year. Coincidently with the removal to the Curtain, we find
the first appearance of authorised publication of his plays, _Richard
II._ having been entered S. R. on 29th August, and _Richard III._ on
20th October. The _Romeo and Juliet_ printed this year was neither
entered nor authorised. On 26th December _Love's Labour's Lost_ was
acted at Court, being one of four plays provided for the Christmas
festivities by this company. It was probably specially commanded, and
the alterations from the 1589 version, which were very hurriedly done,
were almost certainly made on this occasion.
On 25th February 1598, the first part of _Henry IV._ was printed, and
the second part was acted soon after. The popularity of these plays
caused a re-issue in this year of the old Queen's play of _The Famous
Victories of Henry V._, brought out in order that the purchaser might
imagine he was procuring a copy of Shakespeare's plays. The genuine
_Henry IV._, for this and reasons alluded to above connected with
the elimination of Oldcastle's name, was published earlier after its
production on the stage than usual. For the same reason this alteration
was expressly alluded to in the Epilogue to _2 Henry IV._, "Oldcastle
is not the man." In this same year _Much Ado about Nothing_ (probably
a recast of _Love's Labour's Won_) was performed. On 7th September was
entered S. R., Meres' _Wit's Treasury_, which contains, among many
encomiums of Shakespeare, a list of twelve of his plays. This tract
was demonstrably not written till June, and the plays are manifestly
those that had been produced by Shakespeare during the existence of
the Chamberlain's company. These are: _Gentlemen of Verona_ (1595),
_Errors_ (1594), _Love's Labour's Lost_ (1597), _Love's Labour's Won_
(1598), _Midsummer Night's Dream_ (1595), and _Merchant of Venice_
(1597); _Richard II._ (1595), _Richard III._ (1594), _Henry IV._
(1597), _King John_ (1596), _Titus Andronicus_ (1594), and _Romeo
and Juliet_ (1596). Plays produced before or in 1594 that had not
been recast after that year are not mentioned; for instance, _1
Henry VI._ (1592), _Troylus and Cressida_ (1593), _The Merry Wives
of Windsor_ (1592), and _Edward III._ (1594). This list is of the
highest value, when rightly understood, in determining the order of
production of the plays. Another event, important to the welfare of
the Chamberlain's company, was the introduction of Ben Jonson as a
play-writer for their stage. This took place in September, and there
is no reason for doubting the tradition that he was introduced to them
by Shakespeare, who acted in _Every Man in his Humour_, as it was
published in the Quarto, before the end of the year. The fact that
the Chamberlain's men acted three plays at Court during the Christmas
festivities, closes the theatrical record for 1598, but one or two
other details remain to be noticed. The establishment of peace on May
2 by the treaty of Vervins, compared with _Sonnet 107_, "olives of
endless age," fixes the conclusion of these effusions as about this
time, and Southampton's marriage at the end of the year precluded the
need of their continuance. They probably were finished before Meres'
mention of them in _Wit's Treasury_ (written c. July) as Shakespeare's
"sugared sonnets among his private friends." Little details of evidence
are also extant, showing that since his purchase of New Place,
Shakespeare's residence was partly in the country. On 4th February
he appears as third largest owner of corn in his ward at Stratford,
and in October we find him procuring a loan of £30 in London, for his
friend and countryman Richard Quiney. His London residence at this
time was in St. Helen's, Bishopsgate; but still earlier than this, on
24th January, he was in negotiation about the purchase of some thirty
acres of land at Shottery, and Abraham Sturley wrote from Stratford
to his brother-in-law, the same Richard Quiney, urging him to suggest
to Shakespeare the purchase of the corporation tithe-lease; it "would
advance him indeed, and would do us much good," says Sturley.
In January 1598-9 James Burbadge brought his dispute with Giles Alleyn
about the Theater to a practical conclusion by removing the materials
of that structure from Shoreditch to the Bankside, and erecting the
Globe with them. This "round" was opened in the spring, and in it all
the plays of Shakespeare not hitherto noticed were originally produced.
Before quitting the Curtain, however, _A Warning for Fair Women_ was
there acted by the Chamberlain's men. This was in my opinion Lodge's
last play. Another play of the same date was Shakespeare's _Henry
V._, reproduced, with additions and alterations, at the Globe in the
autumn of the same year. Other Globe plays of this year were _As You
Like It_, and Jonson's _Every Man out of his Humour_. This latter
was the first of his comical satires, in which he introduces on the
stage Marston, Dekker, Monday, the Globe players, &c. Only this one
was acted by Shakespeare's company, and it is specially remarkable
that Shakespeare did not take a part in it, although he had acted in
_Every Man in his Humour_ in 1598. It is pretty clear that he disliked
Jonson's personalities, and it is certain that Jonson had to remove
them from the Globe Theatre to the Blackfriars, where the Children of
the Revels acted under Evans _The Case is Altered_ (1599), _Cynthia's
Revels_ (1600), and _The Poetaster_ (1601). Chapman supported Johnson
with _Sir Giles Goosecap_ (1601). The Paul's Children retaliated with
Marston's _Jack Drum's Entertainment_ (1600), and _Antonio and Mellida_
(1600); the Admiral's at the Rose with Marston's _Histriomastix_, and
_Patient Grissel_ by Dekker, Haughton, and Chettle (December 1599); and
the Chamberlain's with Dekker's _Satiromastix_ (1601). All these plays,
and the list is not exhaustive, are filled with personal allusions.
The quarrel was known as the "War of the theatres." The prevalent
dislike to regard Shakespeare as less than angelic has prevented due
attention being given to the direct statement in _The Return from
Parnassus_ (acted 1602-3) that he had put down all the playwrights
of the University press and administered a purge to Jonson in return
for the emetic which he administers to Marston in _The Poetaster_.
Shakespeare certainly did take part in this controversy, and it is in
the plays dating 1599-1602 that we must look for his contributions to
it. One thing, however, is certain, that he did not act as a violent
partisan. If he purged Jonson he did not spare Dekker, who had written
for his own company in this quarrel; "when rank Thersites opes his
Mastick jaws" (_Troylus_, i. 3) identifies him clearly enough. In
fact, when the Globe company wanted a thorough party advocate in this
matter it was not to Shakespeare that they applied. They took the
very unusual course of hiring a poet from a rival company, and hence
Dekker's _Satiromastix_ was written for them. I venture to add that
this would not have been allowed by Shakespeare had he been in London
at the time, and that it had to be transferred to the sole use of the
Paul's children, probably at his instance. Recurring to _Every Man
out of his Humour_, the beginning of all this strife, a comparison of
the actor list with that of Jonson's preceding play shows that Kempe,
Beeston, and others had left the Chamberlain's company on the opening
of the Globe. They no doubt remained at the Curtain, where a company
called Lord Derby's soon began to act. This secession did not injure
the Globe men, who became very popular. In October, for instance, we
hear of Lord Southampton going to plays every day, of course at his
old player _protégé's_ house. But that some serious quarrel had taken
place is, I think, evident from the exclusion of so important a name
as Beeston's from the list of chief actors in the first Folio edition
of Shakespeare. Duke, Pallant, &c., who seceded at the same time with
Beeston, are equally excluded, so that the omission is not accidental.
In this year a perfect edition of _Romeo and Juliet_ was published,
probably on leaving the Curtain; and _The Passionate Pilgrim_ was
impudently issued by W. Jaggard as by William Shakespeare. Beyond two
sonnets and a few lines from _Love's Labour's Lost_, published in 1598,
there is nothing in this book that can be shown to be Shakespeare's,
but much that cannot. Somewhere about this date an unsuccessful
application was made to impale the arms of Shakespeare with those of
Arden. The Chamberlain's men performed three plays at Court during
the Christmas festivities, viz.: on 26th December, probably _As You
Like It_; 5th January, probably _Henry V._; and another play on 4th
February. I think this was the occasion for which _The Merry Wives
of Windsor_ was written, or rather rewritten on the foundation of
_The Jealous Comedy_ of 1592. The Queen, whose admiration for the
character of Falstaff is well known, was sorely disappointed that
Shakespeare had not fulfilled his promise made in the Epilogue to _2
Henry IV._, that he would again introduce him on the stage; and there
is no reason to doubt the tradition that, wishing to see him under new
conditions, she ordered Shakespeare to represent him in love, which
order he obeyed by writing _The Merry Wives_ within a fortnight. The
dates all suit this hypothesis, and in any case there can be no doubt
that this comedy stands apart from the Henry V. histories, and was
last in point of time. Another play of this year was _Julius Cæsar_.
There is no evidence of any other writer than Shakespeare for the
company this year, in which the _2_ and _3 Henry VI._ (alluded to as
recast in Jonson's Prologue to his revised version of _Every Man in
his Humour_, acted by the Chapel children early in 1601) were revised
and partly rewritten by him. As usual in such cases, the old abridged
acting copies of the plays in their earlier shape were reprinted.
But there is more interesting matter connected with the publishers
in the 1600 entries. On August 4, _As You Like It, enry V._, _Much
Ado about Nothing_, and _Every Man in his Humour_, all Chamberlain's
plays, were ordered to be "stayed;" they were probably suspected of
being libellous, and reserved for further examination. Since the "war
of the theatres" was at its height, they may have been restrained as
not having obtained the consent of the Chamberlain, on behalf of his
company, to their publication. Subsequently, _Every Man in his Humour_
was licensed on 14th August, but not printed till 1601. _Much Ado_ was
also licensed 23d August, and printed; _As You Like It_ was not allowed
to appear, the company probably objecting that it had only been on the
stage for one year, but _Henry V._ was printed surreptitiously by T.
Millington and T. Busby before 14th August, on which date it appears
in S. R. as the property of T. Pavier, who reprinted it in 1602. The
peculiarity of this Quarto issue is, that it contains no matter which
does not also appear in the complete Folio version, whereas, in the
somewhat similar cases of _Romeo and Juliet_, _The Merry Wives_, and
_Hamlet_, there is in every instance some portion of the Quarto which
is palpably by another hand. This agrees with my view that these
three plays, as in the Folio, were founded on earlier plays, in which
Shakespeare was at most a coadjutor, while the Folio _Henry V._ is
a revision of his own play, produced not long before. Another entry
in S. R. is interesting. On October 28, _The Merchant of Venice_ was
entered to T. Hayes, with Pavier's consent; Roberts had already entered
it 22d July 1598, but it had not been allowed to appear, probably
because, like those mentioned above, it had then been only one year on
the stage. On October 8, _Midsummer Night's Dream_ was also entered.
Of the editions of these two plays published in this year information
will be found in another part of this book. On 11th August the two
plays on _Sir John Oldcastle_, of which only one has reached us, were
entered. They had been acted in 1599 at the Rose by the Admiral's men,
and were directed against the presumed scandal thrown on the "martyr"
in Shakespeare's Henry V. series. It should be especially noted that
the principal author of these plays was Drayton, formerly fellow-worker
with Shakespeare for the Chamberlain's men, and introducer of _Sir John
Oldcastle_ as a profligate parson in _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_. Of
Shakespeare's personal movements during this year we merely know that
he was in London in April recovering a debt of £7 of one Clayton, and
no doubt acting in the three plays performed at Court in the winter.
In March 1601 the Chamberlain's company were in disgrace for having
publicly acted "the outdated play of _Richard II._," no doubt inclusive
of the deposition scene (which had been omitted in the published
copies, under the censorship of the Master of the Revels), for the
entertainment of the Essex conspirators. They consequently "travelled,"
having previously produced Shakespeare's _All's Well that Ends Well_,
a considerable portion of which is of much earlier date (c. 1592), but
which, in the Parolles scenes, has distinct allusion to Marston's _Jack
Drum's Entertainment_ of the preceding year, and to the "war of the
theatres," not yet concluded. They also acted the play of _Cromwell_,
Earl of Essex, by W. S., in which the parallel between the careers
of Cromwell and the lately executed Earl is strongly brought out. I
believe W. S. to have been William Sly, the well-known actor of the
Chamberlain's company. In their travels this year the company visited
the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, where they performed _Julius
Cæsar_ and _Hamlet_. The version of this last play so acted was not
the old play by Kyd, but one hurriedly remodelled by Shakespeare,
which we possess in an imperfect form in the first Quarto. Among the
Shakespearian additions occur passages alluding to the theatrical war
and the popularity of the Chapel Children, to which the travelling
of the company is attributed. This proves that Shakespeare was one
of the strolling detachment. Jonson seized on this defence in his
_Poetaster_, and represented that the travelling was due to the
inefficiency of their play-writers, and makes Tucca tell Histrio,
the Globe player, that if they will employ Marston, who "pens high
lofty in a new stalking strain," they "shall not need to travel with
thy pumps full of gravel after a blind jade and a hamper, and stalk
upon boards and barrel-heads to an old cracked trumpet." The travels,
however, were not confined to England. In October they had reached
Aberdeen, where they received the title of "the King's Servants," and
Laurence Fletcher, their manager, was admitted burgess of guild of
the borough. In all probability a version of the old _Macbeth_ play
was produced before King James--such a version as that of _Hamlet_
acted at the Universities. Its plot would fit more aptly with the
circumstances of the Gowry conspiracy of 1600 than that of _Richard
II._ would with Essex, and anything more pleasing to the King and
people of Scotland could not have been selected. During the absence of
this strolling detachment Jonson's _Poetaster_ was produced, containing
a vigorous attack on the Globe company; and they, in Shakespeare's
absence, hired Dekker to reply in his _Satiromastix_, which, with the
aid of the Paul's children, they represented in the public theatre
of the Globe, and in the private convocation-room of Paul's. During
this same absence, on 8th September Shakespeare's father was buried
at Stratford. He apparently died intestate. After the return from
Scotland, the appearance of Shakespeare's name, as fellow-contributor
to Chester's _Love's Martyr_ with Jonson, Marston, and Chapman, marks
the conclusion of the theatrical quarrel, and the reconciliation of
all the principal combatants, except Dekker. But although this book
bears the date 1601, it could not, I think, have been issued earlier
than March 1601-2, after the production of _Twelfth Night_ on February
2 at the Middle Temple. Such presentations as this at Inns of Court
were usually of new plays; and there is in this play fairly conclusive
internal evidence that the theatrical quarrel was not over when it was
acted. With regard to Shakespeare's other play of this year, _Troylus
and Cressida_, it was as clearly produced after the reconciliation. The
entry in S. R., "as it _is_ acted by the Lord Chamberlain's men," is
absolutely conclusive that it was still on the stage on 1st February
1602-3, and was therefore produced, in all probability, in the later
half of 1602. In this play the Prologue, the love story of Troylus, and
all the scenes after v. 4, are taken from the old play of c. 1593,
in which Shakespeare only wrote as a coadjutor. The Prologue and the
later scenes--v. 5-10--are manifestly by the second pen in the main,
and printed by mistake, the end of the revised version being shown
by the repetition of the lines "Why, but hear you," &c., at the end
of v. 3. That the 1602 version of the play was intended to refer to
the theatrical quarrel of 1599-1602 is clear from the line "_Rank_
Thersites with his _mastick_ tooth," who is evidently Dekker, of whom
Jonson says in the _Poetaster_ (iii. 1), "He has one of the most
overflowing _rank_ wits in Rome; he will slander any man that breathes
if he disgust him." Dekker had produced the _Satiro_MASTIX shortly
before _Troylus_ was acted; and it has been noted that he was not one
of the contributors to Chester's _Martyr_. I believe the Troylus play
to have been the one in which Shakespeare put down all the University
men, and purged Ben Jonson's pride, as we learn that he did from the
University play of _The Return from Parnassus_, acted in January
1602-3; the character of Ajax, "_Slow_ as the elephant, into whom
nature hath so crowded _humours_," &c. (i. 2), hits off Jonson exactly,
and is a good-humoured reply to Jonson's self-estimate as Crites in
_Cynthia's Revels_ (ii. 1), "A creature of a most divine temper, one
in whom the elements and _humours_ are peaceably met," &c.
In May 1602 Gilbert Shakespeare (his brother being probably in London)
concluded the purchase on his behalf of 107 acres of land in Old
Stratford, bought of the Coombes for £320, and on 28th September
Walter Getley transferred to him (not in person), at a Court Baron
of the Manor of Rowington, a cottage and garden in Chapel Lane. The
lady of the manor retained possession until personal completion of
the purchase. The Chamberlain's company were re-admitted to act at
Court in the winter, not having performed there in 1601-2, probably
on account of the _Richard II._ affair. They acted, however, only two
plays. In the following March, 1603, Shakespeare remodelled _The Taming
of the Shrew_ by the rewriting of the Katherine and Petruchio scene.
The play before he altered it was one written, I think, by Lodge about
1596, and founded on the old Kyd play of 1589 acted by Pembroke's
men. On March 29 Queen Elizabeth died, and whether it be due to the
different requirements of the new Court, or to a natural development
of Shakespeare's mind, there can be no doubt that a marked change of
style and method took place at this epoch in his work. It should not be
forgotten that the primary object for which theatres were established
was that stage-players "might be the better enabled and prepared to
show such plays to her [or his] Majesty as they shall be required," and
that the "honest recreation" of the citizens was a secondary matter.
For proof of this see the Privy Council documents quoted by Collier in
his _Annals_, _passim_, and specially in i. 309. Hence the succession
of a new sovereign had greater influence on the tone of the drama than
we can well realise. In Shakespeare's case it inaugurated a period in
which Tragedy was predominant in place of Comedy and History. All his
greatest tragedies were produced during the next four years 1603-6.
Before quitting the reign of Elizabeth, I call attention to the
significant fact that the Chamberlain's company performed at Court
before the accession of James exactly twenty-eight plays, and that the
number of Shakespeare's plays known to have been produced during the
same period by that company is twenty, and of other men's eight. I do
not press this exact agreement as showing absolute identity between the
two lists; one or two of the Court plays may have been merely revivals,
one or two of the stage plays may not have been brought before her
Majesty at all, but I think the following inferences justifiable. The
Queen, evidently as a general rule, only allowed new plays, or plays
so largely reconstructed as to be reckoned as new, to be presented
to her. So far as the Chamberlain's company were concerned, these
plays consisted on an average of two of Shakespeare's and one of
another author's--these numbers, however, being rather exceeded in the
earlier years, and diminished in the later. Shakespeare consequently
was to this company in the same position as Greene to the Queen's
men before his time, purveying to their use "more than four other,"
which explains his rapid advance in popularity and accumulation of
property. And finally, the number of plays supposed to have been lost
has been grossly exaggerated by modern critics, who have based their
calculations on the Diary of Henslowe, whose policy was quantity rather
than quality, and who was continually deceived by his hack-writers
presenting to his illiterate ignorance old plays new vamped as if they
were completely new.
In 1603 the plague raged in London. In March before the Queen's death,
the theatres were closed, and in the license of May 19, which adopted
the Chamberlain's men as the King's Servants (a title already conferred
on them in Scotland in 1601), a special clause was inserted allowing
them to act "when the infection of the plague shall decrease." The
infection did not decrease, yet the theatres were reopened, but
probably only for a few days. Doubtless the authorities closed them
on account of the continuance of the sickness. The plays acted at
this reopening were probably _The Miseries of Enforced Marriage_, by
George Wilkins, a new author, which was founded on contemporaneous
events in Yorkshire, and certainly the perfected _Hamlet_ as we now
have it in the Folio. The older version, which had been entered S. R.
on 26th July 1602, was now published, having probably been "stayed,"
as was frequently the case with plays printed by J. Roberts (for
example _The Merchant of Venice_, _Troylus and Cressida_), but not
till the copyright had been transferred to N. Ling and J. Trundell. In
1604 Ling issued the second Quarto, which in some instances supplies
passages omitted in the Folio for stage purposes, and in others
presents alternative versions and additions evidently made for the
Court performance (one of nine) in the winter 1603-4. It was a common
practice to utilise the altered copies of plays acted at Court by
allowing their publication. Yet another play acted by the King's men
this year was Jonson's _Sejanus_, for which he was accused of Popery
and treason by Northampton. When he published it (2d November 1604, S.
R.), he stated that "this book in all numbers is not the same with
that which was acted on the public stage; wherein a second pen had
good share: in place of which I have rather chosen to put weaker, and
no doubt less pleasing of mine own, than to defraud so happy a genius
of his right by my loathed usurpation." The only known writers for the
King's men at this date were Wilkins, W. S. (? Sly), Shakespeare, and
possibly Tourneur. Of these there can be no doubt that Shakespeare
is the only one that could have been the second pen alluded to. Not
that necessarily he was a coadjutor to Jonson in this play. It is more
likely that as he acted one of the principal parts in it he inserted
or altered scenes in which he himself appeared. It is clear that "the
second pen," whoever he was, objected to his share in the play being
published, and no wonder, seeing how its main author had been accused
on account of it. This probably explains why the book was kept in the
press six months, from November 1604 to April 1605. When it was issued
Jonson's _Volpone_ was just coming on the stage, and it is noticeable
that Shakespeare did not act in that play, and that immediately after
Jonson quitted the King's men and joined Chapman and Marston in writing
_Eastward Ho_ for the Revels children, in which _Hamlet_ is ridiculed.
All this seems to point to a quarrel between Jonson and Shakespeare,
and certainly Jonson's behaviour in the Sejanus matter is not, as
Gifford calls it, manly. To drag in unnecessarily an allusion to a
friend whose personality must have been known to the public of that
time, into an address prefixed to a work accused of Popery and sedition
was unmanly; and, as his friend had objected to it, was discreditable.
No intercourse can be shown between Shakespeare and Jonson after 1603.
On 30th January 1603-4, the new company of the Revels children replaced
the Chapel boys at Blackfriars. They were, however, in the main
composed of the same actors, and were not unfrequently mentioned under
their old name. On March 15, we find that among the King's train,
at his entry into London, were nine of the King's company, dressed
in the scarlet cloth allowed for the occasion. As these nine are
identical with those in the license of 19th May 1603, which is statedly
incomplete, they must have been in some way distinguished from the rest
of their fellows. They were, no doubt, shareholders in the Globe. Cooke
and Lowin, who acted in _Sejanus_ and _Volpone_, do not appear among
them; nor do Tooley, Gough, and Sinkler, who were at this time members
of the company. The nine were Shakespeare, Phillips, Fletcher, Hemings,
Burbadge, Sly, Lowin, Condell, and Cowley. In July, Shakespeare was in
Stratford, recovering in the local court some £2 odd for malt, &c.,
sold to one Rogers. In August he was summoned to London, the King's
men having to attend at Somerset House to play at the reception of the
Spanish ambassador. During this year he produced _Othello_ and _Measure
for Measure_, which were acted at Court in the winter festivities,
along with five old plays of his, and two of Jonson's. _Hamlet_ does
not occur in this list, as it undoubtedly would have done if produced
in 1604. It was, in fact, published this year as it had been acted at
Court in the previous winter. Another play acted by the King's men was
Marston's _Malcontent_, with an Induction by Webster, in which the
reason of its appearance is explained. The Blackfriars children had
acted _Jeronymo_ in 1600, an old play of Kyd's, which had passed to
the King's men from Lord Strange's, by whom it had been purchased of
the Queen's. It had probably been taken from the Chamberlain's men to
the Chapel children by Jonson, who in 1601, September 25, transferred
it to the Admiral's, and wrote additions to it for Henslowe. This
appropriation of their property irritated the Globe players, and when
they got the chance, at the reconstitution of the Blackfriars children
in 1604, they procured _The Malcontent_, which had been acted by these
pigmies, and produced it on their own stage as "one for another."
They also in December acted "the tragedy of Gowry with all action
and actors," so Chamberlain writes to Winwood, December 18, "with
exceeding concourse of all sorts of people," but he adds, "some great
councillors are much displeased with it, and so 'tis thought it shall
be forbidden." It probably was forbidden, as the play has disappeared.
Another mysterious play is _The Spanish Maz_, said to have been one of
the eleven performed in the winter at Court. Nothing is known of such a
play; but much is known of forgery connected with such statements.
In 1605, the tragedy of _King Lear_ was acted about 7th May, when
the old _Leir_, on which it was founded, but which was a _comedy_,
was entered S. R. as a "_Tragical_ History" of Leir, &c., "as it was
lately acted." Another play of very dubious authorship was acted by
the King's men before 3d July, when the ballad on the same events was
entered S. R.; this was _The Yorkshire Tragedy_. It was a continuation
of the story of _The Miseries of Enforced Marriage_, but treated more
realistically and more powerfully. It was published 2d May 1608 as by
Shakespeare, as in 1605 _The London Prodigal_ had already been, but in
the latter instance the publication was unlicensed and surreptitious,
while the _Yorkshire Tragedy_ was entered S. R. as "written by
William Shakespeare." The entry, however, was made for T. Pavier, an
unscrupulous piratic printer, who on other occasions tried to establish
rights in "Shakespeare's plays" which were not Shakespeare's; and no
weight can be assigned to his assertions. Another play acted by the
King's men, in March 1605, was Jonson's _Volpone_, or _The Fox_. This
was anterior in production to the plays already mentioned. Immediately
afterwards we find Jonson in connection with the Blackfriars children
again, and in prison for writing _Eastward Ho_. Shakespeare did not
act in _The Fox_; perhaps Jonson was offended at this; he at any rate
did not return to the King's men till 1610. On 4th May, Phillips,
Shakespeare's fellow-actor, made his will, and died shortly after.
We learn from this document, which gives us many other valuable
particulars respecting the members of the company, that Shakespeare and
Condell were the two of "his fellows" whom, next to Hemings, Burbadge,
and Sly, his executors, Phillips most highly appreciated; he left them
each a 30s.-piece in gold, but to Fletcher, Armin, Cowley, Cooke, and
Tooley a 20s.-piece. He also left legacies to Gilburne and Sands his
apprentices, and to Beeston his servant. "His fellows" here means the
shareholders in the Globe, as contrasted with the "hired servants,"
to whom he left "£5 amongst them." There were then in 1605 eleven
shareholders, Cooke and Tooley having been added since 15th March
1604. On 24th July Shakespeare invested £40 in a lease of the tithes
of Stratford, Old Stratford, Bishopton, and Welcombe, as had been
suggested to him in 1598. In August King James was at Oxford, and among
the entertainments presented to him were speeches by three young men
of St. John's, who personated the three Sibyls who had prophesied to
Banquo. This interlude would necessarily recall to the King's mind the
old Macbeth play, which had been probably presented to him in Scotland
by the Globe players, and if, as there is little reason to doubt, he
did write an autograph letter to Shakespeare, it was most likely on
this occasion, commanding a fuller version of _Macbeth_. This play was
certainly produced at Court, probably at Shrovetide in March 1605-6,
but it has been altered since, condensed and interpolated by dances
and songs and a new scene with Hecate in it, no doubt by Middleton in
1622, from whose _Witch_ the songs are taken. On 9th October the Globe
company acted before the Mayor and Corporation at Oxford, and then,
if not from the King, Shakespeare would be sure to hear of the Sybils
interlude. In all, ten plays were acted at Court this winter by the
Globe company. Among them was a version of _Mucedorus_, with additions.
This version has only come down to us in imprints of 1610 and later;
but there was an edition in 1606 mentioned in Beauclerc's Catalogue,
1781, from which the later title-pages were copied. From the title
it appears that it had been revived before the King on Shrove-Sunday
night at Whitehall. The original play had been acted about the city,
and therefore not later than 1594, before the Chamberlain's men
settled at the Theater. The additions are directed against Jonson,
whose strictures on monopolies, and sneer at "the miraculous effects
of the Oglio del Scoto" in _Volpone_, ii. 1, must have grievously
offended James, who had revived the touching for the king's evil.
Jonson had subsequently joined Chapman and Marston in writing _Eastward
Ho_ for the Chapel boys, in which the Scots were still more severely
satirised, and was evidently, as may be seen from the address prefixed
to _Volpone_, at daggers drawn with the Globe men. Hence, in the
_Mucedorus_ additions, the allusions to the "meagre cannibal," the
"scrambling raven with his meagre beard" (certainly Jonson, the
"thin-bearded Hermaphrodite" in _Satiromastix_), who had, stirred up
by Envy, written a comedy for the Globe filled with "dark sentences
pleasing to factious brains;" which would have led to their restraint,
as _Eastward Ho_ did for the Chapel boys, had not the King's players
been staid and discreet, and begged pardon of His Majesty on bended
knee "for their unwilling error." The threatened information must have
been in the autumn of 1605.
To 1606 no other play than _Macbeth_ can with certainty be traced: and
the marked change of metrical style at this epoch points to a period
of rest. In all his subsequent plays, many lines end with unemphatic
words, such as _and_, _if_, _which_, _but_ and the like, and this
change was not introduced gradually but suddenly and decisively. Hence
its value as indisputably separating the Fourth Period plays from
the preceding. On this ground it is pretty certain that _Timon_ was
Shakespeare's next production; he only wrote the chief scenes in it,
however, and it was finished for the stage by another hand. At this
time also, in my opinion, Shakespeare began to write _Cymbeline_,
which he afterwards completed himself. This arrangement of his work
seems natural; _Lear_, _Macbeth_, _Cymbeline_ closing the series
founded on Holinshed, and _Timon_, _Antony_, _Coriolanus_--the series
from Plutarch--succeeding them. A minuter examination of the question
will be found in a later part of this work. Of other play-writers'
contributions to the Globe in 1606 there is only one--_Pericles_, as
originally produced by Wilkins, which was ridiculed in _The Puritan_
by Middleton--acted by the Paul's children of this year. Wilkins
left writing for the King's men, and (1607) joined the Queen's men
at the Curtain. This was probably rumoured to have been caused by
some quarrel with Shakespeare, for on 6th August 1607, S. R., _The
Puritan Widow_ was published as by W. S., evidently meaning William
Shakespeare. Of all the instances in which Shakespeare's name or
initials were fraudulently inserted on title-pages, this play and _Sir
John Oldcastle_ were the only two in which they were prefixed to plays
not even acted by his company. At the Court in the 1606-7 season three
Globe plays were presented to the King of Denmark on the occasion of
his visit to England, and nine others in the usual course. _Antony
and Cleopatra_ may be confidently assigned to 1607. It was entered
for publication S. R. on 20th May 1608 with _Pericles_(no doubt as
originally written by Wilkins), but both plays were stayed; the former
as having been on the stage only one year, the latter to be superseded
by the issue in 1609 of the version as altered by Shakespeare. On
22d October _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_ was entered S. R. for A.
Johnson. The entry for Hunt and Archer on 5th April 1608 is that of the
prose story by Thomas Brewer. The initials T. B. in this latter entry
have misled Mr. Halliwell and others to assign the authorship of the
play to Tony Brewer. On 26th November Shakespeare's _King Lear_ was
entered S. R. as it was played before the King on 26th December 1606,
"Saint Stephen's Night at Christmas last." This settles two important
questions; first, the relation of the Quarto text to the Folio--the
Quarto being the version played at Court, the Folio that retained by
the players for the public stage; secondly, the existence of a custom
in the Globe company of allowing, in cases of altered or revised
plays, the version not required for future stage purposes to be issued
to the public in print. Many instances of this custom are brought to
light in the present treatise. On October 7, Cyril Tourneur's (?)
_Revenger's Tragedy_ was entered S. R. The date of production on the
stage is uncertain. It had "been sundry times acted by the King's
players." Nor am I aware of the grounds on which the authorship is
assigned to Tourneur. It was published anonymously. On 25th June,
Susanna, Shakespeare's daughter, married John Hall, M.A., physician at
Stratford. There were thirteen performances this winter at Court by
the King's men. In 1608 Shakespeare probably produced _Coriolanus_. On
21st February Elizabeth Hall was baptized, within eight months from
her parents' marriage. The prospect of a continuation of his family,
though not of his family name, was some alleviation for Shakespeare
of the loss of his youngest brother Edmund, "a player," buried at St.
Saviour's, Southwark, 31st December 1607, "with a forenoon knell of
the great bell," _ætatis_ 27. Of Edmund's career in London we _know_
nothing; but surely he must have belonged to the Globe company. His
absence from the actors' lists offers no obstacle to this supposition;
they are, after that of _The Seven Deadly Sins_ in 1594, confined to
names of shareholders and principal actors. And if player for the
Globe, why not author? May he not, for instance, have written _The
Yorkshire Tragedy_ under his brother's superintendence, and may not
this account for its being published as William Shakespeare's? All
attempts to assign it to any known author have egregiously failed.
However this may be, and however poignantly William felt the loss of
the Benjamin of the family, a severer bereavement awaited him in the
death of his mother, buried at Stratford 9th September 1608. It has
always been a favourite hypothesis with me that Volumnia was drawn
from her as a model of matronly virtue, and it is certain that at this
date a final change took place in Shakespeare's manner of writing.
His plays since the accession of James had been, with scarcely an
exception, tragedies; from this time they are really, under whatever
head they may have hitherto been classed, tragi-comedies, and all turn,
as I pointed out many years ago, on the reuniting of separated members
of families. The first of this final group is _Marina_, the part of
_Pericles_ which replaced Wilkins' work, and which was written in this
winter and hurriedly printed in 1609 as a practical answer to Wilkins'
prose version, published in 1608, in which he claimed the story as an
"infant of his brain." Shakespeare's version must, I think, be placed
after his return to London from Stratford, where he remained after
his mother's funeral till 16th October, when he stood godfather for
William Walker. The Court performances this winter were twelve. On
28th January 1609, _Troylus and Cressida_ was entered S. R., not for
Roberts, whose intended publication in 1603 had been stayed, but for
Bonian and Whalley, who issued it with a preface stating that it had
never been "staled with the stage." This false statement was withdrawn
in their subsequent re-issue during the same year, but it proves that
the period during which the play had been performed in 1602 must have
been a very short one; such a statement could not have otherwise been
put forward with any plausibility. On 20th May the _Sonnets_ were
published, with a dedication to their "only begetter," Mr. W. H. I
think that these initials designate Sir William Hervey, to whom Lord
Southampton's mother left at her death in November 1607 the greatest
part "of her stuff." He was her third husband, and may have been the
original suggester to Shakespeare, as a friend to Lord Southampton,
that he should write a series of Sonnets to him recommending marriage
in 1594, when Southampton had not yet become devoted to "the fair Mrs.
Vernon," and was entangled in the affair of the frail Avisa. In 1609 he
was busily occupied with the Virginian company, and promoting voyages
for American discovery, an allusion to which underlies the Dedication
"wisheth the well-wishing adventurer in setting forth," _adventurer_
being the current phrase for explorer of unknown regions. On 7th
June Shakespeare's cousin, Thomas Green, then residing at New Place,
Stratford, issued a final precept in his behalf against one Hornby,
who had become bail for John Addenbroke, in a matter of debt for £6.
This litigation had begun in August 1608: juries had been summoned on
21st December and 15th February, and then Addenbroke absconded, leaving
Hornby to be answerable. The plague being prevalent this year, there
were no Christmas performances at Court, and not many on the public
stage. _Cymbeline_ was Shakespeare's only production. In its present
state it has evidently been subjected to revision and to alteration for
some revival after Shakespeare's death, when the doggerel in the vision
in iv. 4 was inserted; originally, no doubt, the ghosts appeared in
dumb show to music. The Globe players received £30 as a compensation
for being restrained from playing in London during six weeks, _i.e._,
during August and September, when the bills of mortality show the
plague to have been at its height.
In January 1610 the Revels children left the Blackfriars Theatre, and
set up with a new organisation under Rossiter at Whitefriars the new
private stage. It appears from the statement of C. Burbadge, in the
1635 documents discovered by Mr. Halliwell, that that family then
bought up the remainder of the lease from Evans, and took some of the
Revels boys, now grown up, to strengthen the Globe company. Among these
were Underwood and Ostler; but as C. Burbadge also names Field, who did
not join the King's men till 1615 or 1616, his subsequent statement
that they set up men-players, Shakespeare, Hemings, Condell, &c., in
Blackfriars _at that date_, is not to be taken as necessarily exact.
The King's men undoubtedly took possession of Blackfriars for their
own performances in 1614 or 1615, after the Globe had been burned and
rebuilt; but there is not a trace of them until then in connection with
this private house except this _ex parte_ statement of C. Burbadge,
made for a special purpose, in a plea which is studiously ambiguous.
But there is evidence that other companies acted there. Field's _Amends
for Ladies_ was performed there by the Lady Elizabeth's company and the
Duke of York's (afterwards Prince Charles'). This performance must have
taken place during a temporary union between the Prince's men and the
Lady Elizabeth's, to which latter the play and its author were properly
attached; but that the Duke of York's acted continuously at Blackfriars
from 1610 to 1615, is very probable. It is not likely that a company
under such patronage, and admitted to Court performances every
Christmas, should have been merely a strolling company, and there was
no other theatre for them to perform in. The King's men held the Globe,
Prince Henry's (afterwards the Palgrave's) the Fortune, the Queen's the
Bull and the Curtain, the Queen's Revels' boys Whitefriars, and Lady
Elizabeth's at first the Swan till 1612, and after its abandonment the
newly renovated Hope in 1614, and then the rebuilt Cockpit or Phoenix.
There is no proof that Shakespeare ever acted at Blackfriars; there is
strong presumption to the contrary as to his supposed shares in that
theatre: it was the "private inheritance" of the Burbadges, and that
the King's men had shares in it at this time rests on the evidence of
forged documents and mischievously fertile imaginations, to which the
purchase of twenty acres of land at Stratford by Shakespeare from the
Combes in June seems to require access of capital to make this new
acquisition feasible. _Winter's Tale_ was certainly produced early this
year, before Jonson's _Alchemist_, which was acted and entered S. R.,
October 3, but was, however, "stayed" for the usual reasons, and did
not get published till 1612. The Address to the Reader (no doubt dating
1610) contains one of Jonson's numerous allusions to the "dance of
antics" in _Winters Tale_. Jonson, who had produced _Epicene_ for the
Chapel children in 1609, had returned to the King's men when the boys
left Blackfriars. Shakespeare's last play this year, and final finished
contribution to the stage, was _The Tempest_, produced about November,
after the news that the ships of Sir T. Gates at the Bermudas had not
been destroyed. This play as we have it has unfortunately been abridged
for Court performances, probably by Beaumont in 1612 or 1613, to whom
the insertion of the Masque may confidently be attributed. There were
fifteen winter performances at Court in 1610-11.
The loss of Shakespeare was repaired as well as circumstances would
permit by the accession of Beaumont and Fletcher to the King's company
in 1611. In that year they produced their masterpieces _Philaster, a
King and no King_ and _The Maid's Tragedy_: in 1612 _The Woman's Prize_
(by Fletcher alone), the play of _Cardenas_ (probably the original
form of _Love's Pilgrimage_), and _The Captain_. Jonson contributed
_Catiline_ in 1611, and Webster _The Duchess of Malfi_ in 1612. _The
Second Maiden's Tragedy_ (by the author of _The Revenger's Tragedy_,
I think) was also produced in 1611. At Court the unusual number of
twenty-two plays was acted in the 1611 winter and twenty-eight in
1612. These must have included nearly every play they possessed; and
the fact that the whole, or nearly so, of Shakespeare's plays were
revived at Court in these two years makes his retirement in 1610 to
my mind nearly a certainty, and accounts for the not very felicitous
praise of his "copious industry" by Webster in the Dedication of his
_White Devil_ in 1612. Webster couples the retired Shakespeare with
Dekker and Heywood: but Jonson's works he speaks of as "laboured
and understanding," Beaumont's and Fletcher's as "no less worthy
composures." This higher praise is given to the writers who like
himself were then contributing to the Globe repertory. He mentions
no one else but Chapman of "full and heightened style." Are we to
attribute to this mention of him the tradition that Chapman wrote _The
Second Maiden's Tragedy_? On 11th September 1611 Shakespeare's name
occurs "in the margin, as if a later insertion" (says Mr. Halliwell) of
a list of Stratford donors "towards the charge of prosecuting the bill
in Parliament for the better repair of the highways." In 1612 Lane,
Greene, and Shakespeare filed a bill before Lord Ellesmere complaining
that some of the lessees of the Stratford tithes refused to contribute
their proper shares of a reserved rent. It appears from this document
that Shakespeare's income from this source was £60. In the same year
Heywood, in his _Apology for Actors_, complained of W. Jaggard's having
printed in _The Passionate Pilgrim_, 3d edition, two love epistles
taken from his _Troia Britannica_, as by W. Shakespeare, "which might
put the world in opinion I might steal them from him;" he adds that
he knows the author was much offended for Jaggard's presuming to make
bold with his name. The name was in consequence withdrawn _altogether_
from the title-page. Notwithstanding this, many modern editors print
_The Passionate Pilgrim_ as Shakespeare's. On 4th February 1613 Richard
Shakespeare was buried at Stratford; whether the Gilbert Shakespeare,
"adolescens," who was buried 3d February 1612, was also a brother of
William's, is doubtful, but likely. On l0th March 1613 Shakespeare
bought of Henry Walker a house and yard near Blackfriars Theatre for
£140, of which £60 remained on mortgage (one of the trustees being in
1618 John Heming, Shakespeare's fellow-actor): he leased the house
to John Robinson for ten years. On 29th June the Globe was burned
down. It caught fire during the performance of _All is True_ (_Henry
VIII._) This was not the play as we have it--which is a later version
by Massinger and Fletcher, written for the Blackfriars Theatre, and
containing only three scenes that can be attributed to Shakespeare--but
a play in which there was a fool's part. Wotton describes it as "the
play of _Henry VIII._," but Lorkin says it was a new play called _All
is True_, representing some principal pieces of _Henry VIII._ Whether
new play or not it was probably by Shakespeare, written c. 1609, and
portions of it remain imbedded in that now extant by Fletcher and
Massinger c. 1617, the original MS. having perished in the fire. Just
at the same time one Lane had been maligning Mrs. Hall, Shakespeare's
daughter, in connection with Ralph Smith. Lane was summoned before the
Ecclesiastical Court at Worcester on 15th July and excommunicated on
the 27th. There were only seven plays performed at Court by the King's
men in the winter 1613-14, all their principal writers--Fletcher,
Beaumont, Jonson, Webster--having left them after the Globe fire.
Surely this is not consistent with the statement of C. Burbadge that
they had taken the Blackfriars building to their own use. No new play
can be traced to them till 1615, when the Globe had been[2] rebuilt,
and the Prince Charles' men had gone to the Curtain. Then they
certainly did take the Blackfriars to themselves, and with an excellent
staff of writers--Jonson, Fletcher, Massinger, and Field--they occupied
it as well as the new Globe. A letter of John Chamberlain's to Sir
Dudley Carleton, 5th January 1615, says of the stage in general: "Of
five new plays there is not one that pleases, and therefore they are
driven to furbish over their old." Yet Jonson's _Bartholomew Fair_ was
one of these 1614 plays acted at Court. I suspect that Lady Elizabeth's
players were not so well liked as the King's, and that Shakespeare and
Beaumont were greatly missed. Fletcher and Massinger were not yet able
to replace them even at Court.
In July 1614 John Combe left a legacy of £5 to Shakespeare; this
fact disposes of the silly story of Shakespeare having satirised
him in infantile doggerel. In the autumn William Combe, the squire
of Wilcombe, originated a proposal to enclose common fields in the
neighbourhood; he was supported by Shakespeare, who had been guaranteed
against prospective loss by Replingham, Combe's agent. The corporation,
through his cousin Greene, the town-clerk, remonstrated with him in
November when he was in London, and again in December wrote to him
representing the inconveniences and loss that would be caused. The
matter dragged on to September 1615, and then fell through. This is
the last notice of Shakespeare's action in any public matter. On
l0th February 1616 his daughter Judith was married to Thomas Quiney,
vintner, four years her junior, without licence, whence a fine and
threat of excommunication at the Worcester Ecclesiastical Court: and
on 25th April Shakespeare was buried. His will had been executed on
25th March. It was not regularly engrossed, but a corrected draft,
originally prepared for copying and completion on 25th January, but
evidently neglected until the sudden emergency of Shakespeare's
illness. It appears from this document that Judith's marriage portion
was to have been £100, on condition of her husband's settling on her
£150 in land; if this condition was fulfilled within three years he
was left £150 to his own use, if not it was strictly settled on her
and her children. This £150 is independent of £100 in discharge of her
marriage portion, and £50 conditional on her surrendering her interest
in the Rowington manor to Susanna Hall. To Joan Hart, his sister, whose
husband had been buried on 17th April, was left wearing apparel, £20,
a life-interest in Henley Street, and £5 each to her sons. To Susanna
Hall he left all his real estate settled in tail male, with the usual
remainders over. To Elizabeth Hall all his plate except the broad
silver-gilt bowl, which went to Judith Quiney. To his fellows, Hemings,
Burbadge, and Condell, £1, 6s. 8d. each for rings; the usual legacies
to the executors, poor, &c.; and to his wife his second best bed.
Of course she was fully provided for by freebench in the Rowington
copyhold, and dower on the rest of the property; nevertheless, it
is strange that she does not appear as executrix, that she had no
life-interest left her in house or furniture, and that in the draft of
the will, as made in January, her name does not appear to have been
mentioned at all. It is only in the subsequent interlineations that her
bequest appears.
FOOTNOTES:
[2] It had been reopened in June 1614.
SECTION II.
THE PERSONAL CONNECTIONS OF SHAKESPEARE WITH OTHER POETS.
ONE of the objects of the present treatise is to bring into clearer
light the relations of Shakespeare with contemporary dramatists.
Strangely enough this has scarcely been attempted in earlier
biographies. His dealings in malt have been carefully chronicled: his
connections with poets have been slurred over. It will be useful,
therefore, to gather up the scattered notices of personal contact
between him and his fellows in dramatic production. Mere allusions to
his works, whether complimentary or otherwise, will not come under
this category. Such will be found collected, and well collected, in
Dr. Ingleby's _Century of Praise_; but they consist almost entirely
of slight references to his published works, and have no bearing of
importance on his career. Nor, indeed, have we any extended material of
any kind to aid us in this investigation; one source of information,
which is abundant for most of his contemporaries, being in his case
entirely absent. Neither as addressed to him by others, nor by him to
others, do any commendatory verses exist in connection with any of
his or other men's works published in his lifetime--a notable fact,
in whatever way it may be explained. Nor can he be traced in any
personal contact beyond a very limited circle, although the fanciful
might-have-beens so largely indulged in by his biographers might at
first lead us to an opposite conclusion.
With John Lyly, the founder of English Comedy, he seems to have had
no personal intercourse, although the reproduction by him of many of
Lyly's puns and conceits, and some few of his dramatic situations,
distinctly prove that he had carefully examined his published
plays. Nor does the solitary reference to Shakespeare in Greene's
_Groatsworth of Wit_, however it may display strong personal feeling,
lead us to suppose that there had been any personal relations between
these dramatists; in fact, the very wording of the passage properly
understood distinctly disproves the existence of such relations. Of
all the dramatists who had preceded him on the London stage the only
two with whom he can be even conjecturally brought in personal contact
before the opening of the Rose Theatre in 1592 are Robert Wilson and
George Peele. It is unlikely that he should have begun his career
as a novice and journeyman independent of tutor or coadjutor, and a
minute examination of the careers of these two dramatists leads me to
infer that they were connected with the same company as Shakespeare
in 1590-1. In any case, they were his immediate models in his early
work in several respects. It is from Wilson that his liking for
doggerel rhymes and alternately rhyming stanzas was derived: it is
from Peele that his love tragedy of _Romeo and Juliet_--his only early
tragedy--derived, in its earliest form, as acted in 1591, whatever
in it was not Shakespeare's own. Wilson was probably his tutor or
coadjutor in Comedy and Peele in Tragedy. But this is after all
conjecture; on the other hand, it is certain that in 1592-3 a greater
than Peele or Wilson was writing for the same company as Shakespeare,
and necessarily in close connection with him. For Marlowe he certainly
had a sincere regard: from his poem of _Hero and Leander_ Shakespeare
makes the only direct quotation to be found in his plays; on his
historical plays Shakespeare, after his friend's decease, bestowed in
addition, revision, and completion, a greater amount of minute work
than on his own; and the earlier of his own histories were distinctly
built on lines similar to those of _Edward II._ and _Edward III._
The relation of Shakespeare's Histories to Marlowe's is far more
intimate than that of his Comedies or of _Romeo_ to any predecessor's
productions. I cannot find a trace of direct connection between
Shakespeare and any other poet than these mentioned, during the life
of Lord Strange. His connection with Lord Southampton seems to have
been more intimate than any with his fellow-poets. In the _Sonnets_
addressed to him there is mention of other pens who have dedicated
poems to his lordship, and whom Shakespeare for poetical purposes
professes to regard as dangerous rivals. The only persons known to have
_dedicated_ anything to Southampton are Nash and Markham, although
George Peele had written a high eulogy of him in his _Honour of the
Garter_ in 1593. Markham's dedication is one of four prefixed to his
poem on _The Tragedy of Sir Richard Grenvile_ (S. R. 9th September
1595); (1.) to Charles Lord Montjoy (in prose); (2.) to Robert Earl
of Sussex (Sonnet); (3.) to the Earl of Southampton (Sonnet); (4.) to
Sir Edward Wingfield (Sonnet). I am not aware of any previous attempt
to identify Markham with the rival alluded to in the _Sonnets_ of
Shakespeare, and yet there are many coincidences of language which
would lead to this conclusion. Take Sonnet 78, for instance. "_Thine
eyes_ ... have added feathers to the learned's _wing_ and given _grace_
a double majesty." In Markham we find in 1, "hath given _wings_ to my
youngling Muse;" and in 3, "whose _eyes_ doth crown the most victorious
pen" (_cf._ in 1, "that thine _eyes_ may lighten," &c.); and in 4,
the _double_ majesty of the grace, "vouchsafe to _grace_ my work and
me, _Gracing_ the soul beloved of heaven and thee." I do not find in
Markham the "affable familiar ghost" of Sonnet 86, but this and other
allusions may have referred to his _Thyrsis and Daphne_ (S. R. 23d
April 1593, five days after the entry of _Venus and Adonis_) which
is now unfortunately lost; and there is something like it in the
Grenvile Tragedy, in which Markham calls on Grenvile's soul to "sit
on his hand" while he writes, which the ghost apparently does until
it is dismissed to its "rest" at the end of the poem. Markham was an
exceedingly _learned_ man and the "proud full sail of his great verse"
would well apply to his stilted and conceited effusion. He does not
in it allude to Southampton's beauty, though he may have done so in
his _Thyrsis_, but he calls him "Bright lamp of _virtue_" with which
compare Sonnet 79: "He lends thee _virtue_, and he stole that word from
thy behaviour." On the whole I incline to regard Markham as the rival
poet of Shakespeare's Sonnets. As to Nash, his supposed satirical
allusions to Shakespeare, as set forth by the fertile fancy of Mr.
Simpson, have no more real existence than the allusions discovered by
other like imaginations in the writings of Spenser. His only notice of
Shakespeare's writings is the well-known mention of the representation
of Talbot on the stage, and that is highly complimentary. He may be
included under the "every alien pen" of Sonnet 78, but he is not (as I
once thought he was) the rival poet alluded to. It may be of interest
in connection with this matter to note that in _The Dumb Knight_, in
which Markham certainly wrote i. 2, ii. 1, iii. 4, and iv. 2, _Venus
and Adonis_ is satirised as a lascivious poem.
Of intercourse with other dramatists while a member of the
Chamberlain's company, the first instance is that with Lodge
and Drayton. That the connection with Drayton terminated in a
misunderstanding is clear from the excision of the favourable notice of
Shakespeare's _Lucrece_ from his _Matilda_, and from Drayton's taking
the chief part in writing _Sir John Oldcastle_, the object of which was
to keep alive the ill-feeling produced by the unfortunate adoption of
that name from the old play of _Henry V._ for the character afterwards
called Sir John Falstaff. This connection with Drayton ended in 1597,
that with Lodge in 1599. If I am right in my attribution of part
authorship to Lodge in _Henry VI._ and _The Taming of the Shrew_ in
its original form, Shakespeare revised and altered his plays, but not
till after Lodge's retirement from connection with the Chamberlain's
company. Soon after this, in 1601, he founded his _Hamlet_ on Kyd's,
but with Kyd himself I have not been able to find that he was at any
time personally connected. Nevertheless, as regards mere outward form,
Kyd was the chief model for the great tragedies of _Hamlet_, _Lear_,
&c. Of course, as regards all poetic essentials, his influence on
Shakespeare cannot for a moment be compared to Marlowe's.
With Marston, Chapman, and Dekker, Shakespeare's relations were
ephemeral, in connection with the great stage quarrel of 1599-1601,
and in no respect personal, unless we suppose that he had a hand in
hiring Dekker to oppose Jonson. My own belief is that he was away
in Scotland when _Satiromastix_ was produced, and that the division
of the company left in London did this without his knowledge. With
Jonson his relations were evidently personal and of very varied
nature. He probably introduced him to the Chamberlain's company in
1598; he certainly acted in his play of _Every Man in his Humour_: he
did not act in _Every Man out of his Humour_--and then Jonson joined
the Chapel children, and entered on his three years' struggle with
Marston, Dekker, &c. In 1601 Shakespeare satirised these children
in _Hamlet_, and about the same time administered the "purge" to
Jonson mentioned in _The Return from Parnassus_: at the end of the
same year, he, Jonson, Chapman, and Marston were contributors to
Chester's _Love's Martyr_. In 1603 Jonson, who had again joined the
Chamberlain's men, wrote _Sejanus_ in conjunction with some one (with
Shakespeare in my opinion), and got into trouble for it. Shakespeare
certainly acted in this play, and must at that time have been on good
terms with Jonson. All the allusions to Shakespeare's _Henry V._, &c.,
in the Prologue at the revival of _Every Man in his Humour_ in 1601
by the Chapel children, and the purge administered to Jonson, had
been forgiven and forgotten on both sides. But in 1605 Jonson wrote
_Volpone_, in which Shakespeare did not act, and which gave offence at
Court: and this caused a new disagreement between him and the King's
men (formerly the Chamberlain's). He left them, and with Chapman and
Marston wrote _Eastward Ho_, in which _Hamlet_ is ridiculed, and for
allusions to Scotland in which, similar to those in _Volpone_, the
authors were imprisoned. The King's men retaliated with the additions
to _Mucedorus_, of which more elsewhere, and Jonson did not join
them again for years. He wrote for the Chapel children in 1609, and
not till 1610, at the end of the year, when Shakespeare's dramatic
career was just expiring, did he produce _The Alchemist_ for them at
the Globe. It is to be hoped that these two great dramatists were not
at open enmity during the later part of Shakespeare's life; but all
record of any real friendship between them ends in 1603, and little
value is to be attributed either to the vague traditions of Jonson's
visiting him at Stratford, or to the abundant praise lavished on him by
Jonson in commendatory verses after his death. Much more important for
ascertaining the real relations existing between them are the allusions
to _The Tempest_ and _Winter's Tale_ so abundantly scattered through
all Jonson's plays from 1609 to 1616, while Shakespeare was yet alive.
Of other dramatists who were connected with Shakespeare in King
James's time I know only of Tourneur and Wilkins--the former simply
as an author writing for Shakespeare's company, the latter as the
playwright who wrote _Pericles_ in its original form: the history of
the production of this play has already been given.
As to Beaumont, Fletcher, Webster, &c., who after 1610 wrote for
the King's men, and the numerous contemporaries who wrote for other
companies, no trace of any intercourse with Shakespeare, personal
or otherwise, remains to us, though abundant guesses and hypotheses
utterly foundationless[3] will be found in the voluminous Shakespearian
literature already existing. The truth appears to be that Shakespeare
at no time sought for a large circle of acquaintance, and that his
position as almost sole provider of plays for his company relieved
him of that miscellaneous comradeship which was the bane of Dekker,
Heywood, and many other gifted writers of the time. Of any one of these
a far larger personal connection can be proved than I believe ever
existed in the case of Shakespeare: and to this we no doubt are greatly
indebted for the depth and roundness of those great plays, which could
never have been conceived without much solitude, much suffering, and
much concentration.
FOOTNOTES:
[3] The reader should especially beware of a most absurd identification
of Shakespeare with the Crispinus of Jonson's _Poetaster_, recently put
forth by Mr. J. Feis in his _Shakspere and Montaigne_. It is a pity
that an essay, of which the first four chapters are so valuable, should
be disfigured by the palpable chronological and other blunders in the
latter portions of the volume.
SECTION III.
ANNALS ON WHICH THE PRECEDING SECTIONS ARE FOUNDED.
Until April 1564.
On 26th April 1564 was baptized William, son of John Shakespeare of
Stratford-on-Avon and Mary Arden, at that time an only child, two girls
born previously having died in their infancy. John Shakespeare was son
of Richard Shakespeare of Snitterfield, where his brother Henry also
resided: he was a glover, who speculated in wool, corn, &c. He lived
in Henley Street, Stratford, as early as 29th April 1552, having left
his father about 1550, and in October 1556 purchased two small estates
in that town--one that is now shown as the birthplace, the other in
Greenhill Street. In 1557 he married Mary Arden, whose father, Robert,
a yeoman, had contracted a second marriage with Agnes Hill, widow,
and in the settlement then made had reserved to Mary the reversion to
estates at Wilmecote and Snitterfield. Some part of this land was
occupied by Richard Shakespeare's grandfather. Mary Arden also received
under her father's will, dated 24th November 1556, a considerable sum
in money, and the fee-simple of Asbies at Wilmecote, a house with sixty
acres of land. In 1557 John was a burgess, a member of the corporation,
and by choice of the Court Leet ale-taster to the borough, sworn to
look to the assize and goodness of bread, ale, or beer. In September
1558 he was one of the four constables under the rules of the Court
Leet. On 6th October 1559 he was again chosen constable and one of the
four affeerors for determining fines under the borough bye-laws. In
1561 he was again chosen affeeror, and one of the borough chamberlains,
which office he held till the end of 1563.
1564.
In July the plague broke out in Stratford, and continued to December.
There died 238 in that half-year, no Shakespeares among them. John
Shakespeare had had an early lesson in sanitation by way of a fine
of 12d. in April 1552 for having a muck heap in front of his door
in Henley Street, within a stone's-throw of one of the public
stores of filth. He now contributed fairly to relieve the poor and
plague-stricken; about 12d. per month.
1565.
In March John Shakespeare with his former colleague made up the
chamberlain's accounts from September 1563 to 1564. Neither of them
could sign their names.
1566.
In February he again made up these accounts, and was paid £3, 2s. 7d.
"for a rest of old debt" by the corporation. On 13th October his son
Gilbert was baptized.
1567.
In September, Ralph Perrot, brewer, John Shakespeare, and Ralph
Cawdrey, butcher, were nominated for the office of High Bailiff or
Mayor. Cawdrey was elected. For the first time the name appears as
"Mr." John Shakespeare.
1568.
On 4th September "Mr. John Shakysper" was chosen High Bailiff. He was
succeeded the next year by Robert Salisbury.
1569.
On 15th April John Shakespeare's third daughter (named Joan after her
deceased elder sister) was baptized.
1571.
On 28th September John Shakespeare's fourth daughter Anne was baptized.
William was now seven, then the usual age for the commencement of
grammar-school education, the use of the Absey book and horn-book
having been acquired at home. Lily's _Accidence_ and the _Sententiæ
Pueriles_ were the usual text-books for beginners in Latin. Shakespeare
had some knowledge of Latin, and a little French; all beyond this is
very problematical.
1573.
On 11th March, Richard, John Shakespeare's third son, was baptized.
1575.
John Shakespeare bought two houses in Stratford.
1578.
In January John Shakespeare paid only the amount of borough taxes
paid by other aldermen. William was then fourteen, the usual age for
commencing apprenticeship. There is a tradition given by Aubrey that he
was apprenticed to a butcher. I believe this to be a myth, originating
in the epithet "kill-cow," often applied to tragic actors. Some
writers still think that the tradition may be relied on. Another story
traced to the parish clerk of 1693 is that he followed his father's
profession. May be so; may not be.
1579.
In Easter Term Asbies was mortgaged to Edmund Lambert for £40, to
revert if repayment be made before Michaelmas 1580.
On 4th July Anne Shakespeare was buried; in the chamberlain's accounts
occurs this item: "For the bell and pall for Mr. Shaxper's daughter,
8d.," the highest fee in the list.
On 15th October John Shakespeare and his wife convey their interest in
Snitterfield to Robert Webbe. Agnes Arden's will is dated in this year.
1580.
On 3d May, Edmund, son of John Shakespeare, was baptized.
On or before 29th September, the money in discharge of the Asbies
mortgage was tendered and refused unless other moneys due were also
paid.
1581.
On 19th January the goods of Agnes Arden, deceased, were appraised.
On 1st September Richard Hathaway of Shottery made his will.
1582.
On 28th November the marriage bond between William Shagspere and
Anne Hathway was given, under condition that neither party had been
precontracted to another person, and that the said William Shagspere
should not proceed to solemnization with the said Anne Hathway without
consent of her friends. They were to be married with one asking of the
banns. The bondsmen were Fulk Sandells and John Richardson,--the seal
is R.H., which may be Richard Hathaway's.
1583.
On May 26th Susanna their daughter was baptized. It is assumed that
a precontract existed between the parents which, according to the
custom of the time, "was not legally recognised, but it invalidated
a subsequent union of either of the parties with any one else"
(Halliwell, _Outlines_, p. 45). The reader must form his own opinion.
Taking into consideration the low morality of the time in such matters,
the fact that Anne Hathaway was twenty-six, and Shakespeare eighteen in
1582, the practice still not unknown in rural districts of cohabitation
under conditional promise of marriage, should the probable birth of
a child make it necessary or prudent, the fact that from 1587 to
1597 we have no evidence that Shakespeare even saw his wife, and the
palpable indications in the _Sonnets_ that during this interval he was
intriguing with another woman--for my own part I cannot help adopting
De Quincey's view that he was entrapped into some such conditional
promise by this lady and kept his promise honourably. Compare on the
precontract question the plays of _The Miseries of Enforced Marriage_
by Wilkins, which is founded on the contemporary history of the
same Calverley who is the murderer in _The Yorkshire Tragedy_, with
Shakespeare's own views in 1604 in _Measure for Measure_; his opinions
in _Twelfth Night_, ii. 4 (early part, c. 1592), and _Midsummer Night's
Dream_, i. 1, on wives that are older than their husbands: and, by way
of showing that his plays do discover sometimes his personal feelings,
Valentine's resignation of Silvia in _The Two Gentlemen of Verona_,
with the story involved in the _Sonnets_ of Shakespeare's own transfer
of his illicit love.
1585.
February 2. Hamnet and Judith, Shakspeare's twin children, were
baptized at Stratford-on-Avon. By April 26th he had certainly attained
his majority, and his apprenticeship had probably expired.
1585-7.
Three or four years after his union with Anne Hathaway, he had, says
Rowe, "by a misfortune common enough to young fellows, fallen into ill
company, and, amongst them, some, that made a frequent practice of deer
stealing, engaged him with them more than once in robbing a park, that
belonged to Sir Thomas Lucy of Charlecote, near Stratford; for this he
was prosecuted by that gentleman, as he thought, somewhat too severely,
and in order to revenge that ill usage made a ballad upon him, and
though this, probably the first essay of his poetry, be lost, yet it
is said to have been so very bitter that it redoubled the prosecution
against him to that degree that he was obliged to leave his business
and family in Warwickshire for some time, and shelter himself in
London." Whether this tradition be well founded or no, we are compelled
by subsequent events to place the date of Shakespeare's leaving
Stratford in or about 1587; and whether there be any truth in the story
traced to Davenant or not, that he held horses at the play-house door,
while their owners were witnessing performances inside, it is certain
that he was very soon connected with the stage, first as actor, then
as dramatic writer. It becomes therefore of importance to ascertain if
possible the specific company with which he originally joined.
In the latter part of 1585 there were two regular theatres existing
in London, the Theater and the Curtain. It clearly appears from a
report by Recorder Fleetwood preserved in the Lansdown MSS. that at
Whitsuntide 1584 these were occupied by the Queen's players and those
of Lord Arundel. It is not clear that a third company, that of Lord
Hunsdon, acted at the Theater: although Mr. J. O. H. Phillipps (whom
I most usually refer to under his former and better known name of
Halliwell) assures us that it is so. It is true that the "owner of the
Theater," whom he takes to be a temporary occupier of that building,
but whom I regard as the ground landlord, Giles Alleyn, is called a
servant of Lord Hunsdon's, and that a company of actors, called Lord
Hunsdon's men, acted at Court 27th December 1582; but it does not
follow that these men were occupiers of the Theater. In fact the only
companies anyhow known to us as in London in 1585 are the two already
mentioned. It is by no means likely _à priori_, nor would it agree with
the passages hereafter to be referred to in the writings of Greene
and Nash, that Shakespeare should immediately on his appearance in
London obtain employment in either. But there was a third company not
noticed in Collier's _Annals of the Stage_, into which he may easily
have obtained admittance. When the Queen's company was formed in 8th
March 1582-3, by the selection of twelve players from the companies
of the two Dudleys, Earls of Leicester and Warwick, there must have
been sufficient men left unemployed to form another company. These
were probably still retained by the Earl of Leicester: for in a letter
from Sir Philip Sidney, dated Utrecht, 24th March 1575-6, mention is
made of "Will, the Earl of Leicester's jesting player," who had gone
with the Earl to the Netherlands in December 1575. Thomas Heywood, in
his _Apology for Actors_, 1612, tells us that "The King of Denmark,
father to him that now reigneth, entertained into his service a company
of English comedians, commended unto him by the honourable Earl of
Leicester." This King of Denmark, Frederick II., died in 1588, and
the exact date of the transaction is fixed by documents dated October
1586, in which we find that five of these actors had been transferred
from the service of Frederick II. of Denmark to that of Christian I.,
Duke of Saxony. I am far from wishing to adopt the conjecture of Mr.
Bruce that "jesting Will" was Shakespeare; but when among the names of
these five actors--Thomas King, Thomas Stephen, George Bryan, Thomas
Pope, Robert Persie--we find two, Pope and Bryan, that are identical
with those of two actors in the very first list extant of the first
company with which we can positively connect Shakespeare as an actor;
when we find this same company acting at Stratford in 1587, at the very
time that Shakespeare's disappearance from all known connection with
that town for nine years commences; when we find among a list of plays
that had been acted by the English in Germany _Hester and Ahasuerus_,
_Titus Andronicus_ [_and Vespasian_], both of which we shall trace to
Shakespeare's company; when we also find a version of the Corambis
_Hamlet_ existing early in the same country--then I think we are
justified in saying that there is great likelihood of this company
having been the one in which Shakespeare found his first employment. If
so, he accompanied it in all its fortunes, and never (as we shall see)
forsook it for another.
1586.
Meanwhile in London the plague had prevailed to such an extent that the
theatres were shut up during 1586. It was not then during this year
that Shakespeare held horses at stage-doors, or obtained employment in
London theatres. But at the end of the year Lord Leicester's players
returned to England, and in January 1586-87 are mentioned together with
the Queen's, the Admiral's, and the Earl of Oxford's, in a letter to
Walsingham from a spy of his, which is preserved in the Harleian MSS.
1587.
This same company, the Earl of Leicester's men, visited
Stratford-on-Avon in 1587. I have not been able to trace their
previous presence there since 1576, although other companies paid
frequent visits to this town. It is singular that in this year, the
only one in which this company visited Stratford during the twelve
years intervening between the birth and death of Hamnet Shakespeare,
we find also the only record of the poet's presence in the place
of his nativity. I give this in the words of Mr. Halliwell. "In
1578 his parents had borrowed the sum of £40 on the security of his
mother's estate of Asbies, from their connexion, Edmund Lambert of
Barton-on-the-Heath. The loan remaining unpaid, and the mortgage dying
in March 1587, his son and heir John was naturally desirous of having
the matter settled. John Shakespeare being at that time in prison
for debt, and obviously unable to furnish the money, it was arranged
shortly afterwards that Lambert should, on cancelling the mortgage and
paying also the sum of £20, receive from the Shakespeares an absolute
title to the estate. His offer would perhaps not have been made had
it not been ascertained that the eldest son William had a contingent
interest, derived no doubt from a settlement, and that his assent was
essential to the security of a conveyance. The proposed arrangement was
not completed, but" the poet's sanction to it is recorded. I believe
that immediately after this, in 1587, Shakespeare left Stratford either
with or in order to join Lord Leicester's company.
1588.
The Earl of Leicester died on 4th September 1588. Previously to
this date the company of players acting under his patronage had
played in London, probably at the Cross-Keys in Bishopsgate Street,
and more frequently had travelled in the country. At the death of
Dudley, they had of course to seek for a new patron, and no doubt
found one in Ferdinando, Lord Strange, whose company (containing as
we shall see some of the actors already known as Leicester's men)
are first traceable in 1589. An earlier company bearing the title of
Lord Strange's men, c. 1582, seem to have been merely acrobats or
posture-mongers. But before entering on the history of this company
under its new name, of which we _know_ Shakespeare to have been a
member, we must note some particulars regarding other dramatists,
especially Marlowe, Greene, and Nash, which indirectly concern
Shakespeare, and have hitherto been wrongly interpreted.
In 1587, when the Admiral's men re-opened after the plague, they
produced, in what succession we need not here determine, Greene's
_Orlando_ and _Alphonsus of Arragon_, Peele's _Battle of Alcazar_,
and Marlowe's _Tamberlaine_. Those plays are enumerated in Peele's
_Farewell_, 1589, as--
"Mahomet's pow, and mighty Tamberlaine,
King Charlemagne, Tom Stukeley, and the rest."
"Mahomet's pow" is the head of Mahomet in _Alphonsus_; King Charlemagne
was probably a character in the complete play of _Orlando_, of which
only a mutilated copy has come down to us; Tom Stukeley is the hero of
_The Battle of Alcazar_; and "the rest" most likely indicate Lodge's
_Marius and Sylla_ and Marlowe's _Faustus_. Greene and Peele wrote no
more for this company, but in 1587 removed to the Queen's men, who had
been travelling in the country. On 29th March 1588 Greene's _Perimedes
the Blacksmith_ was entered on the Stationers' Registers. In the
introduction Greene attacks Marlowe and Lodge, who had remained with
the Admiral's men, in a passage worth quoting: "I keep my old course
still to palter up something in prose, using mine old posy still, _omne
tulit punctum_; although lately two gentlemen poets made two madmen
of Rome beat it out of their paper bucklers, and had it in derision,
for that I could not make my verses jet upon the stage in tragical
buskins, every word filling the mouth like the fa-burden of Bow-bell,
daring God out of heaven with that atheist Tamberlaine or blaspheming
with the mad priest of the sun. But let me rather openly pocket up the
ass at Diogenes' hand than wantonly set out such impious instances
of intolerable poetry. Such mad and scoffing poets that have poetical
spirits as bred of Merlin's race, if there be any in England that set
the end of scholarism in an English blank verse, I think either it is
the humour of a novice that tickles them with self-love, or too much
frequenting the hot-house (to use the German proverb) hath sweat out
all the greatest part of their wits." For the fuller understanding of
this satire it may be noted that no "priest of the sun" is known in
an early play except in _The Looking-glass for London and England_ by
Lodge and Greene, which is certainly of later date than _Perimedes_,
yet may indicate Lodge's liking for that character; that Diogenes is
the name assumed by Lodge in his _Catharos_, 1591, and that Marlowe's
name was written Merlin as often as Marlowe. There can be no doubt as
to the persons aimed at, nor of the effect of the satire, for both of
them left off writing for the Admiral's men; and Marlowe during the
next two years produced _The Jew of Malta_, which can be traced to the
Queen's company, and together with Greene, Lodge, and Peele produced
the plays of _The Troublesome Reign of King John_, and _The First Part
of York and Lancaster_ on which _2 Henry VI._ is founded. The internal
evidence for the authorship of these last-mentioned plays is very
strong: they were, however, published anonymously.
1589.
Before the entry of Greene's _Menaphon_ on the Stationers' Registers on
23d August 1589, _Hamlet_ and _The Taming of a Shrew_ must have been
represented by Pembroke's men, and Marlowe must have left the Queen's
company. As _Menaphon_ is accessible in Professor Arber's reprint
to the general reader, it will be sufficient to refer to it here
without quoting passages in full. That Greene refers so satirically
to Marlowe as to prevent our supposing that at this date they could
be writing jointly for the same theatre, is clear from a hitherto
unnoticed passage in p. 54: "Whosoever descanted of that love told you
a _Canterbury_ tale; some _prophetical_ fullmouth, that, as he were
a _Cobler's_ eldest son, would by the last tell where another's shoe
wrings." Marlowe or _Merlin_ was a shoemaker's son of Canterbury. That
Doron in the story is meant for the author of _The Taming of a Shrew_
was shown by Mr. R. Simpson by comparing Doron's speech in p. 74:
"White as the hairs that grow on Father Boreas' chin," and the passage
in Nash's introduction, p. 5, about mechanical mates, servile imitators
of vain-glorious tragedians, who think themselves "more than initiated
in poet's immortality if they but once get Boreas by the beard," with
the words of the play itself: "whiter than icy hair that grows on
Boreas' chin." Mr. Simpson was, however, entirely wrong in identifying
Doron with Shakespeare, and did not notice that Doron's entire speech
parodies one of Menaphon's in p. 31, just as _The Taming of a Shrew_
parodies Marlowe's plays, or "the mechanical mates" alluded to by Nash
imitate the "idiot art-masters" in the "swelling bombast of a bragging
blank verse," or the "spacious volubility of a drumming decasyllabon."
The name Menaphon is taken from Marlowe's _Tamberlaine_. In these
passages Greene and Nash satirise Kyd, then writing for Pembroke's
company. In another paragraph, p. 9, Nash speaks of "a sort of shifting
companions" that "leave the trade of _Noverint_ whereto they were
born," who get their aphorisms from translations of Seneca and can
"afford you whole _Hamlets_ of tragical speeches." This passage is
familiar to all students of Shakespeare; and yet no one has, I think,
pointed out that Nash identifies these "famished followers" of Seneca
with the "Kidde in Æsop, who, enamoured with the Fox's newfangles,
forsook all hopes of life to leap into a new occupation." This pun in
a tractate containing similar allusions to the names Greene, Lyly,
and Merlin is equivalent to a direct attribution of the authorship of
_Hamlet_ as produced in 1589 to Kyd, and is also a refutation of those
who have seen in the whole passage an allusion to Shakespeare.
Very shortly after Greene's _Menaphon_ Nash issued his _Anatomy of
Absurdities_, which had been entered on the Stationers' Registers 19th
September 1588, and which contains much of the same satirical matter as
his address in _Menaphon_.
We have now to pass from the private quarrel of Greene and Nash, as
representing the Queen's men at the Theater, with Marlowe and Kyd, the
writers for Pembroke's company, to a much more important controversy in
which many of the same dramatists were concerned. Between October 1588
and October 1589 the Martinists published their Puritan controversial
tracts; in opposition to them various writings had appeared, whose
authors were Cooper, formerly schoolmaster, afterwards Bishop; Lyly
the Euphuist; Nash the satirist; and Elderton "the bibbing fool"
ballad-maker. They had also been ridiculed on the stage, in April 1589,
at the Theater, most likely by Greene; at the Paul's school probably by
Lyly; and either in ballad or interlude by Antony Munday, even at that
early date a dramatic writer. As the anti-Martinist plays were on the
side of the clergy and of secular authority they were not interfered
with. But in November 1589, in consequence of certain players in
London handling "matters of Divinity and State without judgment or
decorum"--in other words, having the impertinence to suppose that there
could be two sides to a question, Mr. Tylney, the Master of the Revels,
suddenly becomes awake to the danger of allowing such discussions on
public stages, and writes to Lord Burleigh that he "utterly mislikes
all plays within the city." Lord Burleigh sends a letter to the Lord
Mayor to "stay" them. The Theater and Curtain, where the Queen's men
and Pembroke's were playing, were _without the city_, so that the
anti-Martinist plays were not interfered with; the Paul's boys were
for the nonce not regarded as a company of players: so that the Mayor
could only "hear of" the Admiral's men, who on admonishment dutifully
forbore playing, and Lord Strange's, who departed contemptuously, "went
to the Cross-Keys and played that afternoon to the great offence of the
better sort, that knew they were prohibited." The Mayor then "committed
two of the players to one of the compters." These players, however,
gained their end, for all plays on either side of the controversy were
forthwith suppressed, and commissioners were appointed to examine and
licence all plays thenceforth "in and about" the city played by any
players "whose servants soever they be."
It is pleasing to find Shakespeare's company acting in so spirited a
manner in defence of free thought and free speech: it would be more
pleasing to be able to identity him personally as the chief leader
in movement. And this I believe he was. The play of _Love's Labour's
Lost_, in spite of great alteration in 1597, is undoubtedly in the main
the earliest example left us of Shakespeare's work: and the characters
in the underplot agree so singularly even in the play as we have it
with the anti-Martinist writers in their personal peculiarities that
I have little doubt that this play was the one performed in November
1589. If the absence of matter of State be objected, I reply that it
would be easy for malice to represent the loss of Love's labour in
the main plot as a satire on the love's labour in vain of Alençon for
Elizabeth. We must also remember that it is most likely that for some
years at the beginning of his career Shakespeare wrote in conjunction
with other men, and that in those plays that were revived by him at
a later date their work was replaced by his own. In the case of the
present play, as the revision was for a Court performance, we may be
sure that great care would be taken to expunge all offensive matter:
the only ground for surprise is that enough indications remain to
enable us to identify the characters at all.
1590.
_Love's Labour's Lost_ would no doubt be closely followed by _Love's
Labour's Won_, which play I for other reasons attribute to this year.
We must now again refer to Greene. His _Farewell to Folly_ had been
entered on the Stationers' Registers, 11th June 1587, but was not
published till after his _Mourning Garment_, the entry of which dates
2d November 1590. In the introduction, which was certainly written
at the time of publication, although the body of the work had been
lying by for some three years and more, Greene distinctly alludes to
_Fair Em_ and accuses its author of "simple abusing of Scripture,"
because "two lovers on the stage arguing one another of unkindness,
his mistress runs over him with this canonical sentence 'a man's
conscience is a thousand witnesses'; and her knight again excuseth
himself with that saying of the Apostle, 'Love covereth the multitude
of sins.'" The exact words in the play are "Love that covers multitude
of sins" and "thy conscience is a thousand witnesses." Greene, says
Mr. R. Simpson, who first drew attention to this allusion to _Fair
Em_ in a paper unfortunately spoiled by an absurd attempt to identify
Mullidor,[4] of "great head and little wit," with Shakespeare, has
parallel plots to those of _Fair Em_ in his _Tully's Love_ (1589) and
_Never Too Late_ (before 2d November 1590). To me the connexion seems
closer between this satire, by Greene the profligate parson, based on
Scriptural grounds, of a play written for Lord Strange's company, and
the persecution they had just endured for venturing to present a play
in favour of the Martinists. And as if to emphasise his intention in
this direction, Greene says in his Dedication of his tract, "I cannot
_Martinize_." That _Fair Em_ was the production of R. Wilson will I
think be evident to those who will read it with careful remembrance.
The _Comedy of Errors_ was also probably acted this year in its
original form.
1591.
In this year were most likely produced two plays, not in the shape
in which they have come down to us, but as originally written by
Shakespeare and some coadjutor, viz., _The Two Gentlemen of Verona_ and
_Romeo and Juliet_. The question of the dates of these and all other
plays of Shakespeare will be separately argued further on. It may be
just worth while to note that the "pleasant Willy" of Spenser, who has
been so carelessly identified with Shakespeare, with Kemp, and with
Tarleton (!) is certainly Lyly. The line "doth rather choose to sit
in idle cell" (_Tears of the Muses_) identifies him with "slumbering
Euphues in his cell at Silexedra" (_Menaphon_). Compare "Euphues'
golden legacy found after his death in his cell at Silexedra" (title of
Lodge's _Rosalynde_).
1591-2.
In the Christmas Records of this year, the Queen's company made
their final appearance at Court on December 26th. Lord Strange's
men performed at Whitehall on December 27th, 28th, January 1st,
9th, February 6th, 8th. The import of this fact has not been fully
appreciated. The exceptionally large number of performances of Lord
Strange's men show a singular amount of Court favour, and go far to
prove that Elizabeth did not sanction their persecution at the hands
of Burleigh two years before. They henceforth, under various changes
of name and constitution, until the closing of the theatres in 1642,
retain the chief position in the performances at Court. This date,
1592, is in the history of this company of players, and therefore in
that of Shakespeare, their chief poet and one of their best actors, of
the very greatest importance.
The old plays of _King John_, on which Shakespeare's was founded, were
published this year, as having been acted by the Queen's company--an
additional indication of an important change in their internal
constitution.
1592.
This year was scarcely less eventful than the preceding for the company
to which Shakespeare belonged. On 19th February Henslowe opened the
Rose theatre on Bankside for performances by Lord Strange's men under
the management of the celebrated actor, Edward Alleyn. Whether (and if
at all, for how long) Alleyn had been previously connected with the
company, we are not directly informed; but as he gave up playing for
Worcester's men, c. January 1588-9, the exact time when the players
of the late Earl of Leicester found a new patron in Lord Strange,
that is the probable date of his joining them. This possession of a
settled place for performance gave his company additional influence and
status. At first they played old plays, among which may be mentioned
Kyd's _Jeronymo_ and _Spanish Tragedy_, Greene's _Orlando_ and _Friar
Bacon_, Greene and Lodge's _Looking-glass_, Marlowe's _Jew of Malta_,
and Peele's _Battle of Alcazar_. This last-named play, may, like
Greene's _Orlando_, have been originally sold to the Queen's men, and
to the Admiral's afterwards; but whether this be so or not, we have
the singular fact to explain that four plays, three by Greene and one
by Marlowe, all belonging to the Queen's men, are now found in action
by Lord Strange's. Combining this with their sudden disappearance
from the Court Revels, it would seem that some grave displeasure had
been excited against them, and that they had become disorganised. In
fact, although they, or a part of them, lingered on in some vague
connection with Sussex' players, they now practically disappear from
theatrical history. Of new plays Lord Strange's men produced on March
3d, _Henry VI._, which is by the reference to it in Nash's _Piers
Penniless_ (entered 8th August 1592) identified with the play now
known as _The First Part of Henry VI._ It was acted fourteen times to
crowded houses (Nash says to 10,000 spectators), and was the success
of the season. I have no doubt that this play was written by Marlowe,
with the aid of Peele, Lodge, and Greene, before 1590, and that the
episode of Talbot's death added in 1592 is from the hand of Shakespeare
himself. In this last opinion it is especially pleasing to me to find
myself supported by the critical judgment of Mr. Swinburne. On 11th
April the play of _Titus and Vespasian_ was first acted. Had it not
been for the existence of a German version (given in full in Cohn's
_Shakespeare in Germany_) we should not have been aware that this play
was identical in story with that known as _Titus Andronicus_. It is
unfortunately lost--a loss the more to be regretted since it has led to
the supposition of the extant play having proceeded from the hand of
Shakespeare. On 10th June _A Knack to Know a Knave_ was performed for
the first time. Mr. R. Simpson without the slightest ground conjectured
that this was the play that Greene says he "lastly writ" with "young
Juvenal." The most successful new plays in this season were _Henry
VI._ and _Titus and Vespasian_ (performed seven times in two months);
of old plays _the Spanish Tragedy_ (performed thirteen times), _The
Battle of Alcazar_ (eleven performances), and _The Jew of Malta_ (ten
performances).
On June 22 the last performance took place before the closing of the
theatres on account of the plague.
On August 8 _Piers Penniless_ was entered S. R., which contains Nash's
reference to _I Henry VI._
On September 3 Greene died.
On September 20 his _Groatsworth of Wit_ was entered in the Stationers'
Registers. This pamphlet was edited by Chettle, and contains the often
quoted address to Marlowe, "young Juvenal," and Peele. In the portion
where Greene speaks to all three of them, he says: "Trust them not, for
there is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that, _with his
Tiger's heart wrapt in a player's hide_, supposes he is as well able
to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you, and being an absolute
_Johannes Factotum_, is in his own conceit the only shake-scene in our
country." Mr. R. Simpson showed that "beautified with our feathers"
meant acting plays written by us, but "bombast out a blank verse"
undoubtedly refers to Shakespeare as a writer also. The line "O tiger's
heart wrapt in a woman's hide" occurs in _Richard Duke of York_
(commonly but injudiciously referred to as _The True Tragedy_), a play
written for Pembroke's men, probably in 1590, on which _3 Henry VI._
was founded. It is almost certainly by Marlowe, the best of the three
whom Greene addresses. In December Chettle issued his _Kindheart's
Dream_, in which he apologises for the offence given to Marlowe in the
_Groatsworth of Wit_, "because myself have seen his demeanour no less
civil than he excellent in the quality he professes; besides divers
of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues his
honesty, and his facetious grace in writing, which approves his art."
To Peele he makes no apology, nor indeed was any required. Shakespeare
was not one of those who took offence; they are expressly stated to
have been two of the three authors addressed by Greene, the third
(Lodge) not being in England.
There were three plays performed at Hampton Court this Christmas, on
December 26, 31, January 1, by Lord Strange's men, in spite of the
plague.
I think the latter part of 1592 the most likely time for the writing
of some scenes in _All's Well that Ends Well_ and _Twelfth Night_ that
show marks of early date.
1593.
On January 5 Lord Strange's company, who had reopened at the Rose, 29th
December 1592, produced a new play called _The Jealous Comedy_; this I
take to have been _The Merry Wives of Windsor_ in its earliest form.
On January 30 they produced Marlowe's _Guise_ or _Massacre of Paris_,
which has reached us in an unusually mutilated condition.
On February 1 they performed for the last time this year in Southwark;
the Rose as well as other theatres being closed because of the plague.
On April 18 _Venus and Adonis_ was entered by Richard Field for
publication. Shakespeare's choice of a publisher was no doubt
influenced by private connection. R. Field was a son of Henry Field,
tanner, of Stratford-on-Avon, who died in 1592. The inventory of his
goods attached to his will had been taken by Shakespeare's father
on 21st August in that year. _Venus and Adonis_ was licensed by the
Archbishop of Canterbury (Whitgift) (at whose palace near Croydon
Nash's play, _Summer's Last Will_, was performed in the autumn of
1592), and was dedicated to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton.
Shakespeare calls it "The first heir of my invention," which may mean
his first published work; but more probably means the first production
in which he was sole author, his previous plays having been written
in conjunction with others; and he vows "to take advantage of all
idle hours till I have honoured you with some graver labour." He had
probably then planned if not begun his _Rape of Lucrece_.
On May 6 a precept was issued by the Lords of the Privy Council
authorising Lord Strange's players, "Edward Allen, William Kempe,
Thomas Pope, John Heminges, Augustine Philipes, and George Brian" to
play "where the infection is not, so it be not within seven miles
of London or of the Court, that they may be in the better readiness
hereafter for her Majesty's service." This list of names is by no means
a complete one of the company of players; but probably does consist
of all the _shareholders_ therein. Shakespeare was not a shareholder
yet. Alleyn is described as servant to the Admiral as well as to Lord
Strange. Accordingly they travelled and acted in the country--in July
at Bristol, afterwards at Shrewsbury. Meanwhile on June 1 Marlowe was
killed, leaving unpublished his poem, _Hero and Leander_, his play
_Dido_, and in my opinion other plays; of which more hereafter.
On 25th September Henry Earl of Derby died, and Ferdinand Lord Strange
succeeded to his honours. His company of players are consequently
sometimes called the Earl of Derby's for the next six months. There
were no performances at Court at Christmas on account of the plague.
1594.
On 23d January _Titus Andronicus_ was acted as a new play by Sussex'
men at the Rose. This company gave up playing there on 6th February. On
26th February the _Andronicus_ play was entered on S. R. Langbaine, who
professes to have seen this edition, says it was acted by the players
of "Pembroke, Derby, and Essex." Essex is clearly a mistake for Sussex,
for in the 1600 edition the companies are given as "Sussex, Pembroke,
and Derby." Halliwell's careless statement that Lord Strange's players
transferred their services to Lord Hunsdon in 1594, has led me and
others into grave difficulty on this matter. The fact is that Lord
Derby's players became servants to the Chamberlain between 16th April,
when Lord Derby died, and 3d June, when they played at Newington Butts
under the latter appellation. There was strictly no Lord Strange's
company after 25th September 1593, and no other Derby's company till
1599. The old name Strange, however, does sometimes occur instead of
Derby. Hence it seemed that the transfer to Derby's company must have
taken place in 1600. Indeed so little was the fact known even in 1600,
that Shakespeare's company enjoyed the title of Derby's men for six
months, that although that name is given on the first page, on the
title the same men reappear as the Lord Chamberlain's. Why Pembroke's
men should have acquired the play on 6th February, and possibly parted
with it by the 26th, does not appear, nor is there any parallel
instance known: there must have been some great changes in their
constitution at this time. But in any case Shakespeare did not write
the play; Mr. Halliwell's theory that he left Lord Strange's men, who
in 1593 enjoyed the highest position of any then existing, and after
having been a member successively of two of the obscurest companies,
returned to his former position within a few months, is utterly
untenable. There is no vestige of evidence that Shakespeare ever wrote
for any company but one.
On 12th March _York and Lancaster_ (_2 Henry VI._) was entered on S. R.
From 1st to 8th April Sussex' men and the Queen's acted at the Rose,
among other plays, the old _Leir_ (April 8), on which Shakespeare's
_Lear_ was founded. Both these companies henceforth vanish from stage
history.
On April 16 Lord Derby died.
On May 2 _The Taming of a Shrew_ was entered on S. R.
On May 9 _The Rape of Lucrece_ was entered. The difference in tone
between the dedication of this poem to Lord Southampton and that of
_Venus and Adonis_ distinctly points to a personal intercourse having
taken place in the interval. Hence the date of Shakespeare's first
interview with his patron may be assigned as between April 1593 and May
1594.
On May 14 _The Famous Victories of Henry V._ and _Leir_ were entered on
S. R.
On May 14 also the Admiral's company, of which nothing is heard since
1591, began to act at the Rose, having acted at Newington for three
days only. Alleyn, Henslow's son-in-law, had left the management of
Shakespeare's company on the death of Lord Derby, and now joined the
Admiral's men.
Between[5] June 3 and June 13 the Chamberlain's men played at Newington
Butts alternately with the Admiral's: among the Chamberlain's plays we
notice on June 3, 10, _Hester and Ahasuerus_, which exists in a German
version of which a translation ought to be published; June 5, 12,
_Andronicus_;
June 9, _Hamlet_; June 11, _The Taming of a Shrew_. The intermediate
days were occupied by the Admiral's men: who on the 15th [17th] went
to the Rose, and the Chamberlain's men no doubt to the Theater, the
Burbadges' own house. The Chamberlain's company at this date included
W. Shakespeare, R. Burbadge, J. Hemings, A. Phillips, W. Kempe, T.
Pope, G. Bryan, all of whom, with the possible exception of Burbadge,
had been members of Lord Strange's company; together with H. Condell,
W. Sly, R. Cowley, N. Tooley, J. Duke, R. Pallant, and T. Goodall, who
had previously been in all probability members of the Queen's company.
C. Beeston must have joined them soon afterwards. The names of Richard
Hoope, William Ferney, William Blackway, and Ralph Raye occur in
Henslow's _Diary_ as Chamberlain's men c. January 1595. The Queen's men
came in on the reconstitution of that company in 1591-2. See on this
matter further on under the head of _The Seven Deadly Sins_.
On June 19 the old play of _Richard III._ (with Shore's wife in it)
was entered on S. R., a pretty sure indication, which tallies with
other external evidence, that the play attributed to Shakespeare was
produced about this time. No one can read the four plays composing
the Henry 6th series without feeling that, however various their
authorship, they form a connected whole in general plan. Margaret is
the central figure, who hovers like a Greek Chorus over the terrible
Destiny that involves King and people in its meshes. But Margaret
is not Shakespeare's creation; she is Marlowe's. Shakespeare had no
share in the plays on the contention of York and Lancaster, and but
a slight one in _1 Henry VI._ Marlowe had a chief hand in _1 Henry
VI._ and _York and Lancaster_; probably wrote the whole of _Richard
Duke of York_, and laid, in my opinion, the foundation and erected
part of the building of _Richard III._ At his death he seems to have
left unacted or unpublished his poem of _Hero and Leander_, finished
afterwards by Chapman; _Dido_, partly by Nash, and produced (when?)
by the Chapel children; _Andronicus_ acted (under Peele's auspices?)
by the Sussex men, and _Richard III._, completed by Shakespeare, and
acted by the Chamberlain's company as we have it in the Quarto. All
these plays were produced or published in 1594. About the same time an
earlier play of Marlowe's, originally acted c. 1589, was altered and
revised by Shakespeare. The date and authorship of the Shakespearian
part of _Edward III._, viz., from "Enter King Edward" in the last
scene of act i. to the end of act ii., are proved by the allusion to
the poem of _Lucrece_; the repetition of lines from the _Sonnets_:
"Their scarlet ornaments," "Lilies that foster smell far worse than
weeds," and many smaller coincidences with undoubted Shakespearian
plays: while the original date and authorship of the play as a whole
will appear from the following quotations. In the Address prefixed to
Greene's _Menaphon_, in a passage in which Nash has been satirising Kyd
and another as void of scholarship and unable to read Seneca in the
original, he suddenly attacks Marlowe, whom he has previously held up
as the object of their imitation, and asks what can they have of him?
in Nash's own words: "What can be hoped of those that thrust Elysium
into Hell, and have not learned, so long as they have lived in the
spheres, the just measure of the Horizon without an hexameter?" Marlowe
in _Faustus_[6] has "confound Hell in Elysium," and, in _Edward III_,
_horízon_ is pronounced _hórizon_. This, however, might occur in other
plays; but in Greene's _Never Too Late_ we find Tully addressing the
player Roscius, who certainly represents R. Wilson, in these words:
"Why, Roscius, are thou proud with Æsop's crow, being pranked with the
glory of others' feathers? Of thyself thou canst say nothing: and if
the Cobbler hath taught thee to say _Ave Cæsar_, disdain not thy tutor
because thou pratest in a King's chamber." Unless another play can be
produced with "Ave Cæsar" in it, this must be held to allude to _Edward
III._, in which play Wilson must have acted the Prince of Wales (act i.
1. 164). The "cobbler" alludes to Marlowe as a shoemaker's son.
On July 20, _Locrine_, an old play written, says Mr. Simpson, by G.
Tylney in 1586, but in which Peele had certainly a principal hand,
was entered on S. R. It was issued as "newly set forth, overseen
and corrected by W. S." I see no reason to believe that this was
Shakespeare. Of course he had no hand in writing the play; and in any
case Peele did not probably sanction the publication.
To this year we must assign the production of the earliest of
Shakespeare's _Sonnets_. That these (or rather that portion of them
which are continuous, 1-126) were addressed to Lord Southampton was
proved by Drake. The identity of language between the Dedication of
_Lucrece_ and Sonnet 26, the exact agreement of them with all we know
of the careers of Shakespeare and his patron during the next four
years, and the utter absence of evidence of his connection with
any other patron, are conclusive on that point. They begin (1-17)
with entreaties to marry, which date about 6th October 1594, when
Southampton attained his majority, and before he had met Elizabeth
Vernon, and end (117) in a time when "peace proclaiming olives of
endless age," after the treaty of Vervins, 2d May 1598: and before the
Earl's marriage at the end of that year. They involve a story of some
frail lady who had transferred her favours to the young lord from the
older player (40-42). Far too much has been written on this matter
from a moral point of view. The fact remains, and all we can say is:
Remember these Sonnets were written "among private friends," and not
for publication. The lady has not hitherto been identified, but is, I
think, identifiable. On September 3d was entered on S. R., _Wyllobie
his Avisa_. Dr. Ingleby has shown in his _Shakespeare Allusion-books_
that the W. S. in this poem is William Shakespeare, and that Hadrian
Dorrell, the reputed editor, is a fictitious character. He has,
however, missed the key to this anonymity; viz., that the book was
known to be a personal satirical libel. P[eter] C[olse], according to
the author of _Avisa_, "misconstrued" the poem; and so necessitated
the further figment in the 1605 edition that the supposed author, A.
Willobie, was dead; in this edition the mythical H. D. says: "If you
ask me for the persons, I am altogether ignorant of them, and have set
them down only as I find them named or disciphered in my author. For
the truth of this action, if you enquire, I will more fully deliver
my opinion hereafter." But independently of this evidence from the
book itself we find in S. R. (Arber, iii. 678) that when the works of
Marston, Davies, &c., were burnt in the Hall, 4th June 1599, other
books were "stayed;" viz., _Caltha Poetarum_, Hall's _Satires_, and
"_Willobie's Adviso_ to be called in." This marks the book as of
the same character as its companions; viz., libellous, calumnious,
personally abusive. The characters in the poems were evidently
representations of real living persons. The heroine of the poem is
Av[)i]sa, or Av[=i]sa (sometimes written A vis A), that is, Avice or
Avice A. This name was not uncommon (see Camden's _Remaines_, p. 93).
She lived in the west of England, "where Austin pitched his monkish
tent," in a house "where hangs the badge of England's saint." The place
is more fully described thus:--
"At east of this a castle stands
By ancient shepherds built of old,
And lately was in shepherds' hands,
Though now by brothers bought and sold:
At west side springs a crystal well:
There doth this chaste Avisa dwell."
And again:--
"In sea-bred soil on Tempe downs,
Whose silver spring from Neptune's well
With mirth salutes the neighbouring towns."
These descriptions suit the vale of Evesham, the castle being that of
Bengworth and the well that of Abberton. Austin's oak was traditionally
placed in this part by some, though others put it in Gloucestershire.
Avisa's parents are mentioned as "of meanest trade." They were, I
take it, inn-keepers, and the inn had the sign of St. George. The
other characters are D. B., a Frenchman, with motto _Dudum Beatus_;
Didymus H., an Anglo-German, with motto _Dum Habui_; H. W., _Italo
Hispalensis_, and W[illiam] S[hakespeare]. The story is that Avisa,
the chaste, who "makes up the mess" of four with Lucrece, Susanna,
and Penelope, has been married at twenty, tempted by a Nobleman, a
Cavaliero, a Frenchman, an Anglo-German, &c., without result, and
is consequently England's _rara avis_, who matches those of Greece,
Palestine, and Rome. The mottoes of the foreigners, however, point
to a different conclusion, and so does this passage: "If any one,
therefore, by this should take occasion to surmise that the author
meant to note any woman, _whose name sounds something like that name_,
it is too childish and too absurd, and not beseeming any deep judgment,
considering there are many things which _cannot be applied to any
woman_." In plain language, Mr. Dorrell believes no woman to be chaste.
H. W., at first sight of Avisa, is infected with a fantastical fit,
and bewrays his disease to his familiar friend, W. S., who, _not long
before_, had tried the courtesy of the like passion, and was now newly
recovered [in 1594]. Having been laughed at himself he determined to
see whether it would sort to a happier end for the _new actor_ than it
did for the _old player_. Doubtless W. S. is Shakespeare, and Avisa
is represented ironically as a _trader_ who had made a Frenchman
long happy (_dudum beatus_), been possessed by an Anglo-German (_dum
habui_), had then passed to Shakespeare, and finally to H. W. Such was
the slanderous story published in 1594; how far true, whether at all
true, I care not to inquire; but that it is the same story as that of
the Sonnets, that H. W. is Henry Wriothesley, and that the black woman
of the Sonnets is identical with Avisa, I regard as indubitable. Of
course the Thomas Willoby, _Frater Henrici Willoughby nuper defuncti_,
of the 1605 edition is a mere device to blind the licensers for the
press. Similar devices have often been used, but I know of none so
impudently charming as the "author's conclusion" as to the man who is
_nuper defunctus_. "H. W. was now again stricken so dead that he hath
not yet any further essayed, nor I think ever will, and whether he be
alive or dead I know not, and therefore I leave him."
On December 26th and 28th the Chamberlain's servants performed before
the Queen at Greenwich, apparently in the daytime. Kempe, Shakespeare,
and Burbadge were paid for these performances on the following March.
It is singular that the performance of "A comedy of _Errors_ like unto
Plautus his _Menoechmi_" should have also been performed apparently by
the same company at Gray's Inn, also on December 26th. This seems to
be the first mention of Shakespeare's play, the true title of which is
simply _Errors_: but whether it was written in 1590 or 1593-4, there
is no evidence that is absolutely decisive. The allusion to France
fighting against her heir, v. ii. 2. 125, would be equally applicable
at any date from July 1589, when Henri III. was killed, to February
1594, when Henri IV. was consecrated.
1595.
That the date of _Midsummer Night's Dream_ should be fixed in the
winter of 1594-5 was long since seen by Malone, the allusions to
the remarkable weather of 1594 being too marked to be put aside
contemptuously. It has also been attempted to assign other dates on
account of the play's being manifestly written for some marriage
solemnity. It is not needful to alter the date for that reason. Either
the marriage of W. Stanley, Earl of Derby, at Greenwich, on 24th
January, 1594-5, or that of Lord Russel, Earl of Bedford, to Lucy
Harrington (before 5th February, S. R.), would suit very well in point
of time. The former is the more probable; because it took place at
Greenwich, where we know the Chamberlain's men to have performed in the
previous month, and because these actors had mostly been servants to
the Earl of Derby's brother in the early part of the previous year.
There is little, if any doubt, that Shakespeare produced _Richard II._
and _The Two Gentlemen of Verona_, as we now have it, in this year. _A
larum for London_, or _The Siege of Antwerp_, by (?) Lodge, was acted
about this time.
The play of _Richard Duke of York_ was printed in 1595 and on 1st
December _Edward III._ was entered on S. R.
The performances of the Chamberlain's men, 1594-5, at Court, were
on December 26, 27, 28; January 5; February 22. Payment was made to
Hemings and Bryan.
1596.
Early in this year the play of _Sir T. More_ was produced by the
Chamberlain's company. The name of T. Goodale, who was one of their
actors, occurs in the MS. It appears from the notes of E. Tylney, then
Master of the Revels, that much revision had to be made in its form
in consequence of its reproducing, under a thin disguise, a narrative
of the Apprentice Riots of June 1595. The imprisonment of the Earl of
Hertford in October of the same year was too closely paralleled by
that of Sir T. More in the play to be agreeable to the Government.
Another point objected to was satirical allusion to Frenchmen. The date
hitherto assigned to this play is "1590 or earlier" (Dyce), which is
palpably wrong.
Soon after Shakespeare's _King John_ was acted. It contains, in my
opinion, an allusion to the expedition to Cadiz in June (i. 2. 66-75).
On July 23d Henry Carey died, and the "Chamberlain's players" became
the men of his son, George Carey L. Hunsdon.
In the same month, or earlier, _Romeo and Juliet_ was revived in a
greatly altered and improved form. All work by the second hand was cut
out and replaced by Shakespeare's own writing. It was not, however,
acted at this date at the Curtain, but at the Theater. Lodge's allusion
in his _Wit's Miserv_, 1596, to _Hamlet_, as acted in that house,
is inconsistent with any other supposition. On August 5 a ballad on
_Romeo and Juliet_ was entered on S. R. This is taken by Mr. Halliwell
as evidence that the play was then on the stage. On August 27 ballads
are also mentioned on _Macdobeth_ and _The Taming of a Shrew_. That on
Macbeth could not have been on the play as we now have it, but that a
play on this subject, perhaps an earlier form of the extant one, was
then acted, is very probable.
On August 11 Hamnet Shakespeare was buried at Stratford: his father
undoubtedly was present. This is the first visit to Stratford on his
part since 1587 so far as any evidence exists.
Shakespeare returned to his lodgings "near the Bear Garden" in
Southwark (Alleyn MS. _teste_ Malone) before October 20, where a draft
of a grant of arms was made to John Shakespeare, no doubt at his son's
expense.
In November, a petition was presented by the inhabitants of Blackfriars
against the transformation into a theatre of a large house bought by J.
Burbadge on the preceding February 4. The petition was ineffectual.
Shakespeare's play _The Merchant of Venice_, sometimes called _The Jew
of Venice_, is generally assigned to this year. I prefer 1597.
On December 29, Henry Shakespeare, the poet's uncle, was buried at
Snitterfield; and his wife Margaret on 9th February 1596-7.
The Court performances of Lord Hunsdon's men at Whitehall were six in
number, two at Christmas, and others on 1st, 5th January; 6th, 8th
February 1596-7.
1597.
Before March 5 a surreptitious edition of _Romeo and Juliet_ was
published, but not entered on S. R. This consists of an imperfect and
abridged copy of the revised play, with lacunæ filled up by portions of
the original version of 1591. See hereafter in Section IV.
In Easter term, Shakespeare purchased New Place, a mansion and
grounds in Stratford, for £60. This was freehold, and henceforth his
designation is, William Shakespeare of New Place, Stratford, Gentleman.
From this time, male heirs failing, his ambition seems to be to found a
family in one of the female branches; and Stratford is to be regarded
as his residence.
Soon after 5th March, Lord Hunsdon was appointed Chamberlain _vice_ W.
Brooke, Lord Cobham, deceased, and Lord Hunsdon's men again became the
Lord Chamberlain's.
During this year and the next Shakespeare undoubtedly produced _1_ and
_2 Henry IV_. The name given to the "fat knight" was originally Sir
John Oldcastle. This offended the Cobham family, who were lineally
descended from the great Sir John Oldcastle, and through their
influence the Queen ordered the name to be altered. The new name
was that of Falstaff, unquestionably identical with the Fastolfe of
history. Shakespeare had unwittingly adopted the name Oldcastle from
the old play of _The Famous Victories of King Henry V._ Mr. Halliwell
has pointed out that there must have been another play in which a Sir
John Oldcastle was represented: he quotes _Hey for Honesty_, "The rich
rubies and incomparable carbuncles of Sir John Oldcastle's nose;" and
Howell's _Letters_, ii. 71, "Ale is thought to be much adulterated,
and nothing so good as Sir John Oldcastle and Smug the Smith was used
to drink." I venture to add that this last quotation fixes the other
play. It was Drayton's _Merry Devil of Edmonton_, in which Sir John
the priest of Enfield drinks ale with Smug the Smith, and "carries
fire in his face eternally." This play was probably produced between
_1 Henry IV._ and _2 Henry IV._ The words "tickle your catastrophe" in
the latter are more likely to be an allusion to the "gag" in the _Merry
Devil_ than conversely; similar ridicule of this phrase is introduced
in _Sir Giles Goosecap_, which is certainly of later date. It seems
strange that Sir John Oldcastle should have been used as the name of
a priest; but the play has been so greatly abridged (all the part of
the story in which Smug replaces St. George as the sign of the inn,
for instance, having been cut out) that it would be mere guess-work
to try to restore its original form, and without such restoration we
cannot judge of the reasons for so singular an impersonation. Of course
it was attempted to remove all trace of Oldcastle's name; but just as
the prefix _Old._ to one of the speeches in Shakespeare's play bears
evidence to Oldcastle having been his original fat knight, so it is
possible that in a hitherto unexplained passage there may be a trace
of Oldcastle as Drayton's original ale-drinking priest. In scene 9
the words italicised in "My _old Jenerts_ bank my horse, my _castle_"
look very like a corruption of a stage direction written in margin of a
proof thus--
Old- J. enters
castle
--he is on the scene directly after, and his entrance is nowhere marked.
T. Lodge, as well as Drayton, was writing about this date for the
Chamberlain's men.
On August 29 _Richard II._ was entered on S. R., and on October 20
_Richard III._ These were evidently printed from authentic copies, duly
authorised for publication.
About July 1597 the Theater, with regard to extension of the lease
of which James Burbadge had been negotiating up to his death in the
spring of that year, was finally closed as a place of performance. In
October the Chamberlain's men no doubt began to act at the Curtain,
which Pembroke's men left at that date to join the Admiral's company
at the Rose; some of them, however, probably Cooke, Belt, Sinkler, and
Holland, had already in 1594 joined the Chamberlain's, as we shall see.
About this date Mr. Halliwell says "Shakespeare's company" were at
Rye (in August), at Dover and Bristol (in September), &c. Pembroke's
company were at these places, but he has given no proof that the
Chamberlain's were. The "Curtain-plaudities" of Marston's _Scourge of
Villany_, entered S. R. 8th September 1598, would certainly seem to show
that they acted at the Curtain in 1598. This does not, however, involve
the inference that they acted there in 1596, at which time they no
doubt performed at the Theater.
About this same time the play of _Wily Beguiled_ was acted, which
contains distinct parodies of speeches by Shylock and old Capulet, as
well as of other scenes in the _Merchant of Venice_, which must have
preceded it. It has been alleged by Steevens and others that this play
existed in 1596, but no proof has been given of this assertion.
In November John Shakespeare filed a bill against Lambert for the
recovery of the Asbies estate. There is no trace of his having
proceeded further with this litigation.
At Christmas the Chamberlain's men performed four plays at Whitehall,
one of which was _Love's Labour's Lost_. The corrections and
augmentations of the play, as we have it, may be confidently ascribed
to the preparation for this performance.
1598.
On January 24 Abraham Sturley wrote to Richard Quiney urging him to
persuade Shakespeare to make a purchase at Shottery, on the ground that
he would thus obtain friends and advancement, and at the same time
benefit the Corporation.
On February 25 _1 Henry IV._ was entered on S. R., and on July 22 _The
Merchant of Venice_.
In this spring or in 1597 _Much Ado about Nothing_ was probably
produced. It was probably an alteration of _Love's Labour's Won_.
In September Jonson joined the Chamberlain's men, and produced his
_Every Man in his Humour_ at the Curtain. This was the Quarto version
with the Italian names. Aubrey has been subjected to much unfounded
abuse for asserting that Jonson acted at the Curtain. The actors in
this play were Shakespeare, Burbadge, Phillips, Hemings, Condell, Pope,
Sly, Beeston, Kemp, and Duke. Shakespeare, it will be noted, is first
on the list.
On September 7 Meres' _Palladis Tamia_ was entered on S. R. Among the
abundant and often-quoted praises of Shakespeare in this work the
most important for biographical purposes are the enumeration of his
plays, the lists of tragic and comic dramatists, and this passage,
which I shall have to refer to hereafter. "As the soul of Euphorbus
was thought to live in Pythagoras, so the great witty soul of Ovid
lives in mellifluous and honey-tongued Shakespeare. Witness his _Venus
and Adonis_, his _Lucrece_, his sugared _Sonnets_ among his private
friends," &c. A careful comparison of the list of dramatists with that
of known plays or titles of plays that have come down to us shows that
the _Palladis Tamia_ could not have been completed for the press till
June 1598, and an examination of the list of Shakespeare's plays shows
that it consists of those then in the _repertoire_ of the Chamberlain's
company, that is, of those either newly written or revived between June
1594 and June 1598. These plays are: _Gentlemen of Verona_; _Errors_;
_Love's Labour's Lost_; _Love's Labour's Won_; _Midsummer-Night's
Dream_; _Merchant of Venice_--comedies. _Richard II._; _Richard III._;
_Henry IV._; _John_; _Titus Andronicus_; _Romeo and Juliet_--tragedies.
It is clear that _Richard III._ and a play on Andronicus, which I
believe to be the one we have, were attributed to Shakespeare at that
time.
On 25th October Richard Quiney wrote from the Bell in Carter Lane to
his "loving good friend and countryman Mr. William Shakespeare," who
was, according to the subsidy roll discovered by Mr. J. Hunter, then
living in the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, asking for the loan
of £30. On the same day he wrote to his brother-in-law Mr. Sturley at
Stratford, that "our countryman Mr. W. Shakespeare would procure us
money." The former letter was sent evidently by hand, an affirmative
answer obtained, and soon after instructions given by Shakespeare for
the procuring the money. We could not otherwise account for the letter
being preserved among the documents of the Corporation.
_The Famous Victories of Henry V._ was reprinted in 1598; as we so
often find to be the case with old plays on which other plays have been
founded. The complaint about the name Oldcastle no doubt was a special
motive for reproducing the old play in this instance.
There were three plays performed at Court by Shakespeare's company in
the Christmas festivities.
1599.
In April a play of _Troylus and Cressida_, by Dekker and Chettle, was
written; no doubt an opposition play to some revival of Shakespeare's
older one on the same subject.
The Chamberlain's men acted _A Warning for Fair Women_ about this time.
This play appears to me to come from the hand of Lodge.
In this year _The Passionate Pilgrim_, "by W. Shakespeare," was
imprinted by Jaggard. It contains two of the _Sonnets_, two other
Sonnets from _Love's Labour's Lost_, and one other poem from the same
play by Shakespeare. The remaining poems, as far as they are known, are
by Barnefield and other inferior authors. There is not a vestige of
reason for reprinting this book as Shakespeare's.
In the spring Shakespeare's company left the Curtain and went to act
at the Globe. This was a newly erected building on Bankside, made
partly of the materials of the old Theater, which had been removed by
Burbadge at the beginning of the year. One of the first plays performed
in it was Jonson's _Every Man out of his Humour_, the chief actors in
which were Burbadge, Hemings, Phillips, Condell, Sly, and Pope. Kempe,
Beeston, Duke, and Pallant had left the company, and did not act at
the Globe. But Shakespeare's name is also absent in this list, and
this fact, coupled with that of the libellous nature of this "comical
satire," and Jonson's leaving the Chamberlain's men immediately after
it to continue his strictures on Dekker, &c., at Blackfriars with
the Children of the Chapel, makes it exceedingly probable that the
disagreement which eventuated in the "purge" given by Shakespeare to
Jonson mentioned in _The Return to Parnassus_ had already arisen.
It would lead to too long a digression to do more than touch on this
stage quarrel here. I can only say that it lasted till 1601; that
Jonson and Chapman on the one side at Blackfriars, and Shakespeare,
Marston, and Dekker on the other, at first at the Globe, Rose, and
Paul's, afterwards at the Fortune, kept up one continual warfare for
more than three years. Not one of their plays during this time is
free from personalities and satirical allusions; nor, indeed, are
most comedies of Elizabeth's time; it is only because the allusions
have grown obscure and uninteresting to us, that we fail to see that
the Elizabethan comedy is eminently Aristophanic. It is not till the
reign of James that we find the comedy of manners and intrigue at all
generally developed.
Another play produced after the opening of the Globe was _Henry V._,
and soon after in this year _As You Like It_.
Somewhere about this time an attempt was made to get a grant to "impale
the arms of Shakespeare with those of Arden," _ignotum cum ignotiore_.
The grant was not obtained.
At this Christmas the Chamberlain's men gave three performances at
Court, viz., on 26th December at Whitehall, on 5th January 1599-1600
and on 4th February at Richmond.
1600.
Shrovetide, February 4. The play performed at Court was probably _The
Merry Wives of Windsor_. This play is assigned by tradition to a
command of the Queen, who wished to see Falstaff represented in love,
and is said to have been written in a fortnight. It was probably an
adaptation of the old _Jealous Comedy_ of 1592, and is more likely
to have come after than before _Henry V._, in which Shakespeare had
failed, according to his implied promise in the Epilogue to _2 Henry
IV._, to continue the story with Falstaff in it. It stands apart
altogether from the historical series.
March 6. The Chamberlain's men acted "Oldcastle" before their patron,
Lord Hunsdon, and foreign ambassadors at Somerset House. This could not
have been Shakespeare's "Falstaff," for the obnoxious name of Oldcastle
would certainly not have been revived before such an audience; nor
could it have been the _Sir John Oldcastle_, which belonged to another
company; it may have been _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_.
About this time Shakespeare, always attentive to pecuniary matters,
brought an action against one John Clayton for £7, and obtained a
verdict.
The August entries on S. R. are specially interesting. On the 4th a
memorandum (not in the regular course of entry) appears to the effect
that _As You Like It_, _Henry V._, _Every Man in his Humour_, and _Much
Ado about Nothing_, were "to be stayed." On the 14th, _Every Man in
his Humour_ was licensed; on the 23d, _Much Ado about Nothing_, and
along with it _2 Henry IV._, "_with the humours of Sir John Falstaff_.
Written by Master Shakespeare." On the 11th the first and second parts
of the _History of the Life of Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, "with
his Martyrdom,"_ had been licensed. The "staying" is generally supposed
to have relation to surreptitious printing; I think it more likely to
have been caused by the supposed satirical nature of the plays. _As
You Like It_ was not printed; _Henry V._ was printed in an incomplete
form[7] without license; while the emphatic mention of Falstaff and
the insertion of the author's name to _2 Henry IV._, not customary at
that date, show that the Oldcastle scandal had not yet died out. This
is still further proved by the almost simultaneous entries of the two
plays written October to December 1599 for the Admiral's men by Monday,
Drayton, Wilson, and Hathaway, on Sir John Oldcastle. Only one has
reached us, which is plainly satirical of _Henry V._ It was, however,
in one of the editions printed in 1600 ascribed to William Shakespeare.
Drayton, who was the chief author concerned in its production, had left
the Chamberlain's men in 1597, and been writing for the Admiral's ever
since. It is noticeable that after 1597 we find the favourable notices
of Lodge and Shakespeare which had been inserted in previous editions
expunged from his writings, notably the lines on Lucrece in the legend
of _Matilda_. Drayton had probably quarrelled with both his coadjutors.
With the entry here on Oldcastle's "martyrdom" compare the Epilogue to
_2 Henry IV._ This was not the play acted before Hunsdon on March 6,
which was probably _The Merry Devil_.
On 8th October _Midsummer-Night's Dream_ was entered on S. R.; on 28th
October _The Merchant of Venice_. Curiously enough, two rival issues
of each of these plays was made this year, although only one publisher
made an entry in each case. On 22d July 1598, J. Roberts had entered
_The Merchant of Venice_, but was refused permission to print unless
he could get the Lord Chamberlain's license, who was the patron of the
actors of that play. He apparently did not get it; but in 1600, when
J. Heyes does get the license, he arranges with Heyes to print the
book for him, but previously prints a slightly differing copy on his
own account. He makes with Fisher, the publisher of the other play, a
somewhat similar transaction.
There were three Court performances this Christmas by the Chamberlain's
men, December 26, January 5, February 24. The payment for these to
Hemings and Cowley indicates that the latter was a shareholder in the
Globe.
_2_ and _3 Henry VI._ were probably revised and revived at the Globe
about this time.
1601.
In this year _All's Well that Ends Well_ and _Hamlet_ were produced.
The form in which the latter appeared is matter of dispute; but we may
safely assert that it lay between the version of the first Quarto and
that of the Folio; the variation of the Quarto from this original form
being caused by the surreptitious nature of that edition, and that of
the Folio by a subsequent revision in 1603. The company of "little
eyases" satirised in this play was not of the Paul's children, with
whom the Chamberlain's men were on the most friendly terms, but of
the Chapel children at the Blackfriars, who were then acting Jonson's
"comical satires" against Dekker, Marston, and Shakespeare. Singularly
enough, they were tenants of the Burbadges, who were also owners of the
Globe.
In the same year 1601, a poem by Shakespeare appeared along with others
by Jonson, Marston, and Chapman in R. Chester's _Love's Martyr, or
Rosalin's Complaint_. This publication, could we ascertain its exact
date, would show the time when the stage controversy ceased and these
four writers could amicably appear together. Dekker, however, does not
appear among them, and we cannot tell if his _Satiromastix_ was acted
with Shakespeare's approval or not. It was produced at the Globe by his
company as well as by the children of Paul's at some time between 22d
May, up till which day Dekker was writing for the Admiral's men, and
11th November, when it was entered on S. R. This bitter satire seems to
have been the last open word in the controversy, but by no means the
end of its history.
The next fact we have to notice may perhaps explain why, just at
this point of Shakespeare's career, we find in 1602 a cessation of
production, accompanied by a change of manner in outward form and
inward thought when writing was resumed in 1603. In March 1601, in the
Essex trials, Meyrick was indicted "for having procured the outdated
tragedy of _Richard II._ to be publicly acted at his own charge for
the entertainment of the conspirators" (Camden). From Bacon's speech
(_State Trials_) it appears that Phillips was the manager who arranged
this performance. This identifies the company as the Chamberlain's, and
therefore the play as Shakespeare's. It may seem strange that a play,
duly licensed and published in 1597, could give offence in 1601; but
the published play did not contain the deposition scene, iv. 1, the
acted play of 1601 certainly did. This point is again brought forward
in Southampton's trial: he calmly asked the Attorney-General, "What
he thought in his conscience they designed to do with the Queen?"
"The same," replied he, "that Henry of Lancaster did with Richard
II." The examples of Richard II. and Edward II. were again quoted by
the assistant judges against Southampton, while Essex in his defence
urged the example of the Duke of Guise in his favour. From all which
it is clear that the subjects chosen for historical plays by Marlowe
and Shakespeare were unpopular at Court, but approved of by the Essex
faction, and that at last the company incurred the serious displeasure
of the Queen. Accordingly, they did not perform at Court at Christmas
1601-2;[8] and we find them travelling in Scotland instead--L. Fletcher
with his company of players being traceable at Aberdeen in October.
Here the actors would hear of the Gowry conspiracy instead of Essex',
of which we shall find the result hereafter. Before leaving London,
however, or in the next year after their return, they acted _The
Life and Death of Lord Cromwell_, Earl of Essex, a play in which the
rise and fall of Robert Devereux, the late Earl, was pretty closely
paralleled. This was entered on S. R., 11th August 1602, "as lately
acted."
On September 8 John Shakespeare, the poet's father, was buried at
Stratford.
1602.
On 18th January _The Merry Wives of Windsor_ was entered on S. R.: a
surreptitious issue. On 2d February, _Twelfth Night_ was performed at
the Readers' Feast at the (?) Middle Temple, "much like _The Comedy of
Errors_ or the _Menechmi_ in Plautus, but most like and near to that in
Italian, called _Inganni_" (Manningham's Diary).
On 19th April _1_ and _2 Henry VI._ (evidently the Quarto plays on
which _2_ and _3 Henry VI._ were founded) were assigned by Millington
to Pavier, _salvo jure cujuscumque_, S. R. This entry is important. It
shows that the remodelling of the old Quarto plays under the new name
of _Henry VI._ instead of _The Contention of York and Lancaster_ had
taken place; it indicates a doubt or fear as to whether the copyright
might be disputed by some publisher, authorised by the Chamberlain's
men to produce the amended version.
In May, Shakespeare bought for £320, from the Combes, 107 acres of
arable land in Old Stratford. The indenture was sealed and delivered in
his absence to his brother Gilbert.
On July 26 the surreptitious _Hamlet_ was entered on S. R., and on
August 11 _The Life and Death of the Lord Cromwell_.
On 28th September, at a Court Baron of the Manor of Rowington, Walter
Getley transferred to Shakespeare a cottage and garden in Chapel Lane,
about a quarter of an acre with forty feet frontage, possession being
reserved for the lady of the manor till suit and service had been
personally done for the same.
Two plays were performed by the Chamberlain's men at Court this
Christmas, one at Whitehall 26th December, one at Richmond 2d February.
1603.
February 7. _Troylus and Cressida_, as performed probably in 1602 by
the Chamberlain's men, not the play by Dekker and Chettle, was entered
on S. R.
The _Taming of the Shrew_ as we have it was probably produced in March.
March 24. THE QUEEN DIED.
On 19th May a license was granted to L. Fletcher, W. Shakespeare, R.
Burbadge, A. Phillips, J. Hemings, H. Condell, W. Sly, R. Armin, R.
Cowley, to perform stage plays "within their now usual house called the
Globe," or in any part of the kingdom. They are henceforth nominated
the King's Players. The functions of Fletcher are not exactly known:
he did not act, and was probably a sort of general manager; the other
eight were probably shareholders, among whom it will be noted that
Shakespeare and Burbadge stand first. In the list of actors in Jonson's
_Sejanus_, Cowley and Armin are omitted, A. Cook and J. Lowin appearing
instead. This play got Jonson into trouble. He was accused before the
Council for "Popery and treason" in it. When he published it next year
he no doubt omitted the most objectionable passages, and put forth an
excuse that a second hand had good share in it. This was his usual way
of getting out of a difficulty of this kind. Even as the play stands
there is abundant room for malice to interpret the quarrel between
Sejanus and Drusus as that between Essex and Blount; and to see in
Sejanus' poisoning propensities allusions to the Earl of Leicester.
Whalley's curious notion that Jonson in his argument alluded to the
Powder plot, ignores the fact that the play was entered on 2d November
1604 in S. R. It is Raleigh's plot that is intended.
_The London Prodigal_, and Wilkins' _Miseries of Enforced Marriage_,
were written and perhaps acted (at the Globe?) this year.
The edition of _Hamlet_ entered in the preceding year was issued in the
autumn.
On December 2 the King's players performed at the Earl of Pembroke's at
Wilton, and at Hampton Court before the King on December 26, 27, 28,
January 1 [? December 29]; before the Prince, December 30, January 1;
before the King at Whitehall, February 2, 18; nine plays in all. A much
larger number of plays were acted at Christmas festivities at Court in
James's reign than in Elizabeth's. Perhaps the Queen only cared for new
plays. We know that James frequently ordered a second performance of
any one that specially pleased him, and often had old plays revived.
On 8th February 1604, there occurs an entry in the Revels accounts
which explains the small number of public theatrical performances, and
the cessation of work of the principal author for the King's men in
1603. To R. Burbadge was given £30, "for the maintenance and relief
of himself and the rest of his company, being prohibited to present
any plays publicly in or near London by reason of great peril that
might grow through the extraordinary concourse and assembly of people
to a new increase of the plague, till it shall please God to settle
the city in a more perfect health." From July 1603 till March 1604 the
theatres were probably closed. Hence my doubt as to whether _The London
Prodigal_ and _The Miseries of Enforced Marriage_ were performed in
London till 1604. The King's company were most likely travelling in the
provinces till the winter; but were disappointed at not being allowed
to reopen at Christmas when the plague had abated.
1604.
The King's men, like those of other companies, had an allowance for
cloaks, &c., to appear at the entry of King James on 15th March.
The second Quarto of _Hamlet_ was published in this year--"Newly
imprinted and enlarged to almost as much again as it was, according to
the new and perfect copy." This version was probably that performed at
Court in the Christmas festivities 1603-4. We cannot suppose that among
the nine plays then exhibited _Hamlet_ would not be included. Of course
on such occasions plays were always more or less rewritten. In this
instance the remodelling is twofold; the Quarto version for the Court,
1603-4, the Folio for the public, of the same date. That the Folio does
not merely reproduce the 1601 play, as it was acted in London, "in the
Universities of Cambridge and Oxford" (perhaps in going to or returning
from Scotland in 1601), "and elsewhere," is clear for many reasons,
one of which concerns us here. In the well-known passage in ii. 2
relating to the Children's company, an "inhibition" and "innovation"
are mentioned in the 1604 Quarto of which there is no note in that of
1603. The only time at which we know of any contemporary inhibition
and innovation was in January-February 1604. The inhibition on account
of the plague, which was going on till nearly 8th February, I have
already noticed; the innovation was either the political conspiracy
of Raleigh or the attempt at reformation in religion by the Puritans.
The Children of the Chapel, who under Evans, Burbadge's lessee, had
satirised Shakespeare and other players in their performances at
Blackfriars, were reappointed at this time to act in that same theatre
under E. Kirkham, A. Hawkins, T. Kendall, and R. Payne, with the new
appellation of Children of the Revels. The date of the warrant is
30th January 1604. The King's men acted at Court 2d February, and if
_Hamlet_ was then performed the passage in ii. 2 may have brought their
grievance under the King's notice, and resulted in the gift of £30 by
way of compensation. I do not insist on this, however, as it is omitted
in the Quarto. No doubt they had expected to get rid of the children
at Blackfriars at the end of seven years from the date of the original
lease, 4th February 1596. At the end of another seven years they did
so, but only by purchasing the remainder of the lease.
In this summer Marston's _Malcontent_ was obtained in some indirect
manner from these Blackfriars children, perhaps from one of the
children actors who "left playing" at the time of the new license,
and was played at the Globe, with an Induction by Webster introducing
Sinkler, Sly, Burbadge, Condell, and Lowin on the stage. This was
a retaliation for the children having in like fashion previously
appropriated _Jeronymo_ (_The Spanish Tragedy_), which belonged to the
Chamberlain's men. The curious thing about the transaction is that the
_Malcontent_ was originally produced in 1601, containing satirical
allusions to _Hamlet_; and that in 1604 both plays, revised, were acted
on the same stage, by the same actors.
On 2d November _Sejanus_ was entered on S. R.
On 18th December a letter from Chamberlain to Winwood contains the
following notice. "The tragedy of _Gowry_, with all action and actors,
hath been twice represented by the King's players, with exceeding
concourse of all sorts of people: but whether the matter or manner
be not well handled, or that it be thought unfit that princes should
be played on the stage in their lifetime, I hear that some great
councillors are much displeased with it, and so 'tis thought it shall
be forbidden." Shakespeare's work during this year is shown by the
transcript of the Revels Accounts obtained by Malone. The King's men
acted at Whitehall on November 1 _The Moor of Venice_; November 4,
_The Merry Wives of Windsor_; December 28, _Measure for Measure_, and
_Errors_; ["Between January 1 and January 5" in the forged copy of this
entry still extant][9] _Love's Labour's Lost_; January 7, _Henry V._;
January 8, _Every One out of his Humour_; February 2, _Every One in
his Humour_; February 10, _The Merchant of Venice_; February 11, _The
Spanish Maz_; February 12, _The Merchant of Venice_ again. I have given
the full list as in the forged copy, but Malone is our safe guarantee
for all the Shakespeare plays. It appears then that in this year
Shakespeare must have written _Measure for Measure_ and _Othello_,
and, as we have already seen, produced a revision of _Hamlet_. How much
of this work was performed in 1603 we cannot tell; but it is not likely
that _Othello_ was written till 1604. The only definite dates in this
year relate to other matters.
In May Shakespeare entered an action at Stratford against one Philip
Rogers for £1 15s. 10d., balance of account for malt.
In August the King had a special order issued that every member of the
company should attend at Somerset House when the Spanish ambassador
came to England (Halliwell, _Outlines_, p. 136). The Christmas Court
performances have been noted above.
1605.
On 8th May, the old play on _Leir_ was entered on S. R.
On 4th May Phillips made his will, which was proved on the 13th. In
it he leaves 30s. each to Shakespeare and Condell, and 20s. each
to Fletcher, Armin, Cowley, Cook, and Tooley, all his fellows; to
Beeston, "his servant," 30s.; to Gilburne, his "late apprentice,"
40s. and clothes; to James Sandes, "his apprentice," 40s. and musical
instruments; to Hemings, Burbadge, and Sly, overseers and executors, a
bowl of silver of £5 apiece.
On 3d July a ballad on the _Yorkshire Tragedy_ was entered on S. R.; the
play which has been erroneously attributed to Shakespeare was no doubt
acted about the same time.
_The London Prodigal_ was published, but not entered on S. R., this same
year, with the name of William Shakespeare on the title-page.
Jonson's _Fox_ was acted by the King's men; the chief actors were the
same as those of _Sejanus_ in 1603, except Phillips, who died in May,
and Shakespeare, a most noteworthy exception.
On 24th July, William Shakespeare, _of_ Stratford-upon-Avon, bought
of Ralph Huband an unexpired term of thirty-one years of a ninety-two
years' lease of a moiety of the tithes of Stratford, Old Stratford,
Bishopton, and Welcombe for £440, subject to a rent payable to the
corporation of £17, and £5 to John Barker. This, at the rate of
interest then prevalent, was a dear purchase. In 1598 his "purchasing
these tithes" had been mooted at Stratford.
As to Shakespeare's dramatic work during this year I have no doubt that
_Lear_ was on the stage in May, when the old play was published. I
cannot otherwise account for the description of the latter in S. R. as a
_tragical_ history. Until Shakespeare's play this story had always been
treated as a comedy.
_Macbeth_ was probably produced in the winter, or in the following
year. When James I. was at Oxford in August, he had been addressed in
Latin by the three witches in this story, at an entertainment given by
the University. No doubt James would be pleased by their prophecies,
and desirous that they should be promulgated in the vulgar tongue. No
more likely date can be found for the holograph letter which he is said
to have addressed to Shakespeare. It may possibly be that that letter
was a command to write this play. But, putting conjecture aside, Oldys
says that Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham, told Lintot that he had a
letter from the King to the dramatist.
On October 9, Shakespeare's company performed before the Mayor
and Corporation of Oxford. It may have been on this occasion that
Shakespeare made the acquaintance of the Davenants, and stopped for
the first time at the Crown, the license for which inn had only been
taken out by Davenant in the preceding year. Enough has been written by
others as to the scandal about Mrs. Davenant, and the tradition that
William Davenant the poet, the godson of Shakespeare, was really his
son. No foundation beyond a Joe Miller joke has been discovered for
this report.
At Court, ten plays were acted in the Christmas season by the King's
men; among them the revived _Mucedorus_, which, as we have seen, was an
apology for Jonson's satire in _Volpone_.
1606.
In this year, Shakespeare's portion of _Timon of Athens_, and that part
of _Cymbeline_ which is founded on so-called British history, were
probably written.
A play called _The Puritan_ (_Widow_), evidently by Middleton, was
acted by the Paul's boys this year, in which we find direct allusion to
_Richard III._ and _Macbeth_, both of which were probably on the stage.
The same scene contains a palpable parody of the action of the scene in
_Pericles_ in which Thaisa is recovered to life. That play must then
have also been on the stage. It does not follow that it was the play as
we have it. It may have been, and I believe was, Wilkins' play before
Shakespeare's improvement had been introduced.
During July or August, the King's men had performed three plays before
the King of Denmark and his Majesty--two at Greenwich, one at Hampton
Court; and at Christmas they performed at Court nine plays: on December
26, 29; January 4, 6, 8; February 2, 5, 15, 27. That on 26th December
was _Lear_, as we have it in the Quarto version. The Folio is that used
on the stage of the same date.
1607.
_Anthony and Cleopatra_ must have been acted about this time, as well
as Cyril Tourneur's _Revenger's Tragedy_.
On 25th June Susanna, Shakespeare's eldest daughter, married Dr. John
Hall, an eminent physician at Stratford.
On 6th August Middleton's _Puritan Widow_ was entered on S. R., and
imprinted as by W.S.
Twine's _Pattern of Painful Adventures_, on which Wilkins' version of
_Pericles_ was founded, was reprinted in this year.
On 22d October Drayton's _Merry Devil of Edmonton_ was entered on S. R.
The entry on 5th April under the same title, in which the authorship is
ascribed to T[homas] B[rewer], refers to the prose story, not the play.
On 26th November _King Lear_ was entered on S. R.
On December 31 Shakespeare's brother Edmund was buried at St.
Saviour's, Southwark, aged twenty-eight, "a player," "with a forenoon
knell of the great bell."
There were thirteen Court performances by the King's men: on December
26, 27, 28; January 2, 6 (two plays), 7, 9, 17 (two plays), 26;
February 2, 6.
1608.
On February 21 Elizabeth Hall, Shakespeare's granddaughter, was
baptized at Stratford.
_The Yorkshire Tragedy_ was entered on S. R. May 20, as by William
Shakespeare. The authorship of this play has not been yet ascertained.
On May 20 _Anthony and Cleopatra_, and _Pericles_ (not as in the
Quarto version with the three last acts by Shakespeare), were entered
on S. R. Wilkins' prose version of the play was printed this same
year. I take the order of events regarding this play to have been as
follows. Wilkins wrote a play on Pericles in 1606, which was parodied
in Middleton's _Puritan_ that same year; in 1607 Twine's _Pattern of
Painful Adventures_ was reprinted; in the same year Wilkins left the
King's company and joined the Queen's; in May 1608 the play was entered
for publication, but not published; it may have been "stayed" by the
Chamberlain's company; in the same year Wilkins issued surreptitiously
(it was not entered on S. R.) his "_true_ history of the play as it
was lately presented by the poet Gower." Such a proceeding as this, a
printing of a prose narrative founded on an unprinted play and by the
same author, is unparalleled in the history of Shakespearean drama. It
must be remembered that Wilkins was not even connected with the King's
company at the time. Meanwhile Shakespeare had rewritten Acts iii.-v.
In this new shape the play was acted in 1608, and was, as we know
from an allusion in _Pimlico, or Run Redcap_ (entered S. R. 15th April
1609), very popular. An edition of the play thus altered was issued in
1609, not by Blount, who made the entry in May 1608, but by Gosson, as
the "late much-admired play ... with the true relation of the whole
history ... as also the _no less_ strange and worthy accidents in the
birth and life of his daughter Marina," that is, of the part written by
Shakespeare. This edition is very hurriedly and carelessly got up.
In August Shakespeare commenced an action against Addenbroke.
On September 9 Shakespeare's mother was buried at Stratford.
Shakespeare's company had been shortly before travelling on the
southern coast (Halliwell, who suppresses the exact date as usual). It
is always dangerous to read personal feeling in a dramatist's work;
but the coincidences in date of his _King John_ and Hamnet's death, of
his _Coriolanus_ and his mother's death, justify, I think, my opinion
that his wife's grief is apotheosised in Constance, and his mother's
character in Volumnia. This is confirmed by the great change that
takes place in his work at this time; his next four plays are devoted
to subjects of family reunion after separation.
On 16th October he was godfather to William Walker at Stratford.
In this autumn _Coriolanus_ was probably produced.
The Court Christmas performances by the King's men were twelve, on
unknown dates.
1609.
On January 28 _Troylus and Cressida_ was entered on S. R., and published
from a surreptitious copy, with a preface, stating that it had been
"never staled with the stage." This preface was withdrawn before the
close of the year, probably at the instance of the King's company. It
has been, however, the cause of misleading many modern critics (myself
included), as to the date of the production of the play. In the new
issue the title states that it is printed "as it was acted by the
King's Majesty's servants."
On February 15, a verdict for £6 and £1, 4s. costs was given in favour
of Shakespeare against John Addenbroke for debt, and execution issued.
This suit began in August 1608; the precept for a jury is dated 21st
December, when an adjournment of the trial probably took place. After
the final judgment Addenbroke was _non inventus_, and on 7th June
1609, Shakespeare proceeded against his bail, one Horneby. All these
proceedings were conducted not personally, but through his solicitor
and cousin Thomas Greene.
On 20th May the Sonnets were entered on S. R., and published with
dedication to Mr. W. H., who, in my opinion, was some one connected
with Lord Southampton, who had obtained a copy from him or his, and
possibly may have given Shakespeare the hint to write them in the first
instance, at the time (1594) when his friends were anxious for him
to marry. Such a person was Sir William Hervey, the third husband of
Southampton's mother: she died in 1607, and I conjecture that the delay
in publishing the Sonnets was due to the fact that she wished them to
remain in MS. at any rate during her lifetime. The copy used may have
been found among her papers.
On 20th May 1608 had been entered _Pericles_, and _Antony and
Cleopatra_, which were not published by Blount, who made the entry.
_Pericles_, however, was printed surreptitiously in 1609 for another
firm as we have it in the Quarto. This play was probably then
continued on the stage, as we find another edition required by 1611.
_Cymbeline_ was probably produced in the autumn. This year being a
plague year there was little dramatic activity; even Jonson did not
produce his _Epicene_ for the King's men, but had it acted by the
Chapel (or Revels) children. For the same reason there were no stage
performances at Court at Christmas.
1610.
On 4th January a patent was granted to R. Daborne, P. Rossiter, J.
Tarbook, R. Jones, and R. Browne, to set up a new Children's company
in Whitefriars. Their success was no doubt the cause that determined
the Burbadges to take the Blackfriars into their own hands.[10]
Accordingly they arranged to purchase at Lady Day the remainder of
Evans' lease of the Blackfriars (they had already taken the boys, "now
growing up to be men," Underwood,[11] Ostler, &c., to "strengthen
the King's service"), and to place men players--Hemings, Condell,
Shakespeare, &c., therein. Before the end of the year we accordingly
find the boys alluded to acting as members of the King's company in
Jonson's _Alchemist_. The chief players were Burbadge, Hemings, Lowin,
Ostler, Condell, Underwood, Cooke, Tooley, Armin, and Egglestone.
Of these Tooley and Cooke had been boy actors in the Chamberlain's
company, Underwood and Ostler in the Revels children. Shakespeare's
name does not occur; nor do I find any evidence except Mr. Halliwell's
unsupported assertion (_Outlines_, p. 111), that he continued to act
at this date. It is noticeable that there are ten actors mentioned;
this is very unusual in these play lists, and suggests that the number
of sharers may have been increased from eight to ten. There are
certainly about this time allusions to ten shares scattered about in
contemporary plays. If this be the case, Shakespeare would no longer
be a shareholder: the whole question of his shares is involved in
difficulty, and this conjecture is only thrown out to call attention
to any allusions in writings of this date that may throw light on the
matter.
The King's men performed fifteen plays at Court this Christmas.
In this year, in my opinion, Shakespeare having produced _The Winters
Tale_ and _The Tempest_, retired from theatrical work. Malone's
hypothesis that Sir W. Herbert's mention of Sir G. Buck's "allowing"
the former play implies a date subsequent to August 1610, is worthless;
Buck had the "allowing" of plays in his hands from 1607 onwards. There
is direct evidence that the Blackfriars Theatre was occupied even after
1611 by other companies. Field's _Amends for Ladies_ was acted there
by the Prince's and the Lady Elizabeth's men; and Charles could not
be called Prince till after the death of Henry, 6th November 1612.
The production of Field's play was probably in the spring 1613. By
careful comparison of the dry documents concerning shareholders in
1635, with those of the Blackfriars property in 1596, we ascertain that
J. Burbadge bought that property 4th February 1596; that in November
the establishment of a theatre there was petitioned against, but
carried out soon after; that a lease of twenty-one years was granted
to Evans, either at Christmas 1596 or Lady Day 1597, most probably the
latter; that at the end of thirteen years the Burbadges bought the
remaining eight years of the lease, probably at Lady Day 1610, and took
possession of the building;--but that they _at the same time_ took the
boys into the King's company or set up Hemings, Shakespeare, &c., in
the Blackfriars is mere rhetoric of Cuthbert's. Underwood and Ostler
had both left the Revels children before the performance of Jonson's
_Epicene_ in 1609, and Field did not join the King's men till 1618-19.
In June Shakespeare purchased twenty acres of pasture land from the
Combes.
At Christmas the King's men performed fifteen plays at Court.
1611.
In this year unusual efforts seem to have been made by the King's
company to secure authors of repute to write for their playhouse.
Jonson's _Catiline_ was acted by nearly the same cast as _The
Alchemist_, the only change being that Robinson appears in the list
instead of Armin. The second _Maiden's Tragedy_ was produced in
October, most likely written by Tourneur, having been preceded by the
first _Maid's Tragedy_ by Beaumont and Fletcher, who also in this
year brought out their _Philaster_ and _King and no King_: in all
we have five new plays of the first rank, acted by a company that
hitherto appears to have almost entirely depended on about two plays
from Shakespeare, and occasionally a third by some other hand, as
sufficient novelty to attract a year's full houses. It is this _quasi_
monopoly in writing for his company that explains Shakespeare's
accumulation of property; and it is to me incredible that _Macbeth_,
_The Winter's Tale_, _Cymbeline_, and _The Tempest_ should all have
been produced in this year. Yet this seems to be the belief of
practical critics who believe only what can be supported by what they
term "positive evidence," the evidence in this case being that Forman,
the astrological charlatan, entered in his note-book that he had seen
acted _Cymbeline_, _Macbeth_, 20th April 1610 [1611]; _Richard II._,
30th April 1611; _Winter's Tale_, May 15. This evidence has, however,
value of another kind, for it shows that a large number of revivals
took place in this year; indeed, coupling this with the fact that at
this Christmas and the next the unprecedented number of fifty plays
were performed by the King's men at Court, it is likely that _all_
Shakespeare's plays were revived immediately after his retirement from
the stage. We cannot trace fifty plays to the possession of his company
at this date without including them.
On September 11 Shakespeare's name occurs in the margin of a folio
page of donors (including all the principal inhabitants of Stratford)
to a subscription list "towards the charge of prosecuting the bill
in Parliament for the better repair of the highways." This appears
to confirm the view that Shakespeare was at this time residing in
Stratford.
On December 16 the play of _Lord Cromwell_ was entered on S. R., and
published as by W. S.
The plays at Court were twenty-two: on October 31; November 1, 5;
December 26; January 5, February 23, before the King; on November 9,
19; December 16, 31; January 7, 15; February 19, 20, 28; April 3,
16, before Prince Henry and Charles, Duke of York; on February 9, 20
(_sic_), before the Prince; on March 28, April 26, before the Lady
Elizabeth.
1612.
On February 3 the burial of Gilbert Shakespeare "adolescens" was
entered in the Stratford Register. I agree with Mr. French that this
was most likely Shakespeare's brother.
In this year a suit was commenced "Lane Greene, and Shakespeare
compl^{ts.}" on the ground that they had to pay too large a proportion
of the reserved rent of the tithes purchased in 1605. It appears from
the draft of the bill filed before Lord Ellesmere that Shakespeare's
income from this source was £60.
The plays produced by the King's men were _The Woman's Prize_,
_Cardenno_ (_i.e._, _Cardenes, or Loves Pilgrimage_), and _The
Captain_, by Fletcher and his coadjutors, and the _Duchess of Malfi_
by Webster, who also published _The White Devil_, with the remarkable
allusion to the "right happy and copious industry" of Shakespeare,
Dekker, and Heywood. Curiously enough, this is often referred to even
now as a eulogy on Webster's part; it is really damning with faint
praise the poet to whom he hoped to be the successor as provider of
plays to the King's company.
_The Passionate Pilgrim_ reached a third edition, and was reissued as
"certain amorous Sonnets between Venus and Adonis," by W. Shakespeare;
"whereunto is added two love epistles" between Paris and Helen.
These were stolen from Heywood's _Troja Britannica_ of 1609. In his
_Apology for Actors_ (1612), he complains of the injury done him, as
it might lead to unjust suspicion of piracy on his part, and adds,
"As I must acknowledge my lines not worthy his patronage under whom
he hath published them, so the author I know much offended with M.
Jaggard that altogether unknown to him presumed to make so bold with
his name." In consequence, no doubt, of this remonstrance, Jaggard
had to substitute a new title-page, from which Shakespeare's name was
entirely omitted. He had allowed his name to be used in the titles of
_The London Prodigal_ in 1605, of _The Yorkshire Tragedy_ in 1608, of
_The Passionate Pilgrim_ of 1609, and even of _Sir John Oldcastle_ in
1600 without murmuring; but directly the interests of another demand
justice at his hands he takes prompt action, and compels the piratical
publisher to withdraw his name altogether.
The King's men at the Christmas festivities, &c., presented at Court
fourteen plays before the King and fourteen before the Prince, the Lady
Elizabeth, and the Prince Palatine. Among the plays so represented were
_Philaster_, _The Knot of Fools_, _Much Ado about Nothing_, _The Maid's
Tragedy_, _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_, _The Tempest_, _A King and no
King_, _The Twins' Tragedy_, _The Winter's Tale_, _Sir John Falstaff_
(_The Merry Wives of Windsor_), _The Moor of Venice_, _The Nobleman_,
_Cesar's Tragedy_, _Love lies a bleeding_ (_Philaster_ repeated),
before the Prince, Lady Elizabeth, and the Palatine; _A Bad Beginning
makes a Good Ending_ (? _All's Well that Ends Well_; but entered S. R.
1660 as Ford's, and destroyed in MS. by Warburton's servant; Ford's
revision must, of course, have been later than 1623), _The Captain_,
_The Alchemist_, _Cardenno_, _The Hotspur_ (_1 Henry IV._), _Benedicte
and Betteris_ (_Much Ado about Nothing_), before the King. See
Stanhope's Accounts (Halliwell, _Outlines_, p. 597, third edition, and
_Revels Accounts_, p. xxiii.) Of these twenty Shakespeare contributes
nine, Fletcher (with Beaumont) six, Jonson one, Tourneur one, Drayton
(?) one, and two have not been identified.
1613.
On 4th February Richard Shakespeare, the poet's only surviving brother,
was buried at Stratford.
On 10th March Shakespeare purchased in Blackfriars a house with yard
and haberdasher's shop for £140, subject to a mortgage of £60. This
property had greatly increased in value since 1604, when it was sold
for £100, probably in consequence of the immediate vicinity of the
theatre, which drew large custom for feathers and other articles of
attire to Blackfriars. Shakespeare leased it to John Robinson, who had
by this time seen the absurdity in a business point of view of his
opposition to the establishment of the theatre in 1596. One of the
trustees for the legal estate (the mortgage remaining unredeemed till
1613) was John Heming, unquestionably Shakespeare's friend the actor.
On 8th June the King's men played at Court before the Duke of Savoy's
ambassadors.
On 29th June the Globe Theatre was burnt down, "while Burbadge's
company were acting the play of _Henry VIII._, and there shooting
off certain chambers by way of triumph" (T. Lorkin's letter). Sir
H. Wotton says it was "a new play called _All is True_, representing
some principal pieces of the reign of Henry VIII." It was of course
Shakespeare's play in its original form. A Fool must have acted in it,
for in the old ballad about this fire, "the reprobates prayed for the
fool and Henry Condy" (Condell), who were apparently the last actors
who escaped.
It has been conjectured that at this time Shakespeare retired from the
stage, having sold his shares in the Globe and Blackfriars in order to
purchase the house above mentioned. There is no particle of evidence
that he had not saved the £80 then paid from his usual economies, or
that if he had wished to sell his shares he could have done so. It is
true that shares in the later Globe (rebuilt 1613-14) were so sold; but
all the evidence as to the theatre in which Shakespeare was concerned
points the other way. It appears from the 1635 documents that Hemings,
Shakespeare, &c., had their shares without paying any consideration,
and that all the shares held by Pope, Kempe, Bryan, Shakespeare,
Sly, and Cowley had reverted by 1614 into the hands of the surviving
shareholders, the Burbadges, Hemings, and Condell. If we examine the
wills of these men, we find that Pope indeed, in 1603, leaves all his
estate or interest in the Globe, "which I have or ought to have," to
Mary Clark and Thomas Bromley; but that Phillips in 1605, and Cooke in
1614, make no mention of any shares. It seems most likely that this
will of Pope's raised the question as to whether these shares were
held during office as actor or absolutely. There can be little doubt
that the former was the case, as is only reasonable where the shares,
as in the first Globe, were given "without consideration." Purchased
shares, like those in the latter Globe, are in a different position.
At any rate, the shares left to Bromley and Clark in fact reverted to
the surviving shareholders. Sly's will in 1608, which is in similar
terms to Pope's, leaves his shares to Robert Brown, who, like Clark and
Bromley, disappears from all future history of these shares. Moreover,
there is no mention of any shares belonging to Cowley, Beeston, or
Kempe: yet there can be no doubt that Kempe was till 1599 a shareholder.
On 15th July, in the Ecclesiastical Court at Worcester, the case of Dr.
John Hall _v._ John Lane, for slandering his wife, was heard, and the
defendant excommunicated on the 27th.
There were sixteen plays performed at Court by the King's men this
year, on November 4, 16; January 10; February 4, 8, 10, 18; and nine
others.
1614.
Fletcher, Webster, and Beaumont had all left the King's men, and now,
31st October, Jonson leaves them too, and produces his _Bartholomew
Fair_ at the Hope, with abundant sneers at Shakespeare's plays,
especially the _Tempest_ and _Winter's Tale_. He does not allude to
_Henry VIII._ Fletcher was now, as well as Jonson, a writer for the
Princess Elizabeth's players.
In July John Combe left Shakespeare £5 as a legacy.
In the autumn an attempt was made by W. Combe, the squire of Welcombe,
to inclose a large portion of the neighbouring common fields; this
attempt was opposed by the Corporation, but supported by Mr. Manwaring
and Shakespeare. The latter clearly acted simply with a view to his
own personal interest. His name as an ancient freeholder occurs in a
list, 5th September, as having claim for compensation if the inclosure
took place. On 18th October, Replingham, Combe's agent, covenanted to
give him full compensation for injury by "any inclosure or decay of
tillage:" on 16th November he went to London: on 17th November his
"cousin," T. Greene, town clerk of Stratford and at the same time his
own solicitor, called to see him: he said the inclosures were to be
less than had been represented, that nothing would be done till April,
and that he and Mr. Hall thought nothing would be done at all. On 23d
December letters to Mr. Manwaring and Shakespeare were written, with
"almost all the company's hands" to them, and a private letter in
addition by Greene to "my cousin," with copies of all the acts of the
Corporation, and notes of the inconveniences that would result from the
inclosure. The inclosure was not made, and Shakespeare did not get his
compensation.
1616.
On 25th January the first draft of Shakespeare's will was drawn up.
On 10th February his daughter Judith was married without a license to
T. Quiney, vintner of Stratford; they were summoned in consequence to
the Ecclesiastical Court of Worcester a few weeks after. On 25th March
the will was executed, and on 25th April "Will. Shakspere, gent."
was entered in the burial register at Stratford. He died just before
completing his fifty-fourth year; but it is usually supposed on the
23d, his birthday.
FOOTNOTES:
[4] A dor, dorne, or drone is the lazy male bee that makes no honey:
hence Doron, the dorne (pronounce dor´un). There was a myth that dors
or drones were produced by mules, hence Muli-dor (see Minshew _drone_).
But a drone is also the drone of a bagpipe, or the bagpipe itself,
which was called chevrau (see Cotgrave, _chevrau_) or cheveril: and
_chevrau_ is Kyd. It is evident from Greene's tracts that Doron was
meant for the writer of _The Taming of a Shrew_, and Mulidor for the
same author--there cannot be a doubt of the identity of the characters.
Nash's address identifies _The Taming of a Shrew_ writer with Kyd.
[5] These dates are so given by Henslow: they should be June 5 and June
15.
[6] Simpson. But rather in 1 _Tamburlane_ v. 2: "Hell and Elysium swarm
with ghosts of men," and similarly a few lines before "where shaking
ghosts," &c.
[7] _Henry V._ was transferred to T. Pavier on 14th August.
[8] Mr. Halliwell (_Outlines_, p. 128, 2d edition) says they performed
four plays at Whitehall, but quotes no authority.
[9] This performance was at Southampton's house before Queen Anne.
[10] Mr. Halliwell (_Outlines_, p. 150) gives December 1609 as the date
of this change. This is certainly not in accordance with other facts
which I shall adduce in the following pages; he gives no authority for
his statement.
[11] Cuthbert Burbadge in 1635 adds Field by a slip of memory.
SECTION IV.
THE CHRONOLOGICAL SUCCESSION OF SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS.
IT is of the greatest importance, in investigating the chronological
succession of an author's works, that we should start from a definite
and certain date. The neglect of this point, especially in so difficult
an instance as the present, involves us too often in thorny discussions
at the very onset. Such an epoch is presented us at once by the
publication of Shakespeare's earliest poem. I begin therefore at this
point.
_Venus and Adonis_ was entered on S. R. 18th April 1593 by Richard
Field, printer, son of Henry Field, tanner, of Stratford-on-Avon, who
parted with his copyright to Mr. Harrison, senior, 25th June 1594.
There were editions in 1593, 1594 (R. Field); 1596 (R. Field for J.
Harrison); 1599 and 1602, _bis_ (W. Leake); 1617 (W. Barrett); and
1620 (J. Parker). Harrison had assigned his copyright to Leake 25th
June 1596. It was transferred to W. Barrett 16th February 1616-17;
and again to J. Parker 8th March 1620. This was "the first heir of my
invention," which means--the first production in which I have had no
co-labourer. Compare Ford's expression "the first-fruits of my leisure"
applied to _'Tis pity she's_ &c., although he had certainly at that
time written plays in connection with Dekker and others.
_Lucrece._ Entered on 9th May 1594 in S. R. by Mr. Harrison, senior.
Editions 1594 (R. Field for J. Harrison); 1598 (P. S. for J. Harrison);
1600 (J. H. for J. Harrison); 1607 (N. O. for J. Harrison); 1616 (T.
G. for R. Jackson). This poem is a pendant to the former; the one
exhibiting woman's chastity, the other her lust. Such opposition of
subject in successive productions is very characteristic of Shakespeare.
_A Lover's Complaint_, published with the _Sonnets_ 1609, written
probably 1593-4, between the _Venus_ and _Lucrece_.
_Sonnets_, entered on S. R. 20th May 1609 for T. Thorpe. I have on pp.
25, 120 already stated my opinion that these were written during 1594-8.
_Titus Andronicus_ was a new play in 1594, acted for the first time by
Sussex' men at the Rose on 23d January.
_Richard III._ was no doubt acted this same year by the Chamberlain's
men; just before the old play which had been acted by the Queen's
players was published (S. R. 19th June 1594). A _Richard_ is alluded
to in John Weever's _Epigrams_, published 1599, when the author was
twenty-three, but written when he was not twenty; they must therefore
date at latest in 1596 (not 1595 as usually stated). Weever mentions
_Venus and Adonis_, _Lucrece_, _Romeo_, and _Richard_ as the issue of
honey-tongued Shakespeare. We shall see that _Romeo_, as referred to
here, was acted in 1595-6, and I believe the _Richard_ referred to is
the _Richard II._ of 1595. _Edward III._ I have shown in p. 118 to be
an alteration of an old play of Marlowe's written in 1590, revived in
1594 about the autumn, after _Lucrece_ was published. It will be most
convenient to defer the consideration of authorship of the preceding
plays till I have to treat of _Henry VI._; the dates of editions of
all the plays will be exhibited in tabular form further on, which will
save much repetition and interruption of argument. We now come to an
unquestionable date; and it is from this, the first recorded date in
connection with an undoubted play, that I wish the reader to regard our
investigation of play dates as beginning.
1594.
December 28. Shakespeare's only farcical comedy of _Errors_ was acted
at Gray's Inn at night: the same players had acted before the Queen at
Greenwich on that day, very likely in the same comedy. In April 1595
the English agent in Edinburgh wrote to Burghley, how ill King James
took it that the comedians in London should scorn the king and people
of Scotland in their plays. The barrenness of Scotland is mentioned in
iii. 2. Neither would James approve of a play in which witchcraft and
exorcising is so constantly ridiculed. The opening scene is very like
in method to that of _Midsummer-Night's Dream_; and the reiterated
allusions by either Dromio to being transformed to an ass (ii. 2.
201; iii. 1. 15; iv. 4. 28; iii. 2. 77) remind us so strongly of that
play as almost to infer contemporaneity of production; especially
as in iii. 1. 47 the same quibble, an _ass_ and _ace_, occurs as in
_Midsummer-Night's Dream_, v. 1. 317. Now in 1593, in his _Pierce's
Supererogation_, and in 1592 in his _Four Letters_, Gabriel Harvey
had rung the changes on _an ass_ and _a Nash_ even to wearisomeness;
just as Shakespeare in this play puns on _an ell_ and _a Nell_ (iii.
2. 112). This may seem very forced; but I must remind the reader, that
_s_ and _sh_ were not distinguished in pronunciation except by pedants
at the end of the sixteenth century. It seems then most likely that
in dwelling on this transformation, Shakespeare meant to recall to
his audience the dyslogistic name inflicted on his old enemy Nash by
Gabriel Harvey. All this points to a production of the play in 1594,
by the Chamberlain's men; but there are also indications of its having
been altered from an earlier version. In the stage directions there
are traces of the name Juliana[12] for Luciana: in the text Dowsabel
occurs instead of Nell, and in v. 1, the prefix _Fat._ (Father)
has been clearly replaced by _Mar._ (Merchant) in a revision; note
especially v. 1. 195, where both prefixes have by a common printer's
error been inserted at once. The older form, again, had Antipholus
Sereptus for A. of Syracuse, and Erotes or Erratis for A. of Ephesus;
and it had twenty-five years of separation between the parents for
thirty-three in the later version. This last difference occurs in i.
1, which is throughout written in a more mechanical and antique style
of metre than the rest of the play; and indeed seems to be one of the
earliest specimens left us of Shakespeare's attempts to bombast out a
blank verse. There is also the name Menaphon (v. 1. 368), which is
likely to have been adopted from Greene's _Menaphon_ (1589), who again
took it from Marlowe's _Tamberlaine_ (1587-8). The Adam "that goes in
the calf-skin," surely alludes to the Adam in the _Looking-glass for
London_ (1590), whose "calf-skin jests" were even after seven years an
object of ridicule to the playwrights. For all these reasons I believe
that a version of this play was acted c. 1590, perhaps in the winter
of that year. It does not follow that that version was entirely by
Shakespeare, as the present play is; he may have replaced a coadjutor's
work of 1590 by his own of 1594. The plot, with its time-unity, is not
likely to be of his arranging. As to the pun on the war made by France
against her heir (iii. 2. 126), which is usually relied on for the
date of production, it merely gives as limits August 1589, when the
war of succession began, and 27th February 1594, when Henri IV. was
crowned. It does, however, enable us to say positively that the first
performance of the play was before the formation of the Chamberlain's
company, who only revived it, no doubt in an amended shape, on 28th
December 1594, most likely for the sake of the Court performance.
The original plot was probably suggested by Plautus' _Menæchmi_ and
_Amphitryo_; and perhaps more directly by the _History of Error_
performed by the Chapel children in 1576, which, by the bye, has
nothing to do with the _Ferrar_ of the Earl of Sussex' men in 1582. But
we cannot assume in these early plays that Shakespeare was the plotter.
It is certain, however, that he did afterwards adopt the likeness of
twins in _Twelfth Night_ as a means of introducing "errors" on the
stage.
1595.
January 26 was the date of the marriage of William Stanley, Earl of
Derby, at Greenwich. Such events were usually celebrated with the
accompaniment of plays or interludes, masques written specially for
the occasion not having yet become fashionable. The company of players
employed at these nuptials would certainly be the Chamberlain's, who
had, so lately as the year before, been in the employ of the Earl's
brother Ferdinand. No play known to us is so fit for the purpose as
_Midsummer-Night's Dream_, which in its present form is certainly
of this date. About the same time Edward Russel, Earl of Bedford,
married Lucy Harrington. Both marriages may have been enlivened by
this performance. This is rendered more probable by the identity of
the Oberon story with that of Drayton's _Nymphidia_, whose special
patroness at this time was the newly married Countess of Bedford.
That poem contains an allusion to Don Quixote, which could not well
have been written till 1612, and certainly not till 1605; but Drayton
is known to have constantly altered his poems by way of addition and
omission, and no date of original production can in his case be fixed
by allusions of this kind. The date of the play here given is again
confirmed by the description of the weather in ii. 2. In 1594, and in
that year only, is there on record such an inversion of the seasons
as is there spoken of. Chute's _Cephalus and Procris_ was entered on
S. R., 28th September 1593; Marlowe's _Hero and Leander_, 22d October
1593; Marlowe and Nash's _Dido_ was printed in 1594. All these stories
are alluded to in the play. The date of the Court performance must be
in the winter of 1594-5. But the traces of the play having been altered
from a version for the stage are numerous. There is a double ending.
Robin's final speech is palpably a stage epilogue, while what precedes
from "_Enter Puck_" to "break of day--_Exeunt_" is very appropriate for
a marriage entertainment, but scarcely suited to the stage. In Acts
iv. and v., again, we find in the speech-prefixes _Duke_, _Duchess_,
_Clown_ for _Theseus_, _Hippolita_, _Bottom_: such variations are
nearly always marks of alteration, the unnamed characters being
anterior in date. In the prose scenes speeches are several times
assigned to wrong speakers, another common mark of alteration. In the
Fairies the character of Moth (Mote) has been excised in the text,
though he still remains among the _dramatis personæ_. It is not, I
think, possible to say which parts of the play were added for the Court
performance; but a careful examination has convinced me that wherever
_Robin_ occurs in the stage-directions or speech-prefixes scarcely any,
if any, alteration has been made; _Puck_, on the contrary, indicates
change. The date of the stage play may, I think, be put in the winter
of 1592; and if so it was acted, not at the Rose, but where Lord
Strange's company were travelling. For the allusion in v. 1. 52, "The
thrice three Muses mourning for the death of Learning, late deceased in
beggary," to Spenser's _Tears of the Muses_ (1591), or Greene's death,
3d September 1592, could not, in either interpretation, be much later
than the autumn of 1592; and the lines in ii. 1. 156--
"I am a spirit of no common rate;
The summer still doth tend upon my state,
And I do love thee"--
are so closely like those in Nash's _Summer's Last Will_, where Summer
says--
"Died I had indeed unto the earth,
But that Eliza, England's beauteous Queen,
_On whom all seasons prosperously attend_,
Forbad the execution of my fate
Until her joyful progress was expired"--
that I think they are alluded to by Shakespeare. The singularly fine
summer of 1592 is attributed to the influence of Elizabeth, the Fairy
Queen. Nash's play was performed at the Archbishop's palace at Croydon
in Michaelmas term of the same year by a "number of hammer-handed
clowns (for so it pleaseth them in modesty to name themselves);" but I
believe the company originally satirised in Shakespeare's play was the
Earl of Sussex', Bottom, the chief clown, being intended for Robert
Greene. Thus much for date of production. For the title of the play,
compare the conclusion of _The Taming of a Shrew_ and Peele's _Old
Wife's Tale_, the latter of which is performed in a dream, and the
former is supposed by Sly to be so; the interpretation that it means
a play performed at midsummer is quite inconsistent with iv. 1. 190,
&c., and other passages. The names of the personages are interesting,
because they show us what books Shakespeare was reading at this time:
from North's _Plutarch_, Life of Theseus, the first in the book, he
got Periginia (Perigouna), Aegles, Ariadne, Antiope, and Hippolita;
from Chaucer's _Knight's Tale_, also the first in the printed
editions, which he afterwards dramatised, Philostrate; from Greene's
_James IV._ Oberon. This last name, with Titania's, also occurs in the
Queen's _Entertainment_ at Lord Hertford's, 1591. The time-analysis
of this play has probably been disturbed by omissions in producing
the Court version. I. 1. 128-251 ought to form, and probably did, in
the original play, a separate scene; it certainly does not take place
in the palace. To the same cause must be attributed the confusion as
to the moon's age; cf. i. 1. 209 with the opening lines: the new moon
was an afterthought, and evidently derived from a form of the story
in which the first day of the month and the new moon were coincident
after the Greek time-reckoning. It is worth notice that not only is
the title of Preston's _Cambyses_ parodied in the Pyramus interlude,
but his pension of sixpence a day is ridiculed in iv. 2. Nor must we
quite pass over the fact, which confirms the 1595 date, that on 30th
August 1594, at the baptism of Prince Henry (of Scotland), the tame
lion which was to have been brought in in the triumph was replaced by
a Moor, "because his presence might have brought some fear." The play
is nearly as much an error play (iii. 2. 368) as the _Errors_ itself,
and, like it, has no known immediate source for the plot. The Pyramus
interlude is clearly based on C. Robinson's _Handfull of Pleasant
Delights_ (1584); and some of the fairy story may have been suggested
by Montemayor's _Diana_. The line ii. 2. 104, is from Peele's _Edward
I._ (near end), "how nature strove in them to show her art," and I
think the man who dares not come in the moon because it is in snuff may
allude to the offence given at Court by Lyly's _Endymion_ in 1588. An
absolute downward limit of date is given by a line imitated in _Doctor
Doddypol_, a play alluded to in 1596 by Nash, and spoiled in the
imitation--
"Hanging on every leaf an orient pearl,
Which shook together by the silken wind
Of their loose mantles made a silver chime."
This solidification of the dewdrops does not occur in the Shakespeare
parallel, ii. 1. 15. Mr. Halliwell's fancy that Spenser's line in
_Fairy Queen_, vi.--"Through hills and dales, through bushes and
through briers" must have been imitated by Shakespeare in ii. 1. 2,
is very flimsy; hill and dale, bush and brier, are commonplaces of
the time. Nor is there any proof that this song could not have been
transmitted to Ireland in 1593 or 1594.
1595.
_Richard II._ cannot be definitely dated by external evidence, but
all competent critics agree that it is the earliest of Shakespeare's
historical plays; the question of authorship, &c., of _Richard III._
being reserved for the present. It is a tragedy like Marlowe's _Edward
II._, not a "life and death" history. The _Civil Wars_ of Daniel,
from which Shakespeare seems to have derived a few hints, was entered
on S. R. 11th October 1594. The play probably was produced after
this date, and before the publication of the Pope's bull in 1596,
inciting the Queen's subjects to depose her. In consequence of this
bull the abdication scene was omitted in representation, and in the
editions during Elizabeth's lifetime. In like manner, Hayward was
imprisoned for publishing in 1599 his _History of the First Year of
Henry IV._, which is simply the story of Richard's abdication. The
omitted scene was restored in 1608 under James I. as "new additions."
Such _new_ additions on title-pages are often restorations of omitted
passages. The Folio copy omits a few other speeches, the play having
been evidently found too long in representation; but it contains the
abdication scene. This being the first play of Shakespeare's that
passed the press was carelessly corrected, whence much apparently
unShakespearian and halting metre, which is easily set right. The
source of the plot is Holinshed's _Chronicle_; "the earlier play on
_Richard II._ lately printed" (says Mr. Stokes in 1878) "I have not
seen; but it concludes with the murder of the Duke of Gloster." The
play seen at the Globe by Forman in 1611 began with the rebellion of
Wat Tyler. It was not Shakespeare's. There is no prose in this play, in
_John_, or the _Comedy of Errors_; a sign of early work.
1595.
_The Two Gentlemen of Verona_ is a striking instance of the
difficulties in which we are involved if we attempt to assign a single
date for the production of every play, and neglect the fact that
alterations were and are continually made by authors in their works.
Drake and Chalmers date this play in 1595; Gervinus, Delius, and Stokes
1591. Malone at different times adopted both dates. I believe that
all these opinions are reconcilable, that the play was produced in
1591, with work by a second hand in it, which was cut out and replaced
by Shakespeare's own in 1595. For a date after 1593 is distinctly
indicated in the play as we have it by the allusions to _Hero and
Leander_ in i. 1. 21, iii. 1. 119; and to the pestilence in ii. 1. 20;
a still closer approximation is shown to the _Merchant of Venice_, by
the mistake of Padua for Milan in ii. 5. 2. If Shakespeare had not, at
the time when he finally produced the _Two Gentlemen_, begun his study
for the Venetian story, whence this name? It only occurs there, once in
_Much Ado_, and in the non-Shakespearian parts of _The Taming of the
Shrew_. In like manner the mistake of Verona for Milan in iii. 4. 81,
v. 4. 129, indicates that he had been preparing _Romeo and Juliet_.
That our play lies between the _Errors_ and the _Dream_ on one hand
and _The Merchant_ on the other, becomes pretty clear by comparing the
development of character in the Dromios, Launce and Speed, Lancelot
Gobbo; in Lucetta and Nerissa; in Demetrius and Lysander, Valentine and
Proteus. Nor are marks of the twofold date wanting. In the first two
acts we find Valentine at the Emperor's court, no Duke mentioned; in
the last three at the Duke's, no Emperor mentioned. The turning-point
is in ii. 4, where, though "Emperor" occurs in the text, "Duke" is
used in the stage directions. In i. 1. 32, "If haply won perhaps a
hapless gain; if lost, why then a grievous labour won," there is surely
an allusion to _Love's Labour's Won_, and _Love's Labour's Lost_; we
shall see hereafter that in 1591 these were quite recent plays. The
Eglamour of Verona mentioned in i. 2. 9 is not the Eglamour of Milan
who appears in iv. 3, v. 1. Style and metre require an early date for
i. ii. 1-3 and parts of iii. 1; but in any argument of an internal
nature, Johnson's weighty remark should be remembered--"From _mere_
inequality, in works of imagination, nothing can with exactness be
inferred." The immediate origin of the plot is unknown; parts of the
story are identical with those of _The Shepherdess Filismena_ in
Montemayor's _Diana_, translated in MS. by Young, c. 1583, and of
Bandello's _Apollonius and Sylla_ in Rich's _Farewell to Military
Profession_ (1581). _Felix and Philiomena_ had been dramatised and
acted at Court by the Queen's players, 1584-5. That the revision of
_The Two Gentlemen_ was hurriedly performed is clear from the unusually
large number of _Exits_ and _Entrances_ that are not marked. This hurry
accounts, in some degree, for the weakness of the play, which induces
so many critics to insist on an early date for it as a whole. Yet the
special blemish they discover, v. 4. 83, the yielding up of Silvia by
Valentine, is paralleled in the _Dream_, where (iii. 2. 163) Lysander
says, "With all my heart, in Hermia's love I yield you up my part:"
and that Shakespeare felt the unreality of this part of the plot is
clear from _Two Gentlemen_, v. 4. 25, which to me seems a manifest
reminiscence of his last play, "How like a dream is this I see and
hear!" (cf. _Midsummer-Night's Dream_, iv. 1. 190, "It seems to me that
yet we sleep, we dream"). He had been reading Chaucer, as we know, and
from him had adopted this method of presenting stories in a dream.
A slighter reminiscence of Chaucer's _Knight's Tale_ occurs in the
mention of Theseus, iv. 4. 173.
1595-6.
_Romeo and Juliet_ was surreptitiously printed by J. Danter in 1597;
"as it hath been often with great applause played (publicly), by the
Rt. Hon. the L. of Hunsdon, his servants." This edition must have been
printed in 1596 (old reckoning), for the players would have been called
the Chamberlain's servants except during the tenure of that office by
W. Brooke, Lord Cobham, from 23d July 1596 to 5th March 1597. That
it was on the stage as well as _Richard II._ in 1595-6, appears from
Weever's _Epigrams_. A correct edition of _Romeo_ appeared in 1599.
The relation of these two versions of the play presents a difficult
problem. The 1599 Quarto Q_{2} is unquestionably the play of 1595-6,
as acted by the then Chamberlain's players at the Theater; for it does
not follow, as Mr. Halliwell supposes, that because they continued to
act it when called Lord Hunsdon's players, they had not ever acted it
before. Such reasoning would compel us to assign all plays published as
"acted by the King's players" to a date subsequent to 1602--_Hamlet_,
for example, and _Troylus and Cressida_. Nor does it follow that
because it was acted at the Curtain, where Marston mentions it in his
_Scourge of Villany_ (S. R. 8th September 1598), that it was _produced_
at that same theatre. Mr. P.A. Daniel has shown, in his Parallel Text
Edition, that the 1597 Quarto Q_{1} is a shortened version of the play,
no doubt for stage purposes (compare the Quartos in i. 1; i. 3; iii.
1). He has also with great ingenuity conclusively proved that Q_{2} is
a revised copy made on a text in many places identical with Q_{1} (see
i. 1. 122; i. 4. 62; ii. 3. 1-4; iii. 2. 85; iii. 3. 38-45; iii. 5.
177-181; iv. 1. 95-98, 110; v. 3. 102, 107). But his conclusion that
Q_{1} is partly made up from notes taken during the performance, is
not borne out by any evidence. There are no "mistakes of the ear" in
this play, nor is this conclusion consistent with his own theory that
Q_{2} was a revision made on the text of Q_{1}. I owe what I believe to
be the real solution to a hint from my son, a boy of thirteen. When a
play was written and licensed, at least three copies would be made of
it. One, with the Master of the Revels' endorsement (which I will call
R), would be kept in the archives of the theatre intact; one would be
made for the manager (M), which would have occasional notes of stage
direction, &c., inserted; and one, an acting copy, for the prompter
(P), usually much abridged from the original and always altered: this
would contain stage directions, &c., in full, but in the unaltered
passages would be identical with M. Now Q_{1} shows evident signs of
being printed from a shortened copy P; Q_{2} is manifestly a revision
of a full copy M. The genealogy of the Quartos then stands thus:--
R (_author's first version_).
|
+---+---+
| |
P M
| |
Q_{1} Q_{2}
Q_{2} is, according to this theory, a revised version made on a
_complete_ copy of an early version of the play, while Q_{1} is
printed from the prompter's copy of the same early version. When the
revision took place this copy would be thrown aside as worthless; and
any dishonest _employé_ of the theatre could sell it to an equally
dishonest publisher, who would publish it as the play now acted. If
this solution be correct, and it is the only one yet proposed that
meets all the difficulties of the case, Q_{1} is specially interesting
as being the earliest extant play (as acted) in which Shakespeare had
a share. For it is clear that some passages in it, especially ii. 6,
the laments in iv. 5, and Paris' dirge in v. 3, are not only unlike
the corresponding passages in Q_{2}, but unlike anything we have
from Shakespeare's hand. The date of the early form of the play was
1591, eleven years after the earthquake of 1580 (i. 3. 23, 30). As
confirmatory of the conclusion that Q_{2} was revised from an early
play note that in i. 1 the servants are nameless in Q_{1}, but have
names in the stage directions in Q_{2}; that in 1. 3 the servant is
called clown in Q_{1}; that in iii. 5 in Q_{2}, where the prefixes
vary between _Lady_ and _Mother_, it is in the unaltered parts that
_Mother_ is used as in Q_{1}, but _Lady_ always where enough alteration
has taken place to require a completely fresh transcript; that in v.
3 there is a double entry marked for the Capulets (a sure sign); that
in ii. 3. 1-4, v. 3. 108-111, duplicate versions occur. On the other
hand, the printing of the Nurse's speeches in italics in both Quartos
is conclusive for identity of origin in that scene. Other points
worth noting are that "Queen Mab, what's she?" i. 4. 55 in Q_{1} are
omitted in Q_{2}: Mab had become well known in 1595, probably through
Drayton's _Nymphidia_. In ii. 2. 144, "I am afraid all this is but a
dream," reminds us of similar passages in _Errors_, ii. 2. 184; _Two
Gentlemen_, v. 4. 26; and _Dream_, iv. 1. 199, &c. W. Kempe acted the
part of Peter (see entry in iv. 5); Balthazar is proparoxyton in v. 1.
The line in iii. 2, 75, "O serpent heart hid with a flowering face"
(where Q_{1} has "serpent's hate"), is very like the often-quoted "O
tiger's heart wrapt in a woman's hide" (_3 Henry VI._ i. 4. 137).
The play is founded on Arthur Brooke's poem, _The Tragical History
of Romeus and Juliet, containing a rare example of true constancy_.
Constancy in love is its main subject. He took the Italian form of the
name Romeo, and the time of Juliet's sleep forty-two hours ("forty at
least" in the novel) from _Rhomeo and Julietta_ in Painter's _Palace of
Pleasure_. Much unnecessary writing has been expended on this forty-two
hours; the plot requires forty-eight. Daniel, in his _Rosamund_ (S.
R. February 1591-2), and the author of _Doctor Doddypol_ (c. October
1594), have passages very like some in this play. A ballad founded on
the play was entered S. R. 15th August 1596. On the mention of "the
first and second cause" in ii. 4. 26 and (in Q_{1} only) in iii. 1,
some critics base the conclusion that this play must be subsequent to
Saviolo's _Book of Honour_, &c. (S. R. 19th November 1594). I believe
that the book referred to is _The Book of Honor and Arms, wherein is
discussed the_ CAUSES _of quarrel_,&c. (S. R. 13th December 1589).
The same expression occurs in _Love's Labour's Lost_, i. 2. 184; in
any case it probably belongs to the revised version of this last
named play. The alteration in ii. 4 from "to-morrow morning" to "this
afternoon," shows that in the revision Shakespeare attended to details
in the time of action.
1596.
_King John_ was founded on the old play acted by the Queen's men,
called _The Troublesome Reign of King John_. The lines ii. 1. 455-460
are imitated in _Captain Stukeley_ by Dekker and others, acted at
the Rose, 11th December 1596; iii. 1. 176-179 refer manifestly to
the Pope's bull in 1596, inciting the English to depose Elizabeth;
Chatillon's speech ii. 1. 71-75 is most applicable to the great fleet
sent against Spain in the same year; Constance's lamentations have been
reasonably referred to the death of Hamnet Shakespeare (buried 11th
August); the _Iron Age_ is alluded to in iv. 1. 60, and never elsewhere
in Shakespeare. Now, Heywood's play of that name was on the stage
from June 23 to July 16 under the title of _Troy_. The summer of 1596
is thus undoubtedly the date of Shakespeare's play. There are some
indications of the play having been shortened; Act ii. in the Folio
has only seventy-four lines, and Essex has a part of only three lines,
although in the older _John_ he appears in five scenes. I think he was
meant to be entirely cut out c. 1601 after Essex' execution, and these
three lines should be given to Salisbury. The rival play of _Stukeley_
was shortened in the same way; a whole act was expunged before its
publication in 1605. In i. 2 (Folio) the Citizen on the walls is called
Hubert; this indicates that the same actor represented both characters.
1596-7.
_The Merchant of Venice_, or _Jew of Venice_, was no doubt founded
on an old play called _The Jew of Venice_, by Dekker. It seems, from
the title of the German version of this play, that the Jew's name was
Joseph. The name Fauconbridge in i. 2 (where Portia's suitors are
enumerated, compare _Two Gentlemen_, i. 2) points to a date soon after
_John_; and the "merry devil" of ii. 3. 2, a phrase never elsewhere
used in Shakespeare, indicates contemporaneity with _The Merry Devil
of Edmonton_ produced in the winter of 1596. Again, the manifest
imitations of this play in _Wily Beguiled_, which I show elsewhere to
date in the summer of 1597, give a posterior limit, which must be
decisive. This play has no sign whatever of having been altered; the
Clarendon Press guesses, founded on the discrepancy of the number of
suitors (iv. for vi.) are as worthless as Mr. Hales' proof, referred to
by Mr. Halliwell (_Outlines_, p. 251), of the date of _Wily Beguiled_.
The conclusive evidence of imitation in this play is the conjunction
of the "In such a night" lines in scene 16, with the "My money, my
daughter" iterations of Gripe in scene 8 of the same play. On 22d July
1598, J. Roberts entered _The Merchant or Jew of Venice_ on S. R., but
had to get the Lord Chamberlain's license before printing. On 28th
October 1600, he consented to the entry of the play for T. Hayes;
nevertheless, he issued copies of his own imprint independently.
1597.
_The First Part of Henry IV._ was entered on S. R. 25th February 1598;
a genuine and authorised imprint. The publication of this play was
hurried in order to refute the charge of attacking the Cobham family in
the person of Sir John Oldcastle, the original name of the character
afterwards called Falstaff (cf. "my old lad of the castle," i. 2.
48). Moreover, in i. 2. 182, we find in the text the names Harvey and
Russel instead of Peto and Bardolph. The name Russel for Bardolph
again occurs in a stage direction in _2 Henry IV._ ii. 2. These were
evidently originally the names of the characters, and were changed
at the same time as that of Oldcastle: Russel was the family name
of the Bedford Earls, and Harvey that of the third husband of Lord
Southampton's mother. The new names were picked up from the second
part; in which Lord Bardolph and Peto (a distinct personage from the
"humourist" of Part I.) were serious characters. The play was produced
in the spring; the only mentions of June in Shakespeare's plays are
in ii. 4. 397 (_sun_ F.); iii. 2. 75; and _Anthony_, iii. 10. 14. In
ii. 4. 425, Preston's _Cambyses_ is ridiculed (cf. _Dream_). There is
an imitation of iii. 2. 52 in _Lust's Dominion_ (the _Spanish Moor's
Tragedy_, by Dekker, Haughton, and Day, February 1600, absurdly quoted
by Stokes as Marlowe's). For the "abuses of the time" i. 2. 174; iv. 3.
81; see under _Sir T. More_, 1596. This play, as well as _2 Henry IV._
and _Henry V._, is founded on _The Famous Victories of Henry V._, an
old play produced by the Queen's company; from which the name Oldcastle
was taken.
1597-8.
_The Second Part of Henry IV._ was entered on S. R. 23d August 1600.
This Quarto is much abridged in i. 3, ii. 3, iv. 1, iv. 4, and a whole
scene, iii. 1, is omitted. It abounds in oaths apparently foisted in
by the players, and is apparently printed from a prompter's copy. The
omissions arise, I think, from expurgations made by the Master of
the Revels. Plays in which rebellion was the subject were especially
disagreeable at Court. In the Epilogue there is evidence of alteration,
the words "if my tongue ... good-night," having been inserted after
the first production of the play, as is clear from their succeeding in
Q. the clause about praying for the Queen, which must have been final
in either version. The newly inserted words contain the allusion to
Oldcastle, and show that in this play, as well as the former, that
was the original appellation of Falstaff. This is confirmed by the
appearance of _Old._ in a speech prefix in i. 2. 137; and Russel in a
stage direction in ii. 2. Mr. Halliwell's notion that Russel and Harvey
were names of actors, has not the slightest foundation, nor are such
actors known. Note also that in iii. 2. 29, Falstaff is mentioned as
having been page to the Duke of Norfolk, which was historically true
of Oldcastle (compare the "serving the good Duke of Norfolk" in _The
Merry Devil_. The date of that play is 1597.) The early part i. 1,
or. ii. 4, was written before the entry of _1 Henry IV._ on S. R.,
25th February 1598, in which Falstaff is mentioned. "Sincklo" occurs
in a stage direction in v. 1; he is not known in connection with
Shakespeare's company till this play was acted; he was previously a
member of Pembroke's troop, and acted in _3 Henry VI._ when it belonged
to them along with Humfrey [Jeffes], and Gabriel [Singer]. These two
last named, and others, joined the Admiral's company at the Rose in
October 1597, when Pembroke's men broke and went into the country.
Sinkler, Beeston, Duke, and Pallant, stayed with the Chamberlain's
men from c. 1594 till they left the Curtain in 1599, and then Kemp,
Duke, Beeston, and Pallant set up a new company under the patronage
of the Earl of Derby. Not one of these can be shown to have acted for
the Chamberlain's, except between these dates, and that they left in
discontent is probable from their being all omitted in the list of
the 1623 Folio. Sinkler remained in Shakespeare's company till 1604.
Pistol, in his first appearance in ii. 4, does not for a while talk in
iambics. Mrs. Quickly (i. 2. 269) appears to be called Ursula (Nell in
_Henry V._) For the changes in the names of this and other characters
in the series of Falstaff plays, see hereafter in the table given on p.
207.
1597.
_Love's Labour's Lost_ was published in 1598, "as it was presented
before her Highness this last Christmas." This was undoubtedly the
earliest of Shakespeare's plays that has come down to us, and was only
retouched somewhat hurriedly for this Court performance. The date of
original production cannot well be put later than 1589. The characters
are in several instances confused. In ii. 1 Boyet occurs in place of
Berowne in the prefixes, and Rosaline for Katharine in the text. In
iv. 2, and v. 1, there is still greater muddling of Holofernes and
Nathaniel; now one, now the other appears, first as Curate, then as
Pedant; in iv. 2, Berowne is called "one of the strange Queen's Lords,"
and _Queen_ for _Princess_ occurs in the prefixes through the greater
part of the play. It is pretty clear that this lady ambassador was in
the 1589 play called Queen. In ii. 1, the lines 21-114 were almost
certainly added in 1597. They begin with a prefix _Prin._ inserted
in the middle of one of the Queen's (Princess's) speeches; and in
them only throughout the play is the prefix _Nav._ (Navarre) used for
_King_. In iv. 3, the speech of Berowne (l. 290-365) must be mostly
assigned to 1597; the repetition of the lines, "From women's eyes
... Promethean fire" is an unmistakable indication of revision (see
the similar instances in _Romeo_). A like instance of substitution of
a long version for a short one, occurs in v. 1. 847-879, which are
manifestly the 1597 substitute for v. 1. 827-832; again, v. 2. 575-590
could not have conveyed any amusement in the conceit of "Ajax" till
after the publication of Harrington's _Metamorphosis of Ajax_ in 1596.
The mention of "first and second cause," &c., in i. 2. 171-192, may
imply that this was another of the additions. But it is in iv. 2 that
the greatest changes have been made. It is clear from v. 1. 125, that
Sir Holofernes was originally the Curate. Modern editors either omit
Holofernes or substitute Nathaniel; Sir Holofernes is also the Curate
in iv. 2. 67-156--"This is a gift ... colorable colours." In the rest
of this scene Sir Nathaniel is the Curate, and Master Holofernes the
Pedant. This latter is the 1597 version. I am not aware that this
singular change of character has been noted, or any reason assigned for
it, except my conjecture, that it was intended to disguise a personal
satire which, however pertinent in 1589, had become obsolete in 1597.
For a full discussion of all these changes made in 1597, see my article
on _Shakespeare and Puritanism_ in _Anglia_, vol. 7.
1597-8.
_Much Ado about Nothing_ is more likely than any other play to be
identical with _Love's Labour's Won_. The internal evidence has been
set forth by Mr. Brae; but there are points of external evidence also,
that have been overlooked. It is very frequent, in old plays, to find
days of the week and month mentioned; and when this is the case, they
nearly always correspond to the almanac of the year in which the play
was written. Now, in this play alone in Shakespeare is there such a
mark of time; comparing i. 1. 285, and ii. 1. 375, we find that the
6th July came on a Monday; this suits the years 1590 and 1601, but
none between; an indication that the original play was written in
1590. Unlike _Love's Labour's Lost_, it was almost recomposed at its
reproduction, and this day-of-the-week mention is, I think, a relic
of the original plot, and probably due, not to Shakespeare, but to
some coadjutor. Again, Meres' list in his _Palladis Tamia_ consists
of the following plays:--_Gentlemen of Verona_ (1595), _Errors_
(1594), _Love's Labour's Lost_ (1597), _Love's Labour's Won_ (?),
_Midsummer-Night's Dream_ (1594-5), _Merchant of Venice_ (1596-7),
_Richard II._ (1595), _Richard III._ (1594), _Henry IV._ (1597), _King
John_ (1596), _Titus Andronicus_ (1594), _Romeo and Juliet_ (1595-6).
The dates I have appended to these may in some instance be slightly
erroneous; but I think no one will deny that the plays mentioned
by Meres must have constituted the Shakespeare repertoire of the
Chamberlain's men, and have been played by them between the dates of
their constitution as a company in 1594, and the publication of Meres'
book in 1598. But there is absolutely no other comedy of Shakespeare's
that can be assigned to such a date. _All's Well that Ends Well_ was
certainly not played by his company so early. Again, Cowley and Kempe
played the constables in this play; but Kempe had left the company
by the summer of 1599. There is no argument against this conclusion
yet produced. The main subject of the play had been dramatised before
in _Ariodante and Geneuora_, acted at Court by the Merchant Tailors'
boys in 1582-3. The old German play of Jacob Ayrer, _The Beautiful
Phoenicia_ (c. 1595, Cohn) also contains points of similarity with
Shakespeare's play that are not found in the Bandello novel which
Belleforest translated in 1594. Pedro and Leonato are the only names
which Shakespeare retains from the novel; which Ayrer follows in this
respect. When the title was altered is doubtful: the play was known as
_Benedick and Beatrice_ in 1613.
1599.
_Henry V._ was acted, with the choruses as we have them in the Folio,
between 15th April and 28th September, while Essex was in Ireland; see
chorus to Act v. That this was the final revision of the play, I am
by no means convinced. The scene with the Scotch and Irish captains,
iii. 2. 69 to end, I take to be an insertion for the Court performance,
Christmas 1605, to please King James, who had been so annoyed that year
by depreciation of the Scots on the stage. That the Quarto copy is
printed from an abridged version made for acting purposes, is palpable.
By omitting i. 1, and substituting one Bishop for two in i. 2 (two
being retained in the stage direction) Ely is disposed of; by simple
omission and transference of a speech in iv. 3 to Warwick, Westmoreland
disappears; in a similar way Bedford gives place to Clarence; in iv.
3. 69 Salisbury is replaced by Gloster, and was evidently meant to
be in l. 5-9 of the same scene; in iv. 1 Erpingham remains in the
stage direction, but has been cut out in the text. That the version
from which the Quarto was abridged was the 1599 copy, is a separate
question to which I am inclined to say no. I rather hold that it was an
earlier one without choruses, and following the Chronicle historians
much more closely. I cannot otherwise account for the substitution of
Gebon for Rambures in iii. 7, and iv. 5; and of Bourbon for Britany
in iii. 5, and for Dolphin in iii. 7, iv. 5. Mr. Daniel's theory is
that the Quarto was later than the Folio version, that is to say, that
Shakespeare wrote a play historically incorrect, that his errors were
corrected in a stage version before 1600, _i.e._, while he was still
himself an actor; that the errors were afterwards restored, and have
kept the stage ever since. I cannot think this. I believe that the
Quarto is (as we have seen in other instances) a shortened version of a
play written early in 1598 for the Curtain Theatre, and that the Folio
(except such alterations as were made after James's accession) is a
version enlarged and improved for the Globe Theatre later in the same
year. With regard to this series of Falstaff plays, the following table
may be of interest.
NAMES OF "IRREGULAR HUMOURISTS" IN--
| _1 Hen. IV._ | _1 Hen. IV._ | _2 Hen. IV._ |
_Famous | (original | (altered | (i. 1 to ii. 4 |
Victories._ | version). | version). | altered). |
------------+--------------+--------------+----------------+
Gadshill. | Gadshill. | Gadshill. | |
Ned. | Ned Poins. | Poins. | Poins. |
Tom. | Harvey. | Peto. | Peto. |
| Russell. | Bardolph. | Bardolph. |
Oldcastle. | Oldcastle. | Falstaff. | Falstaff. |
| ? Hostess. | Quickly. | Quickly. |
------------+--------------+--------------+----------------+
| _2 Hen. IV._ |
_Famous | (ii. 4 to end | _Hen. V._ |
Victories._ | unaltered). | (both versions). | _Merry Wives._
------------+---------------+------------------+--------------+
Gadshill. | | |
Ned. | | |
Tom. | | |
| Bardolph. | Bardolph. | Bardolph.
Oldcastle. | Falstaff. | F. in text. | Falstaff.
| Quickly. | Quickly. | Quickly.
| Doll. | Doll. |
| Pistol. | Pistol. | Pistol.
| | Nym. | Nym.
| Shallow. | | Shallow.
------------+---------------+------------------+--------------+
According to my hypothesis, the original names Oldcastle, Ned Poins,
Gadshill, &c., were chiefly taken from _The Famous Victories of Henry
V._; all these disappear from the series by ii. 4 of _2 Henry IV._: the
later names, Bardolph, Falstaff, Nym, Pistol, Shallow, persist to the
end of the series, but did not occur in the original forms of _1_ and
_2 Henry IV._ The name Falstaff was no doubt taken from _1 Henry VI._,
in which Shakespeare had been writing on March 1592, and which we know
from the Epilogue to _Henry V._ to have been revived by 1598 at latest.
1599.
_As You Like It_ was "stayed" on the 4th August 1600, and was written
after "Diana in the fountain" (iv. 1. 154) was set up in Cheapside in
1598 (Stow). In iii. 5. 83 a line is quoted from _Hero and Leander_,
published in 1598; the only instance in which Shakespeare directly
refers to a contemporary poet. The date may, I think, be still more
exactly fixed from i. 2. 94, "the little wit that fools have was
silenced," which alludes probably to the burning of satirical books by
public authority 1st June 1599. Every indication points to the latter
part of 1599 as the date of production. This play is a rival to the
_Robin Hood_ plays acted at the Rose in 1598; Jaques, "the traveller,"
seems to have been the origin of Jonson's Amorphus in _Cynthia's
Revels_, and Touchstone of Cos the whetstone in the same play; compare
i. 2. 56. The female characters differed considerably in height, as
in _Much Ado_ and _The Dream_. The remarks of Touchstone on quarrels
and lies in v. 4 should be compared with _Love's Labour's Lost_, i.
2 to end; _Romeo and Juliet_, ii. 4. 26, &c. The comparison of the
world to a stage in ii. 7 suggests a date subsequent to the building
of the Globe, with its motto of _Totus mundus agit histrionem_; and
the introduction of a fool proper, in place of a comic clown such as
is found in all the anterior comedies, confirms this: the "fools" only
occur in plays subsequent to Kempe's leaving the company. The title is
taken from Lodge's address prefixed to his _Rosalynde_, on which the
play is founded--"if you like it, so," says Lodge--and it is alluded
to in the Epilogue (which, like that to _2 Henry IV._, is spoken by a
female character), and again by Jonson in the Epilogue to _Cynthia's
Revels_, which play has much more connection with the present than is
usually supposed. There is a tradition that Shakespeare took the part
of Adam.
1600.
_The Merry Wives of Windsor_, as we have it in the Folio, was probably
made for the Court performance in February 1600; in i. 4, the "King's
English" does not imply that James, not Elizabeth, was on the throne;
but that the time of action is under a king, Henry IV. It was written
after _Henry V._; perhaps, according to the old tradition, in obedience
to the Queen's command, who wished to see Falstaff in love, Shakespeare
not having fulfilled his promise in the Epilogue to _2 Henry IV._ to
introduce him in the _Henry V._ play; a failure probably caused by the
defection at this date of the actor who had taken this part--Kempe,
Beeston, Duke, and Pallant having quitted the King's men between the
production of _2 Henry IV._ and that of this play. The title, _The
Merry Wives of Windsor_, suggests approximation in subject with _The
Merry Devil of Edmonton_ (1597), and so does the great likeness in the
characteristics in the Hosts of these plays; while the plot of the Anne
Page story is identical with that of _Wily Beguiled_ (1597), Fenton
corresponding to Sophos, Caius to Churms, Simple to Plodall, Evans to
R. Goodfellow. It appears from the Quarto edition that Ford's assumed
name was originally Brook, not Broome. This was probably altered
because Brook was the name of the Lord Cobham, who took offence at
the production of Oldcastle on the stage. The song of Marlowe's sung
by Evans in iii. 1 was published as Shakespeare's in the _Passionate
Pilgrim_ in 1599; not necessarily by any means in consequence of its
previous introduction in this play. Mr. P. A. Daniel has rightly
pointed out that iii. 5 is really composed of two scenes, one between
Falstaff and Quickly, the other between Falstaff and Ford; and that the
latter ought to begin the fourth Act: he has also shown that in various
places the Folio has inconsistencies not explicable without the aid
of the Quarto. But all this does not prove any "degradation" of the
play at "managerial" hands; it rather indicates hurried and careless
production, such as we might expect in a play ordered to be produced in
a fortnight, according to the old tradition. Another internal proof of
such hurry, both in this play and in _Much Ado about Nothing_, lies in
the fact that they are almost entirely in prose; which is not the case
in any other play by Shakespeare. And this brings us to the question of
the nature of the Quarto version. It has been held to be merely a first
sketch of the play: this theory is untenable. Mr. P. A. Daniel holds it
to be a stolen version made up by a literary hack from shorthand notes
obtained at a representation. This hypothesis gives no explanation of
the "cousin-Garmombles" of iii. 5, nor does it enable us to understand
how no better a representation of the play was issued, nor how whole
scenes (that of the fairies for example) appear in quite a different
version from the Folio. My own opinion is that the case is parallel to
that of _Romeo and Juliet_; that the Quarto is printed from a partly
revised prompter's copy of the older version of the play, which became
useless when Shakespeare had made his final version. I believe also
that this older version was produced soon after the visit of the Count
of Mümplegart (Garmombles) to Windsor in August 1592; that it was
probably the _Jealous Comedy_, acted as a new play by Shakespeare's
company 5th January 1593; that when Shakespeare revived this old play,
he accommodated the characters to _Henry IV._ as best he could. Mr.
Daniel's argument that _The Merry Wives_ was a later play than _Henry
V._, because Nym would otherwise have had no title to special mention
in the title-page of the Quarto, has not much weight. This Quarto was
printed three years after _Henry V._ was produced, and Nym's reputation
from either play was three years old, according to Mr. Daniel himself.
Why then should he not be mentioned?
I must add a word on the Fairy scene, v. 5. The fairies are Nan the
Queen (in red?), cf. iv. 4. 71; Will Cricket (in grey?); two other
boys, Bede and Bean, in green and white; and Evans, Puck Hobgoblin or
Robin Goodfellow, in black. The prefixes _Qu._, _Qui._, and _Pist._ are
mistakes for _Queen_ and _Puck_. Pistol and Quickly cannot be actors
in this scene, nor in the entrance are they placed with "Evans, Anne
Page, Fairies," but at the ends of the second and third lines, as if
by afterthought. All the Pistol fairy speeches belong to Evans (Puck).
There seems to have arisen some confusion in the final revision, when
this scene was probably altered. Further confirmation of the original
early date of the play may be found in Falstaff's statement that the
Thames shore was "shelvy and shallow" (iii. 5. 15); for in 1592 the
Thames was so low as to be fordable at London Bridge, and Falstaff
was thrown in the ford at Datchet. But the allusions to "three Doctor
Faustuses" and Mephistopheles are not helpful; _Faustus_ was on the
boards till 1597 at least. One of Henry Julius' plays _derived from
English sources_, printed in 1594, _The Adulteress_, contains the same
story as _The Merry Wives_. If this was not derived from Shakespeare's
play, whence was it? The ground of the English play was probably the
story in Tarleton's _News out of Purgatory_ (1590). Note that the
other play by Julius distinctly traceable in origin to the English
stage is _Vincentius Ladislaus_ (1594), in which the similarities to
_Much Ado_ (1590), are as marked as in the present instance. We have
already seen that Evans acts the part of Robin Goodfellow, and that
Will Cricket is another fairy; but these are two characters in _Wily
Beguiled_, in which play Robin Goodfellow means Drayton and Will
Cricket Kempe. I believe that in Shakespeare's play, Evans and Dr.
Caius are satirical representations of Drayton and Lodge. Drayton is
introduced as Evan, a Welsh attorney, by Jonson in _For the Honour of
Wales_, and Lodge was frequently satirised on the stage as a French
doctor. The part of Falstaff was acted in Charles the First's time by
Lowin, and there is no reason why he should not have been the original
performer of it in this play as revised. He was twenty-four years old
in 1600.
1600.
_Julius Cæsar_ is alluded to in Weever's _Mirror of Martyrs_ (Sir
John Oldcastle), 1601; and the actor of Polonius in _Hamlet_ iii. 2.
109 had probably acted the part of Cæsar; at any rate _Cæsar_ must
be anterior to the Quarto _Hamlet_ which was produced in 1601. The
structure of this play is remarkable; the first three acts and last
two have no characters in common except Brutus, Cassius, Antony, and
Lucius; there are in fact two plays in one, _Cæsar's Tragedy_ and
_Cæsar's Revenge_. Contemporary plays by other dramatists were produced
in a double pattern: _e.g._, Marston's _Antonio and Mellida_, in two
parts; Chapman's _Bussy d'Ambois_, in two parts; Kyd's old play of
_Jeronymo_, in two parts. All these were on the stage at the same
time as _Julius Cæsar_. Revenge-plays with ghosts in them were the
rage for the next four years. That the present play has been greatly
shortened, is shown by the singularly large number of instances in
which mute characters are on the stage; which is totally at variance
with Shakespeare's usual practice. The large number of incomplete lines
in every possible position, even in the middle of speeches, confirms
this. That alterations were made we have the positive testimony of
Jonson, who in his _Discoveries_ tells us that Shakespeare wrote,
"Cæsar did never wrong but with just cause" (compare iii. 1. 47).
That this original reading stood in the acting copies till not long
before the 1623 Folio was printed, is clear from the fact that Jonson,
in the Induction to his _Staple of News_ (1625), alludes to it as
a well-known line requiring no explanation--"Cry you mercy," says
Prologue, "you never did wrong but with just cause." This would imply
that Shakespeare did not make the alterations himself; a hypothesis
confirmed by the spelling of Antony without an _h_: this name occurs in
eight of Shakespeare's plays, and in every instance but this invariably
is spelled Anthony. Jonson himself is more likely to have been called
on to make this revision than any other author connected with the
King's company c. 1622. The "_et tu Brute_" about which so much has
been written was probably taken from Jonson's _Every Man out of his
Humour_ (i. 1); it is found in the _Duke of York_ (1595) and elsewhere.
Nicholson, in his _Acolastus his after wit_ (S. R. 8th September 1600),
probably took it from Shakespeare's play, "Et tu Brute! wilt thou stab
Cæsar too?"
1601.
_All's Well that Ends Well_ manifestly contains passages--i. 1.
230-244; i. 3. 130-142; ii. 1. 130-214; ii. 3. 80-110, 132-151; iii. 4
letter: v. 3 concluding part--which are of very early date; certainly
written not later than 1593. It is not, however, in my opinion,
to be identified with _Love's Labour's Won_: the allusions to the
present title in iv. 4. 35; v. 1. 24; v. 3. 333, 336, all occur in
rhyme passages, and some of them, at least, belong to the earlier
date. The play, as we have it, was written after Marston's _Jack
Drum's Entertainment_ (1600), to which there is a palpable allusion
in iii. 6. 41; and before _The Dutch Courtesan_ (probably 1602) by
the same author, which contains several allusions to its title. The
name _Corambus_ in iv. 3. 185 suggests the same date, as this is the
appellation of Polonius in the Quarto _Hamlet_. The introduction of
Violenta, a mute character, in iii. 5, and the substitution of the same
name in _Twelfth Night_, i. 5, for Viola, show that this last-named
play was the last written of the two, but not much interval could
have occurred between them. In confirmation of this approximation of
dates, compare the name Capilet, v. 3. 147, 159, with _Twelfth Night_,
iii. 4. 315. In plot this play agrees with _Much Ado_ in the supposed
death of Helen, and the promise of Bertram to marry Maudlin Lafeu;
with _Measure for Measure_, in the substitution of Helen for Diana;
with _The Gentlemen of Verona_, in Helen's pilgrim disguise, and her
meeting with the Hostess. In it and _Twelfth Night_ we find a few
slight allusions to the Puritans; another confirmation of date. The
only other use even of the word Puritan is in the late play _Winter's
Tale_, iv. 3. 46. Compare the doubtful _Pericles_, iv. 6. 9. The
way in which the earthquake is mentioned in i. 3. 91, gives a still
further confirmation. There was an earthquake in London in 1601. I
take the boasting Parolles to be Marston; born under Mars, muddied
in Fortune's displeasure, an egregious coward, an accuser of Captain
Dumain of being lousy, he in all points agrees with Marston, as figured
in the other satirical plays of the time. The charge against Dumain
is repeated against Jonson in _Satiromastix_; Marston had left the
Admiral's company in 1599, just before the Fortune Theatre was built
for them. His cowardice is dilated on in Jonson's _Conversations_,
and the allusions to him as _Jack Drum_ are frequent in the play.
Once we find Tom Drum in v. 2 (from _Tom Drum's Vants_ in _Gentle
Craft_, 1598), a hint that Thomas Dekker, author of _The Shoemaker's
Holiday, or The Gentle Craft_ (1600), was aiding and abetting John
Marston in his satirical plays. Helen was acted by a short boy (i.
1. 202). The incident of the King's gift to Helen of his ring, only
referred to in the last scene, seems to point at the gift of a ring
to Essex by Elizabeth in 1596. Essex was executed in 1601, just
before this play was acted. The older parts pointed out above were, I
think, incorporated from detached scenes written in 1593 during the
plague time, and laid by for future use. The plot is from _Giletta
of Narbonne_ in Painter's _Palace of Pleasure_, a book used by
Shakespeare in 1594 for his alteration of _Edward III._ Mr. Stokes says
that Eccleston and Gough acted in this play, on the authority of Mr.
Halliwell; one of the many _ignes fatui_ that have misled this unwary
compiler.
1601-2.
_Twelfth Night, or What You Will_, was first acted 2d February 1602 at
one of the Inns of Court (Manningham's _Diary_). Its date lies between
Marston's _Malcontent_ (1602), (of Malevole in which play Malvolio is
clearly a caricature), and _What You Will_ (1602) by the same author.
This adoption of the name of his play seems to have induced Shakespeare
to replace it by the now universally adopted title. The appellation
Rudesby (v. 1. 55) is from Chapman's _Sir Giles Goosecap_ (1601).
Several minor points have been already noticed under the previous play
_All's Well_. In this play, as in that, I believe that earlier written
scenes have been incorporated. It is only in similar cases that we find
such contradictions as that between the three months' sojourn of Viola
at the Count's court (v. 1), and the three days' acquaintance with the
Duke in i. 4. In ii. 4 there are palpable signs of alteration, and
iii. 1. 159-176, v. 1. 133-148 are surely of early date. Moreover,
the singular agreement of the plot with the _Comedy of Errors_ in the
likeness of the twins, and with _The Gentleman of Verona_, or rather
with _Apollonius and Sylla_, whence part of that play was derived,
point to a likelihood that the first conceptions of these plays were
not far apart in time. I think the early portions were written in 1593,
like those of the preceding play. For the change from Duke (i. 1-4)
to Count in the rest of the play compare _The Gentlemen of Verona_. I
believe that Sir Toby represents Jonson and Malvolio Marston; but that
subject requires to be treated in a separate work from its complexity.
1602.
_Troylus and Cressida_ was published surreptitiously in 1609, with
an address to the reader stating that it had been "never staled with
the stage." This statement was withdrawn in the same year, and a new
title-page issued, "as it was acted by the King's Majesty's servants
at the Globe." It had in fact been entered in S. R. 1603, February
7, by J. Roberts, and licensed for printing, "when he hath gotten
sufficient authority for it"--which he evidently did not get. It could
not therefore have been produced later than 1602. Nor could it, as we
have it, have been earlier; the line i. 3. 73, "rank Thersites with his
mastic jaws" evidently alluding to Dekker's _Satiro_-MASTIX (1601).
I once thought Marston, as _Histriomastix_ or _Theriomastix_, was
alluded to; but the character of Thersites suits Dekker, not Marston.
Jonson describes him in _The Poetaster_, iii. 1, as "one of the most
overflowing _rank_ wits in Rome; he will slander any man that breathes
if he disgust him." In 1602, Jonson, Marston, and Shakespeare had
become reconciled; of reconciliation with Dekker, at any time, there
is no trace. This play is probably the "purge" given by Shakespeare to
Jonson when he put down all those "of the university pen" (_The Return
from Parnassus_, iv. 3, acted in the winter 1602-3); Ajax representing
Jonson, Achilles Chapman, and Hector Shakespeare: but whether this
conjecture be true or no, Dekker is certainly Thersites. All this part
of the play (the camp story) splits off from the love story of Troylus
and Cressida, which is of much earlier date, c. 1593. The two parts are
discrepant in minor points, notably in the existence of a truce (i. 3.
262), "dull and long-continued" fighting having been abundant in i. 2.
The parts written in 1602 are i. 3; ii. 1; ii. 2; ii. 3; iii. 3. 34
to end; iv. 5. (except lines 12-53); v. i; v. 2 (retains much older
work); v. 3. 1-97. All this part bears evident marks of the reading of
Chapman's _Iliad_ i.-vii. (1598); the love story is somewhat from the
old Troy book printed by Caxton, but more from Chaucer's _Troilus and
Cressid_. At the end of v. 3, in the Folio v. 10. 32-34, are repeated;
this shows that the 1602 _acting_ copy was meant to end with v. 3, thus
making the play a comedy; as it now stands it is usually classed with
the tragedies; in the Folio, it is placed unpaged between the Histories
and Tragedies, and is not mentioned in the "Catologue" of contents. The
prologue and v. 4-10 contain much work that is unlike Shakespeare's,
and are probably by some coadjutor whose other lines have been replaced
by the 1602 additions. Heywood in his _Iron Age_ treated this same
subject, and the date of that play is important in this investigation.
The _Ages_ of Heywood were acted before 1611 (see his Address to the
Reader in _The Golden Age_); _The Iron Age_ was "publicly acted by two
companies on one stage at once," and "at sundry times thronged three
several theatres." These were the Rose, the Curtain, and the Bull;
Pembroke's men, and the Admiral's, acted together at the Rose, October
to November 1597. This must have been the time when the _Iron Age_ was
performed; but not as a new play. It would otherwise have been entered
in Henslowe's _Diary_ as such. All the _Ages_ were then probably
old in 1597. In 1595-6 we find them accordingly entered by Henslowe
under other names; in 1595, March 5, _The Golden Age_, whose scenes
are in Heaven and Olympus, appears as Steleo (Coelo) and Olempo; he
subsequently writes Seleo for Steleo; _The Silver_ and _Brazen Ages_
on May 7 and May 23, as the first and second parts of _Hercules_.
These three plays were produced in succession. The entry of _Galfrido
and Bernardo_ is a forgery, and a clumsy one, for it necessitates a
Sunday performance, which is a thing unknown in Henslowe's _Diary_,
if the dates be properly corrected. On 23d June 1596, _Troy_ was
acted, palpably _The Iron Age_; and on 7th April 1597, _Five Plays in
One_ may have been the second part of that play. About February 1599,
Heywood left the Admiral's men, and joined Lord Derby's; in April,
Dekker and Chettle produced their _Troylus and Cressida_; in May their
_Agamemnon_, and Dekker his _Orestes' Furies_. I believe that all
these were merely enlargements of Heywood's _Iron Age_. Dekker was a
"dresser of plays" and a shameless plagiarist; witness the stealing
of Day's work, which he afterwards reclaimed in his _Parliament of
Bees_. At the same time that Dekker was thus pillaging Heywood, his
friend Marston was satirising Heywood as Post-haste in _Histriomastix_
for appropriating Shakespeare's _Troylus_ (of 1593) and bringing out
_The Prodigal Child_, the old _Acolastus_ of 1540, as a new play.
There can be no doubt that the company satirised in _Histriomastix_ is
Derby's. It was a "travelling" company, newly set up, with a poet who
extemporises his plays (Heywood had a share in 220) and uses
"No new luxury of blandishment,
But plenty of Old England's mother's words."
The allusion to _Troylus_, l. 267-275, in which "he shakes his furious
spear," has led some persons to a very absurd identification of
Posthaste with Shakespeare. I have noticed before the singular allusion
to _The Iron Age_ in _John_ iv. 1. 60 (1596).
1603.
_The Taming of the Shrew_ is unlike any play hitherto considered; the
Shakespearian part of it being evidently confined to the Katharine and
Petruchio scenes--ii. 1. 167-326; iii. 2 (except 130-150, 242-254);
iv. 1; iv. 3; iv. 5 (except three lines at end); v. 2 (except ten
lines at conclusion). The construction of the play shows that it
was not composed by Shakespeare in conjunction with another author,
but that his additions are replacements of the original author's
work; alterations made hurriedly for some occasion when it was not
thought worth while to write an entirely new play. Such an occasion
was the plague year of 1603, when the theatres were closed and the
companies had to travel. We shall see, hereafter, that Shakespeare's
other similar alterations of other men's work were made in like
circumstances. This date is confirmed by the allusions to other taming
plays, of which there were several; the present play, in its altered
shape, being probably the latest: ii. 1. 297 refers to _Patient
Grissel_, by Dekker, Chettle, and Haughton, December 1599; "curst" in
ii. 1. 187, 294, 307; v. 2. 188, to Dekker's _Medicine for a Curst
Wife_, July 1602; and iv. 1. 221 to Heywood's _Woman Killed with
Kindness_, March 1603. There is nothing but the supposed inferiority of
work to imply an earlier date; and this, on examination, will be seen
to be merely a subjective inference arising from the reflex action of
the less worthy portion with which Shakespeare's is associated. Rudesby
in iii. 2. 10 is from _Sir Giles Goosecap_ (1601), and Baptista, as a
man's name, could hardly have come under Shakespeare's notice, when
in his _Hamlet_ he made it a woman's. The earlier play thus altered
probably dates 1596, when an edition of _The Taming of a Shrew_ was
reprinted. This last-named play was written for Pembroke's company
in 1588-9. Another limit of date is given by the name _Sincklo_ in
the Induction. Sinklo was an actor with the Chamberlain's men, from
1597 to 1604. _Nicke_ in iv. 1. is Nicholas Tooley. The play is not
mentioned by Meres in 1598. In the Induction, "The Slys are no rogues:
we came in with Richard Conqueror," is, I think, an allusion to the
stage history of the time. Sly and Richard the Third (Burbadge) came
into Lord Strange's company together in 1591. In the Pembroke play,
Don Christophero Sly was probably acted by Christopher Beeston. The
Induction, partly revised by Shakespeare, seems to have been clumsily
fitted by the players (as, indeed, the whole play is, especially in the
non-appearance of "my cousin Ferdinand," iv. 1. 154, whose place seems
to be taken by Hortensio): surely Sly ought to have been replaced, as
in the 1588 play; and is it possible that Shakespeare even in a farce
should have made Sly talk blank verse, sc. 2, l. 60-120? _The Taming of
a Shrew_, as acted in June 1594 at Newington Butts, was the old play
which had belonged to Pembroke's men, probably by Kyd; but the first
version of the play, afterwards altered by Shakespeare, was written, I
think, by Lodge, (? aided by Drayton in the Induction). This Induction
was, I think, greatly altered by Shakespeare in 1603.
1603.
_Hamlet_ is extant in three forms--the Folio, which is evidently a
stage copy considerably shortened for acting purposes; the 1604 Quarto,
which is a very fair transcript of the author's complete copy, with
a few omissions; and the 1603 Quarto, imperfect and inaccurate. The
date of the perfect play is certainly 1603. In ii 2. 346, &c., we find
that the tragedians of the city--_i.e._, Shakespeare's company--are
"travelling," and that "their inhibition comes of the late innovation."
This has been interpreted in various ways, the most absurd being that
which regards the establishment of the Revels children in 1604 as the
innovation: hardly less so is Malone's notion that the putting down of
the Curtain players in 1600 is the inhibition referred to. The Globe
company travelled in 1601 in consequence of Essex' attempt at political
innovation, and their acting _Richard II._ in connection therewith;
they travelled again in 1603, the theatres being shut because of the
plague: this latter is the time referred to in the final version, for
in the latter part of that year the Puritan party had by millenary
petitions at Hampton Court conferences, and so forth, attempted a
religious "innovation;" and their anxiety to avoid this charge is
evident in their continual protests that it was a reformation, not
an innovation, that they wanted (see Fuller, _Church History_, under
1603-4 _passim_). The immediately succeeding passage, l. 351-379,
however, which also occurs in the earlier version, distinctly points
to 1601. The "berattling of the common stages by the aery of little
eyases," the controversy between poet and player, ended in that year;
these lines are not contained in the second Quarto. The words "if they
should grow themselves to common players," indicate a possible date
of writing c. 1610, when Ostler and Underwood, Chapel boys in 1601,
had grown up and been taken into the King's men; but the use of the
present tense in the preceding paragraph shows that the same Chapel
children who had been engaged in the Jonson and Marston quarrel were
still on the stage, and that the date of writing is anterior to their
replacement by the Revels boys in January 1604. The growing to common
players then must be taken generally, not specifically; unless we
suppose a still further revision c. 1610, which on other grounds is not
unlikely. It may be worth noting that the play of _Dido_, in rivalry of
which the player's speech in ii. 2 is recited, belonged to these same
Chapel children. In like manner the Pyrgus in Jonson's _Poetaster_
recites bits of _The Battle of Alcazar_ in rivalry with Dekker's
_Captain Stukeley_. But although the date of the perfect play is almost
certainly 1603, _Hamlet_ had certainly been on the stage some years
at that time. Tucca in _Satiromastix_ (1601) says, "My name's _Hamlet
Revenge_," and he comes on, "his boy after him, with two pictures under
his cloak." In Marston's _Malcontent_ (1601), "Illo, ho, ho, ho! art
thou there, old Truepenny?" must refer to _Hamlet_. In iii. 2. 42,
"Let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for
them," refers, I think, to extemporising Kempe, who left Shakespeare's
company in 1599. Florio's _Montaigne_, which is implicitly referred to
throughout the play (see Mr. Feis, _Shakespeare and Montaigne_, 1884),
was entered S. R. 4th June 1600. On the title-page of the first Quarto
it is said that the play had been acted in the Universities of Oxford
and Cambridge and elsewhere; _i.e._, in the travelling of 1601. It is
pretty clear, then, that 1601 was the date of its production. Polonius
(iii. 2. 108) had already played Julius Cæsar _in the University_,
which could hardly have been before 1601; and _Hamlet_ was entered by
Roberts 26th July 1602, in S. R., "as it was lately acted." Plays thus
produced during "travels," were almost always hurried and careless
performances; indeed, this form of _Hamlet_ seems to have been an
unfinished refashioning of the old play by Kyd, that had so long been
performed by the Chamberlain's men. The names Corambis and Montano
for Polonius and Reynaldo, and a good deal of Acts iii. and iv., seem
to be remnants of this old play. The name Corambus is found in the
German version, which probably dates c. 1592. It also occurs in _All's
Well_, iv. 3. 185. The first Quarto is in this instance, as in those
of _Romeo_, _Henry V._, and _Merry Wives_, in my opinion, printed
from a partly revised prompter's copy of the 1601 play, which became
useless when the fuller version was made. In this instance there are
traces of alterations having been made on this copy similar to that
in _Romeo_, iii. 5. 177. The usual explanation of the peculiar text
of imperfect Quartos is, that notes were taken in shorthand at the
theatre, which, eked out by the vampings of some playdresser, made up
a saleable version, however incorrect. The stronghold of this theory
is the soliloquy in iii. 1. 56, &c. The minor errors of "right done"
for "write down," i. 2. 222; "invenom'd speech" for "in venom steept,"
ii. 2. 533; "honor" for "owner," v. 1. 121; and the like, can be
easily paralleled in the most authentic copies of printed plays of
the period. But a careful examination of the text of that speech of
Hamlet's in the first Quarto, shows that its present meaningless shape
arises from the displacement of two lines only, an error which is
most unlikely to have occurred in shorthand notes, and is completely
subversive of the hack play-writing botcher hypothesis. I append this
soliloquy, as I suppose it to have stood in the MS. of the prompter's
copy, after the partial 1601 correction:
[ bourne
The undiscover'd country from whose sight
no passenger ever return'd.
Ay, that]
"To be, or not to be? Ay, there's the point.
To die--to sleep--is that all? Ay. All? No.
To sleep--to dream--ay, marry, there it goes.
For in that dream of death when we, awake,
_Are doom'd_ before an everlasting Judge,
The happy smile and the accurst are damn'd.
But for the joyful hope of this, who'ld bear
The scorns and flattery of the world, the right
Scorn'd by the rich, the rich curst of the poor,
The widow being opprest, the orphan wrong'd,
The taste of hunger, or a tyrant's reign,
And thousand more calamities besides,
When that he may his full _quietus_ make
With a bare bodkin? Who would this endure,
But for a hope of something after death,
_The undiscover'd country, from whose bourne
No passenger has e'er return'd? Ay that_
Puzzles the brain and doth confound the sense;
Which makes us rather bear the ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
This consciënce makes cowards of us all."
I have put in italics in the text the marginal corrections of "proof"
as shown above, inserted in their proper places; a comparison with
the first Quarto will show how the printer, not the shorthand man or
playdresser, by inserting them in the wrong places, has produced the
nonsense that has caused so many groundless hypotheses.
"When we awake,
_And borne_ before an everlasting Judge,
_From whence no passenger ever return'd
The undiscover'd country, at whose sight_
The happy smile," &c.
And farther on:
"_Ay that_ O this conscience," &c.
The erroneous notions with regard to these imperfect Quartos arise, in
a great measure, from their being compared with the carefully edited
later versions; were they also edited and emended the differences would
appear much smaller than they do now. The earlier (1601) form of this
play was evidently hurriedly prepared during the journey to Scotland,
in which the company visited the universities, at a time when the
public taste for revenge-plays had been revived by the reproduction of
Kyd's _Jeronymo_ (_Spanish Tragedy_) by the Chapel children, probably
at Jonson's suggestion; a new version of Kyd's _Hamlet_ naturally
followed. Other such plays were: Marston's _Antonio and Mellida_
(Paul's, 1599-1600); Shakespeare's _Julius Cæsar_ (1600); Chettle and
Heywood's _Hoffman, or Revenge for a Father_, also called _Like quits
Like_ (Admiral's, January 1603): Chapman's _Revenge of Bussy_ is of
later date. A passage in _Ram Alley_ (c. 1609), v. 1, "The custom of
thy sin so lulls thy sense," &c., is apparently imitated from iii.
4. 161, &c., a passage not found in the Folio. This would lead to
the conjecture that the Folio abridgment was made after 1609; on the
other hand, the re-insertion in it of ii. 2. 350-379 points to a date,
about 1610, when Underwood and Ostler had "grown to common players,"
and were admitted among the King's men. It was probably made then by
Shakespeare himself. It is indeed most unlikely, that were it not so,
its text should have been preferred, by the editors of the Folio, to
the fuller one of the Quarto, which lay ready printed to their hands.
We have, then, in the forms of this play, an example of Shakespeare's
hurried revision of the work of an earlier writer, but it must be
remembered in a most mutilated form; of the full working out of his
own conception, in the shape fittest for private reading; and finally,
of his practical adaptation of it to the requirements of the stage.
The date of the printing of the first Quarto, and, therefore, of the
revision made in the second, is after 19th May 1603, as the actors are
called "King's servants" in the title-page. I. 1. 107-125, which surely
allude to the death of Elizabeth, are omitted in the Folio. In iii. 2.
177, iv. 5. 77, alternative readings--
{"For women fear too much even as they love",
{"And women's fear and love hold quantity,"
{"And now behold"
{"O Gertrard, Gertrard"--
are printed side by side, a sure mark of revision.
1604.
_Measure for Measure_ was written, in my opinion, in rivalry to
Marston's _The Fawn_, which was printed March 1606, but produced
1603-4. It was also subsequent to Chettle and Heywood's _Like quits
Like_, 14th January 1603; v. 1. 416. All the allusions in it suit 1604.
The avoidance of publicity by James I. (i. 1. 68-71; ii. 4. 27-30); the
existing war and expected peace (i. 2. 4. 83); the stabbers--four out
of ten prisoners--in iv. 3; the stuffed hose, to which Pompey's name
is appropriate, all agree in this; peace was concluded in the autumn;
the "Act of Stabbing" was passed in this year, the bombasted breeches
revived with the new reign. But these are more valuable in showing what
reliance can be placed on such allusions than in fixing the date of
the play; for it was acted at Court, 26th December 1604. The title was
probably taken from a line in _3 Henry VI._, ii. 6. 55; the plot is
like _All's Well_ in the substitution of Mariana, _Twelfth Night_ in
the Duke's love declaration at the end. It is founded on Whetstone's
_Promos and Cassandra_ (1582). An order was made in 1603, that no new
houses should be built in the suburbs of London. Compare i. 2. 104.
1604.
_Othello_ was acted at Court 1st November 1604, being, no doubt, like
_Measure for Measure_, 26th December, a new play that year. The _Merry
Wives_, 4th November, and _Henry V._, 7th January, were revised for
the same Revels. The _Errors_, 28th December, _Loves Labour's Lost_,
between New Year and Twelfth Day, and _The Merchant of Venice_, January
10, 12, were also reproduced. The document in the Record Office
containing these details is a modern forgery, but Malone possessed a
transcript of the genuine entry in the Revels accounts. It was a bold
thing for Shakespeare to have performed before James I. in two plays
on unfounded jealousy, at a time when the King was so jealous of the
relations of the Queen with Lord Southampton. The 1622 Quarto copy of
this play is abridged for stage reasons; by whom we cannot say. The
allusion to the "huge eclipse" (v. 2. 99), points to the total eclipse
of 2d October 1605. Shakespeare had probably been reading Harvey's
_Discoursive Problem concerning Prophesies_ (1588), in which he speaks
of "a _huge_ fearful eclipse of the sun" as to happen on that day.
The likeness of this play in small details to _Measure for Measure_
indicates close contemporaneity of date, _e.g._, the name Angelo (i.
3. 16); the word "grange" (i. 1. 106), and "seeming" (iii. 3. 209).
This play was again acted at Court in 1613. It was founded on Cinthio's
novel _Hecatomithi_, Third Decad, Novel 3. The "men whose heads do grow
beneath their shoulders" (i. 3. 145) came from Raleigh's narrative
of _The Discovery of Guyana_ (1600). He was "resolved" of their
credibility. In _The Patient Man_, by Dekker, S. R. 9th November 1604,
there is a distinct reference to Othello--
"Thou kill'st her now again,
And art more savage than a barbarous Moor" (i. 1).
1605.
_King Lear_ was probably on the stage when the old play of _Leir_
on which it was founded was published. This latter was entered on
S. R. 8th May, as "The Tragical History of King Leir and his three
daughters, as it was lately acted," but was published as "The true
Chronicle History of King Leir and his three daughters, &c., as it
hath been divers and sundry times lately acted." It is not tragical
in any sense, and ends happily. Shakespeare was the first person who,
in opposition to the chronicles, made a tragedy on this story. There
can be no doubt that Stafford, the publisher, meant to pass the old
play as Shakespeare's; the last trace we have of it on the stage is in
April 1594, when it was acted at the Rose by the Queen's and Sussex'
men, who almost immediately afterwards broke up. That Shakespeare's
play remained on the stage till the end of 1605 is evident from the
words "these _late_ eclipses" (i. 2. 112) which clearly refer to the
huge eclipse of the sun in October 1605, and the immediately preceding
eclipse of the moon in September. The word "late" could not be used,
whether in the original text or by subsequent insertion, till October.
That Shakespeare had been probably reading Harvey on the subject I
have noticed under the preceding play, to which the present is every
way closely allied. Compare, for instance, the characters of Iago
and Edmund. The Quarto of 1608, entered S. R. 26th November 1607 as
acted at Whitehall St. Stephen's Day, _i.e._, 26th December 1606, is
abridged and slightly altered for Court representation and carelessly
printed; the Folio is, on the other hand, somewhat shortened for the
public stage. The names of the spirits in iii. 4 are from Harsnett's
_Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures_. The two lines at the
end of Act i. and the Merlin's Prophecy (iii. 2. 79-95) are not in
Shakespeare's manner; they are mere gag, inserted by the Fool-actor to
raise a laugh among the groundlings. The story of Gloster and his sons
is probably founded on Sidney's _Arcadia_, ii. 133-138, ed. 1598.
1606.
_Macbeth_, as we have it, is abridged for the stage in an unusual
degree. Nevertheless it contains one scene, iii. 5, and a few lines,
iv. i. 39-43, which are not by Shakespeare. The character of Hecate,
and the songs in these passages (_Black spirits and white_, and _Come
away_), are from Middleton's _Witch_, acted 1621-22. The insertions
in _Macbeth_ must have been made in 1622; they were probably merely
intended to introduce a little singing and music then popular; and
music has ever since been an essential ingredient in the stage
representations. Omitting these forty lines, we have ample evidence of
the date of the play as Shakespeare left it. In the Porter's speech,
ii. 3. 1-23, 26-46, the "expectation of plenty" refers to the abundance
of corn in 1606; the allusions to equivocation certainly allude to
the trial of Garnet and other Jesuits in the spring of that year:
the "stealing out of a French hose" agrees with the short and strait
fashion then in vogue, when "the tailors took more than enough for
the new fashion sake" (A. Nixon's _Black Year_, 1606); the touching
for the King's evil, iv. 3. 140-159, implies that James was on the
throne. Camden, in his _Remains_ (1605), a book certainly known to
Shakespeare, refers to it as a "gift hereditary." The "double balls
and treble sceptres" in iv. 1. 119-122, necessitate a time of writing
subsequent to 24th October 1604, when the constitution was changed. The
applicability of the circumstances of the play to the Gowry conspiracy
would be especially pleasing to James, and the predictions of the
weyward sisters had already been presented to the King at Oxford in
Latin in 1605. Warner added an account of Macbeth to his new edition
of _Albion's England_ in 1606, but the absolute argument against
this being a new play when Forman saw it performed 20th April 1610,
lies in the distinct allusion in _The Puritan_ by Middleton, acted
1606--"instead of a jester, we'll ha' th' ghost in a white sheet sit
at upper end o' th' table." This was Shakespeare's first play without
a jester, and Banquo's ghost sits in Macbeth's place at the upper end.
There is little doubt that Malone was right in assigning the visit of
the King of Denmark in July and August 1606 as the occasion for the
production of this play at Court. But was this the date of its first
production on the stage? All the evidences for it are gathered from
ii. 3. 1-23, 26-46; iv. 1. 119-122; iv. 3. 140-159; every one of which
passages bears evident marks of being an addition to the original
text. The description of Cawdor's death is remarkably like that of
the Earl of Essex in Stow (by Howes, p. 793), who minutely describes
"his asking the Queen's forgiveness, his confession, repentance, and
concern about behaving with propriety on the scaffold." Steevens (ii.
4) reminds us of corresponding passages in _Hamlet_ and _Cæsar_, to
which plays _Macbeth_ is throughout more closely allied than to _Lear_
or _Timon_. The references to Antony, i. 3. 84, iii. 1. 57, are just
what might be expected from one who had recently read Plutarch's
life of Antony for writing _Julius Cæsar_. Shakespeare's company
were in Scotland in 1601, and were appointed the King's Servants;
Laurence Fletcher being admitted burgess of the guild of the borough of
Aberdeen, 22d October 1601. This, I think, is the date of production
of _Macbeth_ on the stage, 1606 being that of the revised play at
Court. But there are traces of a still earlier play. In 1596, August
27, there is, says Mr. Collier, an entry in S. R. (I suppose in that
portion relating to fines, &c., which Mr. Arber has not been allowed
to reprint) referring to two ballads, one on _Macdobeth_, the other on
_The Taming of a Shrew_. Kempe, in his _Dance from London to Norwich_
(1600), refers to this ballad as made by "a penny poet whose first
making was the miserable stolen story of _Mac-do-el_ or _Mac-do-beth_
or _Mac_ somewhat, for I am sure a _Mac_ it was, though I never had
the maw to see it;" he bids the writer "leave writing these beastly
ballads; make not good wenches prophetesses, for little or no profit."
This ballad was in all probability founded on a play, as its companion
was; a play probably written some year or two before. That Shakespeare
had some connection with this early play, is rendered probable by iv.
1. 94-101, in which Dunsin'ane is accented in the southern manner; in
the rest of the play it is always, as in Scotland, Dunsina'ne. This
passage, in which Macbeth speaks of himself in the third person, and
rhymes in a manner which strongly reminds us of the pre-Shakespearian
stage, suggests that the old play of c. 1593-4 was used by Shakespeare
in making his 1601 version. I may ask the reader who doubts the
remarkable alterations to which this play has been subjected, to
examine the following incomplete lines at points where compression by
omission seems to have taken place, i. 3. 103; i. 4. 35; ii. 1. 16; ii.
1. 24; ii. 3. 120; iii. 2. 155; iv. 3. 15; and to compare the later
alterations by Davenant and others, as given in my article in _Anglia_,
vol. vii.
1606-7.
_Timon of Athens_ unquestionably contains much matter from another
hand. The Shakespearian part is so like _Lear_ in matter, and _Anthony
and Cleopatra_ in metre, that the conjectural date here assigned to
it cannot be far wrong. It was founded on the passage in North's
_Plutarch_ (Life of _Antony_), and perhaps on the story as told in
Painter's _Palace of Pleasure_, with a hint or two from Lucian's
_Dialogues_ (? at second hand; no translation of that time is known).
It would be out of proportion in this work to reproduce my 1868
essay on the authorship, which awaits some slight corrections from
recent investigation. It will be found in the New Shakspere Society's
_Transactions_ for 1874. I can only here point out the parts that
are certainly not Shakespeare's, namely, ii. 1; ii. 2. 194-204; iii.
1; iii. 2; iii. 3; iii. 4 (in great part); iii. 5; iii. 6. 116-131;
iv. 2; iv. 3. 70-74, 103-106, 464-545; v. i. 157; v. 3. Delius and
Elze say the second author was George Wilkins. Perhaps so; but they
are certainly wrong in regarding the play as an alteration made by
Shakespeare of another man's work. Whether Wilkins completed the
unfinished sketch by Shakespeare, or the actors eked it out with matter
taken from a previous play by him, I cannot tell: but Shakespeare's
part is a whole _totus teres atque rotundus_. There is no trace of
his ever working in conjunction with any author after 1594, although
in this play, in _The Shrew_, and _Pericles_ there is evidence of his
writing portions of dramas which were fitted into the work of other
men. Wilkins left the King's men in 1607 and wrote for the Queen's.
This migration to an inferior company is so unusual as to indicate some
rupture on unfriendly terms. Perhaps the insertion of Shakespeare's
work in his play offended him. The unShakespearian characters in
the play are three Lords--Lucius, Lucullus, and Sempronius; three
Servants--Flavius (Steward always in the Shakespeare part), Flaminius,
and Servilius; three Strangers; three Creditors--Hortensius, Philotus,
and 2d Varro; three Masquers; and the Soldier. I have not here assigned
to Wilkins all parts of the play that have been suspected, but only
those with regard to which the evidence is definite, with entire
exclusion of merely æsthetic opinion.
1607.
_Anthony and Cleopatra_ was entered on S. R. 20th May 1608; and
no doubt was written not much more than a year before that date.
Where-ever we find plays entered but not printed in their author's
lifetime, it is pretty safe to conclude that they were then still on
the stage: compare, for Shakespeare, the instances of _The Merchant of
Venice_, _Troylus and Cressida_, and _As You Like it_.
1608.
_Coriolanus_ in all probability was produced not long after _Anthony_.
There is no external evidence available. Both these Roman plays are
founded on North's _Plutarch_.
1608.
_Pericles_ as we now have it was probably on the stage in 1608, when
Wilkins published his prose version of "the play, as it was lately
presented by the worthy and ancient poet John Gower." He was probably
annoyed by the adoption of Shakespeare's version of the Marina story in
place of his own. The rest of the play as it stands--_i.e._, Acts i.
ii. and Gower chorus to Act iii.--are by Wilkins, in whose novel the
only distinctly traceable piece of Shakespeare's is from iii. 1. 28-31,
which is repeated almost verbatim. The play was published in 1609,
probably as an answer to Wilkins; whose unaltered play must have been
on the stage as early as 1606, seeing that _The Puritan_, acted that
year, contains a distinct parody of the scene of Thaisa's recovery.
This original form of the play was founded on Gower's _Confessio
Amantis_ and Twine's novel of _Prince Apollonius_, which was probably,
in consequence of the popularity of the play, reprinted in 1607. It
was, I think, this Wilkins' play that was entered in S. R. along with
_Anthony and Cleopatra_ 20th May 1608, and the publication of which was
stayed. There is no trace of any transfer of Blount's interest as so
entered to Gosson, who published the altered play. To the popularity
of this drama there are many allusions, notably one in _Pimlico, or Run
Redcap_ (1609).
1609.
_Cymbeline_ was probably produced after the Roman plays and before
_Winters Tale_; and the Iachimo part was doubtless then written. There
is, however, strong internal evidence that the part derived from
Holinshed, viz., the story of Cymbeline and his sons, the tribute,
&c., in the last three acts, was written at an earlier time, in 1606 I
think, just after _Lear_ and _Macbeth_, for which the same chronicler
had been used. All this older work will be found in the scenes in
which Lucius and Bellarius enter. A marked instance in the change
of treatment will be found in the character of Cloten. In the later
version he is a mere fool (see i. 3; ii. 1); but in the earlier parts
he is by no means deficient in manliness, and the lack of his "counsel"
is regretted by the King in iv. 3. Especially should iii. 5 be examined
from this point of view, in which the prose part is a subsequent
insertion, having some slight discrepancies with the older parts of
the scene. _Philaster_, which contains some passages suggested by this
play, was written in 1611. The Iachimo story is found in Boccaccio's
_Decameron_, Day 11, Novel 9. The verse of the vision, v. 4. 30-122,
is palpably by an inferior hand, and was probably inserted for some
Court performance after Shakespeare had left the stage. Of course the
stage directions for the dumb show are genuine. This would not have
been worth mentioning but for the silly arguments of some who defend
the Shakespearian authorship of these lines, and maintain that the play
would be maimed without them. Forman saw this play acted c. 1610-11;
which gives our only posterior limit of date.
1610.
_The Winter's Tale_ was founded on Greene's _Dorastus and Fawnia_; it
was still on the stage when Dr. S. Forman saw it, 15th May 1611; but
this gives only a posterior limit. Sir H. Herbert mentions it as an old
play allowed by Sir G. Buck. But Buck, although not strictly Master
of the Revels till August 1610, had full power to "allow" plays from
1607 onwards. We are, after all, left in great measure to internal
evidence. One really helpful fact is that Jonson in _Bartholomew Fair_
links it with _The Tempest_: "If there be never a _servant monster_ in
the Fair who can help it? nor a _nest of antics_? He is loth to make
nature afraid in his plays like those that beget _Tales_, _Tempests_,
and such like drolleries." This was written in 1614, and at that date
he would of course allude to the _latest_ productions of Shakespeare,
if to any. This allusion occurs in a play written for a rival company,
the Princess Elizabeth's. In his _Conversations_ with Drummond, Jonson
again refers to this play _apropos_ of Bohemia having no sea-coast.
I suspect that the Bear was a success in _Mucedorus_, and therefore
revived in this play.
1610.
_The Tempest_ was shown by Malone to contain many particulars derived
from Jourdan's narrative, 13th October 1610, _A Discovery of the
Bermudas, otherwise called the Isle of Devils; by Sir Thomas Gates,
Sir George Somers, and Captain Newport, with divers others_. He is
not equally successful in showing that Shakespeare used _The True
Declaration of the Colony of Virginia_, S. R. 8th November 1610, in
which the reference to _The Tempest_ as a "Tragical Comedy" seems to
me to show that the play was already on the stage. It does not follow
that because the October pamphlet was used in the storm scenes, that
none of the play was written before that month; but that the date
of its first appearance was in October to November 1610, I have
little doubt. Gonzalo's description of his ideal republic is from
Florio's _Montaigne_. The play as we have it is evidently abridged;
one character, the son of Anthonio the Duke of Milan, i. 2. 438, has
entirely disappeared, unless the eleven lines assigned to Francisco
are the _débris_ of his part. The lines forming the Masque in iv. 1
are palpably an addition, probably made by Beaumont for the Court
performance before the Prince, the Princess Elizabeth, and the Palatine
in 1612-13; or else before the King on 1st November 1612 (_The Winters
Tale_ being acted on 5th November). This addition consists only of
the heroics, ll. 60-105, 129-138; the mythological personages in the
original play having acted in dumb show. In the stage directions (l.
72) of the dumb show "Juno descends;" in the text of the added verse
l. 102, she "comes," and Ceres "knows her by her gait." This and the
preceding were surely Shakespeare's last plays; compare Prospero's
speech, v. 1. 50, &c., and the Epilogue. He began his career with
the Chamberlain's company (after his seven years' apprenticeship in
conjunction with others, 1587-94), with a Midsummer Dream, he finishes
with a Winter's Tale; and so his playwright's work is rounded;
twenty-four years, each year an hour in the brief day of work, and
then the rounding with a sleep.[13]
1613.
_Henry VIII._ as we have it is not the play that was in action at the
Globe when that theatre was burned on Tuesday, 29th June 1613. Howes
(Stow, _Chronicles_, p. 1003) says, "By negligent discharging of a peal
of ordnance, close to the South side thereof the Thatch took fire,
and the wind suddenly disperst the flame round about, and in a very
short space the whole building was quite consumed and no man hurt; the
house being filled with people, to behold the play, viz., of _Henry
the Eight_." A letter from Thomas Lorkin to Sir Thomas Puckering, 30th
June 1613, and another from John Chamberlain to Sir Ralph Winwood, 8th
July 1613 (Winwood's _Memorials_, iii. 469), give similar accounts.
Sir Henry Wotton (_Reliquiæ_, p. 475), in a letter of 2d July
1613, says it was at "a new play acted by the King's players at the
Bankside, called _All is True_, representing some principal pieces of
the reign of Henry the Eighth." The title "All is True" is clearly
alluded to in the Prologue, ll. 9, 18, 21; but the same Prologue shows
that the extant play was performed as a new one at Blackfriars, for
the price of entrance, a "shilling," l. 12, and the address to "the
first and happiest hearers of the town," l. 24, are only applicable
to the "private house" in Blackfriars; the entrance to the Globe was
twopence, and the audience at this "public house" of a much lower
class. This play is chiefly by Fletcher and Massinger, Shakespeare's
share in it being only i. 2; ii. 3; ii. 4; while Massinger wrote i.
1; iii. 2. 1-193; v. 1. It was not, however, written by these authors
in conjunction. Shakespeare appears to have left it unfinished; his
part is more like _The Winter's Tale_ than any other play, and was
probably written just before that comedy in 1609, during the prevalence
of the plague. I have before noted the disturbing effect of these
plague times, with the concomitant closing of the theatres, &c., on
Shakespeare's regular habits of composition. This play is founded on
Holinshed's _Chronicle_ and Fox's _Christian Martyrs_ (1563). It is
worth noting that its success called forth new editions of S. Rowley's
_When you see me you know me_, and the _Lord Cromwell_ of W. S. in
this year; both plays on Henry the Eighth's times. On the authorship
question see Mr. Spedding's Essay in _The Gentleman's Magazine_, August
1850, Mr. Boyle's Essay and my own letter in the _Athenæum_. That
the 1613 play (probably finished by Fletcher, and destroyed in great
part in the Globe fire) was not that now extant is certain, for in a
contemporary ballad on the burning of the Globe we are told that the
"riprobates prayed for the fool," and there is no fool in _Henry VIII._
The extant play was produced by Fletcher and Massinger in 1617.
1625.
_The Two Noble Kinsmen_ was published in 1634, as written by Fletcher
and Shakespeare. There is no other evidence that Shakespeare had any
hand in it, except the opinions of Lamb, Coleridge, Spalding, Dyce,
&c. These, on analysis, simply reiterate the old argument, "It is too
good for any one else." Hazlitt and Hallam held, notwithstanding, the
opposite opinion. I have myself shown in _The Literary World_, 10th
February 1883 (Boston), that the play was first acted in 1625. It was
printed from a playhouse MS., with stage directions, such as i. 3:
"2 Hearses ready with Palamon and Arcite; the 3 Queens. Theseus and
his Lords ready;" and in iii. 5: "Knock for Schoole." But in iv. 2,
we find an actor named Curtis taking the part of Messenger. No actor
of that name is known except Curtis Greville, who joined the King's
men between 1622, when he belonged to the Palsgrave's, and October
1626, when he performed in Massinger's _Roman Actor_. Moreover, the
Prologue tells us this was a _new_ play performed in a time of losses,
and in anticipation of leaving London. The company did leave London
in 1624, after their trouble in August about Middleton's _Game of
Chess_. On this occasion they travelled in the north, and performed at
Skipton three times for £3; and again, in July 1625 they travelled, on
account of the plague in London; where they ceased to perform in May,
when the deaths from that disease exceeded forty per week. Greville
probably joined the King's men on the breaking up of the Palsgrave's,
of whom the last notice dates 3d November 1624. This gives Easter 1625
as the likeliest date for the play. But whether in 1624 or 1625 (and
it must be one of these years) it was first acted, the advocates of
Shakespeare's part-authorship are now reduced to the hypothesis that
a play begun by Shakespeare was left unnoticed for some dozen years,
although a similarly unfinished play had been finished and acted twelve
seasons before, and a collected edition of Shakespeare's works had
been issued in the interim, in which had been included every available
portion of his writings.[14] I cannot believe this; nor can I think
that if Shakespeare were really concerned in this play it would have
been put forth in 1625 with so modest a Prologue. This might have
suited while he lived, but nine years after his death, and two years
after his collected works had been published, it is incredible. With
the highest respect then for the eminent æsthetic critics who hold that
Shakespeare did write part of this play, I must withdraw my adhesion,
and state my present opinion that there is nothing in it above the
reach of Massinger and Fletcher, but that some things in it (ii. 1a;
iv. 3) are unworthy of either, and more likely to be by some inferior
hand, W. Rowley for instance. The popular instinct has always been on
this side; editions containing this play have not been sought after;
and had it not been _known_ not to have been Shakespeare's, it would
surely have been gathered up with the W. S. plays in the Folio of 1663.
FOOTNOTES:
[12] This name occurs in _Apollonius and Sylla_, of which more
hereafter.
[13] Compare with this Masque, that by Beaumont written for the Inner
Temple, 1613.
1. "Thy banks with pioned and twilled brims" (_Tempest_).
"Bordered with sedges and water flowers" (_Inner Temple Masque_).
"Naiades with sedged crowns" (_Tempest_).
2. "Blessing ... and increasing" (_Tempest_).
"Blessing and increase" (_Inner Temple Masque_).
3. The main part played by Iris in both.
4. The dance of the Naiads in both. Many of the properties
could be utilised in both performances.
[14] _Pericles_ and _Edward III._ are no exceptions to this statement;
the copyrights of both belonged to other publishers, and were retained
by these after the Folio was issued.
SECTION V.
ON THE MARLOWE GROUP OF PLAYS.
_1 Henry VI._ was acted as a new play at the Rose by Lord Strange's men
3d March 1592. It is evidently written by several hands. No successful
attempt has yet been made to discriminate these; yet it will be
found that on this discrimination depends the elucidation of so many
difficult circumstances of Shakespeare's early career, that no apology
is required for giving to this play an amount of consideration which it
would not deserve on account of its intrinsic merits. It is convenient
to commence our investigation by a brief summary of the historical
parts contained in the play.
A 1422, August 31. Henry VI. succeeded to the throne at "nine
months old."
A 1422, November 7. Henry V. was buried at Westminster (i. 1).
A 1425. Gloster was refused admission to the Tower (i. 3).
A 1425, January 19. The Earl of March died _at Trim_, leaving
Richard Plantagenet his heir. [This Edmund Mortimer was not
imprisoned in the Tower, as in the play; but his uncle, Sir John
Mortimer, was so, who was executed shortly before.] (ii. 5.)
A 1426, March. A Parliament was held _at Leicester_ (iii. 1).
B 1427 September to 1428 May. Orleans was besieged (i. 2, 4, 5, 6;
ii. 1, 2, 3).
A 1429. The battle of Patay [called _Poitiers_, iv. 1. 19] at which
Fastolfe [called Falstaff in the play] fled, and Talbot was taken
(i. 1. 103-140; compare iii. 2. 103-108).
A 1429. Charles was crowned at Rheims (i. 1. 92).
A 1429. The French towns revolted (i. 1. 60). For Paris mentioned
among them compare v. 2. 2.
E 1430, May. Joan of Arc was taken, and (1431, May) burned (v. 3.
1-44; v. 4. 1-93).
B 1430, December. Henry VI. was crowned at Paris (iii. 4; iv. 1).
C 1435, September. Bedford died _at Paris_ (iii. 2), and Burgundy
made peace with France (iii. 3).
E 1436. Paris submitted to Charles (v. 2. 2).
E 1443. The match between Henry and Margaret was arranged (v. 3.
45-195; v. 5).
E 1443. A truce was made for eighteen months (v. 4. 94-175).
D 1452. Talbot and his son were killed in battle (iv. 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7).
The capital letters prefixed to these dates will enable us to follow
readily the arrangement of these events in the play. The A. group,
comprising i. 1. 3, ii. 5, iii. 1, is manifestly by one writer. The
time limits of his scenes are 1422 and 1426: the first scene contains
allusions to events of a subsequent date, thrust in for dramatic
effect without regard either to historical accuracy or the internal
consistency of the play. Specially the battle of Patay, the crowning
of Charles, and the revolt of the French towns may be noted. It is
hardly requisite to do more than read the opening speech to see that
the author of these scenes was Marlowe. It may be noticed, however,
that in these scenes, and in these only, we find Gloster (Gloucester
elsewhere), Reynold (Reignier or Reigneir elsewhere), and Roän
(monosyllabic elsewhere). All these scenes are laid in London.
The B. group, i. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, ii. 1. 2. 3, iii. 4, iv. 1., contains
only events that happened between 1427 and 1430, the scene being
laid at Orleans, Auvergne, or Paris. The bit of the battle of Patay
iii. 2. 103-108, thrust into the midst of scenes at Rouen in 1435,
would probably belong to this group. It seems to be a preparation for
iv. 1, stuck for dramatic purposes in a position historically most
incongruous. The author of these scenes is not easy to identify: his
work is rather colourless, yet minor coincidences with the known work
of Robert Greene and Thomas Kyd point to one of them as the writer.
In this group only we find the spellings: Joane de Puzel (Pucelle
elsewhere), Reigneir (occasionally also Reignier), and Gloucester
(Gloster elsewhere, except in one instance, where Glocester is probably
a misprint). There can be no doubt that these scenes are all by one
author, and that not the writer of group A., but very far inferior.
Group C., iii. 2. 3, is very like Group B. in general handling, but
has some marked characteristics: here, and here only, we find Burgonie
(Burgundy or Burgundie elsewhere) and Roan monosyllabic; Pucelle (Puzel
in Group B.) and Joane (Jone in Group D.) also differentiate it from
these groups. The time is 1435, place Rouen. I conjecture the author to
have been George Peele.
Group D. v. 2-5 is made up of the Joan of Arc story of 1430-1 and the
Margaret match of 1443. This group has Gloucester invariably (Gloster
in Group A.), Jone (Joane in B., C.), Reignier (never Reigneir, as
B.) The author of these scenes is without doubt Thomas Lodge. His
versification is unmistakable, and the phrase "cooling card" occurs in
_Marius and Sylla_, the older plays of _John_ and _Leir_ (both times
in parts by Lodge). It has not been traced in Greene, Peele, or Marlowe.
Before considering Group E., iv. 2-7, which is concerned only with
Talbot's last fight near Bourdeaux in 1452, I would draw attention
to the fact that it is clear that this episode did not form part of
the original play: it is merely connected with it by the two lines,
v. 2. 16, 17, which may have been inserted for that purpose; belongs
chronologically to the next play, and is so different from, as well
as so superior to, its surroundings, that in 1876 I suggested that
Shakespeare might have written it. Mr. Swinburne has since sanctioned
this opinion by adopting it. This, however, is not evidence; what
follows is. The scenes in the Folio are not divided in Acts i., ii.; in
the other Acts they are. Acts iii. and iv. 1 coincide with the modern
division; but v. 1 of the modern editors is iv. 2 in the Folio; v. 2.
3. 4, are iv. 3 in the Folio, and v. 5 in the Folio is the whole fifth
Act. Here then is the play completed without iv. 2-7, _which are not
numbered at all_. It is plain that they were written subsequently to
the rest of the play and inserted at a revival. They had to be inserted
in such a manner as not to break the connection between this play and
_2 Henry VI._, and were put in the most convenient place, regardless
of historic sequence. I take it for granted that this play in its
original shape was acted before _2 Henry VI._, the commencement of
which was evidently meant to fit on to the end of the preceding play.
It is in accordance with the hypothesis here announced (that the play
acted 3d March 1592 was new only in these Talbot scenes,) that we find
Nash in his _Piers Penniless_ (S. R. 8th August 1592) referring only
to the Talbot scenes as new. "How it would have joyed brave Talbot,
the terror of the French, to think that after he had lain two hundred
year in his tomb, he should triumph again on the stage, and have his
bones embalmed with the tears of ten thousand spectators at least."
It was acted thirteen times at the Rose between March 3 and June
22, that is, at least once a week; was the most popular play of the
season, and was probably still in action "about the city" or in the
country during the time that the theatres were closed for the plague,
from 22d June 1592 till January 1593, when it was again played at the
Rose. It was, therefore, in action when Greene's celebrated address
"to those gentlemen, his quondam acquaintance, that spend their wits
in making plays," was written. This address was published in Greene's
_Groatsworth of Wit_ after 2d September, when Greene died, and before
8th December, when Chettle's _Kind-Hart's Dream_ was entered on S.
R., and was probably written about June. It is addressed to Marlowe,
Lodge, and Peele. Attempts have been made to show that Nash, not Lodge,
was the second playwright of this trio, on the ground that Lodge
was too old to be called "young Juvenal" or "sweet boy;" was absent
from England; was not a satirist, and had foresworn writing for the
theatre. The only important argument is that of Lodge's age. As this
is important in other respects, I give here a table of the known birth
dates, matriculations, B.A. and M.A. degrees, and first appearances as
authors of the University men connected at that time with the stage:--
Born. Matriculated. B.A. M.A. Author in
Lyly 1553-4 1571 1573 1575 1579
Peele 1558 1574 1577 1579 1584
Greene ... ... 1578 1583 1580
Lodge ... 1573 1577 ... 1580
Marlowe 1564 1581 1583 1587 1587
Nash 1567 1582 1585-6 ... 1589
It will be seen from the above table that the degree of B.A. was
usually taken at eighteen or nineteen; that Lodge and Greene were
probably of about the same age; and if we may judge from Greene's
slowness in obtaining his M.A. degree, that he was not speedy in
fulfilling the earlier University requirements. Greene was probably
the elder. At any rate, Lodge's age in 1592 was about thirty-three,
surely not too old for one of about his own age to call "boy." He
was a satirist before 1592. _The Looking-glass for London_ is bitter
enough for any "young Juvenal." On the other hand, Nash was certainly
not the "biting satyrist that lastly with me [Greene] wrote a comedy."
He had at the time of Greene's death written no comedy whatever: his
first connection with the stage was his _Summer's Last Will_, acted at
Archbishop Whitgift's, in November 1592. Lodge, we know, had written
with Greene _The Looking-glass_, and there is strong internal evidence
of his having a hand in _George-a-Greene_ and _James IV._ Nor could
the statement that "those puppits that speak from our mouths, those
anticks garnished in our colours," had "all been beholding" to you, be
with any consistency applied to Nash. Greene was evidently addressing
the principal playwrights of the time, and, if my present view is
a true one, he seized the opportunity of Shakespeare's having made
"new additions" to a play in which all of them had been concerned to
endeavour to create an ill-feeling between "the upstart crow beautified
with our feathers" and those of the University men, who had hitherto
enjoyed a monopoly of writing for the stage, or nearly so. To have
omitted Lodge in such an attempt would have been weak; to have included
Nash, absurd. The effect of Greene's address was not what he desired.
Peele had probably already been a coadjutor of Shakespeare, and
Marlowe immediately, and no doubt Lodge later on, joined Shakespeare's
company and wrote for them. In Greene's excuse must be considered how
galling it must have been to a man in poverty and bad health to see
a play which, while he was connected with it, had attracted little
notice, suddenly raised to the highest success by the insertion of a
few scenes written by a "Johannes factotum," a "Shakescene," who was
"able to bombast out a blank verse" without being "_Magister in artibus
utriusque universitatis_." Confirmations of my views as to this play
will be found in the succeeding ones. The scene ii. 4 has long been
recognised as so far superior to the rest of the play as to be probably
due to the hand of Shakespeare at a later date, c. 1597-8.
_2 Henry VI._--This play exists in two forms: one in the 1623 Folio,
hereafter for convenience called F.; the other in Quarto, entered S. R.
12th March 1594, hereafter called Q. It was published in 1594 as _The
First part of the Contention betwixt the two Famous Houses of York and
Lancaster_. This Quarto version is a mangled and probably surreptitious
copy of the original play, greatly abbreviated for acting. The play
as first written will be hereafter called O. But F. and O. are not
identical, although in many parts O. was more like F. than Q. It will
be convenient to enter on the proof that O. was revised and altered
before beginning the discussion of the authorship of either version,
which is the most difficult, if not the most important, problem in
Shakespearian criticism.
In the Folio of 1623 a list is given of the principal actors in
Shakespeare's plays. The method in which this list is arranged has
never been pointed out. It is chronological. The first ten names are
those of the original _men_ actors when the Chamberlain's company was
instituted in 1594; the next five were added not later than 1603;
the next five (excepting Field, who is inserted here from his early
connection with Underwood and Ostler) c. 1610; the final six after
1617. By a comparison of this list with the names of the actors in
_The Seven Deadly Sins_, originally acted before 1588, but the extant
plot of which dates c. 1594, we shall get the evidence we want. The
first seven names in the Folio list are (1.) W. Shakespeare, (2.) R.
Burbadge, (3.) J. Hemmings, (4.) A. Phillips, (5.) W. Kempe, (6.)
J. Pope, (7.) G. Bryan. The last five of these we know to have been
members of Lord Strange's company in 1593. In the _7. D. S._ we find
neither Shakespeare nor Hemmings; but we do find (2.) R. Burbadge, (4.)
Mr. Phillips, (5.) Will Foole, (6.) Mr. Pope, (7.) Mr. Bryan. It will
be noticed that the prefix Mr. is confined to members of Lord Strange's
company. Next in the Folio list come (8.) Henry Condell, (9.) William
Sly, (10.) Richard Cowley. These appear in _7. D. S._ as (8.) Harry,
(9.) W. Sly, (10.) R. Cowley. At this point we are struck with the fact
that Harry, Will, and Dick are names of three Cade conspirators in Q.,
and naturally try to see if the other names, Nick, Jack, Robin, Tom,
and George, occur in _7. D. S._ For it is certain that in very early
plays up to the end of the sixteenth century it was frequently the
case that the actors in plays are designated by their proper christian
names. We do find (11.) Nick (_i.e._, Nicholas Tooley, a boy-actor in
1597, but a man c. 1610 in the Folio of 1623), (12.) John Duke, (13.)
Robert Pallant, (14.) Thomas Goodall; but George, _i.e._, G. Peele,
is not there discoverable. I may notice that Duke and Pallant, like
Beeston, all three of whom left the Chamberlain's men for the Earl
of Derby's in 1599, are excluded from the Folio list. On turning to
another play, _Sir Thomas More_, c. 1596, the only other one that can
give us similar information on the same scale, I find (8.) Harry, (13.)
Robin, (14.) T. Goodall, (15.) Kit (_i.e._, Christopher Beeston), and
two boys, (16.) Ned and (17.) a second Robin, _i.e._, Robert Gough,
who occurs in the Folio list as a man c. 1617. In the _7. D. S_. these
latter correspond to (15.) Kitt, (16.) Ned, (17.) R. Go. In _Sir T.
More_ there are two other names of this kind, Giles and Rafe. Of Giles
nothing more is known, but Rafe Raye is mentioned in Henslowe's _Diary_
as a Chamberlain's man in 1594. A further examination of older plays
leads to little additional information; but what is to be found all
confirms the opinion that I had formed (as will be seen), on other
grounds, that _2 Henry VI._ was written for the Queen's men. Thus in
plays known to have belonged to that company, I find in _The Famous
Victories_, (12.) John, (13.) Robin, (14.) Tom, (16.) Ned and Lawrence;
in _Orlando_, (14.) Tom and Rafe (Raye); in _Friar Bacon_, (10.) Dick,
(14.) Tom; and in _James IV._, Andrew. There is no Andrew in our lists,
but one occurs in _Much Ado About Nothing_, iv. 2, 1597-8, in place of
Kempe: apparently a remnant of the older form of _Love's Labour's Won_
before Kempe undertook the part. But our list of the _7. D. S._ is not
yet exhausted: (18.) Sander (a boy-player, but the same as Alexander
Cooke, a man in 1603 in the Folio list), (19.) T. Belt, and (20.)
Will (another boy), occur in _The Taming of a Shrew_, 1588. Of (21.)
Vincent, nothing is known; but (22.) J. Sinkler acted with Gabriel
(Spenser) and Humfrey (Jeffes) in _3 Henry VI._, which belonged to
Pembroke's company. Now as the last two, with Antony Jeffes and Robert
Shaw, appear in Henslowe's _Diary_ for the first time immediately after
the partial breaking up of Pembroke's company and their juncture with
the Admiral's in October 1597, it is morally certain that Sinkler had
gone to the Chamberlain's, and Spenser Shaw and the two Jeffes to the
Admiral's, at or before that date. I feel, therefore, justified in
concluding that the _7. D. S._ gives us a nearly complete list of the
Chamberlain's actors, formed of Lord Strange's players as a nucleus;
such of the Queen's men as joined them in 1591-2, when they obtained
many Queen's plays (see p. 108), and such of Pembroke's as joined
them in 1594, when they obtained Pembroke's plays (see p. 21). I have
omitted only one name, and the absolute coincidence of nearly every
one of the rest with the lists obtained from other sources is too
remarkable to be the mere effect of accident: in fact, the chances are
many millions to one against this being the case. The one name omitted
is (23.) John Holland. This name occurs nowhere else to my knowledge,
but in the _7. D. S._ plot and _2 Henry VI._, Act iv. in the Folio,
where he replaces Nick of the Quarto. There can be no doubt of this
being an actor's name; and its occurrence shows at once that the Cade
part of the play was revised, and that the revision was probably made
after 1594. Had it been earlier, there would have been two Johns in the
company, Duke and Holland, and Duke would not have been called simply
Jack.
If the above conclusions are well founded, _2 Henry VI._ was originally
written for the Queen's men as a continuation of _1 Henry VI._, and,
like the latter-mentioned play, passed into the hands of Lord Strange's
men in 1591-2, but was not, like it, then revised; or it may, like
_George a Greene_, have passed to Sussex' men; from them, like _Titus
Andronicus_, to Pembroke's; and thence to the Chamberlain's. It is
noticeable that although published in Quarto by the same person,
Millington, who published _3 Henry VI._ as the _True Tragedy of Richard
Duke of York_ in 1595, he put no name of acting company on the former
play, as he did that of Pembroke's on the latter. This distinctly shows
that the original companies for whom these plays were written were
not identical, and that that of _2 Henry VI._ was probably unknown
to Millington. As to the authorship of _2 Henry VI._, it will be well
to make F. the basis of investigation, always having in mind the
possibility of passages having been inserted by the ultimate reviser.
The corruption and omission in Q. caused by the shortening for stage
purposes have been so great, that the usual plan of beginning with Q.
becomes altogether misleading. The example of _1 Henry VI._ induces
me to attach great weight to the chronological arrangement of the
historical facts. Henry's marriage in 1445 forms the subject of i. 1,
evidently written by Greene originally. The word "alderliefest" in 1.
28 should specially be noted: it is used by Greene in his _Mourning
Garment_, and "aldertruest" in his _James IV._ Such words are not
found in Marlowe, Peele, Lodge, or Shakespeare; yet here one occurs
in a passage found in F. but not in Q., plainly indicating omission
in Q., not addition in F. The next portion, i. 2-ii. 4, is concerned
with the banishment of the Duchess of Gloster, 1441, and the story of
Saunder Simcox, 1441, with which is incorporated the accusation of
the armourer for high treason, 1446. This part (except i. 3. 45-103)
is mainly by George Peele, but much altered in the F. revision. Peele
his mark, "sandy plains," occurs in i. 4. 39. The Simcox anecdote,
however, ii. 1. 59-153, which is quite unconnected with the rest of
the play, is more like Kyd's work than Peele's, and may have been
written by him. The exceptional bit, i. 3. 45-103, to the conversation
in which no historical date can be assigned, is manifest Marlowe; a
preparation for iii. 1-iv. 1, which is beyond question by him. The
events in this section are (iii. 1a) the accusation and (iii. 2) murder
of Gloster in 1447; (iii. 3) the banishment of Suffolk, 1447; (iii. 3)
the death of Winchester in 1447; (iii. 1b) the Irish insurrection in
1449; and, finally, (iv. 1) the death of Suffolk in 1450. These scenes
are the salt of the play. The opening lines of iv. 1, the description
in iii. 2. 160, &c., the awful pathos of the death of Winchester, are
from the same hand as the end of _Doctor Faustus_. The differences of
Q. and F. in this portion are mostly due to omissions in Q.: iii. 3,
for instance, could not have been left in the state in which Q. has
it by the meanest of the authors of the play: it is cut down by some
illiterate actor. That revision there has been is, however, plain
from the singular circumstance that in iii. 2 Elianor is given for
Margaret as the Queen's name. This is probably due to Marlowe's almost
simultaneous work on the older _John_, in which Queen Elianor is a
prominent character. It would seem that the revisor missed this scene,
although correcting Margaret properly in the others. It is no printer's
error; for in l. 26 we have "Nell," for which some modern editors
euphoniously substitute "Meg." The rest of the play, iv. 2-v. 3, is
by one hand, and that hand Lodge's. The notion that Greene wrote it
arises from want of discriminating Greene's work from Lodge's in _The
Looking-glass for London_, all the better part of which is by Lodge. I
fear that those who underrate the powers of this elegant and (in his
own line) powerful writer estimate him by his earliest dramatic effort,
_Marius and Sylla_. He should be read in his _Glaucus_ and _Rosalynde_;
and his evident wish to avoid being known as a dramatic writer should
be taken into account. That he did continue to write plays for many
years, I have no doubt, but the evidence is too extensive to be given
here. This part of the play includes Cade's insurrection, 1450, and the
battle of St. Albans, 1455.
As regards the date, &c., of revision, see under the next play.
_3 Henry VI._ is of very different character from the two preceding
plays. If read in the F. version, no change of authorship is
perceptible; all is consistent; and if the Q. version had not come
down to us, no one would have suspected a second author. It is
plainly by Marlowe, but the Marlowe of _Edward II._, not of _Faustus_,
later in date than _2 Henry VI._ F. is nearly if not quite identical
with the original play. Q. is not, as in the case of the preceding
play, an abridgment for the stage made by the actors, but one made
for the same purpose, carefully and accurately, apparently by the
author himself. The reason for this difference in the treatment of the
plays is manifest. _3 Henry VI._ was, as we know from the title-page,
acted by Pembroke's men, and F. is printed from a prompter's copy, in
which the names of Gabriel [Spenser], Humphrey [Jeffes], and [John]
Sinkler appear in the stage directions; and they were actors for that
company. There is not a particle of evidence that this stage copy
was ever altered in any way after the Chamberlain's company acquired
it. A careful examination of such passages as ii. 5, the stronghold
of the revision theory, shows too much coincidence between Q. and F.
for any likelihood of rewriting having taken place, except by way of
abridgment in Q. But in _2 Henry VI._ things are quite different: the
Greene and Marlowe parts are merely abridged in Q., and the Peele a
good deal revised in F. as well as abridged in Q.; but the Lodge part
at the end is absolutely rewritten in the St. Alban's battle, and
the very names of the actors are changed in the Cade insurrection.
Who could have done this but Shakespeare? Here, and here only, can
we find an explanation of the inclusion of these plays in the Folio
edition of his works in 1623. In my opinion the history of the plays
is this: About 1588-9, Marlowe plotted, and, in conjunction with Kyd
(or Greene), Peele, and Lodge, wrote _1 Henry VI._ for the Queen's
men. About 1589 the same authors wrote _2 Henry VI._; in that year I
have ascertained that Marlowe left the Queen's men, and in 1590 joined
Pembroke's, for whom he alone wrote _3 Henry VI._ In 1591-2 the Queen's
men were in distress, and sold, among other plays, _1 Henry VI._ to
Lord Strange's men, who produced it in 1592 with Shakespeare's Talbot
additions as a new play. In the autumn of that year or in 1593-4,
when the companies travelled on account of the plague, they cut down
their plays for country representation; among others, _2 Henry VI._
(altered by some illiterate) and _3 Henry VI._ (abridged by Marlowe
himself). On this point compare the parallel instances of abridged
plays, _Hamlet_, _Orlando_, and _The Guise_. In May 1593 _2 Henry VI._
passed to the Sussex' men with _Leir_, &c., when the Queen's men broke
up; in February 1594 with _Andronicus_ to Pembroke's; in April, when
Pembroke's company partly dissolved, all three plays were reunited in
the hands of the Chamberlain's men; and for them _2 Henry VI._ was, c.
1600, after Lodge had retired, remodelled by Shakespeare, and _3 Henry
VI._ corrected--the other authors, Peele, Marlowe, (Kyd?), and Greene,
having died before 1598. Meanwhile Millington published _2 Henry VI._
Q. as _York and Lancaster_, and _3 Henry VI._ Q. as _Richard Duke of
York_, these abridged copies having become useless to Pembroke's men on
the ceasing of the plague and of their travels.
I have not noticed here the many parallel passages from the works
of Marlowe and others which confirm the assignment of authorship
now advocated. It would be out of all proportion to give them here
unless imperfectly: the reader will find some in Dyce's _Marlowe_, and
more in my edition of _Edward II._ Nor have I noticed the schoolboy
interpretation that explains "their" in _Henry V._, Epil. l. 13, as
referring to _2_ and _3 Henry VI._: "their," _more Shakespeariano_,
like "they" in the previous line, refers in form to the "many" of l.
12, but in meaning to the actors of _1 Henry VI._, in which play, and
not in _3 Henry VI._, the loss of France is treated of. It is also
most unlikely that the 1600 edition of _The Duke of York_ should have
been issued as played by Pembroke's servants if the play had been
previously acted by the Chamberlain's. Compare the parallel case of
_Andronicus_. Miss Lee's statement, "Greene wrote, Nash tells us,"
more than four others "for Lord Pembroke's company," is absolutely
without foundation. Nash says "the company" (_Apology_, 1593), and
evidently alludes to the Queen's men, for whom _Orlando_, _Bacon_,
_Selimus_, and _The Looking-glass_ were written. In fact, Greene's only
known connection with any other company was his fraudulent selling of
_Orlando_ a second time to the Admiral's. Marlowe, and he alone, is
_known_ as a writer for Pembroke's: Kyd may have been, however, and in
my opinion was, a contributor to their stage.
_Richard III._ is closely connected with _3 Henry VI._, and written
with direct reference to it. In i. 2. 158, iv. 2. 98, iv. 4. 275,
scenes in that play are plainly alluded to. Nor is it possible, if the
two plays be read in immediate sequence, to avoid the feeling that
they have a common authorship. On the other hand, a closer analysis
shows that in _Richard_ the Latin quotations, classical allusions,
and peculiar animal similes which are characteristic of _Henry_ have
entirely disappeared. There are also discrepancies, such as Gray's
fighting for the Lancastrians, i. 3. 130, whereas in _3 Henry VI._,
iii. 2. 2, he is represented as a Yorkist, which shows a different
hand in the two plays. _Richard III._ has always been regarded as
entirely Shakespeare's, and its likeness to _3 Henry VI._ has more than
anything else kept alive the untenable belief that this last-named
play was also, in part or wholly, written by our greatest dramatist.
Yet the unlikeness of _Richard III._ to the other historical plays of
Shakespeare, and the impracticability of finding a definite position
for it, metrically or æsthetically, in any chronological arrangement,
have made themselves felt. Even cautious Mr. Halliwell says, "There are
slight traces of an older play to be observed, passages which belong
to an inferior hand;" and again, "To the circumstance of an anterior
work having been used do we owe some of its weakness and excessively
turbulent character" (_Outlines_, 94). A careful examination of the
editions will be found to confirm and extend this conclusion. The
1597 Quarto Q_{1}, which is evidently an abridged version made for
the stage, and which no doubt was the version acted during nearly all
Elizabeth's reign, differs from the Folio in a way not to be paralleled
in any other Shakespearian play. Minute alterations have been made in
almost every speech, in a fashion which could not have been customary
with him who uttered his thoughts so easily as scarcely to make a
blot (_i.e._ alteration) in his papers. The question of anteriority
of the Q. and F. versions has been hotly debated on æsthetic grounds;
but the mere expurgation of oaths and metrical emendations in F. are
enough to show that it is the later version, probably made c. 1602;
while the fact that it was preferred by the editors of the 1623 Folio
shows that they considered it the authentic copy of Shakespeare's work.
In other instances, _Macbeth_, _The Tempest_, &c., they have indeed
given us abridged editions; but there is neither proof nor likelihood
that any other were accessible. We do not know what original copies
were destroyed in the Globe fire of 1613, and should be thankful for
such versions as we have, which were probably the acting versions
used at Blackfriars. But in this case the editors had at hand the
Quartos, and unless they thought the Folio more authentic, I cannot
see why they preferred it. Furthermore, the F. version appears to have
been defective in some places; for v. 3. 50, end of play, and iii.
1. 17-165, are certainly printed from Q_{3} (1602). This has been
controverted, but on very insufficient grounds. Now directly we compare
the Folio and Quarto versions, we meet with evidence that alteration
and correction have been largely used in both of them. For instance,
Derby is found as a character in the play in i. 1, ii. 1, 2, iv. 5, v.
5, in both versions; in iii. 1. 2, iv. 1, v. 2, he is called Stanley.
This shows correction by a second hand. In iv. 1, while Stanley has
been inserted in the text, Derby remains in the prefixes; v. 3 is only
partially corrected, and both names occur. The names were not used
indifferently, for in iv. 2, 4, we find Stanley in F. but Derby in Q.
This shows a progressive correction in which Q. precedes F. It may be
noticed that Darby is the original author's spelling. In like manner,
_Gloster_, the original prefix, has in i. 1, 2, 3, ii. 1. 2, iii. 4, 5,
7, been replaced in F. by _Richard_, but in iii. 1, in the part printed
from Q_{3}, and there only, _Gloster_ remains. So again Margaret is
indicated in the older version by _Qu. Mar._, _Qu. M._, &c., but
never _Mar._, as in F. iv. 4. In F. i. 3 we find by side of _Mar._
a remainder of the older form in _Q. M._ This is not an exhaustive
statement, but sufficient I think to show that alterations were made,
as I suggest. There can be little doubt that in this, as in _John_,
Shakespeare derived his plot and part of his text from an anterior
play, the difference in the two cases being that in _Richard III._
he adopted much more of his predecessor's text. I believe that the
anterior play was Marlowe's, partly written for Lord Strange's company
in 1593, but left unfinished at Marlowe's death, and completed and
altered by Shakespeare in 1594. It was no doubt on the stage when, on
19th June 1594, the older play on _Richard III._, "with the conjunction
of the two Houses of Lancaster and York," was entered S. R. That was
acted by the Queen's players. The unhistorical but grandly classical
conception of Margaret, the Cassandra prophetess, the Helen-Ate of the
House of Lancaster, which binds the whole tetralogy into one work,
is evidently due to Marlowe, and the consummate skill with which he
has fused the heterogeneous contributions of his coadjutors in the
two earlier _Henry VI._ plays is no less worthy of admiration. I do
not think it possible to separate Marlowe's work from Shakespeare's
in this play--it is worked in with too cunning a hand; but wherever
we find _Darby_, _Qu. M._, _Glo._, &c., we may be sure that some of
his handiwork is left. Could any critic, if the older _John_ were
destroyed, tell us which lines had been adopted in the later play? Nor
can I enter, unless in a special monograph, on the relations of the
Quartos to each other. The question is of no importance, and I need
only say that the usual corruptions take place from Q_{1} to Q_{5},
and that in Q_{6} (1622) many readings are found agreeing with F.
which are not in the other Quartos. The same phenomenon is observed
in the 1619 edition of _The Whole Contention_, and far too much has
been made of it. It merely indicates correction by attendance at the
theatre and picking up a few words during the action. The only Quartos
deserving special notice are Q_{1}, as containing Shakespeare's first
"additions," and Q_{3}, as having been used in printing part of F. I do
not think the allusion in Weever's _Epigrams_, written 1595-6, is to
this play. It may be so.
_Titus Andronicus._--That this play is not by Shakespeare is pretty
certain from internal evidence. The Latin quotations, classical
allusions, use of _pour_ as prefix in iv. 1, manner of versification,
and above all the introduction of rape as a subject for the stage,
would be sufficient to disprove his authorship. Fortunately we know
that it was produced by the Earl of Sussex' men, 23d January 1594,
and Shakespeare belonged then to Derby's (Lord Strange's). It was
afterwards, on the breaking up of that company, acted by Pembroke's
and Derby's before 16th April, when Lord Derby died. Enlargement in
the Folio or abridgment in the Quarto, 1600 (we have no copy extant
of the first edition, entered S. R. February 1594), appears in iii.
2, found in F., not in Q., and there is a distinct continuity between
Acts i. and ii.; at the end of Act i. we have "_manet_ Moore," not
_Exeunt_ simply. Whether this play got into the Folio by some confusion
with _Titus and Vespasian_, played by Lord Strange's men 11th April
1592, which was, as we know from a German version extant, written on
the same subject, and in which Shakespeare may have had some share,
we cannot tell; but it was certainly played and revised (there was
another edition in 1611), while the other play has perished. That it
was written by Marlowe I incline to think. What other mind but the
author of _The Jew of Malta_ could have conceived Aaron the Moor? Mr.
Dyce has warned us against attributing too many plays to the short
career of Marlowe, but he did not consider that Marlowe probably wrote
two plays a year from 1587-1593, and that we have only at present seven
acknowledged as his. Those now attributed to him, in whole or part, by
me will raise the number to a baker's dozen; but in some of these, as
the older _John_ and _1_ and _2 Henry VI._, his share was comparatively
slight. Nevertheless, I think the opinion that Kyd wrote this play of
_Andronicus_ worth the examination, although, with such evidence as has
yet been adduced, Marlowe has certainly the better claim. Shakespeare
probably never touched this play unless by inserting iii. 2, which is
possible.
_Edward III._ The Shakespearian part of this play, i. 3, ii. 1. 2
(beginning at "What, are the stealing foxes"), which contains lines
from the then unpublished _Sonnets_, ii. 1. 10, 450, and an allusion
to the recently published _Lucreece_, ii. 2. 194, was clearly acted in
1594, after 9th May, when _Lucreece_ was entered on S. R. _Edward III._
was entered 1st December 1595. This love-story part is from Painter's
_Palace of Pleasure_. The original play is by Marlowe, and was acted in
1590 and is thus alluded to in Greene's _Never too Late_, c. December
in that year: "Why, Roscius, art thou proud with Æsop's crow, being
prankt with the glory of others' feathers? Of thyself thou canst say
nothing; and if the Cobler hath taught thee to say _Ave Cæsar_, disdain
not thy tutor because thou pratest in a king's chamber." _Ave Cæsar_
occurs in i. 1. 164, but not in any other play of this date have I been
able to find it. There are many similarities between the Marlowe part
of this play and _Henry VI._ As the Roscius in Greene's pamphlet was
the player who had interpreted the puppets for seven years, who induced
Greene to write for the stage, and had himself written _The Moral of
Man's Wit_ and _The Dialogue of Dives_, there can be no doubt that
Robert Wilson is Roscius, and that he was an actor in _Edward III._ in
1590. It was acted by Pembroke's company, and must have been acquired
by Lord Strange's men with the other Pembroke plays in 1594.
SECTION VI.
ON THE PLAYS BY OTHER AUTHORS ACTED BY SHAKESPEARE'S COMPANY.
DURING Shakespeare's career, 1589-1611, we only know of some two
dozen plays having been produced by his "fellows," in addition to the
three dozen included in his works; and of these, about two-fifths are
anonymous, and have been at some time or other ascribed, in whole or
part, to the great master. It is evident that he had the management
of the playwriting for his house pretty nearly in his own hands, and
that his method was the polar opposite to that of which we know most,
viz., Henslowe's. While the latter employed twelve poets in a year,
who produced for the Admiral's men a new play every fortnight or so,
the Chamberlain's company depended almost entirely on two poets at
a time, and produced not more than four new plays a year. Hence the
explanation of the vastly higher character of the Globe plays as
compared with the Fortune: hence also the explanation of the small pay
and needy condition of the latter, and their jealousy of the rapid
advancement in wealth and position of Shakespeare, who had virtually a
monopoly of play-providing for his company. It would be out of place to
discuss at length the plays written for it by Jonson, Dekker, &c., but
fuller notice of the anonymous plays is due to the reader. They have,
strange to say, never yet been treated as a complete group; and yet
surely as much may be learned by considering Shakespeare's theatrical
surroundings, the plays in which he acted, and which he probably had
more or less suggested, supervised, or revised, as by elaborately
working out the debtor and creditor details of his malt-bills. I will
treat of these plays in nearly chronological order.
1590.
_Fair Em_ is the earliest play we certainly know of as acted by Lord
Strange's company. It is alluded to by Greene in his address prefixed
to his _Farewell to Folly_. He quotes as abusing of Scripture, "A man's
conscience is a thousand witnesses," and "Love covereth the multitude
of sins," and says these words were used by "two lovers on the stage
arguing one another of unkindness." Greene's tract was written and
entered S. R. 1st June 1587, but not published till 1591, when the
address which mentions his _Mourning Garment_ (S. R. November 2, 1590)
was added. _Fair Em_ dates, therefore, late in 1590. It was probably
written by R. Wilson, and is certainly not a romantic, but a satirical
play; else why should Greene have been offended at it?
In Sc. 14 of _The Three Ladies of London_, produced before 1584,
Wilson uses the expression, "I, Conscience, am a thousand witnesses,"
and in his _Three Lords and Three Ladies of London_, acted at Court,
Christmas 1588-9, Sc. 2, "Love doth cover heaps of cumbrous evils." In
order to explain the nature of the satire in _Fair Em_, it is necessary
to investigate a hitherto unnoticed identification of Worcester's
1586 company with the Admiral's, of the highest importance for stage
history as determining the actors in Marlowe's early plays. On Twelfth
Day 1585-6, "the servants of the Admiral and the Lord Chamberlain"
acted at Court, _i.e._ the players of Lord Charles Howard, who held
both these offices. Mr. Halliwell (_Illustrations_, p. 31) confused
this Chamberlain with Lord Hunsdon, and takes the entry to refer to
_two_ companies. I sent him a correction of these and many other
blunders, which he has never rectified, years ago--a fact which I
should not notice had he not publicly complained that, with one or
two exceptions, of whom I am not one, he had received no help of this
kind. Of this Admiral's company in the plague year, 1586, there is
no trace in London; but in that year, and that year only, a company
travelled under the protection of the Earl of Worcester. They were
licensed for this travel on 14th January, and were at Leicester in the
course of the year (Shakespeare Society's Papers, iv.); their names
were R. Browne, J. Tunstall (Dunstan), E. Allen, W. Harryson, T. Cooke,
R. Jones, E. Browne, R. Andrews; all of whom were licensed, together
with hired men, T. Powlton and W. Paterson, "Lord Harbard's man,"
_i.e._ a member of the company of Herbert Earl of Pembroke: a scratch
company evidently, but containing names of celebrated London actors.
In 1587 and 1588, the Admiral's men acted in London publicly, and at
Christmas 1588-9 at Court. On 3d January 1588-9, Alleyn and Jones
(acting evidently for the company) dissolved partnership, and Alleyn
bought up their properties and play-books. In November the Admiral's
men were playing about the City, and not at the Curtain, where they
had probably produced _Tamberlain_, _Faustus_, _Orlando_, _Alcazar_,
and _Marius and Sylla_; and in their Court performance on 23d December
were reduced to showing "feats of activity." In 1590 R. Brown and
Jones went abroad and acted at Leyden in October. They returned, and on
December 27 and February 16 the Admiral's men acted at Court for the
last time before the reconstitution of their company in 1594. Already
R. Brown, J. Broadstreet, T. Sackville, and R. Jones had obtained a
pass from Lord C. Howard, the Admiral, their patron, to travel to
Germany by way of Holland, and a company acted there till 1617 under
Sackville. Jones returned to England and joined the reconstituted
Admiral's company under Allen in 1594. Alleyn had never relinquished
the title of Admiral's servant, even when in Lord Strange's service in
1593. Putting these facts together, can there be any doubt that the
service under Worcester was merely temporary, and that in the list of
1586 we have that of the principal actors in the Admiral's company?
Mr. R. Simpson, to whom we owe so much as a discoverer of problems to
be solved, and so little for their solution, rightly stated that _Fair
Em_ was a satirical play, and that Manvile (or Mandeville, the lying
traveller) meant Greene, and Mounteney the aspiring Marlowe. He was
wrong in identifying Valingford with Shakespeare--he was Peele (valing,
an old castle or peele--_Camden_)--and doubly wrong in making William
Conqueror Kempe. Robert of Windsor, his travelling name, points to
Robert Browne; and it was to Browne's company that Marlowe and Peele
had been attached, not to Kempe's. The names William Conqueror and
Marquess Lubeck were probably names of characters which had been acted
by Browne and Jones, perhaps in the play of _William Conqueror_, which
was on the stage as an old play in 1593. Fair Em of Manchester is no
doubt, as Mr. Simpson says, Lord Strange's company of players.
1622 [often, but wrongly, dated c. 1591].
_The Birth of Merlin, or The Child hath Found his Father_, was
published in 1662 as "written by W. Shakespeare and W. Rowley." Rowley
probably revised the play for a revival c. 1622, but in the main it
is manifestly by another hand. The comic scenes with Joan Goto't may
be Rowley's, but the serious parts are palpably Middleton's. I owe
the suggestion of his authorship to Mr. P. A. Daniel. A ballad on the
subject was entered on 10th May 1589, S. R. In ii. 3_b_ iii. 6 we have
some very interesting imitations of Shakespeare. Cutting out the Rowley
additions in iii. 1. 4, I would ask the reader to carefully compare the
remaining parts of ii. 3_b_, beginning with _Aurel_. "Artesia, dearest
love," iii. 2. 3. 5. 6, with such passages of Shakespeare as they call
to memory: _e.g._ iii. 2, "This world is but a mask," &c., with _As
You Like It_, ii. 7. 139, &c., and iii. 3. 1-6 with _Lear_, iii. 2.
1-9. Compare especially the definition of a crab as "a creature that
goes backward" in ii. 3, with _Hamlet_, ii. 2. 206, "if like a crab
you could go backward." Crab as the name of an animal does not occur
elsewhere in Shakespeare. I believe the early plays on this subject,
_Vortiger_, 4th December 1596, and _Uter Pendragon_, 29th April 1597,
in Henslowe's Diary, to be alluded to by Jonson in his Prologue to
_Every Man in his Humour_, 1601--
"To make a child now swaddled to proceed
Man: and then shoot up _in one beard and weed_
Past threescore years."
1592.
June. _A [Merry] Knack to Know a Knave_ was acted as a new play at
the Rose by Edward Alleyn and his company (_i.e._ Lord Strange's)
"with Kempe's _Merriments of the Men of Gotham_." The introduction
of Honesty as a principal character points to R. Wilson the elder as
the author. It was certainly not written by Greene and Nash, as Mr.
Simpson supposes. Besides this play and a number of revivals, mostly of
plays of the Queen's company (see my _Shakespearian Study_, p. 88),
Lord Strange's men acted this season certain new plays: on March 3, _1
Henry VI._; April 11, _Titus and Vespasian_ (these have been already
noticed): April 28, 2_d_. _Tambercame_; May 23, _The Taner of Denmark_;
and in 1593, January 5, _The Gelyous [Jealious] Comedy_; January 30,
_The Guise_ (_i.e._ Marlowe's _Massacre of Paris_).
1594.
July 24, _Locrine_ was entered S. R. and published in 1595 as "newly
set forth, overseen, and corrected by W. S." I see no reason to infer
that W. S. is William Shakespeare. The play was written, according to
Mr. Simpson, by Tilney in 1586. I rather think for him by G. Peele.
Shakespeare has no concern with it further than the letters W. S.
indicate.
1595 [possibly 1599].
_A 'Larum for London, or The Siege of Antwerp_, was acted about this
time. It was published in 1602, but entered S. R. 29th May 1600. The
title at once points it out as a moralising play, of the same class as
_A Looking-Glass for London_; didactic as to politics. I believe it
to be by the same author, T. Lodge. The fear of a Spanish invasion
is evident in the play. In July 1595 the Spaniards made a descent on
Cornwall and burned Mouse Hole, Neulin, and Penzance. This is the most
likely time for any real danger to London from the Spaniards to have
been apprehended. Lodge, probably in the next year, wrote _The Taming
of the Shrew_ (afterwards altered by Shakespeare) for the Chamberlain's
company. The seldom-used word _villiaco_, found in this play, occurs in
_2 Henry VI._, iv. 8, in the part I assign to Lodge.
1596.
_The Life and Death of Sir Thomas More_ was certainly acted in this
year. That this also was a political play is evident from the numerous
alterations made in the MS. by E. Tylney, Master of the Revels. He
specially objected to all passages directed against the French; and cut
out entirely Scene 1, the insurrection scene. This must have alluded
too closely to events of the time. Now on 29th June 1595 there was
an insurrection of the London Prentices, suppressed by the then Lord
Mayor just in the same way as that in the play by Sheriff More. (See
Maitland and Stowe under that date.) Moreover, in October 1595 Hartford
was imprisoned in the Tower for contempt, and threatened with loss of
his title, just as More is in the play, which was no doubt acted while
he was in prison (Aikin's _Elizabeth_, chap, xxiv.) I have previously
noted the certainty of this play being acted by the Chamberlain's
players, T. Goodale being one of the actors. It was probably written
chiefly by Lodge; but some scenes, such as Scene 2 with the Lifter
and Scenes 9, 10, with Faulkner and the players, bear unmistakable
marks of another hand, the same, I think, as the author of _Lord
Cromwell_. It is a singular play, containing a comedy, Scenes 1-10,
and a tragedy, Scenes 11-18, in one. This leads me to conjecture that
it is the same play as was played by the Paul's children before James
and the King of Denmark, 30th July 1606. This contained a comedy and
tragedy, and was called _Abuses_. I need hardly say that this title
is specially appropriate to _Sir T. More_. It pleased the kings, as
was to be expected, more than it did the authorities under Elizabeth.
We know that some plays of the Chamberlain's company passed into the
hands of the Paul's boys, _e.g._ _Satiromastix_. The part of Justice
Suresby is probably the one alluded to in _The Return from Parnassus_,
iv. 3, where Kempe tells Philomusus (Lodge) that his face "would be
good for a foolish mayor or a foolish justice of peace." In the same
scene, Studioso (Drayton) is made to recite from _Richard III._ and
_Jeronymo_, both which plays were still acted by the Chamberlain's men
in 1599; so that Drayton was looked on in 1602 as a tragedian, Lodge
as a comedian. This agrees with Meres' classification of them in 1598.
Nevertheless it is certain that both of them produced both tragedies
and comedies.
1597-9.
_The Merry Devil of Edmonton_, acted at the Globe, and therefore still
on the stage in 1599, was closely connected with the early form of
_1 Henry IV._, in which Falstaff was called Oldcastle (see _supra_,
p. 33). Coxeter says that it was ascribed in an old MS. of the play
to Michael Drayton. No doubt it was written by him. The character of
the Host, and indeed all the play, are so like parts of _Sir John
Oldcastle_, which we know to have been partly written by Drayton, that
it is not possible to doubt the identity of authorship. That play was
written by Munday (i. 1; v. 2--end), Wilson (? i. 2; ii. 3; iii. 4),
Hathaway (? iii. 1; v. 1), and Drayton, who probably was the plotter
and chief composer. _The Merry Devil_ was entered S. R. 22d October
1607. The entry on 5th April 1608 refers to the prose history by Thomas
Brewer. Nevertheless that entry has been confidently adduced by Mr.
Halliwell and others as proof that Drayton did not write the play (see
Halliwell's _Dictionary of Old Plays_ under _Merry Devil_): which as
printed is evidently greatly abridged. All the part relating to Smug's
taking the place of St. George as the sign of the inn, for instance,
which is found in the prose story, must have been cut out, though an
allusion to it is left in the end of the play. This alteration was
probably made c. 1603-4, as in the _Black Book_ (S. R. 22d March 1604)
a revival of the play contemporaneous with _The Woman Killed with
Kindness_ is alluded to. It remained popular even to 1616: Jonson's
prologue to _The Devil is an Ass_ calls it "your dear delight." That
play is of a somewhat similar nature, founded on the adventures of
a devil incarnate; so also are Dekker's _If this be not a Good Play
the Devil's in it_, and Haughton's _Grim the Cobler of Croydon, or
The Devil and his Dame_ (6th May 1600). In this last, which gives a
posterior limit of date, Robin Goodfellow calls himself "merry devil,"
and is no doubt intended as a satire on Drayton, as is also the Robin
Goodfellow of _Wily Beguiled_, 1597. In _Sir Giles Goosecap_ by
Chapman, the continued usage by Goosecap of the phrases "tickle the
vanity on't" and "we are all mortal" points to Drayton as the person
ridiculed under that name; while in _2 Henry IV._, ii. l. 66, Falstaff
uses the exact phrase of Smug in scene 3 of "tickling the catastrophe."
Another point of connection with Shakespearian satire of this date is
found in the term Hungarian, scene 8, which occurs in _Merry Wives_,
i. 3. 23, and nowhere else in Shakespeare. The great similarity of
the Hosts in these two plays has been often noted. There is much
confusion in the Christian names in our present version of the _Merry
Devil_, an indication of revision. Drayton's first connection with the
Chamberlain's company was in my opinion his writing the Induction for
_The Taming of the Shrew_ in 1596, afterwards altered by Shakespeare.
_The Merry Devil_ was entered as Shakespeare's on S. R. 9th September
1653, probably on account of the similarity of title with _The Merry
Wives of Windsor_; and this similarity does point to a connection,
though not of authorship, between these plays. The Oldcastle play,
acted 6th March 1600 at Lord Hunsdon's, was probably _The Merry Devil_.
1594.
_The Seven Deadly Sins_, an old play plotted for the Queen's company by
Tarleton, was revived. I have had already occasion to refer to the plot
of this play, which is extant at Dulwich College.
1598-9.
_A Warning for Fair Women_ was entered S. R. 17th November 1599, and
printed as "lately divers times acted" by the Chamberlain's men. Its
title, so like _A Looking-Glass for London_ and _A 'Larum for London_,
its didactic character, its Induction, with History, Tragedy, and
Comedy for actors, so like that to _Mucedorus_, and its style and
metre all point to Thomas Lodge as the author. As a murder-play it
should be compared with _Arden of Feversham_, _The Yorkshire Tragedy_,
and _Two Tragedies in One_. Plays on similar subjects, such as _Page
of Plymouth_, by Dekker and Jonson, September 1599; _The Tragedy of
Merry_, by Haughton and Day, December 1599; _The Tragedy of Orphans_,
by Chettle, November 1599; and perhaps _The Stepmother's Tragedy_, by
Dekker and Chettle, October 1599, were very abundant just at this time.
This seems to be Lodge's final original production for the stage.
1598-9.
_Every Man in his Humour_ in its first form, with the Italian names, in
the latter part of 1598, and his _Every Man out of his Humour_ in the
spring of 1599, both by Jonson, were acted by the Chamberlain's men.
Jonson then left them and wrote for the children of the Chapel.
1601.
_Satiromastix_ was written by Dekker against Jonson's _Poetaster_ for
the Chamberlain's men, and acted first by them and afterwards by the
Paul's boys.
1601.
_The Chronicle History of Thomas Lord Cromwell_ was entered S. R. 11th
August 1602. This is clearly a political play, in which the career of
Cromwell Earl of Essex shadows forth another Earl of Essex, of much
greater interest to an audience of 1601. One scene, iii. 2, reminds
us strongly of scene 9 in _Sir T. More_; and the whole play is very
like the part of _Sir John Oldcastle_ assigned by me to Drayton. In
Act iv. the Chorus apologises for the omission of Wolsey's life. That
had, in fact, been treated already by Chettle in August 1601, and by
Chettle, Munday, Drayton, and Smith in November 1601, in two plays
for the Admiral's men. Drayton's last work for them was done in May
1602 and _Cromwell_ was probably acted in June. The second edition,
1613, had "by W.S." on the title. This was clearly an attempt, like
the "by W. Sh." in the 1611 edition of the older _John_, to father
the play on Shakespeare after his retirement from theatrical life.
It has been supposed that Wentworth Smith is indicated. This is most
unlikely. Smith was a hack writer for Henslowe, 1601-3, not one scrap
of whose work was ever thought worth publishing; and that he, at the
same date that he was a "novice" in the Admiral's, should have been
an independent author for the Chamberlain's, is one of the plausible
figments that will not be received by any one acquainted with stage
history. If W.S. are authentic initials, W. Sly is a more likely
claimant.
1603.
_The London Prodigal_ was published in 1605, with the name of William
Shakespeare on the title-page. This surely shows some connection of
Shakespeare with its authorship. It is true that in 1600 his name had
been attached to _Sir John Oldcastle_ in one of the editions then
printed, and that he could not have written, or been concerned with the
writing of, that play; but the peculiar relation in which it stands
to his historical plays places it in a very different category from a
play which was acted by his own company, and over the publication of
which he may be supposed to have had some control, direct or indirect.
Perhaps he "plotted" it. At the same time it should be noticed that
the publisher, Butter, was the same man who issued the Quarto of
_Lear_ in 1608, which was certainly derived from an authentic copy,
however carelessly printed; while Pavier, who published _Oldcastle_,
was notoriously an issuer of surreptitious and piratical editions.
This play is certainly by the same hand as the _Cromwell_. In iii.
3, "And where nought is the king doth lose his due," with which
compare _Cromwell_, ii. 3, "And where nought is the king must lose his
right," is taken from Nash's _Unfortunate Traveller_ (p. 15, Grosart's
reprint), "When it is not to be had the king must lose his right."
Compare, also, "Pardon, dear father, the follies that are past," v.
1, with _Cromwell_, iv. chorus, "Pardon the errors are already past,"
and the passing of St. George's inn in i. 2 with the _Merry Devil_
plot. The date of production is certainly 1603. The words "under the
King," ii. 1, and the allusion to Armin the actor, who took the part of
Matthew Flowerdale, "So young an armin," v. 1, forbid an earlier date.
This last allusion, by the bye, has never previously been explained. On
the other hand, the allusions to Cutting Dick, ii. 2, _The Devil and
his Dame_, iv. 2 (Mar. 1600), and to "wanton Cressid," v. i. (1602),
would lose much effect at a later date. The name Greenshield was
adopted from this play in the "comical satire" of _Northward Ho_, 1605,
as Frescobald was in _The Honest Whore_, 1603, from _Cromwell_.
1603.
_Sejanus_, by Jonson, was acted this year. Jonson had returned to the
Chamberlain's men from the Admiral's, for whom he wrote after leaving
the Chapel children in 1601; but this play being a political satire on
Leicester got the company into trouble, and he again left them for the
children of the Revels. See _supra_, p. 49.
1604.
_The Malcontent_, by Marston, was acted "with the additions played by
the King's Majesty's servants" by Webster, and entered S. R. 25th July.
This play belonged to the Revels' children, and was appropriated in
retaliation for their playing _Jeronymo_, which was the property of the
King's men. (See the Induction.) Compare p. 52.
1604.
_Gowry_, already noticed, was performed this year.
1603-4.
_The Miseries of Enforced Marriage_, by George Wilkins, was entered
S. R. 31st July 1607. It was founded on the life of Mr. Caverley,
the hero of _The Yorkshire Tragedy_, and the play ends with a
reconciliation before October 1603, when his third child was born, and
dating about January or February, just before the accession of King
James. This play was written before 1605. Mr. P.A. Daniel discovered
the identity of story in it and in _The Yorkshire Tragedy_. The share
of G. Wilkins in the authorship of _Timon_ and _Pericles_ has already
been noticed. He left the King's company for the Queen's in 1607,
before publishing the present play. He is not the G. Wilkins who died
in 1603: Mr. W.C. Hazlitt's statement in his _Handbook_ to that effect
is a mistake.
1605.
_A Yorkshire Tragedy_, founded on the same story, was certainly acted
soon after the execution of Caverley, 5th August 1605. The murdered
children were buried in April. The prose account of Caverley's trial
was entered S. R. 24th August, and the story of his life was printed by
V. S. (Valentine Simmes) in the same year. The play was entered S. R.
2d May 1608, and printed as by William Shakespeare. I cannot think that
this was unauthorised. Compare the parallel instance of _The London
Prodigal_. Was the author his brother Edmund; and did Shakespeare
assist in or revise his work? (See p. 60.) The "young mistress" of
Scene 1 is the Clare Harcup of the _Enforced Marriage_, and her decline
is inconsistent with her death in that play, but in accordance with
facts. Together with three other probably similar short plays it was
acted as _All's One, or one of the Four Plays in One_.
1605.
_Volpone or the Fox_, by Jonson, was acted in this year.
1605-6.
_Mucedorus_, an old play, originally written, I think, for the Queen's
company by T. Lodge, was revived under exceptional circumstances, with
additions at Court. From the added part at the end of the play it
appears that "a lean hungry neagre (meagre) cannibal," "a scrambling
raven with a needy beard," had written "a comedy" for the King's
players, containing "dark sentences pleasing to factious brains," and
that information had been given to "a puissant magistrate," and that
the players feared "great danger or at least restraint" in consequence.
Moreover, this "unwilling error" had been lately "presented" to the
King: nevertheless, not being "boys," but "men," they had avoided the
"trap," apologised, and been pardoned. The only known new comedy, not
Shakespeare's, produced by the King's men between 1604 and 1610 was
Jonson's _Fox_. It contains a good deal, even in its present state,
that must have been unpalatable at Court, especially on monopolies
and spies; and Jonson altered his plays so much after performance for
publication, that it is dangerous to draw conclusions as to what the
play may have originally contained. One thing in it, however, was
particularly "obnoxious to construction," the miraculous "Oglio del
Scoto," which, in the case of one who was this same year imprisoned for
satirising the Scots in _Eastward Ho_, might well be taken as a gird
at the Scotch King's miraculous charisma in treating for the King's
evil. It is to the _Eastward Ho_ affair that the "trap for boys, not
men," alludes; and the meagreness and "needy beard" plainly indicate
Jonson as the "raven" (Corbaccio) who wrote the comedy. In accordance
with this view stands the fact that on the Christmas succeeding this
unfortunate performance of 1605-6 there was no Court masque produced by
Jonson. The date hitherto assigned to the "additions" in _Mucedorus_
has been 1610, because the edition of that year was issued as it was
acted before the King on Shrove Sunday night. But there was no Court
performance in the 1609-10 winter on account of the plague. The date
1610 is therefore impossible; the words on the title were probably
repeated in the usual way from the 1606 edition, of which, though
mentioned in Beauclerc's _Catalogue_, 1781, no copy unfortunately is
extant. Of the authorship of the original play, with its Induction,
"cooling-card" mark, and many similarities to _Marius and Sylla_, there
can be no doubt: it was written by Lodge. Who wrote the "additions" in
1605-6 it would be hard to say: perhaps Wilkins.
1607-11.
_The Revenger's Tragedy_ by Cyril Tourneur (?) was entered S. R. 7th
October 1607, and probably acted not long before. The Second _Maiden's
Tragedy_, licensed in 1611, which we know to have been acted by the
King's men, was probably by the same author.
In 1610 Jonson returned to the King's men (he had been writing for
the Revels' children since he left, after producing _Volpone_), and
his _Alchemist_ was acted in that year; in 1611 his _Cataline_, and
Beaumont and Fletcher's _Philaster_, _Maid's Tragedy_, and _King and no
King_; c. 1612 Webster's _Duchess of Malfy_ was produced. The further
prosecution of this subject belongs to a life of Fletcher rather than
of Shakespeare.
SECTION VII.
EARLY ENGLISH PLAYS IN GERMANY.
THE importance of the performance of English plays in Germany and
its bearings on our own stage history has never been duly estimated.
This is owing to the fact that the groups of such plays have not been
treated as wholes, only isolated references to single dramas having
been occasionally made by our critics. I must here confine myself to
such groups as have reference to the productions of Shakespeare. In
1626-7 a company of Englishmen acted at Dresden, and a list of their
performances has fortunately been preserved (Cohn, _Shakespeare in
Germany_, p. 115). This company appears from their Christian names
to have been the Company of the Revels, which broke up in 1625 in
the plague-time. In the _Runaway's Answer_, 1625, to Dekker's _Rod
for Runaways_, which was directed against those who left London for
fear of the plague, the players say, "We can be bankrupts on this
side and gentlemen of a company beyond the sea: we burst at London
and are pieced up at Rotterdam." The 1626 Dresden company were
Robert Pickleherring [R. Lee] and two boys; Jacob der Hesse, and
Johan Eydtwardtt (two Germans); Aaron the dancer (probably a German
Jew); Thomas die Jungfrau [T. Basse], John [Cumber], William the
wardrobe-keeper (probably a German), the Englishman, the Redhaired,
and four boys. The other members of the Revels' company can be traced
in England; and although Robert, Thomas, and John are common christian
names, they are not to be found in conjunction in any other list of
English players of the date. The plays acted by these men were the
following:--
1. _Duke of Mantua and Duke of Verona._ Comedy.
2. _Christabella._ C.
3. _Amphitryon._ C.
4. _Romeo and Julietta._ Tragedy. [Founded on Shakespeare's play of
1591; extant in German MS., and printed by Cohn.]
5. _Duke of Florence._ Tragi-Comedy. [Not Massinger's play, which
is of ten years' later date.]
6. _King of Spain and ViceRoy of Portugal._ C. [Kyd's _Jeronymo_,
c. 1588.]
7. _Julius Cæsar._ T. [Query, the old play mentioned by Gosson in
1580, or the Admiral's play of 1594, or Shakespeare's, or the
Admiral's of 1602, or the Oxford of 1606, or Chapman's, or the
old play on which Chapman's is founded? The last most likely.]
8. _Crysella._ C.
9. _Duke of Ferrara._ C.
10. _Somebody and Nobody._ T.C. [Printed in German, 1620; extant in
an altered form, by Heywood in my judgment, as played by Queen
Anne's men in English; published c. 1609. In its original form
acted c. 1591.]
11. _King of Denmark and King of Sweden._ T. C. [_Clyomon and
Clamydes_. ? by R. Wilson, c. 1585.]
12. _Hamlet, Prince of Denmark._ T. [From Kyd's old play, c.
1589; extant in modernised MS. in Germany; printed in Cohn. The
Induction with Night and the Furies is quite in Kyd's manner.]
13. _Orlando Furioso._ C. [Greene's play, c. 1587.]
14. _King of England and King of Scotland._ C. [Greene (and
Lodge)'s _James IV._, 1591.]
15. _Hieronymo, Marshal of Spain._ T. [Kyd's _Spanish Tragedy_, c.
1588.]
16. _Haman and Queen Esther._ T. C. [Printed in German, 1620, from
an English play acted in 1594 by the Chamberlain's men, but an
_old_ play then; originally not later than 1591. Compare the
interlude in Kirkman's _Wits_, which was probably founded on it.
The German play ought to be made accessible to English readers.]
17. _The Martyr Dorothea._ T. [Perhaps from a play by Dekker and
Massinger, revived for the Revels' company between 1619 and
1622. This is the only play in this list to which I can assign a
definite date later than 1592. But were both taken from an older
play?]
18. _Dr. Faust._ T. [Marlowe's play, 1588.]
19. _King of Arragon._ T. C. [Greene's _Alphonsus_, c. 1588.]
20. _Fortunatus._ T. [Printed in German, 1620, as _Comedy of
Fortunatus and his Purse and Wishing Cap_, in which appear first
three dead souls as spirits, and afterwards the Virtues and
Shame. Evidently from the first part of _Fortunatus_ by Dekker,
as acted, 3d February 1596, as an _old_ play. It was probably
written c. 1591. This play like (16.) ought to be made accessible
to English readers.]
21. _Joseph, the Jew of Venice._ C. [From another early play
of Dekker's, c. 1591. The German version is extant in MS. in
the Imperial Library at Vienna, and ought to be edited and
translated. The Jew, however, is therein called Barabbas, and
there are three suitors, as in Shakespeare's play, but no
caskets. Dekker's play was entered 9th September 1653 on S. R.]
22. _The Dextrous Thief._ T.C.
23. _Duke of Venice._ T.C.
24. _Barrabas, the Jew of Malta._ T. [Marlowe's play, 1589.]
25. _Old Proculus._ C.
26. _Lear, King of England._ T. [From the old Queen's play, c.
1589. Yet it is strange that it should be called a tragedy. It
would hardly be Shakespeare's play, as no other of so late date
occurs in the list.]
27. _The Godfather._ T.C.
28. _The Prodigal Son._ C. [Printed in German, 1620. Translated
in Simpson's _School of Shakespeare_. Probably from an old play
revived by Heywood for Derby's men c. 1599, but originally
founded on Greene's _Mourning Garment_, 1590, and written (for
what company?) c. 1591. So I conjecture.]
29. _The Graf of Angiers._ C.
30. _The Rich Man._ T. [Acted on 17th September 1646 as _The Rich
Man and the Poor Lazarus_. Perhaps from a very old play by Ralph
Radcliffe before 1553; more likely from the Moral by the player
(? R. Wilson) in Greene's _Groatsworth of Wit_, 1592, who wrote
the Moral of _Man's Wit_ and the dialogue of _Dives_, and played
in _Delphrigus_, _The King of Fairies_, _The Twelve Labors of
Hercules_, and _The Highway to Heaven_.]
It appears from this list that while only one, if any, of these plays,
_Dorothea_, which was probably taken with them by the Revels' company
in 1625, can be assigned to a comparatively late date with certainty,
the majority are early productions, anterior to 1592. Bearing in mind
that there were a large number of plays published before 1626 which
might have been used without fear of any opposition from companies
in England, it is clear that in Germany the preference was given to
older plays, which must have been imported at an early date, either
by Leicester's players in 1586, by Pembroke's in 1599, or Worcester's
[Admiral's] in 1590 and 1592. Leicester's returned to England in 1577
and Pembroke's c. 1601; but Worcester's, or rather a detachment from
the Admiral's, were permanently established in Germany. E. Brown and
R. Jones indeed came back to England; but Thomas Sackville and John
Broadstreet are traceable in Germany, the latter to 1606 and the
former to 1617. There is little doubt that the _Hamlet_ and _Romeo_,
in their German versions, are from early plays, anterior to 1592. This
conclusion is confirmed by the list of plays published in Germany
in 1620, "acted by the English in Germany at Royal, Electoral, and
Princely Courts:"--
1. _Queen Esther and Haughty Haman._ C. [16. in previous list.]
2. _The Prodigal Son_, "in which Despair and Hope are cleverly
introduced." C. [28. in previous list.]
3. _Fortunatus and his Purse and Wishing Cap_, "in which appear
first three dead souls as spirits, and afterwards the Virtues and
Shame." C. [20. in previous list.]
4. _A King's Son from England and a King's Daughter from Scotland._
C. [_Serule and Astræa_; probably the same as _Serule and
Hypolita_, acted 1631.]
5. _Sidonia and Theagine._ C.
6. _Somebody and Nobody._ C. [10. in previous list.]
7. _Julio and Hypolita._ T. [Query, _Philippo and Hypolita_, acted
as an _old_ play at the Rose, 9th July 1594; similar in plot to
_The Gentlemen of Verona_.]
8. _Titus Andronicus._ T. [Not our extant play, but the _Titus and
Vespasian_ acted by Lord Strange's men, April 1592.]
9. _The Beautiful Mary and the Old Cuckold._ A merry jest.
10. In which the clown makes merry pastime with a stone.
I am not acquainted with Ayres's plays; but it appears from Cohn (p.
64) that among them are _Mahomet the Turkish Emperor_ (from Peele's
play, c. 1591), _The Greek Emperor at Constantinople and his daughter
Pelimperia with the hanged Horatio_ (Kyd's _Spanish Tragedy_, 1588);
_Valentine and Orson_ (from an old English play S. R. 23d May 1595);
_Edward III., King of England, and Elisa Countess of Warwick_ (from
Marlowe's play, 1590: Philip Waimer had already dramatised the same
subject at Danzig in 1591); _The Beautiful Phenicia_ (on the same story
as _Much Ado_, and strongly confirming the identity of that play with
_Love's Labour's Won_, 1590: Cupid enters in person, and shoots Count
Tymborus, the Benedick of the German version); _The Two Brothers of
Syracuse_ (from the _Comedy of Errors_, c. 1590); _The Beautiful Sidea_
(containing some incidents showing that it came from some source in
common with that of the _Tempest_, but certainly not from that play
direct); and _King of Cyprus_ (founded on the same story as _The Dumb
Knight_ by Machin and Markham, c. 1607). Cohn does not give exact
dates of authorship, but is of opinion that we should not assign to
any a year later than 1600; and in 1605 Ayres died. Here again we meet
with the same phenomenon--acquaintance with many English plays of date
anterior to 1592; but not with any one that can be shown to be later.
No doubt Ayres's knowledge of English plays was obtained from the
Worcester's (Admiral's) company, who went over in 1590-2.
Yet further, in the tragedy of _An Adulteress_ by Duke Henry Julius of
Brunswick, printed 1594, we find the plot of _The Merry Wives_ almost
identically reproduced (see Cohn, p. 45, &c.) I do not see, however, so
much likeness between his _Vincentius Ladislaus_ and _Much Ado_.
As regards Shakespearian chronology, it results from this examination
of English plays in Germany that there is no positive evidence of
English plays of later date than 1592 having been acted there before
1625; that there is evidence that many (a score at least) of date not
later than 1592 were acted between 1592 and 1626; that these plays were
probably among those imported by Worcester's (Admiral's) players in
1592; and that in the list are contained _The Comedy of Errors_, _Romeo
and Juliet_, _The Merry Wives_, _The Gentlemen of Verona_, and _Love's
Labours Won_, _i.e._ every play by Shakespeare except _Love's Labour's
Lost_, that is in this treatise placed at a date not later than 1592;
besides Kyd's _Hamlet_, Marlowe's _Edward III_., and other plays with
which Shakespeare was indirectly connected.
APPENDIX.
TABLES.
APPENDIX.
IN Table I. I give the dates of the Stationers' Registers entries of
Shakespeare's plays as collected in 1623, the printers and publishers
of the earliest extant edition of each, and the dates of all known
subsequent editions anterior to the 1623 Folio. A. appended to a date
means Anonymous, _i.e._ published without the author's name; F. means
that the edition was used by the Folio editors as copy to print from.
The relative popularity of the plays will be in some measure seen by
a glance at this table. The most popular were _Richard III._ (six
editions in sixteen years); _I Henry IV._ (six editions); _Edward
III._ (five editions in twenty years); _Richard II._ (four editions in
nineteen years); _Henry V._ (three editions in nine years). All these
were Histories. Next to the Histories rank the Tragedies _Hamlet_,
_Romeo and Juliet_, and _Pericles_: the other great tragedies, _Lear_,
_Othello_, and the Comedies being decidedly less to the popular taste
than the Histories. The entries of change of copyright will be found in
their places in Table V.
Table II. gives similar information for every known extant play not
of Shakespeare's authorship in which he may have been an actor or
reviser. _Edward III._ appears in both these tables. The extreme
popularity of _Mucedorus_ is very noticeable.
Table III. gives the number of Court performances in each year for such
companies as are known to have been playing in London. From this table
it is evident that up to 1591 the Queen's men were the most important
of all; in other words, that Greene was the chief Court stage poet,
and held the position formerly occupied by Lyly, who wrote for the
Chapel children before the public theatrical companies had obtained the
prominent place. His chief rival was Marlowe of the Admiral's company.
But after 1591 Lord Strange's company takes the lead and keeps it,
which means that Shakespeare was the principal Court stage writer till
1611. This throws new light on the relations of Greene, Shakespeare,
and their respective companies. But this table comprises, in fact, a
compendium of the whole stage history of the time; and as the current
versions of this history by Collier, Halliwell, and others are replete
with blunders, it may be well to give a very short summary of the
results of my investigations--proofs, where lengthy, of some minor
details being necessarily reserved for a future publication. Column
i. concerns one company only: as Lord Leicester's it was acting in
London in 1585; in 1586 it was acting on the Continent; in 1587-8 it
was travelling about England; after Leicester's death it began in 1589
to act in London, and was patronised by Lord Strange, who became Earl
of Derby in 1593: after his death in 1594, Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon,
the Lord Chamberlain, became its patron, who died in 1596; they then
passed to his heir, George Carey: in 1603 they were patented as the
King's men, and retained that title till the closing of the theatres.
Column ii. The Admiral's men were abroad from 1591 to 1594; in 1603
they were assigned to Prince Henry, and after his death in 1612 to the
Palsgrave. The Earl of Hertford's men, who appear once in this column,
were not a regular London company, but probably invited to play this
once at Court while the Admiral's were abroad, in consequence of the
Queen having been entertained by Hertford in the preceding year's
progress.
Column iii. Queen Elizabeth's company, formed 1583, took the lead till
1591: they only reappear in conjunction with Sussex in 1593-4, when
both companies vanish from the London stage. About 1599 Derby's company
appears in London: it became Worcester's in 1602, and was assigned to
Queen Anne in 1603.
Column iv. The Earl of Oxford's "boys" were in London in 1586; they
travelled in the plague year, and are almost certainly the same company
who reappear in London in 1589 as Pembroke's. By Marlowe's aid they
prospered a year or two, but after his death became insignificant, and
are only dimly traceable to 1600.
In 1597 the Chapel children are stated to have occupied Blackfriars,
but till 1600 no play is traceable to them. In 1603-4 they were
reorganised as the Children of the Revels, and again in 1610 as a new
company under the same name: in 1612 they were again reorganised as
the second Lady Elizabeth's company, the first of that name, set up in
1611, having broken up.
Column v. The Paul's boys were inhibited c. 1590, re-established 1600,
finally put down 1607.
The Duke of York's men were established 1610, and at Prince Henry's
death in 1612 took the name of the Prince of Wales' men.
The reader will observe that never more than five companies existed
contemporaneously; and scarcely ever more than two of considerable
importance. The statements of Collier and Halliwell are grossly
exaggerated.
In Table IV. every entry of a play that I can find in the Stationers'
Registers is extracted with all necessary fulness. The only point
requiring explanation is that the capital letters after the publishers'
names indicate the names of the licensers:--T.=Tylney; B.=Sir G.
Buck; S.=Segar, his deputy; A.=Sir John Astley; H.=Sir Henry Herbert;
T.=Thomas Herbert, his deputy; Bl.=Blagrave, also his deputy. Where
the Master of the Revels or his deputy was not the licenser, the
insertion of the Wardens' names, &c., would have needlessly encumbered
the tables. The spelling has been modernised, except in proper names,
&c., where it is of advantage to retain the old forms. These tables
afford for the first time complete means of estimating Shakespeare's
influence, in I. on the reading public positively; in II. as compared
with his co-workers; in III. at Court; in IV. as compared with writers
for other companies.
Table V., of transfers of copyright, is, I fear, in spite of much
labour, incomplete. Notifications of omission will be welcome and duly
acknowledged with gratitude.
TABLES.
TABLE I.--QUARTO EDITIONS OF SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS.
+--------------+------------------------+------------------------+
| | | |
|Date, S. R. |For whom Entered, S. R. |Name of Play. |
+--------------+------------------------+------------------------+
|1593-4 Feb. 6 |John Danter |Titus Andronicus |_a_
|1593-4 Mar. 12|Thomas Myllington |York and Lancaster, I. |_b_
| | | |
| ... | ... |Richard Duke of York |_c_
|1595 Dec. 1 |Cuthbert Burby |Edward III. |_d_
| ... | ... |Romeo and Juliet (1) |_e_
|1597 Aug. 29 |Andrew Wise |Richard II. |_f_
| | | |
|1597 Oct. 20 |Andrew Wise |Richard III. |_g_
| | | |
|1597-8 Feb. 25|Andrew Wise |1 Henry IV. |_h_
|1598 July 22 |James Roberts |Merchant of Venice. |_i_
| ... | ... |Love's Labour's Lost |_j_
| ... | ... |Romeo and Juliet (2) |_k_
| | | |
|1600 Aug. 4 | ... |As You Like It |_l_
| | | |
|1600 Aug. 14 |"Set over" to Thomas |Henry V. |_m_
| |Pavier | |
|1600 Aug. 23 |Andrew Wise and William |{Much Ado about Nothing}|_n_
| |Aspley |{2 Henry IV. } |
|1600 Oct. 8 |Thomas Fisher |Midsummer Night's Dream |_o_
| | | |
|1600 Oct. 28 |Thomas Haies |Merchant of Venice |_p_
|1601-2 Jan. 18|John Busby (with |Merry Wives of Windsor |_q_
| |assignment | |
| |to Arthur Johnson) | |
|1602 April 19|Thomas Pavier |1, 2 Henry VI. and |_r_
| | |Titus Andronicus |
|1602 July 26 |James Roberts |Revenge of Hamlet (1) |_s_
| ... | ... |Hamlet (2) |_t_
|1602-3 Feb. 7 |James Roberts |Troylus and Cressida |_u_
| | | |
| | | |
|1607 Nov. 26 |Na. Butter: Jo. Busby |King Lear |_v_
|1608 May 20 |Edward Blount |{Pericles }|_w_
| | |{Anthony and Cleopatra }|
|1608-9 Jan. 28|Ri. Bonion; Hen. Whalley|Troylus and Cressida |_x_
| | | |
| ... | ... |Pericles |_y_
|1621 Oct. 6 |Thomas Walkley |Othello |_z_
+--------------+------------------------+------------------------+
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
|Printer and Publisher | Dates of Extant Editions. |
|of Earliest Edition | |
|Extant. | |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
_a_|By J. R. for Edward | ... |1600A.| ... | ... |1611A.| ... |
|White | | | | | | |
_b_|By Thomas Creede for |1594A.|1600A.| ... | ... | ...} | |
|Thomas Millington | | | | | } |1619A.|
_c_|By P.S. for Thomas |1595A.|1600A.| ... | ... | ...} | |
|Millington | | | | | | |
_d_| ... for Cuthbert Burby|1596A.|1599A.| ... |1609A.|1617A.|1625A.|
_e_|By John Danter |1597A.| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
_f_|By Valentine Simmes for|1597A.|1598 | ... |1608 |1615F.| ... |
| Andrew Wise | | | | | | |
_g_|By Valentine Sims for |1597A.|1598 |1602 |1605 |1612 |1622 |
|Andrew Wise | | | | | | |
_h_|By P.S. for Andrew Wise|1598 |1599 |1604 |1608 |1615F.|1622 |
_i_|By J. Roberts | ... |1600 | ... | ... | ... | ... |
_j_|By W. W. for Cuthbert |1598 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
|Burby | | | | | | |
_k_|By Thomas Creede for | ... |1599A.| ... |1609 | ... | ... |
|Cuthbert Burby | | | |A.F. | | |
_l_|"Stayed" with the two | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
|following plays. | | | | | | |
|Not printed. | | | | | | |
_m_|By T. Creede for T. | ... |1600A.|1602A.|1608A.| ... | ... |
|Millington and J. Busby| | | | | | |
_n_|By V. S. for Andrew | ... |1600F.| ... | ... | ... | ... |
|Wise and William Aspley| | ... |1600 | ... | ... | ... |
_o_|... for Thomas Fisher | ... |1600 | ... | ... | ... | ... |
|By James Roberts | | ... |1600F.| ... | ... | ... |
_p_|By J. R. for Thomas | ... |1600F.| ... | ... | ... | ... |
|Hayes | | | | | | |
_q_|By T. C. for Arthur | ... |1602 | ... | ... | ... |1619 |
|Johnson | | | | | | |
_r_|By assignment from | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
|Thomas Millington | | | | | | |
_s_|... for N. L. and John | ... |1603 | ... | ... | ... | ... |
|Trundell | | | | | | |
_t_|By J. R. for N. L. | ... | ... |1604 |1605 |1611 | ... |
_u_|"To print when he hath | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
|gotten sufficient | | | | | | |
|authority for it." | | | | | | |
|Not printed. | | | | | | |
_v_|... for Nathaniel | ... | ... | ... |1608 | ... | ... |
| Butter | | | |_bis_ | | |
_w_|Not printed. | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| | | | | | | |
_x_|By G. Eld for R. Bonion| ... | ... | ... |1609 | ... | ... |
|and H. Whalley | | | |_bis_ | | |
_y_|... for Henry Gosson | ... | ... | ... |1609 |1611 |1619 |
| | | | |_bis_ | | |
_z_|By N. O. for Thomas | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |1622 |
|Walkley | | | | | | |
+-----------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
TABLE II.--QUARTO EDITIONS OF OTHER PLAYS PERFORMED BY SHAKESPEARE'S
COMPANY.
+---------------+-------------+----------------------+---------------+
|Date. |For whom |Name of Play. |Extant |
| |Entered. | |Editions. |
+---------------+-------------+----------------------+---------------+
|1593-4 Jan. 7 |R. Jones |A Knack to Know |1594 |
| | |a Knave | |
|[1594 July 20 |T. Creede |Locrine |1595] |
|1595 Dec. 1 |C. Burby |Edward III. |1596,1599,1609,|
| | | |1617,1625 |
| ... |W. Jones |Mucedorus |1598,1606,1610,|
| | | |1613,1615, |
| | | |1619,1629,1634,|
| | | |1639, &c. |
|1599 Nov. 17 |W. Aspley |Warning for Fair Women|1599 |
|1600 April 8 |W. Holme |Every Man out of |1600 |
| | |his Humour |(printed for N.|
| | | |Ling) |
|1600 May 27 |J. Roberts |Cloth Breeches and { |These plays |
| | |Velvet Hose { |were stayed, |
|1600 May 29 |J. Roberts |Alarum to London { |sufficient |
| | | |authority for |
| | | |their printing |
| | | |not being |
| | | |forthcoming |
|1601 Aug. 14 |C. Burby and |Every Man in |1601 |
| |W. Burre |his Humour | |
| ... |E. White |Massacre of Paris |n.d. |
|1600 Nov. 11 |J. Barnes |Satiromastix |1602 |
| ... |W. Ferbrand |Alarum for London |1602 |
|1602 Aug. 11 |W. Cotton |Lord Cromwell |1602, 1613 |
|1604 July 2 & 5|W. Aspley and|Malcontent |1604 |
| |T. Thorpe | | |
|1604 Nov. 2 |E. Blunt |Sejanus |1605 |
| ... |N. Butter |London Prodigal |1605 |
|1607 July 31 |G. Vincent |Miseries of Enforced |1607,1611,1629,|
| | |Marriage |1637 |
|1607 Oct. 7 |G. Elde |Revenger's Tragedy |1607 |
|1607 Oct. 22 |A. Johnson |Merry Devil of |1608,1617,1626 |
| | |Edmonton | |
| ... | ... |Volpone, or the Fox |1607 |
|1608 May 2 |T. Pavier |Yorkshire Tragedy |1608, 1619 |
| ... |J. Wright |Fair Em |1631 |
+---------------+-------------+----------------------+---------------+
TABLE III. - NUMBER OF PERFORMANCES AT COURT, 1584-1616.
+-------+----------------+-------------+-------------+
| | I. | II. | III. |
+-------+----------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1584-5 |Leicester's 0|Admiral's 0 | Queen's 5|
| 1585-6 | 0| 1 | 1|
| 1586-7 | Plague Year
| 1587-8 | 0| 0 | 3|
| 1588-9 | 0| 2 | 2|
| 1589-90|Strange's 0| 2 | 2|
| 1590-1 | 0| 2 | 5|
| 1591-2 | 6|Hertford's 1 | 1|
| 1592-3 | 3| ... | ... |
| 1593-4 | Plague Year
| 1594-5 |Chamberlain's 2|Admiral's 0 |-------------|
| 1595-6 | 5| 0 | Total 19|
| 1596-7 | 6| 0 |-------------|
| 1597-8 | 4| 2 | ... |
| 1598-9 | 3| 0 | ... |
| 1599-00| 3| 2 | Derby's 1|
| 1600-1 | 3| 3 | 0|
| 1601-2 | | _Richard II. played for Essex faction.
| 1602-3 | 2| 3 |Worcester's 0|
| 1603-4 |King's 9|P. Henry's 4 |Q. Anne's 2|
| 1604-5 | 4| 8| 1|
| 1605-6 | 10| 6| 1|
| 1606-7 | 12| 6| 0|
| 1607-8 | 13| 4| 0|
| 1608-9 | 12| 3| 0|
| 1609-10| Plague Year
| 1610-1 | 15| 4| 3|
| 1611-2 | 22| 4| 4|
| 1612-3 | 28| 1| 0|
| ... |... | ... | ... |
| 1613-4 | 7|Palsgrave's 0| 2|
| 1614-5 | 0| 0| 0|
| 1615-6 | 0| 0| 0|
+--------+---------------+-------------+-------------+
Totals | 169| 58| 14|
+--------+---------------+-------------+-------------+
+-------+------------+---------------+--------+
| IV. | V. | |
+-------+------------+---------------+--------+
1584-5 |Oxford's 1| Paul's 0| Total 6|
1585-6 | 0| 0| 2|
1586-7 |Plague Year 0|
1587-8 | 0| 1| 4|
1588-9 | 0| 3| 7|
1589-90|Pembroke's 0| 3| 7|
1590-1 | 0|--------- | 7|
1591-2 | 0| Sussex' 1| 9|
1592-3 | 2|--------- | 5|
1593-4 | | | 0|
1594-5 | 0| ... | 2|
1595-6 | 0| ... | 5|
1596-7 | 0| ... | 6|
1597-8 | | ... | 6|
1598-9 |Total 3| ... | 3|
1599-00|----------- | ... | 6|
1600-1 |Chapel | 1 Paul's 1| 8|
1601-2 | | 0|
1602-3 | 0| 0| 5|
1603-4 |I Revels 1| 0| 16|
1604-5 | 2| 0| 15|
1605-6 | 0| 2| 19|
1606-7 | 0|--------- | 18|
1607-8 | 0| Total 10| 17|
1608-9 | 0|--------- | 15|
1609-10| | D. of York's 1| 1|
1610-1 |2 Revels 0| 3| 25|
1611-2 |1 L. Eliz. 1| 4| 35|
1612-3 |2 Revels 3| 2| 36|
... |2 L. Eliz. 2| ... | ... |
1613-4 | 2| P. Charles' 0| 11|
1614-5 | 1| 0| 1|
1615-6 | 0| 0| 0|
+-------+------------+---------------+--------+
Totals | 13| 10| 297|
+-------+------------+---------------+--------+
TABLE IV.--ENTRIES OF PLAYS IN THE STATIONERS' REGISTERS, 1584-1640.
-------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------
Date. | For whom Entered. | Name of Play.
-------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------
| |
1584 April 6 | Thomas Cadman |Sappio by Lyllye: "if he get ye
| |comedy lawfully allowed to him."
Nov. 12 | Thomas Hackett |Fedele et Fortuna. The deceits in
| |love discoursed in a Commedia of
| |il Italian gent, and translated
| |into English.
1585 April 1 | Gabriel Cawood |Tityrus and Galaten. A Comedy.
1588 Oct. 28 | Richard Jones |Pageant before Martin Calthrop, L.
| |Mayor, 29th Oct. 1588, by G. Peele.
| |"Upon condition that it may
| |be licensed."
1590 July 31 | Richard Jones |A comedy of the pleasant and stately
| |moral of the three Lords of London.
Aug. 14 | Richard Jones |The two comical discourses of
| |"Tomberlein the Cithian shepparde."
1591 July 26 | Richard Jones |The Hunting of Cupid, by G. Peele,
| |M.A. of Oxford. "Provided always
| |that, if it be hurtful to any other
| |copy before licensed, then this
| |to be void."
Oct. 4 | Mrs. Broome, widow|Endimion, Galathea, Midas: three
| of William Broome |comedies played before her Majesty
| |by the children of Paul's.
1592 April 3 | Edward White |The tragedy of "Arden of Faversham
| |and Blackwall."
Oct. 6 | Abel Jeffes |The Spanish Tragedy of "Don Horatio
| |and Bellmipeia."
Nov. 20 | Edward White |The tragedy of "Salamon and Perceda."
1593 July 6 | William Jones |The troublesome reign and lamentable
| |death of Edward II. King of England,
| |with the tragical fall of proud
| |Mortimer.
1593 Oct. 8| Abel Jeffes |The Chronicle of K. Edward I.
| |Longshank, with his return out
| |of the Holy Land: with the
| |life of "Leublen," rebel in
| |Wales, with the sinking of
| |Queen Elinour. An enterlude.
Oct. 19| Symond Waterson |The tragedy of Cleopatra.
Oct. 23| John Danter |The life and death of Jack
| |Straw. An enterlude.
Dec. 7| John Danter |The history of Orlando Furioso,
| |one of the 12 peers of France.
| |A playbook.
1593-4 Jan. 7| Richard Jones |A Knack to Know a Knave, newly
| |set forth as it hath sundry
| |times been played by Ned Allen
| |and his company, with Kempe's
| |applauded merriments of the men
| |of Goteham. A comedy.
Jan. 26| Nicholas Ling and |Cornelia: Thomas Kydd being the
| John Busbye |author.
Feb. 6| John Danter |A noble Roman history of Tytus
| |Andronicus.
Mar. 5| Thomas Creede |The looking glass for London, by
| |Thomas Lodg and Robert Greene,
| |gent.
Mar. 12| Thomas Myllington |The first part of the Contention
| |of the two famous houses of
| |York and Lancaster, with the
| |death of the Duke of Suffolk,
| |and the tragical end of the
| |proud Cardinal of Winchester,
| |with the notable rebellion of
| |Jack Cade and the Duke of York's
| |first claim unto the crown.
1594 May 2| Peter Shorte |A pleasant conceited history
| |called the "Tayming of a Shrowe."
May 13| Thomas Creede |The Pedlar's Prophesy. "A
| |pleabook."
May 14| Thomas Creede |The Famous Victories of Henry
| |V., containing the honourable
| |battle of Agincourt.
May 14| Thomas Creede |The Scottish story of James IV.,
| |slain at Flodden, intermixt
| |with a pleasant comedy
| |presented by Oboron King of Fairies.
-------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------
Date. | For whom Entered.| Name of Play.
--------------+------------------+-----------------------------------
| |The History of Friar Bacon and
| |Friar Boungaye.
| |The most famous Chronicle
| |History of Leire King of
| |England and his three
1594 May 14| Edward White |daughters.
|[previously |The famous history of John of
|entered to Adam |Gaunte, son to King Edward
|Islip, whose name |III., with his Conquest of
|is crossed out] |Spain and marriage of his two
| |daughters to the Kings of
| |Castile and Portugale, &c.
| |The Book of David and Bethshaba.
| |A Pastoral pleasant comedy of
| |Robin Hood and Little John.
May 17|Thomas Gosson |The Famous Chronicle of Henry
| |I., with the life and death of
| |Bellin Dunn, the first thief
| |that ever was hanged in
| |England.
May 17|Thomas Millington |The famous tragedy of the Rich
| |Jew of Malta.
May 24|John Danter |The wounds of Civil War lively
| |set forth in the True Tragedies
| |of Marius and Scilla.
May 28|Cuthbert Burbye, |The history of Orlando Furioso,
|by consent of John|"So often as the same book
| Danter |shall be printed, the said
| |John Danter to have the
| |imprinting thereof."
June 8 |Cuthbert Burbey |The Cobbler's Prophesy.
June 18|Cuthbert Burby |Mother Bumbye. An enterlude.
June 19|John Danter |Godfrey of Bulloigne, with the
| |Conquest of Jerusalem. An
| |enterlude.
June 19|John Danter |The life and death of
| |Heliogabilus. An enterlude.
June 19|Thomas Creede |The tragedy of Richard III.,
| |wherein is shown the death of
| |Edward IV., with the smothering
| |of the two princes in the
| |Tower, with a lamentable end of
| |Shores' wife and the
| |conjunction of the two houses
| |of Lancaster and York. An
| |enterlude.
1594 July 20|Thomas Creede |The lamentable tragedy of
| |Locrine, the eldest son of King
| |Brutus, discoursing the wars
| |of the Britons, &c.
1595 April 1|Cutbert Burbye |The Pynder of Wakefeilde. An
| |enterlude.
April 16|Raphe Hancock |A pleasant conceipt called an
| |Owlde Wife's tale. An
| |enterlude.
May 10|John Hardye |The tragedy of Ninus and
| |Semiramis, the first monarchs
| |of the world.
May 23|{Thomas Gosson }|Valentine and Orsson, played by
|{Raffe Hancock }|her Majesty's players. An enterlude.
Sept. 22|Robert Fynche |A woman in the moon.
Nov. 24|William Blackwell |The true tragical history of
| |King Rufus I., with the life
| |and death of Belyn Dun, the
| |first thief that ever was
| |hanged in England.
Nov. 26|Cutbert Burbye |The most rare and pleasant
| |history of A Knack to know an
| |honest man.
Dec. 1|Cutbert Burbye |Edward III. and the Black
| |Prince, their wars with King
| |John of France.
1595-6 Jan. 20|{Thomas Gosson }|The first part of the famous
|{John Danter }|history of Chinan of England.
1597 Aug. 29|Andrew Wise |The tragedy of Richard II.
Oct. 20|Andrew Wise |The tragedy of King Richard
| |III., with the death of Duke
| |of Clarence.
1597-8 Feb. 25|Andrew Wise |The history of Henry IV., with
| |his battle of Shrewsbury
| |against Henry Hottspurre of
| |the North, with the conceited
| |mirth of Sir John Ffalstoff.
1598 July 22|James Robertes |The Marchaunt of Venyce, or
| |otherwise called the Jewe of
| |Venyce. Provided it be not
| |printed without license first
| |had from the Lord Chamberlain.
Aug. 15|William Jones |The blinde begger of Alexandrya.
| |"Upon condition that it belong
| |to no other man."
--------------+------------------+-----------------------------------
Date. | For whom Entered.| Name of Play.
-----------------+-------------------+-------------------------------
1598 Oct. 5|William Aspley |The tragic comedy of Celestina,
| |wherein are discoursed in most
| |pleasant style many
| |philosophical sentences and
| |advertisements very necessary
| |for young gentlemen, discovering
| |the sleights of treacherous
| |servants and the subtle carriages
| |of filthy bawds.
Oct. 5|[William] Ponsonbye|The tragi-comedy of the Vertuous
| |Octavia, by Samuell Brandon.
| |
| |The first and second part of
| |Edward IV. and the Tanner of
| |Tamworth, with the history of
| |the life and death of Master
1599 Aug. 28|{John Oxonbridge } |Shore and Jane Shore his wife,
|{John Busbie } |as it was lately acted by the
| |right honorable the Earl of
| |Derby his servants. Two plays.
Nov. 17|William Aspley |A Warning for Fair Women.
1599-1600 Feb. 20|William Aspley |Old Fortunatus in his new
| |livery. A comedy.
1600 Mar. 28|Cuthbert Burby |The play of Patient Grissell.
Mar. 31|William White |A famous history called
| |Valentine and Orsson, played by
| |her majesty's players.
April 8|William Holme |A comical satire of Every man
| |out of his Humour.
May 27|[James] Robertes |A moral of Cloth Breeches and
| |Velvet Hose, as it is acted by
| |my Lord Chamberlain's servants.
| |"Provided that he is not to put
| |it in print without further and
| |better authority" [than the
| |Wardens'].
May 29|[James] Robertes |The Allarum to London. "Provided
| |that it be not printed without
| |further authority."
Jul 24 |Richard Oliff |Two plays or things; the one
| |called The Maid's
| |Metamorphosis: the other Give
| |a man luck and throw him into
| |the Sea.
| |
| |The first part of the history of
| |the life of Sir John
| |Oldcastell, Lord Cobham.
| |The second and last part of the
| |history of Sir John Oldcastell,
1600 Aug. 11|Thomas Pavier |Lord Cobham, with his martyrdom.
| |The history of the life and
| |death of Captain Thomas
| |Stucley, with his marriage to
| |Alexander Curtis his daughter,
| |and his valiant ending of his
| |life at the battle of Alcazar.
Aug. 14|{[Cuthbert] Burby }|Every man in his humour. A book.
|{Walter Burre }|
| |Much Ado about Nothing
Aug. 23|{Andrew Wise } |The second part of the history
|{William Aspley } |of King Henry IV., with the
| |humours of Sir John Ffallstaff.
| |Written by Master Shakespere.
| |Two books.
| |
| |[The following entries occur in
| |another part of the
| |Registers:--My Lord
| |Chamberlain's men's plays
| |entered.
May 27|[James] Robertes |A moral of cloth breeches and
| |velvet hose.
May 27|J[ames] Robertes |Allarum to London.
| |As you like it. A book.}
Aug. 4| ... |Henry V. A book. }
| |Every man in his }To be
| |humour. A book. }stayed.]
| |The comedy of Much Ado }
| |about nothing. A book. }
Sept. 8|Ffelix Norton |Jack Drum's entertainment, a
| |comedy, as it hath been
| |divers times acted by the
| |Children of Paul's.
Oct. 7|Richard Olyffe |The Wisdom of Doctor Dodepole,
| |played by the children of
| |Paul's.
Oct. 8|Thomas Ffyssher |A Midsummer Night's Dream.
Oct. 23|Richard Oliffes |The weakest goeth to the walls.
Oct. 28|Thomas Haies |A book called The book of the
| |Merchant of Venice.! "By
| |consent of Mr. Roberts."
-----------------+-------------------+-------------------------------
Date. | For whom Entered.| Name of Play.
--------------+--------------------+---------------------------------
1600 Oct. 28|{ [Cuthbert] Burby} |Sommer's last Will and Testament,
|{ Walter Burre } |presented by William Sommers.
Nov. 25|William Wood |Love's Metamorphosis, written by
| |Master John Lylly, and played
| |by the Children of Paul's.
Dec. 1|[William] Leake |The Downfal of Robert Earl of
| |Huntingdon, after called Robin
| |Hood.
Dec. 1|[William] Leake |The Death of Robert Earl of
| |Huntingdon, with the lamentable
| |tragedy of Chaste Mathilda.
1600-1 Jan. 7|Thomas Busshell |The play of Doctor Faustus.
Mar. 1|John Harrison, jun. |God speed the plough.
1601 May 23|Walter Burre |Narcissus, the fountain of Self
| |Love.
July 3|Edward Alde |The true history of George
| |Scanderbarge, as it was lately
| |played by the right hon. the
| |Earl of Oxenford his servants.
Aug. 3|William White |A comedy of A Woman will have
| |her Will.
Oct. 24|{ Matthew Lownes } |The first and second parts of
|{ Thomas Ffyssher } |the play called Anthonio can
| |Melida. "Provided that he get
| |lawful license for it."
Nov. 11|John Barnes |The untrussing of the Humorous
| |Poets, by Thomas Decker.
Dec. 21|Mathewe Lownes |Poetaster, or his arraignment.
1601-2 Jan. 18|John Busby |An excellent pleasant and
| |conceited comedy of Sir John
| |Ffaulstof and the merry wives
| |of Windesor [assigned to
| |Arthure Johnson at same date].
1602 June 7|Edward Aldee |Blurt Master Constable.
July 26|James Robertes |The Revenge of Hamlett Prince
| |Denmark, as it was lately acted
| |by the Lord Chamberlain his
| |servants.
1602 Aug. 11|William Cotton |The life and death of the Lord
| |Cromwell, as it was lately
| |acted by the Lord Chamberlain
| |his servants.
1602-3 Feb. 7|[James] Robertes |Troilus and Cresseda, as it is
| |acted by my Lord Chamberlain's
| |men. "When he hath gotten
| |sufficient authority for it."
1604 April 30|Edward Blunt |The works of William Alexander
| |of Menstrie, containing the
| |Monarchic Tragedies.
July 5|{ William Aspley } |The Malcontent, Tragicomædia.
|{ Thomas Thorpe } |An interlude. [Crossed out and
| |re-entered.]
Nov. 2 |Edward Blunt |The tragedy of Sejanus, written
| |by Benjamin Johnson.
Nov. 9 |Thomas Man, jun. |The humours of the Patient Man,
| |the Longing Wife, and the
| |Honest Whore.
Nov. 29|{ [Simon] Waterson} |The tragedy of Philotus,
|{ Edward Blunt } | written by Samuel Daniell.
Dec. 4 |Nathaniel Butter |The life and death of Cavaliero
| |Dick Boyer.
1604-5 Feb. 8 |Thomas Pavyer |The history of Richard
| |Whittington, his low birth, his
| |great fortune, as it was played
| |by the Prince's servants.
Feb. 8 |Thomas Pavyer |The Fair Maid of Bristoe,
| |played at Hampton Court by His
| |Majesty's players.
Feb. 12|Nathanaell Butter |King Henry VIII. An enterlude.
| |"If he get good allowance
| |before he begin to print it."
Mar. 2 |Henrie Rockett |Westward Hoe, presented by the
| |children of Paul's. A comedy.
| |"Provided that he get further
| |authority before it be
| |printed." [Crossed out.]
1605 May 8|Simon Stafford |The Tragical history of King
| |Leir and his three daughters,
| |as it was lately acted.
| |Assigned [at the same date] to
| |John Wright, "provided that
| |Simon Stafford shall have the
| |printing of this book."
June 26|John Hodgetes |The Dutch Courtesan, as it was
| |lately presented at the
| |Blackfriars. "Provided that he
| |get sufficient authority
| |before it be printed."
1605 July 5|Nathaniel Butter |If you know not me you know
| | nobody.
Sept. 4|{ William Aspley } |Eastward Ho. A comedy.
|{ Thomas Thorp } |
Sept. 14|Nathanael Butter |The second part of If you know
| | not me you know [no]body, with
| | The Building of the Exchange.
Oct. 16|John Wright |The Return from Pernassus, or
| | the Scourge of Simony, publicly
| | acted by the Students in Saint
| | John's College, in Cambridge.
| | An enterlude.
Nov. 26|[Simon] Waterson |The Queen's Arcadia, presented
| | by the University of Oxon in
| | Christchurch.
1605-6 Jan. 10|Edward Blounte |A comedy called Sir Gyles
| | Goosecap, "provided that it be
| | printed according to the copy
| | whereunto Master Wilson's hand
| | is at."
Mar. 12|John Trundell |Nobody and Somebody.
Mar. 12|William Cotton |The Ffanne. A play. "Provided
| | that he shall not put the same
| | in print before he get allowed
| | lawful authority."
Mar. 17|Eliazar Edgar |The Wonder of Women, or the
| | tragedy of Sophonisba.
| |
| |The Fleare. A comedy. "Provided
| | that they are not to print it
1606 May 13|{ John Trundell } | till they bring good authority
|{ John Busbye } | and license for the doing
| | thereof." [Trundel's share was
| | transferred to A. Johnson,
| | Nov. 21, and Buck's license
| | obtained to print.]
June 5 |{John Wright |Julius Cæsar's Revenge.
|{Nathanael |
|Ffossbrook} |
Nov. 12|Clement Knighte |Wily Beguiled.
1606-7 Feb. 23|[Simon] Waterson |Lingua. A comedy. [Assigned to
| | J. Waterson, 19th Aug. 1635.]
--------------+--------------------+---------------------------------
Date. | For whom Entered.|Licenser.| Name of Play.
-------------+-------------------+---------+-------------------------
1607 April 10|Francis Burton | B. |The tragical life and
| | | death of Claudius
| | | Tiberius Nero.
April 20|{Nathanael Butter }| B. |The Whore of Babilon.
|{John Trundell }| |
April 24|Henrie Rockett | B. |The Fair Maid of the
| | | Exchange.
May 9|Arthur Johnson | B. |The Phenix.
May 15|Arthur Johnson | B. |Michaelmas Term. A comedy.
May 20| Eleazar Edgar | B. |The Woman hater, as it
| Robert Jackson | |hath been lately acted
| | |by the Children of Paul's.
June 3|William Aspley | B. |The tragedy of Busey
| | |D'Amboise, made by
| | |George Chapman.
June 29|{John Busbye }| T. |Cupid's Whirleygigge.
|{Arthur Johnson }| |A comedy.
June 29|John Wright | B. |The travels of the three
| | |English Brothers, as it
| | |was played at the Curtain.
| | |A play.
July 31|George Vyncent | B. |The misery of inforced
| | |Marriage. A tragedy.
Aug. 6|George Elde | B. |The Puritan Widow. A
| | |comedy.
Aug. 6|George Elde | B. |Northward Ho.
Aug. 6|Thomas Thorp | B. |What you will. A comedy.
Oct. 7|George Elde | B. |The Revenger's }Two
| | | Tragedy. }plays.
| | B. |A Trick to }
| | | catch the Old }
| | | one. }
Oct. 12|{John Browne } | B. |The Family of Love, as
|{John Helme } | |it hath been lately acted
| | |by the Children of His
| | |Majesty's Revels. A play.
Oct. 16|John Wright | B. |The tragedy of Pope
| | | Alexander VI., as it
| | | was played before his
| | | Majesty.
-------------+-------------------+---------+-------------------------
Date. |For whom Entered. |Licenser.| Name of Play.
--------------+------------------+---------+-------------------------
1607 Oct. 22|Arthur Johnson | B. |The Merry Devil of
| | | Edmonton. A play.
Nov. 26|{Nathaniel Butter}| B. |Master William Shakespeare
| | |his history of King Lear,
| { John Busby }| |as it was played before
| | |the King's Majesty at
| | |Whitehall upon Saint
| | |Stephen's night at
| | |Christmas last by His
| | |Majesty's servants playing
| | |usually at the Globe on
| | |Bankside.
1607-8 Mar. 22| Richard Bonyon | B. |The Five Witty
| | | Gallants, as it hath
| | | been acted by the
| | | Children of the
| | | Chapel. A play.
1608 Mar. 28| Richard Moore | B. |A most witty and merry
| | | conceited comedy
| | | called Who would a'
| | | thought it, or Law
| | | Tricks.
April 12| John Helme | B. |Humour out of Breath.
April 21| Thomas Thorpe | B. |The characters of two
| | |Royal Masques invented by
| | |Ben. Johnson.
April 29|Thomas Man, jun. | B. |The second part of the
| | | Converted Courtesan,
| | | or Honest Whore.
May 2| [Thomas] Pavyer | ... |A Yorkshire Tragedy,
| | | written by Wylliam
| | | Shakespere.
May 20| Edward Blount | B. |Pericles, Prince of Tyre.
June 3| { John Busby }| B. |A Roman tragedy called
|{Nathanael Butter}| | the Rape of Lucrece.
June 5| Thomas Thorp | B. |The Conspiracy and
| | |Tragedy of Charles
| | |Duke of Byronn,
| | |written by George Chapman.
Oct. 4| { Walter Burre }| S. |A mad World, my
| { Eleazer Edgar }| | maysters.
Oct. 6| John Bache | B. |The Dumb Knight. A play.
1608 Nov. 25|Nathanael Butter | B. |The tragedy of Mustapha
| | |Zangar.
1608-9 Jan. 26| { Henry Walleys }| S. |The Case is altered.
| { Richard Bonion}| | [Bartholomew Sutton
| | | is added to the two
| | | other publishers on
| | | 20 July 1609.]
Jan. 27|Jeffrey Charlton | S. |Bonos Nochios. An interlud.
| | S. |Craft upon Subtilty's
| | | back. An interlude.
Jan. 28|{Richard Bonion} | S. |The history of Troylus
|{Henry Walleys} | | and Cressida.
Feb. 22|{Richard Bonion} | S. |The masque of Queens
|{Henry Walley} | | celebrated, done by
| | | Benjamin Johnson.
Mar. 10|John Busby, jun. | S. |The tragedy of the Turk,
| | |with the death of Borgias,
| | |by John Mason, gent.
1610 June 12| John Browne | ... |Chester's Triumph in
| | |honor of the Prince,
| | |as it was performed
| | |upon S. Gregory's day
| | |in the aforesaid city.
Sept. 20|{John Browne }| B. |Epiceone, or the Silent
|{John Busby, jun.}| |Woman, by Ben. Johnson.
Oct. 3| Walter Burre | B. |The Alchemist, made by
| | |Ben Johnson.
Oct. 31| Thomas Thorpe | B. |Histriomastix, or the
| | |Player Whipped.
Nov. 9| Robert Wilson | B. |Ram Alley, or Merry Tricks.
1611 Sept. 14| John Stepneth | B. |The tragedy of the Atheist.
Oct. 14| William Barrenger| B. |The Golden Age, with the
| | |lives of Jupiter and
| | |Saturn.
Nov. 23| John Budge | B. |A Woman is a Weathercock.
| | |A comedy.
1611-12 Feb. 1|William Barrenger | B. |A Christian turned Turk,
| | |or the tragical lives
| | |and deaths of the two
| | |famous pirates Ward and
| | |Danseker, as it hath
| | |been publicly acted.
| | |Written by Robert
| | |Daborn, gent.
Feb. 15|Edward Blunte | B. |A play-book, being a
| | |Tragi-comedy called
| | |the Nobleman, written
| | |by Cyril Tourneur.
--------------+------------------+---------+-------------------------
Date. |For whom Entered. |Licenser.| Name of Play.
---------------+-----------------------+---------+-------------------
1611-12 Feb. 15| Edward Blunte | B. |The Twins Tragedy,
| | |written by Niccolls.
| | |A tragedy.
1612 April 17| [John] Browne | B. |The Revenge of Bussy
| | |D'Amboys. A tragedy.
| | B. |The Widow's Tears. A
| | |comedy.
| | |Both written by George
| | |Chapman.
Dec. 17| Richard Hawkins | B. |The tragedy of the
| | |Fair Mariamne, Queen
| | |of Jewry.
1614 May 23| Richard Redmer | B. |Hog hath lost his
| | |Pearl.
1614-5 Feb. 21| Robert Lownes | B. |The Valiant Welshman.
1615 April 18| Walter Burr | ... |Ignoramus, Comoedia
| | |prout Cantabrigie
| | |acta coram Jacobo, &c.
April 24| Josias Harison | B. |The Hector of Germany,
| | |or the Palsgrave "is
| | |a harmless thing."
| | |[These four words
| | |have been struck
| | |through with a pen.]
April 24| Josias Harison | ... |Cupid's Revenge.
April 28| Nicholas Okes | ... |Albumazar. A comedy
| | |acted before His
| | |Majesty at Cambridge,
| | |10 Mar. 1614[-5].
Aug. 14|Richard Redmere | ... |The Honest Lawyer.
| | |A play. [Assigned at
| | |same date to Richard
| | |Woodriffe.]
1615-6 Mar. 19| Miles Patriche | B. |The Scornful Lady,
| | |written by Francis
| | |Beaumont and John
| | |Fletcher.
1618 April 20| John Parker | B. |The Marriages of the
| | |Arts, written by
| | |Barth. Holyday, M.A.
| | |A Comedy.
June 3| Barnard Alsope | ... |See me and see me not,
| | |by Dabridgcourt
| | |Belgier. A poem.
Aug. 7| [Edward] Blounte | B. |A King and no King.
| | |A play.
1619 April 28|{[Richard] Higgenbotham|} B. |The Maid's Tragedy.
|{[Francis] Constable |} |A play.
July 10| [John] Brown | B. |The Temple Masque,
| | |anno 1618.
Oct. 17| Richard Meighen | B. |Swetnam the Women
| | |Hater arraigned
| | |by Women. A comedy.
1619-20 Jan. 10| Thomas Walkley | ... |Philaster. A play.
Jan. 15| John Trundle | ... |The life and death of
| | |Guy of Warwick,
| | |written by John Day
| | |and Thomas Decker.
1620 May 22|Laurence Chapman | B. |Two Merry Milkmaids.
| | |A play.
| | |A courtly masque, or
July 4|{ George Purslowe } | B. |the The World Tost
|{John Trundle } | |at Tennis, acted at
| | |the Prince's Arms by
| | |the Prince his
| | |highness' servants.
1621 Sept. 18| John Norton | B. |The Pilgrim of
| | |Casteell, or the
| | |Fortunes of Llamphilus
| | |and Nisa. "Not to be
| | |printed until he
| | |bringeth more
| | |sufficient authority."
Oct. 6 | Thomas Walkley | B. |The Tragedy of
| | |Othello, the Moor of
| | |Venice.
Dec. 7 | Thomas Jones | B. |The Virgin Martyr. A
| | |tragedy.
1621-2 Feb. 22 | Matthew Rodes | B. |A tragedy of Herod and
| | |Antipater, by Gervase
| | |Markham.
1622-3 Jan. 20 |{Edward Blackmore } | A. |Sforza, Duke of
| { George Norton } | |Millaine, made by
| | |Master Messenger. A
| | |play.
1623 Sept. 3 | Francis Grove | A. |A book of Jigs
| | |containing three books
| | |or parts.
Nov. 8 |{[Edward] Blounte } | ... |Master William
|{ Isaac Jaggard } | |Shakspeer's Comedies,
| | |Histories, and
| | |Tragedies, so many of
| | |the said copies are
| | |not formally entered
| | |to other men.
... | ... | ... |Comedies: The Tempest.
... | ... | ... |The Two Gentlemen of
| | |Verona.
... | ... | ... |Measure for Measure.
---------------+-----------------------+---------+-------------------
Date. | For whom Entered.|Licenser.| Name of Play.
---------------+-------------------+---------+-----------------------
1623 Nov. 8| ... | ... |The Comedy of Errors.
... | ... | ... |As you like it.
... | ... | ... |All's well that ends
| | | well.
... | ... | ... |Twelfe Night.
... | ... | ... |The Winter's Tale.
... | ... | ... |Histories: The third
... | ... | |part of Henry VI.
... | ... | ... |Henry VIII.
... | ... | ... |Tragedies: Coriolanus.
... | ... | ... |Timon of Athens.
... | ... | ... |Julius Cæsar.
... | ... | ... |Macbeth.
... | ... | ... |Anthonie and Cleopatra.
... | ... | ... |Cymbeline.
... |{[John] Harrison } | |The Bondman, by
1623-4 Mar. 12|{Edward Blackmore} | H. | Phillip Messenger.
1624 June 28| John Wright | |The Spanish Jepsye.
1626 April 14| John Waterson | |The Staple of News.
| | | A comedy.
1627 April 8| Robert Milbourne | |Apollo Shroving. A
| | | comedy.
1627-8 Feb. 27| John Marriott | H. |The tragedy of
| | | Lodovick Sforza, Duke
| | | of Millan, by Robert
| | | Gomersall.
1629 June 2| Henry Seile | H. |The Lover's
| | | Melancholy, by John
| | | Ford, gent.
Nov. 13| Jaspar Emerye | H. |The Duchess of Suffolk,
| | |written by Thomas Drue.
| | | A play.
1629-30 Jan. 1| Ephraim Dawson | H. |The Collonell, written
| | | by William Davenant,
| | | gent.
1629-30 Jan. 10| John Waterson | H. |The Crewel Brother,
| | |written by William
| | |Davenant.
| | H. |The Just Italian, by
| | |the same.
Feb. 26| John Grove | H. |Hoffman, the Revengeful
| | |Father. A play.
| | H. |The Grateful Servant,
| | |by James Shirley. A play.
Feb. 27| Raph Mabbe | H. |The Spanish Bawd. A play.
Mar. 22| John Waterson | H. |The Runegado, by
| | |Philip Messenger. A play.
1630 Mar. 26| John Mariott | H. |Aristippus and the
| | |Pedler.
April 8|[Francis] Constable| H. |The Chast Mayd of
| | |Chepeside. A play.
April 8| ---- Allcott | H. |The Pedler, by R.
| | | Davenport. A comedy.
April 16|[Francis] Constable| H. |The Battle of the
| | | Affections, or Love's
| | | Lodestone. A play.
June 29| [Nathaniel] Butter| H. |The second part of the
| | | Honest Hoore, by
| | | Thomas Decker.
Sept. 13| Andrew Crooke | H. |A comedy in Latin
| | | called Loyola, by
| | | Doctor Hackket.
Nov. 8| [Henry] Seile | H. |Match me in London,
| | |by Thomas Decker. A play.
1630-1 Feb. 9| [Robert] Milborne | H. |A comedy in Latin
| | | called Pedantius.
Feb. 25|[Francis] Constable| H. |The School of Complement,
| | |by James Shirley.
1631 April 17| Thomas Alchorne | H. |New Inn, written by
| | |Ben. Johnson. A comedy.
April 25| William Sheeres | H. |Scicelides, acted at
| | | Cambridge. A play.
May 16| John Jackman | H. |The Wonder of a
| | | Kingdom, by Thomas
| | | Decker. A comedy.
| | | [Entered again under
| | | 24 Feb. 1635-6 to N.
| | | Vavasor, "dated 7 May
| | | 1631."]
May 16| John Jackman | H. |The Noble Spanish
| | |Souldier, by Thomas
| | |Deckar. A tragedy.
| | |[Entered again under
| | |9 Dec. 1633 to N.
| | |Vavasor, "anno 1631."]
May 18| [Thomas] Harper | H. |Cæsar and Pompey, by
| | |George Chapman. A play.
June 16| Richard Royston | H. |The Fair Maid of the
| | | West, 1st and 2d
| | | part. A comedy.
Sept. 7| [Richard] Meighen | H. |Amarath the Turk. A play.
1631 Sept. 7| [Richard] Meighen | H. |The tragedy of Bajazet
| | |II., or the Raging Turk.
Sept. 28| [Richard] Thrall | H. |Ffraus honesta.
Nov. 12| [Michael] Sparkes | H. |A flora show at Norwich.
Nov. 19| John Waterson | H. |The Emperor of the East.
| | |A playbook.
Nov. 24|[Francis] Constable| H. |A new wonder, or a
| | |Woman never vexed.
| | |A comedy by William
| | | Rowley.
1631-2 Jan. 16|[John] Waterson, | H. |The Maid of Honor, by
|jun. | |Philip Massinger. A play.
Jan. 26| John Grove | H. |The Leaguer. (The
| | |reformations to be
| | |strictly observed:
| | |may be printed not
| | |otherwise expressed
| | |by the foresaid words)
| | |[_sic_]. A comedy.
Feb. 9| William Cooke | H. |The Changes, or Love
| | | in a Maze, by Master
| | | Sherley. A comedy.
Mar. 24| Nicholas Vavasor | H. |The Northern Lass, by
| | |Master Broome. A comedy.
1632 Mar. 30| Francis Constable | H. |The Fatal Dowry. A
| | | tragedy.
May 9| Andrew Crooke | H. |A tragedy in Latin
| | | called Roxana.
June 13| [Humfrey] Robinson| H. |The Rival Friends,
| | | by Peter Hausten. A
| | | comedy.
Sept. 27| [Thomas] Harper | H. |All's lost by Lust, by
| | |William Rowley. A
| | | tragedy.
Nov. 2| William Sheares | H. |The Costly Whore.
| | | A Comedy.
Nov. 9| William Cooke | H. |A dialogue of Riches
| | | and Honor, by J. S.
Nov. 10| [Henry] Seile | H. |Alaham, by Fulke Lord
| | | Brooke. A tragedy.
| | H. |A new way to pay old
| | | debts, by Philip
| | | Massinger. A comedy.
Nov. 20 | Nicholas Vavasor | H. |The Jew of Malta.
| | | A tragedy.
1632-3 Jan. 15 | William Sheares | H. |A match at Midnight.
| | | A play.
1632-3 Jan. 15| William Cooke | H. |The witty fair one, by
| | |James Shirley. A play.
Jan. 21| Hugh Beeston | H. |Love's Sacrifice, by
| | | John Ford. A tragedy.
Mar. 19| William Cooke | H. |The Bird in the Cage,
| | | by James Shirley. A
| | | comedy.
1633 Mar. 28| Hugh Beeston | H. |The Broken Heart, by
| | | John Ford. A tragedy.
June 15| [Richard] Meighen | H. |The Fine Companion, by
| | | Shakerley Marmyon. A
| | | play.
July 15| Nicholas Okes | H. |The Traveller, by
| | | Master Heywood. A
| | | comedy.
Aug. 1 | ---- Allott | H. |Fuimus Troes, or the
| | | True Troians,
| | | represented by the
| | | gentlemen students of
| | | Magdalen College in
| | | Oxford.
1633-4 Feb. 24| Hugh Beeston | H. |Perkin Warbeck, by
| | | John Ford. "Observing
| | | the caution in the
| | | license." A tragedy.
1634 April 8| John Waterson | H. |The two Noble Kinsmen,
| | | by John Fletcher and
| | | William Shakespeare.
| | | A tragi-comedy.
April 17| John Spenser | H. |Bellum grammaticale,
| | | by Master Spense.
June 25| Nicholas Oakes | Bl. |A maidenhead well
| | | lost. A play.
Oct. 28| Benjamin Fisher | H. |The Witches of
| | | Lancashire. A play.
Nov. 3| William Cooke | H. |The Traytor, by James
| | | Shirley. A play.
1634-5 Jan. 19| John Benson | H. |The Shepherd's
| | |Holiday, by J. Rutter.
| | |A tragi-comedy.
1635 Sept. 30| John Crouch | Bl. |The Queen's Masque, or
| | | Love's Mistress, by
| | | Master Haywood. A play.
Dec. 7| [John] Marriott | H. |The Great Duke of
| | | Florence. A comical
| | | history, by Philip
| | | Massinger.
1635-6 Feb. 4| [Richard] Meighen | H. |The Platonic Lovers,
| | | by William Davenant.
| | | A play.
Feb. 4| [Richard] Meighen | H. |The Wits, by William
| | | Davenant. A play.
1636 June 17| Robert Raworth | H. |A challenge for
| | | Beauty, by Haywood.
| | | A play.
| | Bl. |The history of
| | | Anniball and Scipio,
| | | by Thomas Nabbes.
Aug. 6| Charles Greene | | A play.
| | Bl. |A moral masque, by
| | | Thomas Nabbes.
1636-7 Mar. 29| {[John] Waterson }| T. |The Elder Brother,
[? 23]| {John Benson }| | written by John
| | | Fletcher. A comedy.
Mar. 25| James Beckett | T. |The Royal King and
| | | the Loyal Subjects,
| | | by Master Heywood.
| | | A comedy.
1637 April 13| { Andrew Crooke }| T. |Hide Park, by James
| | | Shirley. A comedy.
| { William Cooke }| T. |The Lady of } By James
| | | Pleasure. } Shirley.
| | T. |The Young } Two plays.
| | | Admiral. }
April 26| [John] Waterson | T. |The Valiant Scot. A
| | | tragedy.
Oct. 18| { Andrew Crooke }| |The Example, by Master
| { William Cooke }| | Shirley. A play.
Nov. 15| William Cooke | |The Gamester, by
| | |James Shirley. A play.
Nov. 28| John Okes | |A Shoemaker is a
| | |gentleman, with the
| | |life and death of the
| | |Cripple that stole the
| | |weathercock of Paul's,
| | |by William Rowley.
| | |A comedy.
1637-8 Jan. 29| Thomas Walkley | H. |The Cid, a tragi-comedy
| | |translated out of French
| | |by Master Rutter.
Feb. 3| [Henry] Seile | |The Fancies, by John
| | | Ford. A play.
Feb. 15| John Okes | |The Martyred Soldier,
| | |with the life and
| | |death of Purser
| | |Clinton, by H. Shirley.
Mar. 5| John Okes | |The Lost Lady. A play.
Mar. 12| Henry Sheapard | |The wisewoman of Hogsden,
| | |by Thomas Haywood.
| | |A play.
Mar. 13| {[Andrew] Crooke }| |The Duke's Mistress,
| { William Cooke }| |by James Shirley. A play.
Mar. 13| [Andrew] Crooke | |The Conspiracy. A play.
---------------+-------------------+---------+-----------------------
Date. | For whom Entered.| Name of Play.
---------------+--------------------+--------------------------------
1637-8 Mar. 13| [Andrew] Crooke |The Royal Master, by James
| John Crooke | Shirley. A play.
| Richard Searger |
| |A Latin Comedy called Naufragium
Mar. 14| [Henry] Seile | Joculare, by Abraham Cowley.
| |A Pastoral Comedy called Love's
| | Riddle, by Abraham Cowley,
| | whilst he was King's Scholar in
| | Westminster School.
1638 Mar. 30| { [Thomas] Harper }|A Latin Comedy called
| { [Thomas] Slater }| Cornelianum Dolium, by T. R.
April 5| Charles Greene |Tottenham Court, by Thomas
| | Nabbes. A play.
April 18| Thomas Walkley |Aglaura, by Sir John Sucklin,
| | Knight. A play.
May 28| Charles Greene |Covent Garden, by Thomas Nabbes.
| | A play.
June 23| Charles Greene |The Spring's glory, by Thomas
| | Nabbes. A book.
July 13| John Oakes |The Seven Champions of
| | Christendom, with the life and
| | death of Jack Straw and Wat
| | Tyler, by John Kirke. A play.
Oct. 24| { [Andrew] Crooke }| Phillip Chalbott, Admiral of
| { William Crooke }| France, and the Ball, by James
| | Shirley. A book.
Oct. 26| { John Crooke }| Arviagus and Philicia, first
| { Richard Serger }| and second parts. A play.
Oct. 26| Thomas Walkley |The Tragedy of } Two
| | Cleopatra, and Julia } plays.
| | Agripina, Emperess of }
| | Rome. }
Nov. 6| Henry Sheapard |The Lady's Trial, by John Ford.
| | A play.
Nov. 7| [Humphry] Mozeley |The Sophister. A comedy.
1638-9 Jan. 11| [Daniel] Pakeman |Argalus and Parthenia, by Henry
| | Glapthorne. A play.
Jan. 22| [John] Waterson |Monsieur Thomas, by Master John
| | Fletcher. A comedy.
Feb. 14| [John] Waterson |The unnatural Combat, by Phillip
| | Massinger. A tragedy.
Mar. 1| [Thomas] Harper |Imperiale. A tragedy.
1639 Mar. 28| Humphrey Blundon |A new trick to cheat the Devil,
| |by Master Damport. A book or
| |comedy.
1639 April 12|William Cooke |The Maid's Revenge, by James
| |Shirley. A play.
April 25|{ [Andrew] Crooke }|Nightwalkers. }
|{ William Cooke }|Opportunity. }
| |Love's Cruelty. } 5 plays.
| |The Coronation. }
| |Wit without money.}
June 18|John Okes |The Knave in Grain, or Jack
| | Cottington. A play.
July 8|Laurence Blaicklock |The Bride, by Thomas Nabbes.
| | A play.
July 29|William Cooke |The Humorous Courtier, by James
| | Shirley. A play.
Sept. 23|George Hutton |Albertus Wallenstein, late Duke
| | of Friedland, by Henry
| | Glapthorne. A tragedy.
Oct. 3|Daniel Frere |Messalina, the Roman Empress,
| |by N. R. A tragedy.
Oct. 4|{ John Crooke }|The Bloody Brother, by J. B.
|{ Richard Sergier }| A tragedy.
Nov. 4|Daniel Frere |Unfortunate Mother, a tragedy
| |by Thomas Nabbes. A play.
Nov. 20|Daniel Frere |The Rebellion, by Thomas
| | Rawlins. A play.
Nov. 29|{ John Williams }|The Arcadia. A Pastoral.
|{Francis Egglestone}|Love's Cruelty, by James
| | Shirley. A Tragedy. Entered
| | before to Master Crooke.
1639-40 Jan. 31|[William] Leake |The Strange Discovery, by J. G.,
| | gent. A tragi-comedy.
Feb. 14|William Cooke |The Tragedy of Saint Albons, by
| | Master James Shirley. A play.
Feb. 20|John Benson |The Masque of the Gypsies, by
| | Benjamin Johnson.
1639-40 Mar. 11|{ John Williams }|The Antiquary. A comedy.
|{Francis Egglestone}|Look to the Lady, by James
| |Shirley. A comedy.
| |Sparagus Garden. } Three plays,
Mar. 19|[Francis] Constable |The Antipodes. } by Rich.
| |Wit in a Madness.} Brome.
| |The Masque of Augurs.
Mar. 20|{ [Andrew] Crooke } |Time Vindicated.
|{ Richard Seirger } |Neptune's Triumphs.
| |Pan's Anniversary, or The
| |Shepherd's Holiday. Four
| |masques, by Benjamin Jonson.
1640 April 2|William Cooke |The Queen of Arragon, by
| |William Habington, Esquire.
| |The Swaggering Damosell, by
April 2|[Andrew] Crooke |Master Chamberlayne. A comedy.
| |The Prisoner, by Master
| |Killegrey. A tragedy.
April 4|[Francis] Constable |The Lady's Privilege, by Henry
| |Glaphthorne. A play.
April 27|[Francis] Constable |Wit in a Constable, by Henry
| |Glapthorne. A comedy.
April 28|[Richard] Whitaker |Saint Patrick for } Two plays,
| |Ireland. } by James
| |The Constant Maid.} Shirley.
May 22|Widow Wilson |The Hollander, by Henry
| |Glapthorne. A comedy.
May 22|John Okes |Love's Masterpiece, by Thomas
| |Haywood. A comedy.
| |Claracilla, by Master }
| |Killegray. A play. }
| |Christianetta. }
| |The Jewish Gentleman. } Six
Aug. 4|[Andrew] Crooke |A New Academy or } plays,
| | Exchange. } by
| |The Lovesick Count. } Richard
| |The Covent Garden. } Broome.
| |The English Moor, or }
| | Mock Marriage. }
---------------+--------------------+--------------------------------
TABLE V.--TRANSFERS OF COPYRIGHT IN PLAYS, 1584-1640.
----------------+---------------------------+
| |
Date. | Name of Play. |
| |
----------------+---------------------------+
| |
1584 |Campaspe |
1585 April 1 |Galatea |
1584 April 6 |Sappho |
1591 Oct. 4 |{Midas |
|{Endymion |
1594 Jan. 18 |Mother Bombie |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1591, Oct. 4, Galathea re-entered. 1597, April 12, Sappho and
Campaspe transferred from T. Cadman to Joan Brome. 1601, Aug.
23, Sappho, Campaspe, Endymion, Midas, Galatea, from Mrs. Brome,
deceased, to G. Potter. 1632, all six published together by E.
Blount.
| |
1592 Oct. 6 |Spanish Tragedy |
1593 Oct. 8 |Edward Longshanks |
1593 Oct. 23 |Jack Straw |
1593-4 Mar. 5 |Looking-glass for London |
1593-4 Mar. 12 |i York and Lancaster |
1595 |ii York and Lancaster |
1600 Aug. 11 |Sir John Oldcastle |
1600 Aug. 4 |Henry V. "stayed" |
1608 May 2 |Yorkshire Tragedy |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1599, Aug. 13, Spanish Tragedy and Edward Longshanks assigned from
A. Jeffes to W. White. 1600, Aug. 14, Henry V., Spanish Tragedy,
Edward Longshanks, Jack Straw, Looking-glass for London, "formerly
printed," set over to T. Pavier. 1602, April 19, 1 & 2 Henry VI.
assigned from T. Millington to T. Pavier. 1626, Aug. 4, Henry V.,
Spanish Tragedy, Sir John Oldcastle, and "Master Pavier's right in
Shakespeare's plays, or any of them," assigned by Mrs. Pavier to E.
Brewster and R. Bird. 1630, Nov. 8, his interest in Henry V., Sir
John Oldcastle, York and Lancaster, and Yorkshire Tragedy assigned
by Mr. Bird to J. Cotes.
| |
1600 July 24 |Maid's Metamorphosis |
1600 Sept. 8 |Jack Drum's entertainment |
1600 Oct. 23 |Weakest goeth to the wall |
1618 Aug. 7 |King and no King |
1619 April 28|Maid's Tragedy |
1619-20 Jan. 10 |Philaster |
1621 Oct. 6 |Othello |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1600, Oct. 23, Jack Drum assigned from F. Norton to R. Oliff. 1615,
Nov. 6, Jack Drum, Weakest to the Wall, and Maid's Metamorphosis,
from Mrs. Oliff to P. Knight. 1617, Oct. 18, Weakest to Wall
and Maid's Metamorphosis assigned from P. Knight to R. Hawkins.
1627-8, Mar 1, King and no King, Philaster, and Orthello assigned
from T. Walkley to R. Hawkins. 1629, Oct. 27, Maid's Tragedy from
Heggenbotham and Constable to R. Hawkins. 1638, May 29, all the
group except Jack Drum from Hawkins to Mead and Meredith. 1638-9,
Jan. 25, the same from them to Leake.
| |
1599 Aug. 28 |1 & 2 Edward IV. |
1601 Oct. 24 |Antonio and Mellida |
1601 Dec. 21 |Poetaster |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1599-1600, Feb. 23, his moiety in 1 & 2 Edward IV. assigned from
J. Busby to H. Lownes. 1627, May 30, his share in Poetaster and
Anthonie and Mellida assigned by T. Lownes to H. Lownes and R.
Young, 1628, Nov. 6, his interest in Poetaster, 1 & 2 Jane Shore,
and Anthony and Melida assigned by H. Lownes to G. Cole and G.
Latham. 1630, Dec. 6, their interest in the same play assigned by
them to R. Young.
| |
1597 Aug. 29 |Richard II. |
1597 Oct. 20 |Richard III. |
1597-8 Feb. 25 |1 Henry IV. |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1603, Jan. 25, set over from A. Wise to M. Low.
| |
1600 Aug. 14 |Every Man in his humor |
1601 May 23 |Cynthia's Revels |
|(Narcissus) |
1604 Nov. 2 |Sejanus |
1607 |Volpone |
1608 Oct. 4 |A mad world, my Masters |
1610 Sept. 20|Silent Woman |
1610 Oct. 3 |Alchemist |
1611 |Catilina |
1612 April 17|D'Ambois' Revenge |
1615 April 18|Ignoramus |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1605, Aug. 6, Sejanus assigned by E. Blunt to T. Thorpe. 1610, Oct.
3, Sejanus and Vulpone assigned by T. Thorpe to W. Burre. 1612,
Sept. 28, Silent Woman assigned by J. Browne to W. Burre. 1622-3,
Feb. 17, D'Ambois' Revenge assigned by Mrs. Browne to J. Marriott.
1630, July 3, Narcissus, Mad World, Alchemist, Silent Woman,
Ignoramus, assigned by Mrs. Bur to J. Spencer. 1630, July 20,
Ignoramus entered for G. Edmondson and J. Spenser (with Spencer's
consent). 1635, July 4, all the seven plays by Jonson were entered
for Stansby by virtue of a note bearing date 1621, June 10, under
the hands of W. Burre and M. Lownes. _N.B._ Stansby printed the
Jonson folios 1616, 1631.
| |
1594 May 2 |Taming of a Shrew |
1598 |Love's Labour's Lost |
1599 |Romeo and Juliet |
1602 July 26 |Hamlet |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1606-7, Jan 22, the first three were entered for N. Ling, with
C. Burby's consent. 1607, Nov. 19, all four were set over to J.
Smythick. Mr. Halliwell in his Outlines omits the Shrew entry.
| |
1594 May 28 |Orlando |
1595 April 1 |George a Greene |
1595 Dec. 1 |Edward III. |
1600 Aug. 14 |Every man in his humour |
1600 Oct. 28 |Summer's last Will and T. |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1609, Oct. 16, assigned by Mrs. Burby to Welby. 1617-8, Mar. 2, by
Welby to Snodham. 1625-6, Feb. 23, by Mrs. Snodham to W. Stansby.
1638-9, Mar. 4, the first four by Mrs Stansby to Bishop. Only half
shares in the two last plays are concerned in these entries.
| |
1600 |The Shoemaker's Holiday |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1610, April 19, assigned from V. Symms to J. Wrighte, and agreed
that "Symms shall have the workmanship of the printing thereof
for the use of the said J. Wrighte during his life, if he have a
printing house of his own."
| |
1600-1 Jan. 7 |Dr. Faustus |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1610, Sept. 13, assigned from T. Bushell to J. Wright.
| |
| |
1593 July 6 |Edward II. |
1600 Oct. 7 |Dr. Doddypoll |
| |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1611, Dec. 16, Edward II. assigned from W. Jones to R. Barnes.
1615-6, Jan. 5, Dr. Doddipoll from Mrs. Oliffe to H. Bell. 1617,
April 17, Edward II. from R. Barnes to H. Bell. 1638, Sept. 4,
both plays from Henry and Moses Bell to Haviland and J. Wright.
| |
1600 Dec. 1 |1 & 2 Robin Hood |
1602 Aug. 11 |Lord Cromwell |
1605-6 Mar. 12 |The Fawn |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1616-7, Feb. 16, all assigned from Leake to Barrett. 1626, April 3,
Cromwell and Fawn from Mrs. Barrett to Parker. 1638, Sept. 4, all
the plays from Parker to Haviland and J. Wright.
| |
1598 |Mucedorus |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1618, Sept. 17, assigned by Mrs. Jones to J. Wright.
| |
1605 June 26 |Dutch Courtesan |
1605-6 Mar. 17 |Sophonisba |
1607 May 20 |Woman hater |
1608 Oct. 4 |A Mad World, my M. |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1613, April 19, "a half part" in the two last plays, all Edgar's
interest in the Courtesan (which was entered originally to
Hodgetts), and the whole of Sophonisba assigned from E. Edgar to
J. Hodgetts.
| |
1615 Aug. 14 |The Honest Lawyer |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1622-3 Jan. 11, assigned by R. Woodriffe to T. Barlow.
| |
1607 April 24|Fair Maid of Exchange |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1616, April 9, assigned by Mrs. Rocket to N. Bourne. 1635-6, Feb.
27, by Bourne to G. Edwards.
| |
|{Cupid's Revenge |
1615 April 24|{The Palsgrave |
1615-6 Mar. 19 |Scornful Lady |
1621 Dec. 7 |Virgin Martyr |
1624 |Nero |
1633 |The Heir |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1617, May 8, Scornful Lady assigned by M. Patrich to T. Jones.
1619, April 15, Cupid's Revenge and the Palsgrave by J. Harrison
to T. Jones. 1633, Oct. 24, all six plays by T. Jones to Matthews.
| |
1600 Oct. 28 |Merchant of Venice |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1619, July 8, L. Hayes, inherited from T. Hayes, his father.
| |
1607 Oct. 12 |Family of Love |
1608 April 12|Humor out of Breath |
1614 |Greenes's Tu Quoque |
1617 |Fair Quarrel |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1621, Sept. 2, Tu quoque and Fair Quarrel assigned by J. Trundle to
T. Dewe. 1627, Dec. 3, all four plays by Mrs. Helme (and T. Dewe?)
to W. Washington. 1628, May 21, the last three by him to Flesher.
| |
1607 Oct. 22 |Merry Devil of Edmonton |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1624, June 21, Assigned by A. Johnson to F. Faulkner.
| |
1592 April 3 |Arden of Feversham |
1592 Nov. 20 |Salomon and Bersheba |
|{F. Bacon and F. Bungay |
1594 May 14 |{Robin Hood and Little John|
? |The Owl (not extant; |
|written 1613) |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1624, June 29, assigned by Mrs. White to E. Aldee. [The Leire
entered with these was not the old play, but a prose history now
lost] 1640, April 22, Bacon, Robin Hood, and The Owl assigned from
Mrs. Aldee to Oulton.
| |
1608 Oct. 6 |The Dumb Knight |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1610, Nov. 19, assigned by J. Bache to R. Wilson.
| |
1603 |Nero (in Latin) |
1611 Nov. 23 |Woman's a Weathercock |
1614 |Bartholomew Fair |
1622 |Share in Shakespeare Folio |
1626 April 14|Staple of News |
1629 |Roman Actor |
1630 Mar. 26 |Aristippus |
1633 Aug. 1 |True Trojans |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1626, Sept. 4, Nero and Woman's a Weathercock transferred from J.
Budge to Allott. 1630, Nov. 16, Blount's interest in Shakespeare
assigned to Allott. 1631, Sept. 7, Staple of News assigned by J.
Waterson to Allot. 1637, July 1, all the group from Mrs Allott to
Legatt and A. Crook. [_N.B._ 1 Henry VI, is called 3 Henry VI.,
Troylus is omitted, and Anthony included in the 1630 entry]
| |
1623 Nov. 8 |Share in Shakespeare Folio |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1627, June 19, Jaggard's share assigned by Mrs. Jaggard to T.
Cotes and R. Cotes.
| |
1609 |Faithful Shepherdess |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1628, Dec. 8, H. Walley's share assigned to R. Meighen.
| |
1606 Nov. 12 |Wily Beguiled |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1629, Oct. 12, assigned by C. Knight to T. Knight. 1635-6, Mar. 8,
by T. Knight to Alchorn.
| |
1601-2 Jan. 18 |Merry Wives of Windsor |
1607 May 19 |Phoenix |
1607 May 15 |Michaelmas Term |
1607 June 29 |Cupid's Whirligig |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1629-30, Jan. 29, assigned by A. Johnson to Meighen.
| |
1594 June 19 |Four London Prentises |
1611-12 Oct. 14 |Golden Age |
1613 |Silver Age |
1632 |Iron Age |
1615 April 28|Albumazar |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1630, Aug. 2, assigned by N. Okes to J. Okes.
| |
1611 |Roaring Girl |
1612 |White Devil |
1613 |Insatiate Countess |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1630-1, Feb. 10, assigned by T. Archer to H. Perrey. 1634, Sept.
15, White Devil and Insatiate Countess assigned by H. Perrey to H.
Taunton.
| |
1621-2 Feb. 22 |Herod and Antipater |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1633, May 9, assigned by M. Rhodes to F. Smith. 1633, Aug. 3, by
F. Smith to T. Lambert. 1633-4, Jan. 2, by T. Lambert to F. Smith
again.
| |
1606-7 Feb. 23 |Lingua |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1635, Aug. 19, assigned by S. Waterson to J. Waterson.
| |
1607 July 31 |Misery of enforced M. |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1637, April 28, assigned by Mrs. Vincent to R. Thraile.
| |
1607 Oct. 22 |Merry Devil of E. |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1624, June 21, assigned by A. Johnson to F. Faulkner.
| |
1608 Nov. 26 |Mustapha. |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1632, Nov. 10, assigned by N. Butter to J. Seile.
| |
1619-20 Jan. 15 |Guy of Warwick |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1620, Dec. 13, assigned by J. Trundle to T. Langley.
| |
1620 May 22 |Two Merry Milkmaids |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1623, Sept. 13, assigned by L. Chapman to M. Walbanke.
| |
1622-3 Jan. 20 |Duke of Milan |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1623, May 5, Norton's share assigned to Blackmore.
| |
1639 June 18 |Knave in grain |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1639, Oct. 22, assigned by J. Okes to J. Nicholson as "new vampt"
[which is not part of the title, as Mr. Haliwell supposes].
| |
1630 |Picture |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1634, Aug. 8, assigned by T. Walkey to J. Waterson.
| |
1600 April 8 |Every Man out of his Humor |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1638, April 28, assigned by Smethwick to Bishop.
| |
1629 |Wedding |
1629-30 Feb. 26 |{Grateful Servant |
|{Hoffmann |
1631-2 Jan. 26 |Holland's Leaguer |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1637, Sept. 25, assigned by J. Grove to W. Leake.
| |
1637-8 Mar. 5 |Lost Lady |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1638, Sept. 24, assigned by J. Okes to J. Coleby. 1640, Sept. 5,
by J. Coleby to R. Roiston.
| |
1604-5 Feb. 12 |Henry VIII. (When you see |
| me, &c.) |
1605 July 5 |1. If you know not me, &c. |
1605 Sept. 14|2. If you know not me, &c. |
1607 Nov. 26 |Lear |
1608 June 3 |Lucrece, Roman tragedy |
1630 June 29 |2. Honest Whore |
| |
To whom Transferred.
--------------------
1639, May 21, assigned by N. Butter to Flessher.
----------------+----------------------------+-----------------------
At this point we lose the aid of Mr. Arber's reprint of "The
Stationers' Registers," which does not extend beyond 1640. It is,
however, necessary to continue our notes to 1660, the date of the
reopening of the theatres, because even at that date entries were made
attributing plays to Shakespeare. The following memoranda have no
pretence to completeness, and are compiled (pending an opportunity of
examining the registers themselves) from the much-abused _Biographia
Dramatica_, which is, nevertheless, much more useful than the
abbreviated compilation made from it (retaining nearly all its errors)
by the scissors of Mr. Halliwell, and published by him as _A Dictionary
of Old English Plays_. Two of these entries are so important for
dramatic history that they are printed in parallel columns, with the
list of MSS. once in the possession of John Warburton, the Somerset
Herald, but mostly destroyed by his cook. From these it will be seen at
a glance that three-fifths of his collection consisted of the remainder
of Moseley's stock, which contained the majority of old unprinted MSS.
extant in 1660.
From these S. R. entries, taken as a whole, the reader will find that
the total number of extant plays originally produced between 1576,
when theatres were first opened, and their closing in 1642, is less
than 500. Nor have we reason to believe that they ever numbered more
than 2000 or so. Nearly all worth preserving has been preserved. The
gross exaggerations of Halliwell and Collier on this matter depend on
their estimating the number of contemporaneous theatres and companies
at some fifteen. They really never exceeded five. They also neglect
the facts that many so-called new plays were mere revisions of the old
ones, "new vamped" versions slightly altered; and that the inferior
theatres depended largely on extemporaneous performances, of which only
the plots were committed to writing. In the palmy days of the Admiral's
company, Henslow brought out a new play once a fortnight, but this was
undoubtedly an exceptional instance. The best companies, such as the
King's, and after them the Queen's, produced one in about two months.
Taking all this into consideration, 2000 is a liberal estimate; 20,000
is a number that could only be dreamed of by an inaccurate writer
intent on effect rather than truth. And of this 2000 not more than a
quarter would be worth preserving: indeed, of those preserved many are
quite valueless. The few good ones lost are such as _The Jeweller of
Amsterdam_, suppressed for political reasons; or the original _Henry
VIII._, destroyed by fire or other accident.
In these Supplementary Lists names of authors wrongly attributed are
printed in _italics_, and names of plays occurring both in Warburton's
list and Moseley's entries are _asterised_.
* * * * *
1646. Sept. 4, were entered, The Spartan Ladies, by Ludovic
Carlell; The Corporal and the Switzer, by Arthur Wilson; The Fatal
Friendship, by Burroughes.
1653. Sept. 23, The Bondwoman.
1653. Nov. 29 (by R. Marriot), The Black Wedding; Castara, or
Cruelty without Lust; The Conceits; The Divorce; The Florentine
Friend; A Fool and her Maindenhead soon parted; The Law Case; The
Noble Ravishers; The Paraside, or Revenge for Honor, by _Henry
Glapthorne_; Pity the Maids; The Proxy, or Love's Aftergame; The
Royal Choice, by Sir Robert Stapylton; Salisbury Plain; Supposed
Inconstancy; The Woman's Law; Woman's Masterpiece; The Younger
Brother.
1654. April 8, The Apprentice's Prize, by Brome and Heywood; The
Life and Death of Sir Martin Skink, with the Wars of the Low
Countries, by Brome and Heywood; The Jeweller of Amsterdam, or the
Hague, by Fletcher, Field, and Massinger; The Maiden's Holiday, by
Marlowe and Day (see Warburton's list).
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE OF MOSELEY'S ENTRIES IN 1653 AND 1660, AND
WARBURTON'S LIST.
+---------------------------------+--------------------------------++
Plays entered 9 Sept. 1653 | Authors. ||
----------------------------------+--------------------------------++
*Philenzo and Hippolito. C. | P. Massinger ||
| ||
*The Spanish Viceroy, or The | P. Massinger ||
Honor of Women. C. | ||
| ||
*Minerva's Sacrifice, or The | P. Massinger ||
Forced Lady. T. | ||
| ||
*Believe as you list. C. | P. Massinger ||
| ||
The Italian Nightpiece, | P. Massinger ||
or Unfortunate Piety. | ||
| ||
The Wandering Lovers, or | P. Massinger ||
The Painter. C. | ||
| ||
*The Very Woman, or The Woman's | P. Massinger ||
Plot [or the Prince of Tarent.] | ||
T.C. | ||
| ||
*The Noble Choice, or The | P. Massinger ||
Orator. T.C. | ||
| ||
The Prisoner, or The Fair | P. Massinger ||
Anchoress [of Pausilippo]. T.C. | ||
| ||
The Fool without Book. | W. Rowley ||
| ||
*The Second Maiden's Tragedy. | ||
| ||
*Beauty in a Trance. | J. Ford ||
| ||
*The Governor. | Sir C. Formido ||
| ||
*The Puritan Maid, the Modest | T. Middleton ||
Wife, and the Wanton Widow. C. | ||
| ||
*The Widow's Prize. C. | W. Sampson ||
| ||
The history of Cardenio. | Fletcher and _Shakespeare_ ||
| ||
*Henry I. and Henry II. | _Shakespeare_ and Davenport ||
| [Query, is Duke Humphrey a ||
| version of 2 Henry VI.?] ||
*The Inconstant Lady. C. | A. Wilson ||
| ||
The Lovesick Maid or, The | R. Brown ||
Honor of Young Ladies. | ||
| ||
The Jew of Venice. | T. Dekker ||
| ||
The Woman's Mistake. | Drue & Davenport ||
| ||
The Duke of Guise. | H. Shirley ||
| ||
The Dumb Bawd. | H. Shirley ||
| ||
Giraldo the Constant Lover. | H. Shirley ||
| ||
The Spanish Duke of Lerma. | H. Shirley ||
| ||
The Countryman. | Anonymous ||
| ||
The King's Mistress. | Anonymous ||
| ||
The Politic Bankrupt, or Which | Anonymous ||
is the best Girl? | ||
----------------------------------+--------------------------------++
++--------------------------------+--------------------------------++
|| Plays in the Warburton MSS. | Authors. ||
|| | ||
++--------------------------------+--------------------------------++
|| *Philenzo and Hippolito. C. | P. Massinger ||
|| | ||
|| *Antonio and Vallia. C. | P. Massinger ||
|| | ||
|| *The Parliament of Love. C. | _W. Rowley_ ||
|| | ||
|| The Judge. C. | P. Massinger ||
|| *The Honor of Women. C. | P. Massinger ||
|| | ||
|| *Minerva's Sacrifice. T. | P. Massinger ||
|| | ||
|| *The Forced Lady. T. | P. Massinger ||
|| | ||
|| *Believe as you list. C. | P. Massinger ||
|| | ||
|| *The Woman's Plot. T.C. | P. Massinger ||
|| | ||
|| *The Noble Choice. T.C. | P. Massinger ||
|| | ||
|| *The Tyrant. T. | P. Massinger ||
|| | ||
|| Alexias, or The Chaste | P. Massinger ||
|| Gallant. T. | ||
|| | ||
|| *Fast and Welcome. C. | P. Massinger ||
|| | ||
|| *The four honorable Loves. C. | W. Rowley ||
|| | ||
|| *The Nonesuch. C. | W. Rowley ||
|| | ||
|| *The Second Maiden's Tragedy. | _G. Chapman_ ||
|| | ||
|| *Yorkshire Gentle-woman and | G. Chapman ||
|| her sons | ||
|| | ||
|| *The Fatal Love. | ||
|| | ||
|| *The King of Swedland. | ||
|| | ||
|| *Jocondo and Astolpho. | T. Dekker ||
|| | ||
|| *An ill beginning may have a | J. Ford ||
|| good end. C. | ||
|| | ||
|| *The London Merchant. C. | J. Ford ||
|| | ||
|| *The Royal Combat. C. | J. Ford ||
|| | ||
|| *Beauty in a Trance. | J. Ford ||
|| | ||
|| *The Governor. | Sir C. Formido ||
|| | ||
|| *The Duchess of Fernandina. T. | H. Glapthorne ||
|| | ||
|| The Vestal. T. | H. Glapthorne ||
|| | ||
|| *Nothing impossible to Love. | Sir R. LeGreece ||
|| T.C. | ||
|| | ||
|| *Love hath found out his eyes. | T. Jordan ||
|| | ||
|| *The Crafty Merchant, | _S. Marmion_ ||
|| or the Soldiered Citizen, | ||
|| [or Come to my country house], | ||
|| or the Merchant's Sacrifice. | [W. Bonen] ||
|| | ||
|| *The Puritan Maid, the Modest | T. Middleton ||
|| Wife, and the Wanton Widow. C. | ||
|| | ||
|| *The Widow's Prize. C. | W. Sampson ||
|| | ||
|| A play. | _W. Shakespeare_ ||
|| | ||
|| *Henry I. | _W. Shakespeare_ ||
|| | ||
|| *Duke Humphrey. T. | _W. Shakespeare_ ||
|| | ||
|| *The Inconstant Lady. C. | A. Wilson ||
|| | ||
|| The Fair Favorite. | Sir W. Davenant ||
|| The Bugbears. C. | J. Geffrey ||
|| | ||
|| A Mask. | R. Govell ||
|| | ||
|| The History (Tragedy) of Jobe. | R. Greene ||
|| | ||
|| The Queen of Corsica. T. | F. Jaques ||
|| | ||
|| | ||
|| The Maiden's Holiday. | C. Marlowe ||
|| | ||
|| St. George for England. | Wil. Smith ||
|| | ||
|| Works. | Sir J. Suckling ||
|| | ||
|| 'Tis good sleeping in a whole | W. Wager ||
|| skin. | ||
|| | ||
|| An enterlude. | R. Wood ||
|| | ||
|| The Flying Voice. | R. Wood ||
|| | ||
|| The City Shuffler. | Anonymous ||
|| | ||
|| The Fairy Queen. | Anonymous ||
|| | ||
|| The Great Man. | Anonymous ||
|| | ||
|| The Lovers of Loodgate. | Anonymous ||
|| | ||
|| Orpheus. | Anonymous ||
|| | ||
|| The Spanish Puecas. | Anonymous ||
|| | ||
|| Demetrius and Marsina, or The | Anonymous ||
|| Imperial Imposter and unhappy | ||
|| Heroine. | ||
++--------------------------------+--------------------------------++
++--------------------------------+----------------------------------
|| Plays entered 29 June 1660. | Authors.
++--------------------------------+----------------------------------
|| |
|| *Antonio and Vallia. C. | P. Massinger
|| |
|| *The Parliament of Love. | _W. Rowley_
|| |
|| *Believe as you list. C. | P. Massinger
|| |
|| *A right Woman. | _Beau._ and Flet.
|| |
|| *The Tyrant. T. | P. Massinger
|| |
|| *Fast and Welcome. C. | P. Massinger
|| |
|| *The four honored Loves. C. | W. Rowley
|| |
|| *The Nonesuch. C. | W. Rowley
|| |
|| *The Yorkshire Gentle-woman | G. Chapman
|| and her son. |
|| |
|| *Fatal Love, a French tragedy. | G. Chapman
|| |
|| *Gustavus, King of Swethland. | T. Dekker
|| |
|| *The tale of Jocondo | T. Dekker
|| and Astolpho. C. |
|| |
|| *An ill beginning has a good | J. Ford
|| end, and a &c. C. |
|| |
|| *The London Merchant. C. | J. Ford
|| |
|| *The Royal Combat. C. | J. Ford
|| |
|| *The Duchess of Fernandina, T. | H. Glapthorne
|| |
|| The Noble Trial. | H. Glapthorne
|| |
|| *Nothing impossible to Love. | Sir R. LeGreece
|| T.C. |
|| |
|| *Love hath found out his eyes. | T. Jordan
|| |
|| *The Soldiered Citizen. |
|| |
|| Iphis and Ianthe, or A | _W. Shakespeare_
|| marriage without a man. |
|| |
|| *Duke Humphrey. | _W. Shakespeare_
|| The History of King Stephen. | _W. Shakespeare_
|| |
|| The Faithful Friends. | _Beau. and Flet._
|| The history of Madoc, King of | _F. Beaumont_
|| Britain. |
|| |
|| The Fatal Brothers. T. | R. Davenport
|| |
|| The Politic Queen, or Murther | R. Davenport
|| will out. |
|| |
|| The Prodigal Scholar. C. | T. Randall
|| |
|| The Christmas Ordinary. | Trin. Coll. Oxon.
++--------------------------------+----------------------------------
INDEX.
INDEX OF PLAYS AND AUTHORS CONNECTED WITH SHAKESPEARE'S COMPANY BEFORE
1611.
-----------+--------------------------+------------------------------
Author. | Play. | Pages.
-----------+--------------------------+------------------------------
Anonymous |Alarum for London |See Lodge.
" |Cloth Breeches and Velvet |
| Hose |326.
" |Cromwell, Earl of Essex |42, 145, 146, 298.
" |Edward III. |See Shakespeare.
" |Fair Em |See Wilson.
" |Gowry |152, 301.
" |Hester and Ahasuerus. |93, 116, 309.
" |Jealous Comedy |See Shakespeare.
" |Knack to Know a Knave |16, 109, 290.
" |Locrine |See Peele.
" |London Prodigal. |54, 148, 154, 299.
" |Merry Devil of Edmonton |See Drayton.
" |Mucedorus |See Lodge.
" |Oldcastle |See Drayton.
" |Richard, Duke of York |See 3 Henry VI.
" |Seven Deadly Sins |See Tarleton.
" |Sir Thomas More |27, 127, 292.
" |Spanish Maz |53.
" |Tambercam, 2d part, acted |
| 28 April 1592. |
" |Taming of a Shrew |See Kyd.
" |Taner of Denmark, acted 23|
| May 1592. |
" |Titus and Vespasian |16, 109, 313.
" |Warning for Fair Women |See Lodge.
" |York and Lancaster |See 2 Henry VI.
" |Yorkshire Tragedy |53, 54, 154, 158, 302.
Dekker |Satiromastix |36, 43, 45, 298.
Drayton |Merry Devil of Edmonton |31, 58, 131, 139, 157, 294.
" |Oldcastle, Sir John |41, 78, 140.
Fletcher |Henry VIII. |See Shakespeare.
" |Two Noble Kinsmen |252.
Jonson |Alchemist |65, 81, 163.
" |Every man out of his |36, 37, 79, 137, 297.
| humour |
" |Every man in his humour |34, 39, 40, 79, 140, 297.
" |Jeronymo (additions) |52.
" |Sejanus |49, 80, 147, 151, 301.
" |Volpone |50, 54, 56, 80, 154, 303.
Kyd |Hamlet |See Shakespeare.
" |Jeronymo (Spanish Tragedy)|16, 52, 151, 308.
" |Taming of a Shrew |19, 23, 28, 99, 116, 117, 129.
Lodge |Alarum for London |27, 126, 291.
" |Mucedorus |56, 156, 303.
" |Warning for Fair Women |35, 136, 297.
Marlowe |Edward III. |See Shakespeare.
" |Guise (Massacre of Paris) |16, 112.
" |Henry VI. |See Shakespeare.
" |Richard, Duke of York |See 3 Henry VI.
" |Richard III. |See Shakespeare.
" |Titus Andronicus |See Shakespeare.
" |York and Lancaster |See 2 Henry VI.
Peele |Edward I. |14.
" |Locrine |24, 120, 291.
Rowley |Birth of Merlin |289.
Shakespeare|All's well that ends well |42, 111, 142, 216.
" |Anthony and Cleopatra |58, 157, 158, 161, 244.
" |As you like it |36, 38, 39, 138, 140, 208.
" |Coriolanus |60, 160, 244.
" |Cymbeline |57, 156, 162, 246.
" |Edward III. |19, 23, 118, 127, 282.
" |Errors, Comedy of |13, 26, 105, 125, 178.
" |Hamlet |19, 23, 42, 49, 50, 99, 117,
| |142, 146, 148, 149, 227, 309.
" |1 Henry IV. |30, 32, 130, 134, 198.
" |2 Henry IV. |32, 130, 199.
" |Henry V. |35, 38, 40, 138, 140, 206.
" |1 Henry VI. |16, 109, 255.
" |2 Henry VI. |39, 98, 115, 145, 263.
" |3 Henry VI. |19, 23, 39, 110, 126, 145, 271.
" |Henry VIII. |68, 170, 250.
" |Jealous Comedy |16, 19, 39, 112.
| (Merry Wives) |
" |John |27, 127, 196.
" |Julius Cæsar |39, 42, 214.
" |Lear |53, 58, 156, 157, 237, 311.
" |Love's Labour's Lost |11, 32, 103, 133, 202.
" |Love's Labour's Won |13, 104.
" |Macbeth |28, 43, 55, 56, 57, 128, 155,
| | 238.
" |Measure for Measure |52, 153, 234.
" |Merchant of Venice |30, 41, 129, 134, 141, 197.
" |Merry Wives of Windsor |39, 139, 145, 210.
" |Midsummer Night's Dream |18, 26, 41, 126, 181.
" |Much Ado about Nothing |33, 40, 134, 140, 204.
" |Othello |52, 153, 235.
" |Pericles |58, 61, 158, 161, 245.
" |Richard II. |26, 32, 42, 126, 132, 143, 187.
" |Richard III. |23, 32, 118, 132, 176, 275.
" |Romeo and Juliet |13, 27, 32, 38, 106, 128, 129,
| | 191, 308.
" |Taming of the Shrew |23, 46, 146, 224.
" |Tempest |66, 163, 248.
" |Timon of Athens |57, 156, 242.
" |Titus Andronicus |23, 114, 116, 176, 280.
" |Troylus and Cressida |23, 44, 61, 136, 146, 160, 220.
" |Twelfth Night |44, 111, 145, 219.
" |Two Gentlemen of Verona |14, 106, 126, 188, 313.
" |Winter's Tale |65, 163, 247.
Tarleton |Seven Deadly Sins |23, 296.
Tourneur |Revenger's Tragedy |58, 305.
Tylney |Locrine |See Peele.
Webster |Malcontent (Induction) |52, 151, 301.
Wilkins |Miseries of Enforced |
| Marriage |49, 148, 302.
" |Pericles |See Shakespeare.
Wilson |Fair Em |13, 104, 285.
NOTE ON THE ETCHINGS.
I have been asked to say a few words on the illustrations to this
volume. The _Portrait of Alleyn_ has been kindly permitted to be taken
from the oil painting preserved at Dulwich College, and has not, it
is believed, been previously engraved as a book illustration. It was
thought that the reader would prefer a representation of this great
actor, the first managing director under whom Shakespeare performed,
to a reproduction of one of the many portraits of the poet himself,
which have now become so hackneyed. For like reason, the _Font in
which Shakespeare was baptized_ has been obtained from a hitherto
unreproduced original: an oil sketch made on the spot in 1853 by
the world-known painter, Mr. Henry Wallis, and now in the artist's
possession. It is with no little satisfaction that I find my work
allowed to be associated with that of a painter so eminent, and with
the name of one of the great poets for all ages, Mr. Robert Browning.
_Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson & Co., Edinburgh and London._
Transcriber's Note.
Variable spelling and hyphenation have been retained. Minor punctuation
inconsistencies have been silently repaired. Some tables have been
split for reading purposes.
Corrections.
The first line indicates the original, the second the correction.
p. 18:
and purveyed more plays for them than other four
and purveyed more plays for them than the other four
p. 108:
lingered on in some vague connecsion
lingered on in some vague connection
p. 201:
in the table given on p. 212
in the table given on p. 207
p. 325:
| ... for Henry Gosson
_y_ | ... for Henry Gosson
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare - Player, Poet, and Playmaker" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.