"Mahomet's pow, and mighty Tamberlaine,King Charlemagne, Tom Stukeley, and the rest."
"Mahomet's pow, and mighty Tamberlaine,King Charlemagne, Tom Stukeley, and the rest."
"Mahomet's pow, and mighty Tamberlaine,King Charlemagne, Tom Stukeley, and the rest."
"Mahomet's pow, and mighty Tamberlaine,
King Charlemagne, Tom Stukeley, and the rest."
"Mahomet's pow" is the head of Mahomet inAlphonsus; King Charlemagne was probably a character in the complete play ofOrlando, of which only a mutilated copy has come down to us; Tom Stukeley is the hero ofThe Battle of Alcazar; and "the rest" most likely indicate Lodge'sMarius and Syllaand Marlowe'sFaustus. 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'sPerimedes the Blacksmithwas 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 inThe Looking-glass for London and Englandby Lodge and Greene, which is certainly of later date thanPerimedes, yet may indicate Lodge's liking for that character; that Diogenes is the name assumed by Lodge in hisCatharos, 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 producedThe Jew of Malta, which can be traced to the Queen's company, and together with Greene, Lodge, and Peele produced the plays ofThe Troublesome Reign of King John, andThe First Part of York and Lancasteron which2 Henry VI.is founded. The internal evidence for the authorship of theselast-mentioned plays is very strong: they were, however, published anonymously.
1589.
Before the entry of Greene'sMenaphonon the Stationers' Registers on 23d August 1589,HamletandThe Taming of a Shrewmust have been represented by Pembroke's men, and Marlowe must have left the Queen's company. AsMenaphonis 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 aCanterburytale; somepropheticalfullmouth, that, as he were aCobler'seldest son, would by the last tell where another's shoe wrings." Marlowe orMerlinwas a shoemaker's son of Canterbury. That Doron in the story is meant for the author ofThe Taming of a Shrewwas 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-glorioustragedians, 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 asThe Taming of a Shrewparodies 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'sTamberlaine. 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 ofNoverintwhereto they were born," who get their aphorisms from translations of Seneca and can "afford you wholeHamletsof 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 containingsimilar allusions to the names Greene, Lyly, and Merlin is equivalent to a direct attribution of the authorship ofHamletas 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'sMenaphonNash issued hisAnatomy 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 inMenaphon.
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 wereon 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, werewithout 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 toexamine 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 ofLove'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 thatgreat 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 Lostwould no doubt be closely followed byLove's Labour's Won, which play I for other reasons attribute to this year.
We must now again refer to Greene. HisFarewell to Follyhad been entered on the Stationers' Registers, 11th June 1587, but was not published till after hisMourning 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 toFair Emand 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 toFair Emin 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 ofFair Emin hisTully's Love(1589) andNever 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 cannotMartinize." ThatFair Emwas the production of R. Wilson will I think be evident to those who will read it with careful remembrance.
TheComedy of Errorswas 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 VeronaandRomeo 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'sRosalynde).
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. Theexceptionally 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 ofKing 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 beenpreviously 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'sJeronymoandSpanish Tragedy, Greene'sOrlandoandFriar Bacon, Greene and Lodge'sLooking-glass, Marlowe'sJew of Malta, and Peele'sBattle of Alcazar. This last-named play, may, like Greene'sOrlando, 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 vagueconnectionwith Sussex' players, they now practically disappear from theatrical history. Of new plays Lord Strange's men produced on March 3d,HenryVI., which is by the reference to it in Nash'sPiers Penniless(entered 8th August 1592) identified with the play now known asThe 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 ofTitus and Vespasianwas first acted. Had it not been for the existence of a German version (given in full in Cohn'sShakespeare in Germany) we should not have been aware that this play was identical in story with that known asTitus 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 JuneA Knack to Know a Knavewas 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 wereHenry VI.andTitus andVespasian(performed seven times in two months); of old playsthe Spanish Tragedy(performed thirteen times),The Battle of Alcazar(eleven performances), andThe 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 8Piers Pennilesswas entered S. R., which contains Nash's reference toI Henry VI.
On September 3 Greene died.
On September 20 hisGroatsworth of Witwas 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 absoluteJohannes 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 inRichard Duke of York(commonly butinjudiciously referred to asThe True Tragedy), a play written for Pembroke's men, probably in 1590, on which3 Henry VI.was founded. It is almost certainly by Marlowe, the best of the three whom Greene addresses. In December Chettle issued hisKindheart's Dream, in which he apologises for the offence given to Marlowe in theGroatsworth 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 inAll's Well that Ends WellandTwelfth Nightthat 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 calledThe Jealous Comedy; this I take to have beenThe Merry Wives of Windsorin its earliest form.
On January 30 they produced Marlowe'sGuiseorMassacre 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 18Venus and Adoniswas 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 Adoniswas 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 publishedwork; 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 hisRape 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 theshareholderstherein. 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 playDido, and in my opinion other plays; of which more hereafter.
On 25th September Henry Earl of Derby died, and Ferdinand Lord Strange succeeded to hishonours. 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 JanuaryTitus Andronicuswas acted as a new play by Sussex' men at the Rose. This company gave up playing there on 6th February. On 26th February theAndronicusplay 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 ofDerby. 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 MarchYork 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 oldLeir(April 8), on which Shakespeare'sLearwas founded. Both these companies henceforth vanish from stage history.
On April 16 Lord Derby died.
On May 2The Taming of a Shrewwas entered on S. R.
On May 9The Rape of Lucrecewas entered. The difference in tone between the dedication of this poem to Lord Southampton and that ofVenus and Adonisdistinctly 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 14The Famous Victories of Henry V.andLeirwere 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'sDiaryas 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 ofThe Seven Deadly Sins.
On June 19 the old play ofRichard 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 withoutfeeling 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 in1 Henry VI.Marlowe had a chief hand in1 Henry VI.andYork and Lancaster; probably wrote the whole ofRichard Duke of York, and laid, in my opinion, the foundation and erected part of the building ofRichard III.At his death he seems to have left unacted or unpublished his poem ofHero and Leander, finished afterwards by Chapman;Dido, partly by Nash, and produced (when?) by the Chapel children;Andronicusacted (under Peele's auspices?) by the Sussex men, andRichard 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 ofEdward III., viz., from "Enter King Edward" in the last scene of act i. to the end of act ii., are provedby the allusion to the poem ofLucrece; the repetition of lines from theSonnets: "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'sMenaphon, 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 inFaustus[6]has "confound Hell in Elysium," and, inEdward III,horízonis pronouncedhórizon. This, however, might occur in other plays; but in Greene'sNever Too Latewe 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 sayAve 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 toEdward 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'sSonnets. 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 ofLucreceand 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 absenceof 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 hisShakespeare Allusion-booksthat 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 ofAvisa, "misconstrued" the poem; and so necessitated the further figment in the 1605 edition that thesupposed 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'sSatires, and "Willobie's Advisoto 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 Avĭsa, or Avīsa (sometimes written A vis A), that is, Avice or Avice A. This name was not uncommon (see Camden'sRemaines, 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 standsBy 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."
"At east of this a castle standsBy 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."
"At east of this a castle standsBy 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."
"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 wellWith mirth salutes the neighbouring towns."
"In sea-bred soil on Tempe downs,Whose silver spring from Neptune's wellWith mirth salutes the neighbouring towns."
"In sea-bred soil on Tempe downs,Whose silver spring from Neptune's wellWith mirth salutes the neighbouring towns."
"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 mottoDudum Beatus; Didymus H., an Anglo-German, with mottoDum 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'srara 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 whichcannot 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 thenew actorthan it did for theold player. Doubtless W. S. is Shakespeare, and Avisa is represented ironically as atraderwho 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 ThomasWilloby,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 isnuper 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 ofErrorslike unto Plautus hisMenœchmi" 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 simplyErrors: 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 ofMidsummer Night's Dreamshould 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 producedRichard II.andThe Two Gentlemen of Verona, as we now have it, in this year.A larum for London, orThe Siege of Antwerp, by (?) Lodge, was acted about this time.
The play ofRichard Duke of Yorkwas printedin 1595 and on 1st DecemberEdward 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 ofSir T. Morewas 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'sKing Johnwas 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 Julietwas 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 hisWit's Miserv, 1596, toHamlet, as acted in that house, is inconsistent with any other supposition. On August 5 a ballad onRomeo and Julietwas 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 onMacdobethandThe 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.testeMalone) before October 20, where a draft of agrant 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 playThe Merchant of Venice, sometimes calledThe 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 ofRomeo and Julietwas 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 SectionIV.
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 ChamberlainviceW. Brooke, Lord Cobham, deceased, and Lord Hunsdon's men again became the Lord Chamberlain's.
During this year and the next Shakespeare undoubtedly produced1and2 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 ofThe 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 quotesHey for Honesty, "The rich rubies and incomparable carbuncles of Sir John Oldcastle's nose;" and Howell'sLetters, ii. 71, "Ale is thought to be much adulterated, and nothing sogood 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'sMerry 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 between1 Henry IV.and2 Henry IV.The words "tickle your catastrophe" in the latter are more likely to be an allusion to the "gag" in theMerry Devilthan conversely; similar ridicule of this phrase is introduced inSir 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 prefixOld.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 originalale-drinking priest. In scene 9 the words italicised in "Myold Jenertsbank my horse, mycastle" look very like a corruption of a stage direction written in margin of a proof thus—
Old- J. enterscastle
Old- J. enterscastle
—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 29Richard II.was entered on S. R., and on October 20Richard 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 andBristol (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'sScourge 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 ofWily Beguiledwas acted, which contains distinct parodies of speeches by Shylock and old Capulet, as well as of other scenes in theMerchant 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 wasLove'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 251 Henry IV.was entered on S. R., and on July 22The Merchant of Venice.
In this spring or in 1597Much Ado about Nothingwas probably produced. It was probably an alteration ofLove's Labour's Won.
In September Jonson joined the Chamberlain's men, and produced hisEvery Man in his Humourat 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 Tamiawas 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 comicdramatists, 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 hisVenus and Adonis, hisLucrece, his sugaredSonnetsamong 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 thePalladis Tamiacould 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 therepertoireof 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 thatRichard 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 ofTroylus 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 actedA Warning for Fair Womenabout this time. This play appears to me to come from the hand of Lodge.
In this yearThe Passionate Pilgrim, "by W. Shakespeare," was imprinted by Jaggard. It contains two of theSonnets, two other Sonnets fromLove'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'sEvery 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 inThe Return to Parnassushad 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 wasHenry V., and soon after in this yearAs 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 probablyThe 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 oldJealous Comedyof 1592, and is more likely to have come after than beforeHenry V., in which Shakespeare had failed, according to his implied promise in the Epilogue to2 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 theSir John Oldcastle, which belonged to another company; it may have beenThe 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 thatAs You Like It,Henry V.,Every Man in his Humour, andMuch Ado about Nothing, were "to be stayed." On the 14th,Every Man in his Humourwas licensed; on the 23d,Much Ado about Nothing, and along with it2 Henry IV., "with the humours of Sir John Falstaff. Written by Master Shakespeare." On the 11th the first and second parts of theHistory 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 Itwas 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 to2 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 ofHenry 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 ofMatilda. Drayton had probably quarrelled with both his coadjutors. With the entry here on Oldcastle's "martyrdom" compare the Epilogue to2 Henry IV.This was not the play acted before Hunsdon on March 6, which was probablyThe Merry Devil.
On 8th OctoberMidsummer-Night's Dreamwas entered on S. R.; on 28th OctoberThe 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 enteredThe 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 ownaccount. 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.
2and3 Henry VI.were probably revised and revived at the Globe about this time.
1601.
In this yearAll's Well that Ends WellandHamletwere 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'sLove'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 hisSatiromastixwas 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 ofRichard II.to be publicly acted at his own charge for the entertainment of the conspirators" (Camden). From Bacon's speech (StateTrials) 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 actedThe 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 JanuaryThe Merry Wives of Windsorwas entered on S. R.: a surreptitious issue. On 2d February,Twelfth Nightwas performed at the Readers' Feast at the (?) Middle Temple, "much likeThe Comedy of Errorsor theMenechmiin Plautus, but most like and near to that in Italian, calledInganni" (Manningham's Diary).
On 19th April1and2 Henry VI.(evidently the Quarto plays on which2and3 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 ofHenry VI.instead ofThe Contention of York and Lancasterhad taken place; it indicates a doubt or fear as towhether 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 surreptitiousHamletwas entered on S. R., and on August 11The 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.
TheTaming of the Shrewas 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'sSejanus, 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 alludedto 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 ofHamletentered 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 andthe 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 whetherThe London ProdigalandThe Miseries of Enforced Marriagewere 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 ofHamletwas 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 exhibitedHamletwould not be included. Of course on such occasions plays were always moreor 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 Court2d February, and ifHamletwas 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.