Titus Andronicus.—That this play is not by Shakespeare is pretty certain from internal evidence. The Latin quotations, classical allusions, use ofpouras 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 firstedition, 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 "manetMoore," notExeuntsimply. Whether this play got into the Folio by some confusion withTitus 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 ofThe Jew of Maltacould 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 olderJohnand1and2 Henry VI., his share was comparatively slight. Nevertheless, I think the opinion that Kyd wrote this play ofAndronicusworth the examination, although, with such evidence as has yet beenadduced, 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 unpublishedSonnets, ii. 1. 10, 450, and an allusion to the recently publishedLucreece, ii. 2. 194, was clearly acted in 1594, after 9th May, whenLucreecewas entered on S. R.Edward III.was entered 1st December 1595. This love-story part is from Painter'sPalace of Pleasure. The original play is by Marlowe, and was acted in 1590 and is thus alluded to in Greene'sNever 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 sayAve Cæsar, disdain not thy tutor because thou pratest in a king's chamber."Ave Cæsaroccurs 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 andHenry 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 writtenThe Moral of Man's WitandThe Dialogue of Dives, there can be no doubt that Robert Wilson is Roscius, and that he was an actor inEdward 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.
ON THE PLAYS BY OTHER AUTHORS ACTED BY SHAKESPEARE'S COMPANY.
DuringShakespeare'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 ascompared 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 Emis 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 hisFarewell 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'stract was written and entered S. R. 1st June 1587, but not published till 1591, when the address which mentions hisMourning Garment(S. R. November 2, 1590) was added.Fair Emdates, 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 ofThe Three Ladies of London, produced before 1584, Wilson uses the expression, "I, Conscience, am a thousand witnesses," and in hisThree 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 inFair 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 totwocompanies. 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 complainedthat, 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 producedTamberlain,Faustus,Orlando,Alcazar, andMarius and Sylla; and in their Court performance on 23d December were reduced to showing "feats of activity." In 1590 R. Brownand 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 thatFair Emwas 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 ofWilliam 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. 3biii. 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. 3b, beginning withAurel. "Artesia, dearest love," iii. 2. 3. 5. 6, with suchpassages of Shakespeare as they call to memory:e.g.iii. 2, "This world is but a mask," &c., withAs You Like It, ii. 7. 139, &c., and iii. 3. 1-6 withLear, iii. 2. 1-9. Compare especially the definition of a crab as "a creature that goes backward" in ii. 3, withHamlet, 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, andUter Pendragon, 29th April 1597, in Henslowe's Diary, to be alluded to by Jonson in his Prologue toEvery Man in his Humour, 1601—
"To make a child now swaddled to proceedMan: and then shoot upin one beard and weedPast threescore years."
"To make a child now swaddled to proceedMan: and then shoot upin one beard and weedPast threescore years."
"To make a child now swaddled to proceedMan: and then shoot upin one beard and weedPast threescore years."
"To make a child now swaddled to proceed
Man: and then shoot upin one beard and weed
Past threescore years."
1592.
June.A [Merry] Knack to Know a Knavewas acted as a new play at the Rose by Edward Alleyn and his company (i.e.Lord Strange's) "with Kempe'sMerriments 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 myShakespearian 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, 2d.Tambercame; May 23,The Taner of Denmark; and in 1593, January 5,The Gelyous [Jealious] Comedy; January 30,The Guise(i.e.Marlowe'sMassacre of Paris).
1594.
July 24,Locrinewas 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 asA Looking-Glass for London; didactic as to politics. I believe it to be by the same author, T. Lodge. The fear of a Spanishinvasion 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, wroteThe Taming of the Shrew(afterwards altered by Shakespeare) for the Chamberlain's company. The seldom-used wordvilliaco, found in this play, occurs in2 Henry VI., iv. 8, in the part I assign to Lodge.
1596.
The Life and Death of Sir Thomas Morewas 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, andthreatened with loss of his title, just as More is in the play, which was no doubt acted while he was in prison (Aikin'sElizabeth, 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 ofLord 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 calledAbuses. I need hardly say that this title is specially appropriate toSir 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 inThe 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 fromRichard III.andJeronymo, 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 of1 Henry IV., in which Falstaff was called Oldcastle (seesupra, 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 ofSir 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 Devilwas 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 confidentlyadduced by Mr. Halliwell and others as proof that Drayton did not write the play (see Halliwell'sDictionary of Old PlaysunderMerry 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 theBlack Book(S. R. 22d March 1604) a revival of the play contemporaneous withThe Woman Killed with Kindnessis alluded to. It remained popular even to 1616: Jonson's prologue toThe Devil is an Asscalls it "your dear delight." That play is of a somewhat similar nature, founded on the adventures of a devil incarnate; so also are Dekker'sIf this be not a Good Play the Devil's in it, and Haughton'sGrim 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 ofWily Beguiled, 1597. InSir Giles Goosecapby Chapman, the continued usage by Goosecap of the phrases "tickle the vanity on't" and "we are all mortal" points to Drayton as the personridiculed under that name; while in2 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 inMerry 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 theMerry Devil, an indication of revision. Drayton's first connection with the Chamberlain's company was in my opinion his writing the Induction forThe Taming of the Shrewin 1596, afterwards altered by Shakespeare.The Merry Devilwas entered as Shakespeare's on S. R. 9th September 1653, probably on account of the similarity of title withThe 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 probablyThe 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 Womenwas entered S. R. 17th November 1599, and printed as "lately divers times acted" by the Chamberlain's men. Its title, so likeA Looking-Glass for LondonandA 'Larum for London, its didactic character, its Induction, with History, Tragedy, and Comedy for actors, so like that toMucedorus, and its style and metre all point to Thomas Lodge as the author. As a murder-play it should be compared withArden of Feversham,The Yorkshire Tragedy, andTwo Tragedies in One. Plays on similar subjects, such asPage 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 perhapsThe 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 Humourin its first form, with the Italian names, in the latter part of 1598, and hisEvery Man out of his Humourin the spring of 1599, both by Jonson, were acted by theChamberlain's men. Jonson then left them and wrote for the children of the Chapel.
1601.
Satiromastixwas written by Dekker against Jonson'sPoetasterfor the Chamberlain's men, and acted first by them and afterwards by the Paul's boys.
1601.
The Chronicle History of Thomas Lord Cromwellwas 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 inSir T. More; and the whole play is very like the part ofSir John Oldcastleassigned 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 andCromwellwas probably acted in June. The second edition, 1613, had "by W.S." on the title. This was clearly anattempt, like the "by W. Sh." in the 1611 edition of the olderJohn, 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 Prodigalwas 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 toSir John Oldcastlein 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 supposedto 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 ofLearin 1608, which was certainly derived from an authentic copy, however carelessly printed; while Pavier, who publishedOldcastle, was notoriously an issuer of surreptitious and piratical editions. This play is certainly by the same hand as theCromwell. In iii. 3, "And where nought is the king doth lose his due," with which compareCromwell, ii. 3, "And where nought is the king must lose his right," is taken from Nash'sUnfortunate 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, withCromwell, iv. chorus, "Pardon the errors are already past," and the passing of St. George's inn in i. 2 with theMerry Devilplot. 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" ofNorthward Ho, 1605, as Frescobald was inThe Honest Whore, 1603, fromCromwell.
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. Seesupra, 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 playingJeronymo, 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 ofThe 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 inThe Yorkshire Tragedy. The share of G. Wilkins in the authorship ofTimonandPericleshas 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 hisHandbookto 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 ofThe 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 theEnforced 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 asAll'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 tofactious 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'sFox. 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 inEastward 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 theEastward Hoaffair 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 Christmassucceeding this unfortunate performance of 1605-6 there was no Court masque produced by Jonson. The date hitherto assigned to the "additions" inMucedorushas 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'sCatalogue, 1781, no copy unfortunately is extant. Of the authorship of the original play, with its Induction, "cooling-card" mark, and many similarities toMarius 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 Tragedyby Cyril Tourneur (?) was entered S. R. 7th October 1607, and probably acted not long before. The SecondMaiden'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 producingVolpone), and hisAlchemistwas acted in that year; in 1611 hisCataline, and Beaumont and Fletcher'sPhilaster,Maid's Tragedy, andKing and no King; c. 1612 Webster'sDuchess of Malfywas produced. The further prosecution of this subject belongs to a life of Fletcher rather than of Shakespeare.
EARLY ENGLISH PLAYS IN GERMANY.
Theimportance 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 theRunaway's Answer, 1625, to Dekker'sRod for Runaways, which was directed against those who left London for fear of the plague, the players say, "We can be bankrupts onthis 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:—
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 theHamletandRomeo, 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:"—
I am not acquainted with Ayres's plays; but it appears from Cohn (p. 64) that among them areMahomet the Turkish Emperor(from Peele's play, c. 1591),The Greek Emperor at Constantinople and his daughter Pelimperia with the hanged Horatio(Kyd'sSpanish 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 asMuch Ado, and strongly confirming the identity of that play withLove'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 theComedy of Errors, c. 1590);The Beautiful Sidea(containing some incidents showing that it came from some source in common with that of theTempest, but certainly not from that play direct); andKing of Cyprus(founded on the same story asThe Dumb Knightby 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 wasobtained from the Worcester's (Admiral's) company, who went over in 1590-2.
Yet further, in the tragedy ofAn Adulteressby Duke Henry Julius of Brunswick, printed 1594, we find the plot ofThe Merry Wivesalmost identically reproduced (see Cohn, p. 45, &c.) I do not see, however, so much likeness between hisVincentius LadislausandMuch 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 containedThe Comedy of Errors,Romeo and Juliet,The Merry Wives,The Gentlemen of Verona, andLove's Labours Won,i.e.every play by Shakespeare exceptLove's Labour's Lost, that is in this treatise placed at a date not later than 1592; besides Kyd'sHamlet, Marlowe'sEdward III., and other plays with which Shakespeare was indirectly connected.