Registers. This pamphlet was edited by Chettle, and contains the often
quoted address to Marlowe, "young Juvenal," and Peele. In the portion
where Greene speaks to all three of them, he says: "Trust them not, for
there is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that, _with his
Tiger's heart wrapt in a player's hide_, supposes he is as well able
to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you, and being an absolute
_Johannes Factotum_, is in his own conceit the only shake-scene in our
country." Mr. R. Simpson showed that "beautified with our feathers"
meant acting plays written by us, but "bombast out a blank verse"
undoubtedly refers to Shakespeare as a writer also. The line "O tiger's
heart wrapt in a woman's hide" occurs in _Richard Duke of York_
(commonly but injudiciously referred to as _The True Tragedy_), a play
written for Pembroke's men, probably in 1590, on which _3 Henry VI._
was founded. It is almost certainly by Marlowe, the best of the three
whom Greene addresses. In December Chettle issued his _Kindheart's
Dream_, in which he apologises for the offence given to Marlowe in the
_Groatsworth of Wit_, "because myself have seen his demeanour no less
civil than he excellent in the quality he professes; besides divers
of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues his
honesty, and his facetious grace in writing, which approves his art."
To Peele he makes no apology, nor indeed was any required. Shakespeare
was not one of those who took offence; they are expressly stated to
have been two of the three authors addressed by Greene, the third
(Lodge) not being in England.
There were three plays performed at Hampton Court this Christmas, on
December 26, 31, January 1, by Lord Strange's men, in spite of the
plague.
I think the latter part of 1592 the most likely time for the writing
of some scenes in _All's Well that Ends Well_ and _Twelfth Night_ that
show marks of early date.
1593.
On January 5 Lord Strange's company, who had reopened at the Rose, 29th
December 1592, produced a new play called _The Jealous Comedy_; this I
take to have been _The Merry Wives of Windsor_ in its earliest form.
On January 30 they produced Marlowe's _Guise_ or _Massacre of Paris_,
which has reached us in an unusually mutilated condition.
On February 1 they performed for the last time this year in Southwark;
the Rose as well as other theatres being closed because of the plague.
On April 18 _Venus and Adonis_ was entered by Richard Field for
publication. Shakespeare's choice of a publisher was no doubt
influenced by private connection. R. Field was a son of Henry Field,
tanner, of Stratford-on-Avon, who died in 1592. The inventory of his
goods attached to his will had been taken by Shakespeare's father
on 21st August in that year. _Venus and Adonis_ was licensed by the
Archbishop of Canterbury (Whitgift) (at whose palace near Croydon
Nash's play, _Summer's Last Will_, was performed in the autumn of
1592), and was dedicated to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton.
Shakespeare calls it "The first heir of my invention," which may mean
his first published work; but more probably means the first production
in which he was sole author, his previous plays having been written
in conjunction with others; and he vows "to take advantage of all
idle hours till I have honoured you with some graver labour." He had
probably then planned if not begun his _Rape of Lucrece_.
On May 6 a precept was issued by the Lords of the Privy Council
authorising Lord Strange's players, "Edward Allen, William Kempe,
Thomas Pope, John Heminges, Augustine Philipes, and George Brian" to
play "where the infection is not, so it be not within seven miles
of London or of the Court, that they may be in the better readiness
hereafter for her Majesty's service." This list of names is by no means
a complete one of the company of players; but probably does consist
of all the _shareholders_ therein. Shakespeare was not a shareholder
yet. Alleyn is described as servant to the Admiral as well as to Lord
Strange. Accordingly they travelled and acted in the country--in July
at Bristol, afterwards at Shrewsbury. Meanwhile on June 1 Marlowe was
killed, leaving unpublished his poem, _Hero and Leander_, his play
_Dido_, and in my opinion other plays; of which more hereafter.
On 25th September Henry Earl of Derby died, and Ferdinand Lord Strange
succeeded to his honours. His company of players are consequently
sometimes called the Earl of Derby's for the next six months. There
were no performances at Court at Christmas on account of the plague.
1594.
On 23d January _Titus Andronicus_ was acted as a new play by Sussex'
men at the Rose. This company gave up playing there on 6th February. On
26th February the _Andronicus_ play was entered on S. R. Langbaine, who
professes to have seen this edition, says it was acted by the players
of "Pembroke, Derby, and Essex." Essex is clearly a mistake for Sussex,
for in the 1600 edition the companies are given as "Sussex, Pembroke,
and Derby." Halliwell's careless statement that Lord Strange's players
transferred their services to Lord Hunsdon in 1594, has led me and
others into grave difficulty on this matter. The fact is that Lord
Derby's players became servants to the Chamberlain between 16th April,
when Lord Derby died, and 3d June, when they played at Newington Butts
under the latter appellation. There was strictly no Lord Strange's
company after 25th September 1593, and no other Derby's company till
1599. The old name Strange, however, does sometimes occur instead of
Derby. Hence it seemed that the transfer to Derby's company must have
taken place in 1600. Indeed so little was the fact known even in 1600,
that Shakespeare's company enjoyed the title of Derby's men for six
months, that although that name is given on the first page, on the
title the same men reappear as the Lord Chamberlain's. Why Pembroke's
men should have acquired the play on 6th February, and possibly parted
with it by the 26th, does not appear, nor is there any parallel
instance known: there must have been some great changes in their
constitution at this time. But in any case Shakespeare did not write
the play; Mr. Halliwell's theory that he left Lord Strange's men, who
in 1593 enjoyed the highest position of any then existing, and after
having been a member successively of two of the obscurest companies,
returned to his former position within a few months, is utterly
untenable. There is no vestige of evidence that Shakespeare ever wrote
for any company but one.
On 12th March _York and Lancaster_ (_2 Henry VI._) was entered on S. R.
From 1st to 8th April Sussex' men and the Queen's acted at the Rose,
among other plays, the old _Leir_ (April 8), on which Shakespeare's
_Lear_ was founded. Both these companies henceforth vanish from stage
history.
On April 16 Lord Derby died.
On May 2 _The Taming of a Shrew_ was entered on S. R.
On May 9 _The Rape of Lucrece_ was entered. The difference in tone
between the dedication of this poem to Lord Southampton and that of
_Venus and Adonis_ distinctly points to a personal intercourse having
taken place in the interval. Hence the date of Shakespeare's first
interview with his patron may be assigned as between April 1593 and May
1594.
On May 14 _The Famous Victories of Henry V._ and _Leir_ were entered on
S. R.
On May 14 also the Admiral's company, of which nothing is heard since
1591, began to act at the Rose, having acted at Newington for three
days only. Alleyn, Henslow's son-in-law, had left the management of
Shakespeare's company on the death of Lord Derby, and now joined the
Admiral's men.
Between[5] June 3 and June 13 the Chamberlain's men played at Newington
Butts alternately with the Admiral's: among the Chamberlain's plays we
notice on June 3, 10, _Hester and Ahasuerus_, which exists in a German
version of which a translation ought to be published; June 5, 12,
_Andronicus_;
June 9, _Hamlet_; June 11, _The Taming of a Shrew_. The intermediate
days were occupied by the Admiral's men: who on the 15th [17th] went
to the Rose, and the Chamberlain's men no doubt to the Theater, the
Burbadges' own house. The Chamberlain's company at this date included
W. Shakespeare, R. Burbadge, J. Hemings, A. Phillips, W. Kempe, T.
Pope, G. Bryan, all of whom, with the possible exception of Burbadge,
had been members of Lord Strange's company; together with H. Condell,
W. Sly, R. Cowley, N. Tooley, J. Duke, R. Pallant, and T. Goodall, who
had previously been in all probability members of the Queen's company.
C. Beeston must have joined them soon afterwards. The names of Richard
Hoope, William Ferney, William Blackway, and Ralph Raye occur in
Henslow's _Diary_ as Chamberlain's men c. January 1595. The Queen's men
came in on the reconstitution of that company in 1591-2. See on this
matter further on under the head of _The Seven Deadly Sins_.
On June 19 the old play of _Richard III._ (with Shore's wife in it)
was entered on S. R., a pretty sure indication, which tallies with
other external evidence, that the play attributed to Shakespeare was
produced about this time. No one can read the four plays composing
the Henry 6th series without feeling that, however various their
authorship, they form a connected whole in general plan. Margaret is
the central figure, who hovers like a Greek Chorus over the terrible
Destiny that involves King and people in its meshes. But Margaret
is not Shakespeare's creation; she is Marlowe's. Shakespeare had no
share in the plays on the contention of York and Lancaster, and but
a slight one in _1 Henry VI._ Marlowe had a chief hand in _1 Henry
VI._ and _York and Lancaster_; probably wrote the whole of _Richard
Duke of York_, and laid, in my opinion, the foundation and erected
part of the building of _Richard III._ At his death he seems to have
left unacted or unpublished his poem of _Hero and Leander_, finished
afterwards by Chapman; _Dido_, partly by Nash, and produced (when?)
by the Chapel children; _Andronicus_ acted (under Peele's auspices?)
by the Sussex men, and _Richard III._, completed by Shakespeare, and
acted by the Chamberlain's company as we have it in the Quarto. All
these plays were produced or published in 1594. About the same time an
earlier play of Marlowe's, originally acted c. 1589, was altered and
revised by Shakespeare. The date and authorship of the Shakespearian
part of _Edward III._, viz., from "Enter King Edward" in the last
scene of act i. to the end of act ii., are proved by the allusion to
the poem of _Lucrece_; the repetition of lines from the _Sonnets_:
"Their scarlet ornaments," "Lilies that foster smell far worse than
weeds," and many smaller coincidences with undoubted Shakespearian
plays: while the original date and authorship of the play as a whole
will appear from the following quotations. In the Address prefixed to
Greene's _Menaphon_, in a passage in which Nash has been satirising Kyd
and another as void of scholarship and unable to read Seneca in the
original, he suddenly attacks Marlowe, whom he has previously held up
as the object of their imitation, and asks what can they have of him?
in Nash's own words: "What can be hoped of those that thrust Elysium
into Hell, and have not learned, so long as they have lived in the
spheres, the just measure of the Horizon without an hexameter?" Marlowe
in _Faustus_[6] has "confound Hell in Elysium," and, in _Edward III_,
_horízon_ is pronounced _hórizon_. This, however, might occur in other
plays; but in Greene's _Never Too Late_ we find Tully addressing the
player Roscius, who certainly represents R. Wilson, in these words:
"Why, Roscius, are thou proud with Æsop's crow, being pranked with the
glory of others' feathers? Of thyself thou canst say nothing: and if
the Cobbler hath taught thee to say _Ave Cæsar_, disdain not thy tutor
because thou pratest in a King's chamber." Unless another play can be
produced with "Ave Cæsar" in it, this must be held to allude to _Edward
III._, in which play Wilson must have acted the Prince of Wales (act i.
1. 164). The "cobbler" alludes to Marlowe as a shoemaker's son.
On July 20, _Locrine_, an old play written, says Mr. Simpson, by G.
Tylney in 1586, but in which Peele had certainly a principal hand,
was entered on S. R. It was issued as "newly set forth, overseen
and corrected by W. S." I see no reason to believe that this was
Shakespeare. Of course he had no hand in writing the play; and in any
case Peele did not probably sanction the publication.
To this year we must assign the production of the earliest of
Shakespeare's _Sonnets_. That these (or rather that portion of them
which are continuous, 1-126) were addressed to Lord Southampton was
proved by Drake. The identity of language between the Dedication of
_Lucrece_ and Sonnet 26, the exact agreement of them with all we know
of the careers of Shakespeare and his patron during the next four
years, and the utter absence of evidence of his connection with
any other patron, are conclusive on that point. They begin (1-17)
with entreaties to marry, which date about 6th October 1594, when
Southampton attained his majority, and before he had met Elizabeth
Vernon, and end (117) in a time when "peace proclaiming olives of
endless age," after the treaty of Vervins, 2d May 1598: and before the
Earl's marriage at the end of that year. They involve a story of some
frail lady who had transferred her favours to the young lord from the
older player (40-42). Far too much has been written on this matter
from a moral point of view. The fact remains, and all we can say is:
Remember these Sonnets were written "among private friends," and not
for publication. The lady has not hitherto been identified, but is, I
think, identifiable. On September 3d was entered on S. R., _Wyllobie
his Avisa_. Dr. Ingleby has shown in his _Shakespeare Allusion-books_
that the W. S. in this poem is William Shakespeare, and that Hadrian
Dorrell, the reputed editor, is a fictitious character. He has,
however, missed the key to this anonymity; viz., that the book was
known to be a personal satirical libel. P[eter] C[olse], according to
the author of _Avisa_, "misconstrued" the poem; and so necessitated
the further figment in the 1605 edition that the supposed author, A.
Willobie, was dead; in this edition the mythical H. D. says: "If you
ask me for the persons, I am altogether ignorant of them, and have set
them down only as I find them named or disciphered in my author. For
the truth of this action, if you enquire, I will more fully deliver
my opinion hereafter." But independently of this evidence from the
book itself we find in S. R. (Arber, iii. 678) that when the works of
Marston, Davies, &c., were burnt in the Hall, 4th June 1599, other
books were "stayed;" viz., _Caltha Poetarum_, Hall's _Satires_, and
"_Willobie's Adviso_ to be called in." This marks the book as of
the same character as its companions; viz., libellous, calumnious,
personally abusive. The characters in the poems were evidently
representations of real living persons. The heroine of the poem is
Av[)i]sa, or Av[=i]sa (sometimes written A vis A), that is, Avice or
Avice A. This name was not uncommon (see Camden's _Remaines_, p. 93).
She lived in the west of England, "where Austin pitched his monkish
tent," in a house "where hangs the badge of England's saint." The place
is more fully described thus:--
"At east of this a castle stands
By ancient shepherds built of old,
And lately was in shepherds' hands,
Though now by brothers bought and sold:
At west side springs a crystal well:
There doth this chaste Avisa dwell."
And again:--
"In sea-bred soil on Tempe downs,
Whose silver spring from Neptune's well
With mirth salutes the neighbouring towns."
These descriptions suit the vale of Evesham, the castle being that of
Bengworth and the well that of Abberton. Austin's oak was traditionally
placed in this part by some, though others put it in Gloucestershire.
Avisa's parents are mentioned as "of meanest trade." They were, I
take it, inn-keepers, and the inn had the sign of St. George. The
other characters are D. B., a Frenchman, with motto _Dudum Beatus_;
Didymus H., an Anglo-German, with motto _Dum Habui_; H. W., _Italo
Hispalensis_, and W[illiam] S[hakespeare]. The story is that Avisa,
the chaste, who "makes up the mess" of four with Lucrece, Susanna,
and Penelope, has been married at twenty, tempted by a Nobleman, a
Cavaliero, a Frenchman, an Anglo-German, &c., without result, and
is consequently England's _rara avis_, who matches those of Greece,
Palestine, and Rome. The mottoes of the foreigners, however, point
to a different conclusion, and so does this passage: "If any one,
therefore, by this should take occasion to surmise that the author
meant to note any woman, _whose name sounds something like that name_,
it is too childish and too absurd, and not beseeming any deep judgment,
considering there are many things which _cannot be applied to any
woman_." In plain language, Mr. Dorrell believes no woman to be chaste.
H. W., at first sight of Avisa, is infected with a fantastical fit,
and bewrays his disease to his familiar friend, W. S., who, _not long
before_, had tried the courtesy of the like passion, and was now newly
recovered [in 1594]. Having been laughed at himself he determined to
see whether it would sort to a happier end for the _new actor_ than it
did for the _old player_. Doubtless W. S. is Shakespeare, and Avisa
is represented ironically as a _trader_ who had made a Frenchman
long happy (_dudum beatus_), been possessed by an Anglo-German (_dum
habui_), had then passed to Shakespeare, and finally to H. W. Such was
the slanderous story published in 1594; how far true, whether at all
true, I care not to inquire; but that it is the same story as that of
the Sonnets, that H. W. is Henry Wriothesley, and that the black woman
of the Sonnets is identical with Avisa, I regard as indubitable. Of
course the Thomas Willoby, _Frater Henrici Willoughby nuper defuncti_,
of the 1605 edition is a mere device to blind the licensers for the
press. Similar devices have often been used, but I know of none so
impudently charming as the "author's conclusion" as to the man who is
_nuper defunctus_. "H. W. was now again stricken so dead that he hath
not yet any further essayed, nor I think ever will, and whether he be
alive or dead I know not, and therefore I leave him."
On December 26th and 28th the Chamberlain's servants performed before
the Queen at Greenwich, apparently in the daytime. Kempe, Shakespeare,
and Burbadge were paid for these performances on the following March.
It is singular that the performance of "A comedy of _Errors_ like unto
Plautus his _Menoechmi_" should have also been performed apparently by
the same company at Gray's Inn, also on December 26th. This seems to
be the first mention of Shakespeare's play, the true title of which is
simply _Errors_: but whether it was written in 1590 or 1593-4, there
is no evidence that is absolutely decisive. The allusion to France
fighting against her heir, v. ii. 2. 125, would be equally applicable
at any date from July 1589, when Henri III. was killed, to February
1594, when Henri IV. was consecrated.
1595.
That the date of _Midsummer Night's Dream_ should be fixed in the
winter of 1594-5 was long since seen by Malone, the allusions to
the remarkable weather of 1594 being too marked to be put aside
contemptuously. It has also been attempted to assign other dates on
account of the play's being manifestly written for some marriage
solemnity. It is not needful to alter the date for that reason. Either
the marriage of W. Stanley, Earl of Derby, at Greenwich, on 24th
January, 1594-5, or that of Lord Russel, Earl of Bedford, to Lucy
Harrington (before 5th February, S. R.), would suit very well in point
of time. The former is the more probable; because it took place at
Greenwich, where we know the Chamberlain's men to have performed in the
previous month, and because these actors had mostly been servants to
the Earl of Derby's brother in the early part of the previous year.
There is little, if any doubt, that Shakespeare produced _Richard II._
and _The Two Gentlemen of Verona_, as we now have it, in this year. _A
larum for London_, or _The Siege of Antwerp_, by (?) Lodge, was acted
about this time.
The play of _Richard Duke of York_ was printed in 1595 and on 1st
December _Edward III._ was entered on S. R.
The performances of the Chamberlain's men, 1594-5, at Court, were
on December 26, 27, 28; January 5; February 22. Payment was made to
Hemings and Bryan.
1596.
Early in this year the play of _Sir T. More_ was produced by the
Chamberlain's company. The name of T. Goodale, who was one of their
actors, occurs in the MS. It appears from the notes of E. Tylney, then
Master of the Revels, that much revision had to be made in its form
in consequence of its reproducing, under a thin disguise, a narrative
of the Apprentice Riots of June 1595. The imprisonment of the Earl of
Hertford in October of the same year was too closely paralleled by
that of Sir T. More in the play to be agreeable to the Government.
Another point objected to was satirical allusion to Frenchmen. The date
hitherto assigned to this play is "1590 or earlier" (Dyce), which is
palpably wrong.
Soon after Shakespeare's _King John_ was acted. It contains, in my
opinion, an allusion to the expedition to Cadiz in June (i. 2. 66-75).
On July 23d Henry Carey died, and the "Chamberlain's players" became
the men of his son, George Carey L. Hunsdon.
In the same month, or earlier, _Romeo and Juliet_ was revived in a
greatly altered and improved form. All work by the second hand was cut
out and replaced by Shakespeare's own writing. It was not, however,
acted at this date at the Curtain, but at the Theater. Lodge's allusion
in his _Wit's Miserv_, 1596, to _Hamlet_, as acted in that house,
is inconsistent with any other supposition. On August 5 a ballad on
_Romeo and Juliet_ was entered on S. R. This is taken by Mr. Halliwell
as evidence that the play was then on the stage. On August 27 ballads
are also mentioned on _Macdobeth_ and _The Taming of a Shrew_. That on
Macbeth could not have been on the play as we now have it, but that a
play on this subject, perhaps an earlier form of the extant one, was
then acted, is very probable.
On August 11 Hamnet Shakespeare was buried at Stratford: his father
undoubtedly was present. This is the first visit to Stratford on his
part since 1587 so far as any evidence exists.
Shakespeare returned to his lodgings "near the Bear Garden" in
Southwark (Alleyn MS. _teste_ Malone) before October 20, where a draft
of a grant of arms was made to John Shakespeare, no doubt at his son's
expense.
In November, a petition was presented by the inhabitants of Blackfriars
against the transformation into a theatre of a large house bought by J.
Burbadge on the preceding February 4. The petition was ineffectual.
Shakespeare's play _The Merchant of Venice_, sometimes called _The Jew
of Venice_, is generally assigned to this year. I prefer 1597.
On December 29, Henry Shakespeare, the poet's uncle, was buried at
Snitterfield; and his wife Margaret on 9th February 1596-7.
The Court performances of Lord Hunsdon's men at Whitehall were six in
number, two at Christmas, and others on 1st, 5th January; 6th, 8th
February 1596-7.
1597.
Before March 5 a surreptitious edition of _Romeo and Juliet_ was
published, but not entered on S. R. This consists of an imperfect and
abridged copy of the revised play, with lacunæ filled up by portions of
the original version of 1591. See hereafter in Section IV.
In Easter term, Shakespeare purchased New Place, a mansion and
grounds in Stratford, for £60. This was freehold, and henceforth his
designation is, William Shakespeare of New Place, Stratford, Gentleman.
From this time, male heirs failing, his ambition seems to be to found a
family in one of the female branches; and Stratford is to be regarded
as his residence.
Soon after 5th March, Lord Hunsdon was appointed Chamberlain _vice_ W.
Brooke, Lord Cobham, deceased, and Lord Hunsdon's men again became the
Lord Chamberlain's.
During this year and the next Shakespeare undoubtedly produced _1_ and
_2 Henry IV_. The name given to the "fat knight" was originally Sir
John Oldcastle. This offended the Cobham family, who were lineally
descended from the great Sir John Oldcastle, and through their
influence the Queen ordered the name to be altered. The new name
was that of Falstaff, unquestionably identical with the Fastolfe of
history. Shakespeare had unwittingly adopted the name Oldcastle from
the old play of _The Famous Victories of King Henry V._ Mr. Halliwell
has pointed out that there must have been another play in which a Sir
John Oldcastle was represented: he quotes _Hey for Honesty_, "The rich
rubies and incomparable carbuncles of Sir John Oldcastle's nose;" and
Howell's _Letters_, ii. 71, "Ale is thought to be much adulterated,
and nothing so good as Sir John Oldcastle and Smug the Smith was used
to drink." I venture to add that this last quotation fixes the other
play. It was Drayton's _Merry Devil of Edmonton_, in which Sir John
the priest of Enfield drinks ale with Smug the Smith, and "carries
fire in his face eternally." This play was probably produced between
_1 Henry IV._ and _2 Henry IV._ The words "tickle your catastrophe" in
the latter are more likely to be an allusion to the "gag" in the _Merry
Devil_ than conversely; similar ridicule of this phrase is introduced
in _Sir Giles Goosecap_, which is certainly of later date. It seems
strange that Sir John Oldcastle should have been used as the name of
a priest; but the play has been so greatly abridged (all the part of
the story in which Smug replaces St. George as the sign of the inn,
for instance, having been cut out) that it would be mere guess-work
to try to restore its original form, and without such restoration we
cannot judge of the reasons for so singular an impersonation. Of course
it was attempted to remove all trace of Oldcastle's name; but just as
the prefix _Old._ to one of the speeches in Shakespeare's play bears
evidence to Oldcastle having been his original fat knight, so it is
possible that in a hitherto unexplained passage there may be a trace
of Oldcastle as Drayton's original ale-drinking priest. In scene 9
the words italicised in "My _old Jenerts_ bank my horse, my _castle_"
look very like a corruption of a stage direction written in margin of a
proof thus--
Old- J. enters
castle
--he is on the scene directly after, and his entrance is nowhere marked.
T. Lodge, as well as Drayton, was writing about this date for the
Chamberlain's men.
On August 29 _Richard II._ was entered on S. R., and on October 20
_Richard III._ These were evidently printed from authentic copies, duly
authorised for publication.
About July 1597 the Theater, with regard to extension of the lease
of which James Burbadge had been negotiating up to his death in the
spring of that year, was finally closed as a place of performance. In
October the Chamberlain's men no doubt began to act at the Curtain,
which Pembroke's men left at that date to join the Admiral's company
at the Rose; some of them, however, probably Cooke, Belt, Sinkler, and
Holland, had already in 1594 joined the Chamberlain's, as we shall see.
About this date Mr. Halliwell says "Shakespeare's company" were at
Rye (in August), at Dover and Bristol (in September), &c. Pembroke's
company were at these places, but he has given no proof that the
Chamberlain's were. The "Curtain-plaudities" of Marston's _Scourge of
Villany_, entered S. R. 8th September 1598, would certainly seem to show
that they acted at the Curtain in 1598. This does not, however, involve
the inference that they acted there in 1596, at which time they no
doubt performed at the Theater.
About this same time the play of _Wily Beguiled_ was acted, which
contains distinct parodies of speeches by Shylock and old Capulet, as
well as of other scenes in the _Merchant of Venice_, which must have
preceded it. It has been alleged by Steevens and others that this play
existed in 1596, but no proof has been given of this assertion.
In November John Shakespeare filed a bill against Lambert for the
recovery of the Asbies estate. There is no trace of his having
proceeded further with this litigation.
At Christmas the Chamberlain's men performed four plays at Whitehall,
one of which was _Love's Labour's Lost_. The corrections and
augmentations of the play, as we have it, may be confidently ascribed
to the preparation for this performance.
1598.
On January 24 Abraham Sturley wrote to Richard Quiney urging him to
persuade Shakespeare to make a purchase at Shottery, on the ground that
he would thus obtain friends and advancement, and at the same time
benefit the Corporation.
On February 25 _1 Henry IV._ was entered on S. R., and on July 22 _The
Merchant of Venice_.
In this spring or in 1597 _Much Ado about Nothing_ was probably
produced. It was probably an alteration of _Love's Labour's Won_.
In September Jonson joined the Chamberlain's men, and produced his
_Every Man in his Humour_ at the Curtain. This was the Quarto version
with the Italian names. Aubrey has been subjected to much unfounded
abuse for asserting that Jonson acted at the Curtain. The actors in
this play were Shakespeare, Burbadge, Phillips, Hemings, Condell, Pope,
Sly, Beeston, Kemp, and Duke. Shakespeare, it will be noted, is first
on the list.
On September 7 Meres' _Palladis Tamia_ was entered on S. R. Among the
abundant and often-quoted praises of Shakespeare in this work the
most important for biographical purposes are the enumeration of his
plays, the lists of tragic and comic dramatists, and this passage,
which I shall have to refer to hereafter. "As the soul of Euphorbus
was thought to live in Pythagoras, so the great witty soul of Ovid
lives in mellifluous and honey-tongued Shakespeare. Witness his _Venus
and Adonis_, his _Lucrece_, his sugared _Sonnets_ among his private
friends," &c. A careful comparison of the list of dramatists with that
of known plays or titles of plays that have come down to us shows that
the _Palladis Tamia_ could not have been completed for the press till
June 1598, and an examination of the list of Shakespeare's plays shows
that it consists of those then in the _repertoire_ of the Chamberlain's
company, that is, of those either newly written or revived between June
1594 and June 1598. These plays are: _Gentlemen of Verona_; _Errors_;
_Love's Labour's Lost_; _Love's Labour's Won_; _Midsummer-Night's
Dream_; _Merchant of Venice_--comedies. _Richard II._; _Richard III._;
_Henry IV._; _John_; _Titus Andronicus_; _Romeo and Juliet_--tragedies.
It is clear that _Richard III._ and a play on Andronicus, which I
believe to be the one we have, were attributed to Shakespeare at that
time.
On 25th October Richard Quiney wrote from the Bell in Carter Lane to
his "loving good friend and countryman Mr. William Shakespeare," who
was, according to the subsidy roll discovered by Mr. J. Hunter, then
living in the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, asking for the loan
of £30. On the same day he wrote to his brother-in-law Mr. Sturley at
Stratford, that "our countryman Mr. W. Shakespeare would procure us
money." The former letter was sent evidently by hand, an affirmative
answer obtained, and soon after instructions given by Shakespeare for
the procuring the money. We could not otherwise account for the letter
being preserved among the documents of the Corporation.
_The Famous Victories of Henry V._ was reprinted in 1598; as we so
often find to be the case with old plays on which other plays have been
founded. The complaint about the name Oldcastle no doubt was a special
motive for reproducing the old play in this instance.
There were three plays performed at Court by Shakespeare's company in
the Christmas festivities.
1599.
In April a play of _Troylus and Cressida_, by Dekker and Chettle, was
written; no doubt an opposition play to some revival of Shakespeare's
older one on the same subject.
The Chamberlain's men acted _A Warning for Fair Women_ about this time.
This play appears to me to come from the hand of Lodge.
In this year _The Passionate Pilgrim_, "by W. Shakespeare," was
imprinted by Jaggard. It contains two of the _Sonnets_, two other
Sonnets from _Love's Labour's Lost_, and one other poem from the same
play by Shakespeare. The remaining poems, as far as they are known, are
by Barnefield and other inferior authors. There is not a vestige of
reason for reprinting this book as Shakespeare's.
In the spring Shakespeare's company left the Curtain and went to act
at the Globe. This was a newly erected building on Bankside, made
partly of the materials of the old Theater, which had been removed by
Burbadge at the beginning of the year. One of the first plays performed
in it was Jonson's _Every Man out of his Humour_, the chief actors in
which were Burbadge, Hemings, Phillips, Condell, Sly, and Pope. Kempe,
Beeston, Duke, and Pallant had left the company, and did not act at
the Globe. But Shakespeare's name is also absent in this list, and
this fact, coupled with that of the libellous nature of this "comical
satire," and Jonson's leaving the Chamberlain's men immediately after
it to continue his strictures on Dekker, &c., at Blackfriars with
the Children of the Chapel, makes it exceedingly probable that the
disagreement which eventuated in the "purge" given by Shakespeare to
Jonson mentioned in _The Return to Parnassus_ had already arisen.
It would lead to too long a digression to do more than touch on this
stage quarrel here. I can only say that it lasted till 1601; that
Jonson and Chapman on the one side at Blackfriars, and Shakespeare,
Marston, and Dekker on the other, at first at the Globe, Rose, and
Paul's, afterwards at the Fortune, kept up one continual warfare for
more than three years. Not one of their plays during this time is
free from personalities and satirical allusions; nor, indeed, are
most comedies of Elizabeth's time; it is only because the allusions
have grown obscure and uninteresting to us, that we fail to see that
the Elizabethan comedy is eminently Aristophanic. It is not till the
reign of James that we find the comedy of manners and intrigue at all
generally developed.
Another play produced after the opening of the Globe was _Henry V._,
and soon after in this year _As You Like It_.
Somewhere about this time an attempt was made to get a grant to "impale
the arms of Shakespeare with those of Arden," _ignotum cum ignotiore_.
The grant was not obtained.
At this Christmas the Chamberlain's men gave three performances at
Court, viz., on 26th December at Whitehall, on 5th January 1599-1600
and on 4th February at Richmond.
1600.
Shrovetide, February 4. The play performed at Court was probably _The
Merry Wives of Windsor_. This play is assigned by tradition to a
command of the Queen, who wished to see Falstaff represented in love,
and is said to have been written in a fortnight. It was probably an
adaptation of the old _Jealous Comedy_ of 1592, and is more likely
to have come after than before _Henry V._, in which Shakespeare had
failed, according to his implied promise in the Epilogue to _2 Henry
IV._, to continue the story with Falstaff in it. It stands apart
altogether from the historical series.
March 6. The Chamberlain's men acted "Oldcastle" before their patron,
Lord Hunsdon, and foreign ambassadors at Somerset House. This could not
have been Shakespeare's "Falstaff," for the obnoxious name of Oldcastle
would certainly not have been revived before such an audience; nor
could it have been the _Sir John Oldcastle_, which belonged to another
company; it may have been _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_.
About this time Shakespeare, always attentive to pecuniary matters,
brought an action against one John Clayton for £7, and obtained a
verdict.
The August entries on S. R. are specially interesting. On the 4th a
memorandum (not in the regular course of entry) appears to the effect
that _As You Like It_, _Henry V._, _Every Man in his Humour_, and _Much
Ado about Nothing_, were "to be stayed." On the 14th, _Every Man in
his Humour_ was licensed; on the 23d, _Much Ado about Nothing_, and
along with it _2 Henry IV._, "_with the humours of Sir John Falstaff_.
Written by Master Shakespeare." On the 11th the first and second parts
of the _History of the Life of Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, "with
his Martyrdom,"_ had been licensed. The "staying" is generally supposed
to have relation to surreptitious printing; I think it more likely to
have been caused by the supposed satirical nature of the plays. _As
You Like It_ was not printed; _Henry V._ was printed in an incomplete
form[7] without license; while the emphatic mention of Falstaff and
the insertion of the author's name to _2 Henry IV._, not customary at
that date, show that the Oldcastle scandal had not yet died out. This
is still further proved by the almost simultaneous entries of the two
plays written October to December 1599 for the Admiral's men by Monday,
Drayton, Wilson, and Hathaway, on Sir John Oldcastle. Only one has
reached us, which is plainly satirical of _Henry V._ It was, however,
in one of the editions printed in 1600 ascribed to William Shakespeare.
Drayton, who was the chief author concerned in its production, had left
the Chamberlain's men in 1597, and been writing for the Admiral's ever
since. It is noticeable that after 1597 we find the favourable notices
of Lodge and Shakespeare which had been inserted in previous editions
expunged from his writings, notably the lines on Lucrece in the legend
of _Matilda_. Drayton had probably quarrelled with both his coadjutors.
With the entry here on Oldcastle's "martyrdom" compare the Epilogue to
_2 Henry IV._ This was not the play acted before Hunsdon on March 6,
which was probably _The Merry Devil_.
On 8th October _Midsummer-Night's Dream_ was entered on S. R.; on 28th
October _The Merchant of Venice_. Curiously enough, two rival issues
of each of these plays was made this year, although only one publisher
made an entry in each case. On 22d July 1598, J. Roberts had entered
_The Merchant of Venice_, but was refused permission to print unless
he could get the Lord Chamberlain's license, who was the patron of the
actors of that play. He apparently did not get it; but in 1600, when
J. Heyes does get the license, he arranges with Heyes to print the
book for him, but previously prints a slightly differing copy on his
own account. He makes with Fisher, the publisher of the other play, a
somewhat similar transaction.
There were three Court performances this Christmas by the Chamberlain's
men, December 26, January 5, February 24. The payment for these to
Hemings and Cowley indicates that the latter was a shareholder in the
Globe.
_2_ and _3 Henry VI._ were probably revised and revived at the Globe
about this time.
1601.
In this year _All's Well that Ends Well_ and _Hamlet_ were produced.
The form in which the latter appeared is matter of dispute; but we may
safely assert that it lay between the version of the first Quarto and
that of the Folio; the variation of the Quarto from this original form
being caused by the surreptitious nature of that edition, and that of
the Folio by a subsequent revision in 1603. The company of "little
eyases" satirised in this play was not of the Paul's children, with
whom the Chamberlain's men were on the most friendly terms, but of
the Chapel children at the Blackfriars, who were then acting Jonson's
"comical satires" against Dekker, Marston, and Shakespeare. Singularly
enough, they were tenants of the Burbadges, who were also owners of the
Globe.
In the same year 1601, a poem by Shakespeare appeared along with others
by Jonson, Marston, and Chapman in R. Chester's _Love's Martyr, or
Rosalin's Complaint_. This publication, could we ascertain its exact
date, would show the time when the stage controversy ceased and these
four writers could amicably appear together. Dekker, however, does not
appear among them, and we cannot tell if his _Satiromastix_ was acted
with Shakespeare's approval or not. It was produced at the Globe by his
company as well as by the children of Paul's at some time between 22d
May, up till which day Dekker was writing for the Admiral's men, and
11th November, when it was entered on S. R. This bitter satire seems to
have been the last open word in the controversy, but by no means the
end of its history.
The next fact we have to notice may perhaps explain why, just at
this point of Shakespeare's career, we find in 1602 a cessation of
production, accompanied by a change of manner in outward form and
inward thought when writing was resumed in 1603. In March 1601, in the
Essex trials, Meyrick was indicted "for having procured the outdated
tragedy of _Richard II._ to be publicly acted at his own charge for
the entertainment of the conspirators" (Camden). From Bacon's speech
(_State Trials_) it appears that Phillips was the manager who arranged
this performance. This identifies the company as the Chamberlain's, and
therefore the play as Shakespeare's. It may seem strange that a play,
duly licensed and published in 1597, could give offence in 1601; but
the published play did not contain the deposition scene, iv. 1, the
acted play of 1601 certainly did. This point is again brought forward
in Southampton's trial: he calmly asked the Attorney-General, "What
he thought in his conscience they designed to do with the Queen?"
"The same," replied he, "that Henry of Lancaster did with Richard
II." The examples of Richard II. and Edward II. were again quoted by
the assistant judges against Southampton, while Essex in his defence
urged the example of the Duke of Guise in his favour. From all which
it is clear that the subjects chosen for historical plays by Marlowe
and Shakespeare were unpopular at Court, but approved of by the Essex
faction, and that at last the company incurred the serious displeasure
of the Queen. Accordingly, they did not perform at Court at Christmas
1601-2;[8] and we find them travelling in Scotland instead--L. Fletcher
with his company of players being traceable at Aberdeen in October.
Here the actors would hear of the Gowry conspiracy instead of Essex',
of which we shall find the result hereafter. Before leaving London,
however, or in the next year after their return, they acted _The
Life and Death of Lord Cromwell_, Earl of Essex, a play in which the
rise and fall of Robert Devereux, the late Earl, was pretty closely
paralleled. This was entered on S. R., 11th August 1602, "as lately
acted."
On September 8 John Shakespeare, the poet's father, was buried at
Stratford.
1602.
On 18th January _The Merry Wives of Windsor_ was entered on S. R.: a
surreptitious issue. On 2d February, _Twelfth Night_ was performed at
the Readers' Feast at the (?) Middle Temple, "much like _The Comedy of
Errors_ or the _Menechmi_ in Plautus, but most like and near to that in
Italian, called _Inganni_" (Manningham's Diary).
On 19th April _1_ and _2 Henry VI._ (evidently the Quarto plays on
which _2_ and _3 Henry VI._ were founded) were assigned by Millington
to Pavier, _salvo jure cujuscumque_, S. R. This entry is important. It
shows that the remodelling of the old Quarto plays under the new name
of _Henry VI._ instead of _The Contention of York and Lancaster_ had
taken place; it indicates a doubt or fear as to whether the copyright
might be disputed by some publisher, authorised by the Chamberlain's
men to produce the amended version.
In May, Shakespeare bought for £320, from the Combes, 107 acres of
arable land in Old Stratford. The indenture was sealed and delivered in
his absence to his brother Gilbert.
On July 26 the surreptitious _Hamlet_ was entered on S. R., and on
August 11 _The Life and Death of the Lord Cromwell_.
On 28th September, at a Court Baron of the Manor of Rowington, Walter
Getley transferred to Shakespeare a cottage and garden in Chapel Lane,
about a quarter of an acre with forty feet frontage, possession being
reserved for the lady of the manor till suit and service had been
personally done for the same.
Two plays were performed by the Chamberlain's men at Court this
Christmas, one at Whitehall 26th December, one at Richmond 2d February.
1603.
February 7. _Troylus and Cressida_, as performed probably in 1602 by
the Chamberlain's men, not the play by Dekker and Chettle, was entered
on S. R.
The _Taming of the Shrew_ as we have it was probably produced in March.
March 24. THE QUEEN DIED.
On 19th May a license was granted to L. Fletcher, W. Shakespeare, R.
Burbadge, A. Phillips, J. Hemings, H. Condell, W. Sly, R. Armin, R.
Cowley, to perform stage plays "within their now usual house called the
Globe," or in any part of the kingdom. They are henceforth nominated
the King's Players. The functions of Fletcher are not exactly known:
he did not act, and was probably a sort of general manager; the other
eight were probably shareholders, among whom it will be noted that
Shakespeare and Burbadge stand first. In the list of actors in Jonson's
_Sejanus_, Cowley and Armin are omitted, A. Cook and J. Lowin appearing
instead. This play got Jonson into trouble. He was accused before the
Council for "Popery and treason" in it. When he published it next year
he no doubt omitted the most objectionable passages, and put forth an
excuse that a second hand had good share in it. This was his usual way
of getting out of a difficulty of this kind. Even as the play stands
there is abundant room for malice to interpret the quarrel between
Sejanus and Drusus as that between Essex and Blount; and to see in
Sejanus' poisoning propensities allusions to the Earl of Leicester.
Whalley's curious notion that Jonson in his argument alluded to the
Powder plot, ignores the fact that the play was entered on 2d November
1604 in S. R. It is Raleigh's plot that is intended.
_The London Prodigal_, and Wilkins' _Miseries of Enforced Marriage_,
were written and perhaps acted (at the Globe?) this year.
The edition of _Hamlet_ entered in the preceding year was issued in the
autumn.
On December 2 the King's players performed at the Earl of Pembroke's at
Wilton, and at Hampton Court before the King on December 26, 27, 28,
January 1 [? December 29]; before the Prince, December 30, January 1;
before the King at Whitehall, February 2, 18; nine plays in all. A much
larger number of plays were acted at Christmas festivities at Court in
James's reign than in Elizabeth's. Perhaps the Queen only cared for new
plays. We know that James frequently ordered a second performance of
any one that specially pleased him, and often had old plays revived.
On 8th February 1604, there occurs an entry in the Revels accounts
which explains the small number of public theatrical performances, and
the cessation of work of the principal author for the King's men in
1603. To R. Burbadge was given £30, "for the maintenance and relief
of himself and the rest of his company, being prohibited to present
any plays publicly in or near London by reason of great peril that
might grow through the extraordinary concourse and assembly of people
to a new increase of the plague, till it shall please God to settle
the city in a more perfect health." From July 1603 till March 1604 the
theatres were probably closed. Hence my doubt as to whether _The London
Prodigal_ and _The Miseries of Enforced Marriage_ were performed in
London till 1604. The King's company were most likely travelling in the
provinces till the winter; but were disappointed at not being allowed
to reopen at Christmas when the plague had abated.
1604.
The King's men, like those of other companies, had an allowance for
cloaks, &c., to appear at the entry of King James on 15th March.
The second Quarto of _Hamlet_ was published in this year--"Newly
imprinted and enlarged to almost as much again as it was, according to
the new and perfect copy." This version was probably that performed at
Court in the Christmas festivities 1603-4. We cannot suppose that among
the nine plays then exhibited _Hamlet_ would not be included. Of course
on such occasions plays were always more or less rewritten. In this
instance the remodelling is twofold; the Quarto version for the Court,
1603-4, the Folio for the public, of the same date. That the Folio does
not merely reproduce the 1601 play, as it was acted in London, "in the
Universities of Cambridge and Oxford" (perhaps in going to or returning
from Scotland in 1601), "and elsewhere," is clear for many reasons,
one of which concerns us here. In the well-known passage in ii. 2
relating to the Children's company, an "inhibition" and "innovation"
are mentioned in the 1604 Quarto of which there is no note in that of
1603. The only time at which we know of any contemporary inhibition
and innovation was in January-February 1604. The inhibition on account
of the plague, which was going on till nearly 8th February, I have
already noticed; the innovation was either the political conspiracy
of Raleigh or the attempt at reformation in religion by the Puritans.
The Children of the Chapel, who under Evans, Burbadge's lessee, had
satirised Shakespeare and other players in their performances at
Blackfriars, were reappointed at this time to act in that same theatre
under E. Kirkham, A. Hawkins, T. Kendall, and R. Payne, with the new
appellation of Children of the Revels. The date of the warrant is
30th January 1604. The King's men acted at Court 2d February, and if
_Hamlet_ was then performed the passage in ii. 2 may have brought their
grievance under the King's notice, and resulted in the gift of £30 by
way of compensation. I do not insist on this, however, as it is omitted
in the Quarto. No doubt they had expected to get rid of the children
at Blackfriars at the end of seven years from the date of the original
lease, 4th February 1596. At the end of another seven years they did
so, but only by purchasing the remainder of the lease.
In this summer Marston's _Malcontent_ was obtained in some indirect
manner from these Blackfriars children, perhaps from one of the
children actors who "left playing" at the time of the new license,
and was played at the Globe, with an Induction by Webster introducing
Sinkler, Sly, Burbadge, Condell, and Lowin on the stage. This was
a retaliation for the children having in like fashion previously
appropriated _Jeronymo_ (_The Spanish Tragedy_), which belonged to the
Chamberlain's men. The curious thing about the transaction is that the
_Malcontent_ was originally produced in 1601, containing satirical
allusions to _Hamlet_; and that in 1604 both plays, revised, were acted
on the same stage, by the same actors.
On 2d November _Sejanus_ was entered on S. R.
On 18th December a letter from Chamberlain to Winwood contains the
following notice. "The tragedy of _Gowry_, with all action and actors,
hath been twice represented by the King's players, with exceeding
concourse of all sorts of people: but whether the matter or manner
be not well handled, or that it be thought unfit that princes should
be played on the stage in their lifetime, I hear that some great
councillors are much displeased with it, and so 'tis thought it shall
be forbidden." Shakespeare's work during this year is shown by the
transcript of the Revels Accounts obtained by Malone. The King's men
acted at Whitehall on November 1 _The Moor of Venice_; November 4,
_The Merry Wives of Windsor_; December 28, _Measure for Measure_, and
_Errors_; ["Between January 1 and January 5" in the forged copy of this
entry still extant][9] _Love's Labour's Lost_; January 7, _Henry V._;
January 8, _Every One out of his Humour_; February 2, _Every One in
his Humour_; February 10, _The Merchant of Venice_; February 11, _The
Spanish Maz_; February 12, _The Merchant of Venice_ again. I have given
the full list as in the forged copy, but Malone is our safe guarantee
for all the Shakespeare plays. It appears then that in this year
Shakespeare must have written _Measure for Measure_ and _Othello_,
and, as we have already seen, produced a revision of _Hamlet_. How much
of this work was performed in 1603 we cannot tell; but it is not likely
that _Othello_ was written till 1604. The only definite dates in this
year relate to other matters.
In May Shakespeare entered an action at Stratford against one Philip
Rogers for £1 15s. 10d., balance of account for malt.
In August the King had a special order issued that every member of the
company should attend at Somerset House when the Spanish ambassador
came to England (Halliwell, _Outlines_, p. 136). The Christmas Court
performances have been noted above.
1605.
On 8th May, the old play on _Leir_ was entered on S. R.
On 4th May Phillips made his will, which was proved on the 13th. In
it he leaves 30s. each to Shakespeare and Condell, and 20s. each
to Fletcher, Armin, Cowley, Cook, and Tooley, all his fellows; to
Beeston, "his servant," 30s.; to Gilburne, his "late apprentice,"
40s. and clothes; to James Sandes, "his apprentice," 40s. and musical
instruments; to Hemings, Burbadge, and Sly, overseers and executors, a
bowl of silver of £5 apiece.
On 3d July a ballad on the _Yorkshire Tragedy_ was entered on S. R.; the
play which has been erroneously attributed to Shakespeare was no doubt
acted about the same time.
_The London Prodigal_ was published, but not entered on S. R., this same
year, with the name of William Shakespeare on the title-page.
Jonson's _Fox_ was acted by the King's men; the chief actors were the
same as those of _Sejanus_ in 1603, except Phillips, who died in May,
and Shakespeare, a most noteworthy exception.
On 24th July, William Shakespeare, _of_ Stratford-upon-Avon, bought
of Ralph Huband an unexpired term of thirty-one years of a ninety-two
years' lease of a moiety of the tithes of Stratford, Old Stratford,
Bishopton, and Welcombe for £440, subject to a rent payable to the
corporation of £17, and £5 to John Barker. This, at the rate of
interest then prevalent, was a dear purchase. In 1598 his "purchasing
these tithes" had been mooted at Stratford.
As to Shakespeare's dramatic work during this year I have no doubt that
_Lear_ was on the stage in May, when the old play was published. I
cannot otherwise account for the description of the latter in S. R. as a
_tragical_ history. Until Shakespeare's play this story had always been
treated as a comedy.
_Macbeth_ was probably produced in the winter, or in the following
year. When James I. was at Oxford in August, he had been addressed in
Latin by the three witches in this story, at an entertainment given by
the University. No doubt James would be pleased by their prophecies,
and desirous that they should be promulgated in the vulgar tongue. No
more likely date can be found for the holograph letter which he is said
to have addressed to Shakespeare. It may possibly be that that letter
was a command to write this play. But, putting conjecture aside, Oldys
says that Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham, told Lintot that he had a
letter from the King to the dramatist.
On October 9, Shakespeare's company performed before the Mayor
and Corporation of Oxford. It may have been on this occasion that
Shakespeare made the acquaintance of the Davenants, and stopped for
the first time at the Crown, the license for which inn had only been
taken out by Davenant in the preceding year. Enough has been written by
others as to the scandal about Mrs. Davenant, and the tradition that
William Davenant the poet, the godson of Shakespeare, was really his
son. No foundation beyond a Joe Miller joke has been discovered for
this report.
At Court, ten plays were acted in the Christmas season by the King's
men; among them the revived _Mucedorus_, which, as we have seen, was an
apology for Jonson's satire in _Volpone_.
1606.
In this year, Shakespeare's portion of _Timon of Athens_, and that part
of _Cymbeline_ which is founded on so-called British history, were
probably written.
A play called _The Puritan_ (_Widow_), evidently by Middleton, was
acted by the Paul's boys this year, in which we find direct allusion to
_Richard III._ and _Macbeth_, both of which were probably on the stage.
The same scene contains a palpable parody of the action of the scene in
_Pericles_ in which Thaisa is recovered to life. That play must then
have also been on the stage. It does not follow that it was the play as
we have it. It may have been, and I believe was, Wilkins' play before
Shakespeare's improvement had been introduced.
During July or August, the King's men had performed three plays before
the King of Denmark and his Majesty--two at Greenwich, one at Hampton
Court; and at Christmas they performed at Court nine plays: on December
26, 29; January 4, 6, 8; February 2, 5, 15, 27. That on 26th December
was _Lear_, as we have it in the Quarto version. The Folio is that used
on the stage of the same date.
1607.
_Anthony and Cleopatra_ must have been acted about this time, as well
as Cyril Tourneur's _Revenger's Tragedy_.
On 25th June Susanna, Shakespeare's eldest daughter, married Dr. John
Hall, an eminent physician at Stratford.
On 6th August Middleton's _Puritan Widow_ was entered on S. R., and
imprinted as by W.S.
Twine's _Pattern of Painful Adventures_, on which Wilkins' version of
_Pericles_ was founded, was reprinted in this year.
On 22d October Drayton's _Merry Devil of Edmonton_ was entered on S. R.
The entry on 5th April under the same title, in which the authorship is
ascribed to T[homas] B[rewer], refers to the prose story, not the play.
On 26th November _King Lear_ was entered on S. R.
On December 31 Shakespeare's brother Edmund was buried at St.
Saviour's, Southwark, aged twenty-eight, "a player," "with a forenoon
knell of the great bell."
There were thirteen Court performances by the King's men: on December
26, 27, 28; January 2, 6 (two plays), 7, 9, 17 (two plays), 26;
February 2, 6.
1608.
On February 21 Elizabeth Hall, Shakespeare's granddaughter, was
baptized at Stratford.
_The Yorkshire Tragedy_ was entered on S. R. May 20, as by William
Shakespeare. The authorship of this play has not been yet ascertained.
On May 20 _Anthony and Cleopatra_, and _Pericles_ (not as in the
Quarto version with the three last acts by Shakespeare), were entered
on S. R. Wilkins' prose version of the play was printed this same
year. I take the order of events regarding this play to have been as
follows. Wilkins wrote a play on Pericles in 1606, which was parodied
in Middleton's _Puritan_ that same year; in 1607 Twine's _Pattern of
Painful Adventures_ was reprinted; in the same year Wilkins left the
King's company and joined the Queen's; in May 1608 the play was entered
for publication, but not published; it may have been "stayed" by the
Chamberlain's company; in the same year Wilkins issued surreptitiously
(it was not entered on S. R.) his "_true_ history of the play as it
was lately presented by the poet Gower." Such a proceeding as this, a
printing of a prose narrative founded on an unprinted play and by the
same author, is unparalleled in the history of Shakespearean drama. It
must be remembered that Wilkins was not even connected with the King's
company at the time. Meanwhile Shakespeare had rewritten Acts iii.-v.
In this new shape the play was acted in 1608, and was, as we know
from an allusion in _Pimlico, or Run Redcap_ (entered S. R. 15th April
1609), very popular. An edition of the play thus altered was issued in
1609, not by Blount, who made the entry in May 1608, but by Gosson, as
the "late much-admired play ... with the true relation of the whole
history ... as also the _no less_ strange and worthy accidents in the
birth and life of his daughter Marina," that is, of the part written by
Shakespeare. This edition is very hurriedly and carelessly got up.
In August Shakespeare commenced an action against Addenbroke.
On September 9 Shakespeare's mother was buried at Stratford.
Shakespeare's company had been shortly before travelling on the
southern coast (Halliwell, who suppresses the exact date as usual). It
is always dangerous to read personal feeling in a dramatist's work;
but the coincidences in date of his _King John_ and Hamnet's death, of
his _Coriolanus_ and his mother's death, justify, I think, my opinion
that his wife's grief is apotheosised in Constance, and his mother's
character in Volumnia. This is confirmed by the great change that
takes place in his work at this time; his next four plays are devoted
to subjects of family reunion after separation.
On 16th October he was godfather to William Walker at Stratford.
In this autumn _Coriolanus_ was probably produced.
The Court Christmas performances by the King's men were twelve, on
unknown dates.
1609.
On January 28 _Troylus and Cressida_ was entered on S. R., and published
from a surreptitious copy, with a preface, stating that it had been
"never staled with the stage." This preface was withdrawn before the
close of the year, probably at the instance of the King's company. It
has been, however, the cause of misleading many modern critics (myself
included), as to the date of the production of the play. In the new
issue the title states that it is printed "as it was acted by the
King's Majesty's servants."
On February 15, a verdict for £6 and £1, 4s. costs was given in favour
of Shakespeare against John Addenbroke for debt, and execution issued.
This suit began in August 1608; the precept for a jury is dated 21st
December, when an adjournment of the trial probably took place. After
the final judgment Addenbroke was _non inventus_, and on 7th June
1609, Shakespeare proceeded against his bail, one Horneby. All these
proceedings were conducted not personally, but through his solicitor
and cousin Thomas Greene.
On 20th May the Sonnets were entered on S. R., and published with
dedication to Mr. W. H., who, in my opinion, was some one connected
with Lord Southampton, who had obtained a copy from him or his, and
possibly may have given Shakespeare the hint to write them in the first
instance, at the time (1594) when his friends were anxious for him
to marry. Such a person was Sir William Hervey, the third husband of
Southampton's mother: she died in 1607, and I conjecture that the delay
in publishing the Sonnets was due to the fact that she wished them to
remain in MS. at any rate during her lifetime. The copy used may have
been found among her papers.
On 20th May 1608 had been entered _Pericles_, and _Antony and
Cleopatra_, which were not published by Blount, who made the entry.
_Pericles_, however, was printed surreptitiously in 1609 for another
firm as we have it in the Quarto. This play was probably then
continued on the stage, as we find another edition required by 1611.
_Cymbeline_ was probably produced in the autumn. This year being a
plague year there was little dramatic activity; even Jonson did not
produce his _Epicene_ for the King's men, but had it acted by the
Chapel (or Revels) children. For the same reason there were no stage
performances at Court at Christmas.
1610.
On 4th January a patent was granted to R. Daborne, P. Rossiter, J.
Tarbook, R. Jones, and R. Browne, to set up a new Children's company
in Whitefriars. Their success was no doubt the cause that determined
the Burbadges to take the Blackfriars into their own hands.[10]
Accordingly they arranged to purchase at Lady Day the remainder of
Evans' lease of the Blackfriars (they had already taken the boys, "now
growing up to be men," Underwood,[11] Ostler, &c., to "strengthen
the King's service"), and to place men players--Hemings, Condell,
Shakespeare, &c., therein. Before the end of the year we accordingly
find the boys alluded to acting as members of the King's company in
Jonson's _Alchemist_. The chief players were Burbadge, Hemings, Lowin,
Ostler, Condell, Underwood, Cooke, Tooley, Armin, and Egglestone.
Of these Tooley and Cooke had been boy actors in the Chamberlain's
company, Underwood and Ostler in the Revels children. Shakespeare's
name does not occur; nor do I find any evidence except Mr. Halliwell's
unsupported assertion (_Outlines_, p. 111), that he continued to act
at this date. It is noticeable that there are ten actors mentioned;
this is very unusual in these play lists, and suggests that the number
of sharers may have been increased from eight to ten. There are
certainly about this time allusions to ten shares scattered about in
contemporary plays. If this be the case, Shakespeare would no longer
be a shareholder: the whole question of his shares is involved in
difficulty, and this conjecture is only thrown out to call attention
to any allusions in writings of this date that may throw light on the
matter.
The King's men performed fifteen plays at Court this Christmas.
In this year, in my opinion, Shakespeare having produced _The Winters
Tale_ and _The Tempest_, retired from theatrical work. Malone's
hypothesis that Sir W. Herbert's mention of Sir G. Buck's "allowing"
the former play implies a date subsequent to August 1610, is worthless;
Buck had the "allowing" of plays in his hands from 1607 onwards. There
is direct evidence that the Blackfriars Theatre was occupied even after
1611 by other companies. Field's _Amends for Ladies_ was acted there
by the Prince's and the Lady Elizabeth's men; and Charles could not
be called Prince till after the death of Henry, 6th November 1612.
The production of Field's play was probably in the spring 1613. By
careful comparison of the dry documents concerning shareholders in
1635, with those of the Blackfriars property in 1596, we ascertain that
J. Burbadge bought that property 4th February 1596; that in November
the establishment of a theatre there was petitioned against, but
carried out soon after; that a lease of twenty-one years was granted
to Evans, either at Christmas 1596 or Lady Day 1597, most probably the
latter; that at the end of thirteen years the Burbadges bought the
remaining eight years of the lease, probably at Lady Day 1610, and took
possession of the building;--but that they _at the same time_ took the
boys into the King's company or set up Hemings, Shakespeare, &c., in
the Blackfriars is mere rhetoric of Cuthbert's. Underwood and Ostler
had both left the Revels children before the performance of Jonson's
_Epicene_ in 1609, and Field did not join the King's men till 1618-19.
In June Shakespeare purchased twenty acres of pasture land from the
Combes.
At Christmas the King's men performed fifteen plays at Court.
1611.
In this year unusual efforts seem to have been made by the King's
company to secure authors of repute to write for their playhouse.
Jonson's _Catiline_ was acted by nearly the same cast as _The
Alchemist_, the only change being that Robinson appears in the list
instead of Armin. The second _Maiden's Tragedy_ was produced in
October, most likely written by Tourneur, having been preceded by the
first _Maid's Tragedy_ by Beaumont and Fletcher, who also in this
year brought out their _Philaster_ and _King and no King_: in all
we have five new plays of the first rank, acted by a company that
hitherto appears to have almost entirely depended on about two plays
from Shakespeare, and occasionally a third by some other hand, as
sufficient novelty to attract a year's full houses. It is this _quasi_
monopoly in writing for his company that explains Shakespeare's
accumulation of property; and it is to me incredible that _Macbeth_,
_The Winter's Tale_, _Cymbeline_, and _The Tempest_ should all have
been produced in this year. Yet this seems to be the belief of
practical critics who believe only what can be supported by what they
term "positive evidence," the evidence in this case being that Forman,
the astrological charlatan, entered in his note-book that he had seen
acted _Cymbeline_, _Macbeth_, 20th April 1610 [1611]; _Richard II._,
30th April 1611; _Winter's Tale_, May 15. This evidence has, however,
value of another kind, for it shows that a large number of revivals
took place in this year; indeed, coupling this with the fact that at
this Christmas and the next the unprecedented number of fifty plays
were performed by the King's men at Court, it is likely that _all_
Shakespeare's plays were revived immediately after his retirement from
the stage. We cannot trace fifty plays to the possession of his company
at this date without including them.
On September 11 Shakespeare's name occurs in the margin of a folio
page of donors (including all the principal inhabitants of Stratford)
to a subscription list "towards the charge of prosecuting the bill
in Parliament for the better repair of the highways." This appears
to confirm the view that Shakespeare was at this time residing in
Stratford.
On December 16 the play of _Lord Cromwell_ was entered on S. R., and
published as by W. S.
The plays at Court were twenty-two: on October 31; November 1, 5;
December 26; January 5, February 23, before the King; on November 9,
19; December 16, 31; January 7, 15; February 19, 20, 28; April 3,
16, before Prince Henry and Charles, Duke of York; on February 9, 20
(_sic_), before the Prince; on March 28, April 26, before the Lady
Elizabeth.
1612.
On February 3 the burial of Gilbert Shakespeare "adolescens" was
entered in the Stratford Register. I agree with Mr. French that this
was most likely Shakespeare's brother.
In this year a suit was commenced "Lane Greene, and Shakespeare
compl^{ts.}" on the ground that they had to pay too large a proportion
of the reserved rent of the tithes purchased in 1605. It appears from
the draft of the bill filed before Lord Ellesmere that Shakespeare's
income from this source was £60.
The plays produced by the King's men were _The Woman's Prize_,
_Cardenno_ (_i.e._, _Cardenes, or Loves Pilgrimage_), and _The
Captain_, by Fletcher and his coadjutors, and the _Duchess of Malfi_
by Webster, who also published _The White Devil_, with the remarkable
allusion to the "right happy and copious industry" of Shakespeare,
Dekker, and Heywood. Curiously enough, this is often referred to even
now as a eulogy on Webster's part; it is really damning with faint
praise the poet to whom he hoped to be the successor as provider of
plays to the King's company.
_The Passionate Pilgrim_ reached a third edition, and was reissued as
"certain amorous Sonnets between Venus and Adonis," by W. Shakespeare;
"whereunto is added two love epistles" between Paris and Helen.
These were stolen from Heywood's _Troja Britannica_ of 1609. In his
_Apology for Actors_ (1612), he complains of the injury done him, as
it might lead to unjust suspicion of piracy on his part, and adds,
"As I must acknowledge my lines not worthy his patronage under whom
he hath published them, so the author I know much offended with M.
Jaggard that altogether unknown to him presumed to make so bold with
his name." In consequence, no doubt, of this remonstrance, Jaggard
had to substitute a new title-page, from which Shakespeare's name was
entirely omitted. He had allowed his name to be used in the titles of
_The London Prodigal_ in 1605, of _The Yorkshire Tragedy_ in 1608, of
_The Passionate Pilgrim_ of 1609, and even of _Sir John Oldcastle_ in
1600 without murmuring; but directly the interests of another demand
justice at his hands he takes prompt action, and compels the piratical
publisher to withdraw his name altogether.
The King's men at the Christmas festivities, &c., presented at Court
fourteen plays before the King and fourteen before the Prince, the Lady
Elizabeth, and the Prince Palatine. Among the plays so represented were
_Philaster_, _The Knot of Fools_, _Much Ado about Nothing_, _The Maid's
Tragedy_, _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_, _The Tempest_, _A King and no
King_, _The Twins' Tragedy_, _The Winter's Tale_, _Sir John Falstaff_
(_The Merry Wives of Windsor_), _The Moor of Venice_, _The Nobleman_,
_Cesar's Tragedy_, _Love lies a bleeding_ (_Philaster_ repeated),
before the Prince, Lady Elizabeth, and the Palatine; _A Bad Beginning
makes a Good Ending_ (? _All's Well that Ends Well_; but entered S. R.
1660 as Ford's, and destroyed in MS. by Warburton's servant; Ford's
revision must, of course, have been later than 1623), _The Captain_,
_The Alchemist_, _Cardenno_, _The Hotspur_ (_1 Henry IV._), _Benedicte
and Betteris_ (_Much Ado about Nothing_), before the King. See
Stanhope's Accounts (Halliwell, _Outlines_, p. 597, third edition, and
_Revels Accounts_, p. xxiii.) Of these twenty Shakespeare contributes
nine, Fletcher (with Beaumont) six, Jonson one, Tourneur one, Drayton
(?) one, and two have not been identified.
1613.
On 4th February Richard Shakespeare, the poet's only surviving brother,
was buried at Stratford.
On 10th March Shakespeare purchased in Blackfriars a house with yard
and haberdasher's shop for £140, subject to a mortgage of £60. This
property had greatly increased in value since 1604, when it was sold
for £100, probably in consequence of the immediate vicinity of the
theatre, which drew large custom for feathers and other articles of
attire to Blackfriars. Shakespeare leased it to John Robinson, who had
by this time seen the absurdity in a business point of view of his
opposition to the establishment of the theatre in 1596. One of the
trustees for the legal estate (the mortgage remaining unredeemed till
1613) was John Heming, unquestionably Shakespeare's friend the actor.
On 8th June the King's men played at Court before the Duke of Savoy's
ambassadors.
On 29th June the Globe Theatre was burnt down, "while Burbadge's
company were acting the play of _Henry VIII._, and there shooting
off certain chambers by way of triumph" (T. Lorkin's letter). Sir
H. Wotton says it was "a new play called _All is True_, representing
some principal pieces of the reign of Henry VIII." It was of course
Shakespeare's play in its original form. A Fool must have acted in it,
for in the old ballad about this fire, "the reprobates prayed for the
fool and Henry Condy" (Condell), who were apparently the last actors
who escaped.
It has been conjectured that at this time Shakespeare retired from the
stage, having sold his shares in the Globe and Blackfriars in order to
purchase the house above mentioned. There is no particle of evidence
that he had not saved the £80 then paid from his usual economies, or
that if he had wished to sell his shares he could have done so. It is
true that shares in the later Globe (rebuilt 1613-14) were so sold; but
all the evidence as to the theatre in which Shakespeare was concerned
points the other way. It appears from the 1635 documents that Hemings,
Shakespeare, &c., had their shares without paying any consideration,
and that all the shares held by Pope, Kempe, Bryan, Shakespeare,
Sly, and Cowley had reverted by 1614 into the hands of the surviving
shareholders, the Burbadges, Hemings, and Condell. If we examine the
wills of these men, we find that Pope indeed, in 1603, leaves all his
estate or interest in the Globe, "which I have or ought to have," to
Mary Clark and Thomas Bromley; but that Phillips in 1605, and Cooke in
1614, make no mention of any shares. It seems most likely that this
will of Pope's raised the question as to whether these shares were
held during office as actor or absolutely. There can be little doubt
that the former was the case, as is only reasonable where the shares,
as in the first Globe, were given "without consideration." Purchased
shares, like those in the latter Globe, are in a different position.
At any rate, the shares left to Bromley and Clark in fact reverted to
the surviving shareholders. Sly's will in 1608, which is in similar
terms to Pope's, leaves his shares to Robert Brown, who, like Clark and
Bromley, disappears from all future history of these shares. Moreover,
there is no mention of any shares belonging to Cowley, Beeston, or
Kempe: yet there can be no doubt that Kempe was till 1599 a shareholder.
On 15th July, in the Ecclesiastical Court at Worcester, the case of Dr.
John Hall _v._ John Lane, for slandering his wife, was heard, and the
defendant excommunicated on the 27th.
There were sixteen plays performed at Court by the King's men this
year, on November 4, 16; January 10; February 4, 8, 10, 18; and nine
others.
1614.
Fletcher, Webster, and Beaumont had all left the King's men, and now,
31st October, Jonson leaves them too, and produces his _Bartholomew
Fair_ at the Hope, with abundant sneers at Shakespeare's plays,
especially the _Tempest_ and _Winter's Tale_. He does not allude to
_Henry VIII._ Fletcher was now, as well as Jonson, a writer for the
Princess Elizabeth's players.
In July John Combe left Shakespeare £5 as a legacy.
In the autumn an attempt was made by W. Combe, the squire of Welcombe,
to inclose a large portion of the neighbouring common fields; this
attempt was opposed by the Corporation, but supported by Mr. Manwaring
and Shakespeare. The latter clearly acted simply with a view to his
own personal interest. His name as an ancient freeholder occurs in a
list, 5th September, as having claim for compensation if the inclosure
took place. On 18th October, Replingham, Combe's agent, covenanted to
give him full compensation for injury by "any inclosure or decay of
tillage:" on 16th November he went to London: on 17th November his
"cousin," T. Greene, town clerk of Stratford and at the same time his
own solicitor, called to see him: he said the inclosures were to be
less than had been represented, that nothing would be done till April,
and that he and Mr. Hall thought nothing would be done at all. On 23d
December letters to Mr. Manwaring and Shakespeare were written, with
"almost all the company's hands" to them, and a private letter in
addition by Greene to "my cousin," with copies of all the acts of the
Corporation, and notes of the inconveniences that would result from the
inclosure. The inclosure was not made, and Shakespeare did not get his
compensation.
1616.
On 25th January the first draft of Shakespeare's will was drawn up.
On 10th February his daughter Judith was married without a license to
T. Quiney, vintner of Stratford; they were summoned in consequence to
the Ecclesiastical Court of Worcester a few weeks after. On 25th March
the will was executed, and on 25th April "Will. Shakspere, gent."
was entered in the burial register at Stratford. He died just before
completing his fifty-fourth year; but it is usually supposed on the
23d, his birthday.
FOOTNOTES:
[4] A dor, dorne, or drone is the lazy male bee that makes no honey:
hence Doron, the dorne (pronounce dor´un). There was a myth that dors
or drones were produced by mules, hence Muli-dor (see Minshew _drone_).
But a drone is also the drone of a bagpipe, or the bagpipe itself,
which was called chevrau (see Cotgrave, _chevrau_) or cheveril: and
_chevrau_ is Kyd. It is evident from Greene's tracts that Doron was
meant for the writer of _The Taming of a Shrew_, and Mulidor for the
same author--there cannot be a doubt of the identity of the characters.
Nash's address identifies _The Taming of a Shrew_ writer with Kyd.
[5] These dates are so given by Henslow: they should be June 5 and June
15.
[6] Simpson. But rather in 1 _Tamburlane_ v. 2: "Hell and Elysium swarm
with ghosts of men," and similarly a few lines before "where shaking
ghosts," &c.
[7] _Henry V._ was transferred to T. Pavier on 14th August.
[8] Mr. Halliwell (_Outlines_, p. 128, 2d edition) says they performed
four plays at Whitehall, but quotes no authority.
[9] This performance was at Southampton's house before Queen Anne.
[10] Mr. Halliwell (_Outlines_, p. 150) gives December 1609 as the date
of this change. This is certainly not in accordance with other facts
which I shall adduce in the following pages; he gives no authority for
his statement.
[11] Cuthbert Burbadge in 1635 adds Field by a slip of memory.
SECTION IV.
THE CHRONOLOGICAL SUCCESSION OF SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS.
IT is of the greatest importance, in investigating the chronological
succession of an author's works, that we should start from a definite
and certain date. The neglect of this point, especially in so difficult
an instance as the present, involves us too often in thorny discussions
at the very onset. Such an epoch is presented us at once by the
publication of Shakespeare's earliest poem. I begin therefore at this
point.
_Venus and Adonis_ was entered on S. R. 18th April 1593 by Richard
Field, printer, son of Henry Field, tanner, of Stratford-on-Avon, who
parted with his copyright to Mr. Harrison, senior, 25th June 1594.
There were editions in 1593, 1594 (R. Field); 1596 (R. Field for J.
Harrison); 1599 and 1602, _bis_ (W. Leake); 1617 (W. Barrett); and
1620 (J. Parker). Harrison had assigned his copyright to Leake 25th
June 1596. It was transferred to W. Barrett 16th February 1616-17;
and again to J. Parker 8th March 1620. This was "the first heir of my
invention," which means--the first production in which I have had no
co-labourer. Compare Ford's expression "the first-fruits of my leisure"
applied to _'Tis pity she's_ &c., although he had certainly at that
time written plays in connection with Dekker and others.
_Lucrece._ Entered on 9th May 1594 in S. R. by Mr. Harrison, senior.
Editions 1594 (R. Field for J. Harrison); 1598 (P. S. for J. Harrison);
1600 (J. H. for J. Harrison); 1607 (N. O. for J. Harrison); 1616 (T.
G. for R. Jackson). This poem is a pendant to the former; the one
exhibiting woman's chastity, the other her lust. Such opposition of
subject in successive productions is very characteristic of Shakespeare.
_A Lover's Complaint_, published with the _Sonnets_ 1609, written
probably 1593-4, between the _Venus_ and _Lucrece_.
_Sonnets_, entered on S. R. 20th May 1609 for T. Thorpe. I have on pp.
25, 120 already stated my opinion that these were written during 1594-8.
_Titus Andronicus_ was a new play in 1594, acted for the first time by
Sussex' men at the Rose on 23d January.
_Richard III._ was no doubt acted this same year by the Chamberlain's
men; just before the old play which had been acted by the Queen's
players was published (S. R. 19th June 1594). A _Richard_ is alluded
to in John Weever's _Epigrams_, published 1599, when the author was
twenty-three, but written when he was not twenty; they must therefore
date at latest in 1596 (not 1595 as usually stated). Weever mentions
_Venus and Adonis_, _Lucrece_, _Romeo_, and _Richard_ as the issue of
honey-tongued Shakespeare. We shall see that _Romeo_, as referred to
here, was acted in 1595-6, and I believe the _Richard_ referred to is
the _Richard II._ of 1595. _Edward III._ I have shown in p. 118 to be
an alteration of an old play of Marlowe's written in 1590, revived in
1594 about the autumn, after _Lucrece_ was published. It will be most
convenient to defer the consideration of authorship of the preceding
plays till I have to treat of _Henry VI._; the dates of editions of
all the plays will be exhibited in tabular form further on, which will
save much repetition and interruption of argument. We now come to an
unquestionable date; and it is from this, the first recorded date in
connection with an undoubted play, that I wish the reader to regard our
investigation of play dates as beginning.
1594.
December 28. Shakespeare's only farcical comedy of _Errors_ was acted
at Gray's Inn at night: the same players had acted before the Queen at
Greenwich on that day, very likely in the same comedy. In April 1595
the English agent in Edinburgh wrote to Burghley, how ill King James
took it that the comedians in London should scorn the king and people
of Scotland in their plays. The barrenness of Scotland is mentioned in
iii. 2. Neither would James approve of a play in which witchcraft and
exorcising is so constantly ridiculed. The opening scene is very like
in method to that of _Midsummer-Night's Dream_; and the reiterated
allusions by either Dromio to being transformed to an ass (ii. 2.
201; iii. 1. 15; iv. 4. 28; iii. 2. 77) remind us so strongly of that
play as almost to infer contemporaneity of production; especially
as in iii. 1. 47 the same quibble, an _ass_ and _ace_, occurs as in
_Midsummer-Night's Dream_, v. 1. 317. Now in 1593, in his _Pierce's
Supererogation_, and in 1592 in his _Four Letters_, Gabriel Harvey
had rung the changes on _an ass_ and _a Nash_ even to wearisomeness;
just as Shakespeare in this play puns on _an ell_ and _a Nell_ (iii.
2. 112). This may seem very forced; but I must remind the reader, that
_s_ and _sh_ were not distinguished in pronunciation except by pedants
at the end of the sixteenth century. It seems then most likely that
in dwelling on this transformation, Shakespeare meant to recall to
his audience the dyslogistic name inflicted on his old enemy Nash by
Gabriel Harvey. All this points to a production of the play in 1594,
by the Chamberlain's men; but there are also indications of its having
been altered from an earlier version. In the stage directions there
are traces of the name Juliana[12] for Luciana: in the text Dowsabel
occurs instead of Nell, and in v. 1, the prefix _Fat._ (Father)
has been clearly replaced by _Mar._ (Merchant) in a revision; note
especially v. 1. 195, where both prefixes have by a common printer's
error been inserted at once. The older form, again, had Antipholus
Sereptus for A. of Syracuse, and Erotes or Erratis for A. of Ephesus;
and it had twenty-five years of separation between the parents for
thirty-three in the later version. This last difference occurs in i.
1, which is throughout written in a more mechanical and antique style
of metre than the rest of the play; and indeed seems to be one of the
earliest specimens left us of Shakespeare's attempts to bombast out a
blank verse. There is also the name Menaphon (v. 1. 368), which is
likely to have been adopted from Greene's _Menaphon_ (1589), who again
took it from Marlowe's _Tamberlaine_ (1587-8). The Adam "that goes in
the calf-skin," surely alludes to the Adam in the _Looking-glass for
London_ (1590), whose "calf-skin jests" were even after seven years an
object of ridicule to the playwrights. For all these reasons I believe
that a version of this play was acted c. 1590, perhaps in the winter
of that year. It does not follow that that version was entirely by
Shakespeare, as the present play is; he may have replaced a coadjutor's
work of 1590 by his own of 1594. The plot, with its time-unity, is not
likely to be of his arranging. As to the pun on the war made by France
against her heir (iii. 2. 126), which is usually relied on for the
date of production, it merely gives as limits August 1589, when the
war of succession began, and 27th February 1594, when Henri IV. was
crowned. It does, however, enable us to say positively that the first
performance of the play was before the formation of the Chamberlain's
company, who only revived it, no doubt in an amended shape, on 28th
December 1594, most likely for the sake of the Court performance.
The original plot was probably suggested by Plautus' _Menæchmi_ and
_Amphitryo_; and perhaps more directly by the _History of Error_
performed by the Chapel children in 1576, which, by the bye, has
nothing to do with the _Ferrar_ of the Earl of Sussex' men in 1582. But
we cannot assume in these early plays that Shakespeare was the plotter.
It is certain, however, that he did afterwards adopt the likeness of
twins in _Twelfth Night_ as a means of introducing "errors" on the
stage.
1595.
January 26 was the date of the marriage of William Stanley, Earl of
Derby, at Greenwich. Such events were usually celebrated with the
accompaniment of plays or interludes, masques written specially for
the occasion not having yet become fashionable. The company of players
employed at these nuptials would certainly be the Chamberlain's, who
had, so lately as the year before, been in the employ of the Earl's
brother Ferdinand. No play known to us is so fit for the purpose as
_Midsummer-Night's Dream_, which in its present form is certainly
of this date. About the same time Edward Russel, Earl of Bedford,
married Lucy Harrington. Both marriages may have been enlivened by
this performance. This is rendered more probable by the identity of
the Oberon story with that of Drayton's _Nymphidia_, whose special
patroness at this time was the newly married Countess of Bedford.
That poem contains an allusion to Don Quixote, which could not well
have been written till 1612, and certainly not till 1605; but Drayton
is known to have constantly altered his poems by way of addition and
omission, and no date of original production can in his case be fixed
by allusions of this kind. The date of the play here given is again
confirmed by the description of the weather in ii. 2. In 1594, and in
that year only, is there on record such an inversion of the seasons
as is there spoken of. Chute's _Cephalus and Procris_ was entered on
S. R., 28th September 1593; Marlowe's _Hero and Leander_, 22d October
1593; Marlowe and Nash's _Dido_ was printed in 1594. All these stories
are alluded to in the play. The date of the Court performance must be
in the winter of 1594-5. But the traces of the play having been altered
from a version for the stage are numerous. There is a double ending.
Robin's final speech is palpably a stage epilogue, while what precedes
from "_Enter Puck_" to "break of day--_Exeunt_" is very appropriate for
a marriage entertainment, but scarcely suited to the stage. In Acts
iv. and v., again, we find in the speech-prefixes _Duke_, _Duchess_,
_Clown_ for _Theseus_, _Hippolita_, _Bottom_: such variations are
nearly always marks of alteration, the unnamed characters being
anterior in date. In the prose scenes speeches are several times
assigned to wrong speakers, another common mark of alteration. In the
Fairies the character of Moth (Mote) has been excised in the text,
though he still remains among the _dramatis personæ_. It is not, I
think, possible to say which parts of the play were added for the Court
performance; but a careful examination has convinced me that wherever
_Robin_ occurs in the stage-directions or speech-prefixes scarcely any,
if any, alteration has been made; _Puck_, on the contrary, indicates
change. The date of the stage play may, I think, be put in the winter
of 1592; and if so it was acted, not at the Rose, but where Lord
Strange's company were travelling. For the allusion in v. 1. 52, "The
thrice three Muses mourning for the death of Learning, late deceased in
beggary," to Spenser's _Tears of the Muses_ (1591), or Greene's death,
3d September 1592, could not, in either interpretation, be much later
than the autumn of 1592; and the lines in ii. 1. 156--
"I am a spirit of no common rate;
The summer still doth tend upon my state,
And I do love thee"--
are so closely like those in Nash's _Summer's Last Will_, where Summer
says--
"Died I had indeed unto the earth,
But that Eliza, England's beauteous Queen,
_On whom all seasons prosperously attend_,
Forbad the execution of my fate
Until her joyful progress was expired"--
that I think they are alluded to by Shakespeare. The singularly fine
summer of 1592 is attributed to the influence of Elizabeth, the Fairy
Queen. Nash's play was performed at the Archbishop's palace at Croydon
in Michaelmas term of the same year by a "number of hammer-handed
clowns (for so it pleaseth them in modesty to name themselves);" but I
believe the company originally satirised in Shakespeare's play was the
Earl of Sussex', Bottom, the chief clown, being intended for Robert
Greene. Thus much for date of production. For the title of the play,
compare the conclusion of _The Taming of a Shrew_ and Peele's _Old
Wife's Tale_, the latter of which is performed in a dream, and the
former is supposed by Sly to be so; the interpretation that it means
a play performed at midsummer is quite inconsistent with iv. 1. 190,
&c., and other passages. The names of the personages are interesting,
because they show us what books Shakespeare was reading at this time:
from North's _Plutarch_, Life of Theseus, the first in the book, he
got Periginia (Perigouna), Aegles, Ariadne, Antiope, and Hippolita;
from Chaucer's _Knight's Tale_, also the first in the printed
editions, which he afterwards dramatised, Philostrate; from Greene's
_James IV._ Oberon. This last name, with Titania's, also occurs in the
Queen's _Entertainment_ at Lord Hertford's, 1591. The time-analysis
of this play has probably been disturbed by omissions in producing
the Court version. I. 1. 128-251 ought to form, and probably did, in
the original play, a separate scene; it certainly does not take place
in the palace. To the same cause must be attributed the confusion as
to the moon's age; cf. i. 1. 209 with the opening lines: the new moon
was an afterthought, and evidently derived from a form of the story
in which the first day of the month and the new moon were coincident
after the Greek time-reckoning. It is worth notice that not only is
the title of Preston's _Cambyses_ parodied in the Pyramus interlude,
but his pension of sixpence a day is ridiculed in iv. 2. Nor must we
quite pass over the fact, which confirms the 1595 date, that on 30th
August 1594, at the baptism of Prince Henry (of Scotland), the tame
lion which was to have been brought in in the triumph was replaced by
a Moor, "because his presence might have brought some fear." The play
is nearly as much an error play (iii. 2. 368) as the _Errors_ itself,
and, like it, has no known immediate source for the plot. The Pyramus
interlude is clearly based on C. Robinson's _Handfull of Pleasant
Delights_ (1584); and some of the fairy story may have been suggested
by Montemayor's _Diana_. The line ii. 2. 104, is from Peele's _Edward
I._ (near end), "how nature strove in them to show her art," and I
think the man who dares not come in the moon because it is in snuff may
allude to the offence given at Court by Lyly's _Endymion_ in 1588. An
absolute downward limit of date is given by a line imitated in _Doctor
Doddypol_, a play alluded to in 1596 by Nash, and spoiled in the
imitation--
"Hanging on every leaf an orient pearl,
Which shook together by the silken wind
Of their loose mantles made a silver chime."
This solidification of the dewdrops does not occur in the Shakespeare
parallel, ii. 1. 15. Mr. Halliwell's fancy that Spenser's line in
_Fairy Queen_, vi.--"Through hills and dales, through bushes and
through briers" must have been imitated by Shakespeare in ii. 1. 2,
is very flimsy; hill and dale, bush and brier, are commonplaces of
the time. Nor is there any proof that this song could not have been
transmitted to Ireland in 1593 or 1594.
1595.
_Richard II._ cannot be definitely dated by external evidence, but
all competent critics agree that it is the earliest of Shakespeare's
historical plays; the question of authorship, &c., of _Richard III._
being reserved for the present. It is a tragedy like Marlowe's _Edward
II._, not a "life and death" history. The _Civil Wars_ of Daniel,
from which Shakespeare seems to have derived a few hints, was entered
on S. R. 11th October 1594. The play probably was produced after
this date, and before the publication of the Pope's bull in 1596,
inciting the Queen's subjects to depose her. In consequence of this
bull the abdication scene was omitted in representation, and in the
editions during Elizabeth's lifetime. In like manner, Hayward was
imprisoned for publishing in 1599 his _History of the First Year of
Henry IV._, which is simply the story of Richard's abdication. The
omitted scene was restored in 1608 under James I. as "new additions."
Such _new_ additions on title-pages are often restorations of omitted
passages. The Folio copy omits a few other speeches, the play having
been evidently found too long in representation; but it contains the
abdication scene. This being the first play of Shakespeare's that
passed the press was carelessly corrected, whence much apparently
unShakespearian and halting metre, which is easily set right. The
source of the plot is Holinshed's _Chronicle_; "the earlier play on
_Richard II._ lately printed" (says Mr. Stokes in 1878) "I have not
seen; but it concludes with the murder of the Duke of Gloster." The
play seen at the Globe by Forman in 1611 began with the rebellion of
Wat Tyler. It was not Shakespeare's. There is no prose in this play, in
_John_, or the _Comedy of Errors_; a sign of early work.
1595.
_The Two Gentlemen of Verona_ is a striking instance of the
difficulties in which we are involved if we attempt to assign a single
date for the production of every play, and neglect the fact that
alterations were and are continually made by authors in their works.
Drake and Chalmers date this play in 1595; Gervinus, Delius, and Stokes
1591. Malone at different times adopted both dates. I believe that
all these opinions are reconcilable, that the play was produced in
1591, with work by a second hand in it, which was cut out and replaced
by Shakespeare's own in 1595. For a date after 1593 is distinctly
indicated in the play as we have it by the allusions to _Hero and
Leander_ in i. 1. 21, iii. 1. 119; and to the pestilence in ii. 1. 20;
a still closer approximation is shown to the _Merchant of Venice_, by
the mistake of Padua for Milan in ii. 5. 2. If Shakespeare had not, at
the time when he finally produced the _Two Gentlemen_, begun his study
for the Venetian story, whence this name? It only occurs there, once in
_Much Ado_, and in the non-Shakespearian parts of _The Taming of the
Shrew_. In like manner the mistake of Verona for Milan in iii. 4. 81,
v. 4. 129, indicates that he had been preparing _Romeo and Juliet_.
That our play lies between the _Errors_ and the _Dream_ on one hand
and _The Merchant_ on the other, becomes pretty clear by comparing the
development of character in the Dromios, Launce and Speed, Lancelot
Gobbo; in Lucetta and Nerissa; in Demetrius and Lysander, Valentine and
Proteus. Nor are marks of the twofold date wanting. In the first two
acts we find Valentine at the Emperor's court, no Duke mentioned; in
the last three at the Duke's, no Emperor mentioned. The turning-point
is in ii. 4, where, though "Emperor" occurs in the text, "Duke" is
used in the stage directions. In i. 1. 32, "If haply won perhaps a
hapless gain; if lost, why then a grievous labour won," there is surely
an allusion to _Love's Labour's Won_, and _Love's Labour's Lost_; we
shall see hereafter that in 1591 these were quite recent plays. The
Eglamour of Verona mentioned in i. 2. 9 is not the Eglamour of Milan
who appears in iv. 3, v. 1. Style and metre require an early date for
i. ii. 1-3 and parts of iii. 1; but in any argument of an internal
nature, Johnson's weighty remark should be remembered--"From _mere_
inequality, in works of imagination, nothing can with exactness be
inferred." The immediate origin of the plot is unknown; parts of the
story are identical with those of _The Shepherdess Filismena_ in
Montemayor's _Diana_, translated in MS. by Young, c. 1583, and of
Bandello's _Apollonius and Sylla_ in Rich's _Farewell to Military
Profession_ (1581). _Felix and Philiomena_ had been dramatised and
acted at Court by the Queen's players, 1584-5. That the revision of
_The Two Gentlemen_ was hurriedly performed is clear from the unusually
large number of _Exits_ and _Entrances_ that are not marked. This hurry
accounts, in some degree, for the weakness of the play, which induces
so many critics to insist on an early date for it as a whole. Yet the
special blemish they discover, v. 4. 83, the yielding up of Silvia by
Valentine, is paralleled in the _Dream_, where (iii. 2. 163) Lysander
says, "With all my heart, in Hermia's love I yield you up my part:"
and that Shakespeare felt the unreality of this part of the plot is
clear from _Two Gentlemen_, v. 4. 25, which to me seems a manifest
reminiscence of his last play, "How like a dream is this I see and
hear!" (cf. _Midsummer-Night's Dream_, iv. 1. 190, "It seems to me that
yet we sleep, we dream"). He had been reading Chaucer, as we know, and
from him had adopted this method of presenting stories in a dream.
A slighter reminiscence of Chaucer's _Knight's Tale_ occurs in the
mention of Theseus, iv. 4. 173.
1595-6.
_Romeo and Juliet_ was surreptitiously printed by J. Danter in 1597;
"as it hath been often with great applause played (publicly), by the
Rt. Hon. the L. of Hunsdon, his servants." This edition must have been
printed in 1596 (old reckoning), for the players would have been called
the Chamberlain's servants except during the tenure of that office by
W. Brooke, Lord Cobham, from 23d July 1596 to 5th March 1597. That
it was on the stage as well as _Richard II._ in 1595-6, appears from
Weever's _Epigrams_. A correct edition of _Romeo_ appeared in 1599.
The relation of these two versions of the play presents a difficult
problem. The 1599 Quarto Q_{2} is unquestionably the play of 1595-6,
as acted by the then Chamberlain's players at the Theater; for it does
not follow, as Mr. Halliwell supposes, that because they continued to
act it when called Lord Hunsdon's players, they had not ever acted it
before. Such reasoning would compel us to assign all plays published as
"acted by the King's players" to a date subsequent to 1602--_Hamlet_,
for example, and _Troylus and Cressida_. Nor does it follow that
because it was acted at the Curtain, where Marston mentions it in his
_Scourge of Villany_ (S. R. 8th September 1598), that it was _produced_
at that same theatre. Mr. P.A. Daniel has shown, in his Parallel Text
Edition, that the 1597 Quarto Q_{1} is a shortened version of the play,
no doubt for stage purposes (compare the Quartos in i. 1; i. 3; iii.
1). He has also with great ingenuity conclusively proved that Q_{2} is
a revised copy made on a text in many places identical with Q_{1} (see
i. 1. 122; i. 4. 62; ii. 3. 1-4; iii. 2. 85; iii. 3. 38-45; iii. 5.
177-181; iv. 1. 95-98, 110; v. 3. 102, 107). But his conclusion that
Q_{1} is partly made up from notes taken during the performance, is
not borne out by any evidence. There are no "mistakes of the ear" in
this play, nor is this conclusion consistent with his own theory that
Q_{2} was a revision made on the text of Q_{1}. I owe what I believe to
be the real solution to a hint from my son, a boy of thirteen. When a
play was written and licensed, at least three copies would be made of
it. One, with the Master of the Revels' endorsement (which I will call
R), would be kept in the archives of the theatre intact; one would be
made for the manager (M), which would have occasional notes of stage
direction, &c., inserted; and one, an acting copy, for the prompter
(P), usually much abridged from the original and always altered: this
would contain stage directions, &c., in full, but in the unaltered
passages would be identical with M. Now Q_{1} shows evident signs of
being printed from a shortened copy P; Q_{2} is manifestly a revision
of a full copy M. The genealogy of the Quartos then stands thus:--
R (_author's first version_).
|
+---+---+
| |
P M
| |
Q_{1} Q_{2}
Q_{2} is, according to this theory, a revised version made on a
_complete_ copy of an early version of the play, while Q_{1} is
printed from the prompter's copy of the same early version. When the
revision took place this copy would be thrown aside as worthless; and
any dishonest _employé_ of the theatre could sell it to an equally
dishonest publisher, who would publish it as the play now acted. If
this solution be correct, and it is the only one yet proposed that
meets all the difficulties of the case, Q_{1} is specially interesting
as being the earliest extant play (as acted) in which Shakespeare had
a share. For it is clear that some passages in it, especially ii. 6,
the laments in iv. 5, and Paris' dirge in v. 3, are not only unlike
the corresponding passages in Q_{2}, but unlike anything we have
from Shakespeare's hand. The date of the early form of the play was
1591, eleven years after the earthquake of 1580 (i. 3. 23, 30). As
confirmatory of the conclusion that Q_{2} was revised from an early
play note that in i. 1 the servants are nameless in Q_{1}, but have
names in the stage directions in Q_{2}; that in 1. 3 the servant is
called clown in Q_{1}; that in iii. 5 in Q_{2}, where the prefixes
vary between _Lady_ and _Mother_, it is in the unaltered parts that
_Mother_ is used as in Q_{1}, but _Lady_ always where enough alteration
has taken place to require a completely fresh transcript; that in v.
3 there is a double entry marked for the Capulets (a sure sign); that
in ii. 3. 1-4, v. 3. 108-111, duplicate versions occur. On the other
hand, the printing of the Nurse's speeches in italics in both Quartos
is conclusive for identity of origin in that scene. Other points
worth noting are that "Queen Mab, what's she?" i. 4. 55 in Q_{1} are
omitted in Q_{2}: Mab had become well known in 1595, probably through
Drayton's _Nymphidia_. In ii. 2. 144, "I am afraid all this is but a
dream," reminds us of similar passages in _Errors_, ii. 2. 184; _Two
Gentlemen_, v. 4. 26; and _Dream_, iv. 1. 199, &c. W. Kempe acted the
part of Peter (see entry in iv. 5); Balthazar is proparoxyton in v. 1.
The line in iii. 2, 75, "O serpent heart hid with a flowering face"
(where Q_{1} has "serpent's hate"), is very like the often-quoted "O
tiger's heart wrapt in a woman's hide" (_3 Henry VI._ i. 4. 137).
The play is founded on Arthur Brooke's poem, _The Tragical History
of Romeus and Juliet, containing a rare example of true constancy_.
Constancy in love is its main subject. He took the Italian form of the
name Romeo, and the time of Juliet's sleep forty-two hours ("forty at
least" in the novel) from _Rhomeo and Julietta_ in Painter's _Palace of
Pleasure_. Much unnecessary writing has been expended on this forty-two
hours; the plot requires forty-eight. Daniel, in his _Rosamund_ (S.
R. February 1591-2), and the author of _Doctor Doddypol_ (c. October
1594), have passages very like some in this play. A ballad founded on
the play was entered S. R. 15th August 1596. On the mention of "the
first and second cause" in ii. 4. 26 and (in Q_{1} only) in iii. 1,
some critics base the conclusion that this play must be subsequent to
Saviolo's _Book of Honour_, &c. (S. R. 19th November 1594). I believe
that the book referred to is _The Book of Honor and Arms, wherein is
discussed the_ CAUSES _of quarrel_,&c. (S. R. 13th December 1589).
The same expression occurs in _Love's Labour's Lost_, i. 2. 184; in
any case it probably belongs to the revised version of this last
named play. The alteration in ii. 4 from "to-morrow morning" to "this
afternoon," shows that in the revision Shakespeare attended to details
in the time of action.
1596.
_King John_ was founded on the old play acted by the Queen's men,
called _The Troublesome Reign of King John_. The lines ii. 1. 455-460
are imitated in _Captain Stukeley_ by Dekker and others, acted at
the Rose, 11th December 1596; iii. 1. 176-179 refer manifestly to
the Pope's bull in 1596, inciting the English to depose Elizabeth;
Chatillon's speech ii. 1. 71-75 is most applicable to the great fleet
sent against Spain in the same year; Constance's lamentations have been
reasonably referred to the death of Hamnet Shakespeare (buried 11th
August); the _Iron Age_ is alluded to in iv. 1. 60, and never elsewhere
in Shakespeare. Now, Heywood's play of that name was on the stage
from June 23 to July 16 under the title of _Troy_. The summer of 1596
is thus undoubtedly the date of Shakespeare's play. There are some
indications of the play having been shortened; Act ii. in the Folio
has only seventy-four lines, and Essex has a part of only three lines,
although in the older _John_ he appears in five scenes. I think he was
meant to be entirely cut out c. 1601 after Essex' execution, and these
three lines should be given to Salisbury. The rival play of _Stukeley_
was shortened in the same way; a whole act was expunged before its
publication in 1605. In i. 2 (Folio) the Citizen on the walls is called
Hubert; this indicates that the same actor represented both characters.
1596-7.
_The Merchant of Venice_, or _Jew of Venice_, was no doubt founded
on an old play called _The Jew of Venice_, by Dekker. It seems, from
the title of the German version of this play, that the Jew's name was
Joseph. The name Fauconbridge in i. 2 (where Portia's suitors are
enumerated, compare _Two Gentlemen_, i. 2) points to a date soon after
_John_; and the "merry devil" of ii. 3. 2, a phrase never elsewhere
used in Shakespeare, indicates contemporaneity with _The Merry Devil
of Edmonton_ produced in the winter of 1596. Again, the manifest
imitations of this play in _Wily Beguiled_, which I show elsewhere to
date in the summer of 1597, give a posterior limit, which must be
decisive. This play has no sign whatever of having been altered; the
Clarendon Press guesses, founded on the discrepancy of the number of
suitors (iv. for vi.) are as worthless as Mr. Hales' proof, referred to
by Mr. Halliwell (_Outlines_, p. 251), of the date of _Wily Beguiled_.
The conclusive evidence of imitation in this play is the conjunction
of the "In such a night" lines in scene 16, with the "My money, my
daughter" iterations of Gripe in scene 8 of the same play. On 22d July
1598, J. Roberts entered _The Merchant or Jew of Venice_ on S. R., but
had to get the Lord Chamberlain's license before printing. On 28th
October 1600, he consented to the entry of the play for T. Hayes;
nevertheless, he issued copies of his own imprint independently.
1597.
_The First Part of Henry IV._ was entered on S. R. 25th February 1598;
a genuine and authorised imprint. The publication of this play was
hurried in order to refute the charge of attacking the Cobham family in
the person of Sir John Oldcastle, the original name of the character
afterwards called Falstaff (cf. "my old lad of the castle," i. 2.
48). Moreover, in i. 2. 182, we find in the text the names Harvey and
Russel instead of Peto and Bardolph. The name Russel for Bardolph
again occurs in a stage direction in _2 Henry IV._ ii. 2. These were
evidently originally the names of the characters, and were changed
at the same time as that of Oldcastle: Russel was the family name
of the Bedford Earls, and Harvey that of the third husband of Lord
Southampton's mother. The new names were picked up from the second
part; in which Lord Bardolph and Peto (a distinct personage from the
"humourist" of Part I.) were serious characters. The play was produced
in the spring; the only mentions of June in Shakespeare's plays are
in ii. 4. 397 (_sun_ F.); iii. 2. 75; and _Anthony_, iii. 10. 14. In
ii. 4. 425, Preston's _Cambyses_ is ridiculed (cf. _Dream_). There is
an imitation of iii. 2. 52 in _Lust's Dominion_ (the _Spanish Moor's
Tragedy_, by Dekker, Haughton, and Day, February 1600, absurdly quoted
by Stokes as Marlowe's). For the "abuses of the time" i. 2. 174; iv. 3.
81; see under _Sir T. More_, 1596. This play, as well as _2 Henry IV._
and _Henry V._, is founded on _The Famous Victories of Henry V._, an
old play produced by the Queen's company; from which the name Oldcastle
was taken.
1597-8.
_The Second Part of Henry IV._ was entered on S. R. 23d August 1600.
This Quarto is much abridged in i. 3, ii. 3, iv. 1, iv. 4, and a whole
scene, iii. 1, is omitted. It abounds in oaths apparently foisted in
by the players, and is apparently printed from a prompter's copy. The
omissions arise, I think, from expurgations made by the Master of
the Revels. Plays in which rebellion was the subject were especially
disagreeable at Court. In the Epilogue there is evidence of alteration,
the words "if my tongue ... good-night," having been inserted after
the first production of the play, as is clear from their succeeding in
Q. the clause about praying for the Queen, which must have been final
in either version. The newly inserted words contain the allusion to
Oldcastle, and show that in this play, as well as the former, that
was the original appellation of Falstaff. This is confirmed by the
appearance of _Old._ in a speech prefix in i. 2. 137; and Russel in a
stage direction in ii. 2. Mr. Halliwell's notion that Russel and Harvey
were names of actors, has not the slightest foundation, nor are such
actors known. Note also that in iii. 2. 29, Falstaff is mentioned as
having been page to the Duke of Norfolk, which was historically true
of Oldcastle (compare the "serving the good Duke of Norfolk" in _The
Merry Devil_. The date of that play is 1597.) The early part i. 1,
or. ii. 4, was written before the entry of _1 Henry IV._ on S. R.,
25th February 1598, in which Falstaff is mentioned. "Sincklo" occurs
in a stage direction in v. 1; he is not known in connection with
Shakespeare's company till this play was acted; he was previously a
member of Pembroke's troop, and acted in _3 Henry VI._ when it belonged
to them along with Humfrey [Jeffes], and Gabriel [Singer]. These two
last named, and others, joined the Admiral's company at the Rose in
October 1597, when Pembroke's men broke and went into the country.
Sinkler, Beeston, Duke, and Pallant, stayed with the Chamberlain's
men from c. 1594 till they left the Curtain in 1599, and then Kemp,
Duke, Beeston, and Pallant set up a new company under the patronage
of the Earl of Derby. Not one of these can be shown to have acted for
the Chamberlain's, except between these dates, and that they left in
discontent is probable from their being all omitted in the list of
the 1623 Folio. Sinkler remained in Shakespeare's company till 1604.
Pistol, in his first appearance in ii. 4, does not for a while talk in
iambics. Mrs. Quickly (i. 2. 269) appears to be called Ursula (Nell in
_Henry V._) For the changes in the names of this and other characters
in the series of Falstaff plays, see hereafter in the table given on p.
207.
1597.
_Love's Labour's Lost_ was published in 1598, "as it was presented
before her Highness this last Christmas." This was undoubtedly the
earliest of Shakespeare's plays that has come down to us, and was only
retouched somewhat hurriedly for this Court performance. The date of
original production cannot well be put later than 1589. The characters
are in several instances confused. In ii. 1 Boyet occurs in place of
Berowne in the prefixes, and Rosaline for Katharine in the text. In
iv. 2, and v. 1, there is still greater muddling of Holofernes and
Nathaniel; now one, now the other appears, first as Curate, then as
Pedant; in iv. 2, Berowne is called "one of the strange Queen's Lords,"
and _Queen_ for _Princess_ occurs in the prefixes through the greater
part of the play. It is pretty clear that this lady ambassador was in
the 1589 play called Queen. In ii. 1, the lines 21-114 were almost
certainly added in 1597. They begin with a prefix _Prin._ inserted
in the middle of one of the Queen's (Princess's) speeches; and in
them only throughout the play is the prefix _Nav._ (Navarre) used for
_King_. In iv. 3, the speech of Berowne (l. 290-365) must be mostly
assigned to 1597; the repetition of the lines, "From women's eyes
... Promethean fire" is an unmistakable indication of revision (see
the similar instances in _Romeo_). A like instance of substitution of
a long version for a short one, occurs in v. 1. 847-879, which are
manifestly the 1597 substitute for v. 1. 827-832; again, v. 2. 575-590
could not have conveyed any amusement in the conceit of "Ajax" till
after the publication of Harrington's _Metamorphosis of Ajax_ in 1596.
The mention of "first and second cause," &c., in i. 2. 171-192, may
imply that this was another of the additions. But it is in iv. 2 that
the greatest changes have been made. It is clear from v. 1. 125, that
Sir Holofernes was originally the Curate. Modern editors either omit
Holofernes or substitute Nathaniel; Sir Holofernes is also the Curate
in iv. 2. 67-156--"This is a gift ... colorable colours." In the rest
of this scene Sir Nathaniel is the Curate, and Master Holofernes the
Pedant. This latter is the 1597 version. I am not aware that this
singular change of character has been noted, or any reason assigned for
it, except my conjecture, that it was intended to disguise a personal
satire which, however pertinent in 1589, had become obsolete in 1597.
For a full discussion of all these changes made in 1597, see my article
on _Shakespeare and Puritanism_ in _Anglia_, vol. 7.
1597-8.
_Much Ado about Nothing_ is more likely than any other play to be
identical with _Love's Labour's Won_. The internal evidence has been
set forth by Mr. Brae; but there are points of external evidence also,
that have been overlooked. It is very frequent, in old plays, to find
days of the week and month mentioned; and when this is the case, they
nearly always correspond to the almanac of the year in which the play
was written. Now, in this play alone in Shakespeare is there such a
mark of time; comparing i. 1. 285, and ii. 1. 375, we find that the
6th July came on a Monday; this suits the years 1590 and 1601, but
none between; an indication that the original play was written in
1590. Unlike _Love's Labour's Lost_, it was almost recomposed at its
reproduction, and this day-of-the-week mention is, I think, a relic
of the original plot, and probably due, not to Shakespeare, but to
some coadjutor. Again, Meres' list in his _Palladis Tamia_ consists
of the following plays:--_Gentlemen of Verona_ (1595), _Errors_
(1594), _Love's Labour's Lost_ (1597), _Love's Labour's Won_ (?),
_Midsummer-Night's Dream_ (1594-5), _Merchant of Venice_ (1596-7),
_Richard II._ (1595), _Richard III._ (1594), _Henry IV._ (1597), _King
John_ (1596), _Titus Andronicus_ (1594), _Romeo and Juliet_ (1595-6).
The dates I have appended to these may in some instance be slightly
erroneous; but I think no one will deny that the plays mentioned
by Meres must have constituted the Shakespeare repertoire of the
Chamberlain's men, and have been played by them between the dates of
their constitution as a company in 1594, and the publication of Meres'
book in 1598. But there is absolutely no other comedy of Shakespeare's
that can be assigned to such a date. _All's Well that Ends Well_ was
certainly not played by his company so early. Again, Cowley and Kempe
played the constables in this play; but Kempe had left the company
by the summer of 1599. There is no argument against this conclusion
yet produced. The main subject of the play had been dramatised before
in _Ariodante and Geneuora_, acted at Court by the Merchant Tailors'
boys in 1582-3. The old German play of Jacob Ayrer, _The Beautiful
Phoenicia_ (c. 1595, Cohn) also contains points of similarity with
Shakespeare's play that are not found in the Bandello novel which
Belleforest translated in 1594. Pedro and Leonato are the only names
which Shakespeare retains from the novel; which Ayrer follows in this
respect. When the title was altered is doubtful: the play was known as
_Benedick and Beatrice_ in 1613.
1599.
_Henry V._ was acted, with the choruses as we have them in the Folio,
between 15th April and 28th September, while Essex was in Ireland; see
chorus to Act v. That this was the final revision of the play, I am
by no means convinced. The scene with the Scotch and Irish captains,
iii. 2. 69 to end, I take to be an insertion for the Court performance,
Christmas 1605, to please King James, who had been so annoyed that year
by depreciation of the Scots on the stage. That the Quarto copy is
printed from an abridged version made for acting purposes, is palpable.
By omitting i. 1, and substituting one Bishop for two in i. 2 (two
being retained in the stage direction) Ely is disposed of; by simple
omission and transference of a speech in iv. 3 to Warwick, Westmoreland
disappears; in a similar way Bedford gives place to Clarence; in iv.
3. 69 Salisbury is replaced by Gloster, and was evidently meant to
be in l. 5-9 of the same scene; in iv. 1 Erpingham remains in the
stage direction, but has been cut out in the text. That the version
from which the Quarto was abridged was the 1599 copy, is a separate
question to which I am inclined to say no. I rather hold that it was an
earlier one without choruses, and following the Chronicle historians
much more closely. I cannot otherwise account for the substitution of
Gebon for Rambures in iii. 7, and iv. 5; and of Bourbon for Britany
in iii. 5, and for Dolphin in iii. 7, iv. 5. Mr. Daniel's theory is
that the Quarto was later than the Folio version, that is to say, that
Shakespeare wrote a play historically incorrect, that his errors were
corrected in a stage version before 1600, _i.e._, while he was still
himself an actor; that the errors were afterwards restored, and have
kept the stage ever since. I cannot think this. I believe that the
Quarto is (as we have seen in other instances) a shortened version of a
play written early in 1598 for the Curtain Theatre, and that the Folio
(except such alterations as were made after James's accession) is a
version enlarged and improved for the Globe Theatre later in the same
year. With regard to this series of Falstaff plays, the following table
may be of interest.
NAMES OF "IRREGULAR HUMOURISTS" IN--
| _1 Hen. IV._ | _1 Hen. IV._ | _2 Hen. IV._ |
_Famous | (original | (altered | (i. 1 to ii. 4 |
Victories._ | version). | version). | altered). |
------------+--------------+--------------+----------------+
Gadshill. | Gadshill. | Gadshill. | |
Ned. | Ned Poins. | Poins. | Poins. |
Tom. | Harvey. | Peto. | Peto. |
| Russell. | Bardolph. | Bardolph. |
Oldcastle. | Oldcastle. | Falstaff. | Falstaff. |
| ? Hostess. | Quickly. | Quickly. |
------------+--------------+--------------+----------------+
| _2 Hen. IV._ |
_Famous | (ii. 4 to end | _Hen. V._ |
Victories._ | unaltered). | (both versions). | _Merry Wives._
------------+---------------+------------------+--------------+
Gadshill. | | |
Ned. | | |
Tom. | | |
| Bardolph. | Bardolph. | Bardolph.
Oldcastle. | Falstaff. | F. in text. | Falstaff.
| Quickly. | Quickly. | Quickly.
| Doll. | Doll. |
| Pistol. | Pistol. | Pistol.
| | Nym. | Nym.
| Shallow. | | Shallow.
------------+---------------+------------------+--------------+
According to my hypothesis, the original names Oldcastle, Ned Poins,
Gadshill, &c., were chiefly taken from _The Famous Victories of Henry
V._; all these disappear from the series by ii. 4 of _2 Henry IV._: the
later names, Bardolph, Falstaff, Nym, Pistol, Shallow, persist to the
end of the series, but did not occur in the original forms of _1_ and
_2 Henry IV._ The name Falstaff was no doubt taken from _1 Henry VI._,
in which Shakespeare had been writing on March 1592, and which we know
from the Epilogue to _Henry V._ to have been revived by 1598 at latest.
1599.
_As You Like It_ was "stayed" on the 4th August 1600, and was written
after "Diana in the fountain" (iv. 1. 154) was set up in Cheapside in
1598 (Stow). In iii. 5. 83 a line is quoted from _Hero and Leander_,
published in 1598; the only instance in which Shakespeare directly
refers to a contemporary poet. The date may, I think, be still more
exactly fixed from i. 2. 94, "the little wit that fools have was
silenced," which alludes probably to the burning of satirical books by
public authority 1st June 1599. Every indication points to the latter
part of 1599 as the date of production. This play is a rival to the
_Robin Hood_ plays acted at the Rose in 1598; Jaques, "the traveller,"
seems to have been the origin of Jonson's Amorphus in _Cynthia's
Revels_, and Touchstone of Cos the whetstone in the same play; compare
i. 2. 56. The female characters differed considerably in height, as
in _Much Ado_ and _The Dream_. The remarks of Touchstone on quarrels
and lies in v. 4 should be compared with _Love's Labour's Lost_, i.
2 to end; _Romeo and Juliet_, ii. 4. 26, &c. The comparison of the
world to a stage in ii. 7 suggests a date subsequent to the building
of the Globe, with its motto of _Totus mundus agit histrionem_; and
the introduction of a fool proper, in place of a comic clown such as
is found in all the anterior comedies, confirms this: the "fools" only
occur in plays subsequent to Kempe's leaving the company. The title is
taken from Lodge's address prefixed to his _Rosalynde_, on which the
play is founded--"if you like it, so," says Lodge--and it is alluded
to in the Epilogue (which, like that to _2 Henry IV._, is spoken by a
female character), and again by Jonson in the Epilogue to _Cynthia's
Revels_, which play has much more connection with the present than is
usually supposed. There is a tradition that Shakespeare took the part
of Adam.
1600.
_The Merry Wives of Windsor_, as we have it in the Folio, was probably
made for the Court performance in February 1600; in i. 4, the "King's
English" does not imply that James, not Elizabeth, was on the throne;
but that the time of action is under a king, Henry IV. It was written
after _Henry V._; perhaps, according to the old tradition, in obedience
to the Queen's command, who wished to see Falstaff in love, Shakespeare
not having fulfilled his promise in the Epilogue to _2 Henry IV._ to
introduce him in the _Henry V._ play; a failure probably caused by the
defection at this date of the actor who had taken this part--Kempe,
Beeston, Duke, and Pallant having quitted the King's men between the
production of _2 Henry IV._ and that of this play. The title, _The
Merry Wives of Windsor_, suggests approximation in subject with _The
Merry Devil of Edmonton_ (1597), and so does the great likeness in the
characteristics in the Hosts of these plays; while the plot of the Anne
Page story is identical with that of _Wily Beguiled_ (1597), Fenton
corresponding to Sophos, Caius to Churms, Simple to Plodall, Evans to
R. Goodfellow. It appears from the Quarto edition that Ford's assumed
name was originally Brook, not Broome. This was probably altered
because Brook was the name of the Lord Cobham, who took offence at
the production of Oldcastle on the stage. The song of Marlowe's sung
by Evans in iii. 1 was published as Shakespeare's in the _Passionate
Pilgrim_ in 1599; not necessarily by any means in consequence of its
previous introduction in this play. Mr. P. A. Daniel has rightly
pointed out that iii. 5 is really composed of two scenes, one between
Falstaff and Quickly, the other between Falstaff and Ford; and that the
latter ought to begin the fourth Act: he has also shown that in various
places the Folio has inconsistencies not explicable without the aid
of the Quarto. But all this does not prove any "degradation" of the
play at "managerial" hands; it rather indicates hurried and careless
production, such as we might expect in a play ordered to be produced in
a fortnight, according to the old tradition. Another internal proof of
such hurry, both in this play and in _Much Ado about Nothing_, lies in
the fact that they are almost entirely in prose; which is not the case
in any other play by Shakespeare. And this brings us to the question of
the nature of the Quarto version. It has been held to be merely a first
sketch of the play: this theory is untenable. Mr. P. A. Daniel holds it
to be a stolen version made up by a literary hack from shorthand notes
obtained at a representation. This hypothesis gives no explanation of
the "cousin-Garmombles" of iii. 5, nor does it enable us to understand
how no better a representation of the play was issued, nor how whole
scenes (that of the fairies for example) appear in quite a different
version from the Folio. My own opinion is that the case is parallel to
that of _Romeo and Juliet_; that the Quarto is printed from a partly
revised prompter's copy of the older version of the play, which became
useless when Shakespeare had made his final version. I believe also
that this older version was produced soon after the visit of the Count
of Mümplegart (Garmombles) to Windsor in August 1592; that it was
probably the _Jealous Comedy_, acted as a new play by Shakespeare's
company 5th January 1593; that when Shakespeare revived this old play,
he accommodated the characters to _Henry IV._ as best he could. Mr.
Daniel's argument that _The Merry Wives_ was a later play than _Henry
V._, because Nym would otherwise have had no title to special mention
in the title-page of the Quarto, has not much weight. This Quarto was
printed three years after _Henry V._ was produced, and Nym's reputation
from either play was three years old, according to Mr. Daniel himself.
Why then should he not be mentioned?