Queen (in red?), cf. iv. 4. 71; Will Cricket (in grey?); two other
boys, Bede and Bean, in green and white; and Evans, Puck Hobgoblin or
Robin Goodfellow, in black. The prefixes _Qu._, _Qui._, and _Pist._ are
mistakes for _Queen_ and _Puck_. Pistol and Quickly cannot be actors
in this scene, nor in the entrance are they placed with "Evans, Anne
Page, Fairies," but at the ends of the second and third lines, as if
by afterthought. All the Pistol fairy speeches belong to Evans (Puck).
There seems to have arisen some confusion in the final revision, when
this scene was probably altered. Further confirmation of the original
early date of the play may be found in Falstaff's statement that the
Thames shore was "shelvy and shallow" (iii. 5. 15); for in 1592 the
Thames was so low as to be fordable at London Bridge, and Falstaff
was thrown in the ford at Datchet. But the allusions to "three Doctor
Faustuses" and Mephistopheles are not helpful; _Faustus_ was on the
boards till 1597 at least. One of Henry Julius' plays _derived from
English sources_, printed in 1594, _The Adulteress_, contains the same
story as _The Merry Wives_. If this was not derived from Shakespeare's
play, whence was it? The ground of the English play was probably the
story in Tarleton's _News out of Purgatory_ (1590). Note that the
other play by Julius distinctly traceable in origin to the English
stage is _Vincentius Ladislaus_ (1594), in which the similarities to
_Much Ado_ (1590), are as marked as in the present instance. We have
already seen that Evans acts the part of Robin Goodfellow, and that
Will Cricket is another fairy; but these are two characters in _Wily
Beguiled_, in which play Robin Goodfellow means Drayton and Will
Cricket Kempe. I believe that in Shakespeare's play, Evans and Dr.
Caius are satirical representations of Drayton and Lodge. Drayton is
introduced as Evan, a Welsh attorney, by Jonson in _For the Honour of
Wales_, and Lodge was frequently satirised on the stage as a French
doctor. The part of Falstaff was acted in Charles the First's time by
Lowin, and there is no reason why he should not have been the original
performer of it in this play as revised. He was twenty-four years old
in 1600.
1600.
_Julius Cæsar_ is alluded to in Weever's _Mirror of Martyrs_ (Sir
John Oldcastle), 1601; and the actor of Polonius in _Hamlet_ iii. 2.
109 had probably acted the part of Cæsar; at any rate _Cæsar_ must
be anterior to the Quarto _Hamlet_ which was produced in 1601. The
structure of this play is remarkable; the first three acts and last
two have no characters in common except Brutus, Cassius, Antony, and
Lucius; there are in fact two plays in one, _Cæsar's Tragedy_ and
_Cæsar's Revenge_. Contemporary plays by other dramatists were produced
in a double pattern: _e.g._, Marston's _Antonio and Mellida_, in two
parts; Chapman's _Bussy d'Ambois_, in two parts; Kyd's old play of
_Jeronymo_, in two parts. All these were on the stage at the same
time as _Julius Cæsar_. Revenge-plays with ghosts in them were the
rage for the next four years. That the present play has been greatly
shortened, is shown by the singularly large number of instances in
which mute characters are on the stage; which is totally at variance
with Shakespeare's usual practice. The large number of incomplete lines
in every possible position, even in the middle of speeches, confirms
this. That alterations were made we have the positive testimony of
Jonson, who in his _Discoveries_ tells us that Shakespeare wrote,
"Cæsar did never wrong but with just cause" (compare iii. 1. 47).
That this original reading stood in the acting copies till not long
before the 1623 Folio was printed, is clear from the fact that Jonson,
in the Induction to his _Staple of News_ (1625), alludes to it as
a well-known line requiring no explanation--"Cry you mercy," says
Prologue, "you never did wrong but with just cause." This would imply
that Shakespeare did not make the alterations himself; a hypothesis
confirmed by the spelling of Antony without an _h_: this name occurs in
eight of Shakespeare's plays, and in every instance but this invariably
is spelled Anthony. Jonson himself is more likely to have been called
on to make this revision than any other author connected with the
King's company c. 1622. The "_et tu Brute_" about which so much has
been written was probably taken from Jonson's _Every Man out of his
Humour_ (i. 1); it is found in the _Duke of York_ (1595) and elsewhere.
Nicholson, in his _Acolastus his after wit_ (S. R. 8th September 1600),
probably took it from Shakespeare's play, "Et tu Brute! wilt thou stab
Cæsar too?"
1601.
_All's Well that Ends Well_ manifestly contains passages--i. 1.
230-244; i. 3. 130-142; ii. 1. 130-214; ii. 3. 80-110, 132-151; iii. 4
letter: v. 3 concluding part--which are of very early date; certainly
written not later than 1593. It is not, however, in my opinion,
to be identified with _Love's Labour's Won_: the allusions to the
present title in iv. 4. 35; v. 1. 24; v. 3. 333, 336, all occur in
rhyme passages, and some of them, at least, belong to the earlier
date. The play, as we have it, was written after Marston's _Jack
Drum's Entertainment_ (1600), to which there is a palpable allusion
in iii. 6. 41; and before _The Dutch Courtesan_ (probably 1602) by
the same author, which contains several allusions to its title. The
name _Corambus_ in iv. 3. 185 suggests the same date, as this is the
appellation of Polonius in the Quarto _Hamlet_. The introduction of
Violenta, a mute character, in iii. 5, and the substitution of the same
name in _Twelfth Night_, i. 5, for Viola, show that this last-named
play was the last written of the two, but not much interval could
have occurred between them. In confirmation of this approximation of
dates, compare the name Capilet, v. 3. 147, 159, with _Twelfth Night_,
iii. 4. 315. In plot this play agrees with _Much Ado_ in the supposed
death of Helen, and the promise of Bertram to marry Maudlin Lafeu;
with _Measure for Measure_, in the substitution of Helen for Diana;
with _The Gentlemen of Verona_, in Helen's pilgrim disguise, and her
meeting with the Hostess. In it and _Twelfth Night_ we find a few
slight allusions to the Puritans; another confirmation of date. The
only other use even of the word Puritan is in the late play _Winter's
Tale_, iv. 3. 46. Compare the doubtful _Pericles_, iv. 6. 9. The
way in which the earthquake is mentioned in i. 3. 91, gives a still
further confirmation. There was an earthquake in London in 1601. I
take the boasting Parolles to be Marston; born under Mars, muddied
in Fortune's displeasure, an egregious coward, an accuser of Captain
Dumain of being lousy, he in all points agrees with Marston, as figured
in the other satirical plays of the time. The charge against Dumain
is repeated against Jonson in _Satiromastix_; Marston had left the
Admiral's company in 1599, just before the Fortune Theatre was built
for them. His cowardice is dilated on in Jonson's _Conversations_,
and the allusions to him as _Jack Drum_ are frequent in the play.
Once we find Tom Drum in v. 2 (from _Tom Drum's Vants_ in _Gentle
Craft_, 1598), a hint that Thomas Dekker, author of _The Shoemaker's
Holiday, or The Gentle Craft_ (1600), was aiding and abetting John
Marston in his satirical plays. Helen was acted by a short boy (i.
1. 202). The incident of the King's gift to Helen of his ring, only
referred to in the last scene, seems to point at the gift of a ring
to Essex by Elizabeth in 1596. Essex was executed in 1601, just
before this play was acted. The older parts pointed out above were, I
think, incorporated from detached scenes written in 1593 during the
plague time, and laid by for future use. The plot is from _Giletta
of Narbonne_ in Painter's _Palace of Pleasure_, a book used by
Shakespeare in 1594 for his alteration of _Edward III._ Mr. Stokes says
that Eccleston and Gough acted in this play, on the authority of Mr.
Halliwell; one of the many _ignes fatui_ that have misled this unwary
compiler.
1601-2.
_Twelfth Night, or What You Will_, was first acted 2d February 1602 at
one of the Inns of Court (Manningham's _Diary_). Its date lies between
Marston's _Malcontent_ (1602), (of Malevole in which play Malvolio is
clearly a caricature), and _What You Will_ (1602) by the same author.
This adoption of the name of his play seems to have induced Shakespeare
to replace it by the now universally adopted title. The appellation
Rudesby (v. 1. 55) is from Chapman's _Sir Giles Goosecap_ (1601).
Several minor points have been already noticed under the previous play
_All's Well_. In this play, as in that, I believe that earlier written
scenes have been incorporated. It is only in similar cases that we find
such contradictions as that between the three months' sojourn of Viola
at the Count's court (v. 1), and the three days' acquaintance with the
Duke in i. 4. In ii. 4 there are palpable signs of alteration, and
iii. 1. 159-176, v. 1. 133-148 are surely of early date. Moreover,
the singular agreement of the plot with the _Comedy of Errors_ in the
likeness of the twins, and with _The Gentleman of Verona_, or rather
with _Apollonius and Sylla_, whence part of that play was derived,
point to a likelihood that the first conceptions of these plays were
not far apart in time. I think the early portions were written in 1593,
like those of the preceding play. For the change from Duke (i. 1-4)
to Count in the rest of the play compare _The Gentlemen of Verona_. I
believe that Sir Toby represents Jonson and Malvolio Marston; but that
subject requires to be treated in a separate work from its complexity.
1602.
_Troylus and Cressida_ was published surreptitiously in 1609, with
an address to the reader stating that it had been "never staled with
the stage." This statement was withdrawn in the same year, and a new
title-page issued, "as it was acted by the King's Majesty's servants
at the Globe." It had in fact been entered in S. R. 1603, February
7, by J. Roberts, and licensed for printing, "when he hath gotten
sufficient authority for it"--which he evidently did not get. It could
not therefore have been produced later than 1602. Nor could it, as we
have it, have been earlier; the line i. 3. 73, "rank Thersites with his
mastic jaws" evidently alluding to Dekker's _Satiro_-MASTIX (1601).
I once thought Marston, as _Histriomastix_ or _Theriomastix_, was
alluded to; but the character of Thersites suits Dekker, not Marston.
Jonson describes him in _The Poetaster_, iii. 1, as "one of the most
overflowing _rank_ wits in Rome; he will slander any man that breathes
if he disgust him." In 1602, Jonson, Marston, and Shakespeare had
become reconciled; of reconciliation with Dekker, at any time, there
is no trace. This play is probably the "purge" given by Shakespeare to
Jonson when he put down all those "of the university pen" (_The Return
from Parnassus_, iv. 3, acted in the winter 1602-3); Ajax representing
Jonson, Achilles Chapman, and Hector Shakespeare: but whether this
conjecture be true or no, Dekker is certainly Thersites. All this part
of the play (the camp story) splits off from the love story of Troylus
and Cressida, which is of much earlier date, c. 1593. The two parts are
discrepant in minor points, notably in the existence of a truce (i. 3.
262), "dull and long-continued" fighting having been abundant in i. 2.
The parts written in 1602 are i. 3; ii. 1; ii. 2; ii. 3; iii. 3. 34
to end; iv. 5. (except lines 12-53); v. i; v. 2 (retains much older
work); v. 3. 1-97. All this part bears evident marks of the reading of
Chapman's _Iliad_ i.-vii. (1598); the love story is somewhat from the
old Troy book printed by Caxton, but more from Chaucer's _Troilus and
Cressid_. At the end of v. 3, in the Folio v. 10. 32-34, are repeated;
this shows that the 1602 _acting_ copy was meant to end with v. 3, thus
making the play a comedy; as it now stands it is usually classed with
the tragedies; in the Folio, it is placed unpaged between the Histories
and Tragedies, and is not mentioned in the "Catologue" of contents. The
prologue and v. 4-10 contain much work that is unlike Shakespeare's,
and are probably by some coadjutor whose other lines have been replaced
by the 1602 additions. Heywood in his _Iron Age_ treated this same
subject, and the date of that play is important in this investigation.
The _Ages_ of Heywood were acted before 1611 (see his Address to the
Reader in _The Golden Age_); _The Iron Age_ was "publicly acted by two
companies on one stage at once," and "at sundry times thronged three
several theatres." These were the Rose, the Curtain, and the Bull;
Pembroke's men, and the Admiral's, acted together at the Rose, October
to November 1597. This must have been the time when the _Iron Age_ was
performed; but not as a new play. It would otherwise have been entered
in Henslowe's _Diary_ as such. All the _Ages_ were then probably
old in 1597. In 1595-6 we find them accordingly entered by Henslowe
under other names; in 1595, March 5, _The Golden Age_, whose scenes
are in Heaven and Olympus, appears as Steleo (Coelo) and Olempo; he
subsequently writes Seleo for Steleo; _The Silver_ and _Brazen Ages_
on May 7 and May 23, as the first and second parts of _Hercules_.
These three plays were produced in succession. The entry of _Galfrido
and Bernardo_ is a forgery, and a clumsy one, for it necessitates a
Sunday performance, which is a thing unknown in Henslowe's _Diary_,
if the dates be properly corrected. On 23d June 1596, _Troy_ was
acted, palpably _The Iron Age_; and on 7th April 1597, _Five Plays in
One_ may have been the second part of that play. About February 1599,
Heywood left the Admiral's men, and joined Lord Derby's; in April,
Dekker and Chettle produced their _Troylus and Cressida_; in May their
_Agamemnon_, and Dekker his _Orestes' Furies_. I believe that all
these were merely enlargements of Heywood's _Iron Age_. Dekker was a
"dresser of plays" and a shameless plagiarist; witness the stealing
of Day's work, which he afterwards reclaimed in his _Parliament of
Bees_. At the same time that Dekker was thus pillaging Heywood, his
friend Marston was satirising Heywood as Post-haste in _Histriomastix_
for appropriating Shakespeare's _Troylus_ (of 1593) and bringing out
_The Prodigal Child_, the old _Acolastus_ of 1540, as a new play.
There can be no doubt that the company satirised in _Histriomastix_ is
Derby's. It was a "travelling" company, newly set up, with a poet who
extemporises his plays (Heywood had a share in 220) and uses
"No new luxury of blandishment,
But plenty of Old England's mother's words."
The allusion to _Troylus_, l. 267-275, in which "he shakes his furious
spear," has led some persons to a very absurd identification of
Posthaste with Shakespeare. I have noticed before the singular allusion
to _The Iron Age_ in _John_ iv. 1. 60 (1596).
1603.
_The Taming of the Shrew_ is unlike any play hitherto considered; the
Shakespearian part of it being evidently confined to the Katharine and
Petruchio scenes--ii. 1. 167-326; iii. 2 (except 130-150, 242-254);
iv. 1; iv. 3; iv. 5 (except three lines at end); v. 2 (except ten
lines at conclusion). The construction of the play shows that it
was not composed by Shakespeare in conjunction with another author,
but that his additions are replacements of the original author's
work; alterations made hurriedly for some occasion when it was not
thought worth while to write an entirely new play. Such an occasion
was the plague year of 1603, when the theatres were closed and the
companies had to travel. We shall see, hereafter, that Shakespeare's
other similar alterations of other men's work were made in like
circumstances. This date is confirmed by the allusions to other taming
plays, of which there were several; the present play, in its altered
shape, being probably the latest: ii. 1. 297 refers to _Patient
Grissel_, by Dekker, Chettle, and Haughton, December 1599; "curst" in
ii. 1. 187, 294, 307; v. 2. 188, to Dekker's _Medicine for a Curst
Wife_, July 1602; and iv. 1. 221 to Heywood's _Woman Killed with
Kindness_, March 1603. There is nothing but the supposed inferiority of
work to imply an earlier date; and this, on examination, will be seen
to be merely a subjective inference arising from the reflex action of
the less worthy portion with which Shakespeare's is associated. Rudesby
in iii. 2. 10 is from _Sir Giles Goosecap_ (1601), and Baptista, as a
man's name, could hardly have come under Shakespeare's notice, when
in his _Hamlet_ he made it a woman's. The earlier play thus altered
probably dates 1596, when an edition of _The Taming of a Shrew_ was
reprinted. This last-named play was written for Pembroke's company
in 1588-9. Another limit of date is given by the name _Sincklo_ in
the Induction. Sinklo was an actor with the Chamberlain's men, from
1597 to 1604. _Nicke_ in iv. 1. is Nicholas Tooley. The play is not
mentioned by Meres in 1598. In the Induction, "The Slys are no rogues:
we came in with Richard Conqueror," is, I think, an allusion to the
stage history of the time. Sly and Richard the Third (Burbadge) came
into Lord Strange's company together in 1591. In the Pembroke play,
Don Christophero Sly was probably acted by Christopher Beeston. The
Induction, partly revised by Shakespeare, seems to have been clumsily
fitted by the players (as, indeed, the whole play is, especially in the
non-appearance of "my cousin Ferdinand," iv. 1. 154, whose place seems
to be taken by Hortensio): surely Sly ought to have been replaced, as
in the 1588 play; and is it possible that Shakespeare even in a farce
should have made Sly talk blank verse, sc. 2, l. 60-120? _The Taming of
a Shrew_, as acted in June 1594 at Newington Butts, was the old play
which had belonged to Pembroke's men, probably by Kyd; but the first
version of the play, afterwards altered by Shakespeare, was written, I
think, by Lodge, (? aided by Drayton in the Induction). This Induction
was, I think, greatly altered by Shakespeare in 1603.
1603.
_Hamlet_ is extant in three forms--the Folio, which is evidently a
stage copy considerably shortened for acting purposes; the 1604 Quarto,
which is a very fair transcript of the author's complete copy, with
a few omissions; and the 1603 Quarto, imperfect and inaccurate. The
date of the perfect play is certainly 1603. In ii 2. 346, &c., we find
that the tragedians of the city--_i.e._, Shakespeare's company--are
"travelling," and that "their inhibition comes of the late innovation."
This has been interpreted in various ways, the most absurd being that
which regards the establishment of the Revels children in 1604 as the
innovation: hardly less so is Malone's notion that the putting down of
the Curtain players in 1600 is the inhibition referred to. The Globe
company travelled in 1601 in consequence of Essex' attempt at political
innovation, and their acting _Richard II._ in connection therewith;
they travelled again in 1603, the theatres being shut because of the
plague: this latter is the time referred to in the final version, for
in the latter part of that year the Puritan party had by millenary
petitions at Hampton Court conferences, and so forth, attempted a
religious "innovation;" and their anxiety to avoid this charge is
evident in their continual protests that it was a reformation, not
an innovation, that they wanted (see Fuller, _Church History_, under
1603-4 _passim_). The immediately succeeding passage, l. 351-379,
however, which also occurs in the earlier version, distinctly points
to 1601. The "berattling of the common stages by the aery of little
eyases," the controversy between poet and player, ended in that year;
these lines are not contained in the second Quarto. The words "if they
should grow themselves to common players," indicate a possible date
of writing c. 1610, when Ostler and Underwood, Chapel boys in 1601,
had grown up and been taken into the King's men; but the use of the
present tense in the preceding paragraph shows that the same Chapel
children who had been engaged in the Jonson and Marston quarrel were
still on the stage, and that the date of writing is anterior to their
replacement by the Revels boys in January 1604. The growing to common
players then must be taken generally, not specifically; unless we
suppose a still further revision c. 1610, which on other grounds is not
unlikely. It may be worth noting that the play of _Dido_, in rivalry of
which the player's speech in ii. 2 is recited, belonged to these same
Chapel children. In like manner the Pyrgus in Jonson's _Poetaster_
recites bits of _The Battle of Alcazar_ in rivalry with Dekker's
_Captain Stukeley_. But although the date of the perfect play is almost
certainly 1603, _Hamlet_ had certainly been on the stage some years
at that time. Tucca in _Satiromastix_ (1601) says, "My name's _Hamlet
Revenge_," and he comes on, "his boy after him, with two pictures under
his cloak." In Marston's _Malcontent_ (1601), "Illo, ho, ho, ho! art
thou there, old Truepenny?" must refer to _Hamlet_. In iii. 2. 42,
"Let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for
them," refers, I think, to extemporising Kempe, who left Shakespeare's
company in 1599. Florio's _Montaigne_, which is implicitly referred to
throughout the play (see Mr. Feis, _Shakespeare and Montaigne_, 1884),
was entered S. R. 4th June 1600. On the title-page of the first Quarto
it is said that the play had been acted in the Universities of Oxford
and Cambridge and elsewhere; _i.e._, in the travelling of 1601. It is
pretty clear, then, that 1601 was the date of its production. Polonius
(iii. 2. 108) had already played Julius Cæsar _in the University_,
which could hardly have been before 1601; and _Hamlet_ was entered by
Roberts 26th July 1602, in S. R., "as it was lately acted." Plays thus
produced during "travels," were almost always hurried and careless
performances; indeed, this form of _Hamlet_ seems to have been an
unfinished refashioning of the old play by Kyd, that had so long been
performed by the Chamberlain's men. The names Corambis and Montano
for Polonius and Reynaldo, and a good deal of Acts iii. and iv., seem
to be remnants of this old play. The name Corambus is found in the
German version, which probably dates c. 1592. It also occurs in _All's
Well_, iv. 3. 185. The first Quarto is in this instance, as in those
of _Romeo_, _Henry V._, and _Merry Wives_, in my opinion, printed
from a partly revised prompter's copy of the 1601 play, which became
useless when the fuller version was made. In this instance there are
traces of alterations having been made on this copy similar to that
in _Romeo_, iii. 5. 177. The usual explanation of the peculiar text
of imperfect Quartos is, that notes were taken in shorthand at the
theatre, which, eked out by the vampings of some playdresser, made up
a saleable version, however incorrect. The stronghold of this theory
is the soliloquy in iii. 1. 56, &c. The minor errors of "right done"
for "write down," i. 2. 222; "invenom'd speech" for "in venom steept,"
ii. 2. 533; "honor" for "owner," v. 1. 121; and the like, can be
easily paralleled in the most authentic copies of printed plays of
the period. But a careful examination of the text of that speech of
Hamlet's in the first Quarto, shows that its present meaningless shape
arises from the displacement of two lines only, an error which is
most unlikely to have occurred in shorthand notes, and is completely
subversive of the hack play-writing botcher hypothesis. I append this
soliloquy, as I suppose it to have stood in the MS. of the prompter's
copy, after the partial 1601 correction:
[ bourne
The undiscover'd country from whose sight
no passenger ever return'd.
Ay, that]
"To be, or not to be? Ay, there's the point.
To die--to sleep--is that all? Ay. All? No.
To sleep--to dream--ay, marry, there it goes.
For in that dream of death when we, awake,
_Are doom'd_ before an everlasting Judge,
The happy smile and the accurst are damn'd.
But for the joyful hope of this, who'ld bear
The scorns and flattery of the world, the right
Scorn'd by the rich, the rich curst of the poor,
The widow being opprest, the orphan wrong'd,
The taste of hunger, or a tyrant's reign,
And thousand more calamities besides,
When that he may his full _quietus_ make
With a bare bodkin? Who would this endure,
But for a hope of something after death,
_The undiscover'd country, from whose bourne
No passenger has e'er return'd? Ay that_
Puzzles the brain and doth confound the sense;
Which makes us rather bear the ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
This consciënce makes cowards of us all."
I have put in italics in the text the marginal corrections of "proof"
as shown above, inserted in their proper places; a comparison with
the first Quarto will show how the printer, not the shorthand man or
playdresser, by inserting them in the wrong places, has produced the
nonsense that has caused so many groundless hypotheses.
"When we awake,
_And borne_ before an everlasting Judge,
_From whence no passenger ever return'd
The undiscover'd country, at whose sight_
The happy smile," &c.
And farther on:
"_Ay that_ O this conscience," &c.
The erroneous notions with regard to these imperfect Quartos arise, in
a great measure, from their being compared with the carefully edited
later versions; were they also edited and emended the differences would
appear much smaller than they do now. The earlier (1601) form of this
play was evidently hurriedly prepared during the journey to Scotland,
in which the company visited the universities, at a time when the
public taste for revenge-plays had been revived by the reproduction of
Kyd's _Jeronymo_ (_Spanish Tragedy_) by the Chapel children, probably
at Jonson's suggestion; a new version of Kyd's _Hamlet_ naturally
followed. Other such plays were: Marston's _Antonio and Mellida_
(Paul's, 1599-1600); Shakespeare's _Julius Cæsar_ (1600); Chettle and
Heywood's _Hoffman, or Revenge for a Father_, also called _Like quits
Like_ (Admiral's, January 1603): Chapman's _Revenge of Bussy_ is of
later date. A passage in _Ram Alley_ (c. 1609), v. 1, "The custom of
thy sin so lulls thy sense," &c., is apparently imitated from iii.
4. 161, &c., a passage not found in the Folio. This would lead to
the conjecture that the Folio abridgment was made after 1609; on the
other hand, the re-insertion in it of ii. 2. 350-379 points to a date,
about 1610, when Underwood and Ostler had "grown to common players,"
and were admitted among the King's men. It was probably made then by
Shakespeare himself. It is indeed most unlikely, that were it not so,
its text should have been preferred, by the editors of the Folio, to
the fuller one of the Quarto, which lay ready printed to their hands.
We have, then, in the forms of this play, an example of Shakespeare's
hurried revision of the work of an earlier writer, but it must be
remembered in a most mutilated form; of the full working out of his
own conception, in the shape fittest for private reading; and finally,
of his practical adaptation of it to the requirements of the stage.
The date of the printing of the first Quarto, and, therefore, of the
revision made in the second, is after 19th May 1603, as the actors are
called "King's servants" in the title-page. I. 1. 107-125, which surely
allude to the death of Elizabeth, are omitted in the Folio. In iii. 2.
177, iv. 5. 77, alternative readings--
{"For women fear too much even as they love",
{"And women's fear and love hold quantity,"
{"And now behold"
{"O Gertrard, Gertrard"--
are printed side by side, a sure mark of revision.
1604.
_Measure for Measure_ was written, in my opinion, in rivalry to
Marston's _The Fawn_, which was printed March 1606, but produced
1603-4. It was also subsequent to Chettle and Heywood's _Like quits
Like_, 14th January 1603; v. 1. 416. All the allusions in it suit 1604.
The avoidance of publicity by James I. (i. 1. 68-71; ii. 4. 27-30); the
existing war and expected peace (i. 2. 4. 83); the stabbers--four out
of ten prisoners--in iv. 3; the stuffed hose, to which Pompey's name
is appropriate, all agree in this; peace was concluded in the autumn;
the "Act of Stabbing" was passed in this year, the bombasted breeches
revived with the new reign. But these are more valuable in showing what
reliance can be placed on such allusions than in fixing the date of
the play; for it was acted at Court, 26th December 1604. The title was
probably taken from a line in _3 Henry VI._, ii. 6. 55; the plot is
like _All's Well_ in the substitution of Mariana, _Twelfth Night_ in
the Duke's love declaration at the end. It is founded on Whetstone's
_Promos and Cassandra_ (1582). An order was made in 1603, that no new
houses should be built in the suburbs of London. Compare i. 2. 104.
1604.
_Othello_ was acted at Court 1st November 1604, being, no doubt, like
_Measure for Measure_, 26th December, a new play that year. The _Merry
Wives_, 4th November, and _Henry V._, 7th January, were revised for
the same Revels. The _Errors_, 28th December, _Loves Labour's Lost_,
between New Year and Twelfth Day, and _The Merchant of Venice_, January
10, 12, were also reproduced. The document in the Record Office
containing these details is a modern forgery, but Malone possessed a
transcript of the genuine entry in the Revels accounts. It was a bold
thing for Shakespeare to have performed before James I. in two plays
on unfounded jealousy, at a time when the King was so jealous of the
relations of the Queen with Lord Southampton. The 1622 Quarto copy of
this play is abridged for stage reasons; by whom we cannot say. The
allusion to the "huge eclipse" (v. 2. 99), points to the total eclipse
of 2d October 1605. Shakespeare had probably been reading Harvey's
_Discoursive Problem concerning Prophesies_ (1588), in which he speaks
of "a _huge_ fearful eclipse of the sun" as to happen on that day.
The likeness of this play in small details to _Measure for Measure_
indicates close contemporaneity of date, _e.g._, the name Angelo (i.
3. 16); the word "grange" (i. 1. 106), and "seeming" (iii. 3. 209).
This play was again acted at Court in 1613. It was founded on Cinthio's
novel _Hecatomithi_, Third Decad, Novel 3. The "men whose heads do grow
beneath their shoulders" (i. 3. 145) came from Raleigh's narrative
of _The Discovery of Guyana_ (1600). He was "resolved" of their
credibility. In _The Patient Man_, by Dekker, S. R. 9th November 1604,
there is a distinct reference to Othello--
"Thou kill'st her now again,
And art more savage than a barbarous Moor" (i. 1).
1605.
_King Lear_ was probably on the stage when the old play of _Leir_
on which it was founded was published. This latter was entered on
S. R. 8th May, as "The Tragical History of King Leir and his three
daughters, as it was lately acted," but was published as "The true
Chronicle History of King Leir and his three daughters, &c., as it
hath been divers and sundry times lately acted." It is not tragical
in any sense, and ends happily. Shakespeare was the first person who,
in opposition to the chronicles, made a tragedy on this story. There
can be no doubt that Stafford, the publisher, meant to pass the old
play as Shakespeare's; the last trace we have of it on the stage is in
April 1594, when it was acted at the Rose by the Queen's and Sussex'
men, who almost immediately afterwards broke up. That Shakespeare's
play remained on the stage till the end of 1605 is evident from the
words "these _late_ eclipses" (i. 2. 112) which clearly refer to the
huge eclipse of the sun in October 1605, and the immediately preceding
eclipse of the moon in September. The word "late" could not be used,
whether in the original text or by subsequent insertion, till October.
That Shakespeare had been probably reading Harvey on the subject I
have noticed under the preceding play, to which the present is every
way closely allied. Compare, for instance, the characters of Iago
and Edmund. The Quarto of 1608, entered S. R. 26th November 1607 as
acted at Whitehall St. Stephen's Day, _i.e._, 26th December 1606, is
abridged and slightly altered for Court representation and carelessly
printed; the Folio is, on the other hand, somewhat shortened for the
public stage. The names of the spirits in iii. 4 are from Harsnett's
_Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures_. The two lines at the
end of Act i. and the Merlin's Prophecy (iii. 2. 79-95) are not in
Shakespeare's manner; they are mere gag, inserted by the Fool-actor to
raise a laugh among the groundlings. The story of Gloster and his sons
is probably founded on Sidney's _Arcadia_, ii. 133-138, ed. 1598.
1606.
_Macbeth_, as we have it, is abridged for the stage in an unusual
degree. Nevertheless it contains one scene, iii. 5, and a few lines,
iv. i. 39-43, which are not by Shakespeare. The character of Hecate,
and the songs in these passages (_Black spirits and white_, and _Come
away_), are from Middleton's _Witch_, acted 1621-22. The insertions
in _Macbeth_ must have been made in 1622; they were probably merely
intended to introduce a little singing and music then popular; and
music has ever since been an essential ingredient in the stage
representations. Omitting these forty lines, we have ample evidence of
the date of the play as Shakespeare left it. In the Porter's speech,
ii. 3. 1-23, 26-46, the "expectation of plenty" refers to the abundance
of corn in 1606; the allusions to equivocation certainly allude to
the trial of Garnet and other Jesuits in the spring of that year:
the "stealing out of a French hose" agrees with the short and strait
fashion then in vogue, when "the tailors took more than enough for
the new fashion sake" (A. Nixon's _Black Year_, 1606); the touching
for the King's evil, iv. 3. 140-159, implies that James was on the
throne. Camden, in his _Remains_ (1605), a book certainly known to
Shakespeare, refers to it as a "gift hereditary." The "double balls
and treble sceptres" in iv. 1. 119-122, necessitate a time of writing
subsequent to 24th October 1604, when the constitution was changed. The
applicability of the circumstances of the play to the Gowry conspiracy
would be especially pleasing to James, and the predictions of the
weyward sisters had already been presented to the King at Oxford in
Latin in 1605. Warner added an account of Macbeth to his new edition
of _Albion's England_ in 1606, but the absolute argument against
this being a new play when Forman saw it performed 20th April 1610,
lies in the distinct allusion in _The Puritan_ by Middleton, acted
1606--"instead of a jester, we'll ha' th' ghost in a white sheet sit
at upper end o' th' table." This was Shakespeare's first play without
a jester, and Banquo's ghost sits in Macbeth's place at the upper end.
There is little doubt that Malone was right in assigning the visit of
the King of Denmark in July and August 1606 as the occasion for the
production of this play at Court. But was this the date of its first
production on the stage? All the evidences for it are gathered from
ii. 3. 1-23, 26-46; iv. 1. 119-122; iv. 3. 140-159; every one of which
passages bears evident marks of being an addition to the original
text. The description of Cawdor's death is remarkably like that of
the Earl of Essex in Stow (by Howes, p. 793), who minutely describes
"his asking the Queen's forgiveness, his confession, repentance, and
concern about behaving with propriety on the scaffold." Steevens (ii.
4) reminds us of corresponding passages in _Hamlet_ and _Cæsar_, to
which plays _Macbeth_ is throughout more closely allied than to _Lear_
or _Timon_. The references to Antony, i. 3. 84, iii. 1. 57, are just
what might be expected from one who had recently read Plutarch's
life of Antony for writing _Julius Cæsar_. Shakespeare's company
were in Scotland in 1601, and were appointed the King's Servants;
Laurence Fletcher being admitted burgess of the guild of the borough of
Aberdeen, 22d October 1601. This, I think, is the date of production
of _Macbeth_ on the stage, 1606 being that of the revised play at
Court. But there are traces of a still earlier play. In 1596, August
27, there is, says Mr. Collier, an entry in S. R. (I suppose in that
portion relating to fines, &c., which Mr. Arber has not been allowed
to reprint) referring to two ballads, one on _Macdobeth_, the other on
_The Taming of a Shrew_. Kempe, in his _Dance from London to Norwich_
(1600), refers to this ballad as made by "a penny poet whose first
making was the miserable stolen story of _Mac-do-el_ or _Mac-do-beth_
or _Mac_ somewhat, for I am sure a _Mac_ it was, though I never had
the maw to see it;" he bids the writer "leave writing these beastly
ballads; make not good wenches prophetesses, for little or no profit."
This ballad was in all probability founded on a play, as its companion
was; a play probably written some year or two before. That Shakespeare
had some connection with this early play, is rendered probable by iv.
1. 94-101, in which Dunsin'ane is accented in the southern manner; in
the rest of the play it is always, as in Scotland, Dunsina'ne. This
passage, in which Macbeth speaks of himself in the third person, and
rhymes in a manner which strongly reminds us of the pre-Shakespearian
stage, suggests that the old play of c. 1593-4 was used by Shakespeare
in making his 1601 version. I may ask the reader who doubts the
remarkable alterations to which this play has been subjected, to
examine the following incomplete lines at points where compression by
omission seems to have taken place, i. 3. 103; i. 4. 35; ii. 1. 16; ii.
1. 24; ii. 3. 120; iii. 2. 155; iv. 3. 15; and to compare the later
alterations by Davenant and others, as given in my article in _Anglia_,
vol. vii.
1606-7.
_Timon of Athens_ unquestionably contains much matter from another
hand. The Shakespearian part is so like _Lear_ in matter, and _Anthony
and Cleopatra_ in metre, that the conjectural date here assigned to
it cannot be far wrong. It was founded on the passage in North's
_Plutarch_ (Life of _Antony_), and perhaps on the story as told in
Painter's _Palace of Pleasure_, with a hint or two from Lucian's
_Dialogues_ (? at second hand; no translation of that time is known).
It would be out of proportion in this work to reproduce my 1868
essay on the authorship, which awaits some slight corrections from
recent investigation. It will be found in the New Shakspere Society's
_Transactions_ for 1874. I can only here point out the parts that
are certainly not Shakespeare's, namely, ii. 1; ii. 2. 194-204; iii.
1; iii. 2; iii. 3; iii. 4 (in great part); iii. 5; iii. 6. 116-131;
iv. 2; iv. 3. 70-74, 103-106, 464-545; v. i. 157; v. 3. Delius and
Elze say the second author was George Wilkins. Perhaps so; but they
are certainly wrong in regarding the play as an alteration made by
Shakespeare of another man's work. Whether Wilkins completed the
unfinished sketch by Shakespeare, or the actors eked it out with matter
taken from a previous play by him, I cannot tell: but Shakespeare's
part is a whole _totus teres atque rotundus_. There is no trace of
his ever working in conjunction with any author after 1594, although
in this play, in _The Shrew_, and _Pericles_ there is evidence of his
writing portions of dramas which were fitted into the work of other
men. Wilkins left the King's men in 1607 and wrote for the Queen's.
This migration to an inferior company is so unusual as to indicate some
rupture on unfriendly terms. Perhaps the insertion of Shakespeare's
work in his play offended him. The unShakespearian characters in
the play are three Lords--Lucius, Lucullus, and Sempronius; three
Servants--Flavius (Steward always in the Shakespeare part), Flaminius,
and Servilius; three Strangers; three Creditors--Hortensius, Philotus,
and 2d Varro; three Masquers; and the Soldier. I have not here assigned
to Wilkins all parts of the play that have been suspected, but only
those with regard to which the evidence is definite, with entire
exclusion of merely æsthetic opinion.
1607.
_Anthony and Cleopatra_ was entered on S. R. 20th May 1608; and
no doubt was written not much more than a year before that date.
Where-ever we find plays entered but not printed in their author's
lifetime, it is pretty safe to conclude that they were then still on
the stage: compare, for Shakespeare, the instances of _The Merchant of
Venice_, _Troylus and Cressida_, and _As You Like it_.
1608.
_Coriolanus_ in all probability was produced not long after _Anthony_.
There is no external evidence available. Both these Roman plays are
founded on North's _Plutarch_.
1608.
_Pericles_ as we now have it was probably on the stage in 1608, when
Wilkins published his prose version of "the play, as it was lately
presented by the worthy and ancient poet John Gower." He was probably
annoyed by the adoption of Shakespeare's version of the Marina story in
place of his own. The rest of the play as it stands--_i.e._, Acts i.
ii. and Gower chorus to Act iii.--are by Wilkins, in whose novel the
only distinctly traceable piece of Shakespeare's is from iii. 1. 28-31,
which is repeated almost verbatim. The play was published in 1609,
probably as an answer to Wilkins; whose unaltered play must have been
on the stage as early as 1606, seeing that _The Puritan_, acted that
year, contains a distinct parody of the scene of Thaisa's recovery.
This original form of the play was founded on Gower's _Confessio
Amantis_ and Twine's novel of _Prince Apollonius_, which was probably,
in consequence of the popularity of the play, reprinted in 1607. It
was, I think, this Wilkins' play that was entered in S. R. along with
_Anthony and Cleopatra_ 20th May 1608, and the publication of which was
stayed. There is no trace of any transfer of Blount's interest as so
entered to Gosson, who published the altered play. To the popularity
of this drama there are many allusions, notably one in _Pimlico, or Run
Redcap_ (1609).
1609.
_Cymbeline_ was probably produced after the Roman plays and before
_Winters Tale_; and the Iachimo part was doubtless then written. There
is, however, strong internal evidence that the part derived from
Holinshed, viz., the story of Cymbeline and his sons, the tribute,
&c., in the last three acts, was written at an earlier time, in 1606 I
think, just after _Lear_ and _Macbeth_, for which the same chronicler
had been used. All this older work will be found in the scenes in
which Lucius and Bellarius enter. A marked instance in the change
of treatment will be found in the character of Cloten. In the later
version he is a mere fool (see i. 3; ii. 1); but in the earlier parts
he is by no means deficient in manliness, and the lack of his "counsel"
is regretted by the King in iv. 3. Especially should iii. 5 be examined
from this point of view, in which the prose part is a subsequent
insertion, having some slight discrepancies with the older parts of
the scene. _Philaster_, which contains some passages suggested by this
play, was written in 1611. The Iachimo story is found in Boccaccio's
_Decameron_, Day 11, Novel 9. The verse of the vision, v. 4. 30-122,
is palpably by an inferior hand, and was probably inserted for some
Court performance after Shakespeare had left the stage. Of course the
stage directions for the dumb show are genuine. This would not have
been worth mentioning but for the silly arguments of some who defend
the Shakespearian authorship of these lines, and maintain that the play
would be maimed without them. Forman saw this play acted c. 1610-11;
which gives our only posterior limit of date.
1610.
_The Winter's Tale_ was founded on Greene's _Dorastus and Fawnia_; it
was still on the stage when Dr. S. Forman saw it, 15th May 1611; but
this gives only a posterior limit. Sir H. Herbert mentions it as an old
play allowed by Sir G. Buck. But Buck, although not strictly Master
of the Revels till August 1610, had full power to "allow" plays from
1607 onwards. We are, after all, left in great measure to internal
evidence. One really helpful fact is that Jonson in _Bartholomew Fair_
links it with _The Tempest_: "If there be never a _servant monster_ in
the Fair who can help it? nor a _nest of antics_? He is loth to make
nature afraid in his plays like those that beget _Tales_, _Tempests_,
and such like drolleries." This was written in 1614, and at that date
he would of course allude to the _latest_ productions of Shakespeare,
if to any. This allusion occurs in a play written for a rival company,
the Princess Elizabeth's. In his _Conversations_ with Drummond, Jonson
again refers to this play _apropos_ of Bohemia having no sea-coast.
I suspect that the Bear was a success in _Mucedorus_, and therefore
revived in this play.
1610.
_The Tempest_ was shown by Malone to contain many particulars derived
from Jourdan's narrative, 13th October 1610, _A Discovery of the
Bermudas, otherwise called the Isle of Devils; by Sir Thomas Gates,
Sir George Somers, and Captain Newport, with divers others_. He is
not equally successful in showing that Shakespeare used _The True
Declaration of the Colony of Virginia_, S. R. 8th November 1610, in
which the reference to _The Tempest_ as a "Tragical Comedy" seems to
me to show that the play was already on the stage. It does not follow
that because the October pamphlet was used in the storm scenes, that
none of the play was written before that month; but that the date
of its first appearance was in October to November 1610, I have
little doubt. Gonzalo's description of his ideal republic is from
Florio's _Montaigne_. The play as we have it is evidently abridged;
one character, the son of Anthonio the Duke of Milan, i. 2. 438, has
entirely disappeared, unless the eleven lines assigned to Francisco
are the _débris_ of his part. The lines forming the Masque in iv. 1
are palpably an addition, probably made by Beaumont for the Court
performance before the Prince, the Princess Elizabeth, and the Palatine
in 1612-13; or else before the King on 1st November 1612 (_The Winters
Tale_ being acted on 5th November). This addition consists only of
the heroics, ll. 60-105, 129-138; the mythological personages in the
original play having acted in dumb show. In the stage directions (l.
72) of the dumb show "Juno descends;" in the text of the added verse
l. 102, she "comes," and Ceres "knows her by her gait." This and the
preceding were surely Shakespeare's last plays; compare Prospero's
speech, v. 1. 50, &c., and the Epilogue. He began his career with
the Chamberlain's company (after his seven years' apprenticeship in
conjunction with others, 1587-94), with a Midsummer Dream, he finishes
with a Winter's Tale; and so his playwright's work is rounded;
twenty-four years, each year an hour in the brief day of work, and
then the rounding with a sleep.[13]
1613.
_Henry VIII._ as we have it is not the play that was in action at the
Globe when that theatre was burned on Tuesday, 29th June 1613. Howes
(Stow, _Chronicles_, p. 1003) says, "By negligent discharging of a peal
of ordnance, close to the South side thereof the Thatch took fire,
and the wind suddenly disperst the flame round about, and in a very
short space the whole building was quite consumed and no man hurt; the
house being filled with people, to behold the play, viz., of _Henry
the Eight_." A letter from Thomas Lorkin to Sir Thomas Puckering, 30th
June 1613, and another from John Chamberlain to Sir Ralph Winwood, 8th
July 1613 (Winwood's _Memorials_, iii. 469), give similar accounts.
Sir Henry Wotton (_Reliquiæ_, p. 475), in a letter of 2d July
1613, says it was at "a new play acted by the King's players at the
Bankside, called _All is True_, representing some principal pieces of
the reign of Henry the Eighth." The title "All is True" is clearly
alluded to in the Prologue, ll. 9, 18, 21; but the same Prologue shows
that the extant play was performed as a new one at Blackfriars, for
the price of entrance, a "shilling," l. 12, and the address to "the
first and happiest hearers of the town," l. 24, are only applicable
to the "private house" in Blackfriars; the entrance to the Globe was
twopence, and the audience at this "public house" of a much lower
class. This play is chiefly by Fletcher and Massinger, Shakespeare's
share in it being only i. 2; ii. 3; ii. 4; while Massinger wrote i.
1; iii. 2. 1-193; v. 1. It was not, however, written by these authors
in conjunction. Shakespeare appears to have left it unfinished; his
part is more like _The Winter's Tale_ than any other play, and was
probably written just before that comedy in 1609, during the prevalence
of the plague. I have before noted the disturbing effect of these
plague times, with the concomitant closing of the theatres, &c., on
Shakespeare's regular habits of composition. This play is founded on
Holinshed's _Chronicle_ and Fox's _Christian Martyrs_ (1563). It is
worth noting that its success called forth new editions of S. Rowley's
_When you see me you know me_, and the _Lord Cromwell_ of W. S. in
this year; both plays on Henry the Eighth's times. On the authorship
question see Mr. Spedding's Essay in _The Gentleman's Magazine_, August
1850, Mr. Boyle's Essay and my own letter in the _Athenæum_. That
the 1613 play (probably finished by Fletcher, and destroyed in great
part in the Globe fire) was not that now extant is certain, for in a
contemporary ballad on the burning of the Globe we are told that the
"riprobates prayed for the fool," and there is no fool in _Henry VIII._
The extant play was produced by Fletcher and Massinger in 1617.
1625.
_The Two Noble Kinsmen_ was published in 1634, as written by Fletcher
and Shakespeare. There is no other evidence that Shakespeare had any
hand in it, except the opinions of Lamb, Coleridge, Spalding, Dyce,
&c. These, on analysis, simply reiterate the old argument, "It is too
good for any one else." Hazlitt and Hallam held, notwithstanding, the
opposite opinion. I have myself shown in _The Literary World_, 10th
February 1883 (Boston), that the play was first acted in 1625. It was
printed from a playhouse MS., with stage directions, such as i. 3:
"2 Hearses ready with Palamon and Arcite; the 3 Queens. Theseus and
his Lords ready;" and in iii. 5: "Knock for Schoole." But in iv. 2,
we find an actor named Curtis taking the part of Messenger. No actor
of that name is known except Curtis Greville, who joined the King's
men between 1622, when he belonged to the Palsgrave's, and October
1626, when he performed in Massinger's _Roman Actor_. Moreover, the
Prologue tells us this was a _new_ play performed in a time of losses,
and in anticipation of leaving London. The company did leave London
in 1624, after their trouble in August about Middleton's _Game of
Chess_. On this occasion they travelled in the north, and performed at
Skipton three times for £3; and again, in July 1625 they travelled, on
account of the plague in London; where they ceased to perform in May,
when the deaths from that disease exceeded forty per week. Greville
probably joined the King's men on the breaking up of the Palsgrave's,
of whom the last notice dates 3d November 1624. This gives Easter 1625
as the likeliest date for the play. But whether in 1624 or 1625 (and
it must be one of these years) it was first acted, the advocates of
Shakespeare's part-authorship are now reduced to the hypothesis that
a play begun by Shakespeare was left unnoticed for some dozen years,
although a similarly unfinished play had been finished and acted twelve
seasons before, and a collected edition of Shakespeare's works had
been issued in the interim, in which had been included every available
portion of his writings.[14] I cannot believe this; nor can I think
that if Shakespeare were really concerned in this play it would have
been put forth in 1625 with so modest a Prologue. This might have
suited while he lived, but nine years after his death, and two years
after his collected works had been published, it is incredible. With
the highest respect then for the eminent æsthetic critics who hold that
Shakespeare did write part of this play, I must withdraw my adhesion,
and state my present opinion that there is nothing in it above the
reach of Massinger and Fletcher, but that some things in it (ii. 1a;
iv. 3) are unworthy of either, and more likely to be by some inferior
hand, W. Rowley for instance. The popular instinct has always been on
this side; editions containing this play have not been sought after;
and had it not been _known_ not to have been Shakespeare's, it would
surely have been gathered up with the W. S. plays in the Folio of 1663.
FOOTNOTES:
[12] This name occurs in _Apollonius and Sylla_, of which more
hereafter.
[13] Compare with this Masque, that by Beaumont written for the Inner
Temple, 1613.
1. "Thy banks with pioned and twilled brims" (_Tempest_).
"Bordered with sedges and water flowers" (_Inner Temple Masque_).
"Naiades with sedged crowns" (_Tempest_).
2. "Blessing ... and increasing" (_Tempest_).
"Blessing and increase" (_Inner Temple Masque_).
3. The main part played by Iris in both.
4. The dance of the Naiads in both. Many of the properties
could be utilised in both performances.
[14] _Pericles_ and _Edward III._ are no exceptions to this statement;
the copyrights of both belonged to other publishers, and were retained
by these after the Folio was issued.
SECTION V.
ON THE MARLOWE GROUP OF PLAYS.
_1 Henry VI._ was acted as a new play at the Rose by Lord Strange's men
3d March 1592. It is evidently written by several hands. No successful
attempt has yet been made to discriminate these; yet it will be
found that on this discrimination depends the elucidation of so many
difficult circumstances of Shakespeare's early career, that no apology
is required for giving to this play an amount of consideration which it
would not deserve on account of its intrinsic merits. It is convenient
to commence our investigation by a brief summary of the historical
parts contained in the play.
A 1422, August 31. Henry VI. succeeded to the throne at "nine
months old."
A 1422, November 7. Henry V. was buried at Westminster (i. 1).
A 1425. Gloster was refused admission to the Tower (i. 3).
A 1425, January 19. The Earl of March died _at Trim_, leaving
Richard Plantagenet his heir. [This Edmund Mortimer was not
imprisoned in the Tower, as in the play; but his uncle, Sir John
Mortimer, was so, who was executed shortly before.] (ii. 5.)
A 1426, March. A Parliament was held _at Leicester_ (iii. 1).
B 1427 September to 1428 May. Orleans was besieged (i. 2, 4, 5, 6;
ii. 1, 2, 3).
A 1429. The battle of Patay [called _Poitiers_, iv. 1. 19] at which
Fastolfe [called Falstaff in the play] fled, and Talbot was taken
(i. 1. 103-140; compare iii. 2. 103-108).
A 1429. Charles was crowned at Rheims (i. 1. 92).
A 1429. The French towns revolted (i. 1. 60). For Paris mentioned
among them compare v. 2. 2.
E 1430, May. Joan of Arc was taken, and (1431, May) burned (v. 3.
1-44; v. 4. 1-93).
B 1430, December. Henry VI. was crowned at Paris (iii. 4; iv. 1).
C 1435, September. Bedford died _at Paris_ (iii. 2), and Burgundy
made peace with France (iii. 3).
E 1436. Paris submitted to Charles (v. 2. 2).
E 1443. The match between Henry and Margaret was arranged (v. 3.
45-195; v. 5).
E 1443. A truce was made for eighteen months (v. 4. 94-175).
D 1452. Talbot and his son were killed in battle (iv. 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7).
The capital letters prefixed to these dates will enable us to follow
readily the arrangement of these events in the play. The A. group,
comprising i. 1. 3, ii. 5, iii. 1, is manifestly by one writer. The
time limits of his scenes are 1422 and 1426: the first scene contains
allusions to events of a subsequent date, thrust in for dramatic
effect without regard either to historical accuracy or the internal
consistency of the play. Specially the battle of Patay, the crowning
of Charles, and the revolt of the French towns may be noted. It is
hardly requisite to do more than read the opening speech to see that
the author of these scenes was Marlowe. It may be noticed, however,
that in these scenes, and in these only, we find Gloster (Gloucester
elsewhere), Reynold (Reignier or Reigneir elsewhere), and Roän
(monosyllabic elsewhere). All these scenes are laid in London.
The B. group, i. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, ii. 1. 2. 3, iii. 4, iv. 1., contains
only events that happened between 1427 and 1430, the scene being
laid at Orleans, Auvergne, or Paris. The bit of the battle of Patay
iii. 2. 103-108, thrust into the midst of scenes at Rouen in 1435,
would probably belong to this group. It seems to be a preparation for
iv. 1, stuck for dramatic purposes in a position historically most
incongruous. The author of these scenes is not easy to identify: his
work is rather colourless, yet minor coincidences with the known work
of Robert Greene and Thomas Kyd point to one of them as the writer.
In this group only we find the spellings: Joane de Puzel (Pucelle
elsewhere), Reigneir (occasionally also Reignier), and Gloucester
(Gloster elsewhere, except in one instance, where Glocester is probably
a misprint). There can be no doubt that these scenes are all by one
author, and that not the writer of group A., but very far inferior.
Group C., iii. 2. 3, is very like Group B. in general handling, but
has some marked characteristics: here, and here only, we find Burgonie
(Burgundy or Burgundie elsewhere) and Roan monosyllabic; Pucelle (Puzel
in Group B.) and Joane (Jone in Group D.) also differentiate it from
these groups. The time is 1435, place Rouen. I conjecture the author to
have been George Peele.
Group D. v. 2-5 is made up of the Joan of Arc story of 1430-1 and the
Margaret match of 1443. This group has Gloucester invariably (Gloster
in Group A.), Jone (Joane in B., C.), Reignier (never Reigneir, as
B.) The author of these scenes is without doubt Thomas Lodge. His
versification is unmistakable, and the phrase "cooling card" occurs in
_Marius and Sylla_, the older plays of _John_ and _Leir_ (both times
in parts by Lodge). It has not been traced in Greene, Peele, or Marlowe.
Before considering Group E., iv. 2-7, which is concerned only with
Talbot's last fight near Bourdeaux in 1452, I would draw attention
to the fact that it is clear that this episode did not form part of
the original play: it is merely connected with it by the two lines,
v. 2. 16, 17, which may have been inserted for that purpose; belongs
chronologically to the next play, and is so different from, as well
as so superior to, its surroundings, that in 1876 I suggested that
Shakespeare might have written it. Mr. Swinburne has since sanctioned
this opinion by adopting it. This, however, is not evidence; what
follows is. The scenes in the Folio are not divided in Acts i., ii.; in
the other Acts they are. Acts iii. and iv. 1 coincide with the modern
division; but v. 1 of the modern editors is iv. 2 in the Folio; v. 2.
3. 4, are iv. 3 in the Folio, and v. 5 in the Folio is the whole fifth
Act. Here then is the play completed without iv. 2-7, _which are not
numbered at all_. It is plain that they were written subsequently to
the rest of the play and inserted at a revival. They had to be inserted
in such a manner as not to break the connection between this play and
_2 Henry VI._, and were put in the most convenient place, regardless
of historic sequence. I take it for granted that this play in its
original shape was acted before _2 Henry VI._, the commencement of
which was evidently meant to fit on to the end of the preceding play.
It is in accordance with the hypothesis here announced (that the play
acted 3d March 1592 was new only in these Talbot scenes,) that we find
Nash in his _Piers Penniless_ (S. R. 8th August 1592) referring only
to the Talbot scenes as new. "How it would have joyed brave Talbot,
the terror of the French, to think that after he had lain two hundred
year in his tomb, he should triumph again on the stage, and have his
bones embalmed with the tears of ten thousand spectators at least."
It was acted thirteen times at the Rose between March 3 and June
22, that is, at least once a week; was the most popular play of the
season, and was probably still in action "about the city" or in the
country during the time that the theatres were closed for the plague,
from 22d June 1592 till January 1593, when it was again played at the
Rose. It was, therefore, in action when Greene's celebrated address
"to those gentlemen, his quondam acquaintance, that spend their wits
in making plays," was written. This address was published in Greene's
_Groatsworth of Wit_ after 2d September, when Greene died, and before
8th December, when Chettle's _Kind-Hart's Dream_ was entered on S.
R., and was probably written about June. It is addressed to Marlowe,
Lodge, and Peele. Attempts have been made to show that Nash, not Lodge,
was the second playwright of this trio, on the ground that Lodge
was too old to be called "young Juvenal" or "sweet boy;" was absent
from England; was not a satirist, and had foresworn writing for the
theatre. The only important argument is that of Lodge's age. As this
is important in other respects, I give here a table of the known birth
dates, matriculations, B.A. and M.A. degrees, and first appearances as
authors of the University men connected at that time with the stage:--
Born. Matriculated. B.A. M.A. Author in
Lyly 1553-4 1571 1573 1575 1579
Peele 1558 1574 1577 1579 1584
Greene ... ... 1578 1583 1580
Lodge ... 1573 1577 ... 1580
Marlowe 1564 1581 1583 1587 1587
Nash 1567 1582 1585-6 ... 1589
It will be seen from the above table that the degree of B.A. was
usually taken at eighteen or nineteen; that Lodge and Greene were
probably of about the same age; and if we may judge from Greene's
slowness in obtaining his M.A. degree, that he was not speedy in
fulfilling the earlier University requirements. Greene was probably
the elder. At any rate, Lodge's age in 1592 was about thirty-three,
surely not too old for one of about his own age to call "boy." He
was a satirist before 1592. _The Looking-glass for London_ is bitter
enough for any "young Juvenal." On the other hand, Nash was certainly
not the "biting satyrist that lastly with me [Greene] wrote a comedy."
He had at the time of Greene's death written no comedy whatever: his
first connection with the stage was his _Summer's Last Will_, acted at
Archbishop Whitgift's, in November 1592. Lodge, we know, had written
with Greene _The Looking-glass_, and there is strong internal evidence
of his having a hand in _George-a-Greene_ and _James IV._ Nor could
the statement that "those puppits that speak from our mouths, those
anticks garnished in our colours," had "all been beholding" to you, be
with any consistency applied to Nash. Greene was evidently addressing
the principal playwrights of the time, and, if my present view is
a true one, he seized the opportunity of Shakespeare's having made
"new additions" to a play in which all of them had been concerned to
endeavour to create an ill-feeling between "the upstart crow beautified
with our feathers" and those of the University men, who had hitherto
enjoyed a monopoly of writing for the stage, or nearly so. To have
omitted Lodge in such an attempt would have been weak; to have included
Nash, absurd. The effect of Greene's address was not what he desired.
Peele had probably already been a coadjutor of Shakespeare, and
Marlowe immediately, and no doubt Lodge later on, joined Shakespeare's
company and wrote for them. In Greene's excuse must be considered how
galling it must have been to a man in poverty and bad health to see
a play which, while he was connected with it, had attracted little
notice, suddenly raised to the highest success by the insertion of a
few scenes written by a "Johannes factotum," a "Shakescene," who was
"able to bombast out a blank verse" without being "_Magister in artibus
utriusque universitatis_." Confirmations of my views as to this play
will be found in the succeeding ones. The scene ii. 4 has long been
recognised as so far superior to the rest of the play as to be probably
due to the hand of Shakespeare at a later date, c. 1597-8.
_2 Henry VI._--This play exists in two forms: one in the 1623 Folio,
hereafter for convenience called F.; the other in Quarto, entered S. R.
12th March 1594, hereafter called Q. It was published in 1594 as _The
First part of the Contention betwixt the two Famous Houses of York and
Lancaster_. This Quarto version is a mangled and probably surreptitious
copy of the original play, greatly abbreviated for acting. The play
as first written will be hereafter called O. But F. and O. are not
identical, although in many parts O. was more like F. than Q. It will
be convenient to enter on the proof that O. was revised and altered
before beginning the discussion of the authorship of either version,
which is the most difficult, if not the most important, problem in
Shakespearian criticism.
In the Folio of 1623 a list is given of the principal actors in
Shakespeare's plays. The method in which this list is arranged has
never been pointed out. It is chronological. The first ten names are
those of the original _men_ actors when the Chamberlain's company was
instituted in 1594; the next five were added not later than 1603;
the next five (excepting Field, who is inserted here from his early
connection with Underwood and Ostler) c. 1610; the final six after
1617. By a comparison of this list with the names of the actors in
_The Seven Deadly Sins_, originally acted before 1588, but the extant
plot of which dates c. 1594, we shall get the evidence we want. The
first seven names in the Folio list are (1.) W. Shakespeare, (2.) R.
Burbadge, (3.) J. Hemmings, (4.) A. Phillips, (5.) W. Kempe, (6.)
J. Pope, (7.) G. Bryan. The last five of these we know to have been
members of Lord Strange's company in 1593. In the _7. D. S._ we find
neither Shakespeare nor Hemmings; but we do find (2.) R. Burbadge, (4.)
Mr. Phillips, (5.) Will Foole, (6.) Mr. Pope, (7.) Mr. Bryan. It will
be noticed that the prefix Mr. is confined to members of Lord Strange's
company. Next in the Folio list come (8.) Henry Condell, (9.) William
Sly, (10.) Richard Cowley. These appear in _7. D. S._ as (8.) Harry,
(9.) W. Sly, (10.) R. Cowley. At this point we are struck with the fact
that Harry, Will, and Dick are names of three Cade conspirators in Q.,
and naturally try to see if the other names, Nick, Jack, Robin, Tom,
and George, occur in _7. D. S._ For it is certain that in very early
plays up to the end of the sixteenth century it was frequently the
case that the actors in plays are designated by their proper christian
names. We do find (11.) Nick (_i.e._, Nicholas Tooley, a boy-actor in
1597, but a man c. 1610 in the Folio of 1623), (12.) John Duke, (13.)
Robert Pallant, (14.) Thomas Goodall; but George, _i.e._, G. Peele,
is not there discoverable. I may notice that Duke and Pallant, like
Beeston, all three of whom left the Chamberlain's men for the Earl
of Derby's in 1599, are excluded from the Folio list. On turning to
another play, _Sir Thomas More_, c. 1596, the only other one that can
give us similar information on the same scale, I find (8.) Harry, (13.)
Robin, (14.) T. Goodall, (15.) Kit (_i.e._, Christopher Beeston), and
two boys, (16.) Ned and (17.) a second Robin, _i.e._, Robert Gough,
who occurs in the Folio list as a man c. 1617. In the _7. D. S_. these
latter correspond to (15.) Kitt, (16.) Ned, (17.) R. Go. In _Sir T.
More_ there are two other names of this kind, Giles and Rafe. Of Giles
nothing more is known, but Rafe Raye is mentioned in Henslowe's _Diary_
as a Chamberlain's man in 1594. A further examination of older plays
leads to little additional information; but what is to be found all
confirms the opinion that I had formed (as will be seen), on other
grounds, that _2 Henry VI._ was written for the Queen's men. Thus in
plays known to have belonged to that company, I find in _The Famous
Victories_, (12.) John, (13.) Robin, (14.) Tom, (16.) Ned and Lawrence;
in _Orlando_, (14.) Tom and Rafe (Raye); in _Friar Bacon_, (10.) Dick,
(14.) Tom; and in _James IV._, Andrew. There is no Andrew in our lists,
but one occurs in _Much Ado About Nothing_, iv. 2, 1597-8, in place of
Kempe: apparently a remnant of the older form of _Love's Labour's Won_
before Kempe undertook the part. But our list of the _7. D. S._ is not
yet exhausted: (18.) Sander (a boy-player, but the same as Alexander
Cooke, a man in 1603 in the Folio list), (19.) T. Belt, and (20.)
Will (another boy), occur in _The Taming of a Shrew_, 1588. Of (21.)
Vincent, nothing is known; but (22.) J. Sinkler acted with Gabriel
(Spenser) and Humfrey (Jeffes) in _3 Henry VI._, which belonged to
Pembroke's company. Now as the last two, with Antony Jeffes and Robert
Shaw, appear in Henslowe's _Diary_ for the first time immediately after
the partial breaking up of Pembroke's company and their juncture with
the Admiral's in October 1597, it is morally certain that Sinkler had
gone to the Chamberlain's, and Spenser Shaw and the two Jeffes to the
Admiral's, at or before that date. I feel, therefore, justified in
concluding that the _7. D. S._ gives us a nearly complete list of the
Chamberlain's actors, formed of Lord Strange's players as a nucleus;
such of the Queen's men as joined them in 1591-2, when they obtained
many Queen's plays (see p. 108), and such of Pembroke's as joined
them in 1594, when they obtained Pembroke's plays (see p. 21). I have
omitted only one name, and the absolute coincidence of nearly every
one of the rest with the lists obtained from other sources is too
remarkable to be the mere effect of accident: in fact, the chances are
many millions to one against this being the case. The one name omitted
is (23.) John Holland. This name occurs nowhere else to my knowledge,
but in the _7. D. S._ plot and _2 Henry VI._, Act iv. in the Folio,
where he replaces Nick of the Quarto. There can be no doubt of this
being an actor's name; and its occurrence shows at once that the Cade
part of the play was revised, and that the revision was probably made
after 1594. Had it been earlier, there would have been two Johns in the
company, Duke and Holland, and Duke would not have been called simply
Jack.
If the above conclusions are well founded, _2 Henry VI._ was originally
written for the Queen's men as a continuation of _1 Henry VI._, and,
like the latter-mentioned play, passed into the hands of Lord Strange's
men in 1591-2, but was not, like it, then revised; or it may, like
_George a Greene_, have passed to Sussex' men; from them, like _Titus
Andronicus_, to Pembroke's; and thence to the Chamberlain's. It is
noticeable that although published in Quarto by the same person,
Millington, who published _3 Henry VI._ as the _True Tragedy of Richard
Duke of York_ in 1595, he put no name of acting company on the former
play, as he did that of Pembroke's on the latter. This distinctly shows
that the original companies for whom these plays were written were
not identical, and that that of _2 Henry VI._ was probably unknown
to Millington. As to the authorship of _2 Henry VI._, it will be well
to make F. the basis of investigation, always having in mind the
possibility of passages having been inserted by the ultimate reviser.
The corruption and omission in Q. caused by the shortening for stage
purposes have been so great, that the usual plan of beginning with Q.
becomes altogether misleading. The example of _1 Henry VI._ induces
me to attach great weight to the chronological arrangement of the
historical facts. Henry's marriage in 1445 forms the subject of i. 1,
evidently written by Greene originally. The word "alderliefest" in 1.
28 should specially be noted: it is used by Greene in his _Mourning
Garment_, and "aldertruest" in his _James IV._ Such words are not
found in Marlowe, Peele, Lodge, or Shakespeare; yet here one occurs
in a passage found in F. but not in Q., plainly indicating omission
in Q., not addition in F. The next portion, i. 2-ii. 4, is concerned
with the banishment of the Duchess of Gloster, 1441, and the story of
Saunder Simcox, 1441, with which is incorporated the accusation of
the armourer for high treason, 1446. This part (except i. 3. 45-103)
is mainly by George Peele, but much altered in the F. revision. Peele
his mark, "sandy plains," occurs in i. 4. 39. The Simcox anecdote,
however, ii. 1. 59-153, which is quite unconnected with the rest of
the play, is more like Kyd's work than Peele's, and may have been
written by him. The exceptional bit, i. 3. 45-103, to the conversation
in which no historical date can be assigned, is manifest Marlowe; a
preparation for iii. 1-iv. 1, which is beyond question by him. The
events in this section are (iii. 1a) the accusation and (iii. 2) murder
of Gloster in 1447; (iii. 3) the banishment of Suffolk, 1447; (iii. 3)
the death of Winchester in 1447; (iii. 1b) the Irish insurrection in
1449; and, finally, (iv. 1) the death of Suffolk in 1450. These scenes
are the salt of the play. The opening lines of iv. 1, the description
in iii. 2. 160, &c., the awful pathos of the death of Winchester, are
from the same hand as the end of _Doctor Faustus_. The differences of
Q. and F. in this portion are mostly due to omissions in Q.: iii. 3,
for instance, could not have been left in the state in which Q. has
it by the meanest of the authors of the play: it is cut down by some
illiterate actor. That revision there has been is, however, plain
from the singular circumstance that in iii. 2 Elianor is given for
Margaret as the Queen's name. This is probably due to Marlowe's almost
simultaneous work on the older _John_, in which Queen Elianor is a
prominent character. It would seem that the revisor missed this scene,
although correcting Margaret properly in the others. It is no printer's
error; for in l. 26 we have "Nell," for which some modern editors
euphoniously substitute "Meg." The rest of the play, iv. 2-v. 3, is
by one hand, and that hand Lodge's. The notion that Greene wrote it
arises from want of discriminating Greene's work from Lodge's in _The
Looking-glass for London_, all the better part of which is by Lodge. I
fear that those who underrate the powers of this elegant and (in his
own line) powerful writer estimate him by his earliest dramatic effort,
_Marius and Sylla_. He should be read in his _Glaucus_ and _Rosalynde_;
and his evident wish to avoid being known as a dramatic writer should
be taken into account. That he did continue to write plays for many
years, I have no doubt, but the evidence is too extensive to be given
here. This part of the play includes Cade's insurrection, 1450, and the
battle of St. Albans, 1455.
As regards the date, &c., of revision, see under the next play.
_3 Henry VI._ is of very different character from the two preceding
plays. If read in the F. version, no change of authorship is
perceptible; all is consistent; and if the Q. version had not come
down to us, no one would have suspected a second author. It is
plainly by Marlowe, but the Marlowe of _Edward II._, not of _Faustus_,
later in date than _2 Henry VI._ F. is nearly if not quite identical
with the original play. Q. is not, as in the case of the preceding
play, an abridgment for the stage made by the actors, but one made
for the same purpose, carefully and accurately, apparently by the
author himself. The reason for this difference in the treatment of the
plays is manifest. _3 Henry VI._ was, as we know from the title-page,
acted by Pembroke's men, and F. is printed from a prompter's copy, in
which the names of Gabriel [Spenser], Humphrey [Jeffes], and [John]
Sinkler appear in the stage directions; and they were actors for that
company. There is not a particle of evidence that this stage copy
was ever altered in any way after the Chamberlain's company acquired
it. A careful examination of such passages as ii. 5, the stronghold
of the revision theory, shows too much coincidence between Q. and F.
for any likelihood of rewriting having taken place, except by way of
abridgment in Q. But in _2 Henry VI._ things are quite different: the
Greene and Marlowe parts are merely abridged in Q., and the Peele a
good deal revised in F. as well as abridged in Q.; but the Lodge part
at the end is absolutely rewritten in the St. Alban's battle, and
the very names of the actors are changed in the Cade insurrection.
Who could have done this but Shakespeare? Here, and here only, can
we find an explanation of the inclusion of these plays in the Folio
edition of his works in 1623. In my opinion the history of the plays
is this: About 1588-9, Marlowe plotted, and, in conjunction with Kyd
(or Greene), Peele, and Lodge, wrote _1 Henry VI._ for the Queen's
men. About 1589 the same authors wrote _2 Henry VI._; in that year I
have ascertained that Marlowe left the Queen's men, and in 1590 joined
Pembroke's, for whom he alone wrote _3 Henry VI._ In 1591-2 the Queen's
men were in distress, and sold, among other plays, _1 Henry VI._ to
Lord Strange's men, who produced it in 1592 with Shakespeare's Talbot
additions as a new play. In the autumn of that year or in 1593-4,
when the companies travelled on account of the plague, they cut down
their plays for country representation; among others, _2 Henry VI._
(altered by some illiterate) and _3 Henry VI._ (abridged by Marlowe
himself). On this point compare the parallel instances of abridged
plays, _Hamlet_, _Orlando_, and _The Guise_. In May 1593 _2 Henry VI._
passed to the Sussex' men with _Leir_, &c., when the Queen's men broke
up; in February 1594 with _Andronicus_ to Pembroke's; in April, when
Pembroke's company partly dissolved, all three plays were reunited in
the hands of the Chamberlain's men; and for them _2 Henry VI._ was, c.
1600, after Lodge had retired, remodelled by Shakespeare, and _3 Henry
VI._ corrected--the other authors, Peele, Marlowe, (Kyd?), and Greene,
having died before 1598. Meanwhile Millington published _2 Henry VI._
Q. as _York and Lancaster_, and _3 Henry VI._ Q. as _Richard Duke of
York_, these abridged copies having become useless to Pembroke's men on
the ceasing of the plague and of their travels.
I have not noticed here the many parallel passages from the works
of Marlowe and others which confirm the assignment of authorship
now advocated. It would be out of all proportion to give them here
unless imperfectly: the reader will find some in Dyce's _Marlowe_, and
more in my edition of _Edward II._ Nor have I noticed the schoolboy
interpretation that explains "their" in _Henry V._, Epil. l. 13, as
referring to _2_ and _3 Henry VI._: "their," _more Shakespeariano_,
like "they" in the previous line, refers in form to the "many" of l.
12, but in meaning to the actors of _1 Henry VI._, in which play, and
not in _3 Henry VI._, the loss of France is treated of. It is also
most unlikely that the 1600 edition of _The Duke of York_ should have
been issued as played by Pembroke's servants if the play had been
previously acted by the Chamberlain's. Compare the parallel case of
_Andronicus_. Miss Lee's statement, "Greene wrote, Nash tells us,"
more than four others "for Lord Pembroke's company," is absolutely
without foundation. Nash says "the company" (_Apology_, 1593), and
evidently alludes to the Queen's men, for whom _Orlando_, _Bacon_,
_Selimus_, and _The Looking-glass_ were written. In fact, Greene's only
known connection with any other company was his fraudulent selling of
_Orlando_ a second time to the Admiral's. Marlowe, and he alone, is
_known_ as a writer for Pembroke's: Kyd may have been, however, and in
my opinion was, a contributor to their stage.
_Richard III._ is closely connected with _3 Henry VI._, and written
with direct reference to it. In i. 2. 158, iv. 2. 98, iv. 4. 275,
scenes in that play are plainly alluded to. Nor is it possible, if the
two plays be read in immediate sequence, to avoid the feeling that
they have a common authorship. On the other hand, a closer analysis
shows that in _Richard_ the Latin quotations, classical allusions,
and peculiar animal similes which are characteristic of _Henry_ have
entirely disappeared. There are also discrepancies, such as Gray's
fighting for the Lancastrians, i. 3. 130, whereas in _3 Henry VI._,
iii. 2. 2, he is represented as a Yorkist, which shows a different
hand in the two plays. _Richard III._ has always been regarded as
entirely Shakespeare's, and its likeness to _3 Henry VI._ has more than
anything else kept alive the untenable belief that this last-named
play was also, in part or wholly, written by our greatest dramatist.
Yet the unlikeness of _Richard III._ to the other historical plays of
Shakespeare, and the impracticability of finding a definite position
for it, metrically or æsthetically, in any chronological arrangement,
have made themselves felt. Even cautious Mr. Halliwell says, "There are
slight traces of an older play to be observed, passages which belong
to an inferior hand;" and again, "To the circumstance of an anterior
work having been used do we owe some of its weakness and excessively
turbulent character" (_Outlines_, 94). A careful examination of the
editions will be found to confirm and extend this conclusion. The
1597 Quarto Q_{1}, which is evidently an abridged version made for
the stage, and which no doubt was the version acted during nearly all
Elizabeth's reign, differs from the Folio in a way not to be paralleled
in any other Shakespearian play. Minute alterations have been made in
almost every speech, in a fashion which could not have been customary
with him who uttered his thoughts so easily as scarcely to make a
blot (_i.e._ alteration) in his papers. The question of anteriority
of the Q. and F. versions has been hotly debated on æsthetic grounds;
but the mere expurgation of oaths and metrical emendations in F. are
enough to show that it is the later version, probably made c. 1602;
while the fact that it was preferred by the editors of the 1623 Folio
shows that they considered it the authentic copy of Shakespeare's work.
In other instances, _Macbeth_, _The Tempest_, &c., they have indeed
given us abridged editions; but there is neither proof nor likelihood
that any other were accessible. We do not know what original copies
were destroyed in the Globe fire of 1613, and should be thankful for
such versions as we have, which were probably the acting versions
used at Blackfriars. But in this case the editors had at hand the
Quartos, and unless they thought the Folio more authentic, I cannot
see why they preferred it. Furthermore, the F. version appears to have
been defective in some places; for v. 3. 50, end of play, and iii.
1. 17-165, are certainly printed from Q_{3} (1602). This has been
controverted, but on very insufficient grounds. Now directly we compare
the Folio and Quarto versions, we meet with evidence that alteration
and correction have been largely used in both of them. For instance,
Derby is found as a character in the play in i. 1, ii. 1, 2, iv. 5, v.
5, in both versions; in iii. 1. 2, iv. 1, v. 2, he is called Stanley.
This shows correction by a second hand. In iv. 1, while Stanley has
been inserted in the text, Derby remains in the prefixes; v. 3 is only
partially corrected, and both names occur. The names were not used
indifferently, for in iv. 2, 4, we find Stanley in F. but Derby in Q.
This shows a progressive correction in which Q. precedes F. It may be
noticed that Darby is the original author's spelling. In like manner,
_Gloster_, the original prefix, has in i. 1, 2, 3, ii. 1. 2, iii. 4, 5,
7, been replaced in F. by _Richard_, but in iii. 1, in the part printed
from Q_{3}, and there only, _Gloster_ remains. So again Margaret is
indicated in the older version by _Qu. Mar._, _Qu. M._, &c., but
never _Mar._, as in F. iv. 4. In F. i. 3 we find by side of _Mar._
a remainder of the older form in _Q. M._ This is not an exhaustive
statement, but sufficient I think to show that alterations were made,
as I suggest. There can be little doubt that in this, as in _John_,
Shakespeare derived his plot and part of his text from an anterior
play, the difference in the two cases being that in _Richard III._
he adopted much more of his predecessor's text. I believe that the
anterior play was Marlowe's, partly written for Lord Strange's company
in 1593, but left unfinished at Marlowe's death, and completed and
altered by Shakespeare in 1594. It was no doubt on the stage when, on
19th June 1594, the older play on _Richard III._, "with the conjunction
of the two Houses of Lancaster and York," was entered S. R. That was
acted by the Queen's players. The unhistorical but grandly classical
conception of Margaret, the Cassandra prophetess, the Helen-Ate of the
House of Lancaster, which binds the whole tetralogy into one work,
is evidently due to Marlowe, and the consummate skill with which he
has fused the heterogeneous contributions of his coadjutors in the
two earlier _Henry VI._ plays is no less worthy of admiration. I do
not think it possible to separate Marlowe's work from Shakespeare's
in this play--it is worked in with too cunning a hand; but wherever
we find _Darby_, _Qu. M._, _Glo._, &c., we may be sure that some of
his handiwork is left. Could any critic, if the older _John_ were
destroyed, tell us which lines had been adopted in the later play? Nor
can I enter, unless in a special monograph, on the relations of the
Quartos to each other. The question is of no importance, and I need
only say that the usual corruptions take place from Q_{1} to Q_{5},
and that in Q_{6} (1622) many readings are found agreeing with F.
which are not in the other Quartos. The same phenomenon is observed
in the 1619 edition of _The Whole Contention_, and far too much has
been made of it. It merely indicates correction by attendance at the
theatre and picking up a few words during the action. The only Quartos
deserving special notice are Q_{1}, as containing Shakespeare's first
"additions," and Q_{3}, as having been used in printing part of F. I do
not think the allusion in Weever's _Epigrams_, written 1595-6, is to
this play. It may be so.
_Titus Andronicus._--That this play is not by Shakespeare is pretty
certain from internal evidence. The Latin quotations, classical
allusions, use of _pour_ as prefix in iv. 1, manner of versification,
and above all the introduction of rape as a subject for the stage,
would be sufficient to disprove his authorship. Fortunately we know
that it was produced by the Earl of Sussex' men, 23d January 1594,
and Shakespeare belonged then to Derby's (Lord Strange's). It was
afterwards, on the breaking up of that company, acted by Pembroke's
and Derby's before 16th April, when Lord Derby died. Enlargement in
the Folio or abridgment in the Quarto, 1600 (we have no copy extant
of the first edition, entered S. R. February 1594), appears in iii.
2, found in F., not in Q., and there is a distinct continuity between
Acts i. and ii.; at the end of Act i. we have "_manet_ Moore," not
_Exeunt_ simply. Whether this play got into the Folio by some confusion
with _Titus and Vespasian_, played by Lord Strange's men 11th April
1592, which was, as we know from a German version extant, written on
the same subject, and in which Shakespeare may have had some share,
we cannot tell; but it was certainly played and revised (there was
another edition in 1611), while the other play has perished. That it
was written by Marlowe I incline to think. What other mind but the
author of _The Jew of Malta_ could have conceived Aaron the Moor? Mr.
Dyce has warned us against attributing too many plays to the short
career of Marlowe, but he did not consider that Marlowe probably wrote
two plays a year from 1587-1593, and that we have only at present seven
acknowledged as his. Those now attributed to him, in whole or part, by
me will raise the number to a baker's dozen; but in some of these, as
the older _John_ and _1_ and _2 Henry VI._, his share was comparatively
slight. Nevertheless, I think the opinion that Kyd wrote this play of
_Andronicus_ worth the examination, although, with such evidence as has
yet been adduced, Marlowe has certainly the better claim. Shakespeare
probably never touched this play unless by inserting iii. 2, which is
possible.
_Edward III._ The Shakespearian part of this play, i. 3, ii. 1. 2
(beginning at "What, are the stealing foxes"), which contains lines
from the then unpublished _Sonnets_, ii. 1. 10, 450, and an allusion
to the recently published _Lucreece_, ii. 2. 194, was clearly acted in
1594, after 9th May, when _Lucreece_ was entered on S. R. _Edward III._
was entered 1st December 1595. This love-story part is from Painter's
_Palace of Pleasure_. The original play is by Marlowe, and was acted in
1590 and is thus alluded to in Greene's _Never too Late_, c. December
in that year: "Why, Roscius, art thou proud with Æsop's crow, being
prankt with the glory of others' feathers? Of thyself thou canst say
nothing; and if the Cobler hath taught thee to say _Ave Cæsar_, disdain
not thy tutor because thou pratest in a king's chamber." _Ave Cæsar_
occurs in i. 1. 164, but not in any other play of this date have I been
able to find it. There are many similarities between the Marlowe part
of this play and _Henry VI._ As the Roscius in Greene's pamphlet was
the player who had interpreted the puppets for seven years, who induced
Greene to write for the stage, and had himself written _The Moral of
Man's Wit_ and _The Dialogue of Dives_, there can be no doubt that
Robert Wilson is Roscius, and that he was an actor in _Edward III._ in
1590. It was acted by Pembroke's company, and must have been acquired
by Lord Strange's men with the other Pembroke plays in 1594.
SECTION VI.
ON THE PLAYS BY OTHER AUTHORS ACTED BY SHAKESPEARE'S COMPANY.
DURING Shakespeare's career, 1589-1611, we only know of some two
dozen plays having been produced by his "fellows," in addition to the
three dozen included in his works; and of these, about two-fifths are
anonymous, and have been at some time or other ascribed, in whole or
part, to the great master. It is evident that he had the management
of the playwriting for his house pretty nearly in his own hands, and
that his method was the polar opposite to that of which we know most,
viz., Henslowe's. While the latter employed twelve poets in a year,
who produced for the Admiral's men a new play every fortnight or so,
the Chamberlain's company depended almost entirely on two poets at
a time, and produced not more than four new plays a year. Hence the
explanation of the vastly higher character of the Globe plays as
compared with the Fortune: hence also the explanation of the small pay
and needy condition of the latter, and their jealousy of the rapid
advancement in wealth and position of Shakespeare, who had virtually a
monopoly of play-providing for his company. It would be out of place to
discuss at length the plays written for it by Jonson, Dekker, &c., but
fuller notice of the anonymous plays is due to the reader. They have,
strange to say, never yet been treated as a complete group; and yet
surely as much may be learned by considering Shakespeare's theatrical
surroundings, the plays in which he acted, and which he probably had
more or less suggested, supervised, or revised, as by elaborately
working out the debtor and creditor details of his malt-bills. I will
treat of these plays in nearly chronological order.
1590.
_Fair Em_ is the earliest play we certainly know of as acted by Lord
Strange's company. It is alluded to by Greene in his address prefixed
to his _Farewell to Folly_. He quotes as abusing of Scripture, "A man's
conscience is a thousand witnesses," and "Love covereth the multitude
of sins," and says these words were used by "two lovers on the stage
arguing one another of unkindness." Greene's tract was written and
entered S. R. 1st June 1587, but not published till 1591, when the
address which mentions his _Mourning Garment_ (S. R. November 2, 1590)
was added. _Fair Em_ dates, therefore, late in 1590. It was probably
written by R. Wilson, and is certainly not a romantic, but a satirical
play; else why should Greene have been offended at it?
In Sc. 14 of _The Three Ladies of London_, produced before 1584,
Wilson uses the expression, "I, Conscience, am a thousand witnesses,"
and in his _Three Lords and Three Ladies of London_, acted at Court,
Christmas 1588-9, Sc. 2, "Love doth cover heaps of cumbrous evils." In
order to explain the nature of the satire in _Fair Em_, it is necessary
to investigate a hitherto unnoticed identification of Worcester's
1586 company with the Admiral's, of the highest importance for stage
history as determining the actors in Marlowe's early plays. On Twelfth
Day 1585-6, "the servants of the Admiral and the Lord Chamberlain"
acted at Court, _i.e._ the players of Lord Charles Howard, who held
both these offices. Mr. Halliwell (_Illustrations_, p. 31) confused
this Chamberlain with Lord Hunsdon, and takes the entry to refer to
_two_ companies. I sent him a correction of these and many other
blunders, which he has never rectified, years ago--a fact which I
should not notice had he not publicly complained that, with one or
two exceptions, of whom I am not one, he had received no help of this
kind. Of this Admiral's company in the plague year, 1586, there is
no trace in London; but in that year, and that year only, a company
travelled under the protection of the Earl of Worcester. They were
licensed for this travel on 14th January, and were at Leicester in the
course of the year (Shakespeare Society's Papers, iv.); their names
were R. Browne, J. Tunstall (Dunstan), E. Allen, W. Harryson, T. Cooke,
R. Jones, E. Browne, R. Andrews; all of whom were licensed, together
with hired men, T. Powlton and W. Paterson, "Lord Harbard's man,"
_i.e._ a member of the company of Herbert Earl of Pembroke: a scratch
company evidently, but containing names of celebrated London actors.
In 1587 and 1588, the Admiral's men acted in London publicly, and at
Christmas 1588-9 at Court. On 3d January 1588-9, Alleyn and Jones
(acting evidently for the company) dissolved partnership, and Alleyn
bought up their properties and play-books. In November the Admiral's
men were playing about the City, and not at the Curtain, where they
had probably produced _Tamberlain_, _Faustus_, _Orlando_, _Alcazar_,
and _Marius and Sylla_; and in their Court performance on 23d December
were reduced to showing "feats of activity." In 1590 R. Brown and
Jones went abroad and acted at Leyden in October. They returned, and on
December 27 and February 16 the Admiral's men acted at Court for the
last time before the reconstitution of their company in 1594. Already
R. Brown, J. Broadstreet, T. Sackville, and R. Jones had obtained a
pass from Lord C. Howard, the Admiral, their patron, to travel to
Germany by way of Holland, and a company acted there till 1617 under
Sackville. Jones returned to England and joined the reconstituted
Admiral's company under Allen in 1594. Alleyn had never relinquished
the title of Admiral's servant, even when in Lord Strange's service in
1593. Putting these facts together, can there be any doubt that the
service under Worcester was merely temporary, and that in the list of
1586 we have that of the principal actors in the Admiral's company?
Mr. R. Simpson, to whom we owe so much as a discoverer of problems to
be solved, and so little for their solution, rightly stated that _Fair
Em_ was a satirical play, and that Manvile (or Mandeville, the lying
traveller) meant Greene, and Mounteney the aspiring Marlowe. He was
wrong in identifying Valingford with Shakespeare--he was Peele (valing,
an old castle or peele--_Camden_)--and doubly wrong in making William
Conqueror Kempe. Robert of Windsor, his travelling name, points to
Robert Browne; and it was to Browne's company that Marlowe and Peele
had been attached, not to Kempe's. The names William Conqueror and
Marquess Lubeck were probably names of characters which had been acted
by Browne and Jones, perhaps in the play of _William Conqueror_, which
was on the stage as an old play in 1593. Fair Em of Manchester is no
doubt, as Mr. Simpson says, Lord Strange's company of players.
1622 [often, but wrongly, dated c. 1591].
_The Birth of Merlin, or The Child hath Found his Father_, was
published in 1662 as "written by W. Shakespeare and W. Rowley." Rowley
probably revised the play for a revival c. 1622, but in the main it
is manifestly by another hand. The comic scenes with Joan Goto't may
be Rowley's, but the serious parts are palpably Middleton's. I owe
the suggestion of his authorship to Mr. P. A. Daniel. A ballad on the
subject was entered on 10th May 1589, S. R. In ii. 3_b_ iii. 6 we have
some very interesting imitations of Shakespeare. Cutting out the Rowley
additions in iii. 1. 4, I would ask the reader to carefully compare the
remaining parts of ii. 3_b_, beginning with _Aurel_. "Artesia, dearest
love," iii. 2. 3. 5. 6, with such passages of Shakespeare as they call
to memory: _e.g._ iii. 2, "This world is but a mask," &c., with _As
You Like It_, ii. 7. 139, &c., and iii. 3. 1-6 with _Lear_, iii. 2.
1-9. Compare especially the definition of a crab as "a creature that
goes backward" in ii. 3, with _Hamlet_, ii. 2. 206, "if like a crab
you could go backward." Crab as the name of an animal does not occur
elsewhere in Shakespeare. I believe the early plays on this subject,
_Vortiger_, 4th December 1596, and _Uter Pendragon_, 29th April 1597,
in Henslowe's Diary, to be alluded to by Jonson in his Prologue to
_Every Man in his Humour_, 1601--
"To make a child now swaddled to proceed
Man: and then shoot up _in one beard and weed_
Past threescore years."
1592.
June. _A [Merry] Knack to Know a Knave_ was acted as a new play at
the Rose by Edward Alleyn and his company (_i.e._ Lord Strange's)
"with Kempe's _Merriments of the Men of Gotham_." The introduction
of Honesty as a principal character points to R. Wilson the elder as
the author. It was certainly not written by Greene and Nash, as Mr.
Simpson supposes. Besides this play and a number of revivals, mostly of
plays of the Queen's company (see my _Shakespearian Study_, p. 88),
Lord Strange's men acted this season certain new plays: on March 3, _1
Henry VI._; April 11, _Titus and Vespasian_ (these have been already
noticed): April 28, 2_d_. _Tambercame_; May 23, _The Taner of Denmark_;
and in 1593, January 5, _The Gelyous [Jealious] Comedy_; January 30,
_The Guise_ (_i.e._ Marlowe's _Massacre of Paris_).
1594.
July 24, _Locrine_ was entered S. R. and published in 1595 as "newly
set forth, overseen, and corrected by W. S." I see no reason to infer
that W. S. is William Shakespeare. The play was written, according to
Mr. Simpson, by Tilney in 1586. I rather think for him by G. Peele.
Shakespeare has no concern with it further than the letters W. S.
indicate.
1595 [possibly 1599].
_A 'Larum for London, or The Siege of Antwerp_, was acted about this
time. It was published in 1602, but entered S. R. 29th May 1600. The
title at once points it out as a moralising play, of the same class as
_A Looking-Glass for London_; didactic as to politics. I believe it
to be by the same author, T. Lodge. The fear of a Spanish invasion
is evident in the play. In July 1595 the Spaniards made a descent on
Cornwall and burned Mouse Hole, Neulin, and Penzance. This is the most
likely time for any real danger to London from the Spaniards to have
been apprehended. Lodge, probably in the next year, wrote _The Taming
of the Shrew_ (afterwards altered by Shakespeare) for the Chamberlain's
company. The seldom-used word _villiaco_, found in this play, occurs in
_2 Henry VI._, iv. 8, in the part I assign to Lodge.
1596.
_The Life and Death of Sir Thomas More_ was certainly acted in this
year. That this also was a political play is evident from the numerous
alterations made in the MS. by E. Tylney, Master of the Revels. He
specially objected to all passages directed against the French; and cut
out entirely Scene 1, the insurrection scene. This must have alluded
too closely to events of the time. Now on 29th June 1595 there was
an insurrection of the London Prentices, suppressed by the then Lord
Mayor just in the same way as that in the play by Sheriff More. (See
Maitland and Stowe under that date.) Moreover, in October 1595 Hartford
was imprisoned in the Tower for contempt, and threatened with loss of
his title, just as More is in the play, which was no doubt acted while
he was in prison (Aikin's _Elizabeth_, chap, xxiv.) I have previously
noted the certainty of this play being acted by the Chamberlain's
players, T. Goodale being one of the actors. It was probably written
chiefly by Lodge; but some scenes, such as Scene 2 with the Lifter
and Scenes 9, 10, with Faulkner and the players, bear unmistakable
marks of another hand, the same, I think, as the author of _Lord
Cromwell_. It is a singular play, containing a comedy, Scenes 1-10,
and a tragedy, Scenes 11-18, in one. This leads me to conjecture that
it is the same play as was played by the Paul's children before James
and the King of Denmark, 30th July 1606. This contained a comedy and
tragedy, and was called _Abuses_. I need hardly say that this title
is specially appropriate to _Sir T. More_. It pleased the kings, as
was to be expected, more than it did the authorities under Elizabeth.
We know that some plays of the Chamberlain's company passed into the
hands of the Paul's boys, _e.g._ _Satiromastix_. The part of Justice
Suresby is probably the one alluded to in _The Return from Parnassus_,
iv. 3, where Kempe tells Philomusus (Lodge) that his face "would be
good for a foolish mayor or a foolish justice of peace." In the same
scene, Studioso (Drayton) is made to recite from _Richard III._ and
_Jeronymo_, both which plays were still acted by the Chamberlain's men
in 1599; so that Drayton was looked on in 1602 as a tragedian, Lodge
as a comedian. This agrees with Meres' classification of them in 1598.
Nevertheless it is certain that both of them produced both tragedies
and comedies.
1597-9.
_The Merry Devil of Edmonton_, acted at the Globe, and therefore still
on the stage in 1599, was closely connected with the early form of
_1 Henry IV._, in which Falstaff was called Oldcastle (see _supra_,
p. 33). Coxeter says that it was ascribed in an old MS. of the play
to Michael Drayton. No doubt it was written by him. The character of
the Host, and indeed all the play, are so like parts of _Sir John
Oldcastle_, which we know to have been partly written by Drayton, that
it is not possible to doubt the identity of authorship. That play was
written by Munday (i. 1; v. 2--end), Wilson (? i. 2; ii. 3; iii. 4),
Hathaway (? iii. 1; v. 1), and Drayton, who probably was the plotter
and chief composer. _The Merry Devil_ was entered S. R. 22d October
1607. The entry on 5th April 1608 refers to the prose history by Thomas
Brewer. Nevertheless that entry has been confidently adduced by Mr.
Halliwell and others as proof that Drayton did not write the play (see
Halliwell's _Dictionary of Old Plays_ under _Merry Devil_): which as
printed is evidently greatly abridged. All the part relating to Smug's
taking the place of St. George as the sign of the inn, for instance,
which is found in the prose story, must have been cut out, though an
allusion to it is left in the end of the play. This alteration was
probably made c. 1603-4, as in the _Black Book_ (S. R. 22d March 1604)
a revival of the play contemporaneous with _The Woman Killed with
Kindness_ is alluded to. It remained popular even to 1616: Jonson's
prologue to _The Devil is an Ass_ calls it "your dear delight." That
play is of a somewhat similar nature, founded on the adventures of
a devil incarnate; so also are Dekker's _If this be not a Good Play
the Devil's in it_, and Haughton's _Grim the Cobler of Croydon, or
The Devil and his Dame_ (6th May 1600). In this last, which gives a
posterior limit of date, Robin Goodfellow calls himself "merry devil,"
and is no doubt intended as a satire on Drayton, as is also the Robin
Goodfellow of _Wily Beguiled_, 1597. In _Sir Giles Goosecap_ by
Chapman, the continued usage by Goosecap of the phrases "tickle the
vanity on't" and "we are all mortal" points to Drayton as the person
ridiculed under that name; while in _2 Henry IV._, ii. l. 66, Falstaff
uses the exact phrase of Smug in scene 3 of "tickling the catastrophe."
Another point of connection with Shakespearian satire of this date is
found in the term Hungarian, scene 8, which occurs in _Merry Wives_,
i. 3. 23, and nowhere else in Shakespeare. The great similarity of
the Hosts in these two plays has been often noted. There is much
confusion in the Christian names in our present version of the _Merry
Devil_, an indication of revision. Drayton's first connection with the
Chamberlain's company was in my opinion his writing the Induction for
_The Taming of the Shrew_ in 1596, afterwards altered by Shakespeare.
_The Merry Devil_ was entered as Shakespeare's on S. R. 9th September
1653, probably on account of the similarity of title with _The Merry
Wives of Windsor_; and this similarity does point to a connection,
though not of authorship, between these plays. The Oldcastle play,
acted 6th March 1600 at Lord Hunsdon's, was probably _The Merry Devil_.
1594.
_The Seven Deadly Sins_, an old play plotted for the Queen's company by
Tarleton, was revived. I have had already occasion to refer to the plot
of this play, which is extant at Dulwich College.
1598-9.
_A Warning for Fair Women_ was entered S. R. 17th November 1599, and
printed as "lately divers times acted" by the Chamberlain's men. Its
title, so like _A Looking-Glass for London_ and _A 'Larum for London_,
its didactic character, its Induction, with History, Tragedy, and
Comedy for actors, so like that to _Mucedorus_, and its style and
metre all point to Thomas Lodge as the author. As a murder-play it
should be compared with _Arden of Feversham_, _The Yorkshire Tragedy_,
and _Two Tragedies in One_. Plays on similar subjects, such as _Page
of Plymouth_, by Dekker and Jonson, September 1599; _The Tragedy of
Merry_, by Haughton and Day, December 1599; _The Tragedy of Orphans_,
by Chettle, November 1599; and perhaps _The Stepmother's Tragedy_, by
Dekker and Chettle, October 1599, were very abundant just at this time.
This seems to be Lodge's final original production for the stage.
1598-9.
_Every Man in his Humour_ in its first form, with the Italian names, in
the latter part of 1598, and his _Every Man out of his Humour_ in the
spring of 1599, both by Jonson, were acted by the Chamberlain's men.
Jonson then left them and wrote for the children of the Chapel.
1601.
_Satiromastix_ was written by Dekker against Jonson's _Poetaster_ for
the Chamberlain's men, and acted first by them and afterwards by the
Paul's boys.
1601.
_The Chronicle History of Thomas Lord Cromwell_ was entered S. R. 11th
August 1602. This is clearly a political play, in which the career of
Cromwell Earl of Essex shadows forth another Earl of Essex, of much
greater interest to an audience of 1601. One scene, iii. 2, reminds
us strongly of scene 9 in _Sir T. More_; and the whole play is very
like the part of _Sir John Oldcastle_ assigned by me to Drayton. In
Act iv. the Chorus apologises for the omission of Wolsey's life. That
had, in fact, been treated already by Chettle in August 1601, and by
Chettle, Munday, Drayton, and Smith in November 1601, in two plays
for the Admiral's men. Drayton's last work for them was done in May
1602 and _Cromwell_ was probably acted in June. The second edition,
1613, had "by W.S." on the title. This was clearly an attempt, like
the "by W. Sh." in the 1611 edition of the older _John_, to father
the play on Shakespeare after his retirement from theatrical life.
It has been supposed that Wentworth Smith is indicated. This is most
unlikely. Smith was a hack writer for Henslowe, 1601-3, not one scrap
of whose work was ever thought worth publishing; and that he, at the
same date that he was a "novice" in the Admiral's, should have been
an independent author for the Chamberlain's, is one of the plausible
figments that will not be received by any one acquainted with stage
history. If W.S. are authentic initials, W. Sly is a more likely
claimant.
1603.
_The London Prodigal_ was published in 1605, with the name of William
Shakespeare on the title-page. This surely shows some connection of
Shakespeare with its authorship. It is true that in 1600 his name had
been attached to _Sir John Oldcastle_ in one of the editions then
printed, and that he could not have written, or been concerned with the
writing of, that play; but the peculiar relation in which it stands
to his historical plays places it in a very different category from a
play which was acted by his own company, and over the publication of
which he may be supposed to have had some control, direct or indirect.
Perhaps he "plotted" it. At the same time it should be noticed that
the publisher, Butter, was the same man who issued the Quarto of
_Lear_ in 1608, which was certainly derived from an authentic copy,
however carelessly printed; while Pavier, who published _Oldcastle_,
was notoriously an issuer of surreptitious and piratical editions.
This play is certainly by the same hand as the _Cromwell_. In iii.
3, "And where nought is the king doth lose his due," with which
compare _Cromwell_, ii. 3, "And where nought is the king must lose his
right," is taken from Nash's _Unfortunate Traveller_ (p. 15, Grosart's
reprint), "When it is not to be had the king must lose his right."
Compare, also, "Pardon, dear father, the follies that are past," v.
1, with _Cromwell_, iv. chorus, "Pardon the errors are already past,"
and the passing of St. George's inn in i. 2 with the _Merry Devil_
plot. The date of production is certainly 1603. The words "under the
King," ii. 1, and the allusion to Armin the actor, who took the part of
Matthew Flowerdale, "So young an armin," v. 1, forbid an earlier date.
This last allusion, by the bye, has never previously been explained. On
the other hand, the allusions to Cutting Dick, ii. 2, _The Devil and
his Dame_, iv. 2 (Mar. 1600), and to "wanton Cressid," v. i. (1602),
would lose much effect at a later date. The name Greenshield was
adopted from this play in the "comical satire" of _Northward Ho_, 1605,
as Frescobald was in _The Honest Whore_, 1603, from _Cromwell_.
1603.
_Sejanus_, by Jonson, was acted this year. Jonson had returned to the
Chamberlain's men from the Admiral's, for whom he wrote after leaving
the Chapel children in 1601; but this play being a political satire on
Leicester got the company into trouble, and he again left them for the
children of the Revels. See _supra_, p. 49.
1604.
_The Malcontent_, by Marston, was acted "with the additions played by
the King's Majesty's servants" by Webster, and entered S. R. 25th July.
This play belonged to the Revels' children, and was appropriated in
retaliation for their playing _Jeronymo_, which was the property of the
King's men. (See the Induction.) Compare p. 52.
1604.
_Gowry_, already noticed, was performed this year.
1603-4.
_The Miseries of Enforced Marriage_, by George Wilkins, was entered
S. R. 31st July 1607. It was founded on the life of Mr. Caverley,
the hero of _The Yorkshire Tragedy_, and the play ends with a
reconciliation before October 1603, when his third child was born, and
dating about January or February, just before the accession of King
James. This play was written before 1605. Mr. P.A. Daniel discovered
the identity of story in it and in _The Yorkshire Tragedy_. The share
of G. Wilkins in the authorship of _Timon_ and _Pericles_ has already
been noticed. He left the King's company for the Queen's in 1607,
before publishing the present play. He is not the G. Wilkins who died
in 1603: Mr. W.C. Hazlitt's statement in his _Handbook_ to that effect
is a mistake.
1605.
_A Yorkshire Tragedy_, founded on the same story, was certainly acted
soon after the execution of Caverley, 5th August 1605. The murdered
children were buried in April. The prose account of Caverley's trial
was entered S. R. 24th August, and the story of his life was printed by
V. S. (Valentine Simmes) in the same year. The play was entered S. R.
2d May 1608, and printed as by William Shakespeare. I cannot think that
this was unauthorised. Compare the parallel instance of _The London
Prodigal_. Was the author his brother Edmund; and did Shakespeare
assist in or revise his work? (See p. 60.) The "young mistress" of
Scene 1 is the Clare Harcup of the _Enforced Marriage_, and her decline
is inconsistent with her death in that play, but in accordance with
facts. Together with three other probably similar short plays it was
acted as _All's One, or one of the Four Plays in One_.
1605.
_Volpone or the Fox_, by Jonson, was acted in this year.
1605-6.
_Mucedorus_, an old play, originally written, I think, for the Queen's
company by T. Lodge, was revived under exceptional circumstances, with
additions at Court. From the added part at the end of the play it
appears that "a lean hungry neagre (meagre) cannibal," "a scrambling
raven with a needy beard," had written "a comedy" for the King's
players, containing "dark sentences pleasing to factious brains," and
that information had been given to "a puissant magistrate," and that
the players feared "great danger or at least restraint" in consequence.
Moreover, this "unwilling error" had been lately "presented" to the
King: nevertheless, not being "boys," but "men," they had avoided the
"trap," apologised, and been pardoned. The only known new comedy, not
Shakespeare's, produced by the King's men between 1604 and 1610 was
Jonson's _Fox_. It contains a good deal, even in its present state,
that must have been unpalatable at Court, especially on monopolies
and spies; and Jonson altered his plays so much after performance for
publication, that it is dangerous to draw conclusions as to what the
play may have originally contained. One thing in it, however, was
particularly "obnoxious to construction," the miraculous "Oglio del
Scoto," which, in the case of one who was this same year imprisoned for
satirising the Scots in _Eastward Ho_, might well be taken as a gird
at the Scotch King's miraculous charisma in treating for the King's
evil. It is to the _Eastward Ho_ affair that the "trap for boys, not
men," alludes; and the meagreness and "needy beard" plainly indicate
Jonson as the "raven" (Corbaccio) who wrote the comedy. In accordance
with this view stands the fact that on the Christmas succeeding this
unfortunate performance of 1605-6 there was no Court masque produced by
Jonson. The date hitherto assigned to the "additions" in _Mucedorus_
has been 1610, because the edition of that year was issued as it was
acted before the King on Shrove Sunday night. But there was no Court
performance in the 1609-10 winter on account of the plague. The date
1610 is therefore impossible; the words on the title were probably
repeated in the usual way from the 1606 edition, of which, though
mentioned in Beauclerc's _Catalogue_, 1781, no copy unfortunately is
extant. Of the authorship of the original play, with its Induction,
"cooling-card" mark, and many similarities to _Marius and Sylla_, there
can be no doubt: it was written by Lodge. Who wrote the "additions" in
1605-6 it would be hard to say: perhaps Wilkins.
1607-11.
_The Revenger's Tragedy_ by Cyril Tourneur (?) was entered S. R. 7th
October 1607, and probably acted not long before. The Second _Maiden's
Tragedy_, licensed in 1611, which we know to have been acted by the
King's men, was probably by the same author.
In 1610 Jonson returned to the King's men (he had been writing for
the Revels' children since he left, after producing _Volpone_), and
his _Alchemist_ was acted in that year; in 1611 his _Cataline_, and
Beaumont and Fletcher's _Philaster_, _Maid's Tragedy_, and _King and no
King_; c. 1612 Webster's _Duchess of Malfy_ was produced. The further
prosecution of this subject belongs to a life of Fletcher rather than
of Shakespeare.
SECTION VII.
EARLY ENGLISH PLAYS IN GERMANY.
THE importance of the performance of English plays in Germany and
its bearings on our own stage history has never been duly estimated.
This is owing to the fact that the groups of such plays have not been
treated as wholes, only isolated references to single dramas having
been occasionally made by our critics. I must here confine myself to
such groups as have reference to the productions of Shakespeare. In
1626-7 a company of Englishmen acted at Dresden, and a list of their
performances has fortunately been preserved (Cohn, _Shakespeare in
Germany_, p. 115). This company appears from their Christian names
to have been the Company of the Revels, which broke up in 1625 in
the plague-time. In the _Runaway's Answer_, 1625, to Dekker's _Rod
for Runaways_, which was directed against those who left London for
fear of the plague, the players say, "We can be bankrupts on this
side and gentlemen of a company beyond the sea: we burst at London
and are pieced up at Rotterdam." The 1626 Dresden company were
Robert Pickleherring [R. Lee] and two boys; Jacob der Hesse, and
Johan Eydtwardtt (two Germans); Aaron the dancer (probably a German
Jew); Thomas die Jungfrau [T. Basse], John [Cumber], William the
wardrobe-keeper (probably a German), the Englishman, the Redhaired,
and four boys. The other members of the Revels' company can be traced
in England; and although Robert, Thomas, and John are common christian
names, they are not to be found in conjunction in any other list of
English players of the date. The plays acted by these men were the
following:--
1. _Duke of Mantua and Duke of Verona._ Comedy.
2. _Christabella._ C.
3. _Amphitryon._ C.
4. _Romeo and Julietta._ Tragedy. [Founded on Shakespeare's play of
1591; extant in German MS., and printed by Cohn.]
5. _Duke of Florence._ Tragi-Comedy. [Not Massinger's play, which
is of ten years' later date.]
6. _King of Spain and ViceRoy of Portugal._ C. [Kyd's _Jeronymo_,
c. 1588.]
7. _Julius Cæsar._ T. [Query, the old play mentioned by Gosson in
1580, or the Admiral's play of 1594, or Shakespeare's, or the
Admiral's of 1602, or the Oxford of 1606, or Chapman's, or the
old play on which Chapman's is founded? The last most likely.]
8. _Crysella._ C.
9. _Duke of Ferrara._ C.
10. _Somebody and Nobody._ T.C. [Printed in German, 1620; extant in
an altered form, by Heywood in my judgment, as played by Queen
Anne's men in English; published c. 1609. In its original form
acted c. 1591.]
11. _King of Denmark and King of Sweden._ T. C. [_Clyomon and
Clamydes_. ? by R. Wilson, c. 1585.]
12. _Hamlet, Prince of Denmark._ T. [From Kyd's old play, c.
1589; extant in modernised MS. in Germany; printed in Cohn. The
Induction with Night and the Furies is quite in Kyd's manner.]
13. _Orlando Furioso._ C. [Greene's play, c. 1587.]
14. _King of England and King of Scotland._ C. [Greene (and
Lodge)'s _James IV._, 1591.]
15. _Hieronymo, Marshal of Spain._ T. [Kyd's _Spanish Tragedy_, c.
1588.]
16. _Haman and Queen Esther._ T. C. [Printed in German, 1620, from
an English play acted in 1594 by the Chamberlain's men, but an
_old_ play then; originally not later than 1591. Compare the
interlude in Kirkman's _Wits_, which was probably founded on it.
The German play ought to be made accessible to English readers.]
17. _The Martyr Dorothea._ T. [Perhaps from a play by Dekker and
Massinger, revived for the Revels' company between 1619 and
1622. This is the only play in this list to which I can assign a
definite date later than 1592. But were both taken from an older
play?]
18. _Dr. Faust._ T. [Marlowe's play, 1588.]
19. _King of Arragon._ T. C. [Greene's _Alphonsus_, c. 1588.]
20. _Fortunatus._ T. [Printed in German, 1620, as _Comedy of
Fortunatus and his Purse and Wishing Cap_, in which appear first
three dead souls as spirits, and afterwards the Virtues and
Shame. Evidently from the first part of _Fortunatus_ by Dekker,
as acted, 3d February 1596, as an _old_ play. It was probably
written c. 1591. This play like (16.) ought to be made accessible
to English readers.]
21. _Joseph, the Jew of Venice._ C. [From another early play
of Dekker's, c. 1591. The German version is extant in MS. in
the Imperial Library at Vienna, and ought to be edited and
translated. The Jew, however, is therein called Barabbas, and
there are three suitors, as in Shakespeare's play, but no
caskets. Dekker's play was entered 9th September 1653 on S. R.]
22. _The Dextrous Thief._ T.C.
23. _Duke of Venice._ T.C.
24. _Barrabas, the Jew of Malta._ T. [Marlowe's play, 1589.]
25. _Old Proculus._ C.
26. _Lear, King of England._ T. [From the old Queen's play, c.
1589. Yet it is strange that it should be called a tragedy. It
would hardly be Shakespeare's play, as no other of so late date
occurs in the list.]
27. _The Godfather._ T.C.
28. _The Prodigal Son._ C. [Printed in German, 1620. Translated
in Simpson's _School of Shakespeare_. Probably from an old play
revived by Heywood for Derby's men c. 1599, but originally
founded on Greene's _Mourning Garment_, 1590, and written (for
what company?) c. 1591. So I conjecture.]
29. _The Graf of Angiers._ C.
30. _The Rich Man._ T. [Acted on 17th September 1646 as _The Rich
Man and the Poor Lazarus_. Perhaps from a very old play by Ralph
Radcliffe before 1553; more likely from the Moral by the player
(? R. Wilson) in Greene's _Groatsworth of Wit_, 1592, who wrote
the Moral of _Man's Wit_ and the dialogue of _Dives_, and played
in _Delphrigus_, _The King of Fairies_, _The Twelve Labors of
Hercules_, and _The Highway to Heaven_.]
It appears from this list that while only one, if any, of these plays,
_Dorothea_, which was probably taken with them by the Revels' company
in 1625, can be assigned to a comparatively late date with certainty,
the majority are early productions, anterior to 1592. Bearing in mind
that there were a large number of plays published before 1626 which
might have been used without fear of any opposition from companies
in England, it is clear that in Germany the preference was given to
older plays, which must have been imported at an early date, either
by Leicester's players in 1586, by Pembroke's in 1599, or Worcester's
[Admiral's] in 1590 and 1592. Leicester's returned to England in 1577
and Pembroke's c. 1601; but Worcester's, or rather a detachment from
the Admiral's, were permanently established in Germany. E. Brown and
R. Jones indeed came back to England; but Thomas Sackville and John
Broadstreet are traceable in Germany, the latter to 1606 and the
former to 1617. There is little doubt that the _Hamlet_ and _Romeo_,
in their German versions, are from early plays, anterior to 1592. This
conclusion is confirmed by the list of plays published in Germany
in 1620, "acted by the English in Germany at Royal, Electoral, and
Princely Courts:"--
1. _Queen Esther and Haughty Haman._ C. [16. in previous list.]
2. _The Prodigal Son_, "in which Despair and Hope are cleverly
introduced." C. [28. in previous list.]
3. _Fortunatus and his Purse and Wishing Cap_, "in which appear
first three dead souls as spirits, and afterwards the Virtues and
Shame." C. [20. in previous list.]
4. _A King's Son from England and a King's Daughter from Scotland._
C. [_Serule and Astræa_; probably the same as _Serule and
Hypolita_, acted 1631.]
5. _Sidonia and Theagine._ C.
6. _Somebody and Nobody._ C. [10. in previous list.]
7. _Julio and Hypolita._ T. [Query, _Philippo and Hypolita_, acted
as an _old_ play at the Rose, 9th July 1594; similar in plot to
_The Gentlemen of Verona_.]
8. _Titus Andronicus._ T. [Not our extant play, but the _Titus and
Vespasian_ acted by Lord Strange's men, April 1592.]
9. _The Beautiful Mary and the Old Cuckold._ A merry jest.
10. In which the clown makes merry pastime with a stone.
I am not acquainted with Ayres's plays; but it appears from Cohn (p.
64) that among them are _Mahomet the Turkish Emperor_ (from Peele's
play, c. 1591), _The Greek Emperor at Constantinople and his daughter
Pelimperia with the hanged Horatio_ (Kyd's _Spanish Tragedy_, 1588);
_Valentine and Orson_ (from an old English play S. R. 23d May 1595);
_Edward III., King of England, and Elisa Countess of Warwick_ (from
Marlowe's play, 1590: Philip Waimer had already dramatised the same
subject at Danzig in 1591); _The Beautiful Phenicia_ (on the same story
as _Much Ado_, and strongly confirming the identity of that play with
_Love's Labour's Won_, 1590: Cupid enters in person, and shoots Count
Tymborus, the Benedick of the German version); _The Two Brothers of
Syracuse_ (from the _Comedy of Errors_, c. 1590); _The Beautiful Sidea_
(containing some incidents showing that it came from some source in
common with that of the _Tempest_, but certainly not from that play
direct); and _King of Cyprus_ (founded on the same story as _The Dumb
Knight_ by Machin and Markham, c. 1607). Cohn does not give exact
dates of authorship, but is of opinion that we should not assign to
any a year later than 1600; and in 1605 Ayres died. Here again we meet
with the same phenomenon--acquaintance with many English plays of date
anterior to 1592; but not with any one that can be shown to be later.
No doubt Ayres's knowledge of English plays was obtained from the
Worcester's (Admiral's) company, who went over in 1590-2.
Yet further, in the tragedy of _An Adulteress_ by Duke Henry Julius of
Brunswick, printed 1594, we find the plot of _The Merry Wives_ almost
identically reproduced (see Cohn, p. 45, &c.) I do not see, however, so
much likeness between his _Vincentius Ladislaus_ and _Much Ado_.
As regards Shakespearian chronology, it results from this examination
of English plays in Germany that there is no positive evidence of
English plays of later date than 1592 having been acted there before
1625; that there is evidence that many (a score at least) of date not
later than 1592 were acted between 1592 and 1626; that these plays were
probably among those imported by Worcester's (Admiral's) players in
1592; and that in the list are contained _The Comedy of Errors_, _Romeo
and Juliet_, _The Merry Wives_, _The Gentlemen of Verona_, and _Love's
Labours Won_, _i.e._ every play by Shakespeare except _Love's Labour's
Lost_, that is in this treatise placed at a date not later than 1592;
besides Kyd's _Hamlet_, Marlowe's _Edward III_., and other plays with
which Shakespeare was indirectly connected.
APPENDIX.
TABLES.
APPENDIX.
IN Table I. I give the dates of the Stationers' Registers entries of
Shakespeare's plays as collected in 1623, the printers and publishers
of the earliest extant edition of each, and the dates of all known
subsequent editions anterior to the 1623 Folio. A. appended to a date
means Anonymous, _i.e._ published without the author's name; F. means
that the edition was used by the Folio editors as copy to print from.
The relative popularity of the plays will be in some measure seen by
a glance at this table. The most popular were _Richard III._ (six
editions in sixteen years); _I Henry IV._ (six editions); _Edward
III._ (five editions in twenty years); _Richard II._ (four editions in
nineteen years); _Henry V._ (three editions in nine years). All these
were Histories. Next to the Histories rank the Tragedies _Hamlet_,
_Romeo and Juliet_, and _Pericles_: the other great tragedies, _Lear_,
_Othello_, and the Comedies being decidedly less to the popular taste
than the Histories. The entries of change of copyright will be found in
their places in Table V.
Table II. gives similar information for every known extant play not
of Shakespeare's authorship in which he may have been an actor or
reviser. _Edward III._ appears in both these tables. The extreme
popularity of _Mucedorus_ is very noticeable.
Table III. gives the number of Court performances in each year for such
companies as are known to have been playing in London. From this table
it is evident that up to 1591 the Queen's men were the most important
of all; in other words, that Greene was the chief Court stage poet,
and held the position formerly occupied by Lyly, who wrote for the
Chapel children before the public theatrical companies had obtained the
prominent place. His chief rival was Marlowe of the Admiral's company.
But after 1591 Lord Strange's company takes the lead and keeps it,
which means that Shakespeare was the principal Court stage writer till
1611. This throws new light on the relations of Greene, Shakespeare,
and their respective companies. But this table comprises, in fact, a
compendium of the whole stage history of the time; and as the current
versions of this history by Collier, Halliwell, and others are replete
with blunders, it may be well to give a very short summary of the
results of my investigations--proofs, where lengthy, of some minor
details being necessarily reserved for a future publication. Column
i. concerns one company only: as Lord Leicester's it was acting in
London in 1585; in 1586 it was acting on the Continent; in 1587-8 it
was travelling about England; after Leicester's death it began in 1589
to act in London, and was patronised by Lord Strange, who became Earl
of Derby in 1593: after his death in 1594, Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon,
the Lord Chamberlain, became its patron, who died in 1596; they then
passed to his heir, George Carey: in 1603 they were patented as the
King's men, and retained that title till the closing of the theatres.
Column ii. The Admiral's men were abroad from 1591 to 1594; in 1603
they were assigned to Prince Henry, and after his death in 1612 to the
Palsgrave. The Earl of Hertford's men, who appear once in this column,
were not a regular London company, but probably invited to play this
once at Court while the Admiral's were abroad, in consequence of the
Queen having been entertained by Hertford in the preceding year's
progress.
Column iii. Queen Elizabeth's company, formed 1583, took the lead till
1591: they only reappear in conjunction with Sussex in 1593-4, when
both companies vanish from the London stage. About 1599 Derby's company
appears in London: it became Worcester's in 1602, and was assigned to
Queen Anne in 1603.
Column iv. The Earl of Oxford's "boys" were in London in 1586; they
travelled in the plague year, and are almost certainly the same company
who reappear in London in 1589 as Pembroke's. By Marlowe's aid they
prospered a year or two, but after his death became insignificant, and
are only dimly traceable to 1600.