John Marston already, in 1598, designates Shakspere with the nickname
'_Rufus_.' Everyone can convince himself of this by first reading
Shakspere's 'Venus and Adonis,' and immediately afterwards John
Marston's 'Metamorphosis of Pigmalion's Image.' [26] We do not know
whether it has struck anyone as yet that this poem of Marston is a
most evident satire, written even in the same metre as Shakspere's
first, and at that time most popular, poem. [27] In his sixth satire
of 'The Scourge of Villanie,' Marston explains why he had composed
his 'Pigmalion's Image:'--
Yet deem'st that in sad seriousnesse I write
such nasty stuff as in Pigmalion?
Such maggot-tainted, lewd corruption! ...
Hence, thou misjudging censor: know I wrot
Those idle rimes to note the odious spot
and blemish that deformes the lineaments
of modern poesies habiliments.
At the end of his satire ('Pigmalion's Image'), Marston
self-complacently tacks on a concluding piece: 'The Author in Praise
of his Precedent Poem.' Whom else does he address there than him
whose poetical manner he wished to mock--namely, Shakspere's--when
he begins with these words:--
Now, Rufus! by old Glebron's fearfull mace,
Hath not my Muse deserv'd a worthy place? ...
Is not my pen compleate? Are not my lines
Right in the swaggering humour of these times?
The name of 'Rufus' has two peculiarities which may have induced
Marston to confer it upon Shakspere. First of all, like the English
king of that name, Shakspere's pre-name was William. Secondly, the
best-preserved portrait of Shakspere shows him with hair verging upon
a reddish hue.
But not only the colour of the hair, but also its thinness (according
to all pictures and busts we have of Shakspere, he was bald-headed),
seems to have been satirised by Jonson in his 'Poetaster.' In act ii.
sc. 1, Chloe asks Crispinus, who, excited by her love and her beauty,
pretends becoming a poet, whether, as a poet, he would also change his
hair? To which Crispinus replies, 'Why, a man may be a poet, and yet not
change his hair.'
Now Dekker, in his 'Satiromastix, in which all personal insults are to be
avenged [28](for which reason the chief personages of 'The Poetaster' are
introduced under the same name), makes Horace give forth a long song in
praise of 'heades thicke of hair,' whilst Crispinus gives another in
honour of 'balde heads;' from which we conclude that Chloe's remark on
Crispinus' hair has reference to a bald pate, but the name of 'Rufus'
to the colour of whatever hair there is.
'Rufus Laberius Crispinus' might truly be thus rendered: 'The red-haired
SHAK-erius, with the crisp-head, who cribs like St. Crispin.' The word
Rufus, as already explained, reminds us both of Shakspere's red
hair and his pre-name 'William.' Laberius (from _labare_, to shake;
hence Shak-erius, a similar nickname as Greene's SHAKE-_scene_)
is clearly an indication of the poet's family name. The Roman custom
of placing the name of the _gens_, or family, in the middle of a
person's name, leaves no doubt as to Jonson's intention. Laberius
was a dramatic poet, even as Shakspere. Laberius was an actor (Suet. c.i.
39). So was Shakspere. Laberius played in his own dramas. Shakspere did
the same. Laberius' name corresponds etymologically, as regards meaning,
to the root-syllable in Shakspere's name. Could Jonson, who was so well
versed in classics, have made his satirical allusion plainer or more
poignant? In Crispinus, both Shakspere's curly hair and the offence of
application, plagiarism, or literary theft, with which he is charged
by his antagonist, are manifestly marked; St. Crispin being noted among
the saints for his filching habits. He made shoes for the poor from
materials stolen from the rich.
Crispinus approaches Horace quite as a 'Johannes Factotum,' as Greene
had designated Shakspere in 1592. Jonson makes him assert that he, too,
is a scholar, a writer conversant with every kind of poetry, and a
Stoic. He also declares that he is studying architecture, and that,
if he builds a house, [29] it must be similar to one before which
they are standing.
In Dekker's 'Satiromastix,' Crispinus is described as being of a most
gentle nature. This is in harmony with the well-known quality generally
attributed to Shakspere. In the beginning of 'Satiromastix,' Crispinus
approaches Horace for the object of peace and reconciliation. The latter
excuses himself, in words similar to those of the 'Apologetical
Dialogue,' that even if he should 'dip his pen in distilde Roses,'
or strove to drain out of his ink all gall, [30] yet his enemies would
look at his writings 'with sharpe and searching eyes.' Nay--
When my lines are measur'd out as straight
As even parallels, 'tis strange that still,
Still some imagine they are drawne awry.
The error is not mine, but in their eye;
That cannot take proportions.
_Crispinus_. Horrace, Horrace!
To stand within the shot of galling tongues,
Proves not your gilt, for could we write on paper,
Made of these turning leaves of heaven, the cloudes,
Or speak with Angels tongues: yet wise men know,
That some would shake the head, tho' saints should sing,
Some snakes must hisse, because they're borne with stings.
_Horace_. 'T is true.
_Crispinus_. Doe we not see fooles laugh at heaven? and mocke
The Makers workmanship?
Crispinus goes on telling Horace that none are safe from such calumnies;
but that, if his 'dastard wit' will 'strike at men in corners,' if he
will 'in riddles folde the vices' of his best friends, then he must
expect also that they will 'take off all gilding from their pilles,'
and offer him 'the bitter coare' (core). [31] With great emphasis,
Crispinus admonishes Horace not to swear that he did not intend whipping
the private vices of his friends while his '_lashing jestes make all
men bleed_.' Crispinus concludes his mild, conciliatory speech with
the words:--
We come like your phisitions (physicians) to purge
Your sicke and daungerous minde of her disease.
A peace is then concluded, which Horace (Jonson) again breaks, for which
he receives his punishment towards the end of 'Satiromastix.' Dekker,
who brings in the chief personages of 'The Poetaster' under the same
name, makes, in this counter-piece, two parts of the figure of Rufus
Laberius Crispinus--namely, that of William Rufus, the king, at whose
court he lays the scene (Jonson's drama has the court of Augustus), and
that of Crispinus, the poet. The part of the king is a very unimportant
one; and it may be assumed that Dekker intended the king and the poet
to be looked upon as the same person. The object of the play-dresser
Demetrius (Dekker) was, no doubt, to do homage in this way to his
chief Crispinus--that is, Shakspere. When the accused Horace is to be
judged, the King says to Crispinus:--
Not under us, but next us take thy seate;
Artes nourished by Kings make Kings more great.
Crispinus declares Horace guilty of having 'rebelled against the sacred
laws of divine Poesie,' not out of love of virtue, but--
Thy pride and scorn made her turne saterist.
Horace, on account of his crimes against the sacred laws of divine
poesy, is not 'lawrefyed,' but 'nettlefyed:' not crowned with laurels,
but with a wreath of nettles, and afterwards, in Sancho Panza manner,
tossed in a blanket. He then is told:--'You shall not sit in a
Gallery when your Comedies and Enterludes have entred their Actions,
and there make vile faces at everie lyne, to make Gentlemen have an eye
to you, and to make Players afraide to take your part.' Furthermore,
he 'must forsweare to venter on the stage when your Play is ended, and
to exchange courtezies and complements with Gallants in the Lordes
roomes, to make all the house rise up in Armes, and to cry that's
Horace, that's he, that's he, that's he, that pennes and purges
Humours and diseases.' He must promise 'not to brag in Bookebinders
shops that your Vize-royes or Tributorie Kings have done homage to
you, or paide Quarterage.' And--'when your Playes are misse-likt at
Court, you shall not Crye Mew like a Pusse-Cat, and say you are
glad you write out of the Courtiers Elements.' [32]
In his Preface to 'Satiromastix' ('To the World '), Dekker says that
in this play he did '_only whip his_ (Horace's) _fortunes and
condition of life, where the more noble_ REPREHENSION _had bin of
his_ MINDES DEFORMITIE.' [33]
This nobler reprehension, as we have sufficiently shown, was undertaken
by Shakspere in his 'Hamlet.' [34] Dekker, in his Epilogue to
'Satiromastix' (he there speaks of the 'Heretical Libertine Horace'),
asks the public for its applause; for Horace would thereby be induced
to write a counter-play: which, if they hissed his own 'Satiromastix,'
would not be the case. By applauding, they would thus, in fact, get
more sport; for we 'will untrusse him agen, and agen, and agen.'
Shakspere may have been tired of this fruitless pastime, of those
pitiful squabbles, as appears also from the reproach he makes in
'Hamlet'to his people. By the '_more noble_ REPREHENSION' which
he administered to Jonson and his party, he became absorbed in the
profounder problems concerning mankind. The time of the lighter
comedies is now past for him. There follow now his grandest
master-works. Henceforth the poet stands in a relation created by
himself to his God and to the world.
We proceed to an examination of 'Volpone,' of that play which Jonson
sent as a counter-thrust after 'Hamlet,' and from which, as regards
our Hamlet-Montaigne theory, we hope to convince our readers in the
clearest manner possible.
1: Arber's _English Scholars Library_, 1879, shows that this highly
interesting drama was for the first time given at Cambridge in
1602. If so, the manuscript has unquestionably received additions
during the four years before its appearance in print. The fact is,
we find in the play certain evident allusions which could not
possibly have been added before the years 1603-4; for instance,
references to the translators of Montaigne--John Florio, and the
friends who aided him;--references which must have been made after
the _Essais_ were published.
In act i. sc. 2, Judicio speaks of the English 'Flores Poetarum,
against whom can-quaffing hucksters shoot their pellets.' These
'_Flores_ Poetarum' are _Florio_ and his fellow-workers, among whom Ben
Jonson is also to be reckoned; and we shall see farther on that the
latter abuses these offensive hucksters as 'vernaculous orators,'
because they make Montaigne the target of their sneers. Again,
in act iv. sc. 2, Furor Poeticus, Ingenioso, and Phantasma indulge
in expressions which can only apply to the Dedications and the
Sonnets of Florio's translation. Phantasma, for instance, addresses
an Ode of Horace to himself:--
'Maecenas, atavis edite regibus,
O et praesidium et dulce decus meum
Dii faciant votis vela secunda tuis.'
The latter line ought to run:--
Sunt, quos curriculo pulverem Olympicum,
and if we take into consideration that Juror says in the same
scene:--
And when thy swelling vents amain,
Then Pisces be thy sporting chamberlain,
it is not asserting too much that these are manifest hits at Florio,
who, to please his Maecenas, tries with Dr. Diodati, his 'guide-fish'
to capture the 'whale' in the 'rocke rough ocean.'
Florio's way of translating the Latin classic writers into
indifferent English rhymes is also repeatedly ridiculed. The
latter (Florio, p. 574.) once gives a passage from Plautus
(_The Captives_, Prologue, v. 22) correctly enough: 'The Gods,
perdye (_pardieu_), doe reckon and racket us men as their
tennis balls.' Furor Poeticus, in one of his fits of fine frenzy,
accuses Phoebus:--
The heavens' promoter that doth peep and prey
Into the acts of mortal tennis balls.
This he says after having, in the same highly comic speech,
travestied Florio's Dedication of the third book, in which that
gallant compares himself to 'Mercury between the radiant orbs of
Venus and the Moon'--that is, the two ladies to whom he dedicates
the book in question, and before whom he alleges he 'leads a
dance.' A further sneer is directed by Furor Poeticus against the
lazy manner with which Florio's Muse rises from her nest.
Additional allusions to dramatic publications from the years
1603-4 will be found on pp. 201, 202. Another proof that the play
(_The Return from Parnassus_) cannot be of a uniform cast,
is this: In act i. sc. 2 a list of the poets is given, that are to
be criticised. The list is kept up in proper succession as far as
'John Davis.' Then there are variations, and names not contained
in that list. These additions mostly refer to dramatic authors,
whilst the previous names, as far as 'John Davis,' only refer to
lyric poets.
We believe the intention of the first writer of _The Return
from Parnassus_ was only to criticise lyric poets. Moreover,
Monius says in the Prologue:--'What is presented here, is an old
musty show, that has lain this twelvemonth in the bottom of a
coal-house amongst brooms and old shoes.' Our opinion is that
_The Return from Parnassus_, after having been acted before
a learned public at Cambridge, came into the hands of players
who applied the manner in which lyric poets had been criticised
in it, to dramatic writers. The authors of the additions must
have been friends of Shakspere; for, as we shall find, the enemies
of the latter are also theirs.
2: Act iv. sc. 3.
3: In _The Poetaster_, of which we shall speak farther on.
4: According to certain indications in _Satiromastix_,
he had an 'ambling' walk, or dancing kind of step. (See _note_
28.)
5: Collier's _Memoirs of Alleyn_, pp. 50 and 51.
6: _Conversations with Drummond_.
7: _Satiromastix_, 1602.
8: Collier's _Drama_, i. 334.
9: _Poetaster_.
10: Compare his Dedication in _Volpone_, of which we shall have
more to say.
11: _Drummond's Conversations_.
12: Of all styles, Jonson liked best to be named 'Honest;' and he
'hath ane hundred letters so naming him.'--_Conversations with
Drummond_.
13: _Life of Dryden_, p. 265.
14: By Aubrey called 'Jack Young.'
15: As if the whole world had made it a point to conspire against
Jonson, Gifford laboriously exerts himself to defend him against the
numberless attacks of all the previous commentators, critics, and
biographers. The endeavour of Gifford to whitewash him seems to me
as fruitless a beginning as that of the little innocent represented
in a picture as trying to change, with sponge and soap, the African
colour of her nurse's face.
16: Jonson's _Eulogy of Shakspere_ was composed seven years after the
death of the latter. Having most probably been requested by
Heminge and Condell not to withhold his tribute from the departed,
to whom both his contemporaries as well as posterity had done homage,
Jonson may readily have seized the occasion to do amends for the
wrong he had inflicted upon the great poet during his lifetime. A
later opinion of Jonson in regard to Shakspere (_Timber; or
Discoveries made upon Men and Matter_, 1630-37) is of a more moderate
tone, and on some points in contradiction to the words of praise
contained in the published poem.
17: _Poetaster_, Apol. Dialogue.
18: This Prologue is not contained in the first edition (1598), but
only in the second (1616). It may, therefore, have been written
in the meantime. It is supposed that it was so in 1606. (See
_Shakspere's Century of Praise_, 1879, pp. 118, 119.)
19: Only a few of the earliest productions of Jonson have come
down to us. Some of them are: _Every Man in His Humour_
(1598); _Every Man out of His Humour_ (1599); and _Cynthia's
Revels_ (1600), all of them full of personal allusions. Many of
these are meant against Shakspere. We cannot, however, enter more
fully upon that, as we have to confine ourselves to the chief
controversy out of which _Hamlet_ arose. Neither on Jonson's
nor on Shakspere's part did the controversy cease after the
appearance of _Hamlet_. It was still carried on through several
dramas, which, however, we leave untouched, as not belonging
to our theme.
20: See _note_ 25.
21: In _Satiromastix_ this reproach is made to Ben Jonson:--'Horace
did not screw and wriggle himselfe into great Mens famyliarity,
impudentlie as thou doost.'
22: Gifford, in his nervous anxiety to parry every reproach
against his much-admired, and, in his eyes, blameless Jonson whose
quarrelsomeness had from so many parts been properly charged, and
particularly desirous of shielding him against the accusation of
having taken up an attitude hostile to Shakspere, declares, in
contradiction to the opinion of all previous commentators, that
_Crispinus_ is to represent John Marston. Since then, Gifford's
assertion has been taken for granted, without deeper inquiry. The
authority of this fond editor of Jonson has, however, proved an
untrustworthy one in many things, especially in matters relating to
Shakspere. Thanks to the exertions of more recent inquirers, not a
a few things are now seen in a better perspective than Gifford was
able to offer. We admit the difficulty of reconstructing facts from
productions like _The Poetaster_, which had been dictated by the
overwrought feelings of the moment. But in a satire which bred so much
'tumult,' which 'could so deeply offend,' and 'stir so many hornets'
(four hundred persons out of five hundred being able to point with
their fingers, in one instant, at one and the same man), the
characters must have been very broadly drawn for general
recognition. By such broad traits we must still be guided in our
judgment to-day. All the characteristic qualities of Crispinus,
which we shall explain farther on, prove that Gifford's idea about
Crispinus being John Marston is not tenable.
This latter poet was very well versed in Greek and Latin, and had a
complete classic education. The admonition of Horace to perfect
himself in both languages, is therefore not applicable to him.
Furthermore, Marston, at the time The Poetaster was composed (this
may have been towards the end of the year 1600, or the beginning of
1601), had scarcely yet written anything for the stage. Only his
_Metamorphosis of Pigmalion's Image and Certaine Satyres_ (1598),
and his _Scourge of Villanie_ (1599) had been published. His first
tragedy came out in print in 1602; it may just have been in course
of becoming known on the stage. We have no means of ascertaining
whether it had already been acted when _The Poetaster_ appeared.
This much is however certain, that when this latter satire obtained
publicity, Marston's relations to the drama and the stage must yet
have been of the most insignificant kind; for Philip Henslowe, in
his Diary (pp. 156, 157), expressly speaks of him, even in 1599, as
a 'new' poet to whom he had lent, through an intermediary, the sum
of forty shillings 'in earneste of a Boocke,' the title of which is
not mentioned. Is it, then, conceivable that such a dramatist who
in 1601 certainly was yet very insignificant, should have been made
the subject, in 1601, in Jonson's _Poetaster_, of the following
very characteristic remark--assuming Crispinus to have been
intended for Marston?
Tucca says, in regard to the former, to a poor player (act
iii. sc. i):--'If he pen for thee once, thou shalt not need to travel
with thy pumps full of gravel any more, after a blind jade and a
hamper, and stalk upon boards and barrel-heads to an old cracked
trumpet.'
Does this not quite fit Shakspere's popularity and dramatic
success?
Jonson, it is true, tells Drummond that he had written his
_Poetaster_ against Marston. (According to his declaration in the
'Apologetical Dialogue,' there is nothing personal in the whole
_Poetaster!_ 'I can profess I never writt that piece more innocent
or empty of offence.') However, we form our judgment in this
matter from the clear, well-marked, and indubitably characteristic
traits of the play, as well as from the results of modern criticism,
which are fully in harmony with those traits. Everything points
to the figure of Ovid being a mask for Marston. Jonson perhaps
chose the name of Ovid for him because he, too, had written
_Metamorphoses_. Besides the before-mentioned _Metamorphosis
of Pigmalion's Image_, it is not improbable that Marston is the
author of the manuscript preserved in the British Museum:--_The
New Metamorphosis; or, A Feaste or Fancie of Poeticall Legendes.
The first parte divided into twelve books. Written by I. M.,
gent._, 1600. Ovid--Marston--in the _Poetaster_, is described as the
younger son of a gentleman of considerable position. He is
dependent on a stipend allowed to him by his father. After having
absolved his studies, he is to become an advocate, but secretly he
devotes his time to poetry. The father warns him that poverty will
be his lot if he does not renounce poetry. Ovid senior makes the
following reproach to his son (which probably has reference to
Marston's first tragedy, _Antonio and Mellida_):--'I hear of a
tragedy of yours coming forth for the common players there, called
_Medea_. By my household gods, if I come to the acting of it, I'll
add one tragic part more than is yet expected to it.... What?
shall I have my son a stager now? an enghle for players?... Publius,
I will set thee on the funeral pile first!'
All this harmonises with the few facts we know of Marston's
career, who is said to have been the son of a counsellor of the
Middle Temple, who was at Corpus Christi College at Oxford,
and who was made a _baccalaureus_ there on February 23, 1592. In
comparison with Crispinus and Demetrius, Ovid is but mildly
chaffed; and this, again, is in accord with the relations which soon
after arose, in a very friendly manner, between Jonson and Marston. It
is scarcely to be thought that, if Marston had been derided as
Crispinus, he would already have composed, as early as 1603, his
eulogistic poem on Jonson's _Sejanus_, and dedicated to him in
1604, in such hearty words, his own _Malcontent_.
From some pointed words in the libel composed by Crispinus
against Horace, Gifford concludes that the former must be Marston,
because we meet with these pointed words in some satires and
dramas of Marston. We, on our part, go, in these controversial
plays, by the main and most prominent characteristics; and these
show that Crispinus is Shakspere, and Ovid Marston.
The latter even once says (_Scourge of Villanie_, sat. vi.) that
many a one, in reading his _Pigmalion_, has compared him to Ovid.
In order to make out Crispinus to be guilty before Augustus, strong
language is required. For this purpose, Jonson may have used the
way and manners of Marston, and applied some of his newly coined
graphic words. But this proves nothing for the identity of characters.
The libel also contains a pointed word of Shakspere--'retrograde'--an
expression little employed by the latter, and which is hurled as a
reproach against Parolles, the figure which in all likelihood is
to represent Jonson; Helena (act i. sc. 2) says to him, that he was
born under Mars, 'when he was retrograde.'
The remark in _The Return from Parnassus_ that few of the University
can pen plays well, smelling too much of that writer Ovid and
that writer _Metamorphosis_, has, in our opinion, also reference to
John Marston whose first dramatic attempts--although he, like
Jonson, may be called a 'University man'--do not admit of any
comparison with those of Shakspere.
23: Demetrius repentingly admits that it was from envy he had
ill-treated Horace, because 'he kept better company for the most
part than I, better men loved him than loved me; and his writings
thrived better than mine, and were better liked and graced.'
24: The little word 'clutcht' for a long time 'sticks strangely' in
Crispinus' throat; it is only thrown up with the greatest difficulty.
In _Hamlet_ (act v. sc. i, in the second verse of the grave-digger's
song) we hear, 'Hath claw'd me in his _clutch_. In the original song,
which is here travestied, the words are, 'Hath claw'd me with his
crouch'.
25: The following allusion in _The Poetaster_ (act iv. sc. 3) also has
reference to _Twelfth Night_:--'I have read in a book that to play
the fool wisely is high wisdom.' For Viola (act iii. sc. i) says:--
This fellow 's wise enough to play the fool;
And, to do that well, craves a kind of wit...
As full of labour as a wise man's art.