SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. SHAKESPEARE MANb,, ZY F. G. FLEAY, M.A., \-$th Wrangler; iqth Classic; wid Moral Scientist I Afth Natural Scientist, 1852-3. HEAD MASTER OF SKIPTON GRAMMAR SCHOOL, FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. LIBRARY ' UNIVERSITY OF YLIFORNIA. fonbou: M A C M I L L A 1ST AND CO. 1876. LONDON : R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS, BREAD STREET HILL. // L, TO ALFRED TENNYSON, WHO, HAD HE NOT ELECTED TO BE THE GREATEST POET OF HIS TIME, MIGHT EASILY HAVE BECOME ITS GREATEST CRITIC, -(This giro It, IN CONFIDENCE OF HIS SYMPATHY WIT,' I ITS INTENTION, HOWEVER HE MAY DIFFER FROM SOME OF ITS OPINIONS, Es Jpcbtcnfeb, (WITH PERMISSION,) BY FREDERICK CARD FLEAY. CO N TE NTS. PART I. MANUAL OF REFERENCE. CHAPTER I. PACK Shakespeare's Life i CHAPTER II. Contemporary Allusions to Shakespeare . 12 CHAPTER III. On the Plays of Shakespeare 22 Chronological Table 22 Love's Labour 's Lost " 24 Comedy of Errors 24- Midsummer Night's Dream 25 Richard II 26 Edward III 27 Two Gentlemen of Verona 28 Richard III 30 I Henry VI 31 viii CONTENTS. PAGE John 31 Romeo and Juliet 32 Merchant of Venice 34 1 Henry IV 35 2 Henry IV 35 Merry Wives of Windsor 3 Henry V 37 Much Ado about Nothing 37 Julius Caesar 38 As You Like It 39 Twelfth Night 40 Hamlet . 41 Taming of the Shrew 41 2 and 3 Henry VI 42 Titus Andronicus 44 Sejanus 4$ Measure for Measure 45 All's Well that Ends Well . 46 Othello 47 ^/Lear 47 Macbeth ; 48 Tinion of Athens /49 Troylus and Cre-sida s49 Pericles 5'i Anthony and Cleopatra . .' (^oriolanus 52 Two Noble Kinsmen Cymbeline 52 Tempest 54 Winter's Tale 54 Henry VIII 55 Spurious Plays . 56 CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. PAGE On various Questions connected with Shakespeare's Plays .1 . <$& What Plays are Genuine ? J. 58 "What Plays were not Entirely Written at one Date ? 60 Early Editions 61 Relative Values of Quartos and Folios 61 Entries at Stationers' Hall 64 CHAPTER V. Pronunciation and Metre 65 Pronunciation 66 Metre 69 Distinguishing Metrical Tests 71 CHAPTER VI. How Plays were Presented CHAPTER VII. On the Early Theatrical Companies 76 Chronological Table 81 CHAPTER VIII. On the Theatres, 15761642 Chronological Table . . CONTENTS. CHAPTER IX. PAGE On Contemporary Dramatic Authors 86 Chronological Table 87 Lilly 88 Peele 88 Greene 88 Marlowe 88 Chapman 89 Jonson 89 Dekker . . 90 Heywood 90 Middleton 91 Marston 92 Webster 92 Beaumont and Fletcher 93 Rowley 94 Massinger 95 Ford 95 Shirley 96 Randolph , 97 Brome 97 Glapthorne 97 Dodsley's Plays, &c 98 Daniel 109 Alexander 109 Cartwright 109 Suckling 109 Davenant 109 CHAPTER X. Miscellaneous Chronological Table . ^ 101 CONTENTS. CHAPTER XL PAGE List of Desirable Books 104 CHAPTER XII. Tests of Chronology and Authorship ........ 106 CHAPTER XIII. On Emendation no Canons no Causes of Error in CHAPTER XIV. On the Actors 113 Table of King's Company 114 Prince's. . 116 Queen's 117 Revel's "7 Other Companies iiS PART II. ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS. CHAPTER I. PAGE Metrical Tests applied : i. Shakespeare 12 1 Table of Dates, as assigned by Drake, Chalmers, Malone, Delius, and Fleay 130 Metrical Tables 135 CHAPTER II. On the Quarto Editions . . 139 Tabular View of Quartos 142 CHAPTER III. Metrical Tests applied : ii. Beaumont and Fletcher, Massinger 151 On " Henry VIII." . . 171 On ' Two Noble Kinsmen" 172 CHAPTER IV. On " The Taming of the Shrew " 175 CHAPTER V. On "Timonof Athens" i, (1874) 187 ii. (1869) 197 CONTENTS. xiii CHAPTER VI. PACE On "Pericles" . 209 CHAPTER VII. On "All's Well that Ends Well" 224 CHAPTER VIII. On "Twelfth Night" 227 CHAPTER IX. On " Troylus and Cressida " . 232 Canons on Metrical Tests 239 CHAPTER X. On "Macbeth" 245 Table of Length of Shakespeare's Plays 259 Table of Rhyme Tags * 260 CHAPTER XI. On "Julius Csesar" 262 Note on " Two Gentlemen of Veroj a" 270 CHAPTER XII. Personal Satire Common on the Old English Stage ("Wily Beguiled.") 272 xiv CONTENTS. CHAPTER XIII. PAGE Annals of the Stage, 1584-95 280 "Fair Emm" . . . 281 " London Prodigal" 283' Greene's "Mottoes" 285 Dates of Greene's Plays 286 Dates of Marlowe's Plays 295 Story of the Stage 297 CHAPTER XIV On " Edward III." 303 CHAPTER XV. Extracts reprinted from the Athen&um Is Action Shakespeare? . 307 Shakespeare's Arms 311 List of Managers of Companies and Masters of Schools, in the time of Elizabeth 312 L I B R A R Y UNIVKKSITY OF INTRODUCTION. THE object of this little Treatise is to place within the reach of the student of Shakespeare such information as is essential for him to possess, but is at present unattainable unless he purchases many costly books. Hence arises its peculiar construction. The contents of Part I. are strictly limited to such matters as I have found necessary in my own experience for a critical investigation of difficult or disputed questions as to the chronological succession of Shakespeare's plays in order of composition, their relation to the contemporary drama, his manner and method of work, and the subsequent higher problems which bear reference to the development of his artistic faculty. This is as much, I think, as ought to be attempted in so small a compass, as will be more clearly seen on perusing the following sumrriary of Contents: In Chapter I. I give a condensed, but I hope not incom- plete life of Shakespeare, incorporating Mr. Halliweirs late discoveries, correcting the time-honoured errors as to the shares in Blackfriars Theatre, the date of Shakespeare's first appearance, and the like, but not entering into any xvi INTRODUCTION. discussion as to uncertain or conjectural matters. The sources of information for this Chapter are exhausted in Mr. H alii well's Life of Shakespeare, and his later Illustra- tions, Mr. S. Neil's biography is also a most useful com- pendium. In Chapter I!., I give collected the principal references to our author made in contemporary writings, and along with them a few allusions to his work from contemporary plays not hitherto pointed out, which serve to limit some disputed dates as to the production of Shakespeare's own dramas. I need hardly say that Dr. Ingleby's Century of Praise is the storehouse for contemporary references. In Chapter III. is contained a summary of the prin- cipal grounds on which the authenticity, origin, date, &c. of each play are to be decided. I have, while incorporating the results of my own investigations into this summary, taken care to state other views however opposed to those I think the true ones. In this part of the book there is much that is new : and, even if the new matter be not approved of, it will be of some advantage to have a condensed summary ready to hand, and arranged in approximate chronological order. The usual arrangement of printing such matter as prefatory to each separate play, with the plays themselves in the order of the First Folio, causes great difficulty of reference and prevents any general survey of the evidence as a whole. Hence, we find in some well-known chrono- logical arrangements Shakespeare described as writing four plays in some years, and none in others even for years together. The works I have found most useful for this Chapter are the Variorum Shakspeare of 1821 ; the INTRODUCTION. xvli writings of G. Chalmers and N. Drake ; the modern editions of Dyce and Staunton : and separate works too numerous to mention. In Chapter IV., I have given a summary of my own views on the genuineness of the plays that pass under Shakespeare's name, the relative value of the early Folios and Quartos, some tables (useful I hope) of the plays divided into Acts and Scenes, and extracts from the books at Stationers' Hall giving the dates of entry of Shake- speare's works. My chief object in this chapter has been condensation and ease of reference ; the matter is of course to be found in many places ; for the opinions expressed, however, I am solely responsible. Chapter V. gives summaries of results of late inves- tigation as to pronunciation, metre, and metrical tests. Mr. Ellis's Early English Pronunciation^ Mr. Sweet's History of English Sounds, Dr. Abbott's Shakespearian Grammar^ S. Walker's Criticisms, are laid under con- tribution for the two former of these three topics ; but only for the sake of pointing out how far my own investiga- tions agree or disagree with these high authorities. It does not enter into my plan to discuss these matters in this book. Chapter VI. embodies in a plain, though inartistic nar- rative, details of the manner in which plays were pre- sented : had I known before this was in print that Philarete Chasles had written a similar chapter, I would have cancelled my own in favour of a translation of his more elaborate relation. Chapter VII. is one of the most important chapters b xviii INTRODUCTION. in the book, It gives for the first time an attempt to import order and consistency into the fragmentary notices of theatrical history from 1575 to 1642. In it several important errors are corrected for the first time, and by its aid the dates of many plays of Shakespeare's contemporaries can be for the first time fixed. Chapter VIII. is a continuation of the same subject ; but with the matter arranged under the head of theatrical build- ings instead of companies of actors. The two chronological tables accompanying these chapters have cost me more, labour than all the rest of the work ; and I find them of the greatest usefulness when making chronological investiga- tions. For Chapters VI L, VIII., IX., Collier's Annals of the Stage, and Malone's Variorum Shakspeare, are the great authorities ; but I have got at many results from a tabulation of the companies, theatres, printers, publishers (with their addresses), mentioned on the title- pages of published plays. Collation of these frequently leads to unexpected discoveries as to dates of pro- duction. In Chapter IX., I have given lists of nearly all the plays likely to be met with by the student of the Elizabethan drama, with tabulations of companies, theatres, and dates of publication ; adding in another column dates of pro- duction, as nearly as they can be ascertained. Of course, this last column must be to some extent conjectural, but whenever I have not placed a (?) it must be understood that I give the date on external evidence, although I am not able to adduce such evidence for so many plays in a handbook of this kind. As in many of my results I differ INTRODUCTION. xix much from previous investigators even from the most care- ful of all of them, Dyce, I mention this lest it should be supposed that these dates were assigned on internal evi- dence. There must, of course, be some errors in so exten- sive a list not, I trust, many. The principal authority for this list is HalliwelPs Dictionary of Old Plays* it was, how- ever collated with the title-pages of the plays themselves before going to press. Chapter X. gives a chronological list of miscellaneous matters not incorporable elsewhere, derived from Collier's Annals of the Stage. Chapter XI. gives a list of books which form a nucleus of a Shakespearian library. Chapter XII. enumerates the tests which serve to deter- mine chronological order of writing. Chapter XIII. lays down some canons as to emending corruptions of the text : for these three chapters I am solely responsible. Chapter XIV. which concludes Part I. supplies to some extent a desideratum pointed out by Mr. R. Simpson by giving lists of actors taken from various sources for different companies at sundry dates. The value of these for inves- tigation may be judged from the fact that they have enabled me to discover errors in Dyce and other accurate critics. The whole of this Part will, I trust, serve as a. useful com- panion and supplement to Professor Ward's admirable History of Dramatic Literature, as well as a text-book for younger students, and a hand-book of reference for older ones. My aim has been to produce a useful, not a showy book. I can say it is the outcome of years of study, and xx INTRODUCTION. has involved more labour than I should easily get credit for. I have one omission to explain. I have been urged on very high authority to give an aesthetic estimate (either of my own, or compiled from Schlegel, Hazlitt, and the host of other great critics who have treated the Elizabethan dramas generally) of the relative merits of the minor authors. I avoid, however, all aesthetic criticism in such a work for the same reason as Mr. Wright in the best edited play I know (King Lear, Clarendon Press edition) avoids aesthetic notes. "^Esthetic notes," he says, "have been deliberately omitted because one main object of these editions is to induce those for whose use they are expressly designed to read and study Shakespeare himself, and not to become familiar with opinions about him. Perhaps, too, it is because I cannot help experiencing a certain feeling of resentment when I read such notes, that I am unwilling to intrude upon others what I should myself regard as impertinent. They are in reality too personal and subjective, and turn the com- mentator into a show-man. With such sign-post criticisms I have no sympathy/' With regard to Part II. of this book, I have only to say that much of it was added at the suggestion of Mr. J. R. Green, who pointed out that references abounded in Part I. to papers inaccessible to any but the members of the New Shakspere Society. These papers have, however, been con- densed, corrected, freed from some mistakes of my own, and some of the printer's, cleared of interpolations and INTRODUCTION. xxi alterations, and generally reduced to the condition in which they would have been issued at first, had I not had to write them under great pressure from other work (no paper having had more than two evenings occupied in writing it), or had I had the opportunity of correcting them before proofs of them had been circulated without being submitted to me at all. All additions of any importance are inclosed in [brackets]. In addition to these reprinted papers I have given three chapters, which I could not insert in Part I. without introducing into it an element which I desired it to be free from as far as possible, the subjective element. Yet the interpretation of plays which contain historical facts disguised under satirical allegories is too important to be omitted even in a small manual. That many more such plays exist than have ever been suspected is the chief point I wish to show in these chapters ; hence my choice of plays which are not generally known as my typical examples, in preference to those in which Jonson, Dekker, Marston, &c. displayed their mutual animosity. This latter series, how- ever, has never yet been rightly interpreted. I have said nothing on the poems of Shakespeare ; what I believe to be the true interpretation of the Sonnets I have given elsewhere (Macmillarts Magazine, March 1875), and this article as well as others written by me in the same periodical, are too easy of access to justify my reprinting them, even in a condensed form, in this Treatise. I have to express my great regret that Professor Ward's admirable History of Dramatic Literature did not appear xxii INTRODUCTION. in time for me to avail myself of its guidance in Part I. Chapter III. It would have saved me much trouble. I have also to express my grateful thanks to friends who have assisted me by help or encouragement, in many ways ; especially to Mr. S. Neil, Mr. Halliwell, Dr. Abbott, The Poet Laureate, and Professors Delius, Dowden, Ingram, and Ward. To Mr. P. A. Daniel I am yet more indebted for his ready and kindly aid in referring for me to books to which, in this small town, I have no means of access. By his assistance many details have been given which must otherwise have been omitted. Of course, I am also a con- siderable debtor to the published writings of the above- mentioned gentlemen. I shall feel very thankful for any corrections or suggestions, public or private ; for errors must exist in so complicated a subject, however carefully treated. All assistance of any kind shall be acknowledged in due course. I ought, however, to anticipate some cor- rections that will no doubt be offered as to my dates, by stating that, whenever possible, I have adopted the modern epoch for the commencement of the year, I January ; thus, a date which in Henslow's diaiy appears as February, 1591, I have written February, 1592. It would have perhaps been better to have written 1591-2, but I have used this notation for cases where it is doubtful in which year an event took place. I should also state that in many instances I may seem to assert too positively : the fact is that there are so many points on which nothing more than strong probability is attainable, that the constant iteration of possibly, pro- bably, it seems to me, I venture to think, and the like, becomes so tiresome, both to writer and reader, that I have INTRODUCTION. xxiii preferred to risk the accusation of over-confidence in my own reasoning, to that of producing lassitude by perpetual repetitions of my inability to give positive statements where it is palpable that nothing more than great likelihood can be attained. F. G. FLEAY. SKIPTON, January ', 1876. LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF VLIFORNIA. SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. PART I. CHAPTER I. ; SHAKESPEARE'S LIFE. JOHN SHAKESPEARE of Stratford was a resident in Henley Street in that town as early as 1552. In 1556 we find him buying copy- holds of two houses and gardens (one in Greenhill Street) ; suing and being sued ; dealing in gloves and barley. In 1557 he was a burgess, a member of the four-year-old corporation of Stratford, chosen by the court-leet as borough ale-taster ; and married, or close on being so, to Mary, youngest daughter of Robert Arden of Willme- cote, in the parish of Aston Cauntlow, where she inherited "land in Willmecote called Asbies." John Shakespeare had also property in Snitterneld from his father. Their first daughter, Joan, was baptized 15 September, 1558, in which year John was one of the four con- stables at Stratford; in 1559 he became an assessor or fixer of fines under the borough bye-laws. He was in 1561 a municipal chamberlain, and in 1564 a member of the common-hall. At this time he had lost not only his daughter Joan, but a second, Margaret. Next to them succeeded on 23 (?) April, 1564, William, son of John Shakespeare, so baptized at Stratford on April 26. 2 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Having escaped the danger of the plague which was then ravaging Stratford, the then prosperous family in Henley Street was probably looking forward to a tranquil future. The head of it was of conse- quence in the borough ; he could even afford to allow the chamber to be pretty largely in his debt, and to pay considerable rates for the relief of the poor. He was in this same year appointed to make up the chamberlain's accounts ; and in the next, 1565, was elected one of the fourteen aldermen. In 1566 his second son, Gilbert, was born ; in 1568 he was made high bailiff; and in 1571 chief alderman, which entitled him to be henceforth called " Magister," or Mr. ; in 1575 he bought two freehold houses in Henley Street. Up to this date then, to the year in which Queen Elizabeth visited Kenilworth Castle, which is but thirteen miles from Stratford, John Shakespeare is a prosperous gentleman. William may have been during this time a happy schoolboy at Stratford Grammar School, under Curate Hunt or Thomas Jenkins, enjoying his holidays and witnessing the perfor- mances of the various companies of " travelling" players who visited Stratford, and even perhaps the festivities provided by Leicester for the reception of Majesty itself. But now things begin to change. In 1577 Mr. John Shakespeare becomes irregular in his attendance at corporation meetings ; and half his borough taxes are remitted him ; in 1578 the land called Asbies is mortgaged to Edmund Lambert for 4O/., on condition of reversion if repaid before Michaelmas, 1580. John Shakespeare is also excused from a tax of 4^. a week for the relief of the poor. Snitterneld may have been sold ; certainly Edmund Lambert was security for a debt of 5/. due from Mr. John Shakespeare to Mr. Roger Sadler ; and in 1579 we find a levy on him for "pikemen, billmen, and archers" unpaid and unaccounted for, reversing the state of accounts we have seen in 1564. But much remains unex- plained at this period, from the fact that the registry of the Court of Record at Stratford is wanting from 1569 to 1585. We may, how- ever, fairly take it for granted that William Shakespeare left school about 1578, and then entered on some occupation, what, it is difficult to say. Probably that of a lawyer's clerk is on the whole most likely, in spite of the entire absence of his signature as witness to any known deeds, &c., of that date. SHAKESPEARE A T STRA TFORD. 3 It may be well to give here a list of the family of John Shake- speare : Joan ...... born 1558 died in infancy (?). Margaret .,... ,, 1562 ,, 1563. WILLIAM .... ,, 1564 ,, 161 6, married 1582. Gilbert ...... ,, 1566 ,, before 1612. Joan ,, 1569 ,, after 1600. Anne 1571 1579. Richard ,, 1573 ,, 1612. Edmund . . . . ,, 1580 ,, 1607. Anne Hathaway . . ,, 1556 ,, 1623 William's wife. Family of William Shakespeare : Susanna born 1583 died 1649, married 1607. Hamnet ,, 1585 ,, 1596. Judith. ..... ,, 1585 ,, 1662, married 1615. Family of Richard Shakespeare : John born (?) 1 530 died 1 601, married 1557. Henry ,, ,, 1596. Mary Arden . . . . ,, 1608 (John's wife). For further information see Variorum Shakt spear e, edition 1821, vol. ii. p. 6 10, c. Premising that I omit the mythical story of Shakespeare's deer- stealing, we now come to one of the most important events of his life his marriage with Anne Hathaway. The marriage bond in the Worcester registry is of date 28 Nov. 1582 ; in it Fulk Sandells and John Richardson, farmers, of Stratford, become bound in 4O/. that " William Shagspere, one thone partie, and Anne Hathwey, of Stratford, in the dioces of Worcester, maiden, may lawfully solem- nize marriage together, with once asking of the bannes." On May 26, 1583 (six months after), Susanna, their daughter, was baptized. As to the interpretation to be given to these dates, critics differ. It was certainly frequent at that time to regard betrothal as morally the same thing as marriage, and to act accordingly ; yet on the whole I incline to De Quincey's view, that Anne (over twenty-five years old) 12 4 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. had entrapped Shakespeare, so much her junior (seve*n years), into a closer connexion with her than he at first intended, and then obtained from his honour rather than his love an expiatory marriage to atone for the consequences of the connexion. On 2 Feb. 1585 Hamnet and Judith were baptized, his twin children and his last, which is notice- able in regard of the romantic theories that have been put out as to this period of his life. At this time, 1586, distraint is levied on John Shakespeare; no effects. A writ is then issued against his person three times ; he is deprived of his alderman's gown for not "coming to the halls of long time ; " and in 1587 he produced a writ of habeas corpus, so that he considered himself illegally imprisoned. The imprisonment may have been for debt to Nicholas Lane, to whom he had been surety for his brother Heniy. In all probability his fortunes were falling rapidly. In this same year come to Stratford Burbage's company of players, called the Queen's Company, and receive higher pay than any of the many companies who preceded them. Then or earlier began Shakespeare's London life as a player and dramatist ; then certainly ceases his private isolation ; it is no longer the life of a citizen of Stratford that we have to consider, but that of the poet, the cosmo- politan, everybody's Shakespeare. SHAKESPEARE IN LONDON. AT the time of Shakespeare's early dramatic career, the principal companies of players with whom we are concerned were Lord Strange's, the Earl of Sussex's, the Earl of Pembroke's, the Admiral's (Lord Nottingham's), the Lord Chamberlain's, the Children of the Chapel, and the Children of Paul's. The dramatic writers were Greene, Peele, Marlowe, Lilly, Nash, Lodge, Chettle, Munday, and others. Some of the works of Greene, Peele, Lodge, and Marlowe, f '^' were in i^ojj produced at the Rose Theatre, where Lord Strange's company were then playing. If, as I believe, Shakespeare was at this time associated with this company, he would, if not before, then become acquainted with the greatest of his forerunners. The allu- SHAKESPEARE IN LONDON. 5 sion made to him in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit has been conclu- sively shown by Mr. Simpson to refer to him as an actor only ; and as it is palpable, that, if Greene had known him as an author, he would have referred to him also in that capacity, we may fairly assign as the date of his beginning to write alone 1591 ; it cannot have well been later, and if earlier Greene would have known it in 1592. John Shakespeare we find in 1591 still in possession of a house in Henley Street, Stratford ; in 1591 and in the next year as one of four "credible men" making inventory of goods of one Ralph Shaw, wooldriver, and Henry Field, tanner. At this time Shakespeare was writing his early plays of the rhyming period. In 1593 the theatres were closed on account of the plague, and Shakespeare found leisure to publish the first piece of his invention, the Venus and Adonis, which he dedicated to his patron Lord Southampton. This was followed by a new poem, also dedicated to him, the Rape of Lucrece, in 1594. Meanwhile, death had been busy with the band of dramatists ; not only had " Learning deceast in beggary " been exemplified in the end of the repentant Greene, who was at enmity with Shakespeare, but his friends Marlowe and Peele had by 1596 also died, the one in a drunken quarrel, the other of a shameful disease. No wonder that he felt disgusted with the theatre. In that year he probably wrote his great poem to Lord Southampton (Sonnets i 126), in which he expresses himself bitterly as to the position occupied by an actor, especially a travelling or strolling actor. During this time he had also been occupied in re- touching, adding to, re- writing plays by other men. Edward III. and I Henry VI.; and I have no doubt Richard III. andfiomeo and Juliet, are^ rifaccimenti made by him between 1593 and 1596. These plays in their original form were written by Marlowe and Peele, separately or conjointly, except I Henry VI., which seems to show Lodge's work in part of it. With them there is no trace of any quarrel on Shakespeare's part. His enemies were Greene and Nash/ and Lilly. The last of these belonged to rival theatres, which em- bittered the quarrel. Lilly wrote only for the youths who went under the names of Children of the Chapel and Children of St. Paul's. These "children," as we may see in Hamlet, were Shakespeare's particular detestation ; with Nash also, the bitter pamphleteer, he had no sympathy ; but Marlowe he refers to kindly in As You Like 6 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. //, iii. 5, "Dead shepherd! Now I find thy saw of might," and Peele seems to have followed him to the Lord Chamberlain's Com- pany. For in that company (whether he jomedit along with Lord Strange's company in 1594 or belonged to it earlier) we find Shake- speare fixed in our earliest theatrical notice of him as acting before Queen Elizabeth at Greenwich in December of that year. In 1595 appeared the strange book Locrine, a lamentable tragedy " newly set forth, overseen and corrected by W. S." This clever play, which is a new edition of an old work by Charles Tilney and George Peele (15^6), contains many lines taken from Greene, and alludes in many places to those plays of his which he produced in 1585-6 in rivalry with Marlowe. It was probably edited by Shakespeare on or just before Peele's death, and one year before the production of Romeo and juliet. In 1596 his only son Hamnet died. Shakespeare's feelings as a father can be seen in King John, iii. 4, which was probably written during his son's illness or very shortly after his decease. In this year also Romeo and Juliet was produced at the Curtain Theatre in Shoreditch ; a grant of arms to John Shakespeare was applied for at the Heralds' College ; his uncle Henry died (to be followed in a few weeks by Margaret his wife) ; all events which must have in some instances greatly affected the mind of Shakespeare, in others pre- pared him for a more settled life with more definite aims ; in all made him ready for the great change in style and purpose which is shown in the historic and comic plays of his Second Period. Immediately after the commencement of this, in 1597, begins the publishing of Shakespeare's plays, without his name on the title page ; it was, however, inserted in 1598) and in no case (except the noticeable one of Romeo and Juliet] was it omitted thereafter. The application for arms is also granted in this year, and William Shake- speare, gentleman, has 6o/. to purchase of William Underbill one messuage, two barns, two gardens, two orchards with appurtenances, in Stratford-on-Avon. This is the celebrated New Place formerly called the Great House, built by Sir Hugh Clopton, in Henry VIII.'s time. John Shakespeare and wife also have money (? from son William) to file a bill in Chancery in the old Asbies matter, to recover that estate from John Lambert, son of Edmund Lam- bert, the mortgagee of nineteen years back. They had tendered, SHAKESPEARE IN LONDON. 7 they allege, the money in release duty ; yet the estate is with- held. The year 1598 is for the criticjnemorable. In that year Francis Meres published his Palladis Tamia, or Wits 7reasury. In it Meres mentions by name twelve plays, the Venus and Adonis, Lucrece, and Sonnets, and so gives us a most valuable landmark for our chronology. He also shows the estimation in which Shakespeare was held as a dramatist before his name had been affixed to any published play. Nine times is he noticed in this work, oftener than any other ; he is praised for Lyricks, Elegies, Comedies, Tragedies, and Knowledge of the English Tongue ; and in influence in other matters he was advancing as rapidly as in favour with the critics. Early in this same year Abraham Sturley wrote from Stratford to Richard Quiney (father of Thomas Quiney, the future husband of ^usarma) Shakespeare) respecting a solicitation to Burleigh, the Lord ^Vt^ Treasurer, on behalf of Stratford for exemption from subsidies and 4Ut I** taxes, and a grant of money out of 3O,ooo/. set aside by Parliament for relieving decayed towns, in consideration of great fires in Strat- ford in 1594 and 1595. The passage is worth quoting: " It seemeth that our countryman, Mr. Shakespeare, is willing to disburse some money upon some odd yard land or other at Shottery, or near about us. He thinketh it a very fit pattern to move him to deal in the matter of our tithes. By the instructions you can give him thereof and by the friends he can make therefore, we think it a fair mark for him to shoot at, and not impossible to hit. It obtained would advance him indeed, and would do us much good." Other matters indicate an advance in wealth. He is the third largest holder of corn and malt in his ward, having ten quarters ; he is lending Richard Quiney, or at any rate deemed capable of lending, 3O/. ; he is selling stone to the corporation ; he is making friends too ; he is playing in Jonson's Every Man in His Humour. Jonson has joined the Chamberlain's company, and altered into pure English the semi- Italian plot of this play as written at first. Possibly Shakespeare suggested this. At the end of this year the Theatre was pulled down, and in i^c^the building of the Globe Theatre was commenced tr with the old materials. At this new house in Bankside the rest of Shakespeare's plays were produced ; that is in all probability all his dramas that are not included in Meres' list. The theatre at Black- 8 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. friars, erected not more than three years earlier, was let out to the Children of the Chapel, and remained in their occupation till 1601, and in that of other children's companies till 1612, to Shakespeare's great annoyance. In the year 1600 the Fortune Theatre was built by Alleyn for the Admiral's company. In this year ninety extracts from Shakespeare appear in England's Parnassus ; quotations from him also occur in England's Helicon and in Bel-vedere, or the Garden of the Muses. Piratical publishers also begin to prefix his name to plays not his. All this shows his rapidly increasing fame. In 1 60 1 his name is attached to a poem in LovJs Martyr QT Rosa- lirfs Complaint, by Robert Chester : and, which is much more im- portant, his father dies : he was buried on the 8th September^.... Again we find a division in his works, *is shown in style, metre, and dramatic power, coincident with the death of those related to him. He ceases now to write Histories, and almost abandons Comedy. Tragedy of the deepest kind is the subject of his culminating art. In his Third Period, Shakespeare advances in worldly prosperity as well as in art and reputation. In May 1602 he purchases, for 32O/., 107 acres of arable land in Old Stratford parish from William Combe of Warwick, and John Combe of Old Stratford : the inden- ture, in his brother's absence, is sealed and delivered to Gilbert Shakespeare ; in the same year in September, Walter Getley, by his attorney Thomas Tibbottes, at a Court Baron of the Manor of Rowington, surrenders to him and his heirs a house in Walker's Street or Dead Lane near New Place, possession being reserved to the Lady of the Manor, till suit and service had been done by him for the same. At Michaelmas in the same year he bought from Hercules Underhill for 6o/. one messuage, two orchards, two gardens, two barns, &c. The document of this purchase is in the Chapter House, Westminster. He evidently is looking forward to settling at Stratford, and perhaps to founding a family there. In 1603, the year of the Queen's death, Sir John Davies compli- ments him in his Microcosmos. We find him also acting in Ben Jonson's Sejanus, of which he probably shared the authorship (in its 6rst form). The play, however, was condemned. It is not likely that any play jointly composed by men of such entirely different manners could amalgamate sufficiently to succeed. It did succeed SHAKESPEARE IN LONDON-. 9 afterwards when Jonson recast the whole. At the end of the same year (December) James I. was entertained at the seat of William Earl of Pembroke, a patron of Shakespeare's, at Walton near Salisbury, by the company to which Shakespeare belonged. It is supposed that Massinger, whose father was a retainer of Pembroke's, on that occasion chose the dramatic career as his business for life. In 1604 Shakespeare brought an action against Philip Rogers in the Court at Stratford for I/. 15^. 6J. for malt, A sharp man of business this poet of ours, and looks after details himself; he is by no means the ideal artist of the vulgar. In 1605 he bought of Ralph Hubande a thirty-one years' remainder of a ninety-two years' lease of the tithes of Stratford, Old Stratford, Bishopton, and Welcombe for 4.4.0!. Prosperity thickens ; and the gentle poet is loved as well as prosperous. Augustine Phillips, his co-partner in the profits of the house and fellow-actor, leaves him a 30-$-. gold piece as token of esteem ; nay, there is a credible tradition that James I. wrote him an autograph letter at this time. In 1606 we find he is still in possession of the house in Walker Street, but as he did not fill up the form for the Survey of Rowington Manor (l Aug.), he was probably absent from Stratford. In 1607 John Davies of Hereford compliments him in the Scourge of Folly ; and his daughter Susanna marries Dr. John Hall, a Stratford leech (June 5) ; but his good fortune is once more inter- rupted by that which cannot be evaded, Death. On 31 December, 1607, his youngest brother, Edmund, a player, is buried at St. Saviour's, Southwark, aged twenty-seven ; on 9 September, 1608, his mother, Mary, is buried at Stratford. Again bereavement, but if we can judge from his works, a softening one ; from this time he writes no more cynical tragedies ; he takes a healthier if not so grand a view of human life ; he returns to history and comedy ; but it is Roman and not Chronicle history ; and the comedy turns entirely on the rejoining of parents and children after long separation. His last period shows the most human feeling, if not the most perfect art. In the beginning of his Fourth Period, on October 16, 1608, Shakespeare was sponsor for William Walker, to whom in his will he leaves 2Os. In 1609 we find him again looking after his business carefully. On 15 March he instituted a process for 61. debt and io SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. 245-. costs against John Addenbrooke, and as he could not be found he pursued his surety, Thomas Horneby, on 7 June. In 1611 his name appears as a donor towards costs of a bill in Parliament tor better repair of highways and amending defects in the former statutes ; in the same year a fine was levied on the property he purchased in May 1602 and on twenty acres additional; in 1612, February 4, Richard Shakespeare, his only surviving brother, was buried ; and now, having no surviving male relative, all hope of con- tinuing the name and family is gone, and he finally quits his work after twenty years' hard exertion, having produced an average of two plays each year : about ten in each of his four periods, which curiously enough are each of about five years' duration. In March 1613 he bought a house near Blackfriars Theatre, abutting on a street leading to Puddle Wharf against the King's Majesty's Wardrobe, for I2O/., paying 8o/. and mortgaging the house for the balance. This house he let to John Robinson for ten years. In the same year the draft of a bill in Chancery, endorsed Lane, Greene, and Shakespeare complainants, intended to be presented to Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, shows that on the moiety of tithes purchased by Shakespeare in 1605 too large a proportion of the reserved rent fell on the share of the complainants. His annual income from these tithes was I2O/. In 1613 the Globe Theatre, and probably many of his MSS., was burnt down. This theatre was rebuilt the same year. In 1614 fifty-four houses were burnt in Stratford, and the town was agitated respecting the inclosure of certain common lands, which was opposed by the corporation. On 5 September his name occurs as one of the ancient freeholders to be compensated. On 8 October he and Thomas Greene, gent. , enter into covenant regarding compensation for inclosure intended by William Replingham. Thomas Greene was clerk to the corporation, and being sent to London on this business, says, on 17 November: "My cousin Shakespeare coming yesterday to town I went to see him, and he and Mr. Hall say they think there will be nothing done at all." On 23 December a hall of the corpora- tion was held, and letters with nearly all the corporation's signatures were written to Mr. Many ring and Mr. Shakespeare, and Greene subjoins that he also writ to his cousin Shakespeare copies of all the acts and a note of the inconveniences that would happen. SHAKESPEARE'S DEA TH. 1 1 He holds the confidence of the public and of his relatives to the last. In 1614 his name is on the jury list in a copy of the customs of the manor of Rowington ; he had property in fee from that manor. In the same year John Combe leaves him 5/. in his will. There is also a notice in the Stratford Chamberlain's accounts of a quart of sack and a quart of claret given to a preacher at New Place, cost 2od. In 1616 Judith, his daughter, was married to Thomas Quiney, vintner, Stratford (February 10) ; on 25 March he made his will ; on his fifty-third birthday he died, and was buried two days after in Trinity Church, Stratford, where the bust, made from a cast taken after death still exists, though, through Malone's want of taste, the hazel eyes, the auburn hair and beard, the scarlet doublet, black tabard, green and crimson cushion, and gilt tassels were all white- washed. 1 His wife survived him seven years. Five years' poverty, twenty years' hard work, three years' rest in bereavement, then the final rest in the grave. Such was Shake- speare's life after leaving his home in 1585-6 ; such is the life of most true men. La vie c*est le travail, said Poisson. Without the work he may have been happier ; but who would not accept his lot with all its troubles ? Loved by his fellows, his relatives, and friends, respected by his citizens, favoured by two sovereigns, he sank into an honoured grave to become the favourite of his countrymen, and the idol of all that care for literature or art. A myriad- minded man, as all great men are, more or less : but more than this, a true-hearted, loving, catholic soul, one to whom nothing in God's universe is strange, nothing despicable ; the nearest approach to perfect of all the mighty geniuses our little island has produced. I append in illustration of the preceding statements extracts from contemporaries alluding to Shakespeare personally, or to passages in his plays chronologically important. These will form the subject of the next chapter. * The whitewash is now removed and the colours restored. CHAPTER II. PASSAGES SUPPOSED TO ALLUDE TO SHAKESPEARE, EXTRACTED FROM CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS. " It is a common practice nowadays among a sort of shifting companions that run through every art and thrive by none, to leave the trade of noverint whereto they were born, and busy themselves with the endeavours of art, that could scarce Latinise their neck- verse if they should have need." NASH, Preface to Greenes Menaphon, 1589. "New found songs and sonnets which every red-nose fiddler hath at his finger's end ; . . . . make poetry an occupation, lying is their living, and fables are their movables .... think knowledge a burden, tapping it before they have half tunned it, venting it before they have filled it, in whom the saying of the orator is verified : Ante ad dicendum quam ad cognoscendum veniunt. They come to speak before they come to know. They contemn arts as unprofit- able, contenting themselves with a little country-grammar know- ledge." NASH, Anatomy of Absurdity, 1590. "With the first and second leaf he plays very prettily, and in ordinary terms of extenuating verdits Piers Penniless for a grammar- school wit ; says his margin is as deeply learned as Fauste precor gelida." NASH, Piers Penniless, 1592. "Alas, poor Latinless authors For my part I do challenge no praise of learning to myself, yet have I worn a gown in the University, and so hath caret tempus non habet moribus ; but this I dare presume, that if any Mecenas bind me to him by his SUPPOSED ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE. 13 bounty, or extend some sound liberality to me worth the speaking of, I will do him as much honor as any poet of my beardless years shall in England. "-NASH, Piers Penniless, 1592. " Our pleasant Willy ah is dead of late," &c. SPENSER, Tears of the Muses, 1590, refers probably to Lilly, who "wrote no play after 1589," says Malone. ** An upstart crow beautified in our feathers that, with his 'Tiger's heart wrapt in a player's hide/ supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you, and being an absolute Johannes Factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country." GREENE, Groatsivorth of Wit, 1592. "About three months since died Mr, Robert Greene, leaving many papers in sundry booksellers' hands, among others his Groats- worth of Wit, in which a letter written to divers playwriters is offensively by one or two of them taken ; and because on the dead they cannot be avenged, they wilfully forge in their conceits a living author ; and after tossing it to and fro, no remedy but it must needs light on me With neither of them that take offence was I acquainted, and with one of them (Marlowe ?) I care not if I never be. The other (Shakespeare ?) whom at that time I did not so much spare as since I wish I had .... that I did not I am as sorry as if the original fault had been my fault ; because myself have seen his demeanor no less civil than excellent in the quality he professes. Besides, divers of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues his honesty ; and his facetious grace in writing, that approves his wit I protest it was all Gieane's, and not mine nor Master Nash's, as some have unjustly affirmed." C KETTLE, Kind Hart 's Dream, 1592. "Shakespeare paints poor Lucreece' rape." WilLobie, his Avisa, 1594. " And there though last not least is Action, A gentler shepherd may no where he found Whose muse full of high thought's invention, Doth like himself heroically sound." SPENSER, Colin Clout's come Home again, 1595. 14 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. But this more likely means Dray ton (Rowland), author of Heroical Epistles and Idea (i5ea = CUTIOJ/). See extracts from Athenaum in Part ii. Kempe. " Why here's our fellow Shakespeare puts them all down, ay, and Ben Jonson too. O that Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow ; he brought up Horace giving the poets a pill ; but our fellow Shake- speare hath given him a purge that made him bewray his credit. Burbage. "He is a shrewd fellow, indeed." Return from Parnassus, 1602 (?). "The sweet witty soul of Ovid lives in mellifluous and honey- tongued Shakespeare. Witness his Venus and Adonis, his Lucreece, his sugared Sonnets among his private friends. Shakespeare among the English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage. For Comedy, witness his Gentlemen of Verona, his Errors, his Love's Labours Lost, his Lovers Labour's Won, his Midsummer 's N/gkt's Dream, and his Merchant of Venice ; for Tragedy, his Richard the 2, Richard the 3, Henry the 4, King JjJin, Titus Andronicus, and his Romeo and Juliet. "The Muses would speak with Shakespeare's fine-filed phrase if they would speak English," &c., c. MERES, Palladis Tawia, 1598. *' And Shakespeare, thou whose honey-flowing vein Pleasing the world thy praises doth obtain, Whose Venus and whose Lucreece, sweet and chaste, Thy name in Fame's immortal book hath placed," &c. R. BARNEFIELD, Poems and Divers Persons, 1598. " Ad Gulielmum Shakespeare. " Honey-tongued Shakespeare, when I saw thine issue I swore Apollo got them and none other : Their rosy-tainted features clothed in tissue Some heaven-born goddess said to be their mother : Rose cheekt Adonis, with his amber tresses, Fair firehot Venus, charming him to love her, Chaste Lucretia, virgin-like her dresses, Proud, lust-stung Tarquin seeking still to prove her ; SUPPOSED ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE. 15 Romeo, Richard, more whose names I know not, Their sugar'd tongues and power-attractive beauty, Say they are saints, although that saints they show not, For thousands vows to them subjective duty ; They burn in love thy children, Shakespeare, het them, Go woo thy Muse ! More nymphish brood beget them ! " WEEVER, Epigrams^ 1596. " Players, I love ye and your quality, As ye are men that pastime not abused, And some I love for painting poesy, (W. S. R. B.) And say fell Fortune cannot be excused That hath for better uses you refused. Wit, courage, good shape, good parts, and all good As long as all these goods are no worse used, And though the stage doth stain pure gentle blood, Yet generous ye are in mind and mood." SIR JOHN DAVIES, Microcosmos, 1603. " Nor doth the silver-tongued Melicert Drop from his honey'd Muse one sable tear To mourn her death that graced his desert And to his lines open'd her royal ear. Shepherd, remember our Elizabeth, And sing her rape done by that Tarquin, Death ! " HENRY C METTLE, England's Mourning Garment, 1603. "There shalt thou learn to be frugal (for players were never so thrifty as they are now about London) ; and to feed upon all men, to let none feed upon thee, to make thy hand a stranger to thy pocket, thy heart slow to perform thy tongue's promise ; and when thou feelest thy purse well lined, buy thee some place of lordship in the country, that, growing weary of playing, thy money may then bring thee to dignity and reputation ; then thou needest care for no man ; no, not for them that before made thee proud with speaking their words on the stage. Sir, I thank you (quoih the player) for this good counsel. I promise you I will make use of it, for I have heard, indeed, of some that have gone to London very meanly, and 16 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. have come in time to be exceeding wealthy." Raise? s GJiost, 1605-6. " You poets all, brave Shakespeare, Jonson, Greene, Bestow your time to write For England's Queen. " A Mournful Ditty, &c., 1603. " 71? our English Terence, Mr. Will Shakespeare. " Some say, good Will, which I in sport do sing, Hadst thou not play'd some kingly parts in sport Thou hadst been a companion for a king, And been a king among the meaner sort. Some others rail ; but rail as they think fit, Thou hast no railing but a reigning wit ; And honesty thou sowst which they do reap, So to increase their stock which they do keep." JOHN DAVIES, Scourge of Folly ', 1607. " That full and heightened style of Master Chapman, the laboured and understanding works of Master Jonson, the no less worthy composures of the both worthily excellent Master Beaumont and Master Fletcher ; and lastly (without wrong last to be named), the right happy and copious industry of Master Shakespeare, Master Dekker, and Master Hey wood." JOHN WEBSTER, Dedication to the White Devil, 1612. " To Master Wm. Shakespeare. " Shakespeare, that nimble Mercury, thy brain, Lulls many hundred Argus' eyes asleep : So fit for all thou fashionest thy vein, At th' horse- foot fountain thou hast drunk full deep. Virtue's or vice's theme to thee all one is : Who loves chaste life, there's Lucreece for a teacher ; Who lists read lust, there's Venus and Adonis^ True model of a most lascivious lecher ; Besides, in plays thy wit winds like Meander, Whence needy new composers borrow more SUPPOSED ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE, 17 Than Terence doth from Plautus or Menander, But to praise thee aright I want thy store. Then let thine own work thine own worth upraise. And help t' adorn thee with deserved days. " THOMAS FREEMAN, Rub and a Great Cast, 1614. " To him that impt my fame with Clio's quill, Whose magic rais'd me from Oblivion's den, That writ my story on the Muses' hill, And with my actions dignified his pen ; He that from Helicon sends many a rill, Whose nectar'd veins are drunk by thirsty men, Crown'd be his style with fame, his head with bays, And none detract but gratulate his praise. Yet if his scenes have not engrost all grace, The much famed actor could extend on stage, If Time or Memory have left a place For me to fill t' enform this ignorant age ; In that intent I show my horrid face, Imprest with fear and characters of rage, Nor acts nor chronicles could e'er contain The hell-deep reaches of my soundless brain." C. B., The Ghost of Richard III., 1614. "A hall, a hall! Room for the spheres, the orbs celestiall Will dance Kempe's jig. They'll revel with neat jumps ; A worthy poet hath put on their pumps. wit's quick travers, but sance ceos slow, Good faith, 'tis hard for nimble Curio. Ye gracious orbs, keep the old measuring, All's spoild if once ye fall to caperir g. Luscus, what's playd to-day? Faith, now I know; 1 set thy lips abroach, from whence doth flow Nought but pure Juliet and Romeo. Say who acts best, Drusus or Roscio ? i8 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Now I have him that ne'er of aught did speak But when of plays or players he did treat. H'ath made a commonplace-book out of plays, And speaks in print, at least whate'er he says Is warranted by Curtain plaudities. If ere you heard 'him courting Lesbia's eyes, Say, Courteous Sir, speaks he not movingly From out some new pathetic tragedy ? He writes, he rails, he jests, he courts, what not, And all from out his huge long-scraped stock Of well-penn'd plays." MARSTON, Scourge of Villany> Satire x., 1598. " A man, a man, a kingdom for a man." From the same, Satire vii. Compare with the foregoing Romeo and Juliet : " Earth-treading stars that make dark heaven light." i. 2, 25. " A hall, a hall, give room and foot it, girls." i. 5, 24 (not in first quarto). " You have dancing shoes with nimble soles .... Mer. Soar with them above a common bound." i. 4, 12. " Two of the fairest stars in all the heavens, Having some business, do entreat her eyes To twinkle in their spheres till they return." ii. 2, 14. and ii. 4, 60, &c., for " wit's quick traverse." Tne following parallels are from contemporary plays : "Now to the next tap-house, there drink down this, and by the operation of the third pot, quarrel again." Ram Alley, ii. 2. 11 He enters the confines of a tavern .... and by the operation of the second cup draws him on the drawer." Romeo and Juliet iii. i, 6. SUPPOSED ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE. 19 " Dash, we must bear some brain." Ram Alley, ii. 4. "Well I do bear a brain." Romeo and Juliet ', i. 3. " Is there no trust, no honesty in men ? " Ram Alley, ii. 4. "There's no trust, no faith, no honesty in men." jRo?tit'o and Juliet, iii. 2, 88. " He stirreth not, he moveth not, he waggeth not." Ram Alley, iv. 2. *' He heareth not, he stirreth not, he moveth not." Romeo and Juliet, ii. 2, 16. " But why speak I of shame to thee, whose face Is steel'd with custom' d sin, whose thoughts want grace. The custom of thy sin so lulls thy sense, Women ne'er blush though ne'er so foul th' offence, To break thy vow to me, and straight to wed A dealing stinkard." Ram Alley, v. 3. Imitated from Hamlet, iii. 4, 161 ; i. 4, 48 : " That monster custom, who all sense doth eat Of habit's devil," &c. (not in Folio.) "What a falling off was there f . From me, whose love was of that dignity That it went hand in hand even with the vow I. made to her in marriage, and to decline Upon a wretch." This shows that at the date of the acting of Ram Alley (published 1611) the quarto form (Q 2) of Hatnkt was acted : the alterations in the folio must be of subsequent date ; the play is one continuous parody of Shakespeare ; contains allusions to Othello (" Villain, slave, thou hast wrong'd my wife ! "), to Much Ado About Nothing, Measure 2 2 20 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. for Measure, AIVs Well that Ends Well, and other plays. It was acted by the Revells Children between 1607 and 1611, probably not so near the later date, when it was published, as the former. The Du?nb Knight, by Lewis Machin and Gervase Markham, acted by the Revells Children, and published 1608, in addition to indirect allusions to and parodies on Lear, Merry Wives of Windsor, Othello, Macbeth, as well as earlier plays, contains this passage : ' J A book that never an orator's clerk in this kingdom but is be- holden unto ; it is called Maids' Philosophy, or Venus and Adonis" If the character of Alphonso is imitated from lachimo, Cymbeline cannot be later than 1608 ; but I think this not likely. Another play filled with allusions to Shakespeare is the Puritan, by W. S., 1607, acted by the Paul's Children ; for instance : " Instead of a jester we'll have the ghost in a white sheet set at the upper end of the table." Macbeth was the first of Shakespeare's plays that had no jester in it. Act iv. Sc. 3 is distinctly imitated from Pericles, iii. 2, which fixes the date oi that play as not later than 1607. Compare also Richard III., i. 2, 33. *' Pyeboard. Let me entreat the corpse to be set down. Sheriff. Bearers, set down the coffin. This were wonderful and worthy Stowe's Chronicle. Pye. I pray bestow the freedom of the air upon our wholesome art. Mass ! His cheeks begin to receive natural warmth. . . . O, he stirs, he stirs again ; look, gentlemen ! he recovers, he starts, he rises. Sher. O, O defend us ! out. alas ! Pye. Nay ; pray be still ; you'll make him more giddy else. He knows nobody yet. Oath. Zounds, where am I ? Covered with snow ! I marvel. Pye. Nay ; I knew he would swear the first thing, &c. &c. " In comparing Pericles, note that Thaisa says, " O, dear Diana ! Where am I ? " on awaking. Locrine, 1595, edited by W. S., is a remarkable play ; it contains allusions to, parodies on lines in, or the lines themselves borrowed SUPPOSED ALLUSIONS TO SHAKESPEARE, 21 from, the plays of Peele, Greene, and Marlowe ; the so-called plays of Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus, Henry VI. , and Richard III.; Kyd's Jeronimo and other old dramas. But in no instance can I trace any allusion to any undoubted play of Shakespeare. The wooing of Eshild, Act iv. Sc. I, seems to be imitated from Richard ///., i. 2. and " Methinks I see both armies in the field," echoes " I think there be six Richmonds in the field." If this be so, Richard III. cannot have been written later than 1595, which agrees with the date I give to it. Here we must leave this subject, not from deficiency of material, but because a fuller exposition of the question would require a volume, and is unfit for an elementary treatise. We next proceed to consider Shakespeare's plays individually as regards I, their authenticity ; 2, the origin of their plots ; 3, the date of their pro- duction ; 4, miscellaneous observations which do not fall under the above headings. Throughout the next chapter the numbers I, 2, 3, 4, refer to the headings now enumerated. I take the plays in their chronological order as nearly as it can be ascertained ; this being the natural order for study or investigation of any writer whose development we care to become acquainted with; and therefore I prefix a table of the time-succession of Shakespeare's works. The reasons for the order will be found under the heads of each play. f CHAPTER III. ON THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE. Approximate Chronological Table of the production of Shakespeare's Works. 1588 Venus and Adonis. 1589 Taming of a Shrew (part). Corambis Hamlet (part) i. 1591 Love's Labour's Lost (revised 1597). Love's Labour's Won. . ii. IS9 2 Comedy of Errors, iii. Midsummer Night's Dream (revised 1599). 1593 Lucrece. iv. Richard II. (revised 1597). v. 1594 Edward III. (part). Troilus and Cressida and Twelfth Night (begun). vi. 1595 Two Gentlemen of Verona (completed), vii. Richard III. (quarto), viii. ? Scene in I Henry VI. ix. John. x. 1596 Romeo and Juliet (first revision), xi. Merchant of Venice. Sonnets. 1597 Romeo and Juliet (finished). Love's Labour's Lost (revised). ON THE PLA YS OF SHAKESPEARE. xii. I Henry IV. xiii. 1598 2 Henry IV. xiv. Merry Wives of Windsor (first draught). xv * I 599 Henry V. xvi. Much Ado About Nothing. xvii. 1600 Julius Caesar, xviii. As You Like^It. ) xix. 1601 Twelfth Night. xx. Hamlet (first draught). xxi. 1602 Taming of the Shrew (part). xxii. ? Sejanus (part). Richard III. (folio). xxiii. 1603 Measure for Measure. Hamlet (complete) xxiv. 1604 All's Well that Ends Well (re-written). xxv. Othello. xx vi. 1 605 Lear. Merry Wives of Windsor (complete). xxvii. 1606 Maqbeth. xxviii. Timon (part). xxix. 1607 Troilus and Cressida (finished). xxx. Pericles (part). xxxi. 1608 Antony and Cleopatra. Cymbeline (begun). xxxii. 1609 Coriolanus. xxxiii. Two Noble Kinsmen (part). xxxiv. 1610 Cymbeline (finished). xxxv. Tempest, xxxvi. 1611 Winter's Tale. xxxvii, Henry VIII, (part). 24 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. I. LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST. 1. Certainly Shakespeare's. 2. Origin unknown. 3. Dated by Drake and Delius (rightly) 1591 ; Chalmers, 1592 ; Malone, 1594. It was printed in 1598, as " presented before her highness [Queen Elizabeth] last Christmas (1597), and newly cor- rected and augmented." Among the added parts are probably, i. 2, 171 192; iii. I, 166207; iv. 3, i 25; v. 2, 575 590; 726 833 ; 847 879 ; and the corrected parts, i. I, I 48 ; ii. i, i 177; iv. i, i 12; iv. 3, 290380; v. 2, i 40. The conceit of A-jax and ajakes being perhaps taken from Harrington's Metamorphosis of Ajax, 1596 (cf. v. 2, 579), and "the first and second cause, passado, duello," &c., alluding to Saviolo's Treatise of Honour and Honourable Quarrels, 1595 (cf. i. 2, 184). 4. Berowne and Rosaline in this play are first sketches of Benedick and Bettris in Much Ado About Nothing. There was a companion play called Love's Labour's Won, mentioned by Meres, but not extant. This is generally, and no doubt rightly, considered to have been the nucleus of All's Well that Ends Well. Mr. Brae inclines to JMuch Ado About Nothing: I think as good a case as his could be made out for Twelfth Night or for several other plays of Shake- speare's. The title is alluded to in Two Gentlemen of Verona, Act. i. Sc. i, 6. II. COMEDY OF ERRORS. 1. Undoubtedly Shakespeare's (though all the doggrel lines are suspected by Ritson). 2. Taken from the Mtnachmi of Plautus ; in great part of the plot. There is a translation of this comedy by W[illiam] W[arner], 1595. From the last line of the prologue to this, "Much pleasant trror ere they meet together," Shakespeare may have taken his title ; ON THE PLA YS OF SHAKESPEARE. 25 but the foundation of the play was probably not this translation, but " The Historic of Error shewn at Hampton Court on New Yere's daie at night (1576-7), enacted by the Children of Pawles." Yet Warner's play was entered at Stationers' Hall 10 June, 1594, and the printer's advertisement states it had been circulated for some time in MS. 3. Assigned by Drake, Chalmers, and Delius to 1591, by Malone to 1592. I agree with Malone. The only note of time is " Ant. S. In what part of her body stands France? " Drom. S. In her forehead, arm'd and reverted, making war against her hair. " The heir of France was Henri IV. ; the war about his succession began August 1589. Henri became a Roman Catholic 25 July, I 593 an d was crowned February 1594. This limits the date. 4. In this play, as in the preceding, the unity of time is observed ; and the action is confined to one town. The plot is so improbable as to distinctly mark the play as one of the first group, of plays of fancy. It is seldom acted, the extreme difficulty of obtaining two pairs of actors sufficiently like to realize the " errors " enough for modern taste being insurmountable. Nor is it in any sense one of Shake- speare's best plays. It is more like Midsummer Nights Dream than any other in the fantastic tangle of events on which the plot is founded. The opening scenes also are very similar in their motives. For the likeness of the twins compare Viola and Sebastian in Twelfth. Night. It is noticeable that in this the first play in which Shakespeare treats of jealousy it is the woman who is jealous. III. MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM. 1. Undoubted. 2. Hints for the framework of Theseus and Hippolyta were probably received from Chaucer's Knight's Tale; for the interlude of Thisbe from Chaucer's Thisbe of Babylon ; for the fairies from popular ta.'es of Robin Goodfdlow ; but Oberon from Greene's James IV. 26 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. 3. Dated by Drake, 1593; Chalmers, 1598; Malone, 1594; Delius later than 1594 ; I should place it in 1592. Oberon and Titania were introduced in a dramatic entertainment before Queen Elizabeth in 1591. Act v. I, 52, " The thrice three muses mourning for the death of learning, late deceased in beggary," alludes to the Tears of the Muses by Spenser, published in 1591, or possibly to the death of Greene in 1592, or to both. 4. This play is full of young poetry, fanciful and lively ; the story is very poor, and there is little development of character in any of the personages except Bottom and his company. The unity of time is not so strictly kept as in the Comedy of Errors ; the time occupied is two days and a half. It is very like the Errors in its embroilment's and its framework. For the name compare Winter's Tale, if it be taken in the sense of a "summer's story" (Sonnet 98); but the allusions to the name in the play itself (iv. I, end ; Epilogue, &c.) do not confirm this interpretation. Similar allusions are found in Comedy of Errors, v. I, 388 ; Measure for Measure, v. I, 416 ; AWs Well that Ends Well, iv. 4, 35 ; v. I, 24. IV. RICHARD II. V, 1. Certainly Shakespeare's. 2. Founded on Holinshed's Chronicle. 3. Dated 1596 by Drake, Chalmers, and Delius; 1593 by Malone (rightly). 4. There was an earlier play (called Henry IV.} in which Richard was deposed and killed on the stage. It was performed at a public theatre, at the request of Sir Gilly Merick and other followers of ' Lord Essex, the afternoon before his insurrection. Merick gave forty shillings extra to Phillips to play it, as the play was old and would not draw. In Shakespeare's play the deposition scene was not printed till 1608. It was probably not acted, and. suppressed in the edition of 1597 because the Pope had published a bull against Elizabeth in 1596 exhorting rebellion. In 1599 Hay ward was ON THE PLA YS OF * SHAKESPEARE. 27 censured in the Star Chamber, and imprisoned for publishing his History of the First Year of Henry IV., which is simply the deposi- tion of Richard II. The time comprised in the play is two years, 1398-1400. It was Shakespeare's earliest historical play, and rightly called a tragedy in the title of the old quarto. So was Richard III.; but not Heury IV., Henry V., or John. It is less suited to the stage than the other histories. V. EDWARD III. 1. Supposed by Collier, Ulrici, and others, to be entirely Shake- speare's. In my opinion only the love story, Act i. Sc. 2, Act. ii., is his. Mr. Tennyson tells me, however, that he can trace the master's hand throughout the play at intervals. See my paper from the Academy, 2$ April, 1874, in Part II. 2. Founded on Holinshed, and the Shakespeare-part on the Palace of Pleasure. 3. Published in 1596 as having been " played sundry times about the city of London." Written probably a year or two before this. 4. Unlike Shakespeare's undoubted historical plays in containing a love story and involving the principal personage in unhistorical adventures. In these and other respects it is like Peele's Edward I.; but the flow of metre is not like Peele. Did Shakespeare finish and correct this play as he did Richard III. ? The metre is like that of this play as corrected. Or is it by Lodge ? VI. Two GENTLEMEN OF VERONA. I. Mr. Upton and Sir Thomas Hanmer have supposed this play to be spurious. Mr. Halliwell (Phillipps) and I at one time sus- pected a second author to have written part of it ; we have both withdrawn this opinion, which was founded on the ground of numerous expressions not found elsewhere in Shakespeare. They are, however, Shakespearian in manner. 28 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. 2. The greater part of this play is taken from the Story of the Shepherdess Filismcna in the Diana of Montemayor. Bartholomew Young published a translation of the Diana ; his dedication is dated November 1598. It had been previously translated by Thomas Wilson in 1595-6 ; and parts by Edward Paston and Sir Philip Sidney. Young's was the only one published, and was probably completed as early as 1582-3. The ending of the play is, however, taken from Apollonius and Sylla, a novel by Bandello, extant (untranslated) in 1554. The original of the Diana dates 1560. There is an English translation of Apollonius and Sylla in Riche, his farewell to militaire profession 1606. This and Felix and Felismena are reprinted in Collier's Shakespeare *s Library. The encomium on solitude (v. 4) and Valentine's consenting to head the robbers, are taken from P. Sidney's Arcadia, B. i. Chap, 6, where Pyrocles acts in a similar way (published 1590). 3. This play is assigned by Malone to 1591, by Delius to an earlier date still; by Chalmers and Drake to 1595. I assign the two first acts to the beginning of 1593, the three last to 1595. The external evidence is very slight. " Some to the wars to try their fortunes there ; Some, to discover islands far away," (Act i. Sc. 3,) may refer to the following circumstances : In 1595 Sir W. Raleigh undertook a voyage to Trinidado, whence he made an expedition up the Oronoque to discover Guiana. Sir Humphrey Gilbert had made a similar voyage in 1594. A second invasion by the Spaniards was expected in 1595. Soldiers were levied, fleets were equipped, troops were sent to aid Henri IV. of France in consequence. Speed says, "Like one that had the pestilence," (Act ii. Sc. I.) There was a great plague in London in 1593, and 11,000 died there. But this kind of evidence has little value ; Essex had been joined by many volunteers when he went to France in 1591. There was a plague in 1583. Marlowe's Hero and Leander was entered at Stationers' Hall 18 September, 1593. Marlowe was buried on I June, the same year. ON THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE. 29 There is an allusion to that story in Act i. Sc. I, probably from Marlowe's poem, which may have circulated in MS. some time before. This is, however, not likely. Shakespeare alludes to the same story in other plays, of which the earliest is Romeo and Juliet (probably 1596), Act iii. Sc. I. The allusion to " Merops' son" is likely to be taken from the old play of King John (1591), "As scmetimes Phaeton Mistrusting silly Merops for his sire." This play Shakespeare certainly read before 1596, as his own King John, founded on it cannot be placed later than that year. Mr. Boaden (who has been followed by many later critics) observed that the germs of other plays are contained in this comedy. 4. This play, whether from being an early work, as some think, or from being an attempt at an entirely new kind of comedy, that of social life as distinguished from that of mere fancy, as illustrated in the three preceding plays ; or from having been produced at a period of depression (compare Sonnet 29, &c.), as I think, is certainly one of the weakest and least satisfactory of all Shakespeare's plays. It is less poetic than any other, though some lines are eminently beau- tiful and quotable. It is more careless, not only in sending Valentine to Milan by sea, but' also in twice having Verona in the text where Milan is required. There is also a strange confusion between duke and emperor, similar to confusions which I notice elsewhere. It is unnatural in some of its incidents ; in Silvia's giving Proteus her picture, though she rejects his suit ; in Valentine's surrendering Silvia to the perjured Proteus ; in Proteus's threat to employ force to Silvia. It has many weak versions of incidents and situations that are much better rendered in other plays. For instance, com- pare the character of Valentine with that of Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet : of Launce with Lancelot Gobbo, and of Lucetta with Nerissa in the Merchant of Venice ; the incidents of the rope ladder and the banishment of the principal character with those in Romeo and Juliet. This inferiority must not, however, be taken as absolute evidence as to relative date, since it often happens in plays known to be later than those in which the betier version occurs. Compare, for 30 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. example, the Constable in Measure for Measure with Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing. It is to be noted that this is the earliest comedy and, except Richard II. , the earliest play in which the unity of time is altogether neglected in defiance of Sir Philip Sidney. That of place had also been given up in Richard II. The plots of many of these early plays are built up of the same or very similar materials. The following table may be useful as showing the characters to be compared in some of them, and in the tales from which this play is taken : Romeo and Two Felix Apol. Twelfth Juliet. All's Well Gentlemen. and Fel. and Sylla. Night. Sebastian. Valeric. Silvio. Cesario. Rosaline. Helena. Julia. Felismena. Sylla. Viola. Juliet. Diana. bilvia. Celia. Juliana. Olivia. Romeo. Bertram. Proteus. Don Felix. Apollonius. Count. Mercutio. Valentine. . Silvio. Sebastian. Some of the weaknesses of the play arise from an exaggerated carrying out of the main idea, which is certainly that of friendship ; first broken then restored ; the corresponding play is the Merchant of Venice. Antonio is the contrast to Proteus j Launce and Lucetta are clearly germs of Launcelot and Nerissa. VII. RICHARD III. 1. Halliwell thinks that the turbulent character of this play as we now have it is due to an older one. I have no doubt that it was originally written by G. Peele, left unfinished by him, completed and partly corrected by Shakespeare as we have it in the Quartos, and that Shakespeare afterwards altered it into the shape in which it was printed in the Folio. No other hypothesis can, I think, account for its similarity to much of Henry VI. which is not Shakespearian, and also for the unparalleled differences between the Folio and Quarto. (See my essay in Macmillaris Magazine for November, 1875, on Henry VI.) 2. Founded on Holinshed's Chronicle and a preceding play on the same subject produced by the Queen's Company in 1594. ON THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE. 31 3. Date of first production probably 1595. 4. Period involved, eight years : 1477-85. This, like the Taming' of the Shrew, has always been a favourite acting piece. VIII. i HENRY VI. 1. Condemned by nearly all critics ; and assigned in various divisions to Marlowe, Greene, &c. I have little doubt that Marlowe wrote i. I, i. 3, iii. I, iv. I, v. I ; Lodge wrote i. 2 6, ii. I 3, iii. 2, 3, [? iv. 2 7, v. 2] ; Shakespeare wrote ii. 4, and perhaps ii. 5 ; and possibly he in his very early time, but more likely Lodge, wrote iv. 2 7 and v. 2. Some fourth and unknown hand certainly wrote iv. 4, v. I, v. 5, which are quite different from the rest of the play. 2. Founded on Holinshed ; but not following him so closely as the histories by Shakespeare do. 3. Certainly before 1592, when it was acted by L. Strange's men at the Rose. The Chamberlain's Company had it before 1599. See Epilogue to Henry V. 4. This play is independent of 2 Henry VI. and 3 Henry VI. It was tacked to them by the writer of the last scene after 1600. It probably passed to the Chamberlain's Company when L. Strange's men joined them in 1594. IX. JOHN. 1. Certainly Shakespeare's. 2. Founded on The Troublesome Raigne of John, King of England, ivith the Discoverie of King Richard Cordeliorfs base Son, vulgarly named the Bastard Fawconbridge ; also the Death of King John at Siuinstead Abbey. 1591. Falsely attributed to Shakespeare in title- page of 1622 and to W. Sh. in that of 1611. 32 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. 3. Hamnet. Shakespeare's only son, died in August 1596. Con- stance's lament for Arthur's loss (Act iii. Sc. 4) would appear to be written soon before this event. " A braver choice of dauntless spirits Than now the English bottoms have waft o'er, Did never float upon the swelling tide To do offense and scathe to Christendom," (Act ii. Sc. I,) was probably suggested by the great fleet then preparing to be sent against Spain in 1596. It sailed on 3 June, the great armada was destroyed, Cadiz sacked, and the fleet returned by 8 August, four days before Hamnet died. The Spanish Tragedy, Solyman and Perseda, and Captain Thomas Stukely are quoted or alluded to ; but they do not help to fix the date, which Drake and Chalmers place in 1598. Mai one and Delius in 1596. I prefer 1595. 4. The action extends through the whole of John's reign from 1199 to 1216. It is the first historical play, properly so called, among Shakespeare's works. X. ROMEO AND JULIET. 1. Boswell has conjectured that in the first Quarto (1597) there are embodied remains of an older play on which Shakespeare founded his. I believe that G. Peele wrote the early play about 1593; that Shakespeare in 1596 corrected this up to the point where there is a change of type in Q I (to end of Act ii. Sc. 3), and in 1597 completed his corrections as in Q 2. 2. Luigi da Porto's novel, Hystoria di dui nobili Amanti (Venice, 1535), followed by Bandello's novel (Lucca, 1554), was the origin of Boisteau's. From Boisteau, Painter took his Rhomeo and Julietta (Palace of Pleasure, 1567), and Arthur Brooke his poem of The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, containing a Rare Example of True Constancie, &c. (1562, 2nd Edition, 1587). Shakespeaie copied the poem, using the novel occasionally, as is clear from the following table : ON THE PLA YS OF SHAKESPEARE. 33 Novel. Name of prince. Signer Escala. Romeo's family. Montesches. Friar's messenger. Anselmo. Act i. Sc. 2, 1. 68-75. Omitted. Capulet's residence. Villa Franca. Romeo's name. Juliet's sleep. Rhomeo. 40 hours. Play. Poem. Eskales. Escalus. Mountagues. Montagues. John. John. Given. Given. Freetown. Freetown). Romeo. 42 hours. omitted. 3. Dated by Chalmers, 1592 ; Drake, 1593 (rightly for George Peele's share) ; Delius, 1591 ; Malone, 1596 (rightly for Shakespeare's corrected edition). Malone' s argument is this : Shakespeare, Bur- bage, and others, "the Lord Chamberlain's men," on the death of Henry Lord Hunsdon the Lord Chamberlain (22 July, 1596), were protected and sanctioned by George Lord Hunsdon. In August 1596 William Brooke, Lord Cobham, was appointed Chamberlain, who died 5 March, 1596-7 ; on 17 April George Lord Hunsdon succeeded him. The company could therefore only be called Lord Hunsdon's men (as they are in title-page of Quarto, 1597,) between July 1596 and April 1597. [But this only shows that the piece was produced in that interval, not that the original play was then written.] In Act iii. Sc. I, Q I, the " first and second causes " are mentioned : that passage (not the whole play) was therefore written after Saviolo's Book on Honour and Honourable Quarrels had been published (1594) ; see LovJs Labour's Lost, Act i. Sc. 2. This fixes the earliest date for the play, say some critics ; but Peele may have known this book in the original language. There are passages in Act v. very like some in Daniel's Complaint of Rosamond (entered February 1591-2). The comedy of Doctor Doddipcll, which appeared, Malone says, before 1596, imitates (?) this play ; compare Act iii. Sc. 2, line 22, &c., Q2, with " The glorious parts of fair Lucilia, Take them and join them in the heavenly spheres, And fix them there as an eternal light For lovers to adore and wonder at." 34 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. In v. 2, 9, Q I, the practice of sealing up the doors of plague- infected houses is alluded to. This may refer to the plague of 1593. In Act i. Sc. 3, line 23, Q I, the nurse's speech probably alludes to the earthquake in 1580 as Juliet's weaning day ; and as Juliet is nearly fourteen years old, this brings us to 1593. The nurse's miscalculation, that fourteen less one makes eleven, adds to the humour of the passage. Weever's Epigrams (published before 1595) allude to this play. See page 1 5. I 4. This is certainly Shakespeare's earliest tragedy. It was prob- ably meant as a companion to Troylus and Cressida, the love-story in which is, I think, of the date 1 594, Faithful Juliet is the con- trast to faithless Cressid. The only other instances of similar titles of paired names are Benedick and Betteris (Much Ado About Nothing) and Antony and Cleopatra. The play was acted at the Curtain Theatre ; it is rather to be classed with the other early ones as a love play than with the great tragedies, which form a group by themselves. Mercutio is like Valentine (Two Gentle?nen of Verona} before he meets with Silvia. Romeo in his inconstancy is like Proteus ; also like the Count in Twelfth Night. The time occupied in the play is five days. XI. MERCHANT OF VENICE. 1. Undoubted. 2. The main plot is from the Pecorene of San Giovanni Fiorentino ; Fourth day, first novel, Gianetta (1378). The casket story from an old translation of the Gesta Romanorum (1577). Both stories are condensed in the Variorum Shakspeare (1821). Gosson (1579) mentions The Jew shown at the Bull, representing the greediness of worldly choosers (casket-scene) " and the bloody minds of usurers'' (Shylock). 3. Malone identifies this play with The Venesyan Comedy, acted at the Rose, 1594. But Shakespeare's plays were not at any date acted there. Drake and Chalmers date it, nearly rightly, 1597. I prefer 1 596. ON THE PLA YS OF SHAKESPEARE. 35 XIL i HENRY IV. 1. Undoubtedly Shakespeare's. 2. Founded on Holinshed's Chronicle, and The Famous Victories of King Henry the Fifth, containing the honourable Battle of Agincourt, 1 594. , 3. Entered 25 February, 1597-8. Written in 1596 (Drake), or more probably 1597 (the general opinion). 4. The period comprised in this play is about ten months, from 14 September, 1402 (Holyrood Day), to 21 July, 1403 (Eve of St. Mary Magdalen). In this and the succeeding plays Shakespeare reaches his highest point in comedy in the character of Falstaff. Prose appears here for the first time as an essential part of the drama in his historical plays. XIII. 2 HENRY IV. 1. Certainly Shakespeare's, 2. Same as preceding. 3. Dated by Drake, 1596; Chalmers, 1597 ; Malone, 1598, I think rightly. In Act iv. 4, 118, Clarence says: " The incessant care and labour of his mind Hath wrought the mure, that should confine it in, So thin, that life looks through and will break out." In Daniel's Civil Warres, 1. iii. st. 116 (entered October I594 published 1595,) we find : " Wearing the wall so thin that now the mind Might well -look thorough and his frailty find." In Act v. : "Not Amurath an Amurath succeeds," alludes to Mahomet's strangling his brothers on his succeeding to his father, Amurath III., in February 1596. 3-2 3 6 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Pistol's distich, "Si fortuna me tormenta," &c., appeared in Wits, Fits, and Fancies, entered at Stationers' Hall in 1595. Justice Shallow is alluded to by name in Every Man in His Humour, acted 1598, hence the date is fixed to 1596, 1597, or 1598. 4. The peridd comprised is nine years, 1403 1412. XIV. MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR. r. Certainly Shakespeare's. 2. Founded on The Lovers of Pisa, a tale in Tarleton's News out of Purgatorie (1589) ; printed in the Variorum Shakspeare (1821). 3. Said to have been written at the desire of Queen Elizabeth, to show Falstaff In love. Certainly written after Henry IV. ; possibly after Henry V. This play does not form one of the Henry IV. and V. series, and consistency with them is not to be looked for in it. Malone and Drake date it 1601. I prefer 1598 for the first sketch, as in Q I. The revised form of it, Q 2, is said to have been written about 1605, because "king" is substituted for "council " in Act i. I, 113. "These knights will hack," iii. i, 79, is supposed to allude to the 237 knights made by James I. before May 1603. So " When the court lay at Windsor," Act ii. Sc. 2, 1. 63, means probably July 1 603 : it was held usually at Greenwich in the summer. "Coach after coach," Act ii. Sc. 2, 1. 66, could not be much before 1605, when coaches came into general use (Howe's Continuation of Stowe's Chronicle]. "Outrun on Cotsale," Act i. Sc. I, 1. 92, alludes to the Cotswold games instituted by Robert Dover about 1603. 4. The surreptitious copy of the first form of this play was the only one published before the First Folio, the MS. of the improved form being in the hands of the proprietors of the Globe Theatre. The title Sir, given to priests, is a translation of Dominus ; it was restrained to Sir Knight, Sir Priest, Sir Graduate, and Sir Esquire. See A Decacordon of Ten Quodlibeticall Questions, &c., 1602. ON THE PLA YS OF SHAKESPEARE. \ 1. Undoubted. / ' 4 r 2. Same as Henry IV. J 3. Written while the Earl of Essex was in Ireland (see Act. v. , Chorus,) between April and September 1599, as promised in Epi- logue of 2 Henry IV. The allusion in the prologue to Every Man in His Humour is of no use to fix the date, not being written till 1601. 4. The early Quartos of this play are not first sketches, but surrep- titious copies grossly mutilated. The period comprised is from the first to the eighth year of Henry V. The allusions to Oldcastle (l Henry IV., i. 2, 48, 2 Henry IV., Epilogue,) refer not to the play of Sir John Oldcastle, wrongly attributed to Shakespeare, but to the character who takes Falstaff 's place in the worthless old play of The Famous Victories. The French scene, Act iii. Sc. 4, is quite exceptional. I hope it is not Shakespeare's, and believe it to be Lodge's. XVI. MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. 1. Certainly Shakespeare's. 2. Taken indirectly from a novel of Belleforest's after Bandello. There is a similar story in Ariosto, Orlando Furioso, Book v. , and in the Geneura of Turbervil. 3. Written in 1599 or 1600. 4. The characters of Benedick and Betteris are founded on those of Berowne and Rosaline in Lovers Labour's Lost. The old tale. " It is Not So," is given in the Variorum Shakspeare, 1821. 3$ SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. XVII. JULIUS CESAR. 1. Hitherto undoubted. I have, however, given reasons for supposing that Jonson either revised the play or superintended its revision. Antony is throughout it spelled without an h, as Jonson spells it. Shakespeare elsewhere always uses the h. There are phrases, such as " bear me hard," "I will come home to you (to your house)," " quality and kind," &c., which are used by Jonson, not elsewhere by Shakespeare. The play is singularly free from the words of Shakespeare's coinage that abound in his other plays ; it is shorter than the average of plays of similar character by 1,000 lines ; the metre shows clear traces of having been abridged like the surreptitious copies of Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet. The passage quoted by Jonson as ridiculous, " Caesar did never wrong but with just cause," does not occur in it, but has been altered into " Know Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause will he be satisfied" (see Jonson's Discoveries}. Compare the Induction to the Staple of News, "Cry you mercy ! You never did wrong but with just cause." 2. Founded on North's translation of Plutarctts Lives of Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus, and Marcus Antonius. 3. Assigned by Drake, Chalmers, and Malone to 1607 ; by Halliwell to 1600-1 ; by Delius to a time before 1604. I think it was produced in 1600, again in 1607, and in the abridged form we now have it after 1613. Malone argues for 1607 being the date of original production on the ground that Lord Sterling's play was written then or not long before ; and he "would not have been daring enough to enter the lists with Shakespeare. " The inference is stretched too far ; it is only fair to conclude from the printing of Sterling 5 s- Julius Casar, and also of the second edition of the Tragedy of Ccesar and Pompey, or Ccesar's Revenge, in 1607, that a production or revival of Shake- speare's piece took place that year. A much stronger argument would have been the probability that all the Roman plays were produced in successive years, like the groups of the great tragedies, or the historical plays. The internal evidence for an early date is, ON THE PLA YS OF SHAKESPEARE. 39 however, overwhelming (especially in metre), and Mr. Halliwell has found an allusion to this play of the date of 1601. 4. Shakespeare makes Caesar be killed in the Capitol, though Plutarch expressly says in Pompey's portico ; he was probably con- tinuing the tradition of the earlier poems and plays. Compare Hamlet, iii. 2, 108, &c. (also inQ i), and Chaucer. The quarrelling scene in The Maid's Tragedy (? 1609) is imitated from that between Brutus and Cassius. This confirms the guess that the play was represented in 1607. It was called also Casar's Tragedy (1613), probably in its altered form. Gosson mentions a History of Ccesar and Pompey in 1579. The time included in the play is nearly three years. The real hero of the tragedy is Marcus Brutus. The treat- ment is more like that in Henry IV. and V. than that of the other Roman plays, and forms a connecting link between the histories and tragedies. See Part II. on this play. XVIII. As You LIKE IT. I. Undoubted. 2. Founded on Lodge's novel of Rosalynd, or Euphues' Golden Legacy (1590). The characters of Jaques, Touchstone, and Audrey are entirely Shakespeare's. For Lodge's novel, see Collier's Shake- speare's Library. 3. " Staied," in the Stationers' books, 4 August (year not given, but either 1600, 1601, or 1602, and almost certainly 1600), along with Henry V., which was entered again 14 August and published in the same year ; Much Ado About Nothing, which was entered 23 August and published the same year ; and Every Man in His Humour, published 1601. Rosalind says : " I will weep like Diana in the fountain." iv. I, 145. Stowe mentions this image of Diana as set up in 1598 and decayed in 1603. The date of the play is fixed then between 1598 and 1600. Malone says 1599. 40 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. A line of Marlowe's Hero and Leander is quoted (iii. 5, 83) ; this poem was published 1598. 4. Shakespeare played Adam in this play ; he continued to act till 1603, when he played in Sejanus ; he also acted the Ghost in Hamlet^ &c. XIX. TWELFTH NIGHT. I. Undoubted. 2. See under the Two Gentlemen of Verona for the story of Viola ; that of Malvolio is Shakespeare's own. 3. Used to be dated as one of the last of Shakespeare's plays on the ground of allusions to "undertakers." Dekker's Westward Ho! Sir Robert Shirley coming as ambassador from the Sophy ; and the internal evidence of perfection of style, &c. It is now certain that it was produced before February 1602 ; and there are clear indica- tions in the metre that some parts 0f the Viola story were written much earlier about 1594. I date the completion 1601. The early parts are, I think, traceable all through the verse scenes, specially in Act iii. Sc. I, and Act v. Sc. I. 4. The Count in this play is called Duke in Act i. Sc. 2 and Sc. 4, just as the Emperor is called Duke in Two Gentlemen of Verona and the King is called Duke in Lovers Labour's Lost. The second name of the play, What You Will, is a strange one ; it is very like that of As You Like It. Mr. Staunton's conjecture that Shakespeare not having named these plays answered hurriedly to the inquiring manager, " Call it what you will ; name it ^s^ou like it," is the most plausible explanation of their origin. Marston took the name What You Will for a play of his own in 1607. The name Twelfth Night was probably that of the date of the first production of the play. ON THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE. 41 XX. HAMLET. I. Undoubted. 2. Founded j>n an older play now lost j and on the Hystorie of Hambktt (black letter ; date of earliest edition unknown), which was translated from one of Belleforest's novels. He took it from "Saxo Grammaticus." 3. Dated by Malone, 1600; Chalmers, 1598; Drake, 1 597 (revised 1600) ; Delius (more rightly), 1602. Steevens mentions a reference to Hamlet in Gabriel Harvey's handwriting as made in 1598, which may have been written any time before 1620 ; and the reference to ' the inhibition of the players (Act ii. Sc. 2, 1. 346) is not necessarily to be applied to the first order of the Privy Council for the restraint of the immoderate use of playhouses (made 22 June, 1600), for this order proved ineffectual ; but rather to their second order, made 31 December, 1601. The Fortune and the Globe were allowed to remain open ; the others were closed owing to the personal allusions indulged in by some of the companies. The play was probably revised in 1603. 4. The allusion in Nash's epistle to "whole Hamlets or handfuls of tragical speeches " must allude to the old play now lost ; and so must Lodge's allusion to the Ghost that cried, " Hamlet, revenge ! so miserably." Shakespeare's play was entered 26 July, 1602. I should place the first draft in 1601, the complete play in 1603. I have little doubt that the early Hamlet of 1589 was written by Shakespeare and Marlowe in conjunction ; and that portions of it can be traced in the First Quarto as " Corambis " Hamlet. XXI. TAMING OF THE SHREW. I. Declared spurious by Dr. Warburton. Dr. Farmer assigned only the Induction and the character of Petruchio to Shake- 42 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. speare, with occasional touches elsewhere. Mr. Collier advocated the same opinion. I assign to the second writer the following parts: i. i, i. 2;ii. I, except 1. 168 326; iii. I, iii. 2, 129 150; iv. 2, iv. 4; v. I, and perhaps, v. 2, 176 189. This second hand was probably T. Lodge. It is observable that in all these parts there is scarcely a trace of the old play The Taminge of a Shrewe ; while in the other parts, plot and even language is freely borrowed ; exactly in the way in which Shakespeare revised his first drafts of The Merry Wives of Windsor and Hamlet. See Part II. 2. Founded on the play mentioned above and on the Supposes of Gascoigne "englished " from Ariosto, 1566. 3. Dated by Drake and Delius, 1594; Chalmers, 1599; Malone, 1596 ; Collier, I think rightly, 1601-2^^ The play is not mentioned in Meres' list (1598). The line, " This is the way to kill a wife with kindness," seems to allude to Hey wood's play, A Woman Killed with Kindness, the date of which is 1602. The play of Patient Grissel by Dekker, Chettle, and Haughton, was brought out in 1599 ; this play of Shakespeare's is clearly a rival piece, in opposition to which again came out Dekker's Medicine for a Curst Wife (July 1602). 4. The old play, The Taming of a Shrew, was probably written by Marlowe and Shakespeare in conjunction in 1589. Shakespeare certainly wrote much, if not all the prose in it. This early drama, along with the old Hamlet, 2 and 3 Henry VI. , and Titus Andro- nictts, almost certainly came into the possession of the Chamber- lain's company in 1600. They previously belonged to the Earl of Pembroke's. 2 AND 3 HENRY VI. I i. The Quarto editions have always been regarded as earlier /works than the T olio. They are quoted under the names of : The I Contention and 7%e True Tragedy. The full titles are The first ' part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of York and Lancaster and The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York. The theories that have been held as to the authorship are I, Malone's, ON THE PLA YS OF SHAKESPEARE. 43 % that Marlowe, Greene, &c., wrote The Whole Contention (that is, both Quartos), and that Shakespeare enlarged and completed them into 2 and 3 Henry VI. ; 2, Knight's, that Shakespeare was author of both Quartos and Folio ; 3, Grant White's, that Shakespeare, Marlowe, and Greene, wrote the Quartos from which Shakespeare transferred his own work to the Folio, the additions also being his ; Hudson, Steevens, Johnson, Hazlitt, Ulrici, and the Germans generally, hold the Shakespearian authorship of the Quartos in more or less entirety. Other critics (except myself) hold the additions to be his. I believe the whole of 2 and 3 Henry VI. to be by Peele and Marlowe : the latter writing Act iii. Sc. 3 and Act iv. Sc. I of 2 Henry VI. and Acts ii. v. of 3 Henry VI. and Peele, the rest. N.B. 3 Henry VI. iv. 8 should form part of Act v. The grounds of my view, aesthetic, artistic, and metrical, are given in a paper by me in Macmillan's Magazine (Nov. 1875). Of course Shakespeare revised (though he did not write) these plays about 1601. 2. Founded on Hall's Chronicle; not Holinshed's ; but follows him loosely. See the blunders as to the side espoused by Lady Grey's husband ; the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Warwick's eldest daughter, &c., &c. 3. Written not later than 1592. See the quotation of "A tiger's heart wrapt in a player's hide," in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit. 4. The Quarto editions are merely piratical versions taken down in shorthand (in my opinion) at a theatrical representation. There is scarcely anything in the Quartos not in the Folio ; and what little there is seems to be introduced for the groundlings. Malone's numbers are altogether deceptive, from the manner in which they are evolved. The plays were written for Pembroke's company, and the earliest notice of them in connexion with the King's is on the title-page of The Whole Contention in 1619, three years after Shake- speare's death. There are in the Quartos, and in the parts peculiar to the Folio, many classical allusions, similes, and expressions in the styles of Marlowe and Peele. Malone's dissertation is the store from which most of the modern arguments concerning author- ship have been taken. 44 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. TITUS ANDRONICUS. 1. In 1687 there was a tradition reported by Ravenscroft that this play was only touched by Shakespeare. Theobald, Johnson, Farmer, Stevens, Drake, Singer, Dyce, Hallam, H. Coleridge, W. S. Walker, reject it entirely. Malone, Ingleby, Staunton, think it was touched up by him. Capel, Collier, Knight, Gervinus, Ulrici, and many Germans, think it to be Shakespeare's ; R. G. White, that it is a joint work of Greene, Marlowe, and Shakespeare ! The fact that it was acted by the companies of Sussex, Pembroke, and Derby, and printed as so acted before it came into the posses- sion of the Chamberlain's company, is far more important than the mention of it in Meres, or the reception of it in the Folio. It was not published with Shakespeare's name as author in his lifetime. Halliwell thinks Shakespeare's play ( ? Titus and Vespasian] is lost, and was the one entered by J. Danter in 1594. I hold this play to be Marlowe's. See my paper in Macmillan's Magazine (Nov. 1875). 2. May have been founded on a ballad. The story was known to Painter, who alludes to it in his Palace of Pleasure. 3. Probably 1590. See Jonson's allusion to it in Bartholomew Fair (1614) as some 25 or 30 years old. He couples it with Kyd's Jeronimo. Certainly written before 1592, when it was acted at the Rose. 4. A stilted, disagreeable play with a few fair touches. It has many classical allusions in it ; many coincidences in the use of words and phrases with Marlowe's work, and with Henry VI. ; in style and metre it is exactly what a play of Marlowe's would be if corrected by Shakespeare as he corrected Richard III. of Peele's. A play called Titus and Vespasian was also acted at the Rose, which appears from a German translation to have treated of the same story as Titus Andronicus (see Cohn, Shakespeare in Germany]. In this form of the play Vespasian is a friend of Titus. It is very likely a remnant of the form into which Shakespeare cast his play, with or without the aid of Marlowe. Our present play is not Shake- speare's ; it is built on the Marlowe blank-verse system, which Shakespeare in his early work opposed : and did jwfr-belong to Shakespeare's company till 1600. ON THE PL A YS OF SHAKESPEARE. 45 XXIL SEJANUS. (?) 1. Jonson tells us that in the first form of this play as acted on the public stage " a second pen had good share ; in place of which I have rather chosen to put weaker and no doubt less pleasing of mine own than to defraud so happy a genius of his right by my loathed usurpation." This second pen was usually, until lately, supposed with good reason to be Shakespeare's. Most critics now reject this hypothesis : but no other likely name has been advanced in his place, 1 unless we admit Dr. Nicholson's view that Sheppard was the " second pen." I cannot think so. 2. Founded on Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, &c. 3. Produced in 1603. 4. As the early form of the play is lost, the question of author- ship is of little importance. XXIII. MEASURE FOR MEASURE. 1. Undoubted. 2. Founded on Whetstone's Promos and Cassandra, 1578, printed in Six Old Plays on which Shakespeare founded, &=c. Nichols, 1779. 3. Generally and rightly dated 1603. It apologises for King James' ungracious entry into England. " I'll privily away. I love the people, But do not like to stage me to their eyes. Though it do well, I do not relish well Their loud applause and aves vehement." Act i. Sc. I. " The general subject to a well-wisht king, Quit their own part, and in obsequious fondness Crowd to his presence, where their untaught love Must needs appear offense." Act ii. Sc. 4. 1 Beaumont did not begin to write till 1606, nor Fletcher till 1607, as far as we know. Chapman and Marston wrote commendatory verses on the play. Surely none of these can have been the second hand. 46 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. James had issued a proclamation forbidding the people to resort to him. " What with the war, what with the sweat .... Heaven grant us peace ! " Act i. Sc. 2. The war with Spain still existed in 1603 : but James had shown he meant to end it, as he did on 19 August 1604. In 1603 there was a plague, which carried off more than 30,000 in London. The list of prisoners, Act iv. Sc. 3, contains four stabbers ; the roaring boys, bravados, roysters, &c., were so outrageous in 1603 that the statute of Stabbing was passed in the first half of 1604. 4. This play is the central one for the metre of the third period ; it has more lines with extra syllables before a pause in the middle of a line than any other. It is freer in rhythm than any play in the first and second periods. XXIV.- ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL. 1. Undoubted. 2. The main plot is founded on Painter's Giletta of Narbonne, in the Palace of Pleasure Vol. I. The comic part with Parolles, &c., is Shakespeare's. 3. Dated by Malone and Chalmers, 1606 ; by Drake and Delius, 1598 ; I assign it to 1604, as near to Measure for Measure as possible. It contains some parts of very early work (1591-2), perhaps remains of Lovers Labour's Won, namely, the rhymed parts of i. I, 230 244, i. 3, 133142 ; ii- i, 130214, ii. 3, 80210, ii. 3, 130 150 ; iii. 4 ; sonnet, and end of scene. 4. The scene Act iii. Sc. 5, should be compared with Two Gentlemen of Verona (Act iv. Sc. 2) ; the device by which Bertram is deceived into meeting Helen, his wife, with that in Measure for Measure. ON THE PL A YS OF SHAKESPEARE. 47 XXV. OTHELLO. 1. Undoubted. 2. Founded on a novel by Giraldi Cinthio (Decade iii. Novel 3). 3. Date earlier than November 1604. This used to be looked' on as one of the latest of Shakespeare's plays. 4. The names Othello and lago occur in Reynolds' God's Revenge against Adultery. The date of the action is 1570. Mustapha, the general of Solymus II. attacked Cyprus in May in that year. The Turkish fleet first sailed towards Cyprus, then went to Rhodes, met another squadron, and resumed its course for Cyprus ; which was taken in 1571. The accounts of the cannibals and " men whose heads do grow beneath their shoulders " are taken from Sir Walter Raleigh's narrative of the Discovery of Guiana (1600); he says, "I am resolved they are true." For the passion of jealousy compare Othello with Troylus, Leontes, Ford, and Posthumus. XXVI. LEAR. 1 . Undoubted. 2. Founded on Holinshed's Chronicle and The True Chronicle History of King Leir and his three Daughters, Gonorill, Ragan, and Cordelia (entered 1594, printed 1605). This is contained in Steevens' reprint of the Quarto editions of Shakespeare ; also in Six Old Plays, &c. The episode of Gloster and his sons is taken from the story of the blind king of Paphlagonia in Sidney's Arcadia, re- printed in the Variorum Shakspeare, 1821. It also often alludes to Harsnet's Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures, 1603. 3. The date must lie between 1603 and 1606. The play was entered November 1607 as having been played in December 1606. It was probably produced early in 1605, as the old play was then reprinted and entered 8th May, "as lately acted," in order to deceive the public. 48 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. " I smell the blood of a British man " (Act iii. Sc. 6 end), stands " I smell the blood of an English man," in Nash's pamphlets, 1596. England and Scotland were united in name and James proclaimed king of Great Britain, 24 October, 1604. 4 Compare Hamlet and Ophelia with Lear, for the phenomena of madness. XXVIL-MACBETH. 1. Messrs. Clark and Wright reject as Middleton's i. I, i. 2, i. 3, 1-37 ; ii. 3 (Porter's speech) ; iii. 5 ; iv. 3, 140 159 ; v. 2, v. 8 last forty lines, besides many rhyming tags : I reject also (but not, in all, forty lines) various other rhyming tags : but retain i. 2 ; ii. 3 ; v. 2. I must refer to my essay on the subject in Part II. , the reasons cannot be condensed here. 2. Founded on Holinshed's Chronicle^ and Reginald Scot's Discovery of Witchcraft. 3. Dated almost without exception 1606 (Middleton's revision being much later). In Act ii. Sc. 3. "The expectation of plenty." Wheat was lower in Windsor market in 1606 than for thirteen years afterwards, also lower than the year before. So were barley and malt. The " equivocators " in the same year must mean the Jesuits, specially Garnet their superior, who was tried for gunpowder treason on 28 March, 1606 (see Malone). Again the " stealing out of a French hose " implies that they were at that time short and strait. Now in 1606, in Anthony Nixon's Black Year we find that tailors took more than enough for the new fashion's sake. In 1605 King James at Oxford was addressed by three students of St. John's College in Latin verses founded on the weird-sisters' predictions to Macbeth. It is not likely they would choose this subject after Shakespeare had treated it. Middleton's Witch was certainly produced after 1613. There are two passages from Plutarch's life of Antony alluded to in this play. "The insane root that takes the reason ON THE PLA YS OF SHAKESPEARE. 49 prisoner," Act i. Sc. 3, 1. 84, and "My genius is rebuked as it is said Mark Anthony's was by Caesar," Act iii. Sc. I, 1. 57. Shakespeare was then probably reading for Anthony and Cleopatra, which was produced before May 1608. 4. For treatment of Ghost compare Hamlet; for Witches in Act iv. Sc. 2, compare Middleton's Witch, the Witch of Edmonton by Ford, Dekker, and Rowley (Witch-part by Ford), and Jonson's Masque of Queens and The Sad Shepherd. XXVIII. TIMON OF ATHENS. 1. By two authors. Shakespeare undoubtedly wrote i. I (verse part); ii. i, ii. 2 (verse part); iii. 6 (verse part); iv. I, iv. 3 ; v. I, v. 2, v. 4. Cyril Tourneur I think (Delius says Wilkins) wrote the rest. Shakespeare's part was certainly written first, though C. Knight denies this. 2. Founded on a passage in Plutarch's Life of Antonius^ and the 28th novel in vol. I of Painter's Palace of Pleaswe ; also on Lucian's Dialogues. 3. Evidently to be dated between the great tragedies (which it closely resembles in tone), and Anthony and Cleopatra^ reading for which Shakespeare met with the story. I assign it therefore to 1606, a year before the other plays left unfinished by Shakespeare, Pericles and Troylus and Cressida. Delius says 1608, others 1610. The date of the completion of the play is doubtful ; it may have been 1608, or 1623, when the Folio was printed. XXIX. TROYLUS AND CRESSIDA. 1. Nearly the whole of the fifth Act has been suspected as spurious, so has the Prologue. 2. Founded on Chaucer's Iroilus and Creseide for the love story ; Caxton's Troy Book for the story of Hector and Ajax ; Ther- sites, Patroclus, &c^ are taken from Chapman's Homer. 4 50 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. 3. I have tried to show that these three portions were written at different dates about 1594, 1595, and 1607. The whole play was printed in 1608 as never having been acted. Thersites is referred to in Cymbeline " Thersites' body is as good as Ajax When neither are alive." Act iv. Sc. 2, 1. 252. This scene in Cymbeline I assign to 1607-8, which agrees with my date ior Troylus ; which Malone places in 1602, on account of an entry in the Stationers' books, referring, not to the play of 1599 by Dekker and Chettle, but to one acted by the Chamberlain's men.; and there is a reference to the story of Troylus and Cressida in the comedy of Histriomastix, which seems to imply _that Shakespeare had written some play on this subject before Elizabeth's death : she is spoken of as alive in the last Act. " Troy. Come Cressida, my cresset light, Thy face doth shine both day and night. Behold, behold thy garter blue Thy knight his valiant elbow wears, That when he SHAKES his furious SPEARE, The foe, in shivering fearful sort May lay him down in death to snort. Cress. O Knight, with valour in thy face Here take my skreene, wear it for grace ; Within thy helmet put the same, Therewith to make thy enemies lame." This surely refers to the changing of sleeve and glove in the play in direct connexion with Shakespeare's name. Was the play by him, not containing the Thersites and Achilles part, exhibited soon after 1595? Troylus is referred to in Much Ado about Nothing ( J 599) as the first employer of Pandars. I cannot hesitate on this matter. Shakespeare's play in its first form was exhibited before X 599> probably in 1597. 4. The love part of this play is a pendant tq Romeo and Juliet ; Pandarus should be compared with the Nurse. ON THE PL A YS OF SHAKESPEARE. 51 XXX. PERICLES. 1. First two Acts and Gower throughout unquestionably by Wilkins, who founded a novel on this play afterwards. The brothel scenes in Act iv. Sc. 5 and 6 by Rowley, I think ; S. Walker says by Dekker, who did not write for the King's Company. Acts iii., iv., v., with these omissions, by Shakespeare. The play put together by Wilkins. 2. Founded on a novel by T. Twine, The Patterne of Painful Adventures, &c. 9 that befell unto Prince Appolonius, the Lady Lucina his wife, and Tharsia his daughter, &c., re-published in 1607, entered in 1576. Gower tells the story in Confessio Amantis 1554. The play follows this version sometimes. The Gesta Romanorum story (nearly the same) does not seem to have been used. 3. Certainly before 2 May, 1608, when it was entered; probably before the re-publishing of Twine's novel in 1607. I should date 1607. Delius tells me that he prefers 1608. 4. The Shakespeare part should be carefully compared with the corresponding stories in Cymbeline and Winters Tale, especially the latter, in which the same extraordinary lapse of time is permitted be- tween the Acts. This play and Rowley's New Wonder, and Marston's Insatiate Countess, are probably the three most incorrectly printed plays in the language. The beginning of the Shakespeare part, Act iii. Sc. I, should be compared with the opening of The Tempest. Restorations to life after apparent death occur in Romeo and J ~ ulitt, Much Ado about Nothing, Cymbeline, and Winter's Tale, XXXI. ANTHONY AND CLEOPATRA, 1. Undoubted. 2. Founded on Plutarch's Life of Marcus Anton'ms. 3. Dated unanimously early in 1608. 42 52 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. XXXII. CORIOLANUS. 1. Undoubted. 2. Founded on Plutarch's Life of Coriolanus. 3. Usually dated 1609-10; I prefer 1609. Menenius' fable (Act i. Sc. l) is taken from Camden's Remaines (1605), and not from North's Plutarch. The play must have been written before 1612 for this reason ; Mr. Halliwell has found that in every edition of North's Plutarch up to 1603 "unfortunately" is printed for "unfor- tunate " in the passage corresponding to Act v. Sc. I, 1. 98. This is an evident misprint, as it spoils the meaning. Shakespeare cor- rected it, and wrote "unfortunate," which was adopted in the 1612 edition of North's Plutarch. As to Shakespeare's own copy being the one in the Greenock library dated 1612, if it was so he must have used another. He did not write Julius C&sar after that date. XXXIII. THE Two NOBLE KINSMEN. 1. Written by Shakespeare and Fletcher as stated in the Quarto of 1634. Shakespeare's part consists of Act i. ; Act iii. Sc. I, 2 ; Act v. Sc. i, 3, 4. 2. Founded on the Knighfs Tale of Chaucer. . 3. The date of Shakespeare's share I fix from internal evidence as 1609 ; that of Fletcher's completion of the play is probably the same as that of his finishing Henry VI IL 1613. XXXIV. CYMBELINE. 1. The wretched vision in Act vi. Sc. 4 cannot be Shakespeare's; the rest of the scene is also doubtful. 2. Dated by Drake, 1605 ; Chalmers, 1606 ; Malone, 1609 ; Delius, 1610. Some scenes are probably earlier, about 1607-8 > fur ON THE PL A YS OF SHAKESPEARE. 53 the rest, Delius is probably right, or nearly so. The name Leonatus is from Sidney's Arcadia, which Shakespeare used for his Lear. The story of Cymbeline in Holinshed is near that of Lear and that of Macbeth ; and the story of Hay and his sons staying his country, men in a lane in a battle against the Danes is near that of Macbeth in Holinshed's Chronicle of Scotland. Shakespeare, therefore, pro- bably wrote Lear, Macbeth, and Cymbeline nearly at the same time. There is also an allusion to Cleopatra's sailing on the Cydnus to meet Anthony; he had therefore been reading for the play of Anthony and Cleopatra. The character of Imogen is distinctly imi- tated in the Euphrasia of Beaumont's Philaster (dated by Dyce 1608, possibly 1610-11). Compare also : " I hear the tread of people ; I am hurt : The gods take part against me, could this boor Have hurt me thus else ? " Philaster iv. I. with " I have bely'd a lady, The princess of this country ; and the air of 't Revengingly enfeebles me ; or could this carle, A very drudge of Nature's, have subdued me In my profession ? " Cymbeline 'iv. 2. I date the play as completed 1609-10, after Coriolanus, Lear, Macbeth, and Anthony and Cleopatra. 3. Founded on Holinshed's Chronicles and a novel of Boccaccio (Day II, Novel 9). The story is also found in Westward for Smelts (1603). The scenes containing the story of Bellario and Imogen's flight I assign to an earlier date than the rest of the play ; the whole of the scenes with lachimo are certainly of the later date (1609-10 ?). 4. The date of the commencement of the play is A.D. 16, Cymbeline's 24th year of reigning, Augustus' 42nd. 54 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. XXXV. THE TEMPEST. 1. The masque in Act iv. Sc. I has been considered by the Cam- bridge editors an insertion, like the vision in Cymbeline. 2, 3. The pamphlet describing the tempest of July 1609, which dispersed the fleet of Sir George Somers and Sir Thomas Gates, in which the Admiral-ship was wrecked on the island of Bermuda, was published in December 1609, or January 1609-10. The narrative of Jourdan, in which "the Bermudas" is called the Isle of Devils, is dated 13 October, 1610. 7'ke True Declaration of the Councill of Virginia was also published in 1610. Shakespeare's play was produced either late in 1610 or early in 1611. There can be no doubt of the play having been founded on these narratives. (See Malone's essay in Variorum Shakspeare^ i$zi.) 4. This is one of the plays that observes the unity of time. Mr. Staunton conjectured that one of the characters at least (the Duke of Milan's son, Act i. Sc. 2, 1. 438) is lost. He thought that each player had a property in his own part, and that sometimes all the parts could not be bought up by the publishers. The play is certainly very short, only 2,068 lines, the average being 3,000 ; and it is strange that this character of the Duke's son is not brought on the stage. Perhaps Francisco is what is left of him. The pronun- ciation of Stephano (pronounced Stephano in the Merchant of Venice 1596) was probably learned from Ben Jonson's Every Man in His Humour (1598), in which Shakespeare acted. Compare with this in Cymbeline, Act iv. Sc. 2, the proparoxyton pronuncia- tion of Posthumus. XXXVI. WINTER'S TALE. 1. Undoubted. 2. Founded on Greene's Dorastus and Fawnia (1588). 3. Dated 1610-11. Mentioned in Sir Henry Herbert's Office Book as an olde playe called Winter's Tale^ formerly allowed of by ON THE PLA YS OF SHAKESPEARE. 55 Sir George Bucke, who took possession of the office of Master of the Revels in August 1610. 4. To be compared with Pericles and Cymbeline for the stories of Perdita and Marina and Imogen ; with Henry VIII. for the queen's trial. Said to be sneered at by Jonson in the Induction to his Bartholomew fair, 1614, along with The Tempest. " If there be never a servant-monster (Caliban) in the Fair who can help it, nor a nest of antic ks ? (The twelve Satyrs : Winter's Tale, iv. 4. 352.) He is loth to make Nature afraid in his plays, like those that beget Tales, Tempests, and such like drolleries." In his conversations with Drummond of Hawthornden (1619), he said that Shakespeare wanted art and sometimes sense ; for in one of his plays he brought in a number of men saying they had suffered shipwreck in Bohemia, where is no sea near by loo miles. XXXVII. HENRY VIII. 1. This play was written by Shakespeare and Fletcher jointly ; Shakespeare's part is Act i. Sc. I, 2 ; Act ii. Sc. 3, 4; Act iii. Sc. 2 ; Act v. Sc. I. (See Mr. Spedding's essay, Gentleman's Magazine, Aug. 1850.) 2. Founded on Holinshed's Chronicle, Cavendish's LifeofWolsey, and Fox. 3. Date 1613. In Act v. Sc. 5, 1. 51, we read : " Wherever the bright sun of heaven shall shine, His honour and the greatness of his name Shall be, and make new nations. A State lottery was set up expressly for the establishment of English Colonies in Virginia in 1612. Rowley's Henry VIII. and the drama of Lord Cromwell were reprinted in 1613 with the usual fraudulent intentions. Sir Henry Wotton says in his letters, that the Globe was burnt down on 30 June O. S., St. Peter's day 1613, while a new piece named All is True was performing ; this piece from his minute description was certainly Henry VIII. Yet Shakespeare's part may have been written earlier than Fletcher's, say in 1611. 56 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. 4. In 1613 the titles of many of Shakespeare's plays were changed. I Henry IV. was called Hotspur; and Henry IV. (or Merry Wives of Windsor"*}, Sir John Falstaff ; Much Ado About Nothing, Benedick and Beatrix ; Julius Casar, Ctzsar's Tragedy. In both plays completed by Fletcher, Shakespeare introduces and completely sketches all the principal characters. For the vision in Act iv. Sc. 2, compare Pericles, Act v. Sc. 2 ; and Cymbeline, Act v. Sc. 4. None of these are Shakespeare's work. The time involved in the play is twelve years, 1521-33. Historically Katherine survived the birth of Elizabeth three years. SPURIOUS PLAYS. Other plays have been assigned to Shakespeare without .reason- able ground ; for instance : 1. The London Prodigal, printed in 1605 by T. Creede for N. Butter ; acted at the Globe. 2. The Yorkshire Tragedy, printed in 1608 by T. Pavier ; acted at the Globe. 3. Sir John Oldcastle, printed in 1600, entered on the Stationers' books by T. Pavier, acted by the Admiral's Company. All these three had Shakespeare's name in full on the title-page ; all were printed for piratical booksellers. N. Butter was the pub- lisher of the shamefully garbled Quarto of King Lear. Sir John Oldcastle was written in 1599 by Munday, Dray ton, Wilson, and Hathway. 4. Lord Cromwell, printed in 1602, entered on the Stationers' books by W. Cotton, acted by the Queen's Company. 5. The Puritan, published by G. Eld in 1607, acted by the Children of Paul's. 6. Locrine, " newly set forth, overseen, and corrected by W. S.," printed by T. Creede, 1595. These latter three have W. S. on the title-page. The relation of Lccnne to Shakespeare has never been fully worked out. It is ON THE PL A YS OF SHAKESPEARE. 57 worth investigation. The whole six were printed along with Pericles in the Third Folio as additions to the collection in the First Folio. 7. The Birth of Merlin was printed by T. Johnson in 1662 for Francis Kirkham and Henry Marsh, as by Shakespeare and Rowley ; "several times acted." 8. The Troublesome Reign of King John was published by S. Clarke in 1591, and again by J. Holme (printed by V. S[immes]) in 1611. It was acted by the Queen's Company. " By W. Sh." was inserted on the title-page in 1611. 9. The Merry Devil of Edmonton was published by J. Hirst and T. Archer in 1608. Acted at the Globe. The author, T.B., was probably Tony Brewer. 10. Fair Em. was published in 1631. Acted by Lord Strange's Company before 1591, in which year it was criticised by Greene. 11. Mucedorus was published in 1598; acted at the Globe; probably written by Lodge. 12. Arden of Feversham was printed in 1592. None of these plays can be Shakespeare's. In addition to the decisive internal evidence, note, with regard to Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, that no company except the Chamberlain's (afterwards the King's) and possibly Lord Strange's ever acted any play of Shakespeare's. Yet many German critics and one or two English believe in the authenticity of many of these dramas. Mr. Simpson has in the press a volume of various other plays in which he thinks Shake- speare may have been concerned. [Note on Richard II. Since p. 26 was in type Mr. Hales has shown reason for identifying the play of Henry IV. performed for Sir Gilly Merrick with Shakespeare's Richard II. I find this con- firmed by Camden's account of the trial. Another play called Richard //., mentioned by Forman in his Diary, I identify with The Life and Death of Jack Straw, mentioned in a subsequent chapter.] CHAPTER IV. ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS CONNECTED WITH SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS. (A.) What plays published in Shakespeare's name are genuine? 1. There are some plays included in all editions of his works which he probably never wrote a line of, namely : 1. Titus Andronicus. 2. 2 Henry VI. 3. 3 Henry VI. The first of these is by Marlo\ve, the other two by Peele and Marlowe jointly. The division of their work is given under the heading of each play. The original editing of I Henry VI. was probably Marlowe's. Shakespeare having added ii. 4 and (?) 5 about 1596 without re- touching the rest. Many persons, however, still believe that Shakespeare wrote large portions of these plays ; they have never succeeded in separating his work. 2. There are plays finished by Shakespeare and rewritten by him, viz, : 1. Romeo and Juliet. 2. Richard III. 3. Taming of the Shrew, WHA T PL A YS ARE GENUINE ? 59 The two first of these in the Quarto editions show us Peele's work after Shakespeare's first corrections, the Folios after his rewriting ; he probably corrected them after Peele's death. In the Taming of the Shrew his share is confined to the Petruchio story ; the rest of the play is most likely by T. Lodge. 3. There are plays left unfinished by Shakespeare and completed by others, viz. : 1. Timon. 2. Pericles. 3. Troylus and Cressida. His share of Timon was confined to the story of Timon himself; Cyril Tourneur probably writing the rest. Of Pericles he wrote the story of Marina ; Rowley (?) wrote the brothel scenes, and Wilkins the rest; Wilkins being also the plotter and editor. Of Troylus and Cressida the part not Shakespeare's is confined to the last Act. This is probably taken from the old play by Dekker and Chettle ; acted in 1599. 4. There are plays which are joint productions of Shakespeare and Fletcher, namely : 1. Two Noble Kinsmen. 2. Henry VIII. He also possibly helped Ben Jonson in his first draft of Sejanus. 5. There are plays to which Shakespeare contributed isolated scenes : 1. I Henry VI. (as noticed above). 2. Ediuard III. (Act i. 2 ; ii. all). 6. Some of Shakespeare's plays have been greatly abridged foi theatrical purposes, namely : 1. Tempest. 2. Julius Casar. 7. One has not only been abridged, but interpolated : I. Macbeth. 60 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. 8. Similar interpolations may be found in Cymbeline, and possibly in The Tempest, Henry V. (French scene), and Merry Wives, Q I (Fairies). Of these results those concerning the Two Noble Kinsmen (Hick- son and Spalding, after Weber), Henry VIII. (Spedding), Troylus and Cressida (Dyce and Fleay), J^imon of AtJiens (Fleay), Pericles (Fleay), Taming of the Shrew (Fleay), are granted by all the best critics; those concerning Macbeth (Clark, Wright, and Fleay), Tempest (Staunton), Romeo and Juliet (Fleay), Richard III. (Fleay), Henry VI. (Fleay), Edward III. (Fleay), Julius Ccesar (Fleay), are yet disputed. N.B. The names in parentheses in the above indicate not the first proposers of the theory of combined authorship in each case, but the first critics who brought the several theories to distinct tests by separating the Shakespearian portions from the second writers. The theory of double authorship in Timon has been previously advanced by Knight and Delius ; in the Taming of the Shrew by Collier ; in Pericles by Delius and Tennyson (forty years since he tells me) ; not to mention earlier statements for the most part very indefinite. For details, see the notices under the heading of each play. Besides this question of authenticity it may be well here to notice a question which involves similar critical investigation. There are certain plays that were not entirely written at one date. 1. All's Well that Ends Well was probably a recast of Loves Labour's Won. Traces of the early work may be found in it. (See p. 46.) 2. Troylus and Cressida was certainly written at three dates : 1. The Troylus love story. 2. The Hector story. 3. The Achilles story. The last of these dates about 1608. The two earlier of these written about 1593-6, probably constituted the play entered in 1602 on the Stationers' books by J. Roberts, as acted by the Chamberlain's men. ^3. The verse part of Twelfth Night (in my opinion) was first written about 1594 and recast 1601, when the rest of the play was added. EARL Y EDITIONS. 6 1 4. We know that the Merry Wives of Windsor and Hamlet were thus written, since we have the first drafts (imperfectly) in the first quartos, j 5. Lovers Labour 's Lost certainly, and Midsummer Nighfs Dream and Richard II. probably, were recast previously to publication. (.} The Early Editions of Shakespeare's works : Besides the Folio of 1623, the first collected edition of the plays, there were a number of separate plays published in quarto before that date. In the table in Part II. will be found the printers' and publishers' names of every one of these editions anterior to 1623. The later copies are of no critical value. The symbols, Q I, Q 2, &c., are those used in Clark and Wright's excellent " Cambridge Shakespeare ; " a * indicates all the editions published without Shakespeare's name on the title-page ; a t that the printers of the Folio used that edition to print from. The Folio editions were published in 1623 (F i), 1632 (F2), 1664 (F 3 ), 1685 (F 4). (C.) On the Relative Value of the Quarto and Folio Texts of Shakespeare : The following results are derived from a careful examination of the Quarto and Folio editions, aided by but not dependent on the collations in the " Cambridge Shakespeare" : I. The Cambridge editors are quite right in stating that the fol- lowing plays in the Folio are printed from the Quarto texts, and therefore the earliest complete Quarto must be looked to in each case as being the highest authority : 1. Richard II. 2. I Henry IV. 3. Lovers Labour 's Lost. 4. Much Ado about Nothing. 5. Romeo and Juliet. 6. Titus Andronicus. 62 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. 2. I also agree with them that the Fisher Quarto of Midsummer Night's Dream gives better readings than the Roberts, which was used by the Folio editors. But for the Merchant of Venice the Heyes Quarto used for the Folio seems to me better than the Roberts Quarto. 3. In no other case did the Folio editors use the Quarto texts, which were undoubtedly, as they state in their preface, all surrep- titious. 4. All omissions of passages in the Folio texts may be reduced to two classes : one of accidental omissions of words or lines in print- ing, the other of intentional cancelling of long passages for purposes of stage representation. The passages found in the Folio but not in the Quarto, on the other hand, are generally such as would not be so omitted. 5- The Quarto Lear abounds with errors of ear, and was clearly surreptitiously taken down by notes at the theatre. Henry V., the Contention, and the True Tragedy were similarly though still more clumsily stolen. 6. Romeo and Juliet, Q i, the Merry Wives of Windsor, Q I, and Hamlet, Q I, though surreptitious and abridged, still represent the earliest forms of these plays ; they were all rewritten afterwards, but they are very valuable to the Shakespeare student, as showing his manner of work, as well as sometimes preserving lines or expressions which we would not willingly lose. Richard III. in some re -pects belongs to this class. One other Quarto, which might be thought to be analogous (Henry K), is merely an imperfect piratical issue, and utterly worthless. The Contention and the True Tragedy, on which Henry VI. has been supposed to be founded, are in like manner merely piratical issues grossly imperfect, by the same publisher, T. Pavier, possibly touched up by his partner, H. Chettle. 7. Hamlet, Q 2, and Othello, Q 2, were not derived from sources independent of their first quartos, but were formed by corrections being made in copies of Q I at subsequent representations. The' same thing is true for the Whole Contention of 1619, which does not give an intermediate stage of composition between the Quartos and EARL Y EDITIONS. 63 Folios as has been supposed. This conclusion, which is quite certain, is most important. So Hamlet and Othello, Q 2, are founded on Q I, with corrections from the Folio. 8. The Troylus and Cressida Quarto has been printed from a written transcript of a copy belonging to the theatre, hastily and not quite accurately made. 9. The Richard III. Quarto represents Shakespeare's first cor- rection of an earlier play ; so does the First Quarto of Romeo and Juliet. 10. The Quartos of 2 Henry IV. and Othello are useful for cor- rection of many readings : they are transcripts of the stage copies as first used, obtained in somewhat the same way as the Troylus and Cressida, From all this it results that in every instance except the first two groups, eight plays in all, our text must be founded on the Folio of 1623. But for these eight the Quarto readings are generally better. As, however, even in these, the Folio spelling and punctuation agrees more nearly with the rest of the plays in the Folio, it is preferable to correct the Folio text from the Quarto for a revised edition than conversely. For a scholar's text the Folio with the Quarto variations noted (and introduced where desirable), is the one thing needful. Booth's wonderfully accurate reprint of this edition, or Chatto and Windus's photographic reproduction, if interleaved, will enable any student to make such an edition for himself without great labour. In any case he had better use the Folio as the foundation of all his work. No published edition except Knight's has done this, and he has gone too far by rejecting the Quarto readings even in the eight plays mentioned. (Z>.) On the division into Acts and Scenes of Shakespeare* s Plays:- There is no authority for this division for any play (except Othello, Q I, 1622) anterior to the Folio edition of 1623. And in that edition not all are divided. The exceptions are : 64 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. 1. Plays printed from Quarto editions : Lovers Labour's Lost. Midsummer Night's Dream. Merchant of Venice. ^ Divided into Acts only. Much Ado about Nothing* Titus Andronicus. Romeo and Juliet. Not divided at all. 2. Plays probably produced between 1606 and 1609 : Timon. \ Troylus and Cressida. \ Not divided at all, Anthony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus. \ Julius Ccesar. / Divided into Acts only. Pericles. ) 3. Plays produced before 1604. J> Divided into Acts only. t/iC O/t/tO/, Henry V. 2 Henry VI. \ - 3 Henry VI. / ' The other eighteen plays in the Folio (just half) are divided into Acts and Scenes. Lists of the Dramatis Persona (Actors' Names) are given only in seven plays : Two Gentlemen of Verona. Measure for Measure. Timon. Pericles. Henry V. Tempest. Winter's Tale. (.) Dates of Entries at Stationer J Hall: Venus and Adonis. 1593 April 1 8. Titus Andronicus. 1594 February 6. Comedy of Errors. All's Well that Ends Well. Taming of the Shrew. ( EARLY EDITIONS. First Contention. Taming of a Shrew. Lucreece. Locrine. Edward ITT. Romeo and Juliet (ballad ?) Richard II. Richard III. 1 Henry IV. Merchant of Venice. As You Like it. Henry V. Much Ado about Nothing. Henry V. Much Ado about Nothing. 2 Henry IV. Midsummer Nighf s Dream. Merchant of Venice. Merry Wives of Windsor. Henry VI. First and Seen. Parts ; (2 and 3 Henry VI. Titus Andronicus. Hamlet. Troylus and Cressida. Romeo and Juliet \/ Lovers Labour's Lost. Taming of a Shrew. Hamlet. Faming of a Shrtw. Romeo and Juliet. \j Love's Labour's Lost. Lear. Pericles. Anthony and Cleopatra. Troylus and Cressida. Sonnets. Othello. First Folio. 1594 March 12. May 2. May 9. ,, July 20. 1595 December I. 1596 August 6. 1597 August 29. ,, October 20. 1598 February 25. July 22. August 4. [("To be 1600 stayed") Note at bt ginning of Register.] August 14. ' August 23. October 8. ,, October 28. 1602 January 18. April 19. July 26. 1603 February 7. : 1607 January 22. November 19. ,, November 26. 1608 May 20. -< 1609 January 28. ,, May 20. 1621 October 21. 1623 November 8. CHAPTER V. PRONUNCIATION AND METRE. TABLE of Vowel Pronunciation, extracted from Mr. A. J. Ellis's large work on the subject : Spelling. Pronunciation, a long as a in father. ( as a in m^re. ( rarely as c in eve. as i in time (Scotch). ( as o in u^mo (Italian). ( rarely as oo in pool. u ,, as u in flz2te (French). a short . as a in ch^tte (French). e ,, as ^ in md:. z ,, as i in n'ver. as in htfmme (French), rarely as ou in poule (French). or u in pull. as 0# in p^le (French). or u in pwll. ( as ay/ ( rarely as a in rmzre. as ey in th the erection over the trap, which we can see from our place in the rooms, hints that a "tomb" will be required in the fifth Act. It is hard to follow the changes of scene ; we cannot help wishing that some of those mechanical devices so lavishly expended on Court pageants could be introduced here. Why should not the stage be more real? Would it lower the character of the plays by appealing too much to the groundlings behind the pales there ? We have plenty of time to think on such matters while the trumpets, cornets, organs, viols, hautboys, or recorders are playing between the Acts. Another thought that will haunt us is how much will the poet get for this play? Will the profits of his "second day" be large? Twenty nobles (61. i$s. 4^.) seems a small sum for such a noble piece of work. But perhaps he will publish it himself and get something out of the sale of copies. I am ready for one with my sixpence, for I like the play. He gets something, however, as an actor, probably more than as a poet. He has shares, too, I am told, in the theatre; and when they perform at Court the Queen gives i8/ or 20/. for each performance. Perhaps he'll be rich yet if he's prudent. But the curtain is drawn ; the play is over, shall I stay for the jig? I think I will. I don't care much for the clown's dancing and singing, but Kempe 's a clever fellow ; I'll see him for once, and "throw up a theme or two for him to extemporize on." But it's past three already ; the play must have lasted more than two hours ; a long performance to-day. I shall have to switch and spur to get home as I appointed. MANNER OF PRESENTING PLA YS. 75 Such would be as near as I can judge a description of our earliest theatre. I add further details for the others. The Bull, Curtain, and Globe were public theatres. The Cockpit, Whitefriars, and Black- ftiars were "private houses." The Globe was round; the Curtain was square. 1 At the Bull, Fortune, and Theater, the lowest price for the "ground" was 2.d. ; at the Globe, Blackfriars, Phoenix, and Hope, it was 6 '5 rt S ^ J- qj W) i j: ^2 1 o & o $ 8 q E o t-H 3 VQ > o "1 1 u w y fS . w i_j *^ 1-1 "^ p: ^ o V H c w i-i oo OS t > 8 o bfl c i 0 Js w ^ 6 W ^75 5 1 * . PQ S ^ ^^ -s 3 1 a "3 Oj / % " f " I Q 1 1 - 3 2 fr w - 6 o 1 ^ O S ^_ o "s" B " I iJ O ^ 1 1 f 3 fa ^ 1 ^ w la 1 1 9 IS 1 of Le'ster (156 1 of Warwick rt H ^ 5 -. VO x~ 1 g ^ j? s M p CHAPTER VIII. ACCOUNT OF THE THEATRES FROM 1576 TO 1642. THE earliest theatres of which we have record were the Curtain (1576), the Theater (1576), and the private room belonging to the Children of Paul's (1574). The two formed theatres were both public, and occupied by various companies, the Queen's, the Admiral's, Lord Strange's, the Earl of Sussex's, the Earl of Pem- broke's, &c. , of whose occupancy we have no precise records. The Queen's Company (under Tarleton) also acted at the Red Bull. Henslow opened the Rose theatre in 1592, where the following companies played successively : Lord Strange's, beginning 19 February, 1592. Earl Sussex's, 27 December, 1593. Sussex's and the Queen's, 2 April, 1594. Admiral's, 14 May, 1594. Admiral's and Chamberlain's, 3 June, 1594. Admiral's, 27 October, 1596. In 1596 Blackfriars was adapted for theatrical purposes by J. Barbage, and let out to the Children of the Chapel, who occupied it till 1601. They were then possibly succeeded by the Children of Paul's, who had been suspended in 1591, and who, in 1605, gave place in like manner to the Children of the Revels. Meanwhile, in 1599, J. Burbage pulled down the Theater, where the Chamberlain's company had settled about 1595-6, and built the Globe. To this new building that company moved in 1599- 1600, and occupied it till 1642, except during the short time of its THEATRES FROM 1576 TO 1642. 83 rebuilding after the fire of 1613. They took possession of the Black- friars theatre in 1613, and used it as well as the Globe till 1642. In 1600, Alleyn built the Fortune theatre, to which the Admiral's company moved from the Rose and continued there until 1621, when the Fortune was burnt down. In that year the same company (then called the Prince's) left the Fortune for the Curtain, where they remained two or three years, the new company (the Palsgrave's) taking their place at the Fortune in 1622, on its rebuilding. This company died out in 1624 ; and the Company occupying this house was called the Fortune company simply : it remained there till 1640, when it exchanged with the Prince's (Charles II.) and went to the Bull. When the Children of the Revels were turned out of Blackfriars in 1612 they went to Whitefriars, and remained there till 1613. In that year they ceased to exist as a children's company, and the com- pany of the Revels was formed out of them and the Queen's com- pany (formerly the Earl of Worcester's), who had occupied the Red Bull and the Curtain since 1599. The Revels company occupied the same two houses from 1613 to 1622, when the Prince's came there. As the Prince became King in 1625, this company ceased to exist, and the Curtain was abandoned. The Bull was still kept in action, (the company playing there being simply called the Bull Company) till 1637, when the Salisbury Court company (Prince's or Revels) came to the Bull and played there as the Prince's company till 1640, when they exchanged with the Fortune. The Curtain theatre followed the Red Bull in all its changes. In 1619, the Cockpit (Phoenix), which had been destroyed, was rebuilt and occupied by the company of the Lady Elizabeth (after- wards Queen of Bohemia) which had previously performed some time at the Swan : this company lasted till 1624. In 1625, the Queen's (Henrietta's) actors set up at this house. In 1637, William Beeston's boys succeeded the Queen's, who went to Salisbury Court, where the Prince's (Charles II.) or Revels company had acted pre- viously. They had at first been called the Revels Company, but. on the birth of Charles (1630) took the name of the Prince's. Salis- bury Court was built in Whitefriars in 1629. In 1640, Beeston's boys were formed, with new recruits, into the King-and-Queen's company. 6-2 84 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. We have now gone through the history of the principal theatres in detail : omitting nothing but a few occasional changes of a very temporary kind (probably only for a night or two). The facts here stated differ in many details from those in any previously published account of our theatres ; but for every statement made I have positive evidence which I hope some day to give in full. It would be out of place in so small a work to enter into minute particulars. In the annexed Table the names of the principal theatres are given in the left-hand column : dates (at intervals of two years) are printed along the top line : the line under these dates opposite the name of a theatre shows the years during which per- formances were exhibited in it : wherever dates can be ascertained the companies who occupied the theatre are printed over the line. Thus, the Red Bull was successively occupied by the Queen's com- pany (Elizabeth's) ; the Earl of Worcester's (afterwards Queen Anne's) ; then by the Revels company : then by the Prince's, &c. ; this is plain at a glance. In like manner we can see that the Revels Children on leaving Blackfriars went to Whitefriars, and were after- wards incorporated with the Queen's into the Revels company, &c., &c. If from the small scale of the table any doubt as to a date arises, reference should be made to pp. 82-84. w H PH -H O w w J o o 5 ^218 ^3 - II 2 I u ^5 o g 6 1 1 U b CHAPTER IX. ON THE DRAMATIC AUTHORS CONTEMPORARY WITH SHAKESPEARE. IT does not come within the scope of this book to treat of any author except Shakespeare critically. It is however indispens- able for the accurate determination of the chronological arrangement of his plays, and for the understanding of his relations to his con- temporaries, that Tables of their plays arranged in order of time should be accessible. Such Tables have never hitherto been formed. I annex therefore lists of the plays of all the dramatists whose works have been republished in a collected form, and a list of plays of other authors contained in Dodsley (Hazlitt's edition) &c., with dates of publication (and production, where possible), and notices of the theatre and company to which each play belonged. The dates of production will be found to differ largely from those hitherto assigned in many instances, but never without reasons grounded on external evidence and confirmed by internal. This evidence I hope to give in a future work. For information concerning plays now lost or not republished in modern times, Halliwell's Dictionary of Old Plays will supply all necessary information. With a few ex- ceptions (for which special reasons exist) only published plays are noticed here. In the annexed Table a dotted line indicates- the period of the author's life ; a line not broken that of his working career. 5 i DRAMATISTS. 20 2 4 6 8 .30 2 '4 6 8 40 2 r i 1 't/5 "txC 1 g. ex > -0 King's and Queen's : Phoe., Sal. Ct.&Blkfrs. 1 CO "c Ul (U .S be as C HH % 2 p$ ! OT I & "DJO .S 6 T3 S (3 S I > (U dSi 1 13 > /V Queen's and King' 1 I "Wl G 3 m 3 S 1 3 w " Ji ; : , ~> u t ) C \ L ,| , j > E -i u K i j u a ,! H c "1 T f T u h 5 J h i/ 5 S 5 - cc H ] I i r ^ ) u (- ! a. nS S i ^ ( 1 T C ^ O! T 1- [j < V O u j ^ n = ^ Beaumont... i=;86 r a ) i i. \ t D H < > ON a r, in u ' t- I 4. 3 *L b i ^ c flj H P^ ^ rs > u 3 | !u c ") u \ T IE a" ?| 4 ^i 1 | : : 5 > > '] < > < ; = > 'S i > *5 :: < c > K > : F 'S x X 88 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. I. LILLY QOHN), born 1553, began work 1578, died 1601 : Name of Play. Company. Piiblished. 1. Woman in the Moon ............ ............... 1597 2. Love's Metamorphosis ............ Chapel, Paul's ......... 1601 3. Campaspe .................. Chapel, Paul's ......... 1584 4. Sappho and Phao ............... Chapel, Paul's ......... 1584 5. Galathea ..................... Paul's ............... 1591 6. Endymion ... ~ ............. Paul's ............... 1591 7. Midas ..................... Paul's ............... i59 2 8. Mother Bombie ............... Paul's ............... 1594 9. ? Maid's Metamorphosis ......... Paul's ............... 1600 These (except 9) were all produced before 1589 (Malone). IT, PEELE (GEORGE), born 1552, began work 1584, died 1596-7:- IV ame of Play (2nd Author) Company. Pub. Written. 1. Arraignment of Paris ......... Chapel ......... 1584 1584 2. David and Bethsabe ......... ...... 1599 1585 3. Locrine (Tilney) ............ L. Strange's ...... 1595 1586 4. Battle of Alcazar ...... ... ... ...... 1594 1587 5. Edward I ................ ...... 1593 1588 6. Old Wives' Tale ............ Queen's ......... 1595 1589 7. ? King John (Troublesome Reign) Queen's ......... 1591 1590 8. ?2 & 3 Henry VI. (Marlowe) ... Pembroke's ...... 1594 159^-2 9. ? Ed ward III. (Shakespeare) ... ? L. Strange's ...... 1596 1594 10. ? Richard III. (Shakespeare) ... Chamberlain's ...... 1597 1595 11. ? Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare) Hunsdon's ...... 1597 1596 III. GREENE (ROBERT), born 1561, began work 1585, died 1592: Name of Play. Company. Pub. Written. 1. Alphonsus ............... ............ 1599 1585 2. Orlando Furioso ......... Queen's ............ 1594 1586 3. Friar Bacon ............ Queen's ............ 1598 1588 4 James IV ................ Queen's ............ 1598 1589 I594 IV. MARLOWE (CHRISTOPHER), born 1564, began work 1585, died 1593 : Name of Play. Company. Pub. Written. 1. Tamburlaine I ........... .. Admiral's ......... 1590 1585 2. Tamburlaine II .......... Admiral's ......... 1590 1586 3. Faust .................. Admiral's ......... 1609 1587 4. Jew of Malta ............ (Cockpit 1633) ...... 1633 1588 5. Massacre of Paris ......... Admiral's ......... n. d. 1589 Pta *^ ......... IS94 I589 CONTEMPORARY AUTHORS. Name of Play. Company. Ptib. Written. 7. ? Titus Andronicus f l^^^?'}"- l6o SQo 8. ?2 & 3 Henry VI. (Peele) ... Pembroke's 1594 1591 9- Edward II Pembroke's 1598 1592 10. Dido (Nash) Chapel 1594 1593 V. SHAKESPEARE (WILLIAM). See Chapter iii. VI. CHAPMAN (GEORGE), born 1557, began work 1597, died 1634 : Name of Play ("2nd Author). Company. Theatre. 1. Blind Beggar of Alexandria ... Admiral's ... Rose 2. Humorous Day's Mirth Admiral's ... Rose 3. Bussy d'Ambois Paul's 4. Eastward Ho (Jonson,Marston).| He ^ ev ^J- } Blackfriars.. 5. All Fools ... [Revels] ... Blackfriars.. 6. Gentleman Usher 7. Monsieur d'Olive 8. Cesar and Pompey ... . 9, 10. Byron's Conspiracy Tragedy. 11. Mayday 12. Widows' Tears 13. Revenge of Bussy d'Ambois /Her Maj. '" \ Children Blackfriars . . .ndK I Blackfriars.. [Revels] <^ Blackfriars.. I Blkfrs,Whtfrs. > Whitefriars. . Pub. Writ. 1598 1598 1599 J 599 1607 1602-4 1605 1605 1605 1605 1606 1606 . 1606 1607 1608 1611 1612 1613 1639 1608 1611 1612 15! Chabotf ( finished b y Shirley) ... [Queen's] ^ ?. Alphonsus of Germanyt King's ... Blackfriars .. For the Second Maiden's Tragedy and Revenge for Honour usua to Chapman, see page 99. VII. JONSON (BENJAMIN), born 1574, began work 1596, died 1637 : '1632 1639 *i6ss 1654 .lly attributed Name of Play (^.nd Author). i. Every Man in his Humour Company. Chambln's Theatre. Globe ... 1601, 2. Every Man out of his Humour < pjjj^ ^ } Blackfriars 3. Case is Altered ............ Children ... Blackfriars ... 4- Tale of a Tub ............ 5. Cynthia's Revels ......... Chapel ... Blackfriars ... 6. Poetaster .......... ... Chapel ... Blackfriars ... 7. Sejanus (? Shakespeare) ...... Chambln's Globe ...... 8. Eastward Ho(Chapman,Marston) Revels ... Blackfriars ... Pub. Writ. 1616 1598 1600 1599 1609 1599 1633)! 1603- 1640 j 4! 1600 1600 1602 1601 1605 1603 1605 1605 * These dates are those of Shirley's completion of the plays. There is no clear evidence of Chapman's writing for the stage after 1613. Alphonsus is not Chapman's ; nor did he write for the King's Company. t Probably acted by the King's Company at Blackfriars. May 5, 1636. t The parts concerning Inigo Jones (Act v. Sc. 2), and the masque at the end, were added in 1633. 90 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Name of Play (?nd A uthor.) Company. Theatre. Pub. Writ. Globe 160=; r 10. Epicoene King's Globe 1609 1609 ii. Catiline [King's ... Globe] 1611 1611 12. Alchemist King's Globe 1612 1612 13. Bartholomew Fair L. Eliz. ... Hope 1614 1614 14. Devil is an Ass ... gj. 1616 15. Staple of News (entered 1626).. 1631 1625 16. New Inn King's ... [Blkfrs.] 1631 1629 Tfi /- 1 8. Sad Shepherd ) <- , , 19- Mortimer's F all/ unfinished ~ ( - 1640 1640 1637 VIII. DEKKER (THOMAS) , born 1575, began work 1598, died 1641 : Name of Play (2nd Author). Company. Theatre. Pub. Writ. i Old Fortunatus Rose 2. Patient Grissell ( Haughton, (Admiral's ... Rose 28 Mar. 1600 I 5y 1597 3. Satiromastix ... /Chamber- 1 Uain'SjPaul'sj jJHobe] 1602 1602 4 Westward Ho (Webster) f /r 1602 -A 5. Northward Ho ( Webster) Paul's 1607 I6O2-4 6. Sir Thomas Wyatt (Webster)... Queen's [Bull] 1607 1603-4 7. Honest Whore I. (Middleton).. PrinceV ... Fortune 1604 1604 8. Roaring Girl (Middleton) Prince's Fortune 1611 ?i6o6 9. Whore of Babylon Prinde's Fortune 1607 1607 10. Honest Whore II ... [Prince's ... Fortune] 1630 I60& ii. If it be not good, &c Queen's Bull 1612 1612 12. Match me in London ... ... [Queen's] ... Bull [Queen's] ... Phoenix 1631 13. Guy of Warwick (Day) 1619 14. Virgin Martyr (Massinger) Revels Bull '1614 15. Witch of Edmonton (Ford) ... Prince's Cockpit 1658 1623-4 16. Sun's Darling (Ford) ... ... Their Maj... Cockpit 1657 1624 17. Wonder of a Kingdom 1636 18. Shoemaker's Holiday (Wilson). Admiral's ... Rose 1600 IX. HEYWOOD (THOMAS) , born 1582, began work 1599: , died 1640 : Name of Play (znd Author). Company. Theatre. Pub. Writ. i, 2. Edward IV Darby's 1600 3. Woman Killed with Kindness . (QueenXi&^jHSf^'} 1607 1602 4. Four Prentices of London [Queen's] ... Bull 1615 ?i6o4 5. Fair Maid of Exchange ... ... 1607 6, 7. If you Know not Me, &c. ... Cockpit 1632 . 1606 CONTEMPORAR Y A UTHORS. 9 1 Name of Play (pud Author). Company. Theatre. Pub. Writ. 8. Rape of Lucreece Queen's ... Bull 1638 ... 1608 9. Golden Age Queen's ... Bull 1611 10, Silver Age - 1613 -* 11, Brazen Age 1613 X^ *ti* 12, 13. Iron Age 1632 14. Royal King and Loyal Subject. Queen's ... 1637 15,16. Fair Maid of West Queen's ... - 1631, 17. Life of Duchess of Suffolk ... 1631 1 8. English Traveller Cockpit ... 1633 19. Maidenhead well Lost Cockpit ... 1634 20. Love's Mistress Queen's ... Cockpit ... 1636 21. Amphrisa 1637 22. Love's Masterpiece 1640 23. Wise Woman of Hogsdon ... 1638 24. Fortune by Land & Sea (Rowley) Queen's ... 1655 a * I aL>^ - Globe l634 26. Challenge for Beauty [King's] ... Globe & Blkfs. 1636 X. MIDDLETON (THOMAS), born 1574, began work 1599, died 1624 : Name of Play (2nd Author). Company. Theatre. Pub. Writ. '^^istf..??^^ J Admiral's - Rose 1661 i 59 7 1. Old Law (part) 1656 1599 2. Blurt Master Constable Paul's 1602^ 3. Phoenix Paul's 1607 4. Michaelmas Term Paul's 1607 I l6o 5. Mad World, my Masters Paul's... -{'^S g|^ " 6. Trick to Catch the Old One ... Paul's Blackfriars ... 1608 7. Honest Whore (Dekker) Prince's ... Fortune ... 1604 1604 8. Your Five Gallants [Revels] ... Blackfriars entd. 1608 9. Mayor of Quinborough ? Blackfriars. . 1661(1605-8 10. Family of Love Revels ... [Blackfriars].. 1608 I 11. Chaste Maid in Cheapside ... Lady Eliz. ... Swan 1630 12. Roaring Girl (Dekker) Prince's ... Fortune ... 1611 ? 1606 13. Fair Quarrel (Rowley) Prince's ... [Fortune] ... 1617} g 14. World Tost at Tennis (Rowley) Prince's ... ... entd. 1620' T 15. Changeling (Rowley) [Prince's] ...( Py Lane ^| 16. Spanish Gipsy (Rowley) [Prince's] ...\ ( clfj^jj l6S3 l6 "" 15 17. Widow (Jonson, Fletcher) ... King's ... Blackfriars ... - !6is-i6 18. More Dissemblers besides) v . , -01 i r fold in Women.- } King's ...Blackfriars... 1657 |^ n SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Name of Play (znd A uthor). Company. Theatre. Pub. Writ. 19. Anything for Quiet Life 20. No Wit : no Help, c. ... .. .. King's i Blackfriars ... i66 2 \ i657l 21. Women^beware Women i6=,-/( 1617-23 22. Witch . King's . Blackfriars ... MS.) 23. Game at Chess .. . [King's] ... , Globe [1625] 1624 XI. MARSTON (JOHN), born 1575, began work 1602, died 1624 : Name of Play (znd A uthor). Company. Theatre. Pub. Writ. .. Paul's ,- 3. Malcontent (cf. Webster) . Admiral's ... Rose 1604 4. Eastward Ho (Jonson, Chapman) [^evSJ [ Blackfriars ... 1605 5. Dutch Courtisan - ( H R e e r vds J ;,' } [Blackfriars].. 1605 - 6. Fawn - i^ e r vds j .'.. | [Blackfiiars].. 1606* 7. Sophonisba ,.. [Revels] ., . Blackfriars ... 1606 8. What you Will .. Revels . [Blackfriars].. 1607 9. Insatiate Countess (Barksted)... [Revels] .. . Whitefriars ... 1613 XII. WEBSTER (JOHN), born ?I582, began work 1602, died 1652 : Name of Play (znd Author). Company. Theatre. Pub. Writ. i. Malcontent (additions to) ,. King's . Globe 1604 1604 2. Northward Ho (Dekker) . Paul's , 1607 16024 3. Westward Ho (Dekker) ,. Paul's 1607 1602-4 4. Sir T. Wyatt (Dekker) Queen's ..< , [Bull] 1607 1603-4 5. White Devil , ,. Queen's .([Bull] 1612 1611 \Phcenix 1631 6. Duchess of Malfi ... . , .. King's . Globe & Blkfs. 1623 1616 7. Devil's Law Case .. Queen's .. 1623 1622! 8. Appius and Virginia .. (Cockpit 1639)' 1654 9. Cure for Cuckold (Rowley) \ 10. Thracian Wonder (Rowley) ) [probably only begun by ( Webster] I 1651 1651 - * Fawn was acted also at Paul's before 1606. t This is Dyce's date ; I date the play between 1608-15 ; rather earlier than later. CONTEMPORAR Y A UTHORS. 93 XIII. FLETCHER, born 1576 ) t 1625. XIV.-BEAUMONT, born 1586 | b ^gan work 1607, died { ^ Title. A-ittJwr. Date. 1. Woman Hater Beaumont (B.) 1607 2. Faithful Shepherdess Fletcher (F.) before 1610 3. Four Plays in One B. and F 4. Wit at Several Weapons ... do. 5. Thierry and Theodoret do. 6. Maid's Tragedy do. before 1611 7. Philaster do. ... 1611 8. King and No King do. 1611 9. Knight of Burning Pestle ... do. 1611 10. Cupid's Revenge do. 1612 11. Scornful Lady ... .. ... do. 1609-12 FiT Coxcomb F 7612 13. Captain do 1613 14. Henry VIII F. and Shakespeare ... 1613 15. Two Noble Kinsmen do. ? 1613 16. Honest Man's Fortune ... B. and F 1613 17. Masque B 1613 18. Wit without Money F before 1619 19. Bonduca do 1619 20. Valentinian do ,, 1619 21. Knight of Malta F. and Middleton (Md.) ,, 1619 22. Queen of Corinth do. 1616-19 23. Mad Lover F before 1619 24. Loyal Subject do 1618 25. Humorous Lieutenant ... do before 1620 26. Woman's Prize do after 1619 27. Chances do 1619 28. M. Thomas do ,, 1619 29. Double Marriage do 1619 30. Women Pleased do ,, 1619 31. Island Princess do at Court 1621 32. Pilgrim do ,, 1621 33. Wild Goose Chase do ,, 1621 M.. Custom of the Country ... do 1621 35. False One F. aad Massinger (M.) after 1618 36. Little French Lawyer do. ,, 1619 37. Very Woman (Woman's Plot) do. 1621 altered byMassinger probably *>34 38. Laws of Candy do. after 1619 30. Beggar's Bush do. at Court 1622 40. Prophetess do. licensed 14 May, 1622 41. Sea Voyage do. ,, 22 June, 1622 42. Spanish Curate do. ,, 24 Oct. 1622 43. Lover's Progress ... do. before 1^23 44. Love's Cure F., M., RoMey (R.) after 1622 94 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Title. Author. Date. 45. Maid in the Mill F. and Rowley (R.) licensed 29001.1623 46. Wife for a Month F ,, 27 May, 1624 47. Rule a Wife, &c do ,, 19 Oct. 1624 48. Bloody Brother F. and ? after 1623 49. Elder Brother F. and M ,, 1625 50. Fair Maid of the Inn F. M. R licensed 22 June, 1626 51. Noble Gentleman F. and? 3 Feb. 1626 52. Nice Valor F. and? after 1624 53. Night Walker F. and Shirley ... 1625 54. Love's Pilgrimage do. ..'. 1625 Whether Fletcher wrote any part of The Widow (by Middleton and Jonson, about 1615) is very doubtful. He certainly had no share in the Faithful Friends, which I assign to Beaumont alone, date 1606. All these plays were produced by the King's company except No. I, by Paul's Children; 9, 10, n, by Revels Children; 53 by the Cockpit company. XV. TOURNEUR (CYRIL). See page 99. XVI. ROWLEY (WILLIAM), born 1591 (?), began work 1607, died 1627 : Name of Play (^nd Author). Company. Theatre. Pub. Written. 1. Travels of Three Brothers! n . . , . (Day, Wilkins) } Curtam " lost l6 7 2. Match at Midnight ... Revels ... [Bull] ... 1633 ... before 1622 . 3. Fair Quarrel (Middleton) Prince's ... 1617 ... 1623 4. World Lost at Tennis \-r> t j /: (Middleton) {Princes... entd. 1620 ^23 5. Old Law (Middleton) ... { ^a lisbmy j ^ _ ^ ^ 6. SpamshGipsy(Middleton) | ^^1623} l6 53 - ^23 7. Changeling (Middleton) - J f cfi^} l6 53 - ^23 8. Witch of Edmonton (Ford) r> - , ^ , . andDekker) ... .../ Pnnce s ~ Cockpit ... 1658 ... 1623-4 9. All's Lost by Lust JQueen^s'.} Phoenix l6 33 " l62 3 10. Maid in the Mill(Fletcher) King's ... Blackfriars. 1623 11. New Wonder ' [King's] ... Blackfriars] 1632 ... 1624-6 I2 ' CU (^ r er) C ?! k !' ...}[ - '6s. -. 13 ThracianWonder( Webster) [King's] ... 1651 ... 1624-6 CONTEMPORAR Y A UTHORS. 95 XVII. MASSINGER (PHILIP), born 1584, began work 1613, died 1640 : Name of P lay (-2nd Author). Company. Theatre. Pub. Written. 1. Virgin Martyr (Dekker) Revels ... Bull 1622 ... ? 1613 2. Fatal Dowry (Field) ... King's ... Blackfriars 1632 ... ? 1614 3-13. Eleven Plays with Fletcher (see under Fletcher). 14. Unnatural Combat ... King's ... Globe ... 1639 ... before 1622 15. Duke of Milan King's.. Blackfriars 1623 ... 1623. 16. New Way to pay Old Debts Phoenix ... 1633 ... 1622 17. Maid of Honour l^^ 8 j Phoenix ... 1632 ... 1622 18. Bondman Cockpit ... 1624 licensed Dec. 1623 19. Renegado' j^: 6 ^ 5 j Drury Lane 6Mar. 1630 ijApl. 1624 20. Parliament of Love ... Cockpit ... 29 June, 1660 3 June, 1624 21. Roman Actor King's ... Blackfriars 1629 ... n Oct. 1626 22. Great Duke of Florence Queen's... Phoenix ... 1636 ... 5 July, 1627 23- Picture King's... {&,} l6 3 ~ 8 J une > l62 9 24. Believe as you list sent back ir Jan. 1631 25. City Madam King's... {B^kfrlars)} 1658 "' 2 5May,i6 3 2 26. Guardian King's ... Blackfriars 1655 ... 31 Oct. 1633 27. Bashful Lover King's ... Blackfriars 1655 ... 9 May, 1636 28. Old Law (revised from /Salisbury\ ,- ,- (after 1629) Rowley and Middleton) I House / lb55 "' \ ? 1637 / XVIII. FORD (JOHN), born 1586, began work 1621, died 1639 : Name of Play (znd A uthor). i. 'Tis Pity she's a Whore 2. Love's Sacrifice Company. Queen's [1633] 'Queen's [1633] (TheirMaj.i657) King's Theatre. Phoenix ... Phoenix ... Cockpit ... Cockpit ... (Globe and\ \BlackfriarsJ Blackfriars Phoenix ... Phoenix ... Drurv Lane Pub. Written. 1633 ? 1621 1633 ? 1622 1658 1623^4 1657 1624 1629 1628 1633 1633 1634 1634 1638 1637 1630 16^8 4. Sun's Darling (Dekker) 5. Lover's Melancholy 7. Perkin Warbeck 8. Fancies Chaste and Noble ... Q. Ladies' Trial ... Queen's ... Queen's TheirMaiesties 9 6 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. XIX. SHIRLEY QAMES), born 1595, began work 1625, died 1666 : Name of Play (znd Author). Company. Theatre. Pub. Written. i. Constant Maid Nursery 1640 11624 2. (Love Will Find Out the) Way; ? T. B.) | Hatton Garden 1661 . - 3. Humorous Courtiers ... Drury Lane ... 1640 ?i62 4 ? 1624 5. Bird in Cage Phoenix 1633 ?l62 4 6 Wedding Phoenix 1629 before 1625 7. School of Compliments) (Love Tricks) j Drury Lane ... 1631 ( licensed \io Feb. 1625 8. Maid's Revenge Drury Lane ... 1639 9 Feb. 1626 "Brothers Blackfriars ... 1652 . J^" ov -rfiofi o. Witty Fair One Drury Lane ... 1633 3 Oct. 1628 i. Faithful (Grateful) Servant lost 3 Nov. 1629 2. Traitor (Rivers) 1635 4 Ma}*, 1631 3 Duke __ lost 7 May 1631 4. Love's Cruelty Drury Lane ... 1640 Nov. 1631 5. Changes Revels SalisburyCourt 1632 10 Jan. 1632 6. Hyde Park Drury Lane ... 1637 20 Apr. 1632 7. Ball (Chapman) ^ Drury Lane ... 1639 16 Nov. 1632 8 Beauties ... ~~ lost 21 Jan. 1633 9. Young Admiral Drury Lane ... 1637 3 July, 1633 o. Gamester Drury Lane ... 1637 ii Nov. 1633 i. Example Drury Lane ... 1637 24 June, 1634 2. Opportunity Drury Lane ... 1640 29 Nov. 1634 3. Coronation HerMaj. Drury Lane ... 1640 6 Feb. 1635 4. Chabot (Chapman) Drury Lane ... 1639 29 Apr. 1635 5. Lady of Pleasure Drury Lane ... 1637 15 Oct. 1635 6. Duke's Mistress Drury Lane ... 1638 1 8 Jan. 1636 7. Royal Master Dublin 1638 23 Apr. 1638 8. St. Patrick for Ireland ... 1640 ?i6 24 9. Gentleman of Venice ... SalisburyCourt 1655 30 Oct. 1639 30. Look to the Lady lost 10 Mar. 1639 31. St. Albans (entered 14) Feb. 1639) f ~ lost - 32. Rosania (Doubtful Heir) 1652 i June, 1640 33. Politic Father (Politician) SalisburyCourt 1655 26 May, 1641 34. Cardinal Blackfriars ... 1652 25 Nov. 1641 35. Sisters Blackfriars ... 1652 26 Apr. 1642 36. Court Secret Blackfriars ... 1653 y . __ Blackfriars ... 1652 _ 38. Honoria and Mammon\ (from Masque of Honor ( 6c and Riches, 1633) [seej 59 also under Fletcher] ...) CONTEMPORAR Y A UTHORS. 97 XX. RANDOLPH (THOMAS), born 1605, died 1639 : Name of Play. Written. 1. Conceited Pedlar before 1630 2. Aristippus ,, 1630 3. Jealous Lovers ,, 1632 4. Amyntns 1638 5. Muses Looking Glass 1638 6. Hey for Honesty XXL BROME (RICHARD) : Name of Play (v-nd Author). Company. Theatre. Pub. Written. i. Fault in Friendship ( Jonsonjun. ) Curtain ) entered (2 Oct. 1623 2. Late Lancashire Witches (Hey-) Globe 1634 3- - ( Globe and ) \ Blackfriars 1 1632 ~ 4- Sparagus Garden Revels Sal isbury Court 1640 before 1635. 5- Antipodes (for Cockpit) Queen's Salisbury Court 1640 1638 6. Novella Blackfriars ... 1653 1632 7- City Wit -_ 1653 3 1653 9- Court Beggars King's Cockpit 1653 1632 to. Mad Couple Well Matched ... Cockpit (1639) *653 ii. Queen's Exchange 1657 12. Weeding of Covent Garden ... 1658 13- New Academy 1658 1*358 14. 15- English Moor Queen's _ 1659 1 6. Queen and Concubine 1659 17- Jovial- Crew (Merry Beggars)... Cockpit 1652 1641 i: XXII. GLAPTHORNE (HENRY) : Name of Play. Company. Theatre. Published. 1. Hollander (written 1635) Cockpit 1640 2. Argalus and Parthenia Drury Lane ... ^39 3. Ladies' Privilege ... Drury Lane ... 1640 4. Wit in a Constable Cockpit 1639 5. Alb. Wallenstein King's ... Globe 1639 ? Parricide (Revenge for Honor) Prince's... [Bull] (27 May?^ probably altered from Chapman. The dates of writing given in the last column of these tables are only approxi- mations in many instances : but where a month and day are given a definite entry is refeired to and an inferior limit of time is thus fixed. 9-S SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. XXIII. List of Plays which are not included in the foregoing, but which have been republished (most of them in the new edition of Dodsley) : Name of Play. A utkor. Company. Theatre. Pub. Writ. i. Royster Doyster ... f Nicholas ) I Udall } - 1566 155 2. Ferrex and Porrex f Norton, \ \ Sackville / - 1565 1562 3. Appius and Virginia R. B 1575 1563 4. Damon and Pythias Rich. Edwards I57 1 1565 5. Gammer Gurton's) Needle j ki.till] 1575 1566 6. Cambyses Th. Preston 2570 1569 7. Promos and Cassan-1 dra j G. Whetstone 1578 8. Sir Clyomon Queen's ... 1599 ? 1582 9. Three Ladies oft London j R. Wilson ... [Queen's] 1584 1584 10,. Locrine f Tylney \ land Peelel \~ (edited ~| L. Strange's 1595 1586 Lby W. S.)J u. Marius and Sylla T. Lodge ... Admiral's 1594 1586-8 if. Three Lords and) Ladies of London) R. Wilson ... [Queen's] 1590 1588 13. Jeronimo T. Kyd ... _ 1605 \ r 14. Spanish Tragedy ... T. Kyd ... [i594] > before 15. Soliman andPerseda ?T. Kyd ... [i599] J 1589 1 6. Taming of a Shrew Pembroke's 1594 1589 17. Sir T. More 1590 18. Troublesome Reign \ of King John ...j [G. Peele] ... Queen's ... I 59 I 159 19. Fair Emm L. Strange's 1631 1590 20. London Prodigal ... L. Strange's {^6os) S '} l6 5 J59 1 21. King Leir Queen's ... 1605 1592 22. Two Angry Women H. Porter ... Admiral's 1599 1592 23. Summer's Last Will T. Nash ... Chapel ... 1600 1592 24. Arden of Feversham L. Strange's 1592 1592 25. Grim the Collier ... j. T M [1662] {1^0} 26. Look about You ... [A. Munday] Admiral's 1600 ? 1592 27. Downfall of Robinl Hood j A. Munday Admiral's 1601 ?i393 28.Death of Robin Hood (A. Munday) \H. Chettlej Admiral's 1601 ? J 593 29. Richard III Queen's ... 1594 1593 30. Knack to Know a) [?T. Lodge] Alleyn's ... {Str^ge d 's] j ll 594 1593 CONTEMPORAR Y A UTHORS. 99 Name of Play. Author. Company. Theatre. Pub. Writ. 31. Mucedorus ...... [T. Lodge] / 150.8 1594 (King's ... Globe ... 1613 1010 32. George a Green ... Sussex's... 1599 1594' 33 ' H " aanm j- Cooke - Waster's - 1602 ? 1597 j Wilson/ | 35. Sir John Oldcastle (.Hathaway J Admiral's 34 ' En ne en ** W ' jaau S hton Admiral's - z6i6 i 59 3 f Munday, \ j Drayton, ( 1600 1599 [ascribed to") Shake- L speare J 36. Timon ......... University ? 1600 37. Return fromParnassus {carnl? & } l6c6 l6 2 38. Hoffmann ...... H. Chettle Admiral's {^jj*'} 1631 1602 39. Cromwell ...... Chamberlain 1602 40. Lingua ......... 1607 1602 41. Wiry Beguiled ... 1606 1603 42. Yorkshire Tragedy 1605 43. Puritan ... .. ... Paul's ... 1607 44- Dumb Knight ... {^ST} { g&J } Blackfriars l6 o8 l6 o 7 Wilkins Kin g' s Globe - '7 ^7 47. Revenger's Tragedy C. Tourneur King's ... Globe ... 1607 1607 !. Atheist's Tragedy C. Tourneur King's ... Globe ... 1611 ? 1609 49. Ram Alley ...... L.Barry... {j^f} Blackfriars 1611 1611 51. Woman's aWeather- {Q^ 5 } Whitefriars 1617 1612 cock. JN. rield ... (Revels ) ' 52. Amends for Ladies N. Field ... {T^ET j Blackfriars 1618 1613 53. Albumazar J. Tomkis ... { Caml? } l6 * 4 l6 ' 3 Pearl S ) ^" / -^ a ^ or Apprentices Whitefriars 1614 1613 55. Heir T. May ... Revels ... 1633 1630 56. Old Couple T. May ... 1658 57. Revenge for Honour ? Glapthorne Prince's ... 1654 1624 58. City Nightcap ... R.Davenport Queen's ... Phoenix ... 1661 1624 59. Microcosmus T. Nabbes ^Court 17 } l637 60. Ordinary W.Cartwright 1651 72 ioo SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Name of Play. Author. Company. Theatre. Pub. Writ. 61. London Chanticleers 1659 ^36 62. Shepherd's Holiday Rutter ... Queen's ... 1635 63. Fuimus Troes ... J. Fisher ... {^o^j l633 l6s3 64. Lost Lady W. Barclay 1639 65. City Match J. M [aync] King's ... Blackfriars 1639 1639 66. Queen of Arragou W.Habington 1640 67. Antiquary S. Marmion Queen's ... Cockpit ... 1641 68. Rebellion T. Rawlins Revels ... 1640 69. Andromana J. G 1660 70. Parson's Wedding T. Killigrew 1664 71. Five Wise Men and I _ __ all the rest Fools J 72. Sophy Sir J. Denham King's ... Blackfriars 1641 The following are of inferior importance, and a simple enumera- tion of them will suffice for our purpose : DANIEL (SAMUEL), born 1562, died 1619 ; wrote Philotas (printed 1605), Cleopatra (printed 1594), Queers Arcadia (presented 1605), Hymen! s Triumph (acted 1614), Vision of Twelve Goddesses (1604), and Tethys* Festival (1611). ALEXANDER (WILLIAM, Earl of Stirling), born 1580, died 1640); wrote four "Monarchicke" tragedies ; Darius (printed 1603), Croesus (1604), Julius Casar (1604), and The Alexandrian Tragedy (1605). ! CARTWRIGHT (WILLIAM), born 1611-15, died 1643 ; wrote The Royal Slave (acted 1636), The Lady Errant (printed 1651), The Siege (printed 1651), besides The Ordinary already mentioned. SUCKLING (SiR JOHN), born 1608. died 1641-2 ; wrote The Goblins, Aglaura t Brennoralt (all printed 1646), and The Sad One (1658). DAVENANT (SiR WILLIAM), born 1606, died 1669 ; wrote befon 1642; Albovine (printed 1629), Cruel Brother (\6y>\ Just Italian (1630), Platonic Lovers (1636), Wits (1636), Love and Ron (licensed 1634, printed 1649), News from Plymouth (licensed 1635), Unfortunate Lovers (licensed 1638, printed 1643), Fair Fa\ (licensed 1638), and Distresses, or Spanish Lovers (licensed 1639). He also wrote other plays after 1656. CHAPTER X. A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE THEATRE, FROM 1558 TO 1642. 1558. Queen Elizabeth's accession. 1561. T. Beyer made Master of the Revels. 1566. Still's Gammer Gurton's Needle produced. 1574. The Earl of Leicester's players licensed. Burbage, Perkin, Langham, Johnson, R. Wilson, &c. Plays performed on Sundays out of prayer time. 1576. The Theater and the Curtain built in Shoreditch. 1578. The Privy Council limited plays in the City to the companies of the Chapel Children, Paul's Children, Earl of Warwick, Earl of Leicester, and Earl of Essex. 1579. 24th July, E. Tilney made Master of the Revels. 1580. Plays on Sundays abolished. Newington Butts built. 1581. Whitefriars built. Pulled down soon after by the Queen's order, as well as the Cross Keys, Bull, Bell and Savage, and Paul's. 1583. The Queen's company selected. 1585. The Rose-and the Hope opened. 1588. Paris Garden opened. 1589. A Commission of Censure appointed. " 1591. No plays allowed on Thursdays because of bear-baiting being interfered with by them. Interdict on Paul's Children imposed after 1591. 1592. Dr. Rain olds and Dr. Gager hold forth at Oxford on the unlawfulness of stage plays. 102 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. 1593. The Queen's company dispersed. 1594. Lord Strange's company absorbed into the Chamberlain's. 1595. Swan opened. 1596. Blackfriars building adapted for a theatre. Chapel Children put in by Burbage. 1599. The Fortune built by Alleyn for the Admiral's company. 1600. The Globe built by Burbage. 1601. The interdict on Paul's Children removed before 1601. All theatres ordered to be shut except the Fortune and the Globe. 1603. King James I. succeeds to the throne. He licenses Shakespeare, Burbage, Philipps, Hemings, Condell, &c., who usually play at the Globe. No plays allowed, except at Court and in private, on Sundays. The King takes the Chamberlain's company for his own ; the Queen the Earl of Worcester's ; the Prince the Admiral's. 1604. Prince's company at the Fortune (not the Curtain). Blackfriars bought by the Globe company. 1605. Children of the Revels at Blackfriars (formerly the Chapel Children). First moveable scenes at Christ Church. 1607. T. Coryat at Venice. Plays in Lent forbidden early in this reign. 1610. November 7. Sir G. Buck Master of the Revels. 1612. Lady Elizabeth's company join the Revels, separating next year (Collier). Revels Children at Whitefriars. 1613. J. Taylor head of Queen Elizabeth's company at the Hope. Globe burnt. Swan and Rose shut up before 1613. Lady Elizabeth becomes Queen of Bohemia. 1614. Globe rebuilt. Hope burnt down. 1616. Dispensation granted for playing in Lent, except Wednesdays and Fridays. The Red Bull and Fortune have tumblers at this season. 1617. The Cockpit (nuper erectum] pulled down. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS. 103 1619. Queen Anne's death. Cockpit rebuilt. The Queen's Revels company become the King's. The united Four Companies formed. 1621. December 15. The Fortune burnt. Sir J. Astley Master of the Revels 1622. The Revels company at the Red Bull formed from Queen Anne's, which was licensed to bring up children for the Revels. Sir Henry Herbert Master of the Revels. The Red Bull not one of the Four Companies. 1625. King Charles married, and succeeds to the throne. Prince's servants at the Curtain for last time. 1627. Red Bull company forbidden to play Shakespeare. 1629. Women on stage at Blackfriars. Whitefriars rebuilt as Salisbury Court. A French company performs at Blackfriars, the Bull, and the Fortune. 1630. Playhouses shut from April to November on account of the plague. 1633. Histriomastix published. Prynne's ears cut off. 1634. Henrietta Maria at Blackfriars. 1635. French players at the Cockpit. 1636. First scenery used in a private performance of Love's Mistress, at Denmark House. Theatres shut on account of the plague. William Beeston ordered to make a boys' company at the Cockpit (King and Queen's). 1639. Poets receive second day's money taken at door. 1640. The Prince's company go to the Fortune ; the Fortune company to the Bull. Beeston dies ; Davenant succeeds him. 1642. Theatres shut. War breaks out. NOTE. Stage plays were suppressed definitely in 1647, and the first scenery on the stage was introduced in 1662. CHAPTER XI. A LIST OF BOOKS MOST DESIRABLE FOR A STUDENT OF SHAKESPEARE TO POSSESS. 1. The reprint of the Folio edition of 1623, now sold by Glaisher, Holborn ; or the reproduction by photolithography pub- lished by Chatto and Windus. 2. The Globe edition (Macmillan), for reference, the lines being numbered. 3. The Variorum edition of 1821. 20 vols. This is the store- house of all important facts concerning Shakespeare from which the main part of modern editions is derived. 4. Mrs. Ct)wden Clarke's Concordance to the plays. - 5. Mrs. Furness's Concordance to the Poems. 6. Schmidt's Shakespeare Lexicon, 2 vols. (Williams and Norgate. ) 7. Clark and Wright's Cambridge edition, for the Collations. 9 vols. (out of print). (Macmillan.) 8. Dr. Abbott's Shakespearian Grammar. (Macmillan.) 9. S. Walker's Criticisms, 4 vols. {A. R. Smith.) 10. S. Neil's Shakespeare : a Biography. (HoulstoH and Wright. ) The large modern editions by Knight, Staunton, Dyce, and Halliwell are all useful for reference ; but for anyone with limited means, after getting Nos. i, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, which are almost in- dispensable, a better investment is to procure copies of the old dramatists, viz. : (a) Beaumont and Fletcher, by Dyce, 2 vols. (Phillips and Sampson, Boston, 1854), if possible : if not, then that by Darley, 2 vols. (Routledge and Co.). (b) Massinger, by Cunningham. (Chatto and Windus.) LIST OF BOOKS. 105 (c) Ben Jonson, by Cunningham, 3 vols. (Chatto and Windus.) (d) Webster, by Dyce. (Routledge.) (e) Marlowe ditto (ditto). (/) Greene and Peele (ditto). (g) Chapman's works, 3 vols. (Chatto and Windus.) (h) Marston (A. R. Smith), 3 vols. (/) Lilly (ditto) 2 vols. (/) Randolph (Kerslake). (k) Brome, 3 vols. ; Dekker, 4 vols. ; Heywood, 6 vols. ; Glap- thorne, 2 vols. ; Chapman, 3 vols. ; are published in Pearson's reprints. Middleton and Shirley, by Dyce, are out of print. A more useful expenditure than these editions de luxe would be: (/) Dodsley's Old Plays, by W. C. Hazlitt, 14 vols. (m) The best selection for those who do not care to have the minor dramatists complete, is the Ancient British Drama by Sir W. Scott, 3 vols. Other important works are : 11. Halliwell's Dictionary of Old Plays. 12. Halliwell's Dictionary of Archaic words, 2 vols. (very useful). 13. W. C. Hazlitt's Handbook to Early English Literature. 14. W. C. Hazlitt's edition of Collier's Shakespeare Library, 6 vols. 15. Arber's reprints of Old English Literature are very useful and cheap. 1 6. Professor Ward's History of Dramatic Literature, 2 vols. (Macmillan), is very valuable. Books about Shakespeare, called aesthetic, are best eschewed entirely until a distinct opinion has been formed from independent study. Among the best of these are Gervinus ; Ulrici ; Dowden ; Hazlitt. Schlegel is useful, but not trustworthy. The publications of the (older) Shakspeare Society are valuable. So will be the Quarto reprints of the New Shakspere Society, a cheap edition of which is promised for non-subscribers in the prospectus. It is im- possible to give anything like full information on this subject in this Manual. Hence I omit from the list given above such books as Cotgrave, Florio, Minsheu, and many other old dictionaries, with other books equally desirable but not necessary. CHAPTER XII. ON THE TESTS BY WHICH CHRONOLOGY AND AUTHORSHIP CAN BE DETERMINED. THESE tests are made up of two distinct classes, External and Internal. The External tests divide into : 1. Direct. These consist of. definite and positive statements made by authorities whose veracity and ability can be depended on. 2. Indirect. These consist of deductions made from direct state- ments : for instance, from the facts that certain actors were engaged in representing a play, one or more of whom joined or left the company for which it was written at a given date ; or, that the play was produced at a theatre of known name at which the company to whom the play belonged only acted at a certain time ; and the like. The former of these is the only kind of direct evidence that has hitherto been successfully used. The latter is that which has been of the greatest service to me in correcting erroneous statements hitherto admitted as accurate, and in determining the dates of plays riot previously chronologically placed. Of Internal evidences there are several kinds, namely : 3. Allusive. It is not uncommon for a play to contain allusions to other plays, or to political, theatrical, or other public matters whose dates are known from other sources. This evidence is usually more valuable by way of confirmation than of positive determina- tion. It must be carefully watched and not strained too far, not only because such allusions are _often imagined to exist without CHRONOLOGY AND A UTHORSHIP. 107 sufficient grounds, but also because the custom of altering and rewriting plays was extremely prevalent in the Elizabethan era. 4. Aesthetic. Under this head I include all evidences (usually separated into several branches) that depend on the taste or capacity of the critic who uses them, such as the estimate he t forms of the power of the writer in forming a plot or in distinguishing his characters, or the knowledge he displays of human nature, or the general poetic merit of the work examined. Of course the verdict of a great critic based on the result of an attentive reading is of value, even when no grounds are alleged ; but the lamentable mistakes that all critics of this kind have fallen into should make us very careful in doing anything more than making their decisions the ground for further investigation. No evidence based on impressions should be allowed to over weigh one definite fact, any more than evidence to character is allowed to overweigh positive evidence of events or actions in a court of law. 5. La / ng^lage. So far as mere "style" is concerned, this in some measure falls under the last head, and is liable to the same objections as are there adduced. The practice of the old dramatists of writing plays in which one man furnished the plot and another wrote the dialogue, has led to great error in determinations based on this ground. But so far as the use of peculiar phrases, unusual words, and above all of idiotisms or specially individual grammatical forms, is concerned, the test is of high value, and has not been at all sufficiently attended to. Among such forms, not only the use of particular affixes, prepositions, inflexions, &c. must be included, but also inversions and other peculiarities in the formation and arrange- ment of sentences. 6. Metre. This is the most valuable of all internal tests, because in it, and in it only, can quantitative results be obtained. This has been completely overlooked by some, who seem to think that results may be grounded on the number of times that an author uses a certain form of expression, such as "for to go," for in- stance. This would be absurd. It is impossible to determine the number of times that such an expression might have been intro- duced in a play of (say) 3,000 lines, and therefore it is impossible io8 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. to say how often he has preferred this mode of expression to any other. But in a play of 3,000 lines of verse every line must have ?. masculine or feminine termination ; hence, the number of feminine terminations gives us a quantitative, test. In like manner every line must rhyme or not rhyme with the line next to it ; every line must have a definite number of beats or measures ; rhyming passages must be heroic, or alternate, or follow some other definite system : in all these cases we can get quantitative positive results. And it is certain that these results do, when properly used, give true and important consequences. On the other hand, such tests as the so-called weak-ending test, the pause test, &c., which partly depend on the aesthetic sense of the critic and are consequently indefinite as to quantity, can only be depended on as affording a basis for subsequent investigation. The great need for any critic who attempts to use these tests is to have had a thorough training in the Natural Sciences, especially in Mineralogy, classificatory Botany, and above all, in Chemical Analysis. The methods of all these sciences are applicable to this kind of criticism, which, indeed, can scarcely be understood without them. As to their history, it will suffice here to say that Malone used them as qualitative tests only ; that Mr. Spedding applied the female ending test to the play of Henry VIII. quantiiatively ; that Professor Hertzberg counted the female endings in some of the plays of Shakespeare but failed in obtaining any satisfactory results from them ; that I reduced the theory of such tests to a system, established the canons for their use, assigned special distinctive tests to each of the Elizabethan dramatists and worked out the results for the whole of their plays. I have also applied the same kind of tests to some of the Greek dramatists and obtained satisfactory results for ^Eschylus and Sophocles ; while in the case of Homer, I find that language tests are conclusive as to the existence of an Achilleis completed afterwards by the author of the Odyssey into the present form of the Iliad. My results (independently worked out) on this author agree in most points with those of Professor Geddes ; but Books XIII. XV., XVII. do not form part of my Achilleis. I have been thus explicit on this kind of test, because it is not as yet at all generallyjinderstood, and because I attach to it the highest CHRONOLOGY AND AUTHORSHIP. 109 importance. As in the Second Part of this book several instances of its application occur, I need give no further detail here ; but I must specially notice the extremely careful manner in which the weak-ending test has been applied to Shakespeare by Professor Ingram. Although I do not agree with him as to its value in chro- nologising the plays of the Fourth Period (for the reasons given above), yet to him is due the pointing out its perfection as a dis- criminating test between the plays of the Third Period and the Fourth when used as a class test ; and his steady, careful work, and entirely courteous treatment of those who differ from him, make his Essay a model to be imitated by critics on this subject. LIBRARY^ UNIVERSITY OF VLIFORNIA. . -S CHAPTER XIII. ON EMENDATION OF THE TEXT. THE text of Shakespeare has been made to so great an extent the pretext for ingenious persons to display their cleverness by rewriting, altering, inserting, omitting, and otherwise tampering with the old editions, and on the other hand the old copies are in many places so undoubtedly incorrect, that it seems desirable to attempt to lay down here a few general principles as to the limits within which it is permissible to propose any alteration of the text as originally pub- lished ; at present the general system of editors seems to be to alter not only everything they do not understand, but also everything that they think could be written better. The following canons would exclude two-thirds of the emendations that have been proposed. I. That no emendation however plausible can be admitted, un- less either the passage as it stands is inexplicably absurd, or in direct violation of the author's metrical system. Thus ' the well- known passage, "his nose was as sharp as a pen and a table of green fields," was absolute nonsense and required emendation ; and the lines "They say she hath abjured the sight And company of men. O that I served that lady ! " are so palpably unmetrical that they could not have been so written by Shakespeare. Hence the readings "a' babbled" "company and sight" were rightly proposed by Theobald and Steevens, and adopted by all the best editors. On the other hand, there are hundreds of instances in which Pope and Steevens- endeavoured to reduce Shakespeare's free metre to regular Iambic five-foot lines ; and numerous alterations by such critics as Warburton, who ON EMENDATION OF THE TEXT. in evidently thought he could improve his author, are absolutely unjustifiable. 2. No emendation can be admitted unless the mode in which the reading of the old editions originated from it can be clearly explained. This point seems almost entirely disregarded by editors. 3. The character of the copy under consideration, as shown by the known or admitted errors in other parts of it, must be taken into account. Thus an emendation which would be easily admissible in the Quarto Edition of Lear, could not be allowed in a play of Ben Jonson's, if it depended for its justification on similarity of sound with the printed edition. The former being a surreptitious copy carelessly printed, the latter seen through the press by the author himself. 4. The most usual errors arise from these causes : a. Errors in Writing: Every one who writes much and thinks rapidly knows how often he omits or repeats words in his writing ; these errors are usually corrected in modern times in subsequent re- vision by the author, or by the reader for the press. In older times dramatic authors were often careless in this matter, and readers for the press did not exist. b. Errors in Reading : These arise from the setter-up of the type not being clever in deciphering MSS., or from want of clearness in the author's handwriting ; both fruitful causes of error. In the case of Shakespeare, every instance of certain emendation ought to be tabulated and the cause of the corruption assigned. c. Errors of Hearing: These occur when "copy" has been taken down from dictation : sometimes an author dictates his work originally, but more frequent cases arise from the production of surreptitious editions derived from notes taken in shorthand at the theatre or from recitations of actors in private. d< Errors of Printing : These arise from the type being sorted into wrong compartments of the compositor's case, or from the compositor dipping his hand into the wrong compartment to take out a type, or from his eye being caught by a wrong word (especially where the same word occurs twice or oftener near together) ; these causes give rise to such misprints as b for c (compartments for 112 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. these letters being in close proximity) ; to such errors as r t c 9 t; a, e; C, G; &c., being substituted for each other (similarity of type leading to wrong sorting) ; to omissions and repetitions from the eye catching the first of two like words, or conversely, and so on. e. Errors of Correction: These are caused either by the author's not clearly pointing out to the printer alterations in "copy," whether made on MS. or on a previous edition, or by the printer not under- standing the directions given to him. This kind of error has scarcely been noticed heretofore. f. Errors of partial Alteration: These arise from an author's writing a second part of a sentence on a plan different from that on which he originally began it, and forgetting to alter the first part to correspond. These occur most often through the exigences of rhyme. They were pointed out by me in the Provincial Magazine, article " Shelley," 1857. g. The players often inserted oaths, obscene jests, &c., at their will : sometimes these got into the text, especially in surreptitious copies. h. Errors of Accident : These cannot be classified. Under this head I should place accidental destruction of part of MSS. from any cause ; obliteration of words or lines ; falling out of a type ; and all the numerous conceivable occasions of error which, occurring only rarely, are not deserving of special notice. 5. The errors resulting from these causes are A. Errors of omission. B* ,, ,, insertion. C. transposition. D. ,, ,, substitution. E. ,, ,, corruption. F. ,, ,, repetition. It would be inconsistent with our plan to go into this question in greater detail : but any error not falling under one of the heads in (5), not traceable to one of the causes in (4), not corrigible in accordance with (i) (2) (3), ought not to be assumed to exist. The curse of modern editing is unnecessary emendation. CHAPTER XIV. ON THE ACTORS OF THE ELIZABETHAN PLAYS, IT is not part of our scheme to give details of the lives of these men. The Variorum Shakspeare and Collier's History of Dramatic Literature are the great storehouses of facts on that subject, and they are easily accessible ; but as hitherto tabulated lists of the several companies arranged in chronological order have never been published, such lists are here appended. They are of the highest value for determining dates in many instances, and have been far too much neglected for that purpose. The tables here given are derived the first nine from the old editions of such plays as have lists of actors prefixed, and from the Variorum Shakspeare^ vol. ii. ; the last four from the (old) Shakspearian Society papers vols. i. and iv. The arrangement of the tables is self-explanatory. i. Chamberlain's (King's) Company 1594 1619 ii. King's ,, 1619 1642 iii. Prince's 15981615 iv. Queen's (Revels) 1622 1639 v. Revels Children ,, 1609 1613. The rest are single lists, requiring no parallel columns. Of course the sign opposite an actor's name and under the title of a play, &c., indicates his forming one of the company of that date. The Roman numerals in the last column indicate that the actor's name to which they are opposite will be found also in the table indicated by the numeral. All the actors given in the Folio Shakespeare list are indicated by their having the date of their death or a (?) in a special column in Table i. 8 114 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. s jj rf ^ rt G ^H 1) A 72 K S rt 3 V >, c 3 o 5 "rt 2. i. KING'S Ef 1 c rt ^ G o: *0 J- 5 o3 In See also (Chamberlain's. ) CO 3 >> ^ u . 3 1 g c C rt s CO o o | Table -d a G M H & C W I rt I C rt X c XH JJ 3 Cj J rt a cJ C a 1 1 1 5 bf -a rt 1 3 S 00 ro ro MD ON Ox i? LO "2 P Belt, T Goodall, T _ _ Allen, Edw J xi. Duke, Jno P.eeston, Chr. ... _ vi., x. 1 Sinkler : Bryan, Geo 159? ' Pope, Thos 1603 i Phillips, Aug.... 1605 Kempe,Wil 9 i6os Armin, Rob Sly \Vil 1611 Cook, Alex 9 n _ _ 1614 v. Shakespeare, W. 1616 Cowley, Ric - 1619 Hemings, Jno... { Condell, Hen.... - 9 - - - - - - 1619 1630 1629 ! Gough, Rob 9 ! Ostler, Wil _ _ 9 viii. : Tooley, Nic J _ -. 1623 Paliant, Ric x. Lowin, Jno _ _ 1658 Underwood, Jno _ ... _ 1624 viii. ; Eccleston, Wil. . _ _ 1629 v. Rice, Jno 1629 Robinson, Ric... ? 1650 IP ollard, Tho Sharp, Ric Thomson, Jno... . Field, Nat....... _ 1641 v., viii. Holcome, Tho. . _ Benfield, Rob.. ? 1650 v. Taylor, Jos Gilburn, Sam... 1653 T 597 v., vi., xii. Cross, Sam > 1600 Shank, Jno 1650 iii. ACTORS OF 7 HE ELIZABETHAN PLAYS. 115 - H c/T C 'rt C rt 8 * e 4. 8 1! 13 5 ~O ^ j C 13 ' i "rt OJ 2 '"* w HH k f -S J fe vo \o \o o o \S H O S2-Q <* " a) 43 rt CM ! X CJ rt i ^ T3 ?2 Ji ^^ S H Ig^lIJI s 3,3 a > . l-H | - | > o ,_; d u = s ? S^a -I V*VX! Pl B ^! I f ^11 S H S H H 5 s C5 ^r a a ^ < w M M > S b .^ S TJ S ^> H ,en 6' OJ 2 O a ? ^n^ d ^ ' .!> g j 1 , r, *! Q> ^ ' f i if i > o ?*- U U U METRICAL TESTS. 131 I give above, in parallel columns, the scheme proposed, and those of Delias, Malone, Drake, and Chalmers. I quote these three latter from Allibone. Before remarking on the scheme, I desire to add that it is by no means final : I have myself several other tests in course of application, and I have no doubt other workers in the same field will find additional ones, now that the subject is venti- lated. As a provisional scheme, however, 1 place some confidence in it, for this reason : that, although it is based solely on the metrical table, it in no instance contradicts any external evidence. It also distributes the work much more equally than the other schemes ; never requiring more than two plays to be written in one year. Remarks on the Position of certain Plays in this List : First Period. These five plays are distinctly marked off as a ,- separate class by the vast preponderance of rhyming lines. Lez>e's Labour 's Lost has more than 1000, Midsummer Night's Dream 850, Romeo and Juliet 650, Richard II. 530, and Comedy of Errors (though a very short {.-lay) 380, which is equivalent to 600 in a play of ordinary length. Now, no other of Shakespeare's plays reaches to the number of 200 rhyming lines ; and as the battle between rhymed and unrhymed compositions was fierce at this time, I feel that there is no dc.ubt that Shakespeare joined the advocates of rhyme at first, and gradually learned to feel the superi >rity of blank verse ; at any rate, the difference between these Five Plays of the first period, as to amount of rhyme, is too great, in my opinion, to admit any other play, however inferior, to be ranked with them. I know how strongly some think that the Two Gentlemen of Verona must have preceded Midsummtr Night's Dream, because this latter is so beautiful a "work." I do not say a "play ;" for I agree with N. Drake and others in the view that the Two Gentlemen is superior as an acting piece, however inferior as a poem. I must, for want of space, refer to D.rake's Treatise for a full statement of his arguments. For myself, I find it impossible to believe that the Two Gentlemen was not written some two years before as the Merchant of Venice, which is so like it in metrical handling ; and equally impossible to regard the Midsummer Nighfs Dream as a production ot any bitt the earliest period, when fancy was strong, and the sense of the prose realities of life comparatively weak. Note also that the three 92 132 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. comedies in this first period all observe the unity of time, no action extending to the second day, and that they are all similar in their nature, turning on the solution, as it were, of an embroilment pro- duced under circumstances barely or only hypothetically possible. The almost total absence of Alexandrines in Romeo and Juliet, and their absolute absence in the three comedies (the one instance in I. one's Labour 's Lost I think is corrupt), is another very striking difference from all the other plays. In Richard 1L , however, these Alexandrines are admitted, and this is therefore the play in which this, the first sign of the Second Period, begins to show itself. In other respects this play is, to my thinking, far removed from John__ or Henry IV. It bears something of the same relation to Mar- lowe's Edward II. that the Two Gentlemen of Verona does to the_ Taming of a Shrew, or Richard III. to Henry VI. Shakespeare in it seems not to move with the same freedom that he does in his later plays, and the whole work has an artificial air. Another point that distinctly separates the earlier from the later historic plays is. the absence of prose : Richard II. and John have none, Richard III. only one bit, but that reads like, and I believe is, a portion of Peele's work ; and of these earlier plays Richard III. is the only one that is absolutely devoid of Comedy. This also marks its position. Second Period. The positions I have given to the plays in this period so nearly coincide with those generally assigned (except as to the Two Gentlemen of Verona^ which has already been noticed) that no special remarks seem needed. One general characteristic of the period is the diminution of the number of rhyming lines, which number about 100 to 200 in this period for a full play. Much Ado and Merry Wives have a smaller number, but are almost entirely in prose, being quite exceptional in this respect. Also the number of short lines is considerably increased, though not nearly so much as in the next period. Alexandrines are admitted from 5 to 20 in a play (but in Richard IL there are 33 ?) ; the number of feminine endings increases, but not in any regular progression , and doggerel lines, stanzas, sonnets, and alternate rhymes (which abound in the earliest plays) gradually die out : there are not many in any plays of this period. METRICAL TESTS. 133 Third Period. In this a few words may be needed on the position I have assigned to Macbeth. I agree with Clark and Wright that this play has been much altered since its first composi- tion, and has now many interpolations in it; in Act iv. Scene 3 the passage on the touching for the evil the marks of interpolation are palpable ; 1. 159 follows metrically on 1. 139, "'Tis hard to reconcile See who comes here" making a perfect line : the Doctor (unknown elsewhere in the play) is dragged in for the express purpose of introducing the subject ; and "Comes the king forth, I pray you," 1. 140, is inconsistent with " Come, go we to the king," 1. 236. In this Third Period the metre is much freer ; prose and verse are intermingled in the same scene ; tri-syllabic feet abound ; short lines are very abundant ; double endings very greatly multiplied ; Alex- andrines not composed of two lines of six syllables are introduced ; the Alexandrines with regular caesura increase greatly ; the number of rhyming lines gradually falls off. The plays are difficult to test, as to metre, in this period ; partly from the similarity of style in the great plays, partly from the great variations in the Quarto and Folio texts. I am, however, applying further tests, which I hope will be decisive. Fourth Period. In this the rhymes fall off rapidly, and in the Comedies actually disappear ; the metre becomes more regular and less impassioned, 1 and the general impression left by these later works is, that they were produced at greater leisure, and more care- fully polished. The dates given by metrical considerations agree too nearly with those assigned on external evidence to need com- ment. And here I think I may fairly point out how singular the coinci- dence of the order here given is with that assigned by the best English critics on external evidence. This order was first made- out from the rhyme-test only ; and, except in the instances of plays which are not undoubtedly authentic or written at two different periods, I have not changed the relative position of one since I first 1 Professor Tngram has since shown that " weak endings" are the characteristic test of the Fourth Period 134 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. sent this list to Messrs. Clark and Wright in 1870. At that time I had not read any treatise on the external evidences, and was not even aware that any attempt had been made to classify the plays into periods. I own this with some shame ; but claim, at the same time, some additional confidence in the results of the rhythmical tests. It may seem to some ludicrous to speak even of the application of mathematics to such a subject ; but it will be seen from the table that the plays assigned to the period ending in 1598 by the rhyme test, exactly agree with those in Meres's list (setting aside questions of genuineness). Now, the doctrine of chances gives us as the odds against these 10 plays being selected out of the 30 which are undoubtedly more or less Shakespeare's, more than 20 m llions to one : in exact numbers, one chance only out of 20,030,010 would hit on this exact selection of plays* To a mind accustomed to the exact sciences, this fact alone is conclusive as to the immense value of the rhyme test. I might go into detail concerning the reasons for the position of each particular play ; but I think it better to consider all special matter separately. The table itself is subjoined. It is only necessary here to add a caution as to the amount of subjectivity to be expected in such a table as this ; there must be some until the laws of metre are more definitely laid down than they are at present. (I.) As to the rhymes, it is sometimes doubtful if a rhyme is intentional or accidental. In such cases the rhyme is counted in this table. (II.) It is sometimes doubtful if one line of six feet, or two lines, one of five feet, and one of one, be intended. In the following table the line is, if possible, reckoned as divided. (III.) In some instances, lines of four feet in the Globe Edition can be avoided by re-arranging the line* without altering the reading ; this has been sparingly done in Pericles, and in cases where the arrange- ment of the lines is made by modern editors without authority in the original texts. (IV.) All Alexandrines proper with caesura at the end of the third foot are counted in the six-measure lines, and not as two lines of three measures, except where, as in The Two Gentlemen of Verona and Pichard III., lines of six syllables are repeated many times together. In the larger tables from which this one is abridged, all peculiarities are noted for each scene ; perhaps when our text is settled, it may be worthwhile to print such METRICAL TESTS. 135 tables in full for each play. The four last lines in the table are from the imperfect editons in the first Quartos. With regard to the position of the Taming of the Shrew as assigned by me, as also indeed for Timon, Pericles, and Henry VI. , I must ask for absolute forbearance, until my special papers on these plays are read. I hope the first-mentioned of these plays especially will not appear so misplaced as it must do now after the paper devoted to it has been studied. N.B. The columns headed Alternates, Sonnets, and Doggerel are included in the totals summed in the column headed Rhymes, 5 measures, which gives the number of alt rhyming lines not shorter than the ordinary blank-verse line. METRICAL TABLE OF SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS. Play. |j 1 B s Rhymes, 5 Measures. |j 1 Double 1 Endings. | t/5 1 3 Sonnets. Doggerel. i Measure. 1 3 N 3 Measures. 1 4 Measures. 1 6 Measures. I. PLAYS OF FIRST (RHYMING) PERIOD. Love's L. Lost... 2789 1086 579 1028 54 32 9 236 7* 194 4 12 13 i Midsum. N. D... Com. of Errors... Rom. and Juliet. Richard II 2251 1770 3002 2644 441 240 405 1150 2III 2T07 380 486 537 138 63 2 9 137 118 148 158 64 62 12 28 109 3 10 ii 20 17 3 9 16 26 ?4 22 6 ?33 II.-HISTORIES OF SECOND PERIOD. Richard III [3599 King John 12553 ?55 3374 2403 170 150 ~ 570 54 12 - - 2039 1 9 13 4 23 4 16 2 i Henry IV 3170 1464 1622 84 60 4 1617 16 16 13 2 Henry IV 3437 1860 1417 74 7 15 203 [Pistl6 4 L] 313 7 6 Henry V 3320 i53i 1678 IOI 2 8 291 r Pist. 157 n 14 2 13 10 4 23 Julius Caesar 2440 1652241 34 - 369 J 4 31 55 6 16 III.-COMEDIES OF SECOND PERIOD. Two Gent, of V.. Merchant of Ven. Twelfth Night... 2060 2705 2684 409 673 1741 1510 1896 763 116 93 120 34 15 6? 203 297 152 16 4 - 18 i 8|i 5 ! 3 2 4 81622 82123 8 5 2 I 4 5, I0 As you Like it... Merry Wives Much Ado, &c... 2904 3018 2823 1681 2703 2106 925 227 643 71 6 9 4 130 18 97 2ii 19' 3 2 16 129 10 [Pis 22 tol 3 3 iV- 3 - 2 3 ! 3 7 15 i 4 5 3 4 136 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Play. otal o Lines. Ill p5i H 3 a 3 -. 3 2 s!s -*: vo IV. COMEDIES OF THIRD PERIOD. All's Well 29811145311234 Measure forM... 28091113411574 73; 22 I 6 223] 8 I 14 I j 71311 31) 51 14 33 8! | I 1 10-29! 66) 5J 47 V. TRAGEDIES OF THIRD PERIOD. Troylus & Cres... Macbeth Hamlet Othello- King Lear 3423 1186,2025) 19 3924 1 ' 2490 3324) 541 2672 "' 90312 " |i6 44ij I I 129 | 3991 | I 160 508 [86 1. in play] - lag. 6 46, - I ~ I - 10' 46 828 !0 53 1966 i3|43 8x8 ";47 1317* i8,34iii6|22i5o VI. PLAYS OF FOURTH PERIOD. Cymbeline Coriolanus Anthony and C.. Tempest Winter's Tale.... 5448' 3392 3964 638^5851 829 2521! 255^761 458 1458 : 844,1825! 42 32' - 157 726 [84 Lin vision] [54!. masq.] [32 1. chor.] 333 H38 1842 42 :6 VII. PLAYS IN WHICH SHAKESPEARE WAS NOT SOLE AUTHOR. 169 15 Taming of Shrew'267i' 51611971 Henry Vill ^754 ? 6712613 Two Noble Kins. 2734 179 2468 Pericles ,2T,S6 41814361 225 TimonofA ,2358; 596'i56oj 184 -I 26 ! - J - J 49 1 4|ie 16 12 1195 [46!. in Prol. 54 33 1079 & Epilogue]. 120 [222 l.Gower] 257, 2223! 5 18 332 46,17 5 59 26 18 VIII.-FIRST SKETCHES IN EARLY QUARTOS. Rom. and Juliet. 1 2066 26iji45i 354] | | 92] 28 | | I 7J26 I Hamlet 12068 509^1462 Merry Wives 13951207 i4r Henry V 1672! 8 9 8| 774 ' I 209X36 1. in i 30' 2 1 192 76 1 37 130 I 5 4 35131115 IX. DOUBTFUL PLAYS. Titus Androri. .. 2525] 43 23381 144 i54l ~ 4 8 9 9-12 i Henry VI 2693 2379 314 140; 5 5 4 7;ia 2 Henry VI 3032 448 2562 122 255; ~ 825 15 21 12 3 Henry VI 2904 -.- 2749 155! - 346 - 13 ii 14111 7 Contention 19521 381 J57 1 44 M_ 14 163244 True Tragedy ... 2IOl| 2035 66 X4&i ~ 1421 293834 METRICAL TESTS. 137 POSTSCRIPT TO PAPER I. Table of Ratios of rhyme-lines in rhyme-scenes to blank-verse lines in each play : (First approximation.) COMEDIES, HISTORIES AND TRAGEDIES. First Period. Love's Labour 's Lost *6 Mid. Night's Dream I Richard II. 4 Comedy of Errors 3 Romeo and Juliet 4'3 Second Period. ( ist Plot of 1 2th Night 7 '5 ist Plot of Troyl. & Cres. 8-4 ( 2 Gent, of Ver. 1 1 2nd do. do. 13-6 Richard III, * Merchant of Venice 16 John 16 ( Much Ado, &c. 21 f I Henry IV. 19 ( Merry Wives (Quarto) ] 2 Henry IV. 19 / As You Like It 19 ( Henry V. 19 J Julius Caesar * 1 Compln. of 1 2th Night. Prose. ^ Com. of Tarn, of the Shrew 20 Third Period. {Measure for Measure 22 t Hamlet about 30 All's Well, &c. (rewrit.)22 j Othello 30 Merry Wives (Folio) 22 ( Lear ,, 30 Macbeth? Part of Timon 33 Compln. of Troyl. & Cres. 54-5 Fourth Period. Cymbeline about 30 ( Coriolanus 60 Part of Pericles 32 j Anthony and Cleopatra 66 138 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. COMEDIES. HISTORIES AND TRAGEDIES. Fifth Period. ( Tempest 729 < Part of Two N. Kinsmen 281 ( Winter's Tale infinity ( Part of Henry VIII. infinity. The above table is corrected up to the date of my present in- vestigations (Sept 1875) from one published in The Academy by me (March 28, 1874). My reasons for all alterations will be given in my special paper on each play. They are based chiefly on a more scientific application of the rhyme-test, aided by the weak-ending test, the middle syllable test, and above all by the c&sura test, which is next in importance to the rhyme-test ; and has helped me much in making a different division of the plays in some instances. Cymbeline, however, was misplaced through another cause, a numerical blunder; which I have now cor- rected. As these investigations extend, this table will require further correction. CHAPTER II. ON THE QUARTO EDITIONS OF SHAKESPEARE'S WORKS. A LIST of these has long been wanted, drawn up in such a way as to afford ready reference to students in search of such information as can be obtained from the title-pages of the various volumes. These have often been reprinted ; but such a table as is annexed will give readier access to the inquirer, and also, from the manner of its arrangement, supply information that would otherwise require many separate documents. Explanation of the Table. In the extreme left-hand and right- hand columns are placed the dates ^of publication, and in the hori- zontal lines between these the names of the works published in those years, as well as the names of the printers and publishers ; and the symbols (Q I, Q 2, &c. ) by which the Cambridge editors refer to each edition. The works are divided into four groups, partly with a view to avoid the straggling arrangement which would be neces- sary vvere no such division adopted ; partly with regard to certain peculiarities in each group, which will presently be pointed out in the Notes. The first of these groups contains poems only, viz. Venus and Adonu, Liicreece, and the Passionate Pilgrim. The second group contains the Sonnets, Richard II. , Richard III. , 1st and 2nd Henry IV.) and Much Ado about Nothing. The third group contains three plays originally published in imperfect editions, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and The Merry Wives of Windsor ; three plays that differ much from the Folios, viz. Troylus and Cressida, Lear, and Othdlo ; two plays, of which two editions each were published originally in I 4 o SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. the same year, viz. Midsummer Nighfs Dream and the Merchant of Venice ; and Shakespeare's probably earliest play, Loves Labour's Lost. In the fourth group are placed plays more or less spurious, viz., the Quarto Romeo and Juliet, The Contention of the Hotises of York and Lancaster, The True Tragedy of Richard Dtike of York, Henry V. (as first issued), Pericles, and Titus Andronicus. The abbreviations used for the titles of these plays, &c., are given on p. 144, and it is hoped will require no further explanation. One or two other signs may however require it, e.g. "Q4f. Q3," in the second column for each group, means "the fourth edition published in quarto, which edition is considered by the Cambridge editors to have been printed from the third ; x " *Q, means "an edition without Shakespeare's name on the title page ;" +Q, means "the edition from which, in the opinion of the Cambridge editors, the Folio was printed ; " J. Rfoberts] means that J. R. is printed on the title-page, and that J. R. is ascertained from the entries in the Stationers' books or other reliable evidence to mean J. Roberts. There is no- thing else in the table that requires explanation. Nor is it necessary to point out in detail its use for showing at a glance the successive editions of each work, the dates at which the copyright of each changed hands, the number of works published in each year, the date of the maximum number of publications (1598 1600), the sudden appearance of Shakespeare's name on all his authentic works in 1598 (except the edition of Romeo and Juliet in 1609), &c. But in the Notes will be found some additional particulars which are of interest. 1 The Ven. & Ad. *Q 4 is the Isham copy found at Lamport by Mr. Charles Edmonds, and edited by him. It was not discovered till after the Cambridge Shakespeare was published, and consequently all our notation will have to be altered m a future edition. The 1630 Ven. and Ad. (now in the Bodleian) with title-page, was formerly in the Ashmole Museum, but I have not seen it. According to Edmonds it was "printed by J. H., and are to be sold by Francis Coules." He adds that it is different from our Q 10, which is in the Bodleian, without title, but catalogued with date 1630. W. ALDIS WRIGHT. Mr. Wright has consequently altered the notation in the table to that to be adopted in the next edition of the Cambridge Shakespeare. F. G. F. QUAR7V EDITIONS OF SHAKESPEARE. 141 TABULAR VIEW OF THE QUARTO EDITIONS OF SHAKESPEARE'S WORKS, FROM 1593 TO 1630 A.D. Supplementary List of Quartos from 1630 to 1652, 'which could not conveniently be put in the Table, pp. 142-3. 1ROUP. NAME OF PLAY. EDITION. PRINTER. PUBLISHER. / 1631 Love'sLabour'sLost [II J ? Hamlet \ 1631 Taming of Shrew Q2 from Fi Qs from Q4 Qi from Fi w. s. do. do. J. Smethwicke do. do. ( 1632 i Henry IV. IlJ 1634 Richard II. V Richard III. Qy from Q6 Q5 from F2 Q8 from Q 7 J. Norton do. do. W. Sheares IV. 1635 Pericles tQ6 T. Cotes I. 1636 Venus and Adonis *Q I3 J- H. F. Coules. [' 1637 Hamlet III. < Romeo and Juliet Q6 from Qs Qs from Q4 R. Young do. J. Smethwicke do. I ,, MerchantofVenice Q3 from Q2 M. P. L. Heyes II. 1639 i Henry IV. Q8 from Qj J. Norton H. Perry III. 1652 MerchantofVenice Q4 from Q3 W. Leake 142 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. GROUP L POEMS. GROUP II. e | V| : Name 21 EDITION PRINTER. PUBLISHER. Name of Play- EDITION PRINTER. PUBLISHER r 593 V.A. *Qto. i R. Field see Note '594 do Luc- *Q 2 f.Qi *Qi do. do. do. J. Harrison 1595 150 V. A. *Q 3 f.Q 2 do. do. 1597 R.IL *QtO. I V. Simmes A. Wise R. Ill *Ql do. do. 1598 Luc. *Q 2 f.Qi P. S[hort] do. 1H-IV P. S[hort] do. M R.IL Q 2 f. Qi V. Simmes do. TO P.P. * Q f for W. Jaggard W. Leake R. III. Q 2 f- Qx Q2 f. Qi T. Creede S. Stafford] do. do. V A- do. 1600 V A. *Qsf-Q4 J. H[arrison] J. Harrison 2H.IV Qi V. Simmes A. Wise anc W. A^piey ,, Luc- *Q3f.Q 2 do. do. M. A. tQi do, do. 1602 V. A. *Q6f-Qs *Q 7 W. Leake R. IIL Qs f. Q^ T. Creede A. Wise 1603 1604 1H.IV Q 3 f. Q 2 V. Simmes M. Law- 1605 R. III. Q4 f- Qs T. Creede do. .607 Luc- *Q4f.Q3 N. O[kes] J. Harrison 1608 1H.IV Q4 f- Qs do. R. II. Qs i- Q2 W. W[aterson] do. 1609 Son- G. Eld. J. Wright an W. Aspley 1611 - 1612 1613 P.P. Q 2 W. Jaggard R. Ill 1H-IV Qs f- Q4 tQsf-Q4 T. Creede W. W[aterson] M. Law do. 1615 R. II. tQ4f-Qs do. 1616 Luc. Qs T. S. R. Jackson 1617 V- A. *Q8 W. Bfarret] 1619 1620 1622 do- *Q 9 J. P[arker] R. III. Q6f. Q 5 T. Purfoot do. 1H.IV Q6f.Q 5 do. do. 1624 1627 1629 Luc. V. A. Q6f. Q S *Qio J. B[enson] J. Wreittoun R. Jackson R. Ill Q 7 CQ6 J Norton do. 1630 do. do. *Qii? *Ql2 do. J.H. F. Coules. QUARTO EDITIONS OF SHAKESPEARE. 143 GROUP III. GROUP IV. me Name >J f EDITION PRINTER. PfBLISHEK. of EDITION PRINTER. PUBLISHER. 1 Play. 11 c " ?T-A. Con- n. e. *Qto. i J. Danter T. Creede T. Millinston 1594 T. T. *Qi P. S[hort] do.? 1595 E.J. *Qiimp. J. Darner. entered for E. White 1596 1597 L. tQ to i W. W[aterson] C. Barbie 1598 J. *Q 2 T. Creede do-' 1599 -D. tQa J. Roberts Con. *Q 2 fQi V. Simmes do. 1600 0- Qi T. Fisher T.T. *Q 2 f.Q 2 W. W[aterson] do. n v. tQa J. Roberts L. Heyes H. V. *Qiimp. T. Creede T. Millinj;ton and T Busbie o. Qi do. T. A- *Qx J. R[oberts] E. White w. Qr. imp. T. C[reede] A. Johnson H. V. *Q 2 f.Qi T. Creede T. Pavier 1602 m. Q N. L[ingl and J. Trundell 1603 0- Q3 f-V J. Rfoberts] do. N. I/ing] do. 1604 1605 r- QiQ 2 N. Butter H. V. *Q 3 f.Q 2 T. Pfavier] 1608 J- t*Q 3 f- Q 2 J. Smethwickf Per QiQ 2 H. Gosson 1609 c. s) Qi G. Eld. R. Bonian and H. Whalley. m- Q4 f. Q 3 J. Smethvvick- do- Ql f- Qa S. Stafford] 1611 I.J- Q 4 f. Q3. do. T. A. Qi f I E. White ,, ' 1612 1613 1615 1616 1617 w. Q 2 f. Qi A. Johnson Per' J 83 f. Q 2 4 ^' Qs T. P[avier] 1619 1620 h. Qi N. O[kes] T. Walkley 1622 1624 1627 1629 3 w. Q 2 Q3f-Fi A. M. T. H. R. Hawkins R. Meighen Per- Q5 One.) J. N[orton] R. B[irde] 1630 144 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. ABBREVIATIONS USED FOR NAMES OF PLAYS, &c., in pp. 142-3. V. A. Luc. P. P. R. II. R. III. 1 H. IV. 2 H. IV. M. A. Son. R. J. L. L. M. D. M. V. M. W. Ham. Oth. Lr. T. C. Con. T. T. H. V. Per. T. A. W. C. imp. inc. n. e. Venus and Adonis. Lucreece. Passionate Pilgrim. Richard II. Richard III. First Part of Henry IV. Second do. do. Much Ado about Nothing. Sonnets. Romeo and Juliet. Love's Labour 's Lost. Midsummer Night's Dream. Merchant of Venice. Merry Wives of Windsor. Hamlet. Othello. Lear. Troylus and Cressida. Contention of York and Lancaster. True Tragedy of Duke of York. Henry V. Pericles. Titus Andronicus. Whole Contention of York and Lan- caster including Con. and T. T. imperfect, incorrect, not extant. 1 Group I. Group II. > Group III. \ Group IV. QUARTO EDITIONS OF SHAKESPEARE. 145 NOTES ON THE TABLE. Group /. The edition of Venus and Adonis, 1593, was to be sold at the White Greyhound, St. Paul's Churchyard, where we find, from the title-ps.ge of Lucreece, Q I, that in 1594 J. Harrison was carrying on his business ; in 1599, however, W. Leake is in pos- session of the Greyhound, and from this date J. Harrison's books have no address. In 1602 (cf. Venus and Adonis, Q 5), W. Leake had given up the Greyhound, and had taken a new shop with the sign of the Holy Ghost (or did he change his sign only ?). W. Jaggard, the printer of the Passionate Pilgrim, was one of the proprietors of the 1st Folio. The entries in the Stationers' books give some further information. On 18 April, 1593, the Venus and Adonis was entered by R. Field, and was not assigned to J. Harrison till 25 June, 1594, which assign- ment is also entered : the dates of the other entries are by W. Leake, 25 June, 1596; W. Barret, 1 6 February, 1616; and J. Parker, 8 March, 1619. Group II. M. Law evidently became possessor of A. Wise's copyright about 1594. W. Aspley, at one time in connection with A. Wise, was one of the proprietors of the 1st Folio. Group III. Arthur Johnson's Merry Wives of Windsor is the imperfect copy. Othello and Lear differ much from the 1st Folio, and do not come from the same source as it does. J. Roberts, the printer of The Merchant of Venice &&& Midsummer Nights Dream, seems to have been given to piracy and invasion of copyright. J. Smethwicke was one of the proprietors of the 1st Folio. From , the entries in the Stationers' books we can trace some of the copyrights. On 18 January, 1601-2, the Merry Wives of 10 146 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Windsor was transferred from T. Busbie to A. Johnson. This T. Busbie was partner with T. Millington in the spurious copy of Henry V., and it is probable that the Merry Wives, Q I, was surreptitious. It had, however, Shakespeare's name on the title-page, and has remains of an earlier sketch from his hand ; it should perhaps be placed in the fourth group. On 7 February, 1602-3, Troylus and Cressida was entered by Mr. Roberts. On 22 January, 1606-7, Nich. Ling entered, with consent of Mr. Busbie, Romeo and Juliet, Lovers Labours Lost, and The Taming of a Shrew (viz. the old play entered by P. Short in 1594) ; he did not print the two former, though he did the latter ; and accordingly, on 19 November, 1607, we find John Smethwicke enters Hamlet (the imperfect sketch), The Taming of a Shrezv, Romeo and Juliet, and Lovers Labour's Lost, al of which had belonged to Ling. Smeth- wicke also took Ling's house of business, under (the dial of) St. Dunstan's, Fleet Street. Smethwicke's son sold Romeo and Juliet to Flesher in 1642. The Lear, published by N. Butter, was entered on 26 November, 1607, for N. Butter and T. Busbie. We have seen that Busbie had to do with the spurious Merry Wives ; and the printing of the Lear is not like that of a genuine copy, though it has much matter not in the Folios. In 1619 Lawrence Heyes entered The Merchant of Venice, but did not print it till 1637. Group IV. On 1 9th April, 1602, Millington's copyrights were sold to Pavier, and among them a Titus Andronicus, which the Cambridge editors think to be the one entered by J. Danter in 1593. It cannot be the one published by White, as he issued editions in 1600 and in 1611 ; i.e. both before and after the transaction between Millington and Pavier. All the publications in this fourth group are clearly surrep- titious. From the Stationers' books we learn that the same E. White mentioned above entered the spurious King Leir, afterwards pub- lished by J. Wright in 1605. The date of entry is I4th May, 1594. This White also entered the surreptitious 1st Quarto of Romeo and Juliet. QUARTO EDITIONS OF SHAKESPEARE. 147 There is an interesting entry in 1626, when E. Brewster and R. Birde acquired J. Pavier's right in " Shakespeare's plays or any of them." Sir John Oldcastle, Titus and Andronicus, and Hambht, are mentioned. And on 8th November, 1630, is entered the assign- ment to Richard Coates, by R. Birde, of Henry V., Sir John, Old- castle^ Titus and Andronicus, York and Lancaster, Agincourt, Hamblet, Pericles, and The Yorkshire Tragedy. Evidently Pavier was a wholesale dealer in spurious issues. I add the addresses of some publishers and printers mentioned in the above table: I. R. Field, Francis Coules J. Harrison, W. Leake, R. Jackson, J. Benson, L. Heyes, II. A. Wise. M. Law, J. Wright, R. Bonian and H. Whalley, V. Simmes, T. Cree'de, Th. Purfoot, J. Norton. III. C. Burbie, T. Heyes, T. Walkley, R. Hawkins, Anchor, Blackfriars, near Ludgate. In the Old Bailey without Newgate, White Greyhound, St. Paul's. 1. Greyhound, St. Paul's. 2. Holy Ghost, St. Paul's. Conduit, Fleet Street. St. Dunstan's. On Fleet Bridge. Angel, St. Paul's. Fox, St. Paul's, near St. Augustine's gate. Christ Church gate. j Spread Eagle, St. Paul's, over against Great North door. White Swan, near Barnard Castle, Adling Street. Catharine Wheel, near Old Swan, Thames Street. 1. Lucretia, St. Paul's. 2. Within New Rents, Newgate. 3. Opposite St. Sepulchre's, &c. Queen's Arms. Near the Exchange. Green Dragon, St. Paul's. Eagle and Child, Britain's Burse. Chancery Lane, near Serjeant's Inn. 10 2 148 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. T. Fisher, White Hart, Fleet Street. N. Ling, Under St. Dunstan's, Fleet Street. J. Smethwicke, do. (under the dial). ( Pied Bull, St. Paul's, near St. Austin's N - Butter ' I gate. Crown, Fleet Street, between the two W. Leake (1652), Temple gatS _ i Middle Temple Gate and St. Dunstan's Churchyard, Fleet Street. IV. T. Millington, Under St. Peter's Church, Cornwall, do. with T. Busbie, Carter Lane, next Powle's Head. ( Cat and Parrot, Cornhill, near Ex- 1 change. ( Gun, near Little North door, St. E. White, I paul . g _ Flower de Luce and Crown, St. A. Johnson, ( Paul's. H. Gosson, Sun, Paternoster Row. R. Birde, Bible, Cheapside. In order finally to point out the importance of ready reference to such a table as the above, I subjoin a list of the results which it manifestly leads to as to the work needed at the present time in the way of reprinting those old texts. I. We want texts printed in parallel columns of Romeo and Juliet Q 2 \ Hamlet O2 A/r AX7 . TTTT- j v and the imperfect sketches Merry Wives of Windsor F I 2 Henrv VI. F I ( (with collatlons of other ' A7T editions). 3 Henry VI. F I Henry V. F I ) These are needed to give a basis to determine Shakespeare's manner of work, if the early sketches are from his hand (as I believe the first three are), and if not, to disprove the genuineness of the sic etch plays, QUARTO EDITIONS OF SHAKESPEARE. 149 II. We want texts in parallel columns of Richard III. Q I 2 Henry IV. Q I Troylus and Cressida Q I Lear Q I Othello Q I and Q 2 Hamlet Q i and F I (with collations). to ascertain the relation of the Folio text with that of the previous editions. III. We want texts of the two earliest Quartos in parallel columns of Midsummer Night's Dream, Merchant of Venice, to ascertain which edition should have the preference for a revised text. IV. Of Much Ado about Nothing, Love's Labour's Lost, Richard II. I Henry IV. we want single-text reprints of Q I, as being preferable to F i, which was printed from the Quartos in these plays. Pericles, Q i, and Two Noble. Kinsmen, Q i, would also be desirable reprints. It is clearly useless to reprint the Folio for plays where it is merely copied from the Quartos. It should be noticed that of the eight plays which the proprietors of the Folio printed from the Quartos, three, viz. Love's Labotir's Lost, Romeo and Juliet, and Much Ado about Nothing, had become their property ; so that (setting Titus Andronicus aside as spurious) they had only to get permission to print four ; viz. Richard II. , i Henry IV., Midsummer Nighfs Dream, and Merchant of Venice; and even of these four we have no positive evidence that they did not buy up three; as there are no reprints after 1623 for the previous proprietors of the Quartos (except Merchant of Venice, 1637?) 150 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. As I have spoken above of reprints needed in parallel columns, I may here mention as a cognate matter the need of reprints of the passages from North's Plutarch, Holinshed's Chronicle, &c. , parallel to revised texts of the Historical and Roman plays founded on them ; and of reprints of plots of the old plays of The Taming of a Shrew, Promos and Cassandra, The troublesome raigne of King John, &c., parallel with the plots of the plays founded on them. I ^m also strongly of opinion that revised texts of the early sketches of Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, The Merry Wives of Windsor, The Contention, and the True Tragedy, should be printed parallel with revised texts of the plays in their fuller and later forms. Such revised texts of the early sketches have never been printed. [P.S. When I wrote this paper I was not aware that Romeo and Juliet had been edited, on the plan proposed in page 148, by Mommsen (with a most valuable introduction and collations), and that an edition of Hamlet on a somewhat similar plan had been issued in England. F. G. F. Jan. 1876.] CHAPTER III. ON METRICAL TESTS AS APPLIED TO DRAMATIC POETRY. PART II. FLETCHER, BEAUMONT, MASSINGER. (Read March 27, 1874.) THE fact that Fletcher was aided in his plays by Massinger has long been known, and in one or two instances conjectures have been made that Massinger helped him in specific plays ; but on this point, as well as on the question of what share Beaumont had in the plays produced in the joint names of himself and Fletcher, no definite conclusion has been arrived at. It will be convenient for future reference if, before entering on our present inquiry, I subjoin a Table of the plays passing under the names of Beaumont and Fletcher, with the dates of their production (when known) and the authors to whom I assign them, pointing out the instances in which I differ from Mr. Dyce in this respect. GROUP I. PLAYS PRODUCED BEFORE BEAUMONT'S DEATH. Date. Name of Play. Authors (F. G. Fleay). Authors (Dyce). 1607 B F. only. Before 1610 F F ? ? Foir Plays in one Wit at several Weapons B. and F B and F B. and F. B and F ? Before 1611 Before 1611 1611 1611 1611-12 ? 1612 1613 1612 Thierry and Theodoret... Maid's Tragedy Philaster King and No King Kniehtof B. Pestle Cupid's Revenge Scornful Lady * Coxcomb *Captain Masque B. and F B. andF B. and F B. and F B. and F B. and F B. and F B. and F B. and F B B. and F. B. and K. B. and F. B. and F. B. and F. B. and F. B. and F. B. and F. F. (after Weber). B 1613 * Honest Man's Fortune Henry VIII F. and Anon. ... F and Shakes B. and F. 1613 Two Noble Kinsmen F. and Shakes. . F. and Shakes. 152 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. GROUP II. PLAYS BY FLETCHER ONLY (FLEAY). Date. Name of Play. Author according to Dyce. After 1614 ... Before 1619 ... Before 1619 ... Before 1619 ... 1618 ... Old in 1633 ... After 1618 ... 1621 ... Wit Without Money Probably F. only. F. (B. and F., Weber) F.(B.andF., Darley) F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F F. F. Probably F. only. F. F. Bonduca Valentinian Woman's Prize Chances Monsieur Thomas Women Pleased Pilgrim ,.. 1621 ... 1621 ... 1624 ... 1624 ... Wild-Goose Chase Custom of Country Rule a Wife and Have a Wife Wife for a Month GROUP III. PLAYS BY FLETCHER AND ANOTHER AUTHOR. Date. Name of Play Other Autho. (Fleay). Other Author (Dyce); . After 1618 ... False One Massineer 'Massinger (after ( Weber). 9 *Little French Lawyer... Do Beaumont. l62I ... Very Woman Do [Altered by Mas- V singer. 1622 ... *Beggar's Bush .... ... Do No other* 1622 ... Do Do 1622 ... *Spanish Curate Do Do. 1622 ... Sea Voyage ?Do Altered. After 1621 ... *Laws of Candy ?Do Beaumont (perh.) After F. 's death *Elder Brother Do (No other un- i doubtedly. After F.'s death Lover's Progress Do f Massinger (after \ Weber). Before 1619 ... * Knight of Malta Middleton No other. *Queen of Corinth Do Rowley. 1622 ... *Love's Cure Mid. and Row... No other. 1623 ... Maid of Mill Rowley..., Rowley. 1624?... * Bloody Brother ? Rowley. 1625-6 *Fair Maid of Inn ? No other. ? Nice Valour ? .? 1625-6 *Noble Gentleman ? /Shirley (after I Weber). 1633 ... Night Walker Shirley Shirley. After F.'s death Love's Pilgrimage Do Do. METRICAL TESTS. 153 Tn these Tables B, and F. stand for Beaumont and Fletcher respectively. I have formed the plays into three groups : the first of these extends to Beaumont's death ; the second includes all the plays in which Fletcher's hand alone is perceptible; the third includes the rest of the plays. It will be seen that I have starred in the table all the plays as to the authorship of which I hold an opinion different from Mr. Dyce. This is the case as to three in the first group ; which are important, and as to which I think him decidedly wrong. In seven cases in the third group I find traces of a second author where Dyce does not ; and in four cases I differ from him as to who the author is ; but in the second group we agree entirely that it is solely Fletcher's work. It will be well, then, to begin with these plays, and examine what are their peculiarities in rhythm. They are distinguished (1) By number of double or female endings : these are more numerous in Fletcher than in any other writer in the language, and are sufficient of themselves to distinguish his work. (2) By frequent pauses at the end of the lines : this union of " the stopped line" with the double ending is peculiar to Fletcher : Massinger has many double endings, but few stopped lines. (3) By moderate use of rhymes : this distinguishes him from Beau- mont, who has more rhymes than Fletcher or Massinger, and who in serious passages has few double endings. (4) By moderate use of lines of less than five measures : he has more than Massinger, however. (5) By using no prose whatever. Massinger also admits none : there are two little bits in his work ; both, I think, intercalated. (6) By admitting abundance of tri-syllabic feet, so that his (Fletcher's) lines have to be felt rather than scanned; it is almost impossible to tell when Alexndrines are intended. I now give a Table of the rhythmical pecularities of this group; and a similar Table of Massinger's plays in which he worked alone ; these are rightly given in the editions, with one exception ; viz. A Very Woman, which is, as Dyce conjectured, an alteration of Fletcher's A Right Woman, which was previously supposed to be lost. SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Name of Play. No. of Double Endings. Rhyming Lines. Alexan- drines. Lines of less than 5 Measures Custom of Country 1756 1500 *4 42 5 5 8 20 *947 38 10 26 3 8 26 2266 20 21 29 Double Marriage 1762 3 6 ^ 27 Humorous Lieutenant ... \Vomen Pleased 2193 1823 12 12 5 20 j 1678 22 $ 57 1236 18 8 2Q Island Princess 2059 1845 12 18 6 6 29 18 Wild-Goose Chase IQ4.Q 6 Monsieur Thomas Wit Without Money ....~ Rule a Wife, &c Wife for a Month l8oO 1543 1595 1764 2 6 8 5 50 28 21 42 21 Avera 1777 16'^ io'6 N.B. The Chances is a very short play, about four-fifths of an average one ; and the Laws of Candy is so corrupt as to be un- countable with accuracy. TABLE OF MASSINGER'S PLAYS. Name of Play. No. of Double Endings. Rhyming Lines. Alexan- drines. Lines of less than sMeasures Unnatural Combat 934 ii |6 10 34 I 2 5 1085 3 2 II2I 3 2 i Parliament of Love 9 6o 14 7 5 Great Duke of Florence. Maid of Honour 1006 1056 1227 10 22 22 i 3 2 4 * Emperor of East 1058 8 A New Way, &c 1228 1081 20 6 6 2 g 1070 24 Believe as You List 925 12 3 lO^Q i6'8 . . METRICAL TESTS. 155 On comparing these Tables, it is evident that, as to the author- ship of a play, it would not be safe to conclude to which of these two authors it belonged, on the evidence of the number of rhymes ; but that the double endings would be conclusive; Fletcher's range is from 1500 to 2000, in round numbers, with an average of 1775 ; while Massinger's ranges from 900 to 1200, with an average of 1000. A play, having between 1 200 and 1 500 double endings and divisible into parts of distinctly different styles, would probably be a joint production of Massinger's and Fletcher's, especially if the part con- taining the greater proportion of female endings had also the larger share of short lines and Alexandrines. Now examine the fol- lowing Table of the plays which I assign to Fletcher and Massinger jointly. I S 6 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. CO CJMMlO 10 VO 1- as N * CT\ <* Oi o o r^ t^vo vo a\ H '. wroOHHH ^jv O 2 1 I -5 :S UT3 5;g fi < ""> fi^i^v^Jliiii 5 rhymes ; 4 incomplete lines In the former two plays, in 1 8 pages there are only 172 double endings ; 85 rhymes ; 13 incom- plete lines, and a considerable amount of prose ; the lines also are in Shakespeare's later manner, ending on particles, &c., so as to run on continuously with the succeeding line. These must be by Beaumont. We have then, here, the characteristics of his style ii 1 62 'SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. unmixed with Fletcher's, which gives us the key we require. We can now separate their work. It may seem strange that, since Weber had rightly apportioned these plays to our authors, characteristics so salient should never have led any critic to assign the other plays rightly. This, I think, may be explained. There is an inveterate habit among editors to read their authors too much in the order in which the old editions were printed. I can, in many recent issues of great value, trace the mischief and inaccuracy that is still produced by this cause, and in none more than in Dyce's " Beaumont and Fletcher." The Woman Hater was first published in Quarto, and was un- doubtedly the earliest of these plays that has reached us. Therefore Dyce studies it first ; finds it to be almost or entirely by one author ; finds, moreover, that it was first published in the name of Fletcher only, and concludes that it was mainly by him. Hence he gets a fabe notion of Fletcher's style that invalidates all his conclusions as far as this first group is concerned. I doubt not that other editors have been similarly influenced ; and for myself, I can say that the accept- ance of this conclusion of Dyce's kept me two years from seeing the proper starting-point, namely, the plays written by Fletcher alone after Beaumont's death. As to the title-page of the Woman Hater, it does not stand alone. The first play published in the names of Beaumont and Fletcher jointly was The Scornful Lady, in 1616; but Cupid's Revenge was published in 1615 in Fletcher's name singly. The Woman Hater (1607), Knight of the Burning Pestle (1613), Maid's Tragedy (1619, 1622), and Thierry and Theodore / (1621), were published without authors' names. In 1648, Thierry and Theodorel and The Woman Hater were published in Fletcher's name singly ; in 1649 both of them in the joint names of Beaumont and Fletcher, as Cupid's Revenge\&& already been in 1630. Now, that Cupid's Revenge and Thierry and Theodoret were joint works, all the editors admit. This one play, The Woman Hater, is treated differently by them ; in opposition, I think, to the external evidence, and certainly to the internal. I must, however, before giving my theory on this group, call your attention to the following Table, which is similar to those already under our notice for the other groups. METRICAL TESTS. 163 Z* I i 1 1 i I I Part as *? ft o ** ^ 4) 1 < * ? 8 .9 * " .. 2 -w g N ^5 , 2, Be Act 1 2 *E 7 III. . 3- 53 32 '6 4 20 ii '9 5- 107 5i 2 ,, 2'I 6. 308 192 3 ,,i*6 IV. . i. 15 61 4 2-5 2. 156 73 2 2-0 V. . 2. in 64 I I ,, 17 Total . 1393 771 19 I in 1-8 It will be seen that the metrical evidence confirms the results of the higher criticism in the strongest manner. The average number of double endings in the Shakespeare parts is exactly that of the latter part of his career (4th period, time of Winter's 7'ale) ; the number in the Fletcher part exactly agrees with that deduced in my paper on Fletcher from all his undoubted works. In one scene only (Act iv. Sc. I) does his average fall as low as 2*5; and in this scene there is, I think, some Shakespeare material (not much) used by him in the jailer's speeches. Moreover, the imper- fect four-measure lines occur in the Fletcher parts in the proportion of 15 to i in the Shakespeare parts. There is, therefore, not only the strongest confirmation of the conclusions of the best critics as to this play, but also the firmest ground for confidence in our metrical arguments. In every case when examination careful enough for firm conclusions has been previously given, our results are found in agreement with them ; while, at the same time, we have in the ex- amination of metres an instrument far more powerful, because more exact and more scientific, than any other that has ever been brought to bear on subjects of this nature. CHAPTER IV. ON "THE TAMING OF THE SHREW. (Read 4pril 24, 1874.) THERE is something in the first aspect of this play so different from the generality of Shakespeare's work as to have long since excited suspicion as to its authorship. Mr. Hallam, for instance, quotes, apparently with approval, Mr. Collier's opinion that Shake- speare had nothing to do with any of the scenes in which Katherine and Petruchio are not introduced. In support of this opinion many general considerations may be urged ; e.g. : I. It does not occur in Meres's list ; and, as Meres mentions every undoubted play thatiJTaFall likely to have been written by Shakespeare before ijjoj^and even includes Titus Andronicus, which has been given up by many critics whose opinions are of importance on these questions, it is very unlikely that he should have omitted this one, and this only. / 2. This is the only instance of a play with an Induction, so as to form a play within a play, in all Shakespeare's work ; and this Induction is most clumsily managed : there is no provision for getting Sly off the stage. Shakespeare could never, have been guilty of this blunder, especially as the old play, The Taming of a Shrew, winds up satisfactorily in this respect. 3. There is no other comedy of Shakespeare's, except the Merry Wives, in which there is not a Duke or King ; and in which all the 176 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. characters are taken from the middle classes. The tone of this work is quite sui generis in this respect. 4. As Hazlitt remarks : "This is almost the only one of Shake- speare's comedies which has a regular plot and downright moral." I would rather omit the "almost," and add that no work of Shakespeare's is so narrow in feeling, so restricted in purpose, so unpleasing in general tone. 5. This play was made a special object of ridicule by Fletcher in his Woman 1 s Prize, or the Tamer Tamed ; the date of this latter play is uncertain, but it lies between 1616 and 1621, probably nearer the former date than the latter. Now, would Fletcher have chosen for ridicule a work by his friend, whom he admired and respected, and that, too, within three or four years at most of his friend's death, not long after he had been remodelling Henry 'VI 77. , and working with him in The Two Noble Kinsmen ? But we have much stronger arguments than these general ones ; to which we now pass on. I. Argument from Metrical peculiarities. The irregular lines in this play fall into several well-defined classes. 1. There are lines deficient by a whole measure or foot. Examples : i. i, 51. I pray you, sir, is it your will, ii. I, 259. Go, fool, and whom thou keepst, command. ii. i, 300. I'll see thee hang'd on Sunday first, iii. 2, 185. Hark, hark, I hear the minstrels play, iii. 2, 233. My household stuff, my field, my barru iv. I, 164. 'Tis burnt, and so is all the meat, iv. 4, 46. The match is made, and all is done. v. 2, 66. Let's each one send unto his wife. 2. There are lines deficient by a syllable in some part of the line marked A in the following examples : i. I, 14. Vincentio's son brought up in Florence A L 2, 190. No ; say'st me so A friend? What countryman? ON THE TAMING OF THE SHREW. 177 i. 2, 251. Sir, let me be so bold as ask A you. ii. I, 73. Beccare ! you are marvellous A forward, iii. 2, 168. What said the wench when A he rose again? iv. i, 124. Where be these knaves ? What no man at A door. iv 3> 3- Why, then, the mustard A without the beef, iv. 3, 62. Lay forth the gown ! What news with you, Sir A ? i y 4> 33- No worse than I A upon some agreement, iv. 4, 34. Me shall you find ready and willing A . iv- 4 55' Then at my lodging, an it like you A . 3. There are lines in which one syllable constitutes the first measure. Examples : - i. i. 48. Gentlemen, importune me no farther, i. i, 73. Well said, master ! Mum, and gaze your fill. i. i, 74. Gentlemen, that I may soon make good, i. I, 90. Gentlemen, content ye ! I'm resolved. i. 2, 1 60. O this learning, what a thing it is ! i. 2, 1 6 1. O this woodcock, what an ass it is ! i. 2, 198. Will he woo her? Ay, or I will (He, F.) hang her. i, 2, 247. What ! this gent'man will out-talk us all. ii. i, 109. Sirrah, lead these gent'men to my daughters. If the Globe arrangement be taken, the line is still worse, viz.: To my daughters and tell them both. ii. I, 202. No such jade as you, if me you mean, iii. 2, 89. Come, where be these gallants ? Who's at home ? iii. 2, 92. Were it better I should rush in thus ? [Lines 130 and 132 have both been plausibly emended. I therefore do not quote them.] iv. I, 150. Out, you rogue ! You pluck my foot awry, iv. I, 163. What's this? Mutton? Ay. Who brought it ? I. iv. 2, 120. Go with me to clothe you as becomes you. iv. 4, 2. Ay, what else, and but I be deceived, iv. 4, 71. Come, Sir, we will better it in Pisa. v. 2, 38. How likes Gremio these quick .witted folks ? 12 i;8 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. v. 2, 40. Head and butt : a hasty-witted body. v. 2, 93. Not quoted ; pronounced ' * wor'se " (r vocal). Ind. 2, 114. Madam wife, they say that I have dream'd. 4. There are lines of six measures, with the first measure monosyllabic. Examples : iv. i, 153. Where's my spaniel, Troilus ? Sirrha, get you hence ! iv. 2, 4. Sir, to satisfy you in what I have said, iv. 2, II. Quick proceeders, marry ! Now tell me, I pray, iv- 2, 33. Never to marry with her, though she would entreat. (ist foot 2 syll. but no caesura.) i. 2, 194. O Sir, such a life, with such a wife, were strange. 5. The doggerel lines are chiefly of four measures in each line. Examples : i. i, 68. Hush, master, here's some good pastime toward ! The wench is stark mad or wonderful froward. i. 2, H. Villain, I say, knock me at the gate ; And rap me well, or I'll knock your knave's pate. i. 2, 16. Faith, sirrha, an you'll not knock I'll ring it, I'll tr^ how you can sol fa and sing it. The doggerel in Lovfs Labour's Lost, Comedy of Errors, &c., has either five or six measures in each line; and lines like these of four measures occur nowhere else in Shakespeare. 6. There are many rhymes of one or two measures in each line introduced in the midst of the dialogue. Examples : i. i, 79. Put ginger in the eye, An she knew why. iii. I, 83. Nay, by S. Jamy, I hold you a penny, A horse and a mon Is more than one, And yet not many. ON THE TAMING OF THE SHREW. 179 iv. I, 6. Little pot, And soon hot. iv. 4, IOI. And so may you, Sir ; And so adieu, Sir ! These peculiarities of metre are enough of themselves to show that the greater part of this play is not Shakespeare's. On the lines that are deficient by a syllable or a measure I do not lay great stress, since similar instances occur, though in much smaller number and in corrupted passages only, in Shakespeare's undoubted plays. But when we find over 20 lines in which the first measure consists of one syllable ; and, on looking into the other plays, find that 12 instances at most can be alleged from the whole orThem, and that these 12 are in every instance explicable on other principles, then the fact that the metrical scheme of this play differs entirely from the Shakespearian, becomes manifest. In fact, the average of such lines in Shakespeare is (if none of them be corrupt, which is extremely unlikely) less than one in two plays. The peculiar anapaestic doggerel lines with four measures, and the frequent occurrence of short rhymes in proverbial or quasi- proverbial sayings in the dialogue, confirm the conclusion reached above. Still more does the occurrence of lines of six measures, the first one being monosyllabic : not one instance of such a line can be adduced from the undoubted plays. The frequent contraction of the word " Gentlemen " into "Gent'- men " in this play is also noticeable ; it occurs, i. 2, 219. Gent'men, God save you ! If I may be bold, ii. I, 47. I am a gent'man of Verona, Sir. ii. i, 328. Faith, gent'men, now I play a merchant's part, ii. i, 343. Content you, gent'men : I'll compound this strife, iii. I, 185. Gent'men and friends, I thank you for your pains, i. 2, 247. What ! this gent'man will out-talk us all. ii. i, 109. Sirrah, lead these gent'men to my daughters ! II. Argument from the use of Latin quotations and classical allusions. Latin quotations are introduced in Henry VI. ^ Titus Andronicus, the first two acts of Pericles, the parts of Timon which I hav* 122 i8o SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. shown elsewhere not to be Shakespeare's, and in this play. In the whole 34 of Shakespeare's undoubted plays, only one Latin quotation occurs, namely, that in Love's Labour's Lost, Fauste precor, &c. There are 18 in the spurious plays. The manner of introducing classical allusions is not Shakespearian. Compare i. I, 173. " I saw sweet beauty in her face, Such as the daughter of Agenor had, That made great Jove to humble him," &c. with M. V., iii. 2, 244. " We are the Jasons/we have won the fleece." as fair typical instances. So, i. i, 159. *' as secret and as dear As Anna to the Queen of Carthage was. " This manner of introducing such comparisons is found in Henry VI.j 3rd part, often ; but never in Shakespeare's undoubted plays. For example, Henry VI., (3) v. 2, 19 : " As Ulysses and stout Diomede, With slight and manhood stole to Rhesus tents, And brought from thence the fatal Thracian steed, So we," &c. N.B. "Lying'st knave in Christendom," Induction, 2, 25, is taken from 2 Henry VI., ii. i. But the most remarkable and conclusive phenomenon has yet to be noticed : all the above peculiarities the lines with monosyllabic initial measures, the classical allusions, the doggerel rhymes, all alike disappear in certain portions of the play, notably in the last scenes of the 4th and 5th acts, and in portions of previous scenes, e.g. of iv. 3 ; ii. i. But these parts of the play are those in which Katherine and Petruchio are on the stage together : they are just the parts which any critical reader would pick out as far superior to the rest; they are, in fact, the very salt of the whole. I feel ON THE TAMING OF THE SHREW. 181 justified therefore in concluding that the only characters in this play which have Shakespeare's handiwork in them are the two principal ones, Katherine and Petruchio ; and that to quote tnis play in proof or illustration of any peculiarities of Shakespeare's metrical system, or otherwise, is decidedly unsafe. Dr. Abbott, for instance, seems to have formed some erroneous notions of the metrical system of Shakespeare, from relying too much on the douotful plays, if one may judge by the number of times he quotes them to support his theories. 1 /It also follows that the early date assigned to this play, chiefly founded on its inferiority, need not be, and, as I think, is not accurate. / In fact, nothing is more dangerous than assigning dates to authors' works by their supposed excellence of execution, or the contrary. Nothing is more safe than a conclusion founded on the manner of work, where the author shows development of style in his productions ; nothing less sure than inferences from the matter^ or the relative value of it. Thus far, then, our work has been destructive ; but I feel bound to give a theory (at any rate) plausible as to the composition of the play. Now, first I would notice, that although it is certainly in- ferior to Shakespeare's comedies of the Second Period, the inferiority does not consist in immaturity, but in comparative want of genius. It is the work of a second-rate author at his best, not of our greatest author in his youth. Any one who reads it without a preconceived notion that it is Shakespeare's, will, I am certain, agree as to this point. Now, remembering how this notion of inferiority being necessarily associated with early date has led critics astray, inducing them to group Titus Andronicus, Per ides , and Two Gentlemen of Verona, as productions of the same period, although three plays more different in style, in handling, and in metre could not be found, I will not say in Shakespeare, but in all the Elizabethan drama ; remembering this, let us throw aside all prejudice, and look into the metre of the scenes that I believe are Shakespeare's, espe- cially the last in the play. We shall find that the percentage of double endings in these scenes, the number of rhymes, and the general tone of the rhythm as to caesura and stopped lines, coincide with 1 Since I wrote the above, my attention has been called to the following words in Dr. Abbott's Shakespearian Grammar, Par. 505 : "the frequent recurrence of these lines in the Taming of the Shrew will not escape notice," recognising the difference between this play and Shakespeare's general style. 182 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. the plays at the end of the Second Period, with As You Like Tt and Much Ado about Nothing: and point to a date of 1602. Now, in the Taming of the Shrew there is a line " This is the way to kill a wife with kindness," which distinctly refers to Heywood's play of A Woman Killed with Kindness, which dates 1602. I would therefore assign the Taming of the Shrew to 1602, and explain its form in some such way as this. It was written by some one x on the model of the older play, and generally in a satisfactory manner ; but the ending being found un- satisfactory, Shakespeare was desired to furnish some alterations, which he did ; but the playwright who interwove these in the drama cut out the ending of the play as it stood, together with the end of the Induction, not noticing that Sly was then left undisposed of ; and the ending in Shakespeare's scene was so satisfactory, that it was not found advisable to meddle with it afterwards. This will explain the absence from Meres' s list, and all the other phenomena which appear at first so inexplicable. I might adduce other argu- ments to confirm the above ; for instance, the extreme unlikelihood that Fletcher should in 1618, or thereabouts, choose a play to ridicule that had been published at least twenty-five years, if the ordinary theory is correct ; or the much stronger argument, that if there is any truth in metrical tests, there is no place whatever in which this play can be introduced into any scheme of development of Shakespeare's metrical system. The number of rhymes would place it at the end of the First Period, after Midsummer Night's Dream and Romeo and Juliet ; but its other metrical peculiarities, as noticed above, would not fit into any part of the plays of any period. I may add that if this theory be the right one and I feel rather confident it is it brings the date of the play just to the time when Shakespeare's mind was busied in re-organizing his Twelfth Night, and other works, previously to his turning his attention from Comedy to Tragedy, to which he devoted all his energy up to the last year of his dramatic life. [ T In my opinion, Thomas Lodge. F. G. F., Jan. 1876.] ON THE TAMING OF THE SHREW. 183 In order finally to impress on the memory the differences of style in the Shakespeare parts of this play and in the other portions, compare the following passages, the most characteristic I can find in the play : '' Fie, fie, unlcnit that threat'ning unkinde brow, And dart not scornfull glances from those eies, To wound thy Lord, thy King, thy Governour. It blots thy beautie as frosts doe bite the mead, Confounds thy fame, as whirlewinds shake faire budds, And in no sence is meete or amiable. A woman mou'd is like a fountaine troubled, Muddie, ill-seeming, thicke, bereft of beautie, And while it is so, none so dry or thirstie, Will daigne to sip, or touch one drop of it." ActV. So. I. (SHAKESPEARE.) " Tranio, since for the great desire I had To see faire Padua, nurserie of Arts, I am arriu'd from fruitfull Lombardie, The pleasant garden of great Italy, And by my father's loue and leaue am arm'd With his good will and thy good companie, My trustie seruant, well approu'd in all, Here let us breath and haply institute A course of learning and ingenious studies." Act i. Sc. i. {Not SHAKESPEARE.) " Oh, monstrous arrogance : Thou lyest, thou thred, thou thimble, Thou yard, three-quarter, half-yard, quarter, naile, Thou Flea, thou Nit, thou winter cricket thou : Brau'd in mine owne house with a skeine of thred : Away, thou rag, thou quantitie, thou remnant, Or I shall so bemete thee with thy yard As thou shalt think on prating while thou liu'st." Act iv. Sc. 3. (? SHAKESPEARE.) 184 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. " Hor. Sir, a word ere you go. Are you a sutor to the Maid you talke of, yea or no? Tra. And if I be, Sir, is it any offence ? Gre. No r if without more words you will get you hence. Tra. Why. Sir, I pray, are not the streets as free For me as for you ? Gre. But so is not she. Tra. For what reason, I beseech you ? Gre. For this, Sir, if you'll know, That she's the choise loue of Signior Gremio." Acti. Sc. 2. (Afr/ SHAKESPEARE.) For 'tis the minde that makes the bodie rich, And as the sunne breakes through the darkest clouds, So honor peereth in the meanest habit. What, is the Jay more precious than the Larke, Because his feathers are more beautifull ? Or is the Adder better than the Eele, Because his painted skin contents the eye ? Oh no, good Kate ; neither art thou the worse For this poore furniture and meane array." Act iv. Sc. 3. (Not SHAKESPEARE.) Be she as foul as was Florentius loue, As old as Sibell, and as curst and shrow'd As Socrates' Zentippe, or a worse ; She moues me not, or not remoues at least Affections edge me in. Were she as rough As are the swelling Adriaticke seas, I come to wiue it wealthily in Padua. If wealthily, then happily in Padua. " Act i. Sc. 2* (Not SHAKESPEARE.) Such dutie as the subject owes the Prince, E'en such a woman oweth to her husband : And when she is froward, peeuish, sullen, soure, And not obedient to his honest will, ON THE TAMING OF THE SHREW. 185 What is she but a foul, unbending Rebell, And gracelesse Traitor to her louing Lord ? I am ashamed that women are so simple To offer warre when they should kneele for peace, Or seek for rule, supremacie, and sway, . When they are bound to seme, loue, and obay." Actv. Sc. 2. (SHAKESPEARE.) [P. S. The lists formerly given in this paper of peculiar words were only preliminary to my edition 'of Henry VI. ; in which the whole question of " once-used" words will be thoroughly discussed, and the method of using them in discriminating authorship laid down in detail.] Hereupon follows my division of The Taming of the Shrew into Shakespearian and non- Shakespearian portions, with the results of the rhyme-test as applied to each. Nothing more is, I think, needful Jo confirm Dr. Farmer's theory as to the authorship, and Mr. Collier's as to the date, of this play. METRICAL TABLE. SHAKESPEARE. Total Lines. Verse Lines. Rhyme Lines. Ratio of Rhyme to Verse. ii. i, 1 68 326.... iii. 2, a. c 156 2TT I 5 6 187 2 7 78 27 iv. i, 224 I O2 6 17 3 198 TCQ 6 26' < 5, 78 A IO-C V. 2, II75 175 175 10 17-5 Total IO64. 8C7 qe 24. ** j 86 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. SECOND AUTHOR. "Total, Lines. Verse Lines. Rhyme Lines. Ratio of Rhyme to Verse. i. i 253 227 18 I2'6 2 282 2 SO CI c ii. i. a. c. 4.13 247 14 17-6 iii. i Q2 74. 12 6-1 2, 129150 ... iv. 2 21 1 2O 21 1 2O 2 8 10-5 15 4 IOQ 7Q 6 I3*i V. I. . ItfE 33 18 1-8 2, 176 189.... 14 H H i Total IAAQ 106^ T /13 7M The Induction (not Shakespeare's) is rhymeless, evidently with intention, just as the play in Hamlet is rhymed : to distinguish the play within the play. The rhyme-ratio of rhyme to verse, I to 24 ; that is, of rhyme to blank, I to 23 ; places this play in 1602 : exactly where I anticipated it would come, for other reasons : it comes at the extreme end of the Second Period along with Twelfth Night and As You Like It. (See my paper on Twelfth Night.) The difference of the ratios in the Shakespeare and other parts of the play (7*4 and 24) is so great as to distinctly show the value of the rhyme-test in determining authorship when properly used. [P. S. Since this paper was written, I have seen reason to enlarge the hypothesis I proposed in it to the following purport : The original Taming of a Shrew was written by Shakespeare and Marlowe in conjunction for L. Pembroke's company ; Shakespeare writing the prose scenes and Marlowe the verse. In 1600 The Whole Contention, Hamlet, Titus Andronicus, and The Taming of a Shrew, became the property of the Chamberlain's men, all having formerly belonged to Pembroke's. Shakespeare re-wrote his own part of the Taming of a Shrew, and Lodge re-wrote Marlowe's ; hence our present play The Taming of the Shrew. Shakespeare also re-wrote Hamlet (perhaps his own part only at first, Lodge helping him by re-writing Marlowe's for the first Quarto) ; he also touched (slightly) the other plays. All this was done in 1601-2. See my paper on Henry VI. , " Macmillan's Magazine," Nov. 1875. F. G, F., Jan. 1876.] A it CHAPTER V. ON "TIMON OF ATHENS." PART I. (1874,) (Read May 8, 1874.) SYMPSON, Knight, and others have held that this play is not entirely the work of Shakespeare : but they have, so far as I know, all proceeded on the hypothesis that Shakespeare took up an older work of an inferior writer, and founded on it our present play, by retouching, rewriting, and interpolating new scenes. The object of the present paper is to show that the nucleus, the original and only valuable part of the play, is Shakespeare's ; and that it was completed for the stage by a second and inferior hand. Before going into details as to metre, &c., I will examine the scenes of the play in order : In Act i. Sc. I, I find nothing that we can reject except the prose parts, 1. 186 248, and 1. 266 283. The former of these is exactly in the same style as other prose talk with Apemantus, which we shall presently see must be rejected : it is bald, cut up, and utterly unlike the speeches of the same personages in the other parts of the same scene ; and above all, it has nothing to do with the plot, and does not advance the story a step : the latter bit is clearly parenthetical : after Timon has said, " Let us in ! " one of the rest who entered with Alcibiades says, "Come, shall we in? and taste L. Timon's bountie?" and after a little conversation, he and his friend, another of the rest, go in together. So I think Shakespeare arranged it : his alterer iS8 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. empties the stage of all but Apemantus, who stays in order to " drop after all discontentedly like himself" in the next scene : but as there was a bit of Shakespeare to be used up (and we shall see that he could not afford to lose a line, for reasons to be given hereafter), the alterer brings in two extra Lords to talk to Apemantus, so that, after all, Apemantus has no opportunity of leaving the stage discontentedly like himself. This is too clumsy for Shakespeare, whether doing his own work, or vamping another man's. The prose therefore in this scene I reject : the verse, which all hangs together, I retain : it is Shakespeare's certainly ; for instance " All those which were his fellowes but of late, Some better than his valew, on the moment Follow his strides, his Lobbies fill with tendance, Raine Sacrificiall whisperings in his eaer, Make Sacred euen his styrrop, and through him Drinke the free Ayre." Act i. Sc. 2, on the other hand, has not a trace of Shakespeare in it. Ventigius (who is called Ventidius in the Shakespeare part of the play) offers to repay the 5 talents advanced by Timon, and tells of the death of his father. This is certainly not known to the author of the last part of Act ii. Sc. 2, where the information as to Ventidius's father is given again, but no allusion is made to Ventidius's offer. Timon quotes hackneyed Latin : the whole scene is inferior, and leaves the story unadvanced, and it contains the first mention of Lords Lucius and Lucullus, of whom, with their worthy colleague Sempronius, there is no notice in the original part of the play. The steward also, or at any rate some one who talks very like the steward of the second author's scenes, is here called Flavius, and here only. But in Act ii. Sc. 2, Flavius is given by Shakespeare as the name of one of Timon's servants who is not the steward. As to the poor humour, poorer metre, and wretched general style of this scene, I need say nothing : it is manifest on a mere cursory reading, but I give a specimen of the poetry, the best I can find. " He commands vs to prowide, and giue great guifts, and all out of an empty Coffer : ON TIMON OF ATHENS. 189 Nor will he know his Purse, or yeeld me this, To shew him what a Begger his heart is, Being of no power to make his wishes good. His promises flye so beyond his state, That what he speaks is all in debt ; he owis for every word ; He is so kind that he now pays interest for J t, His Land's put to their Bookes." However fine this may be, it is certainly not in the style of Shakespeare, or of the preceding scene. But in Act ii. Sc. I we come on the genuine play again : " For I do feare, When every Feather stickes in his own wing, Lord Timon will be left a naked gull, Which flashes now a Phoenix." There is the true ring in this. Act ii. Sc. 2 is also genuine, except the prose part, 1. 46 131, and 195 204. When Timon has demanded an explanation of the steward, and the steward has desired the duns to cease their importunity till after dinner, he adds to them, "Pray you walk neere ! I'le speak with you anon ; " and straightway gives the explanation desired : but the playwright who improved the drama wanted Apemantus to talk nonsense to the Page and Fool of a harlot (unknown in the rest of the piece) : so he makes the steward say, " Pray draw neere ! " and go out with Timon, apparently to have out their explanation. Caphis and Co. do not draw neere, but stop to talk to Apemantus. When we've had enough of that, in come Timon and the steward, who again says, "Pray you walk neere," which the creditors do this time, and Timon and the steward go on with their talk as if they had never left the stage to say anything outside. This prose part must be accepted or rejected along with the prose in Act i. Sc. I. The other smaller bit is also evidently an insertion. Timon is going to try his friends : he calls for Flavius and Servilius, his servants ; they come ; he says he will despatch them severally : accordingly, he tells one to go to Sempronius the other to Ventidius. But the second author, having already in a previous scene intro- 190 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. duced Lords Lucius and Lucullus by name, now adds Sempronius to them, increases the number of servants to three, sends them off to these three Lords, and leaves the messages to the Senators and Ventidius for the steward. Note also that he sends to each of these friends for 50 talents a piece : but I do not enter on the question of the moneys in this part of my paper. It is sufficient here to mention that the verse part of the scene is pure Shakespeare. No one else could have written iu The " drunken spilth of wine," the "one cloud of Winter showres, These flyes are coucht," the "halfe-caps and cold moiling nods, They froze me into silence/' bear the lawful stamp of his mintage. But next come three short scenes in which we find the three servants, Flaminius, Servilius, and Anonymus, applying to Lords Lucius, Lucullus, and Sempronius, in detail; but the most dramatic situation of all, the application of the steward (Flavius, according to this writer) to Ventigius, is not given, only alluded to. In these scenes there is not a spark of Shakespeare's poetry, not a vestige of his style ; and they are inseparably tied up with the prose bit in Act ii. Sc. 2, which we have just rejected. As a specimen of style, take the following, arranged to show the monotony of the pauses : " Why, this is the worlds soule ; And iust of the same peece Is euery Flatterers sport. Who can call him his Friend, That dips in the same dish? " And in Act iii. Sc. 4, where the creditors again dun Timon, there is no trace of Shakespeare. Timon gets in a vulgar passion ; he bids to a banquet the three apocryphal Lords, Lucius, Lucullus, and Sempronius ; the rest of the scene is taken up with the talk of the creditors' servants, who can rhyme much more easily than the best educated personages in the Shakespeare part of the play, and are thus far poetic, if not dramatic. I need give no specimen of their speeches : they speak the same dialect, and use the same rhetoric, as all the characters of the second author ; any speech of any one might be spoken by any other, so far as the language and form of expression are concerned. It will suffice to give a ON TIMON OF A THENS. 191 bit from the Alcibiades of the next scene, which is one wholly by the vamper : " Why do fond men expose themselues to Battell And not endure all threats ? Sleepe vpon 't, And let the Foes quietly cut their Throats Without repugnancy ? If there be Such Valour in the bearing, what make wee abroad ? " I am tired of reiterating that these scenes by author the second add nothing to the progress of the play. But I must notice the difference in the enumeration of the servants here and in Act ii. Sc. 2. In the earlier scene the only ones present are Caphis and the servants of Isidore and Varro ; in the latter there are Lucius, Titus, Hortensis, Philotus, and Varro's two men (unnecessary doubling, a sure sign of inferiority) ; and it is expressly stated in the stage direction that all Timon's creditors are present. This scene cannot have emanated from the same nand as the former ; but the former agrees with other portions of the Shakespeare part of the play, the latter scene does not. Compare, for instance, Act ii. Sc. I. "To Varro and to Isidore," and a little further on, '* Caphis hoa !" which exhausts the Shakespearian list. But to pass on. In Act iii, Sc. 6 Timon's speech is certainly Shakespeare's ; for example : "This is Timons last. [He] Who stucke and spangled you with Flatteries, Washes it off, and sprinkles in your faces Your reeking villany." An inferior author would not have thought of the flattery Timon had used to his false friends, but of their adulations to him, and would have written " Spangled with your flatteries." But the rest of the scene is certainly not Shakespeare's. It is a muddle. There seem to be two Lords on the stage at first (taken from the two in Act i. Sc. i), whom Timon calls " gentlemen both": the other Lords who speak after must be part of his "attendants" ; 192 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. there are senators who don't speak at all. Timon throws warm water at them, which apparently freezes before it reaches them, so that they feel it on their bones, and are pelted with stones, like the guests in the old Timon play, which Shakespeare, I feel sure, never read. From this point onward I shall notice only the added portions. The Shakespeare parts are not only his, but his of his best style ; so distinctively his that any one with ears as good as an ordinary schoolboy's will recognise them at once. In Act iv. Sc. 2 the soliloquy of Flavius, lines 29 50, is not Shakespeare's. It is in the rhythm of the second playwright, and is inseparably connected with Act iv. Sc. 3, 1. 463 543, which is certainly an added part. I am ashamed to say that I rejected most carelessly the whole of this scene in my original paper in 1868. My present opinion Mr. Tennyson has confirmed. The next piece to be omitted is Act iv. Sc. 3, 1. 292 362, which is written in the same chopt-up prose as the Apemantus- parts which we have omitted before ; it also interferes with the sense. Timon says, ''''Gold sleeps here, and does no hired harm; here is the truest use for gold." Apemantus answers, "Thou art the cap of all the fools alive. " But our cobbling playwright makes him answer, " Where liest o' nights, Timon?" and we are ex- pected by the supporters of Mr. Knight's theory or other similar theories to believe that in this, and the many other instances pointed out above, Shakespeare, working up an old play, has left all these gross and clumsy sutures unclosed ! But above all, in this bit Apemantus tells Timon "Yonder comes a poet and a painter." They talk for 60 lines, and then enter Banditti ! more talk with Banditti 63 lines, and then enter Steward ! more talk (80 lines), and then at last enter * ' poet and painter ! " To avoid this, modern editors make the curtain fall when the steward goes out ; but this makes matters worse ; the poet and painter must be then "coming yonder," not only while that interminable talk goes on, but while the curtain is down : imagine this to be Shakespeare's arrangement ! But suppose the curtain does not fall ? Then the poet and painter enter as the steward goes out : and one of the first things they tell us is that "Vir said he gave unto his steward a mighty sum." No, as the play stands, the curtain must fall in the ON TIM ON OF A THENS. 193 middle of a scene, and the poet and painter wait yonder all the while. This point alone settles the question of the present arrangement being Shakespeare's. But cut out the prose parts in these scenes, or this scene rather, and all is right. Omit 1. 292362 ; 1. 398413 ; 1- 453543 ; and Act v. Sc. I, 1. I 57. In this scene we also omit the talk with the steward, which is aesthetically contrary to the whole drift of the play. Had Timon been convinced that there was one "just and comfortable man," he would have ceased to be misanthropes, and would not have concluded his interview with " Ne'er see thou man, and let me ne'er see the.* In style also it agrees with our botcher. " O you Gods ! Is yon'd despis'd and ruinous man my Lord ? Full of decay and fayling ? Oh Monument And wonder of good deeds euilly bestow'd ! What an alteration of Honor has desp'rate want made ? " This, and the like all through ! Enough. But I must warn the reader in comparing these passages with Shakespeare to take them as they stand in the Folio, before they have been Poped and Theobalded and Walkered, into somewhat of a pseudo- Shakespearian form. The only other bit I would reject is, Act v. Sc. 3, where the Soldier who can't read, reads an Epitaph which is not written, and gives us the most useless and superfluous information of his own afterwards. Thus much then for the division I make of the play between the writers. I spare the reader any comment of mine on the unity of the Shakespeare work so separated ; it is printed by itself in The New Shakspere Society's Transactions : if he wants to feel the dislocated corduroy road one has to travel over in reading the other writer's work by itself, it is a slight task to mark his work in any edition of the play as generally printed, and read it separately. But I have only done one part of my work. I have next to show how this curious treatment of a play of Shakespeare's came to be adopted. His share of the play was written undoubtedly about 13 194 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. 1606. Delius places it with Pericles rightly. The rhyme test places it there also. But I believe that Timon differs from other plays in not being finished in Shakespeare's lifetime at all, though I do not advance this as certain, but as probable only. The play is printed in the Folio next to Romeo and Juliet, and is paged 80, 81, 82, and then 81, 82 over again; then 83, &c., to 98; then follow a leaf unpaged, with the actors* names printed on one side, and Julius C&sar. Now the play of Troylus and Cressida, which is not mentioned at all in the Index (' Catalogue') of the Folio, is paged 79 and 80 in its 2nd and 3rd pages, and was evidently intended at first to follow in its proper place as the pendant or comparison play to Romeo and Juliet. But as this play was originally called " The History of Troylus and Cressida" (so in the Quarto Edition), and as there is really nothing tragical in the main bulk of it, it was doubted if it could be put with the Tragedies, so the editors of the Folio compromised the matter by putting it between the Histories and Tragedies, and not putting it at all in . the Catalogue, though they still retained their first title for it as *' The Tragedie of Troylus and Cressida." This space, then, of pp. ?o 1 08, which would have just held the Troylus and Cressida, being left unfilled, it became necessary to fill it. But if, as I con- jecture, some of the following plays from Julius Ctzsarto Cymbeline were already in type, and had been printed off, there was nothing to fall back on but Pericles and the unfinished Timon. I have given reasons in my paper on Pericles for believing that the editors would not have considered it respectful to Shakespeare's memory to publish the Pericles ; they therefore took the incomplete Timon, put it into a playwright's hands, and told him to make it up to 30 pages. Hence the enormous amount of padding and bombast in his part of the work : hence the printing of prose cut up into short lines as if it were verse, which is a very common characteristic of spurious or otherwise irregular editions : hence the Dumas style of dialogue so frequent in the Apemantus parts : hence the hurry that left uncorrected so many contradictions, and unfilled so many omissions. The hypothesis is bold even to impudence ; but it accounts for the phenomena, and no other can I find that will. Having, then, laid down as certain the division of the play, and the assignment of the nucleus to Shakespeare ; and, as probable, ON TIMON OF A TURNS, 195 the manner in which the play came to be so composed, we come to the more difficult question still Who was the second author ? The ratio of rhyme to blank verse, the irregularities of length (lines with four accents and initial monosyllabic feet), number of double endings, &c., agree with only one play of all that I have analysed (over 200), viz. The Revenger 1 s Tragedy. But I am doubtful as to pressing this argument very strongly, unless we give up (as I am quite ready to do) the notion of the play being finished in 1623, as The Revenger's Tragedy was written in 1607. The evidence of general style, however, appears to me strongly to confirm the con- jecture that Cyril Tourneur was the second author. If we could find out the date of his death, it might help to determine the question as to when his part was written : but, so far as I know, there is no reason whatever why he should not have written it in either 1608 or in 1623. This bit seems to me exactly in the metre of Shakespeare's recaster : "In the morning When they are up and drest, and their mask on, Who can perceive this save that eternal eye, That sees thro' flesh and all. Well, if any thing be damn'd, It will be twelve o'clock at night, that twelve will never 'scape." Revenger's Tragedy, p. 322 (Dodsley's edition). Tourneur quotes Latin too : " Curae leves loquuntur, majores stupent." He writes in the Dumas dialogue : * * Duke. My teeth are eaten out. Vind. Had'st any left ? Hip. I think but few. Vind. Then those that did eat are eaten. Duke. O my tongue !" &c. (p. 354.) Sometimes there is a whole page like this. Here again is a bit in the style of metre we want : *' 'Tis well he died ; he was a witch. And now, my lord, since we are in for ever, 133 196 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. The work was ours which else might have been slipt, And, if we list, we could have nobles clipt, And go for less than beggars : but we hate To bleed so cowardly : we have enough, I' faith we're well, our mother turn'd, our sister true, We die after a nest of dukes, adieu." (P. 384.) But with less than extracting the whole play, I cannot expect to produce conviction on this point ; and I have already taken as much space as can be afforded now. I subjoin the numerical data for the metrical examination of The Revenger's Tragedy as near as I can count them in such a badly printed edition as we yet have. Total No. of lines, over 2400. No. of rhyming lines exactly 460. double endings 443. Alexandrines ,, 22. Deficient and short lines about 125. For the data of the metre of Timon, and other arguments derived from the sums mentioned (50 talents, &c.), and similar statistical matters, I refer to Part II. of this paper, which contains nothing opposed to my present views except that I have transferred since three prose bits from and one verse bit to, Shakespeare. This Part II. is reprinted as it stood in 1869, for reasons given in the note on its first page. The additional matter given in this Part I. formed part of my first essay on the subject, which was remodelled into the present form of Part II. at the request of Mr. P. A. Daniel in 1868. I have only to add that the essential part of this paper is the proof that the Shakespeare part of this play was written before the other part : the theory how this came to be done is accessor)' and unimportant. If any one likes to believe as I did in 1869 that the unfinished play of Shakespeare was given to another theatre poet to finish in 1607, he is welcome to his belief: he avoids some diffi- culties and incurs others. But that Knight's theory as held by Delius, c., is untenable, I hold to be proven : the un- Shakespearian parts were certainly the latest written. ON TIMON OF A TURNS. 197 ON "TIMON OF ATHENS." 1 PART II. (1869.) [Reprinted verbatim.] (Read May 8, 1874.) THIS question is so intricate, and involves considerations of so many kinds, that I shall, for the purpose of making the argument clear, pursue a somewhat irregular course in its arrangement. 1 shall first submit to the reader, in a tabular form, the results that I have arrived at after a careful and prolonged investigation of the question. This Table is grounded on an examination of every line of the play, one by one, as regards the metre ; on a specific analysis of the plot with regard to the bearing of each scene or portion of a scene on every other ; and on a minute examination of the Folio of 1623 with regard to the printing and spelling of proper names, stage directions, &c., which have been altered by modern editors, without authority and on (I think) insufficient grounds. The first portion of the subjoined table shows in parallel columns the parts of the play which I believe to be undoubtedly Shakespeare's, and those which I assign to a second author : the other portion gives a metrical analysis of the lines assigned to each. It will be observed that I have divided the Scenes into five dis- tinct portions, other than the Act-and-Scene division ; and have marked these A, B, C D, E, F. This arrangement I believe to be that which Shakespeare intended for his Act-divisions; but, at pre- sent, I wish it to be regarded only as a convenient arrangement for purposes of reference in this discussion. i This paper was written in 1868 by Mr. Fleay, and sent in 1869 to Mr. W. G. Clark, of Trinity College, Cambridge, the senior of the joint-editors of the Cam- bridge Shakspere. In his rooms it remained till yesterday, when his friend, Mr. W. Aldis Wright, took it out and posted it to me. It reached me this morning, Wednesday, April 8, 1874, and I post it at once to Mr. Childs, to print for The New Shakspere Society's Transactions. This course is taken because Mr. Fleay heard in 1870 that a German critic had published a paper for the German Shakspere Society, in which he took a similar view of Timon to that which Mr. Fleay had before taken. The German critic's views may, after all, be very different from those expressed in the present paper ; but Mr. Fleay wishes, in any case, to avoid the charge of plagiarism. F. J. FURNIVALL. 198 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. SHAKESPEARE. UNKNOWN. Act. Scene. Line. Act. Scene. Line. A I. z 1-293 A I. 2 1-257 B II. j 2 i-35 I-I93 205-242 B II. III. a i 2 3 4 194-204 i-66 1-94 1-42 1-119 C I) III. IV. 6 i 1-131 1-41 C D IV. 5 2 1-117 1-50 E V. X 1-291 363-398 4*4-453 50-118 E V. 3 i 292-362 399-413 454.543 1-50 F 2 4 119-231 1-17 x-8 5 F 3 I-IO METRICAL TABLE. j. ! * j ri ,3 1 a) Prose. Blank. 3 1 Prose. Blank. 3 SB B B I. I II. I 2 * 5 8 *8s 208 3i 133 25 2 8 2 2 6 I. 2 II. 2 III. I 64 ii 49 126 ii 21 3 36 2 IIT. 6 *in 12 2 6 2 58 3 2 4 IV. i 33 2 6 3 8 19 9 6 IV. 3 339 28 2 4 18 i 78 12 8 V. i 162 14 6 5 ! 73 14 3 2 14 I 2 IV. 2 4 10 4 77 4 4 v i 85 ; 53 46 9 18 254 1009 86 36 3 i 4 339 44i 75 122 * But see Part I. F. G. FLEAY. ON T1MON OF ATHENS. 199 It will conduce to ease of comprehension, if we begin with the latter divisions ; as the difficulties in the end of the play are easier to examine than the early ones. We commence, therefore, with F- In F, there is only one passage at all doubtful ; the rest coheres, is in one style ; and that style is certainly Shakespeare's. The doubtful piece is Act v. Sc. 3. The objections are : F. I. Lines 3, 4, " Timon is dead, who hath out-lived his span : Some beast read this ! There does not live a man," must be in spite of the alteration of read into reared, as proposed by Warburton intended for Timon's epitaph. In this case we have a soldier, who I reject on internal evidence of style and metre ; see the Metrical Table, and also the general considerations at the end of this essay. Our next batch B (ii. I iii. 5) is the most difficult of all. B I. In the genuine parts of the play, j. *. i. I, 95 ) Ventidius borrows 5 talents { 1218 IS o ii. 2, 235-8 ) Same amount is "instant due" ) i. I, 141 Lucilius's dowry is 3 talents 722 5 o ii. 1,1-3 Timon owes 25,000 (pieces?) 4062 10 o(?) ii. 2, 208 Proposes to borrow 1000 talents (?) 245,750 o o iii. 6, 23 Has asked of a Lord 1000 pieces 162 10 o(?) In the other parts, ii. 2, 201 \ Timon sends to Lords for 50 talents 12,187 IO iii. I, 19 } N.B. There 3 sums of this amount, iii. 2 ; 13, 26, 41. "So many " talents are mentioned. 202 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. s. d. iii. 2, 43 5500 talents (?) 1,340,625 o o or if we read 50, 500 121,875 o o iii. 4, 28 Due to Varro, 3000 crowns 487 10 o iii. 4, 29,96 Due to Lucius, 5000 crowns 812 10 o iii. 4, 94 Due to Titus, 50 talents 12,187 10 o iii. i, 46 Lucullus offers Flaminius 3 solidares. The Attic talent is 2437. i$s. od.\ the largest silver coin in Greece was the tetradrachm (3-r. 3 iv. 2, c. See D i also. A. I. The hack Latin quotation, "Ira furor brevis est," is not at all in Shakespeare's style. We find similar ones in Henry VI., Taming of the Shrew t Titus Andronicus ; but where in Shake- speare ? A- 2. Ventidius offers to return the 5 talents lent by Timon (i. 2, I 8) in consequence of coming into his inheritance ; yet in the end of ii. 2, Timon tells us this latter fact over again, without any allusion to Ventidius's offer in i. 2. This is not like Shake- speare's work. A- 3 Apemantus, sometimes misprinted Apermantus in other scenes, is so all through this one ; this again looks as if the MS. of Shakespeare was badly written : it quite deceives the second writer, and occasionally the printer. I have now given a number of reasons why each of the passages in the second column of our table is not by Shakespeare. Let us next consider some points which affect the whole play. I. The play is, in its present state, unique among Shakespeare's for its languid, wearisome want of action. This renders it one of the least read of all his works. But this fault is due entirely to the pas- sages which I assign to the second writer, not one of which adds anything to the development of the plot, for they are in every 0;V TIMON- OF A TURNS. 205 instance mere expansions of facts mentioned in the genuine parts of the play. Thus the germ of i. 2 is in i. I, 270, &c., of Hi. i 3 ,, ii. 2, 192, of iii. 4 ,, ii. 2, of iii. 5 iii. 6, 61, and the added parts of iv. and v. are merely padding to fill out the deficiency in quantity. The Shakespeare part is complete in itself, and never flags at all. II. The whole of the brief account in Plutarch is contained in the Shakespeare parts ; which also have the two allusions to Lucian's dialogue, viz. the beating out the Poet and Painter, and " Plutus the god of gold is his steward," i. i, 287. III. The rhythm of the two portions of the play differs in every respect. The Shakespeare parts are in his third style (like Lear], with great freedom in the rhythm, some 4 and 6 syllable lines, some Alexandrines with proper caesuras, and rhymes where the emphasis is great, at the end of scenes, and occasionally of speeches in other places. The other parts have irregularities, both in defect and ex- cess, of every possible kind. There are lines of 8 and 9 syllables, Alexandrines without caesura, imperfect lines in rhyming couplets, broken lines preceding rhymes, and other peculiarities, not one of all which is admitted in Shakespeare's rhythmical system, i. 2, end, is one of many instances of intolerably bad rhythm : I'll lock thy heaven from thee. O that men's ears should be To counsel deaf, but not to flattery ! One point in the metre may appear clearer if expressed statistically. In the Shakespeare parts the proportion of blank verse to rhyme is as 280 to 10 ; in the other parts as 36 to 10 ; in other words, there are proportionally Slimes as many rhymes in the latter as in the former. IV. If, as I suppose, the second writer worked on an unfinished play of Shakespeare's, his additions ought to be more or less frag- mentary, and Shakespeare's should contain the main plot. If, as some have conjectured, the converse was the case, we ought to have 2c6 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. converse results. Now our first column appears to me to contain the complete story, and to have been intended by Shakespeare to be read as follows : I. Act. Timon's prosperity, i. I of present play. II. ,, Debts and Duns, ii. I 2, of present play. III. ,, Farewell to Athens, iii. 6, iv. I, of present play. IV. Cave life, iv, 3 (part), v. I (i 118), of present play. V. ,, Death and indirect revenge through Alcibiades, v. I (119 231) ; v. 2 ; v. 4 ; of present play. In I. I have already pointed out on what portions of the genuine work the other is founded ; the fragmentary nature of the spurious work can only be appreciated on continuous reading. V. In the Cambridge edition the following notice is given : " Timon of Athens was printed for the first time in Folio, 1623." It "occupies 21 pages, from 80 to 98 inclusive, 81 and 82 being numbered twice over. After 98 the next page is filled with the actors' names, and the following page is blank. The next page, the first of Julius Casar, is numbered 109, and instead of beginning, as it should, signature ii., the signature is kk. From this it may be inferred that for some reason the printing of Julius C&sar was com- menced before that of Timon was finished. It may be that the MS. of Timon was imperfect, and that the printing was stayed till it could be completed by some playwright, engaged for the purpose. This would account for the manifest imperfections at the close of the play. But it is difficult to conceive how the printer came to mis- calculate so widely the space recjuired to be left. "The well-known carelessness of the printers of the Folio, in respect of metre, will not suffice to account for the deficiencies of Timon. The original play, on which Shakespeare worked, must have been written, for the most part, either in prose or in very irregular verse." CAMBRIDGE EDITORS. On this I have to observe, that if there is, in supposing the printer miscalculated the space to be left, a difficulty on my hypo- thesis, the difficulty is certainly not lessened by suppo'sing that the whole of the play was in the printer's hands from the first. In no ON TIMON OF A THENS. 207 other instance do the printers give a whole leaf to the actors' names ; in only one other do they give a whole page ; and they never insert the actors' names at all, except for the purpose of filling a blank space. 1 This looks as if the writer or printer were hard up for mate- rial ; which is confirmed by the way in which the prose is printed (in the second writer's part only), as irregular verse ; so as to fill a third more space than it would otherwise. I append a List of the Actors for reference : IN SHAKESPEARE'S PART. SECOND WRITER. 2 Timon. Lucius. s Apemantus. Lucullus. 3 Alcibiades. Sempronius. 2 Ventidius. Flaminius. * Steward. Flavius. s Poet. Servilius. 3 Painter. 3 Strangers. 3 Thieves. Titus. Jeweller. Hortensius. Merchant. Philotus. Athenian. Cupid. Lucilius. Amazons. Caphis. Soldier. Varro's servant. Isidore's servant. 4 Lords, 'Page. < Fool. Phyrnia. Timandra. Messenger. N.B. The leaf with the actors' names in the Folio is not paged, so as to hide the fact of 10 pages being missed. * But see Part I.- F G. FLEAY. 2 These are common to both Shakespeare and the second writer. 3 These have been touched up by the second writer. 4 But see Part I. F. G. FLEAY. 208 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. VI. Finally. On any one who really cares to form a well- grounded opinion as to this question, I would urge this practical test : Read the parts of the play in our first column by themselves, and the other parts by themselves ; and see whether the flavour left by them is the same in both cases. I abstain from any comparison of passages here, because any one who really is interested in the matter can easily make them for himself ; and, moreover, I know by experience, that if I put passages side by side to compare the rhythm, some readers will immediately fancy it is the relative excellence of the quotations which is in question. And herein lies one of the greatest hindrances to the advance of criticism in this country. People look at a handwriting, and say, " This is not Smith's ; he writes better than that." They read a play, and say, "This must be Shakespeare's, it is so good." The expert knows that men write sometimes well and sometimes badly ; but that in the handwriting and the poem, alike, there is a character or style which cannot deceive. In this case I address myself to the expert, and have no doubt, whatever, of the verdict. CHAPTER VI. ON "PERICLES." (Read May 8, 1874.) WITH regard to the authorship of this play, we may, I think, take it at once for granted, that the first two Acts are not by Shakespeare. It has been so long admitted by all critics of note that this is the case, that it cannot be worth while to go over the evidence again in detail. In order, however, to extinguish any lingering doubt, I give the metrical evidence ; which will, at the same time, show how much more easily and certainly this result would have been arrived at had this method of investigation been earlier adopted. The play consists of verse scenes, prose scenes, and the Gower. chorus. Con- sidering at present only the first of these three parts, we shall find so marked a difference between the first two, and last three, Acts, as to render it astonishing that they could ever have been supposed to be the work of one author. COMPARATIVE TABLE. Acts i., ii. Acts in., iv., v. Total No. of lines . . . 835 827 No. of rhyme lines . 195 14 No. of double endings . . 72 106 No. of Alexandrines ... 5 13 No. of short lines ... 71 98 No. of rhymes not dialogue 8 1 6 The differences in the other items are striking, and of themselves conclusive : but the difference of the numbers of rhymes, the 2io SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. proportion being 14 in the one part to I in the other, is such as the most careless critic ought to have long since noticed. With regard to this main question, then, there can be no doubt : the three last Acts alone can be Shakespeare's ; the other part is by some one of a very different school. But we have minor questions of some interest to settle. The first of these is, Who wrote the scenes in the brothel, Act iv., Sc. 2, 5, 6? I say decidedly, not Shakespeare; for these reasons : These scenes are totally unlike Shakespeare's in feeling on such matters. He would not have indulged in the morbid anatomy of such loathsome characters ; he would have covered the ulcerous sores with a film of humour, if it were a necessary part of his moral surgery to treat them at all and, above all, he would not have married Marina to a man whose acquaintance she had first made in a public brothel, to which his motives of resort were not recommend- atory, however involuntary her sojourn there may have been. A still stronger argument is the omission of any allusion in the after- scenes to these three. In one place, indeed, there seems to be a contradiction of them. The after-account of Marina, which is amply sufficient without the prose scenes for dramatic purposes, is given thus : " We haue a maid in Metiline She with her fellow maides [is] now upon The leauie shelter that abutts against The Island's side." Act v. Sc. I. I cannot reconcile this with " Proclaim that I can sing, weave, so we, and dance, And [I] will undertake all these to teach." Act iv. Sc. 6. Nor with " Pupils lacks she none of nobler race, Who pour their bounty on her : and her gain She gives the cursed bawd" Act v., Gower, But if these scenes are not Shakespeare's (and repeated examina- tion only strengthens my conviction that they are not), the clumsy Gower chorus is not his either. And this brings us to the only hypothesis that explains all the difficulties of this play. The usual ON PERICLES. 211 hypothesis has been that Shakespeare finished a play begun by some one else : that is, that he deliberately chose a story of incest, which, having no tragic horror in it, would have been rejected by Ford or Massinger ; and grafted on to this a filthy story, which, being void of humour, would even have been rejected by Fletcher. This arises from the fallacy which I noted in a previous paper, caused by the inveterate habit of beginning criticism from the first pages of a book, instead of from the easiest and most central stand- point. The theory which I propose as certain, is this : Shakespeare wrote the story of Marina, in the last three acts, minus the prose scenes and the Gower. This gives a perfect artistic and organic whole : and, in my opinion, ought to be printed as such in every edition of Shakespeare : the whgle play, as it stands, might be printed in collections for the curious, and there only. But this story was not enough for filling the necessary five acts from which Shakespeare never deviated ; he therefore left it unfinished : and used the arrangement of much of the later part in the end of Winter's Tale, which should be carefully compared with this play. The unfinished play was put into the hands of another of the " poets " attached to the same theatre, and the greater part of the present play was the result ; this poet having used the whole story as given in Gower and elsewhere. It is somewhat confirmatory of this theory that the play was not admitted into the first Folio; nor published before 1623, except in Quarto, first by Gosson, then by Pavier, whose dealings in scarcely anything but surreptitious editions are so conspicuous. It is difficult to understand how such poetry as is contained in the Shakespeare part of this play could have been neglected, had there not been some reason for the editors of the Folio to leave it out of their edition ; either some tradition of Shakespeare's disgust at the way in which his work had been completed, or some strong feeling that its publi- cation in their authorized edition would be no credit to its author. One thing is certain, that it was absolutely neglected by Shakespeare himself : no play of his, however carelessly printed, has its text in so wretched a condition ; nor has the way in which modern editors have arranged its verse which is for the most part printed as prose in the old editions been much more creditable to them than the disarrangement of it was to the older editors. 142 212 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. In confirmation for the general conclusions arrived at above, I may add a few isolated considerations. In the list of the actors' names, Boult, Bawd, and Pander are omitted : now these, and these only, are the additional characters introduced in the brothel scenes in the fourth act. This looks very much as if these scenes had been an after-thought added when the rest of the play had been already arranged. Couple with this the fact that the Gower parts in Acts iv., v., in which these scenes are alluded to, are in lines of five measures, and not of four, as those in the earlier acts are : observe, also, that these scenes, though far from reaching to Shakespeare's excellence, are certainly superior to anything in the first two acts, so far as mere literature is concerned, and it will be almost certain that three authors were concerned in this play. The first author wrote the first two acts, and arranged the whole so as to incorporate the Shakespeare part. The second wrote the five-measure Gower parts and the brothel-scenes in Acts iv., v., in order to lengthen out the play to the legitimate five acts. Even as it stands the play is far shorter than any play of Shakespeare's ; and it was probably in order to make up for the want of poetic invention that the long dumb-show performances were introduced into the Gower parts. It is scarcely possible to test the prose in the same way as we can the verse in these scenes ; but even the little verse we have of the second writer's will, I think, be enough to confirm my theory. Not that the prose in Act iv. is like that in Acts i. , ii. ; but that the differences are not, by any test I have yet devised, capable of tabulation. I give specimens of the verse, for comparison. I. Shakespeare. His first piece in the play : " Thou God of this great vast, rebuke these surges^ Which wash both heauen and hell ; and thou that hast Upon the windes commaund, bind them in Brasse, Hauing [rejcall'd them from the deep. O still Thy deaming, dreadfull thunders : gently quench Thy nimble sulphirous flashes. " Act iii. Sc. I. II. Author of brothel scenes : " Neither of these are so bad as thou art, Since they do better thee in their command ; ON PERICLES. 213 Thou hold'st a place for which the painedst fiend In hell would not in reputation change : Thou art the damned doorkeeper to every Cusherel that comes enquiring for his Tib : To the cholerick fisting of every rogue Thy ear is liable : thy food is such As hath been belcht on by infectious lungs." Act iv. Sc. 6. III. Arranger of whole piece : " Yet cease your ire, you angry Stars of heaven, Wind, Rain, and Thunder : Remember earthly man Is but a substance that must yield to you : And I, (as fits my nature, ) do obey you. Alas, the Seas hath cast me on the Rocks, Washt me from shore to shore, and left my breath Nothing to think on but ensuing death : Let it suffice the greatnesse of your powers To have bereft a Prince of all his fortunes, And having thrown him from your wat'ry grave, Here to have death in peace is all he'll crave." Act ii. Sc. i. These three styles are about as different as any can be ; but still further to distinguish the non-Shakespearian writers, let us compare their rhyming- verse. I. Writer of brothel scenes : " And Pericles, in sorrow all-devourd, With sighes shot through, and biggest teares o'reshowYd, Leaves Tharsus and again imbarks, he sweares Never to wash his face nor cut his haires, He puts on Sackcloth and to Sea he beares, A tempest which his mortall Vessell teares. And yet he rides it out. Now take we our way To the Epitaph for Marina writ by Dionizia, The fairest, sweetest, and best lies here, Who withered in her spring of year : She was of Tyrus the King's Daughter, On whom foule death hath made this slaughter : 214 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Marina was she call'd, and at her birth Thetis* being proud, swallow'd some part of th' earth : Therefore the earth, fearing to be o'reflow'd Hath Thetis birth-childe on the heav'ns bestow'd, Wherefore she does & swears she'll never stint, Make raging Battry vpon shores of flint." Gower, Act iv. Before, however, comparing this with passages from Acts i. and ii., consider the monstrous theory which all the best critics, except Sidney Walker, have hitherto held. 1 Delius, for instance, in his preface to his translation of Pericles (in Bodenstedt's edition), says that "the original Composer of this Drama, later on withdrew in favour of his co-worker Shakespeare so to say, allowing himself to be eclipsed." Imagine Shakespeare in his best period allowing this stuif to stand in a play over which he had the full control ! It is impossible. Shakespeare certainly never had any management or arrangement of the play : he only contributed the Marina story, which 1 have tried to separate and restore to him. Read that by itself : then turn to any of the other portions, and see how you like the flavour ! But to return to our comparison. Take from Act ii., Gower, this bit ; note its affected and obsolete form, and see whether it is by the same hand as the last-quoted bit, which is almost modern in form and arrangement : " By many a dearne and painfull pearch Of Pericles, the carefull search, By the four opposing Coignes, Which the world together joynes, Is made with all due diligence, That horse and saile, and high expence, Can steed the quest. At last from Tyre, Fame answering the most strange enquire, To th' Court of King Simonides, Are Letters brought, the tenour these." 1 Walker held the theory of three authors, and rightly divided the play ; but was certainly wrong in fixing on Dekker as the third man. I did not know this when I wrote the text ON PERICLES, 215 And with the Epitaph compare The Riddle (h&\. Sc. i). " I am no Viper, yet I feed On mother's flesh which did me breed : I sought a husband, in which labour I found that kindnesse in a father. Hee's father, sonne, and husbande mild, I Mother, Wife, and yet his child. How they may be, and yet in two, As you will live, resolve it you." Surely, we may conclude that there were three authors. But who were they ? The original manager and supervisor of the whole work was, as Delius says, George Wilkins : he made the play as far as he wrote it, from Twine's novel : he calls it " a poore infant of my braine ; " he plumes himself on the arrangement of the Gower choruses as his own invention. In this, Delius is undoubtedly right ; and to his preface I refer for further information on the matter. In confirm- ation, however, of this theory, I give an analysis of the metre of the only play of G. Wilkins which we possess The Miseries of In- forced Marriage, which will be found to coincide very closely with that of Acts i., ii., of Pericles given above, and which is more like it than that of any other play among the hundreds I have tabulated. There are in that play 526 rhyming lines, 155 double endings, 15 Alexandrines, 102 short lines, 14 rhyming lines of less than five measures, and a good deal of prose, which, seeing that the play is about three times the length of the first two acts of Pericles, gives a marvellously close agreement in percentage. The second author was, I think, unquestionably W. Rowley. I have not just now access to complete plays of this author in verse, but comparison of the prose with that of A Match at Midnight, and of the verse with that of the plays he wrote in conjunction with Fletcher and Massinger, assures me absolutely of the truth of this conjecture. Indeed, if I had complete plays of his in verse here, the quantity of verse in the Pericles by Rowley is too small to build a tabulation on. One peculiarity of his woik, however, gives us a 216 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. strong confirmation ; it is always detached, and splits off from his coadjutors' with a clean cleavage. In Fletcher's Maid of the Mill, the work of the two men might be published as two separate plays : so it is here. Rowley's scenes are useful for no dramatic purpose, and might be cut out as cleanly as his characters have been from the list of the actors' names. Since writing the above, I find that, just about the time that Pericles was written, GEORGE WILKINS was joined with John Day and W. ROWLEY in writing "The Travels of the Three English brothers, Sir Thomas , Sir Anthony, and Sir Robert Shirley, an Historicall Play, printed in Quarto, 1607." This makes assurance doubly sure, that ROWLEY and WILKINS were also joint- writers in the Pericles. Moreover, the impudent use of Shakespeare's name in 1653 on the title-page of The Birth of Merlin, in conjunction with Rowley's, indicates a tradition that Shakespeare and Rowley had worked on the same piece or pieces at some period. A specimen of Rowley's style is given in my second paper. Here is a bit of Wilkins : " That man undid me : he did blossoms blow Whose fruit proved poison, tho' 'twas good in show : With him I'll parley and disrobe my thoughts Of this wild frenzy that becomes me not. A table, candle, stools, and all things fit ! I know he comes to chide me, and I'll hear him : With our sad conference we will call up tears, Teach doctors rules, instruct succeeding years." Miseries of Inforced Marriage, Act v. Sc. 3. I have also had an opportunity of examining Wilkins's novel : and although to my surprise I find that Delius has strained Wilkins's expressions to a meaning that I think they will scarcely bear, I am much pleased that the structure of the novel confirms my own con- clusions in all respects. It is, I think, quite worth while to give a somewhat full account of it here. In the first place the story closely coincides with that of the drama, but the novel does not, as Collier says, " very much adopt the language of the play," nor is there the slightest probability ot "recovering a lost portion of the language of Shakespeare" from ON PERICLES. 217 it. Excepting the two passages following, I can find no portions of the play accurately reproduced in the novel. " A gentleman of Tyre, his name Pericles, his education been in arts and arms, who, looking for adventures in the world, was, by the rough and unconstant seas, most unfortunately bereft both of ships and men, and after shipwreck thrown upon that shore." (p. 32.) Compare Act ii. Sc. 3, 1. 81, c. " Poor inch of nature ! Thou art as rudely welcome to the world As ever princess' babe was, And hast as chiding a nativity, As fire, air, earth, and water can afford thee." (p. 44.) Compare Act iii. Sc. I, 1. 31, &c. Mr. Collier says, ' ' though it would be easy to multiply proofs, 1 shall pursue this point no further." He quotes every syllable in favour of his theories, and then insinuates that his quotations are only samples of a large stock kept behind in reserve. So, in his endeavour to show that Edivard III. is entirely written by Shake- speare, he gives a few quotations without references, all from the small portion (z\ scenes) that Shakespeare did really write in that drama, and then tells us that the whole play is Shakespeare's, that he (Mr. Collier) might "quote the whole Quarto," that "the three last acts are all conducted with true Shakespearian energy and vigour," &c. &c. In the same way Mr. Collier quotes from Wilkins, "If, as you say, my lord, you are the governor, let not your authority, which should teach you to rule others, be the means to make you misgovern yourself. If the eminence of your place came unto you by descent, and the royalty of your blood, let not your life prove y our birth a bastard: If it were thrown upon you by opinion, make good that opinion was the cause to make you great," and the next seven lines which continue in the same style, and adds, "If these thoughts and this language be not the thoughts and the language of Shakespeare, I am much mistaken, and I have read him to little purpose." I should be sorry to say Mr. Collier had read Shakespeare to little purpose, as he (above most critics) has done for us excellent service ; but I reckon this view of Wilkins' s novel as one of the mistakes he has fallen into. 2i8 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. The fact is, that Wilkins in his novel and in his play (Miseries of Inforced Marriage) has many blank-verse lines in the midst of his prose, and not lines only, but passages. I here give some from his novel : 1. " He did not well so to abuse himself, To waste his body there with pining sorrow." (p. 19.) 2. " That this their city, who not two summers younger Did so excel in pomp and bore a state Whom all her neighbours envied for her greatness." (p. 21.) 3. " Before help came, up came the fish expected, But proved indeed to be a rusty armour." (p. 28.) 4. " Begging this armour of the fishermen, And telling them, that with it he could show The virtue he had learn' d in arms, and tried His chivalry for their princess Thaisa." (p. 29.) 5. " Vengeance, with a deadly arrow, drawn From forth the quiver of his wrath, Prepared by lightning, and shot on by thunder, Hit, and struck dead These proud incestuous creatures where they sat, Leaving their faces blasted, and their bodies Such a contemptful object on the earth That all Those eyes but now with reverence lookt upon them, All hands that served them, and all knees adored them, Scorn'd now to touch them, loath'd now to look upon them, And disdained now to give them burial." (p. 33.) 6. " Ay, traitor, That thus disguised art stolen into my court With witchcraft of thy actions to bewitch The yielding spirit of my tender child. Which name of traitor being again redoubled Pericles then instead of humbleness Seemed not to forget his ancient courage." (p. 38). ON PERICLES. 219 7. " Equals to equals, good to good is joined, This not being so, the barrin of your mind In rashness kindled must again be quenched Or purchase our displeasure." (p. 40.) 8. "I have read of some Egyptians Who after four hours' death (if man may call it so) Have raised impoverisht bodies like to this Unto their former health." (p. 48.) 9. " First what offence her ignorance had done (For wittingly she knew she could do none) Either to him that came to murder her Or her that hired him." (p. 57.) 10. " Lady, for such your virtues are, a far More worthy style your beauty challenges. I hither came with thoughts intemperate, Foul and deform'd the which your pains So well hath laved that they are now white, Continue still to all so, and for my part Who hither came but to have paid the price, A piece of gold for your virginity, Now give you twenty to relieve your honesty. It shall become you still To be even as you are a piece of goodness, The best wrought up that ever Nature made, And if that any shall enforce you ill If you but send for me I am your friend." (p. 66.) 11. " But sorrows' pipes will burst have they not rest.'* (p. 71.) These passages occur in all parts of the story, and quotations can be multiplied of them: but these already given would be too nume- rous, were it not that I wished to show that they not only occur in the parts of the novel corresponding to the Wilkins, Rowley, and Shakespeare parts of the play indiscriminately, but also in passages of pure narrative, as well as in the speeches of the characters. In fact they are inseparable from Wilkins's style, and very often his 220 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. prose is in better iambic rhythm than his verse is. This entirely upsets Mr. Collier's argument on the passage, " His blood was yet untainted, but with the heat Got by the wrong the king had offered him, And that he boldly durst, and did defy himself, His subjects, and the proudest danger that Either tyranny or treason could inflict upon her." As to which Mr. Collier says, " Would the above have got so readily into blank verse if it had not in fact been so originally written, and recited by the actor when Pericles was first performed ? " I should not indeed have thought it necessary to have noticed these views of Mr. Collier's, were it not that both Mommsen and Delius have been misled by them : which is surprising, as both of them have excellent ears for rhythm. There are, however, other more important points in this Wilkins novel that demand our attention ; for instance, the difference in his treatment of the rhyming documents in the play. The riddle which occurs in the part he wrote himself he quotes in exactly the same form : but the inscription on Thaisa's coffin he alters thus : * ' If ere it hap this chest be driven On any shore or coast or haven, I, Pericles, the prince of Tyre (That, losing her, lost all desire), Intreat you give her burying, Since she was daughter to a king, This gold I give you as a fee ; The gods requite your charity ! " As he has put in his novel the four lines of undoubted Shakespeare quoted above, "Thou art as rudely welcome, " &c. , he must have had Shakespeare's work before him when he wrote the novel, and this inscription must therefore have been altered to show how much better he could do it himself. I do not think his attempt a ON PERICLES. 221 success. In like manner he has altered Rowley's epitaph on Marina into " The fairest, sweetest, and most best, lies here, Who wither'd in her spring of year. In Nature's garden, though by growth a burl, She was the chiefest flower, she was good. " Had he written this himself originally, he would have done it, as he has all the rhymes in his part that are not dialogue, in octo- syllabics. But his crowning achievement is the song he quotes from Twine, given to Marina, and which Delius if I understand him rightly takes to be the same that Shakespeare intends her to sing : " Among the harlots foul I walk, Yet harlot none am I ; The Rose among the thorns doth grow, And is not hurt thereby : The thief that stole me sure I think Is slain before this time ; A Bawd me bought, yet am I not Defiled by fleshly crime. Nothing were pleasanter to me, Than parents mine to know ; I am the issue of a king, My blood from kings doth flow. In time the Heavens may mend my state, And send a better day ; For sorrow adds unto our griefs, But helps not any way. Shew gladness in your countenance, Cast up your cheerful eyes, That God remains that once of nought Created earth and skies." The treatment, then, of these lyrics strongly confirms our con- clusion as to the share Wilkins had in writing the play, and so does the exact similarity of the style of his verse-prose to that of the 222 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. prosaic verse of the drama : that he should have expanded and given more detail in the prose work is only natural ; as, for instance, in giving Thaisa's letter to her father in full : there is not, however, the slightest pretext for foisting any of the novel into the play. On the contrary, some of the alterations are essentially undramatic. For example, the following passage, which Delius praises, is very inferior to the treatment in the play (Act ii. Sc. 2, end) : "But Cerimon, who best knew that now, with anything to discomfort her, might breed a relapse which would be unrecoverable, intreated her to be cheer'd ; for her Lord was well, and that anon when the time was more fitting, and that her decayed spirits were repaired, he would gladly speak with her. " Is Thaisa a petulant baby, then, to be coaxed and petted into reason? And again : in Act v. Sc. I, Pericles, accord- ing to Wilkins, strikes Marina on the face ! His Marina certainly deserves any punishment for her detestable song ; but Shakespeare's Pericles is a gentleman and a father. A much more important matter, however, is, that when Pericles in the novel, in obedience to Diana, tells the story of his life, he gives all the events that happened at Antioch and Pentapolis in full, the riddle and the tournament, and all the rest of it. None of this occurs in the play : Shakespeare carefully confines Pericles's speech to the events that concerned his sole subject, the life of Marina. A stronger argument that his work was not founded on Wilkins's play, but done previously and independently, one cannot well have : and in like manner afterwards in the same scene in the novel, Thaisa alludes to Pericles having been her schoolmaster ; Shakespeare has not this allusion : and finally, the novel ends with Pericles burning the Bawd, Marina rewarding the Pander, Pericles rewarding the fisherman, stoning Cleomenes and Dion, and succeeding to the kingdom of Antioch^ all of which is foreign to the Shakespeare play. In fact, the shifts that critics who hold the common opinions as to this play are reduced to, are strong arguments in favour of my views. Delius, for instance, is obliged to make such assumptions as these : I . That the abundance of material compelled the author of the play to introduce Gower and the dumb-show business : the fact being, that the play is an unusually short one, and that there was abundance of space for all that Wilkins wanted to introduce : his poverty of invention was the only drawback to his doing so. 2. That in Act v. ON PERICLES. 223 Sc. 3, some of Wilkins's work is retained and patched up by Shake- speare : why, he could have re-written it with half the trouble of cobbling up Wilkins. 3. That in the Epilogue and five-foot Gower part, Shakespeare imitated Wilkins ! The author of Lear imitated the author of the Miseries of Injorced Marriage! It is true he couldn't keep up the imitation, and the real Shakespeare shows in the dialogue. 4. Finally, that the Gower in Act v. is like Prosper's Epilogue : and that Wilkins wrote the parts of Timon that are not Shakespeare's, I say nothing in reply to this : I can only admire, and conclude with one little piece of lower criticism, that the author of "she was rather a deserving bed-fellow for a prince, than a play-fellow for so rascally an assembly" (p. 62 in the novel), was probably author also of the first chorus in the play, 61 To seek her as a bed-fellow, In marriage pleasures play-fellow." j UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. CHAPTER VII. ON "ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL." WHETHER this be the same play as Love's Labour" 1 * Won is doubtful : that it has a better title to be considered so than any other extant play of Shakespeare is certain, and has been abun- dantly shown by others. I confess that I feel little interest in the question, as it cannot from any data at present in our possession be settled satisfactorily. All that we are here concerned with is the demonstrable fact that it contains portions written at a much earlier date than the completed work. At the time of its completion Shakespeare had introduced the free manner of his third period that of the Tragedies ; was using many Alexandrines and short lines ; was indulging freely in double endings ; and in the greater part of this play was comparatively sparing in the use of rhymes. There are however portions of the play which are quite in his earliest style; i.e. in the continuous rhyming manner of Lovers Labour's Lost, and in a few instances we find also alternate rhymes and even stanzas. These parts are indubitably of a much less matured time ; and indicate that the play is founded on an earlier draft. I now proceed to give a list of these portions. I. Act i. Sc. I, last 14 lines in rhyme, forming a speech of Helen's, perfectly appropriate to her position and feeling at the moment, but in no way connected with or necessitated by the context. II, Act i. Sc. 3, 1. 134 142 ; an eight-line stanza, spoken by the Countess ; pure youthful poetry, not dramatic ; not required in the scene or connected with the context. ON ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL. 225 III. Act ii. Sc. i. 1. 132 end ; 71 lines in continuous rhyme, quite different in general tone from the rest of the play, but forming an essential part of the action. IV. Act. ii. Sc. 3, 1. 78111, contains 20 lines in rhyme exactly like III., with some prose bits of Lafeu's introduced at a later date in the completed play. V. Same scene, 1. 131 151, in rhyme ; 20 lines exactly of the same character as the preceding. VI. Act iii. Sc. 4. Helen's letter in form of sonnet. This sort of composition does not quite die out till the end of Shake- speare's Second Period, but it is very rare in that period and neve** appears in the Third; I assign this therefore to the early play. VII. Act iv. Sc. 3. The same remarks apply to Parolles' letter. VIII. Act v. Sc. 3. 1. 60 72, a rhyming passage of the same character as III. IV. V. So lines 291 294 ; 301 304 ; 314 319 ; 325 340, indicate by frequent rhymes that they are debris of former play used in the rebuilding. To my mind this metrical evidence of itself is conclusive ; but if any one doubts let him read the passages tabulated above and notice the total difference of manner and feeling in them from the rest of the play; the way in which the sense is concluded in each couplet, often in each line ; the grammatical structure of the sentences ; and I think that his poetic feeling will convince him if his judgment on the evidence do not. I need only notice further that, of the above passages, I. II. VI. VII. are clearly poetic bits retained in the complete play for the sake of their poetic worth ; III. IV. V. VIII., the dramatic bits are almost entirely from the speeches of Helen and the King ; whose characters appear to have been more completely conceived in the original play than the minor personages, and to have required les alteration. There are no doubt many other boulders from the old strata IS 226 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. imbedded in the later deposits, e.g. the end of Act iv. Sc. 2, &c. ; but only in a special consideraion of this play would it be possible to trace out every line of this character. Enough has, I hope, been given to show the truth of our main proposition, and I now leave the further prosecution of the question to those who are investigating the problem, What was the original form of Lovers Labour V Won ? or if needful to some future paper of my own. CHAPTER VIII. ON " TWELFTH NIGHT." IN order to examine into the question of the date of Twelfth Night it is first necessary to consider the structure of the plot. There two distinct plots in it, as in Troylus and Cressida there are three. In Shakespeare's usual practice, where there are two plots in a play, as in Lear, they are, even when derived from distinct sources, so interwoven that it is impossible to disentangle one of them and present it separately. But this is not the case in the two plays mentioned above. Just as the story of Troylus' love is separable from that of Ajax's pride and Achilles' wrath, so is the story of Viola, the Duke and Olivia, separable from that of Malvolio, Sir Toby and Maria. Wherever this is the case, one of three conclusions must be drawn : either the play has been written at two periods (as I think is the case here); or by two authors, which is not the case here ; or it is an inferior piece of work, which is also not the case here. The characters that belong to what I consider the early part of the play are, the Duke. Sebastian, Antonio, Viola, Olivia, Curio, Valentine, and the Captain. The part of the play in which they enter is I. i. ii. iv. v. (part) ; II. i. ii. iv. ; III. i. (part), iii. iv. (part) ; IV. i. (part), iii.; V. i. This can be cut out so as to make a play of itself entirely independent of the other characters, which is the infallible sign of priority of composition. This part of the play is full of the youn^, fresh, clear poetry of Shakespeare's early time, the time of Midsummer Night's Dream, his first period. The other part is that of the man of tin- world, the satirist ; kindly and good humoured, but still the satirist. 152 22S SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. All this latter part is added by Shakespeare himself ; it is from the same mint as Falstaff and his companions, the same as Pistol and Parolles. For the play of All's Well that Ends Well in like manner divides into two parts. The part taken from the novel is early, and perhaps contains in it all that remains of Lovers Labour 's Won. The characters of the Countess, Parolles, and the Clown, are Shakespeare's additions, like Sir Toby Belch, Sir Andrew Aguecheek, Fabian, Maria, Feste, and Malvolio ; and as I have stated in the examination of that play, they are additions of a later time. In both these plays, too, the early part has been revised ; and Alts Well has been nearly rewritten, so that the old play has been broken up, and only pieces of it can be recognised as boulders embedded in the later strata ; in Twelfth Night, the stratification has not been disturbed ; only the surface has been denuded and scratched a little, and some new material has been deposited here and there. The first indication I have found of this date is in II. iv. " Now, good Cesar io, but that piece of song, That old and antique song, &c. Come, but one verse ; " where VL/la was evidently intended to be the singer s (compare I. ii. 56 : " Thou shalt present me as a eunuch to him : It may be worth thy pains : for 2 can sing And speak to him in many sorts of music, ,)" This is from the first draft ; but in the revised play Curio makes the strange answer (in prose, as all, or nearly all, the latter work is in this drama), "He is not here that should sing it;" and the Duke says, " Who was it ?" forgetting the singer he had heard the night before. He afterwards points out the special character of the soi.'g (1. 44 48) to Cesario, who had also heard it, and who had just been asked to sing it ; all this I think could not have been written at one time. But external proof as to the date of this play we unfortunately have none, except as to its final completion and production before 1602 ; and its character in style is not pronounced enough to fix the date of any portion. I feel certain myself that the prose part is of ON TWELFTH NIGHT. 229 the same time as As You Like It and Much Ado about Nothing: and that the verse part is a revision of earlier work done quite at the beginning of the Second Period ; but for this I rely rather on the many subtle ^indefinable links between it and the other plays of that date than on such broad facts as we have here room for. The com- munity of origin with The Two Gentlemen of Verona pointed out by Karl Simrock in 1833 is, however, a strong ground for presump- tion, and we shall find that the metrical evidence gives important confirmation. We have next to assign some plausible theory why just at this period, 1594-5, Shakespeare should have written nothing but un- finished fragments of plays if my theory be true, and that too in so many instances: Troylus and Cressida, The Two Gentlemen, Twelfth Night, being all begun and left unfinished at this date, just at the end of his First Period, after which a great and important change takes place in his style. Exactly the same thing takes place at the end of his Third Period, when he begins and leaves unfinished the plays of Pericles and Timon ; at the end of his Fourth Period, when he begins and leaves unfinished The Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII. At the end of his Second Period, it is true, we have not a like phenomenon, no plays having been begun and left unfinished at that time ; but on the other hand, the plays of Twelfth Night, The Taming of the Shrew, and All's Well that Ends Well were either revised or completed in 1601-2. There are periods in all organic growth when secretion is lessened for a time, and all the forces of the organism are busy in assimila- tion : there are also periods when assimilation ceases for a time, and all the forces are occupied in laying up new stores for future development. Such periods I hold these dividing epochs in Shake- speare's style to have been. From his external life we are, as it seems to me, able to connect these epochs with some of those great joys and sorrows which leave their permanent marks on men for good or evil. Hallam has noticed the cynical turn of his mind during his Third Period ; others have conjectured that the plays of the Fourth Period were produced in rest and retirement ; and I think in passing from the First to the Second Period we may see a change from the dreams of youth to the ?r,d realities of the world. The sorrows of Love 'j Labour V Lost, Midsummer Nights Dream, 230 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. and The Comedy of Errors are unreal, and excite no deep feeling in us ; even Romeo and Juliet^ and Richard II., though they move our pity, do so only because in them passion is disappointed or calamity rashly incurred. We are sorry for the events, and wish they had been otherwise ; but with the actors in the dramas we have no deep individual sympathy such as we feel at the very beginning of the Second Period with the passionate agony of Constance, the Christian resignation of Antonio, or the logical though extreme vengeance of Shylock. We have passed from the youthful land of dreams, from the youthful impulses of passion, from the youthful view of history as a spectacle or a romance, to a world in which men and women have duties to perform and tasks to accomplish. ( Romeo and Juliet are severed by remorseless fate, but Portia ana Bassanio by the stern call of duty ; Richard II. suffers for making a mistake in banishing Bolingbroke, but John for his crimes towards his nephew t and his country. Between these periods come the unfinished plays \ in which the first unfaithfulness in friendship (Proteus), the first infidelity in woman (Cressida), the first uncomplaining submission to I unknown and therefore unrequited love (Viola), are to be found in / Shakespeare's plays. And just at this period there are in his out- ward life enough of sorrows yet visible to us to account for this. |1 In 1593 Marlowe, with whom he had certainly been closely con- nected, was taken away by death ; in .1595 Hamnet, his only son, was most likely sickening, to die in the early part of the next year. Henceforth his method of work changed, his poetry is mingled with prose to an extent previously unknown ; the jingle of rhyme is for the most part abandoned for the sterner cadence of a rhymeless rhythm ; a change of style is initiated which ceased not till the end of work came with the night in which no man can work. During this anxious time no wonder that he could finish nothing. He could publish the already finished Lucreece ; but the realities of life would allow no completeness to the fevered incoherent creations of the fancy. After his son had been taken away from him, then he could buckle himself to the work before him, and do it with his might. It may be that without this sorrow we should have had no Cordelia. In the same way I connect the ends of his Second and Third 1 But this play I now think is founded on one by George Peele. (Sept. 1875.) ON TWEBFTH NIGHT. 231 Periods with the deaths of his father and of his youngest brother, Edmund, the actor. But if I say all that I wish to say on this subject this paper will be interminable. I must come to the metrical tests, and see if they confirm or refute my theory. I much regret that in these early plays we have to depend on the rhyme-test almost alone ; the weak-ending test, by which I separated all Massinger's work from Fletcher's, and which I have used for all the Third and Fourth Periods for Shakespeare, is inapplicable to his first two periods, and the caesura-test is not yet worked out. I have no doubt that nearly all the peculiarities of the secondary dramatists can ultimately be traced to Shakespeare, and their rank may almost be assigned by the peculiarity of metre that each assimilated from his storehouse : that, for instance, Jonson's use of the extra- middle syllable at a pause, Fletcher's double-ending, and Massinger's weak-ending, were all adopted from Shakespeare's later time ; while Dekker's, Tour- neur's, and Webster's rhymes are all reproductions of his early system though in a comparatively awkward and mistaken manner. Will some one volunteer to count the caesuras ? I have done one man's share of counting. The part of Twelfth Night that contains the Viola story compre- hends nearly all the verse part; and as there is none of the Malvolio and Aguecheek part in verse except 17 lines of V. i. 280 323, we may take the rhyme-ratio of the whole play (minus these 17 lines) or 112 : 876 17, or 112 : 859, or I : 7-5, as that required for our purpose. But it is impossible in those cases when an author has partly rewritten his early sketch, as is clearly the case in these two plays, to ascertain what part of the early work has been cancelled ; and therefore we must not press the rhyme-ratio too strictly. This will apply still more to All's Well that Ends Well. In Troylus and Cressida, on the other hand, the old work was almost untouched, and we can draw more exact conclusions. In the present plays I am quite content to find that the results I arrive at from totally different reasoning are entirely confirmed by the rhyme-test : and on all grounds alike I conclude that the original draft of the story of Viola was made about the date of 1594. CHAPTER IX. ON/'TROYLUS AND CRESSIDA." THIS play of Troylus and Cressida differs from all others of which I have as yet made special analyses, in having been composed at three distinct periods: begun in 1594-6; continued shortly after ; finished about 1606-7. And here I desire again to repeat that I by no means wish my inferences as to any date to be regarded as final until each play has been separately studied : my table is only a first approximation, which will aid in obtaining a second and I hope a truer one. I also wish that any use of exact dates may not be looked on as meant to serve any further purposes than distinct- ness and brevity : thus, when I say this play was begun in 1594, &c., what I mean is this, that it was begun at the end of Shake- speare's First Period, as I arrange his plays, after Richard II. and before The Merchant of Venice; that it was continued a year or two later ; that it was finished after the great Tragedies and before the Roman plays : but I by no means pretend that any play, or group of plays, may not be slipped up or down in the scale a year or two, provided the relative order be retained. This being premised, I proceed with the exposition of my theory as to this play. I hold, then, that there are three plots interwoven, each of which is distinct in manner of treatment, and was composed at a different time from the other two. There is first the story of Troylus and Cressida which was earliest written, on the basis of Chaucer's poem : next comes the story of the challenge of Hector to Ajax, their combat, and the slaying of Hector by Achilles, on the ON TROYLUS AND CRESSIDA. 233 basis of Caxton's Three Destructions of Troy: and finally, the story of Ulysses' stratagem to induce Achilles to return to the battle-field by setting up Ajax as his rival, which was written after the publica- tion of Chapman's Homer, from whom Thersites, a chief character in this part, was taken. If this theory be true, the Troylus story ought to split off tolerably clean from the other two, and unless in passages interpolated at the same time as the after-additions were made, not to contain any allusions to them : the second story in like manner should contain no allusions to the third ; but it may or may not to the first. Let us examine the play as to its arrangements. The passages containing the Troylus story are : Act. Scene. Line. I. I, 1-107. (Troylus and Pandarus.) I. 2, 1-321. (Pandarus and Cressid.) III. I, 1-160. (Pandarus, Paris, and Helen.) III. 2, all. (Pandarus, Troylus, and Cressid.) III. 3, 1-33. (Calchas, Agamemnon.) IV. i, all. (/Eneas, Paris, Diomed.) IV. 2, all. (Troylus, Cressid, Pandarus, ^Eneas.) IV. 3, all. (Paris, Troylus.) IV. 4, 1-141. (Pandarus. Cressid, Troylus, Diomed.) IV. 5, 12-53. (Cressid, Diomed, Grecian Generals.) *V. 2, ? (Cressid, Diomed, Troylus, Ulysses.) V. 3, 97-115 (Troylus, Pandarus. ) In no part of this story is there the slightest overlapping of the other stories, except in the asterised scene where Ulysses enters, and in IV. v. 277-293; V. i. 89-93; V. iv. 20-24; V. v. 1-5; V. vi. l-ii; which bits also involve Ulysses, Diomed, and Troylus. We^ shall treat of these presently : but putting them aside for a moment, I would ask any one who wishes to analyse the play to examine this story by itself, and see whether he thinks it written in Shakespeare's best style. I will give the metrical evidence in tables for all three parts at the end of this paper : but, apart from all statistics, is there not something about such a passage as this quite inconsistent with the hitherto usually-received theory of the play 234 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. that it belongs (except a doubtful passage or two at the end) altogether to Shakespeare's Third or Fourth Period ? " Tell me, Apollo, for thy Daphne's love What Cressid is, what Pandar, and what we ? Her bed is India, there she lies a pearl ; * Between our Ilium, and where she resides, Let it be called the wild and wandering flood ; Ourself the merchant ; and this sailing Pandar Our doubtful hope, our convoy, and our bark." Act i. Sc. I. Is it not written just in the same mode as " In one little body Thou count erfeitst a bark, a sea, a wind : For still thy eyes which I may call the sea Do ebb and flow with tears ; the bark thy body is Sailing in this salt flood ; the winds, thy sighs," c. Romeo and Juliet* Act iii. Sc. 5? or the passage in Richard II. , Actv. Sc. 5, which is too well known to need quoting at length, beginning, " For now hath Time made me his numb'ring clock." or, " her sunny locks Hang on her temples like a golden fleece ; Which makes her seat of Belmont Colchos' strand, And many Jasons come in quest of her." Merchant of Venice^ Act i. Sc. 2. This is not the style of the later plays ; nor is " Buried this sigh in wrinkle of a smile." I. i, 38 ; nor the prose of Pandarus's speeches : but I need not multiply quotations, the book is in everyone's hands. For my own part, I cannot read this Troylus part without being reminded in its conceits, its dirty jokes, the peculiar turn of its comparisons, the flow of its metre, the unstayed youthful- ness of its ideas, and the sensuous passionateness of its love of the companion play of Romeo and Juliet. For whatever may be ON TROYLUS AND CRESS '2 'DA. 235 thought of the other plays of Shakespeare that I would class together as twin productions of his genius, I hold that nothing can be more certain than that the two plays of Friendship which contain the stories of faithful Antonio and faithless Proteus were meant as pendants to each other ; and that the two plays of youthful pission, with the stories of "True and Faithful Juliet" and "False and Faithless Cressid," were also meant as pendants. Try the experi- ment ; prepare your ear by reading straight off a couple of Acts of Romeo and Juliet, and then read this Troylus story without a word of the other parts of the play, as far as Act iv. Sc. 4, and I confidently await the verdict. But we must pass on to the second story, that of Hector. This is contained in the following parts : Act. Scene. Line. I. I, 108-119. (j^Eneas and Troylus.) I. 3, 213-309. (^Eneas and Agamemnon.) II. 2, all. (Priam, Hector, Troylus, Paris, Helenus, Cassandra. ) III. I, 161-172. (Paris, Helen.) IV. 4, 142-150. (Paris, ^Eneas.) IV. 5, 1, 1 1. (Grecian Generals.) IV. 5, 54-276. (Hector, ^Eneas, Greeks, &c.) *V. I, all. (except Thersites and Patroclus part.) V* 3> I "97* (Hector, Andromache, Cassandra, Priam, Troylus.) V. 5, I end of play (Troylus's last speech, &c.) (But Sc. 7, 8, 9, and perhaps Epilogue, probably spurious.) 1 1 The spurious part of the last Act is probably dtbris from Dekker and Chettle's Troylus and Cressida, written in 1592, and reproduced in a revised form as Agamemnon in 1599. If any one doubts that such an amalgamation of plays by different authors could take place let him refer to The Tragedy of Ccesar and Pompey, by Chapman, Act ii. Scene i , which is clearly not a piece of the play, but the remains of an old play of the same title acted in 1594 at the Rose. It alludes to the Knack to Know a Knave, published in the same year, 1594, and acted two years earlier. There are other instances of this : I hope the French scene in Henry ^. between Alice and Katharine is one of them. At any rate, no play should be edited without careful consideration of all evidence obtainable as to other plays on the same subject. The play entered in the Stationers' books in 1602 for publication was probably Shakespeare's, not including the Achilles' story ; it could not have been Dekker and Chettle's, as they did not write for the Chamberlain's company. It may have been, however, partly made up from their play in the catastrophe, as the Quarto Hamlet was from the early Hamlet of 1588-9. Editors have been misled in this matter by not noticing that the 1602 entry was of a play belonging to the Chamberlain's men. 236 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. This part of the play, which contains everything connected with the war, with Hector's challenge to Ajax, with his combat with him, with his final encounter with Achilles, and his death, was, in my opinion, added to the early sketch of Troylus' loves (which was not enough to .make a five-act play), not long after the writing of the first part. The style of this second part is more advanced than the first ; but not so much so as many of the Second Period plays. It reminds us most of The Merchant of Venice or John. It also in parts has an echo of Marlowe, just as we might expect, if I am right as to its date of composition. See my edition of He) try VI^- For instance : ' ' Is she worth keeping ? why she is a pearl Whose price hath launched above a thousand ships And turned croiv rid kings to merchants. If you'll avouch 'twas wisdom Paris went, As you must needs, for you all cried ' Go, go : ' If you'il confess he brought some noble prize, As you must needs, for you all clapt your hands, And cried * Inestimable/ why do you now The issue of your proper wisdoms rate?" &c. Act ii. Sc. 2. Compare with the first three of these lines Marlowe, Faust " Was this the face that launcKd a thousand ships And burnt the topless towers of Ilium ? " I must also notice that, according to Theobald, the Margarelon of Act v. Sc. 5 and Act v. Sc. 7, with the Sagittary of Act v. Sc. 5? are derived from Caxton's Three Destructions of Troy: accord- ing to Malone, the Knights, Act iv. Sc. 5> ! I5^> are fr m tne same source. All these references are from the Hector story : which confirms my opinion that that is an integral and separable part of the play. I have not seen the above-named story-book, nor Lydgate's poem on this subject : l*ad I had an opportunity of doing so, I should probably have had something to add to what I have here stated : as it is, I must be content at present to give the evidence derivable from the materials at my command. I cannot * Unfortunately still in MS. (Sept. 1875). ON TROYLUS AND CRESSIDA. 237 omit, however, one little confirmation of my theory that lies on the surface. In Act i. Sc. 2, Hector goes to the field and fights. In Act i. Sc. 3, after this, we find him " grown rusty in the long- continued truce." Surely these passages were not written at the same period. Of course this Hector part will not read as complete in itself as the Troylus story does, inasmuch as it had to be fitted on to it : it is, however, wonderfully near completeness, taking all circumstances into account. The third story is contained in Act. Scene. Line, I. 3, 1-212. (Ulysses, Nestor, Agamemnon.) I- 3> 310-392. (Ulysses, Nestor.) II. i, all. (Ajax, Thersites, Achilles, Patroclus.) II. 3, all. ( Ditto ditto and Greek Generals.) III. 3, 34-316. (Ulysses, Achilles, Thersites, Patroclus, c.) IV. 5, 277-293. (Ulysses, Troylus.) V. i, all. (Thersites and Patroclus.) V. 2, all. ( Ditto ditto. ) V. 4, all. (Thersites, c.) In this part, and this only, we have the style of Shakespeare's third-fourth manner in metre ; in word-coining ; in metaphor, in development of character. I need not dwell on this, it is the extreme palpability of this fact that has caused all this play to be usually assigned to the date of 1608, or thereabouts : what has not been seen is, that these characters do not run through the whole play, but only this Achilles and Thersites part. I must, however, say a few words on the alterations Shakespeare must have made, if he wrote this play in the way I say he did. It will have been noticed that I asterised some parts of the Troylus story. This is the reason. These parts are in their present shape evidently remodelled in the last revision. Ulysses's speeches are clearly in the latest manner. The scene between Diomed and Cressida, however, if Troylus, Ulysses, and Thersites are cut out, falls into regular metre rather more than the scene as it stands does : and is in the earliest style. I think it is part of the first Troylus sketch : I ain sure that Cressida's rhymed soliloquy is. Readers of 38 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Chaucer will remember, that Troylus in his version discovers Cressida's faithlessness by finding a brooch in a cloak he wins from Diomed in battle. I believe that Shakespeare followed Chaucer, as his only authority, in his first sketch, and so did not take Troylus to the Greek tents at all : this scene being given between Diomed and Cressida only to show that Troylus' s suspicion from the brooch was a true one. But finding afterwards how easily he could make him see instead of suspect by sending him with Hector to the Greek tents, he cut out the fighting scene and the brooch, and put in the additions to this scene. So we explain all the difficulty under this head. The other asterised bits are all of the Third Period, put in to match the new version of this scene. There are other little links too minute to note here, which I should point out in editing the play. But there is one point noticed by the Cambridge Editors that so strongly confirms my theory, that I must give it in full. It will be seen from the tables given above that the Troylus story ends at Act v. Sc. 3, the Hector story at the end of the present play : while the final additions as to Ajax, Ulysses, &c., are all inserted in the previously existing parts, and do not reach to the end ; either as we have it now, or as it existed in either of the two earlier stages. Now Shakespeare would not in all probability write even so incomplete a sketch as the Troylus story without contriving an end for it and writing this end. This is the practice of all great writers, as far as we can trace their manner of work : and we find it exemplified in Twelfth Night, the only other play of Shakespeare composed in the same way as this one, at two distinct periods : the end there is clearly of the early work. We ought, therefore, to find some trace of the first ending of the Troylus story, if anywhere, at the close of Act v. Sc. 3. Of course Shakespeare may have obliterated it, but if he has not, it can be only looked for where the love story is closed. Now exactly at that point we read in the Folio three lines, " Pan. Why but hear you ? Troy. Hence, brother lackey, ignomy and shame, Pursue thy life and live aye with thy name ; " which three lines are evidently meant for the original end of the play, as they occur again just before Pandarus's final epilogue. The ON TROYLUS AND CRESSIDA. 239 occurrence of these lines in both these places cannot be explained by supposing a second author for the last scenes : for Act v. Sc. 5, and Act v. Sc. 10, which occur after the first insertions of them in Act v. Sc. 3, are undoubtedly Shakespeare's, although the piece from the entrance of " one in sumptuous armour " (Act v. Sc. 6), to the end of Act v. Sc. 9, is of dubious authenticity, and perhaps the Pandar epilogue. I do not, however, discuss this question here. It is of more importance to our present subject to see if the metrical tests will bear out our previous conclusions. And before giving statistics, I must observe that the use of these tests seems to be misunderstood even by those who have used them as supporting their views ; or are using them to obtain conclusions on disputed points. I lay down, therefore, some canons of method relating to them. I. No conclusion can be drawn from an insufficient number of instances. This number varies with the test. A dozen instances of weak-ending in a page of ordinary 8vo. would stamp a play at once as Massinger's ; but to any conclusion drawn from less than 1,000 lines as to number of rhymes or double- endings I should attach very little value. II. Tables of ratios must not be used without considering the positive amounts of the numbers from which the idtios are calculated : thus, in comparing The Tempest with Winter s Tale, the ratios of rhymes to blank verse lines come out as I : 729 and I : infinity respectively. This looks like an enormous difference, but it means only that there is one rhyming couplet in The Tempest and none in Winter's 7^ale. No conclusion could be based on such a ground. Again, in The Merry Wives of Windsor the addition of one rhyme would alter the proportion from I : 22 to I : 20, so that if anyone unacquainted with Shakespeare's metre were to count " Fear you not that ! Go, get us properties And tricking for our fairies," as a rhyme, he would displace the position of the play considerably in the table. It is clear that, in plays chiefly prose, conclusions cannot be drawn from these tests in cases where the numbers are close together. 240 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. III. Cases where the author, ad opts a manner or metre quite contrary to his usual custom cannot be determined by them. Thus Fletcher's Faithful Shepherdess can no more be compared with his other plays than Beaurr.ont's Masque can with his : nor can Ben Jonson's Masques or even his Sad Shepherd be included in any argument as to his general metrical peculiarities. Midsummer Night's Dream, on the other hand, which is not different in any respect of handling from Shakespeare's other early plays, cannot be so excepted. IV. No conclusion can be drawn from any peculiarity of style that was consciously or deliberately adopted by an author, so far as the chronology of his works is concerned : thus, no result could be gathered from the number of lines with double-endings in Fletcher, as he clearly from the very first chose this manner of style. That he chose it is clear from its entire absence in the Faithful Shepherdess, although never missing for a moment in the succeeding plays, as far .as they are Fletcher's. On the other hand, this kind of peculiarity is the most valuable for determining authorship. Hence the extreme ease of separating the Fletcher parts of Henry VIII. and 7 he Two Noble Kinsmen: the Wilkins or Tourneur parts of 7imon, the Wilkins parts of Pericles. Hence also the enormous difficulty of separating the dif- ferent authors in the three parts of Henry VI. That this problem can be solved I hope to show ; but I say confidently that, though I believe I have fully solved it, yet any attempt at solution by metrical tests alone, as far as such methods are yet published, must utterly fail. In fact, all the men after Shakespeare clearly adopted deliberately what I may call a metrical humour : Fletcher, his double-endings ; Massinger, his weak ones, and his full-complement lines ; Dekker, his numerous rhymes scattered in the dialogue ; Middleton, his triple endings, such as *' As wild and merry as the heart of innocence '," (which must be carefully distinguished from Alexandrines) ; and so on for the rest. But the earlier men, Marlowe, Greene, Peele, &c., who formed the first blank-verse school, all wrote in the same hard, inflexible monotone, that deterred Shakespeare from at first giving ON TROYLUS AND CRESS I DA. 241 up rhyme, which he dropped only when, and in exact proportion as, his blank-verse became freer, less subject to such arbitrary rules as Puttenham's, and consequently more dramatic. That he did this unconsciously I am certain : for whenever a piece of his old work was good enough in other respects, he never altered it for metrical reasons in his subsequent revises : hence the possibility of such a paper as this present, in which we shall presently see that one can recognise his early work by the glitter of the early rhymes. This same principle compels us to exclude from calculations for determining the date of Shakespeare's plays all such cases as the inner play in Hamlet, the masque in The Tempest, the fairy scene in The Merry Wives (which is really an inserted play as much as the Hamlet one), for in all these the different rhyming treatment was clearly adopted deliberately beforehand, in order to differentiate this part of the work from the rest ; it did not grow up in the author's mind spontaneously, while the actual writing was going on, as an emphatic rhyme in the middle or even at the end of a scene did : it was a preconceived limitation, not an unforeseen development. Similar remarks apply to Pistol's iambics, which are an essential part of his original conception. V. The test chosen must be suited to the special author or special case treated of. Thus the weak-ending test is infallible for separating Fletcher's work from Massinger's. It is only of use in Shakespeare for the later periods of his plays. The number of rhymes will separate Dekker from late Shakespeare ; but the manner of their introduction would have to be noted in separating Dekker from early Shakespeare. To use rhymes as a test in any of Ben Jonson's work would be a waste of labour, while his triple endings, the one characteristic which distinguishes him from all dramatists but Middleton, should be carefully worked out in any question concern- ing his metre. VI. Metrical tests should, unless in special cases, not be used in the initiatory stages of investigation. The chemist will understand me at once when I say they are to be used as characteristic and not as class tests. All questions as to authorship, date, &c., should be 16 242 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. approximately determined on other grounds, and then the metrical test should be applied to each portion to see if the separation of unlike parts is complete. Thus in dividing The Witch of Edmonton amongst its three authors, I first examined the plots and separated the scenes belonging to each; then I looked to the treatment of character, the style, and what are called the aesthetic tests : I found these agree with the former division ; then applied my metrical tests to each portion, and found my conclusions in all respects confirmed and finally approved. But in dividing The Maid in the Mill between Fletcher and Rowley, after separating the plots, I found the metrical tests distinctly contradicting the division for the first Act : I had to try back, and make a new hypothesis of change of work between the contributors, and then all agreed with the metrical tests and the work was done. So, again, in Shakespeare, I put forth in the year 1874 a chronological table of Shakespeare's plays. This was founded on such knowledge as I then had of other evidences as con- firmed by my test of proportion of rhymes in verse scenes to number of blank-verse lines ; since that time I have seen occasion, as this chapter shows, to change the place of Troylus and Cressida by assign- ing it to three periods instead of two. This division is not based on metrical grounds : I only use the metre to confirm my conclusions ; but if the metre were to contradict my conclusions drawn from other grounds, I should throw up the whole theory and try again. So I have found occasion to transfer the place of Cymbeline from before Lear, Hamlet, and Othello, to after them ; and to leave a much greater margin for the date of Macbeth : but in neither case do the metrical tests contradict these changes, for the proportions for the first-named plays are so close, I : 30, and I : 31, that I cannot attach importance to them, and the place of Macbeth must stand undetermined by me till we come to the chapter on that subject. These tests are infallible when used with due precaution, but useless otherwise. The chemist; will understand me again when I say that disturbing elements must be eliminated before characteristic tests are applied ; and that specific results are not to be expected from tests not characteristic. I may some day make a tabular scheme of my tests drawn up in the same form as chemical tables for the laboratory, as a guide for future inquirers in these matters. ON TROYLUS AND CRESS1DA. 243 VII. Tests must be applied singly, but interpreted jointly. Descriptions of all peculiarities of any author or any work, given together, are comparatively useless. The dividing tests must first be carefully determined for each case, and used one at a time. If they give the same results, then the characteristic tests should be applied one by one till all have been tried ; and if any one fails, the whole analysis must be repeated on a different arrangement. In fact, whatever is true of chemical testing is true mutatis mutandis in this kind of testing also. VIII. Mathematical deductions from the doctrine of chances and inferences from one set of numerical results to another are most valuable, and to be applied whenever possible. For instance, Dr. Abbott's deduction from Mr. Simpson's numerical statement, that 2,700 words in Shakespeare occur in two plays each and in no others to the effect that four words only are to be expected as peculiar to any given pair of plays is most valuable as well as ingenious. I found it of the greatest use in dividing Henry VI. IX. The accuracy of our present texts must be considered. Some of Fletcher's plays are in such a mutilated and incorrect state that it is impossible to determine how many Alexandrines, &c., aie in them. A great part of 7/$c., refer to two songs given in full in Middleton's Witch. 2. The Witch and Macbeth have points of resemblance, (a) As Hecate says of Sebastian, "I know he loves me not," so Hecate says of Macbeth, " He loves for his own ends, not for you." (b) In the Witch, "For the maid-servants and the girls o' th' house, I spiced them lately with a drowsy posset : " in Macbeth, 246 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. their possets." (c] In the Witch, Hcc., "Come, my sweet sisters,. let the air strike our tune : " in Macbeth, " I'll charm the air to give a sound." (d) In the Witch, "The innocence of sleep:" in Macbeth, "The innocent sleep." (e) In the Witch, "There's no such thing : " in Macbeth the same words. (/) In the Witch, " I'll rip thee down from neck to navel : " in Macbeth, " He unseamed him from the nave to the chaps." And, they add, there are other passages. 3. The witches in the two plays are strongly alike, though Hecate in one is a spirit, 1 and in the other an old woman. 4. There are parts of Macbeth not in Shakespeare's manner : namely (a) I. ii. Slovenly in metre, bombastic ; 1. 52, 53, not consistent with I. iii. 72, 73, 112, &c. Shakespeare would not send a severely wounded soldier with news of victory. I. iii. I 37. Not in Shakespeare's style. II. i. 61. " Words to the heat of deeds too cold breath gives." Too feeble for Shakespeare. II. iii. Porter's part. "Low, written for the mob by another hand. " Coleridge. z HI. v. Not in Shakespeare's manner. IV. i. 138. Masterly, but doubtful : falls off in 1. 3947. III. v. 13. " Loves for his own ends." But Macbeth hates them : calls them " secret, black, and midnight hags." III. v. 125 152. Cannot be Shakespeare's. IV. iii. 140 159. Interpolation : probably before a Court-repre- sentation. V. ii. Doubtful. V. v. 47 50. Weak tag : unskilful imitation. V. viii. 32. " Before my body I throw my war-like shield." In- terpolation. * I do not agree with this. ON MA CBE Til. 247 V. viii. last 40 lines. Two hands clearly. Double-stage direc- tion. " Fiend-like queen " dispels the pity excited for Lady Mac- beth : r " by self and violent hands " raises the veil dropped over her fate with Shakespeare's fine tact, III. ii. 54, 55. Interpolation. Play probably interpolated after Shakespeare's withdrawal from theatre [not earlier than 1613]. Their opinion as to I. i. is doubtful. They also decline giving opinion as to date of the Witch. The above is, I hope, a fair abstract of their views : what I shall try to do is to carry them out still farther, and to support them with new arguments. [Here followed in the first issue of this chapter a discussion on the Porter's speech in Act ii. Sc. 3. As this rough and incorrect draft was never intended for publication, I have withdrawn it. There was in it one blunder which even now I wish to set right. The singular words "everlasting bonfire" have been misunder- stood by the commentators. A bonfire at that date is invariably given in the Latin Dictionaries as equivalent to pyra or rogus; it was the fire for consuming the human body after death : and the hell-fire differed from the earth-fire only in being everlasting. This use of a word so remarkably descriptive in a double meaning (for it also meant feu de joie: see Cotgrave) is intensely Shakespearian. 2 I do not however say that this speech is unaltered Shakespeare : I only leave out all discussion of it as not bearing on my main argument, and coming into unnecessary collision with opinions worthy of great respect even if one differs from them.] 3 Taking, then, for granted that one of the two plays, the Witch and Macbeth, was copied from the other in certain parts, it is im- portant to consider if there is any evidence which was the earlier. Some external evidence that we have favours the view that the Witch was. Middleton says in his dedication, " Witches are ipso facto by the law condemned : and that only, I think, hath made her lie so 1 I do not agree with this. 2 Compare also All's Well that Ends Well, iv. 5, "They'll be for the flowery way that leads to the broad gate and the great fire. " 3 This passage between brackets was inserted in September 1874. 248 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. long in an imprisoned obscurity." It seems from this at first sight as if the play had been written long before the dedication, and the dedi- cation had been written soon after (in King James the First's first year, 1603) the laws against witches had been confirmed. But the words will bear another interpretation, and we cannot build on this. Malone gave up this opinion in favour of the other, that Macbeth was the earlier : nor do I see how the coincidences of expression pointed out by Clark and Wright are to be explained otherwise, as several of these occur in parts undoubtedly Shakespeare's : and he would not imitate Middleton. In this view the Cambridge editors coincide. This point being, then, probably determined, the question arises, Could Middleton have altered this play after 1613, and yet have written the Witch after that? Certainly; for he continued writing till 1624 ; and there is good reason to believe that all his plays written for the King's company date between 1615 and 1624. I next pass to the consideration of the nature of these witches. In Holinshed we find that '* Macbeth and Banquo were met by iij women in straunge and ferly apparell resembling creatures of an elder world : " that they vanished : that at first by Macbeth and Banquo " they were reputed but some vayne fantasticall illusion," but afterwards the common opinion was that they were "eyther the weird sisters that is ye Goddesses of destinie, or else some Nimphes or Feiries endewed with knowledge of prophesie by their Nicroman- ticall science." (Act ii. Sc. 2.) But in the part corresponding to IV. i. Macbeth is warned by "certain wysardes" to take heed of Macduff : but he does not kill him, because " a certain witch whom he had in great trust " had given him the two other equivocal predic- tions. Now it is to me incredible that Shakespeare, who in the parts of the play not rejected by the Cambridge editors never uses the word, or alludes to witches in any way, should have degraded 4 'ye Goddesses of destinie " to three old women, who are called by Paddock and Grimalkin (their incubi or familiars), sail in sieves, kill swine, serve Hecate, and deal in all the common charms, illusions, and incantations of vulgar witches. The three who "look not like the inhabitants o' th' Earth and yet are on't ;" they who "can look into the seeds of Time and say which grain will grow; " they who "seem corporal," but " melt into the air " like " bubbles of the Earth:" ON MACBETH. 249 the " weyward sisters" who "make themselves air" and have "more than mortal knowledge " are not beings of this stamp. Were it for this reason only, Act I. Sc. i, Sc. iii 1. I 37, and III. v. (in which the servants of Hecate are identified with the three beings who meet Macbeth in I. ii.) must be rejected. Shakespeare may have raised the wizard and witches of the latter parts of Holinshed into the weird sisters of the former parts ; but the converse process is impos- sible. I shall recur to this, but want first to dispose of Hecate. The Hecate of III. v. and IV. i. occurs nowhere else in Shakespeare. Even in this play the "pale Hecate" whose "offerings witchcraft celebrates," the "black Hecate who summons the beetle to ring night's yawning peal," is the classical Hecate, the mistress of the lower world, arbiter of departed souls, patroness of magic, the three- fold dreadful Goddess : so she is in Midsummer Nighfs Dream, in Lear, in Hamlet. "Triple Hecate's team," "The mysteries of Hecate and the night," "with Hecate's ban thrice blasted," are the phrases we meet with there : in this play she is a common witch, as in Middleton's play (not a spirit, as the Cambridge editors say) ; the chief witch : who sails in the air indeed ; all witches do that : but a witch ; rightly described in the stage direction : Enter Hecate and the other three witches. I must here in parenthesis ask how the usual theory can be made consistent with this stage direction ? The three ^vitches are already on the stage ; the other three must mean the weird sisters who appear in I. iii. to Macbeth in the Shakespeare part of the play, and are identified with the Middleton witches in I. iii. 32. They are quite distinct from the Shakespeare witches of IV. i. The attempts made to evade the evidence of this stage direction as being a blunder should be supported by instances of similar blunders : instances where characters already on the stage are described as entering : omissions of such directions are easy to understand : their insertion without cause is unexplained, and I think inexplicable. Then this un- Shakespearian Hecate does not use Shakespearian lan- guage : there is not a line in her part that is not in Middleton's worst style : her metre is a jumble of tens and eights (iambic, not trochaic like Shakespeare's short lines) like some of the Gower choruses in Pericles, a sure sign of inferior work ; and what is of most import- ance, she is not of the least use in the play in any way : the only 250 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. effect she produces is, that the three fate-goddesses who in the introduc- tion of the play were already brought down to ordinary witches, are lowered still further to witches of an inferior grade with a mistress who " contrives their charms " and is jealous if any " trafficking " goes on in which she does not bear her part. She and her songs, and the speech in IV. i. 125 132, which is certainly hers, although all the editors assign it to First Witch, are all alike not only of the earth earthy, but of the mud muddy. They are the sediment of Middleton's puddle, not the sparkling foam of the living waters of Shakespeare. Thus far, then, my results coincide with the Cambridge editors' : I reject I. i. and I. iii. I 37 ; III. v. and IV. i. 39 44. But now we must face the real difficulty. What are the witches of IV. i. ? are they the "weird sisters," fairies, nymphs, or goddesses? or are they ordinary witches or wizards, as we should expect from the nar- rative in Holinshed, and entirely distinct from the three mysterious beings in I. iii.? I hold the latter view. In order to support it, it will be necessary to show that they are not weird sisters in the higher sense : to give a hypothesis as to how they got confused with them : to try to present some idea of Shakespeare's intentions regarding them. Now Act IV. Sc. i. I 47 is admitted by all critics to be greatly superior to the corresponding passage in I. iii. I 37. Clark and Wright hold it to be Shakespeare, except the Hecate bit. I agree with them ; but then I cannot identify these witches with the Nornse of I. iii. 38 80. The witches in Act IV. are just like Middleton's witches, only superior in quality. They are clearly the originals from whom his imitations were taken. Their charms are of the sort popularly believed in. Their powers are to untie the winds, lodge corn, create storms, raise spirits, but of themselves they have not the prophetic knowledge of the weird sisters, the all- knowers of Past, Present, Future ; they must get their knowledge from their masterSj or call them up to communicate it themselves. Nor do they call themselves weird sisters, although the three in I. iii. (early rejected part) do so ; their knowledge is from the pricking of their thumbs ; they are submissive to the great King who calls them Jilthy hags, secret, black, and midnight hags ; the oracles their masters are ambiguous, delusive : those of the weird sisters were pithy, inevitable ; the witches are of the middle ages, a growth of ON MA CBE TIL 2$ I the popular superstitions ; the Nornse are of the old Aryan mytho- logy, and worthy of their parentage. But however strongly I may feel this difference between the supernatural beings of I. iii. (latter part) and IV. i. ; and I think that anyone who can read these two scenes divested of old associations and prejudice will agree with me ; however sure I may feel that Shakespeare could not have given up the "destiny goddesses" of his authority for this play so as to lower them to the wizards and witches of Macbeth's later time, there is a great stumbling-block in our way. In III. iv. 133, and IV. i. 136, Macbeth calls the witches of IV. i. " the weird sisters." It is true that he has called them filthy hags, that he describes them as riding on the air, that he is surprised that Lennox did not see them pass by him, that they may have 1 left the stage in the ordinary way, while Macbeth was in a reverie : that he never alludes to them afterwards as he so often does to the real "weird sisters," but only mentions " the spirits " or "the fiend." All this is true ; but if my theory be true also, those two passages must be explained. This is a real difficulty, and I cannot satisfactorily solve it at present. III. iv. 133 I think is an insertion of Middleton's, and in IV. i. 136 the original reading may have been, Saw you the sister witches? or something like this : but I don't think the text has here been tampered with : I can only conjecture that Shakespeare made a slip, or intended Macbeth, who was thinking of the original prophecy, to make one. I do not think the difficulty weighty enough to support the common view of itself, but I admit its importance. I next pass to a matter of an entirely different nature. The Cam- bridge editors have pointed out some instances of rhyming tags so weak in this play that they cannot admit them as Shakespeare's work. I desire to add to the number of such exceptionable rhymes. For instance, I. iv. 4853. Macbeth has " humbly taken his leave," and been dismissed by the king. While going out he soliloquizes thus : " The Prince of Cumberland ! That is a step On which I must fall down, or else o'er-leap : For in my way it lies. Stars, hide your fires ! Let not light see my black and deep desires : * I feel certain on this point The stage direction, vanish with HECATE, is Middleton's. 252 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. The eye wink at the hand : yet let that be Which the eye fears, when it is done, to see." During this, Banquo has been praising him to Duncan in words not reported to us. Then Duncan goes on, "True, worthy Banquo," &c. This is not like Shakespeare : but is just such an attempt at being like Shakespeare as I should expect Middleton to write. Note specially the weakness of the italicized words, and of the next line. The play has evidently been cut down at this point. In II. iii. end : " there's warrant in that theft Which steals itself, when there's no mercy left." This is too weak and thin for Shakespeare to emphasize, and the ending of II. iv. is worse : " Ross. Well, I will thither. Macd. Well, may you see things well done there ! Adieu ! Lest our old robes sit easier than our new. Ross. Farewell, father. Old M. God's benison go with you, and with those That would make good of bad, and friends of foes." Delete both couplets, which are bad, especially the last. IV. i. end : " No boasting like a fool ; This deed I'll do before this purpose cool,," is wretched. See how the passage reads without it : "give to the edge of the sword His wife, his babes, and all unfortunate souls That trace him in his line. But no more sights ! Where are these gentlemen?" In V. i. end : "Doctor. So, good-night : My mind she has mated, and amazed my sight. I think, but dare not speak." Omit second line of couplet. ON MACBETH. 253 In V. ii. the invitation "to pour in our country's purge as many drops of us as are needed to dew the sovereign flower and kill the weeds " is unlike Shakespeare. V. iii. end, after Macbeth's emphatic declaration : " I will not be afraid of death and bane, Till Birnam forest come to Dunsinane," the Doctor's washy sentiment, " Were I from Dunsinane away and clear, Profit again should hardly draw me here," is surely out of place. Why should our sympathy with Macbeth be interrupted by the Doctor's private sentiments ? V. iv. end : "The time approaches, That will with due decision make us know What we shall say we have, and what we owe : Thoughts speculative their unsure hopes relate ; But certain issue strokes must arbitrate." cannot surely be Shakespeare's. V. vi. end : " Make all our trumpets speak; give them all breath, Those clamorous harbingers of blood and death." This tautology cannot be Shakespeare's ; besides, the whole senti- ment is too weak for the situation. In a few of these I may have missed some inner aesthetic meaning which is too deep for my comprehension ; but the number of them is far too great for me to be wrong in all. I conclude therefore that Middleton altered the endings of many scenes by inserting rhyming tags : whether he cut anything out remains to be seen. The next point I notice is, that the account of young Siward's death and the unnatural patriotism of his father, which is derived 254 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. from Holinshed's history of England, and not of Scotland like the rest of the play, is a bit of padding put in by Shakespeare after finishing the whole tragedy ; this shows great haste in its composi- tion : to my mind the story is not nearly so well told as in Henry of Huntingdon, and spoils the denouement, which would be decidedly better if the first whom Macbeth combated turned out to be the fated warrior not born of woman. But this leads us to a much larger and more important point : the number of characters in this play who only appear for a scene or two and then are heard of no more. In the 27 scenes (20 in Folio, 28 in modern editions) there are only 8 in which new characters are not introduced ; a phe- nomenon unexampled in all the dramas I have read. Some of these Fleance, Donalbain, Macduff's wife, the Scotch Doctor are real aids to the story ; but others are not as it now stands. For example : The severely-wounded captain in I. ii., who mangles his metre so painfully, I surrender at once to the Cambridge editors as Middle- ton's. In all probability, however, this scene replaces one of Shake- spe? ve's ; one of whose lines, at least, " The multiplying villanies of nature," seems to be still left in it as it now stands. In this scene Ross comes in afterwards, and is sent to Macbeth to greet him with his new title ; he says, "I'll see it done." Lennox also is present, not Angus. Ross and Angus take the message to Macbeth in I. iii. where Angus speaks 10 lines, and then disappears till V. ii. ; he there has 7 lines to repeat ; so that he has 17 in all. He is not of the slightest use in the play. Lennox could have done his work better in I. iii. on account of his after connection with Macbeth : V. ii. is not wanted at all. I think, therefore, that Middleton has cut down Angus's part in the original play by omitting scenes in which he appeared. This shows that the play has been greatly abridged for acting purposes. Hecate we have already discussed. The Cambridge editors have pointed out the double stage- direction, Exeunt fighting ; and Enter fighting, Macbeth d;ad. (Compare the double-ending of Troylus and Creszida.} ON MACBETH. 255 We have yet to consider III. iv. 130 to end. The metre of * ' And betimes I will to the weird sisters ; the poverty of thought in * ' For mine own good All causes shall give way : I am in blood Stept in so far, that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er : Strange things I have in head that will to hand, Which must be acted ere they will be scann'd ; " the putting this long tag in Macbeth's mouth when he is so be- wildered that he answers Lady Macbeth's 11 You lack the season of all natures, sleep " by " Come, we'll to sleep," are all marks of inferior work, and make me sure that this part has been worked over by Middleton. There is a passage in IV. i. that has been worked over in a similar way. After the speech of the third apparition Macbeth says, " That will never be. Who can impress the forest, bid the tree Unfix his earth-bound root ? Sweet bodements, good ! Rebellious dead, rise never till the wood Of Birnam rise, and our high-placed Macbeth Shall live the lease of nature, pay his breath To time and mortal custom." " Our high-placed Macbeth " cannot be said by Macbeth himself: it must be part of a speech of a witch. " Sweet bodements ! " looks also like Middleton, and the whole bit is, in my opinion, a fragment of HecatJs inserted by him. " Rebellious dead " seems to me an allusion to Banquo's ghost, misplaced by Middleton. If we read " Rebellion's head" it seems a mistaken interpretation of the armed- head apparition : in any case, it is not Shakespeare. And I have no doubt a minute examination may detect still more traces of Middle- ton i but in an essay of this kind more detail would be wearisome. 256 SPIAKESPEARE MANUAL. Enough is given for my purpose to make it likely that Middleton was a recaster of the play, not a joint author. Before giving my theory as to this play, and the metrical confir- mations of it, I had better perhaps add a Table of the parts I do believe to be Shakespeare's. SHAKESPEARE. MIDDLETON. x I. i. (Witches). I. ii. (altered) iii. 137. (Witches), iii. 38 146. iv. "' rhyme- tag. v. vi. vii. II. i. rhyme-tag, ii. iii. * rhyme-tag, iv. * rhyme- tag. III. i. ii. rhyme-tag. iii. iv. bit at end. III. v. (Hecate), vi. IV. i. Hecate and* 6-line bit and *tag. ii. iii. 140 158 (touching for evil). V. i. * one line, ii. (altered) rhyme-tag, iii. * rhyme-tag, iv. * rhyme-tag. , v. rhyme-tag, vi. * rhyme-tag, vii. * rhyme-tag. (1. 12 & 13). viii. (altered) 1 The part assigned by me to Middleton, but not by the Cambridge editors, is not 30 Hues in all ; I have asterised it in the table. F. G. F. ON MACBETH. 257 This is an instance in which such editions as I have given in the Transactions of the New Shakspere Society of Marina (Pericles] and Timon would be worthless. Middleton certainly did not con- fine himself to adding to Shakespeare's work : he also re-modelled, re-wrote, and made large excisions. We ought to have an edition of this play in two types : the presumed alterations, and additions of Middleton's being in a smaller type than the rest, so that the better and more important portion might be read by itself. I now give my theory as to the composition of the play. It was written by Shakespeare during his Third period : I think after Hamht and Lear (see Malone) ; so that its date was probably 1606. Metrical evidence is of no use in determining the date : as we can- not tell how Middleton altered the play, or how much he omitted, except that the weak-ending test is not opposed to Malone's date. At some time after this, Middleton revised and abridged it : I agree with the Cambridge editors in saying not earlier than 1613. There is a decisive argument that he did so after he wrote the Witch, namely, that he borrows the songs from the latter play, and repeats himself a good deal. It is to me very likely that he should repeat himself in Macbeth, and somewhat improve on his original concep- tion, as he has done in the corresponding passages : and yet be unable to do a couple of new songs, or to avoid the monotony of introducing Hecate in both plays (Hecate being a witch in both, re- member). I can quite understand a third-rate man, who in all his work shows reminiscences of others, and repetitions of Shakespeare, being unable to vary such conceptions as he had formed on the subject. I believe that Middleton, having found the groundlings more taken with the witches, and the cauldron, and the visions in IV. i. than with the grander art displayed in the Fate goddesses of I. iii., determined to amalgamate these, and to give us plenty of them. Hence the witches call themselves weird sisters in the lyric part of I. iii.: hence the speech of Macbeth, "I will to-morrow to the weird sisters," c. I believe also the extra fighting in the last scenes was inserted for the same reason. But finding that the magic and the singing and the fighting made the play too long for a play of that kind cannot be endured to the length of an ordinary tragedy of Shakespeare's he cut out large portions of the psychological Shakespeare work, in which, as far as quantity is concerned, this 17 258 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. play is very deficient compared with the three other masterpieces of world-poetry, and left us the torso we now have. That the taste of the mob is of the nature I assign to it, is evident enough from the way this play is put on the stage now. I am not play-goer enough to say how often it has been represented in my time without still further additions from Middleton's lyrics and Locke's music, but I think it cannot be very often. To hide the excisions, Middleton put on tags at the places where he made the scenes end : and to my think- ing, if any one will compare the endings of the scenes where Shake- speare has left them without tags with those where I have tried to show that Middleton put them in, he will find that there is a great difference in the completeness of the scenes. Or try another experiment : cut off the tags from the scenes where Shakespeare put them and those where Middleton put them ; a similarly decisive result will be felt. It is impossible to show this in a paper : if I were doing an edition of the play with the oppor- tunity of summing up the aesthetic of each scene at the end of it as I went on, I am certain I could make it manifest : not to mention many smaller details I cannot stay to discuss here, such as the stage direction in IV. i. about Banquo's carrying the glass. But I must stay to protest against the modern way of altering and inserting stage directions ad libitum ; it has thrown back our criti- cism twenty years. I could not myself stir in this matter till I obtained reprints of Folio and Quartos, which I could not for many years, for reasons I need not dwell on here. I do not think we should do well in issuing mere reprints only, but no alteration even in popular editions should be made without being marked by brackets or italics, or some warning that there is an alteration : unless in correction of mere printers' errors, or in arranging the lines, or in punctuation. We now come to the metrical evidence. From the nature of the interpolations in the rhymes, &c. , our usual tests are not attainable. Fortunately there are others that are. I give first, then, ON MACBETH. 259 TABLE OF SHAKESPEARE S PLAYS ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THEIR LENGTH. Anthony and Cleopatra, Hamlet, Richard III., Cymbeline, 2 Henry IV., Troylus and Cressida, Coriolanus, Othello, Henry V., Lear, 1 Henry IV., 2 Henry VI., Merry Wives, Romeo and Juliet, All's Well, &c., As You Like It, 3 Henry VI. , Much Ado, &c., Measure for Measure, Love's Labour's Lost, From this table we see that all the last eight plays fall into two classes. One class consists of three early plays which were pro- duced before Shakespeare had learnt his work as a playwright, however much he excelled already as a poet. The other is composed of five plays, four of which were finished or altered by some other poet, as I have myself tried to show, and Mr. Staunton has satisfac- torily accounted for the fifth (The Tempest}. It cannot be accident that five plays l thus altered should fall among the eight shortest of the total series of 38. The chance of such an event is I in 89625 : there must be a cause. One possible cause is assignable. We know from comparing the Quartos and Folio of Lear, Hamlet, Othello, Richard III. , &c. , that 1 The two plays finished by Fletcher do not fall under this category. They are of Fletcher's average length. 172 3964 Winter's Tale, 2758 3924 ( Henry VIII., 2754 3599 ( Two Noble Kinsmen, 2734 3448 Merchant of Venice, 2705 3437 I Henry VI., 2693 3423 Twelfth Night, 2684 3392 Taming of Shrew, 2671 3324 Richard II., 2644 3320 King John, 2553 3298 Titus Andrcnicus, 2525 3170 *Julius Caesar, 2440 3032 * Pericles, 2^36 3018 *Timon, 2358 3002 Mid. Night's Dream, 2217 2981 *Tempest, 2068 2904 Two Gent, of Verona, 2060 2904 *Macbeth, 1993 2823 Comedy of Errors, 1770 2809 Average, 2857-5 2789 Average to the dark line, 3000 26o SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. the acting plays were often shorter than the written ones : we know also that many of Shakespeare's plays as we have them could not well be performed in the customary two hours (see Prologues to Henry VIII. , and Romeo and Juliet] : we know also that in modern times his plays are invariably shortened for representation. What then more likely than that Macbeth and Julius Casar should have been shortened on account of their prolixity, and that the alterer should have overshot his mark? This is, however, merely conjec- ture : whatever the cause, the fact remains the same : the guess is merely offered till a better be proposed or further evidence obtained. Next I give TABLE OF RHYME-TAGS IN SHAKESPEARE. No. Scenes No. Scenes No. tag in play. with tags. rhymes. Love's Labour 's Lost, 948 Mids. Night's Dream, (cannot be calculated : whole scenes rhyme), Comedy of Errors, 1 1 9 19 Romeo and Juliet, 24 12 29 Richard II., 19 13 28 Two Gent, of Verona, a. 10 4 7 ! > & . IO I I Troylus and Cressida, 24 15 27 Twelfth Night, 18 12 26 Richard III., 25 n 13 Merchant of Venice, 20 13 19 John, i 6 fi 14 1 Henry IV., 19 9 j 2 2 Henry IV., 19 8 12 Henry V.,^ 23 13 14 Much Ado, 17 3 13 Merry Wives, 23 3 3 As You Like It, 22 8 16 Taming of Shrew, 12 8 16 All's Well, 23 14 22 Measure for Measure, 17 7 10 Hamlet, 20 14 15 Othello, 15 8 ON MACBETH. 261 No. Scenes No. Scenes No. tag in play. with tags. rhymes Lear, 26 9 13 Macbeth, 28 21 33 Cymbeline, 27 II 16 Pericles, a. 988 , b. ii 4 4 Timon, a. 766 b. 10 8 12 Coriolanus, 29 2 4 Julius Caesar, 1 8 4 5 Anthony and Cleopatra, 42 4 6 Two Noble Kinsmen, a. 1 1 I I .11 I i Tempest, 911 Winter's Tale, 15 o o Hen. VIII. (all Fletcher's tags), 17 4 5 Titus Andronicus, 14 3 3 1 Henry VI., 27 13 14 2 Henry VI., 24 8 9 3 Henry VI., 28 10 14 On the other uses to be made of this table this is not the place to dwell : I wish only to call attention to the fact that in this play more scenes end with tags than in any other play in Shakespeare : that the number of tag-rhymes is also greater than in any other play, in- cluding his very earliest. In other words, that at a time when he had given up the use of rhyme in great measure (for all critics admit this for his Third period), in that part of the play where the super- natural is not introduced, he has on the common theory used more than twice as many tag-rhymes as he has used in any play subsequent to The Merchant of Venice : and these for the most part, as Clark and Wright have so justly pointed out, of the baldest and most feeble description. If the difference were small, it might be explained per- haps from the nature of the play ; but such a difference is only explicable on the hypothesis of a second writer : the conclusion we have reached on other grounds. CHAPTER XI. ON "JULIUS C/ESAR." MY theory as to this play is so unlike anything hitherto advanced that I shall begin by stating it ; so that the startled reader may have it in his power to shut the book at once, if the hypothesis seems to him too absurd to be entertained. I believe that this play as we have it is an abridgment of Shakespeare's play, made by Ben Jonson. I will first give a number of reasons for my belief that the common theory cannot be true, and then enter into details as to my own. 1. The name Anthony is a very favourite one with Shakespeare : it occurs in Much Ado about Nothing, Love's Labour ' s Lost, Macbeth, Henry V. 9 Richard III., Romeo and Juliet, and Anthony and Cleo- patra : in all these seven plays it is always spelt Anthony, or Anthonie, with an h ; but in this play invariably Antony or Antonie, without one. So Ben Jonson always rejects the h ; see Catiline, especially, passim. 2. The number of participles in -ed, with the final syllable pro- nounced, is out of all proportion to the other plays, especially the latter ones. I have not had time to count them, but it is clear on merely reading the play. Examples : plunged, vexed, trans- formed. 3. I. ii. "To-morrow, if you please to speak with me I will come home to you : or if you will Come home to me, and I will wait for you." ON JULIUS CAESAR. 263 Home = to thy house, chez toi : never used by Shakespeare where the subject of the sentence is in the first person ; but Jonson, Catiline, Ill.i.: " I'll come home to you. Crassus would not have you To speak to him fore Quintus Catulus." 4. II. iii. " Quality and kind " not found elsewhere in Shakespeare. He has "quality and brain/' "quality and name," not "kind." Jonson, Every Man in his Humour, II. i. : " Spirits of our kind and quality." 5. The phrase "bear me hard," occurs three times in this play; in I. ii.; II. i.; III. i., not elsewhere in Shakespeare. But Jonson, Catiline, IV. v. : " Ay, though he bear me hard, I, yet must do him right." Bear hard occurs in I Henry IV., and hard forbear in Othello, but in a different sense from that in this place. 6. The number of short lines in this play, where no pause is re- quired, is very great, and seems to point to the fact that it has been greatly abridged for the purpose of representation. Example : II. i. " He says he does, being then most flattered. Let me work ! For I can give his humour the true bent." II. i. " Since Cassius first had whet me against Csesar I have not slept. Between the acting of a dreadful thing," &c. II. i. " And by-and-by thy bosom shall partake The secrets of my heart. All my engagements I will construe to thee," &c. III. i. " Thy master is a wise and valiant Roman, I never thought him worse. Tell him so please him come unto this place," &c. 264 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. III. ii. "Cassius, go you into the other street And part the numbers. Those that will hear me speak let 'em stay here ! " These are exactly like the metrical forms assumed in the surrepti- tious issues of the first Quartos of Hamlet -and Romeo and Juliet, but extremely unlike Shakespeare's manner in his complete works. I have intentionally taken the instances from the middle of con- tinuous speeches ; but the imperfection more usually occurs at the end of a speech, as excisions are more frequently made from ends of speeches than from the middle of them. 7. Mr. R. Simpson has noticed that this play bears the same relation to the tragedies that The Two Gentlemen of Verona does to the comedies as to "once-used" words (once-used in his sense). This is just what would happen if Jonson edited the play. For his dislike to " strange words " and his satire on Marston for inventing them, see Act V. Sc. I of The Poetaster, where Crispin us vomits his linguistic inventions after the emetic administered by Horace. 8. Shakespeare and Jonson probably worked together on Sejanus in 1602-3. He having helped Jonson then in a historical play, what more likely than that Jonson should be chosen to remodel Shakespeare's Ccesar, if it needed to be reproduced in a shorter form than he gave it originally ? And for such reproduction (after Shakespeare's death, between 1616 and 1623), to what author would such work of abridgment have been entrusted except Shake- speare's critical friend Jonson ? Fletcher would have enlarged, not shortened. 9. We know that rival theatres and rival publishers in the Eliza- bethan times frequently brought out plays on the same subject close on each other's heels. Thus the old play of Leir was republished when Shakespeare's Lear was produced : The Danish Tragedy and Hoffmanns Tragedy were run in opposition to Hamlet : The Taming of the Shrew was a rival piece to Patient Grissel, The Woman Killed with Kindness, and probably Dekker's Medicine for a Curst Wife : Grissel, and the Woman Killed having come out first, the Shrew being then set up in rivalry, and the last-named piece being a ON JULIUS CAESAR. 265 retaliation for this opposition. But this practice is too well known to require illustration. Is it not, then, highly probable that this play, produced about 1601 originally, should be revived in 1607, the date of L. Stirling's Julius Cossar and of "Cesar's Revenge, or the Tragedy of Cesar and Pompey" called in the running title " The Tragedy of Julius Cesar" or if it were produced in 1607, as Malone believes it was, that the other play was then published in rivalry to it ? In any case, I think it likely that some production or reproduction was at that date, and another after Shakespeare's death with Jonson's alterations. 10. There is a strange feeling about the general style of this play ; which is not the style of Jonson : but just what one would fancy Shakespeare would become with an infusion of Jonson. I do not give' passages here ; as I look on the printing of long extracts from books in every one's hands, except for cases for comparison, as useless and wasteful. I prefer relying on the taste and judgment of those who will take the trouble to read the play and judge for them- selves. 11. There is a quarrelling scene in the Maid's Tragedy imitated from the celebrated one between Brutus and Cassius; just in the same way as Philaster is imitated from Cymbeline. The Maid's Tragedy was probably produced in 1608-9, the year before Philaster. It is therefore not improbable that Julius Ccesar was reproduced a year or two before 1609, or at any rate some three years earlier than Cym- beline, that is, in 1607, just as Shakespeare's Fourth period began. 12. Act I. Sc. 2. " Chew upon this ; " no such expression else- where in Shakespeare. Compare the use of "work upon that now" passim in Eastward Ho, of which Jonson was one of the authors. 13. Act II. Sc. i. " Scorning the base degrees By which he did ascend." The word degrees never used by Shakespeare, as meaning "stairs," but always of " steps," metaphorical ; as we use " gradually " now. But in Sejanus we have : " Whom when he says lie spread on the degrees" 266 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. 14. "And turn pre-ordinance and first decree Into the lane of children," (Act III. Sc. I.) where lane means narrow conceits. Compare Staple of News : 11 A narrow-minded man ! my thoughts do dwell All in a lane." I do not know an instance of such a usage in any other author. 15. V. v. "His life was gentle, and the elements So mixt in him that Nature might stand up And say to all the world, * This was a man.' " Compare Cynthia's Revels, II. iii. " A creature of a most perfect and divine temper : one in whom the humours and elements are peaceably met without emulation of precedency" (acted in 1600). Surely Shakespeare did not deliberately copy Jon son : but if he wrote before him, Julius Ccesar must come before 1 60 1 into the time of the historical plays. 1 1 6. Jonson was in the habit of altering plays, e.g. he altered and adapted Jeronymo by Kyd ; and his share of work in The Widow, Eastward Ho, and other plays, was evidently of the supervising and trimming kind, as the main execution of nearly every scene is clearly traceable to the other writers. We now come to an important argument : In a celebrated passage in the Discoveries of Ben Jonson, we read : "I remember, the players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare, that in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, Would he had blotted a thousand. Which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by, wherein he most faulted, and to justify mine own candour : for I loved the man and do honour his memory on this side idolatry as much as any. He was, 1 This agrees with the date of allusion discovered by Mr. Halliwell ; but the paucity of rhymes, number of short lines, and brevity of the play are conclusive as to its not having been produced in its present state at that date. It has been abridged by some one for theatrical representation : if not by Jonson, then by some one else. F. G. F. ON JULIUS CALSAR. 267 indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature ; had an excellent phaitasy, brave notions, and gentle expressions : wherein he flowed with that facility, that sometimes it was necessary he should be stopped : Sufflaminandus erat, as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power, would the rule of it had been so too. Many times he fell into those things, could not escape laughter : as when he said in the person of Caesar, one speaking to him, * Caesar, thou dost me wrong.' He replied, * Caesar did never wrong, but with just cause,' and such like ; which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was even more in him to be praised than to be pardoned." It is clear from this passage (i) that a line in Julius C&sar, as it originally stood, has been altered from its first form as quoted by Jonson into (" Caesar, thou dost me wrong," being omitted !) "Know, Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause Will he be satisfied." (2) That this alteration had been made in the acting copy, pub- lished in Folio in 1623 ; though Jonson' s statement of its being an alteration was not published till after his death in 1637. (3) That Jonson gives this as one of " many " instances. We cannot now find these in Shakespeare's works : but it is a fair inference that other similar corrections have been made. (4) These alterations were not commonly known : 1 such an opportunity for what our forefathers called " merry jests" would never have been lost : we should have had traces of them in con- temporary writing. We have, then, a play in which one error at least (perhaps many) has been corrected ; and an author to whom this correction (or these corrections) was privately known : a play in which there is a deficiency of some thousand lines as compared with the others of the same class by the same author ; and a critic who desired that the author in his writing had blotted a thousand : a play remarkable for speeches ending on the second or third beat of an incomplete T Yet the distinct allusion in The Staple of News (Induction), " Cry you mercy, you never did wrong but with just cause," shows that in 1625 an allusion to this alteration at any rate was well understood. F. G. F. 268 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. line, and one known alteration, with others to be presumed, which introduces this peculiarity contrary to the author's usual manner : a play with various peculiar phrases and usages of words ; and the same critic-authoi in whose works these peculiar words and phrases are found. Add to these considerations the spelling of Antony, the use of words in -ed, the small number of once-used words, and the probability that these two writers had worked together in Sejanus> and I think there is a case made out that the play of Julius Ccesar as we have it was corrected by Ben Jonson : whether it had been produced by Shakespeare in 1600 in a different form or not. If it had, all questions of early allusion are accounted for : and it would be written by him as a continuation of the series of Histories immediately after Henry V., to which play the general style of Julius Ctzsar seems to me more like than to any other work of Shakespeare : also the pronunciation of the final -eds would be accounted for, as this is more frequent in Henry IV. and V. than in any other plays next to Ccesar. It is fair also to consider what would probably have been Ben Jonson's conduct supposing he had revised this play. Would he have made any allusion to it such as that in The Staple of News quoted in the note on the preceding page ? We may judge of this by a parallel instance. We know that he made alterations in Kyd's Hieronymo is Mad again, or Spanish Tragedy. Accordingly, in the Induction to Cynthia's Revels Jonson alludes indirectly to the alterations he had made. Another, he says, swears down all that sit about him " that the old Hieronymo, as it was first acted, was the only, best, and judiciously penned play of Europe." This is just such an indirect allusion as I have pointed out to the passage in Julius Ccesar in The Staple of News ; and so far agrees with what may be expected on-my theory. Again, the speech of Polonius (Hamlet, iii. 2), "I did enact Julius Csesar : I was killed in the Capitol : Brutus killed me," seems to me to allude to Shakespeare's play : "played once in the University," it may be : but if so, by a regular company, not by the students. But if this allusion is to Shakespeare's play, it distinctly points to an acting of Coesar's part by an inferior player : which would give us a reason for the ill success of the piece at its first production. Hamlet's speech, "It was a brute part of him to kill ON JULIUS CAESAR. 269 so capital a calf there. Be the players ready ? " so strongly con- trasts Polonius with the good actors, that he must, I think, be referring to some actual performer. May not the play that was " caviare to the general, that pleased not the million" allude to the same failure ? It can hardly refer to Sejanus acted in 1603, as it occurs in the first draft of Hamlet, which was acted probably in 1602, and printed certainly in 1603. Of course, as I hold the alterations in this play, like those in Macbeth, to have taken place principally at the ends of speeches, and specially at the ends of scenes, the proportion of rhymes has been too seriously interfered with for our tables to be of any use by way of comparison with other plays of Shakespeare. The increased number of tags in the Middleton part of Macbeth put in to hide the alterations, and the diminished number of rhymes in Julius Casar caused by Jonson's abbreviations, alike interfere with the .direct ap- plication of the rhyme-test. But to it indirectly I owe the fact of my attention being called to the very unusual characteristics of both these plays. It may be well here to say a few words on the relation of metrical tests to " higher " criticism. If the peculiarities of a writer are regarded as matters of chance or arbitrary choice, it is absurd to take them as a basis of investigation : but they are not so : in every writer there are tricks of style and of metre which unknown to himself pervade all his work : the skill of the critic lies, first in selecting those which are really characteristic, and establishing their existence by adequate proof : then in tracing their gradual develop- ment or decay : and finally in showing their connection with each other and with the higher mental characters out of which they spring, and to which they are inseparably attached. The first part of this task I have approximately accomplished for Shakespeare ; the latter, and far more difficult one, I have also attempted and shall publish in due course. I only here desire to record that I have not worked mechanically in this matter : and that I have studied the psychology of Shakespeare quite as diligently, and I hope as accurately, as I have the statistical phenomena which are its out- come and indication. As yet I have given only a diagnosis for individual authors and for individual plays, so as to classify and 270 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. form a basis for higher investigations. The anatomy of each, and the comparative physiology of dramatic authors as a class, have yet to be given, and then the crowning work, the life history of our greatest men, as shown in their writings, their dynamical psychology, will become possible, which (with all deference to the meta- physical critics who have wasted their great acumen by beginning at the wrong end) it has not yet been and could not yet be. NOTE ON "TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA." [No result of my investigations appears to have been so unfavour- ably received as the date I have assigned to The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Professor Ward, for instance (a most judicious and accurate critic), expresses himself strongly adverse to it. Yet on carefully examining his own views he seems substantially to agree with me. I as well as he believe that The Two Gentlemen was anterior to our present versions of Love's Labour's Lost, Midsummer Night's Dream, and Richard II. that is to say, to the revised, emended, altered, augmented versions published by Shakespeare ; just as I believe Kingjohn, as we have it, to have been anterior to the revised Richard II. But in speaking of the dates of production of plays, I speak of their original performance, not their subsequent alteration for the press or for a second run at the theatres. No one, as far as I know, when discussing the date of The Merry Wives of Windsor ever speaks of the Folio version (probably made 1605), but of the first sketch as in the Quarto (probably made 1 598). There is little doubt that; all Shakespeare's plays were amended in this way. We know it to be true of a large proportion of them. It may be well, however, in order to clear up this point, to show here the relation that his alterations bear to the Quarto editions, All Quartos (with the possible exception of Quarto I of Romeo and Juliet} jssued up -to- the date of 1600 were authorized, and in my opinion superintended, by Shakespeare himself. All after 1600 were unquestionably surreptitious. The dividing point is found in the entry of August 4, where As You Like It, Henry V., vxi&Much Ado NOTE ON TWO GENTLEMEN OF. VERONA. 271 about Nothing, appear without name of enterer. At the beginning of the register is a rough note that these three plays were " to be stayed ; " As You Like It was apparently stayed accordingly. Henry V. appeared afterwards in a surreptitious edition of Pavier's ; but Much Ado was allowed and published by the firm who had hitherto published -all the other authorized Quartos of the histories. For what reason they did not also publish the other comedies does not appear. But this we know : that excepting the surreptitious Henry V. every play printed in Quarto before 1600 was admitted as an authentic copy by the Folio editors. For even in the case of Richard III. , whoever made the Folio alterations made them on a copy of the third Quarto, and in all other cases they used this Quarto as copy to reprint from. In every case then of Quartos issued up to 1600 we may depend on having Shakespeare's authorized version of the play. Now it is very singular that the list of such authorized Quartos coincides in extent of time precisely with Meres' list of plays up to 1598, if we admit Mr. Brae's identification of Much Ado with Love's Labour's Won; and had The Comedy of Errors,* The Two Gentlemen of Verona* and King John* been edited, the two lists would have been identical, play for play. But as these were not re-written, we must expect them to appear immature and out of chronological position when compared with the other plays that had the advantage of adaptation in accordance with Shakespeare's more matured experience. F. G. FLEAY, January i, 1876.] * These three plays, it will be observed, fall among the last nine in the Table, P- *59- L I B R A K Y UNIVERSITY OF CAUFCMXIA; CHAPTER XII. PERSONAL SATIRE COMMON ON THE OLD ENGLISH STAGE. IT has long been known that in certain instances, such as the quarrel between Jonson, Marston, and Dekker, the Elizabethan playwrights represented individual characters on the stage under fictitious names. Thus Jonson in his Poetaster ridiculed Marston as Crispinus and Dekker as Demetrius ; Marston in his What You Will indicated himself by Lampatho Doria, and Jonson by Quadratus ; Dekker in his Satirom&stix retaliated on Jonson under the character of Horace. But the extent to which this " taxing of private parties " was carried has never yet been fully recognised. It has always been supposed that such instances as are mentioned above are exceptional ; that the absence of private satire is as marked as that of political allusions ; that just as any hint, however slight, to the effect that the government of the country was mismanaged was instantly repressed, and the players of the obnoxious drama silenced, so abuse directed towards individuals was, either by the authority of the Chamberlain or the influence of public opinion, generally banished from the stage. I am however prepared to show that in various plays the characters of private persons were attacked, their works ridiculed, incidents of their career, true, or supposed to be so, held up for animadversion, and personalities generally indulged in that could hardly be rivalled on the Athenian stage or in the lowest class of modern newspapers. Among these plays one is conspicuous ; and as it has lately been introduced into Dodsley's Collection, and has been prolific in errors PERSONAL SATIRE. 273 through the prevalent habit of taking Malone's dicta as proven without further investigation, it specially commends itself to our notice. This play is called Wily Beguiled. Its plot is very simple. The hand of Lelia the heroine, daughter of Gripe the usurer, is sought by three suitors, Sophos a scholar, Churnis a lawyer, and Peter Plodall a farmer's son. The last of these is favoured by Gripe because he has land and is rich ; the scholar is forbidden his house on account of his poverty : and the lawyer seeks to further his own ends while pretending to assist Gripe in his. Fortunatus, Lelia's brother, who has been away in the wars, returns in the nick of time to frustrate Churm's plans and procure the marriage of Sophos with Lelia. Peter Plodall is discomfited as well as Churms, and his hireling Robin Goodfellow, who has attempted to frighten Sophos in a devil's accoutrements, comes in for a good thrashing. There is also an underplot, in which a match takes place between Peg Pudding the daughter of Lelia's nurse, and Will Cricket the son of one of old PlodalPs tenants. I will now try to show that these characters have all special satirical significations, and that under this plot events then recent are figured and caricatured. First then, who is Churms the " Wily "lawyer who is " Beguiled" in this play? He describes himself thus. "I have been at Cambridge a scholar, at Cales a soldier, and now in the country a lawyer, and the next degree shall be a coney catcher." This at once points to Thomas Lodge, who after taking his degree served in the army, travelled, and became a member of Gray's Inn. But on looking into the Prologue all uncertainty is removed : for in it " Prologue " having ascertained from the placard on the curtain that the play to be performed is Spectrum, "a looking-glass," which he characterises as a history " Of base conceits and damned roguery, The very sink of hell-bred villany," bids a " Juggler " tell the players' fiery poet that " before I have done with him I'll make him do penance on a stage in a calf-skin. " The Juggler then "conveys" Spectrum away, and Wily Beguiled stands in its place. Prologue then says, "Go to that barm-froth poet and to him say, He quite hath lost the title of his play ; 18 274 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. His calf- skin jests from hence are quite exiled : Thus once you see that Wily is Beguiled. " This identifies Wily with the author of The Looking Glass for London which was chiefly written by Lodge, Robert Greene having also a hand in it, and at the same time prepares us to find in Wily Beguiled a. mirror held up if not to Nature, yet to the theatrical events of the time. The " calf-skin jests" allude to the I4th scene of the Looking Glass, where * ' a man in devil's attire " is beaten by Adam : a wretched scene. This is parodied in the beating of Robin in our play, while he is in like manner dressed in calf-skin to represent a fiend. Having then identified the knavish lawyer with Lodge, we naturally expect to find other dramatic authors among the characters. Some of these are easy to identify : for example, this passage, " For Sophos let him wear the willow garland, And //#y the melancholy malcontent, And pluck his hat down in his sullen eyes, " at once shows that Sophos is Marston the author of the Malcontent : the very name Robin Goodfellow identifies that character with Henry Chettle, whose play under that title was produced in 1602. Fortunatus in like manner is Dekker, the author of Old Fortunatus, 1595. The Dutch cobbler mentioned in the play I shall show by and by to be Michael Drayton : Tom Shoemaker, " who was constable of the town," is I think Thomas Middleton ; the gentleman- usher similarly alluded to must of course be Chapman ; and young Plodall the low-born peasant, the slow lout, is I fear Ben Jonson, whose tardiness in producing the promised Apology for the Poetaster is also alluded to in the words "as long as Hunks with the great head has been about to show his little wit in the second part of his paltry poetry." Next as to the female characters. I have ascertained by induction from several plays of this class, that when a lover indicates a dramatic author, his mistress signifies the company of players for whom he writes, her father is the manager of the company, and marriage signifies his binding himself to write for them. Lelia in this instance must be the Prince's (or Admiral's if before 1602) company PERSONAL SA TIRE. 275 acting at the Fortune : this is confirmed by such allusions as when the Nurse says of Lelia's favour to Sophos, " Sir, you may see that Fortune is your friend." Old Gripe will consequently be Henslow (or Alleyn) the manager. Before proceeding further in the identification of these characters, it will be necessary to ascertain the date of the play. Now, whether I am right or not in my interpretation of the plot, some of the allusions are certain, and fix a limit of date before which the play could not have been written. Old Fortunalus was written in 1595, published in 1600 ; The Shoemakers Holiday, in which the character of the " Dutch cobbler " occurs, was produced in 1600 ; the Poetaster was acted in 1601, printed in 1602 \Robin Good/Mow was written in 1602 ; the Gentleman Usher was printed in 1606, probably written in 1602 ; and the additions to the Malcontent as acted by the King's company were published in 1604 and acted probably in 1603 ; for in the Introduction there is distinct allusion to the reproduction of Jeronymo by the Admiral's company in 1601-2. I fix the date of Wily Beguiled then in 1602-3 > f r as ^ treats of the engagement of Marston by the Admiral's or Prince s company, it must have been anterior to the production of his Malcontent by the King's ; and it must have been subsequent to the dates of the plays just mentioned that were produced in 1602. The most likely date is the establish- ment of the Prince's company in 1603. Jonson, who is ridiculed in the play, finally left the Admiral's company in the latter part of 1602, and his Sejanus was produced at the King's in 1603. Now we can explain the underplot. As old Plodall must be the manager of the Globe company (Burbage), his tenants will be the occupiers of the Blackfriars theatre viz. the Children of the Chapel who rented that theatre of him till 1 601-2 : they were then turned out, and the house afterwards let at a higher rent, probably to the Children of the Revels. But this is just the story of the play. Old Cricket (the manager of the Chapel Children) is turned out by old Plodall, and Will Cricket marries Gripe's nurse's daughter. This I take to mean that on the dissolution of the company of the Children of the Chapel, Will is engaged by the Children of Paul's (Peg Pudding). This latter company's manager may well be called the Nurse. Chapman, Dekker, Webster, Marston, Middleton, all 1 8- -2 276 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. tried their prentice hands at it, and sometimes simultaneously at the Admiral's before finally settling down to other companies. I do not, however, find Will Cricket himself so easy to identify : the most likely person is John Lyly : he wrote for the Chapel Children and for the Paul's Children in 1600-1 ; he is (I think unquestionably) called "Willy" by Spenser; and in the play we have "I Peg Pudding promise thee, William Cricket, that I'll hold thee for mine own sweet lilly. " Again, Cricket's dancing is praised, and in Lyly's MaicCs Metamorphosis Cricket is one of the fairies who come in dancing. Names of characters in their works can be more often taken to indicate authors in these plays, and especially in this one, than any other means of identification. On the whole, then, the general meaning of the play is clear. It is a celebration of the good luck of the Fortune company in getting Marston to write the Malcontent for them ; a high eulogy on Dekker, who had just returned from the wars (on the stage) against the mighty potentate Ben Jonson : a general abuse of the Globe company, its manager and its writers, especially Jonson and Lodge ; an exposure of the knavery of Lodge (real or pretended), and of the bullying propensities of Jonson and his hireling Chettle : z a caricature of the style and plot of Lodge's Looking Glass and other plays. (Note by the way that Chettle died in May 1603, which confirms our limit of date.) Under the guise of a love story nearly every dramatist of importance at that time is either introduced as a character or alluded to in the dialogue. To this, however, there is one important exception. There is no mention of William Shakespeare. But if he is not mentioned, the whole play is almost a continuous parody of his writings. Old Capulet is the model on which Gripe has been pourtrayed. The Nurse is closely imitated from the Nurse of Juliet. In the 151!! scene there is a dialogue between Lelia and Sophos taken from that between Lorenzo and Jessica in The Merchant of Venice, Act. v. Sc. i. and Gripe's grief for the loss of his daughter and his money is imitated from Shylock's. There are also less strongly marked allusions to other plays, but not to any that I can trace published later than 1600. I have found in plays of this nature that Shakespeare is very seldom ! Chettle assisted Jonson in two plays, Hot Anger soon Cold, and Robert //. King of Scotland. PERSONAL SATIRE. 277 introduced on the stage ; only his plays, and not he himself, are generally alluded to. I believe the reason of this to be that he scarcely ever, if at all, alluded to others, or introduced them as person- ages in his own plays. In several plays of this satirical description produced by the Admiral's company, or in early years by Lord Strange's, a recog- nised system of allegorical language was used. Thus a servant often meant an actor ; a marriageable young lady indicated a theatrical company ; the father of the said lady represented the company's manager; her suitors were poets who were seeking engagements to write for the company ; brothers were other poets already in connection with the theatre ; marriage was the agreement or hiring of the poet to produce plays ; and so on. The converse however is not always true. These engagements and characters are not always represented by the same symbols : for instance, a poet is not always a suitor or brother he is sometimes a cobbler; an actor is occa- sionally a juggler instead of a servant ; and the like. It may be worth while to explain the term "cobbler," as an instance of the mode in which this symbolical language arose. One name, or rather synonym, for a mender of old shoes was "translator;" the same word ** translator " is also used for an adapter or patcher, or piratical reproducer of other men's plays: hence "cobbler " easily suggests this latter character and is used for it It would be inconsistent with my plan to give here a detailed examination of more than one play : but on account of their connection with the quarrel between Jonson and Dekker and Marston, of which Wily Beguiled is a sequel, it may be not out of place to mention that Dekker's Shoemaker's Holiday and Old Fortunatus also belong to the series of attacks to which Jonson was (as he tells us) subject for three years before he made any retaliation. In the former of these two plays Hans, the Dutch shoemaker, otherwise Sir Rowland Lacy in disguise, is almost certainly Michael Drayton, whose nom de plume was Rowland, who was in the latter years of Queen Elizabeth one of the poets attached to the Admiral's company, for which he and others wrote the play of Sir John Oldcastle to be run in opposi- tion to Shakespeare's Henry IV. Dodger in this same play is Thomas Lodge, and the other characters can also be identified. Dekker distinctly points out to us in Old Fortunatus, that the scene which is laid in Cyprus is intended to treat of theatrical affairs, 278 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. and that the dramatis persona are actors, poets, c., disguised under fictitious names, by speaking in his own character of "other Cyprists, my poor countrymen." Accordingly, an examination of the play shows us that Fortunatus is Christopher Marlowe : his two sons, Ampedo the good son and Andolucio the bad one, are George Peele and Thomas Lodge: Shaddow the servant is Shakespeare, who in 1595, the date of this play, had not yet printed any of his works, had not probably produced anything greater than his Richard //., and had not corrected his Love's Labour s Lost or Midsummer Night's Dream into their present shape, which no doubt is far superior to that of their earliest production. He was certainly then, if not as Dekker represents him, merely a shadow of his predecessors, yet nothing more than a shadow of what he afterwards was to become. " No, no ; I am but shadow of myself. You are deceived : my substance is not here : For what you see is but the smallest part And least proportion of humanity." I Henry VI. The " wishing cap," which enables Fortunatus (Marlowe) to trans- port himself to any place, is the power of imagination ; the magic purse, which produces ten pieces whenever the hand is put in it, shows the payments made for the writing a new play, namely ten marks, or 6/. 13^. tyi. With this clue to the meaning of the play the allusions to Lyly, Falstaff, Lodge, &c., as Endymion, the wandering knight, the French doctor, &c., grow clear, and the double meaning of the whole plot becomes manifest. These plays then, along with Jonson's Cynthia s Revel S2a\& Poetaster, Marston's What you Will, Dekker's Satiromastix^ and others that might be used to increase the list, may be taken as fair samples of the satirical and personally abusive comedies of the Elizabethan time. I say samples, because it is plain that the practice of thus assailing indi- viduals on the stage must have been very common for several reasons. In the first place, we have a large number of such plays still in existence. I am prepared to show that between 1589 and 1607 there are still remaining at least a dozen of this personal character. Moreover, we must allow for the transient and ephemeral character PERSONAL SATIRE. 279 of such productions. Unless they were remarkable for the great ability displayed in them, or were particularly interesting from the nature of the persons attacked, they would be unlikely to survive a very few years. Consequently we have probably now in existence a much smaller proportion of such plays than of those of deeper ami more universal interest. Another reason for believing them abundant is the great anxiety shown by playwrights to defen4 themselves against the imputation that they ever attack anybody. Prologues, Addresses to the Reader, statements in the body of the dramas themselves, are continually pressed into the author's service to show that he is free from blame, whatever strange constructions Hydra-headed Eavy may put upon his work. Qui J excuse s* accuse. In every instance of an apology of this kind being prefixed to a play, I have found that careful examination shows that invidious accusations are made against some person or persons in the work itself. If then we can ascertain from these " Envy-plays " (I call them envy plays because Envy is invariably assigned in their Prologues, &c , as the cause of their production) a series of chronologically arranged facts determining the dates at which authors began or ceased to write for specific theatrical companies, we shall be able to settle many disputed points as to the dates of production of their works, to supply many gaps in their biographies, to throw additional light on their personal characters, to add in some respects to our knowledge of their manners and customs, and above all to ascertain more accurately than from Commendatory Verses or Dedications, the popular estimate that was formed of our greatest men by their contemporaries, and the amount of influence exercised by them. One little link in this chain I have endeavoured to supply in this chapter. Many more such links I am ready to weld on to it. The one chosen to be here put forth as sample is selected merely because it is the easiest to detach, and being connected with well- known other links in the Jonson quarrel, is one not difficult to recognise as like to them in structure and purpose. Wi'y Beguiled is not however, in subject matter, one of the most important of the Envy plays : which fact perhaps accounts for its allegory never having been suspected, in spite of its grossly personal character being manifest on the surface in its allusion to Jonson as " Hunks with the big head." CHAPTER XIII. ON THE ANNALS OF THE STAGE FROM 1584 TO 1595. [I WISH to specially acknowledge the great advantage that I have derived from Mr. R. Simpson's papers in writing this chapter. Although I differ from most of his conclusions, it is not too much to say that but for his previous work I should not have been able to make this investigation. F. G. F.] The theatrical companies known to have been regularly acting in London from 1584 to 1589 are I, The Lord Admiral's; 2, The Queen's ; 3, The Lord Strange's ; 4, The Children of the Chapel ; 5, The Children of Paul's. Neither of the Chamberlain's companies, that is, the Earl of Sussex's (1576-1582) and the later one of the same name, that is. Lord Hunsdon's (1594-1603), have been traced in the period we are at first concerned with (1584-1589). But in 1589 two companies, 6, The Earl of Sussex's ; 7, The Earl of Pembroke's, began to attract their .share of public attention. These dates are important in our inquiry. The writers of plays who are chiefly remarkable were I, George Peele, who began to write at least as early as 1584, and died in 1596-7; 2, Robert Greene, who died in 1592, and who, as I shall try to show, began to write about 1585 ; 3, Christopher Marlowe, whose active career began with Greene's, and lasted only one year longer ; 4, Thomas Nash, who came to London in 1589 ; 5, Thomas Lodge, who wrote with Greene about 1589; 6, Thomas Kyd, whose Jeronymo dates at latest 1588; 7, William Shakespeare. These dates are also important to us. ON THE ANNALS OF THE STAGE. 281 Having laid down then these data for reference, let us proceed at once to examine the plays of The London Prodigal and Fair Emm. In the latter of these plays two stories are combined. Firstly, William the Conqueror accompanied by the Marquis Lubeck, a Danish knight, visits Denmark under the name of Robert of Windsor, having appointed two co-regents to manage his kingdom during his absence. "His intention at hrst is to woo Blanche, the daughter of the Danish king ; but he falls in love with Mariana, a captive from Sweden, who is betrothed to Lubeck. He endeavours to carry her off ; but Blanche is substituted for her, masked and disguised, and he fails in his attempt to deprive the Marquis of his bride. Sweno's invasion of England (which is the only historical fact in the play) is attributed to his anger at the loss of his daughter. William in the last act suddenly, and without explanation, becomes "the Duke of Saxon." All this is admirably explained by Mr. Simpson. William the Conqueror is William Kempe the actor, who with a troop of comedians visited the Danish Court in 1586 ; (three of these, by the bye, were afterwards actors in Shakespeare's plays in the Chamberlain's company, namely, Kempe, Brian, and Pope !) Kempe and one other, left Denmark in the autumn ; but five of the company went to Saxony. The allegory is transparent enough ; it is certain that William here is not the historical Conqueror ; he is king over a troop of players, at first in England, afterwards in Saxony. But I cannot further than this agree with Mr. Simpson ; his interpretation of Fair Emm as the Manchester public seems to me peculiarly unhappy. Kempe was the head of the Queen's company, and in 1587, the year after he left England, we find J. Dutton and J. Lanham acting as managers of that company : surely these are the two regents left in authority by the conquering Gullielmo. They have nothing to do with Manchester, nor indeed with the public. Fair Emm is the company of the Queen's players, with whom, as we shall see, the poets are seeking connection. We must not look for exact consistency in an allegory of this kind. But before ex- plaining the second plot of the play, I would draw attention to the way in which this "marriage" of an author to a company or manager to his troop illustrates the allegory of the "marriage" of an author to his patron as exemplified in Shakespeare's Sonnets. Lubeck is pleading William's passion to Mariana. 282 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. "Afar. But Lubeck now regards not Mariana. , Lub. Even as my life, so love I Mariana. Mar. Why do you post me to another then? Lub. He is my friend, and I do love the man. Mar. Then will Duke William rob me of my love. Lub. No ; as his life Mariana he doth love. Mar. Speak for yourself, my lord ; let him alone. Lub. So do I. madam ; for he and I are one. Mar. Then loving you I do content you both. Lub. In loving him you shall content us both." Compare with this Shakespeare's 42nd Sonnet, which seems to give many critics so much difficulty 'to explain allegorically. " If I lose thee my loss is my love's gain ; And losing her my friend hath found that loss ; Both find each other, and I lose both twain ; And both for my sake lay on me this cross. But here's the joy : my friend and I are one. Sweet flattery: then she loves but me alone." Surely these two extracts will bear a similar interpretation. And nothing can be more certain than Mr. Simpson's explanation of the former of the two. We must now consider the second plot. In this Fair Emm is wooed by three suitors, Manville, Vallingford, and Mounteney ; by pretending blindness and deafness she hopes to drive away the two latter and be married to Manville her betrothed. Vallingford, how- ever, is not deceived, and on her hearing of Manville's falseness in carrying on a second flirtation with Elinor of Chester, ultimately wins Fair Emm. There is also a scene of coarse levity between her and Trotter, a serving-man, of whom more hereafter. Mr. Simpson has rightly stated that Manville is Greene ; but he is certainly wrong in identifying Vallingford with Shakespeare. Camden says that Wallingford is Gualt-hen, "The old rampire or fort." But an old fort is a Peel, and under this name that of George Peele is as cer- tainly indicated as it is under that of Pyeboard in The Puritan. The remaining suitor, Mounteney, is Marley or Marlowe. Fair Emm is some theatre with which these rival poets sought to be ON THE ANNALS OF THE STAGE. 283 connected during Kempe's absence. But the only theatrical com- pany that Greene ever was connected with, as far as we know, was the Queen's, for which he wrote Orlando, Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, and James the Fourth. These were all written before 1589. But in 1589 Kempe had returned to England and joined Lord Strange's company, with Pope, Brian, &c. In 1589 at latest, then, we must look for the dissolution of Greene's connection with 'the Queen's company, and the formation of a new engagement between it and George Peele. We shall see ultimately how exactly these dates coincide with what we know from other sources. But there is another play, The London Prodigal, which is un- doubtedly by the same hand as Fair Emm. It contains a line which occurs also in the latter play, " Pardon, dear father, my follies that are past," and is exactly of the same tone throughout in metre, style, and general handling. In it the allegory is still clearer. Flowerdale, Oliver, and Sir Arthur Greenshield are suitors for the hand of Luce Spur- cock ; Flowerdale obtains her by a trick ; Oliver, to whom she- had been betrothed, is discarded, as well as Sir Arthur whom she really prefers. Her sister Frances, who is determined to have a husband named Tom, marries Tom Civet ; her eldest sister Delia refuses all offers and remains unmarried. There is a scene between Daffodil and Luce exactly similar to, though still plainer than, that between Trotter and Emm in the former play. Flowerdale after his marriage with Luce ill-uses her, robs Delia, the eldest sister, and after a short career of debauchery is brought to express a repentance, evidently insincere, at the close of the play. In this case there is no difficulty in deciphering the personages. Flowerdale's life combines the facts of Greene's public acts in con- nection with the theatre, and of his private ones in forsaking his wife and living in open adultery with a common prostitute ; his trickery, his gambling, and his other vices arc unsparingly exposed. Oliver "the Devonshire man," is certainly George Peele, who came from that county. Under the odoriferous agnomen of Tom Civet we can easily recognise Tom Kyd. Daffodil clearly means Lyly, and thus identifies the Trotter of the other play. Luce is the Queen's com- pany; Delia, the eldest sister, is the Admiral's; and the foolish 284 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Frances that of the Chapel Children. These Children, by the bye, had been incorporated longer than the Admiral's company ; but this slight discrepancy is of no consequence in so loose an allegory, and may not even be a discrepancy at all ; as their existence may be dated by the author from the time of their having a fixed place for their performances. Sir Arthur Greenshield, " the military officer," is Marlowe, of whom Lieutenant- Colonel Cunningham says, "His familiarity with military terms and his fondness for using them are most remarkable ; and I make no doubt myself that he was trailing a pike or managing a charger with the English force a few months after that strange engine for the brunt of war, the fiery keel, had been hurled against Antwerp bridge." So much for the characters. The plot tells the story of a rivalship between Marlowe, Greene, and Peele for the office of poet to the Queen's theatre ; of Greene's success ; of his subsequent forsaking of his engagement and defraud- ing the Admiral's theatre [Defence of Cony -Catching, 1592 : " Master R. G., would it not make you blush if you sold Orlando Furioso to the Queen's players for 20 nobles, and when they were in the country sold the same play to Lord Admiral's men for as much more? Was not this plain cony-catching, M. G. ?"]. It tells also of Kyd's engagement with the Chapel Children, for whom he wrote Jeronymo ; of a half-serious proposition of Lyly to engage with the Queen's company ; of the determination of the Admiral's not to employ a regular poet at all, but to accept the best plays they could get from anyone. Another character in this play is easily identified, namely, Weathercock, that is, Thomas Lodge. He was an actor, a play-writer of tragedy and comedy, a writer of prose tracts, a student of Lincoln's Inn, a soldier (?) in the expeditions of Clarke and Cavendish ; a translator from Greek and Latin, a novelist, and finally, a physician. Rightly is he called Weathercock. He has, however, little to do with the plot. He is an early suitor of Delia's, but rejected by her ; he makes no proposal to any other lady in this play. Here, then, we have the account of Greene's original engagement with the Queen's company ; in Fair Emm that of his rupture and the engagement of George Peele in his stead. We now turn to Greene's prose works for further information. As dates are all-important in this part of our investigation, I must say a few words on their chronology, which has never yet been ON THE ANNALS OF THE STAGE. 285 entirely settled. From 1587 onwards Greene adopted the fashion of placing on his title-pages or elsewhere in his books a motto ; which motto having once discarded, he did not again make use of. Thus he prefixed successively in 15870. Ea habentur optima quae et jucunda honesta et utilia. 1587^-15890. Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci. 1589/5-15900. Omne tulit punctum. 1590^-15910. Sero sed serio. 1591^-15920. Nascimur pro patria. 1592^. Mallem non esse quam non prodesse patria. ,, Felicem fuisse infaustum. 1 Any apparent exception to this rule occurs only in books issued or reprinted after Greene's death. Let us see if from these prose writings we can fix the date of Fair Emm and the London Prodigal. The latter play referring to Flowerdale (Greene) has the line "If e'er his heart doth turn, 'tis ne^er too late" a distinct allusion to Greene's Never Too Late, published in 15900 (earlier part of the year 1590), with the motto Omne tulit punctum. Hence this play cannot be earlier than 1590^. Mr. Simpson has pointed out that in Greene's Farewell to Folly (1591/5, motto Sero sed serio) Fair Emm is railed at as containing "blasphemous rhetoric, abusing of Scripture," &c. Hence that play cannot be later than 15910. I have no doubt that the plays were produced at these dates respectively. Now we are able to settle very nearly the dates of Greene's plays ; hitherto a desideratum in dramatic history : James IV. is fixed in 1589^-15900 by its motto Omne tulit punctum ; Friar Bacon in 1 588^- 1 5890, by its motto Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci ; The Looking Glass for London has been assigned to 1589 by Mr. Simpson ; and the only two remaining plays extant, Orlando and Mr. S! posy. certainly does not use this motto till 1588, and Mr. Petherham has shown that the date of Menaphon is 1589, not 1587. 286 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Alphonsus, must have been, from their immaturity and metrical peculiarities, written before these : one other, The History of Job, is lost. Hence we get our table : Alphonsus . . Orlando . . Friar Bacon . James IV. . . Looking Glass 1535 1586 \ 1587-8 ( For the Queen's 1589 J Company. 1589-90 These dates are confirmed by the following facts: The London Prodigal, which was written in 1590, speaks of Greene's engagement ?.s having been broken, but yet open to renewal. Fair Emm fixes the date of the original engagement in 1586, the year of Kempe's visiting Denmark ; and that of George Peele's engagement as settled in 1591 early in the year. Greene never wrote for the Queen's players after 1589. Again, the play of Locrine, written by Charles Tilney in 1586 (he was executed in September 1586) with the help of George Peele, or edited and finished by Peele after Tilney's death, contains quotations from Orlando as well as from Alphonsus. Hence, as Bernhardt has shown, 1586 is the latest date for Orlando. The lines in Locrine coincident with those in Peele's Farewell to Sir John Norris, &c. (1589), only show that he repeated himself ; a common trick with him, as Dyce has proved in his notice of Alcazar. I now come to Greene's prose writings. 1 In 1587$, in his intro- ductory epistle to Penelope s Web, he complains that his "toys at the Theatre \& Rome (London) had been passed over with silence," and that "mislike was perhaps shrouded in such patience." In 1588, in his Introduction to Perimedes the Blacksmith, he writes : "I keep my old course still to palter up something in prose, using mine old posy still, Omne tulit punctum; although lately two gentlemen-poets made two madmen of Rome beat it out of their paper bucklers, and had it in derision for that I could not make my verses fit upon the stage in tragical buskins, every word filling the mouth like the fa-burden of Bow-bell, daring God out of heaven with that atheist 1 For several of these references I am indebted to Mr. Simpson, who however interprets them very differently. ON THE ANNALS OF THE STAGE. 287 Tamburlane, or blaspheming with the Mad Priest of the Sun. But let me rather openly pocket up the ass at Diogenes' hand than wantonly set out such impious instances of intolerable poetry. Such mad and scoffing poets that have poetical spirits as bred of Merlin's race, if there be any in England that set the end of scholarism in an English blank verse, I think either it is the humour of a novice that tickles them with self-love, or too much frequenting the hot- house (to use the German proverb) hath sweat out all the greatest part of their wits." The two gentlemen of Rome are the two authors of Locriiie, who derided Greene's mottos by prefixing a Latin motto in his style to each of the dumb- shows in that mock-heroic play presented by Ate at the beginning of each of its five acts ; the madmen of Rome are of course the actors who acted Phineus and Perseus in the combat in the second of these dumb-shows ; all of which are parodies of the similar performances as presented by Venus at the beginnings of the acts of Greene's Alphonsus. The allusion to Marlowe's Tamberlane (1585) our earliest play in good blank- verse, is palpable ; not so that to The Priest of the Sun. The only play known which contains such a character is The Looking Glass for London, and it occurs in the p art written by Greene him- self. This would incline one to place that play'earlier than Perimedes, were it not that Greene in other instances, as we shall see, was in the habit of firstly abusing other people's writings and then copying them ; a practice not altogether obsolete. The play he speaks of is probably lost. His last sentence alludes to Peele's well-known profligacy, which ultimately caused his death ; and to Marlowe's innovation in discarding rhyme, which he had himself so miserably failed to imitate in that most stilted and topsy-turvy-sentenced play Alphonsus of Arragon. He calls it the humour of a novice, because in his next play, James IV., he meant to recur to the use of rhyme ; as he accordingly did. After 1589 he wrote no plays. The Looking Glass was the play in which "young Juvenall (Lodge) lastly with him writ a comedy." This intention of abandoning the stage was probably caused by his being replaced by Peele in this year with the Queen's company, as we have seen above. It is distinctly announced in his Menaphon written in that year. And now, after this long but necessary introduction, we come to the notices of Shakespeare. I must just recapitulate the state of 288 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. stage matters in 1589. Greene had retired from the stage; so had Lyly (as shown by Malone in vol. ii. of the Variorum Shakespeare) ; Nash is just arriving in London ; Kempe has taken a post as manager for Lord Strange's players ; this company ( just attracting notice) and that of the Admiral's are prohibited from playing for a brief space, in consequence of the license they had indulged in ; Marlowe (as I shall prove) is in consequence leaving the Admiral's company to join that of Sussex or that of Pembroke ; Lodge goes abroad ; and what Shakespeare is doing I hope to show. A most eventful year for the drama ; probably the most important of any except 1585. In order to understand the relations of these poets to each other, it is necessary to bear in mind that the anti-Martinist writers were Greene, Nash, Lyly, and Kempe ; of these Nash and Kempe are, so to say, new-comers ; Greene and Lyly are quondam poets, but these four form a distinct clique of their own : there has not been a. more fertile error than that common classification of Greene, Peele, and Marlowe in one group, and Shakespeare in another ; their relative merit as poets has blinded critics as to their private relations. Neither Peele, Marlowe, nor Lodge belong to the same group as Greene ; they are all addressed by him as " quondam acquaintance " in the well-known passage of The Groatsworth of Wit (1592). Greene had quarrelled with Marlowe and Peele before 1589 ; perhaps also with Lodge, for the date of The Looking Glass may be earlier than that usually assigned to it ; and from this date we shall find that there is no friendship between him and Shakespeare. So far from Shake- speare's being on such terms with him as to write plays in conjunc- tion with him, we shall find distinct indications that this anti- Martinist set assumed also the most hostile attitude towards the band of friends which included Shakespeare, Marlowe, Peele, and Lodge. I have indicated some grounds for this opinion in my paper on Shakespeare's Sonnets. I now proceed to give others from Greene's writings. The key to the position lies in the old play of The Taming of a Shrew. No sound critic can read this play without seeing that the scenes corresponding to Act iv. Sc. I, 3, in the The Taming of the Shrew, are by the same author as the same parts of the later play. But Shakespeare undoubtedly wrote these later scenes. Hence he ON THE ANNALS OF THE STAGE. 289 wrote the earlier ones. The verse part of the early play is by Marlowe. It contains many lines taken after his custom (for he shared this habit with Peele, witness his using the celebrated line, "Make me immortal with a kiss" in two separate plays) from his other writings. It bears manifest marks of his work, but not his best work. It is hurried and careless. Now this play contains a line, " Icy hair that grows on Boreas' chin," which is distinctly alluded to in Greene's Menaphon (1589), which has "White as the hairs that grow on Father Boreas' chin," and cannot therefore be later than that year ; probably is not far in date from it. But in 1589 Marlowe was leaving the Admiral's company for the Earl of Pembroke's ; and The Taming of a Shrew belonged to the Earl of Pembroke's company. It could not then be written before 1589, while Marlowe belonged to the Admiral's. We have here then a fixed date at which Shakespeare was writing ; not an important play certainly ; only a few prose scenes of humorous comedy, composed to oblige a friend who could write the serious parts, but had not a particle of humour in him ; not important in itself, but very impor- tant to us as giving us the earliest specimen extant of our great poet's comic powers. But in the same year, 1589, and in another part of the same volume, we find an allusion to another play. In Nash's preface to Menaphon is an attack, too well known to quote, on those who leave the trade of novtrint to which they were born, and will afford you whole Hamltts or handfuls of tragical speeches. In the record of the performances at the Rose under Henslow these two plays, Hamlet and The Taming of a Shreiv, occur side by sidL-. Is it possible to avoid the inference that Shakespeare (in conjunction with Marlowe or alone) wrote this play also, from which the first Quarto of Hamlet, as we know it, was botched up with the help of pirated notes taken at the theatre by that arch- thief T. Pavier? Surely we have here the strongest presumptive evidence that Shake- speare wrote his first attempts at Tragedy as well as Comedy under the tuition of his friend and predecessor Marlowe. The further history of these plays confirms this suggestion. The plays that we know of as having belonged to the Earl of Pembroke's company are Titus Andronicus, 3 Henry VI. (The True Tragedy], TJie Taming of a Shrew, Edward //., and probably the early Hamlet. We know that all these became the property of the Chamberlain's Company, IQ 2yo SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. with the possible but improbable exception of Edward II. If, as is most likely, they all changed hands at the same time, the date of the change can be fixed. For at some time in 1600 The True Tragedy was in the possession of the Earl of Pembroke's men, being printed with their name on the title-page in that year. Had the Chamberlain's men acquired it their name would certainly have been inserted, as it was in the next edition. But at one time in the same year, 1600, Titus Andronicus was in their possession, and their name printed on the title-page, although on turning the leaf we find only the names of the players of Sussex, Pembroke, and Darby. The transfer took place then in 1600, and accordingly, if my metrical tests be true, in 1601 we find Shakespeare re-writing Hamlet and The Taming of a Shrew, as I stated in my papers of 1874, then knowing nothing of this external evidence. Again, the first fruit of Shakespeare's invention is expressly stated by him to have been his Venus and Adonis, which there is independent evidence for believing to have been written in 1588, and this evidence is confirmed by Greene's writing what he calls "Sonnets" on that subject in his Perimedes that same year in evident imitation of the metre and style of Shakespeare, after his usual fashion. Shakespeare having begun to write was not the man to give it up ; but the necessities of Fortune luckily drove him to writing for the stage ; and from the date of his writing for the stage, if not earlier, begins the enmity of Greene, who saw in him a dangerous rival with whom he dared not com- pete ; and of Nash, whose natural spite sought for a vent anywhere on anybody ; and of Lyly (our pleasant Willy dead of late), who felt that for his style of Comedy there was no chance of resurrection. The master had come ; the apprentice hands might give over working, only the makers possessed of genius akin to his own felt no jealousy, and worked in unison with him. Lodge, Peele, and Marlowe held by him to the last as great minds always do. It is only the plagiarist, the word-vendor, and the satirist, who carp at the creation which they have neither the power to parallel nor the wit to understand. To return to Greene's prose works. Mr. Simpson has collected the passages referring to players in several of his works. We shall understand them best by taking them in inverse chronological order. In The Groatsworth of Wit, 1592, Shakespeare (for there is no doubt of his being meant in the well-known passage in which he ON- THE ANNALS OF THE STAGE. 291 is called a Shake-scene) is described as "an upstart crow beautified with our feathers." Mr. Simpson has wrongly identified with Shake- scene the Roscius in Never Too Late, 1590, who is asked by Tully (Greene), " Art thou proud with ^sop's crow being prankt with the glory of other's feathers?" and rightly with one of "The upstart reformers of arts" in Nash's Introduction to Menaphon. These upstarts and Roscius again occur in The Groatsworth of Wit. Roscius is the author of The Mural of Man's Wit and The Dialogue of Dives ; acts in Delfrigus and The King of the Fairies ; and " for seven years has been absolute master of the puppets." The "bombasting of bragging blank verse" is also alluded to in Nash's introduction to Menaphon, where it clearly applies to Shakespeare (an "idiot art-master," or self-instructed gradeless student), and in The Groatsworth of Wit, where it also applies to him ; and in Perimedes, where it refers to the authors of Locrine. Mr. Simpson has also tried to show that the "vain -glorious tragedian" Roscius (Kempe), in Nash's introduction to Menaphon, is the same person as Doron (Lodge) 1 in the novel itself ; and consequently the same as Mullidor (Muiey d'or = Golde, Lodge's nom de plume] in Never l^oo Late (1590). The sum of these discoveries of Mr. Simpson's is that Shakespeare is distinctly introduced into various works o, Greene's, all dating from 1589 to 1592. He has, however, as far as I can see, quite failed to discover any allusion to him by Greene as a writer 2 anterior to Menaphon. And this is just what I should have expected. Up to 1589 Greene had his hands full in quarrelling with Marlowe and Peele ; it was not until Shakespeare began to write as well as act that he turned his attacks on the novus homo, and began to exclaim against uneducated upstarts and pilfering pirates. This was, no doubt, part of Nash's plan of the campaign, as was also the new tone assumed by both Greene and Nash towards Peele and Marlowe. Before Nash's appearance as an auxiliary, Greene attacked both these poets; afterwards "rare wits/' "atlas of poetry,'* "printus verborum artifex" are among the phrases applied to them by this ingenuous brace of satirists. Bearing in mind then that "mad actor" is probably a name for I Roscius is Kempe and Doron Lodge ; Mr. Simpson thinks they both mean Shakespeate. Note th ^t the plays acted by Roscuts are not tragedies but drohs.. * But Shakespeare may be one of the '' madmen " actors in P crime., cs. 292 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. \ju. f Shakespeare, let us see if can find in this series of romances any traces of historical fact concerning him and his fellows, Kempe and Burbage. One fact is patent; the player who had been seven years the interpre- ter of the puppets in Never Too Late is certainly meant for Kempe ; but date Greene's introduction to him when you will, he could not have been seven years previously to that in London ; in fact, seven years is the extreme time we can give Greene between his leaving his living (in 1585 at the earliest, the date of residing on it being 1584) and his writing this treatise in 1592. And there can be little doubt that this period of time is so to be interpreted ; it is frequent in old plays and novels also, thus to confuse the real writer with his fictitious hero, and real events with the imaginary ones of the poem. I believe then that this passage fixes the date of Greene's arrival in London in 1585. I do not think we are to look for any works of Shakespeare's as indicated by the list, Delfrigus, King of Fairies, Moral of Man 'j Wit, and Dialogue of Dives (Devil and Dives}. These are rather to be sought for in Greene's own works. The player is accused by him, as I interpret the passage, of endeavouring to purloin other men's writings. 1 At any rate The King of Fairies occurs in Greene's James IV. , and the dialogue of the Devil and Dives is likely to be the scene where the evil angel tempts the usurer in The Looking- Glass for London. But on the other hand I hazard a conjecture that since the hatred of the actors, which Greene so often shows, is focussed and intensified in his hatred of Shakespeare, so that we can hardly separate the two in his later writings, we may believe it not unlikely that one of the " paper bucklerd mad- men," who raised his wrath in acting Locrine, was Shakespeare himself. And this is the more likely seeing that in Fair Emm and The London Prodigal, one of which was certainly written for Lord Strange's men and the other probably, some part would almost inevitably be assigned to Shakespeare. It may be interesting to the reader to see the kind of verse that this malignant writer puts in the mouth of the characters under whose names he hides his representations of a friend of the world's great poet, Lodge. In his Menaphon there is an eclogue called " Doron's joined with Carmela's," part of which is here subjoined. 1 Lord Strange's Company seem to have acted plays belonging to the Queen's men, as well as others belonging to the Admiral, in 1592. ON THE ANNALS OF THE STAGE. 293 DORON. *' Sit down, Carmela ; here are cobs for kings ; Sloes black as jet, or like my Christmas shoes ; Sweet cider which my leathern bottle brings ; Sit down, Carmela ; let me kiss thy toes." CARMELA. *' Ah, Doron, ah, my heart ; thou art as white As is my mother's calf or brinded cow. Thine eyes are like the slow-worms in the night ; Thine hairs resemble thickets of the snow. The lines within thy face are deep and clear, Like to the furrows of my father's wain ; The sweat upon thy face doth oft appear Like to my mother's fat and kitchen gain. Ah, leave my toe and kiss my lips, my love," &c., &c. This is about a quarter of the eclogue, of which the reader probably desires no more. There are other specimens of Doron's verse ; for instance, his jig: 4 * Through the shrubs as I can crack For my lambs, little ones, 'Mongst many pretty ones, Nymphs, I mean, whose hair was black As the crow ; Like the snow Her face and brows shined I ween ; I saw a little one, A bonny pretty one, As bright, as buxom, and as sheen As was she On her knee That lulled the god," &c., &c. I cannot help here digressing to observe that in Midsummer Night 's Dream, Act v. Sc. I, the true reading of " These lily lips, This cherry nose, These yellow cowslip cheeks," c. 294 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. can be recovered from this passage ; for lips undoubtedly read brows. I believe that this play in several places alludes to Greene and his writings ; in fact, Oberon The King of the Fairits seems to be taken from Greene's James IV. Doron's only other poetical production is his Description of Samela ; a short sample will suffice ; " Like to Diana in her summer weed Girt with a crimson robe of brightest dye Goes fair Samela. Whiter than be the flocks that straggling feed, When washt by Arethusa faint they lie, Is fair Samela. As fair Aurora in her morning grey, Deckt with the ruddy glister of her love Is fair Samela. Like lovely Thetis in a calmed day, Whereas her brightness Neptune's fancy move Shines fair Samela," &c., &c. Such was the poetry of Lodge according to Greene. S, Walker and Dyce, if one may judge by their emendations, have taken these rhymes as seriously meant for good writing. But that they are in tended for burlesque will be evident if we compare them with Greene's other verses in the same work ; for instance, with Sephesticfs exquisite song, of which I subjoin one verse :- " Weep not, my wanton ! smile upon my knee ; When thou art old, there's grief enough for thee, Mother's wag, pretty boy, Father's sorrow, father's joy, When thy father first did see Such a boy by him and me, He was glad, I was woe ; Fortune changed made him so ; When he left his pretty boy, Last his sorrow, first his joy." ON THE ANNALS OF THE STAGE. 295 If we refer to Greene's Never Too Late, the burlesque is still more palpable ; here is Mullidor's Madrigal : " Dildido, dildido, O love, O love, I feel thy rage rumble below and above. In summer time I saw a face, Trop belle pour moi, Mas, Mas I Like to a stoned horse was her pace, Trop belle pour moi ; voila mon trcpas. Was ever * young man so dismay'd ? Her eyes like wax torches did make me afraid. Thy beauty, my love, exceedeth supposes ; Thy hair is a nettle for the nicest roses. Mon Dieu, aide moi! That I with the primrose of my fresh wit May tumble her tyranny under my feet. He done, je serai un jcune roi." This is enough, I think, to show the animus of the writer. From the unpleasing contemplation of such a captious and perverse ill- feeling, let us turn to the more genial task of examining what Marlowe and Peele were doing during these years. Marlowe, we know, wrote the following works, and almost certainly in the order that has been universally assigned to them, which agrees exactly with that determined by metrical tests. Probable Certain Dates. Dates. 1585. I. Tamberlane, part i before 1587. 1586. 2. Tamberlane, part ii before 1587. 1587. 3. Faustus. 1588. 4. Jew of Malta. 1589. 5. Massacre of Paris (1589^). 1592. 9. Edward II (1592-3). r 593- IO - Dido (left unfinished) ( J 593)- In addition to these it is highly probable that he wrote 1589. 6. Taming of a Shrew (with Shakespeare). I 59- 7- Andronicus about 1590. 1591. 8. Henry VI. (with Peele) before 1592. 1 i.e. yeoman. 295 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. If we suppose that he wrote one play a year the chronology of his works will exactly correspond with that we have assigned to Greene's ; beginning with Tamberlane in 1585, and ending with Dido in the order of the prefixed figures. The wretched condition of the text of The Massacre of Paris will also be now explicable. For as I have stated above, the company for which Marlowe wrote his first plays was the Admiral's ; for it he wrote all the first five in the above list (with the possible, not probable, exception of The Jeiv of Malta] ; but 77?^ Massacre of Paris, which was certainly the last play he wrote before joining the companies of Sussex and Pembroke, must have been produced after the death of Henri III. (August 1589), since this incident forms part of the plot, and it is most probable from the nature of the play that it was produced almost directly after this event ; but the Admiral's company was under prohibition in 1 589.* This play if interrupted by the prohibi- tion would remain incomplete (it has but three acts), and after Marlowe had broken with that company he would not care to complete it. As, however, we have here not to discuss Marlowe's works, but only to show that the chronology we assign to his plays is consistent with that we have given to Greene's we pass on to Peele. Peele in 1584 produced his Arraignment of Paris for the children of the Queen's chapel. In subsequent years he wrote various plays for some company not mentioned, which I suspect to have been Lord Strange's, as no other poet is mentioned in connexion with those players, and each of the other companies then playing in London had its own poet attached to it. In 1586 he perhaps aided C. Tylney in Locrine, but more likely in 1587 he edited and finished that play which ridiculed Greene's early works. In 1588-9 or there- abouts he probably wrote Alcazar for the Admiral's company ; in 1590, after Greene's retirement, as we have seen reason to believe above, he was engaged by the Queen's company, and wrote for them The Old WivtJ Tale, and probably The 'Troublesome Reign of King John in the following year. After this his share in plays assigned to Shakespeare (Ricko-rd III., Romeo and Juliet, Henry VI.) has been discussed by me elsewhere. He may also have written part of Edward III. ; certainly not Sir Clyamon and Sir Clamydes, nor the older Leir, both of which have been inconsiderately assigned 1 Note that 1589 ends at Easter 1590. . ON THE ANNALS OF THE STAGE. 297 to him. We have no difficulty then in adjusting the chronology of his works as well as Marlowe's to our general scheme. 77?.^ Old Wives Tale is the play that has for us in the present subject the greatest interest. In Greene's James IV., the King of the Fairies, who acts as presenter along with Bohan, a Scot, has called up for his amusement two boys of Bohan's, who dance jigs for him, &c. In the play itself, which is supposed to be enacted for Oberon's delectation, these boys are actual Dramatis Persona, and one of them has to be rescued from hanging by the intervention in the play of Oberon, for whom the play is being performed. This gross confusion is ridiculed by Peele in his fairy tale, where he shows Greene how a folkstory ought to be told, and how such a confusion can be legitimately introduced. His old woman begins to tell the tale, and while she is telling it, the personages of the narration come in and continue the story exactly as we often experience in. dreams when we cannot distinguish between the book we are read- ing and the vision we are seeing. Peele's drama is a real Midsummer Night's Dream. His intention in this exquisite production to ridicule Greene is unmistakable. All things then cohere and agree witn our main theory as to Shakespeare's life during this period (1585-1594). I have diligently examined every source of information within my reach and have concealed nothing. As, however, in so large a mass of detail it has been impossible for me to avoid some confusion in exposition from having to mingle arguments and facts, I will here sum up in a concise narrative the theatrical history of these ten years ; in this narrative it must be understood that hypothesis and proven fact are mingled ; the grounds of the hypothetical part being given above. In all other portions of the chapter theoretical statements are care- fully distinguished from authorized history, however strong the evidence may be in their favour. We come then to THE STORY OF THE STAGE (1585-1594). In the year 1585 William Shakespeare, pressed by the needs of fortune and an increasing family, attained his majority. Under the patronage of some great man, probably, who was passionately at- tached to the stage, as were at that time many noblemen, some of whom even acted as amateurs gratuitously in theatrical pieces, he 298 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. came to London in 1585-6 and joined the company of Ferdinando Lord Strange. At this time John Lyly was well known as a writer of comedies, courtly in style, patronized by the Queen, but introducing in his dramas many political and personal allusions, which had at least once got him into trouble. George Peele was also well known by his Pastoral of The Arraignment of Paris, which was in like manner distinguished by palpable personalities. Both these writers had been employed by boys' companies ; the latter by the Children of the Chapel, the former by the Children of Paul's as well. But in this year appeared a drama which was the first of a series which were to replace the old comedies in prose or doggrel, and the old pastorals in rhyme. Marlowe then produced his Tawberlane, the first English tragedy worthy of the name. In it he modulated blank-verse, not in the stiff formal manner of Surrey's Virgil, or Sackville and Norton's Ferrex and Per rex, but in a comparatively free and flowing rhythm such as the necessities of stage-dialogue require. In the Prologue to this play he says : " From jigging veins of rhyming mother wits, And such conceits as clownage keeps in pay We'll lead you to the stately tent of war." This new vein was successfully struck, miner after miner tried it, there was a rush to the gold diggings. The first arrival was Robert Greene, who wrote his Alphonsus of Aragon in direct rivalry with Tambtrlane t for Lord Strange's (?) company ; it was a dead failure. Not so the second part of Tamberlane, written in 1586, like the first by Marlowe for the Admiral's company. In this year W. Kempe, one of "the jigging vein," left England for Denmark, leaving the Queen's company under the management of Button and Lanham. They naturally sought for a play-writer who would supply them with tragedies of the new kind. Greene and Peele both offered for the office, and Greene was chosen, and wrote his Orlando Furioso. Peele, who was known for the older kind of drama, the Pastoral, and who had also written a Scriptural play, David and Bathsheba^ perhaps even an historical one, Edward I., was rejected, and joined Lord Strange's (?) company. In 1587 Marlowe wrote his masterpiece, Doctor Faustus ; Greene ridiculed the conjuror in his best play, Friar Bacon ; Peele, on the ON THE ANNALS OF THE STAGE. 299 other hand, in conjunction with Charles Tilney, had elaborated in 1586, his mock-heroic travesty of Locrine in ridicule of Greene's tragedies of the two preceding seasons. In this play Shakespeare, or some other actors of the same company with him, acted ; and excited Greene's wrath by the way in which his mottos, or Latin posies, his "presenters," &c. were held up to public derision. Kyd mean- \vhile was emulating Marlowe in his Jeronimo, and Lyly was going on his old road unmoved as yet by the new theatrical heresies. But in 1588, while Marlowe was initiating a new kind of comedy in his yew of Malta, the precursor of the Merchant of Venice of eight years after, Greene's indignation burst out. He saw that he could neither rival nor ridicule successfully Marlowe's tragic or comic power ; he determined to employ prose satire as his vehicle. In his Perimedes he attacked the actors in and writers of Locrine, and introduced the personal characters of Peele and Marlowe into his attack, accusing one of debauchery, the other of blasphemy. At the same time finding his failure as Marlowe's competitor to be complete, he attempted competition with Peele in a historical piece, James IV. Peele was not so easily to be outdone ; he firstly took his revenge on Greene's old tragedies by another mock heroic (entirely his own this time), The Battle of Alcazar, which he wrote anonymously for the Admiral's men ; and in the following year, 1589, ridiculed James IV., as we have seen already. In 1589^ Marlowe began his Massacre of Paris for the Admiral's company, but did not finish it ; that company as well as Lord Strange's being closed by authority for the licenses they had used in taxing public characters. That they had taken great liberties is manifest from what we have seen as to the plays Locrine and Alcazar. The latter play had ridiculed Kyd as well as Greene. In consequence of this Shakespeare and Marlowe, thrown for a while out of employment, wrote in conjunction Hamlet and The Taming of a Shrew for the Earl of Pembroke's company. Greene, who had called Thomas Lodge to his aid, wrote in 1588-9 The Looking- Glass for London, and still finding his dramatic success unsatisfactory, determined to leave the stage altogether and betake himself to Prose Romance, in which he was supreme. Lyly followed suit, and along with Nash, who had just come to London, formed a band of satirical pamphleteers, who were from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century 300 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. unsurpassed for abusive sarcasm and shameless impudence. Greene was further incited to this course by the preference given to Peele in this year by the Queen's Company, for whom he wrote The Old Wives' Tale, a delicate, carefully- chiselled satire on his James IV. Shake- speare up to his time had been unknown as a dramatic author; he was known as a poet probably among his friends, for he had written his Venus and Adonis in 1588. He published nothing till 1593 . He was as far as the stage is concerned looked on merely as an actor. But now comes a great change. His career begins, and al- though he did not originate any one kind of dramatic composition, it soon became evident that he would be a formidable rival in all. In 1590 Marlowe wrote Titus Andronicus for the Earl of Sussex's men ; Shakespeare for Lord Strange's probably a play (now lost) on the same subject, and Peele The Troublesome Reign of King John for the Queen's. But Lord Strange's men, in spite of their late prohibition, are producing the two plays in which Greene's competi- tions with Peele for the favour of the Queen's company are delineated, namely, Fair Emm and The London Prodigal. Here personal satire on the stage reaches its climax. Greene is attacked, as he richly deserved, in his personal character as well as through his published writings ; his aspersions on Marlowe and Peele are doubly redoubled on himself. His title to his recent prose work, " Never Too Late," is thrown back at him with a "Physician, heal thyself" kind of de- nunciation. Greene, in a passion, next year complains of Fair Emm in his Farewell to Folly, vilifies its author, and of all charges for Greene the profligate ex-parson to make, says it contains abusing of Scripture. He is as scurrilous against him though not as clever as his coadjutor Nash had shown himself in his preface to Menaphon (1599) in his abuse of Shakespeare. Greene also has attacked Lodge as a rustic, half-educated, strutting tragedian, under the characters of Mullidor in Never Too Late (1590), and Doron in Menaphon (1589). Nash has accused Shakespeare of being a runaway lawyer, a shifting companion, a would-be tragedian, a botcher of blank verse, a taffaty fool decked with poet's feathers, and all the terms of vituperation which could be found in an age, when that art had only been partially cultivated. Meanwhile Shakespeare was quietly doing his work, making money and gaining respect from every one by taking no part in all this controversy. ON THE ANNALS OF THE STAGE. 301 In 1591 set in a rage for historical plays; Marlowe and Peele united their forces to produce The Contention of York and Lancaster and The True Tragedy of the Duke of York, for the Earl of Pem- broke's company ; in 1593 Shakespeare and Lodge (?) wrote Edward [II.; in the same year Marlowe's Edward II. was acted ; in 1594 Peele began Richard II 7 \, afterwards finished and elaborated by Shakespeare ; some years before this I Henry VI. was written by Marlowe and Lodge, and during the same period (1590-1594) the old play of Z#>and The True Tragedy of Richard III. were written by unknown writers for the Queen's players. But Greene did not allow this new turn of public favour to grow up unassailed. In his Groatsworth of Wit (i 592) he endeavomed to detach the men he had so bitterly inveighed against from the novus homo, whom he hated still more. With the insincerity usually to be found in men of unbridled tongue and unrestrained passions, he put himself forward as their quondam acquaintance, and on the ground of old friendship endeavoured to injure their new and real friend in their estimation : and failed. The details are familiar and need no repetition. Notice, however, how in this work the motive of his jealousy shows up. It is the fact that the player's "properties" are worth 2OO/. that excites the wrath of this graceless spendthrift ; it was the vain hope to do likewise that took him from his former sphere to play-writing. Hence the abuse of Shakespeare for leaving his previous profession. The old, old story. And this is the last we have to do with Robert Greene. He died the same year ; he had sought to separate friends, and no friend stayed by him ; no one by him but the poor outcast he had consorted with and her husband, who saved him from starv- ing in the street. Next year died Marlowe in a brawl ; his un- finished play Dido was completed by Nash for the Chapel Children in 1594. Three years after died Peele, diseased and unreformed. Shakespeare, the only one of these great rivals (for they were great), then only was beginning to show his strength. They had all pre- ceded him in order of development ; all to the outward view had excelled him ; but the forest oak had withstood the frost, outbraved the lightning, and survived the canker that had killed the more symmetrical rapidly developed tropical palms ; he and he only attained to the fulfilment of his natural powers. Not that he was idle, however, during these years between 1590 302 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. and 1596 j 1 he had written Lovers Labours Won (?), Lovers Labour's Lost (afterwards enlarged in 1597)) Midsummer Night's Dream (probably also enlarged afterwards), The Comedy of Errors, and Richard II. Besides this he had re-written The Two Gentlemen of Verona and King John, and finished, corrected, and partly re-written Richard III. and Romeo and Juliet. Of these early works of Shakespeare nothing is so noticeable here as this . During the time his friends were alive he wrote in his own way ; he ignored Marlowe's system of rejecting rhyme, and Peele's mixture of comedy in his- torical plays. But when he can no longer be a rival to them, when they have left the scene of competition and he can no longer hart them even in supposition by adopting their methods, he drops his rhymes, his doggrel, his purely tragical histories unmixed with prose, and writes his Merchant of Venice to rival The Jew of Ma* fa ; and his Henry IV. to rival Edward I. From this time to the end of his career he uses the plots of his predecessors, their prose stories, their characters, their metre, but he fuses all that he takes from them into such a homogeneous mass that the alloy is transmuted into the truest virgin gold. No such alchemist as Shakespeare is known in the annals of any literature. Such is a sketch of the history of these missing portions of the annals of the stage as far as we can at present make out. No doubt some details are erroneously stated, some sequences wrongly inferred. But the advantage to a student of a working hypo hesis is very great. It gives definiteness to the grouping of a mass of details otherwise indistinguishable ; it forms a basis for future research ; it relieves the monotony of what would otherwise be a sandy expanse of life- less desert. And the hypothesis here presented has this advantage : that it is not based on or limited by the facts that we know concern- ing Shakespeare himself. Every detail known of his dramatic contemporaries has been ransacked ; none have been knowingly neglected ; arid thus for the first time a consistent narrative (if not exactly true in every minutia) has been evolved. 1 In 1594 Lord Strange' s men were incorporated with the Chamberlain's, to which company Shakespeare henceforth belongs. CHAPTER XIV. ON "EDWARD THE THIRD." THIS phy con-ists of two parts one, which forms the main bulk of the play, relates to the foreign wats of King Edward; the other, which consists of two scenes and part of a third, contains a narrative of an attempted seduction of the Countess of Salisbury by the same monarch. These parts are distinctly different in general style and poetic power ; so much so, that none but the dullest of prosaic readers could fail to note the differences ; they are also clearly separated by metrical characteristics of the most pronounced kind. They are equally distinguished by the use or disuse of special words ; and the personages common to the two portions of the play for example, the Black Prince have different characters in those por- tions, and are unequally developed. In my opinion, the episode is by Shakespeare ; the main part of the play not. I will first con- sider the episode. From the entrance of the king in Act i. Sc. 2 to the end of Act ii. Sc. 2, this play is not taken from the chronicles of Holinshed, but from Painter's Palace of Pleasure. This is the part from which Mr. Collier has happened to select all his quotations given in the Athencenm to prove that the drama is Shakespeare's from end to end ; that it is no doubtful play ; that the three last acts are all conducted with true Shakespearian energy and vigour. To give the reader a fair chance of judging on this point, I give passages from both parts of the play. " Edw. When she would talk of peace, methinks her tongue Commanded war to prison ; when of war, 304 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. It waken'd Caesar from his Roman grave To hear war beautified by her discourse. Wisdom is foolishness but in her tongue ; Beauty a slander but in her fair face : There is no summer but in her cheerful looks, No frosty winter, but in her disdain." Act ii. Sc. i. (Quoted by MR. COLLIER.) '* John. At sea we are as puissant as the force Of Agamemnon in the haven of Troy : By land with Xerxes we compare of strength, Whose soldiers drank up rivers in their thirst : Then, Bayard-like, blind overweening Ned, To reach at our imperial diadem, Is either to be swallow'd of the waves, Or hackt apieces when thou com'st ashore." Act iii. Sc. i. (Not SHAKESPEARE'S.) " Count. For where the golden ore doth buried lye, The ground undeckt with nature's tapestry, Seems barren, sere, unfertile, fruitless, dry, And where the upper turf of earth doth boast His pied perfumes and party-coloured cost, Delve there, and find this issue and their pride To spring from ordure and corruption's side. " Act i. Sc. 2. (SHAKESPEARE'S.) " Cit. The sun, dread lords, that in the western fall, Beholds us now low brought through misery, Did in the orient purple of the morn Salute our coming forth, when we were known ; Or may our portion be with damned fiends." Act v. Sc. i. (Not SHAKESPEARE'S.) I might fill pages with passages like these, but these, I think, are enough ; the difference is felt at once. The second and fourth are totally unlike Shakespeare ; the first and third are just what he might have written between Richard II. and John. In the episode we also find expressions such as hugy, vasture, muster- men, via, ON EDWARD THE THIRD. 305 encouch, which are either of frequent occurrence in Shakespeare, or have the true ring of his coinage in them. We find, moreover, two new characters introduced (Derby and Audley), who appear indeed in the after parts of the play, but developed after a totally different fashion from the masterly sketch of their first appearance ; and above all, we find one character, Lodowick, the king's poet-secretary, introduced in the episode only, who in a play entirely from Shakespeare's hand would certainly not have dropped out of sight so early, but have been utilised to the very end. The delicious pedantry of the man, whose attempt at verse consists of the two lines, " More fair and chaste than is the queen of shades, More bold in constancy than Judith was ; " who talks in inversions : " Of what condition or estate she is, 'Twere requisite that I should know, my Lord ; " who tells the king, when inquiring for the above poem, " I have not to a period brought her praise," is worthy, if not of the author of Polonius' advice to his son, at least of the author of the scene of Pandarus' love-song. But it will be objected, Why do you give us these vague unscientific statements? Where be your rhyme-tests and double endings? Where your un- Shakespearian words that can be counted and tabulated ? They are all at hand, good reader. Here they are. In the episode, the proportion of rhyme-lines to verse-lines is one to seven ; in the other parts of the play, one to twenty ; in the episode, the proportion of lines with double endings to verse-lines is one to ten ; in the rest of the play it is one to twenty-five. These differences are far too great to allow the play to have been all written by one author at one period ; and if the play be Shakespeare's work throughout, it would be necessary to suppose that the worst part of the play was written in his later time, with Lear and Othdlo ; or, if I may not be allowed to presume so far on the results of my appli- cations of metrical tests (though to the development of Shakespeare's work they are, I am certain, our surest guide), then I appeal to a different kind of evidence altogether. 20 306 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL, In the main part of this play there are many words used that never occur in undoubted Shakespearian plays, however often certain of them may be found in Marlowe and other early dramatists. For instance, bonny, which occurs in I Henry VI. and 3 Henry VI. , but is unknown in Shakespeare, occurs in Act i. Sc. 2 three times, and bonnier in Act iii. Sc. I. So the strange verb to patronage occurs in Act iii. Sc. 3, and in I Henry VI., never in Shakespeare ; horizon (Act v. Sc. l), Ave Caesar (Act i. Sc. l), whinyard (Act i. Sc. 20) t Bayard (Act iii. Sc. i), Nemesis (Act iii. Sc. i), martialist (Act iii. Sc. 3), plate, in the Spanish sense of silver (Act i. Sc. 2, Act iv. Sc. 4), solitariness (Act iii. Sc. 2), quadrant (Act v. Sc. i), ure (Act i. Sc. i), are all words unknown to Shakespeare's vocabu- lary. Battle- ray occurs in Act iii. Sc. 3, and Act iv. Sc. 3 ; Shakespeare does not even admit the common form 'ray for array, while 'rayed is found in the part of The Taming of the Shrew not Shakespeare's. Burgonet, another word in this play, occurs only once in Shakespeare in a very late play, Antony and Cleopatra, while it is found in 2 Henry VI. three times. So the anomalous word expulsed, which we find in 2 Henry VI., but not in Shake- speare, will be seen in Act iii. Sc. 2 of this play of Edward III. ; and in Act v. Sc. I the unusual verb to quittance, as in I Henry VI., but not in Shakespeare. Cataline in The True Tragedy of the Duke of York has been replaced by Machiavel in 3 Henry VI. , but remains undethroned in Act iii. Sc. I of our play. But I must not enlarge on this ; I must return to our play. I recommend anyone who has been deluded by Capell, or his German copiers, or his English reproducers at third hand, into the belief that this work is all Shakespeare's, to read from the entrance of the King in Act i. Sc. 2, to the end of Act ii. by itself, and judge if that part be Shakespeare's, as I say it is ; then to stop awhile, and read all the rest of the play by itself, noting the monotonous thud of the antique stop-line and the un- Shakespearian words I have given above, and judge if any part of that be Shakespeare's. If he say yes, he is not one I should care to argue the point with, for to such a one even the scientific metrical test would be of no avail for his enlightenment. He might even agree with Mr. Collier in say- ing, " I might quote the whole quarto, for it is all /iis." CHAPTER XV. EXTRACTS REPRINTED FROM THE " ATHEN^UM." To the first of the subjoined letters on Action I have only to add that Marcus Antoninus uses atrLov in the sense in which the Elizabethans used iSea, namely, that of " form without matter; exemplar." The other letter requires no comment Is AETTON SHAKESPEARE? The passage in Spenser's Colin Cloufs Come Home Again, 4 ' And there though last not least is Action ; A gentler shepherd may nowhere be found : Whose Muse like his high thought's invention Doth like himself heroically sound," was supposed to allude to Shakespeare by Malone, on the grounds, I, that Shakespeare was called gentle; 2, that his Muse was full of high thought's invention ; 3, that the name Shake-spear sounds heroically. Mr. Hales has added a fourth argument. * ' The name was adopted for its own intrinsic significance, as Spenser interpreted it. He has in his mind the Greek derus ; and, seeing in the rising Shakespeare a poet whose imagination was to soar aloft, he styled him The Eaglet" To this another argument may be added: the Falcon in Shakespeare's arms might be alluded to as the Eaglet, for eagles were ranked as a species of the genus Falcon or Hawk in Shakespeare's time. Thus, in the translation of Forney's Universe in Epitome, by A. Lovell, we find Eagle, Falcon, and Marlin grouped together under the head of Birds for Hawking ; and in Ryder's 308 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. Latin Dictionary, Eagle, Falcon, and Merlin expressly called Hawks; and under Falco, Hawk and Falcon are given as synonymous. On the other hand, Todd, and, after him, Mr. Minto, have asserted that Action is Drayton. In support of his claim it has been urged that Drayton's assumed poetical name, Rowland, sounds more heroically than Shakespeare, and that Lodge, in 1596, a year after Colin Clout was published, mentions Drayton but not Shakespeare, which would be strange if Spenser had already mentioned Shakespeare but not Drayton : to this I add, that in Drayton's Sonnets, published in 1594, he calls one an allusion to the Eaglet: it begins "When like an eaglet I first found my love." As these pastoral names were often taken from the writings of the poet alluded to, Action may easily have originated from this sonnet. Again, there is no reason why, in I595> Drayton should not have written and circulated in MS. one or more of England 1 s Heroicall Epistles, published in 1598, which would account for his "heroically sounding Muse." But all this depends on the assumption that Colin Clout was written in 1594-5. If, as Prof. Morley thinks (and I agree with him), the main part of it was \vritten in 1591, and this verse was part of that early portion, then we have a third claimant, Marlow ; for his name was written Marlen or Marlin oftener than Marlow ; he is called Marlin in Beard's Theatre of God's Judg- ments (1597) ; he was entered at college under this same name in 1580 ; he took his degree as Marly n in 1583 ; and is mentioned as Marlyn as late as Latham's Falconry (1618). By the way, the mention of this book reminds me that Lady Juliana Berners expressly calls the Eagle a kind of Hawk. Now that Marlyn and Eaglet were considered as synonymous, there is proof in an allusion in Petow's Hero and Leander (a continuation of Marlow's). He says of Marlow : " Oh had that king of poets breathed longer, Then had fair beauty's forts been much more stronger ; His golden pen had closed her so about No bastard eaglet 's quill the world throughout Had been of force to mar what he had made." EXTRACTS FROM THE " A TffENJEUM." 309 Here Marly n the true eaglet is distinctly contrasted with the false one ; so that whether Action is Maiiow or not, Marlin is certainly an eaglet. That he was a "gentle shepherd" is shown in the quo- tation by Dycefrom the New Metamorphosis, by J. M. (1660), where he is called "kind Kit Mario w." That Marlin recalling the great Arthurian enchanter "sounds heroically" is clear enough, and we know how his verse was estimated as far as his plays are concerned by the allusions to his "sounding lines." It may be said that Spenser must have cut out this notice on publishing in 1595, because Marlow was dead : but we do not always do all we ought ; and Spenser may have remembered to alter his verses on Ferdinand Lord Derby, the poet's patron, and forgotten to do so for the humbler Marlow. I have, I think, fairly stated above the views that can be held on Mr. Hales's hypothesis, that Action means eaglet, and shown that it does not follow that Action must mean Shakespeare. I am bound now to give my own view. I believe that Action is not derived from de-ros, but from atrtos, as Malone suggested in a note. For the line, " And then, though last, not least is Action," requires us to read ^Etion in three syllables, and not Action in four. I know some scansionists may deny this ; but no poet will. And again, who has ever seen the word Action anywhere else in English literature? Is the obscure Greek painter mentioned in English except in classical dictionaries? Or has any author used it for "eaglet"? ^Etion, on the other hand, was so common a word in Elizabethan Latin, that it is given in the Latin dictionaries for schoolboys. In Ryder's Dictionary, I find 'VEtion atnov et setia setiorum, causa principium et origo an originall, beginning, or cause!' It is much more likely, then, that Malone's derivation is right, than that the ingenious conjecture made by Mr. Hales, is. But what can ^Etion mean as a poet's name? Is any work of Shakespeare or Drayton called atnov ? I think there is. Drayton's pastoral name for his mistress is Idea, iSe'a ; Idea est eorum qua natura fiunt exemplar czternum. So Drayton calls his mistress the example or pattern from whom all other women derive their excellence by par- ticipating in hers. As Cooper's Thesaurus has it, under Idea, " Pattern of all other sort or kind, as of one seal proceedeth many 310 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. prints." But Drayton was not content with a mere allusion. Of the three works he had published before 1595, one was called Idea, and another Idea's Mirrour. What, then, more natural than to indicate Drayton by ^Etion, the synonym for Idea? I conclude that the interpretation of Todd and the derivation of Malone are the correct ones, and that the only point they did not see was that ^Etion meant "The original, the exemplar, the first, though here the last men- tioned ; the formal cause." So Giles Fletcher uses Idea in Christ 'j Victory and Triumph, st. xxxix. " In midst of this city celestial, Where the eternal temple should have rose, Light'ned th' Idea beatifical, End and beginning of each thing that grows" Carew uses the word "cause" just in the same way : " Ask me no more where Jove bestows, When June is past, the fading rose, For in your beauty's orient deep These flowers, as in their causes 9 sleep." If anyone objects to my supposition that the Heroic all Epistles were in circulation as early as 1595, I would refer him to Drayton's Address to the Reader. "Seeing these Epistles are now to the world made public," &c., which distinctly implies that they had been written, and were known to have been written for some time ; and again, in the Catalogue of the Heroical Loves, he says, " Their several loves since I before have shown, Now give me leave at last to sing my own. " This implies that the Heroicall Epistles were written before his love poems to Idea, for in no other poems does he "sing his own loves." But Idea and Idea's Mirrour were published in 1593 and 1594. EXTRA CTS FROM THE < ' A THENCE UM. " 311 SHAKESPEARE'S ARMS. So far as I am aware, no attempt has hitherto been made to explain the charges in Shakespeare's arms. Yet from the presence of " spear " in them, it is evident at a glance that they belong to the class of armes parlantes, canting or punning arms. In the original instrument in the College of Heralds they are thus blazoned : " In a field of gould upon a bend sables a speare, the poynt upward, headed argent, and for his crest or cognizance a falcon with his win^s displayed, standing on a wrethe of his coullers supporting a speare armed hedded or stieled sylver fyxed uppon a helmet with mantell and tassels." Here is the spear plain enough; but where is the shake ? In the words I have italicized, I think. For how could the name, or rather this part of the name, be expressed in the charge ? There is no means of representing shake but by some- thing shaking ; and no inorganic thing can be so drawn ; nor among living creatures can I find anything that can represent shaking excepting a bird shaking its wings previously to flying, which can heraldically be expressed. The connection between shaking and "wiih wings displayed" maybe gathered from the following con- siderations. Lady Juliana Berners, in her work on Hawking, especially warns her readers never to say of a falcon that "she shakes," but always to say "she rouses." And in accordance with this, a bird shaking its wings in preparation to fly, that is to say, "with wings displayed," was often blazoned in the heraldic books as rousant. If we refer to the old dictionaries we find this con- firmed ; for instance, in Ryder's Latin Dictionary, to rouse is trans- lated corusco ; and in referring to corusco, we find "Corusco TrctAAw /cpaScuVw vibro, oculorum aciem perstringo. To shine, glisten, or lighten. To brandish, c. gladium vel hastam, Virg. to brandish or shake." So that the very word used by our ancestors in Latin to express the shaking of a spear was also used by them for the displaying the wings in heraldry. It is, therefore, to me certain that "Garter and Clarencieulx " in granting John Shakespeare his arms gave him a canting bearing, a kind which is rightly said in the Penny Cyclop&dia to have been one of the most frequent as well as the most ancient descriptions of charges, and as worthy of respect 312 SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. as any other. The representation of Shake in Shakespeare (not Shakspere) by a rousing falcon is confirmed by the arms of Crispinus or Cri-spinas in the Poetaster, "a face crying in chief and beneath it a bloody toe between three thorns pungent." Marston, as well as Crispinus, is here indicated. Mars is red or bloody (compare Mars ochre) and toen is toes : together forming Marston. Both puns are equally t bad. So again in Every Man out of his Humour Sogliardo's arms, "On a chief argent between two ann'lets sable, a boar's head proper," indicate Burbage {Boar-badge] ; badge (bague) being a ring, garland, or annulet. The following list of managers, c., will be useful for reference : Company. Managers, &c. Sir R. Lane's ... Laurence Button (1573). Sir R. Dudley's ... James Burbage, John Perkyn, John Lan- ham, William Johnson, Robert Wilson (1574). Earl Warwick's ... Laurence Button, John Button (1576). Earl Darby's ... Robert Brown (1579). Queen's ... ... John Button, John Lanham (1590). Chamberlain's ... John Heminges, Thomas Pope (1597) ; Heminges alone (1600). Admiral's..'. ... Robert Shaw, Thomas Bownton, Philip Henslow, William Allen (1598). Children. Masters. Paul's Sebastian Westcott (to 1586) ; Thomas Giles (to 1600) ; Edward Piers. Chapel Richard Bowyer (to 1572) : John Honnys (to ?) ; William Hunnis. Westminster ... John Taylor (to 1579), William Elderton. Windsor Richard Ferret. Merchant Taylors' . . Richard Mountcaster. J. THE END. RETURN TO the circulation desk of any University of California Library or to the NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station University of California Richmond, CA 94804-4698 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 2-month loans may be renewed by calling (510)642-6753 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books to NRLF Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date. DUE AS STAMPED BELOW MAR 042005 12,000(11/95) 114 GENERAL LIBRARY -U.C. BERKELEY BODD8M2737 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY