Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

"The noate of corne and malte, taken the 4th of February, 1597, in the 40th year of the raigne of our most gracious Soveraigne Ladie, Queen Elizabeth, &c."

If any decree were pronounced, it is singular that no faithful chronicler, to "the late greatest price3" Malone trace of it should have been preserved either in the records found, and printed, a letter from Abraham Sturley, of Stratof the Court of Chancery, or among the papers of Lord ford-upon-Avon, dated 24th Jan., 1597-8, stating that his Ellesmere; but such is the fact, and the inférence is, that "neighbours groaned with the wants they felt through the the suit was settled by the parties without proceeding to dearness of corn," and that malcontents in great numbers this extremity. We can have little doubt that the bill had had gone to Sir Thoms Lucy and Sir Fulke Greville to been filed with the concurrence, and at the instance, of our complain of the maltsters for engrossing it. Connected with great dramatist, who at this date was rapidly acquiring this dearth, the Shakespeare Society has been put in poswealth, although his father and mother put forward in their session of a document of much value as regards the biobill their own poverty and powerlessness, compared with graphy of our poet, although, at first sight, it may not apthe riches and influence of their opponent. William Shake- pear to deserve notice, it is sure in the end to attract. It is speare must have been aware, that during the last seven- thus headed:teen years his father and mother had been deprived of their right to Asbyes: in all probability his money was employed in order to commence and prosecute the suit in Chancery: and unless we suppose them to have stated and re-stated a deliberate falsehood, respecting the tender of the 407., it is and in the margin opposite the title are the words "Stratvery clear that they had equity on their side. We think, forde Burroughe, Warwicke." It was evidently prepared therefore, we may conclude that John Lambert, finding in order to ascertain how much corn and malt there really he had no chance of success, relinquished his claim to Asbyes, was in the town; and it is divided into two columns, one perhaps on the payment of the 407. and of the sums which showing the "Townsmen's corn," and the other the "Stranhis father had required from John and Mary Shakespeare gers' malt" The names of the Townsmen and Strangers in 1580, and which in 1597 they did not dispute to have when known) are all given, with the wards in which they resided, so that we are enabled by this document, among other things, to prove in what part of Stratford the family of our great poet then dwelt: it was in Chapel-street Ward, and it appears that at the date of the account William Shakespeare had ten quarters of corn in his possession. As some may be curious to see who were his immediate neighbours, and in what order the names are given, we copy the account, as far as it relates to Chapel-street Ward, exactly

been due.

Among other matters set forth by John Lambert in his answer is, that the Shakespeares were anxious to regain possession of Asbyes, because the current lease was near its expiration, and they hoped to be able to obtain an improved rent. Supposing it to have been restored to their hands, the fact may be that they did not let it again, but cultivated it themselves; and we have at this period some new documentary evidence to produce, leading to the belief that our poet was a land-owner, or at all events a land-occupier, to some extent in the neighbourhood of Stratfordupon-Avon.

as it stands.

CHAPPLE STREET WARD.

[ocr errors]

Frauncis Smythe, Jun., 8 quarters.

5

John Coxe, 5 quarters.

17

Mr. Thomas Dyxon, 17 quarters.

3

Mr. Thomas Barbor, 3 quarters.

5

Mychaell Hare, 5 quarters.

6

Mr. Bifielde, 6 quarters.

6

Hugh Aynger, 6 quarters.

6

Thomas Badsey, 6 quarters-bareley 1 quarter.

1.2

str. John Rogers, 10 strikes.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Aubrey informs us, (and there is not only no reason for disbelieving his statement, but every ground for giving it credit) that William Shakespeare was "wont to go to his native country once a year." Without seeking for any evidence upon the question, nothing is more natural or probable; and when, therefore, he had acquired sufficient property, he might be anxious to settle his family comfortably and independently in Stratford. We must suppose that his father and mother were mainly dependent upon him, notwithstanding the recovery of the small estate of the latter at Wilmecote; and he may have employed his brother Gilbert, who was two years and a half younger than himself, and perhaps accustomed to agricultural pursuits, to We shall have occasion hereafter again to refer to this look after his farming concerns in the country, while he document upon another point, but in the mean time we may himself was absent superintending his highly profitable remark that the name of John Shakespeare is not found in theatrical undertakings in London. In 1595, 1596, and 1597, any part of it. This fact gives additional probability to the our poet must have been in the receipt of a considerable belief that the two old people, possibly with some of their and an increasing income: he was part proprietor of the children, were living in the house of their son William, for Blackfriars and the Globe theatres, both excellent specula- such may be the reason why we do not find John Shaketions; he was an actor, doubtless earning a good salary, in- speare mentioned in the account as the owner of any corn. dependently of the proceeds of his shares; and he was the It may likewise in part explain how it happened that Wilmost popular and applauded dramatic poet of the day. In liam Shakespeare was in possession of so large a quantity: the summer he might find, or make, leisure to visit his na-in proportion to the number of his family, in time of scartive town, and we may be tolerably sure that he was there in August, 1596, when he had the misfortune to lose his only son Hamnet, one of the twins born early in the spring of 1585 the boy completed his eleventh year in February, 1596, so that his death in August following must have been a very severe trial for his parents'.

Stow informs us, that in 1596 the price of provisions in England was so high, that the bushel of wheat was sold for six, seven, and eight shillings?: the dearth continued and increased through 1597, and in August of that year the price of the bushel of wheat had risen to thirteen shillings, fell to ten shillings, and rose again, in the words of the old

The following is the form of the entry of the burial in the register of the church of Stratford :

"1596. August 11. Hamnet filius William Shakspere." 3 Ibid. p. 1304.

2 Annales, edit. 1615, p. 1279.

4 Malone's Shakspeare, by Boswell, vol. ii. p. 566.

5 In the indorsement of the document it is stated, that the Townsmen's malt amounted to 449 quarters and two "strike" or bushels,

city, he would be naturally desirous to be well provided with the main article of subsistence; or it is very possible that, as a grower of grain, he might keep some in store for sale to those who were in want of it. Ten quarters does not seem much more than would be needed for his own consumption; but it affords some proof of his means and substance at this date, that only two persons in Chapelstreet Ward had a larger quantity in their hands. We are led to infer from this circumstance that our great dramatist may have been a cultivator of land, and it is not unlikely that the wheat in his granary had been grown on his mother's estate of Asbyes, at Wilmecote, of which we know

besides 9 quarters of barley-their peas, beans, and vetches to 15 quarters, and their oats to 12 quarters. The malt, the property of Strangers, amounted to 248 quarters and 5 strike, together with 3 quraters of peas. Besides malt, the Townsmen, it is said, were in possession of 43 quarters and a half of "wheat and mill-corn," and of 10 quraters and 6 strike of barley; but it seems to have been considerably more, even in Chapel-street Ward.

!

that no fewer than fifty, out of about sixty, acres were arable1.

We must now return to London and to theatrical affairs there, and in the first place advert to a passage in Rowe's Life of Shakespeare, relating to the real or supposed commencement of the connexion between our great dramatist and Ben Jonson2. Rowe tells us that "Shakespeare's acquaintance with Ben Jonson began with a remarkable piece of humanity and good nature. Mr. Jonson, who was at that time altogether unknown to the world, had offered one of his plays to the players, in order to have it acted; and the persons into whose hands it was put, after having turned it carelessly and superciliously over, were just upon returning it to him with an ill-natured answer, that it would be of no service to their company, when Shakespeare, luckily, cast his eye upon it, and found something so well in it, as to engage him first to read it through, and afterwards to recommend Mr. Jonson and his writings to the public." This anecdote is entirely disbelieved by Mr. Gifford, and he rests his incredulity upon the supposition, that Ben Jonson's earliest known production, "Every Man in his Humour," was originally acted in 1597 at a different theatre, and he produces as evidence Henslowe's Diary, which, he states, proves that the comedy came out at the Rose".

66

afforded him, because he was as well known, and perhaps better," than Shakespeare himself. Surely, with all deference for Mr. Gifford's undisputed acuteness and general accuracy, we may doubt how Ben Jonson could be better, or even as well known as Shakespeare, when the latter had been for twelve years connected with the stage as author and actor, and had written, at the lowest calculation, twelve dramas, while the former was only twenty-four years old, and had produced no known play but "Every Man in his Humour." It is also to be observed, that Henslowe had no pecuniary transactions with Ben Jonson prior to the month of August, 1598; whereas, if "Umers" had been purchased from him, we could scarcely have failed to find some memorandum of payments, anterior to the production of the comedy on the stage in May, 1597.

Add to this, that nothing could be more consistent with the amiable and generous character of Shakespeare, than that he should thus have interested himself in favour of a writer who was ten years his junior, and who gave such undoubted proofs of genius as are displayed in "Every Man in his Humour." Our great dramatist, established in public favour by such comedies as "The Merchant of Venice" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream," by such a tragedy as "Romeo and Juliet," and by such histories as "King John," "Richard II.," and "Richard III.," must have felt himself above all rivalry, and could well afford this act of "humanity and good-nature," as Rowe terms it, (though Mr. Gifford, quoting Rowe's words, accidentally omits the two last,) on behalf of a young, needy, and meritorious author. It is to be recollected also that Rowe, the original narrator of the incident, does not, as in several other cases, give it as if he at all doubted its correctness, but unhesitatingly and distinctly, as if it were a matter well known, and entirely believed, at the time he wrote.

The truth, however, is, that the play supposed, on the authority of Henslowe, to be Ben Jonson's comedy, is only called by Henslowe "Humours" or "Umers," as he ignorantly spells it. It is a mere speculation that this was Ben Jonson's play, for it may have been any other performance, by any other poet, in the title of which the word "Humours" occurred; and we have the indisputable and unequivocal testimony of Ben Jonson himself, in his own authorized edition of his works in 1616, that "Every Man in his Humour" was not acted until 1598: he was not satisfied with stating on the title-page, that it was "acted in the year Another circumstance may be noticed as an incidental 1598 by the then Lord Chamberlain his servants," which confirmation of Rowe's statement, with which Mr. Gifford might have been considered sufficient; but in this instance could not be acquainted, because the fact has only been re(as in all others in the same volume) he informs us at the cently discovered. In 1598 Ben Jonson, being then only end that 1598 was the year in which it was first acted:- twenty-four years old, had a quarrel with Gabriel Spencer, This comedy was first acted in the year 1598." Are we one of Henslowe's principal actors, in consequence of which prepared to disbelieve Ben Jonson's positive assertion (a they met, fought, and Spencer was killed. Henslowe, writman of the highest and purest notions, as regarded truth ing to Alleyn on the subject on the 26th September, uses and integrity) for the sake of a theory founded upon the these words:" Since you were with me, I have lost one bare assumption, that Henslowe by "Umers" not only of my company, which hurteth me greatly; that is Gabriel, meant Ben Jonson's "Every Man in his Humour," but could for he is slain in Hoxton Fields by the hands of Benjamin mean nothing else? Jonson, bricklayer" Now, had Ben Jonson been at that Had it been brought out originally by the Lord Admi-date the author of the comedy called "Umers," and had it ral's players at the Rose, and acted with so much success that it was repeated eleven times, as Henslowe's Diary shows was the case with "Umers," there can be no apparent reason why Ben Jonson should not have said so; and if he had afterwards withdrawn it on some pique, and carried it to the Lord Chamberlain's players, we can hardly conceive it possible that a man of Ben Jonson's temper and spirit would not have told us why in some other part of his

been his "Every man in his Humour," which was acted by the Lord Admiral's players eleven times, it is not very likely that Henslowe would have been ignorant who Benjamin Jonson was, and have spoken of him, not as one of the dramatists in his pay, and the author of a very successful comedy, but merely as "bricklayer" he was writing also to his step-daughter's husband, the leading member of his company, to whom he would have been ready to give the fullest information regarding the disastrous affair. We only Mr. Gifford, passing over without notice the positive state-adduce this additional matter to show the improbability of ment we have quoted, respecting the first acting of "Every Man in his Humour" by the Lord Chamberlain's servants in 1598, proceeds to argue that Ben Jonson could stand in need of no such assistance, as Shakespeare is said to have

works.

p. 25.

1 Malone's Shakespeare, by Boswell, vol. ii. 2 For the materials of the following note, which sets right an important error relating to Ben Jonson's mother, we are indebted to Mr. Peter Cunningham.

Malone and Gifford (Ben Jonson's Works, vol. i. p. 5) both came to the conclusion that the Mrs. Margaret Jonson, mentioned in the register of St. Martin's in the Fields as having been married, 17th November, 1575, to Mr. Thomas Fowler, was the mother of Ben Jonson, who then took a second husband. There cannot be a reasonable doubt of it," says Gifford; but the fact is nevertheless certainly otherwise. It appears that Ben Jonson's mother was living after the comedy of "Eastward Ho !" which gave offence to King James, (and which was printed in 1605,) was brought out.-(Laing's edit. of "Ben Jonson's Conversations," p. 20.) It is incontestable that the Mrs. Margaret Fowler, who was married in 1575, was dead before 1595; for her husband, Mr. Thomas Fowler, was then buried, and in the inscription upon his tomb, in the old church of St. Martin's in the Fields, it was stated that he survived his three wives, Ellen, Margaret, and Elizabeth, who were buried in the same grave. The in

the assumption, that Ben Jonson had anything to do with the comedy of "Umers," acted by Henslowe's company in May, 1597; and the probability of the position that, as Ben Jonson himself states, it was originally brought out in 1598

scription (which we have seen in Strype's edit. of Stowe's Survey, 1720, b. vi. p. 69) informs us also, that Mr. Thomas Fowler was "born at Wicam, in the county of Lancaster," and that he had been "Comptroller and Paymaster of the Works" to Queen Mary, and for the first ten years of Queen Elizabeth. The date of his death is not stated in the inscription, but by the register of the church it appears that he was buried on the 29th May, 1595. The Mrs. Margaret Fowler, who died before 1595, could not have been the mother of Ben Jonson, who was living about 1604; and if Ben Jonson's mother married a second time, we have yet to ascertain who was her second husband.

3 The precise form in which the entry stands in Henslowe's aecount book is this:— "Maye 1597. 11. It. at the comodey of Vmers."

4 Ben Jonson's Works, 8vo. 1816, vol. i. p. 46.

5 See "Memoirs of Edward Alleyn," p. 51. The author of that work has since seen reason to correct himself on this and several other points.

by "the then Lord Chamberlain's servants." It may have that the magistrates had been written to on the 28th July, been, and probably was, acted by them, because Shakespeare had kindly interposed with his associates on behalf of the deserving and unfriended author.

CHAPTER XII.

1597, requiring that no plays should be acted during the
summer, and directing, in order to put an effectual stop to
such performances, because "lewd matters were handled on
stages," that the two places above named should be “plucked
down3." The magistrates were also enjoined to send for
the owners of "any other common play-house" within their
jurisdiction, and not only to forbid performances of every
description, but" so to deface" all places erected for theatri-
cal representations, " as they might not be employed again to
such use." This command was given just anterior to the
production of Nash's "Isle of Dogs," which was certainly
not calculated to lessen the objections entertained by any

Restriction of dramatic performances in and near London in
1597. Thomas Nash and his play, "The Isle of Dogs"
imprisonment of Nash, and of some of the players of the
Lord Admiral. Favour shown to the companies of the
Lord Chamberlain and of the Lord Admiral. Printing of
Shakespeare's Plays in 1597. The list of his known dra-persons in authority about the Court.
mas, published by F. Meres in 1598. Shakespeare author-
ized the printing of none of his plays, and never corrected
the press. Carelessness of dramatic authors in this respect.
"The Passionate Pilgrim," 1599. Shakespeare's reputation

as a dramatist.

The Blackfriars, not being, according to the terms of the order of the privy council, "a common play-house," but what was called a private theatre, does not seem to have been included in the general ban; but as we know that similar directions had been conveyed to the magistrates of the county of Surrey, it is somewhat surprising that they seem to have produced no effect upon the performances at the Globe or the Rose upon the Bankside. We must attribute this circumstance, perhaps, to the exercise of private influence; and it is quite certain that the necessity of keeping some companies in practice, in order that they might be prepared to exhibit, when required, before the Queen, was made the first pretext for granting exclusive "licenses " to the actors of the Lord Chamberlain, and of the Lord Admiral. We know that the Earls of Southampton and Rutland, about this date and shortly afterwards, were in the frequent habit of visiting the theatres: the Earl of Nottingham also seems to have taken an unusual interest on various occasions in favour of the company acting under his name, and to the representations of these noblemen we are, perhaps, to attribute the exemption of the Globe and the Rose from the operation of the order "to deface" all buildings adapted to dramatic representations in Middlesex and Surrey, in a manner that would render them unfit for any such purpose in future. We have the authority of the registers of the privy council, under date of 19th Feb. 1597–8, for stating that the companies of the Lord Chamberlain and of the Lord Admiral obtained renewed permission "to use and practise stage-plays," in order that they might be duly qualified, if called upon to perform before the Queen. This privilege, as regards the players of the Lord Admicompany which only in the August preceding had given such offence by the representation of Nash's "Isle of Dogs," that its farther performance was forbidden, the author and some of the players were arrested and sent to the Fleet, and vigorous steps taken to secure the persons of other parties who for a time had made their escape. It is very likely that Nash was the scape-goat on the occasion, and that the chief blame was thrown upon him, although, in his tract,

In the summer of 1597 an event occurred which seems to have produced for a time a serious restriction upon dramatic performances. The celebarted Thomas Nash, early in the year, had written a comedy which he called "The Isle of Dogs" that he had partners in the undertaking there is no doubt; and he tells us, in his tract called " Lenten Stuff," printed in 1599, that the players, when it was acted by the Lord Admiral's servants in the beginning of August, 1597, had taken most unwarrantable liberties with his piece, by making large additions, for which he ought not to have been responsible. The exact nature of the performance is not known, but it was certainly satirical, no doubt personal, and it must have had reference also to some of the polemical and political questions of the day. The representation of it was forbidden by authority, and Nash, with others, was arrested under an order from the privy council, and sent to the Fleet prison'. Some of the offending actors had escaped for a time, and the privy council, not satisfied with what had been already done in the way of punishment, wrote from Greenwich on 15th August, 1597, to certain magistrates, requiring them strictly to examine all the parties in custody, with a view to the discovery of others not yet apprehended. This important official letter, which has hitherto been unmentioned, we have inserted in a note from the registers of the privy council of that date; and by it we learn, not only that Nash was the author of the "sedi-ral, seems the more extraordinary, because that was the very tious and slanderous" comedy, but possibly himself an actor in it, and "the maker of part of the said play," especially pointed at, who was in custody2.

Before the date of this incident the companies of various play-houses in the county of Middlesex, but particularly at the Curtain and Theatre in Shoreditch had attracted attention, and given offence, by the licentious character of their performances; and the registers of the privy council show

1 The circumstance was thus alluded to by Francis Meres in the next year: As Acteon was wooried of his owne hounds, so is Tom Nash of his Ile of Dogs. Dogges were the death of Euripides; but bee not disconsolate, gallant young Juvenall; Linus the sonne of Apollo died the same death. Yet, God forbid, that so brave a witte should so basely perish thine are but paper dogges; neither is thy banishment, like Ovid's, eternally to converse with the barbarous Getes therefore, comfort thyselfe, sweete Tom, with Cicero's glorious return to Rome, and with the counsel Aeneas gives to his seabeaten soldiors, lib. i. Aeneid :-

'Pluck up thine heart, and drive from thence both feare and care

away;

To thinke on this may pleasure be perhaps another day.' "Durato, et temet rebus servato secundis."-Palladis Tamia, 1598, fo. 286.

2 The minute in the registers of the privy council (pointed out to us by Mr. Lemon) is this:

"A letter to Richard Topclyfe, Thomas Fowler, and Ric. Skevington, Esquires, Doctour Fletcher, and Mr. Wilbraham.

Upcn information given us of a lewd plaie, that was plaied in one of the plaie howses on the Bancke side, containing very seditious and sclaunderous matters, wee caused some of the players to be apprehended and comytted to pryson, whereof one of them was not only an actor, but a maker of parte of the said plaie. For as much as yt ys thought meete that the rest of the players or actours in that matter shal be apprehended, to receave soche punyshment as there lewde and mutynous behavior doth deserve; these shall be, therefore, to re

quire yow to examine these of the plaiers that are comytted, whose
names are knowne to you, Mr. Topclyfe, what is become of the rest
of theire fellowes that either had their partes in the devysinge of that
sedytious matter, or that were actours or plaiers in the same, what
copies they have given forth of the said playe, and to whome, and
soch other pointes as you shall thinke meete to be demaunded of
them; wherein you shall require of them to deale trulie, as they will
looke to receave anie favour. Wee praie yow also to peruse soch pa-
pers as were fownde in Nash his lodgings, which Ferrys, a messen-
ger of the Chamber, shall delyver unto yow, and to certyfie us the
examynations you take. So &c. Greenwich, 15. Aug. 1597."
From the Council Register.

Eliz. No. 13. p. 346.

3 We find evidence in a satirist of the time, that about this date
the Theatre was abandoned, though not "plucked down."
"But see yonder

One, like the unfrequented Theatre,
Walkes in darke silence, and vast solitude."

Edw. Guilpin's "Skialetheia," 8vo. 1598. Sign. D 6.
The theatre, in all probability, was not used for plays afterwards.
4 See Vol. ii. p. 132 of the "Sidney Papers," where Rowland
White tells Sir Robert Sydney, "My Lord Southampton and Lord
Rutland come not to the court: the one doth but very seldom. They
pass away the time in London merely in going to plays every day."
This letter is dated 11th October, 1599, and the Queen was then at
Nonesuch.

before mentioned, he maintains that he was the most inno-work of Meres came from the press3. It is a remarkable cent party of all those who were concerned in the transac- circumstance, evincing strikingly the manner in which the tion. It seems evident, that in 1598 there was a strong various companies of actors of that period were able to disposition on the part of some members of the Queen's government to restrict dramatic performances, in and near London, to the servants of the Lord Chamberlain and of the Lord Admiral.

As far as we can judge, there was good reason for showing favour to the association with which Shakespeare was connected, because nothing has reached us to lead to the belief that the Lord Chamberlain's servants had incurred any displeasure: if the Lord Admiral's servants were to be permitted to continue their performances at the Rose, it would have been an act of the grossest injustice to have prevented the Lord Chamberlain's servants from acting at the Globe. Accordingly, we hear of no interruption, at this date, of the performances at either of the theatres in the receipts of which Shakespeare participated.

keep popular pieces from the press, that until Shakespeare had been a writer for the Lord Chamberlain's servants ten or eleven years not a single play by him was published; and then four of his first printed plays were without his name as if the bookseller had been ignorant of the fact, or as if he considered that the omission would not affect the sale: one of them, " Romeo and Juliet," was never printed in any early quarto as the work of Shakespeare, as will be seen from our exact reprint of the title-pages of the editions of 1597, 1599, and 1609, (see Introduc.) The reprints of "Richard II." and "Richard III." in 1598, as before observed, have Shakespeare's name on the title pages, and they were issued, perhaps, after Meres had distinctly assigned those “histories" to him.

It is our conviction, after the most minute and patient To the year 1598 inclusive, only five of his plays had examination of, we believe, every old impression, that been printed, although he had then been connected with the Shakespeare in no instance authorized the publication of his stage for about twelve years, viz. "Romeo and Juliet," plays": we do not consider even "Hamlet" an exception, “Richard II." and "Richard III." in 1597, and "Love's La- although the edition of 1604 was probably intended, by bour's Lost" and "Henry IV." part i. in 1598'; but, as we some parties connected with the theatre, to supersede the learn from indisputable contemporaneous authority, he had garbled and fraudulent edition of 1603: Shakespeare, in written seven others, besides what he had done in the way our opinion, had nothing to do with the one or with the of alteration, addition, and adaptation. The earliest enu- other. He allowed most mangled and deformed copies of meration of Shakespeare's dramas made its appearance in several of his greatest works to be circulated for many 1598, in a work by Francis Meres entitled "Palladis Ta-years, and did not think it worth his while to expose the mia, Wits Treasury." In a division of this small but thick fraud, which remained, in several cases, undetected, as far as volume (consisting of 666 8vo. pages, besides "The Table,") the great body of the public was concerned, until the apheaded "A comparative discourse of our English Poets, pearance of the folio of 1623. Our great dramatist's indifwith the Greeke, Latine and Italian Poets," the author in-ference upon this point seems to have been shared by many, serts the following paragraph, which we extract precisely if not by most, of his contemporaries; and if the quarto as it stands in the original, because it has no where, that we recollect, been quoted quite correctly.

impression of any one of his plays be more accurate in typography than another, we feel satisfied that it arose out of the better state of the manuscript, or the greater pains and fidelity of the printer.

"As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for Comedy and Tragedy among the Latines: so Shakespeare among ye We may here point out a strong instance of the carelessEnglish is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for ness of dramatic authors of that period respecting the conComedy, witnes his Getleme of Veronu, his Errors, his Louedition in which their productions came into the world: others labors lost, his Loue labours wonne, his Midsummers night

dreame, & his Merchant of Venice: for Tragedy his Richard might be adduced without much difficulty, but one will be the 2. Richard the 3. Henry the 4. King Iohn, Titus An- sufficient. Before his "Rape of Lucrece," a drama first dronicus and his Romeo and Juliet."1 printed in 1608, Thomas Heywood inserted an address to the reader, informing him (for it was an exception to the Thus we see that twelve comedies, histories, and trage-general rule) that he had given his consent to the publicadies (for we have specimens in each department) were tion; but those who have examined that impression, and known as Shakespeare's in the Autumn of 1598, when the its repetition in 1609, will be aware that it is full of the Plautus, Terence,. Næuius, Sext. Turpilius, Licinius Imbrex, and Virgilius Romanus; so the best for comedy amongst us bee Edward Earle of Oxforde, Doctor Gager of Oxforde, Maister Rowley, once a rare scholler of learned Pembrooke Hall in Cambridge, Maister Edwardes, one of her Maiesties Chappell, eloquent and wittie John Lilly, Lodge, Gascoyne, Greene, Shakespeare, Thomas Nash, Thomas Heywood, Anthony Mundye, our best plotter, Chapman, Porter, Wi!son, Hathway, and Henry Chettle." fol. 283.

1 It is doubtful whether an edition of "Titus Andronicus " had not appeared as early as 1594; but no earlier copy than that of 1600, in the library of Lord Francis Egerton, is known. It is necessary to bear, in mind, that the impression of "Romeo and Juliet" in 1597 was only a mangled and mutilated representation of the state in which the tragedy came from the hand of its author.

2 The following passages, in the same division of the work of Meres, contain mention of the name or works of Shakespeare.

"As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to liue in Pythagoras, so the sweete wittie soule of Ouid liues in mellifluous and honytongued Shakespeare; witnes his Venus and Adonis, his Lucrece, his sugred sonnets among his priuate friends &c." fol. 281.

As Epius Stolo said, the Muses would speake with Plautus tongue, if they would speak Latin; so I say the Muses would speak with Shakespeare's fine-filed phrase, if they would speak English." fol. 232.

"And as Horace saith of his, Exegi monumentu ære perennius, Regaliq; situ pyramidum altius; Quod non imber edax; Non Aquilo impotens possit diruere, aut innumerabilis annorum series et fuga temporum; so say I severally of Sir Philip Sidneys, Spencers, Daniels, Draytons, Shakespeares, and Warners workes." fol. 282.

"As Pindarus, Anacreon, and Callimachus among the Greekes, and Horace and Catullus among the Latines, are the best lyrick poets; so in this faculty the best amog our poets are Spencer (who excelleth in all kinds) Daniel, Drayton, Shakespeare, Bretto." fol. 282.

"As these tragicke poets flourished in Greece, Eschylus, Euripedes, Sophocles, Alexander Aetolus, Achæus Erithriæus, Astydamas Atheniesis, Apollodorus Tarsensis, Nicomachus Phrygius, Thespis Atticus, and Timon Apolloniates; and these among the Latines, Accius, M. Attilius, Pomponius Secundus and Seneca; so these are our best for tragedie; the Lord Buckhurst, Doctor Leg of Cambridge, Dr. Edes of Oxford, Maister Edward Ferris, the Authour of the Mirrour for Magistrates, Marlow, Peele, Watson, Kid, Shakespeare, Drayton, Chapman, Decker, and Beniamin Iohnson." 'fol. 233.

"The best poets for comedy among the Greeks are these: Menander, Aristophanes, Eupolis Atheniensis Alexis, Terius, Nicostratus, Amipsias Atheniensis, Anaxadrides Rhodius, Aristonymus, Archippus Atheniesis, and Callias Atheniensis; and among the Latines,

"As these are famous among the Greeks for elegie, Melanthus, Mymnerus Colophonius, Olympius Mysius, Parthenius Nicæus, Philetas Cous, Theogenes Megarensis, and Pigres Halicarnasous; and these among the Latines, Mecenas, Ouid, Tibullus, Propertius. T. Valgius, Cassius Seuerus, and Clodius Sabinus; so these are the most passionate among us to bewaile and bemoane the perplexities of loue: Henrie Howard Earle of Surrey, sir Thomas Wyat the elder, sir Francis Brian, sir Philip Sidney, sir Walter Rawley, sir Edward Dyer, Spencer, Daniel, Drayton, Shakespeare, Whetstone, Gascoyne, Samuell Page sometime fellowe of Corpus Christi Colledge in Ox-. ford, Churchyard, Bretton." fol. 233.

3 It was entered for publication on the Stationers' Registers in September, 1598. Meres must have written something in verse which has not reached our day, because in 1601 he was addressed by C. Fitzgeoffrey, in his Affanie, as a poet and theologian: he was certainly well acquainted with the writings of all the poets of his time, whatever might be their department. Fitzgeoffrey mentions Meres in company with Spenser, Daniel, Drayton, Ben Jonson, Sylvester, Chapman, Marston, &c.

4 The same remark will apply to "Henry V." first printed in 4to, 1600, and again in 1602, and a third time in 1608, without the name of Shakespeare. However, this "history" never appeared in any thing like an authentic shape, such as we may suppose it came from Shakespeare's pen, until it was included in the folio of 1623.

5 It will be observed that we confine this opinion to the plays, because with respect to the poems, especially "Venus and Adonis " and "Lucrece," we feel quite as strongly convinced that Shakespeare, being instrumental in their publication, and more anxious about their correctness, did see at least the first editions through the press.

very grossest blunders, which the commonest corrector of the press, much less the author, if he had seen the sheets, could not have allowed to pass. Nearly all plays of that time were most defectively printed, but Heywood's "Rape of Lucrece," as it originally came from the press with the author's imprimatur, is, we think, the worst specimen of typography that ever met our observation1.

Returning to the important list of twelve plays furnished by Meres, we may add, that although he does not mention them, there can be no doubt that the three parts of "Henry VI" had been repeatedly acted before 1598: we may possibly infer, that they were not inserted because they were then well known not to be the sole work of Shakespeare. By "Henry IV" it is most probable that Meres intended both parts of that "history." "Love's Labour's Won" has been supposed, since the time of Dr. Farmer, to be "All's Well that ends Well," under a different title: our notion is (see Introduction) that the original name given to the play was "Love's Labour's Won ;" and that, when it was revived with additions and alterations, in 1605 or 1606, it received also a new appellation.

In connexion with the question regarding the interest taken by Shakespeare in the publication of his works, we may notice the impudent fraud practised in the year after the appearance of the list furnished by Meres. In 1599 came out a collection of short miscellaneous poems, under the title of "The Passionate Pilgrim :" they were all of them imputed, by W. Jaggard the printer, or by W. Leake the bookseller, to Shakespeare, although some of them were notoriously by other poets. In the Introduction to our reprint of this little work we have stated all the known particulars regarding it; but Shakespeare, as far as appears from any evidence that has descended to us, took no notice of the trick played upon him: possibly he never heard of it, or if he heard of it, left it to its own detection, not thinking it worth while to interfere2. serves to establish, what certainly could not otherwise be doubted, the popularity of Shakespeare in 1599, and the manner in which a scheming printer and stationer endeavoured to take advantage of that popularity.

It

Kempe are introduced as characters, the one of whom had obtained such celebrity in the tragic, and the other in the comic parts in Shakespeare's dramas: we allude to “The Return from Parnassus," which was indisputably acted before the death of Queen Elizabeth. In a scene where two young students are discussing the merits of particular poets, one of them speaks thus of Shakespeare:

"Who loves Adonis love or Lucrece rape,

His sweeter verse contains heart-robbing life; Could but a graver subject him content, Without love's foolish, lazy languishment." Not the most distant allusion is made to any of his dramatic productions, although the poet criticised by the young students immediately before Shakespeare was Ben Jonson, who was declared to be "the wittiest fellow, of a bricklayer, in England," but " a slow inventor." Hence we might be led to imagine that, even down to as late a period as the commencement of the seventeenth century, the reputation of Shakespeare depended rather upon his poems than upon his plays; almost as if productions for the stage were not looked upon, at that date, as part of the recognized literature of the country.

CHAPTER XIII.

New Place, or, "the great house," in Stratford, bought by Shakespeare in 1597. Removal of the Lord Admiral's players from the Bankside to the Fortune theatre in Cripplegate. Rivalry of the Lord Chamberlain's and Lord Admiral's company. Order in 1600 confining the acting of plays to the Globe and Fortune: the influence of the two associations occupying those theatres. Disobedience of various companies to the order of 1600. Plays by Shakespeare published in 1600. The "First Part of the Life of Sir John Oldcastle," printed in 1600, falsely imputed to Shakespeare, and cancelling of the title-page.

Ir will have been observed, that, in the document we have Yet it is singular, if we rely upon several coeval authori-produced, relating to the quantity of corn and malt in Stratties, how little our great dramatist was about this period ford, it is stated that William Shakespeare's residence was known and admired for his plays. Richard Barnfield pub- in that division of the borough called Chapel-street ward. lished his "Encomion of Lady Pecunia," in 1598, (the year in which the list of twelve of Shakespeare's plays was printed by Meres) and from a copy of verses entitled "Remembrance of some English Poets," we quote the following notice of Shakespeare:

"And Shakespeare thou, whose honey-flowing vein,
Pleasing the world, thy praises doth contain,
Whose Venus, and whose Lucrece, sweet and chaste,
Thy name in Fame's immortal book hath plac'd;
Live ever you, at least in fame live ever:
Well may the body die, but fame die never."

Here Shakespeare's popularity, as "pleasing the world," is noticed; but the proofs of it are not derived from the stage, where his dramas were in daily performance before crowded audiences, but from the success of his "Venus and Adonis" and "Lucrece," which had gone through various editions. Precisely to the same effect, but a still stronger instance, we may refer to a play in which both Burbage and

1 We cannot wonder at the errors in plays surreptitiously procured and hastily printed, which was the case with many impressions of that day. Upon this point Heywood is an unexceptionable witness, and he tells us of one of his dramas,

"that some by stenography drew

The plot, put it in print, scarce one word true." Other dramatists make the same complaint; and there can be no doubt that it was the practice so to defraud authors and actors, and to palm wretchedly disfigured pieces upon the public as genuine and authentic works. It was, we are satisfied, in this way that Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet," "Henry V.," and "Hamlet," first got out into the world.

2 When "The Passionate Pilgrim" was reprinted in 1612, with some additional pieces by Thomas Heywood, that dramatist pointed out the imposition, and procured the cancelling of the title-page in which the authorship of the whole was assigned to Shakespeare.

This is an important circumstance, because we think it may be said to settle decisively the disputed question, whether our great dramatist purchased what was known as "the great house," or "New Place," before, in, or after 1597. It was situated in Chapel-street ward, close to the chapel of the Holy Trinity. We are now certain that he had a house in the ward in February, 1597-8, and that he had ten quar-ters of corn there; and we need not doubt that it was the dwelling which had been built by Sir Hugh Clopton in the reign of Henry VII.: the Cloptons subsequently sold it to a person of the name of Botte3, and he to Hercules Underhill, who disposed of it to Shakespeare. We therefore find him, in the beginning of 1598, occupying one of the best houses, in one of the best parts of Stratford. He who had quitted his native town about twelve years before, poor and comparatively friendless, was able, by the profits of his own exertions, and the exercise of his own talents, to return to it, and to establish his family in more comfort and opulence than, as far as is known, they had ever before enjoyed1.

3 Botte probably lived in it in 1564, when he contributed 4s. to the poor who were afflicted with the plague: this was the highest amount subscribed, the bailiff only giving 3s. 4d., and the head alderman 2s. 8d. 4 That Shakespeare was considered a man who was in a condition to lend a considerable sum, in the autumn of 1598, we have upon the evidence of Richard Quyney, (father to Thomas Quyney, who subsequently married Shakespeare's youngest daughter Judith) who then applied to him for a loan of 307., equal to about 1501. of our present money, and in terms which do not indicate any doubt that our poet would be able to make the advance. This application is contained in a letter which must have been sent by hand, as it unluckily contains no direction: it is the only letter yet discovered addressed to Shakespeare, and it was first printed by Boswell from Malone's papers, vol. ii. p. 585.

"Loving Contryman, I am bolde of yow, as of a frende, craveing yowr helpe wth xxxb, uppon Mr Bushell & my securytee, or Mr Myttens with me. Mr Rosswell is not come to London as yeate, & I have

« ÖncekiDevam »