Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

We consider the point that Shakespeare had become owner of New Place in or before 1597 as completely made out, as, at such a distance of time, and with such imperfect information upon nearly all matters connected with his history could be at all expected1.

We apprehend likewise, as we have already remarked (p. xxi), that the confirmation of arms in 1596, obtained as we believe by William Shakespeare, had reference to the permanent and substantial settlement of his family in Stratford, and to the purchase of a residence there consistent with the altered circumstances of that family-altered by its increased wealth and consequence, owing to the success of our great poet both as an actor and a dramatist.

1599, when Henslowe and Alleyn resolved to abandon Southwark. However, it may be doubted whether they would not have continued where they were, recollecting the convenient proximity of Paris Garden, (where bears, bulls, &c. were baited, and in which they were also jointly interested) but for the success of the Lord Chamberlain's players at the Globe, which had been in use four or five years2. Henslowe and Alleyn seem to have found, that neither their plays nor their players could stand the competition of their rivals, and they accordingly removed to a vicinity where no play-house had previously existed.

them; and after the Fortune was opened, the speculation there was so profitable, that the Lord Admiral's players had no motive for returning to their old quarters.

The Fortune theatre was commenced in Golding Lane, Cripplegate, in the year 1599, and finished in 1600, and The removal of the Lord Admiral's players, under thither without delay Henslowe and Alleyn transported Henslowe and Alleyn, from the Rose theatre on the Bank- their whole dramatic establishment, strengthened in the side, to the new house called the Fortune, in Golding-lane, spring of 1602 by the addition of that great and popular Cripplegate, soon after the date to which we are now comic performer, William Kempe. The association at the referring, may lead to the opinion that that company did Globe was then left in almost undisputed possession of the not find itself equal to sustain the rivalship with the Lord Bankside. There were, indeed, occasional, and perhaps not Chamberlain's servants, under Shakespeare and Burbage, at unfrequent, performances at the Rose, (although it had been the Globe. That theatre was opened, as we have adduced stipulated with the public authorities that it should be reasons to believe, in the spring of 1595: the Rose was a pulled down, if leave were given for the construction of the considerably older building, and the necessity for repairing Fortune) as well as at the Hope and the Swan, but not by it might enter into the calculation, when Henslowe and the regular associations which had previously occupied Alleyn thought of trying the experiment in a different part of the town, and on the Middlesex side of the water. Theatres being at this date merely wooden structures, and much frequented, they would soon fall into decay, especially in a marshy situation like that of the Bankside: so damp was the soil in the neighbourhood, that the Globe was surrounded by a moat to keep it dry; and, although we do not find the fact any where stated, it is most likely that the Rose was similarly drained. The Rose was in the first instance, and as far back as the reign of Edward VI, a house of entertainment with that sign, and it was converted into a theatre by Henslowe and a grocer of the name of Cholmley about the year 1584; but it seems to have early required considerable reparations, and they might be again necessary prior to especiall cawse. Yow shall frende me muche in helpeing me out of all the debeits I owe in London, I thanck god, and muche quiet to my mynde weh wolde not be indebited. I am now towards the Cowrte, in hope yr answer for the dispatche of my Buysenes. Yow shall nether loose creddytt nor monney by me, the Lorde willinge; & nowe butt pswade your selfe soe as I hope & yow shall nott need to feare; but with all hartie thanck fullness I wyll holde my tyme & content yowr frend, & yf we Bargaine farther, yow shall be the paie mr your selfe. My tyme bidds me to hasten to an ende, & soe I comitt thys [to] your care & hope of your helpe. I feare I shall nott be backe this night from the Cowrte. haste. the Lorde be wth yow & wth us all. amen. From the Bell in Carter Lane, the 25 october 1598. "Yowrs in all kyndenes, RYC. QUYNEY. NEV.

"To my Loveing good frend & contryman Mr Wm Shackespe thees."

The deficiency as regards the direction of the letter, lamented by Malone, is not of so much importance, because we have proved that Shakespeare was resident in Southwark in 1596; and he probably was so in 1598, because the reasons which, we have supposed, induced him to take up his abode there would still be in operation, in as much force as ever.

1 In the garden of this house it is believed that Shakespeare planted a mulberry tree, about the year 1609: such is the tradition, and we are disposed to think that it is founded in truth. In 1609, King James was anxious to introduce the mulberry (which had been imported about half a century earlier) into general cultivation, and the records in the State Paper Office show that in that year letters were written upon the subject to most of the justices of peace and deputy lieutenants in the kingdom: the plants were sold by the State at 6s. the hundred. On the 25th November, 1609, 9351. were paid out of the public purse for the planting of mulberry trees near the palace of Westminster.' The mulberry tree, said to have been planted by Shakespeare, was in existence up to about the year 1755; and in the spring of 1742, Garrick, Macklin, and Delane the actor (not Dr. Delany, the friend of Swift, as Mr. Dyce, in his compendious Memoir. p. lix., states,) were entertained under it by Sir Hugh Clopton. New Place remained in possession of Shakespeare's successors until the Restoration; it was then repurchased by the Clopton family about 1752 it was sold by the executor of Sir Hugh Clopton to a clergyman. of the name of Gastrell, who, on some offence taken at the authorities of the borough of Stratford on the subject of rating the house, pulled it down, and cut down the mulberry tree. According to a letter in the Annual Register of 1760, the wood was bought by a silversmith, who "made many odd things of it for the curious." In our time we have seen as many relics, said to have been formed from this one mulberry tree, as could hardly have been furnished by all the mulberry trees in the county of Warwick.

The members of the two companies belonging to the Lord Chamberlain and to the Lord Admiral appear to have possessed so much influence in the summer of 1600, that (backed perhaps by the puritanical zeal of those who were unfriendly to all theatrical performances) they obtained an order from the privy council, dated 22d June, that no other public play-houses should be permitted but the Globe in Surrey, and the Fortune in Middlesex. Nevertheless, the privy council registers, where this order is inserted, also contain distinct evidence that it was not obeyed, even in May 1601; for on the 10th of that month the Lords wrote 2 We may be disposed to assign the following lines to about this period, or a little earlier: they relate to some theatrical wager in which Alleyn, of the Lord Admiral's players, was, for a part not named, to be matched against Kempe, of the Lord Chamberlain's servants. By the words" Will's new play," there can be little doubt that some work by Shakespeare was intended; and we know from Heywood's "Hierarchie of the Blessed Angels," 1635, that Shakespeare was constantly familiarly called "Will." The document is preserved at Dulwich, and it was first printed in the "Memoirs of Edward Alleyn," p. 13.

"Sweet Nedde, nowe wynne an other wager
For thine old frende, and fellow stager.
Tarlton himselfe thou doest excell,
And Bentley beate, and conquer Knell,
And now shall Kempe orecome as well.
The moneyes downe, the place the Hope;
Phillippes shall hide his head and Pope.
Feare not, the victorie is thine;
Thou still as macheles Ned shall shyne.
If Roscius Richard foames and fumes,
The Globe shall have but emptie roomes,
If thou doest act; and Willes newe playe
Shall be rehearst some other daye.
Consent, then, Nedde; do us this grace:
Thou cannot faile in anie case;

For in the triall, come what maye,
All sides shall brave Ned Allin saye."

By "Roscius Richard" the writer of these lines, wno was the backer of Alleyn against Kempe, could have meant nobody but Richard Burbage. It will be recollected, that not very long afterwards Kempe became a member of the association of which Alleyn was the leader, and quitted that to which Shakespeare and Burbage were attached. It is possible that this wager, and Kempe's success in it, led Alleyn and Henslowe to hold out inducements to him to join them in their undertaking at the Fortune. Upon this point, however, we have no other evidence, than the mere fact that Kempe went over to the enemy.

[ocr errors]

3 After his return from Rome, where he was seen in the autumn of 1601.

4 It was at the Fortune that Alleyn seems to have realized so much money in the few first years of the undertaking, that he was able in Nov. 1604 to purchase the manor of Kennington for £1065, and in the next year the manor of Lewisham and Dulwich for £5000. These two sums, in money of the present day, would be equal to at least £25,000; but it is to be observed that for Dulwich, Alleyn only paid. £2000 down, while the remaining sum was left upon mortgage. In the commencement of the seventeenth century theatrical speculations generally seem to have been highly lucrative. See "The Alleyn Papers," (printed by the Shakespeare Society,) p. xiv.

to certain magistrates of Middlesex requiring them to put a stop to the performance of a play at the Curtain, in which were introduced "some gentlemen of good desert and quality, that are yet alive," but saying nothing about the closing of the house, although it was open in defiance of the imperative command of the preceding year. We know also upon other testimony, that not only the Curtain, but theatres on the Bankside, besides the Globe, (where performances were allowed) were then in occasional use. It is fair to presume, therefore, that the order of the 22d June, 1600, was never strictly enforced, and one of the most remarkable circumstances of the times is, the little attention, as regards theatricals, that appears to have been paid to the absolute authority of the court. It seems exactly as if restrictive measures had been adopted in order to satisfy the importunity of particular individuals, but that there was no disposition on the part of persons in authority to carry them into execution. Such was probably the fact; for a year and a half after the order of the 22d June had been issued it was renewed, but, as far as we can learn, with just as little effect as before.1

Besides the second edition of "Romeo and Juliet" in 1599, (which was most likely printed from a play-house manuscript, being very different from the mutilated and manufactured copy of 1597) five plays by our great dramatist found their way to the press in 1600, viz. "Titus Andronicus," (which as we have before remarked had probably been originally published in 1594) "The Merchant of Venice," "A Midsummer Night's Dream," "Henry IV.” part ii., and “Much Ado about Nothing." The last only was not mentioned by Meres in 1598; and as to the periods when we may suppose the others to have been written, we must refer the reader to our several Introductions, where we have given the existing information upon the subject. "The Chronicle History of Henry V." also came out in the same year, but without the name of Shakespeare upon the titlepage, and it is, if possible, a more imperfect and garbled representation of the play, as it proceeded from the author's pen, than the " Romeo and Juliet" of 1597. Whether any of the managers of theatres at this date might not sometimes be concerned in selling impressions of dramas, we have no sufficient means of deciding; but we do not believe it, and we are satisfied that dramatic authors in general were content with disposing of their plays to the several companies, and looked for no emolument to be derived from publication3. We are not without something like proof that actors now and then sold their parts in plays to booksellers, and thus, by the combination of them and other assistance, editions of popular plays were surreptitiously printed.

We ought not to pass over without notice a circumstance which happened in 1600, and is connected with the question of the authorized or unauthorized publication of Shakespeare's plays. In that year a quarto impression of a play, called "The first part of the true and honourable History of the Life of Sir John Oldcastle, the good Lord Cobham,"

1 See "Hist. Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage," Vol. i. p. 316, where the particulars, which are here necessarily briefly and summarily dismissed, are given in detail.

2 The clothing of Snug the joiner in a "lion's fell" in this play, Act v. sc. 1, seems to have suggested the humorous speech to King James at Linlithgow, on 30th June 1617, eight lines of which only are given in Nichols's "Progresses" of that monarch, Vol. iii. p. 326. The whole address, of twenty-two lines, exists in the State Paper office, where it was discovered by Mr. Lemon. It seems to have been the original MS. which was placed at the time in the hands of the king, and as it is a curiosity, we subjoin it.

"A moveing engine, representing a fountaine, and running wine, came to the gate of the towne, in the midst of which was a lyon, and in the lyon a man, who delivered this learned speech to his majestie.

"Most royall sir, heere I doe you beseech,
Who are a lyon, to hear a lyon's speech;
A miracle; for since the dayes of Esop,
Till ours, noe lyon yet his voice did hois-up
To such a Majestie. Then, King of Men,
The king of beasts speaks to thee from his denn,
A fountaine nowe. That lyon, which was ledd
By Androdus through Rome. had not a head
More rationall then this, bredd in this nation,
Whoe in thy presence warbleth this oration.

came out, on the title-page of which the name of William Shakespeare appeared at length. We find by Henslowe's Diary that this drama was in fact the authorship of four poets, Anthony Munday, Michael Drayton, Robert Wilson and Richard Hathway; and to attribute it to Shakespeare was evidently a mere trick by the bookseller, Thomas] P[avier], in the hope that it would be bought as his work. Malone remarked upon this fraud, but he was not aware, when he wrote, that it had been detected and corrected at the time, for since his day more than one copy of the “First Part, &c. of Sir John Oldcastle" has come to light, upon the title-page of which no name is to be found, the book seller apparently having been compelled to cancel the leaf containing it. From the indifference Shakespeare seems uniformly to have displayed on matters of the kind, we may, possibly, conclude that the cancel was made at the instance of one of the four poets who were the real authors of the play; but we have no means of speaking decisively upon the point, and the step may have been in some way connected with the objection taken by living members of the Oldcastle family to the name, which had been assigned by Shakespeare in the first instance to Falstaff.

CHAPTER XIV.

Death of John Shakespeare in 1601. Performance of" Twelfth Night" in February, 1602. Anecdote of Shakespeare and Burbage Manningham's Diary in the British Museum the authority for it. Othello," acted by Burbage and others at the Lord Keeper's in August, 1602. Death of Elizabeth, and Arrival of James I. at Theobalds. English actors in Scotland in 1589, and again in 1599, 1600, and 1601 large rewards to them. The freedom of Aberdeen conferred in 1601 upon Laurence Fletcher, the leader of the English company in Scotland. Probability that Shakespeare never was in Scotland.

THE father of our great poet died in the autumn of 1601, and he was buried at Stratford-upon-Avon. He seems to have left no will, and if he possessed any property, in land or houses, not made over to his family, we know not how it was divided. Of the eight children which his wife, Mary Arden, had brought him, the following were then alive, and might be present at the funeral:-William, Gilbert, Joan, Richard, and Edmund. The latter years of. John Shakespeare (who, if born in 1530 as Malone supposed, was in his seventy-first year) were doubtless easy and comfortable, and the prosperity of his eldest son must have placed him beyond the reach of pecuniary difficulties.

Early in the spring of 1602, we meet with one of those rare facts which distinctly show how uncertain all conjecture must be respecting the date when Shakespeare's dramas were originally written and produced. Malone and Tyrwhitt, in 1790, conjectured that "Twelfth Night" had been written in 1614: in his second edition Malone altered it to

For though he heer inclosed bee in plaister, When he was free he was this townes school-master. This Well you see, is not that Arethusa, The Nymph of Sicile: Noe, men may carous a Health of the plump Lyæus, noblest grapes, From these faire conduits, and turne drunk like apes. This second spring I keep, as did that dragon Hesperian apples. And nowe, sir, a plague on This your poore towne, if to 't you bee not welcome! But whoe can doubt of this, when, loe! a Well come Is nowe unto the gate? I would say more, But words now failing, dare not, least I roare. The eight lines in Nichols's " Progresses of James I." are from Drummond's Poem, and there can be little doubt that the whole speech was from his pen.

3 It was a charge against Robert Greene, that, driven by the pressure of necessity, he had on one occasion raised money by making a double sale "of his play called "Orlando Furioso," 1594, first to the players and afterwards to the press. Such may have been the fact, but it was unquestionably an exception to the ordinary rule. 4 See the Introduction to "Henry IV." Part I.

5 On the 8th September, as we find by the subsequent entry in the parish register :

"1601. Septembr. 8. Mr. Johanes Shakspeare."

players brought down to the Lord Keeper's seat in Hertfordshire for the purpose) was represented before her. In this case, as in the preceding one respecting "Twelfth Night," all that we positively learn is that such drama was performed, and we are left to infer that it was a new play from other circumstances, as well as from the fact that it was customary on such festivities to exhibit some drama that, as a novelty, was then attracting public attention. Hence we are led to believe, that "Twelfth Night" (not printed until it formed part of the folio of 1623) was written at the end of 1600, or in the beginning of 1601; and that "Othello" (first published in 4to, 1622,) came from the author's pen about a year afterwards.

1607, and Chalmers, weighing the evidence in favour of one date and of the other, thought neither correct, and fixed upon 16131, an opinion in which Dr. Drake fully concurred. The truth is, that we have irrefragable evidence, from an eye-witness, of its existence on 2nd February, 1602, when it was played at the Reader's Feast in the Middle Temple. This eye-witness was a barrister of the name of Manningham, who left a Diary behind him, which has been preserved in the British Museum; but as we have inserted his account of the plot in our introduction to the comedy, (Vol. iii. p. 317) no more is required here, than a mere mention of the circumstance. However, in another part of the same manuscript, he gives an anecdote of Shakespeare and Burbage, which we quote, without farther remark than that it In the memorandum ascertaining the performance of has been supposed to depend upon the authority of Nicho-" Othello" at Harefield, the company by which it was relas Tooley, but on looking at the original record again, we presented is called "Burbages Players," that designation doubt whether it came from any such source. A "Mr. arising out of the fact, that he was looked upon as the Towse" is repeatedly introduced as a person from whom leader of the association he was certainly its most celeManningham derived information, and that name, though brated actor, and we find from other sources that he was blotted, seems to be placed at the end of the paragraph, the representative of "the Moor of Venice"." Whether certainly without the addition of any Christian name. This Shakespeare had any and what part in the tragedy, either circumstance may make some difference as regards the au- then or upon other occasions, is not known; but we do not thenticity of the story, because we know not who Mr. think any argument, one way or the other, is to be drawn Towse might be, while we are sure that Nicholas Tooley from the fact that the company, when at Harefield, does was a fellow-actor in the same company as both the indi- not seem to have been under his immediate government. viduals to whom the story relates. At the same time it Whether he was or was not one of the "players" in was, very possibly, a mere invention of the "roguish play- "Othello," in August 1602, there can be little doubt that as ers," originating, as was often the case, in some older joke, an actor, and moreover as one "excellent in his quality," he and applied to Shakespeare and Burbage, because their must have been often seen and applauded by Elizabeth. Christian names happened to be William and Richard". Chettle informs us after her death, in a passage already Elizabeth, from the commencement of her reign, seems quoted, that she had "opened her royal ear to his lays," to have extended her personal patronage, as well as her but this was obviously in his capacity of dramatist, and we public countenance, to the drama; and scarcely a Christmas have no direct evidence to establish that Shakespeare had or a Shrovetide can be pointed out during the forty-five ever performed at Courts. years she occupied the throne, when there were not dramatic entertainments, either at Whitehall, Greenwich, Nonesuch, Richmond, or Windsor. The latest visit she paid to any of her nobility in the country was to the Lord Keeper, Sir Thomas Egerton, at Harefield, only nine or ten months before her death, and it was upon this occasion, in the very beginning of August, 1602, that "Othello" (having been got up for her amusement, and the Lord Chamberlain's

1 Supplemental Apology, &c. p. 467.

2 Shakspeare and his Times, vol. ii. p. 262.

3 MS. Harl. No. 5353.

4 Hist. of Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage, vol. i. p. 331. The Christian name is wanting in the Harl. MS.

5 See "Hist. Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage," vol. i. p. 331. The writer of that work thus introduces the anecdote :-"If in the course of my inquiries, I have been unlucky enough (I may perhaps say) to find anything which represents our great dramatist in a less favourable light, as a human being with human infirmities, I may lament it, but I do not therefore feel myself at liberty to conceal and suppress the fact " The anecdote is this.

"Upon a tyme when Burbage played Rich. 3, there was a citizen grew so farre in liking with him, that before shee went from the play, shee appointed him to come that night unto her, by the name of Rich. the 3. Shakespeare, overhearing their conclusion, went before, was entertained, and at his game ere Burbage came. Then, message being brought, that Rich. the 3. was at the dore, Shakespeare caused returne to be made, that William the Conqueror was before Rich. the 3. Shakespeare's name Willm."

This story may be a piece of scandal, but there is no doubt that Burbage was the original Richard III. As to the custom of ladies. inviting players home to supper, see Middleton's "Mad World, my Masters," Act v. sc. 2, in "Dodsley's Old Plays," last edit. The players, in turn, sometimes invited the ladies, as we find by Field's t: Amends for Ladies," Act iii. sc. 4, in the supplementary volume to "Dodsley's Old Plays," published in 1829.

6 See the "Introduction" to "Othello." Also "The Egerton Papers," printed by the Camden Society, 1840, p. 343.

7 In a former note we have inserted the names of some of the principal characters, in plays of the time, sustained by Burbage, as they are given in the Epitaph upon his death, in 1619. Our readers may like to see the manner in which these characters are spoken of by the contemporaneous versifier. The production opens with this couplet

"Some skilful limner help me, if not so,

Some sad tragedian to express my woe; which certainly does not promise much in the way of excellence; but the enumeration of parts is all that is valuable, and it is this: "No more young Hamlet, though but scant of breath, Shall cry, Revenge! for his dear father's death : Poor Romeo never more shall tears beget

For Juliet's love, and cruel Capulet:

James I. reached Theobalds, in his journey from Edin-
burgh to London, on the 7th May, 1603. Before he quitted
his own capital he had had various opportunities of wit-
nessing the performances of English actors; and it is an in-
teresting, but at the same time a difficult question, whether
Shakespeare had ever appeared before him, or, in other
words, whether our great dramatist had ever visited Scot-
land? We have certainly no affirmative testimony upon
Harry shall not be seen as King or Prince,
They died with thee, dear Dick,-
Not to revive again. Jeronimo
Shall cease to mourn his son Horatio.
They cannot call thee from thy naked bed
By horrid outery; and Antonio's dead.
Edward shall lack a representative;
And Crookback, as befits, shall cease to live.
Tyrant Macbeth, with unwash'd bloody hand,
We vainly now may hope to understand.
Brutus and Marcius henceforth must be dumb,
For ne'er thy like upon our stage shall come,
To charm the faculty of ears and eyes,
Unless we could command the dead to rise.
Vindex is gone, and what a loss was he!
Frankford, Brachiano, and Malevole.
Heart-broke Philaster, and Amintas too,
Are lost for ever, with the red-hair'd Jew,
Which sought the bankrupt Merchant's pound of flesh,
By woman-lawyer caught in his own mesh. * * *
And his whole action he would change with ease
From ancient Lear to youthful Pericles.

But let me not forget one chiefest part
Wherein, beyond the rest, he mov'd the heart;
The grieved Moor, made jealous by a slave,
Who sent his wife to fill a timeless grave,
Then slew himself upon the bloody bed.

All these, and many more, with him are dead," &c.
The MS. from which the above lines are copied seems, at least in one
place, defective, but it might be cured by the addition of the words,
and not long since "

8 A ballad was published on the death of Elizabeth, in the commencement of which Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, and Thomas Greene," author of "A Poet's Vision and a Prince's Glorie," 4to, 1603, were called upon to contribute some verses in honour of the late Queen:

"You poets all, brave Shakespeare, Johnson, Greene, Bestow your time to write for England's Queene," &c. Excepting for this notice of "brave Shakespeare," the production is utterly contemptible, and must have been the work of some of the "goblins and underelves" of poetry, who, according to a poem in H. Chettle's "England's Mourning Garment," had put forth upon the occasion "rude rhimes, and metres reasonless."

[ocr errors]

the point, beyond what may be derived from some passages | leader of the association which performed in Edinburgh and in Macbeth," descriptive of particular localities, with elsewhere, because it appears from the registers of the town which passages our readers must be familiar: there is, council of Aberdeen, that on the 9th October, 1601, the however, ample room for conjecture; and although, on the English players received 32 marks as a gratuity, and that whole, we are inclined to think that he was never north of on 22d October the freedom of the city was conferred upon the Tweed, it is indisputable that the company to which he Laurence Fletcher, who is especially styled "comedian to belonged, or a part of it, had performed in Edinburgh and his Majesty." The company had arrived in Aberdeen, and Aberdeen, and doubtless in some intermediate places. We had been received by the public authorities, under the sancwill briefly state the existing proofs of this fact. tion of a special letter from James VI.; and, although they were in fact the players of the Queen of England, they might on this account be deemed and treated as the players of the King of Scotland.

The year 1599 has been commonly supposed the earliest date at which an association of English actors was in Scotland; but it can be shown beyond contradiction that "her Majesty's players," meaning those of Queen Elizabeth, were in Edinburgh ten years earlier. In 1589, Ashby, the ambassador extraordinary from England to James VI. of Scotland, thus writes to Lord Burghley, under date of the 22d October:

"My Lord Bothw[ell] begins to shew himself willing and ready to do her Majesty any service, and desires hereafter to be thought of as he shall deserve: he sheweth great kindness to our nation, using her Majesties Players and Canoniers with

all courtesie2,"

Our chief reason for thinking it unlikely that Shakespeare would have accompanied his fellows to Scotland, at all events between October, 1599, and December, 1601, is that, as the principal writer for the company to which he was attached, he could not well have been spared, and because we have good ground for believing that about that period he must have been unusually busy in the composition of plays. No fewer than five dramas seem, as far as evidence, positive or conjectural, can be obtained, to belong to the interval between 1598 and 1602; and the proof appears to In 1589, the date of Ashby's dispatch, Shakespeare had us tolerably conclusive, that "Henry V.," "Twelfth Night," quitted Stratford about three years, and the question is, 1601. Besides, as far as we are able to decide such a point, and "Hamlet," were written respectively in 1599, 1600, and what company was intended to be designated as "her Majesty's players." It is an admitted fact, that in 1588 the tinued to perform in London; for although a detachment the company to which our great dramatist belonged conQueen selected twelve leading performers from the theat-under Laurence Fletcher may have been sent to Scotland, rical servants of some of her nobility, and they were after- the main body of the association called the Lord Chamberwards called "her Majesty's players," and we also now lain's players exhibited at court at the usual seasons in know, that in 1590 the Queen had two companies acting 1599, 1600, and 16015. Therefore, if Shakespeare visited under her name3: in the autumn of the preceding year, it is Scotland at all, we think it must have been at an earlier likely that one of these associations had been sent to the Scottish capital for the amusement of the young king, and period, and there was undoubtedly ample time between the the company formed in 1583 may have been divided into years 1589 and 1599 for him to have done so. Neverthetwo bodies for this express purpose. Sir John Sinclair, in less, we have no tidings that any English actors were in any part of Scotland during those ten years.

his "Statistical Account of Scotland," established that a body of comedians was in Perth in June, 1589; and although we are without evidence that they were English players, we may fairly enough assume that they were the same company spoken of by Ashby, as having been used courteously by Lord Bothwell in the October following. We have no means of ascertaining the names of any of the players, nor indeed, excepting the leaders Laneham and Dutton, can we state who were the members of the Queen's two companies in 1590. Shakespeare might be one of them; but if he were, he might not belong to that division of the company which was dispatched to Scotland.

It is not at all improbable that English actors, having found their way north of the Tweed in 1589, would speedily repeat their visit; but the next we hear of them is, not until after a long interval, in the autumn of 1599. The public records of Scotland show that in October, 1599, (exactly the same season as that in which, ten years earlier, they are spoken of by Ashby) 43l. 6s. 8d. were delivered to "his Highness' self," to be given to "the English comedians" in the next month they were paid 417. 12s. at various times. In December they received no less than 3331. 6s. 8d.; in April, 1600, 107.; and in December, 1601, the royal bounty

amounted to 400/4

Thus we see, that English players were in Scotland from October, 1599, to December, 1601, a period of more than two years; but still we are without a particle of proof that Shakespeare was one of the association. We cannot, however, entertain a doubt that Laurence Fletcher, (whose name, we shall see presently, stands first in the patent granted by King James on his arrival in London) was the

1 Between September, 1589, and September, 1590, Queen Elizabeth had sent, as a present to the young King of Scotland on his marriage, a splendid mask, with all the necessary appurtenances, and we find it charged for in the accounts of the department of the revels for that period. See "Hist. of Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage," vol. i. p. 270. It is most likely that the actors from London accompanied this gift.

2 From MS. Harl. 4647, being copies of despatches from Mr. Ashby to different members of the Council in London. We are indebted to Mr. N. Hill for directing our attention to this curious notice.

3 See Mr. P. Cunningham's "Extracts from the Revels' Accounts," (printed for the Shakespeare Society,) p. xxxii.

CHAPTER XV.

Proclamation by James I. against plays on Sunday. Renewal of theatrical performances in London. Patent of May 17th, 1603, to Laurence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, and others. Royal patronage of three companies of actors. Shakespeare's additional purchases in Stratford-upon-Avon. Shakespeare in London in the autumn of 1603: and a candidate for the office of Master of the Queen's Revels. Characters Shakespeare is known to have performed. His retirement from the stage, as an actor, after April 9th, 1604. BEFORE he even set foot in London, James I. thought it necessary to put a stop to dramatic performances on Sunday. This fact has never been mentioned, because the proclamation he issued at Theobalds on 7th May, containing the paragraph for this purpose, has only recently come to light. There had been a long pending struggle between the Puritans and the players upon this point, and each party seemed by turns to gain the victory; for various orders were, from time to time, issued from authority, forbidding exhibitions of the kind on the Sabbath, and those orders had been uniformly more or less contravened. We may suppose, that strong remonstrances having been made to the King by some of those who attended him from Scotland, a clause with this special object was appended to a proclamation directed against monopolies and legal extortions. The mere circumstance of the company in which this paragraph,

4 For these particulars of payments, and some other points connected with them, we are indebted to Mr. Laing, of Edinburgh, who has made extensive and valuable collections for a history of the Stage in Scotland.

5 The accounts of the revels' department at this period are not so complete as usual, and in Mr. P. Cunningham's book we find no details of any kind between 1587 and 1604. The interval was a period of the greatest possible interest, as regards the performance of the productions of Shakespeare, and we earnestly hope that the missing accounts may yet be recovered.

against dramatic performances on Sunday, is found, seems prove that it was an after-thought, and that it was inserted, because his courtiers had urged that James ought not even to enter his new capital, until public steps had been taken to put an end to the profanation1.

The King, having issued this command, arrived at the Charter-house on the same day, and all the theatrical companies, which had temporarily suspended their performances, began to act again on the 9th May2. Permission to this effect was given by James I., and communicated through the ordinary channel to the players, who soon found reason to rejoice in the accession of the new sovereign; for ten days after he reached London he took the Lord Chamberlain's players into his pay and patronage, calling them "the King's servants," a title they always afterwards enjoyed. For this purpose he issued a warrant, under the privy seal, for making out a patent under the great seal, authorizing the nine following actors, and others, to perform in his name, not only at the Globe on the Bankside, but in any part of the kingdom; viz. Laurence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillippes, John Heminge, Henry Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, and Richard Cowley.

We miss from this list the names of Thomas Pope, William Kempe, and Nicholas Tooley, who had belonged to the company in 1596; and instead of them we have Laurence Fletcher, Henry Condell, and Robert Armyn, with the addition of Richard Cowley. Pope had been an actor in 1589, and perhaps in May, 1603, was an old man, for he died in the February following. Kempe had joined the Lord Admiral's players soon after the opening of the Fortune, on his return from the Continent, for we find him in Henslowe's pay in 1602. Nicholas Tooley had also perhaps withdrawn from the association at this date, or his name would hardly

1 The paragraph is in these terms, and we quote them because they have not been noticed by any historian of our stage. "And for that we are informed, that there hath been heretofore great neglect in this kingdome of keeping the Sabbath day; for the better observing of the same and avoyding all impious prophanation, We do straightly charge and commaund that no Beare-bayting, Bulbayting, Enterludes, common Playes, or other like disordered or unlawful exercises, or pastimes, be frequented, kept, or used at any time hereafter upon the Sabbath day.

Given at our Court at Theobalds, the 7 day of May, in the first yeare of our Reigne."

2 This fact we have upon the authority of Henslowe's Diary. the Hist. Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage, vol. i. p. 346. 3 It runs verbatim et literatim thus :

BY THE KING.

See

have been omitted in the patent, as an established actor, and a man of some property and influence; but he, as well as Kempe, not long subsequently rejoined the association with which they had been so long connected.

We may assume, perhaps, in the absence of any direct testimony, that Laurence Fletcher did not acquire his prominence in the company by any remarkable excellence as an actor. He had been in Scotland, and had performed with his associates before James in 1599, 1600, and 1601, and in the latter year he had been registered as "his Majesty's Comedian" at Aberdeen. He might, therefore, have been a favourite with the King, and being also a considerable sharer in the association, he perhaps owed his place in the patent of May, 1603, to that circumstance*. The name of Shakespeare comes next, and as author, actor, and sharer, we cannot be surprised at the situation he occupies. His progress upward, in connexion with the profession, had been gradual and uniform: in 1589 he was twelfth in a company of sixteen members: in 1596 he was fifth in a company of eight members; and in 1603 he was second in a company of nine members.

The degree of encouragement and favour extended to actors by James I. in the very commencement of his reign is remarkable. Not only did he take the Lord Chamberlain's players unto his own service, but the Queen adopted the company which had acted under the name of the Earl of Worcester, of which the celebrated dramatist, Thomas Heywood, was then one; and the Prince of Wales that of the Lord Admiral, at the head of which was Edward Alleyn, the founder of Dulwich College. These three royal associations, as they may be termed, were independent of others under the patronage of individual noblemen3.

The policy of this course at such a time is evident, and James I. seems to have been impressed with the truth of

The patent under the great seal, made out in consequence of this warrant, bears date two days afterwards.

4 Nothing seems to be known of the birth or origin of Laurence Fletcher, (who died in September, 1608,) but we may suspect that he was an elder brother of John Fletcher, the dramatist. Bishop Fletcher, the father, died on 15 June, 1596, having made his will in October, 1594, before he was translated from Worcester to London. This document seems never to have been examined, but it appears from it, as Mr. P. Cunningham informs us, that he had no fewer than nine children, although he only mentions his sons Nathaniel and John by name. He died poor, and among the Lansdowne MSS. is one, entitled "Reasons to move her Majesty to some commiseration towards the orphans of the late Bishop of London, Dr. Fletcher :" this is printed in Birch's "Memoirs." He incurred the lasting displeasure of Queen Elizabeth by marrying, for his second wife, Lady Baker of Kent, a woman of more than questionable character, if we may believe general report, and a satirical poem of the time, handed down only in manuscript, which begins thus :

"The pride of prelacy, which now long since

Was banish'd with the Pope, is sayd of late
To have arriv'd at Bristowe, and from thence
By Worcester into London brought his state."

"The Romaine Tarquin, in his folly blind,
Of faire chaste Lucrece did a Lais make;
But owr proud Tarquin_beares a braver mind,
And of a Lais doth a Lucrece make."

We cannot venture to quote the coarse epithets liberally bestowed
upon Lady Baker, but the poem ends with these lines :—
"But yet, if any will the reason find,

Why he that look'd as lofty as a steeple,
Should be so base as for to come behind,

"Right trusty and welbeloved Counsellor, we greete you well, and will and commaund you, that under our privie Seale in your custody for the time being, you cause our letters to be derected to the keeper of our greate seale of England, commaunding him under our said greate Seale, he cause our letters to be made patents in forme following. James, by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland, Fraunce, and Irland, defendor of the faith, &c. To all Justices. Maiors, Sheriffs, It afterwards goes on thus :— Constables, Head boroughes, and other our officers and loving subjects greeting. Know ye, that we of our speciall grace, certaine knowledge, and meere motion have licenced and authorized, and by these presentes doe licence and authorize, these our servants, Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillippes, John Hemmings, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard Cowlye, and the rest of their associats, freely to use & exercise the arte and faculty of playing Comedies, Tragedies. Histories, Enterludes, Moralls, Pastoralls, Stage plaies, and such other like, as that thei have already studied or hereafter shall use or studie, aswell for the recreation of our loving subjects, as for our solace and pleasure, when we shall thinke good to see them, during our pleasure. And the said Comedies, Tragedies, Histories, Enterludes, Moralls, Pastoralls, Stage plaies, and such like, to shew & exercise publiquely to their best commoditie, when the infection of the plague shall decrease, as well within theire now usuall howse called the Globe, within our county of Surrey, as also within anie towne halls, or mout halls, or other convenient places within the liberties & freedome of any other citie, universitie, towne, or borough whatsoever within our said realmes and dominions. Willing and commaunding you, and every of you, as you tender our pleasure, not only to permit and suffer them heerin, without any your letts, hinderances, or molestations, during our said pleasure, but also to be ayding or assisting to them, yf any wrong be to them offered. And to allowe them such former courtesies, as hathe bene given to men of their place and qualitie: and also what further favour you shall shew to these our servants for our sake, we shall take kindly at your hands. And these our letters shall be your sufficient warrant and discharge in this behalfe. Given under our Signet at our mannor of Greenewiche, the seaventeenth day of May in the first yere of our raigne of England, France, and Ireland, & of Scotland the six & thirtieth. Ex per Lake."

And take the leavings of the common people,
'Tis playne; for in processions, you know,
The priest must after all the people goe."

We ought to have mentioned that the poem is headed "Bishop
Fletcher and my Lady Baker." The Bishop had buried his first
wife, Elizabeth, at Chelsea Church in December, 1592. Nathaniel
Fletcher, mentioned above as included with his brother John in his
father's will, is spoken of on a preceding page as "servant" to Mrs.
White; but who Mrs. White might be, or what was the precise
nature of "Nat. Fletcher's" servitude, we have no information.
5 However, an Act of Parliament was very soon passed (1 Jac. I. c.
7,) to expose strolling actors, although protected by the authority of
a peer, to the penalties of 39 Eliz. c. 4. It seems to have been found
that the evil had increased to an excess which required this degree
of correction; and Sir Edward Coke in his Charge to the Grand Jury
at Norwich in 1607, (when at was printed) observes, "The abuse of
stage-players, wherewith I find the country much troubled, may
easily be reformed, they having no commission to play in any place
without leave; and therefore by your willingness if they be not en-
tertained, you may soon be rid of them."

« ÖncekiDevam »