SHAKESPEARE'S LOST YEARS IN LONDON

1586-1592

SHAKESPEARE'S LOST YEARS IN LONDON

1586-1592

Giving new light on the pre-Sonnet period; showing the inception ofrelations between Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton and displaying

JOHN FLORIO

AS

SIR JOHN FALSTAFF

BY

ARTHUR ACHESON

AUTHOR OF "SHAKESPEARE AND THE RIVAL POET""MISTRESS DAVENANT, THE DARK LADY OF THE SONNETS", ETC. 

NEW YORKBRENTANO'S1920

_All rights reserved_

TO MY SONS

ARTHUR MURRAY ACHESON

AND

ALEXANDER G. ACHESON

I DEDICATE THIS VOLUME

"The purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was, andis, to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her ownfeature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time hisform and pressure. "

_Hamlet_, Act III. Scene ii. 

CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE

I. INTRODUCTORY 1

II. THE STRATFORD DAYS, 1564-1586 19

III. SHAKESPEARE, THE BURBAGES, AND EDWARD ALLEYN, 1586-1591 38

IV. SHAKESPEARE AND THE EARL OF PEMBROKE'S COMPANY, 1591-1594 72

V. SHAKESPEARE AND THE SCHOLARS, 1588-1592 90

VI. THE POLITICAL PURPOSE OF _KING JOHN_, 1591-1592 131

VII. INCEPTION OF THE FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN SHAKESPEAREAND THE EARL OF SOUTHAMPTON, 1591-1594 150

VIII. JOHN FLORIO AS SIR JOHN FALSTAFF'S ORIGINAL 181

APPENDIX--

1. Dedication of Florio's _Second Fruites_, 1591 223

2. Address to the Reader from Florio's _Second Fruites_, 1591 229

3. Dedication of Florio's _Worlde of Wordes_, 1598 233

4. Address to the Reader from Florio's _Worlde ofWordes_, 1598 242

5. John Florio's Will, 1625 252

INDEX 257

SHAKESPEARE'S LOST YEARSIN LONDON

1586-1592

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

The most interesting and important fifteen years in the records ofEnglish dramatic literature are undoubtedly those between 1588 and 1603, within which limit all of Shakespeare's poems and the majority of hisplays were written; yet no exhaustive English history, intelligentlyco-ordinating the social, literary, and political life of this period, has ever been written. 

Froude, the keynote of whose historical work is contained in hisassertion that "the Reformation was the root and source of the expansiveforce which has spread the Anglo-Saxon race over the globe, " recognisinga logical and dramatic climax for his argument in the defeat of theSpanish Armada in 1588, ends his history in that year; while Gardiner, whose historical interest was as much absorbed by the Puritan Revolutionas was Froude's by the Reformation, finds a fitting beginning for hissubject in the accession of James I. In 1603. Thus an historical hiatusis left which has never been exhaustively examined. To the resultinglack of a clearly defined historical background for those years on thepart of Shakespearean critics and compilers--who are not as a rule alsostudents of original sources of history--may be imputed much of thehaziness which still exists regarding Shakespeare's relations to, andthe manner in which his work may have been influenced by, the literary, social, and political life of this period. 

The defeat of the Armada ended a long period of threatened danger forEngland, and the following fifteen years of Elizabeth's reign werepassed in comparative security. The social life of London and the Courtnow took on, by comparison with the troubled past, an almost Augustanphase. During these years poetry and the drama flourished in England asthey never did before, or since, in any such space of time. Within a fewyears of the beginning of this time Shakespeare became the principalwriter for, and later on a sharer in, a company of players which, atabout the same time, was chosen as the favourite Court company; aposition which--under various titles--it continued to holdthereafterwards for over forty years. 

When we compare the plays of Shakespeare with those of hiscontemporaries and immediate successors, it becomes evident that thisdominant position was maintained by his company largely through thesuperior merit of his work while he lived, and by the prestige he hadattained for it after he had passed away. 

In the time of Elizabeth the stage was recognised as one of theprincipal vehicles for the reflection of opinion concerning matters ofpublic interest; the players being, in Shakespeare's phrase, "theabstract and brief chronicles of the time. " The fact that laws werepassed and Orders in Council issued prohibiting the representation ofmatters of Church or State upon the stage, clearly implies theprevalence of such representations. It is altogether unlikely that themost popular dramatist of the day should, in this phase of his art, haveremained an exception to the rule. 

I hold it to have been impossible that such an ardent Englishman asShakespeare, one also so deeply interested in human motive, character, and action, should have lived during these fifteen years in the heart ofEnglish literary and political life, --coming, through his professionalinterests, frequently and closely in contact with certain of its centralfigures, --and should during this interval have written twenty originalplays, three long poems, and over one hundred and fifty sonnets, withoutleaving in this work decipherable reflections of the characters andmovements of his time. That these conscious, or unconscious, reflectionshave not long ago been recognised and interpreted I impute to the lackof an intimate knowledge of contemporary history on the part of themajority of his critics and biographers. 

Competent text critics, in their efforts to establish the chronologicalorder of the dramas, have long since displayed the facts thatShakespeare's earlier original plays were largely comedies of a joyousnature, and that, as the years pass, his work becomes more serious andphilosophical; in time developing into the pessimistic bitterness of_Lear_ and _Timon of Athens_, but softening and lightening, at the endof his career, in the gravely reflective but kindly mood of _Cymbeline_, _A Winter's Tale_, and _The Tempest_; yet no serious attempt has everbeen made to trace and demonstrate in the personal contact of the writerwith concurrent life the underlying spiritual causes of these verypalpable changes in his expression of it. Until this is done noadequate life of Shakespeare can be written. [1]

Now, in order to be enabled to find in Shakespeare's personalobservation and experience the well-springs of the plainly developingand deepening reflections of human life in action, so evident in hisdramas when studied chronologically, a sound knowledge of contemporarysocial, literary, and political history is the first essential;possessing this, the serious student will soon realise in the likenessesbetween Shakespeare's dramatic expression, and his concurrentpossibilities of observation and experience, that he portrayed life ashe himself saw and felt it, and that he used the old and hackneyedstories and chronicles which he selected for his plots, not because helacked the power of dramatic construction, but in order to hide theunderlying purposes of his plays from the public censor. While nointelligent student needs any other warrant for this belief than theplays themselves, when chronologically co-ordinated with even anelementary knowledge of the history of the period, we have Shakespeare'sown assertion that this was the actual method and spirit of his work. When he tells us in _Hamlet_ that "the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first _and now_, was, _and is_, to hold, as 'twere, themirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature, scorn her ownimage, and _the very age and body of the time_ his form and pressure, "he is not attempting to describe the dramatic methods of ancientDenmark, but is definitely expounding the functions of dramaticexposition as they prevailed in actual use in his own day, and as hehimself had then exercised them for over ten years. 

Any attempt to visualise Shakespeare in his contemporary environment, and spiritually to link his work year by year with the life of his time, would be impossible unless there can first be attained a far cleareridea than now exists of his theatrical connections, the inception of hisdramatic work, and of the literary and social affiliations he formed andantagonisms he aroused, during his first six or eight years in London. The purpose of this book is--by casting new light upon this period ofShakespeare's career--to show the inception and development ofconditions and influences which continued from that time forwardmaterially to affect his and his friends' lives, and in turn to shapeand colour the expression of life in action which he gives us in hisworks. 

Though there is nothing known definitely concerning Shakespeare between1587--when his name is mentioned in a legal document at Stratfordregarding the transfer of property in which he held a contingentinterest and which possibly infers his presence in Stratford at thatdate--and 1592, when Robert Greene alludes to him in his posthumouslypublished _A Groatsworth of Wit_, it is usually assumed that he leftStratford in 1586 or 1587 with a company of players, or else that hejoined a company in London at about that time. 

As the Earl of Leicester's company is recorded as having visitedStratford-upon-Avon in 1587, --some time before 14th June, --and as JamesBurbage, the father of Richard Burbage, with whom we find Shakespeareclosely affiliated in later years, was manager of the Earl ofLeicester's company as late as 1575, --the year before he built theTheatre at Shoreditch, --it is generally assumed that he was stillmanager of this company in 1586-87, and that Shakespeare becameconnected with him by joining Leicester's company at this time. Thisassumption is, however, somewhat involved by another, nebulously held bysome critics, _i. E. _, that James Burbage severed his connection withLeicester's company in 1583, and joined the Queen's company, and thatthe latter company played under his management at the Theatre inShoreditch for several years afterwards. It is further involved by theequally erroneous assumption that Burbage managed the Curtain along withthe Theatre between 1585 and 1592. [2]

Certain biographical compilers also assert that Shakespeare, havingjoined the Earl of Leicester's company, continued to be connected withit under its supposed varying titles until the end of his London career, and that he was never associated with any other company. They assumethat Leicester's company merged with Lord Strange's company of acrobatsin 1589, the combination becoming known as Lord Strange's players; andthat when this company left James Burbage and the Theatre, in 1592, forPhilip Henslowe and the Rose Theatre, that Shakespeare accompanied themand worked for Henslowe both as a writer and an actor. They suppose thatEdward Alleyn became the manager of a combination of the Admiral'scompany and Strange's men for a "short period, " but that the companies"soon parted, " "Strange's men continuing with Henslowe for a prolongedperiod. "[3] It is also asserted that "the Rose Theatre was the firstscene of Shakespeare's successes alike as an actor and a dramatist, " andthat he "helped in the authorship of _The First Part of Henry VI. _, with which Lord Strange's company scored a triumphant success in1592. "[4]

These assumptions, which were advanced tentatively by former scholarsand merely as working hypotheses, have now, by repetition and thedogmatic dicta of biographical compilers, come to be accepted by theuncritical as ascertained facts. 

While it is now generally accepted that Greene's "Shake-scene" alludesto Shakespeare, and that his parody of a line from _The True Tragedie_:

 "O Tyger's heart wrapt in a Player's hide"

denotes some connection of Shakespeare's with either _The True Tragedieof the Duke of York_, or with _The Third Part of Henry VI. _ beforeSeptember 1592, when Greene died, and while the title-page of the firstissue of _The True Tragedie of the Duke of York_ informs us that thisplay was acted by the Earl of Pembroke's company, and no mention of theplay appears in the records of Henslowe, under whose financialmanagement Shakespeare is supposed to have been working with Strange'scompany in 1592, _nothing has ever been done to elucidate Shakespeare'sevident connection with this play or with the Earl of Pembroke's companyat this period_. 

In the same year--1592--Nashe refers to the performance by LordStrange's company under Henslowe of _The First Part of Henry VI. _, andpraises the work of the dramatist who had recently incorporated theTalbot scenes, which are plainly the work of a different hand from thebulk of the remainder of the play. This also is generally accepted as areference to Shakespeare and as indicating his connection with Hensloweas a writer for the stage. It is erroneously inferred from this supposedevidence, and from the fact that Richard Burbage was with Strange'scompany in 1592, that Shakespeare also acted with and wrote for thiscompany under Henslowe. 

No explanation has ever been given for the palpable fact that not one ofthe plays written by Shakespeare--the composition of which all competenttext critics impute to the years 1591 to 1594--is mentioned inHenslowe's Diary as having been presented upon his boards. It isgenerally agreed that _The Comedy of Errors, King John, Richard II. , Love's Labour's Lost, Love's Labour's Won, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Richard III. _, and _Midsummer Night's Dream_, were all produced beforethe end of 1594, yet there is no record nor mention of any one of theseplays in Henslowe's _Diary_, which gives a very full list of theperformances at the Rose and the plays presented between 1592 and 1594. 

During the same years in which records of Shakespeare are lacking[5]they are also very limited regarding Edward Alleyn, whose reputation asan actor and whose leadership in his profession were won during theseyears--1586-92. Nothing is at present known concerning him between 1584, when he is mentioned in the Leicester records as a member of the Earl ofWorcester's company, and 3rd January 1589, when he bought Richard Jones'share of theatrical properties, owned conjointly by Edward Alleyn, JohnAlleyn, Robert Browne, and Richard Jones. As Edward Alleyn, RobertBrowne, and Richard Jones were all members of Worcester's company in1584, it is erroneously assumed that they were still Worcester's men in1589, and that it was Jones' share in the Worcester properties thatAlleyn bought at this time to take with him to the Admiral's company, which he is consequently supposed to have joined some time between 1589and 1592. The next record we have of Alleyn is his marriage to JoanWoodward, Henslowe's stepdaughter, in October 1592. In the following Maywe find him managing Lord Strange's company in the provinces, thoughstyling himself a Lord Admiral's man. _Where, then, was Edward Alleynbetween 1585 and 1589; where between 1589 and 1593; and when did hebecome a Lord Admiral's man?_

Worcester's company, with which Alleyn was connected in 1584, is lastmentioned in the records as appearing at Barnstaple in 1585;[6] it thendisappears from view for five years, and is next mentioned in theprovincial records as appearing at Coventry in 1590. [7] Between 1590 and1603 it is mentioned regularly in the provincial records. _Where wasWorcester's company between 1585 and 1590?_

I propose to demonstrate by new evidence and analysis that James Burbageceased to be an active member of Leicester's company soon after he tookon the responsibilities of the management of the Theatre; but continuedhis theatrical employees under Leicester's protection as LordLeicester's musicians until 1582, when he began to work under thelicence of Lord Hunsdon, his company being composed of his own employeesand largely of musicians, to act as an adjunct to the companies to whom, from time to time, he let the use of the Theatre during the absence inthe provinces of the companies, such as Leicester's and the Admiral's, with which I shall give evidence he held more permanent affiliations, and, seeing that he was owner and manager of the Theatre, that theseaffiliations were somewhat similar to those maintained by Henslowe--theowner of the Rose Theatre--with Lord Strange's company between 1592 and1594, and with the Lord Admiral's, and other companies, at the severaltheatres he controlled in later years. I shall indicate that from thetime Burbage built the Theatre in 1576 until early in 1585, hemaintained such a connection with Leicester's company, and shall showthat the disruption of this company in 1585 by the departure of seven oftheir principal members for the Continent--where they remained untilJuly 1587--necessitated a similar connection with some other goodcompany to take its place, and that he now secured Edward Alleyn and hisfellows, who, ceasing to be Worcester's men at this time, and securingthe licence of the Lord Admiral, affiliated themselves with the remnantof Leicester's men and joined Burbage and Lord Hunsdon's men at theTheatre. In this year the latter became the Lord Chamberlain's menthrough the elevation of Lord Hunsdon to that office. These companies, while retaining individual licences, continued to play when in London asone company until the end of 1588, or beginning of 1589, when anotherreorganisation took place, a number of the old men being eliminated andnew blood being taken in from the restored Leicester company and LordStrange's company of youthful acrobats, who had now become men. I shallgive evidence that this organisation continued to work as one companyfor the next three years, though the Admiral's men still retained theirown licence, and consequently that the company as a whole is at timesmentioned in both Court and provincial records under one title and attimes under the other. The principal reason that a number of companies, combining at a London theatre as one company, preserved their severallicences was no doubt the greater protection afforded them by thepatronage of several powerful noblemen against the hostility ofpuritanically inclined municipal authorities. Recorder Fleetwood, whowas noted as an enemy of the players, in his weekly reports on civicaffairs to Lord Burghley, frequently complains of the stoppage by Courtinfluence of his prosecutions of alleged offenders. Upon one occasion hewrites: "When the Court is farthest from London then is the best justicedone in England. "

Some time between the beginning of 1591 and the end of that year, JamesBurbage's disfavour with certain of the authorities, as well as legaland financial difficulties in which he became involved, made itnecessary for the combined companies, which in December 1591 hadattained to the position of the favourite Court company, to seek moreconvenient quarters and stronger financial backing than Burbage and theTheatre afforded. Under its various titles Strange's company continuedto be the leading Court company for the next forty years. I shallindicate the probability that Strange's company in supplanting theQueen's company at Court at this time _also supplanted it at the RoseTheatre_, which was built by Henslowe in 1587 as a theatre. [8] Henslowerepaired and reconstructed it late in 1591 and early in 1592 for theuses of Strange's men. I will show the unlikelihood that this wasHenslowe's first venture in theatrical affairs, and the probability thatthe Queen's players, under his financial management, occupied the RoseTheatre from the time it was built in 1587 until they were superseded byStrange's men in 1591. 

I shall also give evidence that Shakespeare did not accompany Strange'smen to Henslowe and the Rose, but that he remained with Burbage, whobacked him in the formation of Pembroke's company, and that he andMarlowe wrote for this company until Marlowe was killed in 1593, andthat Shakespeare was probably its sole provider of plays from the timeof Marlowe's death until the company disrupted early in 1594. I shallshow further that during the time Shakespeare and Marlowe wrote forPembroke's company, and for some years later, George Peele revised oldand wrote new plays for Henslowe and Alleyn, and that it was he thatrevised _Henry VI. _ and introduced the Talbot scene in 1592, andconsequently that it was to Peele, and not to Shakespeare, that Nashe'spraises were given at this time. Evidence shall be given to show thatNashe was antagonistic to Shakespeare and co-operated with Greeneagainst him at this period. 

It shall be made clear that _Titus Andronicus_, which was acted as a newplay by Sussex's company under Henslowe on 23rd January 1594, was alsowritten by Peele, or rewritten from _Titus and Vespasian_, which is nowlost, but which--being written for Strange's men in the previousyear--we may assume was also Peele's, or else his first revision of astill older play. 

Some time before the middle of 1594 a new reorganisation of companiestook place, the Admiral's and the Lord Chamberlain's separating andabsorbing men from Pembroke's and Sussex's companies, which ceased toexist as active entities at this time, though a portion of Pembroke'smen--while working with the Admiral's men between 1594 and1597--retained their own licence and attempted to operate separately inthe latter year, but, failing, returned to Henslowe and became Admiral'smen. A few of their members whom Langley, the manager of the SwanTheatre, had taken from them, struggled on as Pembroke's men for a yearor two and finally disappeared from the records. 

A consideration of the affairs of Lord Strange's men--now the LordChamberlain's men--while under Henslowe's financial management between1592 and 1594, and of Pembroke's company's circumstances during the sameperiod, with their enforced provincial tours owing to the plague inLondon, will show that these were lean years for both organisations, andfor the men composing them; _yet in December 1594--as is shown by theCourt records of March 1595--Shakespeare appears as a leading sharer inone of the most important theatrical companies in England_. I shalladvance evidence to show that his position in this powerful company, andits apparent prosperity at this time, were due to financial assistanceaccorded him in 1594 by his patron, the Earl of Southampton, to whom inthis year he dedicated _Lucrece_, and in the preceding year _Venus andAdonis_. 

If these hypotheses be demonstrated it shall appear that thoughShakespeare, as Burbage's employee in the conduct of the Theatre, hadtheatrical relations with the Earl of Leicester's company that he wasnot a member of that company, and that if he may be regarded as havingbecome a member of any company in 1586-87, when he came to London, hewas a member of the Lord Chamberlain's company, --which was owned byJames Burbage, --_but as a bonded and hired servant or servitor to JamesBurbage for a term of years which ended in about 1589_; that his workwith Burbage from the time he entered his service was of a generalnature, and more of a literary and dramatic than of an histrioniccharacter, though it undoubtedly partook of both; that he worked inconjunction with both Richard Burbage and Edward Alleyn from the time hecame to London in 1586-87 until 1591; that neither he nor Burbage wereconnected with the Queen's company, nor with the Curtain Theatre, duringthese years, _and that the ownership by the Burbage organisation of anumber of old Queen's plays resulted from their absorption of Queen'smen in 1591, when Pembroke's company was formed, and not from thesupposed fact that James Burbage was at any time a member or the managerof the Queen's company_; that Robert Greene's attack upon Shakespeare as"the onely Shake-scene, " in 1592, was directed at him as the manager ofPembroke's company; that the Rose Theatre was not "the scene ofShakespeare's pronounced success, both as a writer and a dramatist, "_and that in fact he never was connected with that theatre, nor withHenslowe, either as a writer or an actor_; that Nashe's laudation of theTalbot scenes in _Henry VI. _ was complimentary to his friend Peele, andthat whatever additions Shakespeare may have made to this play were madeafter he rejoined the Lord Chamberlain's men in 1594; that he had nohand in the composition of _Titus Andronicus_, acted by Sussex's companyand published in 1594, which is the same as that now generally includedin Shakespeare's plays; and finally that his business ability and socialand dramatic prestige restored Burbage's waning fortunes and enabled hisnew organisation to compete successfully with the superior politicalfavour and financial power of Henslowe and Alleyn, and started it uponits prolonged career of Court and public favour. 

As a clear conception of Shakespeare's theatrical affiliations between1586 and 1594 has not hitherto been realised so a knowledge of hisrelations with contemporary writers during his entire career stillremains nebulous. Greene's attack in 1592 in _A Groatsworth of Wit_ andChettle's apology are the only things regarding Shakespeare's earlyrelations with other writers that have been generally accepted bycritics. Until the publication of _Shakespeare and the Rival Poet_ in1903, nothing was known of his prolonged enmity with Chapman; while thename of Matthew Roydon was unmentioned in connection with Shakespeareanaffairs until 1913. [9] The revelations of the present volume regardingthe enmity between Florio and Shakespeare, and Shakespeare's dramaticcharacterisations of Florio, have never been anticipated, though thepossibility that they may have come at odds has been apprehended. TheRev. J. H. Halpin suggested in 1856 that the "H. S. " attacked by Florio inhis _Worlde of Wordes_ in 1590 may have been directed at Shakespeare, but advanced no evidence to support his theory, which has since beenrelegated by the critics to the limbo of fanciful conjecture. I was notaware of Mr. Halpin's suggestion when I reached my present conclusions. 

There has hitherto been no suspicion whatever on the part of criticsthat anything of the nature of a continuous collusion between thescholars existed against Shakespeare in these early years, andconsequently, when at a later period it was manifested in playspresented upon rival stages, it was regarded as a new development andnamed "The War of the Theatres"; but even this open phase of theantagonism and the respective sides taken by its participants are stillmisunderstood. This critical opacity is due largely to the fact thatShakespearean criticism has for many years been regarded as the provinceof academic specialists in literature who have neglected the social andpolitical history of Shakespeare's day as outside their line ofspecialisation. It was probably Froude's recognition of this nebulouscondition in Shakespearean criticism that deterred him from continuinghis history to the end of the reign of Elizabeth, and prevented Gardinerbeginning his where Froude's ended. These great historians realised thatno adequate history of that remarkable period could be written that didnot include a full consideration of Shakespeare and his influence; yet, making no pretensions themselves to Shakespearean scholarship, andfinding in extant knowledge no sure foundations whereon to build, theyevaded the issue, confining their investigations to the development ofthose phases of history in which they were more vitally interested. 

Froude's intimate knowledge of the characters and atmosphere ofElizabethan social and political life, acquired by years of devotedapplication to an exhaustive examination of documentary records and theepistolatory correspondence of the period, convinced him thatShakespeare drew his models and his atmosphere from concurrent life. Hewrites: "We wonder at the grandeur, the moral majesty of some ofShakespeare's characters, so far beyond what the noblest among ourselvescan imitate, and at first thought we attribute it to the genius of thepoet who has outstripped nature in his creations, but we aremisunderstanding the power and the meaning of poetry in attributingcreativeness to it in any such sense. Shakespeare created but only asthe spirit of nature created around him, working in him as it workedabroad in those among whom he lived. The men whom he draws were suchmen as he saw and knew; the words they utter were such as he heard inthe ordinary conversations in which he joined. . . . At a thousand unnamedEnglish firesides he found the living originals for his Prince Hals, hisOrlandos, his Antonios, his Portias, his Isabellas. The closer personalacquaintance which we can form with the English of the age of Elizabeth, the more we are satisfied that Shakespeare's great poetry is no morethan the rhythmic echo of the life which he depicts. "

As this book is intended as a precursor to one shortly to be publisheddealing with the sonnets and the plays of the Sonnet period, the onlyplays here critically considered are _King John_ and _The Comedy ofErrors_, which I shall argue are the only plays--now extant--written byShakespeare before the inception of his intimacy with the Earl ofSouthampton, which I date, upon good evidence, in the autumn of 1591. Inthe former we have probably the best example of the manner in whichElizabethan playwrights dramatised contemporary affairs. In thisinstance Shakespeare worked from an older play which had been composedwith the same intention with which he rewrote it, and as the old playhad passed the censor and been for years upon the public boards, he wasenabled to develop his intention more openly than even he dared to do inlater years, when, owing to the influence of Lord Burghley and his son, Sir Robert Cecil, the enforcement of the statutes against therepresentation of matters of State upon the stage became increasinglystringent. 

Though the political phases of Shakespeare's dramas become more veiledas the years pass, I unhesitatingly affirm that there is not a singleplay composed between the end of 1591 and the conclusion of his dramaticcareer that does not, in some manner, intentionally reflect either thesocial, literary, or political affairs of his day. 

In order that the reader may approach a consideration of the rearrangedsonnets with a clear perspective, and to keep the Sonnet storyuninvolved by subsidiary argument, I now demonstrate not only thebeginning of the acquaintance between Shakespeare and the Earl ofSouthampton--which has not hitherto been known--but also take a forwardglance of several years in order definitely to establish the identity ofJohn Florio as Shakespeare's original for Falstaff, Parolles, andArmado. His identity as the original for still other characters will bemade apparent as this history develops in the Sonnet period. 

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Dr. Georg Brandes' _William Shakespeare: A Critical Study_, is by far the best attempt at an interpretation of Shakespeare's playsupon spiritual lines that has yet been made; but the biographical valueof this excellent analysis is involved by the fact that Dr. Brandes, atthe time he wrote, --now over thirty years ago, --accepted Thomas Tyler'sPembroke-Fitton theory of the sonnets, and with it the distortedchronology for the plays of the Sonnet period, which it necessarilyinvolves. ]

[Footnote 2: _A Life of William Shakespeare_, by Sir Sidney Lee, 1916, p. 59. ]

[Footnote 3: _Ibid. _ 61. ]

[Footnote 4: _A Life of William Shakespeare_, by Sir Sidney Lee, 1916, pp. 61, 55. ]

[Footnote 5: "Between 1586 and 1592 we lose all trace of Shakespeare. "_William Shakespeare: A Critical Study_, Georg Brandes, p. 18. ]

[Footnote 6: _English Dramatic Companies, 1558-1641_, vol. I. P. 57. ByJohn Tucker Murray. ]

[Footnote 7: _Ibid. _]

[Footnote 8: It is probable that previous to 1587 the Rose was an innused for theatrical purposes. ]

[Footnote 9: _Mistress Davenant, the Dark Lady of Shakespeare'sSonnets. _]

CHAPTER II

THE STRATFORD DAYS

"What porridge had John Keats?" asks Browning. So may we well inquire ofwhat blood was Shakespeare? What nice conjunction of racial strainsproduced this unerring judgment, this heaven-scaling imagination, thisexquisite sensibility? for, however his manner of life may havedeveloped their expression, these qualities were plainly inherent in theman. 

The name Shakespeare has been found to have existed during thethirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries in variousparts of England, and has been most commonly encountered in and aboutWarwickshire. While it is spelt in many different ways, the commonestform is _Shaxper_ or _Shaxpeare_, giving the _a_ in the first syllablethe same sound as in flax. Wherever Shakespeare families are found, however, they invariably show a very great preponderance of Christiannames that are characteristically Norman: Richard, Gilbert, Hugh, William, John, Robert, Anthony, Henry, Thomas, Joan, Mary, Isabella, Ann, Margaret, being met with frequently. It is likely then that thewidespread and persistent use of Norman Christian names by Shakespearefamilies denotes their Norman origin, and that this link with their pastwas preserved by family custom long after pride of ancestry--which firstcontinued its use--was forgotten, as in the case of the Irish peasantryof Norman origin in Leinster--within what was formerly known as theNorman Pale--who have long forgotten their origin, but having Normanpatronymics still preserve also Norman Christian names. 

The etymological origin of Shakespeare's name is yet unsettled: onescholar suggests that it derives from the Anglo-Saxon, _Saexberht_. Thiswould imply that the Anglo-Saxon prefix _saex_ has by time beentransmuted into Shake, and that the suffix, _berht_ has become pear orpere. The instances in which the Anglo-Saxon _sae_ have changed into theEnglish _sh_ are extremely rare. The modern _sh_ in English when derivedfrom Anglo-Saxon is almost invariably _sc_ softened, or when derivedfrom Danish or Norse _sh_, as, for instance, in the words _sceadu_shade, _sceaft_ shaft, _sceacan_ shake, _sceal_ shall, _scamu_ shame, _skapa_ shape. I cannot find a single instance in the growth ofAnglo-Saxon into English where the original _berht_ has taken on the _p_sound and become _pear_ or _pere_. The English for _berht_ as a rule isbert, burt, or bard. 

Shakespeare's sanity of judgment and spiritual self-reliance arequalities which we naturally associate with the Norse temperament; hisfine sensibility and unfettered imagination strike us as much morecharacteristically Gallic or Celtic. It seems probable then that in hisphysical and spiritual composition we have a rare admixture of theserelated Aryan types. Physically he was not a large man, being, in fact, rather below the middle stature; his hair was strong in texture and darkreddish in colour, while his eyes were brown; his nose was large, andhis lips full, but the face relieved of sensuousness by the dominantmajesty of the brow. This is not descriptive of an Anglo-Saxon type: itis much more distinctly French or Norman. It is probable that the bloodof the Norman ran full in Shakespeare's veins, and who was the Normanbut the racial combination of the Norseman and the Gaul? In this light, then, I suggest that the name Shakespeare seems to be much closer to theNorman-French _Jacquespierre_ than it is to the Anglo-Saxon _saexberht_. In the gradual transition of Norman-French into English pronunciation, Shakespeare, or as the name was pronounced in Elizabethan days, Shaxper, is exactly the form which the English tongue would have given to thename _Jacquespierre_. It is significant that Arden, his mother's name, is also of Norman origin; that his grandfather's name Richard, hisfather's name John, his own name William, and the names of all hisbrothers and sisters, but one, were Norman. In view of theseindications, it is not unreasonable to assume that Norman blood heldgood proportion in the veins of this greatest of all Englishmen. 

Exhaustive research by interested genealogists has failed to traceShakespeare's forebears further into the past than to his grandfather, Richard Shakespeare, a substantial yeoman of Snitterfield, and thisrelationship, while generally accepted, is not yet definitelyestablished. There is no doubt, however, that John Shakespeare, butcher, glover, woolstapler, or corndealer, or all of these things combined, ofStratford-upon-Avon, was his father, and that the poet was baptized inthe Parish Church of that town upon 26th April, in the year 1564. He wasborn on, or shortly before, 23rd April in the same year. 

Shakespeare's mother was Mary Arden, the youngest of eight daughters--bythe first wife--of Robert Arden, a landed gentleman of Wilmcote, relatedto the Ardens of Parkhill, at that time one of the leading families ofWarwickshire. 

On the theory that men of great intellectual capacity inherit theirqualities from the distaff side, it might help us to realise Shakespearebetter if we know more about his mother: of her personality andcharacter, however, we know absolutely nothing. 

The mothers depicted by Shakespeare in his plays are, as a rule, devoted, strong, and noble characters, and are probably in some measurespiritual reflections of the model he knew most intimately. It isimprobable that Shakespeare's childhood should not have shown someevidence of the qualities he later displayed, and impossible that suchpromise should be hidden from a mother's eye. 

The wealth of Shakespeare's productiveness in the three years precedingthe end of 1594 gives ample evidence that the dark years interveningbetween his departure from Stratford and the autumn of 1591 had not beenidly spent. Such mastery of his art as he displays even at this earlyperiod was not attained without an active and interested novitiate inhis profession. It is evident that the appellation _Johannes factotum_, which Greene in 1592 slurringly bestows upon him, had been well earnedin the six or seven preceding years of his London life for which wepossess no records. 

Whatever misgivings their staid and thrifty Stratford neighbours mayhave had as to the wisdom of the youthful Shakespeare's Londonadventure, we may well believe that Mary Arden, knowing her son's fibre, felt fair assurance that his success there would come near to matchingher desires, and that of the several spurs to his industry and pride ofachievement the smile of her approval was not the least. There ispossibly a backward glance to his mother's faith in him in the spirit ofVolumnia's hopes for the fame of her son:

 "When yet he was but tender-bodied, and the only son of my womb; when youth with comeliness plucked all gaze his way; when for a day of Kings' entreaties, a mother should not sell him an hour from her beholding; I--considering how honour would become such a person; that it was no better than picture-like to hang by the wall, if renown made it not stir, --was pleased to let him seek danger where he was like to find fame. To a cruel war I sent him; from whence he returned, his brows bound with oak. I tell thee, daughter--I sprang not more in joy at first hearing he was a man-child, than now in first seeing he had proved himself a man. "

Mary Arden died in 1608, at about the time the passage quoted above waswritten, having lived long enough to see the fortunes of the familyrestored through her son's efforts, and also to see him become one ofthe most noted men in England, and returning to Stratford with his browscrowned, if not with martial oak, with more enduring laurels. 

We have no record of Shakespeare's schooldays. We know that a freegrammar school of good standard existed in Stratford during his boyhood, and later. It is usually assumed that it was here that Shakespeare gotthe elements of his education. Though he was in no sense a classicalscholar, he undoubtedly had an elementary knowledge of Latin, and maypossibly, in later years, have acquired a smattering of Greek. GeorgeChapman accuses Shakespeare of spreading the report that his allegedtranslations of Homer from the original Greek were, in fact, made fromLatin versions. Whatever truth there may have been in Chapman'saccusation against Shakespeare in this connection, modern scholarshiphas found that there were good grounds for such a report, and thatChapman undoubtedly made free use of the Latin of Scapula in all of histranslations. Chapman's allegation, if true, seems to imply thatShakespeare's knowledge of Latin was not so meagre but that he could, upon occasion, successfully combat his learned opponents with weapons oftheir own choice. 

Once at work in London, Shakespeare wrought hard, and in view of hisimmense productiveness can have had little leisure in the ten or fifteenyears following. We may infer, then, that the wealth of knowledge ofnature he displays was acquired in his boyhood and youth in the countryround about Stratford. His intimate acquaintance with animate andinanimate life in all their forms, his knowledge of banks where wildthyme grew, his love of flowers and of natural beauty which remainedwith him all through his life, were evidently gained at that receptiveperiod:

 "When meadow, grove, and stream, The earth and every common thing to (him) did seem, Appareled in celestial light, The glory and the freshness of a dream. "

Though Shakespeare's schooldays were over long before he left Stratfordfor London, his real education had only then begun. To his all-gleaningeye and hungry mind every day he lived brought new accretions ofknowledge. Notwithstanding the paucity of recorded fact which existsregarding his material life, and the wealth of intimate knowledge we maypossess regarding the lives of other writers, I doubt if, in the worksof any other author in the entire history of literature, we can tracesuch evidence of continuous intellectual and spiritual growth. 

While we have no light on Shakespeare's childhood, a few facts have beengleaned from the Stratford records concerning his father's affairs andhis own youth, a consideration of which may enable us to judge theunderlying causes which led him to seek his fortunes in London. 

There is something pathetic yet dignified about the figure of JohnShakespeare as we dimly sight it in what remains of the annals of histown and time. The stage he treads is circumscribed, and his appearancesare few, but sufficient for us to apprehend a high-spirited butinjudicious man, showing always somewhat superior in spirit to hissocial conditions. 

He settled in Stratford twelve years previous to the birth of our poet, and appears to have been recognised as a man of some importance soonafter his arrival. We have record that he was elected to various smallmunicipal offices early in his Stratford career, and also of purchasesof property from time to time, all of which evidences a growth in estateand public regard. At about the time of Shakespeare's birth, and duringa season of pestilence, we find him prominent amongst those of histownsmen who contributed to succour their distressed and strickenneighbours. A year later than this we find him holding office asalderman, and later still as bailiff of Stratford; the latter thehighest office in the gift of his fellow-townsmen. While holding thisoffice we catch a glimpse of him giving welcome to a travelling companyof players; an innovation in the uses of his position which argues abroad and tolerant catholicity of mind when contrasted with the growingPuritanism of the times. And so, for several years, we see him prosper, and living as befits one who prospers, and, withal, wearing his villagehonours with a kindly dignity. But fortune turns, and a period ofreverses sets in; we do not trace them very distinctly; we find himborrowing moneys and mortgaging property, and, later, these and olderobligations fall due, and, failing payment, he is sued, and thereafterfor some years he fights a stubborn rearguard fight with pursuing fatein the form of truculent creditors and estranged relatives. 

In the onset of these troubles an event occurred which, we may safelyassume, did not tend to ease his worries nor add to his peace of mind. In 1582, his son, our poet, then a youth of eighteen, brought to hishome an added care in the shape of a wife who was nearly eight years hissenior, and who (the records tell us) bore him a daughter within sixmonths of the date of their betrothal. All the circumstances surroundingthe marriage lead us to infer that Shakespeare's family was notenthusiastically in favour of it, and was perhaps ignorant of it tillits consummation, and that it was practically forced upon the youthfulShakespeare by the bride's friends for reasons obvious in the facts ofthe case. About two and a half years from this date, and at a periodwhen John Shakespeare's affairs had become badly involved and hiscreditors uncomfortably persistent, his son's family and his own carewere increased by the addition of the twins, Judith and Hamnet. The fewrecords we have of this period (1585-86) show a most unhappy state ofaffairs; his creditors are still on the warpath, and one, owning to thesolid name of John Brown, having secured judgment against him, iscompelled to report to the court that "the defendant hath no propertywhereon to levy. " Shortly after this, John Shakespeare is shorn of thelast shred of his civic honours, being deprived of his office ofalderman for non-attendance at the council meetings. In this conditionof things we may realise the feelings of an imaginative and sensitiveyouth of his son's calibre; how keenly he would feel the helplessnessand the reproach of his position, especially if--as was no doubt thecase--it was augmented by the looks of askance and wagging of heads ofthe sleek and thrifty wise-ones of his community. 

We are fairly well assured that Shakespeare did not leave Stratfordbefore the end of 1585, and it appears probable that he remained thereas late as 1586 or 1587. Seeing that he had compromised himself at theage of eighteen with a woman eight years his senior, whom he marriedfrom a sense of honour or was induced to marry by her friends, we mayinfer that the three or four subsequent years he spent in Stratford werenot conducive either to domestic felicity or peace of mind. HowShakespeare occupied himself during these years we may never know, though it is very probable that he worked in the capacity of assistantto his father. That these were years of introspection and remorse to oneof his spirit, however, there can be little doubt; there can be stillless doubt that they were also years of formative growth, and that inthis interval the irresponsible youth, who had given hostages to fortuneby marrying at the age of eighteen, steadied by the responsibility of agrowing family, quickly developed into some promise of the man to be. 

No biographer has yet taken into consideration the effect which thecircumstances of Shakespeare's life during these four or five formativeyears must necessarily have had in the development of his character. That this exquisite poet, this builder of dreams, should in the commonaffairs of life have displayed such an effectively practical bent, hasalways appeared an anomaly; a partial explanation is to be found in theincentive given to his energies by the conditions of his life, and ofhis father's affairs, at this formative period. To the habitually poor, poverty is a familiar; to the patrician who has had reverses, it may bea foil to his spirit: he still has his pride of family and caste. To theburgher class, in which Shakespeare moved in Stratford, the loss ofmoney was the loss of caste. To provide for the future of his childrenand to restore the declining fortunes and prestige of his family becamenow his most immediate concern, if we may form any judgment from hissubsequent activities. The history of literature has given us so manyinstances of poetic genius being unaccompanied by ordinary worldlywisdom, and so few instances of a combination of business aptitude withpoetic genius, that some so-called biographers, enamoured of theconventional idea of a poet, seem almost to resent our great poet'spractical common sense when displayed in his everyday life, and toimpute to him as a derogation, or fault, the sound judgment in worldlymatters, without which he never could have evolved the sane andunimpassioned philosophy of life, which, like a firm and even warp, runsveiled through the multicoloured weft of incident and accident in hisdramas. 

All Shakespearean biographers now agree in dating his hegira fromStratford not later than the year 1587. Early in 1585 his twin children, Judith and Hamnet, were born. The fact that no children were born to himlater is usually advanced in favour of the assumption that he leftStratford shortly after this date. In the next eleven years we have butone mention of him in the Stratford records. Towards the end of 1587 hisname, in conjunction with his father's, appears upon a legal formrelating to the proposed cancellation of a mortgage upon some propertyin which he held a contingent interest. This, however, does notnecessarily indicate his presence in Stratford at that time. 

At the present time the most generally accepted hypothesis regarding thebeginning of Shakespeare's theatrical career is that he joined the Earlof Leicester's company of players upon the occasion of their visit toStratford-upon-Avon, either in the year 1586 or 1587. Upon the death ofthe Earl of Leicester in 1588, when this company was disrupted, it isthought probable that in company with Will Kempe, George Bryan, andThomas Pope (actors with whom he was afterwards affiliated for years), he joined Lord Strange's players, with which company under its variouslater titles he continued to be connected during the remainder of histheatrical career. I shall prove this theory to be erroneous and adduceevidence to show that of whatever company, or companies, he may laterhave been an active member, his theatrical experience had its inceptionin a connection as theatrical assistant with the interests of theBurbages; with whose fortunes he thereafter continued to be connectedtill the end of his London career. 

In judging of the youthful Shakespeare, of whom we can only conjecture, we may reasonably draw inferences from the character of the man we findrevealed in his life's work. I am convinced that Shakespeare's departurefrom Stratford was deliberate, and that when he went to London he did sowith a definite purpose in view. Had Shakespeare's father been aprosperous man of business, in all probability the world would neverhave heard of his son; though the local traditions of Stratford mighthave been enriched by the proverbial wit and wisdom of a certainanonymous sixteenth-century tradesman. 

Unconfirmed legend, originating nearly a hundred years after the allegedevent, is the sole basis for the report that Shakespeare was forced toleave his native town on account of his participation in a poachingadventure. It is possible that Shakespeare in his youth may haveindulged in such a natural transgression of the law, but supposing it tobe a fact that he did so, it does not necessarily brand him as ascapegrace. A ne'er-do-well in the country would probably remain thesame in the city, and would be likely to accentuate his characteristicsthere, especially if his life was cast, as was Shakespeare's, inBohemian surroundings. Instead of this, what are the facts? Assumingthat Shakespeare left Stratford in 1586 or 1587, and became, astradition reports, a servitor in the theatre at that period, let us lookten years ahead and see how he has fared. 

We know that he had already returned to Stratford in 1597 and purchasedone of the most important residences in the town. From the fact thatJohn Shakespeare's creditors from this time forward ceased to harasshim, we may assume that he had also settled his father's affairs. Wehave record that in 1596 he had, through his father, applied for theconfirmation of an old grant of arms, which was confirmed three yearslater, and that he thereafter was styled "William Shakespeare, Gentlemanof Stratford-upon-Avon. " At this period he had also produced more thanone-third of his known literary work, and was acknowledged as theleading dramatist of the time. All of this he had attained working inthe same environment in which other men of about his own age, but ofgreater education and larger opportunities, had found penury, disgrace, and death. Marlowe, his confrčre, at the age of thirty, in 1593, waskilled in a tavern brawl. A year earlier, Greene, also a university man, would have died a beggar on the street but for the charity of acobbler's wife who housed him in his dying hours. Spenser, breathing apurer atmosphere, but lacking the business aptitude of Shakespeare, diedbroken-hearted in poverty in 1599. George Peele, another university man, at about the same date, and at the age of thirty-four, we are told byMeres, died from the results of an irregular life. And those of hisliterary contemporaries who lived as long as, or outlived, Shakespeare, what were their ends, and where are their memories? Unknown and in mostcases forgotten except where they live in his reflected light. MatthewRoydon lived long and died in poverty, no one knows when or where. George Chapman outlived his great rival many years, and died as he hadlived, a friendless misanthropist. 

Though Shakespeare won to fame and fortune over the temptations andvicissitudes of the same life and environments to which so many of hisfellows succumbed, we have proof that this was not due to any inherentasceticism or native coldness of blood. 

No man in Shakespeare's circumstances could have attained andaccomplished what he did during those early years living at haphazard orwithout a controlling purpose in life. Whatever may have been theimmediate accident of fate that turned his face Londonwards, we may restassured that he went there with the purpose of retrieving his good namein his own community and rehabilitating the fortunes of his family. 

Shakespeare's literary history does not show in him any evidence ofremarkable precocity. Keats was famous and already gathered to theimmortals at an age at which Shakespeare was still in the chrysalidstage of the actual buskin and sock. It may reasonably be doubted thatShakespeare produced any of his known poems or plays previous to theyears 1590-91. Though his genius blossomed late his common sense andbusiness capacity developed early, forced into being, no doubt, by arealisation of his responsibilities, as well as by the deplorablecondition into which his father's affairs had fallen. So, between theyears 1583, when he was married, and 1591-92, when we first begin to getsome hints of his literary activities, his Pegasus was in harnessearning bread and butter and, incidentally, gleaning worldly wisdom. "Love's young dream" is over; the ecstatic quest of the "not impossibleshe, " almost at its inception, has ended in the cold anticlimax of anenforced marriage. 

We may dismiss the deer-stealing rumour as referring to this period. Thepatient industry, sound judgment, and unusual business capacityexhibited by Shakespeare from the time we begin to get actual glimpsesof his doings until the end of his career, belie the stupid and belatedrumour of his having been forced to leave Stratford as a fugitive fromjustice on account of his participation in a poaching adventure upon SirThomas Lucy's preserves. While it is apparent that this bucolic Justiceof the Peace is caricatured as Justice Shallow in _Henry IV. , Part II. _, it is still more clear that this play was not written until the end ofthe year 1598. When Shakespeare's methods of work are better understoodit will become evident that he did not in 1598 revenge an injury fromten to twelve years old. Whatever may have been his animus against SirThomas Lucy it undoubtedly pertained to conditions existent in the year1598. In 1596 John Shakespeare's application for arms was made, but wasnot finally granted until late in 1598, or early in 1599. It was stillunder consideration by the College of Heralds, or had very recently beengranted when Shakespeare wrote _Henry IV. , Part II. _, late in 1598. Itis not likely that such a grant of arms would be made even by the mostfriendly disposed authorities without consultation with, or referenceto, the local magistracy or gentry regarding the character and socialstanding of the applicant. It is quite likely then that the rusticsquire resented--what such a character would undoubtedly have regardedas a tradesman's presumption, and that Shakespeare, becoming cognizantof his objections, answered them in kind by caricaturing the Lucy arms. The critical student of Shakespeare's works will find that wherever areflection of a topical nature is palpable in his plays, that the thing, or incident, referred to is almost invariably a matter of comparativelyrecent experience. If it is a reflection of, or a reference to, anotherwriter we may be assured that Shakespeare has recently come from aperusal of the writer in question. If the allusion is of a social orpolitical nature it will refer to some recent happening or to somethingthat is still of public interest. Should such an allusion be in anysense autobiographical and pertaining to his own personal interests orfeelings, it is still more likely to refer to recent experience. Whatever may have been the reason for his caricature of Sir Thomas Lucy, its cause was evidently of a later date than his departure fromStratford. It was no shiftless runagate nor fugitive from justice whowent to London in, or about, 1585-87; neither was it a wrathfulChatterton, eating out his heart in bitter pride while firing hisimagination to

 "Paw up against the light And do strange deeds upon the clouds. "

It was a very sane, clear-headed, and resourceful young man who tookservice with the Players, one, as yet, probably unconscious of literaryability or dramatic genius, but with a capacity for hard work; grownsomewhat old for his years through responsibility, and with a slightlyembittered and mildly cynical pose of mind in regard to life. 

An early autobiographical note seems to be sounded in Falconbridge'ssoliloquy in _King John_, Act II. Scene ii. , as follows:

 "And why rail I on this commodity? But for because he hath not woo'd me yet; Not that I have the power to clutch my hand, When his fair angels would salute my palm; But for my hand, as unattempted yet, Like a poor beggar, raileth on the rich. Well, whiles I am a beggar, I will rail And say there is no sin but to be rich; And being rich, my virtue then shall be To say there is no vice but beggary. Since kings break faith upon commodity, Gain, be my lord, for I will worship thee. "

I have new evidence to show that this play was composed by Shakespearein 1591, and though it was revised in about 1596, the passage quotedabove, which exhibits the affected cynicism of youth, pertains to theearlier period. Aside from the leading of the natural bent of his geniusit is evident that the greater pecuniary reward to be attained from thewriting rather than from the acting of plays would be quickly apparentto a youth who in this spirit has left home to make London his oyster. 

As research and criticism advance and we are enabled, little by little, more intimately to apprehend the personality of Shakespeare and toconstruct a more definite chronology of his doings, the shifting lightsof evidence in the form of tradition and legend, which in the past havedazed, or misled, searchers, either disappear or take on new values. When we remember that Shakespeare, when he went to London, was abouttwenty-three years old, the father of a family, and the son of anex-bailiff of the not unimportant town of Stratford, we may dismiss asa fanciful distortion the story of his holding horses at the theatredoors for stray pennies; and in the added embellishment of the storywhich describes this Orpheon, yet thrifty street Arab, as organising forthis purpose a band of his mates who, to prove their honesty whensoliciting the care of a horse, would claim to be "Shakespeare's boys, "we may find a clue to the actual facts of the case. We have hitherto hadno definite record of, nor recognised allusion to, Shakespeare betweenthe year 1587, when his name is mentioned with his father's in a legaldocument, and the year 1592, when we have the well-known allusions ofRobert Greene. Greene's references in this latter year revealShakespeare as having already entered upon his literary career, and atthe same time, in the phrases "upstart crow beautified with ourfeathers" and "the onlie Shake-scene in the country, " seem to point tohim as an actor; the expression "_Johannes factotum_" seems stillfurther to widen the scope of his activities and to indicate the factthat Shakespeare wrought in several capacities for his masters duringhis earlier theatrical career. Part of his first work for his employers, it is possible, consisted in taking charge of the stabling arrangementsfor the horses of the gentlemen and noblemen who frequented the Theatre. The expression "rude groome, " which Greene uses in his attack uponShakespeare, is evidently used as pointing at his work in this capacity. The story of the youths who introduced themselves as "Shakespeare'sboys" seems to indicate that he was the recognised representative of thetheatrical proprietors who provided accommodations for this purpose. Itis to be assumed then that Shakespeare, having charge of this work, would upon occasions come personally in contact with the noblemen andgentry who frequented Burbage's Theatre, which was situated in theparish of Shoreditch, then regarded as the outskirts of the City. 

Of the several records concerning this alleged incident in Shakespeare'searly London experience, that which is simplest and latest in date seemsto bear the greatest evidence of truth when considered in connectionwith established facts and coincident circumstantial evidence. Traditions preserved in the poet's own family would in essentials belikely to be closer to the truth than the bibulous gossip of Sir WilliamDavenant, from which source all the other records of this story arederived. In the monthly magazine of February 1818 the story is told asfollows: "Mr. J. M. Smith said he had often heard his mother state thatShakespeare owed his rise in life and his introduction to the theatre tohis accidentally holding the horse of a gentleman at the door of thetheatre on his first arriving in London; his appearance led to inquiryand subsequent patronage. " The "J. M. Smith" mentioned here was the sonof Mary Hart, a lineal descendant of Joan Hart, Shakespeare's sister. While it is clearly impossible that Shakespeare owed his introduction tothe theatre to Southampton, there can be little doubt, in the light ofdata to follow, that his rise in life was much enhanced by hisfriendship and patronage. What truth there may be in this story isevidently a distorted reflection of Shakespeare's earlier work in theTheatre at Shoreditch and of his later acquaintance with the Earl ofSouthampton. We have no record, hint, or suggestion of his personalacquaintance or business connection with any noblemen or gentlemen otherthan Southampton, and possibly Sir Thomas Heneage, at this early period. It shall later be shown that Southampton first became identified withLondon and Court life in October 1590. I am led by good evidence to thebelief that Shakespeare's acquaintance with this nobleman had itsinception very soon after this date, and that he, and the theatricalcompany to which he was attached at that time, attended the Earl ofSouthampton at Cowdray House and at Tichfield House in August andSeptember 1591, upon the occasion of the Queen's progress to, andsojourn at, these places. 

CHAPTER III

SHAKESPEARE, THE BURBAGES, AND EDWARD ALLEYN

As we have well-attested evidence that Shakespeare was connected withthe interests of James Burbage and his sons from 1594 until the end ofhis London career, it is usually, and reasonably, assumed that his earlyyears in London were also spent with the Burbages; but as nothing isdefinitely known regarding Burbage's company affiliations between 1575, when we have record that he was still manager of Leicester's company, and 1594, when the Lord Chamberlain's company left Henslowe and Alleynand returned to Burbage and the Theatre, knowledge of Shakespeare'scompany affiliations during these years is equally nebulous. Only bythrowing light upon Burbage's activities during these years can we hopefor light upon Shakespeare during the same period. Much of the ambiguityregarding Burbage's affairs during these years arises from the fact thatcritics persist in regarding him as an actor and an active member of aregular theatrical company after 1576, instead of recognising thepalpable fact that he was now also a theatrical manager with a largeamount of borrowed money invested in a theatre upon which it would takeall of his energies to pay interest and make a profit. After 1576Burbage's relations with companies of actors were necessarily much thesame as those of Henslowe's with the companies that acted at histheatres, though it is probable that Burbage acted at times for a fewyears after this date. He was now growing old, and his businessresponsibility increasing, it is unlikely that he continued to act longafter 1584, when his son Richard entered upon his histrionic career. [10]

When Shakespeare came to London in 1586-87, there were only two regulartheatres, --the Theatre and the Curtain, --though there were usuallyseveral companies playing also at innyards within and about the City. The Theatre at Shoreditch, owned by James Burbage, was built by him in1576, and was the first building designed in modern England speciallyfor theatrical purposes. Though he had many troubles in later years withhis brother-in-law and partner, John Brayne, and with his graspinglandlord, Giles Allen, he retained his ownership of the Theatre untilhis death in 1597, and he, or his sons, maintained its management untilthe expiration of their lease in the same year. 

In 1571 an Act of Parliament was passed making it necessary for acompany of players who wished to exercise their profession withoutunnecessary interference from petty officials and municipal authorities, to secure a licence as the players, or servants, of a nobleman; lackingsuch licences members of their calling were classed before the law, andliable to be treated, as "vagabonds and sturdy beggars. " Such a licenceonce issued to a company was regarded as a valuable corporate asset byits sharers. At times a company possessing a licence would diminish byattrition until the ownership of the licence became vested in the handsof a few of the original sharers, who, lacking either the means orability to continue to maintain themselves as an effective independentorganisation, would form a connection with a similarly depleted companyand perform as one company, each of them preserving their licensedidentity. In travelling in the provinces such a dual company would attimes be recorded under one title, and again under the other, in theaccounts of the Wardens, Chamberlains, and Mayors of the towns theyvisited. Occasionally, however, the names of both companies would berecorded under one payment, and when their functions differed, they seemat times to have secured separate payments though evidently workingtogether--one company supplying the musicians and the other the actors. 

If we find for a number of years in the provincial and Court records thenames of two companies recorded separately, who from time to time acttogether as one company, and that these companies act together as onecompany at the same London theatre, we may infer that the dual companymay be represented also at times where only the name of one of them isgiven in provincial or Court records. It is likely that the full numbersof such a dual company would not make prolonged provincial tours exceptunder stress of circumstances, such as the enforced closing of thetheatres in London on account of the plague; and that while the entirecombination might perform at Coventry and other points within a shortdistance of London, they would probably divide their forces and act asseparate companies upon the occasions of their regular provincialtravels. 

Such a combination as this between two companies in some instanceslasted for years. The provincial, and even the Court records, will makemention of one company, and at times of the other, in instances wheretwo companies had merged their activities while preserving theirrespective titles. [11] A lack of knowledge of this fact is responsiblefor most of the misapprehension that exists at present regardingShakespeare's early theatrical affiliations. 

Under whatever varying licences and titles the organisation of playersto which Shakespeare attached himself upon his arrival in London mayhave performed in later years, all tradition, inference, and evidencepoint to a connection from the beginning with the interests of JamesBurbage and his sons. 

Though other companies played at intervals at Burbage's Theatre at, andshortly following, 1586-87, the period usually accepted as marking thebeginning of Shakespeare's connection with theatrical affairs, it shallbe made evident that the Lord Chamberlain's--recently LordHunsdon's--company, of which James Burbage was at that date undoubtedlythe manager, made their centre at his house when performing in London. That this was a London company with an established theatrical home inthe most important theatre in London, between the years 1582 and 1589, is established by the facts that James Burbage was its manager, and theinfrequency of mention of it in the provincial records. It is probablethat at this early period it was not a full company of actors, but thatLord Hunsdon's licence covered Burbage and his theatrical employees andmusicians. 

Numerous and continuous records of provincial visits for a company inferthat it would be better known as a provincial than as a London company, while the total lack of any record of Court performances, taken inconjunction with a large number of records of provincial performances, would imply that such a company had no permanent London abiding-place, such as Lord Hunsdon's company undoubtedly had in Burbage's Theatre. 

The fact that James Burbage, the leader of Leicester's company in itspalmy days--1574 to 1582--was, between 1582 and 1589, the leader of LordHunsdon's company, when coupled with the fact that they appeared beforethe Court during this interval, gives added evidence that it was arecognised London company at this period. 

Much ambiguity regarding James Burbage's theatrical affiliations in theyears between 1583 and 1594 has been engendered by the utterlygratuitous assumption that he joined the Queen's players upon theorganisation of that company by Edmund Tilney, the Master of the Revels, in 1583, leaving the Earl of Leicester's players along with RobertWilson, John Laneham, and Richard Tarleton at that time. We haveconclusive evidence, however, against this assumption. James Burbageworked under the patronage of Lord Hunsdon and was undoubtedly the ownerof the Theatre in 1584, although Halliwell-Phillipps, and others whohave followed him in his error have assumed, on account of his havingmortgaged the lease of the Theatre in the year 1579 to one John Hyde, agrocer of London, that the actual occupancy and use of the Theatre hadalso then been transferred. There is nothing unusual or mysterious inthe fact that Burbage mortgaged the Theatre to Hyde. In the time ofElizabeth, leases of business property were bought, sold, andhypothecated for loans and regarded as investment securities. Burbage atthis time was in need of money. His brother-in-law, John Brayne, who hadengaged with him to advance half of the necessary expenses for thebuilding and conduct of the Theatre, defaulted in 1578 in his payments. It is evident that Burbage borrowed the money he needed from Hyde, mortgaging the lease as security, probably agreeing to repay the loanwith interest in instalments. It is not unlikely that it was GilesAllen's knowledge of this transaction that excited his cupidity and ledhim to demand £24 instead of £14 a year when Burbage sought an agreedupon extension of the lease in 1585. As Hyde transferred the lease toCuthbert Burbage in 1589, it appears that he held a ten years' mortgage, which was a common term in such transactions. In 1584 Burbage wasclearly still manager of the Theatre, and in the eyes of the companiesplaying there from time to time, who were not likely to be cognizant ofhis private business transactions, such as borrowing of money upon amortgage, was also still _the owner of the Theatre_. 

In one of the witty Recorder Fleetwood's reports to Lord Burghley, dated18th June 1584, [12] we have the following matter referring to theTheatre and the Curtain: "Upon Sondaie, my Lord sent two aldermen to thecourt, for the suppressing and pulling downe of the theatre and curten, for all the Lords agreed thereunto, saving my Lord Chamberlayn and Mr. Vice-Chamberlayn; but we obtayned a letter to suppresse them all. Uponthe same night I sent for the Queen's players, and my Lord of Arundellhis players, for they all well nighe obeyed the Lords letters. Thechiefest of her Highnes' players advised me to send for the owner of thetheatre, who was a stubborne fellow, and to bynd him. I dyd so. He sentme word that he was my Lord of Hunsdon's man, and that he would not cometo me, but he would in the morning ride to my Lord. Then I sent theunder-sheriff for hym, and he brought him to me, and at his coming heshowted me out very justice. And in the end, I showed hym my Lord hismaster's hand, and then he was more quiet. But to die for it he wold notbe bound. And then I mynding to send hym to prison, he made sute that hemight be bounde to appeare at the oier and determiner, the which isto-morrowe, where he said that he was sure the court wold not bynd hym, being a counsellor's man. And so I have graunted his request, where heis sure to be bounde, or else is lyke to do worse. " The "stubbornefellow" was, without doubt, none other than the high-spirited andpugnacious James Burbage, who fought for twenty-one years over leaseswith his avaricious landlord, Giles Allen, and of whom Allen's lawyerwrites in a Star Chamber document in 1601: "Burbage tendered a new leasewhich he, the said Allen, refused to sign because it was different fromthe first and also because Burbage had assigned the Theatre to John Hydeand has also been a very bad and troublesome tenant to your orator. "This document also makes mention of the fact as one of the reasons forAllen refusing to sign the new lease that "Hyde conveyed the lease toCuthbert, son of James. " The conveyance here mentioned was made in 1589. It is plain that Allen's lawyer implies that the mortgaging of theTheatre to Hyde and its later conveyance to Cuthbert Burbage were made, not alone for value received, but also for the protection of JamesBurbage against legal proceedings. Here, then, we have good evidencethat James Burbage, who, in the year 1575, had been the manager, andundoubtedly a large owner, of the Earl of Leicester's company, --at thattime the most important company of players in England, --was in 1584 amember of Lord Hunsdon's company, and if a member--in view of his pastand present prominence in theatrical affairs--also, evidently, itsmanager and owner. As no logical reasons are given by Halliwell-Phillipps, or by the compilers who base their biographies upon his _Outlines of theLife of Shakespeare_, for declining to accept the reference in Fleetwood'sletter to the "owner of the Theatre" as an allusion to Burbage, whom theyadmit to have been, and who undoubtedly was, the owner of the Theatre from1576 until he transferred his property to his sons, Cuthbert and Richard, shortly before he died in 1597, [13] their refusal to see the light mustarise from their obsession that Burbage at this time was a member ofeither Leicester's or the Queen's company, and as to which one they donot seem to have a very clear impression. Shakespearean biography may besearched in vain for any other recorded facts concerning Burbage's companyaffiliations between 1575 and 1594. In view of this general lack ofknowledge of Burbage in these years the critical neglect of such adefinite allusion as Recorder Fleetwood makes to the "owner of theTheatre" as a servant of Lord Hunsdon is difficult to understand. 

The alleged reason for the proposed suppression of the Theatre and theCurtain at this, and at other times, was that they had become publicnuisances by attracting large crowds of the most unruly elements of thepopulace, which led to disturbances of the peace. 

In this same report of Fleetwood's to Burghley, he informs him that onthe previous Monday, upon his return to London from Kingston, he "foundall the wardes full of watches. The cause thereof was for that neare thetheatre or curten, at the time of the plays, there laye a prenticesleeping upon the grasse; and one Challes alias Grostock did turne uponthe toe upon the belly of the prentice; whereupon this apprentice startup, and afterwards they fell to playne blowes. The companie increased ofboth sides to the number of 500 at the least. This Challes exclaimed andsaid, that he was a gentleman, and that the apprentice was but a rascaland some there were littel better than roogs, that took upon them thename of gentleman, and said the prentices were but the skume of theworlde. Upon these troubles, the prentices began the next daye, beingTuesdaye, to make mutinies, and assemblies, and conspyre to have brokenthe prisones, and to have taken forth the prentices that wereimprisoned. But my Lord and I having intelligence thereof, apprehendedfour or fyve of the chief conspirators, who are in Newgate, and standindicted of their lewd demeanours. 

"Upon Weddensdaye, one Browne a serving man in a blew coate, a shiftingfellowe, having a perilous wit of his owne, intending a spoil if hecould have brought it to passe, did at the theatre-doore quarrell withcertayn poore boyes, handicraft prentices, and strooke some of them; andlastlie, he, with his sword, wounded and maymed one of the boyes uponthe left hand. Whereupon there assembled near a thousand people. ThisBrowne did very cunningly conveye himself away, but by chance he wastaken after and brought to Mr. Humprey Smithe, and because no man wasable to charge him, he dismyssed him. "[14]

Though the Council ordered the suppression of both the Theatre and theCurtain at this time, Fleetwood's report of the disturbances seems toplace the blame largely upon the Theatre. If the Queen's players werethen performing at the Theatre, under the management of Burbage, it ismost unlikely that the "chiefest of her Highnes' players"--who informedFleetwood that the owner of the Theatre was a "stubborne fellow, " andadvised that he be sent for and "bounde"--would have given advice andinformation so unfriendly to their own manager, and there cannot be theslightest doubt that Burbage was "the owner" of the Theatre from 1576 to1596. It is apparent that the leader of the Queen's company was willingthat the onus of the disturbances should be placed upon the Theatrerather than upon the Curtain, where the Queen's players were evidentlyperforming at this time--Lord Arundel's company temporarily occupyingthe Theatre, Lord Hunsdon's company being at that time upon a provincialtour. They are recorded as performing in Bath in June 1584. [15]

A consideration of the records of Lord Hunsdon's company, and ofprevious companies that performed under this name, gives fair evidencethat James Burbage established this company in 1582, at or before whichdate he severed his active connection as a player with the Earl ofLeicester's players, though still continuing his own theatricalorganisation at the Theatre under the patronage of Leicester, as theEarl of Leicester's musicians, and maintaining relations withLeicester's players as a theatre owner. 

Burbage's reason in 1582 for transferring from the patronage ofLeicester for his theatrical employees to that of Lord Hunsdon was, nodoubt, _the fact of Leicester's departure for the Continent in thisyear_. The constant attacks being made by the puritanical authoritiesupon the London theatrical interests made it expedient for him to havethe protection of a nobleman whose aid could be quickly invoked in caseof trouble. As I will show later that Burbage was regarded withdisfavour by Burghley in 1589, it is likely that the opposition he metwith from the local authorities in these earlier years was instigated byBurghley's agents and gossips. Recorder Fleetwood, chief amongst these, reports Burbage's alleged transgressions with such evident unction it isapparent that he knew his message would have a sympathetic reception. 

It shall be shown that in later years the Burbage theatricalorganisation was anti-Cecil and pro-Essex in its tacit politicalrepresentations; it is not unlikely that it was recognised as anti-Ceciland pro-Leicester in these early years, and that in this manner itincurred Burghley's ill-will. 

Previous to the year 1567 there existed a company under the patronage ofLord Hunsdon; between that date and 1582 there is no record of anycompany acting under this nobleman's licence. In July 1582 there isrecord that Lord Hunsdon's company acted at Ludlow, and upon 27thDecember 1582 we have record that Lord Hunsdon's players acted beforethe Court, presenting _A Comedy of Beauty and Housewifery_. Theprovincial records show a few performances by this company in theprovinces in every year, except one, between 1582 and 1589; while 1587shows no provincial performance, a payment of five shillings is recordedin Coventry "to the Lord Chamberlain's Musicians that came with theJudge at the assizes"; these were, no doubt, a portion of Burbage'scompany, Lord Hunsdon then being Lord Chamberlain. This entry, however, is immediately preceded by the entry of a payment of twenty shillings tothe Lord Admiral's players. It shall be shown that the Admiral's companywas affiliated with Burbage at this time. 

The Lord Hunsdon who patronised this company from the time of itsinception, in 1582, until we hear no more about it in 1589, was the sameHenry Carey, Baron Hunsdon, who, in 1594, still holding the office ofLord Chamberlain, again took Burbage and his theatrical associates underhis protection. 

In imagining James Burbage as a member of the Queen's company of playersfor several years following 1583, and ending in about 1591, it has beencustomary also to assume that the Queen's company played regularly, whenin London, at Burbage's Theatre during these years; and that the LordAdmiral's company, between 1585 and 1591, played principally at theCurtain. There is very slight foundation for the former, and not theslightest for the latter, assumption, both of which were first mooted byHalliwell-Phillipps, and in which he has since been followed blindly bythe compilers. The supposition that the Queen's company made theirLondon centre at the Theatre from 1583 onwards, is based upon thedisproved assumption that Burbage was the manager of this company. Thissupposition has been supported by the argument that Tarleton, who was amember of the Queen's company after 1583, is mentioned in 1592, inNashe's _Pierce Penniless_, as having "made jests" "at the Theatre, "and again in Harrington's _Metamorphosis of Ajax_ in 1596, as follows:"Which word was after admitted into the Theatre by the mouth of MaysterTarleton, the excellent comedian. " As Tarleton died in 1588 thesereferences cannot apply to the "Theatre" later than this date, and ifthey apply at all to Burbage's Theatre and the term is not usedgenerically, they apply to it in the years preceding 1583, when Tarletonplayed at the Theatre as a member of Lord Leicester's company. Theauthor of _Martin's Month's Mind_, in 1587, refers to "twittle twattlethat I learned in ale-houses and at the Theatre of Lanam and hisfellowes. " This also probably refers to the period preceding 1583, whenLaneham was a member and evidently the leader of Leicester's company andafter Burbage had retired from its leadership. In _News out ofPurgatory_, published in 1587, in which the ghost of Tarleton appears, "the Curtaine of his Countenance" is mentioned, which apparently alludesto his recent connection with that house. [16] While it is possible, however, that the Queen's company may have performed occasionally at theTheatre after their formation in 1582-83 and before the Rose was builtin 1587, all evidence and logical assumption regarding the regularplaying-places of the Queen's and the Admiral's companies when inLondon, between 1586 and 1589, infer that the Queen's company played atthe Curtain, and after 1587, at the Rose, and the Lord Admiral'scompany, in conjunction with the Lord Chamberlain's, at the Theatre insummer and the Crosskeys in winter. 

Towards the end of this period a rivalry existed between the Queen'scompany and the combined companies playing under Burbage at the Theatre, which ended in 1591 in the supersession for Court performances of theQueen's company by Lord Strange's players--a new company of whichRichard Burbage was a member, which had been organised out of the bestactors from the defunct companies of the Lord Chamberlain and LordLeicester, and with accretions from the Lord Admiral's company and LordStrange's company of boy acrobats; which latter had for about a yearpast been affiliated in some manner with the Lord Admiral's company, which, in turn, had worked in conjunction with Burbage's players (theLord Chamberlain's company) since 1585-86. 

For this connection between the Lord Admiral's company and the companyof Lord Hunsdon, who was now Lord Chamberlain, we have record of a Courtperformance on 6th January 1586, which was paid for on 31st January:"The Lord Admiral's and the Lord Chamberlain's players were paid for aplay before the Queen on Twelfth Day. "

While two companies of players, meeting accidentally in the provinces, might at times have combined their forces in an entertainment, we mayassume that in such cases each would give a short interlude from theirown stock of plays, and not that they joined action in the same play. Aperformance before the Court, however, was no haphazard thing, butsomething that had been carefully rehearsed; hence, when we find--as inthe case of the Lord Admiral's players and the Lord Chamberlain'splayers, mentioned above--members of two companies uniting in a playbefore the Court and receiving one payment for it, it is apparent thatthey must have acted in the same play, and also that such a play hadbeen previously rehearsed. Burbage's Theatre being the theatrical homeof his company, known, until 1585, as Lord Hunsdon's company, and afterthat date, when Lord Hunsdon became Lord Chamberlain, as the LordChamberlain's players, it becomes evident that the rehearsal of playsfor the Court would take place at the Theatre in the summer or the innused by Burbage and his company in the winter-time, and that the membersof the Lord Admiral's company, who had acted with him in the Courtperformance mentioned, would rehearse at the same places. As we findLord Strange's company preparing to act in the winter-time of 1589 atthe Crosskeys, when they were refused permission to do so by the LordMayor, and as we know also that--as the Lord Chamberlain's men--in 1594, after their separation from Henslowe, they again sought leave to actthere in the winter season, we may infer that Burbage's men used thissame inn for winter performances previous to 1589. Lord Hunsdon's letterto the Lord Mayor in December 1594, referring to the Crosskeys, reads:"Where my _now_ company of players have byn accustomed . . . To play thiswinter time within the City. "

While both the Lord Admiral's and Lord Hunsdon's players performedoccasionally in the provinces previous to 1591, the limited number oftheir provincial appearances, taken in conjunction with the fact thatthey were of sufficient importance to play at intervals before theCourt, during the years that the Queen's company--which had beenspecially formed for that purpose--held sway, implies that they wereplayers of recognised importance. 

While it is apparent that Burbage ceased to be an active member ofLeicester's players at or soon after the time he undertook theresponsibilities of the management of the Theatre, he evidentlycontinued to work under the protection of the Earl of Leicester, as theowner of the Theatre and of the organisation known as Leicester'smusicians, as late as 1582, when he secured the protection of LordHunsdon, and in transferring took with him his theatrical musicians, whonow became Lord Hunsdon's and, later, the Lord Chamberlain's musicians. The first and last mention of Lord Leicester's musicians as distinctfrom the players in any of the records is in 1582, when they arementioned in the Coventry records as accompanying Lord Leicester'splayers. These were evidently Burbage's theatrical musicians whoaccompanied Leicester's men to Coventry, as we find them accompanyingthe Admiral's men to the same place a few years later under the title ofthe "Lord Chamberlain's Musicians. "

It is evident that Leicester's company continued to be Burbage's mostpermanent customer in the use of the Theatre as late as 1585, and thatthey acted there until that date in conjunction with Lord Hunsdon's men, who were Burbage's theatrical employees, and mostly musicians. Some timein, or before, June 1585, seven of the more important actors ofLeicester's company sailed for the Continent, where they remained tillJuly 1587. In June 1585 the remnant of Leicester's company joined forceswith the new Admiral's company. They are recorded as acting together atDover in this month. It is apparent that Leicester's men had come tothis port to see their fellows off for the Continent, and that they werejoined there by the Admiral's men by pre-arrangement. This performanceof the Admiral's men, in conjunction with the remnant of Leicester's menat Dover, is the first record we possess for many years of any companyunder this title. The next record is a performance before the Court inthe following Christmas season, when we find them acting conjointlywith the Lord Chamberlain's men, _i. E. _ Burbage's men, recently LordHunsdon's. It is evident that they had now taken the place ofLeicester's men as Burbage's permanent company at the Theatre, holdingmuch the same relations to him as Lord Strange's men held to Henslowe atthe Rose between 1592 and 1594. 

Both Leicester's and Lord Hunsdon's companies disappear from the recordsat the same date (1588-89), and Lord Strange's players appear for thefirst time as a regular London company of players, performing in theCity of London and at the Crosskeys in the same year. Three years later, when we are enabled, for the first time, to learn anything of thepersonnel of this company, we find among its members Thomas Pope, GeorgeBryan, and, later on, William Kempe, all of them members of Leicester'scompany before 1589. We also find in Lord Strange's company, in 1592, Richard Burbage, who, without doubt, between 1584--in which year hefirst began as a player--and 1589, was a member of his father'scompany, --Lord Hunsdon's, --known as the Lord Chamberlain's company after1585. It becomes apparent, then, that early in the year 1589 a junctionof forces took place between the leading actors of the companiespreviously known as Lord Strange's tumblers, Lord Hunsdon's, or, as itwas then known, the Lord Chamberlain's company, and the Earl ofLeicester's players--the new organisation becoming known as LordStrange's players. This company continued under the patronage of LordStrange, under his successive titles of Lord Strange and the Earl ofDerby, until his death in April 1594; they then, for a short period, passed under the patronage of his widow, the Countess of Derby, whenthey again secured the patronage of Lord Hunsdon--who was still LordChamberlain. 

Before the combination between these companies took place in December1588, or January 1589, it is evident that an alliance of some kind wasformed between the leading men of Lord Strange's tumblers and the LordAdmiral's company. [17] For several years, between about 1580 and 1587, Lord Strange's company was merely a company of acrobats, or tumblers, composed of boys and youths. In the provincial records they arementioned at times as "Lord Strange's tumblers, " "Symons and hisfellowes, " and as "John Symonds and Mr. Standleyes Boyes" (LordStrange's name being Fernando Stanley). The Lord Admiral's players, onthe other hand, were clearly a regular company of players who presentedplays, yet we find them paid for Court performances in 1588 and 1589, and also "For showing other feats of activitye and tumblinge. " In thefollowing year they are again paid for a Court performance where "featesof activitye" are also mentioned. The last performances of this naturegiven by the Lord Admiral's players were on 27th December 1590 and 16thFebruary 1591. The record of payment for these performances makesmention of "other feates of activitye then also done by them. " Upon the5th of March 1591 the payment for these performances is recorded in theActs of the Privy Council to the Lord Admiral's company, while--as Mr. E. K. Chambers has pointed out--in the Pipe Rolls (542 fol. 156) thesesame performances are assigned to Strange's men. It is evident, then, that late in 1588 (the first performance of this nature being recordedon the 27th of December) a junction took place between certain membersof Lord Strange's tumblers and the Lord Admiral's men, who had beenconnected since 1585 with the Lord Chamberlain's men, and that, at thesame time, the leading members of Lord Leicester's company becameaffiliated with them. 

In the following Christmas season, 1591-92, Lord Strange's players--nowthoroughly organised into a regular company of players--gave sixperformances before the Court, supplanting the formerly powerful andpopular Queen's company, which gave only one performance in that season, and never afterwards appeared before the Court. There is no furtherrecord of a Court performance by the Lord Admiral's company until theChristmas season of 1594-95, by which time they had parted from the LordChamberlain's men and reorganised by absorbing members from othercompanies--such as the Earl of Sussex and Earl of Pembroke's companies, which at this time disappear from the records. 

Here, then, we find, between the Christmas season of 1588-89 and1591-92, an amalgamation into one company of a portion of the membershipof four different companies, all of which had, immediately before, beenassociated in some measure with the theatrical interests of theBurbages. 

While a chance record remains which reveals official action in theformation of the Queen's company of players in 1583, and no actualrecord of official action has yet been found to account for the suddenCourt favour accorded the new and powerful Lord Strange's company in1591, _it is very apparent that an equally authoritative purpose existedin the latter case_. 

Between the years 1574 and 1583 the Earl of Leicester's company, underthe auspices of James Burbage, held the position of the leading companyof players in London. During the Christmas and New Year festivities inevery year but one in this decade, Leicester's company played before theCourt, being supplanted by the newly formed Queen's company in 1583-84. 

Howes states in his _Additions to Stowe's Chronicles_ that "in 1583twelve of the best players were chosen out of several great Lords'companies and sworn the Queen's servants, being allowed wages andliveries as Grooms of the Chamber, " and among these, two players, Thomas(Robert) Wilson and Richard Tarleton, were chosen. As these players andJohn Laneham were taken from Lord Leicester's company it has beenincorrectly inferred that James Burbage--who is known to have been theleader of the company as late as 1575--went with them to the Queen'scompany at this time. 

It is apparent that changes so important in the several companiesaffected by the disruption of their memberships could not be made in avery short time, and that test performances and negotiations of someduration preceded the actual amalgamation of the new company. Burbage'sreason for securing Lord Hunsdon's patronage in 1582 was, no doubt, because of Leicester's departure for the Continent in this year and thedisorganisation of Leicester's company, caused by the formation of thenew Queen's company at the same period. 

Between 1583 and 1590, while other companies performed occasionally atthe Court, the Queen's company performed during the Christmasfestivities every season--and usually upon several occasions--in eachyear. In the Christmas season of 1591-92, however, they performed onlyonce, _and then for the last time on record_, while Lord Strange'scompany appeared in this season upon six occasions. This company, underits various later titles, retained the position it had now attained--ofthe leading Court company--for the next forty years. It is evident, then, that the amalgamation of the leading members of Lord Strange'sacrobats, the Lord Chamberlain's, the Earl of Leicester's, and the LordAdmiral's players, which I have shown began in tentative Courtperformances in the Christmas season of 1588-89, and which culminated inthe success of the thoroughly organised company in the season of1591-92, was--at least in its later stage--fostered by similar officialsanction and encouragement to that which brought about the formation ofthe Queen's company in 1582-83. Edmund Tilney, the Master of the Revels, who chose the players for the Queen's company in 1583, held the sameposition in 1591, and evidently exercised a similar function inforwarding the promotion of Lord Strange's company, and the discardingof the Queen's company for Court purposes in the latter year. It issignificant that Henslowe, the owner of the Rose Theatre, where LordStrange's players commenced to perform on 19th February 1592, was made aGroom of the Privy Chamber in that year, and that the weekly payments ofhis fees to Tilney, in connection with his new venture, begin at thattime. Henslowe became the financial backer of this company in 1591, atwhich time, it shall be shown, later on, that James Burbage's fortuneswere at a low ebb, and that he also was in disfavour with theauthorities. Henslowe evidently was brought into the affair by Tilney'sinfluence, the office of Groom of the Privy Chamber being a reward forhis compliance. It shall be indicated that Tilney and Henslowe hadprobably held similar relations in connection with the Queen's company, which evidently performed at the Rose under Henslowe between 1587 and1591. 

I have shown a connection between Burbage's company, _i. E. _ the LordChamberlain's, and the Lord Admiral's company between 1585 and 1589, andwill now inquire into the previous identity of the latter company. 

A company performing under the licence of Lord Charles Howard ofEffingham appears in the Court records between 1574 and 1577. Between1581 and June 1585 there are no provincial records of any companyperforming under this nobleman's licence, and, until 6th January 1586, no Court records. On this latter date a company licensed by thisnobleman, who was now Lord Admiral, appeared at Court working inconjunction with the Lord Chamberlain's company. The last provincialvisit of Lord Howard's old company is at Ipswich in 1581. The firstprovincial record of his new company--the Lord Admiral's--is at Dover inJune 1585, when the entry reads: "Paid unto my Lord Admiralles and myLord Lycestors players 20 shillings. " This seems to show that the newAdmiral's company had joined forces with the remnant of Lord Leicester'splayers, the depletion of which company at this time was occasioned bythe departure of seven of their members, including Kempe, Pope, andBryan, for Denmark. 

Their next recorded provincial visit is to Ipswich under date of 20thFebruary 1586, when they are mentioned as the Lord Admiral's players. Inthis same year they appear at Cambridge, also as the Lord Admiral'splayers. On 15th November 1586 they are recorded at Coventry as havingbeen paid twenty shillings, and immediately following, under the samedate of entry, the Lord Chamberlain's men are recorded as being paidthree shillings and fourpence, and on 15th November 1587 they are againrecorded at Coventry as receiving twenty shillings; and again, under thesame date, is an entry recording the payment of five shillings "to theLord Chamberlain's Musicians that came with the Judge at the assizes. "

The juxtaposition of the entries on these records of the names of thesetwo companies in 1586 and 1587, and their union in a performance beforethe Court in January 1586, shows that a combination of some sort betweenthem was formed in 1585. _Who, then, were the men that composed the LordAdmiral's company from 1585 to 1589?_

In 1592, when Lord Strange's players left Burbage to perform underHenslowe at the Rose, we are assured that Edward Alleyn was the managerof the company, and, though the manager of Lord Strange's company, thathe still styled himself a Lord Admiral's man. When, then, did EdwardAlleyn, who is mentioned in the Leicester records in 1584 as a member ofthe Earl of Worcester's company, become a Lord Admiral's man and ceaseto perform under the licence of the Earl of Worcester? Is it notpalpable that the change took place in 1585, when all records ofWorcester's company cease for several years and a new Lord Admiral'scompany begins? The last record of a provincial performance forWorcester's company is at Barnstaple in 1585. The Court and provincialrecords of 1586 show that within about eight months of its inception theLord Admiral's company worked in conjunction with Burbage's players--theLord Chamberlain's men. That this connection continued in the case ofEdward Alleyn and a few others of the Admiral's men, who were oldWorcester men, and that they preserved their licensed identity throughthe several changes in the title of the company, until they finallyseparated early in 1594, shall be made apparent in this history. 

It is evident that Edward Alleyn's brother, John Alleyn, joined theAdmiral's men at about the time of its inception, when his old company, Lord Sheffield's players, suddenly disappear from the records. Theirlast recorded provincial performance is in Coventry, under date of 15thNovember 1585, _the Lord Admiral's men and the Lord Chamberlain's menbeing recorded there under the same date of entry_. John Alleyncontinued his connection with the Lord Admiral's men at least as late asJuly 1589, when he is mentioned as "servant to me the Lord Admiral" in aletter from the Privy Council to certain aldermen. After this he is notheard of again either in connection with Lord Strange's or the Admiral'smen. He was evidently one of the discarded actors in the reorganisationsof 1589-91. 

Past critics, ignoring the fact that there are no records of eitherCourt, London, or provincial performances for Worcester's companybetween 1585 and 1589-90, have assumed that this company was inexistence during these years, and that it was disrupted and reorganisedin 1589, Edward Alleyn leaving it and joining the Lord Admiral's men atthat period. This inference is drawn erroneously from the followingfacts: first, that Richard Jones, who is recorded in 1584, in theLeicester records, as a member of Lord Worcester's company, in January1589, sold to Edward Alleyn his share in theatrical properties, consisting of playing apparel, playbooks, instruments, etc. , owned byhim conjointly with Robert Brown, Edward Alleyn, and his brother, JohnAlleyn, all of whom are supposed to have been members of Worcester'scompany at that time, as Brown and Edward Alleyn are also recorded in1584 as members of that company; secondly, that John Alleyn ismentioned as a servant to the Lord Admiral later on in this year; andthirdly, that Edward Alleyn, when managing Lord Strange's company in1593, is also mentioned as a Lord Admiral's man. 

In the light of the foregoing facts and deductions it is evident thatthe Earl of Worcester's company, or at least a large portion of it, _became the Lord Admiral's company in 1585_, and that, at about the sametime, they became affiliated with Burbage and the Lord Chamberlain'scompany. It is probable, however, that in making this change theydiscarded some of their old members and took on others, John Alleynevidently joining them from Sheffield's company at that time. 

The new licence they sought and secured in 1585 was evidently madenecessary by the disfavour and ill repute which the ill-regulatedbehaviour of some of their members--whom they now discarded--had gainedfor them. In June 1583 the Earl of Worcester's company was refusedpermission to perform in Ipswich, the excuse being given that they hadpassed through places infected by the plague. They were, however, givena reward on their promise to leave the city, but instead of doing sothey proceeded to their inn and played there. The Mayor and Courtordered that the Earl of Worcester should be notified, that this companyshould never again receive a reward from the city, and that they leaveat once on pain of imprisonment. Though the Mayor and Court, at theentreaty of the company, agreed not to inform the Earl of theirmisconduct, it is not unlikely that this and similar happenings came tohis knowledge, as they seem to have had little respect for municipalauthorities. They were again in trouble in March 1584, when theyquarrelled with the Leicester authorities. Finding at their inn atLeicester the commission of the Master of the Revels' company, which inleaving Leicester three days before this company had inadvertently leftbehind, they appropriated it and presented it to the Leicesterauthorities as their own, stating that the previous company had stolenit from them. Not being believed, they were forced to produce their ownlicence, when they were refused permission to play, but given an angelto pay for their dinner. Later in the day, meeting the Mayor on thestreet, they again asked leave to play, and, being refused, abused theMayor with "evyll and contemptuous words, and said they would playwhether he wold or not, " and went "in contempt of the Mayor with drumand trumpet through the town. " On apologising later to the Mayor andbegging him not to inform the Earl of Worcester, they secured leave toplay on condition that they prefaced their performance with an apologyfor their misconduct and a statement that they were permitted to playonly by the Mayor's goodwill. [18]

If their past reputation had been good in Leicester there seems to be noreason why they should have wished to perform under another company'slicence. We may infer that these were not isolated instances of theirmisbehaviour, and that their change of title in 1585 was made necessaryby reports of their misconduct coming to the notice of the old Earl ofWorcester. No company of players is known to have acted under thisnobleman's licence after 1585. 

In 1589, when the process of amalgamation between the Lord Admiral's, the Lord Chamberlain's, and Lord Leicester's companies, and LordStrange's acrobats, which resulted in the formation of Lord Strange'scompany, was under way, discarded members of their companies, including, no doubt, some of the players of the old Worcester company, secured alicence from the new Earl of Worcester and continued to perform--thoughmostly as a provincial company--until 1603. Other old members, includingRobert Brown--the leader of the former Worcester company--and RichardJones, formed a new company for continental performances. Brown andothers continued to make continental trips for years afterwards, whileRichard Jones rejoined the Lord Admiral's men in 1594, after they andthe Lord Chamberlain's men had separated. 

It was plainly, then, Richard Jones' share in the stage properties ofthe Lord Admiral's company that Edward Alleyn bought in 1589. It isapparent that he also bought out his brother's and Robert Brown'sshares, as neither of them afterwards appeared as Strange's or Admiral'smen. _This would give Edward Alleyn entire ownership of the propertiesof the Admiral's company_, and, consequently, an important share in thenew amalgamation. 

It was on Burbage's stage, then, that this great actor between 1585 and1589--after having spent several years touring the provinces--enteredupon and established his metropolitan reputation, attaining in thelatter year, at the age of twenty-three, a large, if not the largest, share in the properties and holdings, and also the management of thestrongest company of players in England, as well as the reputation ofbeing the greatest actor of the time. 

It somewhat enlarges our old conception of the beginnings ofShakespeare's theatrical experiences and dramatic inspiration to know, that when he entered into relations with James Burbage, in 1586-87, andfor from four to six years afterwards, he had as intimate associatesboth Edward Alleyn and Richard Burbage; two young men of about his ownage, who were already winning a good share of the notice andappreciation that later established them as the leading actors of theage. Which of them was the greater was one of the moot questions of theday eight to ten years later, when they had become the star actors ofrival companies, and those the foremost two in London. 

It is now pertinent to inquire as to which of these companies, if toany, Shakespeare was connected previous to the amalgamation, and also, whether or not he became a member of Lord Strange's company, along withRichard Burbage, and acted under, or wrote for, Alleyn and Henslowebetween 1591 and 1594. 

The suggestion which was first made by Mr. Fleay--in which he has sincebeen followed by encyclopędists and compilers--that Shakespeare joinedLord Leicester's company upon one of its visits to Stratford-upon-Avonin 1586 or 1587, is plainly without foundation in the light of theforegoing facts, as is also his assumption that Lord Strange's companywas merely a continuation of Lord Leicester's company under newpatronage. 

Lord Leicester's company spent the greater part of the years between1585-86 and 1589 performing in the provinces. The records of itsprovincial visits outnumber all of those recorded for the other threecompanies concerned in the reorganisation of 1589. If Shakespeare actedat all in these early years he must have done so merely incidentally. When we bear in mind the volume and quality of his literary productions, between 1591 and 1594, it becomes evident that his novitiate in dramaticaffairs in the dark years, between 1585-86 and 1592, was of a literaryrather than of an histrionic character, though he also acted in thoseyears. He would have found little time for dramatic composition or studyduring these years had he accompanied Lord Leicester's company in theirprovincial peregrinations. Bearing in mind his later habit of revisingearlier work it is not unlikely that some of his dramatic work, whichfrom internal and external evidence we now date between 1591 and 1594, is rewritten or revised work originally produced before 1591. 

It is palpable that Shakespeare had not been previously affiliated withLord Strange's acrobats, nor a member of the Lord Admiral's company, andevident, in view of the above facts and deductions, as well as of hisfuture close and continuous connection with James Burbage, that hisinceptive years in London were spent in his service, working in variouscapacities in his business and dramatic interests. It is apparent thatbetween 1586-87 and 1588-89 Shakespeare worked for James Burbage as abonded and hired servant. In Henslowe's _Diary_ there are severalinstances of such bonds with hired servants, and covenant servants, covering terms of years--usually from two to three--between Henslowe andmen connected with the Lord Admiral's company. It shall be shown laterthat Nashe in his preface to Greene's _Menaphon_ alludes to Shakespearein this capacity. 

The title of _Johannes factotum_, which Greene, in 1592, bestowed uponShakespeare, as well as the term "rude groome, " which he inferentiallyapplies to him, when coupled with the tradition collected by NicholasRowe, his earliest biographer, who writes: "He was received into thecompany then in being, at first, in a very mean rank, but his admirablewit, and the natural turn of it to the stage, soon distinguished him, if not as an extraordinary actor, yet as an excellent writer, " all pointto a business rather than to an exclusively histrionic connection withthe Burbages in his earlier London years. These evidences are confirmedby the gossip of William Castle, who was parish clerk of Stratford formany years, and who was born two years before Shakespeare died, and, consequently, must have known and talked with many people who had knownShakespeare. He frequently told visitors that Shakespeare was firstreceived in the playhouse as "a servitor. " When the legal usage andbusiness customs of that period, as exhibited in legal records and inHenslowe's _Diary_, are considered it becomes apparent that a youth offrom twenty-one to twenty-three years of age, newly come to London, withno previous training in any particular capacity, with a bankrupt fatherand without means of his own, could not very well associate himself witha business concern in any other capacity than that of an indenturedapprentice or bonded and hired servant. Without such a legally ratifiedconnection with some employer, a youth of Shakespeare's poverty andsocial degree, and a stranger in London, would be classed before the lawas a masterless man and a vagrant. The term "servitor" then does notrefer to his theatrical capacity--as stated by Halliwell-Phillipps--butto his legal relations with James Burbage, his employer. Only sharers ina company were classed as "servants" to the nobleman under whosepatronage they worked; the hired men were servants to the sharers, or tothe theatrical owner for whom they worked. 

Being connected with the Burbages between 1586-87 to 1588-89, whatevertheatrical training Shakespeare may have received came undoubtedly fromhis association with the Lord Admiral's and Lord Hunsdon's companies, which performed at the Theatre in Shoreditch as one company duringthese years, combining in the same manner as Strange's company and theLord Admiral's company did, under Henslowe and Alleyn at the Rose, between 1592-94. Though in later life he was reputed to be a fair actor, he never achieved great reputation in this capacity; it was plainly notto acting that he devoted himself most seriously during these earlyyears. Working in the capacity of handy-man or, as Greene calls him, _Johannes factotum_, for the Burbages, besides, possibly, taking generalcharge of their stabling arrangements, --as tradition asserts, --he also, no doubt, took care of the theatrical properties, which included theMSS. And players' copies of the plays owned by the company. ThoughShakespeare's grammar school days ended in Stratford he took hiscollegiate course in Burbage's Theatre. During the leisure hours of theyears of his servitorship he studied the arts as he found them in MS. Plays. _I shall show, later, that Robert Greene, through the pen of hiscoadjutor, Thomas Nashe, in an earlier attack than that of 1592, refersto Shakespeare's servitorship and to the acquisitions of knowledge hemade during his idle hours. _ That he made good use of his time and hismaterials, however, is demonstrated by the fact that in the four yearsintervening between the end of 1590 and the end of 1594, he composed, atleast, seven original plays, two long poems, and over sixty sonnets;much of this work being since and still regarded--three hundred yearsafter its production--as a portion of the world's greatest literature. 

While it is apparent, even to those critics and biographers who admitthe likelihood that Shakespeare's earliest connection with theatricalaffairs was with the Burbage interests, that Lord Strange's company--ofwhich they, erroneously, suppose that he still continued to be amember--ceased to perform under James Burbage in, or before, February1592, when they began to play under Alleyn and Henslowe's management atthe Rose Theatre, no previous attempt has been made to explain thereasons for Lord Strange's company's connection with Henslowe, or toaccount for the fact that no plays written by Shakespeare were presentedby this company while they performed at the Rose Theatre, though it isvery evident, and admitted by all critics, that he composed severaloriginal plays during this interval. 

As it is probable that James Burbage, through his son Richard, retainedsome interest in Lord Strange's company during the period that it actedunder Henslowe's and Alleyn's management, the question naturally arises, Why should Lord Strange's company, which was composed largely of membersof Leicester's and Hunsdon's company, both of which, affiliated with theAdmiral's men, had been previously associated with the Burbageinterests--why should this company, having Richard Burbage in itsmembership, enter into business relations with Henslowe and perform fortwo years at the Rose Theatre instead of playing under James Burbage atthe Theatre in Shoreditch in summer, and at the Crosskeys in winter, where they formerly played?

A consideration of the business affairs of James Burbage will show thatthe temporary severance of his business relations with Strange's men wasdue to legal and financial difficulties in which he became involved atthis time, when strong financial backing became necessary to establishand maintain this new company, which, I have indicated, had been formedspecially for Court performances. It also appears evident that he againincurred the disfavour of Lord Burghley and the authorities at thistime. 

In the following chapter I analyse the reasons for the separation ofStrange's company from Burbage at this time and give inceptive evidencethat Shakespeare did not accompany Strange's men to Henslowe and theRose, but that he remained with Burbage as the manager and principalwriter for the Earl of Pembroke's company--a fact regarding his historywhich has not hitherto been suspected. 

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 10: This interesting fact, hitherto unknown, has recently beenpointed out by Mrs. C. C. Stopes, _Burbage and Shakespeare's Stage_, London, 1913. ]

[Footnote 11: A critical examination of the records of the _EnglishDramatic Companies_, 1558-1642, collected by Mr. John Tucker Murray, convinces me that such affiliations as those mentioned above existedbetween Lord Hunsdon's company and the Earl of Leicester's company from1582-83 until 1585, and between the remnant of Leicester'scompany, --which remained in England when their fellows went to theContinent in 1585, --the Lord Admiral's company, and the LordChamberlain's company from 1585 until 1589, and following areorganisation in that year--when the Lord Chamberlain's and Leicester'scompanies merged with Lord Strange's company--between this new LordStrange's company and the Lord Admiral's company until 1591, when afurther reorganisation took place, the majority of Strange's and theAdmiral's men going to Henslowe and the Rose, and a portion, includingShakespeare, remaining with Burbage and reorganising in this year withaccretions from the now disrupting Queen's company, including GabrielSpencer and Humphrey Jeffes, as the Earl of Pembroke's company; JohnSinkler, and possibly others from the Queen's company, evidently joinedthe Strange-Admiral's men at the same time. The mention of the names ofthese three men--two of them Pembroke's men and one a Strange's manafter 1592--in the stage directions of _The True Tragedy of the Duke ofYork_, can be accounted for only by the probable fact that all threewere members of the company that originally owned the play, and thatthis was the Queen's company is generally conceded by critics. 

In order to restore their own acting strength the depleted Queen'scompany appears now to have formed similar affiliations with the Earl ofSussex's company, continuing the connection until 1594. In this yearStrange's men (now the Lord Chamberlain's men) returned to Burbage whilethe Admiral's portion of the combination stayed with Henslowe as theLord Admiral's company. These two companies now restored their fullnumbers by taking on men from the Earl of Pembroke's and the Earl ofSussex's companies; both of which now cease to work as independentcompanies, though the portion of Pembroke's men that returned toHenslowe, including Spencer and Jeffes, appear to have retained theirown licensed identity until 1597, when several of them definitely joinedHenslowe as Admiral men. Some Pembroke's and Sussex's men, not taken byBurbage or Henslowe in 1594, evidently joined the Queen's company atthat time. Henslowe financed his brother Francis Henslowe in thepurchase of a share in the Queen's company at about this time. ]

[Footnote 12: _Queen Elizabeth and Her Times_, by Thomas Wright, 1838. ]

[Footnote 13: Sir Sidney Lee, who as a rule follows Halliwell-Phillippsimplicitly, in _A Life of William Shakespeare_, p. 59, writes: "JamesBurbage, in spite of pecuniary embarrassments, remained manager andowner of the Theatre for twenty-one years"; but in a footnote on p. 52, writes: "During 1584 an unnamed person, vaguely described as 'the ownerof the Theatre, ' claimed that he was under Lord Hunsdon's protection;the reference is probably to one John Hyde, to whom the Theatre wasmortgaged. " There is surely nothing vague in the expression "owner ofthe Theatre, " especially when we remember that it was used by animportant legal functionary in one of his weekly reports to LordTreasurer Burghley. Recorder Fleetwood was a very exact and legal-mindedofficial, and in using the term "the owner" he undoubtedly meant theowner and, it may be implied from the context, also the manager. Burbagewas clearly manager and owner of the Theatre at this period. ]

[Footnote 14: This Browne was in all probability the notorious NedBrowne of whom Robert Greene wrote in 1592, _The Blacke BookesMessenger_, "Laying open the life and death of Ned Browne one of theworst cutpurses, crosbiters, and conycatchers that ever lived inEngland. Herein he tells verie pleasantly in his owne person suchstrange pranks and monstrous villanies by him and his consorts performedas the like was yet never heard of in any of the former bookes ofconycatching, etc. By R. G. Printed at London by John Danter for ThomasNelson, dwelling in Silver Street, neere to the sign of the Red Crosse, 1592, Quarto. " Fleetwood writes later of Browne: "This Browne is acommon cousener, a thief and a horse stealer and colloureth all hisdoings here about this town with a sute that he hath in the lawe againsta brother of his in Staffordshire. He resteth now in Newgate. "]

[Footnote 15: _English Dramatic Companies_, by John Tucker Murray, vol. I. P. 201. ]

[Footnote 16: That Tarleton was a member of the Queen's company in 1588is shown by a reference in his will, which is dated in this year, to "myfellow, William Johnson. "]

[Footnote 17: Previous to the affiliations between Strange's tumblersand the Lord Admiral's company they seem to have maintained intermittentrelations with the Queen's company, and are sometimes mentioned as theQueen's tumblers. ]

[Footnote 18: _English Dramatic Companies_, 1558-1642, p. 43, by JohnTucker Murray. ]

CHAPTER IV

SHAKESPEARE AND THE EARL OF PEMBROKE'S COMPANY

Almost from the time he first began to operate the Shoreditch Theatre in1576, until his death in 1597, James Burbage had trouble from one sourceor another regarding his venture. Both the Theatre, and the Curtain atShoreditch, seem to have been particularly obnoxious to the puritanicalelement among the local authorities, who made numerous attempts to haveboth theatres suppressed. There were long intervals during the term ofBurbage's lease of the Theatre when, owing to various causes, both theTheatre and the Curtain were closed. Among the causes were--theprevalence of the plague, alleged rioting, and the performance of playswhich infringed the law prohibiting the presentation of matters ofChurch and State upon the stage. Burbage's Theatre came into disfavourwith the authorities in 1589 owing to the performance there of playsrelating to the Martin Marprelate controversy; and that it was thecombined Strange's and Admiral's company that was concerned in theseperformances, and not the Queen's, as is usually supposed, is evidentfrom the fact that in November, when they moved to their winter quartersin the City at the Crosskeys, the Lord Mayor, John Hart, underinstructions from Lord Burghley, issued orders prohibiting them fromperforming in the City. It is not unlikely that their connection withthe Martin Marprelate affair earlier in the year at the Theatre, andtheir deliberate defiance of the Mayor's orders in performing at theCrosskeys on the afternoon of the day the prohibition was issued, delayed the full measure of Court favour presaged for them by theirrecent drastic--and evidently officially encouraged--reorganisation. When they performed at Court in the Christmas seasons of 1589-90 and1590-91, they did so as the Lord Admiral's men; and in the latterinstance, while the Acts of the Privy Council credit the performance tothe Admiral's, the Pipe Rolls assign it to Strange's men. [19] Seeingthat the Admiral's men had submitted dutifully to the Mayor's orders, and that Lord Strange's men--two of whom had been committed to theCounter for their contempt--were again called before the Mayor andforbidden to play, the company's reason for performing at Court at thisperiod as the Lord Admiral's men is plainly apparent. It is not unlikelythat their transfer to Henslowe's financial management became necessarybecause of Burbage's continued disfavour with Lord Burghley and the Cityauthorities, as well as his financial inability adequately to providefor the needs of the new Court company, in 1591. In the defiance ofBurghley's and the Mayor's orders by the Burbage portion of the company, and the subservience of the Alleyn element at this time, is foreshadowedtheir future political bias as independent companies. From the time oftheir separation in 1594 until the death of Elizabeth, the LordAdmiral's company represented the Cecil-Howard, and Burbage's companythe Essex factional and political interests in their covert stagepolemics. Shakespeare's friendship and intimacy with Essex's _fidusAchates_, the Earl of Southampton, between 1591 and 1601, servedmaterially to accentuate the pro-Essex leanings of his company. Thisphase of Shakespeare's theatrical career has not been investigated bypast critics, though Fleay, Simpson, and Feis recognise the critical andbiographical importance of such an inquiry, while the compilers do noteven suspect that such a phase existed. 

While the Curtain seems to have escaped trouble arising from its leaseand its ownership, the Theatre came in for more than its share. Thecomparative freedom of the Curtain from the interference and persecutionof the local authorities in these years was evidently due to the factthat it was the recognised summer home of the Queen's company between1584 and 1591. It is evident that during the winter months the Queen'scompany performed at the Rose between 1587--when this theatre waserected--and the end of 1590; it was superseded at Court by LordStrange's company at the end of 1591, and was disrupted during thisyear--a portion of them continuing under the two Duttons, as the Queen'smen. The Rose, being the most important, centrally located, theatreavailable for winter performances during these years, would naturally beused by the leading Court company. It is significant that Lord Strange'scompany commenced to play there when they finally supplanted the Queen'scompany at Court. It is probable that they played there also before itwas reconstructed during 1591. 

The large number of old plays formerly owned by the Queen's company, which came into the hands of the companies associated with Henslowe andBurbage at this time, suggests that they bought them from Henslowe, whohad retained them, and probably other properties, in payment for moneyowed him by the Queen's company which, having been several yearsaffiliated with him at the Rose, would be likely to have a similarfinancial experience to that of the Lord Admiral's men, who, as shown bythe _Diary_, got deeply into his debt between 1594 and 1598. The Queen'scompany was plainly not in a prosperous financial condition in 1591. Itis apparent also that some Queen's men joined Strange's, and Pembroke'smen at this time bringing some of these plays with them as properties. 

In building the Theatre, in 1576, Burbage had taken his brother-in-law, one John Brayne, into partnership, agreeing to give him a half-interestupon certain terms which Brayne apparently failed to meet. Brayne, however, claimed a moiety and engaged in a lawsuit with Burbage whichdragged along until his death, when his heirs continued the litigation. Giles Allen, the landlord from whom Burbage leased the land on which hehad built the Theatre, evidently a somewhat sharp and graspingindividual, failed to live up to the terms of his lease which he hadagreed to extend, provided that Burbage expended a certain amount ofmoney upon improvements. There was constant bickering between Allen andBurbage regarding this matter, which also eventuated in a lawsuit thatwas carried on by Cuthbert and Richard Burbage after their father'sdeath in 1597. Added to these numerous irritations, came further troublefrom a most unlooked-for source. In 1581, Edmund Peckham, son of SirGeorge Peckham, on the most shadowy and far-fetched grounds, questionedthe validity of Giles Allen's title to the land he had leased toBurbage, and not only entered a legal claim upon it, but found a jury toagree with him. This suit also continued for years. 

In _Burbage and Shakespeare's Stage_, which is the best account yetwritten of Burbage and his affairs, Mrs. Stopes evidently gives allavailable details regarding his legal embarrassments. Mrs. Stopes'account makes it clear that by the year 1591, James Burbage could nothave amassed much wealth in the practice of his profession, though wemay infer that he had enriched a number of lawyers. In the legal recordsexamined by Mrs. Stopes, I learn that upon 10th January 1591 anattachment on the Theatre was awarded against Burbage for contempt ofcourt on the plea of one Robert Miles, and though several attempts weremade in the meantime to have the matter adjudicated, that the attachmentwas still in force in November 1591; there is apparently no record as towhen and how the matter was finally settled and the attachment lifted. It evidently held three months later when Lord Strange's companycommenced to perform under Henslowe at the Rose, or at least as late asDecember and January 1591-92, in which months Henslowe repaired andenlarged the Rose in anticipation of the coming of Strange's company. Ihave reason to believe that some settlement was made regarding theattachment upon Burbage's Theatre early in 1592, and that the Earl ofPembroke's company played there when in London from that time until welose sight of them late in 1593. In the spring of 1594 their membershipand properties were absorbed by the Lord Admiral's company and LordStrange's company, most of the properties they had in the way of playsgoing to the latter. 

The Rose Theatre was first erected in 1587. By the year 1592, when LordStrange's players commenced to appear there, it evidently needed to berepaired and enlarged. Between the 7th of March and the end of April1592, Henslowe paid out over £100 for these repairs; the work paid forhaving been done in the few months preceding 19th February 1592, whenLord Strange's company commenced to perform there. 

Henslowe was much too careful a business man to invest the large sum ofmoney in the enlargement and repair of the Rose Theatre, which he did atthis time, without the assurance of a profitable return. When his otherbusiness transactions, as shown in his _Diary_, are considered itbecomes apparent that in undertaking this expenditure he would stipulatefor the use of his house by Lord Strange's men for a settled period, probably of, at least, two years, and that Edward Alleyn, who was themanager of Lord Strange's men at this time, and continued to be theirmanager for the next two years, --though still remaining the LordAdmiral's man, --was Henslowe's business representative in the company. Alleyn married Henslowe's stepdaughter in October, this year, andcontinued to be his business associate until Henslowe's death, when, through his wife, he became his heir. Lord Strange's company, under thisand the later title of the Lord Chamberlain's men, continued to performat theatres owned or operated by Henslowe, and probably also underAlleyn's management, until the spring of 1594, when it appears that theyreturned to Burbage and resumed performances, as in 1589-91, at theTheatre in Shoreditch in summer, and at the Crosskeys in winter. 

The assumption that Shakespeare was a member of Lord Strange's companywhile it was with Henslowe, is based upon three things: first, theundoubted fact that his close friend and coadjutor, Richard Burbage, wasone of the leading members of the company at that time; secondly, that_The First Part of Henry VI. _, in an early form, was presented as arevised play by Lord Strange's men at the Rose, upon 3rd March 1592, andupon several subsequent occasions while they were with Henslowe;thirdly, an alleged reference to Shakespeare's name in Peele's _EdwardI. _, which was owned by the Lord Admiral's players after 1594, andpresumably written for them when Shakespeare acted with the companybefore 1592. Let us examine these things in order. 

At first sight it is a plausible inference, in view of Shakespeare'searlier, and later, connection with the Burbages, that he shouldcontinue to be associated with Richard Burbage during these two years. When the reason for the formation of Lord Strange's company isremembered, however, it becomes clear that Richard Burbage would be amember for the very reason that Shakespeare would not. The intention inthe formation of this company being to secure an organisation of thebest actors for the services of the Court, it is evident that RichardBurbage--who even at this early date was one of the leading actors inLondon--would be chosen. Shakespeare never at any time attaineddistinction as an actor. 

The presentation of _Henry VI. , Part I. _, by Lord Strange's players, asa reason for Shakespeare's membership, infers that he was the author ofthis play, or, at least, its reviser in 1592, and that the Talbot scenesare his. This, consequently, implies that Nashe's commendatoryreferences to these scenes were complimentary to work of Shakespeare'sin 1592. It is evident that the play of _Henry VI. _, acted by LordStrange's men in March 1592, and commended by Nashe, was much the sameplay as _Henry VI. , Part I. _, included in all editions of Shakespeare. Textual criticism has long since proved, however, that this was not anew play in 1592--though marked "ne" by Henslowe--but merely arevision. Three hands are distinctly traceable in it; the unknownoriginal author who wrote the opening lines:

 "Hung be the heavens with black, yield day to night! Comets, importing change of times and states, Brandish your crystal tresses in the sky, And with them scourge the bad revolting stars That have consented unto Henry's death!"

Whoever wrote these lines, it is very palpable that Shakespeare did not. The second hand in the play was the reviser of 1592 who introduced theTalbot passages. There cannot be the slightest doubt that this wasGeorge Peele, who in 1592, and for some time before and later, was theprincipal producer and reviser of plays for the Lord Admiral's company. The classical allusions in the Talbot scenes, and the manner in whichthey are always lugged in by the ear, as though for adornment, plainlyproclaim the hand of Peele, and as plainly disassociate Shakespeare fromtheir composition. The third hand is clearly Shakespeare's. The "TempleGarden" scene has been accepted by practically all critics asunquestionably his work; it is not the work, either, of his "pupil pen. "His revision was evidently not made until 1594, when the LordChamberlain's company brought the MS. With them as a portion of theirproperties, upon their return to Burbage. The references to red andwhite roses, as the badges of Lancaster and York, were evidently thenintroduced by Shakespeare in order to link together, and give dramaticcontinuity to, the whole historical series connected with the Wars ofthe Roses, upon which he had already worked, or was then working for hiscompany. There is not a single classical allusion in the "TempleGarden" scene, while there are twenty-seven classical allusions in thewhole play: eight of them being in the Talbot passages. In Shakespeare's_Richard II. _--which I shall give good evidence was written within abouta year of the time that _Henry VI. _ was presented as a new play--thereare two classical allusions. In any authentic play by Marlowe, Greene, or Peele of an equal length there will be found from forty to eightyclassical allusions, besides, as a rule, a number of Latin quotations. In revising the first part of _Henry VI. _ in, or after, 1594, it isevident that Shakespeare eliminated many classical allusions, and thatin the early work which he did upon _The Contention_, and also in hisfinal revision of _The Contention_, into the second and third parts of_Henry VI. _, he eliminated classical allusions, reducing the average inthese plays to from thirty to thirty-five. In his own acknowledgedhistorical plays, _Richard II. _, _King John_, _Richard III. _, _HenryIV. _, and _Henry V. _, _there is not an average of six classicalallusions_. 

When the settled animus which Nashe, in conjunction with Greene, between1589-92, displays against Shakespeare is better understood, the utterimprobability of his referring to Shakespeare's work in a laudatorymanner in the latter year shall readily be seen. When, also, the highpraise which Nashe bestows upon Peele in the same publications in whichhe attacks Shakespeare is noted, it becomes evident that he againintends to commend Peele in his complimentary allusion to the Talbotscenes. Peele was the principal writer and reviser for Henslowe at thisperiod, while not one of Shakespeare's plays is mentioned in his whole_Diary_. 

While I believe that the reference to Shakespeare's name in _EdwardI. _--which was first noticed by Mr. Fleay--was actually intended byPeele, the passage in which it occurs pertains to an early form of theplay, which was old when it was published in 1593. It was written byPeele for the Lord Admiral's company before their conjunction withStrange's men under Henslowe, and at the time when they acted with LordHunsdon's company at the Theatre in Shoreditch in summer, and at theCrosskeys in the winter. It is significant that this play was not actedby Lord Strange's men during their tenure of the Rose Theatre, and thatin 1595, after they had separated from Henslowe, it was revised andpresented as a new play by the Lord Admiral's company. It is quitelikely that it was the property of Pembroke's company in 1592-93. Theallusion to Shakespeare in this play is probably the first evidence wepossess of the well-authenticated fact that as an actor he usuallyappeared in kingly parts. It is recorded of him that he played the partof the ghost in _Hamlet_, and his friend, John Davies, the poet, writesin 1603:

 "Some say, good Will, which I in sport do sing, Hadst thou not played some kingly parts in sport, Thou hadst been a companion for a King. "

The reference to his name by Peele in _Edward I. _, in which playShakespeare evidently took the part of John Baliol, the Scottish King, is as follows:

 "Shine with thy golden head, _Shake_ thy _speare_, in honour of his name, Under whose royalty thou wear'st the same. "

Against the assumption that Shakespeare acted with Lord Strange'scompany under Alleyn and Henslowe for two years, there is some positive, and much inferential, evidence, the strongest of the latter being thatbetween the end of 1590 and the middle of 1594, at about which latterdate the Lord Chamberlain's company parted from Henslowe, Shakespeareproduced, --as I shall later demonstrate, --in addition to _Venus andAdonis_, _Lucrece_, and nearly half of the whole body of his _Sonnets_, at least seven new plays, not one of which was performed at the Rose byLord Strange's company. The remainder of the evidence against thisassumption shall develop in this history. 

We may infer that Henslowe in entering into business relations with LordStrange's company would make quite as binding a contract with them as wefind him making a few years later with the Lord Admiral's men. In thosecontracts he binds the players to play at the Rose and "at no otherhouse publicly about London"; further stipulating that should the Londontheatres be closed by the authorities for any reason "then to go for thetime into the country, then to return again to London. "

The fact that his manager, and son-in-law, Edward Alleyn, accompaniedLord Strange's men upon their provincial tour in 1593, when, owing tothe plague, the London theatres were closed by order of the Council, implies a similar understanding with this company. 

The words "in any other house publicly about London" in Henslowe'scontracts with players apparently infer that they retained the right ofgiving private and Court performances upon their own account and fortheir own profit. The money they received for Court performances appearsto have belonged exclusively to the players, as the total amountcollected by them is at times turned over to Henslowe in part payment oftheir corporate indebtedness to him, and credited to them in full. HadHenslowe shared in these payments his portion would have been deductedfrom the credits. It is evident that he was merely the financial backerof, and not a sharer in, this company. 

In the apparently comprehensive list of the members of Lord Strange'scompany--as it existed early in 1592--which was owned by Edward Alleynand is now preserved at Dulwich College, while Pope and Bryan, who camefrom Leicester's company, and Richard Burbage and others, no doubt, whocame from Lord Hunsdon's company are mentioned, Shakespeare's name doesnot appear. There is no reason why he should not have been mentioned inthis list had he been a member of the company at that time. About threeyears later, when Strange's men had separated from Henslowe and theAdmiral's men, and returned to Burbage, Shakespeare is mentioned, withWilliam Kempe and Richard Burbage, in the Court records as receivingpayment for Court performances, from which we may infer that he wasregarded as one of the leading members of, and was also a sharer in, thecompany at this time. 

Where, then, was Shakespeare during the period of Henslowe's management?What company of players performed in the plays he produced between aboutthe end of 1590 and the middle of 1594, which are--_The Comedy ofErrors_, _Love's Labour's Lost_, _Love's Labour's Won_, _The TwoGentlemen of Verona_, _King John_, _Richard II. _, _Richard III. _, and_Midsummer Night's Dream_? Later on I shall advance conclusive evidenceto prove that all of these plays were written in this interval, thoughmost of them were materially revised in later years. 

In order to answer these questions it will be advisable to revert to aconsideration of the drastic changes which took place between the end of1588 and the beginning of 1592, in the comparative standing, as well asin the personnel, of several of the most prominent companies of players. I have shown that early in 1589 a union took place between the leadingmembers of Lord Strange's tumblers, the Lord Admiral's, the LordChamberlain's, and the Earl of Leicester's men. If an average of onlythree men were taken from each of these companies--forming a company oftwelve players, which was then regarded as a large company--it wouldnecessarily leave a considerable number of men free to make newconnections, as three of the companies involved in the changes disappearfrom the records at that time. Thereafter we hear no more of LordStrange's tumblers, nor of Lord Leicester's, nor Lord Hunsdon's players. It is not unlikely, then, that while some of the players discarded fromthe three companies that had gone out of existence would drift intodifferent existing companies, that some of them would unite to form anew company. The disruption of the Queen's company in 1590-91 would alsoleave some men at large. As most of these men had been previouslyconnected with well-known companies, which performed principally inLondon, it is likely that they would endeavour to continue as Londonperformers instead of forming a provincial company. 

That such a company for London performances was actually formed sometime in 1591 is evident in the appearance of a company--hitherto unheardof for sixteen years--under the patronage of the Earl of Pembroke. Between the years 1576 and 1592 there is no mention of a company actingunder this nobleman's licence in either the provincial or Court records, nor is there any mention of, or reference to, such a company in anyLondon records. 

All we know about this new company is that record of it appeared forthe first time in December 1592, when it played twice before the Court;that it returned to London in the early autumn of 1593 after adisastrous tour in the provinces, being compelled to pawn a portion ofits properties to pay expenses; that Marlowe wrote _Edward II. _ for itin about 1593; that _The True Tragedy of the Duke of York_ was one ofits properties, and that Shakespeare was connected with either therevision or the theatrical presentation of this play at the period thatit belonged to Pembroke's company, _i. E. _ in 1592, as he is attacked byGreene on that score at this time. 

Owing to the prevalence of the plague in London in 1593, and early in1594, the public performance of plays was prohibited. The Earl ofPembroke's company, which had failed to make its expenses travelling, and which was not allowed to play in London on account of the plague, evidently disrupted in the spring or summer of 1594; and as some of itsmembers joined Henslowe at this time and some of the properties came tothe Burbage organisation, we may infer that they were brought asproperties by men who came from Pembroke's company to Burbage. 

Edward Alleyn, who toured the provinces in the summer of 1593 with LordStrange's company, and for the same reason that Pembroke's toured atthis time, _i. E. _ owing to the plague in London, wrote to Henslowe inSeptember 1593, from the country, inquiring as to the whereabouts ofPembroke's company, and was told by Henslowe that they had returned toLondon five or six weeks before, as they could not make their chargestravelling. He further informed him that he had heard that they werecompelled to pawn their apparel. The fact that the fortunes ofPembroke's company should be a matter of interest to Alleyn and Hensloweappears to imply that it was a new theatrical venture of someimportance, and that it probably had in its membership some of theAdmiral's, Strange's, or Queen's company's old players. That a newcompany should play twice before the Court, in what was evidently thefirst or second year of its existence, speaks well for the influence ofits management and for the quality of its plays and performances. Afterthis mention of Pembroke's company in Henslowe's letter to Alleyn inSeptember 1593, we hear nothing further concerning it as an independentcompany until 1597. At that time Gabriel Spencer and Humphrey Jeffes, who were evidently Pembroke's men in 1592-93, became members of, andsharers in, the Lord Admiral's company, with which they had evidentlyworked--though under Pembroke's licence--between 1594 and 1597. 

It is now agreed by critics that the Admiral's and Chamberlain's men, who had been united under Alleyn for the past two years, divided theirforces and fortunes in June 1594, or earlier. It is evident that some ofPembroke's company's plays were absorbed by the Lord Chamberlain'scompany, and that a few of the Pembroke men joined the Lord Admiral'scompany at this time. As evidence of the absorption of the plays ofPembroke's men by Lord Strange's players is the fact that between 3rdand 13th June 1594, when Strange's players acted under Henslowe for thelast time, three of the seven plays they then presented, --_Hamlet_, _Andronicus_, and _The Taming of a Shrew_, --while all old plays, werenew to the repertory of Strange's company presented upon Henslowe'sstages, and furthermore, that all three of these plays wererewritten--or alleged to have been rewritten--by Shakespeare. At aboutthe same time that Pembroke's company ceased to exist the Earl ofSussex's company, which had recently played for Henslowe, was alsodisrupted. It is evident that some of these men joined the LordAdmiral's and the Lord Chamberlain's companies also, and that in thismanner the Lord Chamberlain's company secured _Andronicus_, which hadlately been played by the Earl of Sussex's men as well as by Pembroke'smen. 

Humphrey Jeffes and Gabriel Spencer, whose names are mentioned in _TheTrue Tragedy of the Duke of York_, which was played by Pembroke'scompany in 1592-93, and who, we may therefore infer, were members ofPembroke's company in those years, or else were members of the companythat previously owned this play, are mentioned as playing with the LordAdmiral's company as Pembroke's men in 1597. The name of John Sinkler, who is mentioned as one of Lord Strange's men in Edward Alleyn's list, which evidently represents the company as it appeared in the firstperformance of _Four Plays in One_ at the Rose Theatre upon 6th March1592, also appears with that of Gabriel Spencer and Humphrey Jeffes in_The True Tragedy of the Duke of York_. From this we may infer eitherthat Sinkler left Strange's company and joined Pembroke's men after thisdate, or else that he, Spencer, and Jeffes, before 1592, were members ofthe company that originally owned the play. It is very evident that theoriginals of the three parts of _Henry VI. _ were old plays composed atabout the time of the Spanish Armada, and, it is generally agreed, forthe Queen's company. As _The True Tragedy of the Duke of York_--incommon with _Hamlet_ and _The Taming of a Shrew_--was also later revisedor rewritten by Shakespeare, into the play now known as _Henry VI. , PartIII. _, it evidently came from Pembroke's company to Lord Strange'scompany, along with _Hamlet_ and _The Taming of a Shrew_ in 1594. Lateron I shall adduce evidence showing that _The Taming of a Shrew_ and_Hamlet_ were owned and acted by a company, or companies, associatedwith the Burbage interests previous to the amalgamation of 1589, andthat _The True Tragedy of the Duke of York_, which was an old play in1592, probably originally written by Greene, was revised in that year byMarlowe and Shakespeare for Pembroke's company, and that its finalchange into the play now known as _Henry VI. , Part III. _, was made byShakespeare in, or after, 1594, when he rejoined the Lord Chamberlain'scompany. 

Within a year of the time that Marlowe, with Shakespeare, revised _TheTrue Tragedy of the Duke of York_ for Pembroke's men in 1592, Marlowealso wrote _Edward II. _ for this company, Shakespeare producing _RichardII. _ for the company at the same time. The friendly co-operation betweenShakespeare and Marlowe, which I shall show commenced in 1588-89, andwhich aroused Greene's jealousy at that time, was evidently continueduntil the death of Marlowe in June 1593. It is in the historical playscomposed or revised between 1591-93 by Shakespeare that Marlowe'sinfluence is most apparent, as also is Shakespeare's influence uponMarlowe in his one play which we know was produced at the same period. _Edward II. _ is much more Shakespearean in character than any other ofMarlowe's plays. It is evident that their close association at this timereacted favourably upon the work of each of them. 

The deductions I draw from these and other facts and inferences still tobe developed, is, that shortly after the Lord Admiral's and LordStrange's men passed under Alleyn's and Henslowe's management, some timebetween Christmas 1590 and Christmas 1591, Shakespeare formed LordPembroke's company, becoming its leader and also its principal producerof plays, and that it was through his influence and the reputation thatcertain of his early plays had already attained in Court circles thatthis new company was enabled to appear twice before the Court in theChristmas season of 1592. To demonstrate this hypothesis it will benecessary to revert to a consideration of Shakespeare's status intheatrical affairs between 1588-89 and 1594. 

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 19: E. K. Chambers in _Modern Language Review_, Oct. 1906. ]

CHAPTER V

SHAKESPEARE AND THE SCHOLARS

1588-1594

In considering the conditions of Shakespeare's life at the beginning ofhis career in London, and his application to the College of Heralds fora grant of arms in 1596, it must be borne in mind that socialdistinctions and class gradations at that time still retained much oftheir feudal significance. At that period an actor, unless protected bythe licence of a nobleman or gentleman, was virtually a vagrant beforethe law, while felonies committed by scholars were still clergyable. When Ben Jonson was indicted for killing Gabriel Spencer in 1598, hepleaded and received benefit of clergy, his only legal punishmentconsisting in having the inside of his thumb branded with the Tyburn"T, " and it is unlikely that even this was inflicted. 

While a university degree thus enhanced both the social and legal statusof sons of yeomen and tradesmen, the sons of equally reputable peoplewho became actors were correspondingly debased both socially andlegally. 

Though the established status which the actors' profession attainedduring Shakespeare's connection with the stage--and largely through hiselevating influence--made these legal disabilities of an actor a deadletter, it still continued to militate against the social standing ofits members. John Davies leaves record that at the accession of JamesI. It was gossiped that Shakespeare, had he not formerly been an actor, instead of being appointed Groom of the Privy Chamber, might havereceived the higher appointment of Gentleman of the Privy Chamber. Thisidea owed its birth to Shakespeare's friendship with the Earl ofSouthampton, whose influence in the early days of the new Court--when hehimself stood high in favour--secured the office for his other protégé, John Florio, one of the gentlemen by the grace of a university degreewho joined issue with the "university pens" against Shakespeare, and whoin consequence--as I shall later demonstrate--shall be pilloried tofar-distant ages in the character of Sir John Falstaff. ThoughShakespeare had acquired a legal badge of gentility with his coat ofarms in 1599, the histrionic taint--according to Davies--proved a bar tohis official promotion. 

 "Some say, good Will, which I in sport do sing, Hadst thou not played some kingly parts in sport, Thou hadst been a companion to a King And been a King among the meaner sort. "

Arrogance towards social inferiors, as well as servility to superiors, is always manifested most offensively in the manners of those who arethemselves conscious of equivocal social standing. I shall adduceevidence to prove that from the time we first begin dimly to apprehendShakespeare in his London environment, in 1588-89, until his finalreturn to Stratford in about 1610, he was continuously and spitefullyattacked and vilified by a coterie of jealous scholars who, while liftedabove him socially by the arbitrary value attaching to a universitydegree, were in no other sense his superiors either in birth orbreeding. It was evidently, then, the contemptuous attitude of hisjealous scholastic rivals, as well as the accruing material advantagesinvolved, that impelled Shakespeare in 1596 to apply, through hisfather, to the College of Heralds for official confirmation of a grantof arms alleged to have been made to his forebears. 

Shakespeare's earliest scholastic detractor was Robert Greene, whoevidently set much store by his acquired gentility, as he usually signedhis publications as "By Robert Greene, Master of Arts in Cambridge, " andwho, withal, was a most licentious and unprincipled libertine, going, through his ill-regulated course of life, dishonoured and unwept to apauper's grave at the age of thirty-two. After the death of Greene, whenhis memory was assailed by Gabriel Harvey and others whom he hadoffended, his friend Nashe, who attempted to defend him, finding itdifficult to do so, makes up for the lameness of his defence by thebitterness of his attack on Harvey. Nashe, in fact, resents beingregarded as an intimate of Greene's, yet his, and Greene's, spiteful andill-bred reflections upon Shakespeare's social quality, education, andpersonal appearance, between 1589 and 1592, were receivedsympathetically by the remainder of the "gentlemen poets, "--as theystyled themselves in contradistinction to the stage poets, --and usedthereafter for years as a keynote to their own jealous abuse of him. 

John Florio, in his _First Fruites_, published in 1591, and after he hadentered the service of the Earl of Southampton, though not yet assailingShakespeare personally, as did these other scholars, appears as a criticof his historical dramatic work. 

In 1593 George Peele, in his _Honour of the Garter_, re-echoes the slursagainst Shakespeare voiced by Greene in the previous year. In the sameyear George Chapman, who thereafterwards proved to be Shakespeare'sarch-enemy among the "gentlemen scholars, " caricatures him and hisaffairs in a new play, which he revised, in conjunction with JohnMarston, six years later, under the title of _Histriomastix, or ThePlayer Whipt_. Neither the authorship, date of production, nor satiricalintention of the early form of the play has previously been known. 

In 1594 Chapman again attacks Shakespeare in _The Hymns to the Shadow ofNight_, as well as in the prose dedication written to his colleague, Matthew Roydon. In the same year Roydon enters the lists againstShakespeare by publishing a satirical and scandalous poem reflectingupon, and distorting, his private affairs, entitled _Willobie hisAvisa_. From this time onward until the year 1609-10, Chapman, Roydon, and John Florio--who in the meantime had joined issue withthem--continue to attack and vilify Shakespeare. Every reissue, orattempted reissue, of _Willobie his Avisa_ was intended as an attackupon Shakespeare. Such reissues were made or attempted in 1596-1599-1605and 1609, though some of them were prevented by the action of the publiccensor who, we have record, condemned the issue of 1596 and preventedthe issue of 1599. As no copies of the 1605 or 1609 issues are nowextant, it is probable that they also were estopped by the authorities. In 1598-99 these partisans (Chapman, Roydon, and Florio) are joined byJohn Marston, and a year later, also by Ben Jonson, when, for three orfour years, Chapman, Jonson, and Marston collaborate in scurrilous playsagainst Shakespeare and friends who had now rallied to his side. Inabout 1598 Thomas Dekker and Henry Chettle joined sides with Shakespeareand answered his opponents' attacks by satirising them in plays. JohnFlorio, while not participating in the dramatic warfare, attacksShakespeare viciously in the dedication to his _Worlde of Wordes_, in1598, and comes in for his share of the satirical chastisement whichShakespeare, Dekker, and Chettle administer to them in acted, as well asin published, plays. 

As Ben Jonson's dramatic reputation became assured the heat of hisrivalry against Shakespeare died down; his vision cleared and broadenedand he, more plainly than any writer of his time, or possibly since histime, realised Shakespeare in his true proportions. Jonson, in time, tires of Chapman's everlasting envy and misanthropy, and quarrels withhim and in turn becomes the object of Chapman's invectives. AfterShakespeare's death Jonson made amends for his past ill-usage bydefending his memory against Chapman, who, even then, continued tobelittle his reputation. 

While various critics have from time to time apprehended a criticalattitude upon the part of certain contemporary writers towardsShakespeare, they have usually regarded such indications as they mayhave noticed, merely as passing and temporary ebullitions, but noconception of the bitterness and continuity of the hostility whichactually existed has previously been realised. Much of the evidence ofthe early antagonism of Greene and Nashe to Shakespeare has beenentirely misunderstood, while their reflections against other dramatistsand actors are supposed to have been directed against him. Past criticshave been utterly oblivious of the fact that Florio, Roydon, and Chapmanand others colluded for many years in active hostility to Shakespeare. 

In publications issued between 1585 and 1592 Robert Greene vents hisdispleasure against various dramatic writers whose plays had provedmore popular than his, as well as against the companies of actors, theirmanagers, and the theatre that favoured his rivals. The writers andactor-managers whom he attacks have been variously identified by pastwriters. Mr. Richard Simpson, one of the most acute, ingenious, andpainstaking pioneers in Shakespearean research, whose _School ofShakespeare_ was issued after his death in 1878, supposed that all ofGreene's attacks in these years, including those in which his friend, Thomas Nashe, collaborated with him, were directed against Shakespeareand Marlowe. Since Mr. Simpson wrote, however, now over forty years ago, some new light has been thrown upon the theatrical companies, and theirconnection with the writers of the period with which he dealt, whichnegatives many of his conclusions. While it is evident that Greene wasjealous of, and casts reflections upon, Marlowe, to whom he refers as"Merlin" and "the athiest Tamburlaine, " Mr. Fleay has since proved thatseveral of Greene's veiled reflections were directed against others. Mr. Fleay's suggestion that Robert Wilson was the Roscius so frequentlyreferred to by Greene and Nashe is, however, based upon incorrectinference, though he proves by several characteristic parallels, whichhe adduces between lines in _The Three Ladies of London_, _The ThreeLords and Three Ladies_, and _Fair Em_, --the last of which issatirically alluded to by Greene in his _Farewell to Folly_, in1591, --that they were all three either written, or revised, by the samehand. While his ascription of the composition of the first two of theseplays to Wilson is probably also correct, his assumption that Wilson wasa writer and an actor for Lord Strange's company in 1591 was due to lackof collected and compiled records concerning the Elizabethan companiesof players at the time he wrote, which have since been madeavailable. [20]

There is nothing whatever known of Robert Wilson after 1583, when he ismentioned, along with Tarleton, as being selected by Tilney, the Masterof the Revels, for the Queen's company. In an appended note I analysethe literary evidence upon which Mr. Fleay associates Robert Wilson withStrange's company in 1589-91. [21]

Robert Wilson must have been passé as an actor in 1589, if indeed he wasthen living, while Strange's company was composed of younger and risingmen, all recently selected for their histrionic abilities from severalcompanies, amongst which, it appears evident, the Queen's company wasnot then included, though it is likely that in 1591 some Queen's menjoined Strange's company. That Robert Wilson was not the Rosciusreferred to by Greene and Nashe in 1589 and 1590 a further examinationof the evidence will fully verify. 

The person indicated as Roscius by Nashe in his Address to Greene's_Menaphon_ in 1589, and in Greene's _Never Too Late_ in 1590, was theleading actor of a new company that was then gaining great reputation, which, however, was largely due--according to Nashe--to the pre-eminentexcellence of this Roscius' acting. The pride and conceit of this actorhad risen to such a pitch, Nashe informs us in his _Anatomy ofAbsurdity_ (1589), that he had the "temerity to encounter with those onwhose shoulders all arts do lean. " This last is a plain reference toGeorge Peele, whom he had recently described in his _Menaphon_ "Address"as "The Atlas of Poetry. " In the following year Greene refers to thesame encounter in the first part of his _Never Too Late_. Pretending todescribe theatrical conditions in Rome, he again attacks the Londonplayers and brings in Roscius--_who without doubt was Edward Alleyn_--ascontending with Tully, who is Peele. "Among whom, " he writes, "in thedays of Tully, one Roscius grew to be of such exquisite perfection inhis faculty that _he offered to contend with the orators of that time ingesture as they did in eloquence, boasting that he would express apassion in as many sundry actions as Tully could discourse it in avariety of phrases_. Yet so proud he grew by the daily applause of thepeople that he looked for honour or reverence to be done him in thestreets, which conceit when Tully entered into with a piercing insight, he quipped it in this manner:

"It chanced that Roscius and he met at dinner both guests unto Archias, the poet, when the proud comedian dared to make comparison with Tully. Why Roscius art thou proud with Ęsop's crow, being prankt with the gloryof others' feathers? Of thyself thou canst say nothing and if thecobbler hath taught thee to say _Ave Cęsar_ disdain not thy tutorbecause thou pratest in a King's chamber. What sentence thou utterest onthe stage flows from the censure of our wits, and what sentence orconceit the people applaud for excellence, that comes from the secretsof our knowledge. I grant your acting, though it be a kind of mechanicallabour, yet well done, 'tis worthy of praise, but you worthless if forso small a toy you wax proud. "

Here again Tully is Peele, and Greene is merely describing more fullythe alleged encounter between Alleyn and Peele, mentioned by Nashe theyear before in _The Anatomy of Absurdity_. 

Though it has never been noticed before, in this connection, we possessin Edward Alleyn's own papers preserved at Dulwich College a remarkableconfirmation of this emulation, which, however, Greene and Nashe distortto the prejudice of Alleyn, who, as shall be shown, was innocent in theaffair. The whole thing arose from admirers of Alleyn's among thetheatre-frequenting gentry offering wagers to friends who championedPeele in order to provide after-dinner entertainment for themselves, byputting the poet and the player on their mettle in "expressing apassion"--the one in action and the other in phrases. Alleyn refused thecontest "for fear of hurting Peele's credit, " but gossip of the proposedwager got abroad and was distorted by the scholars, who affected to beinsulted by the idea of one of their ilk contending with a player. Failing to bring about this match, Alleyn's backers, not to be beaten, and in order, willy-nilly, to make a wager on their champion, evidentlytried to get Alleyn to display his powers before friends who professedto admire Bentley and Knell[22]--actors of a slightly earlier date, whowere now either retired from the stage or dead. The following letter andpoem were evidently written in 1589, as Nashe's reference to the"encounter, " which is the first notice of it, was published in thisyear:

 "Your answer the other nighte, so well pleased the Gentlemen, as I was satisfied therewith, though to the hazarde of ye wager; and yet my meaninge was not to prejudice Peele's credit; neither wolde it, though it pleased you so to excuse it, but beinge now growen farther into question, the partie affected to Bentley (scornynge to wynne the wager by your deniall), hath now given you libertie to make choice of any one playe, that either Bentley or Knell plaide, and least this advantage, agree not with your minde, he is contented, both the plaie, and the time, shall be referred to the gentlemen here present. I see not, how you canne any waie hurte your credit by this action; for if you excell them, you will then be famous, if equall them; you wynne both the wager and credit, if short of them; we must and will saie Ned Allen still. --Your frend to his power, W. P. 

 Deny me not sweete Nedd, the wager's downe, and twice as muche, commande of me and myne: And if you wynne I sweare the half is thyne; and for an overplus, an English Crowne. Appoint the tyme, and stint it as you pleas, Your labor's gaine; and that will prove it ease. "

(addressed) "To Edward Allen. "

This letter to Edward Alleyn from his friend "W. P. " is finely written inan English, and the verses in an Italian, hand. The words, "Ned Allen, ""sweete Nedd, " and "English Crowne" are in gilt letters. [23] Theoccasion and its instigation must have been of interest to Alleyn forhim to have preserved the letter for so many years; his reason for doingso evidently being to enable him to refute Greene's published and widelycirculated misconstruction of it. It is evident that both the letter andpoem were written while Alleyn was still young, when he already hadardent admirers, and his reputation was growing but not generallyadmitted, and at about the time that Peele had commenced to write forhis company. Alleyn was twenty-four years old in 1589, and alreadyregarded by many as the best actor in London. George Peele, who hadwritten for the Queen's company in the past, at about, or shortly after, this date, began to write for Strange's company. His _Edward I. _, whichwas published in 1593, was undoubtedly written between 1589-91, whenShakespeare was still connected with Strange's men. 

The "cobbler" who taught Roscius to say "Ave Cęsar" was ChristopherMarlowe, whose father was a shoemaker. Marlowe was the principal writerfor Burbage at this period, and continued so until his death in 1593. "Ave Cęsar" and "a King's chamber" are references to the play of _EdwardIII. _, which I shall demonstrate later was written by Marlowe, thoughrevised by Shakespeare after Marlowe's death. It is the only known playof this period in which the expression "Ave Cęsar" occurs. 

In many of Greene's romances the central figure has been recognised as amore or less fanciful autobiographical sketch. In his last work, _AGroatsworth of Wit_, in the introduction to which he makes hiswell-known attack upon Shakespeare, the adventures of Roberto, theprotagonist of the story, tally approximately with known circumstancesof Greene's life. In the opening of the story, Roberto's marriage, hisdesertion of his wife, his attachment to another woman who deserts himwhen he falls into poverty, all coincide with the facts in his owncareer. From this we may infer that what follows has also a substratumof truth regarding a temporary connection of Greene with Alleyn'scompany as playwright, though it is evident that he describes Alleyn'stheatrical conditions as they were between 1589 and 1592 and afterAlleyn had acquired the theatrical properties of the old Admiral'scompany from Richard Jones, Robert Browne, and his brother, John Alleyn, in 1589. Greene's account of Roscius' own attempts at dramaticcomposition need not be taken very seriously, though it is not at allimprobable that Alleyn, who was very ambitious, at some time tentativelyessayed dramatic composition or revision. It was certainly a veryinexperienced playwright, yet one who had some idea of the style ofphrase that caught the ear of the masses, who interpolated the tame andprosy lines of the old _Taming of a Shrew_ so freely with selectionsfrom Marlowe's most inflated grandiloquence, and one, also, who hadaccess to Marlowe's manuscripts. The plays from which these selectionswere taken were all Burbage properties in 1588-89, as was also _TheTaming of a Shrew_. It was this kind of dramatic stage-carpenter workthat left an opening for Nashe's strictures in 1589 in his _Menaphon_"Address. " Several of the later covert references to Alleyn as Roscius, by Greene and Nashe, indicate that he had tried his hand upon thecomposition and revision of dramatic work, in which he had theassistance of a "theological poet. " While they undoubtedly refer toShakespeare as one of the "idiot art-masters" they use the plural andinclude others in authority in Burbage's company. 

Greene, representing himself as Roberto after his mistress had desertedhim, describes himself as sitting under a hedge as an outcast andbemoaning his fate. 

 "On the other side of the hedge sat one that heard his sorrow, who, getting over, came . . . And saluted Roberto. . . . 'If you vouchsafe such simple comfort as my ability will yield, assure yourself that I will endeavour to do the best that . . . May procure your profit . . . The rather, for that I suppose you are a scholar; and pity it is men of learning should live in lack. ' Roberto . . . Uttered his present grief, beseeching his advice how he might be employed. 'Why, easily, ' quoth he, 'and greatly to your benefit; for men of my profession get by scholars their whole living. ' 'What is your profession?' said Roberto. 'Truly, sir, ' said he, 'I am a player. ' 'A player!' quoth Roberto; 'I took you rather for a gentleman of great living; for if by outward habit men should be censured, I tell you you would be taken for a substantial man. ' 'So am I, where I dwell, ' quoth the player, 'reputed able at my proper cost to build a windmill. What though the world once went hard with me, when I was fain to carry my fardel a foot-back? _Tempora mutantur_--I know you know the meaning of it better than I, but I thus construe it--_It is otherwise now_; for my very share in playing apparel will not be sold for two hundred pounds. ' 'Truly, ' said Roberto, 'it is strange that you should so prosper in that vain practice, for that it seems to me your voice is nothing gracious. ' 'Nay, then, ' said the player, 'I mislike your judgement; why, I am as famous for _Delphrygus_ and _The King of Fairies_ as ever was any of my time; _The Twelve Labours of Hercules_ have I thundered on the stage, and played three scenes of the Devil in _The Highway to Heaven_. ' 'Have ye so?' said Roberto; 'then I pray you pardon me. ' 'Nay, more, ' quoth the player, 'I can serve to make a pretty speech, for I was a country author, passing at a moral; for it was I that penned _The Moral of Man's Wit_, _The Dialogue of Dives_, and for seven years' space was absolute interpreter of the puppets. But now my almanac is out of date:

 '"The people make no estimation Of morals, teaching education----"

 Was this not pretty for a rhyme extempore? If ye will ye shall have more. ' 'Nay, it is enough, ' said Roberto; 'but how mean ye to use me?' 'Why, sir, in making plays, ' said the other, 'for which you shall be well paid, if you will take the pains. ' Roberto, perceiving no remedy, thought it best to respect his present necessity, (and, ) to try his wit, went with him willingly; who lodged him at the town's end in a house of retail . . . There by conversing with bad company, he grew _a malo in pegus_, falling from one vice to another. . . . But Roberto, now famoused for an arch-playmaking poet, his purse, like the sea, sometime swelled, anon, like the same sea, fell to a low ebb; yet seldom he wanted, his labours were so well esteemed. Marry this rule he kept, whatever he fingered beforehand, was the certain means to unbind a bargain; and being asked why he so slightly dealt with them that did him good, 'It becomes me, ' saith he, 'to be contrary to the world. For commonly when vulgar men receive earnest, they do perform. When I am paid anything aforehand, I break my promise. '"

The player described here is the same person indicated by Nashe threeyears before in his _Menaphon_ "Address. " Both are represented as beingfamous for their performance of _Delphrygus_ and _The King of theFairies_, but the events narrated connecting Greene with Alleyn, and theopulent condition of the latter, refer to a more recent stage ofGreene's and Alleyn's affairs than Nashe's reference. Both Nashe's andGreene's descriptions point to a company of players that between 1589-91had won a leading place in London theatrical affairs; that performed atthe Theatre; that played _Hamlet_, _The Taming of a Shrew_, _EdwardIII. _, and _Fair Em_: the leader of which personally owned theatricalproperties valued at two hundred pounds, and who was regarded by them asan actor of unusual ability. Seven years before 1592 this companyperformed mostly in the provinces, carrying their "fardels on theirbacks. " It is very apparent then that it is Alleyn's old and newcompanies, the Worcester-Admiral-Strange development, to which theallusions refer. 

While the "idiot art-masters" indicated by Nashe and Greene as those whochose, purchased, and reconstructed the plays used by Strange's company, included others beside Shakespeare in their satirical intention, thisphase of their attacks upon the Theatre and its leading figures becamecentred upon Shakespeare as his importance in the conduct of itsbusiness increased, and his dramatic ability developed. 

It is now generally agreed by critics that Shakespeare cannot have leftStratford for London before 1585, and probably not before 1586-87, andthe likelihood has been shown that he then entered the service of JamesBurbage as a hired servant, or servitor, for a term of years. WhenHenslowe, in 1598, bound Richard Alleyn as a hired servant, he did sofor a period of two years, which, we may judge, was then the customaryterm of such service. Assuming that Shakespeare bound himself to Burbagein 1586-87, his term of service would have expired in 1588-89. Though wepossess no evidence that Shakespeare had produced any original plays atthis time, the strictures of Nashe and Greene make it apparent that hehad by then attained to the position of what might be called dramaticcritic for the Burbage interests. In this capacity he helped to choosethe plays purchased by his employers for the use of the companies inwhich they were interested. 

Greene had come at odds with theatrical managers several years beforeShakespeare could have attained to the position of reader for theBurbages. Even some of Greene's earlier reflections, however, seem to bedirected against the management of the Shoreditch Theatre. In attackingtheatrical managers he writes in, what he calls, "mystical speeches, "and transfigures the persons he attacks under fictitious characters andnames. In his _Planetomachia_, published in 1585, he caricatures oneactor-manager under the name of Valdracko, who is an actor in _Venus'Tragedy_, one of the tales of the book. Valdracko is described as an oldand experienced actor, "stricken in age, melancholick, ruling after thecrabbed forwardness of his doting will, impartial, for he loved none buthimself, politic because experienced, familiar with none except for hisprofit, skillful in dissembling, trusting no one, silent, covetous, counting all things honest that were profitable. " This characterisationcannot possibly have referred to Shakespeare in the year 1585. When itis noticed, however, that nearly all of Greene's later attacks aredirected against the Theatre and its fellows, it is probable that thestubborn, wilful, and aged James Burbage is also here scurrilouslyindicated. In writing of London and the actors in his "dark speeches, "Greene refers to London as Rome and to the Shoreditch Theatre as the"theatre in Rome. " In his _Penelope's Web_ he writes: "They which smiledat the theatre in Rome might as soon scoff at the rudeness of the sceneas give a plaudite at the perfection of the acting. " While it isBurbage's Theatre that is here referred to, it is evident that hisquarrel was not now with the actors--whom both he and Nashe praise intheir quality--but with the plays, their authors, and the theatricalmanagers who patronised them. 

It is evident that Shakespeare had something to do with the acceptanceby the Burbages of plays by Marlowe and Kyd, and that Greene believedhis own lack of patronage by the companies playing at the Theatre wasdue to Shakespeare's adverse influence. Knowing Shakespeare to be _theson of a Stratford butcher, educated at a grammar school and recently abonded servitor to Burbage_, this "Master of Arts in Cambridge"questions the literary and dramatic judgment of the grammar schoolyouth, and late serving-man, and employs his fellow university scholar, Thomas Nashe, to ridicule him and his critical pretensions. 

Nashe returned to England in 1589, after a two years' absence upon theContinent, and cannot have acquired at first hand the knowledge he showsof dramatic affairs in London during the preceding year. It is evidentthat this knowledge was gained from Greene for that purpose. Mr. Fleayhas demonstrated that Nashe, in his preface to Greene's _Menaphon_, alludes satirically to Thomas Kyd as the author of _The Taming of aShrew_, and of the old _Hamlet_. Both of these plays were owned by LordStrange's (now the Lord Chamberlain's) company in 1594, when, as I havesuggested, they had recently taken them over from Pembroke's company, which was undoubtedly a Burbage company--using some of the Burbageproperties and plays while under Shakespeare's management in 1591-94. Being Burbage properties, these plays were acted by Lord Strange'scompany between 1589 and 1591. Besides satirically indicating theseplays and their author, Nashe goes on to criticise the "idiotart-masters" who make choice of such plays for the actors. "Thisaffectation of actors and audience, " writes Nashe--meaning this suitingof plays to the crude taste of the actors and the cruder taste of thepublic--"is all traceable to their idiot art-masters that intrudethemselves as the alchemists of eloquence, who (mounted on the stage ofarrogance) think to outbrave better pens with the swelling bombast ofbragging blank verse, indeed it may be the ingrafted overflow of somekillcow conceit, etc. Among this kind of men that repose eternity in themouth of a player I can but engross some _deep read school men orgrammarians, who have no more learning in their skull than will serve totake up a commodity, nor art in their brains than was nourished in aserving man's idleness_, will take upon them to be ironical censurers ofall when God and poetry doth know they are the simplest of all. "

This attack of Nashe's upon Shakespeare was recognised by all of thescholastic clique, and certain of its phrases are re-echoed in laterattacks upon him by other scholars for several years afterwards; infact, Nashe's diatribe proved to be a cue for Shakespeare's futuredetractors. In the expression "killcow, " Nashe alludes to Shakespeare'sfather's trade. A few years later--1594--Chapman refers to Shakespeareas "judgements butcher, " and later still, in 1598, Florio in hisdedication of the _Worlde of Wordes_, and, in 1600, Ben Jonson in _EveryMan out of his Humour_, also refer satirically to the supposed fact thatShakespeare's father was a butcher. In 1593 Chapman, in attackingShakespeare in the early _Histriomastix_, re-echoes the term "idiotart-master. " The phrase "ingrafted overflow of a killcow conceit" refersto Shakespeare's additions to, or revisions of, plays owned by hiscompany that were originally written by such scholars as Greene. "Deepread school men or grammarians" is a reference to Shakespeare's grammarschool education. "No more learning than will serve to take up acommodity" refers to Shakespeare's business management of Burbage'saffairs, and "a serving man's idleness" to his recently ended term ofservice with Burbage in that capacity. 

It shall be shown that in later years when Chapman, Roydon, Florio, Marston, and Jonson attacked Shakespeare in published or acted playsthat he invariably answers them in kind. We have only inferentialevidence that he answered Greene's and Nashe's reflections at this timeby writing a ballad against them. Ralph Sidley, in verses prefixed toGreene's _Never Too Late_, published in the following year (1590), defends Greene from the attack of a ballad or jig maker, whom he calls aclown. 

 "The more it works, the quicker is the wit; The more it writes, the better to be 'steemed. By labour ought men's wills and wits be deem'd, Though dreaming dunces do inveigh against it. But write thou on, though Momus sit and frown; A Carter's jig is fittest for a clown. _Bonum quo communius eo melius. _"

At the end of Greene's _Never Too Late_ in the host's tale a balladmaker and player is attacked under the name of Mullidor; he is describedas follows: "He is said to be a fellow that was of honest parents, butvery poor: and his person was as if he had been cast in Ęsop's mould;his back like a lute, and his face like Thersites', his eyes broad andtawny, his hair harsh and curled like a horse-mane, his lips were of thelargest size in folio. . . . The only good part that he had to grace hisvisage was his nose, and that was conqueror-like, as beaked as aneagle. . . . Into his great head (Nature) put little wit, that he knewrather his sheep by the number, for he was never no good arithmetician, and yet he was a proper scholar, and well seen in ditties. "

When we discount the caricature and spiteful animus of this descriptionit closely matches the presentments of Shakespeare given by the mostauthoritative portraits which have come down to us. His parents, as weknow, were undoubtedly poor, otherwise he would not have been in Londonas a servitor to Burbage. His eyes are invariably shown as hazel incolour and widely set apart; his hair heavy, curled, and falling to hisshoulders; his lips very full, his nose large and "beaked, " and hisbrow, or "great head, " of unusual height and breadth. It is apparent, then, that this is a spiteful and distorted, but recognisable, description of Shakespeare, who, I infer from many indications in hisopponents' plays, wore his hair in a peculiar manner, was not very tall, and was also somewhat thin-legged. The Chandos portrait which shows hisshoulders, suggests that they were slightly sloping and somewhat roundrather than square. On the whole, a physical type not calculated toinspire fear in a bully. Greene, on the other hand, is described byChettle as a handsome-faced and well-proportioned man, and we may judgeof a rather swash-buckling deportment. 

Robert Greene died in September 1592. Shortly afterwards Henry Chettlepublished Greene's _Groatsworth of Wit_, which was his last literaryeffort, and appended a farewell letter of Greene's addressed "To thosegentlemen, his quandam acquaintances, that spend their time in makingplays, R. G. Wisheth a better exercise and wisdom to prevent hisextremities. " In this epistle, addressing Marlowe, Nashe, and Peele, aswell as two others at whose identity we can only guess, he says:

 "If wofull experience may move you, gentlemen, to beware, or unheard-of wretchedness intreat you to take heed, I doubt not but you will look backe with sorrow on your time past, and endevour with repentance to spend that which is to come. Wonder not (for with thee will I first beginne), thou famous gracer of tragedians, that Greene, who hath said with thee, like the foole in his heart, 'There is no God, ' should now give glorie unto his greatnesse; for penetrating is his power, his hand lyes heavy upon me, he hath spoken unto me with a voyce of thunder, and I have felt he is a God that can punish enemies. Why should thy excellent wit, his gift, be so blinded that thou shouldest give no glory to the giver? Is it pestilent Machivilian policie that thou hast studied? O peevish follie! what are his rules but meere confused mockeries, able to extirpate in small time the generation of mankinde? for if _sic volo, sic iubeo_, holde in those that are able to command, and if it be lawfull _fas et nefas_, to doo any thing that is beneficiall, onely tyrants should possesse the earth, and they, striving to exceed in tiranny, should each to other be a slaughterman, till, the mightyest outliving all, one stroke were left for Death, that in one age mans life should end. . . . With thee I joyne young Juvenall, that byting satyrist, that lastly with mee together writ a comedie. Sweet boy, might I advise thee, be advised, and get not many enemies by bitter words; inveigh against vaine men, for thou canst doo it, no man better, no man so well; thou hast a libertie to reproove all and name none; for one being spoken to, all are offended--none being blamed, no man is injured. Stop shallow water still running, it will rage; tread on a worme, and it will turne; then blame not schollers who are vexed with sharpe and bitter lines, if they reproove thy too much liberty of reproofe. 

 "And thou no lesse deserving then the other two, in some things rarer, in nothing inferiour, driven, as myselfe, to extreame shifts, a little have I to say to thee; and, were it not an idolatrous oath, I would sweare by sweet S. George, thou art unworthy better hap, sith thou dependest on so mean a stay. Base-minded men all three of you, if by my misery yee bee not warned; for unto none of you, like me, sought those burs to cleave; those puppits, I meane, that speake from our mouths, those anticks garnisht in our colours. Is it not strange that I to whom they have been beholding, is it not like that you to whom they all have been beholding, shall, were yee in that case that I am now, be both of them at once forsaken? Yes, trust them not; for there is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers, that, with his _Tygres heart wrapt in a players hyde_, supposes hee is as well able to bombast out a blanke-verse as the best of you; and, beeing an absolute Johannes-fac-totum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey. Oh, that I might intreat your rare wittes to bee imployed in more profitable courses, and let these apes imitate your past excellence, and never more acquaynte them with your admyred inventions! I knowe the best husband of you all will never proove an usurer, and the kindest of them all will never proove a kinde nurse; yet, whilst you may, seeke you better maisters; for it is pitty men of such rare wits should bee subject to the pleasures of such rude groomes. 

 "In this I might insert two more[24] that both have writte against these buckram gentlemen; but let their owne worke serve to witnesse against their owne wickednesse, if they persever to maintaine any more such peasants. For other new comers, I leave them to the mercie of those painted monsters, who, I doubt not, will drive the best-minded to despise them; for the rest, it skills not though they make a jeast at them. . . . "

It is now accepted by critics that these allusions of Greene's weredirected against Shakespeare, and that the line "Tygres heart wrapt in aplayers hyde" refers to Shakespeare's revision of _The True Tragedy ofRichard, Duke of York_, a play in the original composition of whichGreene evidently had some hand. It has not before been suggested, however, that this play was performed by the Earl of Pembroke's company, under Shakespeare's management, in 1592. It was evidently the publicitygiven Marlowe's and Shakespeare's revision by the stage revival of theplay by Pembroke's company at this time that called forth Greene'sattack. This brings us to the end of the year 1592 in outliningchronologically the evidences of the antagonism of the scholars toShakespeare. 

In June 1593 George Peele shows animus against Shakespeare by echoingGreene's phrases in the introduction to _The Honour of the Garter_. Inthese verses, in complimenting several noblemen and "gentlemen poets, "such as Sidney, Spenser, Harrington, Fraunce, Campion, and others, herefers also to

 "ordinary grooms, With trivial humours to pastime the world, That favour Pan and Phoebus both alike. "

This appears to be a reflection of Greene's "rude groomes" of theprevious September and a reference to Shakespeare's theatrical work andhis _Venus and Adonis_, which, though only recently published, had nodoubt been read in MS. Form for some time before. 

I shall now proceed to show that at the end of 1593, after LordPembroke's company had returned from their unprofitable provincial tourwhen they were compelled to "pawn their apparel for their charges, "George Chapman wrote a play satirising Shakespeare and the disastrousfortunes of this company. This play was revised by Marston and Chapmanin 1599, under the title of _Histriomastix, or The Player Whipt_, as acounter-attack upon Shakespeare in order to revenge the satire which he, in conjunction with Dekker and Chettle, directed against Chapman andMarston in _Troilus and Cressida_, and in a play reconstructed from_Troilus and Cressida_ by Dekker and Chettle, called _Agamemnon_, in1598-99. This latter phase of the matter shall be dealt with when I cometo a consideration of the literary warfare of the later period. 

It has never before been suggested that George Chapman had any hand inthe composition of _Histriomastix_, though Mr. Richard Simpson showsclearly that it was an old play roughly revised in the form in which itwas acted in 1599. Mr. Simpson suggests that it might have been writtenby Peele, in its original form, owing to certain verbal resemblancesbetween portions of it and Peele's dedication to his _Honour of theGarter_. He dates its original composition in about 1590, but in doingso had evidently forgotten that he had already written: "The earlyChrisoganus (of this play) seems to be of the time when the Earl ofNorthumberland, Raleigh, and Harriot strove to set up an Academy inLondon, and the spirit of the play, and even its expressions, were quitein unison with Peele's dedication of his _Honour of the Garter_, 1593. "All literary and historical references to the academical efforts of theEarl of Northumberland, Harriot, and others point to the years 1591-93as the time in which this attempt to establish an Academy was made. Chapman in his dedication of _The Shadow of Night_ to Roydon, in 1594, refers to the movement as then of comparatively recent date. "But I staythis spleen when I remember, my good Matthew, how joyfully oftentimesyou reported unto me that most ingenious Derby, deep-searchingNorthumberland, and skill-embracing Earl of Hunsdon had most profitablyentertained learning in themselves to the vital warmth of freezingScience, " etc. Peele's allusions to the movement in his dedication tothe _Honour of the Garter_, which is dated 26th June 1593, are asfollows:

 "Renowned Lord, Northumberland's fair flower, The Muses' love, patron and favourite, That artisans and scholars dost embrace. And clothest Mathesis in rich ornaments, That admirable mathematic skill, Familiar with the stars and Zodiac, To whom the heaven lies open as her book; By whose directions undeceivable, Leaving our Schoolmen's vulgar trodden paths, And following the ancient reverent steps Of Trismegistus and Pythagoras, Through uncouth ways and unaccessible, Doth pass into the pleasant spacious fields Of divine science and philosophy, " etc. 

Shakespeare evidently reflects knowledge of this academical attempt andpokes fun at the scholars in his reference to "a little academie" in_Love's Labour's Lost_:

 "Navarre shall be the wonder of the world Our Court shall be a little academie Still and contemplative in living art. "

This play was originally written late in 1591, but was drasticallyrevised late in 1594, or early in 1595, after Shakespeare had readChapman's _Hymns to the Shadow of Night_; and again, in 1598. Thereference to the Academy was evidently introduced at the time of itsfirst revision. 

Mr. Simpson recognises the fact that most of the Chrisoganus passages, especially those in the earlier portions of _Histriomastix_, pertain tothe play in its original form. If the reader will take the trouble toread Chapman's _Hymns to the Shadow of Night_ (1594), his poem to ThomasHarriot, and his _Tears of Peace_, and compare their mental attitude andverbal characteristics with the "Chrisoganus" and "Peace" passages of_Histriomastix_, Chapman's authorship of the latter will becomeapparent. The following parallels from four of Chapman's poems areconvincing, and they can be extended indefinitely:

_Histriomastix_--

 "Have always borne themselves in Godlike State With lofty foreheade higher than the stars. "

_De Guiana, Carmen Epicum_--

 "Whose forehead knocks against the roof of stars. "

_Histriomastix_--

 "Consume whole groves and standing fields of corn In thy wild rage and make the proud earth groan. "

_The Shadow of Night_--

 "Convert the violent courses of thy floods, Remove whole fields of corn and highest woods. "

_Histriomastix_--

 "Whose glory which thy solid virtues won Shall honour Europe while there shines a sun. "

_Poem to Harriot_--

 "When thy true wisdom by thy learning won Shall honour learning while there shines a sun. "

Chapman in several instances in this play echoes Greene's slurs againstShakespeare and, in the same manner as Peele in the _Honour of theGarter_, repeats the actual phrases and epithets used by Greene andNashe. 

_Histriomastix_--

 "I scorn a scoffing fool about my throne-- An artless idiot (that like Ęsop's daw Plumes fairer feathered birds). "

These lines evince Chapman's knowledge of Nashe's phrase "idiotart-master, " and of Greene's "upstart crow beautified with ourfeathers, " and clearly pertain to the play in its earlier form (1593)when Greene's _Groatsworth of Wit_ (published late in 1592) was still anew publication. In fact, it is not improbable that Nashe collaboratedwith Chapman in the early form of this play. 

Again when Chapman writes the following lines:

_Histriomastix_--

 "O age, when every Scriveners boy shall dippe Profaning quills into Thessalies spring; When every artist prentice that hath read The pleasant pantry of conceipts shall dare To write as confident as Hercules; When every ballad-monger boldly writes, " etc. 

It is apparent that he again echoes Nashe's and Greene's attacks uponShakespeare and Thomas Kyd, all of which, however, he appears to havethought (as have later critics) were directed against Shakespeare. 

The lines quoted above evidently reflect Chapman's knowledge of Nashe'spreface to Greene's _Menaphon_ in the expressions "Scriveners boy, ""artist prentice, " and "ballad-monger, " while the words

 "shall dippe Profaning quills into Thessalies spring"

refer to Shakespeare's _Venus and Adonis_, and the lines from Ovid withwhich he heads that poem. 

In 1593 when, as I have indicated, _Histriomastix_ in its early form waswritten, Shakespeare had published _Venus and Adonis_ and dedicated itto the Earl of Southampton. In the composition of this poem Shakespeareundoubtedly worked from Arthur Golding's translation of Ovid's_Metamorphoses_. He prefixed to the poem two lines from Ovid's fifteenthElegy:

 "Vilia miretur vulgus; mihi flavus Apollo Pocula Castalia plena ministret aqua";

which are rendered in Marlowe's translation:

 "Let base conceited wits admire vile things, Fair Phoebus lead me to the Muses springs. "

In _The Shadow of Night_, published in the following year, Chapman againresents the fact that one of Shakespeare's "small Latin and less Greek"should invade the classical preserves of the scholars for his poeticaland dramatic subjects:

 "Then you that exercise the virgin court Of peaceful Thespia, my muse consort, Making her drunken with Gorgonean dews, And therewith all your ecstasies infuse, That she may reach the topless starry brows Of steep Olympus, crown'd with freshest boughs Of Daphnean laurel, and the praises sing Of mighty Cynthia: truly figuring (As she is Hecate) her sovereign kind, And in her force, the forces of the mind: An argument to ravish and refine An earthly soul and make it more devine. Sing then with all, her palace brightness bright, The dazzle-sun perfection of her light; Circling her face with glories, sing the walks, Where in her heavenly magic mood she stalks, Her arbours, thickets, and her wondrous game, (A huntress being never match'd in fame, ) _Presume not then ye flesh-confounded souls, That cannot bear the full Castalian bowls_, Which sever mounting spirits from the senses, _To look into this deep fount for thy pretenses_. "

In these lines, besides indicating Shakespeare's recent Ovidianexcursion in _Venus and Adonis_ by his reference to "Castalian bowls, "Chapman shows knowledge of Shakespeare's intention, in the compositionof _Love's Labour's Lost_, of exhibiting Queen Elizabeth as a huntress. Chapman's Cynthia of _The Shadow of Night_ is plainly a rhapsodisedidealisation of the Queen. Later on I shall elaborate the fact that_Love's Labour's Lost_ was written late in 1591, or early in 1592, as areflection of the Queen's progress to Cowdray House, the home of theEarl of Southampton's maternal grandfather, Viscount Montague, and thatthe shooting of deer by the Princess and her ladies fancifully recordsphases of the entertainments arranged for the Queen during her visit. 

Assuming, then, from the foregoing evidence and inferences that Chapmancomposed the early _Histriomastix_ in 1593, let us examine the playfurther in order to trace its fuller application to Shakespeare and hisaffairs in that year. 

Though _Histriomastix_ was revised as an attack upon Shakespeare in 1599by Chapman and Marston, who had commenced to collaborate in dramaticwork in the previous year, its original plot and action remainpractically unaltered. In its revision its early anti-Shakespeareanintention was merely amplified and brought up to date by a few topicalallusions, fitting circumstances in the lives of the personscaricatured, pertaining to the later period. The substitution of_Troilus and Cressida_ for _The Prodigal Child_, as the play within theplay presented by Sir Oliver Owlet's company, is also due to the periodof revision. All of the passages of the play which are suggestive of theperiod of revision are palpably in the style of John Marston. 

Among the persons of the early play is Chrisoganus, a scholar andmathematician, who has set up an academy to expound the seven liberalSciences: Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, andAstronomy, all of which are introduced as persons in the first act. Chrisoganus was undoubtedly intended for Chapman's friend ThomasHarriot, the mathematician and astronomer, who was so prominent in theacademical movement of 1592-93. The name Chrisoganus is evidently areflection of Harriot's _Ephemeris Chrisometra_, a MS. Copy of which ispreserved in Zion College. Chapman's poem to Harriot, prefixed to his_Achilles Shield_ (1599), expresses many of the same ideas voiced in_Histriomastix_ and in much the same language, and indicates Chapman'scollaboration with Marston in the revision of the play in that year. 

In the early _Histriomastix_ Chapman represents himself in the characterof Peace. When the utterances of Peace are compared with certain ofChapman's poems, such as his _Euthymia Raptus_, or _The Tears of Peace_(1609), his poem to Harriot (1598), _The Shadow of Night_ (1594), and_Ovid's Banquet of Sense_ (1595), in all of which he breaks away fromhis subject-matter at intervals to extol his own virtues and bewail hispoverty and his neglect by patrons, it becomes evident that hetransfigures himself in _Histriomastix_ as Peace; which character actsas a chorus to, or running commentary on, the action of the play. 

The whole spirit and purpose of this play is reproduced in _The Tears ofPeace_, which is a dialogue between Peace and an interlocutor, whodiscuss at great length exactly the same ideas and subjects, dramatically treated, in _Histriomastix_, _i. E. _ the neglect of learningand the learned, and "the pursuit of wealth, glory, greatness, pleasure, and fashion" by "plebian and lord alike, " as well as the unaccountablesuccess of an ignorant playwright who writes plays on any subject thatcomes into his head:

 "And how they trot out in their lines the ring With idly iterating oft one thing, A new fought combat, an affair at sea, A marriage or progress or a plea. No news but fits them as if made for them, Though it be forged but of a woman's dream. "

The plays of no other dramatist of that period match the description ofthe subjects of the plays given here. The "progress, " mentioned byChapman, is undoubtedly a reference to _Love's Labour's Lost_; "Amarriage, " _Midsummer Night's Dream_; "a plea, " _The Merchant ofVenice_; "A new fought combat, " _Henry V. _--as a reflection of themilitary services of Southampton and Essex in Ireland in 1599; "anaffair at sea, " _Twelfth Night_, _The Merchant of Venice_, etc. 

In the second scene of _Histriomastix_, to Peace, the Arts, andChrisoganus, come Mavortius and a group of his friends representing thenobility whom the academicians endeavour to win to their attendance andsupport. Mavortius and his followers refuse to cultivate Chrisoganus andthe Arts, preferring a life of dalliance and pleasure, and to patroniseplays and players instead. Other characters are introduced representingthe Law, the Army, and Merchandise, who also neglect the Arts and livefor pastime and sport. 

The company of players patronised by Mavortius performs under thelicence of Sir Oliver Owlet, and under the leadership of Posthaste, anerstwhile ballad maker, who writes plays for the company and whothreatens to return to ballad making when playing proves unprofitable. 

One of Mavortius' followers, Landulpho, an Italian lord, criticises theplay presented by Posthaste and his fellows, and lauds the Italiandrama. 

A period of peace and prosperity, during which Chrisoganus and the Artsare neglected by the extravagant and pleasure-seeking lords andpopulace, is followed by war with an aftermath of poverty when SirOliver Owlet's company of players is disrupted, and the actors arecompelled to "pawn their apparel for their charges. "

 _Enter_ CONSTABLE. ]

HOST. Master Constable, ho! these players will not pay their shot. 

POST. Faith, sir, war hath so pinch'd us we must pawn. 

CONST. Alas, poor players! Hostess, what comes it to?

HOST. The Sharers dinners sixpence a piece. The hirelings--pence. 

POST. What, sixpence an egg, and two and two an egg?

HOST. Faith, famine affords no more. 

POST. Fellows, bring out the hamper. Chose somewhat out o'th stock. 

 _Enter the Players. _

What will you have this cloak to pawn? What think you its worth?

HOST. Some fewer groats. 

ONIN. The pox is in this age; here's a brave world fellows!

POST. You may see what it is to laugh at the audience. 

HOST. Well, it shall serve for a pawn. 

The further development of this narrative will make it evident beyondany reasonable doubt that Posthaste, the poet-actor, is intended tocaricature Shakespeare, and Sir Oliver Owlet's company and itsmisfortunes to reflect the Earl of Pembroke's company in similarcircumstances in 1593; that Mavortius is the young Earl of Southampton, to whom Shakespeare dedicated _Venus and Adonis_ in 1593, and _Lucrece_in the year following; that Landulpho, the Italian lord, represents JohnFlorio, who, in 1591, in his _Second Fruites_, criticised Englishhistorical drama and praised Italian plays, and who, at about the sametime as teacher of languages entered into the pay and patronage of theEarl of Southampton, a connection which his odd and interestingpersonality enabled him to hold thereafterwards for several years. Thepart which Landulpho takes in the play was somewhat developed by Marstonin 1599, at which time it shall later on be shown that the relationsbetween Florio and Shakespeare had reached a heated stage. The play of_The Prodigal Child_, which was the play within the play acted byPosthaste and his fellows in the earlier form of _Histriomastix_, didnot, in my opinion, represent the English original of the translatedGerman play of _The Prodigal Son_ which Mr. Simpson presents as thepossible original, but was meant to indicate Shakespeare's _Love'sLabours Won_, which was written late in the preceding year as areflection of Southampton's intimacy with Florio, and the beginning ofhis affair with Mistress Davenant, [25] the Oxford tavern keeper's wife. The expression _The Prodigal Child_ differs from that of _The ProdigalSon_ in meaning, in that the word "Child" at that period meant a youngnobleman. There is nothing whatever suggestive of Shakespeare's work inthe translated German play, and it was merely the similarity of titlethat led Mr. Simpson to propose it as the play indicated. The playsatirised by Chapman under the title of _The Prodigal Child_ wasundoubtedly written by Shakespeare, and it is no more likely thatChapman would use the actual name of the play at which he points thanthat he would use the actual names of the various persons or of thecompany of players whose actions and work he caricatures. 

In 1594 George Chapman published _Hymns to the Shadow of Night_, and in1595 his _Ovid's Banquet of Sense_ and _A Coronet for his MistressPhilosophy_, dedicating both publications to his friend Matthew Roydon. The dedication of these poems to Roydon was an afterthought; they werenot primarily written with Roydon in mind. [26] It has been made evidentthat Chapman had first submitted these poems to the Earl of Southamptonin an endeavour to win his patronage, and failing to do so dedicatedthem to Roydon and attacked Shakespeare in the dedications, where herefers to him in the capacity of reader to the Earl of Southampton, andimputes to his adverse influence his ill-success in his attempt. In thededication to _The Shadow of Night_ he writes:

 "How then may a man stay his marvailing to see passion-driven men reading but to curtail a tedious hour and altogether hidebound with affection to great men's fancies take upon them as killing censures as if they were judgements butchers or as if the life of truth lay tottering in their verdicts. 

 "Now what supererogation in wit this is to think skill so mightily pierced with their loves that she should prostitutely shew them her secrets when she will scarcely be looked upon by others but with invocation, fasting, watching; yea not without having drops of their souls like an heavenly familiar. Why then should our _Intonsi Catones_ with their profit ravished gravity esteem her true favours such questionless vanities as with what part soever thereof they seem to be something delighted they queamishly commend it for a pretty toy. Good Lord how serious and eternal are their idolatrous platts for riches. "

The expression "passion-driven, " as applied by Chapman to Shakespeare in1594, especially in a dedication written to Matthew Roydon, --who in thissame year published _Willobie his Avisa_, --plainly refers toShakespeare's relations at that time with Mistress Davenant, who was theoriginal for the figure now known as the Dark Lady of the Sonnets, aswell as for the Avisa of _Willobie his Avisa_. The words "reading but tocurtail a tedious hour and altogether hidebound with affection to greatmen's fancies, " refer to Shakespeare in the capacity of reader to theEarl of Southampton. In an attack which John Florio makes uponShakespeare in 1598, he also makes a similar reference to him in thiscapacity. The expression "judgements butcher, " like Nashe's "killcow, "indicates Shakespeare's father's trade of butcher. 

It was the obvious parallel between Chapman's, "when she will scarcelybe looked upon by others but with invocation, fasting, watching; yea notwithout having drops of their souls like an heavenly familiar, " andShakespeare's allusion, in Sonnet 86, to a poet who attempted tosupplant him in Southampton's favour--

 "He nor that affable familiar ghost Which nightly gulls him with intelligence, As victors of my silence cannot boast; I was not sick of any fear from thence: But when your countenance filled up his line, Then lack'd I matter; that enfeebled mine"--

that led Professor Minto to suggest Chapman as the rival poet of theSonnets. In a former essay I have demonstrated the truth of ProfessorMinto's suggestion. 

Chapman's _Intonsi Catones_, or "Unshorn Catos, " refers to the peculiarmanner in which Shakespeare wore his hair, which Greene describes as"harsh and curled like a horse-mane, " and is also a reference to hisprovincial breeding and, presumed, lack of culture. 

There are a number of indications in the few facts we possess ofShakespeare's life in 1594, and also in his own and contemporarypublications, to warrant the assumption that the Earl of Southamptonbestowed some unusual evidence of his bounty upon him in this year. Ifever there was a period in his London career in which Shakespeare neededfinancial assistance more than at other times it was in this year. LordStrange's company had now been acting under Henslowe's management fortwo years. The financial condition of both Burbage and Shakespeare mustat this time have been at a low ebb. The plague had prevented Pembroke'scompany playing in London for nearly a year, and we have seen that theirattempts to play in the provinces had resulted in failure and loss. Inabout the middle of 1594, however, Lord Strange's players (now the LordChamberlain's men) return to Burbage and the Theatre, when Shakespearebecomes not only a member of the company, but, from the fact that hisname is mentioned with that of Kempe and Richard Burbage in the Courtrecords of the payment for performances in December 1594, it is evidentthat he was then also a leading sharer in the company. 

In parting from Henslowe and reorganising under Burbage in 1594 it isapparent that the reorganisers of the Lord Chamberlain's men would needconsiderable capital if we may judge the financial affairs of thiscompany by those of the Lord Admiral's company (subsequently LordNottingham's men) while under Henslowe's management. On 13th October1599 Henslowe records in his _Diary_: "Received with the company of myLord of Nottingham's men to this place, beinge the 13th of October 1599, and it doth appeare that I have received of the debte which they oweunto me three hundred fifty and eight pounds. " This was only a partialpayment of this company's debt, which evidently was considerably inexcess of this amount. It is unlikely, then, that Lord Strange's companywas free of debt to him at the end of their term under his management. 

Shakespeare's earliest biographer, Nicholas Rowe, records, on theauthority of Sir William Davenant, "that my Lord Southampton at one timegave him a thousand pounds to enable him to go through with a purchasewhich he heard he had a mind to. " Whatever truth there may be as to theamount of money here mentioned, it is apparent that Southamptonevidenced his bounty to Shakespeare in 1594 in some substantial manner, which quickly became noised abroad among the poets and writers whosought patronage. Several of these poets in approaching Southamptonrefer inferentially to his munificence to Shakespeare. In 1594 BarnabeBarnes writes:

 "Vouchsafe right virtuous Lord with gracious eyes _Those heavenly lamps which give the muses light_ To view my muse with your judicial sight, " etc. 

The words italicised evidently refer to Southampton's acceptance of_Venus and Adonis_ in the preceding year. Later in 1594, Thomas Nashededicated _The Life of Jack Wilton_ to Southampton, and in a dedicatorySonnet to a poem preserved in the Rawlinson MS. In the Bodleian Library, entitled _The Choice of Valentines_, Nashe apologises for the salaciousnature of the poem, and in an appended Sonnet evidently refers toShakespeare's _Venus and Adonis_ in the line italicised below:

 "Thus hath my pen presumed to please my friend, Oh might'st thou likewise please Apollo's eye; No, honor brooks no such impietie, _Yet Ovids Wanton Muse did not offend_, He is the fountain whence my streams do flow, Forgive me if I speak as I were taught. "

In 1595 Gervase Markham, in a Sonnet prefixed to his poem on RichardGrenville's fight in the _Revenge_, addresses Southampton as:

 "Thou glorious laurel of the Muses' hill, _Whose eyes doth crown the most victorious pen_, Bright lamp of virtue, in whose sacred skill Lives all the bliss of ear-enchanting men. "

The line italicised not only refers to Shakespeare but gives evidencealso of the assured standing among poets which he had now attained inunbiased judgments. 

In addition to these evidences of Southampton's bounty to Shakespeare atthis time, we have the poet's own acknowledgment of the recent receiptof a valuable gift in the _Lucrece_ dedication: "_The warrant I have ofyour honourable disposition, not the worth of my untutored lines, makesit assured of acceptance_. "

In his _Hymns to the Shadow of Night_ (1594) and its dedication, Chapmancomplains of his lack of patronage and refers to what he designates asShakespeare's "_idol atrous platts for riches_. "[27] In the body of thepoem he writes:

 "Wealth fawns on fools; virtues are meat for vices, Wisdom conforms herself to all earth's guises, _Good gifts are often given to men past good And noblesse stoops sometimes beneath his blood_. "

In view of the general knowledge of Southampton's bounty to Shakespeareat this time, and of the anti-Shakespearean intention which I havedemonstrated in Chapman's poem, it is apparent that these lines refer tothe nobleman's gift as well as to the intimacy between the peer and theplayer at this period. 

In this same year (1594) the scholars devised a plan to disrupt theintimacy between Shakespeare and Southampton by producing and publishinga scandalous poem satirising their relations, entitled _Willobie hisAvisa, or the true picture of a modest maid and a chaste and constantwife_. In this poem Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, isrepresented as "Henry Willobie a young man and a scholar of very goodhope, " while Shakespeare is indicated as "W. S. , " an "old actor. " "W. S. "is depicted as aiding and abetting Henry Willobie in a love affair withAvisa, the wife of an Oxford tavern keeper who conducts a taverndescribed as follows:

 "See yonder house where hangs the badge Of England's saint when captains cry Victorious land to conquering rage. "

In this poem Henry Willobie is alleged to have fallen in love with Avisaat first sight, and to have confided in his friend "W. S. , " "who not longbefore had tryed the courtesy of the like passion and was now newlyrecovered of the like infection. " _Willobie his Avisa_ in some measurereproduces but at the same time grossly distorts actual facts in thelives of Shakespeare and Southampton which are dimly adumbrated inSonnets written by Shakespeare to Southampton and to the Dark Lady atthis time. I have elsewhere demonstrated Matthew Roydon's authorship aswell as the anti-Shakespearean intention of this poem. 

In 1595 George Chapman published his _Ovid's Banquet of Sense_ and his_A Coronet for his Mistress Philosophy_, in both of which poems, as wellas in the dedications, he again indicates and attacks Shakespeare. Shakespeare's cognizance of Chapman's intention, as well as the mannerin which he answered him, have been examined in detail in a previousessay which is now generally accepted by authoritative critics asdefinitely establishing the fact of Chapman's ingrained hostility toShakespeare as well as his identity as the rival poet of theSonnets. [28]

Thus we find that, beginning with the reflections of Nashe and Greene in1589, Shakespeare was defamed and abused by some one or more of thiscoterie of jealous scholars in every year down to 1595, and that therancour of his detractors intensifies with the growth of his social andliterary prestige. 

The one thing of all others that served most to feed and perpetuate theenvy of the scholars against Shakespeare was the friendship andpatronage accorded him by the Earl of Southampton. 

Past biographers and critics usually date the beginning of theacquaintance between Shakespeare and Southampton in 1593, when _Venusand Adonis_ was published. In a later chapter I shall advance newevidence to show that their acquaintance had its inception nearly twoyears before that date. 

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 20: _English Dramatic Companies_, 1558-1641, by John TuckerMurray. ]

[Footnote 21: In 1594 Cuthbert Burbie published a play entitled _TheCobbler's Prophecy_, the authorship of which is ascribed to "R. Wilson"on the title-page. The textual resemblances between this play, _ThePedlar's Prophecy_, _The Three Ladies of London_, and _The Three Lordsand Three Ladies_, and certain parallels between the two latter and_Fair Em_, all of which plays were published anonymously, led Mr. Fleayto credit all of them to Wilson, in which--excluding _Fair Em_--he wasprobably correct. All of these plays, with the exception of _ThePedlar's Prophecy_, were either Burbage's or Admiral's properties. _TheThree Lords and Three Ladies_ was published for Richard Jones in 1590, and _The Cobblers Prophecy_ for Cuthbert Burbie in 1594. All playspublished for Richard Jones were formerly old Admiral's properties, andnearly all the early plays published for Cuthbert Burbie old Burbageproperties. _Fair Em_, while not published until 1631, records on thetitle-page that it was acted by Lord Strange's company. _The Pedlar'sProphecy_ was, however, published by Thomas Creede, all of whosepublications Mr. Fleay has found were old Queen's properties. Admitting, then, that all of these plays were written by Robert Wilson, the latterplay must have been written by him for the Queen's company later than1582-83, when he left Leicester's company. It appears probable also thatthe earlier plays--_The Three Ladies_ and _The Cobbler's Prophecy_--werewritten for Leicester's company before that date, and retained byBurbage when he severed his connection with Leicester's men, or else, that they were retained by Leicester's men as company properties andbrought to Strange's men in 1588-89 by Kempe, Pope, and Bryan, whentheir old company disbanded. It is evident, then, _The Three Lords andThree Ladies_, which Mr. Fleay admits is merely an amplification of theold play of _The Three Ladies_, which he dates as being first publishedin 1584, was a revision made when all these plays became Strange'sproperties, and that the scriptural parallels between _The Three Lordsand Three Ladies_, _The Three Ladies_, and _Fair Em_, which are quiteabsent in _The Pedlar's Prophecy_--the only one of these plays ascribedin the publication itself to Wilson--are due to the revisionary effortsof the "theological poet" referred to by Greene as doing such work forStrange's company, and as having had a hand in _Fair Em_, which wasacted in about 1590, in which year _The Three Lords and Three Ladies_, which shows similar scriptural characteristics, was published. From atime reference in the earlier form of this play--_The Three Ladies_--inthe first scene, "not much more than twenty-six years, it was in QueenMary's time, " Mr. Fleay arbitrarily dates from the last year of Mary'sreign, and concludes that it may have been acted by the Queen's companyin 1584. He admits, however, that it does not appear in the list of theQueen's men's plays for this year, and later on infers from otherevidence that the allusion to twenty-six years from Queen Mary's timeprobably referred to the first date of publication, which is unknown, but which he places, tentatively, in 1584. "That it was played by theQueen's men, " he writes, "is shown under the next play, --_The ThreeLords and Three Ladies_, --which is an amplification of the precedingplay performed shortly after Tarleton's death in about 1588. " Mr. Fleaywrites further: "If I rightly understand the allusions, Tarleton actedin _Wit and Will_ in 1567-68. The allusion to Tarleton's picture showsthat _Tarleton's Jests_, in which his picture appears, had already beenpublished. The statement that Simplicity (probably acted by Wilsonhimself), Wit, and Will had acted with Tarleton, proves that the presentplay was acted by the Queen's men. "

In arguing to place Robert Wilson as a member of Strange's company in1588-89, Mr. Fleay borrows both premises and inference from the facts tosupport his theory. He is no doubt right in dating the originalcomposition of _The Three Ladies of London_ before 1584, and probablyalso in attributing all of these plays to Wilson, but, seeing that theywere all Burbage properties in 1589-90, is it not evident that _TheThree Ladies of London_ was an old Leicester play produced by Wilsonbefore 1582-83, when he and Burbage left that company, and either thatBurbage then retained possession of it, or, that it was brought toStrange's men by Pope, Kempe, and Bryan in 1589? Mr. Fleay admits that_The Three Lords and Three Ladies_ is merely an amplification of _TheThree Ladies_ made after Tarleton's death, which occurred in 1588. Itseems apparent, then, that the scriptural phraseology noticeable in _TheThree Ladies_, _The Three Lords and Three Ladies_, and _Fair Em_, whichled Mr. Fleay to impute the last to Wilson's pen, and also to connecthim as a writer and an actor with Lord Strange's company in 1589-90, isthe work of the "theological poet" indicated by Greene and Nashe ashaving had a hand in _Fair Em_ in 1589. It is also evident that theactors who took the parts of Simplicity, Wit, and Will, --in _The ThreeLords and Three Ladies_, --who had formerly acted with Tarleton, wereKempe, Pope, and Bryan, Strange's men, who were all formerly Leicester'smen. It is much more likely that these old members of Leicester'scompany, who in Tarleton's time would have been juniors in the company, would recall and boast of their old connection, than that his lateassociates in the Queen's company would do so within a year or two ofhis death. ]

[Footnote 22: Bentley was a Queen's player in 1584, and probably camefrom Sussex's company to the Queen's upon the organisation of thatcompany in 1583. ]

[Footnote 23: This letter and the verses are printed in _Henslowe'sPapers_, p. 32, W. W. Greg, 1907, and in the works of several earliereditors. ]

[Footnote 24: "The two more" here indicated by Greene are, I believe, Lodge and Matthew Roydon, both of whom are mentioned by Nashe in hisaddress "To the Gentlemen of the two Universities" prefixed to Greene's_Menaphon_. I have elsewhere shown that Roydon was a prolific balladwriter who invariably wrote anonymously, or under pen names, and havemade evident his authorship of _Willobie his Avisa_, as well as itsanti-Shakespearean intention. Roydon also wrote plays as well asballads, and was possibly one of the "theological poets" referred to byGreene in the introduction to his _Farewell to Folly_, who, heintimates, were averse "for their calling and gravity" to have theirnames appear as the authors of ballads or plays, and so secured "someother batillus to set their names to their verses. " Roydon's affectedanonymity is referred to by several other contemporary writers. RobertArnim writes of him as "a light that shines not in the world as it iswished, but yet the worth of his lustre is known. " Roydon was a curateof the Established Church. Shakespeare's lack of respect for Church ofEngland curates, which is several times exhibited in his plays, was, nodoubt, due in some degree to his dislike of Roydon. ]

[Footnote 25: Since the publication of _Mistress Davenant, the Dark Ladyof Shakespeare's Sonnets_, in 1913, I have learned that John Davenantwas married twice. Roydon's _Willobie his Avisa_ refers to his firstwife, who was Anne Birde, daughter of Mayor William Birde of Bristol, whom he married before July 1592. I have also found that his second wifewas Jane Shepherd of Durham. This matter will be fully elucidated in aforthcoming publication. ]

[Footnote 26: _Shakespeare and the Rival Poet_, 1902. ]

[Footnote 27: A probable allusion to his _Lucrece_ dedication. ]

[Footnote 28: _Shakespeare and the Rival Poet_, John Lane, London, 1903. ]

CHAPTER VI

THE POLITICAL PURPOSE OF _KING JOHN_

1591-1592

The three parts of _Henry VI. _ and their originals are of interest toShakespearean students as marking the beginning of a phase of Englishhistorical drama, afterwards developed by Shakespeare, Kyd, Marlowe, andothers. They owed their origin to the demand of the theatres formaterial with which to cater to the ebullient national spirit aroused bythe long-threatened danger of a Spanish invasion, and its happy issue inthe destruction of the great Armada, in 1588. They were originallyproduced between 1589 and 1591, and evidently for the Queen's players. The theatrical managers having found them a profitable investment, encouraged the continued production of historical plays. Peele, who isusually supposed to have been the author of _The First Part of HenryVI. _, soon after wrote a play upon the reign of _Edward I. _; Marloweappropriating _Edward III. _ and later on _Edward II. _; and Shakespeare_King John_ in 1591 and _Richard II. _ in 1592-93. 

Shakespeare, before composing _Richard II. _, --in the composition ofwhich he was evidently guided by the previous production of Marlowe's_Edward II. _, --tried his "prentice hand" on _King John_. Both this playand the older play of _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_ (upon whichit is based, and which, in fact, it practically recasts) owe theirorigin to the same influences as the other historical plays mentioned. _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_ was composed for the Queen'scompany at, or near to, the date of the Spanish Armada, and at a periodwhen religious animosities were acute. Its anti-Catholic spirit is veryaggressive. We have good evidence, in the manner in which Shakespeare, on recasting the old play, toned down or eliminated this spirit, thatwhatever dogmatic latitude he allowed himself in religion, his socialand religious sympathies at this period were Catholic rather thanProtestant. He was, withal, in common with a large proportion, andprobably a majority, of his compatriots at that time, an English, asdistinguished from a Roman, Catholic, and like them, though he outwardlyacquiesced in the established religion, tacitly favoured the old Churchin spiritual matters, while resenting its political activities. 

Socially and politically, Shakespeare was essentially conservative. Helooked naturally unto the rock whence he was hewn and to the hole of thepit whence he was digged. With a deep and abiding pride of race, linkinghim spiritually with the historic past of his people, he was inclined tolook askance at the subverting spirit of Puritanism, which was nowbeginning to give Merrie England food for serious thought. Histemperamental bias against Puritanism was accentuated by the openlyavowed hostility of the Puritans to his chosen profession. Though bornof the people, Shakespeare's social ideals were strongly aristocratic, and, while possessing, in an unusual degree that unerring knowledge ofhuman nature in all classes and conditions of men, and broad toleranceof human foibles and weaknesses, attainable only by spiritual sympathy, in the political wisdom of democracy as it could then be conceived hehad little confidence. 

We have good evidence that Shakespeare's father was a Catholic, and itis more than likely that Shakespeare's sympathies were Catholic. Hismost intimate affiliations were Catholic. Southampton's family, theWriothesleys, and his mother's family, the Browns, were adherents of theold faith, and though Southampton, in later life, turned toProtestantism he was Catholic during the early years of his intimacywith Shakespeare. For the clergy of the Established Church Shakespearehad little respect; he probably regarded the majority of them astrimmers and time-servers. He always makes his curates ridiculous; this, however, was probably due to his hostility to Roydon, whom hecaricatures. On the other hand, his priests and friars, while erring andhuman, are always dignified and reverend figures. There is, however, noindecision in his attitude towards Rome's political pretensions. Themost uncompromising Protestant of the time sounds no more defiantnational note than he. 

In _King John_ we have an ingenuous revelation of Shakespeare's outlookon life while he was still comparatively young, and within a few yearsof his advent in London. He was yet unacquainted with the Earl ofSouthampton at the date of its composition, early in 1591. 

In the character of Falconbridge, with which one instinctively feels itscreator's sympathy, I am convinced that Shakespeare portrayed thepersonality of Sir John Perrot, an illegitimate son of Henry VIII. , andhalf-brother to Queen Elizabeth. The immense physical proportions ofboth Perrot and Falconbridge; their characteristic and temperamentalresemblances; their common illegitimate birth; the fact that both weretrusted generals and relatives of their sovereigns; their similar bluffand masterful manner; their freedom of speech; and the suggestive unisonbetween important incidents in their lives, all exhibit a resemblancemuch too remarkable for mere coincidence. 

In the development of certain of Shakespeare's characters weinstinctively feel his sympathy with, or antipathy for, the type herepresents. Like Thackeray in the case of _Barry Lyndon_, he paints inFalstaff a rascal so interesting that he leads us almost to condone hisrascality; yet who can doubt in either instance the author's inherentantipathy to the basic character he portrays. On the other hand, indepicting Biron, Antonio, and Jacques, we feel a sympathetic touch. Forno one of his numerous characters is his admiration so apparent andunreserved as for that of Falconbridge. With other characters, such asBiron, Antonio, Jacques, Hamlet, and Prospero in their successivestages, we apprehend a closer mental likeness to, and spiritualsynthesis of, their creator; here, however, is no creature of the brain, but a flesh-and-blood man of action, taken bodily from life. An earlydate for the original composition of _King John_ is manifest in thebroad strokes of portraiture, and lack of introspective subtlety, withwhich this character is drawn. 

Sir John Perrot was a natural son of Henry VIII. And Mary Berkley, afterwards wife of Thomas Perrot of Islington and Herrodston inPembrokeshire. His resemblance to Henry VIII. Was striking, although hisphysical proportions were still larger. Much as he resembled his fatherhe more nearly approximated in type both temperamentally and physicallyto "Coeur-de-lion. " Perrot lived about two hundred years too late forhis own fame. Had he been born a couple of centuries earlier he mighthave lived in history as a paladin of romance. He was a fantasticalrecrudescence, of the most fanciful age of chivalry. He is reported tohave possessed extraordinary strength, and in his youth to have beenmuch addicted to brawling. At about the age of twenty he owed hisintroduction to Henry VIII. To a fight in which he became engaged withtwo of the Yeomen of the Guard who endeavoured to oust him from thepalace grounds, and whom he worsted in the effort. The King appearingupon the scene, Perrot is reported to have proclaimed himself his son. Henry received him favourably and promised him preferment, but died soonafterwards. Edward VI. , upon his accession, acknowledged his kinship andcreated him Knight of the Bath. He was a very skilful horseman andswordsman, and excelled in knightly exercises. 

In 1551 he accompanied the Marquis of Southampton to France upon themission of the latter to negotiate a marriage between Edward VI. AndElizabeth, daughter of Henry II. The French King was so well pleasedwith him that he offered to retain him in his service. While generousand brave to an unusual degree, Perrot was extremely hot-tempered and ofan arbitrary disposition. He seems to have inherited all of his father'smental, moral, and physical attributes in an exaggerated form, and tohave had an ever-present consciousness of his kingly lineage. Moneyflowed through his fingers like water; he was rarely out of debt, andwas relieved in this respect by both Edward VI. And Elizabeth. Upon theaccession of Queen Mary, Perrot, though a Protestant, continued inroyal favour; his kinship outweighing his religious disadvantage. Hewas, however, never without enemies at Court, created largely by hishigh-handed behaviour. During Mary's reign he was accused of shelteringheretics in his house in Wales, and was, in consequence, committed for awhile to the Fleet, but was soon released. He saw service in Franceunder the Earl of Pembroke, being present at the capture of St. Quentin. Later on he had a violent disagreement with his old commander, owing tohis refusal to assist the latter in persecuting Welsh Protestants. Alife-enduring friendship was later established between them byPembroke's magnanimity in rallying to his support at a crucial period inhis career. When Protestantism, at a later period, gained the upper handunder Elizabeth, he was equally averse to the persecution of Catholics. Elizabeth upon her accession continued the favours shown him by herpredecessors. He was selected as one of four gentlemen to carry thecanopy of state at her Coronation, and was appointed Vice-Admiral of theseas about South Wales. In 1570 he was made President of Munster, wherehe performed his duties in an extremely strenuous manner. He useddeputies only in clerical matters; where there was fighting to be donehe was there in person, and usually in the thick of it. Much as he likedto command he never could resist being in the actual scrimmage. Hechallenged James Fitmaurice Fitzgerald, the rebel leader in Munster, tosingle combat, which the latter prudently refused; later on, Fitzgeraldled him and a small body of men into an ambush where he was out-numberedten to one; Perrot refused to surrender, and though he made greatslaughter of his assailants, was saved only by the timely arrival of asmall body of his own men, whom the rebels supposed to be the advanceguard of a stronger force. He was as generous in victory as he wasimprudent in action; having defeated and captured Fitzgerald, he forgavehim and restored him to his property. Such actions on his part beingcriticised by the Council, Perrot, in dudgeon, resigned his command andreturned to England in 1573. He was received favourably by Elizabeth, whose goodwill he still continued to keep in spite of his numerousenemies at Court. Retiring to his Welsh estates at this time, he toldBurghley that he intended thereafter to lead a "countryman's life, " and"to keep out of debt. " Much of his time during the following ten yearswas spent in suppressing piracy on the seas in his capacity ofVice-Admiral and Warden of the Marches. In 1584 he was appointed Viceroyof Ireland, an office which he executed vigorously and effectively, butin the same dominating spirit and with the same impatience of controlthat had marked his earlier Irish career. Exasperated at the delays ofthe Council in agreeing to his plans, he even went to the length ofaddressing the English Parliament in a letter, which, however, wassuppressed by Walsingham, who apprehended the resentment of Elizabeth atsuch an unwarranted appropriation of her prerogative. 

While Perrot's physical proportions were much above the average he wasan extremely graceful and handsome man. A German nobleman of the time, visiting Ireland, seeing Perrot at the opening of Parliament, declaredthat though he had travelled all Europe he had never seen any onecomparable to him for his port and majesty of personage. 

Perrot's arbitrary and dominating manner created constant friction inhis Council and aroused the enmity of his coadjutors and subordinates. He challenged Sir Richard Bingham, President of Munster, to a duel, andcame to actual blows in the council chamber with Sir Nicholas Bagenal. He aroused the deadly enmity of Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin, who setmany plots on foot to work his undoing. One Philip Williams, a formersecretary of Perrot's, was set on by Loftus to make revelationsreflecting on Perrot's loyalty, which gained such credence that theyresulted in his recall to England in 1588. He left behind him, writesSir Henry Wallop, "a memory of such hard usage and haughty demeanouramongst his associates as I think never any before him in this placehath done. " After Perrot's return to England, Loftus continued hismachinations against him. Informers of all kinds were forthcoming toaccuse him. One Denis O'Roughan, an ex-priest, offered to prove that hewas the bearer of a letter from Perrot to Philip of Spain, promisingthat if the latter would give him the Principality of Wales, he wouldmake him Master of England and Ireland. While this evidence was palpablyfalse, the excited condition of public feeling in regard to the Jesuitplots and the aggressive plans of Spain lent it credence. A year before, Sir William Stanley, previously quite unsuspected of disloyalty, hadturned the fortress of Deventer over to the Spaniards, and the Armada, which had been in preparation for years, was expected daily on theEnglish coasts. Perrot, while not yet placed under arrest, was treatedcoldly by the Court. His was not a temper that could stand suchtreatment uncomplainingly. Knowing that the Queen's ill-usage of himarose largely from the influence of Sir Christopher Hatton, he expressedhimself somewhat freely regarding that gentleman, and in a manner thatreflected upon the Queen. Hatton's hatred of Perrot was well founded, he having seduced Hatton's niece some years before. The unceasingplotting of Perrot's enemies and his own imprudence of speech led to hisarrest early in 1591. After a short confinement in Burghley's house, hewas removed to the Tower, where he remained for a year before he wasbrought to trial. At this period and while still under restraint atBurghley's house, I date the composition of Shakespeare's _King John_. He was tried for high treason in April 1592, being charged with usingcontemptuous words about the Queen, relieving known traitors and Romishpriests, and also with treasonable correspondence with Philip of Spainand the Duke of Parma. All of the evidence against him, except thatrelating to the use of disrespectful expressions regarding the Queen, fell to the ground. He was found guilty on this one point and taken backto the Tower. Two months later--that is, on 26th June--he was brought upfor judgment and condemned to death. "God's death, " he exclaimed, onbeing led back to the Tower, "will the Queen suffer her brother to beoffered up as a sacrifice to the envy of his frisking adversary?" Hedied a natural death in the Tower in September 1592. It is probable thathad he lived the Queen would have pardoned him. It was rumoured at thetime that she intended to do so. While such an intention appearsprobable from the fact that after his death his son was restored to hisestates, it is more likely that Perrot's death, while under the Queen'sdisfavour, softened her resentment toward his family. Perrot's son, SirThomas, who inherited his estates, had incurred the ill-will ofElizabeth some years before by his clandestine marriage to DorothyDevereux, sister of the Earl of Essex. She vented her displeasure uponevery one remotely concerned in this transaction. Essex, who wasentirely innocent of any complicity in it, was frowned upon for a time, and Bishop Aylmer, under whose surreptitiously obtained licence themarriage ceremony was performed, was called before the Council. TheQueen for years declined to receive Lady Perrot, and upon one occasion, when visiting the Earl of Essex, refused to remain in his house upon thearrival of his sister, and was pacified only when Lady Perrot removed toa distant neighbour's. 

It thus appears that the rancour of Elizabeth towards Sir John Perrot, which led to his imprisonment in 1591 and his later prosecution, wasintensified by the fact of his family connection with the Earl of Essex, who at this same period was deep in her disfavour owing to his ownunauthorised marriage to Lady Sidney. We may then infer that Courtcircles were divided in their attitude towards Perrot, and that whileSir Christopher Hatton and his followers were antagonistic to him, thatEssex and his faction were correspondingly sympathetic. 

I am convinced that Shakespeare's first recast of _The TroublesomeRaigne of King John_ was made at about this period, at the instigationof a court of action friendly to Perrot and antagonistic to Hatton, withthe intention of arousing sympathy for Perrot by presenting himinferentially in heroic colours in the character of Falconbridge. Whatever animosities his outspoken criticisms and arbitrary demeanourmay have aroused, amongst the courtiers and politicians, it is likelythat his romantic history, his personal bravery, and his interestingpersonality had made him a hero to the younger nobility and the masses. It is evident that the author of _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_had Perrot in mind in the composition of that play, which is usuallydated by the text critics in about 1588-89. It is acknowledged that theold play is based almost entirely upon the second edition of Holinshed's_Chronicles_, which was published in 1587, and that the Falconbridgeincident has no foundation in that source, it being transposed from aportion of Hall's _Chronicles_ relating to French history of an earliertime. If the original author's intention had been to dramatise the reignor character of King John, why should he have transposed incidents andcharacters from French history in no way connected with John's reign, and also have made one of these characters practically the protagonistof the action? Bearing this fact in mind, in conjunction with theevident date of composition of the old play in or about 1588-89, at thetime when Perrot was recalled from Ireland and was being accused ofdisloyalty by his political enemies, it appears evident that the author, or authors, of _The Troublesome Raigne_ had Perrot's interests in mindin its composition, and that its intention and personal point wererecognised by the public upon its presentation, and also that it waspublished and rewritten in 1591, at the time when Perrot was sent to theTower, in order further to stir up sympathy for his cause by a stillmore palpable and heroic characterisation. 

In recasting the old play in 1591 at the most crucial period of Perrot'stroubles, Shakespeare--evidently cognizant of its original intention andof the interpretation placed upon it by the theatre-going public--stillfurther enhanced the character of Falconbridge as the protagonist of thedrama, while he minimised the character of King John and quite neglectedto explain the reason for much of the plot and action, which is quiteclear in the old play. The neglect of historical and dramatic values, and the absence of analytical characterisation shown by Shakespeare inthis play when it is considered as a dramatisation of the reign of KingJohn, has been noticed by many past critics, who have not suspected thepossibility of an underlying intention in its production. Mr. EdwardRose, in his excellent essay upon Shakespeare as an adapter, writes:

 "Shakespeare has no doubt kept so closely to the lines of the older play because it was a favorite with his audience and they had grown to accept its history as absolute fact; but one can hardly help thinking that, had he boldly thrown aside these trammels and taken John as his Hero, his great central figure; had he analyzed and built up before us the mass of power, craft, passion, and devilry which made up the worst of the Plantagenets; had he dramatized the grand scene of the signing of the Charter and shown vividly the gloom and horror which overhung the excommunicated land; had he painted John's last despairing struggles against rebels and invaders as he has given us the fiery end of Macbeth's life, we might have had another Macbeth, another Richard, who would by his terrible personality have welded the play together and carried us breathless through his scene of successive victory and defeat. That, by this means, something would be lost, 'tis true--Falconbridge, for example, would certainly be lesser, " etc. Etc. 

While regretting Shakespeare's neglect of the great dramaticpossibilities in the reign and the character of King John, Mr. Roserecognised Shakespeare's evident interest in the character ofFalconbridge. He writes:

 "In reconstructing the play the great want that struck Shakespeare seems to have been that of a strong central figure. He was attracted by the rough, powerful nature which he could see the Bastard must have been; almost like a modern dramatist writing up a part for a star actor, he introduced Falconbridge wherever it was possible, gave him the end of every act (except the third), and created from a rude and inconsistent sketch a character as strong as complete and as original as even he ever drew. Throughout a series of scenes not otherwise very closely connected, this wonderful real type of faulty combative, not ignoble manhood, is developed, a support and addition to the scenes in which he has least to say, a great power where he is prominent. "

Had Mr. Rose endeavoured briefly to describe the character of Sir JohnPerrot, he could not have done so more aptly. 

Shakespeare in recasting _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_ did notendeavour to dramatise either the character or reign of that King, butpurposely followed the story of the earlier dramatist, having the samepersonal point in view. The author of _The Troublesome Raigne of KingJohn_ intentionally subordinated or distorted the actual facts ofhistory in order to match his dramatic characterisation to thepersonality of Perrot, and its action to well-known incidents ofPerrot's career in France and England. A palpable instance of this isexhibited in Falconbridge's soliloquy in Scene i. , when questioned bythe King before the Court regarding his paternity. Here the old authorreflects a story of Perrot's youth which his biographers state wasfrequently related by Perrot to his friends. Soon after the accession ofEdward VI. , Perrot having by his extravagance become deeply involved indebt purposely placed himself in the path of the King's daily walk and, hearing his footsteps and pretending not to know of his presence, indulged in a soliloquy complaining of his misfortunes and lamenting hislack of wisdom and bemoaning the nonage of his half-brother the King, who in endeavouring to help him would probably be overruled by the LordProtector and the Lords of the Council. He also debated aloud withhimself other means of retrieving his fortune, such as retiring from theCourt into the country or betaking himself to the wars. His anonymousbiographer of 1592 wrote:

 "As he was thus sadly debating the Matter unto hymselfe, the Kinge came behynd hym, and overheard most of that which he sayd, who at length stepped before him, and asked him, How now Perrott (quoth the Kinge) what is the matter that you make this great Moane? To whom Sir John Perrott answered, And it lyke your Majestie, I did not thinck that your Highness had byn there. Yes, said the Kinge, we heard you well inough: And have you spent your Livinge in our Service, and is the Kinge so younge, and under Government, that he cannot give you any Thinge in Recompence of your Service? Spie out somewhat, and you shall see whether the Kinge hath not Power to bestow it on you. Then he most humbly thanked his Majestie and shortly after founde out a Concealment, which as soon as he sought, the Kinge bestowed it on hym, wherewith he paid the most part of his Debtes; and for always after he became a better Husband. This story Sir John Perrott would sometimes recounte unto his Frends, acknowledging it a greate Blessinge of God, that had given him Grace in Time to look into his decaying Estate. "

Comparison of this biographical incident with the following passage from_The Troublesome Raigne_ not only reveals the source of the dramatist'sinspiration but also accounts for a scene that has appeared peculiar tomany critics. 

 K. JOHN. Ask Philip whose son he is. 

 ESSEX. Philip, who was thy father?

 PHILIP. Mass, my lord, and that's a question: and you had not taken some pains with her before, I should have desired you to ask my mother. 

 K. JOHN. . Say, who was thy father?

 PHILIP. Faith, my lord, to answer you sure, he is my father that was nearest my mother when I was gotten; and him I think to be Sir Robert Falconbridge. 

 K. JOHN. Essex, for fashion's sake demand again: And so an end to this contention. 

 ROBERT. Was ever man thus wrong'd as Robert is?

 ESSEX. Philip! Speak, I say; who was thy father?

 K. JOHN. Young man, how now? what! art thou in a trance?

 Q. ELINOR. Philip, awake! The man is in a dream. 

 PHILIP. Philippus, atavis edite Regibus. (_Aside. _) What say'st thou: Philip, sprung of ancient Kings? Quo me rapit tempestas? What wind of honour blows this fury forth, Or whence proceed these fumes of majesty? Methinks I hear a hollow echo sound, That Philip is the son unto a King: The whistling leaves upon the trembling trees Whistle in concert I am Richard's son; The bubbling murmur of the water's fall Records Philippus Regis filius; Birds in their flight make music with their wings, Filling the air with glory of my birth; Birds, bubbles, leaves and mountains, echo, all Ring in mine ears, that I am Richard's son. Fond man, ah, whither art thou carried? How are thy thoughts yrapt in Honour's heaven? Forgetful what thou art, and whence thou cam'st? Thy father's land cannot maintain these thoughts; These thoughts are far unfitting Falconbridge; And well they may; for why this mounting mind Doth soar too high to stoop to Falconbridge Why, how now? Knowest thou where thou art? And know'st thou who expects thine answer here? Wilt thou, upon a frantic madding vein, Go lose thy land, and say thyself base-born? No, keep thy land, though Richard were thy sire; Whate'er thou think'st say thou art Falconbridge. 

 K. JOHN. Speak, man! be sudden, who thy father was. 

 PHILIP. Please it your Majesty, Sir Robert . . . Philip, that Falconbridge cleaves to thy jaws: (_Aside_) It will not out; I cannot for my life Say I am son unto a Falconbridge. Let land and living go! 'tis Honour's fire That makes me swear King Richard was my sire. Base to a King, adds title of more state, Than knight's begotten, though legitimate. Please it your Grace, I am King Richard's son. 

While it is generally agreed by text critics that Shakespeare's _KingJohn_ was drastically revised in about 1596, the metrical tests and thescarcity of classical allusions denote its composition at about the sameperiod as that of the original composition of _Richard II. _; and thoughthe later time revision of both of these plays has no doubt replacedmuch of Shakespeare's earlier work in them with matter of a later time, an early date for their original composition is very evident. Itherefore assign the original composition of _King John_ to the earlypart of the year 1591, and believe, that in writing this playShakespeare worked from a copy of _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_, and that he followed, and still further developed, the originalintention of that play regarding the interests of Sir John Perrot. It isevident that _King John_ was written at the time _The TroublesomeRaigne_ was published in 1591, and that the play was Burbage propertywhen it was published. A play was not as a rule published until it hadoutrun its interest upon the stage, or had been replaced by a new playupon the same subject. 

While records of Henslowe's affiliations with Lord Strange's and theAdmiral's companies do not appear in his _Diary_ until February 1592, when the Rose Theatre was ready for their occupancy, it is likely thattheir connection commenced in the previous year and that hisaffiliations with the Queen's company ended at the same time. The numberof old plays formerly owned by the Queen's company that came into thehands of Strange's, the Admiral's, and Pembroke's men at this time wereprobably purchased from Henslowe, upon the reorganisation of companiesin 1591-92, or else were brought to these companies as properties byQueen's men who joined them upon the disruption of this large andpowerful company at this period. Gabriel Spencer, Humphrey Jeffes, andJohn Sinkler, whose names are mentioned in _The True Tragedy of the Dukeof York_, were evidently old Queen's men, the former two joiningPembroke's men, and Sinkler, Strange's men at this time. The entry oftheir names as actors in this play was evidently made while it was aQueen's property and when the Queen's company acted under Henslowe'sauspices at the Rose Theatre between 1587 and 1591. Both Jeffes andSpencer rejoined Henslowe upon the new reorganisation of companies in1594, and continued to perform with him and the Lord Admiral's men asPembroke's men until 1597, when they became Admiral's men. After Spencerwas killed in a duel by Ben Jonson in 1598, his widow continued to be aprotégé or pensioner of Henslowe's for some years. 

The generally accepted belief that the old _Henry VI. _, _TheContention_, and _The True Tragedie_ were--like _The Troublesome Raigneof King John_, _The Seven Deadly Sins_, and other plays owned bycompanies with which Burbage was connected--originally Queen's plays, isresponsible for the otherwise unsupported assumption that Burbage was amember and the manager of the Queen's company for several years. 

As the disruption of the old Queen's company and its reorganisation intoa smaller company under the two Duttons, as well as the inception ofHenslowe's connection with Strange's men, evidently took place some timebetween the Christmas season of 1590-91, when the Queen's companyperformed four times at Court and the Admiral-Strange company only once, and the Christmas season of 1591-92, when Strange's company performedsix times and the Queen's only once, and then for the last time onrecord, it is evident that Pembroke's company was formed also in thisyear. It is not unlikely then that Shakespeare's recast of _TheTroublesome Raigne of King John_ into _King John_ was made at theinstigation of the Earl of Pembroke himself at the time of Perrot'sarrest in 1591. As Pembroke's father was a lifelong friend of Perrot'sit is extremely probable that he also would be his partisan andwell-wisher. 

In every poem or play written by Shakespeare from the time he made theacquaintance of the Earl of Southampton at the end of 1591, and even forsome time after the accession of James I. In 1603, I find somereflection of his interest in that nobleman or in the fortunes of theEssex party with which he was affiliated. I find no reflection of thisinterest in _King John_ nor in _The Comedy of Errors_, except in a fewpassages which palpably pertain to a period of revision in the formerplay. From this and other subjective evidence already advanced I datethe composition of both of these plays in 1591, and in doing so conformto the chronological conclusions reached by authoritative text criticswhose judgments have been formed altogether upon textual and stylisticgrounds. 

While nearly all writers upon the Elizabethan drama recognise thetopical, political, or controversial nature of much of the dramaticrepresentation of that age, it is usual to deny for Shakespeare's playsany such topical significance. This attitude of the critics is duelargely to neglect or ignorance of contemporary history, and also to thelack of a proper understanding of the chronological order in which theplays were produced, and their consequent inability to synchronise thecharacters or action of the plays, with circumstances of Shakespeare'slife, or with matters of contemporary interest, as well as to themasterly objective skill by which he disguised his intentions, in orderto protect himself and his company from the stringent statutes then inforce, prohibiting the presentation of matters concerning Church orState upon the stage. 

CHAPTER VII

THE INCEPTION OF THE FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN SHAKESPEARE AND THE EARL OFSOUTHAMPTON

1591-1594

A few months after the publication of Greene's _A Groatsworth of Wit_, Henry Chettle issued a book entitled _Kinde Heartes Dreame_, to which heprefaced an apology for publishing Greene's attack upon Shakespeare. Hewrites: "I am as sorry as if the original fault had been my fault, because myselfe have seene his demeanour no lesse civill than he exelentin the qualitie he professes, besides divers of worship have reportedhis uprightnes of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetiousgrace in writing that approoves his art. " When critically examined, these references to Shakespeare take on a somewhat greater biographicalvalue than has usually been claimed for them. Agreeing with theassumption that Shakespeare left Stratford between 1586 and 1587, --thatis, at between the ages of twenty-two and twenty-three years, --we areinformed by these allusions, that by the time he had reached histwenty-eighth year he had attained such social recognition as to haveenlisted in his behalf the active sympathies of "divers ofworship, "--that is, men of assured social prestige and distinction, --whoseprotest against Greene's attack evidently induced Chettle's amends. Chettle's book was published in December 1592; just four months later, in April 1593, _Venus and Adonis_ was licensed for publication, andshortly afterwards was issued with the well-known dedication to HenryWriothesley, Earl of Southampton. It is reasonable to assume thatthis poem and its dedication had been submitted in MS. To Southamptonand held some time previous to the date of the application for licenceto publish, and that his favour was well assured before the poem wasfinally let go to press. The few months intervening between Greene'sattack and Chettle's apology, and the application for licenceto publish, may then easily be bridged by the reading in MS. Form of_Venus and Adonis_ by Southampton's friends. It is likely also thatGreene's public attack upon Shakespeare led this generous andhigh-spirited nobleman to acquiesce in the use of his name as sponsorfor the publication. The nearness of these dates and incidents gives usgood grounds for believing that the Earl of Southampton was included inthe number referred to by Chettle as "divers of worship. " In using theexpression "the qualitie he professes, " Chettle plainly referred toShakespeare's profession as an actor-manager, and of his excellence inthis respect bears his own record: "myselfe, " he writes, "_have seene_his demeanour no lesse civill than he exelent in the qualitie heprofesses. " Of Shakespeare's literary merits, however, he expresses nopersonal knowledge, but tells us that "divers of worship have reportedhis uprightnes of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetiousgrace in writing that approoves his art. " Had Chettle referred to any ofShakespeare's known dramatic work he could have passed his own judgment, as in fact he does upon his civility as manager and his excellence asan actor. Having seen Shakespeare act he would also, no doubt, haveheard his lines declaimed had our poet at that period produced upon the_public boards_ any of his original dramas. The term "facetious grace"might well be applied to the manner and matter of Shakespeare's lightercomedies had any of them been _publicly acted_, but would be somewhatinapt if applied to the rather stilted staginess of his early historicalwork. Much argument has been advanced in various attempts to prove thatShakespeare produced _Love's Labour's Lost_, _The Two Gentlemen ofVerona_, _Romeo and Juliet_, and _Midsummer Nights Dream_ previous tothe year 1591-92, but no particle of evidence, either external orinternal, has yet been advanced in support of these assumptions; much, however, has been advanced against them. If we may accept Shakespeare'sown subscribed statement as evidence, and that evidence is truthful, _Venus and Adonis_ was his first acknowledged original literary effort. In the dedication to Southampton he distinctly names it "the first heirof my invention. " It is probable, then, that the "facetious grace" inwriting, of which "divers of worship" had reported, referred to thispoem, which had been held then for several months (as were his Sonnetsfor years) in MS. "among his private friends. "

At the time that Chettle published his _Kinde Heartes Dreame_Shakespeare had already produced _The Comedy of Errors_ and _King John_, and had evidently had a hand with Marlowe in the revision of _The TrueTragedie of the Duke of York_. It is unlikely, however, that Chettle hadwitnessed a performance of _The Comedy of Errors_, which was producedprimarily for private presentation. _The True Tragedie of the Duke ofYork_ and _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_ were both old plays byother hands, and it was for publishing Greene's attack upon Shakespearefor his share in the revision of the former, that Chettle nowapologised. He would therefore not regard his revision of _TheTroublesome Raigne_, if he knew of it, as original work. It is evident, then, Shakespeare's "facetious grace in writing, " of which Chettle hadheard, referred either to _Venus and Adonis_, or _The Comedy of Errors_, or both, neither of which were known to the public at this time. 

Friendship may perhaps be too strong a term to apply to the relationsthat subsisted at this date between Southampton and Shakespeare, but wehave good proof in Chettle's references to him late in 1592, in thededication of _Venus and Adonis_ in 1593, and of _Lucrece_ in 1594, aswell as the first _book_ of Sonnets, --which I shall later show belongsto the earlier period of their connection, --that the acquaintancebetween these two men, at whatever period it may have commenced, was atleast in being towards the end of the year 1592. A brief outline andexamination of the recorded incidents of Southampton's life in theseearly years may throw some new light upon the earliest stage of thisacquaintance, especially when those incidents and conditions areconsidered _correlatively with the spirit and intention of the poemswhich Shakespeare wrote for him, and dedicated to him a little later_. 

Thomas Wriothesley, second Earl of Southampton, and father ofShakespeare's patron, died on 4th October 1581. Henry, his onlysurviving son, thus became Earl of Southampton before he had attainedhis eighth birthday, and consequently became, and remained until hismajority, a ward of the Crown. The Court of Chancery was at that perioda much simpler institution than it is to-day, and Lord Burghley seemspersonally to have exercised the chief functions of that Court in itsrelation to wards in Chancery, and also to have monopolised itsprivileges. We may infer that this was a position by no meansdistasteful to that prudent minister's provident and nepotic spirit. Burghley was essentially of that type of statesmen who are bettercontented with actual power, and its accruing profits, than theappearance of power and the glory of its trappings. Leicester, Raleigh, and Essex might, in turn, pose their day as they willed upon thepolitical stage so long as they confined themselves to subordinate orornamental capacities; but whenever they attempted seriously to encroachupon the reins of power, he set himself to circumvent them with apatience and finesse that invariably wrought their undoing. 

In this system of politics he had an apt pupil in his son, Sir RobertCecil, who, viewed through the ages, while presenting a less solidfigure than his father, displays a much more refined and Machiavelliancraft. 

The attention and care which Burghley bestowed from the beginning uponhis young ward's affairs bespeak an interest within an interest when hisprudent and calculating nature is borne in mind and the later incidentsof his guardianship are considered. 

Towards the end of 1585, at the age of twelve, Southampton became astudent of St. John's College, Cambridge, from whence he graduated asM. A. About four years later, _i. E. _ in June 1589. After leavingCambridge in 1589, _he lived for over a year with his mother at CowdrayHouse in Sussex_. Early in this year, or possibly while Southampton wasstill at Cambridge, Burghley had opened negotiations with the Countessof Southampton with the object of uniting the interests and fortunes ofher son with his own house, by consummating a marriage between thiswealthy and promising young peer and his own granddaughter, LadyElizabeth Vere, daughter of the Earl of Oxford. Burghley's extremeinterest in the match is fully attested by a few letters that are stillextant. In the Calendar State Papers we have an apologetic letter fromSir Thomas Stanhope (whose wife and daughter had recently visited LadySouthampton at Cowdray) to Lord Burghley, dated 15th July 1590, assuringhim that he had never sought to procure the young Earl of Southampton inmarriage for his daughter, as he knew Burghley intended marriage betweenhim and the Lady Vere. That an actual engagement of marriage had alreadybeen entered into, we have proof in another letter dated 19th September1590, from Anthony Brown, Viscount Montague (Southampton's maternalgrandfather), to Lord Burghley. Regarding this engagement he writes, that Southampton "is not averse from it, " and repeats further, that hisdaughter, Lady Southampton, is not aware of any alteration in her son'smind. The tone of this latter epistle does not seem to evince any greatenthusiasm for the match upon the part of either Southampton or hismother; its rather diffident spirit was not lost upon Burghley, who, within a few days of its receipt, commanded the attendance of his youngward at Court. Upon 14th October 1590--that is, less than a month afterViscount Montague's letter to Burghley--we have a letter from LadySouthampton announcing her son's departure for London, and commendinghim to Burghley, but making no mention of the proposed marriage. _Fromthe fact that she thanks Burghley for the "long time" he "had intrusted"her son with her, we may infer that his present departure for Londonwas occasioned by Burghley's order, and also that the "long time"_indicated by Lady Southampton's letter, was the interval betweenSouthampton's leaving Cambridge in June 1589 and his present departurefor London in October 1590. We are also assured by this data thatSouthampton had not travelled upon the Continent previous to his comingto Court. Between the time of his coming to London in October 1590 andAugust 1591, I find no dates in contemporary records referring toSouthampton; but it appears evident that these nine months were spent atCourt. 

Some misgivings regarding the young Earl's desire for the match with hisgranddaughter seem to have arisen in Burghley's mind in March 1592, _atwhich time Southampton was with the English forces in France_. From thiswe may judge that Southampton's departure for the wars was undertaken athis own initiative and not at Burghley's suggestion. It appears likelythat a lack of marital ardour inspired his martial ardour at this time, and that Burghley was conscious of his disinclination to the proposedmarriage. In a letter dated 6th March 1592 (new style) Roger Mannerswriting to Burghley tells him he has been at North Hall with theCountess of Warwick, whom he reports as "very well inclined to the matchbetween the Earl of Bedford and the Lady Vere. " "She is desirous toknow, " he adds, "if your Lordship approves of it. " While this lettershows that Burghley at this date had doubts regarding Southampton'sfulfilment of his engagement, other inferences lead me to judge that _itwas not finally disrupted until the spring of 1594_. 

We have record that Southampton's name was entered as a student ofGray's Inn in July 1590, --that is, three months before his arrival inLondon, --and may therefore assume that some of his subsequent time inLondon was occupied in more or less perfunctory legal studies. 

As continental travel and an acquaintance with foreign tongues--at leastItalian and French--had then come to be regarded as a part of anobleman's education, Burghley, soon after Southampton's coming toCourt, provided him with a tutor of languages in the person of JohnFlorio, who thereafter continued in his pay and patronage as late as, ifnot later than, 1598. Even after this date Southampton continued tobefriend Florio for many years. 

As Florio continued in Southampton's service during the entire Sonnetperiod and played an important rōle in what shall hereafter be developedas _The Story of the Sonnets_, and as he shall also be shown to haveprovided Shakespeare with a model for several important characters in_The Plays of the Sonnet Period_, a brief consideration of his heredityand personal characteristics may help us to realise the manner in whichShakespeare held "the mirror up to nature" in his dramaticcharacterisations. 

John Florio was born before 1553 and was the son of Michael AngeloFlorio, a Florentine Protestant, who left Italy in the reign of HenryVIII. To escape the persecution in the Valteline. Florio's father waspastor to a congregation of his religious compatriots in London forseveral years. He was befriended by Archbishop Cranmer, and waspatronised by Sir William Cecil during the reign of Edward VI. ; but losthis church and the patronage of Cecil on account of charges of grossimmorality that were made against him. We are informed by Anthony Woodthat the elder Florio left England upon the accession of Mary, and movedto the Continent, probably to France, where John Florio received hisearly education. The earliest knowledge we have of John Florio inEngland is that he lived at Oxford for several years in his youth, andthat, in or about 1576, he became tutor in Italian to a Mr. Barnes, sonof the Bishop of Durham. In 1581, according to Anthony Wood, Floriomatriculated at Magdalen and was teacher and instructor to certainscholars at the University. In 1578 he was still living at Oxford whenhe dedicated his _First Fruites_ to the Earl of Leicester, hisdedication being dated "From my lodgings in Worcester Place. " In 1580 hededicated a translation from the Italian of Ramusio to Edward Bray, sheriff of Oxford, and two years later dedicated to Sir Edmund Dyer aMS. Collection of Italian proverbs, which is also dated from Oxford onthe 12th of November 1582. 

Nothing definite is known concerning Florio between 1582 and 1591; inthe latter year he published his _Second Fruites_, dedicating it to arecent patron, Mr. Nicholas Saunder of Ewell. Between about 1590 and1591, and the end of 1598 and possibly later, he continued in the payand patronage of the Earl of Southampton, dedicating his _Worlde ofWordes_ in the latter year "To the Right Honourable Patrons of Virtue, Patterns of Honour, Roger, Earl of Rutland; Henry, Earl of Southampton;and Lucy, Countess of Bedford. " A new and enlarged edition of this bookcontaining his portrait was published in 1611. In the medallionsurrounding this picture he gives his age as fifty-eight, which woulddate his birth in 1553, the year of Queen Mary's accession. It isprobable that Florio understated his age, as he is said to have receivedhis early education in France and to have returned to England with hisfather upon the accession of Elizabeth in 1558. Anthony Wood gives thedate of his birth as 1545, and though I cannot find his authority aminclined to believe the earlier date to be correct. Florio was vainenough to prevaricate on a matter of this nature. In 1603 he publishedhis chief work, a translation of _The Essaies of Montaigne_. Florio wasattached to the Court of James I. As French and Italian tutor to PrinceHenry and the Queen, and also held the appointment of Gentleman of thePrivy Chamber. 

Florio was married on 9th September 1617 to a Rose Spicer, of whomnothing earlier than the marriage record is known. From the facts thathis daughter Aurelia was already married at the time of his death in1625, and that in his will he leaves her "the wedding ring wherewith Imarried her mother, " it is evident that Rose Spicer was his second wife. 

Following a suggestion made by the Rev. J. H. Halpin, it is supposed thathis first wife was a Rose Daniel, a sister of Samuel Daniel, the poet, who was Florio's classfellow at Oxford. In the address to dedicatoryverses by Daniel, prefixed to the 1611 edition of Florio's _Worlde ofWordes_ he calls Florio "My dear friend and brother, Mr. John Florio, one of the gentlemen of Her Majesties Royal Privy Chamber. " From this ithas been supposed that Florio's first wife was Daniel's sister, and Mr. Halpin inferred that she was named Rose from his assumption that Spenserrefers to her as Rosalinde, and to Florio as Menalcas in _The ShepheardsCalendar_ in 1579. Mr. Grosart, who carefully investigated the matter, states that Daniel--who in 1611 was also a Gentleman of the PrivyChamber--had only two sisters, neither of them being named Rose. It islikely, then, that Daniel referred to his official connection withFlorio by the term "brother, " as in 1603, in a similar address todedicatory verses prefixed to _Montaigne's Essaies_ he refers to himonly as "My Friend. " There is no record of Florio's first marriage. 

It is very unlikely, however, that two women named Rose should have comeso intimately into Florio's life, and probable, when all the evidence isconsidered, that Rose Spicer, the "dear wife Rose" mentioned in hiswill, was the "Rosalinde" of his youth, whom, it appears, he hadseduced, and with whom he had evidently lived in concubinage in theintervening years; making tardy amends by marriage in 1617, only eightyears before his death. His marriage to Rose Spicer was evidentlybrought about by the admonitions of his friend Theophilus Field, Bishopof Llandaff, under whose influence Florio became religious in hisdeclining years. 

In Florio's will, in which he bequeaths nearly all of his small propertyto his "beloved wife Rose, " he regrets that he "cannot give or leave hermore in requital of her tender love, loving care, painful diligence, and_continual labour to me in all my fortunes and many sicknesses_, thanwhom never had husband a more loving wife, painful nurse, andcomfortable consort. " The words I have italicised indicate conjugalrelations covering a much longer period than the eight years between hisformal marriage in 1617 and his death in 1625. The term "_all myfortunes_" certainly implies a connection between them antedatingFlorio's sixty-fourth year. 

We may infer that the Bishop of Llandaff and Florio's pastor, Dr. Cluet, whom he appointed overseers and executors of his will, held Florio inlight esteem, as "for certain reasons" they renounced its execution. TheEarl of Pembroke, to whom he bequeathed his books, apparently neglectedto avail himself of the legacy, and probably for the same reasons. Anexamination of Florio's characteristic will--in the Appendix--willsuggest the nature of these reasons. 

Mr. Halpin's inference that Florio as Menalcas had already married"Rosalinde" in 1596, when the last books of _The Faerie Queen_ werepublished, is deduced from the idea that the originals for "Mirabella"and the "Carle and fool" of the _The Faerie Queen_ are identical withthose for "Rosalinde" and "Menalcas" of _The Shepheards Calendar_. Whileit is probable that Spenser had the same originals in mind in bothcases, an analysis of his verses in _The Faerie Queen_ shows that the"Carle and fool, " who accompany Mirabella, represent two persons, _i. E. _"Disdaine" and "Scorne. " In the following verses Mirabella speaks:

 "In prime of youthly yeares, when first the flowre Of beauty gan to bud, and bloosme delight, And Nature me endu'd with plenteous dowre Of all her gifts, that pleased each living sight, I was belov'd of many a gentle Knight, And sude and sought with all the service dew: Full many a one for me deepe groand and sight, And to the dore of death for sorrow drew, Complayning _out on me_ that would not on them rew. 

 But let them love that list, or live or die, Me list not die for any lovers doole; Ne list me leave my loved libertie To pitty him that list to play the foole; To love myselfe I learned had in schoole. Thus I triumphed long in lovers paine. And sitting carelesse on the scorners stoole, Did laugh at those that did lament and plaine; But all is now repayd with interest againe. 

 For loe! the winged God that woundeth harts Causde me be called to accompt therefore; And for revengement of those wrongfull smarts, Which I to others did inflict afore, Addeem'd me to endure this penaunce sore; _That in this wise, and this unmeete array, With these two lewd companions, and no more, Disdaine and Scorne, I through the world should stray. _"

Assuming "Mirabella" and "Rosalinde" to indicate the same woman, _i. E. _Rose Spicer, whom Florio married in 1617, but with whom he had beenliving in concubinage for about eighteen years when the last three booksof _The Faerie Queen_ were published, Mirabella's penance of beingforced to "stray through the world" accompanied by "Disdaine" and"Scorne, " would match her plight as Florio's mistress, but would notapply to her as his wife. 

The Rosalinde indicated by Spenser was undoubtedly a north of Englandgirl, while Samuel Daniel belonged to a Somerset family. While it iscertain that Florio was married before 1617, it is evident he did notmarry a Miss Daniel, and that Menalcas had not married Rosalinde in1596; yet it is practically certain that Spenser refers to Florio asMenalcas, and that Shakespeare recognised that fact in 1592 andpilloried Florio to the initiated of his day as Parolles in _Love'sLabour's Won_ in this connection. Florio habitually signed himself"Resolute John Florio" to acquaintances, obligations, dedications, etc. When he commenced this practice I cannot learn, but the use of the wordwas known to Spenser in 1579, as the Greek word Menalcas means Resolute. It is not difficult to fathom Spenser's meaning in regard to therelations between Menalcas and Rosalinde, and it is clear that he had apoor opinion of the moral character of the former, and plainly chargeshim with seduction. 

 "And thou, Menalcas, that by treacheree Didst underfong my lasse to waxe so light, Shouldest well be known for such thy villanee. But since I am not as I wish I were, Ye gentle Shepheards, which your flocks do feede, Whether on hylls, or dales, or other where, Beare witnesse all of thys so wicked deede: And tell the lasse, whose flowre is woxe a weede, And faultlesse fayth is turned to faithlesse fere, That she the truest shepheards hart made bleede, That lyves on earth, and loved her most dere. "

The very unusual word "underfong" which Spenser uses in these verses, and the gloss which he appends to the verses of _The ShepheardsCalendar_ for June, were not lost upon Shakespeare. Spenser, in theglossary, writes: "Menalcas, the name of a shephearde in Virgile; buthere is meant a person unknowne and secrete, against whome he oftenbitterly invayeth. _Underfonge_, undermyne, and deceive by falsesuggestion. " The immoral flippancy of the remarkable dialogue betweenthe disreputable Parolles and the otherwise sweet and maidenly Helena, in Act I. Scene i. Of _All's Well that Ends Well_, has often beennoticed by critics as a peculiar lapse in dramatic congruity on the partof Shakespeare. This is evidently one of several such instances in hisplays where he sacrificed his objective dramatic art to a subjectivecontingency, though by doing so undoubtedly adding a greater interest tocontemporary presentations not only by the palpable reflection ofSpenser's point at Florio in the play on the word "undermine" in asimilar connection, but also as reflecting the wide latitude hisItalianate breeding and manners and his Mediterranean unmorality allowedhim and his type to take in conversing with English gentlewomen at thatperiod. 

The Rev. J. H. Halpin was not far from the truth in saying that "Floriowas beset with tempers and oddities which exposed him more perhaps thanany man of his time to the ridicule of his contemporaries"; and that "hewas in his literary career, jealous, vain, irritable, pedantic, bombastical, petulant, and quarrelsome, ever on the watch for anaffront, always in the attitude of a fretful porcupine. "

Florio became connected as tutor of languages with the Earl ofSouthampton some time before the end of April 1591, when he issued his_Second Fruites_ and dedicated it to his recent patron, Nicholas Saunderof Ewell. In this publication there is a passage which not only exhibitsthe man's unblushing effrontery, but also gives us a passing glimpse ofhis early relations with his noble patron, the spirit of whichShakespeare reflects in Falstaff's impudent familiarity with Prince Hal. This passage serves also to show that at the time it was written, thelast of April 1591, Florio had entered the pay and patronage of the Earlof Southampton. He introduces two characters as follows, and, with trueFalstaffian assurance, gives them his own and the Earl of Southampton'sChristian names, Henry and John. Falstaff invariably addresses thePrince as Hal. 

 HENRY. Let us make a match at tennis. 

 JOHN. Agreed, this fine morning calls for it. 

 HENRY. And after, we will go to dinner, and after dinner we will see a play. 

 JOHN. The plaies they play in England are neither right comedies nor right tragedies. 

 HENRY. But they do nothing but play every day. 

 JOHN. Yea: but they are neither right comedies nor right tragedies. 

 HENRY. How would you name them then?

 JOHN. Representations of history, without any decorum. 

It shall later be shown that Chapman also noticed Florio's presumptionin this instance, and that he recognised the fact, or else assumed as afact, that Florio's stricture on English historical drama was directedagainst Shakespeare. 

We may judge from the conversation between Henry and John thatSouthampton, in attaining a colloquial knowledge of French and Italian, entered into intimate relations with Florio, and from the interest thathe displayed in dramatic affairs in later years, that during his firstyear in London he would be likely frequently to witness the performanceof plays in the public theatres. It is probable, then, that he wouldhave seen performances by both Pembroke's and Strange's companies inthis year. 

It is evident that an acquaintance between the Earl of Southampton andShakespeare was not formed previous to Southampton's coming to Court inNovember 1590. A first acquaintance undoubtedly had its inceptionbetween that date and Southampton's departure for France early in 1592. I shall now develop evidence for my belief that their first acquaintancewas made upon the occasion of the Queen's progress to Cowdray andTichfield House in August and September 1591. 

I find no record in the State Papers concerning Southampton between thedate of his departure from home for the Court in October 1590, and 2ndMarch 1592 (new style), when he wrote from Dieppe to the Earl of Essex. We may, however, infer that he was still in England on 15th August 1591, the date of the arrival of the Queen and Court at Cowdray House. _It isevident also that the progress would not have proceeded a week later tohis own county seat, Tichfield House, unless he was present. _ We haveevidence in the State Papers that the itineraries of the Queen'sprogresses were usually planned by Burghley; the present progress toCowdray and Tichfield was undoubtedly arranged _in furtherance of hismatrimonial plans for his granddaughter and Southampton_. The records ofthis progress give us details concerning the entertainments for theQueen, which were given at some of the other noblemen's houses shevisited; the verses, masques, and plays being still preserved in a fewinstances, even where she tarried for only a few days. The Courtremained at Cowdray House for a full week. No verses nor plays recitedor performed upon this occasion, nor upon the occasion of her visit, aweek later, to the Earl of Southampton's house at Tichfield, have beenpreserved in the records. It is very probable, however, in the light ofthe facts to follow, _that our poet and his fellow-players attended theEarl of Southampton, both at Cowdray House and at Tichfield, during thisprogress_. In the description of the Queen's entertainment during herstay at Cowdray, I find a most suggestive resemblance to much of theaction and plot of _Love's Labours Lost_. The Queen and Court arrived atCowdray House at eight o'clock on Saturday evening, 15th August. Thatnight, the records tell us, "her Majesty took her rest and so in likemanner the next, which was Sunday, being most royally feasted, theproportion of breakfast being 3 oxen and 140 geese. " "The next day, " weare informed, "she rode in the park where a delicate bower" was preparedand "a nymph with a sweet song delivered her a crossbow to shoot at thedeer of which she killed three or four and the Countess of Kildare one. "In _Love's Labour's Lost_ the Princess and her ladies shoot at deer froma coppice. 

 PRINCESS. Then, forester, my friend, where is the bush That we must stand and play the murderer in?

 FOR. Hereby, upon the edge of yonder coppice; A stand where you may make the fairest shoot. 

In Act IV. Scene ii. , Holofernes makes an "extemporal epitaph on thedeath of the deer, " which is reminiscent of the "sweet song" deliveredto the Queen by "the nymph. "

 HOL. Sir Nathaniel, will you hear an extemporal epitaph on the death of the deer? And, to humour the ignorant, call I the deer the princess killed a pricket. 

 * * * * *

 I will something affect the letter, for it argues facility. 

 The preyful princess pierced and prick'd a pretty pleasing pricket; Some say a sore, but not a sore, till now made sore with shooting. The dogs did yell; put L to sore, then sorel jumps from thicket; Or pricket sore, or else sorel; the people fall a-hooting. If sore be sore, then L to sore makes fifty sores one sorel. Of one sore I an hundred make by adding but one more L. 

_In a former publication I have shown that an antagonism had developedbetween Shakespeare and Chapman as early as the year 1594, and in a morerecent one have shown Matthew Roydon's complicacy with Chapman in hishostility to Shakespeare, and also Shakespeare's cognizance of it. _ Ihave displayed Shakespeare's answers to the attacks of these scholars inhis caricature of Chapman as Holofernes, and of the curate Roydon as thecurate Nathaniel. Chapman's attack upon Shakespeare in 1593 in the early_Histriomastix_ and his reflection of the Earl of Southampton asMavortius give evidence that his hostility owed its birth toShakespeare's success in winning the patronage and friendship ofSouthampton; unless Chapman and Roydon had already solicited thisnobleman's patronage, or had at least come into contact with him in somemanner, and considered themselves displaced by Shakespeare, both thevirulence of their opposition to our poet, and the manner and matter ofChapman's slurs against him in _Histriomastix_, and in the dedicationsof his poems to Matthew Roydon in 1594-95, are unaccountable. 

It is likely that Matthew Roydon was one of the theological poets--whowrote anonymously for the stage--mentioned by Robert Greene in theintroduction to _The Farewell to Folly_, which was published in 1591. It is probable also that Roydon is referred to as a writer for the stagein Greene's _Groatsworth of Wit_, where, after indicating Marlowe, Peele, and Nashe, he says:

 "In this I might insert two more who have both writ against (for) these buckram gentlemen. "

Now seeing that both Roydon and Chapman are satirised by Shakespeare in_Love's Labours Lost_, it occurs to me that the "preyful Princess"verses quoted above (which display parody in every line) are intended byShakespeare to caricature the known work of the author of the sweet songdelivered to the Queen by the nymph, and consequently that this song wasfrom the pen of one of this learned couple. As I have already noticed, in the records of the Queen's stay at the other noblemen's houses thatshe visited on this progress, many verses and songs appear which werewritten specially for these occasions, while no songs, nor verses, havebeen preserved from the Cowdray or Tichfield festivities, occasions whenthey would be likely to have been used, considering Southampton'sinterest in literary matters and the court paid to him by the writers ofthe day. Among the poems which I have collected that I attribute toRoydon, I have elsewhere noticed one that Shakespeare makes fun of at alater time in _Midsummer Night's Dream_--that is, _The Shepherd'sSlumber_. This poem deals with the exact season of the year when theQueen was at Cowdray--"peascod time"--and also with the killing of deer, "when hound to horn gives ear till buck be killed";

and in one verse describes just such methods of killing deer as issuggested, both in _Love's Labours Lost_ and in _Nichol's Progresses_, which latter records the entertainment for the Queen at Cowdray House. 

 "And like the deer, I make them fall! That runneth o'er the lawn. One drops down here! another there! In bushes as they groan; I bend a scornful, careless ear, To hear them make their moan. "

May not this be the identical "sweet song" delivered by the nymph to theQueen, and the occasion of the progress to Cowdray, in 1591, indicatethe entry of Roydon and Chapman into the rivalry between Shakespeare andthe scholars inaugurated two years earlier by Greene and Nashe?

This poem which I attribute to Roydon has all the manner of anoccasional production and is about as senseless as most of his other"absolute comicke inventions. " The masque-like allegory it exhibits, introducing "Delight, " "Wit, " "Good Sport, " "Honest Meaning" as persons, was much affected by the Queen and Court in their entertainments. At themarriage of Lord Herbert, son of the Earl of Worcester, in 1599, amasque was given for the Queen in which we are told eight ladies of theCourt performed. One of these ladies "wooed her to dawnce, her Majestyasked what she was, affection she said, affection, said the Queen, affection is false, yet her Majesty rose and dawnced. " During the stayat Cowdray similar make-believe and allegory were evidently used in theentertainments given for the Queen. Roydon's poem may, like _Love'sLabours Lost_, be a reflection of such courtly nonsense. 

During the first three days of the Queen's stay at Cowdray she wasfeasted and entertained (the records inform us) by Lady Montague, but onthe fourth day "she dined at the Priory, " where Lord Montague keptbachelor's hall, and whither he had retired to receive and entertainthe Queen without the assistance of Lady Montague. This reception andentertainment of the Queen by Lord Montague was, no doubt, accompaniedby fantastic allegory--Lord Montague and his friends playing the partsof hermits, or philosophers in retreat, as in the case of the King ofNavarre and his friends in _Love's Labour's Lost_. The paucity of plotin this play has been frequently noticed, and no known basis for itsgeneral action and plot has ever been discovered or proposed. 

At this time (1591) Shakespeare had been in London only from four tofive years, and, judging from the prominence in his profession which heshortly afterwards attained, we may be assured that these were years ofpatient drudgery in his calling. Neither in his Stratford years, norduring these inceptive theatrical years, would he be likely to have hadmuch, if any, previous experience with the social life of the nobility;yet here, in what is recognised by practically all critical students ashis earliest comedy, the original composition of which is dated by thebest text critics in, or about, 1591, he displays an intimateacquaintance with their sports and customs which in spirit and detailmost significantly coincide with the actual records of the Queen'sprogress, late in 1591, to Cowdray House, the home of the mother of thenobleman whose fortunes, from this time forward for a period of from tento fifteen years, may be shown to have influenced practically every poemand play he produced. 

As the incidents of the Queen's stay at Cowdray are reflected in theplot and action of _Loves Labour's Lost_, so, in _All's Well that EndsWell_, or, at least, in those portions of that play recognised by thebest critics as the remains of the older play of _Love's Labour's Won_, the incidents and atmosphere of the Queen's stay at Tichfield House arealso suggested. The gentle and dignified Countess of Rousillon suggeststhe widowed Countess of Southampton; the wise and courtly Lafeu gives usa sketch of Sir Thomas Heneage, the Vice-Chamberlain of the Court, whomarried Lady Southampton about three years later. Bertram'sinsensibility to Helena's love, and indifference to her charms, as wellas his departure for the French Court, coincide with the actual facts inthe case of Southampton, who at this time was apathetic to the matchplanned by his friends, and who also left home for France shortly afterthe Queen's visit to Cowdray. Parolles is, I am convinced, a caricaturefrom life, and in his original characterisation in _Love's Labour's Won_was probably a replica of the original Armado of the earliest form of_Love's Labours Lost_. Both of these characters I believe I candemonstrate to be early sketches, or caricatures, of John Florio, thesame individual who is caricatured in _Henry IV. _ and the _Merry Wivesof Windsor_ as Sir John Falstaff. The characterisation of Parolles as wehave it in _All's Well that Ends Well_ is probably much more accentuatedthan the Parolles of the earlier form of the play, in which he wouldmost likely have been presented as a fantastical fop, somewhat of theorder of Armado. By the time the earlier play of 1591-92 was rewritteninto its present form, in 1598, the original of the character ofParolles had in Shakespeare's opinion developed also into a "misleaderof youth"; in fact, into another Falstaff, minus the adipose tissue. 

As both _Loves Labour's Lost_ and _Love's Labour's Won_ (_All's Wellthat Ends Well_ in its early form) reflect persons and incidents of theCowdray-Tichfield progress, it is evident that both plays were composedafter the event. It is of interest then to consider which, if any, ofShakespeare's plays were likely to have been presented upon thatoccasion. 

As this narrative and argument develop, a date of composition later thanthe date of the Cowdray progress--when Shakespeare first formed theacquaintance of the Earl of Southampton--and based upon subjectiveevidence regarding the poet's relations with this nobleman, yetcoinciding with the chronological conclusions of the best text critics, shall be demonstrated for all of Shakespeare's early plays with theexception of _King John_ and _The Comedy of Errors_. In all the earlyplays except these two I find palpable time reflections of Shakespeare'sinterest in the Earl of Southampton or his affairs. I therefore date theoriginal composition of both of these early plays previous to theCowdray progress, in September 1591. I have already advanced my evidencefor the original composition of Shakespeare's _King John_ early in 1591. I cannot so palpably demonstrate the composition of _The Comedy ofErrors_ in this year, but, following the lead of the great majority ofthe text critics who date its composition in this year, and finding nointernal reflection of Southampton or his affairs, I infer that it waswritten after the composition of _King John_, before Shakespeare hadmade Southampton's acquaintance and intentionally for presentationbefore the Queen and Court at Cowdray or Tichfield. The fact that _TheComedy of Errors_ is the shortest of all Shakespeare's plays, thefarce-like nature of the play and its recorded presentation in 1594before the members of Gray's Inn, with which Southampton was connected, marks it as one of the plays originally composed for private rather thanfor public presentation. It is evident that it never proved sufficientlypopular upon the public boards to warrant its enlargement to the size ofthe average publicly presented play. 

While I cannot learn the actual date at which Southampton left England, we have proof in a letter written by him to the Earl of Essex, that hewas in France upon 2nd March 1592. 

When we take into consideration the fact that this visit of the Queen'sto Cowdray and Tichfield was arranged by Burghley in furtherance of hisplans to marry his granddaughter to the Earl of Southampton, and thatShakespeare's earlier sonnets (which I shall argue were written with theintention of forwarding this match) are of a period very slightly laterthan this, it is evident that the incidents of the Queen's stay atCowdray and Tichfield would become known to Shakespeare by report, eventhough he was not himself present upon those occasions. The plot of thefirst four Acts of _Love's Labour's Lost_, such as it is, bears such astrong resemblance to the recorded incidents of that visit as to suggestreminiscence much more than hearsay. 

While Burghley in this affair was, no doubt, primarily seeking asuitable alliance for his granddaughter, the rather hurried andperemptory manner of Southampton's invitation to Court may partially beaccounted for by other motives, when the conditions of the Court and itsintrigues at that immediate period are considered. 

The long struggle for political supremacy between Burghley andElizabeth's first, and most enduring favourite, Robert Dudley, Earl ofLeicester, came to an end in 1588 through the death of Leicester in thatyear. While Elizabeth's faith in Burghley's political wisdom was neverat any time seriously shaken by the counsels of her more polished andcourtly confidant, Leicester, there was a period in her long flirtationwith the latter nobleman when the great fascination, which heundoubtedly exercised over her, seemed likely to lead her into a coursewhich would completely alter, not only the political complexion of theCourt, but possibly also the actual destinies of the Crown. There wasnever at any period of their career any love lost between Burghley andLeicester; the latter, in the heyday of his favour, frequently expressedhimself in such plain terms regarding Burghley that he could have hadlittle doubt of the disastrous effect upon his own fortunes which mightensue from the consummation of Leicester's matrimonial ambitions. He, withal, wisely gauged the character and limits of Leicester's influencewith Elizabeth. While Leicester played upon the vanities and weakness ofthe woman, Burghley appealed to the strong mentality and love of powerof the queen; yet though he unceasingly opposed Leicester's projects andambitions, wherein they threatened his own political supremacy, or thegood of the State, he seems to have recognised the impossibility ofundermining the Queen's personal regard for her great favourite, whichcontinued through all the years of his selfish, blundering, and criminalcareer, down to the day of his death. While Leicester also in timeappears to have realised the impossibility of seriously impairingBurghley's power, he, to the last, lost no opportunity of baffling thatminister's more cherished personal policies. In introducing his stepson, Essex, to Court life and the notice of the Queen, in 1583, it is evidentthat he had in mind designs other than the advancement of his youngkinsman. Essex, from the first, seems to have realised in whose shoes hetrod, and for the first ten years of his life at Court fully maintainedthe Leicester tradition, and seemed likely in time even to refine uponand enhance it. Had this young nobleman possessed ordinary equipoise oftemper it is questionable if Burghley would later have succeeded insecuring the succession of his own place and power to his son, SirRobert Cecil. Preposterous as it may seem, when judged from a modernpoint of view, that the personal influence of this youth of twenty-threewith the now aged Queen should in any serious measure have menaced thefirm power and cautious policies of the experienced Burghley, we haveabundance of evidence that he and his son regarded Essex's growingascendancy as no light matter. From their long experience and intimateassociation with Elizabeth, and knowing her vanities and weaknesses, aswell as her strength, they apprehended in her increasing favour forEssex the beginning and rooting of a power which might in timedisintegrate their own solid foundations. The subtlety, dissimulation, and unrelenting persistency with which Burghley and his son opposedthemselves to Essex's growing influence while yet posing as hisconfidants and well-wishers, fully bespeak the measure of their fears. While Burghley himself lacked the polished manners and graceful presenceof the courtier, which so distinguished Raleigh, Leicester, and Essex, and owed his influence and power entirely to qualities of the mind andhis indefatigable application to business, he had come to recognise theimportance of these more ornamental endowments in securing and holdingthe regard of Elizabeth. His son, Sir Robert Cecil, who was not onlypuny and deformed, but also somewhat sickly all his days, made, andcould make, no pretensions to courtier-like graces, and must depend forCourt favour, to a yet greater degree than his father, upon his ownpowers of mind and will. To combat Essex's social influence at Court, these two more clerkly politicians, soon after Essex's appearance, proceeded to supplement their own power by making an ally of theaccomplished Raleigh; to whom, previous to this, they had shown littlefavour. They soon succeeded in fomenting a rivalry between these twocourtiers which, with some short periods of truce, continued until theircombined machinations finally brought Essex to the block. How Sir RobertCecil, having used Raleigh as a tool against Essex, in turn effected hispolitical ruin shall be shown in due course. 

We shall now return to Southampton and to the period of his coming toLondon and the Court, towards the end of October, in the year 1590. Arecent biographer of Shakespeare, writing of Southampton, sums up theincidents of this period in the following generalisation: "It wasnaturally to the Court that his friends sent him at an early age todisplay his varied graces. He can hardly have been more than seventeenwhen he was presented to his Sovereign. She showed him kindly notice, and the Earl of Essex, her brilliant favourite, acknowledged hisfascination. Thenceforth Essex displayed in his welfare a brotherlyinterest which proved in course of time a very doubtful blessing. " Thisnot only hurries the narrative but also misconstrues the facts andignores the most interesting phases of the friendship between thesenoblemen, as they influenced Southampton's subsequent connection withShakespeare. Essex may have acknowledged Southampton's fascination atthis date, though I find no evidence that he did do so, but for theassertion that he "_thenceforth_" displayed in his welfare a brotherlyinterest there is absolutely no basis. All reasonable inference, andsome actual evidence, lead me to quite divergent conclusions regardingthe relations that subsisted between these young noblemen at this earlydate. Southampton's interests, it is true, became closely interwovenwith those of Essex at a somewhat later period when he had becomeenamoured of Essex's cousin, Elizabeth Vernon, whom he eventuallymarried. The inception of this latter affair cannot, however, at theearliest, be dated _previous to the late spring of 1594_. At whateverdate Southampton and Essex became intimate friends, there can be nodoubt _that such a conjunction was contrary to Burghley's intentions inbringing Southampton to the Court in October 1590_. In making use ofRaleigh to counteract Essex's influence with the Queen, the Cecils werewell aware, as their subsequent treatment of Raleigh proves, that theymight in him augment a power which, if opposed to their own, would proveeven more dangerous than that of Essex; yet feeling the need of a friendand ally in the more intimately social life of the Court, whoseinterests would be identical with their own, they chose what appeared tothem an auspicious moment to introduce their graceful and accomplishedprotégé and prospective kinsman, to the notice of the Queen, whosepredilection for handsome young courtiers seemed to increase withadvancing age. 

Essex, although then but in his twenty-sixth year, had spent nearly sixyears at Court. During this period he had been so spoiled and petted byhis doting Sovereign that he had already upon several occasionstemporarily turned her favour to resentment by his arrogance andill-humour. In his palmiest days even Leicester had never dared to takethe liberties with the Queen now, at times, indulged in by thisbrilliant but wilful youth. In exciting Essex's hot and hasty temper thewatchful Cecils soon found their most effectual means of defence. Earlyin the summer of 1590, Essex, piqued by the Queen's refusal of a favour, committed what was, up till that time, his most wilful breach of Courtdecorum and flagrant instance of opposition to the Queen's wishes. Uponthe 6th of April in that year the office of Secretary of State becamevacant by the death of Sir Francis Walsingham. Shortly afterward, Essexendeavoured to secure the office for William Davison, who, previous to1587, had acted in the capacity of assistant to Walsingham and wastherefore presumably well qualified for the vacant post. Upon theexecution of Mary, Queen of Scots, in 1587, Elizabeth, in disavowing herresponsibility for the act, had made a scapegoat of Davison, who, sheclaimed, had secured her signature to the death-warrant bymisrepresentation, and had proceeded with its immediate executioncontrary to her commands. Though she deceived no one but herself by thischaracteristic duplicity, she never retreated from the stand she hadtaken, but, feeling conscious that she was doubted, to enforce belief inher sincerity, maintained her resentment against Davison to the last. Upon Elizabeth's refusal of the Secretaryship to his luckless protégé, Essex, in dudgeon, absented himself from the Court, and within a fewweeks chose a yet more effectual means of exasperating the Queen byprivately espousing Sir Francis Walsingham's daughter, Lady Sidney, widow of the renowned Sir Philip. When knowledge of this latest actionreached the Queen her anger was kindled to a degree that (to the Courtgossips) seemed to preclude Essex's forgiveness, or the possibility ofhis reinstatement in favour. With the intention of increasing Essex'sill-humour and still further estranging him from the Queen, Burghley nowproposed that all his letters and papers be seized. _He also chose thisperiod of estrangement to introduce his prospective grandson-in-law, Southampton, to the Court. _ The very eagerness of Essex's enemies, however, appears to have cooled the Queen's anger, as we find thatwithin a month of Southampton's arrival at the Court--that is, on 26thNovember--Essex is reported as "once more in good favour with theQueen. "

In the light of the foregoing facts and deductions, it does not seemlikely that Burghley would encourage a friendship between Essex andSouthampton. The assumption that he would (at least tacitly) seek ratherto provoke a rivalry is under the circumstances more reasonable. ThoughI find no record in the State Papers of this immediate date thathostility was aroused between these young courtiers, in a paper of alater date, which refers to this time, I find fair proof that such acondition of affairs did at this period actually exist. In thedeclaration of the treason of the Earl of Essex, 1600-1, in the StatePapers we have the following passage: "There was present this day at theCouncil, the Earl of Southampton, with whom in former times he (Essex)_had been at some emulations and differences at Court_, but after, Southampton, having married his kinswoman (Elizabeth Vernon), plungedhimself wholly into his fortunes, " etc. 

Though the matrimonial engagement between Burghley's granddaughter andSouthampton never reached its consummation, and we have evidence inRoger Manners' letter of 6th March 1592 that some doubt in regard to itsfulfilment had even then arisen in Court circles, we have good groundsfor assuming that all hope for the union was not abandoned by Burghleytill a later date. Lady Elizabeth Vere eventually married the Earl ofDerby in January 1595. This marriage was arranged for in the summer ofthe preceding year, and after the Earl of Derby had come into his titlesand estates, through the death of his elder brother, in April 1594. 

Referring again to the State Papers, we have on 15th August 1594 thestatement of a Jesuit, named Edmund Yorke, who is reported as saying"Burghley poisoned the Earl of Derby so as to marry his granddaughter tohis brother. " Fernando Stanley, Earl of Derby, died under suspiciouscircumstances after a short illness, and it was reported at the timethat he was poisoned. As he had recently been instrumental in bringingabout the execution of a prominent Jesuit, whom he had accused of havingapproached him with seditious proposals, it was believed at the timethat an emissary of that society was concerned in his death. Whiledisregarding Yorke's atrocious imputation against Burghley, we maysafely date the inception of the negotiations leading to ElizabethVere's marriage somewhere after 16th April, the date of the precedingEarl's death; Burghley did not choose younger sons in marriage for hisdaughters or granddaughters. Thus we are fully assured that, at howeverearlier a date the prospects for a marriage between Southampton and LadyVere were abandoned, they had ceased to be entertained by the earlysummer of 1594. Shortly after this, Southampton's infatuation forElizabeth Vernon had its inception. The intensity of the youngnobleman's early interest in this latter affair quite precludes thenecessity for Shakespeare's poetical incitements thereto; we maytherefore refer the group of sonnets, in which Shakespeare urges hisfriend's marriage, to the more diffident affair of the earlier years andto a period antedating the publication of _Venus and Adonis_ in May1593. A comparison of the argument of _Venus and Adonis_ with that ofthe first book of Sonnets will indicate a common date of production, andthat Shakespeare wrote both poems with the same purpose in view. 

CHAPTER VIII

JOHN FLORIO AS SIR JOHN FALSTAFF'S ORIGINAL

Probably the most remarkable and interesting ęsthetic study of a singleShakespearean character ever produced is Maurice Morgann's _Essay on theDramatic Character of Sir John Falstaff_, which was written in 1774, andfirst published in 1777. This excellent piece of criticism deserves amuch wider cognizance than it has ever attained; only three editionshave since been issued. 

Morgann's _Essay_ was originally undertaken in jest, in order todisprove the assertion made by an acquaintance that Falstaff was acoward; but, inspired by his subject, it was continued and finished insplendid earnest. As his analysis of the character of Falstaff becomesmore intimate his wonder grows at the concrete human personality heapprehends. Falstaff ceases to be a fictive creation, or the meredramatic representation of a type, and takes on a distinctiveindividuality. He writes:

 "The reader will not now be surprised if I affirm that those characters in Shakespeare, which are seen only in part, are yet capable of being unfolded and understood in the whole; every part being in fact relative, and inferring all the rest. It is true that the point of action or sentiment, which we are most concerned in, is always held out for our special notice. But who does not perceive that there is a peculiarity about it, which conveys a relish of the whole? And very frequently, when no particular point presses, he boldly makes a character act and speak from those parts of the composition, which are inferred only, and not distinctly shewn. This produces a wonderful effect; it seems to carry us beyond the poet to nature itself, and give an integrity and truth to facts and character, which they would not otherwise obtain. And this is in reality that art in Shakespeare, which being withdrawn from our notice, we more emphatically call nature. A felt propriety and truth from causes unseen, I take to be the highest point of Poetic composition. If the characters of Shakespeare are thus whole, and as it were original, while those of almost all other writers are mere imitation, it may be fit to consider them rather as Historic than Dramatic beings; and, when occasion requires, to account for their conduct from the whole of character, from general principles, from latent motives, and from policies not avowed. "

Morgann was closer to the secret of Shakespeare's art than he realised;he had really penetrated to the truth without knowing it. The reasonthat his fine analytical sense had led him to feel that "it may be fitto consider them rather as Historic than Dramatic beings" is the factthat in practically every instance where a very distinctiveShakespearean character, such as Falconbridge, Falstaff, Armado, Malvolio, and Fluellen, acts and speaks "from those parts of thecomposition, which are inferred only, and not distinctly shewn, " thecharacters so apprehended may be shown by the light of contemporarysocial, literary, or political records to have been, in some measure, areflection of a living model. Shakespeare had literally, in his ownphrase, held "the mirror up to nature"; the reflection, however, beingheightened and vivified by the infusion of his own rare sensibility, andthe power of his dramatic genius. 

With all his genius Shakespeare was yet mortal, and human creativenesscannot transcend nature. What we call creativeness, even in the greatestartists, is but a fineness of sensibility and cognition, or ratherrecognition, coupled with the power to express what they see and feel innature. 

As a large number of Shakespeare's plays were written primarily forprivate or Court presentation, to edify or amuse his patron and hispatron's friends, or with their immediate political or factionalinterests in mind to influence the Court in their favour, the shadowedpurposes of such plays, the acting or speaking of a character "fromthose parts of the composition, which are inferred only, and notdistinctly shewn, " as well as a number of hitherto supposedlyinexplicable asides and allusions, such as Bottom's "reason and lovekeep little company together nowadays; the more the pity, that somehonest neighbours will not make them friends, " would give to thoseacquaintances who were in Shakespeare's confidence an added zest andinterest in such plays quite lacking to the uninitiated, or to a modernaudience. 

I propose in this chapter to demonstrate the facts that John Florio--thetranslator of _Montaigne's Essays_ and tutor of languages toShakespeare's patron, the Earl of Southampton--was Shakespeare'soriginal for Sir John Falstaff and other of his characters; that theEarl of Southampton and Lady Southampton were cognizant of the shadowedidentity, and that Florio himself recognised and angrily resented thecharacterisation when a knowledge of its personal application had spreadamong their mutual acquaintances. 

In preceding chapters and in former books[29] I have advanced evidenceof a cumulative nature for Southampton's identity as the patronaddressed in the Sonnets; the identity of Chapman as the "rival poet, "and Shakespeare's caricature of him as Holofernes; the identity ofMatthew Roydon as the author of _Willobie his Avisa_, as well asShakespeare's caricature of him as the curate Nathaniel; and theidentity of Mistress Davenant as the "dark lady" of the Sonnets. If, then, we find in the same plays in which these personal reflections areshown a certain distinctly marked type of character, bearing stronger_prima facie_ evidence than the others of having been developed from aliving original, may we not reasonably infer that the individual sorepresented might also have been linked in life in some mannerapproximating to his relations in the play, with the lives and interestsof the other persons shadowed forth?

With this idea in mind I have searched all available records relating toSouthampton, in the hope of finding among his intimates an individualwhose personality may have suggested Shakespeare's characterisation, orcaricature, set forth in the successive persons of Armado, Parolles, andSir John Falstaff. The traceable incidents of John Florio's life, hislong and intimate association with Shakespeare's patron, and reasonableinferences for the periods where actual record of him is wanting, gaveprobability, in my judgment, to his identity as Shakespeare's originalfor these and other characters. A further consideration of the man'spersonality, temperament, and mental habitude, as I could dimly tracethem in his few literary remains that afford scope for unconsciousself-revelation, left no doubt in my mind as to his identity asShakespeare's model. 

Supposing it to be impossible, with our present records, to visualiseShakespeare more definitely in his contemporary environment, it has beencommon with biographers, in their endeavours to link him with the men ofhis times, to draw imaginative pictures of his intimate and friendlypersonal relations with such men as Sir Walter Raleigh, Bacon, Chapman, Marston, and others, equally improbable, forgetting the socialdistinctions, the scholastic prejudices, and still more, the religiousor political animosities that divided men in public life in those days, as they do, though in a lesser degree, to-day. The intimate relations ofthe Earl of Southampton with Lord Burghley, during the earliest periodof his Court life, when he was affianced to Burghley's granddaughter, and his later intimacy with the Earl of Essex and with the gentlemen ofthe Essex faction, coupled with Shakespeare's sympathy with the cause ofhis patron and his patron's friends, must be borne in mind in anyendeavour that is made to trace in the plays either Shakespeare'spolitical leanings or his probable affiliations with, or antagonisms to, his early contemporaries. The natural jealousies that would arisebetween the followers, dependants, or protégés of a liberal patron mustalso be considered. 

John Florio became connected, in the capacity of Italian tutor, with theEarl of Southampton late in the year 1590, or early in 1591, shortlyafter his coming to Court, and a little before Southampton first beganto show favour to Shakespeare. We have Florio's own statement for thefact that he continued in Southampton's "pay and patronage" at least aslate as 1598, in which year he published his _Worlde of Wordes_. Whetheror not he continued in Southampton's service after this date isuncertain, but we may safely impute to that nobleman's good offices thefavour shown to him by James I. And his Queen in 1604, and later. 

From the first time that Shakespeare and Florio were thrown together, through their mutual connection with Southampton, in or about 1591, downto the year 1609, when the Sonnets were issued at the instigation ofShakespeare's literary rivals, I find intermittent traces of antagonismbetween them, and also of Florio's intimacy and sympathy with Chapmanand his friends. In later years, Chapman, Jonson, and Marston, however, seem to have recognised in Florio an unstable ally, and tacitly to haveregarded him as a selfish and shifty opportunist. Florio appears to haveused his intimacy with Southampton, and his knowledge of that nobleman'srelations with Shakespeare and the "dark lady" in 1593 to 1594, to thepoet's disadvantage, by imparting intelligence of the affair to Chapmanand Roydon, the latter of whom exploited this knowledge in theproduction of _Willobie his Avisa_. 

In Chapman's dedication to Roydon of _The Shadow of Night_ in 1594, heshows knowledge of the fact that Shakespeare was practically reader tothe Earl of Southampton, and that he passed his judgment upon literarymatter submitted to that nobleman. Referring to Shakespeare, Chapmanwrites: "How then may a man stay his marvailing to see passion-drivenmen, reading but to curtail a tedious hour, and altogether hideboundwith affection to great men's fancies, take upon them as killingcensures as if they were judgment's butchers, or as if the life of truthlay tottering in their verdicts. " This reference to Shakespeare as"passion-driven" refers to the affair of the "dark lady, " upon whichChapman's friend, Roydon, was then at work in _Willobie his Avisa_. Florio, in later years, as shall appear, also makes a very distinctpoint at Shakespeare as a "reader. " Unless there was an enemy inShakespeare's camp to report to Chapman and Roydon the fact of his"reading" to curtail tedious hours for his patron, and to conveyintelligence to Roydon of Shakespeare's and Southampton's relations withthe "dark lady, " either by reporting the affair or by bringingShakespeare's earlier MS. _books_ of sonnets to his notice, it isimprobable that these men would have had such intimate knowledge of theincidents and conditions of this stage of Shakespeare's friendship withhis patron. Florio probably fostered the hostility of these scholars toShakespeare by imputing to his influence their ill-success in winningSouthampton's favour. It is not improbable that for his own protectionhe secretly used his influence with Southampton in defeating theiradvances while posing as their friend and champion. Shakespearedistrusted Florio from the beginning of his acquaintance, and deprecatedhis influence upon his patron. 

In the earlier stages of Shakespeare's observation of Florio he appearsto have been more amused than angered, but as the years pass his dislikegrows, as he sees more clearly into the cold selfishness of a character, obscured to his earlier and more casual view by the interestingpersonality and frank and humorous worldly wisdom of the man. Howeverheightened and amplified by Shakespeare's imagination thecharacterisation of Falstaff may now appear, a consideration of theactual character of Florio, as we find it revealed between the lines ofhis own literary productions, and in the few contemporary records of himthat have survived, suggests on Shakespeare's part portrayal rather thancaricature. 

Assuming for the present that Shakespeare has characterised, orcaricatured, Florio as Parolles, Armado, and Falstaff, the first andsecond of these characters are represented in plays originally producedin, or about, 1592, but reflecting the spirit and incidents of theCowdray and Tichfield progress of the autumn of 1591. While these playswere altered at a later period, or periods, of revision, it is apparentthat both characters pertain in a large measure to the plays in theirearlier forms. If Shakespeare used Florio as his model for thesecharacters, we have added evidence that by the autumn of 1591 Florio hadalready entered the "pay and patronage" of Southampton, who about thisperiod, under his tuition and in anticipation of continental travel, developed his knowledge of Italian and French. In his dedication of the_Worlde of Wordes_ to Southampton in 1598, Florio writes:

 "In truth I acknowledge an entire debt, not only of my best knowledge, but of all, yea of more than I know or can, to your bounteous Lordship, most noble, most virtuous, and most Honourable Earl of Southampton, in whose pay and patronage I have lived some years, to whom I owe and vow the years I have to live. "

Further on in this dedication he refers to Southampton's study ofItalian under his tuition as follows:

 "I might make doubt least I or mine be not now of any further use to your self-sufficiencie, being at home so instructed in Italian as teaching or learning could supply that there seemed no need of travell, and now by travell so accomplished as what wants to perfection?"

_All's Well that Ends Well_, in its earlier form of _Loves Labour'sWon_, reflects the spirit and incidents of the Queen's progress toTichfield House in September 1591; the widowed Countess of Rousillonpersonifies the widowed Countess of Southampton; the wise and courtlyLafeu the courtly Sir Thomas Heneage, who within three years married theCountess of Southampton. I have suggested that Bertram representedSouthampton, and that his coolness towards Helena, and his proposeddeparture for the French Court, reflects Southampton's disinclination tothe marriage with Elizabeth Vere, and the fact of his departure shortlyafterwards for France. In Florio, who was at that time attached to theEarl of Southampton's establishment, and presumably was present upon theoccasion of the progress to Tichfield, we have the prototype ofParolles, though much of the present characterisation of that person, while referring to the same original, undoubtedly pertains to a periodof later time revision, which on good evidence I date in, or about, theautumn of 1598, at which period Shakespeare's earlier antipathy hadgrown by knowledge and experience into positive aversion. 

In 1591 Southampton was still a ward in Chancery, and the management ofhis personal affairs and expenditures under the supervision of LordBurghley, to whose granddaughter he was affianced. It is evident thenthat when Florio was retained in the capacity of tutor, or bear-leader, and with the intention of having him accompany the young Earl upon hiscontinental travels, his selection for the post would be made byBurghley--Southampton's guardian--who in former years had patronised andbefriended Florio's father. 

In Lafeu's early distrust of Parolles' pretensions, and his eventualrecognition of his cowardice and instability, I believe we have areflection of the attitude of Sir Thomas Heneage towards Florio, and asuggestion of his disapproval of Florio's intimacy with Southampton. This leads me to infer that though Lady Southampton and Heneageapparently acquiesced in, and approved of, Burghley's marital plans forSouthampton, secretly they were not displeased at their miscarriage. 

When Southampton first came to Court he was a fresh and unspoiled youth, with high ideals and utterly unacquainted with the ethical latitude andmoral laxity of city and Court life. In bringing him to Court and thenotice of the Queen, and at the same time endeavouring to unite hisinterests with his own by marriage with his granddaughter, Burghleyhoped that--as in the case of his son-in-law, the Earl of Oxford, someyears before--Southampton would become a Court favourite, and possiblysupplant Essex in the Queen's favour, as the Earl of Oxford had for awhile threatened to displace Leicester. The ingenuous frankness andindependence of the young Earl, however, appeared likely to defeat theplans of the veteran politician. Burghley now resolved that he mustbroaden his protégé's knowledge of the world and adjust his ideals toCourt life. He accordingly engaged the sophisticated and world-bittenFlorio as his intellectual and moral mentor. I do not find any record ofSouthampton's departure for France immediately after the Cowdrayprogress, but it is apparent either that he accompanied the Earl ofEssex upon that nobleman's return to his command in France after a shortvisit to England in October 1591, or that he followed shortlyafterwards. Essex was recalled from France in January 1592 (new style), and on 2nd March of the same year we have a letter dated at Dieppe fromSouthampton to Essex in England, which shows that Southampton was withthe army in France within a few months of the Cowdray progress. 

Conceiving both Parolles and Falstaff to be caricatures of Florio Iapprehend in the military functions of these characters a reflection ofa probable quasi-military experience of their original during hisconnection with Southampton in the year 1592. 

An English force held Dieppe for Henry IV. In March 1592, awaitingreinforcements from England to move against the army of the League, which was encamped near the town. If Southampton took Florio with him atthis time it is quite likely that he had him appointed to a captaincy, though probably not to a command. Captain Roger Williams, a brave andcapable Welsh officer (whom I have reason to believe was Shakespeare'soriginal for the Welsh Captain Fluellen in _Henry V_. ), joined the armyat the end of this month, bringing with him six hundred men. In a letterto the Council, upon his departure from England, he writes sarcasticallyof the number and inefficiency of the captains being made. This letteris so characteristic of the man, and so reminiscent of blunt Fluellen, that I shall quote it in full. 

 "Moste Honorables, yesterdaie it was your Lordship's pleasure to shewe the roll of captaines by their names. More then half of them are knowen unto me sufficient to take charges; a greate number of others, besides the rest in that roll, although not knowen unto me, maie be as sufficient as the others, perhapps knowen unto menn of farr better judgment than myselfe. To saie truthe, no man ought to meddle further than his owne charge. Touching the three captaines that your Lordships appointed to go with me, I knowe Polate and Coverd, but not the thirde. There is one Captaine Polate, a Hampshire man, an honest gentleman, worthie of good charge. There is another not worthie to be a sergeant of a band, as Sir John Norris knows, with many others; and I do heare by my Lord of Sussex it is he. Captain Coverd is worthie, but not comparable unto a dozen others that have no charge; but whatsoever your Lordships direct unto me, I muste accept, and will do my best endeavour to discharge my dutie towards the service comitted unto me. But be assured that the more new captaines that are made, the more will begg, I meane will trouble her Majestie after the warrs, unless the olde be provided for. I must confess I wrote effectual for one Captaine Smithe unto Sir Philipp Butler; two of the name Sir John Norris will confess to be well worthie to commande, at the least, three hundred men a-piece. He that I named, my desire is that he may be one of myne. I protest, on my poore credytt, I never delt with her Majestic concerning any of those captaines, nor anything that your Lordships spake yesterday before me; but true it is, I spake before the Earle of Essex and Sir John Norris, it was pittie that young captaines should be accepted and the old refused. True it is that I toulde them also that the lieutenants of the shire knew not those captaines so well as ourselves. On my creditt, my meaning was the deputies lieutenants, the which, as it was toulde me, had made all these captaines. My speeches are no lawe, nor scarce good judgment, for the warrs were unknowen to me 22 yeres agon. Notwithstanding, it shall satisfie me, that the greatest generalls in that time took me to be a souldier, for the which I will bring better proofs than any other of my qualitie shall deny. Humbly desiring your Lordships' accustomed good favor towards me, I reste to spend my life alwaies at her Majestie's pleasure, and at your Lordships' devotion. (27th March 1591. )"

Within a short period of the arrival of Sir Roger Williams he haddispersed the enemy and opened up the road to the suburbs of Paris;which city was then held by the combined forces of the League and theSpanish. I cannot learn whether Southampton accompanied the troops inthe proposed attack on Paris or continued his travels into theNetherlands and Spain. Some verses in _Willobie his Avisa_ suggest sucha tour at this time. He was back in England, however, by September 1592, when he accompanied the Queen and Court to Oxford. It is probable thatFlorio accompanied the Earl of Southampton upon this occasion, and thatthe nobleman's acquaintance with the mistress of the Crosse Inn, thebeginning of which I date at this time, was due to his introduction. Florio lived for many years at Oxford and was undoubtedly familiar withits taverns and tavern keepers. [30]

In depicting Parolles as playing Pander for Bertram, and at the sametime secretly pressing his own suit, I am convinced that Shakespearecaricatured Florio's relations with Southampton and the "dark lady. " Itis not unlikely that Florio is included by Roydon in _Willobie hisAvisa_ among Avisa's numerous suitors. 

The literary history of _All's Well that Ends Well_, aside from internalconsiderations, suggests that it was not composed originally for publicperformance, nor revised with the public in mind. It appeared in printfor the first time in the Folio of 1623, and it is practically certainthat no earlier edition was issued. If we except Meres' mention of theplay, _Love's Labour's Won_, in 1598, the earliest reference we have to_All's Well that Ends Well_ is that in the Stationers' Registers dated8th November 1623, where it is recorded as a play not previously enteredto other men. There is no record of its presentation duringShakespeare's lifetime. 

Though the old play of _Love's Labour's Won_ mentioned by Meres has beenvariously identified by critics, the consensus of judgment of themajority is in favour of its identification as _All's Well that EndsWell_. In no other of Shakespeare's plays--even in instances where wehave actual record of revision--can we so plainly recognise by internalevidence both the work of his "pupil" and of his master pen. As I haveassigned the original composition of this play to the year 1592, regarding it as a reflection of the Queen's progress to Tichfield Houseand of the incidents of the Earl of Southampton's life at, andfollowing, that period, so I infer and believe I can demonstrate thatits revision reflects the same personal influences under new phases inlater years. 

In February 1598 the Earl of Southampton left England for the FrenchCourt with Sir Robert Cecil. He returned secretly in August and wasmarried privately at Essex House to Elizabeth Vernon, whose conditionhad recently caused her dismissal from the Court. Southampton returnedto France as secretly as he had come, but knowledge of his return and ofhis unauthorised marriage reaching the Queen, she issued an order forhis immediate recall, and upon his return in November committed him, andeven threatened to commit his wife (who was now a mother), to the Fleet. It is not unlikely that Florio accompanied Southampton to France uponthis visit, and that much of Shakespeare's irritation at this time arosefrom Southampton's neglect or coolness, which he supposed to be due toFlorio's increasing influence, to which Shakespeare also imputed much ofthe young Earl's ill-regulated manner of life at this period. 

In the happy ending of Helena's troubles, and in Bertram's recognitionof his moral responsibility and marital obligations, and also in thesignificant change of the title of this play from _Love's Labour's Won_to _All's Well that Ends Well_, we have Shakespeare's combined reproofand approval of Southampton's recent conduct towards Elizabeth Vernon, as well as a practical reflection of the actual facts in their case. 

At about this time, in addition to the revision of _All's Well that EndsWell_, I date the first production, though not the original composition, of _Troilus and Cressida_, and also the final revision of _Love'sLabour's Lost_. In this latter play the part taken by Armado was, Ibelieve, enlarged and revised, as in the case of Parolles in _All's Wellthat Ends Well_, to suit the incidents and characterisation toShakespeare's developed knowledge of, and experience with, Florio. Thereare several small but significant links of description between theParolles of 1598 and the enlarged Armado of the same date. Both of thesecharacters are represented as braggart soldiers and also as linguists, which evidently reflect Florio's quasi-military connection withSouthampton and his known proficiency in languages. 

In Act IV. Scene iii. Parolles is referred to as "the manifold linguistand armipotent soldier. " In _Love's Labour's Lost_, in Act I. Scene i. , in lines that palpably belong to the play in its earliest form, Armadois described as "a man of fire-new words. " He is also represented as atraveller from Spain. In Act V. Scene ii. , in lines that pertain to therevision of 1598, he is made to take the soldier's part again, in givinghim the character of Hector in _The Nine Worthies_. In this characterArmado is made to use the peculiar word "armipotent" twice. It issignificant that this word is never used by Shakespeare except inconnection with Armado and Parolles. In giving Armado the character ofHector, I am convinced that Shakespeare again indicates Florio'smilitary experience. In the lines which Armado recites in the characterof Hector, Shakespeare intentionally makes his personal point at Floriomore strongly indicative by alluding to the name Florio by the word"flower, " in the interrupted line with which Hector ends his verses. 

 ARM. Peace!---- "The armipotent Mars, of lances the almighty, Gave Hector a gift, the heir of Ilion; A man so breathed, that certain he would fight ye From morn till night, out of his pavilion. I am that flower, ----"

He reinforces his indication by Dumain's and Longaville'sinterpolations--"That mint, " "That columbine. " Florio undoubtedlyindicated this meaning to his own name in entitling his earliestpublication _First Fruites_ and a later publication _Second Fruites_. Ina sonnet addressed to him by some friend of his who signs himself"Ignoto, " his name is also referred to in this sense. In hisItalian-English dictionary, published in 1598, he does not include theword Florio. In the edition of 1611, however, he includes it, but statesthat it means, "A kind of bird. " In using the word "columbine"Shakespeare gives the double meaning of a flower and also a bird. Florioused a flower for his emblem, and had inscribed under his portrait inthe 1611 edition of his _Worlde of Wordes_:

 "Floret adhuc et adhuc florebit Florius haec specie floridus optat amans. "

The frequent references to the characters of the _Iliad_ in this act andscene of _Love's Labour's Lost_ link the period of its insertion withthe date of the original composition of _Troilus and Cressida_ in, orabout, 1598, to which time I have also assigned the revision of _Love'sLabour's Won_ into _All's Well that Ends Well_, and the development ofParolles into a misleader of youth. 

Another phase of Act V. Scene ii. Of _Love's Labour's Lost_ appears tobe a reflection of an affair in the life of the individual whomShakespeare has in mind in the delineation of the characters of Armadoand Sir John Falstaff. Costard accuses Armado regarding his relationswith Jaquenetta. 

 COST. The party is gone, fellow Hector, she is gone; she is two months on her way. 

 ARM. What meanest thou?

 COST. Faith, unless you play the honest Trojan, the poor wench is cast away: she's quick; the child brags in her belly already: 'tis yours. 

 ARM. Dost thou infamonize me among potentates?

Precisely similar conditions are shown to exist in the relations betweenFalstaff and Doll Tearsheet, in the _Second Part of Henry IV. _, in whichplay there are also allusions to the characters of the _Iliad_, whichlink its composition with the same period as _Troilus and Cressida_; andan allusion to _The Nine Worthies_ that apparently link it in time withthe final revision of _Love's Labour's Lost_ late in 1598. 

 ACT V. SCENE IV. 

 _Enter_ BEADLES _dragging in Hostess_ QUICKLY _and_ DOLL TEARSHEET. 

 HOST. No, thou arrant knave; I would to God that I might have thee hanged: thou hast drawn my shoulder out of joint. 

 FIRST BEAD. The constables have delivered her over to me: and she shall have whipping-cheer enough I warrant her: there hath been a man or two lately killed about her. 

 DOL. Nut-hook, nut-hook, you lie. Come on; I'll tell thee what, thou damned tripe-visaged rascal, and the child I now go with miscarry, thou wert better thou hadst struck thy mother, thou paper-faced villain. 

 HOST. O the Lord, that Sir John were come! he would make this a bloody day to somebody. But I pray God the fruit of her womb miscarry. 

The natural sequel to the conditions so plainly indicated in thepassages quoted from the lately revised _Love's Labour's Lost_, regarding Jaquenetta and Armado, and from the recently written _HenryIV. _ in reference to Doll Tearsheet and Falstaff, is reported in duetime in a postscript to a letter written by Elizabeth Vernon, now LadySouthampton, on 8th July 1599, to her husband, who was in Ireland withEssex. She writes from Chartley:

 "All the nues I can send you that I thinke will make you mery is that I reade in a letter from London that Sir John Falstaff is by his Mistress Dame Pintpot made father of a godly millers thum a boye thats all heade and very litel body: but this is a secret. "

Here we have record that Shakespeare's patron, and his patron's wife, knew that Falstaff had a living prototype who was numbered among theiracquaintances. That the birth of this child was not in wedlock issuggested by the concluding words of the Countess's letter "but this isa secret. "

The identification of Florio as the original caricatured as Parolles andFalstaff has never been anticipated, though some critics have noticedthe basic resemblances between these two characters of Shakespeare's. Parolles has been called by Schlegel, "the little appendix to the greatFalstaff. "

A few slight links in the names of characters have led some commentatorsto date a revision of _All's Well that Ends Well_ at about the same timeas that of the composition of _Measure for Measure_ and _Hamlet_. Whilethe links of subjective evidence I have adduced for one revision in, orabout, the autumn of 1598, and at the same period as that of thecomposition of the _Second Part of Henry IV. _, of the final revision of_Love's Labour's Lost_, and shortly after the production of _Troilus andCressida_, in 1598, are fairly conclusive, a consideration of thecharacterisation of Falstaff in the _First Part of Henry IV. _ and of theevidence usually advanced for the date of the composition of this playwill elucidate this idea. 

The _First Part of Henry IV. _ in its present form belongs to a periodshortly preceding the date of its entry in the Stationers' Registers, inFebruary 1598. I am convinced that it was published at this time withShakespeare's cognizance, and that he revised it with this intention inmind. All inference and evidence assign the composition of the _SecondPart of Henry IV. _ to some part of the year 1598. It is unlikely, however, that it was included in Meres' mention of _Henry IV. _ in his_Palladis Tamia_, which was entered on the Stationers' Registers inSeptember of that year. If the link between Doll Tearsheet's conditionand the similar affair reported in Lady Southampton's letter in July1599 be connected in intention with the same conditions reflected in thecase of Armado and Jaquenetta, its date of production is palpablyindicated, as is also the final revision of _Love's Labour's Lost_ inabout December 1598. Both of these plays were probably presented--the_Second Part of Henry IV. _ for the first time, and _Love's Labour'sLost_ for the first time in its final form--for the Christmasfestivities at Court, in 1598. While the Quarto of _Love's Labours Lost_is dated as published in 1598, there is no record of its intendedpublication in the Stationers' Registers. It must be remembered, however, that all publications issued previous to the 25th of March 1599would be dated 1598. 

A comparison of the two parts of _Henry IV. _ under the metrical test, while clearly showing _Part I. _ as an earlier composition, yetapproximates their dates so closely in time as to suggest acomparatively recent and thorough revision of the earlier portion of theplay in 1597 or 1598. It is plain, however, that Shakespeare's _HenryIV. , Part I. _, held the boards in some form for several years beforethis date. The numerous contemporary references, under the name of SirJohn Oldcastle, to the character now known as Falstaff, evidences on thepart of the public such a settled familiarity with this same character, under the old name, as to suggest frequent presentations ofShakespeare's play in the earlier form. The Oldcastle of _The FamousVictories of Henry V. _ has no connection whatever with thecharacterisation of Falstaff. 

Though the metrical evidences of so early a date are now obscured by thedrastic revision of the autumn of 1597, or spring of 1598, I am of theopinion that _Henry IV. , Part I. _, as it was originally written, belongsto a period antedating the publication of _Willobie his Avisa_ in 1594, and that it was composed late in 1593, or early in 1594. I am led tothis conclusion by the underlying thread of subjective evidence linkingthe plays of this period with the affairs of Southampton and hisconnections. It is unlikely that Shakespeare would introduce that "sweetwench" my "Young Mistress of the Tavern" into a play after thepublication of the scandal intended by Roydon in 1594, and probable thathe altered the characterisation of the hostess to the old and widowedMistress Quickly in the _Second Part of Henry IV. _ for this reason. 

Believing that _Love's Labour's Won_--i. E. _All's Well that Ends Well_in its earlier form--reflects Southampton in the person of Bertram, andFlorio as Parolles, I have suggested that the military capacity of thelatter character infers a temporary military experience of Florio's inthe year 1592. It is evident that most of the matter in this playfollowing Act IV. Scene iii. Belongs to the period of revision in 1598. In Act IV. Scene iii. We have what was apparently Parolles' finalappearance in the old play of 1592; here he has been exposed, and hispurpose in the play ended. 

 FIRST SOLDIER. You are undone, Captain, all but your scarf; that has a knot on't yet. 

 PAROLLES. Who cannot be crushed with a plot?

 FIRST SOLDIER. If you could find out a country where women were that had received so much shame, you might begin an impudent nation. Fare ye well, Sir; I am for France too; we shall speak of you there. 

 [_Exit Soldiers. _

 PAROLLES. Yet am I thankful: if my heart were great, 'Twould burst at this. Captain, I'll be no more; But I will eat and drink, and sleep as soft As captain shall: simply the thing I am Shall make me live. Who knows himself a braggart, Let him fear this, for it will come to pass That every braggart shall be found an ass. Rust sword! cool blushes! and, Parolles, live Safest in shame, being fool'd, by foolery thrive. There's place and means for every man alive. I'll after them. 

 [_Exit. _

The resolution he here forms augurs for the future a still greater moraldeterioration. He resolves to seek safety in shame; to thrive byfoolery; and, though fallen from his captaincy, to

 "eat and drink, and sleep as soft as captain shall. "

When Shakespeare resumed his plan of reflecting Florio's associationwith Southampton, in the _First Part of Henry IV. _ he recalled the stateof mind and morals in which he had left him as Parolles in _Love'sLabour's Won_, and allowing for a short lapse of time, and the effectsof the life he had resolved to live, introduces him in _Henry IV. _, Part I. Act 1. Scene ii. , as follows:

 FAL. Now, Hal, what time of day is it, lad?

 PRINCE. Thou art so fat-witted, with drinking of old sack and unbuttoning thee after supper and sleeping upon benches after noon, that thou hast forgotten to demand that truly which thou would'st truly know. What a devil hast thou to do with the time of the day? Unless hours were cups of sack, and minutes capons, and clocks the tongues of bawds, and dials the signs of leaping-houses, and the blessed sun himself a fair hot wench in flame-coloured taffeta, I see no reason why thou should'st be so superfluous to demand the time of day. 

In Parolles and Falstaff we have displayed the same lack of moralconsciousness, the same grossly sensuous materialism, and withal, thesame unquenchable optimism and colossal impudence. 

When we remember that though Shakespeare based his play upon the old_Famous Victories of Henry V. _ and took from it the name Oldcastle, thatthe actual characterisation of his Oldcastle--Falstaff--has no prototypein the original, the abrupt first entry upon the scene of thistavern-lounger and afternoon sleeper-upon-benches, as familiarlyaddressing the heir apparent as "Hal" and "lad, " supplies a goodinstance of Shakespeare's method--noticed by Maurice Morgann--of makinga character _act and speak from those parts of the composition which areinferred only and not distinctly shown_; but to the initiated, includingSouthampton and his friends, who knew the bumptious self-sufficiency ofShakespeare's living model, and who followed the developingcharacterisation from play to play, the effect of such bold dramaticstrokes must have been irresistibly diverting. 

It is difficult now to realise the avidity with which such publicationsas Florio's _First_ and _Second Fruites_ were welcomed from the pressand read by the cultured, or culture-seeking, public of his day. Italybeing then regarded as the centre of culture and fashion a colloquialknowledge of Italian was a fashionable necessity. A reference in acurrent play to an aphorism of Florio's or to a characteristic passagefrom the proverbial philosophy of which he constructs hisItalian-English conversations, which would pass unnoticed now, would bereadily recognised by a fashionable Elizabethan audience. 

When Shakespeare, through the utterances of the prince, characterisesFalstaff by suggestion upon his first appearance in the play in thefollowing lines:

 "Thou art so fat-witted, with drinking of old sack and unbuttoning thee after supper and sleeping upon benches after noon, that thou hast forgotten to demand that truly which thou would'st truly know, "

for the benefit of his initiated friends he links up and continuesFlorio's characterisation as Parolles and Falstaff, and in the remainderof the passage, "What a devil hast thou to do with the time of the day? Unless hours are cups of sack, and minutes capons, and clocks the tongues of bawds, and dials the signs of leaping-houses, and the blessed sun himself a fair hot wench in flame-coloured taffeta, "

suggests Florio's character from his own utterances in the _SecondFruites_, where one of the characters holds forth as follows:

 "As for me, I never will be able, nor am I able, to be willing but to love whatsoever pleaseth women, to whom I dedicate, yield, and consecrate what mortal thing soever I possess, and I say, that a salad, a woman and a capon, as yet was never out of season. "

A consideration of certain of the divergences between the _dramatispersonę_ of the _First Part of Henry IV. _ and the _Second Part of HenryIV. _, made in the light of the thread of subjective evidence in theplays of the Sonnet period, may give us some new clues in determiningthe relative periods of their original composition. 

In the _First Part of Henry IV. _ the hostess of the tavern is referredto as a young and beautiful woman in Act I. Scene ii. , as follows:

 FALSTAFF. . . . And is not my hostess of the tavern a most sweet wench?

 PRINCE. As the honey of Hybla, my old lad of the castle. And is not a buff jerkin a most sweet robe of durance?

 FAL. How now, how now, mad wag! what, in thy quips and quiddities? What a plague have I to do with a buff jerkin?

 PRINCE. Why, what a pox have I to do with my hostess of the tavern?

 FAL. Well, thou hast called her to a reckoning many a time and oft. 

 PRINCE. Did I ever call for thee to pay thy part?

 FAL. No, I'll give thee thy due, thou hast paid all there. */

 PRINCE. Yes, and elsewhere, so far as my coin would stretch; and where it would not, I have used my credit. 

 FAL. Yea, and so used it that, were it not here apparent that thou art heir apparent--but, I prithee, sweet wag, shall there be gallows standing in England when thou art king? And resolution thus fobbed as it is with the rusty curb of old father antic the law? Do not thou, when thou art king, hang a thief. 

Falstaff's impertinent and suggestive reference to the prince's intimacywith the hostess, not being taken well, he quickly gives theconversation a turn to cover up the mistake he finds he has made. It ispalpable that the characterisation of the hostess in the _First Part ofHenry IV. _, in its original form, was not the same as that presented inthe _Second Part_ of this play in which she is represented as MistressQuickly, an old, unattractive, and garrulous widow. In the _First Partof Henry IV. _ she is mentioned only once as Mistress Quickly. In ActIII. Scene iii. The prince addresses her under this name and inquiresabout her husband. 

 PRINCE. What sayest thou, Mistress Quickly? How doth thy husband? I love him well; he is an honest man. 

This single mention of the hostess as Mistress Quickly is evidently aninterpolation made at the period of the revision of this play late in1597, or early in 1598. It is also probable that the revision at thistime was made with the intention of linking the action of the _FirstPart_ to the _Second Part_ of the play, the outline of which Shakespearewas probably planning at that time. 

The dramatic time of the _First Part_ of the play has been estimated asat the outside covering a period of three months, and of the _SecondPart_, a period of two months. No long interval is supposed to haveelapsed between the action of the two parts; yet, in the _First Part_ ofthe play the hostess is young, attractive, and has a husband. In the_Second Part_, she is old, unattractive, and is a widow. This divergenceis evidently to be accounted for by the fact that the _First Part ofHenry IV. _ in its earliest, and unrevised, form was written, not longafter the composition of _Love's Labour's Won_ (_All's Well that EndsWell_ in its early form), and during the estrangement betweenSouthampton and Shakespeare in 1594, caused by the nobleman's relationswith the "dark lady, " that "most sweet wench, " "my hostess of thetavern. "

I have indicated a certain continuity and link of characterisationbetween Parolles, as we leave him in _All's Well that Ends Well_, andFalstaff, as we first encounter him in the _First Part of Henry IV. _ Ishall now demonstrate parallels between the characterisation of Falstaffin the _First Part of Henry IV. _, and the tone and spirit of theconversations between the imaginary characters of Florio's _SecondFruites_. Fewer resemblances are to be found between the _SecondFruites_ and the _Second Part of Henry IV. _ From this I infer that whenShakespeare composed the _First Part of Henry IV. _ in its original form, his personal acquaintance with Florio was recent and limited, and thathe developed his characterisation of Falstaff in that portion of theplay largely from Florio's self-revelation in the _Second Fruites_, andthat in continuing this characterisation later on, in the _Second Part_of the play, he reinforced it from a closer personal observation of theidiosyncrasies of his prototype. 

The Earl of Southampton, who was shadowed forth as Bertram in _Love'sLabour's Won_, with Parolles as his factotum, --representing Florio inthat capacity, --becomes the prince in _Henry IV. _, while Florio becomesFalstaff. The _First Part_ of the play in its original form reflectedtheir connection and the affair of the "dark lady" in 1593-94. The_First Part of Henry IV. _, in its revised form, and the _Second Part ofHenry IV. _ reflect a resumed, or a continued, familiarity betweenSouthampton and Florio in 1598. This leads me to infer that Florio mayagain have accompanied Southampton when he left England with Sir RobertCecil for the French Court in February 1598, in much the same capacityas he had served him on his first visit to France in 1592, when theywere first reflected as Bertram and Parolles. 

In the original development of the characterisation of Parolles, Armado, and Falstaff, I am convinced that Shakespeare worked, not only fromobservation of his prototype in their daily intercourse, but that healso studied Florio's mental and moral angles and literary mannerisms inhis extant productions. If Armado's letters to Jaquenetta and to theKing be compared with Florio's dedication of his _Second Fruites_--whichwas published in 1591, several months preceding the original compositionof _Love's Labour's Lost_--and also with his "Address to the Reader, " asimilitude will be found that certainly passes coincidence. A comparisonof Parolles' and Falstaff's opportunist and materialistic philosophywith Florio's outlook on life as we find it unconsciously exhibited inhis _Second Fruites_, reveals a characteristic unity that plainlydisplays intentional parody on Shakespeare's part. 

Didactic literature seldom presents the real character and workadayopinions and beliefs of a writer. The teacher generally speaks from aheight transcending his ordinary levels of thought and action. InFlorio's _Second Fruites_ his intention is didactic only in relation toimparting a colloquial knowledge of Italian. In this endeavour hearranges a series of twelve conversations on matters of everyday lifebetween imaginary characters, who are, presumably, of about the samesocial quality as his usual pupils--the younger gentry of the time. Inthese talks his intention was to be entirely natural and to reproduce, what he conceived to be, ordinary conversation between gentlemen offashion. In doing this he reveals ethics, manners, and morals of adecidedly Falstaffian flavour. The gross and satyr-like estimate ofwomen he displays; his primping enjoyment of apparel; the gusto withwhich he converses of things to eat and drink--of ale, and wine, andcapons; his distrust of the minions of the law; his knowledge and horrorof arrest and imprisonment, and his frankly animal zest of life, allsuggest Shakespeare's knowledge of the book as well as the man. 

As Florio's _Second Fruites_ is not easily accessible to the generalreader, a few extracts may serve to exhibit the characteristicresemblances to Shakespeare's delineation of Falstaff. 

The twelve chapters of the work are headed as follows:

 The first chapter, "Of rising in the morning and of things belonging to the chamber and to apparel. "

 The second, "For common speech in the morning between friends; wherein is described a set of tennis. "

 The third, "Of familiar morning communication; wherein many courtesies are handled, and the manner of visiting and saluting the sick, and of riding, with all that belongeth to a horse. "

 The fourth chapter, "Wherein is set down a dinner for six persons, between whom there fall many pleasant discourses concerning meat and repast. "

 The fifth, "Wherein discourse is held of play and many things thereto appertaining, a game of primero and of chess. "

 The sixth chapter, "Concerning many familiar and ceremonious compliments among six gentlemen who talk of many pleasant matters, but especially of divers necessary, profitable, civil, and proverbial receipts for a traveller. "

 The seventh, "Between two gentlemen who talk of arms, and of the art of fencing, and of buying and selling. "

 The eighth chapter, "Between James, and Lippa, his man, wherein they talk of many pleasant and delightsome jests, and in it is described an unpleasant lodging, an illformed old woman, also the beautiful parts that a woman ought to have to be accounted fair in all perfection, and pleasantly blazoned a counterfeit lazy and naught-worth servant. "

 The ninth, "Between Cęzar and Tiberio; wherein they discourse of news of the Court, of courtiers of this day, and of many other matters of delight. "

 The tenth chapter, "Between gentlemen and a servant; wherein they talk of going to supper, and familiar speech late in the evening. "

 The eleventh, "Wherein they talk of going to bed, and many things thereto belonging. "

 The twelfth, "Wherein proverbially and pleasantly discourse is held of love and women. "

He makes one of his characters end this last chapter as follows:

 "As for me, I never will be able, nor am I able, to be willing but to love whatsoever pleaseth women, to whom I dedicate, yield, and consecrate what mortal thing soever I possess, and I say, that a salad, a woman, and a capon as yet was never out of season. "

The remarkable resemblance between the sentiments here expressed and thecharacteristics attributed to Falstaff by Prince Henry in the passagequoted above from _Henry IV. _, Act I. Scene ii. , suggest Shakespeare'sknowledge of the _Second Fruites_. 

He describes the wardrobe of a man of fashion with envious unction, giving a minute inventory of his shirts, handkerchiefs, ruffs, cuffs, towels, quoises, shoes, buskins, daggers, swords, gloves, doublets, jerkins, gowns, hats, caps, and boots. The very superabundancerecalling, by contrast, the paucity in this regard in the cases ofArmado and Falstaff. 

The philosophy of his conversations is selfish and worldly-wise to adegree, with nowhere the slightest suggestion of ideality or altruism. 

 "T. From those that I do trust, good Lord deliver me, from such as I mistrust, I'll harmless come to be. 

 G. He gives me so many good words I cannot fail but trust him. 

 T. Wot you not that fair words and foul deeds are wont to make both fools and wise men fain. 

 G. I know it, but if he beat me with a sword, I will beat him again with a scabbard. 

 T. What, will you give him bread for cake then?

 G. If any man wrong thee, wrong him again, or else be sure to remember it. "

In the conversation concerning meats and repast he is Gargantuan in hisdescriptions. 

 "S. The meat is coming in, let us set down. 

 C. I would wash first if it were not to trouble Robert. 

 S. What, ho! Bring some water to wash our hands. 

 ROBERT. Here it is fresh and good to drinke for a neede. 

 H. God hath made water for other things than to drinke. 

 C. Hast thou not heard that water rots, not only men, but stakes?

 R. Yet men say that water was made to drinke, to saile, and to wash. 

 M. It was good to drinke when men did eat acornes. 

 * * * * *

 T. I pray you set down for I have a good stomach. 

 N. As for a good stomach, I do yield a jot unto you. 

 S. My masters, the meat cooles. 

 * * * * *

 S. My masters, sit down; every man take his place. 

 N. Tush, I pray you, sit down. 

 C. With obliging you I shall show myself unmannerly. 

 H. Of courtesie, Master M. , sit here between us two. 

 M. Virtue consists in the midst quothe the devil when he found himself between two nuns. 

 S. Bring hither that salad, those steaks, that leg of mutton, that piece of beef with all the boiled meats we have. 

 S. I pray you, every man serve himself, let everyone cut where he please, and seek the best morsels. 

 N. Truly these meats are very well seasoned. 

 * * * * *

 S. Call for drinke when you please, and what kind of wine you like best. 

 N. Give me some wine but put some water in it. 

 S. You may well enough drinke it pure, for our wines are all borne under the sign of Aquarius. 

 M. Do you not know that wine watered is esteemed a vile thing?

 C. Give me a cup of beere, or else a bowl of ale. 

 S. I pray you, do not put that sodden water into your bellie. 

 C. I like it as well as wine, chiefly this hot weather. 

 T. He that drinks wine drinks blood, he that drinks water drinks fleame (phlegm). 

 H. I love to drink wine after the Dutch fashion. 

 T. How do they drinke it, I pray you?

 H. In the morning, pure; at dinner, without water, and at night as it comes from the vessel. 

 M. I like this rule; they are wise, and God's blessing light upon them. 

 H. A slice of bacon would make us taste this wine well. 

 S. What, ho! set that gammon of bacon on the board. 

 * * * * *

 M. God be thanked, I am at a truce with my stomach. 

 T. In faith, I would stay until the bells do ring. 

 S. You were not fasting then when you came here?

 M. I had only drunk a little Malmslie. 

 T. And I a good draught of Muscatine, and eat a little bread. 

 S. Bring the meat away, in God's name. 

 R. The meat is not enough yet. 

 * * * * *

 S. Take away that empty pot, set some bread upon the table and put some salt in the salt cellar, and make roome for the second messe. 

 R. Now, comes the roast. 

 S. Welcome may with his flowers. 

 T. And good speed may our barke have. 

 S. The Jews do not look for their Messias with more devotion than I have looked for the roast meat. 

 * * * * *

 S. Set that capon upon the table, and those chickens, those rabbits, and that hen, that goose; those woodcock, those snipes, those larks, those quails, those partridges, those pheasants and that pasty of venison. 

 R. Here is everything ready. 

 N. You have led us to a wedding. 

 S. I pray you, cut up that hen, I pray God it be tender. 

 C. Alas, I think she was dam to the cock that crowed to St. Peter. 

 S. I thought that so soon as I saw her. 

 N. I beseech you, sir, will you carve some of that pheasant?

 M. They be offices that I love to do. 

 N. I will one day fill my bellie full of them. 

 S. Master Andrew, will it please you to eat an egg?

 A. With all my heart, sir, so be it new laid. 

 S. As new as may be; laid this morning. 

 A. I love new-laid eggs well. 

 S. Sirra, go cause a couple of eggs to be made readie. 

 R. By and by, will you have them hard or soft?

 A. It is no matter, I love them better raire. 

 T. An egg of an hour, bread of a day, kidd of a month, wine of six, flesh of a year, fish of ten, a woman of fifteen, and a friend of a hundred, he must have that will be merrie. 

 * * * * *

 S. What aileth Master T. That he looks so sad?

 T. I am not very well at ease. 

 S. What feel you, where grieves it you?

 T. I feel my stomach a little over-cloyde. 

 N. Shall I teach you a good medicine?

 * * * * *

 H. My mother, of happy memorie, was wont to tell me that a pill of wheat, of a hen the days work sweat, and some vine juice that were neat was best physick I could eat. 

 M. Your mother was a woman worthy to govern a kingdom. 

 * * * * *

 S. My masters, you see here the period of this poor dinner; the best dish you have had hath been your welcome. 

 H. As that hath fed our minds so have the others fed our bodies well. 

 S. It grieves me that you have been put to such penance, but yet I hope you will excuse me. 

 C. If doing such penance a man might win heaven, O sweet penance for a man to do every day. "

Portions of the sixth chapter, with its talk of divers necessaryprophetic and proverbial precepts for a traveller, evidently suppliedShakespeare with the hint for Scene iv. Act II. Of the _First Part ofHenry IV. _, between Falstaff and Prince Hal, wherein Falstaff personatesthe prince's father. 

 "S. Mister Peeler, whatsoever I shall tell you, according to my wonted manner, I will speak as plainly unto you as though you were my son, and therefore pardon me, if I shall seem eyther too familiar, or too homely with you. 

 P. Say on boldly, for I shall be very proud if it please you to account me as your child, and that I may repute you as my father. 

 S. First, my loving Mister Peeler, if you purpose to come unto the wished end of your travel, have always your mind and thought on God. "

This highly moral preamble is followed by much ungodly, worldly wisdom. 

 "S. And if you will be a traveller and wander safely through the world, wheresoever you come have always the eyes of a falcon that you may see far, the ears of an ass that you may hear well, the face of an ape that you may be ready to laugh, the mouth of a hog to eat all things, the shoulder of a camel that you may bear anything with patience, the legs of a stag that you may flee from dangers, and see that you never want two bags very full; that is, one of patience, for with it a man overcomes all things, and another of money, for, They that have good store of crownes, Are called lordes, though they be clownes;

 and gold hath the very same virtue that charity hath, it covereth a multitude of faults, and golden hammers break all locks, and golden meedes do reach all heights, have always your hand on your hat, and in your purse, for, A purse or cap used more or less a year Gain many friends, and do not cost thee dear. 

 Travelling by the way in winter time, honour your companion, so shall you avoid falling into dangerous places. In summer go before, so shall not the dust come into your eyes. Setting at board, if there be but little bread, hold it fast in your hand, if small store of flesh, take hold on the bone, if no store of wine, drink often, and unless you be required, never offer any man either salt, etc. "

The ninth chapter, wherein they "plausibly discourse of news of theCourt and of courtiers of this day, and of many other matters ofdelight, " is full of Falstaffian paradox, and reminiscent of JusticeShallow's relations with Jane Nightwork. 

 "C. What is become of your neighbour, I mean the old doating man grown twice a child?

 T. As old as you see him he has of late wedded a young wench of fifteen years old. 

 C. Then he and she will make up the whole bible together; I mean the old and new testament. 

 T. To an old cat a young mouse. 

 C. Old flesh makes good broth. 

 T. What has become of his son that I see him not?

 C. He was put in prison for having beaten an enemy of his. 

 T. Be wrong or right prison is a spite. 

 C. A man had need look to himself in this world. 

 T. What is become of his fair daughter whom he married to what you call him that was sometime our neighbour?

 C. She spins crooked spindles for her husband and sends him into Cornwall without ship or boat. 

 T. What, does she make him wear the stag's crest then?

 C. You have guessed right and have hit the nail on the head. 

 T. His blood is of great force and virtue then. 

 C. What virtue can his blood have, tell me in good faith?

 T. It is good to break diamonds withal. 

 C. Why, man's blood cannot break diamonds. 

 T. Yes, but the blood of a he-goat will. 

 C. Moreover, he may challenge to have part in heaven by it. 

 T. What matter is it for him then to be a he-goat, or a stumpbuck, or a kid, or a chamois, a stag, or a brill, a unicorn, or an elephant so he may be safe, but how may that be, I pray thee, tell me?

 C. I will tell thee, do not you know that whosoever is made a cuckold by his wife, either he knows it, or he knows it not. 

 T. That I know, then what will you infer upon it?

 C. If he knows it he must needs be patient, and therefore a martyr, if he knows it not, he is innocent, and you know that martyrs and innocents shall be saved, which if you grant, it followeth that all cuckolds shall obtain paradise. 

 T. Methinks then that women are not greatly to be blamed if they seek their husbands' eternal salvation, but are rather to be commended as causes of a noble and worthy effect. "

He speaks with evident feeling of one who is imprisoned for debt. 

 "T. Take heed of debts; temper thy desires, and moderate thy tongue. 

 C. It is a devilish thing to owe money. 

 T. For all that he is so proud that though he have need of patience he calleth for revenge. 

 C. Could not he save himself out of the hands of those catchpoles, counter guardians, or sergeants?

 T. Seeking to save himself by flight from that rascality he had almost left the lining of his cap behind. 

 C. I am sorry for his mischance, for with his jests, toys, fooleries, and pleasant conceits, he would have made Heraclitus himself to burst his heart with laughing. 

 T. Did you ever go see him yet?

 C. I would not go into prison to fetch one of my eyes if I had left it there. 

 T. Yet there be some honest men there. 

 C. And where will you have them but in places of persecution?

 T. You have reason. 

 C. I would not be painted there so much do I hate and loathe the place. "

Speaking of the Court and courtiers he says:

 "C. The favours of the Court are like fair weather in winter, or clouds in summer, and Court, in former time, was counted death. 

 T. It is still Court for the vicious, but death for the virtuous, learned and wise. 

 C. Seven days doth the Court regard a virtuous man, be he never so mannerly, well-brought up, and of gentle conditions. That is, the first day he makes a show of himself, he is counted gold; the second, silver; the third, copper; the fourth, tin; the fifth, lead; the sixth, dross; and the seventh, nothing at all, whereas the contrary happeneth of the vicious. 

 T. Yet the virtuous have sometimes got rich gifts there. 

 C. Yea, but they come as seldom as the year of jubilee. 

 * * * * *

 T. Yet some of them are so courteous, so gentle, so kind, so liberal, so bountiful, that envy itself cannot choose but love them, and blame honour them, and, I think, there is no Court in the world that hath more nobility in it than ours. 

 * * * * *

 T. But tell me truth, had you never the mind to become a courtier?

 C. He that is well, let him not stir, for if in removing he break his leg, at his own peril be it. 

 T. Where there is life there is means; where means, entertainment; where entertainment, hope; where hope, there is comfort. "

How closely this last passage resembles the philosophy of Parolles, after his disgrace, in Act IV. Scene iii. Of _All's Well that EndsWell_. 

 PAR. Yet am I thankful: if my heart were great, 'Twould burst at this. Captain, I'll be no more; But I will eat and drink, and sleep as soft As captain shall: simply the thing I am Shall make me live. 

 * * * * *

 There's place and means for every man alive. 

The familiarity of the public with the character of Falstaff, under thename of Sir John Oldcastle, is evidenced by the frequency with whichboth this play and character are referred to by the latter name evenafter the publication of the _First Part of Henry IV. _ in 1598, with thename changed to Falstaff. If this play was originally composed, as isusually suggested, in 1596 or 1597, the short period which it could havebeen presented in its earlier form, and before its revision in thebeginning of 1598, would scarcely allow for the confirmed acquaintanceof the public with the name of Sir John Oldcastle in connection with thecharacterisation developed by Shakespeare. While Shakespeare took thisname from the old play of _The Famous Victories of Henry V. _, there isno similarity between the characterisation of the persons presentedunder that name in the two plays. 

Nicholas Rowe, Shakespeare's earliest biographer, is responsible for thereport that the change of the name of this character from Oldcastle toFalstaff was made by Shakespeare at the command of the Queen, and owingto the protest of Lord Cobham. It is not unlikely that there was somebasis of truth for this report, nor improbable that Lord Cobham'salleged objection was caused by the misrepresentations of Shakespeare'sliterary rivals, including Florio, whose own "ox had been gored. "

In 1597 the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports having become vacant, SirRobert Sidney, who had been long absent from England as Governor ofFlushing, and was desirous of returning, made application for theoffice, being aided in his suit by the Earl of Essex and others of hisfriends in Essex's party. Sir Robert Cecil, while encouraging Sidney andprofessing friendship, secretly aided Lord Cobham for the post. Sidney'smilitary fitness for so responsible a charge was constantly urgedagainst Cobham's lack of martial experience, but the Queen, after a longdelay, during which much heat developed between the contestants andtheir friends, finally decided in favour of her relative, Lord Cobham. The Earl of Southampton was one of Sir Robert Sidney's most intimatefriends and ardent admirers, and must have taken some interest in thislong-drawn-out rivalry. It is possible that Shakespeare, instigated bySouthampton, may have introduced some personal reflections suggestive ofCobham's military inadequacy into the performance of the play at thiscrucial period, Cobham's alleged descent from the historical Oldcastlelending the suggestion its personal significance. 

The sixth _book_ of Sonnets was written either late in 1596, or in 1597. A line in the first Sonnet of this book (Thorpe's 66) implies, onShakespeare's part, a recent unpleasant experience with the authorities:

 "And art made tongue-tied by authority. "

It is apparent that whatever was the cause, some difficulty arose inabout 1597 regarding the name Oldcastle. Nicholas Rowe's report issubstantiated by Shakespeare's own apologetic words in the Epilogue to_Henry IV. , Part II. _:

 "If you be not too much cloyed with fat meat, our humble author will continue the story, with Sir John in it, and make you merry with fair Katherine of France; where, for any thing I know, Falstaff shall die of a sweat, unless already a' be killed with your hard opinions; for Oldcastle died a martyr, and this is not the man. "

If Shakespeare was compelled to alter this name for the reasons reportedby Nicholas Rowe, it is not unlikely that Florio and his literary allieshelped in some manner to arouse the resentment of Lord Cobham. Inaltering the play in 1598, and changing the name of Sir John Oldcastleto Sir John Falstaff, I am convinced that Shakespeare intentionally madehis caricature of John Florio more transparent by choosing a name havingthe same initials as his, and furthermore, that in altering thehistorical name of _Fastolfe_ to _Falstaff_, he intended to indicateFlorio's relations with Southampton as a _false-staff_, a misleader ofyouth. The Epilogue of the _Second Part of Henry IV. _, while denying arepresentation of the historical Sir John Oldcastle in the words "thisis not the man, " implies at the same time _that some other personalapplication is intended_ in the characterisation of Falstaff. 

The _First Part of Henry IV. _, with its significant allusion to the"Humourous Conceits of Sir John Falstaff" on the title-page, was enteredon the Stationers' Registers under date of 25th February 1598, and waspublished within a short period. That John Florio recognisedShakespeare's satire and personal intention in choosing a character withhis own initials he shows within a month or two of this date in his"Address to the Reader, " prefixed to his _Worlde of Wordes_. He accusesa person, whom he indicates under the initials "H. S. " of having made asatirical use of his initials "J. F. " It is evident that in using theletters "H. S. " he is not giving the actual initials of his antagonist. Addressing "H. S. " he says: "And might not a man, that can do as much asyou (that is reade) finde as much matter out of H. S. As you did out ofJ. F. ?" He says the person at whom he aims is a "reader" and a "writer"too; he also indicates him as a maker of plays. He says:

 "Let Aristopanes and his comedians _make plaies_, and scowre their mouthes on Socrates; those very mouthes they make to vilifie, shall be meanes to amplifie his vertue. And it was not easie for Cato to speake evill, so was it not usuall for him to heare evill. It may be Socrates would not kicke againe, if an asse did kicke at him, yet some that cannot be so wise, and will not be so patient as Socrates, will for such jadish tricks give the asse his due burthen of bastonadas. Let H. S. Hisse, and his complices quarrell, and all breake their gals, _I have a great faction of good writers to bandie with me_. "

Florio here gives palpable evidence of the fact that his was not anisolated case, but that he was banded with a literary faction inhostility to Shakespeare, which included Roydon, who published _Willobiehis Avisa_, in 1594, again in 1596, and again in 1599; Chapman, who, in1593, attacked Shakespeare in the early _Histriomastix_, and again in1599 in its revision, as well as in his poem to Harriot, appended to his_Achilles Shield_ in the same year; and Marston, who joined Chapman inopposition to Shakespeare, and helped in the revision of_Histriomastix_. In the words "Let H. S. Hisse, and his complicesquarrell, etc. , " Florio also gives evidence that Shakespeare at thisperiod had literary allies. In the story of the Sonnets I shall showthat Dekker was Shakespeare's principal ally in what has been called the"War of the Theatres, " which is supposed to have commenced at this time, and, bearing in mind Chettle's recorded collaboration with Dekker atthis same period, it is evident that he also sided with Shakespeare. 

A careful search of Elizabethan literature fails to bring to light _anyother writer who makes a satirical use of the initials "J. F. , " or anyrecord of a writer bearing initials in any way resembling "H. S. " who inany manner approximates to Florio's description of a "reader" and a"writer too" as well as a maker of plays_. 

I have already shown Chapman's references to Shakespeare in thededication of _The Shadow of Night_. His allusion to Shakespeare as"passion-driven" at that date (1594) being a reference to his relationswith the "dark lady. " That he suggests Shakespeare, in his capacity of"reader" to the Earl of Southampton, and that he takes flings at hissocial quality in the expression "Judgements butcher, " which I recogniseas an allusion to his father's trade, and in the words "IntonsiCatones, " as a reference to his provincial breeding as well as to theflowing manner in which he wore his hair. In elucidating the meaning ofthe initials "H. S. , " Florio still more coarsely indicates ourcountry-bred poet, and accuses him of being a parasite, a bloodsucker, and a monster of lasciviousness. His abusive descriptions are given inLatin and Italian phrases commencing with the letters H and S. Hisreason for using the letter H no doubt being that _there is no W ineither Italian or Latin, H being its nearest phonetic equivalent_. Letus consider the whole passage. 

 "There is another sort of leering curs, that rather snarle than bite, whereof I coulde instance in one, who lighting upon a good sonnet of a gentlemans, a friend of mine, that loved better to be a Poet, then to be counted so, called the author a rymer, notwithstanding he had more skill in good Poetrie, then my slie gentleman seemed to have in good manners or humanitie. But my quarrell is to a tooth-lesse dog, that hateth where he cannot hurt, and would faine bite when he hath no teeth. His name is H. S. Do not take it for the Romane H. S. For he is not of so much worth, unlesse it be as H. S. Is twice as much and a halfe as halfe an As. But value you him how you will, I am sure he highly valueth himselfe. This fellow, this H. S. Reading (for I would you should knowe he is _a reader and a writer too_) under my last epistle to the reader J. F. Made as familiar a word of F. As if I had bin his brother. Now Recte fit oculis magister tuis, said an ancient writer to a much-like reading gramarian-pedante[31]: God save your eie-sight, sir, or at least your insight. And might not a man, that can do as much as you (that is, reade) finde as much matter out of H. S. As you did out of J. F. ? As for example H. S. Why may it not stand as well for Hęres Stultitię, as for Homo Simplex? or for Hircus Satiricus, as well as for any of them? And this in Latine, besides Hedera Seguace, Harpia Subata, Humore Superbo, Hipocrito Simulatore in Italian. And in English world without end. Huffe Snuffe, Horse Stealer, Hob Sowter, Hugh Sot, Humphrey Swineshead, Hodge Sowgelder. Now Master H. S. If this do gaule you, forbeare kicking hereafter, and in the meane time you may make a plaister of your dried Marjoram. I have seene in my daies an inscription, harder to finde out the meaning, and yet easier for a man to picke a better meaning out of it, if he be not a man of H. S. Condition. "

It will be noticed that Florio's reflections upon Shakespeare'sbreeding, morals, and manners, while couched in coarser terms, are ofthe same nature as Chapman's. Ben Jonson, --as shall later be shown, --in_Every Man out of his Humour_, casts similar slurs at Shakespeare'sprovincial origin. It is likely that the friend whose sonnet had beencriticised and who was called a "rymer" by "H. S. " was none other thanGeorge Chapman. The fifth _book_ of Shakespeare's Sonnets to the Earl ofSouthampton was written against Chapman's advances upon his patron'sfavour. In the tenth Sonnet in this _book_, which is numbered as the38th in Thorpe's arrangement, Shakespeare refers to Chapman as a rhymerin the lines:

 "Be thou the tenth Muse ten times more in worth Than those old nine which _rhymers_ invocate. "

The few records concerning Florio, from which we may derive any idea ofhis personal appearance and manner, suggest a very singularindividuality. There was evidently something peculiar about his face; hewas undoubtedly witty and worldly-wise, a braggart, a sycophant, andsomewhat of a buffoon. He was imbued with an exaggerated idea of his ownimportance, and possessed of most unblushing assurance. In 1591 hesigned his address "To the Reader, " prefixed to his _Second Fruites_, "Resolute John Florio, " a prefix which he persisted thereafter in usingin similar addresses in other publications. In 1600 Sir WilliamCornwallis (who at that time had seen Florio's translation of_Montaigne's Essays_ in MS. ) writes of him: "Montaigne now speaks goodEnglish. It is done by a fellow less beholding to nature for his fortunethan wit, yet lesser for his face than fortune. The truth is, he looksmore like a good fellow than a wise man, and yet he is wise beyondeither his fortune or education. "

Between the year 1598 (when Florio dedicated his _World of Wordes_ tothe Earl of Southampton) and 1603, when Southampton was released fromthe Tower upon the accession of James I. , we have no record of Florio'sconnection with that nobleman. It was undoubtedly due to Southampton'sinfluence in the new Court that Florio became reader to Queen Anna andGentleman of the Privy Chamber to James I. His native vanity andarrogance blossomed into full bloom in this connection, in which heseems to have been tolerated as a sort of superior Court jester. Theextravagant and grandiloquent diction of his early dedications read likecommonplace prose when compared with the inflated verbosity of his laterdedications to Queen Anna. In 1613 he issued a new edition of_Montaigne's Essays_ which he dedicated to the Queen. A comparison ofthe flattering sycophancy of this dedication with the quick transitionof his tone in his curt and insolent address "To the Reader" in the samebook will give some idea of the man's shallow bumptiousness. 

 "TO THE MOST ROYAL AND RENOWNED MAJESTIE OF THE HIGHBORN PRINCESS ANNA OF DENMARK

 By the grace of God, Queen of England, Scotland, France and Ireland. Imperial and Incomparable Majestic. Seeing with me all of me is in your royal possession, and whatever pieces of mine have hitherto under the starres passed the public view, come now of right to be under the predomination of a power that both contains all their perfections and hath influences of a more sublime nature. I could not but also take in this part (whereof time had worn out the edition) which the world had long since had of mine and lay it at your sacred feet as a memorial of my devoted duty, and to show that where I am I must be all I am and cannot stand dispersed in my observance being wholly (and therein happy)--Your Sacred Majesties most humble and Loyal servant, JOHN FLORIO. 

 TO THE READER

 Enough, if not too much, hath been said of this translation, if the faults found even by my own selfe in the first impression be now by the printer corrected, as he was directed, the work is much amended; if not, know, that through this mine attendance on her Majestic I could not intend it: and blame not Neptune for thy second shipwrecke. Let me conclude with this worthy mans daughter of alliance 'Que l'en semble donc lecteur. '

 Still Resolute

 JOHN FLORIO, Gentleman Extraordinary and Groome of the Privy Chamber. "

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 29: _Shakespeare and the Rival Poet_, 1903; _MistressDavenant, the Dark Lady of Shakespeare's Sonnets_, 1913. ]

[Footnote 30: While correcting proof sheets for this book I have foundevidence that Florio was living in Oxford, and already married inSeptember 1585. The Register of St. Peter's in the Baylie in Oxfordrecords the baptism of Joane Florio, daughter of John Florio, upon the24th of September in that year. Wood's _City of Oxford_, vol. Iii. P. 258. Ed. By Andrew Clark. ]

[Footnote 31: A grammar-school pedant, alluding to Shakespeare's limitededucation. ]

APPENDIX

I

DEDICATION OF FLORIO'S _SECOND FRUITES_, 1591

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFULL, THE KINDE ENTERTAINER OF VERTUE, AND MIRROUROF A GOOD MINDE MASTER NICHOLAS SAUNDER OF EWEL, ESQUIRE, HIS DEVOTEDJOHN FLORIO CONGRATULATES THE RICH REWARD OF THE ONE, AND LASTINGBEAUTIE OF THE OTHER, AND WISHES ALL FELICITIE ELS

SIR, in this stirring time, and pregnant prime of invention when everiebramble is fruitefull, when everie mol-hill hath cast of the wintersmourning garment, and when everie man is busilie woorking to feede hisowne fancies; some by delivering to the presse the occurrences &accidents of the world, newes from the marte, or from the mint, andnewes are the credite of a travailer, and first question of anEnglishman. Some like Alchimists distilling quintessences of wit, thatmelt golde to nothing, and yet would make golde of nothing; that makemen in the moone, and catch the moon shine in the water. Some putting onpyed coates lyke calendars, and hammering upon dialls, taking theelevation of _Pancridge_ Church (their quotidian walkes) pronosticate offaire, of foule, and of smelling weather; men weatherwise, that wil byaches foretell of change and alteration of wether. Some more activegallants made of a finer molde, by devising how to win their Mistrisesfavours, and how to blaze and blanche their passions, with aeglogues, songs, and sonnets, in pitifull verse or miserable prose, and most for afashion: is not Love then a wagg, that makes men so wanton? yet love isa pretie thing to give unto my Ladie. Othersome with new caracterisingsbepasting al the posts in _London_ to the proofe, and fouling of paper, in twelve howres thinke to effect _Calabrian_ wonders: is not the numberof twelve wonderfull? Some with Amadysing & Martinising a multitude ofour libertine yonkers with triviall, frivolous, and vaine vainedroleries, set manie mindes a gadding; could a foole with a feather makemen better sport? I could not chuse but apply my self in some sort tothe season, and either proove a weede in my encrease without profit, ora wholesome pothearbe in profit without pleasure. If I prove more than Ipromise, I will impute it to the bountie of the gracious Soile where myendevours are planted, whose soveraine vertue divided with such worthlesseedes, hath transformed my unregarded slips to medcinable simples. Manie sowe corne, and reape thisles; bestow three yeares toyle inmanuring a barraine plot, and have nothing for their labor but theirtravel: the reason why, because they leave the low dales, to seekethrift in the hill countries; and dig for gold on the top of the Alpes, when _Esops_ cock found a pearle in a lower place. For me I am none oftheir faction, I love not to climbe high to catch shadowes; suficethgentle Sir, that your perfections are the Port where my labors mustanchor, whose manie and liberall favours have been so largely extendedunto me, that I have long time studied how I might in some fortgratefully testifie my thankfulnes unto you. But when I had assembledall my thoughts, & entred into a contrarious consultation of my utmostabilities, I could not find anie employment more agreeable to my power, or better beseeming my dutie, than this present Dedication, whereby theworld, by the instance of your never entermitted benevolence towards me, should have a perfect insight into your vertue & bountie, (qualitiesgrowne too solitary in this age) and your selfe might be unfalliblyperswaded in what degree I honor and regarde you. For indeede I neithermay in equitie forget, nor in reason conceale the rare curtesies youvouchsaft me at Oxford, the friendly offers and great liberalitie since(above my hope and desert) continued at _London_, wherewith you havefast bound me to beare a dutiful & grateful observance towards you whileI live, & to honour that mind from which as from a spring al yourfriendships & goodnes hath flowed: And therefore to give you some pauneand certaine assurance of a thankfull minde, and my professed devotion Ihave consecrated these my slender _endevours_ wholy to your _delight_, which shall stand for an image and monument of your worthines toposteritie. And though they serve to pleasure and profite manie, yetshall my selfe reape pleasure, also if they please you well, under whosename and cognisance they shall goe abroad and seeke their fortunes. Howthe world will entertaine them I know not, or what acceptance yourcredit may adde to their basenes I am yet uncertaine; but this I darevaunt without sparke of vaine-glory that I have given you a taste of thebest Italian fruites, the Thuscane Garden could affoorde; but if thepallate of some ale or beere mouths be out of taste that they cannottaste them, let them sporte but not spue. The moone keeps her course forall the dogges barking. I have for these fruites ransackt and rifled allthe gardens of fame throughout Italie (and they are the Hesperides) iftranslated they do prosper as they flourished upon their native stock, or eate them & they will be sweete, or set them & they will adorne yourorchyards. 

The maiden-head of my industrie I yeelded to a noble Mecenas (renoumedLecester) the honor of England, whom thogh like Hector every miscreantMirmidon dare strik being dead, yet sing _Homer_ or _Virgil_, writefriend or foe, of _Troy_, or _Troyes_ issue, that _Hector_ must have hisdesert, the General of his Prince, the Paragon of his Peeres, thewatchman of our peace, "_Non so se miglior Duce o Cavalliero_"

as _Petrarke_ hath in his triumph of fame; and to conclude, thesupporter of his friends, the terror of his foes, and the _Britton_Patron of the Muses. 

 "Dardanias light, and Troyans faithfulst hope. "

But nor I, nor this place may halfe suffice for his praise, which thesweetest singer of all our westerns shepheards hath so exquisitelydepainted, that as Achilles by Alexander was counted happy for havingsuch a rare emblazoner of his magnanimitie, as the Meonian Poete; so Iaccount him thrice-fortunate in having such a herauld of his vertues asSpencer; Curteous Lord, Curteous Spencer, I knowe not which hathpurchast more fame, either he in deserving so well of so famous ascholler, or so famous a scholler in being so thankfull without hope ofrequitall to so famous a Lord: But leaving him that dying left al Artes, and al strangers as Orphanes, forsaken, and friendles, I will wholyconvert my muze to you (my second patron) who amongst many that bearetheir crests hie, and mingle their titles with TAMMARTI QUAM MERCURIOare an unfayned embracer of vertues, and nourisher of knowledge andlearning. I published long since my first fruits of such as were butmeanely entred in the Italian tongue, (which because they were thefirst, and the tree but young were something sower, yet at last digestedin this cold climat) knowing well that they would both nourish anddelight, & now I have againe after long toyle and diligent pruning of myorcharde brought forth my second fruites, (better, riper, and pleasanterthan the first) not unfit for those that embrace the language of themuses, or would beautifie their speech with a not vulgar bravery. Thesetwo I brought forth as the daughters and offsprings of my care andstudie: My elder (as before is noted) because she was ambitious (asheires are wont) I married for preferment and for honour, but thisyounger (fayrer, better nurtured, & comelier than her sister) because myhope of such preferment and honour as my first had, fayled me, I thoughtto have cloystred up in some solitarynes, which shee perceiving, withhaste putting on her best ornaments and (following the guise of hercountrie-women presuming very much upon the love and favour of herparentes) hath voluntaryly made her choyce (plainly telling me that shewill not leade apes in hell) and matched with such a one as she bestliketh, and hopeth will both dearly love her, & make her such a joynteras shal be to the comfort of her parents, and joy of her match, andtherefore have I given her my consent, because shee hath jumped so wellwith modesty, and not aspired so high that shee might be upbraidedeither with her birth or basenes when she could not mend it. I know theworld will smile friendlier, and gaze more upon a damzell marching infigured silkes (who are as paper bookes with nothing in them) than uponone being onely clad in home-spunn cloth (who are as playne cheasts fullof treasure) yet communis error shall not have my company, and thereforehave I rather chosen to present my Italian and English proverbiallsportes to such a one as I know joynes them both so aptly in himselfe, as I doubt whether is best in him, but he is best in both; who lovesthem both, no man better; and touching proverbs, invents them, no manfiner; and aplyes them, no man fitter; and that taketh his greatestcontentment in knowledge of languages (guides and instruments toperfection and excellency) as in Nectar and Ambrosia (meate onely forGods and deyfied mindes, ) I shal not neede to trouble my selfe or youwith any commendation of the matter I deliver, nor to give credit bysome figures and colours to proverbs and sentences, seeing your selfeknow well (whose censure I most respect) both how much a proverbiallspeech (namely in the Italian) graceth a wise meaning, and how probablyit argueth a good conceipt, and also how naturally the Italians pleasethemselves with such materyall, short, and witty speeches (which whenthey themselves are out of Italy and amongst strangers, who they thinkhath learnt a little Italian out of Castilions courtier, or Guazzo hisdialogues, they will endevour to forget or neglect and speake bookish, and not as they wil doe amongst themselves because they know theirproverbs never came over the Alpes) no lesse than with the conceiptedapothegmes, or Impreses, which never fall within the reach of a barrenor vulgar head. What decorum I have observed in selecting them, I leaveto the learned to consider. Thus craving the continuall sun-shine ofyour worships favour towards me, and that they may never decline to anywest, and desiring your friendly censure of my travailes, I wish untoyou your owne wishes, which are such as wisedome endites, and successeshould subscribe. --Your affectionate in all he may. 

 I. F. 

II

ADDRESS TO THE READER FROM FLORIO'S _SECOND FRUITES_, 1591

TO THE READER

READER, good or bad, name thyself, for I know not which to tearme thee, unless heard thee read, and reading judge, or judging exercise; orcurtesie the cognisance of a Gentleman, or malice the badge of a Momus, or exact examination the puritane scale of a criticall censor: to thefirst (as to my friends) I wish as gracious acceptance where they desireit most, as they extend where I deserve it least; to the second I canwish no worse than they worke themselves, though I should wish themblyndnes, deafnes, and dumbnes: for blynd they are (or worse) that seetheir owne vices, others vertues: deafe they are (or worse) that nevercould heare well of themselves, nor would heare well of others: anddumbe they are (and worse) that speake not but behinde mens backs (whosebookes speake to all;) and speake nought but is naught like themselves, than who, what can be worse? As for critiks I accompt of them ascrickets; no goodly bird if a man marke them, no sweete note if a manheare them, no good luck if a man have them; they lurke in corners, butcatch cold if they looke out; they lie in sight of the furnace thattryes others, but will not come neare the flame that should purifiethemselves: they are bred of filth, & fed with filth, what vermine tocall them I know not, or wormes, or flyes, or what worse? They are likecupping glasses, that draw nothing but corrupt blood; like swine, thatleave the cleare springs to wallow in a puddle: they doo not as Plutarkeand Aristarcus derive philosophie, and set flowers out of Homer; butwith Zoylus deride his halting, and pull asunder his faire joyntedverses: they doo not seeke honie with the bee, but suck poyson with thespider. They will doo nought, yet all is naught but what they doo; theysnuff our lampes perhaps, but sure they add no oyle; they will heale usof the toothache, but are themselves sick of the fever-lourdane. Demonstrative rethorique is their studie, and the doggs letter they cansnarle alreadie. As for me, for it is I, and I am an Englishman inItaliane, I know they have a knife at command to cut my throate, UnInglese Italianato, e un Diauolo incarnato. Now, who the Divell taughtthee so much Italian? speake me as much more, and take all. Meane youthe men, or their mindes? be the men good, and their mindes bad? speakefor the men (for you are one) and I will doubt of your minde: Mislikeyou the language? Why the best speake it best, and hir Majestie nonebetter. I, but too manie tongues are naught; indeede one is too maniefor him that cannot use it well. Mithridates was reported to havelearned three and twentie severall languages, and Ennius to have threeharts, because three tongues, but it should seeme thou hast not onesound heart, but such a one as is cancred with ennui; nor anie tongue, but a forked tongue, thou hissest so like a snake, and yet me thinkes bythy looke, thou shouldst have no tongue thou gapest and mowest so like afrogg: I, but thou canst reade whatsoever is good in Italian, translatedinto English. And was it good that they translated then? or were theygood that translated it? Had they been like thee, they were not woorththe naming; and thou being unlike them, art unworthie to name them. Hadthey not knowen Italian, how had they translated it? had they nottranslated it, where were not thy reading? Rather drinke at thewel-head, than sip at pudled streames; rather buy at the first hand, than goe on trust at the hucksters. I, but thou wilt urge me with theirmanners & vices, (not remembring that where great vices are, there areinfinit vertues) & aske me whether they be good or bad? Surely touchingtheir vices, they are bad (& I condemne them) like thyself; the men areas we are, (is bad, God amend both us & them) and I think wee may veriewell mend both. I, but (peradventure) thou wilt say my frutes arewyndie, I pray thee keepe thy winde to coole thy potage. I, but they arerotten: what, and so greene? that's marvell; indeede I thinke thecaterpiller hath newly caught them. If thy sight and taste be so altred, that neither colour or taste of my frutes will please thee, I greatlyforce not, for I never minded to be thy fruterer. Muro bianco is papergood enough for everie matto: Prints were first invented for wise mensuse, and not for fooles play. These Proverbs and proverbiall Phrases, (hethertoo so peculiar to the Italians, that they could never find theway over the Apenines, or meanes to become familiar to anie otherNation) have onely been selected and stamped for the wise and not forthee, (and therefore hast thou no part in them) who will kindly acceptof them: (though in the ordering of them I differ from most mensmethodes, who in their compositions onely seeke for words to expressetheir matter, and I have endevored to finde matter to declare thoseItalian words & phrases, that yet never saw Albions cliffes) for thepleasure of which, I will shortly send into the world an exquisiteItalian and English Dictionary, and a compendious Grammer. The Sunnespreading his beames indifferently (and my frutes are in an openorchyard, indifferent to all) doth soften wax, and harden clay; (myfrutes will please the gentler, but offend the clayish or clownish sort, whom good things scarcely please, and I care not to displease). I know Ihave them not all, and you with readie (if I should say so) with Bate mean ace quoth Bolton, or Wide quoth Bolton when his bolt flew backward. Indeed here are not all, for tell me who can tell them; but here are thechiefs, and thanke me that I cull them. The Greekes and Latines thanksErasmus, and our Englishmen make much of Heywood: for Proverbs are thepith, the proprieties, the proofs, the purities, the elegancies, as thecommonest so the commendablest phrases of a language. To use them is agrace, to understand them a good, but to gather them a paine to me, though gain to thee. I, but for all that I must not scape without somenew flout: now would I were by thee to give thee another, and surely Iwould give thee bread for cake. Farewell if thou meane well; els fare asill, as thou wishest me to fare. 

 The last of April, 1591. 

 Resolute

 I. F. 

III

DEDICATION OF FLORIO'S _WORLDE OF WORDES_, 1598

TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE PATRONS OF VERTUE, PATTERNS OF HONOR, ROGER EARLEOF RUTLAND, HENRIE EARLE OF SOUTHAMPTON, LUCIE COUNTESSE OF BEDFORD

This dedication (Right Honorable and that worthily) may haply make yourHonors muse; wellfare that dedication, that may excite your muse. I amno auctorifed Herauld to marshall your precedence. Private dutie mightperhaps give one the prioritie, where publike respect should preferanother. To choose _Tullie_ or _Ausonius_ Consuls, is to prefer thembefore all but one; but to choose either the former of the twaine, is toprefer him before all. It is saide of _Atreus_ in a fact mostdisorderly, that may be saide of any in so ordering his best dutie. 

It makes no matter whether, yet he resolves of neither. I onely say yourHonors best knowe your places: An Italian turne may serve the turne. Lame are we in _Platoes_ censure, if we be not ambidexters, using bothhandes alike. Right-hand, or left-hand as Peeres with mutuall paritie, without disparagement may be please your Honors to joyne hand in hand, an so jointly to lende an eare (and lende it I beseech you) to a pooreman, that invites your Honors to a christening, that I and my poorestudies, like _Philemon_ and _Baucis_, may in so lowe a cottageentertaine so high, if not deities, yet dignities; of whom the Poettestifies. 

 "Ma sopraogni altro frutto gradito Fu il volto allegro, e'l non bigiardo amore. E benchefosse pouero il conuito, Non fu la volonta pouera e'l core. 

 But of all other cheere most did content A cheerefull countenance, and a willing minde, Poore entertainment being richly ment, Pleaded excuse for that which was behinde. "

Two overhastie fruites of mine nowe some yeeres since, like two forwardefemales, the one put her selfe in service to an Earle of Excellence, theother to a Gentleman of Woorth, both into the worlde to runne the raceof their fortune. Now where my rawer youth brought foorth those femalefruites, my riper yeeres affoording me I cannot say a braine-babe_Minerva_, armed at all affaies at first houre; but rather from myItalian _Semele_, and English thigh, a bouncing boie, _Bacchus_-like, almost all named: And being as the manner of this countrie is, aftersome strength gathered to bring it abroade; I was to entreate threewitnesses to the entrie of it into Christendome, over-presumptuous (Igrant) to entreate so high a preference, but your Honors so gracious (Ihope) to be over-entreated. My hope springs out of three stems: yourHonors naturall benignitie; your able employment of such servitours; andthe towardly likeliehood of this Springall to do you honest service. Thefirst, to vouchsafe all; the second, to accept this; the third, toapplie it selfe to the first and second. Of the first, your birth, yourplace, and your custome; of the second, your studies, your conceits, andyour exercise: of the thirde, my endevours, my proceedings, and myproject gives assurance. Your birth, highly noble, more than gentle:your place, above others, as in degree, so in height of bountie, andother vertues: your custome, never wearie of well dooing: your studiesmuch in al, most in Italian excellence: your conceits, by understandingothers to work above them in your owne: your exercise, to reade, whatthe worlds best wits have written and to speake as they write. Myendevours, to apprehend the best, if not all: my proceedings, to impartmy best, first to your Honors, then to all that emploie me: my project, in this volume to comprehend the best and all. In truth I acknowledge anentyre debt, not onely of my best knowledge, but of all, yea of morethen I know or can, to your bounteous Lordship most noble, mostvertuous, and most Honorable Earle of Southampton, in whose paie andpatronage I have lived some yeeres; to whom I owe and vowe the yeeres Ihave to live. But as to me, and manie more the glorious and gracioussunne-shine of your Honor hath infused light and life: so may my lesserborrowed light, after a principall respect to your benigne aspect, andinfluence, affoorde some lustre to some others. In loyaltie I may averre(my needle toucht, and drawne, and held by such an adamant) what he inlove assumed, that sawe the other stars, but bent his course by thePole-starre, and two guardes, avowing, _Aspicit unam_ One guideth me, though more I see. Good parts imparted are not empaired: Your springsare first to serve your selfe, yet may yeelde your neighbours sweetewater; your taper is to light to you first, and yet it may light yourneighbours candle. I might make doubt, least I or mine be not now of anyfurther use to your selfe-sufficiencie, being at home so instructed forItalian, as teaching or learning could supplie, that there seemed noneede of travell: and nowe by travell so accomplished, as what wants toperfection? Wherein no lesse must be attributed to your embellishtgraces (my most noble, most gracious, and most gracefull Earle ofRutland) well entred in the toong, ere your Honor entered Italie, theretherein so perfected, as what needeth a Dictionarie? Naie, if I offerservice but to them that need it, with what face seeke I a place withyour excellent Ladiship (my most-most honored, because best-best adornedMadame) who by conceited Industrie, or industrious conceite, in Italianas in French, in French as in Spanish, in all as in English, understandwhat you reade, write as you reade, and speake as you write; yet rathercharge your minde with matter, then your memorie with words? And if thispresent, present so small profit, I must confesse it brings much lessedelight: for, what pleasure is a plot of simples, _O non vista, o malnote, o mal gradite_, Or not seene, or ill knowne, or ill accepted? Yetheere-hence may some good accrewe, not onelie to truantlie-schollers, which ever-and-anon runne to _Venuti_, and _Alunno_; or to new-entrednovices, that hardly can construe their lesson; or to well-forwardestudents, that have turned over _Guazzo_ and _Castiglione_, yea runnethrough _Guarini_, _Ariosto_, _Taffo_, _Boccace_ and _Petrarche_: buteven to the most compleate Doctor; yea to him that best can stande_All'erta_ for the best Italian, heereof sometimes may rise some use:since, have he the memorie of _Themistocles_, of _Seneca_, of _Scaliger_yet is it not infinite, in so finite a bodie. And I have seene the best, yea naturall Italians, not onely stagger, but even sticke fast in themyre, and at last give it over, or give their verdict with An_ignoramus_, _Boccace_ is prettie hard, yet understood: _Petrarche_harder, but explaned: _Dante_ hardest, but commented. Some doubt if allaright. _Alunno_ for his foster-children hath framed a worlde of theirwordes. _Venuti_ taken much paines in some verie fewe authors; and our_William Thomas_ hath done prettilie; and if all faile, although wemisse or mistake the worde, yet make we up the sence. Such making ismarring. Naie all as good; but not as right. And not right, is flatwrong. One saies of _Petrarche_ for all: A thousand strappadas couldenor compell him to confesse, what some interpreters will make him saiehe ment. And a Judicious gentleman of this lande will uphold, that nonein England understands him thoroughly. How then ayme we at _PeterAretine_, that is so wittie, hath such varietie, and frames so manie newwords? At _Francesco Doni_ who is so fantasticall, & so strange? At_Thomaso Garzoni_ in his _Piassa universale_; or at _AllesandroCittolini_, in his _Typecosmia_, who have more proper and peculiar wordsconcerning everie severall trade, arte, or occupation for everieparticular toole, or implement belonging unto them, then ever any manheeretofore either collected in any booke, or sawe collected in any onelanguage? How shall we understand _Hanniball Caro_, who is so full ofwittie jestes, sharpe quips, nipping tantes, and scoffing phrasesagainst that grave and learned man _Lodivico Castelvetri_, in his_Apologia de' Banchi_? How shall the English Gentleman come to theperfect understanding of _Federico Grisone_, his _Arte del Cavalcare_, who is so full of strange phrases, and unusuall wordes, peculiar onelyto horse-manship, and proper but to _Cavalarizzi_? How shall weunderstand so manie and so strange bookes, of so severall, and sofantasticall subjects as be written in the Italian toong? How shall we, naie how may we ayme at the Venetian, at the Romane, at the Lombard, atthe Neapolitane, at so manie, and so much differing Dialects, andIdiomes, as be used and spoken in Italie, besides the Florentine? Surewe must saie as that most intelligent and grave Prelate said, when hecame new out of the South into the North, and was saluted with a womanssute in Northern. Now what is that in English? If I, who many yeereshave made profession of this toong, and in this search or quest ofinquirie have spent most of my studies; yet many times in many wordeshave beene so stal'd, and stabled, as such sticking made me blushinglieconfesse my ignorance, and such confession indeede made me studiouslieseeke helpe, but such helpe was not readilie to be had at hande. Thenmay your Honors without any dishonour, yea what and whosoever he be thatthinkes himselfe a very good Italian, and that to trip others, dothalwaies stande _All'erta_, without disgrace to himselfe, sometimes be ata stand, and standing see no easie issue, but for issue with adirection, which in this mappe I hold, if not exactlie delineated, yetconveniently prickt out. Is all then in this little? All I knowe: andmore (I know) then yet in any other. Though most of these you knowalreadie, yet have I enough, if you know anie thing more then you knew, by this. The retainer doth some service, that now and then but holdsyour Honors styrrop, or lendes a hande over a stile, or opens a gappefor easier passage, or holds a torch in a darke waie: enough to weareyour Honors cloth. Such then since this may proove, proove it (rightHonorable) and reproove not for it my rudenes, or my rashnes; rudenes inpresuming so high, rashnes in assuming so much for it that yet isunaprooved. Some perhaps will except against the sexe, and not allowe itfor a male-broode, sithens as our Italians saie, _Le parole sono femine, & i fatti sono maschy_, Wordes they are women, and deeds they are men. But let such know that _Detti_ and _fatti_, wordes and deeds with me areall of one gender. And although they were commonly Feminine, why mightnot I by strong imagination (which Phisicions give so much power unto)alter their sexe? Or at least by such heaven-pearcing devotion astransformed _Iphis_, according to that description of the Poet. 

 "Et ognimembro suo piu forte e sciolto Sente, e volge allamadre il motto, e'l lume. Come veto fanciullo esser vede Iphi va con parole alme, e devote Altempio con la madre, e la nutrice, E paga il voto, e'l suo miracoldice. 

 Feeling more vigor in each part and strength Then earst, and that indeede she was a boy. Towards hir mother eies and wordes at length She turns, and at the temple with meeke joy He and his nurse and mother utter how The case fell out, and so he paide his vow. "

And so his strength, his stature, and his masculine vigor (I would, naieI coulde saie vertue) makes me assure his sexe, and according to hissexe provide so autenticall testimonies. Laie then your blisse-fullhandes on his head (right Honorable) and witnes that he by me devotedto your Honors, forsakes my private cell, all retired conceites, andselfe-respects to serve you in the worlde, the world in you; andbeleeves in your Honors goodnes, in proportion as his service shall beof moment and effectuall; and that you will not onely in due censure behis judges, but on true judgement his protectors; and in this faithdesires to be numbered in your familie; so in your studies to attend, asyour least becke may be his dieugarde; for he hath toong to answer, words at will, and wants not some wit, though he speake plaine what eachthing is. So have I crost him, and so blest him, your god-childe, andyour servant; that you may likewise give him your blessing, if it be butas when one standes you in steede, supplies you, or pleases you, yousaie, Gods-blessing on him. But though in the fore-front he beares yourHonorable names, it may be demanded how is it, your Honors gave not himhis name? Heerein (right Honorable) beare with the fondnes of hismother, my Mistresse _Muse_, who seeing hir female _Arescusa_ turn'd toa pleasing male _Arescon_ (as _Plinie_ tels of one) beg'd (as somemothers use) that to the fathers name she might prefixe a name befittingthe childes nature. So cald she him, A worlde of wordes: since as theUnivers containes all things, digested in best equipaged order, embellisht with innumerable ornaments by the universall creator. And as_Tipocosmia_ imaged by _Allesandro Cittolini_, and _Fabrica del mondo_, framed by _Francesco Alunno_, and Piazza _universale_ set out by_Thomaso Garzoni_ tooke their names of the universall worlde, in wordsto represent things of the world: as words are types of things, andeverie man by himselfe a little world in some resemblances; so thoughtshe, she did see as great capacitie, and as meete method in this, as inthose latter, and (as much as there might be in Italian and English) amodell of the former, and therefore as good cause so to entitle it. Iflooking into it, it looke like the Sporades, or scattered Ilands, ratherthan one well-joynted or close-joyned bodie, or one coherent orbe: yourHonors knowe, an armie ranged in files is fitter for muster, then in aring; and jewels are sooner found in severall boxes, then all in onebagge. If in these rankes the English outnumber the Italian, congratulate the copie and varietie of our sweete-mother toong, whichunder this most Excellent well-speaking Princesse or Ladie of the worldein all languages is growne as farre beyond that of former times, as hermost flourishing raigne for all happines is beyond the raignes of formerPrinces. Right Honorable, I feare me I have detained your Honors toolong with so homelie entertainment, yet being the best the meanenes ofmy skill can affoorde; which intending as my childes christening-banquet, heereunto I presumed to invite your Honors: but I hope what was saide atyou Honors first comming (I meane in the beginning of my Epistle) shallserve for a finall excuse. And in conclusion (most Honorable) once againeat your departure give me leave to commend this sonne of mine to yourfavourable protections, and advowe him yours, with this licence, thatas _Henricus Stephanus_ dedicated his Treasure of the Greeke toongto _Maximilian_ the Emperour, to _Charles_ the French king, and to_Elizabeth_ our dread Soveraigne, and by their favours to theirUniversities: So I may consecrate this lesser-volume of little-lessevalue, but of like import, first, to your triple-Honors, then under yourprotections to all Italian-English, or English-Italian students. Vouchsafethen (highlie Honorable) as of manie made for others, yet made knowne toyour Honors, so of this to take knowledge, who was borne, bred, andbrought foorth for your Honors chiefe service; though more service it maydo, to many others, that more neede it; since manie make as much of that, which is made for them, as that they made them-selves, and of adopted, as begotten children; yea Adrian the Emperour made more of those thenthese; since the begotten are such as fates give us, the adopted suchas choice culs us; they oftentimes _Stolti, sgarbati, & inutili_, theseever with _Corpo intiero, leggiadre membra, entente sana_. Acceptingtherefore of the childe, I hope your Honors wish as well to the Father, who to your Honors all-devoted wisheth meeds of your merits, renowme ofyour vertues, and health of your persons, humblie with gracious leavekissing your thrice-honored hands, protesteth to continue ever

 Your Honors most humble and bounden in true service, JOHN FLORIO. 

IV

ADDRESS TO THE READER FROM FLORIO'S _WORLDE OF WORDES_, 1598

TO THE READER

I know not how I may again adventure an Epistle to the reader, so arethese times, or readers in these times, most part sicke of the sullens, and peevish in their sicknes, and conceited in their peevishnes. Soshould I feare the fire, that have felt the flame so lately, and fliefrom the sea, that have yet a vow to pay for escaping my lastshipwracke. Then what will the world say for ventring againe? A fuodanno, one will say. Et a torto si lamenta del mare, chi due voltecivoul tornare, will another say. Good council indeede, but whofolloweth it? Doe we not daily see the contrarie in practise? Who lovesto be more on the sea, then they that have been most on it? Whither forchange if they have kept at a stay: or for amends if they have lost: orfor increase if they have gotten. Of these there are ynow andwise-ynough to excuse me. Therefore I have put forward at aventure: Butbefore I recount unto thee (gentle reader) the purpose of my new voyage:give me leave a little to please my selfe and refresh thee with thediscourse of my olde danger. Which because in some respect is a commondanger, the discoverie thereof may happily profit other men, as much asplease myselfe. And here might I begin with those notable Pirates inthis our paper-sea, those sea-dogs, or lande-Critikes, monsters of men, if not beastes rather than men; whose teeth are Canibals, their toongsadder-forkes, their lips aspes-poyson, their eies basiliskes, theirbreath the breath of a grave, their wordes like swordes of Turkes, thatstrive which shall dive deepest into a Christian lying bound beforethem. But for these barking and biting dogs, they are as well knowne asScylla and Charybdis. 

There is another sort of leering curs, that rather snarle than bite, whereof I coulde instance in one, who lighting upon a good sonnet of agentlemans, a friend of mine, that loved better to be a Poet, then to becounted so, called the auctor a rymer, notwithstanding he had more skillin good Poetrie, then my slie gentleman seemed to have in good mannersor humanitie But my quarrell is to a tooth-lesse dog that hateth wherehe cannot hurt, and would faine bite, when he hath no teeth. His name isH. S. Doe not take it for the Romane H. S. For he is not of so much worth, unlesse it be as H. S. Is twice as much and a halfe as halfe an As. Butvalue him how you will, I am sure he highly valueth himselfe. Thisfellow, this H. S. Reading (for I would you should knowe he is a readerand a writer too) under my last epistle to the reader I. F. Made asfamiliar a word of F. As if I had bin his brother. Now Recte fit oculismagister tuis, said an ancient writer to a much-like readinggramarian-pedante: God save your eie-sight, sir, or at least yourinsight. And might not a man that can do as much as you (that is, reade)finde as much matter out of H. S. As you did out of I. F. ? As for example, H. S. Why may it not stand as well for Haerus Stultitiae, as for HomoSimplex? or for Hara Suillina, as for Hostis Studioforum? or for HircusSatiricus, as well as for any of them? And this in Latine, besidesHedera Seguice, Harpia Subata, Humore Superbo, Hipocrito Simulatore inItalian. And in English world without end, Huffe Snuffe, Horse Stealer, Hob Sowter, Hugh Sot, Humfrey Swineshead, Hodge Sowgelder. Now MasterH. S. If this doe gaule you, forbeare kicking hereafter, and in the meanetime you may make you a plaister of your dride Maroram. I have seene inmy daies an inscription, harder to finde out the meaning, and yet easierfor a man to picke a better meaning out of it, if he be not a man ofH. S. Condition. There is a most excellent preface to the excellentlytranslated booke signed A. B. Which when I sawe, I eftsoones conceived, could I in perusing the whole A B C omit the needelesse, and well orderthe requisite letters, I should find some such thing as AdmirabilisBonitas, or Amantum Beatissumus. But how long thinke you would H. S. Havebin rooting and grunting ere he could have found as he is HominumSimplicissimus, or would have pickt out as he is Hirudo Sanguifuga, sohonest a meaning? Trust me I cannot but marvell at the disposition ofthese men, who are so malicious as they will not spare to stab others, though it be through their owne bodies, and wrong other men with theirowne double harme. Such mens wordes a wise man compares to boltes shotright-up against heaven, that come not neare heaven, but downe againeupon their pates that shot them: or a man may compare them to durt flungat another man, which besides it defiles his handes that flings it, possibly it is blowne backe againe upon his owne face: or to monie putout to usurie, that returnes with increase, so they delivered withhatred, are repaide with much more: or to the blasting Sereno in hotcountries, rising from puddles, dunghils, carions, putrified dampes, poysoned lakes, that being detestable itselfe, makes that much moredetested from whence it comes. On the other side a good word is a deawfrom heaven to earth, that soakes into the roote and sends forth fruitefrom earth to heaven: it is a precious balme, that hath sweetenesse inthe boxe, whence it comes, sweetnesse and vertue in the bodie, wheretoit comes: it is a golden chaine, that linkes the toongs, and eares, andharts of writers and readers, each to other. They hurt not God (faithSeneca) but their owne soules, that overthrowe his altars: Nor harmethey good men, but themselves, that turns their sacrifice of praisesinto blasphemie. They that rave, and rage, and raile against heaven Isay not (faith be) they are guiltie of sacrilege, but at least theyloose their labour. Let Aristophanes and his comedians make plaies, andscowre their mouthes on Socrates; those very mouthes they make tovilifie, shall be the meanes to amplifie his vertue. And as it was noteasie for Cato to speake evill, so was it not usuall for him to hearevill: it may be SOCRATES would not kicke againe, if an asse did kickeat him, yet some that cannot be so wise, and will not be so patient asSocrates, will for such jadish tricks give the asse his due burthen ofbastonadas. Let H. S. Hisse, and his complices quarrell, and all breaketheir gals, I have a great faction of good writers to bandie with me. 

 "Think they to set their teeth on tender stuffe? But they shall marre their teeth, and finde me tough. "

Conantes frangere frangam, said Victoria Collonna:

 "Those that to breake me strive, I'le breake them if I thrive. "

Yet had not H. S. So causelesly, so witlesly provoked me, I coulde nothave bin hired, or induced against my nature, against my manner thus farto have urged him: though happily heereafter I shall rather contemnehim, then farther pursue him. He is to blame (faith Martiall, andfurther he brandes him with a knavish name) that will be wittie inanother mans booke. How then will scoffing readers scape this marke of amaledizant? whose wits have no other worke, nor better worth then toflout, and fall out? It is a foule blemish that Paterculus findes in theface of the Gracchi. They had good wits, but used them ill. But a foulerblot then a Jewes letter is it in the foreheads of Caelies and Curio, that he sets, Ingeniose nequam, they were wittily wicked. Pitie it isbut evermore wit should be vertuous, vertue gentle, gentrie studious, students gracious. Let follie be dishonest, dishonestie unnoble, ignobilitie scandalous and scandall slanderous. Who then are they thatmispend all their leisure, yea take their cheefe pleasure in back bitingwell-deservers? I see and am sorie to see a sort of men, whose fifthelement is malediction, whose life is infamie, whose death damnation, whose daies are surfeiting, whose nights lecherie, yea such as Nannacould never teach Pippa, nor Comare and Balia discourse of and whosecouches are Spintries; whose thrift is usurie, meales gluttonie, exercise cousenage, whose valour bragardrie, Astolpheidas, orRodomontadas, or if it come to action, crueltie; whose communication isAtheisme, contention, detraction, or Paillardise, most of lewdness, seldof vertue, never of charitie; whose spare-time is vanitie or villanie:yet will I not deale by them, as they doe by others. I like not reproofewhere it pertaines not to me: But if they like to see their ownepictures in lively colours of their own ornaments, habillements, attendants, observances, studies, amours, religions, games, travels, imployments, furnitures, let them as gentlemen (for so I construeNobiles, and more they be not, if they be no lesse) goe to the Paintersshop, or looking-glasse of Ammianus Marcellinus, an unpartiallhistorian, in his 28. Booke about the middle, and blush, and amend, andthink, that thence, and out of themselves I might well draw a longdeclamation: they that understand him, will agnise this; they that doenot, let them learne: let both conceive, how they conforme, and bothreforme their deformities; or if they will not, at least let themforbeare to blur others because they are blacke themselves, least it besaide to them, as Seneca saide to one not unfitely, Te fera scabiesdepascitur, tu nacuos rides pulchriorum? this let them construe, andtake to them the meaning of their labour. And though I more then fearemuch detracting: for I have already tasted some, and that extraordinariethough in an ordinarie place, where my childe was beaten ere it wasborne: some divining of his imperfectnes for his English part; somefore-speaking his generall weakenes, and very gently seeming to pitiehis fathers. And one averring he could beget a better of his owne, which like ynough he can, and hath done many a one, God forgive him. Butthe best is, my sonne with all his faultes shall approove himself nomisse-begotten. And for those exceptions, knowing from whom they come, Iwere very weake-minded if they coulde anything moove me. And thathusbandman might be counted very simple, that for the ominous shreekesof an unluckie, hoarce-voist, dead-devouring night-raven or two, or forfeare of the malice of his worst conditioned neighbors, would neglecteither to till and sowe his ground, or after in due time to reape andthresh out his harvest, that might benefite so many others with that, which both their want might desire, and their thankfulness woulddeserve. So did I intend my first seede, so doe I my harvest. The firstfruites onely reserved to my Honorable Patrones, the rest to everywoorthie Ladie and gentleman that pleases to come and buy; and though Idoubt not but ravens and crowes both, will have a graine or two now andthen in spite of my teeth, especially H. S. Who is so many graines toolight: yet I am well content to repay good for evill, thinking it notimpossible that by the taste of the corne those very soules may in timehave their mouthes stopt for speaking evill against the husbandman. Andlet this comparison of a labouring man by the way put you in minde(gentle reader) of his labours, that hath laboured so much, and so longto save you a labour, which I doubt not but he may as justly stand uponin this toong-work, as in Latin Sir Thomas Eliot, Bishop Cooper, andafter them Thomas Thomas, and John Rider have done amongst us: and inGreeks and Latin both the Stephans, the father and the sonne, whonotwithstanding the helpes each of them had, yet none of them butthought he might challenge speciall thankes for his special travell, tobetter purpose then any before him. And if they did so in those toongs, where they had so many, and so great helpes, and in toongs which werehelpes to one another; they that understande, will easily acknowledgethe difference betwixt my paines and theirs: yet I desire nopre-eminence of thankes; but either equall thankes, or equall excuse. And well may I make that comparison betwixt our labours, thatAllessandro Cittolini maketh in his Tipocosmia: we all fared indeed likesea-faring men (according to my first comparison) and lanched foorthinto a deepe, and dangerous sea, but they had this advantage of me, thatthey were many to steere a passage-boate; I was but one to turne andwinde the sailes, to use the oare, to sit at sterne, to pricke my carde, to watch upon the upper decke, boate-swaine, pilot, mate, and master, all offices in one, and that in a more unruly, more unweildie, and moreroome-some vessell, then the biggest hulke on Thames, or burthen-bearingCaracke in Spaine, or slave-tiring Gallie in Turkie, and that in a seamore divers, more dangerous, more stormie, and more comfortlesse thenany Ocean. If any thinke I had great helpes of Alunno, or of Venuti, lethim confer, and knowe I have in two, yea almost in one of my letters ofthe Alphabet, more wordes, then they have in all their twentie; and theyare but for a few auctors in the Italian toong, mine for most that writewell, as may appeere by the Catalog of bookes that I have read throughof purpose for the accomplishing of this Dictionarie. I would not meddlewith their defects and errors nor yet amplifie the fulnesse orperfection of my owne worke, farther then upon a just ground to satisfiehis good desire that wisheth the best helpe. If any man aske whether allItalian wordes be here? I answer him, it may be no: and yet I thinkeheere be as many, as he is likely to finde (that askes the question)within the compasse of his reading; and yet he may have read well too. Ishould thinke that very few wordes could escape those auctors I have setdowne, which I have read of purpose to the absolute accomplishing ofthis worke, being the most principall, choisest, and difficult in thetoong; especially writing in such varietie not onely of matters, but ofdialects: but what I aske him againe, how many hundred wordes he, andpossibly his teachers too were gravelled in? which he shall finde hereexplaned? If no other bookes can be so well perfected, but still something may be added, how much lesse a Word-booke? Since daily both newwordes are invented; and bookes still found, that make a new supplie ofolde. We see the experience in Latin, a limited toong, that is at hisfull growth: and yet if a man consider the reprinting of LatinDictionaries, ever with addition of new store, he would thinke it werestill increasing. And yet in these Dictionaries as in all other thatthat is printed still is reputed perfect. And so it is no doubt afterthe customarie and possible perfection of a Dictionarie, which kinde ofperfection if I chalenge to mine (especially considering the yeereltincrease, which is as certainly in this, in French, in Spanish, inDutch, &c. , as we find by experience it is in English; and I thinke Imay well saie more in this, then in the rest; yea and in the rest mostlyfrom this) I hope no man that shall expend the woorth of this worke inimpartiall examination, will thinke I challenge more then is due to it. And for English-gentlemen me thinks it must needs be a pleasure to them, to see so rich a toong out-vide by their mother-speech, as by themanie-folde Englishes or manie wordes in this is manifest? The wantwhereof in England heeretofore, I might justly say in all Europe, mightmore endeare the woorth. Though without it some knew much, yet none knewall Italian, as all may do by this. That well to know Italian is a graceof all graces, without exception, which I ever exemplifie in hergracious Highnes; whose due-deserved-praises set foorth aright I mayrightly say, as a notable Italian writer saide earst of hirmost-renowmed father of famous memorie, Che per capir le giufte lodidella quale conuerrebbe o che il cieli s'inalzaffe, o ch'il mondos'allargaffe; or as the moderne Italian Homer saide of a Queene farinferious to hir thrice-sacred Majestie, Che le glorie altrui siesprimono scrivendo e parlando, quelle di fua serenissima e sacratissimaMaesta si possono solo esprimere maravigliando e tacendo. Of whoseinnumerable excellencies, is not the fore-most, yet most famous I haveheard, and often have had the good hap and comfort to see, that noEmbassador or stranger hath audience of hir Majestie, but in his nativetoong; and none hath answere but in the same; or in the common toongs ofGreeke and Latin, by hir sacred lips pronounced. That the best by hirpatterne desire to doe as much, I doubt not; but I doubt how they canwithout such helpe, and that such helpe was to be had till now. I denie:yet doe I understand that a gentleman of worshipful account, welltravelled, well conceited, and well experienced in the Italian, hath inthis very kinde taken great pains, and made as great proofes of hisinestimable worth. Glad would I be to see that worke abroad; some sightwhereof gave me twenty yeeres since the first light to this. But sincehe suppresseth his, for private respects, or further perfection, nor he, nor others will (I hope) prize this the lesse. I could here enter into alarge discourse of the Italian toong, and of the teachers and teachingthereof, and shew the ease and facilities of it, with setting downe somefew, yea very few observations whereunto the Italian toong may bereduced: which some of good sort and experience have merrily compared tojugling-tricks, all which afore a man know or discover how they aredone, one would judge to be very hard and difficult; but after a manhath seene them and knowes them, they are deemed but slight and easie. And I was once purposed for the benefite of all learners to have doneit, and to have shewed why through my Dictionarie I have in all verbs ofthe first conjugation onely set downe the Infinitive moode, except it beof fower irregular verbes, and wherefore in all of the seconde andthirde conjugations I have noted besides the Infinitive moode, the firstperson singular of the present-tence of the Indicative moode, the firstperson singular of the first preterperfect-tence of the Indicative, andthe participle. And why in the verbes of the fourth conjugation, I havebesides the Infinitive moode, the participle, the first person singularof the present-tence of the Indicative moode of some very few, and notof all, and how by those fewe onely one may frame all the persons of allthe tences of all the verbes in the Italian toong; without the knowledgeof which, and of those few observations glanced at before, no man can orshall ever learne to speake or write true Italian in England: But that Iunderstand there be some that are perswaded, yea and affirme, thatnothing can be set down either by me, or any else that they have not orknowe not before; and I am informed, that some would not be ashamed toprotest they knewe as much before: and therefore contrarie to my firstresolution I forbeare to doe it, grieving that for their sakes thegentle reader and learner shall be barred of so necessarie a scale ofthe Italian toong. If these, or others thinke of this no such paines, little price, or lesse profit then I talke of, I onely wish, they feltbut halfe my paines for it; or let them leave this, and tie themselvesto the like taske, and then let the fruites of our labors, and thereapers of the fruites judge betwixt us whose paines hath sorted to bestperfection: which ere long (if God sende me life, and blesse theselabors) I meane to perfect with addition of the French and Latine, andwith the wordes of some twenty good Italian auctors, that I could neverobtaine the sight of, and hope shortly to enjoy: And I intend also topublish and annexe unto this, an Alphabeticall English Dictionarie, thatany man knowing but the English word, shall presently finde the Italianfor it. Meane-while I wish to thee, as of me thou shalt deserve, andwish of thee as I knowe of thee I have deserved. 

 Resolute JOHN FLORIO. 

V

WILL OF JOHN FLORIO

In the blessed name of God the Father my gracious Creator and Maker, ofGod the Sonne Jesus Christ my merciful Savyo^r and Redeemer, and of Godthe Holie Ghost three persons and one ever liveing and omnipotent God, in unity and Trinity my most loving Comforter and preserver Amen. I JohnFlorio of Fulham in the Countie of Middlesex Esq^re, being of goodhealth and sound minde and perfect memory, hearty thankes bee everascribed and given therefore unto Almighty God, And well in rememberingand knowing that nothing is more certayne unto mortall man than deathand noe one thing more uncertayne then is the houre therof, doe makeappoint pronounce and declare this my Testament therin fully contayningmy last direct and unrevocable will and intention in manner and formefollowing; That is to say, First and principally as duty andChristianity willeth mee I most heartily and penitently sorrowfull forall my sinnes committ and recommend my soule into the mercifull handesof Almighty God, assuredly trusting and faithfully beleeving by theonely meritts bitter passion precious blood and glorious death of theimmaculate Lambe Jesus Christ his Sonne, to have full remission andabsolute forgiveness of all my sinnes whatsoever, and after thistransitory life to live and raigne with him in his most blessed Kingdomeof heaven. As for my wretched Body I committe the same as earth to earthand dust to dust to be buried in such decent order as to my deare Wifeand by my executors here under-named shalbee thought meete andconvenient. And as touching the disposing and ordering of all andwhatsoever such goodes cattle, chattle, Leases, monie, plate, jewells, bookes, apparrell, bedding, hangings, peawter, brasse, household stuffemoveables, immoveables and all other things whatsoever named or unnamed, specifide or unspecifide, wherwith my most gracious God hath beenepleased to endowe mee with or hereafter shall of his infinite mercy beepleased to bestowe or conferre upon me in this transitory life, I willappoint give order dispose and bequeath all and every part and parcel ofthe same firmely and unalterably to stand in manner and forme following, That is to say, Item, I give and bequeath unto my daughter AureliaMolins the Wedding Ring wherewith I married her mother, being aggrievedat my very heart that by reason of my poverty I am not able to leave heranything els. Item, I give and bequeath as a poore token of my love tomy sonne in law James Molins, a faire black velvett deske embroideredwith seede pearles and with a silver and guilt inkhorne and dust boxtherin, that was Queen Anne's. Item, I give and bequeath unto the righthonourable my sigulare and even honoured good Lord William Earle ofPembroke Lord Chamberlaine to the Kings most excellent maiestie and oneof his royal counsell of state (if at my death he shall then be living)all my Italian, French and Spanish bookes, as well printed as unprinted, being in number about Three hundred and fortie, namely my new andperfect dictionary, as also my tenne dialogues in Italian and Englishand my unbound volume of divers written collections and rapsodies, mostheartilie entreating his Honorable Lordshippe (as hee once promised mee)to accept of them as a sign and token of my service and affection to hishonor and for my sake to place them in his library, either at Wilton orelse at Baynards Castle at London, humbly desiring him to give way andfavourable assistance that my dictionarie and dialogues may bee printedand the profitt therof accrud unto my wife. Item, I doe likewise giveand bequeath unto his noble Lordship the Corinne Stone as a jewell fittfor a Prince which Ferdinando the great Duke of Tuscanie sent as a mostprecious gift (among divers others) unto Queen Anne of blessed memory;the use and vertue wherof is written in two pieces of paper, both inItalian and English being in a little box with the Stone, most humblybeseeching his honour (as I right confidently hope and trust hee will incharity doe if neede require) to take my poore and deere wife into hisprotection and not suffer her to be wrongfully molested by any enemie ofmyne, and also in her extremity to afforde her his helpe good worde andassistance to my Lord Treasurer, that she may be payed my wages and thearrearages of that which is unpayed or shall bee behind at my death. Therest the residue and remainder of all whatsoever and singular my goods, cattles, chattles, jewells, plate, debts, leases, money, or monie worth, household stuffe, utensills, English bookes, moveables or immoveables, named or not named, and things whatsoever by mee before not givendisposed or bequeathed (provided that my debts bee paid and my funeralldischarged). I wholly give, fully bequeath, absolutely leave, assigneand unalterably consigne unto my deerly beloved wife Rose Florio, mostheartily greiving and ever sorrowing that I cannot give or leave hermore in requitall of her tender love, loving care painfull dilligence, and continuall labour, to me and of mee in all my fortunes and manysicknesses; then whome never had husband a more loving wife, painfullnurce, or comfortable consorte, And I doe make institute, ordaine, appoint and name the right Reverend Father in God, Theophilus Feild Lordbishoppe of Landaffe and Mr. Richard Cluet Doctor of Divinity vicar andpreacher of the word of God at Fulham, both my much esteemed, dearelybeloved and truely honest good frendes, my sole and onely Executors andoverseers; And I doe give to each of them for their paines an ouldgreene velvett deske with a silver inke and dust box in each of themthat were sometymes Queene Annes my Soveraigne Mistrisse, entreatingboth to accept of them as a token of my hearty affection towards them, and to excuse my poverty which disableth mee to requite the trouble, paines, and courtesie, which I confidently beleeve they will charitablyand for Gods sake undergoe in advising directing and helping my pooreand deere wife in executing of this my last and unrevocable will andtestament, if any should be soe malicious or unnaturall as to crosse orquestion the same; And I doe utterly revoke and for ever renounce, frustrate, disanull, cancell and make void, all and whatsoever formerwills, legacies, bequests, promises, guifts, executors or overseers (ifit should happen that anie bee forged or suggested for untill this tyme, I never writt made or finished any but this onely) And I will appointand ordaine that this and none but this onely written all with mine ownehand, shall stand in full force and vigor for my last and unrevocablewill and Testament, and none other nor otherwise. As for the debts thatI owe the greatest and onelie is upon an obligatory writing of myne ownehand which my daughter Aurelia Molins with importunity wrested from meof about threescore pound, wheras the truth, and my conscience tellethmee, and soe knoweth her conscience, it is but thirty-four pound ortherabouts, But let that passe, since I was soe unheedy, as to make andacknowledge the said writing, I am willing that it bee paid anddischarged in this forme and manner, My sonne in lawe (as daughter hiswife knoweth full well) hath in his handes as a pawne, a faire gold ringof mine, with thirteene faire table diamonds therein enchased; whichcost Queene Anne my gracious Mistrisse seaven and forty pounds starline, and for which I might many tymes have had forty pounds readie money:upon the said ring my sonne in the presence of his wife lent me Tennepound. I desire him and pray him to take the overplus of the said Ringin parte of payment, as also a leaden Ceasterne which hee hath of mynestanding in his yard at his London-house that cost mee at a porte-salefortie shillings, as also a silver candle cup with a cover worth aboutforty shillings which I left at his house being sicke there; desiring mysonne and daughter that their whole debt may bee made up and theysatisfied with selling the lease of my house in Shoe lane, and soeaccquitt and discharge my poore wife who as yet knoweth nothing of hisdebt. Moreover I entreat my deare wife that if at my death my servantArtur [_blank_] shall chance to bee with mee and in my service, that formy sake she give him such poore doubletts, breeches, hattes, and bootesas I shall leave, and therwithall one of my ould cloakes soe it bee notlyned with velvett. In witnesse whereof I the said John Florio to thismy last will and Testament (written every sillable with myne owne hande, and with long and mature deliberation digested, contayning foure sheetesof paper, the first of eight and twenty lines, the second of nine andtwenty, the third of nyne and twenty and the fourth of six lines) haveputt, sett, written and affixed my name and usual seale of my armes. Thetwentyth day of July in the yeare of our Lord and Savyour Jesus Christ1625, and in the first yeare of the raigne of our Soveraigne Lord andKing (whom God preserve) Charles the First of that name of England, Scotland, France and Ireland King. By mee John Florio being, thankes beeever given to my most gracious God, in perfect sence and memory. 

Proved 1 June 1626 by Rose Florio the relict, the executors named in theWill for certain reasons renouncing execution. 

 NOTE

 Florio was eighty years of age at his death in 1625. From significant references by Shakespeare, in _Henry IV. _, to Falstaff's age, I have long been of the opinion that Florio was more than forty-five years old in 1598, when the _First Part_ of this play was revised and the _Second Part_ written; yet if the age of fifty-eight, which Florio gives himself in the medallion round his picture in the 1611 edition of his _Worlde of Wordes_ is to be believed, he was only forty-five in 1598. I have now found Anthony Wood's authority for dating his birth in 1545. 

 In _Registrium Universitalus Oxon. _, vol. Ii. , by Andrew Clark, I find: "1st May 1581, Magd. Co. , John Florio, ęt. 36, serviens mei Barnes. "

 In a copy of Florio's first edition of his _Worlde of Wordes_ in my library, which evidently belonged to his friend William Godolphin, as his name is written in it, there is also written in an old hand, under Florio's name on the title-page, "born 1545. "

INDEX

_Achilles Shield_, 120

Admiral's company, the Lord, 6, 10, 12, 50, 51, 52, 53; at Dover, 54; 56, 57, 59; identity between 1585 and 1589, 60; 65; under Henslowe, 73; 78, 81, 82, 84, 14

_Agamemnon_, 114

Allen, Giles, 39, 43, 45, 75

Alleyn, Edward, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 38, 61, 62, 65, 70; manager of Strange's men, 77; 82, 85; as Roscius, 98; 100, 101

Alleyn, John, 8, 62; servant to the Lord Admiral, 63; 102

Alleyn, Richard, 105

_All's Well that Ends Well_, 163, 170, 171, 193, 194, 195, 205

_Anatomy of Absurdity_, 98, 99

Anna, Queen, 222

Antonio, 134

Arden, Mary, 21, 23

Arden, Robert, 21

Arden, the name, 21

Ardens of Parkhill, the, 21-22

Armada, the, 2, 131, 132

Armado, 18, 182, 206

Armin, Robert, 114 n. 

Arundell's players, Lord, 44, 48

_Ave Cęsar_, 99

Avisa, 129

Aylmer, Bishop, 140

Bacon, Sir Francis, 185

Barnes, Barnabe, 127

Barnstaple, 9

Biron, 134

_Blacke Bookes Messenger, The_, 47 n. 

Bodleian Library, 128

Brandes, Georg, 8 n. 

Brayne, John, 39, 43, 75

Brown, John, 26

Brown, Ned, 47

Browne, Robert, 8, 62, 65, 102

Browning, Robert, 19

Bryan, George, 29, 55, 60, 83

Burbage, Cuthbert, 44, 45, 75

Burbage, James, 5, 9, 11, 38; as theatrical manager, 38, 42, 43, 45, 52, 53, 58, 63, 65, 67, 70, 75, 106, 126

Burbage, Richard, 5, 8, 14, 55, 66, 70, 75, 77, 83, 126

Burbie, Cuthbert, 96 n. 

Burghley, Lord, 11, 17, 73, 154, 155, 173, 174

Carey, Henry, Lord Hunsdon, 50

Castle, William, parish clerk of Stratford, 68

Cecil-Howard faction, 73

Cecil, Sir Robert, 17, 154, 175, 194, 216

Cecil, Sir William, 157

Censor, Public, 17

Chamberlain's company, the Lord, 10, 12, 13, 14, 38, 42, 52, 57, 59, 84; leave Henslowe, 86

Chamberlain's musicians, the Lord, 54; at Coventry, 50, 60

Chambers, E. K. , 56

Chandos portrait, the, 110

Chapman, George, 15, 23, 31, 92, 93, 109, 114, 115, 119, 128, 167, 184, 185, 186

Chettle, Henry, 93, 110, 151

_Choice of Valentines, The_, 128

Chrisoganus, 120

Classical allusions, 79

Cobham, Lord, 215, 217

_Comedy of Beauty and Housewifery, A_, 49

_Comedy of Errors, The_, 8, 17, 83, 148, 152, 172

_Contention, and True Tragedie, The_, 80, 147

Cornwallis, Sir William, 221

_Coronet for my Mistress Philosophy, A_, 124, 130

Court performances, 82

Court records, 13

Coventry, 9

Coventry records, 54

Cowdray House, 37, 165, 166

Cranmer, Archbishop, 157

Crosskeys, the, 51, 53, 55, 70, 72, 73, 77, 81

Curtain Theatre, the 6, 14, 39, 44, 46, 48, 50, 51, 72, 74

_Cymbeline_, 3

Dame Pintpot, 198

Daniel, Samuel, 159, 162

Davenant, Mistress, 123, 125, 184

Davenant, Sir William, 36, 127

Davies, John, 81, 90-91

Davison, William, 178

_De Guiana Carmen Epicum_, 116

Dekker, Thomas, 93, 218

_Delphrygus_, 103, 104

Derby, Countess of, 55

Derby, Earl of, 55, 115, 179

Devereux, Dorothy, 139

_Dialogue of Dives_, 104

_Diary_, Henslowe's, 7, 8, 67, 68, 75, 77, 80, 127

Doll Tearsheet, 197

Dulwich College, 99

"Duttons, The Two, " 74

_Edward I. _, 78, 80, 81, 101

_Edward II. _, 85, 88, 131

_Edward III. _, 101, 105, 131

Edward VI. , 135, 143

Elizabeth, Queen, as Cynthia, 119

_English Dramatic Companies_, 41 n. , 96 n. 

_Ephemeris Chrisometra_, 120

_Essaies of Montaigne_, 191, 222

Essex, Earl of, 140, 154, 175-78, 216

Essex faction, 73

_Euthymia Raptus_, 120

_Every Man out of his Humour_, 108, 220

_Faerie Queen, The_, 161

_Fair Em_, 95, 105

Falconbridge, as Sir John Perrot, 133-34

Falstaff, Sir John, 181, 182, 206, 215

_Famous Victories of Henry V. _, 200, 202, 215

_Farewell to Folly_, 95, 168

Feis, Jacob, 74

Field, Theophilus, Bishop of Llandaff, 160

_First Fruites_, 92, 196

Fleay, F. G. , 66, 74, 80, 95, 96, 107

Fleetwood, Recorder, as an enemy of the players, 11; 44, 46; as Burghley's gossip, 49

Florio, John, 15; as Falstaff's original, 18; 91, 92, 108; as Landulpho, 122, 123; 125, 157-60, 183-91; as Parolles, 171, 193; 201; signs as "Resolute, " 221

Fluellen, 182, 191

_Four Plays in One_, 87

Froude, James Anthony, 1, 16

Gardiner, S. R. , 1, 16

Golding, Arthur, 118

Gray's Inn, 156, 172

Greene, Robert, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 30, 35, 69, 80, 85, 88, 92, 94; as Roberto, 103; 106, 110, 117, 130, 151, 169

Greg, W. W. , 101 n. 

_Groatsworth of Wit, A_, 5, 15, 102, 110, 117, 150

Grooms of the Privy Chamber, 58

Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. , 43, 45, 50, 60

_Hall's Chronicles_, 141

Halpin, Rev. J. H. , 15, 159, 161

_Hamlet_, 4, 81, 86, 105, 107, 198

Harriot, Thomas, 115, 120

Hart, Joan, 36

Hart, John, Lord Mayor of London, 72

Harvey, Gabriel, 92

Hatton, Sir Christopher, 138-39, 140

Heneage, Sir Thomas, 36; as Lafeu, 171; 189

_Henry IV. _, 80, 198

_Henry IV. , Part I. _, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204

_Henry IV. , Part II. _, 32, 197, 199, 203

_Henry V. _, 80, 121

_Henry VI. , Part I. _, 7, 14, 77, 78, 131, 147

_Henry VI. , Part III. _, 7, 87, 88

Henry VIII. , 134, 135

Henslowe, Philip, 6, 8, 10, 11, 38, 59, 61, 69, 70, 82

Heralds, The College of, 32, 90, 92

_Highway to Heaven, The_, 104

_Histriomastix_, 93, 108, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 167

Holinshed's _Chronicles_, 141

_Honour of the Garter_, 92, 113, 115, 117

Howard of Effingham's company, Lord Charles, at Ipswich, 1591, 60

Howe's _Additions to Stowe's Chronicles_, 58

"H. S. , " 217-18, 219

Hunsdon, Lord, 9, 10, 43, 46, 50

Hunsdon's company, Lord, 42, 45, 48; at Ludlow, 49; 53, 55; disappear from records, 55

Hyde, John, 43, 45

_Hymns to the Shadow of Night_, 93, 115, 116, 118, 124, 128, 186

_Iliad_, Homer's, 197

_Intonsi Catones_, 125, 126, 219

Jacques, 134

Jacquespierre, 21

"J. F. , " 217-18, 219

James I. , 186, 221

Jaquenetta, 206

Jeffes, Humphrey, 87, 147

Jones, Richard, 8, 62, 65, 102

Jonson, Ben, 90, 93, 108, 109, 147, 186, 220

Keats, John, 19, 31

Kempe, William, 29, 55, 60, 83, 126

Kildare, Countess of, 166

_Kinde Heartes Dreame_, 150, 152

_King John_, 8, 17, 34, 80, 83, 131, 132, 133, 139, 146, 152, 172

_King Lear_, 3

_King of the Fairies, The_, 103, 104

Kyd, Thomas, 107, 117, 131

"Lanam and his fellowes, " 51

Laneham, John, 43, 51, 58

Langley, William, 13

Leases, Elizabethan, 43

Lee, Sir Sidney, 6 n. , 46 n. 

Leicester's company, Earl of, 5, 9, 13; at Stratford, 29; 43, 45; 52; at Dover, 54; disappear from records, 55; 55, 57, 58, 59, 66, 67, 84

Leicester, Earl of; death, 29; 49, 154, 173-75

Leicester's musicians, Earl of, 9, 54

Leicester Records, City of, 8

_Life of Jack Wilton_, 128

Lodge, Thomas, 114 n. 

Loftus, Archbishop, 138

_Love's Labours Lost_, 8, 83, 116, 119, 121, 152, 166, 168, 170, 197, 206

_Love's Labour's Won_, 8, 83, 123, 162, 170, 171

_Lucrece_, 13, 82; dedication, 128; 153

Lucy, Sir Thomas, alleged deer preserves, 32

Malvolio, 182

Manners, Roger, 156, 179

Markham, Gervase, 128

Marlowe, Christopher, 12, 30, 80, 85, 88; as "Merlin, " 95; as "the cobbler, " 101; 107, 131

Marston, John, 93, 109, 119, 185, 186

Martin Marprelate Controversy, 72

_Martin's Month's Mind_, 51

Mary, Queen, 135-36

Mary, Queen of Scots, 178

Master of the Revels' company, the, 64

_Measure for Measure_, 198

Menalcas, 161

_Menaphon_, Greene's, 67, 98, 102, 107, 118

_Merchant of Venice, The_, 121

Meres, Francis, 31, 193, 199

_Merry Wives of Windsor_, 171

_Metamorphosis of Ajax_, 51

_Midsummer Night's Dream, A_, 8, 83, 121, 152, 168

Miles, Robert, 76

Minto, Prof. William, 126

"Mirabella, " 161, 162

Montague, Lady, 169-70

Montague, Viscount, 155, 169-70

_Moral of Man's Wit_, 104

Morgann, Maurice, 181, 202

Murray, John Tucker, 9 n. , 41 n. 

Nashe, Thomas, 7, 12, 14, 67, 69, 78, 80, 92, 94, 98, 100, 102, 104, 107, 108, 117, 128, 130, 169

_Never too Late to Mend_, 98, 109

_News Out of Purgatory_, 51

_Nichol's Progresses_, 168-69

Nightwork, Jane, 213

_Nine Worthies, The_, 195, 197

Northumberland, Earl of, 115

Nottingham's company, Lord, 127

Oldcastle, Sir John, 200, 215, 217

O'Roughan, Denis, 138

_Outlines for the Life of Shakespeare_, 45

_Ovid's Banquet of Sense_, 120, 124, 130

Ovid's _Elegies_, 118

Oxford, Earl of, 190

_Palladis Tamia_, 199

Parolles, 18, 171, 206

Peckham, Edward, 75

Peele, George, 12, 31, 78, 79, 80, 81, 92, 98; as Tully, 98, 99; 101, 113, 117, 131

Pembroke, Earl of, 136, 148

Pembroke's company, Earl of, 7, 12, 13, 14, 57, 71, 75, 76, 84, 85; pawn their apparel, 86; plays, 86; 107, 113

_Penelope's Web_, 106

Perrot, Sir John, 134-39; recalled from Ireland, 138; death of, 139

Perrot, Sir Thomas, 139

Phillip II. Of Spain, 138, 139

_Pierce Penniless_, 51

Pipe Rolls, the, 56, 73

Plague, the, 85

_Planetomachia_, 106

Pope, Thomas, 29, 55, 60, 83

Privy Council, Acts of the, 56, 73

_Prodigal Child, The_, 120, 123

_Prodigal Son, The_, 123

Puritanism, 132

Queen's company, Old Plays of the, 14, 74

Queen's company, the, 6, 11, 43, 46, 48, 50, 51, 53, 55, 59, 75, 84, 131, 146, 147

Queen's progress to Cowdray and Tichfield, the, 37, 119, 165

Queen's tumblers, the, 56 n. 

Quickly, Mistress, 200, 204

Raleigh, Sir Walter, 115, 154, 175, 185

_Richard II. _, 8, 80, 83, 88, 131, 146

_Richard III. _, 8, 80, 83

_Romeo and Juliet_, 152

"Rosalinde, " 160, 161, 162

Roscius, 98, 102

Rose, Edward, 142

Rose Theatre, the, 6, 10, 11, 51, 59, 61, 69, 70, 76, 81, 146

Rowe, Nicholas, 67, 127, 215, 216

Roydon, Matthew, 15, 31, 93, 109, 114 n. , 124, 125, 167, 168, 184, 200, 218

Saexberht, 20

Saunder, Nicholas, 158

Scapula, 24

Schlegel, 198

_School of Shakespeare_, 95

_Second Fruites_, 123, 164, 196, 203, 205, 206; extracts from, 207-14

_Seven Deadly Sins, The_, 147

Shakespeare families, 19; the name, 19

Shakespeare, Hamnet, 26

Shakespeare, John, 21, 25; applies for grant of arms, 32

Shakespeare, Judith, 26

Shakespeare, Richard, of Snitterfield, 21

Shakespeare, William; as Burbage servitor, 13; brothers and sisters of, 19; Norman origin, 19; his mother, 22; as _Johannes factotum_, 22; boyhood, 24; marriage, 26; leaves Stratford, 28; alleged poaching adventure, 30; return to Stratford in 1597, 30; grant of arms, 30; "Shakespeare's boys, " 35; "rude groome, " 35; a bonded servitor, 67; early training with Lord Hunsdon's and the Lord Admiral's companies, 68; in kingly parts, 81; co-operates with Marlowe, 88; leader of Pembroke's company, 88; Groom of the Privy Chamber, 91; as an "idiot art-master, " 105; alluded to as a serving man, 108; as Mullidor in _Never too Late_, 109; Chandos portrait of, 110; rejoins Chamberlain's company, 126; indicated as "W. S. , " an "old actor, " 129; distrust of Florio, 187

Shallow, Justice, 213

Shaxper, 19

Sheffield's company, Lord, 62, 63

_Shepheards Calendar, The_, 159, 160, 163

_Shepherd's Slumber, The_, 168

Sidley, Ralph, 109

Sidney, Lady, 140, 178

Sidney, Sir Robert, 216

Simpson, Richard, 74, 95, 114, 116

Sinkler, John, 87, 147

Smith, Mr. J. M. , 36

Smithe, Humprey, 47

_Sonnets, The_, 17, 82

Southampton, Countess of, 171, 189

Southampton, Earl of, 13, 17, 18, 36, 74, 91; as Mavortius, 121; 124, 126; bounty to Shakespeare, 127; 153, 156, 164, 167, 172; early relations with Essex, 176; as Bertram, 189; 194, 216

Spencer, Gabriel, 86, 87; death of, 90; 147

Spenser, Edmund, 30, 162

Spicer, Rose, 159-60

Stanhope, Sir Thomas, 155

Stanley, Sir William, 138

Star Chamber, the, 45

Stopes, Mrs. C. C. , 39 n. , 76

Strange, Lord, 55

Strange's company, Lord, 6, 9, 11, 12, 52, 53, 57, 59, 74, 82, 83, 95, 107, 126, 147

Strange's tumblers, Lord, 6, 55, 56, 59, 67, 84

Stratford Free Grammar School, 23

Stratford-on-Avon, 5, 25

Sussex's company, Earl of, 12, 14, 57; disrupted, 86-87

Swan Theatre, the, 13

"Symons and his fellowes, " 56

Talbot Scenes, 7, 14, 78, 80

_Taming of a Shrew, The_, 86, 102, 105, 107

Tarleton, Richard, 43, 50, 96

_Tears of Peace, The_, 116, 120, 121

_Tempest, The_, 3

"Temple Garden" Scene, the, 79

Theatre, the, 6, 9, 11, 36, 39, 44, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 72, 75, 77, 81, 106

_Three Ladies of London, The_, 95

_Three Lords and Three Ladies, The_, 95

Tichfield House, Queen's progress to, 37, 165

Tilney, Edmund, Master of the Revels, 43, 59, 96

_Timon of Athens_, 3

_Titus Andronicus_, 12, 14, 86

_Titus and Vespasian_, 12

_Troilus and Cressida_, 114, 120, 195, 197

_Troublesome Raigne of King John, The_, 132, 140, 143, 146

_True Tragedie of the Duke of York, The_, 7, 85, 87, 88, 113, 147

_Twelfth Night_, 121

_Twelve Labours of Hercules, The_, 103

_Two Gentlemen of Verona, The_, 8, 83, 152

Tyburn "T, " 90

Valdracko, 106

_Venus and Adonis_, 13, 82, 114, 118, 119, 127, 128, 151, 152, 153, 180

_Venus' Tragedy_, 106

Vere, Lady Elizabeth, 155, 179

Vernon, Elizabeth, 177, 180, 194, 198

Volumnia, a reflection of Shakespeare's mother, 23

Wallop, Sir Henry, 138

Walsingham, Sir Francis, 178

War of the Theatres, the, 15

Wars of the Roses, 79

Williams, Sir Roger, as Fluellen, 191, 192

_Willobie his Avisa_, 93, 125, 129, 184, 186, 187

Wilson, Robert, 43, 58, 95, 96, 98

_Winter's Tale, A_, 3

Wood, Anthony, 157

Woodward, Joan, 9

Worcester, Earl of, 61, 63, 64

Worcester's company, Earl of, 8, 9, 10, 61, 62; in trouble at Ipswich and Leicester, 63

_Worlde of Wordes, A_, 15, 94, 108, 158, 185, 188, 196, 217

Wriothesley, Henry. _See_ Earl of Southampton

Wriothesley, Thomas, Earl of Southampton, 153

Yorke, Edmund, Jesuit, 180

PRINTED BYMORRISON AND GIBB LIMITEDEDINBURGH