Kitabı oku: «A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of William Shakespeare», sayfa 12

I have not noticed here the many parallel passages from the works of Marlowe and others which confirm the assignment of authorship now advocated. It would be out of all proportion to give them here unless imperfectly: the reader will find some in Dyce's Marlowe, and more in my edition of Edward II. Nor have I noticed the schoolboy interpretation that explains "their" in Henry V., Epil. l. 13, as referring to 2 and 3 Henry VI.: "their," more Shakespeariano, like "they" in the previous line, refers in form to the "many" of l. 12, but in meaning to the actors of 1 Henry VI., in which play, and not in 3 Henry VI., the loss of France is treated of. It is also most unlikely that the 1600 edition of The Duke of York should have been issued as played by Pembroke's servants if the play had been previously acted by the Chamberlain's. Compare the parallel case of Andronicus. Miss Lee's statement, "Greene wrote, Nash tells us," more than four others "for Lord Pembroke's company," is absolutely without foundation. Nash says "the company" (Apology, 1593), and evidently alludes to the Queen's men, for whom Orlando, Bacon, Selimus, and The Looking-glass were written. In fact, Greene's only known connection with any other company was his fraudulent selling of Orlando a second time to the Admiral's. Marlowe, and he alone, is known as a writer for Pembroke's: Kyd may have been, however, and in my opinion was, a contributor to their stage.

Richard III. is closely connected with 3 Henry VI., and written with direct reference to it. In i. 2. 158, iv. 2. 98, iv. 4. 275, scenes in that play are plainly alluded to. Nor is it possible, if the two plays be read in immediate sequence, to avoid the feeling that they have a common authorship. On the other hand, a closer analysis shows that in Richard the Latin quotations, classical allusions, and peculiar animal similes which are characteristic of Henry have entirely disappeared. There are also discrepancies, such as Gray's fighting for the Lancastrians, i. 3. 130, whereas in 3 Henry VI., iii. 2. 2, he is represented as a Yorkist, which shows a different hand in the two plays. Richard III. has always been regarded as entirely Shakespeare's, and its likeness to 3 Henry VI. has more than anything else kept alive the untenable belief that this last-named play was also, in part or wholly, written by our greatest dramatist. Yet the unlikeness of Richard III. to the other historical plays of Shakespeare, and the impracticability of finding a definite position for it, metrically or æsthetically, in any chronological arrangement, have made themselves felt. Even cautious Mr. Halliwell says, "There are slight traces of an older play to be observed, passages which belong to an inferior hand;" and again, "To the circumstance of an anterior work having been used do we owe some of its weakness and excessively turbulent character" (Outlines, 94). A careful examination of the editions will be found to confirm and extend this conclusion. The 1597 Quarto Q₁, which is evidently an abridged version made for the stage, and which no doubt was the version acted during nearly all Elizabeth's reign, differs from the Folio in a way not to be paralleled in any other Shakespearian play. Minute alterations have been made in almost every speech, in a fashion which could not have been customary with him who uttered his thoughts so easily as scarcely to make a blot (i. e. alteration) in his papers. The question of anteriority of the Q. and F. versions has been hotly debated on æsthetic grounds; but the mere expurgation of oaths and metrical emendations in F. are enough to show that it is the later version, probably made c. 1602; while the fact that it was preferred by the editors of the 1623 Folio shows that they considered it the authentic copy of Shakespeare's work. In other instances, Macbeth, The Tempest, &c., they have indeed given us abridged editions; but there is neither proof nor likelihood that any other were accessible. We do not know what original copies were destroyed in the Globe fire of 1613, and should be thankful for such versions as we have, which were probably the acting versions used at Blackfriars. But in this case the editors had at hand the Quartos, and unless they thought the Folio more authentic, I cannot see why they preferred it. Furthermore, the F. version appears to have been defective in some places; for v. 3. 50, end of play, and iii. 1. 17-165, are certainly printed from Q₃ (1602). This has been controverted, but on very insufficient grounds. Now directly we compare the Folio and Quarto versions, we meet with evidence that alteration and correction have been largely used in both of them. For instance, Derby is found as a character in the play in i. 1, ii. 1, 2, iv. 5, v. 5, in both versions; in iii. 1. 2, iv. 1, v. 2, he is called Stanley. This shows correction by a second hand. In iv. 1, while Stanley has been inserted in the text, Derby remains in the prefixes; v. 3 is only partially corrected, and both names occur. The names were not used indifferently, for in iv. 2, 4, we find Stanley in F. but Derby in Q. This shows a progressive correction in which Q. precedes F. It may be noticed that Darby is the original author's spelling. In like manner, Gloster, the original prefix, has in i. 1, 2, 3, ii. 1. 2, iii. 4, 5, 7, been replaced in F. by Richard, but in iii. 1, in the part printed from Q₃, and there only, Gloster remains. So again Margaret is indicated in the older version by Qu. Mar., Qu. M., &c., but never Mar., as in F. iv. 4. In F. i. 3 we find by side of Mar. a remainder of the older form in Q. M. This is not an exhaustive statement, but sufficient I think to show that alterations were made, as I suggest. There can be little doubt that in this, as in John, Shakespeare derived his plot and part of his text from an anterior play, the difference in the two cases being that in Richard III. he adopted much more of his predecessor's text. I believe that the anterior play was Marlowe's, partly written for Lord Strange's company in 1593, but left unfinished at Marlowe's death, and completed and altered by Shakespeare in 1594. It was no doubt on the stage when, on 19th June 1594, the older play on Richard III., "with the conjunction of the two Houses of Lancaster and York," was entered S. R. That was acted by the Queen's players. The unhistorical but grandly classical conception of Margaret, the Cassandra prophetess, the Helen-Ate of the House of Lancaster, which binds the whole tetralogy into one work, is evidently due to Marlowe, and the consummate skill with which he has fused the heterogeneous contributions of his coadjutors in the two earlier Henry VI. plays is no less worthy of admiration. I do not think it possible to separate Marlowe's work from Shakespeare's in this play – it is worked in with too cunning a hand; but wherever we find Darby, Qu. M., Glo., &c., we may be sure that some of his handiwork is left. Could any critic, if the older John were destroyed, tell us which lines had been adopted in the later play? Nor can I enter, unless in a special monograph, on the relations of the Quartos to each other. The question is of no importance, and I need only say that the usual corruptions take place from Q₁ to Q₅, and that in Q₆ (1622) many readings are found agreeing with F. which are not in the other Quartos. The same phenomenon is observed in the 1619 edition of The Whole Contention, and far too much has been made of it. It merely indicates correction by attendance at the theatre and picking up a few words during the action. The only Quartos deserving special notice are Q₁, as containing Shakespeare's first "additions," and Q₃, as having been used in printing part of F. I do not think the allusion in Weever's Epigrams, written 1595-6, is to this play. It may be so.

Titus Andronicus.– That this play is not by Shakespeare is pretty certain from internal evidence. The Latin quotations, classical allusions, use of pour as prefix in iv. 1, manner of versification, and above all the introduction of rape as a subject for the stage, would be sufficient to disprove his authorship. Fortunately we know that it was produced by the Earl of Sussex' men, 23d January 1594, and Shakespeare belonged then to Derby's (Lord Strange's). It was afterwards, on the breaking up of that company, acted by Pembroke's and Derby's before 16th April, when Lord Derby died. Enlargement in the Folio or abridgment in the Quarto, 1600 (we have no copy extant of the first edition, entered S. R. February 1594), appears in iii. 2, found in F., not in Q., and there is a distinct continuity between Acts i. and ii.; at the end of Act i. we have "manet Moore," not Exeunt simply. Whether this play got into the Folio by some confusion with Titus and Vespasian, played by Lord Strange's men 11th April 1592, which was, as we know from a German version extant, written on the same subject, and in which Shakespeare may have had some share, we cannot tell; but it was certainly played and revised (there was another edition in 1611), while the other play has perished. That it was written by Marlowe I incline to think. What other mind but the author of The Jew of Malta could have conceived Aaron the Moor? Mr. Dyce has warned us against attributing too many plays to the short career of Marlowe, but he did not consider that Marlowe probably wrote two plays a year from 1587-1593, and that we have only at present seven acknowledged as his. Those now attributed to him, in whole or part, by me will raise the number to a baker's dozen; but in some of these, as the older John and 1 and 2 Henry VI., his share was comparatively slight. Nevertheless, I think the opinion that Kyd wrote this play of Andronicus worth the examination, although, with such evidence as has yet been adduced, Marlowe has certainly the better claim. Shakespeare probably never touched this play unless by inserting iii. 2, which is possible.

Edward III. The Shakespearian part of this play, i. 3, ii. 1. 2 (beginning at "What, are the stealing foxes"), which contains lines from the then unpublished Sonnets, ii. 1. 10, 450, and an allusion to the recently published Lucreece, ii. 2. 194, was clearly acted in 1594, after 9th May, when Lucreece was entered on S. R. Edward III. was entered 1st December 1595. This love-story part is from Painter's Palace of Pleasure. The original play is by Marlowe, and was acted in 1590 and is thus alluded to in Greene's Never too Late, c. December in that year: "Why, Roscius, art thou proud with Æsop's crow, being prankt with the glory of others' feathers? Of thyself thou canst say nothing; and if the Cobler hath taught thee to say Ave Cæsar, disdain not thy tutor because thou pratest in a king's chamber." Ave Cæsar occurs in i. 1. 164, but not in any other play of this date have I been able to find it. There are many similarities between the Marlowe part of this play and Henry VI. As the Roscius in Greene's pamphlet was the player who had interpreted the puppets for seven years, who induced Greene to write for the stage, and had himself written The Moral of Man's Wit and The Dialogue of Dives, there can be no doubt that Robert Wilson is Roscius, and that he was an actor in Edward III. in 1590. It was acted by Pembroke's company, and must have been acquired by Lord Strange's men with the other Pembroke plays in 1594.

SECTION VI.
ON THE PLAYS BY OTHER AUTHORS ACTED BY SHAKESPEARE'S COMPANY

During Shakespeare's career, 1589-1611, we only know of some two dozen plays having been produced by his "fellows," in addition to the three dozen included in his works; and of these, about two-fifths are anonymous, and have been at some time or other ascribed, in whole or part, to the great master. It is evident that he had the management of the playwriting for his house pretty nearly in his own hands, and that his method was the polar opposite to that of which we know most, viz., Henslowe's. While the latter employed twelve poets in a year, who produced for the Admiral's men a new play every fortnight or so, the Chamberlain's company depended almost entirely on two poets at a time, and produced not more than four new plays a year. Hence the explanation of the vastly higher character of the Globe plays as compared with the Fortune: hence also the explanation of the small pay and needy condition of the latter, and their jealousy of the rapid advancement in wealth and position of Shakespeare, who had virtually a monopoly of play-providing for his company. It would be out of place to discuss at length the plays written for it by Jonson, Dekker, &c., but fuller notice of the anonymous plays is due to the reader. They have, strange to say, never yet been treated as a complete group; and yet surely as much may be learned by considering Shakespeare's theatrical surroundings, the plays in which he acted, and which he probably had more or less suggested, supervised, or revised, as by elaborately working out the debtor and creditor details of his malt-bills. I will treat of these plays in nearly chronological order.

1590

Fair Em is the earliest play we certainly know of as acted by Lord Strange's company. It is alluded to by Greene in his address prefixed to his Farewell to Folly. He quotes as abusing of Scripture, "A man's conscience is a thousand witnesses," and "Love covereth the multitude of sins," and says these words were used by "two lovers on the stage arguing one another of unkindness." Greene's tract was written and entered S. R. 1st June 1587, but not published till 1591, when the address which mentions his Mourning Garment (S. R. November 2, 1590) was added. Fair Em dates, therefore, late in 1590. It was probably written by R. Wilson, and is certainly not a romantic, but a satirical play; else why should Greene have been offended at it?

In Sc. 14 of The Three Ladies of London, produced before 1584, Wilson uses the expression, "I, Conscience, am a thousand witnesses," and in his Three Lords and Three Ladies of London, acted at Court, Christmas 1588-9, Sc. 2, "Love doth cover heaps of cumbrous evils." In order to explain the nature of the satire in Fair Em, it is necessary to investigate a hitherto unnoticed identification of Worcester's 1586 company with the Admiral's, of the highest importance for stage history as determining the actors in Marlowe's early plays. On Twelfth Day 1585-6, "the servants of the Admiral and the Lord Chamberlain" acted at Court, i. e. the players of Lord Charles Howard, who held both these offices. Mr. Halliwell (Illustrations, p. 31) confused this Chamberlain with Lord Hunsdon, and takes the entry to refer to two companies. I sent him a correction of these and many other blunders, which he has never rectified, years ago – a fact which I should not notice had he not publicly complained that, with one or two exceptions, of whom I am not one, he had received no help of this kind. Of this Admiral's company in the plague year, 1586, there is no trace in London; but in that year, and that year only, a company travelled under the protection of the Earl of Worcester. They were licensed for this travel on 14th January, and were at Leicester in the course of the year (Shakespeare Society's Papers, iv.); their names were R. Browne, J. Tunstall (Dunstan), E. Allen, W. Harryson, T. Cooke, R. Jones, E. Browne, R. Andrews; all of whom were licensed, together with hired men, T. Powlton and W. Paterson, "Lord Harbard's man," i. e. a member of the company of Herbert Earl of Pembroke: a scratch company evidently, but containing names of celebrated London actors. In 1587 and 1588, the Admiral's men acted in London publicly, and at Christmas 1588-9 at Court. On 3d January 1588-9, Alleyn and Jones (acting evidently for the company) dissolved partnership, and Alleyn bought up their properties and play-books. In November the Admiral's men were playing about the City, and not at the Curtain, where they had probably produced Tamberlain, Faustus, Orlando, Alcazar, and Marius and Sylla; and in their Court performance on 23d December were reduced to showing "feats of activity." In 1590 R. Brown and Jones went abroad and acted at Leyden in October. They returned, and on December 27 and February 16 the Admiral's men acted at Court for the last time before the reconstitution of their company in 1594. Already R. Brown, J. Broadstreet, T. Sackville, and R. Jones had obtained a pass from Lord C. Howard, the Admiral, their patron, to travel to Germany by way of Holland, and a company acted there till 1617 under Sackville. Jones returned to England and joined the reconstituted Admiral's company under Allen in 1594. Alleyn had never relinquished the title of Admiral's servant, even when in Lord Strange's service in 1593. Putting these facts together, can there be any doubt that the service under Worcester was merely temporary, and that in the list of 1586 we have that of the principal actors in the Admiral's company? Mr. R. Simpson, to whom we owe so much as a discoverer of problems to be solved, and so little for their solution, rightly stated that Fair Em was a satirical play, and that Manvile (or Mandeville, the lying traveller) meant Greene, and Mounteney the aspiring Marlowe. He was wrong in identifying Valingford with Shakespeare – he was Peele (valing, an old castle or peele —Camden) – and doubly wrong in making William Conqueror Kempe. Robert of Windsor, his travelling name, points to Robert Browne; and it was to Browne's company that Marlowe and Peele had been attached, not to Kempe's. The names William Conqueror and Marquess Lubeck were probably names of characters which had been acted by Browne and Jones, perhaps in the play of William Conqueror, which was on the stage as an old play in 1593. Fair Em of Manchester is no doubt, as Mr. Simpson says, Lord Strange's company of players.

1622 [often, but wrongly, dated c. 1591]

The Birth of Merlin, or The Child hath Found his Father, was published in 1662 as "written by W. Shakespeare and W. Rowley." Rowley probably revised the play for a revival c. 1622, but in the main it is manifestly by another hand. The comic scenes with Joan Goto't may be Rowley's, but the serious parts are palpably Middleton's. I owe the suggestion of his authorship to Mr. P. A. Daniel. A ballad on the subject was entered on 10th May 1589, S. R. In ii. 3b iii. 6 we have some very interesting imitations of Shakespeare. Cutting out the Rowley additions in iii. 1. 4, I would ask the reader to carefully compare the remaining parts of ii. 3b, beginning with Aurel. "Artesia, dearest love," iii. 2. 3. 5. 6, with such passages of Shakespeare as they call to memory: e. g. iii. 2, "This world is but a mask," &c., with As You Like It, ii. 7. 139, &c., and iii. 3. 1-6 with Lear, iii. 2. 1-9. Compare especially the definition of a crab as "a creature that goes backward" in ii. 3, with Hamlet, ii. 2. 206, "if like a crab you could go backward." Crab as the name of an animal does not occur elsewhere in Shakespeare. I believe the early plays on this subject, Vortiger, 4th December 1596, and Uter Pendragon, 29th April 1597, in Henslowe's Diary, to be alluded to by Jonson in his Prologue to Every Man in his Humour, 1601 —

 
"To make a child now swaddled to proceed
Man: and then shoot up in one beard and weed
Past threescore years."
 

1592

June. A [Merry] Knack to Know a Knave was acted as a new play at the Rose by Edward Alleyn and his company (i. e. Lord Strange's) "with Kempe's Merriments of the Men of Gotham." The introduction of Honesty as a principal character points to R. Wilson the elder as the author. It was certainly not written by Greene and Nash, as Mr. Simpson supposes. Besides this play and a number of revivals, mostly of plays of the Queen's company (see my Shakespearian Study, p. 88), Lord Strange's men acted this season certain new plays: on March 3, 1 Henry VI.; April 11, Titus and Vespasian (these have been already noticed): April 28, 2d. Tambercame; May 23, The Taner of Denmark; and in 1593, January 5, The Gelyous [Jealious] Comedy; January 30, The Guise (i. e. Marlowe's Massacre of Paris).

1594

July 24, Locrine was entered S. R. and published in 1595 as "newly set forth, overseen, and corrected by W. S." I see no reason to infer that W. S. is William Shakespeare. The play was written, according to Mr. Simpson, by Tilney in 1586. I rather think for him by G. Peele. Shakespeare has no concern with it further than the letters W. S. indicate.

1595 [possibly 1599]

A 'Larum for London, or The Siege of Antwerp, was acted about this time. It was published in 1602, but entered S. R. 29th May 1600. The title at once points it out as a moralising play, of the same class as A Looking-Glass for London; didactic as to politics. I believe it to be by the same author, T. Lodge. The fear of a Spanish invasion is evident in the play. In July 1595 the Spaniards made a descent on Cornwall and burned Mouse Hole, Neulin, and Penzance. This is the most likely time for any real danger to London from the Spaniards to have been apprehended. Lodge, probably in the next year, wrote The Taming of the Shrew (afterwards altered by Shakespeare) for the Chamberlain's company. The seldom-used word villiaco, found in this play, occurs in 2 Henry VI., iv. 8, in the part I assign to Lodge.

1596

The Life and Death of Sir Thomas More was certainly acted in this year. That this also was a political play is evident from the numerous alterations made in the MS. by E. Tylney, Master of the Revels. He specially objected to all passages directed against the French; and cut out entirely Scene 1, the insurrection scene. This must have alluded too closely to events of the time. Now on 29th June 1595 there was an insurrection of the London Prentices, suppressed by the then Lord Mayor just in the same way as that in the play by Sheriff More. (See Maitland and Stowe under that date.) Moreover, in October 1595 Hartford was imprisoned in the Tower for contempt, and threatened with loss of his title, just as More is in the play, which was no doubt acted while he was in prison (Aikin's Elizabeth, chap, xxiv.) I have previously noted the certainty of this play being acted by the Chamberlain's players, T. Goodale being one of the actors. It was probably written chiefly by Lodge; but some scenes, such as Scene 2 with the Lifter and Scenes 9, 10, with Faulkner and the players, bear unmistakable marks of another hand, the same, I think, as the author of Lord Cromwell. It is a singular play, containing a comedy, Scenes 1-10, and a tragedy, Scenes 11-18, in one. This leads me to conjecture that it is the same play as was played by the Paul's children before James and the King of Denmark, 30th July 1606. This contained a comedy and tragedy, and was called Abuses. I need hardly say that this title is specially appropriate to Sir T. More. It pleased the kings, as was to be expected, more than it did the authorities under Elizabeth. We know that some plays of the Chamberlain's company passed into the hands of the Paul's boys, e. g. Satiromastix. The part of Justice Suresby is probably the one alluded to in The Return from Parnassus, iv. 3, where Kempe tells Philomusus (Lodge) that his face "would be good for a foolish mayor or a foolish justice of peace." In the same scene, Studioso (Drayton) is made to recite from Richard III. and Jeronymo, both which plays were still acted by the Chamberlain's men in 1599; so that Drayton was looked on in 1602 as a tragedian, Lodge as a comedian. This agrees with Meres' classification of them in 1598. Nevertheless it is certain that both of them produced both tragedies and comedies.

1597-9

The Merry Devil of Edmonton, acted at the Globe, and therefore still on the stage in 1599, was closely connected with the early form of 1 Henry IV., in which Falstaff was called Oldcastle (see supra, p. 33). Coxeter says that it was ascribed in an old MS. of the play to Michael Drayton. No doubt it was written by him. The character of the Host, and indeed all the play, are so like parts of Sir John Oldcastle, which we know to have been partly written by Drayton, that it is not possible to doubt the identity of authorship. That play was written by Munday (i. 1; v. 2 – end), Wilson (? i. 2; ii. 3; iii. 4), Hathaway (? iii. 1; v. 1), and Drayton, who probably was the plotter and chief composer. The Merry Devil was entered S. R. 22d October 1607. The entry on 5th April 1608 refers to the prose history by Thomas Brewer. Nevertheless that entry has been confidently adduced by Mr. Halliwell and others as proof that Drayton did not write the play (see Halliwell's Dictionary of Old Plays under Merry Devil): which as printed is evidently greatly abridged. All the part relating to Smug's taking the place of St. George as the sign of the inn, for instance, which is found in the prose story, must have been cut out, though an allusion to it is left in the end of the play. This alteration was probably made c. 1603-4, as in the Black Book (S. R. 22d March 1604) a revival of the play contemporaneous with The Woman Killed with Kindness is alluded to. It remained popular even to 1616: Jonson's prologue to The Devil is an Ass calls it "your dear delight." That play is of a somewhat similar nature, founded on the adventures of a devil incarnate; so also are Dekker's If this be not a Good Play the Devil's in it, and Haughton's Grim the Cobler of Croydon, or The Devil and his Dame (6th May 1600). In this last, which gives a posterior limit of date, Robin Goodfellow calls himself "merry devil," and is no doubt intended as a satire on Drayton, as is also the Robin Goodfellow of Wily Beguiled, 1597. In Sir Giles Goosecap by Chapman, the continued usage by Goosecap of the phrases "tickle the vanity on't" and "we are all mortal" points to Drayton as the person ridiculed under that name; while in 2 Henry IV., ii. l. 66, Falstaff uses the exact phrase of Smug in scene 3 of "tickling the catastrophe." Another point of connection with Shakespearian satire of this date is found in the term Hungarian, scene 8, which occurs in Merry Wives, i. 3. 23, and nowhere else in Shakespeare. The great similarity of the Hosts in these two plays has been often noted. There is much confusion in the Christian names in our present version of the Merry Devil, an indication of revision. Drayton's first connection with the Chamberlain's company was in my opinion his writing the Induction for The Taming of the Shrew in 1596, afterwards altered by Shakespeare. The Merry Devil was entered as Shakespeare's on S. R. 9th September 1653, probably on account of the similarity of title with The Merry Wives of Windsor; and this similarity does point to a connection, though not of authorship, between these plays. The Oldcastle play, acted 6th March 1600 at Lord Hunsdon's, was probably The Merry Devil.

1594

The Seven Deadly Sins, an old play plotted for the Queen's company by Tarleton, was revived. I have had already occasion to refer to the plot of this play, which is extant at Dulwich College.

1598-9

A Warning for Fair Women was entered S. R. 17th November 1599, and printed as "lately divers times acted" by the Chamberlain's men. Its title, so like A Looking-Glass for London and A 'Larum for London, its didactic character, its Induction, with History, Tragedy, and Comedy for actors, so like that to Mucedorus, and its style and metre all point to Thomas Lodge as the author. As a murder-play it should be compared with Arden of Feversham, The Yorkshire Tragedy, and Two Tragedies in One. Plays on similar subjects, such as Page of Plymouth, by Dekker and Jonson, September 1599; The Tragedy of Merry, by Haughton and Day, December 1599; The Tragedy of Orphans, by Chettle, November 1599; and perhaps The Stepmother's Tragedy, by Dekker and Chettle, October 1599, were very abundant just at this time. This seems to be Lodge's final original production for the stage.

1598-9

Every Man in his Humour in its first form, with the Italian names, in the latter part of 1598, and his Every Man out of his Humour in the spring of 1599, both by Jonson, were acted by the Chamberlain's men. Jonson then left them and wrote for the children of the Chapel.

1601

Satiromastix was written by Dekker against Jonson's Poetaster for the Chamberlain's men, and acted first by them and afterwards by the Paul's boys.

1601

The Chronicle History of Thomas Lord Cromwell was entered S. R. 11th August 1602. This is clearly a political play, in which the career of Cromwell Earl of Essex shadows forth another Earl of Essex, of much greater interest to an audience of 1601. One scene, iii. 2, reminds us strongly of scene 9 in Sir T. More; and the whole play is very like the part of Sir John Oldcastle assigned by me to Drayton. In Act iv. the Chorus apologises for the omission of Wolsey's life. That had, in fact, been treated already by Chettle in August 1601, and by Chettle, Munday, Drayton, and Smith in November 1601, in two plays for the Admiral's men. Drayton's last work for them was done in May 1602 and Cromwell was probably acted in June. The second edition, 1613, had "by W.S." on the title. This was clearly an attempt, like the "by W. Sh." in the 1611 edition of the older John, to father the play on Shakespeare after his retirement from theatrical life. It has been supposed that Wentworth Smith is indicated. This is most unlikely. Smith was a hack writer for Henslowe, 1601-3, not one scrap of whose work was ever thought worth publishing; and that he, at the same date that he was a "novice" in the Admiral's, should have been an independent author for the Chamberlain's, is one of the plausible figments that will not be received by any one acquainted with stage history. If W.S. are authentic initials, W. Sly is a more likely claimant.

1603

The London Prodigal was published in 1605, with the name of William Shakespeare on the title-page. This surely shows some connection of Shakespeare with its authorship. It is true that in 1600 his name had been attached to Sir John Oldcastle in one of the editions then printed, and that he could not have written, or been concerned with the writing of, that play; but the peculiar relation in which it stands to his historical plays places it in a very different category from a play which was acted by his own company, and over the publication of which he may be supposed to have had some control, direct or indirect. Perhaps he "plotted" it. At the same time it should be noticed that the publisher, Butter, was the same man who issued the Quarto of Lear in 1608, which was certainly derived from an authentic copy, however carelessly printed; while Pavier, who published Oldcastle, was notoriously an issuer of surreptitious and piratical editions. This play is certainly by the same hand as the Cromwell. In iii. 3, "And where nought is the king doth lose his due," with which compare Cromwell, ii. 3, "And where nought is the king must lose his right," is taken from Nash's Unfortunate Traveller (p. 15, Grosart's reprint), "When it is not to be had the king must lose his right." Compare, also, "Pardon, dear father, the follies that are past," v. 1, with Cromwell, iv. chorus, "Pardon the errors are already past," and the passing of St. George's inn in i. 2 with the Merry Devil plot. The date of production is certainly 1603. The words "under the King," ii. 1, and the allusion to Armin the actor, who took the part of Matthew Flowerdale, "So young an armin," v. 1, forbid an earlier date. This last allusion, by the bye, has never previously been explained. On the other hand, the allusions to Cutting Dick, ii. 2, The Devil and his Dame, iv. 2 (Mar. 1600), and to "wanton Cressid," v. i. (1602), would lose much effect at a later date. The name Greenshield was adopted from this play in the "comical satire" of Northward Ho, 1605, as Frescobald was in The Honest Whore, 1603, from Cromwell.