Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][merged small]

ith an old record enthe riot upon Master nhabitants of Stratin the list, but no

behalf, will not allow ast moral blemish in s the story in ques ents more ingenious ecial-pleading is not o make the Poet out now about him, it is s, and ran into divers

And when we hear - quoted, "Most true kance and strange conscious of things he was as far as any virtues. Deer-stealand hionable sport, it was not morally r disgrace. So that as a mere youthful ne indiscretion, and the but no stain on

ng Stratford is not as later than 1586. orn, as I have said, l years before that 'he prosecutions of traitness of means, quitting Stratford; pportunity in his e determined him pany were already their labours was

tune.

Of course there need be no question that Shakespeare held at first a subordinate rank in the theatre. Dowdal, writing in 1693, tells us "he was received into the playhouse as a servitor"; which probably means that he started as an apprentice to some actor of standing, a thing not unusual at the time. It will readily be believed that he could not be in such a place long without recommending himself to a higher one. As for the well-known story of his being reduced to the extremity of "picking up a little money by taking care of the gentlemen's horses that came to the play," I cannot perceive the slightest likelihood of truth in it. The first we hear of it is in The Lives of the Poets, written by a Scotchman named Shiels, and published under the name of Cibber, in 1753. The story is there said to have passed through Rowe in coming to the writer. If so, then Rowe must have discredited it, else, surely, he would not have omitted so remarkable a passage. Be that as it may, the station which the Poet's family had long held at Stratford, and the fact of his having influential friends at hand from Warwickshire, are enough to stamp it as an arrant fiction.

We have seen that the company of Burbadge and his fellows held a patent under the great seal, and in 1587 took the title of "The Lord Chamberlain's Servants." Eleven years before this time, in 1576, they had started the Blackfriars theatre, so named from a monastery that had formerly stood on or near the same ground. Hitherto the several bands of players had made use of halls, or temporary erections in the streets or the inn-yards, stages being set up, and the spectators standing below, or occupying galleries about the open space. In 1577, two other playhouses were in operation; and still others sprang up from time to time. The Blackfriars and some others were without the limits of the corporation, in what were called "the Liberties." The

[ocr errors]
[graphic]

Mayor and Aldermen of London were from the first cidedly hostile to all such establishments, and did t best to exclude them the City and Liberties; but Court, many of the chief nobility, and, which was more, the common people favoured them. The whole m indeed of Puritanism was utterly down on stage-play all sorts and in every shape. But it did not go to w the right way: it should have stopped off the demand them. This, however, it could not do; for the Drama at that time, as it long had been, an intense national sion: the people would have plays, and could not be verted from the love of them.

From what we shall presently see, it would be unreas able not to suppose, that by the year 1590 the Poet was started in his dramatic career; and that the effect of cunning labours was beginning even then to be felt by senior fellows in that line. Allowing him to have ente the theatre in 1586, when he was twenty-two years of he must have made good use of his time, and worked wards with surprising speed, during those four ye though whether he got ahead more by his acting or writing, we have no certain knowledge. In tragic pa none of the company could shine beside the younger F badge; while Greene, and still more Kempe, another of band, left small chance of distinction in comic parts. brey, as before quoted, tells us that Shakespeare "wa handsome, well-shaped man," which is no slight ma on the stage; and adds, "He did act exceedingly w Rowe "could never meet with any further account of this way, than that the top of his performance was Ghost in his own Hamlet." But this part, to be fa dealt with, requires an actor of no mean powers; and Burbadge is known to have played the Prince, we may] sume that "the Majesty of buried Denmark" would not cast upon very inferior hands. That the Poet was ma of the theory of acting, and could tell, none better, how thing ought to be done, is evident enough from Haml

[graphic]

From the first de

ts, and did their berties; but the which was still The whole mind on stage-plays of d not go to work ff the demand for or the Drama was ense national pascould not be con

ould be unreasonthe Poet was well t the effect of his n to be felt by his m to have entered

-two years

of age,

e, and worked onthose four years: his acting or his In tragic parts the younger Bur ipe, another of the comic parts. All akespeare no slight matter exceedingly well." er account of him formance was the part, to be fairly

"was a

1 powers; and as rince, we may prebe rk" would not Poet was master ne better, how the gh from Hamlet's

instructions to the players. But it nowise follows that he
could perform his own instructions.

Let us see now how matters stood some two years later.
One of the most popular and most profligate playwriters
of that time was Robert Greene, who, having been reduced
to beggary, and forsaken by his companions, died miserably
at the house of a poor shoemaker, in September, 1592.
Shortly after he died, his Gratsworth of Wit was given to
the public by Henry Chettle. Near the close of this tract,
Greene makes an address "to those gentlemen his quondam
acquaintance, who spend their wits in making plays," ex-
horting them to desist from such pursuits. One of those
"gentlemen" was Christopher Marlowe, distinguished alike
for poetry, profligacy, and profanity; the others were
Thomas Lodge and George Peele. Greene here vents a
deal of fury against the players, alleging that they have all
been beholden to him, yet have now forsaken him; and from
thence inferring that the three worthies whom he is exhort-
ing will fare no better at their hands. After which he goes
on thus: "Yes, trust them not; for there is an upstart crow
beautified with our feathers, that, with his tiger's heart
wrapt in a player's hide,' supposes he is as well able to bom-
bast out a blank-verse as the best of you; and, being an
absolute Johannes Fac-totum, is in his own conceit the
only Shake-scene in a country."

Here the spiteful fling at Shakespeare is unmistakable, and nobody questions that he is the "Shake-scene" of the passage. The terms of the allusion yield conclusive evidence as to how the Poet stood in 1592. Though sneered at as a player, it is plain that he was already throwing the other playwriters into the shade, and making their labours cheap. Blank-verse was Marlowe's special forte, and some of his dramas show no little skill in the use of it, though the best part of that skill was doubtless caught from Shakespeare; but here was "an upstart" from the country who was able to rival him in his own line. Moreover, this Shakescene was a Do-all, a Johannes Fac-totum, who could turn

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES

[graphic]

his hand to any thing; and his readiness to undertake w none others could do so well naturally drew upon him imputation of conceit from those who envied his rising, whose lustre was growing dim in his light.

It appears that both Shakespeare and Marlowe were fended at the liberties thus taken with them. For, be the end of that same year, Chettle published a tract titled Kind Heart's Dream, wherein we have the foll ing: "With neither of them that take offence was I quainted; and with one of them [Marlowe] I care not never be the other I did not so much spare as since I w I had; because myself have seen his demeanour no civil than he excellent in the quality he professes: besi divers of worship have reported his uprightness of deal which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writ that approves his art."

On the whole, we can readily pardon the malice of Gree assault for the sake of this tribute, which it was the me of drawing forth, to Shakespeare's character as a man his cunning as a poet. The words "excellent in the qua he professes," refer most likely to the Poet's acting; w the term facetious is used, apparently, not in the sens now bears, but in that of felicitous or happy, as was c mon at that time. So it seems that Shakespeare alre had friends in London, some of them "worshipful," who were strongly commending him as a poet, and v were prompt to remonstrate with Chettle against the m slur cast upon him.

This naturally starts the inquiry, what dramas the P had then written, to earn such praise. Greene speaks him as "beautified with our feathers." Probably there at least some plausible colour of truth in this charge. charge, I have no doubt, refers mainly to the Second a Third Parts of King Henry the Sixth. The two plays which these were founded were published, respectively 1594 and 1595, their titles being, The First Part of Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of York a

[graphic]

ess to undertake what drew upon him the envied his rising, and ght.

nd Marlowe were of them. For, before published a tract enwe have the follow e offence was I ac lowe] I care not if l spare as since I wish demeanour no less e professes: besides ightness of dealing ous grace in writing

e malice of Greene's ch it was the means acter as a man and ellent in the quality oet's acting; while not in the sense it appy, as was com hakespeare already "worshipful," too 3 a poet, and who › against the mean

dramas the Poet Greene speaks of robably there was this charge. The the Second and The two plays on 1, respectively, in First Part of the ses of York and

Lancaster, and The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of
York. In the form there given, the plays have, as Mr.
White has clearly shown, along with much of Shakespeare's
work, many unquestionable marks of Greene's hand. All
those marks, however, were disciplined out of them, as they
have come down to us in Shakespeare's works. There can
be no doubt, then, that Greene, and perhaps Marlowe also,
had a part in them as they were printed in 1594 and 1595,
though no author's name was then given. Now it was
much the custom at that time for several playwrights to
work together. Of this we have many well-authenticated
instances. The most likely conclusion, therefore, is, that
these two plays in their original form were the joint work-
manship of Shakespeare, Greene, and Marlowe. Perhaps,
however, there was a still older form of the plays, written
entirely by Marlowe and Greene; which older form Shake-
speare, some time before Greene's death, may have taken
in hand, and recast, retaining more or less of their matter,
and working it in with his own nobler stuff; for this was
often done also. Or, again, it may be that, before the time
in question, Shakespeare, not satisfied to be joint author
with them, had rewritten the plays, and purged them of
nearly all matter but what he might justly claim as his own;
thus making them as we now have them.

As regards the occasion of Greene's assault, it matters
little which of these views we take, as in either case his
charge would have some apparent ground of truth. It is
further probable that the same course of remark would ap-
ply more or less to The Taming of the Shrew, and perhaps
also to Titus Andronicus, and the original form of Pericles.
At all events, I have no doubt that these five plays, together
with the First Part of King Henry the Sixth, The Comedy
of Errors, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, and Love's
Labour's Lost, in its first form, were all written before the
time of Greene's death. Perhaps the first shape, also, of
Romeo and Juliet should be added to this list.

My reasons for this opinion are too long to be stated

[blocks in formation]

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES

« ZurückWeiter »