/
britannica-11th.txt
3554 lines (3369 loc) · 201 KB
/
britannica-11th.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
## Shakespeare's Entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Edition (1911)
Shakespeare, William (1564--1616), English poet, player
and playwright, was baptized in the parish church of Stratford-upon-Avon
in Warwickshire on the 26th of April
1564. The exact date of his birth is not known. Two 18th-century
antiquaries, William Oldys and Joseph
Greene, gave it as April 23, but without quoting
authority for their statements, and the fact that April 23 was
the day of Shakespeare's death in 1616 suggests a possible
source of error. In any case his birthday cannot have been
later than April 23, since the inscription upon his monument
is evidence that on April 23, 1616, he had already begun his
fifty-third year. His father, John Shakespeare, was a burgess
of the recently constituted corporation of Stratford, and had
already filled certain minor municipal offices. From 1561 to
1563 he had been one of the two chamberlains to whom the
finance of the town was entrusted. By occupation he was a
glover, but he also appears to have dealt from time to time in
various kinds of agricultural produce, such as barley, timber
and wool. Aubrey (Lives, 1680) spoke of him as a butcher, and
it is quite possible that he bred and even killed the calves whose
skins he manipulated. He is sometimes described in formal
documents as a yeoman, and it is highly probable that he combined
a certain amount of farming with the practice of his trade.
He was living in Stratford as early as 1552, in which year he was
fined for having a dunghill in Henley Street, but he does not
appear to have been a native of the town, in whose records the
name is not found before his time; and he may reasonably
be identified with the John Shakespeare of Snitterfield, who
administered the goods of his father, Richard Shakespeare,
in 1561. Snitterheld is a village in the immediate neighbourhood
of Stratford, and here Richard Shakespeare had been settled
as a farmer since 1529. It is possible that John Shakespeare
carried on the farm for some time after his father's death, and
that by 1570 he had also acquired a small holding called Ingon
in Hampton Lucy, the next village to Snitterfield. But both
of these seem to have passed subsequently to his brother Henry,
who was buried at Snitterfield in 1596. There was also at
Snitterfield a Thomas Shakespeare and an Anthony Shakespeare,
who afterwards moved to Hampton Corley; and these may have
been of the same family. A John Shakespeare who dwelt at
Clifford Chambers, another village close to Stratford, is clearly
distinct. Strenuous efforts have been made to trace Shakespeare's
genealogy beyond Richard of Snitterfield, but so far
without success. Certain drafts of heraldic exemplifications of
the Shakespeare arms speak, in one case of John Shakespeare's
grandfather, in another of his great-grandfather, as having been
rewarded with lands and tenements in Warwickshire for service
to Henry VII. No such grants, however, have been traced, and
even in the 16th-century statements as to "antiquity and service"
in heraldic preambles were looked upon with suspicion.
The name Shakespeare is extremely widespread, and is spelt
in an astonishing variety of ways. That of John Shakespeare
occurs 166 times in the Council Book of the Stratford corporation,
and appears to take 16 different forms. The verdict, not
altogether unanimous, of competent palaeographers is to the
effect that Shakespeare himself, in the extant examples of his signature, always wrote "Shakspere."
In the printed signatures to the dedications of his poems, on the title-pages of nearly
all the contemporary editions of his plays that bear his name,
and in many formal documents it appears as Shakespeare.
This may be in part due to the martial derivation which the
poet's literary contemporaries were fond of assigning to his
name, and which is acknowledged in the arms that he bore. The
forms in use at Stratford, however, such as Shaxpeare, by far
the commonest, suggest a short pronunciation of the first syllable,
and thus tend to support Dr Henry Bradley's derivation from the
Anglo-Saxon personal name, Seaxberht. It is interesting, and
even amusing, to record that in 1487 Hugh Shakspere of Merton
College, Oxford, changed his name to Sawndare, because his
former name vile reputatum est. The earliest record of a Shakespeare
that has yet been traced is in 1248 at Clapton in Gloucestershire,
about seven miles from Stratford. The name also occurs
during the 13th century in Kent, Essex and Surrey, and during
the 14th in Cumberland, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Essex,
Warwickshire and as far away as Youghal in Ireland. Thereafter
it is found in London and most of the English counties,
particularly those of the midlands; and nowhere more freely
than in Warwickshire. There were Shakespeares in Warwick
and in Coventry, as well as around Stratford; and the clan
appears to have been very numerous in a group of villages
about twelve miles north of Stratford, which includes Baddesley
Clinton, Wroxall, Rowington, Haseley, Hatton, Lapworth,
Packwood, Balsall and Knowle. William was in common use
as a personal name, and Williams from more than one other
family have from time to time been confounded with the
dramatist. Many Shakespeares are upon the register of the
gild of St Anne at Knowle from about 1457 to about 1526.
Amongst these were Isabella Shakespeare, prioress of the
Benedictine convent of Wroxall, and Jane Shakespeare, a nun of the
same convent. Shakespeares are also found as tenants on the
manors belonging to the convent, and at the time of the Dissolution
in 1534 one Richard Shakespeare was its bailiff and collector
of rents. Conjectural attempts have been made on the one hand
to connect the ancestors of this Richard Shakespeare with a
family of the same name who held land by military tenure at
Baddesley Clinton in the 14th and 15th centuries, and on me
other to identify him with the poet's grandfather, Richard
Shakespeare of Snitterfield. But Shakespeares are to be traced
at Wroxall nearly as far back as at Baddesley Clinton, and there
is no reason to suppose that Richard the bailiff, who was certainly
still a tenant of Wroxall in 1556, had also since 1529 been farming
land ten miles off at Snitterfield.
With the breaking of this link, the hope of giving Shakespeare
anything more than a grandfather on the father's side must be
laid aside for the present. On the mother's side he was connected
with a family of some distinction. Part at least of Richard
Shakespeare's land at Snitterfield was held from Robert Arden
of Wilmcote in the adjoining parish of Aston Cantlow, a cadet of
the Ardens of Parkhall, who counted amongst the leading
gentry of Warwickshire. Robert Arden married his second wife,
Agnes Hill, formerly Webbe, in 1548, and had then no less
than eight daughters by his first wife. To the youngest of these,
Mary Arden, he left in 1556 a freehold in Aston Cantlow consisting
of a farm of about fifty or sixty acres in extent, known as Asbies.
At some date later than November 1556, and probably before
the end of 1557, Mary Arden became the wife of John Shakespeare.
In October 1556 John Shakespeare had bought two freehold
houses, one in Greenhill Street, the other in Henley Street.
The latter, known as the wool shop, was the easternmost of
the two tenements now combined in the so-called Shakespeare's
birthplace. The western tenement, the birthplace proper, was
probably already in John Shakespeare's hands, as he seems to
have been living in Henley Street in 1552. It has sometimes
been thought to have been one of two houses which formed a
later purchase in 1575, but there is no evidence that these were
in Henley Street at all.
William Shakespeare was not the first child. A Joan was
baptized in 1558 and a Margaret in 1562. The latter was buried
in 1563 and the former must also have died young, although
her burial is not recorded, as a second Joan was baptized in 156o.
A Gilbert was baptized in 1566, an Anne in 1571, a Richard in
1574 and an Edmund in 1580. Anne died in 1579; Edmund,
who like his brother became an actor, in 1607; Richard in 1613.
Tradition has it that one of Shakespeare's brothers used to visit
London in the 17th century as quite an old man. If so, this can
only have been Gilbert.
During the years that followed his marriage, John Shakespeare
became prominent in Stratford life. In 1565 he was chosen
as an alderman, and in 1568 he held the chief municipal office,
that of high bailiif. This carried with it the dignity of justice
of the peace. John Shakespeare seems to have assumed arms,
and thenceforward was always entered in corporation documents
as "Mr" Shakespeare, whereby he may be distinguished from
another John Shakespeare, a "corviser" or shoemaker, who
dwelt in Stratford about 1584-1592. In 1571 as an ex-bailiff he
began another year of office as chief alderman.
### Youth
One may think, therefore, of Shakespeare in his boyhood as
the son of one of the leading citizens of a not unimportant
provincial market-town, with a vigorous life of its
own, which in spite of the dunghills was probably not
much unlike the life of a similar town to-day, and with constant
reminders of its past in the shape of the stately buildings formerly
belonging to its college and its gild, both of which had been
suppressed at the Reformation. Stratford stands on the Avon,
in the midst of an agricultural country, throughout which in
those days enclosed orchards and meadows alternated with open
fields for tillage, and not far from the wilder and wooded district
known as the Forest of Arden. The middle ages had left it
an heritage in the shape of a free grammar-school, and here it
is natural to suppose that William Shakespeare obtained a sound
enough education[^1] with a working knowledge of Mantuan"[^2]
and Ovid in the original, even though to such a thorough scholar
as Ben Jonson it might seem no more than "small Latin and
less Greek." In 1577, when Shakespeare was about thirteen,
his father's fortunes began to take a turn for the worse. He
became irregular in his contributions to town levies, and had to
give a mortgage on his wife's property of Asbies as security
for a loan from her brother-in-law, Edmund Lambert. Money
was raised to pay this off, partly by the sale of a small interest
in land at Snitterfield which had come to Mary Shakespeare
from her sisters, partly perhaps by that of the Greenhill Street
house and other property in Stratford outside Henley Street,
none of which seems to have ever come into William Shakespeare's
hands. Lambert, however, refused to surrender the
mortgage on the plea of older debts, and an attempt to recover
Asbies by litigation proved ineffectual. John Shakespeare's
difficulties increased. An action for debt was sustained against
him in the local court, but no personal property could be found
on which to distrain. He had long ceased to attend the meetings
of the corporation, and as a consequence he was removed in
1586 from the list of aldermen. In this state of domestic affairs it
is not likely that Shakespeare's school life was unduly prolonged.
The chances are that he was apprenticed to some local trade.
Aubrey says that he killed calves for his father, and "would do
it in a high style, and make a speech."
[^1]: It is worth noting that Walter Roche, who in 1558 became
fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, was master of the school in
1570-1572, so that its standard must have been good.
[^2]: Baptista Mantuanus (1448-1516), whose Latin Eclogues were
translated by Turberville in 1567.
### Marriage
Whatever his circumstances, they did not deter him at the
early age of eighteen from the adventure of marriage. Rowe
recorded the name of Shakespeare's wife as Hathaway,
and Joseph Greene succeeded in tracing her to a family
of that name dwelling in Shottery, one of the hamlets of Stratford.
Her monument gives her first name as Anne, and her age as
sixty-seven in 1623. She must, therefore, have been about eight
years older than Shakespeare. Various small trains of evidence
point to her identification with the daughter Agnes mentioned
in the will of a Richard Hathaway of Shottery, who died in
1581, being then in possession of the farm-house now known
as "Anne Hathaway's Cottage." Agnes was legally distinct
name from Anne, but there can be no doubt that ordinary
custom treated them as identical. The principal record of the
marriage is a bond dated on November 28, 1582, and executed
by Fulk Sandells and John Richardson, two yeomen of Stratford
who also figure in Richard Hathaway's will, as a security to the
bishop for the issue of a licence for the marriage of William
Shakespeare and "Anne Hathwey of Stratford," upon the
consent of her friends, with one asking of the banns. There
is no reason to suppose, as has been suggested, that the procedure
adopted was due to dislike of the marriage on the part of John
Shakespeare, since, the bridegroom being a minor, it would not
have been in accordance with the practice of the bishop's officials
to issue the licence without evidence of the father's consent.
The explanation probably lies in the fact that Anne was already
with child, and in the near neighbourhood of Advent within
which marriages were prohibited, so that the ordinary procedure
by banns would have entailed a delay until after Christmas.
A kindly sentiment has suggested that some form of civil
marriage, or at least contract of espousals, had already taken
place, so that a canonical marriage was really only required in
order to enable Anne to secure the legacy left her by her father
"at the day of her marriage." But such a theory is not rigidly
required by the facts. It is singular that, upon the day before
that on which the bond was executed, an entry was made in
the bishop's register of the issue of a licence for a marriage
between William Shakespeare and "Annam Whateley de Temple
Grafton." Of this it can only be said that the bond, as an
original document, is infinitely the better authority, and that
a scribal error of "Whateley" for "Hathaway" is quite a
possible solution. Temple Grafton may have been the nominal
place of marriage indicated in the licence, which was not always
the actual place of residence of either bride or bridegroom.
There are no contemporary registers for Temple Grafton, and
there is no entry of the marriage in those for Stratford-upon-
Avon. There is a tradition that such a record was seen during
the 19th century in the registers for Luddington, a chapelry
within the parish, which are now destroyed. Shakespeare's
first child, Susanna, was baptized on the 26th of May 1583,
and was followed on the 2nd of February 1585 by twins,
Hamnet and Judith.
### Obscure years, 1584-1592
In or after 1584 Shakespeare's career in Stratford seems to
have come to a tempestuous close. An 18th-century story of a
drinking-bout in a neighbouring village is of no Obscure
importance, except as indicating a local impression
that a distinguished citizen had had a wildish youth.
But there is a tradition which comes from a double
source and which there is no reason to reject in substance, to
the effect that Shakespeare got into trouble through poaching
on the estates of a considerable Warwickshire magnate, Sir
Thomas Lucy, and found it necessary to leave Stratford in order
to escape the results of his misdemeanour. It is added that he
afterwards took his revenge on Lucy by satirizing him as the
Justice Shallow, with the dozen white louses in his old coat,
of The Merry Wives of Windsor. From this event until he
emerges as an actor and rising playwright in 1592 his history is
a blank, and it is impossible to say what experience may not
have helped to fill it. Much might indeed be done in eight years
of crowded Elizabethan life. Conjecture has not been idle, and
has assigned him in turns during this or some other period to
the occupations of a scrivener, an apothecary, a dyer, a printer,
a soldier, and the like. The suggestion that he saw military
service rests largely on a confusion with another William Shakespeare of Rowington. Aubrey had heard that "he had been
in his younger years a schoolmaster in the country." The
mention in Henry IV. of certain obscure yeomen families,
Visor of Woncote and Perkes of Stinchcombe Hill, near Dursley
in Gloucestershire, has been thought to suggest a sojourn in
that district, where indeed Shakespeares were to be found from
¤ an early date. Ultimately, of course, he drifted to London
and the theatre, where, according to the stage tradition, he
found employment in a menial capacity, perhaps even as a
holder of horses at the doors, before he was admitted into a company as an actor and so found his way to his true vocation
as a writer of plays. Malone thought that he might have left
Stratford with one of the travelling companies of players which
from time to time visited the town. Later biographers have
fixed upon Leicester's men, who were at Stratford in 1587,
and have held that Shakespeare remained to the end in the same
company, passing with it on Leicester's death in 1588 under the
patronage of Ferdinando, Lord Strange and afterwards earl of
Derby, and on Derby's death in 1594 under that of the lord
chamberlain, Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon. This theory perhaps
hardly takes sufficient account of the shifting combinations
and recombinations of actors, especially during the disastrous
plague years of 1592 to 1594. The continuity of Strange's
company with Leicester's is very disputable, and while the names
of many members of Strange's company in and about 1593
are on record, Shakespeare's is not amongst them. It is at least
possible, as will be seen later, that he had about this time
relations with the earl of Pembroke's men, or with the earl of
Sussex's men, or with both of these organizations.
### Playwright and poet
What is clear is that by the summer of 1592, when he was
twenty-eight, he had begun to emerge as a playwright, and had
evoked the jealousy of one at least of the group of
scholar poets who in recent years had claimed a
monopoly of the stage. This was Robert Greene,
who, in an invective on behalf of the play-makers
against the play-actors which forms part of his Groats-worth
of Wit, speaks of "an upstart Crow, beautiiied with our feathers,
that with his *Tygers heart wrap! in a Players hide,* supposes he
is as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as the best of you:
and being an absolute *Johannes fac iotum*, is in his owne conceit
the onely Shake-scene in a countrie." The play upon Shakespeare's
name and the parody of a line from Henry VI. make
the reference unmistakable.[^1] The London theatres were closed,
first through riots and then through plague, from June 1592
to April 1594, with the exception of about a month at each
Christmas during that period; and the companies were dissolved
or driven to the provinces. Even if Shakespeare had been
connected with Strange's men during their London seasons of
1592 and 1593, it does not seem that he travelled with them.
Other activities may have been sufficient to occupy the interval.
The most important of these was probably an attempt to win
a reputation in the world of non-dramatic poetry. *Venus and
Adonis* was published about April 1593, and *Lucrece* about May
1594. The poems were printed by Richard Field, in whom
Shakespeare would have found an old Stratford acquaintance;
and each has a dedication to Henry Wriothesley, earl of South-
ampton, a brilliant and accomplished favourite of the court, still
in his nonage. A possibly super-subtle criticism discerns an
increased warmth in the tone of the later dedication, which is
supposed to argue a marked growth of intimacy. The fact of
this intimacy is vouched for by the story handed down from
Sir William Davenant to Rowe (who published in 1709 the first
regular biography of Shakespeare) that Southampton gave
Shakespeare a thousand pounds "to enable him to go through
with a purchase which he heard he had a mind to." The date of
this generosity is not specified, and there is no known purchase by
Shakespeare which can have cost anything like the sum named.
The mention of Southampton leads naturally to the most
difficult problem which a biographer has to handle, that of the
*Sonnets*. But this will be more conveniently taken up at a
later point, and it is only necessary here to put on record the
probability that the earliest of the sonnets belong to the period
now under discussion. There is a surmise, which is not in itself
other than plausible, and which has certainly been supported with
a good deal of ingenious argument, that Shakespeare's enforced
leisure enabled him to make of 1593 a *Wanderjahr*, and in
particular that the traces of a visit to northern Italy may clearly
be seen in the local colouring of *Lucrece* as compared with *Venus
and Adonis*, and in that of the group of plays which may be dated
in or about 1594 and 1595 as compared with those that preceded.
It must, however, be borne in mind that, while Shakespeare
may perfectly well, at this or at some earlier time, have voyaged
to Italy, and possibly Denmark and even Germany as well,
there is no direct evidence to rely upon, and that inference from
internal evidence is a dangerous guide when a writer of so assimilative
a temperament as that of Shakespeare is concerned.
[^1]: It is most improbable, however, that the apologetic reference in
Chettle's *Kind-hart's Dream* (December 1592) refers to Shakespeare.
### Connexion with the Chamberlain's company of actors ###
From the reopening of the theatres in the summer of 1594
onwards Shakespeare's status is in many ways clearer. He had
certainly become a leading member of the Chamberlain's
company by the following winter, when his
name appears for the first and only time in the treasurer
of the chamber's accounts as one of the recipients of
payment for their performances at court; and there is
every reason to suppose that he continued to act with
and write for the same associates to the close of his career. The
history of the company may be briefly told. At the death of the
lord chamberlain on the 22nd of July 1596, it passed under the
protection of his successor, George, 2nd Lord Hunsdon, and
once more became "the Lord Chamberlain's men" when he
was appointed to that office on the 17th of March 1597. James I.
on his accession took this company under his patronage as grooms
of the chamber, and during the remainder of Shakespeare's
connexion with the stage they were "the King's men." The
records of performances at court show that they were by far the
most favoured of the companies, their nearest rivals being the
company known during the reign of Elizabeth as "the Admiral's,"
and afterwards as "Prince Henry's men." From the summer
of 1594 to March I603 they appear to have played almost
continuously in London, as the only provincial performances by
them which are upon record were during the autumn of 1597,
when the London theatres were for a short time closed owing to
the interference of some of the players in politics. They travelled
again during 1603 when the plague was in London, and during
at any rate portions of the summers or autumns of most years
thereafter. In 1594 they were playing at Newington Butts, and
probably also at the Rose on Bankside, and at the Cross Keys
in the city. It is natural to suppose that in later years they
used the Theatre in Shoreditch, since this was the property of
James Burbage, the father of their principal actor, Richard
Burbage. The Theatre was pulled down in 1598, and, after a
short interval during which the company may have played at the
Curtain, also in Shoreditch, Richard Burbage and his brother
Cuthbert rehoused them in the Globe on Bankside, built in part
out of the materials of the Theatre. Here the profits of the
enterprise were divided between the members of the company
as such and the owners of the building as "housekeepers,"
and shares in the "house" were held in joint tenancy by Shake-
speare and some of his leading "fellows." About 1608 another
playhouse became available for the company in the "private "
or winter house of the Black Friars. This was also the property
of the Burbages, but had previously been leased to a company
of boy players. A somewhat similar arrangement as to profits
was made.
Shakespeare is reported by Aubrey to have been a good actor,
but Adam in *As You Like It*, and the Ghost in *Hamlet* indicate
the type of part which he played. As a dramatist, however,
he was the mainstay of the company for at least some fifteen years,
during which Ben Jonson, Dekker, Beaumont and Fletcher, and
Tourneur also contributed to their repertory. On an average
he must have written for them about two plays a year, although
his rapidity of production seems to have been greatest during
the opening years of the period. There was also no doubt a good
deal of rewriting of his own earlier work, and also perhaps, at
the beginning, of that of others. Occasionally he may have
. entered into collaboration, as, for example, at the end of his
career, with Fletcher.
### Stratford Affairs
In a worldly sense he clearly flourished, and about 1596, if
not earlier, he was able to resume relations as a moneyed
man with Stratford-on-Avon. There is no evidence to show
whether he had visited the town in the interval, or whether
he had brought his wife and family to London. His son Hamnet
died and was buried at Stratford in 1596. During the last ten
years John Shakespeare's affairs had remained unprosperous.
He incurred fresh debt, partly through becoming surety for
his brother Henry; and in 1592 his name was included in a list
of recusants dwelling at or near Stratford-on-Avon, with a note
by the commissioners that in his case the cause was believed to
be the fear of process for debt. There is no reason to doubt
this explanation, or to seek a religious motive in
John Shakespeare's abstinence from church. William
Shakespeare's purse must have made a considerable
difference. The prosecutions for debt ceased, and in 1597 a
fresh action was brought in Chancery for the recovery of Asbies
from the Lamberts. Like the last, it seems to have been
without result. Another step was taken to secure the dignity
of the family by an application in the course of 1596 to the
heralds for the confirmation of a coat of arms said to have been
granted to John Shakespeare while he was bailiff of Stratford.
The bearings were *or* on a bend *sable* a spear *or* steeled *argent*,
the crest a falcon his wings displayed *argent* supporting a spear
*or* steeled *argent*, and the motto *Non sanz droict*. The grant
was duly made, and in 1599 there was a further application for
leave to impale the arms of Arden, in right of Shakespeare's
mother. No use, however, of the Arden arms by the Shakespeares
can be traced. In 1597 Shakespeare made an important
purchase for £60 of the house and gardens of New Place in Chapel
Street. This was one of the largest houses in Stratford, and
its acquisition an obvious triumph for the ex-poacher. Presumably
John Shakespeare ended his days in peace. A visitor to
his shop remembered him as "a merry-cheekt old man" always
ready to crack a jest with his son. He died in 1601, and his wife
in 1608, and the Henley Street houses passed to Shakespeare.
Aubrey records that he paid annual visits to Stratford, and there
is evidence that he kept in touch with the life of the place. The
correspondence of his neighbours, the Quineys, in 1598 contains
an application to him for a loan to Richard Quiney upon a visit
to London, and a discussion of possible investments for him
in the neighbourhood of Stratford. In 1602 he took, at a rent
of 2s. 6d. a year, a copyhold cottage in Chapel Lane, perhaps
for the use of his gardener. In the same year he invested
£320 in the purchase of an estate consisting of 107 acres in the
open fields of Old Stratford, together with a farm-house, garden
and orchard, 20 acres of pasture and common rights; and in
1605 he spent another £440 in the outstanding term of a lease
of certain great tithes in Stratford parish, which brought in an
income of about £60 a year.
### London Associations
Meanwhile London remained his headquarters. Here Malone
thought that he had evidence, now lost, of his residence in South-
Lmdon wark as early as 1596, and as late as 1608. It is
known that payments of subsidy were due from him
for 1597 and 1598 in the parish of St Helen's, Bishopsgate,
and that an arrear was ultimately collected
in the liberty of the Clink. He had no doubt migrated from
Bishopsgate when the Globe upon Bankside was opened by the
Chamberlain's men. There is evidence that in 1604 he "lay,"
temporarily or permanently, in the house of Christopher
Mountjoy, a tire-maker of French extraction, at the corner of
Silver Street and Monkwell Street in Cripplegate. A recently
recovered note by Aubrey, if it really refers to Shakespeare
(which is not quite certain), is of value as throwing light not
only upon his abode, but upon his personality. Aubrey seems to
have derived it from William Beeston the actor, and through
him from John Lacy, an actor of the king's company. It is
as follows: "The more to be admired q[uod] he was not a
company-keeper, lived in Shoreditch, would not be debauched,
& if invited to court, he was in paine." Against this testimony
to the correctness of Shakespeare's morals are to be placed an
anecdote of a green-room amour picked up by a Middle Temple
student in 1602 and a Restoration scandal which made him the
father by the hostess of the Crown Inn at Oxford, where he
baited on his visits to Stratford, of Sir William Davenant, who
was born in February 1606. His credit at court is implied by
Ben Jonson's references to his flights "that so did take Eliza
and our James," and by stories of the courtesies which passed
between him and Elizabeth while he was playing a kingly part in
her presence, of the origin of *The Merry Wives of Windsor* in
her desire to see Falstaff in love, and of an autograph letter
written to honour him by King James. It was noticed with
some surprise by Henry Chettle that his "honied muse" dropped
no "sable tear" to celebrate the death of the queen. Southampton's
patronage may have introduced him to the brilliant
circle that gathered round the earl of Essex, but there is no
reason to suppose that he or his company were held personally
responsible for the performance of Richard II. at the command
of some of the followers of Essex as a prelude to the disastrous
rising of February 1601. The editors of the First Folio speak
also of favours received by the author in his lifetime from
William Herbert, earl of Pembroke, and his brother Philip
Herbert, earl of Montgomery.
### Friends
He appears to have been on cordial terms with his fellows
of the stage. One of them, Augustine Phillips, left him a
small legacy in 1605, and in his own will he paid a
similar compliment to Richard Burbage, and to John
Heminge and Henry Condell, who afterwards edited his plays.
His relations with Ben Jonson, whom he is said by Rowe to have
introduced to the world as a playwright, have been much
canvassed. Jests are preserved which, even if apocryphal,
indicate considerable intimacy between the two. This is not
inconsistent with occasional passages of arms. The anonymous
author of *The Return from Parnassus* (2nd part; 1602), for
example, makes Kempe, the actor, allude to a "purge "which
Shakespeare gave Jonson, in return for his attack on some of
his rivals in *The Poetaster*.[^1] It has been conjectured that this
purge was the description of Ajax and his humours in Troilus
and Cressida. Jonson, on the other hand, who was criticism
incarnate, did not spare Shakespeare either in his prologues or
in his private conversation. He told Drummond of Hawthornden
that "Shakspeer wanted arte." But the verses which he contributed
to the First Folio are generous enough to make all
amends, and in his *Discoveries* (pub. 1641; written c. 1624 and
later), while regretting Shakespeare's excessive facility and the
fact that he often "fell into those things, could not escape
laughter," he declares him to have been "honest and of an
open and free nature," and says that, for his own part, "I lov'd
the man and do honour his memory (on this side idolatry) as
much as any." According to the memoranda-book (1661-1663)
of the Rev. John Ward (who became vicar of Stratford in 1662),
Jonson and Michael Drayton, himself a Warwickshire poet, had
been drinking with Shakespeare when he caught the fever of
which he died; and Thomas Fuller (1608-1661), whose *Worthies*
was published in 1662, gives an imaginative description of the
wit combats, of which many took place between the two
mighty contemporaries.
### Contemporary Reputation
Of Shakespeare's literary reputation during his lifetime there
is ample evidence. He is probably neither the "Willy" of
Spenser's *Tears of the Muses*, nor the "Aetion" of
his *Colin Clout's Came Home Again*. But from the
time of the publication of *Venus and Adonis* and
*Lucrece* honorific allusions to his work both as poet
and dramatist, and often to himself by name, come thick and
fast from writers of every kind and degree. Perhaps the most
interesting of these from the biographical point of view are those
contained in the *Palladis Tamia*, a kind of literary handbook
published by Francis Meres in 1598; for Meres not only extols
him as "the most excellent in both kinds [i.e. comedy and
tragedy] for the stage," and one of "the most passionate among
us to bewaile and bemoane the perplexities of Love," but also
takes the trouble to give a list of twelve plays already written,
which serves as a starting-point for all modern attempts at a
chronological arrangement of his work. It is moreover from
Meres that we first hear of "his sugred Sonnets among his
private friends." Two of these sonnets were printed in 1599
in a volume of miscellaneous verse called The Passionate Pilgrim.
This was ascribed upon the title-page to Shakespeare, but pro- `
bably, so far as most of its contents were concerned, without
justification. The bulk of Shakespeare's sonnets remained
unpublished until 1609.
[^1]: Kempe (speaking to Burbage), "Few of the university pen plays
well. They smell too much of that writer Ovid and that writer (sic)
Metamorphosis, and talk too much of Proserpina and jupiter.
Why here`s our fellow Shakespeare puts them all down; aye, and
Ben Jonson too. O that Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow. He brought
up Horace giving the Poets a pill, but ourfellow Shakespeare hath
given him a purge that made him beray his credit."
### Last Years
About 1610 Shakespeare seems to have left London, and
entered upon the definite occupation of his house at New
Place, Stratford. Here he lived the life of a retired
gentleman, on friendly if satirical terms with the
richest of his neighbours, the Combes, and interested
in local affairs, such as a bill for the improvement of the highways
in 1611, or a proposed enclosure of the open fields at Welcombe
in 1614, which might affect his income or his comfort. He had
his garden with its mulberry-tree, and his farm in the immediate
neighbourhood. His brothers Gilbert and Richard were still
alive; the latter died in 1613. His sister Joan had married
William Hart, a batter, and in 1616 was dwelling in one of his
houses in Henley Street. Of his daughters, the eldest, Susanna,
had married in 1607 John Hall (d. 1635), a physician of some reputation.
They dwelt in Stratford, and had one child, Elizabeth,
afterwards Lady Barnard (1608-1670). The younger, Judith,
married Thomas Quiney, a vintner, also of Stratford, two months
before her father's death. At Stratford the last few of the plays
may have been written, but it is reasonable to suppose that Shake-
speare's connexion with the King's company ended when the
Globe was burnt down during a performance of Henry VIII. on
the 29th of June 1613. Certainly his retirement did not imply
an absolute break with London life. In 1613 he devised an
impresa, or emblem, to be painted by Richard Burbage, and worn
in the tilt on Accession day by the earl of Rutland, who had
been one of the old circle of Southampton and Essex. In the
same year he purchased for £140 a freehold house in the Black-
friars, near the Wardrobe. This was conveyed to trustees,
apparently in order to bar the right which his widow would
otherwise have had to dower. In 1615 this purchase involved
Shakespeare in a lawsuit for the surrender of the title-deeds.
Richard Davies, a Gloucestershire clergyman of the end of the
17th century, reports that the poet "died a papist," and the
statement deserves more attention than it has received from
biographers. There is indeed little to corroborate it; for an
alleged "spiritual testament" of John Shakespeare is of suspected
origin, and Davies's own words suggest a late conversion rather
than an hereditary faith. On the other hand, there is little to
refute it beyond an entry in the accounts of Stratford corporation
for drink given in 1614 to "a preacher at the Newe Place."
### Will
Shakespeare made his will on the 25th of March 1616, apparently
in some haste, as the executed deed is a draft with many
erasures and interlineations. There were legacies to
his daughter Judith Quiney and his sister Joan Hart,
and remembrances to friends both in Warwickshire and in
London; but the real estate was left to his sister Susanna Hall
under a strict entail which points to a desire on the part of the
testator to found a family. Shakespeare's wife, for whom other
provision must have been made, is only mentioned in an inter-
lineation, by which the "second best bed with the furniture"
was bequeathed to her. Much nonsense has been written about
this, but it seems quite natural. The best bed was an important
chattel, which would go with the house. The estate was after all
not a large one. Aubrey's estimate of its annual value as £200
or £300 a year sounds reasonable enough, and John Ward's statement that Shakespeare spent £1000 a year must surely be an
exaggeration. The sum-total of his known investments amounts
to £960. Mr Sidney Lee calculates that his theatrical income
must have reached £600 a year; but it may be doubted whether
this also is not a considerable overestimate. It must be
remembered that the purchasing value of money in the 17th
century is generally regarded as having been about eight times
its present value. Shakespeare's interest in the "houses "of the
Globe and Blackfriars probably determined on his death.
A month after his will was signed, on the 23rd of April 1616,
Shakespeare died, and as a tithe-owner was buried in the chance
of the parish church. Some doggerel upon the stone that covers
<!-- p.776:1 -->
the grave has been assigned by local tradition to his own pen. A
more elaborate monument, with a bust by the sculptor Gerard
Johnson, was in due course set up on the chancel wall.
### Death
Anne Shakespeare followed her husband on the 6th
of August 1623. The family was never founded. Shake-
speare's grand-daughter, Elizabeth Hall, made two childless
marriages, the first with Thomas Nash of Stratford, the second
with John, afterwards Sir John, Barnard of Abington Manor,
Northants. His daughter Judith Quiney had three sons, all
of whom had died unmarried by 1639. There were, therefore,
no direct descendants of Shakespeare in existence after Lady
Barnard's death in 1670. Those of his sister, Joan Hart, could
however still be traced in 1864. On Lady Barnard's death the
Henley Street houses passed to the Harts, in whose family they
remained until 1806. They were then sold, and in 1846 were
bought for the public. They are now held with Anne Hathaway's
Cottage at Shottery as the Birthplace Trust. Lady Barnard
had disposed of the Blackfriars house. The rest of the property
was sold under the terms of her will, and New Place passed,
first to the Cloptons who rebuilt it, and then to the Rev. Francis
Gastrell, who pulled it down in 1759. The site now forms a public
recreation-ground, and hard by is a memorial building with a
theatre in which performances of Shakespeare's plays are given
annually in April. Both the Memorial and the Birthplace contain
museums, in which books, documents and portraits of
Shakespearian interest, together with relics of greater or less
authenticity, are stored.
No letter or other writing in Shakespeare's hand can be proved
to exist, with the exception of three signatures upon his will,
one upon a deposition (May 11, 1612) in a lawsuit with which
he was remotely concerned, and two upon deeds (March 10 and
11, 1613) in connexion with the purchase of his Blackfriars house.
A copy of Florio's translation of Montaigne (1603) in the British
Museum,a copy of the Aldine edition of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*
(1502) in the Bodleian, and a copy of the 1612 edition of Sir
Thomas North's translation of Plutarch's *Lives of the Noble
Grecians and Romaines* in the Greenock Library, have all been
put forward with some plausibility as bearing his autograph
name or initials, and, in the third case, a marginal note by him.
A passage in the manuscript of the play of *Sir Thomas More* has
been ascribed to him (*vide infra*), and, if the play is his, might
be in his handwriting. Aubrey records that he was "a handsome,
well-shap't man," and the lameness attributed to him
by some writers has its origin only in a too literal interpretation
of certain references to spiritual disabilities in the *Sonnets.*
### Dramas
A collection of *Mr William Shakespeards Comedies, Histories
and Tragedies* was printed at the press of William and Isaac
jaggard, and issued by a group of booksellers in 1623.
This volume is known as the First Folio. It has
dedications to the earls of Pembroke and Montgomery, and to
"the great Variety of Readers," both of which are signed by
two of Shakespeare's "fellows "at the Globe, John Heminge
and Henry Condell, and commendatory verses by Ben Jonson,
Hugh Holland, Leonard Digges and an unidentified I. M.
The Droeshout engraving forms part of the title-page. The
contents include, with the exception of *Pericles*, all of the thirty-seven
plays now ordinarily printed in editions of Shakespeare's
works. Of these eighteen were here published for the first time.
The other eighteen had already appeared in one or more separate
editions, known as the Quartos.
The following list gives the date of the First Quarto of each
such play, and also that of any later Quarto which differs
materially from the First.
<!-- ed: reformatted from the original -->
The Quarto Editions.
* Titus Andronicus (1594).
* 2 Henry VI. (1594).
* 3 Henry VI. (1595).
* Richard II. (1597, 1608).
* Richard III. (1597).
* Romeo and Juliet (1597, 1599).
* Love's Labour's Lost (1598).
* 1 Henry IV. (1598).
* King Lear (1608).
* 2 Henry IV. (1600).
* Henry V. (1600).
* A Midsummer Night's Dream (1600)
* The Merchant of Venice (1600)
* Much Ado About Nothing (1600).
* The Merry Wives of Windsor (1602)
* Hamlet (1603, 1604).
* Troilus and Cressida (1609).
* Othello (1622).
<!-- p.777:0 ed: TODO italicising -->
Entries in the Register of copyrights kept by the Company
of Stationers indicate that editions of *As You Like It* and
*Anthony and Cleopatra were* contemplated but not published in
1600 and 1608 respectively.
The Quartos differ very much in character. Some of them
contain texts which are practically identical with those of
the First Folio; others show variations so material as to suggest
that some revision, either by rewriting or by shortening for stage
purposes, took place. Amongst the latter are 2, 3 Henry VI.,
Richard III., Romeo and Juliet, The Merry Wives of Windsor,
Hamlet and King Lear. Many scholars doubt whether the
Quarto versions of 2, 3 Henry VI., which appeared under the titles
of The First Part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses
of York and Lancaster and The True Tragedy of Richard Duke
of York, are Shakespeare's work at all. It seems clear that the
Quartos of The Troublesome Reign of John King of England (1591)
and The Taming of A Shrew (1594), although treated for copyright
purposes as identical with the plays of King John and The Taming
of the Shrew, which he founded upon them, are not his. The First
Quartos of Romeo and Juliet, Henry V., The Merry Wives of
Windsor, and Hamlet seem to be mainly based, not upon written
texts of the plays, but upon versions largely made up out of
shorthand notes taken at the theatre by the agents of a piratical
bookseller. A similar desire to exploit the commercial value
of Shakespeare's reputation probably led to the appearance of
his name or initials upon the title-pages of Locrine (1595),
Sir John Oldcastle (1600), Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602), The
London Prodigal (1605), The Puritan (1607), A Yorkshire
Tragedy (1608), and Pericles (1609). It is not likely that, with
the exception of the last three acts of Pericles, he wrote any part
of these plays, some of which were not even produced by his
company. They were not included in the First Folio of 1623, nor
in a reprint of it in 1632, known as the Second Folio; but all
seven were appended to the second issue (1664) of the Third
Folio (1663), and to the Fourth Folio of 1685. Shakespeare is
named as joint author with John Fletcher on the title-page of
The Two Noble Kinsmen (1634), and with William Rowley on that
of The Birth of Merlin (1662); there is no reason for rejecting
the former ascription or for accepting the latter. Late entries
in the Stationers' Register assign to him Cardenio (with Fletcher),
Henry I. and Henry II. (both with Robert Davenport), King
Stephen, Duke Humphrey, and Iphis and Ianthe; but none of
these plays is now extant. Modern conjecture has attempted
to trace his hand in other plays, of which Arden of Feversham
(1592), Edward III. (1596), Mucedorus (1598), and The Merry
Devil of Edmonton (1608) are the most important; it is quite
possible that he may have had a share in Edward III. A play
on Sir Thomas More, which has been handed down in manuscript,
contains a number of passages, interpolated in various
handwritings, to meet requirements of the censor; and there
are those who assign one of these (ii. 4, 1-172) to Shakespeare.
[Dates]
Unfortunately the First Folio does not give the dates at which
the plays contained in it were written or produced; and the
endeavour to supply this deficiency has been one of the
main preoccupations of more than a century of Shakespearian
scholarship, since the pioneer essay of Edmund Malone
in his An Attempt to Ascertain the Order in which the Plays of
Shakespeare were Written (1778). The investigation is not a
mere piece of barren antiquarianism, for on it depends the
possibility of appreciating the work of the world's greatest poet,
not as if it were an articulated whole like a philosophical system,
but in its true aspect as the reflex of a vital and constantly
developing personality. A starting-point is afforded by the
dates of the Quartos and the entries in the Stationers' Register
which refer to them, and by the list of plays already in existence
in 1598 which is inserted by Francis Meres in his Palladis Tamia
of that year, and which, while not necessarily exhaustive of
Shakespeare's pre-1598 writing, includes The Two Gentlemen of
Verona, The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Lost, A Mid-
summer Night's Dream, The Merchant of Venice, Richard II.,
Richard III., Henry IV., King John, Titus Andronicus and
Romeo and Juliet, as well as a mysterious Love's Labour's Won,
### END: ED4A805_0.tif.txt ###
### START: ED4A805_1.tif.txt ###
#### Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/scans/EB1911_tiff/VOL24%20SAINTE-CLAIRE%20DEVILLE-SHUTTLE/ED4A805.TIF
p.777:1 ed: TODO italicising
which has been conjecturally identified with several plays,
but most plausibly with The Taming of the Shrew. There is a
mass of supplementary evidence, drawn partly from definite
notices in other writings or in diaries, letters, account books, and
similar records, partly from allusions to contemporary persons
and events in the plays themselves, partly from parallels of
thought and expression between each play and those near to it
in point of time, and partly from considerations of style, includ-
ing the so-called metrical tests, which depend upon an analysis
of Shakespeare's varying feeling for rhythm at different stages
of his career. The total result is certainly not a demonstration,
but in the logical sense an hypothesis which serves to colligate
the facts and is consistent with itself and with the known events
of Shakespeare's external life.
The following table, which is an attempt to arrange the original
dates of production of the plays without regard to possible
revisions, may be taken as fairly representing the common
results of recent scholarship. It is framed on the assumption
that, as indeed John Ward tells us was the case, Shakespeare
ordinarily wrote two plays a year; but it will be understood
that neither the order in which the plays are given nor the
distribution of them over the years lays claim to more than
approximate accuracy.
<!-- ed: TODO reformat? -->
**Chronology of the Plays**
|| 1591 || (1, 2) The Contention of York and Lancaster (2, 3 Henry VI.) || ||
|| 1592 || (3) 1 Henry VI || The theatres were closed for riot and plague from June to the end of December ||
|| 1593 || (4) Richard III, (5) Edward III (part only) (6) The Comedy of Errors || (The theatres were closed for plague during February and March ||
|| 1594 || (7) Titus Andronicus, (8) Taming of the Shrew, (9) Love's Labour's Lost, (10) Romeo and Juliet || The theatres were closed for plague during February and March ||
|| 1595 || (11) A Midsummer Night's Dream, (12) The Two Gentlemen of Verona, (13) King John ||
|| 1596 || (14) Richard II, (15) The Merchant of Venice ||
|| 1597 || (16) 1 Henry IV || The theatres were closed for misdemeanour from the end of July to October ||
|| 1598 || (17) 2 Henry IV, (18) Much Ado About Nothing ||
|| 1599 || (19) Henry V, (20) Julius Caesar ||
|| 1600 || (21) The Merry Wives of Windsor, (22) As You Like It ||
|| 1601 || (23) Hamlet, (24) Twelfth Night ||
|| 1602 || (25) Troilus and Cressida, (26) All's Well that End's Well ||
|| 1603 || - || The theatres were closed on Elizabeth's death in March, and remained closed for the plague throughout the year ||
|| 1604 || (27) Measure for Measure, (28) Othello ||
|| 1605 || (29) Macbeth, (30) King Lear ||
|| 1606 || (31) Antony and Cleopatra, (32) Coriolanus ||
|| 1607 || (33) Timon of Athens (unfinished) ||
|| 1608 || (34) Pericles (part only) ||
|| 1609 || (35) Cymbeline ||
|| 1610 || (36) The Winter's Tale ||
|| 1611 || (37) The Tempest ||
|| 1612 || - ||
|| 1613 || (38) The Two Noble Kinsmen (part only) ||
|| 1614 || (39) Henry VIII (part only) ||
A more detailed account of the individual plays may now
be attempted. The figures here prefixed correspond to those
in the table above.
[Composition]
1, 2. The relation of The Contention of York and Lancaster
to 2, 3 Henry VI. and the extent of Shakespeare's responsibility
for either or both works have long been subjects of
controversy. The extremes of critical opinion are to
be found in a theory which regards Shakespeare as the
sole author of 2, 3 Henry VI. and *The Contention* as a shortened
and piratical version of the original plays, and in a theory which
regards *The Contention* as written in collaboration by Marlowe,
Greene and possibly Peele, and 2, 3 Henry VI. as a revision of
<!-- p.778:0 -->
*The Contention* written, also in collaboration, by Marlowe and
Shakespeare. A comparison of the two texts leaves it hardly
possible to doubt that the differences between them are to be
explained by revision rather than by piracy; but the question
of authorship is more difficult. Greene's parody, in the " Shake-
scene" passage of his *Groats-worth of Wit* (1592), of a line which
occurs both in *The Contention* and in 3 *Henry VI.*, while it clearly
suggests Shakespeare's connexion with the plays, is evidence
neither for nor against the participation of other men, and no
sufficient criterion exists for distinguishing between Shakespeare's
earliest writing and that of possible collaborators on grounds of
style. But there is nothing inconsistent between the reviser's
work in 2, 3 *Henry VI.* and on the one hand *Richard III.* or
on the other the original matter of *The Contention*, which the
reviser follows and elaborates scene by scene. It is difficult to
assign to any one except Shakespeare the humour of the Jack
Cade scenes, the whole substance of which is in *The Contention*
as well as in *Henry VI*. Views which exclude Shakespeare alto-
gether may be left out of account. *Henry VI.* is not in Meres's
list of his plays, but its inclusion in the First Folio is an almost
certain ground for assigning to him some share, if only as reviser,
in the completed work.
3\. A very similar problem is afforded by 1 *Henry VI.*, and here
also it is natural, in the absence of tangible evidence to the
contrary, to hold by Shakespeare's substantial responsibility
for the play as it stands. It is quite possible that it also may be
a revised version, although in this case no earlier version exists;
and if so the Talbot scenes (iv. 2-7) and perhaps also the Temple
Gardens scene (ii. 4), which are distinguished by certain qualities
of style from the rest of the play, may date from the period of
revision. Thomas Nash refers to the representation of Talbot
on the stage in his *Pierce Penilesse, his Supplicalion to the Divell*
(1592), and it is probable that 1 *Henry VI.* is to be identified
with the "Harey the vj." recorded in Henslowe's *Diary* to have
been acted as a new play by Lord Strange's men, probably at
the Rose, on the grd of March 1592. If so, it is a reasonable
conjecture that the two parts of *The Contention* were originally
written at some date before the beginning of Henslowe's record
in the previous February, and were revised so as to fall into a
series with 1 *Henry VI.* in the latter end of 1592.
4\. The series as revised can only be intended to lead directly
up to *Richard III .*, and this relationship, together with its style
as compared with that of the plays belonging to the autumn
of 1594, suggest the short winter season of 1592-1593 as the most
likely time for the production of *Richard III.* There is a difficulty
in that it is not included in Henslowe's list of the plays acted by
Lord Strange's men during that season. But it may quite well
have been produced by the only other company which appeared
at court during the Christmas festivities, Lord Pembroke's.
The mere fact that Shakespeare wrote a play, or more than one
play, for Lord Strange's men during 1592-1594 does not prove
that he never wrote for any other company during the same
period; and indeed there is plenty of room for guess-work as to
the relations between Strange's and Pembroke's men. The latter
are not known to have existed before 1592, and many difhculties
would be solved by the assumption that they originated out of
a division of Strange's, whose numbers, since their amalgamation
with the Admiral's, may have been too much inflated to enable
them to undertake as a whole the summer tour of that year.
If so, Pembroke's probably took over the *Henry VI.* series of
plays, since *The Contention*, or at least the *True Tragedy*, was
published as performed by them, and completed it with *Richard
III.* on their return to London at Christmas. It will be necessary
to return to this theory in connexion with the discussion of
*Titus Andronicus* and *The Taming of the Shrew*. The principal
historical source for *Henry VI.* was Edward Hall's *The Union of
the Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York* (1542), and