diff options
Diffstat (limited to '77063-h/77063-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | 77063-h/77063-h.htm | 5345 |
1 files changed, 5345 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/77063-h/77063-h.htm b/77063-h/77063-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a189483 --- /dev/null +++ b/77063-h/77063-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,5345 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <title> + William Shakspere and Robert Greene: The Evidence | Project Gutenberg + </title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +h1, +h2 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + font-weight: normal; +} + +h1 { + margin-bottom: .2em; +} + +p { + text-indent: 1em; + margin-top: 0.51em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: 0.49em; +} + +.pad2 { + padding-left: 2em; +} + +.fs200 { + font-size: 200%; +} +.fs150 { + font-size: 150%; +} +.fs120 { + font-size: 120%; +} +.fs80 { + font-size: 80%; +} +.lsp2 { + letter-spacing: 0.25em; +} +.bold { + font-weight: bold; +} +.noindent { + text-indent: 0em; +} + +.corr { + text-decoration: none; + border-bottom: thin dashed blue; +} +.x-ebookmaker .corr { + text-decoration: none; + border-bottom: none; +} + +hr { + width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: 33.5%; + margin-right: 33.5%; + clear: both; +} + +hr.chap { + width: 65%; + margin-left: 17.5%; + margin-right: 17.5%; +} +@media print { + hr.chap { + display: none; + visibility: hidden; + } +} + +hr.r5 { + width: 5%; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + margin-left: 47.5%; + margin-right: 47.5%; +} + +div.chapter { + page-break-before: always; +} +h2.nobreak { + page-break-before: avoid; +} + +ul.index { + list-style-type: none; +} +li.ifrst { + margin-top: 1em; + text-indent: -2em; + padding-left: 1em; +} +li.indx { + margin-top: 0.5em; + text-indent: -2em; + padding-left: 1em; +} + +.pagenum { + /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + color: #A9A9A9; + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-style: normal; + font-weight: normal; + font-variant: normal; + text-indent: 0; +} /* page numbers */ + +.blockquot { + margin-left: 4em; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +/* for image dropcaps */ +img.drop-cap2 { + float: left; + margin: 0.2em 0.5em 0 -3em; +} + +p.drop-cap2:first-letter { + color: transparent; + visibility: hidden; + margin-left: -1.8em; +} + +.x-ebookmaker img.drop-cap2 { + display: none; +} + +.x-ebookmaker p.drop-cap2:first-letter { + color: inherit; + visibility: visible; + margin-left: 0; +} + +.center { + text-align: center; + text-indent: 0; +} + +.right { + text-align: right; +} + +.smcap { + font-variant: small-caps; +} + + +/* Images */ +img { + max-width: 100%; + height: auto; +} +img.w100 { + width: 100%; +} + +.figcenter { + margin: auto; + text-align: center; + page-break-inside: avoid; + max-width: 100%; +} + +/* Transcriber's notes */ +.transnote { + background-color: #e6e6fa; + color: black; + font-size: small; + padding: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 5em; + font-family: sans-serif, serif; +} + +.gothic { + font-family: Blackletter, Fraktur, Textur, "Old English Text MT", "Olde English Mt", "Olde English", Diploma, England, Gothic, serif; +} +.illowp70 {width: 70%;} + +.illowp100 {width: 100%;} + </style> +</head> +<body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77063 ***</div> +<div class="transnote"> +TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE + +<p>Some minor changes to the text are noted at the <a href="#transnote">end of the book</a>. +</p> +</div> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<figure class="figcenter illowp70" id="cover"> +<img alt="Original cover" class="w100" src="images/cover.jpg"> +</figure> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_i">[Pg i]</span></p> + +<h1> +WILLIAM SHAKSPERE<br> +<i>and</i> ROBERT GREENE<br> +<span class="fs80">THE EVIDENCE</span><br> +</h1> + +<p class="center"> +<i>By</i><br> +WILLIAM H. CHAPMAN<br> +</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_ii">[ii]</span></p> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + + +<div class="chapter"> +<p class="center"> +<span class="gothic fs120">Tribune Publishing Co.</span><br> +<span class="fs80 lsp2">OAKLAND, CAL.</span><br> +</p> +</div> + +<figure class="figcenter illowp100" id="ii" style="max-width: 7em;"> + <img class="w100" src="images/ii.jpg" alt="Publisher Logo"> +</figure> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_iii">[iii]</span></p> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + + +<div class="chapter"> +<p class="center"> +COPYRIGHTED BY<br> +<span class="smcap fs120">William H. Chapman</span><br> +SANTA MONICA, CAL.<br> +FEBRUARY 26, 1912<br> +</p> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_v">[v]</span></p> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + + +<div class="chapter"> +<p class="center gothic bold fs120"> +To the Memory of<br> +My Mother<br> +</p> +</div> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_vii">[vii]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="PREFACE"><i>PREFACE.</i></h2> +</div> + + +<figure> +<img class="drop-cap2" src="images/t.jpg" alt="T" style="max-width: 4em;"> +</figure> +<p class="drop-cap2"><i>The design of this work is to +give some account of the conspicuous +events and of some of +the personages connected with +the literary history of England in that +wonderful Renaissance which took place +in the Elizabethan age. All that the writer +has attempted is a concise narrative of +some of the facts, grouping them together +in a compact form, with such reflections +as seemed to him to be just and appropriate. +To secure this end he has labored to +strip from Shakspere’s biography the +manufactured traditions which date from +a considerable period after Shakspere’s +death. Where all is conjecture let the +reader do his own guessing and strive +for the abatement of that new Freak +called Esthetic Criticism with which some +of our critics and commentators designate +their own absurdities.</i></p> + +<p><i>The writer has given unusual prominence +to several distinguished personages +amongst Shakspere’s contemporaries, notably +Robert Greene, William Kemp and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_viii">[viii]</span> +Ben Jonson. The work is sketchy in +execution because the materials do not +exist for more than an outline figure.</i></p> + +<p><i>The readers familiar with the old English +dramatic poets do not believe in an +exclusive authorship, or uniform workmanship, +of the greatest of the Elizabethan +English works. While they set up +no claimant for the writings so commonly +credited to William Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon, +they believe, nevertheless, +that the Stratfordian canon is open to +demurrer.</i></p> + +<p><i>Conspicuous among modern and recent +writers on the subject of Robert Greene, +who show the courage of their convictions +by their valiant strokes in defense of that +poet’s reputation, are Professor J. M. +Brown of New Zealand, Dr. A. B. Grossart, +and Professor Storojenko. The citations +borrowed from their works attest +the writer’s obligation to them, and are +sufficiently indicated in the text.</i></p> + +<p class="right" style="margin-right: 1em;"> +<i>WILLIAM H. CHAPMAN</i><br> +</p> + +<p class="noindent"><i>Santa Monica, California.</i></p> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</span></p> + +<p class="nobreak center fs200" id="WILLIAM_SHAKSPERE_AND">WILLIAM SHAKSPERE AND +ROBERT GREENE</p> + +<p class="center nobreak fs150">THE EVIDENCE</p> + + +<h2 class="nobreak">I</h2> +</div> + +<p>This book was written primarily for +private satisfaction, the author having no +desire for approbation, and to disclose +merely the true William Shakspere of +Stratford-on-Avon; to find him as a man; +to feel his personal presence; to know him +as he was known by his neighbors as landowner, +money lender, captain of amusements, +actor, play-broker and litigant. +From dusty records that do not awaken +a deific impulse may be read the true +story of his life, but, before directing the +readers’ attention to the documentary evidence, +which can be entirely depended +upon in regard to himself, his family, +neighbors, fellow-actors and associates,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">[2]</span> +we desire to cut out the worthless conjectures +which are contained in most, if not +all, of the recent works on the subject of +Shakespeare. Circumstances, however +slight, may give rise to idle conjectures, +but their worthlessness may be best discerned +by setting up against them reasonable +ones. To repeat apocryphal anecdotes +and manufactured traditions that +are not reasonable inferences from concurrent +events is to dissipate mental energy; +antiquity <i lang="la">per se</i> adds nothing to +confirmation or probability. In that digest +of biography, so often quoted, George +Stevens tells his readers in less than fifty +words all he knew with any degree of certainty +concerning Shakspere, with the +exception of his conjectures as to the authorship +of the poems and plays. This +great Shaksperean commentator indulges +in no aesthetic dreams or whimsical conjectures +which taint the credibility of his +successors by their statement of them as +proven facts.</p> + +<p>Of all kinds of literature, biography<span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[3]</span> +extends the most generous hospitality. +Its subjects live an after life in affiliation +with the readers without regard to condition. +In seeking to renew the enthusiasm +of our youth for this species of writing +we visit the public library and find many +changes in biographical history, such as +the elimination of spurious tradition and +fanciful conjecture. For instance, instead +of the traditional life of Washington, +there is a life of the true Washington: +and, instead of a caricatured life of +Cromwell, there is a record of the duly +attested facts of the many-sided and wondrous +Cromwell. With what astonishment +we survey the huge issue of books +on Shakspere which stand conspicuous on +the shelves! There are more than ten +thousand books and pamphlets—many of +them of the memoir order—almost every +one of which has a biographical preface; +but we find that most, if not all, the biographers +of Shakspere still lead the +reader into the shadow of chaotic conjecture +and might-have-been, and that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[4]</span> +Shaksperean literature still lacks a book +on the personal life of William Shakspere +that shall be to most, if not all others, +a pruning hook cutting out the reveries +and guess work which unfortunately +have seduced the historian and misled the +reader. We hold in our hand one of the +more recent of these books of fictitious +biography, transmissive “fraud of the +imagination” which authenticates nothing!</p> + +<p>As co-readers, we will now focus our +attention and thoughts intently upon the +celebrated letter written by the dying +hand of Robert Greene, and addressed to +three brother poets to whom he administers +a gentle reproof on account of their +by-gone and present faults, of which, +play-writing was most to be shunned. This +remarkable letter reveals Robert Greene +as the most tragical figure of his time—a +sad witness of his ultimate penitence and +absolute confession, a character of pathetic +sincerity, weirdness and charnel-like +gloom that chills the soul. This letter,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[5]</span> +so often referred to, and seemingly so +little understood, is one of the most extraordinary +pieces of writing in our literary +annals. It has all the credibility that a +dying statement can give, but it also evidences +the fact that Robert Greene had +previously drawn the fire of the improvising +actors “who wrought the disfigurement +of the poet’s work.” There is one +in particular at whom he hurls a dart and +hits the mark.</p> + +<p>“Yes, trust them not; for there is an +upstart crow, beautified with our (poet’s) +feathers, that, with his Tyger’s +heart wrapt in a Player’s hide, supposes +he is as well able to bombast out a +blanke verse as the best of you; and being +an absolute ‘Johannes Factotum,’ is +in his own conceit, the onely Shake-scene +in a countrie.”</p> + +<p>This sorrow-stricken man wrote these +words of censure with the utmost sincerity. +Earlier biographers made no attempt +to read Shakspere into these lines of reproof, +but those only of later times regard<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[6]</span> +the allusion invaluable as being the first +literary notice of Shakspere, and find +pleasure in reading into Shakspere’s life +the fact of his having been satirized in +1592 under the name “Shake-scene,” used +by Greene contumeliously.</p> + +<p>The letter is contained in a little work +entitled “Greene’s Groats Worth of +Wit,” “Bought with a Million of Repentance, +originally published in 1592, having +been entered at Stationers Hall on the +20th of September in that year.” “To +those Gentlemen his Quondam acquaintance, +that spend their wits in making +Plaies.”</p> + +<p>“With thee (Marlowe) will I first begin, +thou famous gracer of tragedians, +that Greene, who hath said with thee, +like the foole in his heart, there is no +God, should now give glorie unto His +greatnesse; for penetrating is His +power, His hand lies heavy upon me, He +hath spoken unto me with a voice of +thunder and I have felt He is a God that +can punish enemies. Why should thy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[7]</span> +excellent wit, His gift, be so blinded that +thou shouldst give no glory to the +giver?”....</p> + +<p>“With thee I joyne young Juvenall, +(Nash) that byting satyrist that lastlie +with mee together writ a comedie. +Sweete boy, might I advise thee, be advised, +and get not many enimies by bitter +words.... Blame not schollers +vexed with sharp lines, if they reprove +thy too much libertie of reproofe.”</p> + +<p>“And thou (Peele) no less deserving +than the other two, in some things rarer, +in nothing inferiour; driven (as myselfe) +to extreame shifts; a little have +I to say to thee; and were it not an idolatrous +oath, I would swear by sweet S. +George thou are unworthie better hap, +sith thou dependest on so meane a stay. +(theatre) Base minded men all three of +you, if by my miserie ye be not warned; +for unto none of you, like me, sought +those burrs to cleave; those puppits, I +meane, that speake from our mouths, +those anticks garnisht in our colours. Is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[8]</span> +it not strange that I, to whom they all +have been beholding, is it not like that +you to whom they all have beene beholding, +shall, were ye in that case that I am +now, be both at once of them forsaken? +Yes, trust them not; for there is an upstart +crow, beautified with our feathers, +that, with his Tyger’s heart wrapt in a +Player’s hide, supposes he is as well able +to bombast out a blanke verse as the best +of you; and being an absolute ‘Johannes +Factotum,’ is in his own conceit the +onely Shake-scene in a countrie.”...</p> + +<p>“But now returne I againe to you +three, knowing my miserie is to you no +news; and let me heartily entreate you to +be warned by my harmes.... For +it is a pittie men of such rare wits +should be subject to the pleasures of +such rude groomes.”</p> + +<p>Those biographers and critics who have +written concerning Shakspere and Greene +misapprehensively compound an integrate +letter and pamphlet. It should be +made clear that Greene’s letter to his fellow<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[9]</span> +poets is not an integral part of +“Groats Worth of Wit,” though appended +towards the end of this pamphlet. +The letter is strikingly personal and impressive, +not a continuance of a pamphlet +describing the folly of youth, but a mere +appendage not properly constituting a +portion of it. It was the classical commentator, +Thomas Tyrwhitt (1730-85), +we believe, who first made current the +groundless opinion that purports to identify +Shakspere as the one pointed at, but +most, if not all, recent biographers and +commentators state as a “proven fact” +that Robert Greene was the first to bail +Shakspere out of obscurity by the “reprehensive +reference” to an “upstart +crow.”</p> + +<p>The effect of conjectural reading is to +raise a tempest of depreciation by which +Shakspere’s biographers and commentators +have succeeded in handing down to +posterity Greene’s reputation as a preposterous +combination of infamy and +envy, harping with fiendish delight on the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[10]</span> +irregularities and defects of Robert +Greene’s private life, which were not +even shadowed in his writings. The writings +of Greene “whose pen was pure” are +exceptionally clean. Why then this unmerited +abuse so malignant in disposition +and passion? We answer that it is because +the biographers of Shakspere have +been seduced from truth by a vagrant +conjecture into the belief that William +Shakspere was the object and recipient +of Greene’s censure. It is apparent that +the statement which affirms this is false, +and we shall endeavor to show that Robert +Greene’s detractors are on the wrong +trail.</p> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[11]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="II">II</h2> +</div> + + +<p>There now arises the crucial enquiry +concerning the charge that William +Shakspere was thus lampooned in 1592 +by Robert Greene in his celebrated address +“To those Gentlemen of his own +fellowship that spend their wits making +plaies”—inferentially, Marlowe, Nash +and Peele. The exigency of the case demands, +in the opinion of Shakspere’s +modern biographers, the appropriation +of Greene’s reproachful reference to +Shakspere, (though no name is mentioned) +yet the actor referred to by +Greene the children in London streets +well knew and acclaimed; and every student +of Elizabethan literature, history +and bibliography, should know that the +reference is identifiable with William +Kemp, the celebrated comic actor, jig-dancer, +and jester, who was, in his own +conceit, the “only Shake-scene (dance-scene) +in a country,” “Shake-scene”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[12]</span> +and (dance-scene) being interchangeable +compounds in the old meaning; but the +votaries of Shakspere, posing as his biographers, +in the urgency of their desire to +remove doubts which had existed respecting +the beginning of Shakspere’s early +literary productivity as play-maker, or as +an elaborator of the works of other men, +prior to the year 1592, crave some notation +of literary activity in the young man +who went up from Stratford to London +in 1587 (probably).</p> + +<p>As the immortal plays were coming out +anonymously and surreptitiously, there is +a very strong desire to appropriate or embezzle +“the only Shake-scene” reference, +for, in the similarity and sound of the +compound word “Shake-scene” in one of +its elements there is that which fits it to +receive a Shakespearean connotation, thus +catching the popular fancy of Shakespere’s +biographers and academic commentators. +The compound word “Shake-scene” +is made by the joining of two +words generic in both its elements, and, in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[13]</span> +combination having generic characteristics +pertaining to a large or comprehensive +class—that is to say, the words +“shake” and “scene” bear a sense in +which they are descriptive of all the various +things to which they are applied, and +of all other things that share their common +properties. The fanciful biographers +of William Shakspere rely on these words +of reproof and censure as being the initial +notice of his worth and work which was +to lift him from his place of obscurity in +the year 1592. The meaning of Greene’s +words in the idiom of the times, as in +their contextural and natural sense, yield +nothing which is confirmatory of such +contention; for “dance” is connoted under +the term “shake,” answering to the +first element in “Shake-scene,” which in +the old meaning meant “dance,” generic +for quick action; and “scene” meant +“stage” instead of “scenery” as in the +modern meaning, for the theatres were +then in a state of absolute nudity—in +other words, “Shake-scene” meant a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[14]</span> +dancing performance upon the stage. In +the plain unobtrusive language of our +day, as well as in Elizabethan English, +the word “shake”—the first element in +“Shake-scene” is interchangeable with +“dance,” and, when given a specialized +meaning with a view to theatrical matters +in the year 1592, with Kemp and Shakspere +claimants for Greene’s reproof, who +could doubt that the name which was so +loudly acclaimed is identifiable with the +spectacular luminary of the times, William +Kemp? In setting up the comic actor +and jig-dancer as claimant for +Greene’s objurgation, we promise the +reader attestative satisfaction by establishing +the truth of our contention by +particular passages in “the address” +when explained by the context as transcriptive +of Kemp’s actual history.</p> + +<p>We now direct the attention of the +reader specifically to the arrogant and +boastful comedian, William Kemp. This +man, according to Robert Greene’s view, +was the personification of everything<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[15]</span> +detestable in the actor—whose profession +he despised. We think the biographers +and commentators have mistaken the +spectacularity of William Kemp for the +rising sun of William Shakspere. In the +closing years of the sixteenth, and the +early years of the seventeenth, century +there lived in London the most spectacular +comic actor and clown of his day, the +greatest “Shake-scene” or (dance-scene) +of his generation, William Kemp, the +worthy successor of Dick Tarlton. He +had a continental reputation in 1589. +This year also Nash dedicated to Kemp +one of his attacks upon Martin Marprelate +entitled “An Almond for a Parrot.” +“There is ample contemporary evidence +that Kemp was the greatest comic actor +of his time in England, and his notoriety +as a morris-dancer was so great +that his journeyings were called dances. +He was the court favorite famous for +his improvisions, and loved by the public,” +but hated by academic play-writers +and ridiculed by ballad-makers. Kemp,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[16]</span> +in giving his first pamphlet “The Nine +Days Wonder” to the press in 1599, +turned upon his enemies and in retaliation +called them “Shake-rags,” which he +used derisively and as contumeliously as +Greene had used “Shake-scene.” The +use of the word “Shake-rags” by Kemp +in his first and only published work is +<i lang="la">prima-facie</i> evidence, that he also made +use of the same term, orally and in his +usual acrimonious manner, either against +Greene, or those of his fellowship. The +first element in the compound words +“Shake-scene” and “Shake-rags” is governed +by the same general law of movement +or rhythmic action exemplified in +dancing and rhymery. In 1640 Richard +Brown in his “Antipodes” refers to the +practice of jesters, in the days of Tarlton +and Kemp, of introducing their own wit +into poet’s plays, Kemp, writing in 1600, +asserts that he spent his life in mad jigs +and merry jests, although he was entrusted +with many leading parts in farce +or broad comedy. His dancing of jigs at<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[17]</span> +the close of a play gave him his chief popularity +(“Camden Society Papers”). +“The jigs were performed to musical accompaniment +and included the singing +of comic words. One or two actors at +times supported Kemp in his entertainment, +dancing and singing with him. +Some examples of the music to which +Kemp danced are preserved in a manuscript +collection of John Dowland now +in the library of Cambridge University. +The words were, doubtless, often improvised +at the moment, but, on occasions, +they were written out and published. +The Stationers Register contains licenses +for the publication of at least four +sets of words for the jigs in which +Kemp was the chief performer.”</p> + +<p>According to Henslowe’s Diary, William +Kemp was on June 15, 1592, a member +of the company of the Lord Strange +players under Henslowe and Alleyn, +playing a principal comic part in the +“Knack to Know a Knave,” and introducing +into it what is called on the title<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[18]</span> +page his “Applauded Merriments,” a +technical term for a piece of theatrical +buffoonery. In 1593 Nash warned Gabriel +Harvey “lest William Kemp should make +merriment of him.” “As early as 1586, +Kemp was a member of a company of +great importance which had arrived at +Elsinore where the king held court. He +remained two months in Denmark, and +received a larger amount of board +money than his fellow actors. In a letter +of Sir Phillip Sidney, dated Utrecht +March 24, 1586, he says, ‘I sent you a +letter by Will (Kemp), my Lord Leicester’s +jesting player.’ It was after his +return from these foreign expeditions +that we find Kemp uniting his exertions +with those of Alleyn at the Rose and +Fortune theatres, as Prince Henry’s +servants. During this whole period +from his return in 1586 from Denmark, +to the year 1598, he did not stay uninterruptedly +at the theatres of the Burbages. +From February 19, to June 22, +1592, a part of Lord Leicester’s company<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[19]</span> +played under Henslowe and Alleyn. +In 1602 Kemp was again in London, +acting under Henslowe and Alleyn +as one of the Earl of Worcester’s men. +We gather from Henslowe’s Diary that +on March 10th, he borrowed in ready +money twenty shillings.</p> + +<p>“Kemp was a very popular performer +as early as 1589. We shall see hereafter +that he, following the example of Tarlton, +was in the habit of extemporizing +and introducing matter of his own that +has not come down to us. ‘Let those +that play your clowns speak no more +than is set down for them’ (Hamlet, +Act. III, Scene II.). These words were +aimed at Kemp, or one of his school, +and it was about this date, according to +Henslowe’s Diary, that Kemp went over +from the Lord Chamberlain to the Lord +Nottingham players. The most important +duty of the clown was not to appear +in the play itself, but to sing and dance +his jig at the end of it, even after a tragedy, +in order to soften the painful impression—(Camden<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[20]</span> +Society Papers)—Kemp’s +jig of ‘The Kitchen Stuff +Woman’ was a screaming farce of rude +verses, some spoken, others sung; of +good and bad witticism; of extravagant +acting and dancing. In the art of comic +dancing Kemp was immoderately loved +and admired. He paid professional visits +to all the German and Italian courts, +and was even summoned to dance his +morris-dance before the Emperor Rudolph +himself at Augsburg.</p> + +<p>“Kemp combined shrewdness with his +rough humor. With a view to extending +his reputation and his profits, he announced +in 1599, his intention of dancing +a morris-dance from London to +Norwich; but to his annoyance, every +inaccurate report of his gambols was +hawked about in publication at the time +by book-sellers or ballad-makers, like +Kemp’s farewell to the tune of ‘Kerry +Merry Buff.’ In order to check the circulation +of falsehood, Kemp offered, he +tells us, his first pamphlet to the press<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[21]</span> +(though at the time he was thought to +have had a hand in writing the <ins id="TN1" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: Anti-Martnist">Anti-Martinist</ins> +plays and pamphlets—five +pieces erroneously attributed to his +pen). The only copy known is in the +<ins id="TN2" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: Bodelean Library">Bodleian Library</ins>. The title ran +‘Kemp’s Nine Days Wonder,’ the wonder +referred to being performed in a +dance from London to Norwich then +written by himself to satisfy his friends. +A woodcut on the title page shows Kemp +in elaborate costume with bells about +his knees playing to the accompaniment +of a drum and tabor, which a man at his +side is playing. This pamphlet was entered +in the Stationers Book April 22, +1600. The dedicatory salutation to +Anna Fritton, one of her Majesty’s +maids of honor, shows us how arrogant +and conceited he must have been.</p> + +<p>“Kemp started at seven o’clock in the +morning on the first Monday in Lent, +the starting point being in front of the +Lord Mayor’s house, and half London +was astir to see the beginning of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[22]</span> +great exploit. His suite consisted of his +taborer, Thomas Sly; his servant, William +Bee; and his overseer or umpire, +George Sprat, who was to see that everything +was performed according to promise. +According to custom, he put out a +sum of money before his departure on +condition of receiving thrice the amount +on his safe return. His own fatigues +caused him many delays and he did not +arrive in Norwich until twenty-three +days after his departure. He spent only +nine days in actual dancing on the road. +Kemp himself on this occasion contributed +nothing to the music except the +sound of the bells, which were attached +to his gaiters. In Norwich thousands +waited to receive him in the open market-place +with an official concert. +Kemp, as guest of the town, was entertained +at its expense and received handsome +presents from the Mayor who +arranged a triumphal entry for him. +The freedom of the Merchant Adventures +Company was also conferred upon<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[23]</span> +him, thereby assuring him a share in +the yearly income to the amount of forty +shillings—a pension for life. The very +buskins in which he had performed his +dance were nailed to the wall in the Norwich +Guild Hall and preserved in perpetual +memory of the exploit, which was +long remembered in popular literature. +In an epilogue Kemp announced that he +was shortly to set forward as merrily as +I may; whither, I myself know not,” +and begged ballad makers to abstain from +disseminating lying statements about +him. Kemp’s humble request to the impudent +generation of ballad-makers, as +he terms them, reads in part, “My notable +Shake-rags, the effect of my suit is +discovered in the title of my supplication, +but for your better understanding +for that I know you to be a sort of witless +bettle-heads that can understand +nothing but that is knocked into your +scalp; so farewell and crosse me no +more with thy rabble of bold rhymes +lest at my return I set a crosse on thy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[24]</span> +forehead that all men may know that +for a fool.” It seems certain that Kemp +kept his word in exhibiting his dancing +powers on the continent. In Week’s +“Ayers” (1688) mention is made of +Kemp’s skipping into France. A ballad +entitled “An Excellent New Medley” +(dated about 1600) refers to his return +from Rome. In the Elizabethan play +“Jack Drum’s Entertainment” (1616), +however, there is introduced a song to +which Kemp’s morris dance is performed. +Heywood, writing at this period, in his +“Apology for Actors” (1612), says William +Kemp was a comic actor of high reputation, +as well in the favor of Her Majesty +as in the opinion of the general audience. +There is also a tribute from the +pen of Richard Rathway (1618). Ben +Jonson, <ins id="TN3" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: William Rowly">William Rowley</ins> and John Marston +also make mention of him.</p> + +<p>Pretty much all that relates to the gambols +of sportive Kemp in the foregoing +pages is a mere transcription from the +“Camden Society Papers.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[25]</span></p> + +<p>Our prime object is to establish Kemp’s +eligibility as claimant for Greene’s censure, +before alluded to. We are content +to advance the claim of another if found +more decisive. We would elect to name +Robert Wilson, senior, an old enemy, +doubtless, of Robert Greene, if we did not +think that Kemp has the better claim to +that distinction. According to Collier, +Wilson was not only an excellent performer, +but also a talented dramatist, +especially renowned for his ready repartee. +Some writers affirm that the authors +of the dramas “Faire Emm” and +“Martin Marsixtus” were one and the +same person, and that this person was +Robert Wilson, senior, author of “Three +Ladies of London” and “Three Lords +and Ladies of London,” the first published +in 1584, and the other in 1590. +“Faire Emm” and “Martin Marsixtus” +having been posthumously printed, +Greene was severe on the author of the +former for his <ins id="TN4" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: blamphemous">blasphemous</ins> introduction +of quotations from the Bible into his love<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[26]</span> +passages. “We know that the author attacked +Greene’s own works in return +and called them lascivious.” He had +not read the works, but, then, an anonymous +writer may not very scrupulously +confine himself to the truth. “Loth I was +to display myself to the world but for +that I hope to dance under a mask and +bluster out like the wind, which, though +every man heareth yet none can in sight +descrie.” “I must answer in print what +they have offered on the stage” are the +words of Greene.</p> + +<p>Robert Wilson may be advanced as +claimant for Greene’s reproof by some +persons who are of the opinion that “upstart +crow” was both actor and playwright. +Supposition says Kemp also +wrote pamphlets and plays, although at +this time he had not given his first and +only work to the press. It matters little +at whom he aimed, Kemp or Wilson, so +long as Shakespere was not the object of +the aimer. In the Parish Register of St. +Giles, Cripplegate, we read, “Buried,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[27]</span> +Robert Wilson, yeoman, a player, 20 +Nov., 1600.”</p> + +<p>These facts and concurring events in +the life of William Kemp convince us that +Shakspere was not, and Kemp very probably +was, the person at whom Greene leveled +his satire by bearing witness to his +(Kemp’s) extemporizing power and his +haughty and insolent demeanor in introducing +improvisions and interpolations +of his “own wit into poet’s plays.”</p> + +<p>From the foregoing, it is evident that, +at the time the letter was written, William +Kemp enjoyed an unequaled and +wide spread notoriety and transient fame, +extending not only throughout England, +but into foreign countries as well.</p> + +<p>And further, by reason of his great +prominence, in a calling which Greene +loathed, and despised, he was brought +easily within the range of the latter’s contemptuous +designation, of “upstart +crow.”</p> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[28]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="III">III</h2> +</div> + + +<p>We have now reached the crucial matter +of the address which, according to the +speculative opinion of many of Shakspere’s +biographers, contains all the words +and sentences which they hope, when +racked, may be made to yield support to +their tramp conjecture that Robert +Greene was the first to discover Shakspere +as a writer of plays, or the <ins id="TN5" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: amendor">amender</ins> +of the works of other poets. The identifiable +words, so called, are contained in the +following sentences: “Yes, trust them +not; for there is an upstart crow, beautified +with our feathers, that, with his +Tyger’s heart wrapt in a Player’s hide.”</p> + +<p>“Upstart Crow” in Elizabethan English +meant in general, one who assumed a +lofty or arrogant tone, a bragging, boastful, +swaggerer suddenly raised to prominence +and power, as was Kemp after the +death of Richard Tarlton (1589). In an +epistle prefixed to Greene’s “Arcadia”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[29]</span> +(1587), Thomas Nash speaks of actors +“As a company of taffaty fools with their +feathers;” and “The players decked +with poets’ feathers like Aesop’s +Crow” (R. B.); and again, “That with +his Tyger’s heart wrapt in a Player’s +hide.” Tiger in the plain language of +the day stood for bully, a noisy, insolent +man, who habitually sought to overbear +by clamors, or by threats. These characteristics +are identifiable with Kemp; but +the biographers of Shakspere are content +to conjecture that Robert Greene’s parody +on the line “Oh Tyger’s heart wrapt +in a woman’s hide” is not only a contumelious +reference to actor, William +Shakspere, but also a declaration of his +authorial integrity by their assignment of +“Henry VI. Part III,” which was in action +at the “Rose,” when Greene’s celebrated +address was written.</p> + +<p>There is <i lang="la">prima-facie</i> evidence that +Greene authored the line, which he +semi-parodied in the address, which is +found in two places. It appears in its<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[30]</span> +initial form “Oh Tyger’s heart wrapt in +a serpent’s hide” in the play called, +“The Tragedy of Richard, Duke of +York,” and “The Death of Good King +Henry the Sixth,” and later with +“woman” substituted for “serpent,” +again, it is found in the third part of +“Henry VI.”, founded on the true tragedy, +which was acted by Lord Pembroke’s +company, of which, as Nash tells us, +Greene was chief agent, and for which he +wrote more than four other plays. +“Henry VI. Part III” is generally admitted +to be the work of Greene, Marlowe +and perhaps Peele. Furthermore, +the catchwords in the lines parodied betray +their author, which is a confirmatory +fact. To borrow a citation from the +pages of Dr. A. Grosart, “Every one who +knows his Greene knows that over and +over again he returns on anything of +his that caught on, sometimes abridging +and sometimes expanding;” and in +semi-parodying his own lines, wrapt “Tyger’s +heart” in several kinds of hides.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[31]</span> +It was William Kemp, the comic actor +and dancer, not Shakspere, whom Greene +wanted to hit. He did not consider as an +author at all the “upstart crow” with his +“Tyger’s heart wrapt in a player’s hide,” +who bombasted orally his own improvisions +and interpolations out in blank +verse.</p> + +<p>In their great desire to discover Shakspere +as the author, the words “bombast +out in blank verse” are seized upon by +Shakspere’s commentators with evident +greediness. But these words yield nothing +in support of author-craft, for bombast +or bombastry, in the idiom of the +time, stood for high sounding words +which might have proceeded from the +mouth of a buffoon, clown, jester, montebank +or actor, whose profession was to +amuse spectators by low antics and tricks, +and whose improvisions and extemporizings +were destitute of rhyme, but possessed +of a musical rhythm called “blank +verse.” The words “blank verse” were +doubtless intended for the ear of Marlowe,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[32]</span> +the great innovator, who was thus +reminded that the notorious jig-dancer +and clown, William Kemp, declaimed his +own improvisions and interpolations in +the “swelling bombast of a bragging +blank-verse,” as Nash called it, and was +an absolute “Johannes Factotum in his +own conceit”—that is, a person employed +to do many things. Who could do +more “in his own conceit” than Kemp, +who spent his life in mad jigs, as he says? +Who but Kemp, the chief actor in the low +comedy scenes, who angered the academic +play-writers by introducing “his own wit +into their plays and make a merriment of +them?”</p> + +<p>Greene’s address to his fellow craftsmen +does not convey plagiary, or a furbishable, +imputation, nor give color to, +nor the slightest circumstance for, the +conjecture that Shakspere’s authorial +career had been begun as the amender of +other poet’s plays anterior to the putative +authorship of “Venus and Adonis.” Halliwell-Phillips, +the most indefatigable<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[33]</span> +and reliable member of the Congress of +Speculative Biographers, says that not +one such play has been found revised, or +amended, by Shakspere in his early career. +Still in their extremity, Shakspere’s +commentators give hospitality to +stupid conjectures that are not reasonable +inferences from concurrent facts, +and construe Greene’s censure of +Kemp, (inferentially) as the first literary +notice of Shakspere. It shows +an irrepressible desire without proof to +confer authorship upon Shakspere one +hundred and fifty years after his death. +The Shakspere votaries cannot point to a +single word, or sentence, in this celebrated +address of Robert Greene which connects +the contumelious name “Shake-scene” +(dance-scene) with the characteristics of +either the true, or the traditional, Shakspere.</p> + +<p>The biographers of Shakspere never +grow weary of charging Robert Greene +with professional jealousy and envy. The +charge has no argumentative value, even<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[34]</span> +if granting Shakspere’s early productivity +as a play-maker, or the amender of +the works of other men, for Greene’s activities +ran in other lines; play-making +was of minor importance, a sort of by-production +of his resourceful and versatile +pen. The biographers of Shakspere +are unfortunate in having taken on this +impression, because there is <i lang="la">prima-facie</i> +evidence that Greene had forsworn writing +for the stage a considerable time before +the letter was written; thus he followed +his friend Lodge, who in 1589 +“vows to write no more of that whence +shame doth grow.”</p> + +<p>The biographers and commentators, +agreeing in their asperities, charge Robert +Greene with that worst of passions, +envy, basing it conjecturally on the assumption +of Shakspere’s proficiency as +a drama-maker, notwithstanding the sincere +and earnest words contained in his +most pathetic letter, addressed to three +friends, in which he counsels them to give +up play writing, which he regarded as degrading,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[35]</span> +placing their very necessities in +the power of grasping shareholding actors, +and rendering it no longer a fit +occupation for gentlemen. They fail to +see the dying should be granted immunity +from this ignoble and base passion. +Our own rule of law admits as good evidence +the testimony of a man who believes +himself to be dying, and so the +letter states, “desirous that you should +live though himself be dying.”</p> + +<p>Robert Greene’s charge against “upstart +crow” stands unshaken. Henry +Chettle, the hack writer, and self admitted +transcriber of the letter, does not retract +Greene’s statement. He denies +nothing on behalf of an “upstart crow” +(Kemp); for the author of “Kind Hearts +Dreams” does not identify “Shake-scene” +(dance-scene) with Shakspere, +or Shakespeare, who was not one of those +who took offense. It is expressly stated +that there were two of the three fellow +dramatists, addressed by Greene (Marlowe, +Nash and Peele). Still we are told<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[36]</span> +by Shakespearean writers that the dying +genius was pained at witnessing the proficiency +of another in the very activity +(play-making), which he had come to regard +as congruous with strolling vagabondism. +He enjoined his friends to seek +better masters “for it is a pittie men of +such rare wit should be subject to the +pleasure of such rude groomes, +painted monsters, apes, burrs, peasants, +puppets,” not play-makers, but actors, +who had been beholden to him and his fellow +craftsmen whom he addressed.</p> + +<p>There is another aspect in which the +charge of professional jealousy presents +itself to the mind of the reader; those +who covet that which another possesses, +or envies success, popularity or fortune. +To charge Greene with envy is most uncharitable +by reason of his versatility. +Now what was there in the possession of +William Shakspere in 1592 that could +have awakened in the mind of Robert +Greene so base a passion as envy. The +name Shakspere had no commercial value<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[37]</span> +in 1592, for Shakspere of the stage is described +many years after this date as +merely a “man player” and “a deserving +man.” Note this admission by Dr. Ingleby: +“Assuredly no one during the +century had any suspicion that the genius +of Shakespeare was unique.” “His +immediate contemporaries expressed no +great admiration for either him, or his +works.” There is not a particle of evidence +to show that Robert Greene was +envious of any writer of his time; nor had +he cause to be; but the way his contemporaries +and successors robbed and plundered +him proves the reverse to be true.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +“Nay, more, the men that so eclipst his fame,<br> +Purloynde his plumes; can they deny the same?”<br> +</div> + +<p>The fact is, Shakspere passed through +and out of life without having attained +the distinction, or celebrity, won by +Greene in his brief literary career of but +nine short years. The more truthful of +Shakspere’s biographers concede that the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[38]</span> +subject of their memoirs was not, in his +day, highly regarded, and that his obscurity +in 1592 is obvious. There was not the +least danger of the author of “Hamlet” +“driving to penury” the dean of English +novelists, Robert Greene, who was supreme +in prose romance, a species of literature, +which appealed to the better +class of the reading public. Rival-hating +envy! Robert Greene cannot be brought +within the scope of such a charge, for in +1592, he was not striving to obtain the +same object which play writers were pursuing.</p> + +<p>The fame of Robert Greene during his +lifetime eclipsed that of his contemporaries. +“He was in fact the popular author +of the day. His contemporaries +applauded the facility with which he +turned his talents to account.” “In a +night and a day,” says Nash, “would he +have yearked up a pamphlet as well as +in seven years, and glad was that printer +that might be so blest to pay him +dear for the very dregs of his wit.”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[39]</span> +Even Ben Jonson, “the greatest man of +the last age,” according to Dryden, had +no such assurance in his day, if we may +judge from his own account of his literary +life, which shows that he had to struggle +for a subsistence, as no printer was +found glad, or felt himself blest, to pay +him dear for the cream, much less the +very “dregs of his wit.” He told Drummond +that the half of his comedies were +not in print, and that he had cleared but +200 pounds by all his labor for the public +theatre. It has been said by one: “In the +breadth of his dramatic quality, his +range over every kind of poetic excellence, +Jonson was excelled by Shakespeare +alone.” (p. 437, “A Short History +of the English People.”) When +not subsidized by the court he was driven +by want to write for the London theatres; +he lived in a hovel in an alley, where he +took service with the notorious play +broker. To such as he, reference is made +by Henslow, who in his diary records +“the grinding toil and the starvation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[40]</span> +wages of his hungry and drudging +bondsmen,” who were struggling for +the meanest necessities of life. This Titan +of a giant brood of playwrights, in +the days of his declension wrote mendicant +epistles for bread, and, doubtless, in +his extremity recalled Robert Greene, the +admonisher of three brother poets “that +spend their wits in making plaies.” +“Base minded men, all three of you! if by +my miseries ye be not warned, for unto +none of you, like me, sought those burrs +to cleave, those puppits, I mean that +speak from our mouths those antics +garnisht in our colors. Is it not strange +that I, to whom they all have been beholding, +shall, were ye in that case that +I am now, be both at once of them forsaken?... +O that I might intreate +your rare wits to be employed in +more profitable courses, and let those +apes imitate your past excellence, and +never more acquaint them with your admired +inventions.”</p> + +<p>It was one of this breed of puppets, we<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[41]</span> +are told, who awakened incarnate envy in +the breast of Robert Greene, and engendered +rivalship against William Shakspere, +whose votaries, in their dreams of +fancy, see him revising the dramatic +writings of Robert Greene, the most resourceful, +versatile, tireless and prolific +of literary men. He was a writer of +greatest discernment from the viewpoint +of the people of his time, “for he possessed +the ability to write in any vein +that would sell.” He only, of all the +writers of his time, gave promise of being +able to gain a competence by the pen +alone, a thing which no writer did, or +could do, in that day, by writing for the +stage alone. Hon. Cushman K. Davis in +“The Law in Shakespeare” says, “He +(Shakspere) is the first English author +who made a fortune with his pen.” In +the absence of credible evidence, Mr. Davis +assumes that the young man who +came up from Stratford was the author +of the plays. The senator does not seem +aware of the fact that Shakspere of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[42]</span> +Stratford was a shareholding actor, receiving +a share in the theatre, or its profits, +in 1599; a partner in one or more of +the chief companies; a play broker who +purchased and mounted the plays of +other men; and that he, like Burbage, +Henslowe and Alleyn, speculated in real +estate. He was shrewd in money matters +and became very wealthy, but not by +writing plays. Suppose that William +Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon had authored +all the plays associated with his +name, that alone would not have made +him wealthy. The price of a play varied +from four to ten pounds, and all Shakspere’s +labors for the public theatre would +have brought no more than five hundred +pounds. The diary of Philip Henslowe +makes it clear that up to the year 1600 +the highest price he ever paid was six +pounds. The Shakespeare plays were not +exceptionally popular in that day, not being +then as now, “the talk of the town.” +Not one of them equalled in popularity<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[43]</span> +<ins id="TN6" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: Kid’s">Kyd’s</ins> “The Spanish Tragedy,” or Marlowe’s +“Dr. Faustus.”</p> + +<p>Shakespeare was soon superseded by +Fletcher in popular regard. Only one of +the Shakespeare tragedies, one historical +play, and eight comedies were presented +at the Court of James First, who reigned +twenty-two years. Plays, written by such +hack writers as Dearborn, or Chettle, +were quite as acceptable to princes.</p> + +<p>Robert Greene’s romances were “a +bower of delight,” a kind of writing held +in high favor by all classes. Sir Thomas +Overbury describes his chambermaid as +reading Greene’s works over and over +again. It is a pleasure to see in the elder +time Greene’s writings in hands so full +of household cares, since he labored to +make young lives happy. Robert Greene’s +works express every variation in the +changing conditions of life. The poetry +of his pastoral landscapes are vivid word +pictures of English sylvan scenes. The +western sky on amorous autumn days is +mantled with sheets of burnished gold.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[44]</span> +The soft and gentle zephyr blows over +castled crag and fairy glen fragrant with +the breath of flowers.</p> + +<p>In the manuals of our literature great +prominence is given to the fact that +Greene led a dissolute, or irregular, life, +as if the debauchment of the author was +transmitted by his writings. There are +no indecencies in his works to attest the +passage of a debauchee. Like many persons +born to, and nurtured by, religious +parents, Greene doubtless exaggerated +his own vices. He was bad, but not altogether +bad. It may truly be said of him +that, in regard to all that pertains to penitence +and self abasement, he spares not +himself, but like John Bunyan, he was +given to selfupbraiding. He (Bunyan) +declares that it is true that he let loose +the reins on the neck of his lust; that he +delighted in all transgressions against the +divine law; and that he was the ring +leader of the youth of Elstow in all vice. +But, when those who wished him ill, accused +him of licentious amours, he called<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[45]</span> +God and the angels to attest his purity. +No woman, he said, in heaven, earth, or +hell, could charge him with having ever +made any improper advances to her. +Blasphemy and Sabbath-breaking seem +to have been Bunyan’s only transgression +after all. In Robert Greene’s writings, +we have the reverse of “Herrick’s shameful +pleading that if his verse was impure, +his life was chaste.” Unlike Herrick, +Greene did not minister to the unchaste +appetite of readers for tainted literature, +either in his day, or in the after +time. Powerless to condemn Greene’s +writings, Shakspere’s votaries would desecrate +his ashes.</p> + +<p>Deplore as we must his dissolute living, +it was of short duration, for he went +from earth at the age of two and thirty, +and the evil effects have been lost in +Time’s abatements. His associates, +doubtless were as dissolute as he himself. +Nash wrote: “With any notorious crime +I never knew him tainted, and he inherited +more virtues than vices.” The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[46]</span> +reader, at any rate, will give but little +credence to the accusations of such a +hyena-dog as Gabriel Harvey. Robert +Greene was not “lip-holy,” nor heart-hollow, +for, in regard to his wife and +their separation, “he took to himself all +blame, breathed never a word against +her, and did not squander all of his +earnings in dissipation, but sent part of +his income to the good woman, the wife +of his youth, and addressed to her in +loving trust the last letter he wrote.” +Gabriel Harvey, drenched in hate, could +not rob the “Sweet-wife letter of its +pathos.”</p> + +<p>In all the galleries of noble women, +Greene’s heroines deserve a foremost +place, for all the gracious types of womanhood +belonged to Greene, before they +became Shakespeare’s. “Robert Greene +is the first of our play-writers to represent +upon the public stage the purity +and sweetness of wife and maiden.” +Unselfish love and maternity are sketched +with feminine delicacy and minuteness of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[47]</span> +touch in all the tenderness of its purity. +His writings have <ins id="TN7" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: assauged">assuaged</ins> the sorrow of +the self-sacrificing mother, who is always +a queen uncrowned, long suffering and +faithful. Robert Green “is always on the +side of the angels.” When loud mouthed +detraction calls him badhearted, we +should not forget that this confessedly +dissolute man could, and did, keep inviolate +the purity of his imagination; few +have left a wealthier legacy in feminine +models of moral and physical beauty. +What is most characteristic in the pages +of Greene is the absence of the indecencies +which attest the passage of the author +of “Lear,” “the damnable scenes +which raised the anger of <ins id="TN8" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: Swinburn">Swinburne</ins> and +which Coleridge attempted in vain to +palliate.”</p> + +<p>Little is known of Greene’s life; and +into the little we do know, his malignant +enemy, Gabriel Harvey, has attempted to +inject a deadly virus. The inaccurate +figurative expressions in his reputed +posthumously printed works (an alleged<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[48]</span> +description of his manner of life) cannot +be interpreted literally, “but may be +resolved in a large measure into morbid +self-upbraidings like the confession +made by the revival convert who sees +and paints his past in its very darkest +colors.” But why should the modern +reader linger over the irregularities of +dissolute-living authors like Greene and +Poe, whose writings are exceptionally +clean. Remember Robert Burns’ noble +words, “What done we partly may compute +but know not what resisted.” The +commentators and pharisaic critics, who +have written concerning Greene, are +mere computists of the poet’s vices; ministers +of hate, who burlesque the poet’s +soul stiffening with despair, and display +their ghoulish instincts “in travestying +so pathetic and tragical a deathbed as +Greene’s.” Students of Elizabethan +literature know that Robert Greene resisted +the temptation to write in the best +paying vein of the age, that of ministering +to the unchaste appetites of readers<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[49]</span> +for ribaldries. “To his undying honor +Robert Greene, equally with James +Thompson, left scarcely a line, that, dying, +he need have wished to blot out.”</p> + +<p>There is no record extant of his living +likeness. Chettle gives this pleasant description +of his personal appearance, +“With him was the fifth, a man of indifferent +years; of face, amiable; of body, +well proportioned; his attire after the +habit of scholar-like gentleman, only his +hair was somewhat long, whom I supposed +to be Robert Greene, Master of +Arts.” Nash notices his tawny beard, +“a jolly long red peake like the spire of +a steeple which he cherished continually +without cutting, whereat a man might +hang a jewel, it was so <ins id="TN9" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: harp and pendant">sharp and pendant</ins>.” +Harvey, who had never seen +Greene, says that he wore such long hair +as was only worn by thieves and cutthroats, +and taunts Nash with wearing +the same “unseemly superfluity.” The +habit of wearing the hair long is not unusual +with poets. John Milton “cherished<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[50]</span> +the same superfluity” as does also +Joaquin Miller.</p> + +<p>Robert Greene expired on the third of +September, 1592. When the dead genius +was in his grave, Harvey gloated and +leered with hellish glee, and wrote of +Greene’s “most woeful and rascal estate, +how the wretched fellow or, shall I say, +the prince of beggars, laid all to gage +fore some few shillings and was attended +by lice.” This is one of Harvey’s +malignant, vitriolic, discharges in his attempt +to spatter the memory and deface +the monument of the dead. “Achilles +tortured the dead body of Hector, and, +as Antonious and his wife, Fulva, tormented +the lifeless corpse of Cicero, so +Gabriel Harvey hath showed the same +inhumanities to Greene that lies low in +his grave.” The testimony of Gabriel +Harvey, whose malignant attacks on the +memory of Greene by monstrously exaggerated +statement, is vitiated by his own +statement that “he was cheated out of an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[51]</span> +action for libel against Greene by his +death.”</p> + +<p>Harvey was vulgarly ostentatious, +courting notoriety by the gorgeousness of +his apparel; currying favor with the +great, and aping Venetian gentility after +his return from Italy. He was a dabbler +in astrology, a prognosticator of earthquakes, +and constructor of prophetic almanacs. +The failure of his predictions +subjected him to much bitter ridicule. +His inordinate vanity is best shown by +his publication of everything spoken or +written in commendation of himself, by +his obsequious friends and flatterers, who +snickered with the public generally, as he +was an object of ridicule, the butt on +which to crack their jokes.</p> + +<p>In one of those fanciful studies in +Elizabethan literature, which we now hold +in our hand, we may read, in a work +called “A Snip for an Upstart Courtier +or A Quaint Dispute Between Velvet-breeches +and Cloth-breeches,” that +Greene has very vulgarly libeled Harvey’s<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[52]</span> +ancestry; but, when we turn to +Greene’s book we learn that the vulgarity +consists in calling Gabriel Harvey’s +father a ropemaker. Only a snob would +regard any honest employment as a degradation, +and furthermore, the passage +does not point contumeliously and spitefully +at Gabriel Harvey’s father, for the +reference is very slight. “How is he +(Gabriel’s father) abused?” writes +Nash, “Instead of his name he is called +by the craft he gets his living with.” +Still the lines which so mortally offended +Gabriel were suppressed by Greene. Notwithstanding +this, those biographers and +critics whose sole object is to blacken the +poet’s memory, conceal from the reader +the fact of the detachment of all reference +to a rope-maker. Harvey was extremely +anxious to push himself among +the aristocracy in order to conceal his +humble antecedents.</p> + +<p>With all his faults, there was nothing +of this weakness or snobbishness in Robert +Greene, who had himself sprung from the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[53]</span> +common people, though born to good condition. +Robert Burton, a contemporary, +writing in “The Spacious Time of the +Great Elizabeth” says that idleness was +the mark of the nobility, and to earn +money in any kind of trade was despicable. +Gabriel Harvey flung in Greene’s +face the fact that he made a living by his +pen. Had young Greene lived a longer +life, with all its wealth of bud and bloom, +we should now have in fruition a luxuriance +of imagination and versatility of +diction possessed by few. With longer +life he would doubtless “have gained +mastery of himself, when he would have +gone forward on the path of moral regeneration;” +for there was in the poet’s +strivings, during the last few years +of his life, the promise and prophecy of +a glorious future. His soul enlarged, he +battled for the commonweal; his heart +was with the lowly and his voice was for +the right when freedom’s friends were +few.</p> + +<p>In his play “The Pinner of Wakefield,”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[54]</span> +first printed in 1599, Robert +Greene makes a hero, and a very strenuous +one, of a mere pound-keeper who +proudly refuses knighthood at the hands +of the king. In the sketch given by Professor +J. M. Brown we read, “In the first +scene of the play when Sir Nicolas Mannering +appears in Wakefield with his +commission from the rebel, Earl of Kendal, +and demands victuals for the rebel +army, the stalwart pound-keeper steps +forward, makes the knight eat his words +and then his seal! ‘What! are you in +choler? I will give you pills to cool +your stomach. Seest thou these seals? +Now by my father’s soul, which was a +yeoman’s when he was alive, eat them +or eat my dagger’s point, proud +squire!’ The Earl of Kendal and other +noblemen next appear in disguise and +send their horses into the Pinner’s corn +to brave him. The pound-keeper approaches +and after altercation strikes +the Earl. Lord Bondfield says, ‘Villain, +what hast thou done? Thou hast struck<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[55]</span> +an Earl.’ Pinner answers, ‘Why, what +care I? A poor man that is true is better +than an earl if he be false’.” A +yeoman boxing or cuffing the ear of an +earl! This has all the breezy freshness +of American democracy.</p> + +<p>“How different from this is Shakespeare’s +conception of the place of the +working-man in society. In King Lear, +a good servant protests against the cruelty +of Regan and Cornwall toward +Gloucester, and is killed for his courage.” +“Give me my sword,” cries Regan, +“a peasant stand up thus!” The +voice of the yeoman is often heard in +Greene’s drama, not as buffoon and +lackey, as in Shakespeare, but as freeman +whose voice is echoed at Naseby and +Marston’s gory fields of glory, where the +sturdy yeomanry of England strove to do +and to dare for the eternal right—soldiers +who never cowered from “sheen of +spear,” nor blanched at flashing steel. +With Greene rank is never the measure +of merit as with Shakespeare. To peer<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[56]</span> +and yeoman alike, he gave equal hospitality; +for Robin Greene, as his friends +called him, was as friendly to the poor +man’s rags as to the purple Robe of +King. Greene in his popular sympathies +is thoroughly with the working classes, +the common people, of whom Lincoln +says, “God loves most, otherwise he +would not have made so many of them.” +His heroes and heroines are taken, many +of them, from humble life. In his Pinner +of Wakefield there is a very clear +discernment of democratic principle in +the struggle against prerogative. Half +of those plays of Greene’s which we still +possess, are devoted to the representation +of the life of the common people which +gave lineage to Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin +Franklin and John Bunyan. If +these are any guide to his character, his is +one distinguished both by his amicable +and by his amiable qualities.</p> + +<p>We have in the “Coney-catching series” +Greene’s exposure of the practice +of sharpers and knaves, who were fleecing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[57]</span> +the country people who came to London. +The author of these tracts shows +great courage in his effort to abate fool-catching. +Greene’s life was threatened, +and it required the utmost exertion of his +friends to prevent his assassination. The +Coney-catching knaves, who felt the halter +being drawn about their necks, threatened +to cut off his hand if he would not +desist. Greene, notwithstanding these +threats, would not be swerved from his +noble aim, but met them like a true Roman, +single-handed and alone, while his +literary enemies took advantage of this +opportunity to blacken his good name. +“Greene made these revelations for the +good of the commonwealth, and displayed +great courage in facing all risks +in so doing. No books are more out-and-out +sincere.”</p> + +<p>Greene’s account of the repentance and +reformation of a fallen woman, told in a +way that discloses the poet’s kindness of +heart and fullness of humanitarian +spirit, reveals his better self. “He assured<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[58]</span> +his readers, in the words of the +woman herself, that her first false step +gradually led her on to complete ruin, +so heavy-burdened with grief and +shame that death seemed to her a benefaction, +and the grave the only place for +perfect rest.” Not a few there may +have been, who, on reading Greene’s account +of the reformation and redemption +of this unfortunate woman, were started +on the path of regeneration, while the +dim-eyed critic can see nothing but the +blurred reputation of the poet. But who +shall estimate Robert Greene’s influence +on individual happiness? Who shall say +how many thousands have been made +wiser, happier, and better by a writer +who held out a kind and friendly hand, +and had a heart as true behind it? His +statue would crown Trafalgar’s towering +shaft more worthily than the statue of +England’s greatest naval hero does; for +there is more true honor and merit in the +man who wrote purely to bring back +from evil courses to a state of moral rectitude,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[59]</span> +than in a monument for the victory +over many enemies.</p> + +<p>Greene’s non-dramatic works are the +largest contribution left by any Elizabethan +writer to the novel literature of +the day. “He was at once the most versatile +and the most laborious of literary +men.” Famous, witty, and brilliant, he +was one of the founders of English fiction, +and is conceded to be the author of +half a dozen plays for the theatre. In +them we have the mere “flotsam and jetsam” +of his prolific pen. What would +we not give for all the plays of Robert +Greene from whom his contemporaries +and successors purloyned plumes! According +to Ben Jonson, it was as safe to +pillage from Greene in his day, as it is to +persecute his reputation in ours. He was +a graduate of both universities, was a +man of genius, but did not live to do his +talents full justice. A born story teller, +like Sir Walter Scott, he could do good +work easily and quickly.</p> + +<p>We glean the following from the pages<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[60]</span> +of “The English Novel in the Time of +Shakespeare,” by J. J. Jusserand, +“Greene’s prose tale, ‘Pandosto, the Triumph +of Time,’ had an extraordinary +success, while Shakspere’s drama ‘Winter’s +Tale’ founded on Greene’s Pandosto +was not printed, either in authentic +or pirated shape, before the appearance +of the 1623 folio, while Greene’s +prose story was published in 1588 and +was renamed half a century later, ‘The +History of Dorostus and Fawnia.’ So +popular was it that it was printed again +and again. We know of at least seventeen +editions, and in all likelihood there +were more throughout the seventeenth +century, and even under one shape or +another throughout the eighteenth. It +was printed as a chap-book during this +last period and in this costume began a +new life. It was turned into verse in +1672, but the highest and most extraordinary +compliment of Greene’s performance +was its translation into +French, not only once but twice. The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[61]</span> +first time was at a moment when the +English language and literature were +practically unknown and as good as +non-existent to French readers. In fact +every thing from Greene’s pen sold. All +of his writings enjoyed great popularity +in their day, and, after the lapse of +three centuries, have been deemed worthy +of publication, insuring the rehabilitation +of Greene’s splendid genius.”</p> + +<p>We are content to believe that almost +all of the so-called posthumous writings +of Robert Greene are spurious, and that +but few genuine chips were found in the +literary work-shop of the poet after his +death. We accept the very striking and +impressive address to his brother play-wrights, +the after-words to a “Groats +Worth of Wit.” We also may shyly accept +the sweet wife letter as the authentic +product of the poet’s mind, heart and +hand. Of this letter, there are two versions, +neither of which are very trustworthy, +as both are from posthumed pamphlets. +One, which we believe to be a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[62]</span> +forgery, is found in “The Repentance.” +The other is found in a pamphlet written +by his malignant enemy, Harvey, which +contains an account of the poet’s last illness +and death. Nash writes about Harvey, +“From the lousy circumstance of his +poverty before his death and sending +that miserable writt to his wife, it cannot +be but thou lyest, learned Gabriel.” +We would not set down as auto-biographical +the posthumous pamphlets, even +though of unquestioned authenticity, for +in the repentance Greene is made to say, +“I need not make long discourse of my +parents who for their gravitie and honest +life are well known and esteemed +among their neighbors, namely in the +citie of Norwich where I was bred and +borne;” and then he is made to contradict +all this in “Groats Worth of Wit,” +where the father is called Gorinius, a despicable +miser. “Greene is not known to +have had a brother to be the victim of +his cozenage.”</p> + +<p>As “there is a soul of truth in things<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[63]</span> +erroneous,” there may be a soul of truth +in the following letter contained in “The +Repentance”:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> + +<p>“Sweet wife, if ever there was any +good will or friendship between thee +and me, see this bearer (my host) +satisfied of his debt. I owe him tenne +pounds and but for him I had perished +in the streetes. Forget and forgive +my wrongs done unto thee and +Almighty God have mercie on my +soule. Farewell till we meet in heaven +for on earth thou shalt never see +me more.</p> + +“This 2nd day of Sept., 1592.<br> +<span class="pad2">“Written by thy dying husband,</span><br> +<div class="right" style="margin-right: 1em">“ROBERT GREENE.”</div> +</div> + +<p>The reader will notice the statement in +the posthumed letter that the poet had +contracted a debt to the sum of ten +pounds, equal to $400 present money, but +there is nothing whatever about leaving +many papers in sundry bookseller’s +hands which Chettle averred in the address +“To the Gentlemen Readers Kind +Hearts Dreame.” If this were a fact,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[64]</span> +the bookseller doubtless would have been +called upon; “see this bearer (my host) +satisfied of his debt,” and sweet wife +would not have bourne the burden while +booksellers felt themselves blest to pay +dear for the very dregs of her husband’s +wit.</p> + +<p>Those writers who express no doubt of +the authenticity of the posthumed pamphlets, +leave their readers to set down as +auto-biographical whatever portions of +those pieces he may think proper. At the +same time the trend of impulse is given +the reader by the critics that he may not +fail to read the story of the poet’s life out +of characters devoid of all faith in honesty +and in virtue, while the author +(Greene) is anxious evidently to point a +moral by them and reprove vice. These +forged pamphlets and so-called auto-biographical +pamphlets make Greene accuse +himself of crimes which he surely +did not commit, such as the crime of theft +and murder. He says, “I exceeded all +others in these kinds of sinnes,” and he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[65]</span> +is represented as the most atrocious villain +that ever walked the earth. There is +not an atom of evidence adduced to show +Francisco in “Never Too Late” was intended +by the author for a picture of himself, +and we do not believe that Greene +wrote the pamphlet in which Roberto, in +“Groats Worth of Wit” is one of the despicable +characters.</p> + +<p>Very little is known with any degree of +certainty concerning the personal life of +Robert Greene, and very little, if anything, +in regard to his family or ancestry, +although much prominence is given by +imaginary writers to the history of his +person in the manuals of our literature. +These writers attach an auto-biographical +reality to their dreams of fancy. +They take advantage of Greene’s unbounded +sincerity and his own too candid +confession in the address to the play-writers, +and of his irrepressible desire to +sermonize, whether in plays or pamphlets, +with all the fervor of a devout Methodist +having a license to exhort. The closest<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[66]</span> +analogy to Greene’s position, in fact, is +that of the revival preacher—as Prof. +Storojenko puts it—“who, to make the +picture of the present as telling as possible, +sees and paints his past in its very +blackest colors. This self-flagellation is +strongly connected with a really attractive +feature of Greene’s character; we +mean his sincerity, a boundless sincerity +which never allowed him to spare himself. +Robert Greene was incapable of +posing and pretending to be what he +was not. This is why we may fearlessly +believe him when he speaks of the anguish +of his soul and the sincerity of +his repentance. A man whose deflection +from the path of virtue cost him so +much moral suffering cannot, of course, +be measured by the same standard as +the man who acts basely, remains at +peace with himself and defends his +faults by all kinds of sophistry. Speaking +further of his literary labors, he +never dealt in personalities in exposing +some of the crying nuisances of London<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[67]</span> +and is perfectly silent as to the moral +change in his own character, which was +the fruit of his dealing with them. In +a word, he conceals all that might, in his +opinion, modify the sentence that he +pronounces on his own life for the edification +of others.”</p> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[68]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="IV">IV</h2> +</div> + + +<p>There is a commendative piece of writing +which should be read in connection +with Greene’s letter to “divers play-makers.” +We refer to the preface to +“Kind Hearts Dreams,” written by +Henry Chettle, which was registered December +8, 1592. Chettle says, “About +three months since died M. Robert +Greene, leaving many papers in sundry +book-seller’s hands, among others, his +‘Groats Worth of Wit’ in which a letter +written to diverse play-makers is offensively +by one or two of them taken.” +Chettle’s statement about many papers in +sundry book-sellers hands may be discredited +because of the poet’s urgent necessities, +and the strong desire on the +part of book-sellers to publish Greene’s +writings. Of this we may be sure, that +the letter was not placed in book-sellers +hands by Greene or for him. He would +not have called his friends to repentance<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[69]</span> +in that way, for it would have given publicity +to the defects in the lives of his +friends as well as his own.</p> + +<p>The letter evidences the fact of its having +been written as a private letter to +three of the poet’s friends (Marlowe, +Nash and Peele). If sent, it did not reach +them, but was surreptitiously procured, +doubtless, by some hack-writer, (inferentially, +Henry Chettle, who transcribed +it.) Gabriel Harvey may have been accessory +to its procurement, as his ghoulish +instinct led him to visit the poor shoemaker’s +house where Greene died, on the +day following the poet’s funeral in search +of matter foul and defamatory, and with +ink of slander to blacken the poet’s memory. +This snobbish ape of gentility, Gabriel +Harvey, hated Greene because he +called his father by “the craft he gets his +living with.” However, when Greene +learned that Harvey was ashamed of his +father’s humble employment, that of +ropemaker, he straightway canceled the +offensive allusion, but Harvey still continued<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[70]</span> +to manifest the same hateful malignity +and venomous spite. The letter is +a fine character study of the three poets +addressed. Greene drew out the true +feature of every distinguishing mark or +trait, both mental and moral, of these, his +fellow-craftsmen, who, though he did not +name them, are asserted to be Marlowe, +Nash and Peele. Greene characterized +them individually, and twice he collectively +admonished them thus, “Base +minded men all three of you, if by my +miseries ye be not warned,” and, in the +concluding part of the letter, “But now +return I again to you three, knowing my +miseries is to you no news and let me +heartily entreat you to be warned by +my harmes.”</p> + +<p>All of Shakspere’s biographers and +commentators aver that Shakspere was +not one of the three persons addressed. +How then could Chettle’s words bear witness +to his (Shakspere’s) civil demeanor +or factitious grace in writing. Mr. Fleay +stated many years ago (1886) that there<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[71]</span> +was an entire misconception of Chettle’s +language that Shakspere was not one of +those who took offense. They are expressly +stated to have been two of the +three authors addressed by Greene. The +recent Shakespearean writers have evidently +mistaken Chettle’s placation of +Nash or Peele, or either of the three play-makers +addressed by Greene, it does not +matter which, for an apology to Shakspere, +who was not the object of Greene’s +satire or Chettle’s placation for were not +Nash, Marlowe and Peele each “excellent +in the quality he professes?” Had they +not lived in an age of compliment they +would have merited these complimental +phrases of Henry Chettle? For their +names were in the trump of fame.</p> + +<p>Christopher Marlowe, the first great +English poet, was the father of English +tragedy and the creator of English blank +verse. He is, by general consent, identified +with the first person addressed by +Greene, “With thee will I first begin, +thou famous gracer of tragedians, who<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[72]</span> +hath said in his heart there is no God. +Why should thy excellent wit, His gift, +be so blinded that thou should give no +glory to the giver?” The second person +referred to is identifiable with +Thomas Nash, “With thee I join, young +juvenall, that byting satyrist,” though +not with equal accord, as the first with +Marlowe, as some few persons prefer to +name Thomas Lodge. This <ins id="TN10" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: prediliction">predilection</ins> +for Lodge is based on their having been +co-authors in the making of a play +(“That lastlie with me together writ a +comedie”). This fact, however, signifies +very little, for it is generally conceded +that Marlowe, Nash, Peele, Lodge and +Greene mobilized their literary activities +in the production of not a few of the earlier +plays called Shakspere’s.</p> + +<p>We are convinced that Lodge was not +the person addressed by Greene as young +juvenall. He was absent from England +at the date of Greene’s letter, having left +in 1591 and did not return till 1593. +Moreover, he had declared his intention<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[73]</span> +long before to write no more for the theatre. +In 1589 he vowed “to write no more +of that whence shame doth grow.” At +Christmas time in 1592 he was in the +Straits of Magellan. Born in 1550, Lodge +led a virtuous and quiet life. He was +seventeen years older than Nash, and +four years older than Greene, who would +not, in addressing one four years his senior, +have used these words, “Sweet boy +might I advise thee.” The youthfulness +of Nash fits well. He was boyish in +appearance. Born in Nov., 1567, he was +seven years younger than Greene, and +was the youngest member of their fellowship. +The mild reproof “for his too +much liberty of speech” contained in +the letter, justifies the belief that Thomas +Nash was referred to as “young juvenall, +that byting satyrist, who had vexed +scholars with bitter lines.”</p> + +<p>The equal unanimity and general consent +which identifies the first with Marlowe, +identifies the third and last person, +who had been co-worker in drama making<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[74]</span> +of the same fellowship, with George +Peele, “and thou no less deserving than +the other two, in some things rarer, in +nothing inferior” driven (as myself) to +“extreame shifts, a little have I to say to +thee.” Chettle could, however, have +bourne witness to Peele “his civil demeanor +and factitious grace in writing.” +Peele held the situation of city +poet and conductor of pageants for the +court. His first pageant bears the date +of 1585, his earliest known play, “The +Arraignment of Paris” was acted before +1584. “Peele was the object of patronage +of noblemen for addressing literary +tributes for payment. The Earl +of Northumberland seems to have presented +him with a fee of three pounds. +In May, 1591, when Queen Elizabeth +visited Lord Burleigh’s seat of Theabald, +Peele was employed to compose +certain speeches addressed to the queen, +which deftly excused the absence of the +master of the house, by describing in +blank verse in his ‘Polyphymnic,’ the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[75]</span> +honorable triumph at tilt. Her majesty +was received by the Right Honorable +the Earl of Cumberland.” In January, +1595, George Peele, Master of Arts, presented +his “Tale of Troy” to the great +Lord Treasurer through a simple messenger, +his eldest daughter, “necessities +servant.” Peele was a practised rhetorician, +who embellished his writings +with elegantly adorned sentences and +choice fancies. He was a man of polished +intellect and social gifts, and possessed +of a very winsome personality. +“His soft, caressing woman voice” low, +sweet and soothing, may have had a considerable +effect upon Chettle, and could +not have been unduly honored by Chettle’s +apology in witnessing “his civil demeanor +and factitious grace in writing.”</p> + +<p>As Henry Chettle had been brought +into some discredit by the publication of +Greene’s celebrated letter, and his admission +that he re-wrote it, we know that the +letter must have been surreptitiously procured<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[76]</span> +as evidenced by its contents. The +letter is as authentic, doubtless, as any +garbled or mutilated document may be; +but Chettle’s foolish statement contained +in his preface to “Kind Hearts Dreams” +has awakened the suspicion, in regard to +the authorship of “Groats Worth of +Wit,” that, while the letter (or as much +as Chettle chose to have published) is +genuine, “I put something out,” the pamphlet +“Groats Worth of Wit” is spurious, +and evidently not the work of Robert +Greene. Who can be content to believe +Chettle’s statement that Greene placed +this criminating letter in the hands of +printers, or that it was left in their hands +by others at his request? A private letter, +written to three friends, who have +been co-workers in drama-making, calling +them to repentance, charging one +(Marlowe) with diabolical atheism! This +was a very serious charge in those times, +when persons were burnt at the stake for +professing their unbelief in the doctrine +of the Trinity.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[77]</span></p> + +<p>Chettle was the first to make current +the charge of atheism against Marlowe, +the one of them that took offense, and +whose acquaintance he (Chettle) did not +seek. Chettle reverenced Marlowe’s +learning, and would have his readers believe +that he did greatly mitigate Greene’s +charge, but the contents of the letter as +transcribed by Chettle and printed by the +bookmakers, discredit Chettle’s statement, +as the charge of diabolical atheism +was not struck out, and was, if proven, +punishable by death.</p> + +<p>There is no evidence adduced to show +that Marlowe was indignant because of +Greene’s admonition, contained in a private +letter written to three play-makers +of his own fellowship, but resented the +public charge of atheism, for which he, +Chettle, as accessory and transcriber, +was chiefly responsible in making public. +We know that Marlowe was in retreat at +the time of his death at Deptford, for in +May, 1593, following the publication of +Greene’s letter printed at the end of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[78]</span> +pamphlet, “Groats Worth of Wit,” the +Privy Council issued a warrant for Marlowe’s +arrest. A copy of Marlowe’s blasphemies, +so called, was sent to Her Highness, +and endorsed by one Richard Bame, +who was soon after hanged at Tyburn for +some loathsome crime. But a few days +later, before Marlowe’s apprehension, +they wrote in the parish-book at Deptford +on June 1st “Christopher Marlowe +slain by Francis Archer.” At the age +of thirty, he, “the first and greatest inheritor +of unfulfilled renown,” went +where “Orpheus and where Homer are.”</p> + +<p>The loss to English letters in Marlowe’s +untimely death cannot be measured, +nevertheless, England of that day +was spared the infamy of his execution. +However, the zealots of those days found +a subject, in Francis Kett, a fellow of +Marlowe’s college, who was burnt in Norwich +in 1589 for heresy. Unlike Marlowe, +he was a pious, God-fearing man +who fell a victim to the strenuousity with +which he maintained his religious convictions.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[79]</span> +Another subject was found in the +person of Bartholomew Leggett, who was +burnt at the stake for stating his confession +of faith, which was identical with the +religious belief of Thomas Jefferson and +President William H. Taft. The times +were thirsty for the blood of daring spirits. +The shores of the British Isles were +strewn with the wreckage of the great +Armada. In Germany, Kepler (he of the +three laws) was struggling to save his +poor old mother from being burnt at the +stake for a witch. In Italy, they burnt +Bruno at the stake while Galileo played +recanter.</p> + +<p>That Marlowe was one of the play-makers +who felt incensed at the publication +of Greene’s letter admits of no doubt. +He most likely would have resented the +public charge of atheism. “With neither +of them that take offense was I acquainted +(writes Chettle) and with one +of them (Marlowe) I care not if I never +be.” In such blood bespattered times, +Chettle could and did write “for the first<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[80]</span> +(Marlowe) whose learning I reverence, +and at the perusing of Greene’s book +(letter) struck out what in conscience I +thought he in some displeasure writ, or +had it been true yet to publish it was +intolerable.” Chettle’s conscience must +have been a little seared, for he omitted +to strike out the only statement of fact +contained in the letter, which could have +imperiled the life of Marlowe! The letter +evidences the fact that all of that portion +referring to Marlowe was not garbled, +and that there was not any intolerable +something struck out, but instead, as +transcriber for the pirate publisher, he +retained the fulminating passage, “had +said in his heart there is no God.” Notwithstanding +Chettle’s statement, we are +of the opinion that the passage about +Marlowe was printed in its integrity.</p> + +<p>Chettle’s having failed to omit the +charge of diabolical atheism, reveals the +strong personal antipathy he had for +Marlowe. Few there are who set up Marlowe +as claimant for Chettle’s apology,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[81]</span> +and fewer still, who would not regard him +worthy of the compliment, “factitious +grace in writing,” and whose acquaintance +Chettle did not seek, but whose fascinating +personality and exquisite feeling +for poetry was the admiration of Drayton +and Chapman, who were among the +noblest, as well as the best loved, of their +time. George Chapman was among the +few men whom Ben Jonson said he loved. +Anthony Wood described him as “a person +of most reverend aspect, religious +and temperate qualities.” Chapman +sought conference with the soul of Marlowe:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +“Of his free soul whose living subject stood<br> +Up to the chin in the Pierian flood.”<br> +</div> + +<p>Henry Chettie’s act of placation is offered +to one of two of the three play-makers +addressed, and not to the actor +referred to, who was not one of those addressed; +therefore, “upstart crow” could +not have been the recipient of Chettle’s<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">[82]</span> +apology, or placation, in whose behalf +(“upstart crow”) Chettle retracts nothing. +The following reference is to one of +the offended playmakers pointed at in +Greene’s address, whom Chettle wishes to +placate, “The other whome at that time +I did not so much spare as since I wish +I had—that I did not I am as sorry as +if the original fault had been my fault +because myself have seen his demeanor +no less civil excellent in the qualities he +professes; besides, divers of worship +have reported his uprightness of dealing, +which argues his honesty and his +factitious grace in writing that approves +his art.” With the votaries of +Shakspere, however, these words of Chettle +chime with their dreams of fancy; for +there is a pre-inclination and a predetermination +to read Shakspere into them, as +if the words of Greene and Chettle were +not accessible to all inquirers—words +that can be made to comprehend only one +of the two playmakers that take offense, +who must be one of the three (Marlowe,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[83]</span> +Nash and Peele) admonished by Greene, +and who were of his fellowship. The +reader, after studying Elizabethan literature +and history, is content to believe +that the least celebrated of the three +playmakers pointed at in Greene’s address +(Marlowe, Nash and Peele), stood +high enough in the scale of literary merit +in 1592 to be the recipient of Chettle’s +praise.</p> + +<p>The word “quality,” in “excellent in +the quality he professes,” is by the fantastically +inclined, made to yield a convenient +connotation, but in the ordinary +and contextural meaning of the word, +may embrace all that makes or helps to +make any person such as he is. Are these +words of Chettle written in 1592 when the +theatre was lying under a social ban, and +the actor was still a social outcast, identifiable +with a vagabond at law, or with +Thomas Nash, who took his bachelor’s +degree at Cambridge in 1585? “In the +autumn of 1592, Nash was the guest of +Archbishop Whitgift at Crogdon,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[84]</span> +whither the household had retired for +fear of the plague, and, as the official +antagonist of Martin Marprelate was +constrained to keep up such a character +as would enable divers of worship to report +his uprightness of dealing,” he certainly +was entitled to commendation for +his “factitious grace in writing.” The +appropriation of the complimentary remarks +of Chettle on Nash, or any one of +the three playmakers addressed, to +Shakspere, who was not one of those addressed, +and therefore, could not have +been the recipient of Chettle’s apology, +so called, is one of the fancies in which +critics of the highest reputation have indulged. +There is nothing equal to this +in all the annals of literature, unless it be +“Cicero’s famous letter to Lucretius, in +which he asks the historian to lie a little +in his favor in recording the events of +his consulship, for the sake of making +him a greater man.”</p> + +<p>Chettle lost no time in transcribing the +posthumous letter. Doubts as to “Groats<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[85]</span> +Worth of Wit” were entertained at the +time of publication. Some suspected +Nash to have had a hand in the authorship, +others accused Chettle. Nash did +take offense at the report that it was his. +Its publication caused much excitement +and the rumor went abroad that the pamphlet +was a forgery. “Other news I am +advised of,” writes Nash, in an epistle +prefixed to the second edition of “Pierce-penniless,” +“that a scald, trivial, lying +pamphlet called ‘Greene’s Groats Worth +<ins id="TN11" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: ‘of Wit’">of Wit’</ins> is given out to be of my doing. +God never have care of my soul, but utterly +renounce me, if the least word or +syllable in it proceeded from my pen, or +if I were any way privy to the writing +or printing of it.” We regard these +words confirmatory of the fact that +“Groats Worth of Wit” is not a work of +unquestioned authenticity, and, furthermore, +that Nash did not believe it the +work of Robert Greene. <i lang="la">Prima facie</i>, it +is spurious, for Nash spoke in high praise +of Greene’s writings. He neither would,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[86]</span> +nor could, have used the words “scald, trivial, +lying” of a genuine work of Robert +Greene, whose writings were held in high +favor by all classes. Nash could not have +taken offense at the allusion of Greene, +which was rather complimental, though +personal, and not intended for publication; +but it did, however, contain some +slight mixture of censure,—“Sweet boy, +might I advise thee, get not many enimies +by bitter words. Blame not scholars +vexed with sharp lines if they reprove +thy too much liberty of reproof.” +Nash was very angry, but only because +Greene’s letter was given to the public by +Chettle, who felt constrained to placate +“that byting satyrist,” whose raillery he +had reason to fear, by bearing witness to +“his civil demeanor and factitious grace +in writing.”</p> + +<p>Votaries of Shakspere may take their +choice of one of the three addressed. +Which one shall be named? What matter +it to them, with Shakspere barred, +whether Nash, Peele or Marlowe be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[87]</span> +named, the least of whom was worthy of +Chettle’s commendation?</p> + +<p>There is not a crumb of evidence adduced +for Shakspere as a putative author +of plays until 1598, and then only in the +variable and shadowy Elizabethan title +page. Chettle terms Greene “the only +comedian of a vulgar writer,” meaning +he was a writer in the vernacular tongue +or common language, a fact which proves +Shakspere’s nihility as playmaker in +1592. Now the fact of the matter is that +this “lying pamphlet,” so called by Nash, +was not authored by Greene. It should +be called, “Chettle’s Groats Worth of +Wit,” for the pamphlet proper is from +his pen or some other hack writer’s. The +letter alone was authored by Greene, addressed +as a private letter to three fellow +poets, and surreptitiously procured for +Chettle and transcribed by him. Chettle +writes, “I had only in the copy this +share—it was ill written—licensed it +must be, ere it could be printed, which +could never be if it might not be read.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[88]</span> +To be brief I writ it over and as nearly +as I could follow the copy. Only, in that +letter I put something out, but in the +whole book, not a word in, for I protest +it was all Greene’s, not mine, nor Master +Nash’s, as some unjustly have affirmed.”</p> + +<p>The letter and pamphlet both in +Greene’s handwriting would have been +the best possible evidence of the genuineness +of its contents and legibility. Chettle’s +not offering in evidence the original +letter is strong presumptive proof of the +commission of a forgery. He, if not the +chief actor in the offense, was an accessory +after the fact, and should, in his appeal +to the public in defense of his reputation, +have brought forward the pamphlet +itself, embracing the whole matter, +for examination and comparison; for we +feel satisfied that such an examination +would prove that the celebrated letter +was authored and in the handwriting of +Robert Greene, and not so ill written that +it could not be read by the printers, who<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[89]</span> +must have been familiar with the handwriting +of the largest contributor of the +prose literature of his day. For ourselves, +what we have adduced convinces +us that the tract, “Groats Worth of +Wit,” was authored and written by one +of Philip Henslowe’s hacks, presumedly, +Henry Chettle, a literary dead beat, and +an indigent of many imprisonments, who +was always importuning the old play-broker +for money. Since the tract, +“Groats Worth of Wit,” was in Chettle’s +own handwriting, he strove to fool the +printers by transcribing Greene’s letter +and binding both together, through that +“disguised hood” to fool the public. +Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, +“You may fool all the people some of the +time, and some of the people all the +time, but you cannot fool all the people +all of the time.” It is possible that +Chettle may have fooled some of the people +of his own generation some of the +time, but in later times, through the misapprehension +of his quoted words, he has<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[90]</span> +fooled the Shaksperolators all of the +time. Chettle, however, would not permit +the letter to come forward in its integrity +and speak for itself, disclosing the nature +of the intolerable something “stroke +out,” which piques our curiosity, but +not in anticipation of any of those indecencies +that taint the writings of Ben +Jonson and the work of many writers of +that age, not excepting Shakespeare, who +is also amenable in no slight degree to the +charge of the same coarseness of taste +which excites repulsion in the feelings of +Leo Tolstoy.</p> + +<p>The fact of the whole matter appears +to be that Henry Chettle, wishing to +profit financially by the great commercial +value of Robert Greene’s name, was accessory +to the embezzlement and the commission +of a forgery, and was the silent +beneficiary of the fraud. The mutual +connection of hack writer and pirate publisher +is so obvious that a jury of discerning +students, with the exhibits, presented +together with the presumptive proofs and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[91]</span> +inferential evidence contextured in both +letter and preface, should easily confirm +our opinion of the incredibleness of Chettle’s +statements contained in the preface +to “Kind Hearts Dreams.” The evidence +of their falsity is, <i lang="la">prima-facie</i>, destitute +of credible attestations.</p> + +<p>We are made to see, in our survey of +the age of Elizabeth, much that is in +striking contrast with the spirit and activities +of our time. There is a notable +contrast between the public play house of +those days, where no respectable woman +ever appeared, and with the theatre of +our day—the rival of the church as a +moral force. In the elder time “the permanent +and persistent dishonor attached +to the stage,” and the stigma +attached to the poets who wrote for the +public playhouse, attached in like manner +to the regular frequenters of public +theatres, the majority of whom could +neither read nor write, but belonged +chiefly to the vicious and idle class of the +population. At all the theatres, according<span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[92]</span> +to Malone, it appears that noise and +show were what chiefly attracted an audience +in spite of the reputed author. +There was clamor for a stage reeking +with blood and anything ministering to +their unchaste appetites. The spectacular +actor and clown was relatively advantaged, +as he could say much more +than was set down for him. Kemp’s extemporizing +powers of histrionic buffoonery, +gagging, and grimacing, paid the +running expenses of the playhouse.</p> + +<p>“It must be borne in mind that actors +then occupied an inferior position in +society, and that in many quarters even +the vocation of a dramatic writer was +considered scarcely respectable.” Ben +Jonson’s letter to the Earl of Salisbury, +lets us see very clearly that he regarded +play writing as a degradation. We transcribe +it in part as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> + +<p>“I am here, my honored Lord, unexamined +and unheard, committed to a +vile prison and with me a gentleman +(whose name may perhaps have come<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[93]</span> +to your Lordship), one Mr. George +Chapman, a learned and honest man. +The cause (would I could name some +worthier though I wish we had known +none worthy our imprisonment) (is +the words irk-me that our fortune +hath necessitated us to so despise a +course) a play, my Lord—.”</p> +</div> + +<p>We see how keenly Jonson felt the disgrace, +not on account of the charge of reflecting +on some one in a play in which +they had federated, for he protested his +own and Chapman’s innocence, but he +felt that their degradation lay chiefly in +writing stage poetry, for drama-making +was regarded as a degrading kind of employment, +which poets accepted who were +struggling for the meanest necessities of +life, and were driven by poverty to their +production, and to the slave-driving play-brokers, +many of whom became very rich +by making the flesh and blood of poor +play-writers their maw.</p> + +<p>In looking into Philip Henslowe’s old +note-book, we see how the grasping play-brokers<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[94]</span> +of the olden time speculated on +the poor play-writers necessities, when +plays were not regarded as literature; +when the most strenuous and laborious +of dramatic writers for the theatre could +not hope to gain a competence by the pen +alone, but wrote only for bread; when +play-writers were in the employ of the +shareholding actors, as hired men; and +when their employers, the actors, were +social outcasts who, in order to escape the +penalty for the infraction of the law +against vagabondage, were nominally retained +by some nobleman. In further +proof of the degradation which was attached +to the production of dramatic +composition, “when Sir Thomas Bodley, +about the year 1600, extended and remodeled +the old university library and +gave it his name, he declared that no +such riff-raff as play-books should ever +find admittance to it.” “When Ben +Jonson treated his plays as literature +by publishing them in 1616 as his works, +he was ridiculed for his pretentions,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[95]</span> +while Webster’s care in the printing of +his plays laid himself open to the charge +of pedantry.”</p> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[96]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="V">V</h2> +</div> + + +<p>What Lord Rosebery says of Napoleon +is equally true of the author of “Hamlet” +and “King Lear,” “Mankind will +always delight to scrutinize something +that indefinitely raises its conception of +its own powers and possibilities, and +will seek, though eternally in vain, to +penetrate the secrets of this prodigious +intellect,” and it is to Stratford-on-Avon +that many turn for the final glimpse +of what Swinburne calls “the most transcendent +intelligence that ever illuminated +humanity.” William Shakspere, +the third child and eldest son (probably), +of John Shakspere, is supposed to have +been born at a place on the chief highway +or road leading from London to Ireland, +where the road crosses the river Avon. +This crossing was called Street-ford or +Stratford. This, at any rate, was the +place of his baptism in 1564, as is evidenced +by the parish register. The next<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[97]</span> +proven fact is that of his marriage in +1582, when he was little more than eighteen +years old. Before this event nothing +is known in regard to him.</p> + +<p>John Shakspere, the father apparently +of William Shakspere, is first discovered +and described as a resident of Henley +Street, where our first glimpse is had of +him in April, 1552. In that year he was +fined the sum of twelve pence for a breach +of the municipal sanitary regulations. +Nothing is known in regard to the place +of his birth and nurture, nor in regard to +his ancestry. The evidence is, <i lang="la">prima-facie</i>, +that the Shaksperes were of the +parvenu class. John Shakspere seems to +have been a chapman, trading in farmer’s +produce. In 1557 he married Mary Arden, +the seventh and youngest daughter +of Robert Arden, who had left to her +fifty-three acres and a house, called +“Ashbies” at Wilmecote. He had also +left to her other land at Wilmecote, and +an interest in two houses at Smitterfield.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[98]</span></p> + +<p>This step gave John Shakspere a reputation +among his neighbors of having +married an heiress, and he was not slow +to take advantage of it. His official +career commenced at once by his election +in 1557, as one of the ale-tasters, to see to +the quality of bread and ale; and again in +1568 he was made high bailiff of Stratford. +John Shakspere was the only member +of the Shakspere family who was +honored with civic preferment and confidence, +serving the corporation for the +ninth time in several functions. However, +the time of his declination was at +hand, for in the autumn of 1578 the +wife’s property at Ashbies was mortgaged +for forty pounds. The money subsequently +tendered in repayment of the +loan was refused until other sums due to +the same creditor were repaid. John +Shakspere was deprived of his aldermanship +September 6, 1580, because he did +not come to the hall when notified. On +March 29, he produced a writ of habeas +corpus, which shows he had been in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[99]</span> +prison for debt. Notwithstanding his inability +to read and write, he had more or +less capacity for official business, but so +managed his private affairs as to wreck +his own and his wife’s fortune.</p> + +<p>At the time of the habeas corpus matter +William Shakspere was thirteen +years old. “In all probability,” says his +biographer, “the lad was removed from +school, his father requiring his assistance.” +There was a grammar school in +Stratford which was reconstructed on a +medieval foundation by Edward VI, +though the first English grammar was +not published until 1586. This was after +Shakespere had finished his education. +“No Stratford record nor Stratford tradition +says that Shakspere attended the +Stratford grammar school.” But, had +the waning fortune of his father made it +possible, he might have been a student +there from his seventh year—the probable +age of admission—until his improvident +marriage when little more than eighteen +and a half years old. However, a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[100]</span> +provincial grammar school is a convenient +place for the lad about whose activities +we know nothing, and whose education +is made to impinge on conjecture and +fanciful might-have-been.</p> + +<p>We are told that Shakspere must have +been sent to the free school at Stratford, +as his parents and all the relatives were +unlearned persons, and there was no +other public education available; nevertheless, +it was the practice of that age to +teach the boy no more than his father +knew. One thing is certain, that the +scholastic awakening in the Shakspere +family was of short duration, for it began +and ended with William Shakspere. His +youngest daughter, Judith, was as illiterate +as were her grandparents. She could +not even write her name, although her +father at the time of her school age had +become wealthy, and his eldest daughter +“the little premature Susanna,” as De +Quincy calls her, could barely scrawl her +name, being unable to identify her husband’s +(Dr. Hall) handwriting, which no<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[101]</span> +one but an illiterate could mistake. Her +contention with the army surgeon, Dr. +James Cook, respecting her husband’s +manuscripts, is proof that William +Shakspere was true to his antecedents by +conferring illiteracy upon his daughters. +The Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon was +not exceptionally liberal and broad +minded in the matter of education in contrast +with many of his contemporaries, +notably Richard Mulcaster, (1531-1611), +who says that “the girl should be as well +educated as her brother,” while the real +author of the immortal plays had also +written, “Ignorance is the curse of God,” +and, “There is no darkness but ignorance.”</p> + +<p>It was not the least of John Shakspere’s +misfortunes that in November, +1582, his eldest son, William, added to his +embarrassments, by premature and +forced marriage. It is the practice of +Shakespere’s biographers to pass hurriedly +over this event in the young man’s +life, for there is nothing commendable in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[102]</span> +his marital relations. There is expressed +in it irregularity of conduct and probable +desertion on his part; pressure was +brought to bear on the young man by his +wife’s relations, and he was forced to +marry the woman whom he had wronged. +Who can believe that their marriage was +a happy one, when the only written words +contained in his will are not words expressive +of connubial endearment, such +as “dear wife” or “sweet wife,” but “my +wife?” He had forgotten her, but by +an interlineation in the final draft, she +received his second best bed with its furniture. +This was the sole bequest made +to her.</p> + +<p>We are by no means sure of the identity +of his wife. We do not know that +she and Shakespere ever went through +the actual ceremony of marriage, unless +her identity is traceable through Anne +Wateley, as a regular license was issued +for the marriage of William Shaxpere +and Anne Wateley of Temple Grafton, +November 27, 1583. Richard Hathaway,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[103]</span> +the reputed father of Shakspere’s wife, +Anne, in his will dated September 1, +1581, bequeathed his property to seven +children, his daughters being Catherin, +Margaret and Agnes. No Anne was mentioned. +The first published notice of the +name of William Shakspere’s (supposed) +wife appears in Rowe’s “Life of Shakespere” +(1709), wherein it is stated that +she “was the daughter of one Hathaway +said to have been a substantial yeoman +in the neighborhood of Stratford.” +This was all that Betterton, the actor +Rowe’s informant, could learn at the +time of his visit to Stratford-on-Avon. +The exact time of this visit is unknown, +but it was probably about the year 1690. +This lack of knowledge in regard to the +Hathaways shows that the locality of +Anne Hathaway’s residence, or that of +her parents, was not known at Stratford. +The house at Shottery, now known as +Anne Hathaway’s cottage, and reached +from Stratford by fieldpaths, may have +been the home of Anne Hathaway, wife<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[104]</span> +of William Shakspere, before his marriage, +but of this there is no proof.</p> + +<p>Shakspere was married under the +name “Shagspere,” but the place of marriage +is unknown, as his place of residence +is not mentioned in the bond. In +the registry of the bishop of the diocese +(Worcester) is contained a deed wherein +Sandells and Richardson, husbandmen of +Stratford, bound themselves in the bishop’s +consistory court on November 28, +1582, as a surety for forty pounds, to free +the bishop of all liability should any lawful +impediment, by reason of any precontract, +or consanguinity, be subsequently +disclosed to imperil the validity of the +contemplated marriage of William +Shakspere with Anne Hathaway. Provided, +that Anne obtained the consent of +her friends, the marriage might proceed +with at once proclaiming the bans of matrimony. +The wording of the bond shows +that, despite the fact that the bridegroom +was a minor by nearly three years, the +consent of his parents was neither called<span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">[105]</span> +for, nor obtained, though necessary “for +strictly regular procedure.” Sandells +and Richardson, representing the lady’s +family, ignored the bridegroom’s family +completely. In having secured the deed, +they forced Shakspere to marry their +friend’s daughter in order to save her +reputation. Soon afterwards—within +six months—a daughter was born. Moreover, +the whole circumstances of the case +render it highly probable that Shakspere +had no thought of marriage, for the waning +fortune of his father had made him +acquainted with the “cares of bread.” +He was a penniless youth, not yet of age, +having neither trade, nor means of livelihood, +and was forced by her friends into +marrying her—a woman eight years +older than himself. In 1585 she presented +him with twins.</p> + +<p>When he left Stratford for London we +do not know positively, but the advent of +the twins is the approximate date of the +youth’s Hegira. He lived apart from his +wife for more than twenty-five years.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[106]</span> +The breath of slander never touched the +good name of Anne (or Agnes), the neglected +wife of William Shakspere. There +is <i lang="la">prima-facie</i> evidence that the playbroker’s +wife fared in his absence no better +than his father and mother, who, dying +intestate in 1601 and 1608, respectively, +were buried somewhere by the +Stratford church, but there is no trace of +any sepulchral monument, or memorial. +If anything of the kind had been set up +by their wealthy son, William Shakspere, +it would certainly have been found by +someone. The only contemporary mention +made of the wife of Shakspere, between +her marriage in 1582 and her husband’s +death in 1616, was as the borrower, +at an unascertained date, of forty shillings +from Thomas Whittington, who had +formerly been her father’s shepherd. The +money was unpaid when Whittington +died in 1601, and his executor was directed +to recover the sum from Shakspere +and distribute it among the poor of Stratford. +There is disclosed in this pecuniary<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[107]</span> +transaction, coupled with the slight mention +of her in the will and the barring of +her dower, <i lang="la">prima facie</i> evidence of William +Shakspere’s indifference to, and +neglect of, if not dislike for, his wife. All +this is in striking contrast with the conduct +of Sir Thomas Lucy, whom the biographers +of Shakespere have attempted to +disparage, and whose endearment for his +wife is so feelingly expressed in his will. +And, in contrast also, is the conduct of +Edward Alleyn, famous as an actor, and +as the founder of Dulwich College, who +lived with his wife in London, and called +her “sweet mouse.”</p> + +<p>The tangibility of this Shakspere of +Stratford-on-Avon is very much in evidence +along pecuniary lines, especially as +money lender, land-owner, speculator and +litigant. In 1597 he bought New Place +in Stratford for sixty pounds; also mentioned +as a holder of grain at Stratford +X quarters. The following entry is in +Chamberlain’s accounts at Stratford in +1598: “Paid to Mr. Shaxpere for one<span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[108]</span> +lode of stone xd;” in the same year +Richard Quiney wrote to William +Shakspere for a loan of thirty or forty +pounds; in 1599 William Shakspere was +taken into the new Globe Theatre Company +as partner; in 1602 Shakspere +bought one hundred seven acres of arable +land at Stratford for three hundred two +pounds (in his absence the conveyance +was given over to his brother, Gilbert); +in the same year he bought a house with +barns, orchards, and gardens, from Hercules +Underhill for sixty pounds; also a +cottage close to his house, New Place; in +1605 Shakspere bought the thirty-two-year +lease of half Stratford tithes for +four hundred forty pounds; in 1613 +Shakspere bought a house near Blackfriars’ +Theatre for one hundred and forty +pounds, and mortgaged it next day for +sixty pounds; in 1612 Shakspere is mentioned +in a law suit brought before Lord +Ellsimore about Stratford tithes; in 1611 +Hamnet, his only son, died at Stratford +at the age of eleven and half years. The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[109]</span> +father, however, set up no stone to tell +where the boy lay.</p> + +<p>In the autumn of the year 1614 Shakspere +became implicated with the landowners, +William Combe and Arthur Mannering, +in the conspiracy to enclose the +common field in the vicinity of Stratford. +The success of this rapacious scheme +would have advantaged Shakspere in his +freehold interest, but might have affected +adversely his interest in the tithes, so he +secured himself against all possible loss +by obtaining from Riplingham, Combe’s +agent, in October, 1614, a deed of indemnification; +then, in the spirit of his agreement, +he acted in unison with the two +greedy land-sharks to rob the poor people +of their ancient rights of pasturage. The +unholy coalition caused great excitement. +The humble citizens of Stratford were +thoroughly aroused, and the town corporation +put up a sharp and vigorous opposition +to the scheme, for enclosure would +have caused decay of tillage, idleness, +penury, depopulation, and the subversion<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[110]</span> +of homes. Happily, the three greedy cormorants +Combe, Mannering and Shakspere +failed in their efforts and the common +field was unenclosed.</p> + +<p>Shakspere is thought to have been +penurious for his litigious strivings point +in that direction, but this feature of his +character was not disclosed in 1596 and +1599, when he sought to have his family +enrolled among the gentry, as shown by +his extravagance in bribing the officers +of the Herald College to issue a grant of +arms to his father, “a transaction which +involved,” says Dr. Farmer, “the falsehood +and venality of the father, the son +and two kings-at-arms, and did not escape +protest, for if ever a coat was cut +from whole cloth we may be sure that +this coat-of-arms was the one.” Shakspere +himself was not in a position to +apply for a coat-of-arms—“a player stood +far too low in the social scale for the +cognizance of heraldry.” Nevertheless, +recent writers on the subject of Shakespeare +stamp this bogus coat-of-arms on<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[111]</span> +the covers of their books. We know that +the Shaksperes did not belong to the +Armigerous part of the population, and +that they stood somewhat lower in the +social scale than either the Halls or +Quineys, who bore marital relations with +them.</p> + +<p>Shakspere’s son-in-law, John Hall, was +a master of arts and an eminent physician. +He was summoned more than +once to attend the Earl and Countess of +Northampton at Ludlow Castle. He was +of the French Court School, and was +opposed to the indiscriminate process of +bleeding. On June 5, 1607, Dr. Hall was +married at Stratford-on-Avon to Shakspere’s +eldest daughter, Susanna. Stratford +then contained about fifteen hundred +inhabitants. One hundred sixty-two +years later, Garrick gave his unsavory +description of Stratford-on-Avon as “the +most dirty, unseemly, ill-paved, wretched-looking +town in all Britain.” Cottages +of that day in Stratford consisted +of mud walls and thatched roofs. “At<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[112]</span> +this period and for many generations +afterwards the sanitary conditions of +the thoroughfares of Stratford-on-Avon +were simply terrible.”</p> + +<p>On February 10, 1616, Thomas Quiney, +a vintner, and also an accomplished +scholar and penman, was married at +Stratford church to Judith, Shakspere’s +younger daughter, who could neither read +nor write. The marriage ceremony took +place without a license or proclaiming the +bans. For this breach of ecclesiastical +procedure both the parties were summoned +to the court at Worcester and +threatened with excommunication. When +the fortune hunter goes forth to woe, and +is determined to win, he is content to +wade through reeking refuse and muckheaps +to marry a rich heiress and does +not much care if her histrionic father by +XXXIX Elizabeth were a vagabond.</p> + +<p>If “there is a soul of truth in things +erroneous,” so there may be a soul of +truth in the creditableness of the Shakspere +traditions, for in them are revealed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[113]</span> +the environment in which they had their +genesis, and the character of the inventor +or fabricator. All of the traditions are +comparatively recent or modern, and +were made current by people who were, +with few exceptions, coarse and densely +ignorant. These apocryphal accounts +serve to show also how little educated +people knew, or cared, about writing with +literary or historical accuracy when +Shakspere was the subject. Unfortunately +all of the traditions about Shakspere +are of a degrading character.</p> + +<p>The poaching escapade of his having +robbed a park is one of the invented +stories of fancy-mongers. There is very +little likelihood that the young husband, +with a wife and three babies to support, +would voluntarily place himself in a position +where he would have to flee from +Sir Thomas Lucy’s prosecution; thereby +degrading the lowermost rank of life by +bringing disgrace upon himself, his wife +and children, while his parents in straitened +circumstances were struggling to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[114]</span> +keep the wolf from the door. The records +show that Sir Thomas Lucy had no park +either at Charlecote or Fulbroke, still the +Lucys of a later day were not anxious to +lose the honor of having spanked Shakspere +for poaching on the ancestral preserves.</p> + +<p>England was called in those days “The +toper’s paradise,” and tradition informs +us that Shakspere was one of the Bedford +topers. However, we should not infer +from this that William Shakspere, a firm +man of business, was at any time a +drunken sot. The only story recorded +during Shakspere’s life is contained in +John Manningham’s note-book. It savors +strongly of the tavern, the diarist criminating +Shakspere’s morals. This entry +was made on March 13, 1601, the reference +being to player Shakspere.</p> + +<p>No wonder that such eminent votaries +of Shakspere as Stevens, Hallam, Dyce +and Emerson are disappointed and perplexed, +for, while the record concerning +the life of the player, money-lender, landowner,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[115]</span> +play-broker, speculator and litigant +are ample, they disclose nothing of +a literary character; but the pecuniary +litigation evidence, growing out of Shakspere’s +devotion to money-getting in London +and Stratford, does unfold his true +life and character. The records do not +furnish a single instance of friendship, +kindness or generosity, but upon the delinquent +borrower of money he rigidly +evoked the law, which gave a generous +advantage to the creditor, and its vile +prison to the debtor.</p> + +<p>In 1600 Shakspere brought action +against John Clayton for seven pounds +and got judgment in his favor. He sued +Philip Rogers, a neighbor in Stratford +Court, for one pound, fifteen shillings +and six pence due for malt sold, and two +shillings loaned. In August, 1608, Shakspere +prosecuted John Addenbroke to recover +a debt of six pounds. He prosecuted +this last suit for a couple of years +until he got the defendant into prison. +The prisoner was bailed out by Horneby.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[116]</span> +Addenbroke, running away, escaped from +the clutches of his tormentor, who then +bore down on his security, Horneby.</p> + +<p>“The pursuit of an impoverished man +for the sake of imprisoning him, and +depriving him both of the power of paying +his debts and supporting his family, +grate upon our feelings,” says Richard +Grant White, “and,” adds this eminent +Shakspearean, “we hunger and we receive +these husks, we open our mouths for +food and we break our teeth against +these stones.” We may be sure that +there was left in the impoverished home +of John Addenbroke little more palatable +than husks and stones, when the father +fled to escape from the clutches of his insistent +creditor, William Shakspere of +Stratford.</p> + +<p>The paltry suits he brought to recover +debts do not tend to disclose this Shakspere’s +“radiant temperament,” or fit +him to receive the adjective, “gentle,” +except in contumely for his claim to +gentility. It is not known that Shakspere<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[117]</span> +ever gave hospitality to the necessities of +the poor of his native shire, for whom, it +appears, there beat no pulse of tenderness. +A man of scanty sensibilities he +must have been. The poor working people +of Stratford, we may be sure, shed +no tear at this Shakspere’s departure +from the world.</p> + +<p>We do not envy the man, who can regard +these harsh pecuniary practices in +this Shakspere, as commendable traits of +his worldly wisdom, for he was shrewd +in money matters, and could have invested +his money in London and Stratford +so as not to have brought sorrow +and distress upon his poor neighbors. +These matters are small in themselves, +but they suggest a good deal, for they +bear witness to sorrow-stricken mothers, +hungry children and fathers in loathsome +prisons, powerless to provide food, +warmth and light for the home. The +diary, or note-book, of Philip Henslowe, +the theatrical manager and play-broker, +shows that Henslowe was himself a very<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[118]</span> +penurious and grasping man, who, taking +advantage of starving play-makers’ necessities, +became very wealthy. William +Shakspere, of Stratford-on-Avon, as a +theatrical manager, became rich also, but +his note-book has not been preserved, so +nothing is known of his business methods +in dealing with the poor play-makers; but +the literary antiquarians, by <ins id="TN12" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: ramsacking">ransacking</ins> +corporations’ records and other public +archives, have proven that Shakspere +was very much such a man as the old +pawnbroker and play-broker, Philip +Henslowe, of a rival house.</p> + +<p>The biographers should record these +facts, and not strive to shun them, for the +literary antiquaries have unearthed and +brought them forward, and they tell the +true story of Shakspere’s life, though we +do not linger lovingly over them, for, like +Hallam, “we as little feel the power of +identifying the young man who came up +from Stratford, was afterward an indifferent +player in a London theatre, +and retired to his native place in middle<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[119]</span> +life, with the author of ‘Macbeth’ and +‘Lear,’” for the Stratford records are +as barren of literary matter as the lodgings +in Silver street, London. Not a +crumb for the literary biographer in +either place!</p> + +<p>Professor Wallace has added another +non-literary document in the matter of +Shakspere’s deposition in the case of Bellot +vs. Mountjoy, which he discovered in +the public record office, but it in no way +contributes to a literary biography. The +truth is that, with all their industry, the +antiquarians have in this regard not +brought to light a single proven fact to +sustain the claim that this Shakespere +was either the author of poems or plays. +This bit of new knowledge gives us a +glimpse of this William Shakspere as an +evasive witness, having a conveniently +short memory. These depositions disclose +his intermediation in the matter of +making two hearts happy, but not the +faintest glimpse of the author of poems +or plays. When the claim of authorship<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">[120]</span> +is challenged, new particulars of the life +of Shakspere, such as this and others that +have been unearthed by antiquarians, +whether in the public record office or corporation +archives, are alike worthless so +far as establishing the poet Shakspere’s +identity. They fail to confirm the identity +of the actor Shakspere with the +author of the plays and poems that are +associated with his name. There are no +family traditions, no books, manuscripts, +or letters, addressed to him, or by him, +to poet, peer or peasant. The credible +evidence supplied by contemporaneous, or +antiquarian, research do not identify the +player and landowner with the author of +“Hamlet,” “Lear” and “Othello.”</p> + +<p>Our belief in the pseudonymity of the +author of the poems and plays, called +Shakespeare, is strengthened by the absence +of verse commemorative of concurrent +events, such as the strivings of his +boldest countrymen in the great Elizabethan +age. There is, from his pen, +neither word of cheer, nor sympathy, with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">[121]</span> +the daring and suffering warriors and adventurers +of that time, although his contemporaries +versified eulogies to the +heroes of those days for their stirring +deeds. There is, in the poems and plays, +no <ins id="TN13" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: elegaic">elegiac</ins> lay in memory of Elizabeth, +“the glorious daughter of the illustrious +Henry,” as Robert Greene calls her, nor +is there one line of mourning verse at the +death of Prince Henry, the noblest among +the children of the king, by a writer who +was always a strenuous and consistent +supporter of prerogative against the conception +of freedom. This is another evidence +of the secrecy maintained as to the +authorship of the poems and plays. We +cannot discover a single laudatory poem +or commendatory verse, or a line of praise +of any publication, or writer of his time. +All this is in contrast with his contemporaries, +whose personalities are identifiable +with their literary work, and, so +liberal of commendation were they, that +they literally showered commendatory +verses on literary works of merit, or those<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[122]</span> +thought to have merit. Of these, thirty-five +were bestowed on Fletcher, a score +or more on Beaumont, Chapman and +Ford, while Massinger received nineteen. +Ben Jonson’s published works contain +thirty-seven pieces of commendation. His +Roman tragedy, “Sejanus,” was acclaimed +by ten contemporary poets. In praise +of his comedy, <ins id="TN14" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: “Volpone,” There">“Volpone,” there</ins> are +seven poems. The versified compliments +bestowed on him by his fellow craftsmen +embrace many of the most celebrated +names antecedent to his death, which occurred +in 1637. Early in 1638 a collection +of some thirty elegies were published under +the title of “Jonsonus Virbius,” or +“The Memory of Ben Jonson,” in which +nearly all the leading poets of the day, +except Milton, took part.</p> + +<p>It must appear strange to the votaries +of Shakspere that Jonson should have received +so many crowns of mourning +verse, while for Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon, +the reputed author of “Hamlet,” +“Lear” and “Macbeth,” there<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[123]</span> +wailed no dirge. Not a single commendatory +verse was bestowed by a contemporary +poet antecedent to his death, nor +was a single elegiac poem written of him +in the year of his death, 1616. Already +in that fatal year there had been mourning +for Francis Beaumont, who received +immediate posthumous honors by many +poets, in memorial odes, sighing forth the +requiem to his name in mournful elegy.</p> + +<p>Eight and forty days after the death of +Francis Beaumont, all that was mortal of +William Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon +was buried in the chancel of his parish +church, in which, as part owner of the +tithes and consequently one of the lay +rectors, he had the right of interment. +Over the spot where his body was laid, +there was placed a slab with the inscription +imprecating a curse on the man who +should disturb his bones,</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +“Good friend, for Jesus sake forbeare<br> +To digg the dust enclosed here<br> +Bless be ye man yt spares this stown<br> +And curst be he yt moves my bones.”<br> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">[124]</span></p> + +<p>This rude, absurd and ignorant epitaph +has given much trouble to writers on the +subject of Shakespeare. The usual explanation +of the threat is given that the +Puritans thought that the church had +been profaned by the ashes of an actor. +These ignorant words could not have +been written as a deterrent to the Puritans, +for they did not belong to the +ignorant section of the population, but to +the middle class, nor would they have +been deterred from invading Shakspere’s +tomb by the superstitious fear of a threat +contained in doggerel verse cut on the +tomb. There was not the least danger +that the actor’s grave would be violated +by the Puritans, for Dr. John Hall, Shakspere’s +son-in-law, was a Puritan. If he +had had this warning epitaph cut on the +tomb it would have been written in +scholarly English. The doggerel lines, +rude as they are, satisfied, doubtless, the +widow and daughters, themselves ignorant. +The most pleasing epitaph, it seems +to us, would have been one expressing a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">[125]</span> +known wish of their “dear departed” in +words, when read by others, that would +best suit their understandings, for the +Shakspere family were uncultured. They +could not read the stupid epitaph on his +tomb, and so their hearts were not saddened +as they gazed upon an inscription +of barbaric rudeness.</p> + +<p>Some slight circumstance may have +given rise to William Hall’s conjecture, +during his visit to Stratford, in 1694, that +Shakspere authored his own epitaph, and +that these lines were written to suit the +capacity of clerks and sextons, who, according +to Hall, in course of time would +have removed Shakspere’s dust to the +bone house. This is not improbable from +the point of view taken by those who believe +that Shakspere of Stratford wrote +the doggerel epigram on John Combe, +money lender, and the vituperative ballad +abusing the gentleman whose park he +(Shakspere) robbed, for the three compositions +are of the same grade of +ignorant nonsense. But we do know that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">[126]</span> +had the author of “Hamlet” written his +own epitaph, it would have been as deathless +as the one over the Countess of Pembroke:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +“Underneath this sable hearst<br> +Lies the subject of all verse<br> +Sidney’s sister—Pembroke’s mother<br> +Death, ere thou hast slain another<br> +Learned and fair and good as she<br> +Time shall throw a dart at thee.”<br> +</div> + +<p>It should be borne in mind that clerks +and sextons were not the only ignorant +people in and about Stratford. There +were some that had a grievance, or +thought they had, which parish clerks +and sextons had not. We have reference +to the poor debtors, who regarded Shakspere +of Stratford as a grasping usurer, +hard upon poor people in his power, so +the curse inscribed slab was placed over +Shakspere’s grave as a shield to protect +his ashes from those who would not hesitate +to invade the tomb of one whose +memory had become hateful to them. If +in pressing his claim the money lender<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">[127]</span> +elects to be a tormentor, his name will be +execrated while living and a hateful +memory when dead.</p> + +<p>One thing is evidenced by the maledictory +epitaph; that the one who wrote it +was afraid the tomb might be violated by +the removal of the bones to the <ins id="TN15" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: charnal">charnel</ins> +house. Who were they that would most +likely invade Shakspere’s tomb? Obviously +those, we repeat, who regarded +him as a hard-hearted man, who pressed +poor debtors with all the rigor of the law +to enforce the payment of petty sums; +the man who had shown himself supremely +selfish in an attempt to enclose the Stratford +common field; the man who would +be made “a gentleman” by misrepresentation, +fraud and falsehood. The foregoing +facts, and the legal and municipal +evidence bound up in dusty records, a +bogus coat-of-arms, and a rude epitaph, +tell the true story of the life of William +Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon.</p> + +<p>There is no record of any pretended +living likeness of Shakspere better representing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">[128]</span> +him than the Stratford bust. +This bust is erected on the north side of +the chancel of Holy Trinity Church at +Stratford-on-Avon. On the floor of the +chancel in front of the monument are the +graves of Shakspere and his family. We +have no means of ascertaining when the +monument and bust were erected. The +first folio edition of his reputed works +was published in 1623. It contained +words from Leonard Diggs prefatory +lines “and time dissolves thy Stratford +moniment,” monument being used interchangeably +with tomb; but these words +do not prove that the bust was set up before +1623. His image was rudely cut, +sensual and clownish in appearance.</p> + +<p>There is not a tittle of evidence adduced +to show that a knowledge of Shakspere’s +putative authorship of poems and plays +was current at Stratford when the first +folio edition of his reputed works was +published in 1623. The records attest +that Shakspere’s fame reputatively as +writer is posterior to this event. How<span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">[129]</span> +strange it must seem to those who claim +for Shakspere an established reputation +as poet and dramatist of repute anterior +to the first folio edition in 1623, that Dr. +Hall, himself an author and most advantaged +of all the heirs by Shakspere’s +death, should fail to mention his father-in-law +in his “cure-book” or observations! +The earliest dated cure is 1617, the +year following Shakspere’s death, but +there are undated ones. In “Obs. XIX.” +Hall mentions without date an illness of +his wife, Mrs. Hall; and we find him +making a note long afterwards in reference +to his only daughter, Elizabeth, who +was saved by her father’s skill and +patience. “Thus was she delivered from +death and deadly diseases and was well +for many years.” The illness of Drayton +is recorded without date in “Obs. +XXII.,” with its wee bit of a literary +biography, and he is referred to as “Mr. +Drayton, an excellent poet.” Had Shakspere +received a like mention as a poet or +writer by one who knew him so intimately,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">[130]</span> +what a delicious morsel it would have +been to all those who have followed the +literary antiquarian through the dreary +barren waste of Shakespearean research. +We have found nothing but husks, and +these, eulogists of Shakespeare—Hallam, +Stevens and Emerson—refused to crunch! +For nearly three centuries the Stratford +archives have contained all matters concerning +Shakspere’s life and character, +and have given us full knowledge of the +man; nothing has been lost; but of his +alleged literary life, there is not a crumb, +no family traditions, no books, no manuscripts, +no letters, no commendatory +verses, plays, masques or anthology.</p> + +<p>The biographers of Shakespeare have +none of the material out of which poets +and dramatists are made, but only those +facts which are congruous with money +lenders, land speculators, play-brokers +and actors; also, a good assortment of +apocryphal stores and gossipy yarns +which have become traditional currency. +According to Mark Twain there is something<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">[131]</span> +more. He says, “When we find a +vague file of chipmunk tracks stringing +through the dust of Stratford village +we know that Hercules has been +along.” Again he proceeds, “The bust, +too, there in the Stratford church, the +precious bust, the calm bust with a dandy +mustache, and the putty face unseamed +with care—that face which has looked +passionlessly down upon the awed pilgrim +for a hundred and fifty years, and +will look down upon the awed pilgrim +three hundred more with the deep, deep, +deep, subtle, subtle, subtle expression of +a bladder.”</p> + +<p>Not having found the slightest trace of +Shakespeare in 1592 as writer of plays, +or as adapter or elaborator of other men’s +work, his advent into literature must +have been at a later date, if at all. In +1593 “Venus and Adonis” appeared in +print with a dedication to Lord Southampton, +and signed “William Shakespeare.” +In 1594 appeared another poem, +“Lucrece,” also with a dedication to Lord<span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">[132]</span> +Southampton. The poems bore no name +of an author on the title page. Here is +literary tangibility, but does it establish +the identity of their author, or attest the +responsibility of the young Stratford man +for the poems which were published under +the name of Shakespeare? This was +the first mention of the now famous +name? Was it a pseudonym, or was it +the true name of the author of the poem? +The enthusiastic reception of the poems +awakens a suspicion when we learn that +their popularity was due to a belief in +their lasciviency; and that the dedicatee +was the rakish Henry <ins id="TN16" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: Worthesley">Wriothesley</ins>, third +Earle of Southampton; and, furthermore, +that the name of the dedicator, “Shakespeare,” +was one of a class of nicknames +which in 1593 still retained in some measure +that which was derisive in them. In +1487 a student at Oxford changed his +own name of “Shakespeare” into “Saunders,” +because he considered it too expressive +and distinctive of rough manners, +and significant of degradation, and as<span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">[133]</span> +such was unwilling to aid in its hereditary +transmission, when all that is derisive +in the name Shakspere remained +fixed and fossilized in the old meaning. +In those unlettered times, lascivious persons +were sometimes branded, so to speak, +with the nickname “Shakspere.” Primarily, +the name has no militant signification. +There is no such personal name +in any known list of British surnames. +They are of the parvenu class without +ancestry.</p> + +<p>Mr. Sidney Lee admits that the Earle +of Southampton is the only patron of +Shakspere that is known to biographical +research (p. 126). By what fact, or +facts, may we ask, is the authenticity of +the Earl’s friendship or patronage attested? +Southampton was the standing +patron of all the poets, the stock-dedicatee +of those days. It was the fashion +of the times to pester him with dedications +by poets grave and gay. They were +after those five or six pounds, which custom +constrained his Lordship to yield for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">[134]</span> +having his name enshrined in poet’s lines. +All the poets of that age were dependents, +and there is, with few exceptions, the +same display of pharisaic sycophancy, +greediness, and on the part of dedicatee +an inordinate desire for adulation. Every +student of Elizabethan literature and +history should know that the Southampton-Shakspere +friendship cannot be +traced biographically. The Earl of +Southampton was a voluminous correspondent, +but did not bear witness to his +friendship for Shakspere. A scrutinous +inspection of Southampton’s papers contained +in the archives of his family, descendants +and contemporaries, yields +nothing in support of the contention that +Southampton’s friendship, or patronage, +is known to biographical research, and it +is as attestative as that other apocryphal +story preserved by Rowe “which is fast +disappearing from Shakespearean biography.”</p> + +<p>“There is one instance so singular in +its munificence that if we had not been<span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">[135]</span> +assured that the story was handed down +by Sir William Davenant, who was +probably very well acquainted with his +affairs, we should not venture to have +inserted that my Lord Southampton at +one time gave him (Shakspere) a thousand +pounds, to enable him to go through +with a purchase which he heard he had +a mind to.” (Davenant was the man +who gave out that he was the natural son +of Shakspere). A present of a thousand +pounds which equals at least twenty-five +thousand dollars to-day! The magnitude +of the gift discredits the story nevertheless, +the startled Rowe, is the first to +make it current, but does not give his +readers the ground for his assurance. Be +it what it may, he could hardly satisfy +the modern reader that this man, a son, +who insinuatingly defiles the name and +fair fame of his own mother, is a credible +witness, or that such a man is “fit for +wolf bait.” What purchase did Shakspere +“go through with?” Not New Place +in 1597, for the purchase money was only<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">[136]</span> +sixty pounds. Neither could it have been +the Stratford estate in 1602, for at that +time Southampton was a prisoner in the +Tower. In fact, the whole sum expended +by Shakspere did not amount to a thousand +pounds in all. The truth is, the social +Rules of Tudor and Jacobin times +did not permit peer and peasant to live +on terms of mutual good feeling. Almost +all the poets in hope of gain, penned +adulatory sonnets in praise of Lord +Southampton. In those times they had a +summary way of dealing with humble +citizens. Jonson, Chapman and Marston, +were imprisoned for having displeased +the king by a jest in “Eastward Ho,”—</p> + +<p>“A nobleman to vindicate rank brought +an action in the star-chamber against a +person, who had orally addressed him +as ‘Goodman Morley.’” The literati +of those days found in scholastic +learning, neither potency, nor promise, +to abrogate class distinctions by +giving a passport to high attainment +in literature, poetry and philosophy.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">[137]</span> +Ben Jonson says, “The time was when +men were had in price for learning, +now letters only make men vile. He +is upbraidingly called a poet as if it +were a contemptible nickname.”</p> + +<p>Mr. Lee tells us, that the state papers +and business correspondence of Southampton +were enlivened by references to +his literary interest and his sympathy +with the birth of English Drama. (P. +316.). “However, Mr. Lee has extracted +no reference to Shakspere from the +paper.” Southampton’s zest for the +theatre is based on the statement +contained in the “Sidney Papers” +that he and his friend Lord Rutland +“come not to court but pass +away the time merely in going to plays +every day.” When a new library for +his old college, St. Johns, was in course +of construction, Southampton collected +books to the value of three hundred and +sixty pounds wherewith to furnish it. +Southampton’s literary tastes and sympathy +with the drama cannot be drawn<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">[138]</span> +from his gift to the library, for it consisted +largely of legends of the saints and +mediaeval chronicles. When and where +did William Shakspere acknowledge his +obligations to the only patron of the +player? According to Mr. Lee, who is +known to biographical research, not one +of the Shakespearean plays was dedicated +to Southampton. The name +“Shakspere” is conspicuously absent +from among the distinguished writers of +his day, who in panegyrical speech and +song acclaimed Southampton’s release +from prison in 1602.</p> + +<p>Francis Meres, a pedantic schoolmaster +and Divinity student, had his “<ins id="TN17" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: Palladin">Palladis</ins> +Tamia” registered September 7, +1598, and published shortly after. Meres +in his “Tamia” writes of the mellifluous +and honey-tongued Shakespeare, and his +“Venus and Adonis,” and his “Lucrece,” +and his sugared sonnets to his friends, +and enumerates twelve plays—though at +the time three only had been published +with his name. Like others of his contemporaries,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">[139]</span> +Meres writes tritely of the +honey-tongued, the honey sweet and the +sugared. With him, everything written +is mellifluent, but he says nothing of the +man. In fact, no contemporary left on +record any definite impression of Shakespeare’s +personal character. Meres asserted +that Ben Jonson was one of our +best poets for tragedy, when at that time +(1598) Jonson had not written a single +tragedy, and but one comedy.</p> + +<p>Before, we transcribe, in part, “Wits +Treasury” by Francis Meres, we ask +the readers’ pardon for this abuse of their +patience, for Meres merely repeats names +of Greek, Latin and modern play-makers. +“As these tragic poets flourished in +Greece—Aeschylus, Euripides” (in all +seventeen are named and these among the +Latin, Accius, M. Attilus, Seneca and +several others). “So these are our best +for tragedy; the Lord Buckhurst, Dr. +Leg of Cambridge, Dr. Eds of Oxford, +Master Edward Ferris—the author of +the ‘Merriour for Magistrates,’—Marlowe,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">[140]</span> +Peele, Watson, Kyd, Shakespeare, +Drayton, Chapman, Decker and Benjamin +Jonson. The best poets for comedy”—(Meres +proceeds with his enumeration, +naming sixteen Greeks and ten +Latins, twenty-six in all.) “So the best +for comedy amongst us be Edward, Earl +of Oxford; Dr. Lager of Oxford; Master +Rowley; Master Edwards: eloquent +and wittie John Lilly; Lodge; Gascoyne; +Greene; Shakespeare; Thomas +Nash; Thomas Heywood; Anthony +Munday. Our best plotters: Chapman, +Porter, Wilson, Hathaway and Henry +Chettle.”</p> + +<p>Meres does not seem to have considered +it necessary to read before reviewing. +Had he done so he would not have placed +the name of Lord Buckhurst first in his +list, giving primacy to this mediocrist, and +the author of “Romeo and Juliet,” whoever +he was, ninth in his list of dramatic +poets which he considered best among the +English for tragedy; nor, would he have +named for second place on the list Dr.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">[141]</span> +Leg of Cambridge, instead of the author +of “The Jew of Malta” (Marlowe). +What has Dr. Eds of Oxford, whose name +stands third in the Meres list, written +that he should have been mentioned in the +same connection with the author of “The +White Devil” (Webster) or the author +of that classic “The Conspiracy,” and +“The Tragedy of Charles Duke of Byron” +(Chapman)? Why this commingling +of such insignificant writers as +Edward, Earl of Oxford, Lord Buckhurst, +Drs. Lager and Leg, with the giant +brotherhood? The fact is, so far as attesting +the responsibility of anybody or +anything, the Meres averments are as +worthless as “a musty nut.” What was +said of <ins id="TN18" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: John Aubury">John Aubrey</ins> is also true of Francis +Meres, “His brain was like a hasty +pudding whose memory and judgment +and fancy were all stirred together.” +Yet this is the writer that many Shakespearean +commentators confidently appeal +to, in part, and whose testimony, in part, +they, with equal unanimity impeach.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">[142]</span></p> + +<p>The slight mention of Shakespeare by +the “judicious Webster,” as Hazlet calls +him, comprehends no more than that +Shakspere was one of the hack writers of +the day: “detraction is the sworn friend +to ignorance.” For mine own part I +have ever truly cherished “my good opinion +of other men’s worthy labours, +especially of that full and heightened +style of Master Chapman, the laboured +and understanding works of Master +Jonson, the no less worthy composures +of the both worthily excellent Master +Beaumont and Fletcher, and lastly +(without wrong last to be named) the +right happy and copious industry of +Master Shakespeare, Master Dekker +and Master Heywood.”</p> + +<p>These words written by the third greatest +of English tragic poets are very significant, +for Webster wrote for the theatre +to which Shakspere, the player and +play-broker, belonged; yet industry is the +only distinguishing mark in Shakspere +which he must share with Dekker, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">[143]</span> +Heywood, hack writers for the stage. +Dekker’s many plays attest his copious +industry, when we remember that this +writer spent three years in prison, and +Heywood’s industry cannot be doubted +for he claimed to have had a hand and +main finger in two hundred twenty plays. +Copious industry signifies to the reader +the existence of an author not utterly +unknown, it is true, but it fails to identify +him as the author of the immortal plays. +What shall we say then? Were the works +called Shakespeare’s but little known? +Shakspere’s biographers say that they +were the talk of the town. If that is true, +then the writer who was commended for +industry was not regarded by Webster as +the author of “Hamlet,” “Lear,” and +“Macbeth,” for Shakespeare’s distinctive +characteristics are not individualized +from those of Dekker and Heywood, +while those of Chapman, Jonson, Beaumont +and Fletcher are. In the last four +named is perfect interlacement of personality<span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">[144]</span> +with authorship, but not so in +Shakespeare.</p> + +<p>John Webster’s judgment of his fellow +craftsman was just, “I have ever truly +cherished my good opinion of other +men’s worthy labours.” Webster never +conceals or misrepresents the truth by +giving evasive, or equivocating, evidence. +He reveals the judicial trait of his character +in placing Chapman first among +the poets then living, assuming that the +name Shakespeare was used by printers +and publishers, if not by writers, as an +impersonal name, masking the name of a +true poet. Sidney, Marlowe and Spencer +had then descended to the tomb.</p> + +<p>George Chapman’s name has not received +due prominence in the modern +hand-books of English literature, but he +was a bright torch and numbered by his +own generation, among the greatest of its +poets. He, whom Webster calls the +“Prince’s Sweet Homer” and “My +Friend,” was not unduly honored by the +“full and heightened style” which Webster<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">[145]</span> +makes characteristic of him. “Our +Homer-Lucan,” as he was gracefully +termed by Daniel, is a poet much admired +by great men. Edmund Waller never +could read Chapman’s Homer without a +degree of transport. Barry is reputed to +have said that when he went into the +street after reading it, men seemed ten +feet high; Coleridge declares Chapman’s +version of the Odyssey to be as truly an +original poem as the “Faerie Queene.” +He also declares that Chapman in his +moral heroic verse stands above Ben Jonson. +“There is more dignity, more lustre, +and equal strength.”</p> + +<p>Translation was in those times a new +force in literature. By the indomitable +force and fire of genius Chapman has +made Homer himself speak English by +translating the genius, and by having +chosen that which prefers the spirit to +the letter. It is in his translation that +the “Iliad” is best read as an English +book. Out of it there comes a whiff of +the breath of Homer. It is as massive<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">[146]</span> +and majestic as Homer himself would +have written in the land of the virgin +queen. “He has added,” says Swinburne, +“a monument to the temple which contains +the glories of his native language, +the godlike images, and the costly relics +of the past.” “The earnestness and +passion,” says Charles Lamb, “which +he has put into every part of these poems +would be incredible to a reader of +mere modern translations. His almost +Greek zeal for the honor of his heroes +is only paralleled by that fierce spirit of +Hebrew bigotry with which Milton, as +if personating one of the zealots of the +old law, clothed himself when he sat +down to paint the acts of Samson +against the uncircumcised.” It was the +reflected Hellenic radiance of the grand +old Chapman version to the lifted eyes of +Keats flooded with the “light which +never was on sea or shore.” This +younger poet sang:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">[147]</span></p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +“Much have I traveled in the realms of gold,<br> +And many goodly states and kingdoms seen,<br> +Round many western islands have I been,<br> +Which bards in fealty to Apollo hold;<br> +Oft of one wide expanse had I been told<br> +That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne<br> +Yet did I never breathe its pure serene<br> +Till I heard Chapman speak out loud and bold.”<br> +</div> + +<p>The preface to Webster’s tragedy, +“The White Devil,” which contains a +slight mention of Shakespeare, was +printed in 1612, after all the immortal +plays were written and their reputed author +had returned to Stratford, probably +in 1611, in his forty-seventh year, where +he lived idly for five years before his +death. John Webster possessed a critical +faculty and an independent judgment, +but the way he makes mention of +Shakespeare shows that he knew nothing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">[148]</span> +about the individual man, or the work, +called Shakespeare.</p> + +<p>The generous reference to “The laboured +and understanding works of +Master Jonson” gives a clear idea of the +main characteristics of the work of Jonson, +who, not having reached the fruition +of his renown in 1611, but in the after +time, came into Dryden’s view as “The +greatest man of the last age, the most +learned and judicious writer any theatre +ever had.” John Webster writes of +“the no less worthy composures of Beaumont +and Fletcher” then in the morning +of life. They present an admirable +model for purity of vocabulary and simplicity +of expression and were of “loudest +fame.” “Two of Beaumont’s and +Fletcher’s plays were acted to one of +Shakespeare’s, or Ben Jonson’s,” in +Dryden’s time.</p> + +<p>There is strong presumptive proof that +printers and publishers in Elizabethan +and Jacobin times were in the habit of selecting +names or titles that would best<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">[149]</span> +sell their books. The most popular books +or best sellers they printed were books of +songs, love-tales, comedies and sonnets of +the amorous, scented kind, and it mattered +not to publishers if the name +printed on the title-page was a personal +name, or one impersonal. Title-pages +were not even presumptive proof of authorship +in the time of Queen Elizabeth +and King James. The printers chose to +market their publications under the most +favorable conditions, and some writers +chose the incognizable name “Shakespeare” +which had been attached to the +voluptuous poem “Venus and Adonis.” +This was published by Richard Field, in +whose name it had been entered in the +Stationer’s Register in 1593. There was +no name of an author on the title-page, +but the dedication was to the Earl of +Southampton and was signed “William +Shakespeare.” This was the first appearance +of the name “Shakespeare” in +literature, being the non-de-plume, doubtless, +of the writer who gave this erotic<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">[150]</span> +poem to the world—“The first heir of my +invention.”</p> + +<p>Not finding “Shakespeare” in the anthology +of his day, the most natural inference +would be that all those who wrote +under the name “Shakespeare” wrote incognito. +We know that Marlowe, Beaumont, +Greene, Drayton and many writers +of that age wrote anonymously for the +Elizabethan stage. Many of the anonymous +writings have been retrieved; much, +doubtless, remains still to be reclaimed +from the siftings of what are named +Early Comedy, Early History, and Pre-Shakespearean +Group of plays. Mr. +Spedding had the good fortune to be the +first to demonstrate the theory of a divided +authorship of “Henry VIII.,” to +reclaim for Fletcher “Wolsey’s Farewell +to all his Greatness.” Thirteen out of +the seventeen scenes of “Henry the +Eighth” are attributed by Mr. Lee (P. +212) to Fletcher. A majority of the best +critics now agree with Miss Jane Lee, in +the assignment of the second and third<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">[151]</span> +part of Henry VI. to Marlowe, Greene +and Peele.</p> + +<p>The difficulty of identifying Shakespeare, +the author poet, with the young +man who came up from Stratford, has +induced Shakespearean scholars to question +the unity of authorship. Mr. Swinburne +tells us that no scholar believes in +the single authorship of “Andronicus.” +Mr. Lee admits that Shakespeare drew +largely on the “Hamlet,” which he has +attributed to Kyd (P. 182). “It is +scarcely possible,” says Mr. Marshall in +the “Irving Shakespeare,” “to maintain +that the play ‘(Hamlet)’ referred to as +well known in 1589, could have been by +Shakspere—that is—by the young actor +from Stratford. Surely not. We see +the question of the unity of the author +and authorship involves the question of +his identity.” It is evident that the author +poet, whoever he was, had, in his +time of initiation, “purloyned plumes” +from Marlowe, Kyd and Greene, and, +when nearing the close of his literary<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">[152]</span> +career, according to Prof. A. H. Thorndike, +he was a close imitator of John +Fletcher—not so much an innovator as an +adapter.</p> + +<p>What do we know of Shakespeare, the +author poet, “The Man in a Mask?” We +know nothing, absolutely nothing. No +reputed play by Shakespeare was published +before 1597, and none bore the +name Shakespeare on the title page till +1598. Lodge, in his prose satire “Wits +Misery,” dated 1596, enumerates the +wits of the time. Shakspere is not mentioned. +Dr. Peter Heylys was born in +1600, and died in 1662, thus being sixteen +years old when Shakspere, the player +died. In reckoning up the famous dramatic +poets of England he omits Shakspere. +Ben Jonson, in the catalogue of +writers, also omits Shakspere, and at a +later date, writing on the instruction of +youth and the best authors, he forgets all +about Shakspere. Philip Henslow, the +old play-broker, also in writing his notebook +during the twelve years beginning<span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">[153]</span> +in February, 1591, does not even mention +Shakspere. Milton’s poem on Shakespeare +(1630) was not published in his +works in 1645. This epitaph was prefixed +to the folio edition of Shakespeare +(1632), but without Milton’s name. It is +the first of his reputed poems that was +published. Its pedigree was not at all +satisfactory. Milton, having been misled +by Ben Jonson’s lines on Shakespeare, +“And though thou hadst small Latin and +less Greek,” writes of</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +“Sweetest Shakespeare, Fancy’s child,<br> +Warbles his native woodnotes wild.”<br> +</div> + +<p>Milton’s acquaintance with Shakespeare +verse must have been very meager, +for had he read “Venus and Adonis,” so +classic and formal, he would agree with +Walter Savage Lander that “No poet was +ever less a warbler of woodnotes wild.” +It was never said in the original authorities +that a Shakespeare play, or one by +Shakspere, was played between 1594 and +1614. There were published in quarto<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">[154]</span> +twenty-three plays in Shakespeare’s +name—twelve of which are not now accepted—and +nine without his name. The +folio (1623) is the sole original authority +for seventeen plays, but five writers—four +of them very inferior men—refer to +Shakespeare, antecedent to the folio of +1623.</p> + +<p>Search as we may, we fail to find the +play-actor in affiliation with poets or +scholars. How unlike the literary men +of that age; for instance, George Chapman, +who had been called the “blank of +his age,” and not without reason for, in +all that pertains to the poet’s personal +history, absolutely nothing is known in +regard to his family, and very little of his +own private life. Much, however, is +known concerning Chapman’s personal +authorship of poems and plays for the +list of passages extracted from his poems +in “England’s Parnassus” or the “Choicest +Flowers of Our Modern Poets” contains +no less than eighty-one. At the time +of this publication (1600), he had published<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">[155]</span> +but two plays and three poems. +“The proud full sail of his great verse” +(Chapman’s Homer) had not at this time +been unfurled.</p> + +<p>At the time, this first English anthology +was compiled and published, thirteen +of the Shakespeare plays and two poems +had been issued. Nevertheless Shakespeare +does not figure in the anthology of +his day. Why? The play-actor, William +Shakspere, in his life time was not +publicly credited with the personal authorship +of the plays and poems called +Shakespeare’s, except possibly by three +or four poeticules, Bomfield, Freeman, +Meres, and Weaver, who followed each +other in the iteration and reiteration of +the same insipid and affected compliments, +not one of them implying a personal +acquaintance with the author. Some +few persons may have believed that the +player and play-wright were one and the +same person, and were deceived into so +believing. This much we do know, that +the player Shakspere never openly sanctioned<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">[156]</span> +the identification, although he may +have been accessory to the deception. It +should be borne in mind also that no poet +was remembered in Shakspere’s will, as +were the actors.</p> + +<p>Many writers of that age were communistic +in the use of the name “Shakespeare” +as a descriptive title, very much +like the Italians’ pantomime called “Silverspear,” +standing for the collocuted +works of not one, but several play-makers. +Sir Thomas Brown complained +that his name was being used to float +books that he never wrote. In the list before +us there are forty-nine plays which +were published with Shakespeare’s name. +Doubtless there were many others: not +one in fifty of the dramas of this period, +according to Hallowell-Philips, having +descended to modern times. Many writers +of that age wrote anonymously and +pseudonymously. Edmund Spencer, author +of “The Shepherd’s Calendar” remained +incognito for seven years. Eight +years after this work appeared George<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">[157]</span> +Whitstone ascribed it to Philip Sidney +and a cotemporary writer, mistaking +Spencer’s masking name for the author +of the works. Spencer committed “The +Faerie Queen” to the press after nine +years. Only four of Beaumont and +Fletcher’s plays were published in +Fletcher’s lifetime and none of them bore +Beaumont’s name. Fletcher survived +his partner nine years. Robert Burton, +author of “The Anatomy of Melancholy,” +maintained his incognito for a time, he +avers, because it gave him greater freedom. +Jean Baptiste <ins id="TN19" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: Popuelin">Poquelin</ins> preferred +to be known as <ins id="TN20" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: Moliere">Molière</ins>. Francais-Marie +Aronet won enduring fame as Voltaire. +Sir Walter Scott maintained his incognito +as the great unknown for years like +“Junius,” “whose secret was intrusted to +no one and was never to be revealed.” +Sir Walter Scott preserved his secret until +driven to the brink of financial destruction. +Drayton also had written +under the pseudonym of Rowland. Who +can doubt that the author of “Hamlet,”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">[158]</span> +“Lear” and “Macbeth,” chose to sheath +his private life and personality as a man +of letters in an impenetrable incognito—“the +nothingness of a name.”</p> + +<p>Of the thirty-seven plays assigned by +the folio of 1623, not one had received the +acknowledgment of their reputed author +(Shakespeare). Not a single line in +verse or prose assented to for comparison +and identification, and in the absence of +credible evidence of his authorship of +certain poems, there can be no authoritative +sanction of the assignment.</p> + +<p>No person writing on the subject of +Shakespeare can write a literary life of +the individual man, for player Shakspere +of Stratford-on-Avon does not offer a +single point of correspondence to the activities +of a literary man or scholar. The +fantastical critics profess to read the +story of the author’s life in his works. +This is an absurdity, for dramatic art is +mainly character creation and cannot be +made to disclose a knowledge of his private +life. The artist is an observer and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">[159]</span> +paints the thing seen. He, himself, is not +the thing which he depicts but he gives +the character as it is. In the opinion of +the present writer it is a waste of time to +attempt to identify Shakspere, the play-actor, +with any one of the dramatic personages +contained in the plays called +Shakespeare’s.</p> + +<p>Forty-six years after the death of William +Shakspere of Stratford, Thomas +Fuller in his “Worthies,” published +posthumously in 1662, wrote:</p> + +<p>“Many were the wit-combats between +him and Ben Jonson, which two I behold +like a Spanish great galleon and an +English man-of-war.”</p> + +<p>Fuller being born in 1608, was only +eight years old when player-Shakspere +died, and but two when he quitted London. +If this precocious youngster beheld +the “wit-combats” of the two, he could +only have beheld them as he lay “mewling +and puking in his nurse’s arms.”</p> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">[160]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="VI">VI.</h2> +</div> + + +<p>We have in conclusion decided to focus +the interest of the reader chiefly in +the attestation of Ben Jonson for the +works which were associated with the +name of William Shakspere of Stratford. +Ben Jonson presents a contrast to William +Shakspere, in almost every respect, +so striking as to awaken an irrepressible +desire to compare the mass of proven +facts adduced from authentic records. +Being born in the city of London in the +early part of 1574, he was ten years +younger than Shakspere. He was the son +of a clergyman. In spite of poverty he +was educated at Westminster School, +William Camden being his tutor, to whom +Jonson refers as “Camden, most reverend +head, to whom I owe all that I am—in +arts all that I owe.” A recent writer on +the subject of Jonson says, “No other of +Shakspere’s contemporaries has left so +splendid and so enthusiastic an eulogy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">[161]</span> +of the master.” In this statement all +must concur, for Jonson is the only +writer of eminence among Shakspere’s +cotemporaries, who has left words of +praise or censure, or have taken any notice, +either of Shakspere, or of the works +which bear his name; notwithstanding, it +was the custom among literary men of +the day to belaud their friends in verse or +prose, Shakspere in his lifetime was honored +with no mark of Ben Jonson’s admiration. +Not a single line of commendatory +verse was addressed to Shakspere +by Jonson, although this promiscuous +panegyrist was, with characteristic extravagance, +so indiscriminate in sympathy +or patronage. What shrimp was +there among hack writers who could not +gain a panegyric from his generous +tongue?</p> + +<p>For five and twenty years Shakspere +and Jonson jostled in London streets, yet +there was no sign or word of recognition +as they passed each other by. Writers on +the subject of Jonson and Shakspere say<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">[162]</span> +that we have abundant tradition of their +close friendship. There are no credible +traditions. The manufactured traditions, +so conspicuous in books called, “A Life +of William Shakspere,” are the dreams +of fancy, fraud and fiction, used to fill +the lacuna, or gap, in the life of the Stratford +man.</p> + +<p>The proven facts of William Shakspere’s +life are facts unassociated with authorcraft—facts +that prove the isolation +and divorcement of player and poet. The +proven facts of Ben Jonson’s life are +facts interlacing man and poet. Almost +every incident in his life reveals his personal +affection, or bitter dislike, for his +fellow craftsmen, always ready for a +quarrel, arrogant, vain, boastful and vulgar. +There is much truth in Dekker’s +charge, “’Tis thy fashion to flirt ink in +every man’s face and then crawl into +his bosom.” He had many quarrels +with Marston, beat him, and wrote his +<ins id="TN21" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: “Poetaster on him.”">“Poetaster” on him.</ins> He was federated +in a comedy “(Eastward Ho)” with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">[163]</span> +Chapman, and was sent to prison for libeling +the Scottish nobility. Ben Jonson’s +personality and literary work are +inseparable. Drunk or sober, few have +served learning with so much pertinacity, +and fewer still, have so successfully challenged +admiration even from literary rivals, +with whom at times he was most bitterly +hostile, and at other times, indisputably +open-handed and jovial.</p> + +<p>Ben Jonson had a literary environment +always for there is perfect interlacement +of man and craft. He became +one of the most prolific writers of his age +occupying among the men of his day a +position of literary supremacy. “In the +forty years of his literary career he collected +a library so extensive that Gifford +doubted whether any library in +England was so rich in scarce and valuable +books.” From the pages of Isaac +De Israeli we read, “No poet has left behind +him so many testimonials of personal +fondness by inscriptions and +addresses in the copies of his works<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">[164]</span> +which he presented to his friends.” But +of all these, as strange as it must seem to +the votaries of Shakspere, not a single +copy of Jonson’s works is brought forward +to bear witness of his personal regard +and admiration for Shakspere, and +we may add that there is no testimonial +by Shakspere of his regard and personal +fondness for Ben Jonson, although many +of the literary antiquaries have unearthed +in their researches facts or new +discoveries, which they have brought forward +as new particulars of the life of +William Shakspere. These, if not incompatible +with authorship, are surely divorcing +Shakspere, the actor, from +Shakespeare, the author poet. They but +deepen the mystery that surrounds the +personality of the author of the immortal +plays—“The shadow of a mighty name.” +At the same time they disclose the true +character of Shakspere the actor, money-lender, +land-owner and litigant, which is +affirmative of John Bright’s opinion +that “any man who believes that William<span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">[165]</span> +Shakspere of Stratford wrote ‘Hamlet’ +or ‘Lear’ is a fool.”</p> + +<p>The student reader will perceive that +Jonson’s verse does not agree with his +prose, and that his “Ode to Shakespeare,” +which Dryden called “an insolent, +sparing, and invidious, panegyric,” +was not the final word of comment which +is contained in Ben Jonson’s “Discoveries”—a +prose reference in disparagement +of Shakespeare, the writer, while +laudatory of the man whom he may have +believed was identifiable with the play-wright. +We believe he was mistaken in +so believing. Ben Jonson was vulnerable +most in his character as a witness. The +reader must therefore be indulgent if we +make some remarks upon the credibility +and competency of this witness. The +elder writers on the subject of Jonson +and Shakespeare before Gifford’s time +(1757-1826) were always harping on Ben +Jonson’s jealousy and envy of Shakespeare. +Since Gifford’s day the antiquary +has been abroad in the land without having<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">[166]</span> +discovered anything of a literary life +of Shakespeare. As if by general consent, +all recent writers on the subject regard +Jonson’s attestation, or his metrical tribute, +to the “memory of my beloved author, +Mr. <ins id="TN22" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: William Shakespeare, “an">William Shakespeare, an</ins> essential +element in Shakespeare’s biography +as the title deed of authorship.” +Having made him their star witness, we +shall hear no more of Jonson’s jealousy +and envy of Shakespeare.</p> + +<p>A final consideration will show how little +Ben Jonson is to be relied on “as attesting +the responsibility of the Stratford +player for the works which are +associated with his name.” There is not +a word or sentence in all Jonson’s writings +which bear witness to Shakspere as +a writer of plays or poems anterior to the +Stratford player’s death, as all reference +to Shakespeare in Jonson’s verse and +prose are posterior to this event. They +refute each other and discredit the +writer. “Conversations of Ben Jonson +with William Drummond” are of great<span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">[167]</span> +literary and historical value and are important +too, as bearing on Ben Jonson’s +competency and credibleness as a witness. +The Drummond notes were first +printed by Mr. David Lang, who discovered +them among the manuscripts of +Sir Robert Sibbald, a well known antiquarian. +“Conversations,” as we have +it on the evidence of Drummond, is in +accord with almost every contemporary +reference to Jonson and internally they +agree with Ben Jonson’s own “Discoveries.” +There should be no controversy +in regard to the justice of the Scottish +poet’s criticism. From the notes recorded +by Drummond we learn, “He +(Ben Jonson) is a great lover and +praiser of himself, a contemner and +scorner of others, especially after drink +which is one of the elements in which he +liveth.” The conversations recorded by +Drummond took place when Jonson visited +him at Hawthornden in 1618-19 and +disclose the fact that “Rare Ben” was a +vulgar, boastful, tipsy backbiter, who<span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">[168]</span> +black-guarded many of his fellow craftsmen. +The last circumstance recorded of +Ben Jonson is where reference is made to +his display of self-worship at the expense +of others. In a letter dated from Westminster +April 5, 1636, James Howell describes +a Solem supper given by Jonson +at which he and Thomas Carew were +present, when Ben seems to have +drenched himself with his favorite canary +wine. Howell writes,</p> + +<p>“I was invited yesternight to a Solem +supper by B. J. whom you deeply remember. +There was good company, excellent +cheer, choice wines, and jovial +welcome. One thing intervened which +almost spoiled the relish of the rest. +Ben began to engross all the discourse +to vapour extremely of himself and by +vilifying others to magnify his own +muse. Thomas Carew buzzed me in the +ear that Ben had barreled up a great +deal of knowledge, yet seems he had not +read the ‘Ethiques’ which, among other +precepts of morality, forbid self commendation.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">[169]</span> +But for my part I am content +to dispense with this Roman infirmity +of B’s now that time has snowed +upon his pricranium.”</p> + +<p>The reader is not unmindful that the +language of Ben Jonson is sometimes +grossly opprobrious, sometimes basely +adulatory, while his laudatory verses +on Shakespeare, Silvester, Beaumont +and other cotemporary writers, are in +striking contrast by the discrepancy of +testimony disclosed by his prose works +and conversations. In the memorial +verses Jonson tells us Shakespeare stood +alone—“Alone for the comparison of all +that insolent Greece or haughty Rome +sent forth or since did from their ashes +come.” The strictest scrutiny, however, +into the life and works of Ben Jonson +fails to denote his actual acquaintance +with the works of the greatest genius +of our world. What became of his +enthusiastic eulogy of Shakespeare, when +“from my house in the Black-Friars this +11th day of February, 1607” Ben Jonson<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">[170]</span> +writes his dedication—“Volpone” to +“The Two Famous Universities,” which +should have disclosed his close friendship +with, and admiration for, William +Shakespeare, for the great dramatist was +then in the zenith of his power. The dedication +of “Volpone” was written nine +years before the death of William Shakspere, +the player, when Jonson declared +“I shall raise the despised head of poetry +again and stripping her out of those +rotten and base rags wherewith the +times have adulterated her form.”</p> + +<p>It should be remembered, that at the +time of this sweeping condemnation of +what he terms dramatic or stage-poetry, +thirty-one of the thirty-six of the immortal +Shakespearean plays were then written. +All of the very greatest—“Hamlet,” +“Lear,” “Macbeth”—were, in Ben +Jonson’s estimation in 1607, “rotten and +base rags.” While in 1623 in the +“Memorial Verses” he tells us that their +reputed author was the “soul of the +age.” “It is a legal maxim that a witness<span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">[171]</span> +who swears for both sides swears for +neither, and a rule of common law no +less than common sense that his evidence +must be ruled out.” Ben Jonson’s +egotism would, of course, preclude a just +judgment of the work of his fellow +craftsman. He felt that his own writings +were immeasurably superior. Did he +ever read the so-called Shakspere plays +before he wrote the “Ode to the Memory +of my Beloved The Author, Mr. William +Shakespeare, and What He Hath +Left Us” for the syndicate of printers? +For the affirmative of the proposition +there is not the faintest presumption of +probable evidence. Jonson often became +the generous panegyrist of poets whose +writings in all probability he never had +read. He took pleasure in commending +in verse the works of men not worthy of +his notice, and in lauding and patronizing +juvenile mediocrity and poeticules of the +gutter-snipe order. In his prefatory +remarks to the reader in “Sejanus” +there is the same display of excess<span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">[172]</span> +of commendation. Ben Jonson writes, +“Lastly I would inform you that this +book in all numbers is not the same +with that which was acted on the public +stage wherein a second pen had good +share, in place of which I have rather +chosen to put weaker and no doubt less +pleasing of my own than to defraud so +happy a genius of his right by my loathed +usurpations.”</p> + +<p>According to Dryden, Ben Jonson’s +compliments were left-handed. Nevertheless, +the words “so happy a genius” have +directed the thoughts of commentators to +Shakespeare. Mr. Nicholson, however, +has shown that the person alluded to is +not Shakespeare, but a very inferior poet, +Samuel Sheppard, who more than forty +years later claimed for himself the honor +of having collaborated in “Sejanus” with +Ben Jonson. Compliments bestowed on +inferior men of the elder time are in +later times the reprisal of Shakespearean +buccaneers; while many of Jonson’s versified +panegyrics on cotemporary poets<span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">[173]</span> +were retrieved by his withering contempt +for many of them, orally expressed, +or contained in his prose works, Shakespeare +being included among these. Still, +at the Apollo room of the Devil Tavern +were numbered the most distinguished +men of the day outside of literary circles, +as well as within, who sought his fellowship +and would gladly have sealed +themselves of the tribe of Ben. Clarendon +tells us that “his conversations were +very good and with men of most note.”</p> + +<p>The following is, in part, from the +notes recorded by William Drummond, +Laird of Hawthornden.</p> + +<p>“Conversations of Ben Jonson. His +censure of the English poets was this: +That Sidney did not keep a decorum in +making every one speak as well as himself. +Spencer’s stanzas pleased him not +nor his matter.</p> + +<p>“Samuel Daniel was a good honest +man, had no children, but no poet, and +was jealous of him; that Michael Drayton’s +long verses pleased him not—Drayton<span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">[174]</span> +feared him and he esteemed not +of him; that Donne’s ‘Anniversary’ was +profane and full of blasphemies ... +that Donne, for not keeping of accent +deserved hanging; that Shakespeare +wanted art; that Day, Dekker and Minshew +were all rogues; that Abram Francis, +in his English hexameters, was a +fool; that next to himself only Fletcher +and Chapman could make a masque.</p> + +<p>“He esteemeth John Donne the first +poet in the world in some things; that +Donne, himself, for not being understood +would perish.</p> + +<p>“Sir Henry Wotton’s verses of a +‘Happy Life’ he hath by heart, and a +piece of Chapman’s translation of the +thirteen of the ‘Iliads,’ which he thinketh +well done. That Francis Beaumont +loved too much himself and his own +verse.</p> + +<p>“He had many quarrels with Marston; +that Markham was not of the number of +the faithful, and but a base fellow; that +such were Day and Middleton; that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">[175]</span> +Chapman and Fletcher were loved of +him; that Spencer died for lack of bread +in King street; that the King said Sir +P. Sidney was no poet. Neither did he +see any verses in England to the Scullers, +meaning that John Taylor was the +best poet in England; that Shakespeare +in a play brought in a number of men +saying they had suffered shipwreck in +Bohemia where there is no sea near by +some 100 miles.</p> + +<p>“Sundry times he (Jonson) hath devoured +his books, sold them all for necessity; +that he hath consumed a whole +night in lying looking at his great toe, +about which he hath seen Carthagenians +and the Romans fighting; that the half +of his comedies were not in print; he +said to Prince Charles, of Inigo Jones, +that when he wanted words to express +the greatest villain in the world, he +would call him an ‘Inigo,’ Jones having +accused him for naming him, behind his +back, a fool, he denied it; but, says he, I +said he was an arrant knave, and I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">[176]</span> +avouch it; of all his plays he never +gained 200 pounds; he dissuaded me +from poetry for that she had beggared +him when he might have been a rich +lawyer, physician, or merchant; that +piece of the ‘Pucelle of the Court’ was +stolen out of his pocket by a gentleman +who drank him drowsy.”</p> + +<p>These occasional infractions of sobriety +by Ben Jonson when he conversed with +Drummond at Hawthornden in 1618-19 +became habitual with him long before +James Howell’s invitation to a Solem +supper by B. J. 1636.</p> + +<p>Day, Middleton, Dekker and Sir +Walter Raleigh could have instituted a +civil suit against Ben Jonson for defamation +of character, because of the defamatory +words in conversation with William +Drummond of Hawthornden, had the +notes recorded by Drummond been published +in the lifetime of the defamed. +However, they had come to regard him, +doubtless, as a notorious slanderer who +would as soon falsify as verify, and was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">[177]</span> +not to be believed in unsworn testimony +about his fellowmen or as a credible witness +as to any matter—one whose testimony +was none too good under every +sanction possible to give it. This is the +writer who gave genesis to the Stratford +myth. The matter-of-fact to be accentuated +is that the contemporaries of the +writer of the immortal plays did not know +positively who wrote them; we do not +know positively who wrote them; and our +latest posterity, when Holy Trinity’s +monuments, turrets, and towers shall have +crumbled and commingled with the +shrined dust of William Shakspere of +Stratford-on-Avon, may not know positively +who wrote them.</p> + +<p>In conclusion, it has not been our design +to point out, or suggest, who, in fact, +wrote the poems and plays, but rather to +show that the man of Stratford was by +education, temperament, character, reputation, +opportunity and calling, wholly +unequal to so transcendent a task, and +that the authorship assumed in favor of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">[178]</span> +this man, rests upon no tangible proof, +but to the contrary upon strained and farfetched +conjecture, merely.</p> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_Index_i">[i]</span></p> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="INDEX">INDEX.</h2> +<hr class="r5"> +</div> + + +<ul class="index"> +<li class="ifrst">Pages</li> + +<li class="indx">Alleyn Edward, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Addenbroke John, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> + +<li class="indx"><ins id="TN23" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: Aubury John">Aubrey John</ins>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Blank Verse, <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Bame Richard, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Burbages, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Beaumont Francis, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, + <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Burns Robert, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Burton Robert, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Bruno, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Bodley Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Betterton, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Bright John, <a href="#Page_164">164</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Brown Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Brown Richard, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Bunyan John, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Brown J. M., <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Camden William, <a href="#Page_160">160</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Chapman George, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, + <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, + <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Chettle Henry, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, + <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, + <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, + <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Collier J. P., <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Cook Dr. James, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Coleridge S. T., <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Cicero, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Combe William, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Cromwell Oliver, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Dryden John, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Drummond Sir William, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Dearborn, <a href="#Page_43">43</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Daniel Samuel, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Davis Cushman K., <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Dowland John, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Diggs Leonard, <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Dance-Scene, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Dyce A., <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Davenant Sir William, <a href="#Page_135">135</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Donne, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> + +<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_Index_ii">[ii]</span>Dekker, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Drayton, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Elizabeth Queen, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Emerson R. W., <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Fletcher John, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, + <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Fleay, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Ford John, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Farmer Dr., <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Fuller Thomas, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Garrick David, <a href="#Page_111">111</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Grosart A., <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> + +<li class="indx"><ins id="TN24" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: Greene Robert">Greene Robert</ins>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, + <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, + <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, + <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, + <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, + <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, + <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, + <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, + <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, + <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, + <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Gifford William, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Groats Worth of Wit, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, + <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Galileo, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Hathaway Richard, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Howell James, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Hall Dr. John, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Hathaway Agnes or Anne, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Herrick, <a href="#Page_45">45</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Henry VI., <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Henslowe Diary, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Henslowe Philip, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, + <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Hallam Henry, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Heywood, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Halliwell-Phillips, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Harvey Gabriel, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, + <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Ingleby Dr., <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Jonson Ben, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, + <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, + <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, + <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, + <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, + <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> + +<li class="indx">James First, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Jusserand J. J., <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Jefferson Thomas, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Kemp William, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, + <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, + <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, + <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Kyd, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Keats John, <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Kind Hearts Dreams, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Lucy Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Lincoln Abraham, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Lodge Thomas, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li> + +<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_Index_iii">[iii]</span>Lee Sidney, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> + +<li class="indx">London, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Lee Miss Jane, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Lucrece, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Lamb Charles, <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Lander Walter Savage, <a href="#Page_153">153</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Marlowe Christopher, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, + <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, + <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, + <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Milton John, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Mulcaster Richard, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Miller Joaquin, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Malone, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Mannering Arthur, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Middleton, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Massinger Phillip, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Marston John, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Meres Francis, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Nash Thomas, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, + <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, + <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, + <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Napoleon, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Nicholson Dr., <a href="#Page_172">172</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Norwich, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Overbury Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_43">43</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Peele George, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, + <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Poe Edgar Allen, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Quiney Richard, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Rathway Richard, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Rosebery Lord, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Rowe N., <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">William Shakspere the Stratfordian, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, + <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, + <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, + <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, + <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, + <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, + <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, + <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, + <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, + <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, + <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, + <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, + <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, + <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Shakespeare the Author Poet, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, + <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, + <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, + <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, + <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, + <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, + <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Shakspere John, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Shakspere Susana, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Shakspere Judith, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Shakspere Hamnet, <a href="#Page_108">108</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Shake-scene, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, + <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Shake-rags, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li> + +<li class="indx"><span class="pagenum" id="Page_Index_iv">[iv]</span>Spencer Edmund, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, + <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Stratford-on-Avon, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, + <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Sidney Sir Phillip, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Stevens George, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> + +<li class="indx"><ins id="TN25" class="corr" title="Transcriber's Note—original text: Swinburn">Swinburne</ins> A., <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Scott Sir Walter, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Strojenko Prof., <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Stratford Bust, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Spedding James, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Saunders, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Southampton Earl of, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, + <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Tarlton Richard, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Tyrwhitt Thomas, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li> + +<li class="indx">“The Nine Days Wonder”, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Twain Mark, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Thompson James, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Taft William H., <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Taylor John, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Thorndike A. H., <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Tolstoy Leo, <a href="#Page_90">90</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Upstart Crow, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Venus and Adonis, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Voltair, <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> + + +<li class="ifrst">Washington George, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Wilson Robert, Senior, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> + +<li class="indx">White Richard Grant, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Wallace Professor, <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Waller Edmund, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li> + +<li class="indx">Wately Anna, <a href="#Page_102">102</a></li> +</ul> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + + +<div class="chapter"> +<div class="transnote" id="transnote"> +TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE<br> +<br> +Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been<br> +corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within<br> +the text and consultation of external sources.<br> +<br> +Some hyphen inconsistencies are retained as printed.<br> +<br> +Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,<br> +and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.<br> +<br> +Page <a href="#TN1">21</a>. “Anti-Martnist” <i>replaced by</i> “Anti-Martinist”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN2">21</a>. “Bodelean Library” <i>replaced by</i> “Bodleian Library”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN3">24</a>. “William Rowly” <i>replaced by</i> “William Rowley”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN4">25</a>. “blamphemous” <i>replaced by</i> “blasphemous”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN5">28</a>. “amendor” <i>replaced by</i> “amender”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN6">43</a>. “Kid’s” <i>replaced by</i> “Kyd’s”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN7">47</a>. “assauged” <i>replaced by</i> “assuaged”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN8">47</a>. “Swinburn” <i>replaced by</i> “Swinburne”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN9">49</a>. “harp and pendant” <i>replaced by</i> “sharp and pendant”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN10">72</a>. “prediliction” <i>replaced by</i> “predilection”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN11">85</a>. “‘of Wit’” <i>replaced by</i> “of Wit’”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN12">118</a>. “ramsacking” <i>replaced by</i> “ransacking”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN13">121</a>. “elegaic” <i>replaced by</i> “elegiac”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN14">122</a>. ‘“Volpone,” There’ <i>replaced by</i> ‘“Volpone,” there’.<br> +Page <a href="#TN15">127</a>. “charnal” <i>replaced by</i> “charnel”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN16">132</a>. “Worthesley” <i>replaced by</i> “Wriothesley”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN17">138</a>. “Palladin” <i>replaced by</i> “Palladis”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN18">141</a>. “John Aubury” <i>replaced by</i> “John Aubrey”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN19">157</a>. “Popuelin” <i>replaced by</i> “Poquelin”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN20">157</a>. “Moliere.” <i>replaced by</i> “Molière”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN21">162</a>. ‘“Poetaster on him.”’ <i>replaced by</i> ‘“Poetaster” on him.’.<br> +Page <a href="#TN22">166</a>. ‘William Shakespeare, “an’ <i>replaced by</i> ‘William Shakespeare, an’.<br> +Page <a href="#TN23">i</a>. “Aubury John” <i>replaced by</i> “Aubrey John”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN24">ii</a>. “Robert Greene” <i>replaced by</i> “Greene Robert”.<br> +Page <a href="#TN25">iv</a>. “Swinburn” <i>replaced by</i> “Swinburne”.<br> +</div> +</div> + +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77063 ***</div> +</body> +</html> + |