When on the point of closing this chronological survey, I received the Athenæum of June 1868, and find on p. 863 an article according to which the Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James I., which P. Cunningham published for the English Shakspeare Society in 1862, and upon which the chronological determination of some of Shakspeare's plays principally depends, are strongly suspected of being forgeries. The anonymous author maintains, it is true, that the entries, which had been lost from the public archives and recently recovered, are on the whole undoubtedly genuine, but that all the entries concerning dramatic representations at Court-hence more especially the entries of The Moor of Venis on the 1st of November, 1604, of The Merry Vives of Winsor on the Sunday following, of Mesur for Mesur on St. Stephan's Night of the same year, as well as of The Tempest and of Ye winter's night's Tayle in 1611-have been added by a later (more modern?) hand; he thinks these entries were no doubt made by some one who had referred to these rolls, some leaves of which had inadvertently been left empty. The writer then adds: Who made these additions does not appear. There they are, and experts in old handwriting say they speak for themselves.'

If this supposed forgery should prove to be true, then, as I think, it would be doubtful whether Othello and Measure for Measure could have been written as early as 1604. However, as the author of the above article has not given his name, we are not yet bound to put faith in his assertions; and I am the more inclined to doubt their correctness, as it would deeply grieve me were a new case of deception by literary men again to upset the already unsteady credit of English literary historians.

BOOK VIII.

HISTORY OF SHAKSPEARE'S PLAYS IN ENGLAND.

CHAPTER I.

STATE OF DRAMATIC POETRY DURING THE 17TH CENTURY. As in the preceding Book, my object here cannot be tc enter upon new discoveries in the domain of literary history; the necessary materials for such discoveries are in the possession of Englishmen alone. My intention is merely to arrange well-known historical facts-compressed into a brief sketch - according to a few leading principles, and thus to leave history itself, as it were, to pass sentence upon the æsthetic value of Shakspeare's plays. My object here is simply to give an aesthetic consideration of Shakspeare's plays; accordingly, literary history is to me only a means, even though an indispensable means, in so far as the aesthetic consideration must, as I think, necessarily rest upon an historical foundation.

I have already, in my first volume (pp. 227. 245, 297), stated the reasons why Shakspeare's plays, although not indeed altogether supplanted by the productions of the Ben Jonson School- -more especially by those of Beaumont, Fletcher, Massinger, and others-nevertheless gradually lost the ascendancy which they had enjoyed. This rise of the Ben Jonson School and the reputation acquired by its founder is the first significant event in the history of Shakspeare's plays.

Not that this directly affected the fame and celebrity of Shakspeare, for even at the court of King James, as we

have seen, his plays remained particularly popular, notwithstanding the personal favour which Ben Jonson contrived more and more to obtain for himself. And even at a later period, after Shakspeare's death, they did not by any means disappear from the stage; they may have gradually been less frequently performed, but perhaps only because the public is ever desirous to have something new. On the contrary, Shakspeare's works evidently long continued to be general favourites and highly-esteemed, even though to a less extent than during his lifetime. G. Rümelin* maintains that it was in London alone that the drama created great and general interest, and that Shakspeare was not a national poet in his own day, that his works had never been really popular, inasmuch as his public, even in London, consisted only of the 'jeunesse dorée' of the time, of idlers from the higher ranks, especially the young cavaliers who came to London in search of love adventures, sports, and other amusements, or of the lower orders of the people, artisans, apprentices, bargemen, workmen from the wharfs and manufactories, sailors, servants, and soldiers. But this remark is but the result of Rümelin's ignorance of the true state of the case. Shakspeare's name may, I admit, not have been known throughout the whole of England; for under certain circumstances it can happen that a work may enjoy the greatest popularity, and yet the name and person of its author be known only to limited circles :were not the Greeks wholly ignorant of all concerning the person, the life and the character of their greatest and most popular poet, except his name, of which it is even now doubtful whether it is a proper name! And such circumstances, as we have seen, prevailed in Shakspeare's time, both as regards the English theatres and as regards its dramatists.

The theatre itself, however, was the most popular institution of the England of those days. To repeat a quotation from the eminent historian, Froude,† given in our last volume, acting was the special amusement of the English during the 16th century, from the palace Shakespeare-Studien, pp. 10, 16 ff.

+ History of England, etc., i. 61.

down to the village greens.' As already shown, it was not only the lords of the land who kept their own companies of players, but, as Collier has proved, mayors and aldermen of the larger towns, such as York, Coventry, Lavenham, Chester, Kingston, etc., took into their service bands of players, whom they generally allowed to give public performances at their expense and always under their control. The smaller towns, as it seems, annually invited companies of players in order to gratify the popular taste for scenic representations. For instance, the unimportant town of Stratford, during the eighteen years between 1569 and 1587, was favoured twenty-four times by visits from companies of players who were paid by the corporation of the town. And in the small borough of Leicester theatrical performances were given almost regularly every year after 1561, by companies from London; in the year 1583 even by two companies simultaneously, as Kelly⚫ has recently proved.

The universities were inspired by the same zeal for dramatic art. Of this we have evidence in the fact that in Oxford several plays were performed in June 1583 for the entertainment of a Polish prince who had been recommended to the attentions of the university by the Queen; these performances, moreover, were given under the direction of G. Peele, the well-known dramatic poet and older contemporary of Shakspeare's, who no doubt also, at his request, wrote those so-called pageants (allegorical dramatic scenes) which, according to ancient custom, were represented in the streets of London in honour of the Lord Mayor's entry upon office in 1585 and 1591.† As certain as the honourable mayors and aldermen of London, Coventry, Chester, etc., did not belong to the jeunesse dorée of the England of Shakspeare's day, nor to the class of bargemen, sailors, mechanics, etc., as certain is it that Shakspeare's public did not consist merely of those portions of the public described by Rümelin. And certain as it is that dramatic representations were popular throughout England, and that the plays of the London

* Notices Illustrative of the Drama and other Popular Amusements, etc. London, 1865.

†A. Dyce: The Works of R. Greene and G. Peele, pp. 526, 334, 336.

stage were made known to the country by companies of players on their provincial tours, so certain is it that Shakspeare's plays during his lifetime enjoyed a reputation beyond that which they had won from the London public. But Shakspeare's name also, which as we have seen was at least reckoned among the notables in London, doubtless gradually acquired fame and celebrity in wider circles. This is attested by the many (quarto) editions of his most popular plays printed during his lifetime, and assuredly not purchased merely by the 'jeunesse dorée' and the rabble cf London; it is further supported by the great number of other plays that were published with his name by booksellers greedy of gain, evidently on account of their popularity. This is more particularly confirmed by the fact that Shakspeare's works—and, moreover, of all the dramatic productions of the day, his alone were collected after his death, and printed in the well-known folio of 1623; * further, that this edition found so rapid a sale that it was sold out in nine years, and a new one issued as early as 1632.† This circumstance, occurring as it did in such agitated times when so little was read, proves, I think, more than a hundred other facts that Shakspeare's name was not only known and celebrated in London, but that it had gradually become famous throughout England. All the more necessary it is to give some account of the increasing reputation acquired by B. Jonson and the poets of his School, which is no less an established fact.

The vain Ben Jonson had indeed himself made a collection of his poetical works, but we are not told that a second edition was required: and the edition of Beaumont and Fletcher's plays which appeared in 1647 was, as the editor (Shirley) remarks, called for by the closing of all the theatres and to make up for the want of dramatic performances which it was no longer possible to give.

+ This second folio edition is not, as has generally been supposed, a mere careful reprint of the first, made by the printer. The editor gives proofs of having seriously endeavoured to correct the more important misprints of the edition of 1623, and has done this with discrimination and thought, especially as regards the rhythm. Only, his corrections as frequently affect what was right as what was wrong. Moreover, the whole edition is extremely carelessly printed, even scarcely less carelessly than the first. Compare in regard to this point the valuable remarks of Tycho Mommsen: Shakspeare's Romeo und Julie. Eine kritische Ausgabe, etc. (Oldenburg, 1859), p. 72 ff.