DURING the prevalence of the infectious malady of 1592, although not of it, died one of the most notorious and distinguished of the literary men of the timeRobert Greene. He expired on the 3d of September, 1592, and left behind him a work purporting to have been written during his last illness: it was published a few months afterwards by Henry Chettle, a fellow dramatist, under the title of "A Groatsworth of Wit, bought with a Million of Repentance," bearing the date of 1592, and preceded by an address from Greene "To those Gentlemen, his quondam acquaintance, who spend their wits in making Plays." Here we meet with the second notice of Shakespeare, not indeed by name, but with such a near approach to it, that nobody can doubt that he was intended. We quote the whole passage, first observing that Greene is addressing himself particularly to Marlowe, Lodge, and Peele, and urging them to break off all connection with players:-" Base minded men all three of you, if by my misery ye be not warned; for unto none of you, like me, sought those burs to cleave; those puppets, I mean, that speak from our mouths, those anticks garnished in our colours. Is it not strange that I, to whom they all have been beholding; is it not like that you, to whom they have all been beholding, shall (were ye in that case that I am now)

1 We have some doubts of the authenticity of the "Groatsworth of Wit," as a work by Greene. Chettle was a needy dramatist, and possibly wrote it in order to avail himself of the high popularity of Greene, then just dead. Falling into some discredit, in consequence of the publication of it, Chettle re-asserted that it was by Greene, but he admitted that the manuscript from which it was printed was in his own hand-writing: this circumstance he explained by stating that Greene's copy was so illegible that he was obliged to transcribe it: "it was ill written," says Chettle, "as Greene's hand was none of the best;" and therefore he rewrote it.

be both of them at once forsaken? Yes, trust them not; for there is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tiger's heart wrapp'd in a player's hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank-verse, as the best of you: and, being an absolute Johannes Fac-totum, is, in his own conceit, the only Shake-scene in a country. O! that I might entreat your rare wits to be employed in more profitable courses, and let these apes imitate your past excellence, and never more acquaint them with your admired inventions."

66

The chief and obvious purpose of this address is to induce Marlowe, Lodge, and Peele to cease to write for the stage; and, in the course of his exhortation, Greene bitterly inveighs against "an upstart crow," who had availed himself of the dramatic labours of others, who imagined himself able to write as good blank-verse as any of his contemporaries, who was a Johannes Factotum, and who, in his own opinion, was the only SHAKE-SCENE in a country." All this is clearly levelled at Shakespeare, under the purposely-perverted name of Shake-scene, and the words, "Tiger's heart wrapp'd in a player's hide," are a parody upon a line in a historical play, "O, tiger's heart wrapp'd in a woman's hide," from which Shakespeare had taken his HENRY VI., Part III.1

From hence it is evident that Shakespeare, near the end of 1592, had established such a reputation, and was so important a rival of the dramatists, who, until he came forward, had kept undisputed possession of the stage, as to excite the envy and enmity of Greene, dur

1 See this point more fully illustrated in the Introduction to HENRY VI. Part III., where the present editor gives his reasons for dissenting wholly from Mr. Collier's opinion.

ing his last illness. It also, we think, establishes another point not hitherto adverted to, viz. that our great Poet possessed such variety of talent, that, for the purposes of the company of which he was a member, he could do any thing that he might be called upon to perform: he was the Johannes Fac-totum of the association: he was an actor, and he was a writer of original plays, an adapter and improver of those already in existence, (some of them by Greene, Marlowe, Lodge, or Peele,) and no doubt he contributed prologues or epilogues, and inserted scenes, speeches, or passages on any temporary emergency. Having his ready assistance, the Lord Chamberlain's servants required few other contributions from rival dramatists: Shakespeare was the Johannes Factotum who could turn his hand to any thing connected with his profession, and who, in all probability, had thrown men like Greene, Lodge, and Peele, and even Marlowe himself, into the shade. In our view, therefore, the quotation we have made from the "Groatsworth of Wit" proves more than has been usually collected from it.

It was natural and proper that Shakespeare should take offence at this gross and public attack: that he did there is no doubt, for we are told so by Chettle himself, the avowed editor of the "Groatsworth of Wit:" he does not indeed mention Shakespeare, but he designates him so intelligibly that there is no room for dispute. Marlowe, also, complained of the manner in which Greene had spoken of him in the same work, but to him Chettle made no apology, while to Shakespeare he offered all the amends in his power.

His apology to Shakespeare is contained in a tract called "Kind-heart's Dream," which was published without date; but as Greene expired on the 3d September, 1592, and Chettle tells us, in "Kind-heart's Dream," that Greene died "about three months" before, it is certain that " Kind-heart's Dream" came out prior to the end of 1592, as we now calculate the year, and about three months before it expired, according to the reckoning of that period. The passage relating to Marlowe and Shakespeare is so interesting that we extract it entire :

"About three months since died M. Robert Greene, leaving many papers in sundry booksellers' hands: among others his Groatsworth of Wit, in which a letter, written to divers play. makers, is offensively by one or two of them taken; and because on the dead they cannot be avenged, they wilfully forge in their conceits a living author, and after tossing it to and fro, no remedy but it must light on me. How I have, all the time of my convers ing in printing, hindered the bitter inveighing against scholars, it hath been very well known; and how in that I dealt, I can suffi ciently prove. With neither of them, that take offence, was I acquainted; and with one of them [Marlowe] I care not if I never be: the other, [Shakespeare] whom at that time I did not so much spare, as since I wish I had, for that as I have moderated the heat of living writers, and might have used my own discretion (especially in such a case, the author being dead,) that I did not I am as sorry as if the original fault had been my fault; because myself have seen his demeanour no less civil, than he excellent in the quality he professes: besides, divers of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing, that approves his art. For the first, [Marlowe] whose learning I reverence, and at the perusing of Greene's book struck out what then in conscience I thought he in some displeasure writ, or had it been true, yet to publish it was intolerable, him I would wish to use me no worse than I deserve." The accusation of Greene against Marlowe had reference to the freedom of his religious opinions: the

attack upon Shakespeare we have already inserted. In Chettle's apology to the latter, one of the most noticeable points is the tribute he pays to our great dramatist's abilities as an actor, "his demeanour no less civil, than he excellent in the quality he professes." The word " quality" was applied, at that date, peculiarly and technically to acting, and the " 'quality" Shakespeare "professed" was that of an actor. His facetious grace in writing" is separately adverted to, and admitted, while "his uprightness of dealing" is attested, not only by Chettle's own experience, but by the evidence of "divers of worship." Thus the amends made to Shakespeare for the envious assault of Greene shows most decisively the bigh opinion entertained of him, towards the close of 1592. as an actor, an author, and a man.'

We have already inserted Spenser's warm, but not less judicious and well-merited, eulogium of Shakespeare, in 1591, when, in his "Tears of the Muses," he addresses him as Willy, and designates hin

"that same gentle spirit, from whose pen

Large streames of honnie and sweete nectar flowe."

If we were to trust printed dates, it would seem that in the same year the author of The Faerie Queene" gave another proof of his admiration of our great dramatist: we allude to a passage in "Colin Clout's come home again," which was published with a dedication dated 27th December, 1591; but Malone proved, beyond all cavil, that for 1591 we ought to read 1594, the printer having made an extraordinary blunder. In that poem (after the author has spoken of many living and dead poets, some by their names, as Alabaster and Daniel, and others by fictitious and fanciful appellations*) he has these lines:

1 More than ten years afterwards, Chettle paid another tribute to Shakespeare, under the name of Melicert, in his "England's Mourning Garment:" the author is reproaching the leading poets of the day, Daniel, Warner. Chapman, Drayton, Jonson, Sackville, Decker, etc., for not writing in honour of Queen Elizabeth, who was just dead: he thus addresses Shakespeare:— "Nor doth the silver-tongued Melicert

Drop from his honied Muse one sable tear,
To mourn her death that graced his desert,
And to his lays open'd her royal ear.
Shepherd, remember our Elizabeth,

And sing her Rape, done by that Tarquin death." This passage is important, with reference to the royal encouragement given to Shakespeare, in consequence of the approbation of his plays at court: Elizabeth had "graced his desert,” and "open'd her royal ear," to "his lays." Chettle did not long survive the publication of " England's Mourning Garment" in 1603: he was dead in 1607, as he is spoken of in Decker's "Knight's Conjuring." of that year, as a very corpulent ghost in the Elysian Fields. He had been originally a printer, then became a bookseller, and, finally, a pamphleteer and dramatist. He was, in various degrees, concerned in about forty plays.

2 Malone, with a good deal of research and patience, goes over all the pseudo-names în "Colin Clout's come home again," applying each to poets of the time; but how uncertain and unsatisfactory any attempt of the kind must necessarily be, may be illustrated in a single instance. Malone refers the following lines to Arthur Golding:

"And there is old Palemon, free from spite,
Whose careful pipe may make the hearers rue;
Yet he himself may rued be more right,

Who sung so long, until quite hoarse he grew." The passage, in truth, applies to Thomas Churchyard, as he himself informs us in his "Pleasant Discourse of Court and Wars," 1596: he complains of neglect, and tells us that the court is

"And there, though last not least, is Ætion;

A gentler shepherd may no where be found,
Whose Muse, full of high thought's invention,
Doth, like himself, heroically sound."

Malone takes pains to establish that this passage applies to Shakespeare, although he pertinaciously denied that "our pleasant Willy" of "The Tears of the Muses" was intended for him. We have no doubt on either point; and it is worthy of notice that the same epithet is given in both cases to the person addressed, and that epithet one which, at a subsequent date, almost constantly accompanied the name of Shakespeare. In "The Tears of the Muses" he is called a "gentle spirit," and in "Colin Clout's come home again" we are told that

"A gentler shepherd may no where be found."

In the same feeling Ben Jonson calls him "my gentle Shakespeare" in the noble copy of verses prefixed to the folio of 1623, and he repeats the same epithet in his verses on the portrait in the folio of 1623; so that the term became peculiarly applied to our great and amiable dramatist.' This coincidence of expression tends to establish that Spenser had Shakespeare in his mind when he wrote his "Tears of the Muses," in 1591, and his "Colin Clout's come home again," in 1594. In the later instance the whole description is nearly as appropriate as in the earlier, with the addition of a line,

"The platform where all poets thrive,
Save one whose voice is hoarse, they say;
The stage, where time away we drive,
As children in a pageant play."

In the same way we might show that Malone was mistaken as to other poets he supposes alluded to by Spenser; but it would lead us too far out of our way. Nobody has disputed, that by Ætion, the author of "Colin Clout" meant Shakespeare.

1 In a passage above extracted from Ben Jonson's "Discoveries," he mentions Shakespeare's "gentle expressions;" but he is there perhaps rather referring to his style of composition.

which has a clear and obvious reference to the patro nymic of our Poet: his Muse, says Spenser

"Doth, like himself, heroically sound."

These words alone may be taken to show that, between 1591 and 1594, Shakespeare had somewhat changed the character of his compositions: Spenser having applauded him, in his "Tears of the Muses," for unrivalled talents in comedy, (a department of the drama to which Shakespeare had, perhaps, at that date especially, though not exclusively, devoted himself,) in his "Colin Clout" spoke of the "high thought's invention" which then filled Shakespeare's muse, and made her sound as "heroically" as his name. Of his genius, in a loftier strain of poetry than belonged to comedy, our great dramatist, by the year 1594, must have given some remarkable and undeniable proofs. In 1591 he had perhaps written his LovE'S LABOUR'S LOST and Two GENTLEMEN OF VERONA; but in 1594 he had, no doubt, produced one or more of his great historical plays, his RICHARD II. and RICHARD III., both of which, as before remarked, together with ROMEO AND JULIET, came from the press in 1597. One circumstance leads to the belief that RICHARD III. was brought out in 1594, viz. that in that year an impression of "The True Tragedy of Richard the Third," (an older play than that of Shakespeare,) was published that it might be bought under the notion that it was the new drama by the most popular poet of the day, then in a course of representation. It is most probable that RICHARD II. had been. composed before RICHARD III., and to either or both of them the lines

"Whose Muse, full of high thought's invention,

Doth, like himself, heroically sound,"

will abundantly apply. The difference in the character of Spenser's tributes to Shakespeare, in 1591 and 1594, was occasioned by the difference in the character of his productions.

39

HAVING arrived at the year 1594, we may take this opportunity of stating which of Shakespeare's extant works, in our opinion, had by that date been produced. We have already mentioned the three parts of HENRY VI., TITUS ANDRONICUS, the COMEDY OF ERRORS, the Two GENTLEMEN OF VERONA, and LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST, as in being in 1591; and in the interval between 1591 and 1594, we apprehend, he had added to them RICHARD II. and RICHARD III.

We must now return to Stratford-upon-Avon, in order to advert to a different subject.

A document has recently been discovered in the State Paper Office, which is interesting with respect to the religious tenets, or worldly circumstances, of Shakespeare's father in 1592. Sir Thomas Lucy, Sir Fulke Greville, Sir Henry Goodere, Sir John Harrington, and four others, having been appointed commissioners to make inquiries "touching all such persons" as were "jesuits, seminary priests, fugitives, or recusantes," in the county of Warwick, sent to the privy council what they call their "second certificate," on the 25th September, 1592. It is divided into different heads, according to the respective hundreds, parishes, etc., and each page is signed by them. One of these divisions applies to Stratford-upon-Avon, and the return of names there is thus introduced:

"The names of all sutch Recusantes as have bene heartofore presented for not cominge monethlie to the church, according to her Majesties lawes, and yet are thought to forbeare the church for debt, and for feare of processe, or for some other worse faultes, or for age, sicknes, or impotencie of bodie."

The names which are appended to this introduction are the following:

and opposite to them, separated by a bracket, we read these words;

"It is sayd, that these last nine coome not to churche for feare of processe of debte."

Here we find the name of "Mr. John Shakespeare" either as a recusant, or as "forbearing the Church," on account of the fear of process for debt, or on account of "age, sickness, or impotency of body," mentioned in the introduction to the document. The question is, to which cause we are to attribute his absence; and with regard to process for debt, we are to recollect that it could not be served on Sunday, so that apprehension of that kind need not have kept him away from church on the Sabbath. Neither was it likely that his son, who was at this date profitably employed in London as an actor and author, and who three years before was a sharer in the Blackfriars theatre, would have allowed his father to continue so distressed for money, as not to be able to attend the usual place of divine worship. Therefore, although John Shakespeare was certainly in great pecuniary difficulties at the time his son William quitted Stratford, we altogether reject the notion that that son had permitted his father to live in comparative want, while he himself possessed more than competence.

1 Hence we see that Shakespeare took two names in his HENRY V., from persons who bore them in his native town. Awdrey was also a female appellation known in Stratford, as appears elsewhere in the same document.

Age, sickness, and impotency of body," may indeed have kept John Shakespeare from church, but upon this point we have no information beyond the fact, that if he were born, as Malone supposes, in 1530, he was at this date only sixty-two.

With regard to his religious opinions, it is certain that, after he became alderman of Stratford, on the 4th July, 1565, he must have taken the usual oath required from all Protestants; but, according to the records of the borough, it was not administered to him until the 12th September following his election. This trifling circumstance perhaps hardly deserves notice, as it may have been usual to choose the corporate officers at one court, and to swear them in at the next. So far John Shakespeare may have conformed to the requirements of the law, but it is still possible that he may not have adopted all the new Protestant tenets, or that having adopted them, like various other conscientious men, he saw reason afterwards to return to the faith he had abandoned. We have no evidence on this point as regards him; but we have evidence, as regards a person of the name of Thomas Greene, who is described in the certificate of the commissioners as then of a different parish, and who, it is added, had confessed that he had been " reconciled to the Romish religion."

On the same authority we learn that the wife of Thomas Greene was "a most wilful recusant;" and although we are by no means warranted in forming even an opinion on the question, whether Mary Shakespeare adhered to the ancient faith, it is indisputable, if we may rely upon the representation of the commissioners, that some of her family continued Roman Catholics. In the document under consideration it is stated, that Mrs. Mary Arden and her servant John Browne had been presented to the commissioners as recusants, and that they had been so prior to the date of the former return by the same official persons.

an inventory of the goods and chattels of Henry Feelde of Stratford, tanner, after his decease. In the heading of the paper our Poet's father is called "Mr. John Shaksper," and at the end we find his name as "John Shaksper senior:" this appears to be the only instance in which the addition of "senior" was made, and the object of it might be to distinguish him more effectually from John Shakespeare, the shoemaker in Stratford, with whom, of old, perhaps, as in modern times, he was now and then confounded. The fact itself may be material in deciding whether John Shakespeare, at the age of sixty-two, was, or was not so "aged, sick, or impotent of body" as to be unable to attend Protestant divine worship. It certainly does not seem likely that he would have been selected for the performance of such a duty, however trifling, if he had been so apprehensive of arrest as not to be able to leave his dwelling, or if he had been very infirm from sickness or old age. Whether he were or were not a member of the Protestant Reformed Church, it is not to be disputed that his children, all of whom were born between 1558 and 1580, were baptized at the ordinary and established place of worship in the parish. That his son William was educated, lived, and died a Protestant, we have no doubt.'

We have already stated our distinct and deliberate opinion that VENUS AND ADONIS was written before its author left his home in Warwickshire. He kept it by him for some years, and early in 1593 seems to have put it into the hands of a printer, named Richard Field, who, it has been said, was of Stratford, and might be the son of the Henry Feelde, or Field, whose goods John Shakespeare was employed to value, in 1592. It is to be recollected that at the time VENUS AND ADONIS was sent to the press, while it was printing, and when it was published, the plague prevailed in London to such an excess, that it was deemed expedient by the privy council to put a stop to all theatrical performances. Shakespeare seems to have availed himself of this interval, in order to bring before the world a production of a different character to those which had been ordinarily seen from his pen. Until VENUS AND ADONIS came out, the public at large could only have known him by the dramas he had written, or by those which, at an earlier date, he had altered, amended, and revived. The poem came from Field's press in the spring of 1593,

Upon the new matter we have here been able to produce, we shall leave the reader to draw his own conclusion, and to decide for himself whether John Shakespeare forbore church, in 1592, because he was in fear of arrest, because he was "aged, sick, and impotent of body," or because he did not accord in the doctrines of the Protestant faith.

We ought not, however, to omit to add, that if John Shakespeare were infirm in 1592, or if he were harassed and threatened by creditors, neither the one circumstance nor the other prevented him from being employed, in August, 1592, to assist "Thomas Trussell, gentleman," and "Richard Sponer and others," in taking

1 "Shakespeare and his Times." Dr. Drake seems to be of opinion that John Shakespeare may have refrained from attend. ing the corporation halls previous to 1586, on account of his religious opinions.

Its popularity was great and instantaneous, for a new edition of it was called for in 1594, a third in 1596, a fourth in 1600, and a fifth in 1602: there may have been, and probably were, intervening impressions, which have disappeared among the popular and de

1 Nearly all the passages in his works, of a religious or doc. trinal character, have been brought into one view by Sir Frederick B. Watson, K. C. H.. in a very elegant volume, printed in 1843, for the benefit of the theatrical funds of our two great theatres. The object of the very zealous and amiable compiler was to counteract the idea that William Shakespeare was a Roman Catholic, although we do not find among his extracts one which seems to us of great value upon this question: it forms part of the prophecy of Cranmer, at the christening of Queen Elizabeth in HENRY VIII., (act v. scene 4.) It consists of but five expressive words, which we think clearly refer to the completion of the Reformation under our maiden queen :—

"In her days **** God shall be truly known.”