Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

In his eighteenth year, or perhaps a little | ness, or the love of his wife, who had already sooner, he married Anne Hathaway, who was eight years older than himself, the daughter of one Hathaway, who is said to have been a substantial yeoman in the neighbourhood of Stratford. Of his domestic economy, or professional occupation at this time, we have no information; but it would appear that both were in a considerable degree neglected by his associating with a gang of deer-stealers. Being detected with them in robbing the park of Sir Thomas Lucy of Charlecote, near Stratford, he was so rigorously prosecuted by that gentleman, as to be obliged to leave his family and business, and take shelter in London. Sir Thomas, on this occasion, is said to have been exasperated by a ballad Shakspeare wrote, probably his first essay in poetry, of which the following stanza was communicated to Mr. Oldys:

A parliemente member, a justice of peace,
At home a poor scare-crowe, at London an asse,
If lowsie is Lucy, as some volke miscalle it,
Then Lucy is lowsie whatever befall it:

He thinks himself greate,
Yet an asse in his state

We allowe by his ears but with asses to mate.
If Lucy be lowsie, as some volke miscalle it,
Sing lowsie Lucy, whatever befall it.

These lines, it must be confessed, do no great honor to our poet; and probably were unjust; for although some of his admirers have recorded Sir Thomas as a "vain, weak, and vindictive magistrate," he was certainly exerting no very violent act of oppression, in protecting his property against a man who was degrading the commonest rank of life, and had, at this time, bespoke no indulgence by superior talents. The ballad, however, must have made some noise at Sir Thomas's expense, as the author took care it should be affixed to his park-gates, and liberally circulated among his neighbors.

On his arrival in London, which was probably in 1586, when he was twenty-two years old, he is said to have made his first acquaintance in the play-house, to which idleness or taste may have directed him, and where his necessities, if tradition may be credited, obliged him to accept the office of call-boy, or prompter's attendant. This is a menial whose employment it is to give the performers notice to be ready to enter, so often as the business of the play requires their appearance on the stage. Pope, however, relates a story, communicated to him by Rowe, but which Rowe did not think deserving of a place in the life he wrote, that must a little retard the advancement of our poet to the office just mentioned. According to this story, Shakspeare's first employment was to wait at the door of the play-house, and hold the horses of those who had no servants, that they might be ready after the performance. But I cannot," says his acute commentator, Mr. Steevens, "dismiss the anecdote without observing, that it seems to want every mark of probability. Though Shakspeare quitted Stratford on acccunt of a juvenile irregularity, we have no reason to suppose that he had forfeited the protection of his father, who was engaged in a lucrative busi

brought him two children, and was herself the daughter of a substantial yeoman. It is unlikely, therefore, when he was beyond the reach of his prosecutor, that he should conceal his plan of life, or place of residence, from those who, if he found himself distressed, could not fail to afford him such supplies as would have set him above the necessity of holding horses for subsistence." Mr. Malone has remarked, in his attempt to ascertain the order in which the Plays of Shakspeare were written, that "he might have found an easy introduction to the stage: for Thomas Green, a celebrated comedian of that period, was his townsman, and perhaps his relation. The genius of our author prompted him to write poetry; his connection with a player might have given his productions a dramatic turn: or his own sagacity might have taught him that fame was not incompatible with profit, and that the theatre was an avenue to both. That it was once the general custom to ride on horseback to the play, I am likewise yet to learn. The most popular of the theatres were on the Bankside: and we are told by the satirical pamphleteers of that time, that the usual mode of conveyance to these places of amusement was by water, but not a single writer so much as hints at the custom of riding to them, or at the practice of having horses held during the hours of exhibition. Some allusion to this usage (if it had existed) must, I think, have been discovered in the course of our researches after contemporary fashions. Let it be remembered, too, that we receive this tale on no higher authority than that of Cibber's Lives of the Poets, vol. i. p. 130. Sir William Davenant told it to Mr. Betterton, who communicated it to Mr. Rowe, who, according to Dr. Johnson, related it to Mr. Pope." Mr. Malone concurs in opinion, that this story stands on a very slender foundation, while he differs from Mr. Steevens as to the fact of gentlemen going to the theatre on horseback. With respect, likewise, to Shakspeare's father being engaged in a lucrative business," we may remark, that this could not have been the case at the time our author came to London, if the preceding dates be correct, He is said to have arrived in London in 1586, the year in which his father resigned the office of alderman, unless, indeed, we are permitted to conjecture that his resignation was not the consequence of his necessities.

[ocr errors]

But in whatever situation he was first employed at the theatre, he appears to have soon discovered those talents which afterwards made him

Th' applause, delight, the wonder of our stage!

Some distinction he probably first acquired as an actor, although Mr. Rowe has not been able to discover any character in which he appeared to more advantage than that of the ghost in Hamlet. The instructions given to the player in that tragedy, and other passages of his works, show an intimate acquaintance with the skill of acting, and such as is scarcely surpassed in our own days. He appears to

have studied nature in acting as much as in writing. But all this might have been mere theory. Mr. Malone is of opinion he was no great actor. The distinction, however, which he might obtain as an actor could only be in his own plays, in which he would be assisted by the novel appearance of author and actor combined. Before his time, it does not appear that any actor could avail himself of the wretched pieces represented on the stage.

Mr. Rowe regrets that he cannot inform us which was the first play he wrote. More skilful research has since found, that Romeo and Juliet, and Richard II. and III. were printed in 1597, when he was thirty-three years old; there is also some reason to think that he commenced as a dramatic writer in 1592, and Mr. Malone even places his first play, "First part of Henry VI.," in 1589. His plays, however, must have been not only popular, but approved by persons of the higher order, as we are certain that he enjoyed the gracious favor of Queen Elizabeth, who was very fond of the stage, and the particular and affectionate patronage of the Earl of Southampton, to whom he dedicated his poems of " Venus and Adonis," and his "Tarquin and Lucrece." On Sir William Davenant's authority, it has been asserted that this nobleman at one time gave him a thousand pounds to enable him to complete a purchase. At the conclusion of the advertisement prefixed to Lintot's edition of Shakspeare's poems, it is said, "That most learned prince, and great patron of learning, King James the First, was pleased, with his own hand, to write an amicable letter to Mr. Shakspeare; which letter, though now lost, remained long in the hands of Sir William D'Avenant, as a credible person now living can testify." Dr. Farmer with great probability supposes, that this letter was written by King James, in return for the compliment paid to him in Macbeth. The relator of this anecdote was Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham." These brief notices, meagre as they are, may show that our author enjoyed high favor in his day. Whatever we may think of King James as a "learned prince," his patronage, as well as that of his predecessor, was sufficient to give celebrity to the founder of a new stage. It may be added, that his uncommon merit, his candor, and good nature, are supposed to have procured him the admiration and acquaintance of every person distinguished for such qualities. It is not difficult, indeed, to suppose, that Shakspeare was a man of humor and a social companion, and probably excelled in that species of minor wit not ill adapted to conversation, of which it could have been wished he had been more sparing in his writings.

How long he acted has not been discovered, but he continued to write till the year 1614. During his dramatic career he acquired a property in the theatre, which he must have disposed of when he retired, as no mention of it

Note by Mr. Malone to "Additional Anecdotes of William Shakspeare."

In 1603, he and several others obtained a license from King James to exhibit comedies, tragedies, histories, &c., at the Globe Theatre and elsewhere.

occurs in his will. His connection with Ben Jonson has been variously related. It is said, that when Jonson was unknown to the world, he offered a play to the theatre, which was rejected after a very careless perusal, but that Shakspeare having accidentally cast his eye on it, conceived a favorable opinion of it, and afterwards recommended Jonson and his writings to the public. For this candor he was repaid by Jonson, when the latter became a poet of note, with an envious disrespect. Jonson acquired reputation by the variety of his pieces, and endeavoured to arrogate the supremacy in dramatic genius. Like a French critic, he insinuated Shakspeare's incorrectness, his careless manner of writing, and his want of judgment; and, as he was a remarkably slow writer himself, he could not endure the praise frequently bestowed on Shakspeare, of seldom altering or blotting out what he had written. Mr. Malone says, "that not long after the year 1600, a coolness arose between Shakspeare and him, which, however we may talk of his almost idolatrous affection, produced on his part, from that time to the death of our author, and for many years afterwards, much clumsy sarcasm, and many malevolent reflections." But from these, which are the commonly received opinions on this subject, Dr. Farmer is inclined to depart, and to think Jonson's hostility to Shakspeare absolutely groundless; so uncertain is every circumstance we attempt to recover of our great poet's life. Jonson had only one advantage over Shakspeare, that of superior learning, which might in certain situations give him a superior rank, but could never promote his rivalship with a man who attained the highest excellence without it. Nor will Shakspeare suffer by its being known, that all the dramatic poets before he appeared were scholars. Greene, Lodge, Peele, Marlowe, Nashe, Lily, and Kyd, had all, says Mr. Malone, a regular university education; and, as scholars in our universities, frequently composed and acted plays on historical subjects.*

The latter part of Shakspeare's life was spent in ease, retirement, and the conversation of his friends. He had accumulated considerable property, which Gildon (in his "Letters and Essays," 1694) stated to amount to £300 per annum, a sum at least equal to £1000 in our days; but Mr. Malone doubts whether all his property amounted to much more than £200 per annum, which yet was a considerable fortune in those times, and it is supposed that he might have derived £200 per aunum from the theatre while he continued on the stage.

He retired some years before his death to a house in Stratford, of which it has been thought important to give the history. It was built by Sir Hugh Clopton, a younger brother of an ancient family in that neighbourhood. Sir Hugh was Sheriff of London in the reign

This was the practice in Milton's days. "One of his objections to academical education, as it was then con ducted, is that men designed for orders in the church were permitted to act plays," &c. Johnson's Life of Mil ton.

She resided about three weeks at our poet's house, which was then possessed by his granddaughter, Mrs. Nashe, and her husband.

During Shakspeare's abode in this house, his pleasurable wit and good-nature, says Mr. Rowe, engaged him the acquaintance and entitled him to the friendship of the gentlemen of the neighbourhood. Among these, Mr. Rowe tells a traditional story of a miser or usurer, named Combe, who, in conversation with Shakspeare, said he fancied the poet intended to write his epitaph if he should survive him, and desired to know what he meant to say. On this Shakspeare gave him the following, probably extempore:

Ten in the hundred lies here engraved,
'Tis a hundred to ten his soul is not saved;
If any man ask, Who lies in this tombe?

Oh! ho! quoth the devil, 'tis my John-a-Combe.
The sharpness of the satire is said to have
stung the man so severely, that he never for-
gave it. These lines, however, or some which
nearly resemble them, appeared in various.
collections, both before and after the time
they were said to have been composed; and
the inquiries of Mr. Steevens and Mr. Malone
satisfactorily prove that the whole story is a
fabrication. Betterton is said to have heard
it when he visited Warwickshire on purpose to
collect anecdotes of our poet, and probably
thought it of too much importance to be nicely
examined. We know not whether it be worth
adding of a story which we have rejected, that
a usurer in Shakspeare's time did not mean one
who took exorbitant, but any interest or usance
for money, and that ten in the hundred, or ten
per cent., was then the ordinary interest of
money. It is of more consequence, however,
to record the opinion of Mr. Malone, that
Shakspeare, during his retirement, wrote the

of Richard III., and Lord Mayor in the reign |
of Henry VII. By his will, he bequeathed to
his elder brother's son his manor of Clopton,
&c., and his house by the name of the Great
House in Stratford. A good part of the estate
was in possession of Edward Clopton, Esq.,
and Sir Hugh Clopton, Knight, in 1733. The
principal estate had been sold out of the Clop-
ton family for above a century, at the time
when Shakspeare became the purchaser; who
having repaired and modelled it to his own
mind, changed the name to New Place, which
the mansion-house, afterward erected in the
room of the poet's house, retained for many
The house and lands belonging to it
years.
continued in the possession of Shakspeare's
descendants to the time of the Restoration,
when they were repurchased by the Clopton
family. Here, in May, 1742, when Mr. Gar-
rick, Mr. Macklin, and Mr. Delane visited
Stratford, they were hospitably entertained
under Shakspeare's mulberry-tree by Sir Hugh
Clopton. He was a barrister at law, was
knighted by King George I., and died in the
80th year of his age, in December, 1751. His
executor, about the year 1752, sold New Place
to the Rev. Mr. Gastrell, a man of large for-
tune, who resided in it but a few years, in
consequence of a disagreement with the inha-
bitants of Stratford. As he resided part of the
year at Litchfield, he thought he was assessed
too highly in the monthly rate toward the main-
tenance of the poor; but being very properly
compelled by the magistrates of Stratford to pay
the whole of what was levied on him, on the
principle that his house was occupied by his
servants in his absence, he peevishly declared
that that house should never be assessed again;
and soon afterward pulled it down, sold the
materials, and left the town. He had some
time before cut down Shakspeare's mulberry-play of Twelfth Night.
tree to save himself the trouble of showing it
to those whose admiration of our great poet
led them to visit the classic ground on which
it stood. That Shakspeare planted this tree
appears to be sufficiently authenticated. Where
New Place stood is now a garden. Before con-
cluding this history, it may be necessary to
mention, that the poet's house was once ns-
noured by the temporary residence of Hen-
rietta Maria, queen to Charles I. Theobald
has given an inaccurate account of this, as if
she had been obliged to take refuge in Strat-
ford from the rebels; but that was not the
case. She marched from Newark, June 16,
1643, and entered Stratford triumphantly about
the 22d of the same month, at the head of
three thousand foot and fifteen hundred horse,
with one hundred and fifty wagons, and a train
of artillery. Here she was met by Prince Ru-
pert, accompanied by a large body of troops.

He died on his birth-day, Tuesday, April 23, 1616, when he had exactly completed his fiftysecond year," and was buried on the north side of the chancel, in the great church of Stratford, where a monument is placed in the wall, on which he is represented under an arch, in a sitting posture, a cushion spread before him, with a pen in his right hand, and his left rested a scroll of paper. The following Latin distich is engraved under the cushion:

on

Judicio Pylium, genio Socratem, arte Maronem,
Terra tegit, populus mæret, Olympus habet.

"The first syllable in Socratem," says Mr. Steevens, "is here made short, which cannot be allowed. Perhaps we should read Sophoclem. Shakspeare is then appositely compared with a dramatic author among the ancients; but still it should be remembered, that the eulogium is lessened while the metre is reformed; and it is well known, that some of our early writers of Latin poetry were uncomfame, and more company and profit to the town, a certain monly negligent in their prosody, especially

"As the curiosity of this house and tree brought much

man, on some disgust, has pulled the house down, so as not to leave one stone upon another, and cut down the tree, and piled it as a stock of firewood, to the great vexation, loss, and disappointment of the inhabitants; however, an honest silversmith bought the whole stock of wood, and makes many odd things of this wood for the curious." Letter in Annual Register, 1760. Of Mr. Gastrell and his lady, see Boswell's Life of Dr. Johnson, voi. p. 356. Edit. 1793.

in proper names. The thought of this distich, as Mr. Tollet observes, might have been taken

The only notice we have of his person is from Aubrey, who says, "he was a handsome, well-shaped man:" and adds, "verie good company, and of a very ready, and plea sant and smooth wit."

from the Faëry Queene of Spenser, B. ii. c. ix. st. 48, and c. x. st. 3.

"To this Latin inscription on Shakspeare may be added the lines which are found underneath it on his monument:

Stay, passenger, why dost thou go so fast?
Read, if thou canst, whom envious death hath placed
Within this monument; Shakspeare, with whom
Quick nature died; whose name doth deck the tomb
Far more than cost; since all that he hath writ
Leaves living art but page to serve his wit.

Obiit, Ano. Dni. 1616.

set. 53, die 23 Apri.

[blocks in formation]

It is uncertain whether the request and imprecation were written by Shakspeare, or by .one of his friends. They probably allude to the custom of removing skeletons after a certain time, and depositing them in charnelhouses; and similar execrations are found in many ancient Latin epitaphs.

We have no account of the malady which, at no very advanced age, closed the life and labours of this unrivalled and incomparable genius.

"If tradition may be trusted, Shakspeare often baited at the Crown Inn or Tavern in Oxford, in his journey to and from London. The landlady was a woman of great beauty and sprightly wit, and her husband, Mr. John Davenant, (afterward mayor of that city,) a grave, melancholy man; who, as well as his wife, used much to delight in Shakspeare's pleasant company. Their son, young Will. Davenant, (afterward Sir William,) was then a little school-boy in the town, of about seven or eight years old, and so fond also of Shakspeare, that whenever he heard of his arrival, he would fly from school to see him. One day, an old townsman, observing the boy running homeward almost out of breath, asked him whither he was posting in that heat and hurry. answered, to see his god-father Shakspeare. There's a good boy, said the other, but have a care that you don't take God's name in vain. This story, Mr. Pope told me at the Earl of Oxford's table, upon occasion of some discourse which arose about Shakspeare's monument, then newly erected in Westminster Abbey."

He

This story appears to have originated with Anthony Wood, and it has been thought a presumption of its being true, that, after careful examination, Mr. Thomas Warton was inclined to believe it. Mr. Steevens, however, treats it with the utmost contempt; but does not, perhaps, argue with his usual attention to experience, when he brings Sir William Davenant's "heavy, vulgar, unmeaning face," as a proof that he could not be Shakspeare's son.

In the year 1741, a monument was erected to our poet in Westminster Abbey, by the direction of Earl of Burlington, Dr. Mead, Mr. Pope, and Mr. Martyn. It was the work of Scheemaker, (who received £300 for it,) after a design of Kent, and was opened in January of that year. The performers of each of the London theatres gave a benefit to defray the expenses, and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster took nothing for the ground. The money received by the performance at Drury Lane theatre amounted to above £200, but the receipts at Covent Garden did not exceed £100.

His family consisted of two daughters, and a son named Hamnet, who died in 1596, in the twelfth year of his age. Susannah, the eldest daughter, and her father's favourite, was married to Dr. John Hall, a physician, who died November, 1635, aged sixty. Mrs. Hall died July 11, 1649, aged sixty-six. They left only one child, Elizabeth, born 1607-8, and married April 22, 1626, to Thomas Nashe, Esq., who died in 1647; and afterward to Sir John Barnard, of Abington, in Northamptonshire; From these imperfect notices, which are all but died without issue by either husband. we have been able to collect from the labors Ju-lith, Shakspeare's youngest daughter, was of his biographers and commentators, our married to a Mr. Thomas Quiney, and died readers will perceive that less is known of February, 1661-2, in her seventy-seventh year. Shakspeare than of almost any writer who has By Mr. Quiney she had three sons, Shakspeare, been considered as an object of laudable curiRichard, and Thomas, who all died unmarried. osity. Nothing could be more highly gratifySir Hugh Clopton, who was born two years ing than an account of the early studies of after the death of Lady Barnard, which hap- this wonderful man, the progress of his pen, pened in 1669-70, related to Mr. Macklin, in his moral and social qualities, his friendships, 1742, an old tradition, that she had carried his failings, and whatever else constitutes peraway with her from Stratford, many of her sonal history. But on all these topics his congrandfather's papers. On the death of Sir temporaries and his immediate successors have John Barnard, Mr. Malone thinks these must been equally silent, and if aught can be herehave fallen into the hands of Mr. Edward Bag-after discovered, it must be by exploring ley, Lady Barnard's executor; and if any descendant of that gentleman he now living, in his custody they probably remain. To this account of Shakspeare's family we have now to add, that among Oldys's papers is another traditional gossip's story of his having been the father of Sir William Davenant. Oldys's relation is thus given :

sources which have hitherto escaped the anxious researches of those who have devoted their whole lives and their most vigorous talents to revive his memory and illustrate his writings. In the sketch we have given, if the dates of his birth and death be excepted, what is there on which the reader can depend, or for which, if he contend eagerly, he may

not be involved in controversy, and perplexed | very incorrect state; but we may suppose with contradictory opinions and authorities?

It is usually said that the life of an author can be little else than a history of his works; but this opinion is liable to many exceptions. If an author, indeed, has passed his days in retirement, his life can afford little more variety than that of any other man who has lived in retirement; but if, as is generally the case with writers of great celebrity, he has acquired a pre-eminence over his contemporaries, if he has excited rival contentions, and defeated the attacks of criticism or of malignity, or if he has plunged into the controversies of his age, and performed the part either of a tyrant or a hero in literature, his history may be rendered as interesting as that of any other public character. But whatever weight may be allowed to this remark, the decision will not be of much consequence in the case of Shakspeare. Unfortunately, we know as little of his writings as of his personal history. The industry of his illustrators for the last thirty years has been such as probably never was surpassed in the annals of literary investigation; yet so far are we from information of the conclusive or satisfactory kind, that even the order in which his plays were written rests principally on conjecture, and of some plays usually printed among his works, it is not yet determined whether he wrote the whole, or any part.

Much of our ignorance of every thing which it would be desirable to know respecting Shakspeare's works, must be imputed to the author himself. If we look merely at the state in which he left his productions, we should be apt to conclude, either that he was insensible of their value, or that, while he was the great- | est, he was at the same time the humblest writer the world ever produced-"that he thought his works unworthy of posterity-that he levied no ideal tribute upon future times, nor had any further prospect than that of present popularity and present profit." And such an opinion, although it apparently partakes of the ease and looseness of conjecture, may not be far from probability. But before we allow it any higher merit, or attempt to decide upon the affection or neglect with which he reviewed his labors, it may be necessary to consider their precise nature, and certain circumstances in his situation which affected them; and, above all, we must take into our account the character and predominant occupations of the times in which he lived, and of those which followed his decease.

With respect to himself, it does not appear that he printed any one of his plays, and only eleven of them were printed in his lifetime. The reason assigned for this is, that he wrote them for a particular theatre, sold them to the managers when only an actor, reserved them in manuscript when himself a manager, and when he disposed of his property in the theatre, they were still preserved in manuscript to prevent their being acted by the rival houses. Copies of some of them appear to have been surreptitiously obtained, and published in a

Dr. Johnson's Preface.

that it was wiser in the author or managers to overlook this fraud than publish a correct edition, and so destroy the exclusive property they enjoyed. It is clear, therefore, that any publication of his plays by himself would have interfered, at first with his own interest, and afterward with the interest of those to whom he had made over his share in them. But even had this obstacle been removed, we are not sure that he would have gained much by publication. If he had no other copies but those belonging to the theatre, the business of correction for the press must have been a toil which we are afraid the taste of the public at that time would have poorly rewarded. We know not the exact portion of fame he enjoyed: it was probably the highest which dramatic genius could confer; but dramatic genius was a new excellence, and not well understood. His claims were probably not heard out of the jurisdiction of the master of the revels, certainly not beyond the metropolis. Yet such was Shakspeare's reputation, that we are told his name was put to pieces which he never wrote, and that he felt himself too confident in popular favor to undeceive the public. This was singular resolution in a man who wrote so unequally, that at this day, the test of internal evidence must be applied to his doubtful productions with the greatest caution. But still how far his character would have been elevated by an examination of his plays in the closet, in an age when the refinements of criticism were not understood, and the sympathies of taste were seldom felt, may admit of a question. "His language," says Dr. Johnson, "not being designed for the reader's desk, was all that he desired it to be if it conveyed his meaning to the audience."

Shakspeare died in 1616; and seven years afterward appeared the first edition of his plays, published at the charges of four booksellers,-a circumstance from which Mr. Malone infers "that no single publisher was at that time willing to risk his money on a complete collection of our author's plays." This edition was printed from the copies in the hands of his fellow-managers, Heminge and Condell, which had been in a series of years frequently altered through convenience, caprice, or ignorance. Heminge and Condell had now retired from the stage; and, we may suppose, were guilty of no injury to their successors in printing what their own interest only had formerly withheld. Of this, although we have no documents amounting to demonstration, we may be convinced, by adverting to a circumstance which will, in our days, appear very extraordinary, namely, the declension of Shakspeare's popularity. We have seen that the publication of his works was accounted a doubtful speculation; and it is yet more certain that so much had the public taste turned from him in quest of variety, that for several years after his death the plays of Fletcher were more frequently acted than his, and during the whole of the seventeenth century, they were made to give place to performances the greater part of which cannot now be endured.

« PředchozíPokračovat »