Shakespeare's King Henry the Eighth and The tempest

Preface

In the preparation of this book a definite purpose has been kept in view. The editor has endeavored to give an introduction to the study of the greatest English poet. No attempt has been made to make a contribution to the great body of critical Shakespearian knowledge or to direct a study of the poet on the technical side. It is suggested that a study of Shakespeare's style will well repay the most untiring effort. In fact it is not possible to get the full import of what the dramas reveal without seeing the beauty of the form in which they are expressed. Form and substance are so closely allied that the true artist must reveal truth in beauty. The truth side — the side which by its teaching leads to right living — when it finds a lodgment in the heart, pervades the whole being as the beauty of holiness. Such a dissection of the form as shall endanger the possession of both truth and beauty is certainly to be avoided. The student should be led, above all, to study the poet's real work, and the spirit in which it is done ; then he will understand Sidney Lanier's fine words about the highest art :

IV PREFACE.

" He who has not come to that stage of quiet and eternal frenzy in which the beauty of holiness and the hoUness of beauty mean one thing, burn as one fire, shine as one light within him, he is not yet the great artist."

If this book shall lead its readers to pursue the study of Shakespeare with a reverent desire to make the greatest writings of secular literature a real means of culture, then its purpose will have been happily served.

EMMA MONT. McRAE.

Purdue University, 1895.

Note. — The "Sketch of Shakespeare's Life" (pp. i to 31), " Principles of Art " (pp. 419 to 437), and " Moral Spirit " (pp. 438 to 455), are reprinted by permission from " Shakespeare : His Life, Art and Characters," by Henry N. Hudson; and the "Introduction to the Play" (pp. 79 to 116 and pp. 273 to 312), as well as the text and notes of the two plays, are reprinted from Hudson's School Edition of -Shakespeare's Plays.

Table Of Contents

PACE

Sketch of Shakespeare's Life i

History of the Drama down to Shakespeare's Time . 34

Introduction to "The Tempest" 273

Play of "The Tempest" 313

Moral Spirit 43S

Chronological List of Shakespeare's Writings . . . 456

Classification of Plays 45S

Sources of Shakespeare's Plays 459

Books of Value in Shakespearian Study .... 461

SKETCH OF SHAKESPEARE'S LIFE.

The lineage of William Shakespeare, on the paternal side, has not been traced further back than his grandfather. The name, which in its composition smacks of brave old knighthood and chivalry, was frequent in Warwickshire from an early period.

The father of our poet was John Shakespeare, who is found living at Stratford-on-Avon in 1552. He was most likely a native of Snitterfield, a village three miles from Stratford ; as we find a Richard Shakespeare living there in 1550, and occupying a house and land owned by Robert Arden, the maternal grandfather of our poet. This appears from a deed executed July 17, 1550, in which Robert Arden conveyed certain lands and tenements in Snitterfield, described as being " now in the tenure of one Richard Shakespeare," to be held in trust for three daughters " after the death of Robert and Agnes Arden."

An entry in a Court Roll, dated April, 1552, ascertains that John Shakespeare was living in Stratford at that time. And an entry in the Bailiff's Court, dated June, 1556, describes him as "John Shakespeare, of Stratford in the county of Warwick, glover. '" In 1558, the same John Shakespeare, and four others, one of whom was Francis Burbadge, then at the head of the corporation, were fined four pence each " for not keeping their gutters clean."

We have seen that in June, 1556, John Shakespeare was termed a glover. In November of the same year he is found bringing an action against one of his neighbors for unjustly detaining a quantity of barley ; which naturally infers him to have been more or less engaged in agricultural pursuits. It appears that at a later period agriculture was his main pursuit, if not his only one ; for the town records show that in 1564 he was paid three shillings for a piece of timber ; and we find him described in 1575 as a "yeoman." Rowe gives a tradition of his having been "a considerable dealer in wool." It is nowise unlikely that such may have been the case. The modern divisions of labor and trade were then little known and less regarded ; several kinds of business being often carried on together, which are now kept distinct ; and we have special proof that gloves and wool were apt to be united as articles of trade.

I must next trace, briefly, the career of John Shakespeare as a public officer in the Stratford corporation. After holding several minor offices, he was in 1558, and again in 1559, chosen one of the four constables. In 1561, he was a second time made one of the four affeerors, whose duty it was to determine the fines for such offences as had no penalties prescribed by statute. The same year, 1561, he was chosen one of the chamberlains of the borough, a very responsible office, which he held two years. Advancing steadily in the public confidence, he became an alderman in 1565 ; and in 1568 was elected Bailiff, the highest honor the corporation .could bestow. He held this office a year. The series of local honors conferred upon him ended with his being chosen head-alderman in 157 1 ; which office also he held a year. The rule being " once an alderman always an alderman," unless positive action were taken to the contrary, he retained that office till 1586, when, for persevering non-attendance at the meetings, he was deprived of his gown.

John Shakespeare's good fortune seems to have reached its height about the year 1575, after which time we meet with many clear tokens of his decline. It is not improbable that his affairs may have got embarrassed from his having too many irons in the fire. The registry of the Court of Record, from 1555 to 1595, has a large number of entries respecting him, which show him to have been engaged in a great variety of transactions, and to have had more litigation on his hands than would now be thought either creditable or safe. But, notwithstanding his decline of fortune, we have proofs as late as 1592 that he still retained the confidence and esteem of his fellow-citizens. From that time forward, his affairs were doubtless taken care of by one who, as we shall see hereafter, was much interested not to let them suffer, and also well able to keep them in good trim. He was buried September 8, 1601 ; so that, supposing him to have reached his majority when first heard of in 1552, he must have p.assed the age of threescore and ten.

On the maternal side, our poet's lineage was of a higher rank, and may be traced further back. His mother was Mary Arden, a name redolent of old poetry and romance. The family of Arden was among the most ancient in Warwickshire. Their history, as given by Dugdale, spreads over six centuries. Sir John Arden was squire of the body to Henry the Seventh ; and he had a nephew, the son of a younger brother, who was page of the bedchamber to the same monarch. These were at that time places of considerable service and responsibility; and both the uncle and the nephew were liberally rewarded by their royal master. By conveyances dated in December, 15 19, it appears that Robert Arden then became the owner of houses and land in Snitterfield. Other purchases by him of lands and houses are recorded from time to time. The poet's maternal grandfather, also named Robert, died in 1556. In his will, dated November 24, and proved December 17, of that year, he makes special bequests to his " youngest daughter Mary," and also appoints her and another daughter, named Alice, "full executors of this my last will and testament." On the whole, it is evident enough that he was a man of good landed estate. Both he and Richard Shakespeare appear to have been of that honest and substantial old English yeomanry, from whose better-than-royal stock and lineage the great Poet of Nature might most fitly fetch his life and being. Of the poet's grandmother on either side we know nothing whatever.

Mary Arden was the youngest of seven children, all of them daughters. The exact time of her marriage is uncertain, no registry of it having been found. She was not married at the date of her father's will, November, 1556. Joan, the first-born of John and Mary Shakespeare, was baptized in the parish church of Stratford-on-Avon, September 15, 15 58. We have seen that at this time John Shakespeare was well established and thriving in business, and was making good headway in the confidence of the Stratfordians, beins: one of the constables of the borough. On the 2d of December, 1562, while he was chamberlain, his second child was christened Margaret. On the 26th of April, 1564, was baptized "William, son of John Shakespeare." The birth is commonly thought to have taken place on the 23d, it being then the usual custom to present infants at the font the third day after their birth ; but we have no certain information whether it was observed on this august occasion. We have seen that throughout the following summer the destroyer was busy in Stratford, making fearful spoil of her sons and daughters ; but it spared the babe on whose life hung the fate of English literature. Other children were added to the family, to the number of eight, several of them dying in the meantime. On the 28th of September, 157 1, soon after the father became head-alderman, a fourth daughter was baptized Anne. Hitherto the parish register has known him only as John Shakespeare : in this case it designates him " Master Shakespeare." Whether Master was a token of honor not extended to any thing under an exbailiff, does not appear ; but in all cases after this the name is written with that significant prefix.

Nothing further is heard of Mrs. Mary Shakespeare till her death in 1608. On the 9th of September, that year, the parish register notes the burial of " Mary Shakespeare, widow," her husband having died seven years before. That she had in a special degree the confidence and affection of her father, is apparent from the treatment she received in his will. It would be very gratifying, no doubt, perhaps very instructive also, to be let into the domestic life and character of the poet's mother. That both her nature and her discipline entered largely into his composition, and had much to do in making him what he was, can hardly be questioned. Whatsoever of woman's beauty and sweetness and wisdom was expressed in her Ufe and manners could not but be caught and repeated in his susceptive and fertile mind. He must have grown familiar with the noblest parts of womanhood somewhere; and I can 'scarce conceive how he should have learned them so well, but that the light and glory of them beamed upon him from his mother. At the time of her death, the poet was in his forty-fifth year, and had already produced those mighty works which were to fill the world with his fame. For some years she must in all likelihood have been more or less under his care and protection ; as her age, at the time of her death, could not well have been less than seventy.

And here I am minded to notice a point which, it seems to me, has been somewhat overworked within the last few years. Gervinus, the German critic, thinks — and our Mr. White agrees with him — that Shakespeare acquired all his best ideas of womanhood after he went to London, and conversed with the ladies of the city. And in support of this notion they cite the fact — for such it is — that the women of his later plays are much superior to those of his earlier ones. But are not the 7ncn of his later plays quite as much superior to the men of his first t Are not his later plays as much better every way, as in respect of the female characters ? The truth seems to be, that Shakespeare saw more of great and good in both man and woman, as he became older and knew them better ; for he was full of intellectual righteousness in this as in other things. And in this matter it may with something of special fitness be said that a man finds what he brings with him the faculty for finding. Shakespeare's mind did not stay on the surface of things. Probably there never was a man more alive to the presence of humble, modest worth. And to his keen yet kindly eye the plain-thoughted women of his native Stratford may well have been as pure, as sweet, as lovely, as rich in all the inward graces which he delighted to unfold in his female characters, as any thing he afterwards found among the fine ladies of the metropolis ; albeit I mean no disparagement to these latter; for the poet was by the best of all rights a gentleman, and the ladies who pleased him in London doubtless had sense and womanhood enough to recognize him as such. At all events, it is reasonable to suppose that the foundations of his mind were laid before he left Stratford, and that the gatherings of the boy's eye and heart were the germs of the man's thoughts.

We have seen our poet springing from what may be justly termed the best vein of old English life. At the time of his birth, his parents, considering the purchases previously made by the father, and the portion inherited by the mother, must have been tolerably well off. Malone, reckoning only the bequests specified in her father's will, estimated Mary Shakespeare's fortune to be not less than ^iio. Later researches have brought to light considerable items of property that were unknown to Malone. Supposing her fortune to have been as good as ;^i5o then, it would go nearly if not quite as far as $5000 in our time. So that the poet passed his boyhood in just about that medium state between poverty and riches which is accounted most favorable to health of body and mind.

At the time when his father became High-Bailiff the poet was in his fifth year ; old enough to understand something of what would be said and done in the home of an English magistrate, and to take more or less interest in the duties, the hospitalities, and perhaps the gayeties incident to the headship of the borough. It would seem ' that the poet came honestly by his inclination to the Drama. During his term of office, John Shakespeare is found acting in his public capacity as a patron of the stage. The chamberlain's accounts show that twice in the course of that year money was paid to different companies of players; and these are the earliest notices we have of theatrical performances in that ancient town. The Bailiff and his son William were most likely present at those performances. From that time forward, all through the poet's youth, probably no year passed without similar exhibitions at Stratford. In 1573, however, an act was passed for restraining itinerant players, whereby, unless they could show a patent under the great seal, they became liable to be proceeded against as vagabonds, for performing without a license from the local authorities. Nevertheless, the chamberlain's accounts show that between 1569 and 1587 no less than ten distinct companies performed at Stratford under the patronage of the corporation. In 1587, five of those companies are found performing there; and within the period just mentioned the Earl of Leicester's men are noted on three several occasions as receiving money from the town treasury. Ill May, 1574, the Earl of Leicester obtained a patent under the great seal, enabling his players, James Burbadge and four others, to exercise their art in any part of the kingdom except London. In 1587, this company became "The Lord Chamberlain's Servants"; and we shall in due time find Shakespeare belonging to it. James Burbadge was the father of Richard Burbadge, the greatest actor of that age. The family was most likely from Warwickshire, and perhaps from Stratford, as we have already met with the name in that town. Such were the opportunities our embryo poet had for catching the first rudiments of the art in which he afterwards displayed such learned mastery.

The forecited accounts have an entry, in 1564, of two shillings "paid for defacing image in the chapel." Even then the excesses generated out of the Reformation were invading such towns as Stratford, and waging a " crusade against the harmless monuments of the ancient belief ; no exercise of taste being suffered to interfere with what was considered a religious duty." In these exhibitions of strolling players this spirit found matter, no doubt, more deserving of its hostility. While the poet was yet a boy, a bitter war of books and pamphlets had begun against plays and players ; and the Stratford records inform us of divers attempts to suppress them in that town ; but the issue proves that the Stratfordians were not easily beaten from that sort of entertainment, in which they evidently took great delight.

We have seen that both John and Mary Shakespeare, instead of writing their names, were so far disciples of Jack Cade as to use the more primitive way of making their mark. It nowise follows from this that they could not read ; neither have we any certain evidence that they could. Be this as it may, there was no good reason why lO SHAKESPEARE S LIFE.

their children should not be able to say, " I thank God, I have been so well brought up, that I can write my name." A Free-School had been founded at Stratford by Thomas Jolyffe in the reign of Edward the Fourth. In 1553, King Edward the Sixth granted a charter, giving it a legal being, with legal rights and duties, under the name of " The King's New School of Stratford-upon-Avon." What particular course or method of instruction was used there, we have no certain knowledge ; but it was probably much the same as that used in other like schools of that period ; which included the elementary branches of English, and also the rudiments of classical learning.

Here it was, no doubt, that Shakespeare acquired the " small Latin and less Greek " which Ben Jonson accords to him. What was " small " learning in the eyes of such a scholar as Jonson, may yet have been something handsome in itself ; and his remark may fairly imply that the poet had at least the regular free-school education of the time. Honorably ambitious, as his father seems to have been, of being somebody, it is not unlikely that he may have prized learning the more for being himself without it. William was his oldest son ; when his tide of fortune began to ebb, the poet was in his fourteenth year, and, from his native qualities of mind, we cannot doubt that, up to that time at least, '" all the learnings that his town could make him the receiver of he took, as we do air, fast as 'twas ministered, and in his spring became a harvest."

The gleanings of tradition apart, the first knowledge that has reached us of the poet, after his baptism, has reference to his marriage. Rowe tells us that " he thought fit to marry while he was very young," and that "' his wife was the daughter of one Hathaway, said to have been a substantial yeoman in the neighbourhood of Stratford." These statements are borne out by later disclosures. The marriage took place in the fall of 1582, when the poet was in his nineteenth year. On the 28th of November, that year, Fulk Sandels and John Richardson subscribed a bond whereby they became liable in the sum of £40, to be forfeited to the Bishop of Worcester in case there should be found any lawful impediment to the marriage of William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway, of Stratford ; the object being to procure such a dispensation from the Bishop as would authorize the ceremony after once publishing the banns. The original bond is preserved at Worcester, with the marks and seals of the two bondsmen affixed, and also bearing a seal with the initials R. H., as if to show that some legal representative of the bride's father, Richard Hathaway, was present and consenting to the act. There was nothing peculiar in the transaction ; the bond is just the same as was usually given in such cases, and several others like it are to be seen at the office of the Worcester registry.

The parish books all about Stratford and Worcester have been ransacked, but no record of the marriage has been discovered. The probability is, that the ceremony took place in some one of the neighboring parishes where the registers of that period have not been preserved.

Anne Hathaway was of Shottery, a pleasant village situate within an easy walk of Stratford, and belonging to the same parish. No record of her baptism has come to light, but the baptismal register of Stratford did not begin till 1558. She died on the 6th of August, 1623, and the inscription on her monument gives her age as sixty-seven years. Her birth, therefore, must have been in 1556, eight years before that of her liusband.

From certain precepts, dated in 1566, and lately found among the papers of the Stratford Court of Record, it appears that the relations between John Shakespeare and Richard Hathaway were of a very friendly sort. Hathaway's will was made September i, 1581, and proved July 19, 1582, which shows him to have died a few months before the marriage of his daughter Anne. The will makes good what Rowe says of his being " a substantial yeoman." He appoints Fulk Sandals one of the supervisors of his will, and among the witnesses to it is the name of William Gilbert, then curate of Stratford. One item of the will is : "I owe unto Thomas Whittington, my shepherd, ^4 Gs. 8t/." Whittington died in 1601 ; and in his will he gives and bequeaths "unto the poor people of Stratford 40s. that is in the hand of Anne Shakespeare, wife unto Mr. William Shakespeare." The careful old shepherd had doubtless placed the money in Anne Shakespeare's hand for safe keeping, she being a person in whom he had confidence.

The poet's match was evidently a love-match : whether the love was of that kind which forms the best pledge of wedded happiness, is another question. It is not unlikely that the marriage may have been preceded by the anpient ceremony of troth-plight, or haiu^fast, as it was sometimes called ; like that which almost takes place between Florizel and Perdita in The Winter's Tale, and quite takes place between Olivia and Sebastian in Twelfth Night. The custom of troth-plight was much used in that age, and for a long time after. In some places it had the force and effect of an actual marriage. Serious evils, however, sometimes grew out of it ; and the Church of England did wisely, no doubt, in uniting the troth-plight and the marriage in one and the same ceremony. Whether such solemn betrothment had or had not taken place between William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway, it is certain from the parish register that they had a daughter, Susanna, baptized on the 26th of May, 1583.

Some of the poet's later biographers and critics have supposed he was not happy in his marriage. Certain passages of his plays, especially the charming dialogue between the Duke and the disguised Viola in Act II., scene 4, of TwelftJi Night, have been cited as involving some reference to the poet's own case, or as having been suggested by what himself had experienced of the evils resulting from the wedlock of persons " misgraffed in respect of years." There was never any thing but sheer conjecture for this notion. Rowe mentions nothing of the kind ; and we may be sure that his candor would not have spared the poet, had tradition offered him any such matter. As for the passages in question, I know no reason for excepting them from the acknowledged purity and disinterestedness of the poet's representations ; where nothing is more remarkable, or more generally commended, than his singular aloofness of self, his perfect freedom from every thing bordering upon egotism.

On the 2d of February, 1585, two more children, twins, were christened in the parish church as " Hamnet and Judith, son and daughter to William Shakespeare." We hear of no more children being added to the family. I t4 Shakespeare's life.

must again so far anticipate as to observe that the son Hamnet was "buried in August, 1596, being then in his twelfth year. This is the first severe home-stroke known to have lighted on the poet.

Tradition has been busy with the probable causes of Shakespeare's going upon the stage. Several causes have been assigned ; such as, first, a natural inclination to poetry and acting ; second, a deer-stealing frolic, which resulted in making Stratford too hot for him ; third, the 1 pecuniary embarrassments of his father. It is not un- ! likely that all these causes, and perhaps others, may have concurred in prompting the step.

For the first, we have the testimony of Aubrey, who was at Stratford probably about the year 1680. He was an arrant and inveterate hunter after anecdotes, and seems to have caught up, without sifting, whatever quaint or curious matter came in his way. So that no great reliance can attach to what he says, unless it is sustained by other authority. But in this case his words sound like truth, and are supported by all the likelihoods that can grow from what we should presume to have been the poet's natural turn of mind. "' This William," says he, " being inclined naturally to poetry and acting, came to London, I guess, about eighteen, and was an actor in one of the playhouses, and did act exceedingly well. He began early to make essays in dramatic poetry, which at that time was very low, and his plays took well. He was a handsome, well-shaped man, very good company, and of a very ready and pleasant smooth wit. Ben Jonson and he did gather humours of men daily wherever they came."

SHAKESPEARE S LIFE, I 5

This natural inclination, fed by the frequent theatrical performances at Stratford, would go far, if not suffice of itself, to account for the poet's subsequent course of life. Before 1586, no doubt, he was well acquainted with some of the players, with whom we shall hereafter find him associated. In their exhibitions, rude as these were, he could not but have been a greedy spectator and an apt scholar. Thomas Greene, a fellow-townsman of his, was already one of their number. All this might not indeed be enough to draw him away from Stratford ; but when other reasons came, if others there were, for leaving, these circumstances would hold out to him an easy and natural access and invitation to the stage. Nor is there any extravagance in supposing that, by 1586, he may have taken some part as actor or writer, perhaps both, in the performances of the company which he afterwards joined.

The deer-stealing matter as given by Rowe is as follows : That Shakespeare fell into the company of some wild fellows who were in the habit of stealing deer, and who drew him into robbing a park owned by Sir Thomas Lucy, of Charlecote, near Stratford. That, being prosecuted for this, he lampooned Sir Thomas in some bitter verses ; which made the Knight so sharp after him, that he had to steal himself off and take shelter in London.

Several have attempted to refute this story ; but the main substance of it stands approved by too much strength of credible tradition to be easily overthrown. And it is certain from public records that the Lucys had great power at Stratford, and were not seldom engaged in disputes with the corporation. Mr. Halliwell met with an old record entitled " the names of them that made the riot upon Master Thomas Lucy, Esquire." Thirty-five inhabitants of Stratford, chiefly tradespeople, are named in the list, but no Shakespeare among them.

In writing biography, special-pleading is not good ; and I would fain avoid trying to make the poet out any better than he was. Little as we know about him, it is evident enough that he had his frailties, and ran into divers faults, both as a poet and as a man. And when we hear him confessing, as in a passage already quoted, " Most true it is, that I have looked on truth askance and strangely," we may be sure he was but too conscious of things that needed to be forgiven ; and that he was as far as any one from wishing his faults to pass for virtues. Deer-stealing, however, was then a kind of fashionable sport, and whatever might be its legal character, it was not morally regarded as involving any criminality or disgrace. So that the whole thing may be justly treated as a mere youthful frolic, wherein there might indeed be some indiscretion, and a deal of vexation to the person robbed, but no stain on the party engaged in it.