Until the end of the century, visitors were shown round the church by an aged parish clerk, some of whose gossip about Shakespeare was recorded by one of them in 1693. The old man came thus to supply two further items of information: how Shakespeare ran away in youth, and how he sought service at a playhouse, "and by this meanes had an opportunity to be what he afterwards proved." A different visitor to Stratford next year recorded in an extant letter to a friend yet more sc.r.a.ps of oral tradition. These were to the effect that "the great Shakespear" dreaded the removal of his bones to the charnel-house attached to the church; that he caused his grave to be dug seventeen feet deep; and that he wrote the rude warning against disturbing his bones, which was inscribed on his gravestone, in order to meet the capacity of the "very ignorant sort of people" whose business it was to look after burials.
Betterton gained more precise particulars--the date of baptism and the like--from an examination of the parochial records; but the most valuable piece of oral tradition with which the great actor"s research must be credited was the account of Shakespeare"s deer-stealing escapade at Charlecote. Another tourist from Oxford privately and independently put that anecdote into writing at the same date, but Rowe, who first gave it to the world in his biography, relied exclusively on Betterton"s authority. At a little later period inquiries made at Stratford by a second actor, Bowman, yielded a trifle more. Bowman came to know a very reputable resident at Bridgtown, a hamlet adjoining Stratford, Sir William Bishop, whose family was of old standing there. Sir William was born ten years after Shakespeare died, and lived close to Stratford till 1700. He told Bowman that a part of Falstaff"s character was drawn from a fellow-townsman at Stratford against whom Shakespeare cherished a grudge owing to his obduracy in some business transaction. Bowman repeated the story to Oldys, who put it on record.
Although one could wish the early oral tradition of Stratford to have been more thoroughly reported, such as is extant in writing is sufficient to prove that Shakespeare"s literary eminence was well known in his native place during the century that followed his death.
In many villages in the neighbourhood of Stratford--at Bidford, at Wilmcote, at Greet, at Dursley--there long persisted like oral tradition of Shakespeare"s occasional visits, but these were not written down before the middle of the eighteenth century; and although they are of service as proof of the local dissemination of his fame, they are somewhat less definite than the traditions that suffered earlier record, and need not be particularised here. One light piece of gossip, which was a.s.sociated with a country parish at some distance from Stratford, can alone be traced back to remote date, and was quickly committed to writing. A trustworthy Oxford don, Josias Howe, fellow and tutor of Trinity, was born early in the seventeenth century at Grendon in Buckinghamshire, where his father was long rector, and he maintained close relations with his birthplace during his life of more than ninety years. Grendon was on the road between Oxford and London. Howe stated that Shakespeare often visited the place in his journey from Stratford, and that he found the original of his character of Dogberry in the person of a parish constable who lived on there till 1642. Howe was on familiar terms with the man, and he confided his reminiscence to his friend Aubrey, who duly recorded it, although in a somewhat confused shape.
VII
It is with early oral tradition of Shakespeare"s personal experience that I am dealing here. It is not my purpose to notice early literary criticism, of which there is abundant supply. It was obviously the free circulation of the fame of Shakespeare"s work which stimulated the activity of interest in his private fortunes and led to the chronicling of the oral tradition regarding them. It could easily be shown that, outside the circle of professional poets, dramatists, actors, and fellow-townsmen, Shakespeare"s name was, from his first coming into public notice, constantly on the lips of scholars, statesmen, and men of fashion who had any glimmer of literary taste.
The Muse of History indeed drops plain hints of the views expressed at the social meetings of the great in the seventeenth century when Shakespeare was under discussion. Before 1643, "all persons of quality that had wit and learning" engaged in a set debate at Eton in the rooms of "the ever-memorable" John Hales, Fellow of the College, on the question of Shakespeare"s merits compared with those of cla.s.sical poets. The judges who presided over "this ingenious a.s.sembly"
unanimously and without qualification decided in favour of Shakespeare"s superiority.
A very eminent representative of the culture and political intelligence of the next generation was in full sympathy with the verdict of the Eton College tribunal. Lord Clarendon held Shakespeare to be one of the "most ill.u.s.trious of our nation." Among the many heroes of his admiration, Shakespeare was of the elect few who were "most agreeable to his lordship"s general humour." Lord Clarendon was at the pains of securing a portrait of Shakespeare to hang in his house in St James"s. Similarly, the proudest and probably the richest n.o.bleman in political circles at the end of the seventeenth century, the Duke of Somerset, was often heard to speak of his "pleasure in that Greatness of Thought, those natural Images, those Pa.s.sions finely touch"d, and that beautiful Expression which is everywhere to be met with in Shakespear."
VIII
It was to this Duke of Somerset that Rowe appropriately dedicated the first full and formal biography of the poet. That work was designed as a preface to the first critical edition of Shakespeare"s plays, which Rowe published in 1709. "Though the works of Mr Shakespear may seem to many not to want a comment," Rowe wrote modestly enough, "yet I fancy some little account of the man himself may not be thought improper to go along with them." Rowe did his work quite as well as the rudimentary state of the biographic art of his day allowed. He was under the complacent impression that his supply of information satisfied all reasonable curiosity. He had placed himself in the hands of Betterton, an investigator at first hand. But the fact remains that Rowe made no sustained nor scholarly effort to collect exhaustively even the oral tradition; still less did he consult with thoroughness official records or references to Shakespeare"s literary achievements in the books of his contemporaries. Such labour as that was to be undertaken later, when the practice of biography had a.s.similated more scientific method. Rowe preferred the straw of vague rhapsody to the brick of solid fact.
Nevertheless Rowe"s memoir laid the foundations on which his successors built. It set ringing the bell which called together that ma.s.s of information drawn from every source--ma.n.u.script archives, printed books, oral tradition--which now far exceeds what is accessible in the case of any poet contemporary with Shakespeare. Some links in the chain of Shakespeare"s career are still missing, and we must wait for the future to disclose them. But, though the clues at present are in some places faint, the trail never altogether eludes the patient investigator. The ascertained facts are already numerous enough to define beyond risk of intelligent doubt the direction that Shakespeare"s career followed. Its general outline is, as we have seen, fully established by one source of knowledge alone--one out of many--by the oral tradition which survives from the seventeenth century.
It may be justifiable to cherish regret for the loss of Shakespeare"s autograph papers and of his familiar correspondence. But the absence of such doc.u.mentary material can excite scepticism of the received tradition only in those who are ignorant of the fate that invariably befell the original ma.n.u.scripts and correspondence of Elizabethan and Jacobean poets and dramatists. Save for a few fragments of small literary moment, no play of the era in its writer"s autograph escaped early destruction by fire or dustbin. No machinery then ensured, no custom then encouraged, the due preservation of the autographs of men distinguished for poetic genius. Provision was made in the public record offices or in private muniment-rooms for the protection of the official papers and correspondence of men in public life, and of ma.n.u.script memorials affecting the property and domestic history of great county families. But even in the case of men of the sixteenth or seventeenth century in official life who, as often happened, devoted their leisure to literature, the autographs of their literary compositions have for the most part perished, and there usually only remain in the official depositories remnants of their writings about matters of official routine.
Not all those depositories, it is to be admitted, have yet been fully explored, and in some of them a more thorough search than has yet been undertaken may be expected to throw new light on Shakespeare"s biography. Meanwhile, instead of mourning helplessly over the lack of material for a knowledge of Shakespeare"s life, it becomes us to estimate aright what we have at our command, to study it closely in the light of the literary history of the epoch, and, while neglecting no opportunity of bettering our information, to recognise frankly the activity of the destroying agencies which have been at work from the outset. Then we shall wonder, not why we know so little, but why we know so much.
IV
PEPYS AND SHAKESPEARE[14]
[Footnote 14: A paper read at the sixth meeting of the Samuel Pepys Club, on Thursday, November 30, 1905, and printed in the _Fortnightly Review_ for January, 1906.]
I
In his capacity of playgoer, as indeed in almost every other capacity, Pepys presents himself to readers of his nave diary as the incarnation, or the microcosm, of the average man. No other writer has pictured with the same lifelike precision and simplicity the average playgoer"s sensations of pleasure or pain. Of the play and its performers Pepys records exactly what he thinks or feels. He usually takes a more lively interest in the acting and in the scenic and musical accessories than in the drama"s literary quality. Subtlety is at any rate absent from his criticism. He is either bored or amused.
The piece is either the best or the worst that he ever witnessed. His epithets are of the bluntest and are without modulation. Wiser than more professional dramatic critics, he avoids labouring at reasons for his emphatic judgments.
Always true to his role of the average man, Pepys suffers his mind to be swayed by barely relevant accidents. His thought is rarely free from official or domestic business, and the heaviness or lightness of his personal cares commonly colours his playhouse impressions. His praises and his censures of a piece often reflect, too, the physical comforts or discomforts which attach to his seat in the theatre. He is peculiarly sensitive to petty annoyances--to the agony of sitting in a draught, or to the irritation caused by frivolous talk in his near neighbourhood while a serious play is in progress. On one occasion, when he sought to practise a praiseworthy economy by taking a back seat in the shilling gallery, his evening"s enjoyment was well-nigh spoiled by finding the gaze of four clerks in his office steadily directed upon him from more expensive seats down below. On another occasion, when in the pit with his wife and her waiting-woman, he was overcome by a sense of shame as he realised how shabbily his companions were dressed, in comparison with the smartly-attired ladies round about them.
Everyone knows how susceptible Pepys was in all situations of life to female charms. It was inevitable that his wits should often wander from the dramatic theme and its scenic presentation to the features of some woman on the stage or in the auditory. An actress"s pretty face or graceful figure many times diverted his attention from her professional incompetence. It is doubtful if there were any affront which Pepys would not pardon in a pretty woman. Once when he was in the pit, this curious experience befell him. "I sitting behind in a dark place," he writes, "a lady spit backward upon me by mistake, not seeing me; but after seeing her to be a very pretty lady, I was not troubled at it at all." The volatile diarist studied much besides the drama when he spent his afternoon or evening at the play.
Never was there a more indefatigable playgoer than Pepys. Yet his enthusiasm for the theatre was, to his mind, a failing which required most careful watching. He feared that the pa.s.sion might do injury to his purse, might distract him from serious business, might lead him into temptation of the flesh. He had a little of the Puritan"s dread of the playhouse. He was constantly taking vows to curb his love of plays, which "mightily troubled his mind." He was frequently resolving to abstain from the theatre for four or five months at a stretch, and then to go only in the company of his wife. During these periods of abstinence he was in the habit of reading over his vows every Sunday.
But, in spite of all his well-meaning efforts, his resolution was constantly breaking down. On one occasion he perjured himself so thoroughly as to witness two plays in one day, once in the afternoon and again in the evening. On this riotous outbreak he makes the characteristic comment: "Sad to think of the spending so much money, and of venturing the breach of my vow." But he goes on to thank G.o.d that he had the grace to feel sorry for the misdeed, at the same time as he lamented that "his nature was so content to follow the pleasure still." Pepys compounded with his conscience for such breaches of his oath by all manner of casuistry. He excused himself for going, contrary to his vow, to the new theatre in Drury Lane, because it was not built when his vow was framed. Finally, he stipulated with himself that he would only go to the theatre once a fortnight; but if he went oftener he would give 10 to the poor. "This," he added, "I hope in G.o.d will bind me." The last reference that he makes to his vows is when, in contravention of them, he went with his wife to the Duke of York"s House, and found the place full, and himself unable to obtain seats. He makes a final record of "the saving of his vow, to his great content."
II
All self-imposed restrictions notwithstanding, Pepys contrived to visit the theatre no less than three hundred and fifty-one times during the nine years and five months that he kept his diary. It has to be borne in mind that, for more than twelve months of that period, the London playhouses were for the most part closed, owing to the Great Plague and the Fire. Had Pepys gone at regular intervals, when the theatres were open, he would have been a playgoer at least once a week. But, owing to his vows, his visits fell at most irregular intervals. Sometimes he went three or four times a week, or even twice in one day. Then there would follow eight or nine weeks of abstinence.
If a piece especially took his fancy, he would see it six or seven times in fairly quick succession. Long runs were unknown to the theatre of Pepys"s day, but a successful piece was frequently revived.
Occasionally, Pepys would put himself to the trouble of attending a first night. But this was an indulgence that he practised sparingly.
He resented the manager"s habit of doubling the price of the seats, and he was irritated by the frequent want of adequate rehearsal.
Pepys"s theatrical experience began with the reopening of theatres after the severe penalty of suppression, which the Civil Wars and the Commonwealth imposed on them for nearly eighteen years. His playgoing diary thus became an invaluable record of a new birth of theatrical life in London. When, in the summer of 1660, General Monk occupied London for the restored King, Charles II., three of the old theatres were still standing empty. These were soon put into repair, and applied anew to theatrical uses, although only two of them seem to have been open at any one time. The three houses were the Red Bull, dating from Elizabeth"s reign, in St John"s Street, Clerkenwell, where Pepys saw Marlowe"s _Faustus_; Salisbury Court, Whitefriars, off Fleet Street; and the Old c.o.c.kpit in Drury Lane, both of which were of more recent origin. To all these theatres Pepys paid early visits. But the c.o.c.kpit in Drury Lane, was the scene of some of his most stirring experiences. There he saw his first play, Beaumont and Fletcher"s _Loyal Subject_; and there, too, he saw his first play by Shakespeare, _Oth.e.l.lo_.
But these three theatres were in decay, and new and sumptuous buildings soon took their places. One of the new playhouses was in Portugal Row, Lincoln"s Inn Fields; the other, on the site of the present Drury Lane Theatre, was the first of the many playhouses that sprang up there. It is to these two theatres--Lincoln"s Inn Fields and Drury Lane--that Pepys in his diary most often refers. He calls each of them by many different names, and the unwary reader might infer that London was very richly supplied with playhouses in Pepys"s day.
But public theatres in active work at this period of our history were not permitted by the authorities to exceed two. "The Opera" and "the Duke"s House" are merely Pepys"s alternative designations of the Lincoln"s Inn Field"s Theatre; while "the Theatre," "Theatre Royal,"
and "the King"s House," are the varying t.i.tles which he bestows on the Drury Lane Theatre.[15]
[Footnote 15: At the restoration of King Charles II., no more than two companies of actors received licenses to perform in public. One of these companies was directed by Sir William D"Avenant, Shakespeare"s reputed G.o.dson, and was under the patronage of the King"s brother, the Duke of York. The other was directed by Tom Killigrew, one of Charles II."s boon companions, and was under the patronage of the King himself. In due time the Duke"s, or D"Avenant"s, company occupied the theatre in Lincoln"s Inn Fields, and the King"s, or Killigrew"s, company occupied the new building in Drury Lane.]
Besides these two public theatres there was, in the final const.i.tution of the theatrical world in Pepys"s London, a third, which stood on a different footing. A theatre was attached to the King"s Court at Whitehall, and there performances were given at the King"s command by actors from the two public houses.[16] The private Whitehall theatre was open to the public on payment, and Pepys was frequently there.
[Footnote 16: Charles II. formed this private theatre out of a detached building in St James"s Park, known as the "c.o.c.kpit," and to be carefully distinguished from the c.o.c.kpit of Drury Lane. Part of the edifice was occupied by courtiers by favour of the King. General Monk had lodgings there. At a much later date, cabinet councils were often held there.]
At one period of his life Pepys held that his vows did not apply to the Court theatre, which was mainly distinguished from the other houses by the circ.u.mstances that the performances were given at night.
At Lincoln"s Inn Fields or Drury Lane it was only permitted to perform in the afternoon. Half-past three was the usual hour for opening the proceedings. At Whitehall the play began about eight, and often lasted till near midnight.
The general organisation of Pepys"s auditorium was much as it is to-day. It had improved in many particulars since Shakespeare died.
The pit was the most popular part of the house; it covered the floor of the building, and was provided with seats; the price of admission was 2s. 6d. The company there seems to have been extremely mixed; men and women of fashion often rubbed elbows with City shopkeepers, their wives, and apprentices. The first gallery was wholly occupied by boxes, in which seats could be hired separately at 4s. apiece. Above the boxes was the middle gallery, the central part of which was filled with benches, where the seats cost 1s. 6d. each, while boxes lined the sides. The highest tier was the 1s. gallery, where footmen soon held sway. As Pepys"s fortune improved, he spent more on his place in the theatre. From the 1s. gallery he descended to the 1s. 6d., and thence came down to the pit, occasionally ascending to the boxes on the first tier.
In the methods of representation, Pepys"s period of playgoing was coeval with many most important innovations, which seriously affected the presentation of Shakespeare on the stage. The chief was the desirable subst.i.tution of women for boys in the female roles. During the first few months of Pepys"s theatrical experience, boys were still taking the women"s parts. That the practice survived in the first days of Charles II."s reign we know from the well-worn anecdote that when the King sent behind the scenes to inquire why the play of _Hamlet_, which he had come to see, was so late in commencing, he was answered that the Queen was not yet shaved. But in the opening month of 1661, within five months of Pepys"s first visit to a theatre, the reign of the boys ended. On January 3rd of that year, Pepys writes that he "first saw women come upon the stage." Next night he makes entry of a boy"s performance of a woman"s part, and that is the final record of boys masquerading as women in the English theatre. I believe the practice now survives nowhere except in j.a.pan. This mode of representation has always been a great puzzle to students of Elizabethan drama.[17] Before, however, Pepys saw Shakespeare"s work on the stage, the usurpation of the boys was over.
[Footnote 17: For a fuller description of this theatrical practice, see pages 41-3 _supra_.]
It was after the Restoration, too, that scenery, rich costume, and scenic machinery became, to Pepys"s delight, regular features of the theatre. When the diarist saw _Hamlet_ "done with scenes" for the first time, he was most favourably impressed. Musical accompaniment was known to pre-Restoration days; but the orchestra was now for the first time placed on the floor of the house in front of the stage, instead of in a side gallery, or on the stage itself. The musical accompaniment of plays developed very rapidly, and the methods of opera were soon applied to many of Shakespeare"s pieces, notably to _The Tempest_ and _Macbeth_.
Yet at the side of these innovations, one very important feature of the old playhouses, which gravely concerned both actors and auditors, survived throughout Pepys"s lifetime. The stage still projected far into the pit in front of the curtain. The actors and actresses spoke in the centre of the house, so that, as Colley Cibber put it, "the most distant ear had scarce the least doubt or difficulty in hearing what fell from the weakest utterance ... nor was the minutest motion of a feature, properly changing with the pa.s.sion or humour it suited, ever lost, as they frequently must be, in the obscurity of too great a distance." The platform-stage, with which Shakespeare was familiar, suffered no curtailment in the English theatres till the eighteenth century, when the fore-edge of the boards was for the first time made to run level with the proscenium.
III
One of the obvious results of the long suppression of the theatres during the Civil Wars and Commonwealth was the temporary extinction of play-writing in England. On the sudden reopening of the playhouses at the Restoration, the managers had mainly to rely for sustenance on the drama of a long-past age. Of the one hundred and forty-five separate plays which Pepys witnessed, fully half belonged to the great period of dramatic activity in England, which covered the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I. John Evelyn"s well-known remark in his _Diary_ (November 26, 1661): "I saw _Hamlet, Prince of Denmark_, played; but now the old plays begin to disgust this refined age,"
requires much qualification before it can be made to apply to Pepys"s records of playgoing. It was in "the old plays" that he and all average playgoers mainly delighted.
Not that the new demand failed quickly to create a supply of new plays for the stage. Dryden and D"Avenant, the chief dramatists of Pepys"s day, were rapid writers. To a large extent they carried on, with exaggeration of its defects and diminution of its merits, the old Elizabethan tradition of heroic romance, tragedy, and farce. The more matter-of-fact and lower-principled comedy of manners, which is commonly reckoned the chief characteristic of the new era in theatrical history, was only just beginning when Pepys was reaching the end of his diary. The virtual leaders of the new movement--Wycherley, Vanbrugh, Farquhar, and Congreve--were not at work till long after Pepys ceased to write. He records only the first runnings of that sparkling stream. He witnessed some impudent comedies of Dryden, Etherege, and Sedley. But it is important to note that he formed a low opinion of all of them. Their intellectual glitter did not appeal to him. Their cynical licentiousness seemed to him to be merely "silly." One might have antic.i.p.ated from him a different verdict on the frank obscenity of Restoration drama. But there are the facts. Neither did Mr Pepys, nor (he is careful to remind us) did Mrs Pepys, take "any manner of pleasure in" the bold indelicacy of Dryden, Etherege, or Sedley.
When we ask what sort of pieces Pepys appreciated, we seem to be faced by further perplexities. His highest enthusiasm was evoked by certain plays of Ben Jonson, of Beaumont and Fletcher, and of Ma.s.singer. Near the zenith of his scale of dramatic excellence he set the comedies of Ben Jonson, which are remarkable for their portrayal of eccentricity of character. These pieces, which incline to farce, give great opportunity to what is commonly called character-acting, and character-acting always appeals most directly to average humanity.
Pepys called Jonson"s _Alchemist_ "a most incomparable play," and he found in _Every Man in his Humour_ "the greatest propriety of speech that ever I read in my life." Similarly, both the heroic tragedies and the comedies of Beaumont and Fletcher, of which he saw no less than nineteen, roused in him, as a rule, an ecstatic admiration. But of all dramatic entertainments which the theatre offered him, Pepys was most "taken" by the romantic comedy from the pen of Ma.s.singer, which is called _The Bondman_. "There is nothing more taking in the world with me than that play," he writes.
Ma.s.singer"s _Bondman_ is a well-written piece, in which an heroic interest is fused with a genuine spirit of low comedy. Yet Pepys"s unqualified commendation of it presents a problem. Ma.s.singer"s play, like the cognate work of Fletcher, offers much episode which is hardly less indecent than those early specimens of Restoration comedy of which Pepys disapproved. A leading character is a frowsy wife who faces all manner of humiliation, in order to enjoy, behind her elderly husband"s back, the embraces of a good-looking youth.
Pepys is scarcely less tolerant of Fletcher"s more flagrant infringements of propriety. In the whole of the Elizabethan drama there was no piece which presented so liberal a ma.s.s of indelicacy as Fletcher"s _Custom of the Country_. Dryden, who was innocent of prudery, declared that there was "more indecency" in that drama "than in all our plays together." This was one of the pieces which Pepys twice saw performed after carefully reading it in his study, and he expressed admiration for the rendering of the widow"s part by his pretty friend, Mistress Knipp. One has to admit that Pepys condemned the play from a literary point of view as "a very poor one, methinks,"
as "fully the worst play that I saw or believe shall see." But the pleasure which Mistress Knipp"s share in the performance gave him suggests, in the absence of any explicit disclaimer, that the improprieties of both plot and characters escaped his notice, or, at any rate, excited in him no disgust. Ma.s.singer"s _Bondman_, Pepys"s ideal of merit in drama, has little of the excessive grossness of the _Custom of the Country_. But to some extent it is tarred with the same brush.
Pepys"s easy principles never lend themselves to very strict definition. Yet he may be credited with a certain measure of discernment in pardoning the indelicacy of Fletcher and Ma.s.singer, while he condemns that of Dryden, Etherege, or Sedley. Indelicacy in the older dramatists does not ignore worthier interests. Other topics attracted the earlier writers besides conjugal infidelity and the frailty of virgins, which were the sole themes of Restoration comedy.