Part 9

The authority of Seneca, once established in the English literary world, maintained itself there long after English drama had emancipated itself from the task of imitating this pallid model, and, occasionally, Seneca's own prototype, Euripides.[162] Nor can it be doubted that some translation of the Latin tragic poet had at one time or another passed through Shakespeare's own hands. But what is of present importance is that to the direct influence of Seneca is to be ascribed the composition of the first English tragedy which we possess. Of _Gorboduc_ (afterwards re-named _Ferrex and Porrex_), first acted on the 18th of January 1562 by the members of the Inner Temple before Queen Elizabeth, the first three acts are stated to have been written by T. Norton; the rest of the play (if not more) was the work of T. Sackville, afterwards Lord Buckhurst and earl of Dorset, whom Jasper Heywood praised for his sonnets, but who is better known for his leading share in The _Mirror for Magistrates_. Though the subject of _Gorboduc_ is a British legend, and though the action is neither copied nor adapted from any treated by Seneca, yet the resemblance between this tragedy and the _Thebais_ is too strong to be fortuitous. In all formal matters--chorus, messengers, &c.--_Gorboduc_ adheres to the usage of classical tragedy; but the authors show no respect for the unities of time or place. Strong in construction, the tragedy is--like its model, Seneca--weak in characterization. The dialogue, it should be noticed, is in blank verse; and the device of the _dumb-show_, in which the contents of each act are in succession set forth in pantomime only, is employed at once to instruct and to stimulate the spectator.

The nearly contemporary _Apius and Virginia_ (c. 1563), though it takes its subject--destined to become a perennial one on the modern stage--from Roman story; the _Historie of Horestes_ (pr. 1567); and T. Preston's _Cambises King of Percia_ (1569-1570), are somewhat rougher in form, and, the first and last of them at all events, more violent in diction, than _Gorboduc_. They still contain elements of the moralities (above all the Vice) and none of the formal features of classical tragedy. But a _Julyus Sesyar_ seems to have been performed, in precisely the same circumstances as _Gorboduc_, so early as 1562; and, four years later, G. Gascoigne, the author of the satire _The Steele Glass_, produced with the aid of two associates (F. Kinwelmersh and Sir Christopher Yelverton, who wrote an epilogue), _Jocasta_, a virtual translation of L. Dolce's _Giocasta_, which was an adaptation, probably, of R. Winter's Latin translation of the _Phoenissae_ of Euripides.[163] Between the years 1567 and 1580 a large proportion of the plays presented at court by choir- or school-boys, and by various companies of actors, were taken from Greek legend or Roman history; as was R. Edwardes' _Damon and Pithias_ (perhaps as early as 1564-1565), which already shades off from tragedy into what soon came to be called tragi-comedy.[164] Simultaneously with the influence, exercised directly or indirectly, of classical literature, that of Italian, both dramatic and narrative, with its marked tendency to treat native themes, asserted itself, and, while diversifying the current of early English tragedy, infused into it a long-abiding element of passion. There are sufficient grounds for concluding that a play on the subject of _Romeo and Juliet_, which L. da Porto and M. Bandello had treated in prose narrative--that of the latter having through a French version formed itself into an English poem--was seen on an English stage in or before 1562. _Gismonde of Salerne_, a play founded on Boccaccio, was acted before Queen Elizabeth at the Inner Temple in 1568, nearly a generation before it was published, rewritten in blank verse by R. Wilmot, one of the performers, then in holy orders; G. Whetstone's _Promos and Cassandra_, founded on G. Cinthio (from which came the plot of _Measure for Measure_), followed, printed in 1578; and there were other "casts of Italian devices" belonging to this age, in which the choice of a striking theme still seemed the chief preoccupation of English tragic poets.

From the double danger which threatened English tragedy in the days of its infancy--that it would congeal on the wintry heights of classical themes, or dissolve its vigour in the glowing heat of a passion fiercer than that of the Italians--_Ingleso Italianato è un diavolo incarnato_--it was preserved more than by any other cause by its happy association with the traditions of the national history. An exceptional position might seem to be in this respect occupied by T. Hughes' interesting tragedy _The Misfortunes of Arthur_ (1587). But the author of this play--in certain portions of whose framework there were associated with him seven other members of Gray's Inn, including Francis Bacon, and which was presented before Queen Elizabeth like _Gorboduc_--in truth followed the example of the authors of that work both in choice of theme, in details of form, and in a general though far from servile imitation of the manner of Seneca; nor does he represent any very material advance upon the first English tragedy.

Chronicle histories.

Fortunately, at the very time when from such beginnings as those just described the English tragic drama was to set forth upon a course in which it was to achieve so much, a new sphere of activity suggested itself. And in this, after a few more or less tentative efforts, English dramatists very speedily came to feel at home. In their direct dramatization of passages or portions of English history (in which the doings and sufferings of King Arthur could only by courtesy or poetic licence be included) classical models would be of scant service, while Italian examples of the treatment of national historical subjects, having to deal with material so wholly different, could not be followed with advantage. The native species of the _chronicle history_, which designedly assumed this name in order to make clear its origin and purpose, essayed nothing more or less than a dramatic version of an existing chronicle. Obviously, while the transition from half historical, half epical narrative often implied carrying over into the new form some of the features of the old, it was only when the subject matter had been remoulded and recast that a true dramatic action could result. But the _histories_ to be found among the plays of Shakespeare and one or two other Elizabethans are true dramas, and it would be inconvenient to include these in the transitional species of those known as _chronicle histories_. Among these ruder compositions, which intermixed the blank verse introduced on the Stage by _Gorboduc_ with prose, and freely combined or placed side by side tragic and comic ingredients, we have but few distinct examples. One of these is _The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth_, known to have been acted before 1588; in which both the verse and the prose are frequently of a very rude sort, while it is neither divided into acts or scenes nor, in general, constructed with any measure of dramatic skill. But its vigour and freshness are considerable, and in many passages we recognize familiar situations and favourite figures in later masterpieces of the English historical drama. The second is _The Troublesome Raigne of King John_, in two parts (printed in 1591), an epical narrative transferred to the stage, neither a didactic effort like Bale's, nor a living drama like Shakespeare's, but a far from contemptible treatment of its historical theme. _The True Chronicle History of King Leir_ (acted in 1593) in form resembles the above, though it is not properly on a national subject (its story is taken from Geoffrey of Monmouth); but, with all its defects, it seems only to await the touch of the master's hand to become a tragedy of supreme effectiveness. A yet further step was taken in the _Tragedy of Sir Thomas More_ (c. 1590)--in which Shakespeare's hand has been thought traceable, and which deserves its designation of "tragedy" not so much on account of the relative nearness of the historical subject to the date of its dramatic treatment, as because of the tragic responsibility of character here already clearly worked out.

Earliest comedies.

Such had been the beginnings of tragedy in England up to the time when the genius of English dramatists was impelled by the spirit that dominates a great creative epoch of literature to seize the form ready to their hands. The birth of English comedy, at all times a process of less labour and eased by an always ready popular responsiveness to the most tentative efforts of art, had slightly preceded that of her serious sister. As has been seen from the brief review given above of the early history of the English academical drama, isolated Latin comedies had been performed in the original or in English versions as early as the reign of Henry VIII.--perhaps even earlier; while the morality and its direct descendant, the interlude, pointed the way towards popular treatment in the vernacular of actions and characters equally well suited for the diversion of Roman, Italian and English audiences. Thus there was no innovation in the adaptation by N. Udal (q.v.) of the _Miles Gloriosus_ of Plautus under the title of _Ralph Roister Doister_, which may claim to be the earliest extant English comedy. It has a genuinely popular vein of humour, and the names fit the characters after a fashion familiar to the moralities. The second English comedy--in the opinion of at least one high authority our first--is _Misogonus_, which was certainly written as early as 1560. Its scene is laid in Italy; but the Vice, commonly called "Cacurgus," is both by himself and others frequently designated as "Will Summer," in allusion to Henry VIII.'s celebrated jester. _Gammer Gurton's Needle_, long regarded as the earliest of all _English_ comedies, was printed in 1575, as acted "not long ago in Christ's College, Cambridge." Its authorship was till recently attributed to John Still (afterwards bishop of Bath and Wells), who was a resident M.A. at Christ's, when a play was performed there in 1566. But the evidence of his authorship is inconclusive, and the play "made by Mr. S., Master of Arts," may be by William Stevenson, or by some other contemporary. This comedy is slighter in plot and coarser in diction than _Ralph Roister Doister_, but by no means unamusing.

In the main, however, early English comedy, while occasionally introducing characters and scenes of thoroughly native origin and complexion (e.g. Grim, the Collier of Croydon),[165] was content to borrow its themes from classical or Italian sources.[166] G. Gascoigne's _Supposes_ (acted at Gray's Inn in 1566) is a translation of _I Suppositi_ of Ariosto, remarkable for the flowing facility of its prose. While, on the one hand, the mixture of tragic with comic motives, which was to become so distinctive a feature of the Elizabethan drama, was already leading in the direction of tragi-comedy, the precedent of the Italian pastoral drama encouraged the introduction of figures and stories derived from classical mythology; and the rapid and diversified influence of Italian comedy, in close touch with Italian prose fiction, seemed likely to affect and quicken continuously the growth of the lighter branch of the English drama.

Conditions of the early Elizabethan drama.

Out of such promises as these the glories of English drama were ripened by the warmth and light of the great Elizabethan age--of which the beginnings may fairly be reckoned from the third decennium of the reign to which it owes its name. The queen's steady love of dramatic entertainments could not of itself have led, though it undoubtedly contributed, to such a result. Against the attacks which a nascent puritanism was already directing against the stage by the hands of J. Northbrooke,[167] the repentant playwright S. Gosson,[168] P. Stubbes,[169] and others,[170] were to be set not only the frugal favour of royalty and the more liberal patronage of great nobles,[171] but the fact that literary authorities were already weighing the endeavours of the English drama in the balance of respectful criticism, and that in the abstract at least the claims of both tragedy and comedy were upheld by those who shrank from the desipience of idle pastimes. It is noticeable that this period in the history of the English theatre coincides with the beginning of the remarkable series of visits made to Germany by companies of English comedians, which did not come to an end till the period immediately before the Thirty Years' War, and were occasionally resumed after its close. As at home the popularity of the stage increased, the functions of playwright and actor, whether combined or not, began to hold out a reasonable promise of personal gain. Nor, above all, was that higher impulse which leads men of talent and genius to attempt forms of art in harmony with the tastes and tendencies of their times wanting to the group of writers who can be remembered by no nobler name than that of Shakespeare's predecessors.

The predecessors of Shakespeare.

The lives of all of these are, of course, in part contemporary with the life of Shakespeare himself; nor was there any substantial difference in the circumstances under which most of them, and he, led their lives as dramatic authors. A distinction was manifestly kept up between poets and playwrights. Of the contempt entertained for the actor's profession some fell to the share of the dramatist; "even Lodge," says C. M. Ingleby, "who had indeed never trod the stage, but had written several plays, and had no reason to be ashamed of his antecedents, speaks of the vocation of the play-maker as sharing the odium attaching to the actor." Among the dramatists themselves good fellowship and literary partnership only at times asserted themselves as stronger than the tendency to mutual jealousy and abuse; of all chapters of dramatic history, the annals of the early Elizabethan stage perhaps least resemble those of Arcadia.

History of the Elizabethan stage.

Moreover, the theatre had hardly found its strength as a powerful element in the national life, when it was involved in a bitter controversy, with which it had originally no connexion, on behalf of an ally whose sympathy with it can only have been of a very limited kind. The Marprelate controversy, into which, among leading playwrights, Lyly and Nashe were drawn, in 1589 led to a stoppage of stage-plays which proved only temporary; but the general result of the attempt to make the stage a vehicle of political abuse and invective was beyond a doubt to coarsen and degrade both plays and players. Scurrilous attempts and rough repression continued during the years 1590-1593; and the true remedy was at last applied, when from about 1594, the chief London actors became divided into two great rival companies--the lord chamberlain's and the lord admiral's--which alone received licences. Instead of half a dozen or more companies whose jealousies communicated themselves to the playwrights belonging to them, there were now, besides the Children of the Chapel, two established bodies of actors, directed by steady and, in the full sense of the word, respectable men. To the lord chamberlain's company, which, after being settled at "the Theater" (opened as early as 1576 or 1577), moved to Blackfriars, purchased by James Burbage, in 1596, and to the Globe on the Bankside in 1599, Shakespeare and Richard Burbage, the greatest of the Elizabethan actors, belonged; the lord admiral's was managed by Philip Henslowe, the author of the _Diary_, and Edward Alleyn, the founder of Dulwich College, and was ultimately, in 1600, settled at the Fortune. In these and other houses were performed the plays of the Elizabethan dramatists, with few adventitious aids, the performance being crowded into a brief afternoon, when it is obvious that only the idler sections of the population could attend. No woman might appear at a playhouse, unless masked; on the stage, down to the Restoration, women's parts continued to be acted by boys.

It is futile to take no account of such outward circumstances as these and many which cannot here be noted in surveying the progress of the literature of the Elizabethan drama. Like that of the Restoration--and like that of the present day--it was necessarily influenced in its method and spirit of treatment by the conditions and restrictions which governed the place and circumstances of the performance of plays, including the construction of theatre and stage, as well as by the social composition of its audiences, which the local accommodation, not less than the entertainment, provided for them had to take into account. But to these things a mere allusion must suffice. It may safely be said, at the same time, that no dramatic literature which has any claim to rank beside the Elizabethan--not that of Athens nor those of modern Italy and Spain, nor those of France and Germany in their classic periods--had to contend against such odds; a mighty inherent strength alone ensured to it the vitality which it so triumphantly asserted, and which enabled it to run so unequalled a course.

Lyly.

Kyd.

Marlowe.

Peele.

Greene.

Among Shakespeare's predecessors, John Lyly, whose plays were all written for the Children of the Chapel and the Children of St Paul's, holds a position apart in English dramatic literature. The euphuism, to which his famous romance gave its name, likewise distinguishes his mythological,[172] quasi-historical,[173] allegorical,[174] and satirical[175] comedies. But his real service to the progress of English drama is to be sought neither in his choice of subjects nor in his imagery--though to his fondness for fairylore and for the whole phantasmagoria of legend, classical as well as romantic, his contemporaries, and Shakespeare in particular, were indebted for a stimulative precedent, and though in his _Endimion_ at all events he excites curiosity by an allegorical treatment of contemporary characters and events. It does not even lie in the songs interspersed in his plays, though none of his predecessors had in the slightest degree anticipated the lyric grace which distinguishes some of these incidental efforts. It consists in his adoption of Gascoigne's innovation of writing plays in prose; and in his having, though under the fetters of an affected and pretentious style, given the first example of brisk and vivacious dialogue--an example to which even such successors as Shakespeare and Jonson were indebted. Thomas Kyd, the author of the _Spanish Tragedy_ (preceded or followed by the first part of _Jeronimo_), and probably of several plays whose author was unnamed, possesses some of the characteristics, but none of the genius, of the greatest tragic dramatist who preceded Shakespeare. No slighter tribute than this is assuredly the due of Christopher Marlowe, whose violent end prematurely closed a poetic career of dazzling brilliancy. His earliest play, _Tamburlaine the Great_, in which the use of blank verse was introduced upon the English public stage, while full of the "high astounding terms" of an extravagant and often bombastic diction, is already marked by the passion which was the poet's most characteristic feature, and which was to find expression so luxuriantly beautiful in his _Doctor Faustus,_ and so surpassingly violent in his _Jew of Malta_. His masterpiece, _Edward II._, is a tragedy of singular pathos and of a dramatic power unapproached by any of his contemporaries. George Peele was a far more versatile writer even as a dramatist; but, though his plays contain passages of exquisite beauty, not one of them is worthy to be ranked by the side of Marlowe's _Edward II._, compared with which, if indeed not absolutely, Peele's _Chronicle of Edward I._ still stands on the level of the species to which its title and character alike assign it. His finest play is undoubtedly _David and Bethsabe_, which resembles _Edward I._ in construction, but far surpasses it in beauty of language and versification, besides treating its subject with greatly superior dignity. If the difference between Peele and Shakespeare is still, in many respects besides that of genius, an immeasurable one, we seem to come into something like a Shakespearian atmosphere in more than one passage of the plays of the unfortunate Robert Greene--unfortunate perhaps in nothing more enduringly than in the proof which he left behind him of his supercilious jealousy of Shakespeare. Greene's genius, most conspicuous in plays treating English life and scenes, could, notwithstanding his academic self-sufficiency, at times free itself from the pedantry apt to beset the flight of Peele's and at times even of Marlowe's muse; and his most delightful work[176] seems to breathe something of the air, sweet and fresh like no other, which blows over an English countryside. Thomas Lodge, whose dramatic, and much less of course his literary activity, is measured by the only play that we know to have been wholly his;[177] Thomas Nashe, the redoubtable pamphleteer and the father of the English picaresque novel;[178] Henry Chettle, who worked the chords of both pity[179] and terror[180] with equal vigour, and Anthony Munday, better remembered for his city pageants than for his plays, are among the other more important writers of the early Elizabethan drama, though not all of them can strictly speaking be called predecessors of Shakespeare. It is not possible here to enumerate the more interesting of the anonymous plays which belong to this "pre-Shakespearian" period of the Elizabethan drama; but many of them are by intrinsic merit as well as for special causes deserving of the attention of the student.

Common characteristics of the early Elizabethans.

The common characteristics of nearly all these dramatists and plays were in accordance with those of the great age to which they belonged. Stirring times called for stirring themes, such as those of "Mahomet, Scipio and Tamerlane"; and these again for a corresponding vigour of treatment. Neatness and symmetry of construction were neglected for fulness and variety of matter. Novelty and grandeur of subject seemed well matched by a swelling amplitude and often reckless extravagance of diction. As if from an inner necessity, the balance of rhymed couplets gave way to the impetuous march of blank verse; "strong lines" were as inevitably called for as strong situations and strong characters. Although the chief of these poets are marked off from one another by the individual genius which impressed itself upon both the form and the matter of their works, yet the stamp of the age is upon them all. Writing for the stage only, of which some of them possessed a personal experience and from which none of them held aloof, they acquired an instinctive insight into the laws of dramatic cause and effect, and infused a warm vitality into the dramatic literature which they produced, so to speak, for immediate consumption. On the other hand, the same cause made rapidity of workmanship indispensable to a successful playwright. _How_ a play was produced, how many hands had been at work upon it, what loans and what spoliations had been made in the process, were considerations of less moment than the question _whether_ it was produced, and whether it succeeded. His harness--frequently double or triple--was inseparable from the lusty Pegasus of the early English drama, and its genius toiled, to borrow the phrase of the Attic comedian, "like an Arcadian mercenary."

Progress of tragedy and comedy before Shakespeare.