Volume Vi Part 1 (2/2)
We need not hesitate in stating that the third and fourth dramas in the present volume were ”publicly played,” and the t.i.tle-page of one of them states the fact. Moreover, they were the authors.h.i.+p of a most distinguished individual, perhaps only second to Tarlton as an actor, and decidedly his superior as an author. Nothing that has come down to us leads us to suppose, that Tarlton had much beyond his lavish extemporal wit and broad drollery to recommend him; for although various productions were attributed to him, such as are extant do not warrant an opinion that, as a writer, he had much originality.[8] The reverse is the case with Robert Wilson, whose initials are on the t.i.tle-pages of ”The three Ladies of London,” and of ”The three Lords and three Ladies of London,” and who, besides his well-attested talents as a public performer, was indisputably a dramatist of great ability. He, too, was famous for his extreme readiness of reply, when suddenly called upon; but we cannot help suspecting that some confusion has arisen between the Robert Wilson, the writer of the two dramas above-named (as well as of ”The Cobbler's Prophecy,” 1594, a production of a similar character), and the Robert Wilson who is mentioned in ”Henslowe's Diary,” and whom Meres, as late as 1598, calls ”our worthy Wilson,” adding that he was ”for learning and extemporal wit, without compare or compeer.”[9] The younger Robert Wilson was, perhaps, the son of the elder; but without here entering into the evidence on the point (with which we were not formerly so well-acquainted), we may state our persuasion generally, that the Robert Wilson who was appointed one of the leaders of one of Queen Elizabeth's two companies of players in 1583,[10] was not the same Robert Wilson who was a joint-author, with Munday, Drayton, and Hathway, in the drama on the story of Sir John Oldcastle, imputed to Shakespeare on the authority of some copies printed in 1600.
There are two old editions of ”The three Ladies of London,” one of them printed in 1584, the text of which we have followed, and the other in 1592, the various readings of which we have noted. Both of them have the initials R.W. on the t.i.tle-page as those of the writer; but some doubt has been thrown upon the question of authors.h.i.+p, because, at the end of the piece, in both impressions, we read ”Finis. Paul Bucke.” The fact, however, no doubt is that Paul Bucke who, it has been recently ascertained, was an actor,[11] subscribed the transcript, which about 1584 he had procured for Roger Ward the printer, in order to authenticate it: hence the connection of his name with the production, in the performance of which he may also have had a share, and he may thus have had access to the prompter's book. The Paul Bucke, who in 1578 was the author of a ”prayer for Sir Humphrey Gilbert,” was in all probability the same individual.[12]
The second edition of 1592 would seem, from the many variations, to have been printed from a different ma.n.u.script to that used for the edition of 1584, and in some respects it was an improvement. Still, as we have stated, the name of Paul Bucke is at the termination of both; and it is a somewhat remarkable indication of the care displayed in bringing out the second edition, that whereas in the first edition an event is spoken of as having occurred in the reign of Queen Mary, ”not much more than twenty-six years” before, in the second edition printed seven or eight years afterwards, the figures 26 are altered to 33. Such proofs of attention to comparative trifles were unusual in the reprints of old plays; and it may be doubted whether in this instance it would have been afforded, had not ”The three Ladies of London” continued such a favourite with the town as to occasion its frequent repet.i.tion at the public theatre. A piece of evidence to show the popularity of the drama long after its original publication is to be found in Edward Guilpin's ”Skialetheia, or a Shadowe of Truth,” 8vo, 1598, where it is thus distinctly alluded to--
”The world's so bad that vertue's over-awde, And forst, poore soule, to become vices bawde; Like the old morall of the comedie, Where Conscience favours Lucar's harlotry.”
These lines are contained in the first satire of this very curious and interesting work, and the readers of the drama will at once be aware of their application.[13]
”The three Ladies of London” recommended itself to our notice for the present volume, on account of the peculiarity of its construction: Guilpin, we see, speaks of it as ”the old moral of the comedy,” and this, in truth, is the exact description of it. It is neither entirely a ”moral,” nor entirely a ”comedy,” but a mixture of both, differing from the drama that stands first in our volume, because the real characters introduced are not known or historical personages. Most of the _dramatis personae_ are indisputably allegorical or representative, the embodiments of certain virtues and vices; but individuals are also employed, such as Gerontus a Jew, and Mercadore a merchant, besides a Judge who is called upon to determine a dispute between them. This portion of the piece may be said to belong to a more advanced period of our stage, and distinguishes it, as far as we are aware, from anything of the kind known anterior to the date when the production first came from the press. The name Gerontus can hardly fail to bring to mind that of the hero of the old ballad of ”Gernutus, the Jew of Venice;”[14] but there is a remarkable difference between the two persons: in the play before us Gerontus is represented in a very favourable light, as an upright Jew, only anxious to obtain his own property by fair means, while his antagonist, a Christian merchant, endeavours to defeat the claim by fraud, perjury, and apostacy. So far the drama of ”The three Ladies of London” contradicts the position, founded mainly upon Marlowe's Barabas[15] and Shakespeare's Shylock, that our early dramatists eagerly availed themselves of popular prejudices against the conscientious adherents to the old dispensation.
The construction of ”The three Ladies of London” in other respects will speak for itself, but we may be allowed to give Wilson credit for the acuteness and political subtlety he evinces in several of his scenes; for the severity of many of his touches of satire; for his amusing ill.u.s.trations of manners; for his exposure of the tricks of foreign merchants, and for the humour and drollery which he has thrown into his princ.i.p.al comic personage. The name of this character is Simplicity, who is the fool or clown of the performance, and who, in conformity with the practice, not only of our earlier but sometimes of our later stage, makes several amusing appeals to the audience. We may pretty safely conclude, although we are without any hint of the kind, that this arduous part was sustained by the author himself.
The original copy of this production, to which we have resorted, is among the Garrick Plays: we recollect to have met with no other copy of the edition of the year 1584; but at least three of the later impression have come under our notice: one is in the library of the Duke of Devons.h.i.+re, another in that of the Earl of Ellesmere, and a third at Oxford. Of all these we have more or less availed ourselves in our reprint.
The fourth play in the ensuing pages, ”The three Lords and three Ladies of London,” is connected in subject with the third, and, as stated already, is by the same author, who placed his initials, R.W., upon the t.i.tle-page. The reprint is made from a copy in the possession of the Editor, compared with two others of the same date which in no respect vary: it may be right to mention this fact, because, as all who have been in the habit of examining the productions of our early stage are aware, important alterations and corrections were sometimes introduced while the sheets were going through the press. Our t.i.tle-page, including the wood-cut, may be considered a facsimile. It will be seen that it was printed in 1590, and it was probably written by Robert Wilson about two years before, as a sort of second part to his ”Three Ladies of London,”
which had met with such decided success. That success was perhaps in some degree revived by the frequent performance of ”The three Lords and three Ladies of London,” and the consequence seems to have been the publication of the new edition of the former in 1592.
The author called his new effort ”The pleasant and stately Moral of the three Lords and three Ladies of London,” and it bears, in all its essential features, a strong resemblance to the species of drama known as a Moral or Moral-play. This resemblance is even more close and striking than that of ”The three Ladies of London;” for such important characters as Gerontus and Mercadore are wanting, and as far as the _dramatis personae_ are concerned, there is little to take it out of the cla.s.s of earlier dramatic representations, but the characters of Nemo and the Constable, the latter being so unimportant that Wilson did not include him in the list of ”the Actor's names” which immediately follows the t.i.tle. Had the piece, however, made a still more remote approach to comedy, and had it possessed fewer of the mixed features belonging to its predecessor, we should unhesitatingly have reprinted it as a necessary sequel.
Towards the conclusion of the drama, as well indeed as in the introductory stanzas, the allusions to the Armada and to the empty vaunts of the Spaniards are so distinct and obvious, that we cannot place the composition of it earlier than 1588; but it must have remained in ma.n.u.script for about two years, since it was not published until after July 1590, the following entry in the Stationers' Registers bearing date the 31st of that month:--
”Richard Jones. Entered for his copie, under thandes of doctor Wood and the wardens, a comedie of the plesant and statelie morrall of the Three lordes of London.”[16]
Richard Jones, as will be seen from the imprint, was the publisher of the work; but the clerk who made the memorandum in the books blundered respecting the name, and, besides terming it ”a comedy” as well as ”a pleasant and stately moral,” he omitted that portion of the t.i.tle which immediately connects it with ”The three Ladies of London.” That connection is avowed in the Prologue (usually called a ”Preface”) which was spoken by ”a Lady, very richly attired, representing London;” and it is evident that the author had every reason for making the fact prominent, inasmuch as it was his interest to prove the relations.h.i.+p between his new offspring and a drama that had for some years been established in public approbation. London, speaking in the poet's name, therefore, says--
”My former fruits were lovely Ladies three; Now of three Lords to talk is London's glee: Whose deeds I wish may to your liking frame, For London bids you welcome to the same.”
Although, in its plot and general character, ”The three Lords and three Ladies of London” is not so far advanced towards genuine comedy, the representation of life and manners, as its first part, ”The three Ladies of London,” in style and composition it makes a much nearer approach to what soon afterwards became the language of the stage, such as we find it in the works of Shakespeare, and of some of his most gifted contemporaries. Wilson, doubtless, saw the necessity, in 1588, of adopting some of those improvements of versification in which Marlowe had led the way; he therefore laid aside (excepting in a few comic scenes) his heavy, lumbering, and monotonous fourteen-syllable lines (sometimes carried to a greater length for the sake of variety) and not only usually employed ten-syllable lines, but introduced speeches of blank verse. His drama opens with this then uncommon form, and he avails himself of it afterwards, interspersing also prose in such situations as did not seem to require measured speech. This of itself was at that time a bold undertaking; for Marlowe had only just before 1588, when ”The three Lords and three Ladies of London” must have been written, commenced weaning audiences at our public theatres from what, in the Prologue to his ”Tamburlaine the Great,” he ridicules as the ”jigging veins of rhiming motherwits.”[17] Robert Wilson is, on this account, to be regarded with singular respect, and his works to be read with peculiar interest. It is not easy to settle the question of precedency, but, as far as our knowledge at present extends, he seems ent.i.tled to be considered the second writer of blank verse for dramas intended for popular audiences. This is a point of view in which his productions have never yet been contemplated, and it renders the play we have reprinted, ill.u.s.trating as it does so important and striking a change, especially worthy of notice and republication.
Something has been already said respecting the characters who figure in this representation, and we may add that although Simplicity, who here performs even a more prominent and important part than in ”The three Ladies of London,” must be reckoned the impersonation of a quality, and the representative of a cla.s.s, so much individuality is given to him, particularly in his capacity of a ballad-singer, that it is impossible not to take a strong interest in all that he says, and in the incidents in which he is engaged. Richard Tarlton, the famous comedian, died on 3d Sept. 1588, rather more than a month after the entry of ”The three Lords and three Ladies of London” at Stationers' Hall; and in this play it will be seen that Simplicity produces his ”picture” before the audience, and gives a minute account of his habits, appearance, and employments.
It is clear, therefore, as Tarlton is spoken of as dead, that this part of the drama must have been written, and introduced, subsequent to the memorandum in the Stationers' Registers. This of itself is a curious circ.u.mstance, and it serves to show with what prompt.i.tude our old dramatists availed themselves of any temporary matter that could give attraction and popularity to their plays.
As we have supposed Wilson himself to have acted Simplicity in ”The three Ladies of London,” we may perhaps conclude that he sustained the same character in ”The three Lords and three Ladies of London.” The part was an excellent one for the display of comic humour and clownish drollery, and the enumeration of the old ballads he sings and sells needs no ill.u.s.tration here, where, in fact, it would be out of place.
The familiar manner in which Simplicity at times addresses the audience, for the sake of raising a laugh, is even more unlicensed in this play than in its predecessor, and we never before saw the words ”To the audience” introduced, by way of stage-direction to the performer, that he might appeal to the spectators.[18]
The copy of this play most employed in the ensuing pages is the property of the Editor, but he has had an opportunity of comparing it with another in the library of the Duke of Devons.h.i.+re.
The connection between the productions of our ancient and more modern stage, such as it existed at the close of the reign of Elizabeth, is even more slightly evidenced by the drama which conies last in our volume, the main features of which bear only a distant resemblance to our drama, while it was still under the trammels of allegorical impersonation. Nevertheless, the likeness is to be traced without difficulty; and when we find such a character as Honesty most prominently engaged from the beginning to the end of the performance (to say nothing of the introduction of the representative of the principle of evil in two pa.s.sages), the mind is carried back to a period of our theatrical history when such characters were alone employed on our stage. Honesty has no necessary connection with the plot, nor with its development, beyond the exposure by his means of fraud, flattery, and hypocrisy: he bears no relation, however distant, to any of the parties engaged in the performance, and seems to have been designed by the unknown author as a sort of running commentator and bitter satirist upon the vices and follies of mankind. On the other hand, the chief characters among the _dramatis personae_ are real and historical, and King Edgar and Bishop Dunstan, with Ethenwald and Alfrida, may be said to figure prominently throughout. The Knight, the Squire, and the Farmer, who make their appearance further on, are clearly embodiments of the several cla.s.ses of society to which they appertain. Thus, although the ”Knack to know a Knave” makes a nearer approach to comedy than any of the four dramas which precede it, it still by no means entirely discards the use of personages of a description which, many years earlier, engrossed our stage. Characters and scenes of life and manners are blended with others supported only by conventional impersonations, in which the dialogue is not intended to advance the plot, but merely to enforce a lesson of morality, probity, or discretion.
It is not always easy to guess at the full meaning of the author in various scenes he introduces, but some of them were obviously inserted for the purpose of exciting the laughter of the audience, and of giving an opportunity of display to a favourite low comedian. One of the actors is expressly mentioned on the t.i.tle-page, where ”Kemp's applauded merriments of the men of Gotham, in receiving the King into Gotham” are made prominent; but unless much were left to the extemporaneous invention of the performer, or unless much has been omitted in the printed copy, which was inserted by the author in his ma.n.u.script, it is difficult at this time of day to discover in what the wit, if not the drollery, consisted. As this portion of the play has come down to us, it seems to be composed of mere ignorant and blundering buffoonery, unworthy of a comedian, who undoubtedly afterwards sustained important humorous characters in the plays of Shakespeare. Who was the Bailiff of Hexham, and why he was brought forward on his deathbed near the opening of the drama, we are unable to explain, unless the author's object were that the spectators, when the Bailiff was ultimately carried away by the devil, should have ocular proof of the condign punishment which followed his principles as explained to his sons, and his practices as avowed by himself.
We can establish, almost to a day, when the ”Knack to know a Knave” was first represented, for we find it thus entered in ”Henslowe's Diary:” it is in an account relating to the performances of the company acting under the name of Lord Strange, at the Rose Theatre, from 19th Feb.
1591-2 to the 22d June 1592--
R[eceive]d at Jeronimo, the 9 of June 1592 xxviij's.
Rd at a Knack to know a Knave, 1592, 1 day iij'li. xij's.
<script>