A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare

Home > Other > A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare > Page 40
A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare Page 40

by James Shapiro


  I’ve also consulted Andrew Gurr’s influential books: The Shakespearean Stage 1574–1642 (Cambridge, 1970; 3rd ed., 1992); Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London (Cambridge, 1987; 2nd ed., 1996); The Shakespearian Playing Companies (Oxford, 1996); and The Shakespeare Company, 1594–1642 (Cambridge, 2004). No less helpful are Bernard Beckerman, Shakespeare at the Globe 1599–1609 (New York, 1962); Roslyn Lander Knutson, The Repertory of Shakespeare’s Company, 1594–1613 (Fayetteville, 1991), and her Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare’s Time (Cambridge, 2001); John Astington, English Court Theatre 1558–1642 (Cambridge, 1999); James P. Bednarz, Shakespeare & the Poets’ War (New York, 2001); and the many helpful essays collected in John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan, eds., A New History of Early English Drama (New York, 1997). For information on boys’ companies I’ve drawn on Michael Shapiro, Children of the Revels: The Boys’ Companies of Shakespeare’s Time and Their Plays (New York, 1977), and Reavley Gair, The Children of Paul’s: The Story of a Theatre Company, 1553–1608 (Cambridge, 1982). On Elizabethan imprese, tilts, and tournaments, I’ve drawn on Alan Young, Tudor and Jacobean Tournaments (London, 1987). And for information about actors on the Elizabethan stage, see Edwin Nungezer’s A Dictionary of Actors (New Haven, 1929), supplemented by Mark Eccles’s four essays on “Elizabethan Actors” in Notes and Queries, vols. 236–238 (1991–1993).

  Any discussion of Shakespeare in print begins with A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave, eds., A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, & Ireland and of English Books Printed Abroad, 1475–1640, 2 vols. (2nd. ed., rev., London, 1976); Edward Arber, ed., A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London 1554–1640, 5 vols. (London, 1875–77); W. W. Greg, A Companion to Arber. Being a Calendar of Documents in Edward Arber’s “Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London” (Oxford, 1967); and Greg’s A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration (London, 1939). For important new studies, see Douglas A. Brooks, From Playhouse to Printing House: Drama and Authorship in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2000); David Scott Kastan, Shakespeare and the Book (Cambridge, 2001); Andrew Murphy, Shakespeare in Print: A History and Chronology of Shakespeare Publishing (Cambridge, 2003); and Lukas Erne, Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist (Cambridge, 2003).

  Elizabethan Letters, Journals, and State Papers

  I’ve tried throughout to let Elizabethans speak for themselves. An invaluable source, one that I rely on at many points in the book, is Norman E. McClure, ed., The Letters of John Chamberlain, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1939). I’ve also had frequent occasion to quote from Sir John Harington’s letters, collected in T. Park, ed., Nugae Antiquae, 2 vols. (London, 1804) and Norman E. McClure, ed., The Letters and Epigrams of Sir John Harington (Philadelphia, 1930). Another excellent contemporary source is the astrologer Simon Forman, especially his unpublished casebooks—Bodleian MS 195 and MS 219. I am deeply grateful to Robyn Adams for locating and transcribing the relevant casebook entries. For more on Forman, see Barbara Traister, The Notorious Astrological Physician of London: Works and Days of Simon Forman (Chicago, 2001).

  Tourists and ambassadors are a major source of information, and I draw extensively on Clare Williams, ed. and trans., Thomas Platter’s Travels in England, 1599 (London, 1937), as well as Hans Hecht, ed., Thomas Platters des Jüngeren Englandfahrt im Jahre 1599 (Halle, 1929). Other insightful travelers include: Horace, late Earl of Orford, trans., Paul Hentzner’s Travels in England, During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (London, 1797); G. W. Groos, trans. and ed., The Diary of Baron Waldstein: A Traveller in Elizabethan England (London, 1981); G. B. Harrison and B. A. Jones, trans. and eds., De Maisse: A Journal of All That Was Accomplished by Monsieur De Maisse Ambassador in England from King Henri IV to Queen Elizabeth Anno Domini 1597 (London, 1931); the diary of Lupold von Wedel in Victor von Klarwill, ed., T. H. Nash, trans. Queen Elizabeth and Some Foreigners (London, 1928); and the “Diary of the Journey of Philip Julius, Duke of Stettin-Pomerania, through England in the Year 1602,” eds. Gottfried von Bülow and Wilfred Powell, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, n. s. 6 (1892), 1–67.

  Along with other historians of the period, I rely heavily on the collections of Arthur Collins, ed., Letters and Memorials of State (London, 1746); Thomas Birch, ed., Memoirs of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, 2 vols. (London, 1754); and Edmund Sawyer, ed., Memorials of Affairs of State in the Reigns of Q. Elizabeth and K. James I. Collected (Chiefly) from the Original Papers of the Right Honourable Sir Ralph Winwood, 3 vols. (London 1725). Another important resource is John Nichols, ed., The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth, 3 vols. (London, 1823). See, too, the quirky but rich collection of E. M. Tenison, Elizabethan England, 12 vols., especially vol. 10 (1596–1598) and vol. 11 (1599–1601) (Royal Leamington Spa, 1953; 1956).

  No history of this year would be possible without the carefully edited calendars of state papers. These, too, constitute a major source for my book, and I draw on them freely, especially Mary Anne Everett Green, ed., Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth, 1598–1601 (London, 1869); Ernest George Atkinson, ed., Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland, of the Reign of Elizabeth, 1599, April-1600, February (London, 1899), and Calendar of the State Papers Relating to Scotland and Mary, Queen of Scots, 1547–1603, vol. 13, 1597–1603, part 1 (Edinburgh, 1969). I also quote from W. Noel Sansbury, ed., Calendar of State Papers, Colonial: East Indies 1513–1616 (London, 1862); Martin A. S. Hume, ed., Calendar of Letters and State Papers Relating to English Affairs, Preserved in… the Archives of Simancas, vol. 4, Elizabeth I, 1587–1603 (London, 1899); and Horatio F. Brown, ed., Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Relating to English Affairs, Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice, vol. 9, 1592–1603 (London, 1897).

  Other official correspondence is taken from John Roche Dasent, ed., Acts of the Privy Council, vol. 29, 1598–1599 (London, 1905). Unfortunately, Privy Council records for the crucial period of April 22, 1599, to January 23, 1600, have not survived. For Scottish affairs, see David Masson, ed., Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, vol. 4 (1599–1604) (Edinburgh, 1884). One of my most important sources for government policy is R. A. Roberts, ed., H.M.C. Calendar of Manuscripts, Salisbury, part 9 (London, 1902). Other family papers include: J. S. Brewer and William Bullen, eds., Calendar of Carew Manuscripts (London, 1869); H.M.C. 13th Report, Appendix, Part 4. The Manuscripts of Rye and Hereford Corporations (London, 1892); G. Dyfnallt Owen, ed., Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Honourable the Marquesses of Bath. vol. 5. Talbot Dudley and Devereux Papers, 1533–1659 (London, 1980); C. L. Kingsford, ed., Report on the Manuscripts of Lord De L’Isle and Dudley Preserved at Penshurst Place, vol. 2 (Sidney Papers), (London, 1934), and The Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Rutland Preserved at Belvoir Castle, vol. 1 (London, 1888). For the Earl of Essex’s correspondence, see W. B. Devereux, ed., Lives and Letters of the Devereux, Earls of Essex, 2 vols. (London, 1853). And for how England was viewed from abroad, also see Pauline de Chary, trans., Fugger News-Letters (London, 1924), and the second series, Victor von Klarwill, ed., and L. S. R. Byrne, trans. (London, 1926). Royal proclamations are cited from Humphrey Dyson, ed., A Book Containing All Such Proclamations as Were Published during the Reign of the Late Queen Elizabeth (London, 1618). And for thumbnail sketches of major figures at court, Sir Robert Naunton’s Fragmenta Regalia: Or Observations on the Late Queen Elizabeth, Her Times, Her Favourites (London, 1653) is unmatched.

  ELIZABETHAN HISTORY

  Three contemporary figures loom large here: William Camden, History of the Princess Elizabeth (London, 1630); John Speed, The History of Great Britain (London, 1623); and John Stow, The Annales of England (London, 1601). Also useful is Thomas Wilson’s “The State of England, anno dom. 1600,” ed. F. J. Fisher, in Camden Miscellany, Camden Third Series, vol. 52 (London, 1936). For pamphlets, see D. C. Collins, A Hand-list of News Pamphlets 1590–1610 (London, 1941); for woodcuts, see Arthur M. Hind, Engravings
in England in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1952); and for ballads, see Andrew Clark, ed., The Shirburn Ballads, 1585–1616 (Oxford, 1907).

  For politics, economics, and foreign affairs, in addition to Brigden’s New Worlds, Lost Worlds, I’ve consulted John Guy, ed., The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade (Cambridge, 1995), as well as his Tudor England (Oxford, 1988) and his essay “Monarchy and Counsel: Models of the State,” in Patrick Collinson, ed., The Sixteenth Century, 1485–1603 (Oxford, 2002), 113–42; D. M. Palliser, The Age of Elizabeth: England Under the Later Tudors, 1547–1603 (London, 1983); F. J. Levy, Tudor Historical Thought (San Marino, 1967); Penry Williams, The Later Tudors: England 1547–1603 (Oxford, 1995); Wallace T. MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I: War and Politics, 1588–1603 (Princeton, 1992); R. B. Wernham, The Return of the Armadas: The Last Years of the Elizabethan War Against Spain 1595–1603 (Oxford, 1994); The Making of Elizabethan Foreign Policy, 1558–1603 (Berkeley, 1980); and After the Armada: Elizabethan England and the Struggle for Western Europe, 1588–1595 (Oxford, 1984); Norman Jones, The Birth of the Elizabethan Age: England in the 1560s (Oxford, 1994); and Mervyn James, Society, Politics and Culture. Studies in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1986). Edward P. Cheney, A History of England: From the Defeat of the Armada to the Death of Elizabeth, 2 vols. (New York, 1926) is still useful. And for information about who governed England, see Arthur F. Kinney, Titled Elizabethans: A Directory of Elizabethan State and Church Officers and Knights, with Peers of England, Scotland, and Ireland, 1558–1603 (Hamden, Conn., 1973).

  My understanding of the period’s social history has been shaped by J. A. Sharpe, Early Modern England: A Social History (1987); Lawrence Stone’s The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1500–1800 (New York, 1977), and The Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558–1641 (Oxford, 1965); David Cressy, Birth, Marriage, and Death: Ritual, Religion, and the Life-Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England (Oxford, 1997); Ian W. Archer, ed., Religion, Politics, and Society in Sixteenth-Century England (Cambridge, 2003), and his The Pursuit of Stability: Social Relations in London (Cambridge, 1991); Steve Rappaport, Worlds Within Worlds: The Structure of Life in Sixteenth-Century London (Cambridge, 1989); Peter Burke, “Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century London,” in The London Journal 3 (1977), 143–62; A. B. Appleby, Famine in Tudor and Stuart England (Stanford, 1978); A. L. Beier, Masterless Men: The Vagrancy Problem in England 1560–1640 (London, 1985); Martin Ingram, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England, 1570–1640 (Cambridge, 1987); and Paul Slack, The Impact of Plague on Tudor and Stuart England (London, 1985). G. B. Harrison, A Last Elizabethan Journal, Being a Record of Those Things Most Talked of During the Years 1599–1603 (London, 1933) offers a chronological overview.

  For post-Reformation religious history, see especially: John Strype, Annals of the English Reformation 4 vols. (Oxford, 1824); Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London, 1963), and his “William Shakespeare’s Religious Inheritance and Environment,” in Elizabethan Essays (London, 1994); Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c. 1400–c.1580 (New Haven, 1992); J. J. Scarisbrick, The Reformation and the English People (Oxford, 1984); Christopher Haigh, The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge, 1987); David Cressy, Bonfires and Bells: National Memory and the Protestant Calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England (London, 1989); and Ronald Hutton, The Rise and Fall of Merry England: The Ritual Year 1400–1700 (Oxford, 1994).

  Preface

  My account of the sequence and dating of Shakespeare’s plays in 1599 draws on the current critical consensus. Though there is not unanimity there is certainly more general agreement about these plays—because more information is available to help in dating—than about most of Shakespeare’s works. Everyone agrees that all four plays were written after autumn 1598, when Francis Meres listed most of Shakespeare’s extant plays in Pallidis Tamia: Wit’s Treasury (London, 1598). The allusion to the Earl of Essex in the Chorus to act 5 (“the General of our gracious Empress”) has led almost all editors to place Henry the Fifth in the first half of 1599. Platter saw Julius Caesar at the Globe in September 1599, and scholars have concluded that it was written in the spring or summer of that year. Along with Henry the Fifth, and two plays from 1598—Ben Jonson’s Every Man in His Humour and Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing—As You Like It appeared in a special entry in the Register of the Stationers’ Company on August 4, 1600, with the instruction “to be stayed” (delayed, or perhaps even stopped, though there is little consensus about this puzzling document). Some critics date it to early 1599, others to early 1600. The departure of Kemp and arrival of Armin in Shakespeare’s company and the appearance in the play of a song that was probably prepared for print in 1599 (during “vacation time”) by the composer Thomas Morley and appeared in 1600 in Morley’s First Book of Ayres, lend support for a date in late 1599, after Henry the Fifth and Julius Caesar. For the dating of Hamlet (at least the early version that was the basis of the Second Quarto) in late 1599, see Harold Jenkins’s edition, along with E. A. J. Honigmann, “The Date of Hamlet,” Shakespeare Survey 9 (1956), 24–34. More recent support for this position, based on the influence of Hamlet on contemporary plays, can be found in Charles Cathcart, “Hamlet: Date and Early Afterlife,” Review of English Studies 52 (2001), 341–59. The chapters that follow will provide more extended support, some of it internal, some historical, some having to do with casting, for the dating and sequence that I offer. It’s probable that Shakespeare was thinking about (and perhaps even sketching out) more than one of these plays at the same time, given the extent to which they allude to and are in conversation with each-other. For a useful overview of sequence and dating, see Wells and Taylor, A Textual Companion.

  A word about what constitutes the beginning and ending of a year is also in order. From the late twelfth century until 1752, the civil or legal year in England officially began on Lady Day, March 25—the day commemorating the Annunciation, nine months before the Nativity. But this was not universally followed: almanacs, for instance, began on January 1. While some Elizabethan writers and publishers treated January 1 as the start of the New Year, others did not. By 1600, almost all of Europe and even Scotland had switched back to beginning the year on January 1 (only Russia, Tuscany, and England and her colonies held out until the eighteenth century).

  Dating problems are compounded by another difference between England and most of the Continent, for England did not switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar until 1752—which meant that during Shakespeare’s lifetime there was a ten-day difference between the date in, say, France and England. So that when Thomas Platter, who seems to have mistakenly assumed that England was on the Gregorian calendar, recorded that he saw a production of Julius Caesar in London on September 21, 1599, the actual date in England was September 11. I have silently adjusted this and other instances to conform to what the date would have been in Shakespeare’s England. Needless to say, legal dating overlaid other calendrical rhythms: the four seasons, the church year, the court calendar, the theatrical seasons, the regnal year, the schedule of the law courts, and, most of all, the cycle of the agricultural year. And these, in turn, competed with personal ones (birthdays, deaths of loved ones, various anniversaries, and so on).

  For a devastating critique of biographies that read a romanticized version of the life into the work (from which I’ve drawn my quotations from Coleridge and Delius, the unnamed nineteenth-century author), see C. J. Sisson, “The Mythical Sorrows of Shakespeare,” Annual Shakespeare Lecture of the British Academy, 1934, from the Proceeding of the British Academy, vol. 20 (London, 1934). And for a companion piece that exposes romanticizing tendencies in discussions of possible portraits of Shakespeare, see Stephen Orgel’s “History and Biography” in his Imagining Shakespeare: A History of Texts and Visions (New York, 2003), 65–84. I’ve consulted Edmond Malone’s “An Attempt to Ascertain the Order in Which the Plays of Shakespeare Were Written,” first pu
blished in 1778, in the version published in the first volume of his edition of The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare, 16 vols. (Dublin, 1794).

  For Platter’s comment, see Thomas Platter’s Travels in England, 1599. For the observations of Ben Jonson, John Ward, and John Aubrey—and for contemporary allusions throughout—see volume 2 of E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare: Facts and Problems.

  Prologue

  For the weather and box-office accounts, see Stow, Annales, and Henslowe’s Diary. England was colder by a few degrees in Shakespeare’s day, experiencing, like much of Europe, what scientists refer to as a “little ice age.” For accounts of the building of the Globe, see, in addition to Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare: Charles W. Wallace, The First London Theatre: Materials for a History (Lincoln, Neb., 1913); Irwin Smith, “Theatre into Globe,” Shakespeare Quarterly 3 (1952), 113–20; Herbert Berry, ed., The First Public Playhouse: The Theatre in Shoreditch (Montreal, 1979); and Charlotte Carmichael Stopes, Burbage and Shakespeare’s Stage (London, 1913).

 

‹ Prev