the poet for the compliment paid him in "Macbeth," and Malone is inclined to agree with him. Knight, on the other hand, asks whether it is not likely that the compliment in "Macbeth" is not the poet expressing his thanks for the mark of favour which the King had shown him by sending him a letter in his own handwriting. Collier very justly remarks that if any such letter existed at the beginning of the eighteenth century, we should assuredly possess some reliable testimony concerning it. Whatever may be the truth of the matter, at any rate the supposed letter did not affect Shakespeare's position or his future career; for Shakespeare withdrew from the stage about this time, and returned to Stratford to enjoy there the honourable leisure which it had been his great desire to obtain. In 1604 he had reached the age of forty, and if it be true that he retired from the stage in that or the following year, his career as an actor had lasted about twenty years, assuming, in accordance with what has been said above, that he left Stratford as early as 1585. The question as to whether or how far his career as a poet may have closed then likewise, is an extremely difficult one to answer, and we shall have to return to this subject in a subsequent chapter.

1 The passage referred to occurs in Act iv. 3:

Comes the king forth, I pray you?

Doct. Ay, sir; there are a crew of wretched souls
That stay his cure: their malady convinces

The great assay of art; but at his touch-
Such sanctity hath heaven given his hand-
They presently amend.

The so-called touching for the evil was re-introduced by James soon after

his accession.

2 Compare my Essays on Shakespeare, p. 24 ff.

CHAPTER IV.

THE THEATRE.

THAT the theatre was not only the principal entertainment

of Londoners, but the principal national amusement in England in Shake peare's day, has never been doubted by anyone except by Rümelin and his followers, and they-with more confidence in their own opinions than with a knowledge of the subject-deny that the English drama possessed any such national character. If we glance back-more than a glance would exceed our limited space-upon the development of the English drama, we shall find that no other course was possible than that it should go hand-in-hand with the development of the nation, and that, in fact, the stage and dramatic poetry gradually drew all classes and strata of the nation within its circle: the Court and the Universities no less than sailors and coalmen, and the capital no less than the small provincial towns of 1,500 inhabitants. And selfevident as is this intimate connection of the drama and the stage with the other manifestations of social life, as obvious is the fact that the development of both proceeded gradually side by side. Indeed, how could it have been otherwise? Darwinism in the history of creation may still present doubts, but the history of the world and of civilization acknowledges no other than the law of gradual development. A great genius may accelerate the development, may give it a powerful impetus, but cannot break or set aside the law; a genius cannot create anything out of nothing, but merely help in making the already-existing buds blossom and bear fruit; he can merely evolve the higher, out of the already-existing lower form. The great chain of history can therefore be traced back link by link, and the more we succeed in doing this, the better we understand it; the seeming missing links

1

and gaps are but the evidence of our own defective knowledge. Mr. Froude very justly says: "No great general ever arose out of a nation of cowards; no great statesman or philosopher out of a nation of fools; no great artist out of a nation of materialists; no great dramatist except when the drama was the passion of the people. We allow ourselves to think of Shakespeare, or of Raphael, or of Phidias as having accomplished their work by the power of their own individual genius; but greatness like theirs is never more than the highest degree of an excellence which prevails widely round it and forms the environment in which it grows. No single mind, in single contact with the facts of nature, could have created out of itself a Pallas, a Madonna, or a Lear; such vast conceptions are the growth of ages, the creations of a nation's spirit, and artist and poet, filled full with the power of that spirit, have but given them form, and nothing more than form. Nor would the form itself have been attainable by any isolated talent. . . . . Shakespeare's plays were the offspring of the long generations who pioneered his road for him."

It is, indeed, true that the history of the English drama still presents a number of uncertainties and doubts in single instances, a misfortune that has been rather increased than lessened by Collier's unfortunate work. However, the main outlines upon which, after all, everything depends are sufficiently well established to prevent our drawing wrong conclusions.2 The earliest form presented by dramatic poetry, not only in England, but in Western Europe generally, were the Mysteries and Miracle Plays, and they were unquestionably the outcome of the Catholic religious service, whether or not, in their first beginnings, they formed an actual part of the Church Service, or were merely an effective addition to special religious ceremonies. The secular world could not,

I History of England (2nd edition), i. 67-70.

2 Among the principal works on this subject are: Malone's Historical Account of the English Stage (Malone's Shakespeare, by Boswell, iii.); R. Gr. White's Rise and Progress of the English Drama, in his first edition of Shakespeare, i. cxxxi.-clxxxviii.; Jules Jusseraud, Le Théâtre en Angleterre depuis la Conquête jusqu'aux Prédécesseurs immédiate de Shakespeare. Paris, 1878; Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry. London, 1831, 3 vols.; A. W. Ward, A History of English Dramatic Literature, &c. London, 1875, 2 vols. Compare A. Ebert, Entwickelungs-Geschichte der französischen Tragödie. Gotha, 1856.

and, in fact, was not allowed to read the Bible; hence a species of mimic representation, with dialogue, was found to be the quickest, most suitable and attractive means of making the people acquainted with the leading facts of Bible history and its legends. And the legends were especially made use of by the clergy when festivals were arranged to celebrate the day of the saint to whom their church happened to be dedicated. The celebration of the saint's day was an occasion when people came flocking in from the country around, and by holding pageants and giving instructive and impressive representations of the miracles worked by the saint, and the sufferings he had endured, it was hoped that some special benefit would be obtained both for the saint and for the church. The Mysteries, in their infancy, were thus more epic than dramatic in character, and were, of course, at first written in Latin. It was only the responses made by the congregation that were given in the vernacular, and in this way it gradually came to supersede the Latin altogether. When the historical element in the religious service had once been introduced, the next step naturally was to bring in the dogmatic element into these representations. For, of course, the dogmas of the Church could not be brought more palpably before the people than by the representation of a miracle or some other such supernatural event; and the name Miracle Play, which was employed at an early date and seems to have ousted the name of Mystery, proves what a prominent feature the miracles played in the Mysteries. The "Play of the Blessed Sacrament," which taught the doctrine of transubstantiation, was probably purely dogmatic in character.

The earliest Mysteries and Miracle Plays were undoubtedly performed within the precincts of the churches, and the performers were the priests themselves. By degrees improprieties of various kinds may have crept in, and from an ecclesiastical point of view it may probably have come to be desirable (as seems to have been the case) that the Popes and Ecclesiastical Councils forbade the priests taking part in the Mysteries, and hence parish clerks, ministrants, and lay-brothers took their place; it is possible, also, that the priests were not numerous enough for the increasing number of persons intro

1

2

Morley, First Sketch of English Literature, 2nd edition, p. 50.

Compare, Thomas Wright, Early Mysteries, and other Latin Poems of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, London, 1838.

duced into the plays, and that for this reason also they had to engage non-ecclesiastics to take part in the proceedings. The more inevitably that, in the natural course of things, the Mysteries came to show a distinctly dramatic character, the more they would of necessity have to admit the secular element, and be forced, both inwardly and outwardly, to quit the place of their birth. The next step, therefore, was that the performances were no longer tolerated within the precincts of the church, and were ordered to be held in the churchyard. But even there they were not allowed to remain for long, and the consecrated ground round the churches at length became forbidden ground, the reason being that the crowds of spectators destroyed the graves that lay around the churches. The dramatic performances were thus step by step thrust back into the streets and on to the market-places, where they became completely secularized, both as regards performers as well as subject. It seems that the Mysteries-which were introduced from France shortly after the Conquest-fell into the hands of the laity earlier in England than elsewhere; at least, the oldest Mysteries and Miracle Plays that have been preserved can scarcely be said to represent the early ecclesiastical form, but exhibit rather the popular style of treatment. Perhaps the principal impulse towards making the laity take part in these performances was the introduction, by Popes Urban IV. (1264) and Clement V. (1311), of the feast of Corpus Christi; for, as the festival was placed in the most favourable season of the year-on the first Thursday after Trinity, hence twelve days after Whit Sunday-it soon became a grand and universally popular national holiday, in which the whole nation took part, and the holiday probably came to include the ancient merry-makings on May Day and of Whitsuntide.' On these anniversaries the priests and the laity worked hand. in-hand, and did all in their power to make the festival as brilliant a one as possible, and also joined in the amusements which the occasion offered. Even in Chaucer's day the priests took part in the Miracle Plays performed at Corpus Christi, as well as upon other festivals; it is doubtful how this is to be 1 Compare The Two Gentlemen of Verona, iv. 4 :—

At Pentecost,

When all our pageants of delight were play'd,
Our youth got me to play the woman's part, &c.
The Chester plays, as is well known, were played at Whitsuntide.