Hakluyt's 'Voyages' in 1599 or 1600, and first disclosed the full extent of recent explorations of the 'Indies' in the New World and the Old. Like the 'Comedy of Errors,' 'Twelfth Night' achieved the distinction, early in its career, of a presentation at an Inn of Court. It was produced at Middle Temple Hall on February 2, 1601-2, and Manningham, a barrister who was present, described the performance.2 Manningham wrote that the piece was 'much like the "Comedy of Errors" or "Menechmi" in Plautus, but most like and neere to that in Italian called Inganni." Two sixteenth-century Italian plays entitled 'G' Inganni' ('The Cheats'), and a third called 'Gl' Ingannati,' bear resemblance to 'Twelfth Night.' It is possible that Shakespeare had recourse to the last, which was based on Bandello's novel of Nicuola, was first published at Siena in 1538, and became popular throughout Italy. But in all probability he drew the story solely from the 'Historie of Apolonius and Silla,' which was related in 'Riche his Farewell to Militarie Profession' (1581). The author of that volume, Barnabe Riche, translated the tale either direct from Bandello's Italian novel or from the French rendering of Bandello's work in Belleforest's 'Histoires Tragiques.' Romantic pathos,

It was reproduced by the Hakluyt Society to accompany The Voyages and Workes of John Davis the Navigator, ed. Captain A. H. Markham, 1880. Cf. Mr. Coote's note on the New Map, lxxxvXCV. A paper on the subject by Mr. Coote also appears in New Shakspere Society's Transactions, 1877-9, pt. i. pp. 88-100.

2 Diary, Camden Soc. p. 18; the Elizabethan Stage Society repeated the play on the same stage on February 10, 11, and 12, 1897. Bandello's Novelle, ii. 36.

as in 'Much Ado,' is the dominant note of the main plot of 'Twelfth Night,' but Shakespeare neutrallises the tone of sadness by his mirthful portrayal of Malvolio, Sir Toby Belch, Sir Andrew Aguecheek, Fabian, the clown Feste, and Maria, all of whom are his own creations. The ludicrous gravity of Malvolio proved exceptionally popular on the stage.

'Julius Cæsar,' 1601.

1

In 1601 Shakespeare made a new departure by drawing a plot from North's noble translation of 'Plutarch's Lives.' Plutarch is the king of biographers, and the deference which Shakespeare paid his work by adhering to the phraseology wherever it was practicable illustrates his literary discrimination. On Plutarch's lives of Julius Cæsar, Brutus, and Antony, Shakespeare based his historical tragedy of 'Julius Cæsar.' Weever, in 1601, in his ' Mirror of Martyrs,' plainly refers to the masterly speech in the Forum at Cæsar's funeral which Shakespeare put into Antony's mouth. There is no suggestion of the speech in Plutarch; hence the composition of 'Julius Cæsar' may be held to have preceded the issue of Weever's book in 1601. The general topic was already familiar on the stage. Polonius told Hamlet how, when he was at the university, he 'did enact Julius Cæsar; he was kill'd in the Capitol : Brutus kill'd him.'2 A play of the same title was known as early as 1589, and was acted in 1594 by Shakespeare's company. Shakespeare's piece is a penetrating study of political life, and, although the 1 First published in 1579; 2nd edit. 1595.

2 Hamlet, III. ii. 109-10.

murder and funeral of Cæsar form the central episode and not the climax, the tragedy is thoroughly well planned and balanced. Cæsar is ironically depicted in his dotage. The characters of Brutus, Antony, and Cassius, the real heroes of the action, are exhibited with faultless art. The fifth act, which presents the battle of Philippi in progress, proves ineffective on the stage, but the reader never relaxes his interest in the fortunes of the vanquished Brutus, whose death is the catastrophe.

While Julius Cæsar' was winning its first laurels on the stage, the fortunes of the London theatres were menaced by two manifestations of unreasoning prejudice on the part of the public. The earlier manifestation, although speciously the more serious, was in effect innocuous. The puritans of the city of London had long agitated for the suppression of all theatrical performances, and it seemed as if the agitators triumphed when they induced the Privy Council on June 22, 1600, to issue to the officers of the Corporation of London and to the justices of the peace of Middlesex and Surrey an order forbidding the maintenance of more than two playhouses—one in Middlesex (Alleyn's newly erected playhouse, the 'Fortune' in Cripplegate), and the other in Surrey (the 'Globe' on the Bankside). The contemplated restriction would have deprived very many actors of employment, and driven others to seek a precarious livelihood in the provinces. Happily disaster was averted by the failure of the municipal authorities and the magistrates of Surrey and Middlesex to make the order operative. All the London

theatres that were already in existence went on their way unchecked.1

The strife between adult and

More calamitous was a temporary reverse of fortune which Shakespeare's company, in common with the other companies of adult actors, suffered soon afterwards at the hands, not of fanatical boy actors. enemies of the drama, but of playgoers who were its avowed supporters. The company of boyactors, chiefly recruited from the choristers of the Chapel Royal, and known as 'the Children of the Chapel,' had since 1597 been installed at the new theatre in Blackfriars, and after 1600 the fortunes of the veterans, who occupied rival stages, were put in jeopardy by the extravagant outburst of public favour that the boys' performances evoked. In 'Hamlet,' the play which followed Julius Cæsar,' Shakespeare pointed out the perils of the situation. The adult

1 On December 31, 1601, the Lords of the Council sent letters to the Lord Mayor of London and to the magistrates of Surrey and Middlesex expressing their surprise that no steps had yet been taken to limit the number of playhouses in accordance with our order set down and prescribed about a year and a half since.' But nothing followed, and no more was heard officially of the Council's order until 1619, when the Corporation of London remarked on its practical abrogation at the same time as they directed the suppression (which was not carried out) of the Blackfriars Theatre. All the documents on this subject are printed from the Privy Council Register by Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 307-9.

The passage, act ii. sc. ii. 348–394, which deals in ample detail with the subject, only appears in the folio version of 1623. In the First Quarto a very curt reference is made to the misfortunes of the 'tragedians of the city: '

'Y' faith, my lord, noveltie carries it away,
For the principal publike audience that
Came to them are turned to private playes
And to the humours of children.'

'Private playes' were plays acted by amateurs, with whom the 'Children' might well be classed.

actors, Shakespeare asserted, were prevented from performing in London through no falling off in their efficiency, but by the 'late innovation' of the children's vogue. They were compelled to go on tour in the provinces, at the expense of their revenues and reputation, because an aery [i.e. nest] of children, little eyases [i.e. young hawks],' dominated the theatrical world, and monopolised public applause. 'These are now the fashion,' the dramatist lamented, and he made the topic the text of a reflection on the fickleness of public taste:

HAMLET. Do the boys carry it away?

Rosencrantz. Ay, that they do, my lord, Hercules and his load too. HAMLET. It is not very strange; for my uncle is King of Denmark, and those that would make mows at him while my father lived, give twenty, forty, fifty, a hundred ducats apiece for his picture in little.

Jealousies in the ranks of the dramatists accentuated the actors' difficulties. Ben Jonson was, at the end of the sixteenth century, engaged in a fierce personal quarrel with two of his fellow dramatists, Marston and Dekker. The adult actors generally avowed sympathy with Jonson's foes. Jonson, by way of revenge, sought an offensive alliance with the Children of the Chapel.' Under careful tuition the boys proved capable of performing much the same pieces as the men. To the children' Jonson offered

All recent commentators follow Steevens in interpreting the 'late innovation' as the Order of the Privy Council of June 1600, restricting the number of the London playhouses to two; but that order, which was never put in force, in no way affected the actors' fortunes. The First Quarto's reference to the perils attaching to the noveltie' of the boys' performances indicates the true meaning.

2 Hamlet, II. ii. 349-64.