"Make answer, Muse, wilt thou not haply say," and so on. In the next lines of this poem of Chapman's which I shall quote, he probably refers to his recent repulse in seeking Southampton's patronage: 66 Though all the rotten spawn of earth reject me. For though I now consume in poesy, Yet Homer being my root I cannot die." In the following passage I find the first, last, and only admission upon Chapman's part that Shakespeare had any merit whatever : "And though to rhyme and give a verse smooth feet, Uttering to vulgar palates passions sweet, This admission is grudging, but it is very descriptive of Shakespeare's style, as we would imagine it judged by Chapman's mind. This poem concludes with what looks like a paraphrase of one of Shakespeare's own lines: 66 "But as ill-lines new filled with ink undried An empty pen with their own stuff applied Can blot them out: so shall their wealth-burst wombs Be made with empty pen their honours' tombs." Chapman, in writing these lines, possibly had the following line of Shakespeare's in mind: 66 Making their tomb the womb wherein they grew." This is from the 86th Sonnet, to which I have shown that Chapman has hitherto referred in this poem. It is rather difficult to tell exactly what Chapman means in this last passage; he possibly refers to the nobleman who has rejected him, and predicts for him the same lack of future fame from Shakespeare's pen that Shakespeare in the 83d Sonnet predicts for his patron if sung by Chapman, when he says: "For I impair not beauty, being mute, When others would bring life, and give a tomb." It seems fairly evident, from the parallels which I have here shown, that Chapman had read many of Shakespeare's Sonnets while they were in manuscript. In this poem his references, however, are all to the particular sequence or series which refer to the "rival poet" and to those which immediately follow them. Chapman very evidently recognized them as being directed against himself. The evidences of Chapman's hostility to Shakespeare are somewhat more definite in this poem to Harriots than in the poems of 1594 and 1595. I have already shown that Shakespeare answers Chapman's covert sneers and criticisms of the earlier years, in several of the Sonnets and in 66 Love's Labor's Lost," and that he attacks that poet's theories, which he attempts to evolve in "The Shadow of Night"; but Chapman has advanced now beyond the nebulous stage of vague theorizing, and in the year 1598 challenges the approval of the world as a translator of Homer. In his various introductory poems and prefaces he claims a very exalted plane, not only for Homer, but even for the heroes of that poet's epics; and for his own work of translation he assumes a greatness beside which he attempts to make all contemporary literary efforts pale into insignificance. I shall now show that Shakespeare takes issue with Chapman in Troilus and Cressida," and as he attacked his old and vague ideals in "Love's Labor's Lost," so, in this later play, he satirizes the new gods of his worship. 66 CHAPTER IX. SHAKESPEARE'S SATIRE UPON CHAPMAN IN TROILUS AND CRESSIDA," IN 1598. In many important respects "Troilus and Cressida" stands apart from all of Shakespeare's plays. Its history, as well as its matter, has been a most fruitful source of speculation for the critics. Previous to its final inclusion in the folio of 1623 it seems to have had a most checkered career. The theory here evolved, regarding the personal relations of Shakespeare and Chapman, throws a very strong and new light both upon the play and its history. The first actual mention which we have of it is in the year 1603, when it was entered for publication in the "Stationers' Register" in the following terms: "Master Roberts Feb'y 7th 1603. Entered for his copy in full court holden this day, to print when he hath got sufficient authority for it, the book of Troilus and Cressida as it is acted by the Lord Chamberlain's men." No publication followed this entry; we may, therefore, assume that the authority to print was denied by the Lord Chamberlain. This qualifying clause, "When he hath got sufficient authority for it," appears in the "Stationers' Register," against entries for plays for publication made by this man Roberts, seven times between the year 1598 and 1603. In every instance the plays are those which have been acted by the Lord Chamberlain's men; we find a like clause entered occasionally against other publishers in those years, but the entry of the clause against Roberts outnumbers the entries against all other publishers during that period. In 1598 a William Jones entered Chapman's "Blind Beggar of Alexandria ” for publication, and against this entry appear the words: "Upon condition that it belong to no other man." From this we may infer that applicants for entry of plays had to prove their ownership of the plays to be entered, and failing to do so, that entry was either refused or qualified as in the case of Roberts' applications. This would certainly seem to imply that Roberts had come by the manuscripts of these plays dishonestly, and that he failed to secure the necessary license to publish, through his inability to prove ownership. Roberts at this period, and for several years later, owned the right or contract to print the players' bills for this company. This connection placed him in a very advantageous position to secure old manuscripts, or to copy new ones. Roberts sold this right in 1613 to William Jaggard, who, with his son, ten years later, printed the first folio edition of Shakespeare's plays. It has been supposed by some critics that the play of "Troilus and Cressida," entered in 1603 in the "Stationers' Register" by Roberts, was not Shakespeare's, but one of Dekker and Chettle's, of the same name. In Henslow's papers there are |