King. Isabella. Mortimer junior. Kent, Arundel. Lancaster, Leicester, Lightborn. Mortimer senior, Spencer senior, Abbot. Niece, Prince Edward. The parts of Messenger, Beaumont, James, Herald, Mower, and Champion, could be taken by one supernumerary; while three would be required for the poor men, soldiers, attendants, guard, and monks. Similar results are found in every play I have examined, always about twelve or thirteen actors are necessary. This table also distinctly shows us where the acts end. The divisions must come at the end of those scenes, where characters appear for the last time; so that they should have time to change their dress for new characters, while the music was playing between the acts. It is clear that the end of the second act must, for stage necessities, come where I have placed it, and not one scene earlier, as in Mr Cunningham's edition. The same division follows from æsthetic considerations. Marlow's tragedies nearly always contain what may be called subordinate tragedies, in the separate acts of each play. Thus in this play, Act I closes with the elder Mortimer's departure to Scotland, and disappearance from the play; Act II with Gaueston's death; Act III with the execution of the Barons; Act IV with the death of Young Spencer; Act V being devoted to the murder of the king himself. This peculiarity of construction runs through all Marlow's plays. ON MARLOW'S LIFE AND WRITINGS. As a general rule, it seems to be a mistake to preface every detached work of an author with an account of his life and writings; and I should have simply referred, for the requisite information on these heads, to the many notices that have been given of Marlow elsewhere, were it not that some evidence has been overlooked by all writers until now, which is important in connection with the history of the stage, and still more important in connection with the only superior to Marlow in his own special line of work, the many-sided Shakespeare. Christopher, son of John Marlow (perhaps shoemaker, certainly clerk of St Mary's), was christened at St George the Martyr's, Canterbury, on the 26th February 1564. He was at the King's School, in that town, from Michaelmas 1578, till Michaelmas 1579. He was entered at Benet (Corpus Christi) College, Cambridge, in 1580. On 17th March 1581, he matriculated as pensioner, proceeded B.A. 1583, and commenced M.A. 1587. So far the ordinary biographies. Mr Cunningham adds a very probable conjecture, confirmed to me by various passages in which Marlow's soldiership is, as I think, alluded to in contemporary productions, that he was in the wars in the Low Countries in 1584. I now give some details as to his theatrical career in London, resting on the irrefragable evidence of documents, manuscript or printed, which have long been known, but never put together in a connected form. It is recognised by critics, that his earliest works were Tamburlaine, Faustus, and the Few of Malta. The company that originally produced the Few is not known on positive evidence, but the others were acted by the Admiral's company, about 1586-8. But the Admiral's company were prohibited from acting in 1589. There can then be little, if any doubt, that Marlow wrote only for this company till this prohibition; which gives us, supposing that he produced one play a year, the following scheme exactly agreeing with that deduced by me on other grounds in my Shakespeare Manual. But this last play was probably produced with the next group, as we shall see. Marlow took it with him when he left the players of Earl Pembroke to join Lord Strange's. We next find him in connection with the Earl of Pembroke's company. Edward II, which we know to have been acted by them, is stated positively by Warton to have been produced in 1590. The Second and Third Parts of Henry VI (then called the First and Second Parts, and sometimes The Contention of the Houses of York and Lancaster, and The True Tragedy of the Duke of York) must have been written circa 1591, as Greene quotes a line in 1592. In these plays, no critic of note doubts that Marlow had some share, though what share is still disputed. But these plays were acted by the Earl of Pembroke's men. Again, the old play of The Taming of a Shrew, brought out by the same company, has so many coincidences of expression with Marlow's admitted plays, that it can hardly be supposed but that he had some share in its composition. It was produced circa 1589, at which date, the old Hamlet, associated with it in Henslow's Diary, is known to have been first performed. We may then confidently assign Marlow's connection with Pembroke's actors to the years 1589-1591. Taming of a Shrew, 2 and 3 Henry VI, 1589. 1590. 1591. It is not needful here to discuss who his coadjutors were in these plays. My own belief is that Shakespeare helped him in the first, and Peele in the last. But in 1592, on March 3d, the First Part of Henry VI, then called simply Henry VI, or the Third Part of Henry VI, was produced at the Rose by Lord Strange's players. This play is identified by Nash's allusions to Talbot's being represented on the stage in 1592. That Marlow wrote some part of it, cannot be doubted; and that Shakespeare wrote the episode of the deaths of Talbot and his son, has always been a favourite opinion of mine. The accurate ear and delicate taste of Mr Swinburne has since confirmed this opinion. Marlow was then a writer for Lord Strange's company at the time of his death. He died 1st June 1593, slain. in a tavern brawl, and buried at St Nicholas Church, Deptford, leaving several works unfinished. His poem of Hero and Leander was completed by George Chapman, who was then connected with the Admiral's company at the Rose. His Massacre of Paris (Tragedy of the Guise) was produced as a new play by Lord Strange's company, on 30th January 1592-3 (not 1593-4, as Mr Collier says); but the mutilated state of it is not due to its being left unfinished, as Marlow was not then dead, but to treatment it received from the players after his death. Compare the speech in Collier's MS. quoted by modern editors, with the printed editions, and the manner in which the corruptions arose will be clear at once. He did leave an unfinished play, however, Dido. This got somehow into Nash's possession, who finished it for the Chapel Children. Shakespeare, his fellow-poet for Lord Strange's men, and his fellow-worker (on all hypotheses) in some plays, was naturally the person who should have completed it. It is singular that the part distinctly Nash's coincides in subject with the speech of the player in Hamlet, and I regard this latter as written originally by Shakespeare to complete Marlow's play. Hence possibly an enlargement of the breach already existing between him and Nash. Marlow may have left behind him the commencement of Titus Andronicus, produced by the Earl of Sussex's players on 23d January 1593-4. This play is identified with that usually printed as Shakespeare's, by the name of the company it was written for; but it is certain that Shakespeare was at that date with Lord Strange's players, and had no connection with those of Sussex. It is moreover clear from internal evidence, that this play was mainly, if not entirely produced by George Peele, so that most likely Marlow had nothing to do with it. We have then in addition to the previous lists: These dates differ from those given conjecturally by me elsewhere; but I apprehend that the external evidence is so strong, that conjectures, even supported by such an authority as Dyce, must give way to it. If this evidence be admitted, it gives us the following results for these dramatists: 1589, Marlow and Shakespeare with Pembroke's men. 1592-3, Marlow, Peele, and Shakespeare with Lord Strange's It may be interesting to trace the subsequent fate of these plays. Tamburlaine, as far as we know, was never in the possession of any company but the Admiral's. Nor was Faustus, but it was altered for the same company in 1602.* The few of Malta was, on the other hand, played by Lord Strange's men in 1592, by the Earl of Sussex's in 1594, after that, by the Admiral's, during a succession of years, and finally * And previously in 1597, if the entry as to Dekker's alterations be genuine, which is more than doubtful. They by Queen Henrietta's at the Cockpit before 1633. probably obtained it at the breaking up of the Palgrave's company, formerly the Prince's (Prince Henry's, identical with the Admiral's). Two plays, The Guise and Dido, are only known in connection with the companies by which they were originally produced. But The Taming of a Shrew was in possession of the Lord Chamberlain's men in 1594, who also acquired a property in 2 and 3 Henry VI about 1600. I Henry VI was always theirs, as they are identical with Lord Strange's men, who took the title of the Chamberlain's in 1594. Titus Andronicus passed from the Earl of Sussex's men, successively to Pembroke's, Derby's, and in 1600 to the Chamberlain's. Edward II belonged to Queen Anne's actors at the Bull before 1619. Dyce pointed out some similarities between this play and Henry VI. He might have greatly enlarged his list. Some of the more prominent likenesses will be noticed here, as bearing on the interesting question as to whether there is a community of authorship in these plays. 1. The word exequiès (1 Hen. VI, III, ii, 133) never occurs in any undoubted play of Shakespeare. 2. Nor does shipwreck as a noun (1 Hen. VI, V, v, 8 Tit. And., II, i, 24). 3. Nor does buckler as a verb (Tam. Shrew, III, ii, 241; 2 Hen. VI, III, ii, 216; 3 Hen. VI, III, iii, 99). 4. Nor does embroider (3 Hen. VI, II, v, 45). 5. Nor Tully (2 Hen. VI, IV, i, 136; Tit. And., IV, i, 14). 6. Nor serge (2 Hen. VI, IV, vii, 27). 7. Nor verb (2 Hen. VI, IV, vii, 43). 8. Nor foreslow (3 Hen. VI, II, iii, 56). 9. Nor magnanimity (3 Hen. VI, V, iv, 41). 10. Nor preachment (3 Hen. VI, I, iv, 72). 11. Nor atlas (3 Hen. VI, V, i, 36). 12. Nor impale (3 Hen. VI, III, ii, 171; III, iii, 189). But all these occur in Edward II. Of similarities of phrase I select the following : 2 Hen. VI, II, iii, 28: I see no reason why a king of years |
