THE MIDDLE PERIOD
Turning again to the plays, there
is reason to believe that “The Merry Wives of
Windsor” followed “Henry IV.”
The character of Falstaff, first known as Oldcastle,
had taken the town, but the name had been changed at
the instance of the eighth Lord Cobham, a descendant
of the great Lollard, Sir John Oldcastle. Falstaff’s
humour made ample atonement for his faults, and the
desire to improve his acquaintance is said by several
authorities to have been expressed by Queen Elizabeth
herself. We are told that her Majesty requested
the poet to present the fat knight in love, and that
he obeyed instructions in a few weeks. There is
no mistaking the high spirits in which the work is
written; they are still ringing through every line.
The poet remembered the old days of Sir Thomas Lucy
of Charlecote, and gave the knight’s arms to
Mr. Justice Shallow openly and unrebuked. Under
the aegis of royalty, he could afford to let himself
go and hit back at the astonished game-preserver.
“The Merry Wives” was no more to its author
than a merry jest, made in fulfilment of a royal request,
a payment of long-standing scores in the best humour
possible, and as soon as it was off his hands the poet
turned to another historical subject and wrote “Henry
V.”
With the close of “Henry V.”
Shakespeare left the arena of English history, never
to enter it again on his own initiative; for, as will
be seen, his share in “Henry VIII.” was
small. Comedy was for the moment in his heart.
Perhaps it was a relief to him, after the strenuous
time he had passed through, to pass to his lighter
muse and express himself in the brightest vein that
could not bear misinterpretation. He turned to
an Italian author, probably Ariosto, for a part of
“Much Ado about Nothing,” but he drew
the least vital part from the foreign source; the
most of the comedy ran sparkling from his own brain.
“As You Like It” followed “Much
Ado,” and the date must be about 1600. It
is another clear case of adaptation, and the scenes
of the play given to the Forest of Arden breathe the
pastoral spirit in a fashion that we look for in vain
elsewhere. “Twelfth Night” would appear
to have been the third comedy following the sequence
of historical plays, and the date would seem to be
1601.
About this time the poet found himself
in a very delicate situation. He had referred
to the expedition of the Earl of Essex in terms of
eulogy, and when that enterprise failed, Essex revolted
against his sovereign, aided and abetted by the poet’s
patron, the Earl of Southampton. Part of the
preliminary arrangements for the conspiracy consisted
in arranging for performances of Shakespeare’s
“Richard II.,” in which, of course, the
king is murdered, the object being to show that regicide
was of no very distant date. Shakespeare’s
company was persuaded to revive the play at the “Globe”
just before the abortive rising in favour of Essex,
who, having lost his head metaphorically, was now to
lose it literally. Happily for England, Shakespeare
himself was not involved in the trouble. Oddly
enough, he published in the year of Essex’s death
and Southampton’s imprisonment a curious poem,
“The Phoenix and the Turtle.” Nobody
has been able to fathom its meaning, though it may
be that those who connect it with the Essex debacle
may yet find a clue to the mystery.
After this year even comedy would
seem to have lost its appeal and savour for a time.
The poet had received a shock that we cannot quite
estimate or understand, and turning to Plutarch’s
Lives for inspiration, he wrote the famous tragedy
“Julius Cæsar,” in many respects a work
that must always defy adequate representation on the
stage. How it could have passed muster on the
bare Elizabethan boards is a puzzle. Next in order
came the masterpiece by which his name is known to
the widest circle of his followers, “Hamlet,”
yet another adaptation of a work that had enjoyed
popularity for some years in London and the country.
There are many references in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”
to contemporary events, including the triumph of the
company of boy actors known as “The Children
of the Chapel,” who in a few years had advanced
in popular favour, and were now threatening the receipts
of the established houses and companies. History
repeats itself. Then as now there was a demand
for novelty, sensation, and the infant prodigy was
in demand. In “Hamlet,” too, Shakespeare
shows that technical knowledge of his art to which
reference has been made earlier in this little survey.
Richard Burbage was the first Hamlet, and the tragedy
was played in Shakespeare’s time both at Oxford
and Cambridge.
Dr. Sidney Lee, than whom no greater
authority is needed, is inclined to set “Troilus
and Cressida” next in the list of plays, and
to give it date 1603. Some hold that the play
hides a satire upon some of the poet’s contemporaries,
but there is insufficient evidence to justify the
rather laboured conclusions that uphold the contention,
which at least is of no more than momentary interest.
It is easy to find, and difficult to deny, these hidden
meanings in the work of one who left no clue to any
suggestion or satire embodied in his plays.