If Shakespeare was thus intended by the character of King William Rufus, it is not easy to suppose that the Satiromastix was put on the stage at his instigation or with his concurrence, notwithstanding that it was acted by his own company. Mr. Fleay appears to be of opinion that this would not have occurred if Shakespeare had been in London at the time (Chronicle History, p. 43). And Mr. Simpson thought that Shakespeare was much vexed at the attack on himself in the Satiromastix; and, moreover, that "he seems to refer to and protest against the general ill-fame under which he laboured at this time in his 121st Sonnet''Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed,'" &c.1 For our present purpose, however, it is, in accordance with what has been already said, not necessary to affirm that the story about William the Conqueror is true, nor need we assert that Shakespeare was satirised in Dekker's play. It is sufficient, with reference to the 121st Sonnet and other allusions previously quoted, that we have evidence that in or about 1601 there was in circulation scandal affecting Shakespeare's moral character and connected with the theatre, and also that there was at the same time a formably to the taste of the times in which the monument was erected, the eyes being of a light hazel, and the hair and beard auburn." "In the year 1748 this monument was carefully restored, and the original colours of the bust, &c., as much as possible preserved (by Mr. John Hall, a limner of Stratford)." Subsequently (1793) it was "painted white at the request of Mr. Malone," p. 133. Mr. Friswell (Life Portraits of Shakspeare, 1864, p. 7) says:-"The bust has now been restored to its last coat of colour by Mr. Collins of New Bond Street, who prepared for it a bath of some detergent, which entirely took off Malone's whitewash," &c. We may take it, then, that the bust represents approximately Shakespeare's complexion, colour of hair, &c. The following quotation from Manningham's Diary may also be given with respect to contemporary use of the word "Rufus : "—"I askt Mr. Leydall whether he argued a case according to his opinion. He said, noe! but he sett a good colour upon it. I told him he might well doe soe, for he neuer wants a good colour; he is Rufus." 1 North British Review, loc. cit. p. 411. theatrical quarrel in which Shakespeare was supposed to have taken part. It is not at all difficult to understand how, from such elements, scandal and slander may have grown and become intensified to any possible degree or extent. Moreover, the scandal was probably concerned also with other matters which are now unknown. But, whatever may have been the cause or causes of the scandal, there is ground for believing that it had a deep and powerful influence on Shakespeare's mind, and, in consequence, on those great dramas which were produced during several years onward from 1601.1 1 What is said in the Folio Hamlet (Act ii. sc. 2, lines 372-376) of the "throwing about of brains" and the "poet and the player going to cuffs in the question" may very well pertain to the quarrel as existing in 1601. But, as this is absent from the Quartos of 1603 and 1604, an objection might easily be made to the citation of the passage as authoritative. CHAPTER XIV. INDICATIONS OF GLOOM IN THE SONNETS AND SOME OTHER OF SHAKESPEARE'S WORKS. - THERE is a remarkable passage in Hallam's Literature of Europe (Part III., chap. vi. § 42), from which a quotation must here be made:- --"There seems to have been a period in Shakespeare's life when his heart was ill at ease, and ill content with the world or his own conscience; the memory of hours misspent, the pang of affection misplaced or unrequited, the experience of man's worser nature, which intercourse with unworthy associates, by choice or circumstance peculiarly teaches;-these, as they sank down into the depths of his great mind, seem not only to have inspired into it the conception of Lear and Timon, but that of one primary character, the censurer of mankind. This type is first seen in the philosophic melancholy of Jaques, gazing with an undiminished serenity, and with a gaiety of fancy, though not of manners, on the follies of the world. assumes a graver cast in the exiled Duke of the same play, and next one rather more severe in the Duke of Measure for Measure. In all these, however, it is merely contemplative philosophy. In Hamlet this is mingled with the impulses of a perturbed heart under the pressure of extraordinary circumstances; it shines no longer, as in the former characters, with a steady light, but plays in fitful coruscations under feigned gaiety and extravagance. In Lear it is the sudden flash of inspiration across the incongruous imagery of madness; in Timon it is obscured by the exaggerations of misanthropy. These plays all belong to It nearly the same period: As You Like It being usually referred to 1600, Hamlet, in its altered form, to about 1602, Timon to the same year, Measure for Measure to 1603, and Lear to 1604." In this passage no mention is made of some plays of Shakespeare which must be referred to the period in question; and objection may be made to Hallam's statements with regard to certain details. Nevertheless the passage just quoted is a remarkable one; and it is to be observed that in arriving at the conclusion expressed Hallam does not seem to have taken any account of the Sonnets. It will be seen, however, that Hallam's conclusions derived from the Plays are in singular agreement with those which we have attained concerning the Sonnets. The period of Shakespeare's life, when his heart was ill at ease, Hallam places about the year 1600. According to the chronological indications already reviewed it was a little before this time that Shakespeare's mistress proved unfaithful to him, deserting him for his young friend; that his feelings were wounded through the favour supposed to be shown by his friend to George Chapman, and that through these or other causes there occurred a breach of the intimacy lasting for some time, probably about eighteen months (1599–1601). During this interval there was, as shown in the last chapter, scandal afloat concerning the poet's character, but, notwithstanding this, and the "wretched errors" which he confesses that he had committed (119), it would appear nevertheless from 100 that he had been busy with literary work. Obviously, however, the complimentary language of this Sonnet 1 In treating of the Sonnets, however, in Part III. chap. v., Hallam adds in a note :-"Pembroke succeeded to his father in 1601. I incline to think that the Sonnets were written about that time, some probably earlier, some later. That they were the same as Meres, in 1598, has mentioned. . . I do not believe, both on account of the date, and from the peculiarly personal allusions they contain.' is not to be taken as a serious estimate by Shakespeare of the value of his work : "Where art thou, Muse, that thou forget'st so long To speak of that which gives thee all thy might? In gentle numbers time so idly spent ; And gives thy pen both skill and argument." On which of his works was Shakespeare then engaged? In 1600 there were placed on the Stationers' Register the titles of the three plays Henry V., Much Ado about Nothing, and As You Like It. This, however, does not enable us to determine as precisely as is desirable for our present purpose the date of composition. And a remark somewhat similar may be made with regard to the time when Twelfth Night was written, though this may very possibly be of the date 1599 or 1600.1 From the allusion in the Chorus before Act v. it may be inferred that Henry V. was written in 1599, when Essex was absent in Ireland. Much Ado about Nothing and As You Like It were probably both written in or about the year 1599. The former play, notwithstanding the lively encounters of Benedick and Beatrice, conveys, in relation to the plot against Hero and its consequences, an impression of sadness-an impression which, it has been observed, "would have been too tragical had not Shakespeare carefully softened it, in order to prepare for a fortunate catastrophe" (Schlegel). In As You Like It we have, according to Hallam, the first example of the " censurer of mankind." It might almost be said that we have a double presentation of the pessimistic philosopher in Jaques and his comic counterpart, Touchstone. The one seems to play 1 The entry in Manningham's Diary of February 2, 1601[-2] may fix the time when he first saw the play, but it cannot fix certainly the date of its composition, or even its first presentation on the stage. |