Shakespeare's Lost Years in London - Arthur Acheson (fiction book recommendations .txt) 📗

is not unlikely that Florio accompanied Southampton to France upon this visit, and that much of Shakespeare's irritation at this time arose from Southampton's neglect or coolness, which he supposed to be due to Florio's increasing influence, to which Shakespeare also imputed much of the young Earl's ill-regulated manner of life at this period.

In the happy ending of Helena's troubles, and in Bertram's recognition of his moral responsibility and marital obligations, and also in the significant change of the title of this play from _Love's Labour's Won_ to _All's Well that Ends Well_, we have Shakespeare's combined reproof and approval of Southampton's recent conduct towards Elizabeth Vernon, as well as a practical reflection of the actual facts in their case.

At about this time, in addition to the revision of _All's Well that Ends Well_, I date the first production, though not the original composition, of _Troilus and Cressida_, and also the final revision of _Love's Labour's Lost_. In this latter play the part taken by Armado was, I believe, enlarged and revised, as in the case of Parolles in _All's Well that Ends Well_, to suit the incidents and characterisation to Shakespeare's developed knowledge of, and experience with, Florio. There are several small but significant links of description between the Parolles of 1598 and the enlarged Armado of the same date. Both of these characters are represented as braggart soldiers and also as linguists, which evidently reflect Florio's quasi-military connection with Southampton and his known proficiency in languages.

In Act IV. Scene iii. Parolles is referred to as "the manifold linguist and armipotent soldier." In _Love's Labour's Lost_, in Act I. Scene i., in lines that palpably belong to the play in its earliest form, Armado is described as "a man of fire-new words." He is also represented as a traveller from Spain. In Act V. Scene ii., in lines that pertain to the revision of 1598, he is made to take the soldier's part again, in giving him the character of Hector in _The Nine Worthies_. In this character Armado is made to use the peculiar word "armipotent" twice. It is significant that this word is never used by Shakespeare except in connection with Armado and Parolles. In giving Armado the character of Hector, I am convinced that Shakespeare again indicates Florio's military experience. In the lines which Armado recites in the character of Hector, Shakespeare intentionally makes his personal point at Florio more strongly indicative by alluding to the name Florio by the word "flower," in the interrupted line with which Hector ends his verses.

ARM. Peace!----
"The armipotent Mars, of lances the almighty,
Gave Hector a gift, the heir of Ilion;
A man so breathed, that certain he would fight ye
From morn till night, out of his pavilion.
I am that flower,----"

He reinforces his indication by Dumain's and Longaville's interpolations--"That mint," "That columbine." Florio undoubtedly indicated this meaning to his own name in entitling his earliest publication _First Fruites_ and a later publication _Second Fruites_. In a sonnet addressed to him by some friend of his who signs himself "Ignoto," his name is also referred to in this sense. In his Italian-English dictionary, published in 1598, he does not include the word Florio. In the edition of 1611, however, he includes it, but states that it means, "A kind of bird." In using the word "columbine" Shakespeare gives the double meaning of a flower and also a bird. Florio used a flower for his emblem, and had inscribed under his portrait in the 1611 edition of his _Worlde of Wordes_:

"Floret adhuc et adhuc florebit
Florius haec specie floridus optat amans."

The frequent references to the characters of the _Iliad_ in this act and scene of _Love's Labour's Lost_ link the period of its insertion with the date of the original composition of _Troilus and Cressida_ in, or about, 1598, to which time I have also assigned the revision of _Love's Labour's Won_ into _All's Well that Ends Well_, and the development of Parolles into a misleader of youth.

Another phase of Act V. Scene ii. of _Love's Labour's Lost_ appears to be a reflection of an affair in the life of the individual whom Shakespeare has in mind in the delineation of the characters of Armado and Sir John Falstaff. Costard accuses Armado regarding his relations with Jaquenetta.

COST. The party is gone, fellow Hector, she is gone; she is two
months on her way.

ARM. What meanest thou?

COST. Faith, unless you play the honest Trojan, the poor wench is
cast away: she's quick; the child brags in her belly already: 'tis
yours.

ARM. Dost thou infamonize me among potentates?

Precisely similar conditions are shown to exist in the relations between Falstaff and Doll Tearsheet, in the _Second Part of Henry IV._, in which play there are also allusions to the characters of the _Iliad_, which link its composition with the same period as _Troilus and Cressida_; and an allusion to _The Nine Worthies_ that apparently link it in time with the final revision of _Love's Labour's Lost_ late in 1598.

ACT V. SCENE IV.

_Enter_ BEADLES _dragging in Hostess_ QUICKLY _and_ DOLL TEARSHEET.

HOST. No, thou arrant knave; I would to God that I might have thee
hanged: thou hast drawn my shoulder out of joint.

FIRST BEAD. The constables have delivered her over to me: and she
shall have whipping-cheer enough I warrant her: there hath been a man
or two lately killed about her.

DOL. Nut-hook, nut-hook, you lie. Come on; I'll tell thee what, thou
damned tripe-visaged rascal, and the child I now go with miscarry,
thou wert better thou hadst struck thy mother, thou paper-faced
villain.

HOST. O the Lord, that Sir John were come! he would make this a
bloody day to somebody. But I pray God the fruit of her womb
miscarry.

The natural sequel to the conditions so plainly indicated in the passages quoted from the lately revised _Love's Labour's Lost_, regarding Jaquenetta and Armado, and from the recently written _Henry IV._ in reference to Doll Tearsheet and Falstaff, is reported in due time in a postscript to a letter written by Elizabeth Vernon, now Lady Southampton, on 8th July 1599, to her husband, who was in Ireland with Essex. She writes from Chartley:

"All the nues I can send you that I thinke will make you mery is that
I reade in a letter from London that Sir John Falstaff is by his
Mistress Dame Pintpot made father of a godly millers thum a boye
thats all heade and very litel body: but this is a secret."

Here we have record that Shakespeare's patron, and his patron's wife, knew that Falstaff had a living prototype who was numbered among their acquaintances. That the birth of this child was not in wedlock is suggested by the concluding words of the Countess's letter "but this is a secret."

The identification of Florio as the original caricatured as Parolles and Falstaff has never been anticipated, though some critics have noticed the basic resemblances between these two characters of Shakespeare's. Parolles has been called by Schlegel, "the little appendix to the great Falstaff."

A few slight links in the names of characters have led some commentators to date a revision of _All's Well that Ends Well_ at about the same time as that of the composition of _Measure for Measure_ and _Hamlet_. While the links of subjective evidence I have adduced for one revision in, or about, the autumn of 1598, and at the same period as that of the composition of the _Second Part of Henry IV._, of the final revision of _Love's Labour's Lost_, and shortly after the production of _Troilus and Cressida_, in 1598, are fairly conclusive, a consideration of the characterisation of Falstaff in the _First Part of Henry IV._ and of the evidence usually advanced for the date of the composition of this play will elucidate this idea.

The _First Part of Henry IV._ in its present form belongs to a period shortly preceding the date of its entry in the Stationers' Registers, in February 1598. I am convinced that it was published at this time with Shakespeare's cognizance, and that he revised it with this intention in mind. All inference and evidence assign the composition of the _Second Part of Henry IV._ to some part of the year 1598. It is unlikely, however, that it was included in Meres' mention of _Henry IV._ in his _Palladis Tamia_, which was entered on the Stationers' Registers in September of that year. If the link between Doll Tearsheet's condition and the similar affair reported in Lady Southampton's letter in July 1599 be connected in intention with the same conditions reflected in the case of Armado and Jaquenetta, its date of production is palpably indicated, as is also the final revision of _Love's Labour's Lost_ in about December 1598. Both of these plays were probably presented--the _Second Part of Henry IV._ for the first time, and _Love's Labour's Lost_ for the first time in its final form--for the Christmas festivities at Court, in 1598. While the Quarto of _Love's Labours Lost_ is dated as published in 1598, there is no record of its intended publication in the Stationers' Registers. It must be remembered, however, that all publications issued previous to the 25th of March 1599 would be dated 1598.

A comparison of the two parts of _Henry IV._ under the metrical test, while clearly showing _Part I._ as an earlier composition, yet approximates their dates so closely in time as to suggest a comparatively recent and thorough revision of the earlier portion of the play in 1597 or 1598. It is plain, however, that Shakespeare's _Henry IV., Part I._, held the boards in some form for several years before this date. The numerous contemporary references, under the name of Sir John Oldcastle, to the character now known as Falstaff, evidences on the part of the public such a settled familiarity with this same character, under the old name, as to suggest frequent presentations of Shakespeare's play in the earlier form. The Oldcastle of _The Famous Victories of Henry V._ has no connection whatever with the characterisation of Falstaff.

Though the metrical evidences of so early a date are now obscured by the drastic revision of the autumn of 1597, or spring of 1598, I am of the opinion that _Henry IV., Part I._, as it was originally written, belongs to a period antedating the publication of _Willobie his Avisa_ in 1594, and that it was composed late in 1593, or early in 1594. I am led to this conclusion by the underlying thread of subjective evidence linking the plays of this period with the affairs of Southampton and his connections. It is unlikely that Shakespeare would introduce that "sweet wench" my "Young Mistress of the Tavern" into a play after the publication of the