INTRODUCTION.

ON

N the verso of the title-page, and facing the first page of the Preface, of James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps's "Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare," is a woodcut, representing the scattered bits of foundation wall which remain of Shakespeare's house, in Stratford-upon-Avon, known as New Place. In the opening of the Preface, the author remarks, with a touch of pathos, "the remains of New Place, a partial sketch of which is engraved on the opposite leaf, are typical of the fragments of the personal history of Shakespeare which have hitherto been discovered. In this respect the great dramatist participates in the fate of most of his literary contemporaries, for if a collection of the known facts relating to all of them were tabularly arranged, it would be found that the number of the ascertained particulars of his life reached at least the average. At the present day, with biography carried to a wasteful and ridiculous excess, and Shakespeare, the idol not merely of a nation but of the educated world, it is difficult to realize a period when no interest was taken in the events of the lives of authors, and when the great poet himself, notwithstanding the immense popularity of some of his works, was held in no general reverence. It must be borne in mind that actors then occupied an inferior position in society, and that in many quarters even the vocation of a dramatic writer was considered scarcely respectable. The intelligent appreciation of genius by individuals was not sufficient to neutralize in these matters the effect of public opinion and the animosity of the religious world; all circumstances thus uniting to banish general interest in the history of persons con

nected in any way with the stage. This biographical indifference continued for many years, and long before the season arrived for a real curiosity to be taken in the subject, the records from which alone a satisfactory memoir could have been constructed had disappeared. At the time of Shakespeare's decease, non-political correspondence was rarely preserved, elaborate diaries were not the fashion, and no one, excepting in semi-apocryphal collections of jests, thought it worth while to record many of the sayings and doings, or to delineate at any length the characters, of actors and dramatists, so that it is generally by the merest accident that particulars of interest respecting them have been recovered."

But meagre as our knowledge remains of the external life of Shakespeare, after all the untiring researches of the last, and more especially of the present century, we, nevertheless, thanks to those researches, possess a kind of knowledge quite as desirable as any knowledge of his personal history, desirable as that is more so than that of any other great author in the world's literatures. The material for this knowledge was collected by Dr. C. M. Ingleby, and published in 1874, in a volume entitled "Shakespeare's Centurie of Prayse; being materials for a history of opinion on Shakespeare and his works, culled from writers of the first century after his rise," that is, from 1591, the 27th year of the poet's life, to 1693. These materials are far more abundant than any who have not made a special study of the subject, and who hold the traditional opinion that little or nothing has been delivered of Shakespeare by his contemporaries, and the two generations immediately succeeding his death, would be apt to suppose. The Index to Authors cited, contains 116 names; many of them being those of prominent writers of the period covered by the work. Several additions have been made to these, in the 2d edition, revised by Lucy Toulmin Smith, and published by the New Shakspere Society, 1879. The "Centurie of Prayse" furnishes "both positive and negative evidence as to the estimation in which Shakespeare was held by the writers of the century during which his fame was germinating; viz., 1592–1693. ... The testimonies bear witness

to subjective opinions, preparing the way for the objective judgment which has seated Shakespeare on the throne of poets."

We really know more of Shakespeare than we know of any other author of the time, either in English or in European literature, who was not connected with state affairs. The personal history of a mere author, and especially of a playwright, as a dramatic author, whatever his ability, was frequently called, with no influence at Court, was not considered of sufficient importance to be recorded in those days, when the Court was everything, and the individual man without adventitious recommendations, was nothing.

Already in 1598, when Shakespeare was but 34 years of age, a clergyman, Francis Meres, educated at the University of Cambridge, in a work entitled "Palladis Tamia," ranked Shakespeare with the greatest poets and dramatists of Greece and Rome. He would hardly have done this if Shakespeare was so obscure and so little estimated at the time as to cause such a judgment as he expresses, to be laughed at. Meres, as his book shows, was a man of great scholastic learning; and scholastic learning in those days meant a reverential estimate of the great classics of Greece and Rome.

Higher still is the testimony to his greatness borne by Ben Jonson, in his lines in the 1st Folio:

To the memory of my beloved, the Author Mr. William Shakespeare: and. what he hath left us.

To draw no enuy* (Shakespeare) on thy name,
Am I thus ample to thy Booke, and Fame :
While I confesse thy writings to be such,

As neither Man, nor Muse, can praise too much.
'Tis true, and all mens suffrage. But these wayes
Were not the paths I meant vnto thy praise:

*"To draw no envy,' etc., certainly does not mean what the editor of Brome's "Five New Plays," 1659 (To the Reader, p. 4), imputes to it; as if Ben thought to lower Shakespeare by extravagantly praising him. He meant

For seeliest Ignorance on these may light,

Which, when it sounds at best, but eccho's right;
Or blinde affection, which doth ne're aduance

The truth, but gropes, and vrgeth all by chance;
Or crafty Malice, might pretend this praise,

And thinke to ruine, where it seem'd to raise.
These are, as some infamous Baud, or Whore,
Should praise a Matron. What could hurt her more
But thou art proofe against them, and indeed
Aboue th' ill fortune of them, or the need.
I, therefore will begin. Soule of the Age!
The applause! delight! the wonder of our Stage!
My Shakespeare, rise; I will not lodge thee by
Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lye
A little further, to make thee a roome:

Thou art a Moniment, without a tombe,
And art aliue still, while thy Booke doth liue,
And we haue wits to read, and praise to giue.
That I not mixe thee so, my braine excuses;

I meane with great, but disproportion'd Muses: †
For, if I thought my iudgement were of yeeres,
I should commit thee surely with thy peeres,
And tell, how farre thou didstst our Lily out-shine,
Or sporting Kid, or Marlowes mighty line.

And though thou hadst small Latine, and lesse Greeke, ‡

to say, that while Ignorance, Affection, or Malice, by excessive, indiscriminate, or unjust praise, would be sure to provoke the detraction of Envy, 'these ways were not the paths I meant unto thy praise'; for he could with full knowledge and strict impartiality award him the highest praise that could be expressed." - Dr. Ingleby, in his "Shakespeare's Centurie of Prayse."

* "I will not lodge thee,' etc., refers to Basse's lines, and means that he will not class Shakespeare with Chaucer, Spenser, and Beaumont, because he is out of all proportion greater than they -men 'of yeeres' or 'for an age.' Nor will he praise him by declaring how far he excelled Lily, Kid, and Marlow. Shakespeare, indeed, like them (yet beyond them), was for the age in which he flourished; but he was also for all time, and not of an age." — Dr. Ingleby, in his "Shakespeare's Centurie of Prayse." † Poets.

"And though thou hadst,' etc. Here hadst is the subjunctive. [?] The