history is wil, perhaps, Le best seen, if the ascertained polats of information about it be simply enumerated, in their order of Mate I. In July 1307. Ralegh writes to Cecil that the Ear of Essex was wonderfull merry att Cecils consait of Aichard the Second.”1 II. In August 1597. Andrew Wyse entered at Stationers' Hall his copyright in Shakespeare's “ Trazedye of Richard the Seconde;” and presently afterwar is published (without the author's name) an edition of it. printed Ly Valentine Symmes. III. Early in 1598, Andrew Wyse entered and published a new edition, with the author's name, and from the press of the same printer. Neither of these printed editions contains what is called the Deposition Scene." But there is ample reason to believe that the omitted scene was performed, though not printed. IV. Between July 1597 and February 1601, several new plays by Shakespeare.-and many other new plays, of course, by other authors,-were produce i and repeatedly performed in London. V. On the 7th February, 1601. Sir Gilly Meyrickone of the most conspicuous partisans and personal followers of the Earl of Essex, as well as an officer of his household-desired the players of Shakespeare's company to perform "the Play of the Deposition of King Richard the Second." Augustyne Phillips, one of that company, objected to the choice, "holding," as he afterwards told the Lords of the Council, on his oath,- "that play to be so old and so long out of yous, that they should have small or no cumpany at yt." Whereupon, to remove the objection, Meyrick 5 1 Letter LXXI. hereafter. 2 Register of Stationers Company, under A. D. 1597 3 Ibid., under A. D. 1598. Domestic Corresp.: Eliz. 1601. Annals of the English Stage, 1597-1601 (Unnumbered Papers. Rolls House gave the players forty shillings; and the play was Can the merry "conceit of Richard the Second," of this letter written by Sir W. Ralegh in July 1597, refer to the tragedy known to have been about that very time in course of performance at the Globe Theatre in London? If it probably does so refer, What passage or incident in the Play can, at that date, have turned Cecil's thoughts towards the Earl of Essex? As we all know, 'King Richard the Second' abounds in passages which glorify the "anointing balm," and denounce the hands that impiously dare to "gripe the sacred handle of the sceptre." Yet Shakespeare's 'deposition scene' was never printed, so long as Queen Elizabeth lived. It appeared first, in print, in the Edition of 1608. And finally, To what performance was it that the Queen herself alluded, when, in her curious conversation about the Pandects of the Records, with William Lambarde, on the 4th of August, 1601, she suddenly startled him, by exclaiming-"I am Richard the Second, know you not that?" and was answered: "Such a wicked imagination was, indeed, attempted by a most unkind gentleman, the most adorned creature that ever your Majesty made; "—the Queen herself presently adding :-"That tragedy was played forty times in open streets and houses." 3 These questions are more easily asked than satisfactorily answered. But it becomes obvious that the supposition of the performance-in 1601-of "an old play" called 'Richard the Second,' now totally unknown, leaves at least as many difficulties 1 Domestic Corresp.: Eliz. 1601. (Unnumbered Papers. Rolls House.) PREFA- NOTE TO LETTER 1597. as it removes. There are in Shakespeare's play incidental passages-as, for example, that famous passage in which the Duke of Hereford is depicted as "wooing poor craftsmen with the craft of smiles "-which bring Essex to the reader's mind. irresistibly, without any reference whatever to the Meyrick incident of 1601. Shakespeare might well have painted that whole passage from the life, and have had the Earl of Essex as his sitter. That Cecil's application of some passage or other—either in a play or in a book, entitled 'Richard the Second, and recently seen or read,—to the Earl can (in 1597) have conveyed no serious imputation of disloyalty, is just as certain as it is that Ralegh's anticipation, in our present letter, of "the better progression" of the Queen's affairs was pointed at the recent union-or apparent union—of Essex and Cecil, which had been brought about by his own efforts and agency. The same post that on the 6th of July carried this letter from Weymouth to Sir Robert Cecil at Court, carried one from the Earl to the Queen (written at the same place, on the same day), in which he expresses his loyal devotion to her service, in terms that seem to bear the stamp of sincerity. The prosperity of a jest is said to lie in the receptive ear. It is quite as true that the perception, or apprehension, of public harm in a play has many times lain entirely in the sudden application, by an eager audience, of some striking phrase or passage to some passing incident which had recently excited public feeling. And it has sometimes happened that the author has been not the least surprised observer of the uproar. If evidence should hereafter be discovered that a Play, the performance of which was thought entirely harmless in 1597, awakened royal anger in 1601; the inconsistency will be a fact much less surprising than would be the proof,-if it be ever adduced,—that the friends of the Earl of Southampton, as well as of the Earl of Essex, applied to Shakespeare's company to perform, at the Globe Theatre, a Play of 'King Richard the Second,' which was not his ;-which was able to keep the stage against his;—and of which every line has now disappeared. Thus far, however, such a belief has been an act of faith with Shakespeare's editors-from the days of Theobald down to our own. PREFA TORY NOTE TO LXXI. 1597. LXXI. TO SECRETARY SIR ROBERT CECIL. From the Original. Domestic Correspondence: Elizabeth. (Unarranged In this hast and confusion of bussneses amonge so many wantes and so great hast, I hope you will pardon mee if I write litell, and that confusedly. Wee have all written for supply. I beseich yow to further it, or to looke for nothing att our hands; for the tyme, together with the multitude of mens boddes [?], hath such an advantage over us, as wee shall not be abell to retch the place of our greatest hope. LETTER LXXI. 1597. July 6. To Sir R. Cecil. From Wey mouth. Preparations for Voyage. the Second." I acquaynted the Lord Generall1 with your letter to Island mee, and your kynd acceptance of your enterteyne-"Richard mente; 2 hee was also wonderfull merry att your consait of Richard the Second.' I hope it shall never alter, and whereof I shall be most gladd of, as the trew way to all our good, quiett, and advancement, and most of all for Her sake whose affaires shall thereby fynd better 1 The Earl of Essex. • Essex and Ralegh had recently visited London, in company, and had been "entertained" by Cecil. Had they also diverted their minds by a visit, in company, to the Globe Theatre? See, in addition to the Prefatory Note on this Letter, a passage in Vol. I. p. 293. 12THIR LXXI. 1597. July 6. progression. Sir, I will ever be your's; it is all I can saye, and I will performe it with my life, and with my fortune. Weymouth, the 6 of July [1597]. Addressed: W. RALFGH. To the right honorable Sir ROBERT CECYIL, Knight, Principall LXXII. [TO THE LORDS OF THE COUNCIL?] From the Original. Domestic Correspondence: Elizabeth. (Unarranged ** It appears by passages in a letter from the Earl of Essex to Sir Robert Cecil, of the 23rd July, 1597, and in Cecil's reply to that letter, dated 26th July, that a third letter was written by Sir Walter Ralegh, intermediately between these despatches of the 18th and 20th July; which third letter is not now known to exist. The Earl says: "We wonder we have not a word from you. Sir Walter Ralegh wrote on Monday and Tuesday, and I sent Sir Thomas Gates on Wednesday," &c. Cecil answers: "For good Mr. Rakgh, who wonders at his own diligence (because diligence and he are not familiars), it is true that on Wednesday night, I being 1 › Domestic Correspondence: Elizabeth, as above. (Rolls House.) This expression has been elaborately commented upon, as if written by Cecil in the way of grave censure. The context shows that it is said ironically. Readers of this volume will not lack proof that Ralegh's "diligence" in writing was not less conspicuous than his energy in action; and must, occasionally, have been a little embarrassing to a much-worried Secretary of State. In the course-for example-of one May day, in the year immediately preceding, Sir Robert Cecil had been favoured with four letters from Ralegh. |