VIH. SEPT. 7, Ian.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
207
the principal character Black Will and Shakebag.
The single original of these two characters he need
scarcely pause to point out." Swinburne, p. 282.
It is in this way that MR. THORPE has proved to his own satisfaction that " the sweet-sing- ing youth Shake-rag" can be no other than Shakespeare. " It is as clear as mud," to use Mulvaney's expression.
I doubt whether " the great mass of Eliza- bethan satire" will have much more to reveal so far as our great dramatist is concerned. I will glance at one or two of the writers. In Marston's two sets of satires, the former printed in 1598 and the latter in 1599 there are two clear references to Shakespeare which both bear witness to his popularity. The first is a parody of a well-known line in 'Richard III.,' and runs thus :
A man, a man, a kingdome for a man !
The second is more interesting, and is as follows :
Luscus, what 's plaid to day ? Faith now I know 1 set thy lips abroach, from whence doth flowe Naught but pure Juliet and Romeo.*
These lines, published in the same year as the ' Mycrocynicon,' are enough of themselves to show that such legends obtained no credence at that time, for had there been any foundation for them, a bitter satirist like Marston would not have passed them by. In Hall's satires, " published by Creede," in 1597, Marlowe and Marston are severely handled, but Shakespeare escapes scot free, though his 'Venus and Adonis' may be in- cluded in the condemnation that writer passes on the erotic poetry which bubbled up in such abundance at that period (see Singer's 'Satires of Joseph Hall,' 1824, p. 7, note).
We are next told that " both Simpson and Dr. Grosart identify Doron in * Menaphon ' as meant for Shakespeare." It is after all only a conjecture, not an absolute certainty. The late Mr. Simpson had " the gift bestowed on him by a malignant fairy of mistaking assumption for argument and possibility for proof. He was the very Columbus of mares' nests" (Swinburne, p. 131). Even if it could be proved to demonstration that Doron was intended for Shakespeare, what would it signify ? As the pamphlet is by Greene (MR. THORPE omits to tell his readers that fact), it would only show that his envy and jealousy of the great dramatist had an earlier origin than was supposed, the paper having been first printed, according to Dyce, in 1587. It is well known that Chettle was sorry for his
- I quote from Halli well's edition of Marston's
' Works,' 1856, vol. iii. pp. 278 and 301.
share in the attack on Shakespeare in which
Greene depicts him as "an upstart crow," &c.
(see Dyce's 'Account of R. Greene and
his Writings,' p. 61). Here is his reason :
"Myself have seen his demeanour no less
civil than he excellent in the quality he
professes ; besides, divers of worship have
reported his uprightness of dealing, which
argues his honesty, and his facetious grace
in writing that approves his art." Who but
MR. THORPE could entertain a doubt as to the
honesty and completeness of this apology 1
In 'England's Mourning Garment,' published
after Elizabeth's death in 1603, and reprinted
in the second volume of the ' Harleian Mis-
cellany,' Chettle, the author, in a poem
wonders why Daniel, Chapman, Ben Jpnson,
Drayton, and others have written nothing in
praise of the dead queen. This is what he
has to say about Shakespeare, p. 494 :
Nor doth the silver-tongued Melicert Drop from his honied muse one sable tear, To mourn her death that graced his desert, And to his lays open'd her royal ear. Shepherd, remember our Elizabeth, And sing her rape, done by that Tarquin, death.
And yet this man of men, whose " upright- ness of dealing," whose "grace in writing," and whose patronage by Elizabeth, are here declared on the clearest contemporary evi- dence, was during "the absolutely dark five years 1587-92" a what? a "rooker"! a " felon " ! Allans done !
The last assertion by MR. THORPE that I will notice is this : " Ben Jonson's fifty-sixth epigram has always been held to apply to Shakespeare, and is intituled 'To the Poet Ape.' " I may first of all observe that we do not use the word " intituled " nowadays ; it passed current in the seventeenth and eigh- teenth centuries ; consequently it has, I think, proved a traitor to MR. THORPE by showing }hat his " always " is a very indefinite term. [ do not, however, press the point. That Ben Jonson, who was befriended by Shake- speare and was ever his friend, could have called him a "poet ape" is absolutely in- credible to any one that has taken the least nterest in these matters. What is a poet ape ? Sir Philip Sidney, in his ' Apologie for Poetrie' (Arber's reprint, p. 71), tells us that ' Poet-apes " are " not Poets." Did Jonson ever deny the possession of the highest genius to his friend? Has not he himself praised nd proclaimed it more eloquently than any other writer? When this epigram was com- Dosed we do not know, but it was printed in L616, the year in which Shakespeare died. Where would Jonson's " honesty " (on which he prided himself) be if he had published
